fall of the city of the Chaldees; thus agreeing exactly with the Athenian reporter of the statements of Persian princes. Can a fact so established by witnesses so independent be set aside by the silence of other witnesses who have overlooked the minor actors in history? But if we accept it, it carries with it the substantial truth of the whole of Xenophon's plan of the career of Cyrus, and thus answers, at the great culmination of his life, to the test fact as to his parentage, with which the history opened. Xenophon represents Cyrus, after arranging affairs at Babylon, as returning first to Media, where he finds Cyaxares still on the throne, and then to Persia, where his father Cambyses is still king among the Persian peers. This would defer the accession of Cyrus to the Persian, as well as to the Median throne-a conclusion which agrees remarkably with scripture,1 and is readily brought into accord with other authorities, by understanding that the thirty years which they assign to Cyrus are to be understood as measuring the term for which he was virtually the 'Ηγεμών στρατοῦ, imperator, or generalissimo of the armies of the empire. Cyrus was about sixty years of age when he took Babylon, and about sixty-two when he received the two royalties of Media and of Persia. In the mean time his right to the Median throne had been made complete by his marriage with the daughter of Cyaxares, who had no legitimate son. Cyrus was but two years younger than his brother-in-law, who now became also his father-in-law. But, even in Rome, Pompey weds the daughter of his younger colleague, Julius Caesar; and the polygamy and marriage of kindred involved in the story only mark it as of Oriental, rather than of Greek, origin. The double claim to the Median throne, in right of his mother and of his wife, appears also in the story of Ctesias, that Cyrus adopted Amytis, the daughter of Astyages, first as mother, and then as wife. Moreover, the statement that Cyaxares "had no legitimate son" leaves room not only for the grandchildren of Astyages by his daughter named by Ctesias,2 1 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22; Ezra i. 1. 2 Photius, 72. but for the pretenders, who, according to the Behistun inscription,1 rose against Darius Hystaspis, claiming to be "of the race of Cyaxares." 4 In the rapid glance at the subsequent achievements of Cyrus, given in the Cyropaedia, occurs a statement which has been grasped as almost a complete proof of the fabulous character of the work. We find the statement: "After this is said to have occurred the Egyptian campaign and the conquest of Egypt."2 Here we mark the same form of expression as in the opening statement concerning the father of Cyrus" is said to have been." Xenophon only tells what was told him, implying that there were also other and conflicting accounts. Respecting Cambyses, the father of Cyrus, his informants seem to have been correct; as to the Egyptian invasion, probably not. But the truth of Xenophon's statement, that such a story was current, is rendered at least probable by the tradition, twice mentioned by Herodotus,3 and quoted by Athenaeus both from Dino and Lyceas of Naucratis, that at the demand of Cyrus Amasis sent Nitetis, an Egyptian princess, to his harem. If Amasis held Egypt as a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar, he very probably did accept the suzerainty of the new empire at the first approach of Cyrus or his armies; so that the subjugation of Egypt is highly probable, and the story, at least, of an actual invasion could hardly have failed to arise. We may observe that Xenophon does not say that Cyrus accompanied that invasion. There remains only the closing scene of the life of Cyrus. Herodotus 5 closes the drama with tragic effect, with a defeat and death preceded by an overweening pride of the veteran conqueror, and followed by insult to his remains on the part of an incensed and barbarous enemy. Xenophon 6 says that, in the fulness of his age and prosperity, he died peacefully in his bed, giving his kingdom to his elder son, Cambyses, and assigning to the younger, Tanaoxares, the 1 Col. 2, par. 5, 14. 2 Cyropaedia, viii. 7. 20. satrapy of the Medes, Armenians, and Cadusians. Ctesias 1 gives a similar death-scene, calling the younger son Tanyoxarces, and giving him the rule of the Choramnians, Parthians, and Carmanians; but that scene is preceded by a mortal wound, three days before, in battle with the Derbices. Of these three stories, that of Herodotus is discredited by the existence of the tomb of Cyrus at the old Pasargadae; the other two seem to have been the versions current, respectively, at the court of Artaxerxes Mnemon and in the camp of the younger Cyrus. We have thus endeavored to study the geographical and historical statements of the Cyropaedia. We think that the result of that study has been to show that, throughout the work, such statements are not fabrications of the Greek writer, but careful reproductions of information given to him by high Persian authority. In the majority of cases they are confirmed as true; and even their errors, as well as their facts, are such as to prove their Persian origin. They deal with the matters of which they treat with the same confidence, unapprehensive of mistake, which marks the scripture accounts with which we have compared them. It is the tone of men who know the things of which they affirm. The agreement of two such independent, distinct witnesses, on such test-points as the relations of Susa in the last struggle of Babylon, the presence of the king in Babylon at its fall and the story of his last night, the Median predecessor of Cyrus, and the date of the accession of Cyrus to the royalty, must be accepted as proving the reliability of each of them. Such a demonstration, in the case of Xenophon, we must welcome, not only because it unites the honor of truth with the charm of his grace, but because it gives us a most valuable addition to our reliable history of the world. As regards scripture the result of our examination is to transfer the Book of Ezra, and especially that of Daniel, from a defensive position to one of authority, as showing the famil1 Photius, 72. iarity of a contemporary with such facts as the existence and position of Belshazzar and of Darius the Mede, with the kingdom of Susa, and with the formal as well as the actual relations of Cyrus the Great to his kingdoms and to his empire. The general result is the same which we reach in every comparison of scripture with other forms of truth, namely, that, while one record may explain another, none of them, rightly read, are contradictory; and that we may go on without fear accepting and holding fast all proved truth, knowing that, when we come to understand it all, we shall find each part consistent with every other, and contributing to the illustration and support of the highest truth. ARTICLE II. HORAE SAMARITANAE; OR, A COLLECTION OF VARIOUS READINGS OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH COMPARED WITH THE HEBREW AND OTHER ANCIENT VERSIONS. BY REV. B. PICK, ROCHESTER, N. Y. Of the Samaritan literature which has come down to our times, first in importance and order is the Pentateuch. As to its merits and demerits, there has always been a difference of opinion. The Jews regarded it with contempt, and charged the Samaritans with a downright forgery. "You have falsified your law," ". This we read very often in the Talmud. Early Christian writers, however, speak of it with respect, in some cases even preferring it to that of the Masoretic text. Origen (†254) quotes it under name of τὸ τῶν Σαμαρειτῶν Ἑβραϊκόν, giving its various readings on the margin of his Hexapla (cf. Montfaucon, Hexapla, praelim. p. 18 sq.). Eusebius of Caesarea († 340), notices the agreement in the chronology of the Septuagint and Samaritan text as against the Hebrew (Chron. i., xvi. 7-11). Jerome († 420) in his Proleg. to Kings, also mentions this fact, and in his Epistol. ad Gal. iii. 10, he upholds the genuineness of its text over that of the Masoretic one, which he considers to have been purposely altered. Sextus Julius Africanus († 232), as quoted by G. Syncellus, the chronologist of the eighth century (Chronographia, p. 85) is most outspoken in his praise of it, terming it "the earliest and best, even by the testimony of the Jews themselves" (τὸ Σαμαρειτῶν ἀρχαιότατον καὶ χαρακτῆρσι διάλλαττον ὅ καὶ ἀληθὲς εἶναι καὶ πρῶτον Εβραίοι καθομολογοῦσιν). Having been afterwards unnoticed, its existence began to be doubted, till Pietro della Valle, in 1616, obtained from the Samaritans in Damascus a complete copy which was then published in the Paris Polyglot of 1645. But with the publication of the Samaritan Pentateuch, the controversy took a new phase, and the ablest scholars were called into the field of controversy a controversy which lasted over two centuries, till the time of Gesenius, who subjected the recension to a rigid analysis, and arranged its variations under different heads. But with the question of the comparative merits of the two texts another question came up, that of the relation of the Septuagint to the Samaritan Pentateuch on account of its striking resemblance in numerous passages to the Alexandrine version. It is not our intention to discuss the question which copied which, or to speak of the merits and demerits of the Samaritan Pentateuch. Suffice it to say, that the Samaritan cannot be put in comparison with the Hebrew version, although the Hebrew text is not immaculate, and none can uphold its absolute integrity. But, says Mr. Davidson, if it needs emendation, why should not the Samaritan recension be taken as one source of evidence? It is not, indeed, a valuable instrument of emendation; but it is not destitute of all worth, and should be classed with the other materials on which a pure text depends. Critical conjecture must sometimes be resorted to in restoring the original text, as the best scholars admit. Why then throw aside the Samaritan as more useless even than conjecture? It may some |