0:
o:
0 6 3
% *H£
i
r
j LIBRARY
(UNIVERSITY OF >RNIA
* SAN DIEGO
If
0^. "V^S'TY LfSRARY
J^L,.A. CALIFORNIA
THE
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES
truth or iii i : scwrn re
VATi >IM>S
S T \ T Kli \ N K W .
WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE To TIIK IKH'BTS AM> DISCOVERIES OK MODERN TIMES.
i\
BOOT I.KfTIRES DEUVZRED IN TIIK OXPORD rSIVKRBITY II 1. 1 IT, IN THE YF-AB K'.i.
THE Hampton ForNDATioN.
II V
GEORGE RAWLINS OX, M.A.,
I.ATK PKI.I.OW AXI> TUTOR OP EXETKK COI.I.K* 1 : : EDITOR OK "TICK Hl-ToHY OP IIEROIMIT1 - ' KTl .
PROM THE LONDON EDITION, WITH THE NOTES TRANSLATED,
i-.v RKV. A. X. ARNOLD.
NEW YORK
LOVELL, CORYELL & COMPANY
43, 45 AND 47 EAST TENTH STREET
2~ 39,t>i
THE
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES
TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS.
7V) utv yao ahjQtl ninna ovvddti tu vjiao/ovra' ca dt ytevdtl raxi) diaipwvel taki^tg. — ajustotle.
(for with the true all things that exist are in harmony; bvt with the false the trv'fc at once disagrees.)
' O Xi}*JVOlS tVQVtiig. (TIME IS THE DISCOVERER.)
E X T It A C T
THE LAST WILL .\XD TESTAMENT
OF T II E
REV. JOHN BAMPTON,
C A X O X O I" S A L I S H L It Y .
... . " I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates to the Chancellor Masters, and Scholars of the University of Oxford for ever, to have ami to hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates upon trust, and to the intents and purposes hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I will and appoint that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive all the rents, issues, and profits thereof, and (after all taxes, reparations, and necessary deductions made) that he pay all the remainder to the endowment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be established for ever in the said University, and to be performed in the manner following :
" I direct and appoint, that, upon the first Tuesday in Easter Term, a Lecturer be yearly chosen by the Heads of Colleges only, and by no others, in the room adjoining to the Printing-House, between the hours of ten in the morning and two in the afternoon, to preach eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, the year following, at St. Mary's in Oxford, between
VI KXTRACT I l:i)M CANON BAMPTOX'S WILL.
the rnnine:] anient of the last month ;n Lent T.".n:. iv.A the end of the third week In Act Term.
" Also 1 direct and npnoint, that the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall l>e pruached upon either of the following Subjects — to confirm and establish t!io Christian Keith, and to confute all heretics and schismatics — upon the divine authority of the holy Scriptures — upon the authority of the writings of the primitive Fathers, as to the faith and practice of the primitive Church — upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ — upon the Divinity of the Holy Ghost — upon the Articles of the Christian Faith, as comprehended in the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds.
" Al.-o I direct, that thirty copies of the eight Divinity Lecture Sermons shall Ik? always printed, within two months after they are preached, and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor of the University, and one copy to the Head of every College, and one copy to the Mayor of the city of Oxford, and one copy to be put Into the Bodleian Library; and the expense of printing them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land or Estates given for establishing the Divinity Lecture Sermons; and the Preacher shall not \>e paid, nor be entitled to the revenue, before they are printed.
" AlsC i direct and appoint, that no person shall be qualified to preach the Di'inity Leot :.e Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree of Master of Arts at least, in one of the two Universities of Oxford or Cambridge; ami tliiit the some person shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Ser- «ons twice."
PUBLISHERS' ADVERTISEMENT
THE AMERICAN EDITION
The present work, though it belongs to the same series, and has the same general design, with Prof. Mansers Lec- tures on the Limits of Religious Thought, deals with very different materials, and employs very different modes of reasoning. Instead of abstruse inquiries into the subtle conditions and laws of thought, the business of our au- thor is with the concrete facts of history, and the explicit records of the past. The two works thus represent the opposite poles of scientific inquiry. They are like- two buttresses, built up of different materials, but of equal strength, on opposite sides of the citadel of our Christian faith.
Mr. Rawlinson has been peculiarly happy in the facili- ties which he has enjoyed for combining with his own extensive and accurate knowledge of the literary monu- ments of antiquity the latest results of the remarkable
(7)
8 ADVERTISEMENT.
discoveries of his distinguished brother and other suc- cessful explorers in those rich mines of history, more precious than of gold, which have so recently been opened in the valleys of the Euphrates and the Nile. Some gen- eral knowledge of these results, as confirmatory of the historical accuracy of the Sacred Scriptures, has already been widely diffused ; but there was needed a thorough and scholarly work upon this particular subject, which, by combining a complete survey and a logical method with copious specific proofs and illustrations, should stamp with a more unquestionable certainty, and estimate with a more critical exactness, these reputed confirmations of Scripture history. This is the task which Mr. Rawlinson has undertaken in these "Bampton Lectures;" and we are confident that the verdict of his own countrymen, as . to the signal ability and success with which he has ac- complished it, will be fully indorsed by his American readers.
But it would be unjust to the author to intimate that the value of his book is measured only by the skilful and exhaustive use which he has made of recent discoveries in the East : the plan of his work covers a broader field, including all the testimonies of ancient literature to the facts of Christianity, and the verncity of the Inspired Volume. But as most of these testimonies of Pagan, Jewish, and Christian writers have become familiarly
ADVERTISEMENT. 9
known to those who have studied the Christian evidences, the main interest of these Lectures, for a large class of readers, will probably be found in the fresher contribu- tion which they bring to this subject, from the recently deciphered hieroglyphics of Egypt, and the still more recent excavations on the sites of the ancient cities of Assyria.
As this work promises, from its less abstract character, to interest a larger proportion of the reading public than the excellent volume by Prof. Mansel, there was a still stronger reason than in the case of that work for making the valuable Notes intelligible to all, by translating such portions of them as were given in foreign languages in the English edition. These Notes were mostly in tho Greek language; and the translations have been made by the Rev. A. N. Arnold, who was for many years a resi- dent in Greece. The translator has not had access to all the Greek and Latin writers from whom the author lias quoted in his proofs; and hence it is not impossible that some trifling inaccuracies have resulted from the want of that light which the connection would have shed upon these fragmentary sentences.
It is a happy omen, that, while so much of the litera- ture of our times is marked by a tone of infidelity, and especially by a disparagement of the evidences of the authenticity and inspiration of the Scriptures, there is in
10 ADVERTISEMENT.
other quarters an increasing readiness to make the choicest gifts of modern science and learning tributary to the word of God. The eclipse of faith is not total. And it is an additional cause for gratitude to the God of Prov- idence and of Revelation, that, even at this remote dis- tance of time from the date of the Sacred Oracles, new evidences of their credibility and accuracy are continually coming to light. How much may yet remain, buried under barren mounds, or entombed in pyramids and cata- combs, or hidden in the yet unexplored pages of some ancient literature, it were vain to conjecture ; but of this we may be sure, that if any new forms of evidence should hereafter be needed, to meet any new forms of unbelief, and authenticate afresh the word of truth, they will be found deposited somewhere, waiting for the fulness of time ; and God will bring them forth in their season, from the dark hieroglyphics, or the desert sands, or the dusty manuscripts, to confound the adversaries of his word, and to "magnify it above all his name."
PREFACE.
These Lectures are an attempt to meet that latest phase of modern unbelief, which, professing a reverence for the name and person of Christ, and a real regard for the Scriptures as embodiments of what is purest and holiest in religious feeling, lowers Christ to a mere name, and empties the Scriptures of all their force and practical efficacy, by denying the historical character of the Bib- lical narrative. German Neology (as it is called) has of late years taken chiefly this line of attack, and has pur- sued it with so much vigor and apparent success, that, according to the complaints of German orthodox writers, "no objective ground or stand-point" is left, on which the believing Theological science can build witli any feeling of security.1 Nor is the evil in question con- fined to Germany. The works regarded as most effective in destroying the historical faith of Christians abroad, have received an English dress, and arc, it is t<> be feared, read by numbers of persons very ill prepared by historical studies to withstand their specious reasonings, alike in onr own country and in America. The tone, moreover, of German historical writings generally is
1 See Keil'a Preface to hi.« Comment on Joshua, quoted in Note XXIV. t.. Lecture I
12 PREFACE.
tinged w.ih' the prevailing unbelief; and the faith of the historical student is liable to be undermined, almost without his having his suspicions aroused, by covert as- sumptions or* the mythical character of the sacred nar- rative, in woiis professing to deal chiefly, or entirely, with profane subjects. The author had long felt this to be a serious and a growing evil. Meanwhile his own studies, which ha\j lain for the last eight or nine years almost exclusively in the field of Ancient History, had convinced him moie and more of the thorough truthful- ness and faithful accuracy of che historical Scriptures. Circumstances had gi/en hini an intimate knowledge of the whole course of recent cuneiform, and (to some extent) of hieroglyphic discovery; and he had been continually struck with »He removal of difficulties, the accession of light, and the multiplication of minute points of agreement between the jacred and the profane, which resulted from the advances made in deciphering the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Egyptian records. He therefore ventured, at the earliest moment which en- gagements of long standing would allow, to submit to the Heads of Colleges, electors to the office of Bampton Lecturer under the will of the Founder, the scheme of the following Discourses. His scheme having at once met with their approval, it only remained for him to use his best efforts in the elaboration of the subject which he had chosen.
Two modes of meeting the attacks of the Mythical School presented themselves. lie might make it his
PREFACE. 13
main object to examine the arguments of their principal writers seriatim, and to demonstrate from authentic records their weakness, perverseness, and falsity. Or touching only slightly on this purely controversial ground, he might endeavor to exhibit clearly and forcibly the argument from the positive agreement between Scripture and profane history, which they ignored altogether. The latter mode of treatment appeared to him at once the more convincing to young minds, and the more suitable for a set of Lectures. For these reasons he adopted it. At the same time he has occasionally, both in the Text and in the Notes, addressed himself to the more im- portant of the reasonings by which the school of Strauss and De Wette seek to overthrow the historical authority of the Sacred documents.
The Notes have run to a somewhat unusual length. The author thought it important to exhibit (where possi- ble) the authorities * for his statements in full; and o collect into a single volume the chief testimonies to the historical truth and accuracy of the Scripture records. If in referring to the cuneiform writings lie lias on many occasions stated their substance, rather than cited theif exact words, it is because so few of them have as yet been translated by competent scholars, and because in most cases his own knowledge is limited to an acquaint- ance with the substance, derived from frequent conversa- tions with his gifted brother. It is to be hoped that no long time will elapse before some one of the lour sttcan*, Who have proved their capacity to render the ancient
2
14 . PREFA CE.
Assyrian,1 will present the world with a complete trans- lation of all the historical inscriptions hitherto recovered.
The author cannot conclude without expressing his ac- knowledgments to Dr. Bandinel, Chief Librarian of the Bodleian, for kind exertions in procuring at his instance various foreign works; and to Dr. Pusey, Professor Stan- ley, and Mr. Mansel for some valuable information on several points connected with the Lectures. lie is bound also to record his obligations to various living or recent writers, whose works have made his task easier, as Pro- fessors Keil, Havernick, and Olshausen in Germany, and in England Dr. Lardner, Dr. Burton, and Dean Alford. Finally, he is glad once more to avow his deep obliga- tions to the learning and genius of his brother, and to the kind and liberal communication on his part of full information upon every point where there seemed to be any contact between the sacred history and the cunei- form records. The novelty of the Lbctures will, he feels, consist chiefly, if not solely, in the exhibition of these points of contact and agreement ; and the circumstance of his having this novelty to offer was his chief induce- ment to attempt a work on the subject. It is his earnest prayer that, by the blessing of God, his labors may tend to check the spread of unbelief, and to produce among Scripture students a more lively appreciation of the reality of those facts which are put before us in the Bible,
Oxford, November 2, 1859.
1 See the Inscription of Tiglath-Pilcscr I., king of jis3yria, B. C. 1150, as translated by Sir Henry Rawlinson, Fox Talbot, Ksq., Dr. Hincks, and Dr. Opnert; published by the Royal Asiatic Society, London, Parker, 1857.
CONTENTS.
LECTURE I.
Historical character of Christianity as contrasted with other religions
— its contact, thence arising, with historical science — its liability to be tried afresh by new tests and criteria, as historic science advances.
— Recent advance of historical science — rise of the new department of Historical Criticism — its birth and growth — its results and ten- dencies.— Application of Historical Criticism to Christianity to be expected and even desired — the application as made — first, by the mythical school of De Wette and Strauss — secondly, by the histori- cal school — Niebuhr himself — Bunsen. — Intention of the Lectures, to examine the Sacred Narrative on the positive side, by the light of the true principles of historical science. — Statement of the principles under the form of four Canons. — Corollaries of the Canons — com- parative value of sources — force of cumulative evidence. — Further Canon which some seek to add on the subject of miracles, examined
— possibility of miracles — contrary notion, Atheistic — peculiarities of the modern Atheism. — Occurrence of miracles proved — creation a miracle — counterfeit miracles prove the existence of genuine ones.
— Rejection of the additional Canon leaves the ground clear for the proposed inquiry. — Two kinds of evidence to be examined — 1. That of the Sacred Volume itself, considered as a mass of documents, and judged by the laws of Historical Criticism — 1. The external evidence,
(15)
16 CONTENTS.
or that contained in monuments, in the works of profane authors, in established customs and observances, and in the contemporary writ- ings of believers. — Main purpose of the Lectures, to exhibit the external evidence 25
LECTURE II.
Two modes of conducting ?n historical inquiry — the Retrospective and the Progressive — advantages of each — preference assigned to the latter. — Plan of the Lectures — division of the Biblical history into five periods. — History of the first period, contained in the Pentateuch — question of the genuineness of the Pentateuch — argument from the unanimous testimony of the Jews — objections answered. — Writ- ing practised at the time. — Heathen testimony to the genuineness. — Internal testimony — difficulties of the opposite theory. — Authen- ticity of the Pentateuch, a consequent of its genuineness — Moses an unexceptionable witness for the history of the last four books. — Authenticity of Genesis — the events, if purely traditional, would have passed through but few hands to Moses. — Probability that Genesis is founded on documents, some of which may have been ante-diluvian. — External evidence of the authenticity — agreement of the narrative with the best profane authorities. — Review of the authorities — preeminence of Berosus and Manctho as historians of ancient times — Egyptian and Babylonian monuments — mode in which the monuments and histories have to be combined. — Com- parison of the chronological schemes of Manetho and Berosus with the chronology of Scripture. — Account of the Creation in Berosus — its harmony with Scripture. — Account given by Berosus of the Deluge — similar account of Abydenus — the difference between the Scriptural and the profane account exaggerated by Niebuhr. — Post- diluvian history of Berosus — his account of the tower of Babel, and
CONTENTS. 17
the confusion of tongues. — Ethnological value of the tenth chapter of Genesis. — Heathen accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, de- rived from Jewish sources — estimate of their value. — Three points only of great public importance in the history from Abraham to the death of Moses — two of these confirmed from profane sources. — Expedition of Chedor-laomer agrees with Berosus, and is distinctly confirmed by the Babylonian monuments. — Exodus of the Jews related by Manetho. — Historical arguments of importance, which have been omitted for want of space — I . The argument furnished by the conclusions of the historical sciences, such as Geology, Physi- ology, Comparative Philology, Ethnology, &c. — 2. The argument from the correctness of the linguistic, geographic, and etho logic notices in the Pentateuch — modern discovery is continually adding to this kind of evidence — geographical illustration. — Conclusion. . 19
LECTURE 111.
The period of Jewish history from Exodus to Solomon, comprises the extremes of national depression and prosperity. — Books of Scrip- ture, containing this portion of the history, are for the most part by unknown authors. — Their value not diminished by this, being that of State Papers. — Historical character of the books, considered sev- erally.— The Book of Joshua written by an eye-witness, who pos- sessed records. — The Book of Judges based upon similar documi nts. — The Books of Samuel composed probably by writers contemporary with the events related; via. Samuel. Gad, and Nathan. — The Books of Kings and Chronicles derived from contemporary works written by Prophets. — Commentary on the history furnished by the Davidical Psalms. — Confirmation of this period of J wish history from profane sources, during the earlier portion fit the period, rather negative than positive. — Weakness of Egypt and Assyria at the
18 CONTENTS.
period, appears both from the Scripture narrative, and from the monuments. — Positive testimony of profane writers to the conquest of Canaan by Joshua — Moses of Chorene, Procopius, Suidas. ■ — Supposed testimony of Herodotus to the miracle of the sun standing still. — Positive testimony to the later portion of the period — Syrian •war of David described by Nicolas of Damascus from the records of his native city. — David's other wars mentioned by Eupolemus. — Connection of Judaea with Phoenicia. — Early greatness of Sidon strongly marked in Scripture and confirmed by profane writers — Homer, Strabo, Justin. — Hiram a true Phoenician royal name. — A prince of this name reigned at Tyre contemporaneously with David and Solomon, according to the Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander — their accounts of the friendly intercourse between Hiram and these Jewish monarchs. — Solomon's connection with Egypt — absence of Egyptian records at this time — Solomon contemporary with Sheshonk or Shishak. — "Wealth of Solomon confirmed by Eupolemus and Theophilus. — Indirect testimony to the truth of this portion of the history — the character of Solomon's empire, the plan of his buildings, and the style of their ornamentation, receive abun- dant illustration from recent discoveries in Assyria — the habits of the Phoenicians agree with the descriptions of Homer, Menander, and others. — Incompleteness of this sketch. — Summary 78
LECTURE IV.
Period to be embraced in the Lecture, one of about four centuries, from the death of Solomon to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchad- nezzar — importance of this period. — Documents in which the his- tory is delivered. — Kings and Chronicles, compilations from the State Archives of the two Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. — Objec- tion answered. — Kings and Chronicles independent, and therefora
CONTENTS. 19
confirmatory, of each other. The history contained in them con- firmed by direct and incidental notices in the works of contemporary Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, &c. — Confirmation of the history from profane sources. — The separate existence of the two kingdoms noticed in the Assyrian Inscriptions. — The conquest of Judcea by Sheshonk (Shishak) recorded in the great temple at Carnac. ^Zerah the Ethiopian probably identical with Osorkon the Second. — Eth- baal, the father of Jezebel, identical with the Ithobalus of Menander — mention of a great drought in his reign. — Power of Benhadad, and nature of the force under his command, confirmed by the in- scription on the Nimrud Obelisk. — Accession of Hazael noticed on the same monument. — Mention of Jehu. — Interruption in the series of notices, coinciding with an absence of documents. — Pul, or Phul, QPa/.u>x,') mentioned byBerosus, and probably identified with a monumental king, who takes tribute from Samaria. — War of Tiglath-Pileser with Samaria and Damascus recorded in an As- syrian inscription. — Altar of Ahaz probably a sign of sub- jection. — Shalmanezer's Syrian war mentioned by Menander. — ■ Name of Hoshea on an Assyrian inscription probably assigned to him. — Capture of Samaria ascribed to Sargon on the monuments. — Harmony of the narrative with Scripture. — Sargon' s capture of Ashdod, and successful attack on Egypt. — Settlement of the Israel- ites "in the cities of the Modes." — Expedition of Sennacherib against Hezekiah — exact agreement of Scripture with Sennacherib's inscription. — Murder of Sennacherib related by profane writ its — Polyhistor, Abydenus. — Escape of the murderers " into Armenia" noticed by Moses of Chorcnc. — Succession of Esar-haddon confirmed by the monuments. — Indirect confirmation of the curious statement that Manasseh was brought to him at Babylon. — Identification of So. (Seveh,) king of Egypt, with Shekel;, or Sabaco — of Tirhakah with Tchrak, or Taracus — of Xecho with Xcku, or NYchao — and of Hopnra with liaifra, or Aprics. — Battle of Mcgiddo and caiamitoua end of Apries confirmed by Herodotus. — Heign of Merodach-llala-
20 CONTENTS.
dan at Babylon confirmed by the Inscriptions. Berosus, and Ptolemy. — Berosus relates the recovery of Syria, and Palestine by Nebuchad- nezzar, and also his deportation of the Jews and destruction of Jeru- salem.— Summary 101
LECTURE V.
Fourth period of the Jewish History, the Captivity and Return — Dan- iel the historian of the Captivity. — Genuineness of Daniel doubted •without sufficient reason. — Authenticity of the narrative, denied by De Wette and others. — Examination of the narrative — the Captivity in accordance with Oriental habits — confirmed by Berosus. — The character of Nebuchadnezzar as portrayed in Scripture accords with Berosus and Abydenus — notice of his prophetic gift by the latter. — The length of his reign may be gathered from Scripture, and accords exactly with Berosus and the monuments. — Condition of Babylonia not misrepresented in Daniel — account of the "wise men" illus- trated by recent discoveries — " satrapial organization " of the empire possible, but not asserted in Scripture. — Internal harmony of Daniel's account. — Mysterious malady of Nebuchadnezzar perhaps noticed in an obscure passage of the Standard Inscription. — Succession of Evil-Merodach confirmed by Berosus — difficulty with regard to his character. — Neriglissar identified with " Nergal-Sharezer, the liab- Mag." — Supposed irreconcilable difference between Scripture and profane history in the narrative concerning Belshazzar — Discovery that Nabonadius, during the latter part of his reign, associated in the government his son, Bil-shar-uzur, and allowed him the royal title. — Bil-shar-uzur probably the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. — " Darius the Mede " not yet identified. — Capture of Babylon by the Medo- Persians, during a feast, and transfer of Empire confirmed by many
CONTENTS. 21
writers. — Solution of difficulties. — Chronology of the Capthity confirmed from Babylonian sources. — Refistablishment of the Jews in Palestine related in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah — their authenticity generally allowed — no reason to doubt their genuine- ness. — Book of Ezra in part based on documents. — Attacks upon the authenticity of Esther — reply to them. — Author of Esther un- certain. — The narrative drawn from the chronicles kept by the kings of Persia. — Confirmation of this portion of the history from profane sources. — Religious spirit of the Persian kings in keeping with their inscriptions. — Succession of the kings correctly given. — Stop- page of the building of the temple by the Pseudo-Smerdis, accords with his other religious changes. — Reversal by Darius of his reli- gious policy agrees with the Behistun Inscription. — Break in the history as recorded by Ezra — book of Esther fills up the gap. — The name Ahasuerus, the proper equivalent of Xerxes. — Truthfulness of the portraiture, if Xerxes is intended. — Harmony of the history with the facts recorded by the Greeks. — Intimate knowledge of Persian manners and customs. — The massacre of their enemies by the Jews has a parallel in the Magaphonia. — Character of Arta- xerxes Longimanus — length of his reign accords with the statement of Nehemiah. — Summary of the whole result, as regards the His- tory of the Old Testament 130
LECTURE VI.
Plan of the three remaining Lectures — proposal to regard the period covered by the New Testament History as a whole, and to consider the evidence under three heads — 1 . The internal Evidence; 2. The Evidence of Adversaries ; and, 3. The Evidence of the early Christian converts.
22 CONTENTS.
The Internal Evidence. — Number and separateness of the documents.
— Doubts raised as to the authorship of the Historical Books. — The doubts considered severally. — Weight of the external testimony to the genuineness of the Gospels and the Acts. — Internal evidence to the composition of the Acts, and of St. Luke's and St. John's Gos- pels, by contemporaries. — St. Matthew's and St. Mark's Gospels must have been written about the same time as St. Luke's. — No reason to doubt in any case the composition by the reputed authors. — Our
four Gospels a providential mercy. — The first three wholly inde- pendent of one another. — Their substantial agreement as to the facts of our Lord's life and ministry, an evidence of great weight. — ' Failure of the attempt of Strauss to establish any real disagreement.
— The establishment of real discrepancies would still leave the writers historical authorities of the first order. — Confirmation of the Gospel History from the Acts of the Apostles. — Confirmation of the History of the Acts from the Epistles of St. Paul — exhibition of this argument in the Horce Paulina of Paley — the grounds of the argument not ex- hausted. — Paley's argument applicable to the Gospels. — Confirma- tion of the Gospel narrative from the letters of the Apostles. — Firm belief of the Apostles in the Gospel facts from the first, evidenced in the Acts and the Epistles. — Impossibility of the sudden growth of myths in such an age and under such circumstances. — The mythic theory devised in order to make Christianity untrue, without ascrib- ing it to imposture — its failure in respect of this object. — No alternative but to accept the statements of the Evangelists and Apos- tles, or to regard them as conscious deceivers. — Unmistakable air of veracity and honesty in the New Testament writings. — Conclu- sion 155
CONTENTS. 23
LECTURE VII.
The Evidence of Adversaries. — Contrast between the Old and New Testament — the former historical — the latter biographical. — Conse- quent scantiness of points of contact between the main facts of the New Testament narrative and profane records. — Their harmony chiefly seen through the incidental allusions of the New Testament writers. — Importance of this evidence. — Evidence of Heathens to the main facts of Christianity, really very considerable. — That it is not more must be regarded as the result of a forced and studied reticence. — Reticence of Josephus. — Loss of heathen writings of this period, which may have contained important direct evidence. — Incidental allusions considered under three heads — (i.) The general condition of the countries which were the scene of the history. " Political condition of Palestine — numerous complications and anomalies — faithfulness of the New Testament notices. — Tone and temper of the Jews at the time. — Condition and customs of the Greeks and Romans in Palestine, Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy. — Condition and number of the foreign Jews — oratories — syna- gogues, &c. (ii.) Representations with respect to the civil govern- ment of the countries. — Names and order of the Roman Kmpi rors — Jewish native princes — Roman Procurators of Palestine — Ro- man Proconsuls — supposed "error" of St. Luke with regard to the Greek Tetrarch, Lysanias. (iii.) Historical facts, of which, if true, profane authors might have bun expected to make mention. — Decree of Augustus — taxing of Cyrenius — rebellion of Theudas — » uproar " of the Egyptian — famine in the days of < 'laudius, &c. — Summary and conclusion '
24 CONTENTS.
LECTURE VIII.
The evidence of the early converts. — Its abundance, and real weight.
— Early Christians not deficient in education, position, or intellect.
— Historical witness of the Christian writers — of St. Barnabas — of Clemens Romanus — of Ignatius — of Polycarp — of Hermas — of Quadratus — of Justin Martyr — of subsequent writers. — Witness of primitive Christian monuments, especially of those in the Roman Catacombs — their genuine character — their antiquity. — Proof which they afford of the enormous numbers of the Christians in the first ages. — Proof which they afford of the sufferings and frequent martyrdoms of the period. — Evidence which they furnish of the historical belief of the time. — Weight of this whole testimony — the Greeks and Romans not at this time credulous — not likely to think little of the obligations incurred by professing Christianity — the convert's sole stay the hope of the resurrection. — Evidence to the truth of Christianity from the continuance of miracles in the Church
— proof of their continuance. — Testimony of the early Christians enhanced by their readiness to suffer for their faith. — Conclu- sion 206
Notes 229
Additional Note 441
Specification of Editions quoted, or referred to, in the
Notes 443
THE
HISTORICAL EVIDENCES
OF THE
TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS.
LECTURE I.
LET ALL THE NATIONS BE GATHERED TOGETHER, AND LET THE PEOPLE BE ASSEMBLED : WHO AMONG THEM C.VX DECLARE THIS, AM) SHOW IS FORMER THINGS? LET THEM BRINO FORTH THEIR WITNESSES, THAT THEY MAY BE JUSTIFIED : OR LET THEM HEAR, AND SAY, IT IS TRUTH. — ISAIAH XLIII. 9.
Christianity — including therein the dispensation of the Old Testament, which was its first stage — is in noth- ing more distinguished from the other religions of tv. ■ world than in its objective <>r historical character. The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt, India, Persia, and the East generally, were speculative systems, which did not even seriously postulate an historical basis, [f they seemed to do so to some extent, if tor instance the mythological ideas of the Greeks he represented under the form of a mythological period, which moreover Mends gradually and almost imperceptibly with the historical, still in the minds of the Greeks themselves the periods were separate and distinct, not merely in time, hut in character; and the "i>- jeetive reality of the scenes and events described as he- longing to each was not conceived of as parallel, or even
26 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. L
similar, in the two cases. (J) The modern distinction be- tween the legend and the myth, properly so called, (2) was felt, if not formally recognized, by the Greek mind ; and the basis of fact, which is of the essence of the former, was regarded as absent from the latter, which thus ceased altogether to be history. Mahometanism again, and the other religious systems which have started with an indi- vidual, and which so far bear a nearer resemblance to the religions of Moses and of Christ, than those that have grown up and been developed gradually out of the feeling and imagination of a people, are very slightly, if at all, connected with any body of important facts, the due attes- tation of which and their accordance with other known facts might be made the subject of critical examination.' We may concede the truth of the whole story of Mahomet, as it was related by bis early followers, and this concession in no sort carries with it even the probable truth of the religion. (3> But it is otherwise with the religion of the Bible. There, whether we look to the Old or the New Testament, to the Jewish dispensation or to the Christian, we find a scheme of doctrine which is bound up with facts ; which depends absolutely upon them ; which is null and void without them ; and which may be regarded as for all practical purposes established if they are shown to deserve acceptance.
It is this peculiar feature of Christianity — a feature often noticed by its apologists (4> — which brings it into such a close relation to historical studies and investigations. As a religion of fact, and not merely of opinion, — as one whose chief scene is this world, and whose main doctrines are events exhibited openly before the eyes of men — as one moreover which, instead of affecting a dogmatic form, •dopts from first to last, with very rare exceptions, the hjs-
Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 27
torical shape, it comes necessarily within the sphere of the historical inquirer, and challenges him to investigate it ac- cording to what he regards as the principles of his science. Moreover, as Christianity is in point of fact connected in- timately with certain records, and as those records extend over a period of several thousands of years, and " profess to contain a kind of abridgment of the history of the world," (5) its points of contact with profane history are (practically speaking) infinite; and it becomes impossible for the historical inquirer to avoid the question, in what light he is to view the documents which, if authentic, must exercise so important an influence over his studies and con- clusions.
Christianity then cannot complain if, from time to time, as historical science advances, the question is raised afresh concerning the real character of those events which form its basis, and the real value of those documents on which it relies. As an historical religion, it invites this species of inquiry, and is glad that it should be made and repeated. It only complains in one of two cases — when either prin- ciples unsound and wrong in themselves, having been as- sumed as proper criteria of historic truth, are applied to it for the purpose of disparagement ; or when, right princi- ples being assumed, the application of them, of which it is the object, is unfair and illegitimate.
It is the latter of these two errors which seems to me to be the chief danger of the present day. Time was — and that not very long ago — when all the relations of ancient authors concerning the old world wen- received with a ready belief ; and an unreasoning and uncritical faith ac- cepted with equal satisfaction the narrative of the cam- paigns of Caesar and of the doings of Romulus, the account of Alexander's inarches and of the conquests of Scmirnniis.
28 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. L
We can most of us remember when in this country the whole story of Regal Rome, and even the legend of the Trojan settlement in Latium, were seriously placed before boys as history, and discoursed of as unhesitatingly, and in as dogmatic a tone, as the tale of the Catiline conspiracy, or the conquest of Britain. " All ancient authors were " at this time, as has been justly observed, "put upon the same footing, and regarded as equally credible;" while "all parts of an author's work were supposed to rest on the same basis." (6> A blind and indiscriminate faith of a low kind — acquiescence rather than actual belief — embraced equally and impartially the whole range of ancient story, setting aside perhaps those prodigies which easily detached them- selves from the narrative, and were understood to be em- bellishments on a par with mere graces of composition.
But all this is now changed. The last century has seen the birth and growth of a new science — the science of Historical Criticism. Beginning in France with the labors of Pouilly and Beaufort, (7) it advanced with rapid strides in Germany under the guidance of Niebuhr, f8> Otfried Miiller, (9) and Bockh, (10) and finally, has been introduced and naturalized among ourselves by means of the 'writings of our best living historians. (n>
Its results in its own proper and primary field are of the most extensive arid remarkable character. TLie whole world of profane history has been revolutionized. By a searching and critical investigation of the mass of mate- rials on which that history rested, and by the application to it of Canons embodying the judgments of a sound discre- tion upon the value of different sorts of evidence, the vi^ws of the ancient world formerly entertained have been in ^en thousand points either modified or reversed — a new anti- quity has been raised up out of the old — while much that
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 20
was unreal in the picture of past times which men had formed to themselves has disappeared, consigned to that "Limbo large and broad" into which "all tilings transitory and vain" are finally received, a fresh revelation lias in many cases taken the place of the old view, which has dis- solved before the wand of the critic; and a firm and strong fabric has arisen out of the shattered debris of the fallen systems. Thus the results obtained have been both posi- tive and negative; but, it must be confessed, with a pre- ponderance of the latter over the former. The scepticism in which the science originated has clung to it from first to last, and in recent times we have seen not only a greater leaning to the destructive than to the constructive side, but a tendency to push doubt and incredulity beyond due limits, to call in question without cause, and t» distrust what is sufficiently established. This tendency has not, however, been allowed to pass unrebuked ; (12> and viewing the science as developed, not in the writings of this or that individual, but in the general conclusions in which it has issued, Ave may regard it :\.- having done, and as still pre- pared to do, good service in the cause of truth.
It was not to be expected — nor was it, I think, to he wished — that the records of past times contained in the Old and New Testament should escape the searching ordeal to which all other historical documents had been subjected, or remain long, on account of their sacred char- acter, jinscrutinizcd by the inquirer. Reverence may possi- bly gain, but Faith, I believe, — real and true Faith — greatly loses by the establishment of a wall of partition be- tween the sacred and the profane, and the subtraction of the former from the domain of scientific inquiry. As truth of one kind cannot possibly be contradictory to truth of another, Christianity has nothing to fear from scientific
3*
30 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. L
investigations; and any attempt to isolate its facts and preserve them from the scrutiny which profane history re- ceives must, if successful, diminish the fulness of our assent to them — the depth and reality of our belief in their actual occurrence. It is by the connectior of sacred with profane history that the facts of the former are most vividly •apprehended, and most distinctly felt to be real ; to sever between the two is to make the sacred narrative grow dim and shadowy, and to encourage the notion that its details are not facts in the common and every-day sense of the word.
When therefore, upon the general acceptance of the principles laid dow~, with respect to profane history by Otfried Miiller and Niebuhr, theological critics in Germany proceeded^ as they said, to apply the new canons of histori- cal criticism to the Gospels and to the historical books of the Old Testament, there was no cause for surprise, nor any ground for extreme apprehension. There is of course always danger when science alone, disjoined from religious feeling, undertakes, with its purblind sight and limited means of knowing, to examine, weigh, and decide matters of the highest import. But there did not appear to be in this instance any reason for special alarm. The great Master-spirit, he to whom the new science owed, if not its existence, yet at any rate its advancement and the estima- tion in which it was generally held — had distinctly ac- cepted the mass of the Scripture history as authentic, and was a sincere and earnest believer. (13) It was hoped that the inquiry would be made in his spirit, and by means of a cautious application of his principles. But the fact has unfortunately been otherwise. The application of the science of historical criticism to the narrative of Scripture has been made in Germany by two schools — one certainly
1 Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 31
far less extravagant than the other — but both wanting in sound critical judgment, as well as in a due reverence tor the Written Word. It will be necessary, in order to make the scope of these Lectures clearly intelligible, to give an account at some length of the conclusions and reasonings of both classes of critics.
The portion of the Scripture history which was first subjected to the application of the new principles was the historical part of the Old Testament. It was soon de- clared that a striking parallelism existed between this his- tory and the early records of most heathen nations. ("> The miracles in the narrative were compared with the prodigies and divine appearances related by Herodotus and Livy. (15> The chronology was said to bear marks, like that 'of Rome and Babylon, of artificial arrangement ; the re- currence of similar numbers, and especially of round num- bers, particularly indicating its unhistorical character. (;6 The names of kings, it was observed, were frequently so apposite, that the monarchs supposed to have borne them must be regarded as fictitious personages, (17) like Theseus and Numa. Portions of the sacred narrative were early declared to present every appearance of being simply myths ;(18) and by degrees it was sought to attach to the whole history, from first to last, a legendary and unreal character. All objections taken by rationalists or infidels to particular relations in the sacred hooks being allowed as .valid, it was considered a sufficient account of such rela- tions to say, that the main source of the entire narrative was oral tradition — that it first took a written shape many hundreds of years after the supposed date of the circum- stances narrated, the authors being poets rather than his- torians, and bent rather on glorifying their native country than on giving a true relation of facts — and that in places
82 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. L
they had not even confined themselves to the exaggeration and embellishment of actual occurrences, but had allowed imagination to step in and fill up blanks in their annals. (19> By some, attempts were made to disentangle the small ele- ment of fact which lay involved in so much romance and poetry from the mass in which it was embedded ; t20) but the more logical minds rejected this as a vain and useless labor, maintaining that no separation which was other than arbitrary could be effected; and that the events themselves, together with the dress in which they ap- peared, "constituted a whole belonging to the province of woetry and mythus." (21> It was argued that by this treat- ment the sacredness and divinity, and even the substantial truth of the Scriptures, was left unassailed ; (~2) the literal meaning only being discarded, and an allegorical one sub- stituted in its place. Lastly, the name of Origen Avas pro- duced from the primitive and best ages of Christianity to sanction this system of interpretation, and save it from the 'atal stigma of entire and absolute novelty. (33)
When the historical character of the Old Testament, as sailed on all sides by clever and eloquent pens, and weakly defended by here and there a single hesitating apolo- gist, seemed to those who had conducted the warfare irre- trievably demolished and destroyed, (24) the New Testament became, after a pause, the object of attack to the same school of writers. It was felt, no doubt, to be a bold thing to characterize as a collection of myths the writings of an age of general enlightenment (25) — nay, even of incredulity and scepticism ; and perhaps a lingering regard for what so many souls held precious, (26> stayed the hands of those who nevertheless saw plainly, that the New Testament was open to the same method of attack as the Old, and that an iuexorable logic required that both should be received or
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 33
neither. A pause therefore ensued, but a pause of no long duration. First, particular portions of the New Testament narrative, as the account of our Lord's infancy, (27) and ot the Temptation, C28) were declared to possess equal tokens of a mythic origin with those which had been previously regarded as fatal to the historical character of Old Testa- ment stories, and were consequently singled out for rejec- tion. Then, little by little, the same system of explanation was adopted with respect to more and more of the narra- tive ;("J till at last, in the hands of Strauss, the whole came to be resolved into pure myth and legend, and the historical Christ being annihilated, the world was told to console itself with a "God-man, eternally incarnate, not an individual, but an idea;"(30) which, on examination, turns out to be no God at all, but mere man — man perfected by nineteenth-century enlightenment — dominant over nature by the railroad and the telegraph, and over himself by the negation of the merely natural and sensual life, and the substitution for it of the intellectual, or (in the nomencla- ture of the school) the spiritual.
"In an individual," says Strauss, "the properties which the Church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures — Cod become man, the infinite manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remem- bering its infinitude; it is the eliild of the visible Mother and the invisible Father, Nature and Spirit; it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course ol human history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature, both within and around man, until it lies before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his jictive power; it is the sinless existence, for the course of its development is a blameless one; pollution cleaves to the
34 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I
individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to Heaven ; for from the negation of its phenomenal life there ever pro- ceeds a higher spiritual life ; from the suppression of its mortality as a personal, national, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially in his death and resurrec- tion, man is justified before God ; that is, by the kindling within him of the idea of Humanity, the individual man partakes of the divinely human life of the species? '(31>
Such are the lengths to which speculation, professedly grounding itself on the established principles of historical criticism, has proceeded in our day; and such the conclu- sions recommended to our acceptance by a philosophy which calls itself preeminently spiritual. How such a phi- losophy differs from Atheism, except in the use of a religious terminology, which it empties of all religious meaning, I confess myself unable to perceive. The final issue of the whole seems to be simply that position which Aristotle scouted as the merest folly, that " man is the highest and most divine thing in the universe," C32) and that God consequently is but a name for humanity when per- fected.
More dangerous to faith, because less violent in its methods, and less sweeping in the conclusions to which it comes, is the moderate rationalism of another school, a school which can with some show of reason claim to shelter Hself under the gi-eat name and authority of Niebuhr. Not- withstanding the personal faith of Niebuhr, which cannot be doubted, and the strong expressions of which he made use against the advocates of the mythical theory, (33) he was himself upon occasions betrayed into remarks which involved to a great extent their principles, and opened a
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 35
door to the thorough-going scepticism from which he indi- vidually shrank with horror. For instance, in one place Niebuhr says, with respect to the Book of Esther, " I am convinced that this book is not to be regarded as his- torical, and I have not the least hesitation in here stating it publicly. Many entertain the same opinion. Even the early fathers have tormented themselves with it ; and St. Jerome, as he himself clearly indicates, was in the greatest perplexity through his desire to regard it as an historical document. At present no one looks upon the Book of Judith as historical, and neither Origen nor St. Jerome did so ; the same is the case with Esther ; it is nothing more than a poem on the occurrences." (34) The great historical critic here (so far as appears, on mere subjective grounds, because the details of the narrative did not appear to him probable) surrendered to the mythical inteipreters a book of Scripture — admitted that to be "a poem and nothing more" which, on the face of it, bore the appearance of a plain matter-of-fact history — put a work which the Church has always regarded as canonical and authoritative on a par with one which was early pronounced apocryphal, — not, certainly, moved to do so by any defect in the external evidence^35) though a vague reference is made to "early fathers;" but on account of internal difficulties, either in the story itself, or in the manner of its narration. I cannot see that it is possible to distinguish the princi- ple of this surrender from that asserted by the mythical school; or that the principle once admitted, any ground can be shown for limiting its application to a single book of Scripture, or indeed to any definite number of such books. Let it be once allowed that we may declare any part of Scripture which seems to us improbable, or which does not approve itself to our notions ol wiiat
36 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. I
revelation should be, "a poem and nothing more," and what security is there against the extremest conclusions of the mythologists? One book will naturally be sur- rendered after another, (36) and the final result will not be distinguishable from that at which the school of He Wette and Strauss professedly aims — the destruction of all trust in the historical veracity of the Scripture nar- rative.
The partial scepticism of Xiebuhr has always had follow- ers in Germany — men who are believers, but who admit the principles of unbelief — who rationalize, but who think to say to the tide of rationalism, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." I shall not detain my hearers with a long array of instances in this place. Suffice it to adduce the teaching of a single living writer, whose influence is very considerable both in Germany and in our own country. On the ground that Egypt has a continuous history, com- mencing more than six thousand years before the Christian era, we are required to reject the literal interpretation of the sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of Genesis, and to believe that the Flood was no more than a great catas- trophe in Western Asia, which swept away the inhabitants of that region, but left Egypt and the greater part of the world untouched. Ham, we are told, is not a person, but the symbolical representative of Egypt; and he is the elder brother, because Egyptian Hamitism is older than Asiatic Semitism. The expression that Canaan is the son of Ham "must be interpreted geographically;" it means, that the Canaanitic tribes which inhabited historical Canaan came from Egypt, where they had previously had their abode. Nimrod is said to have been begotten by Cush ; but he was no more a Cushite by blood than Canaan was an Egyptian ; he is called a Cushite, because
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 37
the people represented by him came from the part of Africa called Cash or Ethiopia (which they had held as conquerors) back into Asia, and there established an empire. C37^ Again, "the family tree of Abraham is an historical representation of the great and lengthened migrations of the primitive Asiatic race of man, from the mountains of Armenia and Chahhea, through Mesopota- mia, to the north-east frontier of Egypt, as far as Amalek and Edom. It represents the connection between nations and their tribes, not personal connection betioeen father and son, and records consequently epochs, not real human pedigrees? W> The early Scriptures are devoid altogether of an historical chronology. When the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt is said to have been four hun- dred and thirty years, of which one half, or two hundred and fifteen years, was from Abraham's going down into Egypt to Jacob's, the other from Jacob's going down to the Exodus, the number must be regarded as "conven- tional and unhistorical ;" (39> as "connected with the legendary genealogies of particular families ;"(4°) as formed, in fact, artificially by a doubling of the tirst period; which itself only "represents the traditionary accounts of the primitive times of Canaan, as embodied in a genealogy of the three patriarchs," (") and "cannot possibly be worthy of more confidence than the traditions with regard to the second period," which arc valueless. ('-< Of course the earlier lists of names and calculations of years are looked upon with still less favor. "The .Jewish tradition, in proportion as its antiquity is thrown hack, bears on its face less of a chronological character," so that "no light is to be gleaned from it" for general purposes. W Even in the comparatively recent times of David and Sol- omon, there is no coherent or reliable chronology; tho
4
88 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. I
round number forty being still mot with, which is taken to be an indubitable sign of arbitrary and artificial arrange- ment. (44>
Such are some of the results which have, in fact, fol- lowed from the examination by historical critics, possessed of more or less critical acumen, of those sacred records, which are allowed on all hands to be entitled to deep respect, and which we in this place believe to be, not indeed free from such small errors as the carelessness or ignorance of transcribers may have produced, but substan- tially " the Word of God." I propose at the present time, in opposition to the views which I have sketched, to examine the Sacred Narrative on the positive side. Leav- ing untouched the question of the inspiration of Scripture, and its consequent title to outweigh all conflicting testi- mony whatever, I propose briefly to review the historical evidence for the orthodox belief. My object will be to meet the reasoning of the historical sceptics on their own ground. I do not, indeed, undertake to consider and answer their minute and multitudinous cavils, which would be an endless task, and which is moreover unnecessary, as to a great extent the cavillers meet and answer one another ;(45) but I hope to show, without assuming the inspiration of the Bible, that for the great facts of revealed religion, the miraculous history of the Jews, and the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, as well as for his miracles and those of his apostles, the historical evidence which we possess is of an authentic and satisfac- tory character. I shall review this evidence in the light and by the laws of the modern historical criticism, so far as they seem to be established. Those laws appear to me to be sound; and their natural and real bearing is to increase instead of diminishing the weight of the Christian
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 39
evidences. It is not from a legitimate and proper applica- tion of them that faith has suffered, but partly from their neglect or misapplication, partly from the intrusion among them of a single unproved and irrational opinion.
I am not aware that the laws in question have ever been distinctly laid down in a compendious, or even in an abstract form. They are assumed throughout the writings of our best historians, but they are involved in their criticisms rather than directly posited as their principles. I believe, however, that I shall not misrepresent them if I say, that, viewed on their positive side, they consist chiefly of the four following Canons: —
1. When the record which we possess of an event is the writing of a contemporary, supposing that he is a credible witness, and had means of observing the fact to which he testifies, the fact is to be accepted, as possessing the first or highest degree of historical credibility. Such evidence is on a par with that of witnesses in a court of justice, with the drawback, on the one hand, that the man who gives it is not sworn to speak the truth, and with the advantage, on the other, that he is less likely than the legal witness to have a personal interest in the matter concerning which he testifies. (4fi)
2. When the event recorded is one which the writer may be reasonably supposed to have obtained directly from those who witnessed it, we should accept it as proba- bly true, unless it be in itself very improbable. Such evidence possesses the second degree of historical credi- bility. («>
3. When the event recorded is removed considerably from the age of the recorder of it, and there is no reason to believe that he obtained it from a contemporary writing, but the probable source of his information was oral tra-
40 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. L
dition ; still, if the event be one of great importance, and of public notoriety, if it affected the national life, or pros- perity,— especially if it be of a nature to have been at once commemorated by the establishment of any rite or practice, — then it has a claim to belief as probably true, at least in its general outline. (48) This, however, is the third, and a comparatively low, degree of historical credibility.
4. When the traditions of one race, which, if unsup- ported, would have had but small claim to attention, and none to belief, are corroborated by the traditions of another, especially if a distant or hostile race, the event which has this double testimony obtains thereby a high amount of probability, and, if not very unlikely in itself, thoroughly deserves acceptance.^ The degree of his- torical credibility in this case is not exactly commensurable with that in the others, since a new and distinct ground of likelihood comes into play. It may be as strong as the highest, and it may be almost as weak as the lowest, though this is not often the case in fact. In a general -way we may say that the weight of this kind of evidence exceeds that which has been called the third degree of historical probability, and nearly approaches to the second.
To these Canons may be added certain corollaries, or dependent truths, — with respect to the relative value of the materials from which history is ordinarily composed, — important to be borne in mind in all inquiries like that on which we are entering. Historical materials may be divided into direct and indirect, — direct, or such as pro- ceed from the agents in the occurrences ; indirect, or such as are the embodiment of inquiries and researches made by persons not themselves engaged in the transactions. The former are allowed, on all hands, to be of primary impor-
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 41
tance. There is indeed a drawback upon their value, arising out of the tendency of human vanity to exalt self at the expense of truth ; but where the moral character of the writer is a security against wilful misrepresentation, or where the publicity of the events themselves would make misrepresentation folly, the very highest degree of credit is to be given to direct records. These may be either public inscribed monuments, such as have frequently been set up by governments and kings; state papers, such as we hear of in the books of Ezra and Esther jt50) letters, or books. Again, books of this class will be either commentaries, (or particular histories of events in which the authors have taken part;) autobiographies, or accounts which persons have given of their own lives up to a certain point; or memoirs ; i. e., accounts which persons have given of those with whom they have had some acquaintance. These are the best and most authentic sources of history ; and we must either be content with them, or regard the past as absolutely shrouded from our knowledge by a veil which is impenetrable. Indirect records — the compilations of dili- gent inquirers concerning times or scenes in which they have themselves had no part — are to be placed on a much lower footing; they must be judged by their internal char- acter, by their accord with what is otherwise known of the times or scenes in question, and by the apparent veracity and competency of their composers. They often have a high value; but this value cannot be assumed previously to investigation, depending as it docs almost entirely on the critical judgment of their authors, on the materials to which they had access, and on the use that they actually made of them.
The force of cumulative evidence has often been noticed. No account of the grounds of historic belief
4*
42 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I.
would be complete, even in outline, which failed to notice its applicability to this held of investigation, and its great weight and importance in all cases where it has any place. "Probable proofs," says Bishop Butler, "by being added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it." (51) When two independent writers witness to the same event, the proba- bility of that event is increased, not in an arithmetical but in a geometrical ratio, not by mere addition, but by mul- tiplication. C52) "By the mouth of two or three witnesses,"' the word to which such witness is borne is " established." l And the agreement is the more valuable if it be — so to speak — incidental and casual; if the two writers are con- temporary, and their writings not known to one another ; if one only alludes to what the other narrates; if one appears to have been an actor, and the other merely a looker-on ; if one gives events, and the other the feelings which naturally arise out of them : in these cases the con- viction which springs up in every candid and unprejudiced mind is absolute ; the element of doubt which hangs about all matters of mere belief being reduced to such infinitesi- mal proportions as to be inappreciable, and so, practically speaking, to disappear altogether.
To the four Canons which have been already enumer- ated as the criteria of historic truth, modern Rationalism would add a fifth, an a priori opinion of its own — the admission of which would put a stop at once to any such inquiry as that upon which Ave are now entering. "No just perception of the true nature of history is possible," we are told, " without a perception of the inviolability of the chain of finite causes, and of the iirqyossibility of mira- cles? ^ And the mythical interpreters insist, that one of the essential marks of a mythical narrative, whereby it
1 Deut. xix. 15.
Lect. L truth of the scripture records. 43
may be clearly distinguished from one which is historical, is, its "presenting an account of events which are cither absolutely or relatively beyond the reach of (ordinary) experience, such as occurrences connected with the spir- itual world, or its dealing in the supernatural." (54) Now, if miracles cannot take place, an inquiry into the historical evidences of Revealed Religion is vain ; for Revelation is itself miraculous, and therefore, by the hypothesis, impossi- ble. But what are the grounds upon which so stupendous an assertion is made, as that God cannot, if He so please, suspend the working of those laws by which He commonly acts upon matter, and act on special occasions differently? Shall we say that He cannot, because of His own immuta- bility— because He is a being "with whom is no variable- ness, neither shadow of turning?"1 But, if Ave apply the notion of a Law to God at all, it is plain that miraculous interpositions on fitting occasions may be as much a legular, fixed, and established rule of His government, as the working ordinarily by what are called natural laws. Or shall we say that all experience and analogy is against mira- cles? But this is either to judge, from our own narrow and limited experience, of the whole course of nature, and so to generalize upon most weak and insufficient grounds; or else, if in the phrase "all experience" we include the experience of others, it is to draw a conclusion directly in the teeth of our data; for many persons well worthy of belief have declared that they have witnessed and wrought miracles. Moreover, were it true that all known experi- ence was against miracles, this would not even prove that they had not happened — much less that they are impos- sible. If they are impossible, it must be either from some- thing in the nature of things, or from something in the 1 James i. 17.
44 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I.
nature of God. That the immutability of God does not stand in the way of miracles has been already shown ; and I know of no other attribute of the Divine Nature which can be even supposed to create a difficulty. To most minds it will, if I do not greatly mistake, rather appear, that the Divine Omnipotence includes in it the power of working miracles. And if God created the world, He certainly once worked a miracle of the most surpassing greatness. Is there then any thing in the nature of things to make miracles impossible ? Not unless things have an independ- ent existence, and work by their own power. If they are in themselves nought, if God called them out of nothing, and but for His sustaining power they would momentarily fall back into nothing ; if it is not they that work, but He who works in them and through them ; if growth, and change, and motion, and assimilation, and decay, are His dealings with matter, as sanctification, and enlightenment, and inward comfort, and the gift of the clear vision of Him, are His dealings with ourselves; if the Great and First Cause never deserts even for a moment the second Causes, but He who " upholdeth all things by the word of His power,"1 and is "above all and through all,"2 is also (as Hooker says) "the Worker of all in all'M55) — 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. 2Eph. iv. 6.
LECT. I. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 45
sequence, not a law, but a necessity ; which, either positing a Divine First Cause to bring things into existence, then (like Anaxagoras) makes no further use of Him^56) or does not care to posit any such First Cause at all, but is content to refer all things to a " course of nature," which it considers eternal and unalterable, and on which it lavishes all the epithets that believers regard as appropriate to God, and God only. It is the pectiliarity of Atheism at the present day that it uses a religious nomenclature — it is no longer dry, and hard, and cold, all matter of fact and com- mon-sense, as was the case in the last century, — on the contrary, it has become warm in expression, poetic, elo- quent, glowing, sensuous, imaginative — the " Course of Nature," which it has set up in the place of God, is in a certain sense deified, — no language is too exalted to be applied to it, no admiration too great to be excited by it — it is "glorious," and "marvellous," and "superhuman," and "heavenly," and "spiritual," and "divine" — only it is "It," not "He," — a fact or set of facts, and not a Person ; — and so it can really call forth no love, no gratitude, no reverence, no personal feeling of any kind — it can claim no willing obedience — it can inspire no wholesome awe — it is a dead idol after all, and its worship is but the "Id nature worship, — man returning in his dotage to the fol' lies which beguiled his childhood —losing the Creator in the creature, the Workman in the work of his hands.
It cannot therefore be held on any grounds but such as involve a real, though covert Atheism, that miracles arc impossible, or that a narrative of which supernatural occur- rences form an essential part is therefore devoid of an his- toric character. Miracles are to be viewed as in fact a part of the Divine Economy, — a part as essential as any other, though coming into play less frequently. It has already
4G HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECr. I
been o; served, that the creation of the world was a* mira- cle, or rather a whole array of miracles ; and any true his- torical account of it must " deal in the supernatural." A first man was as great a miracle — may we not say a greater miracle ? — than a raised man. Greater, inasmuch as to create and unite a body and soul is to do more than merely to unite them when they have been created. And the occurrence of miracles at the beginning of the Avorld established a precedent for their subsequent occurrence from time to time with greater or less frequency, as God should see to br 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 if.
The sacred records themselves are the main proof of the events related in them. Waiving the question of their inspiration, I propose to view them simply as a mass of documents, subject to the laws, and to be judged by the principles, of historical criticism; I shall briefly discuss their genuineness, where it has been culled in question, and vindicate their authenticity. Where two or more documents belong to the same time, I shall endeavor to exhibit some of their most remarkable points of agree- ment : I shall not, however, dwell at much length on this portion of the inquiry. It is of preeminent importance, but its preeminence has secured it a large amount of atten- tion on the part of Christian writers; and I cannot hope to add much to the labors of those who have preceded me in this field. There is, however, a second and distinct kind of evidence, which has not (I think) received of late as much consideration as it deserves — I mean the ejrternal evidence to the truth of the Bible records, whether con- tained in monuments, in the works of piof'mc writers, in customs and observances now existing or known to have existed, or finally in the works of believers nearly contem' porary with any of the events narrated. The evidence under some of these heads has recently received important accessions, and fresh light has been thrown in certain cases on the character and comparative value of the writers. It seems to be time to bid the nations of the earth once more "bring forth their witnesses." and "declare" and "show ns" what it is which they record of the "former things" —
48 TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. LECT. L
that they may at once justify and "be justified" — in part directly confirming the Scripture narrative, in part silent but not adverse, content to " hear, and say, ' It is truth.' " "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord" — even "the blind people, that have eyes; and the deaf, that have ears" — "Ye are my witnesses — and my servant whom I have chosen."1 The testimony of the sacred and the profane is not conflicting, but consentient — and the comparison of the two will show, not discord, but harmony.
1 Isaiah xliii. 8, 10.
LECTURE II.
INQUIRE, I PRAY THEE, OF THE FORMER AGE, AND PREPARE THYSELF TO THE SEARCH OF THEIR FATHERS; (FOR WE ARE BUT OF YESTER- DAY, AND KNOW NOTHING, BECAUSE OUR DAYS UPON EARTH ARE A SHADOW;) SHALE NOT THEY TEACH THEE, AND TELL THEE, AND UTTER WORDS OUT OF THEIR HEART? — JOB VIII. VERSES 8 TO 10.
Ix every historical inquiry it is possible to pursue our researches in two ways : we may either trace the stream of time upwards, and pursue history to its earliest source; or we may reverse the process, and beginning at the fountain- head follow down the course of events in chronological order to our own day. The former is the more philosophi- cal, because the more real and genuine method of proce- dure: it is the course which in the original investigation of the subject must, in point of fact, have been pursued: ti ! present is our standing point, and we necessarily view the past from it; and only know so much of the past as wo connect, more or less distinctly, with it. I5ut the opposite process has certain advantages which cause it commonly to be preferred. It is the order of the actual occurrence, and therefore has an objective truth which the other lacks. It, is the simpler and clearer of the two, being synthetic ami not analytic; commencing with little, it proceeds by con- tinual accretion, thus adapting itself to our capacities, which cannot take in much at once; and further, it has the advantage of conducting us out of comparative darkness into a Light which brightens and broadens as we keep
60 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II
advancing, "shining more and more unto the perfect day."1 Its difficulties and inconveniences are at the first outset, when we plunge as it were into a world unknown, and seek in the dim twilight of the remote past for some sure and solid ground upon which to plant our foot. On the whole there is perhaps sufficient reason for conforming to the ordinary practice, and adopting the actual order of the occurrences as that of the examination upon which we are entering.
It will be necessary, however, in order to bring within reasonable compass the vast field that offers itself to us for investigation, to divide the history which is to be reviewed into periods, which may be successively considered in their entirety. The division which the sacred writings seem to suggest is into five such periods. The first of these ex- tends from the Creation to the death of Moses, being the period of which the history is delivered to us in the Penta- teuch. The second extends from the death of Moses to the accession of Rehoboam, and is treated in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two Books of Samuel, and some por- tions of the Books of Kings and Chronicles. The third is the period from the accession of Rehoboam to the Captiv- ity of Judah, which is treated of in the remainder of Kings and Chronicles, together with portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Zepha.wah. The fourth extends from the Captivity to the reform of Xehcmiah ; and its history is contained in Dan- iel, Ezra, Esther, and Xehemiah, and illustrated by Haggai and Zechariah. The fifth is the period of the life of Christ and the preaching and establishment of Christianity, of which the history is given in the Xew Testament. The first four periods will form the subject of the present and
'Proverbs iv. 18.
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 51
three following Lectures. The fifth period, from its supe- rior importance, will require to be treated at greater length. Its examination is intended to occupy the remain- der of the present Course.
The sacred records of the first period have come down to us in the shape of five Books, the first of which is introduc- tory, while the remaining four present us with the history of an individual, Moses, and of the Jewish people under his guidance. Critically speaking, it is of the last importance to know by whom the books which contain this history were written. Now the ancient, positive, and uniform tra- dition of the Jews assigned the authorship of the five books, (or Pentateuch,) with the exception of the last chapter of Deuteronomy, to Moses ;W and this tradition is prima facie evidence of the fact, such as at least throws the burden of proof upon those who call it in question. It is an admitted rule of all sound criticism, that books are to be regarded as proceeding from the writers whose nanus they bear, unless very strong reasons indeed can be ad- duced to the contrary. (2) In the present instance, the reasons which have been urged are weak and puerile in the extreme; they rest in part on misconceptions of the meaning of passages, (3) in part, upon interpolations into the original text, which are sometimes very plain and pal- pable. W Mainly, however, they have their source in arbi- trary and unproved hypotheses, as that a contemporary writer would not have introduced an account of mira- cles ; C*) that the culture indicated by the book is beyond that of the age of Moses ;(r') that if .Moses had written the book, he would not have spoken of himself in the third person ;(7> that he would have given a fuller and more complete account of his own history;^ and that he would not have applied to himself terms of praise and expression!*
52 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL
of honor. (9) It is enough to observe of these objections, that they are such as might equally be urged against the genuineness of St. Paul's epistles, which is allowed even by Strauss (10) — against that of the works of Homer, Chancer, and indeed of all writers in advance of their age — against Caesar's Commentaries, and Xenophon's Expedition of Cyrus — against the Acts of the Apostles, (n) and against the Gospel of St. John. St. Paul relates contemporary miracles ; Homer and Chaucer exhibit a culture and a tone which, but for them, we should have supposed unattaina- ble in their age; Caesar and Xenophon write throughout in the third person ; St. Luke omits all account of his own doings at Philippi ; St. John applies to himself the most honorable of all titles — " the disciple whom Jesus loved." 1 A priori conceptions of how an author of a certain time and country would write, of what he would say or not say, or how he would express himself, are among the weakest of all presumptions, and must be regarded as outweighed by a very small amount of positive testimony to author- ship. Moreover, for an argument of this sort to have any force at all, it is necessary that Ave should possess, from other sources besides the author who is being judged, a tolerably complete knowledge of the age to which he is assigned, and a fair acquaintance with the literature of his period. (12) In the case of Moses our knowledge of the age is exceedingly limited, while of the literature we have scarcely any knowledge at all,(13) beyond that which is furnished by the sacred records next in succession — the Books of Joshua and Judges, and (perhaps) the Book of Job — and these are so far from supporting the notion that such a work as the Pentateuch could not be produced in the age of Moses, that they furnish a very strong argument
1 John xiii. 23 ; xix. 26, &c.
Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 58
to the contrary. The diction of the Pentateuch is older than that of Joshua and Judges, (14) while its ideas are pre- supposed in those writings, (15) which may be said to be based upon it, and to require it as their antecedent. If, then, they could be written at the time to which they are commonly and (as will be hereafter shown) rightly as- signed, (1G) the Pentateuch not only may, but must, be as early as Moses.
Vague doubts have sometimes been thrown out as to the existence of writings at this period. (17> The evidence of the Mosaic records themselves, if the true date of their composition were allowed, would be conclusive upon the point; for they speak of writing as a common practice. Waiving this evidence, we may remark that hieroglyphical inscriptions upon stone were known in Egypt at least as early as the fourth dynasty, or B. C. 2450, (lb) that inscribed bricks were common in Babylonia about two centuries later, <19) and that writing upon papyruses, both in the hie- roglyphic and hieratic characters, was familiar to the Egyj)- tians under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, '*'> which is exactly the time to which the Mosaic records would, if genuine, belong. It seems certain that Moses, if educated by a daughter of one of the Iiamesside kings, and therefore "learned" (as we are told he was) " in all the wisdom of Egypt," ' Mould be well acquainted with the Egyptian method of writing with ink upon the papyrus ; while it is also probable that Abraham, who emigrated not earlier than the ninetecth century before our era from tin- great Chahhean capital, Ur, would have brought with him and transmitted to his descendants the alphabetic system with which the Chaldeans of his day were acquainted. -p There is thus every reason to suppose that writing was
' Acts vii. 22.
54 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL
familiar to the Jews when they quitted Egypt ; and the mention of it as a common practice in the books of Moses is in perfect accordance with what we know of the condi- tion of the world at the time from other sources.
To the unanimous witness of the Jews with respect to the authorship of the Pentateuch may be added the testi- mony of a number of heathen writers. Hecatseus of Ab- dera, (,22> Manetho, C23^ Lysimachus of Alexandria, (24) Eupol- emus,(^ Tacitus, (26) Juvenal, C37) Longinus, (2*> all ascribe to Moses the institution of that code of laws by which the Jews were distinguished from other nations ; and the ma- jority distinctly (29) note that he committed his laws to writing. These authors cover a space extending from the time of Alexander, when the Greeks first became curious on the subject of Jewish history, to that of the emperor Aurelian, when the literature of the Jews had been thor- oughly sifted by the acute and learned Alexandrians. They constitute, not the full voice of heathenism on the subject, but only an indication of what that voice was. It cannot be doubted that if we had the complete works of those many other writers to whom Josephus, Clement, and Eusebius refer as mentioning Moses, (3°) we should find the amount of heathen evidence on this point greatly increased. Moreover, we must bear in mind that the witness is unani- mous, or all but unanimous. (31> Nor is it, as an objector might be apt to urge, the mere echo of Jewish tradition faintly repeating itself from far off lands ; in part at least it rests upon a distinct and even hostile authority — that of the Egyptians. Manetho certainly, and Lysimachus proba- bly, represent Egyptian, and not Jewish, views ; and thus the Jewish tradition is confirmed by that of the only na- tion which was sufficiently near and sufficiently advanced in the Mosaic age to make its testimony on the point of real importance.
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 55
To the external testimony which has been now adduced must be added the internal testimony of the work itself, which repeatedly speaks of Moses as writing the law, and recording the various events and occurrences in a book, and as reading from this book to the people. C32) The modern rationalist regards it as a " most unnatural suppo- sition," that the Pentateuch was written during the ] ^as- sage of the Israelites through the wilderness;^ but this is what every unprejudiced reader gathers from the Penta- teuch itself, which tells us that God commanded Moses tu "write" the discomfiture of Amalek "in a book;"1 that Moses "wrote all the words of the law,"- and "took the book of the covenant, and read it in the audience of the people,"3 and "wrote the goings out of the people of Israel according to their journeys, by the commandment of the Lord;"4 and, finally, "made an end of writing the words of the law in a book, until they were finished;"5 ami bade the Levites, who bare the ark of the covenant, "take that book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord, that it might be there for a witness against the people."" A book, therefore — a "hook of the covenant" — a book out of which he could read the whole law(34) — was certainly written by Moses; ami this book was deposited in the ark of the covenant, and given into the special custody of the Levites, who bare it, with the stern injunction still ringing in their ears, "Ye shall not add unto the word, neither diminish aught from it ;"' and they were charged "at the end of every seven years, in the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, to read it before all Israel in their hearing;"" and, further, a command was
1 Exod. xvii. 14. * Ibid. xxiv. 4. 3 Ibid. v.t. 7.
4 Numb, xxxiii. 2. s Dcut. xxxi. 24. 6 Ibid. vcr. 26.
7 Deut. iv. 2. b Ibid. xxxi. 10, 11.
56 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE Lect. IL
given, that, when the Israelites should have kings, each king should " write him a copy of the law in a book, out of that which was before the priests the Levites, that he might read therein all the days of his life."1 Unless, there- fore, we admit the Pentateuch to be genuine, we must suppose that the book which (according to the belief of the Jews) Moses wrote, which was placed in the ark of God, over which the Levites were to watch with such jealous care, which was to be read to the people once in each seven years, and which was guarded by awful sanctions from either addition to it or diminution from it — we must suppose, I say, that this book perished ; and that another book was substituted in its place — by an unknown author — for unknown objects — professing to be the work of Moses, (for that is allowed,) (35> and believed to be his work thenceforth, without so much as a doubt being breathed on the subject either by the nation, its teachers, or even its enemies, for many hundreds of years. (3G) It has often been remarked, that the theories of those who assail -Christianity, make larger demands upon the faith of such as embrace them than the Christian scheme itself, marvel- lous as it is in many points. Certainly, feAV suppositions can be more improbable than that to which (as we have seen) those who deny the Pentateuch to be genuine must have recourse, when pressed to account for the phenomena. It is not surprising that, having to assign a time for the introduction of the forged volume, they have varied as to the date which they suggest by above a thousand years, while they also differ from one another in every detail with which they venture to clothe the transaction. (3~)
I have dwelt the longer upon the genuineness of the Pentateuch, because it is admitted, even by the extremest
1 Deut. xvii. 18, 19.
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 57
sceptics, that the genuineness of the work carries with it the authenticity of the narrative, at least in all its main particulars. " It would most unquestionably," says Strauss, "be an argument of decisive weight in favor of the credi- bility of the Biblical history, could it indeed be shown that it was written by eye-witnesses." " Moses, being the leader of the Israelites on their departure from Egypt, would undoubtedly give a faithful history of the occurrences, unless" (which is not pretended) "he designed to deceive." And further, " Moses, if his intimate connection with Deity described in these books" (i. e. the last four) "be histori- cally true, was likewise eminently qualified, by virtue of such connection, to produce a credible history of the earlier periods." (37> If Moses indeed wrote the account which we possess of the Exodus and of the wanderings in the wilder- ness; and if, having written it, he delivered it to those who knew the events as well as he, the conditions, which secure the highest degree of historical credibility, so far at least as regards the events of the last four books, are ob- tained. We have for them the direct witness of a contem- porary writer — not an actor only, but the leader in the transactions which he relates — honest evidently, for he records his own sins and defects, and the transgressions and sufferings of his people; and honest necessarily, lor he writes of events. which were public and known to all — we have a work, which, by the laws of historical criticism, is thus for historical purposes just as reliable as Caesar's Com- mentaries or Xenophon's Retreat of the Ten Thousand — we have that rare literary treasure, the autobiography of a great man, engaged in great events, the head of his nation at a most critical period in their annals; who commits to writing as they occur the various events and transactions in which he is engaged, wherever they have a national or
58 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL
public character^38) We must therefore consider, even setting aside the whole idea of inspiration, that we possess in the last four books of the Pentateuch as reliable an ac- count of the Exodus of the Jews, and their subsequent wanderings, as we do, in the works of Caesar and Xeno- phon, of the conquest of Britain, or of the events which preceded and followed the battle of Cunaxa.
The narrative of Genesis stands undoubtedly on a dif- ferent footing. Our confidence in it must ever rest mainly on our conviction of the inspiration of the writer. Still, setting that aside, and continuing to judge the documents as if they were ordinary historical materials, it is to be noted, in the first place, that, as Moses was on the mother's side grandson to Levi, he would naturally possess that fair knowledge of the time of the first going down into Egypt, and of the history of Joseph, which the most sceptical of the historical critics allow that men have of their own family and nation to the days of their grandfathers. <39) He would thus be as good an historical authority for the de- tails of Joseph's story, and for the latter part of the life of Jacob, as Herodotus for the reign of Cambyses, or Fabius Pictor for the third Samnite War. Again, with respect to the earlier history, it is to be borne in mind through how very few hands, according to the numbers in the Hebrew text, this passed to Moses. (4°) Adam, according to the Hebrew original, was for two hundred and forty-three years contemporary with Methuselah, who conversed for one hundred years with Shem. Shem was for fifty years con- temporary with Jacob, who probably saw Jochebed, Moses' mother. Thus Moses might, by mere oral tradition, have obtained the history of Abraham, and even of the Deluge, at third hand ; and that cf the Temptation and the Fall, at fifth hand. The patriarchal longevity had the effect of
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 59
reducing centuries to little more than lustres, so far as the safe transmission of historical events was concerned ; tor this does not depend either upon years or upon genera- tions, but upon the number of links in the chain through which the transmittal takes place. If it be granted, as it seems to be, (41) that the great and stirring events in a nation's life will, under ordinary circumstances, be remem- bered (apart from all written memorials) for the space of one hundred and fifty years, being handed down through five generations, it must be allowed (even on mere human grounds) that the account which Moses gives of the Temp- tation and the Fall is to be depended on, if it passed through no more than four hands between him and Adam. And the argument is of course stronger for the more re- cent events, since they would have passed through fewer hands than the earlier. (42)
And this, be it remembered, is on the supposition that the sole human source from which Moses composed the Book of Genesis was oral tradition. But it is highly prob- able that he also made use of documents. So much fanciful speculation has been advanced, so many vain and baseless theories have been built up, in connection with what is called the " document-hypothesis " concerning (Jem-sis, -U) that I touch the point with some hesitation, and beg at once to be understood as not venturing to dogmatize in a matter of such difficulty. But both </ 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
60 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II.
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
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 61
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. C50) A dim knowledge of certain irn-al events in primeval history — as of the I)elug< may indeed In- traced in all these quarters ;(:,1; but the historical element
1 Acts vii. 22. ' Dcut. xviii. 15.
62 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE Lect. IL
to be detected is in every case so small, it is so overlaid by fable, and intermixed with what is palpably imaginative, that no manner of reliance can be placed upon statements merely because they occur in these pretended histories ; nor have they the slightest title to be used as tests whereby to try the authenticity of any other narrative. The only re- liable materials that we possess, besides the Pentateuch, for the history of the period which it embraces, consist of some fragments of Berosus and Manetho, an epitome of the early Egyptian history of the latter, a certain number of Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and two or three valuable papyri.
If it be asked on Avhat grounds so strong a preference is assigned to these materials, the answer is easy. The records selected are those of Egypt and Babylon. Now these two countries were, according to the most trust- worthy accounts, both sacred and profane, (52> the first seats of civilization : in them writing seems to have been practised earlier than elsewhere ; they paid from the first great attention to history, and possessed, when the Greeks became acquainted with them, historical records of an antiquity confessedly greater than that which could be claimed for any documents elsewhere. Further, in each of these countries, at the moment when, in consequence of Grecian conquest and the infusion of new ideas, there was the greatest danger of the records perishing or being vitiated, there arose a man — a native — thoroughly ac- quainted with their antiquities, and competently skilled in the Greek language, Avho transferred to that tongue, ana thus made the common property of mankind, what had previously been a hidden treasure — the possession of their own priests and philosophers only. The value of the histories written by Manetho the Sebennyte, and Berosus
Lect. IL truth of the scripture records, 63
the Chaldaean, had long been suspected by the learned ; W but it remained for the present age to obtain distinct evi- dence of their fidelity — evidence which places them, among the historians of early times, in a class by them- selves, greatly above even the most acute and painstaking of the Greek and Roman compilers. Herodotus, Ctesias, Alexander Polyhistor, Diodorus Siculus, Trogus Pompeius, could at best receive at second hand such representations of Babylonian and Egyptian history as the natives chose to import to them, and moreover received these representa- tions (for the most part) diluted and distorted by passing through the medium of comparatively ignorant interpret- ers. Manetho and Berosus had free access to the national records, and so could draw their histories directly from the fountain-head. This advantage might, of course, have been forfeited by a deficiency on their part of either honesty or diligence ; but the recent discoveries in the two countries have had the effect of removing all doubt upon either of these two heads from the character of both writers. The monuments which have been recovered furnish the strongest proof alike of the honest intention and of the diligence and carefulness of the two historians; who have thus, as profane writers of primeval history, a preeminence overall others. (M) This is perhaps the chief value of the documents obtained, which do not in themselves furnish a history, or even its framework, a chronology ; (•'•*> but re- quire an historical scheme to be given from without, into which they may lit, and wherein each may find its true and proper position.
If we now proceed to compare the Mosaic account of the first period of the world's history with that outline which may be obtained from Egyptian and Babylonian sources, we are strc -k at first sight with what seems an
64 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. II.
enormous difference in the chronology. The sura of the years in Manetho's scheme, as it has come down to us in Eusebius, is little short of thirty thousand ; (56) while that in the scheme of Berosus, as reported by the same author, <57) exceeds four hundred and sixty thousand ! But upon a little consideration, the greater part of this difficulty van- ishes. If we examine the two chronologies, we shall find that both evidently divide at a certain point, above which all is certainly mythic, while below all is, or at least may be, historical. Out of the thirty thousand years contained (apparently) in Manetho's scheme, nearly twenty-five thou- sand belong to the time when Gods, Demigods, and Spirits had rule on earth ; and the history of Egypt confessedly does not begin till this period is concluded, and Menes, the first Egyptian king, mounts the throne. t58) Similarly, in the chronology of Berosus, there is a sudden transition from kings whose reigns are counted by sossi and neri, or periods respectively of sixty and six hundred years, to monarchs the average length of whose reigns very little exceeds that found to prevail in ordinary monarchies. Omitting in each case what is plainly a mythic computa- tion, we have in the Babylonian scheme a chronology which mounts up no higher than two thousand four hun- dred and fifty-eight years before Christ, or eight hundred years after the Deluge, (according to the numbers of the Septuagint ;) while in the Egyptian we have at any rate only an excess of about two thousand years to explain and account for, instead of an excess of twenty-seven thousand. And this latter discrepancy becomes insignificant, i it does not actually disappear, upon a closer scrutiny, \ e five thousand years of Manetho's dynastic lists were re- duced by himself (as we learn from Syncellus) to three thousand five hundred and fifty-five years/59) doubtless
Lect. IL truth of the scripture records. 65
because he was aware that his lists contained in some eases contemporary dynasties ; in others, contemporary kin^s in the same dynasty, owing to the mention in them of various royal personages associated on the throne by the principal monarch. Thus near fifteen hundred years are struck off from Manetho's total at a blow; and the chronological difference between his scheme ami that of Scripture is reduced to a few hundred years — a discrepancy of no great moment, and one which might easily arise, either from slight errors of the copyists, or from an insufficient allowance being made in Manetho's scheme, in respect of either or both of the causes from which .Egyptian chronol- ogy is always liable to be exaggerated. Without taxing Manetho with conscious dishonesty, we may suspect that he was not unwilling to exalt the antiquity of his country, if he could do so without falsifying his authorities; and from the confusion of the middle or Ilyksos period of Egyptian history, and the obscurity of the earlier times, when there were as yet no monuments, he would have had abundant opportunity for chronological exaggeration by merely regarding as consecutive dynasties all these, which were not certainly known to have been contemporary. The real duration of the Egyptian monarchy depends en tirely upon the proper arrangement of the dynasties into synchronous and consecutive — a point upon which the best Egyptologers are still far from agreed. Some of the greatest names in this branch of antiquarian learning are in favor of a chronology almost as moderate as the historic Babylonian; the accession of Menes, according to them, falling about 26G0 B. C, or more than six hundred years after the Septuagint date for the Deluge. '
The removal of this difficulty open- the way to a consid- eration of the positive points of agreement between the
G*
63 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II.
Scriptural narrative and that of the profane authorities. And here, for the earliest times, it is especially Babylon which furnishes an account capable of being compared with that of Moses. According to Berosus, the world when first created was in darkness, and consisted of a fluid mass inhabited by monsters of the strangest forms. Over the whole dominated a female power called Thalatth, or Sea. Then Belus, wishing to carry on the creative work, cleft Thalatth in twain ; and of the half of her he made the earth, and of the other half the heaven. Hereupon the monsters, wrho could not endure the air and the light, per- ished. Belus upon this, seeing that the earth was desolate, yet teeming with productive power, cut off his own head, and mingling the blood which flowed forth with the dust of the ground, formed men, who were thus intelligent, as being partakers of the divine wisdom. lie then made other animals fit to live on the earth : he made also the stars, and the sun and moon, and the five planets. The first man was Alorus, a Chaldaean, who reigned over man- kind for thirty-six thousand years, and begat a son, Alapa- rus, who reigned ten thousand eight hundred years. Then followed in succession eight others, whose reigns were of equal or greater length, ending with Xisuthrus, under whom the great Deluge took place. (61> The leading facts of this cosmogony and antediluvian history are manifestly, and indeed confessedly, (m~> in close agreement with the Hebrew records. We have in it the earth at first "without form and void," and " darkness upon the face of the dee})." l We have the Creator dividing the watery mass and making the two firmaments, that of the heaven and that of the earth, first of all; we have Light spoken of before the sun and moon ; we have their creation, and that of the stars,
1 Genesis i. 2.
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 67
somewhat late in the series of events given ; we have a divine element infused into man at his birth, and again we have his creation "from the dust of the ground."1 Fur- ther, between the first man and the Deluge are in the scheme of Berosus ten generations, which is the exact number between Adam and Xoah ; and though the dura- tion of human life is in his account enormously exagger- ated, we may see even in this exaggeration a glimpse of the truth, that the lives of the Patriarchs were extended far beyond the term which has been the limit in later ages. This truth seems to have been known to many of the ancients/63) and traces of it have even been found among the modern Burmans and Chinese. (M)
The account which Berosus gives of the Deluge is still more strikingly in accordance with the narrative of Scrip- ture. "Xisuthrus," he says, "was warned by Saturn in a dream that all mankind would be destroyed shortly by a deluge of rain. He was bidden to bury in the city of Sip- para (or Sepharvaim) such written documents as existed; and then to build a huge vessel or ark. in length five fur- longs, and two furlongs in width, wherein was to he placed good store of provisions, together with winged fowl and four-footed beasts of the earth; and in which he was him- self to embark with his wife and children, and his close friends. Xisuthrus did accordingly, ami the flood came at the time appointed. The ark drifted towards Armenia; and Xisuthrus, on the third day after the rain abated, sent out from the ark a bird, which, after flying for a while over the illimitable sea of waters, and finding neither food nor a spot on which it could settle, returned to him. Some days later, Xisuthrus sent out other birds, which likewise re. turned, but with feet covered with mud. Sent out a third * Genesis ii. 7.
68 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IL
time, the birds returned no more ; and Xisuthrus knew that the earth had reappeared. So he removed some of the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold the vessel had grounded upon a high mountain, and remained fixed. Then he went forth from the ark, with his wife, his daugh- ter, and his pilot, and built an altar, and offered sacrifice; after which he suddenly disappeared from sight, together with those who had accompanied him. They who had remained in the ark, surprised that he did not return, sought him ; when they heard his voice in the sky, exhort- ing them to continue religious, and bidding them go back to Babylonia from the land of Armenia, where they were, and recover the buried documents, and make them once more known among men. So they obeyed, and went back to the land of Babylon, and built many cities and temples, and raised up Babylon from its ruins." (te)
Such is the account of Berosus ; and a description sub- stantially the same is given by Abydenus, (66) an ancient writer of whom less is known, but whose fragments are generally of great value and importance. It is plain that we have here a tradition not drawn from the Hebrew rec- ord, much less the foundation of that record ;(fi7) yet coin- ciding with it in the most remarkable way. The Baby- lonian version is tricked out with a few extravagances, as the monstrous size of the vessel, and the translation of Xisuthrus ; but otherwise it is the Hebrew history down to its minutiae. The previous warning, the divine direction as to the ark and its dimensions, the introduction into it of birds and beasts, the threefold sending out of the bird, the place of the ark's resting, the egress by removal of the cov- ering, the altar straightway built, and the sacrifice offered, constitute an array of exact coincidences which cannot possibly be the result of chance, and of which I see no
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 69
plausible account that can be given except that it is the harmony of truth. Nor are these minute coincidences counterbalanced by the important differences which some have seen in the two accounts. It is not true to say (as Niebuhr is reported to have said) that "the Babylonian tradition differs from the Mosaic account by stating that not only Xisuthrus and his family, but all pious men, were saved; and also by making the Flood not universal, bin only partial, and confined to Babylonia" (cc) Derosas does indeed give Xisuthrus, as companions in the ark, not only his wife and children, but a certain number of " close friends;" and thus far he differs from Scripture; but these friends are not represented as numerous, much less as " all pious men." And so far is he from making the Flood par- tial, or confining it to Babylonia, that his narrative dis- tinctly implies the contrary. The warning given t«> Xisu- thrus is that "mankind" (VoiV u^uw.toj?) is about to lie destroyed. The ark drifts to Armenia, and when it is there, the birds are sent out, and find "an illimitable sea of waters," and no rest for the sole of their feet. When at length they no longer return, Xisuthrus knows "that land has reappeared," and leaving the ark, finds himself "on a mountain in Armenia." It is plain that the waters are represented as prevailing above the tops of the loftiest mountains in Armenia, — a height which must have been seen to involve the submersion of all the countries with which the Babylonians were acquainted.
The account which the Chahhean writer gave of the events following the Deluge is reported with some disa- greement by the different authors through whom it has come down to us. Josephus believed that Berosus was in accord with Scripture in regard to the generations between the Flood and Abraham, which (according to the Jewish
70 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. U.
historian) he correctly estimated at ten.(67) But other writers introduce in this place, as coming from Berosus, a series of eighty-six kings, the first and second of whom reign for above two thousand years, while the remainder reign upon an average three hundred and forty-five years each. We have here perhaps a trace of that gradual short- ening of human life which the genealogy of Abraham exhibits to us so clearly in Scripture ; but the numbers appear to be artificial, W and they are unaccompanied by any history. There is reason, however, to believe that Berosus noticed one of the most important events of this period, in terms which very strikingly recall the Scripture narrative. Writers, whose Babylonian history seems drawn directly from him, or from the sources which he used, give the following account of the tower of Babel, and the con- fusion of tongues — "At this time the ancient race of. men were so puffed up with their strength and tallness of stat- ure, that they began to despise and contemn the gods ; and labored to erect that very lofty tower, which is now called Babylon, intending thereby to scale heaven. But when the building approached the sky, behold, the gods called in the aid of the winds, and by their help overturned the tower, and cast it to the ground. The name of the ruins is still called Babel ; because until this time all men had used the same speech, but now there was sent upon them a confusion of many and diverse tongues." (69>
At the point which we have now reacherl, the sacred narrative ceases to be general, and becomes special or par- ticular. It leaves the history of the world, and concen- trates itself on an individual and his descendants. At the moment of transition, however, it throws out, in a chapter of wonderful grasp and still more wonderful accuracy, a sketch of the nations of the earth, their ethnic affinities,
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 71
and to some extent their geographical position and bounda- ries. The Toldoth Beni Noah has extorted the admiration of modern ethnologists, who continually find in it anticipa- tions of their greatest discoveries. For instance, in the very second verse the great discovery of Schlegel, (~°) which the word Indo-European embodies — the affinity of the principal nations of Europe with the Arian or Lido-Persic stock — is sufficiently indicated by the conjunction of the Madai or Medes (whose native name was Mada) with Gomer or the Cymry, and Javan or the Ionians. Again, one of the most recent and unexpected results of modern linguistic inquiry is the proof which it has furnished of an ethnic connection between the Ethiopians or Cushites, who adjoined on Egypt, and the primitive inhabitants of Baby- lonia ; a connection which (as we saw in the last Lecture) was positively denied by an eminent ethnologist only a few years ago, but which has now been sufficiently established from the cuneiform monuments. (71) In the tenth of Gene- sis we find this truth thus briefly but clearly stated — "And Cush begat Nimrod," the "beginning of whose kingdom was Babel."1 So we have had it recently made evident from the same monuments, that "out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh"-' — or that the Semitic Assyrians proceeded from Babylonia and founded Nineveh long after the Cushite foundation of Babylon. (T2> Again, the Hamitic descent of the early inhabitants of Canaan, which had often been called in question, has recently come to be looked upon as almost certain, apart from the evi- dence of Scripture ; <73> and the double mention of Slieb.i, both among the sons of Ham, and also among -those of SheiV has been illustrated by the discovery that there are
1 Gen. x. 8 and 10. * Ibid, verse 11.
3 Ibid, verses 7 and 28.
72 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II
two races of Arabs — one (the Joktanian) Semitic, the other (the Himyaric) Cushite or Ethiopic. (74> On the whole, the scheme of ethnic affiliation given in the tenth chapter of Genesis is pronounced "safer" to follow than any other ; and the Toldoth Beni Noah commends itself to the ethnic inquirer as " the most authentic recoi'd that we possess for the affiliation of nations," and as a document " of the very highest antiquity." (75>
The confirmation which profane history lends the Book of Genesis from the point whei*e the narrative passes from the general to the special character, is (as might be expected) only occasional, and for the most part incidental. Abraham was scarcely a personage of sufficient importance to attract much of the attention of either the Babylonian or the Egyptian chroniclers. We possess, indeed, several very interesting notices of this Patriarch and his successors from heathen pens ; (7C) but they are of far inferior moment to the authorities hitherto cited, since they do not indicate a separate and distinct line of information, but are, in all probability, derived from the Hebrew records. I refer par- ticularly to the passages which Eusebius produces in his Gospel Preparation from Eupolemus, Artapanus, Molo, Philo, and Cleodemus or Malchas, with regard to Abra- ham, and from Demetrius, Theodotus, Artapanus, and Philo, with respect to Isaac and Jacob. These testimonies are probably well known to many of my hearers, since they have been adduced very generally by our writers. (77> They bear unmistakably the stamp of a Jewish origin; and show the view which the more enlightened heathen took of the historical character of the Hebrew records, when they first became acquainted Avith them ; but they cannot boast, like notices in Berosus and Manetho, a distinct origin, and thus a separate and independent authority. I shall there-
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 73
fore content myself with this brief mention of them here, which is all that time will allow ; and proceed to adduce a few direct testimonies to the later narrative, furnished either by the native writers, or by the results of modern researches.
There are three points only in this portion of the narra- tive which, being of the nature of public and important events, might be expected to obtain notice in the Babylo- nian or Egyptian records — the expedition of Chedor-laomer with his confederate kings, the great famine in the days of Joseph, and the Exodus of the Jews. Did we possess the complete monumental annals of the two countries, or the works themselves of Berosus and Manetho, it might fairly be demanded of us that we should adduce evidence from them of all the three. With the scanty and fragmentary remains which are what we actually possess, it would not be sur- prising if we found ourselves without a trace of any. In fact, however, we are able to produce from our scanty stock a decisive confirmation of two events out of the three.
The monumental records of Babylonia bear marks of an interruption in the line of native kings, about the date which from Scripture we should assign to Chedor-laomer, and "point to Elymais (or Klam) as the country from which the interruption came." (~*) We have mention of a king, whose name is on good grounds identified with Chedor-laomer, (~9) as paramount in Babylonia al this time — a king apparently of Elamitic origin — ami this monarch bears in the inscriptions the unusual ami significant title of Apdu MarttL, or "Ravager of the West." Our (raiment-; of Berosus give us no names at this period; hut his dynas- ties exhibit a transition at about the date required, M,) which is in accordance with the break indicated by the monuments. We thus obtain a doiihle witness to tho
74 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IL
remarkable fact of an interruption of pure Babylonian supremacy at this time; and from the monuments we are able to pronounce that the supremacy was transferred to Elam, and that under a king, the Semitic form of whose name would be Chedor-laomer, a great expedition wag organized, which proceeded to the distant and then almost unknown west, and returned after "ravaging" but not, conquering those regions.
The Exodus of the Jews was an event which could scarcely be omitted by Manetho. It was one however of such a nature — so entirely repugnant to all the feelings of an Egyptian — that we could not expect a fair representa- tion of it in their annals. And accordingly, our fragments of Manetho present us with a distinct but very distorted notice of the occurrence. The Hebrews are represented as leprous and impious Egyptians, who under the conduct of a priest of Heliopolis, named Moses, rebelled on account of oppression, occupied a town called Avaris, or Abaris, and having called in the aid of the people of Jerusalem, made themselves masters of Egypt, which they held for thirteen years ; but who were at last defeated by the Egyptian king, and driven from Egypt into Syria. (81> We have here the oppression, the name Moses, the national name, Hebrew, under the disguise of Abaris, and the true direction of the retreat ; but we have all the special circumstances of the occasion concealed under a general confession of disaster; and we have a claim to final triumph which consoled the wounded vanity of the nation, but which Ave know to have been unfounded. On the whole Ave have perhaps as much as Ave could reasonably expect the annals of the Egyp- tians to tell us of transactions so little to their credit ; and we have a narrative fairly confirming the principal facts, as well as very curious in many of its particulars. C88)
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 75
I have thus briefly considered some of the principal of those direct testimonies which can be adduced from ancient profane sources, in confirmation of the historic truth of the
Pentateuch. There are various other arguments some
purely, some partly historic — into which want of space for- bids my entering in the present Course. For instance, there is what may be called the historico-scientific argument, derivable from the agreement of the sacred narrative with the conclusions reached by those sciences which have a partially historical character. Geology — whatever may be thought of its true bearing upon other points — at least witnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom there is no trace in any but the latest strata. W Physiology decides in favor of the unity of the species, and the proba- ble derivation of the whole human race from a single pair. (84> Comparative Philology, after divers fluctuations, settles into the belief that languages will ultimately prove to have been all derived from a common ba«is. C85) 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. C86) Again, there is an argument perhaps more con- vincing than any other, but of immense compass, dedueible from the indirect and incidental points of agreement between the Mosaic records and the best profane authori- ties. The limits within which I am confined compel me to decline this portion of the inquiry. Otherwise it might be shown that the linguistic, geographic, and ethologie notices contained in the books of .Moses are of the most veracious character/87' stamping the whole narration with an unmis- takable air of authenticity. Ami this, it may be remarked, is an argument to which modern research is perpetually
76 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. II.
adding fresh weight. For instance, if we look to the geography, we shall find that till within these few years, "Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar"1 — ■ Calah and Resen, in the country peopled by Asshur2 — 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. C8^ Recently, however, the mounds of Mesopotamia have been searched, and bricks and stones buried for near three thousand years have found a tongue, and tell us exactly where each of these cities stood, (89) and sufficiently indicate their impor- tance. Again, the power of Og, and his " threescore cities all fenced with high walls, gates, and bars, besides unwalled towns a great many,"4 in such a country as that to the east of the Sea of Galilee, whose old name of Trachonitis indi- cates its barrenness, seemed to many improbable — but modern research has found in this very country a vast number of walled cities still standing, which show the habits of the ancient people, and prove that the population must at one time have been considerable. W So the care- ful examination that has been made of the valley of the Jordan, which has resulted in a proof that it is a unique phenomenon, utterly unlike any thing elsewhere on the whole face of the earth, (91> tends greatly to confirm the Mosaic account, that it became what it now is by a great convulsion ; and by pious persons will, I think, be felt as confirming the miraculous character of that convulsion. Above all, perhaps, the absence of any counter-evidence — the fact that each accession to our knowledge of the ancient times, whether historic or geographic, or ethnic, helps to remove difficulties, and to produce a perpetual
1 Gen. x. 10. 2 Ibid, verses 11 and 12.
3 Ibid. xi. 31 ; xiv. 1. 4 Deut. iii. 5.
LECT. II. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 77
supply of fresh illustrations of the Mosaic narrative ; while fresh difficulties are not at the same time brought to light — is to be remarked, as to candid minds an argument for the historic truth of the narrative, the force of which can scarcely be over-estimated. All tends to show that we possess in the Pentateuch, not only the most authentic account of ancient times that has come down to us, but a histoiy absolutely and in every respect true. All tends to assure us that in this marvellous volume we have no old wives' tales, no "cunningly devised fable;"1 but a "treas- ure of wisdom and knowledge"- — as important to the his- torical inquirer as to the theologian. There may be obscurities — there may be occasionally, in names and numbers, accidental corruptions of the text — there may be a few interpolations — glosses which have crept in from the margin ; but upon the whole it must be pronounced that we have in the Pentateuch a genuine and authentic, work, and one which — even were it not inspired — would be, for the times and countries whereof it treats, the lead- ing and paramount authority. It is (let us be assured) "Moses," who is still "read in the synagogues every sabbath day;"3 and they who "resist" him, by impugning his veracity, like Jannes and Jainhres of old, " resist the truths *
1 2 Tot. 5. 16. * Col. ii. 3.
3 Acts xv. 21. 4 2 Tim. iii. 8.
LECTURE III.
WHEN HE HAD DESTROYED SEVEN NATIONS IN THE LAND OF CHANAAN, HE DIVIDED THEIR LAND TO THEM BY LOT. AND AFTER THAT HE GAVE THEM JUDGES ABOUT THE 8PACE OF FOUR HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEAKS, UNTIL SAMUEL THE PROPHET. AND AFTERWARD THEY DE- SIRED A KING. — ACTS XIII. 19-21.
The period of Jewish history, which has to be considered in the present Lecture, contains within it the extremes of obscurity and splendor, of the depression and the exalta- tion of the race. The fugitives from Egypt, who by divine aid eifected a lodgment in the land of Canaan, under their great leader, Joshua, were engaged for some hundreds of years in a perpetual struggle for existence with the petty tribes among whom they had intruded themselves, and seemed finally on the point of succumbing and ceasing altogether to be a people, when they were suddenly lifted up by the hand of God, and carried rapidly to the highest pitch of greatness whereto they ever attained. From the time when the Hebrews "hid themselves in holes,"1 for fear of the Philistines, and wrere 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 wras a space little, if at all, exceeding half a
1 1 Sam. xiv. 11. s Ibid. xiii. 19-22. 3 2 Sam. viii.
(78)
JZCI. III. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. *M
century. Thus wore brought within the lifetime of a nan the highest glory and the deepest shame, oppression and dominion, terror and triumph, the peril of extinction and the establishment of a mighty empire. The very men who "hid themselves in caves and in thickets, in rocks, and in high places, and in pits," ' or who fled across the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead,2 when the Philistines "pitched in Michmash," may have seen garrisons put in Damascus and " throughout all Edom," 3 and the dominion of David extended to the Euphrates.4
The history of this remarkable period is delivered to us in four or five Books, the authors of which are unknown, or at best uncertain. It is thought by some that Joshua wrote the book which bears his name, except the closing verses of the last chapter ;(') and by others, (2) that Samuel composed twenty-four chapters of the first of those two books which in our Canon bear the title of Books of Samuel ; but there is no such uniform tradition W in either case as exists respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch, nor is there the same weight of internal testimony. On the whole, the internal testimony seems to be against the ascription of the Book of Joshua to the Jewish leader ; W and both it, Judges, and Ruth, as well :is Kings and Chroni- cles, are best referred to the cluss of tfifiila udicnttTa, or books the authors of which are unknown to us. The im- portance of a history, however, though it may he enhanced by our knowledge of the author, docs not necessarily de- pend on such knowledge. The Turin Papyrus, the Parian Marble, the Saxon Chronicle, are documents of the very highest historic value, though we know nothing of the persons who composed them ; because there is reason to
1 1 Sam. xiii. 6. : Ibid, vorsr 7.
3 2 Sam. viii. 14. * Ibid, vers* 3.
80 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IIL
believe that they were composed from good sources. And so it is with these portions of the Sacred Volume. There is abundant evidence, both internal and external, of their authenticity and historic value, notwithstanding that their actual composers are unknown or uncertain. They have really the force of State Papers, being authoritative public documents, preserved among the national archives of the Jews so long as they were a nation ; and ever since cher- ished by the scattered fragments of the race as among the most precious of their early records. As we do not com- monly ask who was the author of a State Paper, but ac- cept it without any such formality, so we are bound to act towards these writings. They are written near the time, sometimes by eye-witnesses, sometimes by those who have before them the reports of eye-witnesses ; and their recep- tion among the sacred records of the Jews stamps them with an authentic character.
As similar attempts have been made to invalidate the authority of these books with those to which I alluded in the last Lecture, as directed against the Pentateuch, it will be necessary to state briefly the special grounds, which exist in the case of each, for accepting it as containing a true history. Having thus vindicated the historical char- acter of the Books from the evidence which they them- selves offer, I shall then proceed to adduce such confir- mation of their truth as can be obtained from other, and especially from profane, sources.
The Book of Joshua is clearly the production of an eye- witness. The writer includes himself among those who passed over Jordan dryshod.1 He speaks of Rahab the harlot as still " dwelling in Israel " when he writes ; 2 and of Hebron as still in the possession of Caleb the son of
1 Josh. v. 1. 2 Ibid. vi. 25. »
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 81
Jephunneh.1 lie belongs clearly to the "elders that outlived Joshua, which had known all the works of the Lord that he had done for Israel ; " - and is therefore as credible a witness for the events of the settlement in Palestine, as Moses for those of the Exodus and the pas- sage through the wilderness. Further, he undoubtedly possesses documents of authority, from one of which (the Book of Jasher) he quotes;3 and it is a reasonable supposi- tion that his work is to a great extent composed from such documents, to which there are several references,4 besides the actual quotation. (5)
The Book of Judges, according to the tradition of the Jews, was written by Samuel. (°) There is nothing in the work itself that very distinctly marks the date of its com- position. From its contents we can only say that it must have been composed about Samuel's time; that is, after the death of Samson, and before the capture of Jerusalem by David. 0) As the events related in it certainly cover a space of some hundreds of years, the writer, whoever he be, cannot be regarded as a contemporary witness for more than a small portion of them. lie stands rather in the position of Moses with respect to the greater part of Genesis, being the recorder of his country's traditions dur- ing a space generally estimated as about equal to that which intervened between the call of Abraham and the birth of Moses. W Had these traditions been handed down entirely by oral communication, still, being chiefly marked and striking events in the national lite, they would have possessed a fair title to acceptance. As the ease actually stands, however, there is every reason to believe that national records, which (as we have seen) existed in the
1 Josh. xiv. 14. ' Ibid. xxiv. 31.
2 Ibid. x. 13. " Ibid, xviii. U ; xxiv. 26.
82 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IIL
days of Moses and Joshua, were continued by their suc- cessors, and that these formed the materials from which the Book of Judges was composed by its author. Of such records we have a specimen in the Song of Deborah and Barak, an historical poem embodying the chief facts of Deborah's judgeship. It is reasonable to suppose that there may have been many such compositions, belonging to the actual time of the events, of which the historian could make use ; and it is also most probable that chronicles were kept even at this early date, like those to which the writers of the later historical books refer so constantly.1
The two Books of Samuel are thought by some to form, together with the two Books of Kings, a single work, and are referred to the time of the Babylonish captivity ; (9> but this view is contrary both to the internal and to the external evidence. The tradition of the Jews is, that the work was commenced by Samuel, continued by Gad, David's seer, and concluded by Nathan the prophet ; (10> and this is — to say the least — a very probable supposi- tion. We know from a statement in the First Book of Chronicles, that "the acts of David the king, first and last, were written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer ; " 2 and these writings, it is plain, were still extant in the Chronicler's time. If then the Books of Samuel had been a compilation made during the Captivity, or earlier, it would have been founded on these books, which could not but have been of primary authority ; in which case the compiler could scarcely have failed to quote them, either by name, as the Chronicler does in the place which has been
1 1 Kings xi. 41 ; xiv. 19 and 29; xv. 7 ; xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27, &c; 1 Chron. xxvii. 24 ; 2 Chron. xii. 15 ; xiii. 22 ; xx. 34, &c. 8 J Chron. xxix. 29.
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 83
cited, or under the title of "the Chronicles of David," as he seems to do in another.1 But there is no quotation, direct or indirect, no trace of compilation, no indication of a writer drawing from other authors, in the two Books of Samuel, from beginning to end. In this respect they con- trast most strongly with both Chronicles and Kings, where the authors at every turn make reference to the sources from which they derive their information. These books therefore are most reasonably to be regarded as a primary and original work — the work used and quoted, by the Chronicler for the reign of David — and a specimen of those other works from which the authors of Kings and Chronicles confessedly compiled their histories. We have thus, in all probability, for the times of Samuel, Said, and David, the direct witness of Samuel himself, and of the two prophets who were in most repute during the reign of David.
The writer of the first Book of Kings derives his account of Solomon from a document which he calls " the Book of the Acts of Solomon;"- while the author of the second Book of Chronicles cites three works as furnishing him with materials for this part of his history — "the book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Abijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer against Jeroboanf the son of Nebat."3 These last were certainly the works of con- temporaries ;(") and the same may be presumed of the other; since the later compiler is not likely to have pos- sessed better materials than the earlier. We may therefore conclude that we have in Kings and Chronicles the history of Solomon's reign — not perhaps exactly in the words of contemporary writers — but substantially as they delivered it. And the writers were persons who held the same high
1 1 Chron. xxvii. 24. * 1 Kin^s xi. 41. '2 Chron. ix. 2LJ.
84 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LeCT. IIL
position under Solomon, which the composers of the Books of Samuel had held under Saul and David.
It is also worthy of remark, that we have the histories of David and Solomon from two separate and distinct authorities. The writer of Chronicles does not draw even his account of David wholly from Samuel, but adds various particulars, which show that he had further sources of in- formation. (I2) And his account of Solomon appears not to have been drawn from Kings at all, but to have been taken quite independently from the original documents.
Further, it is to be noted that we have in the Book of Psalms, at once a running comment, illustrative of David's personal history, the close agreement of which with the historical books is striking, and also a work affording abundant evidence that the history of the nation, as it is delivered to us in the Pentateuch, in Joshua, and in Judges, was at least believed by the Jews to be their true and real history in the time of David. The seventy-eighth Psalm, which certainly belongs to David's time, is sufficient proof of this : it contains a sketch of Jewish history, from the wonders wrought by Moses in Egypt to the establish- ment of the ark in mount Zion by David, and refers to not fewer than fifty or sixty of the occurrences which are de- scribed £ft length in the historical writings. (13) It is cer- tain, at the least, that the Jews of David's age had no other account to give of their past fortunes than that miraculous story which has come down to us in the Books of Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Samuel.
We have now further to consider what amount of con- firmation profane history lends to the truth of the sacred narrative during the period extending from the death of Moses to the accession of Rehoboam. This period, it has
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 85
been observed above, comprises within it the two most opposite conditions of the Jewish race : during its earlier portion the Israelites were a small and insignificant people, with difficulty maintaining themselves in the hill-country of Palestine against the attacks of various tribes, none of whom have made any great figure in history : while towards its close a Jewish Empire was formed — an Empire perhaps as great as any which up to that time had been known in the Eastern world, and which, if not so extensive as some that shortly afterwards grew up in Western Asia, at any rate marks very distinctly the period when the power and prosperity of the Jews reached its acme.
It was not to be expected that profane writers would notice equally both of these periods. During the obscure time of the Judges, the Jews could be little known beyond their borders; and even had Assyria and Egypt been at this time flourishing and aggressive states, had the armies of either or both been then in the habit of traversing Palestine in the course of their expeditions, the Israelites might easily have escaped mention, since they occupied Only a small part of the country, and that part the least accessible of the whole. (M) It appears, however, that in fact both Assyria and Egypt were weak during this period. The expeditions of the former were still confined within the Euphrates, or, if they crossed it on rare occasions, at any rate went no farther than Cappadocia and lTpper Syria, or the country about Aleppo and Antioch.(i:,) Ami Egypt from the time of Harnesses the third, which was not long after the Exodus, to that of Shishak, the contem- porary of Solomon, seems to have sent no expeditions lit all beyond its own frontier. ("'' Thus the annals of the two countries are necessarily silent concerning the Jews during the period in question ; and no agreement between
8
86 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE L.ECT. IIL
them and the Jewish records is possible, except that tacit one which is found in fact to exist. The Jewish records are silent concerning Egypt, from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon ; which is exactly the time during which the Egyptian records are silent concerning the Jews. And Assyria does not appear in Scripture as an influential power in Lower Syria and Palestine till a time considerably later than the separation of the kingdoms ; while similarly the Assyrian monuments are without any mention of expedi- tions into these parts during the earlier period of the em- pire. Further, it may be remarked that from the mention of Chushan-Rishathaim, king of Aram-Naharaim, (or the country about Harran,) as a powerful prince soon after the death of Joshua, it would follow that Assyria had not at that time extended her dominion even to the Euphrates ; a conclusion which the cuneiform records of perhaps two centuries later entirely confirm, (17) since they show that even then the Assyrians had not conquered the whole country east of the river.
Besides the points of agreement here noticed, which, though negative, are (I think) of no slight weight, we possess one testimony belonging to this period of a direct and positive character, which is among the most curious of the illustrations, that profane sources furnish, of the vera- city of Scripture. Moses of Chorene, the Armenian his- torian, (18) Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius, (19) and Suidas the Lexicographer, t20) relate, that there existed in their day at Tingis, (or Tangiers,) in Africa, an ancient in- scription to the effect that the inhabitants were the de- scendants of those fugitives who were driven from the land of Canaan by Joshua the son of Nun, the plunderer. It has been said that this story " can scarcely be any thing but a Rabbinical legend, wdiich Procopius may have heard
LECT. III. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 87
from African Jews." (21) But the independent testimony of the three writers, who do not seem to have copied from one another, is an argument of great weight ; and the expressions used, by Procopius especially, have a precision and a circumstantiality, which seem rather to imply the basis of personal observation. "There stand," he says, "two pillars of white marble near the great fountain in the city of Tigisis, bearing an inscription in Phoenician characters, and in the Phoenician language, which runs as follows." I cannot see that there would be any sufficient reason for doubting the truth of this very clear and exact statement, even if it stood alone, and were unconfirmed by any other writer. Two writers, however, confirm it — one of an earlier and the other of a later date ; and the three testimonies are proved, by their slight variations, to be independent of one another. There is then sufficient reason to believe that a Phoenician inscription to the effect stated existed at Tangiers in the time of the Lower Empire; ami the true question for historical criticism to consider and determine is, what is the weight and value of such an inscription.^ That it was not a Jewish or a Christian monument is certain from the epithet of "plunderer" or "robber" applied in it to Joshua. That it was more ancient than Christianity seems probable from the language and charac- ter in which it was written. <2:,) It would appear to have been a genuine Phoenician monument, of an antiquity which cannot now be decided, but which was probably remote; and it must be regarded as embodying an ancient tradition, current in this part of Africa in times anterior to Christianity, which very remarkably confirms the Hebrew narrative.
There is another event of a public nature, belonging to this portion of the history, of which some have thought to
88 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. III.
find a confirmation in the pages of a profane writer. "The Egyptians," says Herodotus, C24) "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 t25) that we have here a notice of that remarkable time when " the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day ; " l as well as of that other somewhat similar occasion, when "the sun returned ten degrees" on the dial of Ahaz.2 But the statement made to Herodotus by the Egyptian priests would very ill describe the phenomena of these two occa- sions, however we understand the narratives in Joshua and Kings ; and the fact which they intended to convey to him was probably one connected rather with their peculiar system of astronomical cycles, than with any sudden and violent changes in the celestial order. If the narrative in Joshua is to be understood astronomically, of an actual cessation or retardation of the earth's motion, (2C) we must admit that profane history fails to present us with any mention of an occurrence, which it might have been expected to notice with distinctness. But at the same time we must remember how scanty are the remains which we possess of this early time, and how strictly they are limited to the recording of political events and dynastic changes. The astronomical records of the Babylonians have perished ; and the lists of Manetho contain but few references to natural phenomena, which are never intro- duced except when they have a political bearing. No valid objection therefore can be brought against the literal truth of the narrative in Joshua from the present want of any profane confirmation of it. Where the records of the
1 Jqsh. x. 13. * Isa. xxxviii. 8.
LECT. Ill TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 89
past are so few and so slight, the argument from mere silence lias neither force nor place.
The flourishing period of Jewish history, which com- mences with the reign of David, brought the chosen people of God once more into contact with those principal nations of the earth, whose history has to some extent come down to us. One of the first exploits of David Mas that great defeat which he inflicted on the Syrians of Damascus, in the vicinity of the Euphrates, when they came to the assistance of Hadedezer king of Zobah — a defeat which cost them more than twenty thousand men, and which was followed by the temporary subjection of Damascus to the Israelites; since "David put garrisons in Syria of Damas- cus, and the Syrians became servants to David, and brought gifts."1 This war is mentioned not only by Eu- polemus^27) who appears to have been well acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures, but also by Nicolas of Damascus, the friend of Augustus Caesar, who clearly draws his his- tory from the records of his native place. "After this," says Nicolas, "there was a certain Hadad, a native Syrian, who had great power: he ruled over Damascus, and all Syria, except Phoenicia. lie likewise undertook a war with David, the king of Judaea, and contended against him in a number of battles; in the last of them all — which was by the river Euphrates, and in which he suffered defeat — showing himself a prince of the greatest courage and prowess." C38) This is a testimony of the same nature with those already adduced from Berosus and Manctho; it is a separate and independent notice of an event in Jewish history, which has come down to us from the other party in the transaction, with particulars not contained in the Jewish account, yet compatible with all that is so
1 2 Sum. viii. 6. Comp. 1 Chr. xviii. 6. 8*
90 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. III.
contained, and strictly corroborative of the main circum- stances of the Hebrew narrative.
The other wars of the son of Jesse wei-e with enemies of inferior power and importance, as the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Idumjeans, and the Ama- lekites. Eupolemus mentions most of these successes ; f29) 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, C30) and hitherto, perhaps, to some extent by intervening tribes, only began to hold relations with each other when the conquests of David brought Judoea into a new position among the powers of these regions. It was necessary for the commerce of Phoenicia that she should enjoy the friendship of whatever power commanded the great lines of inland traffic, which ran through Coele-Syria and Damascus, by Hamath and Tad- mor, to the Euphrates. (31> Accordingly we find that upon the "establishment" and " exaltation" of David's kingdom,1 overtures were at once made to him by the chief Phoeni- cian power of the day ; and his good will was secured by benefits of the most acceptable kind — the loan of skilled artificers and the gift of cedar-beams " in abundance " 2 — after which a firm friendship was established between the two powers,3 which continued beyond the reign of David into that of Solomon his son.4 Now here it is most
1 2 Sam. v. 11, 12. 2 1 Chr. xxii. 4.
3 1 Kings v. 1. 4 Ibid, verse 12.
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 91
interesting to see whether the Hebrew writer lias cor- rectly represented the condition of Phoenicia at the time ; whether the name which lie has assigned to his Phoenician prince is one that Phoenicians bore or the contrary ; and finally, whether there is any trace of the reign of this par- ticular prince at this time.
With regard to the first point, it is to be observed, that the condition of Phoenicia varied at different periods. While we seem to trace throughout the whole history a constant recognition of some one city as predominant among the various towns, if not as sovereign over them, we do not always find the same city occupying this posi- tion. In the most ancient times it is Sidon which claims and exercises this precedency and preeminence ; C32) 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 t35) 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, t37) who drew their Phoenician histories from the native records, clearly show that at a time anterior to David, Tyre had become the leading state, which she continued to be until the time of Alexander. (**) The notices of Phoenicia in Scripture are completely in accordance with what we have thus gathered from profane sources. While Sidon alone appears to have been known to Moses,1 and Tyre occurs in Joshua as a mere stronghold in marked contrast with imperial Sidon, ("great Zidon," as she is called more than once)-' — whose dominion seems to extend along the coast to Cannel, (M) and certainly reaches inland as far as Laish s — in Samuel and Kings the case is
> Gen. x. 15; xlix. 13. * J<»>h. xi. 8 ; xix. 28.
3 Judges xvii. 7 anil 28.
92 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IIL
changed ; Sielon has no longer a distinctive epithet ; ' and it is the "king of Tyre" who on behalf of his countrymen makes advances to David, and who is evidently the chief Phoenician potentate of the period.
Further, when we look to the name borne by this prince — the first Phoenician mentioned byname in Scripture — we are at once struck with its authentic character. That Hiram was really a Phoenician name, and one which kings were in the habit of bearing, is certain from the Assyrian Inscriptions W and from Herodotus, (41) as well as from the Phoenician historians, Dius and Menander. And these last- named writers not only confirm the name as one which a king of Tyre might have borne, but show moreover that it was actually borne by the Tyrian king contemporary with Solomon and David, of whom they relate circumstances which completely identify him with the monarch who is stated in Scripture to have been on such friendly terms with those princes. They do not indeed appear to have made any mention of David ; but they spoke distinctly of the close connection between Hiram and Solomon ; adding facts, which, though not contained in Scripture, are remark- ably in accordance with the sacred narrative. For instance, both Menander and Dius related that "hard questions" were sent by Solomon to Hiram to be resolved by him ;(42) while Dius added, that Hiram proposed similar puzzles to Solomon in return, which that monarch with all his wisdom was unable to answer. (43> We may see in this narrative, not only a resemblance to the famous visit of the " Queen of the South,"2 who, "when she heard of the fame of Solo- mon, came to prove him with hard questions;"3 but also an illustration of the statement that "all the earth sought to Solomon to hear his wisdom, which God had put in his
1 2 Sam. xxir. 6. * Matt. xii. 42. 3 1 Kings x. 1.
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 93
heart."1 Again, Menander stated that Hiram gave his daughter in marriage to Solomon. C44) This fact is not recorded in Scripture; but still it is illustrative of the state- ment that "King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Mo- abites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Ilittites. . . . And lie had seven hundred wives, princesses."'2 One of these we may well conceive to have been the daughter of the Tyrian king.
The relations of Solomon with Egypt have received at present but little illustration from native Egyptian sources. Our epitome of Manetho gives us nothing but a bare list of names at the period to which Solomon must belong; and the Egyptian monuments for the time are particularly scanty and insignificant. (45) Moreover the omission of the Jewish writers to place on record the distinctive name of the Pharaoh whose daughter Solomon married, forbids his satisfactory identification with any special Egyptian mon- arch. Eupolemus indeed professed to supply this omission of the older historians/4'') and enlivened his history with copies of the letters which (according to him) passed be- tween Solomon and Vaphres or Apries, king of Egypt ; but this name is clearly taken from a later portion of Egyptian history, and none at all similar to it is found either on the monuments or in the dynastic lists for the period. The Egyptian marriage of Solomon, therefore, ami his friendly connection with a Pharaoh of the twenty-first dynasty, have at present no confirmation from profane sources, beyond that which it derives from Eupolemus; lint the change in the relations between the two courts towards the (•!<»•.• of Solomon's reign, which is indicated by the protection ex- tended to his enemy Jeroboam by a new king, Shishak,
1 1 Kin^s x. 24. * Ibid. xi. 1-3.
94 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LFXT. Ill
receives some illustration and confirmation both from the monuments and from the native historian. Shishak makes his appearance at a suitable point, so far as chronology is concerned/47^ in the lists of Manetho, where he is called Sesonchis or Sesonchosis/48) and his name occurs likewise in the sculptures of the period under its Egyptian form of Sheshonk. (49) The confirmation which the monuments lend to the capture of Jerusalem by this king will be con- sidered in the next Lecture. At present, we have only to note, besides the occurrence of the name at the place where we should naturally look for it in the lists, the fact that it occurs at the commencement of a new dynasty — a dynasty furnished by a new city, and quite of a different character from that preceding it — which would therefore be in no way connected with Solomon, and would not be unlikely to reverse the policy of the house which it had supplanted.
The wealth and magnificence of Solomon were celebrated by Eupolemus and (5°)Theophilus,(-'5lHhe former of whom gave an elaborate account of the temple and its ornaments. As, however, these writers were merely Avell-informed Greeks who reported to their countrymen the ideas entertained of their history by the Jews of the third and fourth centuries B. C, I forbear to dwell upon their testimonies. I shall therefore close here the direct confirmations from profane sources of this portion of the Scripture narrative, and pro- ceed to consider briefly some of the indirect points of agreement, with which this part of the history, like every other, abounds.
First, then, it may be observed, that the empire ascribed to David and Solomon is an empire of exactly that hind which alone Western Asia was capable of producing, and did produce, about the period in question. The modern
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRirTURE RECORDS. 95
system of centralized organization by which the various provinces of a vast empire are cemented into :i compact mass, was unknown to the ancient world, and has never been practised by Asiatics. The satrapial system of gov- ernment, or that in which the pi evinces retain their indi- viduality, but are administered on a common plan by officers appointed by the crown — which has prevailed gen- erally through the East since the time of its first introduc- tion— was the invention of Darius Hystaspis. Before his time the greatest monarchies had a slighter and weaker organization. They were in all cases composed of a num- ber of separate kingdoms, each under its own native king; and the sole link uniting them together and constituting them an empire, was the subjection of these petty mon- archs to a single suzerain. (52> The Babylonian, Assyrian, Median, and Lydian, were all empires of this type — mon- archies, wherein a sovereign prince at the head of a power- ful kingdom was acknowledged as suzerain by a number of inferior princes, each in his own right sole ruler of his own country. And the subjection of the interior princes con- sisted chiefly, if not solely, in two points; they were bound to render homage to their suzerain, and to pay him annu- ally a certain stated tribute. Thus, when we lien that "Solomon reigned over all tin kin ;/<!>>/, is from the river (Euphrates) unto the land of the Philistines and unto the border of Egypt"1 — or again, that "he had dominion ove" all the region on this side the river, from Tiphsah (or Thapsacus on the Euphrates) to Azzah, (or (iaza, the most southern of the Philistine towns,) over <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.
90 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. III.
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, C55) 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.
LECT. III. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 97
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. C60) The " throne of ivory"3 has its parallel in the numerous ivory carvings lately brought from Mesopotamia, which in many cases have plainly formed the covering of furniture. (61) The lions, which stood beside the throne,4 bring to our mind at once the lions' feet with which Assyrian thrones were ornamented, (62^ and the- gigantic sculptured figures which commonly formed the portals of the great halls. In these and many other points the state and character of art, which the Hebrew writers describe as existing in Solomon's time, receives confirmation from profane sources, and especially from those remains of a time not long subse- quent, which have been recently brought to light by the researches made in Mesopotamia.
Once more — the agreement between the character of the Phoenicians as drawn in Kings and Chronicles, and that which we know from other sources to have attached to them, is worthy of remark. The wealth, the enterprise, the maritime skill, and the eminence in the arts, which were the leading characteristics of the Phoenicians in Homer's time, are abundantly noted by the writers of Kings and Chronicles; who contrast the comparative ignorance and rudeness of their own nation with the science and "cunning" of their neighbors. "Thou
1 1 Kings vi. 20, 21, 28, 30, 32, &c. 5 Ibid. vii. 15-22.
a Ibid. x. 19. * Ibid, verses ll>and20.
9
98 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE L,ECT. Ill,
knowest," writes king Solomon to Hiram, " that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like the Sidonians." 1 " Send me a man," again he writes, " cunning to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass, and in iron, and in purple, and crimson, and blue, and that can skill to grave with the cunning men which are with me in Judah and in Jerusalem, whom David my father did provide."2 And the man sent, "a man of Tyre, a worker in brass, filled with wisdom, and understanding, and cunning to work all works in brass, came to king Solomon, and wrought all his work? 3 So too when Solomon " made a navy of ships in Ezion-geber, on the shore of the Red Sea," Hiram " sent in the navy his servants, shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon." 4 It has been well re- marked, C68) 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. C64) Internally consistent, externally resting upon contemporary or nearly contemporary docu- ments, and both directly and indirectly continued by the records of neighboring nations, the Hebrew account of this time is entitled to be receive. 1 as a true and authentic his- tory on almost every ground upon which such a claim can
100 TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. Lect. IJL
be rested. It was then justly and with sufficient reason that the Proto-martyr in his last speech,1 and the great Apostle of the Gentiles, in his first public preaching as an Apostle,2 assumed as certain the simple, literal, and historic truth of this portion of the sacred narrative. Through God's good providence, there is no break in that historic chain which binds the present with the past, the new covenant with the old, Christ with Moses, the true Israel with Abraham. A "dark age" — a time of trouble and confusion, undoubtedly supervened upon the establishment of the Israelites in Canaan ; but amid the gloom the torch of truth still passed from hand to hand — prophets arose at intervals — and the main events in the national life were carefully put on record. Afterwards — from the time of Samuel — a more regular system was introduced ; events were chronicled as they occurred ; and even the sceptic allows that "with the Books of Samuel, the history assumes an appearance far more authentic than that of the contemporary history of any other ancient nation.'^63) This admission may well be taken to render any further argument unnecessary, and with it we may properly con- clude this portion of our inquiry.
1 Acts vii. 45-47. * Ibid. xiii. 19-22.
LECTURE IV.
AND AHIJAH SAID TO JEROBOAM, TAKE THEE TEN PIECES : FOR THUS 8AITH THE LORD, THE GOD OF ISRAEL, BEHOLD, I WILL REND THE KINGDOM OUT OP THE HAND OF SOLOMON, AND WILL GIVE TEN TRIBES TO THEE: BUT HE SHALL HAVE ONE TRIBE FOR MY SERVANT DAVID'S SAKE. — 1 KINGS XI. 31,32.
The subject of the present Lecture will be the history of the chosen people from the separation of the two king- doms by the successful revolt of Jeroboam, to the comple- tion of the Captivity of Judah, upon the destruction of Jerusalem, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. The space of time embraced is thus a period of about four centuries. Without pretending to a chrono- logical exactitude, for which our data arc insufficient, we may lay it down as tolerably certain, that the establish- ment of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah on the ruins of Solomon's empire is an event belonging to the earlier half of the tenth century before our era; while the destruc- tion of Jerusalem may be assigned with much confidence to the year B. C. 586.
These centuries constitute a period second in importance to none of equal length. They comprise the great devel- opment, the decadence and the fall of Assyria — tin' sudden growth of Media and Babylon — the Egyptian revival under the Psammetichi — the most glorious time of the Phoenician cities — the rise of Sparta and Athens to pre- eminence in Greece — the foundation of Carthage anil of
<j . (101)
102 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IV.
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 Canon.
It was observed in the last Lecture, that the Books of Kings and Chronicles are compilations from State Papers preserved in the public archives of the Jewish nation, ^ the authors of those papers being probably, in most cases, the Prophets in best repute at the time of their com- position. This is particularly apparent from the Second Book of Chronicles, where the author, besides citing in
LECT. IV. TRUTH OP THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. lOo
several places1 "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- omon10 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.
104 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IV.
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.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 105
makes to the conclusion which we have here reached, is drawn from the circumstances of the time when the books were composed ; which is thought to militate strongly against their having been drawn directly from the sources which have been indicated. The authority of the writers of these Books, we are told, W " cannot have been the offi- cial annals" of the kingdoms; for these must have perished at their destruction, and therefore could not have been consulted by authors who lived later than the Captivity. It may be granted that the mass of the State Archives are likely to have perished with Samaria and Jerusalem, if we understand by that term the bulky documents which con- tained the details of official transactions : but there is no more difficulty in supposing that the digested annals which the prophets had composed escaped, than there is in under- standing how the Prophecy of Isaiah and the rest of the Sacred Volume were preserved. At any rate, if there be a difficulty, it is unimportant in the face of the plain and palpable fact, that the authors of the two Books speak of the annals as existing, and continually refer their readers to them for additional information. However we may ac- count for it, the "Books of the; Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Judah," the different portions of which had been written by the prophets above mentioned, were still extant when the authors of Kings and Chronicles wrote their his- tories, having escaped the dangers of war, and survived the obscure time of the Captivity. It is not merely that the writers in question profess to quote from them; hut they constantly appeal to them as books the contents of which are well known to their own readers.
The confirmation which the Books of Kings and Clin, ni- cies lend to each other, deserves some notice while we are engaged with this portion of the inquiry. Had the later
106 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV.
composition uniformly followed, and, as it were, echoed the earlier, there would have been but little advantage in the double record. We should then only have known that the author of the Book of Chronicles regarded the Book of Kings as authentic. But the Chronicler — I use the term in no offensive sense — does not seem really in any case merely to follow the writer of Kings. (10) On the contrary, he goes straight to the fountain-head, and draws his mate- rials partly from the sources used by the earlier writer, partly (as it seems) from contemporary sources which that writer had neglected. He is thus, throughout, a distinct and independent authority for the history of his nation, standing to the writer of Kings as Africanus stands to Eusebius, in respect of the history of Egypt. 01' As the double channel by which Manetho's Egyptian history is conveyed to us, renders our hold upon that history far more firm and secure than would have been the case had we derived our knowledge of it* through one channel only, so the two parallel accounts, which we possess in Kings and Chronicles, of the history of Solomon and his succes- sors, give us a hold upon the original annals of this period which we could not have had otherwise. The Chronicler, while he declines to be beholden to the author of Kings for any portion of his narrative, and does not concern him- self about apparent discrepancies between his own work and that of the earlier writer, confirms the whole general course of that writer's history, repeating it, illustrating it, and adding to it, but never really differing from it, except in such minute points as are readily explainable by slight corruptions of the text in the one case or the other. (12)
Further, the narrative contained in Kings and Chronicles receives a large amount of illustration, and so of confirma- tion, from the writings of the contemporary Prophets, who
LFXT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 107
exhibit the feelings natural under the circumstances de- scribed by the historians, and incidentally allude to the facts recorded by them. This point has been largely illus- trated by recent writers on the prophetical Scriptures, who find the interpretation of almost every chapter "bound up with references to contemporary events, political and social," and discover in this constant connection at once a " source of occasional difficulty," and a frequent means of throwing great additional light on the true meaning of the prophetical writers. W The illustration thus afforded to prophecy by history is reflected back to history from proph- ecy; and there is scarcely an event in the Jewish annals after the reign of Uzziah — which is the time of the earliest of the extant prophetical writings C14) — 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,0 the close connection about this time of Egypt and Ethiopia,7 the inclination of the Jewish mon. archs to lean on Egypt for support against Assyria," the conquest by Sennacherib of the "fenced cities" of Judaic the embassy of Rabshakeh,10 the sieges of Libnah ami
1 Isaiah i. 1. * Ibid. vii. 1, 2. 3 Ibid, verso 10.
4 Ibid. viii. 4. Compare 2 Kin^s xvi. 9.
5 Ibid, verse 2. Compare 2 Kinsjs xvi. 10-1G.
•Ibid. x. 9-11. 7 Ibid. xx. 3-5.
8 Ibid. xxx. 2, 3, &c. ; xxxi. 1-3. ' Ibid, xxxvi. 1.
w Ibid, verses 2-22.
108 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV.
Lachish,1 the preparations of Tirhakah against Sennache- rib,8 the prayer of Hezekiah,8 the prophecy of Isaiah in reply,4 the destruction of Sennacherib's host,5 the return of Sennacherib himself to Nineveh,6 his murder and the escape of his murderers/ Hezekiah's illness and recovery,8 and the embassy sent to him by Merodach-Baladan, king of Babylon;0 — he glances also at the invasion of Tiglath- Pileser, and the destruction then brought upon a portion of the kingdom of Israel,10 at the oppression of Egypt under the Ethiopian yoke,11 at the subjection of Judsea to Assyria during the reign of Ahaz,12 and at many other events of less consequence. About half the events here mentioned are contained in the three historical chapters of Isaiah,13 which are almost identical with three chapters of the second Book of Kings:14 but the remainder occur merely incidentally among the prophecies ; and these afford the same sort of confirmation to the plain narrative of Kings and Chronicles, as the Epistles of St. Paul have been shown to furnish>to the Acts.(15) Jeremiah, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah, contain numerous allusions of a similar character, illustrative of the history at this time and subsequently. Jeremiah, in particular, is as copious in notices bearing upon Jewish history for the time extending from Josiah to the GajDtivity, as Isaiah is for the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah.
Having thus briefly noticed the character of the docu- ments in which this portion of the history has come down to us, and drawn attention to the weight of the scriptural
1 Isaiah xxxvii. 8. 2 Ibid, verse 9. 3 Ibid, verses 15-20.
4 Ibid, verses 22-35. 5 Ibid, verse 36. 6 Ibid, verse 37.
7 Ibid, verse 38. H Ibid, xxxviii. 9 Ibid, xxxix. 1, 2.
10 Ibid. ix. 1. " Ibid. xix. 4, itc. 12 Ibid. xiv. 24-28.
13 Chaps, xxxvi. xxxvii. and xxxviii. ,4 Chaps, xviii. xix. and xx.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 109
evidence in favor of its authenticity, I proceed to the con- sideration of that point which is the special subject of these Lectures — the confirmation which this part of the narrative receives from profane sources.
The separate existence of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah is abundantly confirmed by the Assyrian in- scriptions. Kings of each country occur in the accounts which the great Assyrian monarchs have left us of their conquests — the names being always capable of easy identification with those recorded in Scripture, and occur- ring in the chronological order which is there given. (16> The Jewish monarch bears the title of " King of Judah," while his Israelitish brother is designated after his capital city; which, though in the earlier times not called Sama- ria, is yet unmistakably indicated under the term Beth- JChumri^17' "the house or city of Omri," that monarch having been the original founder of Samaria, according to Scripture.1
The first great event in the kingdom of Judah after the separation from Israel, was the invasion of Judaea by Shi- shak, king of Egypt, in the fifth year of Rehoboam. Shi- shak came up against Jerusalem with "twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen," besides a Lost of footmen who were "without number."2 He "took the fenced cities which pertained to Judah," and was pro- ceeding to invest the capital, when Iiehoboam made his submission, delivered up the treasures of the temple, ami of his own palace, and became one of the " servants " or tributaries of the Egyptian king:' This success is found to have been commemorated by Shishak on the outside of the great temple at Karnac ; and here in a long list of ••antured towns and districts, which Shishak boasts of
1 1 Kings xvi. 24. s 2 Chron. xii. 3. 3 Ibid, verse 8.
10
110 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OP THE LECT. IV,
Having added to his dominions, occurs the "Jfelchi Yiicla" or kingdom of Judah, (18> the conquest of which by this king is thus distinctly noticed in the Egyptian records.
About thirty years later Judaea was again invaded from this quarter. " Zerah the Ethiopian," at the head of an army of "a thousand thousand"1 — or a million of men — who were chiefly Ethiopians and Libyans,2 made war upon Asa, and entering his kingdom at its south-western angle, was there met by the Jewish monarch and signally defeated by him.3 In this case we cannot expect such a confirma- tion as in the last instance ; for nations do not usually put on record their great disasters. It appears, however, that at the time indicated, the king of Egypt was an Osor- kon (19) — a name identical in its root consonants with Zerach / and it appears also that Egypt continued to decline from this period till the time of Psammetichus, a natural residt of such a disaster as that which befell the invading host. The only difficult)' which meets us is the representation of Zerah as an Ethiopian — a fact not at present confirmed by the monuments. Perhaps, though an Egyptian, he was regarded as an Ethiopian, because he ruled over Ethiopia, and because his army was mainly com- posed of men belonging to that country. Or perhaps, though M*e have no positive evidence of this, he may have been really of Ethiopian extraction. Osorkon the Second, who is the natural contemporary of Asa, was not descended from the earlier kings of the dynasty. He was the son-in-law of his predecessor, and reigned in right of his wife. It is therefore not at all impossible that he may have been an Ethiopian by birth, and have ruled over both countries.
In the succeeding generation, the records of the other
' 2 Chxon. xiv. 9. 2 Ibid. xvi. 8. * Ibid. xiv. 12, 13.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. Ill
kingdom present us with some points of contact between the Jewish and the Phoenician annals, in which again wo have all the agreement that is possible. Ahab, king of Israel, is represented as having sought to strengthen him- self in the position which his father had usurped, by a mar- riage with a foreign princess, and as having made choice for the purpose of "Jezebel, daughter of Eth-baal, king of the Zidonians." l Here again not only have we a genuine Phoenician name, but we have the name of a king, who is proved by the Tyrian history of Menander to have been seated upon the throne exactly at this time. Eithobalus, the priest of Ashteroth (or Venus,) Avho by the murder of his predecessor, Pheles, became king of Tyre, mounted the throne just fifty years after the death of Hiram, the con- temporary of Solomon. C20) 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.
112 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV.
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, t23) 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.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 113
of an Assyrian king, a very cuiious and valuable confirma- tion of the power of Damascus at this time — of its being under the rule of a monarch named Ben-hadad, who was at the head of a great confederacy of princes, and who was able to bring into the field year after year vast armies, with which he repeatedly engaged the Avhole force of Assyria. We have accounts of three campaigns between the Assyrians on the one side, and the Syrians, Ilittites, Hamathites, and Phoenicians, united under the command of Ben-hadad, upon the other/25) in which the contest is maintained with spirit, the armies being of a large size, and their composition and character such as we find described in Scripture. (26>
The same record further verifies the historical accuracy of the Books of Kings by a mention of Hazael as king of Damascus immediately after Ben-hadad, (2?) ami also by the synchronism which it establishes between this prince and Jehu, who is the first Israelite king mentioned by name on any Inscription hitherto discovered. Jehu appears by the monument in question to have submitted himself to the great Assyrian conqueror/28) and it may be suspected that from this date both the Jewish and the Israelitish kings held their crowns as fiefs dependent <>n the will of the Assyrian monarch, with whom it formally lay to "confirm" each new prince "in his kingdom."1
A break now occurs in the scries of profane notices, which have extended, without the omission of a genera- tion, from the time of David to that of Jehu. During the century which follows on the death of that monarch we are able to adduce from profane sources no mure than one or two doubtful illustrations of the Sacred Narrative. Here, however, it is to be remarked, that the absence of
1 2 Kin^s xiv. 5 ; xv. 11).
10 *
114 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. I\
profane confirmation is coincident with, and must fairly b regarded as resulting from, a want of sufficient material^ There is a great dearth of copious Assyrian inscriptions from the time of the monarch who made Jehu tributary to that of the Tiglath-Pileser of Scripture. C29) 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, C32) a form of which the Hebrew word seems to be an abbreviation. The Assyrian records of the time present us with no name very close to this ; but there
1 2 Kings xv. 19. 2 1 Chron. v. 26=
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 115
is one which has been read variously, as Phal-hiklia, Vid- lukha, and Iva-lush, wherein it is not improbable that we may have the actual appellation of the Biblical Phul, or Pha- loch. The annals of this monarch are scanty ; but in the most important record which we possess of his reign, there is a notice of his having taken tribute from Beth-KJaunri, or Samaria, as well as from Tyre, Sidon, Damascus, Idu- maea, and Philistia. t33) 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. C34)
The expedition of Pul against Menahem is followed by a series of attacks on the independence of the two kingdoms, which cause the sacred history to be very closely con- nected, for the space of about a century, with the annals of Assyria. The successors of Pul arc presented to us by the Biblical writers, apparently in a continuous and uninter- rupted line — Tiglath-Pileser, Shalmaneser, Sargon, Sen- nacherib, and Esar-haddon, all of them carrying their arms into Palestine, and playing an important pari in the history of the favored race. It happens most fortunately (may we. not say, providentially?) that records of all these monarchs — the greatest which Assyria produced — have been recov-
216 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV.
evcd ; and these in some cases are sufficiently full to exhibit a close agreement with the sacred narrative, while throughout they harmonize with the tenor of that narra- tive, only in one or two cases so differing from the Hebrew text as to cause any difficulty. I shall proceed to exhibit this agreement with the brevity which my limits necessi- tate, before noticing the confirmation which this portion of the history derives also from the Egyptian and Babylonian records.
The chief events related of Tiglath-Pileser in Scripture are his two invasions of Israel — once when he "took Ijon, and Abel-beth-maachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Ilazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, and all the land of Naph- tali, and earned them captive to Assyria;"1 and again, when he came at the invitation of Ahaz, and not only chas- tised Pekah, but " took Damascus, and slew Kezin."2 Of the first of these two campaigns we have no profane con- firmation ; but some account of the second is given in an Assyrian fragment, where Tiglath-Pileser speaks of his defeating Rezin, and capturing Damascus, and also of his taking tribute from the king of Samaria. The monarch indeed from whom he takes the tribute is called Menahem, instead of Pekah; and this constitutes a discrepancy — the first that we have found — between the Assyrian and the Hebrew records : but the probability is that Pekah is intended, and that the official who composed, or the work- man who engraved, the Assyrian document made a mis- take in the name.C3-^
Tiglath-Pileser is also stated in Scripture to have been visited at Damascus by the Jewish king Ahaz; and the result of this visit was that Ahaz set up a new altar in the temple at Jerusalem, according to the pattern of an altar
1 2 Kings xv. 29. 3 Ibid. xvi. 7-9.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 117
which he had seen at Damascus.1 It has been generally supposed that this altar was Syrian ; (36> and its establish ment has been connected with the passage in Chronicles, where Ahaz is said to have " sacrificed to the gods of Damascus, which smote him;"2 but few things can be more improbable than the adoption of the gods of a foreign nation at the moment when they had been proved powerless. The strange altar of Ahaz was in all probability not Syrian, but Assyrian ; and its erection was in accordance with an Assyrian custom, of which the Inscriptions afford abundant evidence — the custom of requiring from the subject na- tions some formal acknowledgment of the gods and wor- ship of the sovereign country, t37)
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. (WJ He appears, from the narrative in Kings, to have come up twice against Hoshea, the last king of Israel,3 — on the first occasion merely enforcing the tribute which w:is regarded as due, but on the second proceeding to ex- tremities, in order to punish Hoshea for contracting an alliance with Egypt, laying siege to Samaria, and continu- ing to prosecute the siege for the space of three years. The records of Shalmaneser have been so mutilated by his suc- cessors, that they furnish only a very slight confirmation of this history. The name of Hoshea, however, king of Sama- ria, is found in an inscription, which has been with reason assigned to Shalmaneser;^ and though the capture of Samaria is claimed by his successor, Sargon, as an exploit of his own in his first year/,0> yet this very claim confirms the Scriptural account of Shahnaneser's commencing ihe
1 2 Kings xvi. 10-1G. * ? Chron. xxviii. 23.
J 2 Kings xvii. 3 und 5.
118 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE 1,ECT. IV.
siege, which begun three years before the capture;1 and it is easily brought into harmony with the Scriptural account of the actual capture, either by supposing that Sargon claimed the success as falling into his own reign, (which had then begun at Nineveh,) though Shalmaneser was the real captor ; or by regarding (as we are entitled to do) the king of Assyria, who is said to have taken Samaria in the Book of Kings, as a distinct person from the king who commenced the siege. (41)
Of Shalmaneser's successor, Sargon, Scripture contains but one clear historic notice. In the twentieth chapter of Isaiah, we are told that " in the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon, the king of Assyria, sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it,"[2 certain directions were given by the Lord to the prophet. It was formerly supposed that Sargon was another name for one of the Assyrian monarchs mentioned in the Book of Kings ;(42> but since the discovery that the king of Assyria, who built the great palace at Khorsabad, actually bore this appellation, which continued to attach to its ruins until the Arab con- quest, (43> it has been generally admitted that we have in Isaiah a reference to an Assyrian ruler distinct from all those mentioned in Kings, and identical with the Khorsa- bad monarch, who was the father of Sennacherib. Now of this monarch we find it related in his annals that he made war in Southern Syria, and took Ashdod.W Thus the sole fact which Scripture distinctly assigns to the reign of Sargon is confirmed by the native records; which likewise illustrate the two or three other facts probably intended to be assigned to him by the sacred writers. Isaiah appar- ently means Sargon in the fourth verse of his twentieth chapter, when he prophesies that " the king of Assyria shall
1 2 Kings xvii. 3, 5, and xviii. 9, 10. 2 Isaiah xx. 1.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 119
lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians cap- tives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt." If this be aliowed, we obtain a second illustration of Sargon's reign from the monuments ; which represent him as warring with Egypt, and forcing the Pharaoh of the time to become his tributary, and which also show that Egypt was at this time in just that close connection with Ethiopia C45) 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.
120 HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF THE LECT. IV.
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.
LECT. IV. TRUTH OF THE SCRIPTURE RECORDS. 121
sacred writer has merely mentioned the sum agreed to be paid as tribute. C48)
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,)