resolves the several objections that may be urged against him, yet we cannot pass over in silence the manner in which he explains the discrepancies that are observed in the names, dates, and number of the sovereigns who are recorded to have existed during a certain period. Every king, says he, had more than one name, and it was a matter of convenience and taste to an historian by which of them he should be called. The son of Shapor II. was called Kerman-shah by his subjects; by the European writer, Carmasat; by the historian, Baharam : a name which he assumed on his mounting the throne of Persia. Even in the books of Chronicles we find the wife of Ahasuerus mentioned under the name of Hadassah, the niece of Mordecai; by the Grecian historian she is designated as the prudent Esther, and by the Persian poet as the beautiful Satira. Daniel is occasionally called Belteshazzar, and the three children Hannaniah, Michael, and Azariah, under a change of circumstances appear under the denomination of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Thammuz of Ezechiel is called Thaumas by the Greek mythologist, and Adonis by the Phoenician bistorian.

In a manner equally satisfactory the Marquis explains the objection arising from the immense number of thousands and thousands of years which Manetho gives to the Egyptian monarchy previous to the Pharaohs, a period so much exceeding the computation even of the Alphonsine tables as to appear no less fabulous than the annals of the Chinese and Babylonians. On the authority of Mr. Gibert, who published at Amsterdam, in 1743, a curious tract on this subject, the Marquis considers these years in most cases to be diurnal revolutions of the sun. According to this principle he divides by 365 the 473,000 years of the Chaldeans, and the result is 1296 years for the whole duration of their monarchy, and this is precisely the period assigned by Eusebius from Atlas to Alexander, perfectly agreeing with the chronology of the Septuagint. For the invasion of Alexander happened 1682 years after the death of Abraham; and Eusebius, following the same chronology, observes, that Atlas made astronomical discoveries 384 years after the death of Abraham: deducting therefore 384 from 1682, the result is 1298. This sum, with the difference of nearly 69 years, is mentioned also by Callisthenes, though at first sight it appears quite contradicting the statement of the Septuagint. In the same manner the 150,000 years mentioned by Alexander Polyhistor, who had copied Berosus, may be reduced to 411 solar years, as the period during which historical memoirs had been preserved at Babylon previous to the irruption of Alexander: because Nabonassar lived 411 years before this Grecian con

queror, and he having destroyed every possible historical monument, the preservation of them must be dated from his time. The most curious part however, is that in which the Marquis endeavors to reconcile the Chinese chronology with the Egyptian and the Septuagint.

The first astronomical observations made in China were 150 years before the emperor Yao, who, according to M. Fréret, lived 2145 B. C. By adding therefore, these two sums together we have the sum 2295: this epoch differs only by a little more than one year from that of the Babylonians, and by no means exceeds the chronology of the sacred pages. These observations were made nearly nine centuries after the flood, more than 500 years after Nimrod, not quite two centuries before Ninus and Abraham, and consequently posterior to the first establishment of the Egyptian monarchy under Mizraim the brother of Cush, the father of Nimrod.

Having thus stated the grounds on which the chronology of the Septuagint version is to be preferred to that of the Hebrew text, the Marquis gives a curious and interesting account of the manner in which they were made to differ. Till the year 127 after Christ there was but one system of chronology, and this had been followed by all chronographers and historians whether sacred or profane, both before and after the birth of our Saviour. This chronology was that of the Hebrew text itself, and consequently the chronology of the several versions that had been made of it, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint.

*

Amongst the many arguments that might be adduced to prove this to have been the fact, we may quote one which appears to be extremely conclusive. Josephus openly and repeatedly asserts that he had compiled his Antiquities from the Hebrew Scriptures, and yet his chronology coincides with the computation of the Septuagint, and disagrees with the reckoning of the Hebrew text just as much as the Septuagint now does.

This chronology of the Hebrew text, as it has been adopted by Josephus, was in fact the only reckoning known, and was generally followed by all heathen writers before the birth of Christ, and by both heathen and Christian after his death. In short, before the first part of the second century of our era, no traces can be found of any controversy, nor mention made of any difference between the Greek version and the Hebrew original of the Holy Bible. All the authors who quote the Old Testament at that early period, whether Jews, Christians or Heathens, and even before them, the apostles and our Saviour, have recourse to the Hebrew text and the Greek version indiscriminately without

the least indication or suspicion of their not agreeing either in regard to language, facts, or dates.

The difference therefore, which we now find in the chronology of these two texts of our Scriptures, is the work of a time posterior to the first century after Christ, and it seems now that it did not take place before the year 30 of the second century. About that time a new translation of the Old Testament into Greek was produced under the auspices of a leading Rabbi, the object of which was to bring into discredit the venerable work of the seventy: this task was performed by a learned man and a pagan priest of the name of Aquila, who after having embraced Christianity, was, for his heretical opinions, expelled from the bosom of the church, and therefore attached himself to the Jews for the sake of injuring and calumniating the Christians and their religion.

Although the liberties which Aquila and the Rabbi used with the original text were soon perceived and exposed; yet two years after a work appeared, entitled Seder olam Rabba, that is, the Great Chronicle of the World, which presented to the Jews the first-fruits of the labors which the enemies of Christianity had bestowed on the Hebrew writings. This mutilated system of chronology was put forth under the name of Rabbi Josi, and favored by the countenance of the notorious Akiba, the supporter of the rebel and false Christ, Barchocab.

The publication of the Seder olam Rabba, may with certainty be regarded as marking the epoch at which the Jews altered the dates of the great events recorded in their sacred books, and they then adopted the abbreviated scheme of ancient chronology. The object, as it has already been stated, was, that as the Christians were wont to produce the testimonies of Scripture against the Jews out of the Greek version, the Jews were obliged to appeal from that Greek version which alone the Christians understood, to the Hebrew text which they understood not; and in order to avoid the arguments of the Christians, they not only translated their original Scriptures in a different manner, but also altered the dates.

For five or six centuries this flagrant treachery of the Jews was at different times exposed, and consequently their new chronology was not adopted by Christian writers. But about the year 720 the Venerable Bede produced his work, "De Temporum Ratione, de Sex Etatibus Mundi, &c." in which he endeavored to introduce the reckoning of the Jews. But his reasoning was ill received and neglected; though perhaps during the dark ages the weight of his name might have procured some followers to his opinion.

On the revival of learning, the controversy was renewed with vigor and freedom; and it soon called into the field the powerful talents of Scaliger, Petavius, Vossius, Pezron, and Usher. By the gigantic efforts of these justly celebrated men, the reckoning of the Septuagint was again fully established; but at the time of the Reformation, the most stern of the reformers, finding that the Samaritan computation was wrong, and wishing to oppose in every thing the doctrines of the church of Rome, decided that the chronology of the Greek version must be equally wrong; and without analysing the grounds of their decision, they threw the weight of their authority in favor of the original Hebrew; and they succeeded in introducing, at least among the Protestants, the corrupt chronology of the Hebrew

text.

Such are the observations that appear to us most worthy of remark in the lecture on chronology by the Marquis Spineto. Of course he establishes his positions by reasoning and arguments, which we, in the narrow limits of our article, cannot enumerate. What we have stated however, will be sufficient to direct the attention of our readers to this most interesting and important object: an object which we recommend with earnestness to every reader of the Bible, and of ancient literature, to pursue, as most fitted to enable him to explain those discrepancies of dates and of expressions, which have given such a handle to the enemies of Christianity for vilifying religion. We hear with pleasure, that the Marquis Spineto intends to publish his lectures on hieroglyphics, and that they are actually in the press : we wish him every possible success; indeed, we have no doubt that they will be patronised with the same liberality in print as they were when heard.

CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM GRÆCARUM; auctoritate et impensis Classis Historicæ et Philologica Academia Literarum Borussica edidit AUGUSTUS BOECKHIUS, Academiæ Socius. Berolini, ex officina Academica. Vendit G. Reimer, Libraria, Vol. i. Fasciculus primus, 1825: pag. 1-292. Fasciculus secundus, 1826: pag. 293-572. Fol.

PART III. [Continued from No. LXXVII.]

We now come to Pars Secunda, Inscriptiones Attica. They are divided into twelve classes; and Classis prima contains,

Acta Senatus et Populi, Universitatum et Collegiorum. The Attic inscriptions are, as may be supposed, exceedingly numerous, and Boeckh has collected nearly a thousand of them. Some of the most important Attic inscriptions are to be found in Rose's Inscript. Græcæ Vetustissimæ, especially in Class. III. sect. 2.; but whoever will take the trouble to compare Rose's work with Boeckh's Corpus Inscriptionum, will soon perceive that Boeckh stands unrivalled in point of reading the inscriptions, as well as illustrating them. Already, the inscription which stands at the head of the Classis prima, (Rose, Class 111. Sect. 11. Insc. vI.) will show the difference between the two editors. "Forma jurisjurandi ibi traditur a Scambonidarum ministro quodam ut videtur præstandi," says Rose; but he does not tell us who the Scambonidæ were. We learn from Boeckh that they were a demus of the Leontis, and perhaps a gens too, as he infers from the patronymic form of the word. What Rose calls "minister Scambonidarum," is shown by Boeckh to be the curator (Taulas), or also the sacerdos (iepeùs) of the demus or gens. Boeckh infers from the words ev åɣogā Tỷ Σκαμβωνιδών, and from the circumstance that this inscription was found near the temple of Theseus, that the ayopa of the Scambonides was near the temple of Theseus: assuming that there were separate ἀγοραὶ τῶν δημοτῶν, as well as ἀγοραὶ τῶν Quλery; but perhaps yopà does not mean here a forum, but only a meeting (concio).

Inscription 74 is in Rose's work Inscript. 1x. Class. 111. Sect. 11.

"Osannus inscriptionem restituere conatus est, cui tamen pessime res cessit," says Rose; and he reads thus: