4, 16. p. 353. Παραγγέλλεται γὰρ καὶ ̓Ελευσῖνι ἀπέχεσθαι κατοι κιδίων ὀρνίθων, καὶ ἰχθύων, καὶ κυάμων, ῥοιᾶς τε καὶ μήλων, καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται οὐ στελέχους ἅψασθαι, ὡς τὸ θνησειδίων: quo loco quum de cibis tantummodo sermo sit, quibus mystæ Cereris vesci interdicerentur, sponte apparet Boissonadi conjecturam, Μεμίανται τὸ σπελέθου ἅψασθαι ὡς τὸ θνησειδίων, ad Herodiani Epimer. 120. prolatam, plane concidere, etsi pro ou corrigendum esse Tò recte sensisse videtur: άnтeσlа autem proprie de cibis dici docet locus Clem. Alex. huc maxime faciens, Pædag. 2. p. 149. Sylb., ubi de Moyse: "Ων δὲ ἐφῆκεν ἅπτεσθαι, πάλιν κεκώλυκε τούτων τὰ θνηξιμαῖα, τά τε εἰδωλόθυτα, τά τε ἀποπεπνιγμένα. Adde Athen. 308." P. 68. This note will call forth many observations. 1. In the passage from Porphyry Osann has inadvertently omitted xal before xaroixidiwv. 2. In the passage from Clem. Alex. he has adopted the vulgar reading Ovala, a word formed against analogy, which deforms even Potter's Edn., and which must be corrected into θνησιμαῖα. 3. The reading ἐσθήματα in the passage from Philostr. has been incautiously adopted from Schneider's Lex. by the Editors of the New Gr. Thes. p. 521. b.; and it also appears in the work of H. Stephens 1, 1564. in v. Ovos, who quotes it from Budæus. 4. The Editors do not think, that to vindicate the observation of Philemon, there is any occasion to produce an instance of vnofdiov used in the singular; for its existence may be inferred from the plural τà v Geldia, which Osann supposes to be alone in use. However, the singular does occur in Ælian H. A. 6, 2. ̓Αλλὰ μὴ δοκεῖν ἐσθίειν κενέβριόν τε καὶ θνησείδιον. Suid.: Θνησιμαῖον τὸ νενεκρωμένον, καὶ Θνησείδιον· τὸ νεκρόν : cf. Zonar. et Tittmanni Cyrill.: Θνησεία διον· τὸ θνησιμαῖον. Θνησιμαῖον τὸ νενεκρωμένον. 5. In the passage of Porphyry the clause, καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται κ. τ. λ., is not necessarily to be understood de cibis. For, if he had so intended, there would have been no occasion to introduce the words étions μεμίανται at all, as the genitive του—ἅψασθαι without them, would have been quite sufficient. But those words clearly prove a change of topic, and therefore Boissonade's conjecture does not plainly fall to the ground. His words are these:"Multum se torserunt VV. DD. circa h. 1. et nuper ad novam et luculentam Sancto-Crucii Mysteriorum Edit. 1, 282. 461. Proponam et conjecturam meam, Καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται τὸ σπε λέθου ἅψασθαι, ὡς τὸ θνησειδίων, et cadaverum contrectatio æque est impura ac stercoris. De v. éstos cf. Elmsl. ad Acharn. 6. The alteration of où into Tò belongs not to Boissonade, but to Valent, ap. De Rhoer. 7. Osann has overlooked the Add, to Boissonade's work, p. 295.: "De loco Porphyrii

vide omnino Thes. H. Stephani Lond. Ed. p. 519." where the following lection, partly suggested by Valent., Gale, Reisk, and Abresch, and partly original, is adopted, Καὶ ἐπίσης μεμίανται τῷ λεχοῦς ἅψασθαι, ὡς τῷ θνησειδίων. The observations of the Editors are too copious to be transcribed on the present occasion; but I believe that the careful reader of them will be perfectly satisfied with the propriety of the proposed, and those very slight, alterations. 8. Osanu begins his note with the words :— Θνῆσις, θνήσεως, θνησείδιον, quæ omnia vide ne sint Grammaticorum inventa, qui quum plur. τὰ θνησείδια passim ap. bonos scriptt. reperirent, repetendum eum a sing. demin. θνησείδιον putaverunt. But, as the reasoning of Philemon holds in regard to the other words, which he mentions: (Τὰ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰς ις θηλυκῶν διὰ τοῦ εως κλινομένων διὰ τοῦ εἴδιον γινόμενα, διὰ τῆς ει διφθόγγου γράφεται, οἷον θνῆσις, θνήσεως, θνησείδιον· * ἀλυσείδιον· ταξείδιον· * δαμαλείδιον· κτησείδιον· καὶ ἕτερα :) it must hold in regard to this, whether there be any example of θνῆσις, or not. • Θνησις, Mors, φθορά, Suid. i. e. Corruptio. Sed nullum hujus usus exemplum affert. Existimo autem tanquam a fut. θνήσω esse formatum, sicut τεθνήσειν ex Dione protuli. Eandem certe, quam θνῆσις, formationem, (quæcunque sit,) sequitur Nomen Θνησιμαῖος, item Θνησείδιον.” H. Steph. Thes. 1. c.

66

66

On the following words of Philemon p. 70.:-Λαγίδης. πατρωνυμικὸν, ἐκ τοῦ λαγοῦ, ὡς ὁ τοῦ πελαργοῦ γόνος, * πελαργίδης τοῦ λύκου, * λυκίδης· * αλεκτορίδης· *χηνίδης• * περδικίδης : Osann says :— Vulgo Λαγωοῦ, quod fieri posse nullo modo persuadeor, quum Aayions formari hinc minime possit: neque moror ea, quæ ap. Suid. leguntur, Λαγίδης· ὁ τοῦ λαγωοῦ.” But Tittmann ad Zonar. had previously so corrected the Gloss of Suidas. Osann refers to Valck. and Huschk. as the only or chief authorities respecting the_termination of nouns in deus, and if he looks into the New Gr. Thes. p. 1286. b-90. c., he will find the entire observations of those critics with much original matter : see also Mr. Barker's Epist. Cr. ad Gaisford., in Classical Journal 25, 175-6. It is to be noted that Λαγίδης is from Λάγος, and λαγιδεὺς from λαγός. Osann tacitly cites from Etym. Μ. 554. Τὰ γὰρ εἰς ος ὀνόματα, εἰ μὲν καθαρὰ, διὰ τοῦ αδης ποιοῦσι τὸ πατρωνυμικόν — εἰ δὲ μὴ καθαρὰ, διὰ τοῦ ιδης, Κρόνος, [Κρονίδης, accidentally omitted by Osann,] Λαγός, Λαγίδης, and so Schafer has edited the passage; but we must read άyos, as in Etym. Μ. 165. * Βῆλος, * Βηλίδης Λάγος, Λαγίδης. See the New Gr. Thes. p. 1290. b. E. H. BARKER.

Thetford, July, 1822.

REMARKS

On Criticisms of the Pentateuch, by Eichhorn, Bertholdt, &c.

No. I. EICHHORN.

WHATEVER may have been the religious doctrine of the Israelites before the days of Moses, it must be confessed that he stamped a certain originality and stability on it, which the nomadic lives of their ancestors prevented them from acquiring. Yet, we must at the same time suppose, that he selected his history from the ancestorial traditions and poetical remains of the patriarchs, as well as a vast multitude of his institutions from some in use among them, and in a certain degree common to the Oriental world.

But, although sound criticism obliges us to admit this fact ;when we observe the types, by which he prefigured the advent of the Messiah, continuing unimpaired to the Babylonian captivity, and resuming their primitive force and intent, when the people became once more settled in Jerusalem; and when we remark those wise precautions, which he adopted to preserve the higher knowlege of his day among the Priests, we must likewise assent to those claims of inspiration, which he asserted. Having had opportunities of examining the esoteric dogmata of the Egyptians, and being acquainted with the bigoted Polytheism of the common mass, he was able to trace the gradual rise of the human intellect from the personifications of atmospheric phænomena, and the deification of inert matter, up to the exalted doctrine of One Incorporeal and Supreme Being. The Babylonian and Egyptian systems of Theology were placed within his inquiry; hence, he was qualified to separate the true from the false, to retain such rites and customs, as were borrowed in these from the Patriarchal Church, to enact such salutary laws and restrictions, as would deter his rising colony from imitating their errors and their abominations. These, together with the Phoenicians and Hebrews, are the four most ancient civilized nations on record; but the religion of the other three was not subjected to the severe tests, by which the divine origin and credibility of that of the Hebrews were assayed. Enduring one continual circle of political changes, conquered by fierce

and savage despots, as soon as they had settled' themselves inCanaan, torn in subsequent times from their altars and their hearths, transplanted into the highest seat of idolatry then existing, they afforded ample proof, notwithstanding their many aberrations from the Mosaic law, that these revolutions could not make their religion extinct, that amidst all their hardships and wanderings they retained still recognizable, and indeed, indelible marks of their national peculiarity, and preserved that Pentateuch inviolate, to the forming instructions of which they were indebted for the preservation of all their records. Eichhorn, Michaëlis, and others, have attributed the survival of the sacred writings to the care, with which the Priests deposited them in the Temple, which, in fact, was a custom with every known nation of antiquity. Here, the genealogies and public registers found a place, as well as the oracles of the Prophets, affording one general point of reference for legal and sacred purposes; so that, although much has, assuredly, been lost from the several writers, through the vicissitudes to which the nation was exposed, we must nevertheless refer the existence of all that remains, to this salutary precaution.' But we must, at the same time, take into the account, that had not Cyrus permitted the resettlement of the Jews on the Jordan, that had not such men as Ezra and Nehemiah been raised up by Providence to superintend the rising state, as well in temporals as in spirituals, all this solicitude for the safety of these MSS. had been frustrated, nor had a vestige survived the wreck of Hebrew literature on the shores of the Euphrates. Since that time, all that has escaped these desolations has been watched with an indefatigable diligence; and as laborious a method, as could have been devised, has been adopted to prevent interpolations or omissions in the sacred text. If we, therefore, consider our present Hebrew Scriptures as originally transcribed from the copies in the Tabernacle and Temple, and revised, as accurately as the materials would allow, by Ezra after the captivity and most probably collated with every MS. in the possession of the returned exiles; they must, with the exception of some few incidental variations, remain correct to this day, having been much better defended by the Masoretic scheme, than the writings of Homer, Pindar, Eschylus, and others, as we may easily perceive from the various transpositions, and unwarranted guesses of their several editors. We are enabled to arrive at this conclusion from the quotations

' Eichhorn's Einleitung im Alte Testament, (German text.)

of the Mosaic Law in subsequent books, and from the relation of the same events in the books of the Kings, the Chronicles, and Isaiah, which could not agree the one with the other, were the case different. Yet many textual variations must exist, and that they do exist, we may ascertain from a collation of differ ent MSS.; but, these may reasonably have been expected to be more numerous, and in general they do not appear to affect any point of doctrine or of history. It is true that many divines of the German school affect either to allegorise a part of the Pentateuch into a polos, or to determine it to be a late compilation : the first may be referred to the reveries of a fanciful mind, and the latter is absolutely defective in proof, and supported by no authority. It is indeed a fact not a little singular, that the eastern and western copies of the Pentateuch exhibit the most striking similarity, and therefore correctness; as any one, who will be at the pains of comparing the present textus receptus with the MS. brought from India, and now in the public library at Cambridge, may observe. But to a class of men, who seem systematically to scepticise, and apply arbitrary rules of criticism to Hebrew literature, abundant opportunities must present themselves from the many desideranda necessary rightly to analyse and explain a production of such ancient date.

No reasonable theologian can hesitate in supposing, that Moses had documents before him, of which he made use, in the bistory of events preceding his time:-his enumeration of the genealogical tables of the nation, of itself, would determine the question. Eichhorn has, in part, argued this from the title prefixed to Psalms lviil-viii-lix. () which appears to have been borrowed from Deut. ix. 26.; but this cannot, in any way, be regarded either as an evidence or an objection. He says, "denn man könnte die Inschriften dieser Psalmen für zusätze späterer hände, oder das citirte hied für ein altes Volkslied erklären, das, ohne aufgeschrieben zu seyn, bloss von mund zu mund gegangen wäre ; sondern auf citationen eines GESCHRIEBENEN Ganzen." To this hypothesis, however, demonstration is wanting.

To the proofs, which Eichhorn adduces, that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, we can in general assent; although we conceive many of his proofs "from the style," (beweis1 aus ihrer sprache) very wild and absurd. That he wrote books, which pass under his name, whoever he or they may have been, who

IV. ii. p. 242. § 406.