erat 
 4 
 
 aT teet Late erie otek. 
 Hye won rental 
 iy Ay rt 
 
 ‘ i} 
 rere eth 
 ty $ht 
 t 
 
 ee 
 ats pastes 
 
 ee 
 ear 
 er 
 
 Eieser 
 
 %. 
 
 most 
 
 Sotetee 
 
 sas 
 
 hi 
 
 ytige 
 
 eet 
 : 7 
 
 ¥ Mai sash 
 
 
 
LIBRARY : | 
 
 Theological Seminary, | 
 PRINCETON, N. J. | 
 
 
 
bee aes 
 ele ee 
 . oye [ 
 
 te i ‘iG 
 vas if 
 o 
 
 ye 
 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2008 with funding from 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 https://archive.org/details/historicalevidenOOrawl 
 
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS, 
 STATED ANEW, : 
 
 WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE DOUBTS AND 
 DISCOVERIES OF MODERN TIMES ; 
 
 IN 
 
 EIGHT LECTURES, 
 
 DELIVERED IN 
 
 THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PULPIT, 
 
 AT THE 
 
 BAMPTON LECTURE FOR 1859. 
 
 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE RAWLINSON, M.A. 
 
 LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF EXETER COLLEGE. 
 
 
 
 ‘O xpévos etperis. 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 OXFORD: J. H. & JAMES PARKER. 
 1859. 
 
A ‘ ‘ . a U U Ware / . va 
 To bev yap ahyOet Travra ouvavet Ta UTAPXOYTA? TH 
 
 dé Wevdet TaXU Ovacpovet Tadnés.— ARISTOTLE. 
 
 OXFORD: 
 
 PRINTED BY J. WRIGHT, PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY. 
 
BACT RAGE 
 FROM 
 THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT 
 REV. JOHN BAMPTON, 
 
 CANON OF SALISBURY. 
 
 
 
 “IT 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 sin- 
 ‘‘ cular 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 cf the 
 ae University of Oxford for the time being shall take and 
 “receive all the rents, issues, and sti thereof, and 
 “(after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions 
 “ made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment 
 
 na 
 
 ‘of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for 
 ‘ever in the said University, and to be performed in the 
 
 a 
 
 © 
 
 ‘ manner following : 
 
 “¢ I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in 
 ‘“¢ Kaster Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads 
 “of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room ad- 
 “joining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten 
 ‘in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach 
 “eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at 
 “St. Mary’s in Oxford, between the commencement of the 
 a 2 
 
iN 
 
 ee 
 
 ce 
 
 oa 
 ” 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 . 
 
 * 
 oa 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 Lal 
 © 
 
 Lal 
 na 
 
 “a 
 a 
 
 nv 
 n 
 
 al 
 ray 
 
 nn 
 n 
 
 tal 
 so 
 
 na 
 n 
 
 “e 
 
 EXTRACT FROM CANON BAMPTON’S WILL. 
 
 last month in Lent Term, and the end of the third week 
 in Act Term. 
 
 * Also I direct and appoint, that the eight Divinity 
 Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon either of the 
 following Subjects—to confirm and establish the Christ- 
 ian Faith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics 
 —upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures— 
 upon the authority of the writings of the primitive Fa- 
 thers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church 
 —upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ—upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost—upon the 
 ‘Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the 
 Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. 
 
 ‘*¢ Also I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity 
 Lecture Sermons shall be always printed, within two 
 months after they are preached, and one copy shall be 
 given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy 
 to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor 
 of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the 
 Bodleian Library; and the expense of printing them shall 
 
 ‘ be paid out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given 
 
 for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the 
 Preacher shall not 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 Lecture Sermons, un- 
 less he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, 
 in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge ; 
 and that the same person shall never preach the Divinity 
 Lecture Sermons twice.” 
 
PR EOR ACE. 
 
 THESE Lectures are an attempt to meet that 
 latest phase of modern unbelief, which, professing 
 a reverence for the name and person of Christ, 
 and a real regard for the Scriptures as embodi- 
 ments of what is purest and holiest in religious 
 feeling, lower Christ to a mere name, and empty 
 the Scriptures of all their force and practical effi- 
 cacy, by denying the historical character of the 
 Biblical narrative. German Neology (as it is 
 called) has of late years taken chiefly this line of 
 attack, and has pursued it with so much vigour 
 and apparent success, that, according to the com- 
 plaints of German orthodox writers, “no objective 
 ground or stand-point” is left, on which the be- 
 lieving Theological science can build with any 
 feeling of security*. Nor is the evil in question 
 confined to Germany. ‘The works regarded as 
 most effective in destroying the historical faith of 
 Christians abroad, have received an English dress, 
 and are, it is to be feared, read by numbers of per- 
 sons very ill prepared by historical studies to with- 
 
 4 See Keil’s Preface to his Comment on Joshua, quoted in 
 Note 24 to Lecture I. 
 
v1 PREFACE. 
 
 stand their specious reasoning, alike in our own 
 country and in America. The tone, moreover, of 
 German historical writings generally is tinged with 
 the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the his- 
 torical student is liable to be undermined. almost 
 without his having his suspicions aroused, by co- 
 vert assumptions of the mythical character of the 
 sacred narrative, in works 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 have lain for 
 the last eight or nine years almost exclusively in 
 the field of Ancient History, had convinced him 
 more and more of the thorough truthfulness and 
 faithful accuracy of the historical Scriptures. Cuir- 
 cumstances had given him an intimate knowledge 
 of the whole course of recent cuneiform, and (to 
 some extent) of hieroglyphical discovery; and he 
 had been continually struck with the removal of 
 difficulties, the accession of light, and the multipli- 
 cation of minute points of agreement between the 
 sacred and the profane, which resulted from the 
 advances made in decyphering the Assyrian, Baby- 
 lonian, Persian, and Egyptian records. He there- 
 fore ventured, at the earliest moment which en- 
 gagements of long standing would allow, to submit 
 to the Heads of Colleges, electors to the office of 
 Bampton Lecturer under the will of the Founder, 
 the scheme of the following Discourses. His 
 scheme having at once met with their approval, 
 it only remained for him to use his best efforts 
 
PREFACE. Vil 
 
 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 main object to examine the arguments 
 of their principal writers seriatim, and to demon- 
 strate from authentic records their weakness, per- 
 verseness, and falsity. Or touching only slightly 
 on this purely controversial ground, he might 
 endeavour to exhibit clearly and forcibly the ar- 
 gument from the positive agreement between 
 Scripture and profane history, which they ig- 
 nored altogether. ‘The latter mode of treatment 
 appeared to him at once the more convincing to 
 young minds, and the more suitable for a set of 
 Lectures. For these reasons he adopted it. At 
 the same time he has occasionally, both in the 
 Text and in the Notes, addressed himself to 
 the more important 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 ex- 
 hibit (where possible) the authorities for his state- 
 ments in full; and to collect into a single volume 
 the chief testimonies to the historical truth and 
 accuracy of the Scripture records. If in re- 
 ferrmg to the Cuneiform writings he has on 
 many occasions stated their substance, rather than 
 cited their exact words, it is because so few of 
 
Vill PREFACE. 
 
 them have as yet been translated by competent 
 scholars, and because in most cases his own know- 
 ledge is limited to an acquaintance with the sub- 
 stance, derived from frequent conversations with 
 his gifted brother. It is to be hoped that no 
 long time will elapse before some one of the four 
 savans, Who have proved their capacity to render 
 the ancient Assyrian >, will present the world with 
 a complete translation of all the historical inscrip- 
 tions hitherto recovered. 
 
 The author cannot conclude without expressing 
 his acknowledgments to Dr. Bandinel, Chief Libra- 
 rian of the Bodleian, for kind exertions in procuring 
 at his instance various foreign works; and to Dr. 
 Pusey, Professor Stanley, 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 Ger- 
 many, and in England Dr. Lardner, Dr. Burton, 
 and Dean Alford. Finally, he is glad once more 
 to avow his deep obligations 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 con- 
 tact between the sacred history and the cuneiform 
 
 b See the Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., king of Assyria, 
 B.C. 1150, as translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Fox Talbot, 
 Esq., Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Oppert ; published by the Royal Asiatic 
 Society, London, Parker, 1857. 
 
PREFACE. 1X 
 
 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 offer 
 was his chief inducement to attempt a work on 
 the subject. It is his earnest prayer that, by the 
 blessing of God, his labours may tend to check the 
 spread of unbelief, and to produce among Scrip- 
 ture students a more lively appreciation of the 
 
 reality of those facts which are put before us in 
 the Bible. 
 
 OXFORD, 
 November 2, £859. 
 
CORRIGENDA, 
 
 
 
 Page 177, |. 27, for “traditions” read “ tradition.” 
 
 E76, 1. 
 
 Oe ee 
 epee 
 Paes 
 PMT Os 
 
 MOS ee 
 
 . “Ciders ... CHder.” 
 eight: 2.0 “five. 
 “exarchy” ... “ ethnarchy.” 
 “Judah” ... “Jacob.” 
 “Israels” ... “ Israel.” 
 ditto .....: ditto. 
 . “sepulturum” ... “sepulturam.” 
 

 
 "ret 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Hisroricar character of Christianity as contrasted with 
 other religions—its contact, thence arising, with histo- 
 rical science—its hability to be tried afresh by new tests 
 and criteria, as historic science advances.— Recent advance 
 of historical science—rise of the new department of His- 
 torical Criticism—its birth and growth—its results and 
 tendencies.—A pplication of Historical Criticism to Christi- 
 anity to be expected and even desired—the application as 
 made—first, by the mythical school of De Wette and 
 Strauss—secondly, by the historical school—Niebuhr him- 
 self—Bunsen.—Intention of the Lectures, to examine the 
 Sacred Narrative on the positive side, by the light of the 
 true principles of historical science—Statement of the 
 principles under the form of four Canons.—Corollaries of 
 the Canons—comparative value of sources—force of cumu- 
 lative evidence.—Further Canon which some seek to add 
 on the subject of miracles, examined—possibility of mira- 
 cles—contrary notion, Atheistic—peculiarities of the mo- 
 dern Atheism.—Occurrence of miracles proved—creation 
 a miracle—counterfeit miracles prove the existence of ge- 
 nuine ones.— Rejection of the additional Canon leaves the 
 ground clear for the proposed enquiry.—Two kinds of evi- 
 dence to be examined—1. That of the Sacred Volume it- 
 self, considered as a mass of documents, and judged by the 
 laws of Historical Criticism—2. The eavternal evidence, or 
 that contained in monuments, in the works of profane 
 
Xil CONTENTS. 
 
 authors, in established customs and observances, and in 
 the contemporary writings of believers——Main purpose of 
 the Lectures, to exhibit the external evidence...... Page 1. 
 
 LECTURE IT. 
 
 Two modes of conducting an historical enquiry—the Re- 
 trospective 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.— 
 Writing practised at the time.—Heathen testimony to the 
 genuineness.—Internal testimony—difficulties of the oppo- 
 site theory.— Authenticity of the Pentateuch, a consequent 
 of its genuineness— Moses an unexceptionable witness for 
 the history of the last four books.—Authenticity of Ge- 
 nesis—the events, if purely traditional, would have passed 
 through but few hands to Moses.—Probability that Ge- 
 nesis 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 au- 
 thorities. — Review of the authorities—pre-eminence of 
 Berosus and Manetho as historians of ancient times— 
 Egyptian and Babylonian monuments—mode in which the 
 monuments and histories have to be combined.—Compa- 
 rison of the chronological schemes of Manetho and Berosus 
 with the chronology of Seripture-—Account of the Crea- 
 tion in Berosus—its harmony with Scripture.—Account 
 given by Berosus of the Deluge—similar account of Aby- 
 denus—the difference between the Scriptural and the pro- 
 fane account exaggerated by Niebuhr.—Post-diluvian his- 
 tory of Berosus—his account of the tower of Babel, and 
 the confusion of tongues.—Ethnological value of the tenth 
 chapter of Genesis.—Heathen accounts of Abraham, Isaac, 
 and Jacob, derived from Jewish sources—estimate of their 
 value.—Three ‘points only of great public importance in 
 
CONTENTS. xlll 
 
 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 con- 
 firmed by the Babylonian monuments. — Exodus of the 
 Jews related by Manetho.—Historical arguments of im- 
 portance, which have been omitted for want of space— 
 1. The argument furnished by the conclusions of the his- 
 torical sciences, such as Geology, Physiology, Comparative 
 Philology, Ethnology, &c.—2. The argument from the 
 correctness of the linguistic, geographic, and ethologic 
 notices in the Pentateuch—modern discovery is continu- 
 ally adding to this kind of evidence—geographical illustra- 
 Engh CONCUISIONN Use seal ie Uowbde cet Page 36. 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 The period of Jewish history from the Exodus to Solo- 
 mon, comprises the extremes of national depression and 
 prosperity.— Books of Scripture, containing this portion of 
 the history, are for the most part by unknown authors.— 
 Their value not diminished by this, being that of State 
 Papers.—Historical character of the books, considered 
 severally. —The Book of Joshua written by an eye-witness, 
 who possesses records.—The Book of Judges based upon 
 similar documents.—The Books of Samuel composed pro- 
 bably by writers contemporary with the events related ; 
 viz. Samuel, Gad, and Nathan.—The Books of Kings and 
 Chronicles derived from contemporary works written by 
 Prophets——Commentary on the history furnished by the 
 Davidical Psalms.—Confirmation of this period of Jewish 
 history from profane sources, during the earlier portion of 
 the period, rather negative than positive.—Weakness of 
 Egypt and Assyria at the 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 
 
X1V | CONTENTS. 
 
 —Syrian war of David described by Nicolas of Damascus 
 from the records of his native city —David’s other wars men- 
 tioned by Kupolemus.—Connexion of Judza with Phoent- 
 cia.—LKarly greatness of Sidon strongly marked in Serip- 
 ture and confirmed by profane writers—Homer, Strabo, 
 Justin.—Hiram a true Pheenician royal name.—aA prince 
 of this name reigned at Tyre contemporaneously with Da- 
 vid and Solomon, according to the Pheenician historians, 
 Dius and Menander—their accounts of the friendly inter- 
 course between Hiram and these Jewish monarchs.—Solo- 
 mon’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 em- 
 pire, the plan of his buildings, and the style of their orna- 
 mentation, receive abundant illustration from recent dis- 
 coveries in Assyria—the habits of the Phoenicians agree 
 with the descriptions of Homer, Menander, and others. 
 Incompleteness of this sketech.—Summary ..... Page 79. 
 
 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Period to be embraced in the Lecture, one of about four 
 centuries, from the death of Solomon to the destruction of 
 Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar—importance of this period. 
 —Documénts in which the history is delivered.—Kings 
 and Chronicles, compilations from the State Archives of 
 the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.—Objection an- 
 swered.—Kings and Chronicles independent, and _there- 
 fore confirmatory, of each other. The history contained 
 in them confirmed by direct and incidental notices in the 
 works of contemporary Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, 
 &e.—Confirmation of the history from profane sources.— 
 The separate existence of the two kingdoms noticed in the 
 Assyrian Inscriptions.—The conquest of Judsea by She- 
 shonk (Shishak) recorded in the great temple at Carnac. 
 —“Zerah the Ethiopian probably identical with Osorkon the 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 Second.— Eth-baal, the father of Jezebel, identical with the 
 Ithobalus of Menander —mention of a great drought in 
 his reign.—Power of Benhadad, and nature of the force 
 under his command, confirmed by the inscription. 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 (®adéx), mentioned by Berosus, and pro- 
 _ bably identified with a monumental king, who takes tribute 
 from Samaria.— War of Tiglath-Pileser with Samaria and 
 Damaseus recorded in an Assyrian inscription.—Altar of 
 Ahaz probably a sign of subjection.—Shalmanezer’s Syrian 
 war mentioned by Menander.—Name of Hoshea on an 
 Assyrian inscription probably assigned to him.—Capture 
 of Samaria ascribed to Sargon on the monuments—Har- 
 mony of the narrative with Scripture——Sargon’s capture 
 of Ashdod, and successful attack on Egypt.—Settlement of 
 the Israelites “in the cities of the Medes.’”—Expedition 
 ‘of Sennacherib against Hezekiah —evact agreement of 
 Scripture with Sennacherib’s inscription.— Murder of Sen- 
 nacherib 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), king of Egypt, with Shebes, 
 or Sabaco—of Tirhakah with Tehrak, or Taracus—of 
 _ Necho with New or Nechao—and of Hophra with Hai- 
 fra, or Apries.—Battle of Megiddo and calamitous end of 
 Apries confirmed by Herodotus.—Reign of Merodach- 
 Baladan at Babylon confirmed by the Inscriptions, Bero- 
 sus, and Ptolemy.—Berosus relates the recovery of Syria 
 and Palestine by Nebuchadnezzar, and also his deporta- 
 tion of the Jews and destruction of Jerusalem.—Sum- 
 BRE ctEeae corane fe cots ocinntspjacien suction dap Sreerit acne att Page 113. 
 
XV1 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 Fourth period of the Jewish History, the Captivity and 
 Return—Daniel the historian of the Captivity. Genuine- 
 ness of Daniel doubted without sufficient reason.—Authen- 
 ticity of the narrative, denied by De Wette and others.— 
 Examination of the narrative—the Captivity in accordance 
 with Oriental habits—confirmed by Berosus.—The cha- 
 racter 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 Seripture, and accords exactly with Berosus and the 
 monuments.—Condition of Babylonia not misrepresented 
 in Daniel—account of the “wise men” illustrated by 
 recent discoveries—“ satrapial organization ” of the empire 
 possible, but not asserted in Scripture.—Internal harmony 
 of Daniel’s account.—Mysterious malady of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar perhaps noticed in an obscure passage of the Stand- 
 ard Inscription.—Succession of Evil-merodach confirmed 
 by Berosus—difficulty with regard to his character.— 
 Neriglissar identified with “ Nergal-Sharezer, the Rab- 
 -Mag.”—Supposed irreconcilable difference between Scrip- 
 ture and profane history in the narrative concerning Bel- 
 shazzar—Discovery that Nabonadius, during the latter part 
 of his reign, associated in the government his son, Bil-shar- 
 uzur, and allowed him the royal title—il-shar-uzur pro- 
 bably 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 writers.—Solution of difficulties.— 
 Chronology of the Captivity confirmed from Babylonian 
 sources.—Reestablishment of the Jews in Palestine re- 
 lated in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah—their authen- 
 ticity generally allowed—no reason to doubt their genuine- 
 ness.—Book of Ezra in part based on documents.—At- 
 tacks upon the authenticity of Esther—reply to them.— 
 Author of Esther uncertain.—The narrative drawn from 
 the chronicles kept by the kings of Persia.—Confirmation 
 
CONTENTS: XVil 
 
 of this portion of the history from profane sources.— Re- 
 ligious spirit of the Persian kings in keeping with their 
 inscriptions.—Suecession of the kings correctly given.— 
 Stoppage of the building of the temple by the Pseudo- 
 Smerdis, accords with his other religious changes.—Re- 
 versal by Darius of his religious policy agrees with the Be- 
 histun Inseription.—Break in the history as recorded by 
 Ezra—book of Esther fills up the gap.—The name Aha- 
 suerus, the proper equivalent of Xerxes.—Truthfulness of 
 the portraiture, if Xerxes is intended.—Harmony of the 
 history with the facts recorded by the Greeks.—Intimate 
 knowledge of Persian manners and customs.—The mas- 
 sacre of their enemies by the Jews has a parallel in the 
 Magaphonia.— Character of Artaxerxes Longimanus — 
 length of his reign accords with the statement of Nehe- 
 miah.—Summary of the whole result, as regards the His- 
 tony ortire: Old; Vestament) ... 7c. :cc...0cs-csaceacs. Page 156. 
 
 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Plan of the three remaining Lectures—proposal to re- 
 gard 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. 
 
 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 com- 
 position of the Acts, and of St. Luke’s and St. John’s Gos- 
 pels, by contemporaries. — St. Matthew's and St. Mark’s 
 Gospels must have been written about the same time as 
 St. Luke’s.—No reason to doubt in any case the composi- 
 tion by the reputed authors.—Our four Gospels a provi- 
 dential mercy.—The first three wholly independent 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 
 
 RAWLINSON, b 
 
XVill CONTENTS. 
 
 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 ar- 
 gument in the Hore Pauline of Paley—the grounds of the 
 argument not exhausted.—Paley’s argument applicable to 
 the Gospels.—Confirmation of the Gospel narrative from 
 the letters of the Apostles.—Firm belief of the Apostles in 
 the Gospel facts from the first, evidenced in the Acts *and 
 the Epistles.—Impossibility of the sudden growth of myths 
 in such an age and under such cireumstances.—The mythic 
 theory devised in order to make Christianity untrue, without 
 ascribing it to imposture—its failure in respect of this ob- 
 ject.—No alternative but to accept the statements of the 
 Evangelists and Apostles, or to regard them as conscious 
 deceivers.— Unmistakable air of veracity and honesty in 
 the New Testament writings.—Conclusion ..._.. Page 193. 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 The Evidence of Adversaries.— Contrast between the 
 Old and New Testament—the former historica/—the latter 
 hbiographical.—Consequent scantiness of points of contact 
 between the main facts of the New Testament narrative 
 and profane records.—Their harmony chiefly seen through 
 the incidental allusions of the New Testament writers.— 
 Importance of this evidence.—Evidence of Heathens to the 
 main facts of Christianity, really very considerable.—That 
 it is not more must be regarded as the result of a forced 
 and studied reticence.—Reticence of Josephus.—Loss of 
 heathen writings of this period, which may have contained 
 important direct evidence.—Incidental allusions considered 
 under three heads—(i.) The general condition of the coun- 
 tries which were the scene of the history. —Politieal condi- 
 tion of Palestine—numerous complications and anomalies 
 —taithfulness 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, 
 
CONTENTS. Xix 
 
 Greece, and Italy—Condition and number of the foreign 
 Jews — oratories — synagogues, Ye. (i1.) Representations 
 with respect to the civil government of the countries.— 
 Names and order of the Roman Emperors —Jewish native 
 princes—Roman Procurators of Palestine—Roman Pro- 
 consuls—supposed “ error” of St. Luke with regard to the 
 Greek Tetrarch, Lysanias. (i1.) Historical facts, of which, 
 if true, profane authors might have been expected to make 
 mention—Decree of Augustus—taxing of Cyrenius—rebel- 
 lion of Theudas—“ uproar” of the Kgyptian—famine in the 
 days of Claudius, &. Summary and conclusion... Page 226. 
 
 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 The Evidence of the early converts.—Its abundance, and 
 real weight.—Early Christians net deficient in education, 
 position, or intelleet.—Historical witness of the Christian 
 writers—of St. Barnabas—of Clemens Romanus—of Igna- 
 tius—-of Polycarp—ot Hermas—of Quadratus—of Justin 
 Martyr — of subsequent writers.—Witness of primitive 
 Christian monuments, especially of those in the Roman 
 Catacombs—their genuine character—their antiquity.— 
 Proof which they afford of the enormous numbers of the 
 Christians in the first ages.—Proof which they afford of 
 the sufferings and frequent martyrdoms of the period.— 
 Kyidence 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 
 httle 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 Churech—proof of their continuance.— 
 Testimony of the early Christians enhanced by their readi- 
 
 ness to suffer for their faith.—Conelusion ...... Page 266. 
 MIMIC OR en CaaS dors Neots eee ee sorer oreeseraen. Page 303. 
 PMRHMIEIOLGL NOUS fect as occ stet ete tcacvectees Page 536. 
 
 Specification of Editions quoted, or referred to, in the 
 BRUCE o anc ttis .nrctees ccluaen yates efeonn Page 539. 
 
i 
 
 
 
 
 kes We bes: mh # el Aah ar ie EPs 
 aye iat i ei hy vii foe ny yn hinges . 
 i Pe hj i te) or ee Haw wnt | eins mat 7, ; 6 hy 
 
 : 5 : wee 
 7) h welll ve ad ae i e ; 
 
 ' pore ts ve fi i , 
 : ngeh ’ wt a hi 
 % a ie ts Bie vay 1 ren i 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ey p< 
 o 
 are? i f . aS 
 ; yf ‘ 
 a ) uP a 
 4 ¥ 
 i id , 4 
 inigah ak # | : | 4 Libel 
 a i ‘ by ? 
 ‘Vridds (be sce 
 f Mar ‘ - 
 . ’ uy 6 ow .> } r > < Whe y i, i ? ‘ ve ¥ 
 e oe Eesha he he ae 1 ee i Sons : ’ = 
 0 7 ot - SLA si ra, oe rn. = 
 ‘Qoielo id Pe Smal 0G) | MMi A a ie Vay 
 me : ' 
 : ya i P y rr) _. 
 | sid 7 af a . Tai % Nel ies ats ta ots rs a) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 { es a ss —7 i mat ia et | mes al) ite 
 ae af ae a (Atitan ay te ee yt ah feta” 
 my ¢« GI Pine 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 EO aaa aaa ik 
 a af sy , at at fi sala ai ny 
 . "obser ie aaa a 
 
 ‘ " hae Viies oy oe ; Sioa oie 1 Te? His 
 
 
 
 ” 5 is ; ay ra 7 f 
 a that Sadie i Pal ; Vie : y ith. Aue hi ‘a 
 Po hp y : ; ee A" ie ir 
 (ants . ] bet » iar ut ' if 1 ee 
 
 : 7 ny : : 7 . 
 Meigs | 3 Th baa Peers ~ Re) ee 
 : tat i 7 ns Cig As A rm eh a 
 
 yi , 
 
 a 
 "Fr a 
 bh ee i C1 Page sey y 
 
 ; A's 
 
\p 
 
 mm SUIS 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 ISAIAH XLIII. 9. 
 
 Let all the nations be gathered together, and 
 let the people be assembled: who among 
 them can declare this, and shew us former 
 things ? Let them bring forth their wit- 
 nesses, that they may be justified: or let 
 them hear, and say, It is truth. 
 
 CHRISTIANITY (including therein the 
 dispensation of the Old Testament, which 
 was its first stage) is in nothing more distin- 
 guished from the other religions of the world 
 than in its objective or historical character. 
 The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, 
 India, Persia, and the East generally, were spe- 
 culative 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 repre- 
 sented under the form of a mythological pe- 
 riod, which moreover blends gradually and 
 almost imperceptibly with the historical, still 
 in the minds of the Greeks themselves the 
 periods were separate and distinct, not merely 
 in time but in character; and the objective 
 RAWLINSON, B 
 
2 LECTURE L 
 
 reality of the scenes and events described as 
 belonging to each was not conceived of as 
 parallel, or even similar, in the two cases (1). 
 The modern distinction between the legend 
 and the myth, properly so called (2), was 
 felt, if not formally recognised, 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 individual, 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 feel- 
 ing and imagination of a people, are very 
 slightly, if at all, connected with any body of 
 important facts, the due attestation of which 
 and their accordance with other known facts 
 might be made the subject of critical exami- 
 nation. 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 religion (3). But it is otherwise with 
 the religion of the Bible. There, whether 
 we look to the Old or the New Testament, to 
 the Jewish dispensation or to the Christian, 
 we find a scheme of doctrine which is bound 
 
LECTURE I. a 
 
 up with facts; which depends absolutely upon 
 them ; which is null and void without them ; 
 and which may be regarded as for all prac- 
 tical purposes established if they are shewn 
 to deserve acceptance. 
 
 It is this peculiar feature of Christianity— 
 a feature often noticed by its apologists (4)— 
 which brings it into such a close relation to 
 historical studies and investigations. As a 
 religion of fact, and not merely of opinion,— 
 as one whose chief scene is this world, and 
 whose main doctrines are events exhibited 
 openly before the eyes of men—as one more- 
 over which, instead of affecting a dogmatic 
 form, adopts from first to last, with very rare 
 exceptions, the historical shape, it comes ne- 
 cessarily within the sphere of the historical 
 enquirer, and challenges him to investigate 
 it according to what he regards as the princi- 
 ples of his science. Moreover, as Christianity 
 is in point of fact connected intimately with 
 certain records, and as those records extend 
 over a period of several thousands of years, 
 and “profess to contain a kind of abridgment 
 “of the history of the world” (5), its points 
 of contact with profane history are (practi- 
 cally speaking) infinite; and it becomes im- 
 possible for the historical enquirer to avoid 
 the question, in what light he is to view the 
 
 bh ieee 
 
4+ LECTURE I. 
 
 documents which, if authentic, must exercise 
 so important an influence over his studies 
 and conclusions. 
 
 Christianity then cannot complain if, from 
 time to time, as historical science advances, 
 the question is raised afresh concerning the 
 real character of those events which form its 
 basis, and the real value of those documents 
 on which it relies. As an historical religion, 
 it invites this species of enquiry, and is glad 
 that it should be made and repeated. It only 
 complains in one of two cases—when either 
 principles unsound and wrong in themselves, 
 having been assumed as proper eriteria of 
 historic truth, are applied to it for the pur- 
 pose of disparagement ; or when, right prin- 
 ciples being assumed, the application of them, 
 of which it is the object, is unfair and illegi- 
 timate. 
 
 It is the latter of these two errors which 
 seems to me to be the chief danger of the pre- 
 sent day. Time was—and that not very long 
 ago —when all the relations of ancient au- 
 thors concerning the old world were received 
 with a ready belief; and an unreasoning and 
 uncritical faith accepted with equal satisfac- 
 tion the narrative of the campaigns of Cesar 
 and of the doings of Romulus, the account 
 of Alexander’s marches and of the conquests 
 
LECTURE LIL. 5 
 
 of Semiramis. We can most of us remember 
 when in this country the whole story of Re- 
 gal 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 ob- 
 served, “put upon the same footing, and re- 
 garded as equally credible ;” while “all parts 
 of an author’s work were supposed to rest on 
 the same basis’ (6). A blind and indiscriminate 
 faith of a low kind—acquiescence rather than 
 actual belief—embraced equally and impar- 
 tially the whole range of ancient story, set- 
 ting aside perhaps those prodigies which ea- 
 sily detached themselves from the narrative, 
 and were understood to be embellishments 
 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 Cri-. 
 ticism. Beginning in France with the la- 
 bours of Pouilly and Beaufort (7), it ad- 
 vanced with rapid strides in Germany under 
 the guidance of Niebuhr (8), Otfried Muller 
 (9), and Bockh (10), and finally, has been in- 
 
 troduced and naturalised among ourselves 
 
6 LECTURE I. 
 
 by means of the writings of our best living 
 historians (11). 
 
 Its results in its own proper and primary 
 field are of the most extensive and remark- 
 able character. The whole world of profane 
 history has been revolutionised. By a search- 
 ing and critical investigation of the mass of 
 materials on which that history rested, and 
 by the application to it of Canons embodying 
 the judgments of a sound discretion upon 
 the value of different sorts of evidence, the 
 views of the ancient world formerly enter- 
 tained have been in ten thousand points ei- 
 ther modified or reversed—a new antiquity 
 has been raised up out of the old—while 
 much that was unreal in the picture of past 
 times which men had formed to themselves 
 has disappeared, consigned to that “ Limbo 
 large and broad” into which “ all things trans- 
 itory and vain” are finally received, a fresh 
 revelation has in many cases taken the place 
 of the old view, which has dissolved before 
 the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong 
 fabric has arisen out of the shattered débris 
 of the fallen systems. Thus the results ob- 
 tained have been both positive and negative ; 
 but, it must be confessed, with a preponder- 
 ance of the latter over the former. The scep- 
 ticism in which the science originated has 
 
LECTURE IL. 7 
 
 clung to it from first to last, and in recent 
 times we have seen not only a greater lean- 
 ing to the destructive than to the construc- 
 tive side, but a tendency to push doubt and 
 incredulity beyond due limits, to call in ques- 
 tion without cause, and to distrust what is 
 sufficiently established. This tendency has 
 not, however, been allowed to pass unre- 
 buked (12); and viewing the science as de- 
 veloped, not in the writings of this or that 
 individual, but in the general conclusions 
 in which it has issued, we may regard it as 
 having done, and as still prepared 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 New Testa- 
 ment should escape the searching ordeal to 
 which all other historical documents had 
 been subjected, or remain long, on account 
 of their sacred character, unscrutinised by 
 the enquirer. Reverence may possibly gain, 
 but Faith, I believe,—real and true Faith— 
 greatly loses by the establishment of a wall 
 of partition between the sacred and the pro- 
 fane, and the subtraction of the former from 
 the domain of scientific enquiry. As truth 
 of one kind cannot possibly be contradictory 
 to truth of another, Christianity has nothing 
 
8 LECTURE TI. 
 
 to fear from scientific investigations; and 
 any attempt to isolate its facts and pre- 
 serve them from the scrutiny which pro- 
 fane history receives 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 con- 
 nection 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 accept- 
 ance of the principles laid down with respect 
 to profane history by Otfried Miller and 
 Niebuhr, theological critics in Germany pro- 
 ceeded, as they said, to apply the new canons 
 of historical criticism to the Gospels and 
 to the historical books of the Old Testa- 
 ment, 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, un- 
 dertakes, with its purblind sight and limited 
 means of knowing, to examine, weigh, and 
 decide matters of the highest import. But 
 
eC E&I. 9 
 
 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 estimation in which 
 it was generally held—had distinctly ac- 
 cepted the mass of the Scripture history as 
 authentic, and was a sincere and earnest 
 believer (13). It was hoped that the enquiry 
 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 far less extravagant 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 reason- 
 ings 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 declared that 
 a striking parallelism existed between this 
 history and the early records of most heathen 
 
10.8 LECTURE I. 
 
 nations (14). The miracles in the narrative 
 were compared with the prodigies and divine 
 appearances related by Herodotus and Livy 
 (15). The chronology was said to bear marks, 
 like that of Rome and Babylon, of artificial 
 arrangement; the recurrence of similar num- 
 bers, and especially of round numbers, parti- 
 cularly indicating its unhistorical character 
 (16). The names of kings, it was observed, 
 were frequently so apposite, that the mon- 
 archs supposed to have borne them must be 
 regarded as fictitious personages (17), like 
 Theseus and Numa. Portions of the sacred 
 narrative were early declared to present every 
 appearance of being simply myths(18); and 
 by degrees it was sought to attach to the 
 whole history, from first to last, a legendary 
 and unreal character. All objections taken 
 by rationalists or infidels to particular rela- 
 tions in the sacred books being allowed as 
 valid, it was considered a sufficient account 
 of such relations to say, that the main source 
 of the entire narrative was oral tradition— 
 that it first took a written shape many hun- 
 dreds of years after the supposed date of the 
 circumstances narrated, the authors being 
 poets rather than historians, and bent rather 
 on glorifying their native country than on 
 giving a true relation of facts—and that in 
 
LECTURE I. 1 
 
 places they had not even confined themselves 
 to the exaggeration and embellishment of 
 actual occurrences, but had allowed imagina- 
 tion to step in and fill up blanks in their 
 annals (19). By some, attempts were made to 
 disentangle the small element of fact which 
 lay involved in so much romance and poetry 
 from the mass in which it was embedded(20); 
 but the more logical minds rejected this as a 
 vain and useless labour, maintaining that no 
 separation which was other than arbitrary 
 could be effected; and that the events them- 
 selves, together with the dress in which they 
 appeared, “constituted a whole belonging to 
 the province of poetry and mythus” (21). It 
 was argued that by this treatment the sacred- 
 ness and divinity and even the substantial 
 truth of the Scriptures was left unassailed 
 (22); the literal meaning only being dis- 
 carded, and an allegorical one substituted in 
 its place. Lastly, the name of Origen was 
 produced from the primitive and best ages of 
 Christianity to sanction this system of inter- 
 pretation, and save it from the fatal stigma 
 of entire and absolute novelty (23). 
 
 When the historical character of the Old 
 Testament, assailed on all sides by clever and 
 eloquent pens, and weakly defended by here 
 and there a single hesitating apologist, seemed 
 
12 Peet URES T: 
 
 to those who had conducted the warfare irre- 
 trievably demolished and destroyed (2+), the 
 New Testament became, after a pause, the ob- 
 ject of attack to the same school of writers. It 
 was felt, no doubt, to be a bold thing to cha- 
 racterise as a collection of myths the writings 
 of an age of general enlightenment (25)— 
 nay, even of incredulity and scepticism ; and 
 perhaps a lingering regard for what so many 
 souls held precious (26), stayed the hands of 
 those who nevertheless saw plainly, that the 
 New Testament was open to the same me- 
 thod of attack as the Old, and that an in- 
 exorable logic required that both should be 
 received or neither. A pause therefore en- 
 sued, but a pause of no long duration. First, 
 particular portions of the New Testament 
 narrative, as the account of our Lord’s in- 
 fancy (27), and of the Temptation (28), were 
 declared to possess equal tokens of a mythic 
 origin with those which had been previously 
 regarded as fatal to the historical character 
 of Old Testament stories, and were conse- 
 quently singled out for rejection. Then, 
 little by little, the same system of explana- 
 tion was adopted with respect to more and 
 more of the narrative (29); till at last, in the 
 hands of Strauss, the whole came to be re- 
 solved into pure myth and legend, and the 
 
BEC LURE.) f. 13 
 
 historical Christ being annihilated, the world 
 was told to console itself with a “ God-man, 
 eternally incarnate, not an individual, but an 
 idea (30) ;” which on examination turns out 
 to be no God at all, but mere man— man 
 perfected by nineteenth-century enlighten- 
 ment—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 intel- 
 lectual, or (in the nomenclature of the school) 
 the spiritual. 
 
 “ In an individual,” says Strauss, “the pro- 
 perties which the Church ascribes to Christ 
 contradict themselves, in the zdea of the race 
 they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union 
 of the two natures—God become man, the 
 infinite manifesting itself in the finite, and 
 the finite spirit remembering its infinitude : 
 it is the child of the visible Mother and the 
 invisible Father, Nature and Spirit; it is the 
 worker of miracles, in so far as in the course 
 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 individual only, 
 
14 LECTURE I. 
 
 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 phe- 
 nomenal life there ever proceeds a higher 
 spiritual life; from the suppression of its 
 mortality as a personal, national, and terres- 
 trial spirit, arises its union with the infinite 
 spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, 
 especially in his death and resurrection, man 
 is justified before God; that is, by the kin- 
 dling within him of the idea of Humanity, 
 the individual man partakes of the divinely 
 human life of the species (31).” 
 
 Such are the lengths to which speculation, 
 professedly grounding itself on the esta- 
 blished 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 philosophy differs 
 from Atheism, except in the use of a religious 
 terminology, which it empties of all religious 
 meaning, I confess myself unable to perceive. 
 The final issue of the whole seems to be 
 simply that position which Aristotle scouted 
 as the merest folly—that “man is the highest 
 and most divine thing in the universe” (32), 
 and that God consequently is but a name for 
 humanity when perfected. 
 
LECTURE I. 15 
 
 More dangerous to faith, because less vio- 
 lent in its methods, and less sweeping in the 
 conclusions to which it comes, is the mode- 
 rate rationalism of another school, a school 
 which can with some show of reason claim to 
 shelter itself under the great name and au- 
 thority of Niebuhr. Notwithstanding the 
 personal faith of Niebuhr, which cannot be 
 doubted, and the strong expressions of which 
 he made use against the advocates of the 
 mythical theory (33), he was himself upon oc- 
 casions betrayed into remarks which involved 
 to a great extent their principles, and opened 
 a door to the thorough-going scepticism from 
 which he individually shrank with horror. 
 For instance, in one place Niebuhr says, with 
 respect to the book of Esther, “I am con- 
 vinced that this book is not to be regarded 
 as historical, and I have not the least hesi- 
 tation 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 indi- 
 cates, was in the greatest perplexity through 
 his desire to regard it as an historical docu- 
 ment. 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 
 
16 LECTURE, 
 
 a poem on the occurrences” (34). The great 
 historical critic here (so far as appears, on mere 
 subjective grounds—because the details of 
 the narrative did not appear to him probable) 
 surrendered to the mythical 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-fact history—put a work which the Church 
 has always regarded as canonical and au- 
 thoritative on a par with one which was 
 early pronounced apocryphal—not, certainly, 
 moved to do so by any defect in the external 
 evidence (35), though avague 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 principle 
 of this surrender from that asserted by the 
 mythical school; or that the principle once 
 admitted, any ground can be shewn for limit- 
 ing its application to a single book of Scrip- 
 ture, 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 revela- 
 tion should be, “a poem and nothing more,” 
 and what security is there against the ex- 
 
LECTURE I. Wz 
 
 tremest conclusions of the mythologists ? 
 One book will naturally be surrendered after 
 another (36), and the final result will not be 
 distinguishable from that at which the school 
 of De Wette and Strauss professedly aims— 
 the destruction of all trust in the historical 
 veracity of the Scripture narrative. 
 
 The partial scepticism of Niebuhr has al- 
 ways had followers in Germany—men who 
 are believers, but who admit the principles 
 of unbelief—who rationalise, but who think 
 to say to the tide of rationalism, “Thus far 
 shalt thou go, and no further.’ I shall not 
 detain my hearers with a long array of in- 
 stances in this place. Suffice it to adduce the 
 teaching of a single living writer, whose in- 
 fluence is very considerable both in Germany 
 and in our own country. On the ground 
 that Egypt has a continuous history, com- 
 mencing more than 6000 years before the 
 Christian era, we are required to reject the 
 literal interpretation of the 6th, 7th, and 8th 
 chapters of Genesis, and to believe that the 
 Flood was no more than a great catastrophe 
 in Western Asia, which swept away the in- 
 habitants of that region, but left Egypt and 
 the greater part of the world untouched. 
 Ham, we are told, is not a person, but the 
 symbolical representative of Egypt; and he is 
 
 RAWLINSON. c 
 
18 LECTURE IL. 
 
 the elder brother, because Egyptian Hamit- 
 ism 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 in- 
 habited 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 the people repre- 
 sented 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 (37). Again, “ the 
 family tree of Abraham is an historical re- 
 presentation of the great and lengthened mi- 
 erations of the primitive Asiatic race of man, 
 from the mountains of Armenia and Chal- 
 dea, through Mesopotamia, to the north-east 
 frontier of Egypt, as far as Amalek and 
 Edom. It represents the connection be- 
 tween nations and their tribes, not personal 
 connection between father and son, and records 
 consequently epochs, not real human pedi- 
 grees (38).” 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 430 years, of which one- 
 
LECTURE I. 19 
 
 half, or 215 years, was from Abraham’s going 
 down into Egypt to Jacob’s, the other from 
 Jacob’s going down to the Exodus, the num- 
 ber must be regarded as “conventional and 
 unhistorical (39) ;” as “connected with the 
 legendary genealogies of particular fami- 
 lies (40) ;” as formed, in fact, artificially by 
 a doubling of the first period; which itself 
 only “represents the traditionary accounts of 
 the primitive times of Canaan as embodied 
 in a genealogy of the three patriarchs (41),” 
 and “cannot possibly be worthy of more con- 
 fidence than the traditions with regard to 
 the second period,” which are valueless (42). 
 Of course the earlier lists of names and cal- 
 culations of years are looked upon with still 
 less favour. “The Jewish tradition, in pro- 
 portion as its antiquity is thrown back, bears 
 on its face less of a chronological character,” 
 so that “no light is to be gleaned from it” 
 for general purposes (43). Even in the com- 
 paratively recent times of David and Solo- 
 mon, there is no coherent or reliable chrono- 
 logy, the round number 40 being still met 
 with, which is taken to be an indubitable 
 sign of arbitrary and artificial arrangement 
 
 (44). 
 Such are some of the results which have, 
 in fact, followed from the examination by 
 c 2 
 
 ~ 
 
20 LE CPURE TL 
 
 historical critics, possessed of more or less cri- 
 tical acumen, of those sacred records, which 
 are allowed on all hands to be entitled to 
 deep respect, and which we in this place be- 
 lieve 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 Nar- 
 rative on the positive side. Leaving un- 
 touched the question of the inspiration of 
 Scripture, and its consequent title to out- 
 weigh all conflicting testimony whatever, I 
 propose briefly to review the historical 
 evidence for the orthodox belief. My object 
 will be to meet the reasoning of the histo- 
 rical 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 shew, 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 mira- 
 cles and those of his apostles, the historical 
 
LECTURE IL. Q1 
 
 evidence which we possess is of an authentic 
 and satisfactory character. I shall review 
 this evidence in the light and by the laws of 
 the modern historical criticism, so far as they 
 seem to be established. Those laws appear 
 to me to be sound; and their natural and real 
 bearing is to increase instead of diminishing 
 the weight of the Christian evidences. It is 
 not from a legitimate and proper application 
 of them that faith has suffered, but partly 
 from their neglect or misapplication, partly 
 from the intrusion among them of a single 
 unproved and irrational opinion. 
 
 Iam 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 po- 
 sited as their principles. I believe, how- 
 ever, 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 pos- 
 
22 LECTURE ‘I. 
 
 sessing the first or highest degree of histo- 
 rical credibility. Such evidence is on a par 
 with that of witnesses in a court of justice, 
 with the drawback, on the one hand, that 
 the man who gives it is not sworn to speak 
 the truth, and with the advantage on the 
 other, that he is less likely than the legal wit- 
 ness to have a personal interest in the matter 
 concerning which he testifies (46). 
 
 2. When the event recorded is one which 
 the writer may be reasonably supposed to 
 have obtained directly from those who wit- 
 nessed it, we should accept it as probably 
 true, unless it be in itself very improbable. 
 Such evidence possesses the second degree of 
 historical credibility (47). 
 
 3. When the event recorded is removed 
 considerably from the age of the recorder of 
 it, and there is no reason to believe that he 
 obtained it from a contemporary writing, but 
 the probable source of his information was 
 oral tradition; still, if the event be one of 
 great importance and of public notoriety, if 
 it affected the national life, or prosperity,— 
 especially if it be of a nature to have been 
 at once commemorated by the establishment 
 of any rite or practice,—then it has a claim 
 to belief as probably true, at least in its ge- 
 neral outline(48). This however is the third, 
 
LECTURE I. 23 
 
 and a comparatively low, degree of historical 
 credibility. 
 
 4. When the traditions of one race, which, 
 if unsupported, 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 ob- 
 tains thereby a high amount of probability, 
 and, if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly 
 deserves acceptance (49). The degree of 
 historical credibility in this case is not ex- 
 actly commensurable with that in the others, 
 since a new and distinct ground of likeli- 
 hood 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 ex- 
 ceeds 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 re- 
 spect to the relative value of the materials 
 from which history is ordinarily composed,— 
 important to be borne in mind in all en- 
 quiries like that on which we are entering. 
 Historical materials may be divided into di- 
 
24 LECTURE I. 
 
 rect and indirect—direct, or such as proceed 
 from the agents in the occurrences; indirect, 
 or such as are the embodiment of enquiries 
 and researches made by persons vot them- 
 selves engaged in the transactions. The 
 former are allowed on all hands to be of 
 primary importance. There is indeed a 
 drawback upon their value, arising out of 
 the tendency of human vanity to exalt self 
 at the expense of truth; but where the 
 moral character of the writer is a security 
 against wilful misrepresentation, or where 
 the publicity of the events themselves would 
 make misrepresentation folly, the very high- 
 est degree of credit is to be given to direct 
 records. These may be either public in- 
 scribed 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 (50); letters, or books. 
 Again, books of this class will be either com- 
 mentaries (or particular histories of events 
 in which the authors have taken part); auto- 
 biographies, or accounts which persons have 
 given of their own lives up to a certain point; 
 or memoirs, i. e. accounts which persons have 
 given of those with whom they have had some 
 acquaintance. ‘These are the best and most 
 authentic sources of history; and we must 
 
LECTURE I. Q5 
 
 either be content with them, or regard the 
 past as absolutely shrouded from our know- 
 ledge by a veil which is impenetrable. In- 
 direct records—the compilations of diligent 
 enquirers 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 character, 
 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. No account of the grounds of 
 historic belief would be complete, even in 
 outline, which failed to notice its applica- 
 bility 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 mu/tiply it (51).” 
 When two independent writers witness to 
 the same event, the probability of that event 
 
26 LECTURE I. 
 
 is increased, not in an arithmetical but in a 
 geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, but 
 by multiplication (52). “ By the mouth of 
 two or three witnesses,” the word to which 
 such witness is borne 1s “ established*.” And 
 the agreement is the more valuable if it be— 
 so to speak—incidental and casual; if the 
 two writers are contemporary, and their writ- 
 ings 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 convic- 
 tion 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 alto- 
 gether. 
 
 To the four Canons which have been al- 
 ready enumerated 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 enquiry as that upon which we are now 
 
 a Deuteronomy xix. 15. 
 
LECTURE I. QF 
 
 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 impos- 
 sibility of miracles (53).” And the mythical 
 interpreters insist, that one of the essential 
 marks of a mythical narrative, whereby it 
 may be clearly distinguished from one which 
 is historical, is, its “presenting an account of 
 events which are either absolutely or rela- 
 tively beyond the reach of (ordinary) experi- 
 ence, such as occurrences connected with the 
 spiritual world, or its dealing in the super- 
 natural (54).” Now, if miracles cannot take 
 place, an enquiry into the historical evidences 
 of Revealed Religion is vain; for Revelation 
 is itself miraculous, and therefore, by the 
 hypothesis, impossible. But what are the 
 grounds upon which so stupendous an asser- 
 tion 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 
 immutability—because He is a being “ with 
 whom is no variableness, neither shadow of 
 turning’ ?” But, if we apply the notion of a 
 
 b James i. 17. 
 
28 LECTURE 1. 
 
 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 
 miracles? But this is either to judge, from 
 our own narrow and limited experience, of 
 the whole course of nature, and so to ge- 
 neralise upon most weak and _ insufficient 
 grounds; or else, if in the phrase “all expe- 
 rience” 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. More- 
 over, were it true that all known experience 
 was against miracles, this would not even 
 prove that they had not happened—much 
 less that they are impossible. If they are 
 impossible, it must be either from something 
 in the nature of things, or from something in 
 the nature of God. That the immutability 
 of God does not stand in the way of miracles 
 has been already shewn; 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 Om- 
 
LECTURE I. Q9 
 
 nipotence includes in it the power of work- 
 ing miracles. And if God created the world, 
 He certainly once worked a miracle of the 
 most surpassing greatness. Is there then 
 anything in the nature of things to make 
 miracles impossible? Not unless things have 
 an independent 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 mo- 
 mentarily 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 
 certainly things in themselves cannot oppose 
 any impediment to miracles, or do aught but 
 obsequiously follow the Divine fiat, be it what 
 it may. The whole difficulty with regard 
 
 ¢ Hebrews i. 3. d Ephesians iy. 6. 
 
30 LECTURE IL. 
 
 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 myste- 
 rious powers of their own uncontrollable by 
 the Divine Will; which sees in the connexion 
 of physical cause and effect, not a sequence, 
 not a law, but a necessity; which, either po- 
 siting a Divine First Cause to bring things 
 into existence, then (like Anaxagoras) makes 
 no further use of Him(56); or does not care to 
 posit any such First Cause at all, but is con- 
 tent 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 no- 
 menclature—it is no longer dry, and hard, 
 and cold, all matter of fact and common- 
 sense, as was the case in the last century— 
 on the contrary, it has become warm in ex- 
 pression, poetic, eloquent, glowing, sensuous, 
 imaginative—the ‘Course of Nature,’ which 
 it has set up in the place of God, is in a cer- 
 tain sense deified—no language is too exalted 
 to be applied to it, no admiration too great 
 to be excited by it—it is “ glorious,’ and 
 
LECTURE I. 31 
 
 “ marvellous,” and “superhuman,” and “hea- 
 venly,” and “ spiritual,” and “ divine”—only 
 it is ‘It,’ not ‘ Hz,—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 whole- 
 some awe—it is a dead idol after all, and its 
 worship is but the old nature worship—man 
 returning in his dotage to the follies which 
 beguiled his childhood—losing the Creator 
 in the creature, the Workman in the work 
 of his hands. 
 
 It cannot therefore be held on any grounds 
 but such as involve a real, though covert 
 Atheism, that miracles are impossible, or that 
 a narrative of which supernatural occurrences 
 form an essential part is therefore devoid of 
 an historic character. Miracles are to be 
 viewed as in fact a part of the Divine Eco- 
 nomy—a part as essential as any other, 
 though coming into play less frequently. It 
 has already been observed, that the creation 
 of the world was a miracle, or rather a whole 
 array of miracles; and any true historical ac- 
 count of it must “deal in the supernatural.” 
 A first man was as great a miracle—may we 
 not say a greater miracle, than a raised man ? 
 Greater, in as much as to create and unite a 
 
32 LECTURE I. 
 
 body and soul is to do more than merely to 
 unite them when they have been created. 
 And the occurrence of miracles at the begin- 
 ning 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 
 we should surrender to the sceptic the whole 
 mass of Heathen and Ecclesiastical miracles, 
 which for one do not hold to be necessary (57), 
 yet still fictitious miracles imply the exist- 
 ence of true ones, just as hypocrisy implies 
 that there is virtue. To reject a narrative 
 therefore, simply because it contains miracu- 
 lous circumstances, is to indulge an irrational 
 prejudice—a prejudice which has no founda- 
 tion either in @ priori truths or in the philo- 
 sophy of experience, and which can only be 
 consistently held by one who disbelieves in 
 God. : 
 
 The rejection of this negative Canon,— 
 which a pseudo-critical School has boldly but 
 vainly put forward for the furtherance of its 
 own views with respect to the Christian 
 scheme, but which no historian of repute has 
 adopted since the days of Gibbon,—will en- 
 able us to proceed without further delay to 
 
LECTURE I. 33 
 
 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 Reli- 
 gion. The actual examination must however 
 be reserved for future Lectures. ‘Time will 
 not permit of my attempting to do more in 
 the brief remainder of the present Dis- 
 course than simply to point out the chief 
 kinds or branches into which the evidence 
 divides itself, and to indicate, somewhat 
 more clearly than has as yet been done, the 
 method which will be pursued in the exa- 
 mination of it. 
 
 The sacred records themselves are the 
 main proof of the events related in them. 
 Waiving the question of their inspiration, I 
 propose to view them simply as a mass of 
 documents, subject to the laws, and to be 
 judged by the principles of historical criti- 
 cism; I shall briefly discuss their genuine- 
 ness, where it has been called in question, 
 and vindicate their authenticity. Where two 
 or more documents belong to the same time, 
 I shall endeavour to exhibit some of their 
 most remarkable points of agreement: I shall 
 not, however, dwell at much length on this 
 portion of the enquiry. It is of pre-eminent 
 
 KAWLINSON. D 
 
34 LECTURE I. 
 
 importance, but its pre-eminence has secured 
 it a large amount of attention on the part of 
 Christian writers; and I cannot hope to add 
 much to the labours of those who have pre- 
 ceded me in this field. There is, however, a 
 second and distinct kind of evidence, which 
 has not (I think) received of late as much 
 consideration as it deserves—I mean the ea- 
 ternal evidence to the truth of the Bible re- 
 cords, whether contained in monuments, in 
 the works of profane writers, in customs and 
 observances now existing or known to have 
 existed, or finally in the works of believers 
 nearly contemporary with any of the events 
 narrated. The evidence under some of these 
 heads has recently received important acces- 
 sions, and fresh light has been thrown in cer- 
 tain 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 “shew us” what it is which they record 
 of the “ former things’—that they may at 
 once justify and “be justified”—in part di- 
 rectly confirming the Scripture narrative, in 
 part silent but not adverse, content to “ hear, 
 and say, ‘It is truth.” “Ye are my wit- 
 nesses, saith the Lord’—even “the blind 
 
LECTURE I. 35 
 
 people, that have eyes; and the deaf, that 
 have ears”—“ Ye are my witnesses—and my 
 servant whom I have chosen®.” The testi- 
 mony of the sacred and the profane is not 
 conflicting, but consentient—and the com- 
 parison of the two will shew, not discord, 
 but harmony. 
 
 € Isaiah xliii. 8, ro. 
 
LECTURE IL. 
 
 JOB VIEL. verses 8 to 10. 
 
 Enquire, I pray thee, of the former age, and 
 prepare thyself to the search of their fathers ; 
 (for we are but of yesterday, and know no- 
 thing, because our days upon earth are a 
 shadow ;) shall not they teach thee, and tell 
 thee, and utter words out of their heart ? 
 
 In every historical enquiry 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 philosophical, be- 
 cause the more real and genuine method of 
 procedure: it is the course which in the 
 original investigation of the subject must, in 
 point of fact, have been pursued: the 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 com- 
 
LECTURE ILI. 37 
 
 monly 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 continual accre- 
 tion, 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 
 advancing, “shining more and more unto the 
 perfect day*.” Its difficulties and inconve- 
 niences are at the first outset, when we 
 plunge as it were into a world unknown, and 
 seek in the dim twilight of the remote past 
 for some sure and solid ground upon which 
 to plant our foot. On the whole there is per- 
 haps sufficient reason for conforming to the 
 ordinary practice, and adopting the actual 
 order of the occurrences as that of the exa- 
 mination upon which we are entering. 
 
 It will be necessary, however, in order to 
 bring within reasonable compass the vast 
 field that offers itself to us for investigation, 
 to divide the history which is to be reviewed 
 into periods, which may be successively con- 
 sidered in their entirety. The division which 
 
 a Proverbs iv. 18. 
 
38 LECTURE tT. 
 
 the sacred writings seem to suggest is into five 
 such periods. The first of these extends from 
 the Creation to the death of Moses, being 
 the period of which the history is delivered to 
 us in the Pentateuch. The second extends 
 from the death of Moses to the accession of 
 Rehoboam, and is treated in Joshua, Judges, 
 Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, and some 
 portions of the Books of Kings and Chroni- 
 cles. The third is the period from the ac- 
 cession of Rehoboam to the Captivity of Ju- 
 dah, 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- 
 niah. The fourth extends from the Capti- 
 vity to the reform of Nehemiah; and its his- 
 tory is contained in Daniel, Ezra, Esther, 
 and Nehemiah, and illustrated by Haggai 
 and Zechariah. ‘The fifth is the period of 
 the life of Christ and the preaching and 
 establishment of Christianity, of which the 
 history is given in the New Testament. The 
 first four periods will form the subject of the 
 present and three following Lectures. The 
 fifth period, from its superior importance, 
 will require to be treated at greater length. 
 Its examination is intended to occupy the 
 remainder of the present Course. 
 
LECTURE IL. 39 
 
 The sacred records of the first period have 
 come down to us in the shape of five Books, 
 the first of which is introductory, while the 
 remaining four present us with the history 
 of an individual, Moses, and of the Jewish 
 people under his guidance. Critically speak- 
 ing, it is of the last importance to know by 
 whom the books which contain this history 
 were written. Now the ancient, positive, 
 and uniform tradition of the Jews assigned 
 the authorship of the five books (or Penta- 
 teuch), with the exception of the last chapter 
 of Deuteronomy, to Moses(1); and this tra- 
 dition is prima facie evidence of the fact, 
 such as at least throws the burden of proof 
 upon those who call it in question. It is an 
 admitted rule of all sound criticism, that 
 books are to be regarded as proceeding from 
 the writers whose names they bear, unless 
 very strong reasons indeed can be adduced 
 to the contrary (2). In the present instance, 
 the reasons which have been urged are weak 
 and puerile in the extreme; they rest in 
 part on misconceptions of the meaning of 
 passages (3), in part, upon interpolations into 
 the original text, which are sometimes very 
 plain and palpable (4). Mainly however they 
 have their source in arbitrary and unproved 
 hypotheses, as that a contemporary writer 
 
40 LECTURE II. 
 
 would not have introduced an account of 
 miracles (5); that the culture indicated by 
 the book is beyond that of the age of Mo- 
 ses (6); that if Moses had written the book, 
 he would not have spoken of himself in the 
 third person (7); that he would have given 
 a fuller and more complete account of his 
 own history (8); and that he would not have 
 applied to himself terms of praise and ex- 
 pressions of honour(9). It is enough to ob- 
 serve of these objections, that they are such 
 as might equally be urged against the ge- 
 nuineness of St. Paul’s epistles, which is al- 
 lowed even by Strauss (10)—against that of 
 the works of Homer, Chaucer, and indeed of 
 all writers in advance of their age—against 
 Cesar’s Commentaries, and Xenophon’s Ex- 
 pedition of Cyrus—against the Acts of the 
 Apostles (11), and against the Gospel of St. 
 John. St. Paul relates contemporary mira- 
 cles; Homer and Chaucer exhibit a culture 
 and a tone which, but for them, we should 
 have supposed unattainable in their age ; 
 Cesar and Xenophon write throughout in 
 the third person ; St. Luke omits all account 
 of his own doings at Philippi; St. John ap- 
 plies to himself the most honourable of all 
 titles—“ the disciple whom Jesus loved?.” 
 
 b John xiii. 23; xix. 26, &c. 
 
LECTURE II. 41 
 
 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 weak- 
 est of all presumptions, and must be regarded 
 as outweighed by a very small amount of 
 positive testimony to authorship. 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 au- 
 thor who is being judged, a tolerably com- 
 plete knowledge of the age to which he is 
 assigned, and a fair acquaintance with the 
 literature of his period (12). In the case of 
 Moses our knowledge of the age is exceed- 
 ingly limited, while of the literature we have 
 scarcely any knowledge at all(13), beyond 
 that which is furnished by the sacred records 
 next in succession—the Books of Joshua and 
 Judges, and (perhaps) the Book of Job—and 
 these are so far from supporting the notion 
 that such a work as the Pentateuch could 
 not be produced in the age of Moses, that 
 they furnish a very strong argument to the 
 contrary. The diction of the Pentateuch is 
 older than that of Joshua and Judges (14), 
 while its ideas are presupposed in those writ- 
 ings (15), which may be said to be based 
 upon it, and to require it as their antecedent. 
 If then they could be written at the time to 
 
4.2 LECTURE II. 
 
 which they are commonly and (as will be 
 hereafter shewn) rightly assigned (16), the 
 Pentateuch not only may, but must, be as 
 early as Moses. 
 
 Vague doubts have sometimes been thrown 
 out as to the existence of writings at this 
 period (17). The evidence of the Mosaic 
 records themselves, if the true date of their 
 composition were allowed, would be conclu- 
 sive upon the point; for they speak of writ- 
 ing aS a common practice. Waiving this 
 evidence, we may remark that hieroglyphi- 
 cal inscriptions upon stone were known in 
 igypt at least as early as the fourth dynasty, 
 or B.C. 2450 (18), that inscribed bricks were 
 common in Babylonia about two centuries 
 later (19), and that writing upon papyruses, 
 both in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic 
 characters, was familiar to the Egyptians 
 under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynas- 
 ties (20), 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 emi- 
 
 c¢ Acts vil. 22. 
 
LECTURE II. 43 
 
 grated not earlier than the nineteenth cen- 
 tury before our era from the great Chaldean 
 capital, Ur, would have brought with him 
 and transmitted to his descendants the al- 
 phabetic system with which the Chaldeans 
 of his day were acquainted (21). There is 
 thus every reason to suppose that writing was 
 familiar to the Jews when they quitted Kgypt; 
 and the mention of it as a common practice 
 in the books of Moses is in perfect accord- 
 ance with what we know of the condition of 
 the world at the time from other sources. 
 
 To the unanimous witness of the Jews 
 with respect to the authorship of the Penta- 
 teuch may be added the testimony of a 
 number of heathen writers. Hecatzeus of 
 Abdera (22), Manetho (23), Lysimachus of 
 Alexandria(24), Eupolemus(25), Tacitus(26), 
 Juvenal (27), Longinus (28), all ascribe to 
 Moses the institution of that code of laws by 
 which the Jews were distinguished from other 
 nations; and the majority distinctly(29) note 
 that he committed his laws to writing. These 
 authors cover a space extending from the 
 time of Alexander, when the Greeks first 
 became curious on the subject of Jewish 
 history, to that of the emperor Aurelian, 
 when the literature of the Jews had been 
 thoroughly sifted by the acute and learned 
 
‘+4 LECTURE II. 
 
 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 com- 
 plete works of those many other writers to 
 whom Josephus, Clement, and Eusebius re- 
 fer as mentioning Moses (30), we should find 
 the amount of heathen evidence on _ this 
 point greatly increased. Moreover, we must 
 bear in mind that the witness is unanimous, 
 or all but unanimous (31). Nor is it, as an 
 objector might be apt to urge, the mere echo 
 of Jewish tradition faintly repeating itself 
 from far off lands; in part at least it rests 
 upon a distinct and even hostile authority— 
 that of the Egyptians. Manetho certainly, 
 and Lysimachus probably, represent Egypt- 
 ian, and not Jewish, views; and thus the 
 Jewish tradition is confirmed by that of the 
 only nation which was sufficiently near and 
 sufficiently advanced in the Mosaic age to 
 make its testimony on the point of real im- 
 portance. 
 
 To the external testimony which has been 
 now adduced must be added the internal 
 testimony of the work itself, which repeat- 
 edly speaks of Moses as writing the law, 
 and recording the various events and occur- 
 rences in a book, and as reading from this 
 
LECTURE II. 45 
 
 book to the people (32). The medern ra- 
 tionalist regards it as a “most unnatural sup- 
 position,” that the Pentateuch was written 
 during the passage of the Israelites through 
 the wilderness (33); but this is what every 
 unprejudiced reader gathers from the Penta- 
 teuch itself, which tells us that God com- 
 manded 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 (34)— was certainly writ- 
 ten 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 
 
 d Exod. xvii. 14. e Tbid. xxiv. 4. f Jbid. ver. 7. 
 ¢ Numb. xxxiii. 2. h Deut. xxxi. 24. i Ibid. ver. 26. 
 
4.6 bE @2 URE OL. 
 
 their ears, “ Ye shall not add unto the word, 
 neither diminish ought from it!;” and they 
 were charged “at the end of every seven years, 
 in the year of release, in the feast of taber- 
 nacles, to read it before all Israel in their 
 hearing‘ ;” and, further, a command was 
 given, that, when the Israelites should have 
 kings, each king should “write him a copy 
 of the law in a book, out of that which was 
 before the priests the Levites, that he might 
 read therein all the days of his life’.” Un- 
 less therefore we admit the Pentateuch to be 
 genuine, we must suppose that the book 
 which (according to the belief of the Jews) 
 Moses wrote, which was placed in the ark 
 of God, over which the Levites were to 
 watch with such jealous care, which was to be 
 read to the people once in each seven years, 
 and which was guarded by awful sanctions 
 from either addition to it or diminution from 
 it—we must suppose, I say, that this book 
 perished ; and that another book was substi- 
 tuted in its place—by an unknown author— 
 for unknown objects—professing to be the 
 work of Moses, (for that is allowed) (35), and 
 believed to be his work thenceforth, without 
 so much as a doubt being breathed on the 
 subject either by the nation, its teachers, or 
 
 ) Deut. iv. 2. k Ibid. xxxi. 10, 11. 1 Ibid. xvii. 18, 19. 
 
BECTURE Il. 47 
 
 even its enemies, for many hundreds of years 
 (36). 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, marvellous as it is in many points. 
 Certainly, few suppositions can be more im- 
 probable 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 thou- 
 sand years, while they also differ from one 
 another in every detail with which they 
 venture to clothe the transaction (37). 
 
 I have dwelt the longer upon the genuine- 
 ness of the Pentateuch, because it is ad- 
 mitted, even by the extremest sceptics, that 
 the genuineness of the work carries with it 
 the authenticity of the narrative, at least in 
 all its main particulars. “It would most un- 
 questionably,” says Strauss, “be an argument 
 of decisive weight in favour of the credibility 
 of the Biblical history, could it indeed be 
 shewn that it was written by eyewitnesses.” 
 “Moses, being the leader of the Israelites on 
 their departure from Egypt, would undoubt- 
 
48 LECTURE II. 
 
 edly give a faithful history of the occur- 
 rences, unless” (which is not pretended) “ he 
 designed to deceive.” And further, “ Moses, 
 if his intimate connexion with Deity de- 
 scribed in these books” (i. e. the last four) 
 “ be historically true, was likewise eminently 
 qualified, by virtue of such connexion, to 
 produce a credible history of the earlier pe- 
 riods (37).” If Moses indeed wrote the ac- 
 count which we possess of the Exodus and 
 of the wanderings in the wilderness; and if, 
 having written it, he delivered it to those 
 who knew the events as well as he, the con- 
 ditions, 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 contemporary 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 ne- 
 cessarily, for he writes of events which were 
 public and known to all—we have a work, 
 which, by the laws of historical criticism, is 
 thus for historical purposes just as reliable as 
 Ceesar’s Commentaries or Xenophon’s Retreat 
 of the Ten Thousand—we have that rare li- 
 terary treasure, the autobiography of a great 
 
LECTURE II. 49 
 
 man, engaged in great events, the head of his 
 nation at a most critical period in their an- 
 nals; who commits to writing as they occur 
 the various events and transactions in which 
 he is engaged, wherever they have a national 
 or public character (38). We must therefore 
 consider, even setting aside the whole idea of 
 inspiration, that we possess in the last four 
 books of the Pentateuch as reliable an ac- 
 count of the Exodus of the Jews, and their 
 subsequent wanderings, as we do, in the 
 works of Cesar and Xenophon, of the con- 
 quest of Britain, or of the events which pre- 
 ceded and followed the battle of Cunaxa. 
 The narrative of Genesis stands undoubt- 
 edly on a different 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 docu- 
 ments as if they were ordinary historical ma- 
 terials, 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 his- 
 torical critics allow that men have of their 
 own family and nation to the days of their 
 grandfathers (39). He would thus be as good 
 RAWLINSON. E 
 
50 LECTURE IL. 
 
 an historical authority for the details of Jo- 
 seph’s story and for the latter part of the life 
 of Jacob, as Herodotus for the reign of Cam- 
 byses, or Fabius Pictor for the third Samnite 
 War. Again, with respect to the earlier his- 
 tory, it is to be borne in mind through how 
 very few hands, according to the numbers 
 in the Hebrew text, this passed to Moses (40). 
 Adam, according to the Hebrew original, 
 was for 243 years contemporary with Methu- 
 selah, who conversed for 100 years with 
 Shem. Shem was for 50 years contemporary 
 with Jacob, who probably saw Jochebed, Mo- 
 ses’ mother. Thus Moses might, by mere 
 oral tradition, have obtained the history of 
 Abraham, and even of the Deluge, at third 
 hand; and that of the Temptation and the 
 Fall, at fifth hand. The patriarchal longevity 
 had the effect of reducing centuries to little 
 more than lustres, so far as the safe transmis- 
 sion of historical events was concerned ; for 
 this does not depend either upon years or upon 
 generations, but upon the number of links 
 in the chain through which the transmittal 
 takes place. If it be granted, as it seems to 
 be (41), that the great and stirring events in 
 a nation’s life will, under ordinary circum- 
 stances, be remembered (apart from all writ- 
 ten memorials) for the space of 150 years, 
 
LECTURE Il. 5] 
 
 being handed down through five genera- 
 tions; it must be allowed (even on mere hu- 
 man grounds) that the account which Moses 
 gives of the Temptation 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 forthe more 
 recent events, since they would have passed 
 through fewer hands than the earlier (42). 
 And this, be it remembered, is on the sup- 
 position that the sole human source from 
 which Moses composed the Book of Genesis 
 was oral tradition. But it is highly probable 
 that he also made use of documents. So 
 much fanciful speculation has been advanced, 
 so many vain and baseless theories have been 
 built up, in connexion with what is called the 
 ** document-hypothesis” concerning Genesis 
 (43), that I touch the point with some hesi- 
 tation, and beg at once to be understood as 
 not venturing to dogmatise in a matter of 
 such difficulty. But both a priori probability, 
 and the internal evidence, seem to me to fa- 
 vour the opinion of Vitringa (44) and Calmet 
 (45), that Moses consulted monuments or 
 records of former ages, which had descended 
 from the families of the patriarchs, and by 
 collecting, arranging, adorning, and, where 
 they were deficient, completing them, com- 
 E 2 
 
a2 LECTURE II. 
 
 posed his history. What we know of the an- 
 tiquity of writing, both in Egypt and Baby- 
 lonia (46), renders it not improbable that the 
 art was known and practised soon after the 
 Flood, if it was not even (as some have sup- 
 posed) a legacy from the antediluvian world 
 (47). 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 be- 
 fore 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 writing in such com- 
 mon use, and historical records so abundant, 
 as they can be proved to have been in that 
 country at that period, it is scarcely conceiv- 
 able 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 minuti@ into which it enters, 
 mark it as based upon a contemporary, or 
 nearly contemporary biography ; and_ the 
 
LECTURE II. 53 
 
 same may be said with almost equal force of 
 the histories of Jacob, Isaac, and even Abra- 
 ham. Further, there are several indications 
 of separate documents in the earlier part of 
 Genesis, as the superscriptions or headings of 
 particular portions, the change of appellation 
 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 grounds 
 accept Vitringa’s theory, we elevate consi- 
 derably 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, pre- 
 viously to their receiving a written form, the 
 Book of Genesis becomes a work based in 
 the main upon contemporary, or nearly con- 
 temporary, documents—documents of which 
 the venerable antiquity casts all other an- 
 cient 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 1s additional, it must be remembered, 
 to what it derives from Moses; who is still 
 the responsible author of the work; who se- 
 lected the documents, and gave them all the 
 confirmation which they could derive from 
 
54 LECTURE II. 
 
 his authority, whether it be regarded as di- 
 vine 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 consi- 
 dering the weight which properly attaches to 
 the Pentateuch itself, viewed as an historical 
 work produced by a certain individual, under 
 certain circumstances, and at a certain pe- 
 riod. It remains to examine the external 
 evidence to the character of the Mosaic nar- 
 rative which is furnished by the other an- 
 cient records in our possession, so far at least 
 as those records have a fair claim to be re- 
 garded as of any real historic value. 
 
 Records possessing even moderate preten- 
 sions 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 
 Gieeks, the curious compilations of the Arme- 
 nians (48), the historical poems of the Hindoos 
 (49), or the extravagant fables of the Chinese 
 (50). A dim knowledge of certain great events 
 in primeval history—as of the Deluge—may 
 indeed be traced in all these quarters(51); but 
 the historical element to be detected is in 
 every case so small, it is so overlaid by fable, 
 and intermixed with what is palpably imagi- 
 
 m Acts vii. 22. n Deut. xvili. 15. 
 
LECTURE II. 55 
 
 native, 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 reliable 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 epi- 
 tome of the early Egyptian history of the 
 latter, a certain number of Egyptian and Ba- 
 bylonian inscriptions, and two or three vaiu- 
 able 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 
 (52), the first seats of civilisation: in them 
 writing seems to have been practised earlier 
 than elsewhere; they paid from the first 
 ereat attention to history, and possessed, 
 when the Greeks became acquainted with 
 them, historical records of an antiquity con- 
 fessedly greater than that which could be 
 claimed for any documents elsewhere. F'ur- 
 ther, in each of these countries, at the mo- 
 ment when, in consequence of Grecian con- 
 
56 LECTURE II. 
 
 quest and the infusion of new ideas, there 
 was the greatest danger of the records pe- 
 rishing or being vitiated, there arose a man— 
 a native—thoroughly acquainted with their 
 antiquities, and competently skilled in the 
 Greek language, who transferred to that 
 tongue, and thus made the common property 
 of mankind, what had previously been a hid- 
 den treasure—the possession of their own 
 priests and philosophers only. The value of 
 the histories written by Manetho the Seben- 
 nyte, and Berosus the Chaldean, had long 
 been suspected by the learned (53); but it 
 remained for the present age to obtain dis- 
 tinct evidence of their fidelity—evidence 
 which places them, among the historians of 
 early times, in a class by themselves, greatly 
 above even the most acute and painstaking 
 of the Greek and Roman compilers. He- 
 rodotus, Ctesias, Alexander Polyhistor, Dio- 
 dorus Siculus, Trogus Pompeius, could at 
 best receive at second-hand such representa- 
 tions of Babylonian and Egyptian history as 
 the natives chose to impart to them, and 
 moreover received these representations (for 
 the most part) diluted and distorted by pass- 
 ing through the medium of comparatively 
 ignorant interpreters. Manetho and Berosus 
 had free access to the national records, and 
 
LECTURE IL. 57 
 
 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 dili- 
 gence and carefulness of the two historians ; 
 who have thus, as profane writers of primeval 
 history, a preeminence over all others (54). 
 This is perhaps the chief value of the docu- 
 ments obtained, which do not in themselves 
 furnish a history, or even its framework, a 
 chronology (55); but require 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 his- 
 tory with that outline which may be obtained 
 from Egyptian and Babylonian sources, we 
 are struck at first sight with what seems an 
 enormous difference in the chronology. The 
 sum of the years in Manetho’s scheme, as it 
 has come down to us in Eusebius, is little 
 short of 30,000 (56); while that in the 
 
58 LECTURE II. 
 
 scheme of Berosus, as reported by the same 
 author (57), exceeds 460,000! But upon a 
 little consideration, the greater part of this 
 difficulty vanishes. If we examine the two 
 chronologies, we shall find that both evidently 
 divide at a certain point, above which all is 
 certainly mythic, while below all is, or at 
 least may be, historical. Out of the 30,000 
 years contained (apparently) in Manetho’s 
 scheme, nearly 25,000 belong to the time 
 when Gods, Demigods, and Spirits had rule 
 on earth; and the history of Egypt confes- 
 sedly does not begin till this period is con- 
 cluded, and Menes, the first Egyptian king, 
 mounts the throne (58). Similarly, in the 
 chronology of Berosus, there is a sudden 
 transition from kings whose reigns are 
 counted by sossi and ne7i, or periods respec- 
 tively of 60 and 600 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 computation, we have in 
 the Babylonian scheme a chronology which 
 mounts up no higher than 2,458 years before 
 Christ, or 800 years after the Deluge, (ac- 
 cording to the numbers of the Septuagint ;) 
 while in the Egyptian we have at any rate 
 only an excess of about 2000 years to ex- 
 
LECTURE II.. 59 
 
 plain and account for, instead of an excess 
 of 27,000. 
 
 And this latter discrepancy becomes insigni- 
 ficant, if it does not actually disappear, upon a 
 closer scrutiny. The 5000 years of Manetho’s 
 dynastic lists were reduced by himself (as we 
 learn from Syncellus) to 3555 years (59), 
 doubtless because he was aware that his lists 
 contained in some cases contemporary dy- 
 nasties; in others, contemporary kings in the 
 same dynasty, owing to the mention in them 
 of various royal personages associated on the 
 throne by the principal monarch. Thus near 
 1500 years are struck off from Manetho’s 
 total at a blow; and the chronological differ- 
 ence between his scheme and that of €crip- 
 ture is reduced to a few hundred years—a 
 discrepancy of no great moment, and one 
 which might easily arise, either from slight 
 errors of the copyists, or from an insufficient 
 allowance being made in Manetho’s scheme, 
 in respect of either or both of the causes 
 from which Egyptian chronology is always 
 liable to be exaggerated. Without taxing 
 Manetho with conscious dishonesty, we may 
 suspect that he was not unwilling to exalt 
 the antiquity of his country, if he could do 
 so without falsifying his authorities ; and 
 from the confusion of the middle or Hyksos 
 
60 Pe Cf UREA. 
 
 period of Egyptian history, and the obscurity 
 of the earlier times, when there were as yet 
 no monuments, he would have had abundant 
 opportunity for chronological exaggeration 
 by merely regarding as consecutive dynasties 
 all those, which were not certainly known to 
 have been contemporary. The real duration of 
 the Egyptian monarchy depends entirely upon 
 the proper arrangement of the dynasties into 
 synchronous and consecutive—a point upon 
 which the best Egyptologers are still far from 
 agreed. Some of the greatest names in this 
 branch of antiquarian learning are in favour 
 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 600 years after the Septuagint 
 date for the Deluge (60). 
 
 The removal of this difficulty opens the 
 way to a consideration of the positive points 
 of agreement between the Scriptural narra- 
 tive and that of the profane authorities. And 
 here, for the earliest times, it is especially 
 Babylon which furnishes an account capable 
 of being compared with that of Moses. Ac- 
 cording 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 
 
LECTURE II. 61 
 
 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, pe- 
 rished. Belus upon this, seeing that the 
 earth was desolate yet teeming with produc- 
 tive power, cut off his own head, and min- 
 gling the blood which flowed forth with the 
 dust of the ground, formed men, who were 
 thus intelligent, as being partakers of the di- 
 vine 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 
 planets. The first man was Alorus, a Chal- 
 deean, who reigned over mankind for 36,000 
 years, and begat a son, Alaparus, who reigned 
 10,800 years. Then followed in succession 
 eight others, whose reigns were of equal or 
 greater length, ending with Xisuthrus, under 
 whom the great Deluge took place (61). The 
 leading facts of this cosmogony and ante- 
 diluvian history are manifestly, and indeed 
 confessedly (62), in close agreement with the 
 Hebrew records. We have in it the earth at 
 first “ without form and void,” and “darkness 
 upon the face of the deep’.” We have the 
 
 © Gen. 1. 2. 
 
62 LECTURE II. 
 
 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, some- 
 what 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’.” Further, 
 between the first man and the Deluge are in 
 the scheme of Berosus ten generations, which 
 is the exact number between Adam and 
 Noah; and though the duration of human 
 life is in his account enormously exaggerated, 
 we may see even in this exaggeration a 
 glimpse of the truth, that the lives of the 
 Patriarchs were extended far beyond the 
 term which has been the limit in later ages. 
 This truth seems to have been known to 
 many of the ancients (63), and traces of it 
 have even been found among the modern 
 Burmans and Chinese (64). 
 
 The account which Berosus gives of the 
 Deluge is still more strikingly in accordance 
 with the narrative of Scripture. “ 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 
 
 P Gen. ii. 7. 
 
LECTURE II. 63 
 
 in the city of Sippara (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 which he was 
 himself to embark with his wife and chil- 
 dren, and his close friends. Xisuthrus did 
 accordingly, and the flood came at the time 
 appointed. The ark drifted towards Armenia ; 
 and Xisuthrus, on the third day after the 
 rain abated, sent out from the ark a bird, 
 which, after flying for a while over the ill- 
 mitable sea of waters, and finding neither 
 food nor a spot on which it could settle, re- 
 turned to him. Some days later, Xisuthrus 
 sent out other birds, which likewise returned, 
 but with feet covered with mud. Sent out 
 a third time, the birds returned no more; 
 and Xisuthrus knew that the earth had re- 
 appeared. So he removed some of the co- 
 vering 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 daughter, 
 and his pilot, and built an altar, and offered 
 sacrifice ; after which he suddenly disap- 
 peared from sight, together with those who 
 
64. LECEUR Ell: 
 
 had accompanied him. They who had re- 
 mained in the ark, surprised that he did not 
 return, sought him; when they heard his 
 voice in the sky, exhorting them to continue 
 religious, and bidding them go back to Ba- 
 bylonia from the land of Armenia, where 
 they were, and recover the buried docu- 
 ments, and make them once more known 
 among men. So they obeyed, and went back 
 to the land of Babylon, and built many cities 
 and temples, and raised up Babylon from its 
 ruins” (65). 
 
 Such is the account of Berosus; and a de- 
 scription substantially the same is given by 
 Abydenus (66), an ancient writer of whom 
 less is known, but whose fragments are ge- 
 nerally of great value and importance. It 
 is plain that we have here a tradition not 
 drawn from the Hebrew record, much less 
 the foundation of that record (67); yet co- 
 inciding with it in the most remarkable way. 
 The Babylonian version is tricked out with a 
 few extravagances, as the monstrous size of 
 the vessel, and the translation of Xisuthrus ; 
 but otherwise it is the Hebrew history down 
 to its minutie. ‘The previous warning, the 
 divine direction as to the ark and its dimen- 
 sions, the introduction into it of birds and 
 beasts, the threefold sending out of the bird, 
 
LECTURE IL. 65 
 
 the place of the ark’s resting, the egress by 
 removal of the covering, the altar straightway 
 built, and the sacrifice offered, constitute an 
 array of exact coincidences which cannot pos- 
 sibly be the result of chance, and of which I 
 see no plausible account that can be given 
 except that it is the harmony of truth. Nor 
 are these minute coincidences counterba- 
 lanced 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 a// pious men, 
 were saved; and also by making the Flood 
 not universal, but only partial, and confined 
 to Babylonia (66).” | Berosus does indeed 
 give Xisuthrus, as companions in the ark, 
 not only his wife and children, but a certain 
 number of “close friends;” and thus far he 
 differs from Scripture; but these friends are 
 not represented as numerous, much less as 
 “all pious men.” And so far is he from 
 making the Flood partial, or confining it to 
 Babylonia, that his narrative distinctly im- 
 plies the contrary. The warning given to 
 Xisuthrus is that “mankind” (rovs avOparovs) 
 is about to be destroyed. The ark drifts to 
 Armenia, and when it is there, the birds are 
 RAWLINSON. F 
 
66 LECTURE “1. 
 
 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 leav- 
 ing 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 Chaldean writer 
 gave of the events following the Deluge is 
 reported with some disagreement by the dif- 
 ferent 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 Abra- 
 ham, which (according to the Jewish histo- 
 rian) he correctly estimated at ten (67). But 
 other writers introduce in this place, as com- 
 
 
 
 ing from Berosus, a series of 86 kings, the 
 first and second of whom reign for above 
 2000 years, while the remainder reign upon 
 an average 345 years each. We have here 
 perhaps a trace of that gradual shortening 
 of human life, which the genealogy of Abra- 
 ham exhibits to us so clearly in Scripture; 
 but the numbers appear to be artificial (68), 
 
LECTURE II. 67 
 
 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 confusion of 
 tongues—* At this time the ancient race of 
 men were so puffed up with their strength 
 and tallness of stature, that they began to de- 
 spise and contemn the gods; and laboured 
 to erect that very lofty tower, which is now 
 called Babylon, intending thereby to scale 
 heaven. But when the building approached 
 the sky, behold, the gods called in the aid 
 of the winds, and by their help overturned 
 the tower, and cast it to the ground. The 
 name of the ruins is still called Babel: 
 ~ because until this time all men had used 
 the same speech, but now there was sent 
 upon them a confusion of many and diverse 
 tongues (69).” 
 
 At the point which we have now reached, 
 the sacred narrative ceases to be general, and 
 becomes special or particular. It leaves the 
 history of the world, and concentrates itself 
 on an individual and his descendants. At 
 
 F 2 
 
68 LECTURE II. 
 
 the moment of transition, however, it throws 
 out, in a chapter of wonderful grasp and still 
 more wonderful accuracy, a sketch of the 
 nations of the earth, their ethnic affinities, 
 and to some extent their geographical posi- 
 tion and boundaries. The Toldoth Beni Noah 
 has extorted the admiration of modern eth- 
 nologists, who continually find in it antici- 
 pations of their greatest discoveries. For 
 instance, in the very second verse the great 
 discovery of Schlegel (70), which the word 
 Indo-European embodies—the affinity of the 
 principal nations of Europe with the Arian 
 or Indo-Persic stock —is sufficiently indi- 
 cated by the conjunction of the Madai or 
 Medes (whose native name was Mada) with 
 Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or the Io- 
 nians. Again, one of the most recent and 
 unexpected results of modern linguistic in- 
 quiry is the proof which it has furnished of 
 an ethnic connexion between the Ethiopians 
 or Cushites, who adjoined on Egypt, and the 
 primitive inhabitants of Babylonia; a con- 
 nexion which (as we saw in the last Lec- 
 ture) was positively denied by an eminent 
 ethnologist only a few years ago, but which 
 has now been sufficiently established from 
 the cuneiform monuments (71). In the tenth 
 of Genesis we find this truth thus briefly 
 
LECTURE II. 69 
 
 but clearly stated—* And Cush begat Nim- 
 rod,” the “beginning of whose kingdom was 
 Babel*.” So we have had it recently made 
 evident from the same monuments, that “out 
 of that land went forth Asshur, and builded 
 Nineveh'’’—or that the Semitic Assyrians 
 proceeded from Babylonia and founded Ni- 
 neveh long after the Cushite foundation of 
 Babylon (72). Again, the Hamitic descent 
 of the early inhabitants of Canaan, which 
 had often been called in question, has re- 
 cently come to be looked upon as almost 
 certain, apart from the evidence of Scrip- 
 ture (73); 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 two races 
 of Arabs—one (the Joktanian) Semitic, the 
 other (the Himyaric) Cushite or Ethiopic (74). 
 On the whole, the scheme of ethnic affilia- 
 tion given in the tenth chapter of Genesis 
 is pronounced “ safer” to follow than any 
 other; and the Toldoth Beni Noah com- 
 mends itself to the ethnic enquirer as “the 
 most authentic record that we possess for 
 the affiliation of nations,” and as a document 
 “ of the very highest antiquity (75).” 
 
 q Gen. x. 8 and Io. r [bid. verse 11. 
 S Ibid. verses 7 and 28. 
 
70 LECTURE II. 
 
 The confirmation which profane history 
 lends to the Book of Genesis from the point 
 where the narrative passes from the general 
 to the special character, is (as might be ex- 
 pected) 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 Baby- 
 lonian or the Egyptian chroniclers. We 
 possess indeed severai very interesting no- 
 tices of this Patriarch and his successors 
 from heathen pens (76); but they are of far 
 inferior moment to the authorities hitherto 
 cited, since they do not indicate a separate 
 and distinct line of information, but are in 
 all probability derived from the Hebrew re- 
 cords. I refer particularly to the passages 
 which Eusebius produces in his Gospel Pre- 
 paration from Kupolemus, Artapanus, Molo, 
 Philo, and Cleodemus or Malchas, with re- 
 gard to Abraham, and from Demetrius, Theo- 
 dotus, Artapanus, and Philo, with respect to 
 Isaac and Jacob. ‘These testimonies are pro- 
 bably well known to many of my hearers, 
 since they have been adduced very generally 
 by our writers (77). They bear unmistak- 
 ably the stamp of a Jewish origin; and shew 
 the view which the more enlightened hea- 
 then took of the historical character of the 
 
LECTURE II. (a 
 
 Hebrew records when they first became ac- 
 quainted with them; but they cannot boast, 
 like notices in Berosus and Manetho, a dis- 
 tinct origin, and thus a separate and inde- 
 pendent authority. I shall therefore content 
 myself with this brief mention of them here, 
 which is all that time will allow; and _ pro- 
 ceed to adduce a few direct testimonies to 
 the later narrative, furnished either by the 
 native writers, or by the results of modern 
 researches. 
 
 There are three points only in this portion 
 _ of the narrative which, being of the nature of 
 public and important events, might be ex- 
 pected to obtain notice in the Babylonian 
 or Egyptian records—the expedition of Che- 
 dor-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 Bero- 
 sus and Manetho, it might fairly be de- 
 manded of us that we should adduce evi- 
 dence from them of all the three. With the 
 scanty and fragmentary remains which are 
 what we actually possess, it would not be 
 surprising if we found ourselves without a 
 trace of any. In fact, however, we are 
 able to produce from our scanty stock a 
 
72 LECTURE Il: 
 
 decisive confirmation of two events out of 
 the three. 
 
 The monumental records of Babylonia 
 bear marks of an interruption in the line of 
 native kings, about the date which from 
 Scripture we should assign to Chedor-lao- 
 mer, and “ point to Elymais (or Elam) as 
 the country from which the interruption 
 came (78).” We have mention of a king, 
 whose name is on good grounds identified 
 with Chedor-laomer (79), as paramount in 
 Babylonia at this time—a king apparently 
 of Elamitic origin—and this monarch bears 
 in the inscriptions the unusual and signifi- 
 cant title of Apda Martu, 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 (80), which is in accordance with 
 the break indicated by the monuments. We 
 thus obtain a double witness to the remark- 
 able fact of an interruption of pure Baby- 
 lonian 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 expe- 
 dition was organised, which proceeded to the 
 distant and then almost unknown west, and 
 
LECTURE IL. 73 
 
 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 
 representation of it in their annals. And 
 accordingly, our fragments of Manetho pre- 
 sent us with a distinct but very distorted 
 notice of the occurrence. The Hebrews are 
 represented as leprous and impious Egypt- 
 ians, who under the conduct of a priest of 
 Heliopolis, named Moses, rebelled on ac- 
 count of oppression, occupied a town called 
 Avaris, or Abaris, and having called in the 
 aid of the people of Jerusalem, made them- 
 selves masters of Hgypt, which they held for 
 thirteen years; but who were at last de- 
 feated by the Egyptian king, and driven 
 from Egypt into Syria(81). We have here 
 the oppression, the name Moses, the national 
 name, Hebrew, under the disguise of Abaris, 
 and the true direction of the retreat; but 
 we have all the special circumstances of the 
 occasion concealed under a general confes- 
 sion of disaster; and we have a claim to 
 final triumph which consoled the wounded 
 vanity of the nation, but which we know to 
 
74 LECPURE 11: 
 
 have been unfounded. On the whole we 
 have perhaps as much as we could reasonably 
 expect the annals of the Egyptians 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 (82). 
 
 I have thus briefly considered some of the 
 principal of those direct testimonies which 
 can be adduced from ancient profane sources, 
 in confirmation of the historic truth of the 
 Pentateuch. There are various other argu- 
 ments—some purely, some partly historic— 
 into which want of space forbids my enter- 
 ing in the present Course. For instance, 
 there is what may be called the historico- 
 scientific argument, derivable from the agree- 
 ment of the sacred narrative with the con- 
 clusions reached by those sciences which 
 have a partially historical character. Geo- 
 logy—whatever may be thought of its true 
 bearing upon other points—at least witnesses 
 to the recent creation of man, of whom there 
 is no trace in any but the latest strata (83). 
 Physiology decides in favour of the unity of 
 the species, and the probable derivation of 
 the whole human race from a single pair (84). 
 Comparative Philology, after divers fluctua- 
 tions, settles into the belief that languages 
 
~LECTURE ILI. 75 
 
 will ultimately prove to have been all de- 
 rived from a common basis (85). Ethnology 
 pronounces that, independently of the Scrip- 
 tural record, we should be led to fix on the 
 plains of Shinar as a common centre, or focus, 
 from which the various lines of migration and 
 the several types of races originally radiated 
 (86). Again, there is an argument perhaps 
 more convincing than any other, but of im- 
 mense compass, deducible from the indirect 
 and incidental points of agreement between 
 the Mosaic records and the best profane 
 authorities. The limits within which I am 
 confined compel me to decline this portion 
 of the enquiry. Otherwise it might be shewn 
 that the linguistic, geographic, and ethologic 
 notices contained in the books of Moses are 
 of the most veracious character (87), stamp- 
 ing the whole narration with an unmistak- 
 able air of authenticity. And this, it may 
 be remarked, is an argument to which mo- 
 dern research is perpetually adding fresh 
 weight. For instance, if we look to the geo- 
 graphy, we shall find that till within these 
 few years, “ Krech, and Accad, and Calneh, 
 in the land of Shinart’”—Calah and Resen, 
 in the country peopled by Asshur"—Ellasar, 
 and “ Ur of the Chaldees‘,” were mere names; 
 
 “Getx. 10. Eb. verses'irand 12. ° fb. xi. 31; Xiv. 1. 
 
76 LECTURE IL. 
 
 and beyond the mention of them in Genesis, 
 scarcely a trace was discoverable of their ex- 
 istence (88). 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 ex- 
 actly where each of these cities stood (89), 
 and sufficiently indicate their importance. 
 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 Tracho- 
 nitis indicates its barrenness, seemed to many 
 improbable—but modern research has found 
 in this very country a vast number of walled 
 cities still standing, which shew the habits 
 of the ancient people, and prove that the 
 population must at one time have been con- 
 siderable (90). So the careful examination 
 that has been made of the valley of the Jor- 
 dan, which has resulted in a proof that it 
 is a unique phenomenon, utterly unlike any 
 thing elsewhere on the whole face of the 
 earth (91), tends greatly to confirm the Mo- 
 saic account, that it became what it now is 
 by a great convulsion ; and by pious persons 
 will, I think, be felt as confirming the mira- 
 
 Ww. Deut. 1i,.5; 
 
LECTURE IL. 77 
 
 culous character of that convulsion. Above 
 all, perhaps, the absence of any counter-evi- 
 dence—the fact that each accession to our 
 knowledge of the ancient times, whether 
 historic, or geographic, or ethnic, helps to 
 remove difficulties, and to produce a per- 
 petual 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 argu- 
 ment for the historic truth of the narrative, 
 the force of which can scarcely be over-esti- 
 mated. All tends to shew that we possess 
 in the Pentateuch, not only the most au- 
 thentic account of ancient times that has 
 come down to us, but a history absolutely 
 and in every respect true. All tends to as- 
 sure us that in this marvellous volume we 
 have no old wives’ tales, no “cunningly de- 
 vised fable*;’ but a “treasure of wisdom and 
 knowledge”’”—as important to the historical 
 enquirer 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 interpola- 
 tions—glosses which have crept in from the 
 margin; but upon the whole it must be pro- 
 nounced that we have in the Pentateuch a 
 
 x 2 Pet. i. 16. ¥ Cok: ik. 35 
 
78 LECTURE II. 
 
 genuine and authentic work, and one which 
 —even were it not inspired—would be, for 
 the times and countries whereof it treats, the 
 leading and paramount authority. It is (let 
 us be assured) “Moses,” who is still “read in 
 the synagogues every sabbath day’;” and 
 they who “resist” him, by impugning his 
 veracity, like Jannes and Jambres of old, 
 
 “resist the truth®. 
 
 z Acts xv. 21. a 2 Tim. ii. 8. 
 
LECTURE IIL. 
 
 ACTS XIII. 19-21. 
 
 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 
 Jifty years, until Samuel the prophet. And 
 afterward they desired a king. 
 
 THE period of Jewish history, which has to 
 be considered in the present Lecture, con- 
 tains within it the extremes of obscurity and 
 splendour, 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 alto- 
 gether to be a people, when they were sud- 
 denly lifted up by the hand of God, and 
 carried rapidly to the highest pitch of great- 
 “ness whereto they ever attained. From the 
 
80 LECTURE III. 
 
 time when the Hebrews “ hid themselves in 
 holes*,” for fear of the Philistines, and were 
 without spears, or swords, or armourers, be- 
 cause the Philistines had said, “ Lest the He- 
 brews make themselves swords or spears’,” 
 to the full completion of the kingdom of 
 David by his victories over the Philistines, 
 the Moabities, the Syrians, the Ammonites, 
 and the Amalekites, together with the sub- 
 mission of the [dumeeans’, was a space little, 
 -if at all, exceeding half a century. ‘Thus 
 were brought within the lifetime of a man 
 the highest glory and the deepest shame, 
 oppression and dominion, terror and triumph, 
 the peril of extinction and the establishment 
 of a mighty empire. The very men who 
 “hid themselves in caves and in thickets, in 
 rocks, and in high places, and in pits*,’ or 
 who fled across the Jordan to the land of Gad 
 and Gilead’, 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 
 
 a y Sam. xiv. 11. b Ibid. xiii. 19-22. ¢ 2 Sam. viii. 
 ad ¢ Sam. xiii. 6. e Ibid. verse 7. f 2 Sam. vill. 14. 
 & Ibid. verse 3. 
 
LECTURE IIL. 81 
 
 authors of which are unknown, or at best 
 uncertain. It is thought by some that Jo- 
 shua wrote the book which bears his name, 
 except the closing verses of the last chap- 
 ter (1); and by others (2), that Samuel com- 
 posed 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 authorship of the 
 Pentateuch, nor is there the same weight of 
 internal testimony. On the whole, the in- 
 ternal testimony seems to be against the 
 ascription of the Book of Joshua to the 
 Jewish leader (4); and both it, Judges, and 
 Ruth, as well as Kings and Chronicles, are 
 best referred to the class of BiBAa adéo7rora, 
 or books the authors of which are unknown 
 to us. The importance of a history, however, 
 though it may be enhanced by our knowledge 
 of the author, does not necessarily depend 
 on such knowledge. The Turin Papyrus, the 
 Parian Marble, the Saxon Chronicle, are do- 
 cuments of the very highest historic value, 
 though we know nothing of the persons who 
 composed them; because there is reason to 
 believe that they were composed from good 
 sources. And so it is with these portions of 
 the Sacred Volume. There is abundant evi- 
 RAWLINSON. = 
 
82 LECTURE IIL 
 
 dence, both internal and external, of their 
 authenticity and historic value, notwith- 
 standing that their actual composers are un- 
 known or uncertain. ‘They have really the 
 . force of State Papers, being authoritative 
 public documents, preserved among the na- 
 tional archives of the Jews so long as they 
 were a nation; and ever since cherished by 
 the scattered fragments of the race as among 
 the most precious of their early records. As 
 we do not commonly ask who was the author 
 of a State Paper, but accept it without any 
 such formality, so we are bound to act to- 
 wards these writings. They are written near 
 the time, sometimes by eyewitnesses, some- 
 times by those who have before them the 
 reports of eyewitnesses ; and their reception 
 among the sacred records of the Jews stamps 
 them with an authentic character. 
 
 As similar attempts have been made to in- 
 validate 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 character of the 
 Books from the evidence which they them- 
 selves offer, I shall then proceed to adduce 
 
LECTURE III. 83 
 
 such confirmation of their truth as can be 
 obtained from other, and especially from pro- 
 fane, sources. 
 
 The Book of Joshua is clearly the produc- . 
 tion of an eyewitness. 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 Jephunneh’. 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 there- 
 fore as credible a witness for the events of 
 the settlement in Palestine, as Moses for 
 those of the Exodus and the passage through 
 the wilderness. Further, he undoubtedly pos- 
 sesses documents of authority, from one of 
 which (the Book of Jasher) he quotes'; and 
 it is a reasonable supposition that his work is 
 to a great extent composed from such docu- 
 ments, to which there are several references”, 
 besides the actual quotation (5). 
 
 _ The Book of Judges, according to the tra- 
 dition of the Jews, was written by Samuel (6). 
 There is nothing in the work itself that very 
 
 h Josh. v. 1. i Ibid. vi. 25. j Ibid. xiv. 14. 
 k Ibid. xxiv. 31. Ef bids x83 
 m Ibid. xviii. g; xxiv. 26. 
 
 ree 
 
84 LECTURE IIL. 
 
 distinctly marks the date of its composition. 
 From its contents we can only say that it 
 must have been composed about Samuel’s 
 time; that is, after the death of Samson, and 
 before the capture of Jerusalem by David(7). 
 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 con- 
 temporary 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 during a space generally 
 estimated as about equal to that which in- 
 tervened between the call of Abraham and 
 the birth of Moses (8). Had these traditions 
 been handed down entirely by oral communi- 
 cation, 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 days of Moses 
 and Joshua, were continued by their succes- 
 sors, and that these formed the materials from 
 which the Book of Judges was composed by 
 its author. Of such records we have a speci- 
 men in the Song of Deborah and Barak, an 
 historical poem embodying the chief facts of 
 
LECTURE IIL. 85 
 
 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 pro- 
 bable that chronicles were kept even at this 
 early date, like those to which the writers 
 of the later historical books refer so con- 
 stantly °. 
 
 The two Books of Samuel are thought by 
 some to form, together with the two Books 
 of Kings, a single work, and are referred to 
 the time of the Babylonish captivity (9); but 
 this view is contrary both to the internal and 
 to the external evidence. The tradition of 
 the Jews is, that the work was commenced 
 by Samuel, continued by Gad, David’s seer, 
 and concluded by Nathan the prophet (10); 
 and this is—to say the least—a very pro- 
 bable supposition. We know from a state- 
 ment 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, were still extant in the 
 
 n piKings xi. 41; xiv. 19 and 29; XV. 7; XVi. 5, 14, 20, 27, 
 &e,; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24; 2 Chron. xii.15; xiii. 22; xx. 34, &c. 
 © y Chron. xxix. 29. 
 
86 LECTURE III. 
 
 Chronicler’s time. If then the Books of 
 Samuel had been a compilation made during 
 the Captivity, or earlier, it would have been 
 founded on these books, which could not but 
 have been of primary authority; im which 
 case the compiler could scarcely have failed 
 to quote them, either by name, as the Chro- 
 nicler does in the place which has been 
 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 contrast most strongly 
 with both Chronicles and Kings, where the 
 authors at every turn make reference to the 
 sources from which they derive their in- 
 formation. These books therefore are most 
 reasonably to be regarded as a primary and 
 original work—the work used and quoted 
 by the Chronicler for the reign of David— 
 and a specimen of those other works from 
 which the authors of Kings and Chronicles 
 confessedly compiled their histories. We 
 have thus in all probability, for the times of 
 Samuel, Saul and David, the direct witness 
 of Samuel himself, and of the two prophets 
 
 Pp x Chron. xxvii. 24. 
 
LECTURE III. 87 
 
 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 Chro- 
 nicles 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 Ne- 
 bat".” These last were certainly the works 
 of contemporaries (11); and the same may 
 be presumed of the other; since the later 
 compiler is not likely to have possessed 
 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 contem- 
 porary writers—but substantially as they de- 
 livered it. And the writers were persons who 
 held the same high 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 
 
 4 1 Kings xi. 41. r 2 Chron. ix. 29. 
 
88 LECTURE III. 
 
 of David wholly from Samuel, but adds va- 
 rious particulars, which shew that he had 
 further sources of information (12). And his 
 account of Solomon appears not to have been 
 drawn from Kings at all, but to have been 
 taken quite independently from the original 
 documents. 
 
 Further, it is to be noted that we have in 
 the Book of Psalms, at once a running com- 
 ment, illustrative of David’s personal history, 
 the close agreement of which with the his- 
 torical 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 be- 
 longs 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 establishment of the ark in 
 mount Zion by David, and refers to not 
 fewer than fifty or sixty of the occurrences 
 which are described at length in the histo- 
 rical writings (13). It is certain, 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 
 
LECTURE IIL. 89 
 
 to us in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deu- 
 teronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. 
 
 We have now further to consider what 
 amount of confirmation profane history lends 
 to the truth of the sacred narrative dur- 
 ing the period extending from the death of 
 Moses to the accession of Rehoboam. ‘This 
 period, it has been observed above, comprises 
 within it the two most opposite conditions 
 of the Jewish race: during its earlier portion 
 the Israelites were a small and insignificant 
 people, with difficulty maintaining them- 
 selves in the hill-country of Palestine against 
 the attacks of various tribes, none of whom 
 have made any great figure in history: while 
 towards its close a Jewish Empire was formed 
 —an Empire perhaps as great as any which 
 up to that time had been known in the 
 Eastern world, and which, if not so extensive 
 as some that shortly afterwards grew up in 
 Western Asia, at any rate marks very dis- 
 tinctly the period when the power and pro- 
 sperity of the Jews reached its acemé. 
 
 It was not to be expected that profane 
 writers would notice equally both of these 
 periods. During the obscure time of the 
 Judges, the Jews could be little known be- 
 yond their borders; and even had Assyria 
 and Egypt been at this time flourishing and 
 
90 LECTURE III. 
 
 ageressive 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 men- 
 tion, since they occupied only a small part 
 of the country, and that part the least ac- 
 cessible of the whole (14). It appears, how- 
 ever, that in fact both Assyria and Egypt 
 were weak during this period. The expe- 
 ditions of the former were still confined 
 within the Euphrates, or, if they crossed it 
 on rare occasions, at any rate went no fur- 
 ther than Cappadocia and Upper Syria, or 
 the country about Aleppo and Antioch (15). 
 And Egypt from the time of Ramesses the 
 third, which was not long after the Exo- 
 dus, to that of Shishak, the contemporary of 
 Solomon, seems to have sent no expeditions 
 at all beyond its own frontier (16). Thus 
 the annals of the two countries are neces- 
 sarily silent concerning the Jews during the 
 period in question; and no agreement be- 
 tween them and the Jewish records is pos- 
 sible, 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 
 
LECTURE III. oir 
 
 does not appear in Scripture as an influential 
 power in Lower Syria and Palestine till a 
 time considerably later than the separation 
 of the kingdoms; while similarly the Assyrian 
 monuments are without any mention of ex- 
 peditions into these parts during the earlier 
 period of the empire. Further, it may be 
 remarked that from the mention of Chushan- 
 Rishathaim, king of Aram-Naharaim, (or the 
 country about Harran,) as a powerful prince 
 soon after the death of Joshua, it would fol- 
 low that Assyria had not at that time ex- 
 tended her dominion even to the Euphrates; 
 a conclusion which the cuneiform records of 
 perhaps two centuries later entirely con- 
 firm (17), since they shew that even then the 
 Assyrians had not conquered the whole coun- 
 try east of the river. 
 
 Besides the points of agreement here no- 
 ticed, which, though negative, are (I think) 
 of no slight weight, we possess one testimony 
 belonging to this period of a direct and _ posi- 
 tive character, which is among the most curi- 
 ous of the illustrations, that profane sources 
 furnish, of the veracity of Scripture. Moses of 
 Choréne, the Armenian historian (18), Proco- 
 plus, the secretary of Belisarius (19), and Sui- 
 das the Lexicographer (20), relate, that there 
 existed in their day at Tingis, (or ‘Tangiers,) 
 in Africa, an ancient inscription to the effect 
 
92 LECTURE III. 
 
 that the inhabitants were the descendants 
 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 anything but a Rab- 
 binical legend, which Procopius may have 
 heard from African Jews (21).” But the in- 
 dependent testimony of the three writers, who 
 do not seem to have copied from one another, 
 is an argument of great weight; and the ex- 
 pressions 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 foun- 
 tain in the city of Tigisis, bearing an inscrip- 
 tion in Phoenician characters and in the 
 Phoenician language, which runs as follows.” 
 I cannot see that there would be any suffi- 
 cient reason for doubting the truth of this 
 very clear and exact statement, even if it 
 stood alone, and were unconfirmed by any 
 other writer. ‘Two writers, however, confirm 
 it—one of an earlier and the other of a later 
 date ; and the three testimonies are proved, 
 by their slight variations, to be independent 
 of one another. There is then sufficient reason 
 to believe that a Phoenician inscription to the 
 effect stated existed at Tangiers in the time of 
 the Lower Empire; and the true question for 
 
LECTURE III. 93 
 
 historical criticism to consider and determine 
 is, what is the weight and value of such an 
 inscription (22). 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 character in which it was writ- 
 ten (23). It would appear to have been a 
 genuine Phoenician monument, of an anti- 
 quity which cannot now be decided, but 
 which was probably remote; and it must be 
 regarded as embodying an ancient tradition, 
 current in this part of Africa in times ante- 
 rior 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 find a confirma- 
 tion in the pages of a profane writer. “The 
 Egyptians,” says Herodotus(24), “ declare that 
 since Egypt was a kingdom, the sun has on 
 four several occasions moved from his wonted 
 course, twice rising where he now sets, and 
 twice setting where he now rises.” It has 
 been supposed (25) that we have here a no- 
 tice 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 
 
 S Josh. x, 13. 
 
94 LECTWU RE TIL. 
 
 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 
 occasions, however we understand the nar- 
 ratives in Joshua and Kings; and the fact 
 which they intended to convey to him was 
 probably one connected rather with their 
 peculiar system of astronomical cycles than 
 with any sudden and viclent changes in the 
 celestial order. If the narrative in Joshua 
 is to be understood astronomically, of an ac- 
 tual cessation or retardation of the earth’s 
 motion (26), we must admit that profane his- 
 tory fails to present us with any mention of 
 an occurrence, which it might have been ex- 
 pected to notice with distinctness. But at 
 the same time we must remember how scanty 
 are the remains which we possess of this early 
 time, and how strictly they are limited to the 
 recording of political events and dynastic 
 changes. The astronomical records of the 
 Babylonians have perished ; and the lists of 
 Manetho contain but few references to na- 
 tural phenomena, which are never introduced 
 except when they have a political bearing. 
 No valid objection therefore can be brought 
 against the literal truth of the narrative in 
 
 t Is. xxxvi. 8. 
 
LECTURE III. 95 
 
 Joshua from the present want of any profane 
 confirmation of it. Where the records of the 
 past are so few and so slight, the argument 
 from mere silence has neither force nor place. 
 
 The flourishing period of Jewish history, 
 which commences 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 in- 
 flicted on the Syrians of Damascus, in the vi- 
 cinity of the Euphrates, when they came to 
 the assistance of Hadadezer king of Zobah— 
 a defeat which cost them more than 20,000 
 men, and which was followed by the tempo- 
 rary subjection of Damascus to the Israelites; 
 since “ David put garrisons in Syria of Da- 
 mascus, and the Syrians became servants to 
 David, and brought gifts".’ This war is men- 
 tioned not only by Eupolemus (27), who ap- 
 pears to have been well acquainted with the 
 Jewish Scriptures, but also by Nicolas of Da- 
 mascus, the friend of Augustus Cesar, who 
 clearly draws his history 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 Damas- 
 
 u 2 Sam. viii. 6. Comp. 1 Chr. xvii. 6. 
 
96 LECTURE IIL. 
 
 cus, and all Syria, except Phoenicia. He like- 
 wise undertook a war with David, the king 
 of Judza, and contended against him in a 
 number of battles; in the last of them all— 
 which was by the river Euphrates, and in 
 which he suffered defeat—shewing himself a 
 prince of the greatest courage and prowess” 
 (28). 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 con- 
 tained in the Jewish account, yet compatible 
 with all that is so contained, and strictly cor- 
 roborative of the main circumstances of the 
 Hebrew narrative. 
 
 The other wars of the son of Jesse were 
 with enemies of inferior power and import- 
 ance, as the Philistines, the Moabites, the 
 Ammonites, the Idumeans, and the Ama- 
 lekites. Eupolemus mentions most of these 
 successes (29); but otherwise we have no re- 
 cognition of them by profane writers, which 
 cannot be considered surprising, since there 
 are no ancient histories extant wherein these 
 nations are mentioned otherwise than inci- 
 dentally. We have, however, one further point 
 of contact between sacred and profane his- 
 
LECTURE IIL. 97 
 
 tory at this period which is of considerable 
 interest and importance, and which requires 
 separate consideration. I speak of the con- 
 nexion, seen now for the first time, between 
 Judea and Pheenicia, which, separated by 
 natural obstacles (30), and hitherto perhaps 
 to some extent by intervening tribes, only 
 began to hold relations with each other 
 when the conquests of David brought Judea 
 into a new position among the powers of 
 these regions. It was necessary for the com- 
 merce 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 Ha- 
 math and Tadmor, to the Euphrates (31). 
 Accordingly we find that upon the “ esta- 
 blishment” and “ exaltation” of David’s king- 
 dom’, overtures were at once made to him 
 by the chief Phoenician power of the day ; 
 and his goodwill 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’. Now here it 
 
 Veousam. Vv. D1, 12: wr Chir: Xi; ae x 1 Kings v. I. 
 y Ibid. verse 12. 
 
 RAWLINSON. H 
 
98 LECTURE III. 
 
 is most interesting to see whether the He- 
 brew writer has correctly represented the 
 condition of Phoenicia at the time; whether 
 the name which he has assigned to his Phee- 
 nician prince is one that Phoenicians bore or 
 the contrary; and finally, whether there is 
 any trace of the reign of this particular 
 prince at this time. 
 
 With regard to the first point, it is to be 
 observed, that the condition of Phoenicia va- 
 ried at different periods. While we seem to 
 trace throughout the whole history a con- 
 stant recognition of some one city as predo- 
 minant among the various towns, if not as 
 sovereign over them, we do not always find 
 the same city occupying this position. In 
 the most ancient times it is Sidon which 
 claims and exercises this precedency and pre- 
 eminence (32) ; in the later times the dignity 
 has passed to Tyre, which is thenceforward 
 recognised as the leading power. Homer 
 implies (33), Strabo (34) and Justin (35) dis- 
 tinctly assert the ancient superiority of Sidon, 
 which was said to have been the primitive 
 settlement, whence the remainder were de- 
 rived. On the other hand, Dius (36) and 
 Menander (37), who drew their Phoenician 
 histories from the native records, clearly 
 show that at a time anterior to David, Tyre 
 
LECTURE III. 99 
 
 had become the leading state, which she con- 
 tinued to be until the time of Alexander (38). 
 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 (39), and certainly 
 reaches inland as far as Laish’—in Samuel 
 and Kings the case is changed ; Sidon has no 
 longer a distinctive epithet®; and it is the 
 “king of Tyre” who on behalf of his coun- 
 trymen 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 men- 
 tioned by name in Scripture— we are at once 
 struck with its authentic character. That 
 Hiram was really a Phoenician name, and 
 one which kings were in the habit of bear- 
 ing, is certain from the Assyrian Inscrip- 
 tions (40) and from Herodotus (41), as well 
 as from the Phoenician historians, Dius and 
 
 eeGen. x. 15; xlix. 13: a Josh. xi. 8; xix. 28. 
 b Judges, xviii. 7. and 28. c¢ 2 Sam. xxiv. 6. 
 
 He? 
 
100 LECTURE II. 
 
 Menander. And these last-named writers 
 not only confirm the name as one which a 
 king of Tyre might have borne, but shew 
 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 connexion between 
 Hiram and Solomon; adding facts, which, 
 though not contained in Scripture, are re- 
 markably in accordance with the sacred nar- 
 rative. For instance, both Menander and 
 Dius related that “ hard questions” were sent 
 by Solomon to Hiram to be resolved by him 
 (42); while Dius added, that Hiram proposed 
 similar puzzles to Solomon in return, which 
 that monarch with all his wisdom was unable 
 to answer (43). We may see in this narrative, 
 not only a resemblance to the famous visit of 
 the “ Queen of the South*’,” who, “ when she 
 heard of the fame of Solomon, came to prove 
 him with hard questions*;” but also an illus- 
 tration of the statement that “all the earth 
 sought to Solomon to hear his wisdom, which 
 
 d Matt. xii. 42. e 1 Kings x. 1. 
 
CECTUR Ei Tlk 101 
 
 God had put in his heart'” Again, Menan- 
 der stated that Hiram gave his daughter in 
 marriage to Solomon (44). This fact is not 
 recorded in Scripture; but still it is illustra- 
 tive of the statement that “ King Solomon 
 loved many strange women, together with 
 the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Mo- 
 abites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zzidonians, and 
 Petites. 7. 65. *. And he had seven hundred 
 wives, princesses®.” One of these we may well 
 conceive to have been the daughter of the 
 Tyrian king. 
 
 The relations of Solomon with Egypt have 
 received at present but little illustration 
 from native Egyptian sources. Our epitome 
 of Manetho gives us nothing but a bare list 
 of names at the period to which Solomon 
 must belong; and the Egyptian monuments 
 for the time are particularly scanty and in- 
 significant (45). Moreover the omission of 
 the Jewish writers to place on record the 
 distinctive name of the Pharaoh whose 
 daughter Solomon married, forbids his satis- 
 factory identification with any special Egyp- 
 tian monarch. Eupolemus indeed professed 
 to supply this omission of the older histo- 
 rians (46), and enlivened his history with 
 copies of the letters which (according to him) 
 
 f 1 Kings x. 24. & Ibid. xi. 1-3. 
 
102 LECTURE IIL 
 
 passed between Solomon and Vaphres or 
 Apries, king of Egypt; but this name is 
 clearly taken from a later portion of Egyp- 
 tian history, and none at all similar to it is 
 found either on the monuments or in the dy- 
 nastic lists for the period. The Egyptian 
 marriage of Solomon, therefore, and his 
 friendly connexion with a Pharaoh of the 
 21st dynasty, has at present no confirmation 
 from profane sources, beyond that which it 
 derives from EKupolemus ; but the change in 
 the relations between the two courts towards 
 the close of Solomon’s reign, which is in- 
 dicated by the protection extended to his 
 enemy Jeroboam by a new king, Shishak, 
 receives some illustration and confirmation . 
 both from the monuments, and from the na- 
 tive historian. Shishak makes his appearance 
 at a suitable point, so far as chronology is 
 concerned (47), in the lists of Manetho, where 
 he is called Sesonchis or Sesonchdsis (48) ; 
 and his name occurs likewise in the sculp- 
 tures of the period under its Egyptian form 
 of Sheshonk (49). The confirmation which 
 the monuments lend to the capture of Jeru- 
 salem by this king will be considered 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 
 
LECTURE III. 103 
 
 it in the lists, the fact that it occurs at the 
 commencement of a new dynasty—a dynasty 
 furnished by a new city, and quite of a dif- 
 ferent character from that preceding it— 
 which would therefore be in no way con- 
 nected 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 Theophi- 
 lus, 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 coun- 
 trymen the ideas entertained of their history 
 by the Jews of the 3rd and 4th century B.C., 
 I forbear to dwell upon their testimonies. I 
 shall therefore close here the direct confir- 
 mations from profane sources of this portion 
 of the Scripture narrative, and proceed 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 system of centralised organisa- 
 
104. LECTURE III. 
 
 tion by which the various 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 satra- 
 pial system of government, or that in which 
 the provinces retain their individuality but 
 are administered on a common plan by offi- 
 cers appointed by the crown—which has pre- 
 vailed generally through the East since the 
 time of its first introduction—was the inven- 
 tion of Darius Hystaspis. Before his time 
 the greatest monarchies had a slighter and 
 weaker organisation. They were in all cases 
 composed of a number of separate Aingdoms, 
 each under its own native king; and the sole 
 link uniting them together and constituting 
 them an empire, was the subjection of these 
 petty monarchs to a single suzerain (52). 
 The Babylonian, Assyrian, Median, and Ly- 
 dian, were all empires of this type — mon- 
 archies, wherein a sovereign prince at the 
 head ofa powerful 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 consisted chiefly, if not solely, in two 
 points; they were bound to render homage 
 to their suzerain, and to pay him annually a 
 certain stated tribute. Thus, when we hear 
 
LECTURE IIL. 105 
 
 that “Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms 
 from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of 
 the Philistines and unto the border of 
 Egypt"”—or again, that “ he had dominion 
 over all the region on this side the river, 
 from Tiphsah (or Thapsacus on the Euphra- 
 tes) to Azzah (or Gaza, the most southern of 
 the Philistine towns), over all the kings on 
 this side the river’’—and that “ they brought 
 presents)” —“a rate year by year*”—and 
 “ served Solomon all the days of his life’,” we 
 recognise at once a condition of things with 
 which we are perfectly familiar from profane 
 sources; and we feel that at any rate this 
 account is in entire harmony with the poli- 
 tical notions and practices of the day. 
 Similarly, with respect to the buildings of 
 Solomon, it may be remarked, that they ap- 
 pear, from the description given of them in 
 Kings and Chronicles, to have belonged ex- 
 actly 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 Ni- 
 neveh, Susa, and Persepolis. The strong re- 
 semblance in general structure and arrange- 
 ment of the palace of Esar-haddon to that 
 
 ay 1 Kings iy. 21. i Ibid. verse 24. j Ibid. verse 21. 
 Ebi. x? 25)! 1 Ibid. iv. 21. 
 
106 LECTURE III. 
 
 which Solomon constructed for his own use, 
 has been noticed by our great Mesopotamian 
 excavator (53); and few can fail to see in the 
 “house of the forest of Lebanon™,” with its 
 five-and-forty cedar pillars forming the “ fo- 
 rest” 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 
 72. 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 who have paid 
 most attention to the subject, as having had 
 their roofs supported by pillars of cedar (54). 
 Nor does the resemblance of which I am 
 speaking consist only in the multiplicity of 
 columns. The height of the Persepolitan 
 columns, which is 44 feet (54), almost exactly 
 equals the “30 cubits” of Solomon’s house ; 
 and there is even an agreement in the ge- 
 neral character of the capitals, which has at- 
 tracted notice from some who have written 
 upon the history of art (56). 
 
 Again, the copious use of gold in orna- 
 mentation", which seems to moderns so im- 
 
 m 1 Kings vii. 2. Ibid. wi. tao; 21, 28,' 90, 39, too: 
 
LECTURE III. 107 
 
 probable (57), was a practice known to the 
 Phoenicians, the Assyrians, and the Baby- 
 lonians (58). The brazen pillars, Jachin and 
 Boaz, set up in the court of the temple’®, re- 
 call the pillar of gold which Hiram, accord- 
 ing to Menander (59), dedicated in the tem- 
 ple of Baal, and the two pillars which appear 
 in the coins of Cyprus before the temple of 
 the Phoenician Venus (60). The “throne of 
 ivory”” has its parallel in the numerous ivory 
 carvings lately brought from Mesopotamia, 
 which in many cases have plainly formed the 
 covering of furniture (61). The lions, which 
 stood beside the throne‘, bring to our mind 
 at once the lions’ feet with which Assyrian 
 thrones were ornamented (62), and the gi- 
 gantic sculptured figures which commonly 
 formed the portals of the great halls. In 
 these and many other points the state and 
 character of art, which the Hebrew writers 
 describe as existing in Solomon’s time, re- 
 ceives confirmation from profane sources, and 
 especially from those remains of a time not 
 long subsequent, which have been recently 
 brought to light by the researches made in 
 Mesopotamia. 
 
 Once more—the agreement between the 
 
 © 1 Kings vii. 15-22. P Ibid. x. 19. 
 q Ibid. verses 19 and 20. 
 
108 LECTURE III. 
 
 character of the Phoenicians as drawn in 
 Kings and Chronicles, and that which we 
 know from other sources to have attached 
 to them, is worthy of remark. The wealth, 
 the enterprise, the maritime skill, and the 
 eminence in the arts, which were the leading 
 characteristics of the Phoenicians in Homer’s 
 time, are abundantly noted by the writers 
 of Kings and Chronicles; who contrast the 
 comparative ignorance and rudeness of their 
 own nation with the science and “cunning” 
 of their neighbours. “Thou 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 brass, and in iron, and 
 in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that 
 can skill to grave with the cunning men 
 which are with me in Judah and in Jerusa- 
 lem, whom David my father did provide’.” 
 And the man sent, “a man of Tyre, a worker 
 in brass, filled with wisdom, and under- 
 standing, and cunning to work all works in 
 brass, came to king Solomon, and wrought all 
 his work*.’ So too when Solomon “ made a 
 navy of ships in Ezion-geber, on the shore 
 of the Red Sea,’ Hiram “sent in the navy 
 
 r y Kings v. 6. s 2 Chron. ii. 7. t 1 Kings vii. 14. 
 
LECTURE III. 109 
 
 his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of 
 the sea, with the servants of Solomon”.” It 
 has been well remarked (62), that “we dis- 
 cover the greatness of Tyre in this age, not 
 so much from its own annals as from those 
 of the Israelites, its neighbours.” The scanty 
 fragments of the Phoenician history which 
 alone remain to us are filled out and illus- 
 trated by the more copious records of the 
 Jews; which, with a simplicity and truthful- 
 ness that we rarely meet with in profane 
 writers, set forth in the strongest terms their 
 obligations to their friendly neighbours. 
 
 These are a few of the indirect points of 
 agreement between profane history and this 
 portion of the sacred narrative. It would be 
 easy to adduce others (63); but since, within 
 the space which an occasion like the present 
 allows, it is impossible to do more than 
 broadly to indicate the sort of evidence which 
 is producible in favour of the authenticity of 
 Scripture, perhaps the foregoing specimens 
 may suffice. It only remains therefore to 
 sum up briefly the results to which we seem 
 to have attained. 
 
 We have been engaged with a dark period 
 —a period when the nations of the world 
 had little converse with one another, when 
 
 u 1 Kings ix. 26, 27. 
 
110 LECTURE IIL. 
 
 civilisation was but beginning, when the 
 knowledge of letters was confined within 
 narrow bounds, when no country but Egypt 
 had a literature, and when Egypt herself was 
 in a state of unusual depression, and had 
 little communication with nations beyond 
 her borders. We could not expect to obtain 
 for such a period any great amount of pro- 
 fane illustration. Yet the Jewish history of 
 even this obscure time has been found to 
 present points of direct agreement with the 
 LEXgyptian records, scanty as they are for it, 
 with the Pheenician annals, with the traditions 
 of the Syrians of Damascus, and with those 
 of the early inhabitants of Northern Africa. 
 It has also appeared that the Hebrew ac- 
 count of the time is in complete harmony 
 with all that we otherwise know of Western 
 Asia at the period in question, of its poli- 
 tical condition, its civilisation, its arts and 
 sciences, its manners and customs, its inha- 
 bitants. Illustrations of these points have 
 been furnished by the Assyrian inscriptions, 
 the Assyrian and Persian palaces, the Phoe- 
 nician coins and histories, and the earliest 
 Greek poetry. Nor is it possible to produce 
 from authentic history any contradiction of 
 this or any other portion of the Hebrew re- 
 cords. When such a contradiction has seemed 
 
LECTURE III. bat 
 
 to be found, it has invariably happened that 
 in the progress of historical enquiry, the au- 
 thor from whom it proceeds has lost credit, 
 and finally come to be regarded as an utter- 
 ly untrustworthy authority (64). Internally 
 consistent, externally resting upon contem- 
 porary or nearly contemporary documents, 
 and both directly and indirectly confirmed 
 by the records of neighbouring nations, the 
 Hebrew account of this time is entitled to 
 be received as a true and authentic history 
 on almost every ground upon which such a 
 claim can 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 public 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 establish- 
 ment of the Israelites in Canaan; but amid 
 the gloom the torch of truth still passed 
 from hand to hand—prophets arose at inter- 
 Vv Acts vil. 45-47. w Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 
 
112 LECTURE III. 
 
 vals—and the main events in the national 
 life were carefully put on record. After- 
 wards—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 Sa- 
 muel, the history assumes an appearance far 
 more authentic than that of the contempo- 
 rary history of any other ancient nation(65).” 
 This admission may well be taken to render 
 any further argument unnecessary, and with 
 it we may properly conclude this portion of 
 our enquiry. 
 
LECTURE IY. 
 
 
 
 DKINGS. XL) 9,32. 
 
 And Ahijah said to Jeroboam, Take thee ten 
 pieces: for thus saith the Lord, the God of 
 Israel, Behold, I will rend the kingdom out 
 of the hand of Solomon, and will give ten 
 tribes to thee: but he shall have one tribe 
 for my servant David’s sake. 
 
 THE subject of the present Lecture will 
 be the history of the chosen people from the 
 separation of the two kingdoms by the suc- 
 cessful revolt of Jeroboam, to the completion 
 of the Captivity of Judah, upon the destruc- 
 tion of Jerusalem, in the nineteenth year of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The 
 space of time embraced is thus a period of 
 about four centuries. Without pretending 
 to a chronological exactitude, for which our 
 data are insufficient, we may lay it down as 
 tolerably certain, that the establishment of 
 the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah on 
 the ruins of Solomon’s empire is an event 
 belonging to the earlier half of the tenth 
 century before our era; while the destruc- 
 RAWLINSON. i 
 
114 LECTURE IV. 
 
 tion of Jerusalem may be assigned with much 
 confidence to the year B.C. 586. 
 
 These centuries constitute a period se- 
 cond in importance to none of equal length. 
 They comprise the great development, the 
 decadence, and the fall of Assyria—the 
 sudden growth of Media and Babylon— 
 the Egyptian revival under the Psamme- 
 tichi—the most glorious time of the Phee- 
 nician cities—the rise of Sparta and Athens 
 to preeminence in Greece—the foundation 
 of Carthage and of Rome—and the spread 
 of civilisation by means of the Greek and 
 Phoenician colonies, from the Palus Meeotis 
 to the pillars of Hercules. Moreover, they 
 contain within them the transition time of 
 most profane history—the space within which 
 it passes 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 authen- 
 ticity and trustworthiness, which is required 
 to fit it thoroughly for the purpose where- 
 to 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 diffi- 
 culty at the present stage that of selection. 
 Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Phoenicia, Greece, 
 
LECTURE IV. 11S 
 
 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 illus- 
 trate from profane sources, we shall now be 
 able to produce confirmatory proof of almost 
 every important event in the history. 
 
 Before entering, however, on this branch 
 of the enquiry, 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 com- 
 pilations from State Papers preserved in the 
 public archives of the Jewish nation (1), the 
 authors of those papers being probably, in 
 most cases, the Prophets in best repute at 
 the time of their composition. This is par- 
 ticularly apparent from the Second Book of 
 Chronicles, where the author, besides citing 
 in several places* “the Book of the Chroni- 
 cles of the Kings of Israel and Judah,” par- 
 ticularises no fewer than thirteen works of 
 
 a 2 Chron. xvi. 11; xxv. 26; xxvii. 7; xxvill. 26; xxxil. 32; 
 
 xXxxiii. 18; and xxxv. 27. 
 
 Be 
 
116 LECTURE IV. 
 
 prophets, some of which he expressly states 
 to have formed a portion of the general 
 “ Book of the Chronicles’,”’ while most of 
 the others may be probably concluded to 
 have done the same. The Books of Samuel, 
 of Nathan, and of Gad, the Prophecy of Ahi- 
 jah the Shilonite, and the Visions of Iddo 
 the seer, which are among the works quoted 
 by the Chronicler, have been already no- 
 ticed (2). To these must now be added, 
 “the Book of Shemaiah the Prophet‘,” “the 
 Book of Iddo the seer, concerning genealo- 
 gies*,” “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 Seersi”—all works which 
 served as materials to the Chronicler, and to 
 which he refers his readers. We found rea- 
 son 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 Solomon! would seem 
 to have been composed of a Book of Nathan, 
 
 b 2 Chron. xx. 34; and xxxii. 32. © Ibid. xii. 15. 4 Ibid. 
 e Ibid. xiii. 22. f Ibid. xx. 34. & Ibid. xxvi. 22. 
 h Tbid. xxxii. 32. i Ibid. xxxiii. 19. } 1 Kings xi. 41. 
 
LECTURE IV. Ey, 
 
 a Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and a por- 
 tion of a Book of Iddo the seer. And the 
 Book, or rather the two Books(3), 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 
 “ Commentary ;” then by Jehu, the son of 
 Hanani, in the Book which we are told was 
 made to form a part of the Book of the 
 Kings of Israel (4); and afterwards by other 
 prophets and seers, among whom were cer- 
 tainly Isaiah and Jeremiah. 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 Ju- 
 dah (5); besides which, the close verbal 
 agreement between certain historical chap- 
 ters in Isaiah and in Kings (6), would suffice 
 to prove that this part of the state history 
 was composed by him. A similar agree- 
 ment between portions of Kings and of Je- 
 remiah, leads to a similar conclusion with 
 respect to that prophet (7). Thus Samuel, 
 Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, Shemaiah, Iddo, Jehu, 
 Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets con- 
 temporary with the events, are to be re- 
 garded as the real authorities for the Jewish 
 
 k 2 Chron. ix. 29. 1 Ibid. xxvi. 22. 
 
118 LECTURE IV. 
 
 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 direc- 
 tion, but also the history of the past as the 
 mirror and example of their life, must have 
 reckoned the composition of the theocratic 
 history among the duties of the call given 
 to them by the Lord, and composed accord- 
 ingly the history of their time by noting 
 down public annals, in which, without re- 
 spect of persons, the life and conduct of the 
 kings were judged and exhibited according 
 to the standard of the revealed law (8).” 
 With this judgment of a living German 
 writer there is sufficient reason to concur ; 
 and we may therefore conclude that the his- 
 tory in Kings and Chronicles rests upon the 
 testimony of contemporary and competent 
 witnesses. 
 
 The only objection of any importance that 
 Rationalism makes to the conclusion which 
 we have here reached, is drawn from the 
 circumstances of the time when the books 
 were composed ; which is thought to militate 
 strongly against their having been drawn 
 directly from the sources which have been 
 indicated. ‘The authority of the writers of 
 these Books, we are told (9), “cannot have 
 
LECTURE IV. 119 
 
 been the official annals” of the kingdoms; 
 for these must have perished at their de- 
 struction, 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 docu- 
 ments which contained 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 understanding 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 ex- 
 isting, and continually refer their readers to 
 them for additional information. However 
 we may account for it, the “ Books of the 
 Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Ju- 
 dah,” the different portions of which had 
 been written by the prophets above men- 
 tioned, were still extant when the authors 
 of Kings and Chronicles wrote their his- 
 tories, having escaped the dangers of war, 
 and survived the obscure time of the Capti- 
 vity. It is not merely that the writers in 
 
120 LECTURE “Iv. 
 
 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 Chronicles lend to each other, 
 deserves some notice while we are engaged 
 with this portion of the enquiry. Had the 
 later composition uniformly followed, and, as 
 it were, echoed the earlier, there would have 
 been but little advantage in the double re- 
 cord. We should then only have known 
 that the author of the Book of Chronicles 
 regarded the Book of Kings as authentic. 
 But the Chronicler—I use the term in no 
 offensive sense—does not seem really in 
 any case merely to follow the writer of 
 Kings(10). On the contrary, he goes straight 
 to the fountain-head, and draws his mate- 
 rials partly from the sources used by the 
 earlier writer, partly (as it seems) from con- 
 temporary sources which that writer had 
 neglected. He is thus, throughout, a distinct 
 and independent authority for the history of 
 his nation, standing to the writer of Kings 
 as Africanus stands to Eusebius, in respect 
 of the history of Egypt(11). As the double 
 channel by which Manetho’s Egyptian his- 
 tory is conveyed to us, renders our hold 
 
LECTURE IV. 121 
 
 upon that history far more firm and secure 
 than would have been the case, had we de- 
 rived our knowledge of it through one chan- 
 nel only; so the two parallel accounts, which 
 we possess in Kings and Chronicles of the 
 history of Solomon and his successors, give 
 us a hold upon the original annals of this 
 period which we could not have had other- 
 wise. ‘The Chronicler, while he declines to 
 be beholden to the author of Kings for any 
 portion of his narrative, and does not con- 
 cern himself 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 mi- 
 nute points as are readily explainable by 
 slight corruptions of the text in the one case 
 or the other (12). 
 
 Further, the narrative contained in Kings 
 and Chronicles receives a large amount of 
 illustration, and so of confirmation, from the 
 writings of the contemporary Prophets, who 
 exhibit the feelings natural under the cir- 
 cumstances described by the historians, and 
 incidentally allude to the facts recorded by 
 them. This point has been largely illus- 
 trated by recent writers on the prophetical 
 
129 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Scriptures, who find the interpretation of 
 almost every chapter “bound up with refer- 
 ences to contemporary events political and 
 social,’ and discover in this constant con- 
 nexion at once a “source of occasional diffi- 
 culty,” and a frequent means of throwing 
 great additional light on the true meaning 
 of the prophetical writers (13). The illus- 
 tration thus afforded to prophecy by history 
 is reflected back to history from prophecy ; 
 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 pro- 
 phetical writings (14)—that is not illuminated 
 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 Rezin, 
 king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Rema- 
 liah, king of Israel, against Ahaz*, the deso- 
 lation of their country which shortly follow- 
 ed°, the plunder of Damascus, and the spoil- 
 ing of Samaria at this time’, the name of 
 the then high-priest ‘4, the Assyrian conquests 
 of Hamath, Aradus, and Samaria’, the close 
 
 m Isaiah i. 1. n Jbid. vii. 1, 2. © Tbid. verse 16. 
 P Ibid. viii. 4. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 9. 
 q Ibid. verse 2. Compare 2 Kings xvi. 10-16. 
 r Ibid, x. g-tl. 
 
LECTURE IV. 123 
 
 connexion about this time of Egypt and 
 Ethiopia‘, the inclination of the Jewish mo- 
 narchs to lean on Egypt for support against 
 Assyria‘, the conquest by Sennacherib of the 
 “fenced cities” of Judah’, the embassy of 
 Rabshakeh’, the sieges of Libnah and La- 
 chish”, the preparations of Tirhakah against 
 Sennacherib*, the prayer of Hezekiah’, the 
 prophecy of Isaiah in reply’, the destruction 
 of Sennacherib’s host*, the return of Senna- 
 cherib himself to Nineveh’, his murder and 
 the escape of his murderers*®, Hezekiah’s ill- 
 ness 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 Judza to Assyria 
 during the reign of Ahaz*, and at many 
 other events of less consequence. About 
 half the events here mentioned are contained 
 in the three historical chapters of Isaiah’, 
 
 8 Tsaiah xx. 3-5. t Thid..xxx,,.2, 3, &e.;, xxxi. 13. 
 
 u Ibid. xxxvi. 1. v Ibid. verses 2-22. w Ibid. xxxvii. 8. 
 
 x Ibid. verse g. Y Ibid. verses 15—20. 2% Ibid. verses 22-35. 
 
 a Ibid. verse 36. b Ibid. verse 37. ¢ Ibid. verse 38. 
 
 d Jbid. xxxviii. e Ibid. xxxix. 1, 2. f Ibid. ix. 1. 
 & Ibid. xix. 4, &c. h Ibid. xiv. 24-28. 
 
 i Chaps. xxxvi. xxxvil. and xxxviil. 
 
124 LE CURE. AV. 
 
 which are almost identical with three chap- 
 ters of the second Book of Kings!: but the 
 remainder occur merely incidentally among 
 the prophecies; and these afford the same 
 sort of confirmation to the plain narrative 
 of Kings and Chronicles, as the Epistles of 
 St. Paul have been shewn to furnish to the 
 Acts (15). Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 
 and Zephaniah, contain numerous allusions” 
 of a similar character, illustrative of the his- 
 tory at this time and subsequently. Jere- 
 miah, in particular, is as copious in notices 
 bearing upon Jewish history for the time 
 extending from Josiah to the Captivity, as 
 Isaiah is for the reigns of Ahaz and Heze- 
 kiah. 
 
 Having thus briefly noticed the character 
 of the documents in which this portion of 
 the history has come down to us, and drawn 
 attention to the weight of the scriptural evi- 
 dence in favour of its authenticity, I proceed 
 to the consideration of that point which is 
 the special subject of these Lectures—the 
 confirmation which this part of the narrative 
 receives from profane sources. 
 
 The separate existence of the two king- 
 doms of Israel and Judah is abundantly con- 
 firmed by the Assyrian inscriptions. Kings 
 
 j Chaps. xviii. xix. and xx. 
 
LECTURE IV. hs 
 
 of each country occur in the accounts which 
 the great Assyrian monarchs have left us of 
 their conquests—the names being always ca- 
 pable of easy identification with those re- 
 corded in Scripture, and occurring in the 
 chronological order which is there given (16). 
 The Jewish monarch bears the title of “ King 
 of Judah,” while his Israelitish brother is de- 
 signated after his capital city ; which though 
 in the earlier times not called Samaria, is yet 
 unmistakably indicated under the term Beth- 
 Khumri (17), “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 Judza by Shishak, king of 
 Egypt, in the fifth year of Rehoboam. Shi- 
 shak came up against Jerusalem with “twelve 
 hundred chariots’ and threescore thousand 
 horsemen,” besides a host of footmen who 
 were “without number'.’’ He “took the 
 fenced cities which pertained to Judah,” and 
 was proceeding 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 
 
 k 1 Kings xvi. 24. 1 2 Chron. xii. 3. m Tbid. ver. 8. 
 
126 LECTURE IV. 
 
 success is found to have been commemorated 
 by Shishak on the outside of the great tem- 
 ple at Karnac; and here in a long list of 
 captured towns and districts, which Shishak 
 boasts of having added to his dominions, oc- 
 curs the “Melchi Yuda,” or kingdom of Judah 
 (18), the conquest of which by this king is thus 
 distinctly noticed in the Egyptian records. 
 About thirty years later Judea 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 king- 
 dom at its south-western angle, was there 
 met by the Jewish monarch and signally de- 
 feated by him’. In this case we cannot ex- 
 pect such a confirmation as in the last in- 
 stance; for nations do not usually put on 
 record their great disasters. It appears, how- 
 ever, that at the time indicated, the king of 
 Egypt was an Osorkon (19)—a name identi- 
 cal in its root consonants with Zerach; and it 
 appears also that Egypt continued to decline 
 from this period till the time of Psammeti- 
 chus, a natural result of such a disaster as 
 that which befell the invading host. The only 
 difficulty which meets us is the representation 
 
 n 2 Chron. xiv. 9. © Ibid. xvi. 8. P Ibid. xiv. 12, 13. 
 
LECTURE IV. 127 
 
 of Zerah as an Ethiopian—a fact not at pre- 
 sent 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 composed of 
 men belonging to that country. Or perhaps, 
 though we have no positive evidence of this, 
 he may have been really of Ethiopian ex- 
 traction. Osorkon the Second, who is the 
 natural contemporary of Asa, was not de- 
 scended from the earlier kings of the dy- 
 nasty. He was the son-in-law of his prede- 
 cessor, and reigned in right of his wife. It 
 is therefore not at all impossible that he may 
 have been an Ethiopian by birth, and have 
 ruled over both countries. 
 
 In the succeeding generation, the records 
 of the other 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 himself in the position which his 
 father had usurped, by a marriage with a 
 foreign princess, and as having made choice 
 for the purpose of “Jezebel, daughter of Eth- 
 baal, king of the Zidonians*.” Here again 
 not only have we a genuine Phoenician name, 
 
 q 1 Kings xvi. 3r. 
 
128 LECTURE IV. 
 
 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. Ejithobalus, the priest of Ash- 
 teroth (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 contemporary of Solo- 
 mon (20). Ahab mounted the throne of Is- 
 rael 15 or 20 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 allow- 
 ed (21)—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 coin- 
 cidence between his name and that of the 
 reigning ‘l'yrian 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 specific, and the other generic,— 
 sometimes intending by it the inhabitants of 
 
LECTURE IV. 129 
 
 Sidon alone, sometimes the Phoenicians gene- 
 rally (22). And it is probably in this latter 
 sense that the title “king of the Zidonians” 
 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 (23). 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 ex- 
 ternal 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 
 
 r 1 Kings xvi. 1. 8 Ibid. chap. xviii. t Thid. xx. 1. 
 
 u [bid. Vv Ibid. verse 13. 
 
 RAWLINSON. K 
 
130 LE CTU? AV. 
 
 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 have 
 amounted to 127,000 men*. Even this enor- 
 mous slaughter does not paralyse 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 parti- 
 cular struggle we have no positive confir- 
 mation, owing to the almost total loss of 
 the ancient Syrian records (24). But we 
 have, in the cuneiform annals of an Assyrian 
 king, 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 
 vast armies, with which he repeatedly en- 
 gaged the whole force of Assyria. We have 
 accounts of three campaigns between the 
 Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, 
 Hittites, Hamathites, and Phcenicians, united 
 under the command of Ben-hadad, upon the 
 other (25), in which the contest is maintained 
 with spirit, the armies being of a large size, 
 
 w 1 Kings xx. 25. x Ibid. verses 28 and 29. 
 Y Ibid. xxii. 1-36. 
 
LECTURE IV. 131 
 
 and their composition and character such as 
 we find described in Scripture (26). 
 
 The same record further verifies the his- 
 torical accuracy of the Books of Kings, by a 
 mention of Hazael as king of Damascus im- 
 mediately after Ben-hadad (27), 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 (28) ; 
 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 Assyrian monarch, with whom it 
 formally lay to “confirm” each new prince 
 “in his kingdom’.” 
 
 A break now occurs in the series of pro- 
 fane notices, which have extended, without 
 the omission of a generation, from the time 
 of David to that of Jehu. During the cen- 
 tury which follows on the death of that 
 monarch we are able to adduce from _pro- 
 fane sources no more than one or two doubt- 
 ful illustrations of the Sacred Narrative. 
 Here, however, it is to be remarked, that the 
 absence of profane confirmation is coincident 
 
 Zz 2 Kings xiv. 5; Xv. 19. 
 
 pe 
 
132 LECTURE IV. 
 
 with, and must fairly be regarded as result- 
 ing from, a want of sufficient materials. 
 There is a great dearth of copious Assyrian 
 inscriptions from the time of the monarch 
 who made Jehu tributary to that of the 
 Tiglath-Pileser of Scripture (29). For this 
 time too the Tyrian records are an absolute 
 blank (30), while the Egyptian are but little 
 better; and moreover there seems to have 
 been no political contact between these coun- 
 tries and Palestine during the period in ques- 
 tion. We cannot therefore be surprised at 
 the deficiency here noted; nor would it be 
 right to view it as having the slightest tend- 
 ency to weaken the force of our previous rea- 
 soning. 
 
 The Hebrew annals touch no foreign coun- 
 try, 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 
 
 ® 2 Kings xv. Ig. 
 
LECTURE IV. 139 
 
 is some difficulty in identifying the Assyrian 
 monarch here mentioned, who not only took 
 this large tribute, but (as appears from Chro- 
 nicles”) led a portion of the nation into cap- 
 tivity. In the Hebrew Scriptures he ap- 
 pears as Pul, or rather Phul; and this is also 
 the form of the name which the Armenian 
 Eusebius declares to have been used by Po- 
 lyhistor (31), who followed Berosus; but in 
 the Septuagint he is called Phaléch, or Pha- 
 lés (82), 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 is one which 
 has been read variously as Phal-lukha, Vul- 
 lukha, and Iva-lush, wherein it is not impro- 
 bable that we may have the actual appella- 
 tion of the Biblical Phul, or Phaloch. 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- 
 meea, and Philistia (83). Neither the name 
 of the Israelitish king, nor the amount of his 
 tribute, is mentioned in the Assyrian record ; 
 but the amount of the latter, which may to 
 many appear excessive, receives illustration, 
 
 b y Chron. v. 26. 
 
134 Le CTU RE: Ty. 
 
 and a certain degree of confirmation, from a 
 fact which happens to be recorded on the 
 monument—namely, that the Assyrian mon- 
 arch 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 Me- 
 nahem he received 1000 talents of silver; but 
 from the Damascene king the tribute taken 
 was 2300 of such talents, together with 3000 
 talents of copper, forty of gold, and 5000 of 
 some other metal (34). 
 
 The expedition of Pul against Menahem 
 is followed by a series of attacks on the in- 
 dependence of the two kingdoms, which 
 cause the sacred history to be very closely 
 connected, 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 un- 
 interrupted line—Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmane- 
 ser, Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esar-haddon 
 all of them carrying their arms into Pales- 
 tine, and playing an important part in the 
 history of the favoured race. It happens 
 most fortunately (may we not say, providen- 
 tially ?) that records of all these monarchs— 
 the greatest which Assyria produced—have 
 been recovered; and these in some cases are 
 
LECTURE IV. 135 
 
 sufficiently full to exhibit a close agreement 
 with the sacred narrative, while throughout 
 they harmonise with the tenor of that narra- 
 tive, only in one or two cases so differing from 
 the Hebrew text as to cause any difficulty. I 
 shall proceed to exhibit this agreement with 
 the brevity which my limits necessitate, before 
 noticing the confirmation which this portion 
 of the history derives also from the Egyptian 
 and Babylonian records. 
 
 The chief events related of Tiglath-Pileser 
 in Scripture are his two invasions of Israel— 
 once when he “took Ijon, and Abel-beth- 
 maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Ha- 
 zor, and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land 
 of Naphtali, and carried them captive to As- 
 syria‘ ;” and again, when he came at the in- 
 vitation of Ahaz, and not only chastised Pe- 
 kah, but “took Damascus, and slew Rezin‘®.” 
 Of the first of these two campaigns we have 
 no profane confirmation; but some account 
 of the second is given in an Assyrian frag- 
 ment, where Tiglath-Pileser speaks of his 
 defeating Rezin, and capturing Damascus, 
 and also of his taking tribute from the king 
 of Samaria. The monarch indeed from whom 
 he takes the tribute is called Menahem, in- 
 stead of Pekah; and this constitutes a dis- 
 
 Cfo, Kips: xv./29. d [bid. xvi. 7-9. 
 
136 LECTURE IV. 
 
 crepancy—the first that we have found— 
 between the Assyrian and the Hebrew re- 
 cords: but the probability is that Pekah is 
 intended, and that the official who composed, 
 or the workman who engraved, the Assyrian 
 document made a mistake in the name (35). 
 Tiglath-Pileser is also stated in Scripture 
 to have been visited at Damascus by the 
 Jewish king, Ahaz; and the result of this 
 visit was that Ahaz set up a new altar in the 
 temple at Jerusalem, according to the pat- 
 tern of an altar which he had seen at Da- 
 mascus*. It has been generally supposed 
 that this altar was Syrian (36); and its esta- 
 blishment has been connected with the pas- 
 sage in Chronicles, where Ahaz is said to 
 have “sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, 
 which smote him*;” but few things can be 
 more improbable than the adoption of the 
 gods of a foreign nation at the moment when 
 they had been proved powerless. The strange 
 altar of Ahaz was in all probability not Syrian, 
 but Assyrian; and its erection was in accord- 
 ance with an Assyrian custom, of which the 
 Inscriptions afford abundant evidence—the 
 custom of requiring from the subject nations 
 some formal acknowledgment of the gods and 
 worship of the sovereign country (37). 
 
 d 2 Kings xvi. ro—16. € 2 Chron. xxviii. 23. 
 
LECTURE IV. 137 
 
 The successor of Tiglath-Pileser seems to 
 have been Shalmaneser—a king, whose mili- 
 tary exploits in these regions were celebrated 
 by Menander in his history of Tyre (38). 
 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 con- 
 tracting an alliance with Egypt, laying siege 
 to Samaria, and continuing to prosecute the 
 siege for the space of three years. The re- 
 cords of Shalmaneser have been so mutilated 
 by his successors, that they furnish only a 
 very slight confirmation of this history. The 
 name of Hoshea, however, king of Samaria, 
 is found in an inscription, which has been 
 with reason assigned to Shalmaneser (39) ; 
 and though the capture of Samaria is claimed 
 by his successor, Sargon, as an exploit of his 
 own in his first year (40), yet this very claim 
 confirms the Scriptural account of Shalma- 
 neser’s commencing the siege, which began 
 three years before the captures; and it is 
 easily brought into harmony with the Scrip- 
 tural account of the actual capture, either by 
 supposing that Sargon claimed the success as 
 
 f 2 Kings xvii. 3 and 5. & Ibid. and xvili. g, 10. 
 
138 LECTURE IV. 
 
 falling into his own reign, (which had then 
 begun at Nineveh), though Shalmaneser was 
 the real captor; or by regarding (as we are 
 entitled to do) the king of Assyria, who is 
 said to have taken Samaria in the Book of 
 Kings, as a distinct person from the king who 
 commenced the siege (41). 
 
 Of Shalmaneser’s successor, Sargon, Scrip- 
 ture contains but one clear historic notice. 
 In the 20th 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 (42); but since the dis- 
 covery 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 conquest (43), it 
 has been generally admitted that we have in 
 Isaiah a reference to an Assyrian ruler dis- 
 tinct from all those mentioned in Kings, and 
 identical with the Khorsabad monarch, who 
 was the father of Sennacherib. Now of this 
 monarch we find it related in his annals 
 
 h Isaiah xx, 1, 
 
LECTURE IV. 139 
 
 that he made war in Southern Syria, and 
 took Ashdod (44). ‘Thus the sole fact which 
 Scripture distinctly assigns to the reign of 
 Sargon is confirmed by the native records; 
 which likewise illustrate the two or three 
 other facts probably intended to be assigned 
 to him by the sacred writers. Isaiah appa- 
 rently means Sargon in the 4th verse of his 
 20th chapter, when he prophesies that “the 
 king of Assyria shall lead away the Egypt- 
 ians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, 
 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 Pha- 
 raoh of the time to become his tributary, 
 and which also show that Egypt was at this 
 time in just that close connexion with Ethi- 
 opia (45) which the prophet’s expressions in- 
 dicate’. 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 from 
 the monuments a very curious illustration of 
 the statement of Scripture, that the monarch, 
 
 i Isaiah xx. 3 and 4. j 2 Kings xvii. 6. 
 k Tbid. xviii. 11. 
 
140 LECTURE IV. 
 
 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 
 Media; 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 do- 
 minions (46). 
 
 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 sa- 
 cred writers tell us that on the first occasion, 
 Hezekiah having thrown off the allegiance™ 
 which the kings of Judah appear to have paid 
 to Assyria at least from the time of Ahaz’ 
 message to Tiglath-Pileser*, “ Sennacherib, 
 king of Assyria, came up against all the fenced 
 cities of Judah, and took them: and Heze- 
 kiah, king of Judah, sent to the king of As- 
 syria to Lachish, saying, ‘I have offended ; 
 return from me: that which thou puttest 
 upon me, I will bear :’ and the king of As- 
 syria appointed unto Hezekiah, king of Ju- 
 
 1 2 Kings xviii. 11. m bid. xvii. 7. n Ibid. xvi. 7. 
 
LECTURE IV. 141 
 
 dah, three hundred talents of silver and 
 thirty talents of gold’.” The annals of Sen- 
 nacherib contain a full account of this cam- 
 paign. “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-siw of his strong fenced cities ; 
 and of the smaller towns which were scat- 
 tered about, I took and plundered a count- 
 less number. And from these places I cap- 
 tured and carried off as spoil 200,150 people, 
 old and young, male and female, together 
 with 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, build- 
 ing towers round the city to hem him in, 
 and raising banks of earth against the gates, 
 so as to prevent escape... Then upon 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 ta- 
 lents of gold, and eight hundred talents of 
 silver, and divers treasures, a rich and im- 
 mense booty... All these things were brought 
 to me at Nineveh, the seat of my govern- 
 
 © 2 Kings xvili. 13,14. Compare Isaiah xxxvi. 1, and 2 Chron. 
 Xxxi, 1-8. 
 
142 LECTURE! IV. 
 
 ment, Hezekiah having sent them by way of 
 tribute, and as a token of his submission to 
 my power (47).” It is needless to particu- 
 larise the points of agreement between these 
 narratives. The only discrepancy is in the 
 amount of the silver which Sennacherib re- 
 ceived; and here we may easily conceive, 
 either that the Assyrian king has exagger- 
 ated, or that he has counted in a portion of 
 the spoil, while the sacred writer has merely 
 mentioned the sum agreed to be paid as tri- 
 bute (48). 
 
 The second expedition of Sennacherib into 
 Syria seems to have followed very shortly 
 upon the first. In neither case was Judea 
 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 collision appears to 
 have taken place on this second occasion be- 
 tween the Assyrians and the Jews. Heze- 
 kiah was threatened; but before the threats 
 could be put in execution, that miraculous 
 destruction of the Assyrian host was effected 
 which forms so striking a feature of this por- 
 tion of the sacred narrative. “ The angel of 
 the Lord went out, and smote in the camp 
 
 P 2 Kings xviil. 21 and 24. 
 
LECTURE IV. 143 
 
 of the Assyrians” (which was at Libnah, on 
 the borders of Egypt) “an hundred four- 
 score and five thousand; 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 (49) is the Egyptian 
 version of this event, which was (naturally 
 enough) ascribed by that people to the inter- 
 position 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 allu- 
 sions to the event which are met with in the 
 fragments of Alexander Polyhistor and Aby- 
 denus (49). The escape of the murderers 
 into Armenia*® is in harmony with what is 
 known of the condition of that country at 
 the time; for it appears as an independent 
 state generally hostile to the Assyrian mon- 
 -archs, in the cuneiform records of this 
 period (50); and it is further perhaps worthy 
 of remark, that the Armenian traditions 
 spoke distinctly of the reception of the two 
 
 q 2 Kings xix. 35. r Ibid. verse 37. s Ibid, 
 
144 LECTURE IV. 
 
 refugees, and of the tracts respectively as- 
 signed to them (51). 
 
 Esarhaddon is distinctly stated in Scrip- 
 ture to have been the son and successor of 
 Sennacherib*. As usual, the monuments are 
 in complete accordance (52). Esarhaddon 
 every where calls himself the son of Sen- 
 nacherib; and there is no appearance in the 
 native records of any king having intervened 
 between the two (53). The events belong- 
 ing to the reign of Ksarhaddon, which are in- 
 troduced by the sacred writers into their nar- 
 rative, are but few. As his father was contem- 
 porary 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 cap- 
 tains “took Manasseh among the thorns, and 
 bound him with fetters, and carried him to 
 Babylon*.” The monuments confirm the 
 synchronism which Scripture implies, by dis- 
 tinctly mentioning “ Manasseh, king of Ju- 
 dah,” among the tributaries of Esarhad- 
 don (54); and though no direct confirmation 
 has as yet been found of the captivity and 
 restoration of the Jewish monarch, yet the 
 narrative contains an incidental allusion 
 
 t 2 Kings xix. 37. Compare Isaiah xxxvii. 38. 
 u 2 Chron, xxxili. 11. 
 
LECTURE IV. 145 
 
 which is in very remarkable harmony with 
 the native records. One is greatly surprised 
 at first hearing that the generals of an ds- 
 syrian king, on capturing a rebel, carried him 
 to Babylon instead of Nineveh—one is almost 
 inclined to suspect a mistake. ‘ What has a 
 king of Assyria to do with Babylon?’ one na- 
 turally asks. The reply is, that Esarhaddon, 
 and he only of all the Assyrian kings, actually 
 was king of Babylon—that he built a palace, 
 and occasionally held his court there (55)— 
 and that consequently a captive was as likely 
 to be brought to him at that city as at the 
 metropolis of Assyria Proper. Had the nar- 
 rative fallen under the reign of any other 
 Assyrian monarch, this explanation could not 
 have been given; and the difficulty would 
 have been considerable. Occurring where 
 it does, it furnishes no difficulty at all, but 
 is one of those small points of incidental 
 agreement which are more satisfactory to a 
 candid mind than even a very large amount 
 of harmony in the main narrative. 
 
 With Esarhaddon the notices of Assyria in 
 the sacred history come to an end. Assyria 
 herself shortly afterwards disappears (56) ; 
 and her place is taken by Babylon, which 
 now for the first time becomes a great con- 
 quering power. ‘This transfer of empire is 
 
 RAWLINSON. L 
 
146 LECTURE IV. 
 
 abundantly confirmed by profane authori- 
 ties (57); but, as the historical character of 
 the Biblical narrative in this respect has al- 
 ways been allowed, it is unnecessary in this 
 place to dwell upon it. I proceed to consi- 
 der the agreement between the sacred nar- 
 rative and the native Egyptian and Baby- 
 lonian records during the later times of the 
 Hebrew monarchy. 
 
 Egyptian and Jewish history touch at four 
 points during this period. Hoshea, the con- 
 temporary of Shalmaneser, makes a treaty 
 with So, king of Egypt’, shortly before the 
 capture of Samaria, or about the year B.C. 
 725. Sennacherib, not very long after- 
 wards, on attacking the dependencies of 
 Egypt, learns that Tirhakah, king of the 
 Ethiopians, is gathering together an army to 
 oppose him™®. Nearly a century later, Pha- 
 raoh-Necho invades Judzea, defeats and kills 
 the Jewish king Josiah, presses forward to 
 the Euphrates, takes Carchemish and Jeru- 
 salem, leads Jehoahaz the son of Josiah into 
 captivity, and_ establishes his dominion over 
 the whole of Syria; but is shortly afterwards 
 defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Baby- 
 lon, and dispossessed of all his conquests *. 
 
 v 2 Kings xvii. 4. w’ Thid. xix. 9. 
 x Tbid. xxi. 29-35; xxiv. 7. Compare 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. 
 
| jg] Dhl CaS tal a) 5 em 147 
 
 Finally, about twenty years after this, Pha- 
 raoh-Hophra is spoken of as encouraging the 
 Jews to resist Nebuchadnezzar, and threat- 
 ened with the wrath of that monarch, into 
 whose hands it is said he will be delivered’. 
 
 Here then, within about 140 years, we have 
 the names of four kings of Egypt, one of 
 whom is also the sovereign of Cush or Ethi- 
 opia. Let us see whether the Egyptian an- 
 nals recognise the monarchs thus brought 
 under our notice. 
 
 Neither Manetho nor the monuments pre- 
 sent 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 desig- 
 nated may most properly be regarded as 
 Seveh (58). Now a king of the name of 
 Sevech, or Sevechus, appears in the proper 
 place in Manetho’s lists; and the monu- 
 ments show that two monarchs, (who seem 
 to have been a father and a son), Shebek 1. 
 and ShebekK II., ruled Egypt about this 
 period (59). The former of the two is fa- 
 miliar to us under the name (which Hero- 
 
 y Jerem. xliv. 30; xlvi. 13-26 
 
 | aed 
 
148 WE CTA RAL, DV; 
 
 dotus assigns to him) of Sabaco (60); and it 
 is probably this prince of whom the Hebrew 
 writer speaks. The fact that he came into 
 contact with Assyria is confirmed by the dis- 
 covery of his seal at Koyunjik; it had pro- 
 bably been affixed to a treaty which, in con- 
 sequence of his machinations, he had been 
 forced to make with the triumphant Assyrian 
 monarch (61). 
 
 Tirhakah, who appears as king of the 
 Ethiopians, yet at the same time as protector 
 of Egypt, in the second Book of Kings, is 
 manifestly the Tarcus or Taracus of Mane- 
 tho (62), the Tearchon of Strabo (63), and 
 the Tehrak of the monuments (64). 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-Necho of Kings and Jere- 
 miah’, it is impossible not to recognise the 
 famous Egyptian monarch whom Manetho 
 calls Nechao (65), Herodotus Neco (66), and 
 the monuments Neku (67), the son and suc- 
 cessor of the first Psammetichus. The in- 
 vasion of Syria by this prince, and his defeat 
 of the Syrians in a great battle, are attested 
 by Herodotus; who only commits a slight 
 
 Z Jerem. xlvi. 2—12. 
 
LECTURE IV. 149 
 
 and very venial error, when he makes Mag- 
 dolum instead of Megiddo the scene of the 
 encounter (68). It has been usual to regard 
 Herodotus as also confirming the capture 
 of Jerusalem by Necho (69); but too much 
 uncertainty attaches to the presumed iden- 
 tity of Cadytis with the Jewish capital, to 
 make it wise that much stress should be laid 
 on this imagined agreement (70). We may 
 with more confidence appeal for a confirma- 
 tion of this fact, and of the captivity of Je- 
 hoahaz, to the fragments of Manetho, who is 
 reported both by Africanus and by Eusebius 
 to have mentioned these Egyptian successes 
 (71). 
 
 Not less certain and unmistakable is the 
 identity of the Scriptural Pharaoh-Hophra 
 with Manetho’s Uaphris, Herodotus’s Apries, 
 and the monumental Haifra-het or Haifra 
 (72). Egyptian chronology makes this prince 
 contemporary with Nebuchadnezzar (73); and 
 if we may trust the abstracts which Eusebius 
 and Africanus profess to give of Manetho, 
 that writer mentioned the flight of the Jews 
 into Egypt upon the destruction of their 
 city, and their reception by Uaphris or Ho- 
 phra (74). The miserable end of Hophra, 
 predicted by Jeremiah, is related from 
 Egyptian traditions by Herodotus; and 
 
150 LEC PY WE VI. 
 
 though it may be doubted whether his ac- 
 count of the occurrence is in its minuter 
 circumstances altogether correct (75), yet at 
 any rate the facts of the deposition and exe- 
 cution of the Egyptian king must be ac- 
 cepted on his testimony; and these are the 
 facts which especially illustrate the state- 
 ments of Scripture. 
 
 Babylonian and Jewish 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 enquire 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 au- 
 thentic list of Babylonian kings preserved 
 to us in Ptolemy. But it is probable that 
 the king in question does really occur in that 
 list under the appellation of Mardoc-empad, 
 or Mardoc-empal (76); and there is abundant 
 evidence from the inscriptions, not only of the 
 existence of such a monarch, but of his having 
 been contemporary with the Jewish king in 
 
 a 2 Kings xx. 12. b 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. 
 
PwC TURE FV. 151 
 
 whose reign his embassy is placed (77). The 
 fact of the embassy—which seems improbable 
 if we only know the general condition of Ba- 
 bylon at the period to have been one of sub- 
 jection to Assyria—becomes highly probable 
 when we learn—both from Berosus (78) and 
 the monuments (79)—that there was a fierce 
 and bitter hostility between Merodach- Bala- 
 dan and the Assyrian monarchs, fron: whose 
 oppressive yoke he more than once freed his 
 country. The ostensible motive of the em- 
 bassy—to enquire about an astronomical 
 marvel—is also highly probable in the case 
 of a country where astronomy held so high 
 a rank, where the temples were observatories, 
 and the religion was to a great extent astral 
 (80). 
 
 About a century later, Babylon is found 
 in the Scripture history to have succeeded to 
 the position and influence of Assyria over Pa- 
 lestine, and we have a brief relation, in Jere- 
 miah, Ezekiel, and Kings, of several campaigns 
 conducted by Nebuchadnezzar in these re- 
 gions. Profane accounts are in accordance. 
 The reconquest of Syria and Palestine from 
 Necho by Nebuchadnezzar, which is men- 
 tioned by Jeremiah’, and glanced at in Kings‘, 
 was related at length by Berosus (81); his 
 
 ¢ Jerem. xlvi. 1-12. d 2 Kings xxiv. 7. 
 
152 LECTURE :fV¥. 
 
 prolonged siege of Tyre, which is spoken of 
 by Ezekiel‘, was attested by the Tyrian his- 
 torians, who said that it lasted thirteen years 
 (82); while his destruction of the temple at 
 Jerusalem, and his deportation of vast bodies 
 of Jewish captives, were noticed by the na- 
 tive historian, who said that the captives 
 were settled in convenient places in Baby- 
 lonia (83). As the rest of the acts of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar fall into our next period, the 
 present review here comes to an end, and we 
 may now close this portion of the enquiry 
 with a brief summary of the evidence ad- 
 duced in the course of it. 
 
 The period with which we have been deal- 
 ing is one of comparative light. We possess, 
 it is true, no continuous history of it besides 
 that which the Sacred Volume furnishes; 
 but we have abstracts of the writings of Be- 
 rosus and Manetho, which contained the 
 annals of Egypt and of Babylon during the 
 space; we have considerable fragments of 
 the Tyrian histories of the time; and in the 
 latter portion of it we begin to enjoy the 
 advantage of those investigations which the 
 inquisitive Greeks pushed into the antiqui- 
 ties of all the nations wherewith they be- 
 came acquainted. Above all, we possess the 
 
 e Ezek. xxix. 18. 
 
LECTURE IV. 158 
 
 contemporary records—often in a very co- 
 pious form—of all the great Assyrian mo- 
 narchs whose reigns fell within the period 
 in question, while we derive likewise a cer- 
 tain amount of information from the monu- 
 ments of Egypt. All these sources have been 
 examined, and all have combined to confirm 
 and illustrate the Scriptural narrative at al- 
 most 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 confirmation of the entire body 
 of leading facts—minute confirmation occa- 
 sionally—and a complete absence of any 
 thing that can be reasonably viewed as seri- 
 ous discrepancy. A few difficulties—chiefly 
 chronological (84)—meet us; but they are 
 fewer in proportion than are found in the 
 profane history of almost any remote period ; 
 and the faith must be weak indeed to which 
 they prove a stumblingblock. Generally, 
 throughout this whole period, there is that 
 “admirable agreement,” which Niebuhr ob- 
 serves upon towards its close (85), between 
 the profane records and the accounts of Scrip- 
 ture. We have not for the most part by any 
 laboured efforts to harmonise the two—their 
 accord is patent and striking; and is suffi- 
 ciently exhibited by a mere juxtaposition 
 
154 LECTURE IV. 
 
 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 pre- 
 sent likewise, here as elsewhere, numerous 
 points of agreement, connected with the geo- 
 graphy, religion, and customs of the various 
 nations (86). As discovery proceeds, these 
 points of agreement are multiplied ; obscuri- 
 ties clear up; difficulties are solved; doubts 
 vanish. It is only where profane records are 
 wanting or scanty, that the Sacred Narrative 
 is unconfirmed and rests solely upon its own 
 basis. Perhaps a time may come when through 
 the recovery of the complete 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 for ever and 
 
 f Eph. i. 11. & Luke xix. go. 
 
LECTURE IV. 155 
 
 ever; for wisdom and might are his... He 
 revealeth the deep and secret things: He 
 knoweth what is in the darkness, and the 
 light dwelleth with Him*.” 
 
 h Dan. ii. 20, 22. 
 
LHOTURE 
 
 
 
 PSALM CXXXVII. 1—4. 
 
 By the rivers 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 ? 
 
 WE are brought now by the course of our 
 enquiry 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 re-esta- 
 blishment 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 
 
LECTURE V. 157 
 
 not possess in the writings of one of the Pro- 
 phets a personal narrative, which to some ex- 
 tent fills up the gap left between Kings and 
 Ezra. Conformably with a custom which 
 we find also in Isaiah and Jeremiah, Daniel 
 combines history with prophecy, uniting in a 
 single book the visions wherewith he was fa- 
 voured and an account of various remarkable 
 events which he witnessed. He does not, 
 however, confine himself strictly to the pre- 
 cedent which those writers had set him; but, 
 as if aware that on him had devolved the 
 double office of Prophet and Historian, and 
 that future ages would learn the circum- 
 stances of this period from his pen only, he 
 gives to the historical element in his work 
 a marked and very unusual prominence. 
 Hence we are still able to continue through 
 the period in question the comparison (in 
 which we have been so long engaged) be- 
 tween the History of the Jews as delivered 
 by their own writers and the records of those 
 nations with which they came in contact. 
 
 If the book of Daniel be a genuine work, 
 the narrative which it contains must possess 
 the highest degree of historical credibility. 
 The writer claims to be a most competent 
 witness. He represents himself as having 
 lived at Babylon during the whole duration 
 
158 LECTURE V. 
 
 of the Captivity, and as having filled situa- 
 tions of the highest trust and importance 
 under the Babylonian and Medo-Persic mon- 
 archs. Those who have sought to discredit 
 the Book, uniformly maintain that it is spu- 
 rious, having been composed by an unin- 
 spired writer, who falsely assumed the name 
 of an ancient prophet (1),—or, according to 
 some, of a mythic personage (2),—but who 
 lived really under Antiochus Epiphanes. The 
 supposed proof of this last assertion is the 
 minuteness and accuracy of the predictions, 
 which tally so exactly with the known course 
 of history, that it is said they must have 
 been written after the events had happened. 
 This objection, which was first made in the 
 3rd century of our era by the heathen writer 
 Porphyry (3), has been revived in modern 
 times, and is become the favourite argument 
 of the Rationalists (4), with whom Prophecy 
 means nothing but that natural foresight 
 whereby the consequences of present facts 
 and circumstances are anticipated by the 
 prudent and sagacious. I shall not stop at 
 this time to examine an argument which can 
 only persuade those who disbelieve in the 
 prophetic gift altogether (5). Suffice it to 
 observe, that the Book of Daniel, like the 
 books of Ezra and Jeremiah, is written partly 
 
LECTURE V. 159 
 
 in Hebrew and partly in Chaldee, which pe- 
 culiarity may fairly be said to fix its date to 
 the time of the Captivity (6): and that it was 
 translated into Greek in the reign of Ptolemy 
 Philadelphus, more than 70 years before the 
 accession of Epiphanes (7). There is there- 
 fore every reason to believe that it belongs 
 to the age in which it professes to have been 
 composed; while no sufficient ground has 
 been shewn for doubting that its writer was 
 the Daniel whose history it records (8)—the 
 prince (9), whose extraordinary piety and 
 wisdom were commended by his contempo- 
 rary, Ezekiel* (10). 
 
 The authenticity of the narrative has been 
 denied on the ground that it is irreconcilable 
 with what we know of profane history. Ac- 
 cording to De Wette, the book of Daniel is 
 full of “historical inaccuracies, such as are 
 contained in no other prophetical book of 
 the Old Testament” (11). These pretended 
 inaccuracies will best be considered in con- 
 nexion with that general comparison of the 
 sacred narrative with the profane records of 
 the period in question, on which (in pursu- 
 ance of the plan uniformly adopted through- 
 out these Lectures) we have now to enter. 
 
 The fundamental fact of the time—the 
 
 a Wzek. xiv. 14 and 20; xxviii. 3. 
 
160 LECTURE V. 
 
 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 (13), that such transfers of whole po- 
 pulations were common in the East in ancient 
 times ; but we have the direct evidence of 
 Josephus to the fact, that Berosus mentioned 
 the carrying off of the Jews by Nebuchad- 
 nezzar and their settlement in parts of Baby- 
 lonia. “Profane evidence, however, on this 
 point is unnecessary ; since it cannot be 
 thought that any people would have invented 
 a tale with regard to themselves which re- 
 dounded 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 re- 
 markable agreement between the sacred record 
 and profane authorities. The splendour and 
 magnificence which this prince displayed, his 
 military successes, his devotion to his gods,and 
 the pride which he took in adorning Babylon 
 with great buildings, are noted by Berosus 
 and Abydenus (15); the latter of whom has 
 a most curious passage, for the preservation 
 of which we are indebted to Eusebius, on the 
 
LECTURE V. 161 
 
 subject of his having been gifted with pro- 
 phetic powers. “The Chaldzans relate,” says 
 Abydenus, “that, after this, Nebuchadnezzar 
 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 disappeared 
 from among them (16).” ‘The details are in- 
 correct; 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 prophetic 
 gift by a profane writer. 
 
 The length of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is 
 stated without any variety by Berosus, Poly- 
 histor, and Ptolemy (17), at 43 years. The 
 Babylonian monuments go near to prove the 
 same ; for the 42nd year of Nebuchadnezzar 
 has been found on a clay tablet (18). Here 
 Scripture is in ewact accordance; for as the 
 first year of Evil-Merodach, the son and suc- 
 cessor of Nebuchadnezzar, is the 37th of the 
 captivity of Jehoiachin*, who was taken to 
 Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth year‘, 
 
 b Dan. ii. 28-9. ¢ 2 Kings xxv. 27; Jer. lil. 31. 
 
 d 2 Kings xxiv. 12. Compare Jer. xxv. 1. 
 
 RAWLINSON. M 
 
162 LECTURE V. 
 
 it is evident that just 43 years are required 
 for the reign of the great Chaldean mon- 
 arch (19). This agreement, moreover, is 
 incidental; for Evil-Merodach is not said in 
 Scripture to have been the successor of Ne- 
 buchadnezzar: we only know this fact from 
 profane sources. 
 
 It has been maintained that the book of 
 Daniel misrepresents the condition of Baby- 
 lonia under Nebuchadnezzar (20); the points 
 to which objection is especially taken being 
 the account given of the Babylonian wise 
 men, the admission of Daniel among them, 
 and the apparent reference to something like 
 a satrapial organisation of the empire (21). 
 With respect to the first point, it would really 
 be far more reasonable to adduce the descrip- 
 tions in question as proof of the intimate 
 knowledge which the writer possessed of the 
 condition of learning among the Babylonians, 
 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 coun- 
 try—a word derived from the root cheret, 
 which means “a graving tool,” exactly the 
 instrument wherewith a Babylonian ordina- 
 rily wrote (22). They are also termed Chas- 
 dim or Chaldeans, whereby a knowledge is 
 
LECTURE V. 168 
 
 shewn beyond that of the earlier prophets— 
 a knowledge of the fact that the term “ Chal- 
 dzean” was not properly applied to the whole 
 nation, but only to a learned caste or class, 
 the possessors of the old wisdom, which was 
 written in the Chaldzan tongue (23). 
 
 The objection raised to the admission of 
 Daniel among the “wise men,” is based on 
 the mistaken notion that they were especially 
 a priestly caste, presiding over the national 
 religion; whereas the truth seems to be that 
 they were a learned class, including the 
 priests, but not identical with them, and cor- 
 responding rather to the graduates of a uni- 
 versity than to the clergy of an establish- 
 ment (24). Into such a class foreigners, and 
 those of a different religion, might readily be 
 admitted. 
 
 With respect to what has been called the 
 “satrapial organisation” 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 organisation 
 of the kind is asserted. We are told of cer- 
 tain “rulers of provinces,” who were sum- 
 moned to worship the golden image set up 
 in the plain of Dura®; and we find that 
 
 © Dan. iii. 2, &e. Ibid. vi. 1, &e. 
 g Ibid. iii. 1, 2. 
 
 M 2 
 
164. LEC Pu ie Ow: 
 Judea 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 
 people: 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 ad- 
 ministration is but very little known to us; 
 and that it may to some extent have been sa- 
 trapial. Berosus, at any rate, speaks expressly 
 of “the Satrap appointed by Nabopolassar to 
 govern Phoenicia, Ceele-Syria, and Egypt” (25); 
 and it is not impossible that Darius Hystaspis, 
 who is usually regarded as the inventor of the 
 system, may have merely enlarged a practice 
 begun by the Babylonians (26). 
 
 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 au- 
 thentic source (27), and has an internal har- 
 mony and consistency which is very striking. 
 
 h 2 Kings xxv. 22. Compare Jerem. xl. and xli. 
 
LECTURE YV. 165 
 
 We may therefore resume our comparison 
 of the particulars of the civil history, as it is 
 delivered by the sacred writers, and as it has 
 come down to us from the Babylonians them- 
 selves. 
 
 Berosus appears to have kept silence on 
 the subject of Nebuchadnezzar’s mysterious 
 malady. I cannot think, with Hengsten- 
 berg (28), that either he or Abydenus intended 
 any allusion to this remarkable fact in the 
 accounts which they furnished of his decease. 
 It was not to be expected that the native 
 writer would tarnish the glory of his coun- 
 try’s greatest monarch by any mention of an 
 affliction which was of so strange and de- 
 basing a character. Nor is it at all certain 
 that he would be aware of it. As Nebuchad- 
 nezzar outlived his affliction, and was again 
 “established in his kingdom’,” all monu- 
 ments belonging to the time of his malady 
 would have been subject to his own revision ; 
 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 couch- 
 ing the record in sufficiently ambiguous 
 phraseology. Berosus may have read, with- 
 out fully understanding it,a document which 
 has descended to modern times in a tolerably 
 complete condition, and which seems to con- 
 
 i Dan. iv. 36. 
 
166 LECTURE V. 
 
 tain an allusion to the fact that the great 
 king was for a time incapacitated for the dis- 
 charge of the royal functions. In the inscrip- 
 tion known as the “Standard Inscription” of 
 Nebuchadnezzar, the monarch himself relates, 
 that during some considerable time—four 
 years apparently—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” (29). The cause of 
 this suspension, at once of religious worship 
 and of works of utility, is stated in the docu- 
 ment in phrases of such obscurity as to be 
 unintelligible; until therefore a better expla- 
 nation is offered, it cannot but be regarded 
 as at least highly probable, that the passage 
 in question contains the royal version of that 
 remarkable story with which Daniel con- 
 cludes his notice of the great Chaldzan 
 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 supplies us with but a single fact 
 —the release from prison of Jehoiachin by 
 Evil-Merodach in the year that he ascended 
 
LECTURE V. 167 
 
 the throne of his father. It has been already 
 remarked that the native historian agreed 
 exactly in the name of this prince and the 
 year of his accession; he added, (what Scrip- 
 ture does not expressly state,) that Evil-Me- 
 rodach was Nebuchadnezzar’s son (30). With 
 regard to the character of this monarch, there 
 seems at first sight to be a contrast between 
 the account of Berosus and the slight indica- 
 tions which the Scripture narrative furnishes. 
 Berosus taxes Evil-Merodach with intemper- 
 ance and lawlessness (31); Scripture relates 
 that he had compassion on Jehoiachin, re- 
 leased him from prison, and “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 honour 
 and tenderness during the short remainder 
 of his life. Perhaps to the Babylonians such 
 a reversal of the policy pursued by their great 
 monarch appeared to be mere reckless “ law- 
 lessness ;” and Evil-Merodach may have been 
 deposed, in part at least, because of his de- 
 parture from the received practice of the 
 Babylonians with respect to rebel princes. 
 
 _ The successor of this unfortunate king was 
 his brother-in-law, Neriglissar; who, although 
 not mentioned in Scripture as a monarch, has 
 
 j 2 Kings xxv. 28. 
 
168 LEC LURE... 
 
 been recognised among the “ princes of the 
 king of Babylon*” by whom Nebuchadnezzar 
 was accompanied in his last siege of Jerusa- 
 lem. A name there given, Nergal-shar-ezar, 
 corresponds letter for letter with that of a 
 king whose remains are found on the site of 
 Babylon (82), and who is reasonably identi- 
 fied with the Neriglissar of Berosus and the 
 Nerigassolassar of Ptolemy’s Canon. More- 
 over, the title of “ Rab-Mag,” which this per- 
 sonage bears in Jeremiah, is found attached 
 to the name of the Babylonian monarch in 
 his brick legends (33)—a coincidence 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, Scrip- 
 ture certainly contains no trace. Whether 
 his successor, the last native king of the Ca- 
 non, whose name is there given as Nabona- 
 dius, and who appears elsewhere as Naban- 
 nidochus, Nabonnedus, or Labynetus (34)— 
 whether this monarch has a place in the 
 Scriptural narrative or no, has long been a 
 matter of dispute among the learned. That 
 there is no name in the least resembling Na- 
 bonadius in the Bible, is granted. But it has 
 been by many supposed that that prince must 
 
 k Jerem. xxxix. 3 and 13. 
 
VECRURE Vv: 169 
 
 be identical with Daniel’s Belshazzar (35) — 
 the last native ruler mentioned in Scripture. 
 The great diversity, however, of the two 
 names, coupled with the fact that in every 
 other case of a Semitic monarch—whether 
 Assyrian or Babylonian—the Hebrew repre- 
 sentative is a near expression of the vernacu- 
 lar term, has always made this theory unsa- 
 tisfactory; and Rationalists, finding no better 
 explanation than this of the acknowledged 
 difficulty (36), have been emboldened to de- 
 clare 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 character which attaches to 
 the entire narrative (37). It was difficult to 
 meet the arguments of these objectors in for- 
 mer times. Not only could they point to the 
 want of confirmation by any profane writer 
 of the name Belshazzar, but they could urge 
 further “ contradictions.” Berosus, they could 
 say, made the last Babylonian monarch ab- 
 sent 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 irrecon- 
 cilable, and some were driven to suppose 
 
170 Le CTU EV: 
 
 two falls of Babylon, to escape the seem- 
 ing contrariety (38). 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 Nabo- 
 nadius, the last king of the Canon, associated 
 with him on the throne during the later 
 years of his reign his son, Bil-shar-uzur, and 
 allowed him the royal title(39). There can 
 be little doubt that it was this prince who 
 conducted the defence of Babylon, and was 
 slain in the massacre which followed upon 
 the capture ; while his father, who was at the 
 time in Borsippa, surrendered, and experi- 
 enced the clemency which was generally 
 shewn 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 the sacred vessels from Baby- 
 lon”, it is enough to reply, first that the word 
 “son” is used in Scripture not only in its pro- 
 per sense, but also as equivalent to “ grand- 
 son,” or indeed any descendant (40) ; and se- 
 condly, that Bil-shar-uzur (or Belshazzar) may 
 easily have been Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson, 
 since his father may upon his accession have 
 
 I Danley. 10, 138; sic. m JTbid. verse 2. 
 
LECTURE V. 171 
 
 married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and 
 Belshazzar may have been the issue of this 
 marriage (41). A usurper in those days com- 
 monly sought to strengthen himself in the 
 government by an alliance with some prin- 
 cess of the house, or branch, which he dis- 
 possessed. 
 
 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 identified with As- 
 tyages (42), with Cyaxares, a supposed son of 
 Astyages (43), with Neriglissar (44), and with 
 Nabonadius (45); but each of these supposi- 
 tions has its difficulties, and perhaps it is the 
 most probable view that he was a viceroy set 
 up by Cyrus, of whom there is at present no 
 trace in profane history (46). 
 
 The fact of the sudden and unexpected 
 capture of Babylon by a Medo-Persic army 
 during the celebration of a festival, andl of the 
 consequent absorption of the Babylonian into 
 the Medo-Persic Empire, is one of those ma- 
 nifest points of agreement between Scripture 
 
 n Dan. v. 31. 
 
172 LEG EUR EV: 
 
 and profane authors (47) which speak for them- 
 selves, 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 history attests (48), 
 and in harmony with that superiority of law 
 to the king’s caprice, which seems to have 
 distinguished the Persian from most Oriental 
 despotisms (49). With respect to the “ satra- 
 pial organisation of the Empire,” which is 
 again detected in Daniei’s account of the 
 reign of Darius the Mede (50), and which is 
 supposed to have been transferred to this 
 time from the reign of Darius Hystaspis by 
 an anachronism, it may be observed, that the 
 “120 princes” which “ it pleased Darius to 
 set over the kingdom?,” are not satraps, per- 
 haps not even provincial governors at all, but 
 rather a body of councillors resident in or 
 near the capital, and accustomed to meet to- 
 gether‘, to advise the monarch. It is a mis- 
 take to suppose that Darius the Mede, like 
 the Ahasuerus of Esther, with whom he has 
 been compared (51), rules over the East ge- 
 nerally. He “was made king over the realm 
 of the Chaldeans*’—that is, he received from 
 
 © Dan.vi.8. PIbid.ver.t. 4 Ibid. ver.4to6. «© Ibid. ix. 1. 
 
VECTURE(V. 173 
 
 Cyrus, the true conqueror of Babylon, the 
 kingdom of Babylonia Proper, which he held 
 as a fief under the Medo-Persic Empire. 
 The 120 princes are either his council, or at 
 the most provincial governors in the compa- 
 ratively small kingdom of Babylon; and the 
 coincidence (if such it is to be considered) 
 between their number and that of the 127 
 provinces of Ahasuerus, extending from Ethi- 
 opia to India‘, is purely accidental. There 
 is no question here of the administration of 
 an Empire, but only of the internal regula- 
 tions of a single province. 
 
 We have now reached the time when the 
 Captivity of Judah approached its close. “In 
 the first year of Darius, the son of Ahasuerus, 
 of the seed of the Medes',’ Daniel, who na- 
 turally counted the Captivity from the time 
 when he was himself carried off from Jeru- 
 salem", 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 fast- 
 ings, 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 
 
 S Ksther i. 1. t Dan. ix. 3. u [bid. i. 1. Vv Ibidvix. 3% 
 Ww Ibid. verse 16. x |bid. verse 17. 
 
174 LECTURE V. 
 
 not’.” It is evident therefore that, according 
 to the calculations of Daniel, a space little 
 short of 70 years had elapsed from the cap- 
 ture of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim 
 to the first year of Darius the Mede. The close 
 agreement of this chronclogy with the Baby- 
 lonian is very remarkable. It can be clearly 
 shewn from a comparison of Berosus with 
 Ptolemy’s Canon, that, according to the reck- 
 oning of the Babylonians, the time between 
 Nebuchadnezzavr’s first conquest of Judzea in 
 the reign of Jehoiakim and the year following 
 the fall of Babylon, when Daniel made his 
 prayer, was 68 years (52), or two years only 
 short of the seventy which had been fixed by 
 Jeremiah as the duration of the Captivity. 
 
 Attempts have been made to prove a still 
 more exact agreement (53); but they are un- 
 necessary. Approximate coincidence is the 
 utmost that we have any right to expect be- 
 tween the early chronologies of different na- 
 tions, whose methods of reckoning are in 
 most cases somewhat different; and in the 
 present instance the term of seventy years, 
 being primarily a prophetic and not an his- 
 toric number, is perhaps not intended to be 
 exact and definite (54). 
 
 The restoration of the Jews to their own 
 
 y Dan. ix. 19. 
 
WECTURE Vv. 175 
 
 land, and their fortunes till the reform of 
 Nehemiah, are related to us in the three his- 
 torical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther ; 
 and receive illustration from the prophecies 
 of Zechariah, Haggai, and Malachi. The 
 generally authentic character of the books 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah has never been ques- 
 tioned. ‘They disarm the Rationalist by the 
 absence from them of any miraculous, or even 
 any very marvellous features; and the humble 
 and subdued tone in which they are written, 
 the weakness and subjection which they con- 
 fess, mark in the strongest possible way the 
 honesty and good faith of their composers. 
 Under these circumstances the question of 
 their genuineness becomes one of minor 1m- 
 portance. If the relations are allowed to be 
 true, it is of little consequence who was their 
 author. I see, however, no reason to doubt 
 that in the main the two books are the works 
 of the individuals whose names they bear in 
 the Septuagint and in our own Version. 
 That some portions of the bock of Ezra were 
 written by Ezra, and that Nehemiah wrote 
 the greater part of the book of Nehemiah, is 
 allowed even by De Wette; who has not (I 
 think) shewn sufficient ground for question- 
 ing the integrity of either composition (55), 
 unless in respect of a single passage. ‘The 
 
176 PPECPTUR ELT. 
 
 genealogy 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 (56). It 
 stands to the rest of Nehemiah as the genea- 
 logy of the Dukes of Edom* stands to Gene- 
 sis, or that of the descendants of Jechoniah? 
 to the rest of Chronicles (57). But apart 
 from this passage there is nothing in Ne- 
 hemiah which may not have been written by 
 the cupbearer of Artaxerxes Longimanus ; 
 while in Ezra there is absolutely nothing at 
 all which may not easily have proceeded 
 from the pen of the “ ready scribe” who was 
 in favour with the same monarch. It is 
 objected that the book sometimes speaks of 
 Ezra in the third, sometimes in the first 
 person ; and concluded from this fact that 
 he did not write the parts in which the third 
 person is used (58). But the examples of 
 Daniel (59) and Thucydides (60) are sufficient 
 to shew 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 irregu- 
 larity (it may be remarked) occurs in the 
 
 z Verses 10 to 22. a Gen. xxxvi. 31-43. 
 
 b 1 Chron. iii. 17-24. 
 
BECTUR EV. ag 
 
 Persian inscriptions (61). It belongs to the 
 simplicity of rude times, and has its parallel 
 in the similar practice found even now in the 
 letters of uneducated persons. 
 
 If then the books of Ezra and Nehemiah 
 are rightly regarded as the works of those per- 
 sonages, 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 history of 
 their own time, for which they are the most 
 competent 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 Jew- 
 ish people, but prefaces that account by a 
 sketch of their history during a period with 
 which he was personally unacquainted. As 
 this period does not extend further back than 
 about 80 years from the time when he took 
 the direction of affairs at Jerusalem (62), and 
 as the facts recorded are of high national im- 
 portance, they would deserve to be accepted 
 on his testimony, even supposing that he 
 obtained them from mere oral traditions, 
 according to the Canons of historical credi- 
 bility which have been laid down in the 
 
 RAWLINSON. N 
 
178 LECTURE V. 
 
 first Lecture (63). Ezra’s sketch, however, 
 (as many commentators have seen,) bears 
 traces of having been drawn up from con- 
 temporary documents (64); 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 (65), was revived on 
 the return from the Captivity, when Haggai 
 and Zechariah may probably have discharged 
 the duty which at an earlier period had been 
 undertaken by Jeremiah and Isaiah. 
 
 While the historical authority of the books 
 of Ezra and Nehemiah is recognised almost 
 universally, that of Esther is impugned by a 
 great variety of writers. Niebulhr’s rejection 
 of this book has been already noticed (66). 
 De Wette regards it as “consisting of a string 
 of historical difficulties and improbabilities, 
 and as containing a number of errors in re- 
 gard to Persian customs (67).” C&ders, Mi- 
 chaelis, Corrodi, Bertholdt, and others, throw 
 more or less doubt upon its authenticity (68). 
 The Jews, however, have always looked upon 
 it, not only as a true and authentic history, 
 but asa book deserving of special honour (69) ; 
 and it seems impossible to account for its In- 
 troduction into their Canon on any other 
 ground than that of its historic truth. The 
 
LECHRURE  V¥. 179 
 
 feast of Purim, which the Jews still celebrate, 
 and at which the book of Esther is always read, 
 must be regarded as sufficiently evidencing the 
 truth of the main facts of the narrative (70) ; 
 and the Jews would certainly never have at- 
 tached to the religious celebration of that fes- 
 tival the reading of a document from which the 
 religious element is absent, or almost absent 
 (71), had they not believed it to contain a 
 correct account of the details of the trans- 
 action. Their belief constitutes an argument 
 of very great weight ; to destroy its force 
 there is needed something more than the ex- 
 hibition of a certain number of “ difficulties 
 and improbabilities,” such as continually 
 present themselves to the historic student 
 in connexion even with his very best mate- 
 rials (72). 
 
 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 (73). 
 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 
 
 e¢ Esther ix. 32. 
 
 Ne 
 
180 LECTURE V. 
 
 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 narra- 
 tive’. ‘To this work the actual writer of our 
 book of Esther—whoever he may have been 
 —evidently had access; and it 1s a reason- 
 able supposition that in the main he follows 
 his Persian authority. Hence probably that 
 omission of the name of God, and of the dis- 
 tinctive tenets of the Israelites, which has 
 been made an objection by some to the ca- 
 nonicity of this book (74). 
 
 We have now to examine the narrative 
 contained in Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 
 by the light which profane history throws 
 on it, more particularly in respect of those 
 points which have been illustrated by recent 
 discoveries. 
 
 There are probably few things more sur- 
 prising to the intelligent student of Scripture 
 than the religious tone of the proclamations 
 which are assigned in Ezra to Cyrus, Darius, 
 and Artaxerxes. “The Lord God of heaven,” 
 says Cyrus, “hath given me all the kingdoms 
 of the earth, and he hath charged me to build 
 him an house at Jerusalem, which is in Ju- 
 
 d Esther x. 2. e bid. ii. 23; and vi. 1. 
 
BEeLURE'V. 18] 
 
 dah. 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'.” “ J 
 make a decree,” says Darius, “that these men 
 be not hindered...that which they have need 
 of...for the burnt-ofterings of the God of 
 heaven...let it be given them day by day 
 without fail; that they may offer sacrifices 
 of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, 
 and pray for the life of the king and of his 
 sons.” “ Artaxerxes, king of kings,” writes 
 that monarch, “ unto Ezra the priest, the 
 scribe of the law of the God of heaven, perfect 
 peace, and at such a time...Whatsoever is 
 commanded by the God of heaven, let it be 
 diligently done for the house of the God of 
 heaven ; for why should there be wrath against 
 the realm of the king and his sons" ?” 
 things are especially remarkable in these 
 
 Two 
 
 passages—first, the strongly marked religious 
 character, very unusual in heathen docu- 
 ments; 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 re- 
 
 f Ezra i. 2, 3. Compare 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23. 
 & Ibid. vi. 8-10. bY [oid svwiit)1.25.23: 
 
182 DECPURETY. 
 
 ceive abundant illustration from the Persian 
 cuneiform inscriptions, in which the recogni- 
 tion of a single supreme God, Ormazd, and 
 the clear and constant ascription to him of 
 the direction of all mundane affairs, are 
 leading features. In all the Persian monu- 
 ments of any length, the monarch makes the 
 acknowledgment that “Ormazd has bestowed 
 on him his empire” (75). Every success that 
 is gained is “by the grace of Ormazd.” The 
 name of Ormazd occurs in almost every other 
 paragraph of the Behistun inscription. No 
 public monuments with such a_ pervading 
 religious spirit have ever been discovered 
 among the records of any heathen nation 
 as those of the Persian kings; and through 
 all of them, down to the time of Artaxerxes 
 Ochus, the name of Ormazd stands alone and 
 unapproachable, as that of the Supreme Lord 
 of earth and heaven. The title “ Lord of 
 Heaven,” which runs as a sort of catchword 
 through these Chaldee translations of the 
 Persian records, is not indeed in the cunei- 
 form 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”’ (76). 
 
 It is generally admitted that the succession 
 
DECTURE 'V. 183 
 
 of the Persian kings from Cyrus to Darius 
 Hystaspis is correctly given in Ezra (77). 
 The names of the two intermediate monarchs 
 are indeed replaced by others—and it is diffi- 
 cult to explain how these kings came to be 
 known to the Jews as Ahasuerus and Arta- 
 xerxes, instead of Cambyses and Smerdis (78) 
 —but the exact agreement in the number of 
 the reigns, and the harmony in the chrono- 
 logy(79) have caused it to be almost universally 
 allowed that Cambyses and Smerdis are in- 
 tended. 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 reli- 
 gion, and who would therefore have been 
 likely to reverse the religious policy of his 
 predecessors. The Samaritans “ weakened 
 the hands of the people of Judah and troubled 
 them in building’” during 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 (80), appears in Ezra as the oppo- 
 
 i Ezra iv. 4. j Ibid. verse 24. 
 
184 LECTURE V. 
 
 nent 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 recur- 
 rence to the line of conduct which had been 
 pursued by Cyrus, as related in Ezra, har- 
 monises completely with the account which 
 Darius himself gives of his proceedings soon 
 after his accession. “I restored to the people,” 
 he says, “the religious worship, of which the 
 Magian had deprived them. As it was before, 
 so I arranged it” (81). Of course, this passage 
 refers primarily to the Persian Court religion, 
 and its re-establishment in the place of Ma- 
 gism 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 letter of the Magus‘ 
 is devoid of the slightest reference to religion, 
 that of Darius exhibits—as has been already 
 shewn—the same pious and reverential spi- 
 rit, the same respect for the God of the Jews, 
 and the same identification of Him with the 
 Supreme Being recognised by the Persians, 
 which are so prominent in the decree of Cy- 
 
 k Bzra iv. 17 to 22. 
 
LECTURE V. 185 
 
 rus. Darius is careful to follow in the foot- 
 steps of the great founder of the monarchy, 
 and under him “ the house of God at Jerusa- 
 lem,” which Cyrus was “charged” to build’, 
 is finally “ builded and finished™.” 
 
 A break occurs in the Biblical narrative 
 between the sixth and seventh chapters of 
 Ezra, the length of which is not estimated 
 by the sacred historian, but which we know 
 from profane sources to have extended to 
 above half a century (82). Into this interval 
 falls the whole of the reign of Xerxes. The 
 Jews in Palestine appear to have led during 
 this time a quiet and peaceable life under 
 Persian governors, and to have disarmed the 
 hostility of their neighbours by unworthy 
 compliances, such as intermarriages"; which 
 would have tended, if unchecked, to destroy 
 their distinct nationality. No history of the 
 time is given, because no event occurred 
 during it of any importance to the Jewish 
 community in Palestine. It is thought, how- 
 ever, 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 
 
 1 Ezra i. 2. m Tbid- wi. 14. n Ibid. ix. 2, &e. 
 
186 LECTURE rV. 
 
 undoubtedly the proper Hebrew equivalent 
 for the Persian word which the Greeks re- 
 presented by Xerxes (83). And if it was 
 Kish, the ancestor of Mordecai in the fourth 
 degree, who was carried away from Jerusalem 
 by Nebuchadnezzar, together with Jeconiah’, 
 the time of Xerxes would be exactly that in 
 which Mordecai ought to have flourished (84). 
 Assuming on these grounds the king in- 
 tended by Ahasuerus to be the Xerxes of 
 Greek history, we are at once struck with 
 the strong resemblance which his character 
 bears to that assigned by the classical writers 
 to the celebrated son of Darius. Proud, self- 
 willed, amorous, careless of contravening 
 Persian customs; reckless of human life, yet 
 not actually bloodthirsty; impetuous, facile, 
 changeable —the Ahasuerus of Esther cor- 
 responds in all respects to the Greek por- 
 traiture of Xerxes, which is not (be it ob- 
 served) the mere picture of an Oriental 
 despot, but has various peculiarities which 
 distinguish it even from the other Persian 
 kings, and which—I think it may be said— 
 individualise it. Nor is there—as might so 
 easily have been the case, were the book of 
 Esther a romance—any contradiction be- 
 
 o Esther ii. 5, 6. 
 
LECTURE V. 187 
 
 tween 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 
 (85), and one wherein it is likely that he 
 kept open house for “the princes of the pro- 
 ” 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 (86) that he resumed 
 his residence at Susa. It is true that “after 
 this time history speaks of other favourites 
 and another wife of Xerxes, namely Ames- 
 tris” (87), 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 
 
 vinces, 
 
 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 
 
 P Esther 1. 2, 3. q Ibid. i. 16. 
 
188 LeCAa wis vy. 
 
 improbable. True again that profane history 
 tells us nothing of Haman or Mordecai—but 
 we have absolutely no profane information on 
 the subject of who were the great officers of the 
 Persian court, or who had influence with Xer- 
 xes_after the death of Mardonius. 
 
 The intimate acquaintance which the Book 
 of Esther shews in many passages with Per- 
 sian manners and customs has been acknow- 
 ledged even by De Wette (89), who regards 
 it as composed in Persia on that account. I 
 think it may be said that we have nowhere 
 else so graphic or so just a portraiture of the 
 Persian court, such as it was in the earlier part 
 of the period of decline, which followed upon 
 the death of Darius. ‘The story of the Book 
 is no doubt in its leading features—the con- 
 templated massacre of the Jews, and the actual 
 slaughter of their adversaries — wonderful 
 and antecedently improbable; but these are 
 exactly the points of which the commemora- 
 tive festival of Purim is the strongest pos- 
 sible 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 (90); and 
 
LECTURE V. 189 
 
 the annual observance of this day, which 
 was known as “the Magophonia,” would 
 serve to keep up the recollection 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 mon- 
 arch under whom Ezra and Nehemiah flou- 
 rished (91), we have little information from 
 profane sources. His character, as drawn by 
 Ctesias, is mild but weak (92), and _ suffici- 
 ently harmonises with the portrait in the 
 first chapter of Nehemiah. He reigned 40 
 years—a longer time than any Persian king 
 but one; and it is perhaps worthy of remark 
 that Nehemiah mentions his 32nd year"; for 
 this, which is allowable in his case, would have 
 involved a contradiction of profane history, 
 had it occurred in connexion with any other 
 Persian king mentioned in Scripture, except- 
 ing only Darius Hystaspis. 
 
 The Old Testament history here termi- 
 nates. For the space of nearly 500 years— 
 from the time of Nehemiah and Malachi to 
 that of St. Paul—the Jews possessed no in- 
 spired writer; and their history, when recorded 
 at all, was related in works which were not re- 
 
 r Nehem. v. 14; xiii. 6. 
 
190 LECTURE Vv. 
 
 garded by themselves as authoritative or canon- 
 ical. Iam not concerned to defend the his- 
 torical accuracy of the Books of Maccabees; 
 much less that of Judith and the second 
 Esdras, which seem to be mere romances (93). 
 My task, so far as the Old Testament 1s con- 
 cerned, is accomplished. It has, I believe, been 
 shewn, in the first place, that the sacred narra- 
 tive itself is the production of eyewitnesses, 
 or of those who followed the accounts of eye- 
 witnesses, and therefore that it entitled to the 
 acceptance of all those who regard contem- 
 porary testimony as the main ground of all 
 authentic history. And it has, secondly, been 
 made apparent, that all the evidence which 
 we possess from profane sources of a really 
 important and trustworthy character, tends 
 to confirm the truth of the history delivered 
 to us in the sacred volume. The monumental 
 records of past ages—Assyrian, Babylonian, 
 Egyptian, Persian, Phoenician—the writings 
 of historians who have based their histories 
 on contemporary annals, as Manetho, Bero- 
 sus, Dius, Menander, Nicolas of Damascus— 
 the descriptions given by eyewitnesses of the 
 Oriental manners and customs—the proofs 
 obtained by modern research of the condition 
 of art in the time and country—all combine 
 
LECTURE.V. 191 
 
 to confirm, illustrate, and establish the vera- 
 city of the writers, who have delivered to us, 
 in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, 
 Kings and Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and Ne- 
 hemiah, the history of the chosen people. 
 That history stands firm against all the as- 
 saults made upon it; and the more light that 
 is thrown by research and discovery upon 
 the times and countries with which it deals, 
 the more apparent becomes its authentic and 
 matter-of-fact character. Instead of ranging 
 parallel with the mythical traditions of Greece 
 and Rome, (with which some delight to com- 
 pare it,) it stands, at the least, on a par with the 
 ancient histories of Egypt, Babylon, Phoeni- 
 cia,and Assyria; which, like it, were recorded 
 from a remote antiquity by national historio- 
 graphers. 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 an- 
 cient 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 
 
192 LECTURE 
 
 “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 ™:7? 
 
 8 ; John i. 1. t 2 Pet. 4.16; u John xviii. 37. 
 
LECTURE. VL. 
 
 1 JOHN LI. 1-3. 
 
 That which was from the beginning, which we 
 have heard, which we have seen with our 
 eyes, which we have looked upon, and our 
 hands have handled, of the Word of Life ; 
 (for the Life was manifested, and we have 
 seen it,and bear witness, and shew unto you 
 that Eternal Life, which was with the Father, 
 and was manifested unto us; ) that which we 
 have seen and heard declare we unto you. 
 
 THE period of time embraced by the events 
 of which we have any mention in the New 
 Testament but little exceeds the lifetime of 
 aman, falling short of a full century. The 
 regular and continuous history is comprised 
 within a yet narrower space, since it com- 
 mences in the year of Rome 748 or 749, and 
 terminates about sixty-three years later, in the 
 fifth of Nero, Anno Domini 58(1). If uni- 
 formity of plan were a thing of paramount 
 importance, it would be my duty to subdivide 
 this space of time into three portions, which 
 RAWLINSON. Oo 
 
194 LECTURE’ F1,. 
 
 might be treated separately in the three re- 
 maining Lectures of the present Course. 
 Such a subdivision could be made without 
 any great difficulty. The century naturally 
 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 oppres- 
 sion and persecution without, of defection 
 and heresy within, or that to which we have 
 incidental allusions in the later Epistles and 
 the Apocalypse. Or, if we confined our view 
 to the space of time which is covered by the 
 historical Books, and omitted the last of 
 these three periods from our consideration, 
 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 ge- 
 neral condition of the Christian community, 
 becomes from the thirteenth the biographer 
 of a single Apostle, whose career he thence- 
 forth 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 period, and to substitute, 
 at the present point, for the arrangement of 
 
LECTURE VI. 195 
 
 time hitherto followed, an arrangement based 
 upon a division of the evidence, which here 
 naturally separates into three heads or 
 branches. ‘The first of these is the internal 
 evidence, or that of the documents them- 
 selves, which I propose to make the subject 
 of the present Lecture; 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 un- 
 inspired Christian remains of the times con- 
 temporary 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 with 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 collection of twenty-seven separate, and 
 independent documents, composed by eight 
 
 a Matt. xxviii. 20. 
 
 one 
 
196 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 or nine different persons, at separate times, 
 and under varied circumstances. Of these 
 twenty-seven documents twenty-one consist 
 of letters written by those who were engaged 
 in the propagation of the new Religion to 
 their converts, four are biographies of Christ, 
 one is a short Church History, containing a 
 general account of the Christian community 
 for 12 or 13 years after our Lord’s ascension, 
 together with a particular account of St. 
 Paul’s doings for about 14 years afterwards ; 
 and one is prophetical, containing (as 1s ge- 
 nerally supposed) a sketch of the future 
 state and condition of the Christian Church 
 from the close of the first century, when it 
 was written, to the end of the world. It is 
 with the historical Books that we are in the 
 present review primarily concerned. I wish 
 to shew that for the Scriptural narrative of 
 the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascen- 
 sion of Christ, as well as for the circumstances 
 of the first preaching of the Gospel, the his- 
 torical evidence that we possess is of an au- 
 thentic and satisfactory character. 
 
 As with that document which is the basis 
 of Judaism (2), so with those which are the 
 basis of Christianity, it is of very great in- 
 terest and importance to know by whom they 
 were written. If the history was recorded by 
 
LE CPUurn EM. 197 
 
 eye-witnesses, or even by persons contempo- 
 raneous with the events narrated, then it is 
 allowed on all hands that the record contain- 
 ing 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 originating from 
 the titles which the Biblical books bear in our 
 Canon” (3). “ Little reliance however can 
 be placed on these titles, or on the headings 
 of ancient manuscripts generally” (4). “The 
 early Jewish and Christian writers—even the 
 most reputable—published their works with 
 the substitution of venerated names, without 
 an idea that they were guilty of falsehood or 
 deception by so doing” (5). In “ sacred 
 records” and “ biblical books” this species of 
 forgery obtained “ more especially” (6); and 
 the title of works of this kind is scarcely any 
 evidence at all of the real authorship. Fur- 
 ther, the actual titles of our Gospels are not 
 to be regarded as intended to assert the com- 
 position of the Gospel by the person named ; 
 all that they mean to assert is, the composi- 
 tion 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 translated by “ according to ;” 
 
198 LECTUR® Vi. 
 
 which is improperly understood as implying 
 actual authorship (7). 
 
 Such are the assertions with which we are 
 met, when we urge that for the events of our 
 Lord’s life we have the testimony of eye- 
 witnesses, whose means of knowing the truth 
 were of the highest order, and whose honesty 
 is unimpeachable. ‘These assertions (which I 
 have given as nearly as possible in the words 
 of Strauss,) consist of a series of positions 
 either plainly false, or at best without either 
 proof or likelihood ; yet upon these the mo- 
 dern Rationalism is content 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. 
 
 It is said, that “ the alleged ocular testi- 
 mony Is an assumption originating from the 
 titles which the Biblical books bear in our 
 Canon.” Ido not know if any stress is in- 
 tended to be laid on the last clause of this 
 objection ; but as it might mislead the un- 
 learned, I may observe in passing, that the 
 titles which the Books bear in the modern 
 authorized versions of the Scriptures are 
 
LECTURE: VI. 199 
 
 literal translations from some of the most 
 ancient Greek manuscripts, and descend to 
 us at least from the times of the first Coun- 
 cils; while titles still more emphatic and 
 explicit are found in several of the versions 
 which were made at an early period (8). Our 
 belief in the authorship of the writings, no 
 doubt, rests partly on the titles, as does our 
 belief in the authorship of every ancient 
 treatise; but it is untrue to say that these 
 headings first originated the belief; for be- 
 fore 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 authorship of 
 any one of the historical books of the New 
 Testament; which are as uniformly ascribed 
 to the writers whose names they bear as the 
 Return of the Ten Thousand to Xenophon, 
 or the Lives of the Caesars to Suetonius. 
 There is indeed far better evidence of author- 
 ship in the case of the four Gospels and of 
 the Acts of the Apostles, 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 publica- 
 tion (9). The Gospels, as we shall find in 
 
200 LE CTW RE} Vi 
 
 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 per- 
 fectly 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. 
 
 In the next place we are told that “ little 
 reliance can be placed on the headings of 
 ancient manuscripts generally.’’ Undoubt- 
 edly, such headings, when unconfirmed by 
 further testimony, are devoid of any great 
 weight, and may be set aside, if the internal 
 evidence of the writings themselves disproves 
 the superscription. Still they constitute im- 
 portant primd facie evidence of authorship ; 
 and it is to be presumed that they are cor- 
 rect, until solid reasons be shewn to the con- 
 trary. The headings of ancient manuscripts 
 are, In point of fact, generally accepted as cor- 
 rect by critics; and the proportion, among the 
 works of antiquity, 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 
 
LECTURE VI. 201 
 
 are “especially”? untrustworthy. This, we 
 are told, “is evident, and has long since been 
 proved” (10). Where the proof is to be found 
 we are not informed, nor whence the pecu- 
 liar 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 re- 
 gard to the Pentateuch and the book of 
 Daniel no mistake has been committed (11); 
 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 frequently to be incorrect. Headings, 
 it must be remembered, are in no case any 
 part of the inspired Word ; they indicate 
 merely the opinion of those who had the 
 custody of the Word at the time when they 
 were prefixed. Now in most cases the head- 
 ings would be attached soon after the com- 
 position of the work, when its authorship 
 was certainly known ; but the Psalms do not 
 appear to have been collected into a book 
 
202 Ea Cora Vi. 
 
 until the time of Ezra (12), and the headings 
 of many may have been then first affixed, 
 those who attached them following a vague 
 tradition or venturing upon conjecture. Thus 
 error has here crept in; but on this ground 
 to assume that “sacred records” have a pe- 
 culiar untrustworthiness in this respect, is to 
 betray an irreligious spirit, and to generalise 
 upon very insufficient data. 
 
 But, it is said, “ the most reputable authors 
 amongst the Jews and early Christians pub- 
 lished 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, re- 
 putable or no, can be shewn to have thus 
 acted? If the allusion is to the epistles of 
 Hermas and Barnabas, it must be observed 
 that the genuineness of these is still matter of 
 dispute among the learned; if to such works 
 as the Clementines, the interpolated Ignatius, 
 and the like, that they are not “early” in the 
 sense implied, for they belong probably to 
 the third century(13). The practice noted 
 was common among heretical sects from the 
 first, but it was made a reproach to them by 
 the orthodox (14); who did not themselves 
 adopt it till the teaching of the Alexandrian 
 
LECTURE VI. 203 
 
 School had confused the boundaries of right 
 and wrong, and made “ pious frauds” appear 
 defensible. There is no reason to suppose 
 that any orthodox Christian of the first cen- 
 tury—when it is granted that our Gospels 
 were written—would have considered him- 
 self entitled to bring out under a “ venerated 
 name” a work of his own composition. 
 
 Lastly, it is urged, “the titles of our Gos- 
 pels are not intended to assert the composi- 
 tion of the works by the persons named, but 
 only their being based upon a groundwork 
 furnished by such persons, either orally, or 
 in the shape of written notes” (15). “ This 
 seems to be the original meaning attached to 
 the word xara,” we are told. No example 
 however is adduced of this use, which is cer- 
 tainly not that of the Septuagint, where the 
 book of Nehemiah is referred to under the 
 name of “The Commentaries according to 
 Nehemiah”’ (kara rov Neewiay)’; and it cannot 
 be shewn 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 compositions of the 
 persons named therein. Nothing is more 
 certain than that the object of affixing titles 
 
 b 2 Mac. il. 13. 
 
204 LE CPU RE’ Vv. 
 
 to the Gospels at all was to mark the opinion 
 entertained of their authorship. This opinion 
 appears to have been universal. We find no 
 evidence of any doubt having ever existed 
 on the subject in the early ages(16).  Ire- 
 nzeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, 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 universal agree- 
 ment of the Church from the first upon the 
 subject (17). Justin in the middle of the 
 second century speaks of the “Gospels” which 
 the Christians read in their Churches, as hav- 
 ing been composed “ by the Apostles of Christ 
 and their companions ;” and he further shews 
 by his quotations, which are abundant, that 
 he means the Gospels now in our possession 
 (18). Papias, a quarter of a century 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 to the 
 very age of the Apostles themselves ; for 
 Papias was a disciple of St. John the Evan- 
 gelist (19). 
 
 Further, in the case of three out of the 
 five Historical Books of the New Testament, 
 there is an internal testimony to their com- 
 
LECTURE VI. 205 
 
 position by contemporaries, which is of the 
 last importance. “ And he that saw it,” says 
 St. John, “bare record, and his record is 
 true, and he knoweth that he saith true, that 
 ye may believe*’.” And again, still more 
 explicitly, after speaking of himself and 
 of the circumstances which caused it to be 
 thought that he would not die—* This is the 
 disciple which testifieth of these things and 
 wrote these things: and we know that his tes- 
 timony is true".’ 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 fic- 
 tion,” which Strauss with impious boldness 
 has ventured to allege against him (20). 
 
 That the Acts of the Apostles and the third 
 Gospel have “a testimony of a particular 
 kind,” which seems to give them a special 
 claim to be accepted as the works of a con- 
 temporary, is admitted even by this Prince 
 of Sceptics. The writer of the Acts, he al- 
 lows, “ by the use of the first person identi- 
 fies himself with the companion of St. Paul,”’ 
 and the prefaces of the two books make it 
 plain that they “proceeded from the same 
 author’ (21). This evidence is felt to be so 
 strong, that even Strauss does not venture to 
 
 € John xix. 35. d Tbid. xxi. 24. 
 
206 LECTURE VI. 
 
 deny that a companion of St. Paul may have 
 written the two works. He finds it “ diffi- 
 cult’ to believe that this was actually the 
 case, and “ suspects” that the passages of the 
 Acts where the first person is used “ belong 
 to a distinct memorial by another hand, which 
 the author of the Acts has incorporated into 
 his history.” But still he allows the alter- 
 native—that “it is possible the companion 
 of Paul may have composed the two works” 
 —only it must have been “at a time when 
 he was no longer protected by apostolic in- 
 fluence from the tide of tradition,’ and so 
 was induced to receive into his narrative, and 
 join with what he had heard from the apostle, 
 certain marvellous (and therefore incredible) 
 stories which had no solid or substantial 
 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 (23) writers), and that the Gospel, as 
 being “the former treatise‘’,’’ was written 
 earlier, Strauss replies, “ that the breaking 
 off of the Acts at that particular point might 
 have been the result of many other causes ; 
 and that, at all events, such testimony stand- 
 
 e Actsi.1. 
 
LECTURE VI. 207 
 
 ing alone is wholly insufficient to decide the 
 historical worth of the Gospel” (24). 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 (25), while he also 
 omits to notice the other important evidence 
 of an early date which the Gospel itself fur- 
 nishes—the declaration, namely, in the pre- 
 face that what St. Luke wrote was delivered 
 to him by those “ which from the beginning 
 were eye-witnesses and ministers of the 
 Words” 
 
 If the third Gospel be allowed to have 
 been composed by one who lived in the apo- 
 stolic age and companied with the apostles, 
 then an argument for the early date of the 
 first and second will arise from their accord- 
 ance with the third—their resemblance to it 
 in style and general character, and their di- 
 versity from the productions of any other 
 period. The first three Gospels belong so 
 entirely to the same school of thought, and 
 the same type and stage of language, that on 
 critical grounds they must be regarded as 
 the works of contemporaries; while in their 
 contents they are at once so closely accordant 
 with one another, and so full of little differ- 
 
 f Luke i. 2. 
 
208 LECDPURE? VI 
 
 ences, that the most reasonable view to take 
 of their composition is that it was almost 
 simultaneous (26). 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 tra-. 
 dition which assigns the others to St. Matthew 
 and St. Mark. 
 
 On the whole, therefore, we have abundant 
 reason to believe that the four Gospels are 
 the works of persons who lived at the time 
 when Christianity was first preached and 
 established. Two of the writers—St. Luke 
 and St. John—fix their own date, which must 
 be accepted on their authority, unless we will 
 pronounce them impostors. The two others 
 appear alike by their matter and their man- 
 ner to be as early as St. Luke, and are cer- 
 tainly earlier than St. John, whose Gospel is 
 supplemental to the other three, and implies 
 their pre-existence. Nor is there any rea- 
 sonable ground for doubting the authorship 
 which Christian antiquity with one voice de- 
 clares to us, and in which the titles of the 
 earliest manuscripts and of the most ancient 
 versions agree. ‘The four Gospels are as- 
 signed to those four persons, whom the 
 
bE Caw RE: VI. 209 
 
 Church has always honoured 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 Irenzeus is really of more weight than the 
 whole array of witnesses commonly marshalled 
 in proof of the genuineness of an ancient 
 classic; and, even if it stood alone, might 
 fairly be regarded as placing the question of 
 the authorship beyond all reasonable doubt 
 or suspicion. 
 
 If then the Gospels are genuine, what a 
 wonderful historical 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 com- 
 panions of such as had had intimate know- 
 ledge of Him. How rarely do we obtain 
 even two distinct original biographies of a 
 distinguished person! In the peculiar and 
 unexampled circumstances of the time it is 
 not surprising that many undertook to “ set 
 forth in order a declaration of the things®” 
 which constituted the essence of the new 
 religion, namely, the life and teaching of 
 
 & Luke i. 1. 
 
 RAWLINSON. IE 
 
210 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 Christ; but it is remarkable, and I think it 
 may fairly be said to be providential, that 
 four accounts should have been written pos- 
 sessing claims to attention so nearly equal, 
 that the Church felt bound to adopt all into 
 her Canon, whence it has happened that 
 they have all come down to us. We should 
 have expected, alike on the analogy of the Old 
 Testament (27), 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 com- 
 posed, as some have imagined (28), within a 
 few years of our Lord’s ascension, it would 
 have been carried together with Christianity 
 into all parts of the world; and it is very 
 unlikely that in that case the Gospels of 
 St. Mark and St. Luke, which cover chiefly 
 the same ground, would have been written. 
 The need of written Gospels was not felt at 
 first. while the Apostles and companions of 
 
LECTURE VI. 211 
 
 Christ were in full vigour, and were con- 
 tinually moving from place to place, relating 
 with all the fulness and variety of oral dis- 
 course 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 la- 
 bours enlarged, and personal superintendence 
 of the whole Church by the Apostolic body 
 became difficult, the desire to possess a writ- 
 ten Gospel arose; and simultaneously, in dif- 
 ferent parts of the Church, for different por- 
 tions 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 (29) ; and as it agrees nearly with 
 the testimony of Irenzus (30), 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 al- 
 lowed to possess in their substantial agree- 
 ment respecting the life, character, teaching, 
 miracles, prophetic announcements, suffer- 
 ings, death, resurrection, and ascension of 
 our Lord (31), evidence of the most impor- 
 
 PQ 
 
212 LECGEURE VE 
 
 tant kind, and such as is scarcely ever attain- 
 able with respect to the actions of an indivi- 
 dual. Attempts have been made from time 
 to time, and recently on a large scale, to in- 
 validate this testimony by establishing the 
 existence of minute points of disagreement 
 between the accounts of the three Evangel- 
 ists (32). But the differences adduced consist 
 almost entirely of omissions by one Evangelist 
 of what is mentioned by another, such omis- 
 sions being regarded by Strauss as equivalent 
 to direct negatives (33). The weak character 
 of the argument «a silentio is now admitted 
 by all tolerable critics, who have ceased to 
 lean upon it with any feeling of security ex- 
 cept under very peculiar circumstances. In 
 ordinary cases, and more particularly in cases 
 where brevity has been studied, mere silence 
 proves absolutely nothing; and to make it 
 equivalent to counter-assertion is to confuse 
 two things wholly different, and to exhibit a 
 want of critical discernment, such as must in 
 the eyes of all reasonable persons completely 
 discredit the writer who is so unfair or so ill- 
 judging. Yet this, I confidently affirm, is the 
 ordinary manner of Strauss, who throughout 
 his volumes conceives himself at liberty to 
 discard facts recorded by one Evangelist 
 only, on the mere ground of silence on the 
 
LECTURE: VI. ae. 
 
 part of the others. Whatever an Evangelist 
 does not record, he is argued not to have 
 known; and his want of knowledge is taken 
 as a proof that the event could not have hap- 
 pened. It seems to be forgotten, that, in the 
 first place, eye-witnesses of one and the same 
 event notice a different portion of the atten- 
 dant circumstances; and that, secondly, those 
 who record an event which they have wit- 
 nessed omit ordinarily, for brevity’s sake, by 
 far the greater portion of the attendant cir- 
 cumstances which they noticed at the time 
 and still remember. Strauss’s cavils could 
 only have been precluded by the mere re- 
 petition on the part of each Evangelist of 
 the exact circumstances mentioned by every 
 other—a repetition which would have been 
 considered to mark collusion or unacknow- 
 ledged borrowing, and which would have 
 thus destroyed their value as distinct and 
 independent witnesses. 
 
 It has been well observed (34), that, even 
 if all the difficulties and discrepancies, which 
 this writer has thought to discover in the 
 Gospels, were real and not merely apparent 
 —if we were obliged to leave them as diffi- 
 culties, and could offer no explanation of 
 them (35)—-still the general credibility of the 
 Gospel History would remain untouched, and 
 
214 LECTURE VE 
 
 no more would be proved than the absence of 
 that complete inspiration which the Church 
 has always believed to attach to the Evange- 
 lical writings. The writers would be lowered 
 from their preeminent rank as perfect and 
 infallible historians, whose every word may be 
 depended on; but they would remain histo- 
 rical authorities of the first order—witnesses 
 as fully to be trusted for the circumstances of 
 our Lord’s life, as Xenophon for the sayings 
 and doings of Socrates, or Cavendish for those 
 of Cardinal Wolsey. The facts of the miracles, 
 preaching, sufferings, death, resurrection, and 
 ascension, would therefore stand firm, toge- 
 ther with those of the choice of the Apostles, 
 the commission given them, and the commu- 
 nication to them of miraculous powers; and 
 these are the facts which establish Christ- 
 lanity, and form its historical basis—a basis 
 which 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 im- 
 postors. 
 
 For the truth of the Gospel facts does not 
 rest solely upon the Gospels—they are stated 
 with almost equal distinctness in the Acts, 
 and are implied in the Epistles. It is not 
 denied that a companion of St. Paul may 
 
LECTURE VI. Q15 
 
 have written the account of the early spread 
 of the Gospel which is contained in the Acts 
 of the Apostles. But the Acts assume as 
 indisputable the whole series of facts which 
 form the basis on which Christianity sustains 
 itself. ‘They set forth “Jesus of Nazareth, a 
 man approved of God by miracles and won- 
 ders 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 devili” 
 —who “ beginning from Galilee, after the 
 baptism which John preached, published the 
 word throughout all Judza!;” 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 shewed open- 
 ly°,” “by many infallible proofs during the 
 space of forty days?,” “not to all the people, 
 h Acts u..22. 1 Ibid. x. 38. j Ibid. verse 37. 
 
 k Ibid. xiii. 27-8. Y Ibid. ii, 23. m Tbid. x. 39. 
 melbid-- xiii. 20: © Ibid. x. 40. P ibid. ics: 
 
216 LECTURE Vi 
 
 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 shew 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 communicated, 
 so that they prophesied‘, cured lameness by 
 a word or a touch", spake languages of which 
 they had no natural knowledge’, restored the 
 bedridden to health”, handled serpents*, cast 
 out devils’, inflicted blindness’, raised the dead 
 to life*, and finally even in some cases cured 
 men bythe touch of their shadows? or by hand- 
 kerchiefs and aprons from their persons‘. 
 The substantial truth of the history con- 
 tained in the Acts—so far at least as it con- 
 cerns St. Paul—has been excellently vindi- 
 cated by a writer of our own nation and 
 communion, from the undesigned conformity 
 between the narrative and the Epistles 
 
 avACS X40. © Ibid. i."9; 40; s Ibid. verse 4. 
 t' bids. V..9 wise 75 Gc. u Ibid. xiv. 10, and iii. 7. 
 Vv Ibid. 1. 4=+13. W Ibid. ix. 34. x Ibid. xxviii. 5. 
 y Tbid. xvi. 18, &c. Z Ibid. xiii. 11. a bid. ix. 37-41 ; 
 
 XX, O-12. b Ibid. v. 15. ¢ [bid. xix. 12. 
 
LECTURE VI. 217 
 
 ascribed to the great Apostle. Without as- 
 suming the genuineness of those Epistles, 
 Paley has most unanswerably shewn, that the 
 peculiar nature of the agreement between 
 them and the history of the Acts affords 
 good reason to believe that “the persons and 
 transactions described are real, the letters 
 authentic, and the narration in the main 
 true” (36). The Hore Pauline establish 
 these positions in the most satisfactory man- 
 ner. I do not think that it is possible for any 
 one to read them attentively without coming 
 to the conclusion that the Epistles of St. 
 Paul and the Acts of the Apostles bring us 
 into contact with real persons, real scenes, 
 real transactions—that the letters were actu- 
 ally written by St. Paul himself at the time 
 and under the circumstances related in the 
 history—and that the history was composed 
 by one who had that complete knowledge 
 of the circumstances which could only be 
 gained by personai observation, or by inti- 
 mate acquaintance with the Apostle who is 
 the chief subject of the narrative. The ef- 
 fect of a perusal of this masterly work will 
 scarcely be neutralised by the bare and un- 
 supported assertion of Strauss, that “ the de- 
 tails concerning Paul in the Book of the Acts 
 are so completely at variance with Paul’s ge- 
 
218 LE CRURENVI 
 
 nuine epistles, that it is extremely difficult 
 to reconcile them with the notion that they 
 were written by a companion of the Apostle” 
 (37). The Hore Pauline should have been 
 answered in detail, before such an assertion 
 was adventured on. Boldly and barely made, 
 without a tittle of proof, it can only be re- 
 garded as an indication of the utter reckless- 
 ness of the new School, and of its striking 
 deficiency in the qualities which are requi- 
 site 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 ad- 
 mirable way, the most remarkable of the un- 
 designed coincidences between the Acts and 
 the Pauline Epistles; but it would not be 
 difficult to increase his list by the addition of 
 an equal number of similar points of agree- 
 ment, which he has omitted (38). 
 
 Again, it is to be remarked, that the argu- 
 ment 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 sepa- 
 
LECTURE ‘VI. 219 
 
 rate volume. When St. Matthew‘, however, 
 and St. Luke*, in giving the list of the Apo- 
 stles, 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 (humanly speaking) ac- 
 cidental harmony on which Paley has insisted 
 with such force as an evidence of authenticity 
 and truth in connexion with the history of 
 the Acts. It would be easy to multiply in- 
 stances; but my limits will not allow me to 
 do more than briefly to allude to this head 
 of evidence, to which full justice could not 
 be done unless by an elaborate work on the 
 subject (39). 
 
 Finally, let it be considered whether the 
 Epistles alone, apart from the Gospels and 
 the Acts, do not sufficiently establish the 
 historic truth of that narrative of the life 
 of Christ and foundation of the Christian 
 Church, which it has been recently attempted 
 to resolve into mere myth and fable. The 
 genuineness of St. Paul’s Epistles, with one or 
 two exceptions, is admitted even by Strauss 
 (40); and there are no valid reasons for en- 
 tertaining any doubt concerning the author- 
 
 a Watt. x..2—4) e Luke vi. 14-16. f Mark iii. 16-19. 
 g Ibid. vi. 7. 
 
220 LECTURE VI. 
 
 ship of the other Epistles, except perhaps in 
 the case of that to the Hebrews, and of the 
 two shorter Epistles commonly assigned to 
 St. John (41). Excluding these, we have 
 eighteen letters written by five of the prin- 
 cipal Apostles of Christ, one by St. John, two 
 by St. Peter, thirteen 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 indivi- 
 duals—all composed for practical purposes 
 with special reference to the peculiar exi- 
 gencies of the time, but all exhibiting casu- 
 ally and incidentally the state of opinion 
 and belief among Christians during the half 
 century immediately following our Lord’s 
 ascension. It is indisputable that the writers, 
 and those to whom they wrote, believed in 
 the recent occurrence of a set of facts similar 
 to, or identical with, those recorded in the 
 Gospels and the Acts— more particularly 
 those which are most controverted, such as 
 the transfiguration, the resurrection, and the 
 ascension. “Great is the mystery of godli- 
 ness,” says St. Paul. “God was manifest in 
 the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, 
 preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in 
 the world, received up into glory.” “Christ,” 
 
 Te Abhay, othe, Woy, 
 
BEC BUR EVI. 29 
 
 says St. Peter, “suffered once for sins, the just 
 _ for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, 
 being put to death in the flesh, but quickened 
 in the spirit’.” “He received from God the 
 Father honour 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 de- 
 livered unto you first of all that which I also 
 received, how that Christ died for our sins 
 according to the Scriptures; and that he was 
 buried, and that he rose again the third day 
 according to the Scriptures; and that he was 
 seen of Cephas, then of the twelve—after that 
 he was seen of above eight hundred brethren 
 at once...after that, he was seen of James, 
 
 iy Pet. iii. 18. J 2) Pet. 14175, 28. ie Bet. asiaue 
 1 Thid. iii. 22. m 2 Tim. ii. 8. n 1 Cor. xv. 14. 
 
222 LECTURE VI. 
 
 then of all the apostles®.”. These are half-a- 
 dozen texts out of hundreds, which might be 
 adduced to shew that the writers of the 
 Epistles, some writing before, some after the 
 Evangelists, 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 Jeru- 
 salem” (42). 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 Apostles themselves, the 
 companions of Christ, maintained from the 
 first the reality of those marvellous events 
 which the Evangelists have recorded—they 
 proclaimed themselves 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 Gospel narrative. There is no 
 historical ground for asserting that that nar- 
 rative was formed by degrees; nor is there 
 any known instance of a mythic history hav- 
 ing grown up in such an age, under such cir- 
 cumstances, or with such rapidity as is pos- 
 
 ox Cor. xv. 3-7. P Actsi. 22; iv: 33,&c. 4 Ibid, ii. 22. 
 
LECTURE VI. 223 
 
 tulated in this case by our adversaries. The 
 age was a historical age, being that of Dio- 
 nysius, Diodorus, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, 
 Plutarch, Valerius Maximus, and Tacitus— 
 the country was one where written records 
 were kept, and historical literature had long 
 flourished ; it produced at the very time when 
 the New Testament documents were being 
 written, a 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 characteristics of the most 
 opposite periods—to ascribe to a time of 
 luxury, over-civilisation, and decay, a phase 
 of thought which only belongs to the rude 
 vigour and early infancy of nations. 
 
 There is in very deed no other alternative, 
 if we reject the historic truth of the New 
 Testament, than that embraced by the old 
 assailants of Christianity—the ascription of 
 the entire religion to imposture. The my- 
 thical explanation seems to have been in- 
 vented in order to avoid this harsh conclu- 
 sion, which the moral tone of the religion 
 and the sufferings of its first propagators in 
 defence of it alike contradict. The expla- 
 nation fails, however, even in this respect ; 
 
224 a EO OF ot Dee eB 
 
 for its great advocate finds it insufficient to 
 explain the phenomena, and finally delivers 
 it as his opinion, that in many places the au- 
 thors of the Gospels consciously and design- 
 edly introduced fictions into their narratives 
 (43). 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 
 which they had not seen, and knew that they 
 had not seen ; if we are conscious in reading 
 them of a tone of sincerity and truth beyond 
 that of even the most veracious and simple- 
 minded of profane writers; if we recognise 
 throughout an atmosphere of fact and reality, 
 a harmony of statement, a frequency of un- 
 designed coincidence, an agreement like that 
 of honest witnesses not studious of seeming 
 to agree; we must pronounce utterly un- 
 tenable this last device of the sceptic, which 
 presents even more difficulties than the old 
 unbelief. We must accept the documents as 
 at once genuine and authentic. The writers 
 declare to us that which they have heard and 
 seen’. ‘They were believed by thousands of 
 their contemporaries, on the spot where they 
 stated the most remarkable of the events to 
 have taken place, and within a few weeks of 
 the time. They could not be mistaken as to 
 
 r x John i; 3. 
 
LECTURE VI. 225 
 
 those events. And if it be granted that these 
 happened—if the resurrection and ascension 
 are allowed to be facts, then the rest of the 
 narrative may well be received, for it is less 
 marvellous. Vain are the “ profane babblings,” 
 which ever “increase unto more ungodliness,” 
 of those whose “ word doth eat like a canker 
 
 . who concerning the truth have erred’ — 
 denying the resurrection of Christ, and “ say- 
 ing that the resurrection” of man “ is past 
 already,” thus “ overthrowing the faith of 
 some’.” “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 hea- 
 vens’.” These are the cardinal points of the 
 Christian’s faith. On these credentials, which 
 nothing can shake, he accepts as certain the 
 divine mission of his Saviour. 
 
 s 2 Tim. i. 16-18. t Ibid. verse 19. u Tbid. verse 8. 
 Vv Acts il. 34. 
 
 RAWLINSON. Q 
 
LECT Ua Eye 
 
 2 CORINTHIANS XIII. 1. 
 
 In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall 
 every word be established. 
 
 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 ‘Tes- 
 tament 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 ac- 
 counts of individuals (1). 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 vi- 
 cissitudes through which the Jewish nation 
 passed, its sufferings, triumphs, checks, re- 
 verses, its struggles, ruin, and recovery. In 
 the Historical Books of the New Testament, 
 
LECTURE VII. 227 
 
 on the contrary, these points cease altogether 
 to engage the writers’ attention, which be- 
 comes fixed on an individual, whose words and 
 actions, and the effect of whose teaching it is 
 their great object to put on record. The au- 
 thors of the Gospels are biographers of Christ, 
 not historians of their nation; they intend 
 no account of the political condition of Pales- 
 tine in their time, but only a narrative of the 
 chief facts concerning our Lord—especiaily 
 those of his public life and ministry (3). 
 Even the Evangelist, who in a second treatise 
 carries on the narrative from the Ascension 
 during the space of some 30 years to the first 
 imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome, leaves 
 untouched the national history, and confines 
 himself (as the title of his work implies) to 
 the “acts” of those who made the doctrine 
 of Christ known to the world. Hence the 
 agreement to be traced between the sacred 
 narrative and profane 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 
 Q2 
 
228 LECTURE VII. 
 
 names, offices, and characters of the political 
 personages to whom there happens to be 
 allusion; the general condition of the Jews 
 and heathen at the time; the prevalent 
 manners and customs; and the like. The 
 value of such confirmation is not, however, 
 less, but rather greater than that of the more 
 direct confirmation which would result from 
 an accordance with respect to main facts— 
 in the first place, because it is a task of the 
 extremest difficulty for any one but an honest 
 contemporary writer to maintain accuracy in 
 the wide field of incidental allusion (3); and 
 secondly, because exactness in such matters 
 is utterly at variance with the mythical spirit, 
 of which, according to the latest phase of un- 
 belief, the narrative of the New Testament 
 is the product. The detail and appearance 
 of exactness, which characterises the Evan- 
 gelical writings, is of itself a strong argument 
 against the mythical theory; if it can be 
 shewn that the detail is correct and the ex- 
 actness that of persons intimately acquainted 
 with the whole history of the time 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 Evan- 
 
LECTURE VIEL. 229 
 
 gelical writings—that the incidental refer- 
 ences 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 disagree- 
 ment with profane authorities, seriously to 
 question. 
 
 Before entering, however, on this examina- 
 tion of the incidental allusions or secondary 
 facts in the New Testament 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 resurrec- 
 tion, and the ascension) are of such a nature 
 that no testimony to them from profane 
 sources was to be expected, since those who 
 believed them naturally and almost neces- 
 sarily became Christians ; and secondly, that 
 with regard to such as are not of this cha- 
 racter, there does exist profane testimony of 
 the first order. The existence at this time 
 of one called by his followers Christ, the 
 place of his teaching, his execution by Pon- 
 tius Pilate, Procurator of Judea under Tibe- 
 rius, the rapid spread of his doctrine through 
 the Roman world, the vast number of con- 
 
230 LECTURE VII. 
 
 verts made in a short time, the persecutions 
 which they underwent, the innocency of their 
 -lives, their worship of Christ as God—are 
 witnessed to by Heathen writers of eminence, 
 and would be certain and indisputable facts, 
 had the New Testament never been written. 
 Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Pliny, Trajan, 
 Adrian (4), writing in the century immedi- 
 ately following upon the death of Christ, de- 
 clare these things to us, and establish, so firmly 
 that no sceptic can even profess to doubt it, 
 the historical character of (at least) that pri- 
 mary groundwork whereon the Christian story, 
 as related by the Evangelists, rests as on an 
 immovable basis. These classic notices com- 
 pel even those who set no value on the his- 
 torical Christ, to admit his existence (5); they 
 give a definite standing-point to the religion, 
 which might otherwise have been declared 
 to have no historical foundation at all, but 
 to be purely and absolutely mythic; they 
 furnish, taken by themselves, no unimport- 
 ant 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 punishments and persecu- 
 tions of the most fearful kind ; and they 
 form, in combination with the argument 
 from the historic accuracy of the incidental 
 
LECTURE VII. | 
 
 allusions, an evidence in favour of the sub- 
 stantial truth of the New Testament narra- 
 tive which is amply sufficient to satisfy any 
 fair mind. As they have been set forth fully 
 and with admirable argumentative 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 chap- 
 ter on the subject in the first part of Paley’s 
 Evidences (6). 
 
 If an objection be raised against the assign- 
 ment of very much weight to these testimo- 
 nies of adversaries on account of their scant 
 number and brevity; and if it be urged, that 
 supposing the New Testament narrative to 
 be true, we should have expected far more 
 frequent and fuller notices of the religion 
 and its Founder than the remains of an- 
 tiquity in fact furnish,—if it be said (for 
 instance) that Josephus ought to have related 
 the miracles of Christ, and Seneca, the bro- 
 ther of Gallio, his doctrines; that the ob- 
 servant Pausanias, the voluminous Plutarch, 
 the copious Dio, the exact Arrian, should 
 have made frequent mention of Christianity 
 in their writings, instead of almost wholly 
 ignoring it (7); let it be considered, in the 
 first place, whether the very silence of these 
 
232 LECTURE VII. 
 
 writers is not a proof of the importance 
 which in their hearts they assigned to Christ- 
 ianity, and the difficulty which they felt in 
 dealing with it—whether in fact it is not a 
 forced and studied reticence—a reticence so 
 far from being indicative of ignorance that 
 it implies only too much knowledge, having 
 its origin in a feeling that it was best to ig- 
 nore what it was unpleasant to confess and 
 impossible 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 reli- 
 gion; we may be sure he inwardly mourned 
 over this sad spirit of disaffection—this mad- 
 ness (as he must have thought it) of a de- 
 generate age; but no word is suffered to 
 escape him on the painful subject; he is too 
 jealous of his gods’ honour to allow that 
 there are any who dare to insult them. Like 
 the faithful retainer of a falling house he 
 covers up the shame of his masters, and bears 
 his head so much the more proudly because 
 of their depressed condition. Again, it is 
 impossible that Epictetus could have been 
 ignorant of the wonderful patience and con- 
 stancy of the Christian martyrs, of their 
 
LECTURE VIL. 233 
 
 marked contempt of death and general in- 
 difference to worldly things—he must, one 
 would think, as a Stoic, have been moved 
 with a secret admiration of those great 
 models of fortitude, and if he had allowed 
 himself to speak freely, could not but have 
 made frequent reference to them. The one 
 contemptuous notice, which is all that Arrian 
 reports (8), sufficiently indicates his know- 
 ledge ; the entire silence, except in this 
 passage (9), upon what it so nearly con- 
 cerned a Stoical philosopher to bring for- 
 ward, can only be viewed as the studied 
 avoidance of a topic which would have been 
 unpalatable to his hearers, and to himself 
 perhaps not wholly agreeable. The philo- 
 sopher 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 com- 
 mon men, artisans and labourers, 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 wit- 
 nessed the birth and growth of Christianity, 
 
234 LECTURE VII. 
 
 united in a reticence, which causes their 
 notices of the religion to be a very insuffi- 
 cient measure of the place which it really 
 held in their thoughts and apprehensions. 
 A large allowance is to be made for this 
 studied silence in estimating the value of 
 the actual testimonies to the truth of the 
 New ‘Testament narrative adducible from 
 heathen writers of the first and second cen- 
 turies (10). | 
 
 And the silence of Josephus is, more plainly 
 still, wilful and affected. It is quite impos- 
 sible that the Jewish historian should have 
 been ignorant of the events which had drawn 
 the eyes of so many to Judza but a few years 
 before his own birth, and which a large and 
 increasing sect believed to possess a super- 
 natural character. Jesus of Nazareth was, 
 humanly speaking, at least as considerable a 
 personage as John the Baptist, and the cir- 
 cumstances 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 men- 
 tioned the latter and omitted the former. 
 He had grown to manhood during the time 
 that Christianity was being spread over the 
 world (11); he had probably witnessed the 
 tumults excited against St. Paul by his ene- 
 
LECTURE VII. 255 
 
 mies at Jerusalem*; he knew of the irregular 
 proceedings against “James the Lord’s bro- 
 ther’’’(12); he must have been well acquaint- 
 ed with the various persecutions which the 
 Christians had undergone at the hands of 
 both Jews and heathen (13); at any rate he 
 could not fail to be at least as well-informed 
 as Tacitus on the subject of transactions, of 
 which his own country had been the scene, 
 and which had fallen partly within his own 
 lifetime. When therefore we find that he is 
 absolutely silent concerning the Christian re- 
 ligion, and, if he mentions Christ at all, men- 
 tions him only incidentally in a single pas- 
 sage, as, “Jesus, who was called Christ” (14), 
 without appending further comment or ex- 
 planation; when we find this, we cannot but 
 conclude that for some reason or other the 
 Jewish historian practises an intentional re- 
 serve, and wi// not enter upon a_ subject 
 which excites his fears(15), or offends his 
 prejudices. No conclusions inimical to the 
 historic 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 
 
 & Acts xxi. 27. et seqq.; XXvill. 22, 23 ; xxill. 10. 
 b Gal. i. 19. 
 
236 LECTURE ‘Wil: 
 
 facts of Christianity which remains to us, we 
 must not overlook the probability that much 
 evidence of this kind has perished. The 
 books of the early opponents of Christianity, 
 which might have been of the greatest use to 
 us for the confirmation of the Gospel His- 
 tory (16), were with an unwise zeal destroyed 
 by the first Christian Emperors (17). Other 
 testimony of the greatest importance has pe- 
 rished by the ravages of time. It seems cer- 
 tain that Pilate remitted to Tiberius an ac- 
 count of the execution of our Lord, and the 
 grounds of it ; and that this document, to 
 which Justin Martyr more than once alludes 
 (18), was deposited in the archives of the 
 empire. The “ Acts of Pilate,” as they were 
 called, seem to have contained an account, 
 not only of the circumstances of the cruci- 
 fixion, and the grounds upon which the Ro- 
 man governor regarded himself as justified in 
 passing sentence of death upon the accused, 
 but also of the Miracles of Christ—his cures 
 performed upon the lame, the dumb, and the 
 blind, his cleansing of lepers, and his raising 
 of the dead (19). If this valuable direct tes- 
 timony had been preserved to us, it would 
 scarcely have been necessary to enter on the 
 consideration of those indirect proofs of the 
 historical truth of the New Testament nar- 
 
LECTURE VII. QS 
 
 rative 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 Evan- 
 gelists furnish, will, I think, be most conve- 
 niently 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 narrative; and, 
 thirdly, such as touch on separate and isolated 
 facts which might be expected to obtain men- 
 tion in profane writers. These three heads 
 will embrace all the most important of the 
 allusions in question, and the arrangement 
 of the scattered notices under them will, I 
 hope, prove conducive to perspicuity. 
 
 I. The political condition of Palestine at 
 the time to which the New Testament narra- 
 tive properly belongs, was one curiously com- 
 plicated and anomalous; it underwent fre- 
 quent 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 
 
238 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 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-in- 
 dependence, not unlike that of various native 
 states in India which are really British de- 
 pendencies. A mixture, and to some extent 
 an alternation, of Roman with native power 
 resulted from this arrangement, and a conse- 
 quent complication in the political status, 
 which must have made it very difficult to be 
 thoroughly understood by any one who was 
 not a native and a contemporary. ‘The chief 
 representative of the Roman power in the 
 East—the President of Syria, the local gover- 
 nor, whether a Herod or a Roman Procura- 
 tor, and the High Priest, had each and all 
 certain rights and a certain authority in the 
 country. A double system of taxation, a 
 double administration of justice, and even in 
 some degree a double military command, 
 were the natural consequence; while Jewish 
 and Roman customs, Jewish and Roman 
 words, were simultaneously in use, and a 
 condition of things existed full of harsh con- 
 trasts, strange mixtures, and abrupt transi- 
 tions. Within the space of 50 years Pales- 
 tine was a single united kingdom under a 
 
LECTURE VIL. 239 
 
 native ruler, a set of principalities under na- 
 tive ethnarchs and tetrarchs, a country in 
 part containing such principalities, in part 
 reduced to the condition of a Roman pro- 
 vince, a kingdom reunited once more under 
 a native sovereign, and a country reduced 
 wholly under Rome and governed by procu- 
 rators dependent on the president of Syria, 
 but still subject in certain respects to the 
 Jewish monarch of a neighbouring terri- 
 tory. These facts we know from Jose- 
 phus (20) and other writers, who, though less 
 accurate, on the whole confirm his state- 
 ments (21); they render the civil history of 
 Judea during the period one very difficult to 
 master and remember; the frequent changes, 
 supervening upon the original complication, 
 are a fertile source of confusion, and seem to 
 have bewildered even the sagacious and pains- 
 taking Tacitus (22). The New Testament 
 narrative, 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 
 kingdom of Herod the Great’,—the partition 
 of his dominions among his sons‘,—the re- 
 duction of Judea to the condition of a 
 
 © Matt. ii. 1; Luke i. Be 
 d Matt. ii. 22 and xiv.1; Luke iii. 1. 
 
240 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Roman province, while Galilee, [turzea, and 
 Trachonitis continued under native princes‘, 
 —the restoration of the old kingdom of Pa- 
 lestine in the person of Agrippa the First’, 
 and the final reduction of the whole under 
 Roman rule, and re-establishment of Procu- 
 rators’ as the civil heads, while a species of 
 ecclesiastical superintendence was exercised 
 by Agrippa the Second" (23). Again, the New 
 Testament narrative exhibits in the most re- 
 markable way the mixture in the govern- 
 ment—the occasional power of the president 
 of Syria, as shewn in Cyrenius’s “ taxing’ ;” 
 the ordinary division of authority between 
 the High Priest and the Procurator’; the 
 existence of two separate taxations—the civil 
 and the ecclesiastical, the “ census*” and the 
 “ didrachm!;” of two tribunals”, two modes 
 of capital punishment (24), two military 
 forces", two methods of marking time®; at 
 every turn it shews, even in such little mat- 
 ters as verbal expressions, the co-existence of 
 Jewish with Roman ideas and practices in 
 
 e Luke iii. 1, and passim. f Acts xii. 1 et seqq. 
 
 g Ibid. xxiii. 24; xxiv.27; &c. h Jbid. xxv.14, et seqq. 
 i Luke ii. 2. Compare Acts v. 37. 
 
 j Matt. xxvii. 1, 2; Acts xxii. 30; Xxill. I-10. 
 
 k Matt. xxil. 17. 1 Matt. xvii. 24. 
 
 m John xviii, 28, 32, &c. n Matt. xxvii. 64, 65. 
 
 o Luke ii. 1. 
 
LECTURE VII. Q41 
 
 the country—a co-existence, which (it must 
 be remembered) came to an end within forty 
 years of our Lord’s crucifixion. The con- 
 junction in the same writings of such Latin- 
 isMs as kevtupiov, Aeyedv, TpatT@pLov, KOVTTw- 
 dia, Knvoos, Kodpavtns, Snvapiov, aooaploy, o7re- 
 kovrarap, ppayeAAdoas, and the like (25), with 
 such Hebraisms as kopBav, paSBovri, dvo dvo, 
 mpacias Mpacia, To BdeAvypAa THS Epnuocews (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 mul- 
 titude of instances from the Gospels and the 
 Acts similar in their general character to 
 those which have been here adduced—indi- 
 cative, that is, of the semi-Jewish, semi-Ro- 
 man condition of the Holy Land at the 
 period of the New Testament narrative. 
 The general tone and temper of the Jews 
 at the time, their feelings towards the Ro- 
 mans, and towards their neighbours, their 
 internal divisions and sects, their confident 
 expectation of a deliverer, are represented by 
 Josephus and other writers in a manner 
 which very strikingly accords with the ac- 
 count incidentally given by the Evangelists. 
 The extreme corruption and wickedness, not 
 RAWLINSON. R 
 
242 LECTURE VIt: 
 
 only of the mass of the people, but even of the 
 rulers and chief men, is asserted by Josephus 
 in the strongest terms (27); while at the 
 same time he testifies to the existence among 
 them of a species of zeal for religion—a rea- 
 diness to attend the feasts (28), a regularity 
 in the offering of sacrifice (29), an almost 
 superstitious regard for the temple (30), and 
 a fanatic abhorrence of all who sought to 
 “change the customs which Moses had de- 
 livered ?.” The conspiracy against Herod 
 the Great, when ten men bound themselves 
 by an oath to kill him, and having armed 
 themselves with short daggers, which they 
 hid under their clothes, entered into the 
 theatre where they expected Herod to ar- 
 rive, intending if he came to fall upon him 
 and dispatch him with their weapons (31), 
 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 
 (52). We find from Josephus that there 
 was a warm controversy among the Jews 
 themselves as to the lawfulness of “giving 
 tribute to Ceesar’” (33); that the Samaritans 
 were so hostile to such of the Galilzeans as 
 
 p Acts vi. 14. q Ibid, xxiii. 12-31. 
 r Matt. xxii. 17. 
 
LECTURE VII. 243 
 
 had their “faces set to go to Jerusalem‘,” 
 that, on one occasion at least, they fell upon 
 those who were journeying through their 
 land to attend a feast, and murdered a large 
 number (34); that the Pharisees and Saddu- 
 cees were noted sects, distinguished by the 
 tenets which in Scripture are assigned to 
 them (35); 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 Tes- 
 tament, existed among the Jews during the 
 Roman war, that a great king was about to 
 rise up in the East, of their own race and 
 country (37). This last fact is confirmed by 
 both Suetonius (38) and Tacitus (39), and is 
 one which even Strauss does not venture to 
 dispute (40). Important in many ways, it 
 adds a final touch to that truthful portrait- 
 ure 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 favourable 
 than that of Philo (41). 
 
 It would be easy to point out a further 
 
 s Luke ix: 51. 
 
 nn 2 
 
244 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 agreement between the Evangelical histo- 
 rians 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 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 consideration. ‘To labour in it is the 
 province rather of the Commentator than of 
 the Lecturer, who cannot effectively exhibit 
 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 con- 
 nexion only that the accuracy of the Evan- 
 gelical writers in their accounts of the gene- 
 ral condition 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 cogni- 
 zance, are most accurate. Nowhere have the 
 character of the Athenians and the general 
 appearance of Athens been more truthfully 
 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” 
 
 t Acts xvii. 15 et seqq. 
 
LECTURE VII. Q45 
 
 (xareOwdos")—in “ gold, and silver, and mar- 
 
 vo? 
 
 ble, graven by art and man’s device’” recalls 
 the ods 0An Bapos, 6An Gdpa Oeois Kat avabnpa 
 of Xenophon (42), the “ Athenz simulachra 
 deorum hominumque habentes, omn: genere 
 et materiz et artium insignia” of Livy (43). 
 The people—“ Athenians and _ strangers, 
 spending their time in nothing else but 
 hearing or telling of some new thing*”— 
 philosophising and disputing on Mars’ Hill 
 and in the market-place*, glad to discuss 
 though disinclined to believe’, and yet reli- 
 gious withal, standing in honourable contrast 
 with the other Greeks in respect of their reve- 
 rence 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 (44). 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 (45), as has been 
 excellently shewn 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 
 
 u Acts xvit. 16. Vv Ibid. verse 29. w Ibid. verse 21. 
 x Ibid. verse 17. Y Ibid. verses 32,33. 7% Ibid. verse 22. 
 a Ibid. xix. 23 et seqq. 
 
246 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 Emperor whom all feared to provoke (46)— 
 the provincial administration by proconsuls 
 and others chiefly anxious that tumults 
 should be prevented (47)—the contemptuous 
 religious tolerance (48)—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 “licence to answer for themselves con- 
 cerning the crimes laid against them” (49)— 
 the privileges of Roman citizenship, some- 
 times acquired by birth, sometimes by pur- 
 chase (50)—the right of appeal possessed and 
 exercised by the provincials (51)—the treat- 
 ment of prisoners (52)—the peculiar manner 
 of chaining them (53)—the employment of 
 soldiers as their guards (54)—the examina- 
 tion by torture (55)—the punishment of con- 
 demned persons, not being Roman citizens, 
 by scourging and crucifixion (56)—the man- 
 ner of this punishment (57)—the practice of 
 bearing the cross (58), of affixing a title or 
 superscription (59), of placing soldiers under 
 a centurion to watch the carrying into effect 
 of the sentence (60), of giving the garments 
 of the sufferer to these persons (61), of allow- 
 ing the bodies after death to be buried by 
 the friends (62)—and the like! The sacred 
 
 b Acts xxv. 16. 
 
LECTURE VIL. 247 
 
 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 ob- 
 servant, and always faithful in their accounts, 
 they continually bring before us little points 
 which accord minutely with notices in pro- 
 fane writers nearly contemporary with them, 
 while occasionally they increase our know- 
 ledge of classic antiquity by touches har- 
 monious with its spirit, but additional to the 
 information which we derive from the native 
 authorities (63). 
 
 Again, it has been with reason remarked 
 (64), that the condition of the Jews beyond 
 the limits of Palestine is represented by the 
 Evangelical writers very agreeably to what 
 may be gathered of it from Jewish and Hea- 
 then sources. ‘The wide dispersion of the 
 chosen race is one of the facts most evident 
 upon the surface of the New Testament his- 
 tory. “ Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, 
 and dwellers in Mesopotamia and Judea and 
 Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and 
 Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya 
 about Cyrene, strangers of Rome, Cretes, and 
 Arabians‘,” are said to have been witnesses 
 at Jerusalem of the first outpouring of the 
 
 € Acts li. Q—11. 
 
248 LECTURE VII. 
 
 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 (65). Com- 
 pare with these representations the state- 
 ments of Agrippa the First in his letter to 
 Caligula, as reported by the Jewish writer, 
 Philo. “ The holy city, the place of my na- 
 tivity,” he says, “is the metropolis, not of Ju- 
 dea 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 
 neighbouring countries of Egypt, Phoenicia, 
 Syria, and Coelesyria—some to more distant 
 regions, as Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia as far as 
 Bithynia and the recesses of Pontus; and in 
 Kurope, Thessaly, Boeotia, Macedonia, A‘tolia, 
 Attica, Argos, Corinth, together with the 
 most famous of the islands, Kuboea, Cyprus, 
 and Crete; to say nothing of those who dwell 
 beyond the HKuphrates. For, excepting a 
 small part of the Babylonian and other sa- 
 trapies, all the countries which have a fertile 
 territory possess Jewish inhabitants; so that 
 if thou shalt shew 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 conti- 
 
 
 
 nents, and in the islands—on the shores of 
 
LECTURE VII. 249 
 
 the sea, and in the interior” (66). In a si- 
 milar 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’ (67). And the customs 
 of these dispersed Jews are accurately repre- 
 sented in the New Testament. That they 
 consisted in part of native Jews, in part of 
 converts or proselytes, is evident from Jose- 
 phus (68); that they had places of worship, 
 called synagogues or oratories, in the towns 
 where they lived, appears from Philo; that 
 these were commonly by the sea-side, or by 
 a river-side, as represented in the Acts‘, is 
 plain from many authors (69) ; that they had 
 also—at least sometimes—a synagogue be- 
 longing to them at Jerusalem, whither they 
 resorted at the time of the feasts, is certain 
 from the Talmudical writers (70); that at 
 Rome they consisted in great part of freed- 
 men or “ Libertines”’—whence “the syna- 
 gogue of the Libertines*”—may be gathered 
 from Philo (71) and Tacitus (72). Their feel- 
 ings towards the apostolic preachers are such 
 as we should expect from persons whose close 
 contact with those of a different religion 
 
 d Acts xvi. 13. e Tbid. vi. 9. 
 
250 LECTURE VII. 
 
 made them all the more zealous for their 
 own; and their tumultuous proceedings are 
 in accordance with all that we learn from 
 profane authors of the tone and temper of 
 the Jews generally at this period (73). 
 
 II. I proceed now to consider the second 
 of the three heads under which I proposed 
 to collect the chief incidental allusions to 
 the civil history of the times contained in 
 the New Testament. 
 
 The civil governors and administrators dis- 
 tinctly mentioned by the New Testament 
 historians are the following—the Roman 
 Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius 
 —the Jewish kings and princes, Herod the 
 Great, Archelaus, Herod the tetrarch, (or, as 
 he is commonly called, Herod Antipas,) Phi- 
 lip the tetrarch, Herod Agrippa the first, and 
 Herod Agrippa the second—the Roman go- 
 vernors, Cyrenius (or Quirinus), Pontius Pi- 
 late, Sergius Paulus, Gallio, Festus, and Felix 
 —and the Greek tetrarch, Lysanias. It may 
 be shewn 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 relationship is stated, 
 as Scripture declares—and that the actions 
 ascribed to them are either actually such as 
 
 
 
LECTURE VII. 2) 
 
 they performed, or at least in perfect har- 
 mony 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 commencement of 
 our Lord’s ministry in the 15th year of Tibe- 
 rius‘ and assigning to its duration a short 
 term—probably three years—is in accord with 
 Tacitus, who makes Christ suffer under Ti- 
 berius (74)—and that the birth of our Lord 
 under Augustus’, and the accession before 
 the second journey of St. Paul of Claudius", 
 are in harmony with the date obtainable from 
 St. Luke for the crucifixion, and sufficiently 
 suit the general scheme of profane chrono- 
 logy, which places the accession of Augustus 
 44 years before that of Tiberius, and makes 
 Claudius reign from A.D. 41 to A.D. 54. No 
 very close agreement can be here exhibited on 
 account of the deficiency of an exact chrono- 
 logy, which the Gospels share with many of 
 the most important historical writings; but 
 at any rate the notices are accordant with 
 one another, and present, when compared 
 with the dates furnished by profane writers, 
 no difficulty of any real importance (75). 
 
 Luke iii. 1. § Ibid. 11, 1-7. h Acts xvill. 2. 
 
252 LECTURE VII. 
 
 The Jewish kings and princes whose names 
 occur in the New Testament narrative, oc- 
 cupy 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 Idumean 
 (76). This monarch is known to have 
 reigned in Palestine contemporaneously with 
 Augustus, who confirmed him in his king- 
 dom (77), and of whom he held the sove-_ 
 reignty till his decease (78). Cunning, sus-/ 
 cion, and cruelty are the chief traits of his 
 character as depicted in Scripture, and these 
 are among his most marked characteristics 
 in Josephus (79). It has been objected to 
 the Scriptural narrative, that Herod would 
 not have been likely to enquire 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 child (80); but this keen 
 and suspicious foresight, where his own in- 
 terests were (as he thought) concerned, is 
 quite in keeping with the representations of 
 Josephus, who makes him continually dis- 
 trust those with whom he has any dealings. 
 The consistency of the massacre at Bethle- 
 
 i Matt. ii. 1; Luke i. 5. j Matt. ii. 22. 
 
LECTURE VIL. 253 
 
 hem with his temper and disposition is now 
 acknowledged (81); scepticism has nothing to 
 urge against it except the silence of the Jew- 
 ish writers, which is a weak argument, and 
 one outweighed, in my judgment, by the testi- 
 mony, albeit somewhat late and perhaps in- 
 accurate, of Macrobius (82). 
 
 At the death of Herod the Great, his king- 
 dom (according to Josephus) was divided, 
 with the consent of Augustus, among three 
 of his sons. Archelaus received Judea, Sa- 
 maria, and Idumeea, with the title of ethnarch; 
 Philip and Antipas were made tetrarchs, and 
 received, the latter Galilee and Perea, the 
 former Trachonitis and the adjoining re- 
 gions(83). ‘The notices of the Evangelists are 
 confessedly in complete accordance with these 
 statements (84). St. Matthew mentions the 
 succession of Archelaus in Judea, and im- 
 plies 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 distinctly as- 
 serted by both Evangelists". Moreover, St. 
 Matthew implies that Archelaus bore a bad 
 character at the time of his accession or soon 
 afterwards, which is consistent with the ac- 
 count of Josephus, who tells us that he was 
 
 k Matt. ii. 22. 1 Luke iii. 1. m |.uke, ibid.; Matt. xiv.r. 
 
254 BECTUR EVIL 
 
 hated by the other members of his family (85), 
 and that shortly after his father’s death he 
 slew 3000 Jews on occasion of a tumult at 
 Jerusalem (86). The first three Evangelists 
 agree as to the character of Herod Antipas, 
 which is weak rather than cruel or blood- 
 thirsty; and their portraiture is granted to 
 be “not inconsistent with his character, as 
 gathered from other sources” (87). The 
 facts of his adultery with Herodias, the wife 
 of one of his brothers (88), and of his execu- 
 tion of John the Baptist for no crime that 
 could be alleged against him (89), are re- 
 corded by Josephus; and though in the 
 latter case there is some apparent diversity 
 in the details, yet it is allowed that the dif- 
 ferent accounts may be reconciled (90). 
 
 The continuance of the tetrarchy of Philip 
 beyond the fifteenth, and that of Antipas 
 beyond the eighteenth of ‘Tiberius, is con- 
 firmed by Josephus (91), who also shows that 
 the exarchy of Archelaus came speedily to 
 an end, and that Judaa 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, A- 
 grippa, the son of Aristobulus and brother 
 
LECTURE VII. 259 
 
 of Herodias; who was allowed the title of 
 king, and was in favour with both Caligula 
 and Claudius (93). 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 familiar 
 with that remarkable passage of Josephus in 
 which he records with less accuracy of detail 
 than St. Luke the striking circumstances of 
 this monarch’s decease—the “set day”—the 
 public assemblage—the “ royal dress”—the 
 impious flattery—its complacent reception— 
 the sudden judgment—the excruciating dis- 
 ease—the speedy death (94). Nowhere does 
 profane history furnish a more striking tes- 
 timony to the substantial truth of the sacred 
 narrative—nowhere is the superior exactness 
 of the latter over the former more con- 
 spicuous. 
 
 On the death of Herod Agrippa, Judza 
 (as Josephus informs us) became once more a 
 Roman province under Procurators (95); but 
 the small kingdom of Chalcis was, a few years 
 later, conferred by Claudius on this Herod’s 
 son, Agrippa the Second, who afterwards re- 
 ceived other territories (96). This prince is 
 
 n Acts xi. 1. 
 
256 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 evidently the “king Agrippa” before whom 
 St. Paul pleaded his cause®. The Bernice 
 who is mentioned as accompanying him on 
 his visit to Festus’, was his sister, who lived 
 with him and commonly accompanied him 
 upon his journeys(97). Besides his separate 
 sovereignty, he had received from the Empe- 
 ror a species of ecclesiastical supremacy in 
 Judzea, where he had the superintendence of 
 the temple, the direction of the sacred trea- 
 sury, and the right of nominating the High 
 Priests (98). These circumstances account 
 sufficiently for his visit to Judea, and ex- 
 plain the anxiety of Festus that he should 
 hear St. Paul, and St. Paul’s willingness to 
 plead before him. 
 
 The Roman Procurators, Pontius Pilate, 
 Felix, and Festus, are prominent personages 
 in the history of Josephus, where they occur 
 in the proper chronological position (99), and 
 bear characters very agreeable to those which 
 are assigned them by the sacred writers. 
 The vacillation of Pilate, his timidity, and 
 at the same time his occasional violence (100), 
 the cruelty, injustice, and rapacity of Felix 
 (101), and the comparatively equitable and 
 mild character of Festus (102), are apparent 
 in the Jewish historian; and have some 
 
 ° Acts xxv. 13, et seqq. P Ibid. 
 
LECTURE VII. 257 
 
 sanction from other writers(103). The cha- 
 racter of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia (104) 
 and brother of the philosopher Seneca, is 
 also in close accordance with that which may 
 be gathered from the expressions of Seneca 
 and Statius, who speak of him as “ delight- 
 ful” or “charming” (105). Of Quirinus (or 
 Cyrenius) it is enough to say that he was 
 President of Syria shortly after the deposi- 
 tion of Archelaus, and that he was certainly 
 sent to effect a “taxing” or enrolment of all 
 persons within his province, Palestine in- 
 cluded (106). 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 period (107), and 
 his office is designated correctly (108). 
 
 The Greek tetrarch, Lysanias, is the only 
 civil governor mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment about whom there is any real difficulty. 
 A Lysanias held certainly a government in 
 these parts in the time of Antony (109); but 
 this person was put to death more than 30 
 years before the birth of Christ (110), and 
 therefore cannot be the prince mentioned as 
 ruling over Abilene 30 years after Christ’s 
 birth. It is argued that St. Luke “ erred,” 
 being misled by the circumstance that the 
 
 q Acts xiii. 7-12. 
 
 RAWLINSON. S 
 
258 LECTURE VII. 
 
 region continued to be known as “ the Abilene 
 of Lysanias” down to the time of the second 
 Agrippa(111). But, on the other hand, it 1s 
 allowed that a second Lysanias might have 
 existed without obtaining mention from pro- 
 fane writers (112); and the facts, that Abilene 
 was in Agrippa’s time connected with the 
 name Lysanias, and that there is no reason 
 to believe that it formed any part of the do- 
 minions of the first Lysanias, favour the view, 
 that a second Lysanias, a descendant of the 
 first, obtained from Augustus or Tiberius an 
 investiture of the tract in question (113). 
 
 III. It now only remains to touch briefly 
 on a few of the remarkable facts in the New 
 Testament narrative which might have been 
 expected to attract the attention of profane 
 historians, and of which we should naturally 
 look to have some record. Such facts are 
 the “decree from Czsar Augustus that all 
 the world should be taxed*”—the “taxing” 
 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 impostors 
 Theudas and Judas of Galilee‘—the death of 
 Herod Agrippa—the famine in the days of 
 Claudius*—and the “ uproar” of the Egyp- 
 
 
 
 Tr Lukeii.r. ‘%Ibid.verse2. t Actsv.36,37. 4% Ibid. xi.28. 
 
LECTURE VIL. 259 
 
 tian who “led out into the wilderness 4000 
 men that were murderers.” Of these events 
 almost one-half have been already shewn to 
 have been recorded by profane writers whose 
 works are still extant (114). The remainder 
 will now be considered with the brevity 
 which my limits necessitate. 
 
 It has been asserted that no “ taxing of all 
 the world’—that is, of the whole Roman 
 Empire—took place in the time of Augus- 
 tus (115); but as the opposite view is main- 
 tained by Savigny (116)—the best modern au- 
 thority upon Roman law—this assertion can- 
 not 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 extension of the Roman census 
 to Judea under Cyrenius, at least 10 years 
 later—after the removal of Archelaus (117), 
 and seems to speak of this as the first occa- 
 sion on which his countrymen were com- 
 pelled to submit to this badge of subjection. 
 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”—shew that 
 
 Vv Acts xxi. 38. 
 
 ae) 
 
260 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 he intended the taxing mentioned by Jose- 
 phus, which he consequently misdated by a 
 decade of years(118). But the meaning of 
 the passage in St. Luke is doubtful in the 
 extreme; and it admits of several explana- 
 tions which reconcile it with all that Jose- 
 phus says (119). Perhaps the best explanation 
 is that of Whiston (120) and Prideaux (121) 
 —that the design of Augustus was first fully 
 executed (€yévero) when Cyrenius was gover- 
 nor, 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, be- 
 ing “dispersed*.” This account harmonises 
 well with that of Josephus, who regards the 
 followers of Judas as numerous enough to 
 constitute a sect (122), and notes their re- 
 appearance in the course of the last war with 
 Rome, by which it is shewn that though scat- 
 tered they had not ceased to exist (123). 
 
 W AGS. 37. x Ibid. verse 36. 
 
LECTURE VII. 261 
 
 The disturbance created by a certain Theu- 
 das, 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 (124), who raised troubles in the 
 procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, about ten 
 years after Gamaliel made his speech.— 
 There were, as Josephus says (125), “ innu- 
 merable disturbances” in Judea about this 
 time; and it is not at all improbable that 
 within the space of forty years, during which 
 a number of impostors gathered followers 
 and led them to destruction, two should have 
 borne the same name. Nor can it be con- 
 sidered surprising that Josephus has passed 
 over the earlier Theudas, since his followers 
 were only 400, and since the historian evi- 
 dently omits all but the most important of 
 the troubles which had afflicted his country. 
 
 The “uproar” of the Egyptian who “ led 
 out into the wilderness 4000 men that were 
 murderers’,” is described at length by the 
 Jewish writer (126), the only noticeable dif- 
 ference between his account and that of St. 
 Luke being that Josephus in his present text 
 
 YWeSCts: XXI 3.0. 
 
262 LECTURE Vit. 
 
 calls the number of this impostor’s followers 
 30,000. From internal evidence there is rea- 
 son to think that zpeopvpio is a corrupt read- 
 ing (127); but even as the text stands, it does 
 not contradict St. Luke; for the 4000 of St. 
 Luke are the number whom the impostor “ led 
 out into the wilderness,” while the 30,000 of 
 Josephus are the number whom he “ brought 
 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 Sue- 
 tonius, speak of it as raging somewhat later 
 in Rome itself (128). Helena, queen of Adi- 
 abene—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 com- 
 plete, 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 probably be felt to suffice for our pre- 
 sent purpose. We have found that the New 
 Testament, while in its main narrative it 
 treats of events with which heathen writers 
 
 z Acts x1. 28 Ibid. verses 29, 30. 
 
Bec TUR E : Vit. 2035 
 
 were not likely to concern themselves, and 
 which they could not represent truly, con- 
 tains—inextricably interwoven with that main 
 narrative—a vast body of incidental allusions 
 to the civil 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; some- 
 times, but very rarely, the accounts are difh- 
 cult to reconcile, and we may suspect them of 
 real disagreement—a result which ought not 
 to cause us any astonishment. Profane wri- 
 ters are not infallible; and Josephus, our 
 chief profane authority for the time, has been 
 shewn, in matters where he does not come 
 into any collision with the Christian Scrip- 
 tures, to “teem with inaccuracies” (129). If 
 in any case it should be thought that we 
 must choose between Josephus and an Evan- 
 gelist, sound criticism requires that we should 
 prefer the latter to the former. Josephus is 
 not entirely honest: he has his Roman mas- 
 ters to please, and he is prejudiced in favour 
 of his own sect, the Pharisees. He has also 
 
264 LECTURE VII. 
 
 been convicted of error (130), which is not 
 the case with any Evangelist. His authority 
 therefore is, in the eyes of an historical critic, 
 inferior to that of the Gospel writers, and in 
 any instance of contradiction, it would be ne- 
 cessary to disregard it. In fact, however, we 
 are not reduced to this necessity. The Jew- 
 ish 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 history, small and great, are true, and 
 the personages correctly depicted. To sup- 
 pose that there is this minute historical ac- 
 curacy in all the accessories of the story, and 
 that the story itself is mythic, is absurd; un- 
 less we will declare the Apostles and their 
 companions to have sought to palm upon 
 mankind a tale which they knew to be false, 
 and to have aimed at obtaining credit for 
 their fiction by elaborate attention to these 
 minutia. From such an avowal even Ra- 
 tionalism 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, roe Truru. “Veritas 
 omnis in Evangelio continetur” (131). “Ab 
 hoc, qui Evangelista esse meruit, vel negli- 
 
LECTURE VII. 265 
 
 gentiz vel mendacil suspicionem equum est 
 propulsari” (132). “ Evangelistae habuerunt 
 perfectam agnitionem . .. quibus si quis non 
 assentit, spernit quidem participes Domini, 
 spernit et ipsum Christum, spernit et Pa- 
 trem’ (133). Such has been the uniform 
 teaching of the Church of Christ from the 
 first—and modern Rationalism has failed to 
 shew any reason why we should reject it. — 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 JOHN VIII. 13, 14. 
 
 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. 
 
 IF the evidence from profane sources to the 
 primary facts of the New Testament narrative 
 be, as was admitted in the last Lecture, dis- 
 appointingly 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 to 
 dwell more especially on the profane testi- 
 mony, despite its scantiness—doubtless be- 
 cause it has been felt that a certain amount 
 of suspicion is regarded as attaching to those 
 who “bear record of themselves,” and that 
 the evidence of Christian witnesses to the 
 truth of Christianity is in some degree a 
 
LECTURE VIII. 20 
 
 record of this nature. But our Lord’s words 
 teach us that self-witness, however uncon- 
 vincing 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 be- 
 lief, whose testimony would have been re- 
 garded as of the highest value if he had 
 stopped short of such acceptance, and while 
 admitting the facts to a certain extent had 
 remained a Heathen or a Jew. Had Justin 
 Martyr, for instance, when he enquired into 
 Christianity, found the evidence for it such 
 as he could resist, and lived and died a Pla- 
 tonic philosopher, instead of renouncing all 
 for Christ and finally 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 suffer- 
 ings of the early Christians! It is difficult 
 to see why he deserves less credit, because he 
 found the evidences for the Christian doc- 
 trine so strong that he felt compelled to be- 
 come a believer (1). At any rate, if for con- 
 troversial 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 
 
268 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 of Jews and Heathens, and must therefore 
 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 requi- 
 site to enable men fairly to judge of the 
 claims of a new religion, that their decision 
 in favour of Christianity is entitled to little 
 respect—since they must have been quite 
 unable to appreciate the true value of its 
 evidences (2). This objection claims to base 
 itself on certain admissions of the earliest 
 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 de- 
 clare the general condition of the converts ; 
 while they imply that there were, even in the 
 first times, some exceptions—persons to whom 
 the terms, “ wise men after the flesh, mighty, 
 and noble,” might have been properly applied ; 
 and the examples of St. Paul himself, of Dio- 
 nysius the Areopagite, of the Ethiopian eu- 
 nuch, of “ Erastus the chamberlain of the 
 
 a 1 Cor. i. 26. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 269 
 
 city,” and of the converts from “ Czsar’s 
 household,°” are sufficient to shew that 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 ga- 
 thered to it “chosen vessels*” from among 
 the educated, and occasionally from among 
 the rich and great. The early Christians 
 furnished, for their number, a considerable 
 body of writers; and these writers will bear 
 comparison in respect of every intellectual 
 qualification with the best Heathen authors 
 of the period. Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, 
 Tertullian, Origen, Clement, would have 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 Taci- 
 tus, Suetonius, 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 
 recorded 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 
 
 +b Rom. xvi. 23. e Philipp. iv. 22. 
 ad Acts ix. 15. 
 
270 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 Clement of Alexandria (3) and Origen (4), 
 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 (5). 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 at nought and jested upon— 
 his being arrayed in a scarlet robe—his cru- 
 cifixion—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 
 into heaven (6). All these notices moreover 
 occur in a small tract, chiefly concerned with 
 the Old Testament, and extending to no 
 
 and his final ascension 
 
 
 
 more than ten or twelve ordinary pages. 
 
 An Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of 
 Rome, to the Corinthians, is allowed on all 
 hands to be genuine (7). This work was 
 certainly composed in the first century, be- 
 fore some of the writings of St. John; and 
 its author, the “fellow-labourer”’ of St. Paul’, 
 
 € Philippians iv. 3. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 271 
 
 must have had frequent communication with 
 those who had witnessed the great events in 
 Judea which formed the foundation of the 
 new religion. The object of the Epistle is 
 to compose existing dissensions in the Co- 
 rinthian 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 Judah, of his great 
 power and regal dignity, his voluntary humt- 
 liation, his sufferings, the character of his 
 teaching, his death for man, his resurrection, 
 the mission of the apostles, their inspiration 
 by the Holy Ghost, their preaching in many 
 lands, their ordination of elders in every 
 city, the special eminence in the church of 
 Saints Peter and Paul, the sufferings of 
 St. Peter, the hardships endured by St. Paul, 
 his distant travels, his many imprisonments, 
 his flights, his stoning, his bonds, his testi- 
 mony before rulers(8). The fact of St. Paul’s 
 having written an Epistle to the Corinthians 
 is also asserted (9); and an allusion is made, 
 in connexion with that Epistle, to the early 
 troubles and divisions which the great Apo- 
 stle had composed, when the several sections 
 of the newly-planted Church strove together 
 in a jealous spirit, affirming themselves to be 
 
272 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 “of Paul,” or “of Apollos,” or “of Cephas,” 
 or even “of Christ.” 
 
 Ienatius, second Bishop of Antioch, who 
 succeeded to that see in about the year of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem (10), and was 
 martyred nearly forty years later, A. D. 107 
 (11), left behind him certain writings, which 
 are quoted with great respect by subsequent 
 Fathers, but the existence of which at the 
 present day is questioned. Writings under 
 the name of Ignatius have come down to us 
 in various shapes. Three Epistles, univer- 
 sally regarded as spurious (12), exist only in 
 Latin. Twelve others are found in Greek, 
 and also in two ancient Latin versions; and 
 of these, seven exist in two different forms— 
 a longer, and a shorter one. Most modern 
 critics accept these seven, in their shorter form, 
 as genuine (13). They are identical with the 
 seven mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (14), 
 and they are thought to be free from the in- 
 ternal difficulties, which cause suspicion to at- 
 tach 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 dis- 
 covery in a very ancient MS. of a Syriac ver- 
 sion of three Epistles only out of the seven, 
 and these three in a still briefer form than 
 
LECTURE VIII. 273 
 
 that of the shorter Greek recension, together 
 with the remarkable fact that the few early 
 references which we possess to the writings 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 recension is largely interpo- 
 lated, and that nothing beyond the three Epi- 
 stles of the Syriac Version can be depended 
 upon as certainly written by the Antiochian 
 Bishop (15). If we adopt this opinion, the 
 testimony of Ignatius to the historical truth 
 of the New Testament narrative will be some- 
 what scanty—ifwe abide by the views generally 
 prevalent before the Syriac version was disco- 
 vered,and still maintained since that discovery 
 by some divines of great learning and ex- 
 cellent judgment (16), it will be as full and 
 satisfactory as that borne by St. Clement. In 
 the seven Epistles we find notices of the de- 
 scent of Christ from David—his conception 
 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 sufferings and crucifixion 
 under Pontius Pilate and Herod the Te- 
 
 f Matt. iii. 15. 
 
274 rn Pn Vat. 
 
 trarch—his resurrection, not on the sabbath, 
 but on the “ Lord’s day”—the resurrection 
 through his power of some of the old pro- 
 phets—his appearance to his disciples and 
 command to them to “ handle him and see®” 
 that he was not a spirit—his eating and 
 drinking with them after he had risen—the 
 mission of the Apostles—their obedience to 
 Christ—their authority over the Church—the 
 inclusion of Saints Peter and Paul in their 
 number (17). If, on the contrary, we confine 
 ourselves to the Syriac version—by which 
 the entire writings of St. Ignatius are com- 
 prised in about five pages (18)—we lose the 
 greater portion of these testimonies, but we 
 still retain those to the birth of Christ from 
 the Virgin Mary—his manifestation by a star 
 —his many sufferings—his crucifixion—and 
 the apostolic mission of Saints Peter and Paul. 
 
 Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of 
 St.John, and a younger contemporary of Ig- 
 natius, left behind him a single Epistle, ad- 
 dressed to the Philippians, which we possess 
 in the original Greek, with the exception of 
 three or four sections, where the Greek text 
 is wanting, and we have only a Latin version 
 (19). In this Epistle, which is a short com- 
 position, and, like the other remains of early 
 
 § Luke xxiv. 39. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 275 
 
 Christian antiquity, of a hortatory character, 
 we find allusions to the humble life of Christ, 
 his ministering to those about him, the cha- 
 racter of his preaching, his sufferings, death 
 upon the cross, resurrection, and ascension to 
 heaven; his promise to “raise up his disci- 
 ples at the last day"’”—the sufferings 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 
 (20). We also learn from Irenzus that this 
 Father used to relate his conversations with 
 St. John and others, who had seen the Lord, 
 and to repeat what they had told him both 
 of the teaching and miracles of Jesus (21). 
 
 A work of the first or earlier half of the 
 second century has come down to us under 
 the name of “The Shepherd of Hermas.” 
 Kusebius and Jerome ascribe it to the Her- 
 mas who is saluted by St. Paul at the end of 
 his Epistle to the Romans (22); but there 
 are reasons for assigning it to a later Hermas 
 —the brother of Pius, who was the ninth 
 bishop of Rome (23). This work is an alle- 
 gory on a large scale, and consequently can- 
 not contain any direct historical testimony. 
 Its tone is consonant with the Christian story, 
 and it contains some allusions to the mission 
 
 h John vi. 40. 
 
 a oO 
 
 ~ 
 
276 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 of the Apostles, their travels for the purpose 
 of spreading the truth over the world, and 
 the sufferings to which they were exposed in 
 consequence (24); but on the whole it is of 
 little service towards establishing the truth 
 of any facts. 
 
 It was not until the Christian writers ad- 
 dressed themselves to the world without—- 
 and either undertook the task of refuting the 
 adversaries of the truth, or sought by Apolo- 
 gies to recommend the new religion to their 
 acceptance—that the facts of the Christian 
 story came naturally to occupy a prominent 
 place in their compositions. Quadratus, Bi- 
 shop of Athens in the early part of the se- 
 cond century, was, so far as we know, the 
 first to write a defence of Christianity ad- 
 dressed to the Heathen, which he seems to 
 have presented to the Emperor Adrian (25) 
 about the year A. D. 122. This work is un- 
 fortunately lost, but a passage preserved by 
 Eusebius gives us an indication of the sort of 
 evidence which it would probably have fur- 
 nished in abundance. “The works of our 
 Saviour,” says Quadratus, “ were always con- 
 spicuous, 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 
 
LECTURE VIII. Q77 
 
 afterwards; not only while he dwelt on this 
 earth, but also after his departure, and for a 
 good while after it; insomuch that some of 
 them have reached to our times” (26). 
 
 About twenty-five years after Quadratus 
 had presented his “ Apology” to Adrian, his 
 younger contemporary, Justin, produced a 
 similar composition, which he presented to 
 the first Antonine, probably about A. D. 148 
 (27). Soon afterwards he published his 
 “ Dialogue with Tryphon”—an_ elaborate 
 controversial work, defensive of Christianity 
 from the attacks of Judaism. Finally, about 
 A. D. 165, or a little earlier, he wrote a se- 
 cond “ Apology,” which he presented to Mar- 
 cus Aurelius and the Roman Senate (28). 
 It has been truly observed, that from the 
 writings of this Father—* the earliest, of 
 whose works we possess any considerable 
 remains” (29)—there “might be collected a 
 tolerably complete account of Christ’s life, 
 in all points agreeing with that which is 
 delivered in our Scriptures’ (30). Justin 
 declares the marriage of Mary and Joseph— 
 their descent from David—the miraculous 
 conception of Christ—the intention of Jo- 
 seph to put away his wife privily—the ap- 
 pearance to him of an angel which forbade 
 him—the angelic determination of the name 
 
278 LECTURE VIIL. 
 
 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 ado- 
 ration and gifts—the warning to them- not to 
 return to Herod—the descent into Kgypt— 
 the massacre of the Innocents—the death of 
 Herod and accession of Archelaus—the re- 
 turn from Egypt—the obscure early life of 
 Christ, and his occupation as a carpenter— 
 his baptism 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 
 ereatness by John—his temptation by the 
 devil—the character of his teaching—his 
 confutation of his opponents—his miracles— 
 his prophecies of the sufferings which should 
 befall his disciples—his changing Simon’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 Eucharist—his 
 singing a hymn with his disciples—his visit 
 to the Mount of Olives on the eve of his cru- 
 cifixion, accompanied by the three favoured 
 apostles, and the prayer there offered to the 
 
 
 
 Father—his silence before Pilate—his being 
 
LECTURE VIII. 279 
 
 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 re- 
 surrection on the third day—the appearances 
 to the apostles—the explanation to them of 
 the prophecies—the ascension into heaven as 
 they were looking on—the preaching of the 
 apostles afterwards—the descent of the Holy 
 Ghost—the conversion of the Gentiles—the 
 rapid spread of the Gospel through all lands 
 (31). Noone can pretend to doubt but that in 
 Justin’s time the facts of the New Testament 
 History were received as simple truth—not 
 only by himself, but by Christians generally, 
 in whose name his Apologies were written 
 and presented to the Roman Emperors. 
 
 It is needless to carry this demonstration 
 further, or to produce similar lists from 
 Athenagoras, Tertullian, [renzus, Origen, 
 and others. From the time of Justin the 
 Church of Christ can shew a series of writers, 
 who not only exhibit incidentally their belief 
 of the facts which form the basis of the 
 Christian Religion, but who also testify ex- 
 plicitly to the universal reception among 
 Christians of that narrative of the facts 
 
 
 
 which we possess in the New Testament—a 
 
280 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 narrative which, as was shewn in the last 
 Lecture (32), they maintain to be absolutely 
 and in all respects true. Those who assert 
 the mythic character of the New Testament 
 history, must admit as certain that its mythic 
 character was unsuspected by the Christians 
 of the second century, who received with the 
 most entire and simple faith the whole mass 
 of facts put forth in the Gospels and the 
 Acts, regarding them as real and actual oc- 
 currences, and appealing to profane history 
 for their confirmation in various most impor- 
 tant particulars. To fair and candid minds 
 the evidence adduced from uninspired wri- 
 ters of the first century, though comparatively 
 scanty, is (I think) sufficient to shew that their 
 belief was the same as that of Christians in 
 the second, and that it was just as firm and 
 undoubting. 
 
 The arguments hitherto adduced have 
 been drawn from the literary compositions 
 of the first ages of Christianity. Till recently 
 these have been generally regarded as pre- 
 senting the whole existing proof of the faith 
 and practice of the early Church: and scep- 
 tics have therefore been eager to throw every 
 possible doubt upon them, and to maintain 
 that forgery and interpolation have so vitiated 
 this source of knowledge as to render it alto- 
 
LECTURE VIII. 281 
 
 gether untrustworthy (33). The efforts made, 
 weak and contemptible as they are felt to be 
 by scholars and critics, have nevertheless had 
 a certain influence over the general tone of 
 thought on the subject, and have caused 
 many to regard the early infancy of Christ- 
 janity as a dim and shadowy cloud-land, in 
 which nothing is to be seen, except a few 
 figures of bishops and martyrs moving un- 
 certainly amid the general darkness. Under 
 these circumstances it is well that atten- 
 tion should be called—as it has been called 
 recently by several publications of greater or 
 less research (34)—to the monumental re- 
 mains of early Christian times which are still 
 extant, and which take us back in the most 
 lively way to the first ages of the Church, 
 exhibiting before our eyes those primitive 
 communities, which Apostles founded, over 
 which Apostolic men presided, and in which 
 Confessors and Martyrs were almost as nu- 
 merous 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 re- 
 presentations appear dull and tame, so when 
 we descend into the Catacombs of Rome we 
 seem to see the struggling persecuted com- 
 munity, which there, “in dens and caves of 
 
282 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 the earth’,’ wrought itself a hidden home, 
 whence it went forth at last conquering and 
 to conquer, 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—but even ventured to speak of 
 them with contempt, as the recent creations 
 of Papal forgers, who had placed among the 
 arenarie or sandpits of heathen times the 
 pretended memorials of saints who were 
 never born, and of martyrs who never suf- 
 fered (35). But with increased learning 
 and improved candour modern Anglicanism 
 has renounced this shallow and untenable 
 theory; and it is at length admitted univer- 
 sally, alike by the Protestant and the Ro- 
 manist, that the Catacombs themselves, their 
 present contents, and the series of inscrip- 
 tions which have been taken from them and 
 placed in the Papal galleries, are genuine re- 
 mains of primitive Christian antiquity, and 
 exhibit to us—imperfectly, no doubt, but so 
 far as their evidence extends, truly—the con- 
 
 1: Heb, xi. 38. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 283 
 
 dition and belief of the Church of Christ in 
 the first ages. 
 
 For it is impossible to doubt that the 
 Catacombs belong to the earliest times of 
 Christianity. It was only during the ages 
 of persecution that the Christians were con- 
 tent 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 
 Catacombs must have been on the decline, 
 and the bulk of the tombs in them must be 
 regarded as belonging to the first three cen- 
 turies. The fixed dates obtainable from a 
 certain number of the tombs confirm this 
 view; and the style of ornamentation and 
 form of the ietters used in the inscriptions, 
 are thought to be additional evidence of its 
 correctness. 
 
 What then is the evidence of the Cata- 
 combs? In the first place, it is conclusive 
 as to the vast number of the Christians in 
 
284 Rane Owe OAT. 
 
 these early ages, when there was nothing to 
 tempt men, and everything to disincline 
 them, towards embracing the persecuted 
 faith. The Catacombs are calculated to ex- 
 tend over nine hundred miles of streets, and 
 to contain almost seven millions of graves 
 (36)! The Roman Christians, it will be re- 
 membered, are called by Tacitus “a vast 
 multitude”—(ingens multitudo)—in the time 
 of Nero(37); by the age of Valerian they 
 are reckoned at one-half the population of 
 the city (88); but the historical records of 
 the past have never been thought to indicate 
 that their number approached at all near to 
 what this calculation—which seems fairly 
 made (39)—would indicate. Seven millions 
 of deaths in (say) four hundred years would, 
 under ordinary circumstances, imply an ave- 
 rage population of from 500,000 to 700,000 
 —an amount immensely beyond any esti- 
 mate that has hitherto 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 popula- 
 tion 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 
 
LECTURE VIII. 285 
 
 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 Christ- 
 ilans, as early as the second century, formed 
 one of the chief elements in the population 
 of Rome. 
 
 In the next place, the Catacombs afford 
 proof of the dangers and sufferings to which 
 the early Christians were exposed. Without 
 assuming that the phials which have con- 
 tained a red liquid, found in so many of the 
 tombs, must have held blood, and that there- 
 fore they are certain signs of martyrdom, 
 and without regarding the palm-branch as 
 unmistakable evidence of the same (40)—we 
 may find in the Catacombs a good deal of 
 testimony confirmatory of those writers who 
 estimate at the highest the number of 
 Christians who suffered death in the great 
 persecutions. The number of graves, if we 
 place it at the lowest, compared with the 
 highest estimate of the Christian population 
 that is at all probable, would give a _ pro- 
 portion of deaths to population enormously 
 above the average—a result which at any 
 rate lends support to those who assert that 
 in the persecutions of Aurelius, Decius, Dio- 
 
286 bE TORE VILL. 
 
 cletian, and others, vast multitudes of Christ- 
 ians were massacred. Further, the word 
 Martyr is frequent upon the tombs; and 
 often where it is absent, the inscription 
 otherwise shews that the deceased lost his 
 life on account of his religion (41). Some- 
 times the view opens on us, and we see, be- 
 sides the individual buried, a long vista of 
 similar sufferers—as when one of Aurelius’s 
 victims exclaims— “QO unhappy times, in 
 which amid our sacred rites and prayers— 
 nay, in our very caverns, we are not safe! 
 What is more wretched than our life? What 
 more wretched than a death, when it is im- 
 possible to obtain burial at the hands of 
 friends or relatives? Still at the end they 
 shine like stars in Heaven. <A _ poor life is 
 his, who has lived in Christian times !”—*< O 
 tempora infausta ! quibus inter sacra et vota 
 ne in cavernis quidem salvari possimus. Quid 
 miserius vita? Sed quid miserius in morte, 
 cum ab amicis et parentibus sepeliri neque- 
 ant? Tandem in ccelo coruscant! Parum 
 vixit qui vixit in Christianis temporibus” (42). 
 
 Again, the Catacombs furnish a certain 
 amount of evidence with respect to the belief 
 of the early Christians. The doctrine of the 
 resurrection is implied or expressed on almost 
 every tombstone which has been discovered. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 287 
 
 The Christian is not dead—he “ rests” or 
 “sleeps’”—he is not buried, but “ deposited” in 
 his grave (43)—and he is always “at peace,” 
 (in pace). ‘The survivors do not mourn 
 his loss despairingly, but express trust, resig- 
 nation, or moderate grief (44). The Anchor, 
 indicative of the Christian’s “sure and certain 
 hope,” is a common emblem; and the Phoe- 
 nix and Peacock are used as more speaking 
 signs of the Resurrection. The Cross ap- 
 pears, though not the Crucifix; and other 
 emblems are employed, as the Dove and the 
 Cock, which indicate belief in the sacred nar- 
 rative as we possess it. There are also a cer- 
 tain number of pictures in the Catacombs ; 
 and these represent ordinarily historical 
 scenes from the Old or New ‘Testament, 
 treated in a uniform and conventional way, 
 but clearly expressive of belief in the facts 
 thus represented. The Temptation of Eve 
 —Moses striking the rock—Noah welcoming 
 the return of the Dove—Elijah ascending 
 to heaven—Daniel among the lions—Sha- 
 drach, 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 favourite sub- 
 jects from the Old Testament; while from 
 the New Testament we find the Adoration of 
 
288 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 the Wise Men—their interview with Herod 
 —the Baptism of Christ by John the Baptist 
 —the healing of the Paralytic—the turning 
 of the water into wine—the feeding of the 
 five thousand—the raising of Lazarus— the 
 Last Supper—Peter walking on the sea—and 
 Pilate washing his hands before the people 
 (45). St. Peter and St. Paul are also fre- 
 quently represented, and St. Peter sometimes 
 bears the Keys, in plain allusion to the 
 gracious promise of his Master!. The para- 
 bolic teaching of our Lord is sometimes em- 
 bodied by the artists, who never tire of re- 
 peating 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 in- 
 direct evidence 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 receive as facts, what 
 Greeks and Romans in an uncritical and 
 credulous age accepted without enquiry, or at 
 least without any searching investigation ?— 
 the answer is two-fold. Allowing that the 
 
 j Matt. xiv. ro. 
 
BECTURE VILE 289 
 
 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 be- 
 lief of what they heard. They are not found 
 to have offered themselves a ready prey to 
 impostors, or to have allowed themselves to 
 be carried away by the arts of pretenders, 
 where such weakness would have brought 
 them into trouble. We do not find that Simon 
 Magus or Apollonius of Tyana had many fol- 
 lowers. When the slave Clemens gave him- 
 self out to be Posthumus Agrippa, though 
 the wishes of most men must have been in 
 favour of his claims, very few appear to have 
 really believed in them (46). The Romans, 
 and still more the Greeks, had plenty of 
 shrewdness ; and there 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 the early 
 times. It meant the severing of family and 
 social ties—the renunciation of worldly pro- 
 spects—abstinence from all gaieties and 
 RAWLINSON. U 
 
290 baie TURE Vite 
 
 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 snapt 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 per- 
 formance of duty as had hardly before been 
 conceived of; 1 subjected them to privations 
 and insults, to uncertainty and danger; it 
 required them to prepare for torments and 
 death. Every day of their lives they were 
 strongly reminded of it by the duties which 
 it enforced and the sacrifices which it cost 
 them” (47). Before accepting such a posi- 
 tion, we may be well assured that each con- 
 vert scanned narrowly the evidence upon 
 which he was invited to make a change in 
 every way so momentous. When they first 
 heard the doctrine of the resurrection, the 
 Athenians “ mocked'.” Yet after a while 
 Dionysius and others “clave to Paul and 
 believed™’—surely because they found the 
 evidence of the resurrection of Christ such 
 
 k y Cor.*xy. 31. 1 Acts xvii. 32. m Tbid. verse 34. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 291 
 
 as could not be resisted. It must be remem- 
 bered that the prospect of his own resurrec- 
 tion was all that the new convert had to sus- 
 tain 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 resur- 
 rection 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 asleep in Christ 
 perished’. The Christian was taught to 
 base his hope of a happy future for himself 
 solely and entirely upon the resurrection and 
 ascent to heaven of Jesus. Surely the evi- 
 dence for these facts must have been thou- 
 sands of times closely sifted by converts who 
 could fairly demand to have the assurances 
 on the point of eyewitnesses. 
 
 Further, we must not forget that the early 
 converts had a second ground of belief, be- 
 sides and beyond their conviction of the ho- 
 nesty and trustworthiness of those who came 
 forward to preach the Gospel, declaring them- 
 selves witnesses of the “ mighty works®’ which 
 Christ had wrought, and pre-eminently of his 
 resurrection. ‘These preachers persuaded, 
 not merely by their evident truthfulness and 
 
 mt Cor. sV=, 19: © [bid. verse 14. P Ibid. verse 18. 
 
 4 Mark vi. 2. 
 U2 
 
292 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 sincerity, 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 
 martyrdom, “expected that he would com- 
 municate to them some spiritual gift” (48). 
 Papias related various miracles as having 
 happened in his own life-time—among others 
 that a dead man had been restored to life 
 (49). Justin Martyr declares very simply 
 that in his day both men and women were 
 found who possessed miraculous powers (50). 
 Quadratus, the Apologist, is mentioned by a 
 writer of the second century as exercising 
 them (51). Irenzeus speaks of miracles as 
 still common in Gaul when he wrote (52), 
 which was nearly at the close of the second 
 century. Tertullian, Theophilus of Antioch, 
 and Minucius Felix, authors of about the 
 same period, are witnesses to the continuance 
 to their day of at least one class of miracles 
 (53). Thus the existence of these powers 
 was contemporaneous with the great spread 
 of the Gospel; and it accounts for that 
 speedy conversion of thousands upon thou- 
 sands—that rapid growth of the Church in 
 all quarters—which would be otherwise so 
 astonishing. The vast number of the early 
 
LECTURE VIII. 293 
 
 converts and the possession of miraculous 
 powers—which are both asserted by the pri- 
 mitive writers (54)— have the relation of 
 effect to cause, and lend countenance to one 
 another. The evidence of the Catacombs, 
 and the testimony of Pagans, confirm the 
 truth of the representations made in the one 
 case. Unless we hold miracles to be impos- 
 sible, 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 deceit 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 com- 
 mon in the Christian Church for above two 
 centuries—we have herein an argument of an 
 historical character, which is of no small 
 weight and importance, additional to that 
 arising from the mere confirmation by early 
 uninspired writers of the Sacred Narrative. 
 We find in their statements with respect to 
 these contemporary facts, to which they are 
 unexceptionable witnesses, a further evi- 
 
294 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 dence 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 tes- 
 timony of the early Christians, we should 
 constantly bear in mind that all in will, and 
 most in fact, sealed that testimony with their 
 blood. If civil justice acts upon a sound 
 principle, when it assigns special weight to 
 the depositions of those who have the pro- 
 spect of immediate death before their eyes, 
 Christians must be right to value highly the 
 witness of the first ages. The early converts 
 knew that they might at any time be called 
 upon to undergo death for their religion. 
 ‘They preached and taught with the sword, 
 the cross, the beasts, and the stake ever 
 before their eyes. Most of those in eminent 
 positions—and to this class belong almost all 
 our witnesses—were martyred. Ignatius, 
 Polycarp, Papias, Quadratus, Justin, Ire- 
 neus, certainly suffered death on account 
 of their religion ; and every early writer ad- 
 vocating Christianity, by the fact of his ad- 
 vocacy, 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 
 
PEC Ww RES Vili. 295 
 
 happens to hit their fancy; nor do they 
 place themselves openly in the ranks of a 
 persecuted 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 examine and cross ques- 
 tion the witnesses—compare their several ac- 
 counts—enquire how their statements were 
 met by their adversaries—consult Heathen 
 documents of the time—thoroughly and com- 
 pletely sift the evidence. ‘To assume that 
 they did not do so, when the issue was of 
 such vast importance—when, 1n accepting the 
 religion they set their all upon the cast, em- 
 bracing as their certain portion in this life 
 shame, contempt, and ignominy, the sever- 
 ance of family ties, exclusion from all festal 
 gatherings, loss of friends, loss of worldly 
 position, loss of character,—and looking for- 
 ward to probable participation in the cruellest 
 sufferings—the rack, the scourge, the pincing- 
 irons, the cross, the stake, the ravening beasts 
 of the amphitheatre—to assume this, is to deny 
 them that average common sense and instinc- 
 tive regard for their own interests which the 
 mass of mankind possess in all times and 
 
296 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 countries—to look upon them as under the 
 influence of an infatuation, such as cannot 
 be shewn to have at any time affected large 
 bodies of civilised men. If we grant to the 
 early converts an average amount of sense 
 and intellect, we must accord to their wit- 
 ness all the weight that is due to those, who 
 having ample ineans of investigating a matter 
 in which they are deeply concerned, have 
 done so, and determined it in a_ particular 
 way. 
 
 The enquiry in which we have been en- 
 gaged here terminates. We have found that 
 the historical Books of the New Testament 
 are the productions of contemporaries and 
 eyewitnesses—that two at least of those who 
 wrote lives of Christ were his close and inti- 
 mate friends, while the account of the early 
 Church delivered in the Acts was written by 
 a companion of the Apostles—that the truth 
 of the narrative contained in these writings 
 is evidenced by their sober, simple, and un- 
 exaggerated tone, and by their agreement, 
 often undesigned, with each other—that it is 
 further confirmed by the incidental allusions 
 to it which are found in the speeches of 
 the Apostles and in their epistolary cor- 
 respondence with their converts—that its 
 main facts are noticed, so far as it was to be ex- 
 
LECTURE VIIL. 297 
 
 pected 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 multi- 
 tudinous and so minute as to constitute, in 
 the eyes of all those who are capable of 
 weighing historical evidence, an overwhelm- 
 ing argument in proof of the authenticity of 
 the whole story—that the narrative was ac- 
 cepted as simple truth, soon after it was 
 published, in most parts of the civilised 
 world, and not by the vulgar only, but by 
 men of education and refinement, and of 
 good worldly position—that it was received 
 and believed, at the time when the truth of 
 every part of it could be readily tested, by 
 many hundreds of thousands, notwithstand- 
 ing the prejudices of education, and the sa- 
 crifices 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 persecu- 
 tions of the cruellest kind, and triumphantly 
 stood the test—so that the Church counted 
 her Martyrs by thousands. We have further 
 seen, that there is reason to believe, that not 
 only our Lord Himself and His Apostles, 
 
 but many (if not most) of the first pro- 
 
298 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 pagators of Christianity had the power of 
 working miracles; and that this, and this 
 only, will account for the remarkable facts, 
 which none can deny, of the rapid spread of 
 the Gospel and the vast numbers of the 
 early converts. All this together—and _ it 
 must be remembered that the evidence is 
 cumulative—constitutes a body of proof such 
 as is seldom producible with respect to any 
 events belonging to remote times; and esta- 
 blishes beyond all reasonable doubt the truth 
 of the Christian Story. In no single re- 
 spect—if we except the fact that it 1s mira- 
 culous—has that story a mythic character. 
 It is a single story, told without variation 
 (55), whereas myths are fluctuating and 
 multiform; it is blended inextricably with 
 the civil history of the times, which it every 
 where represents with extraordinary ac- 
 curacy, whereas myths distort or supersede 
 civil history; it is full of prosaic detail, 
 which myths studiously eschew; it abounds 
 with practical instruction of the plainest and 
 simplest kind, whereas myths teach by alle- 
 gory. [ven in its miraculous element, it 
 stands to some extent in contrast with all 
 known mythologies—where the marvellous 
 has ever a predominant character of gro- 
 tesqueness, which is entirely absent from the 
 
LECTURE VIII. 299 
 
 New Testament miracles (56). Simple ear- 
 nestness, fidelity, painstaking accuracy, pure 
 love of truth, are the most patent character- 
 istics of the New Testament writers, who 
 evidently deal with facts, not with fancies, 
 and are employed in relating a history, not 
 in developing an idea. ‘They write “that we 
 may know the certainty of those things’” 
 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 with their eyes, which 
 they have looked upon, which their hands 
 have handled of the Word of Life, that was 
 manifested unto them—that which they have 
 seen and heard” declare they unto us’. And 
 such as were not eyewitnesses, 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 character. 
 And the declarations of the Sacred writers 
 are confirmed by modern research. In spite 
 of all the efforts of an “audacious criticism” 
 
 r Luke i. 4. S Ibid. verse 1. & John xix. 35; 
 u Ibid. xxi. 24. v t¢ John i. t-3. wt Cor. xv. 3: 
 
300 LECTURE) Vill. 
 
 —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” (57). God is not “divested of 
 his grace, or man of his dignity”—nor is 
 the “tie between heaven and earth broken.” 
 The “foundation of God”—the “ Everlast- 
 ing Gospel*”—still “standeth sure’”—and 
 every effort that is made to overthrow, does 
 but more firmly establish it. 
 
 x Rey. xiv. 6. y 2m i. 19. 
 
NOTES. 
 

 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 -*28 6°38 Pug a 
 on eae ; 
 
 FT TOW 
 
 
 
 = 
 ed : 
 i 
 _ - =s = 
 ee: 
 ir 
 
NOs Vids 2: 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 
 
 Note 1. p. 2. 
 
 H ERODOTUS, whose easy faith would naturally lead 
 him to accept the Greek myths without difficulty, still 
 makes a marked distinction between Mythology and His- 
 tory Proper. See bk. iti. ch. 122, where the @adAaccoxparia 
 of Polyerates is spoken of as something different in kind 
 from that of the mythical Minos; and compare a some- 
 what similar distinetion between the mythie and the his- 
 torical in bk. i. ch. 5, and again in bk. ii. ch. 44, ad fin. A 
 difference of the same kind seems to have been made by 
 the Egyptian and Babylonian writers. See Lecture II. 
 page 58. 
 Note 2. p. 2. 
 
 This distinction was, I believe, first taken by George in 
 his work Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen 
 Entwicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verhdltnisses zum 
 christlichen Glauben. It is adopted by Strauss (Leben Jesu, 
 Einleitung, § 10; vol. i. pp. 41-3, Chapman’s Translation), 
 who thus distinguishes the two: “ Mythus is the creation 
 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 imagination ; the legend has a basis of fact, but 
 amplifies, abridges, or modifies that basis at its pleasure. 
 De Wette thus expresses the difference: ‘‘ Der Mythus ist 
 eine in Thatsachen eingekleidete Idee; die Sage enthalt 
 Thatsachen, yon Ideen durchdrungen und umgebildet.” 
 (Linleitung in das alt. Test. § 136, 4.) Compare Professor 
 
304: NOTES. 
 
 Powell’s Third Series of Essays, Hssay ili, p. 340. “A 
 myth is a doctrine expressed in a narrative form; an ab- 
 stract moral or spiritual truth dramatised in action and 
 personification, where the object is to enforce faith, not in 
 the parable, but in the moral.” 
 
 Note 3. p. 2. 
 
 “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 gar- 
 den in the desert, or to kindle a conflagration in the un- 
 believing city. As often as he is pressed by the demands 
 of the Koreish, he involves himself in the obscure boast of 
 vision and prophecy, appeals to the internal proofs of his 
 doctrine, and shields himself 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 vewation ; and these passages of 
 scandal establish beyond suspicion the integrity of the 
 Koran. The votaries of Mahomet are more assured than 
 himself of his miraculous gifts, and their confidence and 
 credulity increase as they are further removed from the time 
 and place of his spiritual exploits.” Decline and Fall, vol. v. 
 ch.]. p. 210. Compare with this acknowledgment on the 
 part of an enemy of Christianity, the similar statements of 
 its defenders. (Butler, Analogy, Part II. ch. vii.; Paley, 
 Evidences, Part I. ch. ix. §3; White, Bampton Lectures, 
 Sermon vi. p. 254; Forster, Wahometanism Unveiled, vol. i. 
 p- 32; and Dr. Macbride, Mohammedan Religion Explained, 
 pp- 28-9.) Ockley, a very unprejudiced writer, observes, 
 that ‘“‘ when the impostor was called upon, as he often was, 
 to work miracles in proof of his divine mission, he excused 
 himself by various pretences, and appealed to the Koran 
 as a standing miracle.” (Life of Mohammed, pp. 65-6, 
 
LECTURE I. 305 
 
 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 4. p. 3. 
 
 See Butler’s Analogy, Part ii. ch. vii.; Paley’s Evidences, 
 Part iii. ch. vil.; and Rev. R. Michell’s Bampton Lectures, 
 Lecture iv. pp. 124—129. Dr. Stanley tersely expresses 
 the contrast between the Christian and other religions in 
 this respect, when he says of Christianity, that it “ alone, 
 of all religions, claims to be founded not on fancy or feel- 
 ing, but on Fact and Truth.” (Sinai and Palestine, ch. ii. 
 
 P: 155+) 
 Note 5. p. 3. 
 Butler’s Analogy, Part ii. ch. vil. p. 311. 
 
 Note 6. p. 5. 
 See Sir G. C. Lewis’s Inquiry into the Credibility of the 
 Early Roman History, vol. i. Introduction, p. 2. 
 
 Note.7. p..5. 
 
 M. de Pouilly’s Dissertation sur Vincertitude et histoire 
 des quatre premiers siécles de Rome, which was published in 
 the ninth volume of the Mémoires de ? Académie des In- 
 scriptions, constitutes an era in the study of ancient his- 
 tory. Earlier scholars had doubted this or that narrative 
 of an ancient author; but M. de Pouilly seems to have 
 been the first to “lay down with clearness and accuracy 
 the principles” by which the historic value of an author’s 
 accounts of early times is to be tested. His “ Disserta- 
 tion” was read in December, 1722; and a second Memoir 
 on the same subject was furnished by him to the Mémoires 
 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.) 
 
 x 
 
306 NOTES. 
 
 M. de Beaufort, who has generally been regarded as the 
 founder of the modern Historical Criticism, did not publish 
 his “ Dissertation sur Pincertitude des cing premiers siécles de 
 Chistoire Romaine,” till sixteen years after Pouilly, as this 
 work first appeared at Utrecht in 1738. His merits are 
 recognised to some extent by Niebuhr, (Hist. of Rome, vol. 
 i. pref. of 1826, p. vii. E. T.; and Lectures on Roman His- 
 tory, vol. i. p. 148, E. T.) 
 
 Note 8. p. 5. 
 
 Niebuhr’s views are most fully developed in his ‘“‘ Roman 
 History” (first published in 1811-1812, and afterwards re- 
 printed with large additions and alterations in 1827-1832), 
 and in his Lectures on the History of Rome, delivered at Bonn, 
 and published in 1846. They also appear in many of his 
 Kleine Schriften, and in his Lectures on Ancient History, 
 delivered at Bonn in 1826, and again in 1829-1830, which 
 were published after his decease by his son. Most of these 
 works have received an English dress, and are well known 
 to students. 
 
 Note 9. p. 5. 
 
 So early as 1817, Karl Otfried Miiller, in a little tract, 
 called Atginetica, gave promise of excellence as an histo- 
 rical critic. His Orchomenus und die Minyer soon followed, 
 and established his reputation. He is perhaps best known 
 in England by his Dorians, (published in 1824, and trans- 
 lated into English by Mr. H. Tufnell and Sir G. C. Lewis 
 in 1830), a work of great value, but not free from minor 
 blemishes. (See Mr. Grote’s History of Gireece, vol. ii. p. 
 530, &e.) 
 
 Note 10. p. 5. 
 
 Boéckh is best known in England by his book on the 
 Public Economy of Athens, (Staatshaushaltung der Athener), 
 published in Berlin in the year 1817, and translated into 
 English in 1828, (London, Murray.) But his great work 
 
 is the Corpus Inscriptionum Grecarum, in four large folio 
 
LECTURE I. 307 
 
 volumes, published at Berlin between 1825 and 1832. In 
 this he shews himself an historical critic of the first order. 
 
 Note 11. p. 6. 
 
 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 England owes much. 
 
 Note 12. p. 7. 
 
 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. 
 
 Note 13. p. g. 
 
 The subjoined extract from the correspondence of Nie- 
 buhr 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 3) but its im- 
 portance 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 his- 
 torical facts of Christ’s early life, in their literal accepta- 
 tion, with all their miracles, as equally authentic with any 
 event recorded in history, and whose belief in them is not 
 as firm and tranquil as his belief in the latter; who has 
 not the most absolute faith in the articles of the Apostles’ 
 Creed, taken in their grammatical sense; who does not 
 consider every doctrine and every precept of the New Tes- 
 tament as undoubted divine revelation, in the sense of the 
 Christians of the first century, who knew nothing of a 
 Theopneustia. Moreover, a Christianity after the fashion 
 of the modern philosophers and pantheists, without a per- 
 sonal God, without immortality, without human individu- 
 ality, without historical faith, is no Christianity at all to 
 
 a) 
 
308 NOTES. 
 
 me; though it may be a very intellectual, very ingenious 
 philosophy. 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 usa.” 
 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 consistent on 
 the point. See below, notes 34, and 36. 
 
 Note 14. p. to. 
 
 Eichhorn, in his examination of the Wolfenbittel Frag- 
 ments, (Recension der iibrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke des 
 Wolfenbiittlischen Fragmentisten, in Eichhorn’s Allgemener 
 Bibliothek for 1787, vol. i. parts 1. 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 
 nations, of the Grecians as well as the Orientals, to refer 
 every unexpected or inexplicable occurrence immediately 
 to the Deity. The sages of antiquity lived in continual 
 communion with superior intelligences. Whilst these re- 
 presentations 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 false- 
 hood, or the misinterpretation and corruption of tradition. 
 But justice evidently required that Hebrew and Pagan his- 
 tory should be treated in the same way.’ See the summary 
 of Eichhorn’s views and reasoning 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 remarked, that ‘the earliest records 
 of all nations were mythical: why should the writings of 
 the Hebrews form a solitary exception ?—whereas in point 
 
 a Life and Letters of B. G. Niebuhr, vol. ii. p.123. Compare Letter 
 cexxxi. vol. ii. pp. 103-5, and Letter ceexxix, vol. il. p. 315. 
 
LECTURE I. 309 
 
 of fact a cursory glance at their sacred books proved that 
 they also contain mythical elements.’ See his Hebraische 
 Mythologie des alten und neuen Testaments, published in 
 1820, 
 
 Note 15. p. 10. 
 
 See the works above cited, and compare an article in 
 Bertholdt’s Kvritische Journal, vol. v. § 235. See also Theo- 
 dore Parker’s De Wette, vol. ii. p. 198. 
 
 Note 16. p. Io. 
 
 So Vatke (Religion des Alten Testamentes, § 23, p. 289 et 
 seqq.) and De Wette, Archdologie, § 30-34. Baron Bunsen 
 takes the same view. See below, notes 39 and 44. 
 
 Noten 7 np snc: 
 
 Vatke (I. 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 ar- 
 gues similarly with respect to the ancestors of Abraham. 
 
 (Alte Indien, p. 155.) 
 
 Note 18. p. 10. 
 
 Semler, towards the close of the last century, pronounced 
 the histories of Samson and Esther to be myths; Eichhorn, 
 early in the present, assigned the same character to the 
 Mosaic accounts of the Creation and the Fall. (See 
 Strauss’s Introduction; Leben Jesu, vol.i. pp. 21 and 24, 
 
 E. T.) 
 
 Note 19. p..1r. 
 
 “Tradition,” says De Wette, “is uncritical and partial ; 
 its tendency is not historical, but rather patriotic and po- 
 etical. And since the patriotic sentiment is gratified by all 
 that flatters national pride, the more splendid, the more 
 honourable, the more wonderful the narrative, the more 
 
310 NOTES. 
 
 acceptable it is; and where tradition has left any blanks, 
 imagination 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 be- 
 lieved possible, &e.” (Kvritik der Israelitischen Geschichte, 
 Einleitung, § 10.) Compare Vater’s Abhandlung iiber Mo- 
 ses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs in the third volume 
 of his Comment. iiber den Pentateuch, § 660. 
 
 Note 20. p. 11. 
 
 This was the aim of the School, called technically Ra- 
 tionalists, in Germany, of which Eichhorn and Paulus 
 were the chief leaders. See Eichhorn’s Einleitung in das 
 Alte Testament, and Paulus’s Commentar iiber das neue Tes- 
 tament, and also his Leben Jesu, in which his views are 
 more fully developed. More recently Ewald, in his Ge- 
 schichte Volkes Israels, has composed on the same principle 
 a complete history of the Jewish people. 
 
 Note 21. p. 11. 
 
 See Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 8, vol. i. p. 29, E. T. This 
 same view was taken by De Wette, Krug, Gabler, Horst, 
 and others. 
 
 Note 22. p. 11. 
 
 An anonymous writer in Bertholdt’s Journal (vol. v. 
 § 235) objects to the rationalistic method of Paulus, that 
 it “ evaporates all sacredness and divinity from the Serip- 
 tures ;”’ while the mythical view, of which he is an advo- 
 cate, “leaves the substance of the narrative unassailed,” 
 and “accepts the whole, not indeed as true history, but as 
 a sacred legend.” Strauss evidently approves of this rea- 
 soning. (Leben Jesu, § 8, vol.i. p. 32, E. T.) 
 
 Note 23. p. 11. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § 4. The weakness of 
 this argument from authority is indeed allowed by Strauss 
 
LECTURE I. 311 
 
 himself, who admits that Origen ‘ does not speak out 
 freely” (p. 9), and that “ his rude 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, subsequently, a giving up of the verbal meaning 
 is spoken of, this refers merely to a trope or simile” (p. 9, 
 note 14.) It is doubtful whether Origen himself ever really 
 gave up the literal and historical sense. That the heretics 
 who sheltered themselves under his name (Origenists) did 
 so is certain; but they are accused of interpolating his 
 writings. (See Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, book i. 
 ch. 3, notet ad fin. vol. i. p. 288, E. T.) 
 
 Since the above was in type, I have observed that Pro- 
 fessor Powell, relying (as it would seem) on the bold asser- 
 tions of the infidel Woolston», taxes not Origen only, but 
 the Fathers generally, with an abandonment of the histo- 
 rical sense of Scripture. ‘‘ The idea,” he says, “ of the 
 mythic origin of the Gospel narrative had confessedly been 
 applied by some writers, as Rosenmiiller and Anton, to 
 certain portions of the Gospels; and so limited, was ac- 
 knowledged to possess the sanction of the Fathers.” (Third Se- 
 ries of Essays, Essay il. 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 24. p.12. 
 
 The more recent writers of the mythical School, as De 
 Wette, Strauss, and Theodore Parker, assume that the 
 mythological character of great part of the Old Testament 
 
 5 Sia Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, published in 1727, 
 1728, and 1729. 
 
312 NOTES. 
 
 history is fully established. (See De Wette’s Hinlectung in 
 das Alt. Test. §136; Strauss, Leben Jesu, Hinleitung. § 9, 
 et seqq.; Th. Parker’s Enlarged Translation of De Wette, 
 vol. ii. pp. 23—7, et passim.) German orthodox writers 
 bear striking witness to the effect which the repeated at- 
 tacks on the historical character of the Old Testament 
 narrative have had upon the popular belief in their coun- 
 try. “If,’’ says Keil, “ the scientific theology of the Evan- 
 gelical Church is anxious to strengthen its foundations 
 again, it must force rationalism away from the Old Testa- 
 ment, where till the present time it has planted its foot so 
 firmly, that many an acute theologian has doubted whe- 
 ther it is possible to rescue again the fides humana et di- 
 vina of the historical writings of the ancient covenant.” 
 (Commentar tiber das Buch Josua, Vorwort, p. nu. “ Will 
 daher die wissenschaftliche Theologie der evangelischen 
 Kirche sich wieder fest griinden, so muss sie den Rationa- 
 lismus aus dem Alten Testamente verdrangen, in welchem 
 derselbe bis jetzt so festen Fuss gefasst hat, dass nicht 
 wenige tiichtige Theologen daran verzweifeln, die fides hu- 
 mana et divina der historischen Schriften des altes Bundes 
 noch retten zu kénnen.””?) And he complains that the Ra- 
 tionalistic ‘‘ mode of treating the Old Testament History 
 has been very disadvantageous to the believing theological 
 science, inasmuch as it can now find no objective ground or 
 stand-point free from uncertainty ;” (dass sie keinen objectiv 
 sichern Grund und Standpunkt gewinnen kann. Ibid. 1. ¢.) 
 
 Note 25. p. 12. 
 
 Strauss evidently feels this difficulty (Leben Jesu, Einlei- 
 tung, § 13; vol.i. p.64, E.T.) He endeavours to meet it 
 by suggesting that ‘ the sun does not shine on all parts of 
 the earth at once. There was enlightenment in Italy and 
 Greece about the time of the establishment of Christianity, 
 but none in the remote Judzea, 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 Judea was the scene of the Gospel story, the 
 
LECTURE I. 313 
 
 Evangelical 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, Ephe- 
 sus, 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 Judza ; 
 many had been wrought in Rome and in the various cities 
 of Greece; where they challenged the attention of the most 
 civilised and enlightened classes. In Judeea itself, if the 
 Jews generally were not “ enlightened,” in the modern 
 sense of the word, the Roman Governors, and their courts, 
 were. And among the Jews, it must be remembered, the 
 sect which had most power was that of the Sadducees— 
 sceptics and materialists. 
 
 Note 26. p. 12. 
 
 The subjoined passage from Strauss seems to shew 
 something of this feeling: “The results of the enquiry 
 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 sublime levelled 
 with the dust, God divested of his grace, man of his dig- 
 nity, and the tie between Heaven and Earth broken. 
 Piety turns away with horror from so fearful an act of dese- 
 cration, and strong in the impregnable self-evidence of its 
 faith, pronounces that, let an audacious criticism attempt 
 what it will, all which the Scriptures declare and the 
 Church believes of Christ, will still subsist as eternal 
 truth, nor needs one iota of it to be renounced.” (Leben 
 Jesu, § 144, vol. iii. p. 396. KE. T.). 
 
314 NOTES. 
 
 Note 27. p. 12. 
 
 See Bauer’s Hebraische Mythologie des alten und neuen 
 Testaments, Erste Theil, Einleitung, § 3, with Gabler’s cri- 
 ticism of it in his Jowrnal fiir auserlesene theolog. Literatur, 
 ii. 1, § 58. Compare Strauss, Leben Jesu, §§ 33-43. 
 
 Note 28. p. 12. 
 
 Eichhorn, inleitung in das neue Testament, § 422; Theile, 
 Zur Biographie Jesu, § 23. 
 
 Note 29. p. 12. 
 
 See the account which Strauss gives of the ‘‘ Develop- 
 ment of the Mythical point of view,” in his Leben Jesu, 
 §§ g-11. ‘‘The mythus,” he observes, “when once ad- 
 mitted 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 ano- 
 nymous KE. F. in Henke’s Magazine, and others, maintained 
 a marked distinction between the historical worth of the 
 narratives of the public life and those of the infancy of 
 UR rite ee Soon, however, some of the theologians who 
 -had conceded the commencement of the history to the 
 province of mythus, perceived that the conclusion, the his- 
 tory of the ascension, must likewise be regarded as my- 
 thical. Thus the two extremities were cut off by the 
 pruning-knife of criticism.” (§ 11. pp. 44-5.) Finally the 
 essential body of the history was assailed, and the Gospels 
 —especially the first three—were “found to contain a con- 
 
 tinually increasing number of mythi and mythical embel- 
 lishments.” (§ 9. p. 36.) 
 
 Note 30. p. 13. 
 Leben Jesu, § 151; vol. iii. p. 437, E. T. 
 
 Note 31. p. 14. 
 Ibid. pp. 437-8. 
 
LECTURE I. B15 
 
 Note 32. p. 14. 
 «Sees ‘ 
 Eth. Nic. vi. 7,§4; “Atovov yap et tis tiv modureKhy 7) 
 S , » o lal 
 THY ppovnow omovdaioTtarny oleTat etvat, ef pr) TO Apiatov Tov 
 €v T@ KOTHw aVOpwTOS eoTLY. 
 
 Note 33. p. 15. 
 See above, note 13. 
 
 Note 34. p. 16. 
 
 Vortrdge iiber alte Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 158-9. “ Dass 
 das Buch Esther nicht als ein Mstorisches zu betrachten 
 sei, davon bin ich iiberzeugt, und ich stehe nicht im Min- 
 desten an dies hiermit 6offentlich auszusprechen ; Viele sind 
 derselben Meinung. Schon die Kirchenvater haben sie 
 daran geplagt, und der heilige Hieronymus, wie er klar 
 andeutet, in der grossten Verlegenheit befunden, wenn er 
 es als historisch betrachten wollte. Gegenwartig wird 
 Niemand die Geschichte in Buche Judith fur historisch 
 ansehen, und weder Origenes noch Hieronymus haben dies 
 gethan ; eben so verhilt es sich mit dem Buche Esther ; es ist 
 ein Gedicht iiber diese verhiltnisse.” 
 
 Note 35. p. 16. 
 
 On the weight of the external testimonies to the authen- 
 ticity of the Book of Esther, see Lecture V. note 69. 
 
 Note 36. p. 17. 
 
 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 37. p. 18. 
 
 See M. Bunsen’s Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. 
 pp. 190-1. EB. T. 
 
316 NOTES. 
 
 Note 38. p. 18. 
 See the same author’s Lyypt, vol. 1. p. 182, E.'T. 
 
 Note 39. p. 19. 
 Ibid. p. 173. 
 Note 40. p. 19. 
 Ibid. p. 174. 
 Note 41. p. 1g. 
 Dbid. p.. 173. 
 Note 42. p. 19. 
 Ibid. p. 181. 
 
 Note 43. p. 19. 
 Ibid. p. 180. 
 
 Note 44. p. 19. 
 Ibid. p. 179; and compare p. 170. 
 
 Note 45. p. 20. 
 
 German scepticism commenced with the school called the 
 Naturalists, who undertook to resolve all the Scripture mi- 
 racles into natural oceurrences. The mythical School, which 
 soon followed, very effectually demolished the natural theory, 
 and clearly demonstrated its ‘‘unnaturalness.” (See Strauss, 
 Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § g 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 II, Note 37.) 
 
 Note 46. p. 22. 
 
 “ Historical evidence,” says Sir G. C. Lewis, ‘ like judi- 
 cial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible wit- 
 nesses. Unless these witnesses had personal and imme- 
 
LECTURE I. 317 
 
 diate 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 
 original witnesses must be contemporary with the events 
 which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the eredi- 
 bility of a witness that he be a contemporary; though a 
 contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness. Unless 
 therefore a historical account can be traced by probable 
 proof, to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condi- 
 tion of historical credibility fails.” (Credibility of Early Ro- 
 man History, Introduction, vol. i. p.16.) Allowing for a 
 little rhetorical over-stating of the case, this is a just esti- 
 mate of the primary value of the testimony borne by con- 
 temporaries and eyewitnesses. 
 
 Note 47. p. 22. 
 
 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 historians, who have 
 not had the advantage of playing the chief part in the 
 events which they relate, are still more indebted to enquiry. 
 Hence History seems to have received its name (ioropia). 
 When the enquiry appears to have been carefully conducted, 
 and the judgment of the writer seems sound, we give very 
 nearly as full credence to his statements founded upon en- 
 quiry as to those of an eyewitness. We trust Thucydides 
 almost as implicitly as Xenophon, and Tacitus almost as 
 entirely as Cesar. 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. Com- 
 pare p. 25, and pp. 81-2; and see also his Methods of Ob- 
 servation and Reasoning in Politics, ch. vii. § 2; vol. i. 
 
 pp. 181-5.) 
 
318 NOTES. 
 
 Note 48. p. 22. 
 
 The tendency of the modern Historical Criticism has 
 been to diminish 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 shewn, (Remarks on 
 Two Appendices, &c., pp. 3-6), he admits it as sufficiently 
 establishing a number of very important facts. Sir G. C. 
 Lewis regards oral tradition as a tolerably safe guide for 
 the general outline of a nation’s history “for a period 
 reaching back nearly 150 years.” (Credibility, &c., ch. iv. 
 § 2; vol.i. p. 100). Special circumstances might, he thinks, 
 give to an event a still longer hold on the popular memory. 
 Among such special circumstances he notices “ commemo- 
 rative festivals, and other periodical observances,” as in 
 certain cases serving to perpetuate a true tradition of a 
 national event (ibid. p. 101). 
 
 Note 49. p. 23. 
 
 The modern historical critics have not laid much stress 
 on this head of evidence in their discussions of the ab- 
 stract principles of their science ; but practically they often 
 shew 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 favour (Kenrick’s Phenicia, 
 ch. iii. p.46 et seqq), both the Phcenicians themselves 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. 
 
 Note 50. p. 24. 
 
 Ezra, i. I; v.17; vi. 1-12. Esther, ii. 23; iii. 143 vi. 1. 
 
LECTURE I. 319 
 
 Note 51. p. 25. 
 Analogy, Part il. ch. vil. p. 329. 
 
 Note 52. p. 26. 
 
 Let it be ten to one that a certain fact is true upon the 
 testimony of one witness, and likewise ten to one that the 
 same fact is true upon the evidence of another, then it is not 
 twenty to one that the fact is true on the evidence of both, 
 but 130 to one. And the evidence to the same point of a 
 third independent witness of equal credibility with the others 
 would raise the probability to 1330 to one. 
 
 Note 53. p. 27. 
 
 See Strauss: Leben Jesu, § 13 (vol. i. p. 64, E.T.). For 
 a complete refutation of this view—“the shallowest and 
 erudest of all the assumptions of unbeliefe”—see the Bamp- 
 ton Lectures of my predecessor, Lecture II. pp. 184—197. 
 
 Note 54. p. 27. 
 
 See Bauer’s Hebraische Mythologie des Alten und Neuen 
 Testaments, quoted by Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 8 (vol. i. p. 25, 
 K. T.). 
 
 Note 55. p. 29. 
 
 Ecclesiastical Polity, book 1. ch. 3. § 4. “Those things 
 which Nature 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 _ ho- 
 noured by all for ever.” Compare Dean Trench, Notes on 
 the Miracles of our Lord, ch. ii. pp. 9-10. 
 
 Note 56. p. 30. 
 
 Plato’s Pheedo, § 46-7. "AA’ dxovoas pév Tote &x BiBALov 
 , ¢ A ’ , 5) , \ , . € 
 Twos, os Edn, “Avagaydépov avaytyveckovtos, Kal A€EyorvTOS ws 
 
 © Mansei’s Bampton Lectures, Lecture VI. p. 193. 
 
320 NOTES. 
 
 dpa vots éotiv 6 biakoopev Te Kal TavtTwv aitios, TavTy b} TH 
 airla noOnv Te, Kal €o€€ pou TA. Kat ode Gv dreddunv moAAOD 
 Tas eAmidas, GAAG Tavv orOVd7 AaBwv Tas BiBAovs os TaxLoTA 
 er 1} o ° / 79 ¢€ if >] 4 \ / 
 olds T Hv aveylyvwokor, iv ws Tax.oTa Eldeinv TO BEATLOTOV 
 \ \ n ? a X\ ° os € al 3 ” b , 
 kal TO xe€lpov. “Avo 67) Oavpactijs, w ETaipe, EATLOOS MXO-NY 
 epopevos, e7rEL07) TpolMy Kal avaytyveoKwY Op@, avopa TH 
 wev va ovdeév xpbpevov ovd€ Tivas airtas emaiTidpevov 
 ; x ~ X\ / shld \ \8 >) / \ [cA 
 els TO Olakoopety Ta TPaypaTa, a<pas 6€ Kal, alOe€pas Kal voaTa 
 aitiéuevov kat GAAa TOAAG Kal aroma. The ‘ Vestiges of 
 Creation,’ and other works of the same stamp, are the 
 modern counterparts of these Anaxagorean treatises. 
 
 Note 57. p. 32. 
 
 On the latter subject see Mr. J. H. Newman’s Lssay 
 prefixed to a portion of Fleury’s Ecclesiastical History, and 
 also published in a separate form (Oxford, Parker, 1843) ; 
 and compare the views of Dodwell (Dissertat. in Ireneum, 
 ii. 28 et seqq.), Burton (Lcelesiastical History of the First 
 Three Centuries, vol. ii. pp. 5, 230-3, &e.), and Kaye (Ter- 
 tullian, p. 104; Justin Martyr, p. 121). On the supernatural 
 element in Heathenism, see Mr. Newman’s Arians (ch. i. 
 § 3, pp. 87-91); and compare Trench, Notes on¥the Mi- 
 racles, ch. iii. pp. 21-3; Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. ii. 
 p. 164; Hue’s Voyage dans la Tartarie, vol. i. pp. 295-6; 
 and Hiivernick, Handbuch der historisch-kritischen Hinleitung 
 in das Alte Testament, § 23, p. 244, HK. T. 
 
Nee Oey Ryicbiud: 
 LECTURE IL. 
 
 
 
 Note 1. p. 39. 
 
 SEE Horne’s Introduction to the Critical Study and Know- 
 ledge of Holy Scriptures, ch. ii. § 1; vol. i. pp. 51-6, sixth 
 edition; Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, Lecture I.; 
 Havernick, Handbuch der Historisch-kritischen Evinleitung 
 in das Alte Testament, vol.i. ch. ii. § 108; Stuart’s Defence 
 of the Old Testament Canon, § 3, p. 42, &c. This fact is 
 not denied by those who oppose the Mosaic authorship. 
 (See De Wette’s Ernleitung in das Alte Testament, § 163, 
 and § 164, pp. 203-5.) 
 Note 2. p. 39. 
 
 The history of the controversy concerning the authorship 
 of the Hiad 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 belief main- 
 tains its ground in spite of them, and is regarded by the 
 latest Critic as fully and finally established. (See Glad- 
 stone’s Homer and the Homeric Age, vol. i. pp. 3,4.) The 
 reason is, that the opposing arguments, though strong, are 
 pronounced on the whole xot strong enough to overcome the 
 Sorce of a unanimous tradition. 
 
 Note 3. p. 39. 
 
 For instance, De Wette repeats the old objection of 
 Spinoza, that the author of the Pentateuch cannot be 
 RAWLINSON, x 
 
322 NOTES. 
 
 Moses, since he uses the expression “ beyond Jordan” as 
 a dweller in Palestine would, whereas Moses never entered 
 Palestine. (Hinleitung, &e., § 147, 4, 4.) But all tolerable 
 Hebraists are aware that the term AYA is ambiguous, 
 and may mean on either side of a river. Buxtorf trans- 
 lates it, “cis, ultra, trans.” (Lexicon Hebraicum et Chal- 
 daicum, p. 527, ad voe. V3.) So Gesenius and others. 
 Even De Wette admits in a note that the expression has 
 the two senses; but the objection maintains its place in 
 his text notwithstanding. 
 
 De Wette’s translator and commentator, Mr. Theodore 
 Parker, repeats the objection, and amplifies it. He re- 
 marks, that in the Pentateuch the expression “ beyond 
 Jordan” means “on the east side of that river,” while 
 “ this side Jordan” means ‘‘to the west of that river.” 
 (vol. 11. p.41.) Apparently he is not aware that in the 
 original it is one and the same expression (2) which 
 has been rendered in the two different ways. 
 
 Note 4. p. 39. 
 
 Examples of interpolations, or insertions into the text 
 by another hand, are, I think, the following: Gen. xxxvi. 
 31-9; Exod. xvi. 35-6, and perhaps Deut. ili.14. (See 
 Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol.i. p. 342, pp- 345-6, 
 and p. 349.) ‘The first of these cannot have been, and 
 the others probably were not, written by Moses. They are 
 supplementary notes of a similar character to the supple- 
 mentary chapter of Deuteronomy (ch. xxxiy.), in which 
 every commentator recognises an addition to the original 
 document. (Graves, vol. i. pp. 349, 350; Hiavernick, Hand- 
 buch, &e., § 134, sub fin. vol. i. p. 549; Horne’s Introduc- 
 tion, &e., vol. i. p. 62; &e.) 
 
 The other passages, which have been regarded as inter- 
 polations, such as Gen. xiii. 8, xxil.14; Deut. ii. 10-12, 
 20-23, lii. g, 11, &e., may (I think) have all been written 
 ; by Moses. Hiivernick (1. s. ec.) maintains, that even the 
 passages mentioned in the last paragraph are from the 
 
LECTURE II. 323 
 
 pen of the Lawgiver, and holds that the Pentateuch is 
 altogether “free from interpolation”’—the last chapter of 
 Deuteronomy alone being from another hand, and consti- 
 tuting an Appendix to the Pentateuch, or even an Intro- 
 duction to Joshua, He seems to think that if interpolation 
 be once admitted, all is rendered uncertain. ‘* From in- 
 terpolation 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 business 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 interpo- 
 lations, whether made by authority, or glosses which have 
 erept in from the margin, do not in the slightest degree af- 
 fect the genuineness of the work as a whole. (See Horne’s 
 Introduction, vol.i. ch. 2, p.62; Graves’s Lectures, Appendix, 
 § I, p. 346, and pp. 355-361; Rosenmiiller’s Prolegomena, 
 p- 36; Hichhorn’s Hinlettung in das Alie Testament, § 434, 
 &e.; Jahn’s Hinleitung und Beitrdge zur Vertheid. der 
 Aechtheit des Pentateuchs, p. 60; and Fritzsche’s Prufung 
 der Griinde, &c., p. 135-) 
 
 Note 5. p. 40. 
 De Wette, Hinleitung, § 1453; pp. 168, 16-9. 
 
 Note 6. p. 40. 
 
 Ibid. § 163, p. 204. “ Gegen die Abfassung durch Mose 
 zeugt ... die gange Analogie der Sprach und Literatur- 
 Geschichte der Hebraer. ...So ist es Unsinn anzunch- 
 men, dass Ein Mann die episch-historische, rhetorische und 
 poetische Schreibart im ganzen Umfange so wie auch diese 
 drei Gebiete der Hebriaischen Litteratur ihrem Inhalte 
 und Geiste nach im voraus geschaffen, und allen folgenden 
 Schriftstellern nichts als den Nachtritt gelassen haben 
 soll.” 
 
324 NOTES. 
 
 Note 7. p. 40. 
 
 Hartmann, Historisch-kritische Forschungen iiber d. Bu- 
 dung, &c. des Pentateuchs, p. 545, et alibi. Norton, Genu- 
 tneness of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 444, second edition. The 
 objection is as old as Spinoza. (See his Tractatus Theolo- 
 gico-Politicus, ch. vill. p. 154.) 
 
 Note 8. p. 40. 
 De Wette, Hinleitung, § 144, p. 167. 
 
 Note 9. p. 40. 
 
 Hartmann, |. s.c. So Spinoza, Zvractatus Theologico- 
 Politicus, ch. viii. pp. 154—5- 
 
 Note 10. p. 4o. 
 
 Leben Jesu, Hinleitung § 13. vol. i. p. 60. E. T. The 
 genuineness of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which 
 contains so many references to miracles‘, is_ specially 
 
 acknowledged, § 140; vol. ili. p. 367, E. T. 
 Note 11. p. 4o. 
 
 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, HE. T.) He regards it as “ not a little 
 remarkable, that the author makes no distinct allusion to 
 his connexion with the most distinguished of the Apostles.” 
 It is certainly very remarkable how completely St. Luke 
 keeps himself, and his own actions, in the background, 
 while engaged in recording the history of events in which 
 he himself took part. But this reticence is a feature of that 
 humility which characterises the Sacred Writers generally. 
 
 Note 12. p. 41. 
 
 It was the existence of considerable remains of Greek 
 literature, earlier in date than the latter half of the sixth 
 
 4 See especially ch. xii. verses 9, 10. and 28-30, ch. xiv. 2, 5, 6, 13, 
 &c, and ch. xv. 3. 
 
LECTURE Il. 325 
 
 century B. C., and an exact acquaintance with it, which 
 enabled Bentley so thoroughly to establish the spurious- 
 ness of the alleged Epistles of Phalaris. In the Homeric 
 controversy, on the other hand, the want of any contem- 
 porary literature 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 2.) 
 Note 13. p. 40. 
 
 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 nine- 
 teenth or even to earlier dynasties. Two of these have 
 been translated by the Vicomte de Rougé®, 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, (Cumbridge Essays, 
 1858, p. 229) “ Egyptian philology is yet in its infancy, 
 Champollion got little further than the accidence of the 
 language; and since his time not much has been done in 
 the investigation of the syntax... With an incomplete 
 knowledge of the syntax, and a slender vocabulary, transla- 
 tion becomes guesswork, and the misconception of a single 
 word or phrase may completely confound the sense.’ Hence 
 Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Heath often differ as te the entire 
 subject and bearing of a document. (See Mr. Goodwin’s 
 Essay, pp. 249, 259, 261, &e.) 
 
 Note 14. p. 41. 
 The antiquity of the diction of the Pentateuch has been 
 denied by some critics , among others by Gesenius. (See 
 
 © See the Révue Archéologique for May 1852, and the Revue Con- 
 temporaine for 1856. 
 
 f The Exodus Papyri, London 1855. 
 
 = Vater, Abhundlung iiber Moses, &c. § 393; Norton, Authenticity 
 of the Gospels, vol. ii. pp. 441, 442- 
 
326 NOTES. 
 
 his Geschichte der Hebriischen Sprache und Schrift, § 8.) 
 But Jahn seems to have established the point beyond any 
 real controversy. (See Jahn’s contributions to Bengel’s 
 Archiv, vol. ii. p. 578 et seqq.; vol. iii. p. 168 et seqq. 
 Compare Fritzsche, Prufung der Grunde &c. p.104 et seqq. ; 
 and see also Marsh’s Authenticity of the Five Books of 
 Moses, p.6 et seqq.; and Stuart’s History and Defence of the 
 Old Testament Canon, pp.12—-13.) Atleast DeWette, writing 
 after both Jahn and Gesenius, is constrained to admit that 
 archaisms exist in considerable number, 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. (Hinleitung, § 157. See also 
 § 163, where he allows that the /énquistic, as distinct from 
 the literary argument, against the Mosaic authorship, is 
 weak.) 
 Note 15. p. 41. 
 
 This is abundantly shewn by Havernich (Handbuch Se., 
 
 § 136; pp. 554-554.) 
 Note 16. p. 42. 
 See Lecture ILI. pages 83 and 84. 
 
 Note 17. p. 42. 
 
 Mr. Norton is the writer who in recent times has urged 
 this point with the greatest distinctness, and has given it 
 the most prominent position. In his section, headed “ Some 
 general considerations respecting the Authorship of the Pen- 
 tateuch,” he begins his argument against the genuineness 
 with this objection. Moses, he says, lived probably in the 
 fifteenth century before Christ ; certainly not much later. 
 “ There is no satisfactory evidence that alphabetical writing 
 was known at this time. If known to others, it is improbable 
 that it was known to the Hebrews. They could not during 
 their residence in Lgypt have learnt alphabetical writing from 
 the Egyptians ; for the mode of representing ideas to the 
 eye, which the Ngyptians employed till a period long sub- 
 sequent, was widely(?) different from the alphabetical writ- 
 ing of the Hebrews. If they were acquainted with the art, 
 
LECTURE IL. 327 
 
 they must have brought it with them into the country. 
 But we can hardly suppose that it was invented, or ac- 
 quired except by tradition, in the family of Isaac, or in 
 that of Jacob before his residence in Egypt, engaged as 
 they both were in agriculture and the care of cattle. We 
 must then go back to Abraham ut least for what tradi- 
 tionary knowledge of it his descendants in Egypt may be 
 supposed to have possessed. But ec would be idle to argue 
 against the supposition that alphabetical writing 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 
 Hebréischen Sprache und Schrift, § 140 et seqq. and De 
 Wette’s Archdologic, § 277.) Both however saw reason to 
 change their opinion, and admitted subsequently that it 
 must have dated at least from Moses. See Gesenius’ He- 
 brew Grammar, Exeursus I. p. 290 (English Translation, 
 13th edition), and De Wette’s Hinle:tung, § 12, p. 13. The 
 bulk of modern German erities, whether rationalist or or- 
 thodox, acquiesce in this latter opinion. See Ewald, Ge- 
 schichte Volkes Israels, pp. 64-69, Von Lengerke, Kdnaan, 
 p. xxxv., Havernick, Hinlectung in das Alte Testament. § 44, 
 &c.; and compare the American writer, Stuart, Old Testa- 
 ment Canon, § 3, pp. 40, 41. 
 
 NoteniG.: p42: 
 
 See the statements of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in the au- 
 thor’s Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 311, and pp. 343-4. The date 
 assigned to the fourth dynasty rests upon the same au- 
 thority. 
 
 Note 19. p. 42. 
 
 Sir Henry Rawlinson regards the earliest inscribed 
 bricks in the Babylonian series as dating from about B. C. 
 2200, (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 435 and 
 440.) 
 
 " Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. ii. Appendix, Note D. § 3; pp. 
 439-441. 
 
328 NOTES. 
 
 Note 20. p. 42. 
 
 See Wilkinson’s statements on this subject in the au- 
 thor’s Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 306, 321, &e. He regards the 
 hieratic character as having come into use “at least as 
 early as the gth dynasty” (p. 306), which he places about 
 B. C. 2240. A considerable number of hieratic papyri be- 
 longing to the 1gth dynasty, and one or two of a still 
 earlier date, are now in the British Museum. (See Cam- 
 bridge 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 em- 
 ployed till a period long subsequent, was widely different 
 from the alphabetical writing of the Hebrews.” (Norton, 
 ]. s.c. Compare Hiavernick, Hinlettung, § 42-43.) But the 
 difference was really not very great. It is a mistake to 
 suppose that the Egyptian writing was, except to a small 
 extent, symbolical. Both in the hieroglyphic and the hie- 
 ratic, as a general rule, the words are spelt phonetically first, 
 and are then followed by a symbol or symbols. (See Mr. 
 Goodwin’s Essay, p. 227, and compare Wilkinson, Herodo- 
 tus, vol. ii. p. 317.) 
 
 Note 21. p. 43. 
 
 Ur, or Hur (N58), the modern Mugheir, has furnished 
 some of the most ancient of the Babylonian inscriptions. 
 (See the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 435; and compare 
 Loftus’s Chaldea and Susiana, ch. xii. p. 130.) It seems to 
 have been the primeval capital of Chaldzea. ‘The inscrip- 
 tions, which are either on bricks or on clay cylinders, and 
 which are somewhat rudely executed, have been assigned 
 to about the 22nd century before Christ, (See the Herodo- 
 tus, 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 alphabetic system. (See Havernick’s Hin- 
 leitungd, § 44.) It is considerably different both from that 
 
LECTURE II. 329 
 
 of Egypt and that of Babylon, while it is almost identical 
 with that of Phoenicia; whence it is inferred, that the He- 
 brews learnt it from the Phoenicians. Of this, however, 
 there is no evidence, since the Phcenicians may equally as 
 well have learnt of them. (See the statement of Kupolemus, 
 quoted in note 25.) ‘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 
 Kgypt*, 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 22. p. 43. 
 
 Hecatzeus 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 :— 
 
 Kara ryv Alyurrov 10 madawoy AowwKys TEeplaTacEews yevo- 
 pevys, aveTeuTov of TOAAOL Ti aitlay TGV KakOv els TO Satpo- 
 viov' TOoAAGY yap Kal TavTodaTGy KaTotKovvT@Y F€vev Kal bi- 
 
 a / \ Swit? S\ \ XN / 
 nrAaypevois COeot xpoueveov Tepl TO iepov Kal Tas Ovotas KaTa- 
 AeAvoOar cuveBawe Tap’ adrots Tv OeGv Tysds. “Ozep of THs 
 , ) a c / aN SS \ b) 7 / 
 Xopas eyyevets uTEAGBOv, Eav aa) TOUS aAAOdvAOUS pEeTATTHTwDY- 
 if > yy las lad AN = / 
 Tal, Kplow ovK €oeoOat TOV Kakov. Evdds obv &evndaroupevov 
 a P) fa c Ss 3 f \ Ne 
 TOV dAdAoEOVaY, Ol peV ETUpaveotaToL Kal OpacTiK@TaTOL ov- 
 otpadevtes eLeppipynoav, ws tives dacw, eis THY “EAAdba... 6 
 dé ToAVs Aews eLemEcEV eis THY VOY Kadcopevynv “Lovdaiay, od 
 TOppw pev KEemmevny THs AlydnTov, TavTeA@s 5€ Epnuov odoav 
 kat’ €xeivous Tovs xpdvous. “Hyeiro 6€ tijs doulas 6 Tpocayo- 
 pevduevos Maons, ppovnoe: te Kal avodpeia todd diadpépwr. 
 Otros 6& KatadaBepevos THY ydpav, GAAas TE TOAELS ExTIE Kal 
 bs a a b) / 5) , € , . , 
 THY viv ovoay emipaveotaryny, dvoyaCouernv TepoodAvpa. Ldpu- 
 
 h Tt seems scarcely possible that the resemblance between the He- 
 brew shin and the Egyptian sh can be accidental. A fainter similarity 
 may be traced in some other letters. 
 
330 NOTES. 
 
 aato b€ Kai TO padloTa Tap avTots TYyAGMEVOY iepor, Kat Tas TI- 
 pas Kal aytotelas Tod Oelov Karéderfe, kal Ta KaTa THY TOAL- 
 relay évopobeTynoe kal dreragfe. After giving an account of the 
 chief points of the law, Hecatzeus adds, Hpooyéypamrat 
 d€ Kal Tols vdéwous etl TeAEUTHS, 6tt Mwons axovoas Tod Oeov 
 Tdde A€yer Tots lovdatois. (See the fragments of Hecatzeus 
 in Mons. C. Miiller’s Mragmenta Historicorum Grecorum, 
 volfn.sp: 392, Fr.13-) 
 
 Note 23. p. 43. 
 
 Manetho, the Egyptian, was also contemporary with 
 Alexander, and wrote his Egyptian History under the first 
 Ptolemy. His words, as reported by Josephus, are—Aé€ye- 
 tra 8 Ore THY TOATELaV Kal TOUS Vopovs a’Tols KaTa- 
 Badopmevos tepeds, TO yevos ‘HAtovToAirns, dvowa “Ocapolp, 
 amo tov év ‘HAtoréAet Oeod "Oolpews, ws eTeBn els TodTo TO 
 yévos, pereTeOn Tovvopa Kal TpoonyopevOn Meotons. (Frag- 
 menta Hist. Gree. vol. il. p. 580; Fr. 54.) 
 
 Note 24. p. 43. 
 
 Lysimachus of Alexandria, a writer (probably) of the 
 Augustan age, abused Moses and his laws. See Josephus 
 (contr. Apion. ii. 14) ;—Avotpayos kai ties GAAOL, Ta pev 
 bm dyvotas, TO Treforoy b€ Kata dvopEveray, TEpl TE TOD VoOpo- 
 Oernoavtos hiv Mavoéws Kal wept TOV vopwv TETOinvTaL dod- 
 yous ovTe dikatovs ote dAnOets, TOY LEV ws yonTa Kal aTaTEGra 
 diaBddXovres, Tovs vdpous b& Kaklas Hiv Kal ovdeulas aperis 
 pdokortes eivat didacKdAovs. 
 
 Note 25. p. 43. 
 
 Kupolemus is by some thought to have been a Jew; but 
 the liberties which he takes with Scripture seem to mark 
 him for a heathen. Josephus evidently considers him sueh, 
 since he couples him with Demetrius Phalereus, and speaks 
 of him as unable to follow exactly the sense of the Jewish 
 Scriptures. (Contr. Apion. i. 23.) He lived in the latter 
 
LECTURE II. 331 
 
 half of the second century before Christ, and wrote a work 
 in Greek on the history of the Jews, which was largely 
 quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, the contemporary of 
 Sylla. (See Eusebius, Preparatio Evangelica, vol. ii. pp. 
 370-3, 394, 423-433, &c.) Polyhistor thus reported his 
 testimony concerning Moses :— 
 
 EtroXepos b€ d@yot tov Moony mpGrov coddv yevérOa, Kat 
 ypappata twapadotvat tots lovdalots mpGrtor, Tapa be 
 ‘lovdaiwy Poivixas rapada$eiv, "EhAnvas 6€ rapa Tv Powvlkwr, 
 vouous Te TpGTOV ypawat Maojy “Jovdaios. (Krag- 
 menta Hist. Grec. vol. ii. p. 220, Fr. 13.) 
 
 Note 26. p. 43. 
 
 Histor. v. 4; “ Moyses, quo sibi in posterum gentem fir- 
 maret, novas ritus contrariosque czeteris mortalibus in- 
 didit.” 
 
 Note 27. p. 43. 
 
 “ Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem, 
 Nil preeter nubes et coeli numen adorant ; 
 Nee distare putant humana carne suillam, 
 (ua pater abstinuit ; mox et preeputia ponunt ; 
 Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges, 
 Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, et metuunt jus, 
 Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses.” 
 
 Satir. xiv. g6-102. 
 
 Note 28. p. 43. 
 
 Longinus does not mention Moses by name, but it can- 
 not be doubted that he intends him in the famous passage, 
 where he speaks of “ the Jewish legislator” as a person 
 historically known, and as the writer of Genesis. Tav7y 
 kal 6 TOV lovdalwr Oeapodérns, ovx 6 TvxXaV avip, emELdy) THY 
 Tov Ocv dvvaymw Kata zi aflav éyvdpice, Kaeedyrer, ELOUS 
 év tH elaBodn ypawas Tov vopwr, “ Einer 6 Oeds,” pyov tH; 
 “ TevecOw pas, nai éyéveto’ yevérOw yi, cat éyéveto.” De 
 Sublimitate, § 9. 
 
332 NOTES. 
 
 Note 29. p. 43. 
 
 Heeatzeus, Kupolemus, Juvenal, and Longinus. See 
 above, notes 22, 25, 27, and 28. Nicolas of Damascus 
 may be added as a witness to the composition of the Pen- 
 tateuch by Moses. Speaking of a certain man as saved in 
 the Ark at the time of the Great Deluge, he says—yévoiro 
 8’ Gv ovros, 6vtwa Kat Moots avéypawev, 6’lovdalov vopo- 
 
 Oérns. (See Josephus, Antig. Jud. i. 3, § 6.) 
 
 Note 30. p. 44. 
 
 According to some writers, Hellanicus, the contempo- 
 rary of Herodotus, mentioned Moses. (Justin Martyr, 
 Cohortatio ad Gentes, § 8, p. 13, D. Ot ta ’AOnvaiwr toro- 
 powvres, EXAdviKds Te Kal PiAdyxopos, of Tas “ATOidas, Kaorwp 
 te kal ©addXos, cal Adr€favipos 6 TloAvistwp, .. . ws opddpa 
 apxatov kal TadaLod tév ‘lovdaiwy apxovtos Meioews peuvnv- 
 ra. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Julianum, i. p.15, D. 
 "Ori d€ Tots “EAAHver totopioypadots yvopyatatos jv 6 Mo- 
 ons, €€ av’Tav Ov yeypapacw e€eotw deliv. TloAcuov te yap 
 év TH TpeTyn TOV “EAAnViKGy toTopLOv Sreyvnudvevoev adrod, 
 kat [IroAewatos 6 Mevéjouos, kal piv cal “EAAdvixos Kal Pido- 
 xopos, Kdorwp te Kat érepor pos Tovros.) As he wrote a 
 work entitled [epi €Over, or BapBapixa vopia, there is no 
 improbability in this statement. It is less easy to see what 
 could have led Philochorus (B.C. 300) to speak of him, 
 but we are scarcely entitled on this ground to pronounce 
 (as Mons. C. Miller 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 of Egypt. (Africanus ap. Euseb. Prep. Ee. 
 x. 10; vol. il. p. 5123 Kal “EAAjver b€ twes totopovor Kara 
 Tovs avTovs xpovovs yeverOar Macéa? TodA€nov pév ev tH 
 mpatn Tov “EdAnvixdv toropidv A€yor, én” Ami50s Tod Popa- 
 véws poipa Tod Alyuntiov otpdrou efémerev Aliytrtou, ot év TH 
 Hadaorivy kadovpévn Svpia ob 7éppw 'Apaias @xnoav, adroit 
 dyndrovert of pera Mooéwos. Comp. Cyril. Alex. 1. s. ¢.; Jus- 
 
LECTURE II. 333 
 
 tin Martyr, Cohort. ad Gentes, p.11; Syncellus, vol. 1. p. 116.) 
 Apollonius Molo, Cicero’s instructor in rhetoric, (about 
 B. C. 80) called Moses a juggler and an impostor, and gave 
 a very incorrect 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 did not 
 give his readers very correct information, if we may judge 
 by the epitome of Justin. Justin says— “ Filius ejus (se. 
 Joseph) Moses fuit, quem preter paternz scientize heere- 
 ditatem etiam formee pulchritudo commendabat. Sed 
 f/Egyptii, cum scabiem et vitiliginem paterentur, responso 
 moniti, eum cum eegris, ne pestis ad plures serperet, ter- 
 minis Algypti pellunt. Dux igitur exulum factus, sacra 
 /Egyptiorum furto abstulit: quae repetentes armis A’gyptii 
 domum redire tempestatibus compulsi sunt. Itaque Mo- 
 ses, Damascena antiqua patria repetita, montem Synz oc- 
 cupat; quo septem dierum jejunio per deserta Arabize cum 
 populo suo fatigatus, cum tandem venisset, septimum diem 
 more gentis ‘sabbata’ appellatum in omne evum jejunio 
 sacravit, quoniam illa dies famem illis erroremque finierat. 
 .... Post Mosen etiam filius ejus Aruas, Sacerdos sacris 
 /Kgyptiis, mox rex creatur.” (Hist. xxxvi. 2.) The E- 
 gyptian historians Apion (B.C. 30), Cheeremon (A. D. 50), 
 and Ptolemy of Mendes—the last an author of uncertain 
 date, probably of the 1st century after Christ—noticed the 
 fact of his leading the Jews out of Egypt. (See Tatian, Oratio 
 adversus Grecos, § 37, p. 273; Alyuntiov & eioly axpiBeis xpd- 
 ' vav dvaypapai. Kal rév kar’ atrovs ypappater épynveds Mro0- 
 Aepaios, ovx 6 Bactreds, iepeds 6€ Mevdntos, odros Tas TGV Ba- 
 awéav mpdgers exTiWeuevos, Kata "Apwow Aiyirrov Bacwéa 
 yeyovévar lovdaiors nol tiv e€ Alyiatov mopelav eis amep 
 70edov xXwpia, Mecéws jyouyevov. Compare Clem. Alex. 
 Stromata, i. p. 379; Cyril. Alex. 1. s. ¢.; Euseb. Prep. Ev. 
 x. 11; vol. ii. p. 519, &c. And for the testimonies of Chee- 
 remon and Apion, which will be adduced in note 81, see 
 Joseph. c. Apion. 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 freedman of Tiberius. (See 
 
334 NOTES. 
 
 the passages from Justin Martyr and Cyril quoted at the 
 beginning of this note.) Numenius, the Pythagorean phi- 
 losopher, who lived in the age of the Antonines, called 
 Moses “a man very powerful with God through prayer,” 
 and mentioned his contest with the Egyptian magicians, 
 Jannes and Jambres. (See Euseb. Prep. He. ix. 8; vol. ii. 
 P- 3583 Ta O EfHs Lavyins Kal “layBpis Aiydarior tepoypappa- 
 Tels, dvdpes ovdEvOS FrTOVs payedoar KpiWEvTEs eEivat, em Tov- 
 dalwv e€eAavvopéever e€ Aiytiatov. Movoalw yotv 7é ‘lovoatwy 
 efnynoapevm, avopl yevopevm Ocw@ cbfacda dvvatwrdtw, oi 
 Tapasthvat akwwbévtes b7d Tod TANOovs Tod Tov AlyvaTlev 
 ovToL Hoav, TOV TE TYUopOv s 6 Movoaios exijye 77 AlydaTe, 
 Tas veavikwTatas avTav emdvec0ar SPOnoav dvvatol. Com- 
 pare Pliny, Hist. Nat. xxx. 1, § 2.) Nicolas of Damascus 
 also mentioned Moses, and called him “ the Jewish law- 
 giver.” (See the passage quoted in note 29.) 
 
 Note 31. p. 44. 
 
 The only classical writer, so far as I am aware, who ex- 
 presses 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 establish- 
 ment 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. Moots yap tis Tov 
 Aiyumtiwy iepewv ... amnpev exeice evOevie, ducxepavas Ta 
 
 lal \ fed > ~ \ fal A tad v 
 kadeot@ta, Kal cuveEnpay att@ TOAXOL Ti~@vTes TO Oeiov ey 
 me pI) ~ + We A «< ’ BJ an _ c >) / 
 yap exeivos Kal edidacKer, os ovK dpOGs povoiev ot Aiyédrriot 
 Onplows eixdgovtes Kal Bookjpact TO Oeiov, ovd oi AlBves* ovd« 
 ed 5€ ot’ of "EAAnves, GvOpwTopdppovs TuTodvTEs’ Ein yup ev 
 TovTo povov Oeds TO TEpiexov Has AmavTas Kal ynv Kal Oddar- 
 Tav, 0 KaAovpev ovpavoyv Kal Kéopov Kal THY TOV OvTwY tow 
 \ im ta) =) \ iS a a XN fal 3 
 - 2. Kal TpocdoKkay deity ayaldy Tapa Tod OEov Kai dOpor adel 
 TL Kal onpelov TOs Twdppovas COvTas Kal peTa Sixatoovvns, Tovs 
 & GAAovs py) Tpocboxav .... Obros pév ody evdokiynoas Tov- 
 TOLS OUVEDTHTATO APXI]V Ov TiVY TYXOvTaY, ATdVTOY TpPOTXwpN- 
 c nr / XX X\ Ld / \ \ , 
 cdvTov padlos TOV KUKA® 61a THY bptAlav Kat Ta TpoTELVopeEva. 
 Ot be dtadeLdpevor xpdvovs pév Tivas Ev Tois adtois bué- 
 
LECTURE II. 335 
 
 pevov SukalompayovvTes, Kat OeoveBels ws AANnOGs duTEs’ eretT 
 €iotapevwy emt THY LepoovynY TO pev TpPOTOV Secodatporwr, 
 ETELTA TUPAVVLKGY GVOPOTWV, EK MEV THS SetowWalpovias at Tv 
 Bpopatwoyv amocyxécets, GvTep kal viv aitois éotiv Eos 
 améxecOat, kal ait mepttopal cal ai éxropal kal ef Tuva 
 Tovadta evopulodn, ex b€ TOY TYpavYLK@Y TA AnoTipia.) It 
 is to be remarked that 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 32. p. 45. 
 
 See Exod. xvii, 14; xxiv. 4, 7; Numb. xxxi. 2; Deut. 
 xvii. 18 et seqq.; XxXvill. 58 et seqq; Xxix. 20, 27; and 
 XXXi. 9, 24 et seqq. 
 
 Note 33. p. 45. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 6; vol. i. p. 20, E. T. 
 Note 34. p. 45. 
 
 See particularly Deuteronomy xxvill. 58, and xxix. 20, 
 27. Hiivernick’s comment on these and other kindred pas- 
 sages deserves the attention of the student. (See his 
 Handbuch des historisch-critischen Evnleitung in das Alte 
 Testament, § 108; § 4, pp. 14-19, Clark’s Translation'.) 
 
 Note 35. p. 46. 
 
 * Der ‘Deuteronomist,” says De Wette, “will, wie es 
 scheint, sein ganzes Buch als von Mose abgefasst an- 
 gesehen wissen.” (Hinleitung in das Alte Testament, § 162, 4, 
 p- 203.) Hartmann makes a similar assertion with respect 
 to “the author of the last four books.” (Forschungen tiber 
 d. Pentateuch, p. 538.) 
 
 Note 36. p. 47. 
 The earliest writers whom De Wette can quote as 
 
 i Historico-Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch, Edinburgh, 
 
 Clark, 1850. 
 
336 NOTES. 
 
 doubting the genuineness of the Pentateuch, are Celsus 
 the Neo-Platonist (A. D. 130), and Ptolemy, the Valen- 
 tinian Gnostic, a writer of the third century. (See his 
 Hinleitung, § 164, a; p. 205; and for the passages to 
 which he refers see Origen, Contra Celsum, iv. 42, and Epi- 
 phanius, Adversus Hereses, xxxill. 4, p. 207.) Apion, and 
 the other adversaries whom Josephus answers, all admitted 
 the Pentateuch to be the work of Moses. 
 
 Note 87. p. 47. 
 
 The differences in the rationalistic views of the time 
 when the Pentateuch 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 appro- 
 priate 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 con- 
 firm 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 dis- 
 covered in the Temple. Somewhere near this period, Ge- 
 senius 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 va- 
 riety of opinions have 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 Len- 
 gerke both admit a groundwork of the Pentateuch. But as to 
 the extent of this they differ, each one deciding according 
 to his subjective feelings. The leading laws and ordinances 
 of the Pentateuch are admitted to belong to the time of 
 
 J Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, § 3, 
 PP: 43> 44- 
 
EHCEURE If. 337 
 
 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 pe- 
 riod of Elijah... Then comes a fourth narrator, whom we 
 cannot place earlier than about the middle of the 8th cen- 
 tury B.C. He was followed by the Deuteronomist . . . 
 sometime during the latter half of Manasseh’s reign . . 
 Then just before the Babylonish exile, the great Co/lecta- 
 neum or Corpus Auctorum omnium, was brought to a close. 
 
 Lengerke .. admits a groundwork; but, with the ex- 
 ception of some laws, it was not composed till the time of 
 Solomon. Next comes a supplementarist, who must have 
 lived some time in the eighth century. Then comes the 
 Deuteronomist, as in Ewald; but he is assigned by Len- 
 gerke to the time of Josiah, about B. C. 624. 
 
 Each of these writers is confident in his critical power 
 of discrimination ... Each is sure that he 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 Pentateuch 
 there are; while one still reckons siz and the other three 
 
 .. 1 will not now ask, who shall decide when Doctors 
 disagree ?” 
 
 Compare also Hiivernich, Handbuch &e. § 145: $41, pp- 
 442-444, E. T. 
 
 Note 37, 6. p. 48. 
 
 Leben Jesu, § 133 pp. 55-50, EH. T. 
 
 Note 38. p. 49. 
 
 The purpose of Moses is to write not his own history, nor 
 even the civil history of his nation, but the ¢hcocratic his- 
 tory of the world up to his own time. This is the clue to 
 all those curious insertions and omissions which haye asto- 
 
 RAWLINSON, Z 
 
338 NOTES. 
 
 nished and perplexed metre historians. (See Hiavernick, 
 Handbuch &e. § 106; § 2. pp. 1-7, E. T.; and compare 
 Lecture VII. p. 226.) 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 39. p. 49. 
 
 Sir G. C. Lewis says: ‘‘ The infidelity of oral tradition, 
 with respect to past occurrences, has been so generally re- 
 cognised, that it would be a superfluous labour to dwell 
 upon it. For our present purpose, it is more material to 
 fix the time during which an accurate memory of historical 
 events may be perpetuated by oral tradition alone. New- 
 ton, 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 An- 
 tiquities', remarks that, among the common class of man- 
 kind, @ son remembers his father, knows something about his 
 grandfather, but never bestows a thought on his more re- 
 mote progenitors. This would carry back a man’s know- 
 ledge of his own family for about a hundred 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 Karly Roman History, vol. i. pp. 98, 99.) 
 
 Note 40. p. 50. 
 
 See Horne’s Introduction to the Critical Study and Know- 
 ledge of the Holy Scriptures, ch. ii. § 1, vol. i. p. 54. ‘In 
 the antidiluvian world, when the life of man was so pro- 
 tracted, there was comparatively little need for writing. 
 Tradition answered every purpose to which writing, in any 
 kind of characters, could be subservient; and the neces- 
 sity of erecting monuments to perpetuate public events 
 
 k Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended (1728, 4to), Introduction, 
 
 Dp. 7- 
 ! Ch. ii. 
 
LECTURE II. 339 
 
 could scarcely have suggested itself; as, during those times, 
 there could be little danger apprehended of any important 
 fact becoming obsolete, its history having 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 insu- 
 lated 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 grand- 
 father 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?) doubtless he acquired 
 the knowledge of this history, and was likewise contem- 
 porary 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 Moses by 
 Amram, 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 a foundation of eredibi- 
 lity superior to any that the most reputable of the ancient 
 Greek and Latin historians can boast.” 
 
 Note 41. p. 50. 
 
 See Sir G. C. Lewis’s Credibility &e., vol. 1. p. 101. “In 
 a nation which has no consecutive written history, leading 
 events would be perhaps preserved, in their general out- 
 lines, for about a hundred years. Special circumstances 
 might however give to an event a larger hold on the po- 
 pular 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. 
 
 “2 
 
340 NOTES. 
 
 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 150 years. 
 
 Note 42. p. 51. 
 
 The force of this argument is, no doubt, weakened, but it 
 is not destroyed, by a preference of the Septuagint or of 
 the Samaritan numbers to those of the Hebrew text. The 
 Septuagint numbers, which are the most unfavourable to 
 the argument, would make the chain between Adam and 
 Moses consist of eight links—viz. Mahalaleel, Noah, Sa- 
 lah, Reu, Nahor, Abraham, Jacob, and Jochebed. 
 
 Note 43. p. 51. 
 
 See above, note 37; and compare Hivernick, Handbuch 
 &e. § 111 (§ 7. pp. 45-48, E. T.), and Horne, Introduc- 
 tion &e. ch. i. § 1, vol. i. pp. 54-56. 
 
 Note 44. p. 51. 
 
 Having argued that the Patriarchs were almost sure to 
 have committed to writing the chief facts of the early his- 
 tory, especially those of the Creation, the Fall of Man, the 
 promise of Redemption, and the various revelations which 
 they received from God, Vitringa says—“ Has vero schedas 
 et scrinia Patrum, apud Israelitas conservata, Mosen opi- 
 namur collegisse, digessisse, ornasse, et ubi deficiebant 
 complésse, atque ex iis primum librorum suorum confe- 
 cisse.” (Observationes Sacre, i. 4, § 2; p. 36.) 
 
 Note 45. p. 51. 
 
 Commentaire Littérale, Préface, vol.i. p. xii. “ Quoiqu’ a 
 prendre les choses dans la rigueur, il ne soit pas impos- 
 sible que Moise nait pu apprendre par la tradition orale 
 tout ce quil nous dit de la eréation du Monde, du Déluge, 
 et de lage des Patriarches, .... il est pourtant assez croy- 
 able que ce Législateur avoit des mémoires et des recueils 
 qui se conservoient dans les familles des Juifs. Le détail 
 des Généalogies, les dates des faits, les cireonstances des 
 événements, le nombre des années de la vie des Patriarches, 
 
LECTURE II. 341 
 
 tout cela ne peut guere s'apprendre d’une maniere si pré- 
 cise et si exacte, que par des écrits et des mémoires.” 
 Compare Havernick (Handbuch &e. § 115; § 11, pp. 81-2, 
 E. T.), who while he maintains that the narrative of Genesis 
 “has its origin primarily in oral tradition,” still allows it 
 to be probable ‘‘ that in the time of the writer a part of 
 the oral tradition had been already committed to writing,” 
 and that “the author makes use of certain older monu- 
 ments.” 
 
 Note 46. p. 52. 
 
 See above, notes 19, 20, and 21. In estimating the an- 
 tiquity of alphabetic writing, we must remember, that the 
 earliest extant specimens of the Babylonian (which have 
 been assigned to about the 22nd century B.C.) present in- 
 dications of previous stages having been passed through, 
 which must have each occupied some considerable period. 
 It is certain that the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, be- 
 gan with picture-writing™. But in the most ancient re- 
 mains this stage has been long past: a few letters only still 
 bear a resemblance to the objects: 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 cer- 
 tain determinatives) is purely phonetic, having thus past 
 the second stage of the art. In Egypt, the hieroglyphies 
 of the Pyramid 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. il. p. 34.4.) 
 
 Note 47. p. 52. 
 
 See Bishop Gleig’s Introduction, in his edition of Stack- 
 house’s History of the Bible, vol.i. p. xx. Compare the ar- 
 ticle on writine in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia, vol. ii. pp. 
 971,972. 
 
 m See Sir H. Rawlinson’s Essay “ On the Early History of Baby- 
 
 lonia,” in the first volume of the author’s Herodotus, Essay vi. pp. 
 443) 444. 
 
342 NOTES. 
 
 Note 48. p. 54. 
 
 The Armenian History of Moses of Chorene commences 
 from Adam. Taking the Hebrew Scriptures for his basis, 
 he endeavours to blend and harmonise with them the tra- 
 ditions of- primeval times recorded by Berosus, Abydenus, 
 and especially by a certain Mar Ibas, or Mar Abas, a 
 learned Syrian, said to have lived about B.C.150. He 
 identifies Adam with the Babylonian Alorus (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 (1.6.) Armenian history is regarded as com- 
 mencing from this time. Haicus or Haig, the fifth descendant 
 of Japhet, son of Thaclath or Togarmah, revolts from Be- 
 lus, or Nimrod, and withdraws from Babylon to Armenia, 
 where he establishes himself. War follows: Haicus is at- 
 tacked 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 lite- 
 rature 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. 2553; and compare Neu- 
 mann’s Versuch einer Geschichte der Armenischen Literatur, 
 published at Leipsic in 1836.) | Michael Chamich and 
 other Armenian writers have chiefly copied from Moses. 
 
 Note 49. p. 54. 
 
 The two Epic poems, the Ramayana and the Mahabha- 
 rata, profess to be historical, but are not thought by the 
 best modern authorities to contain more than some “ sha- 
 dow of truth.” They are assigned to about the third cen- 
 tury B.C. (See Professor H. H. Wilson’s Introduction to 
 his translation of the Rig- Veda-Sanhita, pp. xlvi, xlvii.) The 
 attempt to construct from them, and from other Sanscritic 
 sources of even worse character, by the aid of Megasthenes 
 and of a large amount of conjecture, a chronological scheme 
 
LECTURE II. 343 
 
 reaching to B.C. 3120, which M. Bunsen has made in the 
 third volume of his Hgypt (pp. 518-564), appears to me a 
 singular instance of misplaced ingenuity. 
 
 Note 50. p. 54. 
 
 The Chinese, like the Hindus, carry back the history of 
 the world for several hundred thousand years. Their own 
 history, however, as a nation, does not profess to com- 
 mence till about B.C. 2600; and authentic accounts, ac- 
 cording to the views of those who regard their early lite- 
 rature with most favour, go back only to the 22nd century 
 B.C. (See Rémusat, Nouveau Mélanges Asiatiques, vol. i. 
 p. 65. ‘ L’histoire de la Chine remonte avec certitude jus- 
 quau vingt-deuxiéme siécle avant notre ére; et des tradi- 
 tions qui n’ont rien de méprisable permettent d’en reporter 
 le point de départ quatre siécles plus haut, 4 lan 2637 
 avant Jésus Christ.” Compare Mailla, Histoire Générale 
 de la Chine, vol. i.; Grosier’s Discours Préliminaire pre- 
 fixed to his Description de la Chine, published at Paris in 
 1818-1820; and M. Bunsen’s Hoaypt, vol. iii. pp. 379-407.) 
 The entire isolation of China, and the absence of any 
 points of contact between it and the nations of Western 
 Asia, would render this early history, even if authentic, 
 useless for the purposes of the present Lectures. I confess, 
 however, that I put little faith in the conclusions of mo- 
 dern 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 His- 
 tory of Mankind, vol. iv. pp. 475-9; and compare Asiatic 
 Researches, vol. il. p. 370.) 
 
 Note 51. p. 54. 
 
 The evidences on this head were earefully collected by 
 Mr. Stanley Faber in his Bampton Lectures for the year 
 1801, afterwards published as Hore Mosaice, ch. iv. pp. 
 130-184. The most remarkable tradition is that of the 
 Hindus. In the Bhagavat it is related that in the reign of 
 Satiavrata, the seventh king of the Hindus, mankind be- 
 
344: NOTES. 
 
 came almost universally wicked, only Satiavrata and seven 
 saints continuing pious. The lord of the universe, there- 
 fore, loving the pious man, and intending to preserve him 
 from the sea of destruction caused by the depravity of the 
 age, thus told him how he was to act. ‘In seven days 
 from the present time, O thou tamer of enemies, the three 
 worlds will be plunged in an ocean of death; but in the 
 midst of the destroying waves, @ 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 accompa- 
 nied by seven saints, encireled 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 God- 
 head; by my favour 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 companions, having executed the com- 
 mands 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 re-peopled, and from him mankind received their 
 name Manudsha. (See an Article by Sir W. Jones in the 
 1st volume of the Asiatic Researches, pp. 230-4. Compare 
 Faber’s Hore Mosaice, ch. iv. pp. 139, 140; Carwithen’s 
 Bampton Lectures, 111. pp. 87,88; and Kalisch’s Histori- 
 cal and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. i. 
 p- 130, E. T.) 
 
 The Chinese traditions are said to be less clear and de- 
 cisive. They speak of a “ first heaven”—an age of inno- 
 cence, when “the whole creation enjoyed a state of happi- 
 ness; 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 con- 
 
 
 
LECTURE II. 345 
 
 vulsion. ‘‘ The pillars of Heaven were broken—the earth 
 shook to its foundations—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 
 within its bosom burst forth with violence, and overflowed it. 
 Man having rebelled against heaven, the system of the 
 Universe was totally disordered. The sun was eclipsed, 
 the planets altered their course, and the grand harmony 
 of nature was disturbed.” (Faber, Hore Mosaice, ch. iv. 
 Pp: 147, 148.) 
 
 The Armenians accept the Seriptural account, which 
 they identify with the Chaldean. They can searcely be 
 said to possess any special national tradition on the sub- 
 ject, except that which continues to the present day—the 
 belief that the timbers of the ark are still to be seen on 
 the top of Ararat. The Greek tradition concerning the 
 flood 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. Tra- 
 ditions of a great deluge were also found in all parts of the 
 new world, and in some of the islands of the Pacific. (Fa- 
 ber, Hore Mosaice, ch.iv.; Kalisch, vol. i. p. 140, E. T.) 
 
 Note 52. p. 55. 
 
 See Gen. x. 10; xl. 2-5; xxxix. et seqq. Compare He- 
 Rods. 741a 2) 109,042 3: Plat. Tim.s.p:225 Bs;e Died «Sie: 
 books 1. and u.; Justin, 1.1; &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 Pheenician histories decidedly below them. 
 (See his work Contra Apionem, 1.6; “Ort pev obv tap’ Ai- 
 
 M4 \ Me, b] / BA , 
 yumrtous Te Kat BaBvdAw@viots, Ek PakpoTaT@V avwbev yxpo- 
 VOV, THY TEpl TAS avaypadas eETLMEeAELAY, OTOV per ob 
 c eae 3 / \ \ , 5) , 
 lepets qoap eyKexeipiopevor Kal TEpl Ta’tas epihocdgovy, Xada- 
 dato d€ Tapa Tois BaBvAwviors, Kai Gtr pddvota 6& TOV “EAn- 
 OW ETIULLYVUMLEVOY ExpnoavTo PotviKkes ypapacw .... emELon 
 TVYX@povoL ATaVTEs, Edoe pot SOKO.) 
 
 n De Ded Syrid, § 12. 
 
346 NOTES. 
 
 Note 53. p. 56. 
 
 Sealiger was the first to draw the attention of scholars 
 to the writings of Berosus and Manetho. In his work De 
 Emendatione Temporum he collected their fragments and 
 supported their authority. The value of Manetho was 
 acknowledged by Heeren (Handbuch der Geschichte der 
 Staaten des Alterthums, i. 2, p. 54, E. T.), Marsham (Canon 
 Chronicus, Pref. p. 2, &e.), and others, before much progress 
 had been made in decyphering the inscriptions of Egypt. 
 Berosus, always quoted with respect by our Divines, did 
 not find much favour with German historical critics till his 
 claims were advocated by Niebuhr. (See the Vortrdge tiber 
 Alte Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 16-19.) 
 
 Note 54. p. 57- 
 
 One other ancient writer, had his work come down to us 
 in a complete 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 Manetho ; viz. 
 Menander of Ephesus; who living probably 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 Pheenician history; which seems, 
 from the few fragments of it that remain, to have been a 
 work of the very highest character. These fragments, how- 
 ever, none touch the period between the Creation and the 
 death of Moses; and it may even be suspected that Me- 
 nander’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. Miiller’s Fragmenta Historicorum Grecorum, 
 vol. iv. pp. 445-8, and the testimony to his value borne by 
 Niebuhr, Vortrdge tiber 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 
 
LECTURE Il. B47 
 
 work ascribed to him was the mere forgery of Philo By- 
 blius ; and secondly, because, though called a “ Pheenician 
 History,” the fragments of the work which remain shew it 
 to have been mainly, if not entirely, mythological. (See 
 Movers, Jahrbiicher fiir Theologisch. und Christlich. Philo- 
 sophie, 1836, vol. 1. pp 51-91; Lobeck, Aglaoph. p. 1264, 
 et seqq.; Niebuhr, Vortrdge iiber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. 
 p- 93, note'; and C. Miiller, Fraqmenta Hist. Gr. vol. iii. 
 pp. 569-1.) 
 Note 55. p. 57. 
 
 M. Bunsen, speaking of the Egyptian monuments, says : 
 “Such documents cannot indeed compensate for the want 
 of written History. Even Chronology, its external frame- 
 work, cannot be elicited from them.” (Kgypt’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 Assy- 
 rian records, 
 
 Note 56. p. 57. 
 
 The following is Manetho’s chronological scheme, ac- 
 cording to Eusebius, (Chronica, i. 20, pp. 93-107, ed. 
 Mai.) :— 
 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 Rete Ol Gows) sje vvicsies sis pacttiens sands 13,900 
 Reienealt Meroens rs2205 ise ssiehairyedeas 1,255 
 WveIS OL IMIGS Sisco Sis. ss.03 siecle ue ct » 1,807 
 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 
 
 
 
 © Baron Bunsen gives the sum of the years of the 30 dynasties as 
 4922, 4954, Or 5329, according to variations of reading or statement. 
 (Egypt, vol. i. p. 82, E. 'T.) 
 
348 NOTES. 
 
 Note 57. p. 58. 
 
 ‘The following was the scheme of Berosus, if we may 
 trust Eusebius. (See his Chronica, i. 1, and 4; p. 5, and 
 p- 18.) s— 
 
 Years. 
 
 1. Ten kings from Alorus to Xisuthrus reigned 432,000 
 
 2. Eighty-six kings from Xisuthrus to ge > 
 eae 33,080 P 
 Median conquesbn( 4. .decticheems 2- asst op . 
 pe Bight Median Kings. oJiccvsccssetas eoee: oes 224 
 He ANEVEN AKINGDS: cchoncseteus Sees meeehysdeoeton pe eee [48]4 
 5. Forty-nine Chaldzean kings .................. 458 
 6. Nine Arabian dkimps: 28 466s eee sees 245 
 7. Forty-five kings down to Pul ............... 526 
 
 
 
 466,581 
 Note 58. p. 58. 
 
 Vide supra, note 56. M. Bunsen (Kgypt’s Place, &e. 
 vol.i. p. 70, E. T.) accuses Eusebius of having changed the 
 order of Manetho’s numbers, and by a dexterous transpo- 
 sition he seeks to transfer to the human period a space of 
 nearly 4000 years. He would make the divine period con- 
 sist of the following :— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Years. 
 
 re Reifniol Gods Pec. tiscesneeee ee eee 13,900 
 2. Gheign of Eleroes:. oieseiissarMeee se 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 
 aiten Thinite kings (4.d.....<te8 hee dees 350 
 Aj tmircy Dynasties (Say) ....cewesucenntens 5,000 
 8,957 
 
 
 
 P In the Armenian the number here is 33,091, but this may be cor- 
 rected from Syncellus. (Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 503.) 
 « This number is only given in the margin, and is very doubtful. 
 
LECTURE II. 349 
 
 But there is absolutely no ground, beyond gratuitous con- 
 jecture, for making this change; which involves Manetho 
 in the contradiction, that Manes, the Ghosts of Mortals, 
 exist before there have been any mortals. (See the Frag- 
 menta Historicorum Grecorum of Mons. C. Miller, vol. 11. 
 p. 528, where M. Bunsen’s theory is rejected.) 
 
 Note 59. p. 59. 
 
 Chronographia, p. 52, D. M. Bunsen was the first to cail 
 attention to this passage. (Hgypt’s Place, &c. vol. i. p. 86.) 
 If sound, it is of very great importance, as indicating that 
 Manetho knew and allowed that his kings and dynasties 
 were not always consecutive. It has been recently denied 
 that Manetho did this, and it has been proposed to amend 
 the passage of Syncellus by introducing into it the name 
 of another writer, Anianus, who (it is supposed) made the 
 reduction in question. (See an Article in the Quarterly 
 Review for April, 1859; Art. IV. pp. 395-6.) But this 
 emendation is quite inadmissible; for the clear object of 
 Syncellus in the passage 1s to shew that MWJanetho’s own 
 numbers were at variance with Scripture. Whether Syn- 
 cellus 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 must bear 
 in mind, that, whether Manetho allowed it or not, his 
 dynasties were im fact sometimes contemporary, as is 
 proved by the Egyptian monuments. (Wilkinson in the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 343, 349, &e. Stuart Poole, 
 Hore Aigyptiace, pp. 110, 112, 123, &e.) If therefore he 
 did not in his chronology make any allowance on this 
 account, he could not fail to be in considerable excess of 
 the truth. 
 
 Note 60. p. 60. 
 
 See the latest conclusions of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in 
 the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 342-3 ; and compare 
 
350 NOTES. 
 
 Mr. Stuart Poole’s Hore digqyptiaca, p.g7. See also the 
 extracts from Professor Rask’s Hoyptian Chronoloay, con- 
 tained in Dr. Prichard’s Historical Records of Ancient 
 Egypt, § 6, pp. Qi-111. 
 
 A slight error has erept into the calculation on which 
 the date given in the text (B. C. 2660) is founded. Sir G. 
 Wilkinson places the accession of the 4th dynasty about 
 B. C. 2450, and allows to the ist, 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. 2699 instead of B. C. 2660. 
 
 Note 61. p. 61. 
 
 See the fragments of Berosus in Mons. C. Miiller’s 
 Fragmenta Historicorum Grecorum, vol. ii. p. 496, Frs. 1, 
 and 5. Teveo@ar pyoi xpdvov, év @ TO Tav oxdTos Kat dwp 
 elvat, kal €v TovTots (Oa TepaTHdny Kal eiduveis (lege id:opveis), 
 
 X\ 99 / wo tal 4 XN te >] 4 NY 
 Tas ideas €xovta Cwoyoveicba. .. Llpos 5& rovtots ixOvas Kat 
 EpTeTa Kal pers kal GAda (Ga Trelova Oavpaora . . “Apxew 6& 
 
 , / “a ev e , _ a 
 TOUTWY TAVTOY yuvaika 7) Ovoua Opopeaxa’ eivar 6& TodTo Xad- 
 daiott wey OaddrO, “EdAnviorl be peOepunvederOar Oddracca. 
 Otzws 6€ Tév BAwv ovveotnKdToY eTavedOdvTa BrAov oxloat 
 TV yvvaika peony, kal TO pev iuuov adrns Toujoar yy, TO O° 
 
 e ° \ 1.8 NY Ss ated ny >) 7 br] 
 ddAo Hurov obpavoy, kal Ta ev au7n (@a adavioat. “AdAAnyopt- 
 fal / an lal c fal XX ” = a 
 Kk@s b€ dyno ToUTO TEdvatorAoyetaOar. Yypov yap ovtos Tov 
 7 TO ‘\ , 3 >’ oR é lel »' 4) x 2 r fal 
 TaVTOS Kal (O@V EV AVTM yEeyEVNEVOL, TODTOV TOV OEdy aedeiv 
 THY EavTov Kepadiy, kal TO prev aiwa Tovs GAAovs Oeods pupa- 
 Lad ”~ \ / \ >) / bo] 4 a 
 gat TH yn, Kal diavAdcat Tos avOpeTovs: bu’ d voEpods TE EtvaL 
 kal ppovicews elas perexew. Tov d5& Bhdov péocov teudvta 
 \ , / Lad \ > | ‘ > = ee) ve \ / 
 TO OKdTOS Xwploa yiv Kal ovpavovy aw aGdAnAor, kal bratagar 
 A , SANS Paes oy Rs , \ a \ / 
 
 TOV Koopov’ Ta b€ (Ha OUK EvEyKOVTA TV TOU dwTos dvvayLY 
 pbaphvar. *lddvra b€ tov BhdAov xopav Epnyov Kal KapToddpov 
 cel (oa lal lal ‘\ ‘\ b) , c “A Loe bd 
 neAevoal Evi TOV DeGv THV KEepadiy apeddvTL EavTod TH ATOp- 
 4 ed c X ~ \ f. > / \ 
 puevte aipar. pupacat tiv yiv Kal d.atAdoa [avOperovs Kat] 
 Onpla Ta dSvvapeva Tov dépa éepev’ atoTeA€oar SE Tov BhdAov 
 
 ER A edd A , rn \ , / 
 
 Kal Gotpa Kal HALoY Kal ceArjvny Kal Tovs TEevTE TAaLHTas. (Ap. 
 Syneell. Chronograph. pp. 29, 30.) 
 ‘His dictis, pergit porro, regesque Assyriorum singilla- 
 
LECTURE II. 351 
 
 tim atque ex ordine enumerat, decem videlicet ab Aloro 
 primo rege usque ad Xisuthrum, sub quo magnum illud 
 primumque diluvium contigisse ait quod Moses quoque 
 commemorat.” (Ap. EKuseb. Chronica, i. 1, p. 5, ed. Mai.) 
 
 Note 62. p. 61. 
 
 See Niebuhr’s Vortrage iiber Alte Geschichte (vol. i. p. 20, 
 note), where he notices the abuse of the parallel made by 
 some, who maintained that the Mosaical account of the 
 Creation was derived from the Babylonian. 
 
 Note 63. p. 62. 
 
 See the well-known passage of Josephus, where, after 
 remarking on the longevity of the Patriarchs, he says— 
 a , a , / € 797 \ , 
 Maprvpodor b€ pov T® Adyw TavTeEs ot Tap “EAAnoL Kat BapBa- 
 pos ovyypayrdpevor Tas Gpxaiodoyias. Kal yap cat Mdvebws 
 6 THY TOV AlyuTTLAKGY ToLnTapEVvos avaypadny, Kal Bnpwoods 
 6 ta Xaddaixa ovvayayov, Kai Médos [lege MédAwr], xat 
 c a \ \ > lay ¢€ 3 / c / ¢ ‘\ 
 Eotwatos, kat mpos avtois 0 Atyvmtios Lepdrvupos, of Te Ta 
 PowiKika cvvtakauevor, svyppwvotar Tots bm’ ewod eyouévors* 
 “Hotodds te, kal “Exaraios, cal “EAAdvixos, kal ’Axovoidaos, 
 \ A - x \ , < n_ \ 3 7 
 kal mpos Toutois Egopos kal NixoAaos toropovor tovs apxaious 
 (noavras érn xiAua. (Antiq. Jud. i. 3.) 
 
 Note 64. p. 62. 
 
 See Faber’s Hore Mosaice, ch. i. pp. 119,120; and 
 Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. p. 158. 
 
 Note 65. p. 64. 
 
 Fragmenta Historicorum Grecorum, vol. ii. p. 501, Fr. 7. 
 > L—_ , \ L \ t aS l 
 Ext Z.ucovOpov tov weyav kataxAvopov yeverOau' avayeypapdar 
 d€ Tov Adyov obtws' TOV Kpdvov adt@ Kata Tov bavov 
 3 / / \ yy / \ / \ 
 éemiatavta pavat pynvos Aaioiov mEeuntn Kal dexatn Tovs 
 avOpaTovs VT KatakAvopov diapbapncecbar. Kededoar odv 
 01a ypapydtwyv TavT@v apxds Kal wéoa Kal TedeuvTas dpvéavTa 
 Ocivar év médAEL HAlov Yimmdpois, Kal vavTnynodwevov oTKddos 
 €uBivar meTa TOV ovyyevOv Kal dvayxaiwy dlrwv’ évOéoOar dé 
 BpoOpata kal Toparta, éuBadrety 6€ kal (Oa mrynva Kal TeTpa- 
 
352 NOTES. 
 
 \ / > J lal \ Cys! / 
 moda, kal TavTa evTpeTiTdpevov TAY... TOV 8’oU TapaKov- 
 gavra vavinyioat oxados TO pev pnKos otadlwy TEVTE, 
 
 \ 
 TO O€ TAGTOS GTadiwy bvo° Ta be CuYTaxOEevTa TaYTA oUL- 
 / o 
 OéoOat, kal yuvaixa kal Tékva Kal Tos dvayKatouvs didous 
 > / fal na / 
 euBiBaca. Tevopyevov 6 tov KataxAvopod Kal ev0éws dij- 
 
 a b] , X\ \ hme f >) / abs XN 
 fartos TOv dpvéwv Tiva Tov ZicovOpov aievar. Ta be 
 
 > \ ade Se ” , 4 lA / 3 
 ov Tpodijy evpdvta ovTE TOTOV STOV Kadioal, TaALY éd- 
 Oetv els 70 mAdoiov. Tov b@ ElcovOpov madi pera tivas 
 cons, > ! ae : a \ ] > \ nid 9 a 
 npEepas adievar Ta Opvea’ Tavta b€ Tad Els THY Vvavy EdAOEiv 
 
 f / 
 Tovs mddas TeTNA@pEvoUs ExovTa’ TO H& TpiToVv adpeOevTa 
 ovK €Tl €ADeEty eis TO TAOIOV. Tov b& ZlicovOpov eévvonOjvat 
 yi avarednveva, dteAOdvTa TE TOV TO TAOLoV padav 
 
 / a} , na ‘ an cA \ 3 m 
 f-€pos TL kal iddvta TpocoKetAay TO TAotov Oper Tivt eKBivat 
 Mera Tis yuvatkos Kal THs Ovyatpos Kal Tod KuBEpyyto TpocKv- 
 
 / lal / 
 vijcavta tiv yiv Kal Bopov ldpvocdpevov kat Ovo.doarta 
 
 tal lal na fal los \ 
 Tots Oeols yeveoOar peta TOV ExBdvtwv Tov TAolov aparn. Tods 
 fa n \ \ 
 0 Umopetvavras é€v TS TAOlw, pr) EloTOpEvo“evOY TOV TEpL TOV 
 — nan x a \ 
 EZloovOpor, éxBavras Cytetv advrov ent dvduatos BoGvras* TOV 
 6€ ElcovOpov avrov pev adrois ovk Ere dOjvar, horviy b€ EK 
 
 ey SVD D / c ! ayaEN > a. 
 TOU aepos yeverOat KeAEVOVTAY ws dEoV avToUs eivat DeocEPEis 
 
 \ ‘\ BLN XX ‘\ > / / XX lal lal , 
 Kal yap avtov bia THY evoEeBerav TopevedOa pera TOV OEY OI- 
 
 /, a a 
 KjoovTa .. . eine © avrtots dre €AevcovTar TaALW cis BaBvaAéva, 
 kal @s eluaptat avtois ex Simmdpwv avedopevois TA ypdppara 
 dtadovvat Tols avOpe7ots, Kal Ott eiciv STOV 7H XOpa “Appme- 
 vias éoriv...’EA@dvtas ovv tovTous eis BaBvAdva Td TE ék 
 Lintdpwv ypappata avopvéar Kat TOAELts TOAAAS KTiCovTas Kal 
 iepa avibpvoapévovs aA émixtioat THY BaBvdAdva. (Ap. Syn- 
 cell. Chron. pp. 30, 31. Compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 3, 
 pp- 14-16.) 
 
 Note 66. p. 64. 
 
 Fragment. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. p. 280, Fr. 1. Mera Evedo- 
 BA Set bi \ > i ‘\ a / Pps / 
 peoxov adrAot tives Hpav Kat SlovOpos, w 51) Kpdvos tpoonpaiver 
 pev €cecOar TAOS OuBpev Aawtov ve KedAevEer 5€ Tay 6 TL 
 / iy Saal’ s Te le , 3 y / > 
 ypappatav nv €xonevov €v Hdrovmddet TH €v Lummdpovowv atro- 
 kpb at. Llovpos b€ radra éemitedA€a Toujoas eVMEews em” ’Appe- 
 , ° i \ \ / \ , fal n 
 vins aveThwe’ Kal Tapavtika ev KaraddpyBave TX ex TOU OEod" 
 
 / de € / , Ae b] , / lol ) > 10 / 5 
 TplTyn O€ NMEPEN ETEL VOY ETOTIATE, pETLEL TOV OPViOwWY, TELpNY 
 
LECTURE II. 353 
 
 mrovevpevos et Kov yp orev Tov vOatos éxdtcay. At dé, EK- 
 Sexouévou cpéas TEeddyeos auplxaveos, amopéovta GKy 
 kabopptcovtat, mapa tov SioOpov dricw Koptovtar’ Kal ew 
 aiTnaw erepar. “Qs d& thot tpitnow edtxeev (AmiKkato yap di) 
 mnAod KatamA€cot Tous Tapoovs), Oeol piv e€ avOpdstov adavi- 
 Cova, TO 5& TAotov ev “Apuevin wepianra EvAwv adetipdppaka 
 Tolow emtywplos mapeixero. (Ap. Syncell.Chronograph.p.70, A. ; 
 compare Kuseb. Chronica, 1.7; p. 22, ed. Mai.) 
 
 But little is known of Abydenus. He is first quoted by 
 Kusebius in the fourth century after Christ; on which ac- 
 count it has been generally supposed that he did not write 
 till the second or third century of our era. (See Niebuhr's 
 Kleine Schriften, p. 187, note4; and C. Miiller’s Mragm. 
 Hist. Gr. vol. iv. p. 279.) Some however regard him as a 
 contemporary and pupil of Berosus, and therefore as not 
 much later than the time of Alexander, (Bauer in Ersch 
 and Gruber’s Encyclopedia, s. v. Abydenus; C. O. Miller, 
 History of Greek Literature, vol. ii. p. 490, E.T.) His use 
 of the Ionic dialect favours the earlier date. 
 
 Note 67. p. 64. 
 
 Buttmann (Mythologus, i. pp. 1g0, 200, &e.), Von Bohlen 
 (Alte Indien, p. 78 et seqq.), and Hartmann (Forschungen 
 iiber 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 colouring there.” (See Hiavernick’s Hinlei- 
 tung, § 120, pp. 266, 267; § 16, p.112, EK. T.) But the ab- 
 sence of exaggeration and of grotesqueness from the He- 
 brew account sufficiently disprove this theory. It might be 
 argued with much more plausibility that the Babylonians 
 obtained their knowledge from the Jews. 
 
 Note 66 b. p. 65. 
 
 See Niebuhr’s Vortriige iiber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 23. 
 “Diese Erzihlung insofern yon der Noahischen abweicht, 
 als sie nicht nur Xisuthrus Familie sondern alle Frommen 
 
 MS 
 
5354 NOTES. 
 
 gerettet werden lasst, und keine allgemeine sondern nur eine 
 Babylonische Sindfluth annimmt.” 
 
 Note 67b. p. 66. 
 
 Antiqg. Jud. i. 7. § 2; Munuoveder 5€ rot matpos jpaev ’A- 
 Bpdpov Bynpwcods ok dvopatav, Néyov 5& otras’ “ Mera Tov 
 KatakAvopov dexaTn yevea Tapa Xaddalors tis jv Slkatos avyp 
 kal péyas Kal Ta ovpavia Eurretpos.” 
 
 Note 68. p. 66. 
 
 It has been acutely suggested that the actual scheme of 
 Berosus was probably the following :— 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 YEARS. B. C. 
 1. Antediluvian dynasty of 1o kings | 432,000 | 466,618 to 34,618 E 
 2. Dynasty of 86 kings (Chaldeans ?)|} 34,080 34,618 to 2,458 } = 
 3. Dynasty of 8 Median kings .... 224 2,458 to 2,234) 
 4. Dynasty of 11 kings (Chaldeans ?) [258]"| 2,234 to 1,976 
 5. Dynasty of 49 Chaldean kings .. 458 1,976 to 4,518 | = 
 6. Dynasty of g Arabian kings .. .. 245 7,518 to 1,273 Ve 
 7. Dynasty of 45 kings (Assyrians 7) 526 1,273 to 747 = 
 8. Dynasty of 8(?) Assyrian kings .. 122 747to 625 
 g. Dynasty of 6 Chaldean kings.. .. 87 625to 5385 
 36,000 
 
 (See Gutschmidt in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. viii. p. 252; 
 who is followed by Brandis, Rerum 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 36,000 
 
 r This number fills up the blank in Euseb. Chron. i. 4, p. 18, where 
 48 is absurdly suggested in the margin. See above, note 57. It is 
 conjectural, but it seems required by the native tradition that Babylon 
 was founded 1903 before Alexander’s capture of it, or B.C. 2,234. 
 
LECTURE II. 355 
 
 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 69. p. 67. 
 
 See the Fragments of Abydenus in Muller’s Frag. 
 Hist. Gr. vol. iv. p. 282, Fr. 6; “Ea tempestate prisci ho- 
 mines adeo viribus et proceritate sua tumuisse dicuntur, ut 
 etiam Deos aspernerentur, celsissimumque eum obeliscum 
 niterentur exstruere qui nune Babylon appellatur. Quum- 
 que jam illum proxime ad Deos ccelo zequassent, Dii ven- 
 torum adjutorio usi machinosum opus imbecillium impelle- 
 bant, humique prosternabant : eaque rudera Babelis nomen 
 contraxerunt. Quippe eatenus unius sermonis usura freti 
 homines erant ; tune autem a Diis confusio varia et dissona 
 linguarum in eos, qui una lingua utebantur, immissa est.” 
 (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 8, p. 24.) Compare also the sub- 
 joined passage, which Syncellus quotes from Polyhistor :— 
 SiBvdrAa b€ dyow, suopsvoev ovrev Tavtov avOpétav, Twas 
 ToUTwY TUpyov UTEpuEyeOn oiKOdopHoaL, OTwS Els TOV OdpaVvd” 
 avaBaéot. Tod d&@ Ocov dvéepovs eudvoncavtos avarpeyar av- 
 Tous, kal idiay Exdor@ dori dodvar' 610 7) BaBvAdva thy 
 
 mod KAnOqvat. (Chronograph. p. 81, C.) 
 
 Note 70. p. 68. 
 
 The affinity of the Sanskrit with the Persian, Greek, 
 Latin, and German languages was first remarked by our own 
 countryman, Sir W. Jones; but it remained for F. Schlegel 
 in Germany and for Dr. Prichard in England to make a 
 scientific use of the material thus provided for them. 
 Schlegel’s “ Essay on the Language and Philosophy of the 
 Hindoos” and Dr. Prichard’s inaugural ‘Dissertation on 
 the varieties of the Human Race” were published almost 
 simultaneously ; but Schlegel’s work is regarded as the 
 more advanced production. (See Bunsen’s Philosophy of 
 Universal History, vol. ii. p. 50.) 
 
 Note 71. p. 68. 
 In 1854 M. Bunsen wrote—* Geographically then, and 
 
 Aa 2 
 
356 NOTES. 
 
 historically, it is true that Canaan was the son of Egypt: 
 for the Canaanitie 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, AXthiopia: an Asiatic Kush 
 exists only in the imagination of the interpreters, and is the 
 child of their despair. Now, Nimrod was no more a Kushite 
 by blood than Canaan was an Egyptian; but the Turanian 
 (Transoxanian) tribe, represented by him, came as a de- 
 vastating 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 num- 
 ber of Babylonian documents more ancient than any pre- 
 viously discovered, was able to declare authoritatively, that 
 the early inhabitants of Southern Babylonia “ were of a 
 cognate race with the primitive colonists both of Arabia 
 and of the African Ethiopia.” (See the author’s Herodotus, 
 vol. i. p. 442.) He found their vocabulary to be “ undoudbt- 
 edly Cushite or Ethiopian,” belonging to that stock of 
 tongues which in the sequel were everywhere more or less 
 mixed up with the Semitic languages, but of which we 
 have the purest modern specimens in the Mahra of South- 
 ern Arabia, and the Galla of Abyssinia.” (Ibid. note g.) 
 He found also that ‘“ the traditions both of Babylonia and 
 Assyria pointed to a connexion 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 re-established 
 beyond all doubt or question the fact of “an Asiatic Ethi- 
 opia,” 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 Asvatic Society, vol. xv. part 2, 
 
 Pp: 215-259) 
 Note 72. p. 69. 
 
 The monuments give distinet evidence of the early pre- 
 
LECTURE II. 357 
 
 dominance of Babylonia over Assyria, of the spread of po- 
 pulation and civilisation northwards, and of the compara- 
 tively late founding of Nineveh. (See the author’s Herodo- 
 tus, vol. i. pp. 448, 455, 456, &c.) They do not exactly 
 prove the colonization of Assyria by Semites from Babylo- 
 nia, but they favour it. (Ibid. pp. 447 and 647.) 
 
 Note 73. p. 69. 
 
 The Hamitic descent of the Canaanites is energetically 
 denied by M. Bunsen (Philosophy of Univ. Hist. vol. i. pp. 
 190, and 244), who identifies them with the Phcenicians, 
 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 indif- 
 ferently Scythic or Hamite.” “ All the Canaanites,” he 
 says, ‘‘ were, I am satisfied, Seyths; and the inhabitants 
 of Syria retained their distinctive ethnic character until 
 quite a late period of history. According to the inscrip- 
 tions the Khatta, or Hittites, were the dominant Scythic 
 race from the earliest times, and they gave way very slowly 
 before the Aramzans, Jews, and Phoenicians, who were 
 the only extensive Semitic immigrants.” (Journal of Asi- 
 atic Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 230, note.) 
 
 Note 74. p. 69. 
 
 See M. Bunsen’s Philosophy of Univ. History, vol. 1. pp. 
 221—230, where, though classing the Himyarie 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 75. p. 69. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson in the Asiatic Society’s Journal, 
 l.s.c. “ The Toldoth Beni Noah is undoubtedly the most 
 
358 NOTES. 
 
 authentic record we possess for the affiliation of those 
 branches of the human race which sprung from the triple 
 stock of the Noachide.”’ And again, p. 215, note 3 ;— 
 “ The fragment which forms the 10th chapter of Genesis 
 bears the Hebrew title of Toldoth Beni Noah, or the Ge- 
 nealogies of the Noachidze, and is probably of the very 
 greatest antiquity.” Compare also the author's Herodotus 
 (vol. i. p. 445), where the same ethnologist remarks—“‘ We 
 must be cautious in drawing direct ethnological inferences 
 from the linguistic indications of a very early age. It will 
 be far safer, at any rate, in these early times to follow the 
 general scheme of ethnie affiliation which is given in the 
 tenth chapter of Genesis.” 
 
 Note 76. p. 70. 
 
 The passages to which reference is here made will all be 
 found in the second volume of Dr. Gaisford’s edition of the 
 work of Eusebius, pp. 370-392. They were derived by 
 Eusebius from the ‘“‘ Jewish History” of Alexander Poly- 
 histor, a heathen writer. It is thought that some of Po- 
 lyhistor’s authorities, as Artapanus, Cleodemus, Deme- 
 trius, and EKupolemus, were Jews. (See the remarks of 
 C. Miller in his preface to the fragments of Polyhistor, 
 Fragment. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. p. 207.) If this be allowed, the 
 weight of heathen testimony is of course pro tanto diminished. 
 But reasons have been already given for regarding Eupo- 
 lemus as a heathen. (See above, note 25.) And the reli- 
 gious character of the other three is at least doubtful. 
 
 To the writers mentioned in the text may be added, 
 Nicolas of Damascus, who spoke of Abraham’s emigration 
 from Chaldzea and settlement in Canaan. (See the Fragm. 
 Hist. Gr. vol. iii. p-373-) 
 
 Note 77. p. 70. 
 
 See especially Faber’s Hore Mosaice, ch. v. pp. 225-228 ; 
 and compare Patrick’s Commentary on the Historical Books 
 of the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 58; Horne’s Introduction to 
 the Critical Study and Knowledge of Holy Scripture, vol. i. 
 p.174, &e; 
 
LECTURE II. 359 
 
 Note 78. p. 72. 
 
 Sir H. Rawlinson, in the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. Essay 
 vi. p. 446. 
 Note 79. p. 72. 
 
 The name of the king whom Sir H. Rawlinson identifies 
 with Chedor-laomer is, in the native (Hamitic) Babylonian, 
 Kudur-Mabuk. Mabus in Hamitic is found to be the exact 
 equivalent of Laomer in Semitic. This is a very recent 
 discovery. 
 
 Note 80. p. 72. 
 
 By means of certain monumental notices it has been 
 proved, with a near approach to certainty, that a Babyle- 
 nian monarch, whose name is read as Jsmi-dagon, reigned 
 about B.C.1860. Hudur-Mabuh is evidently, by the type 
 of writing which he uses, and the position in which his 
 bricks are found, considerably earlier. Now in the year 
 B. C. 1976—a century before fsmi-dagon— occurs ene of 
 the breaks in Berosus’ list; and this break moreover oc- 
 curs within 60 years of the date (B.C. 1917) commonly 
 assigned to the expedition of Chedor-laomer. These chro- 
 nological coincidences strongly confirm the argument from 
 the identity of name. 
 
 Note 81. p. 73. 
 
 This passage is probably known to most students, but as 
 it is too important to be omitted from the present review 
 of the historical evidences, I subjoin it entire. 
 
 ‘O Mavebav ... Tov Apévaduy eicroijoas e48ddAtuov Ba- 
 ciAéa, gyot tovroy emiOvpqoa Gedy yeverdat Oeathv, aoTeEp 
 *OQpos cis TG Tpd adrod BeBacirevKétav’ dveveyxeiy € THY ETt- 
 Ovplay dpovipo pev adte Apevddpe., matpos d€ Tladmos ovtt, 
 Ocias 8€ doxodvTe peTecynKevat pioews Kata Te coplay Kal TpO- 
 yvosw Tov eoopévav. Eineiv odv atte todroy Tov Ouevupov 
 te Suvyjocetat Oeors ideiv, ef KaOapav and Te AeTPaV Kal TOV 
 GAwv wapav avOpdrav tiv xdpav anacav Tomoever. Hodevra 
 
360 NOTES. 
 
 Te Tov BaciAea TdvTas Tos TA TopaTa AeAWBNMEVOUS EK TIS 
 va \ al / 
 Alyéatov svvayayetv (yevérOar dé Tod TAHOovs pupiddas dxTs), 
 7 >] ‘\ / >s 3, ™ \ > ‘ 
 Kal Tovtous els Tas ALtOoropulas Tas ev TH TPOS avaTodAry 
 pepe. TOO NeéAov euBareiv adrov, dmws EpyaouvTo, Kat TOY 
 »” > ’ 9) / > / >] > lal 
 dAdA@v Aiyumtiov ot éykexwptopevot. Etvat de tivas ev avtois 
 \ a x / € / yp ol dé / To be 
 kal Tav hoylwy tepewv pynot A€Tpa ovyKExXvpevous. Tov 6& 
 ’"Auévodi exeivoy, TOV copoy Kal pavTiKdV avopa, UrodetcaL 
 mpos avrdév Te kal Tov Baoihéa xddov Tv Der, €i BLacbEvTeEs 
 , a 
 épOncovrar’ Kal mpooOeyevov eineivy OTe ocuppaxnoovol Ties 
 Trois puapois Kal tis Aiyintou Kpaticovow em ern TpioKatoeKa. 
 lal 3X tal nan fal a 
 Mi) ToApioa pev adrov eineiy Taira TO Bacwrel, ypadryy dE 
 , \ / € X 3 tas ° >) / XN = 
 KaTaALTOvTa TEpl TavTwY EavToV avedeiv. "Ev GOupia O€ civat 
 tov Baowéa. Kareita xara A€Ew otto yéypapev' “ Tov 6€ 
 a / c , = \ ~ 4 ’ 
 tais Aatopulas os xpdvos ikavos bipAOEv TadatTopovvTaY, afLw- 
 dels 6 Baotdeds iva mpos KatdAvow adrois Kal oKemyy aTope- 
 pion, Thy TOTE TOV ToIMevOY Epnpwdeioay TOAW AvapLY ouVE- 
 xépnoev. “Eote 8  méAts Kara tiv Oeodoyiav dvodev Tupe- 
 c S > , > , \ \ , a 5 
 pios. Ot dé eis TavTyv eloeAOPovTES Kal TOV TOTOV TOUTOY Els 
 3 , 4 c , > lal 4 , na c 
 ardatacw éxovtes yeudva, aitGv Aeyopevov twa TOY HAt- 
 eX te , c t > / P \ , 
 ovToAtTov tepeov ‘Ocdpoipor éotiocavto’ Kat TovT® TeEL- 
 dapyijoovtes ev Taow wpKopdrnacav. “O 6€ TpG@Tov ev avrots 
 , y ; mx \ / ~ / 2 > 
 vopov eer, pte mpookuveiy Oeovs pajte TOV padiota ev Al- 
 a / 
 yint Oemorevopevar tepOv Cdov anéxecIar pydevos, TavTa 
 / \ 3 n / w \ ‘ a 
 te Ovew Kal dvadodv, cvvanrecOa S€ pyndevt TAY TOV CLVe- 
 a ie a 
 poopévev. Toiatra dé vopobericas kal mAeiora GAXa, padiora 
 a > , 5) a > , 5.07 , ‘ 
 trois Aiyuntious eAispois évavtiovpeva, exéhevoe TOAVXELpla TA 
 fal iy ‘ 
 Tis TOAE@s eTLTKEUaCEW Tein, Kal TOs TOAELOV ETOIMoDS yEVE- 
 >| ’ / Ss 
 aba. Tov mpos Apevwduv tov Bactdéa. Adtos b& tpocAaBopevos 
 sive a Nien > ap, c ! \ , ¥ 
 ped” Eavtod kal TOV GAAwy tepéwy Kal cvppEplacpevon ETEUAVE 
 / \ x c \ , b) / / > 
 mpeaBeis Tpos Tovs UTO TeOpooews aneAabevtas Towevas els 
 / c es \ 
 mow THY Kadovpevnv ‘lepoodAvpa. Kai ra kad’ Eavtdv Kat Tods 
 wv \ / , pada , 
 &AAovs Tovs cvvatyucbévtas dnAdoas Héiov ocvveTmvoTparevery 
 jpovpadov em Alyuntov. ’Exdgew peév ody aditovs émnyyetharo 
 mp@tov pev eis Avapi Thy Tpoyovikny a’T@y Tatpiba, Ta Em- 
 ridera Tois dxAous TapeLew APOdveas, dTEppaxyoer0ar Se, OTE 
 , Nine , « , , an \ , , © sink 
 5€o1, kal padims VTOXEIpLov avTols THY Xwpav TonTev. Oi cE 
 lal / v 
 trepxapeis yevouevor TdvTEs TpoOJpws els Eikoor pupiddas av- 
 dpov suveEspynoar, Kal per’ od OXY Feov eis Avapw. ‘Apé- 
 
LECTURE II. 361 
 
 vedis 5 6 Tov AlyuTrlov Bacireds, @s ETUOETO TA KATA TiV 
 na 2), 3. a 
 exelvav Epodov, ov peTplws avvexvOn, Tis Tap ‘Apevodews Tod 
 t ‘ , \ , \ 
 Tlaamios pvynobeis mpodnAdcews. Kal azpotepov ovvayayav 
 a > 4 \ / BS lat > / € 
 TAHGI0s AtyuTTiov, Kat BovAevoapEevos PETA TOV EV TOUTOLS TYE- 
 a na / n a 
 pover, Ta Te tepa Coa TA TpPGTAa padiora €v Tots lepots TiLd- 
 peva ws y EavTov peTeTeuato, kat Tots Kata pépos tepetow 
 Tapnyyeirev Os aopadréotara TOV Oe@v ovykpi at Ta Edava. 
 Tov 6é@ vidv Sav tov kal “Payeoony amd ‘Payews tod ta- 
 » / \ a 
 TpOs @VOMacpEVoV, TEVTAeTH OVTA, E€€DETO POs TOV EavTOD 
 girov. Aidros b€ dvaBds Tots GAAos AlyuTTiois, otow eis TpLa- 
 KovTa pupidbas dvdpGv paxiwotatwr, Kal Tois ToAeplows azav- 
 THTaoW ov TvVEBarev, GAAA pedAAE Deopayxety vowioas, Tadw- 
 a 9 
 dpounoas Kev eis Meudiv. “AvadaBov te tov Te “Amu kal Ta 
 dAAa Ta exeloe petaTeupOevta tepa Cea, evOds eis AiOiomlav 
 \ e/ oa , \ / lad > 2 ° / / 
 OU ATAVTL TH OTOAM kal TANOEL TOV AiyuTTiMV avnyOn. xapiTe 
 yap nv att@ troxeipios 6 THv AifioTwv Bacireds’ 60ev t70- 
 deEdpevos Kal Tos dyAovs TavTas bToAGBGY ois EocxEV 7 XOpa 
 TOV TpOs aVOpwTivny TpopHy emiTHOElwY, Kal TOAELS Kal Kopas 
 Tpos Tv TOV TEeTPOpEevov TpioKaldeKa ETOY ATO THS apxijs av- 
 a eo 
 TOU EKTTWOLY AUTAPKELS, OVX 7TTOV ye Kal oTpatdTEdov AlOomLKOV 
 mpos pudakip eTéeta€e Tois Tap’ Apevedews Tov Bactiéws ent 
 lal ig 4 m > 4 \ \ XN ‘ \ ’ / 
 TOV Optov Ths Atyumtov. Kat ra pev xata thy AlOtomiav ro.- 
 atra. Ot d€ Sodvpira xaredOovtes ody Tots plapots Alyuttiov 
 Gvooiws Tots avOpsTois TpoonvexXOnoay, GoTE THY TOV TpOELpN- 
 / a \ 
 pévov Kparnow xeElplorny haivecOat Tols TOTE TA TOUT@Y aoe€3i)- 
 para Jewpevors. Kat yap ov pdvov modes Kal Kopas evetpynoar, 
 3X98 c n IO , , cal b] lal 
 ovde tepoovAocdvyTes ovde Avpatvopevor EOava DEGv 7pKOdVTO, 
 GAAG Kal Tols avTois O7TaViols TOV TEBacTEVOLEVwY LepOVv CO@V 
 , l \ , \ a , € a \ 
 Xpepevor SreteAovy, kat Ovras kal odayets TovTwY LEpEts Kal 
 / , 
 mpopytas nvayKkagoy yevérOar, Kal yupvovs e€€Badrov. Aé€yerar 
 6 Stu THY ToALTElay Kal Tovs vopouvs adbtois KaTaBaddpuevos 
 / c ey > A 
 iepevs, TO yevos ‘HAvovmoAitns, Ovoua "Ooapald, amd Tod ev 
 < a) lal 
 HaAuov70Aet Oeov ‘Ocipews, ws petéBn eis TOUTO TO yEevos, MeETE- 
 t Ger Pax Q ~ = 
 TEOn TOVVOMA Kal TpocnyopEevOn Movoijs.” “A pev odv Alytiztuot 
 / lal cal ° a 
 pepovot TEpt Tv “lovéaiwy, TadrT éotl Kai Erepa mAclova, & 
 maptnut ovvtoplas evexa. Aé€yer d€ 6 MaveOav madwv ote pera 
 Tatra emmrdev 6’Apevadis am Aldtomias pera peyadns duva- 
 \ c ev ’ Lee / \ > \ v / = \ 
 Mews, Kal O vios avrod Papyns kal autos Exov dvvapuiv™ Kal 
 
362 NOTES. 
 
 , c ¢ a / \ lal cal ay. > 
 aupBadrovTes ot dvVO Tots TolwEect Kal TOs pLapols EVIKNOAY Qv- 
 \ \ \ . s 30/7 > ‘ y as 
 Tovs, Kal ToAAOdS amoKTetvavTes ediwfav avTovs axpl TOV 
 éplov tis Suplas. (Joseph. Contra Apionem, i. 26, 27.) 
 
 Compare with this the briefer account of Chzremon, 
 who said—Kara rovs tavovs 7 “low epavy TO “Apevddet, 
 peupopern avTov Ott Td tepoy adrhs év TO TOAEMM KATETKATTAL. 
 PpitipdvTnvy SF tepoypapparéa, eav TG Tovs podrvopors exov- 
 Tov dvdpev Kabdapy tiv Aiytatov, TavoacOa THs TTolas adrov. 
 "Emrcfavta 6& Tay éemicwwGy puvpiddas eixoot TEerTE exBadeiv. 
 < a =e ere! , , oon YO op \ a 
 HyeicOa 6€ avtav ypappateas M@vonjy kal loonmov, Kal Tov- 
 Tov tepoypapparea. Aiytmtia & avrots dvopata etvat, TO ev 
 Movoe? Tictbev, ro 5€ “Twonmm Mereojp. Totrovs & eis Tn- 
 Aovowoy eAOeiy Kal emiTVXETY pUpLdaL TpLaKOVTA OKT KaTaXe- 
 Aeypevats b7d Tod Apevaduos, Us od Bede els THY Alyvatov 
 dtaxopicew. Otis ptdiav cvvOepévous ent tiv Alyumtov otpa- 
 redoa. Tov d€ Apéevoduy ox tropuelvavta tiv Epodoy avteév 
 , ’ / lal , a‘ cas x a 
 els AiOvomiay duyetvy katadindvta THY yuvaika €yKvov" iv Kpv- 
 mToperny év Tit oTynAalors Texeiy Taida, dvowa Meoconvny, dv 
 avopobévra exdio~at Tovs “lovdaiovs eis THv Suplav, dvras wept 
 ” / \ \ / ] / > Led BI / 
 €lkoot pupiadas, Kal Tov Tatepa ’Apevodiy €x THs Aidozias 
 xatad<facda. (Joseph. 1. s. ¢. ch. 32.) 
 
 Note 82. p. 74. 
 
 The name Osarsiph, which, according to Manetho, was 
 the Egyptian appellation of Moses, seems to be a corrup- 
 tion of Joseph, whom Chzeremon made Moses’ companion 
 and fellow-helper. The statement that Moses was “a 
 priest of Heliopolis’*—which was also made by Apion (Jo- 
 sephus, Contra Apionem, ii. 2.)—is either a perversion of 
 the Seriptural fact of Joseph’s marriage with “ the daugh- 
 ter of Potipherah, priest of On',” or possibly an indication 
 of a fact not recorded in Seripture, that Moses gained his 
 knowledge of the Egyptian wisdom at that seat of learn- 
 ing. The fear of Amenophis for his son’s safety recalls to 
 our thoughts the last of the plagues: the forced labour of 
 the Jews in the stone-quarries is not very different from 
 
 t Gen. xli. 45. 
 
LECTURE I. 363 
 
 the compulsory brick-making ; the cry of pollution is pro- 
 bably connected with the earlier plagues, or perhaps it is 
 only an exaggeration of the feeling which viewed “ every 
 shepherd” as ‘an abomination.” (Gen. xlvi. 34.) The 
 mention of Jerusalem, or rather Salem (ot ToAvuirar), at 
 this time, confirms Gen. xiv.18; and the occurrence of 
 Rameses as a family name in the dynasty harmonises with 
 its use as a local designation. (Gen. xlvii. 11; Exod. i. 11; 
 and xii. 37.) 
 
 Note 83. p. 74. 
 
 See Sir Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. i. p. 
 240. “IJ need not dwell,” he says, “on the proofs of the 
 low antiquity of our species, for it 7s not controverted 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 
 contemporaries, began to predominate. If there be a dif- 
 ference of opinion respecting the occurrence in certain de- 
 posits of the remains of man and his works, i¢ 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 judg- 
 ment is ultimately formed by science of the results which 
 have been recently obtained by Mr. Horner in Egypt", by 
 M. Boucher de Perthes in Francey, 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 con- 
 
 u Account of some recent Researches near Cairo, (first published in 
 the Philosophical Transactions,) by Leonard Horner, esq. Parts i. and ii. 
 London, 1855 and 1858. 
 
 VY Antiquités Celtiques et Ante-diluviennes, par M. Boucher de Per- 
 thes, Paris, 1847. 
 
364 NOTES. 
 
 clusions 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 84. p. 74. 
 
 The researches and arguments of Blumenbach, Haller, 
 Cuvier, and, above all, of Dr. Prichard (Physical History 
 of Mankind, vol. 1. pp. 114-376), have established this point 
 beyond all reasonable doubt. Even the author of the 
 Vestiaes of Creation admits “ the result, on the whole, of 
 inquiries into what are called the physical history of man,” 
 to be, “ that conditions such as climate and food, domesti- 
 cation, and perhaps an inward tendency to progress under 
 tolerably favourable cireumstances, are sufficient to account 
 for all the outward peculiarities of form and cclour” ob- 
 servable among mankind. (Vestiges, p. 262, tenth edition.) 
 
 Note 85. p. 75. 
 
 “ Physiological Ethnology,” says Professor Max Miiller, 
 ‘has accounted 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.) 
 
 Note 86. p. 75. 
 
 “Tt is pleasing to remark,” says Sir H. Rawlinson, 
 speaking of the different races in Western Asia, “ that 
 if we were to be guided by the mere intersection of lin- 
 guistic paths, and independently of all reference to the 
 
LECTURE. Ii. 365 
 
 Seriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains 
 of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had ra- 
 diated.” (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 87. p. 75. 
 
 The only case in which we can form a judgment of the 
 Linguistic accuracy of the Pentateuch is that of the Egyp- 
 tian terms, since here only have we any sufficient know- 
 ledge of the language spoken in the country at the time. 
 Under this head come the following :— 
 
 1. Pharaoh (FY 7B), as the title of Egyptian kings (Gen. 
 xii. 15, xl. 2; Ex. i. 11), which has been explained as 
 Ph-ouro, “the king”’; but which is more probably Ph-rah, 
 “the Sun”, a title borne by the Egyptian monarchs from 
 very early times. (Wilkinson, in the author’s Herodotus, 
 vol. ii. p. 182, note 1.) 
 
 2. Potiphar (DWP), or Potipherah (YAW), which 
 is Pete-ph-re, “ belonging to the Sun”—a name common 
 upon the monuments (Rosellini, Monwmenti Storici, 1. 117 ; 
 Champollion, Précis, Table Générale, p. 23), and specially 
 appropriate to a Priest of On, or Heliopolis. Compare the 
 name Peteseph, “belonging to Seb (Chronos)”, which, ac- 
 cording to Cheeremon, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. 
 (Supra, note 81.) 
 
 3. Asenath (IN]Di)» which is, according to Jablonsky 
 (Opuscula, ii. 208), Asshe-neith, “ worshipper of Neith”, or 
 more probably, as Gesenius observes (Thesaurus, ad voc.), 
 As-neith, “que Neithe (est)”, “ belonging to Neith.” It 
 has been doubted whether Neith was worshipped at this 
 early date; but she seems to have been really one of the 
 primitive deities of Lower Egypt. (Bunsen, Lgypt’s Place, 
 vol. i. p. 389). Her name forms an element in that of 
 Nitocris (Neith-akri), a queen of the sixth dynasty. (Wil- 
 kinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 165, note 2.) 
 
 Pharaoh gave to Joseph, is best explained through the 
 
366 NOTES. 
 
 Septuagint Yordoudaryx, which closely corresponds to the 
 Coptic Psont-mfaneh, “sustainer of the age”, or as Jerome 
 says, a little freely, “ salvator mundi.” (See Gesenius, The- 
 saurus, p.1181.) The first two letters have been trans- 
 posed in the Hebrew, either by accident, or to suit Jewish 
 articulation, and at the same time to produce a name sig- 
 nificant to Jewish ears. 
 
 5. Moses ("Mgd) 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. Jud. 11.9. § 6), partially by 
 Philo (De vita Mosis,i. Op. vol. 11. p. 83) and Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus (Strom. i. p.412). Josephus—716 tdop p6 of Ai- 
 ybariot Kadodo1, vans S€ Tovs ef datos cwbévras. Philo— 
 70 bdap wOs dvoudafovow Aiydatiot. Clemens—ro tdwp pai 
 dvopacovo Aiy’arior. The last of these forms is the best. 
 Moii is still “ water” in Coptic, and the old Egyptian word 
 —given by Bunsen as iuawv—was similar. According to 
 Jablonsky (Opuscula, i. 152) oushe in Coptic is “to save.” 
 Tam 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 Penta- 
 teuch. Such are 78 (or WI, LX-X ayer) which Jablonsky 
 found to signify in Coptic “omne quod in palude virens 
 nascitur” (Opuscula, vol. 1. p. 45); perhaps TIA (LXX 
 6(8n), the word used both for Noah’s Ark, and for the 
 small ark in which Moses was placed, (La Croze, Levicon 
 Egyptiacum sub voc.); and JIN, which is explained from 
 the Coptic as au-rek, “bow every one”, or ape-rek, “ bow 
 the head.” (See Gesenius, Hebrdisches und Chalddisches 
 Handworterbuch, ad voc. p. 10, EK. T., and compare De Rossi, 
 Etym. Egypt. p. 1.) 
 
 The geographic accuracy of the Pentateuch has been il- 
 lustrated by a number of writers. Dr. Stanley, one of the 
 
 W Bunsen’s Egypt, vol. i. p. 471. No. 313. 
 
LECTURE II. 367 
 
 most recent and most calm-judging of modern Oriental tra- 
 vellers, 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 re- 
 ceive many remarkable illustrations... The occasional springs, 
 and wells, and brooks, are in accordance with the notices 
 of the “waters” of Marah, the “springs” of Elim, the 
 “brook” of Horeb; the “ well” of Jethro’s daughters, with 
 its “troughs” or tanks. The vegetation is still that which 
 we should infer from the Mosaic history. &c.” (Sinai and 
 Palestine, pp. 20,21; compare pp. 22, 24,129, &e.) In the 
 account of Egypt the accuracy is seen not only in the ge- 
 neral description of the territory—its rich meadows and 
 corn-lands—its abounding river, edged with flags and bul- 
 rushes (Ex. ii. 3)—its wealth of waters derived therefrom, 
 “streams and rivers, and ponds, and pools of water” (Ex. 
 vii. 19)—its wheat, and rye, and barley, and flax, (ib. ix. 
 31, 32) and green trees (palm-trees‘) yielding fruit (ib. x. 
 15)—but also in the names and sometimes in the sites of 
 towns. On (j&), Pithom (Conf), Ramesses (DD), 
 Zoan (jP¥) and Migdol (64520), 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 (il. 158), the 
 city of Thmei (Justice), called “ Thmuin” in the Jtinerary of 
 Antonine (p. 9). Ramesses is Beth-Rameses, a city of which 
 we have a description in a hieratic papyrus of the 18th or 
 1gth dynasty. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, Art.VI. p. 254.) 
 Zoan, the Tanis of the LX X—whence the “ Tanitic nome” 
 of Herodotus (ii. 166), and the “ Tanitic mouth” of later au- 
 thors is the modern San or Zan, evidently a great town in 
 the time of the Ramesside monarchs. (Wilkinson, Ancient 
 Egypt, i. p. 449.) Migdol, the Magdolus of Hecatzeus (Fr. 
 282), retains its name in the /tinerary of Antonine (p. 10), 
 and appears in the position assigned by Moses, on the north- 
 east frontier, near Pelusium. Again, the name by which 
 
368 NOTES. 
 
 Egypt itself is designated, Mizraim (D7 2D), has a pecu- 
 liar geographical significancy. The dual form marks the 
 two Egypts—“ the upper and the lower country”—as they 
 are termed in the inscriptions*. Equally significant is 
 Padan-aram ( DISTT), “the plain Syria”—the country 
 stretching away from the foot of the hills (Stanley's Pa- 
 lestine, p. 128, note 1), where Harran stood, which was so 
 different a tract from the mountainous Syria west of the 
 Euphrates. Again, the expression, “ the entrance of Ha- 
 math” (Numb. xiii. 21), shews a conversance with the geo- 
 graphy of Upper Palestine, whereof this “entrance” is so 
 striking a feature (Stanley, p. 399), and with the existence 
 of Hamath at the time, which may be proved from the 
 hieratie papyri of the period. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, 
 p- 268.) Some further geographical points will be touched 
 in note 89. 
 
 The ethological accuracy of the Pentateuch as respects 
 Oriental manners 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 fol- 
 lowers, the tents, the wealth in cattle, the “sitting in the 
 door,” the salutations and obeisances, the constant migra- 
 tions, the quarrels for pasture and water, the marriages 
 with near relatives, the drawing of water from the wells by 
 the young maidens, the troughs for the camels, the stone 
 on the well’s mouth, the camels kneeling with their bur- 
 thens and waiting patiently till the troughs are full, the 
 purchase by weight of silver, the oaths accompanied by 
 peculiar ceremonies, the ox unmuzzled as he treads out the 
 corn,— these and ten thousand similar traits are so true to 
 nature and to fact, even at the present day (for the East 
 changes but little), that travellers universally come back 
 from Syria deeply and abidingly impressed with the reality 
 and truthfulness of the Pentateuch in all that respects 
 
 x The common hieroglyphic signs for the whole of Egypt are two 
 crowns, two waterplants, or two layers of earth. (Lepsius, Sur 1’ Alpha- 
 bet Hiéroglyphique, Planche I. Groupe vii. col. C.) 
 
LECTURE II. 369 
 
 Eastern manners. Rationalism, in order to meet in any 
 degree the weight of this argument, is forced to betake it- 
 self 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 shews a want of acquaintance with the cus- 
 toms of Egypt, e.g. in his mention of eunuchs at the 
 Egyptian court (Commentar, p. 360), in his representa- 
 tion of Pharaoh’s daughter as bathing in the Nile (ibid.), 
 and in his making wine a product of Egypt (p.374). The 
 objections taken are not particularly happy. (See Rosellini 
 as quoted by Hengstenberg, Aigypten und Mose, p. 23; and 
 Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. ii. p. 389; Herodotus, 
 vol. 11. 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 dis- 
 cerned. 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 foreigners in their construction, the use of 
 bricks, (cf. Herod. 11. 136, with Wilkinson’s note ad loc.) 
 and of bricks with straw in them (Wilkinson, |. s. c. and 
 Camb. Essays, 1858, p. 259), the taskmasters, the embalm- 
 ing of dead bodies, the consequent importation of spices 
 (Gen. xxxvil. 25), the violent mournings (Herod. ii. 85), 
 the dissoluteness of the women (ibid. ii. 111; Camb. Kssays, 
 1858, p. 234), the fighting with horses and chariots (Wil- 
 kinson 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 man- 
 ners and customs on the part of the author of the Penta- 
 teuch. (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.) 
 
 RAWLINSON. Bb 
 
370 NOTES. 
 
 Note 88. p. 76. 
 
 The uncertainty of geographers as to the sites of these 
 cities, and the weak grounds upon which identifications of 
 them were attempted, will be seen by reference even to 
 works so recent as Winer’s Realworterbuch (1848) and 
 Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia (1856). Ur was thought by 
 some (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 Arabie writer—was caught at, in order to 
 fix what the scanty remains of primeval geography left 
 completely unsettled. 
 
 Note 89. p. 76. 
 
 The following sites seem to have been determined be- 
 yond all reasonable doubt by the Babylonian and Assyrian 
 Inscriptions :— 
 
 1. Ur of the Chaldees, at Mugheir, on the right bank of 
 the Euphrates, not very far above its junction with the 
 Shat-el-Hie. This is the true Chaldzea of Scripture and of 
 History, an Armenian Chaldzea being a fiction of the Greeks. 
 
 2. Calah at Nimréd, on the left bank of the Tigris, a 
 little above its junction with the Greater Zab. (The Halah 
 of 2 Kings xvii. 6, is a different place.) The province in 
 which it stands long continued to be called Calachene 
 (Strab. xvi. 1, § 1; Ptol. vi. 1). 
 
 3. Erech at Warka (the Greek ’Opx6n), on the left bank 
 of the Euphrates, and at some distance from the river, 
 about 35 miles N. W. of Ur. 
 
 The following identifications, if not certain, are at least 
 highly probable: —1. Resen with Kileh-Sherghat, on the 
 right bank of the Tigris, not very far from its junction with 
 the Lesser Zab. 2. Accad with a town in Lower Babylo- 
 nia, called Kinzi Accad in the Inscriptions, the site of 
 
LECTURE II. 371 
 
 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 Nifer, in the same tract with Senkereh and 
 Warka, but much nearer Babylon, and about midway be- 
 tween the two streams. (See the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. 
 PP: 313; 447 592, &e.) 
 
 For a description of the ruins of Ur and Erech, see 
 Mr. Loftus’s Chaidea and Susiana, pp. 128-134, and 162 
 et seqq.; for those of Calah, see Mr. Layard’s Nineveh and 
 its Remains, ch. ii. et seqq.; some account is given of Resen 
 (Kileh-Sherghat) in the same work, ch. xii.; and of Cal- 
 neh (Nifer) in the same writer’s Nineveh and Babylon, 
 ch. xxiv. 
 
 Note 90. p.76. 
 
 See the account which Mr. Cyril Graham has given of 
 his travels in this region in the Cambridge Essays for 1858, 
 pp- 157-162. Compare Dr. Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, 
 p. 21s. 
 
 Note 91. 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. xvii. 
 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 Hssays 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 col- 
 lected. Upon ourselves, the result is a decided one. We 
 entered upon this sea, with conflicting opinions. One of 
 the party was sceptical, and another, I think, a professed 
 unbeliever of the Mosaic account. After twenty-two days’ 
 close investigation, if I am not mistaken, we were wnani- 
 mous in the conviction of the truth of the Scriptural account 
 of the destruction of the cities of the plain.” (Narrative, 
 ch, xvii. p. 253.) 
 
 Bb 2 
 
Neo T 1.48: 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 Note 1. p. 81. 
 
 SEE Konig, -Alttestament. Studien, p. 63, et seqq.; Jahn, 
 Einleitung, ii. 1, p. 160; and Horne’s Introduction, vol. v. 
 Psa 
 
 Note 2. p. 81. 
 
 See Carpzov, Iniroductio ad libros Canonicos Veteris Tes- 
 tamenti, part 1. 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, Calovius, Hugo, De Lyra, 
 Cajetan, Vatablé, Sixtus Sinensis, Sanctius, Serrarius, and 
 Cornelius a Lapide.” 
 
 Note 3. p. 81. 
 
 There is no reference to the Book of Joshua as the work 
 of Joshua in Scripture. It is first assigned to him in the 
 Talmud. ‘The Fathers are divided in opinion as to its au- 
 thorship. Athanasius, for instance, includes it among the 
 books ‘ not written by the persons whose names they bear 
 and of whom they treat.” (Synops. S.S. § 10; Opera, vol. ii. 
 p- 139, B.) 
 
 Note 4. p. 81. 
 
 See the summary of the arguments in Keil’s Commentar 
 iiber d. Buch Josua, Einleitung, § 3, p.xlvii. Keil’s conclu- 
 sion is, “ that the historical references and the peculiarity 
 of style completely disprove the supposition that the Book 
 
LECTURE III. 373 
 
 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 re- 
 collection, 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 Joshuay.”’ I should be disposed to acquiesce in 
 this view. 
 Note 5. p. 83. 
 
 De Wette boldly denies this. ‘“ The book, he says, 
 ‘nowhere contains any separate contemporary documents” 
 (nicht einmal einzelne gleichzeitige Bestandtheile enthalt 
 es. LHinleitung, § 169, p. 213.) But Rosenmiuller, Jahn, 
 and others, seem to have reason on their side when they 
 urge, that the accounts of the boundaries of the tribes 
 (xv. 21-62; xviii. 21-28; xix. 1-48), and of the cities of 
 the Levites (xxi. 13-40), have all the appearance of such 
 documents. Such a document is also, as it seems to me, 
 the list of slaughtered kings in chapter xii. (verses g—24.) 
 It appears by ch. xviii. 1-10, and xxiv. 26, that such re- 
 cords were in use at the time; and it is a reasonable sup- 
 position that they formed the basis upon which the author, 
 who quotes them, composed 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 ar- 
 rangement, but describes its gradual progress, and relates, 
 one after another, all the alterations, improvements, and 
 
 y In the quotations from Professor Keil’s learned and sensible work, 
 I follow the Translation of Mr. J. Martin, which forms the fourteenth 
 volume of Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, New Series, (Edin- 
 burgh, 1857.) 
 
374 NOTES. 
 
 additions, that were made from time to time.” (Hinleitung, 
 vol. ili. p. 365.) Keil remarks recently —‘* When we come to 
 the second part of the book, and observe the things of which 
 it particularly treats; how the history which it contains of 
 the division of Canaan amongst the tribes is accompanied 
 with full descriptions of the boundaries of the territory of 
 each tribe, with catalogues of cities, and so on, we are ne- 
 cessarily led to the conclusion, that the writer availed him- 
 self of written records, if not of official documents.” (Com- 
 mentar, Kinleitung, § 4; p. 47, E.T.) Compare Horne, 
 Introduction, vol. v. pp. 36, 37: 
 
 Note 6. p. 83. 
 
 See Carpzov, Introductio ad libros Canonicos Veteris Tes- 
 tamenti, p.172, et seqq.; and compare the quotation from 
 Baba-Bathra in Theodore Parker’s Translation of De Wette, 
 vol.i. p. 31. See also Horne’s Lntroduction, vol. v. p. 42. 
 
 Note.7. p. 84. 
 
 Compare Judges i. 21 with 2 Sam. v. 6-9. This passage, 
 it is admitted, “ seems to belong to the time of David.” 
 (Parker’s De Wette, vol.i. p. 206.) 
 
 Note 8. p. 84. 
 
 The chronology of the Book of Judges is involved in 
 great uncertainty. Several periods are unestimated, as the 
 time between the death of Joshua and the first servitude, 
 the judgeship of Shamgar, 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%. But in 
 
 2 With this nearly agrees St. Paul’s estimate of 450 years from the 
 division of the land by lot to Samuel the prophet (Acts xiii. 20) ; for 
 
LECTURE III. 375 
 
 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 judge- 
 ship (say 20 years), the interval between Joshua’s death 
 and the ist servitude (say 5 years), the judgeships 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+ 40+ 20+5+40+20+440+4 40 
 +3=) 598 years, or more than a century beyond the esti- 
 mate in Kings. It is therefore thought that the period 
 of the Judges must be reduced ; and the term ordinarily 
 assigned to them, exclusive of Eli and Samuel, is from 300 
 to 350 years. (See the marginal dates in the English 
 Bible, and compare 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 Egypt, vol. iii. p. 288.) This is effected by giving Oth- 
 niel and Deborah 8 years each instead of 40, by reducing 
 the time between the 2nd and 3rd servitudes from 80 years 
 to 7, by shortening Gideon’s presidency 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 cen- 
 tury, in which, it was said, ‘‘les voyelles ne valoient rien, 
 et les consonants peu de chose.” 
 
 Note 9. p. 85. 
 
 Jahn, Hinleitung, § 46, vol. ii. p. 232 et seqq. Herbst, 
 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 139 et seqq.; Graf, Dissertatio de h- 
 brorum Samuelis et Regum compositione ; &c. A good refu- 
 390 + 40 (the time of Eli’s judgeship) + 20 (a not improbable estimate 
 
 for the time between the death of Moses and the 1st Servitude)=450 
 years. 
 
376 NOTES. 
 
 tation of Jalin’s theory will be found in Kitto’s Cyclopedia, 
 in the article on the ‘‘ Books of Samuel” (vol. ii. p. 685). 
 
 Note 10. p. 85. 
 
 See Carpzov, Introductio, &e. p. 213. Modern erities 
 mostly take the view that the Books of Samuel were 
 merely founded on these documents. (See Hivernick, Lin- 
 leitung, § 161; Stuart, History of the Old Testament Canon, 
 § 6, p.134; Rev. J. Kadie in Kitto’s Cyclopedia, vol. ii. 
 p- 684; &e.) Horne, however, with Carpzov (p. 215) and 
 Spanheim (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 11. p. 87. 
 
 Ahijah the Shilonite is mentioned as a contemporary of 
 Solomon in 1 Kings, xi. 29. As the visions of Iddo the 
 seer were “ against Jeroboam the son of Nebat,” he must 
 have} been, at the latest, contemporary with Solomon’s 
 successor. 
 
 Note 12. p. 88. 
 
 De Wette says correctly—*“ The history of David, con- 
 tained 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 Levitical accounts.” (Hinleitung, § 188, 
 p- 2413; vol. 1. p. 261, of Parker’s Translation.) Such ac- 
 counts are particularly the following—1. The lists of those 
 who joined David at Ziklag and at Hebron (ch. xii.) 
 2. David’s instructions to Solomon and the princes with 
 regard to the temple (ch. xxii. and ch. xxviii.) 3. His of- 
 ferings and those of the people (ch. xxix. 1-9.) 4. His 
 thanksgiving, and prayer (ibid. 10-19.) 5. His great sacri- 
 fice and installing of Solomon as king for the second time 
 (ibid. 20-25.) And 6. The lists of the Levites, Priests, 
 singers, porters, captains, &c. as made out or appointed 
 
LECTURE III. 377 
 
 by David (chs. xxil.—xxvii.) The remainder of the first 
 book of Chronicles follows Samuel closely, in most passages 
 
 almost to the letter; e. g. 
 
 Ta OMmRONTEXS) LO: 
 
 Now the Philistines fought 
 against Israel ; and the men of 
 Israel fled from before the Phi- 
 listines, and fell down slain in 
 mount Gilboa. And the Phi- 
 listines followed hard after Saul, 
 and after his sons ; and the 
 Philistines slew Jonathan, and 
 Abinadab, and Malchi-shua, the 
 sons of Saul. And the battle 
 went sore against Saul, and the 
 archers hit him, and he was 
 wounded of the archers, &e. 
 &e. 
 
 1 SAM. XXxXi. I-10. 
 
 Now the Philistines fought 
 against Israel: and the men of 
 Israel fled from before the Phi- 
 listines, and fell down slain in 
 mount Gilboa. And the Phi- 
 listines followed hard upon Saul 
 and wpon his sons; and the 
 Philistines slew Jonathan, and 
 Abinadab, and Melchi-shua, 
 Saul’s sons. And the battle 
 went sore against Saul, and the 
 archers hit him; and he was 
 sore wounded of the archers, 
 d&e. d&e. 
 
 Note 13. p. 88. 
 
 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. Even De Wette ap- 
 pears to allow that Asaph was the author. (Hinleitung, 
 § 271, p. 366.) In this Psalm are mentioned the following 
 historical facts:—(1.) The giving of the law by Jehovah 
 (verse 5); (2-) The command that it should be made known 
 by fathers to their children (verses 5,6; compare Deut. iv. 
 g, &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 leading of the Israelites out of Egypt (v. 52); 
 
378 NOTES. 
 
 (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. Compare Ex. xv. 8); (20.) the divine guidance 
 of the Israelites through the sea (v. 53); (21.) the over- 
 whelming of the Egyptians (ib.);  (22.) the frequent mur- 
 muring in the wilderness (verses 17-20); (23.) the bring- 
 ing forth of water from the rock (v.15), (24.) in vast 
 abundance (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 giving of quails 
 (v.27), (31.) which were brought by a wind (v. 26; comp. 
 Numb. xi. 30), (32.) and let fall “ round about their habi- 
 tation” (v.28; comp. Numb. xi. 31); (33.) the destructive 
 plague which followed (v. 31), (34.) ‘‘ while the meat was 
 yet in their mouths” (v. 30; comp. 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 pun- 
 ishment, and frequent relapses (vv. 34-42); (39.) the di- 
 vine conduct to the border of the Holy Land (v. 54); (40.) 
 the casting out of the Heathen before them (v.55); (41.) 
 the division of the inheritances (ib.); (42.) the cowardice 
 of Ephraim (v. 9; compare Josh. xvi. 10; Judges i. 29); 
 (43-) the backsliding and idolatry in Canaan (vv. 56-58) ; 
 (44.) the placing of the tabernacle at Shiloh (v.60); (45.) 
 its capture (v.61); (46.) the great slaughter at the same 
 time (v.62); (47.) the slaughter of priests in the battle 
 (v.64); (48.) the punishment of the captors by emerods 
 (v.66); (49.) the choice of the territory of Judah for the 
 final resting-place of the tabernacle (v. 68);  (50.) the 
 choice of Mount Zion as the place where it should be set 
 up (ib.); (51-) the selection of David to be king (v. 70); 
 (52.) his being taken “ from the sheep-folds” (ibid.) ; and 
 (53.) the integrity and excellence of his rule (v. 72.) 
 
LECTURE III. 379 
 
 Note 14. p. go. 
 Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, pp. 132, 133. 
 
 Note 15. p. go. 
 
 M. Bunsen supposes that Assyria, from the commence- 
 ment of its independence in B. C. 1273, was not only a 
 powerful kingdom, but a great empire, holding Syria, Pa- 
 lestine, and even occasionally Egypt in subjection, (Hgypt, 
 vol. iii. pp. 269, 289, &c.) But this view rests entirely 
 upon Ctesias, a writer (as M. Bunsen confesses) of very 
 low authority ; or rather it rests upon an odd jumble be- 
 tween 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 predecessors 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 “ esta- 
 blished in the government of Assyria ;” and the fourth, his 
 father, “the subduer of foreign countries ;” 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 Ar- 
 menia, Cappadocia, and upper Syria about Carchemish. 
 He does not penetrate to Hamath, to Pheenicia, or to Da- 
 mascus, much less to Palestine; while he constantly de- 
 clares that he is engaged with tribes and countries which 
 none of the Assyrian kings had ever before reached. (See 
 the Great Inscription, published by the Royal Asiatic So- 
 ciety’, pp. 22, 24, 34, 42, &e.) 
 
 a Egypt, vol. iii. p. 433. b Tbid. p. 436. 
 © Printed by J. W. Parker, West Strand, London, i857. 
 
380 NOTES. 
 
 Note 16. p. go. 
 
 See Wilkinson in the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. pp.374- 
 376. Compare Bunsen, Haypt, vol. iil. pp. 210, 211, 219- 
 221, &e. 
 
 Note 17. p. 91. 
 
 See above, note 15. Chushan-Rishathaim is placed by 
 most biblical Chronologists between B. C. 1400 and B.C. 
 1350. M. Bunsen puts him a century later. (Hgypt, vol. iii. 
 p. 272.) Even according to this latter view, he preceded 
 Tiglath-Pileser I. by above a century. 
 
 It is quite a gratuitous supposition of M. Bunsen’s, that 
 Chushan-Rishathaim was “a Mesopotamian satrap” (I. s. ¢.) 
 —‘“the Assyrian satrap of Mesopotamia” (p. 289). Serip- 
 ture calls him “king ;” and besides, the cuneiform monu- 
 ments make it perfectly clear that Assyria did not extend 
 her dominion to Aram-Naharaim, (the Aramaic portion of 
 Mesopotamia, or the country between the Khabour and the 
 Euphrates,) till the middle of the 12th century. M. Bunsen 
 says, “there can never have been an empire in Eastern 
 Syria coexistent with Assyria and Babylonia” (p. 293). 
 Why can there not? If the Assyrian and Babylonian king- 
 doms of the early period be rightly apprehended, there is 
 no more difficulty in supposing a powerful Aramzean state 
 in Western Mesopotamia, than in imagining the country 
 divided up, as we must otherwise regard it, among a num- 
 ber of petty principalities. Chushan-Rishathaim, however, 
 it is to be observed, reigned probably before the Assyrian 
 independence was established. 
 
 Note 18. p. gt. 
 
 Moses says—‘“ Is (i. e. Joshua) cum Chananzeos deleret, 
 nonnulli Agram profugerunt, et navigiis Tharsin petiere ; 
 id quod ex iuscriptione patet, quee in Africa colwmnis in- 
 sculpta extat ad hane usque memoriam, quee vere talis est— 
 ‘A Joshua latrone profugi nos preefecti Chananzeorum, 
 venimus hic habitatum. ” Hist. Armen. 1. 18. 
 
LECTURE III. 381 
 
 Note 19. p. gt. 
 
 Procopius expresses himself as follows. Having men- 
 tioned Tigisis (Tangiers), a city of Numidia, he proceeds— 
 év0a otnrat do ex AlWwy AEvKGY TETOINMEVaL GyXL KpPT- 
 yyns €lol THS pEeyaAns, ypdppata Powviktka €yKkekoAappeva 
 éxoveat, TH Powlkwoy yAdoon A€yovta Gde “Hyeis eopev ot 
 gvydvres ATO Tpocdstov Incotd rod Ayjorod Navy. (De Bello 
 Vandalico, ii. 10.) This is clearly the language of an eye- 
 witness. Procopius, it must be remembered, had accom- 
 panied Belisarius to Africa. 
 
 Note 20. p.gt. 
 Suidas ad voc. Xavadv. Kal etou péxpe viv ai tovadra 
 mAdKes €v TH Novpuidla, Tepiexovoa ottws’ “Hyeis eopev Xava- 
 a K sQ7 3 Oe , 
 vaiot, ods edimfev “Inaots 6 AnoTIs. 
 
 Note 21. p. 92. 
 
 Keil, Commentar iiber d. Buch Josua, Hinleitung, § 4, 
 Patios Duh, Berl: 
 
 Note 22. p. 93. 
 
 Mr. 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 ex- 
 planations of the hieroglyphical and cuneiform inscriptions 
 which were furnished by those who professed to understand 
 them to the inquisitive Greeks, read us a lesson of distrust; 
 and suggests that a monument of the time of Joshua would 
 have been unintelligible even to learned archeologists in the 
 days of Justinian. But the monument may have been na- 
 tional and genuine without its dating from within a thou- 
 sand years of the time of Joshua; and if the cuneiform and 
 hieroglyphicai inscriptions were not accurately rendered to 
 the Greeks, it was less through ignorance than through ma- 
 lice that they were perverted. In this case the translation 
 given by the natives is clearly an honest one; and its peculia- 
 rities seem to me in its favour. The Aramaism,“‘é« mpoo@rov,” 
 
382 NOTES. 
 
 is admitted to be “a plausible argument for the correctness 
 of the interpretation” (Kenrick, 1. s. ¢.). The form of the 
 inscription, in which certain persons, not named or de- 
 scribed, speak in the first person plural, which is said to be 
 “ wholly unlike that of genuine lapidary documents” (Ken- 
 rick, 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 par- 
 ticular passage. There may have been a context, which 
 would have taken away all appearance of harshness and 
 abruptness from the record. 
 
 Note 23. p. 93. 
 
 Very few Phcenician inscriptions have been found in 
 Africa of a later date than the age of Augustus. (See Ge- 
 senius’s Monumenta Scripture Lingueque Phenicie, pp.13, 
 313-328.) The Latin language appears to have by that 
 time almost entirely superseded the Carthaginian for all 
 public purposes. 
 
 Note 24. p. 93. 
 
 Herod. ii. 142. Ev rolvuv rovto 16 xpdve retpdxis EX€eyov 
 e€ new Tov HALov dvareiAau évOa Te vov katadverat, evOedTEV 
 dis dvaretvat, kal évOev viv dvaréAdeL, evOadta dls Kataddva. 
 
 Note 25. p.93. 
 
 “ When Herodotus, the father of profane history, tells 
 us, from the priests of Egypt, that their traditions had in- 
 formed them, that in very remote ages the sun had four 
 times departed from his regular course, having twice set 
 where he ought to have risen, and twice risen where he 
 ought to have set,—it is impossible to read this most sin- 
 gular tradition without recollecting the narrative in the 
 book of Joshua which relates, ‘that the sun stood still in 
 the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a 
 
LECTURE Ill. 383 
 
 whole day; and the fact related in the history of Heze- 
 kiah, ‘that the sun went back ten degrees on the dial of 
 Ahaz.’” (Horne, Introduction to the Critical Study and Know- 
 ledge of Holy Scripture, vol. i. p.176. Compare Goguet, 
 Origines Legun et Artium, vol. 11. p. 300.) 
 
 Note 26. p. 94. 
 
 Three other explanations of the narrative in Joshua have 
 been suggested. Grotius, Isaac Peyrerius, Spinoza, and 
 others, conjecture that a miracle was wrought, but not an 
 astronomical one. Divine power caused, they think, an 
 extraordinary refraction of the sun’s rays, by which it con- 
 tinued to light up the field of battle long after its dise had 
 sunk below the horizon. Michaelis, Schultz, Hess, and 
 Dathe believe that nothing strange took place with re- 
 gard to the sun, but that it continued to lighten all night, 
 in consequence of which the Israelites were able to con- 
 tinue the pursuit. Finally, Keil has suggested that no- 
 thing marvellous or out of the common course is intended 
 in the narrative. The words of Joshua, “ Sun, stand 
 thou still” &e. (or “ Sun, wait thou,” as he translates it), 
 were, he thinks, spoken in the morning; and the prayer 
 was simply that the sun might not set till the people had 
 avenged themselves upon their enemies. The whole pas- 
 sage, from verse i2 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 whe- 
 ther Hab. iii. 11 is such a reference)—a strange silence, if 
 so great a miracle as that commonly understood at the 
 present day, was really wrought on the occasion. These 
 views on the part of a learned Hebraist, and of one who 
 has no prejudice against miracles, seem to deserve atten- 
 
384 NOTES. 
 
 tion. (See Keil’s Commentar iiber d. Buch Josua, ch. x. 
 pp. 177-193; pp- 251-269, E. T.) 
 
 Note 27. p. 95. 
 
 Ap. Euseb. Prep. Ev. ix. 30. Mera 6& tratra xpodytnv 
 yevéoOat Sapovnr. Eira rh rod Ocov Bovdjoe bro SayovndA 
 SaodAov Bactrtéa aipeOqvar, apavtra be ern Ka’ TedevTijoat. 
 Eira AaBild rov rovrov vidv dvvacrevoa, dv Kataotpeyacbat 
 Dvpovs tovs tapa tov Evdpadrnyv oixovvtas Torapov, 
 kat Tv Kopupaynryy, cal tovs ev Tadadnviy “Acovplovs kat 
 Polvixas. 
 
 Note 28. p. 96. 
 Fragmenta Hist. Grec. vol. iii. pp. 373, 374, Fr. 31: Mera 
 
 b€ TavTa TOAAM xpdve Vorepov TOY eyxwpiwv tis, “Adados 
 dvopa, TA€lov icxvoas, Aapackod Te kal THs GAAns Supias, ew 
 Powlkns, €Bacirevoce. TIddeuov be efeveyxas mpos Aavidnv 
 Baciréa ris “lovdalas cal ToAAais payats Kpiels, dordzy TH 
 mapa Tov Evpparny, &v 7) itTGto, dpioros eofev eivat Baoiewy 
 poun Kat avdpeiq. 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 narra- 
 tive 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 connexion 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 29. p. 96. 
 
 Eupolemus said, in continuation of the passage above 
 quoted—Srparetoa 5é adrdoy Kat emt “Tdovpalovs, cal “Ap- 
 
LECTURE IIL. 385 
 
 Neary Wy LAC ae , 
 pavitas, kal M@aBitas, wai ‘Irovpaious, kal NaBaratovs, 
 
 kat NaBdalovs. (Kuseb. Prep. Hv. 1.8. ¢.) 
 
 Note 30. p. 97. 
 See Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 262-264. 
 
 Note 31. p. 97. 
 See Heeren’s Asratic Nations, vol. 1. pp. 119-126; and 
 Kenrick’s Phanicia, pp. 201-205. 
 
 Note 32. p. 98. 
 
 The superior antiquity and preeminence in early times 
 of Sidon over Tyre has been disputed. Niebuhr in his Lec- 
 tures (Vortrige tiber Alte Geschichte, vol.i. p. 94; p.78, E.T.) 
 speaks of it as doubtful. And the writer of the article on 
 Pheenicia, in Dr. Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
 Geography, endeavours to prove the contrary (vol. 1. 
 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 neighbour, should have as- 
 sertors of her superior antiquity in the days of her glory, 
 without supposing that her claim was founded in justice ; 
 but it is inexplicable that Sidon should in her lowest de- 
 pression have succeeded in maintaining her claim against 
 Tyre, unless there had been truth on her side. Mr. Ken- 
 rick appears to me to decide the controversy aright, when 
 he concludes, that ‘‘ Tyre was probably at first only a de- 
 pendency of Sidon.” (See his Phwnicia, pp. 340—342.) 
 
 There is one important argument in favour 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 carly Egyptian lists. (See M. Bun- 
 sen’s Hgypt, vol. ili. p.214; and Cambridge Essays for 1858, 
 Art. vi. p. 257-) 
 
 Note 33. p. 98. 
 
 Homer makes no mention at all of Tyre or the Tyrians, 
 while he speaks of Sidon and the Sidonians repeatedly. 
 RAWLINSON, ce 
 
386 NOTES. 
 
 (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 sug- 
 gested that he preferred “ Sidon” and “ Sidonian” to 
 “Tyre” and “ Tyrian,” because the words are more “ so- 
 norous.” (See Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, |. 8. ¢.) 
 But he would scarcely on that account have so determin- 
 edly exeluded Tyre, the more important city of the two at 
 the time when he wrote, from all mention in either of his 
 poems. 
 Note 34. p. 98. 
 
 Strabo in one place (xvi. 2, § 22.) speaks somewhat ob- 
 securely on the subject ; but in another (i. 2. § 33) he dis- 
 tinctly calls Sidon the mother-city (rv pytpdémodw) of all 
 Phoenicia. 
 
 Note 35. p. 98. 
 
 Justin says, “ Tyriorum gens condita a Pheenicibus 
 fuit, qui terrae motu vexati, relicto patriz solo, Assyrium 
 stagnum primo, mox mari proximum littus incoluerunt, 
 condita ibi urbe, quam a piscium ubertate Sidona appella- 
 verunt: nam piscem Pheenices Sidon vocant. Post multos 
 deinde annos a rege Ascaloniorum expugnati, navibus ap- 
 pulsi Tyron urbem ante annum Trojanze cladis condide- 
 runt.” (Historia, xviii. 3.) Tyre is here made an actual 
 colony from Sidon. Compare Isaiah, xxiii. 12, where Tyre 
 is addressed as “ daughter of Sidon.” 
 
 Note 36. p. 98. 
 
 Josephus calls Dius—dvipa rept riv Powvixixiv toropiav 
 akpiBn yeyovevar Temiatevpevov. (Contra Apion.i. 17.) He 
 probably lived soon after the time of Alexander. 
 
 Note 37. p. 98. 
 Josephus distinctly states that Menander drew his Phoe- 
 4 Of & és Sdoviny evvacopevny avaBavres 
 
 "Quyovr’ avtap éy urdpny axaxnpevos HTop. 
 
 Od. xiii. 285, 286. 
 
LECTURE III. 387 
 
 nician history from native sources. See his treatise, Con- 
 tra Apion. i. 18: Téypade d€ obtos Tas éf’ Exdotov TGV Bact- 
 hé€wv mpdters Tapa tots “EhAnow kcal BapBdpois yevouevas ex 
 TOV Tap €kelvots eTLXoPloV ypaypataVv onrovddacas 
 THY totopiay padety. 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. 
 Miller’s Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. pp. 398 and 445—447. 
 
 Note 38. p. 99. 
 
 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 Seripture by the uniform tenor of the prophecies (Is. 
 xxill. 1-18; Jer. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4; Hz. xxvi.—xxviti. &.); 
 on the monuments by the precedency assigned to Tyre in 
 the lists of Phoenician towns (Layard, Nineveh and Baby- 
 lon, p. 356; Sir H. Rawlinson’s Commentary on the In- 
 scriptions of Babyloma and Assyria, p. 30; compare the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 470); and in profane history 
 by the constant mention which is made of Tyre, and the 
 few and scattered notices of Sidon which occur during this 
 period. The only remarkable exception to this consensus 
 is Herodotus, who seems impressed with the superiority 
 of Sidon. (See book vii. ch. 95, where the Sidonian king is 
 given the post of honour; 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 learning; or perhaps Sidon did temporarily re- 
 cover 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. 11.15 et seqq.) 
 
 Note 39. p. 99. 
 See Kenrick’s Phanicia, p. 58. 
 ce2 
 
388 NOTES. 
 
 Note 40. p. 99.- 
 
 A “ Hiram, king of Tyre,” is mentioned in an inscription 
 of Tiglath-Pileser II. (See the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. 
 Pp. 470-) 
 
 Note 41. p. 99. 
 
 “ Mapen, the son of Sirom” (or Hirom), was king of 
 Tyre at the time of Xerxes’ expedition against Greece, 
 (Herodot. vii. 98.) The name also occurs among the Phee- 
 nicians of Cyprus, (ib. v. 104.) 
 
 Note 42. p. 100. 
 
 The following is the passage of Menander concerning 
 Hiram which Josephus has preserved to us :—Tedevrijoav- 
 tos b¢ ’ABiBdAov Siedéfaro THv Bacideiav 6 vids ad’tod Eipo- 
 
 a , ” l4 if 3 if ” d 
 fos, 0s Bidcas ern TevTjKovTa Tpla €Baclrevoev ETN TpLaKoVTA 
 téscapa. Ovtos éxaoe Tov Edpvxwpoy, Tév TE xpvcody klova 
 Tov ev Tois ToD Ads aveOnker, ert Te DAN” EVAwV aTEOwV 
 éxowev G70 Tod Aeyowevov Opovs AltBavov, Kédpiva 
 
 , 3 \ cal c n / , >s ° tal c XX 
 fvAa eis Tas TOV lepOv oTEeyas, KaDeAwY TE TA apxaia lEpa 
 
 \ be) , , ~ ¢ , \ a 5) / 
 Kawovs @Kodounoe, TO TE TOU Hpaxdcovs Kal tHs “Aotaptys 
 TEwevos aviepevoev, Kal TO ev ToD “Hpaxd€ovs mp@rov ézou}- 
 cato év ta Tlepitio pyvi, eira 7d THs “Actrdptns Store Tirvot 
 
 © Ilepitio pri, 7 ptns Smore Tirvois 
 3 \ $A nN \ , A \ is 
 émeotpdrevoe pr) AmodWovcr Tos dpous, ods Kal bnordfas 
 éavT@ Tmddw dvéotpeper. "Ent rovrov 6€ tis jv ’ABdrpovos 
 
 a , a 22/7 A / 3 / 
 mats vewtepos, os éevikxa TA TpoBAnpata, & emWeTATCE Lo- 
 Aopav 6 ‘IepocodAtvpov Bacireds. (Contra Apion. i. 
 18.) . 
 
 Note 43. p. 100. 
 
 The words of Dius, as reported by Josephus, are—’Api- 
 Bddov tedrevtHcavTos 6 vids adtrod Elpwpos éBaclrevoer. 
 Odros Ta mpds dvatodas pépn Tis TéAEWS TpOTEX@CE, Kal jEl- 
 tov ro dot memolnxe, Kal Tod "Odvpalov Ards 7d tepov wad? 
 éavtd dv év vow, xdoas Tov petakd Tdmov, cura we TH TOAEL, 
 Kal xpvoois Gvabijpacw exdopnoev’ avaBas bé els rov Ai- 
 Bavov brorémnoe mpos Tiv Tov vady Katackevyv. Tov 
 d& Tupavvotvta ‘Tepocodkipwr Toropeva mépwar act 
 
LECTURE III. 389 
 
 mpos Tov Eipwpoyv aiviyyata, Kai map avrod daBeiv 
 afiobv, tov b& pr Survnbévta duaxpivat T@ AVoavT. xphyata 
 amorlvew. ‘Opodroynoavra 6 Tor Eipwyov Kat pi duvnbévra 
 a XX , fa / ’ X\ 5) l4 
 
 Adoa Ta alvlywara méAAa TGV xpnuaTwv eis TO emuGjmwov 
 a@vadGoa. Eira 8) ABdhyovdv tia Tépiov avipa ta mpote- 
 Oévra doa, kal adrov GdrAAa TpoBadrciv’ & py AVoavTa 
 TOv LoropGva ToAAa TO Elpdyuw mpocanorticar yxphyata 
 
 ye 5 Elpéue mp xXpmuara. 
 
 (Contra Apion. i. 17.) 
 
 Note 44. p. 101. 
 
 See Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. p. 386: Eipayos thv éavtod 
 Ovyarépa Dadrownovi biSwcr... ds gdnow Mévavdpos 6 Tepyapyn- 
 vos. Compare Tatian, Adversus Grecos, 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 Serip- 
 ture. (See his Phenicia, p. 356). The latter is always a 
 weak ground, and in the present instance is not fully sus- 
 tained, since among Solomon’s secondary wives are men- 
 tioned “ Sidonian (i. e. Phoenician) princesses.” The force 
 of the former argument will depend on the relative great- 
 ness which we assign to the two princes. I should be in- 
 clined to regard the power of Solomon as greater, and that 
 of Hiram as less, than Mr. Kenrick imagines. 
 
 Note 45. p. rot. 
 
 Wilkinson, in the author’s Herodotus, vol. ll. p. 3753 
 Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 206, 207. 
 
 Note 46. p. Iot. 
 
 See Euseb. Prep. Ev. ix. 31-34. The passage is also 
 given among the fragments of Polyhistor, in Miiller’s Frag- 
 menta Historicorum Grecorum, vol. ili. pp. 225, 226. Fr. 18. 
 
 Note 47. p. 102. 
 Egyptian chronology has been made out with tolerable 
 
390 NOTES. 
 
 certainty from the Apis stele discovered by M. Mariette, 
 as far as the accession of Tirhakah, which appears to have 
 been in B. C. 6go. (Wilkinson, in the author’s Herodotus, 
 vol. ii. pp. 330, 381.) Manetho’s dynasties place between 
 Tirhakah and the commencement of the 22nd dynasty a 
 space of about 275 years. This would give B.C. 965 as 
 the date of Shishak’s (or Sesonchis’) accession. As- 
 suming from the Canon of Ptolemy B.C. 651 as the date 
 of Evil-merodach’s accession, we obtain, by following the 
 line of the kings of Judah, B.C. 976 for the accession of 
 Rehoboam, and J. C. 1016 for that of Solomon. This is 
 as near an agreement, as we could reasonably expect, be- 
 tween two chronologies both of which are somewhat un- 
 certain ¢. 
 
 Note 48. p. 102. 
 
 Sesonchis is the form used by Africanus, Sesonchosis 
 that adopted by Eusebius. (See the Fragments of Mane- 
 tho, collected by Mons. C. Miller, in his Fragmenta Hist. 
 Gr. vol. ii. p. 590, Frs. 60 and 61.) 
 
 Note 49. p. 102. 
 
 See Wilkinson, in the author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 377, 
 and Bunsen, Hgypt, vol. ili. p. 241. 
 
 The 21st, or first Tanite dynasty, belonged to the sacer- 
 dotal caste, and in various respects bore a peculiar cha- 
 racter. With Sheshonk, the first king of the 22nd, or first 
 Bubastite, dynasty, we have a return to the old character 
 of Egyptian monarchs. (Wilkinson, in the author’s Hero- 
 dotus, vol. il. pp. 375, 376: Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 220, 
 221, and 241.) 
 
 e€ The dates furnished by the Apis stele 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. 
 
LECTURE III. 391 
 
 Note 50. p. 103.‘ 
 See Euseb. Prep. Ev. ix. 34. 
 
 Note 51. p. 103. 
 
 Ibid. 1. s.¢. Oceddiros 5€ dyou Tov TepicoedoavtTa xpvodv 
 Tov Loropeva To Tupiwv Baoiei wéeuwar Tov de Eikdva Tis 
 Ovyatpos (gov dAocepaTov KaTacKevdoa, Kal €AuTpov TO av- 
 dpidvte TOV xpvoodbr Kiova Tepicivat. 
 
 Note 52. p. 104. 
 
 See the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vii. pp. 490, 491. 
 Compare Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 634, 635. 
 
 Note 53. p. 106. 
 
 Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 650 and 655. or an 
 account of the structures at Susa and Persepolis, see Mr. 
 Loftus’s Chaldea and Susiana, ch. xxvill. pp. 364-380, and 
 Mr. Fergusson’s elaborate work, The Palaces of Nineoch 
 restored, pp. 95-190. 
 
 Note 54. p. 106. 
 
 Fergusson’s Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 272-276; 
 compare Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 649, 
 650. 
 
 Note 55. p. 106. 
 
 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.” (Tra- 
 vels, vol. i. p. 633.) In another part of the ruins, he mea- 
 sured two pillars, the total height of which, including capi- 
 tal and tor, was forty-five feet. (Ibid. p. 590.) The mea- 
 surements adopted by Mr. Fergusson are, for the palace of 
 Darius, 20 feet; for the hall of the Hundred Columns, 25 
 feet ; for the Propyleum of Xerxes 46 feet, g inches; and 
 
 f The references to this note and the next have accidentally slipped 
 out from the text of page 103, where they should have appeared in 
 lines ro and 11, after the words ‘‘ Theophilus”, and ‘‘ Kupolemus”’. 
 
392 NOTES. 
 
 for the Hall of Xerxes, 64 feet. (The Palaces of Nineveh 
 restored, pp. 108, 125, 158, and 177.) 
 
 Note 56. p. 106. 
 See Kugler’s Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, p. 81. 
 
 Note 57. p. 107. 
 
 Even Mr. Layard, while admitting that “some of the 
 Assyrian sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like 
 the cherubim in Solomon’s temple,’ adds in a note, “I 
 cannot, however, but express my conviction that much of 
 the metal called gold both in the sacred writings and in 
 profane authors of antiquity, was really copper, the ori- 
 chalchum of the Greeks, such as was used in the bowls 
 and plates discovered 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 plat- 
 ing 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 We. are distinctly said to have 
 been far less numerous than the silver ones. Polybius says of 
 the palace at HNcbatana 
 vns kal KuTapitrivys, ovdeulav adttav yeyuprGc0a ovveBaver, 
 
 
 
 cvons yap THs ~vAlas amdons Kedpl- 
 
 b \ \ \ \ \ DS , \ s 4 XN 
 GAAG Kal ToUs doKoUs Kal Ta shaTvepmata, Kal ToUs Klovas TOUS 
 é€v Tais otToats Kat mEpioTvAols, TOUS ev Apyuvpais Tovs be 
 Xpvoats Aetion TeEprecdAnpOa, tas de Kepapldas apyvpas 
 etvat macas. And again, ‘O vads .. rods kiovas elxe rods 
 / / il LN 4 , lal \ , 
 mepi Kexpvowpevovs (gilt), kal Kepapuides apyvpat Kal mA€tovs 
 €v avtTa ovvetéDewrTo, TALvOoL BE xpvoat tives bAlyat 
 XN = b] “ \ \ f c / 
 vey Toav, apyvpat b€ Kal TAElouvs breuevoy. (Bk. x. ch. 
 27, § 10 and § 12.) 
 Note 58. p. 107. 
 
 For the use of gold in ornamentation by the Phoenicians, 
 see above, notes 43 and 51; and compare Kenrick’s Pha- 
 nica, p. 252, and O. Miiller’s Handbuch der Archiiologie der 
 Kunst, p. 273, 2nd edition. For its use by the Assyrians, 
 see Mr, Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 651,652. For 
 
LECTURE IIL. 393 
 
 its use by the Babylonians, see the last note, and compare 
 the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 243, note °. 
 
 Note 59. p. 107. 
 Menander, Fr. 1: Odros (sc. Eipwpos) éxaoe tov eipixo- 
 pov, Tov Te xpvoody klova Tov év Tots Tod Atos aveOnxev. Com- 
 pare Theophilus, as quoted in note 51. 
 
 Note 60. p.107. 
 
 See Mr. Kenrick’s Phwnicia, p. 252. 
 
 Note 61. p. 107. 
 Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 195, 196. 
 
 Note 62. p.107. 
 Ibid. p. 150. 
 
 Note 62 b. p. 109. 
 See Mr. Kenrick’s Phanicia, p. 354. 
 
 Note 63. p. 109. 
 
 The geographic accuracy of this portion of Scripture is 
 even more striking than that of the Pentateuch. Dr. Stan- 
 ley says—‘ It is impossible not to be struck by the con- 
 stant 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 wan- 
 derings is not much perhaps, but it is certainly something 
 towards a proof of the truth of the whole narrative... 
 The detailed harmony between the life of Joshua and the 
 various scenes of his battles, is a slight but true indication 
 that we are dealing not with shadows, but with realities of 
 flesh and blood. Such coincidences are not usually found 
 in fables, least of all in fables of Eastern origin.” (Sinai 
 and Palestine, Preface, p. xviii.) And this detailed har- 
 mony he exhibits in his fourth, seventh, and eleventh 
 chapters. 
 
 Among minute points of agreement brought to light by 
 
394 NOTES. 
 
 recent researches may be mentioned (1.) the position of the 
 Hagarites or Hagarenes to the east of the land of Gilead, 
 towards or upon the Euphrates (1 Chron. v.9, 10); which 
 is the exact locality where they are found three or four 
 centuries later, in an inscription of Sennacherib. (See the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 476.) (2.) The existence of 
 female sovereigns among the Arabs about this period, which 
 is shewn 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 Moab- 
 ites and Ammonites which appears by the occurrence of their 
 names§ in the inscriptions among the enemies of Assyria. 
 
 Note 64, p. 111. 
 
 The great Assyrian Empire of Ctesias, which was said to 
 have extended from Egypt to India, and to have lasted 
 above 1300 years, from about B.C. 2182 to B.C. 876, is 
 one of the most palpable contradictions of Scripture which 
 profane history furnishes. Hence it was generally accepted 
 and maintained by the French historians of the last cen- 
 tury. Equally opposed to Scripture is the Median Empire 
 of Ctesias, commencing in B.C. 876 with the destruction 
 of Nineveh, and continuing to the time of Cyrus. It was 
 for a long time considered doubtful among historical critics 
 whether the authority of Ctesias or that of Herodotus was 
 to prevail ; but as time went on, as the importance of Be- 
 rosus’s history came to be recognised, and more especially 
 when the cuneiform monuments began to be decyphered, 
 the star of Ctesias began to pale and his credit to sink. 
 Niebuhr long ago remarked, that his Assyrian history was 
 “wholly to be rejected.” ( Vortrdge tiber Alt. Geschicht. vyol.i. 
 p.16; p.12. E.T.) M. Bunsen, even while making use of 
 him, allows that he was “a confused and uncritical writer.” 
 
 (Egypt, vol. iii. p. 432.) Col. Mure (Language and Litera- 
 
 & Moab appears as Mahab (Heb. 1xin), Ammon as Beth-Ammon, 
 which is probably the chief city, the Rabbah or Rabbath-Ammon of 
 Scripture. 
 
LECTURE III. 395 
 
 ture of Ancient Greece, vol. v. p- 484,) calls him “an author 
 of proverbially doubtful veracity.” Even his apologists can 
 now say little more in his defence, than that “there is no 
 positive evidence for charging him with wilfully falsifying 
 history.” (See the article on Ctesias in Dr. Smith’s Dic- 
 tionary of Greek and Roman Biography, vol. i. p. 899.) 
 
 Note 65. p. 112. 
 
 See Norton’s Disquisition on the Old Testament in his 
 Genwineness of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 498. De Wette, after 
 objecting to the miracles and prophecies recorded in Sa- 
 muel, 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 disturbed and confused here and there.” (Linleitung, 
 § 178, p. 222; Parker’s Translation, vol. ii. p- 210.) He 
 also finds “authentic historical accounts” in the books of 
 Kings. (Ibid. § 183, p. 2323 vol. ii. p. 230, E.T.) 
 
NO kee 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 Note 1. p. 115. 
 See Lecture III. page 82. 
 
 Note 2. p. 116. 
 Ibid. p. 87. 
 
 Note 3. p. 117. 
 
 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; 
 XXXll. 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, 233; xxil. 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. 8,12; &c.) The most probable explanation of this 
 difference is, that the two documents were originally sepa- 
 rate, having been drawn up in and for the two different 
 kingdoms ; but that by the time of the writer of our books 
 of Chronicles they had been united in one, and were known 
 to the Jews under the title which he uses. (See Keil, Apo- 
 logetischer Versuch iiber die Biicher der Chronik, p. 252, et 
 seqq. And compare his Commentar iiber die Biicher der 
 Kénige, Kinleitung, § 3; p. 18, E. 'T.h) 
 
 h Commentary on the Books of Kings, by Karl Friedrich Keil, D.D., 
 translated by James Murphy, LL.D. Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 
 
LECTURE IV. 397 
 
 Note 4. p. 117. 
 
 This seems to be the real meaning of the difficult pas- 
 sage in Chronicles (2 Chr. xx. 34), which our translators 
 have rendered incorrectly in the text, but correctly, so far 
 as the letter goes, in the margin ;—“ Now the rest of the 
 acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they are writ- 
 ten in the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani, who was 
 made to ascend into the book of the kings of Israel” 
 oye 1351 spp-by mbyht WR —i.e. who (the au- 
 flier! being identified with his work) was transferred or re- 
 moved to the book of the Kings of Israel. The LXX in- 
 terpreters paraphrase rather than translate when they say, 
 “who wrote a book of the Kings of Israel” (ds xaréypawe 
 BiBrvov Baoir€wv *Iopajd.) Compare Keil, 1. s. ¢. 
 
 
 
 Note 5. p. 117. 
 
 See 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. Our translators have destroyed 
 the force of the passage by following the LX-X and inter- 
 polating the word ‘“‘and.” “The rest of the acts of He- 
 zekiah,” they say, “and his goodness, behold they are 
 written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of 
 Amos, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel.” 
 But in the original there is no “and :” the passage runs, 
 “the rest of the acts of Hezekiah, and his goodness, 
 behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the pro- 
 phet, the son of Amos, in the book of the kings of Judah 
 and Israel.” 
 
 Note 6. p. 117. 
 
 The 36th, 37th, and 38th chapters of Isaiah, are almost 
 identical! with a part of the 18th, the 1gth, and the 20th 
 chapters of the second Book of Kings. The slightness of 
 their differences will best be seen by placing an extract or 
 two in parallel columns :— 
 
398 
 
 2 Kins. 
 
 Chap. xviii. 17-20. And the 
 king of Assyria sent Tartan 
 and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh 
 from Lachish to king Heze- 
 kiah, with a great host against 
 Jerusalem. And they went up 
 and came to Jerusalem. And 
 when they were 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 Hil- 
 kiah, which was over the house- 
 hold, and Shebna 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 ? Zhou sayest, 
 but they are but vain words— 
 I have counsel and strength 
 for the war. Now on whom 
 dost thou trust, that thou re- 
 bellest against me ? 
 
 Ch. xix. 15-19. And Heze- 
 kiah prayed before the Lord, 
 and said, O Lord God of Is- 
 rael, 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 hear ; open, Lord, 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 Shap. xxxvi. 2-5. And the 
 king of Assyria sent Rabshakeh 
 from Lachish éo Jerusalem wnto 
 king Hezekiah with a great 
 army. And he stood by the 
 conduit of the upper pool in 
 the highway of the fuller’s field. 
 Then came forth unto him Eli- 
 akim, Hilkiah’s son, which was 
 over the house, and Shebna the 
 scribe, and Joah, Asaph’s son, 
 the recorder. And Rabshakeh 
 said unto them, Say ye now to 
 Hezekiah, Thus saith the great 
 king, the king of Assyria, What 
 confidence is this wherein thou 
 trustest ? J 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. xxxviil. 15-20. And 
 Hezekiah prayed wnto the 
 Lord, saying, O Lord of hosts, 
 God of Israel, that dwellest 
 between the cherubims, 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, and hear ; open thine 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 thine eyes, and see ; and hear 
 the word of Sennacherib, which 
 hath sent him to reproach the 
 living God. Of a truth, Lord, 
 the kings of Assyria have de- 
 stroyed 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: there- 
 fore they have destroyed them. 
 Now therefore, O Lord our 
 God, J beseech 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. 
 
 399 
 
 eyes, O Lord, and see ; and 
 hear all the words of Senna- 
 cherib, which hath sent to re- 
 proach the living God. Of a 
 truth, Lord, the kings of Assy- 
 ria have laid waste all the lands 
 and their countries, and have 
 cast their gods into the fire, 
 for they were no gods, but the 
 work of men’s hands, wood and 
 stone ; therefore they have de- 
 stroyed 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 7. p. 117. 
 
 This agreement is chiefly between the last chapter of 
 Jeremiah and the 24th and 25th chapters of the second 
 
 Book of Kings. 
 between Kings and Isaiah. 
 
 It is fully equal to that above exhibited 
 
 Note 8. p. 118. 
 
 Keil, Commentar iiber die Biicher der Konige, Kinleitung, 
 
 Sg Ph eer ito mL O ea bs 
 
 Note 9. p. 118. 
 
 De Wette, Hinleitung, § 184, p. 234; vol. il. p. 241, Par- 
 ker’s Translation; Bertholdt, Hinleitung, vol. il. p. 154, et 
 
 seqq. 
 
 Note 10. p. 120. 
 
 This has been well shewn by Havernick, (Hinleitung, § 176, 
 vol.ii. p.201, et seqq.,) and Keil (Versuch iiber die Biicher der 
 Chronik, p.199 et seqq.) Keil, however, appears to me to go 
 
400 NOTES. 
 
 too far when he denies that the author of Chronicles made 
 any use at all of Kings, (Commentar iiber die Biicher der 
 Konige, Kinleitung, § 3; p.17, note 1, E.T.) Such pas- 
 sages as the subjoined shew something more than the mere 
 
 use of a common authority : 
 
 2 CHRON. i. 14-17. 
 
 And Solomon gathered cha- 
 riots and horsemen: and he 
 had a thousand and four hun- 
 dred chariots, and twelve thou- 
 sand horsemen, which he placed 
 in the chariot cities, and with 
 the king at Jerusalem. And 
 the king made silver and gold 
 at Jerusalem as plenteous as 
 stones, and cedar trees made 
 he as the sycomore trees that 
 are in the vale for abundance. 
 And Solomon had horses 
 brought out of Egypt, and 
 linen yarn: the king’s mer- 
 chants received the linen yarn 
 at a price. And they fetched 
 up, and brought forth out of 
 Egypt a chariot for six hun- 
 dred shekels of silver, and an 
 horse for an hundred and fif- 
 ty: 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 ,to- 
 gether 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 king 
 at Jerusalem. And the king 
 made silver to be in Jerusalem 
 as plenteous as stones, and ce- 
 dars made he to be as the 
 sycomore trees that are in the 
 vale, for abundance. And So- 
 lomon had horses brought out 
 of Egypt, and linen yarn: the 
 king’s merchants received the 
 And a 
 chariot came up and went out 
 of Egypt for six hundred she- 
 kels of silver, and an horse for 
 an hundred and fifty: and so 
 for all the kings of the Hit- 
 tites, and for the kings of Sy- 
 ria, did they bring them out by 
 their means i. 
 
 linen yarn at a price. 
 
 i In the original the resemblance is even closer than in our transla- 
 tion. 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.” 
 
LECTURE IV. 401 
 
 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. 
 XX. 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, how- 
 ever, 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. 
 
 2 CHRON. xvi. 11-14. 
 
 And, behold, the acts of Asa, 
 first and last, lo, they are writ- 
 ten in the book of the kings of 
 Judah and Israel. And Asa 
 in the thirty and ninth year of 
 his reign was diseased in his 
 feet, wntil his disease was ex- 
 ceeding 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 sepul- 
 chres which he had made for 
 himself in the city of David, 
 and laid him in the bed which 
 was filled with sweet odowrs 
 and divers kinds of spices pre- 
 pared by the apothecaries’ art ; 
 and they made a very great 
 burning for him. And Jeho- 
 shaphat, é&e. 
 
 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? Never- 
 theless, in the time of his old 
 age he was diseased in his feet. 
 And Asa slept with his fathers, 
 and was buried with his fa- 
 thers in the city of David his 
 father ; and Jehoshaphat his 
 son reigned in his stead. 
 
 Note 11. p. 120. 
 
 See the remarks of Mons. C. Miiller, prefixed to his col- 
 lection of the fragments of Manetho in the Fragmenta His- 
 toricorum Grecorum, vol. ii. pp. 514; 515. 
 
 RAWLINSON, 
 
 dd 
 
402 NOTES. 
 
 Note 12. p. 12. 
 
 The discrepancies between the books of Chronicles, on 
 the one hand, and the books of Samuel and Kings, on the 
 other, have been largely, if not forcibly, stated by De 
 Wette (Linleitung, § 190, p. 244 et seqq.), and his com- 
 mentator, 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 stu- 
 dent is referred, as well as to Bertheau’s Commentar, of 
 which a translation has recently appearedi. Some, how- 
 ever, as the difference of numbers and names, cannot but 
 remain discrepancies ; in these we may be allowed to sus- 
 pect corruptions of the original text, by carelessness in 
 transcription, or by the insertion of marginal addenda. 
 (See the excellent remarks of Professor Stuart, Defence 
 of the Old Testament Canon, § 6, pp. 143-145; and com- 
 pare the article on Curonicres, in Kitto’s Cyclopedia.) 
 
 Note 13. p.122. 
 
 See Mr. Vance Smith’s Prophecies relating to Nineveh 
 and the Assyrians, 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 connected histories of 
 the Assyrians and the Hebrews. Similar efforts have been 
 made in Germany by Hitzig*, Otto Strauss!, and others. 
 
 Note 14. p. 122. 
 
 Jonah is commonly placed somewhat earlier; but his 
 work (if it be his, which is doubtful) belongs rather to the 
 historical than the prophetical Scriptures. 
 
 ji This translation forms the latter portion of the 16th volume of 
 Clark’s Foreign Theological Library, New Series, Edinburgh, 1857. 
 
 k Zwolf Kleinen Propheten erklart, Leipsic, 1838. 
 
 ! Nahumi de Nino Vaticinium, Berlin, 1853. 
 
LECTURE IV. 403 
 
 Note 15. p.. 124. 
 
 By Paley, in his Hore Pauline, a work which for close- 
 ness, clearness, and cogency of reasoning has never been 
 surpassed, and rarely equalled. 
 
 Note 16. p. 125. 
 
 The kings of Israel and Judah mentioned in the As- 
 syrian Inscriptions are, Jehu, Menahem, Hezekiah, and 
 Manasseh. Jehu’s name appears on the Black Obelisk in 
 the British Museum, a monument of the Old Empire, dat- 
 ing probably from about B.C. 870; Menahem is men- 
 tioned by Tiglath-Pileser II., the first monarch of the 
 New Empire, who began to reign in B.C. 747; Hezekiah 
 occurs among the enemies of Sennacherib, who did not 
 ascend the throne till about B.C. 700; and Manasseh is 
 found among the tributaries of Sennacherib’s son, Esar- 
 haddon. No doubt the Scriptural names have helped to 
 determine the date of the monuments; but putting these 
 names aside, and looking merely to forms of language, 
 style of writing, character of sculpture, and position of the 
 monuments when in situ, I believe no cuneiform scholar 
 would hesitate as to the relative antiquity to be assigned 
 to them. 
 
 Note 17. p. 125. 
 
 The practice of calling cities after the names of their 
 founders has always prevailed in the East. Perhaps the 
 earliest known instance is that of Ramesses—the Beth- 
 Rameses of the Hieratic Papyri. (See note 87 on Lecture 
 Il. p. 367.) 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.” Esar- 
 haddon too, in one of his Inscriptions, says, “ A city I 
 built. City of Esarhaddon I cailed its name™.” In more 
 
 m See Mr. Fox Talbot’s Assyrian Texts translated, p.1t. 
 pd 2 
 
404 NOTES. 
 
 recent times the names Ahmed-abad, Shereef-abad, Hyder- 
 abad, &c. have had a similar origin. 
 
 Samaria is only called Beth-Khumri in the earlier in- 
 scriptions. From the time of Tiglath-Pileser II. the term 
 used is Tsamirin. 
 
 Note 18. p. 126. 
 
 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 “gypt, 
 vol. iii. p. 242.) He agrees however as to its intention, 
 and views it as a proof of Sheshonk’s having made an ex- 
 pedition to Jerusalem. 
 
 Note 19. p. 126. 
 
 There were three Osorkons in the 21st dynasty, accord- 
 ing to the monuments, though Manetho mentioned but 
 one. Osorkon J. 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 
 naturally the contemporary of Asa, the great-grandson of 
 Solomon, since Solomon and Shishak were contemporaries. 
 (See the author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 378.) 
 
 Note 20. p. 128. 
 
 Menander said—Tedceurjcavros Etpopov bied€Eato tiv Ba- 
 atrelav Badedfapos (1. Bad@agapos) 6 vids, ds Budcas ern Teo- 
 capdkovta tpla éBaciievoey etn Extd. Mera rovrov “ABdd- 
 
 , / c > n ex , Mv ¥ Ss / 
 otpatos (1.’ABdacrapros) 6 avrod vids Bidcas Er elxoor evvea 
 ,’ , ” , / nN ta lal fal °° fal ea / 
 éeBaotrevoev Et Evvea. Todrtov ot Tijs Tpopov avTov viol TEc- 
 capes emiBovrevoartes aT dEcaV, GV 6 TpETBUTEpos EBacirEv- 
 cev érn dédexa. Med ods “Actapros 6 Aedaacrdprov, ds 
 Bidcas ern TevTHKovTa Técoapa €Bacidrevoev ern SddeKa. Mera 
 
 n This is M. Bunsen’s view, Egypt, vol. iii. p. 308. 
 
LECTURE IV. 405 
 
 rourov 6 adeAdds adTod *"Acépupos Bidcas ETH Téocapa Kal 
 mevTiKovta eBacikevoev ern evvéa. Odtos ameAEeTO UTd Tod 
 adeApod PéAntos, ds AaBov tHyv Bacireiay pe pivas dxto, 
 Bidcas érn mevtyjKkovra. Tottrov aveiiev Ei0@Bados, 6 Tihs 
 *Aordptns tepeds, ds BaoiWedoas etn TpidKovta do eBiwoer 
 ém™m €€nxovta éxtd. (Ap. Joseph. Contra Apionem, 1. 18.) 
 We have thus from the death of Hiram, which cannot 
 have taken place till the 26th year of Solomon’s reign 
 (1 Kings ix. 10-14), the following series — Balthazar, 
 7 years; Abdastartus, g years; his successor, 12 years; 
 Astartus, 12 years; Aserymus, g 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 or 25 
 years after Eth-baal. 
 
 Note 2]. p. 128. 
 
 See Kenrick’s Phenicia, p. 362; Bunsen’s Egypt, vol. ii. 
 p- 428; Keil’s Commentar, (p. 259, E. T.), &e. 
 
 Note 22. p. 129. 
 
 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 32 to Lecture III.) 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. Ain. i. 446, &c.) 
 
 Note 23. p. 129. 
 
 See Josephus, Ant. Jud. viii. 13: Méuvyntar 6€ THs avop- 
 Bplas ravrns cal Meévavdpos év rais 1@w8ddov tov Tupiov Ba- 
 oihéws Tpd€eot Néywv otros’ “’ABpoxia te ew adrod éyévero, 
 amo Tod “YrepBeperaiov pnvos ws Tod exomevov ETovs TOU 
 
406 NOTES. 
 
 ‘YmepBeperaiov. ‘Ixerelav & avtod moiumoapévov, xepavvods 
 ikavous BeSAnxéva.” May we connect the “ supplication’’ 
 in the last clause with that of Elijah on mount Carmel 
 (1 Kings xviii. 42, 43), which overhung the Tyrian ter- 
 ritory ? 
 
 Note 24. p. 130. 
 
 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 possessed, 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 Miiller’s preface to the fragments of Nicolas, in 
 his Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. p. 345.) Of this sketch, how- 
 ever, 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 
 Chaldzea 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 Da- 
 mascus” during his stay (Fr. 30.) The second has been 
 given at length in the notes on Lecture III. (Note 28.) 
 The third is interpreted by Josephus as bearing upon 
 the Syrian war of Ahab; but its true reference is to 
 that of Baasha. It runs thus—TeAevtijocavtos 8 éxelvov 
 (sc. Hadad I.) of dadyovor ext béxa yeveds éBacidevov, Exd- 
 OTOV Tapa TOU TaTpds Gua TH Gpxij Kal Tovvoya TOTO EKdEXo- 
 uévov, GaTrep ot UtoAcuaior ev Aiyintm. Meéyiorov d€ mav- 
 tov dvuvnbels 6 tpitos, dvayaxéoac0ar Bovddpuevos tiv Tov 
 mpomdropos AtTav, otpatevoas em lovdatovs émdpOna€ THY vov 
 Sapapeirw kadrovupernv. (Fr. 31.) It is evident that Hadad 
 IlI., who was the grandson of David’s antagonist, cannot 
 have contended against Ahab, 140 years afterwards. Ni- 
 colas undoubtedly intends the antagonist of Baasha, half 
 
 ° Ant. Jud. vii. 5. 
 
LECTURE IV. 407 
 
 a century earlier, whose inroad was completely successful, 
 and who reduced Samaria to a sort of subjection (i 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 appears to be at variance with 
 Seripture. 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 re- 
 garded as having had a claim of blood. At any rate it is 
 remarkable that he adopted the family name of the pre- 
 ceding dynasty for his son, who is called Ben-hadad in 
 2 Kings xiii. 3. 
 
 Note 25. p. 130. 
 
 See the Black Obelisk Inscription, which has been very 
 accurately translated by Dr. Hincks, in the Dublin Uni- 
 versity Magazine for October, 1853. Compare the author's 
 Herodotus, vol.1. pp. 464, 465. 
 
 Note 26. p. 131. 
 
 ‘“‘ Benhadad, the king of Syria, gathered all his host to- 
 gether; 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 ar- 
 mies 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 oceasion. The multitude of petty princes 
 mentioned is also in accordance with the inscriptions ge- 
 nerally, which represent 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 27. p. 131. 
 
 The Black Obelisk king, in his 6th, 11th, and 14th years, 
 contends with Benhadad, but in his 18th his adversary is 
 
408 NOTES. 
 
 Hazael. (Dublin. Univ. Mag. October, 1853, pp. 422, 423, 
 and 424.) 
 Note 28. p. 131. 
 
 The Obelisk contains no account of any war with Jehu; 
 but mentions him among those who paid tribute to the 
 Assyrian monarch. He is styled “ Yahua, the son of 
 Khumrv’—Jehu, the son of Omri, which causes some diffi- 
 culty. Jehu is said in Scripture to have been the son of 
 Jehosaphat, and grandson of Nimshi (2 Kings ix. 2, 14.) 
 It is possible, however, that he may have been on the mo- 
 ther’s side descended from Omri. Or the story of his being 
 so descended may have been invented by the Samaritans, 
 and believed by foreign nations. Or, finally, the Assyrians 
 may merely have assumed that he was a descendant of 
 Omri, since he sat on his throne, and ruled in the city 
 known to them by his name. (See above, note 17.) His 
 tribute consisted of silver, gold, and articles of various 
 kinds manufactured from gold. 
 
 Note 29. p. 132. 
 
 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 33.) 
 The campaigns of the earlier king are in Babylonia, Media, 
 Armenia, and along the flanks of Taurus, but do not touch 
 Syria or Palestine. 
 
 Note 30. p. 132. 
 
 See Kenrick’s Phenicia, 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 Elulzeus, the contemporary of Shal- 
 maneser.” In fact we have nothing authentic for the early 
 period but the fragments of Menander, and these fail us 
 entirely from the reign of Pygmalion to that of Elulzus. 
 
LECTURE IV. 409 
 
 Note 31. p. 133. 
 
 See Kuseb. Chronica, i. 4; p. 18, ed. Mai. * Post hos ait 
 extitisse Chaldzeorum regem, cui nomen Phulus erat.” 
 
 Note 32. p. 133. 
 
 In 2 Kings, xv.19, the LX X interpreters render Pul 
 by Phua (®ova), where the terminal a@ is probably a false 
 reading arising out of the resemblance of A to A. In 
 1 Chron. v. 26, the reading of the Vatican and most MSS. 
 is Pakox, but some copies have Padds. 
 
 Note 33. p. 133. 
 
 A full account of this inscription, first decyphered by 
 Sir H. Rawlinson, will be found in the Atheneum, No. 1476, 
 p-174. A general summary of its contents is given in the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 467. 
 
 Note 34. p. 134. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson’s letter in the Athenwum, |. s. ¢. 
 
 Note 35. p. 136. 
 
 The conjunction of Rezin with Pekah, and the capture 
 and destruction of Damascus, which are noted in the in- 
 scription, seem to prove that it is the second expedition 
 that is intended. Whether it be the first, however, or the 
 second, the name of Menahem must equally be rejected. 
 (See 2 Kings, xv. 29, and xvi. g.) 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 Samaritan king, he might engrave 
 it here in his haste, without consulting his copy. Or pos- 
 sibly, Pekah may have taken the name of Menahem, to 
 connect himself with the dynasty which he had displaced. 
 
410 NOTES. 
 
 Note 36. p. 136. 
 
 The older interpreters, as Keil remarksP, proceedin® on 
 the supposition that the altar was Syrian, and dedicated 
 to the Syrian gods, endeavoured 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, Bertheau (Commentar iiber d. Biich. d. Chronik, p. 
 421, E. T.), Ewald (Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. pp. 
 325, 326), and Vance Smith (Prophecies concerning Assyria, 
 p- 27), follow the old view. Keil himself regards the ques- 
 tion as unimportant, since he supposes that no idolatrous 
 rites or ideas were connected with the altar. Ahaz, ac- 
 cording to his view, having seen a pattern which he fancied 
 better than that of Solomon’s altar, adopted it; and his 
 sin was “ inepta é€dedAoOpyskela.” (So Buddeeus, Hist. Eccles. 
 vol. 11. p. 428.) 
 
 Note 37: p..136: 
 See the great inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I. pp. 30, 38, 
 40, 44, 48, &e.; and compare the author’s Herodotus, vol. 1. 
 P- 495- 
 
 Note 38. p. 137. 
 
 Josephus says of Shalmaneser—To 6€ dvouwa rovrov rod 
 Bastkéws ev tots Tuptwv apyxetows davayéypantar eorparevoe 
 yap emt Tépov Bactdevovtos adrois "EXovAalov. Maprupet 6€ 
 tovtois Kat Mevavdpos 6 tév XpovixOv Tomodpevos THY ava- 
 
 ‘\ » ‘ n / >) ~ U > ‘ c 
 ypadyy Kal ta Tov Tuplwv apxeia petadpacas eis THY EAAnU- 
 Ky yAGtrav. (Antiq. Jud. ix. 14.) 
 
 Note 39. p. 137. 
 
 See the author’s Herodotus, vol.i. p. 471, note 7. 
 
 P Commentar iiber d. Biich. d. Konige, § 2; vol. i. p. 45, E. T. 
 
LECTURE IV. 411 
 
 Note 40. p. 137. 
 Ibid. p. 472. 
 
 Note 41. p. 138. 
 
 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 Assy- 
 rians) took it” (ib. xviii. 10.) That Shalmaneser was the 
 captor is only an inference from Scripture—a natural in- 
 ference undoubtedly, but not a necessary one. 
 
 Note 42. p. 138. 
 
 Sargon has been identified with Shalmaneser by Vitringa, 
 Offenhaus, Prideaux, Eichhorn, Hupfeld, Gumpach, and 
 M. Niebuhr4; with Sennacherib by Grotius, Lowth, Keil, 
 and Schroer; with Esarhaddon by Perizonius, Kalinsky, 
 and Michaélis. (See Winer’s Realwérterbuch ad voc. Sar- 
 gon.) His separate personality is now generally admitted. 
 (See Brandis, Rerwm Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 64, 
 and Tab. Chron. ad fin. Oppert, Rapport d’une Mission 
 Scientifique en Angleterre, p. 38; Vance Smith, Prophecies, 
 &e., pp. 31, 32; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. 
 PP: 333, 334; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 618-620, 
 &e.) 
 
 Note 43. p. 138. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson’s Commentary on the Inscriptions 
 of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 1g, note®, where a passage 
 proving this is quoted from Yactt, the famous Arabian 
 geographer. 
 
 Note 44. p. 139. 
 
 See the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. Pp. 473, note+; and 
 compare Vance Smith’s Prophecies, &e., p. 35: 
 
 1 Geschichte Assurs und Babels seit Phul, p. 160. 
 
412 NOTES. 
 
 Note 45. p. 139. 
 
 When Sargon took Ashdod, its king (he tells us) fled to 
 Muzr (Mizraim or Egypt), which was subject to Mirukha 
 (Meroé, or Ethiopia.) See the author’s Herodotus, vol. 1. 
 P- 474- 
 
 Note 46. p. 140. 
 
 Ibid. p. 473. 
 
 Note 47. p. 142. 
 
 The translation in the text has been read by Sir H. Raw- 
 linson 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 Babylon, pp. 
 143, 144.) 
 
 Note 48. p. 142. 
 
 Mr. Layard gives a slightly different explanation, (Nin. 
 and Bab. p.145);—“ There is a difference of 500 talents, 
 as it will be observed, in the amount of silver. It is pro- 
 bable that Hezekiah was much pressed by Sennacherib, 
 and compelled to give him all the wealth that he could col- 
 lect, 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 tem- 
 ple, to satisfy the demands of the Assyrian king. The 
 Bible may therefore only inelude the actual amount of 
 money in the 300 talents of silver, whilst the Assyrian re- 
 cords comprise a@// the precious metal taken away.” 
 
 Note 49. p. 143. 
 
 Herodot. ii. 141. This testimony was first adduced 
 by Josephus (Ant. Jud. x. 1), from whom it passed on 
 to the Christian commentators generally. The “ chief 
 difficulty” in reconciling Herodotus with Seripture has 
 been generally said to be, the scene of the destruc- 
 tion. (See Joseph. |. s. c., Prideaux’s Connection of Sa- 
 
LECTURE IV. 413 
 
 cred and Profane History, vol. i. p. 18; M. Niebuhr’s 
 Geschichte Assurs und Babels, p.179; Vance Smith’s Pro- 
 phecies relating to Assyria, Introduction, p. 43.) It has 
 been commonly assumed that the scene was the immediate 
 neighbourhood of Jerusalem ; but this assumption is not 
 only, as Mr. Vance Smith has shewn (Prophecies, &e., p- 
 213), without warrant from Scripture, but it is actually 
 contradictory to Seripture. 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 way that he 
 came, by the same shall he return, and shall not come into 
 this city, saith the Lord.” (2 Kings, xix. 32, 33 ; compare 
 Is. XXXVil. 33, 34.) 
 
 Note 49 b. p. 143. 
 
 Eusebius says of Polyhistor—“< Jam et reliquis Seneche- 
 rimi gestis perscriptis, subdit eum annis vixisse [regnan- 
 tem] octodecim,—donec eidem structis a filio Ardumazane 
 insidits extinctus est.” (Chronica, 1. 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. ‘‘ Proximus huic” (sc. 
 Sennacheribo), he said, “‘ regnavit Nergilus, quem Adra- 
 meles filius oecidit ; rursus hune frater suus Axerdis (Esar- 
 haddon ) interfecit.” (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, 1. 9 ;. p. 25.) 
 
 Note 50. p. 143. 
 
 Both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon led hostile expedi- 
 tions 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 51. p. 144. 
 
 Mos. Choren. i. 22 ; “ Eum (sc. Senacharimum) filii ejus 
 Adrammelus et Sanasarus ubi interfecerunt, ad nos confu- 
 gere ; quorum unum, Sanasarum, in ea regionis nostre 
 
414 NOTES. 
 
 parte, quee inter oceidentem solem et meridiem spectat, 
 preestantissimus noster progenitor, Sczeordius, prope fines 
 Assyrize collocavit, ejusque posteri .. montem eum . . com- 
 plevere. Argamozanus* autem inter ortum solis et meri- 
 diem in eadem regione sedem nactus est; a quo ortos 
 esse Arzerunios ac Genunios historicus ille (Mar-Abas) 
 tradit.” 
 
 Note 52. p. 144. 
 
 Esarhaddon in his inscriptions frequently speaks of 
 Sennacherib as his father. (See Fox Talbot, Assyrian 
 Texts translated, p.13, and elsewhere.) The relationship is 
 also witnessed to by Polyhistor, following Berosus. (Ap. 
 Euseb. Chron. i. v. p. 193 compare p. 20, where Eusebius 
 says, “ His omnibus absolutis, pergit denuo Polyhistor res 
 aliquot etiam a Senecheribo gestas exponere; deque hujus 
 filio eadem plane ratione scribit qua libri Hebreorum.”) 
 
 Note 53. p. 144. 
 
 Abydenus interpolates a reign between Sennacherib and 
 Esarhaddon, which he assigns to a certain Nergilus, of 
 whom no other trace is to be found. Neraa/ was one of 
 the Assyrian deities (2 Kings xvii. 30; and see the au- 
 thor’s Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 63 1-633: compare also Dublin 
 Univ. Mag. Oct. 1853, p. 420), and cannot therefore have 
 been a king’s name. The Assyrian royal names contain 
 most commonly a god’s name as an element, but are never 
 identical with the names of deities. It was otherwise in 
 Pheenicia, where Baal and Astartus were monarchs. The 
 account of Abydenus seems therefore unworthy of credit. 
 
 Note 54. p. 144. 
 
 ’ 
 
 “ Manasseh, king of Judah,” is mentioned among the 
 subject princes, who lent Esarhaddon workmen for the 
 
 r Compare the “ Ardumazanes” of Polyhistor (supra, note 49 ). 
 Adrammelech is evidently intended. 
 
LECTURE IV. 415 
 
 building and ornamentation of his palaces. (See the au- 
 thor’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 483.) It is not surprising that 
 we have no account of the expedition against Manasseh, 
 since we do not possess the annals of Hsarhaddon, but 
 only some occasional inscriptions. 
 
 Note 55. p. 145. 
 
 The Assyrians ordinarily governed Babylon through na- 
 tive viceroys. (See Berosus, Fr. 12; and the inscriptions, 
 passim.) But Esarhaddon appears to have reigned there 
 in his own person. Bricks found on the site of Babylon 
 shew that he repaired temples and built himself a palace 
 there. Consequently in the authentic list of Babylonian 
 kings preserved by Ptolemy (Magn. Syntaw. v. 14), his 
 name occurs, under the Grecised form of Asaridinus. <A 
 Babylonian tablet has been found, dated by the year of 
 his reign—a sure indication that he was the actual ruler 
 of the country. No similar facts can be proved of any 
 other Assyrian monarchs. (See the author's Herodotus, 
 vol. i. p. 482.) 
 
 Note 56. p. 145. 
 
 There is one only mention of Assyria in the historical 
 Scriptures later than the reign of Manasseh, namely, the 
 statement in 2 Kings xxii. 29, that in the days of Josiah 
 “ Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, went up against the 
 hing of Assyria to the river Euphrates.” If this expression 
 is to be taken strictly, we must consider that Assyria 
 maintained her existence so late as B.C. 610. I believe, 
 however, that the word “ Assyria” is here used, somewhat 
 negligently, for “‘ Babylonia” (Cf. Keil ad loc. p.154, E.T.), 
 and that the Assyrian empire was destroyed in B.C. 625. 
 (See Niebuhr, Vortrdge iiber Alte Geschichte, vol. 1. p. 47.) 
 
 S It has been suggested by Dr. Hincks and others that the “ Arcea- 
 nus” of Ptolemy’s list is Sargon. But this isa mere conjecture grounded 
 upon a certain degree of resemblance in the names. No traces of Sargon 
 have been found in Babylonia. 
 
416 NOTES. 
 
 The first clear indication which Scripture gives of the de- 
 struction 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 idolatrous 
 nations would seem to imply that she had ceased to exist. 
 This passage was written about B. C. 605. 
 
 Note 57. p. 146. 
 
 Compare Herod. i. 106 and 178; Ctesias ap. Diod. Sie. 
 il. 26-28; Abydenus ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9, p. 253 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 5. See also Tobit, xiv. 15. 
 
 Note 58. p. 147. 
 
 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 
 NID; if the word were pointed thus —NiD— it would 
 
 have to be rendered by “ Seveh.” (See Keil on 2 Kings 
 Xvl. 4-6, pp. 52, 53, E.'T.; and compare the author’s He- 
 rodotus, vol. i. p. 472, note 2.) 
 
 Note 59. p. 147. 
 
 See Mr. Birch’s note in Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, 
 ch. vi. pp. 156-159. Compare Wilkinson, in the author’s 
 Herodotus, vol. il. pp. 217, 218, and 379; and Bunsen, 
 Egypt's Place, &¢. vol. ii. p. 597. 
 
 Note 60. p. 148. 
 
 Herod. ii. 137. Most moderns ineline to the view that 
 the second Shebek is the So of Scripture. (See Winer’s 
 Realworterbuch, ad voe. So; Keil, Commentar iiber die Bii- 
 cher der Konige, |. s. e.; Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, 
 p. 157; Gesenius, Comment. in Jes. vol. i. p. 696, &e.) The 
 
LEOTURE IV. ; 417 
 
 question is one of exact chronology. Tirhakah, it is ar- 
 gued, came against Sennacherib in the 14th year of Heze- 
 kiah, and So made a league with Hoshea in Hezekiah’s 
 third or fourth year. This then must have been in the reign 
 of the second Shebek, to whom Manetho gave not less 
 than 12 years. (See Keil. 1. s.¢c.) But, in the first place, 
 So’s league cannot be fixed to Hezekiah’s third or fourth 
 year. A space of several years may intervene between the 
 4th and 5th verses of 2 Kings xvii. And, secondly, Ma- 
 netho’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 mo- 
 numents distinctly assign him 26 years. (See Wilkinson, 
 in the author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 381.) They also ap- 
 pear 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 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 considered in note 64. 
 
 Note 61. p. 148. 
 See Mr. Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 156-159. 
 
 Note 62. p. 148. 
 
 Tareus is the form given as Manetho’s by Africanus, 
 Taracus that given by Eusebius. (See the fragments of 
 Manetho, in Miller's Fr. Hist. Gir. vol. ii. p. 593; Frs. 64 
 and 65.) The Hebrew word is Mrs the LXX give 
 Oapakd. 
 
 Note 63. p. 148. 
 Strabo, Geograph. i. 3, § 21; xv. 1, § 6. 
 
 RAWLINSON, KE 6 
 
418 NOTES. 
 
 Note 64. p. 148. 
 
 This is the reading of Sir Gardner Wilkinson. (See the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 380.) Bunsen reads Ta- 
 haruka (Zgypt, vol. ii. p. 598); Roseliini, Tahraka. The 
 consonants, T, H, R, K, are certain, but the vowels 
 doubtful. 
 
 If Tirhakah did not ascend the Egyptian throne till 
 B. C. 690, how (it may be asked) could he be contempo- 
 rary with Hezekiah, whose last year was about B.C. 697, 
 or B.C. 696? And how, especially, could he oppose Sen- 
 nacherib, 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, while the Shebeks, under his pro- 
 tection, held Egypt. I venture further to doubt whether 
 we can fix the year of Sennacherib’s contact with Tirha- 
 kah from Seripture. His first invasion of Judea is said 
 to have been in Hezekiah’s 14th year (2 Kings xix. 13) ; 
 but it seems to be a second invasion, falling some years 
 later, which is described in verses 17 to 36. In the mar- 
 ginal notes to our Bible, the two invasions are made to be 
 three years apart. But the number three is purely con- 
 jectural; and perhaps 13 or 14 is as likely. (See the au- 
 thor’s Herodotus, p. 479, notes 1, 2, and 9g.) 
 
 Note 65. p. 148. 
 
 Fragmenta Hist. Gir. vol. ii. pp. 593, 594. Frs. 66 and 
 67. The form used is Nexad. 
 
 ‘ Note 66. p. 148. 
 
 Herodotus (ii. 158) uses the form Nex@s, where the s is 
 the Greek nominative, and may therefore be cancelled. 
 
 Note 67. p. 148. 
 
 Rosellini expressed the monumental name by Neho, but 
 
LECTURE IV. 419 
 
 M. Bunsen reads it Nekau or Neku. (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 
 605.) 
 
 Note 68. p. 149. 
 
 On the frequent confusion between the names Migdol 
 (54520, Maydadd, Mdydodov) and Megiddo (4773, Ma- 
 yedd6, Mayedev), 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 69. p. 149. » 
 
 See Prideaux’s Connection, &c. vol. i. pp. 56, 57; Ren- 
 nell’s Geography of Herodotus, pp. 24.5 and 683; Heeren’s 
 Asiatic Nations, vol. il. ch. 4, p. 109, note 2. KE. T.; Dahl- 
 mann’s Life of Herodotus, ch. iv. p. 55, E.T.; Bahr’s Hz- 
 cursus on Herod. ii. 159, vol. i. pp. 922, 923; Smith’s 
 Dict. of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. 11. p. 17; Keil’s 
 Commentar iiber d. Biich. d. Konige, ch. xxiii. p. 159, E. T.; 
 Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. p. 208; and Kenrick’s Ancient 
 Egypt, vol. ii. p. 406. 
 
 Note 70. p. 149. 
 
 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 Ahazita. (See 
 Hitzig, Disputatio de Cadyte urbe Herodotea; and compare 
 Wilkinson, in the author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 246, note 2; 
 Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. iii. p. 418, note !; 
 Sir H. Rawlinson, Outlines of Assyrian History, &c.; and 
 Bertheau, Commentar iiber d. Biich. d. Chronik, § 17, ad 
 fin.; p.457, E:T.) 
 
 Ee2 
 
420 NOTES. 
 
 Note 71. p. 149. 
 
 Africanus and Eusebius both report Manetho to have 
 said of Necho ;—Oiros cide tiv ‘lepovoaArp, Kai Llodyat Tov 
 Baothéa aixudd@roy eis Atyuvntov anjyaye. (See the frag- 
 ments of Manetho in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. pp. 593; 
 594; Frs. 66 and 67.) 
 
 Note 72. p. 149. 
 
 So Sir Gardner Wilkinson reads the name on the mo- 
 numents (Herodotus, 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 73. p. 149. 
 
 Egyptian chronology placed the accession of Amasis 48 
 years before that of Darius Hystaspis; for Amasis, ac- 
 cording 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 Egypt) 3 yearst, and the Pseudo-Smerdis a 
 little more than half a year. The last year of Apries 
 would thus be the 49th before Darius. Babylonian chro- 
 nology made Nebuchadnezzar’s last year the 41st before 
 that king. (See the Canon.) As Nebuchadnezzar reigned 
 43 years, and Apries only 19 (or at the utmost 25), the 
 reign of the latter must have 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 74. p.149. 
 
 Manetho is reported to have said of Hophra (Uaphris), 
 that he was the king, @ zpocépvyov, ddovons tnd ’Acovplov 
 
 * Or six years. (See Bunsen’s Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 610, 611.) 
 
LECTURE IV. 42) 
 
 ‘Tepovoadip, ot tv “Lovdainv imdédoma. (Fragm. Hist. Gir. 
 
 vol. ii. pp. 593, 594; Frs. 66 and 67.) 
 
 Note 75. p. 150. 
 
 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 au- 
 thor’s Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 386, 387.) It is therefore less 
 surprising that he should have been kept in ignorance 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 enemies, and into the hands of those who 
 seck his life” (Jer. xliv. 30), is confirmed by an unimpeach- 
 able testimony. 
 
 Note 76. p.150. 
 
 M. Bunsen was, I believe, the first to suggest that the 
 d in this name had taken the place of 7, through the 
 resemblance of A to A. (See his Hyypt, vol. i. p. 726.) 
 The restoration of the / 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 suppressed. Such suppression is not uncommon. 
 It may be traced in Pul for Phalech, in Bupalussor for 
 Nabopolassar (Abyden.), in Asaridanus for Assur-a/h-iddan 
 or Esar-haddon, and probably in Saraeus for Assur-akh- 
 uzur, or some similar word. 
 
 The identity of the Mardocempadus of the Canon with 
 the Marduk-bal-iddan of the Inscriptions is certain; and 
 no reasonable doubt can be entertained of the identity of 
 the latter with the Merodach-Baladan of Scripture. These 
 
422 NOTES. 
 
 views are nowgenerallyaccepted. (See Brandis, Rerum Assyr. 
 Temp. emend. p. 45; Oppert, Rapport, &e. pp. 48, 49; 
 Hincks in Dubl. Univ. Mag. No. 250, p. 421; Layard, 
 Nineveh and Babylon, p. 140; Keil on 2 Kings xx. 12-19; 
 p.115, Ey ake.) 
 
 Note 97. p. 151. 
 
 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 pre- 
 ceeded the reign of Elibus or Belibus, and the Inscriptions 
 shew 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 He- 
 rodotus, vol. i. pp. 502-504.) 
 
 Note 78. p. 151. 
 Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 5043 Fr. 12. 
 
 Note 79. p. 151. 
 
 Sargon relates, that in his 12th year he made war upon 
 Merodach-Baladan, who had been for 12 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 partisans ; and Sargon continued to contend 
 against him and his allies for three years more at the least. 
 (See the author’s Herodotus, vol. 1. pp. 474, and 503.) 
 Sennacherib says, that immediately after his accession he 
 invaded Babylonia, defeated and expelled Merodach-Bala- 
 dan, and placed Belib over the land as ruler. (Ibid. 
 p. 476; Fox Talbot’s Assyrian Teats, pp. 1-2.) 
 
LHCRURE. IV: 423 
 
 Note 80. p. 151. 
 
 The Babylonian Gods may be to a great extent identified 
 with the heavenly bodies. San or Sansi is the Sun; Hurki, 
 the Moon; Nebo is Mercury; Jshtar, Venus; Nergal, 
 Mars; Meredach, Jupiter; and probably Nin (or Bar) 
 Saturn. (See the Essay of Sir H. Rawlingon on the Assy- 
 rian and Babylonian religious systems, in the first volume of 
 the author’s Herodotus, Essay x. pp. 584-642.) The dedi- 
 cation of the great temple at Borsippa to the Seven Spheres 
 shews a similar spirit. Mr. Loftus has found that the 
 temple platforms are so placed that their angles exacily 
 face the four cardinal points, which seems to be a sufficient 
 proof that they were used for astronomical purposes. (See 
 his Chaldea and Susiana, ch. xii. pp. 128.) On the astro- 
 nomical skill of the Babylonians, see Herod. ii. 109; Sim- 
 plicius ad Aristot. De Colo, ii. p.123; Pliny, Hist. Nad. 
 vil. 56; Vitruvius, ix. g; Se. 
 
 Note 81. p. 151. 
 
 Berosus said: ’Axovsas 8 6 marnp attod (se. NaBovxodovo- 
 
 , Tt / ind € / f wo 
 adpov) NaBomaddocapos Ott 6 TeTaypevos catpdmns év Te 
 
 ’ 4 n \ , Ay fs AN A 
 Alyémt@ Kat tots wept Suplav tiv KoiAnv kal tiv Powvlenv 
 
 rod / DN 
 TOTOLS ATOATATHS avTOD yeyover, ov Suvapevos avTOs ETL KakoTTA- 
 Oety, ovotioas T@ vie NaBovxodovocdp@ dvtt ev HAtkia pépy 
 lal > ‘ 
 Tia THs duvdpews, eLevmeuev ew avtdv. Luppifas dé NaPov- 
 Xodovdc0pos TO AtootdTy Kal Tapatakduevos avrod Te éxpdtnoe 
 Kal THY xdpav Ex Tavrns THs apyns br THY abTod Bacireiav 
 sy) / , , \ ? ) XN , X\ fal 
 emoujoato ... Aliaouevos b€ eT ov TOADY xXpovovy THY TOU 
 \ \ , ty / > ’ 
 Tatpos TeAevTHVY NaBovxodovocopos, kat KaTaAoTHOAS TA KAT 
 \ \ ’ 
 Alyumrov mpaypara kat THY AowTAVY yopav, Kal TOS aly pa- 
 AGTovs Tovdalov te kal Powikov Kal Svpov wal rv car’ 
 lal ‘ lal > 4 
 Aiyuttov eOvev ovrtagas tii TOV dirov ... avaxopicew els 
 \ o . / F 
 
 THY BaBvAwviar, adtos dpynoas ddAtyooTos bia THs Epjwov Tapa- 
 yiverat eis BaBvAdva. (Ap. Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 11.) 
 
 Note 82. p. 152. 
 
 See Josephus, Contra Apion. i. 21; Upoodjow d€ kai tas 
 
424 NOTES. 
 
 a / lan >) My 
 TOV Powwikwv avaypapes’ ov yap TapadeimTeov TOV aTrodeifewv 
 P 5 a € / ; 
 Ti Tepovoiav. “Eore b6€ Tovad’tTn TOV yxpovev 1 KataplOunots 
 ‘Ent EldwBddov tov Bacid€ws erodudpxnoe NaBovxodovdaopos 
 &\ / Spey / ” 
 Thv Tvpov ém €7n TpioKaideKa. 
 
 Note 83. p. 152. 
 
 In continuation of the passage cited in note 81, Berosus 
 said: TlapadaBov b& ra mpdypata biotxodpeva b7d TOV Xad- 
 daiov kal diatnpovpevny tv Bacireiay b7d Tod Bedtiotov 
 avra@v, kuptedoas bAoKAnpov Tis TaTpiKis apxijs, Tos mev alyua- 
 AdTols Tapayevopevols cuvetatev amouklas é€v Tots émuTNdELoTa- 
 
 lal / , 22 ~ 
 Tots THS BaBvAwvias TéToLs amobeiEat. 
 
 Note 84. p.153. 
 
 The chief chronological difficulty which meets us is con- 
 nected with the reign of Hezekiah. Scripture places no 
 more than eight years between the fall of Samaria and the 
 first invasion of Judea by Sennacherib (2 Kings xviii. 9, 
 and 13). The monuments place a¢ least 18 years between 
 the two events; for Sargon says he took Samaria in his 
 first year, and then gives his annals for 15 years, while 
 Sennacherib says that he attacked Hezekiah and took his 
 fenced cities in his third year. Ptolemy’s Canon taken in 
 conjunction with the monuments, raises the interval to 
 22 years. According to this, if the capture of Samaria 
 was in Hezekiah’s sixth year, the accession of Sennacherib 
 must have fallen in his 25th, and the first attack of Sen- 
 nacherib in his 27th year. But our present text of Kings 
 (2 Kings xvii. 9) and of Isaiah (xxxvi. 1) calls it his 14th 
 year. I have suggested elsewhere that the original number 
 may have been altered under the idea that the invasion of 
 Sennacherib and the illness of Hezekiah were synchronous, 
 whereas the expression “in those days” was used by the 
 sacred writers with a good deal of latitude. (See the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 479, note 2.) 
 
 Minor difficulties are the synchronism of Tirhakah with 
 Hezekiah, and of So with Hoshea, of which I have already 
 spoken. See notes 59 and 64. 
 
LECTURE IV. 425 
 
 Note 85. p. nie 
 Vor dige uber Alte Geschichte, vol.i. p. 126; p. 106, E. T. 
 
 Note 86. p. 154. 
 
 A few instances may be noted under each head, as 
 spectmens of the sort of agreement. 
 
 1. Geographic. (a) In 2 Kings xvil. 6 (compare xviii. 
 11) it is said that the captive Israelites were placed by the 
 conqueror “at Halah and Habor, the river of Gozan, and 
 in the cities of the Medes.” Misled by the last clause, 
 various commentators have struggled vainly to find Habor, 
 Halah, and Gozan in or near Media. (See Bochart, Geo- 
 graph. Sac. iii. 143; Kitto, Bibl. Cyclopedia, ad voc. Gozan ; 
 Keil on 2 Kings xvii. 6; pp. 54-58, E.T.; &c.) But this 
 attempt is quite unnecessary. The true position of Gozan 
 may be gathered from 2 Kings xix. 12, where it is coupled 
 with Haran, the well-known city of Mesopotamia. In this 
 locality all the names may be found, not only in old geo- 
 graphers, 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 Adborrhas or Chaboras (Habor); and adjoining it 
 (Ptol. |. s.c.) was a district called Chalcitis (Halah). Of 
 this district a probable trace remains in the modern Gila, 
 a large mound in these parts marking a ruined city 
 (Layard, Min. and Bab. p. 312, note) ; while the river js 
 still known as the Ahabour, 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 Carrhe. Undoubtedly 
 the bulk of the Israelites were settled in this country, while 
 Sargon selected a certain number to colonize his new cities 
 
 “ Mygdonia represents Gozan, with the adjectival or participial 1 
 prefixed. The Greek writers always substituted their 6 for the Semitic 
 z. Hence Gaza became Cadytis, Achzib became Ecdippa, the river Zab 
 became the Diaba; and so M’gozan became Mygdon. 
 
 Y So at least Winer says, but I do not know on what authority. 
 (Realworterbuch ad yoe. Gosan.) 
 
in Media. (6) 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. “‘ Die Lage von Cutha,” says Winer™, 
 “ist aber véllig ungewiss.” Andso Keil*; “ The situation 
 of Cuthah cannot be determined with certainty.” The 
 discovery, however, of an ancient Babylonian city of the 
 name, at the distance of about 15 miles from Babylon itself, 
 where, moreover Nergal was especially worshipped (2 Kings 
 xvii. 30), seems to remove all doubt on the subject. Cu- 
 thah was most certainly the city, whose ruins are now 
 called Ibrahim. (See the author's Herodotus, vol.i. p. 632; 
 and vol. ii. p. 587.) With almost equal confidence may we 
 pronounce on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, 
 that it is most probably a Mesopotamian town, “ von 
 welcher feine Spur in den alten Schriftstellern oder in der 
 heutigen orientalischen Topographie tibrig geblieben ist.” 
 Ava (N1Y), or Ivah (NY), is a city dedicated to the god 
 Hea (Neptune), which was on the Euphrates at the ex- 
 treme northern limit of Babylonia. It is ealled by the 
 Talmudieal writers Jkt (7), or with an epithet Lhz-dakira 
 (NVIPTIT), by Herodotus Ls (“Is), by the Egyptians /sf, 
 by the Turks and Arabs of the present day Hit. The first 
 corruption of the name may be traced in the Ahava (S178) 
 of Ezra (viii. 15,21; compare the river Is of Herodotus), 
 where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to 
 Jerusalem. (See the remarks of Sir H. Rawlinson in the 
 author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 602.) Sepharvaim has less 
 completely baffied the geographers, who have seen that it 
 must be identical with the Sippara or Sipphara of Ptolemy 
 (v.18) and the woAus Sumrapnvév of Abydenus (Tr. g). See 
 Winer and Kitto ad voc. They have not, however, been 
 able to fix the site; which the Inscriptions show to have 
 
 w Realwérterbuch, vol.i. p. 237- 
 x See Keil on 2 Kings xvii. 24; vol.ii. p. 67, E. T. 
 y Realworterbuch, vol.i. p. 118. 
 
LECGIURE IV. 427 
 
 been at Mosaib, a town on the Euphrates between Hit and 
 Babylon. Nor have they given any account of the dual 
 form, Sepharvaim (O*M5D) ; which is explained by the 
 fact, noted in the Inscriptions, that the city was partly on 
 the right, partly en the left bank of the Euphrates. 
 (c) With Sepharvaim are connected, in 2 Kings xix. 13, 
 the two cities of Hena and Ivah. It is implied that they 
 had recently been united under one king: we must seek 
 them therefore in the same neighbourhood. 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. YI; LXX ’Avd) in a similar position. Now on 
 the Euphrates in this region is found in the Inscriptions 
 an important town, Anah or Anat ; which has always borne 
 nearly the same name, and which is even now known as 
 Anah. Hena is thus identified almost to a certainty. 
 
 2. Religious. (2) The worship of Baal and Astarte by 
 the Pheenicians, 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. 5; xvi. 31, &c.) “A 
 marked confirmation of this exclusive, or nearly exclusive, 
 worship is found in the naines of the Tyrian kings and 
 judges, which, like those of the Assyrian and Babylonian 
 monarchs, comprehend almost always a divine element. 
 Their names, so far as they are known, run as follows— 
 Abibaal, Hiram, Baleazar, Abdastartus, Astartus, Asery- 
 mus, Pheles, Ethbaa/, Balezar, Matgen, Pygmalion, Elu- 
 leeus, Eth-daal I1., Baal, Eenibaal, Chelbes, Abbarus, Myt- 
 gon, Bal-ator, Gerastartus, Merba/, 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 men- 
 tioned. (b) It has been already noticed that Nergal, who 
 
 z Mr. Kenrick gives the Pheenicians three ‘‘ national deities,”’ Astarte, 
 Belus, Hercules. (Phenicia, p.345). But Movers has shewn satis- 
 factorily that Melcarth (the Tyrian Hercules) was only another name 
 for Baal. 
 
428 NOTES. 
 
 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 Sepharvaim was under the special protec- 
 tion of two deities, conjointly worshipped, Shamas or San, 
 the Sun, and his wife Gula or Anunit. Here we have evi- 
 dently the Adrammelech and Anammelech of 2 Kings xvii. 
 31; Adrammelech, “ the Fire-king,” and Anammelech, 
 “ Queen Anunit”—the latter name being assimilated to 
 the former with insolent carelessness. (See Sir H. Rawlin- 
 son in the author’s Herodotus, vol.i. pp. 611, 612.) (d) If 
 a satisfactory explanation cannot be given from Babylonian 
 mythology of Succoth-Benoth, Nibhaz, and Tartak (2 Kings 
 XVil. 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 | should suspect to have been Nebo and 7ir—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, &e. (a) The whole character of 
 the Assyrian wars, as represented in Kings and Chronicles, 
 is in close accordance with what we gather from the In- 
 scriptions. ‘he numerical force of their armies, the direc- 
 tion of them by the monarch in person, the multitude of 
 their chariots (2 Kings xix. 23), their abundant eavalry 
 (2 Kings xviii. 23), their preference of the bow as a wea- 
 pon® (ib. xix. 32), the manner of their sieges by “ casting 
 banks” against the walls of cities> (ibid.),—and again the 
 religious enthusiasm with which the wars were carried on, 
 
 a This appears sufficiently on the sculptures; but it is even more 
 strikingly evinced in the language of the Inscriptions, where the phrase 
 which has to be translated “killed in battle” is constantly *‘ killed with 
 arrows.’ (See Dubl. Univ. Mag. No. 250, p. 423.) 
 
 b See Layard’s Nineveh and Babylon, p.149. Describing a bas-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.”’ 
 
LECTURE IV. 429 
 
 —the antagonism maintained between the Assyrian gods 
 and those of the invaded countries (2 Kings xviii. 33, 34, 
 &e.), and the practice of carrying off as plunder, and there- 
 fore probably of melting down, the idols of the various na- 
 tions (2 Kings xix. 18), are all distinctly marked in the 
 sacred history, and might be abundantly illustrated from 
 the monuments’. (6) No less harmonious with Seripture 
 is the representation which the monuments give of the As- 
 syrian political system. Something has been already said 
 on this point. (Lecture ILI. pp. 103-105.) 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 ex- 
 tension of suzerainty, and government through native tri- 
 butary monarchs. Rebellion is promptly punished, and 
 increased tribute is its natural consequence. (2 Kings xviii. 
 14.) Finally, transplantation is made use of when other 
 means fail—sometimes on a larger, sometimes on a smaller 
 scale, as the occasion requires4?. (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 inscription, where we find 
 twelve kings of the Ahatti, allied with Syria and Hamath, 
 and fighting against the Assyrians with a force whose chief 
 strength seems to be chariots. Many similar points of 
 minute agreement might be adduced, but this note has, [ 
 fear, already extended itself beyond the patience of most 
 readers. 
 
 ¢ See the Great Inscription of Tiglath Pileser I, pp. 28, 30, 38, &c.; 
 Dubl. Univ. Mag. No. 250, pp. 423, 424; Fox Talbot’s Assyrian Tezts, 
 pp. I, 3, 4, 11, 22, &c. Compare the author’s Herodotus, vol.i. p. 495- 
 
 4 See the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. p. 493. 
 
ath das Will 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 Note 1. p. 158. 
 So Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, p. 560. 
 
 Note 2. p. 158. 
 
 This is the theory of De Wette (Hinleituna, § 253, p. 342; 
 vol. il. p.485, E. T.), who bases the view on the passages 
 of Ezekiel, where Daniel is so highly commended. See 
 below, note Io. 
 
 Note 3. p. 158. 
 
 See the statements of Jerome concerning Porphyry in 
 the preface to his Comment. in Daniel. (Op. vol.iii. pp.107 3, 
 1074.) 
 
 Note 4. p. 158. 
 
 It is urged by Ewald (Propheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 565) ; 
 by Knobel, Prophetismus der Hebrier, ii. p. 401; by Strauss 
 (Leben Jesu, § 13; vol.i. p. 56, E.T.); by De Wette (Hin- 
 leitung, § 255 b, p. 346); and by Mr. Theodore Parker 
 (Translation of De Wette, vol. ii. pp.4g1 and 501.) Hence 
 Auberlen observes with justice, “The true argument of all 
 others, even in modern criticism, lies in the dogmatie doubt 
 of the reality of miracles and predictions.” (Prophecies of 
 Daniel, Introduction, p. 10, hk. T.e) And Stuart, “ Nearly 
 
 € The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John viewed 
 
 in their mutual relation by C. A. Auberlen, Ph. D. Translated by the 
 Rey. A. Saphir; Edinburgh, Clark, 1856. 
 
LECTURE V. 4D 1 
 
 all the arguments employed to disprove the genuineness of 
 Daniel, have their basis, more or less directly, in the as- 
 sumption, 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 assumption, stricken from 
 the list of probabilities, and even of possibilities.” (History 
 and Defence of the Canon, § 4, pp. 110, i111.) 
 
 Note 5. p. 158. 
 
 Undoubtedly a peculiar character attaches to the pro- 
 phecies 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 de- 
 tail.” (Prophecies of Daniel, Introduction, p. 3, E.T.) But 
 to make this an objection to the authenticity of the Book 
 is to assume, either that we have an a priori knowledge of 
 the nature and limits of prophetical inspiration, or else 
 that the law of such inspiration may be gathered induc- 
 tively from the other Scriptures, and then applied to ex- 
 clude the claims of a Book which has as much external 
 sanction as any other. But induction should be from all 
 the instances; and to exclude the Book of Daniel by a law 
 drawn from the rest of Scripture, is first to assume that it 
 is not Scripture, and then to prove that it is not by means 
 of that assumption. We are quite ignorant beforehand to 
 what extent it might please the Omniscient to communi- 
 cate to any of his creatures the knowledge of the future, 
 which He possesses in perfection; and we have no means 
 of determining the question but by a careful study of all 
 the facts which the Bible sets before us. We have no right 
 to assume that there will be a uniform law, much less that 
 we shall be able to discover it. It is a principle of the 
 Divine Economy that “there is a time for every thing ;” 
 and the minute exactness which characterises some of the 
 Prophecies of Daniel may have been adapted to peculiar 
 
432 NOTES. 
 
 circumstances in the history of God’s people at some par- 
 ticular time!, or have otherwise had some special object 
 which we cannot fathom. 
 
 Note 6. p. 159. 
 
 See Hengstenberg, Azthentie des Daniel, p. 303, et seqq. 
 The alternate use of Hebrew and Chaldee, which is the 
 main linguistic peculiarity of Daniel, is only natural at a 
 time when both languages were currently 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 ar- 
 gument, that both languages were known to the learned 
 Jews at a later date (Hinleitung, § 255 ¢. p. 349), is a spe- 
 cimen of the weak grounds on which men are content to 
 rest a foregone conclusion. The Hebrew Scriptures were 
 not written for the learned; and no instances at all can be 
 found of the alternate use (as distinct from the occurrence 
 of Chaldaisms in Hebrew, or Hebraisms in Chaldee), ex- 
 cepting at the time of the Captivity. 
 
 Note 7. p. 159. 
 
 I have here followed the ordinary tradition, which rests 
 on the authority of Aristeas, Philo, Justin Martyr, Jose- 
 phus, 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 trans- 
 lated 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 Horne’s Introduction, &c., vol. iii. p. 44-) 
 
 If the argument in the text is weakened by this admis- 
 sion, it may receive the following important accessions :— 
 
 f Auberlen thinks that the minuteness, which is chiefly in chs, viii. 
 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+) 
 
LECTURE: V. 433 
 
 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 Epiphaness. (See Ecclus. xvii. 17, com- 
 pared with Dan. x. 20, 21; xii.1; and Ecelus. x. 8, com- 
 pared with Dan. vill. 23, &c.) And 2. Daniel’s prophecies 
 were shewn to Alexander the Great in the year B. C. 332, 
 and inclined him to treat the Jews with special favour. (Jo- 
 seph. 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 particu- 
 lars.” (De Wette, Hinleitung, § 255 ¢, p- 349.) 
 
 Note 8. p. 159. 
 
 The fundamental arguments in favour 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 miracles are 
 grotesque. 2. The apocalyptic tone is unlike that of the 
 prophets belonging to this period. 3. Honourable 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, christ- 
 ology, 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 ob- 
 jection equally to the Pentateuch, the Gospel of St. John, 
 and some of St. Paul’s Epistles, and rests merely upon an 
 
 & Even De Wette admits this. (Hinleitung, § 316, p. 419. “So 
 erhalten wir als Abfassungzeit d. J. 180. v. Chr.’’) 
 h Ibid. § 255, pp. 346, 347. 
 RAWLINSON. Ff 
 
434 NOTES. 
 
 a@ priori conception of how prophets should write, not 
 borne out by experience; the fourth is not urged with any 
 confidence, since it is allowed to be ‘ certainly possible 
 that the Greek words may have been known to the 
 Babylonians at the time” (p. 347); and if so, a fortiori, 
 the Persian words ; and the fifth argument, if it has 
 any weight at all, would make the Book of Job, and the 
 Proverbs of Solomon, later than Malachi! No wonder 
 Professor Stuart should say—‘ Beyond the objections 
 founded on the assumption, that miracles and predictions 
 are impossibilities, there is little to convince an enlightened 
 and well-balanced critical reader, that the book is supposi- 
 titious.” (History and Defence of the Canon, p. 111.) 
 
 Note 9. p. 159. 
 
 See Dan. i. 3. Josephus says that Daniel was of the 
 seed of Zedekiah. (Ant. Jud. x. 10.) 
 
 Note 10. p. 159. 
 
 Ewald contends, that the Daniel commended by Ezekiel 
 must have been an ancient hero, like Job and Noah (Pro- 
 pheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 560), of whose wisdom and right- 
 eousness he knew from some sacred book, with which both 
 himself and the Jews of his time were well acquainted. 
 We are not told what has become of this book, or what 
 proof there is of its existence. Nor is it explained how this 
 “ ancient hero” comes not to be mentioned in the historical 
 Scriptures at all, or by any writer earlier than Ezekiel. 
 Doubtless if we had no means of knowing to the contrary, 
 we should naturally have supposed from Ezek. xiv. 14 and 
 20, that Daniel was an ancient historical personage in 
 Ezekiel’s time, having lived between Noah and Job; but 
 as this is impossible from the absolute silence of the histo- 
 rical 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 
 
LECTURE V. 435 
 
 for whom Ezekiel wrote—the Chaldean Jews’, be it remem- 
 bered, (Hizek. 1. 2, 3),—not historically, or from any book, 
 but from personal acquaintance and common rumour. 
 Why Daniel precedes Job, is still a question. Perhaps, 
 because Daniel and Noah are actual men, while Job is 
 not? Or because the two former are viewed as Jews, Job 
 as a Gentile ? 
 
 Note 11. p. 159. 
 
 Einleitung, § 255 a, p. 3443 (voll Unwahrscheinlichkeiten, 
 und selbst Aistorischer Unrichtigkeiten, dergleichen sonst 
 kein prophetisches Buch des Alt. Test. enthalt.) Compare 
 Baa: 
 
 Note 12. p. 160. 
 
 See above, note 86 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 Hsarhaddon (ibid. 
 
 pp- 11 and 17.) 
 Note 13. p. 160. 
 
 See Herod. iv. 181; v.15; vi. 20 and 119; Ctes. Pers. 
 §9; Arrian. Hap. 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. iil. 
 p- 292; and Ferrier’s Caravan Journeys, p. 395-) 
 
 Note 14. p. 160). 
 See Lecture IV, note 83. 
 
 i It has been usual to regard Ezekiel as writing in Mesopotamia, the 
 Chebar being supposed to be the Khabour. But we have no right to 
 assume the identity of the words 132 and 1527. The Chebar is pro- 
 bably the Nahr Malcha, or Royal Canal, the great (122) cutting of 
 Nebuchadnezzar. See the article on CHEBAR in Smith’s (forthcoming) 
 Biblical Dictionary. 
 
 i The reference to this note has slipped out of page 160, where it 
 should have occurred in line 11, after the word “ Babylonia.” 
 
 9 ie) : 
 
436 NOTES. 
 
 Note 15. p. 160. 
 
 See the fragments of these writers in the Fragmenta 
 Mist. Gr. vol. ii. pp. 506, 507; and vol. iv. p. 284. Com- 
 pare with tle expression in Daniel, “Is not this great 
 Babylon which I have built?” (Dan. iv. 30), the statement 
 of Berosus. NaPovyodovdcopos... tHv TE UTAapxovoay e& 
 apxijs woAw dvakawvioas kal €tTépav Kkataxaplodpe- 
 vos, Tpos TO pnKeTL S¥vacOat TOs TOALOpKODYTAas TOV TOTALOV 
 dvactpepovras ent tiv TOAW Katackevd le, UTEpEBaAETO TpEts 
 Bev THs evdov TOAEws TEpLBOAoUs, Tpeis bE THs eEw. 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 16. p. 161. 
 Ap. Euseb. Prep. Ev. 1x. 41, pp. 441, 442. Mera de, 
 
 A€eyerar pds Xadbaiwov, ws avaBas emt ta Baoirrjia Katacye- 
 Oe p > 1) 
 ein OS Grew by, POeyEduevos HF eizev, Oitos eyo NaSovko- 
 dpdcopos, © BaBvAsriol, THY péAAOVEAY bpiv TpoayyeAAW oUp- 
 ‘ (cA / ia / lal is f / , 
 opny ...” Hfer Tépons iylovos, toiow tyerépoiot Saloot xpeo- 
 ! “os, N / 5 ® xX , 
 pevos cuppaxowi* emager b€ dovdocvvynv’ ov 67) TuVAITLOS 
 ésrat Mons, To Acovpiov advynua...°O pev Oeanioas Tapa- 
 Xphya npavicro. 
 
 Note 17. p. 161. 
 
 Beros. ap. Joseph. contr. Apionem, i. 20; Polyhist. ap. 
 Euseb. Chronica, i. 5, § 3, p. 21; Ptol. Mag. Syntax. 
 WoTAS 
 
 Note 18. p. 161. 
 
 These tablets are commonly orders on the imperial trea- 
 sury, dated in the current year of the reigning monarch, 
 like modern Acts of Parliament. They give a minimum for 
 the length of each monarch’s reign, but of course by the 
 nature of the case they cannot furnish a mavimum. Still, 
 
LECTURE V. 437 
 
 where they are abundant, as in Nebuchadnezzar’s case, 
 they raise a strong probability that the highest number 
 found was not much exceeded. 
 
 Note 19. p. 162. 
 
 The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar being the first of 
 Jehoiachin’s captivity (2 Kings xxiv. 12), we must place the 
 beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign seven years earlier ; 
 and the 37th of the captivity being the first-of Evil-Mero- 
 dach (ibid. xxv. 27), the 36th would be Nebuchadnezzar’s 
 last complete year. Now 36+7=43. 
 
 Note 20. p. (62. 
 
 So De Wette (Hinleitung, § 255 a; p. 345 ¢.), who 
 quotes von Lengerke, Hitzig, and others, as agreeing with 
 him. Ewald also compares Daniel to Judith, on account 
 of its confusing together various times and countries. (Pro- 
 pheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 562.) 
 
 Note 21. p. 162. 
 
 De Wette gives the first place among his “historical in- 
 accuracies” to the ‘‘unrichtige Vorstellungen von den Wei- 
 sen Babylons,” and the “undenkbare Aufnahme Daniels 
 unter dieselben ;’” the second to the “ Erwahnung der 
 persischen Satrapen-Einrichtung unter Nebuchadnezer und 
 Darius Medus.” (Lrnleitung, 1. s. ¢.) 
 
 Note 22. p. 162. 
 
 The word which we translate ‘ magicians” in Dan. i. 20, 
 ii. 2, 10, &e., is chartummim, or khartummim (ODO), 
 which is derived from cheret, or kheret (WM), “a graving- 
 tool.” (See Buxtorf’s Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, 
 ad voc.) Babylonian documents are sometimes written on 
 
 clay, where the character has been impressed, before the 
 clay was baked, by a tool with a triangular point ; but 
 
438 NOTES. 
 
 they are also frequently on stone—large pebbles from the 
 Euphrates’s bed—in which case they have been engraved 
 with a fine chisel. 
 
 Note 23. p. 163. 
 
 The Chaldeans in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
 and even Ezekiel, are simply the inhabitants of Chaldea, 
 which is the name applied to the whole country whereof 
 Babylon is the capital. But in Daniel the Chaldeans are 
 a special set of persons at Babylon, having a “ learning” 
 and a “ tongue” of their own (Dan. 1. 4), and classed with 
 the magicians, astrologers, &c. Strabo notes both senses 
 of the term (xvi. i. § 6); and Berosus seems to use the 
 narrower and less common one, when he speaks of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar as finding on his arrival at Babylon after his 
 father’s death, that affairs were being conducted by the 
 Chaldzeans, and that their chief was keeping the throne 
 vacant for him, (IlapadaBov 8€ Ta tpdypara Siorxovpeva bd 
 Tov Xaddaiwv Kai diatnpovpévnv tv Basirelav b70 Tov Bed- 
 tlarov av’tév, kuprevoas x. Tt. AX. 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 vil. 63. 
 The inscriptions show that the Chaldzeans (A’a/dz) belonged 
 to the primitive Seythie inhabitants, and that the old 
 astronomical and other learning of the Babylonians con- 
 tinued to be in this language during the later Semitic 
 times. (See Sir H. Rawlinson’s note in the author’s He- 
 rodotus, vol. 1. p. 319, note %.) 
 
 Note 24. p. 163. 
 
 Compare an article on the Chaldzeans in Smith’s (forth- 
 coming) Biblical Dictionary. 
 
 Note 25. p. 164. 
 
 See above, Lecture IV. note 8t. 
 
LECTURE V. 439 
 
 Note 26. p. 164. 
 
 I do not intend to assert that this was the case. We 
 have no satisfactory proof that the Babylonians ever ap- 
 proached more nearly to the Satrapial system than by the 
 appointment in exceptional cases of a native ‘“ governor” 
 in lieu of an hereditary king, as in the case of Gedaliah. 
 The maintenance of Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, 
 on the throne of Judzea seems to indicate the general cha- 
 racter of their government. It may even be suspected that 
 Berosus’s “ Satrap of Egypt and Syria” was really Pha- 
 raoh-Necho, whose position Babylonian vanity represented 
 in that light. The LXX translate Daniel’s “ princes” 
 (SMIDVWAN) by carpdra, but this cannot be regarded 
 as an argument of much weight. Babylonian /istorical 
 
 inscriptions are so scanty that we can derive little assist- 
 ance from them towards determining the question. 
 
 Note 27. p. 164. 
 
 The extent of the kingdom (Dan. iv. 22), the absolute 
 power of the king (ib. ii. 5, 13, 48; iii. 29, &c.), the in- 
 fluence of the Chaldeans (ib. ii. 2; iii. 8, &c.), the idola- 
 trous character of the religion, the use of images of gold 
 (ib. li. 1; compare Herod. i. 183), are borne out by pro- 
 fane 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 15.) Again, there is a curi- 
 ous notice in Daniel of a certain peculiarity which may 
 be remarked in Nebuchadnezzavr’s religion, viz. his special 
 devotion to a particular god. Nebuchadnezzar through- 
 out his inscriptions presents himself to us as a devotee of 
 Merodach. ‘ Merodach, his lord’ is the chief—almost the 
 sole object of his worship 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- 
 
440 NOTES. 
 
 chadnezzar in the same work, vol. ii. pp. 585-587.) This 
 peculiarity is casually and incidentally noticed by Daniel, 
 when he says that Nebuchadnezzar carried the sacred 
 vessels of the temple “into the land of Shinar, to the 
 house of iis god; and brought the vessels into the trea- 
 sure-house of his god.” (i. 2.) 
 
 Note 28. p. 165. 
 
 See his Beitrdge zur Hinleitung in das Alt. Test. p. 105. 
 Hengstenberg 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 29. p. 166. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson’s translation of the Standard In- 
 scription 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 (2)... 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 pre- 
 cious treasures of my kingdom I did not lay up. In Ba- 
 bylon, buildings for myself and for the honour of my king- 
 dom I did not lay out. In the worship of Merodach my 
 lord, the joy of my heart (), in Babylon the city of his 
 sovereignty and the seat of my empire, I did not sing his 
 praises (?), and I did not furnish his altars (with victims), 
 nor did I clear out the canals.” Other negative clauses 
 follow. From this literal rendering of the passage, only 
 one or two words of which are at all doubtful, the reader 
 may judge for himself to what event in his life it is likely 
 that the monarch alludes. He should perhaps bear in 
 mind that the whole range of cuneiform literature presents 
 no similar instance of a king putting on record his own 
 inaction. 
 
LECTURE V. 441 
 
 Note 30. p. 167. 
 
 Berosus ap. Joseph. Contr. Ap. i. 20: NaSovyodovdcopos 
 pev ovv peta TOD apEacOar Tod Tpoeipnuevov Telxous euTEToV 
 eis Gppwotiay petndAdg~ato Tov Biov, BeBaoirevkas Eryn TET- 
 aapdkovra tpia. Tis d€ BactArclas KUptos éyévero 6 vids aitod 
 EveApapddovyos. Compare Abyden. ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 
 10, p. 28; and Polyhist. ap. eund. i. 5, § 3; p. 21. 
 
 Note 31. p. 167. 
 
 Berosus continues after the passage above quoted—O¢- 
 TOS, TpocTas TOV TpaywaToV aVOpws Kal avEeAyGs, emBov- 
 Aevdels ... avnpeOn. 
 
 Note 31. p. 168. 
 
 The Babylonian name is read as Nergal-shar-uzur ; the 
 Hebrew form (Azsw-5r)) 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 Neri- 
 glissoor; Polyhistor called him Neglissar (Euseb. Chron. 1. 
 53 p- 21); Abydenus, Niglissar (Armen. Euseb.) or Neri- 
 glissar (Euseb. Prep. Ev. ix. 41), Ptolemy (Mag. Synt. 
 
 l. s. c.) Nerigassolassar. 
 
 Note 33. p. 168. 
 
 The Babylonian vocalisation somewhat modifies the 
 word,-which is read as in the Inscriptions as Rubw-emga. 
 (See Sir H. Rawlinson’s note in the author’s Herodotus, 
 vol. i. p. 518, note *.) With this the Hebrew Rab-mag 
 (1272) 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 re- 
 semblance at all to the emga of this title. Sir H. Rawlinson 
 
44.2 NOTES. 
 
 believes the signification to be “ Chief Priest,” but holds 
 that there is no reference in it to Magism. 
 
 Note 34. p. 168. 
 
 Abydenus has the form Nabannidochus (ap. Euseb. 
 Chron. i. 10, p. 28), with which may be compared the 
 Naboandelus (probably to be read Naboandechus) of Jose- 
 phus (Ant. Jud. x. 11.) Berosus wrote Nabonnedus (Jo- 
 seph. Contr. Ap. i. 20) ; Herodotus, Labynetus (i. 77, 188.) 
 The actual name seems to have been Nabu-nahit in Semitic, 
 Nabu-induk in the Cushite Babylonian. 
 
 Note 35. p. 169. 
 
 So Josephus (Ant. Jud. 1. s. c.); Perizonius (Orig. Ba- 
 bylon. p. 359); Heeren, Manual of Ancient History, p. 28, 
 KE. T.; Des Vignoles, Guvres, vol. ii. p. 510, et seqq.; 
 Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 369-371; the author of L’ Art 
 de Verifier les Dates, vol. ii. p. 69; Winer, Realwiérterbuch 
 ad voce. Belshazzar ; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopedia ad voce. 
 eand.; &c. 
 
 Note 36. p. 169. 
 
 Tt 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 Aby- 
 denus to have occupied the throne between Nebuchadnezzar 
 and Cyrus. Each monarch has been preferred in his turn. 
 Conringius, Bouhier, Larcher, Marsham, Hupfeld, Hiver- 
 nick, and others, have identified Belshazzar with Evil- 
 Merodach ; Eusebius, Syncellus, and Hales, with Neri- 
 glissar ; 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 the historical facts recorded of the monarch 
 preferred with what Scripture tells us of Belshazzar. On 
 
LECTURE V. 443 
 
 the whole, perhaps the hypothesis of Conringius was the 
 least_objectionable. 
 
 J 
 
 Note 37. p. 169. 
 So De Wette, Einleitung, § 255 a, p. 345. 
 
 Note 38. p. 170. 
 
 This view was maintained by Sir Isaac Newton. (See 
 his Chronology, pp. 323-330.) 
 
 Note 39. p. 170. 
 
 Sir H. Rawlinson made this important discovery in the 
 year 1854, from documents obtained at M/ugheir, the an- 
 cient Ur. (See Mr. Loftus’s Chaldea and Susiana, ch. xii. 
 pp: 132, 133; and compare the author’s Herodotus, vol. i. 
 P- 525:) 
 
 Note 40. p.170. 
 
 Jehu, though ordinarily called “ the son of Nimshi,” was 
 really his grandson (2 Kings ix. 2.) Merodach-Baladan, 
 “ the son of Baladan,” according to Isaiah (xxxix. 1), 1s in 
 the Inscriptions the son of Yagina. Baladan was probably 
 one of his more remote ancestors. In Matt. 1. 1, our 
 Blessed Lord is called ‘‘ the Son of David, (who was) the 
 son of Abraham.” 
 
 Note 41. p.171. 
 
 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 a 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 
 
 k Hebrew Monarchy, p. 361. 
 1 Wilkinson in the author’s Herodotus, vol. 1. p. 387. 
 
444 NOTES. 
 
 and by Darius, the son of Hystaspes, (Herod. 11. 68 and 
 88.) On the same grounds Herod the Great married 
 Mariamné. (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 re- 
 garded as certain, that he adopted the name of Nebuchad- 
 nezzar 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 “ Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, the son of Nabonadius.” (Behistun Inser. Col. 1. 
 Par. 16; and Col. im. Par. 13.) 
 
 Note 42. p. 171. 
 Syneellus, Chronograph. p. 438,B; Apoe. Dan. xiii. ad 
 fin.; Jackson, Chronolog. Antig. vol. i. p. 416; Marsham, 
 
 Can. Chron. p. 604, et seqq.; Winer, Realworterbuch ad 
 voe. Darius; &c. 
 
 Note 43. p. 171. 
 
 This was the view of Josephus (Ant. Jud. x. 11, § 4) ; 
 and from him it has been adopted very generally. See 
 Prideaux’s Connection, &c., vol. i. p. 95; Hales’s Analysis 
 of Chronology, vol. il. p. 508; Offerhaus, Spicileg. Hist. 
 Chron. p. 265; Bertholdt, Lac. zum Daniel, p. 843 ; Heng- 
 stenberg, Authentie des Daniel, § 48; Von Lengerke, Das 
 Buch Daniel, § 92; Hooper’s Palmoni, pp. 278-283; and 
 Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia, ad voe. Darius. But Xenophon 
 is the sole authority for the existence of this personage ; 
 and Herodotus may be quoted against his existence, since 
 he positively declares that Astyages “ had no male off- 
 spring.” (Herod. i. 109.) 
 
 Note 44. p.171. 
 
 By Lareher (Hérodote, vol. vii. p. 175), Conringius (Ad- 
 versar. Chron. ©. 13), and Bouhier (Dissertations sur Héro- 
 dote, ch. iii. p. 29.) 
 
LECTURE V. 445 
 
 Note 45. p. 171. 
 
 Syncellus regarded Darius the Mede as at once identical 
 with Astyages and Nabonadius. (Chronograph. pp. 437, 
 
 438.) 
 Note 46. p. 171. 
 
 That Cyrus placed Medes in situations of high trust, is 
 evident from Herodotus (i. 156, and 162.) He may there- 
 fore very possibly have established Astyages, his grand- 
 father (?), 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 an Ahasuerus or Xerxes (Dan. ix. 1), while Astyages 
 was the son of Cyaxares, it may be answered that, according 
 to one explanation, Cyaxares is equivalent to HKei-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, 4.18.) 
 But as the numbers depend here on the single authority of 
 Herodotus, whose knowledge of Median history was not 
 very great, perhaps they are not greatly entitled to con- 
 sideration. 
 
 If however it be thought that, for this or any other rea- 
 son, Darius Medus cannot be Astyages, we may regard 
 him as a Median noble, entrusted by Cyrus with the go- 
 vernment 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” — ymaor 635 —that is, 
 “aceepit regnum”’ (Buxtorf. ad voc. oi): “ received 
 the kingdom at the hand of another.” And again we read 
 
 in another place (Dan. ix. 1), that he “as made king over 
 the realm of the Chaldseans;” where the word used is 
 
446 NOTES. 
 
 32077, the Hophil of To, the Hiphal of which is used 
 when David appoints Solomon king, and which thus means 
 distinctly, “‘ was appointed king by another.” 
 
 Note 47. p. 172. 
 Herod. i. 191; Xen. Jnstit. Cyr. vii. 5, § 15. 
 
 Note 48. p. 172. 
 See the author’s Herodotus, vol. 1. pp. 401-403. 
 
 Note 49. p. 172. 
 
 Even the tyrant Cambyses, when he wished to marry his 
 sister, Ott ovk é€wOdta emevdce ToLnoELY, Elpero Kadéoas TOs 
 Baotrnlovs diuxaotas, ef TLs EaTL KEAEVwWY VopmOS TOV Bov- 
 Adpevon GdeApen cuvorxeew. (Herod. iii. 31.) And Xerxes, 
 when he had been entrapped, like Herod Antipas, into 
 making a rash promise, feels compelled to keep it, i76 rod 
 vomov eLepyouevos, OTL aTYxHTaL TOV xpyfovTa ov ode SuVA- 
 Tov €oTt Baotrniov delmvov Tpoxeysevov. (Ibid. ix. 111.) 
 
 Note 50. p. 172. 
 
 See De Wette, Hinleitung, § 255 a, p- 345. Compare 
 Mr. Parker’s Translation, (vol. 11. p. 490), where it is sug- 
 gested that the author has copied and exaggerated what 
 Herodotus ascribes to Darius Hystaspis. 
 
 Note 51. p.172. 
 
 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 pro- 
 vinces of Ahasuerus (Esth. i. 1), and to the enlarged extent 
 of the empire.” 
 
 Note 52. p.174. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar’s first conquest of Judea in the reign 
 of Jehoiakim—which was the occasion on which Daniel 
 
LECTURE V. 44:7 
 
 became a captive (Dan. 1. 1)—fell, as appears from the 
 fragment of Berosus quoted in note 81 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 2 years, Neriglissar 
 three years and some months, Laborosoarchod three quar- 
 ters 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 Judea by Ne- 
 buchadnezzar in B. C. 605. 
 
 Note 53. p. 174. 
 
 See Clinton’s Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. pp. 366-368; and 
 Mr. Hooper’s Palmoni, p. 390. 
 
 Note 54. p. 174. 
 
 In Daniel’s prophecy of the weeks, we have (I think) 
 the term of seventy years used first (Dan. ix. 24) as a 
 round number, and afterwards explained—accuracy being 
 of especial importance in this prophecy—as 684 weeks (ibid. 
 25-27.) In Ezekiel, the forty years’ desolation 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 historiography ;” but it does not ordinarily affect 
 the minuteness and strict accuracy of human history. 
 
 Note 55. p. 175. 
 
 Eiinleitung, § 196,197, pp. 260-265. It is obvious that 
 the insertion of documents, such as the proclamation of 
 Cyrus (Ez. i. 24), the list of those who came up with Ze- 
 rubbabel (ib. 11. 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.) 
 
448 NOTES. 
 
 Note 56. p. 176. 
 
 The number of generations from Joshua to Jaddua, 
 which is six (Neh. xii. 1o-12), should cover a space of 
 about 200 years. This would bring Jaddua to the latter 
 half of the 4th century B.C. Exactly at this time there 
 lived the well-known high-priest Jaddua, who received 
 Alexander at Jerusalem, and shewed him the prophecies 
 of Daniel. (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xi. 8.) At this time too 
 there was a Darius (Darius Codomannus) upon the Persian 
 throne, as noted in verse 22. The Jaddua of Nehemiah 
 must therefore be regarded as the contemporary of Alex- 
 ander. 
 
 Havernick allows this, but still thinks that Nehemiah 
 may have written 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 B. C. 445 (Neh. ii. 
 i—8), he would have been considerably above a hundred 
 before Jaddua can have been priest, and 130 or 14¢ before 
 
 the accession of Codomannus. 
 ry 
 
 Note 57. p. 176. 
 
 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; Horne, Lntrodue- 
 tion, vol. i. p.64; &e.) 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 i. 17-24, the genealogy of the de- 
 scendants of Jechoniah is carried on for nine generations 
 (Jechoniah, Pedaiah, Zerubbabel, Hananiah, Shekaniah, 
 
LECTURE V. 449 
 
 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, Hinleitung, § 189, p. 242, whose argument 
 here appears to be sound. He remarks, that the occur- 
 rence of a Shemaiah, the son of Shekaniah, among the 
 contemporaries of Nehemiah (Neh. iii. 29), confirms the 
 calculation, and indicates that the genealogy is consecu- 
 tive. 
 
 Note 58. p. 176. 
 
 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 open- 
 ing passage of ch. vil. (verses 1-10), chiefly on this ground. 
 (Hinleitung, § 196 a, p. 261.) Bertholdt and Zunz go 
 farther, and deny that Ezra can have written ch. x. Pro- 
 fessor Stuart concludes, chiefly on account of the alterna- 
 tion of persons, that “some one of Ezra’s friends, pro- 
 bably of the prophetic order, compiled the book from 
 various documents,” among which were some written by 
 Ezra himself. (Defence of the Old Testament Canon, § 6, 
 p. 148.) : 
 
 Note 59. P- 176. 
 
 The third person is used through the first six chapters 
 of Daniel, and at the opening of the seventh. The first 
 then takes its place to the end of ch.ix. The third recurs 
 in the first verse of ch. x.; after which the first is used 
 uninterruptedly. 
 
 Note 60. p.176. 
 
 Thucydides begins his history in the third person (i. 1.); 
 but changes to the first after a few chapters (i. 20-22). 
 Further on, in book iv., he resumes the third (chs. 104— 
 106.) In book v. ch. 26, he begins in the third, but runs 
 on into the first, which he again uses in book viii. ch. 97. 
 
 RAWLINSON. eg 
 
450 NOTES. 
 
 Note 61. p.177. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson’s Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform 
 Inscriptions, vol. i. pp. 279, 286, 287, 292, 293, 324, 327, 
 &e. 
 
 Note 62. p. 177. 
 
 The “ first year of Cyrus” (Iz. i. 1), by which we must 
 understand his first year in Babylon, was B.C. 538. The 
 seventh year of Artaxerxes, 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 63. p. 178. 
 See above, Lecture I. page 22, and compare p. 318, 
 note 48. 
 Note 64. p. 178. 
 
 De Wette, Einleitung, § 196 a, p. 260; vol. ii. p. 324, 
 Parker's Translation: Stuart, Defence of the Canon, § 6, 
 p- 148; Horne, Introduction, vol. v. pp. 64, 65. 
 
 Note 65. p. 178. 
 See Lecture IV. p.118. 
 
 id 
 Note 66. p.178. 
 See Lecture I. pp. 15,16; and p. 315, note 34. 
 
 Note 67. p. 178. 
 
 “‘ Die Erzihlung,” says De Wette, “ besteht aus einer 
 Reihe geschichtlicher Schweirigkeiten und Unwahrschein- 
 lichkeiten, und enthalt mehrere Verstiésse gegen die Per- 
 sischen Sitten.” (Hinleitung, § 198 a, p. 266.) 
 
 Note 68. p.178. 
 
 (Eder, Freien Untersuchungen iiber d. Kanon des Alt. 
 Test. p.12, et seqq.; Michaelis, Orient. Bibliothek, vol. ii 
 
LECTURE V. 451 
 
 p- 35, et seqq.; Corrodi, Beleucht. d. Geschicht. d. Jiid. Ka- 
 nons, vol. 1. p. 66, et seqqg.; and Bertholdt, Historisch- 
 Kritische Hinleitung in simmt. kanon. und apokr. Schriften 
 d. Alt. und Neuen Testaments, p. 2425. 
 
 Note 69. p.178. 
 
 See Carpzov’s Introductio, xx. § 6, pp. 365, 366, where 
 he shews that the Jews place the Book of Esther on a par 
 with the Pentateuch, and above all the rest of Scripture. 
 
 Note 70. p.179. 
 
 Even De Wette allows it to be “incontestable (wn- 
 streitig) that the feast of Purim originated in Persia, and 
 was occasioned by an event similar to that related in 
 Esther.” (Hinleitung, § 198 b, p. 267; vol. ii. p. 339, Par- 
 ker’s Translation.) Stuart says very forcibly—‘“ The fact 
 that the feast of Purim has come down to us from time 
 almost immemorial, proves as certainly that the main 
 events related in the Book of Esther happened, as the 
 declaration of mdependence and the celebration of the 
 fourth of July prove that we (Americans) separated from 
 Great Britain, and became an independent nation.” (//is- 
 tory and Defence of the O. T. Canon, § 21, p. 308.) 
 
 Note 71. p. 179. 
 
 It is remarkable that the name of God is not once 
 mentioned in Esther. The only religious ideas introduced 
 with any distinctness are the efficacy of a national humi- 
 hation (Esth. iv. 1-3), the certainty that punishment will 
 overtake the wicked (ib. verse 14), and a feeling of con- 
 fidence that Israel will not be forsaken (ibid.). Various 
 reasons have been given for this reticence (Carpzov, /n- 
 troduct. p. 369; Baumgarten, De Fide Lib. Estheris; p. 58; 
 Horne, Jntroduction, vol. v. p. 69, &c.); but they are con- 
 jectural, and so uncertain. One thing only is clear, that 
 if a Jew in later times had wished to palm upon his coun- 
 
452 NOTES. 
 
 trymen, 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, 
 
 poi.) 
 Note 72. p. 179. 
 
 The grounds upon which the historieal character of the 
 Book of Esther is questioned, are principally the following. 
 (1.) The Persian king intended by Ahasuerus seems to be 
 Xerxes. As Esther cannot be identified with Amestris, 
 the daughter of Otanes, who really ruled Xerxes, the whole 
 story of her being made queen, and of her great power 
 and influence, becomes impossible. (2.) Mordecai, having 
 been carried into captivity with Jechoniah (in B.C. 588), 
 must have 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 honours paid to Mor- 
 decai are excessive. (5.) The marriage with a Jewess is 
 impossible, since the queens were taken exclusively from 
 the families of the seven conspirators. (6.) Esther’s con- 
 cealment 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 evi- 
 dence would render it credible.” (See Mr. Parker’s addi- 
 tions 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 
 (Hinleitung, § 198 a, p. 267), that such an invitation is 
 “ possible on account of the advancing corruption in 
 Xerxes’ time, and through the folly of Xerxes himself.” 
 
LECTURE V. 453 
 
 To the fourth we may reply, that the honours being ana- 
 logous (as De Wette observes) to those paid to Joseph, 
 are thereby shewn to be not greater than under some cir- 
 cumstances were assigned to benefactors by eastern mon- 
 archs. Nor would any one acquainted with the Kast make 
 the objection. The fifth objection is met by observing, 
 that when Cambyses wished to marry his sister, which was 
 as much against the law as marrying a Jewess, and con- 
 sulted the royal judges on the point, they told him, that 
 there was no law, so far as they knew, which allowed a 
 man to marry his sister, but that there was a law to this 
 effect, that the Persian king might do what he pleased. he 
 sixth objection scarcely needs a reply, for its answer is con- 
 tained in the preceding objection. If it was contrary to Per- 
 sian law that the king should marry a Jewess, the fact of 
 Esther’s nationality would be sure to be studiously con- 
 cealed. 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 super- 
 stition, while the length of the notice in the second in- 
 stance 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 victory and the deliverance of the 
 Jews. The result of the encounter he relates, viz. the 
 great loss and humiliation of Persian enemies. But how 
 much it cost to achieve this victory he does not relate... 
 We can scarcely doubt that many Jews were killed or 
 wounded.” (/istory and Defence of the O. T. Canon, § 21, 
 
 PP- 309; 310-) 
 
 Note 73. p.179. 
 
 Carpzov, /ntroductio, ¢. xx. § 4, pp. 360, 361. 
 
454: NOTES. 
 
 Note 74. p. 180. 
 
 Carpzov, § 6, pp. 368, 369. This was probably the ground 
 of Luther’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. Hp. Festal. vol. i. p. 963 ; 
 Synops. S. 8. vol. ii. p. 128; Melito ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 
 iv. 26, &c.) In recent times the objection has not been 
 much pressed. 
 
 Note 75. p. 182. 
 
 See Sir H. Rawlinson’s Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform 
 Inscriptions, vol. i. pp. 197-200, 273, 274, 280, 286, 29), 
 299; 320, 324, 327, 339 335, 338, and 342. 
 
 Note 76. p. 182. 
 Ibid. pp. 285, 291, 319, 723, &ce. 
 
 Note 77. p. 183. 
 
 Ewald, Geschichte d. Volkes Israel, vol. iii. part. ii. p. 118: 
 Winer, Realworterbuch, ad voce. Ahasuerus and Artachs- 
 chaschta ; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopedia, vol. i. pp. 98 and 
 229; Se. 
 
 Note 78. p. 183. 
 
 The Pseudo-Smerdis seems to have been known by se- 
 veral names. According to Darius (Behist. Inser. 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 Artaxerxes 
 means “Great King, ‘ Great Warrior” (see the author’s 
 Herodotus, vol. iil. 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, Kabujiya in Persia, KayBvons in Greece. It is 
 certainly yery remarkable that the Jews should only know 
 
LECTURE V. 455 
 
 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 
 Artaxerxes of verse 7 is incompatible with the nexus of 
 verses 23 and 24. 
 
 Note 79. p. 183. 
 
 The reigns are in each case four—Cyrus, Cambyses, 
 Smerdis the Mage, Darius Hystaspis, in profane history— 
 Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Artaxerxes, Darius, in Ezra. The har- 
 mony 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. 1. 7 and 12); but that they were completed twe 
 years later, in the fourth year of that prince (ib. vii. 5). 
 He therefore, it would seem, placed the completion in 
 Darius’s 3rd or 4th year; i. e. in B.C. 519 or 518. Tak- 
 ing the latter date, and counting back by the years of the 
 Astronomical Canon, 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. li. 
 29).™ Thus the two chronologies harmonise exactly. 
 
 Note 80. p. 183. 
 
 See the Behistun Inseript. col. 1. par. 14. 
 
 m In 2 Kings xxv. 8, we find the nineteenth year mentioned as that 
 of the destruction instead of the eighteenth. I believe the cause of this 
 difference to be, that some reckoned the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to 
 have commenced in B.C. 60;—the last year of Nabopolassar—when 
 Nebuchadnezzar came into Palestine as his father’s representative, 
 defeated Necho, and made Jehoiakim tributary. (See Lecture IV. 
 note 81.) 
 
456 NOTES. 
 
 Note 81. p.184. 
 Behist. Inser. 1. s. ¢. 
 
 Note 82. p. 185. 
 
 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 testimony on the point 
 of Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, preserved to us in 
 the Astronomical Canon and in Manetho, as reported by 
 Eusebius. From both it appears, that from the sixth year 
 of Darius to the seventh of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) was 
 a period of 58 years. 
 
 Note 83. p. 186. 
 
 The Persian word is read as Ahshayarsha. Ahasuerus 
 (WIA) only differs from AKhshayarsha by the adoption 
 of the prosthetic $$, which the Hebrews invariably placed 
 before the Persian Kish, and the substitution of 4 for 9, a 
 common dialectic variation. Gesenius (Thesaurus, vol. i. 
 p- 75), and Winer (Realworterbuch, ad voc. Ahasuerus) ad- 
 mit the identity of the words. 
 
 The construction of Esther ii. 5,6 is ambiguous. The 
 word “who” (WN), at the commencement of verse 6, 
 may refer either to Mordecai, the chief subject of the nar- 
 rative, or to Kish, the /ast individual mentioned in verse 5. 
 If Kish was carried off by Nebuchadnezzar 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 85. p. 187. 
 See Herod. vii. 1g, 20. 
 
 Note 86. p. 187. 
 Ibid. ix. 108. 
 Note 87. p. 187. 
 De Wette, Einleitung, § 198 a, p. 267; vol. ii. p. 337, 
 Parker's Translation, 
 
LECTURE V. 457 
 
 Note 88. p. 187. 
 
 Amestris was the daughter of Otanes, according to He- 
 rodotus (vii. 61); according to Ctesias, of Onophas or 
 Anaphes (xe. 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 im- 
 probable. (See Herod. vii. 114; ix. 112; Ctes. Exe. Pers. 
 § 40-43.) 
 
 Note 89. p. 188. 
 
 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 permission; 3. the man- 
 ner 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. 111. 128.) To these may 
 be added, 1. the general character of the Persian palaces 
 (i. 5,6; compare Loftus’s Chaldea and Susiana, pp. 373— 
 375); 2. the system of posts (vill. 10; Herod. viii. 98) ; 
 3. the law that each wife should go in to the king in her 
 turn (ii.12; Herod. i. 69); 4. the entry in ‘ the book 
 of records” of the names and acts of royal benefactors 
 (iil. 23; vi. 1, 2; Herod. vil. 194; vill. 85, 90; &c.); and 
 5. the principle that all such persons had a right toa re- 
 ward (vi. 3; Herod. iii. 140; vill. 85; ix. 107). 
 
 Note 90. p. 188. 
 Herod. il. 79; Ctes. Hac. Pers. § 15. 
 
 Note 91. p. 189. 
 
 Some writers have supposed that the Artaxerxes who 
 befriended Ezra was really Xerxes. So Josephus, (Ant. 
 Jud. xi. 5); who is followed by J. D. Michaelis (ad loc.), 
 
458 NOTES. 
 
 Jahn (inleitung, vol. ii. p. 276), and others. But there 
 seems to be no good reason for supposing him to have been 
 a different person from the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, who 
 is allowed on all hands to be Longimanus. (See the article 
 on Arraxerxes in Kitto’s Biblical Cyclopedia, where the 
 question is ably argued.) That the Artaxerxes of Nehe- 
 miah is Longimanus, appears from the length of his reign 
 (Neh. v. 14), combined with the fact that he was contem- 
 porary with the grandsons or great-grandsons of those who 
 were contemporary with Cyrus”. 
 
 Note 92. p. 189. 
 Ctesias ap. Phot. Bibliothec. pp. 115-124. 
 
 Note 93. p. igo. 
 
 On the non-historical character of the Book of Judith, 
 see the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 245, note *. 
 
 » The length of his reign, 32 years at the least, shews him to have 
 been either Longimanus 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 32nd year of Nehemiah’s Arta- 
 xerxes (Neh. xiii. 6, 7), it seems quite impossible that he can be Mne- 
 mon, whose 32nd year was B. C. 374. (See the author’s Herodotus, 
 vol. iv. pp. 260, 261, note !8,) 
 
INOr DES: 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 Note 1. p. 193. 
 
 ON the different views entertained as to the exact year 
 of our Lord’s birth, see Olshausen’s Biblischer Commentar, 
 vol. 11. 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 Kast Hellenici, vol. 
 il. 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 (Greck 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, |. 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 2. p. 196. 
 See Lecture II. p. 39. 
 Note 3. p. 197. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 133; p. 56, i. T. 
 © Commentary on the Gospels and the Acts, by Hermann Olshausen, 
 
 D.D. Translated by the Rev. H. B. Creak, A.M. Third edition. 
 Edinburgh, Clarke, 1857. 
 
460 NOTES. 
 
 Note 4. p. 197. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, |. s. ec. 
 
 Note 5. p. 197. 
 Ibid...§:14 3 p.84 40 e. 
 
 Note 6. p. 197. 
 Ibid. § 53; p. 56, E. T. 
 
 Note 7. p. 198. 
 ibid: 1. 8: /¢. 5. pp. 02, 63,8. L. 
 
 Note 8. p. 199. 
 
 In the Syriac Version of Matthew, which is undoubtedly 
 very old, and which some regard as of nearly equal au- 
 thority with the Greek Gospel?, the title runs, “ The Gos- 
 pel, the Preaching of Matthew.” The Persian has, “ The 
 Gospel of Matthew;” and the Arabic, “ The Gospel of 
 Saint Matthew the Apostle, which he wrote in Hebrew by 
 the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.” (See Horne’s Jntroduc- 
 tion, vol. i. pp. 260, 261.) 
 
 Note 9. p. 199. 
 
 Herodotus, for example, is quoted but by ene author 
 (Ctesias) within 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 4; 
 it is not till the fifth century from the time of his writing 
 his history, that he is largely and commonly cited by writers 
 of the day. (See Mr. Isaac Taylor’s recent work on the 
 Transmission of Ancient Books to Modern Times, pp. 295— 
 
 P See Dr. Cureton’s recent work, Remains of a very Ancient Recen- 
 sion of the four Gospels in Syriac, London, 1858. 
 
 4 Posidonius should perhaps be added as a third witness belonging 
 to this period. He quoted Herodotus, not very correctly, in his 'Trea- 
 tise concerning the Ocean. (Fr. Hist. Gr. vol. ili. p. 279.) 
 
LECTURE VI. 461 
 
 299.) The first distinet quotation’ of Thucydides seems 
 to be that by Hermippus (fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. p. 48, 
 Fr. 54), who lived about B.C. 200, nearly two centuries 
 after him. Posidonius, writing about B.C. 75, first quotes 
 Polybius, who wrote about B.C. 150. Livy is, I believe, 
 only quoted by Quinctilian among writers of the century 
 following him; Tacitus, though mentioned as a writer by 
 the younger Pliny, is first cited—nearly a century after his 
 death—by Tertullian. If the reader will cast his eye over 
 the “ Testimonies,” 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 ven- 
 tured in the text. The argument is one advanced, but 
 without proof, by Paley. (Hvidences, Part i. ch. 10; p. 104.) 
 
 Note 10. p. 201. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13; p. 55, E. 'T. 
 
 Note 11. p. 201. 
 
 See Lecture II. pp. 39-47; and note 8 on Lecture V. 
 PP- 433> 434- 
 Note 12. p. 202. 
 
 _ See Horne’s Introduction, vol. v. p. 113; Kitto, Biblical 
 Cyclopedia, vol. il. p. 582. 
 
 Note 13. p. 202. 
 See Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, vol. ii. p. 225; Pearson, 
 Vindicie Iqnatiane, Pars i. e.6; Burton, Ecclesiastical 
 Mistory, vol. ii. pp. 29, 30; and p. 152. 
 
 Note 14. p. 202. 
 
 Constitutiones Apostolice, vi. 16; Ireneus, adv. Heres. 
 1.20; &e. 
 ¥ Cratippus alluded to the fact that there were no speeches in the 
 
 last book, and that the work was left unfinished; but he did not (so 
 far as we know) make any quotation. (Fr. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. p. 76.) 
 
462 NOTES. 
 
 Note 15. p. 203. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 13; pp. 62, 63; E.T. Some 
 writers have maintained that the expression xara Mar@aiov 
 is exactly equivalent to the genitive tod Mar@aiov. (See 
 Horne’s Introduction, vol. vy. p. 260.) Olshausen observes 
 more correctly, that the expression is ambiguous. It may 
 mark actual and complete authorship, as in the passage 
 quoted from 2 Maccab. in the text; or it may mean edi- 
 torship, as in the phrase “Oynpos kata ’Apiotapyov. The 
 unanimous testimony 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), be- 
 cause the Gospel was known as “ the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ.” Piety therefore made the use of such phrases 
 as evayyéAtoy Maréatov, evayyéAvov Mdpxov, “ impossible.” 
 (Biblischer Commentar, Hinleitung, § 4; p.11, note.) 
 
 Note 16. p. 204. 
 
 Faustus, the Manichean, did indeed attempt to prove 
 that the first Gospel was not the work of St. Matthew; 
 but 1. he wrote late in the fourth century; and 2. it seems 
 that he could find no flaw in the external 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. 9g). 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 Faus- 
 tus. (See his Hinlettung in das N. Test. vol. i. p. 145.) 
 
 Note 17. p. 204. 
 
 Irenzeus says—'O pév 7 MarOaios év rois‘EBpatos ri idia 
 dbradé > cal \ La ef / , rd na a] / 
 
 KT@ auT@Y Kal ypadyy eEjveyxev evayyedlov, Tod [érpov 
 
 kal Tod IlavAov év “Poéyn evayyeAtCopevwv Kal OeuedvodvT@v 
 
 THY exkAnolay. Mera 0é tiv Ttovrwy Efodov, Mdpxos 6 abnrijs 
 
 \ c \ / SY aN \ « \ / , 
 Kal epyyveutis [léetpov, Kal avtos 7a bro Tlétpov Knpvoodpeva 
 
LECTURE VI. 463 
 
 . / = (rn / aN fon Nal 3h) V2 , 
 Eyypadws nuiv Tapadedmxe. Kat Aovkas d€ 6 axddAovdos Tavdov, 
 AK ez 3 3 / , > / >] / / 
 TO Um €xelvov Kynpvooopevov evayyéeALov ev BiBAlw Karéero. 
 wy ? i ¢ XX nN / < > >] \ \ lal 
 Ezeira Iwavyns 6 pabytns tot Kupiov, 6 kai én Td otHOos 
 > a >] SS \ EN: > / \ b) / 3 , / 
 avTov avarecay, Kal adtos e&€dwKe TO evayyéALov, ev Edeow 
 tis “Aoias diatpiBov. (Advers. Heres. iii. 1.) And again— 
 Kat ra EiayyéAua obv rovro.s ovppava, ev ois éyxadeCetar Xpi- 
 
 , ak SS \ Sie / \ SiN ral \ ¢€ 
 ores. To pev yap xara Iwavynv tHv amo tot Llarpos ajyepuo- 
 
 \ ’ cal NX: OF: \ ta) / 9 ) Kees € 
 VLKIY aUTOU Kal Evdogov yeveay buynyetrar, A€yov' "Ev apx7 jv 6 
 Adyos x.t.X. To 6€ kata Aovkay, Gre tepatixod yapaxtipos 
 bmdpxov, and Tod Zayapiov tod tepéws Ovpivtos TO) Oc@ 
 y+ o S X\ eh 8S) ies b) a / 
 np€aro ... Mardaios 5& tiv Kar drvOpérov abtod yévynow Kny- 
 porret, K€ywv" BiBdos yevécews Inood Xpiorod x.t.d. Mdpxos 
 d€ Gro TOU TpodyTiKOD TVEpaTOS ... THY apxiV eTooaro, Aé- 
 you "Apxi tod ebayyediov “Inood Xpistob x.t.r. (Ibid. iii. 
 rr § pr) 
 
 Clement—according to the report of Eusebius—said : 
 
 / a 2) 4 XX / \ ig 
 
 Tpoyeypapba TOY Eevayyediov Ta TEpleXoVTA Tas yeveadoylas: 
 XN SS SS , “4 2. / ‘ > / ca) , 
 
 TO 6€ kata Mapkov tavtnv éoynkevat THY oiKovoutay: Tov Térpov 
 dnuooia ev “Pdun KnypvEavtos tov Adyov, Kal Tvetpatt Td 
 evayyédiov e€ertovTos, TOVs TapdvTas ToAAOVs dvTAas TapaKa- 
 A€oat TOv Mapxov, os dv axodovdjcavta aire Toppwobev, Kab 
 Mepynuevoy TOV AEXOevTa@V, avaypaya TA elpnueva’ ToUjoavra 
 d€ TO EvayyeALoV, peTAadotvaL Tos Seomevors adTod. “Omep émt- 
 yvovta tov Lleérpov, mpotpentixOs pte Kodvoar pajte Tpo- 
 
 f ‘ \ / ) / ” / 4 XX 
 tpewacOat’ Tov pevtor "lwavynv €oxarov cuvidovta 6Tt TA Tw- 
 paTiKa ev Tots evayyeAtors ded7jA@TAL, TpoTpaTevTAa bT0 TOV 
 yropiwov, mvevpatt OeohopnOervta, TvEevpaTiKoy ToLjoaL ebayyé- 
 Awov. (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Kecles. vi. 14.) 
 
 Tertullian writes—“ In summa, si constat id verius quod 
 prius, id prius quod et ab initio, id ab initio quod ab 
 apostolis; pariter utique constabit, id esse ab apostolis 
 traditum, quod apud ecclesias apostolorum fuerit sacro- 
 sanctum. Videamus quod lac a Paulo Corinthii hause- 
 rint; ad quam regulam Galatz sint recorrecti; quid le- 
 gant Philippenses, Thessalonicenses, Ephesii; quid etiam 
 Romani de proximo sonent, quibus evangelium et Petrus 
 et Paulus sanguine suo signatum reliquerunt. Habemus 
 et Johannis alumnas ecclesias... Dico itaque apud illas, 
 
464. NOTES. 
 
 nec solas jam apostolicas, sed apud universas, que illis de 
 societate sacramenti confcederantur, id Evangelium Lucee 
 ab initio editionis suze stare, quod cum maxime tuemur ... 
 adem auctoritas ecclesiarum apostolicarum ceteris quoque 
 patrocinabitur evangeliis, quee proinde per illas et secundum 
 illas habemus; Johannis dico et Matthzi; licet et Marcus 
 quod edidit, Petri adfirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus ; 
 nam et Luce digestum Paulo adscribere solent. Capit ma- 
 gistrorum videri, quze discipuli promulgarint.” (Adv. Mar- 
 cion. IV. 5.) 
 
 Origen—‘Qs év wapaddce: pabav epi Tv Tecodpwv ebay- 
 yedlov, & kal pova avavtippynta éoti év TH bm TOV 
 ovpavov €xkkAnola to} Oeov* Gri aperov pev yéypanrat 
 TO Kata Tov ToTE TeASYNV, VaTEpoy dé aroaToAOY "Inood Xpt- 
 atod MarOaiov, éxdedmxdTa avTd Tots a70 ‘lovdaiopod mu TEv- 
 gaol, ypdppacw “EBpaixois ovvreraypévov' dedvtepov b& TO 
 kata Mdpxov, ws Ilérpos ifynynoaro atte, Toujoavta’ ... kal 
 tpitov 70 Kata Aovkav, to two TavAov émawovpevov evay- 
 yéduov, Tots and Tév COvev TeTONKOTA ent maou 5 TO KaTa 
 "Todvenv. (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eecles. vi. 25.) 
 
 Of course these passages do not form a hundredth part 
 of the testimony borne by these writers to the authority 
 of the four Gospels. They use them with the same fre- 
 queney 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 por- 
 tion 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 (Genuwineness of the Gos- 
 pels, vol. i. pp. 83-105.) Paley’s Synopsis also deserves 
 the attention of the student. (Hvidences, part i. ch. 10, 
 
 § 1) 
 
 Note 18. p. 204. 
 
 Justin’s ordinary expression is “the Memoirs of the 
 Apostles” (ra dropvnpovedpata téy azoordAwr) ; but in one 
 
PROTUORE VI. 465° 
 
 place he identifies these Memoirs with the Gospels by 
 adding, & xadeira evayyeAva, “which are called Gospels.” 
 (Apol. i. p.83,B.) He appears to prefer the former term in 
 addressing the heathen, as more classical. In his Dialogue 
 with Trypho he sometimes uses the term evayyéAtov simply. 
 (Opera, p.195, D.) These Memoirs, or Gospels, he says, 
 were composed ‘“ by the Apostles of Christ and their com- 
 ‘panions” (rots droprynpovedpacw, & pnt b7d Tov’ ATooTéhwv 
 avTod Kal TOV exelvois TapaxohovOnoavt@ys cuvTeTaxOa). It 
 has been questioned by Bishop Marsh and others whether 
 the quotations 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 (Cre- 
 dibility, &c. vol. 1. note E, pp. 316-324). The careful 
 analysis of the latter writer exhausts the subject, and de- 
 serves attentive perusal. 
 
 Note 19. p. 204. 
 
 Papias said—Mardaios pév oty “EBpatds dtadéxtw- Ta Aoyta 
 guveypawaro. Epynvevoe & atta ws iv Ouvatos Exaoros. And, 
 Mapkos pév Epynvevris lérpov yevopevos, doa euvnuovevoer, 
 axplBa@s Eypaypev, od pevTot TAEEL TA LTO TOD Xpiorod 7) AexOevTa 
 7) mpaxbevra. (Ap. Kuseb. Hist. Hecles. iii. 39.) 
 
 It has been questioned whether Papias was really a dis- 
 ciple 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 (I. s. ¢.) 
 that he did not himself claim to have received his know- 
 ledge of Christianity from the apostles themselves. Still 
 the testimony of Irenzeus is express (Llazias, 6 lwdvvov pev 
 axovoTis, LloAukapmov O& Eraipos yeyovds. EKuseb. |.s.¢.), and 
 cannot without violence be understood of any one but St. 
 John the Evangelist. : 
 
 8 Compare Luke i. 1; dof kapol mapynKoAovOnkore k.T.d, 
 
 RAWLINSON. Hh 
 
466 NOTES. 
 
 Note 20. p. 205. 
 
 Leben Jesu, § 14. ‘It is however by no means neces- 
 sary to attribute this same freedom from all conscious in- 
 tention 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 nar- 
 ratives of the Gospels, as for example, of the first chapter 
 of the third, and many parts of the fourth Gospel.” (pp. 83, 
 84H: 
 
 Note 21. p. 205. 
 
 Ubid, $3233; p60, Hi. 
 
 Note 22. p. 206. 
 
 Ibid. 1. s. ¢. 
 
 Note 23. p. 206. 
 
 See above, note 1. The date A. D. 63 is preferred by 
 Bertholdt, Feilmoser, Dean Alford, Mr. Birks, and others. 
 
 Note 24. p. 207. 
 Leben Jesu, § 13; p. 61, HE. T. 
 
 Note 25. p. 207. 
 
 See above, note 17. 
 
 Note 26. p. 208. 
 
 This is Burton’s conclusion (Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 255)s 
 deduced from the discrepancies in the external evidence. 
 Dean Alford’s unanswerable argument in favour of the 
 independent origin of the first three Gospels, deduced from 
 their internal character, implies the same. The first three 
 Gospels were probably all written within the space A. D. 
 
 58—65. 
 
LECTURE VI. 467 
 
 Note 27.:p. 210. 
 
 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 28. p. 210. 
 
 Theophylact and Euthymius placed the composition of 
 St. Matthew’s Gospel within eight years of the Ascension ; 
 Nicephorus placed it 15 years after that event; Cosmas 
 Indicopleustes assighed it to the time of the stoning of 
 Stephen. (See Alford’s Greck Testament, Prolegomena, 
 vol.i. p. 26.) In modern times Bishop Tomline, Le Clere, 
 Dr. Owen, Dr. ‘Townson, and others, incline to a date even 
 earlier than that fixed by Theophylact. 
 
 Note 29. p. 211. 
 
 On the various theories to which the combined resem- 
 blances and differences of the first three Gospels have 
 given birth, see Horne’s Introduction, vol. v. Appendix, pp: 
 509-529; Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. i. Prolegomena, 
 ch. 1. § 2,3; and Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. 
 Note D. pp. 239-296. The last-named writer, after having 
 proved that no one of the first three Hvangelists copied 
 from another, observes with much force— “ If the Evan- 
 gelists did not copy one from another, it follows, that the 
 first three Gospels must ail 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; especially 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.) 
 
 Hh 2 
 
468 NOTES. 
 
 Note 30. p. 211. 
 
 See the passage quoted above, note 17, page 462. Ire- 
 nzus, it will be observed, makes St. Matthew write his 
 Gospel while St. Peter and St. Paul were founding the 
 Church at Rome, i.e. during the term of St. Paul’s impri- 
 sonment (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 31. p. 211. 
 
 It is unnecessary to prove this agreement; which is such, 
 that each of the three writers has been in turn accused of 
 copying from one or both of his fellow-Evangelists. (See 
 Horne’s Introduction, vol. v. Appendix, pp. 509, 510.) 
 
 Note $2. p. 212. 
 
 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, &e. &e. 
 Note 33. p. 212. 
 
 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 enumera- 
 tion of “ discrepancies,” in relation to the form of the An- 
 nunciation. ‘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 Mat- 
 thew, 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 pur- 
 
LECTURE VI. 469 
 
 pose of the apparition, and the effect, are different.” 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 account of the an- 
 gelic appearance to Joseph. Similarly in the section where 
 the calling of the first Apostles is examined (§ 70), “ dis- 
 crepancies” 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 Galilean 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 circumstance, 
 that the first two Evangelists relate only the actual eall 
 of certain disciples, while St. John informs us what pre- 
 vious 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 Beth- 
 lehem, to have been the original residence of our Lord’s pa- 
 rents ($ 39); from the omission by the three earlier writers 
 of the journeys into Judzea 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 Bap- 
 tist 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 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 accounts of the death of Judas ‘“ irrecon- 
 cileable,” because St. Luke says nothing of remorse, or of 
 suicide, but relates what has the appearance of a death by 
 
470 NOTES. 
 
 accident (§ 130); he regards the presence of Nicodemus at 
 our Lord’s interment as a “fabrication of the fourth Evan- 
 gelist,” simply beeause it is unnoticed 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 
 facet of omission. 
 Note 34. p. 213. 
 See Norton’s Credibility of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 74,75 
 
 Note 35. p. 213. 
 
 In point of fact there is scarcely a difficulty brought for- 
 ward by Strauss which has not been again and again no- 
 ticed and explained by biblical commentators. Mr. Norton 
 correctly says of his volumes— ‘‘ They present @ collection 
 jrom various authors of difficulties in the history contained 
 in the Gospels, to which their expositor should particularly 
 direct his attention.” ‘The critical portion of them pre- 
 sents little which is novel. 
 
 Note 36. p. 217. ° 
 
 See Paley’s Hore Pauline, ch. i. p. 1. 
 
 Note 37. p. 218. 
 Leben Sesu, § 133; vol.i. p. 60, EB. T. 
 
 Note 38. p. 218. 
 
 If we take, for example, the earliest of St. Paul’s Epi- 
 stles, 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 Sil- 
 vanus, and Timotheus” (4 Thess. i. 1; compare Acts xvii. 
 10,153 Xvill. 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 
 
LECTURE VI. 471 
 
 taken precedence of Silas, since owing to the circumstance 
 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 Thessalo- 
 nians as objects of the divine election (i. 43; €iddres, ddeAdor 
 HyaTnpevol, LTO Oeod tiv exrAoyHnv vuov) 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 European recipients of the Gospel. The term 
 exhoy? 18 a rare One in Scripture, 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 si- 
 milar selection by miraculous means as an object of the 
 Divine favour. 
 
 3. The great success of the Gospel at Thessalonica is 
 strongly asserted in verse 5, (70 edayyeAov Hyudv od« eyert}On 
 eis twas Ev Adyw povoyv, GAG Kal ev Suvapet, «.T.A.) Com- 
 pare Acts xvii. 4; “And some of them (the Jews) believed, 
 and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout 
 Greeks @ great multitude, and of the chief women not 
 a few.” 
 
 4. The aorist tenses in ch.i. verses 5 and 6, and else- 
 where (éyev9 On, eyeviOnuev, eyeryOnre, deEduevor, exnptEauer, 
 «.7.A.), point naturally, but very unobtrusively, 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 iSpiodevres (ii. 2.) It was tBpis to scourge a Roman 
 citizen. 
 
 6. The statement that while at Thessalonica St. Paul 
 toiled and laboured, that he might not be chargeable or 
 burthensome to the converts (11. 6,9), though not directly 
 confirmed by the history of the Acts, is in harmony with 
 the fact that at Corinth, a few months afterwards, he 
 wrought at his eraft with Aquila and Priscilla (Acts xviii. 
 
AT2 NOTES. 
 
 3), having the same object in view. (1 Cor. ix. 12; 2 Cor. 
 Ri. Gist. Keiiwe;) 
 
 7. The reference to the hindrance offered by the Jews to 
 St. Paul’s preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles (ii. 16), ac- 
 cords both with the general conduct of the Jews elsewhere 
 (Acts xill. 45, 50, &c.), and especially with their conduct 
 at Thessalonica, where ‘“‘ being moved with envy” (@A- 
 cavres) at the conversion of the Gentiles, they “set all the 
 city on an uproar.” (Acts xvii. 5.) 
 
 8. The expression, “ we would lave come unto you— 
 even I, Paul—once and again,” derives peculiar force from 
 the circumstance related in the Acts (xvii. 14-16), that 
 after leaving Macedonia he was for some time alone at 
 Athens, while Silas and Timothy remained at Bercea. 
 
 9g. The mention of “ the brethren throughout all Mace- 
 donia” in ch. iv.10 harmonizes with the account in the Acts 
 that St. Paul had founded churches at Philippi and Bercea 
 as well as at Thessalonica. (Acts xvi. 12-403 XViil. 10-12.) 
 
 10. The “ affliction and distress” in which St. Paul says 
 he was (iil. 7) at the time of Timothy’s return from Mace- 
 donia, receive illustration from Acts xviii. 4-6, where we 
 find that just at this period he was striving but vainly 
 (€ze.0e) to convert the Jews of Corinth, “ pressed in spirit,” 
 and earnestly testifyimg, but to no purpose, so that shortly 
 afterwards he had to relinquish the attempt. What 
 ‘¢ affliction” this would cause to St. Paul we may gather 
 from Romans ix. i—5. 
 
 Note 39. p. 219. 
 
 I was not aware, at the time of delivering my sixth Lec- 
 ture, 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. Birks, entitled, Hore Apostolicet, and attached to 
 
 t Hore Pauline, by William Paley, D.D., with notes, and a Sup- 
 plementary Treatise, entitled, Hore Apostolice, by the Rev. T. R. Birks, 
 A.M., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge: London, Religious 
 Tract Society, 1850. 
 
CE CPURE,” VI. 473 
 
 an annotated edition of the Hore Pauline of Paley. The 
 first chapter of this treatise contains a supplement to 
 Paley’s examination of the Pauline Epistles. It will well 
 repay perusal; though it is still far from exhausting the 
 subject. Chapter ii. is concerned with the internal coinci- 
 dences in the Acts of the Apostles ; and chapter ii. with 
 those in the Gospels. The treatment of this latter point 
 is, unfortunately, but scanty. No more than twenty-five 
 pages are devoted to it, the author remarking, that “ in 
 his present supplementary work, this 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.” 
 (Hore Apostolice, p. 188.) 
 
 Note 40. p. 219. 
 Leben Jesu, § 13; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 
 
 Note 41. p. 220. 
 
 See on these points Horne’s Jntroduction, vol. v. pp. 422— 
 435; and pp. 487, 488; Kitto’s Cyclopedia, vol. 1. pp. 163- 
 166, and 826-832; and Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. iv. 
 part i. Prolegomena, pp. 1-62. 
 
 Note 42. p. 222. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 14, sub fin. vol. i. p. 84, HK. T. 
 
 Note 43. p. 224. 
 
 Ibid. 1. s.c. See above, note 20; where a passage to 
 this effect is quoted at length. 
 
N OL. £2. 
 LECTURE VIL. 
 
 
 
 Note 1. p. 226. 
 
 THE only exception to this general rule, among the 
 strictly historical books, is the Book of Ruth, 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 2. p. 227. 
 
 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 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 cus- 
 toms and tenets of the people, whom Jesus Christ and his 
 apostles were concerned with.” (Credibility, &e. vol. i. p. 7.) 
 
 Note 3. p. 228. 
 Hence the certainty with which literary forgeries, if his- 
 torical, are detected, in all cases where we possess a fair 
 knowledge of the time and country to which they profess 
 
LECTURE VII. AT5 
 
 to belong. The alleged “ Hpistles of Phalaris,” the pre- 
 tended 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 particular. It is important to bear in 
 mind, in this connexion, the fact that there is no period 
 in the whole range of ancient history, whereof we possess 
 a more full and exact knowledge than we do of the first 
 century of our era. 
 
 Note 4. p. 230. 
 
 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 re- 
 view. 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— “ Ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos, et 
 queesitissimis pcenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus 
 Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Christus, Tiberio 
 imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum, supplicio 
 adfectus erat. Repressaque in preesens exitiabilis superstitio 
 rursus erumpebat, non modo per Jud@am, originem ejus 
 malt, sed per Urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia, 
 aut pudenda, confluunt celebranturque. Igitur primi cor- 
 repti qui fatebantur, deinde indicio eorum ingens multitudo, 
 haud perinde in erimine incendii quam odio humani generis 
 convicti sunt. Kt pereuntibus addita ludibria, ut ferarum 
 tergis contecti, laniatu canum interirent, aut erucibus 
 affixi, aut flammandi, atque ubi defecisset dies, in usum 
 nocturni luminis urerentur. Hortos suos ei spectaculo Nero 
 obtulerat, et circense ludicrum edebat, habitu aurigze per- 
 mistus plebi, vel curriculo insistens. Unde quanquam ad- 
 versus sontes et novissima exempla meritos, miseratio orie- 
 batur, tanquam non utilitate publica sed in seevitiam unius 
 absumerentur.” (Annal. xv. 44.) 
 
 Suetonius says briefly in reference to the same oecasion— 
 “ Aflictt suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis 
 
476 NOTES. 
 
 nove et malefice.” (Vit. Neron. $16.) And with a pos- 
 sible, though not a certain, reference to our Lord— “ Ju- 
 deeos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma [Clau- 
 dius] expulit.” (Vit. Claud. § 25.) 
 
 Juvenal, with a meaning which cannot be mistaken, 
 when the passage of Tacitus above quoted has once been 
 read, remarks — 
 
 Pone Tigellinum, taeda lucebis in illa 
 
 Qua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fumant, 
 
 Et latum media sulcum deducis arena. 
 
 (Sat. 1. 155-157-) 
 Pliny writes to Trajan— ‘‘ Solenne est mihi, domine, 
 
 omnia de quibus dubito, ad te referre. Quis enim potest 
 melius vel cunctationem meaim regere, vel ignorantiam in- 
 struere? Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui nunquam: 
 ideo nescio quid et quatenus aut puniri soleat, aut queeri. 
 Nec mediocriter hesitavi, sitne aliquod discrimen eetatum, 
 an quamlibet teneri nihil a robustioribus differant: deturne 
 peenitentize venia, an ei qui omnino Christianus fuit, desisse 
 non prosit: nomen ipsum, etiamsi flagitiis careat, an flagitia 
 coherentia nomini puniantur. Interim in lis qui ad me 
 tanquam Christiam deferebantur, hune sum sequutus mo- 
 dum. Interrogavi ipsos, an essent Christiani: confitentes 
 iterum ac tertio interrogavi, supplicium minatus: perseve- 
 rantes duci jussi. Neque enim dubitabam, qualecunque 
 esset quod faterentur, pervicaciam certe, et inflexibilem 
 obstinationem debere puniri. Fuerunt alii similis amentiz: 
 quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remit- 
 tendos; mox ipso tractu, ut fieri solet, diffundente se eri- 
 mine, plures species inciderunt. Propositus est libellus sine 
 auctore, multorum nomina continens, qui negarent se esse 
 Christianos, aut fuisse, quum, preeeunte me, deos appella- 
 
 «“ Compare the observations of the old Scholiast on the passage— 
 “« In munere Neronis arserunt vivi, de quibus ille jusserat cereos fieri, 
 qui lucerent spectatoribus ;”” and again, ‘‘ Maleficos homines (compare 
 Suetonius’s ‘‘ malefice superstitionis’’) teda, papyro, cera supervestie- 
 bat, sicque ad ignem admoveri jubebat, ut arderent.” 
 
LECTURE VII. ATT 
 
 rent, et imagini tue, quam propter hoe jusseram cum si- 
 mulacris numinum afferri, thure ac vino supplicarent, pree- 
 terea maledicerent Christo: quorum nihil cogi posse dicun- 
 tur, qui sunt revera Christiani. Ergo dimittendos putavi. 
 Alii ab indice nominati, esse se Christianos dixerunt, et 
 mox negaverunt: fuisse quidem, sed desisse, quidam ante 
 triennium, quidam ante plures annos, non nemo etiam ante 
 viginti quoque. Omnes et imaginem tuam, deorumque si- 
 mulacra venerati sunt; ii et Christo maledixerunt. Affir- 
 mabant autem, hane fuisse summam vel culpe suze, vel 
 erroris, quod essent soliti stato die ante Jucem convenire : 
 earmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem; seque 
 sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, 
 ne latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, 
 ne depositum appellati abnegarent : quibus peractis morem 
 sibi discedendi fuisse, rursusque coéundi ad capiendum ci- 
 bum, promiscuum tamen, et innoxium: quod ipsum facere 
 desisse post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua 
 hetzerias esse vetueram. Quo magis necessarium credidi, 
 ex duabus ancillis, que ministre dicebantur, quid esset 
 veri et per tormenta quzerere. Sed nihil aliud inveni, quam 
 superstitionem pravam et immodicam, ideoque, dilata cog- 
 nitione, ad consulendum te decurri. Visa est enim mihi 
 res digna consultatione, maxime propter periclitantium nu- 
 merum. Multi enim omnis etatis, omnis ordinis, utriusque 
 sexus etiam, vocantur in periculum, et vocabuntur. Neque 
 enim civitates tantum, sed vicos etiam atque agros super- 
 stitionis istius contagio pervagata est: quee videtur sisti et 
 corrigi posse. Certe satis constat, prope jam desolata tem- 
 pla ccepisse celebrari, et sacra solennia diu intermissa re- 
 peti: passimque veenire victimas, quarum adhue rarissimus 
 emptor inveniebatur. Ex quo facile est opinari, quee turba 
 hominum emendari possit, si sit poenitentize locus.” (Plin. 
 Epist. x. 97-) 
 
 Trajan replies— “ Actum quem debuisti, mi Secunde, in 
 excutiendis causis eorum qui Christiani ad te delati fuerant, 
 secutus es. Neque enim in universum aliquid, quod quasi 
 certam formam habeat, constitui potest. Conquirendi non 
 
478 NOTES. 
 
 sunt: si deferantur et arguantur, puniendi sunt: ita tamen 
 ut qui negaverit se Christianum esse, idque re ipsa mani- 
 festum fecerit, id est, supplicando diis nostris, quamvis sus- 
 pectus in preeteritum fuerit, veniam ex poenitentia impetret. 
 Sine auctore vero propositi libelli, nullo crimine, locum ha- 
 bere debent. Nam et pessimi exempli, nec nostri seculi 
 est.” (Ibid. x. 93.) 
 
 Adrian, in his rescript addressed to Minucius Fundanus, 
 the Proconsul of Asia, says’— Muvovela Povvddve émoro- 
 a \ a 
 Aj edeEdunv ypapetody por ano Lepevviov Tpaviavovd, Naympo- 
 / 3 ‘ ef X\ / =:3. a io A c 
 TaTov avopos, OvTiwa ov d1edeEw. Ov Ooket prot ody TO TPAypya 
 agjtntov Katadimeiv, a pare of GvOpwmo. TapatTwvraL, Kal 
 Tols suvKopdvrats xopnyla kaxoupylas Tapacyx<éOn. Ei obv capdas 
 els TavTny TV a€iwoww ob enapxi@rar SvvavTat diicyupiCec Oat 
 \ a r n € \ \ , 5) , 9158 
 Kata TOV Xplotiavay, ws Kal TPO Biyaros atoKpivacOat, ext 
 TobTO pdvov TpaT@ow, Kal ovK A&iwceoW, OVOE povats Boats. 
 TIoAAG yap Paddov TpoojKer, El TLs KaTHYopElY BovdotTO, TOdTS 
 ve Staywookev. Et tis ovv Katnyopet Kal deikvucl te Tapa Tovs 
 vonous mpatTovtas, o’tas Spite Kata Tipy Svvaplv,tod Gpapty- 
 patos’ ws pa Tov ‘Hpakdéa et tis cvxopaytias ydpiw todre Tpo- 
 TELVOL, Stata Bave UTEP THS SEwdTNTOS, Kal pportiCe OTWS av 
 
 exducnoelas. (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 9.) 
 
 Note 5. p. 230. 
 
 I refer especially to Strauss and his school, who attach 
 no importance at all to the existence of Christ, but. still 
 allow it as a fact which is indisputable. (See the Leben 
 Jesu, passim.) 
 
 Note 6. p. 231. 
 Ch. 11. pp. 24-30. 
 
 Note 7. p. 231. 
 
 One slight reference is found, or rather suspected, in 
 Seneca (Zpist. xiv.), one in Dio Chrysostom (Orat. Corin- 
 thiac. Xxxvii. p..463), none in Pausanias, one (see the next 
 note) in the Epictetus of Arrian. 
 
 v The Latin original is lost, and we possess only Eusebius’s trans- 
 lation. 
 
LECTURE VII. 479 
 
 Note 8. p. 233. 
 
 : ; ‘ - FE ; 
 Epictet. Dissertat. iv.7, §§ 5,6; “Av tus odvy Kal mpos rv 
 ~ @ an 
 KTHoW woavtws xn KabaTep ovTOsS TpOs TO TGpa, Kal Tpds TA 
 lad ra BA , 
 
 TEKVA Kal THY yuvaika, K.T.A. TOtos ETL TOVTH TUpaLVos ofe- 
 , x‘ a , 3 tal / SI SEEN > CAN 
 
 pos ; 7) Toto SopyPdpor; 7) Tota paxatpar avtov ; Eira v70 pa- 
 Ve, . Ss 7 ’ WA Lod ; X\ fe) Nowe: Ny: 
 
 vias pev SvvaTal Tis OUTH diaTeOHVaL TpOS TavTA, Kal VTO EDoUS 
 
 ot TadtAatou. 
 
 Note §. p. 233. 
 The passage in the second book of the Discourses (ec. 9, 
 § 20), which has been supposed by some to refer to Christ- 
 ians, seems really to intend only those whom it mentions— 
 
 viz. the Jews. (See Lardner, Credibility, &e. vol.iv. p. 49; 
 Fabricius ad Dion. xxxvii. 17.) 
 
 Note 10. p. 234. 
 
 This point has been slightly touched by Paley ( Hvidences, 
 Parti. ch. 5, pp. 70, 71), and insisted on at some length by 
 Lardner. (Credibility, &c. vol. iv. pp. 50, 78, 160, &e.) 
 
 Note 11. p. 234. 
 
 Josephus was born in A. D. 37, the first year of the 
 reign of Caligula, and the fourth after our Lord’s Ascen- 
 sion. 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 men- 
 tioned in the Acts, subsequently to the accession of Herod 
 Agrippa. 
 
 Note 12. p. 235. 
 
 See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 9, §1. This passage has been 
 much disputed, and its genuineness is disallowed even by 
 Lardner. (Credibility, &e. vol. iii. pp. 352-354.) But I 
 agree with Burton (£ecles. Hist. vol. i. p. 287) and Paley 
 (Evidences, Parti. ch. 5, p. 69), that there is no sufficient 
 reason for the suspicions which have attached to the pas- 
 sage. 
 
480 NOTES. 
 
 Note 13..p. 235. 
 
 Josephus went to Rome in his 27th year, A. D. 63, and 
 remained there some time. Probably he witnessed the com- 
 mencement of the Neronic persecution in A. D. 64, after 
 the great fire which broke out in July of that year. (See 
 above, note 4, page 475.) ; 
 
 Note 14.. p. 235. 
 
 ‘O”Avavos ... xaOifer ovvedpiov kpitav' Kal mapayayov eis 
 avTd Tov adeAdov "Inood rot Xpiorod Aeyopevon, ‘laxw- 
 Bos Ovoua atr@, Kai Tas Erépovs, ws TapavoynodvTwy Katn- 
 yoplav Toincdpyevos, Tapedmxe AevoeOnoopevors. (Ant. Jud. xx. 
 9g, §1.) According to Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. 11. 23), Jose- 
 phus had the following also in another place; Tatra 6é 
 ovpBeBynkev “lovdalous Kar’ exdiknow "LaxéBov Tod dixaiov, Os 
 Hv adeddos “Insov To} Aeyouevov Xpiorod" erevdyTEp OuKaidTa- 
 Tov avtov ovta ot lovdator améxrewar. 
 
 I regard the arguments which have been brought against 
 the famous passage in our copies of Josephus concerning 
 our Lord’s life and teaching (Ant. Jud. xviii. 3. § 3) as hav- 
 ing completely established its spuriousness. (See Lardner, 
 Credibility, vol. ni. pp. 537-542; and, on the other side, 
 Horne, Introduction, vol. i. Appendix, ch. vii.) 
 
 Note 15. p. 235. 
 
 See Paley’s Evidences, Parti. ch. 7, p.71; and Dr. Traill’s 
 Essay on the Personal Character of Josephus, prefixed to his 
 Translation, pp. 19, 20. 
 
 Note 16. p. 236. 
 
 The probable value of these writings may be gathered 
 from the fragments of Celsus, preserved by Origen. Celsus 
 quotes from all the Gospels, allows that they were written 
 by the disciples of Jesus, and confirms 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, 
 
LECTURE VII. 481 
 
 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, 
 &e. vol. iv. pp. 115 et seqq.) 
 
 Note 17. p. 236. 
 
 See Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 9, p. 32; Justinian, Nov. 42, 
 e.1; Mosheim, De Kebus Christ. ante Constantin. Magn. 
 
 p- 561. 
 Note 18. p. 236. 
 Apolog. i. p.65, and p. 70. 
 
 Note 19. p. 236. 
 
 So at least Justin believed. (Apol. i. p.70.) Tertullian 
 adds, that they contained an account of our Saviour’s re- 
 surrection, of his appearances to his disciples, and his 
 ascension into heaven before their eyes. (Apolog. ¢. 21.) 
 Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 2), and Orosius (vil. 4), bear 
 nearly similar testimony. As Dr. Burton remarks (Hcceles. 
 Hist. vol. i. p. 34), ‘It is almost impossible to suppose that 
 the Fathers were mistaken in believing some such docu- 
 ment to be preserved in the archives.” Their confident 
 appeals to it shew that they believed its substance not to 
 be unfavourable to our Lord’s character. Whether they 
 exactly knew its contents, or no, must depend primarily on 
 the question, whether the documents of this class, pre- 
 served in the State Archives, were generally accessible to 
 the public. They were certainly not published; and as 
 they were of the nature of secret communications 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 Imperial household (Phil. iv. 22) or family 
 (Burton, Heel. Hist. vol. i. p. 367), who became converts at 
 an early period. 
 
 RAWLINSON, iI 
 
482 NOTES. 
 
 Note 20. p. 239. 
 
 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 1), in the year of Rome 750. 
 On his death, there was a division of his territories among 
 his sons, Archelaus receiving Judea, Samaria, and Idu- 
 ma; Antipas, Galilee and Persea; Philip, Trachonitis 
 and the adjoining countries. (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. 1. 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 favour of Claudius, re-united 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 established 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 
 entrusted (A. D. 48) of managing the sacred treasury at 
 Jerusalem, superintending the temple, and appointing the 
 Jewish High Priests. (Ibid. xx. 1.) 
 
 Note 21. p. 239. 
 
 Tacitus sacrifices accuracy to brevity in his sketch of 
 these changes :— 
 
 “ Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus 
 auxit. Post mortem Herodis, nihil expectato Cesare, Si- 
 mon quidam regium nomen inyaserat. Is a Quintilio Varo, 
 obtinente Syriam, punitus; et gentem coercitam liberi He- 
 rodis tripartito rexere. Sub Tiberio quies: dein, jussi a 
 Caio Cesare (i.e. Caligula) effigiem ejus in templo locare, 
 arma potius sumpsere; quem motum Ceesaris mors dire- 
 
LECTURE VII. 483 
 
 mit. Claudius, defunctis regibus, aut in modicum redactis, 
 Judeam provinciam equitibus Romanis, aut libertis per- 
 misit.” (ist. v. 9.) 
 
 Elsewhere, he sometimes falls into actual error, as where 
 he assigns the death of Agrippa, and the reduction of Ju- 
 dzea into the form of a Roman province, to the gth of 
 Claudius, A.D. 49. (Annal. xi. 23.) 
 
 Dio’s notices are very confused. He seems scarcely able 
 to distinguish one Herod from another. (Hist. Rom. xlix. 
 peg ein; lin. p. 526, Do: lv.-p. 567, B.; aud Ix. p.670, B.) 
 
 Note 22. p. 239. 
 
 See the last note. ‘Tacitus appears, in both the pas- 
 sages, to place the first reduction of Judzea into the posi- 
 tion of a Roman province under Claudius, upon the death 
 of Agrippa. Yet he elsewhere notices the procuratorship 
 of Pontius Pilate, im the reign of Tiberius. (Ann. xv. 44; 
 quoted in note 4.) 
 
 Note 23. p.240. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx.1, § 3. It has not always been 
 seen that Festus referred (ave0ero) St. Paul’s case to Agrippa 
 on account of his occupying this position. Dean Alford, 
 however, distinctly recognises this feature of the transac- 
 tion. (Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 252.) 
 
 Note 24. p. 240. 
 
 It has been questioned whether the Jews themselves had 
 any right of capital punishment at this time. (Lardner, 
 Credibility, &c. vol. i. pp. 21-48; Olshausen, Biblischer 
 Commentar, vol. 1. p. 501.) Josephus certainly represents 
 the power as one which the Romans reserved to themselves 
 from the first establishment of the procuratorship. (De 
 Bell. Jud. ii. 8, § 1; compare Anat. Jud. xx. 9, §1.) But, as 
 Dean Alford remarks, the history of Stephen and of the 
 ‘‘ great persecution” (S:eyy0s wéyas) soon after, seems to 
 
 112 
 
484 NOTES. 
 
 shew, ‘‘ that the Jews did, by connivance of, or in the ab- 
 sence of the Procurator, administer summary punishments 
 of this kind.” (Greek Testament, vol. ii. p.75; compare Jo- 
 seph. Ant. Jud. 1.8. ¢.) 
 
 F Note 25. p. 241. 
 
 Nee Matt. v. 26; x. 29; xXvi25; xvi. 28; xxvi. 69; 
 XXVil. 26, 27, 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 governor. They are such 
 therefore as would naturally be introduced by a foreign 
 dominant power. 
 
 Note 26. p. 241. 
 
 See Mark vi. 7, and 40; vil. 11; x. 51; xili.14; &e. The 
 number of instances might of course be greatly increased. 
 Among the most noticeable are Matt. v. 18, (iéra év 7) pla 
 Kepaia) ; V. 22 (paxa); Vv. 29 (yéevva) ; Vi. 24 (wapewvas, conf. 
 Luke xvi. 9, &c.); Mark iii. 17 (Boavepyés); v. 41 (Tadc0a 
 Kou) 5 Vl. 34 (€ppadd); xi.g (@cavvd); John i. 43 (xnpas). 
 Compare also the thoroughly Hebrew character of the Can- 
 ticles in Luke i. and ii. 
 
 Note 27. p. 242. 
 
 Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vii. 8, § 1 ;—Eyevero yap 6 xpovos 
 €xeivos Tavtodamys ev rots “lovdatous wovynpias ToAvopos, ws 
 \ / ¥ cal ¥ 
 pnoev Kaklas Epyov ampaxtov Katalimeiv, pnd el Tis emLvola dLa- 
 mAarrew eeAjoevev EXEL Gv TL KaWdTEpov eevpeiv. OUTas idia 
 TE Kal KOLWH TavTES evd l mpos & Neiv GAAHAOVS 
 i s €vooncar, kal pos taepBarety GdAjAovs 
 ¥ ~ ‘ \ \ ) / ‘ a > \ / 
 €v TE Tals Tpos TOY Mcov acveBelas Kal Tals els Tovs TANTLOY 
 b) / > ‘4 c mn \ ‘ / n € 
 aodikials, EplAoveiknoay, ot ev duvvatol Ta TAHOn KaKoUrTEs, ot 
 x XS a 2 3 , , sS \ ’ / 
 ToAAOL 6€ TOvs dvvaTods AToAAVVaL oTEVOOVTES* TV yap eKelvots 
 XS , / n cal fal .S ny / \ >S ~ 
 pep emlOvpia tov Tupavvely, Tois b€ To BiaverOar Kal TA TOV 
 eidpov diapragew. Compare Ant. Jud. xx. 7, § 8; Bell. 
 Jud. v.13, §6; and 10, § 5. 
 
LECTURE VII. 485 
 
 Note 28. p. 242. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. g, § 33 xx. 4, § 3; Bell. Jud. ii. 19, 
 §1; &e. On one occasion it appears that more than two 
 and a half millions of persons had come up to Jerusalem to 
 worship. (Bell. Jud. vi. 9, § 3.) 
 
 Note 29. p. 242. 
 Ant. Jud. xv. 7, § 8;— Ev tots “lepocoAvpots dv0 iv ppovpia, 
 
 a ey ey fol , e Ss cy te a, \ uu ¢ 
 év pev avtis Ths TOAEws, ETEpov S€ TOv LEpod’ Kal ToYTwV ot 
 a a / 
 KpaTouvres, UTOXEiplov TO TAY EOVOS EoXHKaoL. Tas peVv yap Ov- 
 a , \ a a 
 
 cias ovK dvev TovTwY oidv TE yeverOaL. TO OE py] TATA CUVTEdELY 
 vdevt lovdaiwv 8 ov, TOD (nv IT apaxwpnoavtav 
 
 ovdert ‘lovdatwv dvvarov, tod (iv €tolndtepov Tapaxopn w 
 
 XN 2 / a b] \ X ye a 
 
 9 THS Opynokelas, jv els TOV Ocov EloPacr ovvTedetv. 
 
 Note 30. p. 242. 
 
 Not only was Caligula’s attempt to have his statue set 
 up.in the temple resisted with determination (Joseph. Anz. 
 Jud. xviii. 8); but when the younger Agrippa, by raising 
 the height of his house, obtained a view into the temple 
 courts, the greatest indignation was felt (Seas €xad€ezawvov.) 
 The Jews immediately raised a wall to shut out his pros- 
 pect, and when Festus commanded them to remove it, they 
 positively refused, declaring that they would rather die than 
 destroy any porticn of the sacred fabric ((jv yap odx tzo- 
 Mevew, KabaipeOevtos Tivds 4€pous Tod tepod). See Ant. Jud. 
 xx. 8,§ 14; and on the general subject, compare Philo, 
 De Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1022, 1023. 
 
 Note 31. p. 242. 
 Ant. Jud. xv. 8, §§ 1-4. 
 
 Note 32. p. 242. 
 
 See Lardner’s Credibility, &e. book i. ch. g; vol. i. pp. 
 110-121. 
 
436 NOTES. 
 
 Note 33. p. 242. 
 
 Josephus tells us, that when Cyrenius came to take the 
 census of men’s properties throughout Judea, a contro- 
 versy arose among the Jews on the legality of submission 
 to foreign taxation. Judas of Galilee (see Acts v. 37) 
 maintained that it was a surrender of the theocratic prin- 
 ciple ; while the bulk of the chief men, including some con- 
 siderable number of the Pharisees, took the opposite view, 
 and persuaded the people to submit themselves. (Ant. Jud. 
 XVll. I, § 1.) 
 
 Note 34. p. 243. 
 
 Ant. Jud. xx. 6, §1;—Tiverar 8% kat Sapapeirais mpos 
 *Tovdatovs €xOpa ov’ airiav rovadr nv" €0os Av Tots TadtAatous ev 
 Tals EopTais els THY lepay TOAW TapaywwopErvars ddEvELW SL THs 
 Sapapéwv yopas. Kai rére kal dd0v adtots Kodpns Tiwatas de- 
 youevns, Ths év eOopio Keyevns Sapapeias Te Kal ToU weyadou 
 medlov, TLves OVVAWaYTES axnV TOAAOVS a’TOY avatpovotn. 
 
 Note 35. p. 243. 
 Ibid. xviii. 1, §§ 3 and 4. Note especially the following. 
 
 Of the Pharisees— A@dvarov re icxby tais uxais aiotts adb- 
 Tots €ivat, Kal ITO yOovds Sixardoets TE Kal Tiwas ols ApeETijs TE 
 Kal Kakias émiTHndevots ev TO Biv yéyove. Of the Sadducees— 
 Vaddvcators S€ tas Wryxds 6 Adyos cvvadavicer Tots odyacw. 
 Compare Acts xxii. 8. 
 
 Note 36. p. 243. 
 
 Ibid. Ll. s. ce. [Oi Paproator| rots djpows meaverarot Tvyxd- 
 vovat, Kal d700a Oeia Edy Gy Te Kal lepGv Tojoews enyjoe TH 
 éxe(vwv Tvyxavovet mpaccopeva. [Tév Laddovealwv] 6 Adyos 
 els bALyous Gvdpas acixero, To’s pEvTOL TP@TOVS Tots Afopace. 
 
 Note 37. p. 243. 
 Bell. Jud. vi. 5, § 4. Tod 5% éxdpay adrods pddiora mpos Tov 
 mOAELOV, HV Xpnopos GupiBodos... . ev Tols tepois Ebpyu€vos 
 
LECTURE VII. 487 
 
 YPUppaowv, @S KATA TOV KaLpOV eKEtvoY amd Tis Xwpas TLS 
 avtov apfer Ths olkoupevys. 
 
 Note 38. p. 243. 
 
 Sueton. Vit. Vespasian. § 4; —“ Percrebuerat Oriente 
 toto vetus et constans opinio, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore 
 Judzea profecti rerum potirentur. Id de Imperatore Ro- 
 mano, quantum postea eventu paruit, preedictum, Judzei ad 
 se trahentes, rebellarunt.”. Compare Vit. Octav. § 94, and 
 Virg. Helog. iv. 
 
 Note 39. p. 243. 
 
 Tacit. Histor. v. 13; “ Quee pauci in metum trahebant : 
 pluribus persuasio inerat antiquis sacerdotum litteris conti- 
 neri, eo ipso tempore fore ut valesceret Oriens, profectique 
 Judea rerum potirentur.” 
 
 Note 40. p. 243. 
 Leben Jesu, § 34; vol.i. p. 220, HE. T. 
 
 Note 41. p. 243. 
 
 See Philo, De Legatione ad Caium, p.1022, D.E. For 
 the portraiture of Josephus, see above, note 27. 
 
 Note 42. p. 245. 
 
 This passage is given by Wetsten (Nov. Test. Gr. vol. il. 
 p- 563) and Dean Alford (Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 175) 
 as from Xenophon De Rep. Atheniens. 1 have not suc- 
 ceeded in verifying the reference. 
 
 Note 43. p. 245. 
 
 Liv. xlv. 27, ad fin. 
 
 Note 44. p. 245. 
 
 How attractive to strangers Athens was, even in her de- 
 cline, may be seen from the examples of Cicero, Germani- 
 
488 NOTES. 
 
 cus, Pausanias and others. (See Conybeare and Howson’s 
 Life of St. Paul, vol.i. pp. 398, 399). On the greediness of 
 the Athenians after novelty, see Demosth. Philipp. i. p. 43 
 (7) BovrAcobe, ceive por, Teplidvtes avTav TvOécOa Kata Ti 
 Gyopav’ NeéyeTal TL Kavdv; yevoito yap Gv TL Kawwdrtepov 7) 
 Maxedev avnp x.7.d.); Philipp. Epist. pp. 159, 157; ABlian. 
 Var. Hist. v. 133 Schol. ad Thueyd. iii. 38, &e. On their 
 religiousness, compare Pausan. 1. 24. § 3 (A@nvatou Tepic- 
 adrepov Tt 7) ToIs GAXous €s TH Ota eat oTovdHs); Nen. Rep. 
 Atheniens. lil. § 1, and § 8; Joseph. Contra Apion. ii. 11 
 (rovs "AOnvatovs eboeBeotatovs Tov “EAAjvav amavtes €you- 
 ow); Strab. v. 3, § 18; Alian. Var. Hist. v.17; Philo- 
 strat. Vit. Apollon. vi. 3; Dionys. Hal. De Jud. Thuc. § 40: 
 and among later authors, see Mr. Grote’s History of Greece, 
 vol. ili. pp. 229-232. 
 
 Note 45. p. 245. 
 
 See the Life and Kpistles of St. Paul, by Messrs. Cony- 
 beare and Howson, vol. ii. pp. 66 et seqq. (1.) The “ Great 
 Goddess, Diana,” is found to have borne that title as her 
 epitheton usitatum, both from an inscription (Boeckh, Corpus 
 Inscript. 2963 ©), and from Xenophon (Ephes. i. p. 15; 
 Opvt0w TE THY TaTpLoY jly OEedv, THY peydAnv ’Eqectov ” Apte- 
 puv). (2.) The “ Asiarchs” are mentioned on various coins 
 and inscriptions. (3.) The ‘“ town-clerk” (ypaypareds) of 
 Ephesus is likewise mentioned in inscriptions (Boeckh, 
 No. 2963 C, No. 2966, and No. 2990). (4.) The curious 
 word vewxdpos (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 ‘‘ courtdays,” the ‘ deputies” 
 or “ proconsuls” (av@dzaror) might receive abundant class- 
 ical illustration. The temple was the glory of the ancient 
 world’—enough still remains of the ‘ theatre” to give evi- 
 dence of its former greatness. 
 
 ¢ Plin. xxxv. 21; Strab. xiv. 1; Phil. Byz. De Sept. Orb. Spectaculis. 
 
LECTURE VII. 489 
 
 Note 46. p. 246. 
 
 Compare Luke xxii. 2; John xix. 12-15; Acts xxv. 12 
 and 265° xxvi. 925° 2 Tim. tv. 175 1 Pet. i. 13 and 17. 
 
 Note 47. p. 246. 
 
 The Roman provinces under the empire were adminis- 
 tered either by proconsuls, or legates, or in a few instances 
 by procurators. The technical Greek name for the pro- 
 consul is av@vraros (Polyb. xxi. 8, § 11), as that for the 
 consul is tzaros. "’AvOvraro. are mentioned by St. Luke 
 in Cyprus (Acts xii. 7), at Ephesus (ib. xix. 38), and at 
 Corinth (ib. xvii. 12, where the verb avéuzarevew expresses 
 the office of Gallio). In every case the use of the term is 
 historically correct. (See below, notes 104 and 108.) Other 
 officers are not so distinctly designated. Legates do not 
 occur in the history; and the Greek possessing no term 
 correspondent to procurator, such officers appear only as 
 7yeuoves (governors), a generic term applicable to procon- 
 suls also. (See Luke ii. 2; ii.1; Matt. xxvii.2; Acts 
 XXlll. 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; 
 xxll. 24). The governors were liable to recall at any mo- 
 ment, and knew that they would probably be superseded, 
 if they allowed troubles to break out. 
 
 Note 48. p. 246. 
 
 See especially Gallio’s words (Acts xvill. 14-16). Com- 
 pare Acts xxili. 29; and xxvill. 30, 31. On the general 
 tolerance of the Romans, see Lardner’s Credibility, vol. i. 
 pp: 95 et seqq. 
 
 Note 49. p. 246. 
 
 In a Reseript of Severus and Caracalla (Digest. xlvii. 
 17, 1), we read— Et hoe jure utimur, ne absentes dam- 
 
490 NOTES. 
 
 nentur, neque enim inaudita causa quenquam damnari 
 zequitatis ratio patitur.’ Compare Dionys. Hal. vii. 53, 
 p- 441. The odium incurred by Cicero for proceeding 
 without formal trial against the Catiline conspirators 
 (Ep. ad Famit. v. 2, p. 60, b). is an indication of the value 
 attached to the principle in question. 
 
 Note 50. p. 246. 
 
 Acts xxii. 28. Dio says of Antony—vap’ idtwrdv jyvpo- 
 Adynoe...dAdows TOALTELaV, GAAOLs aTeAccay TwAGV. And 
 of Claudius—éreidav év taow os eizetv of “Popator tov E€vov 
 mpoeTeTiynvto, TOAAOL TE a’TOV Tapa TE adTOU Exelvou HTOvVTO, 
 kal mapa Meooadivys kai tov Katoapeimv @vovrTo. (Ix. 17, 
 p-676, 0.) Citizenship by birth on the part of a foreigner 
 might arise (1) from his being a native cf some colony or 
 municipium; (2) from a grant of citizenship, on account 
 of service rendered, to his father, or a more remote ances- 
 tor; 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 de- 
 prived of their Roman citizenship by Claudius. That Jews 
 were often Roman citizens appears from Josephus. (dnt. 
 
 Jud. xiv. 10, §§ 13,14, 16, &e.) 
 
 Note 51. p. 246. 
 
 Acts xxv.11. Suetonius says of Augustus—‘ Appella- 
 tiones quotannis urbanorum quidem litigatorum preetori 
 delegavit; ac provincialium consularibus viris, quos singulos 
 cujusque provincie negotiis preeposuisset.” (Vit. Octav. 
 ¢. 33.) Pliny probably refers to cases where the right of 
 appeal had been claimed, when he says of the Bithynian 
 Christians—“ Fuerunt alii similis amentize, quos, guia cives 
 Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.” (Ep. ad 
 Iraj. x. 97.) 
 
 Note 52. p. 246. 
 
 The humane treatment of prisoners is an occasional feature 
 of the Roman system. (See Acts xxiv. 23, and xxviii. 16 and 
 
LECTURE VII. 491 
 
 30.) Lardner (Credibility, vol. i. p. 125) observes that the 
 treatment of Herod Agrippa I. closely illustrates that of 
 St. Paul. Soon after his first imprisonment, by the influence 
 of Antonia, his friends were allowed free access to him, 
 and permitted to bring him food and other comforts. 
 (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, § 7.) On the death of Tibe- 
 rius, 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. rov “Aypinnay exéhevoen ex Tob orpatoTédov peTacTHOELW 
 els THY Olkiav ev 7) mpdTEpov 7) SeOHvar Siatray cixev WoTE ev 
 Odpoet AouTOv ijye TA TEpl adTis’ hvdaki pev yap Kal THPHaLS 
 WY, META PEVTOL GVETEWS THs Els THY Slartav. Compare the 
 order of Felix with regard to St. Paul—é.aragéduevos to 
 Exatovrapxy Ty pEetcOat avrov, éxew Te Aveo «.T.A. Acts 
 XXIV=.23: ) 
 
 Note 53. p. 246. 
 
 On one occasion we find St. Paul “bound with two 
 chains” (Acts xxi. 33); but commonly we hear of his 
 “ chain” (Gdvois) in the singular. (Acts xxvill. 20; Ephes. 
 vl. 20; 2 Tim. 1.16.) _ Now it is abundantly apparent 
 from Seneca (De Tranquill. 10, Epist. 5) and other writers 
 (Tacit. Ann. iv. 25, &c.), that prisoners were commonly 
 fastened by a chain passed from their right wrist to the 
 left wrist. of their keeper. Where greater security was 
 desired, a prisoner had two keepers, and a second chain 
 was passed from his left wrist to the second keeper’s right. 
 The keeper to whom a prisoner was bound was called 6 
 ouvoerns. 
 
 Note 54. p. 246. 
 
 Matt. xxyi..27; Acts xx. 65 xxiv. 23; xxviii. 1, 
 16. The military custody (custodza militaris) of the 
 Romans is well known to writers on antiquities. Ulpian 
 says, that when a person was arrested, it was the business 
 of the proconsul to determine, “ utrum in carcerem recipi- 
 enda sit persona, an muliti tradenda, vel fide-jussoribus 
 
492 NOTES. 
 
 committenda, vel etiam sibi.” (Digest. xlviui. Tit. 3. De Cus- 
 tod. et Exhib. Reor. § 1.) Examples of the military custody 
 will be found in Tacitus (Ann. i. 22); Josephus (Ant. Jud. 
 xvill. 6, $7); Ignatius (Ep. ad Roman. v. p. 370); Martyr. 
 Ignat. (ii. p. 549; V. p. 544), &e. 
 
 Note 55. p. 246. 
 
 Examining free persons by scourging (Acts xxii. 24) or 
 other torture, was against the spirit, and indeed against 
 the letter, of the Roman law. ‘ Non esse a tormentis 
 incipiendum Divus Augustus constituit.” (Digest. 48. 
 Tit. 18, $1.) But arbitrary power often broke this law, 
 both at Rome and in the provinces. Suetonius says of 
 Augustus “ Et Q. Gallium, preetorem...raptum a tribunali, 
 servilem in moduim torsit.” (Vit. Octav. § 27.) Tacitus of 
 Nero, ‘‘ Ratus muliebre corpus impar dolori, Epicharim 
 dilacerari jubet.” (Annal. xv. 57.) ‘Chis examination was 
 in part by scourging. 
 
 Note 56. p. 246. 
 
 See Livy xxxiiil. 36 (“ Verberatos crucibus affixit”); 
 Val. Max. i. 7, §4; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 14, § 9 (awoddods 
 PAGpos paoré. Tpoakicdpevos avectavpwoev—eToApnoev av- 
 dpas immKod TdypaTos pactlyOca 7po Tod Byyatos, Kal orav- 
 po Tpoonrdcat); &e. These last notices shew the practice 
 on the part of the Roman governors of Palestine. 
 
 Note 57. p. 246. 
 
 The crucifixion of the Orientals has more commonly 
 been impaling, than nailing to a cross. (See Ctesias, ap. 
 Phot. 4161. Cod. LX XII. p. 122; Casaubon. Exerc. Anti- 
 baron. xvi. 77.) The Romans fastened the body to the 
 cross either by cords or nails. (See Smith’s Dictionary of 
 Gr. and Rom. Antiq. p. 370.) It is evident from Josephus, 
 that nailing was the common practice in Palestine. (See 
 the last note, and compare Bell. Jud. vi. MpoonjAovv 8 of 
 oTpatiGrat dv dpyiy Kai pioos Tovs GAdvtas, GANov GAA CXI/- 
 
 \ / \ \ n o 
 pate pos xAEevnv, Kal bia TO TAHOOS xdpa TE evedeineETO Tots 
 
LECTURE VII. 493 
 
 aTavpois, Kal otavpol toils céuacw.) St. Augustine speaks 
 as if nailing was the ordinary Roman method. (Tvractat. 
 xxxvi. in Johann. Opera, vol. ix. p. 278; “ Ubi dolores 
 acerrimi exagitant cruciatus vocatur, a cruce nominatus : 
 pendentes enim in liguo erucifixi, clavis ad lignum pedibus 
 manibusque confixi, producta morte necabantur.”) 
 
 Note 58. p. 246. 
 
 Plutarch. de Sera Numinis Vindicta; ti. p. 554, A. Kal 
 a , an x / ed a / b) / 
 T@ TO-ATL TOV KOAACOMEVWY EKATTOS TOY KaKOUPywVv EKdepeEt 
 Tov wvTod otavpdv. Compare Artemidor. Oneirocrit. 1. 61. 
 ” WG \ t Vang , bles n 
 Eovke kal 0 oTavpos Cavatm, kal 6 peAA@V avtw TpoonAoctabat, 
 mpotepov avtov Baoracer. 
 
 Note 59. p..246. 
 
 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 allu- 
 sions to it in the poets. The technical name of this pla- 
 card was in Latin “ titulus.” (Compare the rirAos of John 
 xix. 19.) See Sueton. Vit. Calig. § 34; “‘ Rome publico 
 epulo servum, ob detractam lectis argenteam laminam, car- 
 nifiei confestim tradidit, ut manibus abscissis atque ante 
 pectus e collo pendentibus, preecedente titulo qui causam 
 pene indicaret, per ccetus epulantium cireumduceretur.” Vit. 
 Domitian. $10; ** Patremfamilias, quod ‘Threcem mirmilloni 
 parem, munerario imparem dixerat, detractum spectaculis 
 in arenam, canibus objecit, cum hoc titulo; ‘ Impie locutus 
 parmularius’.”” Dio Cass. liv. p. 523; Tod yotv martpos too 
 Kaitiwvos tov wey Erepov Ov SovrAwY TOV CupvydrTwY TO viet 
 EdevdepaoavTos Ort dyvvar ob OrynTKovTL HO€ANCE, TVA O€ ETEpOV 
 Tov TpoddvTa avTor, did TE Tis dyopas péeons ETA ypappa- 
 TwVv THY aitiay tis Javataeocews avtod dndrovvtorv 
 diayayovTos, Kal pEeTa TabTa avactavpocavTos, ovK NyaVvaKTHCE. 
 Ovid. Fasti, vi. 190, 191; 
 
 Vixit, ut occideret damnatus crimine regni : 
 Hune illi #2¢u/wm longa senecta dabat. 
 
 Compare Trist. iii. 1, 47. We have no classical proof that 
 
494 NOTES. 
 
 the “ titulus” was ordinarily affixed to the cross, unless we 
 may view as such the statement of Hesychius—avis, va, 
 AcvKopa, ev © al ypapal AOjvyow eypdpovto pds tods Ka- 
 xovpyous’ TiOerar 5€ Kal enl oravpod. 
 
 Note 60. p. 246. 
 
 Seneca speaks of the “ centurio supplicio preepositus” as 
 an ordinary thing. (De Ira, ce. 16, p. 34.) Petronius Arbiter 
 says, “ Miles cruces asservabat, ne quis ad sepulturum cor- 
 pora detraheret.” (Satyr. ¢. 111.) 
 
 Note 61. p. 246. 
 
 So Alford (vol. i. p.647)—“The garments of the exe- 
 cuted were by law the perquisites of the soldiers on duty.” 
 Cf. Digest. xlvin. Tit. 20, § 6. 
 
 Note 62. p. 246. 
 
 Ulpian says—“< Corpora eorum qui capite damnantur, 
 cognatis ipsorum neganda non sunt. Et se id observasse 
 etiam Divus Augustus libro decimo de vita sua seribit. 
 Hodie autem eorum, in quos animadvertitur, corpora non 
 aliter sepeliuntur, quam si fuerit petitum et permissum. 
 Et nonnunquam non permittitur, maxime majestatis causa 
 damnatorum.” (Digest. xlviii. Tit.24. De Cadav.Punit.§ 1.) And 
 again—“ Corpora animadversorum quibuslibet petentibus 
 ad sepulturam danda sunt.” (Ibid. § 3.) So Diocletian and 
 Maximian declare—* Obnoxios criminum, digno supplicio 
 affectos, sepulturee tradi non vetamus.” ‘he practice of 
 the Jews to take bodies down from the cross and bury 
 them on the day of their crucifixion, is witnessed to by 
 Josephus—Uponrdev & eis trooodroy doeBelas Gate xal ard- 
 gous plat, kairot rooadrnv “lovéalwy Tepl Tas Tapas Tpdvovay 
 TOLOUPEVOV, GOTE Kal TOUS Ex KaTadixys avasTavpovperovs TPO 
 dvvTos Alou Kabedetv Kal Odnrew. (De Bell. Jud. iv. 5 
 
 § 2.) 
 
LECTURE VII. 4AQ5 
 
 Note 63. p. 247. 
 
 Among minute points of accordance may be especially 
 noticed the following:—1. The geographical accuracy. 
 (2) 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 
 recognised as existing provinces by the Roman geographer, 
 writing probably within a few years of St. Luke. (1. NV. v. 
 27 et seqq.) (6) The division of European Greece into 
 the two provinces of Macedonia and Achaia (Acts xix. 21, 
 &c.), accords exactly with the arrangement of Augustus 
 noticed in Strabo (xvii. ad fin.) (c) The various tracts in 
 or about Palestine belong exactly to the geography of the 
 time and of no other. Judeea, Samaria, Galilee, Tracho- 
 nitis, Itureea, Abilene, Decapolis, are recognised as geo- 
 graphically distinct at this period by the Jewish and class- 
 ical writers. (See Plin. H. N. v.14, 18, 23; Strab. xvi. 2, 
 §§ 10, 34; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 5, § 1, &e.) (d) 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 (dn Flace. pp. 968, 969), and Seneca 
 (Epist. 77), and touches at customary harbours. (See Sue- 
 ton. Vit. Tit. § 25.) Paul’s journey from Troas by Nea- 
 polis to Philippi presents an exact parallel to that of Igna- 
 tius, sixty years later (Martyr. Ignat.c. 5). His passage 
 through Amphipolis and Apollonia on his road from Phi- 
 lippi 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 (xpé7n tis pepldos ths Maxedovias aédus) is correct, 
 since there was no other between it and Neapolis. The 
 statement, that it was “a colony,” is also true (Dio Cass. 
 li. 4, p. 445, D; Plin. H.W. iv. 11; -Strab. vii. Fr. 41.) 
 2. The minute political knowledge. (@) We have already 
 
496 NOTES. 
 
 seen the intimate knowledge exhibited of the state of 
 Ephesus, with its proconsul, town-clerk, Asiarchs, &e. A 
 similar exactitude appears in the designation of the chief 
 magistrates of Thessalonica as woAvtapyat, their proper and 
 peculiar appellation. (Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. No.1967.) (4) So 
 too the Roman governors of Corinth and Cyprus are given 
 their correct titles. (See notes 104 and 108.) (c¢) Publius, 
 the Roman governor of Malta, has again his proper tech- 
 nical designation (6 zpéros Tijs vijoov), as appears from in- 
 scriptions commemorating the mpéros Meduraiwy, or “ Meli- 
 tensium primus.” (See Alford, ii. p. 282.) (d) The delivery 
 of the prisoners to the “ captain of the (Preetorian) guard” 
 at Rome, is in strict accordance with the practice of the 
 time. (Trajan. ap. Plin. Ep. x. 65; “ Vinetus mitti ad 
 preefectos preetorii mei debet.” Compare Philostrat. vit. So- 
 phist. ii. 32.) 
 
 Among additions to our classical knowledge, for which 
 we are indebted to Scripture, it may suffice to mention, 
 1. the existence of an Italian cohort (oze(pn IraAuki) as 
 early as the reign of Tiberius (Acts x. 1.) 2. The applica- 
 tion of the term YeSacry (Augustan) to another cohort, a 
 little later (Acts xxviii. 1.) 3. The existence of an Altar 
 at Athens with the Inscription dyvéatw Oc, which is 
 not to be confounded with the well-known inscriptions Oeo?s 
 ayvéoros. 4. The use of the title otparnyol (Preetors) by 
 the Duumviri 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 64. p. 247. 
 Lardner, Credibility, &e., vol. i. p. 60. 
 
 Note 65. p. 248. 
 
 spe Acts xis er ig s XAV.1)5 XVI. 9509s) Vian 7G 
 Xvill. 4; xix. 8; &c. 
 
LECTURE VII. 497 
 
 Note 66. p. 249. 
 o / Y 
 Ilepi 6€ THs tepoTAEws TA TpooyKOVTA Mot AEKTEOY" avTn, 
 J a Fa / 2. \ , S: > co , 
 Kabarep Epny, Eur) MEV EOTL TaTpls, MNTPOTIOALS OE OV JuLaS X@- 
 pas lovdatas, dAAG kal TOV TAEloTOY, Sia TAs ATOLKias Gs eEE- 
 SN a > N x co. ” , 
 Tey ev eT Kaip@v, els Mev Tas Omopovs AlyvmTov, Po.vikny, 
 Nw 4 / yA \ XN / , i > X 
 Lupiav Tv Te GAAHY Kal THY KolAny Tpocayopevoperny’ eis Oe 
 ‘ t? / / Tn ee SN \ Las 
 Tas Toppw diwkiopevas TlaudvAiav, Kiduciav, 7a ToAAa Tis 
 ° / SA y \ cal ~ , Eat Se \ ’ \ 
 Agias axpt Buévvias kal tov tod Tdvtov favye@v" tov avtov 
 Tpomov Kat eis Evpémnv, Oerradiav, Bowwriay, Maxedoviar, 
 > nan 
 Airodiay, thy *Artixjvy, “Apyos, Képwbov, ta mArelora Kal 
 BA / \ > , CS 2 \ a ? 
 apiora IleAorovvyncov, Kat ov povov ai imELpor peotal Tav ’Tov- 
 dalov droixiov eioly, GAAG Kal vycoV ai doKiwsTata, Evora, 
 > = a ! tas 
 Kvapos, Kpyrn, kat ovwm® Tas Ttépav Etdparov. aca yap 
 yf / a nm cr 
 €£a pépovs Bpaxeos BaSvAdvos kal Tay GAAwV caTpaTeELav al 
 b) cas # \ 5) / 2 > / Da bly yd 
 apeTaoav Exovor THY Ev KUKAw yiv, lovdalovs Exovow oikyTo- 
 a ef x / on > ld eas; \ NX 2) / 
 pas’ WoTe, av weTahaBn cov THs EtpevEtas 7 Eur) Tarpis, ov pla 
 , b) BS \ / vas of ? cat ae eh, 
 ToAts GAAG Kal pupiar Tay GAAwv evepyeTOdVTAL Kal ExaoToV 
 Ad (ie > / 10 Q ° \ Ev a Ni UN \ ‘ 
 kAiwa Tis olkouuevns ibpudcioa, TO Eigwraiov, To "Aciavov, To 
 \ 
 AiBukov, TO €v imeipois, TO ev VHoOoLS, TAapaddyv TE Kal pEeod- 
 
 yetov. (Philo Jud. Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1031, 1032.) 
 
 Note 67. p. 249. 
 lovoatovs yap 814 todAvavOpwriav ydpa pia od xwpel iis 
 aittas Evexa Tas TAElotas Kal evdamovestaras Tov ev Etpomn 
 » , 
 kat Aoia xatd Te vyoous Kal nmelpous exvepovral, pnTpoToALy 
 
 pep TH iepdTodAw jyovpevor. (Ibid. In Flace. p. 971, E.) 
 
 Note 68. p. 249. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 2; De Bell. Jud. vii. 3, § 3; Contr. 
 Apion. 11. 36; &e. 
 
 Note 69. p. 249. 
 
 Philo frequently mentions the synagogues under the 
 name of mpocevyat. (In Flacc. p.972, A. B. E.; Legat. in 
 Caium, p.1014, &e.) Their position by the sea-side, or by 
 a river-side, is indicated, among other places, in the Decree 
 
 RAWLINSON. K k 
 
498 NOTES. 
 
 of the Halicarnassians reported by Josephus (Ant. Jud. 
 xiv. 10, § 23), where the Jews are allowed zpocevxds zo- 
 eioOat Tpos 77) Oaddoon Kata 70 Tatpiov €Bos. See also Philo, 
 Legat. in Caium, p. 982, D.; Tertull. ad Nat. 1.13; De Je- 
 jun. c.16; and Juv. Sat. iii. 13. 
 
 Note 70. p. 249. 
 
 Lightfoot, Hebraic. et Talmudic. Exercitat. not. in Act. 
 Apost. vi. 8; Works, vol. il. p. 664. 
 
 Note 71. p. 249. 
 
 See Legat. in Caium (p. 1014, C. D.), where Philo speaks 
 of Transtiberine Rome as xatexopevny kal oixovpevnv Tpos 
 *Tovdaiwv, and then adds, “Pepaior 8’ joav ot mAelovs ame- 
 AEevOepwdertes. 
 
 * Note 72. p. 249. 
 
 Annal. ii. 85; “ Actum et de sacris Aigyptiis Judaicis- 
 que pellendis: factum patrum consultum, ut quatuor millia 
 Libertini generis ea superstitione infecta, queis idonea ztas, 
 in insulam Sardiniam veherentur.”’ 
 
 Note 73. p.250. 
 For the tumultuous spirit of the foreign Jews, see Sueton. 
 vit. Claud. p. 25; Dio Cassius, lx.6; Joseph. Ant. Jud. 
 KV, 9150. 903 35.0 6 05 we, 
 
 Note 74, p. 251. 
 
 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. Tid. § 21.) 
 
 Note 75. p. 251. 
 
 If our Lord was born in the year of Rome 747, (see 
 above, Lecture VI, note 1,) he would have been three 
 
LECTURE VII. 499 
 
 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 (wel érdv tpidxovra) when he began to preach; for 
 that expression admits of some latitude. (See Alford’s 
 Greek Testament, vol.i. pp. 323 and 327.) 
 
 Note 76. p. 252. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 7, § 3; xvi. 8, §1; Nic. Damase. 
 Pres: 
 
 Note 77. p. 252. 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 6, § 7; Tacit. Hist. v. 9. ( Reg- 
 
 num ab Antonio Herodi datum, victor Augustus auxit.’’) 
 
 Note 78. p. 252. 
 
 See Lardner’s Credibility, vol. i. pp. 148-151; and com- 
 pare Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 27, §13; 29,§2; 33, $8; 
 Appian. De Bell. Civ. v. p. 1135. 
 
 Note 79. p. 252. 
 
 The cruelties, deceptions, and suspicions of Herod the 
 Great, fill many chapters in Josephus. (Ant. 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:—’Avip apos pev eis 
 mavtas dpolas, xal dpyns pev Hooer, kpeloowy d€ Tod buKalov, 
 TUXn 5€ El Kal TLS Erepos Kexpyuevos etpevel. (Ant. Jud. xvii. 8, 
 § 1.) His arrest of the chief men throughout his dominion, 
 and design that on his own demise they should all be exe- 
 euted (ibid. 6, §5; Bell. Jud. i. 33, § 6), shews a bloodier 
 temper than even the massacre of the Innocents. 
 
 Note 80. p. 252. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 34; vol. i. p. 222, KH. T. 
 
 Kk 2 
 
500 NOTES. 
 
 Note 81. p. 253. 
 
 Strauss grants the massacre to be “not inconsistent 
 with the disposition of the aged tyrant to the extent that 
 Schleiermacher supposed” (Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. p. 228, E. T.), 
 but objects, that “ neither Josephus, who is very minute in 
 his account of Herod, nor the rabbins, who were assiduous 
 in blackening his memory, give the slightest hint of this 
 decree.” (I. s.c.) He omits to observe, that they could 
 scarcely narrate the circumstance without some mention 
 of its reason—the birth of the supposed Messiah—a sub- 
 ject on which their prejudices necessarily kept them silent. 
 
 Macrob. Saturnal. ii. 4; “ Quum audisset Augustus, in- 
 ter pueros quos in Syria Herodes rea Judeorum intra bima- 
 tum jussit interfici, filam quoque ejus occisum, ait: Melius 
 est, Herodis porcum (dv) esse quam filium (vidv).” Strauss 
 contends, that ‘the passage loses all credit by confounding 
 the execution of Antipater, who had grey hairs, with the 
 murder of the 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 ori- 
 ginated in the fact that a jealousy of a royal infant was 
 known to have been the motive for the massacre. (See 
 Olshausen, Beblisch. Comment. vol. i. p. 72, note; p. 67, 
 Bet) 
 
 Note 83. p. 253. 
 
 Josephus says— Kaioap dé dxovoas bradver pev TO cvve- 
 Spiov, dAtyov O€ HuEepOv Botepov ’ApxéAaov Baciéa pev ovK 
 Pp) / al be c / nr , e a 58 € 
 anopaivera, TOU NULTEWS THS XOpas, tmep Hpwdn v7e- 
 
 / ) / \ AAS / c / / 
 TéeAel, €Ovapxnv Kadloratrat.. . THv b& Erépay jpiceray vel- 
 Las dxf, dvoly “Hpddov maiow érépois Tapedidov, Purine Kab 
 *Avting .... Kal tour pev hre Ilepala xal 7d TadtAaiov d7e- 
 
LECTURE VII. 501 
 
 téhouv . . Batavata dé ctv Tpaxevitid. cat Atpavitis ody tive 
 uepel olkov TOD Zyvodmpov AEyouevov Piria7w..7a be ’ApxeAdw 
 ovvtedobyra “ldoupaid te kal Llovdata, rd re Sapapitixdy. (An- 
 tig. Jud. xvii.11, § 4.) Compare the brief notice of Tacitus ; 
 ‘“Gentem coercitam, liberi Herodis tripartite rexere.”’ 
 (Hist. v. 9.) 
 
 Note 84. p. 253. 
 
 Strauss says—‘‘ Luke determines the date of John’s ap- 
 pearance by various synchronisms, placing it in the time of 
 Pilate’s government in Judsea; in the sovereignty of He- 
 rod (Antipas); of Philip and of Lysanias 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, corresponds with the year 28-29 of our era. 
 With this last and closest demarcation of time all the fore- 
 going less precise ones agree. Even that which makes Annas 
 high-priest together with Caiaphas appears correct, if we con- 
 sider the peculiar influence which that ex-high-priest re- 
 tained.” (Leben Jesu, § 443 pp. 300, 301, E. T.) 
 
 Note 85. p. 254. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvil. 11, § 1. “Omdoot 8% svyyeveis 
 yoav TOU Bacidéas, ’ApyeAd@ pév ovvteTaxyOa b1a picos TO 
 mpos avtov terepovy. Compare 13, § 2. 
 
 Note 86. p. 254. 
 Joseph. De Bell. Jud. ii. 1, § 3. 
 
 Note 87. p. 254. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 48; vol. i. p. 346, H.'T. 
 
 Note 88. p. 254. 
 
 Josephus says—Hpodys 6 retpdpxns yamet THv ~Apera 
 Ovyatépa, kal cuvav xpdvov Hon ToAdy. Sreddopevos 6 ext 
 
502 NOTES. 
 
 ‘Pons Kxatayetar ev “Hpddov adeApod dvtos ovy dpountpiov 
 ex yap THs Liwwvos Tov apxepéws Ovyatpos ‘Hpwdns eyeydver’ 
 epacbels 5& “Hpwbdiddos tis tovrov yuvaixds (Ovyatnp de iv 
 *ApittoBovaAov, Kat ovTos GdeAdos aitdv, Aypintov bE adedpy 
 Tou peyadov) ToAMG Adywov GnrecIar Tepl ydpov. Kal bdefa- 
 pevns, cvvOjKar yivovtar peToukicacOa. pos avtov éméTe amo 
 c / la : 2208 . 
 Pépuns mapayevoiro. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, § 1.) And again 
 
 c XX X\ een (3 >) XN 4 € , c , lol 
 — Hpdias 6€ avrev 7 ddehpy yietar Hpddn Hpedov tot 
 
 / a Val / 5) / las a , ral 
 
 peydAou Taldl, Os yeyover €x Mapidpyys ths Tov Siuwvos tov 
 ) f \ b) o v / / > XX X c 
 apxlepews, Kal avTots Daddy yivetatr, wed ys Tas yovas Hpw- 
 dias, emt ovyxtoe. ppovijcaca tv matpiov, “Apddn yauetrar 
 TOU avdpos TO OporaTpio adedPo, diactaca CavTos" THY d€ Ta- 
 AtAalwy TeTpapytay «ixev ovtos. (Ibid. § 4.) 
 
 Note 89. p. 254. 
 
 Ant. Jud. xviii. 2: Tol dé trav lovdaiwy eddxer dAw- 
 J 
 
 Aevat Tov “Hpwdov stparov iad tod Oecod, cal pddra dikalos 
 TLWVUpEVOU KATA TOLWAY lwadvvov Tod émLkadovpevov Ba- 
 TTLoTOv. KTelver yap TovToy ‘Hpédns, adyabov avipa, kal 
 tous “lovdaious KeAevovTa, apeTiy emacKovvTas Kal TH Tmpos 
 GAAnAOUS OiKalocvyn Kal Tpds TOV Ocdv edaeBela ypopevovs 
 1) v7) p 2 XPOM ’ 
 Lal - ,’ cal 
 Banticpo ovvievat. ovTw yap Kal THY BanTLoW aTodeKTHY avT@ 
 paiverOa, pi) emi TLVMOY GyapTddov TapaltTnoeEL XpwpeE- 
 vou", add’ ed ayveia Tod odpatos, dre by Kal Tis Woyijs 
 4 / \ a y la 
 dukaloovyvn TpoekkexaOapyerns. Kat trav ddAdov ovotpedope- 
 
 \ X 7 pie al eM iS. t a , 
 vov, (kat yap 7pOncav éml mr€ioToVv TH aKpoadcer TGV Aoywr), 
 defoas “Hpédns 16 ent tocdvde mOavov avtod rots avOperots 
 te ty SR eh / \ / XN 77 n~ Leu} 
 pr emt anootace: TiVt pépo., (TavTA yap EwKEeoay cvpovAT TH 
 é€xelvou mpagovtes), TOAD KpeitTov Hyeiral, Tplv TL vewTepov e& 
 b) n / \ , lal a las / >’ 
 avTod yeverOat, TporaBav dvaipeiv, 7 peTaBods yevoyerns eis 
 Ta Tpaypata eunecov petavoeiv. Kal 6 péev, browla tH 
 “‘Hpébov, déoptos eis TOv Mayxatpodvta TEepgOeis, TO 
 Tpoeipnuevov ppovpiov, TavTn KTivvvtTat. The genuineness 
 
 w 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 shews the acquaintance of Josephus with the tenets of the 
 Christians. (Hecles. Hist. vol.i. p. 199.) 
 
LECTURE VII. 503 
 
 of this passage is admitted even by Strauss. (Leben Jesu, 
 § 48; vol. i. pp. 344-347, EK. T.) 
 
 Note 90. p. 254. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu,1.s.c. The chief points of apparent 
 difference, are the motive of the imprisonment and the 
 scene of the execution. Josephus makes fear of a popular 
 insurrection, the Evangelists offence at a personal rebuke, 
 the motive. But here (as Strauss observes) there is no 
 contradiction, for “ Antipas might well fear that John, by 
 his strong censure of the marriage and the whole course of 
 the tetrarch’s life, might stir up the people into rebellion 
 against him.” Again, from the Gospels we naturally ima- 
 gine the prison to be near Tiberias, where Herod Antipas 
 ordinarily resided; but Josephus says that prison was at 
 Macheerus in Perzea, a day’s journey from Tiberias. Here, 
 however, an examination of the Gospels shews, 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 Machzerus, it is ‘‘ a proba- 
 ble solution” of the difficulty, that he was residing with his 
 court at Macherus at this period. (Strauss, § 48, ad fin.) 
 
 Note 91. p. 254. 
 
 Philip is said to have retained his tetrarchy till the 20th 
 year of Tiberius. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, § 6.) Herod Antipas: 
 lost his government in the first of Caligula. (Ibid. ch. 7.) 
 
 Note 92. p. 254. 
 
 Ant. Jud. xvii. 12; xvili.1; De Bell. Jud. ii. 8, § 1. 
 Tijs 5@ “ApyeAdov xapas eis énapxlay Teprypadetons, €mitpo- 
 nds Tis immuxijs Tapa “Pwpators ra€ews Kam ovios méuretat, pé- 
 xpt Tod Krelveww AaBav Tapa Tod Katoapos efovolav. The 
 procurators for this period, mentioned by Josephus, are 
 
504 NOTES. 
 
 Coponius, M. Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus, 
 and Pontius Pilate. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 2, § 2.) 
 
 Note 93. p. 255. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, §§ 10, 11; 8, §-73; xix. 5, 
 § 1; Philo, Zn Place. p. 968, D. E. 
 
 Note 94. p. 255- 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 8. § 2; Tpifrov 6€ éros atta Bact- 
 B : 
 AevorT. Tis GAns “lovdaias TeTAHpwTaL, Kal TapHhv eis TOAW 
 Ka.todpetav, i) mpotepov Xtpatwvos Tipyos €xadeito’ cuve- 
 / \ ° an / > ‘\ re XN <a lod 
 Teer O€ evTavOa Oewptas eis THY Kaloapos Ty, vTep THs 
 €xeivou cwtnplas éoptyyv Tiva TavTnv emiotdpevos. Kal map’ 
 > X\ BA nt ~ X\ 3 , > / » 
 avtiy 7Opototo TOY Kata THY éwapxlay ev TeAEL Kal TpOBeE- 
 Bykorwy eis afiav wANOos. Acvtépa b€ THs Oewpias 
 c / A >] / 3 >) / / 
 Nuepa oTOANY Evdvodwevos E€€ Aapyvpov TEToLNpEVHY 
 lo c / < Ai LS lol > \ / 
 Tacav, os Oavpacior vpdyy €ivat, TapyAOev els TO OE€aTpov 
 >) / c / wy a , a is n 5 , 
 apxouerns juepas. “EvOa rats mpétars Tov HALaKOY axkTivev 
 ) la ey ‘ / >] / 
 eTBoAats 6 apyupos Katavyacdels, Oavpaciws amecTtABe, jap- 
 patpwv tT. poBepov kal tols eis adrov areviCovor dpik@des. Ev- 
 Ods bE of KoAaKES TAS OVE ExelvH Tpds Gyabod GAAos GAAODEY 
 dwvas aveBowv, O€ov TpoTayopeEvorTes, “ Eperns TE ELNS,” 
 emA€yovtes, “ ei kal pexpl viv os GvOpwrov epoBnOnuev, GAda 
 3) a / f lal , Lo lal %9 > 
 TovvTevOev Kpelttova oe Ovytis picews Opodroyovpev.” Ovk 
 emeTAnke TovTOLs 6 BactAEvs, Ode THY KoAakelav doe- 
 lal A 
 Botoay amerpipato’ dvaxtas b€ ody pet oALyov, TOV 
 BovBdva Tis EavTod Kehadjs b7epKabeCouevoy cide emt oXOL- 
 fal . a * 
 viov Tivos’ dyyeAdv TE ToUTOY EvOds Evdnoe KaKOY ElvaL, TOV 
 Kal ToTe TOV aya0Gv yevopevov, Kal diaxdpdtov Eaxev OOv- 
 ‘ ” X\ , cal na 7 / wv X\ 
 viv adpovy o€ ait® THs KolAtas Tpocedvdev aAynua, pEeTa 
 odpodpdrntos apédpevov. “Avalewpdv otv zpos Todvs ¢idovs, 
 “OC eds tyiv eya,” poly, “dn Kataotépew emuTaTTOMaL TOV 
 n lel / 
 Blov, Tapax pijpa Ths €iuappévns Tas ApTe pov Kareevopevas 
 c a LA MS 
 povas eheyxotvons’ Kat 6 KAyfels GOdvaros bd’ pov On Oavov 
 iN SS e = \ 
 andyopa' dexréov b& THY TETpHMEVnY 1 Oeds BEeBovAntau’ Kat 
 , nm n / 
 yap BeBidxaper ovdapn patvrAws, GAN ent THs paxapiComerns 
 Aapmporntos.” Tatra A€yor émitdoes Tis ddvyns KaTETOVEITO. 
 
LECTURE VII. 505 
 
 cal \ cal 
 Mera oxovdis ovv eis TO Bacthevov exouicOn, kal dunée Adyos eis 
 TavTas, ws Exot TOD TeOvaVaL TavTaTact peT GALyor ... Duve- 
 aie x‘ 5 > c f / a a \ , / 
 XGs b& ef’ Hepas TEevTEe TH TIS yaoTtpos GrAynpare 
 dvepyazdels Tov Biov Katéotpe wer. 
 
 Note 95. p. 255. 
 
 Ibid. xix. 9, § 2; "Emapxov obv ris “lovdaias kal ris ara- 
 ons Bacwetas anéorewWe [KAavdvos] Kovomoy Pddov. 
 
 Note 96. p. 255. 
 
 Ibid. xx. 5,§ 253 7,§15; and 8,$ 4. Agrippa IT. bore the 
 title of king. (De Bell. Jud. i. 12, § 8.) 
 
 Note 97. p. 256. 
 
 Antiq. Jud. xix. 9, § 13; 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. 
 155-159). F 
 
 Adamas notissimus, et Berenices 
 In digito factus pretiosior. Hune dedit olim 
 Barbarus incestze, dedit hune Agrippa sorori, 
 Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges, 
 Et vetus indulget senibus clementia porcis. 
 
 Compare Tacit. Hist. ii. 2 and 81. 
 
 Note 98. ‘p. 256. 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 8, §8; 9,§7. ‘O Baowreds exeni- 
 
 atevto b70 KAavidiov Kalcapos tiv émipédecav tod iepod. In 
 one passage (Ant. Jud. xx. 1, § 3) Josephus says that these 
 privileges continued to be exercised by the descendants of 
 Herod, king of Chalcis, from his decease to the end of the 
 war. But he here uses the term dzdéyovor very loosely ; or 
 he forgets that Agrippa II. was the nephew and not the son 
 of this monarch. (See the note of Lardner, Credibility, 
 vol. i, p. 18, note 8.) 
 
506 NOTES. 
 
 Note 99. p. 256. 
 
 The procuratorship of Pilate lasted from the 12th year 
 of Tiberius (A. D. 26) to the 22nd (A. D. 36.) See Joseph. 
 Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, § 2, and 4, §2. Felix entered upon his 
 office as sole procurator in the 12th year of Claudius (A. D. 
 53), and was succeeded by Porcius Festus early in the 
 reign of Nero. (Ant. Jud. xx. 7, §1; and 8, $9.) 
 
 Note 100. p. 256. 
 
 The vacillation and timidity of Pilate appear in his 
 attempt to establish the images of Tiberius in Jerusalem, 
 followed almost immediately by their withdrawal. (Ant. 
 Jud. xviil. 3, § 1.) His violence is shewn in his conduct 
 towards the Jews who opposed his application of the 
 temple-money to the construction of an aqueduct at Jeru- 
 salem (ibid. § 2), as well as in his treatment of the Sama- 
 ritans on the occasion which led to his removal. (Ibid. 4, 
 §1.) Agrippa the elder speaks of the iniquity of his go- 
 vernment in the strongest terms (ap. Philon. Leg. ad 
 Caium, p. 10343 Katadeioarra pn Kal THs GAAns adtod émuTpo- 
 ms e£eh€yxwor Tas dwpodokias, Tas UBpers, Tas aprayas, Tas 
 aixlas, Tas émnpetas, Tovs axplrovs Kal émadAjAovs ovous, TV 
 avyvuTov Kal apyadewrarny @pornta duveEeOovrTes.) 
 
 Note 101. p. 256. 
 
 Tacitus says of Felix— “ Antonius Felix, per omnem 
 sevitiam ac libidinem, jus regium servili ingenio exercuit.” 
 (Hist. v. 9.) And again, “ At non pater ejus, cognomento 
 Felix, pari moderatione agebat, jampridem Judzez impo- 
 situs, et cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus, tanta potentia 
 subnixo.” (Ann. xi. 54.) 
 
 Josephus gives a similar account of his government. 
 (Antiq. Jud. xx. 8.) After he quitted office he was accused 
 to the emperor, and only escaped a severe sentence by the 
 influence which his brother Pallas possessed with Nero. 
 
LECTURE VII. 50 
 
 -~t 
 
 Note 102. p. 256. 
 
 See Ant. Jud. xx. 8, §§ 10,11; Bell. Jud. ii. 14, § 1. In 
 the latter passage Josephus says— Aradefdpuevos 8 Tapa 
 TovTOV THY emiTpomVY Piotos, TO padiota Avpatopevov Ti 
 X@pay emegner’ TOV your AnoTGv ovvédaBe Tos TAEloTOVS, Kal 
 duepOeipev ovK dAlyous. “AAN ody 6 peta Photov ’AABivos Tov 
 avtov TpdTov e€nynoato TOV Tpaypatwv’ ov«K €oTt 8 fvTWa Ka- 
 Koupyias id€av TapeAuTrev. 
 
 Note 103. p. 257. 
 
 See above, notes 100 and 101. 
 
 Note 104. p. 257. 
 
 Here the accuracy of St. Luke is very remarkable. 
 Achaia, though originally a senatorial province (Dio Cass. 
 hii. p. 503, H.), had been taken into his own keeping by 
 Tiberius (Tacit. Anz. i. 76), and had continued under le- 
 gates during the whole of his reign. Claudius, however, in 
 his fourth year restored the province to the senate (Suet. 
 out. Claud. § 35), from which time it was governed by pro- 
 consuls. St. Paul’s visit to Corinth fell about two years 
 after this change. 
 
 Note 105. p. 257. 
 
 Seneca says of Gallio —“< Solebam tibi dicere, Gallionem 
 fratrem meum (quem nemo non parum amat, etiam qui 
 amare plus non potest) alia vitia non nosse, hoe etiam 
 odisse.” And again— ‘‘ Nemo mortalium uni tam du/cis 
 est, quam hic omnibus.” (Quest. Nat. iv. Preefat.) Statius 
 uses the same epithet—(Sy/v. 11. 7, Il. 32, 33)— 
 
 Hoe plus quam Senecam dedisse mundo, 
 Aut dulcem generasse Gallionem. 
 Note 106. p. 257. 
 
 See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 12, § 5; xvill.1, § 1. Lappy 
 dé kal Kupyuios eis tiv *lovdatav, mpooOyknv ths Svpias yevo- 
 
508 NOTES. 
 
 pevnv, ATOTLLNTOMEVOS a’TOV Tas Ovolas Kal aTodwod- 
 
 oe! / , € SS / \ chef) bs >? 
 pevos Ta ApxeAdov xpyyata. Ol 6€ Kaimep TO Kat apxas ev 
 Sewea pepovres THY emt Tals Anoypadats axpdaow, b7oKare- 
 Bynoav, «.t.d. The difficulty with respect to the time of the 
 taxing will be considered in note 119. 
 
 Note 107. p. 257. 
 
 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. 1.1, vol. il. p. 218; De Prenot. 
 § 2; vol. xiv. p. 612.) 
 
 Note 108. p. 257. 
 
 Cyprus was originally an imperial province (Dio Cass. 
 lili. p. 504, A.), and therefore governed by legates or pro- 
 pretors (Strab. xiv. 6, § 6); but Augustus after a while 
 gave it up to the Senate, from which time its governors 
 were proconsuls. (See Dio, liv. p. 523, B. rére 6€.0tv Kat 
 ti Kixpov wai tyv Tadariav tiv NapBovyclav arédoxe TO 
 diye, os pndey Tév d7@V adtod Seopevas’ Kat ovTws avOV- 
 mato. kal és Ta exeiva €Ovn TéuTes Oa ipavro.) The title of 
 Proconsul appears on Cyprian coins, and has been found 
 in a Cyprian Inseription of the reign of Claudius. (Boeckh, 
 Corp. Inscript. No. 2632.) 
 
 Note 109. p. 257. 
 
 Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 13, §3; De Bell. Jud. 1.13, § 1; 
 Dio Cass. xlix. p. 411, B. This Lysanias was the son of 
 Ptolemy son of Mennzeus, and seems to have been king of 
 Chalcis and Iturea, inheriting the former from his father, 
 and receiving the latter from Mark Antony. See the pas- 
 sages above cited. 
 
 Note 110. p. 257. 
 
 Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, was put to death by An- 
 tony, at the instigation of Cleopatra (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 
 4, § 1), certainly before the year of Rome 719, B.C. 35. 
 (See Dio Cass. I. s. ¢.) 
 
LECTURE VII. 509 
 
 Note 111. p. 258. 
 So Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 44; vol.i. p. 302, E. T. 
 
 Note 112. p. 258. 
 
 Ibid. p. 301. ‘‘ We cannot indeed prove that, had a 
 younger Lysanias existed, Josephus must have mentioned 
 him, &ce.” 
 
 Note 113. p: 258. 
 
 Strauss assumes, without an atom of proof, that Abila 
 (or Abilene) was included in the kingdom of Lysanias, the 
 contemporary of Anthony. 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 “thé 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. iit. 12, § 8; Ant. Jud. xix. 5, § 1.) 
 Thus it would appear that Josephus really intends a dif- 
 ferent Lysanias from the son of Ptolemy in these two pas- 
 sages. 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 passage from Pliny—“ Intercursant cin- 
 guntque has urbes ¢etrarchi@, regionum instar singul, et 
 in regna contribuuntur, Trachonitis, Paneas, Abila, &e.” 
 
 (H. N. v. 18, ad fin.) 
 
 Note 114. p. 259. 
 See above, notes 4, 89, and 94. 
 
 Note 115. p. 259. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 32; vol. i. p. 301, E.T. 
 x See his Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Lecture VIII. p. 403, note =. 
 
 I am indebted to my friend, Mr. Mansel, for my knowledge of this 
 excellent work. 
 
510 NOTES. 
 
 Note 116. p. 259. 
 
 See the Zeitschrift fiir geschichtliche Rechtwissenschaft, 
 vol. vi., quoted by Olshausen in his Biblischer Commentar, 
 (vol. 1. p.125; p.116, E. T.) On the general question, see 
 Alford’s Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 315. 
 
 Note 117. p. 259. 
 
 Ant. Jud. xvii. 1, § 1. See above, note 106. 
 
 Note 118. p. 260. 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 32; p. 204, E. 'T. 
 . 
 Note 119. p. 260. 
 
 The following explanations of Luke ii. 2 have been pro- 
 posed :—(1.) It has been proposed to take zpérn with azo- 
 ypad?, to regard Kupnviov as a genitive dependent on dzo- 
 ypagn, and ijyenovevovros as equivalent to iyyeudvos or nye- 
 povedoavros. ‘The passage is then translated— ‘‘ This was 
 the first assessment of Cyrenius, once governor of Syria.” 
 (See Lardner, Credibility. vol. i. pp. 173-175:) 
 
 (2.) Only slightly different from this is the view of Bezay 
 and others, which takes zpé77 in the same way, but regards 
 nyeuovevovtos Kupyviov as a genitive absolute, and renders 
 the verse—‘ This first assessment was made when Cyrenius 
 was governor of Syria.” Both these explanations suppose 
 that Cyrenius made two assessments, one before he was 
 actual President of Syria and one afterwards. The former 
 regards Cyrenius as designated by his subsequent title; the 
 latter supposes that he may have been called “ governor” 
 when strictly speaking he was not so, but had a certain 
 degree of authority. Two objections lie against both views. 
 1. The ordo verborum does not allow us to take zpoérn with 
 
 y See Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 171, note 4. 
 
LECTURE VII. 511 
 
 avoypapy. 2. No writer hints at Cyrenius having been 
 twice employed to make a census in Palestine. 
 
 (3.) A third explanation is, that apétn is for sporépa, 
 and that the genitive Kvpnviov depends upon it, the con- 
 struction used being analogous to that of St. John, 671 -7pé- 
 tds pou jv (1. 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 Testament, vol. 1. p. 314.) 
 
 (4.) Finally, it is maintained that éyévero should be re- 
 garded as emphatic—and that St. Luke means, as I have 
 suggested in the text, that while the enrolment was begun 
 a little before our Lord’s birth, it was never fully executed 
 until Cyrenius carried it through. Both this and the pre- 
 ceding explanation seem to be allowable—they are com- 
 patible with the Hellenistic idiom, and do no violence to 
 history. As Lardner has shewn, there is abundant rea- 
 son to believe that an enrolment was actually set on foot 
 shortly before the death of Herod. (See the Credibility, 
 
 vol. 1. pp. 151-159.) 
 Note 120. p. 260. 
 
 See his Short View of the Harmony of the Evangelists, 
 Prop. xi. pp. 145-149. 
 
 Note 121. p. 260. 
 Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. ii. p. 505. 
 
 Note 122. p. 260. 
 
 Ant. Jud. xvii. 1, § 1. After speaking of Cyrenius 
 as sent from Rome for the express purpose of effecting a 
 census, Josephus adds—Tovdas 6 Tavdavirns avip, ek 70- 
 Aeos Gvopa Tayada, Sdddoveov Dapisaiov spoodapBavopevos, 
 pd if > \ P) 4 , > / OX + x‘ 
 nmelyeTo eT ATOOTATEL, THY TE ATOTiUNoW OvdEV GAAO 7) 
 ” , 5 / / C\ a > , ar) 
 Gvtikpus dovdelav emupépew A€yovTes, Kal Tis €devOepias ea 
 avTiAner Tapakadovvres 76 €Ovos. He then speaks of the 
 success of Judas’s efforts, and his formation of a sect, 
 
512 NOTES. 
 
 which Josephus puts on a par with those of the Pharisees, 
 the Sadducees, and the Essenes. I 6& rerdprn tév diAoco- 
 pidv 6 TadtAatos “lovéas iyyepov xatearn. (Ibid. § 6.) 
 
 Note 123. p. 260. 
 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 17, § 8. The followers of Theudas 
 “were scattered and brought to nought’ (Acts v. 36), but 
 those of Judas the Galilean “ were dispersed.” (Ibid. verse 
 37-) It is in exact accordance with this distinction that 
 the latter reappear in the Jewish war, while of the former 
 we hear nothing. See Dean Alford’s note ad loe. 
 
 Note 124. p. 261. 
 Antiq. Jud. xx. 5, § 1. 
 
 Note 125. p. 261. 
 
 Ib. xvii. 10, § 43 "Ev rovr@ dé kai €repa pvpia OoptBov 
 €xOueva THY “lovdatay KatehduBave, TOAAGY TOAAAYOCE 
 kat oikelwy ed7idas Kepddv Kal “lovdalwy &xOpas emt TO Tode- 
 
 BEY @PpNpEevov. 
 Note 126. p. 261. 
 
 De Bell. Jud. ii. 13, § 53 Meitom 8& radrns mAny7 “lovdat- 
 b) / 7) 4 / , X\ 
 ous exakwoev Aiyintios Wevdorpodirns. Llapayevouevos yap 
 eis THY xX@pav, avOpwTos yons, Kab Tpopyrov TloTw émbels 
 EaUT@, TEpl TpLoyvplovs pev GOpoiter TGV nmatnyévov. Tlepia- 
 ‘\ X\ > \ p] Lo a; / , X93 lal , ¥ 
 yayov 6€ avtous Ex Tis Epnulas eis TO ’EXatoy Kadovpevor pos, 
 éxeiev oids Te iv eis ‘lepordAupa TapedOeiv Bidtec Oat, kal Kpa- 
 THhoas Tis TE Pwpaixhs ppouvpas Kal rod Shyov tupavveiv, ypo- 
 ~“ n , f S 3 ol ~ € 
 Pevos Tols ouvetotecovur Sopuddpots. DPOaver 5€ avtov Tv dp- 
 XN fal c / ‘ lal ‘Dp “nan ¢ n \ la) c 
 pny O7ALE, vravriacas peta TOV “PopaixGrv dmALTOr, Kal Tas 6 
 djpos cvvedywaro THs autvns’ Gote cvyBods yevowevns Tov 
 bev Aiydrriov pvyeiv per Alyov, SvapOaphvar & Kat Cwypy- 
 Ova TrAEloTOVS TOV obv aiTw TO bE AoLTOV TAHOOS oKEda- 
 obey ent THY Eavtov Exacrov diadabety. Compare Antiq. Jud. 
 
 TO) 1. 
 
LECTURE VIT. 513 
 
 Note 127. p. 262. 
 
 In the parallel passage of the Antiquities (l.s.c.), Jo- 
 sephus says, that Felix slew 400 and captured 200 of the 
 Egyptian’s followers. If he had really estimated their 
 whole number at 30,000, he would scarcely have said, that 
 “ very many (zAetoror) were killed or taken prisoners,” 
 when the loss in both ways was no more than 600 men. It 
 has been sagaciously conjectured that the reading tpecpv- 
 plovs should be replaced by rerpaxcoytAcous, having arisen 
 from the ready confusion of A with 6, or A with A. 
 (Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 227.) 
 
 Note 128. p. 262. 
 
 Ant. Jud. xx. 2.§ 6. Compare Dio Cassius. Ix. pp. 671, 
 672; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43; Sueton. vit. Claud. § 18. Euse- 
 bius mentions a famine in Greece during the same reign. 
 (Chronica, pars il. p. 373, Ed. Mai.) Josephus calls the 
 famine in Judzea, to which he refers, rov uéyav Adv. (Ant. 
 
 Jud. xx. 5. § 2.) 
 Note 129. p. 263. 
 Alford, Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 53. 
 
 Note 130. p. 264. 
 See an article “on the Bible and Josephus,” in the 
 Journal of Sacred Literature for October 1850. 
 Note 131. p. 264. 
 
 S. Ambrose, Comment. in Psalm. exviii. § 37. (Opera, 
 vol. i. p. 1206.) 
 
 Note 132. p. 265. 
 Ibid. Explic. Luc. x. §171. (Opera, vol. i. p.1542.) 
 
 Note 133. p. 265. 
 
 Irenzeus, Advers. Heres. iii. 1 ; (Opera, vol. ii. p. 6.) 
 RAWLINSON. jg | 
 
NO eas. 
 LECTURE VIIL. 
 
 Note 1. p. 267. 
 
 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 Christian witnesses. He devotes nearly two 
 volumes to the accumulation of their testimonies. (See his 
 Credibility, vols. i. li. and ii.) Paley does 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 i. ch. 7, p. 291); but omits to enlarge on the point. 
 And this is the general spirit of our Apologists. 
 
 Note 2. p. 268. 
 
 So Celsus (ap. Origen. Contr. Cels. iii. 44.) Strauss en- 
 deavours to diminish the authority of the Apostles, and 
 first preachers of Christianity, by contrasting the darkness 
 of Galilee and Judea with the enlightenment of “ highly 
 civilized Greece and Rome.” (Leben Jesu, § 13, sub fin. ; 
 vol. i. p. 64, KE. T.) 
 
 Note 3. p. 270. 
 
 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. il. p. 489; Ov pou det TAELWWvaY Adyor, 
 mapabeyerm pdptruy tov "Amocto\tKkov BapvaBav’ 6 &e 
 Tov EBdopjKovra HY, Kal cuvepyos Tov [lavAov. He then 
 quotes from the extant Kpistle.) 
 
LECTURE VIII. 51 
 
 Or 
 
 Note 4. p. 270. 
 
 Contra Celsum, i. § 63; p. 378, B.; De Princip. ii. 2. § 4; 
 p- 140, E. 
 
 Note 5. p. 270. 
 
 Professor Norton assigns the Epistle of Barnabas to 
 “the middle of the second century” (Genwineness of the 
 Gospels, vol. i. p. 347); but on very insufficient evidence. 
 Lardner gives A. D. 71 or 72 as the probable date of its 
 composition. (Credibility, vol. i. p. 285.) 
 
 M. Bunsen, while rejecting the view that it was written 
 by the companion of St. Paul, puts its composition “ about 
 15 years before that of the Gospel of St. John,” or some 
 time before the close of the first century. (Hippolytus and 
 his Age, vol. 1. 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.) 
 
 Note 6. p. 270. 
 
 See the subjoined passages— [lepas yé rou diddoKwv Tov 
 ? nan lal n 
 Iopana, kal Tovadra Tépata kal onpeta Toray, exnprée, 
 \ 
 kat dmepnyannoev avtdv. “Ore 5 rods idlovs "AnoordAovs, 
 / a 
 Tovs weAAOPTasS KnpvooeEW TO EvayyeALoV avTod, Efe EEQTO,... 
 TOTE Eavepwoev Eavrov viov Ocod civar. ($5; p-15-) Ot de 
 e , a > , Cran \ ” n a 
 pavtiCovtes Taides, evayyeAtCouevor uty THY ApEeow TOV apuap- 
 TLOV, Kal TOV dyviopoY THs Kapdias, ois EdwKe TOU EvayyeAtou 
 \ ¢ Ss i , , 7, an a fo 
 THY e€ovolay, ovat SEeKadvo, eis papTUpLoy TOV purr, Gre de- 
 kadvo at dudal rod “Iopaynd. (§ 8; p. 25-) Adros OEAncev 
 er lal fy N £ /, hae } > “ ° \ / 
 otrw Tadeiy...A€yer yap 6 TpopyTevav em aiTe... idov, TE- 
 Oevkd pov TOV vGrov eis padoTiyas, TAS TLaydvas Eis 
 pamlopata. (§5; p.16.) “Owovrar airov rére tH Huepa 
 TOv TodnNpN e€XovTAa TOV KOKKLVOY TeEpl THY TapKa, Kal 
 €povow’ Ovx ovrds eotiy Gv ToTE iets EgTavpdoapeEV €f- 
 ovOevnoarvrTes, kal katakevtynoartes, Kai EeuTalgavtes. ($7; 
 Ee 
 
516 NOTES. 
 
 p- 24.) ‘O vids tod Ocod éxaber, iva 4 TAnyi aitod Cworoujon 
 muds ...dAka Kat oravpobels emoriCero d£er Kal xodA7. 
 ($7; pp. 20, 21.) Kal wadAw Moojs more? ritov Tod “Inood: 
 ért bet avrov mabeiv Kal a’Tov (woToijoa, Ov Sdf@oLv azo- 
 Awdexévat. (§12; p.39.) Ti ody A€yer TAAL 6 Tpodyrys ; 
 TENETXE LE TUVAYwY)] TOVNPEVOMEeVOL™ Ex’KAWOaY LE GoTEP [e- 
 Auooat knpiov’ kal éml Tov tpatiopov pov €Badrov kAt- 
 pov. Ev capki ovv atrod pedAovtos havepotobat Kal macxeLv, 
 mTpoepavepodto TO TaOos. (§6; p.18.) Avo Kal ayouev THY 
 Nepav Tip oydonv eis evppoodyyy, ev 7) Kal 6 Inoods avéory 
 €x vexpOv Kal davepobeis aveBn els Tovs ovpavods. 
 ($155 p. 48.) 
 Note 7. p. 270. 
 
 Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 289 et seqq.; Burton, Lc- 
 cles. History, vol. i. pp. 342, 343; Norton, Genuineness, &e. 
 vol. 1. pp. 336-338; Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. 1. pp. 44-47 3 
 Jacobson, Prefat. ad S. Clem. Ep. p.x—xvii., prefixed to 
 his Patres Apostolict. 
 
 Note 8. p. 271. 
 
 The following are the passages to which reference is 
 made in the text: ’E& avrod (se. tot "laxwB) 6 Kipuos “Inoods 
 TO Kata aapka. (§ 323; p-114.) To oxijztpov tis peya- 
 Awotyvyns TOD Oeod, 6 Kvpios ipav Xpiords “Inoots, ov« 
 nAOev ev KouTH dhafovelas, ovde trepnpavlas, kaizwEp Suva- 
 MEVOS, GAAG TaTewodpovav. (§ 16; pp. 60,62.) Ta 7a07- 
 fata avrod ip mpd dpOadpav tydv. ($2; p.12.) MddAuora 
 Mewvnpevor TOV Adyov tod Kuplov "Incod, ods eAdAnoe 815a- 
 okov eémlelkerav kal pakpoOvplav. Otros yap einer" 
 ’EnXecire iva eAendire, adiere iva adeOi tuiv' ws ToLEiTE, otTw 
 momOnoera buiv? ws didoTe, ovUTws SoOnceTat byiv @s KpiverTe, 
 otras KpiOnoetat div’ as xpnoTeverOe, oUTHS xpnoTevOnoeTat 
 tpiv’ © wetpo peTpetre, ev ad’T@ petpynOnoerar tiv. (§ 13; 
 Pp. 52.) “Areviowper eis TO aia tod Xptorod, kal t6wpmev 
 os €otlv Tiuoy TO Oo aia avrod, 1a Tiv HpETEpav co- 
 tnpiav exxvdev. ($7; p. 34.) Ara rhv aydrny jv Eoxev 
 mpos Has TO atua avtod édwKkev b7Ep HpOv 'Inoois Xpi- 
 ards 6 Kvpios Huadv, ev OeAjpate Qeod, Kal tiv capKa wrep THs 
 
LECTURE. VIII. 517 
 
 mapkos yyOv, Kal THY Wuxny brep TOV WoxSv jpdv. (§ 49; 
 I 8 Th aN - yen? v rs) A \ es \ 
 p-178.) Tay pédAdoveav dvactacw écecOat, 7s THY aTapxHy 
 émomnoato tov Kipiov judv "Incotv Xpuorov, €xk veKp@v ava- 
 atnoas. (§ 24; p.98.) “Efetéup0n 6 Xpuoros ody azo tod 
 cod, cal of “AndoroAo amd Tod Xprotod. (§ 42; p. 148.) 
 
 € fal ,’ 
 
 Mera wAnpogoplas Ivetpatos “Aylov efmdOov [ot Amo- 
 atodot] evayyeArOpevor THY Barireiay TOU Ocov peddrew Epxe- 
 
 r SS , on N , / / 
 sOa. Kata x@pas ovv kal ToAELts KnpvocovTEs, Kade- 
 gTavoV Tas avapxas adtor, doxiudacavtes TH LIvevpati, eis 
 €mtaKkdtmous Kat dtaxdvous. (ibid. pp. 148, 150.) Ara ¢y- 
 Aov kal POdvov ot méytaTtot Kal Sixatdtarot otvAou el- 
 @xOnoav Kal Ews Oavarov 7jAOov. AdBopev Tpd dpOarpav jyav 
 Tovs ayabors Atoarddovs. “O Tlérpos dia CnAov GduKov odx 
 # OX / 3 X rd ¢€ , / \ ivé 
 €va ovde OU0, GAAG TAELOVAS UTNVEYKEV TOVOUS, kal OUTH 
 
 / 3 / . Ngee. / , Les , XX 
 paptupnoas emopevOn els TO derkspevov Téwov THs Sdfys. Ara 
 r \ c a c lal lal e / c / 
 (rov cat o [latAos vaopovis BpaBetov vmecxev, ETTAKLS 
 deoua hopécas, puyadevbeis, AvOagOels, kypvé yevo- 
 Mevos €v TE TH GvaTOAH Kat €v TH SUoEL, 70 yevvator 
 THs TlaTews avTod Khéos eAaBev, dixkatoovvny b1dakas GAOoV 
 
 \ , Vv 4 \ \ / Les uA 3 \ \ 
 
 TOV KOOMOV Kal Ent TO TEppa THS SVTEMWS EADQV, Kal wapToL- 
 pyoas emt TOV Hyovpeéeveor, K.T.A. ($53 pp. 24-28.) 
 
 Note 9. p. 271. 
 
 Ep. ad Cor. § 47; p. 168. "AvadaBere thy émuctoAny Tov 
 4 / - 3) , , los iC ex . > an n 
 waxaptov [lavAov tov AmoortoAov. Tt mptov upiv ev apx7 Tov 
 , , ” a9) (9) , n Cy ew) econ 
 evayyedlov €ypawen; em” aAnDelas TVEvpaTiK@s eTETTELAEY VytY 
 Tept adtod te Kal Knpa re kai AmoAX@, bia TO Kal TOTE Tpoo- 
 
 kXioes tuas weToujoOa. Comp. 1 Cor. 1. 10-12. 
 
 Note 10. p. 272. 
 
 See Burton’s Ecclesiastical History of the First Three 
 Centuries, vol.i. pp. 197 and 357. 
 
 Note 11. p..272. 
 
 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 23. Compare Pearson’s Disputatio de 
 Anno quo 8. Ignatius a Trajano Antiochie ad Bestias erat 
 condemnatus (printed in Dr. Jacobson’s Patres Apostolict 
 
518 NOTES. 
 
 vol. ii. pp. 524-529.) Pearson places the Martyrdom in 
 A. D.116; M. Bunsen in A. D.115. (Hippolytus and his 
 Age, vol. 1. p. 89.) 
 
 Note 12. p. 272. 
 
 ‘wo 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.” (Kecles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 29, note.) So far as I 
 know, they are not now defended by any one. 
 
 Note 13. p. 272. 
 
 Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 314, 315; Burton, Eccles. 
 Hist. vol. ii. pp. 29, 30; Schréckh, Christl. Kirch. Geschichte, 
 vol. ii. p. 341 et seqq.; Neander, Geschichte der Christl. Re- 
 ligton, vol. ii. p. 1140; Kiste in Ilgen’s Zeitschrift fiir histo- 
 rische Theologie, U1. ii. pp. 47-90; Jacobson, Patres Aposto- 
 lici, vol. ii. pp. 262-470; Hefele, Patrum Apostolicorum 
 Opera, 3rd edition, Prolegomena, p. lviii. 
 
 Note 14. p. 272. 
 
 Kuseb. Hist. Lecles.iii.36; Hieronym. De Viris Ilustr.c.xvi. 
 (Op. vol. ii. p. 841, ed. Vallars.) The brief account given in 
 the text of a very complicated matter, requires a few words 
 of elucidation, and perhaps, to some extent, of correction. 
 The twelve Epistles in their /onger form exist both in 
 Greek, and in an ancient Latin version. Eleven Epistles 
 out of the twelve are found in a second Latin version, like- 
 wise ancient; which presents numerous important varia- 
 tions from the other, and is in general considerably shorter. 
 Of these eleven Epistles, 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) Hpistles 
 of the Medicean MS. are nearly, but not quite, identical 
 
LECTURE VIII. 519 
 
 with the seven Epistles mentioned by Eusebius and Je- 
 rome. They consist, that is, of six out of the seven (viz. 
 the Epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Phila- 
 delphians, Smyrnzeans, and Polycarp), together with a let- 
 ter 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 frag- 
 ment. 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 originally the same eleven letters. Thus 
 we cannot base any argument on the identity of the Euse- 
 bian and Medicean Epistles. It is not an exact identity ; 
 and the approach to identity is perhaps an accident. 
 
 Note 15. p. 273. 
 
 See Dr. Cureton’s Corpus Ignatianum, Introduction, pp- 
 xxxiv—Ixxxvil.; Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol. 1. 
 pp. 98-103. 
 
 Note 16. p. 273. 
 
 See Dr. Jacobson’s Preface to the third edition of his 
 Patres Apostolici, p. liv; Hefele’s Prolegomena, 1.8. c.; Pro- 
 fessor Hussey’s University Sermons, Preface, pp. XilI-XXXiX.; 
 Uhlhorn in Niedner’s Zeitschrift fiir historische Theologie, 
 XV. p. 247 et seqq.; and Canon Wordsworth in the English 
 Review, No. viii.’ p. 309 et seqq. The shorter Greek Recen- 
 sion is also’ regarded as genuine by the present Regius 
 Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford. 
 
 Note 17. p. 274. 
 
 The subjoined are the most important of the Ignatian 
 testimonies to the facts of Christianity: Suvépxeoe ev pia 
 miorer, kat év “Inood Xputo, TG KaTa odpKa Ex yEvous 
 AaBid, ro vid avOpdrov kal vig Ocod. (Hp. ad Eph. xx. 
 
s 
 
 520 i> SNOPES: 
 
 p. 302.) ‘O yap Oeds jydr Incous 6 Xpistds Exvopopydn 
 € ‘ , > 3 / n 5 f x ‘ 
 v7z0 Maptas, kat oixovoutay Oeod, €x oneppatos perv AaPid, 
 IIvetpatos b& ‘Ayiov' bs éyevvnOn, kal €Banrtia@n, K.T.A. 
 (Ibid. xviii. pp. 296-298.) “Edadev tov apxovta tod aidvos 
 s € “? s Wee S4 \ >’ n Ye LS , 
 Tovtov 7 TapOevia Mapias, Kai 6 ToKeTOs avTov, Kal 6 Oava- 
 tos Tad Kupiov, tpia pvotipia kpavyns. (Ibid. xix. p. 298.) 
 Ids ovv epavepadn toils aidow; "Aotip ev olpave édap- 
 Wev tnép TavTas Tovs doTépas, Kai TO POs avTov aveKdd- 
 Antov Hv, Kal fevicpov Tapelyev 7) Katvdrns adtod. (Ibid. xix. 
 p- 300.) Tov Kupiov jpov ... yeyernuevov adnOes éx Tapbe- 
 ft € BS) / ¢ , o 
 vou, BeBamticpevov U70 lwavvov, tva TtANPoOON Taca 
 dukatoovyvyn vam avTod, GAnOds emt Tlovrfov iAdrov 
 SAC / , "b ec XX c r 3 , 
 kat Hpoddov retpapxov KkadnArAwpevor rep jpav €v CapKt. 
 (Ep. ad Smyrn.i. p. 4:6.) Kai robs mpodiyras ayarGpev, 61d 
 TO Kal avtovs eis TO evayyéALov KaTHyyeAKEeval, Kal eis avTov 
 ednice, kal avrov dvayeve ev © Kal musTevoartes eowOnoav 
 ) c / ? a r lal ” >) \ Se Wr 2 / 
 ep Evdtntt Inoovd Xpuotod, ovres a€tayatnrot kal afvoPavpacror 
 dyiot, bro “Incood Xptocrod pepaptupypévor, KT. A, 
 (Ep. ad Philadelph. v. pp. 394-396.) Ava tovro pvpov 
 édkaBev emi THs Kepadrs avtod 6 Kipuos, va mven 7H 
 ‘ c 
 exkAnoia apbapoiar. (Hp. ad Ephes. xvii. p. 296.) "AdAndGs 
 exadev ws cal GANOds avéotynoev Eautov. (Ep.ad Smyrn. 
 il. p. 418.) Mnkére caBBarifovres, AAG Kata Kvptak yy Cony 
 Cavtes, Ev 7 Kal 7 Cwr pOv avererhev dv adrod. (Hp. 
 ad Magnes. ix. p. 324.) Ot mpopijrat @s dddoKnadov abrov 
 TpoweddKouv’ Kal 61a ToUTO Oy bikaiws avewevov, Tapov HyEt- 
 pev avtovs ex vexpov. (Ibid. l.s.c¢) "Eye yap Kai pera 
 \ >] / pb] \ , \ AS \ 4 v y \ lad 
 THY avasTacw ev capKl avTov oida Kal TLaTEVw OVTa. Kal OTe 
 mpos Tovs wept [létpov HAGEv, py avrots, AaBere, 
 Wnrapyrate pe, Kal dere, dre od« ciul Saysdviov Aoeparov. 
 Kai ed@vs adtod qWarto, kai éxlotevsav. (Kp. ad Smyrn. 
 lil. p.420.) Mera 6& rip avdoracw cvvépayev adrots cat 
 avventev ws capxikos. (Ibid. |. s. ec.) “Yaordynre To em- 
 , ee / c > ce) r \ Coed \ \ / 
 oxd7@ Kal GAANAOLS, @S "Invots Xpioros To TaTpl Kara oapsa, 
 kal of "AmdoroAo T® XptoTe@ kat To Carpi cat ro [vev- 
 pati. (Ep. ad Magnes. xiii. p. 323.) “AvayKatov obv éotiv 
 ... UmoTdosecIa. TH TpeTBuTEepin, ws Tols amoaTOAdLs. 
 
 (Hp. ad. Trall. ii. p. 334.) Ovdx os Weérpos*xat TataAos 
 
LECTURE VIII. 52] 
 
 diatacoopat tylv’ Exetvou. dadatoXot, €yw xatakpitos. (Hp. 
 
 ad ftom. iv. p. 368.) 
 
 Note 18. p. 274. 
 
 See Dr. Cureton’s Corpus [qnatianum, pp. 227-231; and 
 M. Bunsen’s Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 2-98. 
 
 Note 19. p. 274. 
 See Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 484-512. 
 ‘This work is admitted to be genuine, even by M. Bunsen. 
 (Hippolytus, vol.i. pp. 223-227.) 
 
 Note 20. p. 27 
 
 See especially the following passages: Avdkovot ... nopev- 
 Opevotr Kara THY AAnGetav Tod Kupiov, Os EyéveTo OtdKovos 
 f La co > 
 TAaVTOV. ($5; p-494.) Muvnpovedtovtes d€ ov eizev 6 Kipios 
 / nm 
 dudaoKkav, Mi kplvete, tva pr KplOnre aiere, Kat 
 2 4 On Cee ael oa ¢ B EA) VS EM e a 
 apednoetat viv’ edeEEtTE, Wa EAENOITE EV @ METPwH JLETPEITE, 
 avtiperpnOjnoerar buiv? Kal Ore paxdploe ob mT@XOl, Kal ob Oiw- 
 / ed 4 v4 paras 5) \ ¢ tf nn 
 KOMEVOL Evekev Oikaloobyys, OTL a’TOY EoTiv 7 BactAEla Tov 
 n r fat A / 
 Ocod. (§ 2; pp. 488-490.) Xpurords Inoots, Os aviveyKev 
 NMO@v Tas Guaptias 76 dim codpate emt TO EVAOY Os 
 Te paptias TG lilo odp 
 ( 4 > 2) , IEr > / , 3 ” , > a. 
 GpapTlav oUK ETOLNTEV, OVOE EYPEON HOAOS EV TH TTOMATL avTOD 
 P) ’ lad / a 
 GAG Oe Hpas, va Cjompev ev adte, Tavta bne€perve. (§ 8; 
 P: 502.) “Os dv py dporoy7 76 j 0 oTauvpod, €k 
 : é Bi) OMoAOyH TO paptvpioy TOB oTavpod, 
 Tod diaBcdov eori. ($7; p. 500.) Tov Kupiov jar ‘Inootv 
 \ A / na n nan ¢ 
 Xpiorov, Os imeuewey drep TOV Gyaptiav jyav Ews Oavatov 
 na im A v ¢ \ , \ xan a eo 
 KaTavTnoa ov nyetpev O Oe€ods, Avoas Tas divas TOU aoov. 
 ($13 p. 486.) [luretoavres cis Tov eyeipavta tov Kipiov 
 « na ? a 7 \ . / Os , ? n , \ 
 neov Inoovv Xpiotov ex vexpwv, kal OOvTA avTe@ dogav Kal 
 , 3 ~ nA ’ a s @ a , 
 Opdovov é€x de€tGv advrod. (§ 2; p.486.) “QO (se. ro Kupie) 
 aN > / o) ae _ 7 > s \ \ / 
 EdV EVAPEDTIOMMEY EV TH VEY al@vL, aTOAnWopEIa Kal TOV pEA- 
 Aovta, Kaas bTETXETO Huly Eyetpat Nuas EK VEKpwv. 
 ($53 p- 496.) [lapaxad6 otvy mavras tyes... doxeiy Tacav 
 ¢ X\ ny Ee 375 ‘ > , . r 
 UTOLOVHY, HY Kal LOeTE KaT OPOaXpovs, ov povoy EV TOS 
 ) 
 paxaptos ‘Tyvatio, kal Zocive, kal ‘Povo, GAA Kal ev GddAots 
 tat 3 ig n \ 5 > a , \ Cal ca , 
 Tots €€ Uuov, kal Ev adT@ HavAw Kai Tots Aotmots aTo- 
 
522 NOTES. 
 
 , = t or o t B) > Not 
 
 OTOAOLS TETELTPLEVOUS OTL OVTOL TAVTES OUK Els KEVOY Edpapory, 
 \o > A ’ , > a , Oyen X fall fea s 
 ... kal OTL eis TOV OpELAopEVOY avTols TOTOY Elo Tapa To Kupilo, 
 © kal cuvétmadov. (§93 pp. 502-504.) Tod paxaptov kal 
 > / / aA /, 2. € na \ , 
 evoofov [lavAov" os yevowevos Ev Vuty KaTa TPOTwTOV 
 Tov TOTE avOpdéTorv, EdldakEV axpiBGs Kal BeBalws TOV TeEpl 
 > , , SAA ee) \ Cee x > / 
 adndeias AOyov' Os Kai AT@V VEY EypaWeVv ETLOTOAGS, 
 Kit. A. ($13 3~p. 490!) 
 Note 21. p. 275. 
 
 See the Epistle of Irenzeus to Florinus, preserved in Euse- 
 bius’s Ecclesiastical History (v.20; vol.i. pp. 359, 360) ;—At 
 éx Taldav padijces cvvavfovoat TH Wuxn Evodvtat adTH, WaTE ME 
 dvvacOa eizeiv Kal Tov TémoV ev w@ KabeCopevos dieheyeTo 6 
 
 ij (4 \ X\ / > nN \ XX > , 
 paxaptos [loAvKapzos, kal Tas mpoddovs avTov Kal Tas €iaddous, 
 Kal TOV xapakthpa Tov Biov, Kal THY TOU TépaTos id€arv, Kal Tas 
 duadefes Gs evroLveiTo Tpds TO TAHOOS, Kal THY KaTa Twavvov 
 
 ‘ c ’ y \ X\ XX n n 
 cvvavacTpogPyy ws amnyyedre, kal THY META TOV OLTOV 
 TOV EwpakoTtev TOV Kvprov' kal ws ameuvypdveve Tovs Ad- 
 yous avt@v, kal wept Tov Kupiov tiva jv & map exelvwv aknKoet, 
 Kal wept TOv dSuvadpewr avdTod, ws Tapa TGV alToTTav THs 
 Cwijs Tod Adyou apenas 6 TloAvKapxos amyyyeAAe TavTA 
 cuudeava tats ypadats. 
 
 Note 22. p. 275. 
 
 Kuseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 3; vol. i. p.1473; Hieronym. De 
 Viris Illustr. x. p. 831. ed. Vallars. Compare Origen, ad 
 Rom. xvi. 13. 
 
 Note 23. p.275. 
 
 See the ‘“ Canon” published by Muratori in his Antiqui- 
 tates Itaha@ Medii Aivi,2 where the writer (Hegesippus ) 
 says, that “the book of the Shepherd was written very 
 lately, in our own times, by Hermas, while his brother 
 Pius presided over the Roman Church as bishop.” And 
 compare Burton, Kecles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 104; Alford, Greek 
 Testament, vol. i. p. 441 ; Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol.i. p.184 ; 
 and Norton, Genwineness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 341, 342. 
 
 2 Vol. iii. pp. 853, 854. 
 
LECTURE VIIL. 523 
 
 Note 24. p. 276. 
 
 Hermas mentions the mission of the Apostles—“ Tales 
 sunt qui crediderunt Apostolis, guos misit Dominus in totum 
 orbem predicare.” (Past. iii. 9, § 25; p-122.) Their tra- 
 vels throughout the world— “ Hi duodecim montes quos 
 vides, duodecim sunt gentes gue totum obtinent orbem. 
 Predicatus est ergo in eis Filius Dei, per cos quos ipse ad 
 illos misit.” (Ibid. §17; p.120.) Their sufferings are in- 
 dicated in the following passage— ‘ Dico ei: Domine, vel- 
 lem scire qu sustinuerunt. Audi, inquit; feras bestias, 
 flagella, carceres, cruces, causa nominis ejus.” (Ibid. i. 3, 
 $23 p-78.) 
 
 Note 25. p. 276. 
 See Burton’s Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 73. and p. 496. 
 
 Note 26. p. 277. 
 Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 3; vol. i. p. 230;—Tod 8 
 
 Ss 2 c lal Ney DAN TS > lal X\ Cees € 
 Lorijpos HuGv Ta epya ael mapyv? adnOn yap iv" ot Oepatev- 
 Oévres, ol dvacravTes ek vexpOr, of ovK OPOnrTav povov Oepa- 
 TMEVOMEVOL, KAL avioTGpEVOL, GAAG Kal Gel TapdvTEs’ OvdE ETLON- 
 a , SUES les > \ A) J s SEAN 
 pobvtos povoy Tod Swtnpos, AAG Kal amadAayévTos, Hoav ent 
 xpovov tkavoy, Gate Kal eis TOVS METEPOUS XpOVoVS Ti- 
 vés avTOv adiKorvTo. 
 
 Note 27. p. 277. 
 
 Burton, Hecles. Hist. vol. 11. p.111 3; Norton (Genwineness 
 of the Gospels, vol.i. p. 126) says A. D.150. So the Bene- 
 dictine Editors. Bunsen and others date it eleven years 
 earlier, A. D.139. (See Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. 
 p- 216. Compare Bishop Kaye, Account of the Writings and 
 Opinions of Justin Martyr, pp. 11,123 who, however, de- 
 clines to decide between the earlier and the later date.) 
 
 Note 28. p. 277. 
 Burton, #. H. vol. ii. pp. 128, 129. According to its 
 
524 NOTES. 
 
 title, the second Apology was addressed to the Senate only 
 (xpos tiv “Pwpatev cvy«Antov); but it contains expressions 
 which imply that it was addressed to an emperor, and Eu- 
 sebius tells us that it was actually offered to M. Aurelius. 
 
 Note 29. p. 277. 
 Kaye, Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, ch.i. p. 3. 
 
 Note 30. p. 277. 
 
 Paley, Evidences, parti. ch. vil. p.75. Professor Norton 
 remarks—‘* From these works of Justin might be extracted 
 a brief account of the life and doctrine of Christ, corre- 
 sponding with that contained in the Gospels, and corre- 
 sponding 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 31. p. 279. 
 
 The following are among the most important of Justin’s 
 testimonies : 
 
 
 
 ’ as P , 
 1. “‘Lwonp 5&, 6 tiv Mapiavy peurnorevpevos, Bovdnbeis mpd- 
 3 a X x See ; aN t > is 
 Tepov ExBadely THY pvnoTHY avT® Mapiap, voulCov eyKupovely 
 f / 
 avTiY €K avvovalas avdpos, TovTéaTLV ATO Toprelas, Ov 6papa- 
 a a a o > Lad 
 Tos’ KeKeAevoTo pr) exBadrely THY yuvatka avbrov, eimdvTOS avTw 
 ~ / ) / iad 5 4 € 4 aA X 
 Tov bavevTos ayyéeaou Ott €K [lvevpatos Aytov 0 exer KaTa ya- 
 aTpds €ote’ oBydels ovv ovK exBEBAnkev adtry, GAAA aToypa- 
 pis ovrns ev TH Llovdala tére tpatns ext Kupnviov, avedndrvoer 
 j ] yi k poTn pn ’ 
 5 \ \ ” ” > \ ev s 5 / i 
 avo Nagaper, evda weet, eis BnOdceu, O0ev av, amoypayac0at 
 BARN X a , \ \ > s mie oan) , \ , 
 a0 yap Tijs KaToiKovons THY yi exelynv pvdrs *lovda TO yevos 
 >_> ‘ ¢ n a > » 
 qv. Kat avros dua ri Mapia KeAevetar e€edAOelv eis Alyurtor, 
 ‘ Ly =) - e n , » > lal > / > 
 KQL ELVAL EKEL CUA TH TALOLM, Axpls Gv avTols aToKaAUPOy EeTAav- 
 eOetv eis THY lovdatay. TevrnOévtos b€ Tore TO’ TaLdiov ev 
 * pl QX\ 9 ‘\ , Ly 3 mn / ’ / n” 
 ByOreep, Ev ELd7) “lwo ovk eixev €v TH KON ExElvy TOU KaTa- 
 Adoat, Ev 6€ oTNAalw TLVL GbvEyyUS TIS Kons KaTEAVTE Kal 
 TOTE AUTOV OVTaD ekel, ETETOKEL 1) Mapia Tov Xpuorov, Kal ev 
 / eae ) / od . , c *) An 2 / / 
 patvn adrov éreOeiker’ Omov EAOOvTES Ot ATO “ApaBlas pdyot 
 ~ > , , ‘ c c / % , , \ ’ \ 
 eupov avutov... Kat 0 Hpwdns, pa emavedOovtwy ampos avtov 
 
 lal 3 ee | s / e ar og > \ fal >) ‘\ 
 Tov azo ApaBias paywrv, os 7élwcer avtovs Tomoa, adAAa 
 
LECTURE VIII. 525 
 
 XX X\ / > Coen Ne Je J e a) , ‘\ , Suen 
 Kata Ta KeAevoderra avtois du GAANs ddod Els Tijy yOpav aiTOv 
 amaddayevtor, kal ToD lwonp dua tn Mapia cai to Taldio, «& 
 
 y ; loanp dua tH Mapia © TaLdlw, ws 
 
 ‘ bs) lay 3 / + D) , > + ? 
 kal avtots anmoKxexdhumto, 70n e€eAOdvTwv eis Alyuatov, od yt- 
 VoKoV TOV Tada dv eAnAVOELTaY TpoTKYIATAL Ob payol, TaAV- 
 Tas aTA@S TOS Taidas Tods ev BnOACEW ExcAcuTEv dvatpEOjrat. 
 
 , 2 a ie lol 
 (Dialog. cum Tryphon. § 78; p. 175.) 
 
 2. Mavcacda et [ras Ovolas| kara rijv tov Larpos Bov- 
 Ajv, «is Tov Sia THs amd TOD yevous Tod ABpadp, Kal pudis 
 Tovda, kal AaBld mapOevov yevyn9évra vidv Tod Ocotd Xpiordv. 
 (Ibid. § 433 p. 139.) 
 
 3. Avvapis Ocod exeOodoa TH Tap9erm eTETKiacEV adTipy, 
 Kal kvodbopnoa, Tapbevoyv ovoay TeTOlnke, Kal 6 aToaTaAels be 
 mpos avtiy Thy mapOevov Kat ekelvo TOO Kalpod ayyeAos Ocod, 
 einyyeNicato aity eimav, loob cvdAAnWyn ev yaorpt é« Lvev- 
 patos ‘Ayiov, kal téEn vidv, cal vids ‘Ywiorov KAnOjoerat, cal 
 
 / ‘ y > n> a 322N X , \ \ ° 
 kaAeoels TO OvoMa auto’ Inooty* avTos yap gwre Tov haov av- 
 TOU ATO TOV Gyaptiov adbtGv. (Apolog. 1. § 133 p. 64.) 
 
 4. Kal 6 Tpv¢eav, Sd yap @poroyjoas iptv, edn, Ste Kal 
 mepleTwHOn, Kal TA GAXG TA vopipa Ta 61a Maoews diatayOevra 
 3 v2 De LIN b) / c , U Nace n 
 
 ) 2 
 eptrake. Kayo anexpidunv, “Quoddynoa tre Kal cuodroya. 
 (Dial. cum Tryphon. § 67; p. 164.) 
 
 5. Kat yap otros 6 BaowWedbs ‘Hpadns, walav ano Tév Tpeo- 
 Butépwv Tod raod tyOr, Tore EADSvVT@Y Tpds adiTOY T&V aT 
 "ApaBlas paywv, kal eindvrwv e&€ dorépos tod ev TH ovpare 
 gavévtos éyvaxéevar Ott Bacideds yeyevyntat &y TH XOpa vper, 
 kal 7\Oopev TpooKkvvijcar avtov. Kal év BnOdAcey TOv TpEecBv- 
 
 na , 
 Tépwv eimOVvT@Y, OTL yeypamTaL ev TH TpodyTy otTws, Kat od, 
 BnOdceu, kT. A. Tév dad ApaBias oty payev €dAOdvtwy eis 
 / 
 BnOdAee, Kal mpookvyycavtwy TO TaLoiov, Kal TpoonveyKavT@V 
 7d 86 j LAG tL ope emeLon Kat’ aTo- 
 aiT® b6pa, xptoor, Kal A(Bavov, Kal opdpvar, My an 
 o \ ¢ , 
 Kdduyi ... ekehevoOnoav pa) evavedOeiv mpos Tov Hpedny. 
 (Ibid. § 783 pp. 174,175.) 
 cal ’ Ss \ c 
 6. Kaxe? (sc. ev Aiyizrw) toav aredOdvres [6 Toon Kat 1) 
 > , X\ / 
 Mapia] dxpis dv améOavev 6 droxteivas Ta ev ByOdAceu TaLdia 
 “Hpodns, cat “ApxéAaos adrov buedeEaro. (Ib. § 103; p. 198.) 
 , 
 
 7. “Qs 6 Kal Ajoeww EpedrAe Tos AAOvS arOpeTovs yevrvy- 
 Gels 6 Xptotos dypts avdpwOy, OmEp Kal yéyovev, AkovTate TOV 
 
 s 6 Xpiords ixpis avipwO7, S7ep Kai yéyover, 
 
 Tpoeipnuever eis Toro. (Apolog. i. § 35; p- 65.) 
 
526 NOTES. 
 
 8. "EAOdvt0s tod “Inood én tov “lopdavnv, Kat vopiCopevov 
 "Lwond Tov TEKTovos viot bmapxew ... Kal TEKTOVOS VvouCoy.€evov, 
 Tava yap Ta TeKkToViKa epya eipydteTo ev avOpeTols Gv, apotpa 
 kat Cuya, x.T.A. (Dial. cum Tryphon. § 88; p. 186.) 
 
 bee , , , an?) ~ 9K \ ] / \ 
 
 g. Kal tore €AOovtos Tod Inood ext tov lopdavnv TroTapor, 
 év0a 6 Iwavuns éBanrive, katehOdvtos Tod “Inco ent 7d tdwp, 
 Kal mop avnpdn ev To “lopddavy, Kal dvaddvTos avTov amd Tov 
 
 Pp avnpun Piet GRUariy, 
 ¢ € x ,¢ a 5 a rye) rer 
 Udatos, as Tepictepay To“ Aytov LIvedpa enumtnvar én avrov 
 éypawav ol azdatoAo adrod. (Ibid. § 88; pp. 185, 186.) 
 
 10. Iwdvvov yap KkabeCouevov emt tod “lopddavov, Kal Knpto- 
 covtos Bantictpa petavoias, Kal Céovynv Sepyativnv Kal evdupa 
 ° \ an / , fal \ ‘ 5 X\ 
 G70 TpLxOv KapnAov povov PopodvTos, Kal undev EcOlovTos TARY 
 b) ff \ / BA eee ig / | Pe 9 
 axpldas Kal pert Gypiov, of dvOpomor b7eAdGuBavov avrov eivat 
 tov Xpiordv. Ipods ots kat aitos €Boa, OvK eius 6 Xptotos, 
 5) S \ a pee? x ens , , a oo» > 
 GhAa dovy Bodvtas’ ner yap oO taxupoTEpos pov, OU OUK Elpe 
 ixavos Ta UTodnpata Baoracat. (Ibid. |. s.c. p. 186.) 
 
 a bs ” / Cle \ > Byles 
 
 11. Ore yap avOpwros yeyovev [6 Xpioros], mpoonOev aire 
 c / / c 7, 3 f ¢€ \ Bld la 4 
 6 d1a30A0s, TovTEgTLVY 7 OUVapLs ExElvyn 7) Kat Odis KEKANWEVN Kal 
 Saravas, Teipdwv adrov, kal aywvitopevos KataBadetv, da TO 
 
 fal lod c X 
 afvoby mpockuvica aditov. ‘O 6€ adrov karéAvce Kal KaTéBaderv, 
 3 / iA 4 3 XS A, ‘ 5) lal a 
 éd€y£as Ort Tovnpds Eo, Tapa THY ypadyny a€iGv TpocKvveto bar 
 ws Ocds, anoorarns Tis TOU Ocod yvduns yeyevynwéevos. “ATo- 
 > > ~ / / \ / / 
 kplverat yap avto, Téypartat, Kipiov tov Oedv cov mposKvvy- 
 \ >) mn” /, / S 
 gels, Kal ad’T@® povy Aatpedoes. (Ibid. § 125; p. 218.) 
 c x Ny / / , \ / 2 
 12. “Ort 6€ kal Oepamevoetv Taoas Vdcovs, Kal VéKpovs ave- 
 tal e. \¢€ / X / o lA nt / 
 yepeiv 6 yperepos Xpioros mpoepyntevon, axovoare TOV AEeype- 
 vey’ éott d€ Tadta’ Ti) mapovola aitod GAcira ywAds os eAa- 
 os, Kal Tpavi) €oTa yhOooa poyikdAwv' tuddol dvaBA€povst, 
 kal Aevpol KabapicOnjoovrat, Kal véxpor avaotioovra Kal TeEpt- 
 / a a lal 
 matnoovow. “Ore d€ radra émoinoev, ex TGV emt Tlovriov TAd- 
 Tov yevopevon axtov padeiv divacbe. (Apolog. i. § 483 p. 72.) 
 
 13. Kat €« rovrev tov ‘Inootv tév jer adtov yevnrouéevev 
 
 Tpoyveotny eniotapeba, kal e€ GAAov be ToOAAGY Gv TpoEtzeE 
 
 , n / Are a > r , ae 
 yevnoecOat Tots TLaTEVoUTL Kal duoroyodowy avtov Xpiordv. Kal 
 yap & Tao0Xomev TavTa avatpovpevor b7d THY olkelwy, TpoEiTEV 
 hpi pédrew yeverOa, Gore Kata pndeva tpdTov emAiWipov 
 avtov Adyov patverOa. (Dial. cum Tryphon. § 353 p. 133.) 
 
 14. Kat yap viov Ocod Xpiordy xara tHv Tov Llatpos abtod 
 
LECTURE VIII. 527 
 
 * ’ a n a ~\ 
 anoxdAupi émuyvdvta avtov éva tev pabnTov abrod Sivwva 
 mpdrepov Kadovpevov, emwvopace Ilétpov. (Ib. § 100; p. 195.) 
 
 \ , aN 4 e fas ~) , 
 
 15. Tod perwvouaxevat adtov Ulérpov Eva tév anoardéhwp .... 
 peta TOD Kal dAAovs SVo0 AdeAHors viods ZeBedalov dvras peto- 
 vowakevat dvowat. Tod Boavepyes, & é€orty viol Bpovtijs, onwar- 
 TLKOD Fv TOD avTOV exelvov elvat. (Ibid. § 106; p. 201.) 
 
 16. TIGAds Tus bvov EloTiKe ev TIVi Elodd@ KOYNS TPOS ay- 
 
 / Aes Seah: b) fal pAe int 4 \ , 
 meAov Sedepevos, Ov ExEhEVTEY AyayElVY AUT TOTE TOUS yvYwpl- 
 pous adTod, Kal axOévtos emiBas exdbice, Kal eloedrdvoev eis 
 c . 
 
 Iepooddvpa. (Apolog. 1. § 32; p. 63-) 
 Loe) , b) la / Gs}: el a > / 
 
 17. Ot dndoToAor ev Tols yevopevols UT AVTGVY aTOMYHLOVEv- 
 
 a al > / ef Ty > / > 
 pac, & Kadelrat evayyedAta, oUTws TapédwKav evtTeTadOa av- 
 
 FS) on: , yf > , amet). a 
 Tots Tov “Inoodv AaPovta dprov, evxapioTnoavra eizety’ Touro 
 moveire els THY dvduvynoty pov’ TouTéoTL TO TGud ov’ Kal TO 
 
 , e 7 , \ b) le > as, AL, Ex9 
 ToTHpLov dpoiws AaBdvta Kal evxapioTnoavta einvety' Toro eoTe 
 aiud pov’ Kab povors adtots peradotvar. (Ibid. §66; p. 83.) 
 
 rn) els / « a lal a a la 
 18. T7 ipepa ijmep EuedAe oTavpodobat, Tpets TOV pabnTav 
 avtod TmapadaBev eis TO Gpos TO AEyopevov ’EAaov, Tapaxei- 
 IAN a a a3 c \ + / 5 / 
 pevov evOds TO vad TO ev ‘Tepovoadrp, nixeTo Acywov' Larep, 
 ei duvatdy éott, TapehOérw TO ToTHpLoY TovTO am’ €uov" Kal 
 peta TodTo evxduevos Neyer, Mi) as €yo BovAouat, GAN ws od 
 ; : 
 Oédets. (Dial. cum Tryphon. § 99; p- 194-) 
 c a 3 fal > fal , / >] X\ wv 
 
 19. -H rot icyvpod avrovd Adyou dvvapis ... ETOXI|V ETXE... 
 oLynocavtos avTod Kal pykere em Uovriov TlAdrov aroxpivacdae 
 pndev pndevt Bovdopevov. (Ibid. § 102; p. 197.) 
 
 20. ‘Hpddov S& tov “ApxéAaov biadeEapéevov, AaBdvTos THY 
 3 tA XN 2) a > mn eo \ , 4, 
 éfovolay Thy amoveunfeirav adito, w Kal [liAatos xapifopevos 
 dedemevov Tov "Inoooy émeme, x. t. A. (Ibid. § 103; p. 198; 
 compare Apolog. i. § 40; p. 67, C.) 
 
 21. "Inaods d& Xpuords eLerdOn Tas XElpas, cTavpwels 70 
 Tov lovdalwv...as eizev 6 Tpopyrns...7d 5 "Opudv pov XElpas 
 
 \ , 3 , nf ai a Lal / 9. ta) \ 
 Kal 7ddas, e€iynois TOV €v TO OTAYPO TayevTar Ev Tals XEpot 
 
 a n lol > \ 
 Kal Tots Tooly avTod ijAwv fv. Kal pera TO oravpGoa avTor, 
 ZBadov kAjpov ent tov ivaticpov avrod. (Apolog. i. § 353 p- 
 65; compare § 38; p. 66.) 
 \ > N fol So \ € / > a 
 
 22. Mera ovv 70 otavpwOijvat avTov, Kat ol yv@plyol avTov 
 ndvres anéotnoay, apyncdpevor avtov' torepov dé, Ex vEKpOv 
 dvacrdvtos, kat dpOévtos avtots, Kal Tals Tpodytelats evTvXEIV, 
 
528 - NOTES. 
 
 > ° a , 4 4 © 6 ra) / > ic 
 év ais Tatra Tmavta mpoeipnvTo yernoomeva, bdagavTos, Kal €is 
 ‘ , °’ a 
 ovpavov avepxdpuevor lddvTEs, Kal TLaTEVOaVTES, Kal OUVapLW EKEt- 
 a na al ‘ ° / 
 Oev advtots TmeupOcioay map avtod AaBduTes, Kai eis TAY yEvos 
 s ~ 3 / ‘ , 7 
 avOporov €dOdvtes, Taita edlbakav, Kal GTdaToAOL TporyopEv- 
 Onoav. (Ibid. § 50; p. 73.) 
 7 cal a 7: 9s A / 
 23. Kat yap amod.é0vs ro mrvedpa ent TH oTavpa, ceive’ IlatEp, 
 a A pute si 
 els xelpds cov Taparidepar TO mvedua pov. (Dial. cum Tryphon. 
 § 105; p. 200.) 
 
 24. Kat yap 6 Kupios oyedov péxpis Eomepas eee emt Tod 
 Evov, Kal mpos éorépav COaway adtov' eita avéotn TH TpiTH 
 c / * s / 
 juepq. (Ibid. § 97; p. 193.) 
 
 \ » LU 
 
 25. Ovde ev yap dAws earl 7d yévos avOpeTwr, cite BapBd- 
 pov, elite “EAAjvar, etre a7AGs wriviody dvdpuat. Tpocayopevo- 
 
 / Ay: , Ai 53: / / \.3 P na 
 EVV, 7) GnakoBiov 7) aoikwv KadovpEvory, 1) EV TKNVAls KTNVO- 
 e “ an / 
 Tpopav oixovvrwv, ev ols 7 Sia TOU dvdpaTos TOD GTavpwOEVTOS 
 an Cal \ \ Lal lol cA / 
 "Incod edxal Kat edxapiotiat TO Tarpl Kal ToT TOV dAwp yi- 
 
 vovra. (Ibid. § 117; p. 211.) 
 
 Note 32. p. 280. 
 See pages 264 and 265. 
 
 Note 33. p. 281. 
 
 See especially Baur, in the Tiibinger Zeitschrift fiir Theo- 
 logie, 1836, fase. ill. p. 199; 1838, fase. iii. p. 149; and in 
 a pamphlet Ueber den Ursprung des Episcopats, Tiibingen, 
 1838, pp: 148-185. Also compare his work, Die Iqnatian- 
 aschen Briefen und thr neuester Kritiker, eine Streitschrift ge- 
 gen Hernn Bunsen, 8vo., Tiibingen, 1848. Schwegler and 
 others have followed in the same track. 
 
 Note 34. p. 281. 
 
 I refer especially to the labours of Signor Marchi and 
 Mons. Perret —the former in his Monumenti delle Arte 
 Cristiane Primitive nella Metropoli del Cristianesimo, (4t0, 
 Rome, 1844), the latter in his magnificent work Les Cata- 
 combes de Rome (6 volumes, folio, Paris, 1852-1857). In 
 our own country two useful little works have appeared on 
 
LECTURE VIII. D29 
 
 the subject, Dr. Maitland’s Church in the Catacombs (Lon- 
 don, 1847), and Mr. Spencer Northecote’s Roman Catacombs 
 (London, 1357). An able Article in the Edinburgh Review 
 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 esta- 
 blished by modern inquiry. 
 
 Note 35. p. 282. 
 See Bishop Burnet’s Letters from Italy and Switzerland 
 in 1685 and 1686, (Rotterdam, 1687), pp. 209-211. 
 
 Note 36. p. 284. 
 Spencer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, p. 4. 
 
 Note 37. p. 284. 
 See note 4 on Lecture VII. p. 475. 
 
 Note 38. p. 284. 
 Edinburgh Review, No. 221, p. 106. 
 
 Note 39. p. 284. 
 
 The grounds upon which Mr. Spencer Northcote bases his 
 ealculation are these—1. The incidental notices in the old 
 missals and office books of the Roman church, and the de- 
 scriptions given by ancient writers, mention no less than 
 sivty different Catacombs on the different sides of Rome, 
 bordering her fifteen great consular roads. Of these about 
 one-third have been re-opened, but in only one ease has 
 there been any accurate measurement. Father Marchi has 
 carefully measured 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 (appa- 
 rently) an average one—certainly smaller than some as 
 well as larger than some—the 60 Catacombs would con- 
 tain above goo (960) miles of streets. 2. The height of the 
 passages varies in the Catacombs, and the layers of graves 
 
 RAWLINSON, M In 
 
530 : NOTES. 
 
 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 sug- 
 gested that we may take an average of ten graves, five on 
 each side, to every seven feet of street; and this caleula- 
 tion it is, which, applied to the goo miles of street, pro- 
 duces the result of nearly seven millions of graves. 
 
 Note 40. p. 285. 
 
 Perret, Catacombes de Rome, vol. vi. p. 101 et seqq. ; 
 Spencer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, pp. 29, 30. For 
 arguments to the contrary, see Maitland’s Church im the 
 Catacombs, pp. 142-151. 
 
 Note 41. p. 286. 
 
 Thus we find such inscriptions as the following :—Tem- 
 pore Adriani Imperatoris Marius adolescens dux militum 
 qui satis vixit dum vitam pro Cho cum sanguine consunsit in 
 pace tandem quievit benemerentes cum lacrimis et metw posu- 
 erunt i. d. vi. (Maitland, p.128.) And, Non unda letalis 
 est ausa Constanti ferre quam liewit ferro coronam. (Ibid. 
 p. 129.) And again, 
 
 @OHCTwPAHANYCrAAAHENYNCHYC 
 HYTYAATYCIHPoPHAECYM®AMHA 
 HAToTAQYHECCYNTHNITAKE 
 TEoPHAAANCHAAA®ECHT 
 
 which may be thus explained —— 
 
 Onc Twpdnavus TaddAne vuvenus 
 nuyvadatus Tpw pnde cup aynd- 
 na TWOTA GUNETCUYT NV TAKE 
 Tewdndra avendda ecnr. 
 
 Hic Gordianus, Gallie nuncius, 
 
 Jugulatus pro fide, cum famil- 
 
 ia tota, quiescunt in pace. 
 
 Theophila ancilla fecit. (Perret, vol. vi. p.152-) 
 
LECTURE VIII. 531 
 
 Note 42. p. 286. 
 
 The entire inscription runs as follows :— ALEXANDER 
 MORTYVS NON EST SED VIVIT SVPER ASTRA ET CORPVS IN 
 HOC TVMVLO QUIESCIT VITAM EXPLEVIT SVB ANTONINO IMP° 
 QVIVBI MVLTVM BENE FITIL ANTEVENIRE PR#VIDERET PRO 
 GRATIA ODIVM REDDIDIT GENVA EXIM FLECTENS VERO DEO 
 SACRIFICATVRVS AD SVPPLICIA DVCITVR O TEMPORA We. See 
 Dr. Maitland’s Church in the Catacombs, pp. 32, 33. 
 
 Note 43. p. 287. 
 
 ““Dormit,” ‘‘ quiescit,” “ depositus est,” are the terms 
 used; and from the same idea burial-places are called by 
 the name, which has since become common in Christian 
 lands; viz. kowyrjpia, ‘ cemeteries” or “ sleeping-places.” 
 See Marchi’s Monumenti delle Arte Cristiani Primitive, &e. 
 p- 63; Spencer Northcote, Catacombs, p.162. “ In pace” 
 oceurs, either at the beginning or at the end of an inserip- 
 tion, almost as a necessary formula. 
 
 Note 44. p. 287. 
 
 Northcote’s Catacombs, p. 163. The contrast in this re- 
 spect between Christian and Heathen monuments of the 
 same date is very striking. See Maitland’s Church in the 
 Catacombs, pp. 42, 43. 
 
 Note 45. p. 288. 
 
 Northeote’s Catacombs, pp. 50-64. Compare M. Perret’s 
 splendid work, Les Catacombes de Rome, where these sub- 
 jects are (almost without exception) represented. The 
 subjoined are the most important references. Temptation 
 of Eve (vol. iv. Pl. 31; v. Pl. 12); Moses striking the rock 
 (volgi BIC 94557; 1. Pl. 22, 27,33; 1. Pl 2, G; iv, Pl. 28); 
 Noah welcoming the Dove (vol. ii. PI. 53, 61; iv. Pl. 25, &e.); 
 Daniel among the lions (vol. ii. PI. 42, 61; 1. Pl. 7, 36); 
 
 Mm2 
 
532 NOTES. 
 
 the Three Children (vol. 11. Pl. 36, 39; iii. 7) ; Jonah under 
 the gourd (vol. i. Pl.67; vol. ii. Pl. 22, 28, 39; vol. iii. Pl. 
 2,5; &e.); Jonah and the whale (vol. ili. 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. i. 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 Lazarus (vol. i. Pl. 26; vol. ii. Pl. 61; vol. 
 nebo, 36; voliv Pliage a, 92. volves Sev.) ; 
 Last Supper (vol. i. Pl. 29); Peter walking on the sea 
 (vol. iv. Pl. 16, No. 85); Pilate washing his hands (Mait- 
 land, p. 260). To the historical subjects mentioned in the 
 text may be 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 only unhisto- 
 rical scenes represented, besides the parabolic ones, are 
 Tobias and the Angel (Perret, vol. 111. Pl. 26), and Orpheus 
 charming the Beasts, which is frequent. 
 
 Note 46. p. 289. 
 
 Tacit. Annal. i1. 39, 40; Suet. vit. ib. § 25; Dio Cass. 
 lviil. p. 613, C. Tacitus indeed says, in speaking of the 
 claim made by Clemens, “ credebatur Rome ;” but it was 
 a faint belief, which Tiberius thought of allowing to die 
 away of itself. And though his constitutional timidity pre- 
 vented him from taking this course, he shewed his sense of 
 the numerical 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 47. p. 290. 
 
 Norton’s Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 100. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 533 
 
 Note 48. p. 292. 
 Martyr. Ignat. § 3, p. 5423 “Edefodvro tov dyvov bid Toév 
 
 . , \ , . 9 , € 2: 7 , 
 
 ETLTKOT@VY KAL TPETPUTEPwY Kal O1laKorwnv al THs Acias TOAELS 
 ‘ » 
 
 Kal €xxAnolat, TAaVT@V ETELYOMEVOV TPOS AVTOV, El TES MEPOS 
 
 xaplopatos AKaBwou TvEevpatiKod. 
 
 Note 49. p. 292. 
 
 So Eusebius, who had the works of Papias before him, 
 relates. Hist. Hecles. ili. 39, p. 224. Nekpotd avactasuy 
 ? 3 \ nN ¢c tal c / \ 4 e 
 kat avtov yeyovutar toropet [6 Hamas], cat ad mdAu €re- 
 
 LAN \? a \ 3 t c \ 
 pov Tapadogov Tmept lovotov Tov emikAndevta BapoaBapv yeyovos, 
 ws SyAntipiov pappakov eumdvTos Kal pndev andes bia TH Tov 
 Kuplov xapuv v7opetvavTos. 
 
 Note 50. p. 292. 
 Dialog. cum Tryphon. § 883 p.185. Kat zap’ jpiv early 
 > INA \ i“ Aya? / >) \ al , 
 idety Kat Ondelas Kal apoevas, xapiowata ano Tov Lvevparos 
 Tod Ocod Exovtas. Compare Apolog. ii. $6; p. 93. Aaipovio- 
 AijmTous yap TOAAOVS KaTa TAYTAa TOV KOopOY, Kal EV TH) DyETEpa 
 , \ lal € / >) 7 cal rae la > , 
 TOAEL, TOAAOL TOV FuETEpHY avOpeTwV TOV XploTLavav, ETOpKi- 
 Covtes Kata TOD dvdpatos ‘Incot XpioTod, tov cravpwOevros Ent 
 lovriov MiAdrov, i760 Tév GAAwY TavTwY ETOPKLOTGV Kal eTa- 
 oTOv Kal cappakevtaev py laevtas ldcavto, Kat ete viv idévTat, 
 KaTapyoourres Kal eKOL@KOVTES TOUS KaTEXOLTAS TOvs avOpeTOUS 
 daivovas. See also Tryphon. § 39, p. 136; § 76, p.i73, and 
 § 85. p. 182. 
 Note 51. p. 292. 
 
 Miltiades ap. Kuseb. Hist. Eccles. v.17; pp. 35!, 352- 
 
 Note 52. p.292. 
 
 Adversus Hereses, ii. 32, § 4 (vol. i. pp. 374, 375); Avo 
 Kal €v T@ Exeivou dvopare of GAnOGs aiTov padytal, Tap’ avtod 
 , N , . a 79 > , n a > 
 AaBovtes THY Xap, EmUTEAOLOLY ET EVepyetia TOV AOLT@Y av- 
 Opdtov, kadas eis Exaotos ab’tev THY SwpEedv ElAnpe Tap’ ad- 
 
 Tov. Ot uév vap daiuovas éAavvovet BEBaiws Kal AAs, ... Ot 
 
534 NOTES. 
 
 d€ Kal Tpdyvwowy Exovot TOV pEAACVTOV, Kal GnTAaTlas Kal p1- 
 / y+ SS lod n lal 
 ceus TpodntiKés. “AdXot 6€ TOUS KapvorTas 61a THS TOY XELPOV 
 3 / n \ id ~ 3 Cc v X\ lal 
 emifecews i@vTaL Kal vytets aToKabioTaow. “Hodn be, Kaas 
 v ‘ Aw 2. / lal lal 
 Epapev, Kal veKpol 7yepOnoay, Kal Tapepervav odv piv tkavots 
 ¥ = ; 
 éreot. And v.6 (vol. il. p.334); Kadas cai moAAGY akovo- 
 pev adeAPav ev Ti] ExKANTIa TpopyTiKa Xaplopata exdvTwV, Kal 
 lal / , \ ‘ , b) Y 6 > 
 Tavtodatats AaAovvToV yAwooals, Kal Ta KpUdia avOpaTmD Eis 
 5) > / 
 pavepov aydvTwv éTl TO TVYUGEporTt. 
 
 Note 53. p. 292. 
 
 See Tertullian, Apolog. § 23; Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. 
 ii. 8; p. 354, ©. D.; Minucius Felix, Octav. p. 89. These 
 passages affirm the continuance 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 (4. A. vol. i1. 
 p- 233) seems just, that ‘ their actual cessation was imper- 
 ceptible, 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 54. p. 293. 
 
 The vast number of the Christians is strongly asserted 
 by Tertullian, Apolog. § 37; “ Hesterni sumus, et vestra 
 omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, municipia, con- 
 ciliabula, castra ipsa, tribus, decurias, palatium, senatum, 
 forum. Sola vobis relinquimus templa. Cui bello non 
 idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam iImpares copiis, qui 
 tam libenter trucidamur, si non apud istam disciplinam 
 magis occidi liceret quam occidere. Potuimus et inermes 
 nec rebelles, sed tantummodo discordes, solius divortii in- 
 vidia adversus vos dimicasse. Si enim tanta vis hominum 
 in aliquem orbis remoti sinum abrupissemus a vobis, suffu- 
 disset utique dominationem vestram, tot qualiumeunque 
 amissio civium; immo etiam et ipsa destitutione punisset. 
 Proculdubio expavissetis ad solitudinem vestram, ad silen- 
 tium rerum, et stuporem quendam quasi mortui orbis ; 
 queesissetis quibus imperaretis; plures hostes quam cives 
 
LECTURE VIII. 535 
 
 vobis remansissent ; nune enim pauciores hostes habetis 
 pro multitudine Christianorum.” See also Justin Martyr, 
 Dialog. cum Tryphon. § 117 (pp. 210, 211), quoted in note 
 She 5s pe 528: 
 
 Note 55. p. 298. 
 
 The attempts of Strauss to prove variations in the story 
 —irreconcilable differences between the accounts of the 
 different Evangelists—appear to me to have failed signally. 
 See above, note 33 on Lecture VI. pp. 468-470. 
 
 Note 56. p. 299. 
 
 Strauss himself admits this difference to a certain extent 
 (Leben Jesu, Hinleitung, § 14; vol. i. p. 67, HK. T.); and 
 grants that the Scripture miracles are favourably distin- 
 guished 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. Cer- 
 tainly the speaking of the ass is a thing swt generis in 
 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 treat- 
 ment of the brute creation. 
 
 e 
 
 Note 57. p. 300. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 144; vol. iii. p. 396, E.T. The 
 entire passage has been given in note 26 on Lecture I. 
 
ADDITIONAL NOTE TO LECTURE V. 
 
 On the Identification of the Belshazzar of Daniel with 
 
 Bil-shar-uzur son of Nabu-nahit. 
 
 Stxce the foregoing sheets were in type, my attention 
 has been called by an anonymous correspondent to a diffi- 
 culty in the proposed identification of Belshazzar with 
 Bil-shar-uzur, son of Nabu-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 daugh- 
 ter of Nebuchadnezzar after his accession to the throne, as 
 he only reigned seventeen years in all, Bil-shar-uzur, sup- 
 posing him the son of this wife, could have been no more 
 than sixteen years of age, when left to administer 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 wives, 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 entrusted 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 
 
 . * Page 141. b Dan. v. 2. e «He had now become 
 a man,” says Mr. Layard of a young Bedouin, “ for he was about four- 
 teen years old.” (Nineveh and Babylon, p. 295.) 4 Joseph. Ant. 
 
 Jud. xiv. 9, § 2 
 
ADDITIONAL ‘NOTE TO LECTURE VY. 537 
 
 Alexander Severus, who became Emperor of Rome at seven- 
 teen®; 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 Nabonadius 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 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 sug- 
 gested. Nabonadius, it is said, may have been married 
 to a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar before he obtained the 
 crown. It is only an inference of Abydenus, and not a 
 statement of Berosus, that he was entirely unconnected 
 with Laborosoarchod. This is undoubtedly true. But the 
 inference, which Abydenus drew from the text of Berosus, 
 seems to me a legitimate one. Berosus, who has just no- 
 ticed the relationship of Neriglissar to the son of Nebu- 
 chadnezzar, whom he supplanted, would scarcely have failed 
 to notice that of Nabonadius to his grandson, if he had 
 known of any relationship existing. At any rate he would 
 not have called the new king, as he does, ‘a certain Na- 
 bonnedus of Babylon” (NaBovviji twit tév €« BaBvAdvos), 
 had he been the uncle of the preceding monarch. 
 
 My attention has been further drawn to a very remark- 
 able illustration which the discovery of Belshazzar’s posi- 
 tion as joint ruler with his father furnishes to an expres- 
 sion twice repeated in Daniel’s fifth chapter. The promise 
 mades 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 Nebuchadnezzari, 
 
 € Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. vi. vol. i. p. 182. 
 f Dan. viii. 1. * Verse 16. h Verse 29. 
 ? Dan. nu. 28: 
 
5388 ADDITIONAL NOTE TO LECTURE V. 
 
 and as Joseph was in Egyptj, 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 per- 
 sonage in the Empire. This incidental confirmation of 
 what was otherwise highly probable, is a most valuable 
 and weighty evidence. 
 
 J Gen. xli. 41-43. k, Esth: x. 3. 
 
Specification of the Editions quoted, or referred to, 
 
 in the foregoing Notes. 
 
 
 
 Ne 
 ABYDENUS, Fragments of, in C. Miiller’s Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. 
 ed. Didot, Paris, 1851. 
 ANLIAN, Hist. Var. ed. Liinemann, Gottingen, 1811. 
 ALEXANDER Potyuistor, Fragments of, in the Fragm. H. Gr. 
 vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 
 ALFORD, Dean, Greek Testament, London, Rivingtons, 1849, &e. 
 AmprosE, 8., Opera, (Benedictine Edition), Paris, 1686. 
 Appran, Opera, ed. Tollius, Amsterdam, 1760. 
 ARISTOTLE, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1831, &e. 
 ARRIAN, Exped. Alex. Magn. ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1829. 
 ARTEMIDORUS, Oneirocritica, Paris, Morell, 1603. 
 Asiatic Researches, Calcutta, 1788, &e. 
 ATHANASIUS, 5., Opera, (Benedictine Edition), Paris, 1698. 
 AUBERLEN, Prophecies of Daniel, (translated by Saphir), Edin- 
 burgh, Clark, 1856. 
 AveustInE, §., Opera, (Benedictine Edition), Antwerp, 1700. 
 
 B. 
 
 BarnaBAS, 8., Epistola, in Cotelerius’s Patres Apostolici (vol. i.), 
 ed. 2da, Amsterdam, 1724. 
 
 Bauer, Hebriaische Mythologie, Leipsic, 1802. 
 
 BaumMGarTEN, De Fide Libri Esthere, Hale, 1839. 
 
 BeaurFort, Incertitude de l Histoire Romaine, Utrecht, 1738. 
 
 Bence., Archiv, Tiibingen, 1816-1821. 
 
 Berosus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. 11. Paris, 
 1848. 
 
 BERTHEAU, Comment on Chronicles, (translated by Martin), Edin- 
 burgh, Clark, 1857. 
 
 BertHoupT, Einleitung in siimmtliche kanonische und apocry- 
 phische Schriften des Alt. und Neu. Test., Erlangen, 1812-1819. 
 
[ 540 | 
 
 Brrxs, Hore Apostolic, attached to his edition of Paley’s Horz 
 Pauline, London, 1850. 
 
 Bocuart, Geographia Sacra, ed. 4ta, Leyden, 1707. 
 
 Borcku, Corpus Inscriptionum Greecarum, Berlin, 1828-1843. 
 
 Bovuuter, Recherches sur histoire d’Hérodote, Dijon, 17 46. 
 
 Branpis, Rerum Assyriarum Temp. Emendata, Bonn, 1853. 
 
 Buppeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, Halze Magd. 
 1744-1752. 
 
 Bunsen, Egypt’s Place in Universal History (translated by 
 Cockerell), London, 1848, &e. 
 
 , Hippolytus and his Age, London, Longman, 1854 
 , Philosophy of Universal History, London, Longman, 
 
 1854. 
 
 Burnet, Bishop, Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 1685 
 and 1686, Rotterdam, 1687. 
 
 Burton, Canon, Eccles. History of the First Three Centuries, 
 Oxford, Parker, 1833. 
 
 Buruier, Bishop, Analogy of Religion, Oxford, 1833. 
 
 Butrmann, Mythologus, Berlin, 1828, 1829. 
 
 Buxtorr, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, Basle, 1676. 
 
 C. 
 
 CaLMeEtT, Commentaire Littéral, Paris, 1724-1720. 
 
 Carpzoy, Introductio ad libros canonicos Vet. Test., Leipsic, 
 1720. 
 
 CarwitHEN, Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1809. 
 
 Casaupon, I., Exere. Antibaron., folio edition, London, 1614. 
 
 CuampoLion, Précis du Systéme Hiéroglyphique des Anciens 
 Egyptiens, Paris, 1828 
 
 CHarpin, Voyage en Perse, Amsterdam, 1735- 
 
 Cicero, Opera, ed. Priestly, London, 1819. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, ed. Potter, Venice, 1757. 
 
 CLEMENS RoMANUS, in iecmaes s Patres Apostolici, Oxford, 18 40, 
 
 Cuiton, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 1830-1841. 
 
 Conrinerus, Adversar. Chronolog. in Gravius’s Syntagma vari- 
 arum Dissertationum rariorum, Ultraj. 1701. 
 
 Constitutiones Apostolic, in Cotelerius’s Patres Apostolici, (vol. 
 i.) ed. 2da, Amsterdam, 1724. 
 
 ConyYBEARE and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul, London, 
 
 Longman, 1850. 
 
[ 541] 
 
 Corropt, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des jiidischen 
 und christlichen Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792. 
 
 Cratrerus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 
 1848. 
 
 Crestas, Fragmenta, ed. Bahr, Frankfort, 1824. 
 
 Cureton, Canon, Corpus Ignatianum, London, Rivingtons, 1849. 
 
 CyritLus ALEXANDRINUS, ed. Aubert, Paris, 1638. 
 
 D: 
 
 Dauimann, Life of Herodotus, (translated by Cox), London,18 45. 
 DemosTHENES, ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1846-18 49. 
 Des Vicnoes, Chronologie de Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738. 
 De Werte, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, 7th edition, Berlin, 
 1852 
 , translated by Theodore Parker. (See PARKER). 
 —, Archiiologie, 3rd edition, Berlin, 1842. 
 Digesta seu Pandecta, Florence, 1553. 
 Dio Casstus, Hist. Roman., Hanover, 1606. 
 Dio Curysostom, ed. Morell, Paris, 1604. 
 Droporus Sicutus, ed. Wesseling, Bipont. 1793, &e. 
 Dionysius Haxicarnassus, folio edition, Oxon. 1704. 
 Divs, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. Paris, 1851. 
 DopwELt, Dissertat. in Irenzeum, Oxford, 1689. 
 
 E. 
 
 Eicuuorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek, Leipsic, 1787-1800. 
 
 , Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, Leipsic, 1787. 
 
 , Einleitung in das Neu. Testament, Leipsic,r804—181 4. 
 Epictetus, Dissertationes, ed. Schweighzeuser, Leipsic,17 96-1800. 
 EprpHantvs, Opera, ed. Schrey et Meyer, Cologne, 1682. 
 
 Erscu and Gruser, Algemeine Encyclopidie der Wissenschaft 
 und Kunst, Leipsic, 1818, &e. 
 Evsestus, Chronica, ed. Mai, Milan, 1818. 
 , Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Burton, Oxford, 1838. 
 , Preparatio Evangelica, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1843. 
 Ewatp, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 2nd edition, Gottingen, 
 1851-1858. 
 ———., Propheten des Alten Bundes, Stuttgart, 1840. 
 
[ 542 ] 
 
 F. 
 Faper, Hore Mosaic, Oxford, 1801. 
 Feitmoser, Einleitung in die Biicher d. Neues Testaments, Tii- 
 bingen, 1830. 
 Fercusson, Palaces of Nineveh Restored, London, Murray, 1851. 
 Ferrier, General, Caravan Journeys, London, Murray, 1856. 
 Forster, Mahometanism Unveiled, London, 1829. 
 Frirzscue, Aechtheit der Biicher Mosis, Rostock, 1814. 
 G. 
 GALEN, Opera, ed. Kuhn, Leipsic, 1821-1833. 
 GerorcE, Mythus und Sage, Berlin, 1837. 
 Grsentus, Geschichte der Hebriiische Sprache und Schrift, Leip- 
 sic, 1815. : 
 , Lexicon Hebraicum, (Engl. Translation), Cambridge, 
 1852. 
 , Hebrew Grammar, (Engl. Translation), London, Bag- 
 ster, 1846. 
 , Scripturee Lingueeque Pheeniciz Monumenta, Leipsic, 
 1857. 
 , Thesaurus Philologicus Ling. Hebr. Leipsic, 1829. 
 Greson, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3rd edition, 
 Lond. 1777-1788. 
 Guiapsrone, Homer and the Homeric Age, Oxford, 1858. 
 Grape, Spicilegium Patrum, editio altera, Oxford, 1714. 
 Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 2nd edition, London, Ca- 
 dell, 1815. 
 Grosier, Description de la Chine, Paris, 1818-1820. 
 Grote, History of Greece, London, Murray, 1846-1856. 
 
 H. 
 
 Haues, Analysis of Chronology, London, 1809-1812. 
 Hartmann, Forschungen iiber d. Pentateuch, Rostock, 1831. 
 Harvernick, Handbuch des historisch-kritischen Einleitung in 
 das Alt. Testament, Erlangen, 1837. 
 , Introduction to the Old Testament, (English Transla- 
 tion), Edinburgh, Clark, 1852. 
 . Introduction to the Pentateuch, (English Translation), 
 Edinburgh, Clark, 1850. 
 
[ 543 ] 
 
 Heoaraus ABpeERITA, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. 
 vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 
 
 Herren, Asiatic Nations, (English Translation), Oxford, Tal- 
 boys, 1833. 
 
 , Manual of Ancient History, (English Translation), Ox- 
 
 ford, Talboys, 1833. 
 
 
 
 Heree, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 3rd edition, Tiibingen, 
 1847. 
 
 HENGSTENBERG, Aegypten und Mose, Berlin, 1840. 
 
 , Egypt, &e. (translated by Mr. Robbins, with addi- 
 tional notes by Dr. Cooke Taylor), Edinburgh, Clark, 1845. 
 
 , Authentie des Daniel und Integritiit des Secherias, 
 Berlin, 1831. 
 
 _ Hersst, Historisch-kritische Einleitung in d. heilig. Schriften 
 des Alt. Testaments, (published by Welte after his decease), 
 Karlsruhe, 1840-1 844. 
 
 Hermas, Pastor, in Cotelerius’s Patres Apostolici, (vol. i.), ed. 
 2da, Amsterdam, 1724. 
 
 Hermiprus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 
 1849. 
 
 Heropotvs, ed. Bahr, Leipsic, 1830-1835. 
 
 , (translated by the Author) with copious Notes and 
 Appendices, London, Murray, 1858-9. 
 
 Hesycutivs, Lexicon, ed. Albert, Leyden, 17 46. 
 
 Hrvcxs, Dr., Translation of Black Obelisk Inscription, in Dublin 
 University Magazine for Ottober, 1853. 
 
 Hieronymus, Opera, Benedictine Edition, Paris, 1693. 
 
 Hrrzic, De Cadyte urbe Herodotea, Gottingen, 1829. 
 
 , Zwolf Kleinen Propheten erklirt, Leipsic, 1838. 
 
 Homer, Iliad, ed. Heyne, Leipsic, 1802. 
 
 , Odyssey, ed. Lowe, Leipsic, 1828. 
 
 Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. Keble, Oxford, 1836. 
 
 Hooper, Palmoni, an Essay on the Chronological and Numerical 
 Systems of the Jews, London, Longman, 1851. 
 
 Horne, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the 
 Holy Scriptures, 6th edition, London, Cadell, 1828. 
 
 Huc, Voyage dans la Tartarie, Paris, 1853. 
 
 Hussey, Sermons mostly Academical, Oxford, Parker, 1849. 
 
 
 
 
 
[ 544 ] 
 
 Tod 
 
 JABLONSKY, Opuscula, Leyden, 1804. 
 Jackson, Chronological Antiquities, London, 1752. 
 JAHN, Aechtheit des Pentateuch, in Bengel’s Archiv, (vol. iii. 
 part i.) Tiibingen, 1816-1821. 
 , Einleitung in das alte Testament, Vienna, 1792. 
 Ienatius, 8., in Jacobsoh’s Patres Apostolici (vol. ii.), Oxford, 
 1840. 
 Inscription, Behistun, in the Author’s Herodotus, vol. ii. (See 
 HERODOTUS.) 
 of Tiglath-Pileser I., as translated by Sir Henry Raw- 
 linson, Mr. Fox Talbot, Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Oppert, published 
 by Royal Asiatic Society ; London, Parker, 1857. 
 , Nebuchadnezzar’s Standard, in. the Author’s Herodo- 
 tus, vol. ii. (See Heroporus.) 
 on the Nimrud Obelisk, translated by Dr. Hincks. 
 (See Hicks.) 
 Inscriptions of three Assyrian Kings, translated by Mr. Fox Tal- 
 bot. (See Taxgor.) 
 Tnseriptiones Greece, Bockh’s Corpus Ins. Gr. (See BoEcku.) 
 JosEPHUS, Opera, ed. Havercamp, Amsterdam, &e., 1726. 
 , translated by Dr. Traill, with notes and essays, pub- 
 
 
 
 lished in parts, London, 1847. 
 Tren £us, Advers. Hereses, ed. W. W. Harvey, Cambridge, 1857. 
 Itinerarium Antoninum, in Bertius’s Ptolemy. (See Protemy.) 
 Justin, Epitome of Trogus Pompeius, ed. Gronovius, Leyden, 
 1760. 
 Justin Martyr, Opera, Hague, 17 42. 
 JUVENAL, ed. Ruperti, Leipsic, 1819-1820. 
 
 K. 
 Kauiscu, Historical and Critical Commentary, English edition, 
 London, Longman, 1855, &e. 
 Kaye, Bishop, Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin 
 Martyr, 3rd edition, London, Rivingtons, 1853. 
 , Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, 
 illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, 2nd edition, Cam- 
 bridge, 1829. 
 
 
 
[ 545 ] 
 
 Kein, Commentar iiber das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847. 
 
 
 
 , Commentary on Joshua (translated by Martin), Edinburgh, 
 Clark, 1857. 
 
 , Apologetischer Versuch iiber die Biicher der Chronik, Ber- 
 lin, 1833. 
 
 , Commentar iiber die Biicher der Konige, Berlin, 1846. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ——, Commentary on the Books of Kings (translated by Mur- 
 phy,) Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 
 
 Kenrick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, London, 1850. 
 
 , Pheenicia, London, 1855. 
 
 Ker Porter, Sir R., Travels, London, Longman, 1821-1822. 
 
 Kirro, Biblical Cyclopedia, (Burgess’s edition), Edinburgh, 
 Black, 1856. 
 
 Knosex, Der Prophetismus der Hebrier, Breslau, 1837. 
 
 Kvueter, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1842. 
 
 
 
 L. 
 
 Lacrozx, Lexicon Aigyptiaco-Latinum, Oxford, 1775. 
 LarcH_Er, Histoire d’Hérodote, Paris, 1786. 
 Larpner, Dr., Credibility of the Gospel History, Works, London, 
 1815. 
 L’Art de vérifier les Dates, 8vo edition, Paris, 1819-1844. 
 Layarp, Nineveh and its Remains, London, Murray, 18 49. 
 , Nineveh and Babylon, London, Murray, 1853. 
 Ler, Dr., Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 2nd edition, London, 
 Rivingtons, 1857. 
 Lepsius, Dr., Lettre sur l’Alphabet Hiéroglyphique, Rome, 
 ESo7e 
 Lewis, Sir G. C., Credibility of Early Roman History, London, 
 Parker, 1855. 
 , Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, 
 London, Parker, 1852. 
 Licutroot, Dr., Works, folio edition, London, 1684. 
 Livy, ed. Twiss, Oxford, Talboys, 1840. 
 Loseck, Aglaophamus, Regimont. 18209. 
 Lorrus, Chaldzea and Susiana, London, Nisbet, 1857. 
 Loneinus, De Sublimitate, Edinburgh, 1733. 
 Lucran, Opera, ed. Hemsterhuis, Bipont. 1789, &e. 
 Lyett, Sir C., Principles of Geology, 4th edition, London, Mur- 
 ray, 1835. 
 RAWLINSON. Nn 
 
 
 
 ¢ 
 
[ 546 ] 
 
 Lyncu, Capt., Narrative of the United States’ Expedition to the 
 River Jordan and the Dead Sea, London, Bentley, 1852. 
 Lysmmacuus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Pa- 
 ris, 1849. 
 M. 
 Macsripg, Dr., Mohammedan Religion Explained, London, 1857. 
 Macrosivus, Saturnalia, ed. Gronovius, Leyden, 1670. 
 MaitLanp, Dr., The Church in the Catacombs, London, Long- 
 man, 1846. 
 Manetuo, Fragments of, in the Fragment. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Pa- 
 ris, 1849. 
 ManseEt, Bampton Lectures for 1858, London, Murray, 1858. 
 MaArcut, Monumenti delle Arti Cristiane primitive nella Metro- 
 poli del Cristianesimo, Rome, 1844. 
 Marsu, Bishop, Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, in his 
 Lectures on Divinity, London, 1810-1823. 
 MarsHam, Canon Chronicus, folio edition, London, 1672. 
 Martyrium Ienatr, in Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.), 
 Oxford, 1840. 
 Mémoires de Académie des Inscriptions, Paris, 1729, &e. 
 MENANDER, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Pa- 
 ris, S51. 
 *Micnaruis, J. D., Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek, 
 Frankfort, 1771-1783. 
 Micuetx, Bampton Lectures for 1849, Oxford, Parker, 1849. 
 Minvctus Fexrx, Octavius, Oxford, 1627. 
 Moses CHorENENSIS, Armenian History, ed. Whiston (Armenian 
 and Latin), London, 1736. 
 MosueEiM, Historia Ecclesiastica, editio altera, Helmstadt, 1764. 
 , De rebus ante Constantin. Magn. gestis, Helmstadt, 
 1753- 
 Movers, Die Phonizier, Berlin, 1849, &e. 
 MvELLER, C. O., History of Greek Literature, completed by Dr. 
 Donaldson, London, Parker, 1858. 
 Movrartort, Antiquitates Italicae Medii Avi, Milan, 1740. 
 More, Col., Literature of Ancient Greece, London, Longman, 
 1850, &e. 
 , Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. Grote’s His- 
 tory of Greece, London, Longman, 1851. 
 
 N. 
 Neanper, Allgemeine Geschichte d. Christliche Religion und 
 Kirche, 4th edition, Hamburg, 1847, &e. 
 
[ 547 J 
 
 Neumann, Versuch einer Geschichte der Armenisch. Literatur, 
 Leipsic, 1836. 
 
 Newman, F., History of the Hebrew Monarchy, London, Chap- 
 man, 1847. 
 
 Newman, J. H., The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, 
 Rivingtons, 1833. 
 
 , Essay on Miracles, Oxford, Parker, 1843. 
 
 Newton, Sir I., Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended, 
 London, 1728. 
 
 Nicozaus Damascenus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. 
 
 
 
 
 
 vol. ii. Paris, 1849. 
 Niesune, B. G., History of Rome, (Hare and Thirlwall’s trans- 
 lation), Cambridge, 1831-18 42. 
 , Kleine Schriften, Bonn, 1828. 
 , Lectures on Ancient History, (translated by Dr. 
 Schmitz), London, 1852. 
 , Life and Letters of, London, Chapman, 1852. 
 , Vortriige iiber Alte Geschichte, Berlin, Reimer, 
 1847. 
 Niesuur, Marcus, Geschichte Assurs und Babels seit Phul, 
 Berlin, 1857. 
 Norrucorte, J. SPENCER, The Roman Catacombs, second edition, 
 London, 1859. 
 Norton, Professor, Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 
 2d edition, London, Chapman, 1847. 
 
 O. 
 Ocxtey, Life of Mohammed, in his History of the Saracens, 
 London, Bohn, 1847. 
 OrrERHAUsS, Spicilegia Historico-Chronologica, Groninge, 1739. 
 OusHaAusEN, Biblischer Commentar iiber simmtl. Schriften d. 
 Neuen Testaments, 3rd edition, Konigsberg, 1837. 
 , Commentary on the Gospels (translated by Fosdick), 
 3rd edition, Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 
 Oppert, Dr., Rapport d'une Mission scientifique en Angleterre, 
 Paris, 1856. 
 ORIGEN, Opera, Benedictine edition, Paris, 1733-1759. 
 Orostus, Historia adv. Paganos, Cologne, 1536. 
 Ovip, ed. Soc. Bipontina, Strasburg, 1807. 
 Nn 2 
 
[ 548 ] 
 
 P: 
 Paxey, Evidences of Christianity, 25th edition, Glasgow, 1816. 
 , Hore Pauline ; Works, edited by Rev. R. Lynam, vol. i. 
 London, 1828. 
 Parker, THeopore, Enlarged Translation of De Wette’s Einlei- 
 tung in das Alt. Test., Boston, 1843. 
 Patrick, Bishop, Commentary on the Historical Books of the 
 Old Testament, 4th edition, London, 1732. 
 Pausantus, ed. Siebelis, Leipsic, 1822. 
 Pearson, Vindicie Epistolarum 8. Ignatii, Cambridge, 1672. 
 Prrizonius, Origines Babylonice et Agyptiace, editio altera, 
 Duker, Utrecht, 1736. 
 Perret, Les Catacombes de Rome, folio, 6 volumes, Paris, Gide, 
 1851-1855. 
 Prerronius ARBITER, ed. Burmann, Utrecht, 1709. 
 Puito Jupaus, ed. Hoeschel, Frankfort, 1691. 
 PHILOSTRATUS, ed. Olearius, Leipsic, 1709. 
 Puortius, Bibliotheca, ed. Hoeschel, Rouen, 1653. 
 Piavro, Phiedo, ed. Stanford, Dublin, 1834. 
 Puiny, Hist. Nat. (ex Officiis. Hack.), Leyden and Rotterdam, 
 16609. 
 Puiny the younger, Epistole, ed. Cortius, Amsterdam, 1734. 
 Piurarcu, Opera, ed. A. Stephanus, Paris, 1624. 
 Ponystius, ed. Schweighzuser, Oxford, Baxter, 1823. 
 Potycarp, Epist., in Jacobson’s Patres Apostolici, (vol. i1.), Ox- 
 ford, 1840. 
 Poots, R. Stuart, Hore Aigyptiacee, London, Murray, 1851. 
 PoweEt., Professor, Order of Nature considered in reference to 
 the Claims of Revelation, a Third Series of Essays, London, 
 Longman, 1859. 
 Pricuarp, Dr., Physical History of Mankind, 3rd edition, Lon- 
 don, 1836. 
 , Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, London, 
 1838. 
 PrmeAux, Dr., Connection of the History of the Old and New 
 Testament, 4th edition, London, 1718. 
 Procopivs, Opera, in the Corpus Hist. Byz., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 
 1833-1838. 
 Protemy, Geograph., ed. Bertius, Amsterdam, 1618. 
 , Magna Syntaxis, Basle, 1538. 
 
[ 549 ] 
 
 R. 
 
 Rask, Professor, Egyptian Chronology, in Prichard’s Records of 
 Ancient Egypt. (See Pricuarp). 
 
 Raw iinson, Str H. C., Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform In- 
 scriptions, published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 
 Parker, 1846-1849. 
 
 , Commentary on the Inscriptions of Assyria and Ba- 
 bylon, London, Parker, 1850. 
 
 , Notes on the Early History of Babylonia, in the 
 Journal of the Royal Asiatie Society, vol. xv. part ii., London, 
 Parker, 1856. 
 
 , Notes and Essays in the Author’s Herodotus. (See 
 HERODOTUS). 
 
 Remusat, Nouveaux Mélanges Asiatiques, Paris, 1829. 
 
 RENNELL, Geography of Herodotus, 4to edition, London, 1800. 
 
 - Rosetiint, Monumenti dell’ Egitto, parte prima, monumenti sto- 
 rici, Pisa, 1832-1841. 
 
 RosENMUELLER, Scholia in Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1821, &e. 
 
 Rossi, Etymologie Aigyptiace, Rome, 1808. 
 
 8. 
 
 Scaticer, De Emendatione Temporum, folio, Geneva, 1629. 
 
 Seneca, ed. Elzevir, Amsterdam, 1672. 
 
 Simpiicius, Comment. ad Aristot. De Ccelo, folio, Venice, 
 1526. 
 
 Smita, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 
 2nd edition, London, 1853. 
 
 , Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 
 1850. 
 , Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London, 
 
 1854. 
 
 Smit, G. Vance, Prophecies relating to Nineveh, London, Long- 
 man, 1857. 
 
 Socrates, Hist. Ecclesiastica, Cambridge, 1720. 
 
 SopHoc es, ed. Valpy, London, 1824. 
 
 SpanHEIM, Introductio ad Chronologiam et Historiam Sacram, 
 Amsterdam, 1694. 
 
 Spinoza, Tractatus theologo-politicus, 2nd edition, (no place or 
 publisher’s name), 167 4. 
 
 StackHousgs, History of the Bible, Gleig’s edition, London, Long- 
 man, 1817. 
 
[ 550 ] 
 
 STANLEY, Professor, Sinai and Palestine, London, Murray, 1856. 
 
 Srativus, pocket edition, Amsterdam, 1624. 
 
 Srraso, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847-1852. 
 
 Strauss, Leben Jesu, 4th edition, Tiibingen, 1840. 
 
 , The Life of Jesus, translated into English, London, 
 Chapman, 1846. 
 
 Sruart, Professor, History and Defence of the Old Testament 
 Canon, edited by the Rey. P. Lorimer, London, 1849. 
 
 Suetonius, ed. Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipsic, 1816. 
 
 Surpas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1834. 
 
 SYNCELLUS, in the Corpus Hist. Byzant., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1829. 
 
 
 
 fp 
 
 Tacitus (Brotier’s), ed. Valpy, London, Whittaker, 1823. 
 
 Tausot, H. Fox, Assyrian Texts translated, London, 1856. 
 
 TaTIan, Oratio ady. Greecos, (with Justin Martyr), Hague, 1742. 
 
 Taytor, Transmission of Ancient Books, London, 1859. 
 
 TERTULLIAN, Opera, ed. Rigaltius, Paris, 1675. 
 
 , Bishop Kaye’s, Ecclesiastical Hist., illustrated from 
 Tertullian. (See Kaye.) 
 
 THEILE, Zur biographie Jesu, Leipsic, 1837. 
 
 THEOPHILUS, ad Autolycum, (with Justin Martyr), Hague, 1742. 
 
 Tuucypipes, ed. Bekker, Oxford, Parker, 1824. 
 
 TRENCH, Dean, Notes on the Miracles, London, Parker, 1846. 
 
 
 
 
 
 vi: 
 
 Vaerius Maxtmus, Leyden, 1670. 
 Vater, Commentar iiber den Pentateuch, Halle, 1802-1806. 
 VarkeE, Religion des Alt. Testaments nach den kanonischen Bii- 
 chern entwickelt, Berlin, 1835. 
 Vestiges of Creation, roth edition, London, 1853. 
 Virrinea, Observationes Sacree, Franequere, 1711, 1712. 
 Virruvivs, ed. De Laet, Amsterdam, Elzevir, 1649. 
 Von Bouten, Alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830. 
 Von LencerKE, Kenaan, Konigsberg, 1844. 
 , Das Buch Daniel, Konigsberg, 1835. 
 
 >? 
 
 W. 
 Werstein, Nov. Testament. Greecum, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. 
 Wuiston, Short View of the Harmony of the four Evangelists, 
 Cambridge, 1702. 
 
[ 551 | 
 
 Wuite, Bampton Lectures for 1784, Oxford, 1784. 
 
 WiLkinson, Sir G., Ancient Egyptians, London, Murray, 1837— 
 1841. 
 
 , Notes and Essays in the Author’s Herodotus. (See 
 
 HERODOTUS. ) 
 
 Witson, Professor H. H., Translations from Rig-Veda-Sanhita, 
 London, 1850. 
 
 Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch, 3rd edition, Leipsic, 1847, 
 1848. 
 
 Woottston, Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, 
 London, 1727-1729. 
 
 x. 
 XENOPHON, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxford, 1817, &c. 
 
ote 
 
 fa Dade ub 
 
 ay hie vin oe ani 
 eu 
 
 
 
 
 
 Hehe Pauclll okh: yh bi a Manet if 
 it aie aaa ee 
 aw fot Uy ee ie it 7 zi vy ers j 
 
 fi me | Whitin a) ar imi riety ‘i | 
 
 sees er es, h i aig , im 
 
 | Vere i 
 x 
 4 ‘ : 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 yy es 
 
 
 
 ae oa it 4 e 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 , | os i he, ny if al ah 
 mi LR aig 
 
 ee Hy ue ose iy 
 a | i! n \ 
 = ‘ i 1 
 / y ity ‘ } { 
 4) , { TARR A oi " ut j 
 7 ; : ig i ? "; ¥ f 
 Nyt i } a PN "bas ; " : 
 ~ Jit Soe AE, | ‘= 
 : rary ee ee ha 
 
 Lan D Aaya eae afessii “iu sare Mand 0th 
 . : Laue Ae sehii 
 
 il A y pa Oe atta i A! 
 iia” ce oe a, Lh at help | 
 has : sia Aare s a 7 Ae. ; Seley 
 wv oni y if 
 : Pi Wegey % 4 wie 
 . nf - yy an } Heh a he 7" Be Ali. 2 
 aah ; oe We i 0 ry 
 | ae Uni, nel 6 0: 6 A 
 ym bia te ie, ane ald ak ef ah id py i ‘h 
 iy ‘ Syne a yiy 7 oiyit mie ie 
 ; 1 
 cy j } " bal ice &: ve ne Deane 
 i i , , at Yo Fi i 1ii,8 rr Nii 7 Bit 
 M i iy ci i 
 & pit 
 ord ' a, iy i 
 
 Wyte «,. a AP Sak: ar Gat Ms hl nih i re Kay 
 
 if wi) a: © iPaeh Fires . eine iia 
 
 | a ing di Seebi en ai Wo etna mn mat “net 
 i eer ee ail i ih “ Pig 
 Tee at 
 
 
 
 
 ii at ay . yy / 
 . 7 in pai?! \ rT J \ bh aoe y a a a 
 yee wt ; mt a 10 ae he ae 
 ay! ib i ; ' Ry 
 nen Fe ey : ig me 
 : : phar Le i 
 aA. a pie cf (a Pad a, 
 
 
 
 1% r i tee ali ria a} aha 
 
 ieee ; ee 
 
 ee v : Wt beat pled BA Ge 
 Pa Tat Me era 
 i f | ; h . U i 
 ’ ” Me { Lata 
 , i | , : Aid ity 
 Li : HN bi vn oo Ui i 
 oa ? ly y : me Laine ligt} 
 
 ee er 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ALBEMARLE STREET, LONDON. 
 June, 1859, 
 
 MR. MURRAY’S 
 GENERAL LIST OF WORKS. 
 
 ABBOTT'S (Rev. J.) Philip Musgrave; or, Memoirs of a Church of 
 England Missionary in the North American Colonies. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 ABERCROMBIE’S (Joun, M.D.) Enquiries concerning the Intel- 
 
 lectual Powers and the Investigation of Truth. Fifteenth Edition. 
 Feap.8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Philosophy of the Moral Feelings. Tenth 
 Edition. Feap.8vo. 4s. 
 
 Pathological and Practical Researches on the 
 Diseases of the Stomach, &c. Third Edition. Feap.8vo. 6s. 
 ACLAND’S (Rev. Cuanzes) Popular Account of the Manners and 
 
 Customsof India. Post 8vo. 2s.6d. 
 ADDISON’S WORKS. A New Edition, with a New Life and 
 Notes. By Rey. WHITWELL Exwin. 4 Vols. Svo. Jn Preparation. 
 
 ADOLPHUS'S (J. L.) Letters from Spain, in 1856 and 1857. 
 Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 HSCHYLUS. (The Agamemnon and Choephore.) Edited, with 
 Notes. Ry Rev. W. Periz, D.D. Second Edition. 2 Vols. 8yo. 9s. 
 each. 
 
 ESOP’S FABLES. A New Translation. With Historical 
 Preface. By Rev. Tuomas James, M.A. With 100 Woodcuts, by JoHN 
 TrENNIEL and J. WOLF. 26th Thousand. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL (Tur) Journat. Of the Royal Agricultural 
 Society of Eugland. Svo. 10s. Published half-yearly. 
 
 AMBER-WITCH (Tux). The most interesting Trial for Witch- 
 
 craft ever known. Translated from the German by Lapy Durr 
 Gorpon. Post S8yvo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 ARABIAN NIGHTS ENTERTAINMENT. ‘Translated from the 
 Arabic, with Explanatory Notes. By E. W. Lane. A New Edition. 
 Edited by E. STANLEY PooLe. With 600 Woodeuts. 3 Vols. Svo. 42s. 
 
 ARTHUR'S (Lirrtr) History of England. By Lapy .Cauucort. 
 Eighteenth Edition. With 20 Woodeuts. Feap.8yo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 AUNT IDA’S Walks and Talks; a Story Book for Children. By 
 a Lapy. Woodcuts. 16mo. 5s. 
 
 AUSTIN’S (Saran) Fragments from German Prose Writers. 
 With Biographical Notes. Post 8vo. 10s. 
 
 Translation of Ranke’s History of the Popes of Rome. 
 Third Edition, 2 Vols. S8vo. 24s. 
 
 
 
 B 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 a cee erry 
 
2 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 ADMIRALTY PUBLICATIONS; Issued by direction of the Lords 
 Commissioners of the Admiralty:— 
 . 
 1, A MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, for the Use of Officers in 
 H.M. Navy and Travellers in General. By Various Hands. Third 
 Edition, revised. Woodcuts. Post 870. 
 2. AIRY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS mapvE aT GREENWICH. 
 1836 to 1847. Royal4to. 50s. each. 
 ASTRONOMICAL RESULTS. 1848 to 1856. 4to. 8s. each. 
 
 pct ae TO THE ASTRONOMICAL OBSERYVA- 
 TIONS. 
 
 1836.—I. Bessel’s Refraction Tables. 
 II. Tables for converting Errors of R.A.and N.P.D. }S8s. 
 into Errors of Longitude and Ecliptice P.D. 
 1837.—I. Logarithms of Sines and Cosines to every a 
 
 
 
 3. 
 
 
 
 Seconds of Time. 
 
 If. Table for converting Sidereal into Mean Solar Time. 
 1842. Catalogue of 1489 Stars. 8s. 
 1845.—Longitude of Valentia, 8s. 
 1847.—Twelve Years’ Catalogue of Stars. 14s. 
 1851.—Maskelyne’s Ledger of Stars. 6s. 
 1852.—I. Description of the Transit Circle. 5s. 
 
 II. Regulations of the Royal Observatory. 2s. 
 18583.—Bessel’s Refraction Tables. 3s. 
 1854.—I. Description of the Zenith Tube. 3s. 
 
 If. Six Years’ Catalogue of Stars. 10s. 
 
 MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVA- 
 TIONS. 1840 to 1847. Royal4to. 50s. each. 
 
 MAGNETICAL AND METEOROLOGICAL RESULTS. 
 1848 to 1855. 4to. 8s. each. 
 
 ASTRONOMICAL, MAGNETICAL, AND METEOROLO- 
 GICAL OBSERVATIONS, 1848 to 1854. Royal 4to. 50s. each. 
 REDUCTION OF THE OBSERVATIONS OF PLANETS, 
 
 1750 to 1830. Royal4to. 50s. 
 LUNAR OBSERVATIONS. 1750 
 
 to 1830. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 50s. each. 
 
 8. BERNOULLIS SEXCENTENARY TABLE. London, 1779. 4to. 
 
 9. BESSEL'S AUXILIARY TABLES FOR HIS METHOD OF CLEAR- 
 ING LUNAR DISTANCES. 8yvo. 
 
 10. ———— FUNDAMENTA ASTRONOMI 2: Regiomontii, 1818. Folio. 60s. 
 
 11. BIRD’S METHOD OF CONSTRUCTING MURAL QUADRANTS. 
 London, 1768. 4to. 2s. 6d. 
 
 12. ———— METHOD OF DIVIDING ASTRONOMICAL INSTRU- 
 MENTS. JZondon, 1767. 4to. 2s. 6d. 
 
 13, COOK, KING, anv BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
 London, 1782. 4to. 21s. 
 
 14, EIFFE’S ACCOUNT OF IMPROVEMENTS IN CHRONOMETERS, 
 4to. 2s. 
 
 15. ENCKE’S BERLINER JAHRBUCH, for 1830. Berlin, 1828. Svo. 9a. 
 
 16. GROOMBRIDGE’S CATALOGUE OF CIRCUMPOLAR STARS. 
 d4to. 10s. - 
 
 17. HANSEN’S TABLES DE LA LUNE. 4to. 20s. 
 
 17. HARRISON'S PRINCIPLES OF HIS TIME-KEEPER. Puartes, 
 1767. 4to. 5s. 
 
 18. HUTTON’S TABLES OF THE PRODUCTS AND POWERS OF 
 NUMBERS. 1781. Folio. 7s. 6d. 
 
 19. LAX’S TABLES FOR FINDING THE LATITUDE AND LONGI- 
 TUDE. 1821. Svo. 10s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 6. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 ee 
 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 38 
 
 
 
 ADMIRALTY PUBLICATIONS—continued. 
 20. LUNAR OBSERVATIONS at GREENWICH. 1783 to i819. 
 with the Tables, 1821. 4to. 7s. 6d. ened 
 
 22, MASKELYNE’S ACCOUNT OF THE GOING OF HAR ; 
 WATCH. 1767. 4to. 2s. 6d. ie: 
 
 21. MAYER’S DISTANCES of the MOON’S CENTRE from the 
 PLANETS. 1822, 33.; 1823, 4s.6d. 1824 to 1835, Svo. 4s. each. 
 
 23. ————_— THEORIA LUNZ JUXTA SYSTEMA NEWTONIANUM. 
 
 4to. 2s. 6d. 
 24, —__—_ TABULA MOTUUM SOLIS ET LUNA. 1770. 4to. 5s. 
 25, ——_——— ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS MADE AT GOT- 
 
 TINGEN, from 1756 to 1761. 1826. “Folio. 7s. 6d. 
 
 26. NAUTICAL ALMANACS, from 1767 to 1861. S8yvo. 2s. 6d. each. 
 
 27. SELECTIONS FROM THE ADDITIONS 
 up to 1812. 8vo. 5s. 1834-54. 8vo. ds. 
 
 28, ——_—______————_—- SUPPLEMENTS, 1828 to 1833, 1887 and 1838. 
 Svo. 2s. each. 
 
 29, TABLE requisite to be used with the N.A. 
 1781. S8vo. 5s. 
 
 30. POND’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 1811 to 1835. 4to, 21s, 
 each. 
 
 81. RAMSDEN’S ENGINE for Divininc MarsematicaL InsTruMENTS. 
 4to. 5s. 
 
 82, ——_—__—_——- ENGINE for Drvipine Straicut Lines. 4to. 5s. 
 
 83. SABINE’S PENDULUM EXPERIMENTS to DerreRMIne THE FIGURE 
 OF THE EartTH. 1825. 4to. 40s. 
 
 34. SHEPHERD’S TABLES for Correctinc Lunar Distances. 1772. 
 Royal 4to. 21s. 
 
 35. ———————— TABLES, GENERAL, of the MOON’S DISTANCE 
 from the SUN, and 10 STARS. 1787. Folio. 5s. 6d. 
 
 36. TAYLOR’S SEXAGESIMAL TABLE. 1780. 4to. 15s. 
 
 37. ——————_ TABLES OF LOGARITHMS. 4to. 31. 
 
 38. TIARK’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS for the LonciruDE 
 of MADEIRA. 1822. 4to. 5s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 89. ——_—_——_ CHRONOMETRICAL OBSERVATIONS for DirFERENCES 
 of LonGituDE between Dover, PorTSsMOUTH, and FALMOUTH. 1823. 
 4to, 5s. 
 
 40. VENUS and JUPITER: Onsrrvarions of, compared with the Tapirs. 
 London, 1822. 4to. 2s. 
 41. WALES’ AND BAYLY’S ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS. 
 i 1777. 4to. 21s. 
 
 42. WALES’ REDUCTION OF ASTRONOMICAL OBSERVATIONS 
 MADE IN THE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE. 1764—1771. 1788. 4to. 
 
 10s. 6d.» 
 BABBAGE’S (Cuartes) Economy of Machinery and Manufactures. 
 Fourth Edition. Feap. 8yo. 6s. 
 Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, 
 and on some ofits Causes. 4to. 7s. 6d. 
 
 — Views of the Industry, the Science, and the Govern- 
 
 ment of England, 1851. Second Edition. Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 B2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 BAIKIE’S (W. B.) Narrative of an Exploring Voyage up the Rivers 
 Quorra and Tshadda in 1854. Map. S8yo. 16s. 
 
 BANKES’ (Grorce) Srory or Corre Castie, with documents relating 
 to the Time of the Civil Wars, &c. Woodcuts. Post 8vyo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 BASSOMPIERRE’S Memoirs of his Embassy to the Court of 
 England in 1626. Translated with Notes. Svo. Qs. 6d. 
 
 BARROW’S (Sir Joun) Autobiographical Memoir, including 
 Reflections, Observations, and Reminiscences at Home and Abroad. 
 From Early Life to Advanced Age. Portrait. Svo. 16s. 
 Voyages of Discovery and Research within the 
 Arctic Regions, from 1818 to the present time. Abridged and ar- 
 ranged from the Official Narratives. S8vo. 15s. 
 
 - (Str Grorce) Ceylon; Past and Present. Map. 
 Post Svo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 (Joun) Naval Worthies of Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, 
 their Gallant Deeds, Daring Adventures, and Services in the infant state 
 of the British Navy. S8vo. 14s. 
 
 Life and Voyages of Sir Francis Drake. With nume- 
 rous Original Letters. Post Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 BEES AND FLOWERS. ‘Two Essays. By Rev. Thomas James. 
 
 Reprinted from the ‘‘ Quarterly Review.” Fcap.8vo. 1s. each. 
 
 BELL'S (Sir Cuarues) Mechanism and Vital Endowments of the 
 Hand asevincing Design. Sixth Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 BENEDICT’S (Junus) Sketch of the Life and Works of Felix 
 Mendelssohn Bartholdy. Second Edition. Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 BERTHA’S Journal during a Visit to her Uncle in England. 
 
 Containing a Variety of Interesting and Instructive Information. Seventh 
 Edition. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 BIRCH’S (Samvurn) History of Ancient Pottery and Porcelain : 
 
 Egyptian, Assyrian, Greek, Roman, and Etruscan. With 200 Illustrations. 
 2Vols. Medium 8yo. 42s. 
 
 BLUNT’S (Rev. J. J.) Principles for the proper understanding of 
 the Mosaic Writings, stated and applied, together with an Incidental 
 Argument for the truth of the Resurrection of our Lord. Being the 
 HuLsEAN Lectures for 1832. Post Svo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 ——_— Undesigned Coincidences in the Writings of the Old 
 and New ‘Testament, an Argument of their Veracity: with an 
 Appendix containing Undesigned Coincidences between the Gospels, 
 Acts, and Josephus. Siath Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 History of the Church in the First Three Centuries. 
 Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 Parish Priest; His Duties, Acquirements and Obliga- 
 tions. 2Z'kird Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 Lectures on the Right Use of the Early Fathers. 
 
 Second Edition. S8vo. 15s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Plain Sermons Preached to a Country Congregation. 
 Second Edition, 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. each. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 5 
 
 BLACKSTONE’S (Sir Witrram) Commentaries on the Laws of 
 England. A New Edition, adapted to the present state of the law. By 
 R. Matcotm Kerr, LL.D. 4 Vols. S8vo, 42s. 
 
 (The Student’s Blackstone:) Being those Portions 
 ofthe above work which relate to the British ConsTITUTION and the 
 RigHts oF Persons. By R. MAatcotm Kerr, LLD. Post 8vo. Qs. 
 
 BLAINE (Rozszurron) on the Laws of Artistic Copyright and their 
 
 Defects, for Artists, Engravers, Printsellers, &c. Syo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. With 1000 Illustrations of 
 Borders, Initials, and Woodent Vignettes. A New Edition. Medium 
 8vo. 21s. cloth, 31s. 6d. calf, or 42s. morocco. 
 
 BOSWELL’S (Jamzs) Life of Dr. Johnson. Including the Tour to 
 the Hebrides. Edited by Mr. Croxer. Third Edition. Portraits. Royal 
 Syo. 10s. 
 
 BORROW’S (Gzorez) Lavengro; The Scholar—The Gipsy—and 
 the Priest. Portrait. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 30s. 
 
 Romany Rye; a Sequel to lLavengro. Second 
 Edition. 2 Vols. Post S8vo. 21s. 
 
 
 
 Bible in Spain; or the Journeys, Adventures, and 
 Imprisonments of an Englishman in an Attempt to circulate the 
 Scriptures in the Peninsula. 3 Vols. Post 8vo. 27s., or Popular Edition 
 16mo, 6s. 
 
 ————— {Zineali, or the Gipsies of Spain; their Manners, 
 Customs, Religion, and Language. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s., or Popular 
 Lidition, 16mo, 6s, 
 
 BRAY’S (Mrs.) Life of Thomas Stothard, R.A. With Personal 
 Reminiscences. Illustrated with Portrait and 60 Woodcuts of his 
 chief works. 4to. 
 
 BREWSTER’S (Str Davin) Martyrs of Science, or the Lives of 
 Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler. Second Edition. Feap.8vo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 More Worlds than One. The Creed of the Philo- 
 sopher and the Hope of the Christian. Seventh Thousand. Post 8yo. 6s. 
 
 Stereoscope: its History, Theory, Construction, 
 and Application to the Arts and to Education. Woodcuts. 12mo. 
 5s. 6d. 
 
 Kaleidoscope: its History, Theory, and Construction, 
 with its application to the Fine and Useful Arts. Second Edition. 
 Woodcuts. PostSyo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 BRITISH ASSOCIATION REPORTS. 8vo. York and Oxford, 
 1831-32, 13s. 6d. Cambridge, 1833,12s. Edinburgh, 1834, 15s. Dublin, 
 1835, 13s. 6d. Bristol, 1836, 12s. Liverpool, 1837, 16s.6d. Newcastle, 
 1838, 15s. Birmingham, 1839, 13s. 6d. Glasgow, 1840, 15s, Plymouth, 
 1841, 13s. 6d. Manchester, 1842, 10s. 6d. Cork, 1843, 12s. York, 1844. 
 20s. Cambridge, 1845, 12s. Southampton, 1846, 15s. Oxford, 1847, 18s. 
 Swansea, 1848, 9s. Birmingham, 1849, 10s. Edinburgh, 1850, 15s. Ipswich, 
 1851, 16s. 6d. Belfast,1852, 15s. Hull, 1853, 10s. 6d. Liverpool, 1854, 18s. 
 Glasgow, 1855, 15s.; Cheltenham, 1856, 18s; Dublin, 1857, 15s. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 6 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 oJ 
 BRITISH CLASSICS. A New Series of Standard English 
 Authors, printed from the most correct text, and edited with elucida- 
 tory notes. Published occasionally in demy Svo. Volumes. 
 Already Published. 
 
 GOLDSMITH’S WORKS. Edited by Peren CunnincHam, F.S.A. 
 Vignettes. 4 Vols. 30s. 
 
 GIBBON’S DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 
 Edited by Wit11AmM SairH, LL.D. Portrait and Maps. 8 Vols. 60s. 
 
 JOHNSON’S LIVES OF THE ENGLISH POETS. Edited by PETER 
 CUNNINGHAM, F.S.A. 3 Vols. 22s. 6d. 
 
 BYRON’S POETICAL WORKS. Edited, with Notes. 6 vols. 45s. 
 In Preparation. 
 
 WORKS OF POPE. Edited, with Notes. 
 
 WORKS OF DRYDEN. Edited, with Notes. 
 
 HUME’S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. Edited, with Notes. 
 
 LIFE, LETTERS, AND JOURNALS OF SWIFT. Edited, with Notes, 
 by JOHN FORSTER. 
 
 WORKS OF SWIFT. Edited, with Notes. By Jonn Forster. 
 WORKS OF ADDISON. Edited, with Notes. By Rey. W. Erwin. 
 
 BROUGHTON’S (Lorp) Journey through Albania and other 
 Provinces of Turkey in Europe and Asia, to Constantinople, 1809—10. 
 Third Edition. Maps and Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 
 
 ITALY: Remarks made in several Visits from 
 the Year 1816 to 1854. Second Edition. 2vols. PostSvo. 18s. 
 
 BUBBLES FROM THE BRUNNEN OF NASSAU. By an Old 
 Man. Sixth Edition. 16mo. 5s. 
 
 BUNBURY’S (C. J. F.) Journal of a Residence at the Cape of Good 
 Hope; with Excursions into the Interior, and Notes on the Natural 
 History and Native Tribes of the Country. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s. 
 
 BUNYAN (Joun) and Oliver Cromwell. Select Biographies. By 
 
 Rosert SourHEY. Post Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 BUCNAPARTE’S (Navotron) Confidential Correspondence with his 
 Brother Joseph, sometime King of Spain. Second Edition. 2 vols. 8yo. 
 26s. 
 
 BURGHERSH’S (Lorp) Memoir of the Operations of the Allied 
 Armies under Prince Schwarzenberg and Marshal Blucher during the 
 laiter end of 1813—14. Svo. 21s. 
 
 Early Campaigns of the Duke of Wellington in 
 Portugal and Spain. S8yo. 8s. 6d. ; 
 
 BURGON’S (Rev. J. W.) Portrait of a Christian Gentleman: a 
 Memoir of the late Patrick Fraser Tytler, author of “The History of 
 Scotland.” Post 8vo. 9s. 
 
 BURN’S (Lrevr-Cot.) French and English Dictionary of Naval 
 and Military Technical Terms. Third dition. Crown 8vo. 15s. 
 
 BURNS’ (Roser) Life. By Joun Grsson Locxuart. Fifth 
 Edition. Feap. 8vo. 3s. 
 
 BURR’S (G. D.) Instructions in Practical Surveying, Topogra- 
 
 phical Plan Drawing, and on sketching ground without Instruments, 
 Third Edition. Woodcuts. PostSvo, 7s. 6d. 
 
 
 

 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 
 
 “J 
 
 
 
 BUXTON’S (Sir Fowzt1t) Memoirs. With Selections from his 
 
 Correspondence. By his Son. Fifth Edition. Svo. 16s.; or, Popular 
 Edition. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 BYRON’S (Lorp) Life, Letters, and Journals, By Tuomas Moors. 
 
 Cabinet Edition. Plates. 
 
 6 Vols. Feap. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 Life, Letters, and Journals. By Tuomas Moors. Popular 
 Edition. Portrait and Vignette. One Volume, royal Svo. 12s. 
 
 Poetical Works. 
 Demy 8vo. 45s. 
 
 ——— Poetical Works. 
 
 Feap. Svo. 30s. 
 Poetical Works. 
 Engravings. Royal 8yo. 
 
 Poetical Works. 
 but beautifully clear type. 
 
 Library Edition. Portrait. 6 Vols. 
 Cabinet Edition. Plates. 10 Vols. 
 
 People’s Edition. Portrait and Steel 
 9s. 
 Travelling Edition. Printed in small 
 
 Portrait. Crown8vo. 9s. 
 
 Poetical Works. Pocket Edition. Containing Childe 
 
 Harold; Dramas, 2 Vols.; Tales and Poems; Miscellanies, 2 Vols.; 
 Beppo and Don Juan, 2 Vols. S Vols. 24mo. 20s. Or, separately, 
 2s. 6d. Each volume, 
 
 Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage. A New and beautifully 
 printed Edition. Illustrated, with Wood Engravings, from original 
 Drawings by PERCIVAL SKELTON. Feap.4to. 21s. 
 
 With 380 Vignette Engravings on Steel. 
 Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 BYRON Beauties. Poetry and Prose. A Reading Book for Youth. 
 Portrait. Feap. 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 CALVIN’S (Jonn) Life. With Extracts from his Correspondence. 
 
 By Tuomas H. DyEr. Portrait. 8vo. 15s, 
 
 CALLCOTT’S (Lavy) Little Arthur’s History of England. 
 18th Edition. With 20 Woodcuts. Feap.S8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 CARMICHAEL’S (A. N.) Greek Verbs. Their Formations, 
 Irregularities, and Defects. Second Edition. Post 8vo. Ss. 6d. 
 
 CARNARVON’S (Lorp) Portugal, Gallicia, and the Basque 
 Provinces. From Notes made during a Journey to those Countries. 
 Third Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 CAMPBELL’S (Lorp) Lives of the Lord Chancellors and Keepers 
 of the Great Sealof England. From the Earliest Times to the Death of 
 
 Lord Eldon in 1838. 4th Edition. 10 Vols. Crown 8vo. 6s. each. 
 Life of Lord Chancellor Bacon. Feap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Lives of the Chief Justices of England. From the 
 Norman Conquest to the Death of Lord Tenterden. Second Edition. 
 3 Vols. 8vo. 42s. 
 
 ——_——_— Shakspeare’s Legal Acquirements Considered. 
 8vo. ds. 6d. 
 
 (Guorcr) Modern India. A Sketch of the System 
 of Civil Government. With some Account of the Natives and Native 
 Institutions. Second Edition. Svo. 16s. 
 
 ————— India as it may be. An Outline of a proposed 
 Government and Policy. Syvo. 12s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 8 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 CAMPBELL'S (Txos.) Short Lives of the British Poets. Withan 
 Essay on English Poetry. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 CASTLEREAGH (Tux) DESPATCHES, from the commencement 
 
 of the official career of the late Viscount Castlereagh to the close of his 
 life. Edited by the MArquis oF LONDONDERRY. 12 Vols.S8vo. 14s.each. 
 
 CATHCART’S (Sir Groran) Commentaries on the War in Russia 
 and Germany, 1812-13. Plans. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 Military Operations in Kaffraria, which led to the 
 Termination of the Kaffir War. Second Edition. Svo. 12s. 
 
 CAVALCASELLE (G. B.) Notices of the Early Flemish Painters ; 
 Their Lives and Works. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 CHANTREY (Srr Francis). Winged Words on Chantrey’s Wood- 
 cocks. Editedby Jas.P.Murrneap. Etchings. Square8vo. 10s.6d- 
 
 CHARMED ROE (Tux); or, The Story of the Little Brother and 
 
 Sister. By Orro SpeckTer. Plates. 16mo. ds. 
 
 CLARENDON (Lorp Cuancettor); Lives of his Friends and 
 Contemporaries, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. By Lady 
 THERESA Lewis. Portraits. 3 Vols. Svo. 42s. 
 
 CLAUSEWITZS (Cart Von) Campaign of 1812, in Russia. 
 
 Translated from the German by Lorp ELLESMERE. Map. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 CLIVE’S (Lorp) Life. By Ruv. G. R. Guzre, M.A. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 COLERIDGE (Samurn Taytor). Specimens of his Table-Talk. 
 Fourth Edition. Portrait. Feap. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 (Henry Netson) Introductions to the Study of 
 the Greek Classic Poets. Zhird Ldition. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 COLONIAL LIBRARY. [See Home and Colonial Library.] 
 
 COOKERY (Domestic). Founded on Principles of Economy and 
 
 Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. New Edition. 
 Woodcuts. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 
 
 CORNWALLIS (Tux) Papers and Correspondence during the 
 
 American War,—Administrations in India,— Union with Ireland, and 
 Peace of Amiens. From Family Papers, &c. Edited by CHAarvEs Ross, 
 Second Hdition. 3 Vols. Syvo. 63s. 
 
 CRABBE’S (Rey. Gxrorar) Life, Letters, and Journals. By his Son. 
 
 Portrait. Feap.8vo. 3s. 
 : and Poetical Works. Cabinet 
 Edition. Plates. 8 Vols. Feap.S8vo. 24s. 
 
 ~ ——— and Poetical Works. Popular 
 Edition. Plates. One Volume. Royal Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 CRAIK’S (G. L.) Pursuit of Knowledge under Difficulties, 
 New Edition. 2 Vols. Post S8vo. 12s, 
 
 CURZON’S (Hon. Roserr) Visits to the Monasteries of the Levant, 
 Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 15s. 
 
 ARMENIA AND Erzeroum. A Year on the Frontiers of 
 Russia, Turkey, and Persia. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 CUNNINGHAMWM’S (Autan) Life of Sir David Wilkie. With his 
 
 Journals and Critical Remarks on Works of Art. Portrait. 3 Vols. 
 Svo. 42s, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 9 
 
 
 
 CUNNINGHAM’S (Attan) Poems and Songs. Now first col- 
 lected and arranged, with Biographical Notice. 24mo 2s. 6d. 
 (Cart. J. D.) History of the Sikhs. From 
 
 ie. onein of the Nation to the Battle of the Sutlej. Second Edition. 
 Maps. ‘Sv0. 15s. 
 
 (PerEr) London—Past and Present. A Hand- 
 book to the Antiquities, Curiosities, Churches, Works of Art, Public 
 Buildings, and Places connected with interesting and historical asso- 
 ciations. Second Edition. Post S8vo. 16s, 
 
 ~ Modern London. <A complete Guide for 
 Visitors to the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. 5s. 
 
 Westminster Abbey. Its Art, Architecture, 
 
 and Associations. Woodeuts. Feap.8vo. 1s. 
 
 Works of Oliver Goldsmith. Edited with 
 Notes. Vignettes. 4 vols. S8vo. 30s. (Murray’s British Classics.) 
 
 Lives of Eminent English Poets. By Samurn 
 
 JouNsoN, LL.D. Edited with Notes. 3vols. Svo. 22s. 6d. (Murray’s 
 British Classics.) 
 
 CROKER’S (J. W.) Progressive Geography for Children. 
 Fifth Edition. 18mo. 1s. 6d. 
 
 Stories for Children, Selected from the History of 
 England. Fifteenth Edition. Woodeuts. 16mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Boswell’s Life of Johnson. Including the Tour to the 
 Hebrides. Third Edition. Portraits. Royal 8yvo. 15s. 
 
 Lorp Hervey’s Memoirs of the Reign of George the 
 Second, from his Accession to the death of Queen Caroline. Edited 
 with Notes. Second Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 21s. 
 
 ——— Essays on the Karly Period of the French Revolution. 
 Reprinted from the Quarterly Review. Svo. 15s. 
 
 ——__——— Historical Essay on the Guillotine. Feap. 8vo. 1s. 
 
 CROMWELL (Ottver) and John Bunyan. By Rozerr SoutHey. 
 Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 CROWE’S (J. A.) Notices of the Early Flemish Painters; their 
 Lives and Works. Woodcuts. PostSvo. 12s, 
 
 CURETON (Rey. W.) Remains of a very Ancient Recension of 
 the Four Gospels in Syriac, hitherto unknown in Enrope. Discovered, 
 Edited, and Translated. 4to. 24s. 
 
 DARWIN’S (CHarzus) Journal of Researches into the Natural 
 
 History and Geology of the Countries visited during a Voyage round the 
 World. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 DAVIS'S (Sir J. F.) China: A General Description of that Empire 
 
 and its Inhabitants, down to 1857. New Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 
 Post 8vo. 14s. 
 
 DAVY’S (Str Humpnry) Consolations in Travel; or, Last Days 
 of a Philosopher. Fijth Edition. Woodcuts. Feap.8yo. 6s. 
 
 Salmonia; or, Days of Fly Fishing. With some Account 
 of the Habits of Fishes belonging to the genus Salmo. Fourth Edition, 
 Woodcuts. Feap.8vo. 6s. 
 
 DENNIS’ (Groner) Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria; or, the 
 
 extant Local Remains of Etruscan Art. Plates. 2 Vols. 8vo. 42s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 10 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 
 
 DOG-BREAKING ; the Most Expeditious, Certain, and Hasy 
 Method, whether great excellence or only mediocrity be required. By 
 Lizut.-Cot. Hutcuinson. Third Edition. Revised and enlarged, 
 Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s. 
 
 DOMESTIC MODERN COOKERY. Founded on Principles of 
 Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. 
 New Edition. Woodcuts. Feap.8yvo. 5s. 
 
 DOUGLAS'S (Geyrrat Sir Howarp) Treatise on the Theory 
 
 and Practice of Gunnery. Fourth Edition. Plates. Svo. 2is. 
 
 Treatise on the Principle and Construction of Military 
 Bridges, and the Passage of Rivers in Military Operations. Third 
 Edition, Plates. 8vo. 21s. 
 
 —_——_——— Naval Warfare with Steam. Woodcuts. 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 DRAKE'S (Sir Franors) Life, Voyages, and Exploits, by Sea and 
 Land. By Joun BArrow. Third Edition. Post Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 DRINKWATER’S (Joun) History of the Siege of Gibraltar, 
 
 1779-1783. With a Description and Account of that Garrison from the 
 Earliest Periods. Post S8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 DRYDEN’S (Jonn) Works. A New Edition, based upon Sir 
 
 Walter Scott’s Edition, entirely revised. 8vo. Jn Preparation. 
 
 DUDLEY’S (Ear or) Letters to the late Bishop of Llandaff. 
 Second Edition. Portrait. Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 DUFFERIN’S (Lorn) Letters from High Latitudes, being some 
 Account of a Yacht Voyage to Iceland, &c.,in 1856. Fourth Edition. 
 Woodcuts. Post Svo. 9s. 
 
 DURHAM’S (Apmirat Sin Purr) Naval Life and Services. By 
 
 Capt. ALEXANDER MurrRAY. Svo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 DYER’S (Tuomas H.) Life and Letters of John Calvin. Compiled 
 
 from authentic Sources. Portrait. Svo. 15s. 
 
 History of Modern Europe. From the taking of 
 Constantinople by the Turks to the Close of the War in the Crimea. 
 4 Vols. Svo. In Preparation. 
 
 EASTLAKE (Srr Caarizs) The Schools of Painting in Italy. 
 From the Earliest times. From the German of KuGier. Edited, with 
 Notes. Third Edition. Illustrated from the Old Masters. 2 Vols. 
 Post 8vo. 30s. 
 
 EDWARDS’ (W. H.) Voyage up the River Amazon, including a 
 Visit to Para. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 EGERTON’S (Hon. Capt. Francis) Journal of a Winter's Tour in 
 India; with a Visitto Nepaul. Weoodcuts. 2 Vols. Post S8vo. 18s. 
 
 ELDON’S (Lorp Cuancettor) Public and Private Life, with Selec- 
 tions from his Correspondence and Diaries. By Horace Twiss. Third 
 Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s. 
 
 ELIOT’S (Hox. W. G. C.) Khans of the Crimea. Being a Nar- 
 rative of an Embassy from Frederick the Great to the Court of Krim 
 Gerai. Translated from the German. Post Svo. 6s. 
 
 ELLIS (Mrs.) On the Education of Character, with Hints on Moral 
 Training. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 — (Rev. W.) Three Visits to Madagascar. During 1858,-54, 
 and -56, including a Journey to the Capital, with notices of Natural 
 History,and Present Civilisationof the People. Hourth Thousand. Map 
 and Woodcuts. Svo. 16s. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 - PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 1] 
 
 
 
 ELLESMERE’S (Lorp) Two Sieges of Vienna by the Turks. 
 Translated from the German. Post Svo. 2s. 6d. 
 Second Campaign of Radetzky in Piedmont. 
 
 The Defence of Temeswar and the Camp of the Ban. From the German. 
 Post 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Life and Character of the Duke of Wellington ; 
 Feap. Svo. 6d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 = as Campaign of 1812 in Russia, from the German 
 of General Carl Von Clausewitz. Map. S8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Pilgrimage, and other Poems. Crown 4to. 24s. 
 
 Essays on History, Biography, Geography, and 
 Engineering. Svo. 12s. 
 ELPHINSTONE’S (Hoy. Movntsrvart) History of India—the 
 Hindoo and Mahomedan Periods. fourth Edition. With an Index. 
 Map. 8vo. 18s. 
 ELWIN’S (Rev. W.) Lives of Eminent British Poets. From 
 
 Chaucer to Wordsworth. 4 Vols. 8vo. Jn Preparation. 
 
 ENGLAND (History or) from the Peace of Utrecht to the Peace 
 of Versailles, 1713—82. By Lorp Manon. Library Edition, 7 Vols. 
 Syv0, 93s.; or, Popular Edition, 7 Vols. Post 8vo. 35s. 
 
 From the First Invasion by the Romans, 
 
 down to the 14th year of Queen Victoria’s Reign. By Mus. MarxHam. 
 98th Edition, Woodecuts. 12mo. 6s. 
 
 ————— Ag im 1s: Social, Political, and Industrial, in the 
 19th Century. By W.JounstTon. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s. 
 
 and France under the House of Lancaster. With an 
 Introductory View of the Early Reformation. Second Edition. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 ENGLISHWOMAN IN AMERICA. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 RUSSIA: or, Impressions of Manners 
 and Society during a Ten Years’ Residence in that Country. Fifth 
 Thousand. Woodeuts. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 ERSKINE’S (Capt., R.N.) Journal of a Cruise among the Islands 
 ef the Western Pacific, including the Fejees, and others inhabited by 
 the Polynesian Negro Races. Plates. Svo. 16s. 
 
 ESKIMAUX (Tux) and English Vocabulary, for the use of Travellers 
 
 in the Arctic Regions. 16mo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 ESSAYS FROM “THE TIMES.” Being a Selection from the 
 
 Literary Papers which have appeared in that Journal. Tih Thousand. 
 2vols. Feap.8vo. 8s. 
 
 EXETER’S (Bisuop or) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the 
 Theological parts of his Book of the Roman Catholic Church; with 
 
 Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some 
 parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. Second Edition. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 FAIRY RING (Tux), A Collection of Tarxs and Srorres for Young 
 Persons. From the German. By J. E.Tayuior. Illustrated by RicHarD 
 Doyie. Second Edition. Feap. 8vo. 
 
 FALKNER’S (Frep.) Muck Manual for the Use of Farmers. A 
 Treatise on the Nature and Value of Manures. Second Edition, with a 
 Glossary of Terms and an Index. Feap.8vo. 5s. 
 
 FAMILY RECEIPT-BOOK. A Collection of a Thousand Valuable 
 and Useful Receipts. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 12 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 
 
 FANCOURT'S (Cou) History of Yucatan, from its Discovery 
 to the Close of the 17th Century. With Map. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 FEATHERSTONHAUGH'S (G. W.) Tour through the Slave States 
 of North America, from the River Potomac, to Texas and the Frontiers 
 of Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. Svo. 26s. 
 
 FELLOWS’ (Sir Cares) Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, 
 
 more particularly in the Province of Lydia. New Edition. Plates. Post 
 Svo. 9s. 
 
 FERGUSSON’S (Jamus) Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis 
 Restored: an Essay on Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. 
 With 45 Woodcuts. Svo. 16s. 
 
 Handbook of Architecture. Being a 
 
 Concise and Popular Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all 
 Ages and Countries in the World. With a Description of the most re- 
 markable Buildings. Fourth Thousand. With 850 Illustrations. Syo. 26s. 
 
 FERRIER’S (T. P.) Caravan Journeys in Persia, Affghanistan, 
 Herat, Turkistan, and Beloochistan, with Descriptions of Meshed, Balk, 
 and Candahar, and Sketches of the Nomade Tribes of Central Asia, 
 Second Edition. Map. S8vo. 21s. 
 
 ——.+————— History of the Afghans. Map. 8vo. 21s. 
 FEUERBACH’S Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. Trans- 
 lated from the German by Lady Durr Gorpon. Syo. 12s. 
 FISHER’S (Rey. Grorer) Elements of Geometry, for the Use of 
 Schools. Fifth Edition. 18mo. 1s. 6d. 
 First Principles of Algebra, for the Use of Schools. 
 Fifth Edition. 18mo. 1s. 6d. 
 FLOWER GARDEN (Tur). An Essay. By Rev. Tuos. James, 
 
 Reprinted from the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap.8vo. 1s. 
 
 FORD'S (Ricnarp) Handbook for Spain, Andalusia, Ronda, Valencia, 
 Catalonia, Granada, Gallicia, Arragon, Navarre, &c. Third Edition. 
 2Vols. Post 8vo. 30s. 
 
 Gatherings from Spain. Post 8yo. 6s. 
 FORSTER’S (Jou) Historical & Biographical Essays. Contents :— 
 
 I. The Grand Remonstrance, 1641, IV. Daniel De Foe. 
 Il. The Plantagenets and the Tudors. VY. Sir Richard Steele, 
 If. The Civil Wars and Oliver Crom- VI. Charles Churchill. 
 well, VII. Samuel Foote. , 
 
 2Vols. Post 8vo. 21s. 
 FORSYTH’S (Wit1ram) Hortensius, or the Advocate: an Historical 
 
 Essay on the Office and Duties ofan Advocate. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 History of Napoleon at St. Helena. From the 
 
 repens and Journals of Sir Hupson Lowe. Portrait and Maps. 3 Vols. 
 vo. 45s. 
 
 FORTUNE'S (Roser) Narrative of Two Visits to China, between 
 the years 1843-52, with full Descriptions of the Culture of the Tea 
 Plant. Third £dition. Woodecuts. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 18s. 
 
 — Residence among the Chinese: Inland, on the 
 Coast, and at Sea, during 1853-56. Woodcuts. Syo. 16s.’ 
 
 FRANCE (History or). From the Conquest by the Gauls to the 
 
 Death of Louis Philippe. By Mrs.Markuam. 56th Thousand. Wood- 
 cuts. 12mo. 6s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 13 
 
 
 
 FRENCH (Tue) in Algiers; The Soldier of the Foreign Legion— 
 and the Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir. Translated by Lady Durr Gorpon. 
 Post S8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 GALTON’S (Franots) Art of Travel; or, Hints on the Shifts and 
 
 Contrivances available in Wild Countries. Second Edition. Wood- 
 cuts. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 GEOGRAPHICAL (Tse) Journal. Published by the Royal Geo- 
 graphical Society of London, S8yo. 
 
 GERMANY (History or). From the Invasion by Marius, to the 
 
 presenttime. Onthe planof Mrs. Marxuam. Ninth Thousand. Woodcuts. 
 12mo. 6s. 
 
 GIBBON’S (Epwarp) Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. .A 
 
 New Edition. Preceded by his Autobiography. Edited with Notes 
 by Dr. Wu. SuitH. Maps. 8 Vols. 8vo. 60s. 
 
 The Student’s Gibbon; Being the History of the 
 Decline and Fall, Abridged, incorporating the Researches of Recent 
 Commentators. By Dr. WM. Smiru. Sixth Thousand. Woodcuts. Post 
 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 GIFFARD’S (Epwarp) Deeds of Naval Daring; or, Anecdotes of 
 the British Navy. 2 Vols. Feap. 8vo. 
 
 GISBORNE’S (Tomas) Essays on Agriculture. Third Edition. 
 Post 8vo. 
 
 GLADSTONE'’S (W. E.) Prayers arranged from the Liturgy for 
 Family Use. Second Edition. 12mo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 GOLDSMITH’S (Ottver) Works. A New Edition. Printed from 
 the last editions revised by the Author. Edited by Perer Cunnrina- 
 , HAM. Vignettes. 4 Vols.8vo. 30s. (Murray’s British Classics.) 
 
 GLEIG'S (Rev. G. R.) Campaigns of the British Army at Washing- 
 ton and New Orleans. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 Story of the Battle of Waterloo. Compiled from Public 
 and Authentic Sources. Post S8vo. 5s. 
 Narrative of Sir Robert Sale’s Brigade in Afghanistan, 
 with an Account of the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad. Fost Syo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Life of Robert Lord Clive. Post Svo. 5s. 
 
 Life and Letters of General Sir Thomas Munro. Post 
 Svo. 5s. 
 
 GORDON’S (Str Atux. Durr) Sketches of German Life, and Scenes 
 
 from the War of Liberation. From the German. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 (Lavy Durr) Amber-Witch: the most interesting 
 
 Trial for Witchcraft ever known. From the German. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 French in Algiers. 1. The Soldier of the Foreign 
 Legion. 2. The Prisoners of Abd-el-Kadir, From the French. 
 Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Remarkable German Crimes and Trials. From the 
 German of Fuerbach. 8vo. 12s. 
 
 GRANT'S (Asanex) Nestorians, or the Lost Tribes; containing 
 Evidence of their Identity, their Manners, Customs, and Ceremonies ; 
 with Sketches of Travel in Ancient Assyria, Armenia, and Mesopotamia ; 
 and Illustrations of Scripture Prophecy. Third Edition. Feap 8yvo. 6s. 
 
 
 

 
 14 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 GRENVILLE (Tur) PAPERS. Being the Publie and Private 
 Correspondence of George Grenville, his Friends and Contemporaries, 
 during a period of 30 years.— Including his Diary oF POoLiTicaL 
 Events while First Lord of the Treasury. Edited, with Notes, by 
 W.J.Smirn. 4 Vols. 8vo. 16s. each. 
 
 GREEK GRAMMAR FOR SCHOOLS. Abridged from Matthize. 
 By the Bishop or Lonpon. Ninth Edition, revised by Rey. J. EDwARDs. 
 12mo. 3s. 
 
 GREY’S (Srr George) Polynesian Mythology, and Ancient 
 Traditional History of the New Zealand Race. Woodeuts. Post 
 Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 GROTE’S (Grorcz) History of Greece. From the Earliest Times 
 to the close of the generation contemporary with the death of Alexander 
 the Great. Third Edition. Maps and Index. 12vols. 8vo. 16s.-each. 
 
 GROSVENOR’S (Lorp Roxggrrr) Leaves from my Journal during 
 the Summer of 1851. Second Edition. Plates. PostS8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 GUSTAVUS VASA (History of), King of Sweden. With Extracts 
 
 from his Correspondence. Portrait. 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 HALLAM’S (Henry) Constitutional History of England, from the 
 Accession of Henry the Seventh to the Death of George the Second. 
 Seventh Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 
 History of Europe during the Middle Ages. 
 Tenth Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 
 ________— Introduction to the Literary History of Europe, during 
 the 16th, 17th, and 18th Centuries. Fourth Edition. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s. 
 Literary Essays and Characters, . Selected from the 
 last work. Feap.Svo. 2s. 
 ———__——— Historical Works. Containing the History of Eng- 
 land,—The Middle Ages of Europe,—and the Literary History of 
 Europe. Complete Edition. 10 Vols. Post8vo. 6s. each. 
 
 HAMILTON'S (James) Wanderings in Northern Africa, Benghazi, 
 Cyrene, the Oasis of Siwah, &e. Second Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 (WattEeR) Hindostan, Geographically, Statistically, 
 
 and Historically. Map. 2 Vols. 4to. 94s. 6d. 
 
 HAMPDEN’S (Bisnor) Essay on the Philosophical Evidence of 
 
 Christianity, or the Credibility obtained to a Scripture Revelation 
 from its Coincidence with the Facts of Nature. Svo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 HARCOURT’S (Epwarp Vernon) Sketch of Madeira; with Map 
 and Plates. Post Svo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 HART'S ARMY LIST. (Quarterly and Annually.) 8vo. 
 HAY’S (J. H. Drummony) Western Barbary, its wild Tribes and 
 
 sayage Animals. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 HEBER (Brsnor) Parish Sermons; on the Lessons, the Gospel, 
 
 or the Epistle, for every Snnday in the Year, and for Week-day Festivals. 
 Sixth Edition. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 16s. 
 
 Sermons Preached in England. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s.6d. 
 Hymns written and adapted for the weekly Church 
 Service of the Year. Twelfth Edition. 16mo, 2s. 
 
 Poetical Works. J ith Edition. Portrait. Feap. 8vo. 
 7s. 6d, 
 
 Journey through the Upper Provinces of India, From 
 
 Calentta to Bombay, with a Journey to Madras and the Southern Pro- 
 vinces. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 15 
 
 
 
 HAND-BOOK OF TRAVEL-TALK; or, Conversations in 
 
 English, German, French, andItalian. 18mo. 3s. 6d. 
 NORTH GERMANY—Hottanp, Buztarum, and 
 the Rhine to Switzerland. Map. Post 8vo. ids. 
 
 — SOUTH GERMANY—Bavaria, Austria, Salzberg, 
 the Austrian and Bavarian Alps, the Tyrol, and the Danube, from Ulm 
 to the Black Sea. Map. Post Svo. 10s. 
 
 PAINTING —the German, Flemish, and Dutch 
 Schools: From the Germanof Kucirr. A New Edition, Edited by 
 Dr. WAAGEN. Woodcuts. PostS8yo. (Jn the Press.) 
 
 SWITZERLAND—the Alps of Savoy, and Piedmont. 
 Maps. Post Svo. 9s. 
 FRANCE—Normandy, Brittany, the French 
 
 Alps, the Rivers Loire, Seine, Rhone, and Garonne, Dauphiné, Provence, 
 and the Pyrenees. Maps. Post Svo. 10s. 
 
 SPAIN—Andalusia, Ronda, Granada, Valencia, 
 Catalonia, Gallicia, Arragon, and Navarre. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 30s. 
 PORTUGAL, LISBON, &c. Map. Post 8vo. 9s. 
 PAINTING—Spanise anp Frencn Scnoors. By 
 
 Sir Epmunp HEAD, Barr. Woodeuts. Post8vo. 12s, 
 
 NORTH ITALY—Florence, Sardinia, Genoa, the 
 Riviera, Venice, Lombardy, and Tuscany. Map. Post 8vo. 2 Vols. 12s. 
 
 CENTRAL ITALY—Sovurnx Tuscany and the 
 Papan States. Map. Post 8vo. 7s. 
 
 —___ ROME—AND ITS ENVIRONS. Map. Post 
 
 - 9s. 
 SOUTH ITALY—Naples, Pompeii, Herculaneum, 
 Vesuyius, &c. Map. PostSvo. 10s. 
 
 SICILY. Map. Post 8vo. (Jn the Press.) 
 ____ PAINTING—the Italian Schools. From the Ger- 
 
 man of Kucier. Edited by Sir CHartes EasTiuAKe, R.A. Woodcuts. 
 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 30s. 
 
 ITALIAN PAINTERS: (A Snort Brocrapurcan 
 DIcTIONARY or.) Witha Chart. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 S8vo. 
 
 ss @REEGE—the Ionian Islands, Albania, Thessaly, 
 
 and Macedonia. Maps. PostS8vo. 15s. 
 TURKEY—Matta, Asta Minor, Constantinople, 
 Armenia, Mesopotamia, &c. Maps. Post Syo. 
 EGYPT—Thebes, the Nile, Alexandria, Cairo, 
 the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &e. Map. Post 8vo. lbs. 
 SYRIA AND PALESTINE; the Peninsula of 
 Sinai, Edom, and the Syrian Desert. Maps. 2Vols. Post 8vo. 24s. 
 . INDIA.—Part 1. Bombay and Madras. Map. 
 
 2Vols. Post8vo. 24s. 
 
 DENMARK—Norway and Swepen. Maps. Post 
 
 8yo 
 
 a) (hDSs 
 _________ RUSSIA—Tux Battie anp Finnanp. Maps. Post 
 
 8vo. 12s. 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 HANDBOOK OF LONDON, Past anp Present. Alphabetically 
 arranged. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 16s. 
 
 MODERN LONDON. A Guide to all objects 
 of interest in the Metropolis. Map. 16mo. ds. 
 
 ———— ENVIRONS OF LONDON. Including a Circle of 
 30 Miles round St.Paul’s. Maps. Post Syo. (In preparation.) 
 
 DEVON AND CORNWALL. Maps. Post 8vo. 
 WILTS, DORSET, AND SOMERSET. Map. Post 
 
 
 
 Syo. 
 
 KENT AND SUSSEX. Map. Post 8vo. 10s. 
 SURREY, HANTS, and the Isle of Wight. 
 Maps. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 WESTMINSTER ABBEY—its Art, Architecture, 
 and Associations. Woodcuts. 16mo. Is, 
 — CATHEDRALS OF ENGLAND. Post 8vo. In 
 Preparation. 
 PARIS. Post 8vo:. | (dn Preparation.) 
 - FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS. Chiefly from English 
 Authors. ZUhird Edition. Fcap.8vo. 5s. 
 ——— ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise and Popular 
 
 Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and Countries. 
 By James Fereusson. Sourth Thousand. With 850 Illustrations. 
 S8vo. 26s. 
 
 ——_————. ARTS OF THE MIDDLE AGES AND RE- 
 naissance. By M. Jules Labarte. With 200 Illustrations. Svo. 18s. 
 
 HEAD’S (Srr Francis) Rough Notes of some Rapid Journeys across 
 the Pampas and over the Andes. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Descriptive Essays: contributed to the “ Quarterly 
 
 Review.” 2 Vols. PostSvo. 18s. 
 
 Bubbles from the Brunnen of Nassau. By an Oxp Man. 
 Siath Edition. 16mo. 5s. 
 
 Emigrant. Sixth Edition. Feap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Stokers and Pokers; or, the London and North-Western 
 Railway. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 . 
 Defenceless State of Great Britain. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 Faggot of French Sticks; or, Sketches of Paris. 
 New Edition. 2 Vols. PostS8vo. 12s. 
 
 Fortnight in Ireland. Second Edition. Map. 8vo. 12s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (Str Grorcr) Forest Scenes and Incidents in Canada. 
 Second Edition. Post 8vo. 10s. 
 
 — Home Tour through the Manufacturing Districts of 
 England, Scotland, and Ireland, including the Channel Islands, and the 
 Isle of Man. Zhird Edition. 2 Vols. Post Svo. 12s. 
 
 —_—— (Sr Epmunp) Handbook of Painting—the Spanish 
 
 and French Schools. With Illustrations. Post Svo. 
 
 Shall and Will; or, Two Chapters on Future Auxiliary 
 
 Verbs. Second Edition, Enlarged. Feap.8vo. 4s. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 17 
 
 ee eee 
 
 HEIRESS (Tux) in Her Minority; or, The Progress of Character. 
 By the Author of “BrrtHa’s JounNAL.” 2 Vols. 12mo. 18s, 
 
 HERODOTUS. A New English Version. Edited with Notes, 
 and Essays. By Rev. G. Rawuwtnson, assisted by Sir Henry 
 BAWLinson, and Siz J. G. WILKixson. Maps and Woodcuts. 4 Vols. 
 Svo. 18s. each. 
 
 HERVEY’S (Lorp) Memoirs of the Reign of George the Second, 
 from his Accession to the Death of Queen Caroline. Edited, with Notes 
 by Mr. Croker. Second Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. 8vo. 21s. 
 
 HICKMAN’S (Wm.) Treatise on the Law and Practice of Naval 
 Courts Martial. Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 HILLARD’S (G. S.) Six Months in Italy. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. i6s. 
 HISTORY OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE ounper THE Hovsr 
 
 or LANCASTER. With an Introductory View of the Early Reformation. 
 Second Edition. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 HOLLAND'S (Rev. W. B.) Psalms and Hymns, selected and 
 adapted to the various Solemnities ofthe Church. Third Edition. 24mo. 
 1s. 3d. 
 
 HOLLWAY’S (J. G.) Month in Norway. Feap. 8vo. 2s. 
 HONEY BEE (Tur). An Essay. By Ruy. Tuomas JAMES. 
 
 Reprinted from the “ Quarterly Review.” Fcap.Svo. 1s. 
 HOOK’S (Rev. Dr.) Church Dictionary. Highth Edition. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 ______ Discourses on the Religious Controversies of the Day. 
 8yo. 9s. 
 
 (Turoporr) Life. By J. G. Looxnart. Reprinted from the 
 
 “ Quarterly Review.” Feap.8vo. 1s. 
 By 
 
 HOOKERS (Dr.J. D.) Himalayan Journals ; or, Notes ofan Oriental 
 Naturalist in Bengal, the Sikkim and Nepal Himalayas, the Khasia 
 Mountains, &c. Second Edition, Woodeuts. 2 vols. Post Svo. 18s. 
 
 HOOPER’S (Lievt.) Ten Months among the Tents of the Tuski; 
 with Incidents of an Arctic Boat Expedition in Search of Sir John 
 Franklin. Plates, Svo. 14s. 
 
 HORACE (Works of). Edited by Dean Muay, With 300 
 
 Woodcuts. Crown S8yo. 21s. 
 
 _+—— (Life of). By Dzan Mizmay. Woodcuts, and coloured 
 
 Borders. Syo. 9s. 
 HOSPITALS AND SISTERHOODS. By a Lavy. Feap. 8vo. 
 3s. 6d. 
 
 HOUSTOUN’S (Mrs.) Yacht Voyage to Texas and the Gulf of 
 Mexico. Plates. 2 Vols. PostSvo. 21s. 
 
 
 
 Cc 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 18 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 HOME AND COLONIAL LIBRARY. Complete in 70 Parts. 
 
 Post Svo, 2s. 6d. each, or bound in 34 Volumes, cloth. 
 
 CONTENTS OF THE SERIES. 
 
 THE BIBLE IN SPAIN. By Grorce Borrow. 
 
 JOURNALS IN INDIA. By Pisuop Heser. 
 
 TRAVELS IN THE HOLY LAND. By Caprarss Inpy and MANGLES. 
 THE SIEGE OF GIBRALTAR. By Joun DRInKWATER. 
 MOROCCO AND THE MOORS. By J. Drummonp Hay, 
 LETTERS FROM THE BALTIC. By a Lapy. 
 
 THE AMBER-WITCH. By Lavy Durr Gorpon. 
 
 OLIVER CROMWELL & JOHN BUNYAN. By Rozert SouTHEy. 
 NEW SOUTH WALES. By Mrs. MEReEpITH. 
 
 LIFE OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE. By Joun Barrow. 
 
 FATHER RIPA’S MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF CHINA 
 
 A RESIDENCE IN THE WEST INDIES. By M.G. Lewis. 
 SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By Sir Jonny MAtcoum. 
 
 THE FRENCH IN ALGIERS. By Lavy Durr Gorpon. 
 
 VOYAGE OF A NATURALIST. By Cuartes Darwin. 
 
 HISTORY OF THE FALL OF THE JESUITS. 
 
 LIFE OF LOUIS PRINCE OF CONDE. By Lorp Manon. 
 GIPSIES OF SPAIN. By GrorcEe Borrow. 
 
 THE MARQUESAS. By Hermann MELVILLE. 
 
 LIVONIAN TALES. By a Lapy. 
 
 MISSIONARY LIFE IN CANADA. By Rev. J. Assorr. 
 
 SALE’S BRIGADE IN AFFGHANISTAN. By Rey. G. R. Guzte. 
 LETTERS FROM MADRAS. By a Lavy. 
 
 HIGHLAND SPORTS. By CHA&LEs Sr. JOHN. 
 
 JOURNEYS ACROSS THE PAMPAS. By Sir F. B. Heap. 
 GATHERINGS FROM SPAIN. By RicHarp Forp. 
 
 SIEGES OF VIENNA BY THE TURKS. By Lorp ExLresmereE, 
 SKETCHES OF GERMAN LIFE. By Sim A. Gorpon. 
 ADVENTURES IN THE SOUTH SEAS. By Hermann MELVILLE. 
 STORY OF BATTLE OF WATERLOO. By Rev. G.R. GueEic. 
 A VOYAGE UP THE RIVER AMAZON. By W.H. Epwarps. 
 THE WAYSIDE CROSS. By Cart. Mitmayn. 
 
 MANNERS & CUSTOMS OF INDIA. By Rev.C. Actanp. 
 CAMPAIGNS AT WASHINGTON. By Rev.G. R. Guzic. 
 ADVENTURES IN MEXICO. By G. F. Rouxron. 
 
 PORTUGAL AND GALLICIA. By Lorp Carnarvon. 
 
 LIFE OF LORD CLIVE. By Ruy. G. R. Gueta. 
 
 BUSH LIFE IN AUSTRALIA. By H. W. Hayaarrtz. 
 
 THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF HENRY STEFFENS. 
 
 SHORT LIVES OF THE POETS. By THomas CAMPBELL. 
 HISTORICAL ESSAYS. By Lorp Manon. 
 
 LONDON & NORTH-WESTERN RAILWAY. By Sie F. B. Heap. 
 ADVENTURES IN THE LIBYAN DESERT. By Bay e Sr. Joun. 
 A RESIDENCE AT SIERRA LEONE. By a Lapy. 
 
 LIFE OF GENERAL MUNRO. By Rev. G. R. Guetia. 
 
 MEMOIRS OF SIR FOWELL BUXTON. By his Son. 
 
 a 
 

 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 19 
 
 
 
 HUME (Tux Srupent’s). A History of England, from the In- 
 vasion of Julius Cesar. Based on Hume's History, and continued to 
 1858. Woodeuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. (Uniform with The Student's Gibbon.) 
 
 HUTCHINSON (Contonen) on Dog-Breaking; the most expe- 
 ditious, certain, and easy Method, whether great Excellence or only 
 Mediocrity be required. Third Edition. Revised and enlarged. Woodcuts. 
 Post 8yo. 9s. 
 
 IRBY AND MANGLES’ Travels in Egypt, Nubia, Syria, and 
 
 the Holy Land, including a Journey round the Dead Sea, and through 
 the Country east of the Jordan. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 JAMES’ (Rev. Tuomas) Fables of Msop. A New Translation, with 
 Historical Preface. With 100 Woodenuts by TENNIEL and WoLer. 
 Twenty-sizth Thousand. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 JAMESON’S (Mrs.) Memoirs of the Early Italian Painters, and 
 of the Progress of Italian Painting in Italy. Tenth Edition. With 
 70 Woodcuts. Feap. 8yo. 6s. 
 
 JAPAN AND THE JAPANESE; Described from the Accounts 
 of Recent Dutch Travellers, New Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 JARDINE’S (Davin) Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot. New 
 Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 JERVIS’S (Capt.) Manual of Operations in the Field, for the Use of 
 Officers. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 JESSE’S (Epwarp) Favorite Haunts and Rural Studies; or Visits 
 to Spots of Interest in the Vicinity of Windsor and Eton. Woodcuts. 
 Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 Scenes and Occupations of Country Life. With Recol- 
 lections of Natural History. Third Edition. Woodcuts. Feap. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Gleanings in Natural History. With Anecdotes of the 
 Sagacity and Instinct of Animals. Highth Edition. Feap. 8vo. 6s. 
 
 JOHNSON’S (Dr. Samvrr) Life: By James Boswell. Including 
 the Tour to the Hebrides, with Notes by Sir W.Scorr. Edited by 
 the late Mr. Croker. Third Edition. Portraits. RoyalSvo. 15s. 
 
 Lives of the most eminent English Poets. A New 
 Edition. Edited by Prrer CunninGHAmM. 38 vols. Svo. 22s. 6d. 
 
 (Murray’s British Classics.) 
 JOHNSTON’S (Wm.) England as it is: Social, Political, and 
 Industrial, in the Middle of the 19th Century. 2 Vols. Post8vo. 18s. 
 
 JOURNAL OF A NATURALIST. Fourth Edition. Woodcuts. 
 Post 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 JOWETT’S (Rev. B.) Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the 
 
 Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans. With Notes and Dissertations. 
 Second Edition. 2 Vols. 8yo. 
 
 JONES’ (Rev. R.) Literary Remains. Consisting of his Lectures 
 
 and Tracts on Political Economy. With a Prefatory Notice. By Rev. 
 W.WHEWELL, D.D. Portrait. Svo. 14s. 
 
 KEN’S (Brsuop) Life. By A Layman. Second Edition. Portrait, 
 2Vols. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 c 2 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 20 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 KEN’S (Bisuop) Exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. Extracted 
 from his “ Practice of Divine Love.” New Edition. Feap. 1s. 6d. 
 
 —— Approach to the Holy Altar. Extracted from his “ Manual 
 of Prayer” and “Practice of Divine Love.’ New Edition. Fcap. 8ve. 
 1s. 6d. 
 
 KING’S (Rev. 8S. W.) Italian Valleys of the Alps; a Tour 
 through all the Romantic and less-frequented “Vals” of Northern 
 
 Piedmont, from the Tarentaise tothe Gries. With Illustrations. Crown 
 8vo. 18s. 
 
 KING EDWARD ViIrn’s Latin Grammar; or, an Introduction 
 to the Latin Tongue, for the Use of Schools. 12th Edition. 12mo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 First Latin Book; or, the Accidence, 
 
 Syntax and Prosody, with an English Translation for the Use of Junior 
 Classes. Third Edition. 12mo. 2s. 
 
 KNAPP’S (J. A.) English Roots and Ramifications; or, the 
 
 Derivation and Meaning of Divers Words. Feap.S8vo. 4s. 
 
 KUGLER’S (Dr, Franz) Handbook to the History of Painting 
 (the Italian Schools). Translated from the German. Edited, with 
 Notes, by Sir CHARLES EastuaKks. Third Edition. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 
 Post 8vo. 30s. 
 
 
 
 (the German, Dutch, and 
 Flemish Schools). Translated from the German. A New Edition. 
 Edited, with Notes. By Dr. WAaGcen. Woodeuts. PostSvo. Nearly 
 Ready. 
 
 LABARTH’S (M. Junzs) Handbook of the Aris of the Middle Ages 
 and Renaissance. With 200 Woodeuts. Svo. 18s. 
 
 LABORDE’S (Lxon Dr) Journey through Arabia Petrzea, to Mount 
 Sinai, and the Excavated City of Petraea,—the Edom of the Prophecies. 
 Second Edition. With Plates. Svo. 18s. 
 
 LANES (E. W.) Arabian Nights. Translated from the Arabic, 
 with Explanatory Notes. A New Hdition. Edited by E. Sranney 
 PooLe. With 600 Woodcuts. 3 Vols. Svo. 42s. 
 
 LATIN GRAMMAR (Kine Epwarp tue VIrn’s.) For the Use 
 of Schools. Zwelfth Edition. 12mo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 ——— First Book (Kine Epwarp VI.); or, the Accidence, 
 Syntax, and Prosody, with English Translation for Junior Classes. 
 Third Edition. 12mo. 2s. 
 
 LAYARD’S (A. H.) Nineveh and its Remains. Being a Nar- 
 rative of Researches and Discoveries amidst the Ruins of Assyria. 
 With an Account of the Chaldean Christians of Kurdistan; the Yezedis, 
 or Devil-worshippers; and an Enquiry into the Manners and Arts of 
 the Ancient Assyrians. Sixth Edition. Plates and Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 
 Svo. 36s. 
 
 ————_————— Nineveh and Babylon; being the Result 
 of a Second Expedition to Assyria. Fourteenth Thousand. Plates. 
 Svo. 2ls. Or Fine Paper, 2 Vols. 8vo. 30s. 
 
 ———— Popular Account of Nineveh. 15th Edition. With 
 Woodeuts. PostS8vo. 5s. 
 
 LESLIE'S (C. R.) Handbook for Young Painters. With Illustra- 
 tions, Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds. With an Account 
 2 his Works, and a Sketch of his Cotemporaries. Feap.4to. In the 
 TESS. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 21 
 
 
 
 LEAKB’S (Cot. W. Marti) Topography of Athens, with Remarks 
 on its Antiquities; to which is added, the Demi of Attica. Second 
 Edition. Plates. 2 Vols.dvo. sus. 
 
 Travels in Northern Greece. Mass. 4 Vols. 8vo. 60s, 
 
 ——_——— Disputed Questions of Ancient Geography. Map. 
 
 Svo. 6s.6d. 
 
 Numismata Hellenica. A Catalogue of Greek Coins. 
 With Map and Appendix. 4to. 63s. 
 
 Peloponnesiaca: A Supplement to Travels in the Morea. 
 Svo. 15s. 
 
 Thoughts on the Degradation of Science in England. 
 S8vo. 3s.6d. 
 
 LETTERS FROM THE SHORES OF THE BALTIC. By a 
 
 Lavy. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Madras; or, First Impressions of Life and 
 Manners in India. By a Lapy. Post8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Sierra Leone, written to Friends at Home. 
 By a Lapy. Edited by Mrs. Norron. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Head Quarters; or, The Realities of the War 
 
 in the Crimea. By a Srarr OrricerR. Popular Edition. Plans. 
 Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 LEXINGTON (Tar) PAPERS; or, Some Account of the Courts 
 of London and Vienna at the end of the 17th Century. Edited by Hon. 
 H. MANNERS Sutron. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 LEWIS’ (Sir G. C.) Essay on the Government of Dependencies. 
 8vo. 12s. 
 
 —___——- Glossary of Provincial Words used in Herefordshire and 
 
 some of the adjoining Counties. 12mo. 4s, 6d. 
 
 ———— (Lapy Tueresa) Friends and Contemporaries of the 
 Lord Chancellor Clarendon, illustrative of Portraits in his Gallery. 
 With a Descriptive Account of the Pictures, and Origin of the Collec- 
 tion. Portraits. 3 Vols.8vo. 42s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 —— (M. G.) Journal of a Residence among the Negroes in the 
 
 West Indies. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 LIDDELL’S (Dean) History of Rome. From the Harliest Times 
 to the Establishment of the Empire. With the History of Literature 
 and Art, Library Edition. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 
 
 SCHOOL HISTORY OF ROME. Abridged from 
 the Larger Work. Tenth Thousand. With 100 Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 
 7s. 6d. 
 
 LINDSAY’S (Lorp) Lives of the Lindsays; or, a Memoir of the 
 
 Houses of Crawford and Balcarres. With Extracts from Official Papers 
 and Personal Narratives. Second Edition. 3 Vols. Svo. 24s. 
 
 Report of the Claim of James, Earl of Crawfurd and 
 Balcarres, to the Original Dukedom of Montrose, created in 1488. 
 
 Folio. 15s. 
 LITTLE ARTHUR'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By Lapy 
 
 CatucoTr. Highteenth Edition. With 20 Woodcuts. Fecap. 8vo. 
 2s. 6d. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 22 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 LIVINGSTONE'’S (Rev. Dr.) Missionary Travels and Researches 
 
 in South Africa; including a Sketch of Sixteen Years’ Residence in 
 the Interior of Africa, and a Journey from the Cape of Good Hope to 
 Loanda on the West Coast; thence across the Continent, down the 
 River Zambesi, to the Eastern Ocean. Thirtieth Thousand. Map, 
 Plates, andIndex. 8yo. 21s. 
 
 LIVONIAN TALES.—The Disponent.—The Wolves.—The Jewess. 
 By the Author of “Letters from the Baltic.” Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 LOCKHART’S (J. G.) Ancient Spanish Ballads. Historical and 
 
 Romantic. Translated,with Notes. Illustrated Edition. 4to. 2ls. Or, 
 Fopular Edition. Post 8yo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 - Life of Robert Burns. Fifth Hdition. Feap. 8vo. 3s. 
 
 LOUDON’S (Mrs.) Instructions in Gardening for Ladies. With 
 Directions and Calendar of Operations for Every Month. Zighth 
 Edition. Woodecuis. Feap. 8vo. ds. 
 
 - Modern Botany; a Popular Introduction to the 
 Natural System of Plants. Second Edition. Woodeuts. Feap. 8vo. 6s. 
 LOWE’S (Str Hopson) Letters and Journals, during the Captivity 
 
 of Napoleon at St. Helena. By Witi1aAm ForsyTu. Portrait. 3 Vols. 
 8yo. 45s. : 
 
 LUCKNOW: A Lady’s Diary of the Siege. Written for Friends 
 at Home. Yourth Thousand. Feap.8vo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 LYELL’S (Str Cuaruzs) Principles of Geology; or, the Modern 
 Changes of the Earth and its Inhabitants considered as illustrative of 
 Geology. Ninth Edition. Woodcuts.- 8vo. 18s. 
 
 Manual of Elementary Geology ; or, the Ancient Changes 
 
 of the Earth and its Inhabitants illustrated by its Geological Monuments. 
 Fifth Edition. Woodeuts. 8yvo. 14s. 
 
 Visits to the United States, 1841-46. Second Hdition. 
 Plates. 4 Vols. Post8vo. 24s. 
 MAHON’S (Lorp) History of England, from the Peace of Utrecht 
 to the Peace of Versailles, 1713—83. Library Edition. 7 Vols. 8vo. 938s. 
 — Popular Edition. 7 Vols. Post 8vo. 35s, 
 “ Forty-Five ;” a Narrative of the Rebellion in Scot- 
 land. Post 8yo. 3s. 
 
 History of British India from its Origin till the Peace 
 of 1783. Post 8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 History of the War of the Succession in Spain. Second 
 Edition. Map. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 Spain under Charles the Second; or, Extracts from the 
 Correspondence of the Hon. ALEXANDER STANHOPE, British Minister at 
 Madrid from 1690 to 1700. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 6s. 6d. 
 
 Life of Louis Prince of Condé, surnamed the Great. 
 Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Life of Belisarius, Second dition. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 —___——— Historical and Critical Essays. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 Story of Joan of Arc. Feap. 8vo. 1s. 
 
 Addresses Delivered at Manchester, Leeds, and Bir- 
 mingham. Feap. 8yo. 1s. 
 
 M*°CULLOCH’S (J. R.) Collected Edition of Rroarpo’s Political 
 Works. With Notesand Memoir. Second Edition. Svo. 16s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 ee 
 

 
 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 23 
 
 
 
 MALCOLM’S (S1r Joun) Sketches of Persia. Third Edition. 
 Post Svo. 6s. 
 MANSEL’S (Rev. H. L.) The Limits of Religious Thought 
 
 Examined. Being the Bampton Lectures for 1858. Third Edition. 
 with a Preface. Svo. 12s. 
 
 MANTELL’S (Gipnon A.) Thoughts on Animaleules; or, the 
 
 Invisible World, as revealed by the Microscope. Second Edition. Plates. 
 16mo. 6s. 
 
 MANUAL OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, Prepared for the Use of 
 
 Officers and Travellers. By various Writers. Third Edition revised. 
 Maps. Post 8vo. (Published by order of the Lords of the Admiralty.) 
 
 MARKHAM’S (Mrs.) History of England. From the First Inva- 
 
 sion by the Romans, down to the fourteenth year of Queen Victoria’s 
 Reign. 98th Edition. Woodeuts. 12mo. 6s. 
 
 History of France. From the Conquest by the Gauls, 
 to the Death of Louis Philippe. 58th Edition. Woodeuts. 12mo. 6s. 
 
 History of Germany. From the Invasion by Marius, 
 to the present time. 6th Edition. Woodents. 12mo. 6s. 
 
 School History of Greece. From the Harliest 
 Times of the Roman Conquest. With the History of Literature and 
 
 Art. By Dr. Wm. Suirn. Sixteenth Thousand. Woodeuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d. 
 (Questions, 12mo. 2s.) 
 
 School History of Rome, from the Earliest 
 Times to the Establishment of the Empire. With the History of 
 Literature aud Art, By Dean Lippy. Lighth Thousand. Woodcuts. 
 12mo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 MARKLAND’S (J. H.) Reverence due to Holy Places. Third 
 Edition. Feap.8vo, 2s. 
 
 MARRYAT’S (JoszpH) History of Modern and Medizval Fottery 
 and Porcelain. With a Description of the Manufacture, a Glossary, 
 and a List of Monograms. Second Edition. Plates and Woodcuts. 
 Syo. 31s. 6d. 
 
 MATTHIA’S (Aveustus) Greek Grammar for Schools. Abridged 
 from the LargerGrammar. By Blomfield. Ninth Edition. Revised by 
 Epwarbs. 12mo. 3s. 
 
 MAUREL’S (Juuus) Essay on the Character, Actions, and Writings 
 of the Duke of Wellington. Second Edition. Feap.8vo. 1s. 6d. 
 
 MAWE'’S (H. L.) Journal of a Passage from the Pacific to the 
 
 Atlantic, crossing the Andes in the Northeru Provinces of Pern, and 
 descending the great River Maranon. Syvo, 12s. 
 
 MAXIMS AND HINTS for an Angler, and the Miseries of 
 Fishing. By RicHarp PENN. New Hdition. Woodcuts. 12mo. is, 
 
 MAYO’S (Dr.) Pathology of the Human Mind. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 MELVILLE’S (Hermann) Typee and Omoo; or, Adventures 
 
 amongst the Marquesas and South Sea Islands. 2 Vols. Post 8yo. 
 
 MENDELSSOHN’S (Feurx Barruoupy) Life. By Jutzs Benepror, 
 Syo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 MEREDITH'S (Mrs. Craruus) Notes and Sketches of New South 
 Wales, during a Residence from 1839 to 1844. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 24 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 MEREDITH’S (Mrs. Cuartes) Tasmania, during a Residence of 
 Nine Years. With Illustrations. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 18s, 
 
 MERRIFIELD (Mrs.) on the Arts of Painting in Oil, Miniature, 
 
 Mosaic, and Glass; Gilding, Dyeing, and the Preparation of Colours 
 and Artificial Gems, described in several old Manuscripts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 30s. 
 
 MILLS (Arruvr) India in 1858; A Summary of the Existing 
 Administration—Political, Fiscal, and Judicial; with Laws and Public 
 Documents, from the earliest to the present time. Second Edition. With 
 Coloured Revenue Map. S8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 MITCHELL'S (Tuomas) Plays of Aristophanes. With English 
 Notes. 8vo.—1.CLOUDS, 10s.—2. WASPS, 10s.—3. FROGS, 15s. 
 
 MILMAN’S (Dean) History of Christianity, from the Birth of 
 Christ to the Extinction of Paganism in the Roman Empire. 3 Vols. 
 Svo. 36s. 
 
 History of Latin Christianity; including that of the 
 Popes to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. Second Edition. 6 Vols. 8vo. 72s. 
 
 ——_——— Character and Conduct of the Apostles considered as 
 an Evidence of Christianity. Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 —_—_—— Life and Works of Horace. With 300 Woodcuts. 
 
 New Edition. 2 Vols. Crown 8vo. 30s. 
 
 —_———— Poetical Works. Plates. 3 Vols. Feap. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 Fall of Jerusalem. Fcap. 8vo. Is. 
 
 (Carr. E. A.) Wayside Cross; or, the Raid of Gomez. 
 A Tale of the Carlist War. Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 MODERN DOMESTIC COOKERY. Founded on Principles of 
 
 Economy and Practical Knowledge, and adapted for Private Families. 
 New Edition. Woodcuts. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 
 
 MOLTKE’S (Baron) Russian Campaigns on the Danube and the 
 Passage of the Balkan, 1828—9. Plans. Svo. 14s. 
 
 MONASTERY AND THE MOUNTAIN CHURCH. By Author 
 of “Sunlight through the Mist.’’ Woodeuts. 16mo. 4s. 
 
 MOORE’S (Tuomas) Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Cabinet 
 Edition. 6 Vols. Feap.8vo. 18s. 
 Life and Letters of Lord Byron. Popular Ldition. 
 With Portrait and Vignette. One Volume. Royal Svo. 12s. 
 
 MOZLEY’S (Rey. J. B.) Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of 
 
 Predestination. Svo. 14s. 
 Primitive Doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration. 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 MUCK MANUAL (The) for the Use of Farmers. A Practical Treatise 
 
 on the Chemical Properties, Management, and Application of Manures. 
 By FREDERICK FALKNER. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 
 
 MUNDY’S (Gen.) Pen and Pencil Sketches during a Tour 
 in India. Third Edition. Plates. Post Svo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 MUNRO’S (Gunerat Sir THomas) Life and Letters. By the Rev. 
 G. R.GuieiG. Post Svo. 6s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 bo 
 Or 
 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 
 
 
 
 MURCHISON’S (Sir Roprnricx) Russia in Europe and the Ural 
 Mountains; Geologically Illustrated. With Coloured Maps, Plates, 
 Sections, &c. 2 Vols. Royal 4to. 
 
 
 
 Siluria ; or, a History of the Oldest Rocks con- 
 taining Organie Remains. Third Edition. Map and Plates. S8vo. 42s. 
 
 MURRAY’S (Carr. A.) Naval Life and Services of Admiral Sir 
 Philip Durham. 8vo. 5s. 6d. 
 
 MURRAY’S RAILWAY READING. For all classes of Readers. 
 
 [Lhe following are published :] 
 WELLINGTON. By Lorp ELLESMERE. 6d. Manon’s Joan or Arc. ls. 
 
 
 
 NIMROD ON THE CHASE, ls. Heap’s Emicrant. 2s. 6d. 
 
 Essays rrom “Tux Times.” 2 Vols. 8s. Nimrop on THE Roap, ls. 
 
 Music anp Dress. ls. WILKINSON’s ANCIENT EoypriaNns. 128, 
 Layanrp’s Account or NINEVEH. ds. CROKER ON THE GUILLOTINE. ls. 
 Miuman’s Faut or JERUSALEM. 18, Houtway’s Norway. 2s. 
 
 Maunon’s “Forty-Frive.” 3s. Maure.’s Weiuincton. 1s. 6d. 
 
 Lirz or THEopore Hook. Is. Camrse.t’s Lire or Bacon. 2s. 6d. 
 Deeps or Nava Darinc. 2 Vols. 5s. Tuer Frowkr GarpeNn. ls. 
 
 Tur Honey Bee. ls. Lockuarr’s Spanisu Bautavs. 2s. 6d. 
 James’ Msor’s Fasies. 2s. 6d. Lucas on History. Gd. 
 
 Nimrop on THE Turr. Is. 6d. BEAvuTIES OF Byron. 3s. 
 
 OxvrpHant’s NepauL. 2s. 6d. Tayior’s Notes rrom Lire. 2s. 
 Art or Dinine. Is. 6d. Resecter ADDRESSES. ls. 
 
 Havwuam’s Lirerary Essays. 28, Penn’s HINTS ON ANGLING. ls. 
 
 MUSIC AND DRESS. Two Essays, by a Lady. Reprinted from 
 the “ Quarterly Review.” Feap.8vo. 1s. 
 NAPIER’S (Sir Wu.) English Battles and Sieges of the Peninsular 
 War. Third Edition. Portrait. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 life and Opinions of General Sir Charles Napier ; 
 
 chiefly derived from his Journals, Letters, and Familiar Correspon- 
 dence. Second Edition. Portraits. 4 Vols. Post 8vo. 48s. 
 
 NAUTICAL ALMANACK (The). Royal 8vo. 2s. 6d. (Published 
 by Authority.) 
 
 NAVY LIST (The Quarterly). (Published by Authority.) 
 Post 8vo. 2s. 6d. . 
 
 NEWBOLD’'S (Lievt.) Straits of Malacca, Penang, and Singapore. 
 2 Vols. Svo. 26s. 
 
 NEWDEGATHE’S (C. N.) Customs’ Tariffs of all Nations; collected 
 and arranged up to the year 1855. 4to. 30s. 
 
 NICHOLLS’ (Six Grorez) History of the British Poor: Being 
 an Historical Account of the English, Scotch, and Irish Poor Law: in 
 connection with the Condition of the People. 4 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 The work may be had separately :— 
 History of the English Poor. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 
 
 — thelrish Poor. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 the Scotch Poor. Svo. 12s. 
 
 (Rev. H. G.) Historical and Descriptive Account 
 of the Forest of Dean, derived from Personal Observation and 
 
 other Sources, Public, Private, Legendary, and Local. Woodcuts, &c. 
 Post Svo. 10s. 6a. 
 
 NICOLAS’ (Str Harris) Historic Peerage of England. LExhi- 
 biting, under Alphabetical Arrangement, the Origin, Descent, and 
 Present State of every Title of Peerage which has existed in this 
 Country since the Conquest. Being a New Edition of the “Synopsis of 
 the Peerage.” Revised, Corrected, and Continued to the Present Time. 
 By WititiAm CourrHore, Somerset Herald. S8vo. 30s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 26 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 NIMROD On the Chace—The Turf—and The Road. Reprinted 
 from the “Quarterly Review.” Woodeuts. Feap.8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 O'CONNOR'S (R.) Field Sports of France ; or, Hunting, Shooting, 
 and Fishing on the Continent. Woodcuts. 12mo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 OLIPHANT’S (Lavrence) Journey to Katmandu, with Visit to 
 the Camp of the Nepaulese Ambassador. Feap.S8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 OWEN’S (Proressor) Manual of Fossil Mammals. Including the 
 
 substance of the course of Lectures on Osteology and Paleontology of 
 the class Mammalia, delivered at the Metropolitan School of Science 
 Jermyn Street. Illustrations. Svo. Jn the Press. 
 
 OXENHAWM’S (Rev. W.) English Notes for Latin Elegiacs ; designed 
 for early Proficients in the Art of Latin Versification, with Prefatory 
 Rules of Composition in Elegiac Metre. Third Edition. 12mo. 4s. 
 
 PAGET’S (Jonn) Hungary and Transylvania. With Remarks on 
 their Condition, Social, Political, and Economical. Third Edition. 
 Woodceuts. 2 Vols. Svo. 18s. 
 
 PARIS’ (Dr.) Philosophy in Sport made Science in Ear- 
 nest; or, the First Principles of Natural Philosophy inculeated by aid 
 of the Toys and Sports of Youth. Jighth dition. Woodcuts. 
 Post Svo. 9s. 
 
 PARKYNS’ (Mansrrexp) Personal Narrative of Three Years’ Resi- 
 
 dence and Adventures in Abyssinia. Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Svo. 380s. 
 
 PEEL'S (Sir Rost.) MEMOIRS. Left in MSS. Edited by 
 Eart STannorre and the Right Hon. Epwarp CaRpWeELL. 2 Vols. 
 Post Svo. 7s. 6d. each. 
 
 PHILE’S (Rey. Dz.) Agamemnon and Choephoree of Alschylus. 
 A New Edition of the Text, with Notes. Second Edition. 2 Vols. 
 Syo. 9s. each. 
 
 PENN’S (Ricuarp) Maxims and Hints for an Angler, and the 
 
 Miseries of Fishing. To which is added, Maxims and Hints for a 
 Chess-player. New Edition. Woodcuts. Feap.8vo. Is. 
 
 PENROSE’S (Rav. Joun) Faith and Practice ; an Exposition of the 
 Principles and Duties of Natural and Revealed Religion. Post 8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 — (F. C.) Principles of Athenian Architecture, and the 
 Optical Refinements exhibited in the Construction of the Ancient 
 Buildings at Athens, from a Survey. With 40 Plates. Folio. 5. 
 (Published under the direction of the Dilettanti Society.) 
 
 PERRY’S (Srr Erskine) Bird’s-Eye View of India. With Extracts 
 
 from a Journal kept in the Provinces, Nepaul, &c. Feap.8vo, 5s, 
 PHILLIPS’ (Joux) Memoirs of William Smith, LL.D. (the Geo- 
 logist). Portrait. 8yvo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Geology of Yorkshire, The Yorkshire Coast, and the 
 Mountain-Limestone District. Plates 4to. Part I., 20s. —Part IT., 30s. 
 
 
 
 — Rivers, Mountains, and Sea Coast of Yorkshire, 
 With Essays on the Climate, Scenery, and Ancient Inhabitants of the 
 Country. Second Edition, with 36 Plates. Svo. 15s. 
 
 
 
PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 27 
 
 
 
 PHILPOTT’S (Bisxor) Letters to the late Charles Butler, on the 
 
 Theological parts of his ‘‘ Book of the Roman Catholie Church ; ” with 
 Remarks on certain Works of Dr. Milner and Dr. Lingard, and on some 
 parts of the Evidence of Dr. Doyle. Second Edition. S8vo. 16s. 
 
 PHIPPS’ (Hon. Epuunn) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and 
 Unpublished Diaries of Robert Plumer Ward. Portrait. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 
 
 POPE'S (Auexanper) WORKS. An entirely New Edition. Edited, 
 with Notes. Svo. Jn the Press. 
 
 PORTER'S (Rev. J. L.) Five Years in Damascus. With Travels to 
 Palmyra, Lebanon, and other Scripture Sites. Map and Woodcuts. 
 2vols. PostSvo. 21s. 
 
 HANDBOOK FOR SYRIA AND PALESTINE: 
 
 including an Account of the Geography, History, Antiquities, and 
 Inhabitants of these Countries, the Peninsula of Sinai, Edom, and the 
 Syrian Desert. Maps. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 24s. 
 
 (Mrs.) Rational Arithmetic for Schools and for 
 Private Instruction. 12mo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 PRAYER-BOOK (The Illustrated), with 1000 Mlustrations of Bor- 
 ders, Initials, Vignettes, &c. Medium 8vo. Cloth, 21s.; Calf, 31s. 6d.; 
 Morocco, 42s. 
 
 PRECEPTS FOR THE CONDUCT OF LIFE. Exhortations to 
 
 a Virtuous Course and Dissuasions from a Vicious Career. Extracted 
 from the Scriptures. Second Edition. FPeap. 8yo. 1s. 
 PRINSEP’S (Jas.) Essays on Indian Antiquities, Historic, 
 
 Numismatic, and Paleographic, with Tables, illustrative of Indian 
 History, Chronology. Modern Coinages, Weights, Measures, &c. 
 Edited by EpwArv Tuomas. Illustrations. 2 Vols. Svo. 52s. 6d. 
 
 PROGRESS OF RUSSIA IN THE EAST, An Historical Sum- 
 
 mary, continued to the Present Time. With Map by ARROWSMITH. 
 Third Edition. 8y0. 6s. 6d. 
 
 PUSS IN BOOTS. With 12 Illustrations; for Old and Young. 
 By Orro Speceter. A New Hdition. 16mo. Is. 6d, 
 
 QUARTERLY REVIEW (Tue). 8vo. 6s. 
 RANKE’S (Leororp) Political and Ecclesiastical History of the 
 
 Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Trans- 
 lated from the German by Mus. Austin. Third Edition. 2 Vols. 8vo. 24s. 
 
 RAWLINSON’S (Rev. Grorcz) Herodotus. A New English 
 
 Version. Edited with Notes and Essays. Assisted by Sir Henry 
 RAw.inson and Sin J. G. Witxinson. Maps and Woodcuts. 4 Vols. 
 8vo. 18s. each. 
 
 Historical Evidences of Revealed Religion. 
 Being the Bampton Lectures for 1859, Svo. Nearly ready. 
 
 REJECTED ADDRESSES (Tuer). By James anp Horacs Surtu. 
 With Biographies of the Authors, and additional Notes. New Edition, 
 with the Author's latest Corrections. Fcap. 8yo.1s., or Fine Paper, with 
 Portrait. Feap.8yo. 5s. 
 
 RENNIE’S (Jamzs) Insect Architecture. To which are added 
 Chapters on the Ravages, the Preservation, for Purposes of Study, and 
 the Classification of Insects. New Edition, Woodeuts. Post 8vo. 5s. 
 
 RICARDO’S (Davm) Political Works. With a Notice of his 
 Life and Writings. By J.R.M‘Cuttocu. New Edition. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 28 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 RIPA’S (Farner) Memoirs during Thirteen Years’ Residence at the 
 Court of Peking, in the Service of the Emperor of China. Translated 
 from the Italian. By Forrunaro PRANpI. Post Syo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 ROBERTSON’S (Rev. J.C.) History of the Christian Church, From 
 
 the Apostolic Age to the Pontificate of Gregory the Great, a.p. 590. 
 Second and Revised Edition. Vol.1. 8vo. 16s. 
 
 Second Period, from a.p. 590 to the Concordat of 
 Worms. A.p.1123. Vol. 2. Svo. 18s. 
 ROBINSON’S (Rev. Dr.) Biblical Researches in the Holy Land. 
 
 Being a Journalof Travels in 1838, and of Later Researches in 1852. 
 With New Maps. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s. 
 
 *,* The “* Later Researches” may be had separately. Svo. 15s. 
 
 ROMILLY’S (Str Samvet) Memoirs and Political Diary. By his 
 Sons. Third Edition. Portrait. 2 Vols. Feap.8vo. 12s. 
 ROSS'S (Sir James) Voyage of Discovery and Research in the 
 
 Southern and Antarctic Regions during the years 1839-43. Plates. 
 2 Vols. Svo. 36s. 
 
 RUNDELL'S (Mrs.) Domestic Cookery, founded on Principles 
 
 of Economy and Practice, and adapted for Private Families. New and 
 Revised Edition. Woodeuts. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 
 
 RUSSIA; A Memoir of the Remarkable Events which attended 
 the Accession of the Emperor Nicholas. By Baron M. Korrr, Secretary 
 of State. Svo. 10s.6d. (Published by Imperial Command.) 
 
 RUXTON’S (Greorcz F.) Travels in Mexico; with Adventures 
 
 among the Wild Tribes and Animals of the Prairies and Rocky Moun- 
 tains. Post S8vo. 6s. 
 
 SALE’S (Lavy) Journal of the Disasters in Affghanistan. Highth 
 Edition. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 (Str Ropert) Brigade in Affehanistan. With an Account of 
 the Seizure and Defence of Jellalabad. By REv.G.R.GLEIG. Post 8vo.2s.6d. 
 
 SANDWITH’S (Humpury) Narrative of the Siege of Kars 
 
 and of the Six Months’ Resistance by the Turkish Garrison under 
 General Williams. Seventh Thousand. PostS8vo. 3s. Gd. 
 
 SCOTT’S (G. Gitserr) Remarks on Secular and Domestic 
 
 Arcbitecture, Present and Future. Second Edition. 8vo. 9s. 
 
 SCROPE’S (Wi1rram) Days of Deer-Stalking in the Forest of Atholl ; 
 with some Account of the Nature and Habits of the Red Deer. Third 
 Edition. Woodeuts. Crown 8yo. 20s. 
 
 Days and Nights of Salmon Fishing in the Tweed ; 
 with a short Account of the Natural History and Habits of the Salmon, 
 Second Edition. Woodcuts. Royal 8vo. 3ls. 6d. 
 
 ————~ (G. P.) Memoir of Lord Sydenham, and his Administra- 
 tion in Canada. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 Geology and Extinet Volcanos of Central France. 
 Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Illustrations. Medium 8yo. 380s. 
 SHAW’S (Tuos. B.) Outlines of English Literature, for the Use of 
 Young Students. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 SIERRA LEONE; Described in a Series of Letters to Friends at 
 Home. By A LApy. Edited by Mrs. Norton. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 
 SMITH’S (Wa., LL.D.) Dictionary of Greek and Roman Anti- 
 quities. Second Edition. With500 Woodcuts. Svo. 42s. 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 29 
 
 
 
 
 
 SMITH’S (Wm., LL.D.) Smaller Dictionary of Greek and Roman 
 Antiquities. Abridged from the above work. Fourth Edition. With 
 200 Woodcuts. Crown Syo. 7s. 6d. 
 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and My- 
 thology. With500 Wovdeuts. 3 Vols. S8yo. 51. 15s. 6d. 
 
 Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. With 
 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. 8vo. 80s. 
 
 Atlas of Ancient Geography. 4to. [Jn preparation. 
 
 Classical Dictionary for the Higher Forms in Schools. 
 Compiled from the above two works. Jifth Edition. With 750 Wood- 
 cuts. Syvo. 18s. 
 
 Smaller Classical Dictionary. Abridged from the 
 above work. Fifth Edition. With 200 Woodcuts. Crown S8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Latin - English Dictionary. Based upon the Works 
 of Forcellini and Freund. Fifth Thousand. Svo. 21s. 
 ——— Smaller Latin-English Dictionary. Abridged from the 
 
 above work. Twelfth Thousand. Square 12mo. 7s. 6d. 
 ——— English-Latin Dictionary. Assisted by Joun Rosson, 
 B.A. Syo. and 12mo. [In preparation. 
 
 Medizeval Latin-English Dictionary. Selected from the 
 great work of Ducanae. Svo. [Uniform with Dr. Suitn’s “ Latin- 
 English Dictionary.” ] 
 
 Dictionary of Biblical Antiquities, Biography, Geo- 
 graphy, and Natural History. Woodeuts. Vol.1. Svo. [Jn the Press. 
 
 Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the 
 Roman Empire. Edited, with Notes. Portrait and Map. 8 Vols. 8vo. 
 60s. (Murray’s British Classics.) 
 
 -Student’s Gibbon; being the History of the Decline 
 and Fall, Abridged. Incorporating the Researches of Recent Com- 
 mentators. Sixth Thousand. Woodeuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 History of Greece; from the Earliest Times to 
 the Roman Conquest. With the History of Literature and Art. Sixteenth 
 Thousand. Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s.6d. (Questions. 12mo. 2s.) 
 
 Student's Hume. A History of England from the 
 Invasion of Julius Cesar. Based on Hume, and continued to 1858. 
 Highth Thousand. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 —_——— History of Rome; from the Earliest Times to the 
 Establishment of the Empire. With the History of Literature and 
 Art. By H.G. Lipvett, D.D. Tenth Thousand. Woodcuts. Crown 
 Svo. 7s. 6d. [Uniform with SmiruH’s “‘ HIsTORY OF GREECE.’ ]} 
 
 (Wm. Jas.) Grenville Letters and Diaries, including 
 Mr. GRENVILLE’S Diary oF PouiricAL EvENTs, while First Lord of 
 the Treasury. Edited, with Notes. 4 Vols. Syo. 64s. 
 
 (James & Horace) Rejected Addresses. Twenty-third 
 Edition. Fcap.8vo. 1s., or Fine Paper, with Portrait. Feap. 8vo. 5s. 
 
 SOMERVILLE’S (Mary) Physical Geography. Fourth Edition. 
 Portrait. Post 8vo. 9s. 
 
 Connexion of the Physical Sciences.  Winih 
 Edition. Woodcuts. Post 8vo. 9s. 
 
 SOUTH’S (Joun F.) Household Surgery; or, Hints on Emergen- 
 
 . cies. Seventeenth Thousand. Woodcuts. Fep.8yo. 4s. 6d. 
 
 
 
 
 
30 LIST OF WORKS 
 
 
 
 SOUTHEY’S (Rozerr) Book of the Church ; with Notes contain- 
 
 ing the Authorities, and an Index. Seventh Edition. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 Lives of John Bunyan & Oliver Cromwell. Post 8vo. 2s.6d. 
 
 SPECKTER’S (Orro) Puss in Boots, suited to the Tastes of Old 
 and Young. A New Edition. With12 Woodcuts. Square 12mo. 1s. 6d. 
 
 — Charmed Roe; or, the Story of the Little Brother 
 
 and Sister. Illustrated. 16mo. 
 
 STANLEY’S (Rev. A. P.) Appresses anp CHARGES or THE LATE 
 Bisnop STANLEY. With a Memoir of his Life. Second Edition. S8vo. 
 10s. 6d. 
 
 ________—— Sermons preached in Canterbury Cathedral, on the 
 Unity of Evangelical and Apostolical Teaching. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistles to the Corin- 
 
 thians. with Notes and Dissertations. Second, and revised Edition. 
 Svo. 18s. 
 
 __—____— Historical Memorials of Canterbury. The Landing of 
 Augustine—The Murder of Becket—The Black Prince—The Shrine of 
 Becket. Third Edition. Woodecuts. Post8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 Sinai and Palestine, in Connexion with their History. 
 Fifth Edition.. Map. 8vo. 16s. 
 ST. JOHN’S (Cuanzes) Wild Sports and Natural History of the 
 Highlands. Post 8vo. 6s. 
 (Barun) Adventures in the Libyan Desert and the 
 Oasis of Jupiter Ammon. Woodeuts. Post S8vo. 2s. Gd. 
 STEPHENSON’S (Gerores) Life. The Railway Engineer. By 
 SAMUEL SmILEs. Jifth Edition. Portrait. Svo. 16s. 
 STOTHARD’S (TuHos., R. A.) Life. With Personal Reminiscences. 
 By Mrs. Bray. With Portrait and 60 Woodcuts. 4to. 
 
 STREET'S (G. E.) Brick and Marble Architecture of Italy, in the 
 Middle Ages. Plates. Svo. 21s. 
 
 STRIFE FOR THE MASTERY. Two Allegories. With Illus- 
 trations. Crown Syo. 6s. 
 
 SWIFT'S (Jonaraan) Life, Letiers and Journals. By Joun 
 Forster. 8vo. Jn Preparation. 
 
 Works. Edited, with Notes. By Joun Forster. 8vyo. 
 In Preparation. 
 
 SYDENHAM’S (Lorp) Memoirs. With his Administration in 
 Canada. By G.PouLer Scrorr, M.P. Second Edition. Portrait. 8vo. 9s.6d, 
 
 SYME’S (Jas.) Principles of Surgery. Jourth Edition. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 TAYLOR'S (Henry) Notes from Life. Feap 8vo. 2s. 
 
 (J. E.) Fairy Ring. <A Collection of Stories for Young 
 
 Persons. From the German. With Illustrations by Ricuarp Doy Le, 
 Second Edition. Woodcuts. Feap. 8vo. 
 
 TENNENT’S (Sir J. E.) Christianity in Ceylon. Its Introduction 
 and Progress under the Portuguese, Dutch, British,and American Mis- 
 sions. With an Ilistorical Sketch of the Brahmanical and Buddhist 
 Superstitions. Woodeuts. S8vo. 14s. 
 
 THREE-LEAVED MANUAL OF FAMILY PRAYER; arranged 
 
 so as to save the trouble of turning the Pages backwards and forwards. 
 Royal 8yo, 2s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 31 
 
 
 
 TICKNOR’S (Gzorexz) History of Spanish Literature. With Criti- 
 
 cisms on particular Works, and Biographical Notices of Prominent 
 Writers. Second Edition. 3 Vols. Svo. 24s, 
 
 TOCQUEVILLE'S (M. pz) State of France before the Revolution, 
 
 1789, and on the Causes of that Event. Translated by Henry REEVE, 
 Esq. 8vo. 14s. 
 
 TREMENHEERE'S (H. §.) Political Experience of the Ancients, 
 
 in its bearing on Modern Times. Feap.8vo. 2s. 6a. 
 
 Notes on Public Subjects, made during a 
 Tour in the United States and Canada. Post 8vo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 Constitution of the United States compared 
 with our own. Post S8vyo. 9s. 6d. 
 TWISS’ (Horacu) Public and Private Life of Lord Chancellor Eldon, 
 
 with Selections from his Correspondence. Portrait. Third Edition. 
 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s, 
 
 TYNDALL’S (Joun) Glaciers of the Alps. Being a Narrative of 
 various Excursions amorg them, and an Account of Three Years’ 
 
 Observations and Experiments on their Motion, Structure, and General 
 Phenomena, Post 8vo. Zn Preparation. 
 
 TYTLER (Parrick Fraser), A Memoir of. By his Friend, Rey. 
 J. W. Boraon, M.A. Syo. 9s. 
 
 UBICINI’S (M. A.) Letters on Turkey and its Inhabitants—the 
 Moslems, Greeks, Armenians, &c. Translated by Lapy EASTHOPE. 
 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 21s. 
 
 VAUGHAN’S (Rev. Dr.) Sermons preached in Harrow School. 
 8vo. 10s. 62, 
 
 —————— NewSermons. 12mo. 5s. 
 
 VENABLES’ (Rev. R. L.) Domestic Scenes in Russia during a 
 Year’s Residence, chiefly in the Interior. Second Edition. Post 8vo. 5s. 
 
 VOYAGE to the Mauritius and back, touching at the Cape of Good 
 Hope, and St. Helena. By Author of “Papprana.” Post 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 WAAGEN’S (Dr.) Treasures of Art in Great Britain. Being ‘an 
 Account of the Chief Collections of Paintings, Sculpture, Manuscripts, 
 
 Miniatures, &c, &., in this Country. Obtained from Personal Inspec- 
 tion during Visits to England. 3 Vols. 8vo. 36s. 
 
 Galleries and Cabinets of Art in England. Being 
 
 an Account of more than Forty Collections, visited in 1834-56 and 
 never hefore described. With Index. Svo. 19s. 
 
 WADDINGTON’S (Duan) Condition and Prospects of the 
 Greek Church. New Edition. FPeap.8vo. 3s. 6d. 
 WAKEFIELD'S (E. J.) Adventures in New Zealand. With 
 
 some Account of the Beginnings of the British Colonisation of the 
 Island. Map. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 
 
 WALKS AND TALKS. A Story-book for Young Children. By 
 AvuntIps. With Woodcuts. 16mo. 5s. 
 
 WARD'S (Rozerr Prumer) Memoir, Correspondence, Literary and 
 Unpublished Diaries and Remains. By the Hon. Epmunp Purpps. 
 Portrait. 2 Vols. Svo. 28s. 
 
 WATT’S (James) Life. Incorporating the most interesting pas- 
 
 sages from his Private and Public Correspondence. By James P. 
 Mourrgeap, M.A. Second Edition. Portraits and Woodcuts. Syo. 16s. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 3Z LIST OF WORKS PUBLISHED BY MR. MURRAY. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 WATT’S (Jamus) Origin and Progress of his Mechanical Inventions. 
 Illustrated by his Correspondence with his Friends. Edited by J. P. 
 Murrurap. Plates. 3 vols. Svo. 45s.,or Large Paper. 3 Vols. 4to. 
 
 WELLINGTON’S (Tus Dvuxz or) Despatches during his various 
 Campaigns. Compiled from Official and other Authentic Documents. By 
 Cou. Gurwoop, C.B. New Enlarged Edition. 8 Vols. 8yo. 21s. each. 
 
 Supplementary Letters, Despatches, and other 
 Papers relating to India. Edited byhis Son. 4 Vols. Svo. 20s. each. 
 
 Selections from his Despatches and General 
 Orders. By CotonEt Gurwoop. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 Speeches in Parliament. 2 Vols. 8vo. 42s. 
 WILKIE’S (Sir Davin) Life, Journals, Tours, and Critical Remarks 
 
 on Works of Art, with a Selection from his Correspondence. By ALLAN 
 CUNNINGHAM. Portrait. 3 Vols. Syo. 42s. 
 
 WILKINSON’S (Siz J. G.) Popular Account of the Private Life, 
 Manners, and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians. New Edition. 
 Revised and Condensed. With 500 Woodcuts. 2 Vols. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 —— Dalmatia and Montenegro; with a Journey to 
 Mostar in Hertzegovina, and Remarks on the Slavonic Nations. Plates 
 and Woodcuts. 2 Vols.8vo. 42s, 
 
 Handbook for Egypt.—Thebes, the Nile, Alex- 
 
 andria, Cairo, the Pyramids, Mount Sinai, &c. Map. PostSyo. 15s. 
 
 On Colour, and on the Necessity for a General 
 
 Diffusion of Taste among all Classes; with Remarks on laying out 
 Dressed or Geometrical Gardens. With Coloured Illustrations and 
 Woodeuts. 8vo. 18s. 
 
 —_—__________— (G. B.) Working Man’s Handbook to South Aus- 
 
 tralia: with Advice to the Farmer, and Detailed Information for the 
 several Classes of Labourers and Artisans. Map. 18mo. 1s. 6d. 
 
 WOOD'S (Lirvz.) Voyage up the Indus to the Source of the 
 River Oxus, by Kabul and Badakhshan, Map, 8yo. 14s. 
 
 WORDSWORTH’S (Rev. Dr.) Athens and Attica. Journal of a 
 Tour. Third Edition. Plates. Post S8vo. 8s. 6d. 
 
 ——~ Greece: Pictorial, Descriptive, and Historical, 
 with a History of Greek Art, by G.ScHarr,F.S.A. New Edition. With 
 600 Woodents. Royal 8vo. 28s. 
 
 King Edward VIth’s Latin Grammar, for the 
 Use of Schools. 12th Edition, revised. 12mo. 3s. 6d. 
 First Latin Book, or the Accidence, Syntax 
 
 and Prosody, with English Translation for Junior Classes. Third 
 Edition. 12mo. 2s. 
 
 WORNUM (Ratpu), A Biographical Dictionary of Italian Painters : 
 with a Table of the Contemporary Schools of Italy. By a Lapy. 
 Post 8vo. 6s. Gd. 
 
 Epochs of Painting Characterised ; a Sketch 
 
 of the History of Painting, showing its gradual and various develop- 
 
 ment from the earliest ages to the present time. New Jdition, Wood- 
 
 cuts. Post Syo. 6s. 
 
 YOUNG'S (Dr. Tuos.) Life and Miscellaneous Works, edited by Dean 
 
 PEACOCK and Joun Lerrcu. Portrait and Plates. 4 Vols. Svo. 15s. each. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 BRADBURY AND EVANS, PRINTERS, WHITEFRIARS. 
 
 —— 
 
 
 
 
 
ae SS 
 oy 
 
 
 

 
- 
 erate 
 
 <2 
 << 
 = 
 
 tele: 
 : er 
 
 oe 
 os 
 ‘ ce 
 
 PF Oe 
 oe 
 <—Se 
 mote 
 aor 
 Biers ege 
 rs S 
 2 aes > 
 ete: 
 es 
 
 - 
 
 oS 
 om ond 
 
 Si ges 
 
 1 
 
 ae 
 i 
 
 <A 
 rae 
 petare 
 Satur 
 ‘oe 7 
 
 tate 
 
 Tonne, 
 
 cal Ae 
 a 
 
 ‘ 
 nb salts a 
 ra 
 
 cee, 
 
 ii Y \) 
 
 Poser aoe oa 
 anne;s re 
 rr 
 ct 
 
 a 
 ise 
 ‘it : i 
 
 My ‘ 
 Et 
 
 Giver 
 Sate 
 
 i Ns i} t 
 Wat: With HEY 
 SS AR 
 SS 
 
 uN ARNON 
 Ae 
 
 Hy 
 1 
 My 
 
 4° 
 
 wih Ne 
 
 Ru MANOGA 
 Wy 
 HOY Mi 
 Mascots 
 { H ANY : 
 “ 4 } Ars 
 i abs 
 
 ret 
 r 
 
 
 
 steht: 
 ' ‘ ii Abi 
 K wit With Gta