in Chronicles. A variation in Numbers must be accounted for on different principles; but what those principles are, which will fairly and completely unfold the causes of this variation, have not yet been discovered. Dr. Kennicot has, however, made great advances towards it in his 1st Diss. p. 96, &c. Historical narratives repeated. III. Under this head may be compared 1. 1 Sam. xxxi. 1-13. and 2. 2 Sam. v. 13. 3. 2 Sani. v. 17—25.. 4. 2 Sam. vi. 1—11. 5. 2 Sam. vi. 12-16. 6. 2 Sam. vi. 17-19. 7. 2 Sam, vii. 1-29. 10. 2 Sam. xi. 1. & xii. 30, 31. 32. 1 Kings xxii. 2—35. 33. 1 Kings xxii. 41–50. 34. 2 Kings viii. 16-24. 1 Chron. X. 1—12. 1 Chron, xi. 1-3. 1 Chron. xiv. 8-16.. 2 Chron. viii. 1-10. 2 Chron. xviii, 1-34. 2 Chron. xx. 51-37. & xxi. 1. 2 Chron. xxi. 5—10, 19, 20, &c. Many of these variations are only different expressions of the same things, and are probably copied from different accounts. For several authors (compare 1 Chron. xxix. 29. with 2 Chron. ix. 29. & xii. 15. 2 Chron. xiii. 22. 2 Chron. xx. 34. 2 Chron. xxvi. 22. 1 Kings xv. 7. were often employed in writing the history of the same reign; and the compilers of the books of Kings and Chronicles, which are evidently compendiums of larger accounts, have no doubt followed the diction, sometimes of one, and sometimes of another copy. Hence it is easy to account for the different phraseology which occurs in passages otherwise correspondent; though something, perhaps, should be attributed to the genius of the compilers themselves. But though there were extant several histories of the same reign; yet one of them seems to have been always held in higher estimation than the rest. From these most approved accounts of every reign were the histories which we now have chiefly extracted. That the authors of Kings and Chronicles copied from the same originals, is evident from the thread and texture of their narratives, and from the glaring uniformity of their diction. There is one difference indeed, which savours not a little of superstition, and it is this: in many places where Kings has , it is changed in the correspondent passages of Chronicles into DN. At what time this superstition of substituting DN, &c. for began to take place among the Jews, it would be difficult to say: perhaps some time before the captivity; but this is uncertain. 'It is the general opinion,' says De Missy, p. 18. § 3, of the Jewish Church, and adopted by the Christian, that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were composed by Ezra. But are not the fore-mentioned differences, respecting the name of God (supposing them to have subsisted in the first copies) plain, internal proofs of the falsity of this opinion? supposing them to have subsisted so early. But, to speak freely my mind, I strongly suspect that they are of a much later date, and took their rise from the foolish superstition of comparatively modern Jews. A superstition that seems to have had some effect not only on these later historical books, but also on the Psalms, and even on the Pentateuch: for the Hebrew has now the word DN in several places through the Books of MOSES, where the Samaritan text reads MIN.' IV. Certain Psalms, Precepts, Sentiments, Messages, &c. are often repeated in Scripture: v. g. 1. Exod. xx. 2—17. 2. Levit. xi. 2-19. 9. Psalm xiv. 1—7. Deut. v. 6-21. Numb. xxiv. 15, 16. Psalm 1xx. 1—5. Psalm cviii. 1-5. Psalm cviii. 6-13. Psalm cvii. 8, 15, 21, 31. s. The parallels contained in Nos. 6, 7, 8, clearly show how improperly the Psalms have been disjointed. This catalogue might easily have been extended. In that case the Proverbs would have supplied a good stock of smaller, and the Psalms of larger sentences. Numberless passages from the books of Moses are repeated in Deuteronomy. V. In writing on similar subjects, the same ideas have been frequently expressed by different prophets. This arises, as De Missy thinks, from the same representation being spiritually impressed on their minds; and hence he accounts for that similar train of thoughts, and those similar turns of expression, which occur so often in the prophetical writings. But the prophets not only make use of similar expressions; but also, in some remarkable predictions, copy one another's words-as will evidently appear from an accurate collation of the following passages: 1. Isaiah ii. 2-4. 3. Isai. xvi, 6, 7, &c. 10. Habakkuk, iii. 18, 19. Micah iv. 1-3. Isaiah xlvii. 8. Some of these passages, as they are often applied to different subjects, critics may perhaps look upon rather in the light of adaptations, than in that of real and formal quotations. But in whatever light they may be considered, they should be carefully collated, for it will be found by experience, that they are of the utmost importance in confirming and correcting the parallel texts. VI. "If the prophets," says De Missy," quoted from one another, it can be no wonder, surely, that they often borrowed from themselves; or, to speak more accurately, that they were impressed with the same ideas, and consequently made use of the same language, on different occasions;". and within a few lines he adds, "whether all these repetitions were purposely made by the respective authors themselves; or, whether some of them might not be unwarily inserted in two different places by VOL. XXIV. Cl. JI. NO. XLVII. F the collectors of the prophetical writings, is a question that deserves to be seriously considered. The fact, however, is certain; as will readily appear from the collation of the following texts :" There are many other short repetitions dispersed through the several prophetical writings, which need not be particularly specified but though short, they are often of great importance in correcting and settling the text. Of this a curious instance may be seen in Ezek. xviii. 25, compared with v. 29. And also in Zechar. iv. 5, compared with v. 13. VII. When we fix upon any of these parallels for the purpose |