ruler) who restrained the ardour of the people from beginning the sacrifices until Jeshua was formally installed (chap. vii. 65), who assisted Ezra in carrying the prescriptions of the law into effect (chap. viii. 9), whose name " Nehemiah, the Tirshatha, the son of Hachaliah," heads the list of those who ratified by a sealed covenant their public oath to observe and uphold that law (chap. x. 1). And the identity of the transactions in the two narratives, which is the point I contend for, is proved by the remark Nehemiah subjoins to his relation of the Feast of Tabernacles (chap. viii. 13-18), how, through Ezra's reading and expounding the law, the people learnt that it was written that they should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month," -"how the people went forth and brought boughs, and made themselves booths," "for," adds Nehemiah, "since the days of Joshua the son of Nun, unto that day, had not the children of Israel done so." Now, as Ezra testifies that they had celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles, as it is written," at the return of the captivity, in the seventh month of the first year, before the foundation of the temple was laid; it follows that, unless the celebration related by Nehemiah were that very one, it could not have been what he avers it was-the first Feast of Tabernacles that had been kept, as it is written "-i. e., according to the forms of the Mosaic Law"since the days of Joshua the son of Nun." 66 66 The high responsibility and authority of the duties laid on Ezra and Nehemiah at this important national era, further suggest that they could not be very young men at the time. This is borne out, as regards Ezra, by what we know of his parentage. His father, the high-priest Seraiah, and his elder brother Jozadak, had both been carried into captivity at the destruction of the temple by Nebuzaradan, fifty-two years before (Conf. 2 Kings xxv. 18; 1 Chron. vi. 15). Ezra's nephew, Jeshua, the son of Jozadak, was officiating as high-priest, for which the law ordains that he should be not under thirty years of age. The exceptional cases, in which an unele may be his nephew's junior, can hardly be pleaded in this instance, considering that the chiefs, and elders, and Levites, had chosen Ezra, as the most learned among their priests and scribes in the language of their fathers, to expound the law in public. Now what ensues from combining the historical facts in their order of occurrence according to the Bible with the dates fixed to them according to our common chronology? Ezra being, say forty years of age in the first of Cyrus, B.C. 538, we have him in the seventh of Artaxerxes, B.C. 459-8 (Ezra ix. 3), venting his grief and indignation at the breach of covenant and profanation of the priesthood, by "plucking out the hair of his head and his beard." A man upwards of a hundred and twenty years old has not many spare locks to devote to such demonstrations! We are reminded of Wordsworth's rencontre "I saw before me, unawares, The oldest man that ever wore grey hairs." All his faculties are as indestructible as his chevelure, since we find him still extant fourteen years later-in the twenty-second year of Artaxerxes-at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, rebuilt in fifty-two days, under the auspices of a Nehemiah whose humanity seems equally exempt from the law of decay; for on this occasion they both march in procession round the wall to the temple, Ezra leading one band of trumpeters and harpers, Nehemiah following with the other (Neh. xii. 35, 38). After all this, Nehemiah continues twelve years Governor of Judæa-no sinecure post, by his own account-and then, although rather superannuated, so far from worn out by toils and tribulations, and the persecutions of Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the Ammonite, and Geshem the Arabian, that in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes he returns to his royal master's court-ætat. 150 or thereabouts-to ask leave to go back again to Jerusalem! Such incongruous results could scarcely escape the notice of the framers of our chronological system; but what was to be done? If the date they fixed for Cyrus and the restoration could not be moved, and that of the reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus could not be moved, how were they to get off the horns of this dilemma? "Voulez-vous être invincible dans votre argument? niez l'évidence!" advises a sarcastic French philosopher. So our chronologists were driven to explain away the presence of Nehemiah and Ezra at the restoration, by supposing dislocations of the narrative, or transpositions of fragments of the original texts that affirm it. This, however, cannot serve to sustain their position. The portion of text on which my argument rests (chapters i., ii., and iii. of Ezra) is free from break, either in the narrative or the text; his account is too concise and consecutive for the reader to confuse its parts; his dates are too clear to permit a doubt as to the succession of events, and the time to which they are referable-i. e., the return of the captivity "at the first." Nehemiah, on the contrary, recounts two distinct histories, of which the second is retrospective. The first, his personal mission, in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes, to restore the walls of Jerusalem, is complete at chap. vii. 4. The census of the population he then proposes taking is the occasion for introducing the second (ver. 5), and having copied "the register of those who came at the first," he proceeds to report their doings up to the great convocation and day of fasting, humiliation and confession, held as soon as the Tabernacles were over, "on the twentyfourth day of that month," says Nehemiah, ix. 1. This solemnity closes with the oath and covenant of the chiefs of the nation to observe and uphold the law. On that occasion Jeshua was the officiating high-priest, but at Nehemiah's coming to Jerusalem with the decree of Artaxerxes, and at the dedication of the wall, Eliashib, grandson of Jeshua, ministered (conf. Neh. iii. 1, 20). There is time for two generations of men between the first Feast of Tabernacles and sealing of the covenant, and the rebuilding and dedication of the wall. Yet our chronologists and commentators can only hide the rottenness of their scheme from their own eyes by dating the whole B.C. 446, in the year after that of Nehemiah's mission, as if the Feast of Tabernacles and the covenant were part of the ceremonies at the dedication of the wall. Thus they profess to illustrate sacred history by founding upon such a gross anachronism the very consistent story, that the Jewish captives had been restored to their land ninety-three years since the first of Cyrus, B.C. 538, and the temple had been rebuilt seventy-one years since the 6th of Darius, B.C. 516, before the people had so much as learnt from Ezra's interpretations of the law what the religious obligations of that law were, and had covenanted to fulfil them. Credat Judous! No wonder Jewish commentators, who do study the sacred text, spurn such a chronology as that! and if the alternative must be to reject Ptolemy's canon in the form presented by its compilers, no wonder some do reject it! In this maze of "confusion worse confounded," we cannot too gratefully appreciate the services which Mr. Bosanquet and the distinguished astronomers who have given their invaluable aid to the verification of this leading epoch have jointly conferred on the cause of truth and progress, by demonstrating that some portions of this vaunted canon, not fixed by eclipses, must be rejected as mere arbitrary arrangements of its compilers. Nevertheless, the difficulty of Ezra's and Nehemiah's appearance at the restoration is only reduced by thirty years, which still protracts their lives so far beyond the limits of probability, in the reign of "Artaxerxes, king of Persia," as to suggest the question, Can this be the Artaxerxes Longimanus whose reign begins B.C. 465? Mr. Bosanquet has already met this difficulty half way, by identifying Xerxes with the Artaxerxes of Ezra. But as Nehemiah mentions the thirty-second year of his sovereign, while Xerxes only has twenty-one in the canon, Mr. Bosanquet felt himself obliged to defer the mission of Nehemiah to the longer reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus. This, under Mr. Bosanquet's date for the completion and dedication of the wall, B.c. 435, would find Ezra and Nehemiah officiating at upwards of one hundred and ten years of age, which is manifestly inadmissible. There is a circumstance not hitherto noticed by commentators on the history of this period which I will venture to submit to their consideration, as the only means I can see of removing this remaining difficulty. Darius never was king of Persia in his own right. Cambyses died without posterity; his son Cyrus, the Cyrus of Scripture, who, in right of his mother Mandane, had succeeded Ahasuerus, or Cyaxares II., as king of Media, having preceded his father to the grave, childless also. The sister and widow of Cambyses, Atossa, was now the sole representative of the royal house of Cyrus I. Darius, as son-in-law of Cyaxares, was elected king of Media and Babylon. It was rather unhandsome of him to ascribe his personal elevation to his horse instead of to his wife. With the keen eye to his interest that won him the nickname of the "shop-keeper king," he laid the foundation of supreme power for his own house, by marrying the heiress Atossa. Still he was only kingconsort, administrator for the true heir, his own son by Atossa. Xerxes would thus have ascended the throne of Persia in his own right, inheriting the supremacy over all Asia, even over his own father, at his mother's death, or his own majority. He therefore reigned over Persia many more years than the twenty-one years of the Babylonian canon, which are only the years of his reign at Babylon, as successor of Darius to the Median realm. In this way, Ezra's special mission to Jerusalem, in the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as bearer of costly gifts from the "king of kings" for the temple (vii. 12-20), would bear a date long prior to the death of Darius. It may, indeed, coincide with the dedication of the temple. The father's decree had authorized his subjects to restore it: the son, presiding over the superior realm, sanctions his father's act by endowing it. The longevity of Ezra and Nehemiah need not then be stretched to any unreasonable bounds to shew them both still active and zealous in the discharge of their duties at the restoration and dedication of the wall of Jerusalem, soon after the twentieth year of the same Artaxerxes, as this might fall almost immediately after the death of Darius. Hammersmith. FANNY CORBAUX. The name "Elohim."-There has been lately a good deal of controversy on this subject in the Jewish Chronicle, and from the correspondence we select the following, which will give a favourable idea of modern Jewish criticism. To the Editor of the "Jewish Chronicle." 33 Cumberland-street, Edinburgh. Nov. 17, 5618. SIR,-The controversy now pending in your valuable journal on “Elohim," induces me to address to you a few remarks. It will be observed in the sacred volume that among the various names of God, such as to mix, Dunia, is by which he is designated by the Hebrews, the name was the one mostly used, and seems to have been the one most familiar to them. N— It is worthy of remark, that with the exception of my God, none of the first mentioned three names will be found to admit of the suffixes except a circumstance which in itself speaks for the familiarity of this name. After the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt, the land of gross polytheism, the divine lawgiver endeavoured to implant into the bosom of every Israelite the sublime idea of monotheism. In order to remove every obstacle in the way; in order to prevent the possibility of error as to the true and only definition of the familiar name which has the plural form, Moses sought to represent it to them as a singular noun in a plural form, i. e., so as to exclude every notion of polytheism, and to become synonymous with ', 'w, mix, etc. The divine lawgiver accordingly proclaimed the exalted doctrine of monotheism in the following very striking words :-"Know thou, Israel, that is our (and) is one!" He unceasingly called the attention of the Israelites to this doctrine, and exhorted them to reflect on this most important point. He repeated the same on another occasion, and recommended to them to meditate on the truth of monotheism, in order to convince themselves that by the name of Elohim nothing is to be conceived but the only Jehovah. Thus in Deut. iv. 39,"Understand this day, and reflect in thy mind, that Jehovah is the Elohim, .אין עוד,there is no more In the days of Ahab, king of Israel, when the people were undecided as to the signification of Elchim, as is recorded in 1 Kings xviii. 21, "How long halt ye between two opinions, whether Jehovah is Elohim," they were doubtful whether the name of Elohim was to be considered synonymous with Jehovah as taught by Moses, or was to be applied to polytheism, viz., the . It was then that Elijah, a second Moses, inspired by God, addressed his prayer to God as follows:-"Answer me, Jehovah, answer me. Let this people be convinced that thou Jehovah art the Elohim." God accordingly accepted his prayers. The people perceived the miracles performed by the prophet, and unitedly they fell on their knees, making the all-important confession—“Jehovah is the Elohim, Jehovah is the Elohim!" In the same spirit the Psalmist chanted, "Acknowledge that Jehovah is Elohim."-Ps. c. 3. Indeed, the name Elohim is to be met with in the Bible as a singular in its meaning, though in a plural form, and is always synonymous with ', mix, mm; for instance y sin mm, dubs, El, Elohim, Jehovah, he knows.-Josh. xxii. 22. These names are only an emphatical repetition of the appellations of one and the same Being, similar to the repetition of the name Jehovah in 8 mm, -Exod. xxxiv. 6, agreeably to the idiom of the Hebrew tongue. In like manner the name Elohim is found in numerous cases associated with that of Jehovah as a mere repetition of the latter. A proof in favour of our opinion, viz., that Elohim, Eloha and El are all synonymous with one another, will be afforded when we observe in the Scriptures that the very identical expressions are sometimes accompanied by Eloha and sometimes Elohim, such as .and the like רוח אלוה and רוח אלהים אלהים לפרעה ונתתיך Having thus far shewn that, owing to the deeply rooted idea of monotheism, the name of Elohim was always understood by the Hebrews as a singular noun, it consequently cannot be considered erroneous, if, whenever this name was to be used as a title, they applied it even to one individual; hence the phrase, "I have appointed thee as a superior to Pharaoh."-Exod. vii. 1. From what has been said it may be inferred that Elohim perfectly and regularly harmonizes with singular verbs, as very frequently found in the Bible. But, like all linguistic anomalies, Elohim is also found sometimes accompanied by plural verbs. The few exceptions to the latter case cannot be accounted for on any satisfactory ground. As a proof thereof, we find several phrases in the Bible in which the very verbs, adjectives, or pronouns accompanying the name Elohim, are found in the one case in a singular, and in the other in a plural form. זה אלהיך אשר העלך Exod. xxxii. 4; and- אלה אלהיך ישראל אשר העלוך : Examples אלהים חי and אלהים חיים or ; אלהים שופט שופטים and אלהים Neh. ix. 18; likewise Among the exceptions wherein Elohim is accompanied by a plural verb, must also be ranked the passage (Gen. i. 26) în ; but in the very next .ויברא אלהים את האדם כצלמו-,is already in the singular אלהים verse It is remarkable that many phrases containing the word Elohim, as uttered by pagans, have the verb always in plural, whilst when the very phrases are used by a Hebrew, the same verb is used in the singular-a proof in favour of what has been said above, namely, that the Hebrews at all times attached to Elohim no other signification save that of indivisible oneness. -כה יעשון אלהים וכה יוסיפון ;of Aram Examples:v nɔ onix » pwy-I Kings xx. 10, spoken by the King -Ibid. xix. 2, spoken by Jesabel, wife of Ahab; " x 75 -1 Samuel iii. 4; ibid. xx. 13, spoken by Hebrews. Numerous other instances might here be recorded, but those given are deemed sufficient. At the same time I may be allowed to reply to your correspondent, Mr. Bernstein, who cites the Derasha of R. Simlai in the words of the Jerusalemic Talmud-(?) 71, Is the Derasha to be believed?-Nasir vii. It is, alas, very often the case that conversionists employ some of those unimportant Drashoth, or doctrines like those of R. Moshe de Lion's ' and others, in order to stagger the unlearned Jewish believer. The Six Days of Creation.-If Moses had in his thoughts such unmeasured periods or cycles of time, why did he use the terms evening and morning and day to mark the several stages of the work? The answer is because day is the best term that any ancient tongue could furnish; any other word for a rounded portion of time, however large or small, being ultimately resolvable into the same radical idea. Moreover, each period had two contrasted parts which could not be so well expressed in any way as by those images which in all the early tongues enter into the terms for evening and morning. In short, the several successive natures were so many worlds or ons of time, vast chronological circles. And the earlier part of each period is in turn spoken of as an evening, because it was the waning or passing off of an old nature; or the latter part of each is called a morning, because it was the dawning or day-break of a higher nature. There was a rolling out of one world-growth, and a rolling in of another; and the old age of the one and the youth of the other, taken together, make up one of the creative periods. Hence the very peculiar and remarkable language of the account, which is properly rendered thus: "And there was an evening, and there was a morning; one day." And again : "And there was an evening, and there was a morning; the second day." And so on through the whole series. Nor can this view be justly faulted as devised to meet a special exigency of science. It is forced upon us by matters lying on the very face of the record; especially in respect of the first four periods. By representing them as antesolar, the writer clearly intimates that the days he is speaking of were not the common circles of time marked by the rising and setting of the heavenly bodies. The days were anomalous. The first evening was utterly indefinite; the first morning unlike any at least that is now made by the sun. Thus a sufficient intimation is given, that the days are to be understood in a manner consistent with the extraordinary acts. We have the idea of a period beginning in darkness and ending in light; a period measured on the one hand by chaos, and on the other by the birth of a higher system; and which is therefore called a day, as being analogous to the diurnal succession of darkness and light. Here, then, the easy and unforced interpretation is clearly on the side of the indefinite periods. No answer has yet been given that did not seem strained and farfetched. And this view is greatly confirmed at the opening of the next chapter, where the whole time of creation, including all the six days in one full round of events, is also called a day: "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth, in the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." Of this great day of days it might also have been said there was an evening and a morning. It began when darkness was on the face of the waters; it ended in the morning of Paradise. In short, the days of the creation were God's days, the "days of eternity:" they were the evening and morning intervals of his creative ongoings, as much beyond our diurnal periods as his ways are above our ways, and his thoughts above our thoughts. Nor is it at all unlikely that these same days are referred to in the epistle to the Hebrews, where it is said, “Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God;" where the original has cons, a term of vast duration being thus put for that which endured. In connection with this point, Professor Lewis treats us to one of the most beautiful arguments in its kind that we have ever met with. We shall endeavour to reproduce it in the fewest and clearest words possible. The idea of a day, in its most general sense, has four constituents. 1st. Its periodic nature. 2nd. This periodicity made up of two antithetic states having opposite qualities, so that each is the negation of the other. 3rd. Its duration in time. 4th. The mode of marking its duration, and of determining its periodicity. Of these the first two are generic and constant; the last two variable and specific. Without the periodicity and the antithetic division, there could not be a day at all; the idea would be lost: no mere continuous length of time arbitrarily measured would answer to the notion. On the other hand, the last two constituents may be varied to almost any extent, and yet the radical idea be preserved. The duration may be twenty-four hours, or twenty-four thousand years. The antithetic division may be by risings and settings of the |