love of novelty (Bell. Gall., ii. 11; iii. 10; iv. 5), were not less prominent in their Asiatic brethren. The mere fact of the absence of the Apostle weakened his hold upon them, and left them open to new impressions from without. And when the Judaising teachers came, they found in the old traditions of the race, in that religious temperament which has at all times marked the Keltic branch of the human family, that which predisposed them to receive the teaching which was antagonistic to St. Paul's. The old Gauls were a people, to use Cæsar's words again, "admodum dedita religionibus," addicted to superstitious observances of all kinds, believing, more than the Romans then believed, in auguries, charms, and incantations; and that type of character, however it may be stirred for a time by religious emotions, is essentially inclined to a ritualistic rather than a spiritual religion. It welcomes rules, is easily swayed by terrors of the unknown, accepts multiplied observances to soothe its vague alarm. The Keltic race stands out in contrast with the Teutonic in the history of modern Europe as holding out against the Protestant, the Pauline, mode of thought, and clinging to the gorgeous ceremonial and the authoritative guidance of the Church of Rome. So it was that, even though “Christ crucified" had been preached among them with such a vividness of word-painting, that it was as though the very scene of Calvary had been set before their eyes as in a picture, they fell under the influence of those who came with claims to a higher authority than St. Paul's, bidding them observe "times and seasons and days and years" (Gal. iv. 10). It was, to use his own expressive word, a word specially forcible as addressed to such a people, as though they had been "bewitched," fascinated as by an evil eye, such as, in the widely diffused beliefs of both East and West, had power to control the wills of those on whom it fell. (Gal. iii. 1.) Other coincidences, touching on points of minor importance, have been stated with so much force and clearness by Professor Lightfoot, that it is better to quote from him than to state the same facts in less expressive language of my own: "His (St. Paul's) denunciation of drunkenness and revellings, falling in with the taunts of ancient writers, will appear to point to a darling sin of the Celtic people. His condemnation of the niggardly spirit with which they had doled out their alms as a 'mockery of God,' will remind us that the race is constantly reproached with its greed of wealth, so that Gaulish avarice passed almost into a proverb. His reiterated warning against strife and vain-glory will seem directed against a vice of the old Celtic blood still boiling in their veins, and breaking out in fierce and rancorous self-assertion. His very expression, if ye bite and devour one another,' will recall the angry gesticulations and menacing tones of this excitable people." (Lightfoot, Galatians, p. 13.) The effect of this convergence of many distinct indications of national character is, it will be admitted, striking and suggestive. The "local colouring" is perhaps stronger in this Epistle than in any other of the Pauline Epistles. There remains, however, one instance more striking than any other, which, in spite of the difficulties which the nature of the subject presents, it would not be right to pass over. When the burning indignation of the Apostle is aroused against those who were impairing the liberty and corrupting the simplicity which is in Christ, he bursts out (Gal. v. 12) into the wish (as in the Authorised Version) that they who thus troubled the Church might be "cut off." As we commonly read those words, we understand them to mean that he prayed for some sharp judgment of God to fall upon the workers of evil and cut them short in the middle of their course, or that they should be excommunicated and thus "cut off" from all fellowship with the Church which they were thus disturbing. In the judgment of well nigh all competent scholars, however, the words have a very different meaning. The older religion of these Phrygian Gauls had included the worship of Cybele. The orgiastic rites of that worship were precisely such as fell in with their national temperament. And the priests of Cybele were consecrated to her service, as has been already stated, by self-mutilation. It is, at any rate, a singular coincidence, that these priests of the Earth-Goddess were known to the Romans by the name of "Galli," and, although other and more fantastic etymologies of the word were given by the older Latin etymologists, yet it is at least probable that the word was transferred to the priests from the people of whom they were the most conspicuous representatives. As might be expected, the word was extended to take in others who were in the same state as that to which the priests had reduced themselves. Remembering these facts, we can recognise a new meaning, a keener and more cutting irony in St. Paul's words. The Judaising teachers came, insisting on the necessity of circumcision. St. Paul had to fight over again the battle which had seemed to have been settled once for all at the Council of Jerusalem. Circumcision, he contended, had no longer any spiritual efficacy. Even its significance as the seal and token of a consecrated life had passed away. It was now simply an outward rite, a concision," not a I circumcision" (Phil. iii. 2), analogous to the wild " 'cuttings of the flesh" which marked the worship of the priests of Baa (1 Kings xviii. 28). The one true circumcision which remained for the Church of Christ, was that of the heart, "in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Rom. ii. 29.) 66 bold Luther-like vehemence which it is difficult to reproduce in modern speech, is that those who had disturbed the peace of the Church would at least be thorough and consistent in their practices, carry their principles to their logical results, and be as the priests of Cybele. That would certainly be the fitting end of those who still clung to a mere fleshly sign of consecration and purity, as though it were a spiritual and eternal obligation. - NOTE. Wordsworth, Alford, Lightfoot, Jowett, may be named as giving a sufficient consensus for the English reader. Bishop Ellicott accepts, but very hesitatingly, the other interpretation. EASTERN GEOGRAPHY OF THE BIBLE. BY THE REV. H. W. PHILLOTT, M.A., RECTOR OF STAUNTON-ON-WYE, AND PRÆLECTOR OF HEREFORD CATHEDRAL. MEDIA AND PERSIA. P The verisimilitude, if not the absolute verity, of the Book of Tobit appears in connection with these facts. From his residence at Ecbatana, Tobit, an Israelite captive, beheld with joy the triumph of Assuerus (Cyaxares), and was enabled with his countrymen to "rejoice over Nineveh." (Tob. xiv. 15.) OSTPONING for the present our notice | lines, p. 10). But the time of retaliation was at hand. of the less important names connected The successors of Sennacherib held the reins of empire with Bible geography, which lie to the over the Medes with a weaker hand, and in 633 B.C. an west and north of the Tigris, we proceed independent kingdom was established by Cyaxares, eastwards into the region which in its northern portion who, eight years later, took the principal share in the lies on the other side of the great mountain range of capture and destruction of Nineveh, B.C. 625. Zagros, a range running nearly north and south, which is said by Strabo to divide Media from Babylonia, and which towards the south abuts on the lower waters of the Tigris and the combined stream of the Shat-el-Arab. This region in modern days belongs to the kingdom of Persia, but in early times its northern part was the abode of the Median race, and its southern that of the Persian, while in a portion of it at the north-east dwelt the Parthians, a race in early days subject to Persia, but which in New Testament times had acquired a power and influence surpassing that of their former masters. (Acts ii. 9; Strabo, xi., p. 522.) To begin with the MEDES. Though there is some reason to think that the Medes once occupied a part of the Mesopotamian region, it is certain that during the period of authentic history their country lay on the south-west of the Caspian Sea, and reached north as far as the Araxes. It was bounded on the west by that branch of the great Caucasian mass called Choatras or Parchoatras, which is continued in Zagros. Their name appears to be contained in that of Madai, son of Japhet, and they were probably of the same Aryan stock as the Persians. (Gen. x. 2; Herod., viii. 62). The Assyrian records inform us that in the ninth century B.C. they were invaded by an Assyrian monarch, whose name and exploits are recorded on an obelisk now in the British Museum. Little impression, however, was made by this inroad, and it was not until the time of Sargon, about 712 B.C., that the Assyrian power made itself felt seriously by the Medes. He appears to have gained possession of their country so far as to be able to place captive Israelites in some of their towns. (2 Kings xviii. 11.) But Media was never incorporated with Assyria, and if Herodotus is to be believed, the Medes very soon after this revolted, though it seems probable that this revolt took place later. The subjugation begun by Sargon was probably completed by Sennacherib, who says, as the monuments tell us, that he exacted tribute from the Medes (Herod., i. 95, 106; Rawlinson, Out The Medes were now joined with the Babylonians, and shared in some at least of their conquests, for Josephus relates that Necho, King of Egypt, led that expedition against them and the Babylonians in which Josiah, King of Judah, lost his life, and in which Necho was defeated at Carchemish by Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings xxii. 20; Jer. xlvi. 2; Joseph., Ant., x. 5, 1.) About 597 B.C. Cyaxares was succeeded by a king who, in the apocryphal supplement to the Book of Daniel, called Bel and the Dragon, is named Astyages, if, indeed, this name, which is omitted in the Persian histories of the time, be not a title rather than a personal name, in which case it might perhaps denote the person called in the Book of Daniel, Darius the Mede. If this be the case, he must have ascended the Median throne as a mere child, for we know that in 538 B.C. he was sixtytwo years old. But before this date, the independent existence of a Median monarchy had fallen before the power of Cyrus, and the Medes were virtually incorporated with the Persians, though they made ineffectual attempts to recover their independence in the time of Darius, son of Hystaspes (about 500 B.C.), and in that of Darius Nothus (about 420 B.C.). A new and independent Median kingdom was founded in the northern part of the region after the death of Alexander the Great, by Atropates, Satrap of Media, which lasted until the first century A.D., when it was absorbed into the Parthian empire, which had already occupied the southern portion for more than 250 years. (Ker Porter, Trav., I. xiv.; Rawlinson, Herod., i. 416, 419; Herod., i. 127, 128, 130; vii. 61; Xen., Hell., i. 2-19; Arrian, Exp., vi.; Esther i. 3, 14, 18; ix. 2; Dan. vi. 8, 12; Strabo, xi. 522, 523.) The Medes were naturally a vigorous and warlike race, and are described by Polybius as the most hardy of the Asiatic nations, and best provided in warlike equipments, especially horses. They appear to have maintained a separate existence for a long time, even among the races to whom they became subject, for besides being named before the Persians, when they are mentioned in the Book of Daniel, we hear of the Median language as being more or less a distinct dialect, side by side with that of the Parthians and the Elamites, or Persians of Elymais, at the time of the Gift of Tongues, immediately after our Lord's Ascension (Dan. vi. 8; Acts ii. 9; Herod., i. 34; Polyb., x. 27). They were divided into six tribes, of which the name of one, that of the Budii, may be thought to resemble that of Phut, joined by Ezekiel with Lud and Persia, as mercenaries of Tyre. (Ezek. xxvii. 10; xxxviii. 5; Gen. x. 22; Herod., i. 101.) Sir R. Porter describes the tomb as follows: "The base rises in steps of vast blocks of marble. The door was four feet high and two feet ten inches in width. The chamber inside seven feet wide, ten feet long, and eight feet high. The floor was composed of two immense slabs, and both the walls and floor were much injured by invaders. There was no ancient inscription, but on a pillar not far off is one in cuneiform characters, which is thus read :— "Cyrus, Lord, King, Ruler of the World." The Persians believe the tomb to be that of the mother of Solomon, and to have been built by genii at his command. There are strong reasons for thinking that the neighbouring remains, known by the name of Takht-i-Suleiman, are those of the city of Deioces, called in the time of Herodotus, and for some time afterwards, No Median city is mentioned in canonical Scripture, Ecbatana, or rather Agbatana; but in later times, except Achmetha, a name which probably answers to Gazaca or Ganzaca, a name which perhaps means Ecbatana, "the palace in the province of the Medes," | treasure-city, from gaza, a Greek word of Semitic in which the national records of Persia were preserved origin, but adopted into Persian, signifying treasure. (Ezra vi. 2). There were probably two cities, if not Later still, it was called Shiz by the Arabian geographers. more than two, of the same name: one in Upper Whether Deioces was a real personage, or the name Media, Atropatene-that of which we are now speak- was only a title or appellation, is doubtful; but the ing, the other in the greater Media, Media magna. word Agbatana appears to have been given to places The former may perhaps answer to the city said by used as depositories of treasure; and if so, the identiHerodotus to have been built by Deioces, and may fication of Agbatana with Gazaca becomes intelligible. be placed in the valley of Mourg-ab, in which are some On the whole, the city or fortress of Ecbatana may be very remarkable ruins, especially one called Takht-i- | regarded as connected, perhaps as its citadel, with the Suleiman, "Throne of Solomon," a place at which Persian city Pasargadae, within whose park the great Solomon is said to have received the Queen of Sheba, Cyrus was buried, in the tomb which has been already and which perhaps represents Ecbatana; and about two described. This Ecbatana was probably the place miles distant from it, a tomb said to be that of Solo- mentioned in the Books of Tobit and Judith. (Tobit mon's mother; though the Solomon thus mentioned was vii. 1; xiv. 12, 14; Judith i. 2; Herod., i. 98; Arrian, probably of a date not older than the seventh century Exp., vi.; Strabo, xv. 729, 730; Rich, Residence, ii. A.D., if indeed it be not much later than this. The 220; Porter, Trav., i. 267, 284, 498, 499; Vaux, Nineveh tomb is in all probability the tomb of the great Cyrus; and Persepolis, App., pp. 414, 424; Heeren, As. Nat., and there are some remains near it in the valley, which ii. 351.) are probably those of the ancient city of Pasargadae. The description given by Arrian of the tomb answers so exactly to the present state of the monument, that there seems no doubt of its identity. We shall perhaps be forgiven if we place the two accounts in juxtaposition. Arrian, and also Strabo, following the account given by Aristobulus, an officer commissioned by Alexander to restore the tomb, both say there was a quadrangular platform, on which was a stone building having a roof, and a door so narrow that it was difficult even for a small man to enter. Within the chamber was a coffin of gold, in which reposed the body of Cyrus; and a bed near the coffin, which had golden feet, and on it a Babylonian carpet. Besides this, there once were several other articles, which had been carried off by plunderers. The tomb was entrusted to the care of a family who had inherited the charge from the time of Cambyses, son of Cyrus, and who received regular provision from the king for their service. It bore an inscription:-"O man, I am Cyrus, son of Cambyses, who founded the Persian Empire, and reigned over Asia. Grudge me not my memorial." In connection with this neighbourhood we may mention that the river of Gozan, near which the captive Israelites were placed by the Assyrian conqueror, has been thought from the likeness of name to be the KizilOzien, which runs from the south-west into the Caspian Sea. (2 Kings xvii. 6; Porter, i. 267, 284.) We can only mention in passing the ancient and important town of Rages, mentioned in the Book of Tobit, which was visited by Alexander in his pursuit of Darius, and which was the birthplace of the famous Arabian Khalif, Haroun-al-Raschid, whose name is so familiar to every reader of the Arabian Nights. Its remains still exist under the modern name of Rhey, and aro situated about five miles south-east of Teheran, the modern capital of Persia, just under the colossal mountain range of Elburz. Its neighbourhood, under the name of the plain of Ragau, was perhaps the scene of the great battle mentioned in the Book of Judith. (Tob. i. 14; Judith i. 5; Strabo, xi. 524; Arr., Exp., iii.; Fraser, Persia, p. 61; Porter, i. 357, 364.) We come now to the undoubted Ecbatana, the Median capital, represented in modern times by the city of Hamadan, situated in lat. 34° 53', long. 40°, under Mount Orontes, now Elwend. During the Parthian monarchy it was the summer residence of the kings, who spent their winter at their principal city, Seleucia, on the Tigris. Ecbatana is called the Parthian capital by Orosius, and Semiramis is said to have built a palace there. At the destruction of Nineveh, much of the spoil was removed to Ecbatana by the Median commander, Arbaces. During the period of the Persian dominion, the Persian king, in the time of Xenophon, used to spend his spring and summer there, or at least two twelfth century Benjamin of Tudela, who visited it, says that there were 50,000 Jews there, and that it contained the sepulchres of Esther and Mordecai. These tombs are still existing, though as to their genuineness much doubt may be entertained. (2 Macc. ix. 2, 3; Strabo, xi. 522, 524; Diod., ii. 13, 28; Curtius, v. 8, 1; Orosius, vi. 3; Xen., Anab., iii. 5, 15; Cyrop., viii. 6, 22; Arr., Exp., iii., iv., vii.; Polyb., x. 27; Early Trav., p. 109; Porter, i. 102, 114.) We now pass on to PERSIA, a country which, as to its general position, necessarily holds an important place months in the height of summer. Darius, after his final defeat at Arbela, fled to this place, and was pursued by Alexander, who, after the assassination of Darius, sent his murderer Bessus thither for execution by the Medes and Persians. It was here, too, that Hephæstion, the great friend of Alexander, met with his death. Polybius, the Greek historian, describes Ecbatana and its situation at length, and says that it was an unwalled town, but having a remarkably strong citadel; that he does not like to pass over in silence its palace, but knows not how to describe it, for fear of being accused of exaggeration. Antiochus is said, in the Book of Maccabees, to have passed through Ecbatana on his way to plunder Persepolis. In the fourteenth century the town was sacked by Timour Lenk, and it is now much decayed. In the in Bible geography, though there is not much mention of it in detail. As distinguished from the great Persian empire, the country of Persia, properly so called, was contained nearly within the modern province of Fars, bounded on the north by Media, on the south-west by the Persian Gulf, on the east by Carmania, and on the north-west by Susiana or Elam. It is mentioned by Ezekiel (xxxviii. 5). Before 558 B.C., the Persians were subject to the Medes for about eighty years, when they revolted, and under Cyrus established a powerful empire, the terror of Greece, its unwieldy invader, and in later times its helpless and prostrate victim. Except the mention of Persia Proper by Ezekiel, the history of the Persian empire does not come into contact with that of Israel until the fall of Babylon, or rather until the prophetic mention of Cyrus in connection with that event, which may thus be regarded historically as identical with it (Isa. xliv. 28; xlv. 1). Of the successors of Cyrus, we have mention made in Scripture history more or less certainly of the following:-1. Cambyses, son of Cyrus, under the name of Ahasuerus (Ezra iv. 6). 2. Smerdis, or rather Gomates, the Magian usurper, as Artaxerxes (Ezra iv. 17, 22). 3. Xerxes, son of Darius, the invader of Greece, as Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, as a King of Persia in that of Daniel (Esth. i. 1; Dan. xi. 2). 4. Artaxerxes power of impressing the services of others, conveyed messages throughout the empire, between stations at fixed distances from each other, with great regularity and dispatch, a service which is described minutely by Herodotus. (Esth. iii. 13; viii. 10; Herod., viii. 28.) After the interval of Macedonian supremacy, consequent upon the conquest of Alexander, Persia became subject to Parthia from B.C. 167 to A.D. 226, when a new Persian monarchy was founded. It is during this period that we find mention made of the three languages of the Parthians, the Medes, and the Elamites, Longimanus, as Artaxerxes in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra vii. 11, 28; Neh. ii. 1, 9). 5. Darius Codomanus, the last Persian monarch, as Darius the Persian in the Book of Nehemiah (Neh. xii. 22). The division of the empire into governments called satrapies is noticed, though not very distinctly, in the Book of Esther, and in those of Ezra and Nehemiah. In the two latter books mention is made of "governors beyond the river," by whom, no doubt, are meant the satraps of the provinces on the west of the Euphrates. (Esth. iii. 12; ix. 3; Ezra vi. 6; Neh. ii. 7, 9; Herod., iii. 89.) The Book of Esther also, which contains so vivid a picture of a part of the internal organisation of the great Eastern despotism, and of some of its results, brings before us a notice of the government establishment of forced "posts," i.e., couriers who, with the i.e., a period when both the Medes and the Elamites, the people of Persia Proper, were subject to the Parthians; when the Persian empire was, so to speak, in abeyance; and when the older name, Elam, that of the province which was the original seat of the nation, was more appropriate to its inhabitants than that of Persia, by which they are so much better known in general history. The order in which St. Luke places the three nations (Acts ii. 9), indicates their relative importance, or at any rate the superiority of the first of them at that time. We know also how formidable to the Romans the Parthians were during a period of more than 150 years, from the time when in B.C. 53, they defeated the attack made on them by the greedy and ambitious Crassus, a disaster of which we shall have occasion to speak when we come to Hara" |