translation of the Hebrew Lexicon of Gesenius. Having studied with Gesenius, at the very time when that great Hebraist was preparing his Thesaurus, and having kept up with him a personal correspondence, Dr. Robinson was particularly qualified to introduce his dictionary to American students. In both these works he exhibited his careful scholarship and his modest piety. To encourage a better system of Hebrew philology, and more sober and correct views of Biblical interpretation, to make available to American students the rich results of German scholarship and of Oriental travel, were the objects of his anxious toil;' while it was ever his fervent prayer that his labours might advance the cause of sacred literature in this country; and aid in promoting the study of those Holy Scriptures, which are able to make us wise unto salvation.'

Soon after the publication of Gesenius, Dr. Robinson issued his own Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament a great improvement upon Wahl's Clavis, which he had translated in 1825. The revised edition of this lexicon, published in 1850, is now the standard of New Testament lexicography in the English tongue. It has been pirated in the mother country. This edition was substantially a new work, enriched by his experience as an instructor in Union Theological Seminary, and by his observations in the Holy Land. It serves the threefold purpose of a lexicon, an analytical concordance, and a condensed grammatical commentary.dol

It's In 1837, Dr. Robinson was appointed professor in New York; but being then bent upon his life-plan for the geographical exploration of Palestine, he did not enter upon his office till 1840, when he had completed his first Biblical Researches. This work gave him a European reputation, but it also provoked much acrid controversy, especially with regard to the topography of Jerusalem. a second visit, in 1852, enabled Dr. R. to verify and vindicate his former conclusions. Yet controversy is by no means allayed; and the recent tendency of both English and German scholarship, is to dispute resolutely Robinson's location of Akra, and the upper course of the Tyropoon. But whatever may be the final determination of these points and I incline to the view that the head of the Tyropoon is to be sought, not at the Jaffa, but at the Damascus gate-and whatever conclusions may be reached touching the site of Capernaum, the camping-ground at Sinai, and other identifications which Dr. Robinson believed himself to have settled, he will be held in lasting remembrance by scholars, as the author and exemplar of the true method of investigation. Reversing the habit of travellers who followed the ecclesiastical traditions which so cover the soil of Palestine, he made the Bible the first authority; contemporary sources, especially Josephus, the second; the vernacular names of places, the third; earlier travellers, the fourth, and ecclesiastical traditions last and least of all; indeed of no value, except so far as supported by circumstances known to us from the Scriptures, or from other contemporary testimony. If there is sometimes an air of dogmatism in Dr. Robinson's utterance of his conclusions, we can pardon this, in view of the painstaking accuracy of his researches, and the great value of many of his results.

These researches, like most of the studies and plans of his life, were his preparation for a work on the physical and historical geography of Palestine-of which I fear only the first section is finished. To this work, Dr. Robinson had consecrated the later years of his life; but ill-health suffered him to proceed but slowly. At length the loss of sight led him to seek medical advice in Germany; but he returned without relief, and with little hope, and finally sank under his infirmities on Tuesday, the 27th ult., at his residence in New York. His funeral was attended on Friday, Jan. 30th, by a large concourse of ministers, and members of scientific and literary societies.

30

"I cannot better describe the results of Dr. Robinson's researches in Palestine than by the following incident. Some years ago, at an hotel in Cairo, a party of young Englishmen, pupils of Stanley and graduates of Oxford, asked me con

In reference e to Dr. Robinson's funeral, some may like to see a short note about it. We add one from an American paper a few days later, and quite enough for our p purpose:-The funeral of Dr. Edward Robinson, Professor of Biblical Literature in Union Theological Seminary in New York, was held at the

And what is his occupations of the sacred places?

temptuously, 'Who is this countryman of yours, a Dr. Robinson, who attempts to set aside all the traditions of places? Is he much of a scholar? "He is the same,' I answered, who has prepared an English edition of Gesenius, and a standard lexicon of the New Testament, which some countryman of yours has honoured by stealing bodily, and publishing in London without naming their author."

Ah! indeed!-that certainly was not honourable.' "Some days after I met the same party at Sinai. 'Why, this Dr. Robinson of yours is a wonderful man! We find that Stanley quotes him continually. He is quite right here, in his Er Rahah and Sufsafeh.' Afterwards in Palestine, I often heard the same party extol my countryman.

"As the iconoclast of ecclesiastical traditions, Dr. Robinson aroused the prejudices of a large class of travellers, and of some earnest Biblical scholars. But his weighty arguments and facts overcame the prejudices of candid minds, and his learning and honesty commanded their respect. No man has done so much as he to raise the tone of scholarship in his own country, or to secure respect for American scholarship abroad.

6

Some weeks since, in conversation with Dr. Robinson, I advised him to employ a careful assistant to complete his Biblical geography under his own supervision. But he was not a Prescott; and he answered promptly, How could I trust anybody with my references and citations, that must be exact?" Better this, I replied, than leave your life-work unfinished.'No,' he said, with a tone of resignatiou, it is all there, in the Researches, for those who carel about it, and with this blindness settling on me, I feel that my work is done.. Thus meekly did he relinquish the one great, cherished plan of life. But he has gone to see His face in whose earthly steps he followed, and to measure, with keið 75af T. perfect vision, the glory of Jerusalem that is above.

เ

"New York, Feb. 7th."oba 951 cha

The New York Christian Times says puntua

The Rev. Dr. Edward Robinson, the distinguished Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary in this city, died at his residence in Greene Street, on Tuesday night last, Jan. 25th, of dropsy in the chest. His health had been failing for some time, and he had not attended actively to his

labours for a year paVisited Germany during the last summer for sur

gical treatment of

which were for some time threatened with entire deprivation of sight. Dr. Robinson was one of the most distinguished scholars of Biblical learning in this country. He was a native of Connecticut, born in 1794, graduated at Hamilton College in this State, in 1816, and went to Andover in 1821, where he studied Hebrew, and became associated with Dr. Stuart in the translation of some text books from the German, and in the instruction of his classes. In 1826 he went to Europe, where he studied four years, when he returned, and became Professor of Sacred Literature in Andover. He resigned his position in 1833, and removed to Boston. In 1837, he was appointed to the position in the Union Theological Seminary, which he had since held. Previous to entering upon his duties, he visited Palestine, and made a very minute and careful study of the country in connexion with the geography of the Bible. In 1841, he published the results of this study, in three octavo volumes, which have been one of the text-books. He had subsequently devoted much attention to the revision and perfection of this work, though he published some others connected with classical studies. Dr. R. married, in 1816, a daughter of the Rev. S. Kirkland, a missionary among the Oneida Indians, but she died three years after. In 1829, he married Miss Teresa A. L. Von Jacob, daughter of Professor Von Jacob, of the University of Halle, a lady of rare ability and scholarship, whose writings and translations, under the name of 'Talvi,' are widely known in this country and in Europe. She survives a husband who leaves also a son and daughter."

Mercer Street Presbyterian Church in that city on Friday last. Dr. Spring offered prayer, Chancellor Ferrers read from the Scriptures, and Dr. Skinner preached the Sermon. Among the pall-bearers were Rev. R. D. Hitchcock, Rev. J. J. Owen, and Rev. H. B. Smith.

[We wish our readers to understand that we cannot be held responsible for the opinions of our contributors and correspondents. The utmost we can do is to keep a careful eye upon the literary character of their communications, and to see that they do not transcend the limits of fair criticism and lawful inquiry.]

THE EARLIER CHAPTERS OF THE FIRST BOOK OF ESDRAS, AND OF THE ELEVENTH BOOK OF THE JEWISH ANTIQUITIES OF JOSEPHUS.

It appears from the paper on Biblical Chronology in the October number of this Journal, that its author still wishes to take refuge behind the shield of the illustrious Newton. He also appeals confidently to those repositories of legendary fiction, the first book of the Apocryphal Esdras, and the notorious third chapter of the eleventh book of the Jewish Antiquities of Josephus. When Mr. Bosanquet tells us that according to his system "the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Josephus, and Esdras, may be shewn to be consistent one with the other, but not otherwise;" he emphatically pronounces the condemnation of his own view. For the system which can reconcile the authentic history of Ezra with the silly tales of Josephus and the apocryphal Esdras (Ezra), must itself, from that very circumstance, be worthless, and full of improbabilities and inconsistencies.

!

It has been already shewn that the writer of the letter on Biblical chronology has fallen into grave mistakes in his attempts to interpret Ctesias and the Book of Esther. And we shall find that he has erred even more seriously when he incorrectly asserts, upon the supposed anthority of the notorious third chapter of the eleventh book of the

In Ant., xi., iii., 1, Josephus seems to have borrowed, with certain alterations, the following passage from the Book of Esther, "Now in the first year of the king's reign, Darius Hystaspes feasted the rulers of the Medes, and the princes of the Persians, and the toparchs of India and Ethiopia, and the generals of the armies of his hundred and twenty-seven provinces." This empire of hundred and twenty-seven provinces seems to be identical with that described in Esther i. 1, 3. Josephus, who, in the close of the immediately preceding chapter, had made special mention of the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses, would therefore seem to speak, not of the Arabian but rather of the Ethiopian (or African) Cush. Mr. Bosanquet will scarcely venture to assert of the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of Darius Hystaspes, that "they formed a limited portion of the vast Medo-Persian empire."

Josephus is directly opposed to Mr. Bosanquet on the subject of Ahasuerus the husband of Esther. For (Ant., xi., vi., 1) he expressly identifies this king with Artaxerxes Longimanus, the son of Xerxes, and adds,-" when Artaxerxes had taken the kingdom, and set governors over the hundred and twenty-seven provinces, from India even unto Ethiopia." As Artaxerxes was sovereign of Egypt, we may suppose that Josephus deemed the Cush of the Book of Esther to be the African Ethiopia.

Antiquities, the late arrival of Zerubbabel, at Jerusalem. Nay, he has so far committed himself as to put the very erroneous statement in italics.

JOSEPHUS.

"After the slaughter of the Magi, who upon the' death of Cambyses, attained the government of the Persians for a year, those families who were called the seven families of the Persians, appointed Darius, the son of Hystaspes, to be their king. Now he, while he was a private man, had made a vow to God, that if he came to be king, he would send all the vessels of God, that were at Babylon, to the temple at Jerusalem. Now it so fell out, that about this time Zorobabel, who had been made governor of the Jews that had been in captivity, came to Darius FROM JERUSALEM; for there had been an ancient friendship between him and the king. He was also, with two others, thought worthy to be guard of the king's body; and ob tained that honour which he hoped for" (Joseph, Ant., xi., iii., 1).

MR. BOSANQUET.

Now Zerubbabel was one of the body-guard of Darius, the son of Hystaspes, and did not come to Jerusalem till the first year of Darius as king of Assyria' (Ezra vi. 22), and Darius had promised him, that if ever he should have the kingdom, that is to say, if ever he took the throne of Babylon, he would rebuild Jerusa lem" (Joseph,, Ant., xi., iii., 3, 7).

I appeal to such of your readers as may look at this (always except ing your correspondent, whose absorbing devotion to his own strange, theory of Bible chronology would perphaps render him a partial judge), does not the language of Josephus in the above extract shew that this Jewish writer supposed that Zerubbabel had been appointed governor of the Jews, and had been residing at Jerusalem in the exercise of that office some time before the son of Hystaspes had been raised to the throne of Persia (to say nothing of that of Babylon and Assyria); that there had been a friendship of long standing between Darius and Zerubbabel, while the latter was yet a private person; that, in conse quence of this friendship, Zerubbabel came from Jerusalem to Darius, about the he time in which the latter was? made king of Persia, in the hope of obtaining the royal patronage for the Jews, and the fulfilment of the vowd which Darius had made while yet in private life; and that on the

"What time he was set over the realm of the Chaldeans" (Dan. xi. 1, 2). Should the reader be unacquainted with the Book of Ezra, he might naturally be led to think, from the manner in which it is here referred to, that the sacred writer supports Mr. Bosanquet's notion, that Zerubbabel did not come to Jerusalem until Darius became king. If, however, he will read the first six chapters of that book, he will see that while Ezra agrees with Josephus that Zerubbabel had been residing as governor of the Jews at Jerusalem before the first year of the reign of Darius, he gives no countenance whatever to the tales! of Zerubbabel's journey to the court of Darius, and of his being made one of i that king's body-guard.

In

1

"Now, xi., iii., 27, the vow is given at a greater length than in 81

vow was to rebuild Jerusalem, and to build therein the temple of God, as also to restore the vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had pillaged and carried to Babylon." But Ezra i. 11; Esdras in 1 Esd. ii. 14, 15; and Joseph., Ant., » xi., i., 3, all unite in asserting that all the sacred vessels which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away into Chaldea, above five thousand in number, were sent back to Jerusalem by Cyrus in the first year of his reign over Babylon. This was in B.C. 536, according to Sir Isaac Newton. This vow, therefore, of Darius in his private life must have been before B.C. 536, in which year he was, according to Herodotus, only fourteen years of age. Does not this cast suspicion on the assertion of Josephus and Esdras?

arrival of Zerubbabel at the court from Jerusalem, of which he was already governor, Darius made him (with two others) one of his bodyguard?

But your correspondent may object that I am speaking of the first year of Darius Hystaspes as king of Persia, cir. B.C. 522, when he was about twenty-eight years old according to Herodotus, and little more than thirty according to Ctesias; while he is speaking of the first year of the same Darius Hystaspes as king of Babylon and Assyria, in B.C. 493, when he was about fifty-seven years old, according to Herodotus, and sixty-two according to Ctesias.

But does Josephus agree with your correspondent in supposing that Darius Hystaspes did not take the throne of Babylon and Assyria until B.C. 493, about twenty-nine years after he had taken possession of the throne of Persia. Assuredly not. Josephus held that Cyrus died sovereign of Persia and Babylon-that Cambyses succeeded his father; and the very fact of his marching from Persia to Egypt, shews that Babylon owned his sway; and that after the six years' reign of Cambyses, during the year of Magian usurpation, Babylon belonged to the Persian empire. Accordingly, when, upon the slaughter of the Magi, cir. B.C. 522, Darius was elected king of Persia, he became also at the same time sovereign of Babylon. So little countenance does Josephus give to your correspondent's idea, "that this return of Zerubbabel and in which Darius Hystaspes became king of Babylon, was in the year B.C. 493.***** Should your correspondent object, that Josephus nowhere calls Cambyses king of Babylon, it must be conceded that the objection cannot be met with a direct denial. The Jewish writer, however, teaches us that when Cambyses succeeded to the throne of his deceased father, he became sovereign of Syria, and Phoenicia, of Moab, Ammon, and Samaria. This affords very satisfactory presumptive evidence that he was also sovereign of Babylon, and that this city afterwards submitted to the Magian usurpation under the Pseudo-Smerdis.

Jeshua with the body of captives, in the year erubbabel and

To return to Zerubbabel. Now if he had been already residing at Jerusalem as governor of Judea under a Persian king, before DariusTM received the Persian kingdom, we ask, who appointed the Jewish prince to that office? Did the Magian usurper? No. Did Cambyses? Certainly not. It must then have been Cyrus from whom Zerubbabel received his appointment. And, therefore, it must have been under Cyrus, that "the children of the province which went up from Babylon, and came, a congregation of 42,360, to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel and Jeshua," as is recorded in Ezra ii, 1, 2, and in verse 64. When was he thus appointed? In the first year of the reign of Cyrus as the successor of Darius the Mede on the throne of Babylon, as we shall immediately learn from Ant., xi. 1, 3.

• Your correspondent may object that in the extract from Josephus, no menNEW SERIES.-VOL. III., NO. V.

L