which they used to sacrifice the passover" the 13th, is easily got over by noticing that he reckoned days as we do, while the Jewish day began at sunset, between which time and darkness the preparing (éropáčew) of what was requisite for the next day's passover must have taken place.

A. H. W."

SIR ISAAC NEWTON ON EZRA AND NEHEMIAH. MR. BOSANQUET begins his somewhat eccentric communication on Nehemiah the Tirshatha with a very confident conjecture that I have previously communicated with this Journal under the signatures of G. and G. B. Even if I had done so, this would not make his mistakes less numerous or more plausible. I shall not here take upon me to say how far he is a good guesser, though he will permit me to say that in my opinion he has on former occasions proved himself to be an indifferent prophet, a "little loose in his logic," and an inaccurate interpreter of the meaning of ancient writers.

First, I think it will be conceded that Mr. Bosanquet can scarcely be regarded as a very successful prophet.

For it is thus that he commences a long letter on Ahasuerus and Darius the Mede :-" Before I enter upon the discussion of the above question, allow me to offer a few words in reply to the able letter of your correspondent G. B., in your Journal of October, p. 138, in which he has made a powerful struggle, probably one of the last which will ever be made, in favour of that system of dates upon which our common system of Bible chronology is founded; a system, be it observed, incapable of adjustment with the historical facts contained in the very ancient books of Judith and Tobit,” etc. I have put one or two passages in italics.

Now, since this passage appeared in this Journal (January, 1857), very decided opposition has been expressed from time to time to Mr. Bosanquet's chronological speculations, not altogether without some admixture of surprise, that he should have ventured to embrace and

" Irenæus says, Moses "diem passionis non ignoravit sed figuratim pronunciavit, eum Pascha nominans" (iv. 23). Again, soon after, "Passus est dominus ad implens Pascha." Tertullian (Adv. Jud., c. 10), proves that Christ's death was foretold in the Old Testament, and says, "Hoc enim et Moyses initio primi mensis novorum (anno rum, scil.) facturos vos prophetavit, cum omne vulgus filiorum Israel ad vesperam agnum esset immolaturum, et hanc sollemnitatem diei hujus, id est Pascha Azymorum, cum amaritudine manducaturos præcanebat, et adjecit, Pascha esse Domini, id est passionem Christi. Quod ita quoque ad impletum est, ut prima die Azymorum interficeretis Christum, et ut prophetiæ implerentur. Properavit dies vesperam facere, id est tenebras efficere, quæ media die factæ sunt, atque ita dies festos vestros convertit Deus in luctum, et cantica vestra in lamentationem." Justin (Dialog. cum Tryphone Judæo), "And it is written that on the day of the passover ye took him, and similarly on the passover ye crucified him." Page 338.

The preceding extracts indirectly support our correspondent's view, because they shew that our Lord suffered on the day of the passover, and was regarded as fulfilling the Paschal type by his death.-ED.

J. S. L., January, 1857, p. 452.

uphold them. Indeed, on one occasion, Mr. Bosanquet himself expressed his willingness to approximate ten years nearer to the common chronology, thus diminishing his error by not quite one half, though he afterwards unwisely retracted his concession. Both Dr. E. Hincks and Mr. Savile, in letters to which I am sure Mr. Bosanquet will not refuse the epithet "able," have advocated the view which he so strongly disapproves. To these may be added the author of a learned paper on "Theories of Biblical Chronology," who thus expresses his opinion of the erroneousness of your correspondent's view: "If anything further be needed in proof of the mistake which we think Mr. Bosanquet has made in lowering the chronology of this period, though apparently supported by the testimony of Demetrius in his book on the kings of Judah, we would refer him to Parker's Chronology (pp. 341, 342), where the point in dispute is fairly handled, and which answer we deem to be conclusive." And that Dr. Hincks still continues to dissent as decidedly as ever from Mr. Bosanquet's view is plain from what we read in his very recently communicated paper on Arioch and Belshazzar,a where he 667 says, we have no faith whatever in astronomical" calculations, which are supposed to indicate that the Lydian war was not terminated till B.C. 585."

Should your correspondent, in the rather extensive course of his reading, be so fortunate as to light upon two or three other “ very ancient historical books" of equal authenticity with those of Judith and Tobit, he may perhaps succeed in silencing, though he may still fail to convince those who have the misfortune to differ from him.

But not only is Mr. Bosanquet an indifferent prophet, he is also rather loose in his logic, drawing lax modern inferences from ancient premises, and is, therefore, by no means an accurate interpreter of the meaning of ancient authors. For instance, when a writer in this or any other respectable Journal, undertakes to tell his readers what Ctesias has related, he should at least be careful not to appear to make

P J. S. L., January, 1860; pp. 318, 319.

9 In J. S. L., January, 1857, p. 462, Mr. Bosanquet informs us that Demetrius, a Jewish writer on the kings of Judah, who may have flourished cir. B.c. 222, states that the last captivity of Judah took place three hundred and thirty-eight years and three months before the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. Hence, according to Demetrius and Mr. Bosanquet, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Nebuchadnezzar occurred B.c. (338+222) 560. Mr. Savile, in replying to Mr. B., appears to think that " Josephus includes, from the time of Nebuchadnezzar's burning the temple until king Antiochus Eupator, 414 years (Antiq., xx., X., 1). Antiochus Eupator reigned two years from B.c. 164+162. Therefore 164 +414 would give 578 B.c." (about ten years later than the common date) as the date of the burning of the temple" (J. S. L., April, 1857, p. 169). Mr. Savile also mentions the fact that," the Talmudical doctors in their Seder Olam Rabba (their popular work on chronology) are barefaced enough to declare that there were only four kings of Persia instead of ten, from Cyrus to Darius Codomanus, with the evident design of shewing that Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks was not fulfilled in Christ's death." If Demetrius flourished so early as cir. B.c. 222, it would probably be mere want of correct information, united with undue attachment to some favourite chronological hypothesis, which led him into his error.

J. S. L., January, 1862; p. 412.

66

the Greek physician say something not unlike the very opposite to that which he has actually said, drawing conclusions which are contradictory to the premises. Does this seem to be an exaggerated charge? Let us then compare the real Ctesias, with Mr. Bosanquet's representation of him. I take the liberty of putting in italics the clause respecting the delicate filial behaviour of Cyrus to Amytis; as also the word " correctly "a term which probably your correspondent will himself allow, upon more mature reflection, is a little out of place in its present connexion.

I would here venture to suggest that when Ctesias tells us that Astyages was sent by Cyrus to be governor of a Parthian people, on the borders of Hyrcania, and that afterwards, when sent for by Cyrus and Amytis, he was left to perish in the desert through the treachery of

Æbaras, we are taught by this Greek writer, not as Mr. Bosanquet seems incorrectly to imagine, that Cyrus reigned for some years after his decisive victory, simultaneously, if not conjointly, with his vanquished father-in-law, but rather, that Cyrus at once, and finally dethroned the defeated Astyages, and removed him from his metropolis of Ecbatana into a distant and respectable exile, as he afterwards removed the vanquished and dethroned Nabonidus from Borsippa and Babylon, to end his days in the Persian province of Carmania. Thus, in one or two of the most important points, Herodotus and Ctesias, so far from contradicting each other, agree in flatly contradicting the Cyropædia, and in teaching us that Astyages was the lasts king of the Medes, and that, after his defeat, he fell from his kingly station into what must be regarded as a position very near akin to that of a subject of Cyrus.

If Mr. Bosanquet chooses to infer from the various authorities which he has consulted and weighed, that Darius the Mede was identical with Darius Hystaspes the Persian, and that the Medes and Persians continued to be two equal and independent nations, until Darius the MedoPersian "took the kingdom" (Dan. v. 31) in B.C. 493, about three years before the battle of Marathon, however we may regret that such an apparent lack of critical discernment should prevail in any mind conversant with numerous historical works, we do not for a moment dispute his right to draw, and uphold, and publish such inferences. Still it will be more candid and impartial when he next dwells upon the deep filial respect paid by Cyrus to Amytis before he married her, not entirely to ignore the fact, that her husband Spitamas was put to death by order of this filially respectful personage, before she became queenconsort of the Medo-Persian empire, and, as such, the wife of her first husband's slayer, and of her vanquished and dethroned father's sovereign.

Mr. Bosanquet seems to be a little impatient of those who ignore the historical testimony of Onesicritus and Ferdusi, of Judith and Tobit, and insists much on the duty of sifting and weighing evidence. By what very curious process of sifting and weighing has he found him

• What Xenophon says in the Anabasis of Larissa and Mespila will not permit us to come to any other conclusion. The predictions of Isaiah, the narrative and prophetic vision of Daniel, and the narrative of Ezra, favour the same view.

We will add here what appears to be the almost equally decisive testimony of Isocrates (the contemporary of Xenophon) in his panegyric on Evagoras, king of Cyrus, as quoted by the historian Mitford: Αλλὰ μὴν τῶν γε ἔπειτα γεγενημένων, ἴσως δὲ τῶν ἁπαντων, Κῦρον τὸν Μήδων μὲν ἀφελόμενον τὴν ἀρχὴν, Περσαις δὲ κτησάμενον, οἱ πλείστοι καὶ μάλιστα θαυματουσιν, κ.λ.τ. Here we are expressly told that Cyrus forcibly won (åpeλóμevos, kτnoάuevos) imperial supremacy from the Medes, and caused it to pass away from them to the Persians. Can this refer to anything but the defeat, and speedy and final dethronement of Astyages by the victorious Persians? It seems surprising that any thoughtful person should persist in the face of all these testimonies, in following Rollin and Dr. Hales, who regard the Cyropædia as, in the main, an authentic history, and the supposed Cyaxares II. as the sovereign and independent successor of Astyages, and the last king of the Medes, who, because he had no son to inherit his independent Median throne, bequeathed it to Cyrus the Persian.

self at liberty to deduce from the testimony of Ctesias, that Cyrus reigned simultaneously, if not conjointly, "with his father-in-law, for some years after the defeat of Astyages?" If the formation of such a habit of sifting and weighing be the natural result of a deep study of Judith and Tobit, Onesicritus and Ferdusi, it will perhaps be better to have nothing to do with these authors.

And can your correspondent be fairly and reasonably displeased if we expect from a pen which has formed such a strange habit of dealing with testimony, misinterpretations of the narratives of Ezra and Nehemiah as infelicitous as that which he has advanced as the explainer of Ctesias? Perhaps it may be replied that any apprehensions here are groundless; since, with regard to the testimony of Ezra and Nehemiah, it is not so much your speculative and logical correspondent, as the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton, who is to be regarded as the interpreter. Accordingly, he may naturally think that before such a personage, we should reverently listen, and submit in silence. But Mr. Bosanquet's numerous mistakes, for we have mentioned only two or three of them, have rendered us somewhat distrustful even of the infallibility of that truly great man, to whom he looks up with almost superstitious reverence, and behind whose ample shield he has deemed it prudent to take refuge. The fact is, it is not altogether in Sir Isaac's favour that he has such a determined partisan in your correspondent.

Bishop Horsley, a person of rare ability and acuteness, and himself no common scrutinizer of evidence," wished to undertake an edition of the works of Newton. And, if my memory do not deceive me, profound as was his admiration of the illustrious mathematician and natural philosopher, he regarded Newton as nothing more than an ordinary man in the discussion of questions connected with scriptural chronology and prophecy. And if we may give credit to popular tradition, this great genius did not always manifest the marvellous sagacity with which nature had so lavishly endowed him, at least when occupied in solving some of the less important problems of every-day life. It is said that he happened to possess a parent cat with its little kitten, and was desirous of providing for them a convenient mode of transit through a certain boarded partition. There was no difficulty in making a fairsized aperture to serve as a passage for the parent. And reasoning from analogy, he concluded that the next best thing to be done was to cut a little hole for the use of the kitten. It is added that our great mathematician did not become aware that he had been guilty of a work of supererogation, until either from the suggestion of a friend, or from seeing with his own eyes the kitten following closely at the heels of its mother, he discovered that the smaller aperture was unnecessary, the larger suffering equally well for parent and offspring.

Hence, we are not called upon to follow blindfold even Newton in everything, as if he were an infallible guide; nor is there any culpable presumption in candidly and respectfully attempting to enquire into the correctness of his historical and chronological theories, and even in declining to accept them if, after patient research, we sincerely believe that we have discovered reasonable and solid grounds of dissent.