Skip to main content

Full text of "The historical evidences of the truth of the Scripture records"

See other formats


o : 


% *H 







0^. "V^S'TY LfSRARY 




truth or iii i : scwrn re 


S T \ T Kli \ N K W . 




THE Hampton ForNDATioN. 









2~ 39,t>i 




7V) utv yao ahjQtl ninna ovvddti tu vjiao/ovra' 
ca dt ytevdtl raxi) diaipwvel taki^tg. ajustotle. 

(for with the true all things that exist are in harmony; 
bvt with the false the trv'fc at once disagrees.) 


E X T It A C T 




C A X O X O I" S A L I S H L It Y . 

... . " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor 
Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have ami 
to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the 
intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I will and 
appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time 
being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and 
(after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay 
all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, 
to be established for ever in the said University, and to be performed in 
the manner following : 

" I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a 
Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no 
others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours 
of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity 
Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between 


the rnnine:] anient of the last month ; n Lent T.".n:. iv.A the end of the 
third week In Act Term. 

" Also 1 direct and npnoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons 
shall l>e pruached upon either of the following Subjects to confirm and 
establish t!io Christian Keith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics 
upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures upon the authority 
of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice of 
the primitive Church upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
Christ upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost upon the Articles of the 
Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. 

" Al.-o I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons 
shall Ik? always printed, within two months after they are preached, and 
one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy 
to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of 
Oxford, and one copy to be put Into the Bodleian Library; and the 
expense of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or 
Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the 
Preacher shall not \>e paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are 

" AlsC i direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach 
the Di'inity Leot :.e Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree of Master 
of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; 
ami tliiit the some person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Ser- 
ons twice." 



The present work, though it belongs to the same series, 
and has the same general design, with Prof. Mansers Lec- 
tures on the Limits of Religious Thought, deals with very 
different materials, and employs very different modes of 
reasoning. Instead of abstruse inquiries into the subtle 
conditions and laws of thought, the business of our au- 
thor is with the concrete facts of history, and the explicit 
records of the past. The two works thus represent the 
opposite poles of scientific inquiry. They are like - two 
buttresses, built up of different materials, but of equal 
strength, on opposite sides of the citadel of our Christian 

Mr. Rawlinson has been peculiarly happy in the facili- 
ties which he has enjoyed for combining with his own 
extensive and accurate knowledge of the literary monu- 
ments of antiquity the latest results of the remarkable 



discoveries of his distinguished brother and other suc- 
cessful explorers in those rich mines of history, more 
precious than of gold, which have so recently been opened 
in the valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile. Some gen- 
eral knowledge of these results, as confirmatory of the 
historical accuracy of the Sacred Scriptures, has already 
been widely diffused ; but there was needed a thorough 
and scholarly work upon this particular subject, which, 
by combining a complete survey and a logical method 
with copious specific proofs and illustrations, should stamp 
with a more unquestionable certainty, and estimate with 
a more critical exactness, these reputed confirmations of 
Scripture history. This is the task which Mr. Rawlinson 
has undertaken in these "Bampton Lectures;" and we 
are confident that the verdict of his own countrymen, as 
. to the signal ability and success with which he has ac- 
complished it, will be fully indorsed by his American 

But it would be unjust to the author to intimate that 
the value of his book is measured only by the skilful and 
exhaustive use which he has made of recent discoveries 
in the East : the plan of his work covers a broader field, 
including all the testimonies of ancient literature to the 
facts of Christianity, and the verncity of the Inspired 
Volume. But as most of these testimonies of Pagan, 
Jewish, and Christian writers have become familiarly 


known to those who have studied the Christian evidences, 
the main interest of these Lectures, for a large class of 
readers, will probably be found in the fresher contribu- 
tion which they bring to this subject, from the recently 
deciphered hieroglyphics of Egypt, and the still more 
recent excavations on the sites of the ancient cities of 

As this work promises, from its less abstract character, 
to interest a larger proportion of the reading public than 
the excellent volume by Prof. Mansel, there was a still 
stronger reason than in the case of that work for making 
the valuable Notes intelligible to all, by translating such 
portions of them as were given in foreign languages in 
the English edition. These Notes were mostly in tho 
Greek language; and the translations have been made by 
the Rev. A. N. Arnold, who was for many years a resi- 
dent in Greece. The translator has not had access to all 
the Greek and Latin writers from whom the author lias 
quoted in his proofs; and hence it is not impossible that 
some trifling inaccuracies have resulted from the want 
of that light which the connection would have shed upon 
these fragmentary sentences. 

It is a happy omen, that, while so much of the litera- 
ture of our times is marked by a tone of infidelity, and 
especially by a disparagement of the evidences of the 
authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, there is in 


other quarters an increasing readiness to make the choicest 
gifts of modern science and learning tributary to the 
word of God. The eclipse of faith is not total. And 
it is an additional cause for gratitude to the God of Prov- 
idence and of Revelation, that, even at this remote dis- 
tance of time from the date of the Sacred Oracles, new 
evidences of their credibility and accuracy are continually 
coming to light. How much may yet remain, buried 
under barren mounds, or entombed in pyramids and cata- 
combs, or hidden in the yet unexplored pages of some 
ancient literature, it were vain to conjecture ; but of this 
we may be sure, that if any new forms of evidence should 
hereafter be needed, to meet any new forms of unbelief, 
and authenticate afresh the word of truth, they will be 
found deposited somewhere, waiting for the fulness of 
time ; and God will bring them forth in their season, 
from the dark hieroglyphics, or the desert sands, or the 
dusty manuscripts, to confound the adversaries of his 
word, and to "magnify it above all his name." 


These Lectures are an attempt to meet that latest 
phase of modern unbelief, which, professing a reverence 
for the name and person of Christ, and a real regard for 
the Scriptures as embodiments of what is purest and 
holiest in religious feeling, lowers Christ to a mere name, 
and empties the Scriptures of all their force and practical 
efficacy, by denying the historical character of the Bib- 
lical narrative. German Neology (as it is called) has of 
late years taken chiefly this line of attack, and has pur- 
sued it with so much vigor and apparent success, that, 
according to the complaints of German orthodox writers, 
"no objective ground or stand-point" is left, on which 
the believing Theological science can build witli any 
feeling of security. 1 Nor is the evil in question con- 
fined to Germany. The works regarded as most effective 
in destroying the historical faith of Christians abroad, 
have received an English dress, and arc, it is t<> be 
feared, read by numbers of persons very ill prepared by 
historical studies to withstand their specious reasonings, 
alike in onr own country and in America. The tone, 
moreover, of German historical writings generally is 

1 See Keil'a Preface to hi. Comment on Joshua, quoted in Note XXIV. t.. Lecture I 


tinged w.ih' the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the 
historical student is liable to be undermined, almost 
without his having his suspicions aroused, by covert as- 
sumptions or* the mythical character of the sacred nar- 
rative, in woiis professing to deal chiefly, or entirely, 
with profane subjects. The author had long felt this to 
be a serious and a growing evil. Meanwhile his own 
studies, which ha\j lain for the last eight or nine years 
almost exclusively in the field of Ancient History, had 
convinced him moie and more of the thorough truthful- 
ness and faithful accuracy of che historical Scriptures. 
Circumstances had gi/en hini an intimate knowledge 
of the whole course of recent cuneiform, and (to some 
extent) of hieroglyphic discovery; and he had been 
continually struck with He removal of difficulties, the 
accession of light, and the multiplication of minute points 
of agreement between the jacred and the profane, which 
resulted from the advances made in deciphering the 
Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Egyptian records. 
He therefore ventured, at the earliest moment which en- 
gagements of long standing would allow, to submit to 
the Heads of Colleges, electors to the office of Bampton 
Lecturer under the will of the Founder, the scheme of 
the following Discourses. His scheme having at once 
met with their approval, it only remained for him to use 
his best efforts in the elaboration of the subject which 
he had chosen. 

Two modes of meeting the attacks of the Mythical 
School presented themselves. lie might make it his 


main object to examine the arguments of their principal 
writers seriatim, and to demonstrate from authentic 
records their weakness, perverseness, and falsity. Or 
touching only slightly on this purely controversial ground, 
he might endeavor to exhibit clearly and forcibly the 
argument from the positive agreement between Scripture 
and profane history, which they ignored altogether. The 
latter mode of treatment appeared to him at once the 
more convincing to young minds, and the more suitable 
for a set of Lectures. For these reasons he adopted it. 
At the same time he has occasionally, both in the Text 
and in the Notes, addressed himself to the more im- 
portant of the reasonings by which the school of Strauss 
and De Wette seek to overthrow the historical authority 
of the Sacred documents. 

The Notes have run to a somewhat unusual length. 
The author thought it important to exhibit (where possi- 
ble) the authorities * for his statements in full; and o 
collect into a single volume the chief testimonies to the 
historical truth and accuracy of the Scripture records. 
If in referring to the cuneiform writings lie lias on many 
occasions stated their substance, rather than cited theif 
exact words, it is because so few of them have as yet 
been translated by competent scholars, and because in 
most cases his own knowledge is limited to an acquaint- 
ance with the substance, derived from frequent conversa- 
tions with his gifted brother. It is to be hoped that no 
long time will elapse before some one of the lour sttcan*, 
Who have proved their capacity to render the ancient 


14 . PREFA CE. 

Assyrian, 1 will present the world with a complete trans- 
lation of all the historical inscriptions hitherto recovered. 

The author cannot conclude without expressing his ac- 
knowledgments to Dr. Bandinel, Chief Librarian of the 
Bodleian, for kind exertions in procuring at his instance 
various foreign works; and to Dr. Pusey, Professor Stan- 
ley, and Mr. Mansel for some valuable information on 
several points connected with the Lectures. lie is bound 
also to record his obligations to various living or recent 
writers, whose works have made his task easier, as Pro- 
fessors Keil, Havernick, and Olshausen in Germany, and 
in England Dr. Lardner, Dr. Burton, and Dean Alford. 
Finally, he is glad once more to avow his deep obliga- 
tions to the learning and genius of his brother, and to 
the kind and liberal communication on his part of full 
information upon every point where there seemed to 
be any contact between the sacred history and the cunei- 
form records. The novelty of the Lbctures will, he feels, 
consist chiefly, if not solely, in the exhibition of these 
points of contact and agreement ; and the circumstance 
of his having this novelty to offer was his chief induce- 
ment to attempt a work on the subject. It is his earnest 
prayer that, by the blessing of God, his labors may tend 
to check the spread of unbelief, and to produce among 
Scripture students a more lively appreciation of the 
reality of those facts which are put before us in the Bible, 

Oxford, November 2, 1859. 

1 See the Inscription of Tiglath-Pilcscr I., king of jis3yria, B. C. 1150, as translated 
by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Fox Talbot, Ksq., Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Opnert; published by 
the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1857. 



Historical character of Christianity as contrasted with other religions 

its contact, thence arising, with historical science its liability to 
be tried afresh by new tests and criteria, as historic science advances. 

Recent advance of historical science rise of the new department 
of Historical Criticism its birth and growth its results and ten- 
dencies. Application of Historical Criticism to Christianity to be 
expected and even desired the application as made first, by the 
mythical school of De Wette and Strauss secondly, by the histori- 
cal school Niebuhr himself Bunsen. Intention of the Lectures, 
to examine the Sacred Narrative on the positive side, by the light of 
the true principles of historical science. Statement of the principles 
under the form of four Canons. Corollaries of the Canons com- 
parative value of sources force of cumulative evidence. Further 
Canon which some seek to add on the subject of miracles, examined 

possibility of miracles contrary notion, Atheistic peculiarities 
of the modern Atheism. Occurrence of miracles proved creation 
a miracle counterfeit miracles prove the existence of genuine ones. 

Rejection of the additional Canon leaves the ground clear for the 
proposed inquiry. Two kinds of evidence to be examined 1. That 
of the Sacred Volume itself, considered as a mass of documents, and 
judged by the laws of Historical Criticism 1. The external evidence, 



or that contained in monuments, in the works of profane authors, in 
established customs and observances, and in the contemporary writ- 
ings of believers. Main purpose of the Lectures, to exhibit the 
external evidence 25 


Two modes of conducting ?n historical inquiry the Retrospective and 
the Progressive advantages of each preference assigned to the 
latter. Plan of the Lectures division of the Biblical history into 
five periods. History of the first period, contained in the Pentateuch 
question of the genuineness of the Pentateuch argument from 
the unanimous testimony of the Jews objections answered. Writ- 
ing practised at the time. Heathen testimony to the genuineness. 
Internal testimony difficulties of the opposite theory. Authen- 
ticity of the Pentateuch, a consequent of its genuineness Moses an 
unexceptionable witness for the history of the last four books. 
Authenticity of Genesis the events, if purely traditional, would 
have passed through but few hands to Moses. Probability that 
Genesis is founded on documents, some of which may have been 
ante-diluvian. External evidence of the authenticity agreement 
of the narrative with the best profane authorities. Review of the 
authorities preeminence of Berosus and Manctho as historians of 
ancient times Egyptian and Babylonian monuments mode in 
which the monuments and histories have to be combined. Com- 
parison of the chronological schemes of Manetho and Berosus with 
the chronology of Scripture. Account of the Creation in Berosus 
its harmony with Scripture. Account given by Berosus of the 
Deluge similar account of Abydenus the difference between the 
Scriptural and the profane account exaggerated by Niebuhr. Post- 
diluvian history of Berosus his account of the tower of Babel, and 


the confusion of tongues. Ethnological value of the tenth chapter 
of Genesis. Heathen accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, de- 
rived from Jewish sources estimate of their value. Three points 
only of great public importance in the history from Abraham to the 
death of Moses two of these confirmed from profane sources. 
Expedition of Chedor-laomer agrees with Berosus, and is distinctly 
confirmed by the Babylonian monuments. Exodus of the Jews 
related by Manetho. Historical arguments of importance, which 
have been omitted for want of space I . The argument furnished by 
the conclusions of the historical sciences, such as Geology, Physi- 
ology, Comparative Philology, Ethnology, &c. 2. The argument 
from the correctness of the linguistic, geographic, and etho logic 
notices in the Pentateuch modern discovery is continually adding to 
this kind of evidence geographical illustration. Conclusion. . 19 


The period of Jewish history from Exodus to Solomon, comprises the 
extremes of national depression and prosperity. Books of Scrip- 
ture, containing this portion of the history, are for the most part by 
unknown authors. Their value not diminished by this, being that 
of State Papers. Historical character of the books, considered sev- 
erally. The Book of Joshua written by an eye-witness, who pos- 
sessed records. The Book of Judges based upon similar documi nts. 
The Books of Samuel composed probably by writers contemporary 
with the events related; via. Samuel. Gad, and Nathan. The 
Books of Kings and Chronicles derived from contemporary works 
written by Prophets. Commentary on the history furnished by the 
Davidical Psalms. Confirmation of this period of J wish history 
from profane sources, during the earlier portion fit the period, rather 
negative than positive. Weakness of Egypt and Assyria at the 


period, appears both from the Scripture narrative, and from the 
monuments. Positive testimony of profane writers to the conquest 
of Canaan by Joshua Moses of Chorene, Procopius, Suidas. 
Supposed testimony of Herodotus to the miracle of the sun standing 
still. Positive testimony to the later portion of the period Syrian 
war of David described by Nicolas of Damascus from the records of 
his native city. David's other wars mentioned by Eupolemus. 
Connection of Judaea with Phoenicia. Early greatness of Sidon 
strongly marked in Scripture and confirmed by profane writers 
Homer, Strabo, Justin. Hiram a true Phoenician royal name. A 
prince of this name reigned at Tyre contemporaneously with David 
and Solomon, according to the Phoenician historians, Dius and 
Menander their accounts of the friendly intercourse between Hiram 
and these Jewish monarchs. Solomon's connection with Egypt 
absence of Egyptian records at this time Solomon contemporary 
with Sheshonk or Shishak. "Wealth of Solomon confirmed by 
Eupolemus and Theophilus. Indirect testimony to the truth of this 
portion of the history the character of Solomon's empire, the plan 
of his buildings, and the style of their ornamentation, receive abun- 
dant illustration from recent discoveries in Assyria the habits of 
the Phoenicians agree with the descriptions of Homer, Menander, and 
others. Incompleteness of this sketch. Summary 78 


Period to be embraced in the Lecture, one of about four centuries, from 
the death of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchad- 
nezzar importance of this period. Documents in which the his- 
tory is delivered. Kings and Chronicles, compilations from the 
State Archives of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Objec- 
tion answered. Kings and Chronicles independent, and therefora 


confirmatory, of each other. The history contained in them con- 
firmed by direct and incidental notices in the works of contemporary 
Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, &c. Confirmation of the history 
from profane sources. The separate existence of the two kingdoms 
noticed in the Assyrian Inscriptions. The conquest of Judcea by 
Sheshonk (Shishak) recorded in the great temple at Carnac. ^Zerah 
the Ethiopian probably identical with Osorkon the Second. Eth- 
baal, the father of Jezebel, identical with the Ithobalus of Menander 
mention of a great drought in his reign. Power of Benhadad, 
and nature of the force under his command, confirmed by the in- 
scription on the Nimrud Obelisk. Accession of Hazael noticed on 
the same monument. Mention of Jehu. Interruption in the 
series of notices, coinciding with an absence of documents. Pul, 
or Phul, QPa/.u>x,') mentioned byBerosus, and probably identified with 
a monumental king, who takes tribute from Samaria. War of 
Tiglath-Pileser with Samaria and Damascus recorded in an As- 
syrian inscription. Altar of Ahaz probably a sign of sub- 
jection. Shalmanezer's Syrian war mentioned by Menander. 
Name of Hoshea on an Assyrian inscription probably assigned to 
him. Capture of Samaria ascribed to Sargon on the monuments. 
Harmony of the narrative with Scripture. Sargon' s capture of 
Ashdod, and successful attack on Egypt. Settlement of the Israel- 
ites "in the cities of the Modes." Expedition of Sennacherib 
against Hezekiah exact agreement of Scripture with Sennacherib's 
inscription. Murder of Sennacherib related by profane writ its 
Polyhistor, Abydenus. Escape of the murderers " into Armenia" 
noticed by Moses of Chorcnc. Succession of Esar-haddon confirmed 
by the monuments. Indirect confirmation of the curious statement 
that Manasseh was brought to him at Babylon. Identification of 
So. (Seveh,) king of Egypt, with Shekel;, or Sabaco of Tirhakah 
with Tchrak, or Taracus of Xecho with Xcku, or NYchao and of 
Hopnra with liaifra, or Aprics. Battle of Mcgiddo and caiamitoua 
end of Apries confirmed by Herodotus. Heign of Merodach-llala- 


dan at Babylon confirmed by the Inscriptions. Berosus, and Ptolemy. 
Berosus relates the recovery of Syria, and Palestine by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, and also his deportation of the Jews and destruction of Jeru- 
salem. Summary 101 


Fourth period of the Jewish History, the Captivity and Return Dan- 
iel the historian of the Captivity. Genuineness of Daniel doubted 
without sufficient reason. Authenticity of the narrative, denied by 
De Wette and others. Examination of the narrative the Captivity 
in accordance with Oriental habits confirmed by Berosus. The 
character of Nebuchadnezzar as portrayed in Scripture accords with 
Berosus and Abydenus notice of his prophetic gift by the latter. 
The length of his reign may be gathered from Scripture, and accords 
exactly with Berosus and the monuments. Condition of Babylonia 
not misrepresented in Daniel account of the "wise men" illus- 
trated by recent discoveries " satrapial organization " of the empire 
possible, but not asserted in Scripture. Internal harmony of Daniel's 
account. Mysterious malady of Nebuchadnezzar perhaps noticed 
in an obscure passage of the Standard Inscription. Succession of 
Evil-Merodach confirmed by Berosus difficulty with regard to his 
character. Neriglissar identified with " Nergal-Sharezer, the liab- 
Mag." Supposed irreconcilable difference between Scripture and 
profane history in the narrative concerning Belshazzar Discovery 
that Nabonadius, during the latter part of his reign, associated in the 
government his son, Bil-shar-uzur, and allowed him the royal title. 
Bil-shar-uzur probably the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. " Darius 
the Mede " not yet identified. Capture of Babylon by the Medo- 
Persians, during a feast, and transfer of Empire confirmed by many 


writers. Solution of difficulties. Chronology of the Capthity 
confirmed from Babylonian sources. Refistablishment of the Jews 
in Palestine related in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah their 
authenticity generally allowed no reason to doubt their genuine- 
ness. Book of Ezra in part based on documents. Attacks upon 
the authenticity of Esther reply to them. Author of Esther un- 
certain. The narrative drawn from the chronicles kept by the kings 
of Persia. Confirmation of this portion of the history from profane 
sources. Religious spirit of the Persian kings in keeping with 
their inscriptions. Succession of the kings correctly given. Stop- 
page of the building of the temple by the Pseudo-Smerdis, accords 
with his other religious changes. Reversal by Darius of his reli- 
gious policy agrees with the Behistun Inscription. Break in the 
history as recorded by Ezra book of Esther fills up the gap. The 
name Ahasuerus, the proper equivalent of Xerxes. Truthfulness of 
the portraiture, if Xerxes is intended. Harmony of the history 
with the facts recorded by the Greeks. Intimate knowledge of 
Persian manners and customs. The massacre of their enemies by 
the Jews has a parallel in the Magaphonia. Character of Arta- 
xerxes Longimanus length of his reign accords with the statement 
of Nehemiah. Summary of the whole result, as regards the His- 
tory of the Old Testament 130 


Plan of the three remaining Lectures proposal to regard the period 
covered by the New Testament History as a whole, and to consider 
the evidence under three heads 1 . The internal Evidence; 2. The 
Evidence of Adversaries ; and, 3. The Evidence of the early Christian 


The Internal Evidence. Number and separateness of the documents. 

Doubts raised as to the authorship of the Historical Books. The 
doubts considered severally. Weight of the external testimony to 
the genuineness of the Gospels and the Acts. Internal evidence to 
the composition of the Acts, and of St. Luke's and St. John's Gos- 
pels, by contemporaries. St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels must 
have been written about the same time as St. Luke's. No reason to 
doubt in any case the composition by the reputed authors. Our 

four Gospels a providential mercy. The first three wholly inde- 
pendent of one another. Their substantial agreement as to the 
facts of our Lord's life and ministry, an evidence of great weight. ' 
Failure of the attempt of Strauss to establish any real disagreement. 

The establishment of real discrepancies would still leave the writers 
historical authorities of the first order. Confirmation of the Gospel 
History from the Acts of the Apostles. Confirmation of the History 
of the Acts from the Epistles of St. Paul exhibition of this argument 
in the Horce Paulina of Paley the grounds of the argument not ex- 
hausted. Paley's argument applicable to the Gospels. Confirma- 
tion of the Gospel narrative from the letters of the Apostles. Firm 
belief of the Apostles in the Gospel facts from the first, evidenced in 
the Acts and the Epistles. Impossibility of the sudden growth of 
myths in such an age and under such circumstances. The mythic 
theory devised in order to make Christianity untrue, without ascrib- 
ing it to imposture its failure in respect of this object. No 
alternative but to accept the statements of the Evangelists and Apos- 
tles, or to regard them as conscious deceivers. Unmistakable air 
of veracity and honesty in the New Testament writings. Conclu- 
sion 155 



The Evidence of Adversaries. Contrast between the Old and New 
Testament the former historical the latter biographical. Conse- 
quent scantiness of points of contact between the main facts of the 
New Testament narrative and profane records. Their harmony 
chiefly seen through the incidental allusions of the New Testament 
writers. Importance of this evidence. Evidence of Heathens to 
the main facts of Christianity, really very considerable. That it is 
not more must be regarded as the result of a forced and studied 
reticence. Reticence of Josephus. Loss of heathen writings of 
this period, which may have contained important direct evidence. 
Incidental allusions considered under three heads (i.) The general 
condition of the countries which were the scene of the history. " 
Political condition of Palestine numerous complications and 
anomalies faithfulness of the New Testament notices. Tone and 
temper of the Jews at the time. Condition and customs of the 
Greeks and Romans in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. 
Condition and number of the foreign Jews oratories syna- 
gogues, &c. (ii.) Representations with respect to the civil govern- 
ment of the countries. Names and order of the Roman Kmpi rors 
Jewish native princes Roman Procurators of Palestine Ro- 
man Proconsuls supposed "error" of St. Luke with regard to 
the Greek Tetrarch, Lysanias. (iii.) Historical facts, of which, if 
true, profane authors might have bun expected to make mention. 
Decree of Augustus taxing of Cyrenius rebellion of Theudas 
uproar " of the Egyptian famine in the days of < 'laudius, &c. 
Summary and conclusion ' 



The evidence of the early converts. Its abundance, and real weight. 

Early Christians not deficient in education, position, or intellect. 

Historical witness of the Christian writers of St. Barnabas of 
Clemens Romanus of Ignatius of Polycarp of Hermas of 
Quadratus of Justin Martyr of subsequent writers. Witness 
of primitive Christian monuments, especially of those in the Roman 
Catacombs their genuine character their antiquity. Proof 
which they afford of the enormous numbers of the Christians in the 
first ages. Proof which they afford of the sufferings and frequent 
martyrdoms of the period. Evidence which they furnish of the 
historical belief of the time. Weight of this whole testimony the 
Greeks and Romans not at this time credulous not likely to think 
little of the obligations incurred by professing Christianity the 
convert's sole stay the hope of the resurrection. Evidence to the 
truth of Christianity from the continuance of miracles in the Church 

proof of their continuance. Testimony of the early Christians 
enhanced by their readiness to suffer for their faith. Conclu- 
sion 206 

Notes 229 

Additional Note 441 

Specification of Editions quoted, or referred to, in the 

Notes 443 







Christianity including therein the dispensation of 
the Old Testament, which was its first stage is in noth- 
ing more distinguished from the other religions of tv. 
world than in its objective <>r historical character. The 
religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, India, Persia, and 
the East generally, were speculative systems, which did not 
even seriously postulate an historical basis, [f they seemed 
to do so to some extent, if tor instance the mythological 
ideas of the Greeks he represented under the form of a 
mythological period, which moreover Mends gradually and 
almost imperceptibly with the historical, still in the minds 
of the Greeks themselves the periods were separate and 
distinct, not merely in time, hut in character; and the "i>- 
jeetive reality of the scenes and events described as he- 
longing to each was not conceived of as parallel, or even 


similar, in the two cases. ( J ) The modern distinction be- 
tween the legend and the myth, properly so called, ( 2 ) was 
felt, if not formally recognized, by the Greek mind ; and 
the basis of fact, which is of the essence of the former, 
was regarded as absent from the latter, which thus ceased 
altogether to be history. Mahometanism again, and the 
other religious systems which have started with an indi- 
vidual, and which so far bear a nearer resemblance to the 
religions of Moses and of Christ, than those that have 
grown up and been developed gradually out of the feeling 
and imagination of a people, are very slightly, if at all, 
connected with any body of important facts, the due attes- 
tation of which and their accordance with other known 
facts might be made the subject of critical examination.' 
We may concede the truth of the whole story of Mahomet, 
as it was related by bis early followers, and this concession 
in no sort carries with it even the probable truth of the 
religion. ( 3 > But it is otherwise with the religion of the 
Bible. There, whether we look to the Old or the New 
Testament, to the Jewish dispensation or to the Christian, 
we find a scheme of doctrine which is bound up with facts ; 
which depends absolutely upon them ; which is null and 
void without them ; and which may be regarded as for all 
practical purposes established if they are shown to deserve 

It is this peculiar feature of Christianity a feature 
often noticed by its apologists ( 4 > which brings it into 
such a close relation to historical studies and investigations. 
As a religion of fact, and not merely of opinion, as one 
whose chief scene is this world, and whose main doctrines 
are events exhibited openly before the eyes of men as 
one moreover which, instead of affecting a dogmatic form, 
dopts from first to last, with very rare exceptions, the hjs- 

Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 27 

torical shape, it comes necessarily within the sphere of the 
historical inquirer, and challenges him to investigate it ac- 
cording to what he regards as the principles of his science. 
Moreover, as Christianity is in point of fact connected in- 
timately with certain records, and as those records extend 
over a period of several thousands of years, and " profess 
to contain a kind of abridgment of the history of the 
world," ( 5 ) its points of contact with profane history are 
(practically speaking) infinite; and it becomes impossible 
for the historical inquirer to avoid the question, in what 
light he is to view the documents which, if authentic, must 
exercise so important an influence over his studies and con- 

Christianity then cannot complain if, from time to time, 
as historical science advances, the question is raised afresh 
concerning the real character of those events which form 
its basis, and the real value of those documents on which 
it relies. As an historical religion, it invites this species of 
inquiry, and is glad that it should be made and repeated. 
It only complains in one of two cases when either prin- 
ciples unsound and wrong in themselves, having been as- 
sumed as proper criteria of historic truth, are applied to it 
for the purpose of disparagement ; or when, right princi- 
ples being assumed, the application of them, of which it is 
the object, is unfair and illegitimate. 

It is the latter of these two errors which seems to me to 
be the chief danger of the present day. Time was and 
that not very long ago when all the relations of ancient 
authors concerning the old world wen- received with a 
ready belief ; and an unreasoning and uncritical faith ac- 
cepted with equal satisfaction the narrative of the cam- 
paigns of Caesar and of the doings of Romulus, the account 
of Alexander's inarches and of the conquests of Scmirnniis. 


We can most of us remember when in this country the 
whole story of Regal Rome, and even the legend of the 
Trojan settlement in Latium, were seriously placed before 
boys as history, and discoursed of as unhesitatingly, and in 
as dogmatic a tone, as the tale of the Catiline conspiracy, 
or the conquest of Britain. " All ancient authors were " at 
this time, as has been justly observed, "put upon the same 
footing, and regarded as equally credible;" while "all parts 
of an author's work were supposed to rest on the same 
basis." ( 6 > A blind and indiscriminate faith of a low kind 
acquiescence rather than actual belief embraced equally 
and impartially the whole range of ancient story, setting 
aside perhaps those prodigies which easily detached them- 
selves from the narrative, and were understood to be em- 
bellishments on a par with mere graces of composition. 

But all this is now changed. The last century has seen 
the birth and growth of a new science the science of 
Historical Criticism. Beginning in France with the labors 
of Pouilly and Beaufort, ( 7) it advanced with rapid strides 
in Germany under the guidance of Niebuhr, f8 > Otfried 
Miiller, ( 9 ) and Bockh, ( 10) and finally, has been introduced 
and naturalized among ourselves by means of the 'writings 
of our best living historians. ( n > 

Its results in its own proper and primary field are of the 
most extensive arid remarkable character. TLie whole 
world of profane history has been revolutionized. By a 
searching and critical investigation of the mass of mate- 
rials on which that history rested, and by the application to 
it of Canons embodying the judgments of a sound discre- 
tion upon the value of different sorts of evidence, the vi^ws 
of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ^en 
thousand points either modified or reversed a new anti- 
quity has been raised up out of the old while much that 


was unreal in the picture of past times which men had 
formed to themselves has disappeared, consigned to that 
"Limbo large and broad" into which "all tilings transitory 
and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation lias in 
many cases taken the place of the old view, which has dis- 
solved before the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong 
fabric has arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen 
systems. Thus the results obtained have been both posi- 
tive and negative; but, it must be confessed, with a pre- 
ponderance of the latter over the former. The scepticism 
in which the science originated has clung to it from first to 
last, and in recent times we have seen not only a greater 
leaning to the destructive than to the constructive side, 
but a tendency to push doubt and incredulity beyond due 
limits, to call in question without cause, and t distrust 
what is sufficiently established. This tendency has not, 
however, been allowed to pass unrebuked ; ( 12 > and viewing 
the science as developed, not in the writings of this or that 
individual, but in the general conclusions in which it has 
issued, Ave may regard it :\.- having done, and as still pre- 
pared to do, good service in the cause of truth. 

It was not to be expected nor was it, I think, to he 
wished that the records of past times contained in the 
Old and New Testament should escape the searching 
ordeal to which all other historical documents had been 
subjected, or remain long, on account of their sacred char- 
acter, jinscrutinizcd by the inquirer. Reverence may possi- 
bly gain, but Faith, I believe, real and true Faith 
greatly loses by the establishment of a wall of partition be- 
tween the sacred and the profane, and the subtraction of 
the former from the domain of scientific inquiry. As truth 
of one kind cannot possibly be contradictory to truth of 
another, Christianity has nothing to fear from scientific 



investigations; and any attempt to isolate its facts and 
preserve them from the scrutiny which profane history re- 
ceives must, if successful, diminish the fulness of our assent 
to them the depth and reality of our belief in their 
actual occurrence. It is by the connectior of sacred with 
profane history that the facts of the former are most vividly 
apprehended, and most distinctly felt to be real ; to sever 
between the two is to make the sacred narrative grow dim 
and shadowy, and to encourage the notion that its details 
are not facts in the common and every-day sense of the 

When therefore, upon the general acceptance of the 
principles laid dow~, with respect to profane history by 
Otfried Miiller and Niebuhr, theological critics in Germany 
proceeded^ as they said, to apply the new canons of histori- 
cal criticism to the Gospels and to the historical books of 
the Old Testament, there was no cause for surprise, nor 
any ground for extreme apprehension. There is of course 
always danger when science alone, disjoined from religious 
feeling, undertakes, with its purblind sight and limited 
means of knowing, to examine, weigh, and decide matters 
of the highest import. But there did not appear to be in 
this instance any reason for special alarm. The great 
Master-spirit, he to whom the new science owed, if not its 
existence, yet at any rate its advancement and the estima- 
tion in which it was generally held had distinctly ac- 
cepted the mass of the Scripture history as authentic, and 
was a sincere and earnest believer. ( 13 ) It was hoped that 
the inquiry would be made in his spirit, and by means of 
a cautious application of his principles. But the fact has 
unfortunately been otherwise. The application of the 
science of historical criticism to the narrative of Scripture 
has been made in Germany by two schools one certainly 

1 Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 31 

far less extravagant than the other but both wanting in 
sound critical judgment, as well as in a due reverence tor 
the Written Word. It will be necessary, in order to make 
the scope of these Lectures clearly intelligible, to give an 
account at some length of the conclusions and reasonings 
of both classes of critics. 

The portion of the Scripture history which was first 
subjected to the application of the new principles was the 
historical part of the Old Testament. It was soon de- 
clared that a striking parallelism existed between this his- 
tory and the early records of most heathen nations. ("> 
The miracles in the narrative were compared with the 
prodigies and divine appearances related by Herodotus and 
Livy. ( 15 > The chronology was said to bear marks, like that 
'of Rome and Babylon, of artificial arrangement ; the re- 
currence of similar numbers, and especially of round num- 
bers, particularly indicating its unhistorical character. ( ;6 
The names of kings, it was observed, were frequently so 
apposite, that the monarchs supposed to have borne them 
must be regarded as fictitious personages, ( 17 ) like Theseus 
and Numa. Portions of the sacred narrative were early 
declared to present every appearance of being simply 
myths ;( 18 ) and by degrees it was sought to attach to the 
whole history, from first to last, a legendary and unreal 
character. All objections taken by rationalists or infidels 
to particular relations in the sacred hooks being allowed as 
.valid, it was considered a sufficient account of such rela- 
tions to say, that the main source of the entire narrative 
was oral tradition that it first took a written shape many 
hundreds of years after the supposed date of the circum- 
stances narrated, the authors being poets rather than his- 
torians, and bent rather on glorifying their native country 
than on giving a true relation of facts and that in places 


they had not even confined themselves to the exaggeration 
and embellishment of actual occurrences, but had allowed 
imagination to step in and fill up blanks in their annals. ( 19 > 
By some, attempts were made to disentangle the small ele- 
ment of fact which lay involved in so much romance and 
poetry from the mass in which it was embedded ; t 20 ) but 
the more logical minds rejected this as a vain and useless 
labor, maintaining that no separation which was other 
than arbitrary could be effected; and that the events 
themselves, together with the dress in which they ap- 
peared, "constituted a whole belonging to the province of 
woetry and mythus." ( 21 > It was argued that by this treat- 
ment the sacredness and divinity, and even the substantial 
truth of the Scriptures, was left unassailed ; (~ 2 ) the literal 
meaning only being discarded, and an allegorical one sub- 
stituted in its place. Lastly, the name of Origen Avas pro- 
duced from the primitive and best ages of Christianity to 
sanction this system of interpretation, and save it from the 
'atal stigma of entire and absolute novelty. ( 33) 

When the historical character of the Old Testament, as 
sailed on all sides by clever and eloquent pens, and weakly 
defended by here and there a single hesitating apolo- 
gist, seemed to those who had conducted the warfare irre- 
trievably demolished and destroyed, ( 24) the New Testament 
became, after a pause, the object of attack to the same 
school of writers. It was felt, no doubt, to be a bold thing 
to characterize as a collection of myths the writings of an 
age of general enlightenment ( 25) nay, even of incredulity 
and scepticism ; and perhaps a lingering regard for what 
so many souls held precious, ( 26 > stayed the hands of those 
who nevertheless saw plainly, that the New Testament was 
open to the same method of attack as the Old, and that an 
iuexorable logic required that both should be received or 


neither. A pause therefore ensued, but a pause of no long 
duration. First, particular portions of the New Testament 
narrative, as the account of our Lord's infancy, ( 27 ) and ot 
the Temptation, C 28 ) were declared to possess equal tokens 
of a mythic origin with those which had been previously 
regarded as fatal to the historical character of Old Testa- 
ment stories, and were consequently singled out for rejec- 
tion. Then, little by little, the same system of explanation 
was adopted with respect to more and more of the narra- 
tive ;("J till at last, in the hands of Strauss, the whole 
came to be resolved into pure myth and legend, and the 
historical Christ being annihilated, the world was told to 
console itself with a "God-man, eternally incarnate, not an 
individual, but an idea;"( 30 ) which, on examination, turns 
out to be no God at all, but mere man man perfected by 
nineteenth-century enlightenment dominant over nature 
by the railroad and the telegraph, and over himself by the 
negation of the merely natural and sensual life, and the 
substitution for it of the intellectual, or (in the nomencla- 
ture of the school) the spiritual. 

"In an individual," says Strauss, "the properties which 
the Church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the 
idea of the race they perfectly agree. Humanity is the 
union of the two natures Cod become man, the infinite 
manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remem- 
bering its infinitude; it is the eliild of the visible Mother 
and the invisible Father, Nature and Spirit; it is the 
worker of miracles, in so far as in the course ol human 
history the spirit more and more completely subjugates 
nature, both within and around man, until it lies before 
him as the inert matter on which he exercises his jictive 
power; it is the sinless existence, for the course of its 
development is a blameless one; pollution cleaves to the 


individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. 
It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to Heaven ; for 
from the negation of its phenomenal life there ever pro- 
ceeds a higher spiritual life ; from the suppression of its 
mortality as a personal, national, and terrestrial spirit, 
arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens. By 
faith in this Christ, especially in his death and resurrec- 
tion, man is justified before God ; that is, by the kindling 
within him of the idea of Humanity, the individual man 
partakes of the divinely human life of the species? '( 31 > 

Such are the lengths to which speculation, professedly 
grounding itself on the established principles of historical 
criticism, has proceeded in our day; and such the conclu- 
sions recommended to our acceptance by a philosophy 
which calls itself preeminently spiritual. How such a phi- 
losophy differs from Atheism, except in the use of a 
religious terminology, which it empties of all religious 
meaning, I confess myself unable to perceive. The final 
issue of the whole seems to be simply that position which 
Aristotle scouted as the merest folly, that " man is the 
highest and most divine thing in the universe," C 32 ) and that 
God consequently is but a name for humanity when per- 

More dangerous to faith, because less violent in its 
methods, and less sweeping in the conclusions to which it 
comes, is the moderate rationalism of another school, a 
school which can with some show of reason claim to shelter 
Hself under the gi-eat name and authority of Niebuhr. Not- 
withstanding the personal faith of Niebuhr, which cannot 
be doubted, and the strong expressions of which he made 
use against the advocates of the mythical theory, ( 33) he 
was himself upon occasions betrayed into remarks which 
involved to a great extent their principles, and opened a 


door to the thorough-going scepticism from which he indi- 
vidually shrank with horror. For instance, in one place 
Niebuhr says, with respect to the Book of Esther, " I am 
convinced that this book is not to be regarded as his- 
torical, and I have not the least hesitation in here stating 
it publicly. Many entertain the same opinion. Even the 
early fathers have tormented themselves with it ; and St. 
Jerome, as he himself clearly indicates, was in the greatest 
perplexity through his desire to regard it as an historical 
document. At present no one looks upon the Book of 
Judith as historical, and neither Origen nor St. Jerome did 
so ; the same is the case with Esther ; it is nothing more 
than a poem on the occurrences." ( 34) The great historical 
critic here (so far as appears, on mere subjective grounds, 
because the details of the narrative did not appear to him 
probable) surrendered to the mythical inteipreters a book 
of Scripture admitted that to be "a poem and nothing 
more" which, on the face of it, bore the appearance of 
a plain matter-of-fact history put a work which the 
Church has always regarded as canonical and authoritative 
on a par with one which was early pronounced apocryphal, 
not, certainly, moved to do so by any defect in the 
external evidence^ 35 ) though a vague reference is made to 
"early fathers;" but on account of internal difficulties, 
either in the story itself, or in the manner of its narration. 
I cannot see that it is possible to distinguish the princi- 
ple of this surrender from that asserted by the mythical 
school; or that the principle once admitted, any ground 
can be shown for limiting its application to a single 
book of Scripture, or indeed to any definite number of 
such books. Let it be once allowed that we may declare 
any part of Scripture which seems to us improbable, 
or which does not approve itself to our notions ol wiiat 


revelation should be, "a poem and nothing more," and 
what security is there against the extremest conclusions 
of the mythologists? One book will naturally be sur- 
rendered after another, ( 36 ) and the final result will not 
be distinguishable from that at which the school of He 
Wette and Strauss professedly aims the destruction of 
all trust in the historical veracity of the Scripture nar- 

The partial scepticism of Xiebuhr has always had follow- 
ers in Germany men who are believers, but who admit 
the principles of unbelief who rationalize, but who think 
to say to the tide of rationalism, "Thus far shalt thou go, 
and no farther." I shall not detain my hearers with a long 
array of instances in this place. Suffice it to adduce the 
teaching of a single living writer, whose influence is very 
considerable both in Germany and in our own country. 
On the ground that Egypt has a continuous history, com- 
mencing more than six thousand years before the Christian 
era, we are required to reject the literal interpretation of 
the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis, and to 
believe that the Flood was no more than a great catas- 
trophe in Western Asia, which swept away the inhabitants 
of that region, but left Egypt and the greater part of the 
world untouched. Ham, we are told, is not a person, but 
the symbolical representative of Egypt; and he is the 
elder brother, because Egyptian Hamitism is older than 
Asiatic Semitism. The expression that Canaan is the son 
of Ham "must be interpreted geographically;" it means, 
that the Canaanitic tribes which inhabited historical 
Canaan came from Egypt, where they had previously had 
their abode. Nimrod is said to have been begotten by 
Cush ; but he was no more a Cushite by blood than 
Canaan was an Egyptian ; he is called a Cushite, because 


the people represented by him came from the part of 
Africa called Cash or Ethiopia (which they had held as 
conquerors) back into Asia, and there established an 
empire. C 37 ^ Again, "the family tree of Abraham is an 
historical representation of the great and lengthened 
migrations of the primitive Asiatic race of man, from the 
mountains of Armenia and Chahhea, through Mesopota- 
mia, to the north-east frontier of Egypt, as far as Amalek 
and Edom. It represents the connection between nations 
and their tribes, not personal connection betioeen father and 
son, and records consequently epochs, not real human 
pedigrees? W> The early Scriptures are devoid altogether 
of an historical chronology. When the sojourn of the 
children of Israel in Egypt is said to have been four hun- 
dred and thirty years, of which one half, or two hundred 
and fifteen years, was from Abraham's going down into 
Egypt to Jacob's, the other from Jacob's going down to 
the Exodus, the number must be regarded as "conven- 
tional and unhistorical ;" ( 39 > as "connected with the 
legendary genealogies of particular families ;"( 4 ) as formed, 
in fact, artificially by a doubling of the tirst period; which 
itself only "represents the traditionary accounts of the 
primitive times of Canaan, as embodied in a genealogy 
of the three patriarchs," (") and "cannot possibly be worthy 
of more confidence than the traditions with regard to 
the second period," which arc valueless. ('-< Of course 
the earlier lists of names and calculations of years are 
looked upon with still less favor. "The .Jewish tradition, 
in proportion as its antiquity is thrown hack, bears on 
its face less of a chronological character," so that "no 
light is to be gleaned from it" for general purposes. W 
Even in the comparatively recent times of David and Sol- 
omon, there is no coherent or reliable chronology; tho 



round number forty being still mot with, which is taken to 
be an indubitable sign of arbitrary and artificial arrange- 
ment. ( 44 > 

Such are some of the results which have, in fact, fol- 
lowed from the examination by historical critics, possessed 
of more or less critical acumen, of those sacred records, 
which are allowed on all hands to be entitled to deep 
respect, and which we in this place believe to be, not 
indeed free from such small errors as the carelessness or 
ignorance of transcribers may have produced, but substan- 
tially " the Word of God." I propose at the present time, 
in opposition to the views which I have sketched, to 
examine the Sacred Narrative on the positive side. Leav- 
ing untouched the question of the inspiration of Scripture, 
and its consequent title to outweigh all conflicting testi- 
mony whatever, I propose briefly to review the historical 
evidence for the orthodox belief. My object will be to 
meet the reasoning of the historical sceptics on their own 
ground. I do not, indeed, undertake to consider and 
answer their minute and multitudinous cavils, which would 
be an endless task, and which is moreover unnecessary, 
as to a great extent the cavillers meet and answer one 
another ;( 45 ) but I hope to show, without assuming the 
inspiration of the Bible, that for the great facts of revealed 
religion, the miraculous history of the Jews, and the birth, 
life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as 
for his miracles and those of his apostles, the historical 
evidence which we possess is of an authentic and satisfac- 
tory character. I shall review this evidence in the light 
and by the laws of the modern historical criticism, so far 
as they seem to be established. Those laws appear to me 
to be sound; and their natural and real bearing is to 
increase instead of diminishing the weight of the Christian 


evidences. It is not from a legitimate and proper applica- 
tion of them that faith has suffered, but partly from their 
neglect or misapplication, partly from the intrusion among 
them of a single unproved and irrational opinion. 

I am not aware that the laws in question have ever been 
distinctly laid down in a compendious, or even in an 
abstract form. They are assumed throughout the writings 
of our best historians, but they are involved in their 
criticisms rather than directly posited as their principles. 
I believe, however, that I shall not misrepresent them 
if I say, that, viewed on their positive side, they consist 
chiefly of the four following Canons: 

1. When the record which we possess of an event is the 
writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible 
witness, and had means of observing the fact to which he 
testifies, the fact is to be accepted, as possessing the first or 
highest degree of historical credibility. Such evidence is 
on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with 
the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it 
is not sworn to speak the truth, and with the advantage, on 
the other, that he is less likely than the legal witness to 
have a personal interest in the matter concerning which he 
testifies. ( 4fi ) 

2. When the event recorded is one which the writer 
may be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly 
from those who witnessed it, we should accept it as proba- 
bly true, unless it be in itself very improbable. Such 
evidence possesses the second degree of historical credi- 
bility. (> 

3. When the event recorded is removed considerably 
from the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to 
believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, 
but the probable source of his information was oral tra- 


dition ; still, if the event be one of great importance, and 
of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, or pros- 
perity, especially if it be of a nature to have been at 
once commemorated by the establishment of any rite or 
practice, then it has a claim to belief as probably true, at 
least in its general outline. ( 48 ) This, however, is the third, 
and a comparatively low, degree of historical credibility. 

4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsup- 
ported, would have had but small claim to attention, 
and none to belief, are corroborated by the traditions of 
another, especially if a distant or hostile race, the event 
which has this double testimony obtains thereby a high 
amount of probability, and, if not very unlikely in itself, 
thoroughly deserves acceptance.^ The degree of his- 
torical credibility in this case is not exactly commensurable 
with that in the others, since a new and distinct ground of 
likelihood comes into play. It may be as strong as the 
highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, 
though this is not often the case in fact. In a general 
-way we may say that the weight of this kind of evidence 
exceeds that which has been called the third degree 
of historical probability, and nearly approaches to the 

To these Canons may be added certain corollaries, or 
dependent truths, with respect to the relative value of 
the materials from which history is ordinarily composed, 
important to be borne in mind in all inquiries like that 
on which we are entering. Historical materials may be 
divided into direct and indirect, direct, or such as pro- 
ceed from the agents in the occurrences ; indirect, or such 
as are the embodiment of inquiries and researches made by 
persons not themselves engaged in the transactions. The 
former are allowed, on all hands, to be of primary impor- 


tance. There is indeed a drawback upon their value, 
arising out of the tendency of human vanity to exalt self 
at the expense of truth ; but where the moral character of 
the writer is a security against wilful misrepresentation, or 
where the publicity of the events themselves would make 
misrepresentation folly, the very highest degree of credit is 
to be given to direct records. These may be either public 
inscribed monuments, such as have frequently been set up 
by governments and kings; state papers, such as we hear 
of in the books of Ezra and Esther jt 50 ) letters, or books. 
Again, books of this class will be either commentaries, (or 
particular histories of events in which the authors have 
taken part;) autobiographies, or accounts which persons 
have given of their own lives up to a certain point; or 
memoirs ; i. e., accounts which persons have given of those 
with whom they have had some acquaintance. These are 
the best and most authentic sources of history ; and we 
must either be content with them, or regard the past as 
absolutely shrouded from our knowledge by a veil which is 
impenetrable. Indirect records the compilations of dili- 
gent inquirers concerning times or scenes in which they 
have themselves had no part are to be placed on a much 
lower footing; they must be judged by their internal char- 
acter, by their accord with what is otherwise known of the 
times or scenes in question, and by the apparent veracity 
and competency of their composers. They often have a 
high value; but this value cannot be assumed previously to 
investigation, depending as it docs almost entirely on the 
critical judgment of their authors, on the materials to 
which they had access, and on the use that they actually 
made of them. 

The force of cumulative evidence has often been 
noticed. No account of the grounds of historic belief 



would be complete, even in outline, which failed to notice 
its applicability to this held of investigation, and its great 
weight and importance in all cases where it has any place. 
"Probable proofs," says Bishop Butler, "by being added, not 
only increase the evidence, but multiply it." ( 51) When two 
independent writers witness to the same event, the proba- 
bility of that event is increased, not in an arithmetical but 
in a geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, but by mul- 
tiplication. C 52 ) "By the mouth of two or three witnesses,"' 
the word to which such witness is borne is " established." l 
And the agreement is the more valuable if it be so to 
speak incidental and casual; if the two writers are con- 
temporary, and their writings not known to one another ; 
if one only alludes to what the other narrates; if one 
appears to have been an actor, and the other merely a 
looker-on ; if one gives events, and the other the feelings 
which naturally arise out of them : in these cases the con- 
viction which springs up in every candid and unprejudiced 
mind is absolute ; the element of doubt which hangs about 
all matters of mere belief being reduced to such infinitesi- 
mal proportions as to be inappreciable, and so, practically 
speaking, to disappear altogether. 

To the four Canons which have been already enumer- 
ated as the criteria of historic truth, modern Rationalism 
would add a fifth, an a priori opinion of its own the 
admission of which would put a stop at once to any such 
inquiry as that upon which Ave are now entering. "No 
just perception of the true nature of history is possible," we 
are told, " without a perception of the inviolability of the 
chain of finite causes, and of the iirqyossibility of mira- 
cles? ^ And the mythical interpreters insist, that one 
of the essential marks of a mythical narrative, whereby it 

1 Deut. xix. 15. 

Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 43 

may be clearly distinguished from one which is historical, 
is, its "presenting an account of events which are cither 
absolutely or relatively beyond the reach of (ordinary) 
experience, such as occurrences connected with the spir- 
itual world, or its dealing in the supernatural." ( 54 ) Now, 
if miracles cannot take place, an inquiry into the historical 
evidences of Revealed Religion is vain ; for Revelation is 
itself miraculous, and therefore, by the hypothesis, impossi- 
ble. But what are the grounds upon which so stupendous 
an assertion is made, as that God cannot, if He so please, 
suspend the working of those laws by which He commonly 
acts upon matter, and act on special occasions differently? 
Shall we say that He cannot, because of His own immuta- 
bility because He is a being "with whom is no variable- 
ness, neither shadow of turning?" 1 But, if Ave apply the 
notion of a Law to God at all, it is plain that miraculous 
interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a 
legular, fixed, and established rule of His government, as 
the working ordinarily by what are called natural laws. Or 
shall we say that all experience and analogy is against mira- 
cles? But this is either to judge, from our own narrow 
and limited experience, of the whole course of nature, and 
so to generalize upon most weak and insufficient grounds; 
or else, if in the phrase "all experience" we include the 
experience of others, it is to draw a conclusion directly 
in the teeth of our data; for many persons well worthy of 
belief have declared that they have witnessed and wrought 
miracles. Moreover, were it true that all known experi- 
ence was against miracles, this would not even prove that 
they had not happened much less that they are impos- 
sible. If they are impossible, it must be either from some- 
thing in the nature of things, or from something in the 
1 James i. 17. 


nature of God. That the immutability of God does not 
stand in the way of miracles has been already shown ; and I 
know of no other attribute of the Divine Nature which can 
be even supposed to create a difficulty. To most minds it 
will, if I do not greatly mistake, rather appear, that the 
Divine Omnipotence includes in it the power of working 
miracles. And if God created the world, He certainly 
once worked a miracle of the most surpassing greatness. 
Is there then any thing in the nature of things to make 
miracles impossible ? Not unless things have an independ- 
ent existence, and work by their own power. If they are 
in themselves nought, if God called them out of nothing, 
and but for His sustaining power they would momentarily 
fall back into nothing ; if it is not they that work, but He 
who works in them and through them ; if growth, and 
change, and motion, and assimilation, and decay, are His 
dealings with matter, as sanctification, and enlightenment, 
and inward comfort, and the gift of the clear vision of 
Him, are His dealings with ourselves; if the Great and 
First Cause never deserts even for a moment the second 
Causes, but He who " upholdeth all things by the word of 
His power," 1 and is "above all and through all," 2 is also (as 
Hooker says) "the Worker of all in all'M 55 ) then cer- 
tainly things in themselves cannot oppose any impediment 
to miracles, or do aught but obsequiously follow the Divine 
fiat, be it what it may. The whole difficulty with regard 
to miracles has its roots in a materialistic Atheism, which 
believes things to have a force in and of themselves ; 
which regards them as self-sustaining, if not even as self- 
caused ; which deems them to possess mysterious powers of 
their own uncontrollable by the Divine Will ; which sees 
in the connection of physical cause and effect, not a 

Heb. i. 3. 2 Eph. iv. 6. 


sequence, not a law, but a necessity ; which, either positing 
a Divine First Cause to bring things into existence, then 
(like Anaxagoras) makes no further use of Him^ 56 ) or 
does not care to posit any such First Cause at all, but is 
content to refer all things to a " course of nature," which it 
considers eternal and unalterable, and on which it lavishes 
all the epithets that believers regard as appropriate to God, 
and God only. It is the pectiliarity of Atheism at the 
present day that it uses a religious nomenclature it is no 
longer dry, and hard, and cold, all matter of fact and com- 
mon-sense, as was the case in the last century, on the 
contrary, it has become warm in expression, poetic, elo- 
quent, glowing, sensuous, imaginative the " Course of 
Nature," which it has set up in the place of God, is in a 
certain sense deified, no language is too exalted to be 
applied to it, no admiration too great to be excited by it 
it is "glorious," and "marvellous," and "superhuman," and 
"heavenly," and "spiritual," and "divine" only it is 
"It," not "He," a fact or set of facts, and not a Person ; 
and so it can really call forth no love, no gratitude, no 
reverence, no personal feeling of any kind it can claim 
no willing obedience it can inspire no wholesome awe 
it is a dead idol after all, and its worship is but the "Id 
nature worship, man returning in his dotage to the fol' 
lies which beguiled his childhood losing the Creator in 
the creature, the Workman in the work of his hands. 

It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but such as 
involve a real, though covert Atheism, that miracles arc 
impossible, or that a narrative of which supernatural occur- 
rences form an essential part is therefore devoid of an his- 
toric character. Miracles are to be viewed as in fact a part 
of the Divine Economy, a part as essential as any other, 
though coming into play less frequently. It has already 


been o; served, that the creation of the world was a* mira- 
cle, or rather a whole array of miracles ; and any true his- 
torical account of it must " deal in the supernatural." A 
first man was as great a miracle may we not say a 
greater miracle ? than a raised man. Greater, inasmuch 
as to create and unite a body and soul is to do more than 
merely to unite them when they have been created. And 
the occurrence of miracles at the beginning of the Avorld 
established a precedent for their subsequent occurrence 
from time to time with greater or less frequency, as God 
should see to b r fitting. Again, all history aboundo in 
statements that miracles have in fact from time to time 
occurred; and though wc should sui-render to the sceptic 
the whole mass of Heathen and Ecclesiastical miracles, 
which I for one do not hold to be necessary, < 57) yet still 
fictitious miracles imply the existence of true ones, just as 
hypocrisy implies that there is virtue To reject a narra- 
tive, therefore, simply because it contains miraculous cir- 
cumstances, is to indulge an irrational prejudice a preju- 
dice which has r.o foundation, either in a priori truths or 
in the philosophy of experience, and which can only be 
consistently held by one who disbelieves in God. 

The rejection of this negative Canon, which a pseudo- 
critical School has boldly but vainly put forward for the 
furtherance of- its own views with respect to the Christian 
scheme, but which no historian of repute has adopted since 
the days of Gibbon, will enable us to proceed without fur- 
ther delay to that which is the special business cf these 
Lectures the examination, by the light of those Canons 
Whose truth has been admitted, cf the historic evidences 
of Revealed Religion. The actual examination must, how- 
ever, be reserved for future Lectures. Time will not per- 
mit of my attempting to do more in the brief remainder of 

Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 47 

the present Discourse than simply to point out the chief 
kinds or branches into which the evidence divides itself 
and to indicate, somewhat more clearly than has as yet been 
done, the method which will be pursued in the examina- 
tion of i f . 

The sacred records themselves are the main proof of the 
events related in them. Waiving the question of their 
inspiration, I propose to view them simply as a mass of 
documents, subject to the laws, and to be judged by the 
principles, of historical criticism; I shall briefly discuss 
their genuineness, where it has been culled in question, 
and vindicate their authenticity. Where two or more 
documents belong to the same time, I shall endeavor to 
exhibit some of their most remarkable points of agree- 
ment : I shall not, however, dwell at much length on this 
portion of the inquiry. It is of preeminent importance, 
but its preeminence has secured it a large amount of atten- 
tion on the part of Christian writers; and I cannot hope 
to add much to the labors of those who have preceded me 
in this field. There is, however, a second and distinct 
kind of evidence, which has not (I think) received of late 
as much consideration as it deserves I mean the ejrternal 
evidence to the truth of the Bible records, whether con- 
tained in monuments, in the works of piof'mc writers, in 
customs and observances now existing or known to have 
existed, or finally in the works of believers nearly contem' 
porary with any of the events narrated. The evidence 
under some of these heads has recently received important 
accessions, and fresh light has been thrown in certain cases 
on the character and comparative value of the writers. It 
seems to be time to bid the nations of the earth once more 
"bring forth their witnesses." and "declare" and "show 
ns" what it is which they record of the "former things" 


that they may at once justify and "be justified" in part 
directly confirming the Scripture narrative, in part silent 
but not adverse, content to " hear, and say, ' It is truth.' " 
"Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord" even "the blind 
people, that have eyes; and the deaf, that have ears" 
"Ye are my witnesses and my servant whom I have 
chosen." 1 The testimony of the sacred and the profane is 
not conflicting, but consentient and the comparison of 
the two will show, not discord, but harmony. 

1 Isaiah xliii. 8, 10. 



Ix every historical inquiry it is possible to pursue our 
researches in two ways : we may either trace the stream of 
time upwards, and pursue history to its earliest source; or 
we may reverse the process, and beginning at the fountain- 
head follow down the course of events in chronological 
order to our own day. The former is the more philosophi- 
cal, because the more real and genuine method of proce- 
dure: it is the course which in the original investigation of 
the subject must, in point of fact, have been pursued: ti ! 
present is our standing point, and we necessarily view the 
past from it; and only know so much of the past as wo 
connect, more or less distinctly, with it. I5ut the opposite 
process has certain advantages which cause it commonly to 
be preferred. It is the order of the actual occurrence, and 
therefore has an objective truth which the other lacks. It, 
is the simpler and clearer of the two, being synthetic ami 
not analytic; commencing with little, it proceeds by con- 
tinual accretion, thus adapting itself to our capacities, 
which cannot take in much at once; and further, it has the 
advantage of conducting us out of comparative darkness 
into a Light which brightens and broadens as we keep 


advancing, "shining more and more unto the perfect day." 1 
Its difficulties and inconveniences are at the first outset, 
when we plunge as it were into a world unknown, and 
seek in the dim twilight of the remote past for some sure 
and solid ground upon which to plant our foot. On the 
whole there is perhaps sufficient reason for conforming to 
the ordinary practice, and adopting the actual order of the 
occurrences as that of the examination upon which we are 

It will be necessary, however, in order to bring within 
reasonable compass the vast field that offers itself to us for 
investigation, to divide the history which is to be reviewed 
into periods, which may be successively considered in their 
entirety. The division which the sacred writings seem to 
suggest is into five such periods. The first of these ex- 
tends from the Creation to the death of Moses, being the 
period of which the history is delivered to us in the Penta- 
teuch. The second extends from the death of Moses to 
the accession of Rehoboam, and is treated in Joshua, 
Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, and some por- 
tions of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. The third is 
the period from the accession of Rehoboam to the Captiv- 
ity of Judah, which is treated of in the remainder of Kings 
and Chronicles, together with portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and 
Zepha.wah. The fourth extends from the Captivity to the 
reform of Xehcmiah ; and its history is contained in Dan- 
iel, Ezra, Esther, and Xehemiah, and illustrated by Haggai 
and Zechariah. The fifth is the period of the life of Christ 
and the preaching and establishment of Christianity, of 
which the history is given in the Xew Testament. The 
first four periods will form the subject of the present and 

'Proverbs iv. 18. 


three following Lectures. The fifth period, from its supe- 
rior importance, will require to be treated at greater 
length. Its examination is intended to occupy the remain- 
der of the present Course. 

The sacred records of the first period have come down to 
us in the shape of five Books, the first of which is introduc- 
tory, while the remaining four present us with the history 
of an individual, Moses, and of the Jewish people under his 
guidance. Critically speaking, it is of the last importance 
to know by whom the books which contain this history 
were written. Now the ancient, positive, and uniform tra- 
dition of the Jews assigned the authorship of the five 
books, (or Pentateuch,) with the exception of the last 
chapter of Deuteronomy, to Moses ;W and this tradition is 
prima facie evidence of the fact, such as at least throws 
the burden of proof upon those who call it in question. It 
is an admitted rule of all sound criticism, that books are to 
be regarded as proceeding from the writers whose nanus 
they bear, unless very strong reasons indeed can be ad- 
duced to the contrary. ( 2 ) In the present instance, the 
reasons which have been urged are weak and puerile in 
the extreme; they rest in part on misconceptions of the 
meaning of passages, ( 3 ) in part, upon interpolations into 
the original text, which are sometimes very plain and pal- 
pable. W Mainly, however, they have their source in arbi- 
trary and unproved hypotheses, as that a contemporary 
writer would not have introduced an account of mira- 
cles ; C*) that the culture indicated by the book is beyond 
that of the age of Moses ;( r ') that if .Moses had written the 
book, he would not have spoken of himself in the third 
person ;( 7 > that he would have given a fuller and more 
complete account of his own history;^ and that he would 
not have applied to himself terms of praise and expression!* 


of honor. ( 9 ) It is enough to observe of these objections, 
that they are such as might equally be urged against the 
genuineness of St. Paul's epistles, which is allowed even by 
Strauss ( 10 ) against that of the works of Homer, Chancer, 
and indeed of all writers in advance of their age against 
Caesar's Commentaries, and Xenophon's Expedition of 
Cyrus against the Acts of the Apostles, ( n ) and against 
the Gospel of St. John. St. Paul relates contemporary 
miracles ; Homer and Chaucer exhibit a culture and a tone 
which, but for them, we should have supposed unattaina- 
ble in their age; Caesar and Xenophon write throughout 
in the third person ; St. Luke omits all account of his own 
doings at Philippi ; St. John applies to himself the most 
honorable of all titles " the disciple whom Jesus loved." 1 
A priori conceptions of how an author of a certain time 
and country would write, of what he would say or not say, 
or how he would express himself, are among the weakest 
of all presumptions, and must be regarded as outweighed 
by a very small amount of positive testimony to author- 
ship. Moreover, for an argument of this sort to have any 
force at all, it is necessary that Ave should possess, from 
other sources besides the author who is being judged, a 
tolerably complete knowledge of the age to which he is 
assigned, and a fair acquaintance with the literature of his 
period. ( 12 ) In the case of Moses our knowledge of the age 
is exceedingly limited, while of the literature we have 
scarcely any knowledge at all,( 13 ) beyond that which is 
furnished by the sacred records next in succession the 
Books of Joshua and Judges, and (perhaps) the Book of 
Job and these are so far from supporting the notion that 
such a work as the Pentateuch could not be produced in 
the age of Moses, that they furnish a very strong argument 

1 John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, &c. 

Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 58 

to the contrary. The diction of the Pentateuch is older 
than that of Joshua and Judges, ( 14 ) while its ideas are pre- 
supposed in those writings, ( 15 ) which may be said to be 
based upon it, and to require it as their antecedent. If, 
then, they could be written at the time to which they are 
commonly and (as will be hereafter shown) rightly as- 
signed, ( 1G ) the Pentateuch not only may, but must, be as 
early as Moses. 

Vague doubts have sometimes been thrown out as to 
the existence of writings at this period. ( 17 > The evidence 
of the Mosaic records themselves, if the true date of their 
composition were allowed, would be conclusive upon the 
point; for they speak of writing as a common practice. 
Waiving this evidence, we may remark that hieroglyphical 
inscriptions upon stone were known in Egypt at least as 
early as the fourth dynasty, or B. C. 2450, ( lb) that inscribed 
bricks were common in Babylonia about two centuries 
later, < 19 ) and that writing upon papyruses, both in the hie- 
roglyphic and hieratic characters, was familiar to the Egyj)- 
tians under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, '*'> 
which is exactly the time to which the Mosaic records 
would, if genuine, belong. It seems certain that Moses, if 
educated by a daughter of one of the Iiamesside kings, and 
therefore "learned" (as we are told he was) " in all the 
wisdom of Egypt," ' Mould be well acquainted with the 
Egyptian method of writing with ink upon the papyrus ; 
while it is also probable that Abraham, who emigrated not 
earlier than the ninetecth century before our era from tin- 
great Chahhean capital, Ur, would have brought with him 
and transmitted to his descendants the alphabetic system 
with which the Chaldeans of his day were acquainted. - p 
There is thus every reason to suppose that writing was 

' Acts vii. 22. 


familiar to the Jews when they quitted Egypt ; and the 
mention of it as a common practice in the books of Moses 
is in perfect accordance with what we know of the condi- 
tion of the world at the time from other sources. 

To the unanimous witness of the Jews with respect to 
the authorship of the Pentateuch may be added the testi- 
mony of a number of heathen writers. Hecatseus of Ab- 
dera, ( ,22 > Manetho, C 23 ^ Lysimachus of Alexandria, ( 24) Eupol- 
emus,(^ Tacitus, ( 26 ) Juvenal, C 37 ) Longinus, ( 2 *> all ascribe 
to Moses the institution of that code of laws by which the 
Jews were distinguished from other nations ; and the ma- 
jority distinctly ( 29 ) note that he committed his laws to 
writing. These authors cover a space extending from the 
time of Alexander, when the Greeks first became curious 
on the subject of Jewish history, to that of the emperor 
Aurelian, when the literature of the Jews had been thor- 
oughly sifted by the acute and learned Alexandrians. 
They constitute, not the full voice of heathenism on the 
subject, but only an indication of what that voice was. It 
cannot be doubted that if we had the complete works of 
those many other writers to whom Josephus, Clement, and 
Eusebius refer as mentioning Moses, ( 3 ) we should find the 
amount of heathen evidence on this point greatly increased. 
Moreover, we must bear in mind that the witness is unani- 
mous, or all but unanimous. ( 31 > Nor is it, as an objector 
might be apt to urge, the mere echo of Jewish tradition 
faintly repeating itself from far off lands ; in part at least it 
rests upon a distinct and even hostile authority that of 
the Egyptians. Manetho certainly, and Lysimachus proba- 
bly, represent Egyptian, and not Jewish, views ; and thus 
the Jewish tradition is confirmed by that of the only na- 
tion which was sufficiently near and sufficiently advanced 
in the Mosaic age to make its testimony on the point of 
real importance. 


To the external testimony which has been now adduced 
must be added the internal testimony of the work itself, 
which repeatedly speaks of Moses as writing the law, and 
recording the various events and occurrences in a book, 
and as reading from this book to the people. C 32 ) The 
modern rationalist regards it as a " most unnatural suppo- 
sition," that the Pentateuch was written during the ] ^as- 
sage of the Israelites through the wilderness;^ but this is 
what every unprejudiced reader gathers from the Penta- 
teuch itself, which tells us that God commanded Moses tu 
"write" the discomfiture of Amalek "in a book;" 1 that 
Moses "wrote all the words of the law,"- and "took the 
book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of the 
people," 3 and "wrote the goings out of the people of Israel 
according to their journeys, by the commandment of the 
Lord;" 4 and, finally, "made an end of writing the words 
of the law in a book, until they were finished;" 5 ami bade 
the Levites, who bare the ark of the covenant, "take that 
book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the 
covenant of the Lord, that it might be there for a witness 
against the people."" A book, therefore a "hook of the 
covenant" a book out of which he could read the whole 
law( 34) was certainly written by Moses; ami this book 
was deposited in the ark of the covenant, and given into 
the special custody of the Levites, who bare it, with the 
stern injunction still ringing in their ears, "Ye shall not 
add unto the word, neither diminish aught from it ;"' and 
they were charged "at the end of every seven years, in the 
year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, to read it before 
all Israel in their hearing;"" and, further, a command was 

1 Exod. xvii. 14. * Ibid. xxiv. 4. 3 Ibid. v.t. 7. 

4 Numb, xxxiii. 2. s Dcut. xxxi. 24. 6 Ibid. vcr. 26. 

7 Deut. iv. 2. b Ibid. xxxi. 10, 11. 


given, that, when the Israelites should have kings, each 
king should " write him a copy of the law in a book, out of 
that which was before the priests the Levites, that he 
might read therein all the days of his life." 1 Unless, there- 
fore, we admit the Pentateuch to be genuine, we must 
suppose that the book which (according to the belief of 
the Jews) Moses wrote, which was placed in the ark of 
God, over which the Levites were to watch with such 
jealous care, which was to be read to the people once 
in each seven years, and which was guarded by awful 
sanctions from either addition to it or diminution from 
it we must suppose, I say, that this book perished ; and 
that another book was substituted in its place by an 
unknown author for unknown objects professing to be 
the work of Moses, (for that is allowed,) ( 35 > and believed to 
be his work thenceforth, without so much as a doubt being 
breathed on the subject either by the nation, its teachers, 
or even its enemies, for many hundreds of years. ( 3G ) It has 
often been remarked, that the theories of those who assail 
-Christianity, make larger demands upon the faith of such 
as embrace them than the Christian scheme itself, marvel- 
lous as it is in many points. Certainly, feAV suppositions 
can be more improbable than that to which (as we have 
seen) those who deny the Pentateuch to be genuine must 
have recourse, when pressed to account for the phenomena. 
It is not surprising that, having to assign a time for the 
introduction of the forged volume, they have varied as to 
the date which they suggest by above a thousand years, 
while they also differ from one another in every detail with 
which they venture to clothe the transaction. ( 3 ~) 

I have dwelt the longer upon the genuineness of the 
Pentateuch, because it is admitted, even by the extremest 

1 Deut. xvii. 18, 19. 


sceptics, that the genuineness of the work carries with it 
the authenticity of the narrative, at least in all its main 
particulars. " It would most unquestionably," says Strauss, 
"be an argument of decisive weight in favor of the credi- 
bility of the Biblical history, could it indeed be shown that 
it was written by eye-witnesses." " Moses, being the leader 
of the Israelites on their departure from Egypt, would 
undoubtedly give a faithful history of the occurrences, 
unless" (which is not pretended) "he designed to deceive." 
And further, " Moses, if his intimate connection with Deity 
described in these books" (i. e. the last four) "be histori- 
cally true, was likewise eminently qualified, by virtue of 
such connection, to produce a credible history of the earlier 
periods." ( 37 > If Moses indeed wrote the account which we 
possess of the Exodus and of the wanderings in the wilder- 
ness; and if, having written it, he delivered it to those 
who knew the events as well as he, the conditions, which 
secure the highest degree of historical credibility, so far at 
least as regards the events of the last four books, are ob- 
tained. We have for them the direct witness of a contem- 
porary writer not an actor only, but the leader in the 
transactions which he relates honest evidently, for he 
records his own sins and defects, and the transgressions 
and sufferings of his people; and honest necessarily, lor he 
writes of events. which were public and known to all we 
have a work, which, by the laws of historical criticism, is 
thus for historical purposes just as reliable as Caesar's Com- 
mentaries or Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten Thousand 
we have that rare literary treasure, the autobiography of a 
great man, engaged in great events, the head of his nation 
at a most critical period in their annals; who commits to 
writing as they occur the various events and transactions 
in which he is engaged, wherever they have a national or 


public character^ 38 ) We must therefore consider, even 
setting aside the whole idea of inspiration, that we possess 
in the last four books of the Pentateuch as reliable an ac- 
count of the Exodus of the Jews, and their subsequent 
wanderings, as we do, in the works of Caesar and Xeno- 
phon, of the conquest of Britain, or of the events which 
preceded and followed the battle of Cunaxa. 

The narrative of Genesis stands undoubtedly on a dif- 
ferent footing. Our confidence in it must ever rest mainly 
on our conviction of the inspiration of the writer. Still, 
setting that aside, and continuing to judge the documents 
as if they were ordinary historical materials, it is to be 
noted, in the first place, that, as Moses was on the mother's 
side grandson to Levi, he would naturally possess that fair 
knowledge of the time of the first going down into Egypt, 
and of the history of Joseph, which the most sceptical of 
the historical critics allow that men have of their own 
family and nation to the days of their grandfathers. < 39 ) He 
would thus be as good an historical authority for the de- 
tails of Joseph's story, and for the latter part of the life of 
Jacob, as Herodotus for the reign of Cambyses, or Fabius 
Pictor for the third Samnite War. Again, with respect to 
the earlier history, it is to be borne in mind through how 
very few hands, according to the numbers in the Hebrew 
text, this passed to Moses. ( 4 ) Adam, according to the 
Hebrew original, was for two hundred and forty-three years 
contemporary with Methuselah, who conversed for one 
hundred years with Shem. Shem was for fifty years con- 
temporary with Jacob, who probably saw Jochebed, Moses' 
mother. Thus Moses might, by mere oral tradition, have 
obtained the history of Abraham, and even of the Deluge, 
at third hand ; and that cf the Temptation and the Fall, 
at fifth hand. The patriarchal longevity had the effect of 


reducing centuries to little more than lustres, so far as the 
safe transmission of historical events was concerned ; tor 
this does not depend either upon years or upon genera- 
tions, but upon the number of links in the chain through 
which the transmittal takes place. If it be granted, as it 
seems to be, ( 41 ) that the great and stirring events in a 
nation's life will, under ordinary circumstances, be remem- 
bered (apart from all written memorials) for the space of 
one hundred and fifty years, being handed down through 
five generations, it must be allowed (even on mere human 
grounds) that the account which Moses gives of the Temp- 
tation and the Fall is to be depended on, if it passed 
through no more than four hands between him and Adam. 
And the argument is of course stronger for the more re- 
cent events, since they would have passed through fewer 
hands than the earlier. ( 42 ) 

And this, be it remembered, is on the supposition that 
the sole human source from which Moses composed the 
Book of Genesis was oral tradition. But it is highly prob- 
able that he also made use of documents. So much fanciful 
speculation has been advanced, so many vain and baseless 
theories have been built up, in connection with what is 
called the " document-hypothesis " concerning (Jem-sis, - U) 
that I touch the point with some hesitation, and beg at 
once to be understood as not venturing to dogmatize in a 
matter of such difficulty. But both </ priori probability, 
and the internal evidence, seem to me to favor the opinion 
of V itrinsra ( 44 ) and Cahnct, ( ,:,) that Moses consulted mouu- 
ments 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, 
composed his history. What we know of the antiquity of 
writing, both in Egypt and Babylonia, < 4C) renders it not 


improbable that the art was known and practised soon after 
the Flood, if it was not even (as some have supposed) a 
legacy from the antediluvian world. ( 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 before he set out 
on his wanderings. And if it be said that the art, though 
known, might not have been applied to historical records in 
the family of Abraham at this early date, yet, at any rate, 
when the Israelites descended into Egypt, and found writ- 
ing in such common use, and historical records so abundant 
as they can be proved to have been in that country at that 
period, it is scarcely conceivable that they should not have 
reduced to a written form the traditions of their race, the 
memory of which their residence in a foreign land would 
be apt to endanger. And these probabilities are quite in 
accordance with what appears in the Book of Genesis 
itself. The great fulness with which the history of Joseph 
is given, and the minutiae into which it enters, mark it as 
based upon a contemporary, or nearly contemporary, biog- 
raphy ; and the same may be said with almost equal force 
of the histories of Jacob, Isaac, and even Abraham. 
Further, there are several indications of separate docu- 
ments in the earlier part of Genesis, as the superscriptions 
or headings of particular portions, the change of appella- 
tion by which the Almighty is distinguished, and the like ; 
which, if they do not certainly mark different documents, 
at least naturally suggest them. If we then upon these 
grounds accept Vitringa's theory, we elevate considerably 
what I may call the human authority of Genesis. Instead 
of being the embodiment of oral traditions which have 
passed through two, three, four, or perhaps more hands, 
previously to their receiving a written form, the Book of 


Genesis becomes a work based in the main upon contem- 
porary, or nearly contemporary, documents documents 
of which the venerable antiquity casts all other ancient 
writings into the shade, several of them dating probably 
from times not far removed from the Flood, while some 
may possibly descend to us from the antediluvian race. 
The sanction which the Book of Genesis thus obtains is 
additional, it must be remembered, to what it derives from 
Moses ; who is still the responsible author of the work ; 
who selected the documents, and gave them all the con- 
firmation which they could derive from his authority, 
whether it be regarded as divine or human, as that of one 
"learned" in man's "wisdom," 1 or that of an inspired 
teacher "a prophet, raised up by God." 2 

Thus far we have been engaged in considering the 
weight which properly attaches to the Pentateuch itself, 
viewed as an historical work produced by a certain indi- 
vidual, under certain circumstances, and at a certain period. 
It remains to examine the external evidence to the charac- 
ter of the Mosaic narrative which is furnished by the other 
ancient records in our possession, so tar at least as those 
records have a fair claim to be regarded as of any real his- 
toric value. 

Records possessing even moderate pretensions to tho 
character of historic are, for this early period, as we should 
expect beforehand, extremely scanty. I cannot reckon in 
the number either the primitive traditions of the Greeks 
the curious compilations of the Armenians, (**) the histori- 
cal poems of the Hindoos, ( 49 > or the extravagant fables of 
the Chinese. C 50 ) A dim knowledge of certain irn-al events 
in primeval history as of the I)elug< may indeed In- 
traced in all these quarters ;( :,1; but the historical element 

1 Acts vii. 22. ' Dcut. xviii. 15. 


to be detected is in every case so small, it is so overlaid by 
fable, and intermixed with what is palpably imaginative, 
that no manner of reliance can be placed upon statements 
merely because they occur in these pretended histories ; nor 
have they the slightest title to be used as tests whereby to 
try the authenticity of any other narrative. The only re- 
liable materials that we possess, besides the Pentateuch, for 
the history of the period which it embraces, consist of some 
fragments of Berosus and Manetho, an epitome of the 
early Egyptian history of the latter, a certain number of 
Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and two or three 
valuable papyri. 

If it be asked on Avhat grounds so strong a preference is 
assigned to these materials, the answer is easy. The 
records selected are those of Egypt and Babylon. Now 
these two countries were, according to the most trust- 
worthy accounts, both sacred and profane, ( 52 > the first 
seats of civilization : in them writing seems to have been 
practised earlier than elsewhere ; they paid from the first 
great attention to history, and possessed, when the Greeks 
became acquainted with them, historical records of an 
antiquity confessedly greater than that which could be 
claimed for any documents elsewhere. Further, in each of 
these countries, at the moment when, in consequence of 
Grecian conquest and the infusion of new ideas, there was 
the greatest danger of the records perishing or being 
vitiated, there arose a man a native thoroughly ac- 
quainted with their antiquities, and competently skilled in 
the Greek language, Avho transferred to that tongue, ana 
thus made the common property of mankind, what had 
previously been a hidden treasure the possession of their 
own priests and philosophers only. The value of the 
histories written by Manetho the Sebennyte, and Berosus 

Lect. IL truth of the scripture records, 63 

the Chaldaean, had long been suspected by the learned ; W 
but it remained for the present age to obtain distinct evi- 
dence of their fidelity evidence which places them, 
among the historians of early times, in a class by them- 
selves, greatly above even the most acute and painstaking 
of the Greek and Roman compilers. Herodotus, Ctesias, 
Alexander Polyhistor, Diodorus Siculus, Trogus Pompeius, 
could at best receive at second hand such representations 
of Babylonian and Egyptian history as the natives chose 
to import to them, and moreover received these representa- 
tions (for the most part) diluted and distorted by passing 
through the medium of comparatively ignorant interpret- 
ers. Manetho and Berosus had free access to the national 
records, and so could draw their histories directly from the 
fountain-head. This advantage might, of course, have been 
forfeited by a deficiency on their part of either honesty or 
diligence ; but the recent discoveries in the two countries 
have had the effect of removing all doubt upon either of 
these two heads from the character of both writers. The 
monuments which have been recovered furnish the 
strongest proof alike of the honest intention and of the 
diligence and carefulness of the two historians; who have 
thus, as profane writers of primeval history, a preeminence 
overall others. ( M ) This is perhaps the chief value of the 
documents obtained, which do not in themselves furnish a 
history, or even its framework, a chronology ; ('*> but re- 
quire an historical scheme to be given from without, into 
which they may lit, and wherein each may find its true 
and proper position. 

If we now proceed to compare the Mosaic account of 
the first period of the world's history with that outline 
which may be obtained from Egyptian and Babylonian 
sources, we are strc -k at first sight with what seems an 


enormous difference in the chronology. The sura of the 
years in Manetho's scheme, as it has come down to us in 
Eusebius, is little short of thirty thousand ; ( 56 ) while that in 
the scheme of Berosus, as reported by the same author, < 57 ) 
exceeds four hundred and sixty thousand ! But upon a 
little consideration, the greater part of this difficulty van- 
ishes. If we examine the two chronologies, we shall find 
that both evidently divide at a certain point, above which 
all is certainly mythic, while below all is, or at least may 
be, historical. Out of the thirty thousand years contained 
(apparently) in Manetho's scheme, nearly twenty-five thou- 
sand belong to the time when Gods, Demigods, and Spirits 
had rule on earth ; and the history of Egypt confessedly 
does not begin till this period is concluded, and Menes, the 
first Egyptian king, mounts the throne. t 58 ) Similarly, in 
the chronology of Berosus, there is a sudden transition 
from kings whose reigns are counted by sossi and neri, or 
periods respectively of sixty and six hundred years, to 
monarchs the average length of whose reigns very little 
exceeds that found to prevail in ordinary monarchies. 
Omitting in each case what is plainly a mythic computa- 
tion, we have in the Babylonian scheme a chronology 
which mounts up no higher than two thousand four hun- 
dred and fifty-eight years before Christ, or eight hundred 
years after the Deluge, (according to the numbers of the 
Septuagint ;) while in the Egyptian we have at any rate 
only an excess of about two thousand years to explain and 
account for, instead of an excess of twenty-seven thousand. 
And this latter discrepancy becomes insignificant, i it 
does not actually disappear, upon a closer scrutiny, \ e 
five thousand years of Manetho's dynastic lists were re- 
duced by himself (as we learn from Syncellus) to three 
thousand five hundred and fifty-five years/ 59 ) doubtless 

Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 65 

because he was aware that his lists contained in some eases 
contemporary dynasties ; in others, contemporary kin^s in 
the same dynasty, owing to the mention in them of various 
royal personages associated on the throne by the principal 
monarch. Thus near fifteen hundred years are struck off 
from Manetho's total at a blow; and the chronological 
difference between his scheme ami that of Scripture is 
reduced to a few hundred years a discrepancy of no 
great moment, and one which might easily arise, either 
from slight errors of the copyists, or from an insufficient 
allowance being made in Manetho's scheme, in respect of 
either or both of the causes from which .Egyptian chronol- 
ogy is always liable to be exaggerated. Without taxing 
Manetho with conscious dishonesty, we may suspect that 
he was not unwilling to exalt the antiquity of his country, 
if he could do so without falsifying his authorities; and 
from the confusion of the middle or Ilyksos period of 
Egyptian history, and the obscurity of the earlier times, 
when there were as yet no monuments, he would have had 
abundant opportunity for chronological exaggeration by 
merely regarding as consecutive dynasties all these, which 
were not certainly known to have been contemporary. 
The real duration of the Egyptian monarchy depends en 
tirely upon the proper arrangement of the dynasties into 
synchronous and consecutive a point upon which the 
best Egyptologers are still far from agreed. Some of the 
greatest names in this branch of antiquarian learning are in 
favor of a chronology almost as moderate as the historic 
Babylonian; the accession of Menes, according to them, 
falling about 26G0 B. C, or more than six hundred years 
after the Septuagint date for the Deluge. ' 

The removal of this difficulty open- the way to a consid- 
eration of the positive points of agreement between the 



Scriptural narrative and that of the profane authorities. 
And here, for the earliest times, it is especially Babylon 
which furnishes an account capable of being compared 
with that of Moses. According to Berosus, the world 
when first created was in darkness, and consisted of a fluid 
mass inhabited by monsters of the strangest forms. Over 
the whole dominated a female power called Thalatth, or 
Sea. Then Belus, wishing to carry on the creative work, 
cleft Thalatth in twain ; and of the half of her he made the 
earth, and of the other half the heaven. Hereupon the 
monsters, w r ho could not endure the air and the light, per- 
ished. Belus upon this, seeing that the earth was desolate, 
yet teeming with productive power, cut off his own head, 
and mingling the blood which flowed forth with the dust 
of the ground, formed men, who were thus intelligent, as 
being partakers of the divine wisdom. lie then made 
other animals fit to live on the earth : he made also the 
stars, and the sun and moon, and the five planets. The 
first man was Alorus, a Chaldaean, who reigned over man- 
kind for thirty-six thousand years, and begat a son, Alapa- 
rus, who reigned ten thousand eight hundred years. Then 
followed in succession eight others, whose reigns were of 
equal or greater length, ending with Xisuthrus, under 
whom the great Deluge took place. ( 61 > The leading facts 
of this cosmogony and antediluvian history are manifestly, 
and indeed confessedly, ( m ~> in close agreement with the 
Hebrew records. We have in it the earth at first "without 
form and void," and " darkness upon the face of the dee})." l 
We have the Creator dividing the watery mass and making 
the two firmaments, that of the heaven and that of the 
earth, first of all; we have Light spoken of before the sun 
and moon ; we have their creation, and that of the stars, 

1 Genesis i. 2. 


somewhat late in the series of events given ; we have a 
divine element infused into man at his birth, and again we 
have his creation "from the dust of the ground." 1 Fur- 
ther, between the first man and the Deluge are in the 
scheme of Berosus ten generations, which is the exact 
number between Adam and Xoah ; and though the dura- 
tion of human life is in his account enormously exagger- 
ated, we may see even in this exaggeration a glimpse of 
the truth, that the lives of the Patriarchs were extended 
far beyond the term which has been the limit in later ages. 
This truth seems to have been known to many of the 
ancients/ 63 ) and traces of it have even been found among 
the modern Burmans and Chinese. ( M ) 

The account which Berosus gives of the Deluge is still 
more strikingly in accordance with the narrative of Scrip- 
ture. "Xisuthrus," he says, "was warned by Saturn in a 
dream that all mankind would be destroyed shortly by a 
deluge of rain. He was bidden to bury in the city of Sip- 
para (or Sepharvaim) such written documents as existed; 
and then to build a huge vessel or ark. in length five fur- 
longs, and two furlongs in width, wherein was to he placed 
good store of provisions, together with winged fowl and 
four-footed beasts of the earth; and in which he was him- 
self to embark with his wife and children, and his close 
friends. Xisuthrus did accordingly, ami the flood came at 
the time appointed. The ark drifted towards Armenia; 
and Xisuthrus, on the third day after the rain abated, sent 
out from the ark a bird, which, after flying for a while over 
the illimitable sea of waters, and finding neither food nor a 
spot on which it could settle, returned to him. Some days 
later, Xisuthrus sent out other birds, which likewise re. 
turned, but with feet covered with mud. Sent out a third 
* Genesis ii. 7. 


time, the birds returned no more ; and Xisuthrus knew 
that the earth had reappeared. So he removed some of 
the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold the vessel 
had grounded upon a high mountain, and remained fixed. 
Then he went forth from the ark, with his wife, his daugh- 
ter, and his pilot, and built an altar, and offered sacrifice; 
after which he suddenly disappeared from sight, together 
with those who had accompanied him. They who had 
remained in the ark, surprised that he did not return, 
sought him ; when they heard his voice in the sky, exhort- 
ing them to continue religious, and bidding them go back 
to Babylonia from the land of Armenia, where they were, 
and recover the buried documents, and make them once 
more known among men. So they obeyed, and went back 
to the land of Babylon, and built many cities and temples, 
and raised up Babylon from its ruins." ( te ) 

Such is the account of Berosus ; and a description sub- 
stantially the same is given by Abydenus, ( 66 ) an ancient 
writer of whom less is known, but whose fragments are 
generally of great value and importance. It is plain that 
we have here a tradition not drawn from the Hebrew rec- 
ord, much less the foundation of that record ;( fi7 ) yet coin- 
ciding with it in the most remarkable way. The Baby- 
lonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances, as 
the monstrous size of the vessel, and the translation of 
Xisuthrus ; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history down to 
its minutiae. The previous warning, the divine direction 
as to the ark and its dimensions, the introduction into it of 
birds and beasts, the threefold sending out of the bird, the 
place of the ark's resting, the egress by removal of the cov- 
ering, the altar straightway built, and the sacrifice offered, 
constitute an array of exact coincidences which cannot 
possibly be the result of chance, and of which I see no 


plausible account that can be given except that it is the 
harmony of truth. Nor are these minute coincidences 
counterbalanced by the important differences which some 
have seen in the two accounts. It is not true to say (as 
Niebuhr is reported to have said) that "the Babylonian 
tradition differs from the Mosaic account by stating that 
not only Xisuthrus and his family, but all pious men, were 
saved; and also by making the Flood not universal, bin 
only partial, and confined to Babylonia" ( cc ) Derosas does 
indeed give Xisuthrus, as companions in the ark, not only 
his wife and children, but a certain number of " close 
friends;" and thus far he differs from Scripture; but these 
friends are not represented as numerous, much less as " all 
pious men." And so far is he from making the Flood par- 
tial, or confining it to Babylonia, that his narrative dis- 
tinctly implies the contrary. The warning given t> Xisu- 
thrus is that "mankind" (VoiV u^uw.toj?) is about to lie 
destroyed. The ark drifts to Armenia, and when it is 
there, the birds are sent out, and find "an illimitable sea 
of waters," and no rest for the sole of their feet. When 
at length they no longer return, Xisuthrus knows "that 
land has reappeared," and leaving the ark, finds himself 
"on a mountain in Armenia." It is plain that the waters 
are represented as prevailing above the tops of the loftiest 
mountains in Armenia, a height which must have been 
seen to involve the submersion of all the countries with 
which the Babylonians were acquainted. 

The account which the Chahhean writer gave of the 
events following the Deluge is reported with some disa- 
greement by the different authors through whom it has 
come down to us. Josephus believed that Berosus was in 
accord with Scripture in regard to the generations between 
the Flood and Abraham, which (according to the Jewish 


historian) he correctly estimated at ten.( 67 ) But other 
writers introduce in this place, as coming from Berosus, a 
series of eighty-six kings, the first and second of whom 
reign for above two thousand years, while the remainder 
reign upon an average three hundred and forty-five years 
each. We have here perhaps a trace of that gradual short- 
ening of human life which the genealogy of Abraham 
exhibits to us so clearly in Scripture ; but the numbers 
appear to be artificial, W and they are unaccompanied by 
any history. There is reason, however, to believe that 
Berosus noticed one of the most important events of this 
period, in terms which very strikingly recall the Scripture 
narrative. Writers, whose Babylonian history seems drawn 
directly from him, or from the sources which he used, give 
the following account of the tower of Babel, and the con- 
fusion of tongues "At this time the ancient race of. men 
were so puffed up with their strength and tallness of stat- 
ure, that they began to despise and contemn the gods ; and 
labored to erect that very lofty tower, which is now called 
Babylon, intending thereby to scale heaven. But when 
the building approached the sky, behold, the gods called in 
the aid of the winds, and by their help overturned the 
tower, and cast it to the ground. The name of the ruins 
is still called Babel ; because until this time all men had 
used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them 
a confusion of many and diverse tongues." ( 69 > 

At the point which we have now reacherl, the sacred 
narrative ceases to be general, and becomes special or par- 
ticular. It leaves the history of the world, and concen- 
trates itself on an individual and his descendants. At the 
moment of transition, however, it throws out, in a chapter 
of wonderful grasp and still more wonderful accuracy, a 
sketch of the nations of the earth, their ethnic affinities, 


and to some extent their geographical position and bounda- 
ries. The Toldoth Beni Noah has extorted the admiration 
of modern ethnologists, who continually find in it anticipa- 
tions of their greatest discoveries. For instance, in the 
very second verse the great discovery of Schlegel, (~) which 
the word Indo-European embodies the affinity of the 
principal nations of Europe with the Arian or Lido-Persic 
stock is sufficiently indicated by the conjunction of the 
Madai or Medes (whose native name was Mada) with 
Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or the Ionians. Again, 
one of the most recent and unexpected results of modern 
linguistic inquiry is the proof which it has furnished of an 
ethnic connection between the Ethiopians or Cushites, who 
adjoined on Egypt, and the primitive inhabitants of Baby- 
lonia ; a connection which (as we saw in the last Lecture) 
was positively denied by an eminent ethnologist only a few 
years ago, but which has now been sufficiently established 
from the cuneiform monuments. ( 71 ) In the tenth of Gene- 
sis we find this truth thus briefly but clearly stated "And 
Cush begat Nimrod," the "beginning of whose kingdom 
was Babel." 1 So we have had it recently made evident 
from the same monuments, that "out of that land went 
forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh"-' or that the Semitic 
Assyrians proceeded from Babylonia and founded Nineveh 
long after the Cushite foundation of Babylon. ( T2 > Again, 
the Hamitic descent of the early inhabitants of Canaan, 
which had often been called in question, has recently come 
to be looked upon as almost certain, apart from the evi- 
dence of Scripture ; < 73 > and the double mention of Slieb.i, 
both among the sons of Ham, and also among -those of 
SheiV has been illustrated by the discovery that there are 

1 Gen. x. 8 and 10. * Ibid, verse 11. 

3 Ibid, verses 7 and 28. 


two races of Arabs one (the Joktanian) Semitic, the 
other (the Himyaric) Cushite or Ethiopic. ( 74 > On the 
whole, the scheme of ethnic affiliation given in the tenth 
chapter of Genesis is pronounced "safer" to follow than 
any other ; and the Toldoth Beni Noah commends itself to 
the ethnic inquirer as " the most authentic recoi'd that we 
possess for the affiliation of nations," and as a document 
" of the very highest antiquity." ( 75 > 

The confirmation which profane history lends the Book 
of Genesis from the point whei*e the narrative passes from 
the general to the special character, is (as might be 
expected) only occasional, and for the most part incidental. 
Abraham was scarcely a personage of sufficient importance 
to attract much of the attention of either the Babylonian or 
the Egyptian chroniclers. We possess, indeed, several very 
interesting notices of this Patriarch and his successors from 
heathen pens ; ( 7C ) but they are of far inferior moment to 
the authorities hitherto cited, since they do not indicate a 
separate and distinct line of information, but are, in all 
probability, derived from the Hebrew records. I refer par- 
ticularly to the passages which Eusebius produces in his 
Gospel Preparation from Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molo, 
Philo, and Cleodemus or Malchas, with regard to Abra- 
ham, and from Demetrius, Theodotus, Artapanus, and 
Philo, with respect to Isaac and Jacob. These testimonies 
are probably well known to many of my hearers, since 
they have been adduced very generally by our writers. ( 77 > 
They bear unmistakably the stamp of a Jewish origin; and 
show the view which the more enlightened heathen took of 
the historical character of the Hebrew records, when they 
first became acquainted Avith them ; but they cannot boast, 
like notices in Berosus and Manetho, a distinct origin, and 
thus a separate and independent authority. I shall there- 


fore content myself with this brief mention of them here, 
which is all that time will allow ; and proceed to adduce a 
few direct testimonies to the later narrative, furnished 
either by the native writers, or by the results of modern 

There are three points only in this portion of the narra- 
tive which, being of the nature of public and important 
events, might be expected to obtain notice in the Babylo- 
nian or Egyptian records the expedition of Chedor-laomer 
with his confederate kings, the great famine in the days of 
Joseph, and the Exodus of the Jews. Did we possess the 
complete monumental annals of the two countries, or the 
works themselves of Berosus and Manetho, it might fairly be 
demanded of us that we should adduce evidence from them 
of all the three. With the scanty and fragmentary remains 
which are what we actually possess, it would not be sur- 
prising if we found ourselves without a trace of any. In 
fact, however, we are able to produce from our scanty stock 
a decisive confirmation of two events out of the three. 

The monumental records of Babylonia bear marks of an 
interruption in the line of native kings, about the date 
which from Scripture we should assign to Chedor-laomer, 
and "point to Elymais (or Klam) as the country from 
which the interruption came." (~*) We have mention of a 
king, whose name is on good grounds identified with 
Chedor-laomer, (~ 9 ) as paramount in Babylonia al this time 
a king apparently of Elamitic origin ami this monarch 
bears in the inscriptions the unusual ami significant title of 
Apdu MarttL, or "Ravager of the West." Our (raiment-; 
of Berosus give us no names at this period; hut his dynas- 
ties exhibit a transition at about the date required, M,) 
which is in accordance with the break indicated by the 
monuments. We thus obtain a doiihle witness to tho 


remarkable fact of an interruption of pure Babylonian 
supremacy at this time; and from the monuments we are 
able to pronounce that the supremacy was transferred to 
Elam, and that under a king, the Semitic form of whose 
name would be Chedor-laomer, a great expedition wag 
organized, which proceeded to the distant and then almost 
unknown west, and returned after "ravaging" but not, 
conquering those regions. 

The Exodus of the Jews was an event which could 
scarcely be omitted by Manetho. It was one however of 
such a nature so entirely repugnant to all the feelings of 
an Egyptian that we could not expect a fair representa- 
tion of it in their annals. And accordingly, our fragments 
of Manetho present us with a distinct but very distorted 
notice of the occurrence. The Hebrews are represented as 
leprous and impious Egyptians, who under the conduct of 
a priest of Heliopolis, named Moses, rebelled on account of 
oppression, occupied a town called Avaris, or Abaris, and 
having called in the aid of the people of Jerusalem, made 
themselves masters of Egypt, which they held for thirteen 
years ; but who were at last defeated by the Egyptian king, 
and driven from Egypt into Syria. ( 81 > We have here the 
oppression, the name Moses, the national name, Hebrew, 
under the disguise of Abaris, and the true direction of the 
retreat ; but we have all the special circumstances of the 
occasion concealed under a general confession of disaster; 
and we have a claim to final triumph which consoled the 
wounded vanity of the nation, but which Ave know to 
have been unfounded. On the whole Ave have perhaps as 
much as Ave could reasonably expect the annals of the Egyp- 
tians to tell us of transactions so little to their credit ; and 
we have a narrative fairly confirming the principal facts, 
as well as very curious in many of its particulars. C 88 ) 


I have thus briefly considered some of the principal of 
those direct testimonies which can be adduced from ancient 
profane sources, in confirmation of the historic truth of the 

Pentateuch. There are various other arguments some 

purely, some partly historic into which want of space for- 
bids my entering in the present Course. For instance, there 
is what may be called the historico-scientific argument, 
derivable from the agreement of the sacred narrative with 
the conclusions reached by those sciences which have a 
partially historical character. Geology whatever may be 
thought of its true bearing upon other points at least 
witnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom there is 
no trace in any but the latest strata. W Physiology 
decides in favor of the unity of the species, and the proba- 
ble derivation of the whole human race from a single 
pair. ( 84 > Comparative Philology, after divers fluctuations, 
settles into the belief that languages will ultimately prove 
to have been all derived from a common bais. C 85 ) Ethnol- 
ogy pronounces that, independently of the Scriptural 
record, we should be led to fix on the plains of Shinar as a 
common centre, or focus, from which the various lines of 
migration and the several types of races originally radi- 
ated. C 86 ) Again, there is an argument perhaps more con- 
vincing than any other, but of immense compass, dedueible 
from the indirect and incidental points of agreement 
between the Mosaic records and the best profane authori- 
ties. The limits within which I am confined compel me to 
decline this portion of the inquiry. Otherwise it might be 
shown that the linguistic, geographic, and ethologie notices 
contained in the books of .Moses are of the most veracious 
character/ 87 ' stamping the whole narration with an unmis- 
takable air of authenticity. Ami this, it may be remarked, 
is an argument to which modern research is perpetually 


adding fresh weight. For instance, if we look to the 
geography, we shall find that till within these few years, 
"Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar" 1 
Calah and Resen, in the country peopled by Asshur 2 
Ellasar, and " Ur of the Chaldees," 3 were mere names ; 
and beyond the mention of them in Genesis, scarcely a 
trace was discoverable of their existence. C 8 ^ Recently, 
however, the mounds of Mesopotamia have been searched, 
and bricks and stones buried for near three thousand years 
have found a tongue, and tell us exactly where each of 
these cities stood, ( 89 ) and sufficiently indicate their impor- 
tance. Again, the power of Og, and his " threescore cities 
all fenced with high walls, gates, and bars, besides unwalled 
towns a great many," 4 in such a country as that to the east 
of the Sea of Galilee, whose old name of Trachonitis indi- 
cates its barrenness, seemed to many improbable but 
modern research has found in this very country a vast 
number of walled cities still standing, which show the 
habits of the ancient people, and prove that the population 
must at one time have been considerable. W So the care- 
ful examination that has been made of the valley of the 
Jordan, which has resulted in a proof that it is a unique 
phenomenon, utterly unlike any thing elsewhere on the 
whole face of the earth, ( 91 > tends greatly to confirm the 
Mosaic account, that it became what it now is by a great 
convulsion ; and by pious persons will, I think, be felt as 
confirming the miraculous character of that convulsion. 
Above all, perhaps, the absence of any counter-evidence 
the fact that each accession to our knowledge of the 
ancient times, whether historic or geographic, or ethnic, 
helps to remove difficulties, and to produce a perpetual 

1 Gen. x. 10. 2 Ibid, verses 11 and 12. 

3 Ibid. xi. 31 ; xiv. 1. 4 Deut. iii. 5. 


supply of fresh illustrations of the Mosaic narrative ; while 
fresh difficulties are not at the same time brought to light 
is to be remarked, as to candid minds an argument for 
the historic truth of the narrative, the force of which can 
scarcely be over-estimated. All tends to show that we 
possess in the Pentateuch, not only the most authentic 
account of ancient times that has come down to us, but a 
histoiy absolutely and in every respect true. All tends to 
assure us that in this marvellous volume we have no old 
wives' tales, no "cunningly devised fable;" 1 but a "treas- 
ure of wisdom and knowledge"- as important to the his- 
torical inquirer as to the theologian. There may be 
obscurities there may be occasionally, in names and 
numbers, accidental corruptions of the text there may 
be a few interpolations glosses which have crept in from 
the margin ; but upon the whole it must be pronounced 
that we have in the Pentateuch a genuine and authentic, 
work, and one which even were it not inspired would 
be, for the times and countries whereof it treats, the lead- 
ing and paramount authority. It is (let us be assured) 
"Moses," who is still "read in the synagogues every 
sabbath day;" 3 and they who "resist" him, by impugning 
his veracity, like Jannes and Jainhres of old, " resist the 
truths * 

1 2 Tot. 5. 16. * Col. ii. 3. 

3 Acts xv. 21. 4 2 Tim. iii. 8. 



The period of Jewish history, which has to be considered 
in the present Lecture, contains within it the extremes of 
obscurity and splendor, of the depression and the exalta- 
tion of the race. The fugitives from Egypt, who by divine 
aid eifected a lodgment in the land of Canaan, under their 
great leader, Joshua, were engaged for some hundreds of 
years in a perpetual struggle for existence with the petty 
tribes among whom they had intruded themselves, and 
seemed finally on the point of succumbing and ceasing 
altogether to be a people, when they were suddenly lifted 
up by the hand of God, and carried rapidly to the highest 
pitch of greatness whereto they ever attained. From the 
time when the Hebrews "hid themselves in holes," 1 for 
fear of the Philistines, and w r ere without spears, or swords, 
or armorers, because the Philistines had said, "Lest the 
Hebrews make themselves swords or spears," 2 to the full 
completion of the kingdom of David by his victories over 
the Philistines, the Moabites, the Syrians, the Ammonites, 
and the Amalekiter, together with the submission of the 
Idumaeans, 3 w r as a space little, if at all, exceeding half a 

1 1 Sam. xiv. 11. s Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 3 2 Sam. viii. 



century. Thus wore brought within the lifetime of a nan 
the highest glory and the deepest shame, oppression and 
dominion, terror and triumph, the peril of extinction and 
the establishment of a mighty empire. The very men who 
"hid themselves in caves and in thickets, in rocks, and in 
high places, and in pits," ' or who fled across the Jordan to 
the land of Gad and Gilead, 2 when the Philistines "pitched 
in Michmash," may have seen garrisons put in Damascus 
and " throughout all Edom," 3 and the dominion of David 
extended to the Euphrates. 4 

The history of this remarkable period is delivered to us 
in four or five Books, the authors of which are unknown, 
or at best uncertain. It is thought by some that Joshua 
wrote the book which bears his name, except the closing 
verses of the last chapter ;(') and by others, ( 2 ) that Samuel 
composed twenty-four chapters of the first of those two 
books which in our Canon bear the title of Books of 
Samuel ; but there is no such uniform tradition W in either 
case as exists respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, 
nor is there the same weight of internal testimony. On 
the whole, the internal testimony seems to be against the 
ascription of the Book of Joshua to the Jewish leader ; W 
and both it, Judges, and Ruth, as well :is Kings and Chroni- 
cles, are best referred to the cluss of tfifiila udicnttTa, or 
books the authors of which are unknown to us. The im- 
portance of a history, however, though it may he enhanced 
by our knowledge of the author, docs not necessarily de- 
pend on such knowledge. The Turin Papyrus, the Parian 
Marble, the Saxon Chronicle, are documents of the very 
highest historic value, though we know nothing of the 
persons who composed them ; because there is reason to 

1 1 Sam. xiii. 6. : Ibid, vorsr 7. 

3 2 Sam. viii. 14. * Ibid, vers* 3. 


believe that they were composed from good sources. And 
so it is with these portions of the Sacred Volume. There 
is abundant evidence, both internal and external, of their 
authenticity and historic value, notwithstanding that their 
actual composers are unknown or uncertain. They have 
really the force of State Papers, being authoritative public 
documents, preserved among the national archives of the 
Jews so long as they were a nation ; and ever since cher- 
ished by the scattered fragments of the race as among the 
most precious of their early records. As we do not com- 
monly ask who was the author of a State Paper, but ac- 
cept it without any such formality, so we are bound to act 
towards these writings. They are written near the time, 
sometimes by eye-witnesses, sometimes by those who have 
before them the reports of eye-witnesses ; and their recep- 
tion among the sacred records of the Jews stamps them 
with an authentic character. 

As similar attempts have been made to invalidate the 
authority of these books with those to which I alluded in 
the last Lecture, as directed against the Pentateuch, it will 
be necessary to state briefly the special grounds, which 
exist in the case of each, for accepting it as containing a 
true history. Having thus vindicated the historical char- 
acter of the Books from the evidence which they them- 
selves offer, I shall then proceed to adduce such confir- 
mation of their truth as can be obtained from other, and 
especially from profane, sources. 

The Book of Joshua is clearly the production of an eye- 
witness. The writer includes himself among those who 
passed over Jordan dryshod. 1 He speaks of Rahab the 
harlot as still " dwelling in Israel " when he writes ; 2 and 
of Hebron as still in the possession of Caleb the son of 

1 Josh. v. 1. 2 Ibid. vi. 25. 


Jephunneh. 1 lie belongs clearly to the "elders that 
outlived Joshua, which had known all the works of the 
Lord that he had done for Israel ; " - and is therefore as 
credible a witness for the events of the settlement in 
Palestine, as Moses for those of the Exodus and the pas- 
sage through the wilderness. Further, he undoubtedly 
possesses documents of authority, from one of which (the 
Book of Jasher) he quotes; 3 and it is a reasonable supposi- 
tion that his work is to a great extent composed from such 
documents, to which there are several references, 4 besides 
the actual quotation. ( 5 ) 

The Book of Judges, according to the tradition of the 
Jews, was written by Samuel. () There is nothing in the 
work itself that very distinctly marks the date of its com- 
position. From its contents we can only say that it must 
have been composed about Samuel's time; that is, after 
the death of Samson, and before the capture of Jerusalem 
by David. 0) As the events related in it certainly cover a 
space of some hundreds of years, the writer, whoever he 
be, cannot be regarded as a contemporary witness for more 
than a small portion of them. lie stands rather in the 
position of Moses with respect to the greater part of 
Genesis, being the recorder of his country's traditions dur- 
ing a space generally estimated as about equal to that 
which intervened between the call of Abraham and the 
birth of Moses. W Had these traditions been handed down 
entirely by oral communication, still, being chiefly marked 
and striking events in the national lite, they would have 
possessed a fair title to acceptance. As the ease actually 
stands, however, there is every reason to believe that 
national records, which (as we have seen) existed in the 

1 Josh. xiv. 14. ' Ibid. xxiv. 31. 

2 Ibid. x. 13. " Ibid, xviii. U ; xxiv. 26. 


days of Moses and Joshua, were continued by their suc- 
cessors, and that these formed the materials from which the 
Book of Judges was composed by its author. Of such 
records we have a specimen in the Song of Deborah and 
Barak, an historical poem embodying the chief facts of 
Deborah's judgeship. It is reasonable to suppose that 
there may have been many such compositions, belonging to 
the actual time of the events, of which the historian could 
make use ; and it is also most probable that chronicles were 
kept even at this early date, like those to which the writers 
of the later historical books refer so constantly. 1 

The two Books of Samuel are thought by some to form, 
together with the two Books of Kings, a single work, and 
are referred to the time of the Babylonish captivity ; ( 9 > 
but this view is contrary both to the internal and to the 
external evidence. The tradition of the Jews is, that the 
work was commenced by Samuel, continued by Gad, 
David's seer, and concluded by Nathan the prophet ; ( 10 > 
and this is to say the least a very probable supposi- 
tion. We know from a statement in the First Book of 
Chronicles, that "the acts of David the king, first and last, 
were written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the 
book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the 
seer ; " 2 and these writings, it is plain, were still extant in 
the Chronicler's time. If then the Books of Samuel had 
been a compilation made during the Captivity, or earlier, 
it would have been founded on these books, which could 
not but have been of primary authority ; in which case the 
compiler could scarcely have failed to quote them, either by 
name, as the Chronicler does in the place which has been 

1 1 Kings xi. 41 ; xiv. 19 and 29; xv. 7 ; xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27, &c; 
1 Chron. xxvii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xii. 15 ; xiii. 22 ; xx. 34, &c. 
8 J Chron. xxix. 29. 


cited, or under the title of "the Chronicles of David," as 
he seems to do in another. 1 But there is no quotation, 
direct or indirect, no trace of compilation, no indication of 
a writer drawing from other authors, in the two Books of 
Samuel, from beginning to end. In this respect they con- 
trast most strongly with both Chronicles and Kings, where 
the authors at every turn make reference to the sources 
from which they derive their information. These books 
therefore are most reasonably to be regarded as a primary 
and original work the work used and quoted, by the 
Chronicler for the reign of David and a specimen of 
those other works from which the authors of Kings and 
Chronicles confessedly compiled their histories. We have 
thus, in all probability, for the times of Samuel, Said, and 
David, the direct witness of Samuel himself, and of the two 
prophets who were in most repute during the reign of 

The writer of the first Book of Kings derives his account 
of Solomon from a document which he calls " the Book of 
the Acts of Solomon;"- while the author of the second 
Book of Chronicles cites three works as furnishing him 
with materials for this part of his history "the book of 
Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Abijah the Shilonite, 
and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboanf the son 
of Nebat." 3 These last were certainly the works of con- 
temporaries ;(") and the same may be presumed of the 
other; since the later compiler is not likely to have pos- 
sessed better materials than the earlier. We may therefore 
conclude that we have in Kings and Chronicles the history 
of Solomon's reign not perhaps exactly in the words of 
contemporary writers but substantially as they delivered 
it. And the writers were persons who held the same high 

1 1 Chron. xxvii. 24. * 1 Kin^s xi. 41. '2 Chron. ix. 2 L J. 


position under Solomon, which the composers of the Books 
of Samuel had held under Saul and David. 

It is also worthy of remark, that we have the histories 
of David and Solomon from two separate and distinct 
authorities. The writer of Chronicles does not draw even 
his account of David wholly from Samuel, but adds various 
particulars, which show that he had further sources of in- 
formation. ( I2 ) And his account of Solomon appears not 
to have been drawn from Kings at all, but to have been 
taken quite independently from the original documents. 

Further, it is to be noted that we have in the Book of 
Psalms, at once a running comment, illustrative of David's 
personal history, the close agreement of which with the 
historical books is striking, and also a work affording 
abundant evidence that the history of the nation, as it is 
delivered to us in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, and in 
Judges, was at least believed by the Jews to be their true 
and real history in the time of David. The seventy-eighth 
Psalm, which certainly belongs to David's time, is sufficient 
proof of this : it contains a sketch of Jewish history, from 
the wonders wrought by Moses in Egypt to the establish- 
ment of the ark in mount Zion by David, and refers to not 
fewer than fifty or sixty of the occurrences which are de- 
scribed ft length in the historical writings. ( 13) It is cer- 
tain, at the least, that the Jews of David's age had no 
other account to give of their past fortunes than that 
miraculous story which has come down to us in the Books 
of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and 

We have now further to consider what amount of con- 
firmation profane history lends to the truth of the sacred 
narrative during the period extending from the death of 
Moses to the accession of Rehoboam. This period, it has 


been observed above, comprises within it the two most 
opposite conditions of the Jewish race : during its earlier 
portion the Israelites were a small and insignificant people, 
with difficulty maintaining themselves in the hill-country of 
Palestine against the attacks of various tribes, none of 
whom have made any great figure in history : while 
towards its close a Jewish Empire was formed an Empire 
perhaps as great as any which up to that time had been 
known in the Eastern world, and which, if not so extensive 
as some that shortly afterwards grew up in Western Asia, 
at any rate marks very distinctly the period when the 
power and prosperity of the Jews reached its acme. 

It was not to be expected that profane writers would 
notice equally both of these periods. During the obscure 
time of the Judges, the Jews could be little known beyond 
their borders; and even had Assyria and Egypt been at 
this time flourishing and aggressive states, had the armies 
of either or both been then in the habit of traversing 
Palestine in the course of their expeditions, the Israelites 
might easily have escaped mention, since they occupied 
Only a small part of the country, and that part the least 
accessible of the whole. ( M ) It appears, however, that in 
fact both Assyria and Egypt were weak during this period. 
The expeditions of the former were still confined within 
the Euphrates, or, if they crossed it on rare occasions, at 
any rate went no farther than Cappadocia and l T pper 
Syria, or the country about Aleppo and Antioch.( i:,) Ami 
Egypt from the time of Harnesses the third, which was not 
long after the Exodus, to that of Shishak, the contem- 
porary of Solomon, seems to have sent no expeditions lit 
all beyond its own frontier. ("'' Thus the annals of the 
two countries are necessarily silent concerning the Jews 
during the period in question ; and no agreement between 



them and the Jewish records is possible, except that tacit 
one which is found in fact to exist. The Jewish records 
are silent concerning Egypt, from the Exodus to the reign 
of Solomon ; which is exactly the time during which the 
Egyptian records are silent concerning the Jews. And 
Assyria does not appear in Scripture as an influential power 
in Lower Syria and Palestine till a time considerably later 
than the separation of the kingdoms ; while similarly the 
Assyrian monuments are without any mention of expedi- 
tions into these parts during the earlier period of the em- 
pire. Further, it may be remarked that from the mention 
of Chushan-Rishathaim, king of Aram-Naharaim, (or the 
country about Harran,) as a powerful prince soon after the 
death of Joshua, it would follow that Assyria had not at 
that time extended her dominion even to the Euphrates ; 
a conclusion which the cuneiform records of perhaps two 
centuries later entirely confirm, ( 17 ) since they show that 
even then the Assyrians had not conquered the whole 
country east of the river. 

Besides the points of agreement here noticed, which, 
though negative, are (I think) of no slight weight, we 
possess one testimony belonging to this period of a direct 
and positive character, which is among the most curious of 
the illustrations, that profane sources furnish, of the vera- 
city of Scripture. Moses of Chorene, the Armenian his- 
torian, ( 18 ) Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius, ( 19) and 
Suidas the Lexicographer, t 20 ) relate, that there existed in 
their day at Tingis, (or Tangiers,) in Africa, an ancient in- 
scription to the effect that the inhabitants were the de- 
scendants of those fugitives who were driven from the 
land of Canaan by Joshua the son of Nun, the plunderer. 
It has been said that this story " can scarcely be any thing 
but a Rabbinical legend, wdiich Procopius may have heard 


from African Jews." ( 21) But the independent testimony of 
the three writers, who do not seem to have copied from 
one another, is an argument of great weight ; and the 
expressions used, by Procopius especially, have a precision 
and a circumstantiality, which seem rather to imply the 
basis of personal observation. "There stand," he says, "two 
pillars of white marble near the great fountain in the city 
of Tigisis, bearing an inscription in Phoenician characters, 
and in the Phoenician language, which runs as follows." I 
cannot see that there would be any sufficient reason for 
doubting the truth of this very clear and exact statement, 
even if it stood alone, and were unconfirmed by any other 
writer. Two writers, however, confirm it one of an earlier 
and the other of a later date ; and the three testimonies 
are proved, by their slight variations, to be independent 
of one another. There is then sufficient reason to believe 
that a Phoenician inscription to the effect stated existed at 
Tangiers in the time of the Lower Empire; ami the true 
question for historical criticism to consider and determine 
is, what is the weight and value of such an inscription.^ 
That it was not a Jewish or a Christian monument is 
certain from the epithet of "plunderer" or "robber" 
applied in it to Joshua. That it was more ancient than 
Christianity seems probable from the language and charac- 
ter in which it was written. < 2:,) It would appear to have 
been a genuine Phoenician monument, of an antiquity 
which cannot now be decided, but which was probably 
remote; and it must be regarded as embodying an ancient 
tradition, current in this part of Africa in times anterior to 
Christianity, which very remarkably confirms the Hebrew 

There is another event of a public nature, belonging to 
this portion of the history, of which some have thought to 


find a confirmation in the pages of a profane writer. 
"The Egyptians," says Herodotus, C 24 ) "declare that since 
Egypt w:ts a kingdom, the sun has on four several occa- 
sions moved from his wonted course, twice rising where 
he now sets, and twice setting where he now rises." It 
has been supposed t 25 ) that we have here a notice of that 
remarkable time when " the sun stood still in the midst of 
heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day ; " l 
as well as of that other somewhat similar occasion, when 
"the sun returned ten degrees" on the dial of Ahaz. 2 But 
the statement made to Herodotus by the Egyptian priests 
would very ill describe the phenomena of these two occa- 
sions, however we understand the narratives in Joshua and 
Kings ; and the fact which they intended to convey to him 
was probably one connected rather with their peculiar 
system of astronomical cycles, than with any sudden and 
violent changes in the celestial order. If the narrative in 
Joshua is to be understood astronomically, of an actual 
cessation or retardation of the earth's motion, ( 2C ) we must 
admit that profane history fails to present us with any 
mention of an occurrence, which it might have been 
expected to notice with distinctness. But at the same 
time we must remember how scanty are the remains which 
we possess of this early time, and how strictly they are 
limited to the recording of political events and dynastic 
changes. The astronomical records of the Babylonians 
have perished ; and the lists of Manetho contain but few 
references to natural phenomena, which are never intro- 
duced except when they have a political bearing. No 
valid objection therefore can be brought against the literal 
truth of the narrative in Joshua from the present want of 
any profane confirmation of it. Where the records of the 

1 Jqsh. x. 13. * Isa. xxxviii. 8. 


past are so few and so slight, the argument from mere 
silence lias neither force nor place. 

The flourishing period of Jewish history, which com- 
mences with the reign of David, brought the chosen people 
of God once more into contact with those principal nations 
of the earth, whose history has to some extent come 
down to us. One of the first exploits of David Mas that 
great defeat which he inflicted on the Syrians of Damascus, 
in the vicinity of the Euphrates, when they came to the 
assistance of Hadedezer king of Zobah a defeat which 
cost them more than twenty thousand men, and which was 
followed by the temporary subjection of Damascus to the 
Israelites; since "David put garrisons in Syria of Damas- 
cus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and 
brought gifts." 1 This war is mentioned not only by Eu- 
polemus^ 27 ) who appears to have been well acquainted with 
the Jewish Scriptures, but also by Nicolas of Damascus, 
the friend of Augustus Caesar, who clearly draws his his- 
tory from the records of his native place. "After this," 
says Nicolas, "there was a certain Hadad, a native Syrian, 
who had great power: he ruled over Damascus, and all 
Syria, except Phoenicia. lie likewise undertook a war 
with David, the king of Judaea, and contended against him 
in a number of battles; in the last of them all which was 
by the river Euphrates, and in which he suffered defeat 
showing himself a prince of the greatest courage and 
prowess." C 38 ) This is a testimony of the same nature 
with those already adduced from Berosus and Manctho; 
it is a separate and independent notice of an event in 
Jewish history, which has come down to us from the other 
party in the transaction, with particulars not contained in 
the Jewish account, yet compatible with all that is so 

1 2 Sum. viii. 6. Comp. 1 Chr. xviii. 6. 


contained, and strictly corroborative of the main circum- 
stances of the Hebrew narrative. 

The other wars of the son of Jesse wei-e with enemies 
of inferior power and importance, as the Philistines, the 
Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idumjeans, and the Ama- 
lekites. Eupolemus mentions most of these successes ; f 29 ) 
but otherwise we have no recognition of them by profane 
writers, which cannot be considered surprising, since there 
are no ancient histories extant wherein these nations are 
mentioned otherwise than incidentally. We have, how- 
ever, one further point of contact between sacred and 
profane history at this period which is of considerable 
interest and importance, and which requires separate con- 
sideration. I speak of the connection, seen now for the 
first time, between Jmkea and Phoenicia, which, separated 
by natural obstacles, C 30 ) and hitherto, perhaps, to some 
extent by intervening tribes, only began to hold relations 
with each other when the conquests of David brought 
Judoea into a new position among the powers of these 
regions. It was necessary for the commerce of Phoenicia 
that she should enjoy the friendship of whatever power 
commanded the great lines of inland traffic, which ran 
through Coele-Syria and Damascus, by Hamath and Tad- 
mor, to the Euphrates. ( 31 > Accordingly we find that upon 
the "establishment" and " exaltation" of David's kingdom, 1 
overtures were at once made to him by the chief Phoeni- 
cian power of the day ; and his good will was secured by 
benefits of the most acceptable kind the loan of skilled 
artificers and the gift of cedar-beams " in abundance " 2 
after which a firm friendship was established between the 
two powers, 3 which continued beyond the reign of David 
into that of Solomon his son. 4 Now here it is most 

1 2 Sam. v. 11, 12. 2 1 Chr. xxii. 4. 

3 1 Kings v. 1. 4 Ibid, verse 12. 


interesting to see whether the Hebrew writer lias cor- 
rectly represented the condition of Phoenicia at the time ; 
whether the name which lie has assigned to his Phoenician 
prince is one that Phoenicians bore or the contrary ; and 
finally, whether there is any trace of the reign of this par- 
ticular prince at this time. 

With regard to the first point, it is to be observed, that 
the condition of Phoenicia varied at different periods. 
While we seem to trace throughout the whole history a 
constant recognition of some one city as predominant 
among the various towns, if not as sovereign over them, 
we do not always find the same city occupying this posi- 
tion. In the most ancient times it is Sidon which claims 
and exercises this precedency and preeminence ; C 32 ) in 
the later times the dignity has passed to Tyre, which is 
thenceforward recognized as the leading power. Homer 
implies^ 33 ) Strabo ( 34 > and Justin t 35 ) distinctly assert, the 
ancient superiority of Sidon, which was said to have been 
the primitive settlement, whence the remainder were 
derived. On the other hand, Dius ( 3fi) and Menander, t 37 ) 
who drew their Phoenician histories from the native 
records, clearly show that at a time anterior to David, 
Tyre had become the leading state, which she continued 
to be until the time of Alexander. (**) The notices of 
Phoenicia in Scripture are completely in accordance with 
what we have thus gathered from profane sources. While 
Sidon alone appears to have been known to Moses, 1 and 
Tyre occurs in Joshua as a mere stronghold in marked 
contrast with imperial Sidon, ("great Zidon," as she is 
called more than once)-' whose dominion seems to 
extend along the coast to Cannel, ( M) and certainly reaches 
inland as far as Laish s in Samuel and Kings the case is 

> Gen. x. 15; xlix. 13. * J<>h. xi. 8 ; xix. 28. 

3 Judges xvii. 7 anil 28. 


changed ; Sielon has no longer a distinctive epithet ; ' and 
it is the "king of Tyre" who on behalf of his countrymen 
makes advances to David, and who is evidently the chief 
Phoenician potentate of the period. 

Further, when we look to the name borne by this prince 
the first Phoenician mentioned byname in Scripture 
we are at once struck with its authentic character. That 
Hiram was really a Phoenician name, and one which kings 
were in the habit of bearing, is certain from the Assyrian 
Inscriptions W and from Herodotus, ( 41 ) as well as from the 
Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander. And these last- 
named writers not only confirm the name as one which a 
king of Tyre might have borne, but show moreover that it 
was actually borne by the Tyrian king contemporary with 
Solomon and David, of whom they relate circumstances 
which completely identify him with the monarch who is 
stated in Scripture to have been on such friendly terms with 
those princes. They do not indeed appear to have made 
any mention of David ; but they spoke distinctly of the 
close connection between Hiram and Solomon ; adding 
facts, which, though not contained in Scripture, are remark- 
ably in accordance with the sacred narrative. For instance, 
both Menander and Dius related that "hard questions" 
were sent by Solomon to Hiram to be resolved by him ;( 42 ) 
while Dius added, that Hiram proposed similar puzzles to 
Solomon in return, which that monarch with all his wisdom 
was unable to answer. ( 43 > We may see in this narrative, 
not only a resemblance to the famous visit of the " Queen 
of the South," 2 who, "when she heard of the fame of Solo- 
mon, came to prove him with hard questions;" 3 but also 
an illustration of the statement that "all the earth sought 
to Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his 

1 2 Sam. xxir. 6. * Matt. xii. 42. 3 1 Kings x. 1. 


heart." 1 Again, Menander stated that Hiram gave his 
daughter in marriage to Solomon. C 44 ) This fact is not 
recorded in Scripture; but still it is illustrative of the state- 
ment that "King Solomon loved many strange women, 
together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Mo- 
abites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Ilittites. . . . 
And lie had seven hundred wives, princesses."' 2 One of 
these we may well conceive to have been the daughter of 
the Tyrian king. 

The relations of Solomon with Egypt have received at 
present but little illustration from native Egyptian sources. 
Our epitome of Manetho gives us nothing but a bare list of 
names at the period to which Solomon must belong; and 
the Egyptian monuments for the time are particularly 
scanty and insignificant. ( 45 ) Moreover the omission of the 
Jewish writers to place on record the distinctive name of 
the Pharaoh whose daughter Solomon married, forbids his 
satisfactory identification with any special Egyptian mon- 
arch. Eupolemus indeed professed to supply this omission 
of the older historians/ 4 '') and enlivened his history with 
copies of the letters which (according to him) passed be- 
tween Solomon and Vaphres or Apries, king of Egypt ; but 
this name is clearly taken from a later portion of Egyptian 
history, and none at all similar to it is found either on the 
monuments or in the dynastic lists for the period. The 
Egyptian marriage of Solomon, therefore, ami his friendly 
connection with a Pharaoh of the twenty-first dynasty, have 
at present no confirmation from profane sources, beyond 
that which it derives from Eupolemus; lint the change in 
the relations between the two courts towards the (!<. of 
Solomon's reign, which is indicated by the protection ex- 
tended to his enemy Jeroboam by a new king, Shishak, 

1 1 Kin^s x. 24. * Ibid. xi. 1-3. 


receives some illustration and confirmation both from the 
monuments and from the native historian. Shishak makes 
his appearance at a suitable point, so far as chronology is 
concerned/ 47 ^ in the lists of Manetho, where he is called 
Sesonchis or Sesonchosis/ 48 ) and his name occurs likewise 
in the sculptures of the period under its Egyptian form of 
Sheshonk. ( 49 ) The confirmation which the monuments 
lend to the capture of Jerusalem by this king will be con- 
sidered in the next Lecture. At present, we have only to 
note, besides the occurrence of the name at the place 
where we should naturally look for it in the lists, the fact 
that it occurs at the commencement of a new dynasty a 
dynasty furnished by a new city, and quite of a different 
character from that preceding it which would therefore 
be in no way connected with Solomon, and would not be 
unlikely to reverse the policy of the house which it had 

The wealth and magnificence of Solomon were celebrated 
by Eupolemus and ( 5 )Theophilus,(-' 5l Hhe former of whom gave 
an elaborate account of the temple and its ornaments. As, 
however, these writers were merely Avell-informed Greeks 
who reported to their countrymen the ideas entertained of 
their history by the Jews of the third and fourth centuries 
B. C, I forbear to dwell upon their testimonies. I shall 
therefore close here the direct confirmations from profane 
sources of this portion of the Scripture narrative, and pro- 
ceed to consider briefly some of the indirect points of 
agreement, with which this part of the history, like every 
other, abounds. 

First, then, it may be observed, that the empire ascribed 
to David and Solomon is an empire of exactly that hind 
which alone Western Asia was capable of producing, and 
did produce, about the period in question. The modern 


system of centralized organization by which the various 
provinces of a vast empire are cemented into :i compact 
mass, was unknown to the ancient world, and has never 
been practised by Asiatics. The satrapial system of gov- 
ernment, or that in which the pi evinces retain their indi- 
viduality, but are administered on a common plan by 
officers appointed by the crown which has prevailed gen- 
erally through the East since the time of its first introduc- 
tion was the invention of Darius Hystaspis. Before his 
time the greatest monarchies had a slighter and weaker 
organization. They were in all cases composed of a num- 
ber of separate kingdoms, each under its own native king; 
and the sole link uniting them together and constituting 
them an empire, was the subjection of these petty mon- 
archs to a single suzerain. ( 52 > The Babylonian, Assyrian, 
Median, and Lydian, were all empires of this type mon- 
archies, wherein a sovereign prince at the head of a power- 
ful kingdom was acknowledged as suzerain by a number of 
inferior princes, each in his own right sole ruler of his own 
country. And the subjection of the interior princes con- 
sisted chiefly, if not solely, in two points; they were bound 
to render homage to their suzerain, and to pay him annu- 
ally a certain stated tribute. Thus, when we lien that 
"Solomon reigned over all tin kin ;/<!>>/, is from the river 
(Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the 
border of Egypt" 1 or again, that "he had dominion ove" 
all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah (or 
Thapsacus on the Euphrates) to Azzah, (or (iaza, the most 
southern of the Philistine towns,) over <dl tin kings on this 
side the river" 2 and that "they brought jr's^nts"* " :. 
rate year by year"* and "served Solomon all the days of 

1 1 Kings iv. 21. * Ibid vrrw 24. 

3 Ibid, verse 21. * Ibid x. 25. 


liis life," 1 wc recognize 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 political notions and practices of the day. 

Similarly, with respect to the buildings of Solomon, it may 
he remarked, that they appear, from the description given 
of them in Kings and Chronicles, to have belonged exactly 
to that style of architecture which we find in fact to have 
prevailed over Western Asia in the earliest times, and of 
which we have still remains on 'the ancient sites of Nineveh, 
Susa, and Persepolis. The strong resemblance in general 
structure and arrangement of the palace of Esar-haddon to 
that which Solomon constructed for his own use, has been 
noticed by our great Mcsopotamian excavator ; ( 53 ) and few 
can fail to see in the "house of the forest of Lebanon," 2 
with its five-and-forty cedar pillars forming the "forest" 
from which the palace derived its name, a resemblance to 
the remarkable structures at Susa and Persepolis, in each 
of which the pillars on which the entire edifice rested form 
a sort of forest, amounting in number to seventy-two. It 
is true that in the Persian buildings the columns are of 
stone ; but this is owing to the advance of art. The great 
chambers in the Assyrian palaces had no stone columns, 
but are regarded by those who have paid most attention to 
the subject, as having had their roofs supported by pillar? 
of cedar. ( M ) Nor does the resemblance of which I am 
speaking consist only in the multiplicity of columns. The 
height of the Persepolitan columns, which is forty-four 
feet, C 55 ) almost exactly equals the " thirty cubits " of Solo- 
mon's house ; and there is even an agreement in the general 
character of the capitals, which has attracted notice from 
-^rae who have written upon the history of art. ( 56 ) 

1 1 Kings iv. 21. 2 Ibid. vii. 2. 


Again, the copious use of gold in ornamentation, 1 which 
seems to moderns so improbable, ( 57) was a practice known 
to the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians. ( 58 > 
The brazen pillars, Jachin and Boaz, set up in the court of 
the temple, 2 recall the pillar of gold which Hiram, accord- 
ing to Menander, ( 59 > dedicated in the temple of Baal, and 
the two pillars which appear in the coins of Cyprus before 
the temple of the Phoenician Venus. C 60 ) The " throne of 
ivory" 3 has its parallel in the numerous ivory carvings 
lately brought from Mesopotamia, which in many cases 
have plainly formed the covering of furniture. ( 61 ) The 
lions, which stood beside the throne, 4 bring to our mind at 
once the lions' feet with which Assyrian thrones were 
ornamented, ( 62 ^ and the- gigantic sculptured figures which 
commonly formed the portals of the great halls. In these 
and many other points the state and character of art, 
which the Hebrew writers describe as existing in Solomon's 
time, receives confirmation from profane sources, and 
especially from those remains of a time not long subse- 
quent, which have been recently brought to light by the 
researches made in Mesopotamia. 

Once more the agreement between the character of 
the Phoenicians as drawn in Kings and Chronicles, and 
that which we know from other sources to have attached 
to them, is worthy of remark. The wealth, the enterprise, 
the maritime skill, and the eminence in the arts, which 
were the leading characteristics of the Phoenicians in 
Homer's time, are abundantly noted by the writers of 
Kings and Chronicles; who contrast the comparative 
ignorance and rudeness of their own nation with the 
science and "cunning" of their neighbors. "Thou 

1 1 Kings vi. 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, &c. 5 Ibid. vii. 15-22. 

a Ibid. x. 19. * Ibid, verses ll>and20. 



knowest," writes king Solomon to Hiram, " that there is 
not among us any that can skill to hew timber like the 
Sidonians." 1 " Send me a man," again he writes, " cunning 
to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and 
in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that can skill to grave 
with the cunning men which are with me in Judah and in 
Jerusalem, whom David my father did provide." 2 And 
the man sent, "a man of Tyre, a worker in brass, filled with 
wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works 
in brass, came to king Solomon, and wrought all his 
work? 3 So too when Solomon " made a navy of ships in 
Ezion-geber, on the shore of the Red Sea," Hiram " sent in 
the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the 
sea, with the servants of Solomon." 4 It has been well re- 
marked, C 68 ) that "we discover the greatness of Tyre in 
this age, not so much from its own annals as from those 
of the Israelites, its neighbors." The scanty fragments of 
the Phoenician history which alone remain to us are filled 
out and illustrated by the more copious records of the 
Jews ; which, with a simplicity and truthfulness that we 
rarely meet with in profane writers, set forth in the 
strongest terms their obligations to their friendly neighbors. 
These are a few of the indirect points of agreement be- 
tween profane history and this portion of the sacred nar- 
rative. It would be easy to adduce others ; ( 63 ) but since, 
within the space which an occasion like the present allows, 
it is impossible to do more than broadly to indicate the 
sort of evidence which is producible in favor of the 
authenticity of Scripture, perhaps the foregoing specimens 
may suffice. It only remains therefore to sum up briefly 
the results to which we seem to have attained. 

1 1 Kings v. 6. * 2 Chron. ii. 7. 

1 1 Kings vii. 14. * Ibid. ix. 26, 27. 

Lect. ILL truth of the scripture records. 99 

We have been engaged with a dark period a period 
when the nations of the world had little converse with one 
another, when civilization was but beginning, when the 
knowledge of letters was confined within narrow bounds, 
when no country but Egypt had a literature, and when 
Egypt herself was in a state of unusual depression, and 
had little communication with nations beyond her borders. 
We could not expect to obtain for such a period any great 
amount of profane illustration. Yet the Jewish history of 
even this obscure time has been found to present points of 
direct agreement with the Egyptian records, scanty as they 
are for it, with the Phoenician annals, with the traditions 
of the Syrians of Damascus, and with those of the early in- 
habitants of Northern Africa. It has also appeared that the 
Hebrew account of the time is in complete harmony with all 
that we otherwise know of Western Asia at the period in 
question, of its political condition, its civilization, its arts and 
sciences, its manners and customs, its inhabitants. Illustra- 
tions of these points have been furnished by the Assyrian 
inscriptions, the Assyrian and Persian palaces, the Pluenician 
coins and histories, and the earliest Greek poetry. Nor is 
it possible to produce from authentic history any contra- 
diction of this or any other portion of the Hebrew records. 
When such a contradiction has seemed to hi' found, it has 
invariably happened that in the progress of historical 
inquiry, the author from whom it proceeds has lost credit, 
and finally come to he regarded as an utterly untrust- 
worthy authority. C 64 ) Internally consistent, externally 
resting upon contemporary or nearly contemporary docu- 
ments, and both directly and indirectly continued by the 
records of neighboring nations, the Hebrew account of this 
time is entitled to be receive. 1 as a true and authentic his- 
tory on almost every ground upon which such a claim can 


be rested. It was then justly and with sufficient reason 
that the Proto-martyr in his last speech, 1 and the great 
Apostle of the Gentiles, in his first public preaching as an 
Apostle, 2 assumed as certain the simple, literal, and historic 
truth of this portion of the sacred narrative. Through 
God's good providence, there is no break in that historic 
chain which binds the present with the past, the new 
covenant with the old, Christ with Moses, the true Israel 
with Abraham. A "dark age" a time of trouble and 
confusion, undoubtedly supervened upon the establishment 
of the Israelites in Canaan ; but amid the gloom the torch 
of truth still passed from hand to hand prophets arose at 
intervals and the main events in the national life were 
carefully put on record. Afterwards from the time of 
Samuel a more regular system was introduced ; events 
were chronicled as they occurred ; and even the sceptic 
allows that "with the Books of Samuel, the history 
assumes an appearance far more authentic than that of the 
contemporary history of any other ancient nation.'^ 63 ) 
This admission may well be taken to render any further 
argument unnecessary, and with it we may properly con- 
clude this portion of our inquiry. 

1 Acts vii. 45-47. * Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 



The subject of the present Lecture will be the history 
of the chosen people from the separation of the two king- 
doms by the successful revolt of Jeroboam, to the comple- 
tion of the Captivity of Judah, upon the destruction of 
Jerusalem, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, king 
of Babylon. The space of time embraced is thus a period 
of about four centuries. Without pretending to a chrono- 
logical exactitude, for which our data arc insufficient, we 
may lay it down as tolerably certain, that the establish- 
ment of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah on the ruins 
of Solomon's empire is an event belonging to the earlier 
half of the tenth century before our era; while the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem may be assigned with much confidence 
to the year B. C. 586. 

These centuries constitute a period second in importance 
to none of equal length. They comprise the great devel- 
opment, the decadence and the fall of Assyria tin' sudden 
growth of Media and Babylon the Egyptian revival 
under the Psammetichi the most glorious time of the 
Phoenician cities the rise of Sparta and Athens to pre- 
eminence in Greece the foundation of Carthage anil of 

<j . (101) 


Rome and the spread of civilization by means of the 
Greek and Phoenician colonies, from the Palus Mteotis 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 authenticity and trustworthiness, which 
is required to n't it thoroughly for the purpose whereto it 
is applied in these Lectures. Hence, illustrations of the 
acred narrative, hitherto somewhat rare and infrequent, 
will now crowd upon us, and make the principal difficulty at 
the present stage that of selection. Egypt, Assyria, Baby- 
lon, Phoenicia, Greece, will vie with each other in offering 
to us proofs that the Hebrew records, for this time, contain 
a true and authentic account of the fortunes of the race ; 
and instead of finding merely a few points here and there 
to illustrate from profane sources, we shall now be able to 
produce confirmatory proof of almost every important 
event in the history. 

Before entering, however, on this branch of the inquiry, 
some consideration must be given to the character of 
the documents in which this portion of the history has 
come down to us, and to the confirmation which those 
documents obtain from other Books in the Sacred 

It was observed in the last Lecture, that the Books of 
Kings and Chronicles are compilations from State Papers 
preserved in the public archives of the Jewish nation, ^ the 
authors of those papers being probably, in most cases, 
the Prophets in best repute at the time of their com- 
position. This is particularly apparent from the Second 
Book of Chronicles, where the author, besides citing in 


several places 1 "the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings 
of Israel and Judah," particularizes no fewer than thirteen 
works of prophets, some of which he expressly states to 
have formed a portion of the general "Book of the Chroni* 
cles," 2 while most of the others may be probably con 
eluded to have done the same. The Books of Samuel, 
of Nathan, and of Gad, the Prophecy of Ahijah the Shi- 
lonite, and the Visions of Iddo the seer, which are among 
the works quoted by the Chronicler, have been already 
noticed. ( 2 ) To these must now be added, "the Book ot 
Shemaiah the Prophet," 3 "the Book of Iddo the seer, con- 
cerning genealogies," 4 "the Story or Commentary of the 
Prophet Iddo," 5 "the Book of Jehu the son of Hanani,"" 
"the Acts of Uzziah by Isaiah," 7 "the Vision of Isaiah," 8 
and the book of "the Sayings of the Seers" 9 all works 
which served as materials to the Chronicler, and to which 
he refers his readers. We found reason to believe, in the 
last Lecture, that our Book (or Books) of Samuel is the 
very work which the Chronicler quotes under the three 
names of the Book of Samuel, the Book of Nathan, and 
the Book of Gad. Similarly the Book of the Acts of Sol- 
omon 10 would seem to have been composed of a Book of 
Nathan, a Book of Ahijah the Shilonite, and a portion 
of a Book of Iddo the seer." And the Book, or rather 
the two Books, & of the Chronicles of the Kings of 
Israel and Judah, would appear to have been carried on in 
the same way; first, by Iddo, in his "Story," or "Com- 

1 2 Chron. xvi. 11 ; xxv. 2G ; xxvii. 7 ; xxviii. 2G ; xxxii. 32 ; xxxiii. 
18 ; and xxxv. 27. 

1 Ibid. xx. 34 ; and xxxiii. 32. 

3 Ibid. xii. 15. * Ibid. * Ibid. xiii. 22- 

6 Ibid. xx. 34. " Ibid. xxvi. 22. " Ibid, xxxii. 32. 

9 Ibid, xxxiii. 19. "' 1 Kings xi. II. " 2 Chron. ix. 29. 


mentary;" 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 ; W and afterwards by other prophets 
and seers, among whom were certainly Isaiah and Jere- 
miah. That Isaiah wrote the history of the reign of 
Uzziah is expressly stated ; x and it is also said that his 
account of the acts of Hezekiah formed a portion of the 
Book of the Kings of Judah ; ( 5 > besides which, the close 
verbal agreement between certain historical chapters in 
Isaiah and in Kings, () would suffice to prove that this 
part of the state history was composed by him. A similar 
agreement between portions of Kings and of Jeremiah, 
leads to a similar conclusion with respect to that prophet. 0) 
Thus Samuel, Gad, Nathan, "Ahij ah, Shemaiah, Iddo, Jehu, 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other prophets contemporary with 
the events, are to be regarded as the real authorities for 
the Jewish history as it is delivered to us in Kings and 
Chronicles. " The prophets, who in their prophecies and 
addresses held forth to the people, not only the law as a 
rule and direction, but also the history of the past as the 
mirror and example of their life, must have reckoned the 
composition of the theocratic history among the duties of 
the call given to them by the Lord, and composed accord- 
ingly the history of their time by noting down public 
annals, in which, without respect of persons, the life and 
conduct of the kings were judged and exhibited according 
to the standard of the revealed law."( 8 ) With this judg- 
ment of a living German writer, there is sufficient reason 
to concur; and we may therefore conclude that the history 
in Kings and Chronicles rests upon the testimony of con- 
temporary and competent witnesses. 

The only objection of any importance that Rationalism 

1 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. 


makes to the conclusion which we have here reached, is 
drawn from the circumstances of the time when the books 
were composed ; which is thought to militate strongly 
against their having been drawn directly from the sources 
which have been indicated. The authority of the writers 
of these Books, we are told, W " cannot have been the offi- 
cial annals" of the kingdoms; for these must have perished 
at their destruction, and therefore could not have been 
consulted by authors who lived later than the Captivity. 
It may be granted that the mass of the State Archives are 
likely to have perished with Samaria and Jerusalem, if we 
understand by that term the bulky documents which con- 
tained the details of official transactions : but there is no 
more difficulty in supposing that the digested annals which 
the prophets had composed escaped, than there is in under- 
standing how the Prophecy of Isaiah and the rest of the 
Sacred Volume were preserved. At any rate, if there be a 
difficulty, it is unimportant in the face of the plain and 
palpable fact, that the authors of the two Books speak of 
the annals as existing, and continually refer their readers to 
them for additional information. However we may ac- 
count for it, the "Books of the; Chronicles of the Kings of 
Israel and Judah," the different portions of which had been 
written by the prophets above mentioned, were still extant 
when the authors of Kings and Chronicles wrote their his- 
tories, having escaped the dangers of war, and survived the 
obscure time of the Captivity. It is not merely that the 
writers in question profess to quote from them; hut they 
constantly appeal to them as books the contents of which 
are well known to their own readers. 

The confirmation which the Books of Kings and Clin, ni- 
cies lend to each other, deserves some notice while we are 
engaged with this portion of the inquiry. Had the later 


composition uniformly followed, and, as it were, echoed the 
earlier, there would have been but little advantage in the 
double record. We should then only have known that the 
author of the Book of Chronicles regarded the Book of 
Kings as authentic. But the Chronicler I use the term 
in no offensive sense does not seem really in any case 
merely to follow the writer of Kings. ( 10 ) On the contrary, 
he goes straight to the fountain-head, and draws his mate- 
rials partly from the sources used by the earlier writer, 
partly (as it seems) from contemporary sources which that 
writer had neglected. He is thus, throughout, a distinct 
and independent authority for the history of his nation, 
standing to the writer of Kings as Africanus stands to 
Eusebius, in respect of the history of Egypt. 1 ' As the 
double channel by which Manetho's Egyptian history is 
conveyed to us, renders our hold upon that history far 
more firm and secure than would have been the case had 
we derived our knowledge of it* through one channel only, 
so the two parallel accounts, which we possess in Kings 
and Chronicles, of the history of Solomon and his succes- 
sors, give us a hold upon the original annals of this period 
which we could not have had otherwise. The Chronicler, 
while he declines to be beholden to the author of Kings 
for any portion of his narrative, and does not concern him- 
self about apparent discrepancies between his own work 
and that of the earlier writer, confirms the whole general 
course of that writer's history, repeating it, illustrating it, 
and adding to it, but never really differing from it, except 
in such minute points as are readily explainable by slight 
corruptions of the text in the one case or the other. ( 12 ) 

Further, the narrative contained in Kings and Chronicles 
receives a large amount of illustration, and so of confirma- 
tion, from the writings of the contemporary Prophets, who 


exhibit the feelings natural under the circumstances de- 
scribed by the historians, and incidentally allude to the 
facts recorded by them. This point has been largely illus- 
trated by recent writers on the prophetical Scriptures, who 
find the interpretation of almost every chapter "bound 
up with references to contemporary events, political and 
social," and discover in this constant connection at once a 
" source of occasional difficulty," and a frequent means of 
throwing great additional light on the true meaning of the 
prophetical writers. W The illustration thus afforded to 
prophecy by history is reflected back to history from proph- 
ecy; and there is scarcely an event in the Jewish annals 
after the reign of Uzziah which is the time of the earliest 
of the extant prophetical writings C 14 ) that is not illumi- 
nated by some touch from one prophet or another. To take 
the case of a single writer Isaiah mentions the succession 
of Jewish kings from Uzziah to Hezekiah, 1 the alliance of 
Rezin, king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah, king 
of Israel, against Ahaz, 2 the desolation -of their country 
which shortly followed, 3 the plunder of Damascus, and the 
spoiling of Samaria at this time, 4 the name of the then 
high priest,* the Assyrian conquests of Hamath, Aradus, 
and Samaria, the close connection about this time of 
Egypt and Ethiopia, 7 the inclination of the Jewish mon. 
archs to lean on Egypt for support against Assyria," the 
conquest by Sennacherib of the "fenced cities" of Judaic 
the embassy of Rabshakeh, 10 the sieges of Libnah ami 

1 Isaiah i. 1. * Ibid. vii. 1, 2. 3 Ibid, verso 10. 

4 Ibid. viii. 4. Compare 2 Kin^s xvi. 9. 

5 Ibid, verse 2. Compare 2 Kinsjs xvi. 10-1G. 

Ibid. x. 9-11. 7 Ibid. xx. 3-5. 

8 Ibid. xxx. 2, 3, &c. ; xxxi. 1-3. ' Ibid, xxxvi. 1. 

w Ibid, verses 2-22. 


Lachish, 1 the preparations of Tirhakah against Sennache- 
rib, 8 the prayer of Hezekiah, 8 the prophecy of Isaiah in 
reply, 4 the destruction of Sennacherib's host, 5 the return of 
Sennacherib himself to Nineveh, 6 his murder and the 
escape of his murderers/ Hezekiah's illness and recovery, 8 
and the embassy sent to him by Merodach-Baladan, king 
of Babylon; he glances also at the invasion of Tiglath- 
Pileser, and the destruction then brought upon a portion 
of the kingdom of Israel, 10 at the oppression of Egypt 
under the Ethiopian yoke, 11 at the subjection of Judsea to 
Assyria during the reign of Ahaz, 12 and at many other 
events of less consequence. About half the events here 
mentioned are contained in the three historical chapters of 
Isaiah, 13 which are almost identical with three chapters of 
the second Book of Kings: 14 but the remainder occur 
merely incidentally among the prophecies ; and these afford 
the same sort of confirmation to the plain narrative of 
Kings and Chronicles, as the Epistles of St. Paul have been 
shown to furnish>to the Acts.( 15) Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, 
Micah, and Zephaniah, contain numerous allusions of a 
similar character, illustrative of the history at this time and 
subsequently. Jeremiah, in particular, is as copious in 
notices bearing upon Jewish history for the time extending 
from Josiah to the GajDtivity, as Isaiah is for the reigns of 
Ahaz and Hezekiah. 

Having thus briefly noticed the character of the docu- 
ments in which this portion of the history has come down 
to us, and drawn attention to the weight of the scriptural 

1 Isaiah xxxvii. 8. 2 Ibid, verse 9. 3 Ibid, verses 15-20. 

4 Ibid, verses 22-35. 5 Ibid, verse 36. 6 Ibid, verse 37. 

7 Ibid, verse 38. H Ibid, xxxviii. 9 Ibid, xxxix. 1, 2. 

10 Ibid. ix. 1. " Ibid. xix. 4, itc. 12 Ibid. xiv. 24-28. 

13 Chaps, xxxvi. xxxvii. and xxxviii. ,4 Chaps, xviii. xix. and xx. 


evidence in favor of its authenticity, I proceed to the con- 
sideration of that point which is the special subject of 
these Lectures the confirmation which this part of the 
narrative receives from profane sources. 

The separate existence of the two kingdoms of Israel 
and Judah is abundantly confirmed by the Assyrian in- 
scriptions. Kings of each country occur in the accounts 
which the great Assyrian monarchs have left us of their 
conquests the names being always capable of easy 
identification with those recorded in Scripture, and occur- 
ring in the chronological order which is there given. ( 16 > 
The Jewish monarch bears the title of " King of Judah," 
while his Israelitish brother is designated after his capital 
city; which, though in the earlier times not called Sama- 
ria, is yet unmistakably indicated under the term Beth- 
JChumri^ 17 ' "the house or city of Omri," that monarch 
having been the original founder of Samaria, according to 
Scripture. 1 

The first great event in the kingdom of Judah after the 
separation from Israel, was the invasion of Judaea by Shi- 
shak, king of Egypt, in the fifth year of Rehoboam. Shi- 
shak came up against Jerusalem with "twelve hundred 
chariots and threescore thousand horsemen," besides a 
Lost of footmen who were "without number." 2 He "took 
the fenced cities which pertained to Judah," and was pro- 
ceeding to invest the capital, when Iiehoboam made his 
submission, delivered up the treasures of the temple, ami 
of his own palace, and became one of the " servants " or 
tributaries of the Egyptian king:' This success is found to 
have been commemorated by Shishak on the outside of 
the great temple at Karnac ; and here in a long list of 
antured towns and districts, which Shishak boasts of 

1 1 Kings xvi. 24. s 2 Chron. xii. 3. 3 Ibid, verse 8. 



Having added to his dominions, occurs the "Jfelchi Yiicla" 
or kingdom of Judah, ( 18 > the conquest of which by this 
king is thus distinctly noticed in the Egyptian records. 

About thirty years later Judaea was again invaded from 
this quarter. " Zerah the Ethiopian," at the head of an 
army of "a thousand thousand" 1 or a million of men 
who were chiefly Ethiopians and Libyans, 2 made war upon 
Asa, and entering his kingdom at its south-western angle, 
was there met by the Jewish monarch and signally defeated 
by him. 3 In this case we cannot expect such a confirma- 
tion as in the last instance ; for nations do not usually put 
on record their great disasters. It appears, however, that 
at the time indicated, the king of Egypt was an Osor- 
kon ( 19) a name identical in its root consonants with 
Zerach / and it appears also that Egypt continued to 
decline from this period till the time of Psammetichus, a 
natural residt of such a disaster as that which befell the 
invading host. The only difficult)' which meets us is the 
representation of Zerah as an Ethiopian a fact not at 
present confirmed by the monuments. Perhaps, though 
an Egyptian, he was regarded as an Ethiopian, because he 
ruled over Ethiopia, and because his army was mainly com- 
posed of men belonging to that country. Or perhaps, 
though M*e have no positive evidence of this, he may 
have been really of Ethiopian extraction. Osorkon the 
Second, who is the natural contemporary of Asa, was not 
descended from the earlier kings of the dynasty. He was 
the son-in-law of his predecessor, and reigned in right of 
his wife. It is therefore not at all impossible that he may 
have been an Ethiopian by birth, and have ruled over both 

In the succeeding generation, the records of the other 

' 2 Chxon. xiv. 9. 2 Ibid. xvi. 8. * Ibid. xiv. 12, 13. 


kingdom present us with some points of contact between 
the Jewish and the Phoenician annals, in which again wo 
have all the agreement that is possible. Ahab, king of 
Israel, is represented as having sought to strengthen him- 
self in the position which his father had usurped, by a mar- 
riage with a foreign princess, and as having made choice 
for the purpose of "Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal, king of 
the Zidonians." l Here again not only have we a genuine 
Phoenician name, but we have the name of a king, who is 
proved by the Tyrian history of Menander to have been 
seated upon the throne exactly at this time. Eithobalus, 
the priest of Ashteroth (or Venus,) Avho by the murder of 
his predecessor, Pheles, became king of Tyre, mounted the 
throne just fifty years after the death of Hiram, the con- 
temporary of Solomon. C 20 ) Ahab mounted the throne of 
Israel fifteen or twenty years later, and was thus the 
younger contemporary of Eithobalus, or Eth-baal, who 
continued to reign at Tyre during a considerable portion 
of Ahab's reign in Israel. The only objection that can be 
taken to this identity which is generally allowed ( 9I 
turns upon the circumstance that Eth-baal is called in 
Scripture, not king of Tyre, but "king of* the Zi<loIlians. ,, 
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 coincidence between his name and that of the 
reigning Tyrian monarch would be merely accidental, and 
the confirmation here sought to be established would fall 
to the ground. But the fact seems to be that the Jewish 
writers use the term w Zidonians " in two senses, one spe- 
cific, ami the other generic, sometimes intending by it 
the inhabitants of Sidon alone, sometimes the Phoenicians 
generally. (~) And it is prohibit/ in this latter sense that 

1 1 Kings xvi. 31. 


the title "king of the Zidonians" is applied to the father 
of Jezebel. 

Menandcr 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, t 23 ) 
This drought is fairly connected with the still longer one 
in the land of Israel, which Elijah announced to Ahab, 1 
and which led to the destruction of the priests of Baal 
upon Mount Carmel.* 

The most remarkable feature in the external history of 
Israel during the reign of Ahab, is the war which raged 
towards its close between the Israelites and the Syrians of 
Damascus. The power and greatness of the Damascene 
king, who bears the name of Ben-hadad, are very strikingly 
depicted. lie comes against Samaria at the head of no 
fewer than thirty-two subject or confederate "kings,"" with 
"horses" and with "chariots," 4 and a "great multitude." 5 
Though defeated with great slaughter on his first attempt, 
he is able to bring into the field another army of equal 
strength in the ensuing year. 6 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 one hundred and twenty-seven thousand 
men/ Even this enormous slaughter does not paralyze 
him: he continues the war for three years longer; and in 
the third year fights the battle in which Ahab is slain. 8 
Now, of this particular struggle we have no positive con- 
firmation, owing to the almost total loss of the ancient 
Syrian records. ( 24 > But we have, in the cuneiform annals 

1 1 Kings xvii. 1. 2 Ibid. chap, xviii. 3 Ibid. xx. 1. 

4 Ibid. * Ibid, verse 13. 6 Ibid. xx. 25. 

7 Ibid, verses 28 and 29. 8 Ibid. xxii. 1-36. 


of an Assyrian king, a very cuiious and valuable confirma- 
tion of the power of Damascus at this time of its being 
under the rule of a monarch named Ben-hadad, who was 
at the head of a great confederacy of princes, and who 
was able to bring into the field year after year vast armies, 
with which he repeatedly engaged the Avhole force of 
Assyria. We have accounts of three campaigns between 
the Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, Ilittites, 
Hamathites, and Phoenicians, united under the command 
of Ben-hadad, upon the other/ 25 ) in which the contest is 
maintained with spirit, the armies being of a large size, and 
their composition and character such as we find described 
in Scripture. ( 26 > 

The same record further verifies the historical accuracy 
of the Books of Kings by a mention of Hazael as king of 
Damascus immediately after Ben-hadad, ( 2? ) ami also by the 
synchronism which it establishes between this prince and 
Jehu, who is the first Israelite king mentioned by name 
on any Inscription hitherto discovered. Jehu appears by 
the monument in question to have submitted himself to 
the great Assyrian conqueror/ 28 ) and it may be suspected 
that from this date both the Jewish and the Israelitish 
kings held their crowns as fiefs dependent <>n the will 
of the Assyrian monarch, with whom it formally lay to 
"confirm" each new prince "in his kingdom." 1 

A break now occurs in the scries of profane notices, 
which have extended, without the omission of a genera- 
tion, from the time of David to that of Jehu. During the 
century which follows on the death of that monarch we 
are able to adduce from profane sources no mure than one 
or two doubtful illustrations of the Sacred Narrative. 
Here, however, it is to be remarked, that the absence of 

1 2 Kin^s xiv. 5 ; xv. 11). 

10 * 


profane confirmation is coincident with, and must fairly b 
regarded as resulting from, a want of sufficient material^ 
There is a great dearth of copious Assyrian inscriptions 
from the time of the monarch who made Jehu tributary to 
that of the Tiglath-Pileser of Scripture. C 29 ) For this time, 
too the Tyrian records are an absolute blank, ( 3 ) while the 
Egyptian are but little better; and moreover there seems 
to have been no political contact between these countries 
and Palestine during the period in question. We cannot 
therefore be surprised at the deficiency here noted ; nor 
would it be right to view it as having the slightest tern, 
dency to weaken the force of our previous reasoning. 

The Hebrew annals touch no foreign country, of which 
we have any records at all, from the time of Jehu to that 
of Menahem. In the reign of this latter prince occurs 
the first direct mention of Assyria as a power actively 
interfering in Palestine, and claiming and exercising 
political influence. We are told that in the reign of 
Menahem, "Pul, the king of Assyria, came up against 
the land ; and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of 
silver, that his hand might be with him, to confirm the 
kingdom in his hand." * There is some difficulty in iden- 
tifying the Assyrian monarch here mentioned, who not 
only took this large tribute, but (as appears from Chroni- 
cles) 2 led a portion of the nation into captivity. In the 
Hebrew Scriptures he appears as Pul, or rather Phul ; and 
this is also the form of the name which the Armenian 
Eu8ebius declares to have been used by Polyhistor, < 3! ) who 
followed Berosus ; but in the Septuagint he is called Pha- 
loch, or Phalos, C 32 ) a form of which the Hebrew word 
seems to be an abbreviation. The Assyrian records of the 
time present us with no name very close to this ; but there 

1 2 Kings xv. 19. 2 1 Chron. v. 26= 


is one which has been read variously, as Phal-hiklia, Vid- 
lukha, and Iva-lush, wherein it is not improbable that we 
may have the actual appellation of the Biblical Phul, or Pha- 
loch. The annals of this monarch are scanty ; but in the 
most important record which we possess of his reign, there 
is a notice of his having taken tribute from Beth-KJaunri, 
or Samaria, as well as from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, Idu- 
maea, and Philistia. t 33 ) Neither the name of the Israelitish 
king, nor the amount of his tribute, is mentioned in the 
Assyrian record ; but the amount of the latter, which may 
to many appear excessive, receives illustration, and a cer- 
tain degree of confirmation, from a fact which happens to 
be recorded on the monument namely, that the Assyrian 
monarch took at this time from the king of Damascus a 
tribute considerably greater than that which, according to 
the author of Kings, he now exacted from Menahem. 
From Menahem he received one thousand talents of silver; 
but from the Damascene king the tribute taken was 
twenty-three hundred of such talents, together with three 
thousand talents of copper, forty of gold, and five thousand 
of some other metal. C 34 ) 

The expedition of Pul against Menahem is followed by a 
series of attacks on the independence of the two kingdoms, 
which cause the sacred history to be very closely con- 
nected, for the space of about a century, with the annals of 
Assyria. The successors of Pul arc presented to us by the 
Biblical writers, apparently in a continuous and uninter- 
rupted line Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sen- 
nacherib, and Esar-haddon, all of them carrying their arms 
into Palestine, and playing an important pari in the history 
of the favored race. It happens most fortunately (may we. 
not say, providentially?) that records of all these monarchs 
the greatest which Assyria produced have been recov- 


evcd ; and these in some cases are sufficiently full to 
exhibit a close agreement with the sacred narrative, while 
throughout they harmonize with the tenor of that narra- 
tive, only in one or two cases so differing from the Hebrew 
text as to cause any difficulty. I shall proceed to exhibit 
this agreement with the brevity which my limits necessi- 
tate, before noticing the confirmation which this portion of 
the history derives also from the Egyptian and Babylonian 

The chief events related of Tiglath-Pileser in Scripture 
are his two invasions of Israel once when he "took Ijon, 
and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and 
Ilazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naph- 
tali, and earned them captive to Assyria;" 1 and again, 
when he came at the invitation of Ahaz, and not only chas- 
tised Pekah, but " took Damascus, and slew Kezin." 2 Of 
the first of these two campaigns we have no profane con- 
firmation ; but some account of the second is given in an 
Assyrian fragment, where Tiglath-Pileser speaks of his 
defeating Rezin, and capturing Damascus, and also of his 
taking tribute from the king of Samaria. The monarch 
indeed from whom he takes the tribute is called Menahem, 
instead of Pekah; and this constitutes a discrepancy the 
first that we have found between the Assyrian and the 
Hebrew records : but the probability is that Pekah is 
intended, and that the official who composed, or the work- 
man who engraved, the Assyrian document made a mis- 
take in the name.C 3 -^ 

Tiglath-Pileser is also stated in Scripture to have been 
visited at Damascus by the Jewish king Ahaz; and the 
result of this visit was that Ahaz set up a new altar in the 
temple at Jerusalem, according to the pattern of an altar 

1 2 Kings xv. 29. 3 Ibid. xvi. 7-9. 


which he had seen at Damascus. 1 It has been generally 
supposed that this altar was Syrian ; ( 36 > and its establish 
ment has been connected with the passage in Chronicles, 
where Ahaz is said to have " sacrificed to the gods of 
Damascus, which smote him;" 2 but few things can be 
more improbable than the adoption of the gods of a foreign 
nation at the moment when they had been proved powerless. 
The strange altar of Ahaz was in all probability not Syrian, 
but Assyrian ; and its erection was in accordance with an 
Assyrian custom, of which the Inscriptions afford abundant 
evidence the custom of requiring from the subject na- 
tions some formal acknowledgment of the gods and wor- 
ship of the sovereign country, t 37 ) 

The successor of Tiglath-Pileser seems to have been 
Shalmaneser a king, whose military exploits in these 
regions were celebrated by Menander in his history of 
Tyre. ( W J He appears, from the narrative in Kings, to 
have come up twice against Hoshea, the last king of Israel, 3 
on the first occasion merely enforcing the tribute which 
w:is regarded as due, but on the second proceeding to ex- 
tremities, in order to punish Hoshea for contracting an 
alliance with Egypt, laying siege to Samaria, and continu- 
ing to prosecute the siege for the space of three years. The 
records of Shalmaneser have been so mutilated by his suc- 
cessors, that they furnish only a very slight confirmation of 
this history. The name of Hoshea, however, king of Sama- 
ria, is found in an inscription, which has been with reason 
assigned to Shalmaneser;^ and though the capture of 
Samaria is claimed by his successor, Sargon, as an exploit 
of his own in his first year/ ,0 > yet this very claim confirms 
the Scriptural account of Shahnaneser's commencing ihe 

1 2 Kings xvi. 10-1G. * ? Chron. xxviii. 23. 

J 2 Kings xvii. 3 und 5. 


siege, which begun three years before the capture; 1 and it 
is easily brought into harmony with the Scriptural account 
of the actual capture, either by supposing that Sargon 
claimed the success as falling into his own reign, (which 
had then begun at Nineveh,) though Shalmaneser was the 
real captor ; or by regarding (as we are entitled to do) the 
king of Assyria, who is said to have taken Samaria in the 
Book of Kings, as a distinct person from the king who 
commenced the siege. ( 41 ) 

Of Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon, Scripture contains 
but one clear historic notice. In the twentieth chapter of 
Isaiah, we are told that " in the year that Tartan came unto 
Ashdod, (when Sargon, the king of Assyria, sent him,) and 
fought against Ashdod, and took it,"[ 2 certain directions 
were given by the Lord to the prophet. It was formerly 
supposed that Sargon was another name for one of the 
Assyrian monarchs mentioned in the Book of Kings ;( 42 > but 
since the discovery that the king of Assyria, who built the 
great palace at Khorsabad, actually bore this appellation, 
which continued to attach to its ruins until the Arab con- 
quest, ( 43 > it has been generally admitted that we have in 
Isaiah a reference to an Assyrian ruler distinct from all 
those mentioned in Kings, and identical with the Khorsa- 
bad monarch, who was the father of Sennacherib. Now of 
this monarch we find it related in his annals that he made 
war in Southern Syria, and took Ashdod.W Thus the 
sole fact which Scripture distinctly assigns to the reign of 
Sargon is confirmed by the native records; which likewise 
illustrate the two or three other facts probably intended to 
be assigned to him by the sacred writers. Isaiah appar- 
ently means Sargon in the fourth verse of his twentieth 
chapter, when he prophesies that " the king of Assyria shall 

1 2 Kings xvii. 3, 5, and xviii. 9, 10. 2 Isaiah xx. 1. 


lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians cap- 
tives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their 
buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." If this be 
aliowed, we obtain a second illustration of Sargon's reign 
from the monuments ; which represent him as warring with 
Egypt, and forcing the Pharaoh of the time to become his 
tributary, and which also show that Egypt was at this time 
in just that close connection with Ethiopia C 45 ) which the 
prophet's expressions indicate. 1 Again, if we may presume 
that Sargon is intended by the king of Assyria who took 
Samaria, 2 and carried the Israelites away captive; 15 then 
there is derivable from the monuments a very curious illus- 
tration of the statement of Scripture, that the monarch, 
who did this, placed his captives, or at least a portion of 
them, "in the cities of the Medes." 4 For Sargon seems to 
have been the first Assyrian monarch who conquered Me- 
dia ; and he expressly relates that, in order to complete its 
subjection, he founded there a number of cities, which he 
planted with colonists from other portions of his domin- 
ions. ( 4C > 

The Assyrian monarch who appears in Scripture as most 
probably the successor of Sargon is Sennacherib, whom the 
monuments show to have been his son. Two expeditions 
of this prince against Hezekiah are related ; and each of 
them receives a very striking confirmation from a profane 
source. The sacred writers tell us that on the first occa- 
sion, Hezekiah having thrown off the allegiance' which the 
kings of Judah appear to have paid to Assyria at least from 
the time of Ahaz' message to Tiglath-Pileser, fi " Sennache- 
rib, king of Assyria, came up against all the fenced cities of 
Judaic and took them: and Hezekiah, king <>f Judah, sent 

1 Ieaiab xx. 3 and 4. - 2 Kin<js xvii. 0. 3 Ibid, xviii. 11. 

* Ibid. 5 Ibid, xvii. 7. * Ibid. xvi. 7. 


to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, 'I have offended; 
return from me : that which thou puttest upon me, I will 
bear:' and the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah, 
king of Judah, three hundred talents of silver and thirty 
talents of gold'." 1 The annals of Sennacherib contain a full 
account of this campaign. "And because Hezekiah, king 
of Judah," says Sennacherib, "Mould not submit to my yoke, 
I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the 
might of my power I took forty-six of his strong fenced 
cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered 
about, I took and plundered a countless number. And 
from these places I captured and carried off as spoil two 
hundred thousand one hundred and fifty people, old and 
young, male and female, together 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, building 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 tal- 
ents of gold, and eight hundred talents of silver, and divers 
treasures, a rich and immense booty. . . . All these things 
were brought to me at Nineveh, the seat of my govern- 
ment, Hezekiah having sent them byway of tribute, and as 
a token of his submission to my power." ( 47 > It is needless to 
particularize the points of agreement between these narra- 
tives. The only discrepancy is in the amount of the silver 
which Sennacherib received ; and here we may easily con- 
ceive, either that the Assyrian king has exaggerated, or 
that he has counted in a portion of the spoil, while the 

1 2 Kings xyiii. 13,. 1}. Compare Isaiah xxxvi. 1, and 2 Chron. 
xxxii. 1-8. 


sacred writer has merely mentioned the sum agreed to be 
paid as tribute. C 48 ) 

The second expedition of Sennacherib into Syria seems 
to have followed very shortly upon the first. In neither 
case was Judaea the sole, or even the main object of attack. 
The real purpose of both expeditions was to weaken Egypt ; 
and it was by his Egyptian leanings that Hezekiah had 
provoked the anger of his suzerain. 1 No collision appears 
to have taken place on this second occasion between the 
Assyrians and the Jews. Hezekiah was threatened ; but 
before the threats could be put in execution, that miracu- 
lous destruction of the Assyrian host Mas effected which 
forms so striking a feature of this portion of the sacred nar- 
rative. " The angel of the Lord went out, and smote in 
the camp of the Assyrians" (which was at Libnah on the 
borders of Egypt) "a hundred fourscore and five thou- 
sand ; and when they arose early in the morning, they 
were all dead corpses." 2 It has been generally seen and 
confessed, that the marvellous account which Herodotus 
gives of the discomfiture of Sennacherib by Sethos > 49 ) is 
the Egyptian version of this event, which was (naturally 
enough) ascribed by that people to the interposition of its 
own divinities. 

The murder of Sennacherib by two of his sons,' 1 though 
not mentioned in the Assyrian Inscriptions, (which have 
never been found to record the death of a king,) appears to 
have been noticed by Berosus; from whom were derived in 
all probability the brief allusions to the event which are 
met with in the fragments of Alexander Polyhistor and 
Abydcnus.C 49 ) The escape of the murderers into Armenia 4 
is in harmony with what is known of the condition of that 

1 2 Kings xvui. 21 ami 24. * Ibid. xix. 35. 

3 Ibid, verse 37. 4 Ibid. 



country at the time; for it appears as an independent state 
generally hostile to the Assyrian monarchs, in the cunei- 
form records of this period ;( 50 ) and it is further perhaps 
worthy of remark, that the Armenian traditions spoke dis- 
tinctly of the reception of the two refugees, and of the 
tracts respectively assigned to them.C 51 ) 

Esarhaddon is distinctly stated in Scripture to have been 
the son and successor of Sennacherib. 1 As usual, the mon- 
uments are in complete accordance. ( 52 > Esarhaddon every 
where calls himself the son of Sennacherib ; and there is no 
appearance in the native records of any king having inter- 
vened between the two.( 53 - ) The events belonging to the 
reign of Esarhaddon, which are introduced by the sacred 
writers into their narrative, are but few. As his father was 
contemporary with Hezekiah, we naturally regard him as 
falling into the time of Manasseh ; and it has therefore 
been generally felt that he should be the king of Assyria, 
whose captains "took Manasseh among the thorns, and 
bound him with fetters, and carried him to Babylon? 1 * 
The monuments confirm the synchronism which Scripture 
implies, by distinctly mentioning "Manasseh, king of 
Judah," among the tributaries of Esarhaddon ; < 54 ) and 
though no direct confirmation has as yet been found of the 
captivity and restoration of the Jewish monarch, yet the 
narrative contains an incidental allusion which is in very 
remarkable harmony with the native records. One is 
greatly surprised at first hearing that the generals of an 
Assyrian king, on capturing a rebel, carried him to Baby- 
lon instead of Nineveh one is almost inclined to suspect 
a mistake. 'What has a king of Assyria to do with Baby- 
lon?' one naturally asks. The reply is, that Esarhaddon, 

1 2 Kings xix. 37. Compare Isaiah xxxvii. 38. 
8 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11. 


and he only of all the Assyrian kings, actually was king 
of Babylon that he built a palace, and occasionally 
held his court there C 55 ) and that consequently a captive 
was as likely to be brought to him at that city as at the 
metropolis of Assyria Proper. Had the narrative fallen 
under the reign of any other Assyrian monarch, this ex- 
planation could not have been given ; and the difficulty 
would have been considerable. Occurring where it does, it 
furnishes no difficulty at all, but is one of those small points 
of incidental agreement which are more satisfactory to a 
candid mind than even a very large amount of harmony in 
the main narrative. 

With Esarhaddon the notices of Assyria in the sacred 
history come to an end. Assyria herself shortly afterwards 
disappears^ 56 ) and her place is taken by Babylon, which 
now for the first time becomes a great conquering power. 
This transfer of empire is abundantly confirmed by profane 
authorities ; ( 5 ~) but, as the historical character of the Bibli- 
cal narrative in this respect has always been allowed, it is 
unnecessary in this place to dwell upon it. I proceed to 
consider the agreement between the sacred narrative and 
the native Egyptian and Babylonian records during the 
later times of the Hebrew monarchy. 

Egyptian and Jewish history touch at four points during 
this period. Hoshea, the contemporary of Shalmaneser, 
makes a treaty with So, king of Egypt,' shortly before the 
capture of Samaria, or about the year B.C. 7*2;"). Sennache- 
rib, not very long afterwards, on attacking the depend- 
encies of Egypt, learns that Tirhakah, king of the Ethio- 
pians, is gathering together an army to oppose him.'' Nearly 
a century later, Pharaoh-Necho invades .Iinhea, defeats 
and kills the Jewish king Josiah, presses forward to the 

1 2 Kings xvii. 4. * Ibid. xix. 9. 


Euphrates, takes Carchemish and Jerusalem, leads Jehoa- 
liaz the son of Josiah into captivity, and establishes his 
dominion over the whole of Syria ; but is shortly afterwards 
defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and dispos- 
sessed of all his conquests. 1 Finally, about twenty years 
after this, Pharaoh-IIophra is spoken of as encouraging the 
Jews to resist Nebuchadnezzar, and threatened with the 
wrath of that monarch, into whose hands it is Baid he will 
be delivered. 2 

Here, then, within about one hundred and forty years, 
we have the names of four kings of Egypt, one of Avhom is 
also the sovereign of Cush or Ethiopia. Let us see whether 
the Egyptian annals recognize the monarchs thus brought 
under our notice. 

Neither Manetho nor the monuments present us with 
any name which at all closely resembles the word " So." 
If, however, we look to the Hebrew literation of that name, 
we shall find that the word is written with three letters, 
which may be (and probably are) all consonants. They 
may be .read as S, V, II ; and the name of the monarch 
thus designated may most properly be regarded as Se- 
vehA 58 ) Now a king of the name of Sevech, or Seveehus, 
appears in the proper place in Manetho's lists; and the 
monuments show that two monarchs, (who seem to have 
been a father and a son,) Shebek I. and Shebek II., ruled 
Egypt about this period. ( 59 ) The former of the two is 
familiar to us under the name (which Herodotus assigns to 
him) of Sabaco ; C 60 ) and it is probably this prince of whom 
the Hebrew writer speaks. The fact that he came into 
contact with Assyria is confirmed by the discovery of his 
seal at Koyunjik ; it had probably been affixed to a treaty 

1 2 Kings xxiii. 29-35 ; xxiv. 7. Compare 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. 

2 Jerem. xliv. 30 ; xlvi. 13-26. * 


which, in consequence of his machinations, he had been 
forced to make with the triumphant Assyrian monarch. ( 61 ) 

Tirhakah, who appears as king of the Ethiopians, yet at 
the same time as protector of Egypt, in the second Book of 
Kings, is manifestly the Tarcus or Taracus of Manetho, ( 2 ) 
the Tearchon of Strabo,^) and the Tehrak of the monu- 
ments. ( M ) He succeeded the second tihebtk, and is proved 
by his remains to have been king of both countries, but to 
have held his court in Ethiopia. 

In the Pharaoh-Necho of Kings and Jeremiah, 1 it is im- 
possible not to recognize the famous Egyptian monarch 
whom Manetho calls Nechao,' 65 ) Herodotus Neco/ 66 ) and 
the monuments N^eku^ 1 ^ the son and successor of the first 
Psammetichus. The invasion of Syria by this prince, and 
his defeat of the Syrians in a great battle, are attested by 
Herodotus ; who only commits a slight and very venial 
error, when he makes Magdolum instead of Megiddo the 
scene of the encounter. C 08 ) It has been usual to regard 
Herodotus as also confirming the capture of Jerusalem by 
Necho;( 69 > but too much uncertainty attaches to the pre- 
sumed identity of Cadytis with the Jewish capital, to make 
it wise that much stress should be laid on this imagined 
agreement. ( 70 > We may with more confidence appeal for 
a confirmation of this fact, and of the captivity of Jehoahaz, 
to the fragments of Manetho, who is reported both by Afri- 
can us and by Eusebius to have mentioned these Egyptian 
successes.' 71 ) 

Not less certain and unmistakable is the identity of the 
Scriptural Pharaoh-Hophra with Manetho's ITaphris, Herod- 
otus 1 s Apries, and the monumental llaifm-hct or Hai- 
fra.O-'> Egyptian chronology makes this prince contempo- 
rary with Nebuchadnezzar ;< 73 ) and if we may trust the 

1 Jerem. xlvi. 2-12. 


abstracts which Eusebius and Africanus profess to give ol 
Manetho, that writer mentioned the flight of the Jews into 
Egypt upon the destruction of their city, and their recep- 
tion by Uaphris or Hophra.C 74 ) The miserable end of 
Hophra, predicted by Jeremiah, is related from Egyptian 
traditions by Herodotus ; and though it may be doubted 
whether his account of the occurrence is in its minuter cir- 
cumstances altogether correct^ 75 ) yet at any rate the facts 
of the deposition and execution of the Egyptian king must 
be accepted on his testimony ; and these are the facts which 
especially illustrate the statements of Scripture. 

Babylonian and JeAvish history come into contact only 
at two points in the period under consideration. We are 
told that in the reign of Hezekiah, Merodach-Baladan, king 
of Babylon, sent letters and a present to that prince, partly 
because he had heard that he was sick, 1 partly because he 
wished to inquire concerning the wonder that had been 
done in the land, 2 when the shadow went back ten degrees 
on the dial of Ahaz. The name of Merodach-Baladan does 
not at first sight appear to be contained in the authentic 
list of Babylonian kings preserved to us in Ptolemy. But 
it is probable that the king in question does really occur in 
that list under the appellation of Mardoc-empad, or Mardoc- 
empal;( 76 ) and there is abundant evidence from the inscrip- 
tions, not only of the existence of such a monarch, but of 
his having been contemporary with the Jewish king in 
whose reign his embassy is placed. ( 7 ~) The fact of the em- 
bassy which seems improbable if we only know the gen- 
eral condition of Babylon at the period to have been one of 
subjection to Assyria becomes highly probable when we 
learn both from Berosus( 78 > and the monuments^ 
that there was a fierce and bitter hostility between Mero- 

1 2 Kings xx. 12. 2 2 Chron. xxxii. 31. 


dach-Baladan and the Assyrian monarchs, from whose op- 
pressive yoke he more than once freed .his country. The 
ostensible motive of the embassy to inquire about an 
astronomical marvel is also highly probable in the case of 
a country where astronomy held so high a rank, where the 
temples were observatories, and the religion was to a great 
extent astral. C 80 ) 

About a century later, Babylon is found in the Scripture 
history to have succeeded to the position and influence of 
Assyria over Palestine, and we have a brief relation, in 
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Kings, of several campaigns con- 
ducted by Nebuchadnezzar in these regions. Profane ac- 
counts are in accordance. The reconquest of Syria and 
Palestine from Necho by Nebuchadnezzar, which is men- 
tioned by Jeremiah, 1 and glanced at in Kings, 2 was related 
at length by Berosus ;< 81) his prolonged siege of Tyre, which 
is spoken of by Ezekiel, 8 was attested by the Tyrian his- 
torians, who said that it lasted thirteen years ; C 82 ? while his 
destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and his deportation 
of vast bodies of Jewish captives, were noticed by the na- 
tive historian, who said that the captives were settled in 
convenient places in Babylonia. ( 83 > As the rest of the acts 
of Nebuchadnezzar fall into our next period, the present 
review here comes to an end, and we may now close this 
portion of the inquiry with a brief summary of the evidence 
adduced in the course of it. 

The period with which we have been dealing is one of 
comparative light. We possess, it is true, no continuous 
history of it besides that which the Sacred Volume fur- 
nishes; but we have abstracts of the writings of Berosus 
and Manetho, which contained the annals of Egypt and of 
Babylon during the space; we have considerable fragments 

1 Jcrcra. xlvi. 1-12. * 2 Kin^s xxiv. 7. 3 Ezck. x.vix. 18. 


of the Tyrian histories of the time ; and in the latter por- 
tion of it we begin to Cnjoy the advantage of those investi- 
gations which the inquisitive Greeks pushed into the anti- 
quities of all the nations wherewith they became acquainted. 
Above all we possess the contemporary records often in 
a very copious form of all the great Assyrian monarchs 
whose reigns fell within the period in question, Avhile we 
derive likewise a certain amount of information from the 
monuments of Egypt. All these sources have been exam- 
ined, and all have combined to confirm and illustrate the 
Scriptm-al narrative at almost every point where it was 
possible or at any rate where it was probable that they 
would have a bearing upon it. The result is a general con- 
firmation of the entire body of leading facts minute con- 
firmation occasionally and a complete absence of any 
tiling that can be reasonably viewed as serious discrepancy. 
A few difficulties chiefly chronological C 84 ) meet us; but 
they are fewer in proportion than are found in the profane 
history of almost any remote period ; and the faith must be 
weak indeed to which they prove a stumbling-block. Gen- 
erally, throughout this whole period, there is that " admira- 
ble agreement^' which Nicbuhr observes upon towards its 
close, ( 85 ) between the profane records and the accounts of 
Scripture. "We have not for the most part by any labored 
efforts to harmonize the two their accord is patent and 
striking; and is sufficiently exhibited by a mere juxtaposi- 
tion of passages. The monarchs themselves, the order of 
their names, their relationship where it is indicated, their 
actions so far as they come under notice, are the same in 
both the Jewish and the native histories; which present 
likewise, here as elsewhere, numerous points of agreement, 
connected with the geography, religion, and customs of the 
various nations. C 86 ) As discovery proceeds, these points of 


agreement are multiplied ; obscurities clear up ; difficulties 
are solved ; doubts vanish. It is only where profane rec- 
ords are wanting or scanty, that the Sacred Narrative is 
unconfirmed and rests solely upon its own basis. Perhaps 
a time may come when through the recovery of the com- 
plete annals of Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon, we may obtain 
for the whole of the Sacred History that sort of illustration, 
which is now confined to certain portions of it. God, who 
disposes all things "after the counsel of his own will," 1 and 
who has given to the present age such treasures of long 
buried knowledge, may have yet greater things in store for 
us, to be brought to light at His own good time. When 
the voice of men grows faint and feeble, then the very 
"stones" are made to "cry out." 2 "Blessed be the name 
of God forever and ever; for wisdom and might are his. . . . 
lie revealeth the deep and secret things : lie knoweth what 
is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him." 3 

1 Eph. i. 11. Luke xix. 40. 3 Dan. ii. 20, 22. 



We are brought now by the course of our inquiry to the 
fourth and closing period of the Old Testament History 
a period which subdivides itself into two portions offering 
a marked contrast to each other, the time of the Captivity, 
or servitude in Babylon, and the time of the Return, or 
gradual reestablishment of the Jews in their own country. 
From the direct historical writings of the chosen people 
the former time is omitted. The harp of the Historic 
Muse refuses to sound during this sad season ; and it 
would form a blank in the Hebrew annals, did we not pos- 
sess in the writings of one of the Prophets a personal nar- 
rative, which to some extent fills up the gap left between 
Kings and Ezra. Conformably with a custom which we 
find also in Isaiah and Jeremiah, Daniel combines history 
with prophecy, uniting in a single hook the visions where- 
with he was favored and an account of various remarkable 
events which he witnessed. He does not, however, con- 
fine himself strictly to the precedent which those writers 
had set him ; but, as if aware that on him had devolved the 



double office of Prophet and Historian, and that future ages 
would learn the circumstances of this period from his pen 
only, he gives to the historical element in his work a 
marked and very unusual prominence. Hence we are still 
able to continue through the period in question the com- 
parison (in which Ave have been so long engaged) between 
the History of the Jews as delivered by their own writers, 
and the records of those nations with which they came in 

If the book of Daniel be a genuine work, the narrative 
which it contains must possess the highest degree of his- 
torical credibility. The writer claims to be a most compe- 
tent witness. He represents himself as having lived at 
Babylon during the whole duration of the Captivity, and 
as having filled situations of the highest trust and im- 
portance under the Babylonian and Medo-Persic monarchs. 
Those who have sought to discredit the Hook, uniformly 
maintain that it is spurious, having been composed by 
an uninspired writer, who falsely assumed the name <>f 
an ancient prophet, 0) or, according to some, of a mythic 
personage, ( 2 ) but who lived really under Antiochus 
Epiphanes. The supposed proof of this last assertion 
is the minuteness and accuracy of the predictions, which 
tally so exactly with the known course of history, that it is 
said they must have been written after the events had hap- 
pened. This objection, which was first made in the third 
century of our era by the heathen writer Porphyry, n has 
been revived in modern times, and is become the favorite 
argument of the Rationalists, < 4 > with whom Prophecy 
means nothing but that natural foresight whereby the con- 
sequences of present facts and circumstances arc antici- 
pated by the prudent and sagacious. I shall not stop at 
this time to examine an argument which can only persuade 


those who disbelieve in the prophetic gift altogether. ( 5 * 
Suffice it to observe, that the book of Daniel, like the 
books of Ezra and Jeremiah, is written partly in Hebrew 
and partly in Chaldee, which peculiarity may fairly be said 
to h'x its date to the time of the Captivity : ( 0) and that it 
was translated into Greek in the reign of Ptolemy Phila- 
delphus, more than seventy years before the accession of 
Epiphanes. ( 7 ) There is therefore every reason to believe 
that it belongs to the age in which it professes to have 
been composed ; while no sufficient ground has been shown 
for doubting that its writer was the Daniel whose history 
it records* 8 ) the prince,^ whose extraordinary piety 
and wisdom were commended by his contemporary, Eze- 
kiel. 1 0) 

The authenticity of the narrative has been denied on 
the ground that ft is irreconcilable with what we know of 
profane history. According to De Wette, the book of 
Daniel is full of "historical inaccuracies, such as are con- 
tained in no other prophetical book of the Old Testa- 
ment." ( n > These pretended inaccuracies will best be con- 
sidered in connection with that general comparison of the 
sacred narrative with the profane records of the period 
in question, on which (in pursuance of the plan uni- 
formly adopted throughout these Lectures) we have now 
to enter. 

The fundamental fact of the time the Captivity itself 
is allowed on all hands to admit of no reasonable doubt. 
Not only do we find, from the monuments of the Assyrian 
kings ( I2) and the subsequent history of Persia,* 13 ) that such 
transfers of whole populations were common in the East 
in Ancient times; but Ave have the direct evidence of 
Josephus to the fact, that Berosus mentioned the carrying 

1 Ezck, xiv. 14 and 20 xxviii. 3. 


off of the Jews by Nebuchadnezzar and their settlement in 
parts of Babylonia. ( 14 ) Profane evidence, however, on this 
point is unnecessary ; since it cannot be thought that any 
people would have invented a tale with regard to them- 
selves which redounded so little to their credit, and 
from which it was impossible that they could gain any 

The character of Nebuchadnezzar, the length of his 
reign, and the fact of his having uttered prophecies, are 
points in which there is a remarkable agreement between 
the sacred record and profane authorities. The splendor 
and magnificence which this prince displayed, his military 
successes, his devotion to his gods, and the pride which he 
took in adorning Babylon with great buildings, are noted by 
Berosus and Abydenus ; ( 15 > the latter of whom has a most 
curious passage, for the preservation of which we are in- 
debted to Eusebius, on the subject of his having been 
gifted with prophetic powers. "The Chaldoeans relate," 
says Abydenus, "that, after this, Nebuchadnezzar went ii]> 
to his palace, and being seized with a divine afflatus, 
prophesied to the Babylonians the destruction of their city 
by the Medes and Persians, after which he suddenly dis- 
appeared from among them." ( I(n The details are incorrect ; 
but it is at least remarkable that the particular prince, who 
alone, of all the heathen monarchs with whom the Jews 
were brought into contact, is said in Scripture to have had 
the future made known to him by God, 1 is also the only 
one of those persons who is declared to have had the pro- 
phetic gift by a profane writer. 

The length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is stated without 
any variety by Berosus, Polyhistor, and Ptolemy, ( ,7 > at 
forty-three years. The Babylonian monuments go near to 

1 Dan. ii. 28-9. 


prove the same ; for the forty-second year of Nebuchad- 
nezzar has been found on a clay tablet. ^ 18 ) Here Scripture 
is in exact accordance ; for as the first year of Evil-Mero- 
dach, the son and successor of Nebuchadnezzar, is the 
thirty-seventh of the captivity of Jehoiachin, 1 who was 
taken to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's eighth year, 2 it is 
evident that just forty-three years are required for the 
reign of the great Chaldsean monarch. ( 19 ) This agreement, 
moreover, is incidental ; for Evil-Merodach is not said in 
Scripture to have been the successor of Nebuchadnezzar : 
we only know tliis fact from profane sources. 

It has been maintained that the book of Daniel misrep- 
resents the condition of Babylonia under Nebuchad- 
nezzar ; ( 20 ) the points to which objection is especially 
taken being the account given of the Babylonian wise men, 
the admission of Daniel among them, and the apparent 
reference to something like a satrapial organization of the 
empire. ( 2] ) With respect to the first point, it would really 
be far more reasonable to adduce the descriptions in ques- 
tion as proof of the intimate knowledge which the writer 
possessed of the condition of learning among the Baby- 
lonians, than to bring them forward as indications of his 
ignorance. The wise men are designated primarily by a 
word which exactly suits the condition of literature in the 
time and country a word derived from the root cheret, 
which means "a graving tool," exactly the instrument 
wherewith a Babylonian ordinarily wrote, t 22 ) They are 
also termed Chasdim or Chaldaeans, whereby a knowledge 
is shown beyond that of the earlier prophets a knowledge 
of the fact that the term " Chaldaean " was not properly 
applied to the whole nation, but only to a learned caste o> 

1 2 Kings xxv. 27 ; Jer. lii. 31. 

* 2 Kings xxiv. 12. Compare Jer. xxv. 1. 


class, the possessors of the old wisdom, which was written 
in the Chaldaean tongue. C 23 ) 

The objection raised to the admission of Daniel among 
the " wise men," is based on the mistaken notion that they 
were especially a priestly caste, presiding over the national 
religion; whereas the truth seems to be that they were a 
learned class, including the priests, but not identical with 
them, and corresponding rather to the graduates of a uni- 
versity than to the clergy of an establishment. (-') Into 
such a class foreigners, and those of a different religion, 
might readily be admitted. 

With respect to what has been called the "satrapial 
organization " of the empire under Nebuchadnezzar, 1 (and 
again under Darius the Mede, 2 ) it is to be observed in the 
first place, that nothing like a general organization of the 
kind is asserted. We are told of certain "rulers of prov- 
inces," who were summoned to worship the golden image 
set up in the plain of Dura;' and we find thai Judaea 
itself, after the revolt of Zedekiah, was placed under a 
"governor." 4 But the latter case was exceptional, being 
consequent upon the frequent rebellions of the. Jewish peo- 
ple: and in the former we are probably to understand the 
chiefs of districts in the immediate vicinity oi* Babylonia, 
who alone would be summoned on such an occasion not 
the rulers of all the conquered nations throughout the 
empire. Further, we must remark, that the system of 
Babylonian administration is but very little known to us; 
and that it may (<> some extent hurt* been satrapial. 
Berosus, at any rate, speaks expressly of "the Satrap ap- 
pointed by Xabopolassar to govern Phoenicia, Cade-Syria, 
and Egypt; "(^ and it is not impossible that Darius 

1 Dan. iii. 2, &c. * Ibid. vi. 1, &c. 3 Ibid, in 1,2. 

* 2 Kings xxv. 22. Compare Jlt. xl. ami xli. 


Hystaspis, who is usually regarded as the inventor of the 
system, may have merely enlarged a practice begun by the 
Babylonians. ( 2,i ) 

There is thus no ground for the assertion that the 
general condition of Babylonia under Nebuchadnezzar is 
incorrectly represented in the book of Daniel. Daniel's 
representation agrees sufficiently with the little that we 
know of Babylon at this time from any authentic 
source, C 27 ) and has an internal harmony and consistency 
which is very striking. We may therefore resume our 
comparison of the particulars of the civil history, as it is 
delivered by the sacred writers, and as it lias come down to 
us from the Babylonians themselves. 

Berosus appears to have kept silence on the subject of 
Nebuchadnezzar's mysterious malady. I cannot think, with 
Hengstenberg, t 28 ) that either he or Abydenus intended 
any allusion to this remarkable fact in the accounts which 
they furnished of his decease. It was not to be expected 
that the native writer woidd tarnish the glory of his 
country's greatest monarch by any mention of an affliction 
which was of so strange and debasing a character. Nor is 
it at all certain that he would be aware of it. As Nebu- 
chadnezzar outlived his affliction, and was again "estab- 
lished in his kingdom," l all monuments belonging to the 
time of his malady would have been subject to his own re- 
vision ; and if any record of it was allowed to descend to 
posterity, care would have been taken that the truth was 
not made too plain, by couching the record in sufficiently 
ambiguous phraseology. Berosus may have read, without 
fully understanding it, a document which has descended to 
modern times, in a tolerably complete condition, and which 
seems to oqn^ain, an allusion to the fact that the great king 

1 Dan. iy. 3(j. 


was for a time incapacitated for the discharge of the royal 
functions. In the inscription known as the " Standard 
Inscription " of Nebuchadnezzar, the monarch himself re- 
lates, that during some considerable time four years ap- 
parently all his great works were at a stand "he did 
not build high places he did not lay up treasures he 
did not sing the praises of his Lord, Merodach he did 
not offer him sacrifice he did not keep up the works of 
irrigation." C 29 ) The cause of this suspension, at once of 
religious worship and of works of utility, is stated in the 
document in phrases of such obscurity as to be unintelligi- 
ble ; until therefore a better explanation is offered, it can- 
not but be regarded as at least highly probable, that the 
passage in question contains the royal version of that 
remarkable story with which Daniel concludes his notice 
of the great Chaldasan sovereign. 

For the space of time intervening between the recovery 
of Nebuchadnezzar from his affliction and the conquest of 
Babylon by the Medo-Persians, whicll was a period of 
about a quarter of a century, the Biblical narrative sup- 
plies us with but a single fact the release from prison 
of Jehoiachin by Evil-Merodach in the year that lie as- 
cended the throne of his father. It has been already re- 
marked that the native historian agreed exactly in the 
name of this prince and the year of his accession ; lie 
added, (what Scripture does not expressly state,) that 
Evil-Merodach was Nebuchadnezzar's son. ( :t0) With re- 
gard to the character of this monarch, there seems at first 
sight to be a contrast between the account of Berostis and 
the slight indications which the Scripture narrative fur- 
nishes. Berosus taxes Evil-Merodach with intemperance 
and lawlessness ; ( :tl ' Scripture relates that he hail com- 
passion on Jehoiachin, released him from prison, and 



" spake kindly unto him " ' allowed him the rank of king 
once more, and made him a constant guest at his table, 
thus treating him with honor and tenderness during the 
short remainder of his life. Perhaps to the Babylonians 
such a reversal of the policy pursued by their great mon- 
arch appeared to be mere reckless "lawlessness;" and Evil- 
Merodach may have been deposed, in part at least, because 
of his departure from the received practice of the Babylo- 
nians with respect to rebel princes. 

The successor of this unfortunate king was his brother- 
in-law, Neriglissar; who, although not mentioned in Scrip- 
ture as a monarch, has been recognized among the "princes 
of the king of Babylon" 2 by whom Nebuchadnezzar was 
accompanied in his last siege of Jerusalem. A name there 
given, Nergal-shar-ezar, corresponds letter for letter with 
that of a king whose remains are found on the site of Baby- 
lon, t 32 ' and who is reasonably identified with the Neriglissar 
of Berosus and the Nerigassolassnr of Ptolemy's Canon. 
Moreover, the title of "Rab-Mag," which this personage 
bears in Jeremiah, is found attached to the name of the 
Babylonian monarch in his brick legends ( 33 ) a coin- 
cidence of that minute and exact kiud which is one of the 
surest indications of authentic history. 

Of the son of Neriglissar, who was a mere child, and 
reigned but a few months, Scripture certainly contains no 
trace. Whether his successor, the last native king of the 
Canon, whose name is there given as Nabonadius, and 
who appears elsewhere as Nabannidochus, Nabonnedus, 
or Labynetus C 34 ) whether this monarch has a place in 
the Scriptural narrative or no, has long been a matter of 
dispute among the learned. That there is no name in the 
least resembling Nabonadius in the Bible, is granted. But 

1 2 Kings xxv. 28. 2 Jerem. xxxix. 3 and 13. 


it has been by many supposed that that prince must be 
identical with Daniel's Belshazzar C 30 ) the last native 
ruler mentioned in Scripture. The great diversity, how- 
ever, of the two names, coupled with the fact that in every 
other case of a Semitic monarch whether Assyrian or 
Babylonian the Hebrew representative is a near expres- 
sion of the vernacular term, has always made this theory 
unsatisfactory ; and Rationalists, finding no better explana- 
tion than this of the acknowledged difficulty, C 36 ) have been 
emboldened to declare that Daniel's account of Belshazzar 
is a pure invention of his own, that it contradicts Berosus, 
and is an unmistakable indication of the unhistorical char- 
acter which attaches to the entire narrative. ( 37 > It was 
difficult to meet the arguments of these objectors in former 
times. Not only could they point to the want of confir- 
mation by any profane writer of the name Belshazzar, but 
they could urge further "contradictions." Berosus, they 
could say, made the last Babylonian monarch absent from 
the city at the time of its capture by the Persians. He 
spoke of him as taken prisoner afterwards at Borsippa, and 
as then not slain, but treated with much kindness by 
Cyrus. Thus the two narratives of the fall of Bahylon 
appeared to be wholly irreconcilable, and some were 
driven to suppose two falls of Babylon, to escape the seem- 
ing contrariety. C 38 ) But out of all this confusion and 
uncertainty a very small and simple discovery, made a tc\v 
years since, has educed order and harmony in a very 
remarkable way. It is found that Nabonadius, the last 
king of the Canon, associated with him on the throne 
during the later years of his reign his son, liil-shnr-uzur, 
and allowed him the royal title. ^ There can be little 
doubt that it was this prince who conducted the defence 
of Bahylon, and was slain in the massacre which followed 


upon the capture; while his father, Who was at the time 
in Borsippa, surrendered, and experienced the clemency 
which was generally shown to fallen kings by the Persians. 

If it he still objected that Belshazzar is, in Scripture, 
not the son of Nahonadius, but of Nebuchadnezzar, 1 and 
of the Nebuchadnezzar who carried off the sacred vessels 
from Babylon, 2 it is enough to reply, first, that the word 
" son " is used in Scripture not only in its proper sense, 
but also as equivalent to " grandson," or indeed any 
descendant ; ( 4 ) and secondly, that JBilshar-uztcr (or Bel- 
shazzar) may easily have been Nebuchadnezzar's grandson, 
since his father may upon his accession have married a 
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and Belshazzar may have 
been the issue of this marriage. ( Al > A usurper in those 
days commonly sought to strengthen himself in the gov- 
ernment by an alliance with some princess of the house, or 
branch, which he dispossessed. 

There still remains one historical difficulty in the book 
of Daniel, which modem research has not yet solved, but 
of which Time, the great discoverer, will perhaps one day 
bring the solution. We can only at present indulge in 
conjectures concerning "Darius the Mede," who "took the 
kingdom" after Belshazzar was slain. 3 He has been identi- 
fied with As.tyages,^ 43 ) with Cyaxares, a supposed son of 
Astyages, C 43 ) with Neriglissar/ 44 ) and with Nabonadius ; ( 45 > 
but each of these suppositions has its difficulties, and per- 
haps it is the most probable view that he was a viceroy set 
up by Cynis, of whom there is at present no trace in pro- 
fane history. ( 1G) 

The fact of the sudden and unexpected capture of Baby- 
lon by a Medo-Persic army during the celebration of a 
festival, and of the consequent absorption of the Babylo 

1 Dan. v. 11, 18, &c. * Ibid, verse 2. 3 Ibid. v. 31. 


nian into the Medo-^Persic Empire, is one of those mani- 
fest points of agreement between Scripture and profane 
authors ( 4 ~) which speak for themselves, and on which all 
comment would be superfluous. The administration of 
the realm after the conquest by "the law of the Modes and 
Persians which altereth not," ' is at once illustrative of that 
unity of the two great Arian races which all ancient his- 
tory attests, ( 48) and in harmony with that superiority of law 
to the king's caprice, which seems to have distinguished the 
Persian from most Oriental despotisms. < 49 ) With respect 
to the "satrapial organization of the Empire," which is 
again detected in Daniel's account of the reign of Darius 
the Mede/ 50 ) and which is supposed to have been trans- 
ferred to this time from the reign of Darius Hystaspis by 
an anachronism, it may be observed, that the "one hundred 
and twenty princes" which "it pleased Darius to set over 
the kingdom," 2 are not the satraps, perhaps not even pro- 
vincial governors at all, but rather a body of councillors 
resident in or near the capital, and accustomed to meet 
together, 3 to advise the monarch. It is a mistake to sup- 
pose that Darius the Mede, like the Ahasuerus of Esther, 
with whom he has been compared,^' 1 ) rules over the East 
generally. He "was made king over tht realm of (he 
ChcUdceam"* that is, he received from Cyrus, the true 
conqueror of Babylon, the kingdom of Babylonia Proper, 
which he held as a fief under the Medo-Persic Empire. 
The one hundred and twenty princes are either his council, 
or at the most provincial governors in the comparatively 
small kingdom of Babylon; and the coincidence (if such it. 
is to be considered) between their number and of the 
one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Ahasuerus, 

1 Dan. vi. S. ' Uriel, verse 1. 

3 Ibid, verses 4-6. 4 Ibid. ix. 1. 


extending from Ethiopia to India, 1 is purely accidental. 
There is no question here of the administration of an 
Empire, but only of the internal regulations of a single 

We have now reached the time when the Captivity of 
Judah approached its close. "In the first year of Darius, 
the son of Ahasuerus, of the seed of the Medes," - Daniel, 
who naturally counted the Captivity from the time when 
he was himself carried off from Jerusalem,' 5 perceiving that 
the period fixed by Jeremiah for the restoration of the 
Jews to their own land approached, " set his face to seek 
by prayer and supplications, with fastings, and sackeloth, 
and ashes," * that God would " turn away his fury and 
anger from Jerusalem," 5 and " cause his face to shine upon 
his sanctuary," c and " do, and defer not." "' It is evident 
therefore that, according to the calculations of Daniel, a 
space little short of seventy years had elapsed from the 
capture of Jerusalem in the reign of Jehoiakim to the first 
year of Darius the Mede. The close agreement of this 
chronology with the Babylonian is very remarkable. It 
can be clearly shown from a comparison of Berosus with 
Ptolemy's Canon, that, according to the reckoning of the 
Babylonians, the time between Nebuchadnezzar's first con- 
quest of Judasa in the reign of Jehoiakim, and the year 
following the fall of Babylon, when Daniel made his 
prayer, was sixty-eight years, ( 52 > or two years only short of 
the seventy which had been fixed by Jeremiah as the dura- 
tion of the Captivity. 

Attempts have been made to prove a still more exact 
agreement ; ^ but they are unnecessary. Approximate 

1 Esther i. 1. a Dan. ix. 1. 3 Ibid. i. 1. 

4 Ibid. ix. 3. 5 Ibid, verse 16. 6 Ibid, verse 17. 

' Dan. ix. 19. 


coincidence is the utmost that we have any right to expect 
between the early chronologies of different nations, whose 
methods of reckoning are in most cases somewhat differ- 
ent ; and in the present instance the term of seventy years, 
being primarily a prophetic and not an historic number, is 
perhaps not intended to be exact and definite. ( 54 > 

The restoration of the Jews to their own land, and their 
fortunes till the reform of Nehemiah, are related to us in 
the three historical books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther; 
and receive illustration from the prophecies of Zechariah, 
Haggai, and Malachi. The generally authentic character 
of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah has never been ques- 
tioned. They disarm the Rationalist by the absence from 
them of any miraculous, or even any very marvellous 
features; and the humble and subdued tone in which they 
are written, the weakness and subjection which they con- 
fess, mark in the strongest possible way the honesty and 
good faith of their composers. Under these circumstances 
the question of their genuineness becomes one of minor 
importance. If the relations are allowed to be true, it is of 
little consequence who was their author. I sec, however, 
no reason to doubt that in the main the two books are the 
works of the individuals whose names they bear in the 
Septuagint and in our own Version. That some portions 
of the book of Ezra were written by Ezra, and that Nehe- 
miah wrote the greater part of the book of Xehemiah, is 
allowed even by I)e Wette ; who has not (I think) shown 
sufficient, ground for questioning the integrity of either 
composition/ 55 ^ unless in respect of a single passage. The 
genealogy of the high priests in the twelfth chapter of 
Nehemiah 1 is a later addition to the book, which cannot 
have been inserted into it before the time of Alexander. '' > 

1 Verses 10 to 22. 


It stands to the rest of Nehemiah as the genealogy of the 
Dukes of Edom ! stands to Genesis, or that of the descend- 
ants of Jechoniah 2 to the rest of Chronicles. ( 57 ) But apart 
from this passage there is nothing in Nehemiah which may 
not have been written by the cupbearer of Artaxerxes 
Longimanus; while in Ezra there is absolutely nothing at 
all which may not easily have proceeded from the pen of 
the "ready scribe" who was in favor with the same mon- 
arch. It is objected that the book sometimes speaks 
of Ezra in the third, sometimes in the first person ; 
and concluded from this fact that he did not write the 
parts in which the third person is used. ( 58 ) But the 
examples of Daniel ( 5 ) and Thucydides t 00 ) are sufficient 
to show that an author may change from the one person to 
the other even more than once in the course of a work ; 
and the case of Daniel is especially in point, as indicating 
the practice of the period. The same irregularity (it may 
be remarked) occurs in the Persian inscriptions. < 61 ) It be- 
longs to the simplicity of rude times, and has its parallel in 
the similar practice found even now in the letters of unedu- 
cated persons. 

If then the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are rightly re- 
garded as the works of those personages, they will possess 
the same high degree of historical credibility as the later 
portions of the Pentateuch. Ezra and Nehemiah were 
chief men in their nation the one being the ecclesiastical, 
the other the civil head ; and they wrote the national his- 
tory of their own time, for which they are the most com- 
petent witnesses that could possibly have come forward. 
Ezra, moreover, resembles Moses in another respect ; he 
not only gives an account of his own dealings with the 
Jewish people, but prefaces that account by a sketch of 

1 Gen. xxxvi. 31-43. * 1 Cnron. iii. 17-24. 


their history during a period with which he was personally 
unacquainted. As this period does not extend farther 
hack than about eighty years from the time when he took 
the direction of affairs at Jerusalem, ( 62 ) and as the facts 
recorded are of high national importance, they would de- 
serve to be accepted on his testimony, even supposing that 
he obtained them from mere oral tradition, according to 
the Canons of historical credibility which have been laid 
down in the first Lecture. C 63 ) Ezra's sketch, however, (as 
many commentators have seen,) bears traces of having 
been drawn up from contemporary documents ; ( G4 > and we 
may safely conclude, that the practice of " noting down 
public annals," which we have seen reason to regard as a 
part of the prophetic office under the Kings, ( |i; ') was re- 
vived on the return from the Captivity, when Haggai and 
Zechariah may probably have discharged the duty which at 
an earlier period had been undertaken by Jeremiah and 

While the historical authority of the books of Ezra and 
Nehemiah is recognized almost universally, that of Esther 
is impugned by a great variety of writers. Niebuhr's re- 
jection of this book has been already noticed. ( f,c > Dc 
Wette regards it as "consisting of a string of historical 
difficulties and improbabilities, and as containing a number 
of errors in regard to Persian customs."' (~) CEder, Mi- 
chaelis, Corrodi, Bertholdt, and others, throw more or less 
doubt upon its authenticity. C 68 ' The Jews, however, have 
always looked upon it, not only as a true and authentic 
history, but as a book deserving of special honor ;( fi!,) and 
it seems impossible to account for its introduction into 
their Canon on any other ground than that of its historic 
truth. The feast of Purim, which the dews still celebrate, 
and at which the book of Esther is always read, must be 



regarded as sufficiently evidencing the truth of the main 
facts of the narrative ; ( 7(n and the Jews would certainly 
never have attached to the religious celebration of that 
festival the reading of a document from which the religious 
element is absent, or almost absent, ( 71 > had they not be- 
lieved it to contain a correct account of the details of the 
transaction. Their belief constitutes an argument of very 
great weight ; to destroy its force there is needed some- 
thing more than the exhibition of a certain number of 
"difficulties and improbabilities," such as continually pre- 
sent themselves to the historic student in connection even 
with his very best materials. 0-) 

The date and author of the book of Esther are points 
of very great uncertainty. The Jews in general ascribe it 
to Mordecai; but some say that it was written by the 
High Priest, Joiakim ; while others assign the composition 
to the Great Synagogue. (~ 3 ) It appears from an expression 
at the close of the ninth chapter "And the decree of 
Esther confirmed these matters of Purim, and it teas 
written in tJie book" 1 that the whole affair was put on 
record at once; but "the book" here spoken of is probably 
that "book of the Chronicles of the kings of Media and 
Persia," 2 which had been mentioned more than once in 
the earlier part of the narrative. 3 To this work the actual 
writer of our book of Esther whoever he may have been 
evidently had access; and it is a reasonable supposition 
that in the main he follows his Persian authority. Hence 
probably that omission of the name of God, and of the 
distinctive tenets of the Israelites, which has been made an 
objection by some to the canonicity of this book. (~ 4 ) 

"We have now to examine the narrative contained in 
Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, by the light which profane 

1 Esther ix. 32. 2 Ibid. x. 2. 3 Ibid. ii. 23 ; and vi. 1. 


history throws on it, more particularly in respect of those 
points which have been illustrated by recent discoveries. 

There are probably few things more surprising to the in- 
telligent student of Scripture than the religious tone of the 
proclamations Avhich are assigned in Ezra to Cyrus, Darius, 
and Artaxerxes. " The Lord God of heaven" says Cyrus, 
"hath given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he hath 
charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is 
in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? 
His God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, 
which is in Judah, and build the house of the Lord God 
of Israel (he is the God) which is in Jerusalem." ' "I make 
a decree," says Darius, "that these men be not hindered . . . 
that which they have need of . . . for the burnt-offerings of 
the God of heaven . . .let it be given them day by d;iy 
without fail ; that they may offer sacrifices of sweet savors 
unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king 
and of his sons."- "Artaxerxes, king of kings," writes 
that monarch, " unto Ezra the priest, the scribe of the law 
of the God of heaven, perfect peace, and at such a time . . . 
Whatsoever is commanded by the God of* heaven, let it be 
diligently done for the house of the God of heaven ; for 
why should there be wrath against fl" realm of tin king 
and his sons ?" 3 Two things are especially remarkable in 
these passages first, the strongly marked religious char- 
acter, very unusual in heathen documents; and secondly, 
the distinctness with which they assert the unity of God, 
and thence identify the God of the Persians with the <J<>d 
of the Jews. Both these points receive abundant illustra- 
tion from the Persian cuneiform inscriptions, in which the 
recognition of a single supreme God, Ormazd, and the 

1 Ezra i. 2, 3. Compare 2 Chron. xxxvi. J3. 

* Ibid. vi. 8-10. 3 Ibid. vii. 12, 23. 


clear and constant ascription to him of the direction of all 
mundane affairs, are leading features. In all the Persian 
monuments of any length, the monarch makes the acknowl- 
edgment that "Ormazd has bestowed on him his empire." ( 75 > 
Every success that is gained is "by the grace of Ormazd." 
The name of Ormazd occurs in almost every other para- 
graph of the Behistun inscription. No public monuments 
with such a pervading religious spirit have ever been dis- 
covered among the records of any heathen nation as those 
of the Persian kings ; and through all of them, down to the 
time of Artaxerxes Ochus, the name of Ormazd stands 
alone and unapproachable, as that of the Supreme Lord of 
earth and heaven. The title "Lord of Heaven," which 
runs as a sort of catchword through these Chaldee transla- 
tions of the Persian records, is not indeed in the cuneiform 
monuments distinctly attached to him as an epithet ; but 
the common formula wherewith inscriptions open sets him 
forth as " the great God Ormazd, who gave both earth and 
heaven to mankind." C 76 ) 

It is generally admitted that the succession of the Per- 
sian kings from Cyrus to Darius Ilystaspis is correctly 
given in Ezra.(~ 7 > The names of the two intermediate 
monarchs are indeed replaced by others and it is difficult 
to explain how these kings came to be known to the Jews 
as Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes, instead of Cambyses and 
Smerdis( 78 ) but the exact agreement in the number of 
the reigns, and the harmony in the chronology ( 79 > have 
caused it to be almost universally allowed that Cambyses 
and Smerdis are intended. Assuming this, we may note 
that the only Persian king who is said to have interrupted 
the building of the temple is that Magian monarch, the 
Pseudo-Smerdis, who was .opposed to the pure Persian 
religion, and who would therefore have been likely to 


reverse the religious policy of his predecessors. The Sa- 
maritans " weakened the hands of the people of Judah and 
troubled them in building" 1 during the reigns of Cyrus and 
Cambyses; but it Avas not till the letter of the Pseudo- 
Smerdis was received, that "the work of the house of God 
ceased." 2 The same prince, that is, who is stated in the 
inscriptions to have changed the religion of Persia, ( 80 > ap- 
pears in Ezra as the opponent of a religious work, which 
Cyrus had encouraged, and Cambyses had allowed to be 
carried on. 

The reversal by Darius of the religious policy of the 
Magian monarch, and his recurrence to the line of conduct 
which had been pursued by Cyrus, as related in Ezra, har- 
monize completely with the account which Darius himself 
gives of his proceedings soon after his accession. " I re- 
stored to the people," he says, "the religious worship, of 
which the Magian had deprived them. As it was before, 
so I arranged it."( 81) Of course, this passage refers prima- 
rily to the Persian Court religion, and its reestablishment 
in the place of Magism as the religion of the state; but 
such a return to comparatively pure principles would 
involve a renewal of the old sympathy with the Jews and 
with the worship of Jehovah. Accordingly, while the let- 
ter of the Magus' 5 is devoid of the slightest reference to 
religion, that of Darius exhibits as has been already 
shown the same pious and reverential spirit, the same 
respect for the God of the Jews, and the same identifica- 
tion of Him with the Supreme Being recognized by the 
Persians, which are so prominent in the decree of Cyrus. 
Darius is careful to follow in the footsteps of the great 
founder of the monarchy, and under him "the house of 

1 1 Ezra iv. 4. * Ibid, verse 21. 3 Ibid. iv. 17 to 22. 



God at Jerusalem," which Cyrus Mas "charged" to build, 1 
is finally "builded and finished." 2 

A break occurs in the Biblical narrative between the 
sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra, the length of which is 
not estimated by the sacred historian, but which Ave know 
from profane sources to have extended to above half a cen- 
tury. C 82 ) Into this interval falls the whole of the reign of 
Xerxes. The Jews in Palestine appear to have led during 
this time a quiet and peaceable life under Persian govern- 
ors, and to have disarmed the hostility of their neighbors 
by unworthy compliances, such as intermarriages;"' which 
would have tended, if unchecked, to destroy their distinct 
nationality. No history of the time is given, because no 
event occurred during it of any importance to the Jewish 
community in Palestine. It is thought, however, by many 
and on the whole it is not improbable that the history 
related in the Book of Esther belongs to the interval in 
question, and thus fills up the gap in the narrative of Ezra. 
The name Ahasuerus is undoubtedly the proper Hebrew 
equivalent for the Persian word which the Greeks repre- 
sented by Xerxes. ( 83) And if it was Kish, the ancestor of 
Mordecai in the fourth degree, who was carried away from 
Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, together with Jeconiah, 4 the 
time of Xerxes would be exactly that in which Mordecai 
ought to have flourished. C 84 ) Assuming on these grounds 
the king intended by Ahasuerus to be the Xerxes of Greek 
history, we are at once struck with the strong resemblance 
which his character bears to that assigned by the classical 
writers to the celebrated son of Darius. Proud, self-willed, 
amorous, careless of contravening Persian customs; reck- 
less of human life, yet not actually bloodthirsty ; impetu- 

1 Ezra i. 2. 2 Ibid. vi. 14. 

3 Ibid. ix. 2, &c. 4 Esther ii. 5, 6. 


ous, facile, changeable the Ahasuerus of Esther corre- 
sponds in all respects to the Greek portraiture of Xerxes, 
which is not (he it observed) the mere picture of an Orien- 
tal despot, but has various peculiarities which distinguish it 
even from the other Persian kings, and which I think it 
maybe said individualize it. Nor is there as might 
so easily have been the case, were the book of Esther a 
romance any contradiction between its facts and those 
which the Greeks have recorded of Xerxes. The third 
year of his reign, when Ahasuerus makes his great feast at 
Shushan (or Susa) to his nobles, 1 was a year which Xerxes 
certainly passed at Susa, ( 85 ^ and one wherein it is likely 
that he kept open house for " the princes of the provinces," 
who would from time to time visit the court, in order to 
report on the state of their preparations for the Greek war. 
The seventh year, wherein Esther is made queen/ is that 
which follows the return of Xerxes from Greece, where 
again we know from the best Greek authority ( 8,; ) that he 
resumed his residence at Susa. It is true that " after this 
time history speaks of other favorites and another wife of 
Xerxes, namely Amestris," ( 8 ~) who can scarcely have been 
Esther,^) since the Greeks declare that she was the 
daughter of a Persian noble; but it is quite possible that 
Amestris may have been in disgrace for a time, and that 
Esther may have been temporarily advanced to the dig- 
nity of Sultana. We know far too little of* the domestic 
history of Xerxes from profane sources to pronounce the 
position which Esther occupies in his harem impossible 
or improbable. True again that profane history tells us 
nothing of Haman or Mordeeai but we have absolutely 
no profane information on the subject of who were the 
great officers of the Persian court, or who had influence 
with Xerxes after the death of Mardonius. 

1 Es-.J. i. 2, 3. * Ibid. ii. 10. 


The intimate acquaintance which the Book of Esther 
shows in many passages with Persian manners and cus- 
toms, has been acknowledged even by De Wette,( 89) who 
regards it as composed in Persia on that account. I think 
it may be said that we have nowhere else so graphic or so 
just a portraiture of the Persian court, such as it was in 
the earlier part of the period of decline, which followed 
upon the death of Darius. The story of the Book is no 
doubt in its leading features the contemplated massacre 
of the Jews, and the actual slaughter of their adversaries 
wonderful and antecedently improbable ; but these are 
exactly the points of which the commemorative festival of 
Purim is the strongest possible corroboration. And it 
may lessen the seeming improbability to bear in mind that 
open massacres of obnoxious persons were not unknown to 
the Persians of Xerxes' time. There had once been a 
general massacre of all the Magi who could be found ; ( 9 ) 
and the annual observance of this day, which was known 
as " the Magophonia," would serve to keep up the recollec- 
tion of the circumstance. 

Of Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son and successor of 
Xerxes, who appears both from his name and from his time 
to be the monarch under whom Ezra and Nehemiah flour- 
ished, ( 91 ) w r e have little information from profane sources. 
His character, as drawn by Ctesias, is mild but w r eak, ( <J2 ) 
and sufficiently harmonizes with the portrait in the first 
chapter of Nehemiah. He reigned forty years a longer 
time than any Persian king but one ; and it is perhaps 
worthy of remark that Nehemiah mentions his thirty- 
second year ; * for this, which is allowable in his case, Avould 
have involved a contradiction of profane history, had it 
occurred in connection with any other Persian king men- 
tioned in Scripture, excepting only Darius Hystaspis. 

1 Nehcm. v. 14 ; xiii. 6. 


The Old Testament history here terminates. For the 
space of nearly five hundred years from the time of 
Nehemiah and Malachi to that of St. Paul the Jews pos- 
sessed no inspired writer; and their history, when recorded 
at all, was related in works which were not regarded by 
themselves as authoritative or canonical. I am not con- 
cerned to defend the historical 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 is concerned, is accomplished. 
It has, I believe, been shown, in the first place, that the 
sacred narrative itself is the production of eye-witnesses, or 
of those who followed the accounts of eye-witnesses, and 
therefore that it is entitled to the acceptance of all those 
who regard contemporary testimony as the main ground of 
all authentic history. And it has, secondly, been made 
apparent, that all the evidence which we possess from pro- 
fane sources of a really important and trustworthy charac- 
ter tends to confirm the truth of the history delivered 
to us in the sacred volume. The monumental records 
of past ages Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, 
Phoenician the writings of historians who have based 
their histories on contemporary annals, as Manetho, LJero- 
sus, Dins, Menander, Nicolas of Damascus the descrip- 
tions given by eye-witnesses of the Oriental manners and 
customs the proofs obtained by modern research of the 
condition of art in the time and country all combine to 
confirm, illustrate, and establish the veracity of the writers, 
who have delivered to us, in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, and 
Nehemiah, the history of the chosen people. That history 
stands linn against all the assaults made upon it; and the 
more light that is thrown by research and discovery upon 


the times and countries with which it deals, the more 
apparent becomes its authentic and matter-of-fact charac- 
ter. Instead of ranging parallel with the mythical tradi- 
tions of Greece and Koine, (with which some delight to 
compare it,) it stands, at the least, on a par with the ancient 
histories of Egypt, Babylon, Phoenicia, and Assyria; which, 
like it, were recorded from a remote antiquity by national 
historiographers. Sound criticism finds in the sacred 
writings of the Jews documents belonging to the times of 
which they profess to treat, and on a calm investigation 
classes them, not with romantic poems or mythological 
fables, but with the sober narratives of those other ancient 
writers, who have sought to hand down to posterity a true 
account of the facts which their eyes have witnessed. As 
in the New Testament, so in the Old, that which the 
writers "declare" to the world is in the main "that which 
they have heard, which they have seen with their eyes, 
which they have looked upon, and which their hands have 
handled." 1 It is not their object to amuse men, much less 
to impose on them by any " cunningly devised fables;" 2 
but simply to record facts and " bear their witness to the 
truth." 3 

1 1 John i. 1. 2 2 Pet. i. 16. 3 John xriii. 37. 



The period of time embraced by the events of which we 
have any mention in the New Testament but little exceeds 
the lifetime of a man, falling short of a full century. The 
regular and continuous history is comprised within a yet 
narrower space, since it commences in the year of Koine 
748 or 749, and terminates about sixty-three years later, in 
the filth of Xero, Anno Domini f>K.(') If uniformity of plan 
were a thing of paramount importance, it would be my 
duty to subdivide this space of time into three portions, 
which might lie treated separately in the three remaining 
Lectures of the present Course. Such a subdivision could 
be made without any great difficulty. The century natu- 
rally breaks into three periods the time of our Lord's life, 
or that treated of in the Gospels; the time of the rapid and 
triumphant spread of Christianity, or that of which we have 
the history in the Acts; and the time of oppression and 
persecution without, of defection and heresy within, or that 
to which we have incidental allusions in the later Epistles 
and the Apocalypse. Or, if we confined our view to the 



space of time which is covered by the historical Books, and 
omitted the last of thefe three periods from our considera- 
tion, we might obtain a convenient division of the second 
period from the actual arrangement of the Acts, where the 
author, after occupying himself during twelve chapters with 
the general condition of the Christian community, becomes 
from the thirteenth the biographer of a single Apostle, 
whose career he thenceforth follows without interruption. 
But on the whole I think it will be more convenient, at 
some sacrifice of uniformity, to regard the entire space 
occupied by the New Testament narrative as a single pe- 
riod, and to substitute, at the present point, for the arrange- 
ment of time hitherto followed, an arrangement based upon 
a division of the evidence, which here naturally separates 
into three heads or branches. The first of these is the 
internal evidence, or that of the documents themselves, 
which I propose to make the subject of the present Lec- 
ture ; the second is the testimony of adversaries, or that 
borne by Heathen and Jewish writers to the veracity of 
the narrative ; the third is the testimony of believers, or 
that producible from the uninspired Christian remains of 
the times contemporary with or immediately following the 
age of the Apostles. The two last named branches will be 
treated respectively in the seventh and eighth Lectures. 

The New Testament is commonly regarded too much as 
a single book, and its testimony is scarcely viewed as more 
than that of a single writer. No doubt, contemplated on 
its divine side, the work has a real unity, He Mho is with 
His church "always" 1 having designed the whole in His 
Eternal Counsels, and having caused it to take the shape 
that it bears ; but regarded as the work of man, which it 
also is, the New Testament (it should be remembered) is a 

1 Matt, xxviii. 20. 


collection of twenty-seven separate and independent docu- 
ments, composed by eight or nine different persons, at sep- 
arate times, and under varied circumstances. Of these 
twenty-seven documents, twenty-one consist of letters writ- 
ten by those who were engaged in the propagation of the 
new Religion to their converts, four are biographies of 
Christ, one is a short Church History, containing a general 
account of the Christian community for twelve or thirteen 
years after our Lord's ascension, together with a particular 
account of St. Paul's doings for about fourteen years after- 
wards ; and one is prophetical, containing (as is generally 
supposed) a sketch of the future state and condition of the 
Christian Church from the close of the first century, when 
it was written, to the end of the world. It is with the his- 
torical Books that we are in the present review primarily 
concerned. I wish to show that for the Scriptural narra- 
tive of the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of 
Christ, as well as for the circumstances of the first preach- 
ing of the Gospel, the historical evidence that we possess is 
of an authentic and satisfactory character. 

As with that document which is the basis of Judaism, (*> 
so with those which are the basis of Christianity, it is of 
very great interest and importance to know by whom they 
were written. If the history was recorded by eye-wit- 
nesses, or even by persons contemporaneous with the 
events narrated, then it is allowed on all hands that the 
record containing it must have a very strong claim indeed 
to our acceptance. "But the alleged ocular testimony," 
we are told, " or proximity in point of time to the events 
recorded, is mere assumption an assumption originat- 
ing from the titles which the Biblical books bear in our 
Canon." C 3 ^ "Little reliance, however, can be placed on 
these titles, or on the headings of ancient manuscripts 



generally." ( 4 > "The early Jewish and Christian writers' 
even the most reputable published their works with the 
substitution of venerated names, without an idea that they 
w r ere guilty of falsehood or deception by so doing." ( 5 > In 
"sacred records" and "biblical books" this species of for- 
gery obtained "more especially;"^) and the title of works 
of this kind is scarcely any evidence at all of the real 
authorship. Further, the actual titles of our Gospels are 
not to be regarded as intended to assert the composition 
of the Gospel by the person named; all that they mean to 
assert is, the composition of the connected history " after 
the oral discourses, or notes," of the person named in the 
title. This is the true original meaning of the word trans- 
lated by " according to ; " which is improperly understood 
as implying actual authorship. ( 7 ) 

Such are the assertions with which we are met, when we 
urge that for the events of our Lord's life we have the tes- 
timony of eye-witnesses, whose means of knowing the truth 
were of the highest order, and whose honesty is unim- 
peachable. These assertions (which I have given as nearly 
as possible in the words of Strauss) consist of a series of po- 
sitions either plainly false, or at best without either proof or 
likelihood ; yet upon these the modern Rationalism is con- 
tent to base its claim to supersede Christianity. This end 
it openly avows, and it admits that, to make its claim good, 
the positions above given should be established. Let us 
then consider briefly the several assertions upon which we 
are invited to exchange the Religion of Christ for that of 
Strauss and Schleiermacher. 

Tt is said, that "the alleged ocular testimony is an 
assumption originating from the titles which the Biblical 
books bear in our Canon." I do not know if any stress is 
intended to be laid on the last clause of this objection ; but 


as it might mislead the unlearned, I may observe in pass- 
ing, that the titles which the liooks bear in the modern 
authorized versions of the Scriptures are literal translations 
from some of the most ancient Greek manuscripts, and 
descend to us at least from the times of the first Councils ; 
while titles still more emphatic and explicit are found in 
several of the versions which were made at an early 
period. ( 8 ) Our belief in the authorship of the writings, 
no doubt, rests partly on the titles, as does our belief in 
the authorship of every ancient treatise ; but it is untrue to 
say that these headings first originated the belief-, for 
before the titles were attached, the belief must have 
existed. In truth, there is not the slightest pretence for 
insinuating that there was ever any doubt as to the author- 
ship of any one of the historical books of the New Testa- 
ment ; which are as uniformly ascribed to the writers 
whose names they bear as the Return of the Ten Thou- 
sand to Xenophon, or the Lives of the Caesars to Sueto- 
nius. There is indeed for better evidence of authorship in 
the case of the four Gospels and of the .Vets of the Apos- 
tles, than exists with respect to the works of almost any 
classical writer. It is a very rare occurrence for classical 
works to be distinctly quoted, or for their authors to be 
mentioned by name, within a century of the time of their 
publication. ( 9 > The Gospels, as we shall find in the sequel, 
are frequently quoted within this period, and the writers of 
three at least out of the four are mentioned within the 
time as authors of works corresponding perfectly to those 
which have come down to us as their compositions. Our 
conviction then of the genuineness of the Gospels does not 
rest exclusively, or even mainly, mi the titles, but on the 
unanimous consent of ancient writers and of the whole 
Christian church in the first aires. 


In the next place we are told that " little reliance can be 
placed on the headings of ancient manuscripts generally." 
Undoubtedly, such headings, when unconfirmed by fur- 
ther testimony, are devoid of any great weight, and may 
be set aside, if the internal evidence of the writings them- 
selves disproves the superscription. Still they constitute 
important prima facie evidence of authorship ; and it is to 
be presumed that they are correct, until solid reasons be 
shown to the contrary. The headings of ancient manu- 
scripts are, in point of fact, generally accepted as correct 
by critics ; and the proportion, among the works of an- 
tiquity, of those reckoned spurious to those regarded as 
genuine, is small indeed. 

But it is said that in the case of " sacred records " and 
"biblical books" the headings are "especially" untrust- 
worthy. This, we arc told, " is evident, and has long since 
been proved." ( 10 ) Where the proof is to be found, we are 
not informed, nor whence the peculiar untrustworthiness 
of what is "sacred" and "biblical" proceeds. We are 
referred, however, to the cases of the Pentateuch, the book 
of Daniel, and a certain number of the Psalms, as well 
known instances ; and we shall probably not be wrong in 
assuming that these are selected as the most palpable cases 
of incorrect ascription of books which the Sacred Volume 
furnishes. We have already found reason to believe that 
in regard to the Pentateuch and the book of Daniel no 
mistake has been committed ; ( n ) they are the works of the 
authors whose names they bear. But in the case of the 
Psalms, it must be allowed that the headings seem fre- 
quently to be incorrect. Headings, it must be remem- 
bered, are in no case any part of the inspired Word ; they 
indicate merely the opinion of those who had the custody 
of the Word at the time when they were prefixed. Now 


in most cases the headings would be attached soon after 
the composition of the work, when its authorship was 
certainly known ; but the Psalms do not appear to have 
been collected into a book until the time of Ezra, i 12 ) and 
the headings of many may have been then first affixed, 
those who attached them following a vague tradition or 
venturing upon conjecture. Thus error has here crept in; 
but on this ground to assume that " sacred records" have a 
peculiar untrustworthiness in this respect, is to betray an 
irreligious spirit, and to generalize upon very insufficient 

But, it is said, " the most reputable authors amongst the 
Jews and early Christians published their works with the 
substitution of venerated names, without an idea that they 
were guilty of falsehood or deception by so doing." What 
is the proof of this astounding assertion? What early 
Christian authors, reputable or no, can be shown to have 
thus acted? If the allusion is to the epistles of Hennas 
and Barnabas, it must be observed that the genuineness of 
these is still matter of dispute among the learned; if to 
such works as the Clementines, the interpolated Ignatius, 
and the like, that they are not "early" in the sense implied, 
for they belong probably to the third century. 1:,) The 
practice noted was common among heretical sects from the 
first, but it was made a reproach to them by the ortho- 
dox^") who did not themselves adopt it till the teaching 
of the Alexandrian School had confused the boundaries of 
right and wrong, and made "pious frauds" appear defensi- 
ble. There is no reason to suppose that any orthodox 
Christian of the first century when it is granted that our 
Gospels were written would have considered himself 
entitled to bring out under a "venerated name" a work, of 
his own composition. 



Lastly, it is urged, " the titles of our Gospels are not 
intended to assert the composition of the works by the per- 
sons named, but only their being based upon a groundwork 
furnished by such persons, either orally, or in the shape of 
written notes." ( 15 > "This seems to be the original meaning 
attached to the word x-u," we are told. No example, 
however, is adduced of this use, which is certainly not that 
of the Septuagint, where the book of Nehemiah is referred 
to under the name of " The Commentaries according to 
Nehemiah;" 1 and it cannot be shown to have obtained at 
any period of the Greek language. 

It cannot therefore be asserted with any truth that the 
titles of the Gospels do not represent them as the composi- 
tions of the persons named therein. Nothing is more cer- 
tain than that the object of affixing titles to the Gospels at 
all was to mark the opinion entertained of their authorship. 
This opinion appears to have been universal. We find no 
evidence of any doubt having ever existed on the subject 
in the early ages.( 16 > Iremeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alex- 
andria, and Origen, writers in the latter half of the second 
or the beginning of the third century, not only declare the 
authorship unreservedly, but indicate or express the univer- 
sal agreement of the Church from the first upon the sub- 
ject. ( 1? ) Justin, in the middle of the second century, sj)eaks 
of the "Gospels" which the Christians read in their 
Churches, as having been composed "by the Apostles of 
Christ and their companions;" and he further shows by 
his quotations, which are abundant, that he means the Gos- 
pels now in our possession. ( 18 > Papias, a quarter of a cen- 
tury earlier, mentions the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. 
Mark as authoritative, and declares the latter writer to have 
derived his materials from St. Peter. Thus we are brought 

1 2 Mac. ii. 13. 


to the very age of the Apostles themselves; forPapias was 
a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. ( 19 ) 

Further, in the case of three out of the five Historical 
Books of the Xew Testament, there is an internal testimony 
to their composition by contemporaries, which is of the last 
importance. "And he that saw 7," says St. John, " bare 
record, and his record is time, and he knoweth that he saith 
true, that ye may believe." 1 And again, still more expli- 
citly, after speaking of himself and of the circumstances 
which caused it to be thought that he would not die 
" This is the disciple which testifieth of these things and 
icrote these things: and we know that his testimony is 
true." 2 Either therefore St. John must be allowed to have 
been the writer of the fourth Gospel, or the writer must be 
taxed with that "conscious intention of fiction," which 
Strauss with impious boldness has ventured to allege 
against him. C 20 ) 

That the Acts of the Apostles and the third Gospel have 
"a testimony of a particular kind," which seems to give 
them a special claim to be accepted as the works of a con- 
temporary, is admitted even by this Prince" of Sceptics. 
The writer of the Acts, he allows, "by the use of the first 
person identifies himself with the companion of St. Paul," 
and the prefaces of the two hooks make it plain that they 
"proceeded from the same author." (- l> This evidence is felt 
to be so strong, that even Strauss does not venture to deny 
that a companion of St. Paul may hart written the two 
works. lie finds it "difficult" to believe that this was act- 
ually the case, and "suspects" that the passages of the Acts 
where the first person is used "belong to a distinct memo- 
rial by another hand, which the author of the Acts has 
incorporated into his history." But still he allows the 

1 John xix. 35. a Ibid. xxi. 24. 


alternative that "it is possible the companion of Paul 
may have composed the two works" only it must have 
been "at a time when he was no longer protected by apos- 
tolic influence from the tide of tradition," and so was 
induced to receive into his narrative, and join with what 
he had heard from the apostle, certain marvellous (and 
therefore incredible) stories which had no solid or substan- 
tial basis. C 22 ) To the objection that the Acts appear, from 
the fact of their terminating where they do, to have been 
composed at the close of St. Paul's first imprisonment 
at Pome, A. D. 58, (or A. D. 63, according to someC 23 ) 
writers,) and that the Gospel, as being "the former trea- 
tise," 1 was written earlier, Strauss replies, "that the break- 
ing oft' of the Acts'at that particular point might have been 
the result of many other causes; and that, at all events, 
such testimony standing alo/ie is wholly insufficient to de- 
cide the historical worth of the Gospel." t 34 ) He thus 
assumes that the testimony "stands alone," forgetting or 
ignoring the general voice of antiquity on the subject of 
the date and value of the Gospel, C 25 ) while lie also omits to 
notice the other important evidence of an early date which 
the Gospel itself furnishes the declaration, namely, in the 
preface that what St. Luke wrote was delivered to him by 
those "which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and 
ministers of the Word." 2 

If the third Gospel be allowed to have been composed 
by one who lived in the apostolic age and companied with 
the apostles, then an argument for the early date of the 
first and second will arise from their accordance with the 
third their resemblance to it in style and general char- 
acter, and their diversity from the productions of any other 
period. The first three Gospels belong so entirely to the 

1 Acts i. 1. 2 Luke i. 2. 


same school of thought, and the same type and stage of 
language, that on critical grounds they must be regarded 
as the works of contemporaries ; while in their contents 
they are at once so closely accordant with one another, and 
so full of little differences, that the most reasonable view 
to take of their composition is that it was almost simul- 
taneous. ( 2C ) Thus the determination of any one out of the 
three to the apostolic age involves a similar conclusion 
with respect to the other two ; and if the Gospel ascribed 
to St. Luke be allowed to be probably his, there can be no 
reason to question the tradition which assigns the others to 
St. Matthew and St. Mark. 

On the whole, therefore, we have abundant reason to be- 
lieve that the four Gospels are the Avorks of persons who 
lived at the time when Christianity was first preached and 
established. Two of the writers St. Luke and St. John 
fix their own date, which must be accepted on their 
authority, unless Ave will pronounce them impostors. The 
two others appear alike by their matter and their manner 
to be as early as St. Luke, and are certainly earlier than 
St. John, whose Gospel is supplemental to the other three, 
and implies their preexistence. Nor is there any reason- 
able ground for doubting the authorship which Christian 
antiquity with one voice declares to us, and in which the 
titles of the earliest manuscripts and of the most ancient 
versions agree. The four Gospels are assigned to those 
four persons, whom the Church has always honored as 
Evangelists, on grounds very much superior to those on 
which the bulk of classical works are ascribed to particular 
authors. The single testimony of Irenaeus is really of more 
Weight than the whole array of witnesses commonly mar- 
shalled in proof of the genuineness of an ancient classic ; 
and, even if it stood alone, might fairly be regarded as 


placing the question of the authorship beyond all reason- 
able doubt or suspicion. 

It' then the Gospels are genuine, what a wonderful his- 
torical treasure do we possess in them! Four biographies 
of the great Founder of our religion by contemporary 
pens, two of them the productions of close friends the 
other two written by those who, if they had no personal 
acquaintance with the Saviour, at least were the constant 
companions of such as had had intimate knowledge of 
Him. How rarely do we obtain even two distinct original 
biographies of a distinguished person ! In the peculiar and 
unexampled circumstances of the time it is not surprising 
that many undertook to "set forth in order a declaration 
of the things'" which constituted the essence of the new 
religion, namely, the life and teaching of Christ ; but it is 
remarkable, and I think it may fairly be said to be provi- 
dential, that four accounts should have been written pos- 
sessing claims to attention so nearly equal, that the Church 
felt bound to adopt all into her Canon, whence it has hap- 
pened that they have all come down to us. We should 
have expected, alike on the analogy of the Old Testa- 
ment, ( 2T ) and on grounds of a priori probability, a single 
record. If an authentic account had been published early 
that is, before the separation of the Apostles, and the 
formation of distinct Christian communities it is probable 
that no second account would have been written, or at any 
rate no second account confirmatory to any great extent of 
the preceding one. A supplementary Gospel, like that of 
St. John, might of course have been added in any ease; 
but, had the Gospel of St. Matthew, for instance, been 
really composed, as some have imagined, ( 28 ) within a few 
years of our Lord's ascension, it would have been carried 

1 Luke i. 1. 


together with Christianity into all parts of the world ; and 
it is very unlikely that in that case the Gospels of St. Mark 
and St. Luke, which cover chiefly the same ground, would 
have been written. The need of written Gospels Mas not 
felt at first, while the Apostles and companions of Christ 
were in full vigor, and were continually moving from place 
to place, relating with all the fulness and variety of oral 
discourse the marvels which they had seen wrought, and 
the gracious words which they had heard uttered by their 
Master. But as they grew old, and as the sphere of their 
labors enlarged, and personal superintendence of the whole 
Church by the Apostolic body became difficult, the desire 
to possess a written Gospel arose; and simultaneously, in 
different parts of the Church, for different portions of the 
Christian body, the three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
and St. Luke, were published. This at least seems to be 
the theory which alone suits the phenomena of the 
case ; (-'> and as it agrees nearly with the testimony of Ire- 
iiR'iis, ( :,l) ) who is the earliest authority with regard to the 
time at which the Gospels were composed, it is well 
deserving of acceptance. 

If this view of the independent and nearly simultaneous 
composition of the first three Gospels be admitted, then we 
must be allowed to possess in their substantial agreement 
respecting the life, character, teaching, miracles, prophetic 
announcements, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion of our Lord, (") evidence of the most important kind, 
and such as is scarcely ever attainable with respect to 
the actions of an individual. Attempts have been made 
from time to time, and recently on a large scale, to inval- 
idate this testimony by establishing the existence of mi- 
nute points of disagreement between the accounts of the 
three Evangelists. ( :,2 > But the differences adduct-d consiwi- 


almost entirely of omissions by one Evangelist of what is 
mentioned by another, such omissions being regarded by 
Strauss as equivalent to direct negatives. ( 33 ) The weak 
character of the argument a silenpio is now admitted by all 
tolerable critics, who have ceased to lean upon it with any 
feeling of security except under very peculiar circum- 
stances. In ordinary cases, and more particularly in cases 
where brevity has been studied, mere silence proves abso- 
lutely nothing; and to make it equivalent to counter- 
assertion is to confuse two things wholly different, and to 
exhibit a want of critical discernment, such as must in the 
eyes of all reasonable persons completely discredit the 
writer who is so unfair or so ill-judging. Yet this, I con- 
fidently affirm, is the ordinary manner of Strauss, who 
throughout his volumes conceives himself at liberty to 
discard facts recorded by one Evangelist only on the mere 
ground of silence on the part of the others. Whatever an 
Evangelist does not record, he is argued not to have 
known ; and his want of knowledge is taken as a proof that 
the event could not have happened. It seems to be for- 
gotten, that, in the first place, eye-witnesses of one and the 
same event notice a different portion of the attendant cir- 
cumstances ; and that, secondly, those who record an event 
which they have witnessed omit ordinarily, for brevity's 
sake, by far the greater portion of the attendant circum- 
stances which they noticed at the time and still remember. 
Strauss's cavils could only have been precluded by the 
mere repetition on the part of each Evangelist of the exact 
circumstances mentioned by every other a repetition 
which would have been considered to mark collusion or 
or unacknowledged borrowing, and which would have thus 
destroyed their value ag distinct and independent wit- 


It lias boon Avell observed, ( 34) that, even if all the diffi- 
culties and discrepancies, which this writer lias thought to 
discover in the Gospels, were real and not merely apparent 
if we were obliged to leave them as difficulties, and 
could offer no explanation of them C 35 * still the general 
credibility of the Gospel History would remain untouched, 
and no more would be proved than the absence of that 
complete inspiration which the Church has always believed 
to attach to the Evangelical writings. The writers would 
be lowered from their preeminent rank as perfect and infal- 
lible historians, whose every word may be depended on; 
but they would remain historical authorities of the first 
order witnesses as fully to be trusted for the circum- 
stances of our Lord's life, as Xcnophon for the sayings and 
doings of Socrates, or Cavendish for those of Cardinal 
Wolsey. The facts of the miracles, preaching, sufferings, 
death, resurrection, and ascension, would therefore stand 
firm, together with those of the choice of the Apostles, the 
commission given them, and the communication to them of 
miraculous powers; and these are the facts which establish 
Christianity, and form its historical basis a basis whioi 
can be overthrown by nothing short of a proof that the 
New Testament is a forgery from beginning to end, or that 
the first preachers of Christianity were a set of impostors. 

For the truth of the Gospel facts does not rest solely 
upon the Gospels they are stated with almost equal dis- 
tinctness in the Acts, and are implied in the Epistles. It 
is not denied that a companion of St. Paul may have writ- 
ten the account of the early spread of the Gospel which is 
contained in the Acts of the Apostles. But the Acts 
assume as indisputable the whole series of facts which form 
the basis on which Christianity sustains itself. They set 
forth "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God by 



miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him 
in the midst of you, as you yourselves also know " ' a 
man ''who went about doing good, and healing all that 
were oppressed of the devil"- who "beginning from 
Galilee, after the baptism which John preached, published 
the word throughout all Judaea; 3 whom yet "they that 
dwelt at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew 
him not, nor yet the voices of the Prophets which are read 
every Sabbath day, condemned, finding no cause of death 
in him, yet desiring of Pilate that he should be slain" 4 
who was "taken and crucified by wicked hands"' 
"hanged upon a tree and slain" then "taken down from 
the tree and laid in a sepulchre," 7 but " raised up the third 
day, and showed openly," 8 "by many infallible proofs 
during the space of forty days," 9 "not to all the people, 
but unto witnesses chosen before of God, who did eat and 
drink with him after he rose from the dead" 10 and who, 
finally, "while his disciples beheld, was taken up into 
heaven, a cloud receiving him out of their sight." 11 The 
Acts further show that to the chosen " witnesses" the 
Apostles to whom "the promise of the Father" 1 - had been 
given, and to those whom they associated with them in the 
direction of the infant Church miraculous gifts were commu- 
nicated, so that they prophesied, 13 cured lameness by a word 
or a touch, 14 spake languages of which they had no natural 
knowledge, 15 restored the bedridden to health, 10 handled 
serpents, 17 cast out devils, 18 inflicted blindness, 1 '-' raised the 

> Acts ii. 22. 2 Ibid. x. 38. 3 Ibid, verse 37. 

4 Ibid. xiii. 27-8. 6 Ibid. ii. 23. 6 Ibid. x. 39. 

7 Ibid. xiii. 29. 8 Ibid. x. 40. 9 Ibid. i. 3. 

10 Ibid. x. 41. ;i Ibid. i. 9, 10. 12 Ibid, verse 4. 
13 Ibid. v. 9 ; vi. 27, &c. u Ibid. xiv. 10, and iii. 7. 

v " Ibid. ii. 4-13. > Ibid. ix. 34. ,7 Ibid, xxviii. 5. 

w Ibid. xvi. 18, &c. 19 Ibid. xiii. 11. 


dead to life, 1 and finally even in some eases cured men by 
the touch of their shadows- or by handkerchiefs and aprons 
from their persons. 3 

The substantial truth of the history contained in the 
Acts so far at least as it concerns St. Paul has been 
excellently vindicated, by a writer of our own nation and 
communion, from the undesigned conformity between the 
narrative and the Epistles ascribed to the great Apostle. 
Without assuming the genuineness of those Epistles, Paley 
has most unanswerably shown, that the peculiar nature of 
the agreement between them and the history of the Acts 
affords good reason to believe that "the persons and trans- 
actions described are real, the letters authentic, and the 
narration in the main true."( 3 ) The Jlorce Paulino estab- 
lish these positions in the most satisfactory manner. I do 
not think that it is possible for any one to read them atten- 
tively without coming to the conclusion that the Epistles 
oi'St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles bring us into con- 
tact with real persons, real scenes, real transactions that 
the letters were actually written by St. Paul himself at the 
time and under the circumstances related in the history 
and that the history was composed by one who had that 
complete knowledge of the circumstances which could only 
be gained by personal observation, or by intimate acquaint- 
ance with the Apostle who is the chief subject of the nar- 
rative. The effect of a perusal of this masterly work will 
scarcely be neutralized by the bare and unsupported asser- 
tion of Strauss, that "the details concerning Paul in the 
Book of the v\cts are so completely at variance with Paul's 
genuine epistles, that it is extremely difficult to reconcile 
them with the notion that they were written by a compan- 

1 Acts ix. 37-41 ; xx. 9-1 2. 
2 Ibid. v. 1 o. 3 Ibid xix. 12. 


ion of the Apostle." C 37 ) The Hone PauUnce should have 
been answered in detail, before such an assertion was 
adventured on. Boldly and barely made, without a tittle 
of proof, it can only be regarded as an indication of the 
litter recklessness of the new School, and of its striking 
deficiency in the qualities which are requisite for a sound 
and healthy criticism. 

It is further to be remarked, that Paley's work, excellent 
and conclusive as it must be allowed to be, is far from 
being exhaustive. He has noticed, and illustrated in a very 
admirable way, the most remarkable of the undesigned 
coincidences between the Acts and the Pauline Epistles ; 
but it would not be difficult to increase his list by the addi- 
tion of an equal number of similar points of agreement, 
which he has omitted, t 38 - 1 

Again, it is to be remarked, that the argument of Paley 
is applicable also to other parts of the Xew Testament. 
Undesigned coincidences of the class which Paley notes 
are frequent in the Gospels, and have often been pointed 
out in passing by commentators, though I am not aware 
that they have ever been collected or made the subject of 
a separate volume. When St. Matthew, 1 however, and St. 
Luke, 2 in giving the list of the Apostles, place them in pairs 
without assigning a reason, while St. Mark, whose list is not 
in pairs,' 5 happens to mention that they were sent out "two 
and two," 4 we have the same sort of recondite and (hu- 
manly speaking) accidental harmony on which Paley has 
insisted with such force as an evidence of authenticity and 
truth in connection with the history of the Acts. It Avould 
be easy to multiply instances; but my limits will not allow 
me to do more than briefly to allude to this head of evif 

1 Matt. x. 2-4. 9 Luke vi. 14-16. 

3 Mark iii. 16-19. 4 Ibid. vi. 7. 


deuce, to which full justice could not be done unless by an 
elaborate work on the subject. ( 39 ) 

Finally, let it be considered whether the Epistles alone, 
apart from the Gospels and the Acts, do not sufficiently 
establish the historic truth of that narrative of the life of 
Christ and foundation of the Christian Church, which it has 
been recently attempted to resolve into mere myth and 
fable. The genuineness of St. Paul's Epistles, with one or 
two exceptions, is admitted even by Strauss ; ( 4() ) and there 
are no valid reasons for entertaining any doubt concerning 
the authorship of the other Epistles, except perhaps in the 
case of that to the Hebrews, and of the two shorter Epis- 
tles commonly assigned to St. John. ( 41 > Excluding these, 
we have eighteen letters written by five of the principal 
Apostles of Christ, one by St. John, two by St. Peter, thir- 
teen by St. Paul, one by St. James, and one by St. Jude, 
his brother partly consisting of public addresses to bodies 
of Christians, partly of instructions to individuals all 
composed for practical purposes with special reference to 
the pefculiar exigencies of the time, but all exhibiting casu- 
ally and incidentally the state of opinion and belief among 
Christians during the half century immediately following 
our Lord's ascension. It is indisputable that the writers, 
and those to whom they wrote, believed in the recent 
occurrence of a set of facts similar to, or identical with, 
those recorded in the Gospels and the Acts more partic- 
ularly those which are most controverted, such as the trans- 
figuration, the resurrection, and the ascension. "Great is 
the mystery of godliness," says St. Paul. "God was mani- 
fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, 
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, 
received up into glory." 1 "Christ," says St. Peter, " suf- 

1 1 Tim. iii. 16. 


fered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that lie might 
bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quick- 
ened in the spirit." 1 "He received from God the Father 
lienor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from 
the excellent glory, 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am 
well pleased;' and this voice which came from heaven we 
hoard, when we were with him in the holy mount." 2 "God 
raised up Christ from the dead, and gave him glory" 8 
" He is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God, 
angels and authorities and powers being made subject to 
him." 4 "Remember," again St. Paul says, "that Jesus 
Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead" 5 
"If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and 
your faith also is vain" G "I delivered unto you first of 
all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our 
sins according to the Scriptures ; and that he was buried, 
and that he rose again the third day according to the 
Scriptures ; and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the 
twelve after that he was seen of above five hundred 
brethren at once . . . after that, he was seen of James, then 
of all the apostles." 7 These are half a dozen texts out of 
hundreds, which might be adduced to show that the writers 
of the Epistles, some writing before, some after the Evan- 
gelists, are entirely agreed with them as to the facts on 
which Christianity is based, and as strongly assert their 
reality. We are told, that " the Gospel myths grew up in 
the space of about thirty years, between the death of Jesus 
and the destruction of Jerusalem." ( 4 ' 2 > But in the Epistles 
and the Acts there is evidence that throughout the whole 
of this time the belief of the Church was the same the 

1 1 Pet. iii. 18. 2 Pet. i. 17, 18. 3 1 Pet. i. 21. 

4 Ibid. iii. 22. 5 2 Tim. ii. 8. 6 1 Cor. xv. 14. 

~ : Ibid, verses 3-7. 


Apostles themselves, the companions of Christ, maintained 
from the first the reality of those marvellous events which 
the Evangelists have recorded they proclaimed them- 
selves the " witnesses of the resurrection" 1 appealed to 
the "miracles and signs' - ' 2 which Jesus had wrought and 
based their preaching altogether upon the facts of the Gos- 
pel narrative. There is no historical ground for asserting 
that that narrative was formed by degrees ; nor is there 
any known instance of a mythic history having grown up 
in such an age, under such circumstances, or Avith such 
rapidity as is postulated in this case by our adversaries. 
The age was an historical age, being that of Dionvsius, 
Diodorus, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Valerius 
Maximus, and Tacitus the country was one where 
written records were kept, and historical literature had 
long flourished ; it produced at the very time when the 
New Testament documents were being written, an historian 
of good repute, Josephus, whose narrative of the events of 
his own time is universally accepted as authentic and 
trustworthy. To suppose that a mythology could be 
formed in such an age and country, is to contuse the char- 
acteristics of the most opposite periods to ascribe to a 
time of luxury, over-civilization, and decay, a phase of 
thought which only belongs to the rude vigor and early 
infancy of nations. 

There is in very deed no other alternative, if we reject 
the historic truth of the. New Testament, than that em- 
braced by the old assailants of Christianity the ascrip- 
tion of the entire religion to imposture. The mythical ex- 
planation seems to have been invented in order to avoid 
this harsh conclusion, which the moral tone of the religion 
and the sufferings of its first propagators in defence of it 

1 Acts i. 22 ; iv. 33, &c. 2 Ibid. ii. 22. 


alike contradict. The explanation fails, however, even in 
this respect ; for its great advocate finds it insufficient to 
explain the phenomena, and finally delivers it as his 
opinion, that in many places the authors of the Gospels 
consciously and designedly introduced fictions into their 
flarratives. ( 43 ) If then we feel sure that in the hooks of 
the New Testament we have not the works of impostors, 
testifying to have seen that which they had not seen, and 
knew that they had not seen ; if Ave are conscious in read- 
ing them of a tone of sincerity and truth beyond that of 
even the most veracious and simple-minded of profane 
writers ; if we recognize throughout an atmosphere of fact 
and reality, a harmony of statement, a frequency of un- 
designed coincidence, an agreement like that of honest 
witnesses not studious of seeming to agree ; we must pro- 
nounce utterly untenable this last device of the sceptic, 
which presents even more difficulties than the old unbelief. 
We must accept the documents as at once genuine and 
authentic. The writers declare to us that which they have 
heard and seen. 1 They were believed by thousands of 
their contemporaries, on the spot where they stated the 
most remarkable of the events to have taken place, and 
within a few weeks of the time. They could not be mis- 
taken as to those events. And if it be granted that these 
happened if the resurrection and ascension are allowed 
to be facts, then the rest of the narrative may well be re- 
ceived, for it is less marvellous. Vain are the " profane 
babblings," which ever " increase unto more ungodliness," 
of those whose " word doth eat like a canker . . . who con- 
cerning the truth have erred" denying the resurrection 
of Christ, and "saying that the resurrection" of man "is 
past already," thus "overthrowing the faith of some." 2 

1 1 John i. 3. 2 2 Tim. ii. 16-18. 


" The foundation of God standeth sure/' * " Jesus Christ 
of the seed of David was raised from the dead" 2 Jesus 
Christ, the God-Man, is "ascended into the heavens." 3 
These are the cardinal points of the Christian's faith. 
On these credentials, which- nothing can shake, he accepts 
as certain the divine rai c sion of hie Saviour. 

1 2 Tim. ii. 19. 2 Ibid, verse 8. 3 Acts ii. 34. 



The historical inquirer, on passing from the history of 
the Old Testament to that contained in the New, cannot 
fail to be struck with the remarkable contrast which exists 
between the two narratives in respect of their aim and 
character. In the Old Testament the writers seek to set 
before us primarily and mainly the history of their nation, 
and only secondarily and in strict subordination to this 
object introduce accounts of individuals. O Their works 
fall under the head of History Proper History, no 
doubt, of a peculiar cast, not secular, that is, but sacred 
or theocratic, yet still History in the strictest sense of 
the term, accounts of kings and rulers, and of the vicis- 
situdes through which the Jewish nation passed, its suffer- 
ings, triumphs, checks, reverses, its struggles, ruin, and 
recovery. In the Historical Books of the New Testament, 
on the contrary, these points cease altogether to engage 
the writers 1 attention, which becomes fixed on an individual, 
whose words and actions, and the effect of whose teaching, 
it is their great object to put on record. The authors of 
the Gospels are biographers of Christ, not historians of 
their nation ; they intend no account of the political con- 
dition of Palestine in their time, but only a narrative of 
the chief facts concerning our Lord especially those of 



his public life and ministry. ( 2 > Even the Evangelist, who 
in a second treatise carries on the narrative from the 
Ascension during the space of some thirty years to the 
first imprisonment of St. Paul at Rome, leaves untouched 
the national history, and confines himself (as the title of 
his work implies) to the "acts" of those who made the 
doctrine of Christ known to the world. Hence the agree- 
ment to be traced between the sacred narrative and pro- 
fane history in this part of the Biblical records, consists 
only to a very small extent of an accord with respect to 
the main facts related, which it scarcely came within the 
sphere of the civil historian to commemorate ; it is to be 
found chiefly, if not solely, in harmonious representations 
with respect to facts which in the Scriptural narrative are 
incidental and secondary, as the names, offices, and char- 
acters of the political personages to whom there happens 
to be allusion ; the general condition of the Jews and 
heathen at the time; the prevalent manners and customs; 
and the like. The value of such confirmation is not, how- 
ever, less, hut rather greater, than that of the more direct 
confirmation which would result from an accordance with 
respect to main facts in the first place, because it is a 
task of the extremest difficulty for any one but an honest 
contemporary writer to maintain accuracy in the wide 
field of incidental allusion ;( 3 ^ and secondly, because exact- 
ness in such matters is utterly at variance with the mythi- 
cal spirit, of which, according to the latest phase of unbe- 
lief, the narrative' of the New Testament is the product. 
The detail and appearance of exactness, which character- 
izes the Evangelical writings, is of itself a strong argu- 
ment against the mythical theory; if it can be shown that 
the detail is correct and the exactness that of persons in- 
timately acquainted with the whole history of the time 


and bent on faithfully recording it, that theory may be 
considered as completely subverted and disproved. It will 
be the chief object of the present Lecture to make it 
apparent that this is the case with respect to the Evangeli- 
cal writings that the incidental references to the civil 
history of the time of which they treat, and to the condition 
of the nations with which they deal, are borne out, for the 
most part, by Pagan or Jewish authors, and are either 
proved thus to be correct, or are at any rate such as there 
is no valid reason, on account of any disagreement with 
profane authorities, seriously to question. 

Before entering, however, on this examination of the 
incidental allusions or secondary facts in the Xew Testa- 
ment narrative, it is important to notice two things with 
regard to the main facts ; in the first place, that some of 
them (as the miracles, the resurrection, and the ascension) 
are of such a nature that no testimony to them from pro- 
fane sources was to be expected, since those who believed 
them naturally and almost necessarily became Christians ; 
and secondly, that with regard to such as are not of this 
character, there docs exist profane testimony of the first 
order. The existence at this time of one called by his fol- 
lowers Christ, the place of his teaching, his execution by 
Pontius Pilate, Procurator of Judea under Tiberius, the 
rapid spread of his doctrine through the Roman world, the 
vast number of converts made in a short time, the persecu- 
tions which they underwent, the innocency of their lives, 
their worship of Christ as God are witnessed to by 
Heathen writers of eminence, and .would be certain and 
indisputable facts, had the New Testament never been writ- 
ten. Tacitus, Suetonius, Juvenal, Pliny, Trajan, Adrian,^ 
writing in the century immediately following upon the 
death of Christ, declare these things to us, and establish, 


so firmly that no sceptic can even profess to doubt it, the 
historical character of (at least) that primary groundwork 
whereon the Christian story, as related by the Evangelists, 
rests as on an immovable basis. These classic notices com- 
pel even those who set no value on the historical Christ, to 
admit his existence ; ( 5) they give a definite standing-point 
to the religion, which might otherwise have been declared 
to have no historical foundation at all, but to be purely 
and absolutely mythic ; they furnish, taken by themselves, 
no unimportant argument for the truth of the religion, 
which they prove to have been propagated with such 
zeal, by persons of pure and holy lives, in spite of punish- 
ments and persecutions of the most fearful kind ; and they 
form, in combination with the argument from the historic 
accuracy of the incidental allusions, an evidence in favor of 
the substantial truth of the New Testament narrative 
which is amply sufficient to satisfy any fair mind. As they 
have been set forth fully and with admirable argumenta- 
tive skill by so popular a writer as Paley, I am content to 
make this passing allusion to them, and to refer such of 
my hearers as desire a fuller treatment of the point to the 
excellent chapter on the subject in the first part of Paley's 
Evidences. <''''> 

If an objection be raised against the assignment of very 
much weight to these testimonies of adversaries on account 
of their scant number and brevity; and if it be urged, that 
supposing the New Testament narrative to be true, we 
should have expected far more frequent and fuller notices 
of the religion and its Founder than the remains of anti- 
quity in fact furnish, if it be said (for instance) that 
Josephus ought to have related the miracles of Christ, 
and Seneca, the brother of Gallio, his doctrines; that 
tlu' observant Pausanias, the voluminous Plutarch, the 



copious Dio, tlu' exact Arrian, should have made fre* 
quent mention of Christianity in their writings, instead 
of almost wholly ignoring it ; ( 7 ) let it be considered, 
in the first place, whether the very silence of these writers 
is not a proof of the importance which in their hearts 
they assigned to Christianity, and the difficulty which 
they felt in dealing with it whether in fact it is not 
a forced and studied reticence a reticence so far from 
being indicative of ignorance that it implies only too much 
knowledge, having its origin in a feeling that it Av r as best 
to ignore what it was unpleasant to confess and impossi- 
ble to meet satisfactorily. Pausanias must certainly have 
been aware that the shrines of his beloved gods were in 
many places deserted, and that their temples were falling 
into decay, owing to the conversion of the mass of the 
people to the new religion ; we may be sure he inwardly 
mourned over this sad spirit of disaffection this madness 
(as he must have thought it) of a degenerate age ; but no 
word is suffered to escape him on the painful subject ; he 
is too jealous of his gods' honor to allow that there are any 
who dare to insult them. Like the faithful retainer of a 
falling house he covers up the shame of his masters, and 
bears his head so much the more proudly because of their 
depressed condition. Again, it is impossible that Epic- 
tetus could have been ignorant of the wonderful patience 
and constancy of the Christian martyrs, of their marked 
contempt of death and general indifference to worldly 
things he must, one would think, as a Stoic, have been 
moved with a secret admiration of those great models of 
fortitude, and if he had allowed himself to speak freely, 
could not but have made frequent reference to them. The 
one contemptuous notice, which is all that Arrian re- 
ports, ( 8 > sufficiently indicates his knowledge ; the entire 


silence, except in this passage, W upon what it so nearly 
concerned a Stoical philosopher to bring forward, can only 
be viewed as the studied avoidance of a topic which would 
have been unpalatable to his hearers, and to himself per- 
haps not wholly agreeable. The philosopher who regarded 
himself as raised by study and reflection to an exalted 
height above the level of ordinary humanity 'would not be 
altogether pleased to And that his elevation was attained 
by hundreds of common men, artisans and laborers, 
through the power of a religion which he looked on as 
mere fanaticism. Thus from different motives, from 
pride, from policy, from fear of offending the Chief of the 
state, from real attachment to the old Heathenism and ten- 
derness for it the heathen writers who witnessed the 
birth and growth of Christianity, united in a reticence, 
which causes their notices of the religion to be a very 
insufficient measure of the place which it really held in 
their thoughts and apprehensions. A large allowance is to 
be made for this studied silence in estimating the value of 
the actual testimonies to the truth of the New Testament 
narrative adducible from heathen writers of the first and 
second centuries. 0) 

And the silence of Josephus is, more plainly still, wilful 
and affected. It is quite impossible that the Jewish histo- 
rian should have been ignorant of the events which had 
drawn the eyes of so many to Judsea but a lew years 
before his own birth, and which a large and increasing sect. 
believed to possess a supernatural character. Jesus of 
Nazareth was, humanly speaking, at least as considerable a 
personage as John the Baptist, ami the circumstances of 
his life and death must have attracted at least as much 
attention. There was no good reason why Josephus, if he 
had been an honest historian, should have mentioned the 


latter and omitted the former. He had grown to manhood 
during the time that Christianity was being spread over the 
world ;( n) lie had probably witnessed the tumults excited 
against St. Paul by his enemies at Jerusalem; 1 he knew 
of the irregular proceedings against " James the Lord's 
brother ;"-'('-) lie must have been well acquainted with the 
various persecutions which the Christians had undergone 
at the hands of both Jews and heathen ;( 13 > at any rate he 
could not fail to be at least as well informed as Tacitus on 
the subject of transactions, of which his own country had 
been the scene, and which had fallen partly within his own 
lifetime. When, therefore, we find that he is absolutely 
silent concerning the Christian religion, and, if he mentions 
Christ at all, mentions him only incidentally in a single 
passage, as, "Jesus, who was called Christ," ( 14) without ap- 
pending further comment or explanation ; when we find 
this, we cannot but conclude that for some reason or other 
the Jewish historian practises an intentional reserve, and 
will not enter upon a subject which excites his fears, ( 15 ) or 
offends his prejudices. No conclusions inimical to the his- 
toric accuracy of the New Testament can reasonably be 
drawn from the silence of a writer who determinately 
avoids the subject. 

Further, in estimating the value of that direct evidence 
of adversaries to the main facts of Christianity which 
remains to us, we must not overlook the probability that 
much evidence of this kind has perished. The books of the 
early opponents of Christianity, which might have been of 
the greatest use to us for the confirmation of the Gospel 
History, ( 1C 5 were with an unwise; zeal destroyed by the first 
Christian Emperors.C 17 ! Other testimony of the greatest 
importance has perished by the ravages of time. It seems 

1 Acts xxi. 27, et seqq. ; xxii. 22, 23 ; xxiii. 10. 2 Gal. i. 19. 


certain that Pilate remitted to Tiberius an account of the 
execution of our Lord, and the grounds of it ; and that this 
document, to which Justin Martyr more than once alludes, ( 18 ) 
was deposited in the archives of the empire. The "Acts of 
Pilate," as they were called, seem to have contained an 
account, not only of the circumstances of the crucifixion, 
and the grounds upon which the Roman governor regarded 
himself as justified in passing sentence of death upon the 
accused, but also of the Miracles of Christ his cures per- 
formed upon the lame, the dumb, and the blind, his cleans- 
ing of lepers, and his raising of the dead.C 9 ) If this valua- 
ble direct testimony had been preserved to us, it would 
scarcely have been necessary to enter on the consideration 
of those indirect proofs of the historical truth of the New 
Testament narrative arising from the incidental allusions 
to the civil history of the times which must now occupy 
our attention. 

The incidental allusions to the civil history of the times 
which the writings of the Evangelists furnish, will, I think, 
be most conveniently reviewed by being grouped under 
three heads. I shall consider, first of all, such as bear upon 
the general condition of the countries which were the 
scene of the history; secondly, such as have reference to 
the civil rulers and administrators who are represented as 
exercising authority in the countries at the time of the nar- 
rative; and, thirdly, such as touch on separate and isolated 
facts which might be expected to obtain mention in profane 
writers. These three heads will embrace all the most im- 
portant of the allusions in question, and the arrangement 
of the scattered notices under them will, I hope, prove con- 
ducive to perspicuity. 

I. The political condition of Palestine at the time to 
which the New Testament narrative properly belongs, was 



one curiously complicated and anomalous ; it underwent 
frequent changes, but retained through all of them certain 
peculiarities, which made the position of the country 
unique among the dependencies of Home. Not having 
been conquered in the ordinary way, but having passed 
under the Roman dominion with the consent and by the 
assistance of a large party among the inhabitants, it was 
allowed to maintain for a while a species of semi-independ- 
ence, not unlike that of various native states in India which 
are really British dependencies. A mixture, and to some 
extent an alternation, of Roman with native power resulted 
from this arrangement, and a consequent complication in 
the political status, which must have made it very difficult 
to be thoroughly understood by any one who was not a 
native and a contemporary. The chief representative of 
the Roman power in the East the President of Syria, the 
local governor, whether a Herod or a Roman Procurator, 
and the High Priest, had each and all certain rights and a 
certain authority in the country. A double system of tax- 
ation, a double administration of justice, and even in some 
degree a double military command, were the natural conse- 
quence ; while Jewish and Roman customs, Jewish and 
Roman words, were simultaneously in use, and a condition 
of things existed full of harsh contrasts, strange mixtures, 
and abrupt transitions. "Within the space of fifty years 
Palestine was a single united kingdom under a native 
ruler, a set of principalities under native ethnarchs and 
tetrarchs, a country in part containing such principalities, 
in part reduced to the condition of a Roman province, a 
kingdom reunited once more under a native sovereign, 
and a country reduced wholly under Rome and governed 
by procurators dependent on the president of Syria, but 
still subject in certain respects to the Jewish monarch of a 


neighboring territory. These facts we know from Jose- 
phust* 20 ) and other writers, who, though less accm-ate, on 
the whole confirm his statements ;( 2l > they render the civil 
history of Judaea during the period one very difficult to 
master and remember ; the frequent changes, supervening 
upon the original complication, are a fertile source of con- 
fusion, and seem to have bewildered even the sagacious 
and painstaking Tacitus. C 22 ) The New Testament narra- 
tive, however, falls into no error in treating of the period ; 
it marks, incidentally and without effort or pretension, the 
various changes in the civil government the sole king- 
dom of Herod the Great, 1 the partition of his dominions 
among his sons, 2 the reduction of Judaea to the condition 
of a Roman province, while Galilee, Ituraea, and Trachonitis 
continued under native princes, 3 the restoration of the old 
kingdom of Palestine in the person of Agrippa the First, 4 
and the final reduction of the whole under Roman rule, 
and reestablishment of Procurators'"' as the civil heads, while 
a species of ecclesiastical superintendence was exercised 
by Agrippa the Second. 6 C 83 ) Again, the New Testament 
narrative exhibits in the most remarkable way the mixture 
in the government the occasional power of the president 
of Syria, as shown in Cyrenius's "taxing;" 7 the ordinary 
division of authority between the High Priest and the Proc- 
urator;" the existence of two separate taxations the civil 
and the ecclesiastical, the "census " J and the "didrachm;" 1 ' 

1 Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. -5. 

2 Ibid. ii. 22, and xiv. 1 ; Luke iii. 1. 

3 Luke iii. 1, et passim. * Acts xii. 1, ot soqq. 

* Ibid, xxiii. 24 ; xxiv. 27, &c. B Ibid. xxv. 14, et seqq. 

7 Luke ii. 2. Compare Acts v. 37. 

8 Matt, xxvii. 1, 2 ; Acts xxii. 30 ; xxiii. 1-10. 
"Ibid. xxii. 17. I0 Ibid. xvii. 24. 


of two tribunals, 1 two modus of capital punishment/ 34 ) two 
military forces,- two methods of marking time; 3 at every 
turn it shows, even in such little matters as verbal expres- 
sions, the coexistence of Jewish with Roman ideas and 
practices in the country a coexistence, which (it must be 
remembered) came to an end within forty years of our 
Lord's crucifixion. The conjunction in the same writings 
of such Latinisms as xevivqltov* Xeyswp, 5 7i;jtn.nbt>tot>]'' xovutui- 
dlitj xr]voo;, B xodouviyg* dr/vuytov, 10 uf/aii^io*', 11 (TTzexoukuTioo, 1 * 
yguyeXldxjag, 13 and the like/ 25 ) with such Hebraisms as 
xofjSuy, 1 * ()(tSpouv!, i5 dvo dvu, K Tiouaiul nouuiul, 1 ' 70 3diXv//Ju 

I John xviii. 28, 32, &c. Matt, xxvii. G4, Go. 3 Luke iii. 1. 

4 Lat. ce>itwio = ~E\\g. "centurion." (Mark xv. 39, 44, 45.) 

5 Lat. frjr/o = Eng. "legion." (Matt. x.wi. 53; Mark v. 9; Luke 
viii. 30.) 

c Lat. prrrtorium, translated " common hall " in Matt, xxvii. 27 ; 
"judgment hall," or "hall of judgment," in John xviii. 28, 33; 
xix. 9; Acts xxiii. 35; "palate," in Phil. i. 13; "pra-torium," in 
Mark xv. 16. 

7 Lat. custodia = Eng. "watch." (Matt, xxvii. G5, GG ; xxviii. 11.) 

8 Lat. census=~Eng. "tribute." (Matt. xvii. 25 ; xxii. 17, 19 ; Mark 
xii. 14.) 

9 Lat. quadrant =Eng. " farthing." (Matt. v. 26 ; Mark xii. 42.) 

10 Lat. denarius = Eng. "penny." (Matt, xviii. 28; xx. 2, 9, 10, 
13 ; xxii. 19 ; Mark vi. 37 ; xii. 15 ; xiv. 5 ; Luke vii. 41 ; x. 35 ; xx. 
24 ; John vi. 7 ; xii. 5 ; Rev. vi. 6.) 

II Lat. assarius = Eng. "farthing." (Matt. x. 29 ; Luke xii. 6.) 

12 Lat. sp< culator Tin, "executioner." (Mark vi. 27.) 

13 A participle of the verb (j>payi)./.ovv, formed from the Latin verb /?o<7- 
ellarc = to scourge, or from the noun fiagellum = a scourge. It is 
translated, " when he had scourged." (Matt, xxvii. 26 ; Mark xv. la.) 

14 Ileb- ISl^p = "corban." (Mark vii. 11.) 

15 Rabboni, John xx. 16, translated "Lord" in Mark x. 51. 

16 Literally, "two, two;" translated "by two and two" in Mark 
yi. 7. The repetition is a Hebraism. 

17 Literally, " onion-beds, onion-beds," that is, " in squares," like a 


77]c tQrjfHbaewg* ( 26 ) was only natural in Palestine during the 
period between Herod the Great and the destruction of 
Jerusalem, and marks the writers for Jews of that time and 
country. The memory of my hearers will add a multitude 
of instances from the Gospels and the Acts similar in their 
general character to those which have been here adduced 
indicative, that is, of the semi-Jewish, semi-Roman con- 
dition of the Holy Land at the period of the New Testa- 
ment narrative. 

The general tone and temper of the Jews at the time, 
their feelings towards the Romans and towards their neigh- 
bors, their internal divisions and sects, their confident ex- 
pectation of a deliverer, are represented by Josephus and 
other writers in a manner which very strikingly accords 
with the account incidentally given by the Evangelists. 
The extreme corruption and Avickedness, not only of the 
mass of the people, but even of the rulers and chief men, is 
asserted by Josephus in the strongest terms ;C 37 ) while at 
the same time he testilies to the existence among them of 
a species of zeal for religion a readiness to attend the 
feasts/ 28 ) a regularity in the offering of sacrifice/ 29 ) an 
almost superstitious regard for the temple, &) and a fanatic 
abhorrence of all who sought to 'change the customs which 
Moses had delivered."- The conspiracy against Herod the 
Great, when ten men bound themselves by an oath to kill 
him, and having armed themselves with short daggers, 
which they hid under their clothes, entered into the theatre 
where they expected Herod to arrive, intending if he 

garden-plot ; translated " by companies." (Mark vi. 40.) The repeti- 
tion is Hebraistic, as in the previous instance. 

1 "The abomination of desolation." (Matt. xxiv. 15; Mark xiii. 1-1.7 
Borrowed from Dan. xi. .'Jl ; xii. 11. 

2 Acts vi. 14. 


came to fall upon him and despatch him with their 
"weapons, ( 3I ) breathes the identical spirit of that against St. 
Paul, which the promptness of the chief captain Lysias 
alone frustrated. 1 Many such close resemblances have been 
pointed out. ( 3 -) We find from Josephus that there was a 
warm controversy among the Jews themselves as to the 
lawfulness of "giving tribute to Caesar ; " - ( ;t3 ) that the 
Samaritans were so hostile to such of the Galiheans as 
had their " faces set to go to Jerusalem," 3 that, on one 
occasion at least, they fell upon those who were journeying 
through their land to attend a feast, and murdered a large 
number ; ( 34 ) that the Pharisees and Sadducees were noted 
sects, distinguished by the tenets which in Scripture are 
assigned to them ; ( 3:> ) that the Pharisees were the more 
popular, and persuaded the common people as they pleased, 
while the Sadducees were important chiefly as men of high 
rank and station ; ( 3fi ) and that a general expectation, 
founded upon the prophecies of the Old Testament, existed 
.among the Jews during the Roman war, that a great king 
was about to rise up in the East, of their own race and 
country. ( 37 ) This last fact is confirmed by both Sue- 
tonius C 38 ) and Tacitus, < 39 ) and is one which even Strauss 
does not venture to dispute. ( 4 ) Important in many ways, 
it adds a final touch to that truthful portraiture of the 
Jewish people at this period of their history, which the 
Gospels and the Acts furnish a portraiture alike free 
from flattery and unfairness, less harsh on the whole than 
that of Josephus, if less favorable than that of Philo. ( 41 > 

It would be easy to point out a further agreement be- 
tween the Evangelical historians and profane writers with 
respect to the manners and customs of the Jews at this 
period. There is scarcely a matter of this kind noted in 

1 Acts xxiii. 12-31. 2 Matt. xxii. 17. 3 Luke ix. 51. 


the New Testament which may not be confirmed from 
Jewish sources, such as Josephus, Philo, and the Mishna. 
The field, however, is too extensive for our present consid- 
eration. To labor in it is the province rather of the Com- 
mentator than of the Lecturer, who cannot effectively ex- 
hibit arguments which depend for their force upon the 
accumulation of minute details. 

The points of agreement hitherto adduced have had 
reference to the Holy Land and its inhabitants. It is not, 
however, in this connection only that the accuracy of the 
Evangelical writers in their accounts of the general condi- 
tion of those countries which are the scene of their history, 
is observable. Their descriptions of the Greek and Roman 
world, so far as it comes under their cognizance, are most 
accurate. Nowhere have the character of the Athenians 
and the general appearance of Athens been more truth- 
fully and skilfully portrayed than in the few verses of the 
Acts which contain the account of St. Paul's visit. 1 The 
city "full. of idols" (xurf/(W.o;) 2 in "gold, and silver, and 
marble, graven by art and man's device,'"'' recalls the 
ni'iki; 'oi.i, fiuiuu;, oA/y Bvuu ftfot; xul <bv<i8ijuu * of Xenophon, (''-) 
the "Atheme simulachra deorum hominumque habentes, 
omni genere et materia! et artium insignia" 5 of Livy.C 43 ) 
The people "Athenians and strangers, spending their 
time in nothing else but hearing or telling of some new 
thing"" philosophizing and disputing <>n Mars' Hill and 
in the market-place, 7 glad to discuss though disinclined to 

1 Arts xvii. 15, ct scqq. ! Ibid, xvii. 1G. 3 Ibid, verse 29. 

* The whole city is an altar the whole a sacrifice to the gods and an 

5 Athens, which has famous images of gods and men, of every variety 
both of material and style of art. 

6 Acts xvii. 21. 7 Ibid, verse 17. 


believe, 1 and yet religions withal, standing in honorable 
contrast with the other Greeks in respect of* their reverence 
tor things divine,- are put before us with all the vividness 
of life, just as they present themselves to our view in the 
pages of their own historians and orators, t 44 " 1 Again, how 
striking and how thoroughly classical is the account of the 
tumult at Ephesus, 3 where almost every word receives 
illustration from ancient coins and inscriptions, ( 45 ) as lias 
been excellently shown in a recent work of great merit on 
the Life of St. Paul! Or if we turn to Rome and the 
Roman system, how truly do we find depicted the great 
and terrible Emperor whom all feared to provoke W the 
provincial administration by proconsuls and others chiefly 
anxious that tumults should be prevented C 47 " 1 the con- 
temptuous religious tolerance ( 4S ) the noble principles of 
Roman law, professed, if not always acted on, whereby 
accusers and accused were brought " face to face," and the 
latter had free "license to answer for themselves concern- 
ing the crimes laid against them" 4 ( 49 ) the privileges of 
Roman citizenship, sometimes acquired by birth, sometimes 
by purchase ( 5 ) the right of appeal possessed and exer- 
cised by the provincials ( 51 ) the treatment of prisoners < 52 ) 
the peculiar manner of chaining them ( 5:n the employ- 
ment of soldiers as their guards C 54 ) the examination by 
torture C 55 '* the punishment of condemned persons, not 
being Roman citizens, by scourging and crucifixion ( 56 ) 
the manner of this punishment C 57 " 1 the practice of bearing 
the cross, C 58 ) of affixing a title or superscription, ( 5y ) of pla- 
cing soldiers under a centurion to watch the carrying into 
effect of the sentence, ( 6t) ) of giving the garments of the 
sufferer to these pe'-sons, ( 61 > of allowing the bodies after 

i Act? wii. 39, 33. 2 Ibid, verse 22. 

* Ibw+ ~[ y . jz: 1> ot seqq. * Ibid. xxv. 16. 


death to be buried by the friends f 62 ) and the like! The 
sacred historians are as familiar, not only with the general 
character, but even with some of the obscurer customs of 
Greece and Rome, as with those of their own country. 
Fairly observant, and always faithful in their accounts, they 
continually bring before us little points which accord 
minutely with notices in profane writers nearly contem- 
porary with them, while occasionally they increase our 
knowledge of classic antiquity by touches harmonious with 
its spirit, but additional to the information which we de- 
rive from the native authorities. C 63 ) 

Again, it has been with reason remarked, ( 6, > that the 
condition of the Jews beyond the limits of Palestine is 
represented by the Evangelical writers very agreeably to 
what may be gathered of it from Jewish and Heathen 
sources. The wide dispersion of the chosen race is one of 
the facts most evident upon the surface of the New Testa- 
ment history. " Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and 
dwellers in Mesopotamia and Judaea and Cappadocia, 
Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the 
parts of Libya about Cyrene, strangers of Koine, Creted, 
and Arabians," 1 are said to have been witnesses at Jerusa- 
lem of the first outpouring of the Holy Ghost. In the 
travels of St. Paul through Asia Minor and Greece there 
is scarcely a city to which he comes hut has a large body 
of Jewish residents. C 65 ) Compare with these representa- 
tions the statements of Agrippa the First in his letter to 
Caligula, as reported by the .Jewish writer, Philo. "The 
holy city, the place of my nativity," he says, "is the 
metropolis, not of Jmhea only, but of most other countries, 
by means of the colonies which have been sent out of it 
from time to time some to the neighboring countries oi 

1 Acts ii. 9-11. 


Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria, and Coelesyria some to more dis- 
tant regions, as Pamphylia, Cilicia, Asia as far as Bithynia 
and the reeessoc 01 Pontus ; and in Europe, Thessaly, 
Boeotia, Macedonia, JEtolia, Attica, Argos, Corinth, together 
with the most famous of the islands, Eubcea, Cyprus, and 
Crete ; to say nothing of those who dwell beyond the 
Euphrates. For, excepting a small part of the Babylonian 
and other satrapies, all the countries which have a fertile 
territory possess Jewish inhabitants ; so that if thou shalt 
show this kindness to my native place, thou wilt benefit 
not one city only, but thousands in every region of the 
world, in Europe, in Asia, in Africa on the continents, 
and in the islands on the shores of the sea, and in the 
interior." ( C6 ) In a similar strain Philo himself boasts, that 
" one region does not contain the Jewish people, since it is 
exceedingly numerous ; but there are of them in almost all 
the flourishing countries of Europe and Asia, both conti- 
nental and insular." ( G ~) And the customs of these dis- 
persed Jews are accurately represented in the New Testa- 
ment. That they consisted in part of native Jews, in part 
of converts or proselytes, is evident from Josephus ; C 68 ) that 
they had places of worship, called synagogues or oratories, 
in the towns where they lived, appears from Philo ; that 
these were commonly by the sea-side, or by a river-side, as 
represented in the Acts, 1 is plain from many authors ; ( 69 > 
that they had also at least sometimes a synagogue be- 
longing to them at Jerusalem, whither they resorted at the 
time of the feasts, is certain from the Talmudical wri- 
ters ;( 7 ) that at Rome they consisted in great part of 
freedmen or "Libertines" whence "the synagogue of 
the Libertines" 2 may be gathered from Philo ( 71 ) and 
Tacitus. ( 72 ) Their feelings towards the apostolic preachers 

1 Acts xvi. 13. 2 Ibid. vi. 9. 

Lect. VIL truth of the scripture records. 195 

are such as we should expect from persons whose close 
contact with those of a different religion made them all the 
more zealous for their own ; and their tumultuous proceed- 
ings are in accordance with all that we learn from profane 
authors of the tone and temper of the Jews generally at 
this period. ( 73 ) 

II. 1 proceed now to consider the second of the three 
heads under which I proposed to collect the chief inciden- 
tal allusions to the civil history of the times contained in 
the New Testament. 

The civil governors and administrators distinctly men- 
tioned by the New Testament historians are the following 

the Roman Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius 

the Jewish kings and princes, Herod the Great, Arche- 
laus, Herod the tetrarch, (or, as he is commonly called, 
Herod Antipas,) Philip the tetrarch, Herod Agrippa the 
first, and Herod Agrippa the second the Roman gov- 
ernors, Cyrenius (or Quirinus,) Pontius Pilate, Sergius 
Paulus, Gallio, Festus, and Felix and the Greek tetrarch, 
Lysauias. It may be shown from profane sources, in 
almost every case, that these persons existed that they 
lived at the time and bore the office assigned to them 
that they were related to each other, where any relation- 
ship is stated, as Scripture declares and that the actions 
ascribed to them are either actually such as they per- 
formed, or at least in perfect harmony with what profane 
history tells us of their characters. 

With regard to the Roman Emperors, it is enough to 
remark, that Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius occur in 
their right order, that St. Luke in plaeing the commence- 
ment of our Lord's ministry in the fifteenth year of Tibe- 
rius 1 and assigning to its duration a short term probably 

11 Luke iii. 1. 


three years is in accord with Tacitus, who makes Christ 
suffer under Tiberius ( 74 > and that the birth of our Lord 
under Augustus, 1 and the accession before the second jour- 
ney of St. Paul of Claudius, 2 are in harmony with the date 
obtainable from St. Luke for the crucifixion, and sufficiently 
suit the general scheme of profane chronology, which 
places the accession of Augustus forty-four years before 
that of Tiberius, and makes Claudius reign from A. D. 41 
to A. D. 54. No very close agreement can be here exhib- 
ited on account of the deficiency of an exact chronology, 
which the Gospels share with many of the most important 
historical writings ; but at any rate the notices are accord- 
ant with one another, and present, when compared with 
the dates furnished by j^rofane writers, no difficulty of any 
real importance. ( 75 > 

The Jewish kings and princes whose names occur in the 
New Testament narrative, occupy a far more prominent 
place in it than the Roman Emperors. The Gospel narra- 
tive opens " in the days of Herod the king," 3 who, as the 
father of Archelaus, 4 may be identified with the first monarch 
of the name, the son of Antipater, the Idumaean. ( 76 > This 
monarch is known to have reigned in Palestine contempo- 
raneously with Augustus, who confirmed him in his king- 
dom, ( 77 ) and of whom he held the sovereignty till his 
decease. ( 78 ) Cunning, suspicion, and cruelty are the chief 
traits of his character as depicted in Scripture, and these 
are among his most marked characteristics in Joscphus. ( 79) 
It has been objected to the Scriptural narrative, that 
Herod would not have been likely to inquire of the Magi 
at what time they first saw the star, since he expected 
them to return and give him a full description of the 

1 Luke ii. 1-7. 2 Acts xviii. 2. 

3 Matt. ii. 1 ; Luke i. 5. * Ibid. ii. 22. 

Lect. VIL truth of the scripture records. 197 

child ; ( 80) but this keen and suspicious foresight, where his 
own interests were (as he thought) concerned, is quite in 
keeping with the representations of Josephus, who makes 
him continually distrust those with whom he has any deal- 
ings. The consistency of the massacre at Bethlehem with 
his temper and disposition is now acknowledged ;( 8] ) scepti- 
cism has nothing to urge against it except the silence 
of the Jewish writers, which is a weak argument, and one 
outweighed, in my judgment, by the testimony, albeit 
somewhat late, and perhaps inaccurate, of Macrobius. C 82 ) 

At the death of Herod the Great, his kingdom (accord- 
ing to Josephus) was divided, with the consent of Augus- 
tus, among three of his sons. Archelaus received Judaea, 
Samaria, and Idumaea, with the title of ethnarch ; Philip 
and Antipas were made tetrarchs, and received, the latter 
Galilee and Peraea, the former Trachonitis and the adjoin- 
ing regions. (^ The notices of the Evangelists are confess- 
edly in complete accordance with these statements. C 84 ) St. 
Matthew mentions the succession of Archelaus in Judaea, 
and implies that he did not reign in Galilee; 1 St. Luke 
records Philip's tetrarchy ; 2 while the tetrarchy of Antipas, 
who is designated by his family name of Herod, is dis- 
tinctly asserted by both Evangelists:' Moreover, St. Mat- 
thew implies that Archelaus bore a bad character at the 
time of his accession or soon afterwards, which is consist- 
ent with the account of Josephus, who tells us that he was 
h;ilcd by the other members of his family, C 85 ) and that 
shortly after his father's death he slew three thousand 
Jews on occasion of a tumult at Jerusalem, t 86 ) The first 
three Evangelists agree as to the character of Herod 
Antipas, which is weak rather than cruel or bloodthirsty; 
and their portraiture is granted to be "not inconsistent with 

1 Matt ii. 22. 2 Luke iii. 1. 3 Ibid. ; Matt. xiv. 1. 



his character, as gathered from other sources." ( 8? ) The 
fads of liis adultery with Herodias, the wife of one of his 
brothers, ( 88 ) and of his execution of John the Baptist for no 
crime that could be alleged against him, ^) are recorded 
by Josephus ; and though in the latter case there is some 
apparent diversity in the details, yet it is allowed that the 
different accounts may be reconciled. ( 90 ) 

The continuance of the tetrarchy of Philip beyond the 
fifteenth, and that of Antipas beyond the eighteenth of 
Tiberius, is confirmed by Josephus, ( 91 > who also shows that 
the ethnarchy of Archelaus came speedily to an end, and 
that Juda?a was then reduced to the condition of a Roman 
province, and governed for a considerable space by Procu- 
rators. C 92 ) However, after a while, the various dominions 
of Herod the Great were reunited in the person of his 
grandson, Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus and brother of 
Herodias ; who was allowed the title of king, and was in 
favor with both Caligula and Claudius. ( 93 > It cannot be 
doubted that this person is the "Herod the king "of the 
Acts, 1 whose persecution of the Church, whose impious 
pride, and whose miserable death are related at length by 
the sacred historian. My hearers are probably familiar 
with that remarkable passage of Josephus in which he 
records with less accuracy of detail than St. Luke the 
striking circumstances of this monarch's decease the 
"set day" the public assemblage the "royal dress" 
the impious flattery its complacent reception the sud- 
den judgment the excruciating disease the speedy 
death. ( 94 ) Xowhere does profane history furnish a more 
striking testimony to the substantial truth of the sacred 
narrative nowhere is the superior exactness of the latter 
over the former more conspicuous. 

1 Acts xii. 1. 


On the death of Herod Agrippa, Judaea (as Josephus 
informs us) became once more a Roman province under 
Procurators/ 95 ) but the small kingdom of Chalcis was, a 
few years later, conferred by Claudius on this Herod's son, 
Agrippa the Second, who afterwards received other terri- 
tories. W This prince is evidently the "king Agrippa" 
before whom St. Paul pleaded his cause. 1 The Bernice 
who is mentioned as accompanying him on his visit to Fes- 
tus, 2 was his sister, who lived with him and commonly 
accompanied him upon his journeys. C 97 ) Besides his sep- 
arate sovereignty, he had received from the Emperor a 
species of ecclesiastical supremacy in Judaea, where he had 
the superintendence of the temple, the direction of the 
sacred treasury, and the right of nominating the High 
Priests. t 98 ) These circumstances account sufficiently for 
his visit to Judaea, and explain the anxiety of Festus that 
lie should hear St. Paul, and St. Paul's willingness to plead 
before him. 

The Roman Procurators, Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Fes- 
tus, are prominent personages in the history of Josephus, 
where they occur in the proper chronological position, ("J 
and bear characters very agreeable to those which are 
assigned them by the sacred writers. The vacillation of 
Pilate, his timidity, and at the same time his occasional 
violence/ 100 ) the cruelty, injustice, and rapacity of Felix, ( 101 ) 
and the comparatively equitable and mild character of Fes- 
tus/ 1 * 2 ) are apparent in the Jewish historian; and have 
some sanction from other writers. C 103 ' The character of 
Gallio, proconsul of AchaiaC 1 ") and brother of the philoso- 
pher Seneca, is also in close accordance with that which 
may be gathered from the expressions of Seneca and Sta- 
tins, who speak of him as "delightful" or " charming." < los ' 

1 Acts xxv. 13, et seqq. 2 Ibid. 


Of Quirinus (or Cy renins) it is enough to say that he was 
President of Syria shortly after the deposition of Arche- 
laus, and that he was certainly sent to effect a "taxing" or 
enrolment of all persons within his province, Palestine 
included. ( 106 ) Sergius Paulus is unknown to us except 
from St. Luke's account of him; 1 hut his name is one which 
was certainly home by Romans of this period, ( 107 ) and his 
office is designated correctly. ( 108 ) 

The Greek tetrarch, Lysanias, is the only civil governor 
mentioned in the New Testament about whom there is any 
real difficulty. A Lysanias held certainly a government in 
these parts in the time of Antony ; ( 109 ) but this person was 
put to death more than thirty years before the birth of 
Christ, ( 110 ) and therefore cannot be the prince mentioned 
as ruling over Abilene thirty years after Christ's birth. It 
is argued that St. Luke " erred," being misled by the cir- 
cumstance that the region continued to be known as " the 
Abilene of Lysanias" down to the time of the second 
Agrippa.C 111 ) But, on the other hand, it is allowed that a 
second Lysanias might have existed without obtaining men- 
tion from profane writers ; ( 112 ) and the facts, that Abilene 
was in Agrippa's time connected with the name Lysanias, 
and that there is no reason to believe that it formed any 
part of the dominions of the first Lysanias, favor the view, 
that a second Lysanias, a descendant of the first, obtained 
from Augustus or Tiberius an investiture of the tract in 
question. ( 113 > 

III. It now only remains to touch briefly on a few of the 
remarkable facts in the New Testament narrative which 
might have been expected to attract the attention of pro- 
fane historians, and of which we should naturally look to 
have some record. Such facts are the "decree from Caesar 

1 Acts xiii. 7-12. 


Augustus that all the world should he taxed" 1 the "tax- 
ing" of Cyrenius'-' the preaching and death of John the 
Baptist our Lord's execution as a criminal the adultery 
of Herod Antipas the disturbances created by the impos- 
tors Theudas and Judas of Galilee 3 the death of Herod 
Agrippa the famine in the days of Claudius 4 and the 
"uproar" of the Egyptian Mho "led out into the wilderness 
four thousand men that were murderers." 5 Of these events 
almost one half have been already shown to have been 
recorded by profane writers whose works are still ex- 
tant. C 114 ) The remainder will now be considered with the 
brevity which my limits necessitate. 

It has been asserted that no "taxing of all the world" 
that is, of the whole Roman Empire took place? in the 
time of Augustus ;( 115 ) but as the opposite view is main- 
tained by Savigny( nc ) the best modern authority upon 
Roman law this assertion cannot be considered to need 
examination here. A far more important objection to St. 
Luke's statement is derived from the time at which this 
"taxing" is placed by him. Josephus mentions the exten- 
sion of the Roman census to Judaea under Cyrenius, at least 
ten years later after the removal of Archelaus,(" 7 ) and 
seems to speak of this as the first occasion on which his 
countrymen were compelled to submit to this badge of sub- 
jection. It is argued that this //tttvt have been the first 
occasion; and the words of St. Luke (it is said) "this 
taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of 
Syria" show that he intended the taxing mentioned by 
Josephus, which lie consequently misdated by a decade of 
years. ( llrt ) But the meaning of the passage in St. Luke is 
doubtful in the extreme; and it admits of several explana- 

1 Luke ii. 1. * Ibid, verso 2. 3 Arts v. 30, 37. 

4 Ibid. xi. 28. 5 Ibid. xxi. 38. 


tions which reconcile it with all that Josephus says. ( ny ) 
Perhaps the best explanation is that of Winston ( ,20 > and 
Prideaux ( 121) that the design of Augustus was first fully 
executed (Lyiveio) when Cyrenius was governor, though 
the decree went forth and the enrolment commenced ten 
years earlier. 

The taxing of Cyrenius of which St. Luke speaks in this 
passage, and to which he also alludes in the Acts, 1 is (as we 
have seen) very fully narrated by Josephus. It caused the 
rebellion mentioned in Gamaliel's speech, which was 
headed by Judas of Galilee, who "drew away much people 
after him," but " perished," all, as many as obeyed him, 
being ''dispersed.''' 12 This account harmonizes well with 
that of* Josephus, who regards the followers of Judas as 
numerous enough to constitute a sect, < 122 ) and notes their 
reappearance in the course of the last Avar with Home, by 
which it is shown that though scattered they had not 
ceased to exist. ( 123 ) 

The disturbance created by a certain Theudas, some 
time before the rebellion of Judas of Galilee, seems not to 
be mentioned by any ancient author. The identity of name 
is a very insufficient ground for assuming this impostor to 
be the same as the Theudas of Josephus, C 24 ) who raised 
troubles in the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus, about ten 
years after Gamaliel made his speech. There were, as 
Josephus says,( 125 ) "innumerable disturbances" in Judaea 
about this time ; and it is not at all improbable that within 
the space of forty years, during which a number of impos- 
tors gathered followers and led them to destruction, two 
should have borne the same name. Nor can it be consid- 
ered surprising that Josephus has passed over the earlier 
Theudas, since his followers were only four hundred, and 

1 Acts v. 37. 2 Ibid, verse 36. 


since the historian evidently omits all but the most impor- 
tant of the troubles which had afflicted his country. 

The " uproar " of the Egyptian who " led out into the 
wilderness four thousand men that were murderers," * 
is described at length by the Jewish writer, ( 126 ) the only 
noticeable difference between his account and that of St. 
Luke being that Josephus in his present text calls the 
number of this impostor's followers thirty thousand. From 
internal evidence there is reason to think that igiGfiigioi is 
a corrupt reading; ( 12 ~) but even as the text stands, it does 
not contradict St. Luke ; for the four thousand of St'. Luke 
are the number whom the impostor "led out into the wil- 
derness," while the thirty thousand of Josephus are the 
number whom he " brought from the wilderness" to attack 

The " famine in the days of Claudius " 3 is mentioned by 
several writers. Josephus tells us that it was severe in 
Palestine in the fourth year of this emperor; Dio, Tacitus, 
and Suetonius, speak of it as raging somewhat later in 
Rome itself. ( ia8 > Helena, queen of Adiabene the richest 
portion of the ancient Assyria brought relief to the Jews 
on the occasion, as St. Barnabas and St. Paul did to the 
Christians. 3 The agreement is here complete, even if the 
words of Agabus's prophecy are pressed for the scarcity 
seems to have been general throughout the Empire. 

This review imperfect. as it necessarily is will proba- 
bly be felt to suffice for our present purpose. We have 
found that the New Testament, while in its main narrative 
it treats of events with which heathen writers wire not likely 
to concern themselves, and which they could not represent, 
truly, contains inextricably interwoven with that main 
narrative a vast body of incidental allusions to the eivij 

1 Acts xxi. 38. 2 Ibid. xi. 28. 3 Ibid, verses 29, 30. 


history of the times, capable of being tested by comparison 
with the works of profane historians. We have submitted 
the greater part or at any rate a great part of these 
incidental allusions to the test of such comparison; and we 
have found, in all but some three or four cases, an entire 
and striking harmony. In no case have we met with clear 
and certain disagreement ; sometimes, but very rarely, the 
accounts are difficult to reconcile, and we may suspect 
them of real disagreement a result which ought not to 
cause us any astonishment. Profane writers are not infalli- 
ble; ahd Josephus, our chief profane authority for the time, 
has been shown, in matters where he does not come into 
any collision with the Christian Scriptures, to " teem with 
inaccuracies." ( 129 ) If in any case it should be thought that 
we must choose between Josephus and an Evangelist, 
sound criticism requires that we should prefer the latter to 
the former. Josephus is not entirely honest : he has his 
Roman masters to please, and he is prejudiced in favor of 
his own sect, the Pharisees. He has also been convicted 
of error, ( 130 > which is not the case with any Evangelist. 
His authority therefore is, in the eyes of an historical critic, 
inferior to that of the Gospel writers, and in any instance of 
contradiction, it would be necessary to disregard it. In 
fact, however, we are not reduced to this necessity. The 
Jewish writer nowhere actually contradicts our Scriptures, 
and in hundreds of instances he confirms them. It is 
evident that the entire historical framework, in which the 
Gospel picture is set, is real; that the facts of the civil his- 
tory, small and great, are true, and the personages correctly 
depicted. To suppose that there is this minute historical 
accuracy in all the accessories of the story, and that the 
story itself is mythic, is absurd ; unless we will declare the 
Apostles and their companions to have sought to palm 


upon mankind a tale which they knew to be false, and to 
have aimed at obtaining credit for their fiction by elaborate 
attention to these minutiae. From such an avowal even 
Rationalism itself would shrink; but the only alternative is 
to accept the entire history as authentic as, what the 
Church has always believed it to be, the Truth. "All 
truth is contained in the Gospel." ( 131 > " It is but just, that 
he who was worthy of the title of an Evangelist, should be 
exempt from all suspicion of either negligence or false- 
hood." ('^ "The Evangelists had perfect knowledge, . . . 
and if any one docs not yield his assent to them, he contemns 
those who were partners of the Lord, he contemns Christ 
himself, he contemns also the Father." x ( 133 ) Such has been 
the uniform teaching of the Church of Christ from the first 
and modern Rationalism has failed to show any reason 
why we should reject it. 

' " Veritas omnis in Evangelio continctur." " Ab hoc, qui Evange- 
lista esse meruit, vel negligentiae vel mendacii suspicioncm aequum est 
propulsari." Evangelistaj habuerunt perfectam agnitionem . . . qui- 
bus si quis non assentit. sprni*. quidem partieipes Domini, spcrnit c* 
ipsum Christum, sperm*, pt PV<rem." 



TRUE. JOHN VIII. 13,14. 

If the evidence from profane sources to the primary 
facts of the New Testament narrative be, as was admitted 
in the last Lecture, disappointingly scanty, the defect is 
more than made up to us by the copious abundance of 
those notices which early Christian writers have left us of 
the whole series of occurrences forming the basis of our 
Religion. It has been customary with Christian apologists 
to dwell more especially on the profane testimony, despite 
its scantiness doubtless because it has been felt that a 
certain amount of suspicion is regarded as attaching to 
those who " bear record of themselves," and that the evi- 
dence of Christian witnesses to the truth of Christianity is 
in some degree a record of this nature. But our Lord's 
words teach us that self-witness, however unconvincing to 
the adversary, may be valid and true; and certainly it 
is difficult to conceive how the full acceptance of the 
Christian facts, and conformity of the profession and life 
thereto, renders a witness unworthy of belief, whose testi- 
mony would have been regarded as of the highest value if 
he had stopped short of such acceptance, and while admit- 
ting the facts to a certain extent had remained a Heathen 



or a Jew. Had Justin Martyr, for instance, when he in- 
quired into Christianity, found the evidence for it such as 
he could resist, and lived and died a Platonic philosopher, 
instead of renouncing all for Christ and 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 sufferings of the early Christians ! 
It is difficult to see why he deserves less credit, because he 
found the evidences for the Christian doctrine so strong 
that he felt compelled to become a believer. O At any 
rate, if for controversial purposes the argument derivable 
from the testimony of Christians be viewed as weak, it 
must possess a weight for those who believe far exceeding 
that of the witness of Jews and Heathens, and must there- 
fore deserve a place in any summary that is made of the 
Historical Evidences to the truth of the Christian Religion. 
It has been sometimes urged that the early Christians 
were persons of such low rank and station, so wanting in 
refinement, education, and that critical discernment which 
is requisite to enable men fairly to judge of the claims of a 
new religion, that their decision in favor of Christianity is 
entitled to 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." 1 But such expressions are 
not to be pressed too far. In their very letter 'they do but 
declare the general condition of the converts; while they 
imply that there were, even in the first, times, some excep- 
tions persons to whom the terms, "wise men after the 
flesh, mighty, and noble," might have been properly ap- 

1 1 Cor. i. 26, 


plied; and the examples of St. Paul himself, of Dionysius 
the Areopagite, of the Ethiopian eunuch, of "Erastus the 
chamberlain of the city," 1 and of the cor <erts from " Caasar's 
household," 2 are sufficient to show th;:,t the Gospel found 
its own in every rank and grade of society, and if it waa 
embraced most readily by the poor and despised, still 
gathered to it "chosen vessels" 3 from among the educated, 
and occasionally from among the rich and great. The 
early Christians furnished, for their number, a considera- 
ble body of writers ; and these writers will bear compari- 
son in respect of every intellectual qualification with the 
best Heathen authors of the period. Justin Martyr, Athe- 
nagoras, Tertullian, Origen, Clement, would 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 Tacitus, Sue- 
tonius, and Dio. It will be my object in the present 
Lecture to show that these writers, and others of the same 
age or even earlier, bear copious witness to the facts re- 
corded in the historical books of the New Testament, and 
are plainly as convinced of their reality as of that of any 
facts whatever which they have occasion to mention. 

The Epistle ascribed to St. Barnabas by Clement of 
Alexandria ( 3 ) and Origen, W whether really the work of 
that pei - son 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 

1 Rom. xvi. 23. a Philipp. iv. 22. 3 Acts ix. 15. 


at nought and jested upon his being arrayed in a scarlet 
robe his crucifixion his receiving gall and vinegar to 
drink his death the casting of lots upon his garment 
his resurrection on the first day of the week and his 
final ascension into heaven. ( 6 > All these notices moreover 
occur in a small tract, chiefly concerned with the Old Tes- 
tament, and extending to no more than ten or twelve 
ordinary pages. 

An Epistle of St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, to the 
Corinthians, is allowed on all hands to be genuine. ( 7 ) This 
work was certainly composed in the first century, before 
some of the writings of St. John ; and its author, the 
" fellow-laborer " of St. Paul, 1 must have had frequent com- 
munication with those who had Avitnessed the great events 
in Judaaa which formed the foundation of the new religion. 
The object of the Epistle is to compose existing dissensions 
in the Corinthian Church, and its tone is from first to last 
hortatory and didactic. Historical allusions only find a 
place in it casually and incidentally. Yet it contains a 
mention of Christ's descent from Jacob, of his great power 
and regal dignity, his voluntary humiliation, his sufferings, 
the character of his teaching, his death for man, his resur- 
rection, the mission of the apostles, their inspiration by the 
Holy Ghost, their preaching in many lands, their ordination 
of elders in every city, the special eminence in the Church 
of Saints Peter and Paul, the sufferings of St. Peter, the 
hardships endured by St. Paul, his distant travels, his many 
imprisonments, his flights, his stoning, his bonds, his testi- 
mony before rulers. ( H ) The fact of St. Paul's having 
written an Epistle to the Corinthians is also asserted ; W 
and an allusion is made, in connection with that Epistle, to 
the early troubles and divisions which the great Apostle 

1 Philipp. iv. 3. 



had composed, when the several sections of the newly- 
planted Church strove together in a jealous spirit, affirming 
themselves to he "of Paul," or "of Apollos," or "of 
Cephas," or even " of Christ." 

Ignatius, second Bishop of Antioch, who succeeded to 
that see in ahout the year of the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, ( 10 ) and was martyred nearly forty years later, A. D. 
107, C 11 ) left behind him certain writings, which are quoted 
with great respect by subsequent Fathers, but the existence 
of which at the present day is questioned. Writings under 
the name of Ignatius have come down to us in various 
shapes. Three Epistles, universally regarded as spu- 
rious, ( 12 ) exist only in Latin. Twelve others are found in 
Greek, and also in two ancient Latin versions ; and of 
these, seven exist in two different forms a longer, and a 
shorter one. Most modern critics accept these seven, in 
their shorter form, as genuine. C 3 ) They are identical with 
the seven mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome/ 14 ) and they 
are thought to be free from the internal difficulties, which 
cause suspicion to attach to the longer recension, as well as 
to the Epistles which those writers do not name. Doubts 
have, however, been recently started even with respect to 
these seven. The discovery in a very ancient MS. of a 
Syriac version of three Epistles only out of the seven, 
and these three in a still briefer form than that of the 
shorter Greek recension, together with the remarkable fact 
that the few early references which we possess to the writ- 
ings of Ignatius are to passages in exactly these three 
compositions has induced some learned men of our own 
day to adopt the view, that even the shorter Greek recen- 
sion is largely interpolated, and that nothing beyond the 
three Epistles of the Syriac version can be depended upon 
as certainly written by the Antiochian Bishop. ( 15) If we 


adopt this opinion, the testimony of Ignatius to the histori- 
cal truth of the New Testament narrative will be somewhat 
scanty if we abide by the views generally prevalent be- 
fore the Syriac version was discovered, and still maintained 
since that discovery by some divines of great learning and 
excellent judgment, < 16 ) it will be as full and satisfactory as 
that borne by St. Clement. In the seven Epistles we find 
notices of the descent of Christ from David his concep- 
tion by the Holy Ghost his birth of a virgin her name, 
Mary his manifestation by a star his baptism by John 
its motive, "that he might fulfil all righteousness" 1 
his appeals to the Prophets the anointing of his head 
with ointment his sufferings and crucifixion under Pon- 
tius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch his resurrection, not 
on the Sabbath, but on the " Lord's day " the resurrec- 
tion through his power of some of the old prophets hi; 
appearance to his disciples and command to them to "han- 
dle him and see" 2 that he was not a spirit his eating and 
drinking with them after he had risen the mission of the 
Apostles their obedience to Christ their authority over 
the Church the inclusion of Saints Peter and Paul in 
their number.* 17 ) If, on the contrary, we confine ourselves 
to the Syriac version by which the entire writings of St. 
Ignatius are comprised in about five pages C 18 ) we lose the 
greater portion of these testimonies, but we still retain those 
to the birth of Christ from the Virgin Mary his manifesta- 
tion by a star his many sufferings his crucifixion and 
the apostolic mission of Saints Peter and Paul. 

Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, a disciple of St. John, and 
a younger contemporary of Ignatius, left behind him a sin- 
gle Epistle, addressed to the Philippians, which we possess 
in the original Greek, with the exception of three or four 

1 Mutt. iii. 15. 2 Luke xxiv. 3'J. 


sections, where the Greek text is wanting, and we have 
only a Latin version. ( 19 ) In this Epistle, which is a short 
composition, and, like the other remains of early Christian 
antiquity, of a hortatory character, we find allusions to the 
humble life of Christ, his ministering to those about him, 
the character of his preaching, his sufferings, death upon 
the cross, resurrection, and ascension to heaven ; his prom- 
ise to " raise up his disciples at the last day " J the suffer- 
ings of St. Paul and the other Apostles, the preaching of 
St. Paul at Philippi, and the fact of his having written an 
Epistle to the Philippians.t 20 ) We also learn from Irenams 
that this Father used to relate his conversations with St. 
John and others, who had seen the Lord, and to repeat 
what they had told him both of the teaching and miracles 
of Jesus. ( 21 > 

A work of the first or earlier half of the second century 
has come down to us under the name of "The Shepherd of 
Hennas." Eusebius and Jerome ascribe it to the Hennas 
who is saluted by St. Paul at the end of Ins Epistle to the 
Romans 5^) but there are reasons for assigning it to a later 
Hennas the brother of Pius, who was the ninth bishop 
of Rome. C 23 ) This work is an allegory on a large scale, and 
consequently cannot contain any direct historical testimony. 
Its tone is consonant with the Christian story, and it con- 
tains some allusions to the mission of the Apostles, their trav- 
els for the purpose of spreading the truth over the world, 
and the sufferings to which they were exposed in conse- 
quence;^ 4 ) but on the whole it is of little service towards 
establishing the truth of any facts. 

It was not until the Christian writers addressed them- 
selves to the world without and either undertook the task 
of refuting the adversaries of the truth, or sought by Apolo- 

1 John vi. 40. 


gies to recommend the new religion to their acceptance 
that the facts of the Christian story came naturally to oc- 
cupy a prominent place in their compositions. Quadratus, 
Bishop of Athens in the early part of the second century, 
was, so far as we know, the first to write a defence of 
Christianity addressed to the Heathen, which lie seems to 
have presented to the Emperor Adrian C 25 ' about the year 
A. D. 122. This work is unfortunately lost, but a passage 
preserved by Eusebius gives us an indication of the sort of 
evidence which it would probably have furnished in abun- 
dance. " The works of our Saviour," says Quadratus, " were 
always conspicuous, for they were real; both they which were 
healed and they which were raised from the dead ; who were 
seen not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long 
time afterwards ; not only while he dwelt on this earth, but 
also after his departure, and for a good while after it ; inso- 
much that some of them have reached to our times." ( 26 ) 

About twenty-five years after Quadratus had presented 
his "Apology" to Adrian, his younger contemporary, Jus- 
tin, produced a similar composition, which he presented to 
the first Antonine, probably about A. D. 148. < 27 ) Soon 
afterwards he published his "Dialogue with Tryphon" 
an elaborate controversial work, defensive of Christianity 
from tin; attacks of Judaism. Finally, about A. D. 165, or 
a little earlier, he wrote a second "Apology," which he pre- 
sented to Marcus Aurelius and the Roman Senate.C 28 ) It 
has been truly observed, that from the writings of this 
Father "the earliest, of whose works we possess any con- 
siderable remains" t 29 ) there "might be collected a tolera- 
bly complete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing 
with that which is delivered in our Scriptures." 1 : 30 ) Justin 
declares the marriage of Mary and Joseph their descent 
from David the miraculous conception of Christ the 


intention of Joseph to put away his wife privily the ap- 
pearance to him of an angel which forbade him the 
angelic determination of the name Jesus, with the reason 
assigned for it the journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem 
the birth of our Lord there his lying in a manger his 
circumcision the extraordinary appearance of a star 
the coming of the Wise Men their application to Herod 

their adoration and gifts the warning to them not to 
return to Herod the descent into Egypt the massacre 
of the Innocents the death of Herod and accession of 
Archelaus the return from Egypt the obscure early 
life of Christ, and his occupation as a carpenter his bap- 
tism by St. John the Baptist in Jordan the descent of 
the Spirit upon him in the form of a dove the testimony 
borne to his greatness by John his temptation by the 
devil the character of his teaching his confutation of 
his opponents his miracles his prophecies of the suffer- 
ings which should befall his disciples his changing Si- 
mon's name to Peter, and the occasion of it his naming 
the sons of Zebedee, Boanerges his triumphal entry into 
Jerusalem riding upon an ass his institution of the Eu- 
charist his singing a hymn with his disciples his visit 
to the Mount of Olives on the eve of his crucifixion, accom- 
panied by the three favored apostles, and the prayer there 
offered to the Father his silence before Pilate his being 
sent by Pilate to Herod his sufferings and crucifixion 
the mockery of those who stood by the casting of lots 
I'ov the garment the flight of the apostles the words on 
giving up the ghost the burial at eventide the resur- 
rection on the third day the appearances to the apostles 

the explanation to them of the prophecies the ascen- 
sion into heaven as they were looking on the preaching 
jf the apostles afterwards the descent of the Holy Ghost 


the conversion of the Gentiles the rapid spread of the 
Gospel through all lands. ( 31 ) No one can pretend to doubt 
but that in Justin's time the facts of the New Testament 
History were received as simple truth not only by him- 
self, but by Christians generally, in whose name his Apolo- 
gies were written and presented to the Roman Emperors. 

It is needless to carry this demonstration further, or to 
produce similar lists from Athenagoras, Tertullian, Irenaeus, 
Origen, and others. From the time of Justin the Church 
of Christ can show a series of writers, who not only exhibit 
incidentally their belief of the facts which form the basis 
of the Christian Religion, but who also testify explicitly 
to the universal reception among Christians of that narra- 
tive of the facts which we possess in the New Testament 

a narrative which, as was shown in the last Lecture, ( 32 > 
they maintain to be absolutely and in all respects true. 
Those who assert the mythic character of the New Testa- 
ment history, must admit as certain that its mythic charac- 
ter was unsuspected by the Christians of the second century, 
who received with the most entire and simple faith the 
whole mass of facts put forth in the Gospels and the Acts, 
regarding them as real and actual occurrences, and appeal- 
ing to profane history for their confirmation in various most 
important particulars. To fair and candid minds the evi- 
dence adduced from uninspired writers of the first century, 
though comparatively scanty, is (I think) sufficient to show- 
that their belief was the same as that of Christians in the 
second, and that it was just as firm and undoubting. 

The arguments hitherto adduced have been drawn from 
the literary compositions of the first ages of Christianity. 
Till recently these have been generally regarded as pre- 
senting the whole existing proof of the faith and practice of 
the early Church : and sceptics have therefore been eager to 


throw every possible doubt upon them, and to maintain 
that forgery and interpolation have so vitiated this source 
of knowledge as to render it altogether untrustworthy. C 33 ) 
The eftbrts made, weak and contemptible as they are felt 
to be by scholars and critics, have nevertheless had a cer- 
tain influence over the general tone of thought on the sub- 
ject, and have caused many to regard the early infancy of 
Christianity as a dim and shadowy cloud-land, in which 
nothing is to be seen, except a few figures of bishops and 
martyrs moving uncertainly amid the general darkness. 
Under these circumstances it is well that attention should 
be called as it has been called recently by several publi- 
cations of greater or less research C 34 ) to the monumental 
remains of early Christian times which are still extant, and 
which take us back in the most lively way to the first ages 
of the Church, exhibiting before our eyes those primitive 
communities, which Apostles founded, over which Apos- 
tolic men presided, and in which Confessors and Martyrs 
were almost as numerous as ordinary Christians. As when 
we tread the streets of Pompeii, we have the life of the old 
Pagan world brought befoi*e us with a vividness which 
makes all other representations appear dull and tame, so 
when we descend into the Catacombs of Rome we seem to 
see the struggling persecuted community, which there, "in 
dens and caves of the earth," l wrought itself a hidden 
home, whence it went forth at last conquering and to con- 
quer, triumphantly establishing itself on the ruins of the old 
religion, and bending its heathen persecutors to the yoke 
of Christ. Time was when the guiding spirits of our Church 
not only neglected the study of these precious remnants of 
an antiquity which ought to be far dearer to us than that of 
Greece or Pagan Home, of Egypt, Assyria, or Babylon 

1 Ueb. xi. 3^. 


but even ventured to speak of them with contempt, as the 
recent creations of Papal forgers, who had placed among 
the arenarice or sandpits of heathen times the pretended 
memorials of saints who were never born, and of martyrs 
who never suffered. ( 3: ') But with increased learning and 
improved candor modern Anglicanism has renounced 
this shallow and untenable theory; and it is at length 
admitted universally, alike by the Protestant and the 
Romanist, that the Catacombs themselves, their present 
contents, and the series of inscriptions which have been 
taken from them and placed in the Papal galleries, are 
genuine remains of primitive Christian antiquity, and 
exhibit to us imperfectly, no doubt, but so far as their 
evidence extends, truly the condition and belief of the 
Church of Christ in the first ages. 

For it is impossible to doubt that the Catacombs belong 
to the earliest times of Christianity. It was only during 
the ages of persecution that the Christians were content to 
hide away the memorials of their dead in gloomy galleries 
deep below the earth's surface, where i'ew eyes could ever 
rest on them. With liberty and security came the practice 
of burying within, and around, the churches, which grew 
up on all sides; and though undoubtedly the ancient burial 
places would not have been deserted all at once, since 
habit and affection would combine to prevent such disuse, 
yet still from the time of Constantine burying in the Cata- 
combs must have been on the decline, and the bulk of the 
tombs in them must be regarded as belonging to the first 
three centuries. The fixed dates obtainable from a certain 
number of the tombs confirm this view; and the style of 
ornamentation and form of the letters used in the inscrip- 
tions, are thought to be additional evidence of its cor- 



What then is the evidence of the Catacombs? In the 
first place, it is conclusive as to the vast number of the 
Christians in these early ages, when there was nothing to 
tempt men, and every thing to disincline them, towards em- 
bracing the persecuted faith. The Catacombs are calcu- 
lated to extend over nine hundred miles of streets, and to 
contain almost seven millions of graves ! ( 3C ) The Roman 
Christians, it will be remembered, are called by Tacitus " a 
vast multitude" (ingens multitudo) in the time of 
Nero ; ( 3? ) by the age of Valerian they are reckoned at one 
half the population of the city ;( 38 > but the historical records 
of the past have never been thought to indicate that their 
number approached at all near to what this calculation 
which seems fairly made ( 39 ) would indicate. Seven mil- 
lions of deaths in (say) four hundred years would, under 
ordinary circumstances, imply an average population of 
from five hundred thousand to seven hundred thousand 
an amount immensely beyond any estimate that has hith- 
erto been made of the number of Roman Christians at any 
portion of the period. Perhaps the calculation of the 
number of graves may be exaggerated, and probably the 
proportion of deaths to population was, under the peculiar 
circumstances, unusually large ; but still the evidence of 
vast numbers which the Catacombs furnish cannot wholly 
mislead ; and we may regard it as established beyond all 
reasonable doubt, that in spite of the general contempt and 
hatred, in spite of the constant ill-usage to which they were 
exposed, and the occasional "fiery trials" which proved 
them, the Christians, as early as the second century, 
formed one of the chief elements in the population of 

In the next place, the Catacombs afford proof of the 
daggers and sufferings to which the early Christians were 


exposed. Without assuming that the phials which have 
contained a red liquid, found in so many of the tombs, 
must have held blood, and that therefore they are certain 
signs of martyrdom, and without regarding the palm- 
branch as unmistakable evidence of the same t 40 ' we may 
find in the Catacombs a good deal of testimony confirma- 
tory of those writers who estimate at the highest the num- 
ber of Christians who suffered death in the great persecu- 
tions. The number of graves, if we place it at the lowest, 
compared with the highest estimate of the Christian popu- 
lation that is at all probable, would give a proportion of 
deaths to population enormously above the average a 
result which at any rate lends support to those who assert 
that in the persecutions of Aurelius, Decius, Diocletian, 
and others, vast multitudes of Christians were massacred. 
Further, the word Martyr is frequent upon the tombs ; and 
often where it is absent, the inscription otherwise shows 
that the deceased lost his life on account of his religion. < 41 > 
Sometimes the view opens on us, and we see, besides the 
individual buried, a long vista of similar sufferers as when 
one of Aurelius's victims exclaims "O unhappy times, 
in which amid our sacred rites and prayers, in the very 
caverns, we are not safe ! What is more wretched than 
our life? What more wretched than a death, when it is 
impossible to obtfin burial at the hands of friends or 
relatives? Still at the end they shine like stars in Heaven. 
A poor life is his, who has lived in Christian times !'" ( 42 ) 

Again, the Catacombs furnish a certain amount of evi- 
dence with respect to the belief of the early Christians. 

1 "O temporal infausta! quibus inter sacra et vota no in eavernis 
quidem salvari possimus. Quid miserius vita ? Sed quid miserius in 
morte, cum ab amicis et parentibus sepeliri nequeant ? Tandem ia 
ccelo coruscant ! l'arum vixit qui vixit in Christianis temporibus." 


The doctrine of the resurrection is implied or expressed on 
almost every tombstone which has been discovered. The 
Christian is not dead lie "rests" or "sleeps" lit* is not 
buried, but "deposited" in his grave ( 43 ) and he is always 
"at peace," (in pace.) The survivors do not mourn Ins loss 
despairingly, but express trust, resignation, or moderate 
grief. C 4 ) The Anchor, indicative of the Christian's " sure 
and certain hope," is a common emblem ; and the Phoenix 
and Peacock are used as more speaking signs of the Resur- 
rection. The Cross appears, though not the Crucifix ; and 
other emblems are employed, as the Dove and the Cock, 
which indicate belief in the sacred narrative as we possess 
it. There are also a certain number of pictures in the Cata- 
combs; and these represent ordinarily historical scenes 
from the Old or New Testament, treated in a uniform and 
conventional way, but clearly expressive of belief in the 
facts thus represented. The Temptation of Eve Moses 
striking the rock Noah welcoming the return of the 
Dove Elijah ascending to heaven Daniel among the 
lions Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego in the fiery 
furnace Jonah under the gourd Jonah swallowed by 
the whale and Jonah vomited out on the dry land, are 
the favorite subjects from the Old Testament; while from 
the New Testament we find the Adoration of the Wise 
Men their interview with Herod the Baptism of Christ 
by John the Baptist the healing of the Paralytic the 
turning of the water into wine the feeding of the five 
thousand the raising of Lazarus the Last Supper 
Peter walking on the sea and Pilate washing his hands 
before the people. ( 45 > St. Peter and St. Paul are also fre- 
quently represented, and St. Peter sometimes bears the Keys, 
in plain allusion to the gracious promise of his Master. 1 

1 Matt. xiv. 19. 


The parabolic teaching of our Lord is sometimes em- 
bodied by the artists, who never tire of repeating the 
type of the " Good Shepherd " and who occasionally 
represent the Sower going out to sow, and the parable of 
the Wise and Foolish Virgins. In this way indirect evi- 
dence is borne to the historic belief of the early Church, 
which does not appear to have differed at all from that of 
orthodox Christendom at the present day. 

If it be still said Why are we to believe as they? 
why are we in this enlightened nineteenth century to re- 
ceive as facts, what Greeks and Romans in an uncritical 
and credulous age accepted without inquiry, or at least 
without any searching investigation? the answer is two- 
fold. Allowing that the bulk of men in the first and second 
centuries were uncritical and credulous with respect to 
remote times, and to such tales as did not concern action 
or involve any alteration of conduct, we may remark that 
it is untrue to represent them as credulous where their 
worldly interests were at stake, or where any practical 
result was to follow upon their belief of what they heard. 
They are not found to have offered themselves a ready 
prey to impostors, or to have allowed themselves to be car- 
ried away by the arts of pretenders, where such weakness 
would have brought them into trouble. We do not find 
that Simon Magus or Apollonius of Tyana had many fol- 
lowers. When the slave Clemens gave himself out to be 
Posthumus Agrippa, though the wishes of most men must 
have been in favor of his claims, very few appear to have 
really believed in them.* 46 ) The Romans, and still more 
the Greeks, had plenty of shrewdness; and there \v:is no 
people less likely than they to accept on slight grounds a. 
religion involving such obligations as the Christian. It is 
important to bear in mind what conversion really meant in 



the early times. It meant the severing of family and social 
tics the renunciation of worldly prospects abstinence 
from all gayeties and amusements perpetual exposure to 
insults cold looks, contemptuous gestures, abusive words, 
injurious suspicions, a perpetual sense of danger, a life to 
lead which was to "die daily." 1 "The early Christians," it 
has been well said, " were separate from other men. Their 
religion snapped asunder the ties of a common intercourse. 
It called them to a new life ; it gave them new sentiments, 
hopes, and desires, a new character ; it demanded of them 
such a conscientious and steady performance of duty as 
had hardly before been conceived of; it subjected them to 
privations and insults, to uncertainty and danger ; it re- 
quired them to prepare for torments and death. Every 
day of their lives they were strongly reminded of it by 
the duties which it enforced and the sacrifices which it cost 
them."( 47 ) Before accepting such a position, we may be 
well assured that each concert scanned narrowly the evi- 
dence upon which he was invited to make a change in 
every way so momentous. When they first heard the doc- 
trine of the resurrection, the Athenians "mocked." 2 Yet 
after a while Dionysius and others "clave to Paul and be- 
lieved"' 1 surely because they found the evidence of the 
resurrection of Christ such as could not be resisted. It 
must be remembered that the prospect of his own resur- 
rection was all that the new convert had to sustain him. 
" If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most 
miserable," says St. Paul. 4 And the prospect of his own 
resurrection was bound up inseparably with the" fact of 
Christ's having risen. If Christ were not risen, preaching 
was vain, and faith was vain 5 then all who fell asleep in 

1 1 Cor. xv. 31. 2 Acts xvii. 32. 3 Ibid, verse 34. 

4 1 Cor. xv. 19. 5 Ibid, verse 14. 


Christ perished. 1 The Christian was taught to base his 
hope of a happy future for himself solely and entirely upon 
the resurrection and ascent to heaven of Jesus. Surely the 
evidence for these facts must have been thousands of times 
closely sifted by converts who could fairly demand to have 
the assurances on the point of eye-witnesses. 

Further, we must not forget that the early converts had 
a second ground of belief, besides and beyond their convic- 
tion of the honesty and trustworthiness of those who came 
forward to preach the Gospel, declaring themselves wit- 
nesses of the "mighty works" 9 which Christ had wrought, 
and preeminently of his resurrection. These preachers per- 
suaded, not merely by their evident truthfulness and sin- 
cerity, but by the miraculous powers which they wielded. 
There is good evidence that the ability to work miracles 
was not confined to the apostolic age. The bishops and 
others who pressed to see Ignatius on his way to martyr- 
dom, "expected that he would communicate to them some 
spiritual gift,"W Papias related various miracles as having 
happened in his own lifetime among others that a dead 
man had been restored to life. < 49 ) Justin Martyr declares 
very simply that in his day both men and women were 
found who possessed miraculous powers. f 505 Quadratus, the 
Apologist, is mentioned by a writer of the second century 
as exercising them.( 51 ) Irenaeus speaks of miracles as still 
common in Gaul when lie wrote, C 58 ) which was nearly at 
the close of the second century. Tertullian, Theophilus of 
Antioch, and Minucius Felix, authors of about the same 
period, are witnesses to the continuance to their day of at 
least one class of miracles. W Thus the existence of these 
powers was contemporaneous with the great spread of the 
Gospel; and it accounts for that speedy conversion of 

1 1 Cor. xv. 18. a Mark vi. 2. 


thousands upon thousands that rapid growth of the 
Church in all quarters which would be otherwise so 
astonishing. The vast number of the early converts and 
the possession of miraculous powers which are both 
asserted by the primitive writers C 54 ) have the relation of 
effect to cause, and lend countenance to one another. The 
evidence of the Catacombs, and the testimony of Pagans, 
confirm the truth of the representations made in the one 
case. Unless we hold miracles to be impossible, we cannot 
reasonably doubt them in the other. 

But the possession of miraculous powers by those who 
spread the Gospel abroad in the first ages, would alone and 
by itself prove the divinity of the Christian Religion. God 
would not have given supernatural aid to persons engaged 
in propagating a lie, nor have assisted them to palm a de- 
3eit upon the world in His name. If then there be good 
evidence of this fact if it be plain from the ecclesiastical 
writers that miracles were common in the Christian Church 
for above two centuries we have herein an argument of 
an historical character, which is of no small weight and im- 
portance, additional to that arising from the mere confirma- 
tion by early uninspired writers of the Sacred Nasrative. 
We find in their statements with respect to these contem- 
porary facts, to which they are unexceptionable witnesses, a 
further evidence of the truth of the Religion whereof they 
were 1 the ministers a further proof that Christianity was 
not of man, but of God. 

And here let me notice that in judging of the value 
which is to be attached to the testimony of the early Chris- 
tians, we should constantly bear in mind that all in will, 
and most in fact, sealed that testimony with their blood. 
If civil justice acts upon a sound principle, when it assigns 
special weight to the depositions of those who have the 


prospect of immediate death before their eyes, Christians 
must be right to value highly the witness of the first ages. 
The early converts knew that they might at any time be 
called upon to undergo death for their religion. They 
preached and taught with the sword, the cross, the beasts, 
and the stake ever before their eyes. Most of those in 
eminent positions and to this class belong almost all our 
witnesses were martyred. Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, 
Quadratus, Justin, Irenaeus, certainly suffered death on ac- 
count of their religion ; and every early writer advocating 
Christianity, by the fact of his advocacy, braved the civil 
power, and rendered himself liable to a similar fate. When 
faith is a matter of life and death, men do not lightly take 
up with the first creed which happens to hit their fancy; 
nor do they place themselves openly in the ranks of a per- 
secuted sect, unless they have well weighed the claims of 
the religion which it professes, and convinced themselves of 
its being the truth. It is clear that the early converts had 
means of ascertaining the historic accuracy of the Christian 
narrative very much beyond ourselves ; they could exam- 
ine and cross-question the witnesses compare their sev- 
eral accounts inquire how their statements were met by 
their adversaries consult Heathen documents of the time 

thoroughly and completely sift the evidence. To assume 
that they did not do so, when the issue \vas of such vast im- 
portance when, in accepting the religion, they set their 
all upon the cast, embracing as their certain portion in this 
life, shame, contempt, and ignominy, the severance of fam- 
ily ties, exclusion from all festal gatherings, loss of friends, 
loss of worldly position, loss of character, and looking 
forward to probable participation in the crueiest sufferings 

the rack, the scourge, the pincing-irons, the cross, the 
stake, the ravening beasts of the amphitheatre to assume 


this, is to deny them that average common sense and 
instinctive regard for their own interests which the mass of 
mankind possess in all times and countries to look upon 
them as under the influence of an infatuation, such as can- 
not be shown to have at any time affected large bodies 
of civilized men. If we grant to the early converts an 
average amount of sense and intellect, we must accord 
to their witness all the weight that is due to those, who, 
having ample means of investigating a matter in which 
they are deeply concerned, have done so, and determined 
it in a particular way. 

The inquiry in which we have been engaged here termi- 
nates. We have found that the historical Books of the 
New Testament are the productions of contemporaries 
and eye-witnesses that two at least of those who wrote 
lives of Christ were his close and intimate friends, while 
the account of the early Church delivered in the Acts was 
written by a companion of the Apostles that the truth 
of the narrative contained in these writings is evidenced by 
their sober, simple, and unexaggerated tone, and by their 
agreement, often undesigned, with each other that it is 
further confirmed by the incidental allusions to it which 
are found in the speeches of the Apostles and in their epis- 
tolary correspondence with their converts that its main 
facts are noticed, so far as it was to be expected that they 
would be noticed, by profane writers, while a comparison 
of its secondary or incidental facts with the civil history of 
the times, as otherwise known to us, reveals an agreement 
which is at once so multitudinous and so minute as to con- 
stitute, in the eyes of all those who are capable of weighing 
historical evidence, an overwhelming argument in proof of 
the authenticity of the whole story that the narrative 
was accepted as simple truth, soon after it was published, 


in most parts of the civilized world, and not by the vulgar 
only, but by men of education and refinement, and of good 
worldly position that it was received and believed, at the 
time when the truth of every part of it could be readily 
tested, by many hundreds of thousands, notwithstanding 
the prejudices of education, and the sacrifices which its 
acceptance involved and finally, that the sincerity of 
these persons' belief was in many cases tested in the most 
searching of all possible' ways, by persecutions of the 
crudest kind, and triumphantly stood the test so that 
the Church counted her Martyrs by thousands. We have 
further seen, that there is reason to believe that not only 
our Lord Himself and His Apostles, but many (if not most) 
of the first propagators of Christianity had the power of 
working miracles ; and that this, and this only, will account 
for the remarkable facts, which none can deny, of the rapid 
spread of the Gospel and the vast numbers of the early 
converts. All this together and it must be remembered 
that the evidence is cumulative constitutes a body of 
proof such as is seldom producible with respect to any 
events belonging to remote times; and establishes beyond 
all reasonable doubt the truth of the Christian Story. In 
no single respect if we except the fact that it is miracu- 
lous has that story a mythic character. Tt is a single 
story, told without variation, C 5 -") whereas myths are fluc- 
tuating and multiform; it is blended inextricably with the 
civil history of the times, which it every where represents 
with extraordinary accuracy, whereas myths distort or 
supersede civil history; it is full of prosaic detail, which 
myths studiously eschew; it abounds with practical instruc- 
tion of the plainest and simplest kind, whereas myths teach 
by allegory. Even in its miraculous element, it stands to 
some extent in contrast with all known mythologies 
where the marvellous lias ever a predominant character of 


grotesqueness, which is entirely absent from the New 
Testament miracles. C 56 ) Simple earnestness, fidelity, pains- 
taking accuracy, pure love of truth, are the most patent 
characteristics of the Xew Testament writers, who e\ i- 
dently deal with facts, not with fancies, and are employed 
in relating a history, not in developing an idea. They 
write " that we may know the certainty of those things " ' L 
which. were "most surely believed " 2 in their day. They 
bear record of what they have seen, 3 and assure us that 
their "testimony is true." 4 "That which they have heard, 
which they have seen with their eyes, which they have 
looked upon, which their hands have handled of the Word 
of Life, that was manifested unto them that which they 
have seen and heard " declare they unto us. 5 And such as 
were not eye-witnesses, deliver only " that which they also 
received." 6 I know not how stronger words could have 
been used to preclude the notion of that plastic growing 
myth which Strauss conceives Christianity to have been 
in Apostolic times, and to convince us of its Historic char- 
acter. And the declarations of the Sacred writers are con- 
firmed by modem research. In spite of all the efforts of 
an "audacious criticism" as ignorant as bold the truth 
of the Sacred Narrative stands firm, the stronger for the 
shocks that it has resisted; "the boundless store of truth 
and lite which for eighteen centuries has been the aliment 
of humanity" is not (as Rationalism boasts) "dissipated." ( 57 > 
God is not " divested of his grace, or man of his dignity " 
nor is the " tie between heaven and earth broken." 
The " foundation of God " the " Everlasting Gospel " 7 
still " standeth sure" 8 and every effort that is made to 
overthrow, does but more firmly establish it. 

1 Luke i. 4. 2 Ibid, verse 1. 3 John xix. 35. 

4 Ibid. xxi. 24. s 1 John i. 1-3. " 1 Cor. xv. 3. 

7 Rev. xiv. 6. 8 2 Tim. ii. 19. 




Note I., p. 26. 

Herodotus, whose easy faith would naturally lead him to accept 
the Greek myths without difficulty, still makes a marked distinction 
between Mythology and History Proper. See b. hi. ch. 122, where 
the dominion of the sea of Polycrates is spoken of as something dif- 
ferent in kind from that of the mythical Minos ; and compare a some- 
what similar distinction between the mythic and the historical in 
b. i. ch. 5, and again in b. ii. ch. 44, ad fin. A difference of the 
same kind seems to have been made by the Egyptian and Babylonian 
writers. See Lecture II., page 64. 

Note II., p. 26. 

This distinction was, I believe, first taken by George in his work 
Mi/thus und Sage ; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Enticicklung dieser 
Begriffe und ihres Verhdltnisses zum christlichen Glauben. It is adopted 
by Strauss, (Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 10 ; vol. i. pp. 41-3, Chapman's 
Translation,) who thus distinguishes the two: My thus is the crea- 
tion of a fact out of an idea ; legend the seeing of an idea in a fact, 
or arising out of it." The myth is therefore pure and absolute imagi- 
nation ; the legend has a basis of fact, but amplifies, abridges, or modi- 
fies that basis at its pleasure. De Wette thus expresses the difference : 
"The myth is an idea in a vestment of facts; the legend contains facts 
pervaded and transformed by ideas." {Einleitung in das alt. Test. 
$ 136, d.) Compare Professor Powell's Third Series of Essays, Essay 
iii. p. 340. "A myth is a doctrine expressed in a narrative form ; an 
ubstract moral or spiritual truth dramatized in action and personifica- 
tion, where the object is to enforce faith, not in the parable, but in 
the moral," 

-32 NOTES. Lect. I. 

Note III., p. 26. 

"The mission of the ancient prophets," says Gibbon, "of Moses 
and of Jesus, had been confirmed by many splendid prodigies ; and 
Mahomet was repeatedly urged by the inhabitants of Mecca and 
Medina to produce a similar evidence of his divine legation ; to call 
down from heaven the angel or the volume of his revelation, to 
create a garden in the desert, or to kindle a conflagration in the 
unbelieving city. As often as he is pressed by the demands of the 
Koreish, he involves himself in the obscure boast of vision and proph- 
ecy, appeals to the internal proofs of his doctrine, and shields him- 
self behind the Providence of God, who refuses those signs and 
wonders that would depreciate the merit of faith, and aggravate 
the guilt of infidelity. But the modest or angry tone of his apologias 
betrays his weakness and vexation; and these passages of scandal es- 
tablish beyond suspicion the integrity of the Koran. The votaries 
of Mahomet are more assured than himself of his miraculous gifts, 
and their confidence and credulity increase as they are further removed 
from the time and place of his spiritual exploits." Decline and Fall, 
>ol. v. ch. 1. p. 210. Compare with this acknowledgment on the part 
of an enemy of Christianity, the similar statements of its defenders. 
(Butler, Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. ; Paley, Evidences, Part II. ch. ix. 
3 ; White, Hampton Lectures, Sermon vi. p. 254 ; Forster, Mahome- 
tanism Unveiled, vol. i. p. 32 ; and Dr. Macbride, Mohammedan Religion 
Explained, pp. 28-9.) Ockley, a very unprejudiced writer, observes, 
that " when the impostor was called upon, as he often was, to work 
miracles in proof of his divine mission, he excused himself by various 
pretences, and appealed to the Koran as a standing miracle." (Life 
of Mohammed, pp. 65-6, Bonn's Ed.) He also remarks, that there was 
no proof of his visions or intercourse with angels beyond his own 
assertions ; and that, on the occasion of the pretended night-journey 
to heaven, Ayesha testified that he did not leave his bed. (Ibid. p. 
20, note.) 

Note IV., p. 26. 

See Butler's Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. ; Paley's Evidences, Part III. 
ch. viii. ; and Itev. 11. Michell's Bampton Lectures, Lecture iv. pp. 
121129. Dr. Stanley tersely expresses the contrast between the 

Lect. I. NOTES. I?33 

Christian and other religions in this respect, when he says of Chris- 
tianity, that it " alone, of all religions, claims to be founded not on 
fancy or feeling, but on Fact and Truth." (Sinai and Palestine, ch. 
ii. p. 155.) 

Note V., p.' 27. 

Butler's Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. p. 311. 

Note VI., p. 28. 

See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry into the Credibility of the Early Roman 
History, vol. i. Introduction, p. 2. 

Note VII., p. 28. 

M. de Pouilly's Dissertation sur Vincertitude et Vhistoire des guatre 
premiers sitcles de Rome, which was published in the ninth volume 
of the Memoires de V Acadimie des Itiscriptions, constitutes an era in 
the study of ancient history. Earlier scholars had doubted this or 
that narrative of an ancient author ; but M. de Pouilly seems to have 
been the first to "lay down with clearness and accuracy the princi- 
ples" by which the historic value of an author's accounts of early 
times is to be tested. His " Dissertation " was read in December, 
1722 ; and a second Memoir on the same subject was furnished by 
him to the Mimoires soon afterwards, and forms a part of the same 
volume. (See Sir G. C. Lewis's Inquiry, vol. i. ch. i. p. 5, note 11.) 

M. de Beaufort, who has generally been regarded as the founder 
of the modern Historical Criticism, did not publish his " Dissertation 
sur 7 incertitude des cing premiers sitcles de Vhistoire Romaine " till six- 
teen years after Pouilly, as this work first appeared at Utrecht in 
1738. His merits are recognized to some extent by Niebuhr, (Hist, 
of Rome, vol. i. pref. of 1826, p. vii. E. T. ; and Lectures on lioman 
History, vol. i. p. 148, E. T.) 

Note VIII., p. 28. 

Nicbuhr's views are most fully developed in his " Roman History," 
(first published in 1811-1812, and afterwards reprinted with large 
additions and alterations in 1827-1832,) and in his Lectures on the 


231 NOTES. LECT. I. 

History of Rome, delivered at Bonn, and published in 184G. They 
also appear in many of his Kleine Schriften, and in his Lectures on 
Ancient History, delivered at Bonn in 1826, and again in 1829-1830, 
which were published after his decease by his son. Most of these 
works have received an Engljsh dress, and are well known to stu- 

Note IX., p. 28. 

So early as 1817, Karl Otfried Muller, in a little tract, called JEgi- 
netica, gave promise of excellence as an historical critic. His Orcho- 
memts rind die Minyer soon followed, and established his reputation. He 
is perhaps best known in England by his Dorians, (published in 1824, 
and translated into English by Mr. H. Tufnell and Sir G. C. Lewis 
in 1830,) a work of great value, but not free from minor blemishes. 
(See Mr. Grote's History of Greece, vol. ii. p. 530, &c.) 

Note X., p. 28. 

Bockh is best known in England by his book on the Public Econ- 
omy of Athens, (StaatshaushaUung der Athener,) published in Berlin 
in the year 1817, and translated into English in 1828, (London, Mur- 
ray.) But his great work is the Corpus Inscriptionum Grcecarum, in 
four large folio volumes, published at Berlin between 1825 and 1832. 
In this he shows himself an historical critic of the first order. 

Note XI., p. 28. 

I refer especially to Bishop Thirlwall, Mr. Grote, Colonel Mure, 
Mr. Merivale, and Sir G. C. Lewis. The name of Dr. Arnold should 
also be mentioned as that of one to whom historical criticism in Eng- 
land owes much. 

Note XII. p. 29. 

See Colonel Mure's Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. Grote's History 
of Greece, (London, Longman, 1851 ;) and an excellent article in the 
Edinburgh Review for July, i856, (No. 211, Art. I.,) in which the 
extreme conclusions of Sir G. C. Lewis on the subject of early Roman 
History are ably combated. 

Lect. I. NOTES. 235 

Note XHL, p. 30. 

The subjoined extract from the correspondence of Niebuhr has 
been already given in the work of my immediate predecessor in the 
office of Bampton Lecturer, (see the notes to Mr. Mansel's Lectures, 
pp. 321-2 ;) but its importance is so great, that I cannot forbear to 
cite it here. " In my opinion," wrote Niebuhr in the year 1818, 
"he is not a Protestant Christian who does not receive the histor- 
ical facts of Christ's early life, in their literal acceptation, with all 
their miracles, as equally authentic with any event recorded in his- 
tory, and whose belief in them is not as firm and tranquil as his 
belief in the latter ; who has not the most absolute faith in the arti- 
cles of the Apostles' Creed, taken in their grammatical sense ; who 
does not consider every doctrine and every precept of the New Tes- 
tament as undoubted divine revelation, in the sense of the Christians 
of the first century, who knew nothing of a Theopneustia. More- 
over, a Christianity after the fashion of the modern philosophers and 
pantheists, without a personal God, without immortality, without 
human individuality, without historical faith, is no Christianity at 
all to me ; though it may be a very intellectual, very ingenious phi- 
losophy. I have often said that I do not know what to do with a 
metaphysical God, and that I will have none but the God of the 
Bible, who is heart to heart with us." l The general orthodoxy of 
Niebuhr with respect to the Old Testament History is plain from 
his Lectures on Ancient Ilistonj, (vol. i. p. 20, 37, 128, 132, &c. ;) 
though, as will be noticed hereafter, he is not always quite consist- 
ent on the point. See below, Notes XXXIV. and XXXVI. 

Note XIV., p. 31. 

Eichhorn, in his examination of the Wolfenbtlttcl Fragments, (Re- 
cension der nbrigen, noch ungedruckten Werke des WolfenbUttlischen Frag- 
mentisten, in Eichhorn's AUgemeiner Bibliothek for 1787, vol. i. parts i. 
and ii.,) was, I believe, the first to draw this comparison. "Divine 
interpositions," he argued, " must be alike admitted, or alike denied, 
in the primitive histories of all people. It was the practice of all 

' Lift and Lrttrrs of B. G. JViebuhr, vol. ii. p. 123. Compare Letter cexxxi. vol. ii. 
pp. 103-5, and Letter ccexxiz. vol. ii. p. 315. 

230 NOTES. LECT. 1, 

nations, of the Grecians as well as the Orientals, to refer every unex< 
pected or inexplicable occurrence immediately to the Deity. The sages 
of antiquity lived in continual communion with superior intelligences. 
Whilst these representations were commonly understood, in reference 
to the Hebrew legends, verbally and literally, it had been customary to 
explain similar representations in the Pagan histories by presupposing 
either deception and gross falsehood, or the misinterpretation and cor- 
ruption of tradition. But justice evidently required that Hebrew and 
Pagan history should be treated in the same way." See the summary 
of Eichhorn's views and reasonings in Strauss' s Leben Jesic, 6, (vol. 
i. pp. 15-18, E. T.) The views thus broached were further carried 
out by Gabler, Schelling, and Bauer. The last-named author re- 
marked, that "the earliest records of all nations were mythical : why 
should the writings of the Hebrews form a solitary exception ? 
whereas in point of fact a cursory glance at their sacred books proved 
that they also contain mythical elements." See his Hebraische Mytho- 
logie des alien und neuen Testaments, published in 1820. 

Note XV., p. 31. 

See the works above cited, and compare an article in Bertholdt's 
Kritische Journal, vol. v. $ 235. See also Theodore Parker's De Wette, 
vol. ii. p. 198. 

Note XVI. , p. 31. 

So Vatke (Religion des Alien Testamentes, 23, p. 289 et seqq.) and 
De Wette, Archaologie, $ 30-34. Baron Bunsen takes the same view. 
See below, Notes XXXIX. and XLIV. 

Note XVII., p. 31. 

Vatke (1. s. c.) regards the " significant names " of Saul, David, 
and Solomon, as proof of the legendary character which attaches to 
the Books of Samuel. Von Bohlen argues similarly with respect to 
the ancestors of Abraham. (Alte Indien, p. 155.) 

Note XVIII., p. 31. 

Semler, towards the close of the last century, pronounced the his- 
tories of Samson and Esther to be myths; Eichhorn, early in the 

Lect. I. NOTES. 237 

present, assigned the same character to the Mosaic accounts of the 
Creation and the Fall. (See Strauss's Introduction; Leben Jesu, vol. 
u pp. 21 and 24, E. T.) 

Note XIX. p. 32. 

" Tradition," says De Wette, " is uncritical and partial ; its tendency 
is not historical, but rather patriotic and poetical. And since the patri- 
otic sentiment is gratified by all that natters national pride, the more 
splendid, the more honorable, the more wonderful the narrative, the 
more acceptable it is ; and where tradition has left any blanks, imagina- 
tion at once steps in and Jills them up. And since," he continues, " a 
great part of the historical books of the Old Testament bears this 
stamp, it has hitherto been believed possible," &c. (Kritik der I&rael- 
itischen Geschichte, Einleitung, 10.) Compare Vater's Abhandlung 
ilber Moses nnd die Verfasser des Pentateuchs in the third volume of his 
Comment, ilber den Pentateuch, 660. 

Note XX., p. 32. 

This was the aim of the School, called technically Rationalists, in 
Germany, of which Eichhorn and Paulus were the chief leaders. See 
Eichhorn's Eink-itung in das Alte Testament, and Paulus's Commentar 
ilber das neuc Testament, and also his Ijeben Jesu, in which his views are 
more fully developed. More recently Ewald, in his Geschichte Volkes 
Israels, has composed on the same principle a complete history of the 
Jewish people. 

Note XXI., p. 32. 

See Strauss, Ijsben Jesu, $ 8, vol. i. p. 29, E. T. This same view was 
taken by De Wette, Krug, Gabler, Horst, and others. 

Note XXII., p. 32. 

An anonymous writer in Horfholdt's Journal (vol. v. 23.5) objects 
to the rationalistic method of Paulus, that it " evaporates all sacred- 
ness and divinity from the Scriptures ; " while the mythical view, of 
which he is an advocate, " leaves the substance of the narrative unas- 
sailcd," and ' accepts the whole, not indeed as true history, but as a 
sacred legend." Strauss evidently apnroves of this reasoning. (I^ben 
Jesu, 8, vol. i. p. 32, E. T.) 

238 notes. Lect. L 

Note XXITL, p. 32. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 4. The weakness of this argument 
from authority is indeed allowed by Strauss himself, who admits that 
Origcn "does not speak out freely," (p. 9,) and that "his rule was to 
retain the literal together with the allegorical sense," (p. 6) a rule 
which he only broke in "a few instances," (p. 12.) He also allows 
that "after Origen, that kind of allegory only which left the historical 
sense unimpaired was retained in the Church ; and where, subse- 
quently, a giving up of the verbal meaning is spoken of, this refers 
merely to a trope or simile," (p. 9, note 14.) It is doubtful whether 
Origen himself ever really gave up the literal and historical sense. 
That the heretics who sheltered themselves under his name (Origenists) 
did so is certain ; but they are accused of interpolating his writings. 
(See Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, b. i. ch. hi., note 1 ad fin. vol. i. 
p. 288, E. T.) 

Since the above was in type, I have observed that Professor Powell, 
relying (as it would seem) on the bold assertions of the infidel "Wool- 
ston, 1 taxes not Origen only, but the Fathers generally, with an aban- 
donment of the historical sense of Scripture. " The idea," he says, 
" of the mythic origin of the Gospel narrative had confessedly been 
applied by some writers, as Rosenmilller and Anton,. to certain portions 
of the Gospels ; and so limited, was acknoicledged to possess the sanction 
of the Fathers." {Third Scries of Essays, Essay iii. p. 338.) But the 
opposite view of Strauss is far more consonant with the facts. The 
whole subject was elaborately, and, I believe, honestly discussed in one 
of the celebrated Tracts for the Times, (Tract 89, 3 ; vol. vi. pp. 
38-70 ;) and the Fathers generally were completely exonerated from the 
false charge so commonly preferred against them. 

Note XXIV., p. 32. 

The more recent writers of the mythical School, as De Wette, 
Strauss, and Theodore Parker, assume that the mythological char- 
acter of great part of the Old Testament history is fully established. 
(See De "Wette's Einleitung in das Alt. Test. 136; Strauss, Leben 
Jesu, Einleitung, 9, et seqq. ; Theodore Parker's Enlarged Transla- 

1 Siz Discourses on the Miracles of tur Saviour, publisher! in 1727. J728. and 1729. 

LECT. I. NOTES. 289 

tion of De "Wette, vol. ii., pp. 23-7, et passim.) German orthodox 
writers bear striking witness to the effect which the repeated attacks on 
the historical character of the Old Testament narrative have had upon 
the popular belief in their country. " If," says Keil, " the scientific 
theology of the Evangelical Church is anxious to strengthen its foun- 
dations again, it must force rationalism away from the Old Testament, 
where till the present time it has planted its foot so firmly, that many 
an acute theologian has doubted whether it is possible to rescue again 
the fides hutnana et divina of the historical writings of the ancient 
covenant." (Commentar liber das Bitch Josua, Vorwort, p. ii. " Will 
daher die wissenschaftliche Theologie der evangelischen Kirche sich 
wieder fest grtlnden, so muss sie den llationalismus aus dem Alten 
Testamente verdritngen, in welchem derselbe bis jetzt so festen Fuss 
gefasst hat, dass nicht wenige tQchtige Theologen daran verzweifeln, 
die fides humana et divina der historischen Schriften des altes Bundes 
noch retten zu konnen.") And he complains that the Rationalistic 
"mode of treating the Old Testament History has been very disadvan- 
tageous to the believing theological science, inasmuch as it can now find 
no objective ground or statui- point free from uncertainty ; " (dass sie kcinen 
objectiv sichern Grund und Standpunkt gewinnen kann. Ibid. 1. c.) 

Note XXV., p. 32. 

Strauss evidently feels this difficulty, {Jjcben Jesu, Einleitung, 13 ; 
vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) He endeavors to meet it by suggesting that "the 
sun does not shine on all parts of the earth at once. There was en- 
lightenment in Italy and Greece about the time of the establishment of 
Christianity, but none in the remote Judaea, where the real nature of 
history had never even been rightly apprehended." In this there is, no 
doubt, some truth ; but Strauss forgets that, though Judaea was the 
scene of the Gospel story, the Evangelical writings were composed 
chiefly in Greece and Italy ; and he omits to notice, that being written 
in (J reek the literary language of the time they addressed them- 
selves to the enlightened circles of Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and 
Home itself, far more than to the rude provincials of Palestine. The 
miracles, too, by which Christianity was spread, were not alone those 
which occurred in Judaea ; many had been wrought in Home and in 
the various cities of Greece ; where they challenged the attention of the 
most civilized and enlightened classes. In Judaea itself, if the Jews 

240 NOTES. Lect. I. 

generally were not " enlightened," in the modern sense of the word, 
the Roman Governors, and their courts, were. And among the Jews, 
it must be remembered, the sect which had most power was that of the 
Sadducees sceptics and materialists. 

Note XXVI., p. 32. 

The subjoined passage from Strauss seems to show something of 
this feeling : " The results of the inquiry which we have now brought 
to a close, have apparently annihilated the greatest and most valuable 
part of that which the Christian has been wont to believe concerning 
his Saviour Jesus, have uprooted all the animating motives which he 
has gathered from his faith, and withered all his consolations. The 
boundless store of truth and life which for eighteen centuries has been 
the aliment of humanity, seems irretrievably dissipated ; the most sub- 
lime levelled with the dust, God divested of his grace, man of his dig- 
nity, and the tie between Heaven and Earth broken. Piety turns axcay 
icith horror from so fearful an act of desecration, and, strong in the im- 
pregnable self-evidence of its faith, pronounces that, let an audacious 
criticism attempt what it will, all which the Scriptures declare and the 
Church believes of Christ, will still subsist as eternal truth, nor needs 
one iota of it to be renounced." (Leben Jesu, 144, vol. ii;. p. 396, 
E. T.) 

Note XXVIL, p. 33. 

See Bauer's Hebraische Mythohgie des alten und neuen Testaments, 
Erstc Theil, Einleitung, 3, with Gabler's criticism of it in his Journal 
filr auserlesene theolog. Literatur, ii. 1, 58. Compare Strauss, Leben 
Jesu, { 33-43. 

Note XXVIIL, p. 33. 

Eichhorn, Einleitung in das neue Testament, 422 ; Theile, Zur Bio- 
graphie Jesu, 23. 

Note XXIX., p. 33. ' 

See the account which Strauss gives of the " Development of the 
Mythical point of view," in his Leben Jesu, 9-11. "The mythus," 
he observes, " when once admitted into the New Testament, was long 
detained at the threshold, namely, the history of the infancy of Jesus, 
every farther advance being contested. Ammon, the anonymous E. F. 

Lect. I. notes. 241 

in Henke's Magazine, and others, maintained a marked distinction be- 
tween the historical worth of the narratives of the public life and those 
of the infancy of Jesus. . . . Soon, however, some of the theologians 
who had conceded the commencement of the history to the province 
of tnythus, perceived that the conclusion, the history of the ascen- 
sion, must likewise be regarded as mythical. Thus the two extrem 
ities were cut off by the prunmg-knife of criticism," ( 11, pp. 44-5.) 
Finally the essential body of the history was assailed, and the Gos- 
pels especially the first three were "found to contain a contin- 
ually increasing number of mythi and mythical embellishments." 
(} 9, p. 86.) 

Note XXX., p. 33. 

febenJesu, 151 ; vol. iii. p. 437, E. T. 

Note XXXI., p. 34. 
Ibid. pp. 437-8. 

Note XXXII., p. 34. 

Eth. Nic. vi. 7, 4 : For it is absurd that any one should regard 
the science of politics, or prudence, as the most important, unless man 
is the noblest being in the universe." 

Note XXXIII., p. 34. 
See above, Note XIII. 

Note XXXIV., p. 35. 

Vortrttgc fiber altr Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 158-9. " Dass das Much 
Esther nicht ah ein liistorisclws zu betrachten sei, davon bin ich (iber- 
zeugt, und ich stehe nicht im Mindesten an dies hiermit offentlich 
nuszusprechen ; Vielc sind derselben Meinung. Schon die Kirchen- 
vatcr haben sic damn geplagt, und der heilige Hieronymus, wie or klar 
andeutet, in der grossten Verlogenheit befunden, wenn er es als his- 
torisch betrachten wollte. Gegenwftrtig wird Niemand die Geschichte 
in Buohe Judith fur historisch ansehen, und wedcr Ori^enes nodi 
Hieronymus haben dies gethan ; ebrit so rerhtllt es sich mit dem liuche 
Lither ; es ist ein (Jedicht fiber diese verh/tllnusc." 

242 NOTES. Lect. L 

Note XXXV., p. 35. 

On the weight of the external testimonies to the authenticity of the 
Book of Esther, see Lecture V., Note LXIX. 

Note XXXVI., p. 36. 

There is reason to suspect that Niebuhr would have surrendered the 
Book of Daniel, as well as the Book of Esther, to the assailants of 
Scripture, since he nowhere refers to it as an historical document in his 
Lectures. Such reference would have been natural in several places. 

Note XXXVII. , p. 37. 

See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i., pp. 190- 
191, E. T. 

Note XXXVIII. , p. 37. 
See the same author's Egypt, vol. i., p. 182, E. T. 

Ibid. p. 173. 
Ibid. p. 174. 
Ibid. p. 173. 
Ibid. p. 181. 
Ibid. p\ 180. 

Note XXXIX., p. 37. 

Note XL., p. 37. 

Note XLL, p. 37. 

Note XLIL, p. 37. 

Note XLIIL, p. 37. 

Note XLIV. p. 38. 
Ibid. p. 179 ; and compare p. 170. 

Note XLV., p. 38. 

German scepticism commenced with the school called the Xaturalists, 
who undertook to resolve all the Scripture miracles into natural occur- 
rences. The mythical School, which soon followed, very effectually 

Lect. I. NOTES. 243 

demolished the natural theory, and clearly demonstrated its " unnat- 
uralness." (See Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 9 and $ 12.) The 
mythical writers themselves oppose one another. Strauss frequently 
condemns the explanations of Gabler and Weisse ; and Theodore 
Parker often argues against De "SVette. That the Scripture History is 
a collection of myths, all of them are agreed ; when and how the myths 
grew up, at what time they took a written form, when they came into 
their present shape, what amount of fact they have as their basis, on 
these and all similar points, it is difficult to find two of them who hold 
the same opinion. (See below, Lecture II., Note XXXVII.) 

Note XL VI., p. 39. 

" Historical evidence," says Sir G. C. Lewis, like judicial evidence, 
is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses. Unless these wit- 
nesses had personal and immediate perception of the facts which they 
report, unless they saw and heard what they undertake to relate as 
having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all ori- 
ginal witnesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, 
it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a 
contemporary ; though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible 
witness. Unless therefore an historical account can be traced, by prob- 
able proof, to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of 
historical credibility fails." (Credibility of Early Roman History, Intro- 
duction, vol. i. p. 16.) Allowing for a little rhetorical overstating 
of the case, this is a just estimate of the primary value of the testimony 
borne by contemporaries and eye-witnesses. 

Note XL VII., p. 39. 

It is evident that an historian can rarely have witnessed one half the 
events which he puts on record. Even writers of commentaries, like 
Ca?sar and Xenophon, record many facts which they had not seen, and 
which they knew only by information from others. Ordinary histo- 
rians, who have not had the advantage of playing the chief part in the 
events which they relate, are still more indebted to inquiry. Hence 
History seems to have received its name, (iirropiu.) When the inquiry 
appears to have been carefully conducted, and the judgment of the 
writer seems sound, we give very nearly as full credence to his state- 

244 NOTES. Lect. I. 

merits founded upon inquiry, as to those of an eye-witness. We trust 
Thucydides almost as implicitly as Xenophon, and Tacitus almost as 
entirely as Csesar. Sir G. C. Lewis allows that accounts . . . derived, 
directly or indirectly, from the reports of original witnesses . . . may 
be considered as presumptively entitled to credit." (Credibility, &c, 
ch. ii. { 1 ; vol. i. p. 19. Compare p. x 25, and pp. 81-2 ; and see also 
his Met/tods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, ch. vii. 2 ; vol. 
i. pp. 181-5.) 

Note XL VIII., p. 40. 

The tendency of the modern Historical Criticism has been to dimin- 
ish greatly the value formerly attached to this sort of evidence. Mr. 
Grote in some places seems to deny it all weight. (History of Greece, 
vol. i. pp. 572-577 .) Practically, however, as Col. Mure has shown, 
(Remarks on Tiro Appendices, &c, pp. 3-6,) he admits it as sufficiently 
establishing a number of very important facts. Sir G. C. Lewis re- 
gards oral tradition as a tolerably safe guide for the general outline of 
a nation's history *' for a period reaching back nearly 150 years." 
(Credibility, &c, ch. iv. 2 ; vol. i. p. 100.) Special circumstances 
might, he thinks, give to an event a still longer hold on the popular 
memory. Among such special circumstances he notices " commemo- 
rative festivals, and other periodical observances," as in certain cases 
serving to perpetuate a true tradition of a national event, (ibid. p. 101.) 

Note XLIX., p. 40. 

The modern historical critics have not laid much stress on this head 
of evidence in their discussions of the abstract principles of their 
science ; but practically they often show their sense of its importance. 
Thus Niebuhr urges against the theory of the Etruscans being colonists 
from Lydia, the fact that it had no Lydian tradition to rest upon. 
(History of Rome, vol. i. p. 109, E. T.) Mr. Kenrick and others 
regard it as decisive of the question, whether the Phoenicians migrated 
from the Persian Gulf, that there was a double tradition in its favor, 
(Kenrick's Phoenicia, ch. iii. p. 46, et seqq.,) both the Phoenicians them- 
selves and the inhabitants of the islands lying in the Gulf agreeing as 
to the fact of the emigration. The ground of the high value of such 
evidence lies in the extreme improbability of an accidental harmony, 
and in the impossibility of collusion. 

LECT. I. NOTES. 245 

Note L., p. 41. 
Ezra i. 1 ; v. 17 ; vi. 1-12. Esther ii. 23 ; iii. 14 ; vi. 1. 

Note LI., p. 42. 
Analogy, Part II. ch. vii. p. 329. 

Note LIL, p. 42. 

Let it be ten to one that a certain fact is true upon the testimony of 
one witness, and likewise ten to one that the same fact is true upon the 
evidence of another, then it is not twenty to one that the fact is true on 
the evidence of both, but 130 to one. And the evidence to the same 
point of a third independent witness of equal credibility with the others 
would raise the probability to 1330 to one. 

Note LIII., p. 42. 

See Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13, (vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) For a com- 
plete refutation of this view "the shallowest and crudest of all the 
assumptions of unbelief " ' see the Bampton Lectures of my prede- 
cessor, Lecture VI. pp. 170-181, [Am. Ed.] 

Note LIV., p. 43. 

See Bauer's llebraische Mythologie des Alien und Xeuen Testaments, 
quoted by Strauss, Leben Jesu, 8, (vol. i. p. 25, E. T.) 

Note LV., p. 44. 

Ecclesiastical Polity, Book I., ch. 3, $ 4. "Those things which Na- 
ture is said to do, are by Divine art performed, using nature as an 
instrument ; nor is there any such art or knowledge divine in nature 
herself working, but only in the Guide of Nature's work. . . . Unto 
us there is one only guide of all agents natural, and He both the 
Creator and Worker of all in all, alone to be blessed, adored, and 
honored by all forever." Compare Dean Trench, Notes mi the Miracles 
of Lord, ch. ii. pp. 9-10. 

1 Mausel'a Ikimplon Iscturts, Lecture VI. p. 177, [Am. VA 


Note LVI., p. 45. 

Plato's Pha?do, \ 46-7. "Now when I once heard a pcr-on read- 
ing from a book, as he said, of Anaxagoras, and affirming that there 
is a mind which disposes all things, and is the cause of all, I was 
delighted with this view of the cause of things ; and it commended 
itself to my judgment, &c. Indeed, my expectations were raised to the 
highest pitch ; and having with great pains obtained the book, I im- 
proved the very first opportunity to read it, that I might know as soon 
as possible the best and the worst. But my wonderful expectations, 
() my friend, met with a woful disappointment ; for as I read on I saw 
that the man made no mention of this mind, even when he was assign- 
ing certain causes for the disposition of tilings, but assigned as causes 
air, and ether, and water, and many other absurd things." The " Ves- 
tiges of Creation," and other works of the same stamp, are the modern 
counterparts of these Anaxagorean treatises. 

Note LVII., p. 46. 

On the latter subject see Mr. J. H. Newman's Essay prefixed to a 
portion of Fleury's Ecclesiastical History, and also published in a 
separate form, (Oxford, Parker, 1843 ;) and compare the views of Dod- 
well, (Dissertat. in Irerueum, ii. 28, et seqq.,) Burton, (Ecclesiastical His- 
tory of the First Three Centuries, vol. ii. pp. .5, 230-3, &c.,) and Kaye 
(Tertullian, p. 104; Justin Martyr, p. 121.) On the supernatural ele- 
ment in Heathenism, see Mr. Newman's Arians, v eh. i. 3, pp. 87- 
91 ;) and compare Trench, Notes on the Miracle*, ch. iii. pp. 21-3 ; 
Alford's Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 164 ; Hue's Vo r jje dans la Tartar ie, 
vol. i. pp. 295-G ; and Havernick, Handbuch de> distorisch-kritischen 
Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 23, p. 244, . T 

Lect. II. NOTES. 247 


Note I., p. 51. 

See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knoxcledye of Holy 
Scriptures, ch.ii. 1 ; vol. i pp. 51-6, sixth edition; Graves, Lectures on 
the Pentateuch, Lecture I ; Havemick, Handbuch der Historisch-kritis- 
chen Einleituny in das Alte Testament, vol. i. ch. ii. \ 108 ; Stuart's 
Defence of the Old Testament Canon, 3, p. 42, &c. This fact is not 
denied by those who oppose the Mosaic authorship. (See De Wette's 
Einleituny in das Alte Testament, 163 and 164, pp. 203-5.) 

Note II., p. 51. 

The history of the controversy concerning the authorship of the Iliad 
will illustrate what is stated in the text. It cannot but be allowed that 
arguments of very considerable weight have been adduced by Wolf and 
others in disproof of the Homeric authorship. Yet the opposite be- 
lief maintains its ground in spite of them, and is regarded by the latest 
Critic as fully and finally established. (See Gladstone's Homer and the 
Homeric Aye, vol. i. pp. 3, 4.) The reason is, that the opposing argu- 
ments, though strong, are pronounced on the whole not strong enough to 
overcome the force of a unanimous tradition. 

Note III., p. 51. 

For instance, De Wette repeats the old objection of Spinoza, that the 
author of the Pentateuch cannot be Moses, since he uses the expression 
* beyond Jordan " as a dweller in Palestine would, whereas Moses 
never entered Palestine. {Einleituny, &c, \ 147, a 4.) Hut all toler- 
abb Hebraists are aware that the term 1??2 is ambiguous, and may 
mean on either side of a river. Huxtorf translates it, "rw, ultra, 
trans." (lexicon lhbraicum et Chaldaicum, p. 527, ad voc. "123? ) 
So Gesenius and others. Even De Wette admits in a note that the 
expression has the two senses ; but the objection maintains its place in 
his text notwithstanding. 

De Wette's translator and commentator, Mr. Theodore Parker, re- 
peats the objection, and amplifies it. He remarks, that in the Penta- 


teuch the expression " beyond Jordan " meanr or. the east side of 
that river," while "this side Jordan" means "to the west of that 
river." (Vol. ii. p. 41.) Apparently he is not aware that in the 
original it is one and the same expression (~C52) which has been 
rendered in the two different ways. 

Note IV., p. 51. 

Examples of interpolations, or insertions into the text by another 
hand, are, I think, the following: Gen. xxxvi. 31-9; Exod. xvi. 35-6, 
and perhaps Deut. iii. 14.) (See Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 
vol. i. p. 342, pp. 345-6, and p. 349.) The first of these cannot have 
Deen, and the others probably were not, written by Moses. They are 
supplementary notes of a similar character to the supplementary chap- 
ter of Deuteronomy, (ch. xxxiv.,) in which every commentator recog- 
nizes an addition to the original document. (Graves, vol. i. pp. 349, 
350 ; Havernick, Handbuch, &c, 134, sub fin. vol. i. p. 549; Home's 
Introduction, &c, vol. i. p. 62 ; &c.) 

The other passages, which have been regarded as interpolations, such 
as Gen. xiii. 8, xxii. 14; Deut. ii. 10-12, 20-23, iii. 9, 11, &c, 
may (I think) have all been written by Moses. Havernick (1. s. c.) 
maintains, that even the passages mentioned in the last paragraph are 
from the pen of the Lawgiver, and holds that the Pentateuch is alto- 
gether " free from interpolation " the last chapter of Deuteronomy 
alone being from another hand, and constituting an Appendix to the 
Pentateuch, or even an Introduction to Joshua. He seems to think 
that if interpolation be once admitted, all is rendered uncertain. 
" From interpolation to revision," he says, "is so short a step, espe- 
cially if we conceive of the latter according to the sense and spirit of 
the East, that we should find it impossible to oppose any barrier to the 
latter supposition, if the former could be proved." But it is our busi- 
ness to be guided not by the exigencies of controversy, but by the 
demands of Reason and Truth. It would be strange if in a book as 
old as the Pentateuch there were not some interpolations. And all 
reasonable men will readily see that a few interpolations, whether made 
by authority, or glosses which have crept in from the margin, do not 
in the slightest degree affect the genuineness of the work as a whole. 
(See Home's Introduction, vol. i. ch. ii. p. 62; Graves's Lectures, Ap- 
pendix, 1, p. 346, and pp. 355-361 ; RosenmQller's Prolegomena, 

Lect. II. notes. 249 

p. 36; Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 434, &c. ; Jahn's 
Einleitung unci Beitrtige zur Vertheid. der Aechtheit des Pentateuchs, p. 
60 ; and Fritzsche's Prufung der Grilnde, &c, p. 135.) 

Note V., p. 51. 
De Wette, Einleitung, 145 ; pp. 168, 16-9. 

Note VI., p. 51. 

Ibid. 163, p. 204. " Against the authorship by Moses the entire 
analogy of the language and literary history of the Hebrews bears wit- 
ness. ... It is folly to suppose that one man could have created in 
advance the epic-historical, the rhetorical, and the poetical styles in 
their fullest compass, and also these three departments of Hebrew liter- 
ature in their contents and spirit, and have left nothing but imitation to 
all succeeding writers." 

Note VII., p. 51. 

Hartmann, Historisch-kritische Forschungen ilber d. Bildung, &c. des 
Pentateuchs, p. 545, et alibi. Norton, Genuineness of the Gos]iels, vol. 
ii. p. 444, second edition. The objection is as old as Spinoza. (See 
his Tractatus Theologico- Politicus, eh. viii. p. 154.) 

Note VIII., p. 51. 
De Wette, Einleitung, { 144, p. 167. 

Note IX., p. 52. 

Hartmann, 1. s. c. So Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico- Politicus, eh. 
viii. pp. 154-5. 

Note X., p. 52. 

I*ben Jesu, Einleitung, 13, vol. i. p. 60, E. T. The genuineness 
of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, which contains so many refer- 
ences to miracles, 1 is specially acknowledged, 140; vol. vii. p. 367, 
E. T. 

1 See especially ch. xii. verses 9, 10, and 28-30, ch. xiv. 2, 5, 6, 13, Ac, and cli. xv. 3. 

250 NOTES. Lect. II. 

Note XI., p. 52. 

Strauss allows, though with evident reluctance, that the Acts are, or 
at least may be, the work of St. Luke {Leben Jesu, 13, vol. i. p. 60, 
E. T.) He regards it as "not a little remarkable, that the author 
makes no distinct allusion to his connection with the most distin- 
guished of the Apostles." It is certainly very remarkable how com- 
pletely St. Luke keeps himself, and his own actions, in the back- 
ground, while engaged in recording the history of events in which he 
himself took part. But this reticence is a feature of that humility 
which characterizes the Sacred Writers generally. 

Note XII., p. 52. 

It was the existence of considerable remains of Greek literature, ear- 
lier in date than the latter half of the sixth century B. C and an exact 
acquaintance with it, which enabled Bentley so thoroughly to establish 
the spuriousness of the alleged Epistles of Phalaris. In the Homeric 
controversy, on the other hand, the want of any contemporary litera- 
ture has rendered the argument, that a single man in such early times 
could not possibly have composed both the Iliad and the Odyssey, so 
weak and inconclusive that the opposite opinion still maintains its 
ground, and on the whole seems tending to become the estabbshed 
one. (See above, Note II.) 

Note XHL, p. 52. 

The only remains of ancient literature which are even supposed to 
reach as high as the age of Moses, are certain Hieratic Papyri found in 
Egypt, belonging to the nineteenth or even to earlier dynasties. Two 
of these have been translated by the Vicomte de Rouge, 1 and several 
others by the Rev. J. D. Heath. 2 But it is very doubtful whether 
these translations give much real insight into the originals. As Mr. 
Goodwin observes, {Cambridge Essays, 1858, p. 229,) "Egyptian phi- 
lology is yet in its infancy. Champollion got little farther than the 
accidence of the language ; and since his time not much has been done 

l See the Rerue Jlrcheolosrique for May 1852. anil the Rtvut Contcmporaine for 185& 
* The Exoiiuj Papyri, London, 1835. 

LECT. II. NOTES. 2.">1 

in the investigation of the syntax. . . . With an incomplete knowledge 
of the syntax, and a slender vocabulary, translation becomes guesswork, 
and the misconception of a single word or phrase may completely con- 
found the sense." Hence Mr. Goodwin and Mr. Heath often differ as 
to the entire subject and bearing of a document. (See Mr. Goodwin's 
Essay, pp. 249, 259, 261, &c.) 

Note XIV., p. 53. 

The antiquity of the diction of the Pentateuch has been denied by 
some critics, 1 among others by Gesenius. (See his Geschichte der 
llebrdisehen Sprache unci Sc/irift, 8.) But Jahn seems to have estab- 
lished the point beyond any real controversy. (See Jahn's contribu- 
tions to Bengel'a Archiv., vol. ii. p. 578, et seqq. ; vol. iii. p. 168, et 
seqq. Compare Fritzsche, Prufung der Grtlnde, Sec, p. 104. et seqq. ; 
and see also Marsh's Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, p. 6, et 
seqq. ; and Stuart's History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, 
pp. 12-13.) At least De Wette, writing after both Jahn and Gese- 
nius, is constrained to admit that archaisms exist in considerable num- 
ber, and has to account for them by supposing that they were adopted 
from the ancient documents of which the Compiler, who lived later 
than Solomon, made use. (Einleitung, 157. See also 163, where 
he allows that the linguistic, as distinct from the literary argument, 
against the Mosaic authorship, is weak.) 

Note XV., p. 53. 

This is abundantly shown by Ilavernich, (Handluch, &c, $ 136 ; 
pp. 554-564.) 

Note XVI., p. 53. 

See Lecture III., pp. 80 and 81. 

Note XVII., p. 53. 

Mr. Norton is the writer who in recent times has urged this point 
with the greatest distinctness, and has given it the most prominent 

1 Vater, Jlblinndlung ilber Moses. Sec \ 393; Norton, Authenticity of Ute Gospels, 
Vol. ii. pp. 441, 442. 

2/>2 NOTES. LECT. II. 

position. In Ins section, headed " Some general considerations re- 
specting the Authorship of the Pentateuch," he begins his argument 
against the genuineness with this objection. Moses, he says, lived 
probably in the fifteenth century before Christ ; certainly not much 
later. " There is no satisfactory evidence that alphabetical writing was 
known at this time. If known to others, it is improbable that it was 
known to the Hebrews. They could not, during their residence in Egypt, 
have learnt alphabetical writing from the Egyptians ; for the mode of 
representing ideas to the eye, which the Egyptians employed till a 
period long subsequent, was widely(?) different from the alphabetical 
writing of the Hebrews. If they were acquainted with the art, they 
must have brought it with them into the country. But we can hardly 
suppose that it was invented, or acquired except by tradition, in the 
family of Isaac, or in that of Jacob before his residence in Egypt, en- 
gagt-d as they both were in agriculture and the care of cattle. We 
must then go back, to Abraham at least for what traditionary knowl- 
edge of it his descendants in Egypt may be supposed to have possessed. 
But it would be idle to argue against the supposition that alphabetical writ- 
ing was known in the time of Abraham." ' 

That writing was unknown to the Hebrews till the time of the 
Judges, was, at one period of their lives, maintained by Gescnius and 
l)e Wette. (See Gesenius, Geschichte der HebrOischen Sprache und 
Schrift, 140, et seqq., and De Wette's Archdologie, 277.) Both, 
however, saw reason to change their opinion, and admitted subse- 
quently that it must have dated at least from Moses. See Gesenius' 
Hebrew Grammar, Excursus I. p. 290, (English Translation, 13th edi- 
tion,) and De Wette's Einleitung, 12, p. 13. The bulk of modern 
German critics, whether rationalist or orthodox, acquiesce in this latter 
opinion. See Ewald, Geschichte Volkes Israel, pp. 64-69, Von Een- 
gerke, Kttnaan, p. xxxv., Havernick, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 
{ 44, &c. ; and compare the American writer, Stuart, Old Testament 
Canon, $ 3, pp. 40, 41. 

Note XVIIL, p. 53. 

See the statements of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in the author's He- 
rodotus, vol. ii. p. 311, and pp. 43-4. The date assigned to the 
fourth dynasty rests upon the same authority. 

1 Genuine/tens of the OospeU; vol. ii., Appendix, Note D., $ 3 ; pp. 43*-441. 

Lect. IL notes. 253 

Note XIX., p. 53. 

Sir Henry Rawlinson regards the earliest inscribed bricks in the 
Babylonian series as dating from about B. C. 2200. (See the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 435 and 440O 

Note XX., p. 53. 

See "Wilkinson's statements on this subject in the author's Herodotus, 
Vol. i. pp. 306, 321, &c. He regards the hieratic character as having 
come into use " at least as early as the 9th dynasty," (p. 306,) which 
he places about B. C. 2240. A considerable number of hieratic papyri 
belonging to the 19th dynasty, and one or two of a still earlier date, 
arc now in the British Museum. (See Cambridge Essays for 1858, pp. 
229, 230.) 

Some writers urge, that the Jews could not have learnt alphabetic 
writing from the Egyptians, since " the mode of representing ideas to 
the eye, which the Egyptians employed till a period long subsequent, 
was widely different from the alphabetical writing of the Hebrews." 
(Norton, 1. s. c. Compare Havernick, Einleitung, 42-43.) But the 
difference was really not very great. It is a mistake to suppose that 
the Egyptian writing was, except to a small extent, symbolical. Both 
in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic, as a general rvde, the words are 
spelt phonetically first, and are then followed by a symbol or symbol, 
(Sec Mr. Goodwin's Essay, p. 227, and compare Wilkinson, Herodotus, 
vol. ii. p. 317.) 

Note XXI., p. 53. 

Ur, or Hur (-i^s). the modern Mugheir, has furnished some of the 
most ancient of the Babylonian inscriptions. (See the author's He- 
rodotus, vol. i. p. 435 ; and compare Loftus's Chald&a and Susiana, eh. 
xii. p. 130.) It seems to have been the primeval capital of Chaldiea. 
The inscriptions, which arc either on bricks or on clay cylinders, and 
which are somewhat rudely executed, have been assigned to about the 
22d century before Christ, (see the Herodotus, vol. i. p. 440,) which is 
at least three centuries before Abraham. 

Attempts have sometimes been made to determine the questions, 
whence exactly and when exactly the Hebrews obtained their alpha- 

254 NOTES. Lect. II. 

bctic system. (See Havernick's Einleitung, 44.) It k consider- 
ably different both from that of Egypt and that of Babylon, -while 
it is almost identieal with that of Phoenicia ; whence it is inferred 
that the Hebrews learnt it from the Phoenicians. Of this, how- 
ever, there is no evidence, since the Phoenicians may equally as well 
have learnt of them. (See the statement of Eupolemus, quoted in 
Note XXV.) The probability seems to be, that the family of Abraham 
brought an alphabetic system from Ur, which may have been modified 
in Canaan and again in Egypt, 1 and which may not have assumed a 
settled shape until the writings of Moses fixed it for after ages. The 
system which they brought may have been either originally common to 
them with the Aramaic, Phoenician, and other cognate races ; or it may 
have gradually spread from them to those people. 

Note XXII. , p. -54. 

Hecatreus of Abdera lived in the fourth century before Christ. 
He was a friend of Alexander the Great, and wrote a work upon 
the history and religious antiquities of the Jews. The following is 
his testimony to Moses : 

"When in ancient times Egypt was visited with a pestilence, 
most of the people referred the cause of the calamity to the divinity. 
For since many foreigners and strangers dwelt in the country, who 
used diverse customs in regard to rites and sacrifices, it came to pass 
that the worship of the gods was very much neglected among them. 
Therefore the native inhabitants of the country conceived the idea, 
that there would be no end to their calamities, unless they should 
rid themselves of the foreigners. They accordingly banished them 
without delay. The most illustrious and energetic of them betook 
themselves, as some say, into Greece ; . . . but the mass of th& 
people fled into what is now called Judea, a country which is mtu- 
ated not far from Egypt, and which was at that time nothing bu) 
a desert. The colony was led by a man named Moses, who was dis- 
tinguished for his great prudence and courage. This man, having 
taken possession of the country, founded, among otner cities, that 
one called Jerusalem, which is now very celebrated. He built also 

1 It seems scarcely possible that the resemblance between the Hebrew shin and the 
Ejyptian A can be accidental. A fainter similarity may be traced in some other 


the temple which is so greatly honored by them, and appointed the 
sacred rites in honor of the divinity, and organized and regulated 
their civil affairs." After giving an account of the chief points of the 
law, Hecatams adds, "It is also written at the end of the laws, that 
Moses heard these things from God, and spake them to the Jews." 
(See the fragments of Hecataeus in Mons. C. Mailer's Fragmenta RiS' 
toricoruni Urcecorum, vol. ii. p. 392, Fr. 13.) 

Note XXIII., p. 54. 

Manetho, the Egyptian, was also contemporary with Alexander, 
and wrote his Egyptian History under the first Ptolemy. His words, 
as reported by Josephus, are, " Now it is said that their state was 
organized, and their laws established by a priest, a Heliopolitan by 
birth, named Osarsiph, from Osiris, a god who was worshipped in 
Heliopolis ; and that when he joined himself to this people, his name 
was changed, and he was called Moses." (Fragmenta Hist. Grcec. vol. 
ii. p. 580, Fr. 54.) 

Note XXIV., p. 54. 

Lysimachus of Alexandria, a writer (probably) of the Augustan age, 
abused Moses and his laws. See Josephus, (contr. Apion. ii. 14 :) 
"Lysimachus and some others, partly through ignorance, but more 
from ill-will, have discoursed concerning our lawgiver, Moses, and 
concerning his laws, in a manner which is neither just nor true, 
calumniating him as a juggler and impostor, and affirming that his 
laws teach us lessons of vice, and not of virtue." 

Note XXV., p. 54. 

Eupolemus is by some thought to have been a Jew ; but the liber- 
ties which he takes with Scripture seem to mark him for a heathen. 
Josephus evidently considers him such, since he couples him with 
Demetrius Phalereus, and speaks of him as unable to follow exactly 
the sense of the Jewish Scriptures. (Contr. Apion. i. 23.) Ho lived 
m the latter half of the second century before Christ, and wrote n 
rt-ork in Greek on the history of the Jews, which was largely quoted 
Ny Alexander Polyhistor, the contemporary of Sylla. (See Eusebiu* 

256 NOTES. Lect. II. 

Prtrparatio Evangelica, vol. ii. pp. 370-3, 394, 423-433, &c") Polyhistor 
thus reported his testimony concerning Moses : 

" Eupolemus says that Moses was the first wise man, and that he 
first taught the Jews letters ; that the Phoenicians received them 
from the Jews, and the Greeks from the Phoenicians ; and also that 
Moses was the first who wrote laws for the Jews." {Fragmenta Hist. 
Grac. vol. ii. p. 220, Fr. 13.) 

Note XXVI., p. 54. 

Histor. T. 4 : " Moses, in order that he might firmly attach the people 
to himself for the time to come, gave them new rites, contrary to those 
of the rest of mankind." 

Note XXVII., p. 54. 

" Some, having descended from a father who reverenced the Sabbaths, 
worship nothing but the clouds and the divinity of heaven, and think 
that the swine's flesh, from which their father abstained, is no dif- 
ferent from human flesh. Besides, they also remove the foreskin. 
And they are accustomed to despise the Roman laws, while they 
commit to memory, and observe and reverence, the Jewish law, 
whatever it be, which Moses delivered to them in a secret volume." 
Satir. xiv. 9-1026. 

Note XXVIII., p. 54. 

Longinus does not mention Moses by name, but it cannot be doubted 
that he intends him in the famous passage where he speaks of " the 
Jewish legislator " as a person historically known, and as the writer 
of Genesis. "Thus also the legislator of the Jews, who was no ordi- 
nary man, since he worthily comprehended and declared the power 
of the gods, writing thus at the very introduction to his laws, says, 
And God said ' what ? ' Let the light be ; and it was ; let the earth 
be ; and it was.' " De Sublimitate, 9. 

Note XXIX., p. 54. 

Hecatseus, Eupolemus, Juvenal, and Longinus. See above, Notes 
XXII., XXV., XXVIL, and XXVTIL Nicolas of Damascus may be 
added as a witness to the composition of the Pentateuch by Moses. 

Lect. II. NOTES. 257 

Speaking of a certain man as saved in the Ark at the time of the 
Great Deluge, he says, "This may also have been he whose history 
is narrated by Moses, the lawgiver of the Jews." (See Josephus, Antiq. 
Jud. i. 3, 6.) 

Note XXX., p. 54. 

According to some writers, Hellanicus, the contemporary of Herodo- 
t*us, mentioned Moses. (Justin Martyr, Cohortatio ad Gentes, 8, p. 
13, D. "Those who have written the annals of the Athenians, Hellan- 
icus, and Philochorus, the Atthidae, Castor, and Thallus, and Alexander 
Polyhistor, . . have mentioned Moses as a very early and ancient 
ruler of the Jews." Cyrillus Alexandrinus, Contra Julianum, i. p. 15, D, 
"Now that Moses was well known to the Greek historians, may be 
easily seen, from those things which they have written. For Pole- 
mon has mentioned him in the first book of his Grecian History, 
and Ptolemy the Mendesian, 1 and also Hellanicus, and Philochorus, and 
Castor, and others besides these.") As he wrote a work entitled Con- 
cerning the Nations, or Barbaric Customs, there is no improbability 
in this statement. It is less easy to see what could have led Philocho- 
rus (B. C. 300) to speak of him, but we are scarcely entitled on this 
ground to pronounce (as Mons. C. Muller does, Fr. Hist. Gr. vol. i. p. 
385) that Justin misunderstood his author, rolemon of Ilium (ab. 
B. C. 200) seems to have spoken of Moses leading the Israelites out 
wf Egypt. (Africanus ap. Euseb. Pr<pp. Ev. x. 10; vol. ii. p. 512: 
"Now some of the Greeks also relate, that Moses lived at the same 
time. Polemon, in the first book of his Grecian History, says, ' In the 
reign of Apis, the son of Phoroneus, a division of the army of the 
Egyptians deserted Egypt, and settled in what is called Syrian Palestine, 
iv-jt far from Arabia ; these were they who were with Moses.' " Comp. 
Cyril. Alex. 1. s. c. ; Justin Martyr, Cohort, ad Centex, p. 11 ; Syncellus, 
vol. i. p. 116.) Apollonius Molo, Cicero's instructor in rhetoric, (about 
B. C. 80) called Moses a juggler and an impostor, and gave r. very in- 
correct account of his legislation. (Josephus, Contra Apionem, ii. 14. 
Vide supra, note 24.) Trogus Pompcius (ab. B. C. 20) spoke of him 
at some length, but he did not give his readers very correct infor- 
mation, if we may judge by the epitome of Justin. Justin says, " His 

1 MendoR was a city of Kgypt, situated in the Delta. It gave its name to one of tin 
souths of the Nile. 


258 NOTES. Lect. 1L 

son (i. e. Joseph's) was Moses, who, besides inheriting his father's 
knowledge, was recommended also by the beauty of his person. But 
the Egyptians, when they were suffering from the itch and tetter, in 
obedience to the response of an oracle, in order that the disease might 
not become general, drove him, together with those affected by the 
disease, out of the Egyptian territory. Being made therefore the 
leader of the exiles, he carried off by stealth the sacred images of 
the Egyptians. The Egyptians attempted to recover these by force, 
but were compelled by storms to return home. Moses, therefore, seek- 
ing again his ancient country Damascus, took possession of Mount 
Sinai. When he came thither at length, with his people, wearied 
with a seven days' journey through the desert of Arabia without food, 
he consecrated as a day of perpetual fasting the seventh day, called, in 
the language of that people, Sabbath, because that day had put an end 
to their famine and their wanderings. . . . After Moses his son Aruas, 
who had been a priest of the Egyptian worship, was next made king." 
(Hist, xxxvi. 2.) The Egyptian historians Apion, (B. C. 30,) Cseremon 
(A. D. 50,) and Ptolemy of Mendes the last an author of uncertain 
date, probably of the first century after Christ noticed the fact of 
his leading the Jews out of Egypt. (See Tatian, Oratio adversus 
Gracos, 37, p. 273: "Now there are accurate records of the Egyp- 
tian chronicles. And Ptolemy, who was an interpreter of their litera- 
ture, not the king of that name, but the priest of Mendes, in set- 
ting forth the acts of their kings, says that in the time of Amosis, king 
of Egypt, the Jews marched out of Egypt, and went into whatsoever 
countries they chose, under the command of Moses." Compare Clem. 
Alex. Sr'.romata, i. p. 379 ; Cyril. Alex. 1. s. c. ; Euseb. Prerp. Ev. x. 
11 ; vol. ii. p. 519, &c. And for the testimonies of Chperemon and 
Apion, which will be adduced in Note LXXXL, 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 freed- 
man of Tiberius. (Sec the passages from Justin Martyr and Cyril 
quoted at the beginning of this note.) Numenius, the Pythagorean 
philosopher, who lived in the age of the Antonines, called Moses " a 
man very powerful with God through prayer," and mentioned his 
contest with the Egyptian magicians, Jannes and Jambres. (Sec 
Euseb. Prtrp. Ev. ix. 8; vol. ii. p. 358: "Afterwards, at the time 
when the Jews were driven out of Egypt, there nourished Jannes 

Lect. 1L notes. 259 

and Jambres, the Egyptian sacred scribes, men who were reputed 
inferior to none in magical arts. These were the persons who were 
judged worthy by the Egyptian populace to withstand even Mousaeus, 
the leader of the Jews, a man who was very powerful with God in 
prayer ; and they were found able to remove the heaviest of the calam- 
ities which Mousaeus brought upon Egypt.") (Compare Pliny, Hist. 
Nat., xxx. 1, 2.) Nicolas of Damascus also mentioned Moses, and 
called him " the Jewish lawgiver." (See the passage quoted in 
Note XXIX.) 

Note XXXI., p. 54. 

The only classical writer, so far as I am aware, who expresses any 
doubt with respect to the Mosaic origin of the Jewish law is Strabo, a 
very untrustworthy authority in the field of ancient history. Strabo 
ascribes the establishment of Monotheism and of the moral law to 
Moses, but believes the ceremonial law to have been added by his suc- 
cessor. (Geographica, xvi. 2, $ 35-37 : " For Moses, one of the Egyptian 
priests, dissatisfied with the established order of things, made great in- 
novations in every direction ; and many of those who honored the divin- 
ity joined his secession. Now this man said and taught that the Egyp- 
tians, and likewise the Libyans, were in error in likening the divinity to 
beasts and cattle. He also censured the Greeks as well, for represent- 
ing their gods in human form. For he maintained that God was 
nothing else but that which comprehends us all, and the earth and the 
sea that which we are wont to call heaven, and the world, and the 
nature of things ; and that those who live virtuously and justly may 
always expect good gifts from God, and tokens of his favor ; but that 
others could have no such expectation. Thus this man became popu- 
lar, and established his authority very firmly ; for all those who were 
about him were easily induced, by his personal influence, and by the 
benefits proposed, to fall in with his views. Now those who came 
after him continued for a time in the same course, practising justice 
and showing true piety ; but afterwards there were introduced into the 
priesthood, first superstitious, and then tyrannical men. The former 
established the prohibitions from food, which they arc accustomed to 
observe at the present day, and the circumcisions and excisions, and 
whatever else of this kind has been instituted amon<; them ; and the 
latter introduced oppressive exactions.") It is to be remarked that 

260 NOTES. Lect. II. 

Strabo quotes no authority, whence it may be suspected that his 
account is based rather on his own views of probability, and of the 
natural sequence of events in such cases, than on the statements of any 
earlier writers. (See his words at the opening of the next section.) 

Note XXXII., p. 55. 

See Exod. xvii. 14 ; xxiv. 4, 7 ; Numb, xxxiii. 2 ; Deut. xvii. 18, 
et seqq. ; xxviii. 58, et seqq. ; xxix. 20, 27 ; and xxxi. 9, 24, et seqq. 

Note XXXIII., p. 55. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, 6 ; vol. i. p. 20, E. T. 

Note XXXIV., p. 55. 

See particularly Deuteronomy xxviii. 58, and xxix. 20, 27. Haver- 
nick's comment on these and other kindred passages deserves the atten- 
tion of the student. (See his Handbuch dss Historisch-critischen Einlei- 
tung in das Alio Testament, 108 ; { 4, pp. 14-19, Clark's Translation. 1 ) 

Note XXXV., p. 56. 

" The Deuteronomist," says De Wette, " will, as it appears, have his 
whole book regarded as the composition of Moses." (Einle.itung in das 
Alte Testament, 162, d, p. 203.) Hartman makes a similar assertion 
with respect to " the author of the last four books." (Forschungen ilber 
d. Pentateuch, p. 538.) 

Note XXXVI., p. 56. 

The earliest writers whom De "Wette can quote as doubting the gen- 
uineness of the Pentateuch, are Celsus the Neo-Platonist, (A. D. 130,) 
and Ptolemy, the Valentinian Gnostic, a writer of the third century. 
(See his Einteitung, 164, a ; p. 205 ; and for the passages to which he 
refers see Origen, Contra Celsum, iv. 42, and Epiphanius, Adversus 
Hareses, xxxiii. 4, p. 207.) Apion, and the other adversaries whom 
Josephus answers, all admitted the Pentateuch to be the work of 

1 Hutonco- Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch, Edinburgh, Clark, 1850. 


Note XXXVII., p. 56. 

The differences in the rationalistic views of the time when the Pen- 
tateuch was composed, are thus summed up by Professor Stuart, 1 
" Almost every marked period from Joshua down to the return from 
the Babylonish exile, has been fixed upon by different writers, as a 
period appropriate to the production of the work. To Ezra some have 
assigned the task of producing it ; in which, if we may hearken to 
them, he engaged in order that he might confirm and perpetuate the 
ritual introduced by him. To Hilkiah the priest, with the connivance 
of Josiah, Mr. Norton and others have felt inclined to attribute it, at 
the period when a copy of the Law is said to have been discovered in 
the Temple. Somewhere near this period, Gesenius and De Wette 
once placed it ; but both of them, in later times, have been rather 
inclined to recede from this, and to look to an earlier period. The 
subject has been through almost boundless discussion, and a great 
variety of opinions has been broached respecting the matter, until 
recently it has taken a turn somewhat new. The haut ton of criticism 
in Germany now compounds between the old opinions and the new 
theories. Ewald and Lengcrke both admit a groundwork of the Penta- 
teuch. But as to the extent of this they differ, each one deciding ac- 
cording to his subjective feelings. The leading laws and ordinances of 
the Pentateuch are admitted to belong to the time of Moses. Ewald 
supposes that they were written down at that period. Then we have, 
secondly, historical portions of the Pentateuch, written, as Ewald 
judges, not by prophets, but before this order of men appeared among 
the Hebrews. . . . Then came next, according to him, a prophetic order 
of historical writers, about the time of Solomon. . . . Next comes a 
narrator . . . who is to be placed somewhere near the period of Eli- 
jah. . . . Then comes a fourth narrator, whom we cannot place earlier 
than about the middle of the eighth century B. C. He was followed by 
the Deuteronomist . . . some time during the latter half of Manasseh's 
reign. . . . Then just before the Babylonish exile the great Collect uiwum 
or Corpus Auctorum omnium, was brought to a close. 

Lengerke . . . admits a groundwork ; but, with the exception of some 
laws, it was not composed till the time of Solomon. Next comes a 

Critical History and Defence ofUie Old Testament Canon, \ 3, pp. 43, 44. 

2G2 NOTES. Lkct. II. 

supplementary, who must have lived some time in the eighth century. 
Then comes the Dcuteronomist, as in Ewald ; but he is assigned by 
Lengcrke to the time of Josiah, about B. C. 624. 

Each of these writers is confident in his critical power of discrimina- 
tion. . . . Each is sure that 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 Pen- 
tateuch there are ; while one still reckons six and the other three. . . . 
I will not now ask, Who shall decide when Doctors disagree ? " 

Compare also Havernick, Handbuch, &c, 145 ; $ 41, pp. 442-444, 
E. T. 

Note XXXVII. b, p. 57. 

Leben Jesu, 13 ; pp. 55-56, E. T. 

Note XXXVIII. , p. 58. 

The purpose of Moses is to write not his own history, nor even the 
civil history of his nation, but the theocratic history of the world up to 
his own time. This is the clew to all those curious insertions and 
omissions which have astonished and perplexed mere historians. (See 
Havernick, Handbuch, &c, 106 ; 2, pp. 1-7, E. T. ; and compare 
Lecture VII., p. 178.) Still, his own history to a certain extent, and 
the public history of his nation, up to his time, do in fact form the 
staple of his narrative. 

Note XXXIX., p. 58. 

Sir G. C. Lewis says, "The infidelity of oral tradition, with respect 
to past occurrences, has been so generally recognized, that it would be 
a superfluous labor to dwell upon it. For our present purpose, it is 
more material to fix the time during which an accurate memory of his- 
torical events may be perpetuated by oral tradition alone. Newton, in 
his work on Chronology, 1 fixes it at eighty or a hundred years for a 
time anterior to the use of writing ; and Volney says that, among the 
Red Indians of North America, there was no accurate tradition of facts 
which were a century old. Mallet, in his work on Northern Anti- 

1 Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended, (1728, 4to,) Introduction, p. 7. 

Lect. II. NOTES. 203 

quities, 1 remarks that, among the common class of mankind, a son 
remembers his father, knows something about his grandfather, but never 
bestows a thought on his more remote progenitors. This would carry 
back a man's knowledge 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 
Early Roman History, vol. i. pp. 98, 99.) 

Note XL., p. 58. 

See Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knoioledge of the 
Holy Scriptures, ch. ii. 1, vol. i. p. 54. "In the antediluvian world, 
when the life of man was so protracted, there was comparatively little 
need for writing. Tradition answered every purpose to which writing, 
in any kind of characters, could be subservient ; and the necessity of 
erecting monuments to perpetuate public events could scarcely have 
suggested itself; as, during those times, there could be little danger 
apprehended of any important fact becoming obsolete, its history hav- 
ing to pass through very few hands, and all these friends and relatives 
in the most proper sense of the terms ; for they lived in an insulated 
state, under a patriarchal government. Thus it was easy for Moses to 
be satisfied of the truth of all he relates in the 13ook of Genesis, as the 
accounts came to him through the medium of very few persons. From 
Adam to Noah there was but one man necessary to the transmission of 
the history of this period of 1656 years. Adam died in the year of the 
world 930, and Lamech, the father of Noah, was born in the year 874 ; 
so that Adam and Lamech were contemporaries for fifty-six years. 
Methusaleh, the grandfather of Noah, was born in the year of the 
world 687, and died in the year 1656, so that he lived to see both 
Adam and Lamech from whom ( Adam ?) doubtless he acquired the 
knowledge of this history, and was likewise contemporary with Noah 
for 600 years. In like manner Shem connected Noah and Abraham, 
having lived to converse with both ; as Isaac did with Abraham and 
Joseph, from whom these things might be easily conveyed to Moses by 
Amram, who was contemporary with Joseph. Supposing then all the 
curious facts recorded in the Nook of Genesis to have had no other 
authority than the tradition already referred to, they would stand upon 

i Ch. ii. 

2G4 NOTES. Lect. II. 

a foundation of credibility superior to any that the most reputable of 
the ancient Greek and Latin historians can boast." 

Note XLI., p. 59. 

See Sir G..C. Lewis's Credibility, &c., vol. i. > 101. "In a nation 
which has no consecutive written history, leading events would be per- 
haps preserved, in their general outlines, for about a hundred years. 
Special circumstances might, however, give to an event a larger hold on 
the popular memory." He instances, 1. The attempt of Cylon at 
Athens, the circumstances of which were remembered in B. C. 432, 
one hundred and eighty years after, (Thucydid. i. 126 ;) and 2. The battle 
of the Allia, the memory of which continued (he thinks) among the 
common people at Rome to the time of the earliest annalists, or one 
hundred and fifty years. 

Note XLIL, p. 59. 

The force of this argument is, no doubt, weakened, but it is not 
destroyed, by a preference of the Septuagint or of the Samaritan num- 
bers to those of the Hebrew text. The Septuagint numbers, which 
are the most unfavorable to the argument, would make the chain between 
Adam and Moses consist of eight links viz. Mahalaleel, Noah, Salah, 
Reu, Nahor, Abraham, Jacob, and Jochebed. 

Note XLHL, p. 59. 

See above, Note XXXVII. ; and compare Havernick, Handbuch, &c, 
111, ( 7, pp. 45-48, E. T.,) and Home, Introduction, &c, ch. ii. $ 1, 
vol. i. pp. 64-56. 

Note XLIY., p. 59. 

Having argued that the Patriarchs were almost sure to have com- 
mitted to writing the chief facts of the early history, especially those of 
the Creation, the Fall of Man, the promise of Redemption, and the 
various revelations which they received from God, Vitringa says 
" We believe, indeed, that Moses collected these writings and papers 
of the patriarchs, preserved among the Israelites, arranged them, pre- 
pared them, filled up their deficiencies, and out of them made up the 
first ef his own books." {Obso-cationes Sacra, i. 4, 2 ; p. 36.) 

Lect. II. NOTES. 2C>5 

Note XLV., p. 59. 

Commentaire Littkrale, Preface, vol. i. p. xiii. " Although, strictly 
speaking, it is not impossible that Moses might have learned from oral 
tradition all that he has told us concerning the Creation of the World, 
the Deluge, and the times of the Patriarchs, . . . yet it is highly prob- 
able that this Lawgiver had access to records and documents -which had 
been preserved in the families of the Jews. The detailed account of 
genealogies, the dates of events, and their circumstances, the number 
of the years of the lives of the Patriarchs, all these things could 
hardly be learned in a manner so precise and exact, except from writ- 
ten documents." Compare Havernick, {Handbuch, &c, 115 ; 11, pp. 
81-2, E. T.,) who, while he maintains that the narrative of Genesis 
"has its origin primarily in oral tradition," still allows it to be probable 
" that in the time of the writer a part of the oral tradition had been 
already committed to writing," and that " the author makes use of 
certain older monuments." 

Note XLVL, p. 59. 

See above, Notes XIX., XX., and XXI. In estimating the antiquity 
of alphabetic writing, we must remember, that the earliest extant speci- 
mens of the Babylonian (which have been assigned to about the 22d 
century P. C) present indications of previous stages having been 
passed through, which must have each occupied some considerable 
period. It is certain that the Babylonians, like the Egyptians, began 
with picture-writing. 1 But in the most ancient remains this stage has 
been long past : a few letters only still bear a resemblance to the ob- 
jects : while the bulk have lost all trace of their original form. The 
writing too has ceased altogether to be symbolical, and (with the 
exception of certain determinatives) is purely phonetic, having thus 
passed the second stage of the art. In Egypt, the hieroglyphics of the 
Pyramid period, (B. ('. 2450-2300.) sometimes "written in the cursive 
character, prove that writing had been long in tise." (See Wilkinson's 
Appendix to Book ii. of the author's Herodotus, eh. viii. 9 ; vol. ii. p. 

1 See Sir H. Raniinson'a Essay. " On the Early Ifistory of Babylonia," in the first 
Tolum* of the author's Herodotus, Essay vi. pp. 44."., 444. 


20G NOTES. Lect. II. 

Note XLVIL, p. 60. 

See Bishop Gleig's Introduction, in his edition of Stackhouse's His- 
tory of the Bible, vol. i. p. 20. Compare the article on whiting in 
Kitto's Biblical Cyclopccdia, vol. ii. pp. 971, 972. 

Note XLVIIL, p. 61. 

The Armenian History of Moses of Chorene commences from Adam. 
Taking the Hebrew* Scriptures for his basis, he endeavors to blend and 
harmonize with them the traditions of primeval times recorded by 
Berosus, Abydenus, and especially by a certain Mar Ibas, or Mar Abas, 
a learned Syrian, said to have lived about B. C. 150. He identifies 
Adam with the Babylonian Alorus, (i3,) Noah with Xisuthrus, (ibid.,) 
Shem with Zervan, who (he says) is the same as Zoroaster, (i. 5. ;) 
Ham with Titan, whence the Titans are the descendants of Ham, (ibid.,) 
and Nimrod with Belus, (i. 6.) Armenian history is regarded as com- 
mencing from this time. Hafcus or HaTg, the fifth descendant of 
Japhet, son of Thaclath or Togarmah, revolts from Belus, or Nimrod, 
and withdraws from Babylon to Armenia, where he establishes himself. 
War follows : Hafcus is attacked by Belus, but makes a successful 
resistance, and Belus falls in the battle, (i. 9, 10.) From this point 
Moses seems in the main to follow native traditions, which do not 
appear to have possessed much historical value. It has been conjectured 
with good reason that "the earliest literature of Armenia was a series 
of national poems," and that these compositions furnished Moses of 
Chorene with a great part of his materials. (See Priehard's Physical 
History of Mankind, vol. iv. p. 2.55 ; and compare Neumann's Versuch 
eincr Ueschichte der Artnenischen Litcratur, published at Leipsic in 
1836.) Michael Chamich and other Armenian writers have chiefly 
copied from Moses. 

Note XLIX., p. 61. 

The two Epic poems, the Ramayana and the MahabhArata, profess 
to be historical, but are not thought by the best modern authorities to 
contain more than some "shadow of truth." They are assigned to 
about the third century B. C. (See Professor H. H. Wilson's Intro- 
duction to his translation of the Rig- Yeda-Sanhita, pp. xlvi., xlvii.) The 
attempt to construct from them, and from other Sanscritic sources of 

Lect. II. NOTES. 2(37 

even worse character, by the aid of Megasthenes and of a large amount 
of conjecture, a chronological scheme reaching to B. C. 3120, which 
M. Bunsen has made in the third volume of his Egypt, (pp. 518-564,) 
appears to me a singular instance of misplaced ingenuity. 

Note L., p. Gl. 

The Chinese, like the Hindus, carry back the history of the world for 
several hundred thousand years. Their own history, however, as a 
nation, does not profess to commence till about B. C. 2600; and 
authentic accounts, according to the views of those who regard their 
early literature with most favor, go back only to the 22d century B. 0. 
(See R6musat, Nouveaux Milanges Asiatiques, vol. i. p. 65. "The 
history of China runs back \flth certainty to the twenty-second 
century before our era, and some respectable traditions permit us to 
carry back the point of departure four centuries earlier, to the year 
2637 before Jesus Christ." Compare Mailla, Histoire Gi.nt.ralc de la 
Chine, vol. i. ; Grosier's Discours Preliminaire prefixed to his Descrip- 
tion de la Chine, published at Paris in 1818-1820 ; and M. Bunsen's 
Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 379-407.) The entire isolation of China, and the 
absence of any points of contact between it and the nations of Western 
Asia, would render this early history, even if authentic, useless for the 
purposes of the present Lectures. I confess, however, that I put little 
fuith in the conclusions of modern French antiquarians ; and that I 
incline to look with suspicion on all Chinese history earlier than the 
time of Confucius, B. C. 550-480, when it is admitted that contem- 
porary records commence. (See Priehard's Physical History of Man- 
kind, vol. iv. pp. 475-t) ; and compare Asiatic Researches, vol. ii. p. 

Note LI., p. 61. 

The evidences on this head were carefully collected by Mr. Stanley 
Fabcr in his Hampton lectures for the year 1801, afterwards published 
as Horcn Mosaicm, ch. iv. pp. 130-184. The most remarkable tradition 
is *Viat of the Hindus. In the Bhagavat it is related that in the reign 
of Saliavrata, the seventh king of the Hindus, mankind became almost 
universally wicked, only Satiavrata and seven saints continuing pious. 
The lord of the universe, therefore, loving the pious man, and intend- 
ing to preserve him from the sea of destruction caused by the deprav- 

2G8 N T E s . Lect. II. 

lty of the age, thus told him how he was to act. " In seven days from 
the present time, O thou tamer of enemies, the three worlds will be 
plunged in an ocean of death ; but in the midst of the destroying 
waves, a large vessel, sent by me for thy use, shall stand before thee. 
Then shalt thou take all medicinal herbs, all the variety of seeds ; and 
accompanied by seven saints, encircled by pairs of all brute animals, 
thou shalt enter the spacious ark and continue in it, secure from the 
flood on one immense ocean without light, except the radiance of thy 
holy companions. . . . Then shalt thou know my true greatness, 
rightly named the supreme Godhead ; by my favor all thy questions 
shall be answered, and thy mind abundantly instructed." After seven 
days, the sea overwhelming its shores, deluged the whole earth ; while 
the flood was augmented by showers from immense clouds ; when 
Satiavrata saw the vessel advancing, and entered it with his compan- 
ions, having executed the commands of God. After a while the deluge 
abated, and Satiavrata, having been instructed in all divine and human 
knowledge, was appointed the seventh Menu, and named Vaivaswata 
by the Supreme Being. From this Manu the earth was repeopled, and 
from him mankind received their name Manudsha. (See an Article by 
Sir W. Jones in the 1st volume of the Asiatic Researches, pp. 230-4. 
Compare Faber's Horce Mosaicre, eh. iv. pp. 139, 140; Carwithen's 
Hampton lectures, III. pp. 87, 88 ; and Kalisch's Historical and Critical 
Commentarij on the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 138, E. T.) 

The Chinese traditions are said to be less clear and decisive. They 
speak of a "first heaven" an age of innocence, when "the whole 
creation enjoyed a state of happiness ; when every thing was beautiful, 
every thing was good ; all beings were perfect in their kind ; " whereto 
succeeded a " second heaven," introduced by a great couvulsion. 
"The pillars of Heaven were broken the earth shook to its founda- 
tions the heavens sunk lower towards the north the sun, the moon, 
and the stars changed their motions the earth fell to pieces ; and the 
iraters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence, and overflowed it. 
Man having rebelled against heaven, the system of the Universe was 
totally disordered. The sun was eclipsed, the planets altered their 
course, and the grand harmony of nature was disturbed." (Faber, 
Horte Mosaica, ch. iv. pp. 147, 148.) 

The Armenians accept the Scriptural account, which they identify 
with the Chaldaean. They can scarcely be said to possess any special 

Lect. II. notes. 269 

national tradition on the subject, except that which continues to the 
present day the belief that the timbers of the ark are still to be seen 
on the top of Ararat. The Greek tradition concerning the Hood of 
Deucalion needs only to be mentioned. Curiously enough it takes the 
form most closely resembling the Mosaic account in the pages of 
Lucian, 1 the professed scoffer. Traditions of a great deluge were also 
found in all parts of the new world, and in some of the islands of the 
Pacific. (Faber, llorce Mosaicce, ch. iv. ; Kalisch, vol. 1. p. 140, E. T.) 

Note LIL, p. 62. 

Sec Gen. x. 10 ; xi. 2-5 ; xxxix., ct seqq. Compare Herod, i. 7 ; ii. 
2, 109-142 ; Plat. Tim. p. 22, B. ; Diod. Sic, books i. and ii. ; Justin, 
i. 1 ; &c. Joscphus well expresses the grounds on which the Egyptian 
and Babylonian annals are to be preferred to those of all other heathen 
nations. He ranks the Phoenician histories decidedly below them. 
(Sec his work Contra Apionem, i. 6: "Now that among the Egyptians 
and the Babylonians, from the most ancient times the charge of prepar- 
ing the public records was committed, among the former people, to the 
priests, who were skilled in this business, and among the Babylonians 
to the Chaldeans ; and that of the nations which held intercourse with 
the Greeks, the Phoenicians were the most familiar with letters ; all 
this, I think, will be granted to me, since it is conceded by all.") 

Note LIII., p. 63. 

Scaliger was the first to draw the attention of scholars to the writ- 
ings of Berosus and Manetho. In his work De Emendations Temporum 
he collected their fragments and supported their authority. The value 
of Manetho was acknowledged by Ilecren, {Handbuch der Gcschichtn dcr 
Stouten des Altcrtltums, i. 2, p. 54, E. T.,) Marsham, {Canon Chronicus, 
Pref. p. 2, &c.,) and others, before much progress had been made in 
deciphering the inscriptions of Egypt. Berosus, always quoted with 
respect by our Divines, did not find much favor with German histor- 
ical critics till his claims were advocated by Niebuhr. (See t**~ ''ortrtige 
ilber Alte Ueschichle, vol. i. pp. 16-19.) 

i De Deh Sfridi, $ 12. 

270 NOTES. Lect. IL 

Note LIV., p. 63. 

One other ancient writer, had his work come down to us in a com- 
plete form, or had we even possessed a fragment or two of its earlier 
portion, might have deserved to be placed nearly on a level with 
Bcrosus and Manetho : viz., Menander of Ephesus ; who living prob- 
ably about the same time with them, and having access to the archives 
of the only nation which could dispute with Egypt and Babylon the 
palm of antiquity and the claim of inventing letters, composed in 
Greek a Phoenician history ; which seems, from the few fragments of 
it that remain, to have been a work of the very highest character. Of 
these fragments, however, none touch the period between the Creation 
and the death of Moses ; and it may even be suspected that Menan- 
der's history did not go back so far. At any rate, if it did, we are 
completely ignorant what representation he gave of the early times. 
(See the Fragments of Menander in Mons. C. Mailer's Fragmenta His- 
toricorum Grmcorum, vol. iv. pp. 445-8, and the testimony to his value 
borne by Niebuhr, Vortrdge ilbcr Altc Geschichte, vol. i. p. 17, and p. 
93, note 1 .) 

Nothing has been said here of Sanchoniathon, in the first place 
because it seems more than probable that the work ascribed to hiin was 
the mere forgery of Philo Byblius ; and secondly, because, though 
called a " Phoenician History," the fragments of the work which re- 
main show it to have been mainly, if not entirely, mythological. (See 
Movers, Jahrbitcher ftir Thcologisch. und Christlich. Philosophic, 1836, 
rol. i. pp. 51-91 ; Lobeck, Aglaoph., p. 1264, ct seqq. ; Niebuhr, 
Yortrttgc ilbcr alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 93, note 1 ; and C. Mailer, 
Fragmcnta His, Gr., vol. iii. pp. 560-1.) 

Note LV., p. 63. 

M. Bunsen, speaking of the Egyptian monuments, says, " Such 
documents cannot indeed compensate for the want of written History. 
Even Chronology, its external framework, cannot be elicited from 
them." {Egypt's Place in Cnirersal History, vol. i. p. 32, E. T.) This 
may be said with at least as much truth of the Babylonian and Assyr- 
ian records. 

Lect. IL notes. 271 

Note LVL, p. 64. 

The following is Manetho's chronological scheme, according to Euse- 
bius, (Chronica, i. 20, pp. 93-107, cd. Mai. :) 


Reign of Gods 13,900 

Reign of Heroes 1,255 

Reign of Kings 1,817 

Reign of 30 Memphite Kings 1,790 

Reign of 10 Thinite Kings 350 

Reign of Manes and Heroes 5,813 

Thirty dynasties of Kings (about) 5,000 ' 


Note LVTL, p. 64. 

The following was the scheme of Berosus, if we may trust Eusebius. 
(See his Chronica, i. 1, and 4 ; p. 5, and p. 18 :) 


1. Ten kings from Alorus to Xisuthrus reigned . . . 432,000 

2. Eighty-six kings from Xisuthrus to the Median conquest 33,080 2 

3. Eight Median kings 224 

4. Eleven kings [48J 3 

5. Forty-nine Chaldean kings 458 

6. Nine Arabian kings 215 

7. Forty-five kings down to l'ul 526 


Note LVIII., p. 64. 

Vide supra, Note LVL M. Bunscn (Egypt's Place, ftc, vol. i. p. 70, 
E. T.) accuses Eusebius of having changed the order of Manetho's 
numbers, and by a dexterous transposition he seeks to transfer to the 

1 Baron Runner) given the sum of tlio yearn of the 30 dynasties as 4922, 49M, or 6329, 
arvording to variations of reading or statement. (Egypt, vol. i. p. R2, K. T.) 

2 In the Armenian the ntimher here is 33,001, tint thia may be corrected from yn- 
ellus. (Fragm. Hist. Or., vol. ii. p. 503.) 

* This number is only given in the margin, and is very doubtful. 

272 notes. Lect. IL 

human period a space of nearly 4000 years. He would make the divine 
period consist of the following : 


1. Reign of Gods 13,900 

2. Iteign of Heroes 1,255 

3. Reign of Heroes and Manes together . . . 5,813 

The human period he represents thus : 

1. Kings (no capital mentioned) 1,817 

2. Thirty Memphite kings 1,790 

3. Ten Thinite kings 350 

4. Thirty Dynasties (say) 5,000 


But there is absolutely no ground, beyond gratuitous conjecture, for 
making this change ; which involves Manctho in the contradiction, that 
Mattes, the Ghosts of Mortals, exist before there have been any mortals. 
(See the Fragmenta Historicorum Grwconon of Mons. C. Mtlller, vol. ii. 
p. 528, where M. Bunsen's theory is rejected.) 

Note LIX., p. 64. 

Chronograph ia, p. 52, D. M. Bunscn was the first to call attention 
to this passage. {Egypt's Place, &c, vol. i. p. 86.) If sound, it is of 
very great importance, as indicating that Manetho knew and allowed 
that his kings and dynasties were not always consecutive. It has been 
recently denied that Manetho did this, and it has been proposed to 
amend the passage of Syncellus by introducing into it the name of 
another writer, Anianus, who (it is supposed) made the reduction in 
question. (See an Article in the Quarterly Review for April, 1859 ; 
Art. IV. pp. 395-6.) But this emendation is quite inadmissible ; for 
the clear object of Syncellus in the passage is to show that Manetho's 
own numbers were at variance with Scripture. Whether Syncellus 
rightly reports Manetho or no, is another question. If he does not, 
the argument in the text, so far, falls to the ground ; and we must 
admit that Egyptian Chronology as represented by Manetho was 
about 2000 years in excess of the Chronology of Scripture. Still we 

Lect. II. notes. 273 

must bear in mind, that, -whether Manetho allowed it or not, his 
dynasties were in fact sometimes contemporary, as is proved by the 
Egyptian monuments. (Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. 
pp. 343, 349, &c. Stuart Poole, Horcc JEgyptiacce, pp. 110, 112, 123, 
&c.) If therefore he did not in his chronology make any allowance 
on this account, he could not fail to be in considerable excess of the 

Note LX., p. 65. 

See the latest conclusions of Sir Gardner Wilkinson in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 342-3 ; and compare Mr. Stuart Toole's Horce 
JEgij})tiac(?, p. 97. See also the extracts from Professor Rask's Egyp- 
tian Chronology, contained in Dr. Prichard's Historical Records of 
Ancient Egypt, 6, pp. 91-111. 

A slight error has crept into the calculation on which the date given 
in the text (B. C. 2660) is founded. Sir G. Wilkinson places the ac- 
cession of the 4th dynasty about B. C. 2450, and allows to the 1st, on 
which he considers the 4th to have followed, 241 years. The date of 
Menes, according to his views, should therefore have been given as 
B. C. 2690, instead of B. C. 2660. 

Note LXL, p. 66. 

See the fragments of Berosus in Mons. C. Mdller's Fragmenta Histor- 
icorum Grepcorum, vol. ii. p. 496, Frs. 1, and 5. "lie says there was 
a time when the universe was but darkness and water, and in these 
were generated monstrous animals, of strange forms. . . . And besides 
these there were fishes and reptiles, and a vast number of other won- 
derful animals. . . . And over all these nded a woman, whose name 
was Homoroka : now this word in the language of the Chaldees is 
translated Thalath, but in Greek Thalassa, (i. e. the Sea.) Now, while 
all things were in this condition, Belus returned, and cutting the 
woman asunder in the midst, made of the one half of her the earth, and 
of the other half the heaven, and destroyed the animals. lie says that 
this is an allegorical cosmogony. For when the universe was in a fluid 
state, and animals were generated in it, this god cut off his own head, 
and the other gods mixed the blood which flowed from it with the 
earth, and so formed men ; whence it came to pass that they are intel- 
ligent, and partake of the divine wisdom. Then Belus, divining the 

27 1 NOTES. Lsct. II. 

darknoss, separated the earth and the heaven from each other, and 
brought the world into order ; and the animals that could not endure 
the power of the light were destroyed. Then Belus, seeing that the 
place was desolate, though fruitful, commanded one of the gods to 
cut off his own head, and to mix the flowing blood with the earth, 
and to form [men and] beasts able to breathe the air. Belus also 
formed the stars, and the sun, and the moon, and the seven planets." 
(Ap. Syncell. Chronograph, pp. 29, 30.) 

"After saying these things, he proceeds to enumerate the kings of 
Assyria, individually and in order, namely, ten from Alorus, who 
was the first, down to Xisuthrus, in whose reign occurred that first 
great deluge which Moses also mentions." (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 1, 
p. 5, ed. Mai.) 

Note LXIL, p. 66. 

See Niebuhr's Vortrtlge ilber Alte Gcschichte, (vol. i. p. 20, note.) 
where he notices the abuse of the parallel mude by some, who main- 
tained that the Mosaical account of the Creation was derived from 
the Babylonian. 

Note LXIIL, p. 67. 

See the well-known passage of Josephus, where, after remarking 
on the longevity of the Patriarchs, he says, ' ' All those who have 
written on the subject of antiquities, both among the Greeks and 
among the Barbarians, bear witness to the truth of my words. For 
Manetho, who wrote the chronicles of the Egyptians, and Berosus, 
who collected those of the Chaldeans, and Molus [read Mofon] and 
Hestiams, and besides these Hieronymus the Egyptian, and those 
who composed the Phoenician annals, agree with what I have said. 
Ilesiod also, and Hecatsrus, Hellanicus and Acusilaus, and besides 
these Ephorus and Xicolaus, relate that the ancients used to live a 
thousand years." (Antiq. Jud. i. 3.) 

Note LXIV., p. 67. 

See Faber's Horcp Mosatcee, eh. iii. pp. 119, 120; and Home's Intro- 
duction, vol. i. p. 158. 

Lect. IL notes. 275 

Note LXV., p. 68. 

Fragmenta Historicorum Grcecorum, vol. ii. p. 501, Fr. 7. "In the 
reign of Xisuthrus there "was a great deluge. The account is given as 
follows : ' Kronos, appearing to him in his sleep, declared that on the 
15th day of the month Daesius, men would be destroyed by a flood. 
He commanded the king therefore to commit to writing an account 
of the principles and progress and issues of all things, and to bury 
it in Sippara, the city of the sun ; and then to construct a vessel, 
and to embark in it with his kindred and his intimate friends; also 
to deposit therein food and drink, and to take in birds and quadrupeds; 
and having put all things in order to set sail. . . . He therefore, 
obeying the command, constructed a vessel, whose length was five 
stadia, and its breadth two stadia ; and after he had gathered into it 
all things as directed, he embarked with his wife and children and 
intimate friends. But when the flood came, and forthwith ceased, 
Xisuthrus let go some of the birds. Not finding, however, any food, 
or any place to alight, they came again to the ship. After some days, 
Xisuthrus let loose the birds again ; but they again came back to the 
ship, having their feet covered with mud. But being let go a third 
time, they returned no more to the ship. Xisuthrus then understood 
that the land had appeared, and passing through a certain part of the 
seams of the ship, and seeing that it had grounded on a certain moun- 
tain, he went forth, with his wife and daughter, and the pilot, and 
saluted the ground ; and when he had built an altar, and sacrificed 
to the gods, he and those who came out of the ship with him disap- 
peared. Now those who remained in the ship, when Xisuthrus and his 
companions did not return, went forth to seek him, calling his name 
aloud. But Xisuthrus himself was never more seen by them ; there 
came, however, a voice from the air, which commanded them to be 
dutiful woi>hippers of the gods, since he, in consequence of his piety, 
had gone to live with the gods. ... It also directed them to go 
again to Babylon, and, according as it had been decreed, to take up 
the letters from Sippara, and communicate them to men whom they 
would find in the country of Armenia. . . . Tiny accordingly came 
to Babylon, dug up the letters which had been buried at Sippara, 
restored the temples, and rebuilt Babylon." (Ap. Syncell. Chron., pp. 
30, 31. Compare Euseb. Chronica, i. 3, pp. 11-16.) 

276 NOTES. Lect. U. 

Note LXVI., p. 68. 

fragment. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. p. 280, Fr. 1. "After Euedoreschus, 
several others reigned, among whom was Sisithrus, whom Kronos 
forewarned that there would be a great abundance of rain on the 
loth of Ihcsius. And he commanded him to hide every thing which 
pertained to letters in Ileliopolis, in Sippara. Sisithrus, having per- 
formed all these things, immediately sailed towards Armenia. And 
what the god had foretold straightway came to pass. Now on the 
third day, when the rain had ceased, he let loose some birds, to try 
whether they could find any land above the water. But finding noth- 
ing save a wide-yawning sea, where there w r as no place for them to rest, 
they came back to Sisithrus. He sent forth others afterwards, with the 
same result. But when on the third trial he succeeded, (for the birds 
returned with their feet covered with mud,) the gods snatched him from 
the view of men, and the vessel, from the fragments of its planks used 
as amulets, furnished to the inhabitants of Armenia effectual antidotes 
against poison." (Ap. Syncell. Chronograph., p. 70, A. ; compare Euseb. 
Chronica, i. 7 ; p. 22, ed. Mai.) 

But little is known of Abydenus. He is first quoted by Eusebius in 
the fourth century after Christ ; on which account it has been generally 
supposed that he did not write till the second or third century of our 
era. (See Niebuhr's Kleine Schriften, p. 187, note 4 ; and C. Moller's 
Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. p. 279.) Some, however, regard him as a 
contemporary and pupil of Berosus, and therefore as not much later 
than the time of Alexander, (Bauer in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopedia, 
s. v. Abydenus ; C. O. Moller, History of Greek Literature, vol. ii. p. 
490, E. T.) His use of the Ionic dialect favors the earlier date. 

Note LXVII. p. 68. 

Buttmann, (Mythologus, i. pp. 190, 200, &c.,) Von Bohlen, (Alte Indian, 
p. 78, et seqq.,) and Hartmann (Forschungen ilber d. Pentateuch, p. 795. 
et seqq.) maintain that the story of the flood " sprang up in the soil of 
India, whence it was brought to the Hebrews through Babylon, after 
having first received a new coloring there." (See Havernick's Einlei- 
tung, 120, pp. 266, 267; 16, p. 112, E. T.) But the absence of 
exaggeration and of grotesqueness from the Hebrew account suffi- 

Lect. II. 



ciently disproves this theory. It might be argued with much more 
plausibility that the Babylonians obtained their knowledge from the 

Note LXYI. b., p. 69. 

See Niebuhr's Vortrdge liber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 23. "This ac- 
count differs from the Noachian, so far as it allows to be saved not 
only the family of Xisuthrus, but all pious persons, and supposes not 
a universal, but only a Babylonian deluge." 

Note LXVII. b., p. 70. 

Antiq. Jud. i. 7, 2 : Berosus mentions our father Abraham, not by 
name, but after this manner: " In the tenth generation after the flood, 
there was among the Chaldeans a righteous and great man, who was 
also skilled in the knowledge of the heavens." 

Note LXVIII., p. 70. 

I: has been acutely suggested that the actual scheme of Berosus was 
probably the following : 


B. C. 

1. Antediluvian dynasty of 10 kings 


466,618 to 
31,618 to 

34,618 * 


2. Dynasty of 86 kings (Chaldeans ?) . 


3. Dj -nasty of 8 Median kings . . . 


2,458 to 

2,234 I 

4. Dynasty of 11 kings (Chaldeans?) . 

[258] 1 

2,231 to 


5. Dynasty of 49 Chaldean kings . . 


1.976 to 



C. Dynasty of 9 Arabian kings . . . 


1,518 to 



7. Dynasty of 45 kings (Assyrians?) . 


1,273 to 

747 ' 

8. Dynasty of 8 (?) Assyrian kings . . 


717 to 


9. Dynasty of CChaldiran kings . . . 


625 to 

538 , 


1 Tins numW fills up trio Wank in Kuseb. Ckron. 1. 4. p. 18. where 48 Is absurdly 
suggested In the margin. .ee above. Note LVII. It is conjectural, but it seems re- 
quired by the native tradition that Babylon was founded 1903 before Alexander's cap- 
ture of It, or 11. C. 2234. 


278 NOTES. Lect. IL 

(See Gutschmidt in the Rheinisches Museum, vol. viii. p. 252 ; who is 
followed by Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 17 ; and 
Sir II. Rawlinson in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2 ; p. 
218.) If this be a true representation, it would follow that the number 
34,080 is purely artificial, being simply the number required to make 
up the great Babylonian year or cycle of 36,000 years, in conjunction 
with, the years of the real historical dynasties. The first number, 432,000, 
is made up of 12 such cycles, (36,000 X 12 = 432,000.) 

Note LXIX., p. 70. 

See the Fragments of Abydenus in Midler's Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. 
p. 282, Fr. 6: "At that time the men of antiquity are said to have 
been so puffed up with strength and haughtiness, that they despised 
even the gods, and undertook to build that lofty obelisk which is now 
called Babylon. And when they had already built it up into the heavens 
almost as high as the gods, the gods, by the help of the winds, smote 
the well- contrived but futile work, and prostrated it to the ground. 
And that rubbish took the name of Babel. For up to that time men 
relied upon the use of one language ; but then a various and discordant 
confusion of tongues was sent by the gods upon those who had hereto- 
fore used but one language." (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 8, p. 24.) Com- 
pare also the subjoined passage, which Syncellus quotes from Poly- 
histor : " Now the Sibyl says, that when all men were of one speech, 
some of them built a huge tower, that they might ascend up to heaven. 
But God caused a wind to blow, and overthrew their design, and gave 
to each a different language ; wherefore the city was called Babylon. 
(Chronograph., p. 81, C.) 

Note LXX., p. 71. 

The affinity of the Sanskrit with the Persian, Greek, Latin, and Ger- 
man languages was first remarked by our own countryman, Sir W. 
Jones ; but it remained for F. Schlegel in Germany and for Dr. Prichard 
in England to make a scientific use of the material thus provided for 
them. Schlegel's " Essay on the Language and Philosophy of the 
Hindoos," and Dr. Prichard's inaugural " Dissertation on the Varieties 
of the Human Race," were published almost simultaneously ; but 
Schlegel's work is regarded as the more advanced production. (See 
Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. ii. p. 50.) 

Lect. II. NOTES. 279 

Note LXXL, p. 71. 

In 1854 M. Bunsen wrote: " Geographically then, and historically, 
it is true that Canaan was the son of Egypt ; for the Canaanitic tribes 
which inhabited historical Canaan came from Egypt. In the same sense, 
Nimrod is called a Kushitc, which means a man of the land of Rush. 
The Bible mentions but one Rush, ./Ethiopia ; an Asiatic Kitsh exists 
only in the imagination of the interpreters, and i.s the child of their despair. 
Now, Nimrod was no more a Kushite by blood than Canaan was an Egyp- 
tian ; but the Turanian (Transoxanian) tribe, represented by him, came 
as a devastating people, which had previously conquered that part of 
Africa, back into Asia, and there established the first great empire." 
(Philosophy of Univ. History, vol. i. p. 191.) But in 1858, Sir Henry 
R&wlinson, having obtained a number of Babylonian documents more 
ancient than any previously discovered, was able to declare authorita- 
tively, that the early inhabitants of Southern Babylonia " were of a 
cognate race with the primitive colonists both of Arabia and of the 
African Ethiopia." (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 442.) He 
found their vocabulary to be " undoubtedly Cushite or Ethiopian," be- 
longing to that stock, of tongues which in the sequel were every where 
more or less mixed up with the Semitic languages, but of which we 
have the purest modern specimens in the Mahra of Southern Arabia, 
and the Gallu of Abyssinia." (Ibid, note 9.) lie found also that 
"the traditions both of Babylonia and Assyria pointed to a connection 
in very early times between Ethiopia, Southern Arabia, and the cities 
on the Lower Euphrates." (Ibid.) He therefore adopted the term 
Cushite as the most proper title by which to distinguish the earlier 
from the later Babylonians; and reestablished beyond all doubt or 
question the fact of "an Asiatic Ethiopia," which probably no one 
now would be hardy enough to deny. (See, besides the Essay referred 
to above, Essay xi. of the same volume, p. 655, and an elaborate Ar- 
ticle in the Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. XV. part 2, pp. 215-259.) 

Note EXXIL, p. 71. 

The monuments give distinct evidence of the early predominance of 
Babylonia over Assyria, of the spread of population and civilization 
northwards, and of the comparatively late founding of Nineveh. (See 

280 NOTES. Lect. IL 

the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 448, 455, 456, &c.) They do not 
exactly prove the colonization of Assyria by Semites from Babylonia, 
but they favor it. (Ibid. pp. 447 and 647.) 

Note LXXIII., p. 71. 

The Hamitic descent of the Canaanites is energetically denied by M. 
Bunsen, (Philosophy of Univ. Hist., vol. i. pp. 190 and 244,) who iden- 
tifies them with the Phoenicians, and regards their Semitic character as 
established. But the researches of Sir H. Rawlinson have convinced 
him, that the Canaanites proper were not Semites. lie holds that they 
had a "common origin" with the Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Libyans, 
an origin which he calls indifferently Scythic or Hamite. " All 
the Canaanites," he says, " were, I am satisfied, Scyths ; and the inhab- 
itants of Syria retained their distinctive ethnic character until quite a 
late period of history. According to the inscriptions the KJiatta, or 
Hittites, were the dominant Scythic race from the earliest times, and 
they gave way very slowly before the Aramaeans, Jews, and Phoeni- 
cians, who were the only extensive Semitic immigrants." (Journal of 
Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 230, note.) 

Note LXXIV., p. 72. 

* See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Univ. Hist., vol. i. pp. 221-230, 
where, though classing the Himyaric with the Semitic languages, he 
admits its close resemblance, both in vocabulary and in grammatical 
forms, to the Ethiopic ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 
447, note 4, and pp. 659, 660. 

Note LXXV., p. 72. 

See Sir H. Rawlinson, in the Asiatic Society's Journal, 1. s. c. "The 
Toldoth Beni Noah is undoubtedly the most authentic record we possess 
for the affiliation of those branches of the human race which sprung 
from the triple stock of the Noachidae." And again, p. 215, note 3 : 
"The fragment which forms the tenth chapter of Genesis bears the 
Hebrew title of Toldoth Beni Noah, or the Genealogies of the Noa- 
chidae, and is probably of the very greatest antiquity." Compare also 
the author's Herodotus, (vol. i. p. 445,) where the same ethnologist 

Lect. II. NOTES. 281 

remarks : " We must be cautious in drawing direct ethnological infer- 
ences from the linguistic indications of a very early age. It will be far 
safer, at any rate, in these early times to follow the general scheme of 
ethnic affiliation which is given in the tenth chapter of Genesis." 

Note LXXVL, p. 72. 

The passages to which reference is here made will all be found in the 
second volume of Dr. Gaisford's edition of the work of Eusebius, pp. 
370-392. They were derived by Eusebius from the "Jewish History" 
of Alexander Polyhistor, a heathen writer. It is thought that some of 
Polyhistor's authorities, as Artapanus, Cleodemus, Demetrius, and 
Eupolemus, were Jews. (See the remarks of C. Mtlller in his preface 
to the fragments of Polyhistor, Fragment. Hist. Gr vol. iii. p. 207.) 
If this be allowed, the weight of heathen testimony is of course pro tanto 
diminished. But reasons have been already given for regarding Eupol- 
emus as a heathen. (See above, Note XXV.) And the religious char- 
acter of the other three is at least doubtful. 

To the writers mentioned in the text may be added. Nicolas of Da- 
mascus, who spoke of Abraham's emigration from Chaldoea and settle- 
ment in Canaan. (See the Frag. Hist. Or., vol. iii. p. 373.) 

Note LXXVIL, p. 72. 

See especially Faber's Horce Mosaics, ch. v. pp. 225-228 ; and com- 
pare Patrick's Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testament, 
vol. i. p. 58 ; Home's Introduction to the Critical Study and Knotcledge 
of Holy Scripturu, vol. i. p. 174, &c. 

Note LXXVIII., p. 73. 

Sir II. Rawlinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vi. p. 

Note LXXIX., p. 73. 

The name of the king whom Sir II. ltawlinson identifies with 
Chedor-laomer is, in the native (Hamitic) Babylonian, Kudur-Mabuk. 
Mabuk in Hamitic is found to be the exact equivalent of Laumer in 
Semitic. This is a very recent discovery. 


282 NOTES. Lect. II. 

Note LXXX., p. 73. 

By means of certain monumental notices it has been proved, with a 
near approach to certainty, that a Babylonian monarch, whose name is 
read as Ismi-dagon, reigned about B. C. 1860. Kudur-Mabuk is evi- 
dently, by the type of writing which he uses, and the position in which 
his bricks are found, considerably earlier. Now in the year B. C. 1976 
a century before Ismi-dagon occurs one of the breaks in Bero- 
sus' list ; and this break moreover occurs within 60 years of the date 
(B. C. 1917) commonly assigned to the expedition of Chedor-laomer. 
These chronological coincidences strongly confirm the argument from 
the identity of name. 

Note LXXXL, p. 74. 

This passage is probably known to most students, but as it is too 
important to be omitted from the present review of the historical evi- 
dences, I subjoin it entire. 

" Manetho . . . introducing a supposititious king, Amenophis, says 
that he desired to see the gods, as Orus had done, one of those who 
reigned before him. lie expressed this desire to his namesake Amen- 
ophis, the son of Paapis, who had the reputation of being a partaker 
of the divine nature, on account of his wisdom and knowledge of the 
future. His namesake accordingly told him that he would be able to 
see the gods, if he should purge the whole country of lepers, and all 
other polluted men. Delighted with this promise, the king gathered 
out of Egypt all who had any bodily defect, and placed them in the 
quarries, on the east side of the Nile, that they might work in them, 
and be separate from the rest of the Egyptians. He says also that there 
were among them some of the learned priests afflicted with the leprosy ; 
but that Amenophis, the wise man and prophet, feared the anger of the 
gods towards himself and the king, if they should see the gods without 
their consent. He also declared, that certain men would form an alli- 
ance with these polluted persons, and would get possession of Egypt, 
and hold it for thirteen years. But not daring to tell these things to 
the king, he committed them all to writing, and then destroyed him- 
self, to the great grief of the king. After this he writes thus, word for 
word. ' But when those who were sent to the mines had endured their 
misery for a long time, the king consented to assign to them, for their 

Lect. II. NOTES. 283 

abode and protection, the city Avaris, which had then been abandoned 
by the shepherds. Now this city, according to the ancient theology, 
is the city of Typhon. Entering into this city, and having it for a 
centre of their rebellion, they appointed as their prince one of the 
priests of the Heliopolitans, named Hosarsiphus, and they took an 
oath to obey him in all things. He gave them, first of all, this law, 
not to worship the gods, nor to abstain from any of those animals 
esteemed most sacred in Egypt, but to kill and destroy them all ; and 
not to have intercourse with any but those who had taken the oath. 
Having established these laws, and many others exceedingly contrary 
to the Egyptian customs, he commanded that many hands should be 
employed in repairing the wails of the city, and that they should make 
themselves ready for war with King Amenophis. Then, joining with 
him the other priests and polluted persons, he sent ambassadors to the 
shepherds who had been driven out by Tethmosis, to the city called 
Jerusalem. He declared to them the treatment which he, and those 
who shared in his dishonor, had received, and asked them to join all 
their forces in an expedition against Egypt. He promised first of all 
to lead them back to Avaris, their ancestral city, to furnish their army 
abundantly with all things necessary, to fight for them, if need should 
require, and easily to make the country subject to them. The shep- 
herds were overjoyed, and all eagerly sallied forth, to the number of 
200,000, and soon came to Avaris. But Amenophis, the king of 
Egypt, when he was apprised of their invasion, was not a little 
troubled, remembering the prediction of Amenophis the son of Paapis. 
And in the first place gathering the multitude of the Egyptians, and 
taking counsel with their rulers, he sent for the sacred animals that were 
chiefly worshipped in their temples to be brought to him, and com- 
manded the priests in different places to hide the images of the gods as 
securely as possible. His son Sethos, called also Ramcses, from his 
father Rhampses, being a child of five years old, he consigned to his 
friend. He then passed on with the rest of the Egyptians, amounting 
to 300,000 men skilled in war. When he met the enemy, however, he 
did not engage in battle with them, but, thinking that this would be 
to fight against the gods, he turned back, and came to Memphis. 
Then taking Apis, and the other sacred animals which had been sent 
thither, he immediately departed into Ethiopia. For the king of the 
Ethiopians was under obligations to him ; wherefore he received the 

284 NOTES. Lect. IL 

whole multitude, and furnished them with such necessaries of life as 
the country afforded, and gave them cities and villages sufficient for 
them to dwell in during the predetermined period of thirteen years while 
Amenophis was expelled from his kingdom. lie moreover put the 
Ethiopian army at the service of King Amenophis, for the defence of 
the frontiers of Egypt. Thus far concerning the Ethiopians. But the 
Jerusalemites came down with the polluted Egyptians, and treated men 
with such impious cruelty, that their rule seemed to them who beheld 
their impieties the very worst possible. For they not only burned 
cities and villages, and sacrilegiously abused the images of the gods, 
but, not content with this, they used these images in roasting the animals 
that were reverenced as sacred, and compelled the priests to be the 
sacrificers and slaughterers of these animals, and then drove them naked 
out of the country. It is said also that the priest who gave them their 
laws, and ordered their civil officers, who was by birth a Heliopolitan, 
named Osarsiph, from Osiris, the god of Heliopolis, when he had joined 
himself to this race of men, changed his name, and was called Moses.' 
" Such things the Egyptians relate concerning the Jews, and many 
more which I pass over for the sake of brevity. And Manetho says 
again, that after these things Amenophis came from Ethiopia with a 
great force, and his son Rhampses with him, he also having an army ; 
and the two together, engaging in battle with the shepherds and the 
polluted men, defeated them, and having slain many, drove them even 
to the borders of Syria." (Joseph. Contra Apionem, i. 26, 27.) 

Compare with this the briefer account of Cha?remon, who said, 
"Isis appeared to Amenophis in his sleep, and blamed him because 
her temple had been destroyed in the war. But Phritiphantes, the 
sacred scribe, told him that all cause of alarm would be removed, if 
he should purify Egypt from men who were polluted. Whereupon he 
gathered 250,000 of these obnoxious persons, and banished them. 
Over these were the scribes, Moses and Joseph, who was also a sacred 
scribe. Their Egyptian names were, of Moses, Tisithen, and of 
Joseph, Peteseph. These came to Pelusium, and found there 380,000 
persons, who had been left by Amenophis, because he did not wish to 
bring them into Egypt. Forming an alliance with these, they marched 
against Egypt. But Amenophis, without awaiting their attack, fled 
into Ethiopia, leaving his wife, who was pregnant. She hid herself in 
a certain cave, where she brought forth a son, whose name was 

Lect. n. NOTES. 285 

Mcsscnes. He, after he grew up to manhood, drove the Jews, who 
were about 200,000, into Syria, and brought back his father from 
Ethiopia." (Joseph., 1. s. c. ch. 32.) 

Note LXXXIL, p. 74. 

The name Osarsiph, which, according to Manetho, was the Egyptian 
appellation of Moses, seems to be a corruption of Joseph, whom Chaere- 
mon made Moses' companion and fellow-helper. The statement that 
Moses was "a priest of Heliopolis" which was also made by Apion 
(Josephus, Contra Apionem, ii. 2) is either a perversion of the Scrip- 
tural fact of Joseph's marriage with " the daughter of Potipherah, 
priest of On," ' or possibly an indication of a fact not recorded in 
Scripture, that Moses gained his knowledge of the Egyptian wisdom 
at that seat of learning. The fear of Amenophis for his son's safety 
recalls to our thoughts the last of the plagues : the forced labor of 
the Jews in the stone quarries is not very different from the compul- 
sory brick-making ; the cry of pollution is probably connected with 
the earlier plagues, or perhaps it is only an exaggeration of the feeling 
which viewed "every shepherd" as "an abomination." (Gen. xlvi. 
34.) The mention of Jerusalem, or rather Salem, (the Salemites,) at 
this time, confirms Gen. xiv. 18 ; and the occurrence of Rameses as a 
family name in the dynasty harmonizes with its use as a local designa- 
tion. (Gen. xlvii. 11 ; Exod. i. 11, and xii. 37.) 

Note LXXXIII., p. 75. 

See Sir Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology, vol. i. p. 240. " I need 
not dwell," he says, "on the proofs of the low antiquity of our species, 
for it is not controverted by any exjicrienccd geologist ; indeed, the real 
difficulty consists in tracing back the si^ns of man's existence on the 
earth to that comparatively modern period when species, now his con- 
temporaries, began to predominate. If there be a difference of opinion 
respecting the occurrence in certain deposits of the remains of man and 
his works, it is always in reference to strata confessedly of the most modern 
order; and it is never pretended that our race co-existed with assem- 
blages of animals and plants, of which all or even a great part of the 
species are extinct." 

This remark will, I conceive, hold good, whatever judgment is ulti- 

i Gun. xli. 45. 

286 NOTES. Lect. II. 

matcly formed by science of the results which have been recently 
obtained by Mr. Horner in Egypt, ' by M. Boucher de Perthes in 
France, 2 and by Mr. Prestwich and others in our own country. The 
strata examined and said to contain the most ancient human remains 
hitherto found, are the alluvium of Egypt, and the diluvium or "drift" 
of Europe ; which are both, geologically, strata of a comparatively 
modern origin. The rashness of the conclusions as to the minimum 
antiquity of our race in Egypt, which Mr. Horner drew from his 
researches, has been ably exposed by a writer in the Quarterly Review, 
(April, 1859, No. 210, pp. 419-421.) 

Note LXXXIV., p. 75. 

The researches and arguments of Blumenbach, Haller, Cuvier, ana, 
above all, of Dr. Prichard, {Physical History of Mankind, vol. i. pp. 
114-376,) have established this point beyond all reasonable doubt. 
Even the author of the Vestiges of Creation admits " the result, on the 
whole, of inquiries into what are called the physical history of man," 
to be, "that conditions such as climate and food, domestication, and 
perhaps an inward tendency to progress under tolerably favorable 
circumstances, are sufficient to account for all the outward peculiarities 
of form and color" observable among mankind. {Vestiges, p. 262, tenth 

Note LXXXV., p. 75. 

"Physiological Ethnology," says Professor Max Milller, "has ac- 
counted for the varieties of the human race, and removed the barriers 
which formerly prevented us from viewing all mankind as the members 
of one family, the offspring of one parent. The problem of the variety 
of language is more difficult, and has still to be solved, as we must 
include in our survey the nations of America and Africa. But over 
the languages of the primitive Asiatic Continent of Asia and Europe 
a new light begins to dawn, which, in spite of perplexing appearances, 
reveals more and more clearly the possibility of their common origin." 
(See M. Bunsen's Philosophy of Universal History, vol. i. p. 474 ; and 
compare pp. 478, 479.) 

1 Account of some recent Researches near Cairo, (first published in the Philosophical 
Transactions,) l>y Leonard Horner, Esq., Parts i. and ii. London, 1855 and 1858. 
- Jlntiquites Ccltiqu.cs et Antt-diluviennes, par M. Boucher de Perthes, Paris, 1847. 

Lect. n. NOTES. 287 

Note LXXXVL, p. 75. 

"It is pleasing to remark," says Sir H. Rawlinson, speaking of the 
different races in Western Asia, "that if we were to be guided by 
the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all 
reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the 
plains of Shinar, as the focus from ichich the various lines had radiated." 
(Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part 2, p. 232. Compare the 
statements of the same writer in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 586.) 

Note LXXXVII., p. 75. 

The only case in which we can form a judgment of the linguistic 
accuracy of the Pentateuch is that of the Egyptian terms, since here 
only have we any sufficient knowledge of the language spoken in the 
country at the time. I'nder this head come the following : 

1. Pharaoh, (ri>**B<) as the title of Egyptian kings (Gen. xii. 15, xl. 
2 ; Ex. i. 11,) which has been explained as Ph-ouro, "the king;" but 
which is more probably Ph-rah, " the Sun," a title borne by the Egyp- 
tian monarchs from very early times. (Wilkinson, in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 182, note 1.) 

2. Potiphar, (lEiCIB,) or Potipherah, OnE-'S'iE.) which is Pcte- 
ph-re, " belonging to the Sun " a name common upon the monu- 
ments, (Ilosellini, Monumenti Storici, i. 117; Champollion, Precis, Table 
Gencrale, p. 23,) and specially appropriate to a Priest of On, or Heli. 
opolis. Compare the name Peteseph, "belonging to Seb, (Chronos,) " 
which, according to Chicremon, was the Egyptian name of Joseph. 
(Supra, Note LXXXI.) 

3. Asenath, (r:21X,) which is, according to Jablonsky, (Opuscula, ii. 
208,) Asshe-nrith, " worshipper of Neith," or more probably, as Gese- 
nius observes, (Thesaurus, ad voc.,) As-neith, " quae Neithffi (est,)" 
"belonging to Neith." It has been doubted whether Neith was wor- 
shipped at this early date ; but she seems to have been really one of 
the primitive deities of Lower Egypt. (Bun sen, Egypt's Place, vol. i. 
p. 389.) Her name forms an element in that of Nitocris, (Xcith-akri,) 
a queen of the sixth dynasty. (Wilkinson, Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 165, 
noie 2.) 

4. Zaphnath-Paancah, (w.sZ'TZZI^) the name which Pharaoh gave 

288 NOTES. Lect. IL 

to Joseph, is best explained through the Septuagint Psontho-mphanech, 
which closely corresponds to the Coptic Psont-mfaneh, " sustainer of 
the age," or as Jerome says, a little freely, " salvator mundi." (See 
Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1181.) The first two letters have been trans- 
posed in the Hebrew, either by accident, or to suit Jewish articulation, 
and at the same time to produce a name significant to Jewish ears. 

5. Moses (fTOft) was undoubtedly an Egyptian name, since it was 
selected by Pharaoh's daughter, (Ex. ii. 10.) ^Ve are told that it was 
significant, being chosen "because she drew him out of the water." 
The real etymology was long since given fully by Josephus, (Ant. Jud. 
ii. 9, $ 6,) partially by Philo, (De vita Mosis, i. Op. vol. ii. p. 83,) and 
Clemens Alexandrinus, (Strom, i. p. 412.) Josephus "The Egyptians 
eall water mo, and those who are rescued from the water uses." 
Philo " The Egyptians call water mos." Clem. Alex. " The 
Egyptians call water moti." The last of these forms is the best. 
Moil is still "water" in Coptic, and the old Egyptian word given 
by Bunsen as muau ' was similar. According to Jablonsky (Opus- 
cula, i. 152) oushe in Coptic is "to save." I am not aware whether 
this root has been found yet in the ancient Egyptian. 

6. Besides these names, a certain number of Egyptian words have 
been detected in the language of the Pentateuch. Such are ^ns< (or 
^HIS* i LXX. ax a >) w hich Jablonsky found to signify in Coptic " every 
green thing which is produced in a pool," (Opuscula, vol. i. p. 45 ;) 
perhaps i"QFl> (LXX. Qijin,) the word used both for Noah's Ark, and 
for the small ark in which Moses was placed, (La Croze, Lexicon Egyp- 
tiacum, sub voc. ;) and "fj13S which is explained from the Coptic as 
au-rek, "bow every one," or ape-rek, "bow the head." (See Gesenius, 
Hebrdisches und Chalddisches HandicOrterbueh, ad voc, p. 10, E. T., and 
compare de Rossi, Etym. Egypt., p. 1.) 

The geographic accuracy of the Pentateuch has been illustrated by a 
number of writers. Dr. Stanley, one of the most recent and most calm- 
judging of modern Oriental travellers, observes with respect to the 
Mosaic accounts of the Sinaitic desert " Even if the precise route of 
the Israelites were unknown, yet the peculiar features of the country 
have so much in common that the history would still receive many 
remarkable illustrations. . . . The occasional springs, and wells, and 

1 Bnsen\s Egypt, vol. i. p. 471, No. 31? 

Lect. II. notes. 289 

brooks, are in accordance with the notices of the ' waters ' of Marah, 
the ' springs ' of Elim, the ' brook ' of Horeb ; the ' well ' of Jethro's 
daughters, with its troughs ' or tanks. The vegetation is still that 
which we should infer from the Mosaic history," &c. (Sitiai and Pales- 
tine, pp. 20, 21 ; compare pp. 22, 24, 129, &c.) In the account of 
Egypt the accuracy is seen not only in the general description of the 
territory its rich meadows and corn-lands ; its abounding river, 
edged with flags and bulrushes, (Ex. ii. 3 ;) its wealth of waters derived 
therefrom, ' streams and rivers, and ponds, and pools of water," (Ex. 
vii. 19;) its wheat, and rye, and barley, and flax, (ib. ix. 31, 32,) and 
green trees (palm-trees r) yielding fruit, (ib. x. 15 ;) but also in the 
names and sometimes in the sites of towns. On, (r$,) Pithom, (~'ps,) 
Harnesses, (cCy-|>) Zoan, (y^^i) and Migdol, (;~3^>) which are among 
the few Egyptian towns mentioned by Moses, are all well-known places. 
Of On, the Greek Hcliopolis, it is unnecessary to speak. Pithom is the 
1 atumus of Herodotus, (ii. 158,) the city of Thmei, (Justice,) called 
' Thmuin " in the Itinerary of Antonine, (p. 9.) Ramesses is Beth- 
Ranicses, a city of which we have a description in a hieratic papyrus of 
the 18th or 19th dynasty. (See Cambridge Essays, 1858, Art. VI. 
p. 254.) Zoan, the Tanis of the EXX. whence the " Tanitic nome " 
of Herodotus, (ii. 166,) and the "Tanitic mouth" of later authors, is 
the modern San or Zan, evidently a great town in the time of the Rames- 
side monarchs. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egypt, i. p. 449.) Migdol, the 
Magdolus of Hecatreus, (Fr. 282,) retains its name in the Itinerary j ? 
Antonine, (p. 10,) and appears in the position assigned by Moses, on 
the north-east frontier, near Pelusium. Again, the name by which 
Egypt itself is designated, Mizraim, (~*~l"' , :>) has a peculiar geographi- 
cal significancy. The dual form marks the two Egypts " the upper 
and the lower country " as they are termed in the inscriptions. 1 
Equally significant is Padan-nram, (~*S~"|1 5 ,) " the plain Syria " the 
country stretching away from the foot of the hills, (Stanley's Palestine, 
p. 128, note 1,) where Harran stood, which was so different a tract from 
the mountainous Syria west of the Euphrates. Again, the expression, 
*' the entrance of Hamath," (Numb. xiii. 21,) shows a conversance with 
the geography of Upper Palestine, whereof this " entrance " is so 

1 The common hieroglyphic si^n* f"r the wholn of Keypt are two crowns, tiro water- 
plants, or tro layers of earth. (Lcpsius, Sur V.llphabct Ilicroglyphiqur, I'lunche 1. 
Groups vii. col. C. 


290 NOTES. Lect. IL 

striking a feature, (Stanley, p. 399,) and with the existence of Hamath 
at the time, which may be proved from the hieratic papyri of the period. 
(See Cambridge Essays, 1858, p. 268.) Some further geographical points 
will be touched in Note LXXXIX. 

The ethological accuracy of the Pentateuch as respects Oriental man- 
ners and customs generally, has never been questioned. The life of the 
Patriarchs in Canaan, the habits of those who dwell in the desert, the 
chiefs and followers, the tents, the wealth in cattle, the " sitting in the 
door," the salutations and obeisances, the constant migrations, the 
quarrels for pasture and water, the marriages with near relatives, 
the drawing of water from the wells by the young maidens, the troughs 
for the camels, the stone on the well's mouth, the camels kneeling with 
their burdens and waiting patiently till the troughs are full, the pur- 
chase by weight of silver, the oaths accompanied by peculiar ceremonies, 
the ox unmuzzled as he treads out the corn, these and ten thousand 
similar traits are so true to nature and to fact, even at the present day, 
(for the East changes but little,) that travellers universally come back 
from Syria deeply and abidingly impressed with roe reality and truth- 
fulness of the Pentateuch in all that respects Eastern manners. Ration- 
alism, in order to meet in any degree the weight of this argument, is 
forced to betake itself to Egypt, where an artificial system existed in 
the time of Moses which has now completely passed away. Von Bohlen 
maintains that in many respects the author of the Pentateuch shows a 
want of acquaintance with the customs of Egypt, e. g., in his mention 
of eunuchs at the Egyptian court, {Commentar, p. 360,) in his represen- 
tation of Pharaoh's daughter as bathing in the Nile, (ibid.,) and in his 
making wine a product of Egypt, (p. 374.) The objections taken are 
not particularly happy. (See llosellini as quoted by Hengstenberg, 
jEgypten una 1 Mose, p. 23 ; and Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, vol. hi. 
p. 389 ; Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 126.) Were they more important, they 
would be greatly outweighed by the multitude of passages where an 
intimate acquaintance with Ancient Egypt may be discerned. The 
position of the Egyptians with respect to foreigners their separation 
from them, yet their allowance of them in their country, their special 
hatred of shepherds, the suspicion of strangers from Palestine as spies 
their internal government, its settled character, the power of the King, 
the influence of the Priests, the great works, the employment of for- 
eigners in their construction, the use of bricks, (cf. Herod, ii. 136, with 

Lect. H. NOTES. 291 

Wilkinson's note ad loc.,) and of bricks with straw in them, (Wilkin- 
son, 1. s. c. and Camb. Essays, 1858, p. 259,) the taskmasters, the 
embalming of dead bodies, the consequent importation of spices, (Gen. 
xxxvii. 25,) the violent mournings, (Herod, ii. 85,) the dissoluteness 
of the women, (ibid. ii. Ill ; Camb. Essays, 1858, p. 234,) the lighting 
with horses and chariots, (Wilkinson on Herod, ii. 108 ; Camb. Essays, 
1858, pp. 240, 241,) these are a few out of the many points which 
might be noted marking an intimate knowledge of Egyptian manners 
and customs on the part of the author of the Pentateuch. (For a full 
treatment of the question, see the work of Hengstenberg quoted above, 
which exhibits a very good acquaintance with the works of modern 

Note LXXXVIII., p. 76. 

The uncertainty of geographers as to the sites of these cities, and the 
weak grounds upon which identifications of them were attempted, will 
be seen by reference even to works so recent as Winer's RealwOrterbuch 
(1848) and Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, (1856.) Ur was thought by 
some (Hitter, Kitto) to be Orfa or Edessa (so even Bunsen, Egypt, vol. 
iii. p. 366 ;) which according to others (Winer) was Erech : Calneh 
was supposed to be Ctesiphon, Calah to be Hoi wan ; Ellasar, which 
should have been in Lower Babylonia, was thought to be the Larissa 
of Xenophon, on the middle Tigris ; while Accad was cither Sacada or 
Nisibis. Any slight resemblance of name any late authority of a 
Talmudical or Arabic writer was caught at, in order to fix what the 
scanty remains of primeval geography left completely unsettled. 

Note LXXXIX., p. 76. 

The following sites seem to have been determined beyond all rea- 
sonable doubt by the Babylonian and Assyrian Inscriptions : 

1. Ur of the Chaldces, at Mughcir, on the right bank of the Eu- 
phrates, not very far above its junction with the S/iat-rl- 1 fie. This is 
the true Chaldrea of Scripture and of History, an Armenian Chald.ea 
being a fiction of the Greeks. 

2. Calah at Nimrud, on the left bank of the Tigris, a little above its 
junction with the Greater Zab. (The Halah of 2 Kings xvii. 6, is a 

292 notes. Lect. IL 

different place.) The province in which it stands long continued to be 
called Calachene, (Strab. xvi. 1, 1 ; Ptol. vi. 1.) 

3. Erech at Warka, (the Greek '0(>/6t;,) on the left bank of the 
Euphrates, and at some distance from the river, about 35 miles N. W. 
of Ur. 

The following identifications, if not certain, are at least highly prob- 
able : 1. Resen with Kilch-Sherghdt, on the right bank of the Tigris, 
not very far from its junction with the Lesser Zab. 2. Accad with a 
town in Lower Babylonia, called Kinzi Accad in the Inscriptions, the 
site of which is not yet determined. 3. Ellasar with Senkereh, 15 
miles S. E. of Warka, on the same side of the Euphrates. 4. Calneh 
with Niffer, in the same tract with Senkereh and Warka, but much 
nearer Babylon, and about midway between the two streams. (See the 
author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 313, 447, 592, &c.) 

Eor a description of the ruins of Ur and Erech, see Mr. Loftus's 
Chaldcea and Susiana, pp. 128-134, and 162 et seqq. ; for those of 
Calah, see Mr. Layard's Nineveh and its Remains, ch. ii. et seqq. ; 
some account is given of Resen {Kileh-Sherghaf) in the same work, ch. 
xii. ; and of Calneh (Niffer) in the same writer's Nineveh and Babylon, 
ch. xxiv. 

Note XC, p. 76. 

See the account which Mr. Cyril Graham has given of his travels in 
this region in the Cambridge Essays for 1858, pp. 157-162. Compar* 
Dr. Stanley's Si?iai and Palestine, p. 118. 

Note XCL, p. 76. 

See Commander Lynch* s Narrative of the United States Expedition to 
the River Jordan, and also his Official Report. Compare the Journal 
of the Geographical Society, vol. xviii. Artt. 8, 9, and 10, and vol. 
xx. Art. 15. For a summary of the facts, see Stanley's Sinai and 
Palestine, pp. 276-279, and the Essays appended to the first volume of 
the author's Herodotus, Essay ix. pp. 548, 549. Commander Lynch 
gives the following account of the impression made upon himself and 
his friends by their careful examination of the River and of the Lake 
in which it ends: " It is for the learned to comment on the facts 
which we have laboriously collected. Upon ourselves, the result is a 

Lect. m. NOTES. 293 

decided one. We entered upon this sea with conflicting opinions. One 
of the party was sceptical, and another, I think, a professed unbe- 
liever of the Mosaic account. After twenty-two days' close investi- 
gation, if 1 am not mistaken, we were unanimous in the conviction of the 
truth of the Scriptural account of the destruction of the cities of the 
plain." (Narrative, ch. xvii. p. 253.) 


Note I., p. 79. 

See Konig, Alttestament. Studien, p. G3, et seqq. ; Jahn, Einleitung, 
ii. 1, p. 160; and Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 35. 

Note II., p. 79. 

See Carpzov, Introductio ad libros Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, part 
i. p. 213, who gives the following list of writers by whom this view 
has been taken : Thcodoret, Procopius, Gregory the Gnat. Isidore, 
Eucherius, among the ancients ; among the moderns, Walther. Calo- 
vius, Hugo, I)e Lyra, Cajetan, Vatable, Sixtus Sinensis, Sanctius, Se- 
rarius, and Cornelius a Lapide." 

Note III., p. 79. 

There is no reference to the Book of Joshua as the work of Joshua in 
Scripture. It is first assigned to him in the Talmud. The Fathers aro 
divided in opinion as to its authorship. Athanasius, for instance, 
includes it among the books "not written by the persons whose names 
they bear and of whom they treat." (Synops. S. S. 10; Opera, vol. 
ii. p. 139, B.) 

Note IV., p. 79. 

Sec the summary of the arguments in Keil's Commentar liber d. Buch 
Jo.iua, Einleitung, 3, p. xlvii. Keil's conclusion is, " that the histor- 
ical references and the peculiarity of style completely disprove the 


294 notes. Lect. IIL 

supposition that the Book of Joshua was written during the captivity ; 
that they do not point to the times of Samuel, or Saul, or David, as 
the date of its composition, but rather to those after Joshua, and within 
a generation of his death. "Who then," he asks, "was the author? 
Most probably one of the elders, who lived for some time after Joshua, 
and who had seen all the works of Jehovah which he did for Israel, 
occupied himself at the close of his life with writing down, partly from 
recollection, partly from contemporary documents and other written 
notices, the things which he had himself Avitnessed, and thus composed 
the work which we possess under the name of Joshua." ' I should be 
disposed to acquiesce in this view. 

Note V., p. 81. 

De "Wette boldly denies this. " The book," he says, " nowhere con- 
tains any separate contemporary documents," (nicht einmal einzelne 
gleichzeitige Eestandtheile enthalt es. Einleitung, 169, p. 213.) But 
RosenmUller, Jahn, and others, seem to have reason on their side when 
they urge, that the accounts of the boundaries of the tribes, (xv. 
21-62 ; xviii. 21-28 ; xix. 1-48,) and of the cities of the Levites, (xxi. 
13-40,) have all the appearance of such documents. Such a document 
is also, as it seems to me, the list of slaughtered kings in chapter xii., 
(verses 9-24.) It appears by ch. xviii. 1-10, and xxiv. 26, that such 
records were in use at the time ; and it is a reasonable supposition that 
they formed the basis upon which the author, who quotes them, com- 
posed his work. Eichhorn observed long ago " The account of the 
division of the land bears in many places the marks of a protocol, which 
from its very nature never gives at once a brief sketch of the whole 
arrangement, but describes its gradual progress, and relates, one after 
another, all the alterations, improvements, and additions, that were 
made from time to time." {Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 36-5.) Keil remarks 
recently " When we come to the second part of the book, and observe 
the things of which it particularly treats ; how the history which it 
contains of the division of Canaan amongst the tribes is accompanied 
with full descriptions of the boundaries of the territory of each tribe, 
with catalogues of cities, and so on, we are necessarily led to the 

1 In the quotations from Professor Keil's learned and sensible work, I follow the 
Translation of Mr. J. Martin, which forms the fourteenth volume of Clark's Foreign 
Theolug-ical Library, New Series, (Edinburgh, 1857.) 

Lect. m. NOTES. 295 

conclusion, that the writer availed himself of written records, if not o! 
official documents." (Commentar, Einleitung, 4 ; p. 47, E. T.) Com- 
pare Home, Introduction, vol. v. pp. 36, 37. 

Note VI., p. 81. 


See Carpzov, Introductio ad Libros Canonicos Veteris Testamenti, p. 
172, et seqq. ; and compare the quotation from Baba-Bathra in The- 
odore Parker's Translation of De Wette, vol. i. p. 31. See also Home's 
Introduction, vol. v. p. 42. 

Note VII., p. 81. 

Compare Judges i. 21 with 2 Sam. v. G-9. This passage, it is ad- 
mitted, " seems to belong to the time of David." (Parker's De Wette, 
yol. i. p. 20G.) 

Note VIII., p. 81. 

The chronology of the Book of Judges is involved in great imccr- 
tainty. Several periods are unestimated, as the time between the death 
of Joshua and the first servitude, the judgeship of Sham'gar, and some 
portion of the reign of Abimelech. The servitudes added together 
occupy 111 years, and the periods during which the land was at rest or 
under Judges occupy apparently 299 years, or if Samson's judgeship 
be included in the last servitude, (Jud. xv. 20,) 27!) years. The total is 
thus 410, or 390.' But in 2 Kings vi. 1, the entire period between the 
Exodus and the Dedication of the Temple is declared to have been no 
more than 480 years. Now if we take the lower of the two numbers 
derivable from Judges, and add the sojourn in the wilderness, (40 
years,) the time of Joshua's judgeship, (say 20 years,) the interval 
between Joshua's death and the 1st servitude, (say 5 years,) the judge- 
ships of Eli, (10 years,) and of Samuel, (more than 20 years, 1 Sam. 
vii. 2,) the reigns of Said, (10 years,) of David, (10 years,) and the 
three years of Solomon's rci^n before the Dedication, we obtain the 
result of (390 -f- 40 -f 20 + .J -4- 10 -f- 20 -f- 10 -I- 40 + 3 = ) .'598 years. 
r more than a century beyond the estimate in Kin^s. It is therefore 

1 With this nearly agrees St. Paul's estimate of 450 years from the division of the 
land by lot to Samuel the prophet. (Arts xfil.20;) for 390 + 40 (the time of Eli's jndfte- 
ship) + 20 (a not improbable estimate for the time between the death of Moses and (he 
1st Servitude) = 450 years. 

29G notes. Lect. III. 

thought that the period of the Judges must be reduced ; and the term 
ordinarily assigned to them, exclusive of Eli and Samuel, is from 300 
to 350 years. (See the marginal dates in the English Bible, and com- 
pare Clinton, Fasti Ilellenici, vol. i. p. 313, note ".) M. Bunscn, with 
his usual boldness, reduces the time still further, making the period 
from the death of Joshua to that of Samson no more than 173 years. 
(See his Egypt, vol. iii. p. 288.) This is effected by giving Othniel and 
Deborah 8 years each instead of 40, by reducing the time between the 
2d and 3d servitudes from 80 years to 7, by shortening Gideon's pres- 
idency from 40 years to 10, and by regarding the line of Judges from 
Tola to Abdon as double, whereby 94 years are compressed into 48 ! 
If chronology be treated in this spirit, it is to be feared that it -will 
shortly come to be regarded pretty nearly in the same light as the 
etymology of the last century, in which, it was said, " VoavcIs are good 
for nothing, and consonants of small account." 

Note IX., p. 82. 

Jahn, Einleitung, 46, vol. ii. p. 232, et seqq. Ilerbst, Einlcitung, 
vol. ii. p. 139, et seqq. ; Graf, Dissertatio de librorum Samuelis et llegum 
compost tume, &c. A good refutation of Jahn's theory will be found in 
Kitto's Cyclopadia, in the article on the " Books of Samuel," vol. ii. p. 
68 o.) 

Note X., p. 82. 

See Carpzov, Introductio, &c, p. 213. Modern critics mostly take the 
view that the Books of Samuel were merely founded on these doc- 
uments. (See Ililvcrniek, Einleitung, 161 ; Stuart, History of the Old 
Testament Canon, \ fi, p. 134 ; Rev. J. Eadie in Kitto's Cyclopcedia, vol. 
ii. p. 684 ; &c.) Home, however, with Carpzov (p. 215) and Span- 
heim, {Opera, vol. i. p. 367,) holds to the ancient view. (See his 
Introduction, vol. v. p. 48.) The difference between the two views is 
not great 

Note XI., p. 83. 

Ahijah the Shilonite is mentioned as a contemporary of Solomon 
in 1 Kings xi. 29. As the visions of Iddo the seer were "against Jer- 
oboam the son of Nebat," he must have been, at the latest, contempo.- 
rary with Solomon's successor. 

Lect. III. 



Note XII., p. 84. 

De "Wctte says correctly ' ' The history of David, contained in 
1 Chron. x.-xxix., is in parts entirely consistent with that in the 
books of Samuel ; but it is distinguished from that by having severed 
accounts peculiar to itself, and especially by its Levitical accounts." 
(Einleitung, 188, p. 241 ; vol. ii. p. 261, of Parker's Translation.} 
Such accounts are particularly the following 1. The lists of those 
who joined David at Ziklag and at Hebron, (ch. xii.) 2. David's 
imstructions to Solomon and the princes with regard to the temple, 
(ch. xxii. and ch. xxviii.) 3. His offerings and those of the people, 
(ch. xxix. 1-9.) 4. His thanksgiving, and prayer, (ibid. 10-19.) 5. His 
great sacrifice and installing of Solomon as king for the second time, 
(ibid. 20-25.) And, 6. The lists of the Levites, Priests, singers, por- 
ters, captains, &c, as made out or appointed by David, (chs. xxii.- 
xxvii.) The remainder of the first book of Chronicles follows Samuel 
closely, in most passages almost to the letter ; e. g. 

1 Chuon. x. 1-10. 

Now the Philistines fought a- 
gainst Israel ; and the men of Is- 
rael fled frcjm before the Philis- 
t.nes, and fell down slain in mount 
Gilboa. And the Philistines fol- 
lowed hard after Saul, and after 
his sons ; and the Philistines slew 
Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Mal- 
chi-shua, the sons of Saul. And 
the battle went sore against Saul, 
and the archers hit him, and he 
was wounded of the archers, &c, 

1 Sam. xxxi. 1-10. 

Now the Philistines fought a- 
gainst Israel : and the men of Is- 
rael lied from before the Philis- 
tines, and fell down slain in mount 
Gilboa. And the Philistines fol- 
lowed hard upon Saul and upon 
his sons ; and the Philistines slew 
Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Mel- 
chi-shua, Said's sons. And the 
battle went sore against Saul, and 
the archers hit him ; and he was 
sore wounded of the archers, &c, 

Note XIII., p. 84. 

That the seventy -eighth Psalm is a work of David's time, is apparent 
from its bringing the history down to him, and then closing abruptly. 
The title, * Maschil of Asaph," is an external confirmation of this view- 

298 notes. Lect. IIL 

Even Dc "Wette appears to allow that Asaph was the author. (Einici~ 
twig, 271, p. 36G.) In this Psalm are mentioned the following his- 
torical facts : (1.) The giving of the law by Jehovah, (verse .5 ;) (2.) 
The command that it should be made known by fathers to their chil- 
dren, (verses 5, 6; compare Deut. iv. 9, &c. ;) (3.) the miracles 
wrought in Egypt, (verse 12 ;) (4.) the turning of the rivers, and (5.) 
other waters, into blood, (verse 44;) (6.) the plague of flies, (v. 4.3 ;) 
(7.) of frogs, (ib. ;) (8.) of locusts, (v. 46;) (9.) of hail, (v. 47 ;) (10.) 
the destruction by the hail of cattle as well as trees, (v. 48 ;) (11.) the 
death of the first-born, (v. 51 ;) (12.) the employment of angels in this 
destruction, (v. 49;) (13.) the divine leading of the Israelites out of 
Egypt, (v. 52 ;) (14.) the pillar of cloud (15.) by day, (v. 14;) (16.) 
the pillar of fire (17.) by night, (ibid. ;) (18.) the division of the Red 
Sea, (v. 13;) (19.) the standing of the water in a Jieap, (ibid.; com- 
pare Ex. xv. 8 ;) (20.) the divine guidance of the Israelites through 
the sea, (v. 53 ;) (21.) the overwhelming of the Egyptians, (ib. ;) (22.) 
the frequent murmuring in the wilderness, (verses 17-20;) (23.) the 
bringing forth of water from the rock. (v. 15 ;) (24.) in vast abun- 
dance, (v. 16;) (25.) the asking for meat, (v. 18;) (26.) the kindling 
of a fire against the people, (v. 21 ; compare Numb. xi. 1 ;) (27.) the 
manna, (v. 24 ;) (28.") its coming down from heaven, (v. 23 ; compare 
Ex. xvi. 4 ;) (29.) the ampleness of the supply, (v. 25 ;) (30.) the giv- 
ing of quails, (v. 27;) (31.) which were brought by a wind, (v. 26; 
compare Numb, xi. 30,) (32.) and let fall "round about their habita- 
tion," (v. 28; compare Numb. xi. 31;) (33.) the destructive plague 
which followed, (v. 31,) (34.) "while the meat was yet in their 
mouths," (v. 30 ; compare Numb. xi. 33 ;) (35.) the various further 
provocations, (vv. 32, 37, &c. ;) (36.) the punishment by "consuming 
their days" in the wilderness, (v. 33 ;) (37.) the mercy of God in "not 
stirring up all his wrath," (v. 38 ;) (38.) the frequent repentances after 
punishment, and frequent relapses, (vv. 34-42 ;) (39.) the divine con- 
duct to the border of the Holy Land, (v. 54 ;) (40.) the casting out of 
the Heathen before them, (v. 55 ;) (41.) the division of the inheritances, 
(ib. ;) (42.) the cowardice of Ephraim, (v. 9; compare Josh. xvi. 10; 
Judges i. 29;) (43.) the backsliding and idolatry in Canaan, (vv. 56- 
58 ;) (44.) the placing of the tabernacle at Shiloh, (v. 60 ;) (45.) its 
capture, (v. 61 ;) (46.) the great slaughter at the same time, (v. 62 ;) 
(47.) the slaughter of priests in the battle, (v. 64 ;) (48.) the punish- 

Lect. III. notes. 299 

ment of the captors by emerods, (v. 66 ;) (49.) the choice of the terri- 
tory of Judah for the final resting-place of the tabernacle, (v. 68 ;) 
(50.) the choice of Mount Zion as the place where it should be set up, 
(ib. ;) (51.) the selection of David to be king, (v. 70 ;) (52.) his being 
taken " from the sheep-folds," (ibid. ;) and (53.) the integrity and 
excellence of his rule, (v. 72.) 

Note XIV., p. 85. 
Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 132, 133. 

Note XV., p. 85. 

M. Bunsen supposes that Assyria, from the commencement of its 
independence in B. C. 1273, was not only a powerful kingdom, but a 
great empire, holding Syria, Palestine, and even occasionally Egypt in 
subjection, {Egypt, vol. hi. pp. 269, 289, . &c.) But this view rests 
entirely upon Ctesias, a writer (as M. Bunsen confesses ') of very low 
authority ; or rather it rests upon an odd jumble between the facts (?) 
of Ctesias and the dates of Herodotus and Berosus. Nothing is more 
plain from the Assyrian inscriptions, the authority of which M. Bunsen 
admits, 2 than the gradual rise of Assyria to power during the 520 (526) 
years assigned by Herodotus to the Empire. Tiglath-Pileser I., Avhose 
date is fixed, with a near approach to certainty, in the latter part of the 
eleventh century B. C, gives a list of his four ancestors and predeces- 
sors which must reach back at least to B. O. 1200, wherein he calls the 
first of them "the king who first organized the country of Assyria;" 
the second and third kings who were established in the government 
of Assyria;" and the fourth, his father, "the Bubduer of foreign coun- 
tries ;" while he calls himself " the illustrious prince who has pursued 
after the enemies of Asshur and has subjugated all the earth." Yet his 
campaigns are only in the Kurdish mountains, in Armenia, Cappadocia, 
and upper Syria about Carchemish. lie does not penetrate to Hamath, 
to Phoenicia, or to Damascus, much less to Palestine ; while he con- 
stantly declares that he is engaged with tribes and countries which 
none of the Assyrian kings had ever before reached. (See the Great 

1 EgWt, vol iii. p. 433. * Ibid. p. 430. 

300 NOTES. Lect. IIL 

Inscription, published by the Royal Asiatic Society, 1 pp. 22, 21, 34, 
42, &c.) 

Note XVI., p. 85. 

See Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 374-376. Com- 
pare Bunsen, Egypt, vol. hi. pp. 210, 211, 219-221, &c. 

Note XVII., p. 86. 

See above. Note XV. Chushan-llishathaim is placed by most Bibli- 
cal chronologists between B. C. 1400, and B. C. 1350. M. Bunsen 
puts him a century later. {Egypt, vol. iii. p. 272.) Even according 
to this latter view, he preceded Tiglath-Pileser I. by above a century. 

It is quite a gratuitous supposition of M. Bunsen's, that Chushan- 
Rishathaim was " a Mesopotamian satrap," (1. s. c.,) " the Assyrian 
satrap of Mesopotamia," (p. 289.) Scripture calls him " king ; " and 
besides, the cuneiform monuments make it perfectly clear that Assyria 
did not extend her dominion to Aram-Naharaim (the Aramaic portion 
of Mesopotamia, or the country between the Khabour and the Eu- 
phrates) till the middle of the twelfth century. M. Bunsen says, 
"There can never have been an empire in Eastern Syria coexistent with 
Assyria and Babylonia," (p. 293.) Why can there not? If the Assyr- 
ian and Babylonian kingdoms of the early period be rightly appre- 
hended, there is no more difficulty in supposing a powerful Aramaean 
state in Western Mesopotamia, than in imagining the country divided 
up, as we must otherwise regard it, among a number of petty princi- 
palities. Chushan-Rishathaim, however, it is to be observed, reigned 
probably before the Assyrian independence was established. 

Note XVIII., p. 86. 

Moses says, "When he (i. e. Joshua) was destroying the Canaanites, 
some fled to Agra, and sought Tharsis in ships. This appears from an 
inscription, carved on pillars in Africa, which is extant even in our 
own time, and is of this purport : ' We, the chiefs of the Canaanites, 
fleeing from Joshua the Robber, have come hither to dwell.' " Hist. 
Arrnen., i. 18. 

1 Printed by J. W. Tarker, West Strand, London, 1857. 


Note XIX., p. 86. 

Procopius expresses himself as follows. Having mentioned Tigisis, 
(Tangiers,) a city of Numidia, he proceeds " "Where there are two 
columns, made of white stone, near the great fountain, having carved 
upon them Phoenician letters, which read thus in the language of the 
Phoenicians : * We are they who fled from the face of Joshua the ltob- 
ber, the son of Nun.' " (L>e Ecllo Vandalico, ii. 10.) This is clearly 
the language of an eye-witness. Procopius, it must be remembered, 
had accompanied lielisarius to Africa. 

Note XX., p. 86. 

(Suidas ad voc. Xaraitv Canaan.) "And there arc up to the present 
time such slabs in Numidia, containing the following inscription : ' We 
are Canaanites, whom Joshua the Ilobber drove out.' " 

Note XXI. p. 87. 

Kcil, Commentar liber d. Buck Josua, Einlcitung, 4, p. Ii. ; p. 51, 
E. T. 

Note XXII., p. 87. 

Mr. Kcnrick, who admits the existence of an inscription supposed to 
have the meaning given to it by the writers above quoted, decides that 
the inscription must have been mistranslated. {Phoenicia, p. 68.) lie 
remarks that the explanations of the hieroglyphical and cuneiform in- 
scriptions which were furnished by those who professed to understand 
them to the inquisitive Greeks, read us a lesson of distrust ; and suggests 
that a monument of the time of Joshua would have been unintelligible 
even to learned archaeologists in the days of Justinian. Hut the monu- 
ment may have been national and genuine without its dating from with- 
in a thousand years of the time of Joshua ; and if the cuneiform and 
hieroglyphical inscriptions were not accurately rendered to the Greeks, 
it was less through ignorance than through malice that they were per- 
verted. In this case the translation given by the natives is clearly an 
honest one ; and its peculiarities seem to me in its favor. The Arama- 
ism, " in nocownou," l is admitted to be "a plausible argument for the 

1 From tho face. 


302 NOTES. Lect. IIL 

correctness of the interpretation," (Kenrick, 1. s. c.) The form of the 
inscription, in which certain persons, not named or described, speak in 
the first person plural, which is said to be " wholly unlike that of genu- 
ine lapidary documents," (Kenrick, p. 67,) is no doubt unusual; but 
as certainly it is not impossible. The early cuneiform documents are 
commonly in the first person. And if the inscription were set up in a 
public place in Tingis, it would be sufficiently evident that by " we " 
was meant the people of the city. Besides, we are not sure that this 
was the whole of the inscription. The authors who report it are only 
concerned with a particular passage. There may have been a context, 
which would have taken away all appearance of harshness and abrupt- 
ness from the record. 

Note XXIII. p. 87. 

Very few Phoenician inscriptions have been found in Africa of a later 
date than the age of Augustus. (See Gesenius's Monximenta Scriptures 
Lingiuequc Phoenicia;, pp. 13, 313-328.) The Latin language appears 
to have by that time almost entirely superseded the Carthaginian for all 
public purposes. 

Note XXIV., p. 88. 

Herod, ii. 142. " Within this period, they say that the sun has four 
times departed from his usual course, rising twice where he now sets, 
and setting twice where he now rises." 

Note XXV., p. 88. 

" When Herodotus, the father of profane history, tells us, from the 
priests of Egypt, that their traditions had informed them, that in very 
remote ages the sun had four times departed from his regular course, 
having twice set where he ought to have risen, and twice risen where 
he ought to have set, it is impossible to read this most singular tradi- 
tion without recollecting the narrative in the book of Joshua, which 
relates, ' that the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hastened 
not to go down about a whole day ;' and the fact related in the history 
of Hezekiah, that the sun went back ten degrees on the dial of Ahaz.' " 
(Home, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knou-ledge of Holy Scrip- 
ture, vol. i. p. 176. Compare Goguet, Origines Legum et Artium, vol 
iii. p. 300.) 

Lect. UI. NOTES. 303 

Note XXVI., p. 88. 

Three other explanations of the narrative in Joshua have been sug- 
gested. Grotius, Isaac Peyrerius, Spinoza, and others, conjecture that 
a miracle was wrought, but not an astronomical one. Divine power 
caused, they think, an extraordinary refraction of the sun's rays, by 
which it continued to light up the field of battle long after its disk had 
sunk below the horizon. Michaelis, Sehultt:, Hess, and Dathe believe 
that nothing strange took place with regard to the sun, but that it con- 
tinued to lighten all night, in consequence of which the Israelites were 
able to continue the pursuit. Finally, Keil has suggested that nothing 
marvellous or out of the common course is intended in the narrative. 
The words of Joshua, " Sun, stand thou still," &c, (or " Sun, wait 
thou," as he translates it,) were, he thinks, spoken in the morning; and 
the prayer was simply that the sun might not set till the people had 
avenged themselves upon their enemies. The whole passage from verse 
12 to verse 15 inclusive, he considers to be quoted from the poem 
known as "the book of Jasher;" and therefore he feels justified in 
explaining its language poetically: "If we had had before us simple 
prose or the words of the historian himself," it would have been neces 
Bary to admit that the day was miraculously lengthened. But the 
words of a poet must be understood poetically. He remarks, that 
there is no reference to the miracle in the rest of Scripture (for he fairly 
enough questions whether Hab. iii. 11 is such a reference) a strange 
silence, if so great a miracle a-* that commonly understood at the pres- 
ent day, was really wrought on the occasion. These views on the part 
of a learned Hebraist, and of one who has no prejudice against mira- 
cles, seem to deserve attention. (See Keil's Commentar uber d. Buch 
Josua, ch. x. pp. 177-1U3 ; pp. 231-209, E. T.) 

Note XXVII., p. 89. 

Ap. Euseb. Pra>p. Ev. is. 30. "After this arose the prophet Samuel. 
Then, by the will of God, through the agency of Samuel, Saul was 
chosen king ; and he died after having reigned twenty-one years. Then 
David, his son, took possession of the kingdom, and discomfited the 
Syrians, icho dwell by the river Euphrates, and subdued Commagene, and 
the Assyrians and Phoenicians of Galadene." 

304 NOTES. Lect. Ill 

Note XXVIIL, p. 89. 

Fragmenta Hist. Grcrc, vol. iii. pp. 373, 374, Fr. 31 : " Now a great 
while after this, one of the inhabitants of the country, whose name was 
Adad, reigned over Damascus, and the rest of Syria except Phccnice. He 
made war with David, king of Judaea, and contended with him in many 
battles : but in the last, fought on the banks of the Euphrates, in which 
he was defeated, he showed himself the foremost of kings in strength 
and valor. It may be said that Nicolas, being the friend of Herod the 
Great, would have ready access to the sacred books of the Jews, and may 
have drawn his narrative thence. But the fragments of Nicolas do not 
indicate this. In the very few places where he touches ancient Jewish 
history, it is always in connection with his own country, and from a 
Damascene point of view. It is also to be remarked, that while he 
omits main features of the Jewish narrative, as the fact that the Syrians 
took part in the war against David as allies of the king of Zobah, he 
adds features not contained in that narrative ; as the name of the Syrian 
king, the extent of his dominions, and the occurrence of several battles 
before the last disaster. These points are quite compatible with the 
Jewish narrative, but they could not be drawn from it." 

Note XXIX., p. 90. 

Eupolemus said, in continuation of the passage above quoted: "He 
also made expeditions against the Idumeans, and Ammonites, and 
Moabites, and Itura?ans, and Nabatseans, and Nabdacans." (Euscb. 
Prcep. Ev. 1. s. c.) 

Note XXX., p. 90. 

See Dr. Stanley's Sinai and Palestine, pp. 262-264. 

Note XXXI., p. 90. 

See Heeren's Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. pp. 119-126; and Kenrick's 
Phoenicia, pp. 201-205. 

Note XXXIL, p. 91. 

The superior antiquity and preeminence in early times of Sidon over 
Tyre has been disputed. Niebuhr in his Lectures ( Vortrage fiber Alte 

Lect. IIL notes. 305 

Geschichtc, vol. i. p. 94 ; p. 78, E. T.) speaks of it as doubtful. And 
the writer of the article on Phoenicia, in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of 
Greek and Roman Geography, endeavors to prove the contrary, (vol. ii. 
p. 609.) But his arguments do not appear to me very cogent. It is 
easy to understand how Tyre, which in later tunes completely eclipsed 
her neighbor, should have assertors of her superior antiquity in the 
days of her glory, without supposing that her claim was founded in 
justice ; but is inexplicable that Sidon should in her lowest depression 
have succeeded in maintaining her claim against Tyre, unless there had 
been truth on her side. Mr. Kenrick appears to me to decide the con- 
troversy aright, when he concludes, that "Tyre was probably at first 
only a dependency of Sidon." (See his Pliamicia, pp. 340-342.) 

There is one important argument in favor of the early preeminence 
of Sidon, which is not noticed either by Mr. Kenrick, or the writer 
in Smith's Dictionary. Sidon takes precedence of Tyre in the early 
Egyptian lists. (See M. Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 214 ; and Cam- 
bridge Essays for 1858, Art. vi. p. 257.) 

Note XXXIII., p. 91. 

Homer makes no mention at all of Tyre or the Tynans, while he 
speaks of Sidon and the Sidonians repeatedly. (Sec Horn. II. vii. 
289, 290 ; xxiii. 741-744 ; Od. iv. G18; xv. 117, and 425.) He also in 
one passage uses " Sidonia " as the name of Phoenicia in general. 1 It 
has been suggested that he preferred "Sidon" and " Sidonian " to 
"Tyre" and " Tyrian," because the words are more "sonorous." 
(See Diet, of Greek and Roman Geography, 1. s. c.) But he would 
scarcely on that account have so determinedly excluded Tyre, the 
more important city of the two. at the time when he wrote, from all 
mention in either of his poems. 

Notf. XXXIV., p. 91. 

Strabo in one place (xvi. 2, $ 22) speaks somewhat obscurely on the 
subject ; but in another (i. 2, $ 33) he distinctly calls Sidon the mother 
city (rfiv nrjTpoitoXiv) of all Phoenicia. 

1 "They have embarked and k"o away to populous Sidonia, but I am li'ft behind with 
an aching heart." (Od. xiii. 285, 286.) 


306 NOTES. Lect. III. 

Note XXXV., p. 91. 

Justin says, " The nation of the Tyrians was founded by the Phoeni- 
cians, who, being annoyed by earthquakes, left their native country, 
and dwelt first in the Assyrian marsh, but afterwards on the sea-coast. 
Here they built a city, which they named Sidon, from the abundance 
of fish ; for Sidon is the Phoenician name for Jish. Many years after- 
wards, being overcome by the king of the Ascalonians, (i. e. the in* 
habitants of Ashkelon.) they took to their ships, and landing at Tyr* 
founded a city there, a year before the overthrow of Troy." (Historian 
xviii. 3.) Tyre is here made an actual colon} - from Sidon. (Compare 
Isaiah xxiii. 12, where Tyre is addressed as " daughter of Sidon.") 

Note XXXVL, p. 91. 

Josephus calls Dius " a man who is believed to have been very exact 
in Phoenician history." {Contra Apion. i. 17.) He probably lived soon 
after the time of Alexander. 

Note XXXVII., p. 91. 

Josephus distinctly states that Menander drew his Phoenician history 
from native sources. See his treatise Contra Apion., i. 18 : " Now this 
man wrote an account of the acts performed among the Greeks and the 
Barbarians, under each of their kings, taking great pains to learn thh. 
history from the national literature of each people." (Compare Ant. 
Jud. ix. 14.) 

Dius and Menander appear to have been silent about Sidon, and to 
have made their Phoenician histories little more than histories of Tyre. 
(See their fragments in C. Mailer's Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iv. pp. 398 and 

Note XXXVHI., p. 91. 

The preeminence of Tyre over the other Phoenician cities from the 
time of David to the close of Phoenician history, has never, I believe, 
been denied. It is indicated in Scripture by the uniform tenor of the 
prophecies, (Is. xxiii. 1-18 ; Jer. xxv. 22, xlvii. 4 ; Ez. xxvi.-xxviii., 
&c. ;) on the monuments by the precedency assigned to Tyre in the 
lists of Phoenician towns, (Layard, Nineveh and Babylon, p. 356 ; Sir 

Lect. IIL notes. 307 

II. Rawlinson's Commentary on the Inscriptions of Babylonia and Assyria, 
p. 30 ; compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 470,) and in profane 
history by the constant mention which is made of Tyre, and the few 
and scattered notices of Sidon which occur during this period. The 
only remarkable exception to this consensus is Herodotus, who seems 
impressed with the superiority of Sidon. (See book vii. ch. 98, where 
the Sidonian king is given the post of honor ; and chaps. 44, 96, 99, 
100, &c, where the Sidonian ships are represented as excelling all 
the rest.) Perhaps he is unconsciously biassed by his Homeric learn- 
ing ; or perhaps Sidon did temporarily recover the preeminence from 
about B. C. 580 to B. C. 480, in consequence of Nebuchadnezzar's 
siege and destruction of Tyre. Tyre, however, was manifestly once 
more the leading city at the time of the invasion of Alexander. (Ar- 
rian, Exped. Alex., ii. 15, et seqq.) 

Note XXXIX., p. 91. 
See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 58. 

Note XL., p. 92. 

A " Hiram, king of Tyre," is mentioned in an inscription of Tiglath- 
Pileser II. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 470.) 

Note XLI., p. 92. 

"Mapen, the son of Sirom," (or Hirom,) was king of Tyre at the 
time of Xerxes's expedition against Greece, (Herodot. vii. 98.) The 
name also occurs among the Phoenicians of Cyprus, (ib. v. 104.) 

Note XLIL, p. 92. 

The following is the passage of Menander concerning Hiram which 
Josephus has preserved to us : " Now when Abibalus died, his son 
Hiram succeeded to the kingdom. He lived fifty-three years, and 
reigned thirty-four. He raised a bank on what was called ' the broad 
place,' and set up the golden pillar in the temple of Jupiter. Moreover 
he went and cut timber from the mountain called Lebanon, for cedar beams 
for the roofs of the temples ; and tearing down the ancient temples 
he built new ones- and consecrated the groves of Hercules and Astarte, 

308 NOTES. Lect. IIL 

and built the temple of Hercules first in the month Peritius, and after- 
wards that of Astartc, when he had marched against the Tityans, who 
refused to pay tribute. Having subdued them, he returned. In his 
reign there was one Abdemon, a very young man, who solved the prob- 
lems which Solomon, King of Jerusalem, proposed." (Contra Apion., 
i. 18.) 

Note XLIIL, p. 92. 

The words of Dius, as reported by Josephus, are " On the death of 
Abibalus, his son Hiram became king. This man raised banks in the 
eastern part of the city, and made it larger, and united to it the temple 
of Olympian Jupiter, which before stood on an island by itself. He 
built a causeway between, and adorned this temple with golden offerings. 
Moreover, he icent up into Lebanon, and cut timber to build temples. 
Now they say that Solomon, who ruled over Jerusalem, sent riddles to 
Hiram, and asked to receive riddles from him, on the condition that the 
one who could not solve them should pay a sum of money to the one 
who solved them. When Hiram had agreed to this, and was not able 
to solve the riddles, he paid a large sum of money as a forfeit. The 
account states, moreover, that one Abdemon, a man of Tyre, solved 
the riddles proposed, and proposed others himself, which Solomon 
being unable to solve, he forfeited a large sum to Hiram. (Contra 
Apioix., i. 17.) 

Note XLIV., p. 93. 

See Clem. Alex. Stromata, i. p. 386 : " Hiram gave his own daughter 
to Solomon ... as Menander of Pergamus says." Compare Tatian, 
Adrcrsus Grcecos, 37, p. 273. Mr. Kenrick thinks this was a mere 
" popular tradition," to which the intimate friendship between the two 
kings gave rise. He argues that Hiram would not have married his 
daughter to Solomon, " since she could only have been a secondary 
wife," and he further urges the silence of Scripture. (See his 
Phoenicia, p. 356.) The latter is always a weak ground, and in the 
present instance is not fully sustained, since among Solomon's seconda- 
ry wives are mentioned " Sidonian (i. e. Phoenician) princesses." The 
force of the former argument will depend on the relative greatness 
which we assign to the two princes. I should be inclined to regard the 
power of Solomon as greater, and that of Hiram as less, than Mr. 
Kenrick imagines. 

ect. IIL notes. 309 

Note XLV., p. 93. 

Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 375 ; Bunsen, Egypt, 
vol. ill. pp. 206, 207. 

Note XL VI., p. 93. 

See Euseb. Prcpp. Et\, ix. 31-34. The passage is also given among 
the fragments of Polyhistor, in Muller's Fragmenta Historicorum Graco- 
rum, vol. iii. pp. 225, 226, Fr. 18. 

Note XLVH., p. 94. 

Egyptian chronology has been made out with tolerable certainty from 
the Apis stelae discovered by M. Mariette, as far as the accession of 
Tirhakah, which appears to have been in B. C. 690. ("Wilkinson, in 
the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 380, 381.) Manetho's dynasties place 
between Tirhakah and the commencement of the 22d dynasty a space 
of about 275 years. This would give B. C. 965 as the date of Shi- 
shak's (or Sesonchis') accession. Assuming from the Canon of 
Ptolemy B. C. 651 as the date of Evil-merodach's accession, we obtain, 
by following the line of the kings of Judah, B. C. 976 for the acces- 
sion of Rehoboam, and B. C. 1016 for that of Solomon. This is as 
near an agreement as we could reasonably expect, between two chro- 
nologies both of which are somewhat uncertain. 1 

Note XLVIII., p. 94. 

Sesonchis is the form used by Africanus, Sesonchosis that adopted 
by Eusebius. (See the Fragments of Manetho, collected by Mons. C. 
Muller, in his Fragmenta Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 590, Frs. 60 and 61.) 

Note XLIX., p. 94. 

See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 377, and Bunsen, 
Egypt, vol. iii. p. 241. 

i The dates furnished by the Apis stela prove that Manetho's lists, as we havo them, 
are not wholly to ho depended on. In the Scripture chronology of the time, ouo 
element of doubt is furnished by the difference which sometimes exists between tho 
I,X \. and the Hebrew text. Another arises from the want of exact agreement botwoou 
the chronology of the Israelite and of the Jewish kings. 


The 21st, or first Tanite dynasty, belonged to the sacerdotal caste, 
and in various respects bore a peculiar character. "With Sheshonk, the 
first king of the 22d, or first Eubastite, dynasty, we have a return to 
the old character of Egyptian monarchs. (Wilkinson, in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 375, 376; Bunsen, Egypt, vol. iii. pp. 220, 221, 
and 241.) 

Note L., p. 94. 

See Euseb. Prcpp. Ev., ix. 34. 

Note LI., p. 94. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. " Now Theophilus says, that Solomon sent the surplus 
of gold to the king of the Tyrians, and that this last made a life-like 
statue of his daughter, of full length, and for a covering to the statue 
a hollow pillar of gold." 

Note LIL, p. 95. 

See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. Essay vii. pp. 490, 491. Compare 
Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 634, 635. 

Note ML, p. 96. 

Xineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 650 and 655. For an account of 
the structures at Susa and Persepolis, see Mr. Loftus's Chald&a and 
Susiana, ch. xxviii. pp. 364-380, and Mr. Fergusson's elaborate work, 
The Palaces of Xineveh restored, pp. 95-190. 

Note LIV., p. 96. 

Fergusson's Palaces of Xineveh restored, pp. 272-276 ; compare 
Layard's Xineveh and Babylon, ch. xxvi. pp. 649, 650. 

Note LV., p. 96. 

Ker Porter says, "The total height of each column is 60 feet; the 
circumference of the shaft is sixteen ; the length from the capital to the 
tor, forty-four feet." {Travels, vol. i. p. 633.) In another part of the 


rums, he measured two pillars, the total height of which, including 
capital and tor, was forty-Jive feet. (Ibid. p. 590.) The measurements 
adopted by Mr. Fergusson are, for the palace of Darius, 20 feet ; for 
the hall of the Hundred Columns, 25 feet ; for the Propylaeum of 
Xerxes 46 feet, 9 inches; and for the Hall of Xerxes, 64 feet. {The 
Palaces of Nineveh restored, pp. 108, 125, 158, and 177.) 

Note LVL, p. 96. 
See Kugler's Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, p. 81. 

Note LVII., p. 97. 

Even Mr. Layard, while admitting that " some of the Assyrian 
sphinxes may have been overlaid with gold, like the cherubim in Sol- 
omon's temple," adds in a note, "I cannot, however, but express my 
conviction that much of the metal called gold both in the sacred writ- 
ings and in profane authors of antiquity, was really copper, the ori- 
chalchum of the Greeks, such as was used in the bowls and plates dis- 
covered at Nimroud." [Nineveh and Babylon, p. 652.) But metal of 
this slight value would hardly have been torn with violence from a 
sacred building, as the plating appears to have been from the fourth 
stage of the Bits Nitnrud. It is further to be remarked, that in the 
classical accounts the golden beams, &c, are distinctly said to have been 
far less numerous than the silver ones. Polybius says of the palace at 
Ecbatana for although it was built entirely of cedar-wood and 
cypress, yet none of the wood work was exposed, but the beams, and 
the panels, and the columns in the porches and peristyles were plated, 
some with silver and some icith gold, and the tiles were all of sih-er. 
And again, the temple . . . had columns covered with gilding, and 
there were very many silver titles in it, and there were a fete golden 
plinths, but a great many silver ones remained. (Bk. x. ch. 27, { 10 and 

Note LVIIL, p. 97. 

For the use of gold in ornamentation by the Phoenicians, see above, 
Notes XLIII. and LI. ; and compare Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 252, and 
O. Muller's Handbuch der Archdologie der Kutist, p. 273, 2d edition. 

312 NOTES. Lect. IIL 

For its use by the Assyrians, see Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, 
pp. 651, 652. For its use by tbe Babylonians, see the last Note, and 
compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 243, note 5 . 

Note LIX., p. 97. 

Menander, Fr. 1 : "This man (i. e. Hiram) raised a bank on -what 
was called ' the broad place,' and set up a golden pillar in the temple 
of Jupiter." Compare Theophilus, as quoted in Note LI. 

Note LN., p. 97. 
See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 252. 

Note LXL, p. 97. 
Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 195, 196. 

Note LXIL, p. 97. 
Ibid. p. 150. 

Note LXIL b, p. 98. 
See Mr. Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 354. 

Note LXIIL, p. 98. 

The geographic accuracy of this portion of Scripture is even more 
striking than that of the Pentateuch. Dr. Stanley says, " It is impos- 
sible not to be struck by the constant agreement between the recorded 
history and the natural geography both of the Old and New Testament. 
To rind a marked correspondence between the scenes of the Sinaitic 
mountains and the events of the Israelite wanderings is not much, per- 
haps, but it is certainly something towards a proof of the truth of the 
-whole narrative. . . . The detailed harmony between the life of Joshua 
and the various scenes of his battles, is a slight but true indication that 
we are dealing not with shadows, but with realities of flesh and blood. 
Such coincidences are not usually found in fables, least of all in fables 
of Eastern origin." (Sinai and Palestine, Preface, p. xviii.) And 

Lect. III. NOTES. 313 

this detailed harmony he exhibits in his fourth, seventh, and eleventh 

Among minute points of agreement brought to light by recent re- 
searches may be mentioned (1.) the position of the Hagarites or Ha- 
garenes to the east of the land of Gilead, towards or upon the 
Euphrates, (1 Chron. v. 9, 10 ;) which is the exact locality where they 
are found three or four centuries later, in an inscription of Sennacherib. 
(See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 476.) (2.) The existence of 
female sovereigns among the Arabs about this period, which is shown 
by the mention of certain " Queens of the Arabs" in the inscriptions 
of Tiglath-Pileser and others. (Ibid. pp. 470 and 473.) (3.) The 
continued importance of the Moabites and Ammonites which appears 
by the occurrence of their names ' in the inscriptions among the ene- 
mies of Assyria. 

Note LXIV., p. 99. 

The great Assyrian Empire of Ctesias, which was said to have ex- 
tended from Egypt to India, and to have lasted about 1300 years, from 
about B. C. 2182 to B. C. 876, is one of the most palpable contradic- 
tions of Scripture which profane history furnishes. Hence it was 
generally accepted and maintained by the French historians of the last 
century. Equally opposed to Scripture is the Median Empire of 
Ctesias, commencing in B. C. 876 with the destruction of Nineveh, 
and continuing to the time of Cyrus. It was for a long time considereu 
doubtful among historical critics whether the authority of Ctesias or 
that of Herodotus was to prevail ; but as time went on, as the impor- 
tance of Berosus's history came to be recognized, and more especially 
when the cuneiform monuments began to be deciphered, the star of 
Ctesias began to pale and his credit to sink. Niebuhr long ago re- 
marked, that his Assyrian history was " wholly to be rejected." 
(VorMJge liber Alt., ic/tt., vol. i. p. 16 ; p. 12, E. T.) M. Bunsen, 
even while making use of him, allows that he was "a confused and 
uncritical writer." {Egypt, vol. iii. p. 432.) Col. Mure (Lanr/Hage 
and Literature of Ancient Greece, vol. v. p. 484) calls him "an author 
of proverbially doubtful veracity." Even his apologias can now say 

1 Moab appears as Makab, (Heb. SO"^.) Ammon as Brth-Ammon, which is probably 
the chief city, the Kabbah or Rabbatli-Ainnioti of Script an 1 . 



little more in his defence, than that "there is no positive evidence for 
charging him -with wilfully falsifying history." (See the article on 
Ctesias in Dr. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, vol. i. 
p. 899.) 

Note LXV., p. 100. 

See Norton's Disquisition on the Old Testament in his Genuineness 
of the Gospels, vol. ii. p. 498. De Wette, after objecting to the miracles 
and prophecies recorded in Samuel, says, "Elsewhere the narrative 
bears the marks of a genuine history, and where it is not partly derived 
from contemporary documents as it is in some places it is yet 
drawn from an oral tradition, very lively and true, and is only dis- 
turbed and confused here and there." {Einleitung, 178, p. 222 ; 
Parker's Translation, vol. ii. p. 210.) He also finds "authentic his- 
torical accounts " in the books of Kings. (Ibid. 183, p. 232 ; vol. ii. 
p. 230, E. T.) 


Note I., p. 102. 
See Lecture III., page 80. 

Note II., p. 103. 
Ibid. p. 83. 

Note III., p. 103. 

The author of Chronicles refers us either to " the book of the 
Kings," (2 Chr. xxiv. 27,) or more explicitly to "the book of the 
Kings of Israel and Judah," (2 Chr. xxvii. 7 ; xxviii. 26 ; xxxii. 32 ; 
xxxv. 27.) But the author of Kings throughout distinguishes between 
" the book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah," (1 Kings xiv. 19 ; 
xv. 7, 23 ; xxii. 46 ; 2 Kings viii. 23 ; xii. 19 ; xiv. 18, &c.,) and " the 
book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (I Kings xiv. 19; 
xv. 31 ; xvt. 5, 14, 20, 27 ; xii. 39 ; 2 Kings i. 18; x. 34 ; xiii. 8, 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 315 

12 ; &c.) The most probable explanation of this difference is, that the 
two documents were originally separate, having been drawn up in and 
for the two different kingdoms ; but that by the time of the writer of 
our books of Chronicles they had been united in one, and were known 
to the Jews under the title which he uses. (See Keil, Apologetischer 
Versuch liber die BUcher der Chronik, p. 252, et seqq. And compare his 
Coinmentar Uber die Bilcher der KOnige, Einleitung, 3 ; p. 18, E. T. 1 ) 

Note IV., p. 104. 

This seems to be the real meaning of the difficult passage in Chron- 
icles, (2 Chr. xx. 34,) which our translators have rendered incorrectly 
in the text, but correctly, so far as the letter goes, in the margin ; 
' Now the rest of the acts of Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold, they 
are written in the words of Jehu, the son of Hanani, who was made 

to ascend into the book of the kings of Israel " H3Sn ""I3K 

balia? "^ift *lpD"l33> i. e. who (the author being identified with his 
work) was transferred or removed to the book of the Kings of Israel. 
The LXX. interpreters paraphrase rather than translate when they say, 
" who wrote a book of the Kings of Israel " (oc xuriyQaipt (lipXtof 
(iaotkiuiv 'laoui'/*..') Compare Keil, 1. s. c. 

Note V., p. 104. 

See 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. Our translators have destroyed the force of 
the passage by following the LXX. and interpolating the word " and." 
"The rest of the acts of Hezekiah," they say, "and his goodness, 
behold, they are written in the vision of Isaiah the prophet, the son of 
Amos, and in the book of the kings of Judah and Israel." But in the 
original there is no and : " the passage runs, " the rest of the acts of 
Hezekiah, and his goodness, behold, they are written in the vision of 
Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amos, in the book of the kings of Judah 
and Israel." 

Note VI., p. 104. 

The 36th, 37th, and 38th chapters of Isaiah are almost identical with 
a part of the 18th, the 19th, and the 20th chapters of the second Book 

1 Commentary on the Books of Klnjfs, by Karl Frledrich Keil, D. D., translated by 
James Murpby, LL. D. Edinburgh, Clarlc, 1867. 



Lect. IV. 

of Kings. The slightness of their differences Avill best be seen by pla- 
cing an extract or two in parallel columns : 

2 Kings. 

Chap, xviii. 17-20. And the 
King of Assyria sent Tartan and 
Rabsaris and ltab-shakeh from 
Lachish to King Hezekiah, with 
a great host against Jerusalem. 
And tliey went up and came to Jeru- 
salem. And when they icere come 
up, they came and stood by the 
conduit of the upper pool, which 
is in the highway of the fuller's 
field. And icJwn tliey had called to 
the king, there came out to them 
Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, which 
was over the household, and Sheb- 
na the scribe, and Joah the son of 
Asaph the recorder. And Rab- 
shakeh said unto them, Speak ye 
"now to Hezekiah, Thus saith the 
great king, the King of Assyria, 
AVhat confidence is this wherein 
thou trustest ? Thou sayest but 
they are but vain words I have 
counsel and strength for the war. 
Now on whom dost thou trust, 
that thou rebellest against me ? 

Chap. xix. 15-19. And Heze- 
kiah prayed before the Lord, and 
said, O Lord God of Israel, which 
dwellest between the cherubims, 
thou art the God, even thou alone, 
of all the kingdoms of the earth : 
thou hast made heaven and earth. 
Lord, bow down thine ear and 


Chap, xxxvi. 2-5. And the 
King of Assyria sent ltab-shakeh 
from Lachish to Jerusalem unto 
King Hezekiah with a great army. 
And he stood by the conduit of 
the upper pool in the highway of 
the fuller's field. Then came forth 
unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, 
which was over the house, and 
Shebna the scribe, and Joah, 
Asaph's son, the recorder. And 
Rab-shakeh said unto them, Say 
ye now to Hezekiah, Thus saith 
the great king, the King of Assyr- 
ia, "What confidence is this wherein 
thou trustest r / say, [sayest thou,] 
but they are but vain words, I have 
counsel and strength for war : now 
on whom dost thou trust, that 
thou rebellest against me ? 

Chap, xxxvii. 15-20. And Hez- 
ekiah prayed unto the Lord, saying, 
O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, 
that dwellest between the cher- 
ubims, thou art the God, even thou 
alone, of all the kingdoms of the 
earth ; thou hast made heaven and 
earth. Incline thine ear, O Lord, 

Lect. IV. 



hear ; open, Lord, thine eyes, and 
see ; and hear the word of Sen- 
nacherib, which hath sent him to 
reproach the living God. Of a 
truth. Lord, the kings of Assyria 
have destroyed the nations and 
their lands, and have cast their 
gods into the fire, for they were 
no gods, but the work of men's 
hands, wood and stone : therefore 
they have destroyed them. Now, 
therefore, O Lord our God, / be- 
seech thee, save thou us out of his 
hand, that all the kingdoms of the 
earth may know that thou art the 
Lord God, even thou only. 

and hear ; open thine eyes, O 
Lord, and see ; and hear all the 
words of Sennacherib, which hath 
sent to reproach the living God. 
Of a truth, Lord, the kings of 
Assyria have laid waste all the 
lands and their countries, and have 
cast their gods into the fire, for 
they were no gods, but the work 
of men's hands, wood and stone; 
therefore they have destroyed them. 
Now, therefore, O Lord our God, 
save us from his hand, that all the 
kingdoms of the earth may know 
that thou art the Lord, even thou 

Note VII., p. 104. 

This agreement is chiefly between the last chapter of Jeremiah and 
the 24th and 25th chapters of the second Book of Kings. It is fully 
equal to that above exhibited between Kings and Isaiah. 

Note VIII., p. 104. 

Keil, Commentar liber die BUcher der KOnigc, Einleitung, 3 ; p. 19, 
E. T. 

Note IX., p. 105. 

De "Wette, Einleitung, 184, p. 234 ; vol. ii. p. 241, Parker's Trans- 
lation.; Bertholdt, Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 154, et seqq. 

Note X., p. 106. 

This has been well shown by Hilverniek, (Einleitung, $ 176. vol. ii. 
p. 201, ct seqq.,) and Kcil, (Vcrsuch Uber die Bilchcr der Chronik, p. 
190, ct seqq.) Kcil, however, appears to me to go too far when he 
denies that the author of Chronicles made any use at all of Kings, 




Lect. IV. 

(Commenlar ilber die Btichcr der KOnige, Einleitung, 3 ; p. 17, note 
1, . T.) Such passages as the subjoined show something more than 
the mere use of a common authority : 

2 Chron. i. 14-17. 

And Solomon gathered chariots 
and horsemen : and he had a thou- 
sand and four hundred chariots, 
and twelve thousand horsemen, 

1 Kings x. 26-29. 

And Solomon gathered together 
chariots and horsemen : and he 
had a thousand and four hundred 
chariots, and twelve thousand 
which he placed in the chariot horsemen, whom he bestoiccd in 
cities, and with the king at Jeru- the cities for chariots, and with 
salem. And the king made silver the king at Jerusalem. And the 
arid gold at Jerusalem as plenteous king made silver to be in Jerusa- 
as stones, and cedar trees made lem as plenteous as stones, and 
he as the sycamore trees that are cedars made he to be as the syca- 
in the vale for abundance. And more trees that are in the vale for 
Solomon had horses brought out abundance. And Solomon had 
of Egypt, and linen yarn : the horses brought out of Egypt, and 
king's merchants received the linen linen yarn : the king's merchants 
yarn at a price. And they fetched received the linen yarn at a price. 
up and brought forth out of Egypt And a chariot came up and xocnt out 
a chariot for six hundred shekels of Egypt for six hundred shekels 
of silver, and a horse for a hun- of silver, and a horse for a hun- 
dred and fifty : and so brought dred and fifty : and so for all the 
they out [horses] for all the kings kings of the Hittites, and for the 
of the Hittites, and for the kings kings of Syria, did they bring them 
of Syria, by their means. out by their means. 1 

Compare also 2 Chron. xiv. 1-4 with 1 Kings xv. 11, 12 ; 2 Chron. 
XTi. 11-14 with 1 Kings xv. 23, 24 ; 2 Chron. xxii. 10-12 with 2 Kings 
xi. 1-3 ; 2 Chron. xxiii. 1-21 with 2 Kings xi. 4-20 ; and 2 Chron. 
xxxiv. 8-33 with 2 Kings xxiii. 5-20. In almost all these passages, 
however, the Chronicler introduces points not mentioned by the author 
of Kings, so that he evidently does not trust to him as his sole 
authority ; e. g. 

1 In the original the resemblance is even closer than in our translation. Tt is the 
same word which is translated as " placed," and as " bestowed," and the same roots are 
used where we have to say in the one case "fetched up and brought forth," in the other 
'" came up and went out." 

Lect. IV. 



2 Ciiron. xvi. 11-14. 

And, behold, the acts of Asa, 
first and last, lo, they are written 
in the book of the kings of Judah 
and Israel. And Asa in the thirty 
and ninth year of his reign was dis- 
eased in his feet, until his disease 
was exceeding great ; yet in his dis- 
ease he sought not to the Lord, but to 
the physicians. And Asa slept with 
his fathers, and died in the one and 
fortieth year of his reign ; and they 
buried him in his own sepulchres 
which he had made for himself in 
the city of David, and laid him in 
the bed which was filled with sxceet 
odors and divers kinds of sjnees pre- 
pared by the apothecaries' art; and 
they made a very great burning for 
him. And Jehoshaphat, &c. 

1 Kings xv. 23, 24. 

The rest of the acts of Asa, and 
all his might, and all that he did, 
and the cities which he built, are 
thej r not written in the book of 
the Chronicles of the kings of 
Judah ? Nevertheless, in the time 
of his old age he was diseased in 
his feet. And Asa slept with his 
fathers, and was buried with his 
fathers in the city of David his 
father ; and Jehoshaphat his son 
reigned in his stead. 

Note XI., p. 106. 

See the remarks of Mons. C. Mailer, prefixed to his collection of the 
fragments of Manetho in the Fragmcnta Historicorum Gretcorum, vol. ii. 
pp. 514, 515. 

Note XII., p. 100. 

The discrepancies between the books of Chronicles, on the one hand, 
and the books of Samuel and Kings, on the other, have been largely, il 
not forcibly, stated by De Wette, {Einlcitung, 190, p. 244, et seqq.,) 
and his commentator, Mr. Theodore Parker, (vol. ii. pp. 266-305.) A 
satisfactory explanation of the greater number will be found in Keil's 
Apologetischer Versuch, to which the student is referred, as well as to 
Bertheau's Commentar, of which a translation has recently appeared.' 1 
Some, however, as the difference of numbers and names, cannot but 

1 This translation forms the latter portion of the loth volume of Clarke Foreign 
Theological Library, New Series., Edinburgh, 1857. 

320 NOTES. Lect. IV. 

remain discrepancies ; in these we may be allowed to suspect corrup- 
tions of the original text, by carelessness in transcription, or by the 
insertion of marginal addenda. (See the excellent remarks of Professor 
Stuart, Defence, of the Old Testament Canon, 6, pp. 143-145 ; and 
compare the article on Chronicles, in Kitto's Cyclopedia.') 

Note XIII., p. 107. 

See Mr. Vance Smith's Prophecies relating to Nineveh and the Assyri- 
ans, p. 76. The special object of this work is to elucidate a certain 
portion of the prophecies by the light thrown upon them from the con- 
nected histories of the Assyrians and the Hebrews. Similar efforts have 
been made in Germany by Hitzig. 1 Otto Strauss, 2 and others. 

Note XIV., p. 107. 

Jonah is commonly placed somewhat earlier ; but his work (if it be 
his, which is doubtful) belongs rather to the historical than the pro- 
phetical Scriptures. 

Note XV., p. 108. 

By Paley, in his Ilorce Paulina, a work which for closeness, clear- 
ness, and cogency of reasoning, has never been surpassed, and rarely 

Note XVI., p. 109. 

The kings of Israel and Judah mentioned in the Assyrian Inscrip- 
tions are, Jehu, Menahem, Hezekiah, and Manasseh. Jehu's name 
appears on the Black Obelisk in the British Museum, a monument of 
the Old Empire, dating probably from about B. C. 870 ; Menahem is 
mentioned by Tiglath-Pileser II., the first monarch of the New Empire, 
who began to reign in B. C. 747 ; Hezekiah occurs among the enemies 
of Sennacherib, who did not ascend the throne till about B. C. 700 ; 
and Manasseh is found among the tributaries of Sennacherib's son, 
Esarhaddon. No doubt the Scriptural names have helped to determine 
the date of the monuments ; but putting these names aside, and look- 

1 Zwblf Kleinen Propheten erklart, Lcipsic, 1838. 

2 Nahumi de Nino Vaticinium, Berlin, 1853. 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 321 

ing merely to forms of language, style of writing, character of sculp- 
ture, and position of the monuments when in situ, I believe no cunei- 
form scholar would hesitate as to the relative antiquity to be assigned 
to them. 

Note XVII., p. 109. 

The practice of calling cities after the names of their founders has 
always prevailed in the East. Perhaps the earliest known instance is 
that of Ramesses the Beth-Barneses of the Hieratic Papyri. (See 
Note LXXXVIL, on Lecture II., p. 287.) That the Assyrians were 
acquainted with the practice we know from the case of Sargon, who 
called the city which he built a little to the north of Nineveh, Beth' 
Sargina, or Dur- Sargina, "the abode of Sargon." Esarhaddon too, in 
one of his Inscriptions, says, "A city I built. City of Esarhaddon 1 
called its name." ' In more recent times the names Ahmed-abad, 
Shereef-abad, Hyder-abad, &c, have had a similar origin. 

Samaria is only called Beth-Khumri in the earlier inscriptions. Frcm 
the time of Tiglath-Pileser II., the term used is Tsamirin. 

Ncte XVIII., p. 110. 

So Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 376. M. Bunsen 
reads the legend Jutah Malk, and translates (not very intelligibly) 
' Judah, King." (See his Egypt, vol. iii. p. 242.) He agrees, how- 
ever, as to its intention, and views it as a proof of Sheshonk's having 
made an expedition to Jerusalem. 

Note XIX., p. 110. 

There were three Osorkons in the 21st dynasty, according to the 
monuments, though Manetho mentioned but one. Osorkon I. was the 
son and successor of Shishak. It is just possible that he may have been 
the assailant of Asa." Sir fi. Wilkinson, however, regards Osorkon 
II., who married the great granddaughter of Shishak, as more natu- 
rally the contemporary of Asa, the ^rcat grandson of Solomon, since 
Solomon and Shishak were contemporaries. (See the author's Herodo- 
tus, vol. ii. p. 378.) 

1 Sec Mr. Fox Talbot's Assyrian Tats translated, p. 1L 
* This ia M. Buasen's view, Kgypt, vol. iii. p. 308. 

322 n o t :: s . Lect. IV. 

Note XX., p. 111. 

Menander said " On the death of Hiram, his son Balcazai 
(read Balthazar) succeeded to the kingdom. lie lived 43 years, and 
reigned 7. After him came his son Abdastratus, (read Abdastar- 
tus,) who lived 29 years, and reigned 9. Against this man the four 
sons of his nurse conspired, and slew him, whereupon the eldest 
of these brothers reigned 12 years. After these came Astartus, 
the son of Deleastartus, who lived 54 years, and reigned 12. His 
brother Aserymus succeeded him, living 54 years, and reigning 9. 
He was slain by his brother Pheles, who took possession of the 
kingdom, but reigned only 8 months, when he was murdered, in 
the 50th year of his age, by Ithobalus, (i. e. Ethbaal,) the priest of 
Astarte, who reigned 32 years, and lived 68." (Ap. Joseph. Contra 
Apionem, i. 18.) We have thus from the death of Hiram, which can- 
not have taken place till the 26th year of Solomon's reign (1 Kings 
ix. 10-14,) the following series Balthazar, 7 years; Abdastartus, 
9 years; his successor, 12 years; Astartus, 12 years; Aserymus, 9 
years ; Pheles, eight months ; total 49 years and eight months. In 
Ahab's case we have Jeroboam, 22 years ; Nadab, 2 years ; Baasha, 
24 years; Elah, 2 years; Omri, 12 years; total 62 years; to which 
must be added some 10 or 12 years for the excess of Solomon's reign 
over Hiram's. It thus appears that Ahab ascended the throne about 20 
r 25 years after Eth-baal. 

Note XXL, p. 111. 

See Kenrick's Phwnicia, p. 362; Bunsen's Egypt, vol. iii. p. 428; 
Ken's Commentar, (p. 259, E. T.,) &c. 

Note XXII. , p. 111. 

The term " Zidonians " seems to bear the generic sense in 1 Kings 
xi. 1 and 5 ; and 2 Kings xxiii. 13 ; but the specific in Judges x. 
12, and xviii. 7. The early preeminence of Sidon (see Note XXXII. 
to Lecture III.) sufficiently accounts for the generic use, which was 
well known to the Greek and Latin poets, (Horn. Od. xiii. 285 ; Sopn. 
Fr. lxxxii. ; Eurip. Hel. 1429 ; Virg. 2En. i. 446, &c.) 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 323 

Note XXIII., p. 112. 

See Josephus, Ant. Jicd. viii. 13 : " Menander also mentions thi3 
drought, writing thus in the Acts of Ithobalus, king of the Tyrians : 
Under this man there was a want of rain from the month Hyper- 
beretseus to the same month of the following year. But when he 
made supplication, there was a violent thunder storm.'" May we con- 
nect the " supplication " in tli? last clause with that of Elijah on Mount 
Carmel, (1 Kings xviii. 42, 43,) which overhung the Tyrian territory ? 

Note XXIV., p. 112. 

No continuous history of Syria has come down to us. Nicolas of 
Damascus, whose influence with Herod the Great and with Augustus 
must have given him access to any archives that Damascus or the other 
Syrian towns may have posc?ssed, appears to have introduced a short 
sketch of ancient Syrian history into the fourth book of his great 
work, which treated mainly of the early Lydian kings. (See Mailer's 
preface to the fragments of Nicolas, in his Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. hi. 
p. 345.) Of this sketch, i.owever, we unfortunately possess but 
three short fragments, preserved to us by Josephus. 1 The first of 
these relates the sojourn of Abraham at Damascus, on his way from 
Chaldaea to Canaan a sojourn deriving some support from the fact 
that Abraham's steward was a Damascene (Cien. xv. 2) but absurdly 
makes Abraham " king of Damascus " during his stay, (Fr. 30.) The 
second has been given at length in the notes on Lecture III. (Note 
XXVIII.) The third i.: interpreted by Josephus as bearing upon the 
Syrian war of Ahab ; but its true reference is to that of Baasha. It 
runs thus : " Now when he died (i. e. Hadad I.) his posterity reigned 
for ten generations, each one inheriting from his father, together with 
the roynl authority, the same name also, like the Pharaohs in Egypt. 
But the third, who wa3 the mightiest of all these, wishing to avenge 
his grandfather's defeat, marched against the Jews, and took the city 
now called Samaria." (Fr. 31.) It is evident that Hadad III., who 
was the grandson of David'** antagonist, cannot have contended against 
Ahab, 140 years afterwards. Nicolas undoubtedly intends the antag- 
onist of Baasha, half a centurv earlier, whose inroad was completely suc- 

- Mnt. Jud. vii. 5. 

324 notes. Lect. IV. 

cessful, and who reduced Samaria to a sort of subjection, (1 Kings xv. 
20 ; xx. 34.) With respect to the continuance of the name and family 
of Hadad on the Damascene throne for ten generations, Nicolas ap- 
pears to be at variance with Scripture. Seemingly he takes no account 
of the break in the line caused by the usurpation of Hazael. Perhaps 
in Syrian history this was glossed over, and Hazael regarded as having 
had a claim of blood. At any rate it is remarkable that he adopted 
the family name of the preceding dynasty for his son, who is called 
Ben-hadad in 2 Kings xiii. 3. 

Note XXV., p. 113. 

See the Black Obelisk inscription, which has been very accurately 
translated by Dr. Hincks, in the Dublin University Magazine for Octo- 
ber, 1853. Compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 464, 465. 

Note XXVI., p. 113. 

" Benhadad, the king of Syria, gathered all his host together ; and 
there were thirty and tiro kings with him, and horses, and chariots." 
(1 Kings xx. 1.) "Number thee an army like the army which thou 
hast lost, horse for horse, and chariot for chariot." (Ibid, verse 25.) 
The Syrian armies appear in the Black Obelisk inscription to be com- 
posed to a very large extent of chariots. As many as 1100 are taken 
on one occasion. The multitude of petty princes mentioned is also in 
accordance with the inscriptions generally, which represents the whole 
country between the Euphrates and Egypt as divided up among a 
number of tribes and nations, each under its own king or chief. 

Note XXVII., p. 113. 

The Black Obelisk king, in his 6th, 11th, and 14th years, contends 
with Benhadad, but in his 18th his adversary is Hazael. {Dublin Univ. 
Mag., October, 1853, pp. 422, 423, and 424.) 

Note XXVIII., p. 113. 

The Obelisk contains no account of any war with Jehu ; but men- 
tions him among those who paid tribute to the Assyrian monarch. 
He is styled " Yahua, the son of Khumri" Jenu, the son of Omrif 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 325 

which causes some difficulty. Jehu is said in Scripture to have been 
the son of Jehoshaphat, and grandson of Nimshi, (2 Kings ix. 2, 14.) 
It is possible, however, that he may have been on the mother s side de- 
scended from Omri. Or the story of his being so descended may have 
been invented by the Samaritans, and believed by foreign nations. Or, 
finally, the Assyrians may merely have assumed that he was a descend- 
ant of Omri, since he sat on his throne, and ruled in the city known to 
them by his name. (See above, Note XVII.) His tribute consisted of 
silver, gold, and articles of various kinds manufactured from gold. 

Note XXIX., p. 114. 

Che only remains of this period are an inscription set up by the son 
of the Black Obelisk king, relating his military exploits during the first 
four years of his reign, and two or three brief inscriptions of the time 
of his successor, the most important of which is that noticed below, 
(Note XXXIII.) The campaigns of the earlier king are in Babylonia, 
Media, Armenia, and along the flanks of Taurus, but do not touch 
Syria or Palestine. 

Note XXX., p. 114. 

See Kenrick's Phoenicia, p. 367 : " Our knowledge of the history of 
Tyre ceases with Dido's flight, at the end of the ninth century, B. C, 
and we hear nothing of its internal state till the reign of Elula-us, the 
contemporary of Shalmaneser." In fact we have nothing authentic for 
the early period but the fragments of Menander, and these fail us en- 
tirely from the reign of Pygmalion to that of Elulaeus. 

Note XXXI., p. 114. 

See Euseb. Chronica, i. 4 ; p. 18, ed. Mai. " After these, he says 
there was a king of the Chalda-ans whose name was Pul." 

Note XXXII., p. 114. 

In 2 Kings xv. 19, the LXX. interpreters render Pul by Phua, (4>orf,) 
where the terminal a is probably a false reading arising out of the 
resemblance of A to A. In 1 Chron. v. 26, the reading of the Vatican 
and most MSS. is VaXu^, but some copies have QaXws. 


320 NOTES. Lect. IV. 

Note XXXIII., p. 115. 

A full account of this inscription, first deciphered by Sir H. Ilaw- 
linson, will be found in the Atheneeum, No. 1476, p. 174. A general 
summary of its contents is given in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
\ 467. 

Note XXXIV., p. 115. 
See Sir H. Rawlinson's letter in the Athenaeum, 1. s. c. 

Note XXXV., p. 116. 

The conjunction of Rezin with Pekah, and the capture and destntc- 

tion of Damascus, which are noted in the inscription, seem to prove 
that it is the second expedition that is intended. Whether it be the 
first, however, or the second, the name of Menahem must equally be 
rejected. (See 2 Kings xv. 29, and xvi. 9.) It is easily conceivable, 
that, if the sculptor had been accustomed to engrave the royal annals, 
and had often before entered the name of Menahem as that of the Samar- 
itan king, he might engrave it here in his haste, without consulting his 
copy. Or possibly, Pekah may have taken the name of Menahem, to 
connect himself with the dynasty which he had displaced. 

Note XXXVL, p. 117. 

The older interpreters, as Keil remarks, 1 proceeding on the supposi- 
tion that the altar was Syrian, and dedicated to the Syrian gods, en- 
deavored to answer the question why Ahaz chose the gods, not of the 
victorious Assyrians, but of the vanquished Syrians a question to 
which it was very difficult to give a satisfactory reply. Among recent 
writers. Berthcau, (Commentar iiber d. BUoh. d. Chronik, p. 421, E. T.,) 
Ewald, (Gcschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. hi. pp. 325, 326,) and Vance 
Smith, (Prophecies concerning Assyria, p. 27.) follow the old view. 
Keil himself regards the qu^tion as unimportant, since he supposes 
that no idolatrous rites or ide is were connected with the altar. Ahaz, 
according to his view, having seen a pattern which he fancied better 

1 Commentar iiber d. Bvch. d. Kbnige, \ 2; vol. ii. p. 45, E. T. 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 327 

than that of Solomon's altar, adopted it ; and his sin was " a silly will- 
worship." (So Buddseus, Hist. Eccles., vol. ii. p. 428.) 

Note XXXVII., p. 117. 

See the great inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., pp. 30, 38, 40, 44, 48, 
&c. ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 495. 

Note XXXVIII., p. 117. 

Josephus says of Shalmaneser : "The name of this king is inscribed 
in the archives of the Tyrians. For he made an expedition against 
Tyre, when Eluleus was king over them. To this we have the testi- 
mony of Menander, who wrote an account of their chronicles, and 
translated their archives into the Greek language." (Antiq. Jiid., 
ix. 14.) 

Note XXXIX., p. 117. 

See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 471, note 7 . 

Note XL., p. 117. 
Ibid. p. 472. 

Note XLL, p. 118. 

Scripture states that Shalmaneser " came up against Hoshea," and 
besieged Samaria, (2 Kings xviii. 9 ;) but Scripture nowhere expressly 
states that Shalmaneser took the city. "The king of Assyria," it is 
said in one place, "took it," (ib. xvii. G ;) in another, "they (i. e. the 
Assyrians) took it," (ib. xviii. 10.) That Shalmaneser was the captor 
is only an inference from Scripture a natural inference undoubtedly, 
but not a necessary one. 

Note XLII., p. 118. 

Sargon has been identified with Shalmaneser by Vitringa, Ofrenhaur., 
Prideaux, Eichhorn, Hupfeld, Gumpach, and M. Niebuhr ; ' with Sen- 
nacherib by Grotius, Lowth, Keil, and Schrber ; with Esarhaddon by 
Perizonius, Kalinsky, and Michaelis. (Sue Winer's RealwOrterbuc/i, ad 

1 (jtschirhtc Jissun und Babels seil Phul, p. 160. 

328 notes. Lect. IV. 

voc. Sargon.) His separate personality is now generally admitted. 
(See Brandis, Rerum Assyriarum Tempora Emendata, p. 64, and Tab. 
Chron. ad fin. Oppert, Rapport d'une Mission Scientifique en Angleterre, 
p. 38 ; Vance Smith, Prophecies, &c., pp. 31, 32 ; Ewald, Geschichte des 
Volkes Israel, vol. iii. pp. 333, 334 ; Layard, Nineveh aitd Babylon, pp. 
618-620, &c.) 

Note XLIIL, p. 118. 

See Sir H. Rawlinson's Commentary on the Inscriptions of Babylonia 
a?id Assyria, p. 19, note 2 , where a passage proving this is quoted from 
Yaciit, the famous Arabian geographer. 

Note XLIV., p. 118. 

See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 473, note 4 ; and compare Vance 
Smith's Prophecies, &c, p. 35. 

Note XLV., p. 119. 

When Sargon took Ashdod, its king (he tells us) fled to Muzr, 
(Mizraim or Egypt.) which was subject to Mirukha, (MeroC or Ethio- 
pia.) See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 474. 

Note XLVI., p. 119. 
Ibid. p. 473. 

Note XL VII., p. 120. 

The translation in the text has been read by Sir H. Rawlinson before 
various Societies and Public Meetings ; but it has remained, I believe, 
hitherto unpublished. It will be found to agree in all important points 
with Dr. Hincks's version, as given by Mr. Layard, {Nineveh and Baby- 
lon, pp. 143, 144.) 

Note XLVITL, p. 121. 

Mr. Layard gives a slightly different explanation, (Nin. and Bab., p. 
14-5 :) "There is a difference of 500 talents, as it will be observed, in 
the amount of silver. It is probable that Hezekiah was much pressed 
by Sennacherib, and compelled to give him all the wealth that he could 

Lect. IV. notes. 329 

collect, as we find him actually taking the silver from the house of the 
Lord, as well as from his own treasury, and cutting off the gold from 
the doors and pillars of the temple to satisfy the demands of the Assyr- 
ian king. The Bible may therefore only include the actual amount ot 
money in the 300 talents of silver, whilst the Assyrian records comprise 
all the precious metal taken away." 

Note XLIX., p. 121. 

Herodot. ii. 141. This testimony was first adduced by Josephus, 
{Ant. Jud. x. 1,) from whom it passed on to the Christian commenta- 
tors generally. The "chief difficulty" in reconciling Herodotus with 
Scripture has been generally said to be the scene of the destruction. 
(See Joseph. 1. s. c., Prideaux's Connection of Sacred and Profane His- 
tory, vol. i. p. 18; M. Niebuhr's Geschichte Assurs tind Babels, p. 179; 
Vance Smith's Prophecies relating to Assyria, Introduction, p. 43.) It 
has been commonly assumed that the scene was the immediate neigh- 
borhood of Jerusalem ; but this assumption is not only, as Mr. Vance 
Smith has shown, {Prophecies, &c, p. 213,) without warrant from 
Scripture, but it is actually contradictory to Scripture. God's promise 
to Ilezekiah through Isaiah was : " He (Sennacherib) shall not come 
into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, 
nor cast a bank against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall 
he return, and shall not come into this city, saith the Lord." (2 Kings, 
xix. 32, 33 ; compare Is. xxxvii. 33, 34.) 

Note XLIX. b., p. 121. 

Eusebius says of Polyhistor "Having already described the rest 
of the acts of Senecherim, he adds, that he lived [as king] 18 years. 
. . . until he teas destroyed by a plot formed against him by his son 
Ardumazan." {Chronica, i. 5 ; p. 19, ed. Mai.) 

Abydenua gives the name of one of the murderers more correctly, 
but represents the murder as committed, not on Sennacherib, but on 
his successor. " Next after him (i. e. Sennacherib) reigned Nergil, 
whom his son Adramelech slew ; and he in his turn was slain by his 
brother Axerdis." (Esar-haddon ) (Ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9, p. 25.) 


330 NOTES. Lect. IV. 

Note L., p. 122. 

Both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon led hostile expeditions into 
Armenia, which appears to have been at no time thoroughly subjected 
by the Assyrian monarchs. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 


Note LI., p. 122. 

Mos. Choren. i. 22: "When his sons, Adrammelech and Sanasar, 
had slain him, (i. e. Senacharim,) they fled to us. One of whom, 
Sanasar, our most illustrious ancestor Sacordius placed near the borders 
of Assyria, in that part of our country which lies between the west and 
south ; and his descendants . . . filled . . . that mountain." But Ar- 
gtunozan obtained a settlement in the same region, between the East 
and the South. From him this historian (Mar-Abas) reports that the 
Arzerunii and the Genunii were descended. 

Note LIE, p. 122. 

Esarhaddon in his inscriptions frequently speaks of Sennacherib as 
his father. (See Fox Talbot, Assyrian Texts translated, p. 13, and else- 
where.) The relationship is also witnessed to by Polyhistor, following 
Berosus. (Ap. Euseb. Chron. i. v. p. 19 ; compare p. 20, where Euse- 
bius says, " Having gone through with all this, Polyhistor proceeds 
anew to relate some of the acts of Senecherib also ; and concerning his 
son he iciites in quite the same maimer as the books of the Hebrews." 

Note LIIL, p. 122. 

Abydenus interpolates a reign between Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, 
which he assigns to a certain Xergilus, of whom no other trace is to be 
found. Nergal was one of the Assyrian deities, (2 Kings xvii. 30 ; and 
see the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 631-633; compare also Dublin 
Univ. Mag., (Oct. 1853, p. 420,) and cannot therefore have been a king's 
name. The Assyrian royal names contain most commonly a god's name 
as an element, but are never identical with the names of deities. It 
was otherwise in Phoenicia, where Baal and Astartus were monarchs. 
The account of Abydenus seems therefore unworthy of credit. 

Note LIV., p. 122. 

" Manasseh, King of Judah," is mentioned among the subject princes, 
who lent Esarhaddon workmen for the building and ornamentation o! 


his palaces. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 483.) It is not sur- 
prising that we have no account of the expedition against Manasseh, 
since we do not possess the annals of Esarhaddon, but only some occa- 
sional inscriptions. 

Note LV., p. 123. 

The Assyrians ordinarily governed Babylon through native viceroys. 
(See Berosus, Fr. 12 ; and the inscriptions, passim.) But Esarhaddon 
appears to have reigned there in his own person. Bricks found on the 
site of Babylon show that he repaired temples and built himself a 
palace there. Consequently in the authentic list of Babylonian kings 
preserved by Ptolemy, (Magn. Syntax, v. 14,) his name occurs, under 
the Grecized form of Asaridinus. A Babylonian tablet has been found, 
dated by the year of his reign a sure indication that he was the actual 
ruler of the country. No similar facts can be proved of any othel 
Assyrian monarch. 1 (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 482.) 

Note LVL, p. 123. 

There is one only mention of Assyria in the historical Scriptures later 
than the reign of Manasseh, namely, the statement in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, 
that in the days of Josiah " Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, went up 
against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates." If this expression 
is to be taken strictly, we must consider that Assyria maintained her 
existence so late as B. C. 610. I believe, however, that the word 
" Assyria" is here used, somewhat negligently, for " Babylonia." (C'f. 
Keil, ad loc, p. 154, E. T.,) and that the Assyrian empire was destroyed 
in B. C. 625. (See Niebhur, Vortrdge ilber Alte Geschichte, vol. i. p. 47.) 
The first clear indication which Scripture gives of the destruction is 
found in Ezekiel xxxi. 3-17 a passage written B. C. 58.5. A more 
obscure notification of the event is perhaps contained in Jeremiah xxv. 
15-26, where the omission of Assyria from the general list of the idol- 
atrous nations would seem to imply that she had ceased to exist. This 
passage was written about B. ('. 605. 

1 It has been suggested by Dr. Hinc^ and others that the " Arceanus" of Ptolemy's 
list is Sar^on. But thin in a mere conjecture grounded upon a certain decree of resem- 
blance in the names. No traces of Sargon have been found in Babylonia. 

332 NOTES. Leot. IV. 

Note LVIL, p. 123. 

Compare Herod, i. 106 and 178; Ctesias ap. Diod. Sic. ii. 26-28; 
Abydenus ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 9, p. 25 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. x. 5. See 
also Tobit xiv. 15. 

Note LVIIL, p. 124. 

The slight authority of the present "pointing" of the Hebrew text 
is generally admitted. The pointing from which our translators took 
their rendering of " So " is HID ; if the word were pointed thus &10 
it would have to be rendered by " Seveh." (See Keil on 2 Kings 
xri. 4-6, pp. 52, 52, E. T. ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
p. 472, note 2 .) 

Note LIX., p. 124. 

See Mr. Birch's note in Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, eh. vi. pp. 
156-159. Compare Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 
217, 218, and 379 ; and Bunsen, Egypt's Place, &c., vol. ii. p. 597. 

Note LX., p. 124. 

Herod, ii. 137. Most moderns incline to the view that the second 
Shebek is the So of Scripture. (See Winer's RealwOrterbuch, ad voc. 
So ; Keil, Com?ne?itar liber die Bilcher der KOnige, 1. s. c. ; Layard, 
Nineveh and Babylon, p. 157 ; Gesenius, Comment, in Jes., vol. i. p. 696, 
&c.) The question is one of exact chronology. Tirhakah, it is argued, 
came against Sennacherib in the 14th year of Hezekiah, and So made 
a league with Hoshea in Hezekiah's third or fourth year. This then 
must have been in the reign of the second Shebek, to whom Manetho 
gave not less than 12 years. (See Keil, 1. s. c.) But, in the first place, 
So's league cannot be fixed to Hezekiah's third or fourth year. A space 
of several years may intervene between the 4th and 5th verses of 2 Kings 
xvii. And, secondly, Manetho's numbers (as they have come down 
to us) cannot be trusted absolutely. According to them Tirhakah 
reigned 18 or 20 years. (Frs. 64 and 65.) But the monuments dis- 
tinctly assign him 26 years. (See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, 
vol. ii. p. 381.) They also appear to fix his accession to the year B. C. 
690. The reign of Hoshea was from B. C. 729 to B. C. 721, and his 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 333 

league with the Egyptians cannot have been later than B. C. 724. 
This is 34 years before the accession of Tirhakah, which is certainly 
too long a time to assign to the second Shebek. I therefore regard 
the So of Kings as Shebek I. 

The difficulty with respect to Tirhakah's chronology will be consid- 
ered in Note LXIV. 

Note LXL, p. 125. 
See Mr. Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, pp. 156-159. 

Note LXII., p. 125. 

Tarcus is the form given as Manetho's by Africanus, Taracus that 
given by Eusebius. See the fragments of Manetho, in Mttller's Fr. 
Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 593 ; Frs. 64 and 65.) The Hebrew word is 
nplTlt) ; the LXX. give Oapa<6. 

Note LXIII., p. 125. 
Strabo, Geogrnph., i. 3, 21 ; xv. i. 6. 

Note LXIV., p. 125. 

This is the reading of Sir Gardner Wilkinson. (Sec the author's 
Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 380.) Bunsen reads Taharuka, {Egypt, vol. ii. p. 
598 ;) Rosellini, Tahraka. The consonants, T, II, R, K, are certain, 
but the vowels doubtful. 

If Tirhakah did not ascend the Egyptian throne till B. C. 690, how 
(it may be asked) could he be contemporary with Hezekiah, whose last 
year was about B. C. 697, or B. C. 696 ? And how, especially, could 
he oppose Sennacherib, about the middle of Hezekiah' 8 reign, or B. C. 
703 ? I venture to suggest that Tirhakah, when he marched against 
Sennacherib, may not yet have been king of Egypt. He is called 
"king of Ethiopia;" and he may have ruled in Ethiopia, while the 
Shcbeks, under his protection, held Egypt. I venture further to 
doubt whether we can fix the year of Sennacherib's contact with 
Tirhakah from Scripture. His first invasion of Judeea is said to have 
been in Hezekiah's 14th year, (2 Kings xix. 13;) but it seems to be 
a second invasion, falling some years later, which is described in verses 

334 NOTES. Lect. IV. 

17 to 36. In the marginal notes to our Bible, the two invasions are 
made to be three years apart. But the number three is purely con- 
jectural ; and perhaps thirteen or fourteen is as likely. (See the 
author's Herodotus, p. 479, notes 1, 2, and 9.) 

Note. LXV., p. 125. 

Fragmenta Hist. Gr., vol. ii. pp. 593, 594 ; Frs. 66 and 67. The 
form used is Ht^ad. 

Note LXVL, p. 125. 

Herodotus (ii. 158) uses the form Nfituif, where the $ is the Greek 
nominative, and may therefore be cancelled. 

Note LXVIL, p. 125. 

Rosellini expressed the monumental name by Neko, but M. Bunsen 
reads it Nckau or Neku. (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 605.) 

Note LXVITI., p. 125. 

On the frequent confusion between the names Migdol 0n3>2> yiay&aXa, 
MayM.ov) and Megiddo (i'la^j Mayc5<5w, Wlayi&iAv,) see Dr. Stanley's Sinai 
and Palestine, p. 375, note l . Herodotus was not acquainted with the 
interior of Palestine, or he would have seen how much more suited for 
the site of a great battle was Megiddo in the plain of Esdraelon, than 
Magdolum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee. 

Note LXIX., p. 125. 

See Prideaux's Connection, &c, vol. i. pp. 56, 57 ; Bunnell's Geography 
of Herodotus, pp. 245 and 683 ; Heeren's Asiatic Nations, vol. ii. ch. 
4 p. 109, note 2, E. T. ; Dahlmann's Life of Herodotus, ch. iv. p. 55, 
E. T. ; Bahr's Excursus on Herod, ii. 159, vol. i. pp. 922, 923 ; Smith's 
Diet, of Greek and Roman Geography, vol. ii. p. 17 ; Keil's Commentar 
liber d. Bilch. d. KOnige, ch. xxiiif p. 159, E. T. ; Home's Introduction, 
vol. i. p. 208 ; and Kenrick's AncS^nt Egypt, vol. ii. p. 406. 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 335 

Note LXX., p. 125. 

That the Cadytis of Herodotus was not Jerusalem, but a town upon 
the Syrian coast, is now generally admitted by scholars, and seems to 
follow necessarily from Herod, hi. 5. The best authorities incline to 
identify it with Gaza, or Ghuzzeh, called in the Assyrian Inscriptions 
Khazita. (See Hitzig, Disputatio de Cadyte urbe Herodotea ; and compare 
Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 246, note 2 ; Ewald, 
Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. hi. p. 418, note ' ; Sir H. Rawlinson, 
Outlines of Assyrian History, &c. ; and Bertheau, Commentar Uber d. 
Bitch, d. Chronik, 17, ad fin. ; p. 457, E. T. 

Note LXXI., p. 125. 

Africanus and Eusebius both report Manetho to have said of Necho, 
" This man took Jerusalem, and carried Jehoahaz the king captive into 
Egypt. (See the fragments of Manetho in the Fraym. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. 
pp. 593, 594 ; Frs. 66 and 67.) 

Note LXXn., p. 125. 

So Sir Gardner "Wilkinson reads the name on the monuments, (Herod- 
otus, vol. ii. p. 248, note *.) Rosellini read it as Hophre. M. Bunsen 
gives the strange form, Ra-uah-hat, (Egypt, vol. ii. pp. 604, 605.) 

Note LXXIII., p. 125. 

Egyptian chronology placed the accession of Amasis 48 years before 
that of Darius Hystaspis ; for Amasis, according to the consentient 
testimony of Herodotus, (iii. 10,) Manetho, (ap. Synccll. p. 141, C.,) 
and the monuments, (Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 
387,) reigned 44 years, Psammetichus his son, half a year ; Cambyses, 
(in Egypt,) 3 years,' and the Pseudo-Smerdis a little more than half a 
year. The last year of Apries would thus be the 49th before Darius. 
Babylonian chronology made Nebuchadnezzar's last year the 41st before 
that king. (See the Canon.) As Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years, 

1 Or six years. (i'ee. Bunsen'* F.gypl, toI. ii. pp. 610, 611.) 

336 NOTES. Lect. rv, 

and Apries only 19, (or at the utmost 25,) the reign of the latter must 
nave been entirely included within that of the former. Nebuchadnezzar 
reigned from B. C. 604 to B. C. 561; Apries, probably from B. C. 588 
to B. C. 569. 

Note LXXIV., p. 126. 

Manetho is reported to have said of Hophra, (Uaphris,) that he -was 
the king " with whom the remnant of the Jews took refuge, after Jeru- 
salem was captured by the Assyrians." (Fragm. Hist. G>:, vol. ii. pp. 
593, 594; Frs. 66 and 67.) 

Note LXXV., p. 126. 

Herodotus was altogether misinformed about the rank and position 
of Amasis, who (according to him) deposed Apries and put him to 
death. (See Wilkinson, in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 386, 387.) 
It is therefore less surprising that he should have been kept in igno- 
rance of the part which, it is probable, Nebuchadnezzar played in the 
transaction. The Egyptians would naturally seek to conceal from him 
the fact, that the change of sovereigns was brought about by foreign 
influence. But nothing is more unlikely than that they should have 
invented the deposition and execution of one of their monarchs. Thus 
the passage, ' I will deliver Pharaoh-Hophra into the hands of his ene- 
mies, and into the hands of those who seek his life" (Jer. xliv. 30,) is 
confirmed by an unimpeachable testimony. 

Note LXXVL, p. 126. 

M. Bunsen was, I believe, the first to suggest that the d in this name 
had taken the place of /, through the resemblance of A to J. (See his 
Egypt, vol. i. p. 726.) The restoration of the I brings the two names 
into close accordance, the only difference then being that in the Greek 
form one of the original elements of the name, adan or iddan, is sup- 
pressed. Such suppression is not uncommon. It may be traced in Pul 
for Phaloch, in Bupalussor for Nabopolassar, (Abyden.,) in Asaridanus 
for Assur-aM-iddan or Esar-/(addon, and probably in Saracus for 
Assw-akh-uzur, or some similar word. 

The identity of the Mardocempadus of the Canon with the Marduk- 
bal-icidan of the Inscriptions is certain ; and no reasonable aoubt can 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 337 

be entertained of the identity of the latter with the Merodach-Baladan 
of Scripture. These views are now generally accepted. (See Brandis, 
Rerum Assyr. Temp, emend., p. 45 ; Oppert, Rapport, &c, pp. 48, 49 ; 
Hincks in Dubl. Univ. Mag., No. 250, p. 421 ; Layard, Nineveh and 
Babylon, p. 140 ; Keil on 2 Kings xx. 12-19 ; p. 118, E. T. ; &c.) 

Note LXXVII., p. 126. 

Merodach-Baladan had two reigns, both noted in the Inscriptions. 
One of them is marked in Ptolemy's Canon, where it occupies the years 
B. C. 721-709. His other reign does not appear, since it lasted but six 
months, and the Canon marks no period short of a year. Polyhistor 
says (ap. Euseb. Chronica, i. 5) that it immediately preceded the reign 
of Elibus or Belibus, and the Inscriptions show that it was in the earlier 
part of the same year. This was the year B. C. 702, according to the 
Canon. As Hezckiah appears to have reigned from about B. C. 726 to 
B. C. 697, both reigns of Merodach-Baladan would have fallen within 
the time of his rule. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 502-504.) 

Note LXXVIIL, p. 126. 
Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. ii. p. 504 ; Fr. 12. 

Note LXXIX., p. 126. 

Sargon relates, that in his twelfth year he made war upon Merodach- 
Baladan, who had been for twelve years king of Babylon, defeated him, 
and drove him out of the country. The expelled monarch took refuge 
in Susiana, with a number of his partisan , ; and Sarijon continued to 
contend against him and his allies for three years more at the least. 
(See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 474 and 503.) Siiinachcrib 
says, that immediately after his accession he invaded Babylonia, de- 
feated and expelled Merodach-Baladan, and placed Belib over the land 
as ruler. (Ibid. p. 476 ; Eox Talbot's Assyrian Texts, pp. 1-2.) 

Note LXXX., p. 127. 

The Babylonian Gods may be to a great extent identified with the 
heavenly bodies. San or Sansi is the Sun ; Hurki, the Moon ; AVfco is 
Mercury; Ishtar, Venus; Nergal, Mars; Merodach, Jupiter; and proba- 


338 notes. Lect. IV. 

bly Nin (or Bar) Saturn. (See the Essay of Sir H. Rawlinson on the 
Assyrian and Babylonian religious systems, in the first volume of the 
author's Herodotus, Essay x. pp. 584-642.) The dedication of the great 
temple at Borsippa to the Seven Spheres shows a similar spirit. Mr. 
Loftus has found that the temple platforms are so placed that their an- 
gles exact!;/ face the four cardinal points, which seems to be a sufficient 
proof that they were used for astronomical purposes. (See his Chalda^a 
and Susia?ia, ch. xii. p. 128.) On the astronomical skill of the Babylo- 
nians, see Herod, ii. 109 ; Simplicius ad Avistot. De Cceh, ii. p. 123 ; 
Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 56 ; Yitruvius, ix. 9, &c. 

Note LXXXL, p. 127. 

Berosus said: "When Nabopolassar his father (i. e. the father of 
Nebuchadnezzar) heard that the Satrap appointed over Egypt and the 
regions of Coele- Syria and Phoenice had rebelled against him, being no 
longer able himself to endure hardship, he intrusted a certain portion of 
his army to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was of age, and sent him 
against the rebel. Nebuchadnezzar, meeting the rebel, and engaging 
in battle with him, was victorious, and reduced the rebellious country 
into subjection to himself. . . . Not long after, Nebuchadnezzar, having 
heard of the death of his father, when he had settled the affairs of Egypt 
and the adjacent region, and had arranged with certain of his friends to 
bring to Babylon the captives of the Jeics, and Phoenicians and Syrians 
and nations near Egypt, came himself, with great haste and with a 
small company, through the wilderness to Babylon." (Ap. Joseph. 
Ant. Jud. x. 11.) 

Note LXXXIL, p. 127. 

See Josephus, Contra Apion., i. 21 : "I will add also the records of the 
Phoenicians ; for even the superabundance of proofs ought not to be 
omitted. This is the reckoning of the time. ' Under the king Ithoba- 
lus, Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for thirteen years.' " 

Note LXXXIIL, p. 127. 

In continuation of the passage cited in Note LXXXL, Berosus said : 
" Assuming the administration of affairs, which had been under the 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 339 

management of the Chaldseans, and the kingdom which had been kep' 
for him by the most eminent one among them, he succeeded to all his 
father's dominion ; and when the captives arrived, he appointed colo- 
nies for them in the most suitable parts of Babylonia." 

Note LXXXIV., p. 128. 

The chief chronological difficulty which meets us is connected with 
the reign of Hezekiah. Scripture places no more than eight years 
between the fall of Samaria and the first invasion of Judaja by Senna- 
cherib, (2 Kings xviii. 9 and 13.) The monuments place at least eigh- 
teen years between the two events ; for Sargon says he took Samaria in 
his first year, and then gives his annals for fifteen years, while Senna- 
cherib says that he attacked Hezekiah and took his fenced cities in his 
third year. Ptolemy's Canon, taken in conjunction with the monu- 
ments, raises the interval to twenty-two years. According to this, if 
the capture of Samaria was in Hezekiah's sixth year, the accession of 
Sennacherib must have fallen in his twenty-fifth, and the first attack of 
Sennacherib in his 27th year. But our present text of Kings (2 Kings 
xviii. 9) and of Isaiah (xxxvi. 1) calls it his 14th year. I have sug- 
gested elsewhere that the original number may have been altered under 
the idea that the invasion of Sennacherib and the illness of Hezekiah 
were synchronous, whereas the expression "in those days" was used 
by the sacred writers with a good deal of latitude. (See the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 479, note *.) 

Minor difficulties are the synchronism of Tirhakah with Hezekiah, 
and of So with Hoshea, of which I have already spoken. See Notes 
LIX. and LXIV. 

Note LXXXV., p. 128. 
Vortrdge liber Altc Geschichte, vol. i. p. 126 ; p. 106, E. T. 

Note LXXXVI., p. 128. 

A few instances may be noted under each head, as specimens of the 
sort of agreement. 

1. Geographic, (a) In 2 Kings xvii. 6 (compare xviii. 11) it is said 
that the captive Israelites were placed by the conqueror " at Halah and 

34t7 NOTES. LECT. IV. 

Ilabor, the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes." Misled by 
the last clause, various commentators have struggled vainly to find 
Ilabor, Halah, and Gozan in or near Media. (See Bochart, Geograph. 
Sac, iii. 14; Kitto, Bibl. Cyclopedia, ad voc. Gozan; Keil on 2 Kings 
xvii. 6 ; pp. 54-58, E. T., &c.) But this attempt is quite unnecessary. 
The true position of Gozan may be gathered from 2 Kings xix. 12, 
where it is coupled with Ilaran, the well-known city of Mesopotamia. 
In this locality all the names may be found, not only in old geographers, 
but even at the present day. The whole tract east of Ilarran about 
Nisibis, was anciently called Gauzanitis or Gozan, (Ptolemy, v. 18,) of 
which the better known name Mygdonia is a corruption ; ' the great 
river of this tract was the Aborrhas or Chaboras, (Habor ;) and adjoin- 
ing it (Ptol. 1. s. c.) was a district called Chalcitis, (Halah.) Of this 
district a probable trace remains in the modern Gla, a large mound in 
these parts marking a ruined city, (Layard, Nin. and Bab., p. 312, 
note ;) while the river is still known as the Khaboiu; and the country 
as Kausha?i. 2 The author of Chronicles (1 Chron. v. 26) adds Hara to 
the places mentioned in Kings, which is clearly Ilaran, or Ilarran, 
known to the Romans as Carrhte. Undoubtedly the bulk of the Isra- 
elites were settled in this country, while Sargon selected a certain num- 
ber to colonize his new cities in Media, (b) In 2 Kings xvii. 24, 
Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and Sepharvaim are mentioned together as 
cities under the Assyrian dominion, and as furnishing the colonists who 
replaced the transplanted Israelites. Of these Hamath is familiar to us, 
but of the other cities little has been known till recently. "The site 
of Cutha," says Winer, 3 " is wholly uncertain." And so Keil : * 
" The situation of Cuthah cannot be determined with certainty " The 
discovery, however, of an ancient Babylonian city of the name, at the 
distance of about 15 miles from Babylon itself, where, moreover, Nergal 
was especially worshipped, (2 Kings xvii. 30.) seems to remove all 
doubt on the subject. Cuthah was most certainly the city, whose ruins 

1 Mygdonia represents Gozan, with the adjectival or p:\rticipial )2 prefixed. The 
Greek writers always substituted their J for the Semitic z. Hence Gaza became Cadytis, 
Achzib became Ecdippa, the river Zab became the ZJiaba; and so M'gozan became 

2 So at least Winer says, but I do not know on what authority. (Rcalworterbuck, 
ad voc. Gosan.) 

8 Realvortcrbuch, vol. i. p. 237. 

* See Keil on 2 Kings xvii. 24 ; vol. ii. p. 67, E. T. 

Lect. IV. NOTES. 341 

are now called Ibrahim. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 632, 
and vol. ii. p. 587.) With almost equal confidence may -\ve pronounce 
on the position of Ava, of which Winer says, that it is most probably a 
Mesopotamian town. " of which no trace remains in ancient authors or 
in modern Oriental topography." 1 Ava, (S^>,) or Ivah, (St^lS,) is a city 
dedicated to the god Hea, (Xeptune,) which was on the Euphrates at 
the extreme northern limit of Babylonia. It is called by the Talmudi- 
cal writers Ihi, ("\-p) or with an epithet Ihi-dakira, (ja~pfiT i np>) by 
Herodotus 7s, ("It,) by the Egyptians 1st, by the Turks and Arabs of 
the present day Hit. The first corruption of the name may be traced 
in the Ahava (stinst) of Ezra, (viii. 15, 21 ; compare the river Is of 
Herodotus,) where the Jews encamped on their way from Babylon to 
Jerusalem. (See the remarks of Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. p. 602.) Sepharvaim has less completely baffled the 
geographers, who have seen that it must be identical with the Sippara 
or Sipphara of Ptolemy (v. 18) and the city of the Sipparenes of Aby- 
denus, (Fr. 9.) See Winer and Kitto ad voc. They have not, how- 
ever, been aide to fix the site ; which the Inscriptions show to have 
been at Mosaib, a town on the Euphrates between Hit and Babylon. 
Nor have they given any account of the dual form, Sepharva/m, 
(Z ;) which is explained by the fact, noted in the Inscriptions, 
that the city was partly on the right, partly on the left bank of the 
Euphrates, (c) With Sepharvaim are connected, in 2 Kings xix. 13, 
the two cities of Hena and Ivah. It is implied that they had recently 
been united under one king : we must seek them therefore in the same 
neighborhood. As Ivah, like Sepharvaim, was upon the Euphrates 
above Babylon, and as the towns in this tract have always been 
clustered along the banks of the streams, we must look for Hena 
(Heb. 7:n ; LXX. 'Ar<5) in a similar position. Now on the Euphrates 
in this region is found in the Inscriptions an important town, Anah or 
Anat ; which has always borne nearly the same name, and which is 
even now known as Anah. Hena is thus identified almost to a cer- 

2. Religious, (a) The worship of Baal and Astarte by the Phoeni- 
cians, almost to the exclusion of other gods, is strongly suggested by 
the whole history from Judges to Ahaz. (See Jud. x. G ; 1 Kings xi. 

Realirilrterbuch, vol. i. p. 118. 


342 NOTES. Lect. IV. 

5 ; xvi. 31, &c.) A marked confirmation of this exclusive, or nearly 
exclusive, worship is found in the names of the Tyrian kings and judges, 
which, like those of the Assyrian and Babylonian monarehs, compre- 
hend almost always a divine element. Their names, so far as they 
are known, run as follows : Abibaal, Hiram, iia/eazar, Abdastartus, 
Astartus, Aserymus, Pheles, Eth&aa/, Balezar, Matgen, Pygmalion, 
Eluloeus, ILth-baal II., Baal, Eeni&aa/, Chelbes, Abbarus, Mytgon, 
Iterator, Geraitartus, Meria/, and Hiram H. Farther confirmation is 
derivable from the few authentic notices of the religion which remain, 
as from the fragments of Dius and Menander, where these two are the 
only deities mentioned. 1 (&) It has been already noticed that Xergal, 
who is said to have been worshipped by the Cuthites in Samaria, 
(2 Kings xvii. 30,) is found in the inscriptions to have been the special 
god of Cutha. (c) So too it appears from them that the city of Sephar- 
vaim was under the special protection of two deities, conjointly wor- 
shipped, Shamas or San, the Sun, and his wife Gula or Anunit. Here 
we have evidently the Adrammelech and Anammelech of 2 Kings xvii. 
31; Adrammelech, "the Fire-king," and Anammelech, "Queen Anu- 
nit " the latter name being assimilated to the former with insolent 
carelessness. (See Sir H. Rawlinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. 
pp. 611, 612.) (d) If a satisfactory explanation cannot be given from 
Babylonian mythology of Succoth-Benoth, Nibhaz, and Tartak, (2 Kings 
xvii. 30, 31,) it is probably because they are not really the names of 
Babylonian gods. The first seems to mean "tents of daughters," or 
small tabernacles in which were contained images of female deities. 
The second and third are most likely scornful modifications of certain 
Babylonian names, which I should suspect to have been Nebo and Tir 
the latter a title by which Nebo was sometimes called. Or they may 
possibly be gods which have yet to be discovered. 

3. Manners, customs, &c. (a) The whole character of the Assyrian 
wars, as represented in Kings and Chronicles, is in close accordance 
with what we gather from the Inscriptions. The numerical force of 
their armies, the direction of them by the monarch in person, the mul- 
titude of their chariots, (2 Kings xix. 23,) their abundant cavalry, 

1 Mr. Kenrick gives the Phoenicians three " national deities," Astarte, Bolus, Her- 
cules. (Phanicia, p. 345.) But Movers has shown satisfactorily that Melcarth (the 
Tyrian Hercules) was only another name for Baal. 

Lect. IV. N T K s . 843 

(2 Kings xviii. 23,) their preference of the bow as a weapon, 1 (ib. xix. 
32,) the manner of their sieges by "easting banks" against the walls 
of ciries, 2 (ibid.,) and again the religious enthusiasm with which the 
wars were carried on, the antagonism maintained between the Assyrian 
gods and those of the invaded countries, (2 Kings xviii. 33, 34, &e.,) 
and the practice of carrying off as plunder, and therefore probably of 
melting down, the idols of the various nations, (2 Kings xix. 18,) are 
all distinctly marked in the sacred history, and might be abundantly 
illustrated from the monuments. 3 (6) No less harmonious with Scrip- 
ture is the representation which the monuments give of the Assyrian 
political system. Something has been already said on this point. 
(Lecture III., pp. 94-96.) The empire is one made up of a number 
of petty kingdoms. ("Are not my princes altogether kings?" Is. x. 
8.) Absorption of the conquered districts is not aimed at, but only 
the extension of suzerainty, and government through native tributary 
monarchs. Rebellion is promptly punished, and increased tribute is 
its natural consequence. (2 Kings xviii. 14.) Finally, transplantation 
is made use of when other means fail sometimes on a larger, some- 
times on a smaller scale, as the occasion requires. 4 (c) The continued 
power of the Ilittites, the number of their princes, and their strength 
in chariots, which appears from 1 Kings x. 29, and again remarkably 
from 2 Kings vii. 6, is strikingly confirmed by the Black Obelisk in- 
scription, where we find twelve kings of the Khatti, allied with Syria 
and Hamath, and fighting against the Assyrians with a force whose 
chief strength seems to be chariots. Many similar points of minute 
agreement might be adduced, but this note has, I fear, already extended 
itself beyond the patience of most readers. 

1 Thin appears sufficiently on the sculptures ; but it is even more strikingly evinced 
in the language of the Inscriptions where the phrase which has to he translated, 
''killed in battle," is constantly "'killed villi arrows." (See Dubl. Univ. Mag., 'So. 
250, p. 42 J.) 

* Seo Layard's Nineveh and Babylon, p. 140. Describing a bass-relief of Sennacherib's, 
he says, " Against the fortifications had been thrown up at many as ten banks or mound.*, 
compactly built of stones, bricks, earth, and branches of trees." 

3 Set' the Great Inscription of Tigla'h Pileter /., pp. 23. SO, 38, Ac. : Dubl. Univ. 
Mag., No. 250. pp. 423. 421: Fox Talbot's .fa;rin Tezts, pp. 1, 3, 4, 11,29, Ac. Com- 
pare the author's JFrrodutus, Vol. i. p. 496. 

4 See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 493. 

344 N O T E S . Lect. V. 


Note I., p. 131. 
So Ewald, Die Propheten des Alten Bundes, p. 560. 

Note II., p. 131. 

This is the theory of De Wette (Einleitung, \ 253, p. 342 ; vol. ii. p. 
485, E. T.,) who bases the view on the passages of Ezekiel, where 
Daniel is so highly commended. See below, Note X. 

Note III., p. 131. 

See the statements of Jerome concerning Porphyry in the preface to 
his Comment, in Daniel. {Op., A r ol. iii. pp. 1073, 1074.) 

Note IV., p. 131. 

It is urged by Ewald, (Propheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 565 ;) by Knobch 
Prophetismus der IJebrder, ii. p. 401 ; by Strauss, (Leben Jesu, 13 ; vol. 
i. p. 56, E. T. ;) by De Wette, (Einleitung, 255 b, p. 346 ;) and by Mr. 
Theodore Parker, (Translation of De Wette, vol. ii. pp. 491 and 501.) 
Hence Auberlen observes with justice, " The true argument of all others, 
even in modern criticism, lies in the dogmatic doubt of the reality oi 
miracles and predictions." (Prophecies of Daniel, Introduction, p. 10, 
E. T. 1 ) And Stuart, " Nearly all the arguments employed to disprove 
the genuineness of Daniel, have their basis, more or less directly, in 
the assumption, that miraculous events are impossibilities. Of course, 
all the extraordinary occurrences related in the book of Daniel, and all 
the graphic predictions of events, are, under the guidance of this as- 
sumption, stricken from the list of probabilities, and even of possibili- 
ties." (History and Defence of the Canon, 4, pp. 110, 111.) 

1 The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation of St. John viewed in their mutual 
relation by C. A. Auberlen, Ph. D. Translated by the Rev. A. Saphir; Edinburgh, 
Clark, 1866. 

Lkct. V. NOTES. 345 

Note V., p. 132. 

Undoubtedly a peculiar character attaches to the prophecies of Daniel, 
if they are compared with those of the other prophets. As Auberlen 
observes, " his prophecies abound, above all the rest, in historical and 
political detail." (Prophecies of Daniel, Introduction, p. 3, E. T.) But 
to make this an objection to the authenticity of the Book is to assume, 
either that we have an a priori knowledge of the nature and limits of 
prophetical inspiration, or else that the law of such inspiration may be 
gathered inductively from the other Scriptures, and then applied to 
exclude the claims of a Book which has as much external sanction as 
any other. But induction should be from all the instances ; and to 
exclude the Book of Daniel by a law drawn from the rest of Scripture, 
is first to assume that it is not Scripture, and then to prove that it is 
not by means of that assumption. We are quite ignorant beforehand 
to what extent it might please the Omniscient to communicate to any 
of his creatures the knowledge of the future, which He possesses in 
perfection ; and we have no means of determining the question but by 
a careful study of all the facts which the Bible sets before us. "We 
have no right to assume that there will be a uniform law, much less 
that we shall be able to discover it. It is a principle of the Divine 
Economy that " there is a time for every thing; " and the minute exact- 
ness which characterizes some of the Prophecies of Daniel may have 
been adapted to peculiar circumstances in the history of God's people 
at some particular time, 1 or have otherwise had some special object 
which we cannot fathom. 

Note VI., p. 132. 

See Hengstenberg, Authentic des Daniel, p. 303, et seqq. . The alter- 
nate use of Hebrew and Chaldee, which is the main linguistic peculiar- 
ity of Daniel, is only natural at a time when both languages were cur- 
rently spoken by the Jews ; and is only found in writings of about this 
period, as in Ezra and Jeremiah. De Wctte's answer to this argument, 
that both languages were known to the learned Jews at a later date, 

1 Auberlen thinks that the minuteness, which Is chiefly in chs. viil. and xi., was 
" necessary to prepare the people for the attacks ami artful machinations of Antiochus," 
and that "the glorious struggle, of the Maccabees, so far as it was a pure and righteuui 
ne, was a fruit of this book."' (pp. 04, 05.) 

34(5 NOTES. Lect. V. 

(Einleitung, 255 c, p. 349,) is a specimen of the weak grounds on which 
men are content to rest a foregone conclusion. The Hebrew Scriptures 
were not written for the learned ; and no instances at all can be found 
of the alternate use, (as distinct from the occurrence of Chaldaisms in 
Hebrew, or Hebraisms in Chaldee,) excepting at the time of the Cap- 

Note VII., p. 132. 

I have here followed the ordinary tradition, which rests on the au- 
thority of Aristeas, Philo, Justin Martyr, Josephus, Epiphanius, &c. 
It is questioned, however, if the Greek version of Daniel was made so 
early. The book of Esther, according to the subscription to it, was net 
translated till the fourth year of Ptolemy Philometor, B. C. 178 or 177, 
a year or two before the accession of Epiphanes. And it is possible 
that Daniel may have been translated still later. (See Home's Introduc- 
tion, &c, vol. hi. p. 44.) 

If the argument in the text is weakened by this admission, it may 
receive the following important accessions : 1. Passages of Daniel are 
referred to by Jesus the son of Sirach, who must have written as early 
as B. C. 180, or before the time of Epiphanes. 1 (See Ecclus. xvii. 17, 
compared with Dan. x. 20, 21 ; xii. 1 ; and Ecclus. x. 8, compared 
with Dan. viii. 23, &c.) And, 2. Daniel's prophecies were shown to Al- 
exander the Great in the year B. C. 332, and inclined him to treat the 
Jews with special favor. (Joseph. Ant. Jiul. xi. 8.) The authority of 
Josephus as to the main fact is not discredited by the circumstance, that 
" the narrative of Josephus is not credible in all of its particulars." (De 
Wette, Einleitung, \ 255 c, p. 349.) 

Note VIII., p. 132. 

The fundamental arguments in favor of this are, 1. The constant 
representation of Daniel as the author from ch. vii. to the end ; and, 2. 
Our Lord's words, "the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel 
the Prophet," (Matt. xxiv. 15.) De Wette's arguments to the contrary, 
besides those noted in the text, seem to be the following, 1 . The mira- 
cles are grotesque. 2. The apocalyptic tone is unlike that of the proph- 

1 Even De Wette admits this. (Einleitung, \ 316, p. 419. " As we maintain at the 
time of its composition., d. J. 180. v. Chr.") 

Lect. V. notes. 347 

ets belonging to this period. 3. Honorable mention is made of Daniel 
himself in the book. 4. The language is corrupt, containing Persian 
and Greek words. 5. The book is placed by the Jews among the 
Hagiographa, and is therefore later than Malachi. 6. The angelology, 
christology, and asceticism, mark a late date. 1 Of these the first and last 
may be simply denied ; the second is reduced to a shadow by De Wette 
himself when he admits that the style of Ezekiel's and Zechariah's 
prophesying is not very unlike ("nicht ganz fremd") Daniel's; the 
third is an objection equally to the Pentateuch, the Gospel of St. John, 
and some of St. Paul's Epistles, and rests merely upon an a priori con- 
ception of how prophets should write, not borne out by experience ; 
the fourth is not urged with any confidence, since it is allowed to be 
" certainly possible that the Greek words may have been known to the 
Babylonians at the time," (p. 347 ;) and if so, a fortiori, the Persian 
words ; and the fifth argument, if it has any weight at all, would make 
the Book of Job, and the Proverbs of Solomon, later than Malachi ! 
No wonder Professor Stuart should say "Beyond the objections 
founded on the assumption, that miracles and predictions are impossi- 
bilities, there is little to convince an enlightened and well-balanced crit- 
ical reader, that the book is supposititious." (History and Defence of 
the Canon, p. 111.) 

Note IX., p. 132. 

See Dan. i. 3. Josephus says that Daniel was of the seed of Zedekiah. 
Ant. Jud. x. 10.) 

Note X., p. 132. 

Ewald contends, that the Daniel commended by Ezekiel must have 
been an ancient hero, like Job and Noah, (Propheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 
660,) of whose wisdom and righteousness he knew from some sacred 
book, with which both himself and the Jews of his time were well ac- 
quainted. We are not told what has become of this book, or what 
proof there is of its existence. Nor is it explained how this " ancient 
hero " comes not to be mentioned in the historical Scriptures at all, or 
by any writer earlier than Ezekiel. Doubtless if we had no means of 
knowing to the contrary, we should naturally have supposed from 
Ezek. xiv. 14 and 20, that Daniel was an ancient historical personage 

I Einlettung. I 265, pp. 346, 347. 

348 NOTES. Lect. V. 

in Ezekiel's time, having lived between Noah and Job ; but as this is 
impossible from the absolute silence of the historical books, Ezekiel's 
mention of him at all can only be accounted for by the fact that he was 
the great Jew of the day, and that his wisdom and virtue were known 
to those for whom Ezekiel wrote, the Chaldcean Jews, 1 be it remem- 
bered, (Ezek. i. 2, 3,) not historically, or from any book, but from 
personal acquaintance and common rumor. Why Daniel precedes Job, 
is still a question. Perhaps, because Daniel and Noah are actual men, 
while Job is not ? Or because the two former are viewed as Jews, Job 
as a Gentile ? 

Note XL, p. 132. 

Einleitung, 255 a, p. 344 ; " full of improbabilities, and even of his- 
torical errors, such as no other prophetical book of the Old Testament 
contains." Compare p. 349. 

Note NIL, p. 132. 

See above, Note LXXXVI. on Lecture IV. Sargon seems to have 
been the first king who introduced this practice on a large scale. He 
was followed by Sennacherib, (Fox Talbot's Assyrian Texts, pp. 3, 4, 7, 
&c. ;) and Esarhaddon, (ibid. pp. 11 and 17.) 

Note XIII., p. 132. 

See Herod, iv. 181 ; v. 15; vi. 20 and 119; Ctes. Pers., 9; Arrian. 
Exp. Alex., iii. 48 ; and compare the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 563, 
564. The practice continues to modern times. (See Chardin's Voyage 
en Perse, vol. iii. p. 292 ; and Ferrier's Caravan Journeys, p. 395.) 

Note XIV., p. 133. 
Lee Lecture IV., Note LXXXIII. 

1 It has been usual to regard Ezekiel as writing in Mesopotamia, the Chebar being 
supposed to be the Khabour. But we have no right to assume the identity of the 
words "!33 and "113H. The Chebar is probably the N'ahr Malcha, or Royal Canal, 
the great / - 03'\ cutting of Nebuchadnezzar. See the article on Chebar iu Smith's 
(forthcoming) Biblical Dictionary. 

Lect. V. NOTES. 349 

Note XV., p. 133. 

See the fragments of these writers in the Fragmenta Hist. Gr., vol. ii 
pp. 506, 507 ; and vol. iv. p. 284. Compare with the expression 14 
Daniel, ' Is not this great Babylon which I have built r " (Dan, iv. 
30,) the statement of Berosus. Nebuchadnezzar . . . repaired the city 
which had existed from the first, and added another to it ; and in order 
that besiegers might not again be able, by turning aside the course of 
the river, to get possession of the city, he built three courses of walls 
around the inner city, and as many around the outer. Both statements 
are confirmed by the fact that nine tenths of the inscribed bricks from 
the site of Babylon are stamped with Nebuchadnezzar's name. 

Note XVI., p. 133. 

Ap. Euseb. Prepp. Ev. ix. 41, pp. 441, 442. " Afterwards, as is said by 
the Chaldaeans, he went up into his palace, where he was seized by some 
divine influence, and littered these words : ' O Babylonians, I Nebu- 
chadnezzar announce to you this future calamity. . . . There shall come 
a Persian mule, using our divinities as allies : he shall bring us into 
bondage : leagued with him shall be the Mode, the boast of Assyria.' 
Having uttered these predictions, he immediately disappeared." 

Note XVII., p. 133. 

Beros. ap. Joseph. Contr. Apionem, i. 20 ; Polyhist. ap. Euseb. Chron- 
ica, i. 5, 3, p. 21 ; Ptol. Mag. Syntax., v. 1 1. 

Note XVIII., p. 134. 

These tablets are commonly orders on the imperial treasury, dated in 
the current year of the reigning monarch, like modern Acts of Parlia- 
ment. They give a minimum for the length of each monarch's reign. 
but of course by the nature of the case they cannot furnish a maximum. 
Still, where they are abundant, as in Nebuchadnezzar's case, they raise 
a strong probability that the highest number found was not much ex- 


350 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Note XIX.. p. 134. 

The eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar being the first of Jehoiachin's 
captivity, (2 Kings xxiv. 12,) we must place the beginning of Nebuchad- 
nezzar's reign seven years earlier ; and the 37th of the captivity being 
the first of Evil-Merodach, (Ibid. xxv. 27,) the 36th would be Nebu- 
chadnezzar's last complete year. Now 36 -f- 7 = 43. 

Note XX., p. 134. 

So De Wette, (Einleitung, 255 a ; p. 345 c.,) who quotes von Len- 
gerke, Hitzig, and others, as agreeing with him. Ewald also compares 
Daniel to Judith, on account of its confusing together various times 
and countries. (Prqpheten des Alt. Bundes, p. 562.) 

Note XXI., p. 134. 

De "Wette gives the first place among his " historical inaccuracies," 
to the " erroneous representations concerning the wise men of Baby- 
lon," and the "inexplicable admission of Daniel among the same; " the 
second to the "mention of the Persian arrangement of Satrapies under 
Nebuchadnezzar and Darius the Mede." {Einleitung, 1. s. c.) 

Note XXII., p. 134. 

The word which we translate "magicians" in Dan. i. 20, ii. 2, 10, 
&c, is chartummim, or khartummim, (fi^Tap")!"!,) which is derived from 
cheret, or kheret, (w~!>"I,) " a graving-tool." (See Buxtorf's Lexicon He- 
braicum'et Chaldaicum, ad voc.) Babylonian documents are sometimes 
written on clay, where the character has been impressed, before the clay 
was baked, by a tool with a triangular point ; but they are also fre- 
quently on stone large pebbles from the Euphrates's bed in which 
case they have been engraved with a fine chisel. 

Note XXIDI., p. 135. 

The Chaldseans in Kings, Chronicles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and even 
Ezekiel, are simply the inhabitants of Chaldaea, which is the name ap- 
plied to the whole country whereof Babylon is the capital. But in 

Lect. V. NOTES. 351 

Daniel the Chaldaeans are a special set of persons at Babylon, having a 
"learning" and a " tongue " of their own, (Dan. i. 4,) and classed with 
the magicians, astrologers, &c. Stvabo notes both senses of the term, 
(xvi. i. 6 ;) and Berosus seems to use the narrower and less common 
one, when he speaks of Nebuchadnezzar as finding on his arrival at 
Babylon after his father's death, that affairs were being conducted by 
the Chaldaeans, and that their chief was keeping the throne vacant for 
him, (" assuming the administration of affairs, which had been under the 
management of the Chaldaeans, and the kingdom which had been kept 
for him by the most eminent one among them, he succeeded," &c, Fr. 
14,) while elsewhere (as in Frs. 1, 1 ; 5, 6, 11, &c.) he employs the 
generic and more usual sense. Compare Herod, i. 181, and vii. 63. 
The inscriptions show that the Chaldaeans (Kaldi) belonged to the 
primitive Scythic inhabitants, and that the old astronomical and other 
learning of the Babylonians continued to be in this language during the 
later Semitic times. (See Sir H. Rawlinson's note in the author's 
Herodotu*, vol. i. p. 319, note 8 .) 

Note XXIV., p. 135. 

Compare an article on the Chaldaeans in Smith's (forthcoming) Bibli- 
cal Dictionary. 

Note XXV., p. 135. 

See above, Lecture IV., Note LXXXI. 

Note XXVI., p. 136. 

I do not intend to assert that this urn* the case. We have no satis- 
factory proof that the Babylonians ever approached more nearly to the 
Satrapial system than by the appointment in exceptional cases of a 
native "governor" in lieu of an hereditary king, as in the case of 
Gedaliah. The maintenance of Jehoiakim, Jehoiaehin, and Zedekiah 
on the throne of Judaea seems to indicate the general character of their 
government. It may even be suspected that Berosus's " Satrap of 
Egypt and Syria" was really Pharaoh-Necho, whose position Baby- 
lonian vanity represented in that light. The LXX. translate Daniel's 
" princes " (&*2E"Hrni<) by oarpanai, but this cannot be regarded as 
an argument of much weight. Babylonian historical inscriptions arc so 

352 NOTES. Lect. V. 

scanty that we can derive little assistance from them towards determin- 
ing the question. 

Note XXVII., p. 136. 

The extent of the kingdom, (Dan. iv. 22,) the absolute power of the 
king, (ib. ii. 5, 13, 48 ; iii. 29, &c.,) the influence of the Chaldseans, 
(ib. ii. 2 ; iii. 8, &c.,) the idolatrous character of the religion, the use of 
images of gold, (ib. iii. 1 ; compare Herod, i. 183,) are borne out by 
profane writers, and (so far as their testimony can be brought to bear) 
by the monuments. The building (rebuilding) of Babylon (Dan. iv. 
30) by Nebuchadnezzar, is confirmed in every way. (See above, 
Note XV.) Again, there is a curious notice in Daniel of a certain 
peculiarity which may be remarked in Nebuchadnezzar's religion, viz., 
his special devotion to a particular god. Nebuchadnezzar throughout 
his inscriptions presents himself to us as a devotee of Merodach. 
" Merodach, his lord," is the chief almost the sole object of his wor- 
ship and praise invocations, prayers, and thanksgivings are addressed 
to him, and him only. (See Sir II. Rawlinson's remarks in the author's 
Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 628, 629, and compare the Inscription of Nebu- 
chadnezzar in the same work, vol. ii. pp. 585-587.) This peculiarity is 
casually and incidentally noticed by Daniel, when he says that Nebu- 
chadnezzar carried the sacred vessels of the temple " into the land of 
Shinar, to the house of his god; and brought the vessels into the 
treasure-house of his god." (i. 2.) 

Note XXVITL, p. 136. 

See his Beitrdge zur Einleitung in das Alt. Test., p. 105. Hengsten- 
berg has on his side the authority of Eusebius, who so understood the 
passage, (Chronica, i. 10, p. 21 ;) but Eusebius's arguments appear to 
me very weak. 

Note XXIX, p. 137. 

See Sir II. Rawlinson's translation of the Standard Inscription in 
the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. pp. 585-587. The passage to which 
reference is made in the text runs as follows " Four years (?) . . . 
the seat of my kingdom in the city . . . which . . . did not rejoice my 
heart. In all my dominions I did not build a high place of power ; the 
precious treasures of my kingdom I did not lay up. In Babylon, 

Lect. V. notes. 353 

buildings for myself and for the honor of my kingdom I did not lay 
out. In the worship of Merodach my lord, the joy of my heart, (?) in 
Babylon the city of his sovereignty and the seat of my empire, I did 
not sing his praises, (?) and I did not furnish his altars (with victims), 
nor did I clear out the canals." Other negative clauses follow. From 
this literal rendering of the passage, only one or two words of which 
are at all doubtful, the reader may judge for himself to what event in 
his life it is likely that the monarch alludes. He should perhaps bear 
in mind that the whole range of cuneiform literature presents no simi- 
lar instance of a king putting on record his own inaction. 

Note XXX., p. 137. 

Berosus ap. Joseph. Contr. Ap., i. 20 : "Now Nebuchadnezzar, just 
as he began to build the aforesaid wall, fell sick, and died, after having 
reigned 43 years. His son, Evil-Merodach, became master of the 
kingdom." Compare Abyden. ap. Euseb. Chron., i. 10, p. 28 ; and 
Polyhist. ap. eund. i. 5, 3 ; p. 21. 

Note XXXI., p. 137. 

Berosus continues after the passage above quoted "This man, hav- 
ing used his authority in a lawless and dissolute manner, was slain by 

Note XXXII., p. 138. 

The Babylonian name is read as Nergal-shar-uzitr ; the Hebrew form 
Cl2^E~ba~i:) is exactly expressed by our authorized version, which 
gives Nergal-shar-ezer. The Greek renderings are far inferior to the 
Hebrew. Berosus, as reported by Josephus, (1. s. c.,) called the king 
Neriglissoor ; Polyhistor called him Neglissar, (Euseb. Chron., i. 5 ; 
p. 21 ;) Abydenus, Niglissar, (Armen. Euseb.,) or Neriglissar, (Euseb. 
Prop. Ev., ix. 41 ;) Ptolemy, {Mag. Si/nt., 1. s. c.,) Nerigassolassar. 

Note XXXHL, p. 138. 

The Babylonian vocalization somewhat modifies the word, which is 
readas in the Inscriptions as Rubu-emga. (See Sir H. Rawlinson's 
note in the author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 518, note 3 .) With this the 


354 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Hebrew Rub-mag (W^) is identical in all its consonants ; and there 
can be no reasonable doubt that it is the same term. Gesenius has 
translated the title as " Chief of the Magi," (Lexicon, p. 388, E. T. ;) 
but the Babylonian word which represents the Persian Magi in the 
Behistun Inscription bears no resemblance at all to the emga of this 
title. Sir H. Rawlinson believes the signification to be " Chief Priest," 
but holds that there is no reference in it to Magism. 

Note XXXIV., p. 138. 

Abydenus has the form Nabannidochus, (ap. Euseb. Chron. i. 10, 
p. 28,) with which may be -compared the Naboandelus (probably to be 
read Naboandcchus,) of Josephus, {Ant. Jud. x. 11.) Berosus wrote 
Nabonnedus (Joseph. Contr. Ap. i. 20 ;) Herodotus, Labynetus, (i. 77, 
188.) The actual name seems to have been Kabu-nahit in Semitic, 
Nabu-induk in the Cushite Babylonian. 

Note XXXV. p. 139. 

So Josephus, (Ant. Jud. 1. s. c. ;) Perizonius, (Orig. Babylon, p. 359 ;) 
Heeren, Manual of Ancient History, p. 28, E. T. ; Des Vignoles, 
(Euires, vol. ii. p. 510, et seqq. ; Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 369-371 ; 
the author of L Art de Verifier les Dates, vol. ii. p. 69 ; Winer, Real- 
tcOrterbuch ad voe. Belshazzar ; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopedia ad voc. 
eand. ; &c. 

Note XXXVI., p. 139. 

It has been almost universally concluded, by those who have regarded 
the book of Daniel as authentic, that the Belshazzar of that book must 
be identical with one or other of the native monarchs known from 
Berosus and Abydenus to have occupied the throne between Nebuchad- 
nezzar and Cyrus. Each monarch has been preferred in his turn. 
Conringius, Bouhier, Larcher, Marsham, Hupfcld, Havernick, and 
others, have identified Belshazzar with Evil-Merodach ; Eusebius, 
Syncellus, and Hales, with Neriglissar ; Jackson and Gatterer, with 
Laborosoarchod ; but the bulk of commentators and historians with 
Nabonadius. (See the last note.) In every case there was the .same 
difficulty in explaining the diversity of name, as well as in reconciling 

Lect. V. NOTES. 355 

the historical facts recorded of the monarch preferred with what Scrip- 
ture tells us of Belshazzar. On the whole, perhaps the hypothesis of 
Conringius was the least objectionable. 

Note XXXVU., p. 139. 
So De Wette, Einleitung, 255 a, p. 345. 

Note XXXVIII., p. 139. 

This view was maintained by Sir Isaac Newton. (See his Chronol- 
ogy, pp. 323-330.) 

Note XXXIX., p. 139. 

Sir H. Rawlinson made this important discovery in the year 1854, 
from documents obtained at Mugheir, the ancient Ur. (See Mr. Lof- 
tus's Chaldma and Susiana, ch. xii. pp. 132, 133 ; and compare the 
author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 525.) 

Note XL., p. 140. 

Jehu, though ordinarily called " the son of Nimshi," was really his 
grandson, (2 Kings ix. 2.) Merodach-Baladan, " the son of Baladan," 
according to Isaiah, (xxxix. 1,) is in the Inscriptions the son of Yaghia. 
Baladan was probably one of his more remote ancestors. In Matt. i. 1, 
our Blessed Lord is called " the Son of David, (who was) the son of 

Note XLL, p. 140. 

Such marriages formed a part of the state policy of the time, and 
were sought with the utmost avidity. When Zedekiah's daughters 
were committed to Gedaliah, (Jcrem. xli. 10,) it was undoubtedly that 
he might marry them, in order (as Mr. F. Newman justly observes ') 
* to establish for his descendants an hereditary claim on Jewish allegi- 
ance." So Amasis married a daughter of Psammctik III. ; * and 
Atossa was taken to wife both by the Pscudo-Smerdis and by Darius, 
the son of Hystaspes, (Herod, iii. 68 and 88.) On the same giounds 

1 Hebrew Monarchy, p. 361. 

' Wilkinson in the author's Herodotus, vol. ii. p. 387. 

356 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Herod the Great married Mariamne. (See Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 12, 
3.) An additional reason for suspecting that such a marriage as that 
suggested in the text was actually contracted by Nabonadius, is to be 
found in the fact, which may be regarded as certain, that he adopted 
the name of Nebuchadnezzar among his own family names. That he 
had a son so called, is proved by the rise of two pretenders in the reign 
of Darius, who each proclaimed himself to be " Nebuchadnezzar, the 
son of Nabonadius." {Behistun Inscr. Col. i. Par. 16 ; and Col. iii. 
Par. 13.) 

Note XLII., p. 140. 

Syncellus, Chronograph, p. 438, B ; Apoc. Dan. xiii. ad fin. ; Jack- 
son, Chronolog. Antiq. vol. i. p. 416; Marsham, Can. Chron. p. 604, et 
6eqq. ; Winer, Realwfirterbuch ad voc. Darius ; &c. 

Note XLHL, p. 140. 

This was the view of Josephus, {Ant. Jud. x. 11, 4 ;) and from him 
it has been adopted very generally. See Prideaux's Connection, &c, 
vol. i. p. 95 ; Hales's Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. p. 508 ; Offerhaus, 
Spicileg. Hist. Chron., p. 265 ; Bertholdt, Exc. ziun Daniel, p. 483 ; Heng- 
stenberg, Authentic des Daniel, 48 ; Von Lcngerke, Das Buch Daniel, 
92 ; Hooper's Palmoni, pp. 278-283 ; and Kitto's Biblical Cyclopedia, 
ad voc. Darius. But Xenophon is the sole authority for the existence 
of this personage ; and Herodotus may be quoted against his exist- 
ence, since he positively declares that Astyages " had no male off- 
spring." (Herod, i. 109.) 

Note XLIV., p. 140. 

By Larcher, (Hirodote, vol. vii. p. 175,) Conringius, Adversar. Chron. 
c. 13,) and Bouhier, {Dissertations sur Hirodote, ch. iii. p. 29.) 

Note XLY., p. 140. 

Syncellus regarded Darius the Mede as at once identical with Astya- 
ges and Nabonadius. (Chronograph, pp. 437, 438.) 

Lect. V. NOTES. 357 

Note XL VI., p. 140. 

That Cyrus placed Medes in situations of high trust, is evident from 
Herodotus, (i. 156 and 162.) He may therefore very possibly have 
established Astyages, his grandfather (?), as vice-king of Babylon, where 
the latter may have been known to the Jews as Darius the Mede. The 
diversity of name is no real objection here ; for Astyages (Asdahages = 
Aj-dahak) is not a name, but (like Pharaoh) a title. And if it be said 
that Darius the Mede was the son of Ahasuerus or Xerxes, (Dan. ix. 1,) 
while Astyages was the son of Cyaxares, it may be answered that, ac- 
cording to one explanation, Cyaxares is equivalent to Kei-Axares, or 
King Xerxes. There is still an objection in the age of Darius Medus, 
who was only 62 in E. C. 538, (Dan. v. 31,) whereas Astyages (it would 
seem) must have been 75 at that time. (See the author's Herodotus, 
vol. i. pp. 417, 418.) But as the numbers depend here on the single 
authority of Herodotus, whose knowledge of Median history was not 
very great, perhaps they are not greatly entitled to consideration. 

If, however, it be thought that, for this or any other reason, Darius 
Medus cannot be Astyages, we may regard him as a Median noble, in- 
trusted by Cyrus with the government of Babylon. Scripture makes 
it plain that his true position was that of a subordinate king, holding 
his crown of a superior. Darius the Mede, we are told, (Dan. v. 30,) 
"took the kingdom" SCttSb?? b?P that is, "accepit regnum." 
(Buxtorf. ad voc. JupO "received the kingdom at the hand of an- 
other." And again we read in another place, (Dan. ix. 1,) that he 
"was made king over the realm of the Chaldseans ; " where the word 
used is "ilbfcn, the Hophil of Tjb^, the Iliphal of which is used when 
David appoints Solomon king, and which thus means distinctly, " was 
appointed king by another." 

Note XLVII., p. 141. 
Herod, i. 191 ; Xen. Instit. Cyr. vii. 5, 15. 

Note XLVHI., p. 141. 
See the author's Herodotus, vol. i. pp. 401-403. 

358 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Note XLIX., p. 141. 

Even the tyrant Cambyses, when he wished to marry his sister, be- 
cause he was intending to do an unusual thing, called together the 
royal judges, and asked them ij there was any law which allowed one 
who wished, to marry his sister. (Herod, iii. 31.) And Xerxes, when 
he had been entrapped, like Herod Antipas, into making a rash prom- 
ise, feels compelled to keep it, being restrained by the law, namely, that 
it is not allowable that one who makes a request at the time of a royal 
feast should be denied. (Ibid. ix. 111.) 

Note L., p. 141. 

See De Wette, Einleitung, 255 a, p. 345. Compare Mr. Parker's 
Translation, (vol. ii. p. 490,) where it is suggested that the author has 
copied and exaggerated what Herodotus ascribes to Darius Hystaspis. 

Note LI., p. 141. 

See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. p. 372 : "The one hundred and 
twenty princes appointed by Darius (Dan. vi. 1) correspond to the one 
hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Ahasuerus, (Esth. i. 1,) and to 
the enlarged extent of the empire." 

Note LIL, p. 142. 

Nebuchadnezzar's first conquest of Judaea in the reigr. of Jehoiakim 

which was the occasion on which Daniel became a captive (Dan. i. 1) 

fell, as appears from the fragment of Berosus quoted in Note LXXXI. 
to Lecture IV., in his father's last year, which, according to Ptolemy's 
Canon, was B. C. G05. Nebuchadnezzar then reigned himself 43 years, 
Evil-Merodach, his son, reigned two years, Neriglissar three years and 
some months, Laborosoarchod three quarters of a year, Nabonadius 17 
years, and Darius the Mede one year. Consequently Daniel's prayer 
" in the first year of Darius the Mede" (Dan. ix. 1-3) fell into the year 
B. C. 538, or C8 years after the first conquest of Judaea by Nebuchad- 
nezzar in B. C. G05. 

Lect. V. NOTES. 359 

Note LIIL, p. 142. 

See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. pp. 366-368 ; and Mr. Hooper's 
Palmoni, p. 390. 

Note LIV., p. 143. 

In Daniel's prophecy of the weeks, we have (I think) the term of 
seventy years used first (Dan. ix. 24) as a round number, and after- 
wards explained accuracy being of especial importance in this proph- 
ecy as 68i weeks, (ibid. 25-27.) In Ezekiel, the forty years' desola- 
tion of Egypt (Ez. xxix. 11-13) can scarcely be understood to extend 
really to the full term. Prophecy is, as Bacon says, " a kind of histo- 
riography;" but it does not ordinarily affect the minuteness and strict 
accuracy of human history. 

Note LV., p. 143. 

Einleitung, 196, 197, pp. 260-265. It is obvious that the insertion 
of documents, such as the proclamation of Cyrus, (Ez. i. 24,) the list of 
those who came up with Zorubbabcl, (ib. ii. 3-67 ; Neh. viii. 7-69 ;) 
the letters of the Samaritans, the Jews, the Persian kings, (ib. iv. 11-22, 
&c.,) and the like, does not in the slightest degree affect the unity and 
integrity of the works. But De Wette does not appear to see this, 
( 196 a, p. 260.) 

Note LVI., p. 143. 

The number of generations from Joshua to Jaddua, which is six, 
(Neh. xii. 10-12,) should cover a space of about 200 years. This 
would bring Jaddua to the latter half of the fourth century B. C. Ex- 
actly at this time there lived the well-known high priest Jaddua, 
who received Alexander at Jerusalem, and showed him the prophecies 
of Daniel. (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xi. 8.) At this time too there was a 
Darius (Darius Codomannus) upon the Persian throne, as noted in 
verse 22. The Jaddua of Nehemiah must therefore be regarded as the 
contemporary of Alexander. 

Havernick allows this, but still thinks that Nehemiah may have writ- 
ten the whole book, since lie may have lived to the time of Jaddua ! 
But as Nehemiah was old enough to be sent on an important mission in 

360 NOTES. Lect. Y, 

B. C. 445, (Neb. ii. 1-8,) he would have been considerably above a 
hundred before Jaddua can have been priest, and 130 or 140 before the 
accession of Codomannus. 

Note LVII., p. 144. 

Eight Dukes or Kings are mentioned in Genesis xxxvi. 31-39, as 
having reigned over Edom, "before there reigned any king in Israel." 
This last clause must have been written after the time of Saul, the first 
Israelite king ; and it has commonly been regarded as an interpolation. 
(Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 346 ; Home, Introduc- 
tion, vol. i. p. 64 ; &c.) But the real interpolation seems to be from 
verse 31 to verse 39 inclusive. These kings, whose reigns are likely to 
have covered a space of 200 years, must come down later than Moses, 
and probably reach nearly to the time of Saul. The whole passage 
seems to have been transferred from 1 Chr. i. 43-50. 

In 1 Chronicles iii. 17-24, the genealogy of the descendants of 
Jechoniah is carried on for nine generations, (Jcchoniah, Pedaiah, 
Zerubbabel, Hananiah, Shekaniah, Shemaiah, Neariah, Elioenai, and 
Hodaiah,) who must have occupied a period not much short of three 
centuries. As Jechoniah came to the throne in B. C. 597, this portion 
of Chronicles can scarcely have been written before B. C. 300. See De 
Wette, Einleitung, 189, p. 242, whose argument here appears to be 
sound. He remarks, that the occurrence of a Shemaiah, the son of 
Shekaniah, among the contemporaries of Nehemiah, (Neh. iii. 29,) con- 
firms the calculation, and indicates that the genealogy is consecutive. 

Note LVIIL, p. 144. 

De Wette in one place admits that Ezra may have written a chapter 
(ch. x.) in which the third person is used, but pronounces against his 
having written the opening passage of ch. vii., (verses 1-10,) chiefly on 
this ground. (Einleitung, 196 a, p. 261.) Bertholdt and Zunz go 
farther, and deny that Ezra can have written ch. x. Professor Stuart 
concludes, chiefly on account of the alternation of persons, that "some 
one of Ezra's friends, probably of the prophetic order, compiled the 
book from various documents," among which were some written by 
Ezra himself. (Defence of the Old Testament Canon, 6, p. 148.) 

LEOT. V. NOTES. 361 

Note LIX., p. 144. 

The third person is used through the first six chapters of Daniel, and 
at the opening of the seventh. The first then takes its place to the end 
of ch. ix. The third recurs in the first verse of ch. x. ; after which the 
first is used uninterruptedly. 

Note LX., p. 144. 

Thucydides begins his history in the third person, (i. 1. ;) but changes 
to the first after a few chapters, (i. 20-22.) Further on, in book iv., 
he resumes the third, chs. 104-106.) In book v. ch. 26, he begins in 
the third, but runs on into the first, which he again uses in book viii. 
ch. 97. 

Note LXI., p. 144. 

See Sir H. Rawlinson's Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 
vol. i. pp. 279, 286, 287, 292, 293, 324, 327, &c. 

Note LXII., p. 145. 

The " first year of Cyrus," (Ez. i. 1,) by which we must understand 
his first year in Babylon, was B. C. 538. The seventh year of Arta- 
xerxes, when Ezra took the direction of affairs at Jerusalem, (ib. vii. 8,) 
was B. C. 459 or 458. (See Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, vol. ii. p. 378.) 

Note LXIII., p. 145. 
See above, Lecture I. page 39, and compare p. 244, Note XL VIII. 

Note LXIV., p. 145. 

De Wette, Einleitunt), $ 19G a, p. 260; vol. ii. p. 324, Parker's 
Translation ; Stuart, Defence of the. Canon, 6, p. 148 ; Home, Intro- 
duction, vol. v. pp. 64, 65. 

Note LXV., p. 145. 

See Lecture IV., p. 104. 


3G2 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Note LXVL, p. 145. 
See Lecture I., pp. 34, 35 ; and p. 241, Note XXXIV. 

Note LXVIL, p. 145. 

" Die Erzahlung," says De Wette, " besteht aus einer Reihe geschicht- 
licher Schweirigkeiten und Unwahrschein-lichkeiten, und enthalt mehrere 
Verstosse gegen die Persischen Sitten." (Einleitung, 198 a, p. 266.) 

Note LXVUL, p. 145. 

CEder, Freien Untersuchungen ilber d. Kanon des Alt. Test., p. 12, et 
seqq. ; Michaelis, Orient. Bibliothek, vol. ii. p. 35, et seqq. ; Corrodi, 
Beleucht. d. Geschicht. d. Jild. Kanona, vol. i. p. 66, et seqq. ; and 
Bertholdt, Historisch-Kritische Einleitung in sttmmt. kano?i. und apokr. 
Schriften d. Alt. und Neuen Testaments, p. 2425. 

Note LXIX., p. 145. 

See Carpzov's Introductio, xx. 6, pp. 365, 366, where he shows that 
the Jews place the Book of Esther on a par with the Pentateuch, and 
above all the rest of Scripture. 

Note LXX., p. 146. 

Even De Wette allows it to be "incontestable (tmstreitig) that the 
feast of Purini originated in Persia, and was occasioned by an event 
similar to that related in Esther." (Einleitung, 198 b, p. 267 ; vol. ii. 
p. 339, Parker's Translation.) Stuart says very forcibly "The fact 
that the feast of Purim has come down to us from time almost im- 
memorial, proves as certainly that the main events related in the Book 
of Esther happened, as the declaration of independence and the cel- 
ebration of the fourth of July prove that we (Americans) separated 
from Great Britain, and became an independent nation." (History and 
Defence of the O. T. Canon, 21, p. 308.) 

Note LXXL, p. 146. 

It is remarkable that the name of God is not once mentioned in 
Esther.. The only religious ideas introduced with any distinctness are 

Lect. V. NOTES. 3G3 

the efficacy of a national humiliation, (Esth. iv. 1-3,) the certainty that 
punishment will overtake the wicked, (ib. verse 14,) and a feeling of 
confidence that Israel will not be forsaken, (ibid.) Various reasons 
have been given for this reticence, (Carpzov, Introduct. p. 369 ; Baum- 
garten, De Fide Lib. Estheris, p. 58 ; Home, Introduction, vol. v. 
p. 69, &c. ;) but they are conjectural, and so uncertain. One thing 
only is clear, that if a Jew in later times had wished to palm upon his 
countrymen, as an ancient and authentic narrative, a work which he 
had composed himself, he would have taken care not to raise suspicion 
against his work by such an omission. (See the remarks of Professor 
Stuart, Defence of the Canon, p. 311.) 

Note LXXIL, p. 1 16. 

The grounds upon which the historical character of the Book of 
Esther is questioned, are principally the following : (1.) The Persian 
king intended by Ahasuerus seems to be Xerxes. As Esther cannot be 
identified with Amestris, the daughter of Otanes, who really ruled 
Xerxes, the whole story of her being made queen, and of her great 
power and influence, becomes impossible. (2.) Mordecai, having been 
carried into captivity with Jechoniah, (in B. C. 588,) must have beeu 
120 years old in Xerxes' twelfth year, (B. C. 474,) and Esther must 
have been " a superannuated beauty." (3.) A Persian king would 
never have invited his queen to a carousal. (4.) The honors paid to 
Mordecai are excessive, (5.) The marriage with a Jewess is impossi- 
ble, since the queens were taken exclusively from the families of the 
seven conspirators. (6.) Esther's concealment of her Jewish descent, 
and Hainan's ignorance of her relationship to Mordecai, are highly 
improbable. (7.) The two murderous decrees, the long notice given, 
and the tameness ascribed to both Jews and Persians, are incredible. 
(8.) The massacre of more than 75,000 Persians by the Jews in a day, 
without the loss (so far as appears) of a man, transcends belief, and is 
an event of such a nature that " no amount of historical evidence would 
render it credible." (See Mr. Parker's additions to De Wette, vol. ii. 
pp. 340-345.) It is plain that none of these objections are of very 
great weight. The first, second, and last are met and refuted in the 
text. To the third it is enough to answer, in De Wette's own words, 
lEinleilung, 198 a, p. 267, that such an invitation is " possible on 

364 NOTES. Lect. V. 

account of the advancing corruption in Xerxes' time, and through the 
folly of Xerxes himself." To the fourth we may reply, that the honors, 
being analogous (as I)e Wette observes) to those paid to Joseph, are 
thereby shown to be not greater than under some circumstances were 
assigned to benefactors by Eastern monarchs. Nor would any one 
acquainted with the East make the objection. The fifth objection is 
met by observing, that when Cambyses wished to marry his sister, 
which was as much against the law as marrying a Jewess, and con- 
sulted the royal judges on the point, they told him, that there was no 
law, so far as they knew, which allowed a man to marry his sister, but 
that there was a law to this effect, that the Persian king might do what 
he pleased. The sixth objection scarcely needs a reply, for its answer is 
contained in the preceding objection. If it was contrary to Persian 
law that the king should marry a Jewess, the fact of Esther's national- 
ity would be sure to be studiously concealed. Finally, to the seventh 
objection we may answer, that the murderous tenor of the decrees is 
credible (as De Wette confesses) on account of the " base character and 
disposition of Xerxes " that the length of notice in the first instance 
was the consequence of llaman's superstition, while the length of the 
notice in the second instance followed necessarily upon the first and 
that no "tameness"is proved by the mere silence of Scripture as to 
the number of Jews who fell in the struggle. "The author of the 
book," as Professor Stuart observes, "is wholly intent upon the vic- 
tory and the deliverance of the Jews. The result of the encounter he 
relates, viz., the great loss and humiliation of Persian enemies. But 
how much it cost to achieve this victory he does not relate. . . . We 
can scarcely doubt that many Jews were killed or wounded." (History 
and Defence of the U. T. Canon, 21, pp. 309, 310.) 

Note LXXIIL, p. 146. 
Carpzov, Introductio, c. xx. 4, pp. 360, 361. 

Note LXXIV., p. 146. 

Carpzov, 6, pp. 368, 369. This was probably the ground of Lu- 
ther's objections to the Canonicity of Esther. (De Servo Arbitrio, p. 
118, et alibi.) It may also have caused the omission of Esther from 
some lists of the canonical books in the fathers. (Athanas. Ep. Festal., 

Lect. V. notes. 365. 

vol. i. p. 963 ; Synops. S. S., vol. ii. p. 128 ; Mclito ap. Euseb. Hist. 
Eccl., iv. 26, &c. In recent times the objection has not been much 

Note LXXV., p. 148. 

See Sir H. Rawlinson's Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 
vol. i. pp. 197-200, 273, 274, 280, 286, 291, 299, 320, 324, 327, 330. 
335, 338, and 342. 

Note LXXVL, p. 148. 

Ibid., pp. 285, 291, 319, 323, &c. 

Note LXXVII., p. 148. 

Ewald, Geschichtc d. Volkes Israel, vol. iii. part ii. p. 118; Winer, 
RealwOrterbuch, ad voce. Ahasnerus and Artachschaschta ; Kitto, Bib~ 
Heal Cyclopaedia, vol. i. pp. 98 and 229, &c. 

Note LXXVIIL, p. 148. 

The Pseudo-Smerdis seems to have been known by several names. 
According to Darius, {Behist. Inscr., col. i. par. 11,) his true name was 
Gomates, (Gaumata,~) and he gave himself out for Smerdis, (Bardiya.) 
According to Justin, (i. 9, { 9,) he was called Oropastes. As Arta- 
xerxes means " Great King, Great Warrior," (see the author's Herodotus, 
vol. iii. p. 552,) it may perhaps have been in common use as an epithet 
of any Persian monarch. The application to Cambyses of the name 
Ahasucrus (= Xerxes) is still more curious. Cambyses was known 
as Kembath in Egypt, Kahujiya in Persia, Ka/j/?uo>;c in Greece. It is cer- 
tainly very remarkable that the Jews should only know him as Xerxes. 
Perhaps the theory of Mr. Howes {Pictorial Bible, ad loc.) with respect 
to the Ahasucrus of Ezra iv. 6, viz., that Xerxes is intended, might be 
adopted, without the adoption of his view that the Artaxerxes of the 
next verse is Artaxerxes Longimanus. The author may go on in verse 
6 to a fact subsequent to the time of Darius, whom he has mentioned 
in verse 5, and then return in verse 7 to a time anterior to Darius. 
But Mr. Howes's view of the Artaxerxes of verse 7 is incompatible 
with the nexus of verses 23 and 24. 


366 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Note LXXIX., p. 148. 

The reigns are in each case four Cyrus, Cambyses, Smerdis the 
Mage, Darius Hystaspis, in profane history Cyrus, Ahasuerus, Ar- 
taxerxes, Darius, in Ezra. The harmony of the chronology is best 
seen from Zechariah. That prophet implies that 70 years were not 
completed from the destruction of Jerusalem in the second year of 
Darius, (Zech. i. 7 and 12 ;) but that they were completed two years 
later, in the fourth year of that prince, (ib. vii. 5.) He therefore, it 
would seem, placed the completion in Darius's 3d or 4th year ; i. e. 
in B. C. 519 or 518. Taking the latter date, and counting back by the 
years of the Astronomical Canon, Ave find the first of the seventy 
years to fall into B. C. 587. Now this appears by the same Canon to 
have been the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar, which was the exact year of 
the destruction of Jerusalem, (Jer. lii. 29.) 1 Thus the two chronolo- 
gies harmonize exactly. 

Note LXXX., p. 149. 

See the Behistun Inscript., col. i. par. 14. 

Note LXXXL, p. 149. 
Behist. Inscr., 1. s. c. 

Note LXXXIL, p. 150. 

The length of the Persian kings' reigns from the time of Darius 
Hystaspis to that of Darius Nothus is fixed beyond the possibility of 
doubt. Besides the Greek contemporary notices, which would form a 
very fair basis for an exact chronology, we have the consentient testi- 
mony on the point of Babylonian and Egyptian tradition, preserved to 
us in the Astronomical Canon and in Manetho, as reported by Euse- 
bius. From both it appears, that from the sixth year of Darius to the 
seventh of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) was a period of 58 years. 

1 In 2 Kings xxv. 8, we find the nineteenth year mentioned as that of the destruction, 
instead of the eighteenth. I believe the cause of this difference to be, that some reck- 
oned the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to hare commenced in B. C. 605 the last year of 
Nabopolassar when Nebuchadnezzar came into Palestine as his father's represen- 
tative, defeated N echo, and made Jehoiakim tributary. (See Lecture IV., Note LXXXI.) 

Lect. V. NOTES. 367 

Note LXXXIIL, p. 150. 

The Persian word is read as Khshayarsha. Ahasuerus (SITI'fn^) 
only differs from Khshayarsha by the adoption of the prosthetic ^, 
which the Hebrews invariably placed before the Persian Iihsh, and the 
substitution of ^ for i, a common dialectic variation. Gesenius, 
(Thesaurus, vol. i. p. 75,) and Winer (ReahcOrterbuch, ad voc. Alias- 
uerus) admit the identity of the words. 

Note LXXXIV., p. 150. 

The construction of Esther ii. 5, 6, is ambiguous. The word 
"who," (">TK,) at the commencement of verse 6, may refer either to 
Mordecai, the chief subject of the narrative, or to Kish, the last indi- 
vidual mentioned in verse 5. If Kish was carried off by Nebuchad- 
nezzar about B. C. 597, we should expect to find his great grandson 
living in B. C. 485-465, four generations or 130 years afterwards. 

Note LXXXV., p. 151. 
See Herod, vii. 19, 20. 

Note LXXXVL, p. 151. 
Ibid. ix. 108. 

Note LXXXVII., p. 151. 

De Wette, Einleitung, 198 a, p. 267 ; vol. ii. p. 337, Parker's 

Note LXXXVHI., p. 151. 

Amestris was the daughter of Otanes, according to Herodotus, 
(vii. 61 ;) according to Ctesias, of Onophas, or Anaphes, (&rc. Pers., 
20.) It has been maintained, that she was Esther by Scaliger and 
Jahn ; but, besides other objections, the character of Amestris makes 
this very improbable. (See Herod, vii. 114; ix. 112; Ctes. %xc. 
Pers., 40-43.) 

368 NOTES. Lect. V. 

Note LXXXIX., p. 152. 

Einleitung, 199 ; p. 268. The following points of exact knowledge 
are noted by De Wette's Translator (vol. ii. p. 346) more distinctly 
than by De Wette himself: 1. The unchangeableness of the royal 
edicts ; 2. The prohibition of all approach to the king without permis- 
sion ; 3. The manner of publishing decrees ; 4. The employment of 
eunuchs in the seraglio ; 5. The absence of women at banquets ; 6. The 
use of lots in divination ; and, 7. The sealing of decrees with the royal 
signet. (Compare Herod, iii. 128.) To these may be added, 1. The 
general character of the Persian palaces, (i. 5, 6 ; compare Loftus's 
Chaldaa and Susiana, pp. 373-375 ;) 2. The system of posts, (viii. 10 ; 
Herod, viii. 98 ;) 3. The law that each wife should go in to the king in 
her turn, (ii. 12 ; Herod, iii. 69 ;) 4. The entry in " the book of records " 
of the names and acts of royal benefactors, (ii. 23 ; vi. 1, 2 ; Herod, vii. 
194 ; viii. 85, 90, &c. ;) and, 5. The principle that all such persons had 
a right to a reward, (vi. 3 ; Herod, iii. 140 ; viii. 85 ; ix. 107.) 

Note XC, p. 152. 
Herod, iii. 79 ; Ctes. Exc. Pers., 15. 

Note XCL, p. 152. 

Some writers have supposed that the Artaxerxes who befriended Ezra 
was really Xerxes. So Josephus, (Ant. Jud. xi. 5 ;) who is followed by 
J. D. Michaelis, (ad loc.,) Jahn, (Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 276,) and others. 
But there seems to be no good reason for supposing him to have been a 
different person from the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah, who is allowed on 
all hands to be Longimanus. (See the article on Artaxerxes in 
Kitto's Biblical Cyclopaedia, where the question is ably argued.) That 
the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is Longimanus, appears from the length 
of his reign, (Neh. v. 14,) combined with the fact that he was contem- 
porary with the grandsons or great-grandsons of those who were con- 
temporary with Cyrus. 1 

1 The length of his reign, 32 years at the least, shows him to have been either Lon- 
gimanus or Mnemon. But as Eliashib, the grandson of Jeshua, who went from Babylon 
as high-priest in the first year of Cyrus, (B. C. 538.) is still alive in the 32d year of Nehe- 
miah's Artaxerxes, (Neh. xiii. 6, 7.) it seems quite impossible that he can be Mnemon, 
whose 3Sud year was B. C. 374. (See the author's Herodotus, vol. iv. pp. 2o0, 251, note 13 .) 

Lect. VL notes. 369 

Note XCIL, p. 152. 
Ctesias ap. Phot. BMiothec, pp. 115-124. 

Note XCIII., p. 153. 

On the non-historical character of the Book of Judith, see the 
author's Herodotus, vol. i. p. 245, note 8 . 


Note I., p. 155. 

On the different views entertained as to the exact year of our Lord's 
birth, see Olshausen's Biblischcr Commentar, vol. ii. pp. 619-622 ; vol. 
iv. pp. 334-337, E. T. 1 On the testimonies which determine the death 
of Herod the Great to the year of Rome 750, see Clinton's Fasti Hel- 
lenici, vol. iii. pp. 254 and 256. The Nativity thus falls at least as 
early as A. U. C. 749, and the vision of Zachariah as early as A. U. C. 
7 48. Some important astronomical reasons are assigned by Dean 
Alfortl (Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 7) for believing that the actual year 
of the Nativity was A. U. C. 747, or seven years before the Christian era. 

The termination of the history of the Acts has also been variously 
placed, in A. I). 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65. (See Olshausen, 1. s. c.) 
I prefer the shorter reckoning on the grounds stated by Dr. Burton. 
(Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries, vol. i. pp. 277, 278.) 

Note II., p. 157. 
See Lecture II., p. 51. 

Note III., p. 157. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 

1 Commentary on the Gospels and the JlcU, by Hermann Olsliausen, P. P. Translated 
by the Rev. IL B. Creak, A. M. Thinl edition. Ediuburgh, Clarke, 1807. 

370 NOTES. Lect. VL 

Note IV., p. 158. 
Strauss, Lcben Jesit, 1. s. c. 

Note V., p. 158. 
Ibid. 14 ; p. 84, E. T. 

Note VI., p. 158. 
Ibid. 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 

Note VII., p. 158. 
Ibid. 1. s. c. ; pp. 62, 63, E. T. 

Note VIII. , p. 159. 

In the Syriac Version of Matthew, which is undoubtedly very old, 
net which some regard as of nearly equal authority with the Greek 
uospel, 1 the title runs, " The Gospel, the Preaching of Matthew." The 
.rersian has, " The Gospel of Matthew ; " and the Arabic, " The Gos- 
pel of Saint Matthew the Apostle, which he wrote in Hebrew by the in- 
spiration of the Holy Spirit." (See Home's Introduction, vol. i. pp. 
260, 261.; 

Note IX., p. 159. 

Herodotus, for example, is quoted but by one author (Ctesias) with- 
in this period - , (B. C. 450-350.) In the next century (B. C. 350-250) 
he is also quoted by one author, Aristotle ; in the century following 
(B. C. 250-150) he is not quoted at all; in the fourth century, he for 
the first time musters two witnesses, Scymnus Chius and Cicero ; 2 it it 
not till the fifth century from the time of his writing his history, that 
he is largely ana commonly cited by writers of the day. (See Mr. 
Isaac Taylor's recent work on the Transmission of Ancient Books to 

1 See Dr. Cureton's recent work, Remains of a very Ancient Rectnsion of the four 
Gospels in Syriac, London, 1858. 

2 I'osidonius should perhaps be added as a third witness belonging to this period, lie 
quoted Herodotus, not very correctly, in his Treatise concerning the Ocean. (Fr. Hist. 
Or., vol. iii. p. 279.) 


Modem Times, pp. 295-299.) The first distinct quotation ' of Thu- 
cydides seems to be that by Hermippus, Fragm. Hist. Gr., vol. iii. p. 48, 
Fr. 54,) who lived about B. C. 200, nearly two centuries after him. 
Posidonius, writing about B. C. 75, first quotes Polybius, who wrote 
about B. C. 150. Livy is, I believe, only quoted by Quinctilian among 
writers of the century following him ; Tacitus, though mentioned as a 
writer by the younger Pliny, is first cited nearly a century after his 
death by Tertullian. If the reader will cast his eye over the " Testi- 
monies," as they are called, prefixed to most old editions of the classics, 
he will easily convince himself of the general truth of the assertion 
upon which I have ventured in the text. The argument is one ad- 
vanced, but without proof, by Paley. {Evidences, Part i. ch. 10 ; p. 

Note X., p. 160. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13 ; p. 56, E. T. 

Note XI., p. 160. 

See Lecture II., pp. 51-56; and Note VIIL on Lecture V., pp. 346, 

Note XII., p. 161. 

See Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 113; Kitto, Biblical Cyclopedia, 
vol. ii. p. 582. 

Note XIII., p. 161. 

Sec Grabe, Spicilcgium Valium, vol. ii. p. 225 ; Pearson, Vindicu* 
lgnatian(F, Pars i. c. 6 ; Burton, Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. pp. 29, 
30 ; and p. 152. 

Note XIV., p. 161. 

Constitutiones Apostoliccr, vi. 16; Ircnauis, adv. Uteres, i. 20; &c. 

Note XV., p. 162. 

Strauss, Lehen Jem, 13 ; pp. 62, 63 ; E. T. Some writers have main- 
tained that the expression, " according to Matthew," is exactly equiv- 
alent to the genitive of Matthew. (See Home's Introduction, vol. v. p. 

1 Crntippui alluded tu the fact that there were no speeches in the Inst Iwk. nnd tliiit 
the work was left unfinished; hut he did not (so far as wo know) make any ((notation. 
(Fr. Jlitt. Or., vol. ii p. 76.) 

372 NOTES. Lect. VI. 

260.) Olshausen observes more correctly, that the expression is am- 
biguous. It may mark actual and complete authorship, as in the pas- 
sage quoted from 2 Maccab. in the text ; or it may mean editorship, as 
in the phrase " Homer according to Aristarchus." The unanimous testi- 
mony of the early Christian writers proves that, as applied to the 
Gospels, it was used in the former sense. If it be asked why the 
simple genitive was not used, Olshausen replies, (rightly, as it seems to 
me,) because the Gospel was known as "the Gospel of Jesus Christ." 
Piety, therefore, made the use of such phrases as " Gospel of Matthew," 
"Gospel of Mark," "impossible." (Biblischer Commentar, Einleitung, 
$ 4 ; p. 11, note.) 

Note XVI., p. 162. 

Faustus, the Manichacan, did indeed attempt to prove that the first 
Gospel was not the work of St. Matthew ; but, 1 . He wrote late in the 
fourth century ; and, 2. It seems that he could find no flaw in the ex- 
ternal evidence, since he based his conclusion on an internal difficulty 
the use of the third instead of the first person by the supposed 
writer, (Matt. ix. 9.) Eichhorn, having ventured on the assertion, that 
" many ancient writers of the Church doubted the genuineness of many 
parts of our Gospels," is only able to adduce in proof of it this instance 
of Faustus. (See his Einleitung in das N. Test., vol. i. p. 145.) 

Note XVII., p. 162. 

Irenaeus says " Now Matthew published his treatise on the Gos- 
pel among the Hebrews, in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul 
were preaching in Rome, and founding the church there. But after 
their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also wrote 
down what Peter had preached, and delivered it to us. And Luke 
also, the follower of Paul, wrote out in a book the Gospel which was 
preached by that Apostle. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, 
who also leaned upon his breast. he too published a Gospel, while he 
was living at Ephesus in Asia." (Ackers. Hares., iii. 1.) And again, 
" These things are in accordance with the Gospels, in which Christ is 
enshrined. For that of John relates his princely birth and glorious 
lineage from the Father, saying, ' In the beginning was the Word,' &c. 
And that of Luke, as being more of a sacerdotal character, begins with 
the priest Zacharias, burning incense to God. . . . Matthew declare* 

Lect. VI. NOTES. 373 

his human birth, saying, ' The book of the generation of Jesus Christ,' 
&c. Mark, as partaking more of the prophetic spirit, begins by say- 
ing, 'The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' &c." (Ibid. hi. 11, 

Clement "The digest of the contents of the Gospels should be pre- 
ceded by an account of their origin. The Gospel of Mark had its origin 
in this way : When Peter was preaching the word publicly in Rome, 
and proclaiming the gospel under the inspiration of the Spirit, many 
of those who heard him besought Mark, as having been his follower 
for a long time, and as having in remembrance what he had heard, to 
write out the things spoken by Peter. Having thus composed a Gospel, 
he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter knew this, he 
neither strictly forbade nor positively approved. But John, the last 
one, perceiving that what related to the outward had been exhibited in 
the (other) Gospels, in compliance with the solicitations of his friends, 
and under the promptings of the Divine Spirit, wrote a spiritual 
Gospel." (Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi. 14.) 

Tertullian writes "In fine, if it is evident that what is most 
ancient is truest, that what is from the beginning is most ancient, 
and that what is from the Apostles is from the beginning, then 
it will be equally evident, that what has been sanctioned among the 
churches of the Apostles is handed down from the Apostles. Let us see 
what milk the Corinthians imbibed from Paul ; according to what 
rule were the Galatians corrected ; what did the Philippians read, 
the Thessalonians, the Ephesians ; what do the nearer Romans say, 
to whom both Peter and Paul left a gospel sealed with their blood. 
We have also churches that were under the tuition of John. ... I say 
therefore that among these, I do not mean the Apostolical churches 
merely, but among all which are united with them in sacramental com- 
munion, this Gospel of Luke, which we regard with the highest rev- 
erence, has been received from the time when it was first published. 
. . . The same authority of the Apostolical churches supports also the 
other Gospels which we have received from them, and which we esteem 
just as they esteem them ; I mean those of John and Matthew ; that 
also which Mark published we may be allowed to call Peter's, for 
Mark was his interpreter. Indeed Luke's digest also is commonly 
ascribed to Paul. For what the disciples publish is regarded as com- 
ing from the master." (.!</(. Marcion., iv. 5.) 


374 NOTES. Lect. VI. 

Origen "I learned from tradition about the four Gospels, which 
alone are indisputable in the church of God under the whole heaven; 
how that first Matthew, who was originally a tax-gatherer, but after- 
wards an apostle of Jesus Christ, published his, composed in the He- 
brew language, for those who had believed from among the Jews ; and 
secondly, Mark, writing it according to Peter's dictation ; and thirdly, 
Luke, the Gospel which was praised by Paul, composing it for the 
converts from the Gentiles ; and to crown all, that according to John." 
(Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles., vi. 25.) 

Of course these passages do not form a hundredth part of the testi- 
mony borne by these writers to the authority of the four Gospels. They 
use them with the same frequency and deference as modern divines. 
They appeal to them alone in proof of doctrine, making the most 
marked difference between them and such apocryphal " Lives of 
Christ" as they mention. The student will find this portion of the 
Christian evidences drawn out most fully by Lardner, in his great 
work on the Credibility of the Gospel History, vol. i. pp. 283, et seqq. 
A good selection from the evidence is made by Mr. Norton, (Genuine- 
ness of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 83-105.) Paley's Synopsis also deserves 
the attention of the student. (Evidences, part i. ch. 10, 1.) 

Note XVHL, p. 162. 

Justin's ordinary expression is " the Memoirs of the Apostles, (t6 
anofU'ti^ovcLnaTa twv anoordXiuv ;) but in one place he identifies these Me- 
moirs with the Gospels by adding, a /calami evayyiha, " which are 
called Gospels." (Apol., i. p. 83, 13.) He appears to prefer the former 
term in addressing the heathen, as more classical. In his Dialogue 
with Trypho he sometimes uses the term (bayyihov simply. (Opera, 
p. 195, D.) These Memoirs, or Gospels, he says, were composed " by 
the Apostles of Christ and their companions," (* the memoirs, I mean 
those which were composed by his Apostles and their followers." )' It 
has been questioned by Bishop Marsh and others whether the quota- 
tions are really from our Gospels ; but the doubt, if it deserves the 
name, has (I think) been wholly set at rest by Bishop Kaye, (Account 
of the Life and Opinions of Justin Martyr, ch. viii. pp. 132-152,) and 
Mr. Norton, (Credibility, &c, vol. i. note E, pp. 316-324.) The careful 

1 Compv^b Luka i. 1 : "It seemed good to me alao, having had perfect knowledge." 

Lect. VI. NOTES. 375 

analysis of the latter writer exhausts the subject, and deserves attentive 

Note XIX., p. 163. 

Papias said "Now Matthew composed his book in the Hebrew 
dialect ; and each one interpreted it as he was able. And Mark, who 
was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he remembered, 
but not an orderly account of what was said and done by Christ." 
(Ap. Euseb., Hist. Eccles. iii. 39.) 

It has been questioned whether Papias w$s really a disciple of the 
apostle John, (Strauss, Leben Jesu, 13,) or only of a certain John the 
Presbyter, whom he calls "a disciple of our Lord." It appears from 
Eusebius (1. s. c.) that he did not himself claim to have received his 
knowledge of Christianity from the apostles themselves. Still the testi- 
mony of Irenaeus is express, (" Papias, who was a hearer of John, and 
a companion of Polycarp," Euseb. 1. s. c.,) and cannot without violence 
be understood of any one but St. John the Evangelist. 

Note XX., p. 163. 

Leben Jesu, { 14. " It is however by no means necessary to attribute 
this same freedom from all conscious intention of fiction to the authors 
of all those narratives in the Old and New Testament, which must be 
considered as unhistorical. . . . The authors of the Homeric songs 
could not have believed that every particular which they related of their 
gods and heroes had really happened ; . . . and exactly as little may 
this be said of all the unhistorical narratives of the Gospels, as for 
example, of the first chapter of the third, and many parts of the fourth 
Gospel." (pp. 83, 84, E. T.) 

Note XXI., p. 163. 
Ibid. 13 ; p. 60, E. T. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. 

Note XXII., p. 164. 

Note XXIII., p. 164. 

See above, Note I. The date A. T). 63 is preferred by Bertholdt, 
Feilmoser, Dean Alford, Mr. Birks, and others. 

376 NOTES. Lect. VL 

Note XXIV., p. 164. 
Leben Jesu, 13 ; p. 61, E. T. 

Note XXV., p. 164. 
See above, Note XVII. 

Note XXVI., p. 165. 

This is Burton's conclusion, (Eccles. Hist., vol. i. p. 25.5,) deduced 
from the discrepancies in the external evidence. Dean Alford's unan- 
swerable argument in favor 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. 

Note XXVII., p. 166. 

The Old Testament furnishes us with but one instance of even a 
second record viz., that of Chronicles; which deals with the period of 
history already treated in Samuel and Kings. Elsewhere we have 
throughout but a single narrative. 

Note XXVIII., p. 166. 

Theophylact and Euthymius placed the composition of St. Mat- 
thew's Gospel within eight years of the Ascension ; Nicephorus placed 
it 15 years after that event ; Cosmas Indicopleustes assigned it to the 
time of the stoning of Stephen. (See Alford's Greek Testaynent, Pro- 
legomena, vol. i. p. 26.) In modern times Bishop Tomline, Le Clerc, 
Dr. Owen, Dr. Townson, and others, incline to a date even earlier than 
that fixed by Theophylact. 

Note XXIX., p. 167. 

On the various theories to which the combined resemblances and 
differences of the first three Gospels have given birth, see Home's In- 
troduction, vol. v. Appendix, pp. 509-529 ; Alford's Greek Testament, 
vol. i. Prolegomena, ch. i. 2, 3 ; and Norton's 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 Evangelists copied front 
another, observes with much force "If the Evangelists did not copy 
one from another, it follows, that the first three Gospels must all have 
been written about the same period ; since, if one had preceded another 
by any considerable length of time, it cannot be supposed that the 
author of the later Gospel would have been unacquainted with the work 
of his predecessor, or would have neglected to make use of it ; espe- 
cially when we take into view, that its reputation must have been well 
established among Christians." And he concludes, " that no one of 
the first three Gospels was written long before or long after the year 
60." (Genuineness, &c, vol. i. pp. 297, 298.) 

Note XXX., p. 167. 

See the passage quoted above, Note XVII., page 372. Irenams, 
it will be observed, makes St. Matthew write his Gospel while St. 
Peter end St. Paul were founding the Church at Rome, i. e. during the 
term of St. Paul's imprisonment, (probably A. D. 56-58.) He writes 
it "among the Hebrews" i. e. in Palestine. After the two great 
apostles left Rome, and separated soon after, he seems to mean 
their respective companions, Mark and Luke, are said to have written. 
At least this is declared positively of Mark ; less definitely of Luke, 
whose Gospel had perhaps b.een composed a year or two earlier, and 
sent privately to Theophilus. 

Note XXXI., p. 167. 

It is unnecessary to prove this agreement ; which \s such, that each 
of the three writers has been in turn accused of copying from one or 
both of his fellow-Evangelists. (See Home's Introduction, vol. v. 
Appendix, pp. 509, 510.) 

Notk XXXII., p. 167. 

This is one of the main objects at which Strauss aims in the greater 
portion of his work. See Sections 21, 24, 39, 46, 53, 57, 59, &c. &c. 


378 NOTES. Lect. VI. 

Note XXXIII., p. 168. 

If we take, for example, the second of the sections in which the 
"disagreements of the Canonical Gospels" are expressly considered, 
( 24,) we find the following enumeration of " discrepancies," in rela- 
tion to the form of the Annunciation. "1. The individual who 
appears is called in Matthew an angel of the Lord ; in Luke, the angel 
Gabriel. 2. The person to whom the angel appears is, according to 
Matthew, Joseph ; according to Luke, Mary. 3. In Matthew, the 
apparition is seen in a dream, in Luke while awake. 4. There is a 
disagreement with respect to the time at which the apparition took 
place. 5. Both the purpose of the apparition, and the effect, are dif- 
ferent." In this way five " discrepancies" are created out of the single 
fact, that St. Matthew does not relate the Annunciation to the Virgin, 
while St. Luke gives no account of the angelic appearance to Joseph. 
Similarly in the section where the calling of the first Apostles is exam- 
ined, ( 70,) " discrepancies" are seen between the fourth and the first 
two Evangelists in the following respects "1. James is absent from 
St. John's account, and instead of his vocation, we have that of Philip 
and Nathaniel. 2. In Matthew and Mark the scene is the coast of 
the Galilaean sea ; in John it is the vicinity of the Jordan. 3. In each 
representation there are two pairs of brothers ; but in the one they are 
Andrew and Peter, James and John ; in the other, Andrew and Peter, 
Philip and Nathaniel. And, 4. In Matthew and Mark all are called by 
Jesus ; in John, Philip only, the others being directed to him by the 
Baptist." Here again we have four discrepancies made out of the cir- 
cumstance, that the first two Evangelists relate only the actual call of 
certain disciples, while St. John informs us what previous acquaintance 
they had of Jesus. So from the mere silence of Matthew, Strauss 
concludes positively that he opposes St. Luke, and did not consider 
Nazareth, but Bethlehem, to have been the original residence of our 
Lord's parents, ($ 39 ;) from the omission by the three earlier writers 
of the journeys into Juda-a during our Lord's Ministry, he pronounces 
that they "contradict" St. John, who speaks of such journeys, (57 ;) 
he finds a " discrepancy " between this Evangelist's account of the 
relations between the Baptist and our Lord, and the account of the 
others, since he gives, and they do not give, the testimony borne by the 
former to our Lord's character, ($ 46 ;) he concludes from St. Luke's 


not saying that St. John was in prison when he sent his two disciples to 
our Lord, that he considered him as not yet cast into prison, (ibid. ;) 
he finds St. Luke's and St. Matthew's acccounts of the death of Judas 
" irreconcilable," because St. Luke says nothing of remorse, or of 
suicide, but relates what has the appearance of a death by accident, 
($ 130 ;) he regards the presence of Nicodemus at our Lord's interment 
as a "fabrication of the fourth Evangelist," simply because it is un- 
noticed by the others, ($ 80 ;) he concludes from their silence as to the 
raising of Lazarus that " it cannot have been known to them," and 
therefore that it cannot be true, ( 100 ;) and in other instances, too 
numerous to mention, he makes a similar use of the mere fact of 

Note XXXIV., p. 169. 
See Norton's Credibility of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 74, 75. 

Note XXXV., p. 169. 

In point of fact there is scarcely a difficulty brought forward by 
Strauss which has not been again and again noticed and explained by 
biblical commentators. Mr. Norton correctly says of his volumes 
"They present a collection from various authors of difficulties in the his- 
tory contained in the Gospels, to which their expositor should par- 
ticularly direct his attention." The critical portion of them presents 
little which is novel. 

Note XXXVI., p. 171. 
See Paley's Horee Paulina;, ch. i. p. 1. 

Note XXXVIL, p. 172. 
Leben Jem, 13 ; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 

Note XXXVIII., p. 172. 

If we take, for example, the earliest of St. Paul's Epistles, the first 
to the Thessalonians, we shall find that the following little coincidences 
between it and the Acts are unnoticed by Paley : 

I. The identity in the order of names, "Paul, and Silvanus, and 

380 NOTES. Lect. VL 

Timotheus," (I Thess. i. 1 ; compare Acts xvii. 10, 15 ; xviii. 5.) This 
was the order of dignity at the time, and was therefore naturally used ; 
but had the Epistle been forged after St. Paul's death, Timothy would 
probably have taken precedence of Silas, since owing to the circum- 
stance of St. Paul addressing two Epistles to him, his became the name 
of far greater note in the Church. 

2. The peculiarly impressive mention of the Thessalonians as objects 
of the divine election (i. 4 ; " knowing, brethren beloved, your election of 
God ") seems to be an allusion to the fact of the vision which summoned 
St. Paul into Macedonia, (Acts xvi. 9,) whereby the Macedonians were 
" chosen out " from the rest of the Western world to be the first Euro- 
pean recipients of the Gospel. The term inkoyh is a rare one in Scrip- 
ture, and is absent, except in this instance, from all St. Paul's earlier 
Epistles. It had been used, however, of St. Paul himself in the vision 
seen by Ananias, (Acts ix. 15,) with special reference to his similar 
selection by miraculous means as an object of the Divine favor. 

3. The great success of the Gospel at Thessalonica is strongly asserted 
in verse 5, ("our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in 
power," &c.) Compare Acts xvii. 4 : " And some of them (the Jews) 
believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout Greeks 
a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few." 

4. The aorist tenses in eh. i. verses 5 and 6, and elsewhere, (Jyivfidri, 1 
iyiviiOnniv, 9 iyevi)6ijTi, 3 if^n/iivot, 4 fKnpiiufifv, 5 k. r. /..,) 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 vppioOivTts, 6 (ii. 2.) It was 
vflpis 7 to scourge a Roman citizen. 

6. The statement that while at Thessalonica St. Paul toiled and 
labored, that he might not be chargeable or burdensome to the con- 
verts, (ii. 6, 9,) though not directly confirmed by the history of the 
Acts, is in harmony with the fact that at Corinth, a few months after- 
wards, he wrought at his craft with Aquila and Priscilla, (Acts xviii. 
3,) having the same object in view, (1 Cor. ix. 12 ; 2 Cor. xi. 9 ; xii. 
13, &c.) 

7. The reference to the hinderance offered by the Jews to St. Paul'3 

1 Came. v. 5. 2 We were. v. 5. 3 Ye became, v. 6. * Having received, v. 6. 
6 We preached, ii. 9. Were shamefully treated. Shameful treatment. 


preaching the ciospel to the Gentiles, (ii. 16,) accords both -with the 
general conduct of the Jews elsewhere, (Acts xiii. 45, 50, &c.,) and es- 
pecially with their conduct at Thessalonica, where " being moved with 
envy" (^.ciaan-fj) at the conversion of the Gentiles, they " set all the 
city on an uproar." (Acts xvii. 5.) 

8. The expression, " we would have come unto you even I, Paid 
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 Beroca. 

9. The mention of " the brethren throughout all Macedonia," in ch. 
iv. 10, harmonizes with the account in the Acts that St. Paul had 
founded churches at Philippi and lkreea as well as at Thessalonica. 
(Actsxvi. 12-40; xviii. 10-12.) 

10. The "affliction and distress " in which St. Paul says he was 
(hi. 7) at the time of Timothy's return from Macedonia, receive illus- 
tration from Acts xviii. 4-6, where we find that just at this period he 
was striving, but vainly, (" persuaded," Acts xviii. 4,) to convert the Jews 
of Corinth, " pressed in spirit," and earnestly testifying, but to no pur- 
pose, so that shortly afterwards he had to relinquish the attempt. What 
' affliction " this would cause to St. Paul we may gather from Romans 
ix. 1-5. 

Note XXXIX. p. 173. 

I was not aware, at the time of delivering my sixth Lecture, that any 
work professedly on this subject had been published. My attention has 
since been directed to a very excellent, though very unpretending, 
treatise, by the Kev. T. R. Mirks, entitled, Ilora; Apostolicee, 1 and at- 
tached to an annotated edition of the Ilora; Paulina of Paley. The 
first chapter of this treatise contains a supplement to Paley' s examina- 
tion 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 coincidences in the Acts of the Apostles; and chapter iii. with 
those in the Gospels. The treatment of this latter point is, unfortu- 
nately, hut scanty. No more than twenty-five pages arc devoted to it, 
the author remarking, that " in his present supplementary work, this 

' Ilora Paulina, by William Paley, D. D., with notes, and a Supplementary Treatise, 
entitled Ilora Jlpostolica, by the Rev. T. K. Birks, A. M., late Fellow of Trinity College, 
Cambridge : London, KeligioiiR Tract Society. 1S50. 

382 NOTES. Lect. VII. 

branch of the subject is confined, of necessity, within narrow limits ; 
since its complete investigation would demand a distinct treatise, and the 
prosecution of some deep and difficult inquiries." (^llora Apostolices, 
p. 188.) 

Note XL., p. 173. 

Leben Jcsu, 13 ; vol. i. p. 60, E. T. 

Note XLL, p. 173. 

See on these points Home's Introduction, vol. v. pp. 422-435, and 
pp. 487, 488 ; Kitto's Cyclopedia, vol. i. pp. 163-166, and 826-832 ; 
and Alford's Greek Testament, vol. iv. part i. Prolegomena, pp. 1-62. 

Note XLII., p. 174. 
Strauss, Leben Jcsu, 14, sub fin. vol. i. p. 84, E. T. 

Note XLIIL, p. 176. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. See above, Note XX. ; where a passage to this effect is 
quoted at length. " 


Note I., p. 178. 

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 II., p. 179. 

So Lardner " It is plainly the design of the historians of the New 
Testament to write of the actions of Jesus Christ, chiefly those of his 
public Ministry, and to give an account of his death and resurrection, 
and of some of the first steps by which the doctrine which he had 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 383 

taught, made its way in the world. But though this was their main 
design, and they have not undertaken to give us the political state or 
history of the countries in which these things were done ; yet in the 
course of their narration they have been led unavoidably to mention 
many persons of note ; and to make allusions and references to the 
customs and tenets of the people, whom Jesus Christ and his apostles 
were concerned with." {Credibility, &c, vol. i. p. 7.) 

Note III., p. 179. 

Hence the certainty with which literary forgeries, if historical, are 
detected, in all cases where we possess a fair knowledge of the time 
and country to which they profess to belong. The alleged "Epistles 
of Phalaris," the pretended Manetho, the spurious Letters of Plato and 
of Chion, were soon exposed by critics, who stamped them indelibly 
with the brand of forgery, chiefly by reason of their failure in this par- 
ticular. It is important to bear in mind, in this connection, the fact 
that there is no period in the whole range of ancient history, whereof 
we possess a more full and exact knowledge than we do of the first 
century of our era. 

Note IV., p. 180. 

These testimonies have been adduced by almost all writers on the 
Evidences of the Christian Religion ; but I do not feel justified in 
omitting them from the present review. They are as follows : 

Tacitus says, speaking of the fire which consumed Home in Nero's 
time, and of the general belief that he had caused it, " In order there- 
fore to put a stop to the report, he laid the guilt, and inflicted the 
severest punishments, upon a set of people who were holden in abhor- 
rence for their crimes, and called by the vulgar, Christians. The 
founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tibe- 
rius, under his procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, 
thus checked for a while, broke out again ; and spread not only over 
Judea, where the evil originated, but through Home also, whither all 
things that are horrible and shameful find their way, and are practised. 
Accordingly the first who were apprehended confessed, and then on 
their information a vast multitude were convicted, not so much of the 
crime of setting (Rome) on fire, as of hatred to mankind. And when 

384 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

they were put to death, mockery was added to their sufferings ; for 
they were either disguised in the skins of wild beasts, and worried to 
death by dogs, or they were crucified, or they were clothed in some 
inflammable covering, and when the day closed were burned as lights to 
illumine the night. Nero lent his own gardens for this exhibition, and 
also held the shows of the circus, mingling with the people in the dress 
of a charioteer, or observing the spectacle from his chariot. Where- 
fore, although those who suffered were guilty, and deserving of some 
extraordinary punishment, yet they came to be pitied, as victims not 
so much to the public good, as to the cruelty of one man." (Annal. 
xv. 44.) 

Suetonius says briefly in reference to the same occasion, " The Chris- 
tians were punished, a set of men of a new and mischievous superstition." 
{Vit. Neron., 16.) And with a possible, though not a certain, refer- 
ence to our Lord, " [Claudius] expelled from Rome the Jews, who 
were continually exciting disturbances, at the instigation of Chrcstus." 
{Vit. Claud., 25.) 

Juvenal, with a meaning which cannot be mistaken, 1 when the pas- 
sage of Tacitus above quoted has once been read, remarks : 

" Expose Tigellinus ; you will blaze in that torch where, with throats 
confined and emitting froth, they stand and burn ; and you do but draw 
a broad furrow in the midst of the sand." {Sat., i. 155-157.) 

Pliny writes to Trajan, "It is my custom, sir, to refer to you all 
things about which I am in doubt. For who is more capable of direct- 
ing my hesitancy, or instructing my ignorance ? I have never been 
present at any trials of the Christians ; consequently I do not know 
what is the nature of their crimes, or the usual strictness of their exam- 
ination, or severity of their punishment. I have moreover hesitated not 
a little, whether any distinction was to be made in respect to age, or 
whether those of tender years were to be treated the same as adults ; 
whether repentance entitles them to a pardon, or whether it shall avail 
nothing for him who has once been a Christian to renounce his error ; 
whether the name itself, even without any crime, should subject them 

1 Compare the observations of the old Scholiast on the passage, "In the public shows 
of Nero living men were burnt ; for he ordered them to be covered with wax, that they 
might give light to the spectators." And again, "He covered certain mischievous men 
(compare Suetonius' ' mischietoxis superstition ') with pitch, and paper, and wax, and then 
commanded fire to be applied to them, that they might buri." 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 385 

to punishment, or only the crimes connected with the name. In the 
mean time, I have pursued this course towards those who have been 
brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were 
Christians ; if they confessed, I repeated the question a second and a 
third time, adding threats of punishment. If they still persevered, I 
ordered them to be led away to punishment ; for I could not doubt, 
whatever the nature of their profession might be, that a stubborn and 
unyielding obstinacy certainly deserved to be punished. There were 
others also under the like infatuation ; but as they were Roman citi- 
zens, I directed them to be sent to the capital. But the crime spread, 
as is wont to happen, even while the prosecutions were going on, and 
numerous instances presented themselves. An information was pre- 
sented to me without any name subscribed, accusing a large number of 
persons, who denied that they were Christians, or had ever been. 
They repeated after me an invocation to the gods, and made offerings 
with frankincense and wine before your statue, which I had ordered to 
be brought for this purpose, together with the images of the gods ; and 
moreover they reviled Christ ; whereas those who are truly Christians, 
it is said, cannot be forced to do any of these things. I thought, there- 
fore, that they ought to be discharged. Others, who were accused by 
a witness, confessed that they were Christians, but afterwards denied 
it. Some owned that they had been Christians, but said they had 
renounced their error, some three years before, others more, and a few 
even as long ago as twenty years. They all did homage to your stati. 9 
and the images of the gods, and at the same time reviled the name of 
Christ. They declared that the whole of their guilt or their error was, 
that they were accustomed to meet on a stated day before it was light, 
and to sing in concert a hymn of praise to Christ, as God, and to bind 
themselves by an oath, not for the perpetration of any wickedness, but 
that they woidd not commit any theft, robbery, or adultery, nor vio- 
late their word, nor refuse, when called upon, to restore any thing 
ommittcd to their trust. After this they were accustomed to separate, 
and then to reassemble to eat in common a harmless meal. Even this, 
however, they ceased to do, after my edict, in which, agreeably to your 
commands, I forbade the meeting of secret assemblies. After hearing this, 
I thought it the more necessary to endeavor to find out the truth, by put- 
ting to the torture two female slaves, who were called ' deaconesses.' 
But I could discover nothing but a perverse and extravagant supersti- 


386 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

tion ; and therefore I deferred all further proceedings until I should eon- 
suit with you. For the matter appears to me worthy of such consulta- 
tion, especially on account of the number of those who are involved in 
peril. For many of every age, of every rank, and of either sex, are 
exposed and will be exposed to danger. Nor has the contagion of this 
superstition been confined to the cities only, but it has extended to the 
villages, and even to the country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible 
to arrest the evil, and to apply a remedy. At least it is very evident, 
that the temples, which had already been almost deserted, begin to be 
frequented, and the sacred solemnities, so long interrupted, are again 
revived ; and the victims, which heretofore could hardly find a pur- 
chaser, are now every where in demand. From this it is easy to ima- 
gine what a multitude of men might be reclaimed, if pardon should be 
offered to those who repent." (Tlin. Epist., x. 97.) 

Trajan replies, " You have pursued the right course, my dear Pliny, 
in conducting the case of those Christians who were brought before 
you. Nor is it possible to adopt one uniform and invariable mode of 
proceeding. I would not have you seek out these persons ; if they are 
brought before you, and are convicted, they must be punished ; yet 
with this proviso, that he who denies that he is a Christian, and con- 
firms this denial by actually invoking our gods, however he may have 
been suspected in time past, shall obtain pardon upon his repentance. 
But informations without the accuser's name subscribed, ought not to 
be received in prosecutions of any kind ; for they are of the worst 
tendency, and are unworthy of the age in which we live." (Ibid. 
x. 98.) 

Adrian, in his rescript addressed to Minucius Fundanus, the Proconsul 
of Asia, says, 1 "To Minucius Fundanus : I have read a letter addressed to 
me by Serenius Granianu?, a most illustrious man, and your predecessor' 
in office. The matter seems to me to require examination, in order that 
peaceable people may not be disturbed, and that occasion of evil-doing 
may be taken away from calumniators. If, therefore, in accusations of 
this sort, the people of the province can clearly affirm any thing against 
the Christians, so as to bring the case before the tribunal, to this only let 
them have recourse, and not to informal accusations and mere clamors. 
For it is much more suitable, if any one wishes to bring an accusation, 

1 The Latin original is lost, and we possess only Kusebius's translation. 

Lect. VIL notes. 387 

that it should come under your adjudication. If, therefore, any one 
accuses them, and proves that they have done any thing contrary to the 
laws, do you determine accordingly, in proportion to the greatness of 
the offence : but, by Hercules, if any one brings forward such an accu- 
sation slanderously, take him and punish liim for his impudence." (Ap. 
Euseb. Hist. Eccles., iv. 9.) 

Note V., p. 181. 

I refer especially to Strauss and his school, who attach no impor- 
tance at all to the existence of Christ, but still allow it as a fact which 
is indisputable. (See the Leben Jcsu, passim.) 

Note VI., p. 181. 
Ch. ii. pp. 24-30. 

Note VII., p. 182. 

One slight reference is found, or rather suspected, in Seneca, (Epist. 
xiv.,) one in Dio Chrysostom, (Orat. Corinthiac., xxxvii. p. 463,) none 
in Pausanius, one (see the next note) in the Epictetus of Arrian. 

Note VIII., p. 182. 

Epictet. Disserted, iv. 7, $ 5. 6 : " If any one now should so regard 
his possessions, as this man regards his body, and his children, and his 
wife, &c, what tyrant would any longer be terrible to him ? What 
soldiers, or what weapons of theirs, would he fear ? Under the influ- 
ence of madness, one may so regard these things ; and the Galikeans do 
it under the influence of custom." 

Note IX., p. 183. 

The passage in the second book of the Discourses, (c. 9, { 20,) which 
has been supposed by some to refer to Christians, seems really to in- 
tend only those whom it mentions viz., the Jews. (See Lardner, 
Credibility, &c., vol. iv. p. 49; Fabricius ad Dion, xxxvii. 17.) 

Note X., p. 183. 
This point has been slightly touched by Paley, {Evidences, Tart i. ch. 

388 NOTES. Lect. VII. 

5, pp. 70, 71,) and insisted on at some length by Lardner. {Credibility, 
&c. vol. iv. pp. 50, 78, 160, &c.) 

Note XI., p. 184. 

Josephus was born in A. D. 37, the first year of the reign of Calig- 
ula, and the fourth after our Lord's ascension. He was bred up at 
Jerusalem, where he seems to have continued, with slight interruptions, 
till he was 26 years of age. He would thus have been, as boy and 
man, a witness of the principal occurrences at Jerusalem mentioned in 
the Acts, subsequently to the accession of Herod Agrippa. 

Note XII., p. 184. 

See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 9, 1. This passage has been much dis- 
puted, and its genuineness is disallowed even by Lardner. {Credibility, 
&c, vol. iii. pp. 352-354.) But I agree with Burton. {Eccles. Hist., vol. 
i. p. 287,) and Palcy, {Evidences, Part i. ch. 5, p. 69,) that there is no 
sufficient reason for the suspicions which have attached to the passage. 

Note XIII., p. 184. 

Josephus went to Rome in his 27th year, A. D. 63, and remained 
there some time. Probably he witnessed the commencement of the 
Neronic persecution in A. D. 64, after the great fire which broke out 
in July of that year. (See above, Note IV., page 383.) 

Note XIV., p. 184. 

"Ananus . . . called the council of judges, and bringing before them 
James, the brother of Jesus who icas called Christ, and certain others, 
he accused them of transgressing the laws, and delivered them up to be 
stoned." {Ant. Jud. xx. 9, 1.) According to Eusebius, {Hut. Eccles. 
ii. 23,) Josephus had the following also in another place : " These 
things came upon the Jews as an avengement of James the Just, who 
was the brother of Jesus called Christ ; for the Jews slew him, although 
he was the most righteous of men." 

I regard the arguments which have been brought against the famous 
passage in our copies of Josephus concerning our Lord's life and teach- 

Lect. VII. notes. 389 

ing (Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, 3) as having completely established its spuri- 
ousness. (See Lardner, Credibility, vol. iii. pp. 537-542 ; and, on the 
other side, Home, Introduction, vol. i. Appendix, ch. vii.) 

Note XV., p. 184. 

See Paley's Evidences, Part i. ch. 7, p. 71 ; and Dr. Traill's Essay o?i 
the Personal diameter of Josephus, prefixed to his Translation, pp. 19, 20. 

Note XVI., p. 184. 

The probable value of these writings may be gathered from the frag- 
ments of Celsus, preserved by Origen. Celsus quotes from all the Gos- 
pels, allows that they were written by the disciples of Jesus, and con- 
firms all the main facts of our Lord's life, even his miracles, (which he 
ascribes to magic ;) only denying his resurrection, his raising of others, 
and his being declared to be the Son of God by a voice from heaven. 
A collection of the "testimonies" which his fragments afford will be 
found in Lardner. {Credibility, &c, vol. iv. pp. 115, et seqq.) 

Note XVII., p. 184. 

See Socrat. Hist. Eccles. i. 9, p. 32 ; Justinian, Nov. 42, c. 1 ; Mnj- 
heim, De Rebus Christ, ante Constantin. Magn. p. 5G1. 

Note XVIII., p. 185. 
Apolog. i. p. 65, and p. 70. 

Note XIX., p. 185. 

So at least Justin believed. (Apol. i. p. 70.) Tertullian adds, that 
they contained an account of our Saviour's resurrection, of his appear- 
ances to his disciples, and his ascension into heaven before their eyes. 
(Apolog. c. 21.) Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. ii. 2) and Orosius (vii. 4) 
bear nearly similar testimony. As Dr. liurton remarks, (Ecctes. Hist. 
vol. i. p. 34,) "It is almost impossible to suppose that the Fathers 
were mistaken in believing some such document to be preserved in tho 
archives." Their confident appeals to it show that they believed its 
substance not to be unfavorable to our Lord's character. 'Whether 

390 NOTES. Lect. VII. 

they exactly knew its contents, or no, must depend primarily on the 
question, whether the documents of this class, preserved in the State 
Archives, were generally accessible to the public. They were certainly 
not published ; and as they were of the nature of secret communica- 
tions to the Emperor, it may be doubted whether it was easy to obtain 
a sight of them. Still, perhaps, the Christians may have learnt the 
contents of Pilate's "Acts," from some of those members of the Im- 
perial household (Phil. iv. 22) or family, (Burton, Eccl. Hist., vol. i. p. 
367,) who became converts at an early period. 

Note XX., p. 187. 

On the extent of the dominions of Herod the Great, see Joseph. Am. 
Jud. xiv. 14-18. He died, as we have already seen, (supra, Lecture 
VI. Note I.,) in the year of Rome 750. On his death, there was a 
division of his territories among his sons, Archelaus receiving Juda?a, 
Samaria, and Idumaea ; Antipas, Galilee and Pera-a ; Philip, Trach- 
onitis and the adjoining countries. (Joseph. De Bell. Jud. i. 33, $ 8, 
and ii. 6, $ 3.) Ten years later (A. D. 8) Archelaus was removed, and 
his dominions annexed to the Roman Empire, being placed under a 
Procurator, (Coponius,) who was subordinate to the President of Syria, 
(Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, 1,) while Philip and Antipas continued to 
rule their principalities. Thirty-three years after, (A. I). 41,) Herod 
Agrippa, by the favor of Claudius, reunited the several provinces 
of Palestine under his own government, and reigned over the whole 
territory which had formed the kingdom of Herod the Great. (Ibid. 
xix. 5, 1.) At his death, A. D. 44, the Roman authority was estab- 
lished over the whole country, which was administered by a Procura- 
tor holding under the President of Syria. To the younger Agrippa, 
however, king of Chalcis, a power was presently intrusted (A. D. 48) 
of managing the sacred treasury at Jerusalem, superintending the tem- 
ple, and appointing the Jewish High Priests. (Ibid. xx. 1.) 

Note XXL, p. 187. 

Tacitus sacrifices accuracy to brevity in his sketch of these changes .' 
' ' The victorious Augustus enlarged the kingdom given by Antony 
to Herod. After the death of Herod, one Simon, without waiting foi 


any action on the part of the Emperor, assumed the royal title. 
Quintilius Varus took possession of Syria, and punished him ; and the 
children of Herod governed the nation thus brought into subjection, 
dividing its territory into three districts. Under Tiberius, they re- 
mained quiet ; but afterwards, when they were ordered by Caius 
Caesar (i. e. Caligula) to place his statue in the temple, they preferred 
tc take up arms. The death of the Emperor put a stop to this revolt. 
Claudius, after the kings had cither died or been reduced to subjection, 
intrusted the government of the province of Judaea to Human knights, 
or freedmen." (Hist, v. 9.) 

Elsewhere, he sometimes falls into actual error, as where he assigns 
the death of Agrippa, and the reduction of Judaea into the form of a 
Roman province, to the 9th of Claudius, A. D. 49. (Annul, xi. 23.) 

Dio's notices are very confused. lie seems scarcely able to distin- 
guish one Herod from another. (Hist. Rom. xlix. p. 405, E. ; liii. p. 
526, D. ; lv. p. 567, B. ; and lx. p. 670, B.) 

Note XXn., p. 187. 

See the last note. Tacitus appears, in both the passages, to place 
the first reduction of Judaea into the position of a Roman province 
under Claudius, upon the death of Agrippa. Yet he elsewhere notices 
the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate, in the reign of Tiberius. (Ann. 
xv. 44, quoted in Note IV.) 

Note XXIII. , p. 1S7. 

Joseph. Ant. Jnd. xx. 1, { 3. It has not always be^n seen that Fcstus 
referred (uvfOiro) St. Paul's case to Agrippa on account of his occupy- 
ing this position. Dean Alford, however, distinctly recognizes this 
feature of the transaction. (Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 252.) 

Note XXIV., p. 188. 

It has been questioned whether the Jews themselves had any right of 
capital punishment at this time. (I.ardner, Credibility, &c, vol. i. pp. 
21-48; Olshausen, Bihlischer Commentar, vol. ii. p. 501.) Josophus 

certainly represents the power as one which the Romnns reserved to 
themselves from the first establishment of the procuratorship. (Do 

392 notes. Lect. VII. 

Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1 ; compare Ant. Jiid. xx. 9, 1.) But, as Dean 
Alford remarks, the history of Stephen and of the " great persecution," 
(<5<wy,jds liiyus,) soon after, seems to show "that the Jews did, by 
connivance of, or in the absence of the Procurator, administer summary 
punishments of this kind." [Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 75 ; compare 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. 1. s. c.) 

Note XXV., p. 188. 

See Matt. y. 26 ; x. 29 ; xvii. 25 ; xviii. 28 ; xxvi. 53 ; xxvii. 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 gov- 
ernor. They are such therefore as would naturally be introduced by a 
foreign dominant power. 

Note XXVL, p. 189. 

See Mark vi. 7, and 40 ; vii. 11 ; x. 51 ; xiii. 14 ; &c. The number 
of instances might of course be greatly increased. Among the most 
noticeable are Matt. v. 18, (Iwra ev !) niaxtgala j 1 ) v. 22, (/Wd; 2 ) v. 29, 
(yffna; 3 ) vi. 24, (jianwas ; 4 conf. Luke xvi. 9, &c. ;) Mark hi. 17, 
(poavepyts ; 5 ) V. 41, (rahOa Koufti ; 6 ) vii. 34, (!<lptiQ(i ; 7 ) xi. 9, (waavv6 ; 8 ) 
John i. 43, (x-^n?. 9 ) Compare also the thoroughly Hebrew character 
of the Canticles in Luke i. and ii. 

Note XXVII., p. 189. 

Joseph. De Bell. Jud. vii. 8, 1 : " For that time was fruitful 
among the Jews in all sorts of wickedness, so that they left no evil 
deed undone ; nor was there any new form of wickedness, which any 
one could invent, if he wished to do so. Thus they were all corrupt, 
both in their public and their private relations ; and they vied with 
each o;her who should excel in impiety towards God and injustice to 
men. The more powerful oppressed the common people, and the 
common people eagerly sought to destroy the more powerful ; for the 
former class were governed by the love of power, and the latter by the? 
desire to seize and plunder the possessions of the wealthy." Compare' 
Ant. Jud. xx. 7, 8 ; Bell. Jud. v. 13, 6 ; and 10, 5. 

1 One jot, or one tittle. * Raca. 3 Gehenna, (translated hell.) 

4 Mammon. 5 Boanerges. 6 Talitha cumi. 

7 Ephphatha. 8 Hosanna. Cephas. 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 393 

Note XXVIII., p. 189. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 9, 3 ; xx. 4, 3 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 19, 1 ; &c. 
On one occasion it appears that more than two and a half millions of 
persons had come up to Jerusalem to worship. {Bell. Jud. vi. 9, 3.) 

Note XXIX., p. 189. 

Ant. Jud. xv. 7, 8 : "In Jerusalem there were two fortresses, one 
belonging to the city itself, and the other to the temple. Whoever held 
these had the whole nation in their power ; for without the command 
of these, it was not possible to offer the sacrifices ; and no Jew could 
endure the thought that these should fail to be offered : they were even 
ready sooner to lay down their lives, than to omit the religious sacri- 
fices which they were accustomed to offer to God." 

Note XXX., p. 189. 

Not only was Caligula's attempt to have his statue set up in the tem- 
ple resisted with determination, (Joseph. Ant. Jud. 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, 
(ittv&f ixalt'ratvov.) The Jews immediately raised a wall to shut out 
his prospect, and when Festus commanded them to remove it, they pos- 
itively refused, declaring that they would rather die than destroy any 
portion of the sacred fabric, (n*' y<>p oi'x, l>*oiUvtiv,nuQatptOivTos mi, fi{pov( 
tou icpoS.) See Ant. Jud. xx. 8, 11 ; and on the general subject, com- 
pare Philo, De Legat. ad Caium, pp. 1022, 1023. 

Note XXXI., p. 190. 
Ant. Jud. xv. 8, { 1-4. 

Note XXXII., p. 190. 
See Lardner's Credibility, &c, book i. ch. 9 ; vol. i. pp. 110-121. 

Note XXXIII., p. 190. 

Josephus tells us, that when Cyrenius came to take the census of 
men's properties throughout Juda>a, a controversy arose among the 

394 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

Jews on the legality of submission to foreign taxation. Judas of Gal- 
ilee (see Acts v. 37) maintained that it was a surrender of the theo- 
cratic principle ; while the bulk of the chief men, including some 
considerable number of the Pharisees, took the opposite view, and 
persuaded the people to submit themselves. {Ant. Jitd. xviii. 1, 1.) 

Note XXXIV., p. 190. 

Ant. Jitd. xx. 6, 1 : " Now there arose an enmity between the 
Samaritans and the Jews, from the following cause : The Galileans 
were accustomed, in going up to the feasts that were held in Jerusalem, 
to pass through the country of the Samaritans. At this time there was 
on the road which they took a village called Ginea, situated on the 
boundary between Samaria and the great plain. When the Galileans 
came to this place, they were attacked, and many of them killed." 

Note XXXV., p. 190. 

Ibid, xviii. 1, $ 3 and 4. Note especially the following: Of the 
Pharisees " They believe that souls have an immortal vigor, and that 
beyond the grave there are rewards and punishments, according as 
they follow a virtuous or a vicious course of life in this world." Of 
the Sadducees " But the doctrine of the Sadducees is, that the soul 
is annihilated together with the body." Compare Acts xxiii. 8. 

Note XXXVI., p. 190. 

Ibid. 1. s. c. [The Pharisees] " are very influential with the people ; 
and whatever prayers to God or sacrifices are performed, are performed 
at their dictation. The doctrine [of the Sadducees] is received by but 
few ; but these are the men who are in the highest authority." 

Note XXXVII., p. 190. 

Bell. Jud., vi. 5, 4. " But that which most of all roused them to 
undertake this war, was an ambiguous oracle, . . . found in their 
sacred books, that at that time a man of their country should rule 
over the whole earth." 

Lect. VII. notes. 395 

Note XXXYIIL, p. 190. 

Sueton. Vit. Vespasian., 4: "An ancient and settled opinion had 
prevailed throughout the whole East, that fate had decreed that at that 
time persons proceeding from Judaea should become masters of the 
world. This was foretold, as the event afterwards proved, of the 
Roman Emperor ; but the Jews applied it to themselves, and this was 
the cause of their rebellion." Compare Vit. Octav., 94, and Virg. 
Eclog., iv. 

Note XXXIX., p. 190. 

Tacit. Histor., v. 13 : "These things [the prodigies that occurred just 
before the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans] were regarded by a 
few as alarming omens ; but the greater number believed that it was 
written in the ancient books of the priests, that at that very time the 
East, should become very powerful, and that persons proceeding from 
Judaea should become masters of the world." 

Note XL., p. 190. 
Leben Jem, 34 ; vol. i. p. 220, E. T. 

Note XLL, p. 190. 

See Philo, De Legationc ad Caium, p. 1022, D. E. For the portrait- 
ure of Josephus, see above, Note XXVII. 

Note XLII., p. 191. 

This passage is given by Wetsten (A r ou. Test. Gr., vol. ii. p. 563) and 
Dean Alford (Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 17-)) as from Xenophon De 
Itep. Athenian*, I have not succeeded in verifying the reference. 

Note XLIII., p. 191. 
Liv. xlv. 27, ad fin. 

Note XLIV., p. 192. 

How attractive to strangers Athens was, even in her decline, may be 
seen from the examples of Cicero, (iermanicus, Pausanias, and others. 

396 notes. Lect. VII. 

(See Conybeare and Howson's Life of St. Paul, vol. i. pp. 398, 399.) 
On the greediness of the Athenians after novelty, see Dcmosth. Philipp. 
i. p. 43, ("Or tell me, do you wish to go about asking eaeh other in 
the market place, ' What is the news ? ' And can there be any thing 
newer, than that the man of Macedon," &e. ;) Philip]}. Epist. pp. 156, 
157 ; -Elian. Var. Hist., v. 13 ; Schol. ad Thucyd. hi. 38, &c. On 
their religiousness, compare Pausan. i. 24, 3, (the Athenians are more 
serious than others in the worship of the gods ;) Xen. Rep. Atheniens. 
iii. $ 1, and $ 8 ; Joseph. Contra Apion. ii. 11, ("All say, that the Athe- 
nians are the most religious of the Greeks ; ") Strab. v. 3, 18 ; JElian. 
Var. Hist. v. 17 ; Philostrat. Vit. Apollon. vi. 3 ; Dionys. Hal. De Jud. 
Thicc, \ 40 ; and among later authors, see Mr. Grote's History of Greece, 
vol. iii. pp. 229-232. 

Note XLV., p. 192. 

See the Life and Epistles of St. Paul, by Messrs. Conybeare and IIow- 
son, vol. ii. pp. 66, et seqq. (1.) The " Great Goddess, Diana," is found 
to have borne that title as her usual title, both from an inscription, 
(Boeckh. Corpus Inscript., 2963 C,) and from Xenophon, (Ephes. i. p. 
15 : "J invoke our ancestral God, the great Diana of the Ephe- 
sians. T ') (2.) The "Asiarchs" are mentioned on various coins and 
inscr ^tions. (3.) The "town-clerk" (yon^arnj) of Ephesus is like- 
wise mentioned in inscriptions, (Boeckh, No. 2963 C, No. 2966, and 
No. 2990.) (4.) The curious word vfuxopos, (Acts xix. 35,) literally 
" sweeper " of the temple, is also found in inscriptions and on coins, 
as an epithet of the Ephesian people, (Boeckh, No. 2966.) The " silver 
shrines of Diana," the "court-days," the "deputies" or "proconsuls" 
(di-Otirnroi) might receive abundant classical illustration. The temple 
was the glory of the ancient world ' enough still remains of the 
"theatre" to give evidence of its former greatness. 

Note XL VI., p. 192. 

Compare Luke xxiii. 2; John xix. 12-15; Acts xxv. 12 and 26; 
xxvi. 32 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; 1 Pet. ii. 13 and 17. 

1 Plin. xxxt 21 ; Strab. xiv. 1 ; Phil. Byz. De Sept. Orb. Spectacuiis. 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 397 

Note XL VII., p. 192. 

The Roman .rovmces under the empire were administered eitker by 
proconsuls, or legates, or in a few instances by procurators. The tech- 
nical Greek name for the proconsul is difli/iraroj, (Polyb. xxi. 8, 11,) 
as that for the consul is Ciraroj. Proconsuls are mentioned by St. Luke 
in Cyprus, (Acts xiii. 7,) at Ephesus, (ib. xix. 38,) and at Corinth, (ib. 
xviii. 12, where the verb " to be a proconsul" expresses the office of 
Gallio.) In every case the use of the term is historically correct. (See 
below, Notes CIV. and CVIII.) Other officers are not so distinctly 
designated. Legates do not occur in the history ; and the Greek pos- 
sessing no term correspondent to procurator, such officers appear only 
as i/yiiiovff, (governors,) a generic term applicable to proconsuls also. 
(See Luke ii. 2 ; iii. 1 ; Matt, xxvii. 2 ; Acts xxiii. 24 ; xxvi. 30, &c.) 

The anxiety to avoid tumults may be observed in the conduct of 
Pilate, (Matt, xxvii. 24 ;) of the authorities at Ephesus, (Acts xix. 
35-41 ;) and of Lysias, (Acts xxi. 32 ; xxii. 24.) The governors were 
liable to recall at any moment, and knew that they would probably be 
superseded, if they allowed troubles to break out. 

Note XLVIIL, p. 192. 

See especially Gallio's words, (Acts xviii. 14-16.) Compare Acts 
xxiii. 29 ; and xxviii. 30, 31. On the general tolerance of the Romans, 
see Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. p. 95, et seqq. 

Note XLIX., p. 192. 

In a Rescript of Severus and Caracalla, {Digest, xlviii. 17, 1,) we 
read, " We have also this law, that the absent must not be condemned ; 
for indeed the rule of justice does not allow any one to be condemned 
without having his cause heard." Compare Dionys. Hal. vii. 53, p. 
441. The odium incurred by Cicero for proceeding without formal 
trial against the Catiline conspirators, (jjp. ad Famil., v. 2, p. 60, b,) is 
an indication of the value attached to the principle in question. 

Note L., p. 192. 

Acts xxii. 28. Dio says of Antony, " He collected money from 
private individuals, selling to some the right of citizenship, and to 


398 NOTES. Lect. VII. 

others exemption from taxes." And of Claudius, " Since the Romans 
were, so to speak, in all things preferred to foreigners, many addressed 
their petitions directly to him, [for the privilege of citizenship,] and 
others purchased it f Messalina, and of the Emperor's favorites," (lx. 
17, p. 676, C.) Citizenship by birth on the part of a foreigner might 
arise (1.) from his being a native of some colony or municipium ; (2.) 
from a grant of citizenship, on account of service rendered, to his 
father, or a more remote ancestor ; or (3.) from his father, or a more 
remote ancestor, having purchased his freedom. Dio speaks, a little 
before the passage last quoted, of many Lycians having been deprived 
of their Roman citizenship by Claudius. That Jews were often Roman 
citizens appears from Josephus. {Ant. Jud. xiv. 10, 13, 14, 16, &e.) 

Note LI., p. 192. 

Acts xxv. 11. Suetonius says of Augustus, "The appeals of liti- 
gants belonging to the city he referred every year to the prnctor ; but 
those of persons belonging to the provinces, to men of consular dignity, 
of whom he had appointed a separate one over the affairs of each pro- 
vince." {Vit. Octav. c. 33.) Pliny probably refers to cases where the 
right of appeal had been claimed, when he says of the Bithynian Chris- 
tians, "There were others under the same infatuation; but as they 
were Roman citizens, I directed them to be sent to the capital." (/>. 
ad Traj. x. 97.) 

Note LIL, p. 192. 

The humane treatment of prisoners is an occasional feature of the 
Roman system. (See Acts xxiv. 23, and xxviii. 16 and 30.) Lardner 
{Credibility, vol. i. p. 128) observes that the treatment of Herod Agrip- 
pa I. closely illustrates that of St. Paul. Soon after his first imprison- 
ment, by the influence of Antonia, his friends were allowed free access 
to him, and permitted to bring him food and other comforts. (Joseph. 
Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, 7.) On the death of Tiberius, whom he had 
offended, Caligula enlarged him further, permitting him to return and 
live in his otcn house, where he was still guarded, but less strictly than 
before. (Ibid. 10 : "He commanded that Agrippa should be removed 
from the camp to the house in which he had lived before he was impris- 
oned ; so that now he was free from anxiety with regard to his situa- 
tion ; for it was, to be sure, one of custody and surveillance, but with 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 309 

much liberty as to his mode of life." Compare the order of Felix with 
regard to St. Paul "commanding a centurion to keep him, and to let 
him have liberty," &c. Acts xxiv. 23.) 

Note LIIL, p. 192. 

On one occasion we find St. Paul "bound with two chains," (Acts 
xxi. 33 ;) but commonly we hear of his "chain" (a).wis) in the singu- 
lar. (Acts xxviii. 20; Ephes. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 16.) Now, it is abun- 
dantly apparent from Seneca {De Tranquitt. 10, Epist. 5) and other 
writers, {Tacit. Ann. iv. 28, &c.,) that prisoners were commonly fas- 
tened by a chain passed from their right wrist to the left wrist of their 
keeper. Where greater security was desired, a prisoner had two keep- 
ers, and a second chain was passed from his left wrist to the second 
keeper's right. The keeper to whom a prisoner was bound was called 

Note LIV., p. 192. 

Matt, xxvii. 27; Acts xx. 6; xxiv. 23; xxviii. 1, 16. The military 
custody {custodia militaris) of the Romans is well known to writers on 
antiquities. Ulpian says, that when a person was arrested, it was the 
business of the proconsul to determine "whether the person should be 
committed to prison, or delivered to the custody of a soldier, or placed 
in the care of his sureties, or, finally, left to take care of himself." {Di- 
gest, xlviii. Tit. 3. De Ctustod. et Exhib. Rcor. 1.) Examples of the 
military custody will be found in Tacitus, {Ann. iii. 22 ;) Josephus, 
{Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, 7 ;) Ignatius, {Ep. ad Roman, v. p. 370 ;) Martyr. 
Ignat., (ii. p. 450 ; v. p. 544,) &c. 

Note LV., p. 192. 

Examining free persons by scourging (Acts xxii. 24) or other torture, 
was against the spirit, and indeed against the letter, of the Roman law. 
"The Divine Augustus made a law that the torture should not be 
applied." {Digest. 48. Tit. 18, $ 1.) liut arbitrary power often broke 
this law, both at Rome and in the provinces. Suetonius says of Au- 
gustus, " And he took Quintus Gallius, the prrctor, from the tribunal, 
and put him to the torture, as if lie had been a slave." {Vit. Octav. 
27.) Tacitus of Nero, "Thinking that the body of a woman would 

400 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

not be able to endure the pain, he ordered Epicharis to be scourged." 
(Annal. xv. 57.) This examination was in part by scourging. 

Note LVL, p. 192. 

See Livy xxxiii. 36, (" After they had been scourged, he fastened 
them to crosses ; ") Val. Max. i. 7, 4 ; Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 14, 9, 
(" Florus chastised many with scourges, and afterwards crucified them. 
He had the boldness to scourge men of equestrian rank before the judg- 
ment-seat, and then to nail them to the cross ; ") &c. These last notices 
show the practice on the part of the Roman governors of Palestine. 

Note LVIL, p. 192. 

The crucifixion of the Orientals has more commonly been impaling, 
than nailing to a cross. (See Ctesias, ap. Phot. Bibl. Cod. LXXIL, p. 
122; Casuabon. Exerc. Antibaron. xvi. 77.) The Romans fastened the 
body to the cross either by cords or nails. (See Smith's Dictionary of 
Gr. and Rom. Antiq. p. 370.) It is evident from Josephus, that nailing 
was the common practice in Palestine. (See the last note, and com- 
pare Bell. Jud. vi. : "The soldiers, through rage and hatred, fastened 
their captives to crosses, some in one manner, and some in another, in 
mockery ; and on account of the great number, there was not room 
enough for the crosses, nor crosses enough for the bodies.") St. Au- 
gustine speaks as if nailing was the ordinary Roman method. {Tractat. 
xxxvi. in Johann. Opera, vol. ix. p. 278 : "When men are tormented 
with very severe pains, they call them ex-cruciati?iff, a term derived 
from the cross, (a cruce.) For they who are crucified, being sus- 
pended on the wood, and being fastened to it with nails, undergo a 
lingering death.") 

Note LVIIL, p. 192. 

Plutarch, de Sera Numinis Vindicta, ii. p. 554, A. : " And each of the 
malefactors sentenced to capital punishment, carries his own cross." 
Compare Artemidor. Oncirocrit. ii. 61 : " The cross is also a symbol of 
death, and he that is about to be nailed to it, first carries it along." 

Lect. VIL N t) t e s . 401 

Note LIX., p. 192. 

The practice of attaching a small board or placard to criminals, with 
a notification of the nature of their offence, is mentioned by several 
writers, and there are many allusions to it in the poets. The technical 
name of this placard was in Latin " titulus." (Compare the title ot 
John xix. 19.) See Sucton. Vit. Calig. 34: "At a public feast in 
Rome, when a slave had stolen a piece of silver from one of the couches, 
he delivered him at once to the executioner, and his hands being cut 
off, and hanging upon his breast, suspended from his neck, he was led 
about through the throng of guests at the feast, carrying before him a 
title which declared the cause of his punishment." Vit, Domitian. 10 : 
" He dragged from the theatre a master of a family, because he had 
said that a Thracian was equal to a gladiator, but unequal to a master 
of the shows, and cast him to the dogs in the arenas with this title : ' a 
Parmularian ' who has spoken impiously.' " Dio Cass. liv. p. 523 ; 
' When the father of Caepio therefore released one of the slaves who 
had been banished along with his son, because he had tried to defend 
the deceased, but led the other one, who had betrayed him, through 
the midst of the market place, irith a writing declaring the cause of his 
death, and afterwards crucified him, he was not displeased." Ovid. 
Fasti, vi. 190, 191 : " He lived that he might die convicted of a crime 
against the state. Advanced age conferred upon him this title." Com- 
pare Trist. iii. 1, 47. We have no classical proof that the "titulus" 
was ordinarily affixed to the cross, unless we may view as such the 
statement of Hesychius "A board, a door, a plastered tablet, on 
which accusations against malefactors were written at Athens. It was 
also placed upon the cross." 

Note LX., p. 192. 

Seneca speaks of the " centurion who had the charge of inflicting 
punishment" as an ordinary thing. (Dc Ira, c. 10, p. 3 J.) Petronius 
Arbiter says, "A soldier watched the crosses, lest some one should 
carry off the bodies for burial." (Satyr, c. 111.) 

i This word meniif", "nn adherent of the party of the Thraciaus, who were armed 
with a small round shield, called ' parma.' " 


402 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

Note LXL, p. 192. 

So Alford (vol. i., p. 617) "The garments of the executed were by- 
law the perquisites of the soldiers on duty." Cf. Digest, xlviii. Tit. 
20, 6. 

Note LXIL, p. 193. 

Ulpian says, "The bodies of those -who surfer capital punishment 
are not to be refused to their friends. And the Divine Augustus 
writes, in the tenth book of his life, that he also observed this rule. 
But at this day, the bodies of the persons in question are not buried, 
unless permission has first been sought and granted. And sometimes 
it is not granted, especially in the case of those condemned for trea- 
son." (Digest, xlviii. Tit. 21. De Cadav. Punit. 1.) And again 
"The bodies of those who suffer punishment are to be given to any re- 
questing them for interment." (Ibid. 3.) So Diocletian and Maximian 
declare, " We do not forbid that those who are guilty of crimes, after 
they have been duly punished, should be consigned to burial." The 
practice of the Jews to take bodies down from the cross and bury them 
on the day of their crucifixion, is witnessed to by Josephus " lie pro- 
ceeded to such a degree of impiety, as to cast out bodies unburied, 
although the Jews took so much care in regard to burials, that they even 
took down and buried, before the sun went doicn, those who had been 
condemned and crucified." (De Bell. Jud. iv. 5, $ 2.) 

Note LXIIL, p. 193. 

Among minute points of accordance may be especially noticed the 
following: 1. The geographical accuracy. () Compare the divisions 
of Asia Minor mentioned in the Acts with those in Pliny. Phrygia, 
Galatia, Lycaonia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Asia, Mysia, Bithynia, 
are all recognized as existing provinces by the Roman geographer, writ- 
ing probably within a few years of St. Luke. (//. N. v. 27, ct seqq.) 
(b) The division of European Greece into the two provinces of Mace- 
donia and Achaia, (Acts xix. 21, &c.,) accords exactly with the arrange- 
ment of Augustus noticed in Strabo, (xvii. ad fin.) (c) The various 
tracts in or about Palestine belong exactly to the geography of the 
time, and of no other. Juda?a, Samaria, Galilee, Trachonitis, Itunea, 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 403 

Abilene, Decapolis, are recognized as geographically distinct at this 
period by the Jewish and classical writers. (See Plin. II. N. v. 14, 18, 
23 ; Strab. xvi. 2, 10, 34 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xix. 5, 1, &c.) 
(rf) The routes mentioned are such as were in use at the time. The 
" ship of Alexandria," which, conveying St. Paul to Rome, lands him 
at Puteoli, follows the ordinary course of the Alexandrian corn-ships, 
as mentioned by Strabo, (xvii. 1, 7,) Philo, (In Flacc. pp. 968, 969,) 
and Seneca, (Epist. 77,) and touches at customary harbors. (See 
Sueton. Vit. Tit. 25,) Paul's journey from Troas by Neapolis to 
Philippi presents an exact parallel to that of Ignatius, sixty years later, 
(Martyr. Ignat. c. 5.) His passage through Amphipolis and Apollonia 
on his road from Philippi to Thessalonica, is in accordance with the 
Itinerary of Antonine, which places those towns on the route between 
the two cities, (p. 22.) (e) The mention of Philippi as the first city of 
Macedonia to one approaching from the east, (" the chief city of that part 
of Macedonia," Acts xvi. 12,) is correct, since there was no other be- 
tween it and Neapolis. The statement, that it was " a colony," is also 
true, (Dio Cass. li. 4, p. 445, D ; Plin. //. N. iv. 11 ; Strab. vii. Fr. 41.) 
2. The minute political knowledge, (a) We have already seen the 
intimate knowledge exhibited of the state of Ephesus, with its pro- 
consul, town-clerk, Asiarchs, &c. A similar exactitude appears in the 
designation of the chief magistrates of Thessalonica as " the rulers of the 
city," (Acts xvii. 6,) their proper and peculiar appellation. (Boeckh, 
Corp. Inner. No. 1967.) (b~) So too the Roman governors of Corinth 
and Cyprus are given their correct titles. (See Notes CIV. and CVIII.) 
(c) Publius, the Roman governor of Malta, has again his proper tech- 
nical designation, (" the chief man of the island," Actsxxviii. 7.) as ap- 
pears from inscriptions commemorating the chief of the Melitans, or 
* Melitensium primus." ' (See Alford, ii. p. 282.) (d) The delivery 
of the prisoners to the "captain of the (Praetorian) guard" at Rome, 
is in strict accordance with the practice of the time. (Trajan, ap. Plin. 
Ep. x. 65 : " He ought to be sent bound to the praefects of my 
Praetorian guard." Compare Philostrat. vit. Sophist, ii. 32.) 

Among additions to our classical knowledge, for which we are in- 
debted to Scripture, it may suffice to mention, 1. The existence of an 
Italian cohort (the Italian band) as early as the reign of Tiberius, (Acts 

1 The Latin anil the Greek arc precisely equivalent. 

404 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

x. 1.) 2. The application of the term Zifiaarii (Augustan) to another 
cohort, a little later, (Acts xxviii. 1.) 3. The existence of an Altar at 
Athens with the inscription, " To the unknown God," (Acts xvii. 23,) 
which is not to be confounded with the well-known inscriptions to un- 
known gods. 4. The use of the title arpaTnyo] (Praetors) by the Duum- 
viri, or chief magistrates of Philippi, (Acts xvi. 20.) We know from 
Cicero, (De Leg. Agrar. 34,) that the title was sometimes assumed in 
such eases, but we have no other proof that it was in use at Philippi. 

Note LXIV., p. 193. 
Lardner, Credibility, &c., vol. i. p. 60. 

Note LXV., p. 193. 

See Acts xiii. 5, 14 ; xiv. 1 ; xvi. 3, 13 ; xvii. 1, 10, 17 ; xviii. 4 
xix; 8, &c. 

Note LXVL, p. 194. 

" Now, in regard to the holy city, there are some things which I ought 
to say. It is, as I have said, the place of my nativity ; and it is the 
metropolis, not of the single country of Judiea, but of a great many 
countries, by means of the colonies which it has sent out from time to 
time, some to the neighboring countries of Egypt, Phcenice, Syria 
proper, and that part called Coele- Syria ; and some planted in the 
more distant regions of Pamphylia, Cilicia, and many parts of Asia, as 
far as Bithynia and the recesses of Pontus ; in like manner also in 
Europe, in Thessaly, Bceotia, Macedonia, -Etolia, Attica, Argos, Cor- 
inth, and many of the best parts of the Peloponnesus ; and not only 
are the continental countries full of Jewish colonies, but also the most 
famous islands, as Euboea, Cyprus, and Crete ; not to speak of those 
beyond the Euphrates. For excepting a small part of Babylon, and of 
the other satrapies, all the places which have a fertile territory around 
them have Jewish inhabitants ; so that if my country shall receive this 
favor from thee, not one city only, but ten thousand others, situated in 
every region of the habitable world, will be benefited ; those in Europe, 
and Asia, and Africa ; those on the continents and in the islands, on 
the sea shore and in the interior. (Philo Jud. Legal, ad Caium, pp. 
1031, 1032.) 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 405 

Note LXYIL, p. 194. 

For no single country contains the Jews, but they are exceedingly 
numerous ; on which account they are distributed through nearly all 
the most flourishing countries of Europe and Asia, both insular and 
continental ; and they all regard the sacred city as their metropolis." 
(Ibid. In Flacc. p. 971, E.) 

Note LXVIII., p. 194. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 2 ; De Bell. Jud. vii. 3, 3 ; Contr. Apion. ii. 
36, &c. 

Note LXIX., p. 194. 

Philo frequently mentions the synagogues under the name of "places 
of prayer." (In Flacc. p. 972, A. B. E. ; Legal, in Caium, p. 1014, &c.) 
Their position by the sea-side, or by a river-side, is indicated, among 
other places, in the Decree of the Halicarnassians reported by Josephus, 
{Ant. Jud. xiv. 10, 23,) where the Jews are allowed to offer prayers 
by the sea-side, according to their national custom. See also Philo, 
Legat. in Caium, p. 982, D. ; Tertull. ad Nat. i. 13 ; De Jejun. c. 16 ; 
and Juv. Sat. iii. 13. 

Note LXX., p. 194. 

Lightfoot, Hebraic, et Talmudic. Exercitat., not. in Act. Apost. vi. 8 , 
Works, vol. ii. p. 664. 

Note LXXI., p. 194. 

See Legat. in Caium, (p. 1014, C. D.,) where Philo speaks of Transti- 
berine Home as imrr^o/i/wji' kuI o'tKovftiviiv 7rp6$ '\uviuiuv, 1 and then adds, 
'Vuiftaloi &' ?idav (j't itXiiovs iniXtvOipuOlvrtf .* 

Note LXXII., p. 194. 

Annal. ii. 85 : " The question of banishing the sacred rites of the 
Egyptians and of the Jews was also determined ; a decree was made by 

1 Occupied and inhabited by Jews. 

* But the greater part of them were Roman freedmen. 

40G NOTES. Lect. VIL 

the fathers, that four thousand of the class offreedmen, who were tainted 
with that superstition those being selected who were of suitable age 
should be transported to the island of Sardinia." 

Note LXXIIL, p. 195. 

For the tumultuous spirit of the foreign Jews, see Sueton. vit. Claud. 
p. 25 ; Dio Cassius, lx. 6 ; Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 8, 1 ; 9, 9 ; xx. 
1, 1; &c. 

Note LXXIV., p. 196. 

Annal. xv. 44. Tiberius reigned (as sole emperor) 23 years. (Suet. 
vit. Tib. 73.) His principatus, however, may date from three years 
earlier, when he was associated by Augustus. (Tacit. Ann. i. 3 ; Suet. 
vit. Tib. 21.) 

Note LXXV., p. 196. 

If our Lord was born in the year of Rome 747, (see above, Lecture 
VI., Note I.) he would have been three years old at Herod's death ; 
and 32 years old when he commenced his ministry, in the fifteenth year 
from the associated principate of Tiberius. This is not incompatible 
with St. Luke's declaration, that he was about thirty years of age (ii 
frwv tpi6kovto) when he began to preach ; for that expression admits of 
some latitude. (See Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. pp. 323 and 327.) 

Note LXXVL, p. 196. 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xiv. 7, 3 ; xvii. 8, 1 ; Nic. Damasc. Fr. 5. 

Note LXXVH., p. 196. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 6, 7 ; Tacit. Hist. v. 9. "The victorious 
Augustus enlarged the kingdom given to Herod by Antony." 

Note LXXVIIL, p. 196. 

See Lardner's Credibility, vol. i. pp. 148-151 ; and compare Joseph. 
Be Bell. Jud. i. 27, 1 ; 29, 2 ; 33, 8 ; Appian. De Bell. Civ. v. p. 


Note LXXIX., p. 196. 

The cruelties, deceptions, and suspicions of Herod the Great, fill 
many chapters in Josephus. {Ant. Jud. xv. 1, 3, 6, 7, &c. ; xvi. 4, S, 
10 ; xvii. 3, 6, 7, &c.) His character is thus summed up by that writer : 
" He was a man cruel to all alike, yielding to the impulses of pas- 
sion, but regardless of the claims of justice ; and yet no one was ever 
favored with a more propitious fortune." {Ant. Jud. xvii. 8, I.) His 
arrest of the chief men throughout his dominion, and design that on 
his own demise they should all be executed, (ibid. G, o ; Bell. Jud. i. 
33, 6,) shows a bloodier temper than even the massacre of the Inno- 

Note LXXX., p. 197. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, 34 ; vol. i. p. 222, E. T. 

Note LXXXL, p. 197. 

Strauss grants the massacre to be " not inconsistent with the disposi- 
tion of the aged tyrant to the extent that Schleiermacher supposed," 
(Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. p. 228, E. T .,) but objects, that " neither Josephus, 
who is very minute in his account of Herod, nor the rabbins, who 
were assiduous in blackening his memory, give the slightest hint of this 
decree." (1. s. c.) He omits to observe, that they could scarcely nar- 
rate the circumstance without some mention of its reason the birth 
of the supposed Messiah a subject on which their prejudices neces- 
sarily kept them silent. 

Note LXXXII., p. 197. 

Macrob, Saturnal. ii. 4 : " When Augustus had heard, that among the 
children under tiro years of age. whom Herod, the king of the Jews, had 
commanded to be slain in Syria, there was also one of the king's own 
sons, he said it was better to be the sow,' than the son of Herod." 
Strauss contends, that "the passage loses all credit by confounding the 
execution of Antipater, who had gray hairs, with the murder of the 

1 There is in tbe original a play upon the similarity of the Greek words for "ho;;" 
and "sou," which is partly, at hast, preserved in translation by taking license to sul sti- 
tute the feminine for the masculine in this word. 


infants, renowned among the Christians ; " but Macrobius says nothing 
of Antipater, and evidently does not refer to any of the known sons of 
Herod. He believes that among the children massacred was an infant 
son of the Jewish king. It is impossible to say whether he was right 
or wrong in this belief. It may have simply originated in the fact that 
i jealousy of a royal infant was known to have been the motive for the 
massacre. (See Olshausen, Biblsch. Comment, vol. i. p. 72, note ; p. 67, 
E. T.) 

Note LXXXIH., p. 197. 

Josephus says, " "When Ca?sar had heard these things he dissolved the 
assembly ; and a few days afterwards he appointed Archelaus, not in- 
deed king, but ethnarch of half the country which had been subject to 
Herod, . . . and the other half he divided, and gave it to two other 
sons of Herod, Philip and Antipas ; ... to the latter of whom he 
made Penea and Galilee subject, . . . while Batana>a with Trachonitis, 
and Auranitis with a certain part of what is called the House of Zeno- 
dorus, were subjected to Philip ; but the parts subject to Archelaus 
were Idumea and Judiea and Samaria." (Antiq. Jud. xvii. 11, 4.) 
Compare the brief notice of Tacitus : "The country which had been 
subdued, was governed, in three divisions, by the sons of Herod." 
(Hist. v. 9.) 

Note LXXXIV., p. 197. 

Strauss says, "Luke determines the date of John's appearance by 
various synchronisms, placing it in the time of Pilate's government in 
Juda-a ; in the sovereignty of Herod, (Antipas ;) of Philip and of Ly- 
sanias over the other divisions of Palestine ; in the high-priesthood of 
Annas and Caiaphas ; and moreover precisely in the loth year of the 
reign of Tiberius, which, reckoning from the death of Augustus, cor- 
responds with the year 28-29 of our era. With this last and closest 
demarcation of time all the foregoing less precise ernes agree. Even that 
uhich 7nakes Annas high-priest together with Caiaphas appears correct, if 
we consider the peculiar influence which that ex-high-priest retained." 
(Lebeii Jesu, $ 44 ; pp. 300, 301, E. T.) 

Note LXXXV., p. 197. 
Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 11, \. "But all vvho. were of the kindred 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 409 

of Archelaus refused to join themselves to him, on account of their 
hatred towards him." Compare 13, 2. 

Note LXXXVL, p. 197. 
Joseph. Be Bell. Jud. ii. 1, 3. 

Note LXXXVH., p. 198. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, 48 ; vol. i. p. 346, E. T. 

Note LXXXVIII., p. 198. 

Josephus says, " Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of 
Aretas, and had now lived with her a long time. But having made a 
journey to Rome, he lodged in the house of Herod, his brother, but not 
by the same mother. For this Herod was the son of the daughter of 
Simon, the high-priest. Now he fell in love with Herodias, this man's 
wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister 
of Agrippa the Great ; and he had the boldness to propose marriage. 
She accepted the proposal, and it was agreed that she should go to live 
with him, whenever he should return from Rome." (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, 
1.) And again: "Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod, the 
son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of 
Simon the high-priest, who had also a daughter Salome ; after the birth 
of whom, Herodias, in shameful violation of the customs of our nation, 
allowed herself to marry Herod, the brother of her former husband 
by the same father, separating from him while he was living. Now 
this man [whom she married] held the office of tetrarch of Galilee." 
(Ibid. J 4.) 

Note LXXXIX., p. 198. 

Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, $2: "Now some of the Jews thought that the 
army of Herod had been destroyed by God, in most righteous ven- 
geance for the punishment inflicted upon John, surnamed the Baptist. 
For lie taught the Jews to cultivate virtue, and to practice righteous- 
ness towards each other, and piety towards God, and so to come to 
baptism. For he declared that this dipping would be acceptable to 
Him, if they used it, not with reference to the renunciation of certain 


410 NOTES. Lect. VII. 

situ, but to the purification of the body, 1 the soul having been purified 
by righteousness. And when others thronged to him, (for they were 
profoundly moved at the hearing of his words,) Ilerod feared that his 
great influence over the men would lead them to some revolt, (for they 
seemed ready to do any tiling by his advice ;) he therefore thought it 
much better to anticipate the evil, by putting him to death, before he 
had attempted to make any innovation, than to allow himself to be 
brought into trouble, and then repent after some revolutionary move- 
ment had conmenced. And so John, in consequence of the suspicion oj 
lloxxl, teas sent as a prisoner to the af ore-mentioned castle of Macheerus, 
and was there put to death." The genuineness of this passage is admit- 
ted even by Strauss. {Leben Jesu, 48 ; vol. i. pp. 344-347, E. T.) 

Note XC, p. 198. 

Strauss, Leben Jesu, 1. s. c. The chief points of apparent difference 
are the motive of the imprisonment and the scene of the execution. 
Josephus makes fear of a popular insurrection, the Evangelists offence 
at a personal rebuke, the motive. But here (as Strauss observes) there 
is no contradiction, for "Antipas might well fear that John, by his 
strong censure of the marriage and the whole course of the tetrarch's 
life, might stir up the people into rebellion against him." Again, from 
the Gospels we naturally imagine the prison to be near Tiberias, where 
Herod Antipas ordinarily resided ; but Josephus says that prison was 
at Machaerus in Peraea, a day's journey from Tiberias. Here, however, 
an examination of the Gospels shows, that the place where Antipas 
made his feast and gave his promise is not mentioned. It only appears 
that it was near the prison. Now, as Herod was at this time engaged 
in a war with Arctas, the Arabian rrince, between whose kingdom and 
his own lay the fortress of Machierus, it is "a probable solution" of 
the difficulty, that he was residing with his court at Machaerus at this 
period. (Strauss, 48, ad fin.) 

Note XCL, p. 198. 

Philip is said to have retained his tetrarchy till the 20th year of Tibe- 

1 Dr. Burton acutely remarks on this expression, that it is a covert allusion to the 
Christian doctrine of "a baptism for the remission of sins," and shows the acquaintance 
of Josephus with the teuets of the Christians. (Eccles. Hist. vol. i. p. 199.) 


rius. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 5, 6.) Herod Antipas lost his government in 
the first of Caligula. (Ibid. ch. 7.) 

Note XCIL, p. 198. 

Ant. Jud. xvii. 12 ; xviii. 1 ; Be Bell. Jud. ii. 8, 1. " Now, when the 
territory of Archelaus was formed into a province, a certain procurator, 
of equestrian rank among the Romans, Coponius by name, was sent to 
govern it, receiving from Ca\sar the power of life and death." The 
procurators for this period, mentioned by Josephus, are Coponius, M. 
Ambivius, Annius Rufus, Valerius Gratus, and Pontius Pilate. (Ant. 
Jud. xviii. 2, 2.) 

Note XCHL, p. 198. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 6, 10, 11 ; 8, 7 ; xix. 5, 1 ; Philo, In 
Flacc, p. 968, D. E. 

Note XCIV., p. 198. 

Joseph. Ant. Jiul. xix. 8, 2 : " Now, after he had reigned three full 
years over the whole of Judsca, he was at the city of Casarca, which was 
formerly called Strato's Tower. And there he held public shows in 
honor of Caesar, having learned that a certain festival was celebrated at 
that time, to make vows for his safety. Now, at that festival there were 
assembled a multitude of those who were first in office and authority in 
the province. On the second day of the shoics, putting on a robe made 
entirely of siker, the texture of which was truly wonderful, he came 
into the theatre early in the morning. When the first beams of the sun 
shone upon the silver, it glittered in a wonderful manner, flashing forth 
a brilliancy which amazed and awed those who gazed upon him. 
"Whereupon his flatterers immediately cried out, (though not for his 
good,) one from one place and one from another, addressing him as a. 
god, ' Be propitious to us ; ' and adding, ' Although we have here- 
tofore feared thee as a man, yet henceforth we acknowledge thee to be 
of more than mortal nature.' The king did not rebuke them, nor reject 
their impious flattery. A little after, therefore, looking up, he saw an 
owl sitting upon a certain rope over his head ; and he immediately un- 
derstood that it was a messenger of evil, as it had formerly been of 
good ; whereupon he was overcome with a profound sadness. There 


was also a severe pain in his bowels, which began with a sudden vio- 
lence. Turning therefore to his friends, he said, ' I, your god, am 
now commanded to end my life ; and fate immediately reproves the false 
shouts that were just now addressed to me : and so I, whom you call 
immortal, am now snatched away by death. But we must accept the 
fate which God ordains. And indeed we have not lived ill, but in the 
most brilliant good fortune.' When he had said this, he was overcome 
by the intensity of the pain. He was therefore quickly carried to the 
palace, and the report went abroad to all, that he must inevitably soon 
die. . . . Being consumed thus for five days in succession with the pain 
in his belly, he departed this life." 

Note XCV., p. 199. 

Ibid. xix. 9, 2 : " [Claudius] therefore sent Cuspius Fadus as i 
procurator over Judaea, and all the kingdom." 

Note XCVI., p. 199. 

Ibid. xx. 5, 2 ; 7, 1 ; and 8, { 4. Agrippa II. bore the title of 
king. (De Bell. Jud. ii. 12, 8.) 

Note XCVII., p. 199. 

Antiq. Jud. xix. 9, 1 ; xx. 7, 3. The evil reports which arose 
from this constant companionship are noticed by Josephus in the latter 
of these passages. They are glanced at in the well-known passage of 
Juvenal, (Sat. vi. 155-169.) "That well-known diamond, made even 
more precious by being worn on the finger of Berenice. This jewel the 
barbarian formerly gave to that unchaste woman, and Agrippa gave it 
to his sister, in that country where kings keep the Sabbath festival with 
naked feet, and an ancient indulgence allows the old men to eat pork." 
Compare Tacit. Hist. ii. 2 and 81. 

Note XCVIII., p. 199. 

Joseph. Ant. Jud. xx. 8, 8 ; 9, 7 : " The king had been intrusted 
by Claudius Ca?sar with the care of the temple." In one passage {Ant. 
Jud. xx. 1, 3) Josephus says that these privileges continued to be 


exercised by the descendants of Herod, king of Chalcis, from his de- 
cease to the end of the war. But he here uses the term "descendants" 
very loosely ; or he forgets that Agrippa II. was the nephew, and not 
the son, of this monarch. (See the note of Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. 
p. 18, note 8.) 

Note XCIX., p. 199. 

The procuratorship of Pilate lasted from the 12 th year of Tiberius 
(A. I). 26) to the 22d, (A. D. 36.) See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, 2, 
and 4, 2. Felix entered upon his office as sole procurator in the 12th 
year of Claudius, (A. D. 53,) and was succeeded by Porcius Festus 
early in the reign of Nero. (Ant. Jud. xx. 7, 1 ; and 8, 9.) 

Note C, p. 199. 

The vacillation and timidity of Pilate appear in his attempt to estab- 
lish the images of Tiberius in Jerusalem, followed almost immediately 
by their withdrawal. (Ant. Jud. xviii. 3, 1.) His violence is shown 
in his conduct towards the Jews who opposed his application of the 
temple-money to the construction of an aqueduct at Jerusalem, (ibid. 
$ 2,) as well as in his treatment of the Samaritans on the occasion 
which led to his removal. (Ibid. 4, 1.) Agrippa the elder speaks of 
the iniquity of his government in the strongest terms, (ap. Philon. Ijeg. 
ad Caium, p. 10S4 : "he feared lest they should examine and expose 
the misdeeds of his former procuratorship, the taking of bribes, the acts 
of violence, the extortions, the tortures, the menaces, the repeated mur- 
ders without any form of trial, the harsh and incessant cruelty.") 

Note CI., p. 199. 

Tacitus says of Felix, " Antonius Felix exercised the royal author- 
ity in a manner agreeable to the baseness of his disposition, with all 
cruelty and wantonness." (Hist. v. 9.) And again : "But his father, 
whose surname was Felix, did not conduct himself with the same mod- 
eration. Having been a long time governor of Judiea, he thought lie 
could commit all crimes with impunity, relying upon his great power." 
(Ann. xii. 54.) 

Josephus gives a similar account of his government. (Ant. Jud. 
xx. 8.) After he quitted office he was accused to the emperor, and 



only escaped a severe sentence by the influence which his brother Pallas 
possessed with Nero. 

Note CIL, p. 199. 

See Ant. Jud. xx. 8, { 10, 11 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 14, 1. In the latter 
passage Josephus says, " Now Festus, having succeeded this man in 
the office of procurator, relieved the country of its greatest scourge. 
For he captured a large number of the robbers, and destroyed not a 
few. But Albinus, who succeeded Festus, did not govern after the 
same manner. For it is not possible to mention any form of evil-doing 
which he omitted to practise." 

Note CIIL, p. 199. 
See above, Notes C. and CI. 

Note CIV., p. 199. 

Here the accuracy of St. Luke is very remarkable. Achaia, though 
originally a senatorial province, (Dio Cass. liii. p. 503, E.,). had been 
taken into his own keeping by Tiberius, (Tacit. Ann. i. 76,) and had 
continued under legates during the whole of his reign. Claudius, 
-however, in his fourth year restored the province to the senate, (Suet. 
vit. Claud. 35,) from which time it was governed by proconsuls. St. 
Paul's visit to Corinth fell about two years after this change. 

Note CV., p. 199. 

Seneca says of Gallio, " I used to say to you, that my brother 
Gallio, (whom every body loves as much as I do, although no one can love 
him more,) while he was free from all other vices, had a special hatred 
to this." And again: "No other mortal is so dear to any one, as he 
is to all." (Quasi. Nat. iv. Pracfat.) Statius uses the same epithet, 
(Sy/v. ii. 7, 11. 32, 33:) "This is more than to have given Seneca 
to the world, or to have been the parent of dear Gallio." 

Note CVL, p. 200. 

See Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 12, 5 ; xviii. 1, 1. " Moreover Cyre- 
nius came also into Judea, which had been annexed to Syria, to make a 

Lect. VII. NOTES. 415 

valuation of their property, and to dispose of the money of Areheltus. 
But the people, although at first they could hardly endure to hear of 
an enrolment, at length submitted," &c. The difficulty with respect 
to the time of the taxing will be considered in Note CX1X. 

Note CVII., p. 200. 

There was a Sergius Paulus who bore the office of consul in the year 
A. D. 94. Another held the same office in A. D. 168. This latter is 
probably the Sergius Paulus mentioned by Galen. (Anat, i. 1, vol. ii. 
p. 218 ; De Prcnwt. 2 ; vol. xiv. p. 612.) 

Note CVIII., p. 200. 

Cyprus was originally an imperial province, (Dio Cass. liii. p. 504, 
A.,) and therefore governed by legates or propraetors, (Strab. xiv. 6, 
6 ;) but Augustus after a while gave it up to the Senate, from which 
time its governors were proconsuls. (See Dio, liv. p. 523, B. "At 
that time therefore he gave up Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis to the 
people, as having no further need of his arms ; and so proconsuls began 
to be sent to those nations.") The title of proconsul appears on 
Cyprian coins, and has been found in a Cyprian Inscription of the 
reign of Claudius. (Boeckh, Corp. Inscript. No. 2632.) 

Note CIX., p. 200. 

Joseph. Ant. Jtid. xiv. 13, 3 ; De Bell. Jud. i. 13, 1 ; Dio Cass, 
xlix. p. 411, B. This Lysanias was the son of Ptolemy, son of Mcn- 
naeus, and setms to have been king of Chalcis and Itura\i, inheriting 
the former from his father, and receiving the latter from Mark Antony. 
See the passages above cited. 

Note CX., p. 200. 

Lysanias, the son of rtolemy, was put to death by Antony, at the 
instigation of Cleopatra, (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xv. 4, 1, certainly before 
the year of Rome 719, B. C. 35. (See Dio Cass. 1. s. c.) 

Note CXI., p. 200. 
So Strauss, Lcben Jest(, 44; vol. i. p. 302, E. T. 

416 NOTES. Lect. VIL 

Note CXIL, p. 200. 

Ibid. p. 301. We cannot indeed prove that, had a younger Lysa- 
nias existed, Josephus must have mentioned him," &c. 

Note CXIIL, p. 200. 

Strauss assumes, without an atom of proof, that Abila (or Abilene) 
was included in the kingdom of Lysanias, the contemporary of An- 
tony. It is never mentioned as a part of his territories. Indeed, as 
Dr. Lee has remarked,' it seems to be pointedly excluded from them. 
Agrippa the First received "the Abila of Lysanias" from Claudius, 
at the very time when he relinquished the kingdom of Chalcis, which 
formed the special territory of the old Lysanias. (Joseph. De Bell, 
Jud. ii. 12, 8 ; Ant. Jud. six. 5, 1.) Thus it would appear that 
Josephus really intends a different Lysanias from the son of Ptolemy in 
these two passages. Even, however, if this were not the case, his 
silence would be no proof that a second Lysanias had not held a 
tetrarchy in these parts at the time of John's ministry. That Abila 
formed once a tetrarchy by itself seems implied in the subjoined pas- 
sage from Pliny " Tetrarchies, each forming a sort of province, inter- 
sect these cities, and bind them together, and these again are united 
into kingdoms, as the tetrarchy of Trachonitis, of Paneas, of Abila," 
&c. (11. N. v. 18, ad fin.) 

Note CXIV., p. 201. 
See above, Notes IV., LXXXIX., and XCIV. 

Note CXV., p. 201. 
Strauss, Leben Jesu, 32 ; vol. i. p. 301, E. T. 

Note CXVL, p. 201. 

See the Zeitschrift ftlr geschichtliche Rechticissenschaft, vol. vi., quoted 
by Olshausen in his Biblischer Commentar, (vol. i. p. 125 ; p. 116, E. T.) 
On the general question, see Alford's Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 315. 

1 See hi? Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Lecture VIII., p. 403, note*. I am indebted to 
my friend, Mr. Mansel, for my knowledge of this excellent work. 


Note CXVII., p. 201. 
Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, 1. See above, Note CVI. 

Note CXVIII.. p. 201. 
Strauss, Leben Jesn, 32, p. 204, E. T. 

Note CXIX., p. 202. 

The following explanations of Luke ii. 2, have been proposed : (1.) 
It has been proposed to take itpdri] ' with iizoypa^fi, 9 to regard Kup^w'ou 3 as 
a genitive dependent on dnoypaQt),* and f/yiiiovitovros* as equivalent to 
hyindvoi 6 or hyeov'toavTou 1 The passage is then translated, "This was 
the first assessment of Cyrenius, once governor of Syria." (See Lard- 
ner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 173-175.) 

(2.) Only slightly different from this is the view of Beza 8 and others, 
which takes " first " in the same way, but regards fjytfiovtiovroi Kup^w'ou 9 as 
a genitive absolute, and renders the verse, "This first assessment was 
made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria." Both these explana- 
tions suppose that Cyrenius made two assessments, one before he was 
actual President of Syria and one afterwards. The former regards 
Cyrenius as designated by his subsequent title ; the latter supposes that 
he may have been called " governor " when strictly speaking he was 
not so, but had a certain degree of authority. Two objections lie 
against both views. 1. The ordo verborum does not allow us to take 
"first" with "taxing." 2. No writer hints at Cyrenius having been 
twice employed to make a census in Palestine. 

(3.) A third explanation is, that rpiinj' is for wpor/pa," and that the 
genitive Kvpnviov 12 depends upon it, the construction used being analo- 
gous to that of St. John, in irp<ir<5< fiov f >, 13 (i. 15.) The meaning is, 
then, " This assessment was made before the time when Cyrenius was 
governor of Syria." (Lardncr, Credibilitij, vol. i. pp. 165-173 ; Alford, 
Greek Testament, vol. i. p. 314.) 

'First. * Taxing, or enrolment. * Cyrenius. 'Taxing. 

Governing, or lining goyernor. * Governor. 1 Having been governor. 
8 See Lanlner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 171. note d. 

Cyrenius governing, or when Cyrenius was governor. ,0 First. 
11 Former. n Of Cyrenius. " For he was before me. 

418 NOTES. Lect. VII. 

^4.) Finally, it is maintained that iyiviro* should be regarded as 
emphatic and that St. Luke means, as I have suggested in the text, 
that while the enrolment was begun a little before our Lord's birth, 
it was never fully executed until Cyrenius carried it through. Both this 
and the preceding explanation seem to be allowable they are compat- 
ible with the Hellenistic idiom, and do no violence to history. As 
Lardncr has shown, there is abundant reason to believe that an enrol- 
ment was actually set on foot shortly before the death of Herod. (See 
the Credibility, vol. i. pp. 151-159.) 

Note CXX., p. 202. 

See his Short View of the Harmony of the Evangelists, Prop. xi. pp. 

Note CXXL, p. 202. 

Connection of Sacred and Profane History, vol. ii. p. 505. 

Note CXXIL, p. 202. 

Ant. Jud. xviii. 1, 1. After speaking of Cyrenius as sent from 
Rome for the express purpose of effecting a census, Josephus adds, 
" Now Judas, a Gaulonite, of the city named Gamaia, taking as his 
accomplice the Pharisee Sadduc, rushed into rebellion, saying that the 
imposing of the tribute was nothing short of downright slavery, and 
summoning the people to a struggle for freedom." He then speaks of 
the success of Judas's efforts, and his formation of a sect, which Jo- 
sephus puts on a par with those of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and 
the Essenes. " Of the fourth of these sects of philosophy, Judas the 
GaliUtan became the leader." (Ibid. 6.) 

Note CXXHL, p. 202. 

De Bell. Jud. ii. 17, \ 8. The followers of Thcudas ' were scattered 
and brought to nought," (Acts v. 36,) but those of Judas the Galilseap 
" were dispersed." (Ibid, verse 37.) It is in exact accordance with 
this distinction that the latter reappear in the Jewish war, while of the 
former we hear nothing. See Dean Alford's note ad loc. 

Was made, or took place. 

LfcCT. VEL NOTES. 419 

Note CXXIV., p. 202. 
Antiq. Jud. xx. 5, 1. 

Note CXXV., p. 202. 

lb. xvi. 10, 4 : " But at this time Judaea was agitated by ten thou- 
sand other tunudts, and many from all quarters rushed to arms, either in 
the hope of their own advantage, or out of enmity to the Jews." 

Note CXXVI., p. 203. 

De Bell. Jud. ii. 13, 5 : " But the Egyptian false prophet brought 
upon the Jews a heavier woe than this. For this impostor came into 
the country, and persuaded the people that he was a prophet, and 
assembled about 30,000 misguided men. Leading them about from the 
wilderness to the mount called the Mount of Olives, he thought he 
would be able from that position to force an entrance into the city, and 
having overpowered the Roman garrison, to oppress the people, with 
the help of the soldiers that would break into the city with him. But 
Felix, meeting him with his Roman soldiers, anticipated his attack, and 
all the people joined him in his defensive operations ; so that when an 
engagement took place, the Egyptian fled with a small company, and 
the greater part of those who were with him were either destroyed or 
captured. But the rest of the multitude were dispersed, and each 
sought his own home as secretly as possible." Compare Antiq. Jud. 
xx. 8, $ 6. 

Note CXXVII., p. 203. 

In the parallel passage of the Antiquities, (1. s. c.,) Josephus says 
that Felix slew 400 and captured 200 of the Egyptian's followers. If 
he had really estimated their whole number at 30,000, he would scarcely 
have said, that " very many (zhiaroi) were killed or taken prisoners," 
when the loss in both ways was no more than 600 men. It has been 
sagaciously conjectured that the reading rpiaftvpior^ should be replaced 
by TirpaKia-^iXlovf, 2 having arisen from the ready confusion of,.* 3 with i, 4 
or ,A 3 with ,&.* (Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 227.) 

1 80,000. ' 4,000. > The Creek letter which stands for 30,000. 

* The Greek letter which stands for J,0(X>. 

420 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 

Note CXXVIIL, p. 203. 

Ant. Jud. xx. 2, 6. Compare Dio Cassius, lx. pp. 671, 672 ; Tacit 
Ann. xii. 43 ; Sueton. vit. Claud. 18. Eusebius mentions a famine 
in Greece during the same reign. {Chronica, pars. ii. p. 373, Ed. Mai.) 
Josephus calls the famine in Judaea, to which he refers, " the great 
famine." {Ant. Jud. xx. 5, 2.) 

Note CXXIX., p. 204. 
Alford, Greek Testament, vol. ii. p. 53. 

Note CXXX., p. 204. 

See an article " on the Bible and Josephus," in the Journal of Sacred 
Literature for October, 1850. 

Note CXXXI., p. 205. 

S. Ambrose, Comment, in Psalm, cxviii. 37. {Opera, vol. i. p. 

Note CXXXIL, p. 205. 

Ibid. Explic. Luc. x. 171. {Opera, vol. i. p. 1542.) 

Note CXXXIII., p. 205. 
Irenaeus, Advers. Hceres. iii. 1. {Opera, vol. ii. p. 6.) 


Note I., p. 207. 

Of all our writers on the Evidences, Lardner is the only one who 
appears to be at all duly impressed with a feeling of the value of Chris- 
tian witnesses. He devotes nearly two volumes to the accumulation of 
their testimonies. (See his Credibility, vols. i. ii. and iii.) Paley does 

Lect. VIII. NOTES. 421 

not make any use of Christian writers to prove the facts of Christianity ; 
he only cites them as witnesses to the early existence and repute of our 
Historical Scriptures. Butler in a general way refers to the evidence 
of the "first converts," (Analogy, part ii. ch. 7, p. 291 ;) but omits to 
"enlarge on the point. And this is the general spirit of our Apologists. 

Note II., p. 207. 

So Celsus, (ap. Origen. Contr. Cels. iii. 44.) Strauss endeavors to 
diminish the authority of the Apostles, and first preachers of Chris- 
tianity, by contrasting the darkness of Galilee and Judaea with the 
enlightenment of "highly civilized Greece and Rome." (Leben Jesu, 
13, sub fin. ; vol. i. p. 64, E. T.) 

Note III., p. 208. 

Stromata, ii. pp. 464, 489, 490 ; v. p. 677 ; vi. p. 770. Clement 
believes the writer to be the companion of St. Paul. (See Strom, ii. 
p. 489 : "I have no need to multiply words, for I have the testimony 
of the Apostolic Barnabas. Now he was one of the seventy, and was a 
co-worker with Paid." He then quotes from the extant Epistle.) 

Note IV., p. 208. 
Contra Celsum, i. 63 ; p. 378, B. ; De Princip. iii. 2, 4 ; p. 140, E. 

Note V., p. 208. 

Professor Norton assigns the Epistle of Barnabas to " the middle of 
the second century," (Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 347 ;) but on 
very insufficient evidence. Lardner gives A. D. 71 or 72 as the proba- 
ble date of its composition. (Credibility, vol. i. p. 285.) 

M. Bunsen, while rejecting the view that it was written by the com- 
panion of St. Paul, puts its composition "about 15 years before that of 
the Gospel of St. John," or some time before the close of the first 
century. (Hippolytus and his Aye, vol. i. p. 54.) 

The genuineness of the Epistle has been well defended by Dr, Lee, 
who thoroughly exposes the common fallacy, that, if the work of the 
Apostle, it must have formed a portion of Canonical Scripture. (See his 
Lectures on the Inspiration of Holy Scripture, Appendix E., pp. 472-477. J 


422 NOTES. Lect. VIIL 

Note VI., p. 209. 

See the subjoined passages "In fine, by teaching Israel, and per- 
forming such wonders and sig?is, and preaching, he showed his great love 
to Israel. But when he chose his own Apostles, to preach his gospel . . . 
then he showed himself to be the Son of God." ($ 5, p. 15.) "Now 
the servant? who perform this sprinkling, are they who preach to us the 
remission of sins, and the purification of the heart. For he gave them 
authority to proclaim the gospel ; and they are twelve in number, for a 
testimony to the tribes ; for the tribes of Israel are twelve." ( 8, p. 25.) 
" He himself wished to suffer thus . . . for he who prophesied of him said 
. . . ' Behold, I hare given my back to the scourges, and my checks to buf- 
fetings.'" ( 5, p. 1C.) "Then they shall see him in that day, having 
about his body the scarlet robe reaching down to the feet, and they shall 
Fay, Is not this he whom we set at nought, and cmcified, and pierced, 
and mocked?' " ( 7, p. 24.) " The Son of God suffered, that his wound 
might give us life ; . . . moreover, when he was crucified, they gave him 
vinegar and gall to drink." ( 7, pp. 20, 21.) " And again Moses made 
a type of Jesus, [showing] that it was necessary that he, whom they 
believed to have perished, should suffer, and should so become the author 
of life." ( 12, p. 39.) " What then does the prophet say? 'The as- 
sembly of the wicked encompassed me ; they surrounded me, as bees 
around the comb ; and they cast lots upon my raiment.' Thus were 
foreshown the sufferings of him who was about to be manifested and to 
suffer." ( 6, p. 18.) " Wherefore we spend the eighth day in gladness, 
on which also Jesus rose from the dead ; and when he had shown him- 
self, he ascended to heaven." ( 15, p. 48.) 

Note VII., p. 209. 

Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. p. 289, et seqq : Burton, Eccles. History, 
vol. i. pp. 342, 343 ; Norton, Genuineness, &c, vol. i. pp. 336-338 ; 
Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 44-47 ; Jacobson, Prcefat. ad S. Clem. 
Ep. p. x.-xvii., prefixed to his Patres Apostolici. 

Note VIII., p. 209. 

The following are the passages to which reference is made in the 
text: " From him (i. e. Jacob) came the Lord Jesus Christ, as to his 

Lect. VIIL notes. 423 

flesh." ( 32, p. 114.) "The sceptre of the majesty of God; our Lord 
Jesus Christ came not with noisy boasting and pride, although lie could 
have done so, but with humility." ( 16, pp. 60, 62.) " His sufferings 
were before our eyes." ({ 2, p. 12.) " Especially when we remember the 
words of the Lord Jesus, which he spake, teaching gentleness and long- 
suffering. For thus he spake : ' Be merciful, that ye may receive 
mercy ; forgive, that ye may be forgiven ; as ye do, so shall it be done 
to you ; as ye give, so shall it be given to you ; as ye judge, so shall ye 
be judged ; as ye show kindness, so shall kindness be shown to you ; 
with what measure ye measure, with the same shall ye be measured.' " 
( 13, p. 52.) "Let us look to the blood of Christ, and let us observe 
how precious to Gnd is his blood, which was shed for our salvation." 
( 7, p. 34.) " For the love which he had to us, our Lord Jesus Christ 
gave his blood for us, according to the will of God, and his flesh for 
our flesh, and his soul for our souls." ( 49, p. 178.) "That there should 
be a future resurrection, of which he made our Lord Jesus Christ the 
first-fruits, by raising him from the dead." ( 24, p. 98.) " Now Christ 
was sent by God, and the Apostles by Christ." ( 42, p. 148.) " With the 
full assurance of the Holy Spirit, the Apostles went forth, preaching that 
the kingdom of God was about to come. Preaching thus through many 
countries and cities, from the first fruits of their labors, after having 
proved them by the Spirit, they appointed bishops and deacons." (ibid. pp. 
148, 150.) "Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and inost just 
pillars were persecuted, and came to a violent end. Let us set before 
our eyes the good apostles. Peter, through an unrighteous envy, suf- 
fered, not one, nor two, but many troubles, and so becoming a martyr at 
last, he went to the fitting place of glory. Through envy also Paid 
won the reward of patience, seven times wearing bonds, being compelled 
to fee, being stoned, becoming a preacher to the East and to the West; and 
he gained a noble renown by his faith, having taught righteousness to 
the whole world ; and having penetrated to the farthest west, he suffered 
martyrdom under the emperors," &c. ({ 5, pp. 24, 28.) 

Notk IX., p. 209. 

Ep. ad Cor. 47, p. 168 : " Take up the Epistle of the blessed 
Apostle Paul. "What did he write to you first, in the very beginning 
of the gospel. Truly he gave you a spiritual charge concerning him- 

424 notes. Lect. MIL 

self, and Cephas, and Apollos ; for even then ye were given to par- 
tialities." Comp. 1 Cor. i. 10-12. 

Note X., p. 210. 

See Burton's Ecclesiastical History of the First Three Centuries, vol. i. 
pp. 197 and 357. 

Note XI., p. 210. 

Ibid. vol. ii. p. 23. Compare Pearson's Disputatio de Anno quo S. 
Ignatius a Trajano Antiochiee ad Bestias erat condemnatus, (printed in Dr. 
Jacobson's Patres Apostolici.) vol. ii. pp. 524-529. Pearson places the 
Martyrdom in A. D. 116 ; M. Bunsen in A. D. 115. {Hippolytus and 
his Age, vol. i. p. 89.) 

Note XII., p. 210. 

Two of these Epistles are addressed to St. John, and the third to the 
Virgin Mary. They exist in several MSS., and were printed at Paris 
as early as A. Ti. 1495. Burton says of them, "Two Epistles to St. 
John and one to the Virgin Mary, which only exist in Latin, do not 
deserve even to be mentioned." (Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 29, note.) So 
far as I know, they are not now defended by any one. 

Note XIII., p. 210. 

Lardner, Credibility, vol. i. pp. 314, 315 ; Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. 
ii. pp. 29, 30 ; Schrockh, Christl. Kirch. Geschichte, vol. ii. p. 341, et 
seqq. ; Neander, Geschichte der Christl. Religion, vol. ii. p. 1140; Kiste 
in Illgen's Zeitschrift filr historische Theologie, II. ii. pp. 47-90 ; Jacob- 
son, Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 262-470 ; Hefele, Patrum Apostolico- 
rum Operc, 3d edition, Prolegomena, p. lviii. 

Note XIV., p. 210. 

Euseb. Hist. Eccle.t. iii. 36 ; Hieronym. De Viris Illustr. c. xvi., (Op. 
vol. ii. p. 841, ed. Vallars.) The brief account given m the text of a 
very complicated matter, requires a few words of elucidation, and per- 
haps, to some extent, of correction. The twelve Epistles in their 
longer form exist both in Greek and in an ancient Latin version. 
Eleven Epistles out of the twelve are found in a second Latin version, 

Lect. VIII. NOTES. 425 

likewise ancient, which presents numerous important variations from 
the other, and is in general considerably shorter. Of these eleven Epis- 
tles, the first seven, and a fragment of the eighth, were found in Greek 
in the famous Medicean manuscript, which evidently gave the original 
text of the shorter Latin translation. The seven (complete) Epistles of 
the Medicean MS. are nearly, but not quite, identical with the seven 
Epistles mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. They consist, that is, of 
six out of the seven (viz., the Epistles to the Ephesians, Magnesians, 
Trallians, Philadelphians, Smyrnseans, and Polycarp,) together with a 
letter to a Christian woman, Maria Cassobolita ; and there is also in 
the MS. a fragment of the Epistle to the Tarsians. The Epistle to the 
Romans, which is placed at the end of the shorter Latin recension, is 
not in the Medicean MS. ; but this is explained by the fact that that 
MS. is a fragment. As it observes the exact order of the shorter Latin 
version, and seems to be the text oidy somewhat corrupt from 
which that version was made, we may conclude, that it contained ori- 
ginally the same eleven letters. Thus we cannot base any argument on 
the identity of the Eusebian and Medicean Epistles. It is not an exact 
identity ; and the approach to identity is perhaps an accident- 

Note XV., p. 210. 

See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, Introduction, pp. xxxiv.- 
lxxxvii. ; Bunsen, Hippolytus and his Age, vol. i. pp. 98-103. 

Note XVI., p. 211. 

Sec Dr. Jacobson's Preface to the third edition of his Patres Apos- 
tolici, p. liv. ; Hefele's Prolegomena, 1. s. c. ; Professor Hussey's Univer- 
fity Sermons, Preface, pp. xiii.-xxxix. ; Vhlhorn in Niedner's Zeitschrifl 
fUr historische Theologie, xv. p. 247, et seqq., and ('anon Wordsworth in 
the English Review, No. viii. p. 309, et seqq. The shorter Greek Recen- 
sion is also regarded as genuine by the present Regius Professor of He- 
brew in the University of Oxford. 

Note XVII., p. 211. 

The subjoined are the most important of the Ignatian testimonies to 
the facts of Christianity: "Come together in one faith, even in Jesus 


426 NOTES. Lect. VIIL 

Christ, who was of the family of David according to the flesh, the Son 
of man and Son of God." (Ep. ad Eph. xx. p. 302.) " For Jesus Christ 
our God was born of Mary, according to the appointment of God, of the 
seed of David, but by the Holy Spirit. He was born, and teas baptized," 
&c. &c. (Ibid, xviii. pp. 296-298.) "Three notable mysteries were kept 
secret from the prince of this world, the virginity of Mary, and the 
birth and death of the Lord." (Ibid. xix. p. 298.) " How then was he 
manifested to the ages? A star shone in heaven, brighter than all the 
other stars, and its lustre was indescribable, and the novelty of its ap- 
pearance caused great wonder." (Ibid. xix. p. 300.) " Our Lord . . . 
was truly born of a virgin, baptized by John, that all righteousness might 
be fulfilled by him, and was truly nailed to the cross in the flesh for us, 
under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch." (Ep. ad Smyrn. i. p. 410.) 
"We love the prophets also, because they too announced gospel tidings, 
and hoped in him, and waited for him ; in whom also they believed, 
and were saved in the unity of Jesus Christ, being holy men, and 
worthy of love and admiration, to whom also Jesus Christ bore testimony." 
(Ep. ad Philadelph. v. pp. 394-396.) " On this account the Lord received 
the ointment upon his head, that he might breathe upon his church the 
odor of immortality." (Ep. ad Ephes. xvii. p. 296.) " He suffered truly, 
as he also truly raised himself from the dead." (Ep. ad Smyrn. ii. p. 418.) 
" We no longer keep the Sabbath, but we live a new life on the Lord's 
day, on which also our life arose with him." (Ep. ad Magnes. ix. p. 324.) 
"The prophets looked for him us their teacher : and therefore he whom 
they justly expected, when he came, raised them from the dead." (Ibid. 
1. s. c.) "For I saw him in the flesh even after his resurrection, and 
I believe that he still exists. And when he came to Peter and his com- 
panions, he said to them, ' Take, and handle me, and see that I am not a 
bodiless spirit.' And immediately they touched him, and believed." 
(Ep. ad Smyrn. iii. p. 420.) "Now after his resurrection he ate with 
them and drank with them, as one in the flesh." (Ibid. 1. s. c.) " Sub- 
mit yourselves to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the 
Father, in his human nature, and as the Apostles to Christ and to the 
Father and to the Spirit." (Ep. ad Magnes. xiii. p. 328.) " It is neces- 
sary therefore to submit to the company of presbyters, as to the Apos- 
tles." (Ep. ad Trail, ii. p. 334.) " Not as Peter and Paul do I command 
you : they were Apostles, I am a man under sentence." (Ep. ad Rom. 
iv. p. 368.) 


Note XVIII., p. 211. 

See Dr. Cureton's Corpus Ignatianum, pp. 227-231 ; and M. Bunseris 
Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 92-98. 

Note XIX., p. 212. 

See Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, vol. ii. pp. 484-512. This work is 
admitted to be genuine, even by M. Bunsen. {Hippolytus, vol. i. pp. 

Note XX., p. 212. 

See especially the following passages : " Servants . . . walking ac- 
cording to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all." ( 5, p. 
494.) " We remember also what the Lord said in his teaching, ' Judge 
not, that ye be not judged .- forgive and it shall be forgiven you : be merciful, 
and ye shall receive mercy : with what measure ye measure, it shall be 
measured back to you : ' and, ' blessed are the poor, and they who are 
persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of God.' " 
( 2, pp. 488-490.) " Christ Jesus, who bore our sins in his men body 
on the tree ; who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; but 
he endured all for us, that we might live through him." ($ 8, p. 502.) 
" Whosoever shall not confess the testimony of the cross, is of the 
devil." ({ 7, p. 500.) ' Our Lord Jesus Christ, who endured to be 
brought even to death for our sins ; whom God raised, loosing the pains 
of Hades." ($ 1, p. 486.) " We believe in Him who raised our Lord 
Jesus Christ from the dead, and gave him glory, and a throne at his right 
hand." ($2, p. 48G.) "Whom (i. e. the Lord) if we shall please in 
this present world, we shall receive also the future world, as he promised 
us, that he would raise us from the dead." (5, p. 496.) "I beseech 
you all therefore ... to exercise all patience, which also ye see exempli- 
fied before your eyes, not only in the blessed Ignatius, Zosimus, and 
Rufus, but also in others among you, and in Paul himself, and the rest 
of the Apostles. For ye may be assured that none of these ran in vain, 
but that they are all in the place that is fitting for them, with the Lord, 
for whom also they suffered." ( 9, pp. 502-504.) " The blessed and 
illustrious Paul, who visited in person the men that then lived among 
you, and taught the word of truth in a correct and certain manner, 
and also, ichen he was absent, wrote you a letter," &c. (J 3, p. 490.) 


Note XXL, p. 212. 

See the Epistle of Irenscus to Florinus, preserved in Eusebius's Ec- 
clesiastical History, (v. 20; vol. i. pp. 359, 360:) "The lessons of 
childhood are incorporated with the mind, and grow with its growth, 
so that I can tell even the very place where the blessed Polycarp used 
to sit and discourse, and his going out and coming in, and the nature 
of his life, and the appearance of his person, and the discourses which 
he delivered to the multitude, and how he related his intercourse vrith 
John, and with the rest of those tcho had seen the Lord, and how he 
remembered their words, and what he had heard from them concerning 
the Lord, and concerning his miracles ; how Polycarp declared all 
these things in a manner agreeable to the Scriptures, as he had received 
them from those who were eye witnesses of the word of life." 

Note XXII., p. 212. 

Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 3 ; vol. i. p. 147 ; Hicronym. De Viris Illustr. 
x. p. 831, ed. Vallars. Compare Origen. ad Rom. xvi. 13. 

Note XXIIL, p. 212. 

See the " Canon" published by Muratori in his Antiquitates Italics 
Medii JEvi, 1 where the writer (Hegesippus ?) says, that -'the book of 
the Shepherd was written very lately, in our own times, by Hermas, 
while his brother Pius presided over the Roman Church as bishop." 
And compare Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. 104 ; Alford, Greek Testa- 
ment, vol. ii. p. 441 ; Bunsen, Hippolytus, vol. i. p. 184 ; and Norton, 
Genuiiwiess of the Gospels, vol. i. pp. 341, 342. 

Note XXIV., p. 212. 

Hermas mentions the mission of the Apostles " Such are they who 
believed the apostles, whom God sent into all the world to preach." (Past. 
iii. 9, 25, p. 122.) Their travels throughout the world "These 
twelve mountains which you see are twelve nations which occupy the 
whole earth. The Son of God therefore is preached among them, by 

1 Vol. iii. pp. 853, 854. 

Lect. VIII. NOTES. 420 

those whom he sent to them." (Ibid. 17, p. 120.) Their sufferings 
are indicated in the following passage : "I said to him, ' Sir, I wish to 
know what they have endured.' 'Hear, then,' he said ' wild beasts, 
scourges, prisons, crosses, for the sake of his name.' " (Ibid. i. 3, 2, 
p. 78.) 

Note XXV., p. 213. 
See Burton's Eccles. Hist., vol. ii. p. 73 and p. 496. 

Note XXVI., p. 213. 

Ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv. 3 ; vol. i. p. 230 : " Now the works of 
our Saviour were always conspicuous ; for they were real. They who 
were healed, and they who were raised from the dead, were seen not 
only when they were healed, and when they were raised, but they were 
always visible afterwards ; not only while the Saviour sojourned among 
us, but also after he departed, and for a long time, insomuch that some 
of them have reached even to our own times." 

Note XXVII., p. 213. 

Burton, Eccles. Hist. vol. ii. p. Ill ; Norton (Genuineness of the 
Gospels, vol. i. p. 126) says A. D. 150. So the Benedictine Editors. 
Bunsen and others date it eleven years earlier, A. D. 139. (See Hip- 
polytus and his Age, vol. i. p. 216. Compare Bishop Kayc, Account of 
the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, pp. 11, 12; who, however, 
declines to decide between the earlier and the later date.) 

Note XXVIIL, p. 213. 

Burton, E. II., vol. ii. pp. 128, 129. According to its title, the 
second Apology was addressed to the Senate only, (to the Senate of the 
Romans ;) but it contains expressions which imply that it was addressed 
to an emperor, and Eusebius tells us that it was actually offered to M. 

Note XXIX., p. 213. 

Kaye, Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, ch. i. p. 3. 

480 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 

Note XXX., p. 213. 

Paley, Evidences, part i. ch. vii. p. 75. Professor Norton remarks 
" From these works of Justin might be extracted a brief account of 
the life and doctrine of Christ, corresponding with that contained in 
the Gospels, and corresponding to such a degree, both in matter and 
words, that almost every quotation and reference may be readily as- 
signed to its proper place in one or other of the Gospels." 

Note XXXI., p. 215. 

The following are among the most important of Justin's testi- 
monies : 

1. " Now Joseph, who was espoused to Mary, wished at first to put 
away his betrothed, thinking that she had become pregnant by inter- 
course with a man, that is to say, by fornication. But he was com- 
manded in a dream not to put away his wife ; and the angel who 
appeared to him told him, that what she had conceived was by the 
Holy Ghost. Struck with awe, therefore, he did not put her away ; 
but when there was an enrolment in Judaea, which then took place for 
the first time under Cyrenius, he went up from Nazareth, where he 
dwelt, to Bethlehem, whence his family originated, in order to be 
enrolled ; for his family was of the tribe of Juda, which inhabited that 
part of the land. And he, together with Mary, was commanded to go 
forth into Egypt, and to be there with the child, until they should 
receive divine direction to return to Judaea. Now the child was born 
at that time in Bethlehem, and since Joseph had not any place to lodge 
in that village, he lodged in a certain cave, in the neighborhood of the 
village. Thus, then, it happened, while they were in that place, that 
Mary brought forth Christ, and put him in a manger; where the Magi 
from Arabia found him when they came; . . . and when the Magi 
from Arabia did not return to Herod, as he had requested them to do, 
but departed into their own country another way, as they were com- 
manded, and when Joseph, with Mary and the child, had already gone 
into Egypt, as they were divinely directed, Herod, not knowing the 
child which the Magi had come to worship, commanded the children in 
Bethlehem to be destroyed without distinction." (Dialog, cum Tryphon. 
k 78, p. 175.) 


2. "It was necessary that [the sacrifices] should cease, according to 
the will of the Father, at the coming of his Son Jesus Christ, who was 
born of a virgin of the race of Abraham, and the tribe of Judah, and 
the family of David." (Ibid. 43, p. 139.) 

3. " The power of God came upon and overshadowed the virgin, 
and caused her, though a virgin, to conceive ; and the angel of God, 
who was sent to this virgin at that time, announced to her glad tidings, 
saying, Behold, thou shaH conceive in thy womb by the Holy Ghost, 
and shalt bring forth a son, and he shall be called the Son of the Most 
High, and thou shalt call his name Jesus ; for he shall save his people 
from their sins." (Apolog. i. 13, p. 64.) 

4. " Then said Trypho, ' So you grant to us, that he was circumcised, 
and observed the other rites enjoined by Moses.' I answered, ' I have 
granted it, and I grant it now.' " {Dial, cum Tryphon. $ 67, p. 164.) 

5. "Now this king Herod inquired of the elders of your people, 
when the Magi from Arabia came to him, and said ' We have learned, 
from a star that has appeared in heaven, that a king has been born in 
your country, and we have come to worship him.' Then the elders 
said that it should take place in Bethlehem, because it is thus written 
in the prophet : And thou, Bethlehem,' &c. Now when the Magi from 
Arabia came to Bethlehem, and had worshipped the child, and offeree] 
him gifts, gold, and frankincense, and myrrh, inasmuch as by a revela-. 
tion from heaven . . . they were commanded not to return to. Herod," 
&c. (Ibid. 78, pp. 174, 17-5.) 

6. " And there (i. e. in Egypt) [Joseph and Mary] remained ir\ 
exile, until Herod, who slew the children in Bethlehem, had died, an<\ 
Archelaus had succeeded him." (Ibid. 103, p. 198.) 

7. " Now that the Christ, who was born, should be unknown tQ 
other men until he should be grown, as it actually happened, hear what 
was foretold on this point." (Apolog. i. 35, p. 65.) 

8. " Jesus, when he came to Jordan, was supposed to be the son of 
Joseph the carpenter, and was regarded as a carpenter, for he performed 
the works of a carpenter when he was among men, making ploughs, 
and yokes," &c. (Dial, cum Trijj>hon. 88, p. 186.) 

9. " And then, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John wnx 
baptizing, Jesus went down into the water, and a fire was kindled in the 
Jordan, and as he came up out of the water, his apostles have testified 
in writing, that the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove, lighted upon 
him." (Ibid. 88, pp. 185, 186.) 

432 NOTES. Lect. VIIT. 

10. "For while John was making his abode on the banks of the 
Jordan, and preaching the baptism of repentance, wearing only a leathern 
girdle and a garment of camel's hair, and eating nothing but locusts 
and wild honey, men suspected that he was the Christ. But he cried 
out to them, ' I am not the Christ, ' but the voice of one crying ; for 
he that is mightier than I will come, whose shoes I am not worthy to 
bear.' " (Ibid. 1. s. c. p. 186.) 

11. "Now when [Christ] became a man, the devil came to him, that 
is to say, that power which is called the Serpent and Satan, tempting 
him, and striving to cause him to fall, by demanding that he should 
worship him. But on the contrary he was himself destroyed and cast 
down, for Jesus proved him to be wicked, in demanding, contrary to 
the Scriptures, to be worshipped as God, whereas he was an apostate 
from the will of God. For he answered him, ' It is written, Thou shalt 
worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.' " (Ibid: 
125, p. 218.) 

12. " Now that it was foretold of our Christ that he should heal all 
diseases, and raise the dead, hear the words that were spoken. They 
were these : ' At his coming the lame shall leap as a hart, and the 
tongue of the stammerers shall speak plainly : the blind shall see, and 
the lepers shall be cleansed, and the dead shall be raised, and walk.' 
Now that he did these things, you can learn from the acts that were 
drawn up under Pontius Pilate." (Apolog. i. 48, p. 72.) 

13. " And from these things we know that Jesus had foreknowledge 
of what was to be after him, and also from many other things which he 
ioretold as about to occur to those who believed on him, and confessed 
him to be the Christ. For even what we suffer, in having all things 
taken from us by our kindred, this he foretold as about to come upon 
us, so that in no respect does there appear to be any failure in his 
word." (Dial, cum Tryphon. 35, p. 133.) 

14. "For Christ the Son of God, knowing by revelation from his 
Father, one of his disciples formerly called Simon, gave him the name 
of Peter." (Ibid. 100, p. 195.) 

15. "For his changing the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, . . . 
as well as his changing the names of two other brothers, who were sons 
of Zebedee, and whom he called ' Boanerges,' which means ' sons of 
thunder, was a significant intimation that he was the Messiah." (Ibid 
i 106, p. 201.) 

Lect. VIII. NOTES. 433 

16. "A certain foal of an ass was standing at the entrance of a vil- 
lage, tied to a vine. This he commanded nia friends to bring to him at 
that time ; and when it was brought he sat upon it, and came into Jeru- 
salem." (Apolog. i. 32, p. 63.) 

17. "The apostles, in the Memoirs composed by them, which are 
called Gospels, have reported to us that Jesus enjoined this upon them. 
Taking bread, he gave thanks, and said, ' This do in remembrance of 
me : this is my body ; ' and taking the cup likewise, he gave thanks, 
and said, ' This is my blood.' And he distributed these to them only." 
(Ibid. 66, p. 83.) 

18. " On the day on which he was about to be crucified, taking three 
of his disciples to the mount called the Mount of Olives, which lies near 
to the temple in Jerusalem, he prayed, saying, ' Father, if it be possible, 
let this cup pass from me.' And after this he said in his prayer, ' Not 
as I will, but as thou wilt.' " {Dial, cum Tryphon. 99, p. 194.) 

19. "The power of this same mighty word . . . had a suspension; 
. . . for he was silent, and did not wish to answer any one a word, 
when he was examined before Pontius THate." (Ibid. 102, p. 197.) 

20. "Now Herod succeeded Archelaus, and assumed the authority 
that was conferred upon him. To him rilate, in order to do him a 
favor, sent Jesus bound," &c. (Ibid. 103, p. 198 ; compare Apolog. 
i. 40, p. 67, C.) 

21. "Now Jesus Christ, when he was crucified by the Jews, had his 
hands extended, ... as said the prophet, . . . ' They pierced m/ 
hands and my fcet,' referring to the nails by which his hands and his 
feet were fastened to the cross. And after he was crucified, they cast 
lots upon his raiment." (Ibid. $ 35, p. 65 ; compare $ 38, p. 66.) 

22. "After he was crucified, and all his friends had forsaken and 
denied him, after that, having risen from the dead, and being seen by 
them, he taught them to study the prophecies, in which it was foretold 
that all these things should come to pa*s ; and when they had seen him 
ascend to heaven, and believed, and had received from thence the power 
which he sent upon them, they went to men of every race, and taught 
these things, and were called Apostles." (Ibid. $ 50, p. 73.) 

23. "And when he yielded up his spirit on the cross, he said, 
'Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit.'" {Dial, cum Tryphon. 
105, p. 300.) 


434 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 

24. " For the Lord remained upon the tree almost until the evening ; 
and towards evening they buried him : afterwards he arose, on the third 
day." (Ibid. 97, p. 193.) 

25. ' For there is no race of men whatever, whether barbarians or 
Greeks, or by whatsoever other name they may be called, whether liv- 
ing in wagons, or houseless wanderers, among whom there are not 
offered prayers and thanksgivings to the Father and Maker of all, 
through the name of the crucified Jesus." (Ibid. 117, p. 211.) 

Note XXXII., p. 215. 
See pages 204 and 205. 

Note XXXIII., p. 216. 

See especially Baur, in the Tubinger Zeitschrift filr Theohgie, 1836, 
fasc. iii. p. 199 ; 1838, fasc. iii. p. 119 ; and in a pamphlet Ueber den 
Crsprung des Episcopats, Tubingen, 1838, pp. 148-185. Also compare 
his work, Die Ignatianischen Briefen tmd ihr ncuester Kritiker, eine 
Streitschrift gegcn Hemn Bunsen, 8vo., Tobingen, 1848. Schwegler and 
others have followed in the same track. 

Note XXXIV., p. 216. 

I refer especially to the labors of Signor Marchi and Mons. Ferret 
the former in his Monument i delle AUe Cristiane Primitive nella Metropoli 
del Cristiancsimo, (lto, Rome, 1844,) the latter in his magnificent work, 
Lea Catacombes de Borne, (6 volumes folio, Paris, 1852-1857.) In our 
own country two useful little works have appeared on the subject Dr. 
Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, (London, 1847,) and Mr. Spencer 
Northcote's Boman Catacombs, (London, 1857.) An able Article in 
the Edinburgh Bevietc for January, 1859, (Art. iv.,) to which I must 
here express myself as under considerable obligations has made the 
general public familiar with the chief conclusions established by modern 

Note XXXV., p. 217. 

See Bishop Burnet's Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 1685 and 
1686, (llotteraam, 1687,) pp. 209-211. 

Lect. VIII. NOTES. 435 

Note XXXVI., p. 218. 
Spencer Northcote, Roman Catacombs, p. 4. 

Note XXXVII., p. 218. 
See Note IV. on Lecture VII., p. 383. 

Note XXXVIII., p. 218. 
Edinburgh Review No. 221, p. 106. 

Note XXXIX., p. 218. 

The grounds upon which Mr. Spencer Northcote bases his calcula- 
tion are these : 1. The incidental notices in the old missals and office 
books of the Roman church, and the descriptions given by ancient 
writers, mention no less than sixty different Catacombs on the different 
sides of Rome, bordering her fifteen great consular roads. Of these 
about one third have been reopened, but in only one case has there 
been any accurate measurement. Father Marchi has carefully meas- 
ured a portion of the Catacomb of St. Agnes, which he calculates at 
one-eighth of the entire cemetery, and has found the length of all its 
streets and passages to be about two English miles. This gives a 
length of 16 miles to the St. Agnes' Catacomb ; and as that is (appar- 
ently) an average one certainly smaller than some as well as larger 
than some the 60 Catacombs would contain above 900 (960) miles 
of streets. 2. The height of the passages varies in the Catacombs, and 
the layers of graves are sometimes more, sometimes less numerous, 
occasionally not above three or four, in places thirteen or fourteen. 
There are also interruptions to the regular succession of tombs from the 
occurrence of chapels, and monuments of some pretension, (arcosolia.) 
Allowing for these, it is suggested that we may take an average of ten 
graves, five on each side, to every seven feet of street ; and this calcula- 
tion it is, which, applied to the 900 miles of street, produces the result 
of nearly seven millions of graves. 

Note XL., p. 219. 

Perret, Catacomb*-* de Rome, vol. vi. p. 101, et scqq.; Spencer North- 
cote, Roman Catacombs, pp. 29, 30. For arguments to the contrary, see 
Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 142-151. 

436 NOTES. Lect. VIIL 

Note XLL, p. 219. 

Thus we find such inscriptions as the following : "In the time of 
the Emperor Adrian, the young man Marius, a general in the army, 
who lived long enough, since he sacrificed his life for Christ by a bloody 
death, rested at last in peace ; and was buried with merited tears and 
respect." (Maitland, p. 128.) And, " The wave of death has not dared 
to deprive Constans of the crown to which he was entitled by giving 
his life to the sword." (Ibid. p. 129.) And again, 


which may be thus explained 

OtjC Toipirjavv; Ta).Xt]t vvvCrjVf 
tjvyvXaTVf irpw <pt)fa cvfi tf>aftt]X- 
rja Tiiira qvrjtacvvr t)v iraxt 
TtoxpriXa avCijXXa <ptCrjT. 

Hie Gordianus, GaUim nxtnciiix, 

Jugulatus pro Jide, cumfamil- 

ia tota, quiescunt in pace. 

Theophila aiicillufecitJ (Perret, vol. vi. p. 152.) 

Note XLII., p. 219. 

The entire inscription runs as follows: " Alexander is not dead, 
but lives above the stars, and his body rests in this tomb. He ended 
his life under the Emperor Antoninus, who, when he saw himself much 
surpassed in conferring benefits, returned hatred for kindness. For 
when he was bending the knee to offer the sacrifice of prayer to the true 
God, he was led away to punishment. O what times ! " See Dr. 
Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 32, 33. 

Note XLIIL, p. 220. 
" Dormit," * " quiescit," 3 " depositus est," 4 are the terms used ; and 

1 Here Gordian. the courier from Gaul, strangled for the faith, with his whole family, 
rests in peace. The maidservant Theophila erected this. 
8 lie sleeps. 3 He rests. * He is laid away. 

Lect. VIII. notes. 437 

from the same idea burial-places are called by the name which has 
since become common in Christian lands, viz., Kotptir/ipia, " cemeteries" 
or " sleeping-places." See Marchi's Monumenti delle Arte Cristiani 
Primitive, &c, p. 63 ; Spencer Northcote, Catacombs, p. 162. " In 
pace" occurs, either at the beginning or at the end of an inscription, 
almost as a necessary formula. 

Note XLIV., p. 220. 

Northcote's Catacombs, p. 163. The contrast in this respect between 
Christian and Heathen monuments of the same date is very striking. 
See Maitland's Church in the Catacombs, pp. 42, 43. 

Note XLV., p. 220. 

Northcote's Catacombs, pp. 50-64. Compare M. Perret's splendid 
work, Les Catacombes de Rome, where these subjects are (almost with- 
out exception) represented. The subjoined are the most important ref- 
erences. Temptation of Eve, (vol. iv. PI. 31 ; v. PI. 12;) Moses strik- 
ing the Rock, (vol. i. PI. 34, 57 ; ii. PI. 22, 27, 33 ; iii. PI. 2, 6 ; iv. PI. 
28 ;) Noah welcoming the Dove, (vol. ii. PI. 53, 61 ; iv. PI. 25, &c. ;) 
Daniel among the Lions, (vol. ii. PI. 42, 61 ; iii. PI. 7, 36 ;) the Three 
Children, (vol. ii. PI. 36, 39 ; iii. 7 ;) Jonah under the Gourd (vol. i. 
PI. 67 ; vol. ii. PI. 22, 23, 39; vol. iii. PI. 2, 5, &c. ;) Jonah and the 
Whale, (vol. iii. 16, 22; vol. v. PI. 40, 57;) Adoration of the Magi, 
(vol. v. PI. 12 ;) Magi before Herod, (vol. ii. PI. 48 ;) Baptism of Christ 
by John, (vol. iii. PI. 52, 55 ;) Cure of the Paralytic, (vol. ii. PI. 34, 
48 ;) Turning of Water into Wine, (vol. iv. PI. 28, No. 67 ;) Feeding of 
the Five Thousand, (vol. i. PI. 27 ; iv. PI. 29, No. 73 ;) Raising of Laz- 
arus, (vol. i. PI. 26 ; vol. ii. PI. 61 ; vol. iii. PI. 7, 36; vol. iv. PI. 25, 
31, 32 ; vol. v. PI. 13, &c. ;) Last Supper, (vol. i. PI. 29 ;) Peter walk- 
ing on the Sea, (vol. iv. PI. 16, No. 85;) Pilate washing his Hands, 
(Maitland, p. 260.) To the historical subjects mentioned in the text 
may be added the following: The Nativity, (Perret, vol. iv. PI. 16, 
No. 84 ;) the Conversation with the Woman of Samaria, (ibid. vol. i. PI. 
81;) and the Crucifixion, (ibid. vol. i. PI. 10; vol. iv. PI. 33, No. 103.) 
The only unhistorical scenes represented, besides the parabolic ones, 
are Tobias and the Angel, (Perret, vol. iii. PI. 26,) and Orpheus charm' 
ing the Beasts, which is frequent. 


438 NOT E s . Lect. VIII. 

Note XL VI., p. 221. 

Tacit. Annul, ii. 39, 40 ; Suet. vit. Tib. 25 ; Dio Cass. lvii. p. 613, C. 
Tacitus indeed says, in speaking of the claim made by Clemens, " cred- 
ebatur Roma:;" but it was a faint belief, which Tiberius thought of 
allowing to die away of itself. And though his constitutional timidity 
prevented him from taking this course, he showed his sense of the nu- 
merical weakness of the dupes, by bringing Clemens to Rome, when he 
might have had him assassinated at Ostia. Nor did his execution cause 
any tumult, either at Rome or in the provinces. 

Note XL VII., p. 222. 
Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. p. 100. 

Note XLVIIL, p. 223. 

Martyr. Tgnat. 3, p. 542 : " The cities and churches of Asia received 
the saint, by their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons ; and they all 
crowded around him, that they might if possible obtain sortie portion of 
spiritual gifts," 

Note XLIX., p. 223. 

So Eusebius, who had the works of Papias before him, relates. Hist. 
Eccles. iii. 39, p. 224. " [Papias] relates that a dead man was raised in 
his time, and moreover that another wonderful thing occurred to Jus- 
tus, who was surnamed Barsabas, namely, that he drank a deadly poi- 
son, and suffered no unpleasant effects, on account of the grace of the 

Note L., p. 223. 

Dialog, cum Tryphon. 88, p. 185 : " Among us ako you may see 
both males and females possessing gifts from the Spirit of God." (Com- 
pare Apolog. ii. 6, p. 93.) "For many of our Christian people, exor- 
cising in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius 
Pilate, have cured, and are even now curing, many demoniacs in your 
own city and in all parts of the world, though these persons could not 
be cured by all other exorcists, and enchanters and sorcerers. But 


oun have overcome and driven out the demons that possessed these 
men.'' See also Tryphon. 39, p. 136 ; 76, p. 173, and 85, p. 182. 

Note LI., p. 223. 
Miltiades ap. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v. 17, pp. 351, 352. 

Note LIL, p. 223. 

Adversm Hareses, ii. 32, 4, (vol. i. pp. 374, 375 :) " On this account 
also his true disciples, receiving grace from him, perform miracles in his 
name for the benefit of men, as each of them has received the gift from 
him. For some truly and really expel demons ; . . . and others have 
foreknowledge of the future, and visions, and prophetic utterances. 
Others heal the sick and make them well, by the imposition of their 
hands. And even now, as we have said, the dead have also been 
raised, and have remained with us many years." And v. 6, (vol. ii. 
p. 334 :) "As also we have many brethren in the church having pro- 
phetic gifts, and speaking in all foreign tongues, and bringing to light 
the secrets of men, for a good purpose." 

Note LIII., p. 223. 

See Tertullian, Apolog. 23 ; Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. ii. 8, p. 254, 
C. D. ; Minucius Felix, Octav. p. 89. These passages affirm the con- 
tinuance of the power of casting out devils to the time of the writers. 
On the general question of the cessation of miracles, Burton's remark 
(. //., vol. ii. p. 233) seems just, that " their actual cessation was im- 
perceptible, and like the rays in a summer's evening, which, when the 
sun has set, may be seen to linger on the top of a mountain, though they 
have ceased to fall on the level country beneath." 

Note LIV., p. 224. 

The vast number of the Christians is strongly asserted by Tertullian, 
Apolog. 37 : "We are of yesterday, and yet we fill all your places, 
your cities, islands, castles, towns, courts, your very camps, your tribes, 
your decuria?, your palace, your senate, your markets. We have left 
you only your temples. What wars we might wage, and with what 
energy, even against superior forces, we who are so willing to be sluin. 

440 NOTES. Lect. VIII. 

if it was not a part of our discipline, that it is better to be killed than 
to kill ! We might also, unarmed and without making any rebellion, 
but only disagreeing with you, contend against you with the hostility 
of separation only. For if so great a multitude of men as we are should 
suddenly separate from you, and retire to some distant quarter of the 
earth, truly the loss of so many and such citizens would undermine 
your dominion : yes, it would even inflict upon you an absolute deso- 
lation. "Without doubt you would be dismayed at your solitude, at the 
general stillness, and the dulncss as if of a dead world. You would 
look about for some to command ; you would have more enemies left 
than citizens : but now you have few enemies, in comparison with the 
multitude of Christians." See also Justin Martyr, Dialog, cum Try- 
plum. 117, (pp. 210 211,) quoted in note 31, 25, p. 528 

Note LV., p. 227. 

The attempts of Strauss to prove variations in the story irrecon- 
cilable differences between the accounts of the different Evangelists 
appear to me to have failed signally. See above, Note XXXIII. on Lec- 
ture VI., p. 378. 

Note LVL, p. 228. 

Strauss himself admits this difference to a certain extent, {Leben Jem, 
Einleitung, 14; vol. i. p. 67, E. T.,) and grants that the Scripture 
miracles are favorably distinguished by it from the marvels of Indian 
or Grecian fables ; but he finds in the histories of Balaam, Joshua, (!) 
and Samson, a similar, though less glaring, impropriety. Certainly the 
speaking of the ass is a thing sui generis 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 treatment of 
the brute creation. 

Note LVII., p. 228. 

Strauss, Leben Jesxi, 144 ; vol. iii. p. 396, E. T. The entire passage 
has been given in Note XXVI. on Lecture I. 


On the Identification of the Bekhazzar of Daniel with Bil-shar-uzur son 
of Nabu-nahit. 

Since the foregoing sheets were in type, my attention has been called 
by an anonymous correspondent to a difficulty in the proposed identifi- 
cation of Belshazzar with Bil-shar-uzur, son of Nabu-nahit, arising 
from his probable age at the time of the siege of Babylon. If Nabu- 
nahit, (Nabonadius,) as suggested in the text, 1 married a daughter of 
Nebuchadnezzar after his accession to the throne, as he only reigned 
seventeen years in all, Bil-shar-uzur, supposing him the son of this wife, 
could have been no more than sixteen years of age when left to ad- 
minister affairs at Babylon. This, it is said, is too early an age for him 
to have taken the chief command, and to have given a great feast to 
" his princes, his wires, and his concubines." s The difficulty here started 
does not appear to me very great. In the East manhood is attained far 
earlier than in the West, 3 and husbands of fourteen or fifteen years of 
age are not uncommon. Important commands are also not unfrequently 
intrusted to princes of no greater age ; as may be seen by the instances 
of Herod the Great, who was made governor of Galilee by his father at 
fifteen ; 4 of Alexander Severus, who became Emperor of Home at 
seventeen ; * and of many others. There is thus nothing unusual in the 
possession of regal dignity, and an establishment of wives, on the part 
.of an Oriental prince in his sixteenth or seventeenth year. If Nabona- 
dius married a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar as soon as he came to the 
throne, and had a son born within the year, he may have associated him 

1 Vtige 171. a Dan. v. 2. 

> " He had now becomo a man," stays Mr. Layard of a young Bedouin, " for ho was 
about fourteen yearn old." (J\~inerek and Babylon, p. 2(5.) 
* Joeeph. Ant. Jud. xiv. '.>. ? '-'. 
Gibbon, Decline and Fall, ch. vi. vol. i. p. 182. 


442 NOTES. 

in the government when he was fourteen, which would have been in his 
own fifteenth year. This youth would then, in the seventeenth and last 
year of his father's reign, have entered on the third year of his own 
joint rule, as we find recorded of Belshazzar in Daniel. 1 

Another way of meeting the difficulty has been suggested. Nabona- 
dius, it is said, may have been married to a daughter of Nebuchadnez- 
zar before he obtained the crown. It is only an inference of Abydenus, 
and not a statement of Berosus, that he was entirely unconnected with 
Laborosoarchod. This is undoubtedly true. But the inference, which 
Abydenus drew from the text of Berosus, seems to me a legitimate one. 
Berosus, who has just noticed the relationship of Neriglissar to the son 
of Nebuchadnezzar, whom he supplanted, would scarcely have failed 
to notice that of Nabonadius to his grandson, if he had known of any 
relationship existing. At any rate he would not have called the new 
king, as he does, "a certain Nabonnedus of Babylon," (Xo(?ovf^ ml 
tu>* me Ba/iu/(iio{,) had he been the uncle of the preceding monarch. 

My attention has been further drawn to a very remarkable illustra- 
tion which the discovery of Belshazzar's position as joint ruler with his 
father furnishes to an expression twice repeated in Daniel's fifth chapter. 
The promise made 2 and performed 3 to Daniel is, that he shall be the 
" third ruler" in the kingdom. Formerly it was impossible to explain 
this, or to understand why he was not the second ruler, as he seems to 
have been under Nebuchadnezzar, 4 and as Joseph was in Egypt, 5 and 
Mordecai in Persia. 6 It now appears, that, as there were two kings at 
the time, Belshazzar, in elevating Daniel to the highest position tenable 
by a subject, could only make him the third personage in the Empire. 
This incidental confirmation of what was otherwise highly probable, is 
a most valuable and weighty evidence. 

1 Dan. viii. 1. s Verse 16. s Verse 29. 

* Dan. ii. 28. Gen. xli. 41-43. Esth. x. 3. 




Abydenus, Fragments of, in C. Mailer's Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. ed. Didot, 

Paris, 1851. 
_<Elian, Hist. Var. ed. Ltlnemann, Gottingen, 1811. 
Alexander Polyhistok, Fragments of, in the Fragm. H. Gr. vol. h. 

Paris, 1848. 
Alfokd, Dean, Greek Testament, London, Rivingtons, 1849, &c. 
Ambrose, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition,) Paris, 1686. 
Apfian, Opera, ed. Tollius, Amsterdam, 1760. 
Aristotle, Opera, ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1831, &c. 
Arrian, Exped. Alex. Magn. ed. Tauchnitz, Leipsic, 1829. 
Artkmidorus, Oneirocritica, Paris, Morel), 1603. 
Asiatic Researches, Calcutta, 1788, &c. 
Athanasius, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition,) Paris, 1698. 
Auberlen, Prophecies of Daniel, (translated by Saphir,) Edinburgh, 

Clark, 1856. 
Augustine, S., Opera, (Benedictine Edition,) Antwerp, 1700. 


Barnabas, S., Epistola, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici (vol. i.), ed. 2da, 

Amsterdam, 1724. 

Baubr, Hebraischc Mythologie, Leipsic, 1802. 

Baumoarten, De Fide Libri Esthertr, Halo>, 1839. 

Beaufort, Incertitude de l'Histoire Romaine, Utrecht, 1738. 



Bexgel, Archiv, Tubingen, 1816-1821. 

Berosus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 

Bkktheav, Comment on Chronicles, (translated by Martin,) Edinburgh, 
Clark, 18.57. 

Beutholpt, Einleitung in sammtliche kanonische und apocryphische 
Schriften des Alt. und Neu. Test., Erlangen, 1812-1819. 

Biuks, Hora; Apostolical, attached to his edition of Paley's Horse Paulinae, 
London, 1850. 

Bochart, Geographia Sacra, ed. 4ta, Leyden, 1707. 

Boeckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, Berlin, 1828-1843. 

Bouhier, Recherches sur l'histoire d'Hcrodote, Dijon, 1746. 

Braxdis, Rerum Assyriarum Temp. Emendata, Bonn, 1853. 

Buddeus, Historia Ecclesiastica Veteris Testamenti, Halae Magd. 1744- 

Bixsex, Egypt's Place in Universal History, (translated by Cockerell,) Lon- 
don, 1818, &c. 

lii'NSF.s, Hippolvtus and his Age, London, Longman, 1854. 

BrxsKN, Philosophy of Universal History, London, Longman, 1854. 

Burnet, Bishop, Letters from Italy and Switzerland in 1685 and 1686, Rot- 
terdam, 1687. 

Burton, Canon, Eccles. History of the First Three Centuries, Oxferd, 
Parker, 1833. 

Butler, Bishop, Analogy of Religion, Oxford, 1833. 

Buttmanx, Mythologus, Berlin, 1828, 1829. 

Blxtorf, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum, Basle, 1676- 


CaLMET, Commentaire Litteral, Paris, 1724-1726. 

Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1721. 

Carwithbx, Bampton Lectures, Oxford, 1809. 

Casauhon, L, Exerc. Antibaror.., folio edition, London, 1614. 

Cn amtollion, Precis du Systeme Hieroglyphique des Anciens Egyptiens, 

Paris, 1828. 
Chardix, Voyage en Perse, Amsterdam, 1735. 
Cicero, Opera, ed. Priestly, London, 1819. 
Clemens Alexaxdrixus, ed. Potter, Venice, 1757. 
Clemens Romaxvs, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, Oxford, 1840. 
Clixtox, Fasti Hellenici, Oxford, 1830-1841. 


CoxRlNGlt'S, Adversar. Chronolog. in Gravius's Syntagma variarum Disser- 
tationum rariorum, Ultraj. 1701. 

Constitutiones Apostolicse, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, (vol. i.,) ed. 2da. 
Amsterdam, 1724. 

Conybeare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul, London, Long- 
man, 1850. 

Cokkodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des jtldischen und 
christlichen Bibelkanons, Halle, 1792. 

Cratippcs, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. Paris, 1848. 

Ctesias, Fragmenta, ed. Bahr, Frankfort, 1824. 

Ci'RETON, Canon, Corpus Ignatianum, London, Rivingtons, 1849. 

Cyrilias Alexandrinus, ed. Aubert, Paris, 1638. 


Dahlmann, Life of Herodotus, (translated by Cox,) London, 1845. 

Demosthenes, ed. Dindorf, Oxford, 1846-1849. 

Des Vionoles, Chronologic de l'Histoire Sainte, Berlin, 1738. 

De Wette, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, 7th edition, Berlin 1852. 

De Wette, translated by Theodore Parker. (See Parker.) 

De Wette, Archaologie, 3rd edition, Berlin, 1842. 

Digesta seu Pandecta, Florence, 1553. 

Dio Cassiis, Hist. Roman., Hanover, 1606. 

Dio CHRY80STOM, ed. Morell, Paris, 1604. 

Diodorts Sicrtrs, ed. Wtsseling, Bipont. 1793, &c. 

Dionysivs Hamcarnassvs, folio edition, Oxon. 1704. 

Dirs, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Paris, 185 J 

Dodwell, Dissertat. in Irenoeum, Oxford, 1689. 


Eichhorn, Allgcmeinc Bibliothek, Leipsic, 1787-1800. 

Eichhokn, Einleitung in das Alt. Testament, Leipsic, 1787. 

Eichhohn, Einleitung in das Neu. Testament, Leipsic, J 804-181*. 

EpiCTETrs, Dissertationes, ed. Schweigha-user, Leipsic, 1796-1800. 

EPIPHANIVS, Opera, ed. Schrey et Meyer, Cologne, 1682. 

Ersch and Grvber, Algeineine Encyclopadie der Wissenschuft und Kunst, 

Leipsic, 1818, &c. 
EV8EP.IU8, Chronica, ed. Mai, Milan, 1818. 
Evsebivs, Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. Burton, Oxford, 1838. 



ErsEBirr, . ra*pnratio Erangelica, cd. Gaisford, Oxford, 1843. 

Ewald, Oeschichte des Volkcs Israel, 2nd edition, Gottingen, 1851-1858. 

EWALD, Propheten des Alten Bundes, Stuttgart, 1840. 


Faber, Horae Mosaica?, Oxford, 1801. 

Feilmoser, Einleitung in die Btlcher d. Neues Testaments, Tubingen, 

Ferousson, Palaces of Nineveh Restored, London, Murray, 1851. 
Ferrier, General, Caravan Journeys, London, Murray, 1856. 
Forster, Mahometanism Unveiled, London, 1829. 
Fritzsche, Aechtheit der Bucher Mosis, Rostock, 1814. 


Galen, Opera, ed. Kuhn, Leipsic, 1821-1833. 

George, Mythus und Sage, Berlin, 1837. 

Gesenius, Geschichte der Hebraische Sprache und Schrift, Leipsic, 1815. 

Gesenius, Lexicon Hebraicum, (Engl. Translation,) Cambridge, 1852. 

Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar, (Engl. Translation,) London, Bagster, 1846. 

Gesenius, Scriptures Lingua>que Phoenicia? Monumenta, Leipsic, 1857. 

Gesenius, Thesaurus Pbilologicus Ling. Hebr. Leipsic, 1829. 

Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, 3rd edition, London, 

Gladstone, Homer and the Homeric Age, Oxford, 1858. 
Grabe, Spicilegium Patrum, editio altera, Oxford, 1714. 
Graves, Lectures on the Pentateuch, 2nd edition, London, Cadell, 1815. 
Grosifr, Description de la Chine, Paris, 1818-1820. 
Grote, History of Greece, London, Murray, 1846-1856. 


Hales, Analysis of Chronology, London, 1809-1812. 

Hartmann, Forschungen flber d. Pentateuch, Rostock, 1831. 

Haevernick, Handbuch des historisch-kritischen Einleitung in das Alt 
Testament, Erlangen, 1837. 

Haevernick, Introduction to the Old Testament, (English Translation,} 
Edinburgh, Clark, 1852. 

Haevernick, Introduction to the Pentateuch, (English Translation,) Edin- 
burgh, Clark, 1&50. 


Hecatveus Abderita, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. ii. 
Paris, 1848. 

Heerex, Asiatic Nations, (English Translation,) Oxford, Talboys, 183. 

Heerex, Manual of Ancient History, (English Translation,) Oxford, Tal- 
boys, 1833. 

Hefei.e, Patrum Apostolicorum Opera, 3rd edition, Tubingen, 1847. 

Hexostexberg, Aegypten und Mose, Berlin, 1840. 

Hexcstexberg, Egypt, &c, (translated by Mr. Robbins, with additional 
notes by Dr. Cooke Taylor,) Edinburgh, Clark, 1845. 

Hexgstexbeug, Authentic des Daniel und Integritiit des Secherias, Ber- 
lin, 1831. 

Herbst, Historisch-kritische Einleifur.g in d. heilig. Schriften des Alt. 
Testaments, (published by Welte after his decease,) Karlsruhe, 1840-1844. 

Hermas, Pastor, in Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) ed. 2da, Am- 
sterdam, 1724. 

Hermippl'8, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1849. 

Herodoti \s, ed. Bahr, Leipsic, 1830-1835. 

Herodotus, (translated by the Author,) with copious Notes and Appen- 
dices, London, Murray, 1858-9. 

Hesychivs, Lexicon, ed. Albert, Leyden, 1746. 

Hixcks, Dr., Translation of Black Obelisk Inscription, in Dublin Univer- 
sity Magazine for October, 1853. 

Hieronymis, Opera, Benedictine Edition, Paris, 1693. 

Hitzio, De Cadyte urbe Herodotea, Gottingen, 1829. 

Hitzio, Zwolf Kleinen Propheten erklart. Leipsic, 1838. 

Homer, Iliad, ed. Heyne, Leipsic, 1802. 

HOMER, Odyssey, ed. Lowe, Leipsic, 1828 

Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, ed. Keble, Oxford, 1836. 

Hoover, Palmoni, an Essay on the Chronological and Numerical Systems 
of the Jews, London, Longman, 1851. 

HoRNE, Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy 
Scriptures, Cth edition, London, Cadell, 1828. 

Hue, Voyage dans la Tartaric, Paris, 1853. 

Hissey, Sermons mostly Academical, Oxford, Parker, 1849. 

I. J. 

Jarloxsky, Opuscula, Leyden, 1804. 

Jackbox, Chronological Antiquities, London, 1752. 


Jaiin, Acchthcit dcs Fcntateuch, in Bengel's Archiv, (vol. iii. part i.,) TO> 

bingcn, 1816-1821. 
Jahn, Einleitung in das alte Testament, Vienna, 1792. 
IoxATli'8, S., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. 
Inscription, Behistun, in the Author's Herodotus, vol. ii. (See Hehodotvb.) 
Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser I., as translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Mr. 

Fox Talbot, Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Oppert, published by Royal Asiatic 

Society ; London, Parker, 1857. 
Inscription, Nebuchadnezzar's Standard, in the Author's Herodotus, vol. 

iii. (See Herodotus.) 
Inscription on the Nimrud Obelisk, translated by Dr. Hincks. (See Hincks.) 
Inscriptions of three Assyrian Kings, translated by Mr. Fox Talbot. (See 

Inscriptiones Gra'cac, BOckh's Corpus Ins. Gr. (See Boeckh.) 
JoSEPHl'S, Opera, ed. Havercamp, Amsterdam, &c, 1726. 
Josefucs, translated by Dr. Traill, with notes and essays, published in 
I parts, London, 1847., Advers. Hareses, ed. W. W. Harvey, Cambridge, 1857. 
Itinerarium Antoninum, in Bertius's Ptolemy. (See Ptolemy.) 
Justin, Epitome of Trogus Pompeius, ed. Gronovius, Leyden, 1760. 
Justin Martyr, Opera, Hague, 1742. 
Juvenal, ed. Ruperti, Leipsic, 1819-1820. 


Kalisch, Historical and Critical Commentary, English edition, London, 
Longman, 18.55, &c. 

Kate, Bishop, Account of the Writings and Opinions of Justin Martyr, 
3rd edition, London, Rivingtons, 1853. 

Kaye, Bishop, Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, 
illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1829. 

Keil, Commentar uber das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847. 

Keil, Commentary on Joshua, (translated by Martin,) Edinburgh, Clark, 

Keil, Apologetischer Versuch uber die Bucher der Chronik, Berlin, 1833. 

Keil, Commentar uber die Btlcher der KOnige, Berlin, 1846. 

Keil, Commentary on the Books of Kings, (translated by Murphy,) Edin- 
burgh, Clark, 1857. 

Kenkick, Ancient Egypt under the Pharaohs, London, 1850. 


Kexrick, Phoenicia, London, 1855. 

Ker Pouter, Sir R., Travels, London, Longman, 1821-1822. 

Kitto, Biblical Cyclopaedia, (Burgess's edition,) Edinburgh, Black, 1856. 

K.XOBEL, Der Prophetismus der Hebraer, Breslau, 1837., Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, Stuttgart, 1842. 


Lacroze, Lexicon ^Egyptiaco-Latinum, Oxford, 1775. 

Larcher, Histoire d'Herodote, Paris, 1786. 

Lardner, Dr., Credibility of the Gospel History, Works, London, 1815. 

L'Art de verifier les Dates, 8vo edition, Paris, 1819-1844. 

Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, London, Murray, 1849. 

Lavard, Nineveh and Babylon, London, Murray, 1853. 

Lee, Dr., Inspiration of Holy Scripture, 2nd edition, London, Riving 
tons, 1857. 

Lepsius, Dr., Lettre sur l'Alphabet Hieroglyphique, Rome, 1837. 

Lewis, Sir G. C, Credibility of Early Roman History, London, Parker, 1855. 

Lewis, Sir G. C, Methods of Observation and Reasoning in Politics, Lon- 
don, Parker, 1852. 

Liohtfoot, Dr., Works, folio edition, London, 1684. 

Livy, ed. Twiss, Oxford, Talboys, 1840. 

Loheck, Aglaophamus, Regimont, 1829. 

Loftvs, Chalda.'a and Susiana, London, Nisbet, 1857. 

Loxoixrs, De Sublimitate, Edinburgh, 1733. 

Lucian', Opera, cd. Hemsterhuis, Bipont. 1789, &c. 

LyeLL, Sir C, Principles of Geology, 4th edition, London, Murray, 1835. 

LYNCH, Capt., Narrative of the United States' Expedition to the River Jor- 
dan and the Dead Sea, London, Bentley, 1852. 

Lysimachus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1819. 


MaCBRIDE, Dr., Mohammedan Religion Explained, London, IS57- 
Mackoiuts, Saturnalia, cd. Gronovius, Leyden, 1670. 
Maitland, Dr., The Church in the Catacombs, London, Longman, 1846. 
Manetho, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. Paris, 1849. 
M ansel, Bampton Lectures for 1858, London, Murray, 1858. 
Marchi, Monumenti delle Arti Cristiane primitive nella Metropoli del 
Cristianesimo, Rome, 1844. 



Marsh, Bishop, Authenticity of the Five Books of Moses, in his Lectures 

on Divinity, London, 1810-1823. 
Maksham, Canon Chronicus, folio edition, London, 1672. 
Martyrium Ignatii, in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 

Memoires de l'Academie des Inscriptions, Paris, 1729, &c. 
Menander, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iv. Paris, 1851. 
Michaelis, J. D., Orientalische und exegetische Bibliothek, Frankfort, 

Michell, Bampton Lectures for 1849, Oxford, Parker, 1849. 
Minucius Felix, Octavius, Oxford, 1627. 
Moses Chorenensis, Armenian History, ed. Whiston, (Armenian and 

Latin,) London, 1736. 
Mosheim, Historia Ecclesiastica, editio altera, Helmstadt, 1764. 
Mosheim, De rebus ante Constantin. Magn. gestis, Helmstadt, 1753. 
Movers, Die Phonizier, Berlin, 1849, &c. 
Mueller, C. O., History of Greek Literature, completed by Dr. Donaldson, 

London, Parker, 1858. 
MuRATORl, Antiquitates Italicoe Medii JEri, Milan, 1740. 
Mure, Col., Literature of Ancient Greece, London, Longman, 1850, &c. 
Mure, Col., Remarks on Two Appendices to Mr. Grote's History of Greece, 

London, Longman, 1851. 


Neaxder, Allgemeine Geschichte d. Christliche Religion und Kirche, 4th 

edition, Hamburg, 1847, &c. 
Neumaxn, Versuch einer Geschichte der Armcnisch. Literatur, Leipsic, 

Newman, F., History of the Hebrew Monarchy, London, Chapman, 1847. 
Newman, J. H., The Arians of the Fourth Century, London, Rivingtons, 

Newman, J. H., Essay on Miracles, Oxford, Parker, 1843. 
Newton, Sir I., Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms amended, London, 1728. 
Nicolaus Damascenus, Fragments of, in the Fragm. Hist. Gr. vol. iii. 

Paris, 1849. 
Niebuhr, B. G , History of Rome, (Hare and Thirlwali's translation,) 

Cambridge, 1831-1842. 
Niebuhr, B. G., Kleine Schrifter.. Bonn, 1828. 


Niebuhr, B. G., Lectures on Ancient History, (translated by Dr. Schraitz.j 

London, 1852. 
Niebuhk, B. G., Life and Letters of, London, Chapman, 1852. 
Niebuhk, B. G., Vortrage Ober Alte Geschichte, Berlin, Reimer, 1847. 
Niebuhk, Makccs, Geschichte Assurs und Babels seit Phul, Berlin, 1857. 
Northcote, J. Spencer, The Roman Catacombs, second edition, London, 

Norton, Professor, Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2nd 

edition, London, Chapman, 1847. 


Ockley, Life of Mohammed, in his History of the Saracens, London, 
Bohn, 1847. 

Offerhaus, Spicilegia Historico-Chronologica, Groningae, 1739. 

Olshausen, Biblischer Commentar uber sammtl. Schriften d. Neuen Testa- 
ments, 3rd edition, KOnigsberg, 1837. 

Olshausen, Commentary on the Gospels, (translated by Fosdick,) 3rd edi- 
tion, Edinburgh, Clark, 1857. 

Oppert, Dr., Rapport d'une Mission scientifique en Angleterre, Paris. 

Orioen, Opera, Benedictine edition, Paris, 1733-1759. 

OR08IU8, Historia adv. Paganos, Cologne, 1536. 

Ovid, ed. Soc. Bipontina, Strasburg, 1807. 


Paley, Evidences of Christianity, 25th edition, Glasgow, 1816. 

Paley, Horse Paulina;; Works, edited by Rev. R. Lynam, vol. i. London, 

Parkf.r, Theodore, Enlarged Translation of De Wette's Einleitungin das 
Alt. Test., Boston, 1843. 

Patrick, Bishop, Commentary on the Historical Books of the Old Testa- 
ment, 4th edition, London, 1732. 

Pausanius, ed. Siebelis, Leipsic, 1822. 

Pearson, Vindicice Epistolarum S. Ignatii, Cambridge, 1672. 

Perizonius, Origines Babylon ica: et ^Egyptiaca?, editio altera, Duker, 
Utrecht, 1736. 

Perret, Les Cataconibes de Rome, folio, 6 volumes, Paris, Gide, 1851-1855 

Petronius Arbiter, ed. Burmann, Utrecht, 1709. 


Philo, ed. Hoeschcl, Frankfort, 1691. 

Philostkatis, ed. Olcarius, Leipsic, 1709. 

Photics, Bibliothcca, cd. Hoeschcl, Rouen, 1653. 

Plato, Phtrdo, ed. Stanford, Dublin, 1834. 

Pliny, Hist. Nat., (ex Otficiis Hack.,) Leyden and Rotterdam, 1G69. 

Pliny the younger, Epistola>, ed. Cortius, Amsterdam, 1734. 

Phtarcii, Opera, ed. A. Stephanus, Paris, 1624. 

PoLYBirs, ed. Schweigha-uscr, Oxford, Baxter, 1823. 

Polycakp, Epist., in Jacobson's Patres Apostolici, (vol. ii.,) Oxford, 1840. 

Poole, R. Stuart, Hora? JEgyptiaca?, London, Murray, 1851. 

Powell, Professor, Order of Nature considered in reference to the Claims 

of Revelation, a Third Scries of Essays, London, Longman, 1859. 
Phichakd, Dr., Physical History of Mankind, 3rd edition, London, 1836. 
Pkichakd, Dr., Historical Records of Ancient Egypt, London, 1838. 
Prideaix, Dr., Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament, 

4th edition, London, 1718. 
Procovivs, Opera, in the Corpus Hist. Byz., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1833-1838. 
Ptolemy, Geograph., ed. Bertius, Amsterdam, 1618. 
Ptolemy, Magna Syntaxis, Basle, 1538. 


Rask, Professor, Egyptian Chronology, in Prichard's Records of Ancient 

Egypt. (See Pkichakd.) 
Rawlinsox, Sir II. C, Memoir on the Persian Cuneiform Inscriptions, 

published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1846-1849. 
Rawlinsox, Sir H. C, Commentary on the Inscriptions of Assyria and 

Babylon, London, Parker, 1850. 
Rawlixsox, Sir H. C, Notes en the Early History of Babylonia, in the 

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xv. part ii. London, Parker, 

Ravlinson, Sir H. S., Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. (See 

Remusat, Nouveaux Melanges Asiatiques, Paris, 1829. 
Rexxell, Geography of Herodotus, 4to edition, London, 1800. 
Rosei.lixi, Monumenti dell' Egitto, parte prima, monumenti storici, Pisa, 

Rosexmueller, Scholia in Vet. Test., Leipsic, 1821, &c. 
Rossi, Etymologia: -Sgyptiacae, Rome, 1808. 


Scaliger, De Emendatione Temporum, folio, Geneva, 1629. 

Seneca, ed. Elzevir, Amsterdam, 1672. 

SiMPLlClUS, Comment, ad Anstot. De Coelo, folio, Venice, 1526. 

Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, 2nd edition, 
London, 1853. 

Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, London, 1850. 

Smith, Dr. W., Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography, London, 1854. 

Smith, G. Vance, Prophecies relating to Nineveh, London, Longman, 1857. 

Sockates, Hist. Ecclesiastica, Cambridge, 1720., ed. Valpy, London, 1824. 

Si'anheim, Introductio ad Chronologiam et Historiam Sacrain, Amster- 
dam, 1694. 

Spinoza, Tractatus theologo-politicus, 2nd edition, (no place or publisher's 
name,) 1674. 

Stackhotse, History of the Bible, Gleig's edition, London, Longman, 1817 

Stanley, Professor, Sinai and Palestine, London, Murray, 1856. 

Status, pocket edition, Amsterdam, 1624. 

STKABO, ed. Kramer, Berlin, 1847-1852. 

Stkaiss, Leben Jesu, 4th edition, Tubingen, 1840. 

S thai 88, The Life of Jesus, translated into English, London, Chapman, 1846. 

StiarT, Professor, History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, ed- 
ited by the Rev. P. Lorimer, London, 1849. 

Sietonii s, ed. Baumgarten-Crusius, Leipsic, 1816. 

Sdidas, Lexicon, ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1834. 

Svnci.i.i.i s, in the Corpus Hist. Byzant., ed. Dindorf, Bonn, 1829 


Tacitis (Brotier's), ed. Valpy, London, Whittakcr, 1823. 

TAI.BOT, H. Fox, Assyrian Texts translated, London, 18ofi. 

Tatian, Oratio adv. Grn-cos, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742 

Taylor, Transmission of Ancient Books, London, 1859. 

Tertvllian, Opera, ed. Rigaltius, Paris, 1675. 

Tf.kti i.m AN, Bishop Kaye's, Ecclesiastical Hist., illustrated from Tertul- 

lian. (Sec KaYE.) 
Theii.i:, Zur biographic Jesu, Leipsic, 1 HTJ7- 
THEormi.ts, ad Autolycum, (with Justin Martyr,) Hague, 1742. 


Tut cvninES, ed. Bekker, Oxford, Parker, 1824. 

Trench, Dean, Notes on the Miracles, London, Parker, 1846. 


V.U.EUIV8 Maximts, Leyden, 1670. 

Vater, Commentar Qber den Pentateuch, Halle, 1802-1806. 

Vatke, Religion des Alt. Testaments nach den kanonischen Buchern 

entwickelt, Berlin, 1835. 
Vestiges of Creation, 10th edition, London, 1853. 
Vitringa, Observationes Sacra?, Franequerae, 1711, 1712. 
Vitrlvius, ed. De Laet, Amsterdam, Elzevir, 1649. 
Von Bohlen, Alte Indien, Konigsberg, 1830. 
Von Lenoerke, Kenaan, Konigsberg, 1844. 
Von Lenoerke, Das Buch Daniel, Konigsberg, 1835. 


Wetstein, Nov. Testament. Grsecum, Amsterdam, 1751, 1752. 

Whiston, Short View of the Harmony of the four Evangelists, Cambridge. 

White, Bampton Lectures for 1784. Oxford, 1784. 
Wilkinson, Sir G., Ancient Egyptians, London, Murray, 1837-1841. 
Wilkinson, Sir G., Notes and Essays in the Author's Herodotus. (See 

Wilson, Professor H. H., Translations from Rig-Veda-Sanhita, London, 

Winer, Biblisches Realworterbuch, 3rd edition, Leipsic, 1847, 1848. 
Woollston, Six Discourses on the Miracles of our Saviour, London, 1727- 



Xenophon, Opera, ed. Schneider et Dindorf, Oxford, 1817, &c. 



k 'X mmmmi^ m ^^m 


M 000 063 314 c 

>- j^ ^ 

4f - ^ ^ if 


m *\ 

5s^^ *