knowledge of it. But it is now no longer necessary to account for that knowledge on the grounds hitherto considered. A writer of the Babylonian period, such as Daniel is asserted to be, would learn as much, if not far more, concerning the great doctrine under question from the Babylonian belief than the Mazdean.

It is hardly necessary to defend Daniel from the charge, - what he knew he borrowed. No one now maintains this of even the later Jewish doctors. Nicolas can discover indications only that Mazdeism exercised a certain influence upon Judaism in the formation of this doctrine. The main element at work was undoubtedly not external but internal agency. In fact, all charge of borrowing, whether of Jew from Babylonian or Persian or of Babylonian or Persian from Jew, is unworthy of real criticism. "In both these religions," says Haug, "identical doctrines sprang up independently." Historically speaking it can no longer be counted an impossibility that the period of the captivity should have been selected as the fittest season for inculcating divine lessons distinguished from, though not opposed to, those communicated in earlier times.

It is impossible3, as it would be dishonest, to deny that striking parallelisms do exist be tween doctrines preserved in the extant sacred literature of the Hebrew, the Christian, the Babylonian, and the Persian; but when a truly ancient relationship does so present itself, it is not to be explained on the hypothesis of the derivation of the one from the other, but by the truer and deeper cause of original unity. This theory is now regarded by many writers of our own and other countries as that which furnishes the key to genuine affinities; these are products of the original truth which Hebrew, Babylonian, and Persian alike inherited from the fathers of the human family. "If a truth," said a great Cambridge professor, "less developed in the Mosaic system, be found without derivation from the Israelites among the adherents of Zoroaster, it is not therefore to be concluded that the

authority of the ancient revelation is in jeopardy. The most reverent regard to the inviolable sacredness of that truth, with which the father of the promised seed and his descendants were peculiarly entrusted, consists well with the belief in the preservation of much original truth elsewhere. And if such is found in nations most infected with polytheistic error, much more may it be well conceived to have existed in one by which the grosser forms of idolatry were ever held in peculiar abhorrence;

1

P: 346.

2

Essays,' &c. p. 2.

3 Hardwick, II. p. 408.

a nation whose greatest prince is signally honoured by divine prophecy in being named as the future restorer of God's people to their ancient seat, and whose sages were summoned from afar, before the great and wise of Israel, to adore the infant Redeemer." Christians see neither scandal nor contradiction in admitting "strong historical resemblance";" they protest only against counting such resemblance inexplicable save on the supposition of conscious imitation on the part of the Jew; imitation, be it remembered, always aggravated in insolence by the affixing to it a supposititious title of some chosen servant of God.

The belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians in the existence and immortality of the soul, in resurrection, in a future life, and in heaven and hell, is no longer disputed. In the Accadian "magic" the portraiture is as sombre and insufficient as in the mythological documents of the Chaldæan-Babylonian epoch. The priests and professors saw "life and immortality" in a glass darkly; they knew little or nothing of that spiritual consolation and purer spiritual bliss which are reflected in the revelation to Daniel (xii. 3), and which were brought to "light" by Him Who abolished death (2 Tim. i. 10).

The twelfth and last tablet of the flood series of legends speaks thus of hell and heaven: Hades is

"the house of the departed, the seat of the god Iskaka; the house from which is no exit; the road, the course of which never returns ; the place, within which they long for light; the place, where dust is their nourishment and

their food mud.

Its chiefs, like birds, are clothed with wings.
Light is never seen, in darkness they dwell.”
Heaven, on the contrary, is

"the place of seers...wearing crowns, who from days of old ruled the earth.

To whom the gods Anu and Bel have given renowned names.

A place where water is abundant, drawn from The place of chiefs and unconquered ones; perennial springs. the place of bards and great men ; the place of interpreters of the wisdom of the great gods:" &c., &c.

The notion of heaven here is that of a place

the Gospels,' pp. 128, 9.

7 G. Smith, A. D.' p. 202.

for the strong, the great, and the successful among men; that of hell—reproduced in almost identical language in the descent of Ishtar to Hades is that of an abode of the weak and unsuccessful, faithless wives and faithless husbands, disobedient children, slaves and captives.

The tablets further speak of a god-the god of destiny (Oppert), Namtar (Lenormant)—who gives Ishtar drink of the waters

1 See Oppert, p. 8; Smith, p. 220. Differences in the interpretation of certain words do not affect the general conclusion.

of life and so releases her from Hades2; or of the god Hea, who similarly releases Heabani and raises him to heaven 3; or of the god Silikmoulou-khi, who possesses the same power.

This tablet-teaching on the doctrine was open to the "wise men" of the Babylonians in Daniel's time. It needs no proof how immeasurably superior in spirituality is the truth revealed to and recorded by the inspired prophet.

2 Oppert, p. 20.

3 G. Smith, pp. 201, 221. See note on p. 268.

Hosea's Name, Origin, and Sphere of Ministry.

THE

'HE name of Hosea (in LXX. 'none; Rom. ix. 25, none; in the Vulg. Osee) is properly Hoshea, "salvation." It is the same as was originally borne by Joshua (Num. xiii. 16; Deut. xxxii. 44), and in Hosea's own time by the last king of Israel (2 K. xv. 30). Nothing whatever is recorded of his father Beeri (ch. i. 1, note); nor indeed of the prophet's own personal history beyond the statement in ch. i. 1, of the time of his prophetic ministry; for the account of his relations with Gomer given in the three first chapters is in all probability purely parabolical; see note on ch. i. 2.

A tradition, dating far on in the Christian era, assigns Hosea to the tribe of Issachar; making him a native, either of a place, otherwise unknown, which is named as Be'elmoth', or Belemoth; or as Beth-shemesh, which is mentioned Josh. xix. 22. These statements appear to be of no great authority. There is, however, substantial ground supplied by internal evidence for the conviction, that he was a native of the Northern king

1 Scholion prefixed to the Commentary of Ephraim Syrus.

2 Pseudo-Epiphanius 'de Prophetis,' cap. xi.; Isidor. Hisp. de Vita et Ob. Sanc.' cap. xli. ; cited by Wünsche.

3 Jerome, 'Comm.' in Os. i. 1.

dom. Thus Repeated topographical notices betoken a personal familiarity with the country: cf. ch. v. 1, vi. 8, 9, xii. 11, xiv. 5, 6. The prophet's view seems naturally to restrict itself to Israel. There are frequent notices, it is true, of Judah; but when such occur, they have the air of being of an incidental character, as if they related to matters lying outside the main interest of the speaker. "The land" (ch. i. 2) is the land of the Ten Tribes. The commonwealth which is imaged by Gomer and her children, "your mother" of ch. ii. 2, is the commonwealth of the Northern Confederacy. The "king and princes," the "priests," the "people," all belong to Israel'. No open definite reference is once made to Jerusalem, or to its sovereign and court, or to its temple, or to the evils whether religious or civil which clustered round the southern capital. Throughout we are given to feel, that the Israel of the Ten Tribes is at once the home of the prophet's heart and the proper sphere of his activities.

"Indeed" (as Ewald observes), "it is precisely this circumstance which constitutes the essential peculiarity of this book, giving it, viewed as a historical document, no ordinary importance, and

The passage in ch. iii. 5 refers to another order of things altogether, in the far-off future.

by reason of which it stands unique' among all the prophetical scriptures; namely this, that it is the Ephraimite Book of Prophecy, the most genuine and the innermost utterance there of the Divine voice; not merely an utterance which makes itself heard over the Northern kingdom, but one which is wrung forth by the Spirit out of that kingdom's own bosom; at the proper juncture, when its last mortal throes were already drawing on, now before it should be too late, out of its very midst to judge and condemn it. Amos, it is true, has also much to say respecting this kingdom; but Amos does not belong to it by birth or home, neither does he write in it alone, nor for it alone; while every sentence of Hosea makes us feel, that he had not merely once upon a time made this kingdom a passing visit, as Amos did, but knows it with the inmost consciousness of his heart, and follows all its deeds and efforts and fortunes with the emotions of such a profound sympathy, as is only conceivable in the case of a native-born prophet of the country."

Our view on this point, however, would not be complete, if we did not take into account the religious sympathy which no doubt subsisted, as between the idolaters of the two several kingdoms, so also between the better minded in both. This fellow-feeling among the pious made it natural, that the prophet should occasionally, even while in reality dealing with his own people, yet dart forth expressions of longing or of regret, of hope or of fear, in respect to his fellowservants of Jehovah in Judah. Such we find to be the case, particularly in the fourth, fifth and sixth chapters; and on one or two occasions, such expressions of interest in Judah take even the form of exhortation or threatening addressed to Judah. But such passages do not warrant the inference, that, originally, the prophet's mission extended beyond Israel. Their form is probably to be regarded as a poetical or rhetorical figure of style, such as is usual even in the most inartificial compositions, being a

1 This observation may require to be some what qualified in view of the Book of Jonah. 2 'Propheten,' Vol. 1. p. 172, 2te Ausgabe.

natural outcome of the endeavour after effectiveness and point. It is, nevertheless, yet further open to us to surmise, that even though in the first instance, and in its oral utterance, the prophet's word was addressed to his own countrymen, yet when with Israel all was over, and Hosea was collecting his prophesyings in a written form into a book, he was then led to add slight touches here and there, through having in his view such readers as he might hope to find in the kingdom which still survived.

The Period of Hosea's Ministry.

Hosea is stated in the introductory verse to have prophesied "in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel." According to the dates given in the margin of our English Bible, Uzziah commenced his long reign of fifty-one years about the year 810, and Jeroboam II. ended his (of 41 years) in the year 784; the two kings thus reigning contemporaneously about twenty-six years. Hosea, we must suppose, commenced his ministry somewhere in the latter part of this period; about 790 according to the same chronology. The other extremity of its duration brings us into the reign of Hezekiah; probably (see p. 405) to a time somewhat later than the capture of Samaria, which took place 721. By this computation we gain for its duration a period of more than seventy years. It was probably much less than this3; but even if it were thus protracted,

3 The chronology given in the margin of our A.V. rests, for the most part, upon numerical statements in our present Hebrew text, which are themselves, in several instances, incapable of being harmonized with one another, without the aid of various conjectures, either of interregfor which there is no evidence except their con nums or of coregnums or of repeated accessions, venience for this purpose (see Dictionary of Bible,' Vol. I. pp. 324 and 900): and it has now become in a serious degree discredited by the records of Assyrian history which have lately come to light. This subject came under notice above (Vol. II. 480) in the Introduction to the Books of Kings. More recently, it has formed the subject of a brief Chronologischer Excursus' appended by Dr Schrader to his valu able work, 'Die Keilinschriften und das A.T.' Dr Schrader (p. 299) exhibits the discrepancies

it would be easy to find among our own clergy, and among our recent bishops,

between the chronology of Kings [as interpreted by Usher] and that of the Assyrian monuments, in a brief table, which slightly modified may stand thus:

Assyrian Monuments.

Usher. Period of reign. 918-898.

884-856.

Ahab. 854. Battle in which Shalmaneser II. defeated Ahab and Benhadad ("Benhidri ") of Damascus (cf. Schrader, p. 97; Ménant, 'Annales des Rois d'Assyrie,' p. 112; Rawlinson, 'Anc. Monarchies,' II. p. 103, 3rd ed.). Benhidri mentioned last 843 (Mén. p. 115; Schr. p. 103). Jehu. 842. Shalmaneser fought with Hazael, and received tribute of Jehu (Schr. p. 107; Mén. pp. 100, 104; Rawl. pp. 104, 105). Uzziah. 738. In conflict with Tig- 810-758. lath-Pileser IV. (Smith, 'Assyrian Discoveries,' p. 275; Rawl. p. 130; Mén. p. 145, compared with Schr. pp. 114119). Menahem. 738. Bringing tribute (with Rezon) to Tiglath-Pileser ("Pul" (?) 2 K. xv. 19; Sm. p. 278; Mén. p. 146; Schr. p. 120; cp. Rawl. p. 123).

772-761.

Pekah. 734. Mentioned in frag- 759-739. ment of Tiglath-Pileser (Sm. 285; Schr. p. 145).

Hoshea. 734. Made king by Tig. 730-721. lath-Pileser (Schr. p. 145; Sm. pp. 286, 7).

It is a consideration of very great weight in estimating the comparative authority of the Hebrew and Assyrian chronologies, that for the latter we have now in our hands the very, original inscriptions, as they were inscribed in the reigns of the several kings whose doings they record; and that we have moreover seven copies of the Assyrian "Canon of Eponyms, answering to the consular lists of Roman chronology and the lists of Eponymal Archons in Athenian, giving the Eponyms year by year. The four first of these copies (as we learn from Mr Smith's notice of Lepsius's treatise, Ueber den chronologischen Werth der ass. Eponymen,' in the North British Rev.' Vol. LII. pp. 220, 221) merely give the names of the Eponyms, followed in some cases by the title "King of Assyria," when the king himself filled the office; the other three give not only the names, but also the titles of all the Eponyms, and the principal events which happened during their periods of office. The whole period embraced is from the Eponymy of Vul-nirari II. king of Assyria B.C. 911, to that of Akhi-ilan (end of copy 3) B.C. 649. The earliest copies which we possess were written in the reign of Sennacherib. Schrader, pp. 308, &c. gives some of these lists, beginning with B.C. 893: we have them also in Ménant, annexed to the annals of each

men who have acted as ordained ministers about as long.

reign. In many cases, the inscriptions of the kings, particularly of Shalmaneser II. (Mén. pp. 108, &c.), name the Eponym ("Limmu") of the year the events of which they record; the inscriptions and the canon thus confirming one another. On the other hand, the numbers in the Books of Kings were, as mentioned above Vol. II. p. 480, in all probability originally given simply in numeral letters, which might easily get corrupted in copying, and which, hav. ing thus got into confusion, may be reasonably suspected of having been manipulated, in order to bring them into mutual agreement, by the "Great Synagogue," after the Restoration. A scheme of chronology therefore which was founded solely upon these data, must, in view of conflicting data furnished now from other sources, submit to be modified; and this is a task which at present invites the attention of Biblical scholars. A scheme has been recently propounded by Herr Neteler in the Tübingen Theologische Quartalschrift' for 1874 (pp. 389, &c.) which appears to merit careful attention. This makes the interval between the death of Jeroboam (749) and the accession of Hoshea (709) to be 40 years instead of 54, thus considerably lessening the length of Hosea's prophetic ministry.

If a student of Scripture feels disposed to resent any assault made, from the ground supplied by the Assyrian records, upon the system of biblical chronology which we have been accustomed to use, as if it were an assault made upon the original chronology as it first came from the pen of the sacred annalist,-which it is very evident it may not in the least be,-he may feel reassured by considering the very substantial and important confirmation of sacred history in general which the Assyrian monuments afford. This has been amply illustrated, in reference to very many instances throughout the Old Testament, by Dr Schrader in the body of his work above referred to. In reference to the history of Kings, he writes in the Excursus' as follows: "Apart from the chronological statements, the history of the Bible is throughout authenticated; only some small instances of inexactitude have we had to notice; e.g. as to what seems the name of the captor of Samaria; see on 2 K. xvii. 6; as also the name of Pul=Tiglath-Pileser; see on 2 K. xv. 1, 17, 19. This holds good especially in relation to the contemporaneity of certain particulars. In the Bible, Ahab and Benhadad appear as contemporary princes: Shalmaneser II. in his inscriptions presents them to our view together. Jehu and Hazael appear in the Bible as contemporaries; so in the monuments. Uzziah and Menahem reign according to the Bible at the same time, only Uzziah is the older of the two: exactly so do the inscriptions of TiglathPileser exhibit Uzziah and Menahem as contemporary rulers, but make earlier mention of the former than of the latter. According to the Bible Ahaz and Pekah reigned at the same time, after the latter of whom Hoshea ascends the throne: in correspondence therewith, TiglathPileser in his latest inscription, composed some half year before his death, mentions Jahukhazi