UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 AT LOS ANGELES
 
 THE 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS 
 
 STATED ANEW, 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DOUBTS AND 
 DISCOVERIES OF MODERN TIMES. 
 
 IX 
 
 EIGHT LECTURES DELIVERED IN THE OXFORD UNI^ 
 VERSITY PULPIT, IN THIE YEAR 1859, 
 
 ON 
 
 ®l]e §amiJton f omitatioiL 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A., 
 
 LATE FELLOAV AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE ; EDITOR OP 
 " THE HISTORY OF HERODOTUS," ETC. 
 
 PROM THE LONDON EDITION, 
 
 WITH THE NOTES TRANSLATED, 
 
 BY KEV. A. N. ARNOLD. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 WORTHINGTOX CO 
 
 747 Broadway
 
 llntercd, according to Act of Congress, iit \.\i<a jeav 1S60, by 
 
 GOULD AND LINCOLN, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of tin. District of MasBacbusettSi 
 
 TROWS 
 
 PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, 
 
 NEW YORK.
 
 i^'nX 
 
 THE 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES 
 
 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS, 
 
 217239
 
 T(7) at I' yan ah]^ti navra ovvadti ra vnaQXOVTa* 
 ra dt xiJevdtl Taxv dia(fo)VH zalijL^tg. — aristotle. 
 
 (for with the true all things that exist are in harmony; 
 
 BUT "WITH the false THE TRVfc AT ONCE DISAGREES.) 
 
 ' O XQ^^^b ^V{)tTr\(g. (TIME IS THE DI8C0VEREE.)
 
 E X T B A C T 
 
 THE LAST WILL iXD TESTAMENT 
 
 REV. JOHN BAMPTON, 
 
 CAN ox OF SALISBURY 
 
 ... . "I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor 
 Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have and 
 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 Di^'inity Lecture Serm.ons, 
 to be established for ever in the said University, and to be perfomied 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 Prin ting-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 
 
 1*
 
 VI EXTRACT FROM CANON RAMPTON'S WILIio 
 
 the comi-ieacement of the last month m Lent Term, and tho end c;f tht 
 third week in Act Term, 
 
 " Also 1 direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity Lectm'e Senncv^s 
 shall be preached upon either of the following Subjects — to confirm and 
 establish the Christian i^'aith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics 
 — upon the divine authorit}" of the holy Scriptures — upon the authority 
 of the Avritinii;s 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 Niccne Creeds. 
 
 " Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons 
 shall be always printed, within two months after the}' 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 be paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are 
 printed. 
 
 " Also I direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach 
 the Divinity Leot i.e Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree of Master 
 of Arts at least, in one of the two Univei'sities of Oxford or Cambridge; 
 and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Ser^ 
 •nons twice."
 
 PUBLISHERS' ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 THE AMERICAN EDITION 
 
 The present work, though it belongs to the same series, 
 and has the same general design, with Prof. Mansel's 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 Ms 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 com23lete 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 confiraiations 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 veracity 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 Egjq^t, 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 pubhc 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 the 
 Greek language ; and the translations have been made by 
 the Rev. A. N. Aexold, 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 has 
 quoted in his proofs ; and hence it is not impossible that 
 some triflinsr 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 htera- 
 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 Avord 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 mibelief, 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 
 hohest in religious feehng, 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- 
 Heal 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 with any 
 feeling of security.^ 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 EngUsh dress, and are, it is to be 
 feared, read by numbers of persons very ill prepared by 
 historical studies to withstand their specious reasonings, 
 alike in our own country and in America. The tone, 
 moreover, of German historical writings generally is 
 
 1 See Keil's Preface to his Comment on Joshua, quoted ia Note XXIV. to Lecture I 
 
 (U)
 
 12 PREFACE. 
 
 tinged wah 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 oi 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 hii\j lain for the last eight or nine years 
 almost exclusively in the field of Ancient History, had 
 convinced him moifi and more of the thorough truthful- 
 ness and faithful ac^-aracy of the historical Scriptures. 
 Circumstances had gi/en him an intimate knowledge 
 of the whole course of recent cuneiform, and (to some 
 extent) of hieroglyphic^! discovery; and he had been 
 continually struck with vhe removal of difficulties, the 
 accession of light, and the ;nultiphcation of minute points 
 of agreement between the jacred and the profane, which 
 resulted from the advant^'s made in deciphering the 
 Assyrian, Babylonian, PerJan, 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 effiDrts in the elaboration of the subject which 
 he had chosen. 
 
 Two modes of meeting the attacks of the Mythical 
 School presented themselves. He might make it his
 
 PREFACE. 13 
 
 main object to examine the arguments of their j^rincipal 
 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 adoi^ted 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 n 
 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 he has on many 
 occasions stated their substance, rather than cited theii* 
 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 tune will elapse before some one of the four savans, 
 who have proved their capacity to render the ancient 
 
 2
 
 14 PREFACE. 
 
 Assyrian,^ will present the Avorld with a complete trans- 
 lation of all the historical inscriptions hitherto r«cov(^'ed. 
 
 The author cannot conclude without expressing his ac- 
 knowledgments to Dr. Bandinel, Chief Librarian of the 
 Bodleian, for kind exertions in procuring at his instaiice 
 various foreign works ; and to Dr. Pusey, Professor Stan- 
 ley, and Mr. Mansel for some valuable information on 
 several points connected with the Lectures. He 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 Lectures 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 oifer 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 Bibla 
 
 Oxford, November 2, 1859. 
 
 1 See the Inscription of THglath-Pileser I., king of jissyria, B. C. 1150, as i ran slated 
 by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Fox Talbot, Esq., Dr. Ilincks, and Dr. Oppert ; published by 
 the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1857.
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 LECTURE I 
 
 EIivSTORiCAL 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 2^ositive 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 Yolume itself, considered as a mass of documents, and 
 judged by the laws of Historical Criticism — 2. 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 
 
 LECTUKE II. 
 
 Two modes of conducting an 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 Manetho 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 accoimt 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 — 1. 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 ethologic 
 notices in the Pentateuch — modern discovery is continually adding to 
 this kind of evidence — geographical illustration. — Conclusion. . 49 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 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 
 unknoAvn 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 documents. 
 — The Books of Samuel composed probably by writers contemporary 
 with the events related; viz. Samuel, Gad. and Nathan. — The 
 Books of Kings and Chronicles derived from contemporary works 
 ■WT-itten by Prophets. — Commentary on the history furnished by the 
 Davidical Psalms. — Confirmation of this period of Jewish history 
 from profane sources, during the earlier portion of the period, rather 
 negative than positive. — Weakness of Egypt and Assyria at the 
 
 2*
 
 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 Judsea 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 lY. 
 
 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. — lungs and Chronicles independent, and thcrcfora
 
 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 Judaea 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 tmder 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, Qla/.iLx,) mentioned by Berosus, 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 Sj-rian war mentioned by Menander. — 
 Name of Hoshea on an Assjrrian 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 Medes." — Expedition of Semiacherib 
 against Hezekiah — exact agreement of Scripture with Sennacherib's 
 inscription. — Murder of Sennacherib related by profane writers — 
 Polyhistor, Abydenus. — Escape of the murderers "into Armenia" 
 noticed by Moses of Chorene. — 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^') kmg of Eg^-pt, with Shebek, or Sabaco — of Tirhakah 
 with Tehrak, or Taracus — of Necho with Neku., or Nechao — and oi 
 Hopnra with Haifra, or Apries. — Battle of Megiddo and calamitous 
 end of Apries confirmed by Herodotus. — Ptcign of Merodach-Bala-
 
 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 y. 
 
 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 — accovmt of the "wise men" illus- 
 trated by recent discoveries — " satrapial organization " of the empire 
 possible, but not asserted in Scriptiu-e. — 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 Eab- 
 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-uzui\ and allowed him the royal title. — 
 Bil-shar-t(zu7- 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 Capti\ity 
 confirmed from Babylonian sources. — Reestablishment 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 di-awn 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 keepmg wath 
 their inscriptions. — Succession of the kings correctly given. — Stop- 
 page of the building of the temple by the Pseudo-Smerdis, accords 
 wath his other religious changes. — Reversal by Darius of his reli- 
 gio-us 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. — Litimate 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 contemjjoraries. — 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 Ilorce Paidince of Paley — the grounds of the argimient 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 faults from the firsts 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 m 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 YII. 
 
 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 tliis 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 Emperors 
 — 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, profene authors might have been expected to make mention. — 
 Decree of Augustus — taxitig of CjTenius — rebellion of Theudas — 
 «• uproar " of the EgjT)tian — famine in the days of Claudius, &c. — 
 Summary and conclusion 178
 
 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 antiqmty. — Proof 
 which they afford of the enormous numbers of the Christians in the 
 first ages. — Proof which they afford of the suffermgs 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 448 
 
 \
 
 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 CAN DECLARE THIS, AND SHOW IS 
 rORMER THINGS ? LET THEM BRING FORTH THEIR WITNESSES, THAT 
 THEY MAY BE JUSTIFIED : OB LEX THEM HEAR, AND SAY, IT IS TRUTH. 
 — ISAIAH XLIII. 9. 
 
 CnmsTiAXiTY — including therein the dispensation of 
 the Old Testament, which was its first stage — is in noth- 
 ing more distino-uished from the other rehsnons of tii3 
 world than in its ohjective or historical character. The 
 reUgions of Greece and Rome, of Egyi^t, India, Persia, and 
 the East generally, were speculative systems, which did not 
 even seriously postulate an historical basis. If they seemed 
 to do so to some extent, if for instance the mythological 
 ideas of the Greeks be represented under the form of a 
 mythological period^ which moreover blends gi^adually and 
 almost imperceptibly with the historical, still in the minds 
 of the Greeks themselves the periods were separate and 
 distinct, not merely in time, but in character ; and the ob- 
 jective reality of the scenes and events described as De- 
 longing to each was not conceived of as parallel, or even 
 
 3 (2'5)
 
 26 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. L 
 
 similar, in the two cases, (i) The modern distinction be- 
 tween the legend and the myth, properly so called, (~) 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 his early followers, and this concession 
 in no sort carries with it even the probable truth of the 
 reUgion. C*^) But it is otherwise with the religion of the 
 Bible. There, whether we look to the Old or the l^ew 
 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 (^^ — 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, 
 adopts fi'om first to last, with very rare exceptions, the his-
 
 Lect. I. TRUTH or 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 T^'ith 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 si3eaking) 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 rehes. As an historical religion, it invites this species of 
 inqmiy, 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 unfoir and illegitimate. 
 
 It is the latter of these two eiTors 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 were received with a 
 ready belief; and an unreasoning and uncritical fliith ac- 
 cepted T\dth equal satisfaction the narrative of the cam- 
 paigns of Caesar and of the doings of Romulus, the account 
 of Alexander's marches and of the conquests of Semiramis.
 
 28 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. I. 
 
 We can most of us remember wlien in this country the 
 whole story of Hegal 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." (^) 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, 0) it advanced with rapid strides 
 in Germany under the guidance of Niebuhr, (^> Otfried 
 MiJller, C^) and Bockh, C^^) and finally, has been introduced 
 and naturalized among ourselves by means of t^e writings 
 of our best living historians. (^^) 
 
 Its results in its own proper and primary field are of the 
 most extensive and remarkable character. The 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 ta 
 it of Canons embodying the judgments of a sound discre- 
 tion upon the value of difterent 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. L truth of the scripture records. 29 
 
 was unreal in tlie picture of past times Avhich men had 
 formed to themselves has disappeared, consigned to that 
 " Limbo large and broad " into which " all things transitory 
 and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation has in 
 many cases taken the j^lace of the old view, which has dis- 
 solved before the wand of the ciitic ; and a firm and strong? 
 fabric has arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen 
 systems. Thus the results obtained have boen 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 gi-eater 
 leaning to the destructive than to the constructive side, 
 but a tendency to push doubt and increduhty beyond due 
 limits, to call in question without cause, and to distrust 
 wdiat is sufficiently established. This tendency has not, 
 however, been allowed to pass unrebuked ; (^^^ and viewing 
 the science as developed, not in the writings of this or that 
 individual, but in the general conclusions in wdiicli it has 
 issued, we may regard it za 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 be 
 wished — that the records of past times contained in the 
 Old and Xew 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, unscrutinized 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 contradictoiy to truth of 
 another, Christianity has nothing to fear from scientifio 
 
 3*
 
 30 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF 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 connection 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 dov.^r. 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 Avas generally held — had distinctly ac- 
 cepted the mass of the Scripture history as authentic, and 
 was a sincere and earnest believer. (^^) 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
 
 LecT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 31 
 
 far less extravao;ant than the other — but both wanting^ in 
 sound critical judgment, as well as in a due reverence for 
 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. Ci5) 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. (^^^ 
 The names of kings, it was observed, were frequently so 
 apposite, that the monarchs sujoposed to have borne them 
 must be regarded as fictitious personages, (^~^ like Theseus 
 and Xuma. Portions of the sacred narrative were early 
 declared to present every appearance of being smiply 
 myths ; C^'^) 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 books being allowed as 
 valid, it was considered a sufficient account of such rela- 
 tions to say, that the main source of the entire naiTative 
 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 liis- 
 torians, and bent rather on glorifying their native country 
 than on giving a true relation of facts — and that in places
 
 B2 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. I. 
 
 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. (^^^ 
 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 ; (^o) but 
 the more logical minds rejected this as a vain and useless 
 labor, maintaining that no separation which was other 
 than arbitrary could be efiected ; and that the events 
 themselves, together with the dress in which they ap- 
 peared, " constituted a whole belonging to the province of 
 looetry and mythus." (^^^ 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 was pro- 
 duced from the primitive and best ages of Christianity to 
 janction this system of interpretation, and save it from the 
 atal stigma of entire and absolute novelty. (^3) 
 
 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, C^"*) 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 ('^^^ — nay, even of incredulity 
 and scepticism ; and perhaps a lingering regard for what 
 so many souls held precious, (^6) 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 
 mexorable logic required that both should be received or
 
 Lect, I. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS, 33 
 
 neither, A pause therefore ensued, but a pause of no long 
 duration. Firsts particular portions of the Xew Testament 
 narrative, as the account of our Lord's infancy, (^"^ and ot 
 the Temptation, <^^^ were declared to possess equal tokens 
 of a mythic orighi 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 ;<^) till at last, in the hands of Strauss, the whole 
 came to be resolved into pure luyih 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;"'^^^ which, on examination, turns 
 out to be no God at all, but mere man — man perfected by 
 nineteenth-centurj' enligiitenment — 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 — God become man, the inlinite 
 manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remem- 
 bering its infinitude ; it is the cliild of the vigible Mother 
 and the invisible Father, Nature and Spirit; it is the 
 worker of miracles, in so far as in the coui'se of 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 active 
 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. 1. 
 
 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 Christy 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^ (^^^ 
 
 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 diifers 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," (^2) 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 
 itself under the great 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, (^^) 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. oD 
 
 door to the thorough-going scepticism from which he in(li= 
 vidually shrank with hoiTor. For instance, in one place 
 Xiebuhr 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." (^^^ 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 interpreters 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-fict history — put a work which the 
 Church has always regarded as canonical and authoritative 
 on a par with one which was early pronounced apociyphal, 
 — not, certainly, moved to do so by any defect in the 
 external evidence, (^^^^ 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 suiTcnder 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 of what
 
 36 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. I 
 
 re^'elation 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, (•'^^) and the linal result will not 
 be distinguishable from that at which the school of De 
 Wette and Strauss j^rofessedly aims — the destruction of 
 all trust in the historical veracity of the Scripture nar- 
 rative. 
 
 The partial scepticism of Niebuhr 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 
 Avorld 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 Cush or Ethiopia (which they had held as 
 conquerors) back into Asia, and there established an 
 empire. (-^^^ Again, " the family tree of Abraham is an 
 historical representation of the great and lengthened 
 migrations of the primitive Asiatic race of man, fi-om the 
 mountains of Armenia and Chaldaea, 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 hettceen father and 
 son^ and records consequently epochs, not real human 
 pedigrees r (^^^ 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- 
 di'ed 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 ; " (^^^ as " connected with the 
 legendary genealogies of particular families ;" C'^^) as formed, 
 in fact, artificially by a doubling of the first period ; which 
 itself only "represents the traditionary accounts of the 
 primiti^'e 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 are 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 back, bears on 
 its fiice less of a chronological character," so that " no 
 light is to be gleaned from it" for general pur]ioses. (^^5 
 Even in the comparatively recent times of David and Sol- 
 omon, there is no coherent or reliable chronology; the 
 
 217239
 
 38 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. I. 
 
 round number forty being still met 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 belicA^e 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 tliis 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 iiTational 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, vrith 
 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. (^6) 
 
 2. When the event recorded is one which the writer 
 may be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly 
 fi'om 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. (4") 
 
 3. When the event recorded is removed considerably 
 fi'om 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 OF THE Lect. 1 
 
 dition ; still, if the event be one of great importance, and 
 of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, or pros- 
 peiity, — 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 trae, at 
 least in its general outline. C"^^^ 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 unlilvely 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 materi:ds 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 tlie 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 pubhc 
 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 ; (^^) 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 hves up to a certain point; or 
 memoirs ; i. e., accounts which persons have given of those 
 with w^hom 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 does 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. Xo 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 field 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." C^i) 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. (-^2) " By the mouth of two or three witnesses," 
 the word to which such witness is borne is " established.^'' ^ 
 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 we 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 impossibility of mira- 
 cles. ^^ ^^'^'^ And the mythical interpreters insist, that one 
 of the essential marks of a mythical narrative, whereby it 
 
 ^ Deut. xix. 15.
 
 Lect. I. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 43 
 
 may be clearly distiiiguislied from one which is histoiical, 
 is, its "presenting an account of events which are either 
 absolutely or relatively beyond the reach of (ordinary) 
 experience, such as occurrences connected with the spir- 
 itual world, or its dealing in the supernatural." (•^'^) 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?"^ But, if we apply the 
 notion of a Law to God at all, it is plain that miraculous 
 interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a 
 regular, 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 insufi&cient 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 
 
 ^ James i. 17.
 
 44 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LecT. 1. 
 
 nature of God. That the hnmutabihty of God does not 
 stand in the way of miracles has been ah*eady 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 Onniipotence 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," ^ and is " above all and through all," ^ is also (as 
 Hooker says) "the Worker of all in all"(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 wdth 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. 2Eph. iv. 6.
 
 Lect. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 45 
 
 sequence, not a law, but a necessity; which, either joositing 
 a Divine First Cause to bring things into existence, then 
 (hke Anaxagoras) makes no further use of Him;(^^) 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 peculiarity of Atheism at the 
 present day that it uses a religious nomenclature — it is no 
 longer diy, 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 
 apphed 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 old 
 nature worship, — man returning in his dotage to the foh 
 lies which beguiled his childhood — losing the Creator in 
 the creature, the Workman in the w^ork of his hands. 
 
 It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but such as 
 involve a real, though covert Atheism, that miracles are 
 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 Di\'ine Economy, — a part as essential as any other, 
 though coming into play less frecpiently. It has already
 
 4G HISTORICAL EVIDE.NX^ES OF THE Leci. I 
 
 been oj.servecl, that the creation of the world was a miia'. 
 cle, or rather a whole array of miracles ; and any true his- 
 torical account of it must " deal in the suj)ernaturaL" A 
 first man was as great a miracle — may we not say a 
 greater miracle? — Ihnn 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 world 
 established a precedent for their subsequent occurrence 
 from time to time with greater or less frequency, as God 
 should see to be fitting. Again, all history abounds in 
 statements that miracles have in fact from time to time 
 occurred ; and though wc should surrender to the sceptic 
 the whole mass of Heathen and Ecclesiastical miracles, 
 which I for one do not hold to be necessary, (^'^^ 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 no 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 boidly 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 of these 
 Lectures — the examination, by the light of those Canons 
 whose truth has been admitted, of 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. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS^ 47 
 
 the present Discourse tlian simply to point out the chief 
 kinds or branches into Avhich the evidence divides itseli^ 
 and to indicate, somewhat more clearly than has as yet been 
 done, the method which will be pursued in the examina-= 
 tion of it. 
 
 The sacred records themselves are the main proof of the 
 events related in them. Waiving the question of their 
 inspu'ation, 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 called in question, 
 and A'indicate their authenticity. Where two or more 
 documents belong to the same time, I shall endeavor to 
 exhibit some of their most remarkable points of agi*ee- 
 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 Avriters ; and I cannot hope 
 to add much to the labors of those who have preceded me 
 in this held. 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 external 
 evidence to the truth of the Bible records, whether con- 
 tained in monuments, in the works of piofano writers, in 
 customs and observances now existing or known to have 
 existed, or finally in the works of believers nearly conteni' 
 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 
 us" what it is which they record of the "former things" —
 
 48 TRUTH OF THE SCxtlPTURE RECORDS. LeC7, I. 
 
 that they may at once justify and "be justified" — in part 
 directly confirming tiie Scripture narrative, in part silent 
 but not adverse, content to " hear, and say, ' It ic trutho' " 
 "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord" — even "the blind 
 peojDle, that have eyes ; and the deaf, that have ears " — 
 "Ye are my witnesses — and my servant whom I have 
 chosen."^ 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. 
 
 * Isaiah xliii. 8, 10.
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 INQriRE, I PRAY THEE, OF THE FORMER AGE, AND PREPARE THYSELP 
 TO THE SEARCH OF THEIR FATHERS ; (FOR "WE ARE BUT OF YESTER- 
 DAY, AXD KXOW NOTHING, BECAVSE OUR DAYS UPON EARTH ARE A 
 SHADOW;) SHALL NOT THEY TEACH THEE, AND TELL THEE, AND UTTER 
 WORDS OUT OF THEIR HEART? — JOB VIII. VERSES 8 TO la 
 
 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: t/. 3 
 present is our standing point, and we necessarily view the 
 past from it ; and only know so much of the past as we 
 connect, more or less distinctly, with it. But 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 and 
 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 
 
 & (49)
 
 50 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. H 
 
 advancing, " shining- more and more ^nto the perfect day." * 
 Its difficulties and inconveniences are at the first outset, 
 when we phmge as it were into a world unknown, and 
 seek in the dim twilight of the remote past for some sure 
 and solid ground upon wliich to plant our foot. On the 
 whole thei^ 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 ai-e 
 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 sneeessively 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 deliveretl to us in the Penta- 
 teuch. The second extends from the death of Moses to 
 the accession of Kehoboam, and is treated in Joshua, 
 Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, and some por- 
 tions of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. The thii-d 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.^iah. The fourth extends from the Captivity to the 
 reform of Nehemiah ; and its history is contained m Dan- 
 iel, Ezra, Esther, and Kehemiah, and illustrated by Haggai 
 and 2eohariah. 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 New 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 j^eriod, 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. Xow the ancient, positive, and uniform tra- 
 dition of the Jews assigned the authorshij^ of the five 
 books, (or Pentateuch,) with the exception of the last 
 chapter of Deuteronomy, to Moses ; (^^ and this tradition is 
 prima fade 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 names 
 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, (-^^ in part, upon interpolations into 
 the original text, which are sometimes very plain and pal- 
 pable. C^) Mainly, however, they have their source in arbi- 
 trary and unproved hj'potheses, as that a contemporary 
 writer would not have introduced an account of mira- 
 cles ; (^) that the culture indicated by the book is beyond 
 that of the age of Moses ; (^) that if Moses had written the 
 book, he would not have spoken of himself in the third 
 person ; (''') 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 OP THE Lect. II. 
 
 of honor. (^) 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, Chaucer 
 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, (^^^ 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." ^ 
 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 j^ositive testimony to author- 
 ship. Moreover, for an argument of this sort to have any 
 force at all, it is necessary that we 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, (i^) In the case of Moses our knowledge of the age 
 is exceedingly limited, while of the literature we have 
 scarcely any knowledge at all,(i3) 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 
 
 * John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, &c.
 
 Lect. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 53 
 
 to the contrary. The diction of the Pentateuch is older 
 than that of Joshua and Judges, ^^'^^ while its ideas are pre- 
 supposed in those writings, (^^^ 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, (^^^ 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. (^^) 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 jjractice. 
 Waiving this evidence, we may remark that hieroglyphical 
 inscriptions upon stone were known in Egypt at least as 
 early as th6 fourth dj'nasty, or B. C. 2450, (^^) that inscribed 
 bricks were common in Babylonia about two centuries 
 later, (19) and that writing upon papynises, both in the hie- 
 roglyphic and hieratic characters, was familiar to the Egyp- 
 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 Ramesside kings, and 
 therefore "learned" (as we are told he was) "in all the 
 wisdom of Egypt," ^ would 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 nineteeth century before our era from the 
 great Chaldean capital, Ur, would have brought with him 
 and transmitted to his descendants the alphabetic system 
 \v-ith which the Chaldaeans of his day were acquainted, '^i) 
 There is thus every reason to suppose that writing was 
 
 ^ Acts vii. 2.2. 
 .5*
 
 54 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LecT. II. 
 
 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 w^th w^hat 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. Hecataeus of Ab- 
 dera, C^^) Manetlio, (^^^ Lysimachus of Alexandria, (^^^ Eupol- 
 emus, (25) Tacitus, (^6) Juvenal, C^^) Longinus, (^s) all ascribe 
 to Moses the institution of that code of law^s by which the 
 Jews were distinguished from other nations ; and the ma- 
 jority distinctly (2^) note that he committed his law^s to 
 writing. These authors cover a space extending from the 
 time of Alexander, w^hen 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 w^orks of 
 those many other winters to w^hom Josephus, Clement, and 
 Eusebius refer as mentioning Moses, (^^^ we should find the 
 amount of heathen CAddence on this point greatly increased. 
 Moreover, we must bear in mind that the witness is unani- 
 mous, or all but unanimous. (^^) Nor is it, as an objector 
 might be apt to urge, the .mere echo of Jewish ti-adition 
 faintly repeating itself from far off lands ; in part at least it 
 rests upon a distnict 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 J:hat of the only na- 
 tion which w^as sufiiciently near and sufliciently advanced 
 in the Mosaic age to make its testimony on the point of 
 real importaiace.
 
 Lect. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 55 
 
 To the external te^^timony 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^^^ The 
 modern rationalist regards it as a " most unnatural suppo- 
 sition," that the Pentateuch was written during the pas- 
 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 to 
 "write" the discomfiture of Amalek "in a book;"^ 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," ^ and " wrote the goings out of the people of Israel 
 according to their journeys, by the commandment of the 
 Lord ; " * and, finally, " made an end of writing the words 
 of the law in a book, until they were finished;"^ and 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 "book of the 
 covenant" — a book out of which he could read the whole 
 law (^^^ — was certainly written by Moses ; and 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 
 
 ^ Exod. xvii. 14. ^ Ibid. xxiv. 4. ^ Ibid. ver. 7. 
 
 * Numb, xxxiii. 2. * Deut. xxxi. 24. ^ Ibid. ver. 26. 
 
 7 Deut. iv. 2. 8 Ibid. xxxi. 10, 11.
 
 56 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. II. 
 
 given, that, when the Israelites should have kings, each 
 king should " write him a copy of the l&w in a book, out of 
 that which was before the priests the Levites, that he 
 might read therein all the days of his life." ^ 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^^^vere 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,) C^^) 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. (^^) 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, few 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. (^^) 
 
 I have dwelt the longer upon the genuineness of the 
 Pentateuch, because it is admitted, even by the extremest 
 
 * Deut. xvii. 18, 19.
 
 Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 57 
 
 sceptics, that the genuineness* of the work carries A\*ith 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- 
 bihty 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 Egj^i^t, 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." (^^) 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 deUvered 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, for he 
 writes of events which were pubUc 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. H. 
 
 public character. (3^) We luust 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 grandfithers. (^^^ 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 AYar. 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. ("^^^ 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 Temptati-on and the Fall, 
 at fifth hand. The patriarchal longevity had the effect of
 
 Lect.JI. truth of the scripture records. 59 
 
 reducing centuries to little more than lustres, so far as the 
 safe transmission of historical events was concerned ; for 
 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, C*^) 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. C^^^) 
 
 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 
 s] eculation has been advanced, so many vain and baseless 
 theories have been built up, in connection with what is 
 called the " document-hypothesis " concerning Genesis, (^^^ 
 that I touch the point Avith some hesitation, and beg at 
 once to be understood as not venturing to dogmatize in a 
 matter of such difiiculty. But both a priori probal)ility, 
 and the internal evidence, seem to me to fivor the opinion 
 of Vitringa (^4) and Calmet, C^-^^ that Moses consulted monu- 
 ments or records of fomier ages, which had descended from 
 the families of the patriarchs, and by collecting, arranging, 
 adorning, and, where they were deficient, completing them, 
 composed his history. What we know of the antiquity of 
 writing, both in Egypt and Babylonia, C*^) renders it not
 
 60 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. U 
 
 improbable that the art was known and practised soon after 
 the Flood, if it was not even (as some have supposed) a 
 legacy from the antediluvian world. C^^) Abraham can 
 scarcely have failed to bring with him into Palestine a 
 knowledge which had certainly been possessed by the 
 citizens of Ur for several hundred years before he set out 
 on his wanderings. And if it be said that the art, though 
 known, might not have been applied to historical records in 
 the family of Abraham at this early date, — yet, at any rate, 
 when the Israelites descended into Egypt, and found writ- 
 ing in such common use, and historical records so abundant 
 as they can be proved to have been in that country at that 
 period, it is scarcely conceivable that they should not have 
 reduced to a written form the traditions of their race, the 
 memory of which their residence in a foreign land would 
 be apt to endanger. And these probabilities are quite in 
 accordance with what appears in the Book of Genesis 
 itself The great fulness with which the history of Joseph 
 is given, and the mmutice into which it enters, mark it as 
 based upon a contemporary, or nearly contemporary, biog- 
 raphy ; and the same may be said with almost equal force 
 of the histories of Jacob, Isaac, and even Abraham. 
 Further, there are several indications of separate docu- 
 ments in the earlier part of Genesis, as the superscriptions 
 or headings of particular portions, the change of appella- 
 tion by which the Almighty is distinguished, and the like ; 
 which, if they do not certainly mark different documents, 
 at least naturally suggest them. If we then upon these 
 gi'ounds accept Yitringa's theory, we elevate considerably 
 what I may call the human authority of Genesis. Instead 
 of being the embodiment of oral traditions which have 
 passed through two, three, four, or perhaps more hands, 
 previously to their receiving a written form, the Book of
 
 Lect. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 61 
 
 Genesis become.^ a work based in the main upon contem- 
 porary, or nearly contemporary, documents — documents 
 of which the venerable antiquity casts all other ancient 
 writings into the shade, several of them dating probably 
 from times not far removed from the -Flood, while some 
 may possibly descend to us from the antediluvian race. 
 The sanction which the Book of Genesis thus obtains is 
 additional^ it must be remembered, to what it derives from 
 Moses ; who is still the responsible author of the work ; 
 who selected the documents, and gave them all the con- 
 fimiation which they could derive from his authority, 
 whether it be regarded as divine or human, as that of one 
 "learned" in man's "wisdom,"^ or that of an inspired 
 teacher — "a prophet, raised up by God." ^ 
 
 Thus far we have been engaged in considering the 
 weight which properly attaches to the Pentateuch itself, 
 viewed as an historical work produced by a certain indi- 
 vidual, under certain circumstances, and at a certain period. 
 It remains to examine the external evidence to the charac- 
 ter of the Mosaic naiTative which is furnished by the other 
 ancient records in our j^ossession, so for at least as those 
 records have a fair claim to be regarded as of any real his- 
 toric value. 
 
 Records possessing even moderate pretensions to the 
 character of historic are, for this early period, as we should 
 expect beforehand, extremely scanty. I cannot reckon in 
 the number either the primitive traditions of the Greeks, 
 the curious compilations of the Aimenians, C"^) the histori- 
 cal poems of the Hindoos, ('^^^ or the extravagant fables of 
 the Chinese. (^^^ A dim knowledo-e of certain great events 
 in primeval history — as of the Deluge — may indeed be 
 traced in all these quarters ; (^^) but the historical element 
 
 ' Acts vii. 22. 2 j^Q^t. xviii. 15.
 
 62 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. II. 
 
 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 what 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, (■"^^^ the first 
 seats of civilization : in them writing seems to have been 
 practised earlier than elsewhere ; they paid from the first 
 gi'eat 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, who 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 Chaldajan, had long been suspected by the learned ; (^) 
 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 impart 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 
 over all others. (^^) 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 fit, 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 fi-om Egyptian and Babylonian 
 sources, we are struck at first sight with what seems an
 
 64 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. II. 
 
 enormous difference in the chronology. The sum of the 
 years in Manetho's scheme, as it has come down to us in 
 Eusebius, is httle short of thirty thousand ; (^^) while that in 
 the scheme of Berosus, as reported by the same author, ^^'') 
 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 ^md 
 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. C^^) Similarly, in 
 the chronology of Berosus, there is a sudden transition 
 from kings whose reigns are counted by sossi and neW, 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, 'x 5 
 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, C^^) doubtless
 
 LecT. 11. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 65 
 
 because he was. aware that his: lists contained in some cases 
 contemporary dynasties; in others, contemporary kings in 
 the same dynasty, owing to the mention in them of various 
 royal i^ei^sonagcs 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 clironological 
 difference between his scheme and that of Scripture is 
 reduced to a few hundred years — a discrepancy of no 
 great moment, and one which miglit easily arise, either 
 from sUght errors of the copyists, or from an insufficient 
 allowance being made in Manetho's sclieme, in respect of 
 either or both of the causes from which Egyptian chronol- 
 ogy is iilways liable to be exaggeratetL Without taxing 
 Manetho with conscious dishonesty, we miay suspect that 
 he was not unwilling to exalt the antiquity of his country, 
 if he could do so without fldsifying his authorities ; and 
 from the confusion of the middle or Hyksos period of 
 Egyptian history, and the obscurity of the earlier times, 
 when there were as vet no monuments, he would have had 
 abundant opportunity for chronological exaggeration by 
 merely regarding as consecutive dynasties all those, which 
 were not certainly known to have been contemporary. 
 The real duration of the Egj'^^tian monarchy depends en- 
 tirely upon the pro]:>er arrangement of the dynasties into 
 synchronous and consecutive — a point upon which the 
 best Egyptologers are still for 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 2660 B. C, or more than six hundred years 
 after the Septuagint date for the Deluge. (^^> 
 
 The removal of this difficulty opens the way to a consid- 
 eration of the positive points of agreement between the 
 
 6*
 
 6d HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LecT. II. 
 
 Scriptural narrative and that of the profane authorities. 
 And here, for the earhest 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, who could not endure the air and the light, per- 
 ished. Belus upon this, seeing that the earth was desolate, 
 yet teeming witii productive power, cut oif 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. He then made 
 other animals fit to live on the earth : he made also the 
 stars, and the sun and moon, and the five j^lanets. 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. (*^^) The leading facts 
 of this cosmogony and antediluvian history are manifestly, 
 and indeed confessedly, C^-) in close agreement with the 
 Hebrew records. We have in it the earth at first "without 
 form and void," and " darkness upon the iace of the deep." ^ 
 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, 
 
 ^ Genesis i. 2.
 
 Lect. IL 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."^ 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 tei-m which has been the limit in later ages. 
 Tins truth seems to have been known to many of the 
 ancients, C^^) and traces of it have even been found among 
 the modern Burmans and Chinese. C^'*) 
 
 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 be placed 
 good store of provisions, together with winged fowl and 
 four-footed beasts of the earth ; and in wliich he was him- 
 self to embark with his wife and children, and his close 
 friends. Xisuthrus did accordingly, and the flood came at 
 the time appointed. The ark drifted tow^ards 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 thnd 
 
 ^ 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 wdio 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 Avent back 
 to the land of Babylon, and built many cities and temples, 
 and raised up Babylon from its ruins." (^^) 
 
 Such is the account of Berosus ; and a description sub- 
 stantially the same is given by Abydenus, (^*^) 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 ;(^'') 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 doion to 
 its rninutirp. 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. IL truth of the scripture records. 69 
 
 plausible account that can be giA'en except that it is the 
 hannony of truth. Xor 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 nien^ were 
 saved ; and also by making the Flood not universal, but 
 only partial, and confined to BahyloniaP C^^) Berosus does 
 indeed give Xisuthrus, as companions in the ark, not only 
 his Tv-ife and children, but a certain number of "close 
 friends;" and thus far he differs from Scripture; but these 
 fi'iends are not represented as numerous, much less as " all 
 pious men." And so far is he fron^i making the Flood par- 
 tial, or confining it to Babylonia, that his narrative dis- 
 tinctly implies the contrary. The warning given to Xisu- 
 thrus is that "mankind" {^wg di'^;vu.-rouc) is about to bs 
 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 Chaldaean 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. II 
 
 liistorian) he correctly estimated, nt ten.C^^) But other 
 writers introduce in this jjlace, 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, C*^®^ 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, winch 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." (^^) 
 
 At the point which we have now reached, 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 afiinities,
 
 Lect. II. thuth of T"Hr scripture records. 71 
 
 and to some extent their geographical position and bounda' 
 ries. The Toldoth Beni JSfoah has extorted the admiration 
 of modem 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 afiinity of the 
 princijDal nations of Europe with the Arian or Indo-Persic 
 stock — is sufficiently indicated by the conjunction of the 
 Madai or Medes (whose native name was MadcC) with 
 Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or the lonians. Again, 
 one of the most recent and unexj^ected results of modern 
 linguistic inquiry is the proof which it has furnished of an 
 ethnic connection between the Ethiopians or Cushites, who 
 adjoined on Eg^i^t, and the primitive inhabitants of Baby- 
 Ionia ; 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 
 fi'om the cuneiform monuments. (~^) In the tenth of Gene- 
 sis we find this truth thus briefly but clearly stated — "And 
 Cush begat Ximrod," 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 XineA^eh"^ — or that the Semitic 
 Assyrians proceeded from Babylonia and founded Xineveh 
 long after the Cushite foundation of Babylon. (''2) 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 e\d- 
 dence of Scripture ;(~^) and the double mention of Sheba, 
 both among the sons of Ham, and also among those of 
 Shem,'' has been illustrated by the discovery that there are 
 
 * Gen. X. 8 and 10. 'Ibid, verse U, 
 
 ^ 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 Ethiopia (^"^^ On the 
 whole, the scheme of ethnic affiUation given in the tenth 
 chapter of Genesis is pronounced " safer " to follow than 
 any other ; and the Toldoth JBeni JVbah commends itself to 
 the ethnic inquirer as " the most authentic record that Ave 
 possess for the affiliation of nations," and as a document 
 " of the very highest antiquity." (~^) 
 
 The conhi-mation which profane history lends the Book 
 of Genesis from the point where 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 ; C^^) but they are of for infeiior 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 Eujiolemus, 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. ("''') 
 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 with them ; but they cannot boast, 
 like notices in Berosus and ]\Ianetho, a distinct origin, and 
 thus a separate and independent authority. I shall there-
 
 Lkct. 11. TRCTH 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 naiTative, ftimished 
 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 Ave 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 hue of native kings, about the date 
 whicli from Scripture we should assign to Chedor-laomer, 
 and "point to Elymais (or Elam) as the country from 
 which the interruption came." 0^) We have mention of a 
 king, Avhose name is on good grounds identified with 
 Chedor-laomer, 0^) as paramount in Babylonia at this time 
 — a king apparently of Elamitic origin — and this monarch 
 bears in tlie inscriptions the unusual and significant title of 
 Ajxla 31artu, or " Ravager of the West." Our fragments 
 of Berosus give us no names at this period ; but his dynas- 
 ties exhibit a transition at about the date required, ^o) 
 which is in accordance with the break indicated by the 
 monuments. We thus obtain a double witness to the 
 
 7
 
 74- HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. II. 
 
 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 was 
 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 )-epresenta- 
 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, (^i) 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 we know to 
 have been unfounded. On the whole we have perhaps as 
 much as we 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. (^2)
 
 Lect. II. TRUTH OF THE SCPJPTURE RECORDS. 7-^ 
 
 I have thus briefly considered some of tlie principal of 
 those direct testimonies which can be adduced from ancient 
 profline sources, in confirmation of the historic tnith of the 
 Pentateuch. There are various other arguments — some 
 jjurely, some j^artly 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 — whatCA^er may be 
 thought of its true bearing upon other points — at least 
 Avitnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom there is 
 no trace in any but the latest strata. (^^) Physiology 
 decides in favor of the unity of the species, and the proba- 
 l)le derivation of the whole human race from a single 
 pair. (^4) Comparative Philology, after divers fluctuations, 
 settles into the belief that languages will ultimately prove 
 to have been all derived from a common basis. C^^) 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, fi'om which the various lines of 
 migration and the several types of races originally radi- 
 ated. (^^5) Again, there is an argument perhaps more con- 
 vincing than any other, but of immense compass, deducible 
 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 ethologic notices 
 contained in the books of Moses are of the most veracious 
 character, (^^) stamping the whole narration with an unmis- 
 takable air of authenticity. And 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"^ — 
 Calah and Resen, in the conntry peopled by Asshur- — 
 Ellasar, and " Ur of the Chaldees," ^ were mere names ; 
 and beyond the mention of them in Genesis, scarcely a 
 trace was discoverable of their existence. (^^) 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, (^^^ and sufiiciently 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,"'* 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. (^'^^ 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 
 w^hole fiice of the earth, (^i) 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 fiict that each accession to our knowledge of the 
 ancient times, whether historic or geographic, or ethnic, 
 helps to remove difiiculties, and to produce a perpetual 
 
 1 Gen. X. 10. 2 i^^^j^ verses 11 and 12. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xi. 31 ; xiv. 1. " Deut. iii. 5.
 
 Lect. il 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 Ave 
 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 ; " ^ 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 ; " ^ and they Avho " resist " him, by impugning 
 his veracity, like Jannes and Jambres of old, "resist the 
 truth'' ^ 
 
 1 2 Pet. i. 16. 2 Col. ii. 3. 
 
 3 Acts XV. 21. 4 2 Tim. iii. 8.
 
 LECTUBE 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 SPACE OF FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY 
 YEARS, 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 effected 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 l)y 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," ^ for 
 fear of the Philistines, and were without spears, or swords, 
 or armorers, because the Philistines had said, " Lest the 
 Hebrews make themselves swords or spears," ^ to the full 
 completion of the kingdom of David by his victories over 
 the PJiilistines, the Moabites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, 
 and the Amalekites, together with the submission of the 
 Idumseans,^ was a space little, if at all, exceeding half a 
 
 1 1 Sam. xiv. 11. ' Ibid. xiii. 19-22. ^ 2 Sam. viii. 
 
 C78)
 
 Ject. hi. truth of the SCRIPTURP] RECORDS. ""^ 
 
 century. Thus were 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 estabUshment 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,^ when the Philistines " pitched 
 in Michmash," may have seen garrisons put in Damascus 
 and " throughout all Edom," ^ and the dominion of David 
 extended to the Euphrates.'* 
 
 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, excej^t the .closing 
 verses of the last chapter ; (i) 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 (3) in either 
 case as exists respecting the authorshij) 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 ; C**^ 
 and both it. Judges, and Ruth, as well as Kings and Chroni- 
 cles, are best referred to the class of BiSlia adicnoia^ or 
 books the authors of which are unknown to us. The im- 
 portance of a history, however, though it may be enhanced 
 by our knowledge of the author, does not necessarily de- 
 pend on such knowledge. The Turin Papyrus, the Parian 
 jMarble, 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 Sam. xiii. 6. 2 Jbi^, verse 7. 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. viii. 14, * Ibid, verse 3.
 
 80 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LeCT. III. 
 
 believe that tJiey were composed from good sources. And 
 so it is with these portions of the Sacred Vohime. 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 w^ere 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 foraiality, so we are bound to act 
 towards these writings. They are written near the time, 
 sometimes by eye-witnesses, sometimes by those wdio have 
 before them the reports of eye-w4tnesses ; 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.^ He speaks of Rahab the 
 harlot as still "dwelling in Israel" when he writes;^ and 
 of Hebron as still in the possession of Caleb the son of 
 
 1 Josh. V. 1. 2 Ibid. vi. 25.
 
 J.KCT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 81 
 
 Jephuniielu^ He 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 
 I'redible 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;^ 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,'* besides 
 the actual quotation- (^^ 
 
 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 Samuers 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. He 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. (^) Had these traditions been handed down 
 entirely by oral communication, still, being chiefly marked 
 and striking events in the national life, they would have 
 possessed a fair title to acceptance. As the case actually 
 stands, however, there is every reason to believe that 
 national records, which (as we have seen) existed in the 
 
 ' Josh. xiv. 14. 2 Ibid. xxiv. 31. 
 
 ' Ibid. X. 13. < Ibid, xviii. 9 ; xxiv. 26.
 
 82 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. IIL 
 
 days of Moses and Joshua, were continued by their suc- 
 cessors, and that these fomied 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.^ 
 
 The two Books of Samuel are thought by some to form, 
 together with the two Books of Kings, a single work, and 
 are refen-ed to the time of the Babylonish captivity ; (^^ 
 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 ;Ci'^) 
 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 ; " ^ and these writings, it is plain, w^ere 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, Avhich 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. 
 ' 1 Cl^roix. 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.^ 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 I^ngs, where 
 the authors at every turn make reference to the sources 
 from which they derive their infoiTnation. 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 Da^-id — 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, Saul, and 
 Daidd, 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 Jeroboam the son 
 of Xebat." " 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 wi'iters were persons who held the same high 
 
 * 1 Chron. xxvii. 2i. * 1 Kings xi. 41. ^ 2 Chron. ix. 29.
 
 84 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. III. 
 
 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. (^-^ 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 Ave 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 at length in the historical writings. (^-^^ 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 Avere 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 gTew 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. Durhig the obscure 
 time of the Judges, the Jews could be little known beyond 
 their borders; and even had Assyria and Egyi)t 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 ]:>art the least 
 accessible of the whole. (^"^) It appears, however, that in 
 fact both Assyi'ia 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 Upper 
 Syria, or the country about Aleppo and Antioch. (^^^ And 
 Egypt from the time of Ramesses the third, which was not 
 long after the ExoduS, to that of Shishak, the contem- 
 porary of Solomon, seems to have sent no expeditions at 
 all beyond its own frontier, (i*^) Thus the annals of the 
 two countries are necessarily silent concerning the Jews 
 during the period in question ; and no agreement between
 
 36 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. III. 
 
 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 api^ear in Scripture as an influential power 
 in Lower Syiia 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-ISTaharaim, (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, (^^) 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, (1^) Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius, (^^) and 
 Suidas the Lexicographer, (-O) 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 Kabbinical legend, which Procopius may have heard
 
 Lect. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 87 
 
 from African Jews." (^^^ 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 writei-s, 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 ; and the true 
 question for historical criticism to consider and determine 
 is, what is the weight and value of such an inscription. C^^) 
 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. (^^ 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 embodving an ancient 
 tradition, cun-ent 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 OF THE Lect. III. 
 
 find a confirmation in the pages of a profane writer, 
 "The Egyptians," says Herodotus, C^^) "declare that since 
 Egypt was a kingdom, the smi 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 (^^^ 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 ; " * 
 as well as of that other somewhat similar occasion, when 
 "the sun returned ten degrees" on the dial of Ahaz.^ 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 tliey intended to convey to him 
 was probably one connc^te<l i-ather with their peculiar 
 system of astronomical cycles, than with any sudden and 
 violent chan<^es in the celestial order. If the naiTative in 
 Joshua is to be understood astronomically, of an actual 
 cessation or retardation of the earth's motion, C^s) ^ye 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 dynastie 
 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 
 
 " Josh. X. 13. * Isa. xxxirui. S,.
 
 Lect. in TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 89 
 
 past are so few and so slight, the argument from mere 
 silence has 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 was 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 Avhich was 
 followed by the temporary subjection of Damascus to the 
 Israelites ; since " David put garrisons in S}Tia of Damas- 
 cus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and 
 brought gifts." ^ This war is mentioned not only by Eu- 
 polemus, C^^) who appears to have been Avell 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. He likewise undertook' a war 
 with David, the king of Judgea, and contended against him 
 in a number of battles ; in the last of them all — which was 
 by the liver Euphrates, and in wdiich he suffered defeat — 
 showing himself a prince of the greatest courage and 
 prowess." (~^) This is a testimony of the same nature 
 with those already adduced from Berosus and Manetho; 
 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 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. 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 were with enemies 
 of inferior power and importance, as the PhiHstines, the 
 Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idumaeans, and the Ama- 
 lekites. Eupolemus mentions most of these successes ; ^^^^ 
 but otherwise we have no recognition of them by profane 
 writers, which cannot be considered surjjrising, since there 
 are no ancient histories extant wlierein 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 Judaea and Phoenicia, which, separated 
 by natural obstacles, (^o) ^nd hitherto, perhaps, to some 
 extent by intervening tribes, only began to hold relations 
 with each other when the conquests of David brought 
 Judaea 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. (^^) Accordingly we find that upon 
 the "establishment" and " exaltation" of David's kingdom,^ 
 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 " ^ — 
 after which a firm friendship was established between the 
 two powers,'^ which continued beyond the reign of David 
 into that of Solomon his son.* Xow here it is most 
 
 1 2 Sam. V. 11, 12. = 1 Chr. xxii. 4. 
 
 3 1 Ivings V. 1. * Ibid, verse 12.
 
 LeCT, III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 91 
 
 interesting to see whether 'the Hebrew writer has coi'- 
 rectly represented the condition of Phoenicia at the time ; 
 whether the name which he 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 clauns 
 and exercises this precedency and preeminence ; (•'^~) in 
 the later times the dignity has passed to Tyre, which is 
 thenceforward recognized as the leading power. Homer 
 implies, (^^) Strabo (^^^^ and Justin <-'^^^ 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 (^^^ and Menander, C^*") 
 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. C^^) 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, ^ 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 Carmel, (^^) and certainly reaches 
 inland as far as Laish ^ — in Samuel and Kings the case is 
 
 1 Gen. X. 15 ; xlix. 13. 2 j^.^^^ ^i. 8 ; xix. 28. 
 
 ^ Judges xvii. 7 and 28.
 
 92 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. III. 
 
 changed ; Siclon has no longer a distinctive epithet ; ^ and 
 it is the " king of Tyi'e " 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 liabit of bearing, is certain from the Assyrian 
 Inscriptions ('^^^ and from Herodotus, C"*^) as wxll 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;(''2) 
 while Dius added, that Hiram proposed similar puzzles to 
 Solomon in return, which that monarch with all his wisdom 
 was unable to answer. ('^^^ 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;"^ but also 
 an illustration of the statement that " all the earth sought 
 to Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in hia 
 
 ^ 2 Sam. xxiy. 6. ' Matt. xii. 42. ' 1 Kings x. 1.
 
 Lect. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 93 
 
 heart." ^ Agnin, Menander stated that Hiram gave his 
 daughter in marriage to Solomon. (^^^ This fact is not 
 recorded in Scripture ; but still it is illustrative of the state- 
 ment that "Iving Solomon loved many strange Avomen, 
 together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the ]\lo- 
 abites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians^ and Hittites. . . . 
 And he had seven hundred wives, ^^rmcess^^." ^ One of 
 these we may well conceive to have been the daughter of 
 the Tvrian kins^. 
 
 The relations of Solomon with Egypt have received at 
 present but little illustration from native Eg^q^tian sources. 
 Our epitome of Manetho gives us nothing but a bare list of 
 names at the period to which Solomon must belong ; and 
 the Egyi^tian monuments for the time are particularly 
 scanty and insignificant. C"*^) 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, ('^^^ and enlivened his history with 
 copies of the letters Avhich (according to him) passed be- 
 tween Solomon and Vaphres or Apries, king of Egy2)t ; but 
 this name is clearly taken from a later portion of Eg\i)tian 
 history, and none at all similar to it is found either on the 
 monuments or in the dynastic lists for the ])eriod. Tlie 
 Egyptian marriage of Solomon, therefore, and his friendly 
 connection with a Pharaoh of the twenty-first dynasty, have 
 at present no confinnation from profone sources, beyond 
 that which it derives from Eupolemus ; but the change in 
 the relations between the two courts towards the close of 
 Solomon's reign, which is indicated by the protection ex- 
 tended to his enemy Jeroboam by a new king, Shishak, 
 
 1 1 Kings X. 24. ^ Ibid. xi. 1-3.
 
 94 HISTOniCAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. 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, ('''') in the lists of Manetho, where he is called 
 Sesonchis or Sesonchosis ; ("^^^ and his name occurs likewise 
 in the sculptures of tlie period under its Egyi^tian form of 
 Sheshonk. (''^) 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 commenceynent of a neio 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 C^^) Theophilus,(-^^) the former of whom gave 
 an elaborate account of the temple and its ornaments. As, 
 however, these writers were merely well-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 kind 
 which alone Western Asia was capable of producing, and 
 did produce, about the period in question. The modern
 
 Lect. hi. truth of the scripture records. Do 
 
 system of centralized organization by which the vnrions 
 provinces of a vast empire are cemented into a compact 
 mass, was unknown to the ancient world, and has never 
 been practised by Asiatics. The satrapial s^-stem of gov- 
 ernment, or that in which the pi evinces retain then- indi- 
 vidiiaUty, but are administered on a common plan by 
 officers appointed by the croAvn — 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. Tliey 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. (^2) 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 inferior 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 hear that 
 " Solomon reigned over all the Mngdoms from the riA'er 
 (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the 
 border of Eg}q:)t"^ — or again, that "he had dominion over 
 all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah (or 
 Thapsacus on the Euphrates) to Azzah, (or Gaza, the most 
 southern of the Philistine towns,) over all the Icings on this 
 side the river "^ — and that "they brought presents''^ ^ — "a 
 rate year by year^''^ — and ^^ served Solomon all the days of 
 
 ' 1 Kings iv. 21. ' i^ij^ ygj-gg 24. 
 
 » Ibid, verse 21. * Ibid x. 25.
 
 96 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. HI. 
 
 Lis life," ^ we recognize at once a condition of things with 
 Avhich we are perfectly familiar from profane sources ; and 
 we feel that at any rate this account is in entire hannony 
 with the political notions and practices of the day. 
 
 Similarly, w^ith respect to the buildings of Solomon, it may 
 be remarked, that they appear, from the description given 
 of them in Kings and Chronicles, to have belonged exactly 
 to that style of architecture which we find in fact to have 
 prevailed over Western Asia in the earliest times, and of 
 which we have still remains on the ancient sites of Nineveh, 
 Susa, and Persepolis. The strong resemblance in general 
 structure and arrangement of the palace of Esar-haddon to 
 that which Solomon constructed for his own use, has been 
 noticed by our great Mesopotamian excavator ; C^s) and few 
 can fail to see in the "house of the forest of Lebanon,"^ 
 with its five-and-forty cedar pillars forming the " forest " 
 from which the palace derived its name, a resemblance to 
 the remarkable structures at Susa and Persepolis, in each 
 of which the pillars on which the entire edifice rested form 
 a sort of forest, amounting in number to seventy-two. It 
 is true that in the Persian buildings the columns are of 
 stone ; but this is owing to the advance of art. The great 
 chambers in the Assyrian palaces had no stone columns, 
 but are regarded by those wdio have paid most attention to 
 the subject, as having had their roofs supported by pillar.f 
 of cedar. (^4) -^qy does the resemblance of which I am 
 speaking consist only in the multiplicity of columns. Tlie 
 height of the Persepolitan columns, which is forty-four 
 feet, ("^) almost exactly equals the " thirty cubits " of Solo- 
 mon's house ; and there is even an agreement in the general 
 character of the capitals, which has attracted notice from 
 ""'me who have written upon the history of art. (^^^ 
 
 1 1 Kings iv. 21. * Ibid. vii. 2.
 
 Lect. IIL TRUTH OF THE SCRIPT CEE RECORDS. 97 
 
 Again, the copious use of gold in ornamentation,'^ which 
 seems to moderns so improbable, (■^'^ was a practice known 
 to the Ph<Qenicians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians- ^^^^ 
 The brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz, set up in the court of 
 the temple,- recall the pillar of _gold which Hiram, accord- 
 ing to Menander, (^) dedicated in the temple of Baal and 
 the two pillars which apj^ear in the coins of Cyprus before 
 the temple of the Phoenician Venus. C^*^) Tlie "throne of 
 ivory"* has its parallel in the numerous, ivor^' carvings 
 lately brought from Mesopotamia, which in many cases 
 have plainly formed the covering of furniture. ^^^^^ The 
 iions, which stood beside the throne^* bring to our mind at 
 otice the lions' feet with which Assyrian thrones were 
 ornamented, <^^^ and the gigantic sculjotured figures which 
 commonly formed the portals of the great halls. In these 
 and many other points the state and character of ai-t, 
 which the Hebrew writers describe as existing in Solomon's 
 time, receives confirmation fix)m profane sources, and 
 especially from those remains of a time not long subse- 
 quent, which have been recently bix>ught 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 ^-cunniRg" of their neighbors. "Thou 
 
 > I Kings vi. 20, 21, 28, 30,*32, &e- « Ibid. \di. 15-22. 
 
 ^ Ibid- X. 19, * Ibid, verses 19 and 20- 
 
 9
 
 98 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LjiCT. III. 
 
 knowest," writes king Solomon to Hiram, " that there is 
 not among us any that can skill to hew timber like the 
 Sidonians." ^ " Send me a man," again he writes, " cunning 
 to work in gold, and in silver, and in ])rass, 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."^ 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 
 workP^ 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." ^ It has been Avell re- 
 marked, (^2) that "we discover the gi-eatness 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 Ph(]enician 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 ])ortion of the sacred nar- 
 rative. It would be easy to adduce others ; (^^^ 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 sufiice. It only remains therefore to sum up briefly 
 the results to which we seem to have attained. 
 
 ' 1 Kings V. 6. '2 Chron. ii. 7. 
 
 » 1 Kings vii. 14. " Ibid. ix. 26, 27,
 
 Lect. hi. truth of the scripture records. 99 
 
 We have heeii engaged with a dark period — a penod 
 when the nations of the world had Uttle converse with one 
 another, when civihzation was but beginning, when the 
 knowledge of letters was confined within narrow bounds, 
 when no country but Egypt had a literature, and when 
 Egjq^t 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 Xorthern Africa. It has also appeared that the 
 Hebrew account of the time is in complete harmony with all 
 that we otherAvise 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 Phoenician 
 coins and histories, and the earliest Greek poetry. Xor 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 be 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 be regarded as an utterly untrust- 
 worthy authority. (6^^) Internally consistent, externally 
 resting upon contemporary or nearly contemporary docu- 
 ments, and both directly and indirectly confirmed by the 
 records of neighboring nations, the Hebrew account of this 
 time is entitled to be received as a true and authentic his- 
 tory on almost every ground upon which such a claim can
 
 100 TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. Lect. UI. 
 
 be rested. It was then justly and with sufficient reason 
 that the Proto-martyr in his last speech,^ and the great 
 Apostle of the Gentiles, in his first i^ublic preaching as an 
 Apostle,^ 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." (^^) 
 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 lY. 
 
 A.ND AHIJAH SAID TO JEROBOAM, TAKE THEE TEN PIECES : POR THUS 
 8AITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, BEHOLD, I WILL EEXD THE 
 KINGDOM OLT OF 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 Xebuchadnezzar, 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 are 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 earher 
 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 fell of Ass^^ia — the 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 G-reece — the foundation of Carthage and of 
 
 9 ^ (l^lj
 
 102 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. IV. 
 
 Rome — and the spread of civilization by means of the 
 Greek and Phoenician colonies, from the Palus Mseotis to 
 the Pillars of Hercules. Moreover, they contain within 
 them the transition time of most profane history — the 
 space within which it 23asses from the dreamy cloud-land 
 of myth and fable into the sober region of reality and fact, 
 exchanging poetic fancy for prosaic truth, and assuming 
 that character of authenticity and trustworthiness, which 
 is required to fit it thoroughly for the purpose whereto it 
 is applied in these Lectures. Hence, illustrations of the 
 sacred narrative, hitherto somewhat rare and infrequent, 
 will now crowd upon us, and make the principal difficulty at 
 the present stage that of selection. Egypt, Assyria, Baby- 
 Ion, Phoenicia, Greece, will vie with each other in offering 
 to us proofs that the Hebrew records, for this time, contain 
 a true and authentic account of the fortunes of the race ; 
 and instead of finding merely a few points here and there 
 to illustrate from profane sources, we shall now be able to 
 produce confiniiatory proof of almost every important 
 event in the liistory. 
 
 Before entering, however, on this branch of the inquiry, 
 some consideration must be given to the character of 
 the documents in which this portion of the history has 
 come down to us, and to the confirmation which those 
 documents obtain from other Books in the Sacred 
 Canon. 
 
 It was observed in the last Lecture, that the Books of 
 Kings and Chronicles are compilations from State Papers 
 preserved in the public archives of the Jewish nation, (^^ the 
 authors of those papers being probably, in most cases, 
 the Prophets in best re])ute at the time of their com- 
 position. This is particularly apparent from the Second 
 Book of Chronicles, where the author, besides citing in
 
 LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 103 
 
 several places ^ " the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings 
 of Israel and Judah," particularizes no fewer than thirteen 
 works of prophets, some of which he expressly states to 
 haA^e formed a portion of the general " Book of the Chroni' 
 cles,"2 while most of the others may be probably con 
 eluded to have done the same. The Books of Samuel, 
 of Nathan, and of Gad, the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shi- 
 lonite, and the Visions of Iddo the seer, which are among 
 the works quoted by the Chronicler, have been already 
 noticed. (-) To these must now be added, " the Book ot 
 Shemaiah the Prophet,"'^ "the Book of Iddo the seer, con- 
 cerning genealogies," "* " the Story or Commentary of the 
 Prophet Iddo,"^ "the Book of Jehu the son of Hanani,"^' 
 " the Acts of Uzziah by Isaiah," " " the Vision of Isaiah," ^ 
 and the book of "the Sayings of the Seers "^ — all w^brks 
 which served as materials to the Chronicler, and to which 
 he refers his readers. We found reason to believe, in the 
 last Lecture, that our Book (or Books) of Samuel is the 
 very work which the Chronicler quotes under the three 
 names of the Book of Samuel, the Book of Nathan, and 
 the Book of Gad. Similarly the Book of the Acts of Sol- 
 omon ^*^ would seem to have been composed of a Book of 
 Nathan, a Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and a portion 
 of a Book of Iddo the seer.^^ And the Book, or rather 
 the two Books, (^^ of the Chronicles of the Kings of 
 Israel and Judah, would appear to have been carried on in 
 the same way ; first, by Iddo, in his " Story," or " Com- 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xvi. 11 ; xxv. 26 ; xxvii. 7 ; xxAiii. 26 ; xxxii. 32 ; xxxiii. 
 18 ; and xxxv. 27. 
 
 2 Ibid. XX. 34 ; and xxxiii. 32. 
 
 3 Ibid. xii. 15. ' -» Ibid. ^ Ibid. xiii. 22. 
 
 6 Ibid. XX. 34. ' Ibid. xx\i. 22. » Ibid, xxxii. 32. 
 
 9 Ibid, xxxiii. 19. ^" 1 Kings xi. 41, "2 Chron. ix. 29.
 
 104 * HISTORICAL EVIDENCES CfF THE Lect. IV, 
 
 mentary ; " then by Jehu, the son of Hanani, in the Book 
 which we are told was made to fomi a part of the Book 
 of the Ivings of Israel ; ^^^ and afterwards by other prophets 
 and seers, among whom were certainly Isaiah and Jere- 
 miah. That Isaiah wrote the history of the reign of 
 Uzziah is expressly stated ; ^ and it is also said that his 
 account of the acts of Hezekiah formed a portion of the 
 Book of the Kings of Judah ; (^^ besides wdiich, the close 
 verbal agreement between certain historical chaptei-s in 
 Isaiah and in Kings, (^^ would suffice to prove that this 
 part of the state history was composed by him. A similar 
 agi-eement between portions of Kings and of Jeremiah, 
 leads to a similar conclusion with respect to that prophet. (^^ 
 Thus Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, 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 w^hich, without respect of persons, the life and 
 conduct of the kings were judged and exhibited according 
 to the standard of the revealed law." (^) With this judg- 
 ment of a living German writer, there is sufficient reason 
 to concur ; and we may therefore conclude that the liistory 
 in Kings and Chronicles rests upon the testimony of con- 
 temporary and competent w^itnesses. " 
 
 The only objection of any importance that Rationalism 
 
 ' 2 Cliion. xxvi. 22,
 
 Lect. rV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 105 
 
 makes to the conclusion which we have here reached, is 
 drawn from the circumstances of the time w^hen 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, (^^ " 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- 
 co\mt for it, the " Books of the Chronicles of the Kings of 
 Israel and Judah," the different portions of w4iich had been 
 written by the prophets above mentioned, were still extant 
 wdien the authors of Kings and Chronicles WTOte their his- 
 tories, having escaped the dangers of war, and survived the 
 obscure time of the Captivity. It is not merely that the 
 W'riters in question profess to quote from them ; but 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 Chroni- 
 cles lend to each other, deserves some notice while we are 
 engaged with this portion of the inquiry. Had the Ir.ter
 
 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. (^^) 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 Kins^s as Africanus stands to 
 Eusebius, in respect of the history of Egypt. (^^) 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, (i-) 
 
 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
 
 Lect. 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 Amters on the prophetical Scriptures, who 
 find the interpi-etation 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. (^^^ 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 ('^) — 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,^ the alliance of 
 Kezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king 
 of Israel, against Ahaz,^ the desolation of their country 
 which shortly followed,'^ the plunder of Damascus, and the 
 spoihng of Samaria at this time,'^ 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," the inclination of the Jewish mon 
 archs to lean on Eg\q:)t for support against Ass\Tia,^ the 
 conquest by Sennacherib of the "fenced cities" of Judah,"^' 
 the embassy of Rabshakeh,^^ the sieges of Libnah and 
 
 ' Isaiah i. 1. « Ibid. vii. 1, 2. ^ j^[^^ yg^gg iq^ 
 
 * Ibid. viii. 4. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 9. 
 
 ^ Ibid, verse 2. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. 
 
 ^Ibid. X. 9-11. 7 Ibid. XX. 3-5. 
 
 ' Ibid. XXX. 2, 3. &c. ; xxxi. 1-3. » Ibid, xxxvi. 1. 
 
 '° Ibid, verses 2-22.
 
 108 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. IV; 
 
 Lachish/ the preparations of Tirhakah against Sennache- 
 rib,2 the prayer of Hezekiah,'^ the prophecy of Isaiah in 
 reply,'^ the destruction of Sennacherib's host,^ the return of 
 Sennacherib himself to Nineveh,*^ his murder and the 
 escape of his murderers/ Hezekiah's ilhiess and recovery,^ 
 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/'' at the oppression of Egypt 
 under the Ethiopian yoke," at the subjection of Judaea to 
 Assyi'ia during the reign of Ahaz/- and at man^^ other 
 events of less consequence. About half the events here 
 mentioned are contained in the three historical chapters of 
 Isaiah/'^ which are almost identical with three chapters of 
 the second Book of Kings : ^* but the remainder occur 
 merely incidentally among the pi'ophecies ; and these afford 
 the same sort of confinnation to the plain narrative of 
 Kings and Chronicles, as the Epistles of St. Paul have been 
 shoAvn to furnish to the Acts.(^^) 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 
 fi-om Josiah to the Captivity, 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 
 
 ' Isaiah xxxvii. 8. ^ Ibid, verse 9. ^ Ibid, verses 15-20. 
 
 "» Ibid, verses 22-35. ^ Ibid, verse 36. ^ Ibid, verse 37. 
 
 ' Ibid, verse 38. ^ Ibid, xxxviii. ^ Ibid, xxxix. 1, 2. 
 
 »° Ibid. ix. 1. " Ibid. xix. 4, .S:c. »2 i^i^. xiv. 24-28. 
 
 ^^ Chaps, xxxvi. xxxvii. and xxxviii. '^ Chaps, xviii. xix. and xx.
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 100 
 
 evidence in favor of its authenticity, I proceed to the con- 
 sideration of that point which is the special subject of 
 these Lectures — the confimiation 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. (^^> 
 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- 
 Khumri^ (^'^ " the house or city of Omri," that monarch 
 having been the original founder of Samaria, according to 
 Scripture.^ 
 
 The first great event in the kingdom of Judah after the 
 separation from Israel, was the invasion of Judsea by Shi- 
 shak, king of Eg}^t, in the fifth year of Rehoboam. Shi- 
 shak came up against Jerusalem with "twelve hundred 
 chariots and threescore thousand horsemen," besides a 
 host of footmen who were " without number." ^ He " took 
 the fenced cities which pertained to Judah," and Avas pro- 
 ceeding to invest the capital, when Rehoboam made his 
 submission, delivered up the treasures of the temple, and 
 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 
 '^aptured towns and districts, which Shishak boasts of 
 
 ^ 1 Kings yiy\. 24. ^ 2 Chron. xii. 3. ^ Ibid, verse 8. 
 
 10
 
 110 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. IV. 
 
 having added to his dominions, occurs the '-'• Mtldii Yuda^'' 
 or kingdom of Jiidah, (^^) the conquest of which by this 
 king is thus distinctly noticed in the Egyptian records. 
 
 About thirty years later Judgea was again invaded from 
 this quarter. "Zerah the Ethiopian," at the head of an 
 army of "a thousand thousand"^ — or a million of men — 
 who were chiefly Ethiopians and Libyans,' 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.^ 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 (^^^ — 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 result of such a disaster as that which befell the 
 invading host. The only difficulty which meets us is the 
 representation of Zerah as an JiJthiojnan — 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 we 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 
 countrie-s. 
 
 In the succeeding generation, the records of the other 
 
 ^ 2 Chron. xiv. 9. * 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 we 
 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 w^ith a foreign princess, and as having made choice 
 for the puqiose of " Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal, king of 
 the Zidonians." ^ 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,) who 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. (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 (^i' — 
 turns upon the circumstance that Eth-baal is called in 
 Scripture, not king of Tyre, but " king of the Zidonians." 
 Sidon, it is probable, although a dependency of Tyre at this 
 time, had her own line of kings ; and if Eth-baal was one of 
 these, the comcidence between his name and that of the 
 reigning Tyrian monarch would be merely accidental, and 
 the confirmation here sought to be established would fall 
 to the ground. But the fact seems to be that the Jewish 
 writers use the term " Zidonians " in two senses, one spe- 
 cific, and the other generic, — sometimes intending by it 
 the inhabitants of Sidon alone, sometimes the Phoenicians 
 generally. (^2) And it is prolahly in this latter sense that 
 
 * 1 Kings xvi. 31.
 
 112 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. IV. 
 
 the title "king of the Zidoniaiis" is applied to the father 
 of Jezebel. 
 
 Menander also related that during the reign of Eth-baal, 
 which (as we have seen) coincided in a great measure with 
 that of Ahab in Israel, there was a remarkable drought, 
 which continued in Phoenicia for the full space of a year. (^3) 
 This drought is fairly connected with the still longer one 
 in the land of Israel, which Elijah announced to Ahab,^ 
 and which led to the destruction of the priests of Baal 
 upon Mount Carmel.^ 
 
 The most remarkable feature in the external history of 
 Israel during the reign of Ahab, is the war which raged 
 towards its close between the Israelites and the Syrians of 
 Damascus. The power and greatness of the Damascene 
 king, who bears the name of Ben-hadad, are very strikingly 
 depicted. He comes against Samaria at the head of no 
 fewer than thirty-two subject or confederate " kings," ^ with 
 '- horses " and with " chariots," * and a " great multitude." '^ 
 Though defeated with great slaughter on his first attempt, 
 he is able to bring into the field another army of equal 
 strength in the ensuing year.^ The exact number of his 
 troops is not mentioned, but it may be conjectured from 
 the losses in his second campaign, which are said to ha^-e 
 amounted to one hundred and tw^enty-seven thousand 
 men.'' Even this enormous slaughter does not paralyze 
 him: he continues the war for three years longer; and in 
 the third year fights the battle in which Ahab is slain.^ 
 Now, of this particular struggle we have no positive con- 
 firmation, owing to the almost total loss of the ancient 
 Syrian records. C^"^) But we have, in the cuneiform annals 
 
 * 1 Kings xvii. 1. ^ Ibid. chap, xviii. ^ Ibid. xx. 1. 
 
 ^ Ibid. & Ibid, verse 13. ^ Ibid. xx. 25. 
 
 ' Ibid, verses 28 and 29. « Ibid. xxii. 1-36.
 
 Lect:. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 113 
 
 of an Assyrian kinp:, a very curious 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 va-st armies, 
 with which he repeatedly engaged the w^hole force of 
 Assyria. We have accounts of three campaigns between 
 the Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, Hittites, 
 Hamathites, and Phoenicians, united under the command 
 of Ben-hadad, upon the other, f-^^) in which the contest is 
 maintained with spirit, the armies being of a large size, and 
 their comjjosition 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~) and 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 ; (^8) and it may be suspected 
 that from this date both the Jewish and the Israelitish 
 kings held their crowns as fiefs dependent on the will 
 of the Ass^i-ian monarch, with whom it formally lay to 
 "confimi" each new prince "in his kingdom."' 
 
 A break now occurs in the series 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 more than one 
 or two doubtful illustrations of the Sacred Narrative. 
 Here, however, it is to be remarked, that the absence of 
 
 ^ 2 Kings xiv. 5 ; xv. 19. 
 
 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 insciiptionkj 
 from the time of the monarch who made Jehu tributary to 
 that of the Tiglath-Pileser of Scripture. (^9) For this time, 
 too the Tyrian records are an absolute blank, C^^) while the 
 Egy23tian 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 surjmsed at the deficiency here noted ; nor 
 would it be right to view it as having the slightest ten- 
 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 aj/pears from Chroni- 
 cles) - 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 
 Eusebius declares to have been used by Polyhistor, (^^^ wlio 
 followed Berosus ; but in the Septuagint he is called Pha- 
 loch, or Phalos, (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 
 
 > 2 Kings XV. 19. ^ i Chron. v. 26.
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 115 
 
 is one which has been read variously, as Phal-lukha^ Vul- 
 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-Khumri^ 
 or Samaria, as well as from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, Idu- 
 msea, and Philistia. (^^) Neither the name of the Israelitish 
 king, nor the amount of his tribute, is mentioned in the 
 Ass}Tian 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^"*) 
 
 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 are 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 part 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-
 
 'il6 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. IV. 
 
 ered ; 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 j^roceed to exhibit 
 this agreement with the brevity which my limits necessi- 
 tate, before noticing the confirmation which this portion of 
 the history derives also fi'om the Egyptian and Babylonian 
 records. 
 
 The chief events related of Tiglath-Pileser in Scripture 
 are his tAvo invasions of Israel — once when he "took Ijon, 
 and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and 
 llazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naph- 
 tali, and carried them captive to Assyria;"^ and again, 
 when he came at the invitation of Ahaz, and not only chas- 
 tised Pekah, but " took Damascus, and slew Rezin."^ 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 i~?hes 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.(-'^'^> 
 
 Tiglath-Pileser is also stated in Sci'ipture 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 
 
 » 2 Kings XV. 29. 2 jbid. xvi. 7-9.
 
 LecT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 117 
 
 which he had seen at Damascus.^ It has been generally 
 supposed that tliis altar was Syrian ; C^^^' and its establish 
 ment has been connected with the passage in Chronicles, 
 w^here Ahaz is said to have " sacrificed to the gods of 
 Damascus, which smote him ; " ^ but few things can be 
 more uiiprobable 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 
 Ass}Tian custom, of which the Inscriptions aiford abundant 
 evidence — the custom of requiring from the subject na- 
 tions some fonnal acknowledgment of the gods and wor- 
 ship of the sovereign country. C^") 
 
 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. C^*^) He appears, from the narrative in Kings, to 
 have come up twice against Hoshea, the last king of Israel,^ 
 — on the first occasion merely enforcing the tribute which 
 was regarded as due, but on the second proceeding to ex- 
 tremities, in order to punish Hoshea for contracting an 
 alliance with Eg}q3t, 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 ;(^9) and though the capture of 
 Samaria is claimed by his successor, Sargon, as an exploit 
 of his own in his first year, (^^^ yet this very claim confirms 
 the Scriptural account of Shalmaneser's commencing the 
 
 > 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. ^ 2 Chron. xxviii. 23. 
 
 ^ 2 Kings x\ii. 3 and 5.
 
 118 HISTORIC AI.. EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. IV. 
 
 siege, wliicli began three years before the capture;^ 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 w^e 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. ("^^^ 
 
 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,"^ 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 ; C*-) 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, C*^) 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 Kliorsa- 
 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 tool' AshdodA'^'^^ Thus the 
 sole fact which Scripture distinctly assigns to the reign of 
 Sargon is confirmed by the native records ; wdiich 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 
 
 ' 2 Kings xvii. 3, 5, and xviii. 9, 10. ^ Isaiah xx. 1.
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 119 
 
 lead away the Egj^^tians prisoners, and the Ethiopians cap- 
 tive?, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their 
 buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." If this be 
 allowed, 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 Avhich also show that Egypt was at this time 
 in just that close connection with Ethiopia ('^^^ which the 
 prophet's expressions indicate.^ Again, if we may presume 
 that Sargon is intended by the king of Assyria who took 
 Samaria,^ and carried the Israelites away captive;^ then' 
 there is derivable ii*om 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."* 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. (^6) 
 
 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 ofiTthe allegiance^ which the 
 kings of Judah appear to have paid to Assyria at least from 
 the time of Ahaz' message to Tiglath-Pileser,^ " Sennache- 
 rib, king of Ass}Tia, came up against all the fenced cities of 
 Judah, and took them : and Hezekiah, king of Judah, sent 
 
 ' T=aiah XX. 3 and 4. ^2 Kinirs xvii. 6. ' Ibid, xviii. 11. 
 
 * Ibid. 5 Ibid, xvii. 7. • Ibid. xvi. 7.
 
 120 HISTORICAL EVmENCES OF THE Lect. IV. 
 
 to the king of Assyria to Lachisli, saying, 'I have offended; 
 return from me : that which thou puttest upon me, I will 
 bear : ' and the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiali, 
 king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and thirty 
 talents of gold." ^ The annals of Sennacherib contain a full 
 accouKt of this campaign. " And because Hezekiah, king: 
 of Judah,'^says Sennacherib, "would not submit to my yoke, 
 I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the 
 might of my power I took forty -six of his strong fenced 
 eities / and of the smaller towns which were scattered 
 about, I took and plundered a countless number. And 
 from these places I captured and carried off as spoil two 
 hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, old and 
 young, male and female, together wit^ horses and mares, 
 asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. 
 And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital 
 city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round the city 
 to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates, 
 so as to prevent escape. . . . Then lipon this Hezekiah there 
 fell the fear of the power of my arms, and he sent out to 
 me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty tal- 
 ents of gold^ and eight hundred talents of silver, and divers 
 treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . . All these things 
 were brought to me at JSTineveh, the seat of m govern- 
 ment, Hezekiah having sent them by way of tribute, and as 
 a token of his submission to my power." ('^"^ 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 
 
 ^ 2 Kings xviii. 13^ 14. Compare Isaiali xxxvL U and 2 Chro.j:!k 
 xxxii. 1-S.
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 121 
 
 sacred writer has merely mentioned the sum agreed to be 
 paid as tribute. C'*^) 
 
 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.^ No colUsion 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 Avas eJSected 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."^ It has been generally seen and 
 confessed, that the marvellous account which Herodotus 
 gives of the discomfiture of Sennacherib by Sethos ^'^^^ is 
 the Egyptian version of this event, which was (naturally 
 enough) ascribed by that people to the inteiposition of its 
 own divinities. 
 
 The murder of Sennacherib by two of his sons,^ 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 
 Abydenus. (^9) The escape of the murderers into Armenia'* 
 is in harmony with what is known of the condition of that 
 
 1 2 Kings x^ri.n. 21 and 24. ^ ly,^^^ ^i^. 35. 
 
 3 Ibid, verse 37. ■ "■ 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 ; C^*^) 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-^^) 
 
 Esarhaddon is distinctly stated in Scripture to have been 
 the son and successor of Sennacherib.^ As usual, the mon- 
 uments are in complete accordance. (^^^ 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.C^^^ 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 Mm to Bahylon^'^ 
 The monuments confirm the synchronism which Scrijoture 
 implies, by distinctly mentioning "Manasseh, king of 
 Judah," among the tributaries of Esarhaddon ; (^^^ 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, 
 
 ' 2 Kings xix. 37. Compare Isaiah xxxvii. 38. 
 ' 2 Chron. xxxiii, 11,
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 123 
 
 and he only of all the Assyrian kings^ actually was king 
 of Babylon — that he built a palace, and occasionally 
 held his court there ^^^^ — and that consequently a cai3tive 
 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 satisflictory 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 ; (^^) 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 ; (^^) 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. 725. Sennache- 
 rib, not very long afterwards, on attacking the depend- 
 encies of Eg}q3t, learns that Tirhakah, king of the Ethio- 
 pians, is gathering together an army to oppose him.'^ Xearly 
 a century later, Pharaoh-Xecho invades Judaea, defeats 
 and kills the Jewish king Josiah, presses forward to the 
 
 1 2 Kino's xvii. 4, " Ibid. xix. 9.
 
 124 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LeCT. IV. 
 
 Euphrates, takes Carchemisli and Jerusalem, leads Jehoa- 
 haz 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.^ Finally, about twenty years 
 after this, Pharaoh-Hophra is spoken of as encouraging the 
 Jews to resist Nebuchadnezzar, and threaten(.'d with the 
 AN'^rath of that monarch, into whose hands it is said he will 
 be delivered."^ 
 
 Here, tlien, within about one hundred and forty years, 
 we have the names of four kings of Eg}'pt, one of whom 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, H ; and the name of the monarch 
 thus designated may most properly be regarded as jSe- 
 vehA^^^ Now a king of the name of Sevech, or Sevechus, 
 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,) Shehek I. and Shehek II., ruled 
 Egypt about this period. ^•''^^) The former of the two is 
 familiar to us under the name (which Herodotus assigns to 
 him) of Sabaco;(^o^ and it is probably this prince of whom 
 the Hebrew writer speaks. The fict that he came into 
 contact with Assyria is confirmed by the discovery of his 
 seal at Koyunjik; it had probably been afiixed to a treaty 
 
 * 2 Kings xxiii. 29-35 ; xxiv. 7. Compare 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. 
 ' Jerem. xliv. 30 ; xlvi. 13-26.
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 125 
 
 wliicli, in consequence of his macliinations, he had been 
 forced to make with the triumphant Assyrian monarch. (^'^ 
 
 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) 
 tlie Tearchon of Strabo,(^^ and the Tehrak of the monu- 
 ments. (^) He succeeded the second Shebek^ and is proved 
 by his remains to have been king of both countries, but to 
 have held his court in Ethiopia. 
 
 In the Pharaoh-Xecho of Kings and Jeremiah,^ it is im- 
 possible not to recognize the famous Egyptian monarch 
 whom Manetho calls Xechao,(^^^ Herodotus Neco,(^^) and 
 the monuments Kek%i^^^~''^ the son and successor of the first 
 Psammetichus. The invasion of Syiia by this prince, and 
 liis defeat of the S\Tians 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. (^^) It has been usual to regard 
 Herodotus as also confirming the capture of Jerasalem by 
 Necho;^^^) but too much uncertainty attaches to the pre- 
 sumed identity of Cadytis with the Jewish capital, to make 
 it ^vise that much stress should be laid on this imagined 
 agreement. (^"^^ We may with more confidence appeal for 
 a confirmation of this fiict, and of the captivity of Jehoahnz, 
 to the fragments of Manetho, who is reported both by Afri- 
 can us and by Eusebius to have mentioned these Egyptian 
 successes. (^^) 
 
 Xot less certain and unmistakable is the identity of the 
 Scriptural Pharaoh-Hophra with Manetho's Uaphris, Herod- 
 otus's Apries, and the monumental Haifra-het or Ilai- 
 fra.O'^^> Egyptian chronology makes this prince contempo- 
 rary with Xebuchadnezzar ; (^"^^ and if we may trust the 
 
 1 Jerem. xlvi. 2-12. 
 11*
 
 126 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. IY. 
 
 abstracts which Ensebius 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^^) The miserable end of 
 Hophra, predicted by Jeremiah, is related from Egyptian 
 traditions by Herodotus ; and though it may be doubted 
 w^hether his account of the occurrence is in its minuter cir- 
 cumstances altogether correct, C^^^ 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 JcAvish 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,^ partly because he 
 wished to inquire concerning the wonder that had been 
 done in the land,- 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;C^<^) 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. C^^) 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 BerosusC^^) and the monuments C^^) — 
 that there was a fierce and bitter hostiUty between Mero- 
 
 1 2 Kings XX. 12. =^2 Chron. xxxii. 31.
 
 LecT. IV. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 127 
 
 dach-Balaclan 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 obseiwatories, and the religion was to a great 
 extent astral. (^^) 
 
 About a century later, Babylon is found in the Scripture 
 history to have succeeded to the position and influence of 
 Asswia oA'er Palestine, and we have a brief relation, in 
 Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings, of several campaigns con- 
 ducted by Xebuchadnezzar in these regions. Profane ac- 
 counts are in accordance. The reconquest of Syria an'd 
 Palestine from Xecho by Xebuchadnezzar, which is men- 
 tioned by Jeremiah,^ and glanced at in Kings,^ was related 
 at length by Berosus ;(^^) his prolonged siege of Tyre, which 
 is spoken of by Ezekiel,^ was attested by the Tyrian his- 
 torians, who said that it lasted thirteen years ; (^^^ 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. (^3) As the rest of the acts 
 of Xebucliadnezzar 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 eyidence 
 adduced in the course of it. 
 
 The period with which we have been dealing is one of 
 comj^arative light. We possess, it is true, no continuous 
 history of it besides that which the Sacred Volume fur- 
 nishes ; but Ave have abstracts of the writings of Berosus 
 and Manetho, which contained the annals of Egypjt and of 
 Babylon during the space ; we have considerable fragments 
 
 ' Jerem. xlvi. 1-12. ^ 2 Kin^rs xxiv. 7. ^ Ezek. xxix. IS.
 
 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 enjoy 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, while 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 
 Scriptural nairative 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 fects — minute con- 
 firmation occasionally — and a complete absence of any 
 thing that can be reasonably viewed as sei'ious discrepancy. 
 A few difficulties — chiefly chronological^") — 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 Niebuhr observes upon towards its 
 close, (^^^ 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^^) As discovery proceeds, these points of
 
 Lect. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 129 
 
 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 
 miconfii-med 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," ^ 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."- " Blessed be the name 
 of God forever and ever; for wisdom and might are his. . . , 
 He revealeth the deep and secret things : He knoweth whaj 
 is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him."^ 
 
 * Eph. i. 11. 5 Luke xix. 40. ^ pa^, ii, 20, 22o
 
 LECTURE Y. 
 
 BY THE RITEKS OF BABYLON, 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 SONGS 
 OF ZION." HOW SHALL WE SING THE LORD'S SONG IN A STRANGE 
 LAND? — PSALM CXXXVII. 1-4. 
 
 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 jjrophecy, uniting in a single book 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 
 
 (130)
 
 LecT. V- TUUTH OF THE S€PJPTU11E RECORDS. lol 
 
 double office of Prophet and Histonan, and that future ages 
 would learn the circumstances of this j'leriod 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 we have been so long engaged) between 
 the History of the Jews as delivered by their own wiiters, 
 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 hiiuself as having Hved 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 cli^redit the Book, uniformly 
 maintain that it is spurious, having been composed by 
 an uninspii-ed writer, who fiiLsely assumed the name of 
 an ancient prophet, <i' — or, according to some, of a mythic 
 personage, (^^ — 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 
 centurj^ of our era by the heathen writer Por]:)hyry, (^^ has 
 been revived in modem times, and is become the favorite 
 argument of the Rationalists, W with whom Prophecy 
 means nothing but that natural foresight whereby the con- 
 sequences of present facts and circumstances are 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. (^^ 
 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 fix its date to the time of the Captivity : C^) and that it 
 was translated into Greek in the reign of Ptolemy Phila- 
 delphus, more than seventy years before the accession of 
 Epiphanes, (''^ 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 w^hose history 
 it records (^) — the prince,(9^ — whose extraordinary piety 
 and wisdom were coinmended by his contemporary, Eze- 
 kiel.i (1") 
 
 The authenticity of the jiarrative has been denied on 
 the ground that it 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." (") These pretended inaccuracies will best be con- 
 sidered in connection Avith that general comparison of the 
 sacred narrative wdth the profane records of the period 
 in question, on wdiich (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 (12) and the subsequent history of Persia,(i^) that such 
 transfers of wdiole populations were common in the East 
 in ancient times; but we have the direct evidence of 
 Josephus to the fact, that Berosus mentioned the carrying 
 
 > Ezek. xiv. 14 and 20 xxviii. 3.
 
 Lect. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 133 
 
 off of the Jews by Xebucliadnezzar and their settlement in 
 parts of Babylonia. C^^) 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 proflme 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 ; (^^^ 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 poAvers. "The Chaldaeans relate," 
 says Abydenus, " that, after this, Xebucliadnezzar went up 
 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." C^^) 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,^ 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 Xebuchadnezzar's i^ign is stated without 
 any variety by Berosus, Polyhistor, and Ptolemy, (^''^ at 
 forty-three years. The Babylonian monuments go near to 
 
 * Dan. ii. 28-9. 
 12
 
 134 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LlXT. V. 
 
 prove the same ; for the forty-second year of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar has been found on a clay tablet. ^^^) 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 Jehoiachiri/ who was 
 taken to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar^s eighth year,- it is 
 evident that just forty-three years are required for the 
 reign of the great Chaldaean monarch. (^^) This agreement, 
 moreover, is incidental; for Evil-Merodach is not said in 
 Scripture to have been the successor of Nebuchadnezzar : 
 we only know this fact from profane sources. 
 
 It has been maintained that the book of Daniel misrej)- 
 resents the condition of Babylonia under Nebuchad- 
 nezzar ;(~'^) 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 wdiich 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. (^^^ They are 
 also termed Chasdim or Chaldeans, whereby a knowledge 
 is shown beyond that of the earlier prophets — a knowledge 
 of the fi^ct that the term " Chalda3an " was not properly 
 applied to the whole nation, but only to a learned caste o> 
 
 ' 2 Kings XXV. 27 ; Jcr. 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. (^) 
 
 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 coiTCSponding rather to the graduates of a uni- 
 versity than to the clergy of an establishment. (^^^ Into 
 such a class foreigners, and those of a diiferent religion, 
 might readily be admitted. 
 
 With respect to what has been called the "satrapial 
 organization " of the empire under Nebuchadnezzar,^ (and 
 again under Darius the Mede,-) 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 that Judaea 
 itself, after the revolt of Zedekiah, was placed under a 
 "governor."'' 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 of 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 to some extent have been satrajnal. 
 Berosus, at any rate, speaks expressly of " the Satrap ap- 
 pointed by Nabopolassar to govern Phoenicia, Ccele-Syria, 
 and Eg}'pt;"(2^) and it is not impossible that Darius 
 
 » Dan. iii. 2, &c. ^ Ibid. vi. 1, &c. ^ Ibid, iii 1, 2. 
 
 ■* 2 Kings XXV. 22, Compare Jer. xl. and xli.
 
 136 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, (^c) 
 
 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^'') 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 waiters, and as it has 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, (^^^ that either he or Abydenus intended 
 any allusion to this remarkable fact in the accounts which 
 they furnished of his decease. It Avas not to be expected 
 that the native writer would 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," ^ 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 Avhich has descended to 
 modern times in a tolerably complete condition, and which 
 seems to contain an allusion to the fact that the great king 
 
 I ' Dan. iv. 36.
 
 LeCT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 137 
 
 was for a time incapacitated for the discharge of the royal 
 functions. In the inscrijjtion known as the " Standard 
 Inscription " of I^ebuchadnezzar, 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." (^^^ 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 Chaldaean sovereign. 
 
 For the space of time intervening between the recovery 
 of Nebuchadnezzar from his affliction and the conquest of 
 Babylon by the Medo-Persians, which was a period of 
 about a quarter of a century, the Biblical narrative sup- 
 plies us with but a single fact — the release from piison 
 of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach in the year that he as- 
 cended the throne of his father. It has been already re- 
 marked that the native historian agi'eed exactly in the 
 name of this prince and the year of his accession ; he 
 added, (what Scripture does not expressly state,) that 
 Eidl-Merodach was Nebuchadnezzar's son. C^^) With re- 
 gard to the character of this monarch, there seems at first 
 sight to be a contrast between the account orBerosus and 
 the shght indications which the Scripture narrative fur- 
 nishes. Berosus taxes Evil-Merodach with intemperance 
 and lawlessness ; (^^) Scripture relates, that he had com- 
 passion on Jehoiachin, released him from prison, and 
 
 12*
 
 188 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP 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"^ 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, (^2) and who is reasonably identified Avith the Neriglissar 
 of Berosus and the Nerigassolassar 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 (^^"^ — a coin- 
 cidence of that minute and exact kind 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 Nabouadius, and 
 who appears elsewhere as Nabannidochus, Nabonnedus, 
 or Labynetus ^^'^^ — 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 
 ieast resembling Nabonadius in the Bible, is granted. But 
 
 1 ' 2 Kinirs xxy. 28. * Jerem. xxxix. 3 and 13.
 
 Lect. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 139 
 
 it has been by many supposed that that prince must be 
 identical with Daniel's Belshazzar ("^^^ — the last native 
 raler 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 RationaUsts, finding no better explana- 
 tion than this of the acknowledged difficulty, C^^) 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. (^^) 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 Babylon 
 appeared to be wholly irreconcilable, and some were 
 driven to suppose two falls of Babylon, to escape the seem- 
 ing contrariety. (^^) But out of all this confusion and 
 uncertainty a very small and simple discovery, made a few 
 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, Bll-shar-uzur, 
 and allowed him the royal title. (^^^ There can be little 
 doubt that it was this prince who conducted the defence 
 of Babylon, and was slain in the massacre which followed
 
 140 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. 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 be still objected that Belshazzar is, in Scripture, 
 not the son of Nabonadius, but of Nebuchadnezzar,^ and 
 of the Nebuchadnezzar who carried off tlie sacred vessels 
 from Babylon,^ 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 ; ("^^^ and secondly, that Bil-shar-uzur (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. ("^^^ 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 modern 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.^ He has been identi- 
 fied with Astyages, C'*-) with Cyaxares, a supposed son of 
 Astyages, C'^) with Neriglissar, ^^^4) ^nd with Nabonadius -jC^^) 
 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 Cyrus, of whom there is at present no trace in pro- 
 fime history. ("^6) 
 
 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- 
 ^ Dan. V. 11, 18, &c. « Ibid, verse 2. ^ y^^^^ y^ 31^
 
 LeCT. V TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 141 
 
 niaii into the Medo-Persic Empire, is one of those mani- 
 fest points of agreement between Scripture and profane 
 authors ("^"^ 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 Medes and 
 Persians which altereth not," ^ is at once illustrative of that 
 unity of the two great Arian races which all ancient his- 
 tory attests, (■'^^ and in harmony with that superiority of law 
 to the king's caprice, which seems to have distinguished the 
 Persian from most Oriental despotisms. (^^^^ With respect 
 to the "satrapial organization of the Empire," which is 
 again detected in Daniel's account of the reign of Darius 
 the Mede,C^^) 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," ^ 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,'^ 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, (^^) rules over the East 
 generally. He "was made king over the realm of the 
 Chalckeans " ^ — 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 that of the 
 one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Ahasuerus, 
 
 1 Dan. vi. 8. 2 n^^^j .^,gj.gg 1^ 
 
 ^ Ibid, verses 4-6. * Ibid. ix. 1.
 
 142 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lp:ct. V. 
 
 extending from Ethiopia to India,^ 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 
 Judali 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,'^ 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 sackcloth, 
 and ashes," '' that God would " turn away his fury and 
 anger from Jerusalem,"^ and "cause his face to shine upon 
 his sanctuary," ® 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 Judaea in the reign of Jehoiakim, and the year 
 following the fiill of Babylon, when Daniel made his 
 prayer, was sixty-eight years, (^^^ 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. ^ Dan. ix. 1. '^ Ibid. i. 1. 
 
 4 Ibid. ix. 3. ^ Ibid, verse 16. " Ibid, verse 17. 
 
 ' Dan. ix. 19.
 
 Lect. V, TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 143 
 
 eoiiicidence is the utmost that we have any right to expect 
 between the early chronologies of cliiFerent nations, whose 
 methods of reckoning are m most cases somewhat differ- 
 ent ; and in the present instance the term of seventy years, 
 being primarily a projohetic and not an historic number, is 
 perhaps not intended to be exact and definite. (^^) 
 
 The restoration of the Jews to their own land, and their 
 fortunes till the reform of Xehemiah, are related to us in 
 the three historical books of Ezra, Xehemiah, and Esther; 
 and receive illustration from the prophecies of Zechariah, 
 Haggai, and Malachi. The generally authentic character 
 of the books of Ezra and Xehemiah has never been ques- 
 tioned. They disarm the Ration ahst by the absence fi'om 
 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 see, howevei', 
 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 De Wette ; who has not (I think) shown 
 sufficient ground for questioning the integrity of either 
 composition,(^^) unless in respect of a single passage. The 
 genealog}' of the high priests in the twelfth chapter of 
 Nehemiah^ is a later addition to the book, which cannot 
 have been inserted into it before the time of Alexander. C^^) 
 
 ' Verses 10 to 22.
 
 14-i HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. V. 
 
 It stands to the rest of ISTehemiah as the genealogy of the 
 Dukes of Edom ^ stands to Genesis, or that of the descend- 
 ants of Jechoniah - to the rest of Chronicles. (^') But apart 
 from this passage there is nothing in Nehemiah which may 
 not have been written by the cupbearer of Artaxerxes 
 Longiraanus ; 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. (^^) But the 
 examples of Daniel C^^) ^Y^^\ Thucydides ^^o) 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. (^^) 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 Xehemiah 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 coni- 
 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 
 
 * Gen. xxxvi. 31-13. ^ 1 Cnron. iii. 17-24,
 
 Lfxt. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 145 
 
 tlieir history durmir a period with which he was personally 
 unacquainted. As this period does not extend farther 
 back ilian about eighty years from the time when he took 
 tlie direction of affairs at Jerusalem, (^^^ 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 wliich have been laid 
 down in the first Lecture, (^> Ezra's sketch, however, (as 
 many commentators liaA'e seen,) bears traces of having 
 been drawn up from contemporary documents ; ^^^^ 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, (^^^ 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 
 Xehemiah is recognized almost universally, that of Esther 
 is impugned by a great variety of writers. Xiebuhr's re- 
 jection of this book has been already noticed. (^^) De 
 Wette regards it as " consisting of a string of historical 
 difficulties and improbabilities, and as containing a number 
 of errors in regard to Pei-sian customs." (^~) CEder, Mi- 
 chaelis, Corrodi, Bertholdt, and others, throw more or less 
 doubt upon its authenticity. (^^^ The Jews, however, have 
 always looked upon it, not only as a true and authentic 
 history, but as a book deserving of special honor ; (^^) 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 Jews still celebrate, 
 and at which the book of Esther is always read, must be 
 
 13
 
 146 HISTORICAL EVIDENXES OF THE Lect. V. 
 
 regarded as sufficiently evidencing the truth of the main 
 facts of the narrative ; (^^^ and the Jews would certainly 
 never have attached to the religious celebration iif that 
 festival the reading of a document from which the religious 
 element is absent, or almost absent, (^^) had they not be- 
 lieved it to contain a coiTect 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. C^^) 
 
 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 was 
 written in the book" ^ — 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,"^ which had been mentioned more than once in 
 the earlier part of the narrative.'^ 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. ("'^^ 
 
 We have now to examine the narrative contained in 
 Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, by the light which profane 
 
 » Esther ix. 32. = Ibid. x. 2. ^ jbid. ii. 23 ; and vi. 1.
 
 Lect. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 147 
 
 histoiy 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 which are assigned in Ezra to C}tus, Darius, 
 and Artaxerxes. " The Lord God of heaven^^ says C}tus, 
 " 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 day 
 without fail ; that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savors 
 unto the God of heaven, and^:>?-«y for the Ufe 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 
 v^hy should tliere he wrath against the realm of the king 
 and his sons ? " ^ 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 God 
 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 
 
 ' Ezra i. 2, 3. Compare 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23. 
 
 ' Ibid. vi. 8-10. 3 Ibid. vii. 12, 23.
 
 148 HISTORICAL evidp:nces op 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." (^^''^ 
 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," whicli 
 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." ('''^^ 
 
 It is generally admitted that the succession of the Per- 
 sian kings from Cyrus to Darius Hystaspis is correctly 
 given in Ezra.C^^) 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(^^) — but the exact agreement in the number of 
 the reigns, and the harmony in the chronology ("^) 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 
 rehgion, 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"^ duiing the reigns of Cyrus and 
 Cambyses; but it was not till the letter of the Pseudo- 
 Smerdis was received, that " the work of the house of God 
 ceased." ^ The same prince, that is, who is stated in the 
 inscriptions to have changed the religion of Persia, (^^^ 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 
 Avhich 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." (^^^ 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 '^ is devoid of the slightest reference to 
 religion, that of Darius exhibits — as has been already 
 shuwn — the same pious and reverential sj^irit, 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 Ezra iv. 4. 2 i^id. verse 24. ^ i^id. iv. 17 to 22. 
 
 13*
 
 150 HISTORTCAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. V. 
 
 God at Jerusalem," which Cyrus was "charged" to build/ 
 is finally "builded and finished." ^ 
 
 A break occurs in the Bibhcal narrative between the 
 sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra, the length of which is 
 not estimated by the sacred historian, but which we know 
 from profane sources to have extended to above Ijalf a cen- 
 tury. (^2) 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 hfe under Persian govern- 
 ors, and to have disarmed the hostility of their neighbors 
 by unw^orthy compliances, such as intermarriages;^ Avhich 
 would have tended, if unchecked, to destroy their distinct 
 nationality. Xo 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. (^•'^) And if it was Kish, the ancestor of 
 Mordecai in the fourth degree, who was carried away from 
 Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, together with Jeconiah,'' the 
 time of Xerxes would be exactly that in which Mordecai 
 ouo'ht to have flourished. (^4) Assuming; on these rounds 
 the king intended by Ahasuerus to be the Xerxes of Greek 
 history, we are at once struck wath 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- 
 
 • Ezra i. 2. 2 i^[^ ^^^ 14^ 
 
 3 i|3id. ix. 2. &c. 4 Esther ii. 5. 6.
 
 Lect. V. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 151 
 
 ous, facile, changeable — the Ahasiierus of Esther corre- 
 sponds in all resJ3ects to the Greek portraiture of Xerxes, 
 which is not (be 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,^ was a year which Xerxes 
 certainly passed at Susa, C^^) 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 (^^) 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," (^'■) who can scarcely have been 
 Esther, (88) 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 profme history tells us 
 nothing of Haman or Mordecai — but we have absolutely 
 no profane information on the subject of who were the 
 gi-eat officers of the Persian court, or who had influence 
 with Xerxes after the death of Mardonius. 
 
 » Esther i. 2, 3. » Ibid. ii. \6.
 
 152 HISTORICA^L EVIDENCES OF THE Ijjct. 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,(^^^ 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 advei'saries — 
 wonderful and antecedently im.pro.bable ; 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 ; C9o> 
 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 Ezi-a and Nehemiah flour- 
 ishedj C9J) we have little information from profane sources. 
 His eharaeter,, as drawn by Ctesias,. is mild but weak, (^2> 
 and sufficiently hamionizes with the portrait in the first 
 chapter oi" Nehemiah. He reigned forty years — a longer 
 time than any Persian king but one; and it is periiaps 
 worthy of remark that Nehemiah mentions his thirty- 
 second year;^ for this, which is allowable in his ease, would 
 have involved a contradiction of profane history, had it 
 occurred in connection with any other Persian king meii- 
 lioned in Scripture, excepting only Dainus Hystaspis* 
 
 ^ Nehem. y. 14 ; xlu. (5,
 
 LeCT. V. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 153 
 
 The Old Testament history here terminates. For the 
 space of nearly five hundred years — from the time of 
 Nehemiah and Malachi to tliat of St. Paul — the Jews pos- 
 sessed no inspired writer ; and their history, when recorded 
 at all, was related in works which were not regarded by 
 themselves as authoritative or canonical. I am not con- 
 cerned to defend the historical accm-acy of the Books of 
 Maccabees; much less that of Judith and the second 
 Esdras, which seem to be mere romances. (^^) 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 confinii the truth of the history delivered 
 to us in the sacred volume. The monumental records 
 of past ages — Assyrian, Babylonian, Egy|3tian, Persian, 
 Phcenician — the writings of historians who have based 
 their histories on contemporary annals, as Manetho, Bero- 
 sus, Dius, 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 firm 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 Rome, (with which some delight to 
 compare it,) it stands, at the leasts on a par with the ancient 
 histories of Egypt, Babylon, PhcEnicia, 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,"^ It is not their object to amuse men, much less 
 to impose on them by any " cunningly devised fables ; " ^ 
 but simply to record facts and " bear their witness to the 
 truth." 3 
 
 J 1 John i. 1. 2 2 Pet. i. 16. ' John xyiii. 37.
 
 LECTURE YI. 
 
 THAT WHICH WAS FROM THE BEGIXNIXG, WHICH WE HAVE HEARD, 
 WHICH WE HAVE SEEX WITH OUR EYES, WHICH WE HAVE LOOKED 
 UPON, AND OUB HANDS HAVE HANDLED, OF THE AVORD OF LIFE ; 
 (for the life WAS MANIFESTED, AND WE HAVE SEEN IT, AND BEAR 
 WITNESS, AND SHOW UNTO YOU THAT ETERNAL LIFE, WHICH WAS 
 AVITH THE FATHER, AND WAS MANIFESTED UNTO US ;) THAT WHICH 
 WE HAVE SEEN AND HEARD DECLARE WE UNTO YOU. — 1 JOHN I. 1-3. 
 
 The period of time embraced by the events of which we 
 have any mention in the Xew Testament but little exceeds 
 the Ufetime of a man, MUng short of a full century. The 
 regular and continuous history is comprised wdthin a yet 
 narrower space, since it commences in the year of Rome 
 748 or 749, and terminates about sixty-three years later, in 
 the fifth of Xero, Anno Domini 58. (^^ If uniformity of plan 
 w^ere a thing of paramount importance, it would be my 
 duty to subdivide this space of time into three portions, 
 which might be 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. Oi-, if we confined our \dew to the 
 
 [155)
 
 156 . HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VI. 
 
 space of time which is covered by tlie liistorical Books, and 
 omitted the last of these 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 liere 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 who is w^ith 
 His church "always"^ 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 
 
 » 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 w^ere 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 w^orld. It is with the his- 
 torical Books that we are in the present review primarily 
 concerned. I wdsh 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 w^hom they 
 were written. If the history was recorded by eye-wit- 
 nesses, or even by persons contemporaneous with the 
 events nan-ated, 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." (3) "Little reliance, however, can be j^laced on 
 these titles, or on the headings of ancient manuscriptg 
 
 U
 
 158 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VI. 
 
 generally." C^^ " The early Jewish and Christian writers — 
 even the most reputable — published their w^orks with the 
 substitution of venerated names, without an idea that they 
 were guilty of falsehood or deception by so doing." C^) In 
 "sacred records" and "biblical books" this species of for- 
 gery obtained "more especially ;"(6) and the title of w^orks 
 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. (^) 
 
 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 filse, or at best without cither 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 Books bear in the modern 
 authorized versions of the Scriptures are Uteral 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 Avhich were made at an early 
 period. (') 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 Xew 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 far better evidence of authorship in 
 the case of the four Gospels and of the Acts 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. (^^ 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, on the titles, but on the 
 unanimous* consent of ancient writers and of the whole 
 Christian church in the first ages.
 
 160 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LecT. VI 
 
 In the next ])lace we are told that "httle reli;ince can be 
 placed on the headings of ancient manuijcripts 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 superscrij^tion. 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 are told, " is evident, and has long since 
 been proved." ('^) Where the proof is to be found, we are 
 not informed, nor whence the j^eculiar 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 ; (^^) 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 AYord ; they 
 indicate merely the opinion of those who had the custody 
 of the Word at the time when they were prefixed. Now
 
 Lect, vl truth of the scripture records. 161 
 
 in most cases the headings vrould 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, C^^) 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 untrust worthiness 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 j^ublished 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 Hermas 
 and Baniabas, 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. (^^) The 
 practice noted was common among heretical sects from the 
 first, but it was made a reproach to them by the ortho- 
 dox ; ('■*) vrho 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." (^^^ "This seems to be the original meaning 
 attached to the word xara," we are told. Ko 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;"^ 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.(^*^> Irenajus, 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. (^^^ Justin, in the middle of the second century, s^Deaks 
 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. C^*^) 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.
 
 Lect. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 163 
 
 to the very age of the Apostles themselves; forPapias was 
 a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. C^^) 
 
 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 scno it,'''' says St. John, " bare 
 record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith 
 time, that ye may believe." ^ 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 testiiieth of these things and 
 vyrote these things : and we know that his testimony is 
 tnie."^ 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^) 
 
 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 books make it plain that they 
 "proceeded from the same author." (^i) This evidence is felt 
 to be so strong, that even Strauss does not venture to deny 
 that a companion of St. Paul may have written the two 
 works. He finds it "difiicult" 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 
 mcorporated into his history." But still he allows the 
 
 ' John xix. 35. 2 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 w^hen he was no longer protected by apos- 
 tolic influence from the tide of tradition," and so Avas 
 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. (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 Rome, A. D. 58, (or A. D. 63, according to some^^s) 
 writers,) and that the Gospel, as being "the former trea- 
 tise," ^ was written earlier, Strauss replies, " that the break- 
 ing off* of the Acts at that particular point might have been 
 the result of many other causes ; and that, at all events, 
 such testimony standing alone is wholly insufficient to de- 
 cide the historical worth of the Gospel." (^4) 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, ^^^ w^hile he 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 dehvered to him by 
 those " which fi-om the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
 ministers of the Word."- 
 
 If the third Gospel be allowed to have been com]wsed 
 by one who lived in the apostoHc age and companied w^ith 
 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. ' Luke i. 2.
 
 Lect. VL truth of the scripture records. 165 
 
 same school of thouglit, 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 diiferences, that the most reasonable view 
 to take of their composition is that it was almost simul- 
 taneous, i^^) 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 works of persons who 
 lived at the time when Chnstianity 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 we 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. Xor 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 earUest 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 Irenseus 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
 
 1G6 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VI. 
 
 placing the question of the authorship beyond all reason- 
 able doubt or suspicion. 
 
 If 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 " ^ whicli 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 th'e Church 
 felt bound to adopt all into her Canon, whence it has hap- 
 pened that they have all come down to us. "VVe should 
 have expected, alike on the analogy of the Old Testa- 
 ment, (2~) 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 case ; 
 but had the Gospel of St. Matthew, for instance, been 
 really composed, as some have imagined, (^^) within a few 
 years of our Lord's ascension, it would have been carried 
 
 J Lukei. 1.
 
 Lf.ct. YL truth of the scripture records. 1G7 
 
 together with Christianity into all parts of the worid ; 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 was 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 suj^erintendence 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 ; C^^) and as it agrees nearly with the testimony of Ire- 
 naeus, (^^^ 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 EvangeUsts. (^^ But the differences adduced cousirr^
 
 168 HISTORICAL EYIDENCES OP THE Lect. VL 
 
 almost entirely of omissions by one Evangelist of what is 
 mentioned by another, such omissions being regarded by 
 Strauss as equivalent to direct negatives. (^^^ The weak 
 character of the argument a sUentio 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 dis-credit 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 mei^e 
 ground of silence on the part of the others. WhatcA-er 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 
 w^hich 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 w^ould have been considered to mark collusion or 
 or unacknowledged borrowing, and which would have thus 
 destroyed their value as distinct and independent wit- 
 nesses
 
 LeCT. VI. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 169 
 
 It'has been well observed, (^^^ that, even if all the diffi- 
 culties and discrej^ancies, which this writer has 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^^) — still the general 
 credibihty 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 tneir 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 Xenophon for the sajdngs 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 flicts which establish 
 Christianity, and form its historical basis — a basis whica 
 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 Xazareth, a man approved of God by 
 
 15
 
 170 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP 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 ; ^ 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""* — 
 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," ^ but " raised up the third 
 day, and showed openly,"^ "by many infallible proofs 
 during the space of forty days," ^ " 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 " ^° — and who, 
 finally, "while his disciples beheld, was taken up into 
 heaven, a cloud receiving him out of their sight." " The 
 Acts further show that to the chosen "witnesses" — the 
 Apostles to whom " the promise of the Father " ^- 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,^'^ cured lameness by a word 
 or a touch,^"* si3ake languages of which they had no natural 
 knowledge,^^ restored the bedridden to health,^*^ handled 
 serpents,^'' cast out devils,^^ inflicted blindness,^^ raised the 
 
 » Acts ii. 22. 2 Ibid. x. 38. ^ i^^j^i^ ^q^^q 37^ 
 
 * Ibid. xiii. 27-8. ^ Ibid. ii. 23. ^ Ibid. x. 39. 
 
 ' Ibid. xiii. 29. 8 iiji^, X. 40. » Ibid. i. 3. 
 
 »o Ibid. X. 41. •! Ibid. i. 9, 10. ^^ ji^ij^ yg^se 4. 
 
 13 Ibid. V. 9 ; vi. 27, &c. ^^ Ibid. xiv. 10, and iii. 7. 
 
 i^ Ibid. ii. 4-13. ^« Ibid. ix. 34. ^^ Ibid, xxriii. 5. 
 
 »8 Ibid. xvi. 18, &c. ^^ i^^^^^ x^j^ n.
 
 Lect. Y1. truth of the scripture records. 171 
 
 dead to life,^ and finally even in some cases cured men by 
 the touch of their shadows- or by handkerchiefs and aprons 
 fi'om their persons.^ 
 
 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 OAyn 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 agi'eement 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."(^^) The Horce Paulince 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 
 of 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 Avho 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 Acts 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. 9-12. 
 2 Ibid. V. 15. 3 Ibid xix. 12,
 
 172 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VL 
 
 ion of the Apostle." (^^) The Ilorce PaidincB shoiikl 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 
 utter 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. C^^^ 
 
 Again, it is to be remarked, that the argument of Paley 
 is applicable also to other parts of the New 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,^ however, and St. 
 Luke,^ in giving the list of the Apostles, place them in pairs 
 without assigning a reason, while St. Mark, whose list is not 
 in pairs,'' happens to mention that they were sent out " two 
 and two,"^ 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 would 
 be easy to multiply instances ; but my limits will not allow 
 me to do more than briefly to allude to this head of evi 
 
 ' Matt. X. 2-4. 2 Luke vi. 14-16. 
 
 3 Mark iii. 16-19. * Ibid. vi. 7.
 
 Lect. VI TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 173 
 
 dence, to wliich full justice could not be done unless by an 
 elaborate work on the subject. (^^^^ 
 
 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 ; (^^^ 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. C^^) 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 peculiar exigencies of the time, but all exhibiting casu- 
 ally and incidentally the state of opinion and belief among 
 Christians during the half century immediately followhig 
 our Lord's ascension. It is indisputable that the wiiters, 
 and those to whom they wrote, believed in the recent 
 occurrence of a set of facts similar to, or identical Avith, 
 those recorded in the Gospels and the Acts — more jiartic- 
 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, 
 ""^ceived up into glory." ^ "Christ," says St. Peter, " suf 
 
 ' 1 Tim. iii. 16. 
 15*
 
 174 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VI. 
 
 fered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might 
 bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quick- 
 ened in the spirit." ^ " He received from God the Father 
 honor 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 
 heard, when we were with him in the holy mount." ^ " God 
 raised up Christ from the dead, and gave him glory "^ — 
 " He is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, 
 angels and authorities and powers being made subject to 
 him."'* "Remember," again St. Paul says, "that Jesus 
 Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead"^ — 
 "If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and 
 your faith also is vain"*^ — "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 Avas 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."'' 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." C'^^) 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 Pet. iii. 18. ^ 2 Pet. i. 17, 18. ^ 1 Pet. i. 21. 
 
 * Ibid. iii. 22. ^ 2 Tim. ii. 8. M 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 EvangeHsts have recorded — they proclaimed them- 
 selves the " witnesses of the resurrection"^ — appealed to 
 the " miracles and signs " ^ 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 with such 
 rapidity as is postulated in this case by our adversaries. 
 The age was an historical age, being that of Dionysius, 
 Diodorus, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Valerius 
 Maximns, 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 confuse 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 Xew Testament, than that em- 
 braced by the old assailants of Chiistianity — 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 
 
 > Acts i. 22 ; iv. 33, &c. " Ibid. ii. 22.
 
 1T6 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VI. 
 
 alike contradict. The explanation fails, however, even in 
 this respect ; for its great advocate finds it insufiicient 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 
 narratives. (^^) If then we feel sure that in the books of 
 the New Testament we have not the works of impostors, 
 testifying to have seen that wiiich they had not seen, and 
 knew that they had not seen ; if we 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 ; w^e must pro- 
 nounce utterly untenable this last device of the sceptic, 
 which presents even more difiiculties 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.^ They were believed by thousands of 
 their contemporaries, on the spot where they stated the 
 most remarkable of the events to have taken })lace, and 
 within a few w^eeks 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 fiicts, then the rest of the narrative may well be re- 
 ceived, for it is less marvellous. Vain are the " ])rofane 
 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 tlie resurrection " of man " is 
 past already," thus "overthrowing the faith of some."^ 
 
 ' 1 John i. 3. 2 2 Tim. ii. 16-lS.
 
 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 " ^ — Jesus 
 Christ, the God-Man, is "ascended into the heavens."^ 
 These are the cardinal points of the Christian's faith. 
 On these credentials, which nothing can shake, he accepts 
 as certain the divine niiesion of his Saviour. 
 
 » 2 Tim. ii. 19. ^ j\ji^^ ^^^^se 8. ' Acts ii. 34.
 
 LECTURE 7il. 
 
 IN THE MOUTH 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. (^) 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' 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 cliief facts concerning our Lord — especially those of 
 
 (17S)
 
 Lect. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 179 
 
 his public liie 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 
 liis 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 confiraiation is not, how- 
 ever, less, but rather greater, than that of the more direct 
 confiiTnation which would result from an accordance with 
 respect to main ficts — 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 ; (^^ 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 Xew 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 cqr^f ct and the exactness that of persons in- 
 timately acquainted with the whole history of the time
 
 180 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF 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 Avritings — 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 New 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 w^as to be expected, since those who believed 
 them naturally and almost necessarily became Chiistians ; 
 and secondly, that with regard to such as are not of this 
 character, there does 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 
 rajiid spread of his doctrine through the Roman world, the 
 vast number of converts made in a short time, the persecu- 
 tions wdiich 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, C'*^ 
 wanting in the century immediately following upon the 
 death of Christ, declare these things to us, and establi!?h,
 
 Lect. VIL truth of the scripture records. 181 
 
 so firmly that no sceptic can even profess to doubt it, the 
 historical character of (at least) that primary groundwork 
 whereott 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 ; (-^^ 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 fiilly and with admirable ai-gumenta- 
 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 veiy 
 much weight to these testimonies of adversaries on account 
 of their scant number and brevity ; and if it be ui'ged, that 
 sujiposing the l^ew Testament narrative to be true, we 
 should have expected fir 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 Galho, his doctrines; that 
 the observant Pausanias, the voluminous Plutarch, the 
 
 16
 
 182 HlSTORICxVL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIT. 
 
 copious Dio, tlie exact Arriaii, should have made fre- 
 quent mention of Christianity in their writings, instead 
 of ahnost wholly ignoring it ; (~) 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 — wdiether in fact it is not 
 a forced ami studied reticence — a reticence so fir from 
 being indicative of ignorance that it implies only too much 
 knowledge, having its origin in a feeling that it was 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 suflfered to escape him on the painful subject; he 
 is too jealous of his gods' honor to allow that there are any 
 Avho 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 mart}'rs, of their marked 
 contempt of death and general indiflerence to worldly 
 things — he must, one would think, as a Stoic, have been 
 moved w^ith 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, (®) sufficiently indicates his knowledge ; the entire
 
 Lect. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 183 
 
 silence, except in this passage, '^^) 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 find 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 Xew Testament 
 narrative adducible from heathen writers of the first and 
 second centuries. C^*^) 
 
 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 Judaea but a few years 
 before his own birth, and which a large and increasing sect 
 beUeved to possess a supernatural character. Jesus of 
 Xazareth was, liumanly speaking, at least as considerable a 
 personage as John the Baptist, and 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 EVIDENXES 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 ;(^^) he had probably witnessed the tmiinlts excited 
 against St. Paul by his enemies at Jerusalem;^ he knew 
 of the irregular proceedings against " James the Lord's 
 brother ;"-(^2) he must have been well acquainted with the 
 various persecutions which the Christians had undergone 
 at the hands of both Jews and heathen ; (^^^ 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 liis 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," (^"^^ 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 
 tviU not enter upon a subject which excites his fears, (^^^ 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 wdiich 
 remains to us, we must not overlook the probability that 
 much evidence of tliis 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, (1^) were with an unwise zeal destroyed by the first 
 Christian Emperors. (^^^ Other testimony of the greatest 
 importance has perished by tlie ravages of time. It seems 
 
 1 Acts xxi. 27, et seqq. ; xxii. 22, 23 ; xxiii. 10. ^ q^I. i. 19.
 
 Lect. Vll. TilL'TH 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 anudes,(^^^ 
 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- 
 fonned upon the lame, the dumb, and the blind, his cleans- 
 ing of lepers, and his raising of the dead.C^^) 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 Xew 
 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 Xew Testament narrative properly belongs, was 
 
 16*
 
 186 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF 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 Rome. 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 Avhich 
 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^ wdiich 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 ; Avhile Jewish and Roman customs, JcAvish and 
 Roman words, were simultaneously hi 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 OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 187 
 
 neighboring teriitoiy. These facts we know from Jose- 
 phusC^o) and other writers, who, though less accurate, on 
 the wliole confirm his statements ;(~^) 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. (~~) 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 Ilerod the Great,^ — the partition of his dominions 
 among his sons," — the reduction of JudaBa to the condition 
 of a Roman province, while Galilee, Itursea, and Trachonitis 
 continued under native princes,'^ — the restoration of the old 
 kingdom of Palestine in the person of Agrippa the First,"* 
 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.^^C^^) Again, the New Testament 
 narrative exhibits in the most remarkable way the mixture 
 in the government — the occasional jDower of the president 
 of Syria, as shown in Cyrenius's "taxing;'"" 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"^ and the "didrachm ;"" 
 
 » Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. 5. 
 
 2 Ibid. ii. 22, and xiv. 1 ; Luke iii. 1. 
 
 ^ Luke iii. 1, et passim. 4 Acts xii. 1, et seqq. 
 
 ^ Ibid, xxiii. 24 ; xxiv. 27, &e. ^ j^i^j^ ^xv. 14, et seqq, 
 
 ' Luke ii. 2. Compare Acts v. 37. 
 
 ^ Matt, xxvii. 1, 2 ; Acts xxii. 30 ; xxiii. 1-10. 
 
 s Ibid. xxii. 17. >'' Ibid. xvii. 24.
 
 188 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VII. 
 
 of two tribunals/ two modes of capital punishment, (^^^ two 
 military forces,^ two methods of marking time ;''^ 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 xe^Tu^/w^,'* Icyeo'jp^^ rcQanbi^ior^ y.ovGTOi- 
 dl(xj y.Tji'ooc,^ y.od()U)'j7]g^^ diji'aoioi'^^ uugu(jioi'^^^ Gn'by.ovkuiMQ^^'^ 
 q}()uyell(i)auQ,^''^ and the like, (^5) with such Hebraisms as 
 xoo3ui'^^ ()(/.8§ovv'i^^^ dvo dvo^^ nouaval rc^uauxl^^^ ro ^diluy/uu 
 
 » John xviii. 28, 3'2, &c. « ^att. xxvii. 64, 65. » Luke iii. I. 
 
 "^ Lat. centurio = 'Exig. "centurion." (Mark xv. 39, 44, 45.) 
 
 ^ Lat. %io = Eng. "legion." (Matt. xxvi. 53; Mark v. 9; Luke 
 
 viii. 30.) 
 
 ^ hat. prfetorium, translated "common hall" in Matt, xxvii. 27; 
 
 "judgment hall," or "hall of judgment," in John xviii. 28, 33; 
 
 xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; "palace," in Phil. i. 13; "pratorium," in 
 
 Mark xv. 16. 
 
 ' Lat. custodia = 'Eng. "watch," (Matt, xxvii. 65, 66; xxviii. 11.) 
 ^ Lat. ce7istis = 'Eiig. "tribute." (Matt. xvii. 25 ; xxii. 17, 19 ; Mark 
 
 xii. 14.) 
 
 ^ I^at. qttadraiis ^=Bng. "farthing." (Matt. v. 26; Mark xii. 42.) 
 *" Lat. dsnarius =F^ng. "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.) 
 
 '^ Lat. assart us =Eng. "farthing." (Matt. x. 29 ; Luke xii. 6.) 
 
 '^ Lat. S2)cculato)- = 'Eng. " executioner." (Mark vi. 27.) 
 
 ^^ A participle of the verb (ppayiUovv, formed from the Latin verb/of7- 
 
 ellare = to scourge, or from the noun flagellum ;= a scourge. It is 
 
 translated, "when he had scourged." (Matt, xxvii. 26 ; ISIark xv. 15.) 
 '" Hcb. IJIp = " corban." (Mark vii. 11.) 
 ^^ Rabboni, John xx. 16, translated "Lord" in Mark x. 51. 
 ^^ Literally, "two, two;" translated "by tMo and two" in Mark 
 
 vi. 7. The repetition is a Hebraism. 
 
 ''' Literally, *• onion-beds, onion-beds," that is, " in squares," like a
 
 Lect. VII. truth of the scripture records. 189 
 
 7Tj,' iQ7]fii!j(}eo);^^ (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 Xew 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 wickedness, not only of the 
 mass of the people, but even of the rulers and chief men, is 
 asserted by Josephus in the strongest terms ;('2^) while at 
 the same time he testifies to the existence among them of 
 a species of zeal for religion — a readiness to attend the 
 feasts, (2^) a regularity in the offering of sacrifice, ('^^^ 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 anned 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; tran.slated " by compai:iies." (Mark vi. 40.) The repeti- 
 tion is Hebraistic, as in the previous instance. 
 
 * "The abomination of desolation." (Matt. xxiv. 15 ; Mark xiii. 14.] 
 Borrowed from Dan. xi. 31 ; xii. 11. 
 
 2 Acts vi. 14.
 
 190 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LeCT. VII. 
 
 came to fall upon him and despatch him with their 
 weapons, (^i) breathes the identical spirit of that against St. 
 Paul, which the promptness of the chief captain Lysias 
 alone frustrated.^ Many such close resemblances have been 
 pointed out. (^-^ We find from Josephus that there was a 
 warm controversy among the Jews themselves as to the 
 lawfulness of "giving tribute to Caesar ;" ^ C^^) that the 
 Samaritans were so hostile to such of the Galilaeans as 
 had their "flices set to go to Jerusalem,"^ that, on one 
 occasion at least, they fell upon those who were journepng 
 through their land to attend a feast, and murdered a large 
 number ; C^"*) that the Pharisees and Sadducees were noted 
 sects, distinguished by the tenets which in Scripture are 
 assigned to them ; (^^) 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 ;(36) 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 
 Avas about to rise up in the East, of their own race and 
 country. (3~) This last fact is confirmed by both Sue- 
 tonius (^^) and Tacitus, (^^^ and is one which even Strauss 
 does not venture to dispute. ('^^^ 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. C^^) 
 
 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 
 
 ' Acts xxiii. 12-31. ^ ^yjatt. xxii. 17. ^ Luke ix. 51.
 
 Lect. VII. truth of 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.^ The 
 city "full of idols" (y.uTel()oilo;)^ — in "gold, and silver, and 
 marble, graven by art and man's device,"^ recalls the 
 Tiolig ohj ^uijiid;^ oItj dunu Beotz xul u.v6.6riua. * of Xenophon, ("*-) 
 the "Athenae simulachra deorum hominumque habentes, 
 omni genere et materiae et artium insignia " ^ of Livy. (^^^ 
 The people — "Athenians and strangers^ spending their 
 time in nothing else but hearing or telling of some new 
 tiling"^ — philosophizing and disputing on Mars' Hill and 
 in the market-place,'' glad to discuss though disinclined to 
 
 ' Acts xvii. 15, et seqq. ^ ji^i^^ xvii. 16. ^ Ibid, verse 29. 
 
 • ^ The whole city is an altar — the whole a sacrifice to the gods and an 
 oblation. 
 
 * Athens, -which has famous images of gods and men, of every variety 
 both of material and style of art. 
 
 ^ Acts xvii. 21. ' Ibid, verse 17.
 
 192 mSTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VII. 
 
 believe/ and yet religious withal, standing in honorable 
 contrast with the other Greeks in respect of their reverence 
 for 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. C'^'*) Again, how 
 striking and how thoroughly classical is the account of the 
 tumult at Ephesus,^ where almost every word receives 
 illustration from ancient coins and inscriptions, (^^) as has 
 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 (^^^ — the 
 provincial administration by proconsuls and others chiefly 
 anxious that tumults should be prevented C'^^) — the con- 
 temptuous religious tolerance C**^^ — 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"^('*^) — the privileges of 
 Roman citizenship, sometimes acquired by birth, sometimes 
 by purchase (^^^ — the right of appeal possessed and exer- 
 cised by the provincials (^^^ — the treatment of prisoners (^^^ 
 — the peculiar manner of chaining them C^^) — the employ- 
 ment of soldiers as their guards (^"^^ — the examination by 
 torture (^^) — the punishment of condemned persons, not 
 being Roman citizens, by scourging and crucifixion (^^^ — 
 the manner of this punishment (^'') — the practice of bearing 
 the cross, ^^^) of aflixing a title or superscription, C^^) of pla- 
 cing soldiers under a centurion to watch the carrying into 
 effect of the sentence, (*^^) of giving the garments of the 
 sufferer te these persons, (^^) of allowing the bodies after 
 
 1 Acta vyii. 32, 33. ^ Ibid, verse 22. 
 
 3 Ibv'-* --:>• ?s, pt peqq. •* Ibid. xxv. 16.
 
 Lfxt. VIL TRUTH OF THE SCEIi'TUaE RECORDS. 1'J3 
 
 death to be buried bj the frieridst^^) — and the likel 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- (^^^ 
 
 Again, it has been with reason remarked, C^"*) that the 
 condition of the Jews beyond the limits of Palestine is 
 represented by the EvangeUcal winters 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 Rome, Cretej, 
 and Arabians," ^ 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 but has a large body 
 of Jewish residents. (^^^ Compare with these representa- 
 tions the statements of Agrippa the First in his letter to 
 CaUgula, as reported by the Jewish writer, Philo. " The 
 holy city, the place of my nativity," he says, "is the 
 metropolis, not of Jud^a 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 or 
 
 ^ Actsii. 9-1 L 
 17
 
 194 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OE THE Lect. VTL 
 
 Egyj3t, Phoenicia, Syria, and Ccelesyria — some to more dis- 
 tant regions, as Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia as far as Bithynia 
 and the recesses of Pontus ; and in Europe, Thessaly, 
 Boeotia, Macedonia, iEtolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, together 
 with the most famous of the islands, Euboea, 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." C^^) 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." C*^") 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 ; (^^) 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,^ is plain from many authors ; (*^^) 
 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 ; ^"^^^ that at Rome they consisted in great part of 
 freedmen or "Libertines" — whence "the synagogue of 
 the Libertines"^ — may be gathered from Philo C^^) and 
 Tacitus. (^^) Their feelings towards the apostolic preachers 
 ' Acts xvi. 13. 2 ll^l^j^^ ^i. 9.
 
 LecT. VII. TRUTH OP^ THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 195 
 
 are such as Ave should expect from persons whose close 
 contact with those of a difierent 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. (~^) 
 
 XL 1 proceed now to consider the second of the three 
 heads under w^hich 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 Agrii)pa the second — the Roman gov- 
 ernors, C}Tenius (or Quirinus,) Pontius Pilate, Sergius 
 Paulus, Gallio, Festus, and Felix — and the Greek tetrarch, 
 Lysanias. 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 placing the commence- 
 ment of our Lord's ministry in the fifteenth year of Tibe- 
 rius^ and assigning to its duration a short term — probably 
 
 "' Luke iii. 1.
 
 19o HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIL 
 
 three years — is in accord with Tacitus, who makes Christ 
 suffer under Tiberius 0"^) — and that the birth of our Lord 
 under Augustus,^ and the accession before the second jour- 
 ney of St. Paul of Chiudius,- are in harmony Avith the date 
 obtainable from St. Luke for the crucihxion, 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 profane writers, no difficulty of any 
 real importance. 0^) 
 
 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,"^ who, as the 
 father of Archelaus,'* may be identified with the first monarch 
 of the name, the son of Antipater, the Idumsean. (-"^^^ This 
 monarch is known to have reigned in Palestine contempo- 
 raneously w^ith Augustus, who confirmed him in his king- 
 dom, 0'^) and of whom he held the sovereignty till his 
 decease. (~®^ Canning, suspicion, and cruelty are the chief 
 traits of his character as depicted in Scripture, and these 
 are among his most marked characteristics in Josephus. (^^) 
 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. ^ Acts xviii. 2. 
 
 3 Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. 5. '^ Ibid. ii. 22.
 
 Lect. VII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTUKE RECORDS. 197 
 
 child ; (^^^ but this keen and suspicious foresight, where his 
 own interests were (as he thought) concerned, is quite in 
 keeping with the i-epresentations 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 ;C^^) scepti. 
 cism has nothing to urge against it except the silence 
 of the Jemsh writers, which is a weak argument, and one 
 outweighed, in my judgment, by the testimony, albeit 
 somewhat late, and perhaps inaccurate, of Macrobius. C^^) 
 
 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 JudaBa, 
 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. (^"^^ St. 
 Matthew mentions the succession of Archelaus in Judaea, 
 and implies that he did not reign in Galilee;^ St. Luke 
 records Philip's tetrarchy ; ^ 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 
 hated by the other members of his family, (^^) and that 
 shortly after his father's death he slew three thousand 
 Jews on occasion of a tumult at Jerusalem. (^^^ The first 
 three Evangelists agree as to the character of Herod 
 Antipas, which is weak rather tlian cruel or bloodthirsty; 
 and their portraiture is granted to be "not inconsistent with 
 
 1 Matt. ii. 22. 2 Luke iii. 1. ^ jbid. : Matt. xiv. L 
 
 17^
 
 198 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VII. 
 
 his character, as gathered from other sources." C^^) The 
 facts of his adultery with Herodias, the wife of one of his 
 brothers, (^^) and of his execution of John the Baptist for no 
 crime that could be alleged against him, t^^^) 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, (^o) 
 
 The continuance of the tetrarchy of Philip beyond the 
 fifteenth, and that of Antipas beyond the eighteenth of 
 Tiberius, is confirmed by Josephus, (^^^ who also shows that 
 the ethnarchy of Archelaus came speedily to an end, and 
 that Judaea was then reduced to the condition of a Roman 
 province, and governed for a considerable space by Procu- 
 rators. (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. (^^^ It cannot be 
 doubted that this person is the " Herod the king " of the 
 Acts,^ whose persecution of the Church, whose impious 
 pride, and whose miserable death are related at length by 
 the sacred historian. My hearers are probably fimiliar 
 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. C^^) Nowhere 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. 
 
 * Acts xii. 1.
 
 LeCT. VII. TRUTfl OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 199 
 
 On the death of Herod Agrippa, Judaea (as Josephus 
 informs us) became once more a Roman province under 
 Procurators ; (9^) 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. C^^) This prince is evidently the "king Agrippa" 
 before whom St. Paul pleaded his cause.^ The Bernice 
 who is mentioned as accompanying him on his visit to Fes- 
 tus,^ was his sister, who lived with him and commonly 
 accompanied him upon his journeys. (^~) Besides his sep- 
 arate sovereignty, he had received from the Emperor a 
 species of ecclesiastical supremacy in Judsea, where he had 
 the superintendence of the temple, the direction of the 
 sacred treasury, and the right of nominating the High 
 Priests. (9^) These circumstances account sufficiently for 
 his visit to Judas a, and explain the anxiety of Festus that 
 he should hear St. Paul, and St. Paul's wilUngness 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, C^^) 
 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) ^he cruelty, injustice, and rapacity of Felix, (i^i) 
 and the comparatively equitable and mild character of Fes- 
 tus, C^^^) aj.g apparent in the Jewish historian; and have 
 some sanction from other writers, (^o*^) The character of 
 GalUo, proconsul of Achaia (i^^) 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- 
 tius, who speak of him as "delightful" or " charming." (^^^^ 
 
 ' Acts XXV. 13, et seqq. ^ Ibid.
 
 200 HISTORICAL EVIDEiNCES OF THE LSCT. Vll, 
 
 Of Quirinus (or Cp-enius) it is enough to say that he was 
 President of Syria shortly after the deposition of Arche- 
 lans, and that he was certainly sent to effect a "-taxing" or 
 enrolment of all persons within his province, Palestine 
 included. (i^^> Sergius Paulus is unknown to us except 
 from St. Luke's account of him;* but his name is one which 
 was certainly borne by Romans of this periody(^^) and his 
 office is designated correctly. (^"^^ 
 
 The Greek tetrarch, Lysanias, is the only civil governor 
 mentioned in the Xew Testament about whom there is any 
 real difficulty. A Lysanias held certainly a government in 
 these parts in the time of Antony ; (1^9) but this person was 
 put to death more than thirty years before the birth of 
 Christ, (^^o> 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^^') But, on the other hand, it is allowed that a 
 second Lysanias might have existed without obtaining men- 
 tion from profane Avriters ; C^^^) ^nd 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 iirst 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. (1^^) 
 
 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 focts are the "decree from Caesar 
 
 * Acts xiii, 7-12.
 
 Lect. Vll. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 201 
 
 Augustus that all the world should be taxed "^ — 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'' — the death of Herod 
 Agrippa — the famine in the days of Claudius"* — and the 
 "uproar" of the Egyptian who '-led out into the wilderness 
 four thousand men that were murderers."'^ Of these events 
 almost one half have been already shown to have been 
 recorded by profline writers whose works are still ex- 
 tant. C^i-^) 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 ;(^^^) but as the opposite view is main- 
 tained by Savigny(^^*^) — 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,(i^^) and 
 seems to speak of this as the first occasion on which his 
 countrymen were compelled to submit to this ])adge of sub- 
 jection. It is argued that this must 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 he consequently misdated by a decade of 
 years, (ii''^) But the meaning of the passage in St. Luke is 
 doubtful in the extreme ; and it admits of several explana- 
 
 » Luke ii. 1 . '^ Ibid, verse 2. '^ Acts v. 36, 37. 
 
 ^ Ibid. xi. 28. ^ Ibid. xxi. 38.
 
 202 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VII. 
 
 tions which reconcile it with all that Josephus says. (^^^) 
 Perhaps the best explanation is that of Whiston (^^o) and 
 Prideaux (i^^) — that the design of Augustus was first fully 
 executed {lyiveTo) 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,^ 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^ ^ This account harmonizes well with 
 that of Josephus, who regards the followers of Judas as 
 numerous enough to constitute a sect, (^^^^ and notes their 
 reappearance in tlie course of the last war with Rome, by 
 which it is shown that though scattered they had not 
 ceased to exist, (i^^) 
 
 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, (^^^^ who raised 
 troubles in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, about ten 
 years after Gamaliel made his speech. There were, as 
 Josephus says, (^^^^ " 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 sam.e name. Nor can it be consid- 
 ered surprising that Josephus has passed over the earlier 
 Theudas, since his followers were only four hundred, and 
 
 ^ Acts V. 37. ^ Ibid, versa 36.
 
 Lect. ml truth of the scripture records. 20B 
 
 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, (i-^) the only 
 noticeable difference between his account and that of St. 
 Luke being that Josephus in his j^resent text calls the 
 number of this impostoi-'s followers thirty thousand. From 
 internal evidence there is reason to think that rgiafivgioi is 
 a corrupt reading; (^^^^ 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 ^^hr ought from the wilderness" to attack 
 Jerusalem. 
 
 The " famine in the days of Claudius " ^ 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, (i^^) 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.^ 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 Xew Testament, while in its main narrative 
 it treats of events with which heathen writers were not likely 
 to concern themselves, and which they could not represent 
 truly, contains — inextricably interwoven ^-ith that main 
 narrative — a vast body of incidental allusions to the civij 
 
 1 Acts xxi. 38. ' Ibid. xi. 28. ^ Ibid, verses 29, 30.
 
 204 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF 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 infolli- 
 ble ; and 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." (^^o) jf [^i 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, (^^^^ 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
 
 Lkct. VII. TRL'TH OF THE SCPJPTCRE RECORDS. 205 
 
 upou mankind a tale \diich they knew to be false, and to 
 have aimed at obtaining credit for their fiction by elaborate 
 attention to these minuticT. 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." (i^^) " 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 does not yield his assent to them, he contemns 
 those who were partners of- tiie Lord, he contemns Christ 
 himself, he contemns also the Father." ^(i^^) 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 Evangelic continetur." " Ab hoc, qui Evange- 
 lista esse meruit, vel negligentiae vel mendacii suspicionem aequutn est 
 propulsari." •• Evangelistai haouerunt perfectam agnitionem . . . qui- 
 bus si quis non assentic. sp^rni*- quidem participes Domini, spernit et 
 ipsum Christum, sperriit pt P;';-~em." 
 
 18
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE PHARISEES THEREFORE SAID UNTO HIM, THOU BEAREST RECORD OF 
 thyself; thy record is not true. JESUS ANSWERED AND SAID 
 UNTO THEM, THOUGH I BEAR RECORD OF MYSELF, YET MY RECORD IS 
 TRUE. — JOHN VIII. 13,14. 
 
 If the evidence from profiine sources to the primary 
 facts of the New Testament narrative be, as was admitted 
 in the last Lecture, disappointingly scanty, the defect is 
 more than made up to us by the copious abundance of 
 those notices which early Christian writers have left us of 
 the whole series of occurrences forming the basis of our 
 Religion. It has been customary with Christian apologists 
 tQ dwell more especially on the profane testimony, despite 
 its scantiness — doubtless because it has been felt that a 
 certain amount of suspicion is regarded -as attaching to 
 those who " bear record of themselves," and that the evi- 
 dence of Christian witnesses to the truth of Christianity is 
 in some degree a record of this nature. But our Lord'vS 
 words teach us that self-witness, however unconvincing to 
 the adversary, may be valid and true; and certainly it 
 is difficult to conceive how the full acceptance of the 
 Christian facts, and conformity of the profession and life 
 thereto, renders a witness unworthy of belief, whose testi- 
 mony would have been regarded as of the highest value if 
 he had stopped short of such acceptance, and while admit- 
 ting the facts to a certain extent had remained a Heathen 
 
 (206)
 
 Lect. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 207 
 
 or a Jew. Had Justin Martyr, for instance, when he in- 
 quired into Christianity, found the evidence for it such as 
 he could resist, and lived and died a Platonic philosopher, 
 instead of renouncing all for Christ and linally sealing his 
 testimony with his blood, what a value would have been 
 set upon any recognition in his writings of the life and 
 miracles of Christ or the sufferings of the early Christians ! 
 It is difficult to see why he deserves less credit, because he 
 found the evidences for the Christian doctrine so strong 
 that he felt compelled to become a believer. C^) At any 
 rate, if for controversial purposes the argument derivable 
 from the testimony of Christians be viewed as weak, it 
 must possess a weight for those who believe far exceeding 
 that of the witness of Jews and Heathens, and must there- 
 fore deserve a place in any summary that is made of the 
 Historical Evidences to the truth of the Christian Religion. 
 It has been sometimes urged that the early Christians 
 were persons of such low rank and station, so wanting in 
 refinement, education, and that critical discernment which 
 is requisite to enable men fairly to judge of the claims of a 
 new religion, that their decision in favor of Christianity is 
 entitled to Httle respect — since they must have been quite 
 unable to appreciate the true value of its evidences. C^) 
 This objection claims to base itself on certain admissions 
 of the earhest Christian preachers themselves, who remark 
 that " not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, 
 not many noble, were called." ^ But such expressions are 
 not to be pressed too far. In their very letter they do but 
 declare the general condition of the converts ; while they 
 imply that there were, even in the first times, some excep- 
 tions — persons to whom the terms, " wise men after the 
 flesh, mighty, and noble," might have been properly ap- 
 
 » 1 Cor. i. 26,
 
 208 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VIll. 
 
 plied ; and the examples of St, Paul himself, of Dionysius 
 the Areopagite, of the Ethiopian eunuch, of "Erastus the 
 chamberlain of the city," ^ and of the cor rerts from " Caesar's 
 household," ^ are sufficient to show ths.t the Gospel found 
 its own in every rank and grade of society, and if it was 
 embraced most readily by the poor and despised, still 
 gathered to it "chosen vessels"^ from among the educated, 
 and occasionally from among the rich and great. The 
 early Christians furnished, for their number, a considera- 
 ble body of writers ; and these writers will bear compari- 
 son in respect of every intellectual qualification with the 
 best Heathen authors of the period. Justin Martyr, Athe- 
 nagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, would hJXve been 
 reckoned authors of eminence, had they not been " Fathers," 
 and are at least as good evidence for the historical facts of 
 the age immediately preceding their own, as Tacitus, Sue- 
 tonius, and Dio. It will be my object in the present 
 Lecture to show that these writers, and others of the same 
 age or even earlier, bear copious witness to the facts re- 
 corded in the historical books of the New Testament, and 
 are plainly as convinced of their reality as of that of any 
 facts whatever which they have occasion to mention. 
 
 The Epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas by Clement of 
 Alexandria (^) and Origen, (^^ whether really the work of 
 that person or no, is at any rate one of the most ancient of 
 the uninspired Christian writings, belonging as it does to 
 the first, or to the early part of the second century. (^^ 
 The writer's object is to explain the spiritual meaning of 
 the Old Testament ; and in the course of his exposition he 
 mentions as undoubted facts the miracles of Christ — his 
 appointment of his apostles — their number, twelve — his 
 scourging — his being smitten on the face — his being set 
 
 1 Rom. xvi. 23. ^ phQipp. iv. 22. = Acts ix. 15.
 
 Lect. VIII TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS, 209 
 
 at nought and jested u])on — his being arrayed in a scarlet 
 robe — his crucifixion — his receiving gall and vinegar to 
 drink — his death — the casting of lots upon his garment — 
 his resurrection on the first day of the week — and his 
 final ascension into heaven, C^'^ 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, (^) This 
 work was certainly composed in the fii-st centmy, before 
 some of the writings of St. John ; and its author, the 
 " fellow-laborer " of St, PauV must have had frequent com- 
 munication with those who had witnessed the great events 
 in Judaea which formed the foundation of the new relio-ion. 
 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 suiferings, 
 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 suiferings of vSt. Peter, the 
 hardships endured by St. Paul, his distant travels, his many 
 imprisonments, his flights, his stoning, his bonds, his tetti- 
 mony before rulers. (^) The fact of St. Paul's having 
 written an Epistle to the Corinthians is also asserted ; (^^ 
 and an allusion is made, in connection with that Epistle, to 
 the early troubles and divisions which the great Apostle 
 
 ' Philipp. iv. 3. 
 18*
 
 210 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. VIII. 
 
 had composed, when the several sections of the newly- 
 planted Church strove together in a jealous spirit, affirming 
 themselves to be " of Paul," or " of Apollos," or " of 
 Cephas," or even " of Christ." 
 
 Ignatius, second Bishop of Antioch, who succeeded to 
 that see in about the year of the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem, (1^) and was martyred nearly forty years later, A. D. 
 107, (11) left behind him certain vmtings, 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, (1^) 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 fonn, as genuine, (i^) They are identical with 
 the seven mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, C^-*) 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. (^^^ If wo
 
 Lect. Vin. TRUTH OF 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, (^^) 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"^ — 
 his appeals to the Prophets — the anointing of his head 
 with ointment — his sufierings 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 — his 
 appearance to his disciples and command to them to "han- 
 dle him and see"^ that he was not a sj^irit — 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. (^^^ If, on the contrary, we confine ourselves 
 to the Syriac version — by which the entire writings of St. 
 Ignatius are comj^rised in about five pages (^^^ — Ave lose the 
 greater portion of these testimonies, but we still retain those 
 to the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary — his manifestar 
 tion by a star — his many sufierings — 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 Ej^istle, addressed to the Philippians, which we possess 
 in the original Greek, with the exception of three or four 
 
 1 Matt. iii. 15. 2 j^^^ ^xiv. 39.
 
 212 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIII. 
 
 sections, where the Greek text is wanting, and we have 
 only a Latin version. (^^) 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 suiferings, death upon 
 the cross, resurrection, and ascension to heaven ; his prom- 
 ise to " raise uj) his disciples at the last day " ^ — 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. C^^) We also learn from Irenaeus 
 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. (^^) 
 
 A work of the first or earlier half of the second century 
 has come down to us under the name of "The Shepherd of 
 Hernias." Eusebius and Jerome ascribe it to the Hennas 
 who is saluted by St. Paul at the end of his Epistle to the 
 Romans ;(^^) but there are reasons for assigning it to a later 
 Hennas — the brother of Pius, wdio was the ninth bishop 
 of Rome. (^3) 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 pur})ose of spreading the trutli over the world, 
 and the sufferings to which they were exposed in conse- 
 quence ;(24) 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 oi 
 Christianity addressed to the Heathen, which he seems to 
 have presented to the Emperor Adrian (^^ 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." C^^) 
 
 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 Trjqjhon" — 
 an elaborate controversial work, defensive of Christianity 
 from the 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^^) It 
 has been truly observed, that from the writings of this 
 Father — "the earhest, of whose works we possess any con- 
 siderable remains "(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." (^^) Justin 
 declares the marriage of Mary and Joseph — their descent 
 from David — the miraculous conception of Christ — the
 
 214 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIII. 
 
 intention of Joseph to pnt 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 
 for 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 
 X)f the apostles afterwards — the descent of the Holy Ghost
 
 Lect. \^ii. truth of the scripture records. 215 
 
 — the conversion of the Gentiles — the rapid spread of the 
 Gospel through all lands. (^^) No one can pretend to doubt 
 but that in Justin's time the facts of the Xew 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 fomi the basis 
 of the Christian Religion, but who also testify explicitly 
 to the univei'sal rece2:)tion among Christians of that narra- 
 tive of the facts Mdiich we possess in the New Testament 
 
 — a narrative which, as was shown in the last Lecture, (^^^ 
 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 GosjdcIs and the Acts, 
 regarding them as real and actual occuiTcnces, and appeal- 
 ing to profane history for their confiraaation in various most 
 itnportant 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 fimi 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
 
 21G HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIII. 
 
 throw every possible doubt upon tliem, and to maintain 
 that forgery and interpolation have so vitiated this source 
 of knowledge as to render it altogether untrustworthy. C^-"?) 
 The efforts 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 C34) — to the monumental 
 rem.a,ins of early Christian times v^hich 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, vfbicb 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 before us with a vividness which 
 makes all other representations appear dull and tame, so 
 when we descend into the Catacombs of Rome w^e seem to 
 %ee the struggling persecuted community, which there, " in 
 dens and eaves of the earth,"* 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 Rome, of Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon -— 
 
 ' Heb. xL 3S.
 
 Lect. VIIL truth of the scripture records. '211 
 
 but even ventured to s})eMk 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. (^^) 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 
 Cliurch 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 few 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 firet 
 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. VIIL 
 
 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 ! i^^^ The Roman 
 Christians, it will be remembered, are called by Tacitus " a 
 vast multitude " — (ingens multitudo) — in the time of 
 Nero ; O*^^) by the age of Valerian they are reckoned at one 
 half the population of the city ; C^^) 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 (^^) — 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 aiford proof of the 
 dangers 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 Uquid, 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 C'*^) — we may 
 find in the Catacombs a good deal of testimony confiima- 
 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 enonnously 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 Clmstians were massacred. 
 Further, the word MartjT 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. ("^^^ 
 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 obt?in burial at the hands of friends or 
 relatives? Still at the end they shine like stars in Heaven. 
 A poor hfe is his, who has lived in Christian times ! " ^ C^^) 
 
 Again, the Catacombs furnish a certain amount of evi- 
 dence with respect to the belief of the early Christians. 
 
 ^ "O tempora infausta! quihus inter sacra et vota ne in cavernis 
 quidem salvari possimus. Quid miserius vita ? Sed quid reiserius in 
 morte, cum ab amicis et parentibus sepeliri nequeant ? Tandem lit. 
 coelo coruscant I Parum vixit qui vixit in Christianis temporibus."
 
 220 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIII. 
 
 The doctrine of the resurrection is impUed or expressed on 
 almost every tombstone which has been discovered. The 
 Christian is not dead — he " rests " or " sleeps " — he is not 
 buried, but " deposited'''' in his grave (^^^ — and he is always 
 "at peace," [in pace^ The survivors do not mourn his loss 
 despairingly, but express trust, resignation, or moderate 
 grief. ('''^^ The Anchor, indicative of the Christian's " sure 
 and certain hope," is a common emblem ; and the Phcenix 
 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 jSTew Testament, treated in a uniform and 
 conventional way, but clearly expressive of belief in the 
 facts thus represented. The Temptation of Eve — Moses 
 strikino: the rock — Noah welcomins: 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. (^^^ 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.^ 
 
 » Matt. xiv. 19.
 
 Lect. VIII. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 221 
 
 The parabolic teaching of oar Lord is sometimes em- 
 bodied 1)}' 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 accej^ted without inquiry, or at least 
 withoiit 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 ha^e allowed themselves to be car- 
 ried away by the arts of pretenders, where such weakness 
 would ha\'e 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.C"^^) The Romans, and still more 
 the Greeks, had plenty of shrewdness ; and there was 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 
 
 19 *
 
 222 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. VIIL 
 
 the early times. It meant the severing of family and social 
 ties — the renmiciation 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." ^ "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."('*^) Before accepting such a i30sition, we may be 
 well assured that each convert 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." ^ Yet 
 after a while Dionysius and others " clave to Paul and be- 
 lieved"^ — 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."* 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 ^ — then all who fell asleeji in 
 
 1 1 Cor. XV. 31. 2 ^cts xvii. 32. ^ Ibid, verse 34. 
 
 4 1 Cor. XV. 19. ^ Ibid, verse 14.
 
 Lect. VIU. truth of the scripture records. 223 
 
 Christ perished.^ The Christian was taught to base his 
 hoj^e 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 " - which Christ had wrought, 
 and preeminently of his resurrection. These preachers per- 
 suaded, not merely by their evident truthfulness and sinr 
 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 martp'- 
 dom, " expected that he would communicate to them some 
 spiritual gift." ^'^^^ Papias related various miracles as having 
 happened in his own lifetime — among others that a dead 
 man had been restored to Hfe.^^^) Justin Martyr declares 
 very simply that in his day both men and women were 
 found who possessed miraculous powers. (^^^ Quadratus, the 
 Apologist, is mentioned by a writer of the second century 
 as exercising them. (^^^ Irenaeus speaks of miracles as still 
 common in Gaul when he wrote, C^^) which was nearly at 
 the close of the second centuiy. 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. C-^^) Thus the existence of these 
 powers was contemporaneous with the great spread of the 
 Gospel; and it accounts for that speedy conversion of 
 
 ' 1 Cor. XV, 18, 2 jyiark vi. 2.
 
 224 HISTORICAL p:vii)ences op the Lect. vni. 
 
 thousands upon thousands — that rapid groAvth of the 
 Church in all quarters — which would be otherwise so 
 astonishing. The vast number of the early conveits and 
 the possession of miraculous j^owers — which are both 
 asserted by the primitive writers (^^) — 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- 
 ceit 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 tlie mere confirma- 
 tion by early uninspired writers of the Sacred Narrative. 
 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 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, wlien it assigns 
 specia] weight to the depositions of those who have the
 
 Lect. VIIL TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 225 
 
 prospect of immediate death before their eyes, Gtiristians 
 must be right to vakie 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 reUgion. 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 — loere martp'ed. Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, 
 Quadratus, Justin, Irengeus, 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 was 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 fiiends, 
 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 LecT. 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 Avhich 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 w^rote 
 lives of Christ were his close and intimate friends, while 
 the account of the Oarly 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 tlie 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 jjart 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 MartjTs 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, wiU 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 curnulatwe — 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 smgle respect — if we except the fiict that it is miracu- 
 lous — has that story a mythic character. It is a single 
 story, told without variation, O^^) 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 mj-thologies — 
 where tlie marvellous has ever a predominant ciiaracter of
 
 228 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. Lect. VIII. 
 
 grotesqueness, which is entirely absent from the New 
 Testament miracles. (^^) Simple earnestness, fidelity, pains- 
 taking accuracy, pure love of truth, are the most patent 
 characteristics of the New Testament writers, who evi- 
 dently deal with facts, not Avith fancies, and are employed 
 in relating a history, not in developing an idea. They 
 write " that we may know the certainty of those things " ^ 
 which were " most surely believed " ^ in their day. They 
 bear record of what they have seen,^ and assure us that 
 their " testimony is true." ^ " That which they have heard, 
 which they have seen w^ith their eyes, wdiich 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.^ And such as 
 were not eye-witnesses, deliver only " that which they also 
 received."^ 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 modern 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 life which for eighteen centuries has been the aliment 
 of humanity" is not (as Rationalism boasts) "dissipated." C^"^) 
 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"^ — 
 still " standeth sure " ^ — and every effort that is made to 
 overthrow, does but more firmly establish it. 
 
 1 Luke i. 4. ^ Ibid, verse 1. ^ John xix. 35. 
 
 * Ibid. xxi. 24. ^ 1 John i. 1-3. « 1 Cor. xv. 3. 
 
 ' Rev. xiv. 6. ^ 2 Tim. ii. 19.
 
 IN'O TE S
 
 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. iii. 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 H., page 64. 
 
 Note H., p. 26. 
 
 This distinction was, I believe, first taken by George in his work 
 Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftliehen Entwicklung dieser 
 Begriffe und ihres Verhaltnisses zum christlichen Glauben. It is adopted 
 by Strauss, (^Leben Jesu, Emleitung, § 10 ; vol. i. pp. 41-3, Chapman's 
 Translation,) who thus distinguishes the two: ^^ Mythus 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." (Emleitung 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 
 abstract 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." 
 
 (231)
 
 232 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 apologies 
 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 eredtdity increase as they are further removed 
 from the time and place of his spiritual exploits." Decline and Fall, 
 Vol. V. ch. 1. p. 210. Compare with this acknowledgment on the part 
 c)f an enemy of Christianity, the similar statements of its defenders. 
 (Butler, Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. ; Paley, Evidences, Part II. ch. ix. 
 § 3 ; White, Batnpfon Lectures, Sermon vi. p. 254 ; Forster, Mahome- 
 tanism Unveiled, vol. i. p. 32 ; and Dr. Macbride, Mohatnmedan 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, Bohn'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. ; Palcy's Evidences, Part III. 
 ch. viii. ; and Rev. R. Michell's Bampton Lectures, Lecture iv. pp. 
 124-129. Dr. Stanley tersely expresses the contrast between the
 
 Lect. I. NOTES. 283 
 
 Christian and other religions in this respect, ^vhen he says of Chris- 
 tianity, that it "alone, of all religions, claims to be founded not on 
 fency or feeling, but on Fact and Truth." (JSitiai and Palestine, ch. 
 ii. p. loo.) 
 
 Note V., p. 27. 
 
 Butler's Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. p. 311. 
 
 Note YI., p. 28. 
 
 See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Bxjman 
 History, vol. i. Introduction, p. 2. 
 
 Note XH., p. 28. 
 
 M. de Pouilly's Dissertation sur rinceHitude et Vhistoire des guatre 
 premiers sitcles de Rome, which was published in the ninth volume 
 of the Mimoires de VAcadimie des Inscriptions, 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 do^^•n 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 ia 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 t incertitude des cinq 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 Bome, vol. i. pref. of 1826, p. \ii. E. T. ; and Lectures on Roman 
 History, vol. i. p. 148, E. T.) 
 
 Note VIIL, p. 28. 
 
 Nicbuhr's views are most fully developed m his " Roman History,'" 
 (first published in 1811-1812, and afterwards reprmted -with large 
 additions and alterations m 1827-1832,) and in his lectures on the 
 
 20*
 
 23 1 NOTES. Lect. I. 
 
 History of Rome, delivered at Bonn, and published in 1846. They 
 also appear in many of his Kleiiie 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 English dress, and are well known to stu- 
 dents. 
 
 Note IX., p. 28. 
 
 So early as 1817, Karl Otfried MuUer, in a little tract, called u^gi- 
 netica, gave promise of excellence as an historical critic. His Orcho- 
 menus und die Minyer soon followed, and established his reputation. He 
 is perhaps best kno\^'n in England by his Dorians, (published in 1824, 
 and translated into English by Mr. H. Tufnell and Sir G. C. Lewis 
 m 1830,) a work of great value, but not free from minor blemishes. 
 (See Mx. 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, (Staatshaushaltung der Athener,) published in Berlin 
 in the year 1817, and translated into English in 1828, (London, Mur- 
 ray.) But his great work is the Corjms 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 XL, 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 XH. 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, 1856, (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 XIH., 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 m the arti- 
 cles of the Apostles' Creed, taken in their grammatical sense ; w^ho 
 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." * The general orthodoxy of 
 Niebuhr with respect to the Old Testament History is plain from 
 his Lectures on Ancient History, (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 XXXYI. 
 
 Note XIV., p. 31. 
 
 Eichhom, in his examination of the Wolfenbuttel Fragments, {Re- 
 cension der Hbrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke des WolfeiibilttUschen Frag- 
 mentisten, in Eichhorn's AUgemeiner Bihliothek 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 
 
 1 Life and Letters of B. Q. JiTiebuhr, toI. ii. p. 123. Compare Letter ccxxxi. vol. ii. 
 pp. 103-5, and Letter cccxxix. vol. ii. p. 315.
 
 236 NOTES. Lect. X 
 
 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 misinterjDretation 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 Jesu, § 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 Hehraische Mytho- 
 logie des alten und neue?i 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 Alten 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; Lehen Jesu, vol. 
 I. pp. 21 and 24, E. T.) 
 
 Note XIX. p. 32. 
 
 " Tradition," saj's 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 flatters national pride, the more 
 splendid, the more honorable, the more wonderful the narrative, the 
 more acceptable it is ; and zchere traditioyi has left any blanks, imagina- 
 tion at once steps in and fills 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 Israel- 
 itischen Geschichte, Einleitung, § 10.) Compare Yater's Ahhandlung 
 ilber Moses tmd die Verfasser des Petitateuchs in the third volume of his 
 Co?nment. ilber den Pentateuch, § 660. 
 
 Note XX., p. 32. 
 
 This was the aim of the School, called technically Rationalists, in 
 Germany, of which Eichhom and Paulus were the chief leaders. See 
 Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, and Paulus's Commentar 
 ilber das neue Testaynent, and also his Lebeyi 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, Leben Jesu, § 8, vol. i. p. 29, E. T. This same view was 
 taken by De AVette, Krug, Gabler, Horst, and others. 
 
 Note XXII., p. 32. 
 
 An anonymous writer in Bertholdt's Journal (vol. v. § 23o) 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- 
 sailed," and *« accepts the whole, not indeed as true history, but as a 
 sacred legend." Strauss e\'idently approves of this reasoning. (JLeben 
 Jesu, § 8, vol. i. p. 32, E. T.)
 
 NOTES. Lect. I. 
 
 NotE XXni., p. 32. 
 
 Strauss, Lehen Jesuy Einleitung, § 4. The weakness of this argument 
 from authority is indeed allowed by Strauss himself, who admits that 
 Origen <' does not speak out freely," (p. 9,) and that ^^hisrule 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 imder his name (Origenists) 
 did so is certain ; but they are accused of interpolating his writings. 
 (See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, b. i. ch. iii., note* ad fin. vol. i. 
 p. 288, E. T.) 
 
 Smce 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,^ taxes not Origen only, but the Fathers generally, Avith 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 RosenmOller and Anton, to certain portions 
 of the Gospels ; and so limited, was acknoicledged to possess the sanction 
 of the Fathers." {Third Series 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, Lehen 
 Jesu, Einleitung, § 9, et seqq. ; Theodore Parker's Enlarged Transla- 
 
 1 Six Discourses on the Miracles of tur Saviour, published in 1727, J 728, aud 1729.
 
 LeCT. I. NOTES. 239 
 
 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 humana et divhia of the historical writings of the ancient 
 covenant." {Commentar ilber das Buck Josua, Yorwort, p. ii. " Will 
 daher die wissenschaftliche Theologie der evangelischen Kirche sich 
 wieder fest grunden, so muss sie den Rationalismus aus dem Alten 
 Testamente verdrangen, in welchem derselbe bis jetzt so festen Fuss 
 gefasst hat, dass nicht wenige tuchtige Theologen daran verzweifeln, 
 die fides /aimana et divina der historischen Schriften des altes Eundes 
 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 stand-point free from imcertainty ; " (dass sie keinen 
 objectiv sichern Grund und Standpunkt gewinnen kann. Ibid. 1. c.) 
 
 • Note XXV., p. 32. 
 
 Strauss evidently feels this difficulty, (Leben 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 Evangehcal writings were composed 
 chiefly in Greece and Italy ; and he omits to notice, that being written 
 in Greek — the literary language of the time — they addressed them- 
 selves to the enlightened circles of Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and 
 Rome 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 Rome and in 
 the various cities of Greece ; where they challenged the attention of the 
 most civilized and enlightened classes. Iij Judsea itself, if the Jews
 
 240 NOTES. Lect. I. 
 
 generally Vere 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 timis away 
 tcith 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." {Lehen Jesu, § 144, vol. iii. p. 396, 
 E. T.) 
 
 Note XXATI., p. 33. 
 
 See Bauer's Hehraische Mythologie des alten und neuen Testaments, 
 Erste Theil, Einleitung, § 3, with Gabler's criticism of it in his Journal 
 fiXr auserlesene tJieolog. Literatur, ii. 1, § 58. Compare Strauss, Leben 
 Jesu, §§ 33-43. 
 
 Note XXVni., p. 33. 
 
 Eichhorn, Einleitung in das neue Testament, § 422 ; Theile, Zur Bio- 
 graphic 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 mythus, 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. 
 
 IjebenJesu, § 151 ; vol. iii. p. 437, E. T. 
 
 Ibid. pp. 437-8. 
 
 Note XXXI., p. 34. 
 
 Note XXXH., 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 XXXIH., p. 34. 
 See above, Note XHI. 
 
 Note XXXIV., p. 35. 
 
 VortrUge ilher alte Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 158-9. <' Dass das Buch 
 Esther nicht als ein historisches zu betrachten sei, davon bin ich Ober- 
 zeugt, und ich stehe nicht im ^.lindesten an dies hiermit ofFentlich 
 auszusprechen ; Viele sind derselben Meinung. Schon die Kirchen- 
 vJiter haben sie daran geplagt, und der heilige Hieronymus, wie er klar 
 andeutet, in der grossten Verlegenheit befunden, wenn er es als his- 
 torisch betrachten wollte. Gegenwartig wird Niemand die Geschichte 
 in Buche Judith fur historisch ansehen, und weder Origenes noch 
 Hieronymus haben dies gethan ; ebe^i so verhalf es sich mit dem Bicche 
 iLSther ; cs iH ein Gedicht ilber dlese verhftltnisse." 
 
 n
 
 242 NOTES. Lect. I. 
 
 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 XXXVIL, p. 37. 
 
 See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History^ vol. i., pp. 190- 
 191, E. T. 
 
 Note XXXVni., p. 37. 
 
 See the same author's Egypty 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 XLIH., 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 Naturalists, 
 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, Lehen 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 Wette. 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 11., 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 lirimary value of the testimony 
 borne by contemporaries and eye-witnesses. 
 
 Note XLVIL, 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 
 Caesar 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, (/Vropm.) 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. L 
 
 ments founded upon inquiry, as to those of an eye-witness. "We trust 
 Thucydides almost as implicitly as Xenophon, and Tacitus almost as 
 entirely as Caesar. 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. 25, and pp. 81-2 ; and see also 
 his Methods 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 Ttvo 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 outlme 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 Phcenicia, ch. iii. p. 46, et seqq.,) both the Phcenicians 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 LII., 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 thu'd independent witness of equal credibility with the others 
 would raise the probability to 1330 to one. 
 
 XoTE LIIL, p. 42. 
 
 See Strauss, Lehen Jesu, ^ 13, (vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) For a com- 
 plete refutation of this view — -'the shallowest and crudest of all the 
 assimiptions of unbelief"^ — see the Bampton Lectures of my prede- 
 cessor, Lecture VI. pp. 170-181, [Am. Ed.] 
 
 Note LIV., p. 43. 
 
 See Bauer's Hebraische Mythologie des Alten und Xetien. Testaments, 
 quoted by Strauss, Lebeyi Jesu, § 8, (vol. i. p. 25, E. T.) 
 
 Note LY., 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 aU forever." Compare Dean Trench, Xotes on the Miracles 
 of (yiiT Lord, ch. ii. pp. 9-10. 
 
 1 Mangel's Bampton Lectures, Lecture TI. p. 177, [Am. EJ 
 
 21*
 
 246 NOTES. Lect. L 
 
 Note LVI., p. 45. 
 
 Plato's Phoedo, § 46-7. "Now when I once heard a person 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 un- 
 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, 
 O 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 things, 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 Irenceum, ii. 28, et seqq.,) Burton, (^Ecclesiastical His* 
 tonj of the First Three Centuries, vol. ii.'pp. 5, 230-3, &c.,) and Kaye 
 {Terttdlian, p. 104 ; Justin MaHyr, p. 121.) On the supernatural ele- 
 ment in Heathenism, see Mr. Newman's Avians, (ch. i. § 3, pp. 87- 
 91 ;) and compare Trench, Notes on the Miracles, ch. iii. pp. 21-3 ; 
 Alford's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 164 ; Hue's Voyage dans la Tartaric, 
 vol. i. pp. 295-6 ; and Havernick, Handbuch der Historisch-kritischen 
 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 23, p. 244, E. To
 
 Lect. IL notes. 247 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 Note I., p. 51. 
 
 See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knoivkdge of Holy 
 Scriptures, ch. ii, § 1 ; vol. i pp. 51-6, sixth edition ; Graves, Lectures on 
 the Pentateuch, Lecture I ; Havernick, Ilandbuch der Historisch-kritis- 
 chen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. i. ch. ii. § 108 ; Stuart's 
 Defence of tlie Old Testament Canon, § 3, p. 42, &c. This fact is not 
 denied by those who oppose the Mosaic authorship. (See De Wette's 
 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 1G3 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 atid the 
 Homeric Age, vol. i. pp. 3, 4.) The reason is, that the opposing argu- 
 ments, though strong, are pronounced on the whole tiot strong enough to 
 overcome the force of a unanimous tradition. 
 
 Note IH., 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. (Einleitung, Sec, § 147, a 4.) But all toler- 
 able Hebraists are aware that the term '^??^ is ambiguous, and may 
 mean on either side of a river. Buxtorf translates it, " eis, tdtra, 
 trans." {Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicuni, p. 527, ad voc. '^^5') 
 So Gesenius and others. Even De Wette admits t?i 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, ^Ir. Theodore Parker, re- 
 peats the objection, and amplifies it. He remarks, that in the Penta-
 
 NOTES. LeCT. H, 
 
 teuch the expression " beyond Jordan " meanc " on tbo cast side oi 
 that river," while <*this side Jordan" means "to the west of tkat 
 river." (Vol. ii. p. 41.) Apparently he is not aware that in the 
 original it is one and the same expression (l^^r^) which has been 
 rendered in the two different ways. 
 
 Note IV., p. 51. 
 
 Examples of mterpolations, 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 
 oeen, 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 Lect7ires, Ap- 
 pendix, § 1, p. 346, and pp. 355-361 ; Rosenm tiller's Prolegomena,
 
 Lect. n. NOTES 
 
 249 
 
 p. 36 ; Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, § 434, &c. ; Jahn's 
 Einleitung xind Beitrage zur Vertheid. der Aechtheit des Pentateuchs^ p. 
 60 ; and Fritzsche's Prufung der Griinde, &c., p. 135.) 
 
 Note V., p. 51. 
 De AVette, Einleitung, § 145 ; pp. 168, 16-9. 
 
 Note \1., p. 51. 
 
 md. § 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 YH., p. 51. 
 
 Hartmann, Historisch-kritische Forschungen ilber d. Bildung, <Sfie. des 
 Pentateuchs, p. 545, et alibi. Norton, Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. 
 ii. p. 444, second edition. The objection is as old as Spinoza. (See 
 his Tractatus TJieologico- PoUticus, ch. viii. p. 154.) 
 
 Note Ylll., p. 51. 
 De Wette, Ei^ileitung, § 144, p. 167. 
 
 Note IX., p. 52. 
 
 Hartmann, 1. s. c. So Spinoza, Tracfattis TJieologico- Politicals, ch. 
 viii. pp. 154-5, 
 
 Note X., p. 52. 
 
 Leben 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,^ is specially acknowledged, § 140; vol. vii. p. 367, 
 E. T. 
 
 1 See especially ch. xii. verses 9, 10, aud 28-30, ch. xiv. 2, 5, C, 13, &c., and cb. 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 m 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 established 
 one. (See above. Note II.) 
 
 Note XIIL, 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, ^ and several 
 others by the Rev. J. D. Heath.^ But it is very doubtful whether 
 these translations give much real insight into the originals. As Mr. 
 Goodwin observes, {Camhridge Essays, 1858, p. 229,) '*Eg}T)tian 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 
 
 1 See the Reme Archeologique for May 1852, and the RAvue Contemporaine for 1856. 
 
 2 The Exodus Papyri, London, 1855.
 
 LeCT. II. NOTES. 251 
 
 in the investigation of the sj-ntax. . . . With an incomplete knowledge 
 of the syntax, and a slender Tocabulary, translation becomes gicessicork, 
 and the misconception of a single word or phrase may completely con- 
 foiind the sense." Hence Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Heath often differ as 
 to the entire subject and bearing of a document. (See Mr. Goodwin's 
 JUssau, pp. 2i9, 259, 261, &c.) 
 
 Note XIY., p. 53. 
 
 The antiquity of the diction of the Pentateuch has been denied by 
 some critics,^ among others by Gesenius. (See his Geschichte der 
 Hebraischoi Sprache und Schrift, § 8.) But Jahn seems to have estab- 
 lished the point beyond any real controversy. (See Jahn's contribu- 
 tions to Bengel's Archiv., vol. ii. p. 578, et seqq. ; vol. iii. p. 168, et 
 seqq. Compare Fritzsche, Pnifiing der Grilnde, &c., p. 104. et seqq. ; 
 and see also Marsh's Authenticitij 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 shoAvn by Havernich, {Handhuch, &c., § 136 ; 
 pp. 554-564.) 
 
 Note X^^., p. 53. 
 
 See Lecture m., pp. 80 and 81. 
 
 Note XATC., 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 Yater, Abhandlung iiber Moses, &c., g 393 ; Noi-ton, Authenticity of the Gospels, 
 vol. ii. pp. 441, 4i2.
 
 252 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 position. In his section, headed " Some general considerations re- 
 specting the Authorship of the Pentateuch," he begins his argument 
 against the genuineness with this objection. Closes, he says, lived 
 probably in the fifteenth century before Christ ; certainly not much 
 later. " There is no satisfactory evidence that alphabetical icriting was 
 known at this time. If knoAvn to others, it is improbable that it was 
 knoim to the Hebre^os. 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- 
 gaged 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. 
 Eut it tcould be idle to argue against the supposition that alphabetical lorit- 
 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 Gesenius and 
 De Wette. (See Gesenius, Geschichte der llebrdischen S]7)'ache und 
 Schrift, § 140, et seqq., and De Wette's Archaologie, § 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 Len- 
 gerke, Ktinaan, p. xxxv., Havernick, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 
 § 44, &c. ; and compare the American writer, Stuart, Old Testament 
 Canon, § 3, pp. 40, 41. 
 
 Note XYIH., 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 Genuineness of the Oospels, vol. ii., Appendix, Note D., $ 3 5 pp. 439-441.
 
 Lect. II. NOTES. 253 
 
 Note XIX., p. 53. 
 
 Sir Henry Rawlinson regards the earliest inscribed bricks in the 
 Bab3donian series as dating from about B. C. 2200. (See the author's 
 Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 435 and 440.^ 
 
 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 ha\ang 
 come into use "at least as early as the 9th djoiasty," (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, 
 are 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 rcidely different from the alphabetical writing of the Hebrews." 
 (Norton, 1. s. c. Compare HSvernick, Einleitung, § 42-43.) But the 
 difference was really not very great. It is a mistake to suppose that 
 the Egj'ptian writing was, except to a small extent, symbolical. Both 
 in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic, as a general rule, the words are 
 spelt pho7ietically first, and are then followed by a symljol or symboit , 
 (See Mr. Goodwin's Essay, p. 227, and compare Wilkinson, Herodotus, 
 vol. ii. p. 317.) 
 
 Note XXI., p. 53. 
 
 Ur, or Hur (tt^), 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 Chaldcea and Susiana, ch. 
 xii. p. 130.) It seems to have been the primeval capital of Chaldsea. 
 The inscriptions, which are 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- 
 
 22
 
 254 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 betic system. (See Havernick's Einleitung, § 44.) It is consider- 
 ably different both from that of Egypt and that of Babylon, while 
 it is almost identical 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, ^ 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. 
 
 Hecataeus 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 m.any foreigners and strangers dwelt in the country, who 
 used diverse customs hi regard to rites and sacrifices, it cam.e 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 Gre?ce ; . . . but the mass of th^ 
 people fled into what is now called Judea, a country which is situ- 
 ated not far from Egypt, and which was at that time nuthmg but 
 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 otncr cities, that 
 one called Jerusalem, which is now very celebrated. He built also 
 
 lit seems scarcely possible (hat I ho resemblance between the riebrew shin and the 
 Egyptian sh can be accidental. A fainter similarity may be traced in some other 
 letters.
 
 Lect. II. NOTES. 'l-ro 
 
 the temple which is so greatly honored by them, and appointed the 
 sacred rites in honor of the divinity, and organized and regulated 
 their ci\-il affairs." After giving an account of the chief points of the 
 law, Hecatseus 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 Fraginenta His- 
 tonco)-um Grcecorum^ vol. ii. p. 392, Fr. 13.) 
 
 Note XXIH., p. 54. 
 
 Manetho, the Egj'ptian, was also contemporary with Alexander, 
 and wrote his Egyptian History imder 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 O.sarsiph, 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. Grtzc. 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 
 Irom 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 
 laAvs teach us lessons of vice, and not of ^irtue." 
 
 Note XXV., p. 54. 
 
 Eupolemus is by some thought to have been a Jew ; but the liber- 
 ties Avhich he takes with Scripture seem to mark him for a heathen. 
 Josephus evidently considers him such, since he couples him \Aith 
 Demetrius Phalereus, and speaks of him as unable to follow exactly 
 the sense of the Jewish Scriptures. (Contr. Apion. i. 23.) He lived 
 11 the latter half of the second century before Christ, and A^•rote r. 
 •vork in Greek on the history of the Jews, which was largely quoted 
 \j Alexander Polyhistor, the contemporary of Sylla. (See Eusebius.
 
 256 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 Pr(eparatio 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 Ilist. 
 GrcBc. vol. ii. p. 220, Fr. 13.) 
 
 Note XXVI., p. 54. 
 
 Histor. V 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 ho 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 M-as.' " De Suhlimitate, § 9. 
 
 Note XXIX., p. 54. 
 
 Hecatseus, Eupolemus, Juvenal, and Longinus. See above. Notes 
 XXII., XXV., XXVIL, and XXVHI. 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 th© 
 Great Deluge, he says, "This may also have been he whose history 
 is narrated by Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews." (See Josephus, AtUiq, 
 Jud. i. 3, § 6.) 
 
 Note XXX., p. 54. 
 
 According to some writers, Hellanicus, the contemporary of Herodo- 
 tus, mentioned Moses. (Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Ge7ites, § 8, p. 
 13, D. "Those who have written the annals of the Athenians, Hellan- 
 icus, and Philochorus, the Atthidge, Castor, and Thallus, and Alexander 
 Polyhistor, . . . have mentioned Moses as a very early and ancient 
 ruler of the Jews." Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Jidia7ium, i. p. 15, D, 
 "Now that Closes 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,^ 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. Polemon of Ilium (ab. 
 B. C. 200) seems to have spoken of Moses leading the Israelites out 
 jf Egypt. (Africanus ap. Euseb. Prc^p. Ev. x. 10; vol. ii. p. 512: 
 "Now gome of the Greeks also relate, that Moses lived at the same 
 tune. Polemon, in the first book of his Grecian History, says, ' In the 
 reign of Apis, the son of Phoroneus, a division of the army of the 
 Egyptians deserted Egypt, and settled in what is called Syrian Palestine, 
 r.'jt far from Arabia ; these were they who were with Moses.' " Comp. 
 C>Til. Alex. 1. s. c. ; Justin MartjT, Cohort, ad Gentes, p. 11 ; Syncellus, 
 vol. i. p. 116.) Apollonius Molo, Cicero's instructor in rhetoric, (about 
 B. C. 80) called Moses a juggler and an impostor, and gave a very in- 
 correct account of his legislation. . (Josephus, Contra Apionem, ii. 14. 
 Vide supra, note 24.) Trogus Pompeius (ab. B. C. 20) spoke of him 
 at some length, but he did not give his readers verj correct infor- 
 mation, if we may judge by the epitome of Justin. Justin says, "His 
 
 1 Mendes was a city of Egj-pt, situated in the Delta. It gave its name to one of the 
 aaouths erf the Nile. 
 
 22*
 
 258 NOTES. Lect. 11 
 
 son (i. e. Joseph's) was Moses, who, besides inheriting his father's 
 knowledge, was recommended also by the beauty of his person. But 
 the Egyptians, when they were suffering from the itch and tetter, in 
 obedience to the response of an oracle, in order that the disease might 
 not become general, drove him, together with those affected by the 
 disease, out of the Egyptian territory. Being made therefore the 
 leader of the exiles, he carried off by stealth the sacred images of 
 the Egyptians. The Egyptians attempted to recover these by force, 
 but were compelled by storms to return home. INIoses, therefore, seek- 
 ing again his ancient country Damascus, took possession of Mount 
 Sinai. When he came thither at length, with his people, wearied 
 with a seven days' journey through the desert of Arabia without food, 
 he consecrated as a day of perpetual fasting the seventh day, called, in 
 the language of that people, Sabbath, because that day had put an end 
 to their famine and their wanderings. . . . After Moses his son Aruas, 
 who had been a priest of the Egyptian worship, was next made king." 
 (Hist, xxxvi. 2.) The Egyptian historians Apion, (B. C. 30,) Cseremon 
 (A. D. 50,) and Ptolemy of Mendes — the last an author of tmcertain 
 date, probably of the first century after Christ — noticed the fact of 
 his leading the Jews out of Egypt. (See Tatian, Oratio adversus 
 Grcecos, § 37, p. 273 : "Now there are accurate records of the Egyp- 
 tian chronicles. And Ptolemy, who was an interpreter of their litera- 
 ture, — not the king of that name, but the priest of Mendes, — in set- 
 ting forth the acts of their kings, says that in the time of Amosis, king 
 of Egypt, the Jews marched out of Egypt, and went into whatsoever 
 countries they chose, under the command of Moses." Compare Clem. 
 Alex. Siromata, i. p. 379 ; Cyril. Alex. 1. s. c. ; Euseb. Prc&p. Ev. x. 
 11 ; vol. ii. p. 519, &c. And for the testimonies of Chseremon and 
 Apion, which will be adduced in Note LXXXI., see Joseph, c. Apioji. 
 i. 32, and ii. 2.) It is also probable that Moses was mentioned by 
 Castor the chronologer, (about B. C. 160,) and by Thallus, the freed- 
 man of Tiberius. (See the passages from Justin Martyr and Cyril 
 quoted at the beginning of this note.) Numenius, the Pythagorean 
 philosopher, who lived in the age of the Antonines, called Moses " a 
 man very powerful with God through prayer," and mentioned his 
 contest with the Egj^Dtian magicians, Jarmes and Jambres. (See 
 Euseb. Prcpp. Ev. ix. 8; vol. ii. p. 358: "Afterwards, at the time 
 when the Jews weiQ driven out of Egypt, there flourished Jannes
 
 Lect. 11. NOTES. 259 
 
 and Jambres, the Egj^ptian sacred scribes, men who were reputed 
 inferior to none in magical arts. These were the persons who were 
 judged worthy by the Egyptian populace to withstand even Mousteus, 
 the' leader of the Jews, a man whe was very powerful with God in 
 prayer ; and they were found able to remove the heaviest of the calam- 
 ities which Mousaeus brought upon Egypt.") (Compare Pliny, Hisi. 
 Nat., XXX. 1, § 2.) Nicolas of Damascus also mentioned Moses, and 
 called him " the Jewish lawgiver." (See the passage quoted in 
 Note XXIX.) 
 
 Note XXXL, p. 54. 
 
 The only classical writer, so far as I am aware, who expresses any 
 doubt with respect to the Mosaic origin of the Jewish law is Strabo, a 
 very untrustworthy authority in the field of ancient history. Strabo 
 ascribes the establishment of Monotheism and of the moral law to 
 Moses, but believes the ceremonial law to have been added by his suc- 
 cessor. {Geographica, xvi. 2, § 35-37 : " For Moses, one of the Egyptian 
 priests, dissatisfied with the established order of things, made great in- 
 novations in every direction ; and many of those who honored the divin- 
 ity joined his secession. Now this man said and taught that the Egyp- 
 tians, and likewise the Libyans, were in error in likening the divinity to 
 beasts and cattle. He also censured the Greeks as well, for represent- 
 ing their gods in human form. For he maintained that God was 
 nothing else but that which comprehends us all, and the earth and the 
 sea — that which we are wont to call heaven, and the w^orld, and the 
 nature of things ; and that those who live virtuously and justly may 
 always expect good gifts from God, and tokens of his favor ; but that 
 others eould have no such expectation. Thus this man became popu- 
 lar, and established his authority very firmly ; for all those who were 
 about him Avere easily induced, by his personal influence, and by the 
 benefits proposed, to fall in with his view^s. Now those who came 
 after him continued for a time in the same course, practising justice 
 and showing true piety ; but afterwards there were introduced into the 
 priesthood, first superstitious, and then tyrannical men. The former 
 established the prohibitions frota food, which they are accustomed to 
 observe at the present day, and the circumcisions and excisions, and 
 whatever else of this kmd has been instituted among them ; and the 
 latter introduced oppressive exactions.") It is to be remarked that
 
 260 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 Strabo quotes no authority, whence it may be suspected that his 
 account is based rather on his own views of probability, and of the 
 natural sequence of events in such cases, than on the statements of any 
 earlier writers. (See his words at the opening of the next section.) 
 
 Note XXXII., p. 55. 
 
 See Exod. xvii. 14 ; xxiv. 4, 7 ; Numb, xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xvii. 18, 
 et seqq. ; xxviii. 58, et seqq. ; xxix. 20, 27 ; and xxxi. 9, 24, et seqq. 
 
 Note XXXIII., p. 55. 
 
 Strauss, Lehen Jesu, § 6 ; vol. i. p. 20, E. T. 
 
 Note XXXIV., p. 55. 
 
 See particularly Deuteronomy xxviii. 58, and xxix. 20, 27. Haver- 
 nick's comment on these and other kindred passages deserves the atten- 
 tion of the student. (See his Handbuch des Historisch-critischen Einlei- 
 tung in das Alte Testament^ § 108 ; § 4, pp. 14-19, Clark's Translation.') 
 
 Note XXXV., p. 5Q. 
 
 " The Deutcronomist," says De Wette, " will, as it appears, have his 
 whole book regarded as the composition of Moses." {Einleitung in das 
 Alte Testament, § 162, d, p. 203.) Hartman makes a similar assertion 
 with respect to " the author of the last four books." {Forschungen ix:-er 
 d. Pe7itateuch, p. 538.) 
 
 Note XXXVI., p. 56. 
 
 The earliest writers whom De Wette can quote as doubting the gen- 
 uineness of the Pentateuch, are Celsus the Neo-Platonist, (A. D. 130,) 
 and Ptolemy, the Valentinian Gnostic, a writer of the third century. 
 (See his Einleitung, § 164, a ; p. 205 ; and for the passages to which he 
 refers see Origon, Contra Celsum, iv. 42, and Epiphanius, Adversus 
 Hm-eses, xxxiii. 4, p. 207.) Apion, and the other adversaries whom 
 Josephus answers, all admitted the Pentateuch to be the work of 
 Moses. 
 
 1 Historico- Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch, Edinburgh. Clark, 1850.
 
 Lect. n. NOTES. 261 
 
 Note XXXVH., p. 56. 
 
 The differences in the rationalistic views of the time when the Pen- 
 tateuch was composed, are thus summed up by Professor Stuart/ 
 "Almost every marked period from Joshua down to the return from 
 the Babylonish exile, has been fixed upon by different writers, as a 
 period appropriate to the production of the work. To Ezra some have 
 assigned the task of producing it ; in which, if we may hearken to 
 them, he engaged in order that he might confirm and perpetuate the 
 ritual introduced by him. To Hilkiah the priest, with the connivance 
 of Josiah, Mr. Norton and others have felt inclined to attribute it, at 
 the period when a copy of the Law is said to have been discovered in 
 the Temple. Somewhere near this period, Gesenius and De Wette 
 once placed it ; but both of them, in later times, have been rather 
 inclined to recede from this, and to look to an earlier period. The 
 subject has been through almost boundless discussion, and a great 
 variety of opinions has been broached respecting the matter, until 
 recently it has taken a turn somewhat new. The haut ton of criticism 
 in Germany now compounds between the old opinions and the new 
 theories. Ewald and Lengerke both admit a groimdicork of the Penta- 
 teuch. But as to the extent of this they differ, each one deciding ac- 
 cording to his subjective feelings. The leading laws and ordinances of 
 the Pentateuch are admitted to belong to the time of Moses. Ewald 
 supposes that they were written down at that period. Then we have, 
 secondly, historical portions of the Pentateuch, written, as Ewald 
 judges, not by prophets, but before this order of men appeared among 
 the Hebrews. . . . Then came next, according to him, a prophetic order 
 of historical writers, about the time of Solomon. . . . Next comes a 
 narrator . . . who is to be placed somewhere near the period of Eli- 
 jah. . . . Then comes a fourth narrator, whom we cannot place earUer 
 than about the middle of the eighth century B. C. He was followed by 
 the Deuteronomist . . . some time during the latter half of Manasseh's 
 reign. . . . Then just before the Babylonish exile the great Collectaneum 
 or Corpus Auctorum OTnnium, was brought to a close. 
 
 Lengerke . . . admits a groundwork ; but, with the exception of some 
 laws, it was not composed till the time of Solomon. Next comes a 
 
 1 Critical History and Defence of Vie Old Testament Canon, \ 3, pp. 43, 44.
 
 262 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 supplementarist, who must have lived some time in the eighth century. 
 Then comes the Deuteronomist, as in Ewalcl ; but he is assigned by 
 Lengerke to the time of Josiah, about B. C. 624. 
 
 Each of these writers is confident in his critical power of discrimina- 
 tion. . . . Each is sure that lie can appreciate all the niceties and slight 
 diversities of style and diction, and therefore cannot be mistaken. Each 
 knows, in his own view with certainty, how many authors of the Pen- 
 tateuch there are ; while one still reckons six and the other three. . . . 
 I will not now ask, "Who shall decide when Doctors disagree ? " 
 
 Compare also Havernick, IlandUichy &c., § 145 ; ^ 41, pp. 442-444, 
 E.T. 
 
 Note XXXVII. 6, p. 57. 
 
 Lehen Jesit, § 13 ; pp. 55-56, E. T. 
 
 Note XXXYIIL, p. 58. 
 
 The purpose of Moses is to WTite not his own history, nor even the 
 civil history of his nation, but the theocratic history of the world up to 
 his own time. This is the clew to all those curious insertions and 
 omissions which have astonished and perplexed mere historians. (See 
 Havernick, Handbuch, &c., § 106 ; § 2, pp. 1-7, E. T. ; and compare 
 Lecture VU., p. 178.) Still, his own history to a certain extent, and 
 the public history of his nation, up to his time, do in fact form the 
 staple of his narrative. 
 
 Note XXXIX., p. 58. 
 
 Sir G. C. Lewis says, «'The infidelity of oral tradition, with respect 
 to past occurrences, has been so generally recognized, that it would be 
 a superfluous labor to dwell upon it. For our present purpose, it is 
 more material to fix the time during which an accurate memory of his- 
 torical events may be perpetuated by oral tradition alone. Newton, in 
 his work on Chronology,^ fixes it at eighty or a hundred years for a 
 time anterior to the use of writing ; and Volney says that,, among the 
 Red Indians of North America, there was no accurate tradition of facts 
 which were a century old. Mallet, in his work on Northern Anti- 
 
 1 Chronology of Ancient Kingdom!^ amended., (1728, 4to,) Introduction, p. 7.
 
 Lect. II. NOTES. 263 
 
 quities,' remarks that, among the common class of mankind, a son 
 remembers his father, knoios something about his grandfather, but never 
 bestows a thought on his more remote progenitors. This "wovild. carry 
 back a man's knowiedge of his own family for about a hmidred years ; 
 and it is not likely that his knowledge of public affairs, founded on a 
 similar oral tradition, could reach to an earlier date." {Credibility of 
 Early Motnan History, vol. i. pp. 98, 99.) 
 
 Note XL., p. 58. 
 
 See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study a7id Knoicledge of the 
 Holy Scriptures, ch. ii. § 1, vol. i. p. 54. "In the antediluvian world, 
 when the life of man was so protracted, there was comparatively little 
 need for writing. Tradition answered every purpose to which writing, 
 in any kind of characters, could be subservient ; and the necessity of 
 erecting monuments to perpetuate public events could scarcely have 
 suggested itself; as, during those times, there could be little danger 
 apprehended of any important fact becoming obsolete, its history hav- 
 ing to pass through very few hands, and all these friends and relatives 
 in the most proper sense of the terms ; for they lived in an insulated 
 state, under a patriarchal government. Thus it was easy for Moses to 
 be satisfied of the truth of all he relates in the Book of Genesis, as the 
 accounts came to him through the medium of very few persons. From 
 Adam to Noah there was but one man necessary to the transmission of 
 the history of this period of 1656 years. Adam died in the year of the 
 world 930, and Lamech, the father of Noah, was born in the year 874 ; 
 so that Adam and Lamech were contemporaries for fifty-six years. 
 Methusaleh, the grandfather of Noah, was born in the year of the 
 world 687, and died in the year 1656, so that he lived to see both 
 Adam and Lamech — from whom (Adam r) doubtless he acquired the 
 knowledge of this history, and was likewise contemporary with Noah 
 for 600 years. In like manner Shem connected Noah and Abraham, 
 having lived to converse with both ; as Isaac did with Abraham and 
 Joseph, from whom these things might be easily conveyed to Closes by 
 Amrara, who was contemporary with Joseph. Supposing then all the 
 curious facts recorded in the Book of Genesis to have had no other 
 authority than the tradition already referred to, they would stand upon 
 
 1 Ch. ii
 
 264 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 a foundation of credibility superior to any that the saost reputable of 
 the ancient Greek and Latin historians can boast." 
 
 Note XLI., p. 59. 
 
 See Sir G. C. Lewis's Credibility, &c., vol. i. \y. 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 
 himdred 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 rmfavorable 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 XLIIL, p. 59. 
 
 See above, Note XXXVII. ; and compare Havernick, Handbuch, Sec, 
 § 111, (§ 7, pp. 45-48, E. T.,) and Home, Introduction, &c., ch. ii. § 1, 
 vol. i. pp. 64-56. 
 
 Note XLIV., p. 59. 
 
 Having argued that the Patriarchs were almost sure to have com- 
 mitted to writmg 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, Yitringa 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 ©f his own books." {Observationes Sacr^p, i, 4, ^ 2 ; p. 36.)
 
 Lect. II. NOTES. 2% 
 
 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 Hiivernick, {Handbuch, &c., § Ho ; § 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 writmg," and that " the author makes use of 
 certain older monuments." 
 
 Note XL^T:., 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 B. C.) present indications of previous stages having bef^n 
 passed through, which must have each occupied some considerable 
 period. It is certain that the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, began 
 with picture-writing.^ 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 Egj-pt, the hieroglyphics of the 
 PAT-amid period, (B. C. 2450-2300,) sometimes "written in the cursive 
 character, prove that writing had been long in use." (See "Wilkinson's 
 Appendix to Book ii. of the author's Herodotus, ch. viii. { 9 ; vol. ii. p. 
 344.) 
 
 1 See Sir H. Rawlinson's Essay, " On the Early History of Babylonia,^^ in the first 
 Tolume of the author's Herodotus, Essay vi. pp. 443, 444.
 
 2^^ NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 Note XL VII., 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 writing in 
 Kitto's Biblical Cycloimdia, 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, Abydeiius, 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, (i. 3,) 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. Haicus or Haig, the fifth descendant of 
 Japhet, son of Thaelath or Togarmah, revolts from Belus, or Nimrod, 
 and withdraws from Babylon to Armenia, where he establishes himself. 
 War follows : Haicus 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 Prichard's Physical 
 History of Mankind, vol. iv. p. 255 ; and compare Neumann's Versuch 
 einer Geschichte der ArmeniscJien Liter atur, 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 Bamayana 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- Veda-Satihita, pp. xlvi., xlvii.) The 
 attempt to construct from them, and from other Sanscritic sources of
 
 Lect. IL notes. 267 
 
 even worse character, by the aid of Megasthenes and of a large amount 
 of conjecture, a chi'onological 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. 61. 
 
 The Chinese, like the Huidus, 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. C. 
 (See Remusat, Kouveaux Melanges Asiafiques, vol. i. p. 65. "The 
 history of China rims back with certainty to the twentj'-second 
 century before our era, and some respectable traditions pennit us to 
 carry back the point of departure four centuries earlier, to the year 
 2637 before Jesus Christ." Compare Mailla, Histoire Genirale 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 
 purposed of the present Lectures. I confess, however, that I put little 
 faith 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 Prichard's Physical History of Man- 
 kind, vol. iv. pj). 475-9 ; and compare Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. p. 
 370.) 
 
 Note LI., p. 61. 
 
 The evidences on this head were carefully collected by Mr. Stanley 
 Faber in his Bampton Lectures for the year 1801, afterwards published 
 as HorcB Mosaicce, ch. iv. pp. 130-184. The most remarkable tradition 
 is that of the Hindus. Li the Bhagavat it is related that in the reign 
 of Satiavrata, 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-
 
 268 NOTES. Lect. n. 
 
 ity of the age, thus told him how he was to act. "In seven days from 
 the jjresent time, 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 mankmd 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 Ilorce Mosaics, ch. iv. pp. 139, 140 ; Carwithen's 
 Bamptmi Lectures, III. pp. 87, 88 ; and Kalisch's Historical and Critical 
 Comtncntari/ 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 convulsion. 
 "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 
 waters enclosed xoithin its bosom burst forth xcith violence, and ovcrfloxocd 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, 
 Horce Mosaicce, ch. iv. pp. 147, 148.) 
 
 The Armenians accept the Scriptural account, which they identify 
 with the Chalda^an. They can scarcely be said to possess any special
 
 Lfxt. II. NOTES. 269 
 
 national tradition on the subject, except that which continiies 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 iiood of 
 Deucalion needs only to be mentioned. Curiously enough it takes the 
 form most closely resembling the Mosaic account in the pages of 
 Lucian,^ 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, Ilorce Mosaicce, ch. iv. ; Kalisch, vol. i. p. 1-iO, E. T.) 
 
 Note LII., p. 62. 
 
 See Gen. x. 10 ; xi. 2-5 ; xxxLx., et seqq. Compare Herod, i. 7 ; ii. 
 2, 109-U2 ; Plat. Tim. p. 22, B. ; Diod. Sic, books i. and ii. ; Justin, 
 i. 1 ; &c. Josephus 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. 
 (See 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 LIH., p. 63. 
 
 Scaliger was the first to draw the attention of scholars to the WTit- 
 ings of Berosus and Manetho. In his work De Emoidatione Temjjorum 
 he collected their fragments and supported their authority. The value 
 of Manetho was acknowledged by Heeren, (Ha7idbiich der GeschicJite der 
 Staaten des Alterthmns, i. 2, p. 54, E. T.,) Marsham, {Canon ChronieuSy 
 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"*"" ''^^Hrdge 
 Uber Alte GescMcJitey vol. i. pp. 16-19.) 
 
 1 De net Syrict, $ 12.
 
 270 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 Note LIV., p. 63. 
 
 One other ancient writer, had his work come down to ns 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 
 Berosus and ^lanetho : 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 Closes ; 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. Muller's Fragmenta His- 
 toricorum Grcecomm, vol. iv. pp. 445-8, and the testimony to his value 
 borne by Niebuhr, VortrCtge Uber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 17, and p. 
 93, note'.) 
 
 Nothing has been said here of Sanchoniathon, in the first place 
 because it seems more than probable that the work ascribed to him 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, Jahrbilcher filr Theologisch. und Christlich. Philosophie, 1836, 
 vol. i. pp. 51-91 ; Lobeck, Aglaojjh., p. 1264, et seqq. ; Niebuhr, 
 Vortrage Uber alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 93, note * ; and C. Muller, 
 Fragmenta 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 Universal 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. II. NOTES. 271 
 
 Note L"VT:., p. 64. 
 
 The follo-\ving is Manetho's chronological scheme, according to Euse- 
 bius, {Chronica, i. 20, pp. 93-107, ed. Mai. :) — 
 
 Years. 
 Keign 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 LVII., 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 :) — 
 
 Years. 
 
 i. Ten kings from Alorus to Xisuthrus reigned . . . 432,000 
 
 2. Eighty-six kings from Xisuthrus to the Median conquest 33,080 ^ 
 
 3. Eight Median kings 224 
 
 4. Eleven kings [48]^ 
 
 5. Eorty-nine Chaldscan kings 458 
 
 6. Nine Arabian kings 245 
 
 7. Forty-five kings down to Pul 526 
 
 466,581 
 
 Note L^TH., p. 64. 
 
 Vide supra, Note LYI. ]M. Bunsen (Egypt's Place, &c., 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 Bunsen gives the sum of the 5-ears of the 30 dynasties as 4922, 4954, or 5329, 
 according to variations of reading or statement. (Egypt, vol. i. p. 82, E. T.) 
 
 2 In the Armenian the number here is 33,091, but this may be corrected from Syii- 
 cellus. {Fragm. Hist. Or., vol. ii. p. 503.) 
 
 ' This number is only given in the margin, and is very doubtful.
 
 272 NOTES. Lect. n. 
 
 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. Reign 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 
 
 Eut there is absolutely no ground, beyond gratuitous conjecture, for 
 making this change ; which involves Manctho in the contradiction, that 
 Manes, the Ghosts of Mortals, exist before there have been any mortals. 
 (See the Fragmenta Ilistoricorum Grcecorutn of Mons. C. Muller, vol. ii. 
 p. 528, where M. Bunsen's theory is rejected.) 
 
 Note LIX., p. 64. 
 
 ChronograpMa, p. 52, D. M. Bunsen was the first to call attention 
 to this passage. {Egijpfs Place, &c., vol. i. p. 86.) If sound, it is of 
 very great importance, as indicating that Manctho 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 Revieiv 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 Manethds 
 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. IL 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, EorcB yEgijptiacce., 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 La considerable excess of the 
 truth. 
 
 KoTE LX., p. 65. 
 
 See the latest conclusions of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in the author's 
 Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 3-42-3 ; and compare Mr. Stuart Poole's Horce 
 M'gyptiacce, 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 iato 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 LXI., p. 66. 
 
 See the fragments of Berosus in Mons. C. Mailer's Fragmenta Histor- 
 icorum Grcecorum, vol. ii. p. 496, Frs. 1, and 5. "He 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 ruled 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.) Xow, 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. He says that 
 this is an allegorical cosmogony. For when the universe Avas in a fluid 
 state, and animals were generated in it, this god cut off his o^\^^ 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
 
 274 NOTES. LsCT. II. 
 
 darkness, 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 LXII., p. 66. 
 
 See Niebuhr's Vortrflge ilher Alte Geschichte, (vol. i. p. 20, note.) 
 where he notices the abuse of the parallel made by some, who main- 
 tamed that the Mosaical account of the Creation was derived fiom 
 the Babylonian. 
 
 Note LXIH., 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 Molmi] and 
 Hestiaeus, and besides these Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those 
 who composed the Phoenician annals, agree with what I have said. 
 Hesiod also, and Hecatseus, Hellanicus and Acusilaus, and besides 
 these Ephorus and Nicolaus, relate that the ancients used to live a 
 thousand years." (^Antiq. Jud. i, 3.) 
 
 Note LXIV., p. 67. 
 
 See Faber's Horce MosaXcce, ch. iii. pp. 119, 120; and Home's Intro- 
 duction, vol. i. p. 158.
 
 Lect. II. NOTES. 275 
 
 Note LXV., p. 68. 
 
 Frtzgmenta Historicorum Grceconcm, 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 
 loth day of the month Dsesius, men would be destroyed by a Hood, 
 He coromanded 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 ^\'ith 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 mto it 
 all things as directed, he embarked with his wife and children and 
 intimate friends. But when the flood came, and forthAvith 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- 
 tam, he went forth, with his M-ife 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 disa])- 
 peared. Now those who remained in the ship, when Xisuthrus and his 
 companions did not return, went forth to seek him, calhng 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 worshippers 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 commimicate them to men whom they 
 would find in the country of Armenia. . . . They accordingly came 
 to Babylon, dug up the letters which had been buried at Sippara, 
 restored the temples, and rebuilt Babylon." (Ap. Syncell. CJiron., pp. 
 30, 31. Compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 3, pp. 14-16.)
 
 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 
 15th of Daesius. And he commanded him to hide every thing which 
 pertained to letters in Ilehopolis, in Sippara. Sisithrus, havmg 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 was 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 Schriftcn, p. 187, note 4 ; and C. Mailer's 
 Fragni. Hist. Or., 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 Encyclopaedia, 
 s. V. Abydenus ; C. O. Mailer, History of Greek Literature, vol. ii. p. 
 490, E. T.) His use of the Ionic dialect favors the earlier date. 
 
 Note LXYH. p. 68. 
 
 Buttmann, {Myihologus, i. pp. 190, 200, &c.,) Von Bohlen, {Alte Indien, 
 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- 
 ttmg, §120, pp. 266, 267; §16, p. 112, E. T.) But the absence of 
 exaggeration and of grotesqueness from the Hebrew account suffi-
 
 Lect. it. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 277 
 
 ciently disproves this theory. It might be argued with much more 
 plausibility that the Babylonians obtained theii- knowledge from the 
 Jews. 
 
 Note LX^T!. h. 
 
 69. 
 
 See Xiebuhr's Vortrage fiber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 23. "This ac- 
 count differs from the Xoachian, so far as it allows to be saved not 
 only the family of Xisuthrus, but all pious persons, and supposes not 
 a universal, bid only a Babylonian deluge." 
 
 Note LXM:I. 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 LXVm., p. 70. 
 
 Ic has been acutely suggested that the actual scheme of Berosus was 
 probably the following : — 
 
 Years. 
 
 B. C. 
 
 1. Antediluvian dynasty of 10 kings 
 
 432,000 
 
 466,618 to 34,618 ^ 
 
 34,618 to 2,458 
 2,458 to 2,234 ' 
 2,23 J to 1,976 
 1,976 to 1,518 
 1,518 to 1,273 
 1,273 to 747 
 747 to 625 
 625 to 538 , 
 
 w 
 
 > 1 
 
 on 
 
 B 
 
 2. Dynasty of 86 kings (ChaldjBans ?) . 
 
 3. Dynasty of 8 Median kings . . . 
 
 4. Dynasty of 11 kings (Clialdfeans?) . 
 
 5. Dynasty of 49 Chaldsan kings . . 
 
 6. Dynasty of 9 Arabian kings . . . 
 
 7. Dynasty of 45 kings (Assyrians ?) . 
 
 8. Dynasty of 8 (?) Assyrian kings . . 
 
 9. Dynasty of 6 Chaldeean kings . . . 
 
 34,080 
 224 
 [258] 1 
 458 
 245 
 526 
 122 
 87 
 
 
 36,000 
 
 
 1 This number fills np the blank in Euseb. Chron. i. 4, p. 18, where 48 is absurdly 
 suggested in the margin. See above. Note LYII. It is conjectural, but it seems re- 
 quired by the native tradition that Babylon was founded 1903 before Alexanders cap- 
 ture of it, or B. C. 2234. 
 
 24
 
 278 NOTES. Lect. IL 
 
 (See Gutschmidt in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. viii. p. 252 ; who is 
 followed, by Brandis, Rencm Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 17 ; and 
 Sir H. 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 3G,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 Mailer's Fm^?n. 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 rubbi.sh 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 theni built a huge tower, that they might ascend up to heaven. 
 But God caused a wind to blow, and overthreAV 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 OAvn 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 Yarietie* 
 of the Human Race," w^cre published almost simultaneously ; but 
 Schlegel's work is regarded as the more advanced production. (Soe 
 Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii. p. 50.)
 
 Lect. IL notes. 279 
 
 Note LXXI., p. 71. 
 
 In 1854 M. Bunsen wrote : " Geographically then, and historically, 
 it 13 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 Kushite, which means a man of the land of Kush. 
 The Bible mentions but one Kush, ^^thiopia ; an Asiatic Kush exists 
 only in the imaginatioyi of the interpreters, and is the child of their despair. 
 Now, Nimrod teas 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 
 Rawlinson, 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 
 Afirican Ethiopia." (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 4:-12.) He 
 found their vocabtdary to be ^* imdoubtedly 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 Galla of Abyssinia." (Ibid, note 9.) He 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 LXXII., 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. n. 
 
 the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 448, 455, 456, &c.) They do not 
 exactly jyrove the colonization of Assyria by Semites from Babylonia, 
 but they favor it. (Ibid. pp. 447 and 647.) 
 
 Note LXXIU., p. 71. 
 
 The Hamitic descent of the Canaanites is energetically denied by M. 
 Bunsen, {^PhilosopJuj 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. He 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 Khatta, or 
 Hittites, were the dominant Scythic race fi-om the earliest times, and 
 they gave way very slowly before the Arama?ans, 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 PJiilosopJuj 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 Jotirnal, 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 Noachidse." 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. n. NOTES. 281 
 
 remarks : <' We must be cautious in drawing direct ethnological infer- 
 ences from the linguistic indications of a very early age. It "vvill 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 LXX"\^., p. 72. 
 
 The passages to which reference is here made Avill all be found in the 
 second volume of Dr. Gaisford's edition of the w^ork 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. ISIUller in his preface 
 to the fragments of Polyhistor, Fragment. Hist. Gr., vol. iii. p. 207.) 
 Kthis 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 thi-ee is at least doubtful. 
 
 To the writers mentioned in the text may be added. Nicolas of Da- 
 mascus, who spoke of Abraham's emigration fi-om Chaldaea and settle- 
 ment in Canaan. (See the Frag. Hist. Gr.^ vol. iii. p. 373.) 
 
 Note LXXYH., p. 72. 
 
 See especially Faber's Horte Mosaicce, ch. v. pp. 225-228 ; and com- 
 pare Patrick's Commenfari/ mi the Historical Books of the Old Testa7nenf, 
 vol. i. p. 58 ; Home's Introdtiction to the Critical Study and Knowledge 
 of Holy Scripture, vol. i. p. 174, &c. 
 
 Note LXX^TIL, p. 73. 
 
 Sir H. Rawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vi. p. 
 446. 
 
 Note LXXIX., p. 73. 
 
 The name of the king whom Sir H. Kawlinson identifies with 
 Chedor-laomer is, in the native (Hamitic) Babylonian, Kudur-Mabuk, 
 Mabuk in Hamitic is found to be the exact equivalent of Laomer m 
 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 Avhich 
 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 LXXXI., 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. He expressed this desire to his namesake Amen- 
 ophis, the son of Paapis, who had the reputation of being a partaker 
 of the diviire 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. n. NOTES. 283 
 
 abode and protection, the city Avaris, which had then been abandoned 
 by the shepherds. Now this city, accordiag to the ancient theolog}'-, 
 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 w^alls 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 Eg^^Dt. 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 Egj^tians, 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 Rameses, 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, amountmg 
 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 tui-ned 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 th©
 
 284 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 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. He moreover put tlie 
 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, engaguig 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 Chseremon, 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 w^ere 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. II. notes. 285 
 
 Messenes. 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 LXXXH., p. 7-t. 
 
 The name Osarsiph, which, according to !Manetho, was the Egyptian 
 appellation of Moses, seems to be a corruption of Joseph, whom Cha^re- 
 mon made Moses' companion and fcUow-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 Egj-ptian 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. 
 3i.) 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 LXXXIIL, 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 co7itroverted by any experienced geologist ; indeed, the real 
 difficulty consists in tracing back the signs of man's existence on the 
 earth to that comparatively modern period when species, now his con- 
 temporaries, began to predominate. K 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- 
 
 1 Gen. xli. 45.
 
 286 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 mately formed by science of the results which have been recently 
 obtained by Mr. Horner in Egypt, ^ by M. Boucher de Perthes in 
 France,^ 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, Hallor, 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 eonditions such as climate and food, domestication, and 
 perhaps an inward tendency to progress imder 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 Mailer, "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 tha Philosophical 
 Transactions,) by Leoiiaid Horner, Esq., Parts i. and ii. London, 1855 and 1858. 
 s Antiquites Cdtiques et Ante-diluoiennes, par M. Boucher de Perthoe, Park, 1847.
 
 Lect. n.' NOTES. 281 
 
 Note LXXX^^., p. 75. 
 
 "It is pleasing to remark," says Sir H. Ravvlinson, speaking of the 
 different races in Western Asia, "that if "vve were to be guided by 
 the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all 
 reference to the Scriptural record, we should still he led to fix on the 
 plains of Shinar, as the focus from which 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 LXXXAT!!., 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. Lender this head come the following : — 
 
 1. Pharaoh, (n'^'IsO as the title of Egyptian kings (Gen. xii. 15, xl. 
 2 ; Ex. i. 11,) which has been explained as Pk-ouro, " the king ; " but 
 which is more probably Ph-rah, "the Sun," a title borne by the Egj-p- 
 tian monarchs from very early times. (Wilkinson, in the author's 
 Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 182, note 1.) 
 
 2. Potiphar, (^5*11215,) or Potipherah, (r"l5^t:i£0 which is Pete- 
 ph-re, "belonging to the Sun" — a name common upon the monu- 
 ments, (Rosellini, Momcmenti Storici, i. 117; Champollion, Precis, Table 
 Generale, p. 23,) and specially appropriate to a Priest of On, or Heli^ 
 opolis. Compare the name Peteseph, "belonging to Seb, (Chronos,)" 
 which, according to Chseremon, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. 
 (Supra, Note LXXXI.) 
 
 3. Asenath, (r;CJ5,) which is, according to Jablonsky, {Opuscula, ii. 
 208,) Asshe-neith, " worshipper of Xeith," or more probably, as Gese- 
 nius observes, {Thesaurus, ad voc.,) As-neith, " quae Neithae (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. (Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. i. 
 p. 389.) Her name forms an element in that of Nitocris, (Xeifh-akri,) 
 a queen of the sixth dynasty. (Wilkinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 165, 
 note 2.) 
 
 4. Zaphnath-Paaneah, (tc^STDS;" ) the name which Pharaoh gave
 
 288 NOTES. Lect. II. 
 
 to Joseph, is best explained through the Septuagint Psontho-mphanech, 
 which closely corresponds to the Coptic Psont-mfanch, "sustainer of 
 the age," or as Jerome says, a little freely, " salvator mundi." (See 
 Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1 181.) 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 (iW)2) was undoubtedly an Egyptian name, since it was 
 selected by Pharaoh's daughter, (Ex. ii. 10.) We 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. Jvd, 
 ii. 9, § 6,) partially by Philo, (De vita Hosts, i. Op. vol. ii. p. 83,) and 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, {Strom, i. p. 412.) Josephus — "The Egyptians 
 call water mo, and those who are rescued from the water uses" 
 Philo — " The Egyptians call water mos." Clem. Alex. — " The 
 Egyptians call water moil." 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 {Opv^- 
 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 ^n5^> (or 
 "^nx ■» LXX. a'x*:'?) which Jablonsky found to signify in Coptic " every 
 green thing which is produced in a pool," (JDpriscula, vol. i. p. 45 ;) 
 perhaps ttl^t (LXX. Qiiin,) 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 TjliJi^j which is explained from the Coptic as 
 au-rek, "bow every one," or ape-rek, "bow the head." (See Gesenius, 
 Hehrdisches tmd Chalddisches Handioorterbuch, 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 
 remat'kahle illustrations. . . . The occasional springs, and wells, and 
 
 ; 1 Banseu's Egypt, toI, i. p. 471, No. 31?
 
 Lect. II. NOTES. 289 
 
 ferooks, 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. {Sinai and Pales- 
 tine, pp. 20, 21; compare pp. 22, 2i, 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 Avater," (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, (-j^,) Pithom, (-^5,) 
 Ramesses, (Cy?2!PT')Zoan, ("^/ZT)) and Migdol, C^'iyz^) which are among 
 the few Egyptian towns mentioned by Moses, are all well-known places. 
 Of On, the Greek Heliopolis, it is unnecessary to speak. Pithom is the 
 Patumus of Herodotus, (ii. 158,) the city of Thmei, (Justice,) called 
 •' Thmuin " in the Itinerary of Antonine, (p. 9.) Kamesses is Beth- 
 Rameses, a city of which we have a description in a hieratic papyrus of 
 the 18th or 19th djTiasty. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, Art. VI. 
 p. 254.) Zoan, the Tanis of the LXX. — whence the " Tanitic nome " 
 of Herodotus, (ii. 166,) and the "Tanitic mouth" of later authors, is 
 the modern San or Zayi, evidently a great town in the time of the Rames- 
 side monarchs. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt, i. p. 449.) Migdol, the 
 Magdolus of Hecataeus, (Fr. 282,) retains its name in the Itinerary o" 
 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 ^?co Egypts — " the upper 
 and the lower country " — as they are termed in the inscriptions.^ 
 Equally significant is Padan-oxam, (S^.K"!"! B ,) " 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 motmtainous Syria west of the Euphrates. Again, the expression, 
 " the entrance of Hamath," (Xumb. xiii. 21,) shows a conversance with 
 the geography of Upper Palestine, whereof this *' entrance " is so 
 
 1 The common hieroglyphic signs for tlie whole of Egypt are two crowns, two water- 
 plants, or tKo layers of earth. (Lcpsius, Sur VAlphabet Hieroglyphique, Planche I. 
 Groupe Tii. col. C. 
 
 25
 
 290 NOTES. Lect. U. 
 
 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 watter 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 ti'oughs are full, the pur- 
 chase by weight of silver, the oaths accompanied by peculiar ceremonies, 
 the ox unm.uzzled 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 Ujjlversally come back 
 from Syria deeply and abidingly impressed with tnt reality and truth- 
 fulness of the Pentateuch in all that respects Eastern ^nanners. 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 co^^rt, (Cammentar, p. 360,) in his represen- 
 tation of Pharaoh's daughter as bathing in the Nile, fibid.,) 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 und Mose, p. 23 ; and Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. iii. 
 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. II. NOTES. 291 
 
 AVilkinson'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 fighting 
 with horses and chariots, (AYiUvinson 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 LXXXYIII., 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 Cyclopcedia, (1856.) Ur was thought by 
 some (Ritter, 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 Holwan ; Ellasar, which 
 should have been in Lower Babylonia, was thought to be the Larissa 
 of Xenophon, on the middle Tigris ; while Accad was either 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 Chaldees, at Mugheir, on the right bank of the Eu- 
 phrates, not very far above its jvmction with the Skat-el- Hie. This is 
 the true Chaldaea of Scripture and of History, an Armenian Chaldaea 
 being a fiction of the Greeks. 
 
 2. Calah at Ninv-'id, on the left bank of the Tigris, a little above its 
 junction with the Greater Zab. (The Haiah of 2 Kings xvii. 6, is a
 
 292 NOT 1] s . Lect. II. 
 
 different place.) The province in -which it stands long continued to be 
 called Calachene, (Strab. xvi. 1, § I ; Ptol. vi. 1.) 
 
 3. Erech at Warka, (the Greek 'Oqx^^^,) on the left bank of the 
 Euplxrates, 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 Kileh-Sherf/hdt, 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.) 
 
 For 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 Nmeveh and its Remains, ch.- ii. et seqq. ; 
 some account is given of Resen {Kileh-Shergha.t') 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 185S, pp. 157-162. Compare 
 Dr. Stanley's Sinai 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. III. NOTES. 293 
 
 decided one. We entered upon this sea Avith 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 I am not mistaken, we tcere unanimous in the conviction of the 
 truth of the Scriptural account of the destruction of the cities of the 
 plain." (^Xarrative, ch. xvii. p. 253.) 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 Note I., p. 79. 
 
 See Konig, Alttestament. Studien, p. 63, et seqq. ; Jahn, Einleitung, 
 ii. 1, p. 160 ; and Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 35. 
 
 Note II., p. 79. 
 
 See Carpzov, Introduetio ad lihros Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, part 
 i. p. 213, who gives the following list of writers by whom this view 
 has been taken : Theodoret, Procopius, Gregory the Great, Isidore, 
 Eucherius, among the ancients ; among the moderns, Walther, Calo- 
 vius, Hugo, De Lyra, Cajetan, Vatable, Sixtus Sinensis, Sanctius, Se- 
 rarius, and Cornelius a Lapide." 
 
 Note IH., p. 79. 
 
 There is no reference to the Book of Joshua as the tcork of Joshua in 
 Scripture. It is first assigned to him in the Talmud. The Fathers are 
 divided in opinion as to its authorship. Athanasius, for instance, 
 includes it among the books " not ^vritten by the persons whose names 
 they bear and of whom they treat." (Synops. S. S. § 10 5 Opera, vol. 
 ii. p. 139, B.) 
 
 Note IV., p. 79. 
 
 See the summary of the arguments in Keil's Commentar Hber d. Buck 
 Josua, Einleitung, § 3, p. xlvii. Keil's conclusion is, " that the histor- 
 ical references aad 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 witnessed, 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 Bestandtheile enthalt es. Einleitung, § 169, p. 213.) But 
 Rosenmaller, 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 kuags 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. 365.) Keil remarks 
 recently — " AVhen 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 tlio 
 Translation of Mr. J. Martin, which forms the fourteenth volume of Clark's Foreign 
 Theological Library, New Series, (Edinburgh, 1857.)
 
 Lect. III. NOTES. 295 
 
 conclusion, that the writer availed himself of tcritten records, if not of 
 official documents." {Commentar, Einleitung, § 4 ; p. 47, E. T.) Cora- 
 pare Home, Introduction, vol. v. pp. 36, 37. 
 
 Note YI., p. 81. 
 
 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 Be Wette, vol. i. p. 31. See also Home's 
 l7itroductio?i, vol. v. p. 42. 
 
 Note VH., p. 81. 
 
 Compare Judges i. 21 with 2 Sam. v, 6-9. This passage, it is ad- 
 mitted, " seems to belong to the time of David." (Parker's De Wette, 
 vol. i. p. 206.) 
 
 Note Ylll., p. 81. 
 
 The chronology of the Book of Judges is involved in great uncer- 
 tainty. Several periods are unestimated, as the time between the death 
 of Joshua and the first servitude, the judgeship of Sharagar, 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,) 279 years. The total is 
 thus 410, or 390.1 g^^ 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, (40 years,) and of Samuel, (more than 20 years, 1 Sam. 
 vii. 2,) the reigns of Saul, (40 years,) of David, (40 years,) and the 
 three years of Solomon's reign before the Dedication, we obtain the 
 result of (390 -f 40 + 20 + o -|- 40 -|- 20 -f- 40 -f 40 + 3 = ) 598 years, 
 or more than a century beyond the estimate in Kings. It is therefore 
 
 1 With this nearly agrees St. Paul's estimate of 450 years from the division of the 
 land hy lot to Sara'iel the prophet, (Acts xiii.20;) for 390 + 40 (the time of Eli's judge- 
 Bbip) -f- 20 (a not improbahle estimate for the time between the death of Moses and the 
 1st Servitude) = 450 years.
 
 296 NOTES. Lect. IIL 
 
 thought that the period of the Judges must be reduced ; and the term 
 ordmarily assigned to them, exclusive of Eli and Samuel, is from 30fl 
 to 350 years. (See the marginal dates in the English Bible, and com- 
 pare Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, vol. i. p. 313, note ».) M. Bunsen, 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 Egypty 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, "Vowels are good 
 for nothing, and consonants of small account." — 
 
 Note IX., p. 82. 
 
 Jahn, Einleihing, § 46, vol. ii. p. 232, et seqq. Herbst, Emleitung, 
 vol. ii. p. 139, et seqq. ; Graf, Dissertatio de lihrorum Samuelis et Regum 
 compositiojie, &c. A good refutation of Jahn's theory will be found in 
 Kitto's Cyclopcedia^ in the article on the "Books of Samuel," vol. ii. p. 
 685.) 
 
 Note X., p. 82. 
 
 See Carpzov, Introduction &c., p. 213. Modern critics mostly take the 
 view that the Books of Samuel were merely founded on these doc- 
 uments. (See Havernick, Einleitung, § 161 ; Stuart, History of the Old 
 Testament Canon, § 6, 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, contempov 
 rary with Solomon's successor.
 
 lect. hi. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 297 
 
 Note XII., p. 84. 
 
 De Wettc savs 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 several 
 accounts peculiar to itself, and especially by its Lcvitical 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. xx^nii.) 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 Chron. x. 1-10. 
 
 Now the Philistines fought a- 
 gainst Israel ; and the men of Is- 
 rael fled from before the Philis- 
 tJies, and fell down slain in mount 
 Gilboa. And the Philistuies 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 fled from before the Philis- 
 tines, and fell down slain in mount 
 Gilboa. And the Philistines fol- 
 lowed hard icpo?i Saul and tipoi 
 his sons ; and the Philistines slew 
 Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Mel- 
 chi-shua, Saul'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 De Wette appears to allow that Asaph was the author. (^Einiei- 
 tirng, § 271, p. 366.) In this Psalm are mentioned the following his- 
 torical facts : (1.) The givmg 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, &e. ;) (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. 45 ;) 
 (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 leadmg of the Israelites out oi 
 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 heap, (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. 5Q- 
 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. 291? 
 
 ment of the captors by emcrods, (v. 66 ;) (49.) the choice of the terri- 
 tory of Judah for the final restmg-place of the tabernacle, (v. 68 ;) 
 (oO.) 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 XIY., p. 85. 
 Stanley's Shiai and Palesfi?ie, pp. 132, 133. 
 
 Note XY., 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 evefi occasionally Egypt in 
 subjection, {Egypt, vol. iii, pp. 269, 289, &c.) But this view rests 
 entirely upon Ctesias, a WTiter (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,^ than the gradual rise of Assyria to power during the 520 (526) 
 years assigned by Herodotus to the Empire. Tiglath-Pileser I., whose 
 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. C. 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 Ass\Tia ; " and the fourth, his father, "the subduer 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. He 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 Egypt, vol. iii. p. 433. 2 Ibid. p. 436,
 
 300 NOTES. Lect. hi. 
 
 Inscription, published by the Royal Asiatic Society,' pp. 22, 24, 34, 
 42, &c.) 
 
 Note XVI., p. 85. 
 
 See Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 374-376. Com- 
 pare Bunsen, Ecfi/pt, vol. iii. pp. 210, 211, 219-221, &c. 
 
 Note XVII., p. 86. 
 
 See above, Note XV. Chushan-Hishathaini is placed by most Eibli- 
 cal chronologists between B. C. 1400, and B. C. 1350. M. Bunsen 
 puts him a century later. {Effi/pt, 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. Bvmsen'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-Naharaun (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 ca7i 7iever have been an empire in Eastern Syria coexistent with 
 Assyria and Babylonia," (p. 293.) WTiy 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. 
 Armen., i. 18. 
 
 1 Printed by J. W. Parker, West Strand, London, 1857.
 
 Lect. III. NOTES. 301 
 
 Note XIX., p. 86. 
 
 Procopius expresses himself as follows. Having mentioned Tigisis, 
 (Tangiers,) a city of Xiimidia, he proceeds — "Where there are two 
 columns, made of white stone, near the great fountain, ha\'ing carved 
 upon them Phoenician letters, which read thus in the language of the 
 Phcjenicians : — ' We are they who fled from the face of Joshua the Rob- 
 ber, the son of Xun.' " (De Eello Vandalico, ii. 10.) This is clearly 
 the language of an eye-witness. Procopius, it must be remembered, 
 had accompanied Belisarius to Africa. 
 
 Note XX., p. 86. 
 
 (Suidas ad voc. Xaraui — Canaan.) "And there are up to the present 
 time such slabs in Xumidia, containing the following inscription : — ' We 
 are Canaanites, whom Joshua the Kobber drove out.' " 
 
 Note XXI. p. 87. 
 
 Keil, Commentar uher d. Buck Josua, Einleitung, § 4, p. li. ; p. 51, 
 E. T. 
 
 Note XXH., p. 87. 
 
 ^Ir. Kenrick, 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.) He 
 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 siiggests 
 that a monument of the time of Joshua would have been unintelligible 
 even to learned archaeologists in the days of Justinian. But 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, " ly. TTQoodjnov" ^ is admitted to be " a plausible argument for the 
 
 1 From the face. 
 
 26
 
 S02 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, Avhich 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 XXHI. p. 87. 
 
 Very few Phoenician inscriptions have been found in Africa of a later 
 date than the age of Augustus. (See Gesenius's Monumenta Scrijitiirce 
 Linguc^que Phoe^iicice, 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 w^here 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 Knoicledge of Holy Scrip- 
 ture, vol. i. p. 176. Compare Goguet, Origines Legicm et Artium, vol- 
 iii. p. 300.)
 
 Lect. m. 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 thmk, 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, Schultz, 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 moniiiig ; and 
 the prayer was simply that the sun might not set till the people had 
 Rvenged 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- 
 sary 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 as 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 uher d, Bzich 
 Josua, ch. x. pp. 177-193 ; pp. 251-269, E. T.) 
 
 Note XXVH., p. 89. 
 
 Ap. Euseb. Prap. Ev. ix. 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 tlie 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 XXVIII., p. 89. 
 
 Fragmenta Hist. Gmc, vol. iii. pp. 373, 374, Fr. 31 : '« Now a great 
 while after this, one of the inhabitants of the country, whose name was 
 Aclad, reigned over Damascus, and the rest of Syria except Phoenice. 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 IturEeans, and Nabateeans, and Nabdeeans." (Euseb. 
 Frcep, 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 
 Phoinicia, pp. 201-205. 
 
 Note XXXH., p. 91. 
 
 The superior antiquity and prei'minence in early times of Sidon over 
 T}Te has been disputed. Niebuhr in his liGciMxeB {Vortrage Uber AUo
 
 Lect. III. NOTES. 305 
 
 Geschichte, vol. i. p. 94 ; p. 78, E. T.) speaks of it as doubtful. And 
 the writer of the article oa PhcEnicia, 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 times 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 "Tj-re was probably at fii'st 
 only a dependency of Sidon." (See his, PJicenicia, 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. y\. p. 257.) 
 
 Note XXXHI., p. 91. 
 
 Homer makes no mention at all of Tyre or the Tyrians, while he 
 speaks of Sidon and the Sidonians repeatedly. (See Hom. II. vii. 
 289, 290 ; xxiii. 741-744; Od. iv. 618; xv. 117, and 425.) He also in 
 one passage uses " Sidonia " as the name of Phoenicia in general.^ 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 woiild 
 scarcely on that account have so determinedly excluded Tyre, the 
 more important city of the two at the time when he wrote, from aU 
 mention in either of his poems. 
 
 Note 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 iJtTjTpoTTo/.iv') of all Phoenicia. 
 
 1 " They have embarked and gone away to populous Sidonia, but I am left 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 Sido7i 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." {HistoricPy 
 xviii. 3.) Tyre is here made an actual colony from Sidon. (Compare 
 Isaiah xxiii. 12, where Tyre is addressed as " daughter of Sidon.") 
 
 Note XXXVI., p. 91. 
 
 Josephus calls Dius " a man who is believed to have been very cxacx 
 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 th-i. 
 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 XXXVIII., 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 Phamician towns, (Layard, Nineveh atid Babylon, p. 356 ; Sir
 
 Lect. m. NOTES. 307 
 
 H. Rawlinson's Coyyimentayy 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 consetisus 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 Tjtc," is mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath- 
 PQeser H. (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 again^^t Greece, (Herodot. \ii. 98.) The 
 name also occurs among the Phoenicians of C}"prus, (ib. v. 104.) 
 
 Note XLH., 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 fift}--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. III. 
 
 and built the temple of Hercules first in the month Peritius, and after- 
 wards that of Astarte, 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 XLIII., 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 went 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 
 Apion,, i. 17.) 
 
 Note XLIY., p. 93. 
 
 See Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. p. 386 : «' Hiram gave his omti daughter 
 to Solomon ... as Mcnander of Pergamus says." Compare Tatian, 
 Adverstis 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.
 
 IeCT. III. NOTES. 309 
 
 Note XLV., p. 93. 
 
 "Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 375 ; Bunsen, Egypt, 
 vol. iii. pp. 206, 207. 
 
 Note XLYI., p. 93. 
 
 See Euseb. Prcpp. Ev., ix. 31-34. The passage is also given among 
 the fragments of Polyhistor, in Mailer's Fragnienta Historicorum Grcsco- 
 rum, vol. iii. pp. 225, 226, Fr. 18. 
 
 Note XLVTE., p. 94. 
 
 Eg^-ptian 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 C/anon 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.^ 
 
 Note XL\T:n., p. 94. 
 
 Sesonchis is the form used by Afiicanus, Sesonchosis that adopted 
 by Eusebius. (See the Fragments of Manetho, collected by Mons. C. 
 Mailer, 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. 
 
 1 The dates furnished by the Apis stelai prove that Manetho's lists, as we have them, 
 are not wholly to be depended on. In the Scripture chronology of the time, one 
 element of doubt is furnished by the difference which sometimes exists between the 
 LXX. and the Hebrew text. Another arises from the want of exact agreement between 
 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 Bubastite, 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. Pr^p. 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 LII., p. 95. 
 
 See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vii. pp. 490, 491. Compare 
 Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 634, 635. 
 
 Note LIII., p. 96. 
 
 Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 650 and 655. For an account of 
 the structures at Susa and Persepolis, see Mr. Loftus's Chaldcea and 
 Susiana, ch. xxviii. pp. 364-380, and Mr. Fergusson's elaborate work, 
 The Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 95-190. 
 
 Note LIV., p. 96. 
 
 Fergusson's Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 272-276 ; compare 
 Layard's Nineveh 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 
 
 ruins, he measured two pillars, the total height of which, including 
 capital and tor, v:a.s, forty -five feet. (Ibid. p. 590.) The measurements 
 adopted by Mr. Fergusson are, for the palace of Darius, 20 feet ; for 
 the nail of the Hundred Columns, 25 feet ; for the Propylseum 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 LVI., p. 96. 
 See Kugler's Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, p. 81. 
 
 Note L^TI., 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 Birs Nimrud. 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 toith silver and some with gold, and the tiles were all of silver. 
 And again, the temple . . . had columns covered with gilding, and 
 there were very many silver titles in it, and there were a feic goldeti 
 plinths, but a great 7nany silver mies remained. (Bk. x. ch. 27, § 10 and 
 §12.) 
 
 Note LM:II., p. 97. 
 
 For the use of gold in ornamentation by the Phoenicians, see abo%'e. 
 Notes XLHI. and LI. ; and compare Kenrick's Phoinicia, p. 252, and 
 O. Mailer's Handbuch der ArchtLologie der Ku7ist, p. 273, 2d edition.
 
 312 NOTES. Lect. Ill 
 
 For its use by the Assyrians, see Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Bahylmi, 
 pp. 651, 652. For its use by the Babylonians, see the last Note, and 
 compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 243, note ^. 
 
 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 LX., p. 97. 
 See Mr. Kenrick's Phcenicia, p. 252. 
 
 Note LXI., p. 97. 
 Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 195, 19G. 
 
 Note LXIL, p. 97. 
 Ibid. p. 150. 
 
 Note LXII. 6, p. 98. 
 See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 354. 
 
 Note LXIH., 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 find 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, biit with realities of flesh and blood. 
 Such coincidences are not usually found in fables, least of all in fables 
 of Eastern origin." {pinai and Palestine, Preface, p. xviii.) And
 
 LeCT. m. 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, (I Chron. v. 9, 10 ;) Avhich 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 Ai-abs 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 Assp-ian 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 ^ledian Empire of 
 Ctesias, commencing in B. C. 876 with the destruction of Nineveh, 
 and continuing to the time of Cjtus. It was for a long time considereii 
 doubtful among historical critics whether the authority of Ctesias or 
 that of Herodotus was to prevail ; but as time Avent 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 Assj-rian history was " wholly to be rejected." 
 (VoHrdge iiber Alt. Geschic/it., vol. i. p. 16 ; p. 12, E. T.) M. Bunsen, 
 even while making use of him, allows that he was "a confused and 
 tmcritical writer." {Egypt, vol. 'iii. p. 432.) Col. Mure {Language 
 and Literature of Ancient Greece, vol. v. p. 484) calls him "an author 
 of proverbially doubtful veracity." Even his apologists can now say 
 
 1 Moab appears as Mahab, (Heb. —541^,) Ammon as Beth-Ammon^ -whicli ie probably 
 the chief city, the Rabbah or Rab bath- Ammon of Scripture. 
 
 27
 
 314 NOTES. Lect. IV. 
 
 little more in his defence, than that <' there is no positive evidence for 
 charging him with xoilfully 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 Ge7itiineness 
 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 Kmgs. (Ibid. § 183, p. 232 ; vol. ii. 
 p. 230, E. T.) 
 
 LECTURE lY. 
 
 Note I., p. 102. 
 See Lecture in., page 80. 
 
 Note II., p. 103. 
 Ibid. p. 83. 
 
 Note DL, 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 (1 Kings xiv. 19; 
 XV. 31; XVI. 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, ha^^.ng 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 
 Versiich fiber die Biicher der Chronik, p. 252, et seqq. And compare his 
 Commeniar ilber die Biicher der KOnige, Einleitung, § 3 ; p. 18, E. T.') 
 
 Note IV., p. 101. 
 
 This seems to be the real meaning of the difficult passage in Chron- 
 icles, (2 Chr. XX. 34,) which our translatcfrs '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 " tib'Ssl TiJJt 
 
 x5^"li3'' "^-v-O 1£D~b> — 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 auxfyuatps (ii[i/.iov 
 ^uoi/Jviv 'Ioqui[a.') 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 WTitten in the vision of 
 Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, in the book of the kings of Judah 
 and Israel." 
 
 Note ATE., 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 Kings, by Karl Friedrich Keil, D. D., translated by 
 James Murphy, LL. D. Edinburgh, Clark, 1857.
 
 316 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 ^ Lect. IV. 
 
 of Kings. The slightness of their differences will 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 Rab-shakeh from 
 Lachish to King Hezekiah, with 
 a great host against Jerusalem. 
 Ayid thexj wznt 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 when they 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, 
 What 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, 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 Rab-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 hi)n 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 kmg,- the King of Assyr- 
 ia, What confidence is this wherein 
 thou trustest ? / 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 tmto 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 
 sec ; and hear the ^vord of Sen- 
 nacherib, which hath sent him to 
 reproach the livuig 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, I 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 li\'ing 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 w^ere 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 YH., p. 104. 
 
 This agreement is chiefly between the last chapter of Jeremiah and 
 the 24th and 2oth chapters of the second Book of Kings. It is fully 
 equal to that above exhibited between Kings and Isaiah. 
 
 Note YHI., p. 104. 
 
 iveil, Commentar Uher die Biicher der KOyiige, Einleitung, § 3 ; p. 19, 
 E. T. 
 
 Note IX., p. 105. 
 
 De Wette, Einkitimg, § 184, p. 234 ; vol. ii. p. 241, Parker's Trans- 
 lation ; Bertholdt, Einleitung, vol. iii. p. lo4, et seqq. 
 
 Note X., p. 106. 
 
 This has been well showTi by Hftvernick, {Einleitung, \ 176, vol. ii. 
 p. 201, et seqq.,) and Keil, {Versuch Uber die BUcher der Chronik, p. 
 199, et seqq.) Keil, 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. 
 
 {Commentar liber die Bilcher der KOniffe, Einleitung, § 3 ; p. 17, note 
 1, E. 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, 
 which he j^laced in the chariot 
 cities, and with the king at Jeru- 
 salem. And the king made silver 
 a7id gold at Jerusalem as plenteous 
 as stones, and cedar trees made 
 he as the sycamore trees that are 
 in the vale for abundance. And 
 Solomon had horses brought out 
 of Egypt, and linen yarn : the 
 king's merchants received the linen 
 yarn at a price. And they fetched 
 tip and brought forth out of Egypt 
 a chariot for six hundred shekels 
 of silver, and a horse for a hun- 
 dred and fifty : and so brought 
 they out [horses] for all the kings 
 of the Hittites, and for the kings 
 of Syria, by their means. 
 
 1 Kings x. 26-29. 
 
 And Solomon gathered together 
 chariots and horsemen : and he 
 had a thousand and four hundred 
 chariots, and twelve thousand 
 horsemen, whom he bestowed in 
 the cities for chariots, and with 
 the khig at Jerusalem. And the 
 king made silver to be in Jerusa- 
 lem as plenteous as stones, and 
 cedars made he to be as the syca- 
 more trees that are in the vale for 
 abundance. And Solomon had 
 horses brought out of Egypt, and 
 linen yarn : the king's merchants 
 received the linen yarn at a price. 
 And a chariot came up and xcent out 
 of Egypt for six hundred shekels 
 of silver, and a horse for a him- 
 dred and fifty : and so for all the 
 kings of the Hittites, and for the 
 kings of Syria, did they bring them 
 out by their means. ^ 
 
 Compare also 2 Chron. xiv. 1-4 with 1 Kings xv. 11, 12 ; 2 Chron. 
 xvi. 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. It 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 Chron. 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 Avas 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 
 tvhich he had made for himself in 
 the city of David, and laid him in 
 the bed which was filed with sweet 
 odors and divers kinds of sjoices 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 
 they 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 w'as buried wdth 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. Miiller, prefixed to his collection of the 
 fragments of Manetho in the Fragmenta Historicorum Grcecoruniy vol. ii. 
 pp. 514, 515. 
 
 Note XII., p. 106. 
 
 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, {Einleitung, § 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 
 Berthcau's Comyncntar, of w^hich a translation has recently appeared.*^ 
 Some, however, as the difference of numbers and names, cannot but 
 
 1 Tliis translation forms the latter portion of the 16th volume of ClarkV Foreign 
 Thtological 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 Cation, § 6, pp. 143-145 ; and 
 compare the article on Chronicles, m Kitto's CyclopcBdia.') 
 
 • 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.^ Otto Strauss,- 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 Horee PaidiyicB, 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, w^ho 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 erklirt, Leipsic, 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 Harnesses — the Beth-Rameses of the Hieratic Papyri. (See 
 Note LXXXVII., 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-Klmmri in the earlier inscriptions. From 
 the time of Tiglath-Pileser II., the term used is Tsamirin. 
 
 Note X^TIL, 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 m 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 G. Wilkinson, however, regards Osorkon 
 II., who married the great granddaughter of Shishak, as more natu- 
 rally the contemporary of Asa, the great grandson of Solomon, since 
 Solomon and Shishak were contemporaries. (See the author's Herodo- 
 tust vol. ii. p. 378.) 
 
 1 See Mr. Fox Talbot's Assyrian Texts translated, p. IL 
 3 This is M. BuDsen's view, Egypt, vol. iii. p. 308.
 
 822 NOTES. Lect. IV. 
 
 Note XX., p. 111. 
 
 Menander said — «« On the death of Hiram, his son Baleazai 
 (read Balthazar) succeeded to the kingdom. He 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 
 kmgdom, but reigned only 8 months, when he w^as 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 XXI., p. 111. 
 
 See Kenrick's Fhonnicia, p. 362 ; Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 428 ; 
 Keil's Commentary (p. 259, E. T.,) &c. 
 
 Note XXIL, 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 HI.) sufficiently accounts for the generic use, which was 
 well known to the Greek and Latin poets, (Hom. Od. xiii. 285 ; Soph. 
 Fr. Ixxxii. ; Eurip. Hel. 1429 ; Virg. ^n. i. 446, &c.)
 
 Lect. IV. NOTES. 328 
 
 Note XXIH., p. 112. 
 
 See Josephus, Ant. Jud. viii. 13 : " Menander also mentions this 
 drought, writing thus in the Acts of Ithobalus, king of the Tyrians : 
 * Under this man there was a want of rain from the month H\'per- 
 bereta^us 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 ]SIotmt 
 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 MuUer's 
 preface to the fragments of Nicolas, in his Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iii. 
 p. 34-5.) Of this sketch, i.owever, we unfortunately possess but 
 three short fragments, preserved to us by Josephus.^ 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 (Gen. 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 
 XX\'TII.) The third i:: interpreted by Josephus as bearing upon the 
 Syrian war of Ahab ; but its true reference is to that of Baasha. It 
 rims thus : " Now when he died (i. e. Hadad I.) his posterity reigned 
 for ten generations, each one inheriting from his father, together with 
 the royal authority, the same name also, like the Pharaohs in Egypt. 
 But the third, who was 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 e\adent that Hadad IH., who 
 was the grandson of David'? antagonist, cannot have contended against 
 Ahab, 140 years afterwards. Nicolas undoubtedly intends the antag- 
 onist of ^^aasha, half a century earlier, whose inioad was completely suc- 
 
 - Ant. Jud. vii. 5.
 
 824 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 two 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 ; byt men- 
 tions him among those who paid tribute to the Assyrian monarch. 
 He is styled '* YaJma, the son of K/imnri" — 5enU; the son of Omri,
 
 Lect. IV. NOTES. 6-Zb 
 
 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, 
 rinally, 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 XYII.) His tribute consisted of 
 silver, gold, and articles of various kinds manufactured from gold. 
 
 Note XXIX., p. 114. 
 
 The 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 Babjdonia, 
 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 Elulaeus, 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 Elulseus. 
 
 Note XXXI., p. 114. 
 
 See Euseb. Chronica, i. 4 ; p. 18, ed. Mai. "After these, he says 
 there was a king of the Chaldseans whose name was Pul." 
 
 Note XXXH., p. 114. 
 
 In 2 Kings xv. 19, the LXX. interpreters render Pul by Phua, (•foi^d,) 
 where the terminal a is probably a false reading arising out of the 
 resemblance of J to A. In 1 Chron. v. 26, the reading of the Vatican 
 and most MSS. is <Pa?.Cj)^, but some copies have <I>a7.o5j. 
 
 28
 
 826 NOTES. Lect. IV. 
 
 Note XXXIII., p. 115. 
 
 A full account of this inscription, first deciphered by Sir H. Raw- 
 linson, will be found in the Athenceii7n, No. 1476, p. 174. A general 
 summary of its contents is given in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
 o, 467, 
 
 Note XXXIY., p. 115. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson's letter in the Athenceuniy 1. s. c. 
 
 Note XXXV., p. 116. 
 
 The conjunction of Hezin with Pekah, and the capture and destruc- 
 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 JSIenahem 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 XXXVI., p. 117. 
 
 The older interpreters, as Keil remarks,* 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 ilher d. Bilch. d. Chronik, p. 421, E. T.,) 
 Ewald, {GescUchte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. pp. 325, 326,) and Vance 
 Smith, {Prophecies concerning Assyria, p. 27,) follow the old view. 
 Keil himself regards the qu-stion as unimportant, since he supposes 
 that no idolatrous rites or ide xs were connected with the altar. Ahaz, 
 according to his view, having seen a pattern which he fancied better 
 
 1 Commentar vber d. Bvch. d. KUnige, g 2: toI. 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 Buddaeus, Hist, Eccles., vol. ii. p. 428.) 
 
 Note XXXVH., 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 XXXATII., 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 kmg 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. Jud., 
 ix. 14.) 
 
 Note XXXIX., p. 117. 
 
 See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 471, note '^. 
 
 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. 6 ;) 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 XLIL, p. 118. 
 
 Sargon has been identified with Shalmaneser by Vitringa, OfFenhaus, 
 Prideaux, Eichhorn, Hupfeld, Gumpach, and M. Niebuhr ; ^ with Sen- 
 nacherib by Grotius, Lowth, Keil, and Schroer ; with Esarhaddon by 
 Perizonius, Kalinsky, and ISIichaelis. (See Winer's RealioOrterbuch, ad 
 
 1 QeschirMf Jissurs und Babels seit Ehul, p. 160.
 
 328 NOTES. Lect. IV. 
 
 \oc. 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, Projohecies, &e., pp. 31, 32 ; Ewald, Gesehichte des 
 Volkes Israel, vol. iii. pp. 333, 334 ; Layard, Nineveh ami Babylon^ pp. 
 G18-620, &c.) 
 
 Note XLIH., p. 118. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson's Commentary on the Inscriptions of Bahyloyiia 
 and Assyria, p. 19, note ^, where a passage proving this is quoted from 
 Yaeut, the famous Arabian geographer. 
 
 Note XLIV., p. 118. 
 
 See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 473, note '* ; and compare Vance 
 Smith's Prophecies, &c., p. 35. 
 
 Note XLV., p. 119. 
 
 When Sargon took Ashdod, its king (he tells us) lied to Muzr, 
 (Mizraim or Egypt,) which was subject to Mirukha, (Meroe or Ethio- 
 pia.) See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 474. 
 
 Note XL VI., 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 XL^TIL, p. 121. 
 
 Mr. Tiayard 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 difiiculty" in reconciling Herodotus with 
 Scriptiure has been generally said to be the scene of the destruction. 
 (See Joseph. 1. s. c, Prideaux's Conyiection of Sacred and Profane His- 
 tory, vol. i. p. 18 ; M. Niebuhr's Geschichte Assurs und 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 ^Ir. Vance 
 Smith has showTi, {Prophecies, &c., p. 213,) w^ithout warrant from 
 Scripture, but it is actually contradictory to Scripture. God's promise 
 to Hezekiah 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 xcay 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. 6., 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 was destroyed by a plot formed against him by his son 
 Ardumazan." {^Chronica, i. 5 ; p. 19, ed. Mai.) 
 
 Abydenus 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 r) (Ap. Euseb, Chronica, i. 9, p. 25.1 
 
 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 mountam." But Ar- 
 gamozan obtained a settlement in the same region, between the East 
 and the South. Erom him this historian (Mar- Abas) reports that the 
 Arzerunii and the Genunii were descended. 
 
 Note LH., 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 tot ites in quite the same rnanner as the books of the Hebrews." 
 
 Note LIU., p. 122. 
 
 Abydenus interpolates a reign between Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, 
 which he assigns to a certain Nergiltcs, 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 cojitain most commonly a god's name 
 as an element, but are never identical with the names of deities. It 
 Avas 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 of
 
 Lect. IV. NOTES. 331 
 
 his palaces. (See the author's Ilerodokcs, vol. i. p. 483.) It is not sur- 
 prising that we have no account of the expedition against ^lanasseh, 
 since we do not possess the amials of Esarhaddon, but only some occa' 
 sional mscriptions. 
 
 Note LV., p. 123. 
 
 The Assyrians ordinarily governed Babylon through native viceroys. 
 (See Berosus, Fr. 12 ; and the inscriptions, 2^assim.') 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. Syyitax. 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 sui-e indication that he was the actual 
 ruler of the country. No similar facts can be proved of any otheJ 
 Assyrian monarch.^ (See the author's Herodoius, vol. i. p. 482.) 
 
 Note L\1., p. 123. 
 
 There is one only mention of Assyria in the historical Scriptures later 
 than the reign of ^lanasseh, namely, the statement in 2 Kings xxiii, 29, 
 that in the days of Josiah " Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egj^pt, went up 
 against the ki7iff of Assyria to the river Euphrates." If this expression 
 is to be taken strictly, we must consider that AssjTia maintained her 
 existence so late as B. C. 610. I believe, however, that the word 
 "Assyria" is here used, somewhat negligently, for "Babylonia." (Cf. 
 Keil, ad loc, p. 154, E. T.,) and that the AssjTian empire was destroyed 
 in B. C. 625. (See Niebhur, Vortrdge ilber Alte GeschicJite, 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. 585. 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. C. 605. 
 
 1 It has been suggested by Dr. Hincks and others that the " Arceanus" of Ptolemy's 
 list is Sargon. But this is a mere conjecture grounded upon a certain degree of resem- 
 blance in the names. No traces of Sargon haxe been found in Babylonia.
 
 332 NOTES. Lect. IV. 
 
 Note LVII., 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 LVIII., 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 i^io ; if the word were pointed thus — JsilD 
 — it would have to be rendered by " Seveh." (See Keil on 2 Kings 
 xvi. 4-6, pp. 52, 52, E. T. ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
 p. 472, note ^^ 
 
 Note LIX., p. 124. 
 
 See Mr. Birch's note in Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, ch. 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 ReahoOrterbuch, ad voc. 
 So ; Keil, Commentar ilber die Bilcher der Kdtiiye, 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 Ho shea in Hezekiah' s third or fourth year. This then 
 must have been in the reign of the second Shebek, to whom ^lanetho 
 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 j^ear. A space 
 of several years may intervene between the 4th and 5th verses of 2 Kmgs 
 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 LXI., p. 125. 
 See Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 156-159. 
 
 Note LXH., p. 125. 
 
 Tarcus is the form given as Manetho's by Africanus, Taracus that 
 given by Eusebius. See the fragments of Manetho, in Mailer's Fr. 
 Hist, G)'., vol. ii. p. 593 ; Frs. 64 and 65.) The Hebrew word is 
 npnn?! ; the LXX. give QapaKa. 
 
 Note LXIII., p. 125. 
 Strabo, Geograph., i. 3, § 21 ; xv. i. § 6. 
 
 Note LXIV., p. 125. 
 
 This is the reading of Sir Gardner Wilkinson. (See the author's 
 Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 380.) Bunsen reads Taharuka, {Egypt, vol. ii. p. 
 598 ;) Rosellini, Tahraka. The consonants, T, H, R, K, are certain, 
 but the vowels doubtful. 
 
 K 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's 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, Avhile the 
 Shebeks, 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 Judaea is said to have 
 been in Hezekiah's 14th year, (2 Kings xix. 13 ;) but it seems to be 
 a second invasion, faUing some years later, which is described in versea
 
 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 Ni)(^au). 
 
 Note LXVI., p. 125. 
 
 Herodotus (ii. 158) uses the form NeKtbg, where the j is the Greek 
 nominative, and may therefore be cancelled. 
 
 Note LXVH., p. 125. 
 
 Rosellini expressed the monumental name by Neko, but M. Bunsen 
 reads it Nekau or Neku. (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 605.) 
 
 Note LXYHI., p. 125. 
 
 On the frequent confusion between the names Migdol C^'i^}2f MaySa/La, 
 MdySo/.ov) and Mcgiddo ('l'l!|)2> MayiSSu), MayeSubv,) see Dr. Stanley's Sinai 
 and Palestine, p. 375, note ^ 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. 5(i, 57 ; Rennell'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. Kdnige, ch. xxiii. p. 159, E. T. ; Home's Introduction, 
 vol. i. p. 208 ; and Kenrick's Anciott Egyj)t, 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, iii. 5. The best authorities incline to 
 identify it with Gaza, or Ghuzzeh, called in the Assyrian Inscriptions 
 Khazita. (See Hitzig, Disputatio de Cadyte urhe Herodotea ; and compare 
 Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus^ vol. ii. p. 246, note ^ ; Ewald, 
 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. p. 418, note ^ ; Sir H. Rawlinson, 
 Outlines of Assijrian History, &c. ; and Bertheau, Commentar uber d. 
 Buck. 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 
 Egj-pt. (See the fragments of Manetho in the Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. 
 pp. 593, 594 ; Frs. 66 and 67.) 
 
 Note LXXH., 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 LXXHI., 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. Syncell. 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 Egj^t,) 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 kmg. (See the Canon.) As Nebuchadnezzar reig-ned 43 years, 
 
 1 Or six years. (See Bunsen's Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 610, 611.)
 
 336 NOTES. Lect. IY,. 
 
 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. Gr.y vol. ii. pp. 
 593, 594; Frs. QQ 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 LXXVI., 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 J 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-Ztaddon, and probably in Saracus for 
 Assiir-akh-uztcr, or some similar word. 
 
 The identity of the Mardocempadus of the Canon with the Mardn.k- 
 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. y p. 45 ; Oppert, Rapport^ &c., pp. 48, 49 ; 
 Hincks in Duhl. Univ. Mag., No. 2o0, p. 421 ; Layard, Nineveh and 
 Babylon, p. 140 ; Keil on 2 Kings xx. 12-19 ; p. 118, E. T. ; &c.) 
 
 Note LXXVH., 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 EKbus 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 Hezekiah 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 LXXYm., 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 partisanj ; and Sargon 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.) Sennacherib 
 says, that immediately after his accession he invaded Babylonia, de- 
 feated and expelled Merodach-Baladan, and placed BeHb over the land 
 as ruler. (Ibid. p. 476 ; Pox 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 Sa7isi is the Sun ; Hurki, the ^Moon ; Nebo is 
 Mercury ; Ishtar, Venus ; Nergal, ^Nlars ; 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 exactly face the four cardinal points, which seems to be a sufficient 
 proof that they were used for astronomical purposes. (See his Chaldcea 
 and Susiana, ch, xii. p. 128.) On the astronomical skill of the Babylo- 
 nians, see Herod, ii. 109 ; Simplicius ad Aristot. De Ccelo, ii. p. 123 ; 
 Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 56 ; Vitruvius, 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 Phcenice 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 Jews, 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 LXXXII., p. 127. 
 
 See Josephus, Contra Ajnon., 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 LXXXIII., p. 127. 
 
 In continuation of the passage cited in Note LXXXI., 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 Judaea 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 iUness 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 difiiculties 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. 
 Vortrage ilher Alte 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
 
 84t? NOTES. Lect. IV. 
 
 Habor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." Misled by 
 the last clause, various commentators have struggled vainly to find 
 llabor, Ilalah, and Gozan in or near Media. (See Bochart, Geograph. 
 Sac, iii. 14; Kitto, Bibl. Cydojjcedia, 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 Haran, 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 Harran 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 C/ioboras, (Habor ;) and adjoin- 
 ing it (Ptol. 1. s. c.) was a district called Chalcitis, (Ilalah.) 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 Khabour, and the country 
 as Kaushan.^ The author of Chronicles (1 Chron. v. 26) adds Hara to 
 the places mentioned in Kings, which is clearly Haran, or Harran, 
 known to the Romans as Carrlice. 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. (5) 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,"^ "is wholly vmcertain." .And so Keil:"* 
 "The situation of Cuthah cannot be determined with certamty " 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 tlie adjectival or participial )3 prefixed. The 
 Greek writers always substituted their 6 for the Semitic z. Hence Gaza became Catfytis, 
 Achzib became Ecdippa, the river Zab became the Diaba; and so M'gozan became 
 MygtZun. 
 
 2 So at least Winer says, but I do not know on what authority. (Realwdrterbuch, 
 ad voc. Oosan.) 
 
 3 Realworterbuch, vol. i. p. 237. 
 
 4 See Keil on 9 Kings xvii. 24 ; vol. ii. p. 67, E. T.
 
 Lect. IV. NOTES. 841 
 
 are now called Ibrahim. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 632, 
 and vol. ii. p. 587.) ^Yith almost equal confidence may we 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."^ Ava, (i<^>,) or Ivah, (i^^S^',) 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, (-n''>) o^ with an epithet Ihi-dakira, (j^'^^p'TirTij) by 
 Herodotus Is, ("I5,) 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 (s^ins^) of Ezra, (\iii. 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 Wiiier and Kitto ad voc. They have not, how- 
 ever, been able 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, Sepharvam, 
 (D'^niro ;) which is explained by the fact, noted in the Inscriptions, 
 that the city was partly on the right, partly on the left ^ank 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. 55in ; LXX. 'Ava) La a similar position. Now on the Euphrates 
 in this region is found in the Inscriptions an important town, Aiiah or 
 Anat; which has always borne nearly the same name, and which is 
 even now kno\\Ti as Aiiah. 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. 6 ; 1 Kings xi. 
 
 1 Realw'drterbuch, toI. 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 monarchs, compre- 
 hend almost always a divine element. Their names, so far as they 
 are known, run as follows : Ahibaal, Hiram, Baleazar, Abdastartus, 
 Astartus, Aserymus, Pheles, 'Eihbaal, Balezar, Matgen, Pygmalion, 
 Elulfeus, F,th-baal II., Baal, JLcnibaal, Chelbes, Abbarus, Mytgon, 
 Bal-ator, Gerastartits, M.erbal, and Hiram II. 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.' (i) It has been already noticed that Nergal, 
 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.) {(I) 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 Assjn-ian 
 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, Belus, Her- 
 cules. (Phcenicia, p. 345.) But Movers has shown satisfactorily that Melcarth (the 
 Tyrian Hercules) vras only another name for Baal.
 
 Lect. IV. NOTES. 343 
 
 (2 Kings xviii. 23,) their preference of the bow as a weapon,* (ib. xix. 
 32,) the manner of theii' sieges by " casting banks" against the walls 
 of cities,^ (ibid.,) and again the rehgious enthusiasm with which the 
 wars were carried on, the antagonism maintained between the Assyrian 
 gods and those of the invaded countries, (2 I\angs xviii. 33, 34, &c.,) 
 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.-'^ (b) No less harmonious with Scrip- 
 ture Ls the representation which the monuments give of the Assyrian 
 political system. Something has been already said on this point. 
 (Lectm-e lH., 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 coiisequence. (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.'' (c) The continued 
 power of the Hittites, 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 lungs of the Khatti, allied with Sj-ria 
 and Hamath, and fighting against the Assyrians with a force whose 
 chief strength seems to be chariots. Many similar points of minute 
 agreem.ent might be adduced, but this note has, I fear, already extended 
 itself beyond the patience of most readers. 
 
 1 This appears sufficiently on the scilptures ; but it is even more strikingly evinced 
 in the language of the Inscriptions where the phrase which has to be translated, 
 '•killed in battle," ia constantly "killed vnth arrows.'^ (See Dubl. Univ. Mag., "So. 
 250, p. 423.) 
 
 2 See Layanl's JVineveh and Babylon, p. 149. Describing a bass-relief of Sennacherib's, 
 he says, " Against the fortifications had been thrown up as many as ten banks or mounds, 
 compactly built of stones, bricks, earth, and branches of trees." 
 
 3 See the Great Inscription of TiglathPiUser /., pp. 2S, SO, 38, &c.: DubU Univ. 
 Mag., Xo. 250, pp. 42.3, 424; Fox Talbot's Assurian Texts, pp. 1, 3, 4, 11, 22, 1-c. Com- 
 pare the authors Herodotus, vol. 1. p. 495. 
 
 * See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 493.
 
 344 NOTES. Lect. v. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 Note I., p. 131. 
 So Ewald, Die Propheten des Alien Bundes, p. 560. 
 
 Note H., p. 131. 
 
 This is the theory of De Wette {Eiiileitung, § 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. (0;^., vol. iii. pp. 1073, 1074.) 
 
 Note IV., p. 131. 
 
 It is urged by Ewald, (Propheten des Alt. Btindes, p. 565 ;) by Knobel, 
 Prophetismus der Hebrder, ii. p. 401 ; by Strauss, (Leben Jesu, § 13 ; vol. 
 i. p. 5%, 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 trice argument of all others, 
 even in modem criticism, lies in the dogmatic doubt of the reality ol 
 miracles and predictions." (^Prophecies of Daniel, Introduction, p. 10, 
 E. T.') And Stuart, " Nearly all the argimients 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 Tlie 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. Sapliir; Edinburgh, 
 Clark, 1856.
 
 LeCT. V. NOTES. 345 
 
 Note Y., 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 Eook is to assiune, 
 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 Avhich 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 M'hich 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 Di\ine 
 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,^ or have otherwise had some special object 
 which we cannot fathom. 
 
 Note Yl., p. 132. 
 
 See Hengstenberg, Aiithentie 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 Wette'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. Tiii. and xi., was 
 " necessary to prepare the people for the attacks and artful machinations of Antiochus," 
 and that •' the glorious struggle of the Maccabees, so far as it was a pure and righteous 
 one, was a fruit of this book." (pp. 54, 55.)
 
 34G NOTES. • Lect. V. 
 
 (Einleitung, § 2-55 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 instayices at all can be found 
 of the altei-^nate use, (as distinct from the occurrence of Chaldaisras in 
 Hebrew, or Hebraisms in Chaldee,) excepting at the time of the Cap- 
 tivity. 
 
 Note YII., 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 not 
 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. iii. p. 44.) 
 
 If the argument in the text is Aveakened 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. ^ (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. Jud. 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, g 31G, p. 419, " As we maintain at th» 
 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.^ 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, Avould make 
 the Book of Job, and the Proverbs of Solomon, later than Malachi ! 
 Xo wonder Professor Stuart should say — <» Beyond the objections 
 founded on the assumption, that mu'acles 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. Biindes, p. 
 560,) 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 vrriter 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 
 
 1 Einleitung. g 255, 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,' 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, 
 w^hile 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 XII.; 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 XIIL, 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, tbe Cliebar being 
 supposed to be the Khabour. But we have no right to assume the identity of the 
 words 1^3 and Tl^H. The Chebar is probably the Nahr Malcha, or Royal Canal, 
 the great /1^'3\ cutting of Nebuchadnezzar, See the article on Chebar in Smith's 
 (forthcoming) Biblical Dictionary.
 
 Lect. V. NOTES. 34S 
 
 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 in 
 Daniel, "Is not this great Babylon which I have built?" (Dan, iv. 
 30,) the statement of Berosus. Nebuchadnezzar . . . repaired the city 
 which had existed from the first, and added another to it ; and m order 
 that besiegers might not again be able, by turning aside the course of 
 the river, to get possession of the cit^', 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. PrfP^j. 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 uttered these words : ' O Babylonians, I Nebu- 
 chadnezzar announce to you this future calamity. . . . There shall come 
 a Persian mule, using our diAonities as allies : he shall bring us into 
 bondage : leagued with him shall be the Mede, the boast of Assyria.' 
 Having uttered these predictions, he immediately disappeared." 
 
 Note XVH., p. 133. 
 
 Beros. ap. Joseph. Co7ifr. Apio)7em, i. 20; Polyhist. ap. Euseb. Chron- 
 ica^ i. 5, § 3, p. 21 ; Ptol. Mag. Sg)ifax., v. 14. 
 
 Note X^T[I., 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* fninimum 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 -j- 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 coimtries. (^Propheferi des Alt. Bu7ides, p. 562.) 
 
 Note XXI., p. 134. 
 
 De Wette gives the fii'st 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 tinder 
 Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede." {^Einleitimg, 1. s. c.) 
 
 Note XXII., p. 134. 
 
 The word which we translate "magicians" in Dan. i. 20, ii. 2, 10, 
 &c., is chartummim, or khaHummim^ (d'/Spin,) which is derived from 
 cheret, or kheret, (rs'l)!,) '< a graving-tool." (See Buxtorf's Lexicon He- 
 braicum et Chaldaicuni, 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 cliisel. 
 
 Note XXIII., p. 135. 
 
 The Chaldaeans in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even 
 E;?ekiel, are simply the inhabitants of Chaldsea, which is the name ap- 
 plied to the whole country whereof Babylon is the capital. But in
 
 Lect. V. NOTES. -351 
 
 Daniel the Chaldseans are a special set of persons at Babylon, having a 
 ♦'learning" and a " tongue " of their own, (Dan. i. -i,) and classed with 
 the magicians, astrologers, &c. Strabo notes both senses of the terra, 
 (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. Rawlinsou's note in the author's 
 Herodotus, vol. L p. 319, note ^.) 
 
 Note XXIV., p. 135. 
 
 Compare an article on the Chaldaeans in Smith's (forthcoming) Bibli- 
 cal Dictionary. 
 
 Note XXY., p. 135. 
 
 See above. Lecture IV., Note LXXXI. 
 
 Note XXVI., p. 136. 
 
 I do not intend to assert that this teas 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 ease of 
 Gedaliah. The maintenance of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah 
 on the throne of Judaea seems to indicate the genei-aV 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" (5<^:S:'^•^u:^^^) by ffar^^dTaj, but this cannot be regarded as 
 an argument of much weight. Babylonian historical inscriptions are so
 
 352. NOTES. * Lect. v. 
 
 scanty that we can derive little assistance from them towards determm- 
 ing the question. 
 
 Note XXVn., 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 H. 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 XX^T:II., p. 136. 
 
 See his Beitrage 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 H. 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. ou3 
 
 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, (r) and I did not furnish his altars (with victims), 
 nor did I clear out the canals." Other negative clauses follow. From 
 this literal rendermg of the passage, only one or two words of which 
 are at all doubtful, the reader may judge for himseK 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 ow^n 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, E\il-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 coiitinues 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-uzur ; the Hebrew form 
 ("llkSt^/ii"^^"!!:) 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. 
 Prcep. Ev., ix. 41 ;) Ptolemy, {Mag. Synf., 1. s. c.,) Nerigassolassar. 
 
 Note XXXHI., p. 138. 
 
 The Babylonian vocalization somewhat modifies the word, which is 
 read as in the Inscriptions as Rubu-eynga. (See Sir H. Rawlinson's 
 note in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 518, note^.) With this the 
 
 30*
 
 354 NOTES. Lect. v. 
 
 Hebrew Rub-mag (S^"^"!) 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. Chrm. i. 10, 
 p. 28,) with which may be compared the Naboandelus (probably to be 
 read Naboaudechus,) 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 Nabu-nahit in Semitic, 
 Nabu-mduk in the Cushite Babylonian. 
 
 Note XXXY. p. 139. 
 
 So Josephus, (Ant. Jud. 1. s. c. ;) Perizonius, {Orig. Bahjlon. p. 359 ;) 
 Heeren, Mamtal of Ancient History, p. 28, E. T. ; Des Vignoles, 
 (Euvres, vol. ii. p. 510, et seqq. ; Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 369-371 ; 
 the author of VArt de Verifier les Dates, vol. ii. p. 69 ; Winer, Real- 
 wdrterbuch ad voc. Belshazzar ; Kitto, Biblical Cijclopcedia 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, Hupfeld, Havernick, and 
 others, have identified Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach ; Eusebius, 
 Syncellus, and Hales, Avith 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 XXXYH., p. 139. 
 So t)e Wette, Einleitung, § 255 a, p. 345. 
 
 Note XXXM:II., p. 139. 
 
 This view wa*s maintaiaed 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 obtamed at Mugheir, the ancient Ur. (See Mr. Lof- 
 tus's Chaldcea and Susiana, ch. xii. pp. 132, 133 ; and compare the 
 author's Hei'odotus, vol. i. p. 525.) 
 
 Note XL., p. 140. 
 
 Jehu, though ordinarily called " the son of Nimshi," was really Ms 
 grandson, (2 Kings ix. 2.) Merodach-Baladan, " the son of Baladan," 
 according to Isaiah, (xxxix. 1,) is in the Inscriptions the son of Yagina. 
 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, (Jerem. 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 Psammetik III. ; ^ and 
 Atossa was taken to wife both by the Pseudo-Smerdis and by Darius, 
 the son of Hystaspes, (Herod, iii. 68 and 88.) On the same grounds 
 
 1 Hebrew Monarchy, p. 361. 
 
 2 Wilkinson in the authors Herodotus, vol. 11. 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, Cmi. Chron. p. 604, et 
 seqq. ; Winer, RealwOrterbuch ad voc. Darius ; &c. 
 
 Note XLIH., p. 140. 
 
 This was the view of Josephus, {Atit. Jud. x. 11, § 4 ;) and from him 
 it has been adopted very generally. See Prideaux's Connection, &c., 
 vol. i. p. 9-5 ; Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p. 508 ; Offerhaus, 
 Spicileg. Hist. Chron., p. 265 ; Bertholdt, Exc. ziim Daniel, p. 483 ; Heng- 
 stenberg, Authenfie des Daiiiel, § 48 ; Von Lengerke, Das Buch Daniel, 
 § 92 ; Hooper's Palmoni, pp. 278-283 ; and Kitto's Biblical Cyclopcedia, 
 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, (Hdrodote, vol. vii. p. 175,) Conringius, Adversar. Chron. 
 c. 13,) and Bouhier, (Dissertations sur H6rodote, ch. iii. p. 29.) 
 
 Note XLV., p. 140. 
 
 Syncellus regarded Darius the Mede as at once identical w^th 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 (r), 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 B. 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 
 yery 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" — S^tl^S^^ bSp — that is, "accepit regnum," 
 (Buxtorf. ad voc. "^^ti') "received the kingdom at the hand of an- 
 other." And again we read in another place, (Dan. ix. 1,) that he 
 '•?ms made king over the realm of the Chaldaeans;" where the word 
 used is "^jb^tl, the Hophil of Tj'^^, the Hiphal of which is used when 
 David appoints Solomon king, and which thus means distinctly, *' was 
 appointed king by another." 
 
 Note XLVH., 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 ivas any law lohich alloiced 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 alloivable 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 LL, 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 LH., p. 142. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest of Judaea in the reign 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. 605. Nebuchadnezzar then reigned himself 43 years, 
 Evil-Merodach, his son, reigned two years, Nerigiissar 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 68 years after the first conquest of Judtea by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar in B. C. 605.
 
 LeCT. V. NOTES. 359 
 
 Note LIII., 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. iit. 24) as a round number, and after- 
 wards explained — accuracy being of especial importance in this proph- 
 ecy — as 68i weeks, (ibid. 2o-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 hiunan history. 
 
 Note LV., p. 143." 
 
 Einleitttng, § 196, 197, pp. 260-265. It is obvious that the insertion 
 of documents, such as the proclamation of Cjtus, (Ez. i. 24,) the list of 
 those who came up with Zerubbabel, (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 L\T:., 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. Jucl. 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 he 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. v. 
 
 B. C. 445, (Neh. 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, (Jechoniah, Pedaiah, 
 Zerubbabel, Ilananiah, 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, Ei7ileitung, § 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 LVHI., 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 Li^self. {Defence of the Old Testame^it Canon, § 6, p. 148.)
 
 Leot. V. NOTES. 361 
 
 Note LIX., p. U4. 
 
 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 fiirst 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 \'iii. 
 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 Cjtus," (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 LXm., p. 145. 
 See above, Lecture I. page 39, and compare p. 244, Note XLVIII. 
 
 Note LXIV., p. 145. 
 
 De Wette, Einleitung, § 196 a, p. 260 ; vol. ii. p. 324, Parker's 
 Translation ; Stuart, Befetice of the Canon, § 6, p. 148 ; Home, Intro- 
 duction, vol. V. pp. 64, 65. 
 
 Note LXV., p. 145. 
 
 See Lecture IV., p. 104. 
 
 31
 
 362 NOTES. Lect. v. 
 
 Note LXVI., p. 145, 
 See Lecture I., pp. 34, 35 ; and p. 241, Note XXXIV. 
 
 Note LXVII., p. 145. 
 
 " Die Erzahlung," says De Wette, " besteht aus einer Reihe geschicht- 
 licher Schweirigkeiten undUnwahrschein-lichkeiten, und enthaltmehrere 
 Verstosse gegen die Persischen Sitten." {Einleitutig , § 198 a, p. 266.) 
 
 Note I.XVIII., p. 145. 
 
 CEder, Freien Untersuchungen Uher d. Kanon des Alt. Test., p. 12, et 
 seqq. ; Michaelis, Orient. Bibliothek, vol. ii. p. 35, et seqq. ; Corrodi, 
 Beleucht. d. GeschicJit. d. Jild. Kanons, vol. i. p. 66, et seqq. ; and 
 BertJholdt, Historisch-Kritische Einleitimg in sdmmt, kanon. und apokr. 
 Schriften d. Alt. und Neue^i 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 {unstreitig) that the 
 feast of Purirn 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. Ca7wn, § 21, p. 308.) 
 
 Note LXXI., 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. 6b6 
 
 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 
 cotmtrymen, 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 LXXII., p. 116. 
 
 The grounds upon which the historical character of the Book of 
 Esther is questioned, are principally the following : —(1.) The Persian 
 king mtended 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, ha^'ing been 
 carried into captivity with Jechoniah, (in B. C. 588,) must have been 
 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, (o.) 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 Haman'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 e^-idence 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, 
 iEinleitung, § 198 a, p. 267, that such an hivitation is "possible on
 
 864 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 De 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, ^nd 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 ichat 
 he pleased. The sixth objection scarcely needs a reply, for its answer is 
 contained in the preceding objection. K 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 Haman'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 w^ere killed or wounded." (^History 
 and Defence of the O. T. Canon, § 21, pp. 309, 310.) 
 
 Note LXXHI., p. 146. 
 Carpzov, Infroductio, 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 ; Melito 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 LXXVI., p. 148. 
 
 Ibid., pp. 285, 291, 319, 323,- &c. 
 
 Note LXXVH., p. 148. 
 
 Ewald, GeschicMe d. Volkes Israel, vol. iii. part ii. p. 118 ; Winer, 
 ReahcOrferbicch, ad voce. Ahasuerus and Artachschaschta ; Kitto, Bib- 
 lical Cyclopatdia, vol. i. pp. 98 and 229, &c. 
 
 Note LXXYHI., 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 
 Ahasuerus (= Xerxes) is still more curious. Cambyses was known 
 as Kembath in Egypt, Kabiijiya in Persia, KaiiPvcru 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 Ahasuerus 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 Aitaxerxes of verse 7 is incompatible 
 with the Jiezus of verses 23 and 24. 
 
 31*
 
 866 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 Canonj we 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.)* Thus the two chronolo- 
 gies harmonize exactly. 
 
 Note LXXX., p. 149. 
 
 See the Behistun Inscrvpt., col. i. par. 14. 
 
 Note LXXXI., p. 149. 
 Behist. Inscr., 1. s. c. 
 
 Note LXXXII., 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 destruciiiin, 
 instead of the eighteenth. I believe the cause of this difference to be, that some reck- 
 oned the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to have commenced in B. C. 605 — the last year of 
 Nabopolassar — when Kebuchadaezzar came into Palestine as his father's represen- 
 tative, defeated Necho, and made Jehoiakim tributary. (See Lecture IV., Note LXXXI.)
 
 Lect. V. N "0 T E S . 367 
 
 Note LXXXIH., p. 150. 
 
 The Persian word is read as KJishayarsha. Ahasuerus (Tliill'ini^) 
 only differs from KJishayarsha by the adoption of the prosthetic j^, 
 which the Hebrews invariably placed before the Persian lUish, and the 
 substitution of ^ for ^, a common dialectic variation. Gesenius, 
 {Thesaurus, vol. i. p. 75,) and "Winer {Realwdrterhuch, ad voc. Ahas- 
 uerus) admit the identity of the words. 
 
 Note LXXXIV., p. 150. 
 
 The construction of Esther ii. 5, 6, is ambiguous. The word 
 ** who," (^ri<,) 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. K 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. 
 
 Ibid. ix. lOS. 
 
 Note LXXXVI., p. 151. 
 
 Note LXXX^^I., p. 151. 
 
 De Wette, Einleitung, § 198 a, p. 267 ; vol. ii. p. 337, Parker's 
 
 Translation. 
 
 Note LXXX^TH., p. 151. 
 
 Amestris was the daughter of Otanes, according to Herodotus, 
 (vii. 61 ;) according to Ctesias, of Onophas, or Anaphes, {Exc. 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. Exc. 
 Pers., § 40-43.)
 
 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 
 ChaldcRa 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 m 
 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. \'ii. 
 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 XCI., p. 152. 
 
 Some writers have supposed that the Artaxerxes who befriended Ezra 
 was really Xerxes. So Josephus, {Ant. Jiid. 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, w^ho 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 wdth the fact that he was contem- 
 porary with the grandsons or great-grandsons of those who were con- 
 temporary with Cyrus.* 
 
 1 The length of liis 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- 
 niiah's Artaxerxes. (Neh. xiii. 6, 7.) it seems quite imi)os8ible that he can he Mnemon, 
 whose 32nd year was B. C. 374. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 2o0, 2ol, note 13,)
 
 Lect. VI. NOTES. 369 
 
 Note XCH., p. 152. 
 Ctesias ap. Phot. Bihliothec, pp. 115-124. 
 
 Note XCHI., p. 153. 
 
 On the non-historical character of the Book of Judith, see the 
 author's Herodotus^ vol. i. p. 245, note ^. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Note I., p. 155. 
 
 On the different views entertained as to the exact year of our Lord's 
 birth, see Olshausen's Biblischer Comynentar, vol. ii. pp. 619-622 ; vol. 
 iv. pp. 334-337, E. T.^ On the testimonies which determine the death 
 of Herod the Great to the year of Rome 750, see Clinton's Fasti Hel- 
 letiici, 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. 
 748. Some important astronomical reasons are assigned by Dean 
 Alford {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. D. 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 IL, p. 157. 
 See Lecture IE., p. 51. 
 
 Note m., p. 157. 
 Strauss, Lehen Jesu, § 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 
 
 1 Commentary on the Oospe's and the j9cts, by Hermann Olshausen, D. D. Translated 
 by the Rev. H. B. Creak, A. M. Third edition. Edinburgh, Clarke, 1857.
 
 370 NOTES. Lect. VL 
 
 Note IY., p. 158. 
 Strauss, Lehen JesUy 1. s. c. 
 
 Note V., p. 168. 
 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, 
 «ncl which some regard as of nearly equal authority with the Greek 
 tjfospel,^ the title runs, " The Gospel, the Preaching of Matthew." The 
 jrersian 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 ; '-* it is 
 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 Seo Dr. Ciireton's recent work, Remains of a very Ancient Rccensinn of the four 
 Oospels in Syriac, London, 1858. 
 
 2 Posidonius should perhaps be added as a third witness belonging to this period. He 
 quoted Herodotus, not very correctly, in his Treatise concerning the Ocean. {Fr. HisL 
 Or., vol. ill. p. 279.)
 
 Lect. VI. NOTES. 371 
 
 Modern Times, pp. 295-299.) The first distinct quotation ' of Thu- 
 cydicles 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 hira. 
 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 — nearl}-- a century after his 
 death — by TertuUian. 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, Lebcn Jesu, § 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 
 
 Note XI., p. 160. 
 
 See Lecture 11., pp. 51-56 ; and Note Vm. on Lecture V., pp. 346, 
 347. 
 
 Note XII., p. 161. 
 
 See Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 113; Kitto, Biblical CijclopcEdia, 
 vol. ii. p. 582. 
 
 Note XIIL, p. 161. 
 
 See Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, vol. ii. p. 225 ; Pearson, Vindicics 
 IgnatiaricB, Pars i. c. 6 ; Burton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. pp. 29, 
 30 ; and p. 152. 
 
 Note XIV., p. 161. 
 
 Canstitutiones Apostolicce, vi. 16 ; Irenaeus, adv. Hceres. i. 20 ; &c. 
 
 Note XV., p. 162. 
 
 Strauss, Lebe7i Jesu, § 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 Cratippus alluded to the fact that there were no speeches in the last book, and that 
 the work was left nnfinished ; but he did not (so far as we know) make any quotati'ju. 
 [Fr. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 76.)
 
 872 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 Manichaean, did indeed attempt to prove that the first 
 Gospel was not the work of St. Matthew ; but, 1. He WTote 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 
 doMTT 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." (^Aclvers. Eceres., 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 ipcense to God. . . . Matthew declarei
 
 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. iii. 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 m 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. A\Tien 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 conxpliance with the solicitations of his friends, 
 and under the promptings of the Di\ane 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 
 riile 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." (^Adv. 3Iarcion., iv. o.) 
 
 32
 
 374 NOTES. Lect. VI. 
 
 Origen — "I learned from tradition about the four Gospels, which 
 alone are indisputable in the church of God under the tvhole heaven; — 
 how that first Matthew, who was originally a tax-gatherer, but after- 
 wards an apostle of Jesus Christ, published his, composed in the He- 
 brew language, for those who had believed from among the Jews ; and 
 secondly, !Mark, writing it according to Peter's dictation ; and thirdly, 
 Luke, the Gospel which was praised by Paul, composing it for the 
 converts from the Gentiles ; and to crown all, that according to John." 
 (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles., vi. 25.) 
 
 Of course these passages do not form a hundredth part of the testi- 
 mony borne by these writers to the authority of the four Gospels. They 
 use them with the same frequency and deference as modern divines. 
 They appeal to them alone in proof of doctrine, making the most 
 marked difference between them and such apocryphal •' Lives of 
 Christ" as they mention. The student will find this portion of the 
 Christian evidences drawn out most fully by Lardner, in his great 
 work on the Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. i. pp. 283, et seqq. 
 A good selection from the evidence is made by Mr. Norton, (^Genuine- 
 7iess of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 83-105.) Paley's Synopsis also deserves 
 the attention of the student. {^Evidences, part i. ch. 10, § 1.) 
 
 Note XVIII., p. 162. 
 
 Justin's ordinary expression is " the Memoirs of the Apostles, (jd 
 aTTOf/vT^ixoveiifxaTa twv cnrodToXwi' ;) but in One place he identifies these Me- 
 moirs with the Gospels by adding, u Ka?.e7rai tvayyiXia, «< which are 
 called Gospels." {ApoL, i. p. 83, 13.) He appears to prefer the former 
 term in addressing the heathen, as more classical. In his Dialogue 
 with Trypho he sometimes uses the term tvayyihov simply. (Opera, 
 p. 195, D.) These Memoirs, or Gospels, he says, were composed " by 
 the Apostles of Christ and then- companions," (" the memoirs, I mean 
 those which were composed by his Apostles and their followers." y It 
 has been questioned by Bishop Marsh and others whether the quota- 
 tions are really from our Gospels ; but the doubt, if it deserves the 
 name, has (I think) been wholly set at rest by Bishop Kaye, {Account 
 of the Life and Opinions of Justin Martyr, ch. viii. pp. 132-152,) and 
 Mr. Norton, {Credibility, &c., vol. i. note E, pp. 316-324.) The careful 
 
 1 ComjCb Luko i. 1 : "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect knowledge."
 
 Lect. VI. NOTES. 875 
 
 analysis of the latter wiiter exhausts the subject, and deserves attentive 
 perusal. 
 
 Note XIX., p. 163. 
 
 Papias said — '* Now Matthew composed his book in the Hebrew 
 dialect ; and each one interpreted it as he was able. And !Mark, who 
 was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, 
 but not an orderly account of what was said and done by Christ." 
 (Ap. Euseb., Hist. Eccles. iii. 39.) 
 
 It has been questioned whether Papias was really a disciple of the 
 apostle John, (Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13,) or only of a certain John the 
 Presbyter, whom he calls "a disciple of our Lord." It appears from 
 Eusebius (1. s. c.) that he did not himself claim to have received his 
 knowledge of Christianity from the apostles themselves. Still the testi- 
 mony of Irenseus is express, ("Papias, who was a hearer of John, and 
 a companion of Polycarp," Euseb. 1. s. c.,) and cannot without violence 
 be understood of any one but St. John the Evangelist. 
 
 Note XX., p. 163. 
 
 Lehen Jesu^ § 14. *' It is however by no means necessary to attribute 
 this same freedom from all conscious intefiition of fiction to the authors 
 of all those narratives in the Old and New Testament, which must be 
 considered as unhistorical. . . . The authors of the Homeric songs 
 could not have believed that every particular which they related of their 
 gods and heroes had really happened ; . . . and exactly as little may 
 this be said of all the unhistorical narratives of the Gospels, as for 
 example, of the first chapter of the third, and many parts of the fourth 
 Gospel." (pp. 83, 84, E. T.) 
 
 Note XXI., p. 163. 
 Ibid. § 13 ; p. 60, E. T. 
 
 Note XXH., p. 164. 
 
 Ibid. 1. s. c. 
 
 Note XXHI., p. 164. 
 
 See above. Note I. The date A. D. 63 is preferred by Bertholdt, 
 Feilmoser, Dean Alford, ^Mr. Birks, and otliers.
 
 376 NOTES. Lect. VI. 
 
 Note XXIV., p. 164. 
 Leben Jestc, § 13 ; p. 61, E. T. 
 
 Note XXV., p. 164. 
 See above, Note XVII. 
 
 Note XXVI., p. 165. 
 
 This is Burton's conclusion, (Eccles. Hist., vol. i. p. 255,) deduced 
 from the discrepancies in the external evidence. Dean Alford's unan- 
 swerable argument in favor of the mdependent origin of the first three 
 Gospels, deduced from their internal character, implies the same. 
 The first three Gospels Avere probably all written within the space 
 A. D. 58-65. 
 
 Note XXVII., p. 166. 
 
 The Old Testament furnishes us with but one instance of even a 
 second record — viz., that of Chronicles ; which deals with the period of 
 history already treated in Samuel and Kings. Elsewhere we have 
 throughout but a single narrative. 
 
 Note XXVIII., p. 166. 
 
 Theophylact and Euthymius placed the composition of St. Mat- 
 thew's Gospel within eight years of the Ascension ; Nicephorus placed 
 it 15 years after that event ; Cosmas Indicopleustes assigned it to the 
 time of the stoning of Stephen. (See Alford's Greek Testament, Pro- 
 legomena, vol. i. p. 26.) In modern times Bishop Tomline, Le Clerc, 
 Dr. Owen, Dr. Townson, and others, incline to a date even earlier than 
 that fixed by Theophylact. 
 
 Note XXIX., p. 167. 
 
 On the various theories to which the combined resemblances and 
 differences of the first three Gospels have given birth, see Home's In- 
 troduction, vol. V. Appendix, pp. 509-529 ; Alford's Greek Testament, 
 vol. i. Prolegomena, ch. i. § 2, 3 ; and Norton's Gejixiineness of the 
 Gospels, vol. i. Note D. pp. 239-296. The last-named writer, after
 
 Lect. VI. NOTES. 377 
 
 having proved that no one of the first three Evangelists copied froia 
 another, observes with much force — •♦If the Evangelists did not copy- 
 one from another, it follows, that the first three Gospels must all have 
 been written about the same period ; since, if one had preceded another 
 by any considerable length of time, it cannot be supposed that the 
 author of the later Gospel would have been unacquainted with the work 
 of his predecessor, or would have neglected to make use of it ; espe- 
 cially when we take into view, that its reputation must have been well 
 established among Christians." And he concludes, " that no one of 
 the first three Gospels was written long before or long after the year 
 60." {Genuineness, &c., vol. i. pp. 297, 298.) 
 
 Note XXX., p. 167. 
 
 See the passage quoted above. Note XVII., page 372. Irenaeus, 
 it will be observed, makes St. ^latthew write his Gospel while St. 
 Peter and St. Paul tcere founding the Church at Rome, i. e. during the 
 term of St. Paul's imprisonment, (probably A. D. 56-58.) He writes 
 it <« among the Hebrews" — i. e. in Palestine. After the two great 
 apostles left Rome, and separated — soon after, he seems to mean — 
 their respective companions, Mark and Luke, are said to have written. 
 At least this is declared positively of Mark ; less definitely of Luke, 
 whose Gospel had perhaps been composed a year or two earlier, and 
 sent privately to Theophilus. 
 
 Note XXXI., p. 167. 
 
 It ia unnecessary to prove this agreement ; which xs such, that each 
 of the three writers has been in turn accused of copying from one or 
 both of his fellow-Evangelists. (See Home's Introductioiiy vol. v. 
 Appendix, pp. 509, 510.) 
 
 Note XXXH., p. 167. 
 
 This is one of the main objects at which Strauss aims in the greater 
 portion of his work. See Sections 21, 24, 39, 46, 53, 57, 59, &c. &c. 
 
 32*
 
 378 NOTES. Lect. VI. 
 
 Note XXXIII., p. 168. 
 
 If we take, for example, the second of the sections in which the 
 << disagreements of the Canonical Gospels" are expressly considered, 
 (§ 24,) we find the following enumeration of *' discrepancies," in rela- 
 tion to the form of the Annunciation. << 1. The individual who 
 appears is called in Matthew an angel of the Lord ; in Luke, the angel 
 Gabriel. 2. The person to whom the angel appears is, according to 
 Matthew, Joseph ; according to Luke, Mary. 3. In Matthew, the 
 apparition is seen in a dream, in Luke while awake. 4. There is a 
 disagreement with respect to the time at which the apparition took 
 place. 5. Both the purpose of the apparition, and the effect, are dif- 
 ferent." In this way five " discrepancies " are created out of the single 
 fact, that St. Matthew does not relate the Annunciation to the Virgin, 
 while St. Luke gives no accomit of the angelic appearance to Joseph. 
 Similarly in the section where the calling of the first Apostles is exam- 
 ined, (§ 70,) " discrepancies" are seen between the fourth and the first 
 two Evangelists in the following respects — " 1. James is absent from 
 St. John's account, and instead of his vocation, we have that of Philip 
 and Nathaniel. 2. In Matthew and Mark the scene is the coast of 
 the Galilaean sea ; in John it is the vicinity of the Jordan. 3. In each 
 representation there are two pairs of brothers ; but in the one they are 
 Andrew and Peter, James and John ; in the other, Andrew and Peter, 
 Philip and Nathaniel. And, 4. In Matthew and Mark all are called by 
 Jesus ; in John, Philip only, the others being directed to him by the 
 Baptist." Here again we have four discrepancies made out of the cir- 
 cumstance, that the first two Evangelists relate only the actual call of 
 certain disciples, while St. John informs us what previous acquaintance 
 they had of Jesus. So from the mere silence of Matthew, Strauss 
 concludes positively that he opposes St. Luke, and did not consider 
 Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been the original residence of our 
 Lord's parents, (§ 39 ;) from the omission by the three earlier writers 
 of the journeys into Judaea during our Lord's Ministry, he pronounces 
 that they "contradict" St. John, who speaks of such journeys, (57 ;) 
 he finds a "discrepancy" between this Evangelist's account of the 
 relations between the Baptist and our Lord, and the account of the 
 others, since he gives, and they do not give, the testimony borne by the 
 former to our Lord's character, (§ 46 ;) he concludes from St. Luke's
 
 Lect. VL notes. 379 
 
 not saying that St. John was in prison when he sent his two disciples to 
 our Lord, that he considered him as not yet cast into prison, (ibid. ;) 
 he finds St. Luke's and St. Matthew's acccounts of the death of Judas 
 "irreconcilable," because St. Luke says nothing of remorse, or of 
 suicide, but relates what has the appearance of a death by accident, 
 (§ 130 ;) he regards the presence of Xicodemus at our Lord's interment 
 as a " febrication of the fourth Evangelist," simply because it is un- 
 noticed by the others, (§ 80 ;) he concludes from their silence as to the 
 raising of Lazarus that " it cannot have been known to them," and 
 therefore that it cannot be true, (§ 100 ;) and in other instances, too 
 numerous to mention, he makes a similar use of the mere fact of 
 omission. 
 
 Note XXXIV., p. 169. 
 See Norton's Credibility of the Gosjjels, vol. i. pp. 74, 75. 
 
 Note XXXV., p. 169. 
 
 Li point of fact there is scarcely a difficulty brought forward by 
 Strauss which has not been again and again noticed and explained by 
 biblical commentators. Mr. Norton correctly says of his volumes — 
 ♦'They present a collection from various authors of difficidties in the his- 
 tory contained in the Gospels, to which their expositor should par- 
 ticularly direct his attention." The critical portion of them presents 
 little which is novel. 
 
 Note XXXVI., p. 171. 
 
 See Paley's Hora PauUnce, ch. i. p. 1. 
 
 Note XXX^TI., p. 172. 
 Lehen Jesu, § 13 ; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 
 
 Note XXX\TII., p. 172. 
 
 K we take, for example, the earliest of St. Paul's Epistles, the first 
 to the Thessalonians, we shall find that the following little coincidences 
 between it and the Acts are unnoticed by Paley : — 
 
 1. The identity in the order of names, " Paul, and Silvanus, and
 
 380 NOTES. Lect. VI. 
 
 Timotheus," (1 Thess. i. 1 ; compare Acts xvii. 10, 15 ; xviii. 5.) This 
 was the order of dignity at the time, and was therefore naturally used ; 
 but had the Epistle been forged after St. Paul's death, Timothy would 
 probably have taken precedence of Silas, since owing to the circum- 
 stance of St. Paul addressing two Epistles to him, his became the name 
 of far greater note in the Church. 
 
 2. The peculiarly impressive mention of the Thessalonians as objects 
 of the divine election (i. 4 ; " knowing, brethren beloved, your election of 
 God") seems to be an allusion to the fact of the vision which summoned 
 St. Paul into Macedonia, (Acts xvi. 9,) whereby the Macedonians were 
 " chosen out " from the rest of the Western world to be the first Euro- 
 pean recipients of the Gospel. The term eK?.oyii is a rare one in Scrip- 
 ture, and is absent, except in this instance, from all St. Paul's earlier 
 Epistles. It had been used, however, of St. Paul himself in the vision 
 seen by Ananias, (Acts ix. 15,) with special reference to his similar 
 selection by miraculous means as an object of the Divine favor. 
 
 3. The great success of the Gospel at Thessalonica is strongly asserted 
 in verse 5, ("our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in 
 power," &c.) Compare Acts xvii. 4 : " And some of them (the Jews) 
 believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks 
 a great multitude, and of the chief women notafeio." 
 
 4. The aorist tenses in ch. i. verses 5 and 6, and elsewhere, {lytyriOv,^ 
 (yivijOntiiv,^ lya/idriTe,^ Si^ofxevot,'^ tKnpii^aixfv,^ k. t. A.,) point naturally, but 
 very imobtrusively, to a single visit on the part of St. Paul, which by 
 the history of the Acts is exactly what had taken place. 
 
 5. The peculiar nature of the Apostolic sufferings at Philippi is hinted 
 at, without being fully expressed, in the term iPpiadivTig,^ (ii. 2.) It was 
 vjSpis 7 to scourge a Roman citizen. 
 
 6. The statement that while at Thessalonica St. Paul toiled and 
 labored, that he might not be chargeable or burdensome to the con- 
 verts, (ii. 6, 9,) though not directly confirmed by the history of the 
 Acts, is in harmony with the fact that at Corinth, a few months after- 
 wards, he wrought at his craft with Aquila and Priscilla, (x^cts xviii. 
 3,) having the same object in view, (1 Cor. ix. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 9 ; xii. 
 13, &c.) 
 
 7. The reference to the hinderance offered by the Jews to St. Paul's 
 
 1 Came, v. 5. 2 \ye were, v. 5. 3 Ye became, v. 6. * Having received, v. 6. 
 6 We preached, ii. 9. 6 Were sliamefuUy treated. 7 Shameful treatment
 
 Lect. vi. notes. 381 
 
 preaching the drospel to the Gentiles, (ii. 16,) accords both -with the 
 general conduct of the Jews elsewhere, (Acts xiii. 45, 50, &c.,) and es- 
 pecially with their conduct at Thessalonica, where " being moved with 
 envy" (^J7;.w(raj/Tfj} at the conversion of the Gentiles, they " set all the 
 city on an uproar." (Acts xA^ii. 5.) 
 
 8. The expression, " we would have come unto you — eveyi I, Paul — 
 once and again," derives peculiar force from the circumstance related in 
 the Acts, (xvii. 14-16,) that after lea\'ing Macedonia he was for some 
 time alone at Athens, while Silas and Timothy remained at Beroea. 
 
 9. The mention of " the brethren throughout all Macedonia," in ch. 
 iv. 10, harmonizes with the account in the Acts that St. Paul had 
 founded churches at Philippi and Beroea as well as at Thessalonica. 
 (Acts xvi. 12-40 ; xviii. 10-12.) 
 
 10. The "affliction and distress " in which St. Paul says he was 
 (iii. 7) at the time of Timothy's return from Macedonia, receive illus- 
 tration from Acts xviii. 4-6, where we find that just at this period he 
 was striving, but vainly, ("persuaded," Acts xviii. 4,) to convert the Jews 
 of Corinth, " pressed in spirit," and earnestly testifying, but 'to no pur- 
 pose, so that shortly afterwards he had to relmquish the attempt. What 
 " affliction " this would cause to St. Paul we may gather from Romans 
 ix. 1-5. 
 
 Note XXXIX., p. 173. 
 
 I was not aware, at the time of delivering my sixth Lecture, that any 
 work professedly on this subject had been published. My attention has 
 since been directed to a very excellent, though very unpretending, 
 treatise, by the Rev. T. R. Bii-ks, entitled, Horce Apostolicce,^ and at- 
 tached to an annotated edition of the HorcB Paulhia; of Paley. The 
 first chapter of this treatise contains a supplement to Paley's examina- 
 tion of the Paiiline Epistles. It will well repay perusal ; though it is 
 still far from exhausting the subject. Chapter ii. is concerned with the 
 internal coincidences in the Acts of the Apostles ; and chapter iii. with 
 those in the Gospels. The treatment of this latter point is, unfortu- 
 nately, but scanty. No more than twenty-five pages are devoted to it, 
 the author remarking, that " in his present supplementary work, tliis 
 
 1 HorcE Paulina, by William Paley, D. D,. with notes, and a Supplementary Treatise, 
 entitled Horce jipostolicce, by the Rev. T. R. Birks, A. M., late Fellow of Trinity College, 
 Cambridge : London, Religious Tract Society, 1850.
 
 382 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 branch of the subject is confined, of necessity, within narrow limits ; 
 since its complete investigation would demand a distinct treatise, and the 
 prosecution of some deep and difficult inquiries." (Horce Apostolicce^ 
 p. 188.) 
 
 Note XL., p. 173. 
 
 Leben Jesu, § 13 ; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 
 
 Note XLI., p. 173. 
 
 See on these points Home's Introduction, vol. v. pp. 422-435, and 
 pp. 487, 488 ; Kitto's Cyclopcedia, vol. i. pp. 163-166, and 826-832 ; 
 and Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv. part i. Prolegomena, pp. 1-62. 
 
 Note XLII., p. 174. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 14, sub fin. vol. i. p. 84, E. T. 
 
 Note XLIII., p. 176. 
 
 Ibid. 1. s. c. See above. Note XX. ; where a passage to this effect is 
 quoted at length. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Note I., p. 178. 
 
 The only exception to this general rule, among the strictly historical 
 books, is the Book of Euth, which is purely biographical. It belongs 
 to the Christology of the Old Testament, but it has no bearing on the 
 history of the nation. • 
 
 Note II., p. 179. 
 
 So Lardner — '< It is plainly the design of the historians of the New 
 Testament to write of the actions of Jesus Christ, chiefly those of his 
 public Ministry, and to give an account of his death and resurrection, 
 and of some of the first steps by, which the doctrine which he had
 
 Lect. VII. notes. 383 
 
 taught, made its way in the world. But though this was their main 
 design, and they have not undertaken to give us the political state or 
 history of the countries in which these things were done ; yet in the 
 course of their narration they have been led unavoidably to mention 
 many persons of note ; and to make allusions and references to the 
 customs and tenets of the people, Avhom Jesus Christ and his apostles 
 were concerned with." {Credibility, &c., vol. i. p. 7.) 
 
 Note III., p. 179. 
 
 Hence the certainty with which literary forgeries, if historical, are 
 detected, in all cases where we possess a fair knowledge of the time 
 and country to which they profess to belong. The alleged "Epistles 
 of Phalaris," the pretended Manetho, the spurious Letters of Plato and 
 of Chion, were soon exposed by critics, who stamped them indelibly 
 with the brand of forgery, chiefly by reason of their failure in this par- 
 ticular. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, the fact 
 that there is no period in the whole range of ancient history, whereof 
 we possess a more full an(i exact knowledge than we do of the first 
 century of our era. 
 
 Note IV., p. ISO. 
 
 These testimonies have been adduced by almost all writers on the 
 Evidences of the Christian Religion ; but I do not feel justified in 
 omitting them from the present review. They are as follows : — 
 
 Tacitus says, speaking of the fire which consumed Rome in Nero's 
 time, and of the general belief that he had caused it, "In order there- 
 fore to put a stop to the report, he laid the guilt, and inflicted the 
 severest punishments, upon a set of people who were ho] den in abhor- 
 rence for their crimes, and called by the vulgar. Christians. The 
 founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tibe- 
 rius, under his procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, 
 thus checked for a while, broke out again ; and spread not only over 
 Judea, where the evil originated, but through Rome also, whither all 
 things that are horrible and shameful find their way, and are practised. 
 Accordingly the first who were apprehended confessed, and then on 
 their information a vast multitude were convicted, not so much of the 
 crime of setting (Rome) on fire, as of hatred to mankind. And when
 
 384 NOTES. Lect. VIL 
 
 they were put to death, mockery was added to their sufferings ; for 
 they were either disguised in the skins of wild beasts, and worried to 
 death by dogs, or they were crucified, or they were clothed in some 
 inflammable covering, and when the day closed were burned as lights to 
 illumine the night. Nero lent his own gardens for this exhibition, and 
 also held the shows of the circus, mingling with the people in the dress 
 of a charioteer, or observing the spectacle from his chariot. Where- 
 fore, although those who suffered were guilty, and deserving of some 
 extraordinary punishment, yet they came to be pitied, as victims not 
 so much to the public good, as to the cruelty of one man." (Aimal. 
 XV. 44.) 
 
 Suetonius says briefly in reference to the same occasion, " The Chris- 
 tians were punished, a set of men of a new and mischievous superstition." 
 (FeY. Neron., § 16.) And with a possible, though not a certain, refer- 
 ence to our Lord, " [Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews, who 
 were continually exciting disturbances, at the instigation of Chrestus." 
 (Vit. Claud., § 25.) 
 
 Juvenal, with a meaning which cannot be mistaken,' when the pas- 
 sage of Tacitus above quoted has once beei^ read, remarks : — 
 
 "Expose Tigellinus ; you will blaze in that torch where, with throats 
 confined and emitting froth, they stand and burn ; and you do but draw 
 a broad furroAv in the midst of the sand." (Sat., i. 155-157.) 
 
 Pliny writes to Trajan, "It is my custom, sir, to refer to you all 
 things about which I am in doubt. For who is more capable of direct- 
 ing my hesitancy, or instructing my ignorance ? I have never been 
 present at any trials of the Christians ; consequently I do not know 
 what is the nature of their crimes, or the usual strictness of their exam- 
 ination, or severity of their punishment. I have moreover hesitated not 
 a little, whether any distinction was to be made in respect to age, or 
 whether those of tender years were to be treated the same as adults ; 
 whether repentance entitles them to a pardon, or whether it shall avail 
 nothing for him who has once been a Christian to renounce his error ; 
 whether the name itself, even -without any crime, should subject them 
 
 1 Compare the observations of the old Scholiast on the passage, " In the public shows 
 of Nero living men were burnt; for he ordered them to be covered with wax, that they 
 might give liglit to the spectators." And again, " He covered certain mischievous men 
 (compare Suetonius' ' mischievous superstition ') with pitch, and paper, and wax, and then 
 commanded fire to be applied to them, that they might buri."
 
 Lect. VII. NOTES. 385 
 
 to punishment, or only the crimes connected with the name. In the 
 mean time, I have pursued this course towards those who have been 
 brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were 
 Christians ; if they confessed, I repeated the question a second and a 
 third time, adding threats of punishment. If they still persevered, I 
 ordered them to be led away to punishment ; for I could not doubt, 
 whatever the nature of their profession might be, that a stubborn and 
 unyielding obstinacy certainly deserved to be punished. There were 
 others also under the like infatuation ; but as they were Roman citi- 
 zens, I directed them to be sent to the capital. But the crime spread, 
 as is wont to happen, even while the prosecutions were going on, and 
 numerous instances presented themselves. An information was pre- 
 sented to me Avithout any name subscribed, accusing a large number of 
 persons, who denied that they were Christians, or had ever been. 
 They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and made offerings 
 with frankincense and wine before your statue, which I had ordered to 
 be brought for this purpose, together with the images of the gods ; and 
 moreover they resiled Christ ; whereas those who are truly Christians, 
 it is said, cannot be forced to "do any of these things. I thought, there- 
 fore, that they ought to be discharged. Others, who were accused by 
 a witness, confessed that they were Christians, but afterwards denied 
 it. Some owned that they had been Christians, but said they had 
 renounced their error, some three years before, others more, and a few 
 even as long ago as twenty years. They all did homage to your state 9 
 and the images of the gods, and at the same time reviled the name of 
 Christ. They declared that the whole of their guilt or their error was, 
 that they were accustomed to meet on a stated day before it was light, 
 and to sing in concert a hymn of praise to Christ, as God, and to bind 
 themselves by an oath, not for the perpetration of any wickedness, but 
 that they would not commit any theft, robbery, or adultery, nor vio- 
 late their Avord, nor refuse, Avhen called upon, to restore any thing 
 •omrnitted to their trust. After this they Avere accustomed to separate, 
 and then to reassemble to eat in common a harmless meal. Even this, 
 hoAvever, they ceased to do, after my edict, in Avhich, agreeably to your 
 commands, I forbade the meeting of secret assemblies. After hearing this, 
 I thought it the more necessary to endeavor to find out the truth, by put- 
 ting to the torture tAvo female slaves, who were called « deaconesses.' 
 But I could discover nothing but a perverse and extravagant supersti- 
 
 33
 
 o86 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 tion ; and therefore I deferred all further proceedmgs until I should con- 
 svilt with you. For the matter appears to me worthy of such consulta- 
 tion, especially on account of the number of those who are involved in 
 peril. For many of every age, of every rank, and of either sex, are 
 exposed and will bo exposed to danger. Nor has the contagion of this 
 superstition been confined to the cities only, but it has extended to the 
 villages, and evjen to the country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible 
 to arrest the evil, and to apply a remedy. At least it is very evident, 
 that the temples, which had already been almost deserted, begin to be 
 frequented, and the sacred solemnities, so long interrupted, are again 
 revived ; and the victims, which heretofore could hardly find a pur- 
 chaser, are now every where in demand. From this it is easy to ima- 
 gine what a multitude of men might be reclaimed, if pardon should be 
 offered to those who repent." (PBi. Epist., x. 97.) 
 
 Trajan replies, «' You have pursued the right course, my dear Pliny, 
 in conducting the case of those Christians who were brought before 
 you. Nor is it possible to adopt one miiform and invariable mode of 
 proceeding. I woidd not have you seek out these persons ; if they are 
 brought before you, and are convicted, they must be punished ; yet 
 with this proviso, that he who denies that he is a Christian, and con- 
 firms this denial by actually invoking our gods, however he may have 
 been suspected in time past, shall obtain pardon upon his repentance. 
 But informations without the accuser's name subscribed, ought not to 
 be received in prosecutions of any kind ; for they are of the worst 
 tendency, and are miworthy of the age in which we live." (Ibid. 
 X. 98.) 
 
 Adrian, in his rescript addressed to :Minucius Fundanus, the Proconsul 
 of Asia, says,i "To Minucius Fundanus : I have read a letter addressed to 
 me by Serenius Granianus, a most illustrious man, and your predecessor 
 in office. The matter seems to me to require examination, in order that 
 peaceable people may not be disturbed, and that occasion of evil-doing 
 may be taken away from calumniators. If, therefore, in accusations of 
 this sort, the people of the province can clearly affirm any thing against 
 the Christians, so as to bring the case before the tribunal, to this only let 
 them have recourse, and not to informal accusations and mere clamors. 
 For it is much more srutable, if any one wishes to bring an accusation, 
 
 1 The Latin origlual is lost, and we possess only Susebiug's translation.
 
 LeCT. VII. NOTES. 387 
 
 that it should come under your adjudication. K, therefore, anyone 
 accuses them, and proves that they have done any thing contrary to the 
 laws, do you determme accordingly, in proportion to the greatness of 
 the offence : but, by Hercules, if any one brings forward such an accu- 
 sation slanderously, take him and punish him for his impudence." (Ap. 
 Euseb. Hist. Eccles., iv. 9.) 
 
 Note V., p. 181. 
 
 I refer especially to Strauss and his school, who attach no impor- 
 tance at all to the existence of Christ, but still allow it as a fact which 
 is indisputable. (See the Lebe7i Jesu, passim.) 
 
 Note VI., p. 181. 
 Ch. ii. pp. 24-30. 
 
 Note VH., p. 182. 
 
 One slight reference is found, or rather suspected, in Seneca, {Epist. 
 xiv.,) one in Dio Chrysostom, {Orat. Corinthiac, xxxvii. p. 463,) none 
 in Pausanius, one (see the next note) in the Epictetus of Arrian. 
 
 Note VIII., p. 182. 
 
 Epictet. Dissertat. iv. 7, §§ 5, 6 : "If any one now should so regard 
 Ms possessions, as this man regards his body, and his children, and his 
 wife, &c., what tyrant would any longer be terrible to him ? What 
 soldiers, or what weapons of theirs, would he fear ? Under the influ- 
 ence of madness, one may so regard these things ; and the Galikemis do 
 it under the influence of custom." 
 
 Note IX., p. 183. 
 
 The passage in the second book of the Discourses, (c. 9, § 20,) which 
 has been supposed by some to refer to Christians, seems really to in- 
 tend only those whom it mentions — viz., the Jews. (See Lardner, 
 Credibility, &c., vol. iv. p. 49 ; Fabricius ad Dion, xxxvii. 17.) 
 
 Note X., p. 183. 
 This point has been slightly touched by Paley, {Evidences^ Part i. ch.
 
 388 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 5, pp. 70, 71,) and insisted on at some length by Lardner. {Credibility^ 
 &c. vol. iv. pp. 50, 78, 160, &c.) 
 
 Note XI., p. 184. 
 
 Josephus was born in A. D. 37, the first year of the reign of Calig- 
 ula, and the fourth after our Lord's ascension. He was bred up at 
 Jerusalem, where he seems to have continued, with slight interruptions, 
 till he was 26 years of age. He would thus have been, as boy and 
 man, a witness of the principal occurrences at Jerusalem mentioned in 
 the Acts, subsequently to the accession of Herod Agrippa. 
 
 Note XH., p. 184. 
 
 See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 9, § 1. This passage has been much dis- 
 puted, and its genuineness is disallowed even by Lardner. (Credibility, 
 Sec, vol. iii. pp. 352-354.) But I agree with Burton, {Eccles. Hist., vol. 
 i. p. 287,) and Paley, {Evidences, Part i. ch. 5, p. 69,) that there is no 
 sufficient reason for the suspicions which have attached to the passage. 
 
 Note XIH., p. 184. 
 
 Josephus went to Rome in his 27th year, A. D. 63, and remained 
 there some time. Probably he witnessed the commencement of the 
 Neronic persecution in A. D. 64, after the great fire which broke out 
 in July of that year. (See above. Note IV., page 383.) 
 
 Note XIV., p. 184. 
 
 "Ananus . . . called the council of judges, and bringing before them 
 James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, and certain others, 
 he accused them of transgressing the laws, and delivered them up to be 
 stoned." {Ant. Jud. xx. 9, § 1.) According to Eusebius, {Hist. Eccles. 
 ii. 23,) Josephus had the following also in another place: "These 
 things came upon the Jews as an avengement of James the Just, who 
 was the brother of Jesus called Christ ; for the Jews slew him, although 
 he was the most righteous of men." 
 
 I regard the arguments which have been brought against the famous 
 passage in our copies of Josephus concerning our Lord's lifc and teach-
 
 Lect. VII. NOTES. 389 
 
 ing (Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, § 3) as having completely established its spuri- 
 ousness. (See Lardner, Credibility, vol. iii. pp. 537-542 ; and, on the 
 other side, Home, Introduction, vol. i. Appendix, ch. vii.) 
 
 Note XV., p. 184. 
 
 See Paley's Evidences, Part i. ch. 7, p. 71 ; and Dr. Traill's Essay on 
 the Personal Character of Josephus, prefixed to his Translation, pp. 19, 20. 
 
 Note XVI., p. 184. 
 
 The probable value of these writings may be gathered from the frag- 
 ments of Celsus, preserved by Origen. Celsus quotes from all the Gos- 
 pels, allows that they were written by the disciples of Jesus, and con- 
 firms all the main facts of our Lord's life, even his miracles, (which he 
 ascribes to magic ;) only denying his resurrection, his raising of others, 
 and his being declared to be the Son of God by a voice from heaven. 
 A collection of the ''testimonies" which his fragments afford will be 
 found in Lardner. (Credibility, Sec, vol. iv. pp. 115, et seqq.) 
 
 Note XVII., p. 184. 
 
 See Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 9, p. 32 ; Justinian, Nov. 42, c. 1 ; Mo?- 
 heim, De Rebus Christ, ante Constantin. Magn. p. 561. 
 
 Note X\TII., p. 185. 
 Apolog. i. p. Qo, and p. 70. 
 
 Note XIX., p. 185. 
 
 So at least Justin believed. (Apol. i. p. 70.) Tertullian adds, that 
 they contained an account of our Saviour's resurrection, of his appear- 
 ances to his disciples, and his ascension into heaven before their eyes. 
 (Apolog. c. 21.) Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 2) and Orosius (vii. 4) 
 bear nearly similar testimony. As Dr. Burton remarks, (EccCes. Hist. 
 vol. i. p. 34,) "It is almost impossible to suppose that the Fathers 
 were mistaken in believing some such document to be preserved in the 
 archives." Their confident appeals to it show that they believed its 
 substance not to be unfavorable to our Lord's character. ^Vhether 
 33*
 
 390 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 they exactly hieic its contents, or no, must depend primarily on the 
 question, whether the documents of this class, preserved in tiie State 
 Archives, were generally accessible to the public. They were certainly 
 not published ; and as they were of the nature of secret communica- 
 tions to the Emperor, it may be doubted whether it was easy to obtain 
 a sight of them. Still, perhaps, the Christians may have learnt the 
 contents of Pilate's "Acts," from some of those members of the Im- 
 perial household (Phil. iv. 22) or family, (Burton, EccL Hist., vol. i. p. 
 367,) who became coHverts at an early period. 
 
 Note XX., p. 187. 
 
 On the extent of the dominions of Herod the Great, see Joseph. Ant. 
 Jud. xiv. 14-18. He died, as we have already seen, (supra, Lecture 
 VI. Note I.,) in the year of Rome 750. On his death, there was a 
 division of his territories among his sons, Archclaus receiving Judaea, 
 Samaria, and Iduma^a ; Antipas, Galilee and Persea ; Philip, Trach- 
 onitis and the adjoining countries. (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 33, § 8, 
 and ii. 6, § 3.) Ten years later (A. D. 8) Archelaus was removed, and 
 his dominions annexed to the Roman Empire, being placed under a 
 Procurator, (Coponius,) who was subordinate to the President of Syria, 
 (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, § 1,) while Philip and Antipas continued to 
 rule their principalities. Thirty-three years after, (A. D. 41,) Herod 
 Agrippa, by the favor of Claudius, reimited the several provinces 
 of Palestine under his own government, and reigned over the whole 
 territory which had formed the kingdom of Herod the Great. (Ibid, 
 xix. 5, § 1.) At his death, A. D. 44, the Roman authority was estab- 
 lished over the whole country, which was administered by a Procura- 
 tor holding under the President of Syria. To the younger Agrippa, 
 however, king of Chalcis, a power was presently intrusted (A. D. 48) 
 of managing the sacred treasury at Jerusalem, superintending the tem- 
 ple, and appointing the Jewish High Priests. (Ibid. xx. 1.) 
 
 Note XXI., p. 187. 
 
 Tacitus sacrifices accuracy to brevity in his sketch of these changes t 
 — "The victorious Augustus enlarged the kingdom given by Anton j. 
 to Herod. After the death of Herod, one Simon, without waiting foi
 
 LecT. VII. NOTES. 391 
 
 any action on the part of the Emperor, assumed the royal title. 
 Quintiiius Varus took possession of Syria, and punished him ; and the 
 children of Herod governed the nation thus brought into subjection, 
 dividing its territory into three districts. Under Tiberius, they re- 
 mained quiet ; but afterwards, when they were ordered by Caius 
 Caesar (i. e. Caligula) to place his statue in the temple, they preferred 
 to take up arms. The death of the Emperor put a stop to this revolt. 
 Claudius, after the kings had either died or been reduced to subjection, 
 intrusted the government of the province of Judaea to Roman knights, 
 or freedmen." (^Hist. v. 9.) 
 
 Elsewhere, he sometimes falls into actual error, as where he assigns 
 the death of Agrippa, and the reduction of Judaea into the form of a 
 Roman province, to the 9th of Claudius, A. D. 49. (^Annal. xi. 23.) 
 
 Dio's notices are very confused. He seems scarcely able to distin- 
 guish one Herod fi-om another. (Hist. Rom. xlix. p. 40o, E. ; liii. p. 
 526, D. ; Iv. p. 567, B. ; and Ix. p. 670, B.) 
 
 Note XXIL, p. 187. 
 
 See the last note. Tacitus appears, in both the passages, to place 
 the first reduction of Judaea into the position of a Roman province 
 under Claudius, upon the death of Agrippa. Yet he elsewhere notices 
 the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius. {Ann. 
 XV. 44, quoted in Note IV.) 
 
 Note XXIII., p. 187. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 1, § 3. It has not always been seen that Festus 
 referred (avedeTo) St. Paul's case to Agrippa on account of his occupy- 
 ing this position. Dean Alford, however, distinctly recognizes this 
 feature of the transaction. {Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 252.) 
 
 Note XXIV., p. 188. 
 
 It has been questioned whether the Jews themselves had any ricfhf of 
 capital punishment at this time. (Lardner, Credibiliti/, &c., vol. i. pp. 
 21-48 ; Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar, vol. ii. p. 501.) Josephus 
 certainly represents the power as one which the Romans reserved to 
 themselves fi-om the first establishment of the procuratorship. {De
 
 392 NOTES. Lect. Vll. 
 
 Bell. Jud. ii. 8, § 1 ; compare Ant. Jud. xx. 9, § 1.) But, as Dean 
 Alford remarks, the history of Stephen and of the " great persecution," 
 (^(wy/^of jufyaj,) soon after, seems to show "that the Jews did, hy 
 connivance of, or in the absence of the Procurator, administer summary 
 punishments of this kind." {Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 75 ; compare 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. 1. s. c.) 
 
 Note XXV., p. 188. 
 
 See Matt. t. 26 ; x. 29 ; xvii. 25 ; xviii. 28 ; xxvi. 53 ; xxvii. 26, 21, 
 and 65 : Mark vi. 27 ; &c. The terms, it will be observed, are such as 
 either belong to the military force, the revenue, or the office of gov- 
 ernor. They are such therefore as would naturally be introduced by a 
 foreign dominant power. 
 
 Note XXVI., p. 189. 
 
 See Mark vi. 7, and 40 ; vii. 11 ; x. 51 ; xiii. 14 ; &c. The number 
 of instances might of course be greatly increased. Among the most 
 noticeable are Matt. v. 18, (l(bTahi)niaKi^aia-y'^)\. 22, (jjam;^) v. 29, 
 (ji£vva\^^ vi. 24, (jiafxavcii •,'i conf. Luke xvi. 9, &c. ;) Mark iii. 17, 
 
 {^oavzpyii •,^') V. 41, (jaXida Kovfxi l^) vii. 34, {ltp<paBd ','') xi. 9, (axravra ; 8) 
 
 John i. 43, Qcri^ai.^) Compare also the thoroughly Hebrew character 
 of the Canticles in Luke i. and ii. 
 
 Note XXVII., p. 189. 
 
 Joseph, De Bell. Jud. vii. 8, § 1 : " For that time was fruitful 
 among the Jews in all sorts of wickedness, so that they left no evil 
 deed undone ; nor was there any new form of wickedness, which any 
 one could invent, if he wished to do so. Thus they were all corrupt, 
 both in their public and their private relations ; and they vied with 
 each other who should excel in impiety towards God and injustice to 
 men. The more powerful oppressed the common people, and the 
 common people eagerly sought to destroy the more powerful ; for the 
 former class were governed by the love of power, and the latter by thy 
 desire to seize and plunder the possessions of the wealthy." Compare" 
 Ant. Jud. XX. 7, § 8 ; Bell. Jud. v. 13, § 6 ; and 10, § 5. 
 
 1 Olio jot, or oue tittle. 
 
 2 Raca. 
 
 3 Gehenna, (translated hell.] 
 
 4 .^Iiiiiunon. 
 
 5 Boanerges. 
 
 e Talitha cuini. 
 
 1 EphpLatha. 
 
 8 Hosaiina. 
 
 » Cephas.
 
 Lect. VII. NOTES. 393 
 
 Note XXYIII., p. 189. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 9, § 3 ; xx. 4, § 3 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 19, § 1 ; &c. 
 On one occasion it appears that more than two and a half millions of 
 persons had come up to Jerusalem to -worship. {Bell. Jiul. y\. 9, § 3.) 
 
 Note XXIX., p. 189. 
 
 Ant. Jud. XV. 7, § 8 : "In Jerusalem there were two fortresses, one 
 belonging to the city itself, and the other to the temple. Whoever held 
 these had the whole nation in their power ; for without the command 
 of these, it was not possible to offer the sacrifices ; and no Jew could 
 endure the thought that these should fail to be offered : they were even 
 ready sooner to lay down their lives, than to omit the religious sacri- 
 fices which they were accustomed to ofi'er to God." 
 
 Note XXX., p. 189. 
 
 Not only was Caligula's attempt to have his statue set up in the tem- 
 ple resisted with determination, (Joseph. Ant. Jud. x-viii. 8,) but when 
 the younger Agrippa, by raising the height of his house, obtained 
 a view into the temple courts, the gi-eatest indignation was felt, 
 (^fu'Wf ij(^a).i~aivov.') The Jews immediately raised a wall to shut out 
 his prospect, and when Festus commanded them to remove it, they pos- 
 itively refused, declaring that they would rather die than destroy any 
 portion of the sacred fabric, {(,i)v yap oi^ h-oiilveiVjKaOatpfOivros Ttib, f^inovg 
 Tou upov.) 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, Sec, book i. ch. 9 ; vol. i. pp. 110-121. 
 
 Note XXXIII., p. 190. 
 
 Josephus tells us, that when Cj-renius came to take the census of 
 men's properties throughout Judaea, a controversy arose among the
 
 394 NOTES. Lect. VH 
 
 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. Jud. xviii. 1, § 1.) 
 
 Note XXXIV., p. 190. 
 
 Ant. Jud. 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 anniliilated 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., \i. 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 
 
 Note XXXYIII., p. 190. 
 
 Sueton. Vii. 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. Ilistor., 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 
 Judsea should become masters of the world." 
 
 Note XL., p. 190. 
 Leben Jesu, § 34 ; vol. i. p. 220, E. T. 
 
 Note XLI., p. 190. 
 
 See Philo, De Legatione 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 (Nov. Test, Gr., vol. ii. p. 563) and 
 Dean Alford (Greek Testa?nent, vol. ii. p. 175) as from Xenophon De 
 Rep. Atheniens. I have not succeeded in verifying the reference. 
 
 Note XLIH., p. 191. 
 Liv. xlv. 27, ad fin. 
 
 Note XLFV., p. 192. 
 
 How attractive to strangers Athens was, even in her decline, may be 
 6een from the examples of Cicero, Germanicus, Pausanias, and others.
 
 896 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 Demosth. Philijyp, 
 \. p. 43, ("Or tell me, do you wish to go about asking each other in 
 the market place, ' \Vhat is the news ? ' And can there be any thing 
 neAver, than that the man of Macedon," &c. ;) Phillpp. Epist. pp. 156, 
 157 ; iElian. Var. Hist., v. 13 ; Schol. ad Thucyd. iii. 38, &c. On 
 their religiousness, compare Pausan. i. 24, § 3, (the Athenians are more 
 izeflous 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 ; ^lian. 
 Var. Hist. v. 17 ; Philostrat. Vit. Apollon. vi. 3 ; Dionys. Hal. De Jud. 
 Thuc, § 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 How- 
 son, vol. ii. pp. 66, et seqq. (1.) The " Great Goddess, Diana," is found 
 to have borne that title as her tisual title, both from an inscription, 
 (Boeckh, Corpus Inscript., 2963 C,) and from Xenophon, (Ephes. i. p. 
 15 : "I invoke our ancestral God, the great Diana of the Ephe- 
 sians.") (2.) The "Asiarchs" are mentioned on various coins and 
 inscriptions. (3.) The "town-clerk" (ypai^iiaTivs) of Ephesus is like- 
 wise mentioned in inscriptions, (Boeckh, No. 2963 C, No. 2966, and 
 No. 2990.) (4.) The curious w^ord vewKopog, (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" 
 (^avdvTraToi~) 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 XLVI., p. 192. 
 
 Compare Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 12-15; Acts xxv. 12 and 26 j 
 xxvi. 32 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13 and 17. 
 
 1 Plio. XXXV 21 ; Strab. xiv. 1 ; Phil. Byz. De Sept. Orb. Spectaculis.
 
 LeCT. VII. NOTES. 397 
 
 Note XLYII., p. 192. 
 
 The Roman provinces 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 avdv-aros, (Polyb. xxi. 8, § 11,) 
 as that for the consul is tnraTOi. 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 oiRce of 
 Gallio.) In every case the use of the term is historically correct. (See 
 below. Notes CIV. and C^nil.) 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 {/yfiiovis, (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 XLATH., p. 192. 
 
 See especially Gallio's words, (Acts x-v-iii. 14-16.) Compare Acts 
 xxiii. 29 ; and xx\iii. 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, {Ep. ad Famil., v. 2, p. 60, b,) is 
 an indication of the value attached to the principle m 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," (Ix. 
 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. (^Aiit. Jud. xiv. 10, §§ 13, 14, 16, &c.) 
 
 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 praetor ; 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." (F«Y. Octav. c. 33.) Pliny probably refers to cases Avhere 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." (Ep. 
 ad Traj. x. 97.) 
 
 Note LH., p. 192. 
 
 The humaiie 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 iiim food and other comforts. (Joseph. 
 A?it. 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 own 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. 399 
 
 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 libeHy" &c. Acts xxiv. 23.) 
 
 Note LIII., p. 192. 
 
 On one occasion we find St. Paul "bound with two chains," (Acts 
 xxi. 33;) but commonly we hear of his "chain" (alvcii) in the singu- 
 lar. (Acts xxviii. 20; Ephes. vi. 20 ; 2 Tim. i. 16.) Now, it is abun- 
 dantly apparent from Seneca (De Tranquill. 10, Epist. 5) and other 
 writers, {Tacit. Ann. iv. 28, &c.,) that prisoners were commonly fas- 
 tened by a chain passed from their right Avrist 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 boimd 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 Komans is well known to writers ou 
 antiquities. TJlpian 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 Cnstocl. et ExJiih. Reor. § 1.) Examples of the 
 military custody will be found in Tacitus, {Atiii. iii. 22 ;) Josephus, 
 {Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, § 7 ;) Ignatius, (E;;. ad Roman, v. p. 370 ;) MaHyr, 
 Ignat., (ii. p. 450 ; v. p. 544,) &c. 
 
 Note LY., 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.) But arbitrary power often broke 
 this law, both at Rome and in the provinces. Suetonius says of Au- 
 gustus, "And he took Quintus Gallius, the praetor, from the tribunal, 
 and put him to the torture, as if he had been a slave." {Vit. Octav. 
 § 27.) Tacitus of Nero, "Thuiking that the body of a Avoman would
 
 400 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 not be able to endure the pain, he ordered Epicharis to be scourged." 
 (A?mal. XV. 57.) This examination was in part by scourging. 
 
 Note LVI., 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 LVII., p. 192. 
 
 The crucifixion of the Orientals has more commonly been impaling, 
 than nailing to a cross. (See Ctesias, ap. Phot. BibL Cod. LXXII., p. 
 122 ; Casuabon. Exerc. Antibaron. xvi. 77.) The Romans fastened the 
 body to the cross either by cords or nails. (See Smith's Dictionanj 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 nailmg was the ordinary Roman method. (Tracfat. 
 xxxvi. in Johann. Ojyera, vol. ix. p. 278 : "When men are tormented 
 with very severe pains, they call them ex-eruciatinf/, 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 LVIII., 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. Oneirocrit. 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. VII. . . NOTES. 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 of 
 John xix. 19.) See Sueton. Vit. Calig. § 34: "At a public feast in 
 Home, 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 punishmejit." 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 Ca?pio 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, with a writing declaring the cause of his 
 death, and afterM'ards 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. (De Ira, c. 16, p. 34.) Petronius 
 Arbiter says, ' ' A soldier watched the crosses, lest some one should 
 carry off the bodies for burial." {Satyr, c. 111.) 
 
 1 This word means, "an adherent of the party of the Thracians, ■who were armed 
 with a small round shield, called ' parma.' " 
 
 34*
 
 402 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 Note LXI., p. 192. 
 
 So Alford (vol. i., p. 647) — •' The garments of the executed were by 
 laAv the perquisites of the soldiers on duty." Cf. Digest, xlviii. Tit. 
 20, § 6. 
 
 Note LXII., p. 193. 
 
 Ulpian says, "The bodies of those who suffer 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. 24. 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 theni 
 on the day of their crucifixion, is witnessed to by Josephus — " He 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 tcent cloicn^ those who had been 
 condemned and crucified." {De Bell. Jud. iv. 5, § 2.) 
 
 Note LXIII., p. 193. 
 
 Among minute points of accordance may be especially noticed the 
 following: — 1. The geographical accuracy, (a) 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. (7L N. v. 27, et seqq.) 
 (b) The division of EurojDean 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 7io other. Judaea, Samaria, Galilee, Trachunitis, Ituraia,
 
 Lect. VII. NOTES. 403 
 
 Abilene, Decapolis, are recognized as geographically distinct at this 
 period by the Jewish and classical Avriters. (See Plin. H. N. v. 14, 18, 
 23 ; Strab. xvi. 2, §§ 10, 3-1 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 5, § 1, &c.) 
 {(T) 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, {Iji 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 AmphipoHs 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. U. N. iv. 11 ; Strab. \n. 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. Imcr. No. 1967.) (5) 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 prsefects 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 aud the Greek are precisely equivalent.
 
 404 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 X. 1.) 2. The application of the term YtQanrit (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 oTQaTrtyoi (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 cases, but we have no other proof that it was in use at Philippi. 
 
 Note LXIV,, p. 193. 
 Lardncr, 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 LXYI., p. 194. 
 
 *• Now, in regard to the holy city, there are somethings 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 Judaea, 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, Phccnice, 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, Bocotia, Macedonia, ^tolia, 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. Legat. ad Caium, pp. 
 1031, 1032.)
 
 Lect. VII. NOTES. 406 
 
 Note LXMI., p. 194. 
 
 " For no single country contains the Jcavs, but they are exceedingly 
 niunerous ; 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 LXVin., p. 194. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jiid. 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. ; Legat. 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, 
 (-4m;. 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 Tahnudic. Exercitat.^ not. m 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 Transtl- 
 berine Rome as Kari^oixivrjv Kal oiKovnivrjv Trpof 'lou6atwv,i and then adds, 
 
 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. 
 
 s But the greater part of them were Roman freedmen.
 
 40G NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 the fathers, that four thousand of the class of freedmen, who were tamtecl 
 with that superstition — those being selected who were of suitable age 
 — should be transported to the island of Sardmia." 
 
 Note LXXIIL, p. 195. i 
 
 For the tumultuous spirit of the foreign Jews, see Sueton. vit. Claud. 
 p. 25 ; Dio Cassius, Ix. 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 Home 747, (see above, Lecture 
 VI., Note I.) he Avould 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 (wo-fJ 
 hu)v TQiQKovTo) 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 LXXVII., 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 Credibilitij, vol. i. pp. 148-151 ; and compare Joseph. 
 De Bell. Jud. i. 27, § 1 ; 29, § 2 ; 33, § 8 ; Appian. De Bell. Civ. v. p. 
 1135.
 
 Lect. vn. NOTES. 407 
 
 Note LXXIX., p. 196. 
 
 The cruelties, deceptions, and suspicions of Herod the Great, fill 
 many chapters in Josephus. (^Atit. Jud. xv. 1, 3, 6, 7, &c. ; xvi. 4, 8, 
 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 desig-n that on 
 his own demise they should all be executed, (ibid. 6, ^ 5 ; 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 LXXXI., 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, I. 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 : " "WTien Augustus had heard, that among the 
 children under two years of age tchotn Herod, the king of the Jews, had 
 com7nanded to be slain in Syria, there was also one of the kmg's own 
 sons, he said it was better to be the sow,i 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 the original a play upon the similarity of the Greek •words for " hog " 
 and "son," which is partly, at least, preserved in translation by taking license to substi- 
 tute the feminine for the masculine in this word.
 
 108 NOTES. LeCT. VIL 
 
 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 
 a iealousy 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 Csesar 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 Peraea and Galilee subject, . . . while Batanoea 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 Judaea 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 
 Judi.iea ; 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 15th 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 po-ecise mies agree. Even that 
 which makes Annas high-priest together with Caiaphas appears correct, if 
 we consider the peculiar influence which that ex-high-priest retained." 
 {Lehen Jesu, § 44 ; pp. 300, 301, E. T.) 
 
 Note LXXXV., p. 197. 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 11, ^^ 1. "But all who were of the kindred
 
 Lect. VII. notes. 409 
 
 of Archelaus refused to join themselves to liim, on acco«it of their 
 hatred towards him." Compare 13, § 2. 
 
 Note LXXX\T:., p. 197. 
 Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii. 1, § 3. 
 
 Note LXXXVH., p. 198. 
 Strauss, Lehen Jesu, § 48 ; vol. i. p. 346, E. T. 
 
 Note LXXXVni., 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." (A?it. 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 \dolation 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. § 4.) 
 
 Note LXXXIX., p. 198. 
 
 Ant. Jud. x-viii. 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 Johyi, stirnamed the Baptist, 
 For he taught the Jews to cultivate \^rtue, and to practise 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 rmunciation of ceHain 
 
 35
 
 410 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 sins, but to the purification of the body,^ the soul having been purified 
 by righteousness. And when others thronged to him, (for they were 
 profoundly moved at the hearing of his words,) Herod feared that hi? 
 great influence over the men would lead them to some revolt, (for they 
 seemed ready to do any thing 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 coyisequence of the suspicion oj 
 Jferod, was sent as a prisoner to the afore-mentianed castle of Machcencs, 
 and was there jnit to death." The genuineness of this passage is admit- 
 ted even by Strauss. (Lcben Jesu, § 48 ; vol. i. pp. 344-347, E. T.) 
 
 Note XC, p. 198. 
 
 Strauss, Lehen 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 teti-arch'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 Avas 
 at Macha?rus in Pera?a, 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 Aretas, the Arabian prince, between whose kingdom and 
 his own lay the fortress of Machaerus, it is "a probable solution" of 
 the difficulty, that he was residing wdth his court at Machasrus at this 
 period. (Strauss, § 48, ad fin.) 
 
 Note XCI., 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 
 cX Josephus with the teuets of the Christians. {Ecdcs. Hist. vol. 1. p. 199.)
 
 Lect. VII. notes. 411 
 
 rius. (^Ant. Jucl. xviii. 5, § 6.) Herod Antipas lost his goyernment in 
 the first of Caligula. (Ibid. ch. 7.) 
 
 Note XCII., p. 198. 
 
 A7it. Jud. xvii. 12 ; xviii. 1 ; De 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 Csesar 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 XCIH., p. 198. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. G, §§ 10, 11 ; 8, § 7 ; xix. 5, § 1 ; Philo, In 
 Flacc, p. 968, D. E. 
 
 Note XCIV., p. 198. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 8, § 2 : " Now, after he had reigned three full 
 years over the whole of Judaea, he was at the city of Ccesarea, which was 
 formerly called Strato's Tower. And there he held public shows in 
 honor of Csesar, 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 shows, putting on a robe made 
 entirely of silver, 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 mamier, 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 svidden vio- 
 lence. Turning therefore to his friends, he said, — ' I, your god, am 
 now commanded to end my life ; and fate immediatehj 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 Avhich 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 « 
 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 ol 
 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 Tiicit. Hist. ii. 2 and 81. 
 
 Note XCVIII., p. 199. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 8, § 8; 9, § 7 : "The king had been intrusted 
 by Claudius Caesar 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 H. was the nephew, and not 
 the son, of this monarch. (See the note of Lardner, Credibility^ vol. i. 
 p. 18, note S.) 
 
 Note XCIX., p. 199. 
 
 The procuratorship of Pilate lasted from the 12th year of Tiberius 
 (A. D. 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 Pestus 
 early in the reign of Nero. {AtU. 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. I^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. Leg. 
 ad Caium, p. 1034: "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, Mith 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 Judaea, he thought he 
 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 oifice he was accused to the emperor, and 
 
 35*
 
 414 NOTES. LecT. Vll. 
 
 only escaped a severe sentence by the influence which his brother Pallas 
 possessed with Nero. 
 
 Note CIL, p. 199. 
 
 See A7it. 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 Cni., 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, An7i. 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. 
 vU. 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." (QucBst. Nat. iv. Prscfat.) Statins uses the same epithet, 
 {Sylv. 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 CVI., 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 Archelaus. 
 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 CXIX. 
 
 Note GXH., 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 Prcenot. § 2 ; vol. xiv. p. 612.) 
 
 Note CVni., 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 wliile 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 C}-prian Inscription of the 
 reign of Claudius. (Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 2632.) 
 
 Note CIX., p. 200. 
 
 Joseph. A7it. Jiid. xiv. 13, § 3 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 13, § 1 ; Dio Cass, 
 xlix. p. 411, B. This Lysanias was the son of Ptolemy, son of Men- 
 naeus, and seems to have been king of Chalcis and Ituraea, 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 Ptolemy, was put to death by Antony, at the 
 instigation of Cleopatra, (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 4, § 1, certainly before 
 the year of Eome 719, B. C. 35. (See Dio Cass. 1. s. c.) 
 
 Note CXI., p. 200. 
 So Strauss, Lehen Jem, § 44; vol. i. p. 302, E. T.
 
 416 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 Note CXII., p. 200. 
 
 Ibid. p. 301. «« We cannot indeed prove that, had a younger Lysa- 
 nias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him," &c. 
 
 Note CXIII., 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. xix. 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. {H. 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 filr geschichtliche Rechtwissenschaft, 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 his Tnspiration of Holy Scripture, Lecture VITI., p. 403, note 2. I am indebted to 
 my friend, Mr. Manscl, 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, Lebm Jesii, § 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 irpwrj? ^ with ajroypa^jj,' to regard Kv^tiviov^ as 
 a genitive dependent on aiToypa(pfi* and }]y(iioveb9VTOi^ as equivalent to 
 riyft^dvoi^ ox hyft^ovfhaavTOi.'' 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^ and others, 
 which takes <' first " in the same way, but regards fiyfiiovcvovTOi Kvpriviov ^ 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 w^as 
 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 vieM^s. 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 Trpcir;?!" is for Trporfpa,ii and that the 
 genitive Kvpr^viov '2 depends upon it, the construction used being analo- 
 gous to that of St. John, on npCiTos ^ov t/v,'^^ (i. 15.) The meaning is, 
 then, "This assessment was made before the time when Cyrenius was 
 governor of Syria." (Lardner, Credibility/, vol. i. pp. 165-173 ; Alford, 
 Greek Testame?it, vol. i. p. 314.) 
 
 1 First. 2 Taxing, or enrolment. » Cyrenius. * Taxing. 
 
 6 Governing, or being governor. " Governor. '' Having been governor. 
 
 8 See Lardner, Credibility, toI. i. p. 171, note d. 
 
 9 Cyrenius governing, or when Cyrenius was governor. 10 First, 
 u Former . 12 of Cyrenius. 13 For he was before me.
 
 418 NOTES. Lect. VII. 
 
 (4.) Finally, it is maintained that iyivtro^ 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 fulli/ 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 
 Lardner 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 CXXH., p. 202. 
 
 Ant. Jnd. 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 Gamala, 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 
 Galilcean became the leader." (Ibid. § 6.) 
 
 Note CXXIII.,p. 202. 
 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 17, § 8. The followers of Theudas ♦' were scattered 
 and brought to noxight," (Acts v. 36,) but those of Judas the Galilaeap 
 ♦« were dispersed." (Ibid, verse 37.) It is in exact accordance with 
 this distinction that the latter reappear in the Jewish war, while of tho 
 former we hear nothing. See Dean Alford's note ad loc. 
 
 1 Was made, or took place.
 
 LtcT. Vn. NOTES. 419 
 
 Note CXXIV., p. 202. 
 Antiq. Jud. xx. 5, § 1. 
 
 Note CXXV., p. 202. 
 
 lb. xvi. 10, § 4 : <« But at this time Judsea was agitated by ten thou- 
 sand other tumidts, and majiy from all quarters rushed to arms, either in 
 the hope of their own advantage, or out of enmity to the Jews." 
 
 Note CXX^a., p. 203. 
 
 Be 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 liim. 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 homo as secretly as possible." Compare Antiq. Jud, 
 XX. 8, § 6. 
 
 Note CXXYH., p. 203. 
 
 In the parallel passage of the Antiquities, (1. s. c.,) Josephus says 
 that Felix slew 400 and captured 200 of the Eg}'ptian's followers. If 
 he had really estimated their whole number at 30,000, he would scarcely 
 have said, that " very many (jzXe'icToi^ were killed or taken prisoners," 
 when the loss in both ways was no more than 600 men. It has been, 
 sagaciously conjectui-ed that the reading rgtcr^ivptovi^ should be replaced 
 by TiTpaicia'^^iXiovg,^ haA'ing arisen from the ready confusion oi ,).^ with ,<5,'* 
 or ,A3 with /A.'* (Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 227.) 
 
 1 20,000. 2 4,000. 3 The Greek letter which stauds for 30,000. 
 
 * The Greek letter which stands for 4,000.
 
 420 NOTES. Lect. vm. 
 
 Note CXXVIII., p. 203. 
 
 Ant. Jud. XX. 2, § 6. Compare Dio Cassius, Ix. 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, Gi'eek 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 CXXXII., p. 205. 
 
 Ibid. Explic. Luc. x. § 171. (Opera, vol. i. p. 1542.) 
 
 Note CXXXIII., p. 205. 
 Irenseus, Advers. Hceres. iii. 1. {Opera, vol. ii. p. 6.) 
 
 LECTURE YIII. 
 
 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 H., p. 207. 
 
 So Celsus, (ap. Origcn. Cmtr. 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 m., 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 
 oo-worker with Paul." He then quotes from the extant Epistle.) 
 
 Note IV., p. 208. 
 Contra Celswn, i. § 63 ; p. 378, B. ; De Princip. iii. 2, H J P- I'^O* ^• 
 
 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. {Hipjjolyttis a7id his Age, 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.} 
 
 38
 
 422 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 
 
 Note VI., p. 209. 
 
 See the subjoined passages — "In fine, by teaching Israel, and per- 
 forming such wonders and signs, 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 servants 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 have given my hack to the scourges, and my cheeks to buf- 
 fetings.' " (§ 5, p. 16.) " Then they shall see him in that day, having 
 about his body the scarlet rohe reaching doion to the feet, and they shall 
 say, ''Is not this he whom we set at nought, and crucified, and pierced, 
 and mocked f ' " (§ 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, Prcpfat. ad S. Clem. 
 Ep. p. x.-xvii., prefixed to his Patres Apostolici. 
 
 Note VIH., 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. VIII. 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 he could 
 have done so, but with humility." (§ 16, pp. 60, 62.) " His stifferings 
 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 : ' Ee 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 God is his blood, which icas 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 Imnfrom the dead," (§ 24, p. 98.) " Now Christ 
 was seiit 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 deaco7is." (ibid. pp. 
 148, 150.) "Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and most just 
 pillars w^ere persecuted, and came to a violent end. Let us set before 
 our eyes the good apostles. Peter, through an imrighteous envy, suf- 
 fered, not one, nor two, but 7nany troubles, and so becoming a martyr at 
 last, he went to the fitting place of glory. Through envy also Paul 
 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 
 maHyrdom under the emperors," &c. (§ 5, pp. 24, 28.) 
 
 Note 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. VIII. 
 
 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 Centtcries, vol. i. 
 pp. 197 and 357. 
 
 Note XI., p. 210. 
 
 Tbid. vol. ii. p. 23. Compare Pearson's Disputatio de Anno quo S. 
 Iffnatius a Trajano AntiochicB 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. Bxinsen 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. D. 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 XIH., 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 lllgen's Zeitschrift fur historische Theologie, 11. ii. pp. 47-90 ; Jacob- 
 son, Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 262-470 ; Hefele, Patrum Apostolico- 
 rum Operc, 3d edition, Prolegomena, p. Iviii. 
 
 Note XIV., p. 210. 
 
 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 36 ; Hieronjnn. 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 uf tlic twelve are found in a second Latin version,
 
 Lect. Vm. 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, Smyrnaians, 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 — only 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 Co)-pus Ignatianiim, Introduction, pp. xxxiv.- 
 Ixxxvii. ; Bimsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. pp. 98-103. 
 
 Note XVI., p. 211. 
 
 See 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- 
 sity Sermons, Preface, pp. xiii.-xxxix. ; Uhlhorn in Niedner's Zeitschrift 
 fUr historische Theologie, xv. p. 247, et seqq., and Canon Wordsworth in 
 the English Reviezc, 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 XVn., 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 
 
 36*
 
 426 NOTES. Lect. VIII 
 
 Christ, who was of the family of David according to the flesh, the Son 
 of man and Son of God." (^Ep. ad Epli. xx. p. 302.) '< For Jesus Christ 
 our God xoas born of Mary, according to the appomtment of God, of the 
 seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit. He was born, and icas 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. 416.) 
 "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 lohotn 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 ichicli also our life arose with him." (Ep. ad Magnes. ix. p. 324.) 
 ' ' The prophets looked for him as 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 xchen he came to Peter and his com- 
 panions, he said to them, ' Take, and Jtandle 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 xcith 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 Mag?ies. 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. vm. NOTES. 427 
 
 Note XYUl., p. 211. 
 
 See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianxcm, pp. 227-231 ; and M. Bunseiis 
 Hijypoli/tus, vol. i. pp. 92-98. 
 
 Note XIX., p. 212. 
 
 See Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, yoL ii. pp. 484-512. This work is 
 admitted to be genuine, even by M. Bunsen. {Hippolytusy vol. i. pp. 
 22S-227.) 
 
 Note XX., p. 212. 
 
 See especially the following passages : <' Servants . . . walking ac- 
 cording to the truth of the Lord, icho became the se)-vant of all." (§ 5, p. 
 494.) " "SVe remember also what the Lord said in his teaching, ' Judge 
 not, that ye he not judged -. forgive and it shall he 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 si^is in his oicn body 
 on the tree I 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 
 devn." (§ 7, p. 500.) " Our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to be 
 brought even to death for our sms ; whom God raised, loosing the pains 
 of Hades." (§ 1, p. 486.) " We believe in Him who rai-sed our Lord 
 Jesus Christ fi'om the dead, and gave him glory, and a throne at his right 
 hand" (§ 2, p. 486.) "Whom (i. e. the Lord) if we shall please in 
 this present world, we shall receive also the futvire world, as he promised 
 us, that he tcould raise lis from the dead." (§ 5, p. 496.) "I beseech 
 you all therefore ... to exercise aU patience, which also ye see exempli' 
 fed before your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, Zosimus, and 
 Rufus, but also in others among you, and in Patd himself and the rest 
 of the Ajjostles. 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. (§ 3, p. 490.)
 
 428 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 
 
 Note XXI., p. 212. 
 
 See the Epistle of Irenaeus 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 with 
 Johtiy and with the rest of those xcho had seen the Lord, and how he 
 remembered their words, and what he had heard from them concerning 
 the Lordj 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 XXn., p. 212. 
 
 Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 3 ; vol. i. p. 147 ; Hieronym. De Viris Blustr. 
 X. p. 831, ed. Vallars. Compare Origen. ad Rom. xvi. 13. 
 
 Note XXIII., p. 212. 
 
 See the "Canon" published by Muratori in his Antiquitates Italics 
 Medii yEvi,^ 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 Koman 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, 
 Genuin^iess 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 loorld 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. VIIL notes. 429 
 
 those ichom 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 XXAT!., 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 ■\'isible 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 XXYH., p. 213. 
 
 Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. Ill; Norton (Geniiineiiess of the 
 Gosjjels, 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 Kaye, Account of 
 the Writings and Oinnions of Justin Martyr, pp. 11, 12 ; who, however, 
 declines to decide between the earlier and the later date.) 
 
 Note XX^TH., p. 213. 
 
 Burton, E. H., 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.
 
 430 NOTES. Lect. vm. 
 
 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 Judcea, 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 ISIagi 
 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. VHL 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 famdy 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 sha}t conceive in thy Avomb 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.' " {DicU. 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, 175.) 
 
 6. <'And there (i. e. in Eg^-pt) [Joseph and Mary] remained ii\ 
 exile, until Herod, who slew the children in Bethlehem, had died, an<i» 
 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." (^Apohg. 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 Trtjphon. § 88, p. 186.) 
 
 9. "And then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John wa^ 
 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." Clbid. § 88, pp. 185, 186.)
 
 432 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 
 
 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 hun 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 \ip under Pontius Pilate." (^Ajyolog. i. § 48, p. 72.) 
 
 13. '* And from these things we know that Jesus had foreknowledge 
 ot what was to be after him, and also from many other things which he 
 foretold 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. 
 ^ 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 nis 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 Tnjphon. § 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 Pilate." (Ibid. § 102, p. 197.) 
 
 20. "Now Herod succeeded Archelaus, and assumed the authority 
 that was conferred upon him. To him Pilate, 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 feet,' 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. § 3o, p. 6-5 ; 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 shoiild come to pass ; 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, und 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, cicm 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 3^Iaker of all, 
 through the name of the crucified Jesus." (Ibid. § 117, p. 211.) 
 
 Note XXXIL, p. 215. 
 See pages 204 and 205. 
 
 Note XXXIII., p. 216. 
 
 See especially Baur, in the Tnhinger Zeitschrift fllr Theologie, 1836, 
 fasc. iii. p. 199 ; 1838, fasc. iii. p. 149 ; and in a pamphlet Ueber den 
 Ursprung des Episcopats, Tubingen, 1838, pp. 148-185. Also compare 
 his work. Die Ignatianischen Brief en tmd ihr neuester Kritiker, cine 
 Streitschrift gegen He)-mi Bunsen, 8vo., Tubingen, 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 Monumenti delle Arte Cristiane Primitive nella Metropoli 
 del Cristianesimo, (4to, Rome, 1844,) the latter in his magnificent work, 
 Les Catacomhes de Rome, (6 volumes, folio, Faris, 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 Air. Spencer 
 Northcote's Roman Catacombs, (London, 1857.) An able Article in 
 the Edinburgh Rcviezo 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 Itahj and Switzerland in 1685 and 
 1686, (^Hotterciam, 1687,) pp. 209-211.
 
 Lect. VIII. NOTES. 435 
 
 Note XXXVI., p. 218. 
 Spencer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, p. 4. 
 
 Note XXX\^I., p. 218. 
 See Note IV. on Lecture VII., p. 383. 
 
 Note XXXVin., 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 mil'iions of graves. 
 
 Note XL., p. 219. 
 
 Perret, Catacombes de Rome, vol. vi. p. 101, et seqq. ; Spencer North- 
 cote, Ro?na?i Catacombs, pp. 29, 30. For arguments to the contrary, see 
 Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 142-151.
 
 436 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 
 
 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, 
 
 eRCrwPAHANYCrAAAHENYNCIIYC 
 
 HYrYAATYCnPcj<I)HAECYM<fAMIIA 
 
 HArwTAQYHECCYNTlINnAKE 
 
 rEw<i>HAAANCIIAAA<fECHT 
 which may be thus explained — 
 
 6r]C r(i3p6r)avvs FakXije vwcrivg 
 rjVyvXarvs npu) xprjSe CVjx (pa/xijX- 
 T]a TO)Ta gvtjtacvvr rjv iruKe 
 Tfw0>?Aa avC)]?.Xa (pccrjr. 
 
 Hie Gordianus, Gallice Jiuncius, 
 
 JngulatusproJi.de, cumfamil- 
 
 ia tota, quieseunt in pace. 
 
 Theophila ancilla fecit. ^ (Ferret, vol. vi. p. 152.) 
 
 Note XLII., p. 219. 
 
 The entire inscription runs as follow^s : — "Alexander is not dead, 
 but lives above the stars, and his body rests in this tomb. He ended 
 his life under the Emperor Antoninus, who, when he saw himself much 
 vsurpassed in conferring benefits, returned hatred for kindness. For 
 when he was bending the knee to offer the sacrifice of prayer to the true 
 God, he was led away to punishment. O what times ! " See Dr. 
 Maitland' s Church in the Catacombs, pp. 32, 33. 
 
 Note XLIII,, p. 220. 
 " Dormit," ^ " quiescit," ^ " depositus est,"-* are the terms used ; and 
 
 1 Here Qordian, the courier from Gaul, strangled for the faith, with his whole family, 
 rests in peace. The maid-servant Theophila erected this. 
 
 2 He sleeps. 3 He resta. * He is laid away.
 
 Lect. vni. NOTES. 437 
 
 from the same idea burial-places are called by tlie name -which has 
 since become common in Christian lands, viz., KoinijT/ipia, " cemeteries" 
 or " sleeping-places." See Marchi's Monumenti delle Arte Cristiani 
 Primitive, &c., p. 63; Spencer Northcote, Catacombs, p. 162. "7m 
 pace " occurs, either at the beginning or at the end of an inscription, 
 almost as a necessary formula. 
 
 Note XLIV., p. 220. 
 
 Northcote's Catacombs, p. 163. The contrast in this respect between 
 Christian and Heathen monuments of the same date is very striking. 
 See Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 42, 43. 
 
 Note XLV., p. 220. 
 
 Northcote's Catacoynbs, pp. 50-64. Compare M. Ferret's splendid 
 work, Les Catacombes de Rome, where these subjects are (almost with- 
 out exception) represented. The subjoined are the most important ref- 
 erences. Temptation of Eve, (vol. iv. PI. 31 ; v. PI. 12;) Moses strik- 
 ing the Rock, (vol. i. PI. 34, 57 ; ii. PI. 22, 27, 33 ; iii. PI. 2, 6 ; iv. PI. 
 28 ;) Noah welcoming the Dove, (vol. ii. PI. 53, 61 ; iv. PI. 25, &c. ;) 
 Daniel among the Lions, (vol. ii. PI. 42, 61 ; iii. PI. 7, 36 ;) the Three 
 Children, (vol. ii. PL 36, 39 ; iii. 7 ;) Jonah under the Gourd (vol. i. 
 PL 67 ; vol. ii. PL 22, 28, 39 ; vol. iii. PL 2, 5, &c. ;) Jonah and the 
 Whale, (vol. iii. 16, 22 ; vol. v. PL 40, 57 ;) Adoration of the Magi, 
 (vol. V. PL 12 ;) Magi before Herod, (vol. ii. PL 48 ;) Baptism of Christ 
 by John, (vol. iii. PL 52, 55 ;) Cure of the Paralytic, (vol. ii. PL 34, 
 48 ;) Turning of Water into Wine, (vol. iv. PL 28, No. 67 ;) Feeding of 
 the Five Thousand, (vol. i. PL 27 ; iv. PL 29, No. 73 ;) Raising of Laz- 
 arus, (vol. i. PL 26 ; vol. ii. PL 61 ; vol. iii. PL 7, 36 ; vol. iv. PL 25, 
 31, 32 ; vol. V. PL 13, &c. ;) Last Supper, (voL i. PL 29 ;) Peter walk- 
 ing on the Sea, (vol. iv. PL 16, No. 85 ;) Pilate washing his Hands, 
 (Maitland, p. 260.) To the historical subjects mentioned in the text 
 maybe added the following: — The Nativity, (Perret, vol. iv. PL 16, 
 No. 84 ;) the Conversation with the Woman of Samaria, (ibid. vol. i. PL 
 81 ;) and the Crucifixion, (ibid. vol. i. PL 10 ; vol. iv. PL 33, No. 103.) 
 The oidy unhistorical scenes represented, besides the parabolic ones, 
 are Tobias and the Angel, (Perret, vol. iii. PL 26,) and Orpheus charm' 
 ing the Beasts, which is fi-equent. 
 
 37*
 
 438 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 
 
 Note XL VI., p. 221. 
 
 Tacit. Annal. ii. 39, 40 ; Suet. vit. Tib. § 25 ; Dio Cass. Ivii. p. 613, C. 
 Tacitus indeed says, in speaking of the claim made by Clemens, " cfed- 
 ebatur Ilomse ; " but it was a faint belief, which Tiberius thought of 
 allowing to die away of itself. And though his constitutional timidity 
 prevented him from taking this course, he showed his sense of the nu- 
 merical weakness of the dupes, by bringing Clemens to Rome, when he 
 might have had him assassinated at Ostia. Nor did his execution cause 
 any tumult, either at Rome or in the provinces. 
 
 Note XL VII., p. 222. 
 Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 100. 
 
 Note XLVIIL, p. 223. 
 
 Martyr. Tg7iat. § 3, p. 542 : " The cities and churches of Asia received 
 the saint, by their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons ; and they all 
 crowded around him, that they might if jjossible obtain sotne pwtion of 
 spiritual gifts." ' 
 
 Note XLIX., p. 223. 
 
 So Eusebius, who had the works of Papias before him, relates. Hist. 
 Eccles. iii. 39, p. 224. *' [Papias] relates that a dead man was raised in 
 his time, and moreover that another wonderful thing occurred to Jus- 
 tus, who was surnamed Barsabas, namely, that he drank a deadly poi- 
 son, and suffered no unpleasant effects, on account of the grace of the 
 Lord." 
 
 Note L., p. 223. 
 
 Dialog, cum Tnjphon. § 88, p. 185 : "Among us ako you may see 
 both males and females possessing gifts from the Spirit of God." (Com- 
 pare Apolog. ii. § 6, p. 93.) "For many of our Christian people, exor- 
 cising in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius? 
 Pilate, have cured, and are even now curing, many demoniacs in your 
 own city and in all parts of the world, though these persons could not 
 \)e cured by all other exorcists, and enchanters and sorcerers. But
 
 LECT. VIII. NOTES, 439 
 
 ourw have overcome and driven out the demons that possessed these 
 men.-' See also Tnjphon. §39, p. 136; §76, p. 173, and § 85, p. 182. 
 
 Note LI., p. 223. 
 Mfltiades ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 17, pp. 351, 352. 
 
 Note LII., p. 223. 
 
 Adversus Hcereses, ii. 32, § 4, (vol. i. pp. 374, 375 :) *' On this account 
 also his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform miracles in his 
 name for the benefit of men, as each of them has received the gift from 
 him. For some truly and really expel demons ; . . . and others have 
 foreknowledge of the future, and visions, and prophetic utterances. 
 Others heal the sick and make them well, by the imposition of their 
 hands. And even now, as we have said, the dead have also been 
 raised, and have remained with us many years." And v. 6, (vol. ii. 
 p. 334 :) "As also we have many brethren in the church having pro- 
 phetic gifts, and speaking in all foreign tongues, and bringing to light 
 the secrets of men, for a good purpose." 
 
 Note LIII., p. 223. 
 
 See Tertullian, Apolog. § 23 ; Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. ii. 8, p. 254, 
 C. D. ; Minucius Felix, Octav. p. 89. These passages affirm the con- 
 tinuance of the power of casting out devils to the time of the writers. 
 On the general question of the cessation of miracles. Burton's remark 
 {E. if., vol. ii. p. 233) seems just, that »< their actual cessation was im- 
 perceptible, and like the rays in a summer's evening, which, when the 
 sun has set, may be seen to linger on the top of a mountain, though they 
 have ceased to fall on the level country beneath." 
 
 Note LIY., p. 224. 
 
 The vast number of the Christians is strongly asserted by Tertullian, 
 Apolog. \ 37 : "We are of yesterday, and yet we fill all your places, 
 your cities, islands, castles, towns, courts, your very camps, your tribes, 
 your decurise, your palace, your senate, your markets. We have left 
 you only your temples. What wars we might wage, and with what 
 energy, even against superior forces, we who are so willing to be slain*
 
 440 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 
 
 if it was not a part of our discipline, that it is better to be killed than 
 to kill I We might also, unarmed and without making any rebellion, 
 but only disagreemg with you, contend against you with the hostility 
 of separation only. For if so great a multitude of men as we are should 
 suddenly separate from you, and retire to some distant quarter of the 
 earth, truly the loss of so many and such citizens would undermine 
 your dominion : yes, it would even inflict upon you an absolute deso- 
 lation. Without doubt you would be dismayed at your solitude, at the 
 general stillness, and the dulness as if of a dead world. You would 
 look about for some to command ; you would have more enemies left 
 than citizens : but now you have few enemies, in comparison with the 
 multitude of Christians." See also Justin Martyr, Dialog, cicm Try- 
 phon. § 117, (pp. 210 211,) quoted in note 31, § 25, p. 528 
 
 Note LV., p. 227. 
 
 The attempts of Strauss to prove variations in the story — irrecon- 
 cilable differences between the accounts of the different Evangelists — 
 appear to me to have failed signally. See above, Note XXXIII. on Lec- 
 ture VI., p. 378. 
 
 Note LVI., p. 228. 
 
 Strauss himself admits this difference to a certain extent, (Lehen Jesic, 
 Einleitung, § 14 ; vol. i. p. 67, E. T.,) and grants that the Scripture 
 miracles are favorably distinguished by it from the marvels of Indian 
 or Grecian fables ; but he finds in the histories of Balaam, Joshua, (!) 
 and Samson, a similar, though less glaring, impropriety. Certainly the 
 speaking of the ass is a thing sui generis m Scripture, and would be 
 grotesque, were it not redeemed by the beauty of the words uttered, 
 and the important warning which they contain — a warning still only 
 too much needed — against our cruel and unsympathetic treatment of 
 the brute creation. 
 
 Note LVII., p. 228. 
 
 Strauss, Lehen Jesu, § 144 ; vol. iii. p. 396, E. T. The entire passage 
 has been given in Note XXVI. on Lecture I.
 
 ADDITIONAL NOTE TO LECTURE Y, 
 
 On the Identification of the Belshazzar of Daniel icith Bil-shar-uzur son 
 of Nabu-nahit. 
 
 Since the foregoing sheets were in tj^e, my attention has been called 
 by an anonymous correspondent to a difficulty in the proposed identifi- 
 cation of Belshazzar with Bil-shar-uzur, son of Nabtt-nahit, arising 
 from his probable age at the time of the siege of Babylon. If Nabu- 
 nahit, (Nabonadius,) as suggested in the text,^ married a daughter of 
 Nebuchadnezzar after his accession to the throne, as he only reigned 
 seventeen years in all, Bil-shar-uzur, supposing him the son of this wife, 
 cotdd have been no more than sixteen years of age when left to ad- 
 minister affairs at Babylon. This, it is said, is too early an age for him 
 to have taken the chief command, and to have given a great feast to 
 " his princes, his u-ives, and his concubines." ^ The difficulty here started 
 does not appear to me very great. In the East manhood is attained far 
 earlier than in the West,^ and husbands of fourteen or fifteen years of 
 age are not uncommon. Important commands are also not unfrequently 
 intrusted to princes of no greater age ; as may be seen by the instances 
 of Herod the Great, who was made governor of Galilee by his father at 
 fifteen ; ^ of Alexander Severus, who became Emperor of Rome at 
 seventeen ; ^ and of many others. There is thus nothing unusual in the 
 possession of regal dignity, and an establishment of wives, on the part 
 of an Oriental prince in his sixteenth or seventeenth year. If Nabona- 
 dius married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar as soon as he came to the 
 throne, and had a son born within the year, he may have associated him 
 
 1 Page 171. 2 Kan. v. 2. 
 
 8 " He had now become a man." pays Mr. Laj-ard of a yonng Bedouin, " for be was 
 obont fourteen years old." (JVinevek and Babylon^ p. 295.) 
 •* Joseph. Jlnt. Jud. xiv. 9, g 2. 
 5 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.^ 
 
 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 imdoubtedly 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 rtfew 
 king, as he does, "a certain Nabonnedus of Babylon," {Jiafiowihi^Tin 
 ToJv iK Baj3v'Au)vog,') 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^ and performed^ 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,'* and as Joseph was in Egypt, ^ and 
 Mordecai in Persia.^ 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. 2 Verse 16. » Verse 29. 
 
 4 Dan. ii. 28. 6 Gen. xli. 41-43. • Esth. x. 3.
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS, 
 
 SPECmCATIOX OF THE EDITIOXS QrOTED OR REFERRED TO DT THE 
 FOREGOING NOTES. 
 
 A. 
 
 Aeydenus, Fragments of, in C. McUler's Fragra. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. ed. Didot, 
 
 Paris, 1851. 
 iELiAN, Hist. Var. ed. LUnemann, Gcittingen, 1811. 
 Alexander Polyhistor, Fragments of, in the Fragm. H. Gr. vol. ii. 
 
 Paris, 1848. 
 Alford, Dean, Greek Testament, London, Rivingtons, 1849, &c. 
 Ambrose, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition,) Paris, 1686. 
 Appian, Opera, ed. Tollius, Amsterdam, 1760. 
 Aristotle, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1831, &c. 
 Arrian, Exped. Alex. Magn. ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1829. 
 ARTEMiDORrs, Oneirocritica, Paris, Morell, 1603. 
 Asiatic Researches, Calcutta, 1788, &c. 
 Athanasil'S, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition,) Paris, 1698. 
 AuBERLEX, Prophecies of Daniel, (translated by Saphir,) Edinburgh, 
 
 Clark, 1856. 
 Al'GUSTIXE, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition,) Antwerp, 1700. 
 
 B. 
 
 Barnabas, S., Epistola, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici (vol. i.), ed. 2da, 
 
 Amsterdam, 1724. 
 
 Bauer, Hebraische Mythologie, Leipsic, 1802. 
 
 Bal-mgartex, De Fide Libri Estherse, Halse, 1839. 
 
 Beaufort, Incertitude de I'Histoire Romaine, Utrecht, 1738. 
 
 (443)
 
 444 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 Bengel, Archiv, Tubingen, 1816-1821. 
 
 Berosus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 
 
 Bertheau, Comment on Chronicles, (translated by Martin,) Edinburgh, 
 Clark, 1857. 
 
 Bertholdt, Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apocryphische 
 Schriften des Alt. und Neu. Test., Erlangen, 1812-1819. 
 
 BiRKS, Horse Apostolicce, attached to his edition of Paley's Horse Paulinae, 
 London, 1850. 
 
 BocHART, Geographia Sacra, ed. 4ta, Leyden, 1707. 
 
 BoECKH, Corpus Inscriptionum GrEecarum, Berlin, 1828-1843. 
 
 BouHiER, Recherches sur I'histoire d'Herodote, Dijon, 1746. 
 
 Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Temp. Emendata, Bonn, 1853. 
 
 BuDDEus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, Halse Magd. 1744- 
 1752. 
 
 BuNSEN, Egypt's Place in Universal History, (translated by Cockerell,) Lon- 
 don, 1848, &c. 
 
 BuNSEN, Hippolytus and his Age, London, Longman, 1854. 
 
 BuNSEN, 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, Oxfcrd, 
 Parker, 1833. 
 
 Butler, Bishop, Analogy of Religion, Oxford, 1833. 
 
 BuTTMANN, Mythologus, Berlin, 1828, 1829. 
 
 Buxtorf, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, Basle, 1676. 
 
 c. 
 
 Calmet, Commentaire Litteral, Paris, 1724-1726. 
 
 Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1721. 
 
 Carwithbn, Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1809. 
 
 Casaubon, I., Exerc. Antibaron., folio edition, London, 1614. 
 
 Champollion, Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens, 
 
 Paris, 1828. 
 Chardin, Voyage en Perse, Amsterdam, 1735. 
 Cicero, Opera, ed. Priestly, London, 1819. 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, ed. Potter, Venice, 1757. 
 Clemens Romanus, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, Oxford, 1840. 
 Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 1830-1841.
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 445 
 
 CoNRlNGlus, Adversar. Chronolog. in Gravius's Syntagma variarum Disser- 
 
 tationum rariorum, Ultraj. 1701. 
 Constitutiones Apostolicae, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, (vol. i.,) ed. 2da. 
 
 Amsterdam, 1724. 
 CoNYBEARE and HoAVSON, Life and Letters of St. Paul, London, Long* 
 
 man, 1850. 
 CoRRODi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des jadischen und 
 
 christlichen Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792. 
 Cratippus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 
 Ctesias, Fragmenta, ed. Bahr, Frankfort, 1824. 
 CuRETON, Canon, Corpus Ignatianum, London, Rivingtons, 1849. 
 Cybillus Alexandrinus, ed. Aubert, Paris, 1638. 
 
 D. 
 
 Dahlmann, Life of Herodotus, (translated by Cox,) London, 1845. 
 
 Demosthenes, ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1846-1849. 
 
 Des Vignoles, Chronologie de I'Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738. 
 
 De "Wette, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, 7tli edition, Berlin 1852. 
 
 De Wette, translated by Theodore Parker. (See Parker.) 
 
 De Wette, Archaologie, 3rd edition, Berlin, 1842. 
 
 Digesta seu Pandecta, Florence, 1553. 
 
 Dio Cassivs, Hist. Roman., Hanover, 1606. 
 
 Dio Chrysostom, ed. Morell, Paris, 1604. 
 
 DiODORrs SicuLVS, ed. Wesseling, Bipont. 1793, &c. 
 
 DiONYSirs Halicarnassus, folio edition, Oxon. 1704. 
 
 Dirs, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Paris, 185J 
 
 Dodwell, Dissertat. in Irena^um, Oxford, 1689. 
 
 E. 
 
 Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek, Leipsic, 1787-1800. 
 
 EiCHHORN, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, Leipsic, 17S7. 
 
 EiCHHORX, Einleitung in das Neu. Testament, Leipsic, 1804-I8]'A> 
 
 Epictetus, Dissertationes, ed. Schweighaeuser, Leipsic, 1796-1800^ 
 
 EpiPHAXirs, Opera, ed. Schrey et Meyer, Cologne, 1682. 
 
 Eesch and Gruker, Algemeine Encyclopadie der Wissenschaft undKunst, 
 
 Leipsic, 1818, &c. 
 ErsEBirs, Chronica, ed. Mai, Milan, 1818, 
 EuSEBius, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Burton, Oxford, 1838. 
 
 38
 
 446 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 EusEBirs, -raeparatio Evangelica, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1843. 
 
 EwALD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2nd edition, Gottingen, 1851-1858. 
 
 EwALD, Propheten des Alten Bundes, Stuttgart, 1840. 
 
 F. 
 
 Faber, Horse Mosaicse, Oxford, 1801. 
 
 Feilmoser, Einleitung in die Bucher d. Neues Testaments, Tubingen, 
 
 1830. 
 Fergusson, Palaces of Nineveh Restored, London, Murray, 1851. 
 Ferrier, General, Caravan Journeys, London, Murray, 1856. 
 Forster, Mahometanism Unveiled, London, 1829. 
 Fritzsche, Aechtheit der Bucher Mosis, Kostock, 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, Scripture Linguasque Phoenician Monumenta, Leipsic, 1857. 
 
 Gesenius, Thesaurus Philologicus 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. 
 Grosier, 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 aber 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, 1850.
 
 INDEX OP AUTHORS. 447 
 
 Hecat^L'S Abderita, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. 
 Paris, 1848. 
 
 Heeren, Asiatic Nations, (English Translation,) Oxford, Talboys, 1833. 
 
 Heerex, Manual of Ancient History, (English Translation,) Oxford, Tal- 
 boys, 1833. 
 
 Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 3rd edition, Tubingen, 1847. 
 
 Hengstexberg, Aegypten und Mose, Berlin, 1840. 
 
 Hexgstexberg, Egypt, &c., (translated by Mr. Robbins, with additional 
 notes by Dr. Cooke Taylor,) Edinburgh, Clark, 1845. 
 
 Hexgstexberg, Authentic des Daniel und Integritat des Secherias, Ber- 
 lin, 1831. 
 
 Herbst, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in d. heihg. 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. 
 
 Hermippus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. rol. iii. Paris, 1849. 
 
 Herodotus, ed. Bahr, Leipsic, 1830-1835. 
 
 Herodotus, (translated by the Author,) with copious Notes and Appen- 
 dices, London, Murray, 1858-9. 
 
 Hesychius, Lexicon, ed. Albert, Leyden, 1746. 
 
 HixcKS, Dr., Translation of Black Obelisk Inscription, in Dublin Univer- 
 sity Magazine for October, 1853. 
 
 HiEROXYMis, Opera, Benedictine Edition, Paris, 1G93. 
 
 HiTZio, De Cadyte urbe Herodotea, Gottingen, 1829. 
 
 HiTZiG, Zwolf Kleinen Propheten erklart Leipsic, 1838, 
 
 Homer, Iliad, ed. Heyne, Leipsic, 1802. 
 
 Homer, Odyssey, ed. Lowe, Leipsic, 1828 
 
 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, cd. Keble, Oxford, 1836. 
 
 Hooper, Palmoni, an Essay on the Chronological and Numerical Systems 
 of the Jews, London, Longman, 1851. 
 
 Horxe, Introduction to the Critical Study and KnoAvledge of the Holy 
 Scriptures, 6th edition, London, Cadell, 1828. 
 
 Hue, Voyage dans la Tartaric, Paris, 1853. 
 
 Hussey, Sermons mostly Academical, Oxford, Parker, 1849. 
 
 I. J. 
 
 Jabloxsky, Opuscula, Leyden, 1804. 
 
 Jacksox, Chronological Antiquities, London, 1758.
 
 448 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 Jahn, Aechtheit des Pentateuch, in Bengel's Archiv, (vol. iii. part i.J Td- 
 
 bingen, 1816-1821. 
 Jahn, Einleitung in das alte Testament, Vienna, 1792. 
 Ignatius, S., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. 
 Inscription, Behistun, in the Author's Herodotus, vol. ii. (See Heeodotis.) 
 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 
 
 Talbot.) 
 Inscriptiones Grcccae, BOckh's Corpus Ins. Gr. (See Boeckh.) 
 JosEPHUS, Opera, cd. Havercamp, Amsterdam, &c., 1726. 
 JosEPHUS, translated by Dr. Traill, with notes and essays, published in 
 ] parts, London, 1847. 
 
 Ihen^us, Advers. Haereses, 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. Euperti, Leipsic, 1819-1820. 
 
 K. 
 
 Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary, English edition, London, 
 Longman, 1855, &c. 
 
 Kaye, 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, Cam-bridge, 1829. 
 
 Keil, Commentar aber das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847. 
 
 Keil, Commentary on Joshua, (translated by Martin,) Edinburgh, Clark, 
 1857. 
 
 Keil, Apologetischer Versuch Uber die BQcher der Chronik, Berlin, 1833. 
 
 Keil, Commentar Ober die BOcher der KOnige, Berlin, 1846. 
 
 Keil, Commentary on the Books of Kings, (translated by Murphy,) Edin- 
 burgh, Clark, 1857. 
 
 Kenrick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, London, 1850.
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 449 
 
 Kenrick, Phoenicia, London, I800. 
 
 Ker Porter, Sir R., Travels, London, Longman, 1821-1822. 
 
 KiTTO, Biblical Cyclopaedia, (Burgess's edition,) Edinburgh, Black, 1856. 
 
 Knobel, Der Prophetismus der Hebraer, Breslau, 1837. 
 
 KuGLER, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1842. 
 
 L. 
 
 Lacroze, Lexicon ^gyptiaco-Latinum, Oxford, 1775. 
 
 Larcher, Histoire d'Herodote, Paris, 1786. 
 
 Lardxer, 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. 
 
 Layari), Nineveh and Babylon, London, Murray, 1853. 
 
 Lee, Dr., Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 2nd edition, London, Riving- 
 tons, 1857. 
 
 Lepsius, Dr., Lettre sur 1' 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. 
 
 LiGHTFOOT, Dr., Works, folio edition, London, 1684. 
 
 LiVY, ed. Twiss, Oxford, Talboys, 1840. 
 
 Lobeck, Aglaophamus, Regimont, 1829. 
 
 LoFTLS, Chaldsa and Susiana, London, Nisbet, 1857. 
 
 LoNGlNUS, De Sublimitate, Edinburgh, 1733. 
 
 LuciAN, Opera, ed. 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, 1849. 
 
 M. 
 
 Macbride, Dr., Mohammedan Religion Explained, London, 1857. 
 Macrobius, Saturnalia, ed. 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. 
 Mansel, Bampton Lectures for 1858, London, Murray, 1858. 
 Marchi, Monument! 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. 
 Marsham, Canon Chronicus, folio edition, London, 1672. 
 Martyrium Ignatii, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 
 
 1840. 
 Memoires de I'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 Italicae Medii ^vi, 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. 
 
 Neander, AUgemeine Geschichte d. Christliche Religion und Kirche, 4th 
 
 edition, Hamburg, 1847, &c. 
 Neumann, Versuch einer Geschichte der Armenisch. 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. 
 Neavton, 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 Thiriwall's translation,) 
 
 Cambridge, 1831^1842. 
 NiEBUHR, B. G., Kleiue Schriften, Bonn, 1828.
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 451 
 
 NiEBUHE, B, G., Lectures on Ancient History, (translated by Dr. Schmitz.) 
 
 London, 1852. 
 NiEBrHB, B. G., Life and Letters of, London, Chapman, 18-52. 
 NiEBrHR, B. G., Vortrage aber Alte Geschichte, Berlin, Reimer, 1847. 
 NiEBUHR, Marcus, Geschichte Assurs und Babels seit Phul, Berlin, 1857. 
 NoRTHCOTE, J. Spencer, The Roman Catacombs, second edition, London, 
 
 1859. 
 NoRTOX, Professor, Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2nd 
 
 edition, London, Chapman, 1847. 
 
 0. 
 
 OcKLEY, Life of Mohammed, in his History of the Saracens, London, 
 Bohn, 1847. 
 
 Offerhaus, Spicilegia Historico-Chronologica, Groningse, 1739. 
 
 OLSHArsEX, Biblischer Commentar aber sammtl. Schriften d. Neuen Testa- 
 ments, .3rd edition, KOnigsberg, 1837. 
 
 Olshal'Sex, Commentary on the Gospels, (translated by Fosdick,) 3rd edi- 
 tion, Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 
 
 Oppert, Dr., Rapport d'une Mission scientifique en Angleterre, Paris. 
 18.56. 
 
 Origen, Opera, Benedictine edition, Paris, 1733-1759. 
 
 Orosius, Historia adv. Paganos, Cologne, 1536. 
 
 OviD, ed. Soc. Bipontina, Strasburg, 1807. 
 
 P. 
 
 Paley, Evidences of Christianity, 2.5th edition, Glasgow, 1816. 
 
 Paley, Horae Paulinae ; "Works, edited by Rev. R. Lynam, vol. i. London, 
 1828. 
 
 Parker, Theodore, Enlarged Translation of De Wette's Einleitung in das 
 Alt. Test., Boston, 1843. 
 
 Patrick, Bishop, Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 4th edition, London, 1732. 
 
 PAUSAXirs, ed. Siebelis, Leipsic, 1822. 
 
 Pearsox, Vindiciae Epistolarum S. I^mtii, Cambridge, 1672. 
 
 Perizoxius, Origines Babylonicae et ^gyptiacse, editio altera, Duker, 
 Utrecht, 1736. 
 
 Ferret, Les Catacombes de Rome, folio, 6 volumes, Paris, Gide, 1851-1855. 
 
 Petroxius Arbiter, ed. Burmann, Utrecht, 1709.
 
 452 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 Philo Jud^us, ed. Hoeschel, Frankfort, 1691. 
 
 Philostratus, ed. Olearius, Leipsic, 1709. 
 
 Photius, Bibliotheca, ed. Hoeschel, Rouen, 1653. 
 
 Plato, Phaedo, ed. Stanford, Dublin, 1834. 
 
 Pliny, Hist. Nat., (ex Officiis Hack.,) Leyden and Rotterdam, 1669. 
 
 Pliny the younger, Epistolse, ed. Cortius, Amsterdam, 1734. 
 
 Plutarch, Opera, ed. A. Stephanus, Paris, 1624. 
 
 PoLYBlus, ed. Schweighseuser, Oxford, Baxter, 1823. 
 
 Polycarp, Epist., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. 
 
 Poole, R. Stuart, Horse ^gyptiacse, London, Murray, 1851. 
 
 Powell, Professor, Order of Nature considered in reference to the Claims 
 
 of Revelation, a Third Series of Essays, London, Longman, 1859. 
 Prichard, Dr., Physical History of Mankind, 3rd edition, London, 1836. 
 Prichard, Dr., Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, London, 1838. 
 Prideaux, Dr., Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament, 
 
 4th edition, London, 1718. 
 Procopius, 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 Prichard.) 
 Rawlinson, Sir H. C, Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 
 
 published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1846-1849. 
 Rawlinson, Sir H. C, Commentary on the Inscriptions of Assyria and 
 
 Babylon, London, Parker, 1850. 
 Rawlinson, Sir H. C, Notes on the Early History of Babylonia, in the 
 
 Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part ii. London, Parker, 
 
 1856. 
 Rawlinson, Sir H. S., Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. (See 
 
 Herodotus.) 
 Remusat, Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques, Paris, 1829. 
 Rennell, Geography of Herodotus, 4to edition, London, 1800. 
 RosELLiNi, Monument! dell' Egitto, parte prima, nionumenti storici, Pisa. 
 
 1832-1841. 
 RosENMUELLER, Scholia in Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1821, &c. 
 Rossi, Etymologise iEgyptiacse, Rome, 1808.
 
 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 463 
 
 ScALiGER, De Emendatione Temporum, folio, Geneva, 1629. 
 
 Seneca, ed. Elzevir, Amsterdam, 1672. 
 
 SiMPLiCius, 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. "\V., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London, 1854. 
 
 Smith, G. Yaxce, Prophecies relating to Nineveh, London, Longman, 1857. 
 
 Socrates, Hist. Ecclesiastica, Cambridge, 1720. 
 
 Sophocles, ed. Valpy, London, 1824. 
 
 Spaxheim, Introductio ad Chronologiam et Historiam Sacram, Amster- 
 dam, 1694. 
 
 Spixoza, Tractatus theologo-politicus, 2nd edition, (no place or publisher's 
 name,) 1674. 
 
 Stackhouse, History of the Bible, Gleig's edition, London, Longman, 1817 
 
 Staxley, Professor, Sinai and Palestine, London, Murray, 1856. 
 
 Status, pocket edition, Amsterdam, 1624. 
 
 Strabo, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847-1852. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, 4th edition, Tubingen, 1840. 
 
 Strauss, The Life of Jesus, translated into English, London, Chapman, 1846. 
 
 Stuart, Professor, History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, ed- 
 ited by the Rev. P. Lorimer, London, 1849. 
 
 SuETOXius, ed. Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipsic, 1816. 
 
 SuiDAS, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1834. 
 
 Syncellus, in the Corpus Hist. Byzant., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 182& 
 
 T. 
 
 Tacitus (Brotier's), ed. Valpy, London, Whittaker, 1823. 
 
 Talbot, H. Fox, Assyrian Texts translated, London, 1856. 
 
 Tatian, Oratio adv. Graecos, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742 
 
 Taylor, Transmission of Ancient Books, London, 1859. 
 
 Tertulltax, Opera, ed. Rigaltius, Paris, 1675. 
 
 Tertulliax, Bishop Kaye's, Ecclesiastical Hist., illustrated from Tertul- 
 
 lian. (See Kaye.) 
 Theile, Zur biographie Jesu, Leipsic, 1837. 
 Theophilus, ad Autolycum, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742.
 
 454 INDEX OF AUTHORS. 
 
 Thucydides, ed. Bekker, Oxford, Parker, 1824. 
 
 Trench, Dean, Notes on the Miracles, London, Parker, 1846. 
 
 Y. 
 
 Valerius Maximus, Leyden, 1670. 
 
 Vater, Commentar ttber den Pentateuch, Halle, 1802-1806. 
 
 Vatke, Religion des Alt. Testaments nach den kanonischen BOchern 
 
 entwickelt, Berlin, 1835. 
 Vestiges of Creation, 10th edition, London, 1853. 
 Vitringa, Observationes Sacrse, Franequerae, 1711, 1712. 
 ViTRUVius, ed. De Laet, Amsterdam, Elzevir, 1649. 
 Von Bohlen, Alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830. 
 Von Lengerke, Kenaan, Konigsberg, 1844. 
 Von Lengerke, 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 
 
 Herodotus.) 
 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.
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 JUL 1 6 1935 
 
 ism^ jyw 3^;i9^-u«b 
 
 REC'D URL-Uy 
 SEP j -1965 
 
 lUNl2t967 
 
 ^\- 
 
 .^^^^^ 
 
 Form L-9-15m-3,'34 
 
 J^- 
 
 >i^^ 
 
 OCT 8 19931 
 
 C\\ 
 
 cC 
 
 0, 
 
 ^S
 
 h 
 
 3 1158 00733 3460 
 
 t 
 
 PLEA?^ DO NOT REMOVE 
 THIS BOOK CARD^ 
 
 ^l-^RARY6k^, 
 
 ^OJllVDW'^ 
 
 University Research Library