methods of historical inquiry; the retrospective, tracing the stream of time upwards, the analytic method; and the progressive, beginning from the fountain-head and working downwards, the synthetic. While allowing the analytic to be "the more philosophical, because the more real and genuine method of procedure," Mr. Rawlinson thinks it best to adhere to the synthetic mode, since "commencing with little it proceeds by continual accredition, thus adapting itself to our capacities, and conducting us out of comparative darkness into a light which brightens and broadens as we keep advancing." In this way the investigation begins from the creation, and naturally divides itself into five portions: from the Creation to the death of Moses; from the death of Moses to the accession of Rehoboam; from the accession of Rehoboam to the captivity of Judah; from the captivity to the reform of Nehemiah. The fifth and last portion is contained in the New Testament.

With regard to the first period, the genuineness of the Pentateuch and the elucidation of certain events mentioned in Genesis and Exodus by Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions; form its leading features. Mr. Rawlinson answers all the stock objections, which, in spite of an universal Jewish tradition, are brought forward to throw discredit upon the authorship of Moses; the interpolations, the advanced culture, the narrative written in the third person, its not containing full particulars of himself, yet applying to himself terms of praise and expressions of honour. Such objections he shows might be brought against the works of Homer, Chaucer, Cæsar's Commentaries, Xenophon's Expedition of Cyrus, &c. On the other hand it is said that both the diction and ideas of the Pentateuch, are older than the times of Joshua and the Judges; that the books which bear these names would naturally require the Pentateuch to be their antecedent.

It has been often stated, that at the period when Moses lived, the art of writing was not known; the testimony of profane history on this point is very valuable. Mr. Rawlinson tells us

"that hieroglyphical inscriptions upon stone were known in Egypt, at least as early as the fourth dynasty, or B.C. 2450, that inscribed bricks were common in Babylonia about two centuries later, and that writing upon papyruses both in the hieroglyphic and the hieratic characters was familiar to the Egyptians under the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, which is exactly the time to which the Mosaic records would, if genuine, belong. It seems certain that Moses, if educated by a daughter of one of the Ramesside kings, and therefore, learned in all the wisdom of Egypt,' would be well acquainted with the Egyptian method of writing with ink upon the papyrus; while it is also probable that Abraham who emigrated not earlier than the nineteenth century before our era from the great Chaldean capital, Ur, would have brought with him and transmitted to his descendants the alphabetic system with which the Chaldeans of his day were acquainted."

In speaking of the "document hypothesis" of Genesis, Mr. Rawlinson again refers to the fact of Abraham bringing the art of writing with him from Ur into Palestine: an art both known and practised soon after the flood, "if it was not even a legacy from the antediluvian world." The heathen testimony to the authorship of the Pentateuch is also cited, including such names as Hecatæus of Abdera, Manetho, Lysimachus of Alexandria, Tacitus, Juvenal, and Longinus; the fragments relating to Moses, which are contained in the writings of Josephus, S. Clement of Alexandria, and Eusebius, are also noticed: the internal testimony to Moses is also dwelt upon at some length. With regard to Genesis, the value of oral tradition is very apparent; Moses was the grandson to Levi, so that "he would thus be as good an historical authority for the details of Joseph's history, 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."2 Before Moses' time too, the extreme length of life among the patriarchs rendered oral tradition very certain; it was transmitted through so few hands. Moreover, the theory of Vitringa and Calmet seems to be well supported, that Genesis was based in the main upon contemporary 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."3

Mr. Rawlinson rejects primitive Greek tradition, the poems of the Hindoos, the fables of the Chinese, and the Armenian records as external witnesses to the truth of the Mosaic narrative—the shadows of the earlier Biblical events, which are cast over all these writings not bearing a comparison with the definite records of Egypt and Babylon: countries which were the cradles of civilization, the first seats of writing, the first accurate chroniclers of events. "The only reliable materials that we posesss, 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."4

With regard to the chronology of this period, the scheme of Manetho given by Eusebius, sums up 30,000 years; while Berosus gives us 460,000. Yet both schemes of computation bear witness to the true chronology; for Manetho devotes 25,000 years to a mythic period, to the history of gods, demigods, and spirits; and Syncellus tells us that Manetho himself reduced his dynastic lists to 3,555 years. The chronology of Berosus giving a much longer fabulous history, leaves us with a residue that bears no ill proportioned comparison with the system of Manetho. Without entering into detail, a close agreement as to their leading facts is to be

'P. 52. VOL. XXII.

2 P. 50.

D

3 P. 53.

4 P. 55.

found between the cosmogony and antediluvian history of the Hebrews and the records of Berosus. In the case of the deluge, the analogy becomes more clear; Xisuthrus is an accurate personification of Noah. The same profane historian records the building of the Tower of Babel; and then for a time contemporaneous evidence waxes fainter, as the sacred narrative becomes special and particular. The Egyptian records, however, confirm the expedition of Chedor-laomer, and "point to Elymais (or Elam) as the country from which the irruption came;" while the fragments of Manetho clearly but distortedly relate the Exodus, an event "so entirely repugnant to all the feelings of an Egyptian, that we could not expect a fair representation of it in their annals." In concluding this section of his work, Mr. Rawlinson dwells upon the fact that geology at least witnesses to the recent creation of man; physiology decides in favour of the unity of the species; comparative philology reduces all language to a common basis; ethnology fixes on the plains of Shinar as the focus from whence migrated the types of the human race; the best profane authorities coincide with the Mosaic records; recent geographical discovery giving evidence on the same side of the question. All this body of confirmatory proof tends "to show that we possess in the Pentateuch, not only the most authentic document of ancient times that has come down to us, but a history absolutely and in every respect true.”2

The second period, from the death of Moses to the accession of Rehoboam, the history of which is contained in Joshua, Judges, Ruth, the two books of Samuel, and some portions of the books of Kings and Chronicles, brings before us some Egyptian fugitives, by divine aid effecting a standing-place in Canaan; struggling for hundreds of years for a bare existence, and then rising up suddenly into a mighty kingdom: "the very men who hid themselves in caves and in thickets, in rocks, and in high places, and in pits, (1 Sam. xiii. 6,) or who fled across the Jordan to the Land of Gad and Gilead, when the Philistines' pitched in Michmash,' may have seen, garrisons put in Damascus and throughout all Edom,' (2 Sam. viii. 14,) and the dominion of David extended to the Euphrates."3

Mr. Rawlinson quotes many passages which indicate that the book of Joshua was written by an eye-witness of the events described, though not probably by the Jewish leader himself; he feels considerable hesitation about ascribing the Book of Judges to the pen of Samuel, although "from its contents we can only say that it must have been composed about Samuel's time." The two Books of Samuel are properly assigned in part to the Seer himself, in part to Gad, and in part to Nathan; all internal testimony confirming the statement of 1 Chron. xxix. 19. The work is an original one, it bears no internal traces either of compilation, or of the use of any other documents, so that the reigns of Samuel, Saul, and David, are

1 P. 72.

2 P. 177.

3 P. 80.

chronicled, not only by Samuel himself, but by two of the leading persons in the time of David. The First Book of Kings and portions of the Chronicles are substantially founded upon contemporary documents; such as "The Book of the Acts of Solomon," "The Book of Nathan the Prophet," "The prophecy of Abijah the Shilonite," "The visions of Iddo the Seer." The writer of the Chronicles used sources of information which were not used by the author of the Book of Kings; and over the whole period, the Book of Psalms throws its correlative testimony. Profane history does not bear much upon this period. During the times of the Judges both the Assyrian and Egyptian empires were at a low ebb, "and Egypt from the time of Rameses the Third, which was not long after the Exodus, to that of Shishak, the contemporary of Solomon, seems to have sent no expeditions at all beyond its own frontier;" while from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon, the Jewish records are silent concerning Egypt. There is one direct and positive testimony, which is mentioned by Moses of Chorêne, the Armenian historian, by Procopius, the secretary of Belisarius, and by Suidas the lexicographer. It is an ancient inscription which existed in their day at Tangiers, in the Phoenician character and language, which states, that the inhabitants were the descendants of those fugitives who were driven from the Land of Canaan by Joshua, the son of Nun, the plunderer. Mr. Rawlinson gives several reasons, which appear to be conclusive, by which the value of the inscription is supported: the coincidence of the sun standing still, and its return ten degrees upon the dial of Ahaz, with Herodotus, ii. c. 142, is not pressed; as it appears these circumstances were not present to the historian's mind, and the loss of the astronomical records of the Babylonians, and the few references of natural phenomena to be found in Manetho, remove from the mind all wonder that these incidents are not mentioned in profane history. The reigns of David and Solomon have been more fully illustrated. David's defeat of the Syrians of Damascus, near the Euphrates, when they came as the allies of Hadadezer, King of Zobah, is recorded by Eupolemus,2 and by Nicolas of Damascus ; the former also witnessing to several of David's minor victories. The connection between Judæa and Phoenicia, first Sidon, as known to Moses, and afterwards Tyre, as mentioned by Joshua, opens up many points around which hangs the testimony of contemporary history. The Assyrian Inscriptions, Herodotus, the Phoenician historians Dius and Menander, record the name of Hiram, as King of Tyre, and as a contemporary of Solomon. The "hard questions" are mentioned both by Menander and Dius; and Menander notices the marriage between Solomon and the daughter of Hiram, who was one of the Sidonians, and the princesses spoken of 1 Kings xi. 1-3. Shishak, under the names of Sesonchis or Sesonchôsis, or in its Egyptian form of Sheshonk on con

1 P. 90.

2 Euseb. Præp. Evan. ix. 30.

temporary sculpture, appears in the lists of Manetho, but history is generally silent concerning Solomon's relations with Egypt, Eupolemus and Theophilus speaking of his magnificence alone.

The indirect points of agreement between the sacred and profane history of this period are furnished first, by the common form of government. Thus centralized organization was unknown; satrapies administered upon a common plan were established by Darius Hystaspis; the Babylonian, Assyrian, Median, and Lydian were all separate Kingdoms; and so we read about Solomon reigning over all the Kingdoms from the river, "over all the Kings on this side the river." Secondly, by the buildings of Solomon. These belonged to the style of architecture common to Western Asia, analogous to the ruins of Nineveh, Susa, and Persepolis. The roofs of the great Assyrian palaces were supported by cedar, and both Dr. Layard, and Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Fergusson, have illustrated this similarly. Thirdly, by the copious use of gold in ornamentation, which was a practice known to the Phoenicians, the Assyrians, and the Babylonians; a practice illustrated by the brazen pillars of Jachin and Boaz, and Hiram's pillar of gold, described by Menander, as dedicated in the temple of Baal. Fourthly, by the character of the Phoenicians, as drawn in Kings and Chronicles, with that given to them by the profane historians. The same aptitude for acquiring wealth, the same bold enterprizing spirit, the same hardy maritime skill, the same proficiency in the mechanical arts, are witnessed to both by the Bible and by Homer. In concluding this period, Mr. Rawlinson observes, "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 narrower bounds, when no country but Egypt had a literature, and when Egypt herself was in a state of unusual depression."1 Yet still there are Egyptian records, Assyrian Inscriptions, Persian palaces, Phoenician coins and histories, the earliest Greek poetry: thus amid the gloom of this dark period, the torch of truth still passed from hand to hand.

The third period, which extends from the accession of Rehoboam to the captivity of Judah,-the record of which is contained in the remainder of Kings and Chronicles, and in portions of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, and Zephaniah, is in striking contrast to that which preceded it. Profane history impinges upon the sacred narrative at every point, and makes "the principal difficulty at the present stage that of selection. Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, 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."2 We must refer our readers to Mr. Rawlinson's book itself, if they wish to follow his very careful analysis of the sources from

1 P. 109.

2 P. 114.