Hindostan: but this geographical metaphor in use among Easterns is no proof of a real pedigree. Even the circumstances related of the birth and exposure of Moses minutely resemble those related of an antient Persian king named Dara, (HERBELOT'S Bibliotheque Orientale, article Homai). That Moses wrote down his laws (Exodus, c. xxiv. v. 4.) and principal transactions (Numbers, c. xxxiii. v. 2.) is however evident; and that these autographs were possessed by the compiler of the Pentateuch is not improbable. Only the book of Deuteronomy, it should seem, being a recapitulation or epitome of the foregoing books, is the work of another and a later person, who had survived several (c. xxxiv. v. 10.) of those leaders of the people who had been educated in the schools of the prophets.

The author considers the book of Joshua, like those of Moses, as in the main written by its supposed author, but as having undergone a subsequent revisions which, from the mention of the mountains of Israel and Judah (c. xi. v. 21.), was apparently subsequent to the separation of those two kingdoms; and this is farther confirmed by the mention of Jerusa lem (c. xv. v. 63.) and of the house of God (c. ix. v. 23.). It deserves notice, also, that an event mentioned in (c. xvi. v. 34.) has an allusion to it in Joshua (c. vi. v. 26.).

Kings

The book of Judges, or rather of Champions, (for such is the meaning of the Hebrew ',) is a document of unequivocal antiquity, written before the time of David; since the description (c. i. v. 21.) was no longer true of Jerusalem after he had taken possession of it, and had introduced a third class of inhabitants of the tribe of Judah. Nor does this book bear any marks of subsequent interpolation. The seventeenth and following chapters are indeed distinct fragments of less certain date,-but posterior to David; (c. xviii. v. 31.5) under whom the house of God ceased to be in Shiloh. book of Ruth is also posterior to David, whose ancestors it was written to illustrate;' and it appears to have been once annexed, like these other fragments, to the book of Judges, as it is never separately enumerated in early lists of the canonical Scriptures.

The

To the twofold books of Samuel, of Kings, and of Chronicles, a very masterly and instructive introduction is given. The author begins with the construction of the second book of Samuel, containing a life of David; which he compares with another life of David occurring in the first book of Chronicles. Long passages agree in both accounts, word for word; and, in both, dissonant passages intervene :-yet the two historians are not transcribing one another, but each making, separate comments. It is next proved that they are not severally abridging annals more extensive but that they both use one and the same

short

short life of David for their radical document, which they amplify diversely from peculiar sources of intelligence.-A similar train of investigation is then applied to the other books.This acute dissection is accomplished with a keener knife and a more intrepid hand than the anatomy of the Pentateuch, and adds to the praise of equal ingenuity the merit of superior judgment. All these books seem to have been completed after the commencement of the captivity, and to keep in view the having Babylonian readers.

The first six chapters of Ezra being written principally in what our author strangely calls the West-Aramic* language, whereas Ezra writes in Hebrew; and relating to transactions at which Ezra was not present, but which are nevertheless described in the first person (c. v. verse 4.); should be ascribed to some other hand: probably to that of Zerubbabel. The Hebrew insertions will in that case have been made when this narrative was first united with that of Ezra, and probably by Ezra himself to whom our author also attributes the composition of the books of Chronicles. Was Ezra the Abednego of Daniel ?

The book of Nehemiah, excepting the list of priests in the 12th chapter, has every mark of being genuine throughout. That of Esther is rather a legendary than an histórical work: by the Ahasuerus of the story was probably meant the Xerxes of the Greeks; and by Esther, the Amestris. It was surely not written till the dust of oblivion had covered the deeds of which it treats.

The Third Volume opens with a very philosophical dissertation on the prophets and oracles of the Jews. Long experience every where confers, on observing men, much foresight; and to those who perceive not the links of inference by means of which they often foretel aright, these conjectures have the appearance of miraculous intuition, of supernatural communication; and hence, among all barbarians, we hear of their shamans and seers. Confidence is so essential to the well-executing of public enterprises, that the rulers of the rude multitude every where enter into a secret conspiracy with these oracular characters, whose influence they consolidate for the sake of their aid. To these general causes may be ascribed the first rise of wizards and prophets among the Jews; and to a positive constitution of Moses (Deuteronomy, c. xviii. v. 20.), their exclusive appearance among that portion of the people which was not addicted to idolatry and polytheism. A prophet was at all times among the Jews a privileged character, who might assail the public ear with unwelcome truth or coun

* Wahl's Geschichte der Morgenlandischen Sprachen, p. 575. rather points to the designation East-Aramic.

sel,

sel, and carry before the monarch's throne the groans and wishes of the people. without compromising his personal safety, so long as he spake in the name of the Lord; (see Jeremiah, c. xxvi. ;) even if his prophecies, as happened to Micah should go unfulfilled. In the conception and composition of oracles, it is natural that the poet should resolve weal into woe, and sorrow into joy; that, in seasons of corrupt tranquillity, he should threaten invasion, war, desolation, and captivity; and, in days of tribulation, that he should an nounce the return of peace, of security, of triumph, and of empire. It is natural that he should avoid specification and definite prediction of remote events, and rather employ general expressions; using strong and dazzling, but vague and equivocal figures. It is natural, too, that he should study to interweave the turns of phrase and imagery which were most conspicuous in the successful oracles of former times; that he should assume the highest stage of inspiration and enthusiasm, compose with a dithyrambic wildness, and utter his measured forewarnings with the agitated gesticulation of an improvisator;-and with these preconceptions the Hebrew oracles correspond. Of these oracles, some, probably, were never published at all, but intrusted in manuscript to the priesthood; some were voluntarily promulgated by the prophet to the king and to the people, in the palace, in the temple, and in the street. The most remarkable form of publication was Jeremiah's dictating an oracle to Baruch, and sending him to read it before the monarch. As it is not clear that each prophet collected his own oracles, there may be incorrectness in the received distribution.

Isaiah flourished under Uzziah one year, under Jotham 16 years, under Ahaz 16 years, and under Hezekiah about 14 years; to which if we add 25 years, before which age he would scarcely have assumed the prophetic office, we may suppose him to have lived about seventy-two years. Of the many oracles ascribed to him, the first nine chapters allude to persons of his own æra, and to events within his observation; they have the common character of the poetry of his country about that time; they are such as might be expected from the son of the grazier of Tekoa, and may safely be considered as written by him. The event indicated (c. vii. v. 8.) has not corresponded with history; nor that denounced by him 2 Kings, c. xx. v. 18. With the ninth chapter of the work bearing his name begins poetry of a much higher order, the production of a mind more refined by culture: the ideas take a more comprehensive range: in geography, in history, the poet is more learned; with Babylon and its vicinity he seems familiar; with Cyrus and every minute particular of the memo

Table

rable siege he is correctly acquainted in the arts of composi tion he is an adept; his style paces with the measured step of taste; his wide-wing'd genius is equal to the boldest soar, and seems to forefeel the immortality to which it was born. Now it is certain that the 15th and 16th chapters of these oracles are not the work of Isaiah. They allude to the fall* of Moab, and were written (c. xvi. v. 14.) within three years of its destruction--but Moab was overthrown (Josephus, b. x. c. 9.) about five years after the taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, or his servants, and a long century after the death of Isaiah. It remains, then, either (with EICHHORN) to consider these and all the subsequent chapters as an anthology by various uncertain hands; or, from the identity of character, (and that of no common nor imitable kind,) which pervades them, to ascribe them to some one later author. If this resource be preferred, as in reason it ought, it might be contended that the work ascribed to Daniel cannot be his (Collins's Scheme of Literal Prophecy, p. 149, &c.), but is a posterior writing, proba bly as late as Antiochus Epiphanes: that the existence of this legend, not less than the testimony of Ezechiel, is a proof of the high traditional reputation of Daniel, which must have had some cause that the composition of these poems is a probable cause; and that the trains of idea prevailing in them are such as his time, his place, his circumstances, would peculiarly tend to suggest; and consequently that the name of Daniel should once again be prefixed to them. The historical interpolation (c. xxxvi. to xxxix.) seems derived from 2 Kings, (c. xviii. to xx.) a work completed after the captivity.

The oracles of Jeremiah correspond throughout with his circumstances, and with history, and are considered as wholly genuine. A doubt is insinuated whether Jeremiah could write or not, on account of his using an amanuensis (c. xxxvi. v. 4. and 32.). There is much disorder in the arrangement of his compositions; and an historical fragment of the book of Kings. has been annexed to them.

The oracles of Ezechiel are not always chronologically arranged but they have every mark of being uninterruptedly genuine. To the geographer, to the historian, they are very valuable but they are not yet sufficiently elucidated by commentators. The xxxviiith and xxxixth chapters have especially been censured as obscure. The xlth and following chapters describe the future temple from the plan of the architect; not from the work of Zerubbabel. Neither was the geographical distribution realized, which is no doubt inserted in the xlviiith chapter, conformably to the intentions of the Assyrian court.

Nu should be rendered doom rather than burden.

Hosea, from the tenour of his historical allusions, appears to have written during the inter-regnum which succeeded the reign of the second Jeroboam in Israel.

The time at which Joel wrote is uncertain. His fine description of the plague of locusts is by our author interpreted literally. We rather conceive it to be an allegorical description of the armies of Nebuchadnezzar. The third chapter very evidently describes Jerusalem as conquered, and many of the captive inhabitants of the country as sent to the slavemarkets of Tyre and Zidon, and sold to the Grecians. In the emotion of fresh anger, the prophet threatens retaliation. Joel, then, flourished under Jehoiakim and Zedekiah.

Obadiah is probably the Levite mentioned in 2 Chronicles (c. xxxiv. v. 12.), and may well have survived the same catastrophe as Joel, to which he apparently alludes. Jeremiah (c. xlix.) has borrowed from him.

Jonah, the son of Amittai, flourished under Jeroboam II. (2 Kings, c. xiv. v. 25.), and was of Gath-hepher. This poem concerning him may have been a popular legend, but should not be deemed historical truth: its author appears to quote Isaiah (c. xxxviii. v. 11.), and psalms of late date.

Micah lived under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah: but he must have ceased to write before the latter of these kings undertook a reformation of the public ritual; as he throughout complains of the toleration of holy groves and imageworship.

The time at which Nahum wrote is uncertain. Here again, as we think, our author overlooks some internal evidence! The kingdom of Hoshea was already overthrown (c. ii. v. 2.), and the captive inhabitants of Israel were recently sold for slaves in Nineveh (v. 7.). In the emotions of anger, the prophet threatens retribution. Nahum was to Samaria what Joel was to Jerusalem. He flourished, therefore, under Hoshea. Many elegies written on the capture of Jerusalem have descended to us: Samaria was neither less populous nor less literate, yet its catastrophe is celebrated by Nahum alone. Ought we not to ascribe the solitary preservation of his poem to some peculiarity of his fortunes, which drew him back from Nineveh to his country, or to Jerusalem, and to consider him as that priest of the captivity (2 Kings, c. xvii. v. 27.) who alone returned to instruct the new inhabitants in the manner of the God of the land? Would not this lead to the farther conjecture that Nahum, on that occasion, drew up the epitome of the Thora which is preserved to us under the name of Deuteronomy?

The author of Bel and the Dragon makes Habbacuc (v. 34, &c.) a cotemporary of Daniel: so does his theme. Our author

endeavours