CHAPTER XI.

CONCLUSION OF PART FIRST. There are many other legends recorded in the Old Testament which might be treated at length, but, as we have considered the principal and most important, and as we have so much to examine in Part Second, which treats of the New Testament, we shall take but a passing glance at a few others. In Genesis xli. is to be found the story of PHARAOH'S TWO DREAMS, which is to the effect that Pharaoh dreamed that he stood by a river, and saw come up out of it _seven_ fat kine, and _seven_ lean kine, which devoured the fat ones. He then dreamed that he saw _seven_ good ears of corn, on one stalk, spring up out of the ground. This was followed by _seven_ poor ears, which sprang up after them, and devoured the good ears. Pharaoh, upon awaking from his sleep, and recalling the dreams which he dreamed, was greatly troubled, "and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof, and Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh." Finally, his chief butler tells him of one Joseph, who was skilled in interpreting dreams, and Pharaoh orders him to be brought before his presence. He then repeats his dreams to Joseph, who immediately interprets them to the great satisfaction of the king. A very similar story is related in the Buddhist _Fo-pen-hing_--one of their sacred books, which has been translated by Prof. Samuel Beal--which, in substance, is as follows: Suddhôdana Raja dreamed _seven_ different dreams in one night, when, "awaking from his sleep, and recalling the visions he had seen, was greatly troubled, so that the very hair on his body stood erect, and his limbs trembled." He forthwith summoned to his side, within his palace, all the great ministers of his council, and exhorted them in these words: "Most honorable Sirs! be it known to you that during the present night I have seen in my dreams strange and potent visions--there were _seven_ distinct dreams, which I will now recite (he recites the dreams). I pray you, honorable Sirs! let not these dreams escape your memories, but in the morning, when I am seated in my palace, and surrounded by my attendants, let them be brought to my mind (that they may be interpreted.)" At morning light, the king, seated in the midst of his attendants, issued his commands to all the Brahmans, interpreters of dreams, within his kingdom, in these terms, "All ye men of wisdom, explain for me by interpretation the meaning of the dreams I have dreamed in my sleep." Then all the wise Brahmans, interpreters of dreams, began to consider, each one in his own heart, what the meaning of these visions could be; till at last they addressed the king, and said: "Mahâ-raja! be it known to you that we never before have heard such dreams as these, _and we cannot interpret their meaning_." On hearing this, Suddhôdana was very troubled in his heart, and exceeding distressed. He thought within himself: "Who is there that can satisfy these doubts of mine?" Finally a "holy one," called _T'so-Ping_, being present in the inner palace, and perceiving the sorrow and distress of the king, assumed the appearance of a Brahman, and under this form he stood at the gate of the king's palace, and cried out, saying: "I am able fully to interpret the dreams of Suddhôdana Râja, and with certainty to satisfy all the doubts." The king ordered him to be brought before his presence, and then related to him his dreams. Upon hearing them, _T'so-Ping_ immediately interpreted them, to the great satisfaction of the king.[89:1] In the second chapter of Exodus we read of MOSES THROWN INTO THE NILE, which is done _by command of the king_. There are many counterparts to this in ancient mythology; among them may be mentioned that of the infant Perseus, who was, _by command of the king_ (Acrisius of Argos), shut up in a chest, and cast into the sea. He was found by one Dictys, who took great care of the child, and--as Pharaoh's daughter did with the child Moses--educated him.[89:2] The infant Bacchus was confined in a chest, _by order of Cadmus, King of Thebes_, and thrown into the Nile.[90:1] He, like Moses, had two mothers, one by nature, the other by adoption.[90:2] He was also, like Moses, represented _horned_.[90:3] Osiris was also confined in a chest, and thrown into the river Nile.[90:4] When Osiris was shut into the coffer, and cast into the river, he floated to Phenicia, and was there received under the name of Adonis. Isis (his mother, or wife) wandered in quest of him, came to Byblos, and seated herself by a fountain in silence and tears. She was then taken by the servants of the royal palace, and made to attend on the young prince of the land. In like manner, Demeter, after Aidoneus had ravished her daughter, went in pursuit, reached Eleusis, seated herself by a well, conversed with the daughters of the queen, and became _nurse to her son_.[90:5] So likewise, when Moses was put into the ark made of bulrushes, and cast into the Nile, he was found by the daughters of Pharaoh, and his own mother became his nurse.[90:6] This is simply another version of the same myth. In the second chapter of the second book of Kings, we read of ELIJAH ASCENDING TO HEAVEN. There are many counterparts to this, in heathen mythology. Hindoo sacred writings relate many such stories--how some of their Holy Ones were taken up alive into heaven--and impressions on rocks are shown, said to be foot-prints, made when they ascended.[90:7] According to Babylonian mythology, _Xisuthrus_ was translated to heaven.[90:8] The story of Elijah ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire may also be compared to the fiery, flame-red chariot of _Ushas_.[90:9] This idea of some Holy One ascending to heaven without dying was found in the ancient mythology of the _Chinese_.[90:10] The story of DAVID KILLING GOLIATH, by throwing a stone and hitting him in the forehead,[90:11] may be compared to the story of _Thor_, the Scandinavian hero, throwing a hammer at Hrungnir, and striking him in the forehead.[91:1] We read in Numbers[91:2] that BALAAM'S ASS SPOKE to his master, and reproved him. In ancient fables or stories in which animals play prominent parts, each creature is endowed with the power of speech. This idea was common in the whole of Western Asia and Egypt. It is found in various Egyptian and Chaldean stories.[91:3] Homer has recorded that the _horse_ of Achilles spoke to him.[91:4] We have also a very wonderful story in that of JOSHUA'S COMMAND TO THE SUN. This story is related in the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua, and is to the effect that the Israelites, who were at battle with the Amorites, wished the day to be lengthened that they might continue their slaughter, whereupon Joshua said: "Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon, and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. _And the sun stood still_, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. . . . And there was no day like that before it or after it." There are many stories similar to this, to be found among other nations of antiquity. We have, as an example, that which is related of Bacchus in the Orphic hymns, wherein it says that this god-man arrested the course of the sun and the moon.[91:5] An Indian legend relates that the sun stood still to hear the pious ejaculations of Arjouan after the death of Crishna.[91:6] A holy Buddhist by the name of Mâtanga prevented the sun, at his command, from rising, and bisected the moon.[91:7] Arresting the course of the sun was a common thing among the disciples of Buddha.[91:8] The _Chinese_ also, had a legend of the sun standing still,[91:9] and a legend was found among the _Ancient Mexicans_ to the effect that one of their holy persons commanded the sun to stand still, which command was obeyed.[91:10] We shall now endeavor to answer the question which must naturally arise in the minds of all who see, for the first time, the similarity in the legends of the Hebrews and those of other nations, namely: have the Hebrews copied from other nations, or, have other nations copied from the Hebrews? To answer this question we shall; _first_, give a brief account or history of the Pentateuch and other books of the Old Testament from which we have taken legends, and show about what time they were written; and, _second_, show that other nations were possessed of these legends long before that time, _and that the Jews copied from them_. The Pentateuch is ascribed, in our _modern_ translations, to _Moses_, and he is generally supposed to be the author. This is altogether erroneous, as Moses had _nothing whatever_ to do with these five books. Bishop Colenso, speaking of this, says: "The books of the Pentateuch _are never ascribed to Moses in the inscriptions of Hebrew manuscripts, or in printed copies of the Hebrew Bible_. Nor are they styled the '_Books of Moses_' in the Septuagint[92:1] or Vulgate,[92:2] _but only in our modern translations_, after the example of many eminent Fathers of the Church, who, with the exception of Jerome, and, perhaps, Origen, were, one and all of them, very little acquainted with the Hebrew language, and still less with its criticism."[92:3] The author of "The Religion of Israel," referring to this subject, says: "The Jews who lived _after_ the Babylonish Captivity, and the Christians following their examples, ascribed these books (the Pentateuch) to Moses; and for many centuries the _notion_ was cherished that he had really written them. _But strict and impartial investigation has shown that this opinion must be given up_; and that _nothing_ in the whole Law really comes from Moses himself except the Ten Commandments. _And even these were not delivered by him in the same form as we find them now._ If we still call these books by his name, it is only because the Israelites always thought of him as their first and greatest law-giver, _and the actual authors grouped all their narratives and laws around his figure, and associated them with his name_."[92:4] As we cannot go into an extended account, and show _how this is known_, we will simply say that it is principally by _internal_ evidence that these facts are ascertained.[92:5] Now that we have seen that Moses did not write the books of the Pentateuch, our next endeavor will be to ascertain _when_ they were written, and _by whom_. We can say that they were not written by any _one_ person, nor were they written _at the same time_. We can trace _three_ principal redactions of the Pentateuch, that is to say, the material was _worked over_, and _re-edited_, with _modifications_ and _additions_, by _different people_, at _three distinct epochs_.[93:1] The two principal writers are generally known as the _Jehovistic_ and the _Elohistic_. We have--in speaking of the "Eden Myth" and the legend of the "Deluge"--already alluded to this fact, and have illustrated how these writers' narratives conflict with each other. The _Jehovistic_ writer is supposed to have been a prophet, who, it would seem, was anxious to give Israel a history. He begins at Genesis, ii. 4, with a _short_ account, of the "_Creation_," and then he carries the story on regularly until the Israelites enter Canaan. It is to him that we are indebted for the _charming_ pictures of the patriarchs. _He took these from other writings, or from the popular legends._[93:2] About 725 B. C. the Israelites were conquered by Salmanassar, King of Assyria, and many of them were carried away captives. _Their place was supplied by Assyrian colonists from Babylon, Persia, and other places._[93:3] This fact is of the greatest importance, and should not be forgotten, as we find that the _first_ of the three writers of the Pentateuch, spoken of above, _wrote about this time_, and the Israelites heard, _from the colonists from Babylon, Persia, and other places--for the first time--many of the legends which this writer wove into the fabulous history which he wrote, especially the accounts of the Creation and the Deluge_. The Pentateuch remained in this, its _first_ form, until the year 620 B. C. Then a certain _priest_ of marked prophetic sympathies wrote a book of law which has come down to us in Deuteronomy, iv. 44, to xxvi., and xxviii. Here we find the demands which the _Mosaic_ party at _that day_ were making thrown into the form of laws. It was by King Josiah that this book was first introduced and proclaimed as authoritative.[93:4] It was soon afterwards _wove into_ the work of the _first_ Pentateuchian writer, and at the same time "_a few new passages_" were added, some of which related to Joshua, the successor of Moses.[94:1] At this period in Israel's history, Jehovah had become almost forgotten, and "other gods" had taken his place.[94:2] The Mosaic party, so called--who worshiped Jehovah exclusively--were in the minority, but when King Amon--who was a worshiper of Moloch--died, and was succeeded by his son Josiah, a change immediately took place. This young prince, who was only eight years old at the death of his father, the Mosaic party succeeded in winning over to their interests. In the year 621 B. C., Josiah, now in the eighteenth year of his reign, began a thorough reformation which completely answered to the ideas of the Mosaic party.[94:3] It was during this time that the _second_ Pentateuchian writer wrote, and _he_ makes _Moses_ speak as the law-giver. This writer was probably Hilkiah, _who claimed to have found a book, written by Moses, in the temple,[94:4] although it had only just been drawn up_.[94:5] The principal objections which _were_ brought against the claims of Hilkiah, _but which are not needed in the present age of inquiry_, was that Shaphan and Josiah read it off, not as if it were an _old_ book, _but as though it had been recently written_, when any person who is acquainted, in the slightest degree, with language, must know that a man could not read off, at once, _a book written eight hundred years before_. The phraseology would necessarily be so altered by time as to render it comparatively unintelligible. We must now turn to the _third_ Pentateuchian writer, _whose writings were published 444 B. C._ At that time Ezra (or Ezdras) _added_ to the work of his two _predecessors_ a series of _laws_ and _narratives_ which had been drawn up _by some of the priests in Babylon_.[94:6] This "series of laws and narratives," which was written by "some of the (Israelitish) priests in Babylon," was called "_The Book of Origins_" (probably containing the Babylonian account of the "_Origin of Things_," or the "_Creation_"). Ezra brought the book from _Babylon_ to Jerusalem. He made some modifications in it and constituted it a code of law for Israel, _dove-tailing it into those parts of the Pentateuch which existed before_. A few _alterations_ and _additions_ were subsequently made, but these are of minor importance, and we may fairly say _that Ezra put the Pentateuch into the form in which we have it_ (about 444 B. C.). These priestly passages are partly occupied with historical matter, comprising a very free account of things from the creation of the world to the arrival of Israel in Canaan. Everything is here presented from the _priestly_ point of view; some events, elsewhere recorded, are _touched up in the priestly spirit, and others are entirely invented_.[95:1] It was the belief of the Jews, asserted by the _Pirke Aboth_ (Sayings of the Fathers), one of the oldest books of the _Talmud_,[95:2] as well as other Jewish records, that Ezra, acting in accordance with a divine commission, re-wrote the Old Testament, the manuscripts of which were said to have been lost in the destruction of the first temple, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem.[95:3] This we _know_ could not have been the case. The fact that Ezra wrote--adding to, and taking from the already existing books of the Pentateuch--was probably the foundation for this tradition. The account of it is to be found in the Apocryphal book of Esdras, a book deemed authentic by the Greek Church. Dr. Knappert, speaking of this, says: "For many centuries, both the Christians and the Jews supposed that Ezra had brought together the sacred writings of his people, united them in one whole, and introduced them as a book given by the Spirit of God--a Holy Scripture. "The only authority for this supposition was a very modern and altogether untrustworthy _tradition_. The historical and critical studies of our times have been emancipated from the influence of this tradition, and the most ancient statements with regard to the subject have been hunted up and compared together. These statements are, indeed, scanty and incomplete, and many a detail is still obscure; but the main facts have been completely ascertained. "_Before the Babylonish captivity, Israel had no sacred writings._ There were certain laws, prophetic writings, and a few historical books, but no one had ever thought of ascribing binding and divine authority to these documents. "_Ezra brought the priestly law with him from Babylon, altering it and amalgamating it with the narratives and laws already in existence, and thus produced the Pentateuch in pretty much the same form_ (though not quite, as we shall show) _as we still have it. These books got the name of the 'Law of Moses,' or simply the 'Law.'_ Ezra introduced them into Israel (B. C. 444), and gave them binding authority, _and from that time forward they were considered divine_."[95:4] From the time of Ezra until the year 287 B. C., when the Pentateuch was translated into Greek by order of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt, these books evidently underwent some changes. This the writer quoted above admits, in saying: "Later still (viz., after the time of Ezra), _a few more changes and additions were made_, and so the Pentateuch grew into its present form."[96:1] In answer to those who claim that the Pentateuch was written by _one_ person, Bishop Colenso says: "It is certainly inconceivable that if the _Pentateuch_ be the production of _one and the same hand throughout_, it should contain _such a number of glaring inconsistencies_. . . . No single author could have been guilty of such absurdities; but it is quite possible, and what was almost sure to happen in such a case, that, if the Pentateuch be the work of _different authors_ in _different ages_, this fact should betray itself _by the existence of contradictions in the narrative_."[96:2] Having ascertained the origin of the Pentateuch, or first five books of the Old Testament, it will be unnecessary to refer to the others _here_, as we have nothing to do with _them_ in our investigations. Suffice it to say then, that: "In the earlier period after Ezra, _none of the other books_ which already existed, enjoyed the same authority as the Pentateuch."[96:3] It is probable[96:4] that Nehemiah made a collection of historical and prophetic books, songs, _and letters from Persian kings_, not to form a second collection, but for the purpose of saving them from being lost. The scribes of Jerusalem, followers of Ezra, who were known as "the men of the Great Synagogue," _were the collectors of the second and third divisions of the Old Testament_. They collected together the historical and prophetic books, songs, &c., which were then in existence, _and after altering many of them_, they were added to the collection of _sacred_ books. It must not be supposed that any fixed plan was pursued in this work, _or that the idea was entertained from the first, that these books would one day stand on the same level with the Pentateuch_.[96:5] In the course of time, however, many of the Jews began to consider _some_ of these books as _sacred_. The Alexandrian Jews adopted books into the canon which those of Jerusalem did not, _and this difference of opinion lasted for a long time, even till the second century after Christ. It was not until this time that all the books of the Old Testament acquired divine authority._[96:6] It is not known, however, _just when_ the canon of the Old Testament was closed. _The time and manner in which it was done is altogether obscure._[97:1] Jewish tradition indicates that the full canonicity of several books was not free from doubt till the time of the famous Rabbi Akiba,[97:2] who flourished about the beginning of the second century after Christ.[97:3] After giving a history of the books of the Old Testament, the author of "The Religion of Israel," whom we have followed in this investigation, says: "The great majority of the writers of the Old Testament had no other source of information about the past history of Israel than simple _tradition_. Indeed, it could not have been otherwise, for in primitive times no one used to record anything in writing, and the only way of preserving a knowledge of the past was to hand it down by word of mouth. The father told the son what his elders had told him, and the son handed it on to the next generation. "Not only did the historian of Israel draw from tradition with perfect freedom, and write down without hesitation anything they heard and what was current in the mouths of the people, _but they did not shrink from modifying their representation of the past in any way that they thought would be good and useful_. It is difficult for us to look at things from this point of view, because our ideas of historical good faith are so utterly different. When we write history, we know that we ought to be guided solely by a desire to represent facts exactly as they really happened. All that we are concerned with is _reality_; we want to make the old times live again, and we take all possible pains not to remodel the past from the point of view of to-day. All we want to know is what happened, and how men lived, thought, and worked in those days. The Israelites had a very different notion of the nature of historical composition. When a prophet or a priest related something about bygone times, his object was not to convey knowledge about those times; on the contrary, he used history merely as a vehicle for the conveyance of instruction and exhortation. Not only did he confine his narrative to such matters as he thought would serve his purpose but he never hesitated to modify what he knew of the past, _and he did not think twice about touching it up from his own imagination, simply that it might be more conducive to the end he had in view and chime in better with his opinions. All the past became colored through and through with the tinge of his own mind._ Our own notions of honor and good faith would never permit all this; but we must not measure ancient writers by our own standard; they considered that they were acting quite within their rights and in strict accordance with duty and conscience."[97:4] It will be noticed that, in our investigations on the authority of the Pentateuch, we have followed, principally, Dr. Knappert's ideas as set forth in "The Religion of Israel." This we have done because we could not go into an extended investigation, and because his words are very expressive, and just to the point. To those who may think that his ideas are not the same as those entertained by other Biblical scholars of the present day, we subjoin, in a note below, a list of works to which they are referred.[98:1] We shall now, after giving a brief history of the Pentateuch, refer to the legends of which we have been treating, and endeavor to show from whence the Hebrews borrowed them. The first of these is "_The Creation and Fall of Man_." Egypt, the country out of which the Israelites came, had no story of the Creation and Fall of Man, _such as we have found among the Hebrews_; they therefore could not have learned it from _them_. The _Chaldeans_, however, as we saw in our first chapter, had this legend, and it is from them that the Hebrews borrowed it. The account which we have given of the Chaldean story of the Creation and Fall of Man, was taken, as we stated, from the writings of Berosus, the Chaldean historian, who lived in the time of Alexander the Great (356-325 B. C.), and as the Jews were acquainted with the story some centuries earlier than this, his works did not prove that these traditions were in Babylonia before the Jewish captivity, and could not afford testimony in favor of the statement that the Jews borrowed this legend from the Babylonians _at that time_. It was left for Mr. George Smith, of the British Museum, to establish, without a doubt, the fact that this legend was known to the Babylonians at least _two thousand years before the time assigned for the birth of Jesus_. The cuneiform inscriptions discovered by him, while on an expedition to Assyria, organized by the London "Daily Telegraph," was the means of doing this, and although by far the greatest number of these tablets belong to the age of Assurbanipal, who reigned over Assyria B. C. 670, it is "acknowledged on all hands that these tablets are not the originals, _but are only copies from earlier texts_." "The Assyrians acknowledge themselves that this literature was borrowed from Babylonian sources, and of course it is to Babylonia we have to look to ascertain the approximate dates of the original documents."[98:2] Mr. Smith then shows, from "fragments of the Cuneiform account of the Creation and Fall" which have been discovered, that, "_in the period from B. C. 2000 to 1500, the Babylonians believed in a story similar to that in Genesis_." It is probable, however, says Mr. Smith, that this legend existed as _traditions_ in the country _long before it was committed to writing_, and some of these traditions exhibited great difference in details, _showing that they had passed through many changes_.[99:1] Professor James Fergusson, in his celebrated work on "Tree and Serpent Worship," says: "The two chapters which refer to this (_i. e._, the Garden, the Tree, and the Serpent), as indeed the whole of the first eight of Genesis, are now generally admitted by scholars to be made up of fragments of earlier books or earlier traditions, belonging, properly speaking, to Mesopotamia rather than to Jewish history, the exact meaning of which the writers of the Pentateuch seem hardly to have appreciated when they transcribed them in the form in which they are now found."[99:2] John Fiske says: "The story of the Serpent in Eden is an Aryan story in every particular. The notion of Satan as the author of evil appears only in the later books, _composed after the Jews had come into close contact with Persian ideas_."[99:3] Prof. John W. Draper says: "In the old legends of dualism, the evil spirit was said to have _sent a serpent to ruin Paradise_. These legends became known to the Jews _during their Babylonian captivity_."[99:4] Professor Goldziher also shows, in his "Mythology Among the Hebrews,"[99:5] that the story of the creation was borrowed by the Hebrews from the Babylonians. He also informs us that the notion of the _bôrê_ and _yôsêr_, "Creator" (the term used in the cosmogony in Genesis) as an integral part of the idea of God, _are first brought into use by the prophets of the captivity_. "Thus also the story of the _Garden of Eden_, as a supplement to the history of the Creation, _was written down at Babylon_." Strange as it may appear, after the _Genesis_ account, we may pass through the whole Pentateuch, and other books of the Old Testament, clear to the end, and will find that the story of the "_Garden of Eden_" and "_Fall of Man_," is hardly alluded to, if at all. Lengkerke says: "One single _certain_ trace of the employment of the story of Adam's fall is entirely wanting in the Hebrew Canon (after the Genesis account). Adam, Eve, the Serpent, the woman's seduction of her husband, &c., are all images, _to which the remaining words of the Israelites never again recur_."[100:1] This circumstance can only be explained by the fact that the first chapters of Genesis were not written until _after_ the other portions had been written. It is worthy of notice, that this story of the Fall of Man, upon which the whole orthodox scheme of a divine Saviour or Redeemer is based, was _not_ considered by the learned Israelites as _fact_. They simply looked upon it as a story which satisfied the ignorant, but which should be considered as _allegory_ by the learned.[100:2] Rabbi Maimonides (Moses Ben Maimon), one of the most celebrated of the Rabbis, says on this subject:-- "We must not understand, or take in a literal sense, what is written in _the book_ on the _Creation_, nor form of it the same ideas which are participated by the generality of mankind; _otherwise our ancient sages would not have so much recommended to us, to hide the real meaning of it, and not to lift the allegorical veil, which covers the truth contained therein_. When taken in its _literal sense_, the work gives the most absurd and most extravagant ideas of the Deity. 'Whosoever should divine its true meaning ought to take great care in not divulging it.' This is a maxim repeated to us by all our sages, principally concerning the understanding of the work of the six days."[100:3] Philo, a Jewish writer contemporary with Jesus, held the same opinion of the character of the sacred books of the Hebrews. He has made two particular treatises, bearing the title of "_The Allegories_," and he traces back to the _allegorical_ sense the "Tree of Life," the "Rivers of Paradise," and the other fictions of the Genesis.[100:4] Many of the early Christian Fathers declared that, in the story of the Creation and Fall of Man, there was but an _allegorical fiction_. Among these may be mentioned St. Augustine, who speaks of it in his "City of God," and also Origen, who says: "What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second, and third days, in which the _evening_ is named and the _morning_, were without sun, moon and stars? What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise like an husbandman? _I believe that every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense is concealed._"[100:5] Origen believed aright, as it is now almost universally admitted, that the stories of the "Garden of Eden," the "Elysian Fields," the "Garden of the Blessed," &c., which were the abode of the blessed, where grief and sorrow could not approach them, where plague and sickness could not touch them, were founded on _allegory_. These abodes of delight were far away in the _West_, where the sun goes down beyond the bounds of the earth. They were the "Golden Islands" sailing in a sea of blue--_the burnished clouds floating in the pure ether_. In a word, _the "Elysian Fields" are the clouds at eventide_. The picture was suggested by the images drawn from the phenomena of sunset and twilight.[101:1] Eating of the forbidden fruit was simply a figurative mode of expressing the performance of the act necessary to the perpetuation of the human race. The "Tree of Knowledge" was a Phallic tree, and the fruit which grew upon it was Phallic fruit.[101:2] In regard to the story of "_The Deluge_," we have already seen[101:3] that "Egyptian records tell nothing of a cataclysmal deluge," and that, "the land was _never_ visited by other than its annual beneficent overflow of the river Nile." Also, that "the Pharaoh Khoufou-cheops was building his pyramid, according to Egyptian chronicle, when the whole world was under the waters of a universal deluge, according to the Hebrew chronicle." This is sufficient evidence that the Hebrews did not borrow the legend from the Egyptians. We have also seen, in the chapter that treated of this legend, that it corresponded in all the principal features with the _Chaldean_ account. We shall now show that it was taken from this. Mr. Smith discovered, on the site of Ninevah, during the years 1873-4, cylinders belonging to the early Babylonian monarchy, (from 2500 to 1500 B. C.) which contained the legend of the flood,[101:4] and which we gave in Chapter II. _This was the foundation for the Hebrew legend, and they learned it at the time of the Captivity._[101:5] The myth of Deucalion, the Grecian hero, was also taken from the same source. The Greeks learned it from the Chaldeans. We read in Chambers's Encyclopædia, that: "It was at one time extensively believed, even by intelligent scholars, that the myth of Deucalion was a corrupted tradition of the _Noachian_ deluge, but this _untenable_ opinion is now all but universally abandoned."[102:1] This idea was abandoned after it was found that the Deucalion myth was older than the Hebrew. What was said in regard to the Eden story not being mentioned in other portions of the Old Testament save in Genesis, also applies to this story of the Deluge. _Nowhere_ in the other books of the Old Testament is found any reference to this story, except in Isaiah, where "the waters of Noah" are mentioned, and in Ezekiel, where simply the _name_ of Noah is mentioned. We stated in Chapter II. that some persons saw in this story an _astronomical_ myth. Although not generally admitted, yet there are very strong reasons for believing this to be the case. According to the _Chaldean_ account--which is the oldest one known--there were _seven_ persons saved in the ark.[102:2] There were also _seven_ persons saved, according to some of the _Hindoo_ accounts.[102:3] That this referred to the sun, moon, and five planets looks very probable. We have also seen that Noah was the _tenth_ patriarch, and Xisuthrus (who is the Chaldean hero) was the _tenth_ king.[102:4] Now, according to the Babylonian table, their _Zodiac_ contained _ten_ gods called the "_Ten Zodiac_ gods."[102:5] They also believed that whenever all the _planets_ met in the sign of Capricorn, _the whole earth was overwhelmed with a deluge of water_.[102:6] The _Hindoos_ and other nations had a similar belief.[102:7] It is well known that the Chaldeans were great astronomers. When Alexander the Great conquered the city of Babylon, the Chaldean priests boasted to the Greek philosophers, who followed his army, that they had continued their astronomical calculations through a period of more than forty thousand years.[102:8] Although this statement cannot be credited, yet the great antiquity of Chaldea cannot be doubted, and its immediate connection with Hindostan, or Egypt, is abundantly proved by the little that is known concerning its religion, and by the few fragments that remain of its former grandeur. In regard to the story of "_The Tower of Babel_" little need be said. This, as well as the story of the Creation and Fall of Man, and the Deluge, was borrowed from the Babylonians.[102:9] "It seems," says George Smith, "from the indications in the (cuneiform) inscriptions, that there happened in the interval between 2000 and 1850 B. C. a general _collection_ of the development of the various traditions of the Creation, Flood, Tower of Babel, and other similar legends." "These legends were, however, traditions before they were committed to writing, _and were common in some form to all the country_."[103:1] The Tower of Babel, or the confusion of tongues, is nowhere alluded to in the Old Testament outside of Genesis, where the story is related. The next story in order is "_The Trial of Abraham's Faith_." In this connection we have shown similar legends taken from _Grecian_ mythology, which legends may have given _the idea_ to the writer of the Hebrew story. It may appear strange that the _Hebrews_ should have been acquainted with _Grecian_ mythology, yet we know this was the case. The fact is accounted for in the following manner: Many of the Jews taken captive at the Edomite sack of Jerusalem were sold to the _Grecians_,[103:2] who took them to their country. While there, they became acquainted with Grecian legends, and when they returned from "the Islands of the Sea"--as they called the Western countries--_they brought them to Jerusalem_.[103:3] This legend, as we stated in the chapter which treated of it, was written at the time when the Mosaic party in Israel were endeavoring to abolish human sacrifices and other "abominations," and the author of the story invented it to make it appear that the Lord had abolished them in the time of Abraham. The earliest _Targum_[103:4] knows nothing about the legend, showing that the story was not in the Pentateuch at the time this Targum was written. We have also seen that a story written by Sanchoniathon (about B. C. 1300) of one Saturn, whom the Phenicians called _Israel_, bore a resemblance to the Hebrew legend of Abraham. Now, Count de Volney tells us that "a similar tradition prevailed among the _Chaldeans_," and that they had the history of one _Zerban_--which means "rich-in-gold"[103:5]--that corresponded in many respects with the history of Abraham.[103:6] It may, then, have been from the Chaldean story that the Hebrew fable writer got his idea. The next legend which we examined was that of "_Jacob's Vision of the Ladder_." We claimed that it probably referred to the doctrine of the transmigration of souls from one body into another, and also gave the apparent reason for the invention of the story. The next story was "_The Exodus from Egypt, and Passage through the Red Sea_," in which we showed, from Egyptian history, that the Israelites were _turned out_ of the country on account of their uncleanness, and that the wonderful exploits recorded of Moses were simply copies of legends related of the sun-god Bacchus. These legends came from "the Islands of the Sea," and came in very handy for the Hebrew fable writers; they saved them the trouble of _inventing_. We now come to the story relating to "_The Receiving of the Ten Commandments_" by Moses from the Lord, on the top of a mountain, 'mid thunders and lightnings. All that is likely to be historical in this account, is that Moses assembled, not, indeed, the whole of the people, but the heads of the tribes, and gave them the code which he had prepared.[104:1] The _marvellous_ portion of the story was evidently copied from that related of the law-giver Zoroaster, by the _Persians_, and the idea that there were _two_ tables of stone with the Law written thereon was evidently taken from the story of Bacchus, the Law-giver, who had _his_ laws written on _two tables of stone_.[104:2] The next legend treated was that of "_Samson and his Exploits_." Those who, _like the learned of the last century_, maintain that the Pagans copied from the Hebrews, may say that Samson was the model of all their similar stories, but now that our ideas concerning antiquity are enlarged, and when we know that Hercules is well known to have been the God _Sol_, whose _allegorical history_ was spread among many nations long before the Hebrews were ever heard of, we are authorized to believe and to say that some Jewish _mythologist_--for what else are their so-called historians--composed the anecdote of Samson, by partly disfiguring the popular traditions of the Greeks, Phenicians and Chaldeans, and claiming that hero for his own nation.[104:3] The Babylonian story of Izdubar, the lion-killer, who wandered to _the regions of the blessed_ (the Grecian Elysium), who crossed _a great waste of land_ (the desert of _Lybia_, according to the Grecian mythos), and arrived at a region _where splendid trees were laden with jewels_ (the Grecian Garden of the Hesperides), is probably the foundation for the Hercules and other corresponding myths. This conclusion is drawn from the fact that, although the story of Hercules was known in the island of Thasus, by the _Phenician_ colony settled there, _five centuries before he was known in Greece_,[105:1] yet _its antiquity among the Babylonians antedates that_. The age of the legends of Izdubar among the Babylonians cannot be placed with certainty, yet, the cuneiform inscriptions relating to this hero, which have been found, may be placed at about 2000 years B. C.[105:2] "As these stories were _traditions_," says Mr. Smith, the discoverer of the cylinders, "before they were committed to writing, their antiquity as tradition is probably much greater than that."[105:3] With these legends before them, the Jewish priests in Babylon had no difficulty in arranging the story of Samson, and adding it to their already fabulous history. As the Rev. Dr. Isaac M. Wise remarks, in speaking of the ancient Hebrews: "They adopted forms, terms, ideas and myths of all nations with whom they came in contact, and, like the Greeks, in their way, _cast them all in a peculiar Jewish religious mold_." We have seen, in the chapter which treats of this legend, that it is recorded in the book of Judges. _This book was not written till after the first set of Israelites had been carried into captivity, and perhaps still later._[105:4] After this we have "_Jonah swallowed by a Big Fish_," which is the last legend treated. We saw that it was a _solar myth_, known to many nations of antiquity. The writer of the book--whoever he may have been--_lived in the fifth century before Christ_--after the Jews had become acquainted and had mixed with other nations. The writer of this wholly fictitious story, taking the prophet Jonah--who was evidently an historical personage--for his hero, was perhaps intending to show the loving-kindness of Jehovah.[105:5] We have now examined all the _principal_ Old Testament legends, and, after what has been seen, we think that no _impartial_ person can still consider them _historical facts_. That so great a number of educated persons still do so seems astonishing, in our way of thinking. They have repudiated Greek and Roman mythology with disdain; why then admit with respect the mythology of the Jews? Ought the miracles of Jehovah to impress us more than those of Jupiter? We think not; they should all be looked upon as _relics of the past_. That Christian writers are beginning to be aroused to the idea that another tack should be taken, differing from the old, is very evident. This is clearly seen by the words of Prof. Richard A. Armstrong, the translator of Dr. Knappert's "Religion of Israel" into English. In the _Preface_ of this work, he says: "It appears to me to be profoundly important that the youthful English mind should be faithfully and accurately informed of the results of modern research into the early development of the Israelitish religion. Deplorable and irreparable mischief will be done to the generation, now passing into manhood and womanhood, if their educators leave them ignorant or loosely informed on these topics; for they will then be rudely awakened by the enemies of Christianity from a blind and unreasoning faith in the supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures; and being suddenly and bluntly made aware that Abraham, Moses, David, and the rest did not say, do, or write what has been ascribed to them, they will fling away all care for the venerable religion of Israel and all hope that it can nourish their own religious life. How much happier will those of our children and young people be who learn what is now known of the actual origin of the Pentateuch and the Writings, from the same lips which have taught them that the Prophets indeed prepared the way for Jesus, and that God is indeed our Heavenly Father. For these will, without difficulty, perceive that God's love is none the feebler and that the Bible is no less precious, because Moses knew nothing of the Levitical legislation, or because it was not the warrior monarch on his semi-barbaric throne, but some far later son of Israel, who breathed forth the immortal hymn of faith, 'The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.'" For the benefit of those who may think that the evidence of plagiarism on the part of the Hebrew writers has not been sufficiently substantiated, we will quote a few words from Prof. Max Müller, who is one of the best English authorities on this subject that can be produced. In speaking of this he says: "The opinion that the _Pagan_ religions were mere corruptions of the religion of the Old Testament, once supported by men of high authority and great learning, _is now as completely surrendered as the attempts of explaining Greek and Latin as the corruptions of Hebrew_."[106:1] Again he says: "As soon as the ancient language and religion of India became known in Europe it was asserted that Sanskrit, _like all other languages_, was to be derived from Hebrew, and the ancient religion of the Brahmans from the Old Testament. There was at that time an enthusiasm among Oriental scholars, particularly at Calcutta, and an interest for Oriental antiquities in the public at large, of which we, in these days of apathy for Eastern literature, can hardly form an adequate idea. Everybody wished to be first in the field, and to bring to light some of the treasures which were supposed to be hidden in the sacred literature of the Brahmans. . . . No doubt the temptation was great. No one could look down for a moment into the rich mine of religious and mythological lore that was suddenly opened before the eyes of scholars and theologians, _without being struck by a host of similarities, not only in the languages, but also in the ancient traditions of the Hindoos_, the Greeks, and the Romans; and if at that time the Greeks and Romans were still _supposed_ to have borrowed their language and their religion from Jewish quarters, _the same conclusion could hardly be avoided with regard to the language and the religion of the Brahmans of India_. . . . "The student of Pagan religion as well as Christian missionaries were bent on discovering more striking and more startling coincidences, _in order to use them in confirmation of their favorite theory that some rays of a primeval revelation, or some reflection of the Jewish religion, had reached the uttermost ends of the world_."[107:1] The result of all this is summed up by Prof. Müller as follows: "_It was the fate of all (these) pioneers, not only to be left behind in the assault which they had planned, but to find that many of their approaches were made in a false direction, and had to be abandoned._"[107:2] Before closing this chapter, we shall say a few words on the religion of Israel. It is supposed by many--in fact, we have heard it asserted by those who should know better--that the Israelites were always _monotheists_, that they worshiped One God only--_Jehovah_.[107:3] This is altogether erroneous; they were not different from their neighbors--the Heathen, so-called--in regard to their religion. In the first place, we know that they revered and worshiped a _Bull_, called _Apis_,[107:4] just as the ancient Egyptians did. They worshiped the _sun_,[108:1] the _moon_,[108:2] the _stars_ and all the host of heaven.[108:3] They worshiped _fire_, and kept it burning on an altar, just as the Persians and other nations.[108:4] They worshiped _stones_,[108:5] revered an _oak tree_,[108:6] and "bowed down" to _images_.[108:7] They worshiped a "Queen of Heaven" called the goddess _Astarte_ or _Mylitta_, and "burned incense" to her.[108:8] They worshiped _Baal_,[108:9] Moloch,[108:10] and _Chemosh_,[108:11] _and offered up human sacrifices to them_,[108:12] after which in some instances, _they ate the victim_.[108:13] It was during the Captivity that idolatry ceased among the Israelites.[108:14] The Babylonian Captivity is clearly referred to in the book of Deuteronomy, as the close of Israel's idolatry.[108:15] There is reason to believe that the real genius of the people was first called into full exercise, and put on its career of development at this time; that Babylon was a _forcing nursery_, not a prison cell; _creating instead of stifling a nation_. The astonishing outburst of intellectual and moral energy that accompanied the return from the Babylonish Captivity, attests the spiritual activity of that "mysterious and momentous" time. As Prof. Goldziher says: "The intellect of _Babylon_ and _Assyria_ exerted a more than passing influence on that of the _Hebrews_, not merely touching it, but _entering deep into it_, and _leaving its own impression upon it_."[108:16] This impression we have already partly seen in the legends which they borrowed, and it may also be seen in the religious ideas which they imbibed. The Assyrian colonies which came and occupied the land of the tribes of Israel filled the kingdom of Samaria with the dogma of the _Magi_, which very soon penetrated into the kingdom of Judah. Afterward, Jerusalem being subjugated, the defenseless country was entered by persons of different nationalities, who introduced their opinions, and in this way, the religion of Israel was doubly mutilated. Besides, the priests and great men, who were transported to Babylon, were educated in the sciences of the Chaldeans, and imbibed, during a residence of fifty years, nearly the whole of their theology. It was not until this time that the dogmas of the hostile genius (Satan), the angels Michael, Uriel, Yar, Nisan, &c., the rebel angels, the battle in heaven, the immortality of the soul, and the resurrection, were introduced and naturalized among the Jews.[109:1] * * * * * NOTE.--It is not generally known that the Jews were removed from their own land until the time of the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, but there is evidence that Jerusalem was plundered by the _Edomites_ about 800 B. C., who sold some of the captive Jews to the Greeks (Joel, iii. 6). When the captives returned to their country from "the Islands which are beyond the sea" (Jer. xxv. 18, 22), they would naturally bring back with them much of the Hellenic lore of their conquerors. In Isaiah (xi. 11), we find a reference to this first captivity in the following words: "In that day the Lord shall set his hand again the _second time_ to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the _Islands of the sea_;" i. e., GREECE. FOOTNOTES: [89:1] See Beal: Hist. Buddha, p. 111, _et seq._ [89:2] Bell's Pantheon, under "Perseus;" Knight: Ancient Art and Mytho., p. 178, and Bulfinch: Age of Fables, p. 161. [90:1] Bell's Pantheon, vol. i. p. 118. Taylor's Diegesis, p. 190. Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 19. [90:2] Ibid. [90:3] Bell's Pantheon, vol. i. p. 122. Dupuis: Origin of Religious Belief, p. 174. Goldziher: Hebrew Mythology, p. 179. Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 19. [90:4] Bell's Pantheon, art. "Osiris;" and Bulfinch: Age of Fable, p. 391 [90:5] Baring-Gould: Orig. Relig. Belief, i. 159. [90:6] Exodus, ii. [90:7] See Child: Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 6, and most any work on Buddhism. [90:8] See Smith: Chaldean Account of Genesis. [90:9] See Goldziher: Hebrew Mythology, p. 128, _note_. [90:10] See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. pp. 213, 214. [90:11] I. Samuel, xvii. [91:1] See Goldzhier: Hebrew Mythology, p. 430, and Bulfinch: Age of Fable, 440. [91:2] Chapter xxii. [91:3] See Smith's Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 188, _et seq._ [91:4] See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 323. [91:5] See Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 19. [91:6] Ibid. i. 191, and ii. 241; Franklin: Bud. & Jeynes, 174. [91:7] Hardy: Buddhist Legends, pp. 50, 53, and 140. [91:8] See Ibid. [91:9] Higgins: Anacalypsis, vol. ii. p. 191. [91:10] Ibid. p. 39. [92:1] "Septuagint."--The Old _Greek_ version of the Old Testament. [92:2] "Vulgate."--The _Latin_ version of the Old Testament. [92:3] The Pentateuch Examined, vol. ii. pp. 186, 187. [92:4] The Religion of Israel, p. 9. [92:5] Besides the many other facts which show that the Pentateuch was not composed until long after the time of Moses and Joshua, the following may be mentioned as examples: _Gilgal_, mentioned in Deut. xi. 30, was not given as the name of that place till _after_ the entrance into Canaan. _Dan_, mentioned in Genesis xiv. 14, was not so called till long _after_ the time of Moses. In Gen. xxxvi. 31, the beginning of the reign of the kings over Israel is spoken of _historically_, an event which did not occur before the time of Samuel. (See, for further information, Bishop Colenso's Pentateuch Examined, vol. ii. ch. v. and vi.) [93:1] The Religion of Israel, p. 9. [93:2] Ibid. p. 10. [93:3] Chambers's Encyclo., art. "Jews." [93:4] The Religion of Israel, pp. 10, 11. [94:1] The Religion of Israel, p. 11. [94:2] See Ibid. pp. 120, 122. [94:3] See Ibid. p. 122. [94:4] The account of the _finding_ of this book by Hilkiah is to be found in II. Chronicles, ch. xxxiv. [94:5] See Religion of Israel, pp. 124, 125. [94:6] Ibid. p. 11. [95:1] The Religion of Israel, pp. 186, 187. [95:2] "_Talmud._"--The books containing the Jewish traditions. [95:3] See Chambers's Encyclo., art. "Bible." [95:4] The Religion of Israel, pp. 240, 241. [96:1] The Religion of Israel, p. 11. [96:2] The Pentateuch Examined, vol. ii. p. 178. [96:3] The Religion of Israel, p. 241. [96:4] On the strength of II. Maccabees, ii. 12. [96:5] The Religion of Israel, p. 242. [96:6] Ibid. p. 243. [97:1] Chambers's Encyclo., art. "Bible." [97:2] Ibid. [97:3] Chambers's Encyclo., art. "Akiba." [97:4] The Religion of Israel, pp. 19, 23. [98:1] "What is the Bible," by J. T. Sunderland. "The Bible of To-day," by J. W. Chadwick. "Hebrew and Christian Records," by the Rev. Dr. Giles, 2 vols. Prof. W. R. Smith's article on "The Bible," in the last edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica. "Introduction to the Old Testament," by Davidson. "The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Examined," by Bishop Colenso. Prof. F. W. Newman's "Hebrew Monarchy." "The Bible for Learners" (vols. i. and ii.), by Prof. Oort and others. "The Old Testament in the Jewish Church," by Prof. Robertson Smith, and Kuenen's "Religion of Israel." [98:2] Smith: Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 22, 29. [99:1] Ibid. pp. 29, 100. Also, Assyrian Discoveries, p. 397. [99:2] Tree and Serpent Worship, pp. 6, 7. [99:3] Myths and Myth-Makers, p. 112. [99:4] Draper: Religion and Science, p. 62. [99:5] Goldziher: Hebrew Mythology, p. 328, _et seq._ [100:1] Quoted by Bishop Colenso: The Pentateuch Examined, iv. 283. [100:2] "Much of the Old Testament which Christian divines, in their ignorance of Jewish lore, have insisted on receiving and interpreting _literally_, the informed Rabbis never dreamed of regarding as anything but _allegorical_. The '_literalists_' they called fools. The account of the _Creation_ was one of the portions which the unlearned were specially forbidden to meddle with." (Greg: The Creed of Christendom, p. 80.) [100:3] Quoted by Dupuis: Origin of Religious Belief, p. 226. [100:4] See Ibid. p. 227. [100:5] Quoted by Dunlap: Mysteries of Adoni, p. 176. See also, Bunsen: Keys of St. Peter, p. 406. [101:1] See Appendix, c. [101:2] See Westropp & Wakes, "Phallic Worship." [101:3] In chap. ii. [101:4] See Assyrian Discoveries, pp. 167, 168, and Chaldean Account of Genesis. [101:5] "Upon the carrying away of the Jews to Babylon, they were brought into contact with a flood of Iranian as well as Chaldean myths, _and adopted them without hesitation_." (S. Baring-Gould; Curious Myths, p. 316.) [102:1] Chambers's Encyclo., art. "Deucalion." [102:2] See chapter ii. [102:3] Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 185, and Maurice: Indian Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 277. [102:4] Chapter ii. [102:5] See Dunlap's Son of the Man, p. 153, _note_. [102:6] See Prog. Relig. Ideas, vol. i. p. 254. [102:7] See Ibid. p. 367. [102:8] See Ibid. p. 252. [102:9] Goldzhier: Hebrew Mythology, pp. 130-135, and Smith's Chaldean Account of Genesis. [103:1] Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 27, 28. [103:2] See Note, p. 109. [103:3] See Inman: Ancient Faiths, vol. ii. p. 685. [103:4] "_Targum._"--The general term for the Aramaic versions of the Old Testament. [103:5] In Genesis xxiii. 2, Abraham is called rich in gold and in silver. [103:6] See Volney's Researches in Ancient History, pp. 144-147. [104:1] The Religion of Israel, p. 49. [104:2] Bell's Pantheon, vol. i. p. 122. Higgins: vol. ii. p. 19. [104:3] In claiming the "mighty man" and "lion-killer" as one of their own race, the Jews were simply doing what other nations had done before them. The Greeks claimed Hercules as _their_ countryman; stated where he was born, and showed his tomb. The Egyptians affirmed that he was born in _their_ country (see Tacitus, Annals, b. ii. ch. lix.), and so did many other nations. [105:1] See Knight: Ancient Art and Mythology, pp. 92, 93. [105:2] Chaldean Account of Genesis, pp. 168 and 174; and Assyrian Discoveries, p. 167. [105:3] Chaldean Account of Genesis, p. 168. [105:4] See The Religion of Israel, p. 12; and Chadwick's Bible of To-Day, p. 55. [105:5] See The Religion of Israel, p. 41, and Chadwick's Bible of To-Day, p. 24. [106:1] The Science of Religion, p. 48. [107:1] They even claimed that one of the "lost tribes of Israel" had found their way to America, and had taught the natives _Hebrew_. [107:2] The Science of Religion, pp. 285, 292. [107:3] "It is an _assumption_ of the popular theology, and an almost universal belief in the popular mind, that the Jewish nation was selected by the Almighty to preserve and carry down to later ages a knowledge of the _One_ and true God--that the Patriarchs possessed this knowledge--that Moses delivered and enforced this doctrine as the fundamental tenet of the national creed; and that it was, in fact, the received and distinctive dogma of the Hebrew people. This _alleged possession of the true faith_ by one only people, while all surrounding tribes were lost in Polytheism, or something worse, has been adduced by divines in general as a proof of the truth of the sacred history, and of the divine origin of the Mosaic dispensation." (Greg: The Creed of Christendom, p. 145.) Even such authorities as Paley and Milman have written in this strain. (See quotations from Paley's "_Evidences of Christianity_," and Dean Milman's "_History of the Jews_," made by Mr. Greg in his "_Creed of Christendom_," p. 145.) [107:4] See the Bible for Learners, vol. i. p. 321, vol. ii. p. 102; and Dunlap: Mysteries of Adoni, p. 108. [108:1] See the Bible for Learners, vol. i. pp. 317, 418; vol. ii. p.