You are on page 1of 185










h h l y to be the author of a false interpretathn of krlptun, b to taka God'#

nuus in vain, in s LLgb degree.-Jomrm MCDI.

No. 109 N a s s a u B t r e e t .


Entered d i n g b the act d Collgmm, Ln the year 1843,by

In the Clerk's of&e of the Diatrict Court for the Soutbern Distrjct of New York.

w. mmmrm




Yon doubtless have forgotten, though I never can forget, your

words to me in 1836, when yon p w e d a morning in my library at
Washington College, in H'artford. After declaring that it ~ . the
pleasantest day you had spent during your journey, you added :'6 But
do you know whet a load of responsibility the possession of there
books lays upon yon 7 You are bound to make known the treaewm
they contain, to your wuntrymen."
Your words dwelt on my
memory, animated my exertions, and cheered me in the midst of toil
and trouble. And thongh circumstances have long prevented my
giving In the public any fruits of my labors, yet I hare been constantly at work, and am now prepard to begin a series of pnblieations. Thia little volume may be considered as the f i s t fruits. To
whom can 1,dedicate it with more propriety than to yon 1 I hope
you will do me the favor to accept the offering, small though it be, M
a feeble tribute of that respect for your exalted character, and that
admiration of your profound learning, with which I have the honor
to remain,
Yoor grateful friend,
and faithfal ermnt,

Jmc, 1843.



THE AUTHORof these Discourses has been, for tbe last

three o r four years, engaged in preparing for the prera

his introductory volume of Ecclesiastical History ; and
in order t o adjust t h e dates of the birth and death of our
Lord Jesus Christ, he has been led to go rather largely
into a\n examination of ancient chronology. It is for
thia reaaon probably, that during the excitement occasioned by the writings of Mr. Miller, and the preaching
of hiinself and his followers, on the second advent, the
author has been often asked for his opinion concerning
the calculations which have produced such extraordinary results. Me was very unwilling to go into the
subject, for two reasons : first, because it would necessarily, for a time, divert his thoughts from the principal
subject of his meditations; and secondly, because the
unerring hand of HIMwho, with regard to the future a41
well a s the past, is his own interpreter, would soon allay
the ferment. But his re-erve and caution were misinterpreted. . Much to his surprise he learned, by letters
from various quarters, that Mr. Miller's preachers had
made use of his name,.and had asserted, to use their o m
language, thnt he "agreed with Mr. Miller in believing
that the visions of Daniel ran out in 1843." He owed it,
therefore, t o himself, and t o the church whose servant
he is, publicly t o contradict the calumny. He did thir,

in the first instance, in a letter to the Rev. D. (3.

Totnlinson, printed in the Church Chronicle and Record
of February 24,1843, and thence copied into the Churchman in April last. The two discourees now published
were delivered, by request, first at Middletown and Portland in Connecticut in March, and subsequently,by request
also, inthe Church of the Annunciation, and StdPaul's and
St. John's Chapels, in New York, on the second and ninth
of Aprilj sooli after which the author was requested
to publish them. He woe unwilling to appear before
the public as the antagonist of a short-lived sect ; and
he therefore complied with the request, only on the
oonditioa of having time allowed him, to prepare an
Appendix on the chronological difficulties to which
reference was made. The labor which this has cost
him will not be regretted, if it preserves his book from
that oblivion to whieh the mere correction of Mr.
Miller's errors would shortly consign it.
In the Appendix, as the reader will perceive, a system
of Chronology is formed which differs, in eome respecte,
from that by which the author was governed in the ex*
mination of Mr. Miller's theory. He trusts that tbe
analysis them given will sufficiently explain his reasons
for the change. But it may not be equally obvious wby
Be did not, in publishing the Sermon6 alter the chronology so as to adapt it to the following part af his work.
It will be seen, too, that, in speaking of the curtailment
of the reign of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat from
*At to jive years, and the introduction of eleven yeus
sf interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah, be has censured Mr. Miller in too unrneaswed
tema These particulars he is bound to explain.
It would certainly have been easier, and perhaps man,
advantageous to tbe author, to h v e made the llteratiov

M y , urd m i t t 4 &he rewure.

been equally aoNssl1

But mould it b e

In preparing the Introductoy volume of hia Eocleriob .

t i 4 History, he hsd carefully avoided reading modem
writers on chronology, for fear of being biassed by their
aystems. For this reason he had never read the l e a d
work of Dr. Hales; and though familiar with Petaviuq
Usher, and Marsham, a good while had elapeed since he
had consulted them on the parts of history connected
with the prophecies. But these great writers being entirely silent as to m y interregnum in the kingdom d
Judah, the existence of such an interregnum was entire
ly a new idea to him. Mr. Miller quoted 2 Kings xiv,
xr., without mentioning the verses from which he drew
the inference ;.and it war not till. the author had read
Dr. Hales' Analysb, that he maw the correctnens of thot
inference. If this admission gives Mr. Miller any advantage he is fairly entitled to it. We cannot for cwre
-meat suppose that he knew anything about Dr. Haler
or his work. As a plain unlettered mu, his ~ ~ * p i y i y! ; ' '
! .,
in reading hie Bible, and his Bible only, is much to him
credit ; and we ought to consider it as giving additional
force to the reasons assigned by Dr. Hales, that an ignorant man, as Mr. Miller confessedly ie, should, from the
mere examination of the Bible, have arrived at the same
conclusion. The censure, Bowever, io the sermon, holds
good with regard to the reign of Jehoram, the son of
Jehoshaphat, 2 Kings viii. 17, 2 Chron. xxi. 5 ; but being
equally applicable to Archbishop Usher, should not have
been laid particularly at Mr. Miller's door. A departure
from the Bible is to be condemned, whether the author
of such departure be learned or unlearned. Mr. Miller
was misled, probably, by the marginal notes in both
places inserted by Bishop Lloyd, doubtless on the Arch-


' ,'


biehop's authority, that Jehoram reigned "in consort

with his father." But this is said without any authority
from the sacred text ;and it only increases the difficulty
of synchronizing the first period of the kings of Judah
'from Rehobonm to Ahaziah the son of Jehoram, with
that of the kings of Israel, if the period be made less
than 95 years. This, upon examination, will be obvious.
The author must not conclude without observing that
the greater part of the Appendix having been written
.daring his absence from home, he could not, till his return, consult the original text and the several versions of
2 Kings xiv. 17, 23, xv. I., 2 Chron. xxv. 25, t o see if
any various readings in the Hebrew text, or any difference as to numbers in the ancient translations, might be
found affecting the subject. H e therefore mentions here,
for the satisfactiou of the English reader, that there are
no such diversities ; and coneequently we must, on the
authority of these passages, admit that there was a
minority of eleven years, between the fifteenth and the
twenty-seventh years of Jerobonm 11. of Israel occurring
In Judah, between the sole reigns of Amaziah and Azariah or Uzziah.

S. F. J.
Jww, 1843.

"Nihil ut facilins, i h tolerandam minu8 eat, q u b in antiqninsimor

E eontruio
re16 nihil ant consnltins ant magis optandurn est qnam ut veterum
anctoritati fideique tribuamun plurimum: nee ab erl, nisi evidrnti,
eimia planeqne necessariia veritatis indiciia admoniti convictiqne rsesdamusa~-Pefta~~iu
& Docttiw) Temporum, Lib. x. c. 2.

scriptores erroris nostri culpam inscitimque trmderrc.

Nothing is easier, or lee8 to be tolerated, than to transfer the fd

of our own error and ignorance to ancient writers. On the otha
lund, nothing is more wine or more ardently to be desired, than to
pay the highest deference to their authority and fidelity, and never
to d
e from that authority, unlesa admonished and convinced by
Ihe moat evident and phinly neeesspry indiutiom oftruth.

a We have aba a more

of prophecy; w!meunto ye do
well that ye tJrc heed, M unto a light h t rbinath in a dark place,
until the day dam, and the day-rtar d e in y m hcaN : Ksming
this first, that no prophap of the mriptura h of an^ private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the rill of
man : but holy me. of Ood apake aa they were moved by the Holf


TEEsecond Epistle of St. Peter was probably written

at Rome aRer the death of St. Paul, and certainly a very
short time before his own. This he expressly declares
in the 14th verse of this chapter, in assigning the motives for hi writing. It was written therefore in the
latter part of the reign of Nero, and not more than four
years before the destruction of Jerusalem. It was addressed to the same Christian communities to whom he
had sent hi first Epistle; namely, to the Jewish Christians scattered in the Provinces of Asia Minor, lying
along the Euxine or Black Sea. The object of it was,
to give them, and through them, all the members of
God's Church till the end of time, hia dying charge to
make their calling and election sure, and to prepare, by
the practice of all the Christian gifts and graces, for the
second coming of their Lord.




Some have supposed, from the time in which the

Apostle wrote, that when he q a k e of "the power and
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ," he meant to indicate
merely the approaching termination of the Jewish Commonwealth. Bu$ though he may have had that event
in view as the beginning of those judgments which are
to overtake all the enemies of Christ, yet it is much more
consonant with the purposes for which revelation was
given, and more consistent with the whole tenor of
Scripture, to believe that his ultimate scope was the
*ble and personal appearing of o w Lord in glory. I
cannot conceive that anything short of this was eon&&
ent with the long duration, the gradual progress, an? the
wide extent of the Mediatorial kingdom. As a dying
man, therefore, writing not for the men of that age alone,
but for the whole Church, even to the time of the Second
Advent, the Apostle solemnly declares the truth of his
own testimony. He could not be deceived himself, and
he could not and would not deceive the Church of God.
tc W e have not. followed cunningly-devised fables, when
we made known unto you the power and coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty,"*-namely,
the m4esty, as the two following
verses show, which the Apostle himself saw on the holy
mount of the transfiguration.
If it be askedrwhat connection that glorious vision
had with the second coming of the Lord Jesus, we answer that it took place exactly one year before the
kindred glories of the Ascension ; that it was designed
to prepare the minds of his disciples, not only for his
death, but for his resurrection and return to his ante* 2 Peter, i. 16.



mundane glory ; and that to Peter, in common with all

who witnessed the a~cension,the angelic teiltimony was
given, that the " some J d ' would " so come in lilce
manner as" they had '' seen him go into heaven."*
His personal testimony as to the mamm and majesty
of our lord'^ eecond coming being thus given, the
Apostle proceeds, in the language of the text, to p r e
gent another argument on the same subject of a mod
exalted and convincing nature. It is no less than thii
that the Spirit of God hath spoken of that glorious
event by the mouth of his holy prophets."t " We
have ah," Be says, a most sure prophetic word to
which ye do well to give earnest attention." He c o n
pares it to a lamp which burneth in the squalid darknets
(for that is the meaning of the term) of the present life;
and he a s s i p two reasons why all Christians should
give such earPlest heed to it. The h t is, becaw,in the
language of our translation, we know " that no prophecy
of the Scripture is of any private interpretation." The
second is, that prophecy did not proceed from human will,
but from the motions of the Holy Ghost.
The words "private interpretation" in the English
Bible, are in some measure of doubtful meaning, and have
therefore been the occasion of oontroversy. The word
rendered ''private" literally signifies " thad which bdonga
to om's d f k m e ' s own ;"
and the word rendered " interpretation" is a figure derived from the loosing or untying
of a knot. Literally translated therefore, the expression
means that Prophecy is not of 2 s own untying. Some
commentators have given to the whole of the verse, the
comt~ction,that the prophets t h d r e s were ignord
Acts, i. 11.


Luke, i. 70.

of the true sense of the prophecie~which they uttered.

'Phis they think m required by the following verse : "For
prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but
holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy
Ghosti" There can be no question that the Prophets understood what they uttered only so far as the Holy Ghoat
vouchsaEed to interpret his own meaning. But I apprehend that the text means much more than this ; and that
in fact the p a r a p h e contained in one of the ancient
Knowing this finat that
versions* gives the true sense.
all prophecy of the Scripture doea not solve its iwn
sense." Now this is a very important d o n ; for it
dearly distinguishes the *en=
between prophecy and
all other inspired compositions. In those parts of Holy
Scripture, for example, whioh are argumentative, as the
Epistle to the Hebrews, or that of St. Paul to the Romans, not only did the inspired writer himseIf understand
what he uttered, but the words uttered are also to be
explained by the ordinary d e s of criticism, and therefore contain their interpretation within themselves. Not
ro with prophecy. " You are especially to undemtand,"
mys St. Peter, " that all prophecy of the Scripture is
not made of its own untying." It is mot so framed as to
afford the solution of its own sense. To obtain a clear,
literal, exact knowledge of the wards of a prophecy is
indeed very important. But whea we have done this,
we may have advanced but a very small step towards
the understanding of the prophecy. It can be solved
only by the coming of those events which it was intended
to foreshadow. The very connection between its meaning and the occurreme of the events by which it is

solved, shows, not only that the prophet h k l f did not

fully understand what he was saying, but a h that hois
thoughts must of necessity have been dictated by the
Holy Ghost; because no man urould d e what he did
not and could not understand, unless he w e moved to do
so by a power superior to his o w n d l .
Such is the hue, because it is the literad meaning of
this important text. It is not a leno meaning adopted to
serve a purpose, or e o n h a theory. If it were, I ahauld
have been m e of the last t~ propose it to yon. It is
nearly as old as the Epistle itself; for it occurs in tbe
most ancient versions.
Tbe words of the text being thus examined so far w
it was necessary to elucidate their meaning, we will
proceed to their subject, which is

And in considering this mbjeot, the text oonfinea out

m. TO iTs mTEm ; am
May that &me Blessed Spirit who dictated these
prophecies, and who now presides over the Church, in
the absence of her Lord, as her present though invisible
Comforter and Advocate-may that same Blessed Spirit
be our guardian against the errors of rash, and ignorant,
and presumptuous expounders of his word ! May he
keep us t6&adfast in faith, joyful through hope, and


' ' ... '1

!: '


' .

mtPd in charity !"* May he shine in ow hearta,tu give

ua the light of the glory of God, in the face of Jef~le
Christ ! -t

On this point I shall say but little, because I am not

arguing with Infidels, but addressing myself to a Chistian aongregation, who, I am w i h q to believe, &
the Scriptures t h e d v e s , and are anxious to understand
them rightly.
The text assures us that the prophets spakc as they
were moved by the Holy Ghat." But God is not a
man that he should lie ; neither the son of man that he
ahould repent : hith he said, and shall he not do it ? or
hath he spoken,and shall he not make it good ?'Y Therefore the prophetic word is most sure, and will as certainly come to pass as it is certain that God is true.
m e n S t Peter wrote his epistle, the Apocalypse or
Revelation of St. John was not written. There was aa
intend between them of about thuty years. But as
the Revelation claims to be a divinely-inspired prophecy ;
aa that claim has been a d d e d by the C h d from the
b q p m g ; as it has the same internal marks of truth
as the other Scriptures ; and its analogies are all in perfect harmony with the other prophetical writings; it
comes withim the scope of St. Peter's declaration, and is
therefore to be received as the sure and certain language
of the Holy Ghost.
All arguments against the certainty of prophecy proceed from an evil heart of unbelief; and as extremes
)2 Corinthimm, iv. 6.

4 Numbers, xxiii.


meet, theae arguments are sometimes heard h m the disappointed enthusiast, as well as from the impure scoffer.
The enthusiast who has persuaded himself that his computations are infallible, doubts the truth of the revelation, because it doea not aecord with his fanciea Tbe
scoffer derides God's solemn promises because they came
not within the compass of his own personal experience.
The conduct of both proceeds from the cormpt pride and
licentious exercise of human reason ; and St. Peter, as if
he foresaw both these classes of men, warns us in the
sequel of this Epistle, against both. He tells us in the
second chapter, that as there were false prophets among
the Jews, so also shall there be false teachers among Christians, (including, of course, false interpreters of pmphecy), on whose account the way of tmth shall be evil
spoken of." He warnsus also, in the third chapter, that
there shall come in the last days scoffers, wallung a h
their own lusts, and saying, where is the promise of his
coming ? for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of creati,m.''t
To such he answers, in allusion, it may well be supposed,
to the language of our Lord's own admonition,$ by analogies from the fa~ciedsecurity of the wicked before the
Deluge ; and, like the prophet Malachi to the scoffers of
his time, he a~8ureathem that the Eternal changes not,
and that his very delay is an act of l o n g d e r i n g and
mercy. Distance of time makes no difference in the
truth of God's declarations-with
him one day is as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.11 The
t 2 Pet. iii. 3, 4.
2 Pet. ii. 1, 2.
$ Matt. u i v . 37-44 ; Luke, xvii. 26,27 ; 2 Pet. iii. 5-7.
5 Md. iii. 6, which is an ~ 8 -to the d of the wicked k
U 2 Pet. iii. 8, 9.
chap. ii. 17.

Apostle ends his Epistle, therefore, with an exhortati~ll

that they willnot suffer the taunts of 8coiFers or the ignm
rance of those who wrest the Scriptures to their own
destruction, to make them fall from their s t e a d h b e ~ . .
With thase few observations on the certainty of p
phecy, I proceed to consider, in the second place,

God's word in general is a lamp unto our &et and a

light unto our path.+ During the darkness of this mortal life it is necessary that we may guide our feet and
employ our hands aright ; but in the Heavenly Jerusalem there shall be no night, and they need no candle,
neither light of the sun ; for the Lord God giveth them
light. The glory of God will lighten that city, and the
Lamb will be the light thereof.1 The use, then, of all
Holy Scripture is confined to the present life. The
same figure is in the text applied to prophecy. It is a
lamp burning in a dark place, until the day dawn, and
the morning-star shall arise in our hearts." The figure
itself denotes all that need be said concerning the use of
prophecy. It is a lamp shining, not merely in a dark
place, as we from the poverty of our language are
obliged to translate it. For the word employed by St.
Peter is one of much greater force. It denotes a place of
filth in which the working of the mass of corruption
beneath, sends up continually foul and noxious exhalatim which render the atmosphere gross and heavy. In
such an atmosphere a lamp burns dimly and with diffi2 Pet. iiL 10-18.

1Rev. u i i . 5, and xxi. 23.

culty ; the more dimly where there is the mart c m p

tbn; the *ore brightly where the noxious exhalatiom

are fewest. Whether St. Peter had or had not in his

thoughts our Lord's parable of the ten virgins, that parable will aptly illustrate hie meaning. The two c
of persons there described as having lamps are the religious and the irreligious; for wisdom, in the language
of the Scriptures, denotes reLgion, and folly irreligion.
The wise are righteous; the foolish are wicked. And
now let us see how these two clesses of p m n a use their
You will observe that the lamp of the prophetic word
is given equally to both. The Holy Scriptures are not
locked up, or confined to a few ; and although the prophecies are not by any read and studied as much as they
ought to be, because they do not contain their own solution, yet any man, however unlearned, if he is constant
in attending the miniistations of the C h w h , cannot fail,
with a proper degree of attention, to become familiar
with the language and the general sense of the moat
important predictions concerning the corning of our Lord
Jesus Christ.
But there is this difference between the situation of
these two classes. The wise are aware of the noxious
S u e n c e of sin. They know that by nature we are in a
state of moral pollution which causea the word of ~ d tod
burn dimly. They strive, therefore, by avoiding the society of wicked persons, by prayer, by meditation, by
watchfiess, and especially by the use of all those meam
of grace which God hath appointed in hk Church, to
overcome the corrupting influences of sin. From theae
causes alone the Sight of prophecy is to them' dearer

than it can be to the fooliih. " The light of the righteous," saith Solomon, '' rejoiceth : but the lamp of the
wicked shall be put out."*
The righteous, however, as well as the wicked, dwell
in the world, and must suffer, in a greater or less degree,
from the gr0ssn.s~ of it8 atmosphere. From its influences, and the frailties of our mortal nature, they, as wen
~ r the
foolish, slumber and sleep. None are so FPide
awake, and so watchful, as they ought to be. Nevertheless, they do not always slumber ; but arise from time
to time and trim their lamps, heedful of the danger of
letting them burn dimly, and knowing that if not constantly trimmed, the corrupt influences of the world may
put them out. The foolish, on the other hand, slumber
on, utterly regardless of their lamps, and utterly unconcerned at the danger of being left in total darkness.
There is another diinguishing characteristic in the
conduct of the wise and the foolish. The oil with which
the lamp of prophecy is fed is knowledge. The text
mums us that prophecy does not solve its own sense.
The knowledge of God's moral government of the universe can alone untie its meaning. That knowledge
can be obtained only from the patient study of history as
to what i$ past, and a devout, and serious, and heedful
attention to the occurrences of the portentous present.
But in the etdy of history, or in thk contemplation of
that mighq diorama which is now passing by us on the
world's theatre, men look with very dierent eyes according as they are religious or irreligious. In the eontemplation of events whether past or present, the wise
tax csnstantly the hand of God, directing all things acPmv. xiii. 9.

cording to the counsel of his will, and making the passions, and the interests, and even the mimes and the follies of men subservient to the great purpose of establishing his own eternal kingdom. The foolish, on the contrary, confine their view only to second causes. The
judgments of God are far above out of their sight.. They
see not:that the whole h i r y of mankind, in the ages
antecedent to the first coming of Christ, was intended to
for that event ; and that since his first coming
the whole series of history Bas, in like manner, been .
directed preparatory to his second coming. They see
not, that the raising up or casting down of empires, of
Babylon, of Peraia, af Greece, or of Rome, were all parts
of one mighty plan, to bring men for salvation to the
Redeemer's cross ; nor that the irruption of the northern
barbarians, the destruction of old and the founding of
new kingdoms, the successes of the false prophet in the
&, or of the papacy in the west, the discovery of the new
continent, the revolutions of Germany, the convulsions of
France and Spain, the civilisation of Russian hordes, the
vast extension of British power, and the wide-spreading
intluence of the American Republic, are only so many
linLs in tee chain of causes aml effect. with which are
connected the second coming of our Lord and the triumph
of the Church in glory. Here then is the difference between these two claases ; the one seeking continually to
panr in#newknowledge into the lamp of prophecy that
it may burn brighter and brighter ; the other, from iinbelief, neglecting the acquisition and the application ofthat
knowledge, and suffering the lamp almost to expire for
want of feeding it with its proper nutriment.

But on this subject there is another and a moat important consideration. A11 the members of the two c l a w
whom I have dwribed are not competent of thenaselves
to obtain or to dispense this knowledge. It p l e d God
therefore to make a special provision for this purpose ;
before the first coming of Christ, by the Patriarchal and
the Levitical priesthood; after the first, and until the
eecond coming, by the Christian prieethood. Hence
when the voice of prophecy ceased before anr ~
h t corning, the latest of the prophets was inspired to
direct the people to the priesthood, and to lay upon the
priesthood that newwiry burden : " The priest's lip
should keep knowledge, a d they should seek the law
at his mouth : for he is the Messenger of the L o s ~of
. HoskMS And accordingly, when the Eastern Sages
demanded at Jerusalem where Christ should be born,
Herod thought not of applying to any other source, but
4r gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people
togetherw+ to inspect the prophecies and answer the
question. So also in the Christian Church the same
responsible duty is assigned by our Lord to those whom
he hath appointed. In that remarkable chapter in which
the nature of his kingdom is illustrated by so many and
such various similitudes, (I mean the thirteenth of
St. Matthew), after adking his disciples if they understood his meaning, he added what is in fact an awful.
admonition of the duties as well as the privileges of the
Christian priesthood ; Therefore every scribe which is
instructed unto the kingdom of Heaven is like unto a
man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of
his treasure things new and OM."$ The priesthood are

called " to be messengem, watchmen and stewards of the

Lord ; to teach and to premoniah, to feed and provide
for the Lord's family."+ Such is God's arrangement ;
and the wise members of his Church, who are not able
to acquire by their own learning and observation that
knowledge by which the prophecies can be explained,
will apply for it to those whom God hath appointed to
Ehspense from the storehouse of his C M , things new
and old, which it is their dutg constantly to lay up for
the uae of the Lord's family. But what, on the other
hand, is the conduct of the f d i s h ? Forgetfd of God's
positive injunations to ga to hi appointed ministers ; forgetful of our Lord's warning that many should come in
his name and deceive many; forgetful of the prohibitions not to go fortb from the Church which is God's
city, into the wilderness, nor fiom the Church which is
M ' s home, into the secret chambers ; they rush forth
at every cry of " lo, here is Christ, or lo, there," and seek
to trim the lamp of prophecy, with the f h knowledge
of .every ignorant and uncomrnissioned pretender.
w e w a s , one of the great uses of prophecy is to binh
men to that Church which God himself hath declared to
be the pillar and ground of the truth. The oil of know-.
ledge must be pure, not tbick and viscid, if we would
have the light burn brightly: ; and therefore men should
seek for it where Ged hath ordered it to be distributed.
By a wmparison of the expositions of prophecy which
hkve been made at variotls times in God's Church we
are enabled to see how far in every age it has been 11Bled and understood The gradual uafolding of events
rend& that intelligible which was
obscure; and
O h h r the odhrioP of priatu.

' 9

thm we are brought onward by insensible approachw


towards the dawn, having enough of light to increase

our faith, and enough obmdty to keep it in constant

exercise. This will be more properly amsidered under
our third head,

I have already remarked that all the prophecies mag be

ranged u~dertwo heads ; the one intended to prep,iwe
for our Lord's k t coming, the other h r his a e c d coming ; the one vmchsafed to the Patriarchal and LeoiticaI
dispensations, the other designed more especially for the
Christian Church. Now, by considering the manner in
which the first opered, we may safely infer how the
last should operate.
No sooner had the darkness begun by the sin of Adam
&=the lamp of prophecy was lighted. The Saviour
was announced as the seed of the woman; and the promise was given, that the great qiritual enemy who had
deprived them of the hght of Ged's countenance, should
by that seed be overcome. But when, m how, or by
whom, all this should be effeded,they hew not. The
lamp burnt dimly because the oil of knowledge was h
scantily bestowed. There wtrs just enough of light to
kindle hope in their hearts, and to keep them fram despair, but not enough to do away the d a d m s , or, as if
their sin had been slight or trrffing; to make them prewuae upon God's mercy.
Ingratitude to God, adiqmsitit9nto dieobey his will, and
s desire to substitute the saveteignty of the creattve fir
that of the Creator, are the c h ~ e ~ ofcfallen
s man.
Hence proceeded the denial of God, and the'varied forma


of idolatry. The foolish heart of man was darkened, the

oil of knowledge was not sought, and to all save only to
one family the light was quenched in tbe horrors of a
watery deluge.
With Noah and the patriarchal church the lamp of
prophecy was rekindied ; but in less than four hundred
years, mankind had again turned from the hght, to walk
in the darkness of idolatry and moral corruption. God
.chose the faithful Abraham to keep alive the flame, adfering it gradually to expire among the surrounding
Even thew special mercia were long ineffectual. A
conatant succession of prophets,.by whom the Lord waa
pleased to make bare bisl arm, did not cure the chosen
people even of the sin of idolatry, until they had suffered
the terrible c-ent
of a national captivity. From
that time y e read not of any inclination among the inhabitanbs of Judah to serve the gods of the nations, and
therefore the lamp of prophecy concerning the coming of
the promised seed was then made to burnwith a brighter
and more steady W e . The time in which the promised Redeemer should come began to be calculated.
The expectation of the near approach of that time,
founded on the pmphecies, became general. And thus we
er-t once presented with a clear and distinct view of
the intent for which those prophecies were given, which
bqan with the Babybaish captivity and ended with the
W i g of the second temple. It was not to give men
a definite knowledge of futurity. It was not to enable
&em to say exactly in what year the Christ would come,
or the exact manner of his coming. If it had been, the
very purpose of these ~rephecieswould have been
defeated. For St.Paul aqpa that " none of the princes

of this world knew the wisdom of God a mystery ;for

had they known it they mid nat have c r u d e d the Lord
of g l o ~ - Y . ' ~What more apt k r i p t i o n of prophecy
could there be, than the expression here used by the
Apostle, " The soisdom of God in a mystery ?" n e
princes of thii world fulfilled the prophecies because t h e
did not understand them. There was enough of light to
make them sure that the time was at hand for Christ's
coming. They knew that the prophetic weeks of Dania
were drawing near to their clooe. They knew from
Haggai+ and Malachif that the Lord whom they eought
would suddenly come to that very temple &en shxdimg.
And they might have known from Daniel4 that the Mea
mah should be cut ofF, and the city and sanctuary destroyed. But the clear meaning of these prophecia war
proved only by the events ; and even now, m e as we
are of the time when our Lord first came, there is p a t
in deciding when the seventy wwkg t~fDaniel
began and ended, and what is the preck meaning of the
whole of that remarkable prebiction. Yet this obscurity,
and tbis utter impossibility, did not hinder the holy Sirneon,
the devout Anna, and all that looked for redemption in
Jerusalem, from inquiring diligently what the Spirit
ohould mean. And it deservm our especial consideration
that the Holy Ghost rewarded the righteousness and
piety and earnest desire for knowIedge of holy Sieon,
by revealing to him that he should not die before he had
seen the Lord's Christ. Yet, if the weeks of Daniel
ended, as some have thought, with our Lord's crucifudon,
or as others have imagined, at the destruction of the city
and temple by the hmans, the prediction of the Holy


1 Cor. ii. 7, 8.

# Mal. iii. 1.

Rag. ii: 7, 9..

ix. 2&

4 DM.

Ghost was Mlled to Sirneon more than seventy, or at

the earliest calculation, more than thirty yeads before the
rneventy weeks were t e m h t e d . Here then is the most
certain evidence that the intention of prophecy was to
keep men perpetually on the watch, on account of the
spry u n d t y as to the time of it4 fulfilment. Any
absdute certainty would have defeated the very design
for which it was given. There was IIght enough to e m ble all pious believers under the old dispensation to h o w '
about the time for the first d n g of Christ, provided they
sought for the pure oil of knowledge where God ordered
them to seek it, and then were careful to keep their l a m p
trimmed and b l l ~ ~ l g g .
The same order which the Holy Ghost observed in
preparing for the first coming of our Lord, is now plainly visible, in the preparation for @ second coming. In
t h e New Testament there are prophecies added to the
Old ; by our Lord himaelf in the gospels ; by the Apostles Pad, James, Peter, Jude and John in their Epistles ;
and especially by the last named Apostle in the ApocaIypse or Revdatiou. All have reference to this last age+
last generation, period, or dispensation ; all of which
are only vario1~9terms to denote the duration of the
Christian Church, from the &st coming of our Lord in
the flesh, till his second coming in glorious majesty.
We see in these propheciea, the same designed obscurity which existed under the old dispensation ; and that
precisely for the same object,-namely,
to rouse our
attention, to excite our faith in God's overruling providence, to animate our hopes, to encourage our exertions,
but not to gratify our curiosity, or enable us to anticipate
the future.
An irregular desire of knowledge was the occasion of

xum's fall. It is therefore the design of God to b d e

us unto the acknowledgment of His infinite power and
wisdom, and our own utter ignorance atld ins-ncy.
We are required to walk by faith, not by sight ; to p
rese our sonls in patience; to work oat our salvation
with fear and trembling ; and to watch and pray because
we know not the h m of our Lord's coming. To m h
known that hour cumea not within the wmmhion of our
Lord as the head of the Mediatorial kingdom; for he
himself hath said '.Of that day and thpt hour knoweth
(a Hebrew expremion meaning d d h known) no m a ,
no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the Son,
but the Father.".
He tells hia disciples the apecia
reason for this mystery. ''Take ye heed, watch and
pray ; for ye know not when the time is." And he a&
tbe solemn declaratiop that this mystery must continue
'even to the end : "What I say unto you, I say unto all,
The premature diaclowve of the exact time of our
Lord's second coming not be'q the purpose or intent of
the pmphetic word, let us proceed to consider, in the
bur& and last place,

ARer what has heen raid of the certainty, use and

intent of prophecy, little need be added concerning its
importance. When God speaks to his creatures " by the
mouth of his holy prophets''-the
mesage must be
Important. Whether we can or cannot understand it,
makes no difti3rence. If not understood, it is the greater
Muk, xi&.





But ita importance to us is to be

measured by the duties it imposes ; and these will he
best considered if we divide them into the duties of the
Clergy and of the Laity.
The duties of the Clergy grow out of their office ia
the Church ofGod as Stewards and as Watchmen.
As Stewards it is their duty to keep knowledge ; not
merely that learning which enabla them to d&stand
the text of Scriptare, but a knowledge of past histoq
and a Chkdan view of the present. It cannot be
expected that all God's ministers should be equally
learned; but the karning ought to exist somewhere-;
and it is the duty of the Church to see that it be as niuch
as possible. The appointed Steward brings forth
h m the treasures which the Lord hath put into hit^
keeping things new and old. He studies the prophecia
in their original tongue; he examines the ancient and
modem transIations; he searchea the interpretation
which has been made of them from age to age. In this
way, he is enabled to know all that the m n and
learning of antecedent ages have been able to effect Not
content with this merely, he consults the pages of sacred
and profane history ; he weighs conflicting testimony ;
he examines accutately the dates on which the computations of prophecy are founded. As the course of events
can alone unlock the meaning of prophecy, he marks
the workings of God's moral government of states and
mtions, and compares with them the language of prophecy; not with the view of establishing some favorite
theory, but of determining if possible how far the mystery can be clearly solved, and how far it is yet impene
trable. All this is done, not for himself pemnalfy, h t
for all those whom God hath entnlsted to his care.

trial of our faith.


As a watchman his duty is twofold ; first, " to banish

and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contray to God's word ;"* and slecoodly, to warn and
exhort the faithful to prepare for the second corning of
their Lord.
The dutiea of the laity proceed also from t$el:station
in the Church of God. That portion of it to which we
belong, puts into the hande of the humblest and the ma&
ignorant of her children, the precious word of God as a
lamp that burneth ; but avoiding too much deference to
Buman authority on the one hand, and too little regad
for the d o m of past ages on the other, she requLee
them to seek for knowledge of those who have been set
over them in the Lord. It is a fearful and a perilous
t$ing;when men usurp an office which doee not belong
to them, and for which they are not qualified. "My
Brethren," says St. James, " be not many masters, knowing that ye &all receive the greater condemnation."
The office of ao Interpr*
of God's word ia one of
ewhl responsibility. He must not only keep his own
lamp trimmed and burning, but he mast also provide for
the many who seek at his mouth that pure knowledge
which maketh them wise unto salvation. Who does nd
tremble at the thought that his ignorance may cause
their light to be extinguished !
Followers of Jesus Christ, ye are standing with the
light of prophecy in your handa The stewards of God's
mysteries are continually by his command enablmg yoa
to keep it trimmed and burning. The watchmen on the
walls of God's city are ansiously looking wt for the
dawn and the rising of the morning star. The night is
Office for the ordination of priests.

fk spent; the day ia at hand. It is high time to

awake out of sleep. Whether surprised by death or by
judgment is to you the same t h q . Such as ye are at
the close of life, such will ye be in the morning of the
qpwrection. In either case, YP mow N(IF TBE MY ~VOI


On comparing thie sennoa with the Appendix, the reader will obrerve that some of the dates in the sermon are not the same as those
in the Appendix. The separation of the ten tribes, for example, ie
#aid in the sermon to have taken place 975 years before Christ ;
wherean in the Appendix it ie computed to have been 988 yeam before the common Christian era. The reason of this difference iq
that in the sermon the author followed the computations of Petavim
.nd Usher; whereas in the Appendix he has gone over all the calculation~himaelf, with the advantage of being able te consult the
chronology of Dr. Hales. Where these eminent chmnologers differ,
be has examined their authorities, and assigned his reasone for his

S E R M O N 11.

I6Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jest18

Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not !loon
shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by epirit, nor by word, nor
by letter w from ue, as that the day of Chriat is at hand."

JT appears that some expressions used by St. Paul in

his first Epistle to the Church in Thessalonica had been
misinterpreted, as if he meant to say that the second
coming of our Lord Jesus Christ was then shortly to
takeplace. This error had been. eagerly seized upon
by certain false teachers, in order to produce a great excitement among their hearers; and by various artifices,
such as raising reports of words uttered by the Apostle,
or of letters received from him, and even by pretending
to divine inspiration, these teachers had actually unsettled
@e minds of many, and induced some to forsake the
employments by which they supported themselves and
their families, and thus to walk disorderly. This is evident from the various admonitions contained in this
Epistle, especially in the last chapter ; but it is briefly
expressed in the second verse of the text. For the word
rendered " shakm" is a figure taken from the tassing of
a ship at anchor by a violent gale of wind ; and being

" shaken in hid" signifies the being dragged as it were

from the anchorage of a sound understanding. The
term rendered a troubled" means also that sort of bewilderment occasioned by sudden surprise, or grief, or terror,
which unfits men to " work with quietness, and eat their
own bread."+ The Apostle therefore addressed to them
this second Epistle exhorting them by that very coming
of oqr Lord, which to all true Christians would be a day
of rejoicing, because they would then be gathered together unto Christ, not to d e r any pretepca to spiritual
illumination, or any false reports of what he had said or
written to throw them into this state of frenzy. " We
beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord J e m
C k i t , and by our gathering together unto him, that ye
be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by
spirit, nor by word, nor by letter, as from us, as that the
day of Christ is at hand." He then warns them not to
let any man deceive them, and to prevent their being
deceived, he adds that most remarkable prophecy concerning the grand apostasy and the coming of the Man of
Sin, which most Protestant commentators apply to Papal
Rome, but which the Romanistq consider as yet unfulsled, and as &rring to some future Antichristian or
M d e l power.
It desemea to be remaized here, that m the subsequent
history of the Christian Church, two periods are mentioned in which the same panic terrom existed ; the first,
in the fifth century, the second, in the tenth. In the
6fth century occurred that period of desolation and woe
which a great hietorion has p r o n o l d to be the most
dPmitwa in the p r o p of huaffairs. The irmp
4 T h d a n i a ~ iii.
, 12.




tion of the Northern Barbarians was compared by cont e m p o r q writers to the havoc oc~aaioned by earthquakes, conflagrations, and deluges.' This led to the
persuasion that the 70 weeks of Daniel, or the period of
490 years, was to precede the second, and not the iht
coming of Christ ; and that the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet was, only for a short space
of time, to precede the general judgment. We have
still existing a curious correspondence between St. Augustin and Hesychius, a B i o p of Dalmatia, carried 'on
about 420 years after our Saviour's birth, in which the
very same arguments are employed on either side, as are
now employed on the same subject : only with this dif*
ference, that Hesychius did not pretend to compute
exactly the day or the year of our Lord's second coming,
while Augustin quoted the words of our present text and
the subsequent prophecy concerning the Man of Sin
whom he took to be Antichrist, to show that the end
was not yet.+
It does not appear whether this opinion had many
followers ; but in the tenth century a very general e i c
prevailed, from a mistaken interpretation of that passage
in the Revelatiom in which it is foretold that Satan, who
had been bound, as they supposed, at our Lord's first
coming, should, at the end of a thousand years, again be
let loose for a little season, and then should follow the
general judgment. This opinion spread 4 a dly ovei
Europe, and gained universal credit.
A general consternation seized mankind ; many relinquished their p c # ~
sessions ; d abandoning their friends and families,
Robertson's Charlw V., see. 1, V O ~ .i. p. 9.
t ~ n g a ~. p . ed.
, Ben. Antaerp. ~ o m ii.
. c. W . ~ ~ i sIt W
. ,I i.

bunjed with precipitation to the Hdy Land, where they

bagined that C;brist WQ* quickly appear to judge the
I need not tell you that a d a r panic is now spreading through our own cowtry, founded, as those were
which I have mentioned, upon fanciful interpretations of
the prophecia I call them fanciful, because they
unsupported by W r i c truth, and violate (from ignerance, I bust, and oat fro91 design) the me*
intent of Holy Scripture.
It will be expected from me that I s h d prove thew
grave chargee ; but to do that fully would require a volume, aad not a single lecture. Bold assertions and inaccurate mmputations are easily made and oecupy but little space. To shqw that they are unfounded and fallacious, requires a great deal of practical labor, and carew
and minute examination. From this I would willingly
rave both you and myself. Happily the b e is short,
and events will soon show where the mistake lies. To
abridge the argument, I shall confine your attention to
the great points in which the computations of Mr. Mill- are extravagant or defective. We will consider as
admitted, that in prophetic language a day is often pbt
6r a year ; that a month consists of thwty days and is
put for thrty solar years; and consequently that t d ~ e
qronths or 360 prophetic days mean so many solar
years. We will admit, that in the prophecies of Daniel,
a week stands far seven solar yeam ; and that a time,
limes, and the dimding of time, means three and a half
~ 0 - 9 ~ ~ Charlee V., see. 1, vol. i. p. 21.

w,vol. ii. p. 218.

HJlrm's Middle

Ed.Paris. Far a fnllw ~ C E O I I Isee

~ ~ Moabeim

cent. X., V. ii. ch. iii. see. 3.


~ ~ ~ d s c a o s w ~ ~ o35a n .

ppopktic years, equivalent to 42 month, 1260 days or

aa many solar years. It will follow from these ad&
mons &at the double of this sum,or the perfect number
seven times or years, would in the language of Daniel
denote 2620 solar years. Let ua admit all this,and then
let us proceed to consider the superstructure which Mr.
Miller has b d t upon this foundation.
The three great points to which I shall confine your
attention are,
I. That the punbhent of God's &am people was
to co~tinuemven prophetic times, or 2520 y e m :
IL That the 2300 prophetic days of Daniel are
to be computed ae beginning with the 70 weeks and
ending in this present year : and,
IIL That the present year completes the six tbousandth year of the world, and therefore that the seven
thomandth period, m great Millennia1 Sabhath, is now
about to begin.


To prove that Qod'e chosen people were to be punished seven prophetic times or 2520 years, Mr. Miiler relies
priacipally on the 26th chapter of Levitim. God there
denounces a curse on the nation of Israel if they should.
break his commandments ; and after threatening them
with the eore judgments of famine, pestilence and war,
he adds (v. 18), a And if ye will not yet fbr all this
hearken unto me, then I will punish you sawn tima
mare for your sins." These seven tirnea Mr. Miller
understands ae seven prophetic times or 2620 years, aad
then proceeds to &ate
80 as to make them end in

I shill hope to show you that even if his interpretation were right (which it certainly is not) it would not
help his theory; for it would prove too much, and it
would not agree with his dates.
It would in the first place prove too much ; for
threatening of seven times is repeated in the 2 h t , 24th
and 28th verses. A series of judgments are denounced ;
begmmng with the declaration, if ye will not be reformed, then I will punish you seven times more. If the first
seven would not reform, God would inflict the second
a v e n ; if the second seven would not reform, he would
idid the third seven ; if the third seven proved in&&taal, he would inflict the fourth. Here then there are
at least four sevens, or twenty-eight prophetic times,
amounting to ten thousand and eighty years. This
threat, according to Mr: Miller's chronology, could not
have been made earlier than B. c. 1643 ; and if it had'
begun to operate immediately there would still be
remaining in this present year 6594 years of punishment ! !!
But let us allow what he assumes, that in these successive threatahgs, only one period of seven prophetic
times is meant ; the next question arises, when did thk
period begin, and when will it end ?' Mr. Miller answers
that it ends in 1843, and consequently began B. c. 677.
In that year, he saps, Manasseh kmg of Judah was carried captive to Babylon, and the ten tribes were also
oarried away by Barhaddon. All this is easily said;
snd to pemns who take his assertions without examination, they appear very plausible. But I scruple not b
m r t that he cannot prove one word of what he has so
confidently uttered. If you will attentively examine the
26th chapter of Leviticus you will see that the judg-

menta threatened are progfessive. Those of the h t

m e n times consist m breaking the pride of their pmer
and rendering their land barren; the second, in the
increase of their internal and domestic calamities; the
thW,in the invasion of foreign foes, the acourge of peetiience, and their subjugation to theii enemies; the
fourth, in the infliction of still more dreadful punkbenb,
mch as eating the fleah of their own children to appease
the cravings of hunger, the destruction of their sanctuaries, the scattering them among the heathen, and their
utter national debasemenk Behold in these prophetic
warnings the history of the nation, fblfilled and fullilling
even before our own eyes. But the breaking of their
power commenced as early as the death of Solomon, and
the revolt of the Ten Tribes. Both events took place,
es the best chronologers agree, B. c. 976. From that
period h a e l and Judah were constantly punished with
increasing judgments. Israel, as being the worst and
the most incorrigible, finally became extinct as a nation
in the mnth year of their king Hoshea, a. c. 721: having continued as a separate kingdom, 280 years. Jadeh
taok no waning fiom this dreadful catastrophe, and
h d y , therefore, shared the same fate under Zedekiah,
about 133 years later ; that is, according to Petavius, B.
c. 589, according to Abp. Usher, B. c. 588, or a year
iater. The ten tribes never returned, and to this day no
one knows their fate. Judah, being less guilty, was
restored after a captivity of seventy years, and continued
to exist as a nation until the year 70 after C W , when
the ~ e ~ o nsanctuary
was destroyed, and all the evils
cpme again upon the nation which they had &ed


when the first temple w8e burned. YOU have only 6a

mad the History of Josephus in-connection with yoBiblea to see that God's threa$&ge in Leviticus were
fuIjiIIed even to the letter. Precisely the euentsrmrded
from the 28th to the 39th verses of the 26th chapter,
events which none but Omniscience could predict, came
p pass at htJ~those periods, though in a more awihl
degree at the last than at the finst. Now if we date from
s. c. 975, as the beginning of their punishment, the 2520
years must have ended in the year of our Lord 1E46 ; if
from the extinction of the ten tribes B. C. 721, they mu$
have ended in 1799. If we date h m the Babylonish
Captivity the term of punishment will not have ended
till the year 1931 or 1932, and there yet remain for ita
llfilment 88 or 89 years.
How then, it will be asked, did Mr. Miller arrive at
bis dates ? He took 1843 from 2520 which gave him
677 years before Christ as the commencement of his seven
prophetic times; and then he asserted that Manasaeh
was carried captive to Babylon in that year, and that
then also " the ten tribes were carried away by Esarhaddon, king of Babylon."'
Tbis last date he obtained by
subtracting 65 from 742 ; that being the supposed yeer
in which Isaiah's prophecy was uttered concerning tbe
breaking of Ephraim (chap. vii. 8.), "within thrw
score and five years." But the kingdom of Israel or the
ten tribes, sometimes called from the name of its most
powerful tribe, the kingdom of Ephraim, was utterly
broken down 44 yeam earlier, not by " Esarhaddon, king;
of Babylon," "but by Shalmaneser, king of Aesyria."+

*-Life and .V-

p. 46.

2 &qp.

And as for the captivity of Manasaeh, it is very unin what year it took place, or how long it continued.
Both the scriptures and Josephus are equally dent on
the mbject. M
d began to reign B. c. 698, and continued to reign 66 years until B. c. 643. The nation
was not carried into captivity, nor could the king have
long continued a prisoner. The threateniege occasioned
by the wickednere of AIanasseh weie not brought upon
Iudah till 54 or 55 years after his death. What then
becomea of Mr. Miller's date for the commencement of
his 2620 years 2 . It has nothing to support it but conjeeture, and it wuld nwer have been aesumed, if he had
not 6rst foimed his theory and then looked about for
arguments to sustain it.
We have hitherto proceeded on the supposition that
the words " seven times" in the 26th chapter of Leviticus are susceptible of Mr. Miller's interpretation. But
they are not so. If he were acquainted with the original
language of the Old Testament, he would have seen that
the word used by Daniel which is translated by the E R ~ lish word " times" does not occur in Leviticus ; that it is,
in M,language of a later date, and that in the sense of
year or years, it .is peculiar to that prophet. The
qreeeion in Leviticus translated seven times, might as
well have been rendered sevenfold. It is in fact only a
~uperlativeto denote perfection or intensity. It .is prel
cisely analogous to the following expression in the ~ e w
Testament, lad, how oil ad my brother &I
me, and I forgive him? till seven times'? Jesus saith
unto him, I say npt unto thee, Until seven times : but, Until
seventy times seven."" Would it not be thought a mast
Matthew sviii. 21,22.

a R t m e d b a f y i&rpmtatim, taat P a mepnt tro adr,

&dl I k g i v e my brother 2620 yearel or that our
Saviour meant to answer, not 2620 yeamonly, but seventy b e e that number ? Yet it would not be more pmpm
-us than to interpret the language of Levitha in tbir
manner. Moses intmded the expression only to denote
t i e intensity and aewdty of God's j d p e n k There is
abt therefme the leaat ground for this magnificent &uMan of seven prophetic times ( b e g i i B. c. 677 and,
g3di.g a. D. 1843), within which, aa a magic d e , all
rle other cornputatiom of prophecy are to be c d k d
md adjusted.
I proceed to the e u m d point in Mr. lVIilWs qstem
which I think it important to notice.


The profoundly learned Joseph Mede, who has thrown

tbe same light upon propheq. which Sir Isaac Newton

did upon the solar system, has laid down a rule with
regard to the Revelations of St. John, which ig equally
applicable to all prophecy. It is to be ' 6 c o d e r e d - a a
if it were a history and no prophecy-without supposal
of any interpretation whatever. This is the first thkrg
to be done-as a foundation, ground, and d y safe rule
of interpretation ; and novinterpretation to be made the
p u d and rule of it." f i r cc if the order, method and
oonnection of the visions be framed and.grounded upon
interpretation, then must all p,pofs be founded
upon begged principles and human conjecture."+
Mede'a Wo*,

B. iii. Remaina on nome pampa in the Apou-

Iypae. Lond. 1677. Fol. p. MI.



Now here is the root of all Mr. Miller's emm He

makes a c6mppoeedinterpretation" the fkme-wak on
which he erects the order, method and connection of
the visions" of Daniel. He has jumbled all these.visiom
together in .the . moat inextricable confusion, aa if they
constituted.but one vision. Then, taking parts of one
and parts of another, he has combined them all ; putting
a.patch here and there h m the Revelations of St. John,
and from St. Paul's propbecia, accordmg as he fancia
the language to be applicable ; and thus he. dresses up a
prophecy of his own creating, ahnost as monstrous aa
the terri6c animals described in the visions. Thus, fiom
m e vision.he takes 70 weeks or 490 years; fiwn another
vision, 2300 days or years. Then, aaeuming that the
400 years are the begmug of the2300 years ; that
the 490 years ended at the crucifixion ; and .that the
death of our Lord took place in the year 33 of .~JR.cQH~mon era ; he has collected all the materiala mcamary to
'en& his s u p e ~ c t u r e He then triumphantly looks
around and asks, <' Can any man in his aenses deny my
bterpretation ? Do not 490 and 1810 make up 2300 1
Do not 33 and 1810 make up 1843? And is there not
here the most certain proof that the world will come-to
an end in 1843 ? My dear hearers, are you prepared
for it ? Have you made your peace with God ? Any
one who does not believe me is like those who did not
believe Noah or Lot; and all such will, as e m ,as they .
live, be consumed with tire before the 21st of March,
1844." No wonder that they who have never studied their
Bibles are affrighted and bewildered by such language.
Mr. Miller tells them that he has been studying the prophecies for seventeen years, and as they cannot contradict him, they think he must know. The only wonder is

tihat they ah0 have stded their BiMm &odd hare done


The inunbar 2300 occurs in the viaion of tbe Ram aad

As the %el himelf gave a clue to D e a l
them ha9 been no amtrovemy asto the pried meaning
dbhepibn. 1 t i s ~ t o t W o o f t h e f a u r g r e a . t
deaotd in t h e ~ v i s i o byfn
b e r u l t a ~ u p f r o m t h e s e a Thehinthisviaion
mrmpmh with the Bear of the former, and the Goat,
udh bk~four horn qnhgbg up after the destruction of
aep&born,btheaamers theLeopadwithits farp
w i q p snd h r h& The i h t h beast, or the Itam
" r p i r e ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ h e O E ~ f o w a edausl tl sy , %
aseluded. T h i s d b k e p t c u n s t a d y i n m i n d i f m
tlroid o o n b i o r ~ The ~~ hits of
h t a b ha d y the -cou&m which became the
&mi&an of A b m & the Great by fie subjugation of
tee lhkdo-m Empire. Uanssquendy the whoh af
Etaepe is emldd, eamphg Macedonia, Greece,
the H&t.

~ d n d k e .
Now within the territory thw b o d e d , oat of one of
the h o r n or hagdcams into which it was divided aRer
the death of Ahander, there ''came forth? it is said h
Ibe ninth
a little ham.'" The quastion arkm,
. What wrs tbis little horn ? The ancient commentatom
qpu3e-d f h t it wm htiochus Epiphanea ;t being led
ilEbP thi8 mistaln by d o u n t h g with the present visian
Dan. viii. 9.
f Comm. l. Hieronymi in Dan. Proph. e. viii. Op. Ed.Benedict.
.Rm. %. M. 4105. Maay ef the .adants, however* m & k d

&at whi& ie, related in the 10th a d 11th abaptem

Sir Isaac Newton, " witb that ~agacitywhich waa paw
liar to him," (to uee the womb of a later commentrtor),
w a the
~ first I believe who showed clearly that this little
Bora ww the Roman power, which by the conquest of
the Macedonian horn in the year a c. 168 became for
the fisst time a horn of the goat or Grecian Em*
Observe that it was not as the fourth great monarchy,
denoted by the fourth beaet, but siolply as a horn of the
gost, that the WONIS of tlsis vision can apply b Rome ;
4cmsquently that none of Europe weat or north of
Macqdonia, ThF-aee, Epirm and Greeoe, had anything ta
do with it. Thie Mr, Miller entirely overlooks; d
4ence he talks of Macedon and Europe as being the
Westerp horn of the goaL* Macedon and Europe!
He might with equal propriety talk of Connecticut and
the United States, or of Texm and Amerioo. He them
qrtietly eubetitutes Europe for Macedon, and sap, " Out
of w e of t h a w (the horna), " that is, out of Emye,
m e forth a little horn." Europe b e i i thus substituw
for Madon, be is at liberty to expatiate at will through
Rome pagan and Rame papal, to confouad all timea,
and seaeons, and territories, and to bring down tbe whole
to his fkvorite year 1843!
Alexander began to invade the Medo-Persian Empire
itz the year a c. 334 ; and on the 20th of May of that -'
yep, he fought the battle of the Granicus; to which
river the vision evidently ref- in spealr'i of the onset
of the goat upon the ram. For it runs thua : " He (the
&umd comimgoc Christ,p. 49.

t A *ht

eramidon of hietory will phce this whole sabjeet h

L preps a h ( .


goat) came to the ram that had two horns, which I had
seen standing befwe the a m R , and ran unto him in the
fury of his power."'
That battle decided the fate of the
Persian Empire, and opened a passage into the heart of
Asia. The final battle of Arbela took place on the Isb
of October, B. c. 331. The notable horn of the goat was
soon broken. Alexander died at Babylon in the eve+$
of, May 22d, B. c. 324. He was succeeded by his halfbrother Philip Aridaeus, who was killed about the 22d
September, B. c. 318. In the course of the following i a ~
years Alexander (Egus and Hercules, the two sons of
Alexander the Great, were put to death ; and his whole
family being now extinct, Antigonus, Ptolemy, Seleucas;
Lysimachus, and Cassander, all took the title of lungs in
fhe year B. c. 306. Antigonus was slain in battle B. c.
302. But as his power had begdn to decline B. c. 305 ;
as in the same year his rival Seleucus became kmg of
Babylon and Media ; and as the reign of Ptolemy La@
is computed as be@g
in Egypt in the same year,
being the nineteenth after the death of Alexander ; we
may justly consider the year B. c. 305 as that in which
" the four notable horns came up toward the four winds
of heaven ;"t namely Cassander in the West, Lysimachus in the North, Seleucus in the East, and Ptolemy in
the South. The horn or kingdom out of which came
forth the little horn was the lungdom of Cassander, or
Macedonia, the fundamental kingdam of Alexander's
Empire. From the moment in which the Romans oonquered Macedonia, this horn of the goat began to " wax
exceeding great ;" " not by hiis own power," to use the
remarkable and expressive language of the 24th verse,
Dan. vii. 6.

t Dan. viii. 8.

but by the power" of the Romana Between the yeur

a. c. 168 and 30, a period of 188 yeam, it obtained by
gdk or conquest the whde of the other three h m
From the year B. C. 04, it cast down the Jewish natioj
and &ampad upon it; afterwards it magnified itself
against the prince of the h& by putting the Mesaiah to
death ; and finally in the year 70 of the Christian era it
toek away the daily sscrifice, and cast down the place
ef the sanehwy. Jerusalem was destroyed, .ad the
Jewish nation carried captive. Then follow the inquiry
9nd the a m w contained in the 13th aad 14th v e n q
of which the following i a lited t r d t i o n : " And I
heard one holy one ape,akuig, and one holy one said
Pnto such oe one who was speakmg, Until when is the
vision, the n e v e r d g sacrifice, and the kbellion
that maketh desolate, to give both the sanctuary and the
host for a trampling under foot? And he said to me,
Until evening-morning, two thousand three hundred.
Then shall the aanotuary be expiated." The viaion is
the whole vision of the Ram and He-Goat The neverceasing sacri6ce was the daily morning and evd c e perpetually d e e d in the Jewish Temple at the
third and ninth hours, to represent the one perfect obi*
tion and satisfaction offered once for all upon the croa
by our Lord Jesus Chrbt. This was taken away and
the sanctuary and the host were trodden under foot at
the dcstrwtion of the City aad Temple. How long b
tbis vision to last ? Unto two thrYusand three hundred
evening-mornings," is the answer, a and then the
will be expiaM or purified." The Jewish nation
aesing to rebel, will cease to be trampled under fod
The sanctuary which their rebellion caused to be d m
late and-trampled &r
foot, shall be expiated or puri5

bed. Tbe Jews converted to the Christian faith will be

restored as a body-politic ; and a new temple expiated
and purified will again represent the one great oblation ;
not as before with the blood of slain beasts, but with
$be unbloody symbols which Christ himself appointed.
, If it be asked, Why this unusual expression Eveningmorning, if Day were meant, I frankly answer, I cannot
tell. Some have inferred, and the learned Joseph M e
is one of them, that it was for the expree purpose of
avoiding a doubtful meaning, because the word day
usually means year." They therefore understand the
phrase Evening-morning" as exoluding the prophetic,
'and meaning only the natural day ; and hence they apply
the present prophecy, as did Josephus and the ancient
Christian commentators, to the time of the persecution
of Antiochus Epiphanes,
This interpretation would of WUIW be fatal to all Mr.
Miller's calculations It is not surprising, therefme, that
it should be eagerly embraced by many of his opponents.
But with all due deference, I think there are insuperable
difficulties in the way of this scheme which makes Antiochus Epiphanes the little horn. It would be i m p
sible for me to go into them here ; but they have'been
well pointed out by Sir Isaac Newton, and after him by
Biihop Newton I make no diaculty, therebre, in admitting the expression Evening-morning to mean a prophetic day. It is indeed an unusual mode of expression;
but it is derived from the Jewish way of computing time from sunset to sunset. Mr. Miller does not notice it,
though it is put in the margin of the EngEsb Bible; yet
if it means a day in the fourteenth veme, it nlust mear

Med& Works, pp. 6%?,69@.





the same in the 26th. Why then does he interpret evening and morning in the latter verse of two distinct
years ? The angel there says, " The vision of the evening and the morning which hath been spoken, that is
truth. Wherefore do thou shut up the vision ; for it is
for many days." Of what vision does he speak ? Evidently of the viaion he had just explained, the vision of
the Ram and the He-Goat. This is called by way of
distinction the vision of the evening and the morning in
reference to the remarkable expression in the 14th verse,
that it should continue until 2300 evening-mornings,
And this is the very reason why he adds the command
to shut it up, because the fulfilment of it should be so far
distant : a strong collateral argument, as I understand it,
for thc interpretation of 2300 prophetic days. But
Mr. Miller throws the whole subject into confmion by
the arbitrary and fanciful distinction of what he calls
the evening vision and the morning vision; the one
meaning " the vision of the four beaats in the first year of
Belshazzar, Daniel vii. ; the other the vision of the
Ram and He-Goat in the third year of Belshazzar,
Daniel viii."* He might with equal propriety talk of
2300 evening and 2300 mornings as meaning two different periods of prophetic days
The vision of the evening and the morning being
therefore only this one vision, we must, in the interpretation of it, strictly confine ourselves within its limits, aa
to time, or territory, or events. We are not to take in
any time which preceded it; consequently we cannot
reckon the seventy weeks as a part of the 2300 days ;
because the commandment to restore and to build Jeru-

Chrht'r Wend Coming, Lac..iii. 8 Mt.

salem preceded the earliest date of this vision. We are

not to take in any territory beyond the l i b of the f m
kingdoms denoted by the four horns; or any eve&
which have not reference to the subject of the vision.
Consequently we cannot interpret it by the b t o y of
Europe in general, or of the Latin Church in particab,
or by any events unconnected with the conversion a d
festoration of God's ancient people.
If these rules of interpretation be correct they give tbe
hishing stroke to all Mr. Miller's calculations. If we
date even from the rushing of the Goat upon the Ram
in the fury of hi power, the first invasion of the M&
Persian Empire, the 2300 prophetic days will not end
till the year of our Lord 1966. I do not mean to be
u n d d as arawting this. I would rather imitate the
caution of the l e d Mr. Mede with r e g d to the
times of the great Apostasg, a and curiously inquire not,
but leave unto him who is the Lord of h e s and -na"
I mean only to my that, for aught Mr. Miller can show,
there may yet be more than a wnhy to aome before
the 2300 days shll be ended. Nay, Sir Isaac Newton
goes further, and supposes that the time of their beginning was not earlier than the reign of Vespasian and the
destruction of the second Temple. '< Daniel's days," he
obeerves, are years ; and these years may perhaps be
reckoned either from the destruction of the Temple by
the Romans in the reign of Veaparrian, or from the pollution of the sanctuary by the worship of Jupiter OIpb
pias, or from the desolation of Judea made ia the end
of the Jewish war by the banishment of all the Jews out
of their own country, or fmnmre o h p d toAid
time will dismer.'*
O k e the modesty with which
Bir h

e Hewtdm Obervuhn oa Dan. a d the Am., p. 198.

thts great man ventured to speak of the f e e ; and than

ask yourselves which is preferable, the modesty of a
Netton, or the presumption of such a man as Miller.
The prophecy is not yet fulfilled ; for the sanctuary has
not yet been purified. Till that event takes place, it i
impossible to know when the 9300 years began. The
conversion of the Jews and their restoration to their own
land can alone decide the question.
I have been obliged to take up so much of your time
in the consideration of the second point, that I must treat
aa briefly as poesible of Mr. Miller's chronological tablc,
by which he attempts to show



The infinite wisdom of the Almighty mortifies the

pride of man by limiting his knowledge even with respect to his own history. The exact age of the world
has been at all times a subject of study and calculation;
and the science of chronology has, for many ages, exercised Rome of the most capacious and exalted minds :
exalted and capacious, I mean not in God's sight, for
there they are as nothing, but as it respects the estimation of their fellow-creatures ; exalted and capaciouq
whether we consider their intellectual powers, or their
vast and varied,information. Even to such minds, the
annals of profane history afford but little help. They
extend not with any certainty more than eight centuries
before the Christian era ; and they are filed with discrepancies and contradictions, which even the sharpest
intellects have not been able fully to correct and ha+
monize; If it were not therefore fbr God's revelation,
the past, beyond a comparatively small circle, would be


,dmaat as dark as the futtae.- The beoh of the OId

.Testament dord us the only ligM by which we c s ~ i
irradiate the gloom ; and even here, ta humble our c d -withit .has been
that there shouM be mbject~
of wntroveny. Two &remt editions or tents of fhd
five books of Moaes have been transmitted to these later
timeP; the om pr&
by the Jews, the other, 9
their ancient enemies the Samaritans. These,while in
general they exhibit a wo&dW agreeinent, differ p m
ciaely on the subject of the world's age. To add to our
perplexity, we have an ancient Greek translation, made
several hundred years before Christ,and in such common
use among the Jews, that the Apoc3tles and Evangelists
have quoted it even where it differs from the Hebdw.
And here again, precisely on this same subject of the
world's age, does this version differ from both the Je*
and the Samaritan text In this state of doubt and Mqlty, what is to be done ? Learned men have spent
theii lives in laborbg to answer this quation ; and the
reault has been that opinions have generally settled down
in favor of what is called the Hebrew chronology, to
d i s t i i h it from the Samaritan, on the one hand, pod
the Greek, on the other. This is the chronology on
which Archbishop Usher labored so acceptably, that the
learned world, in general, have been willing to receive
his work as a standard ; not as to every parti&
. opinion which he has advanced, but as to the general
rule of being guided by the Hebrew text as transmitted
to us by the ancient people of God. Accordbg to that
chronology, the first year of what we now call the
Christian era coincided with the year of the world 4004;
so that by addmg 4003 year0 ia our comaon aabesr we

d v e at ?he age of the mid. Thus 1843 added to

UK)3 givea 6846 w
i the present age of the world.
The question now arises,
has Mr. Miier departsa
h calmlatiom which the widom of the learned i
the most civilized portions of the world consents to reCeme ; and coasentq be it observed, notwitbdadq d
the prejudices which are apt to be produced by the
difference of nations, languages, and creed9 3 By the
confcesion of Mr. Miller'sfoUowers, if not by his owq
the mmer is, Because the received chrolrolog does nat
gphold his hvorite theory that the world is to be @fied by fire in 1843. For in the Midnight Cy of N m
88, l842,there is the folbwing precious confession:
"Two &gs
are generally impressed on the public
mind : hit, that the world is but !j846 years old ; d
that it must c o n h e about 6000 years in iQ
present state. W h && subject swo sugpted to Ah.
AWw, in 1840, lie feIt that it t a ~ san argument a@&&
A& v i m of the prvph& pnbdu. He thought the matter
m,and at length resolved to appeal from Archbishop
Usher, (the great standard in chronology), to the Bibk
He epent three days in tracing the times of the Old Testament, and, to hkrr surprise, found 4157 years clearly
proved f m the Creation to Christ,leaving but 1843 to
aomplete the 6000 years P' It appears then that the
thought never occurred to him till 1840,and then cwly
w h it aaa q g & e d bo h b as an objection to bLP
+hory. fEe spent h e e days upon it ! Three clay6 !
Utm w & f i ! thrree whole days in determining qncb
tieas WWhave exaciser;2 the ntoet g%ed 4 4
mi& not only Ebr a whole He, but for a &
of lives ! Mr. Miller appeals fm
Archbishop Ueher tn
the B~ible,as if A r c h b i i Usher had not founded bb


oomputatiom upon the Bible ; or as if Archbishop Usher

eould not weigh all questions on these di5cult points
better than Mr. Miiler ; or as if Mr. Miier's three daye
thrown into one scale would make the whole liva of
Petavius, Usher, Miusham, and a host of others, in the
opposite scale, kick the beam ! Shall we laugh, or shat
we weep, over such folly ?
But what is the result of this mighty discovery, this
glorious revolution of three days ? Mr. Miller finds out
that the world is 154 years older than Archbishop Usher
made it ; both, be it observed, appeahg to the Bible
as their authority.
. . And now let us see how he supports his assertion.
Archbishop Usher places the end of the Deluge in the
year of the world 1666; Mr. Miller adds a year and
makes it 1657. But this is in direct opposition to the
Bible, which says that '' the waters were dried up from
off the earthv* on the first day of the first month, of the
aix hundred and &st year of Noah, or, in other words,
when his 600th year was completed. Mr. Miller makes
it at the end of the 601st year.
But one year is a trifle. Mr. Miller's grand dkovery
is in the book of Judges. For the first time in his lik
he has found out that there are dificulties in the chromlogy of that book. But 'hhe, or do his followem
suppose that this is a new discovery ? or that it has never
before been carefully examined ? On the contrary,
among the distinguished writers who have defended the
Hebrew chronology, there is not one wbo has not accurately and deliberately gone over the whole ground.
And the result has been that all have d d e d k t l y
contrary to Mr. Miller.
Glen. viii. 13.

Thestateof thequestioni~thia InttiefinstbaaLd

King13 (chap. vi., v. 1)the sacred historian record8 the
inpartant f& of the foundation of sdomon% Tempi6
io the following solemn manner : And it came to p a
i the four hundred and eightieth year after the children
ef Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the
fourth year of Solomon's reign over h e l , in the modh
Zif which is the second month, that he began to bniM
tbe house of the Lord." If, thm, we take firom this sum
ef 480 years, 40 years dwbg which the nation was in
the wildernm, 4Q years for thc reign of Saul, 40 yeam
far that of David, and the f~twthyear of Solomon,it
leaves only 366 years from the entrance into the pro&
hnd to the establishment of the monarchy. This in~ludeathe government of J d u a d that of the J d g ~
till 6be time of Samuel. But St. Paul, in Bi speech 6b
the Jews of AntiocB in Piridia, ahtea that God gave
unto them Judges about the space of 450 years uadl
Samuel the prophet.'ye Mr. Miller contmda that tege
is a contndietion h e , and beomme the larger n u d ~
ie more favorable to his purpoee, he
to take what
he cxwsiders as S t Paul's tedbony, and rejecta the
paasage in the Hebrew Scripturea In thia way L
malrea the period htbe departure out of Egypt to the
boilding of the temple not 880 but 621 yeam a d thilL
he gains at once for his object 141yeare.
But Mr. Miller does not take into his aceollnt the
very great di%hmein the nature of this tedmoq.


The p a m a g g l K i , v i l , i s a h o l o f I i d ~
of the ma& exact and decisive character; tfae language
of St. Pad a @g
and merely incidental remark.
A& xiii. 20.

The historim meant to establish an epoch ; the orator

bad not the least thought af settling points of chronology.
The historian wrote in Hebrew for his nation. He could
~t be mistaken; and there are no various readmga
which can throw doubt over the integrity of the text.
St. Paul, on the other hand, was addressing himself in
Greek to Jews who lived in a Greek province, whoae
vernacular language was Greek, and who used the
Greek tramlation. They were doubtless more faaniliar
with the Greek chronology than with the Hebrew, and
their prejudices were in favor of the larger numbers in
the Greek Scriptures, because a more remote antiquity
would favor their mtional vanity. Would it not have
been unwise in St. Paul to shock their prejudices on a
point which had no connection with his principal design 1
Mr. Miller might just as well argue that because St.
Paul in his Epistle to the Romans quotes from the Greek
Psalms a number of verses which do not exist in the
Hekew, therefore the Hehrew is wrong ; or because St
Luke inserts in the genealogy of our Saviour a name
which occurs only in the Greek translation, that we must
therefore give up our Hebrew Bibles and implicitly
receive the Greek !
But there is a text in the book of Judges which Mr.
Miller seems never to have thought of, but which effectually overthrows his calculations. His period of 621
years adsumes that the number of years from the departure out of Egypt to the government of Jephthah was
402. Whereas Jephthah himself espres& states that
the lands conquered frompihan king of the Axnorites in
the 40th year after the departure from Egypt had been
held by the Israelites at the time when he became Judge



900 years. Here then is at once a miscalculationfby

Mr. Miller of 62 years.
The best chmnologers agree in dividing the whole
period of 480 years into two minor periods, as follows :
1. From the departure out of Egypt to Jephthah, 340 yeam
2. From the beginning of Jephthoh's government
140 yean
to the fourth year of Solomon,


To bring the periods mentioned in the book of Judga

within this time, they consider the Judges as ruling over
different portions of the tribes, not over the whole ; and
ss being often contemporaneous not successive. In the
same manner, the periods of oppression and bondage,
and of rest, existed in one part of the land, and not in
another, and consequently often ran parallel, and not
successive. Mr. Miller commits many absurdities by
supposing each of the Judges to have ruled ~uccessively
over the whole nation with long intervening periods of
oppression. In a word, he has assumed the very points
which he ought to have proved.
All this may have come from ignorance. The poet
has well said, that

':A little learning is a dangerous thing;"

but Mr. Miller makes a merit of hi own ignorance, and

glories in that which to the Interpreter of the Bible'is a ,.,. .
shame. 'But I canhot so easily acquit him when he , . .
comes the succession of the kings of Judah. Here, in '
his eagerness to make out his scheme, he absolutely fal- i " 1'. ' .
s%es the language of the Bible. He makes Jehoram to
have reigned five years, where the Scripture positively
says he reigned eight ; and between Amaziah and Aza' ,'



riah or Uzziah, he intaxdues an inhmegaum of eleven

years, for which he has not even tbe shadow sf an 9ab
thority in the Bible. He quotes indeed chapters 14
and 15 of the 2d bock of Kings; a d this may be
sufficient for those who are ready to take his opinions
upon trust. But if you examine the chapten to which '
he refers, you will be astonished to find that there is not
in either of them one word upon the subject. By these
various methods of interpolations he gains in the history
of the Jews at least 150 years.- 1
He makes equally wild work with profane Wry. In looking through his books it is observable that the
only author quoted for the chronology of the lungs of
Pemia is R o b . The ancient h i i r y of that writer is a
popular and pleasing abridgment; but it is not to be
depended upon for accuracy. The Authors of the Aacient Universal History,+which is indeed a lofly monument of Eaglish learning, are forced, on this very subjedt
of chronology, to make the following remarks concerning
French writer. Speaking of Pul and Tiglath Pileaer
they say : " It is an eyesore to see them so disjoined as
they are in Rdlin, from whose judgment, as be is conversant in the labors and improvements of the late
writers, we might have hoped for better things ; but as
we have been hitherto cautious of passing any censure
upon him, we shad1 for the future avoid the same, as he
is a gentleman zdio does not so pofessdly w i t e to ipcmuet the Pnind as to the r d i t y d & t w
of f i ,
This celebrated work, (the ancient part I mean, for the m
ia far inferior), is too well known to need any commendation here.
The octavo edition is the best, a d i a entitled AnUnirerrul H h t q
fm the earlicnt account of time, compiled h m Origkd A a t h 2'~
Lond., 1747. 0V d ir. p. 31% note.



ar toform it to virtue a d a good lift.." In their opinion,

then, Rollii is to be endured, and may be put into the
hands of children, beoause he subserves the interests of
morality and religion !
But since Mr. Miller quotes Rollin as hi only authority, it would be natural to expect that he would be
guided by Rollin in hi dates. Not so. He has departed from his author in almost every instance. The
first year of the reign of Cyrus is placed by Rollin in
the year B. C. 536 ; by Miller, B. c. 626. The commencement of the reign of Darius, the son of Hystaspes,
is placed by Rollin in the year B. c. 621 ; by Miller, in
the year B. C. 513. Xerxes began hi reign, according
to Rollin B. c. 485 ; according to Miller, B. c. 477. The
seventh year of A~taxerxesLongimanus is placed by
R d l i i in the year B. c. 467; by Miller, in the pear
a c. 457. He constantly diffen from his author from
eight to ten years. Why was all this ? The answer ie
obvious : To adjust facts to his theory, and not his theory
to facts. Like Procrustes, he stretches or lops off the
limbs of his victims, that he may measure them by his
own iron bed.

It has been with unfeigned reluctance that I have

undertaken the labor of exposing Mr. Miller's errors.
Nothing but your desire to know my views with regard
to his scheme of prophecy, could have induced me to
devote the time and patience which were necessary for
that purpose. I have not the vanity to suppose that I
shall be extensively quoted as an authority ; 'or that anything I can now say will have any influence over Mr.
Miller or his followers.
But there is mother source of SO~TOWin my heart

w&ch relates @ Mr. Miller personally. I do not know,

probably, have newr seen him. I can therefore
judge of him only by his writtogs ; anel the experience
of ages has proved, that such judgment is often deceptive. Notwithstanding all I have said of his unwarrantable perversion of the Scriptures, I believe that, by some
ingenious process of his own mind, he has convinced
that he is right I look upon him therefore as
sinme, though ignorant, and as well-meaning, though
fapatical. In the examination of his books, I have been
ofteD struck with the strange mixture of good sense and
absurdity scattered through them, and have been ofiem
&ed by his excellent and pious obse~ationaon the
necessity of being in readiness to meet our Judge The
a Lecture on the times and its duties," and that " on the
parable of the teh virgins," are of tbis sort. With small
exceptions, they are excellent; and, taken apart from
his theory, may be read 6th profit. The feelings therefore with which I regard the man, are as mingled as hie.
writings. I attribute much that is censurable in him to
t&q influences under which he bas lived. He was, aa I
understand, a respectable farmer ; and during the leiswe
which God grants the farmer at times to enjoy, he ap$14himself for about seventeen years to the study of
the Holy Scriptures, and especially the prophecies. In
d O i ~ gso he did well, so f p as the naked fact extends ;
apd if he had been brought up in the sober-minded habits
of a Churchman, he would have contented himaelf with
applying to his clergyman or his bishop to unravel difficJties, and " in patience and comfort of God's holy
Word," would have gone on in his Christian come,
quietly and rejoicing. But the fatal licentiomess of
private judgment, and the rmh contempt h r GodGod's insti-

h t i 0 which
are working such mischief in oiu coutitrf,
have prompted. him to run without being 'kent,and to
beoome the found- of a short-lived sect, instead of a
iively done in the Temple of God's building.
When time shall have proved to him that his theory
is wrong, and the excitement shall have passed away
with the dream which has occasioned it, I cannot but
think that he will look back with bitter remorse on his
present career, and shudder at the thought of the awful
responsibility which he has heaped upon himself. The
amount of the evils which hi rash intrusion upon the
ministry has occasioned, what man can calculate ? How
many, under the agonies of despair, have committed suicide ! How many are now in the cells of a mad-house !
How many have been led to forsake their honest callings, and impoverish themselves, and ruin the happiness
of their families ! How many " unstable souls" have
been w, " shaken in mind," as to forsake the noiseless
path of religious duty to run after a phantom by which
they have been bewildered and affrighted ! HOWmany
have been made to scoff at God's Word, by the pitiable
ignorance of a rash expounder ! How many have joined
in the sneer and the laugh, and have thus made shipwreck of the faith through which alone they can be
saved ! How many enthusiasts, wrought up into present
frenzy, when convinced that they have been deceived,
will, instead of repenting, be led to deny the Lord that
bought them ! Alas ! who can tell ?-The Lord God of
gods-the Lord God of g o 6 h e knoweth. Almighty
God in his wise providence can bring good out of the
extremities of ill. The very excesses which make
Holy Faith to become faint, and the angelic countenance
of Hope to be darkened, and tender Charity to weep

and mourn, may lead, under God's guidance, to their

6na.I strength, and brilliancy, and joy. The very toae
.ings of the tempest around them, may lead wise and
reflecting men to take refuge in the Ark of God's
Church, and there to float tranquilly over the heaving


THBdeceit occasioned by the miacalcuhtions of Mr.
Miller will be ephemeral; but not so the consequences,
whether for good or evil ; for these will of necessity be
more permanent; and like the comin itself of our
divine Saviour, are mt for the fall and t e resurrection
of many who profew and call themselves Christians
They will vary, therefore, according to the several
clasees of individuals on whom the preseot excitement
As to the disappointed Enthusiast or profane Scoffer,
it would be useless to o&r m y remarks. Nothing
which can here be said will be likely to reduce the one
to reason or the other to serious reflection. But with
regard to the truly religious portion of the community,
it is greatly to be hoped. thnt their attention will be
roused to the importance of a more extended, and patient, and careful attention to the prophetic portions of
Holy Scripture. For the mccessful study of the prophecies a distinct and accurate knowledge d dates ia
necessary. But on this very point most readers labor
under great embarraesments. T h e n are but few great
libraries in the United States to which the Clergy and
other learned and intelligent persona can have recourse.
They are therdore obliged to take up with references
to second, third, or fourth-hand compikrs of history,
whom productions are often of very inferior character.
The mistakes of one author are transcribed by another.
Errors of the press are acaumulated, which can be c o p
rected only b reference t o original sources of inform*
i o n . Thus, r n d ~ . dof meeing with their o m ere., the
ground on r h i h ayetemr of chroadogy are h l t , they


; !#

.: ,


u e forced to receive awertions without proof, and decisions originally erroneous are often repeated b? reputable authors until they pass for undisputed verities.
It seemed, therefore, to the present writer that he could
to the religious public a more acceptable
present than a succinct view of those original sources
of chronological infotmation to which the interpreten
of prophec must have recourse if the wish to proceed
in their ca culations with certainty an consequent satisfaction. For this purpose he now proposes to consider,
I. The Chronology of the Book of Jud es :
11. The Chronology of the Kings of Ju ah and Israel
from the division of the Tribes after the death of
Solomon to the Babylonish Captivity :
III. The Chronology of the Ass rian Empire and the
Kingdom of Babylon to the 6onqueat of that City
' a d the transfer of Sovereignty to the Medo-Persian
Em ire :
IV. ~ f Yedo-Persian
Chronology to the subversion
of that Empire : and
V. The Chronology of the four Kingdoms formed
after the extinction of the family of Alexander the
In consider& theee various heads, the simplest and
most satisfactory method is to ascertain, in the first
lace, the extreme limits within which each period is t,o
comprehended. On this point we must leave nothing
to conjecture ; whereas, in adjusting the minor and ktervening dates, we may often be obliged to discuss
robabihties, and where there is np certainty, to choose
getween conflicting opinion..




The extreme limits of this riod furnished by cleqr

and definite authorities are, k t , the Exodus of @$
Children of Israel from Egypt ; and Secondly, the fourth
year of the rei n of Solomon, when he be an to build
the Temple o f t b e Lord. According to
odculation, tbi. period emlmcee 621 yerrw, M follows :


. . . .. . . . ...
. . . . . . .

T h e ~ ~ i a t h e W i l d ~
The Elders who snrvived him and anarchy
Under Chusan Rishalhaim
rc Othniel the 5mt Judge
E g b n the Kieg of Moab
" Ehud the second Judge
Jabin King of Canaan
the Midimitee
Gideon the fourth h d g e
" Usurption of Abimeleeh
Tola the fifth Judge
" Jair the sixth Judge
the Philistines
Jephthah the seventh ~ l ; d ~ e
" Ibzan the eighth Judge
Elon the ninth Jndge .
Abdon the tenth Judge
the Philistines
Eli, High Priest and eleventh Judge
" Bamwl the Prophet and t w e l u Judge
': Kingefirst King, Saul
second King, David
fonrth year of third King, Solomon






. . . . . . . 7
. 403



. 10

. . . . . ..
. .. . . .



The only ancient authorities are three : 1. The H&

brew Text. 2. The Greek Translation of the Septuagint.
3. The Jewish Antiquities of Josephus.
SEC.1. Ifebrew Text.-The labors of Kennicott and
De Rossi have collected and collated an amazing number of manuscripts of the Hebrew Text. Those collated
for Kennicott's Bible; and considered by De Rossi as
the basis of his own work, were 581. To these he
added, in his own library, 479+77=556, and from other
sources 110; making the total of collated manuscri ts
1247. In addition to these, De Rossi examined critica ly

~ e . ~ i ~ bnoa.belonga
. l i ~ ~
bo* the abvernrnemt of P a m
~ n U@rescnt:ilter
it in 18al.




memg them there are at the least 160 manuscripts of

the first and second book of Kings. This is probably e
reater amoant of Critical Testimony than is to be
found for any other ancient book in existence except
the New-Testament ; and .the variations in the reading8
6f 1 Kings, vi. 1,are so trifling that they hardly deserve
to be mentioned. Not one exists affecting the sense.
De Roesi takes no notice at all of this verse. The various readings of Kennicott are 18, and are here subjoined;
not because they -are of any importance, but to let the
reader see with his own eyes, if he can read the Hebrew
Bible, how great is the integrity of the passage in question in the -red text.

1 REG.C p . VI.
1 aumz. 1, 30, 50, 60, 70, 76, 80, 82, 8 4 89, 93, 95,
96,107,108,109, 111,125, 129, 136, 144, 150, 155, 158,
& 253, 257, 260,
170, 174, 177, 181, 191, 240, "
9'70, 282. That is, 37 manuscripts out of 163, deslgnated by the above numbers, in the second word of the
verse ~ * I V : W J omit the letter 1.-nnn 151. In the fifth
word nrtm one manuscript omits the letter ?.-mu P.100,
one manuscript omits the second nm, the sixth word of
the verse, which is a mere pleonasm.- b w 1". 95, 96,
two manuscripts omit the ninth word, an evident mi*
t a k e . - 3 . y ~ ~ 94, 102, 155-n~~~t;l19, 82, 83, 170, 1 7 2
In the thirteenth word n-ylJm which ahould be written
with two yods, three man~~scripts
opit the first, and five
omit the second. rr w;n2 .19 one manuscript omits the
words &'in the month of Zif." m > - - ~ n l ,196, one
manuscript reads "to the month" for " in the month."r?, 178-1.r 3, 4, 50, 60, 80, 89, 93, 95, 101, 107, 108, 109,
110, 111, 112, 125, 129, 136, 150, 158, 17% 181, 187,
195, 196, 223, 2?&, 240, 244, 246, 251, 253, 257, 260,
614. One manuscript omits the word Zif, and 35 inren
a superfluous yod. ttm, 93-;r sup. ras. 130. The sixteenth word is omitted by one manuseript, and in another
the first letter is written upon an erasure. mna sup.
mas. 112. The seventeenth word is, in another mann-rip\ written upon an erasure. * r m 70, 138. .The
eighteenth mmrd ia in two mnnumripts wriNea with a


suprfluaus pod. 715~576, 93, 109,2241, 253, 257,260,

264. The nineteenth word inserts r between the last two
radicnls in eight manuscripts ; thereby expressing more
fully that it is an infinitive verb and not a noun. n n k .
223. One nranuscript omits the name Solomon.-+z;e
n-m ;ln 130-~3n nn 136, 196, 614. Before the word
The House," three manuscripts insert the sign of the
accusative, and one, designing to insert it, writes by
mistake a 5 for a n.--nrw$ n13n ~ 1 109.
One manut~criptomits altogether the phrase, "that he built the
house of the Lord."
There could not be a better specimen of the patient
toil and minute research with which these learned criticr
have examined every word of the Hebrew Scriptures.
These labors have been called vain, because they have
detected so few variations which affect the sense. But
for this very reason, they are of vaet im
show us with what ecru ulous fidelity t e HebrewThey
has been preserved.
ho can dbubt fol a moment that
the sacred hiatoriae, in the passage before us, wrote,
&' And it came to
sa in the four hundred and eightieth
ear after the chi dren of Israel were come out of the
Lnd of Egypt in tba fourth year of Solomon's reign
over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second
month, that he built, or began to build the house of the
Lord 1"
SEC.2. The Septuagint tramlation. It is remarkable
that the Septuagint version, which in general lengthen8
the several periods of Biblical chronology, shortens the
one which we are now considering. To all the readers
of Dr; Horne's valuable Introduction, it must be well
known that there are four Standerd Texts of the Septuaint ; the Complutensian, Aldine, Vatican, and Alexank a n The first, third, and fourth of these are in the
author's possession. 1. The Complutensian reads as
follows : "And it came to ass in the FOUR HUNDRED U D
EIGHTIETH rEan of the ~ x o S u s
of the children of israp1
from Egypt, in the fourth year in the second month
when King Solomon was reigning over Israel, thet 'he
h i l t the house of the Lord." We do not know on
what manuscript authorities this text was formed j but



we have juet reason to suspect Chat the d i ~ altered

the Greek tsxt to make it conform to the Hebrew and
Vulgate. 2. The Vatican Text, taken from the cebbrated manuecript I N , * was published at Rome in
1587. It is singularly confused by the inter olation QJ
Chap. V., 17, 18, and Chap. VI. v. 38 awkrardyy inserted
in the body e l Chap. VI. v.
"And it came to pass in
bhe PORTIKTH AND mua HUNDREDTH YBAB of the Exodus of
the children of Israel from Egy t, in the fourth year, in
tbe second month when king Sa omon was reigning over
Israel, and the king commanded that they shauld taLe
great costly stones fez tbe foundation of the house and
unhewn stones. And the sons (servants I) of Salomon
a d the sons (servants ?) of IIirarn hewed them and laid
them. In the fourth year he laid the foundation of the
house of the Lord, in the month Zin and the second
month. In the eleventh year, in the menth Baal, the
mme is the eighth month, the house was finished oe &o
its whole method and arm ement" 3. Tbe Alexrm.
drian t e n reads simply as a o r s : "And it came to
pass in the ~ ~ E AND
T Broun WNDPBTH YEAR of the
exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, in the f o ~ h
pear, in the second month, when king Salomon was reignmgover Israel, that he built the house of(orfor) theLord."
In the splendid Oxford edition of Holmes & Parsons,
framed after the manner of Keunicott's edition of the
Hebrew text, the Vatican Septuagint is taken as the text,
and the variations from it are noted in the columne
below. Those portions only are here presented to the
reader which have reference to the chronology.
, X a l Byev#q]
nab e y ~ v s r o ' l 9 ,56, 93, 108, 1U. Compl.
ayerero ds 44. Kai Byev@r,, kc. ad fin,corn.] .71. 2~ z@c-


rcr~axwcogij]EV 09 reuuaeanooho5y 55. EY T@ T E U U ~ ~ L X O ~ @ ]

8~ rw oydgwogo 19, 56, 93, 246.
Cornpl. EV ru oydoqwo~sr

Through the kindnees of the librarian, Monsignor Mai, in 1831,

the present writer had an opportunity to examine this beautili~l
and invaluable manuscript in the Vatican Library. Dr. Wiseman,
(Ben Rutm of the English College at Rome, aod now R. C. Bibhap ,
b Birmingham, i a f o r d him that prepnratioas were making to p o b
lish the whde manuscript. It is greatly to be d d d that a fa*
simile of it should be published like that of the Alexandrian Ma,
edited by the Rev. H. H. hber, 1816-1829.

'&&dare, tbht fire manmscriptm

been f e u d , which, like the ihmplutensian text, read
morrnsrrt instead of Foarlem year. The presumption
is that all the rest agree with the Vatican and Alexandrian recensions, rg T Q ~ U X O U U U ~ Q247. XUI T E T ~ X O U ~ O ~
xaz TErpaxoubw;W 19. =a4 8s' Trd rsrqaxoubogw 64. Slav.
Ostrog. Ere6 lo]b'rl (sic) 106, 107. .236, !242. Cat. Nic.
k b (sic infra) 245. vISv 'loqar)k]
rmmitt. rrv 19,56, 64,
93, 108, 244, 245, !&6. Compl. A d. Alex.-% A1ylmrou)
8%77s Acrunrou 93. 8 X y7,c
' Abrunrou 108. Compl. d~ p ~ vI@
kvrkqcp] TU 55, 242. Cat. Nic. @aurAs6orros]1s: @aorAefar
&org. 76 @acrrAd%2alut,u&v]78 2?aio,umvro~~aurLew~
~ O + ~ I ~ T O 246,
ZahpGy] ~ o + r * 82, 106, 107. dnl rdv)
TOV 11,XI, 52,55,74, 106, 107, 12051121,
(123 ut videtnr)
134, 236, -243, %4, 245, 246. Cat. h'ic. Origen licit. dni
TAU 'luea?l] Bnl' ' Z e g t r u ~ Axac
~ Zaxo&py 7dv ohov i G KVQIQ
242. 'ZaqujA] +xab rdxo~op~ue
TOP otxor Kupov 19+
esdem, omisso xai, Arm. 1. Arm. Ed.+xac wxodopr TOP
wxov rg Kugrp 44, 52, 74, 92, 106, 107, 120, 134, I U ,
158, 236, 243, 244,246. Alex. Cat. Kic.+xac olxodopque
ZDY OLXOY rw Kvpm 93, 108, 121. Compl. Slav. Moq.
+eadem, amisso xal, Georg. Slav. Ostrog.+xar
Kugkp 245, &c.
&xo&,uq (sic) rdv orxov
This eareful revision of the Greek text shows, I think,
indubitably, t h ~ the
t reading 440, must be received as
the true reading of that translation. Other inferenoee
might be drawn affecting the charaster in general of the
version ; but these I omit, because they are not neeessarily connected with the present object.
All the other ancient versions, the Chaldee Targum of
Jonathan, the Syriae, theArabic, and the Latin [version]
of St. Jerome, read with the Hebrew text om HUNDRED

MI. 'It a



SEC.3 The Jewish dntiquitiea of Jos hus. Tha

character of this excellent historian is so we1 established
for accuracy with regard to all events in and near his
own times, that very great deference must be paid t o
his authority. Yet this deference must be coltfined
within proper bounds; and it is with a view of showing
these bounds that I proceed to give his testimony concprsing the period in question. It occurs in t h third


~ ]

chapter of the eighth book of the Antiquities, and is as

follows : LLSolomonbegan the building of the Temple
in the fourth year of hie reign, in the second month,
which the Macedonians call Artemisium, but the Hebrews Iar (I-yar), 592 years after the Exodus of the
Israelites from Egypt, 1020 years after the departure of
Abraham from Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan,
1WO years after the Deluge. So that from the creation
of Adam until Solomon built the Temple, there had been
completed in the whole 3102 years. That ,was the
eleventh year of the reign of Hirnm in Tyre ; and from
the .building of Tyre until the building of the Temple
there had passed 240 years."-FI.
Josephi Opera, cur0
Oberthur. Tom. 1, p. 869.
There are but three possible ways of accounting for
this difhrence. Either the Hebrew text of 1 Kings vi. 1,
has been changed since the time of Joeephus, or he must
have departed from it through ignorance, or from design.
It is hardl possible that the text can have been changed.
The Chml ee Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, agrees
with the present reading, and is older than the time of
Josephus ; and if any change had taken place, certainly
in the vast variety of manuscripts and versions brought
together from various parts of the world, there would
have been some disagreement. The only disagreement
which has been discovered is that of the Septuagint;
and so fnr from being in favor of Josephus, the Greek
version departs still more widely from him.
We can hardly attribute his differing from the Hebrew
text to ignorance. As a priest he must have been familiar with the Bible; and his history contains internal
evidence of his having studied it with the greatest attention. It Collows, then, that he has added designedly
112 years to the computation of the sacred historian.
Now why was this alteration 1
If Josephus were perfectly consistent in his dates, the
answer would be much more difficult. But he is not
oonsistent ; and this we must now proceed to sbow.
If from the Creation to the building of the Temple wan
only 810.2yenrs, and from thc Deluge to the building of
the Temple was 1440 years, then (3M2-1439=1663)



the Deluge took place in the year of the world 1663, a

difference of seven years only from the chronology of
the Hebrew text. But in Antiq. Jud., Lib. 1. c. 3. s. 3,
Josephus says, " This calamity (the Deluge) took place
in the 600th pear of Noah's a e, in the second month,
which is called by the ~ a c e f o n i a n sDius, and by ths
Hebrews Marsuan (Marchesvan). This period was 2656
years from the first man Adam."-Ed. Oberthur. Tom. 1.
p. 26. According to the chronology of the Hebrew
Bible, the Deluge took place A. M. 1656. Here, therefore, Josephus adds 1000 years instead of seven, as in
Antiq., Lib. viii. c. 3.
Nor is this the only inconsistency. In the rucceeding section of this chapter (A. J., Lib. 1. c. 3. s. 4) Josephus enumerates the generations of the antediluvian
patriarchs in the line of Seth, and their a es. I place
the Jewish-Hebrew, Samaritan-Hebrew, an the Septuagint calculations, side by side with his, that the reader
may see the diversity.*
Here, instead of 2656 he makes the date of the Deluge
A. M. 2256. Thus we have three different dates for that
It will not be difficult now to trace the steps by which
he arrived at his dates.
The Septuagint, in recounting the ages of the first
seven antedilnvian patriarchs, uniformly and systematically differs from the Hebrew text, adding one hundred
years before the birth of each, and subtracting one hundred after each birth, so as to make the whole number
of years of each ~atriarchthe same as in the Hebrew.
In this Josephus follows the Greek version, evidently
from the same motive-that is, a desire to lengthen out
the antediluvian period. But in the ages of the eighth
and ninth patriarchs the Septuagint has committed a
blunder which effectually detects the falsehood of its
chronology. This will be seen by comparing its statements with those of the Hebrew text. According to the
Septuagint, Methu~elah,when be begat Lamech, was 163
yeare old, and Lamech, when he begat Noah, was 188

See next page.

- Jewisb-Hebrew Comp.


eon and hm son.


Samaritan-Hebrew Cotnp. 8 pt


each dnn end hisdl n

l i v ~ d ./sUCC'BS'I/

31 Enos
4' Cdnan
5 Mahalaleel
6 Jared
7 Enoch
8 Methuselah
9 Lamech

10 Noah
to and after the Deluge.
Epoch of the Deluge.





years old. According to this statement (167+ 188+60@955) the Deluge took place in the 955th year of Methumlah. On the other hand, according to the Hebrew, Methueelah was 187 when Lamech was born, and Lamech 182
when Noah was born. Consequently (1874- 182+600=
969) the Deluge took place in or at the close of the 969th
year of Methuselah. Now, according to the Septuagint
as well as the Hebrew, Methuselah lived 969 years,
whereas according to their statement the Flood happened
in his 955th year. Therefore he must have lived fourteen
ears after the Flood, contrary to the ex ress words of
oses- en. vii. 13. According to the ebrew calcw
lation Methuselah died just before the Flood came l
Thin blunder did not escape the notice of Josephus, and
therefore with regard to Methuselah and Lamech he
adopted the Hebrew calculation. Consequently his antediluvian chronology is a mere patchwork, made out
of rcels of the Hebrew and Greek computations.
%;e shall find similar inconsistencies in the postdiluvian periods. In the passage concerning the building
of the Temple, Jose hus says that it was 1440 yearr
after the Deluge, an{ 1020 years after the departure of
Abraham from Mesopbtamia into the land of Canaan.
The difference between those two numbers (14401019=421) gives the length of the period between the
Deluge and the calling of Abraham. We will now see
how the same author represents the length of this period
in detail. In Ant. Jud., Lib. 1. c. vi. s. 5, he thus expresses himself: "I will now speak of the Hebrews.
Ragavus was born the son of Phdecus the son of Eberus.
His son was Serugus, to whom was born a son Nachores.
His son was Tharrus; and he became the father of A b
mmus, who was the tenth [in descent] from Noah, and
waB born in the 292d year after the Deluge. For Tharrus begat Abramus in his 70th year. Nachores begat
Tharrus when he himself was at the a e of 120 years.
Naehores was born to Serugus about is hundred and
thirty-second year. Ragavus had Serugus when he wct~
a hundred and thirty years old; and at the same age
Phalecus had Ragavus. Eberus begat Phalecus in his
hundred and thirty-fourth year ; and he himself was begotten by Salus when the latter was a hundred and



thirty years old. Him Arphaxades begat about the hundred and thirty-fifth year of his age; and Arphaxades
was the son of Semus [Shem] and was born twelve
860 wal ddxa] after the Deluge. Abrarnus had
rothers, Nachores and Aranes. Of these, Aranes
ied among the Chaldaeans, in the city called Ure of the
Chaldaeans, leaving a son Lot, and [two] daughters,
Sarra and Melcho. His sepulchre is shown even to this
day. Nachores married Melcha, and Abramus Sarra,
the daughters of their brother. Tharrus having an aversion 40 Chaldaea on account of the mournful loss of
Aranes, they all removed to Charran of Mesopotamia,
where Tharrus died and was buried at the age of 205
Josephi Opera, Ed. Oberthur. Tom. 1. p. 48.
I t is unnecessary to detain the reader on the difference
of these names. They are merely Greek representations of kfebrew names; they agree for the most part
with the Septuagint; and are sufficiently near to the
Hebrew, as represented in the English Bible, to be intelligible. I proceed therefore to give, as before, a tabuhr
.view of the chronology of this period according to the
Bebrew text, the Se tuagint version, and ~ o s d ~ f i i \ ; $ ;
merely in advance cal ing the reader's attention to tke
interpolated postdiluvian Cainan in the Septuagint version, concerning whose existence Josephus and thc Hebrew Bible are equally silent.*
It will now be seen that in the passa e, A. J., Lib. 1. c.
$i. s. 5, Josephus asserts the general act of Abraham's
birth in the 292d year after the Deluge, following what
he conceived to be the computation of the Hebrew text.
whereas in the details which immediate1 follow his
eneral assertion, the Septuagint chrono ogy is em%raced, excepting only the period of the birth of Arphaxad, the interpolated Cainan, and the age of Nahor
at the birth of Terah, which he reduces from 179 to 120.
There is also a transposition of the ages of Re11 and Serug which produces no change in the sum total. How
can this inconsistency be accounted for in a writer of
such mental powers and such general accuracy ? I cannot help thinking that he is not responsible for these

See oppoeite page.

oontradictions; and that they are in fact the work of

bungling transcribers, under the influence of the Septuaeint version. Be that as it may, here the contradictlons are, and they are not the ouly ones, as we shall
now proceed to *how.
In Ant. Jud., Lib. 1. c. vii, s. 1, Josephus states that
"Abramus left Chaldaea when he was seventy-five years
old ; God having ordered him to remove into Cannan."50. I n this he agrees with the HeOpera ut su
brew text ana.;bEkepuagint, (Gen. xii. 4), eave that the J
my more definitely, Instead of Chaldaea, that Abram deed out of Haran, or Charran, the place to which
erah migrated from Ur of the Chaldees. But how is
thie consistent with the passuge, Ant. J u d , Lib. viii.
cap. iii., where he says that Solomon began to build the
Temple 1020 yeare after the departure of Abram from
Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan l The distance
of time, according to that computation, from the Deluge
to the departure of Abram, was 421 years. But if he
was born 29-52years after the Deluge, then (292+75=367)
he departed from Charran in the 367th year. Here is
a difference of 54 yeara I say nothing of the 993 years
in the table.
But there is an error in the statement of 292 years,
into which others as well rrs Josephue have inadvertently
fallen. The Hebrew states (Gen. xi. 26), that "Terah
lived seventy years a n d begat Abram, Nahor and Hamn." The mode of expression is analogous to that of
Gen. v. 32. Noab was 500 yenrs old, and Noah begnt
Shem, Ham and Japheth. The sons are named in both
eases in inverted order. Japheth is expressly said
(Gen. x. 21) to have beem the elder brother; and it is
clear that Shem was not born tiH two years after him ;
for he was one hundred years old at the hirth of Arphaxad Gen. xi. 10) two years after the Flood. In like
manner aran was the eldest brother, and was born
when his father Teruh was
Abram, the youngest son,
because he did not remove
was dead, (Acts vii. 4), and he was then seventy-five
yold. Consequently he was born (205-75=130)



when T e n h was

130 yeare old. Jowpbas says that

Sarah, as well as Milcah, wan the daughter of Haran.
This is very probable; and she wam only ten y e u r
younger than Abraham (Gen. xvii. 17). It is evident,
therefore, that the true date of Abraham's birth according to the Jewish-Hebrew text, is (292+60) the year
352 after the Deluge; and consequently his departure
into the land of Canaan was (3524-7 5) in the year after
the Deluge 427, which is six ears later than the date
assi ned to it by Jooepbus ( nt. Jud., Lib. viii. e.iii.)
~ n t i is
t a curious confirmation of the truth of thew
remqrks, that if from 3102, the age of the world according to Josephus, when Solomon began to build the
Temple, you take 1440, the number of years of his nameration from the Delnge, there will remain, as the epoch
of the Deluge, 1662; from which subtract 1656, the
Hebrew date of the Delnge, and you have exactly the
six yearn wanting to correct the computation of time
from the Deluge to the departure of Abraham. So if
you take from A. M. 3102 the sum of (1020-1)
years, yon arrive at A. M. 2083 for the departure of
Abraham from Charan, which is exactly the computation of the Hebrew text.
: Josephus (Ant. fud., Lib. ii. c. xv. s 2) sa n
of t e Children of Israel, "They left Egypt in t e
month Xanthicus, on the fifteenth day of the moon'n
age, 430 years after the coming of our progenitor Abraham into the land of Canaan, and 215 years after the
migration of Jacob into Egypt. Moses was then 80
years old, and his brother Aaron three ears older!'Opera ed. Oberthur. Tom. i. p. 218. ~ K i agrees
both the Jewish and Samaritan-Hebrew text and the
Septuagint version
xodus xii. 40, 41). Therefore
430f2083 gives A.
2513 ae the year of the Exodus.
Now if you take 592-1, or 591, from 3102, the remainder, 2511, would be the age of the world at the Exoduq
being within two years of the true date. The testk
mony of Jose bus, therefore, w h e n r p t y l y w e i p
o the
u d adjusted, t o m e s a v e q p o m d
JawhbHebrew test.
m 4
m e M UI, hatroductian to the



fallowing concise viow of the dates established by t h

text, in the interval between the calling of Abraham and
the Exodus of the Children of Israel.


Abraham called to depart from Harran into Canaan

aner hie father's death, when he wan 75 years
Ishmael born when ~brahr;mwaa 86.-Sen. xvi.,
16. A. J. Lib. i., c. 10.
I l u c born when he N100 and M W.-Gen.
2108 62
xxi.,6. A.J.Lib.i.,c.12,~.2.
Sarah dia, aged 127, when Isaac waa 3 7 . 4 1 1 .
2146 48)
uiii., 1. A. J. Lib. i., c. 14.
Isaac marries Rebecca when he waa 40.-4en. sxv.,
2148 492
20. A. J.Lib.i.,c. 16.
Esau and Jamb born when h c was 60.-Gen.
n v . , 26. Josephue wrongly placer their birth
2168 512
after Abram's death. A. J. Lib. i., c. 18.
Abraham dies at the age of 175.-Gen. m.,7. A.
2183 hn
J. Lib. i., c. 18.
Eaau m u M when he in 40 and I Y . c lOO.-Ge.n.
2POB 562
m i . , 34. A. J. Lib. i.,c. 18.
Isaac diea at the ape of 180, when Eaau and Jacob
were 120. Josephue (A. J. Lib. i., c. 22) makes
the age of Isaac, when he died, 185. But the
Septuagint agree9 with the Hebrew.--Genesis
uuv., 29.
Jacob goes down into Egypt 10 yeara after, when
he walr 130 (Gen. xlvii., 9). Joseph was then
39.-Gen. xli., 46,47; d v . 6. A. J. Lib. ii., c.
6, 6. 1 ; c. vii., s. 6.
Jacob died, having lived in Egypt 17 years, when
he was 147.-Gen. xlvii., 28. A. J. Lib. ii., c.
2316 659
8, 6. 1.
Joseph died a the age of 110.I., 26. A. J. 93sg
Lib. ii., c. 8, s. 2.
Ilvaeliks departed h r n Egypt 216 years after Jacob went thither; 144 y e w after the death of
Joseph; and 430 years after Abraham came
Harran to Canaan.-Exod.
xii., 40, 41.
Lib. ii., c. 15, 8. 2.
For these dates we have express authorities in the Hebrew text.
The intervening dater mnst be adjaeted partly by conjecture and
p r t l y by computation.



The reader will now be prepared to read with intere,q

the remarks of Eusebiue on the dif6nult chronology from
Geneuiu to the book of Judges.

They are contained in the first part of his C h m i c m .

This long lost work was recovered through the medium
f an Armenian translation, and published, to the great
joy of the learned world, in 1818.' The whole passage
is too long for insertion in this place. I must content
myself, therefore, with an abridged view of it, merely to
show that Eusebius was perfectly acquainted with dl
the difficulties, and that he reasoned about them in the
fourth centur just as we now reason about them in tL
nineteenth. f n 'ustice to myself, however, I most mmark, that the oiservatioos on the differean, bstmett
the language of St. Paul, Acts xiii. 20, and t h ~..atimn~
my in 1 K k B - v;. 1, which occur in the second of tha
preceding discourses, were - written before I .had rixd
that part of the Chronicon of which I now pmcewd to
give a eynopsis.
In the sixteenth chapter af the firlrtytwt ~f his Chronicon, Eusebius treats of chronology according to the
Hebredrr method. He kefers to the booka af Muuw ti&
the succeeding Hebrew miterk mntained in the Biblq
t o the Jewieh history of Josephos, and to the throd6logical worke 'of Africanus, as his authorities. He theb
proceeds to speak of the difference between the b o o k
of the law in the Jewieh and the SamadtBn texts. 'He
observes that the characters in which th'efi &re 'written
are entirely different ;that, by the confes%ianof the Jewr
themselves, the Samaritan characters are the 'primand genuine ;and that, until the change of letters, there
Two edirious ofthe Chronicon d Eusebiue, wntaining differeut
tmnelations, were simultaneonely published in 1818; the one at Milan by John Zohrab, a learned Armenian doctor, and A'6giolo Md,
d e r w a r d s librarian of the Vatican ; tlie other at the Armeniah cdhvent of St. Lazarua, near Venice, by the Rmtms h e u i a n doem,
John Baptist Ancher. The Latin version of the former is the more
elegant 4 that of the latter the more literal. Father Aucher's t r a w
lation is also accompanied by the Armenian text, and enrichd with
critical notes. The second part of the Chronicon.had'been p r e s h M
by St. Jeromystran~lation; but of the first part only a f* disjointCd
fragments k e t e known before 1818. These bad been collected add
put together by Joseph gnliger, but were justly suspected of interpolation, succeeding Greek writers, or by the mtraordinar$ fertile imagioation and dogmatic jmitiveneea of the1ntr6ngmmded and learned, but soperciliow editor.



had been no variation between them. At present, the

difference with regard to chronology is great. The
Septuagint translation, also, made under Ptolem Philadelphus, difTers very greatly from the ~ewish-hebrew
text. It differs not so much from the Samaritan-Hebrew,
excepting before the Deluge. From the Deluge to the
age of Abraham, the Greek and the Samaritan agree ;
but this assertion, as we shall soon see, must be taken
with some limitation. He then gives successively the
Septuagint, Jewish and Samaritan computations of the
period preceding the Deluge ; and concerning the difficulty respecting the age of Methuselah, remarks that
some copies of the Septuagint ree with tb HphreW
and Samaritan in phoing his %ath ju#t at the commencement of the Deluge. The Jewish computation,
he observes, varies from the Septua int version 586
years. The Samaritan makes the who e period before
the Deluge 1307 years, and thus differs from the Hebrew
349 years, and from the Septuagint translation 935 years.
It is evident, therefore, that the three computations of
the antediluvian chronology were as much at variance
in the beginning of th'e fourth century, as they are now
in the nineteenth.
The ostdiluvian chronology be ins alike, according
to the eptuagint, the Hebrew, a$ the Samaritan, hy
the birth of Arphaxad, two years after the Flood. Eusebius omits the interpolated Cainan, and makes the Septuagint agree with the Samaritan text in placing the
birth of Salah 135 ears after the birth of Arphaxad, or
I37 years after the eluge. He also places the birth of
Abraham, as Josephus did, at the end of the 70th year
of Teroh or Tharra. He therefore states that, according
to the Jewish Hebrew text, the period from the Deluge
to the first year of Abraham is 292 years ; and according
to the Septuagint and the Samaritan-Hebrew, 942 years.
This last assertion shows that the copy of the Septuagint version used by Eusebius, agreed with the Alexandrian text, and not with the Vatican, as the reader will
see by the comparative table. For if the Vatican be
the most correct text, then there was a difference of 100
yeare in the two computations. The Samaritan-Hebrep


and the Alexandrian Septuagint differ from the Jewish

Hebrew, 650 years ; the Vatican Septuagint, 750 year..
According to the Samaritan text, Abraham was actually
born in the 70th year of Terah ; for Terah is there said
to have died when he was 145 years old, and Abraham
was (70+75=145) 75 years old when he removed into
Canaan, immediately after his father's death.
Eusebius goes on to assign his reasons for prnferring
the Samaritan-Hebrew to the Jewish-Hebrew text.
1. This text, by assigning a longer period before the
procreation of each eon, accords better with the Septuagint version which he calls our reading ( r j n a ~ ' j f l v
avayviuer)-meaning, as I suppose, the readlng of the
Eastern, or Greek Church, where the Septuagint version then was, and still is, read in churches as the received text. But this reason of Eusebius can a d y
only to the postdiluvian chronology ; the antedilu&b
being nearer to the Jewish-Hebrew text and Josephne,
and -more easily reconciled with them than with t h i
2. It is the oldest Hebrew text, and as such has the
greater authority, having been carefully preserved by
the Samaritans.
3. It accords bitter with the gradual diminution of
the term of human life; for how can it be accounted
for that the most ancient, whose lives were longer than
the lives of their posterity, should beget children at an
earlier age than they 1
Eusebins, therefore, prefers the antediluvian compatstion of the Septuagint, excepting the period after
Jared. The Samaritan-Hebrew he thinks has erred, in
the antediluvian series, and in that only ; while the Septuagint version was made from the oldest and best
copies, was sanctioned by the Apostles and first disoiples of our Saviour, and has been universally received
by the Christian Church. He then states again the
several computations from Adam to the 70th year of
Terah, inclusive, as being the first year of Abraham,
and then says that all agree in making the distance of
time from the birth of Abraham to the Exodus of the
Children of Israel under Moses 505 years, viz. : 75 yearn

to his call,and 438 f r o m his call to the Exodus. H e

then adds t h e following computation of t h e generations
between Abraham and Moses, i n t h e line of L e v i :
Abraham when he begat Isaac wss aged
Cahath or &hath,
Cahath or ~ohath))
Moses when he
the Children of 1srag1 out




100 years.





Therefore the distance of time

E x o d u s was,
According to the Septuagint version
According to t h e Samaritan-Hebrew
According to the Jewish-Hebrew

f r o m Adam

- - - -


to the

3689 yearn
2753 ,,
2453 ,*

Having t h u s carried down t h e chronology t o the

Exodus, Eusebius enters upon t h e difficult subject of
t h e chronology in t h e Book of Judges. He states, in
the first place, that Africanus h a s greatly erred i n extending t h e period from t h e E x o d u s t o t h e building of
t h e Temple t o 7W years without t h e least authority.
F o r if from Abraham t o David t h e r e were, in t h e line of
Judah, 14 generations (Matt. i. 2-vi. 17) ; if t h e ninth
existed under Moses ; if Naasson, t h e son of Aminadab,
w h o w a s then prince of t h e tribe of Judah, was one of
It hae already been remarked that Eusebius used a copy of the
Septuagint which agreed with the Alexandrian text; for the Vatican
text differs from the Alexandrian 100 years in the interval between
the Deluge and the Exodus. Eusebius also committed the error of
aupposiug that the birth of Abraham, according to the JewishHebrew, was to be placed after the 70th year of Terah, and not, aa it
rhould be, aRer the 130th year of Serah, or 60 years later. Thin
mistake being corrected, and the variations of the Alexandrian and
Vatican texts taken into the account, the several computations of
time, from the Creation to the Exodus, will be as f o l l o ~ ,omitting
the interpolated Cainan :

tho= who u m e out of Egypt and died in tbe wid

dernesa ; then it will be seen that the five generations
from Naaswn to David, inclusive, could not have filled
so great a number of years. For--1. Naasson begat
Salmon ;2. Salmon, Boaz ; 3. Boaz, Obed; 5. Obed,
Jesse; and 5. Jesse, David. How col~ld five g e n e
rations take up 700 years 1 This would give 110 year*
to each generation, which no man in his sound mind
eould nllow. Moses lived but 1-20 years, and Joshua
110; and before them, Joseph died at the age of 110.
Jacob also lived, he says, 145 ; it should be 147.
But it may be nrgoed that Clemenr reckons from
Joshua to the building of the Temple 574 yearq whieh
may be known from his first Book;' and the Apostle
Paul, in the Acts of the Apostles, in addrensing the
Jews, speaks of 450 years under tbe power of the
Judges uotil Samuel the prophet (Acts xiii. 20) ; M, that
the Apostle makes the yeare after Joshua 534, as follows :-

- - Add to these, Moses in the Widernea And allow for Jorhna, the ryn of Nun (Nave)

Whole time of the J u d e ~auril %muel

The yrrm of Samuel Gmbined with those of Sad
The yearn ofthe reign of David
The Erst foar yearn of the reign of Solomon

And the whole rum .mowta to rir haadred yaur.

-- 45040
- 40
- 4


- 601

The passage bere referred to by E w b i u s is ia the Strumah d

Clemens Alrxandrinuq Lib. I , 21. " There are, therefore, from
Moses to the nqe of Solamon, M some say, 595 years; or, M others
my, 576. But if any one rball ealealate with the 450 yean h m
Joshua to David. the 40 yean in whioh Moaee commanded, and the
ether 80 years which Moses lived before the Exodus of the Children
of Israel from Euypt, and shall add to these the reign of David, 40
yean, he will make the 8 Im total 610 years. But our chronography
proceeds more aeeumtely if, to the 523 yeam and 7 months 10 the
death d D a r i d , any one d d the 120 yearn of Moses and the 40 of
&lawti; &r he will then make the sum total to the death of 8010w n 683 yenre and 7 mmtbs."-Ckm.
Alex. Opra, Ed. Potter, '
tom. 1, 386. What, then, is the d e a h t m n of C h n s ? From
683 y e u a and 7 months, dedaet the age d Mona at the time of tbs

Now, if you divide this period into the five genera.

tiona, from Naamon to David, it is manifest thnt you
distribute to each more than 115 years before they
a t children, which is absurd.
bat remains, them, but to hnve recourse to the
authority of the Book of Kinga 1 That strongly aflirma
that the wbole time from the Exodus t o Solomon and
the building of the Temple was 440 y e n n though the
Hebrew c o y has +YO yeare. The Jewish doctora assert
that, accor!t ing to accurate calculation, this period must
be comprised within 480 yenrr. They do not reckom
~ p n r a t e l ythose years in which the Gentiles are raid to
bore ruled over the people; but they reduce the government of the people to h e number of the Judgeq
ettribuaiag to the same period the i n c u r s i o ~ ~of
s the
foreign tyranny. In this wny, M Y they, and tbia only,
can the 480 years be properly adjusted. I cannotthiak,
moreover, that the k d y Apostle mrant to r t i forth any s ~ s tm of chmnology, ot. by any dejinife decision to estuBIid
any eruct cornputat ion rime, when Ire stt~teclthe nforesaid
runrbcr of yenrs. He c o d d not la? aside the tenching of
the word of eduation to devote himstfro quesrionv of chrcmoof the
l o q ; but he s e e m to ham w e d the common re~tda(~
boo of Judgea. Whereas, the Book of Kin s has evidently transmitted the exact period from t f e Exodua
t o Solomon, viz.: 440 or 4>0 yenrs. The opinion
which attributes to ench of the aforesaid five generations
120 years before the procreation of their children, ia
entirely opporite to truth and credibility. Deducting
from 480 yenrs the 40 years under Moses in the wilderness, and the four years of Solomon, there remnin 436
yenrs to the death of David, which being divided into
t h e five generations, will allow to each man the age of
85 years (87) before the proareation of his son. Any
one who attentively examiners, will see thnt this is true j

m a s , SO years, end Far the reign o f Sobmon fler his fourth y e u

when he began to build the Temple, 36 years, and you have 883
-(80+36~~116)=577 or 577 yean 7 months, cn the time between the
E.odm u d tha feoohtia~dm
the Tempk, not 574 para, u a h
h d b ~ E v u b i m .& t p r l . C c a m c a n o a m q h r v e e r q t h U

mom especially if he considers the circornstances o r

David's birth ; for J e m e was an old man when David,
rbo was his eighth child, was born.
But the subject will be rendered still more clear
am argument derived from the book of Judges it$
Euaebiun then qrroteti Judges xi. 55, 26 ; after which he
proeaeds thus: By there words Jephthah teacbea that
from the time of Mores and Bahk tho son of Zippor to
h i s age, 300 years had passed away. But if the yearm
in which the people were oppressed by foreign power
be counted separately, the time will greatly exceed 300
years. Whereas, if any one reckons only the years in
which the Judge. ruled, the time from Moses to Jephthah will be found to be 300 years ; and thus the teatirnony of Jephthah is confirmed. Our chronology mag
therefore be thus explained :

- -- -- -- -- --- --- --- - - - - - - - of,-- -- -- - - - -

- -- -- - --- --- ---- -- --- - -- -- -- - --

Foreign servitude, and Godoniel, or Othniel, the Judge,
Foreign servitude, -and Deborah and Barak
Ahimeleeh, yeam d,
Thula, or Tola, years of,
Forei;n aervita&e, amd years of Jephthah the Judge,
&begon,orIbzan, years of,
Foreiqn servitude, and Sampeon, year8
[In that time was carried on the Trojan war.]
Heli,orEli,yearsof, Snmuel and Saul, yeara of,
Years d Eolomon, until the building of the Temple



8 .
8 ,


Total from Momi and the Exodus from Egypt to the building d
the Temple, 480 yearn.
From the E d u s to the building of 901omon'e Temple
480 ,
From the birth of Abraham to t h Exodus
From the Deluge to the first year of Abraham
From Adamto theDeluge

- -- --- - - - - - 4 169

Totml from Adam t o Solemon and the buildinq of the

Temple, $150 years."-E~a. Csea. Chron. Can., Lib. i. e.
16. Ed. Milan, pp.49-78. Ed. Venice, tom. 1. pp. 106-172.

Ny object has been faithfully to condense the argument of Eusebiuq not to poiat out his defects o r correct
big mistakes. But it may be well to mention here that
ia the foregoing catalogue of Jud es, he has omitted
Elon the Zebulonite, who judged srael 10 years, and
whose name occurs between lbzan and Abdon. The
direrenre also of the sum total shows, that the object eC Eusebius was to reconcile the ahronology of the Book
of Judges with the shorter co~nputationof the Septuaint, though he appears to waver between that and the
&n er computation of the Hebrew.
#be render will now bnve seen that all Mr. Miller's
computations were considered and obviated more than
1500 years before he was born. I proceed now to show
the manner in which the chronology of the book of
Judges has been adjusted in modern times. For this
llrpose I shall here insert a letter, written before Mr.
&liller3a scheme bad seen the light, to a young lady who
had asked my assistance in the prosecution of these

Hortfwd, dugwt 15, 1835.

I begged Dr. Kemper to acknowledge for me the receipt nf ).our
h r o r of Jnly n t h , and to explain to yon why Icoald not imrndi;irrlr
answer it. The queatiuns yon proposed had relation to a very d i h cult part of Chronology : and of course it was impossible to give them
8 harty answer. I proceed new without farther preface to relieve
you from your ditllcultiee, as far am it is in my power.
Assuming A. M. 2083 as the date of the calling of Abraham, which
was, if I remember correctly, the period at whlah we had arrived in
our examination, Gen. xi. 32, xii. 4, compared with Acts vii. 4, when
Terah was dead a d Abraham was 73 yearn old, I proceed as fuH10wa :
From the calling of Abraham to the Exodus of the children of
sreel was 430 years, [Exod. xii. 40, 41, compared with Gal. iii. 17,]
30=2513h. Mnses was then 80 and Aamn 83. Exod. vii. 7.
The wanderings of the children of Israel in the Wilderness 40 years,
the death of Mrsea at the age of 120, tbe appointment of Joshua and
the entrance into the promised land are aH fixed by Deut. i. 3, xuiv.
7, Joshua i. 2, and bring ns to A.M. B53. How long Joshua ruled
brael we cannot tell from the Scriptures; For though his age, when
he died, is mentioned (Josh. xxiv. 29) as beins 110 yearn, yet wu
know not how old he wan when Mosea died. We must therefore look
f4md in the -red hieQrv to mme certain date. that we mar circumscribe, within as short
an e b k , th; period of
t u r d arrangement.

According to 1K i n rf.
~ 1, the fonndation af Womon'r Temple wu
laid in the 480th year aner the Exndas, i. e. 2513+480=2993, and
of 8ulomon. His reiqn, then, commenced
% 9 9 3 4 = A. M. 2989, and this consequently was the rear of David'q
death, 1 K i n e ii. N. Aud a. David's whole reign was 40 years, 1
Kings ii. 11, he begaa to reign A. M. 2949, the date, conseqoentlfi
of hul's death, 2 Sam. ii. 4. Saul reigned 40 yeam, Acts riii. 2L
H e began to re*,
therefore, A. M. 2909, and the difference between
this date and 2W9, the date of the entrance into the promised Ian&,
g i v a 356 years as the Whole period of Joshus, of the anarchy which
followed his death, and of the Judges.
Afler the entrance into the promised land, the first passover W ~ B
kept in the plains of' Jericho on the 14th day of the 6rst month of the
(1st year frora the Exodus. On the 15th day the children of Is a d
bte of the old corn of the land, and the manna ceased, Josh. v. 10, 1I,
12, xi. 18. Joshua made war a long time, but finally took the whole
land and gave it for an inheritance unto Israel, and the land rested
from war ~ v 23)
and at this time Joshua wan old and stricken 10
w e , (xiii. 1). $be date of this division may be gathered from the
roltowin~passages. (Nnrnbern r. 11, 12.) On the llOtb day of the !U
month of the 2d year after leavinl Egypt, i. e. aner the celebration d
the 1st anniversary or %I pnssover, (ix. 1, 2, 3, comp. with 1I), the
Israelites jonrnqed from the wilderness of Sinai to that of Parani
tmd from Paran (xii. 3) the men, uf whom Caleb WMI one, were sent
to explore the promised land. At that time (Joshua xiv. 7) Caleb
was 40 yean old ; and when the divihion of the land took place he
r s s 85. If, then, he way 40 at the beginning ofthe 2d year aRer t 4
Exodus, he waq 85 at *e beginning of the 47th year d e r the Excdur
The conquest, then, of the promised land, occupied 6 yeare, and on
the 7th year the land had rest. This -8 the 1st Sabbatical yearbeginning at the vernal equinox, A. M. 2359. At this time Joshua
was old and stricken in years, Josh. xiii. I. Bat his death could not
hare followed two years after, as Archbishop Ushersupposes; for it L
said (Josh. xxiii. 1) that a long time after the Lord had given rest
unto Israel, i. e. the first Sabbatical year, Joshua waxed old, &c.,and
was going the way of all the earth, (v. 14 ) Josephns says, (Antip.>
Book v. ch. i. see. 29), that he lived 110 yearn, nnd was captain of the
Host, nner the death of Moses, 25 yearn. I aec no reason why we
shonld not admit this testimony, and nccordinqb Sir John Marsham
and Blair do admit it, as well as the Bishop of Clogher, in hie vinditation ofthe Hebrew Chronology. Thb will fix the date of his deatb
A. M. 2578, leaving a period of 331 years, to the reiqn ofSal11.
It is this period concerning which there is so much difficulty.
all the yearn of servitude, of rest, and of the government of the
Judges, be considered as snccesrive periods, it will be fonnd that the9
lmonnt at least to 430 years ; even if me include the 20 years of Samson within the forty of the Philistine oppression, the whale of Sa~uel'$
administration within the 40 years of b u l , and make no allowanca
for the eldem who o a t l i d Joghun and the period of anamhy spoken
of in the l u t five chapters of the Ba& of J d g e a We u e rednced


either of enhrging the period between thc

lber&re te the
Exodus and the building of the Temple, or of cowidwing some d
these periods as contemporaneous.
The first course haa been taken by Jwphus, (see Antiq., B. viii.
ch. 3,5 I, and B. x. ch. 8, 5 5;) in both which psesages he asserts
that from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, in the fourth
year of Solomon, there were 591 years. This would admit the following computation: Mares 40+Joshua !2+Seniors and time d
Anarchy lt+Judg~a 430fSaul and Samuel 40f David *&lomon 4=592.
Not to embarraes the silbject, I omit noticing the ancient chronologers, excepting to observe, that they do not agree in their computotion of the whok time, aIthough they generally agree with the Bible
i n the several particulars. When they disagree, the numbers beiag
is general represented by single lettem, have probably been corrupted
by false readings. Clemens Alexandrinus (Strom. B. i.) makes the
whole period, at one time, 594, at another, 661 ; and the Chronieom
Paeehale computes, from the Exodus to the reign of Solomon, 630
yearn. Petavius, who pleads strongly for an extension of the time,
makes a calculation peculiar to h W , firing the whole period at
620 years.
But to depart from the express dechratiorco of the Bible, beside b e
ing liable to many objection6 of minor importance, appears to me to
be a preference of hlunan to divine authority. The passage 1 King
d. 1, has no various readings of any importance, and the Tarqum of
Jonathan, and all the versions, a e p t i n g the Septuagint, read 480
years. The reading of the Septuagint is 440; But that only increaser
the dSculty, and Eneebiua, Who notices the discrepancy between the
Hebrew and Greek text, evidently prefem the Hebrew, though he
endeavors, by omissions, to contmet the space d time to 439 years.
Unmoved, therefore, by the reasoning of Petaviw, I take the ground
which almost all modern ehronologem have taken, that the Hebrew
text must prescribe the limits of our investigation, and consequently
Chat some of the periotle mentioned in the Book of Judges were contemporary.
To adjust the chronology on thie basis, two systems, aa far as my
observation extendu, have been adopted. The one is that of Archbishop Usher, fist published in 1660, and which has since been penemlly adopted; tbe other is that of Sir John Marsham. I shall endeavor to state them both to you a s concisely as possible.
Archbkihop Usher supposes that the Sacred Historian first compute8
lime by a succession of rests, that is, from one time of r e p e to
mother, tiIl after the time of Gideon, and then by a succession d
Judges, till the time of Saul, the first king. The following M hir
reheme as given in hi Chronologia Sacra, chap. xii.
gLTheIsraelite8 kit Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month,
8nd (by 2 Chron. iii. 2) on the recolld day of the m d m o n t h in the
iourth year of Sololornos, the f b u n d a t i o ~oftbeTem le were laid, 419
Jm 17 d.% and not 480 fulL y a m dtsr the Eradun.



T. 1.

1. From the E.odun to the paatmpc of the J o r d . ~ ,

(Exod. xvi. 35; Deut. ii. 7, viii. 5 xxix. 5; Jorh.
v. 6 ; Pwl. xcr. 10; Nehem. h.21; Amoa ii.

10; v. 25; Acts vii. 36, xiii. 18, though J&

v. 6, in the Greek, h.s 42.)
11. From the passage of the Jordan till the eod of the
6 4
wars, and the rest given by Joshua, (Josh. xiv.)
From the rest given by Joshua to the rest re~toredto
the land by Othniel, after the victory over Cushao,
king of Mesopotamia,
(Jnd. iii. 2. In this period, 32 years are allowed
for Joshua and the elders, and the anarchy;
and eight the lime they served Coshan.)
Thence to the rest restored to the laud by Ehud, &er
the death of Eglon, king of the Moabites,
[Jud. iii. 30.)
V. Thence to the rest restored to the land by Deborah
and Barak, after the defeat of the army of Jabin,
king of Canaan,
(Jud. v. 41. In thia space 20 yearn of oppression
and Shamgar, iii. 31.)
VT. Thence to the rest restored to the land by Gideon when
he hnd conqrlered the Midianites,
Vn. Thence to the beginning of the reign of Abimelech,
9. 9
(This is not expressed in the Scriptures, but collected by subtracting other dates.)
VIn. Years of Abimelech, Tola, and Jair,
IX. Jephthah,
. 6
X. Ibsan, Elon, and ~ G o n (7+ld+8,)'
(Jud. xii. 8-15.)
XI. Eli and Samson,
XI[. bmuel,
XIII. Saul, King,
mV. From the-death of Soul to the founding of the Temple
by Solomon,
. 4 3



. .

. . . . . . .

.. .. .

. .. ... ... . .. . .. . .. . ... ...


478 6

The objeotionr to this reheme an, Ist, That tbere seems to be a

violation of the language of Scripture, in ruppoaing *at such a p r e b
.ions 811 " the land had rest forty years," mean only 6r the land h r l
reat in iib8 fortieth ymr." The Jesuit Ribera seems to hare kar
tbe first who gave t h i ~interpretation ; only that he &tea fr0ln the
death of Joshua and the elders, in the ease of Othniel, while Usher
dates from the r e d under Joshua, (see Pelav. de DOC^. Temp., Tom.
2, p. 40, who rqecta the opinion.) 26, That it intraducea a period al
more than nine years between Gideon and Abimelech, for which t h e n
is no ae(herit7. 33, That it b r i o ~ the
s time of Jephthah t m early
36 years and 6 months,or to 263 yeura 6 months, insladof 300 yeam
.fter the se&tlemsntd tbe t m t r i k and a half beyoad Jordan, cantruJ to the up- authority of 8cripture. (See Judgea xi. 26.)

The ystem ofsir John Mamham, published in 1672, takes for ;td
k s m the declaratioP of Jephtbab, tbat &m f4a ectllemem of tbe 2 i
tribes beyamd Jordan till his tinre, w w a period of 308 years. Ar
their settlement took p l a a in the 40th year .I\a the Exodus, he
divides the whole period dtirne from the Exdw to the founding of
&lomoo's Temple into two inlervah.
I. From the Exodus to the time of Jephthah,
II. From the time d Jcphlhah tothe fourth year of801omon, 140


E e then a r g e s that there neVer was a mccersion of judges in

brael ; that aftcr the death of Joshua, there *as no human captain
d the Lord's Host; tbat the republic was a theocracy; that the
krm Judger was used in the rune sense as the Suffetes among the
Carthaginians, who were of' Phenician origin, (Heb. Shophetim), to
denote sometimes persons to whom Israel applied for advice or to
decide controversies, as Ileborah and Samuel, aner the election of
hul- sometimes persons of pontifical authority, as in tbecaseofHelirometimes extraordinary deliverers raised up by God in some pattimlar tribe, as was the c u e with Ehud, Bideon, Jephthah, and
many others ; and that such deliverers or avengen, might or might
m t have authority to govern, there being no evidence that &moon,
for example, ever governed the nation : that consequently many of
thew judges might be contemporary: and that it was the nenta of
weakness from this want of nnion which led the worldly-minded
Iwaeliteu, forgethl that their protection depended on their k i t h in
Ood'r promises, to demand a king like other nations. He lbrlilicr
his argument by showing that the Philistines on the west were
repobed'by Shamgar, while the Moabitea on the ewt were overcame
Ehud ; that Jabin, king of Canaan, who lived on the north, w y
apposed and sllbdued by lhe northern tribes under B a d ; and that In
the double incursion ofthe Ammonites on the east, and the Philisticles
nn the west, the burthen of the Ammonitic r e a t d on Jephthah and
his peopie beyond Jordan, while the Philistine was opposed chiefly
by Judah and the neighboring tribes. To see the full force of this
agument, it will be necessary, in reading the buok of Judgea, to have
c map of Judea as divided among the t r i k s before your eyes. Hir
abeme then is as followa +
Tbc 6mt Istewd of 340 years is divided t h ; Mosg 40fJo11bim
46, (itbe time of his governmePt aecordimg to Jmphns),+38, m
M e r l ~for
~ the
, time of the eiders who d v d him, and the prrid
d u & y in nhieb the dhordtve .opsre wmoliucd a e n t i o d ir tbs
U I e r Fand & e b& 4bdges,
d the whole of Isrpel under h
Then fblbwud the lot &ode
p r e r f d kikg of Menopetmnia,, fbr 8
d sst a n d a O W e l d the tribe ef h d a h 90 pears. Tbm *he
oemihde wider the
for 18 yean, and tbe N&
bsccd by Ehrd, sed wbich W e d in tbe a s t e r n paw fbr br yeam.
Y ia sot to be nppoeed that Ehod l i d WBh p , ud he cemjamra
(L.rbcdidaboot 90 -&he
b w l ~ ~ d h h s o r a ~

&e X a b i t k h yoke. Contemporary nitk him wma B b q r on the

wetat, who delivered his tribe from the Philigtinn. ARer the death

of Ehud, tbe east still remaining quiet, the wmt w u invaded by

Jabin, 185 years a k r the &due, and his tyranny continued for 30
yeam. At the end of this time Sisera and all the host d Jabin bei

defeated by the tribes of Zabulon and Nrphtbali, under Deborah a 1

Bank, the wester0 tribes had rest 40 years, the remainder of the
period of 80 )-ern quiet enjoyed by the eastern tribes. Tbe whole of
Israel now siokiog intu a general idolatry, were delivered to the
Midianiteq under whom they suffered a severe servitude for 7 yeara.
God then raised up Gideon, and, the Midianites being dentroyed, the
tiibee remained in quiet fur forty years. From this time the period
of Ahimelecb, Tola, and Jair, b r i n g ua down to tbe end of (Bc
Pret interval, a rpace of48 yearn.
The general idolatry which then prevailed, extending to the go&
of all the nations around Israel, brought them'under a most @vou#
urvitude, which began on the east to the Ammonites, and on the
west to the Philkines. That on the east, aRer 18 years, war ended
by the victon of Jephthah, while that on the west continned for 40
yearn. Durine the first half of tbis period occ~~rred
the exploiu of
The destruction he occanioned at his death reviving the
hoper of the Israelites, they ventured to attack the Philistines under
Hophni and Phinehae, but were dekated and the ark was taken.
This occasioned the death of Eli, who bad judged Israel fur 40 years.
Enmuel now begon to have authority in eonsequenceof the Lpor
ahown him by God in the 2d year of Jephthah, and he continued to
judge Israel, contemporary with Ibzan and Elon, for 20 yearn, during
which time the ark ~ e m a i n din the house of Obed Edom. At the
end of tbis seeond 20 yean, the Israelite were delivered from the
tyranny of (be Pbili-tines, by the victory of Ebenezer, under Samuel.
Tbi happened une year before the death of Elon. AMon judued for
8 years, and Eamuel for 16, after the battle of Ebenezer; bnt the
disorders oommitted by Eamuel'r eons, who with himeelfthen judged
Israel, finally caused tbe nation to ask for a king. God permitted
their request, tbongb it arose from a want of faith, to be granted. Saul
wan then anointed, and aecordin~to Josephus Samnel lived after t h h
pwiod 18 years. The m with the Philistines broke out with
rwewed fury, 2 years a h r Saul was made king, and continued d
hk life-time, or 22 yeam aner the death of &muel, according to
Josephus. This makes the whole period of Saul's re@ 40 yeam,
in which Josepbaa agree8 with Acts xiii. Aller tbe deatb of Bnl,
David reigned 40 yeus, end in the 4th y a u of 8alomon the temple
wma founded.
Such is Sir John Marsham's qstem; and u far M his arflment
is founded on the character of the judicial office, it atrikes me that
it is preferable to that of the chmwlogerr, who make a11 the jndqer
ruceessive. But there is a difficulty tcr which the Larned authw
does not seem to have adverted; and fiat is, that tbe peried of 300
years from Mto Jephthah mnat extend to the beginning of
Sephthah's ggp'ermncd, nad wnmpuntly must inclmlc the 18 yean

d with rbioh, ar w i a i n q with the eomwseFmcst

d Y e 4 0 yean d Philietine bonhpe, he bas begun bls w o a d interval.
Under .It t h m diflieultia, wlrieb it is perhaps impossible to solve

d i m l y , I wiu venture to .dd a eompatation, whieh, in defadt of

#tw, y m may a
m in the fonaation of your c h m n o l ~ i c a ltable.
Paababiw, yon will percciw, is ell that any cbronologer can aim at;
u d m o a 8 th eonlticting mhemrr, tbis seems to me to be es IitUe
h b l s Do obJection u any which can be dered.
I rrmri.req FaithfulIy, y o m ,

- -.

. . . . . .. . .. 2618
. 251

~ S m Empt,
h t r a a c e ietn the prooired land under Jonhuq
Joshua dies at the age of 110, d e r mling Israel 2 5 years,
N e w for the elden who outlived Joebur, and for the period
sf anarchy in the time of Phinebas, tb.e son of Elcazar the
Hish Priest (Jndgas XI.), w h w the disorders of Micah,
tk Lerite, the destraetioa of the tribe of Bcnj.mi0, md
othr enonnitits were committal, 16 yearn, till
I. Servitude under C n s h a for 8 years, till
Rest under Othniel for 40 p r s , ends
11 &rvitude under Eglol~,kinq of Moab, 18 Tern, endr
Rest .of the cutern t r i k under Ehud emmenera.
Philbtiaes repulsd aa the West by Sbuogu, during
the life of E h 4 suppose 6 years &r the f m d e m
snrler Ehnd,
Ehud dies, u we a n w e , ; b o n t ' f ~ y) k n k e r i e h.a
given rest,
(Jd. iv. 1.) Northern and Western
m. Aad the n m e
Ismeliter roM by Cod to Jabin, who oppresser them
90 y m n , to the year
Bisera then d e h t d , and &e k t an& D&
a d
Bank mrweeas end sontinnu M yam, ending a t
the rune time with the 80 yeam rest of the Eastern
tribes by tbe imptiom ef the
IV. Midiaaites, and the fourth servitude ubieh b e g h in
This swerc mvitude ended by Cideen, in
Eli )ara in the teoth year d ' G i n ,
Cideon diea rfter giviaj rellt for 40 yeam, in
Abimaleeh reigns 8 years and k killed,
Tola j u d p Ismel 23 y a r s a d dies,
Eli-be* 80 judge Ewd at t b age of 68;d
2d year d Jair,
Jeir dim A e r L a r i q
P2 yearn,
V. The p w of J U s death, the 20th of Eli, begin tho
b # e rsw&.b n.dcr thPbUidines in the Wed,d
the Ammmitu in the
which latter
for 18
m,when the hibsbcp.dJ o h n u e acni~rcdW
Jep4th.L 340 y r n r Plbr t k y Int n t t h d t i y I d .
I n * u r ( i P W ~ ~ t ' . f

.. . .. 2S!M
. .. essO

. .



. Ha0

. 2747
. . . e78Y



. -18
. . %ES!

Pbilidnw take place, and continue for 90 j a r s ,

being terminated by his death in
The Isreeliten, encouraged by the destructiondso many
of the Philistines at SsmeonC h t h , hazard a battle
under Hophni and Phinebno, are defeated, a d the ark
ia taken. The news occasions (he death of Eli, in Lhs
98th year of his age. At this time we will suppose
that 5.mnel was 15 years old. The favor of God
t o w d him gave him the authority of a judge among
tbe peopte.
Jephthah dies, havinq been judge f o ~
6 years,
lbran dies, haviny judged 7 y e w ,
When Samuel had judged lsmel #)years, occurred the
battle of Ebenezer, which put an end to the 40 yeua
lwrrritude to the Philislinen,
Elon dies, having judged Israel 10 yeara,
Abdon dies at the end of 8 yearn,
34 years after the battle of Ebenezer, when Samuel,
according to our computalion, was 69 years old, and
his sons had committed disorders, h u l is anointed
War with Philistines recommrnceain the 2d yew of Saul
&muel dies according to Josephus in the 18th year of
Baul, 84 yews aner Sameel%death, defeated and slain,
David wcceeds him, and reigns 48 yean, dies,
Solomon begin6 to build the Temple in rhe 4th year of
bu reign #lid 480th year d e r the Exodus,

. . . .


. . -

. .

. .

.. 18JB

. 28B4

. 2909

. . . . . . .
. .

. .






T h b peribd

is still

more difficult than t h e preceding.

dividing line, the meeting
Hitherto t h e tide of time
has flowed onward from t h e Crmtion ; when t h e length
of thir period i s defined, it must flow back from t h e
oorrrmon Christian era.
W e have not here t b e advantage of a n extreme limit
amsigned by t h e express declarntion cd Holy Scripture,
like t h a t contained in 1 gingr vi. 1. \Ve must g a t h e r
the letlgth of t h e period from comparing t h e length of t h e
a r e m l reigns of which it is composed. 'I'hie may a t
fir& appear extremely easy 5 bat a n y one who attempts
it will bnd h i m d f b e e t with dificnltks. T h e different
cawksims a t which Petarias, Usher, Marrllnm, iind
H a k have m i v b d , effectually exhibit what these difficultier rnurt be. The whale chronologicd period, from

It is, if w e m a y ro speak, the

d t h e waterr of e h r o n o l o g .


t h e fifth year of Solomon t o the destruction of t h e Temple, according to t h e computation of Petrvius, is 423
years ~ n 6dmonths. Arehbishop Usher differs not greatly
from Petavius : T h e Temple," he says, was destroyed
towards the close of t h e y e a r of Nebuchadnezznr 19
(Jerem. lii. 1 2 ; 2 Kings xxv. 8.), at t h e beginning of
t h e first year of the 48th Oly~npiad,in the current y e a r
of Nabonassar I60 ; and after it was founded by Solomon, 424 years, 3 months, and 8 days. In t h e same
fifth month, (Jerem. i. 3), all the walls of Jerusalem
being broken down, thone who were left in the city,
those who hod gone over t o tbe king of Babylon, and
t h e residue of the common people, together with t h e
treasures of the king and the princes, and the u t e n ~ i l s
of the house of God, were carried away by Nebuzaradan
to Babylon. (Jerem. xxxix. 8,9-Iii. 14-23 ;1 Kings xxv.
10-17; 1 Chron. xxxvi. IS, 19, U)). 'Fhus was J u d a h
car-ied away captive ont of hia own land (Jerem. lii. 27;
2 Kings xuv. 21) b63 years from t h e beginning of the
reign of David, 388 years from the s e p ~ r a t i o nof the ten
tribes, and 134 years after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel."-Usher's
Annal. v. Age of the World.
Sir John Marsham, on t h e other hand, ea s : " T h e Temple of Jerusalem, from its foundation by olomon, stood,
according to our computation, 400 years. Of this time,
t h e r e a r e twointervals ; the first ending with the destrttction of the k i n ~ d o mof Israel ; the secoad ending with
that of t h e kingdom of Judah nod the 'I'emple. T h e
first contains 272 years; the last 128 years, 5 months,
and 7 days."-Chron.
Can., see. xv. p. 383, cornp. wiih
see. xvii. p. 497.
Dr. Hales, in his Analysis of Sacred Chronology,
makes the whole duration of the kingdom of Israel, frum
t h e first of Jeroboam t o the ninth of Hoshea, 271 years j
and the whole duration of t h e kingdom of Judah, from
t h e first of Rehoborm t o t h e eleventh of Zedekiah, 404
years. T h e former h e effects, first, by shortening t h e
reigns of Baasha, Elab, and Omri, three ef t h e first eight
kings of Israel, each one year, to make them rynchronize
completely with t h e 6 r r t aix kings of Judah ;aed rseaondly, by inserting twointecmgnurnsamounting t o 32 years,

the first of 22 years between Jeroboam IT. and Zechariah

and Shallurn, the second of ten years between Pekah
and Hoshea. The latter he effects, first, by considering all the years of the kings of Judah.ns complete
earn, contrary to the computatio~lsof the other chronofogera ; and, secondly, by inserting between Amaziah and
Uzziah an interregnum of eleven years.
By adding to these numbers 37 years of Solomon,
from the fourth year of his reign, inclusive, we have
Dr. Hales' computation of the whole period, as follows:
From the hunlatiou to tbe destruction of the Temple (37+404)~41
yenrs. This is diviled into twa subperiods, viz.:
1. From the fanndntion of the Temple to the destruction
of the kingdom of Israel, (37+271)
- - - 2308
2. From that time to the drstructio~~
of the kingdom of
JuJah and the Temple (441-308) - - - =I33


This last sub-period differs only one year from th;

eomputation of Archbishop Usher, and between four
and five years from that of Sir John Morsham. It is
evident, therefore, that the principal difficulties lie
within the first sub-period; and as there is no question
with respect t o the years of Solomon, they are, in foat,
confined to the collateral reigns of the kings of Israel
and Judah. In thc computation of these alone, Dr.
Hales exceeds Archbisho Usher (271-244)=
17 yearr ;
and he ditrers from Sir fohn Marsham (30&172)=36
years. This latter difference is nearly.accounted for by
the 32 years of interregnum in the k~ngdomof Israel,
and the 11 years of interregnum in the kingdom of
Judah, according to Dr. Hales' system. With regard
t o the number and extent of the several reigns, there i s
not, and cannot be, any m n t e r d diference, a s the following comparative tables of the kingdome of Judah
a n d Isracl will fully, show.

N o remarks are necessary on these tables; because

the reader will see at once that all the departures from
the Hebrew Scriptures in Josephus, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Eusebius, are errors. It seems difficult to
account for the prolongation of the reign of Solomon by

Josephus (Ant. Jud., Lib. viii. cnp. 7, 4 8,) from 4 8 to 80

years. Reduce this reign to the Scripture measure,
and all the difference ceases. Yet that he must have
reckoned the reign of Solomon as 80 years appears
from the tenth book of his Antiquities, where he speaks
of the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezaar.
H e there says that "the city was taken in the eleventh
year of the reign of Zedekiah, on the ninth day of the
fourth month, about midnight." And a little further on
(4 4) hc says: "Thus did they who were reigning, of
the race of David, terminate their existence, being in
number 81 to the last king. All the years that they
reigned were five hundred and fourteen, and six months,
and ten days ; twenty of which years, the first of them,
King Saul held the government, not being of the same
tribe (6 5). The Babylonian sent his general, Nabuzardanes, to Jerusnlem to spoil the Temple, ordering him
also to burn it and the royal palace, tolevel the city,
and transport the inhabitants to Babylon. Being come
t o Jerusalem in the eleventh year of the rcign of Zedekiah, he rifled the Temple, and carried away all the
old and silver vessels of God, and the great laver which
i!i olomon had dedicated ; also, the brazen columns with
their chapiters, and the golden tables and candelabra.
Carrying away all these, he set fire t o the Temple on the
new moon of the fifth month, in -the eleventh yenr of
the reign of Zedekiah, the eighteenth (19?) of Nebuchadnezzar, rind burned the royal palace and destroyed
the city. Now the Temple waa burned 470 years,
6 months, and 10 days after it wvas built. From the departure of the people from Egypt, it was then 1062
years, 6 months, and 10 days. The whole period of
time from the Deluge t o the destruction of the Temple,
was 1957 years, 6 months, and 10 days. From the
creation of Adam to these events which befell the Terne, were 3313 years, 6 months, and ten,days."-Ant.
nd., Lib. x. c. 8. Q$ 2, 4, 5.
I t must here be remarked concerning the first statement of Josephus in the above cited pnssage, that the
kings of Judah, from Solomon t o Zedckiah, were in
number twenty. Athsliah in of course excluded, as


having s~orged the s o v e r e i e y . Her soa J e h o d ,

whom ahe attempted to murder, was but one year old
when his father was slain by Jehu; and she reigned
during the firat six yeara of his minority, until he was
seven years old. Consequttntly, from David, inclusive,
mad not from Saul, inclusive, the number of the kings of
Judah was twenty-om. But if we reduce the number
of yeare in each reign to the Scripture measure, the
sum will be found t o accord nearly with the whole number, 514, here given by Josephue, and thus he himself
made to correct the errors of hia text, as it now etands,
with regard t o the reigns of Saul and Solomon
t N a u s ol the
K~ngr K I I Iof~Judah


Abijam or


5 Asa

10 Aaaziah
11 Azariah or
12 lotham
13 Ahaz
14 HezaLlah
15 Mrnmaeh
I6 b n
17 Jo~iah
KI Jehoahsz
19 Jehoiakim
20 Jehoiachin
21 Zedekilh

h t t 6 ~ 1UI1 ttae srvcrui retpr,. a e w r m g



viii.. e. 12, S. 6 411

ix., C. 3, 8.2 25




ix., c. 9, a. 3 29
ix., c. 10, s. 4 52I




W e come now to the other statements. " The Temple

was b-d
470 years, 6 months, and 10 days after it was
built." It hr been r a n by the comparative table, that

-.this number is produced by counting the reign of 6010mon as 80 years. Reduce his reign to the Scripture
measure, by taking 40 from 470, and the difference between his colnputation and that of the Scriptures is at
an end.
From the departure of the people from Egypt
i t was then 1062 gears, 6 months, and 10 days." Joaephus stated as we have seen (Ant. Jad., Lib. viii. c. 3),
that Solomon begun to build the Temple 592 years after
the Exodus. The two calculations perfectly harmonize ;
and both are t o be corrected.

of Kings,



But the remaining computations in the two passages

from the eighth nhd tenth books of the Antiquities,
here quoted, do not harmonize,
Years. YUlr Dap.

I t is stated (Lib. X. C. 8,8. 5), that from the Deluge

to the destruction of the Temde, the whole
1957 6 10
period of time war .
From this sum deduct the time from the fwndatjon
of the Temple to it8 destruction, aa here stated mo 6 10

- - - - -

-- -

And it leaves as the period from the Deluge to the

But according to Lib. viii. c. 3, the same phi4


Exhibiting an excesa over the former compofation of


-3513 6 10

-- from the Creation to the destruction of the

- - - - Temple
Deduct from the foundation of the Temple


470 6
-And it maLee h m the Creation to the foundation
- - - - - - 3043
of the Temple
hrre.s, in Lib. viii. c. 3, the name period was
stated to be - - - - - - 3102

ExpXtiag8 dimLmtim ihm the ibmer colapdc



These discrepancies are so obvious, that an further

remarks would be superfluous. I pass on, t erefore,
t o the account which Josephus gives of the extinction
of the kingdom of Israel (Ant. Jud., Lib. ix. c. 14, s. 1).
'LSalmanasares, king of the Ass riaos, being informed
that the king of the Israelites badisnnt secretly to Soas,
king of the Egyptians, inviting him to confederate with
him against him (Salmanasares), and being greatly provoked at this, marched against Samaria, in the seventh
year of the reign of Hoshea. The king not receiving
him, he besieged the city three years, and took it by
force, in the ninth year of Hoshea's reign, and the
seventh [Gth?] of Hezekiah, king of Jerusalem. Thus
he extinguished the government of the Israelites, and
carried the whole people captive into Media and Persia,
among whom he took the king, Hoshea, alive. Having
then transferred other nations from the latter country,
from a place called Chuth (for there is a river in Persra
bearing that name), he caused them to inhabit Samaria
and the country of the Israelites. The ten tribes of the
Israelites were therefore carried captive from Judaa 947
years after their ancestors had come out of Egypt and
possessed that country, 800 years after the government
of Joshua. From the time when they revolted from
Rehoboam, the grandson of David, and gave the kingdom to Jeroboam. as I have prcviously stated, 240 years,
7 months, and 7 days."
By the comparative table of the kings of Israel, in
which the testimony of Josephus is given in detail, from
Lib. viii. c. 11, s. 4, to Lib. ix. c. 14, it will be seen
that their united reigns are,

Aecorrling to the Scriptures,

According to Josephnr,

Y r u Montb. D a p






This difference of two years is caused by his calling

the reign of Jehu (Ant. Jud., Lib. ix. c. H, s. I), 37
yearn, and that of Jeroboam 11. (Lib. ix. c. 10, a. 3), 40
yeats; In the present passage he makes the whole
amount of their reigns WOy. 7m. 7d., thus correcting
hi former dates in one of these placesq and co+g
within one yeru of the Scripture cbonology.

Bat with re ard to the other computat;orrs of time h

this passage, t ey will not bear the touch-atone af crh
'tical examhation. We hnve seen that Josephus makes
the time from the Exodus to the destmction of the
Temple, 106%~.
6m. 10d. Here he makes the time-from
the Exodus to the extinction of the ten tribe#, 9r17
years. The difference between these sums, l15y. 6m.
IOd., is tlre time which elapsed from the extinction of
the ten tribes to the Destruction of the Temple ;
whereas by the reigns of the kin s of Judah from the
7th of Hezekitth to the 11th of Zdekiah inclasive, as
given b Josephus, the some interval amounts to 133y.
6m. 1 0 1
Again: After the Exodus Joshua lived with Maaes
40 years, and aom~nanded after his death 25 years.
(Ant. Jud., Lib. v. c. 1, 19). if then the extinction
of the ten tribes took place 947 years after the Exodus,
it mnst have taken ace 882, and not
800 years, after the government of Jos ua. But enough
has been said to ahow that no dependence is to be placed
on the dotes of early events in Josephus, whenever he
deviates from those of the Holy Scriptures; whether
that deviation be the result of his own inaecumcy, or
of errora which have crept into his text. Casting aside,
therefore, all other authorities, we will proceed to the
di(ficu1t task of synchronizing the collateral reigns of
the kings of Judah and Israel, according to the testimony of the first and second books of kings.
It is obeervable that these reigns may be divided into
two periods. 'rhe first begins with the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam, which are considered as beginning
together, thou h the circumstances of the narrative show
that some litt e time intervened between the death of
Solomon and the revolt of the ten tribes. There may
be some tfllth in the Rabbinical rule quoted from the
Talmad by Petavius (de Doct. Temp., Lib. ix. c. 60),
that tbe reigns of the Jewish monarchs were c a a p t e d
' from the spring month Nisnn, the boginning of their
ecclesiawti~alyear, while thoae of foreign k ~ n pwere
eomputed from she autumual month Tiuri, t b begitmibg
of their *UP p t r . If thSm tale meant,I. ia miut pro-


babie, t o consider the kings of Israel a s fareignera, be-.

cauee they had lapsed into idolatry, it at once makes a
difference of six months in the computation of the several
reigns, and will help us greatly in the difficulties which
we are now to consider. This period begins with Rehobonm and Jeroboam, and ends with Ahaziah and Jehoram, both of whom were killed on the same day by
Jehu, (2 Kings, c. is. 24, 27). The number of the
kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Ahaziah is six ; thnt
of the kings of Israel from Jeroboam t o Jehoram, eight.
Yet the number of years in each series being summed
up, it will be found. that the united reigns of the six
kings of Judah amount to 95 ears, and the united reigns
of the eight kings of 1sraer to 98 years and 7 days.
This excess of three years must be removed thus, as
Dr. Hales has concisely stated it: " Btrasha be an to
reign in the third year of Asa, king of Judah, 1 ings,
xv. 33; and his son Ela, in the twenty-sixth year of
dsa, xvi. S, which gives the reign of Baasho, 16-3=23
years complete. &la was slain in the twenty-seventh
of Asa, xri. 10 ; he reigned, therefore, only 21-26=1
year complete. And Zimn' and Omri reigned in succession, from the twenty-seventh to the thirty-eighth of
Asa, xvi. 29 ; or only 38-27=11 years complete. And
a s their reigns mere all included in the one reign of
daa, and therefore more likely to be correctly referred
thereto, this is a reason why these three reigns should
be selected for reduction, rather than the suaceeding a r
the precedirig."--Hales Analysis, vol. ii., p. 3734.
The second period begins with the usurpation of
Athaliah, and ends with the sixth year inclusive of Bezekiah, amountin in the whole to 165 years ; wherens
the ten reigns iofsrael from- Jehu to the ninth year inclusive of Hoshea, which we know from 2 Kings xviii.
10, coincided with the sixth of Hezekiah, amounts only
t o 143 yeare and 7 mouths. Here is a difference of 21
years and 5 months ; SO that there must have been one
or more interregnum8 in the kingdom of Judah, a t
least to thnt amosnt, although the Bible, Jose hus, and
Eusebius are entirely silent on the subject.
&re rnuot have h,
if we take the succession of the

Maga of h & a h as the standard, and admit ef no interr&-m

o r regency in the latter kingdom.
But on this very point concerning the kingdom d
Adah, there is a great difficulty. It appears from t
King#, xfv. f , 2, that Amaziah, king of Judah, began tu
d g u in the second year of Joaeh $kingof Israel, and
reigned 29 years; and from the 17th verse of the =me
chaptet that he lived after the death of 'tbe same Joash
15 years. If the second year of Jeash began in the
eatutnnal month Tieri, and the first year of Amaaiah in
the epring month Nisan ; if Jonsh or Jehoash died, a s
we muat infer from 2 Kings, xiv. 23, in the 15th year
of Amaziah, having reigned 16 years (xiii. 10); then
there were fourteeh complete years of Amaziah preceding his death, ahd 15 yearb after it; so that Jeroboam
11. began to reign over Israel in the fifteenth year of
Amntiah, as is expressly said, 2 Kings, xiv. 23. Con*
quently Amaginh died in the fifteenth year of Jeroboam
11. But his successor Azariah or Uzziah began to reign
id the tweaty-seventh year of Jeroboarn 11. (2 Kingn,
xv. 1) ; and sf it was as the beginning of the twenty-nth
year, a s the death of Amsziah may have been at
the end of the fifteenth, then the difference between 26
complete years, and 15 complete yearn of Jeroboam,
i. e. I1 complete years, must have been a period of
interregnum ok regency in Judah. But the Scriptures
are entire1 siknt as to eny such interregnum or rer y ; a d silent too in a very remarlable manner.
or after speakin of the conspiracy against Amaziah,
in comsequenee d w h i c h he was slain, the u c r e d hiaoimmediately adds, (xiv. 21), "And all the people
at Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old,
and made lrim king instead of his fnther Amasiah."
'Itbe same testimony is given 2 Chron. xxvi. 1, with this
&#hence only that Azariah is there ealled Uaziah. He
was taken by nll the people. There was no popular commation ; no division of o p i n h . His right to the throne
was undisputed. Yet in 2 Kings, xv. 1, 2, it is a i d :
the twenty and seventh year of Jeroboam, king of
hrael, b e p n Azariah son of Amaziah, king of Judah, t o
Iraign. Sutsan yean, old w i ha
~ when he began to

reign, and he reigned two and fifty years in Jernmlem."

Tbe queetion then is, Was Azariah 16 years ald when
bie fetber died at the-ad of the fifteenth year of Jeroboam II., or eleven years after at the be 'mting ef the
twenty-sercnth year of Jeroboam 11. 'I %ere the opinions of the learned are at variance. Some suppose
that Azariah was taken by the people when his father
was killed ; that he was then 16 yeare OM ; aad that the
52 ears of his reign are to be counted as cornmenoin
wit the sixteenth year of Jeroboam 11. Others thine
that he was 16 yeats old when he began to reign at the
commeocement of the twenty-seventh year of tbe king
of Israel. The former admit of no interregnum in Judah ; while the latter admit that there was an interregnum sf eleven years. The first scheme is that of Petavius and Archbishop Usher ; the last, that of Dr. Hales.
Both agree in making the reigns of the kings of Judah
their standard, and are consequently obliged to dlow
of one or more interre nums in the more turbulent
kingdom of Israel. Sir 6 b n Manham, on the contrary,
admits no interregnum in Israel, and 1s disposed to
contract the reigns of the kings of Judah, by making
some of their years collateral, so as to bring them
within the sum of the rei s of the kings of Israel a8
mentioned in the Bible. g i s , if 1 mistake not, r i l l be
made appmnt by the following synopsis. (See .next



Bir Joltt~M ~rdbhnt.

Patavlv* U
H sOh ~ rJ.

Hezekiah to the
l l t h of Zedekiah, 133y. 6m
IOd., or I n
m n d numbers, 133

---- - --

1)r. Hales says 441 1 but this is occasioned by hie

computing after the third, and not after the fourth year
of Solomon. Though in other parts of his work he
inclines to conjectural critlcisrn, and does not always
show that reverence for the Hebrew Scriptures t o
which, in the judgment of the.present writer, they are
entitled, yet in the present scheme he,takes the Hebrew text as it is, and shortens the reigns of the kings only
where, a s in the case ,of the first eight kings of iarael,
it is rendered necessary by the sacred history itself.
In this conformity to the Hebrew Text, I am inclined
to agree with Dr. Hales, for the following reasonsr
1. When the three eminent critics, Petaviua, Usher,
and Marsham, wrote, the criticism of the sacred text
was iq its infancy. They could not proceed upon
the sure bnsie of the coilation of manuecriptr which

shows the great integrity of the Hebrew text; and,

therefore, they were more willing to be guided by conjecture than we o~ightto be, now that this integrity ia
so well established.
2. All but Sir John Marsham have admitted the exietence of one or more interregnums in the kingdom of
Ierael, though the Scriptures and Josephus are silent on
the subject. By parity of reason, therefore, we may
admit the space of eleven years between the death of
Amaziah, and the actual reign of Azariah o r Uzziah.
T h e on1 difficult is in the words, "which wae sixteen
years o d~ in Ikings, xi". 21, immediately after the
death of Amaziah is mentioned ; but as the very aame
words occur in chap. xv. 2, it is possible that they may
have crept into the former passage, from a marginal
reference to the latter. Be this a s it may, the testimony
is SO clear in 2 Kings, xv. 1, 2, that Azariah was sixteen
years old in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam* 11.
when him actual reign commenced, that we cannot, a s
it seems t o me, admit of hi. being more than five yearr
old when his father died, and consequently there must
have been a minority of eleven years. I do not call it
an interregnum as Dr. Hales calla it, in which Mr.
Miller has followed him, probably without knowing it.
For I see no evidence that the title of Azariah or Uzriah t o the crown, was disputed, but precisely the conz
trary. H e was five years old when his father was killed.
It is t o be presumed, therefore, from the manner in
which the Scriptures speak, that he was taken by all
the people at that tender age .to be their king, but that
the affairs of the kingdom were conducted by a regency.
According to the system of the Theocracy, the High
Priest, with the great coouncil, were the proper persons
t o direct the affairs of the nation until the king was old
enough himself to govern. This he was thought to be
in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam 11. when he
himself was sixteen years old.
3. The manner in which the Scriptures speak of the
incapacity of Azariah or Uzziah t o reign after he
became a leper etrengthens these conclusions. H e was
punished with leprosy for violating the priest's office,

& remained a leper to the day of h i e h t h . (2 K'

~ v .5, 2 Chron. xxvi. 16-23.)
Reing driven by t
priests from the Temple, and m fact excommunicated
.s an unclean person, "he dwelt in a several houbeing a le er 8 for he wan cut d from the Bauee of the
Lord ; an Jotham his eon was ever the king's h u w ,
judging the people of the had."-"So
Uzxiah slept
with his fathers, and they buried him with his fathere.
And Jotham h b son re' nod in hie nteab" At the
time of his death his s o n % t h m was 25 years of. age.
(2 Chron. xxvii. 1.) We do not know how long Uztiah
wms a leper; bat it is probable that Jotham was old
enough to administer in aftbirs. of state, mad therefom
" he was over the k i '9 house, judging the people ol
the land." Hie actua reign was counted, not from the
tiare of Uzriah's incepacity, but f r m the ti- of hie
death. Jotham, therefore, was regent for some year*
before he became king ; but M tp tbe period of hie life,
at that time, or when Uzriah wae mitten with leprosy,
both the Sariptures and Josephus are as aleat, as they
u e with regard to the eleven yearn of Uzziah's minority.
Conidering the period of time from the foundation
to the dertruction of the Temple as
&e computation of time, aesording t o the h e w text
r i l l be as followm :

"a "'

From the Creation to the end of the Deluge,

Prom the Deluge to the birth of Abmham,
R o m the birth of Abraham lo the Emdus,

- - - - - - - - - 16

From the Esdar to the


yem of Beinelariye,
From the tiRh year of SoIom6n to hir death
Rom the reign of .Rehobam and
d the tern tribes, to the death of ~ h ; . i ~ and
~ehomm,both killed the -me day by Jehu,
J h m the usurpation of Alhaliah and the reign
of Jehu, to the sixth of Hezeliiah and ninth of
H a r h a inchive, when the kingdom of brael
~ d & ~ e d , Fmm the rewnth y e u of Hezekih to the ekven& of Zedekiah, the end of the 18th ud
beginning d t h e nineteenth y m ofNebuchda w , when the Temple wm dc8tmyed,

- - - -

Therefoh. the year of the -Id

Ttmple WM the 3434th.

at be h e t h o f 6ohmum~




The chronology of the kingdom of Babylon must be

treated of firat, because we have the means of ascertaining it with the greatest precision. We can then arrange
with greater ease the more uncertain chronology of
the Assyrian Empire. During this period, the union ie
formed between the several chronologies of sacred and
rofaae history: and the doubts and difficulties which
peded their union, are cleared up by the aceurate
observations of astronomy and the preciae calcalationr
of mathematical seience.



On the capture of Babylon by Alexander the Great,

there fell into the hands of the G
s a series of records
of astronomical observations, w ch Callisthenes t r a n ~
mitted from Babylon to Greece, at the instance of his
marter Aristotle. These observations, the oldest then
in existence, Hipparchus, en eminent astronomer under
Ptolemy Philadelphus, adjusted to the Egyptian method
of calculation, "from the original records," as be himself states, 'Lwhich bad been kept at Babylon and
brought from thence." The work of Hip rchus is
l o a ; but this l o r has been partially supplierby Alernuder Claudius Ptolemoeus the famous E ptian astronomer who flourished in the reign of the oman Em eror Antoninus Pius.* His chronological canon gas
enabled modem chronologers to fix with precision the
dates of the several reigns he has mentioned from the
firet year of Nabonassar to the death of Alexander the
" All the observationr of Ptolem "says Petavius, '&a
great many ofrhich are noted b Ern according to the
gears and months of the e n of dibooassar, prove most



A good edition of the works of Ptolemy in stin a desideratum.

It would necessarily be expemive; but it deservee the mudcent ofthe Univasiq of Oxford.

certainly that the epoch eo called began in the year of

the Julian Period 3967, Solar Cycle xix, Lunar Cycle
xv, on Wednesday the 26th of February. The years of
Nabonassar are simple Egyptian years of 865 days.
Whence it proceeds that after four years the first day
of Thoth recedes a day ; and after 1460 years having
passed through the whole of a Julian year it returns t o
the same day from which it sets out.
'. W e can therefore demonstrate that the Epoch of Nabonas~arcoincides with the year of which we have
spoken, by all the celestial observations described by
Ptolemy. For example :In his fourth bcok he states
three computations of l u ~ l eclipses
sent from Babylon
by Callistbenes. The first happened when Wanostratus was Archon of Athens in the year of Nabonassar
366, Thoth 27, 6h. 80'after midn~ght at Alexandria.
This agrees with Lunar Cycle 18, Solar Cycle 19, Letter E. Ann. Jul. Per. 4331, December 23, Tuesday, at
the close of the year
before the beginning of the
Dionysian [or common Christian] era. 365 complete
Egyptian years with 26 days 6 hours and 30 minutes, i n
Thoth [the first month of the next year] make together
133,251 days 6h. 30' or 364 Julian years 300 dzgs Gh.
30'. Therefore from,


An. Jul. Per. 4330 356d. 6h. 30m.


364 3Wd. 6h. 30m.

Years 3966

66d. Oh.


and there remain 3966 complete years and 56 days, or

counting from midnight 57 days, because Ptolemy, folIowing the popular custom, reckoned from sunrlse of
the 57th da
The era of Nabonassar began, therefore,
reckoning rom the first of January, on the 27th of Feb.
A. J. P. 3967. This eclipse we find from our tables
took place 7h. 54' after midnight, Digits eclipsed 2#,
duration lh. 42'. Beginning 6h. 56', ending 8h. 51.'
Ptolem therefore says rightly that the moon set
a a 1 i ~ e 8 The sun was then in 273 17' of Sagittariu%Petav. de Doct. Temp, T. 2, p. 69. 1 omit the other
calculations, a s being merely cumulative evidence of



the uune point ; my present object being mere1

make tbe reader aware of the unerring accuracy o thm
mode of computation. Ae the first year of the common
Christian era coincides with the year 4714 of the Julian
period, by subtracting 3967, we arrive at the year a. a.
747 re the first of the era of Nabonassar.
In tbe title of Ptolemy's canon he mentions two series
of kings; the first of the Assyrian and Median kings t o
the beginning of Cyrus a period of 209 years ; the s e e
ond of the Persian kings to the death of Alexander the
Great, a period of 215 years. From the reign of Nabonaesar, therefore, to the death of Alexander the whole
number of E ptian yearm wes 4%. It is carefully t o
bg observed, owever, that Ptolemy reckons eve re'
from the fint day of the first Egyptian rnonth?hoK
not because the first king in the series or
Bsgan to reign on that dny, but because
the beginning of the
occasion in settling the
revert to this fact.
With these few observations explanatory of Ptolemy's
Canon, we proceed, first, to eynchrouixe the
Eggptian years of the era of Nabonassar with the modern computations of time, to the beginning of the
Christian B r a ; and secondly, to ive the wries of
kiags with the dates thus establishe




EnNab. Jul. Pcr. B. C lEm Nab. Jul. Per. B. C. E r a Nab. Jul. Per. B. C .


3982 732
4012 702
3967 747
4013 701
Tboth. 6 11
Tboth. 19 15
Feb. 24 G
4014 700
Feb. 26 E
3983 731 Feb. 14
3968 746
7 12
4015 699
20 16
4016 698 i
3984 730
4017 697
3969 746
8 13
4018 696 ,
21 17
Feb. 13
3970 '744
9 14
4020 694
Feb. 25 22 I8
4021 693
3986 728
3971 743
56 , 4022 692
23 19
Feb. 12
Feb. 21
4023 .691
3972 742
3987 727
4024 690
24 I
3988 726
4015 689
3989 725
4026 688
3973 741
3990 724 Feh. l l
4027 687
25 2
Keh. 2C
4028 886 ,
3991 723
3974 '740
4029 685
3992 722
Feb. 24 26 S
4Q30 681 '
3993 721 Feb. 20
. C
3994 720
4031 683
3975 739
27 4
Peb. I t
66 . 4032 682
B r
29 , 3996 719
4033 681
3976 738
3996 718
4034 680
28 5
3997 717 Feb. 9
3998 716
4035 679
3977 737 Jeb. If
4036 678
Thoth. 1
3999 715
4037 677
vi. CaI. G F
4000 714
4038 676
4001 713 Feb. 8
, pnor
4002 712
4039 675
3978 736 Feh. 1;
4040 674
4041 673
4003 711
Feb. 2: 2
4004 710
4042 672
3979 736
1005 709 Feb. 7
4006 . 708
4043 671
4044 670
Feb. 16
3980 734
4045 669
41. 4007 707
4008 706
4046 668
4009 706 Feb. 6
4047 667
4010 704
!I6 -3981 733
Feb. 15
4048 666
4011 703
, 46


AkaNab. Jul. Par. 6. C. dCru Nil!. Jul. Pw. 8. G. Bra N.b. JuL Per. B. C.

122 4088
123 4089
4051 663
124 4090
4052 663
4053 661 Jan. 26
125 4091
4054 660
126 4092
127 4093
4055 659
128 4094
4056 658
4057 657 Jan. 25
129 4095
4058 656
130 4096
131 4097
4059 655
132 4098
4060 654
4061 6.53 Jan. 24
4082 652 , 133 4099
134 4100
135 4101
4063 651
136 4102
4064 650
4065 619 Jan. 23
137 4103
4066 618
138 4104
139 4105
4067 647
140 4106
4068 646
4069 645 Jan. 22
4070 644
142 4108
143 4109
4071 643
144 4110
4072 642
4073 641 Jan. 21
145 4111
4074 640
146 4112
147 4113
4075 639
148 4114
4076 638
4077 637 Jan. 20
149 4115
4078 636
150 4116
151 4117
4019 635
152 4 1 B
4080 634
4081 633 Jan. 19
153 4119
4082 632
154 4120
155 4121
4083 631
156 4122
4084 630
4 0 ~ 5 629 Jan. 18
4088 628
157 4123
Jan. 27

eb. 5
Feb. 4
Feb. 3
Feb. 2
Feb. 1
Jan. 31
Jan. 30
Jan. 29
Jan. 28

4050 664

625 Jan. 17
621 Jan. 16
617 Jon. 15
613 Jan. 14
609 Jan. 13
605 Jan. 12
601 Jan. 11
597 J m . 10
593 Jan.9

4125 589
4126 588
























Nab. Jal. Per. B. C. rEralab Jul.Per. B. C. h N a b . Jut. Per. B. ,C.



4273 441

Dee. 11
Dee. 10
Dee. 9
Dee. 8
Dee. 7
Dee. 6
Dee. 5
Dee. 4
Dee. 3
Dee. 2



















Dee. 1
Nov. 30
Nov. 29
Nov. 28
Nov. 27
NOV. 26
Nov. 25
Nov. 24
Nov. 23

431 1

402 Nov. 22
398 Nov. 21
394 Nor. 20
390 Nov. 19
386 Nor. 18
382 Nov. 17
378 Nov. 16
374 Nov. 15
370 NOV. 14

4348 366
4549 365



















C. d h l 9 . b J u L P e r . B. C. &raIab.Jul.Pa.


B. 0.

Oct 2.5
4462 252
4463 261
326 Nw. 3
499 4464 2M)
4426 288
wo 4 6 5 249
( ~ e 4427 2(n
4428 286 Oct. 24
4390 3%
4466 248
4429 285
4391 338
4467 247 .
4392 822 NOT.2
4468 246
4430 284
4893 821
604 4469 245
466 4431 283
Nav. 11
4432 2m2 Oet.23
423 4 g q 320
4470 244
US8 4433 281
430 4395 319
4471 243
318 N0o.l
, 4396
4472 242
4434 280
4473 241
Nw. 10
4435 279
4436 278 Oct.22
609 4474 240
4437 277
4399 315
4475 239
4400 314 Oet.31
4476 238
436 1401 313
4438 276
4477 237
4439 275
Ntw. 9
4402 312
6440 274 Oct.21
4478 236
4403 311
4441 273
4479 235
W 810 M . 3 0
4480 234
4448 272
440 4405 SdB
4481 233
Noo. 8
4443 211
4444 n o oct.20
4406 BQI
4482 232
4W) 4441 24%
44Ol 381
4483 a31
4408 SO6 Oct.29
4484 230
444 4409 $05
4446 288
5m 4485 439
Nm. 7
4447 ab7
4410 804
4448 266 Oet. 19
4486 228
484 4449 265
4411 308
4487 227
4412 rn Oet.28
4488 226
4450 2fl4
4413 301
6189 225
Nw. 6
4451 263
4452 262 Oct. 18
4414 800
69.5 4490 226
188 4463 481
4415 298
a 1
4491 223
4416 Dg8 0 6 . 3 7
4492 222
468 4417 297
4464 260
Nm. 6
4493 a1
4465 159
4456 258 Oct. 17
4418 %96
454 4419 S ' (92
4467 257
630 4495 219
4420 294 Oct. 26
4496 218
4458 24W
W l S8
4497 217
4459 MI5
107 U22 S 2
4460 254 Oct. 16

Nw. 13

NW. 12






4424 290
4425 289

dh.N.hJulPer. 8. C. & n N a h f S ? e r . B. G Z n I h h J u l . P k . B. C.

- --- -

Oct. 15
Oa. 14
Oat. 13

4498 216
4499 215
4500 214
4601 213


4510 !&M
4511 203
4612 un
4613 201

Oat. 12
Oet. 11



450% 21e
4503 211
4504 210
4505 U)9

4608 908
4607 207
4508 206

4509 203



4518 196
4619 196
4620 194
4621 k93

Oet. 6
Oe+ 5
Oet. 4
. oet. a

Oet. 2
Oct. 1

Oet. 10
4513 192 , 695
4523 191
! 559
4624 I80 kp.30
45211 189
Oet. 9
45UI 188
41i27 187
4528 186 &p. 29
4529 185
Oet. 8
4530 184
666 4531 183
4532 182 Sep. 28
4533 181
Oa. 7
4534 180
4635 179 , 608

4536 178
4337 177

4538 176
4539 175
w 174 &p.m
4641 173
4542 172
4543 171
4544 170 &p. 25
4645 189
4646 168
4647 187
4548 186 -24
4649 166



4554 160
4655 159
4656 1%
4557 167
4558 166

4!i59 165
4560 154
4561 1 9
4662 152
4563 151
4Mi4 I50
4565 I49
4566 148

4667 147

4566 146
4569 145




. 4678 136
4579 185
4680 I34
4581 la8
4682 133

4583 131
4384 130
4685 IS8

4586 I S

tm mn ~n




4689 1 s


0 0
&p. 21


&p. 18


4590 124

4591 I S
4592 1!B
4593 191


4598 116
4599 115
4600 114
4601 113


4006 108
4607 107 ,
4608 lo(
4610 104

Sep. 17




4628 I




Sep. 14

sep. 13
8ep. 12
&p. 11
Sep. 10
Sep. 9















Sep. 5
8ep. 4
Seg. 3
&p. 2
&p. 1







62 Aug. e7
48 Auq.26
44 Auq. 25
40 Auq. 24
36 ' Aug.23




11 .







-4714 c,Efir#.

Little need be said im mPh&tion of the for oinp

table. AB the E ptian years were nearly sixyooul.
ahorter than the w f r , a$ the end of four ears the difo.ence was nearly a day. Consequently Jeir first month
Thoth, which originally began at the heliecal risi
the constellation Sirius, would, as the extract from 6
tavius states, be carried, in the course of 1460 years,
through every day in the y e , until
it would r e
turn again to its original place. This per~odwas called
the great Canicular year. When Egy t became a bman province, their calendar ra~
ma& to ewform to
that of Julius Csmr, apd, tbeacefomrd, at Alexandr'
their first month Thoth d w a s began on tbe 19th
August, bemuse it fell on t h ~ t ay in the year d e n the
Jullan calendar was introduced ; i. e, An. Nabon. 7261,
4. J. P. $689, B. c. 25. But the astronomers, b order
to avoid fractione, continued to use the Egyptian em
of 365 days in their calculatioos. in order, there?&,
to adjust the co utations of Ptolerny to the mode
whether of the %an Period, or of the ear.
backward from tbe firs! of the cemmon 6hristian era, it
must be borne in mind, that 1460 of our years are equivalent to 1462 E ptian years. Hence, in the precedio
table, it will be ound that the year of the Julian ~ e r i 4
4194 or B. C. 520 is counted twice, because the preceding
year, corresponding with the year of Nabonassar 227,
was Bissextile. In that yew the first ~f Thoth eoincided with the first of Januar
but the next year of
Nebooassar !EM began on the 8l'st of December of' the
same Julian year. To avoid confusion, therefore, it
was necessary to reckon B. C. 520 twice. The reader
will easily eee this, if he notices that the sums of the
year of the Julian Period and the year before Christ
must, if correct, always amount to 4714.
The accuracy of the whole computation may be proved
as follows :
It is evident that in the year B. C. 747, 56 days (Jan.
31+Feb. 25=56) had elapsed before the firnt Egyptian
year of the era of Nabonassar began ; and it is no less
evident, from the preceding table, that the 7Mth year
of Nabommu began on the 23d of August, B. c. 1, and






consequently ended on the 22d of Angust, A. J. P. 4714

or the first of the common Christian era. On the 236
of August of that year began the 749th year of Nebonassar. The whole number of days from January 1
to August 22 inclusive, in A. J . P. 4714, as it was not
Bissextile, was 234, and these are obviously to be deducted. The number of days ih 748 solid years of Nabonassar, (748X365), i6 973,020. From these deduct
1134 days, and add the 56 days which had elapsed in the
year B. C. 747 before the era of Nabonassar began, and
you have the number of days in 747 solid Julian years,
amounting to 272,842. This sum divided by 1461, the
number of days in four Julian yearq gives 188 Bissextile periods, or (186x4) 744 years and a remainder of
1096 days. Of the first three ears B. c., or the years
4'713, 4712, and 4711 of the Llian Period, one ms n
Bissextile. Therefore that year had 366 Qys; and
the two other years 365 days each. Consequently the
remainder above-mentioned of 1096 days is exactly equal
to the snm of the days in the years B. c. 1,2, and 3 j and
744+3=?47 solid Julian years. Q. E.D.

Having thus synchronized the modern computations

ef time with the era of Nabonassar down to the Christhn era, we proceed to the first table of
corn ared with the Astronomical Canon and Ecclesias-


tics Computation given by Sjmoellus.

The above canon of Rolemy is copied from the edition with vsriaus reading6 published by Petaviuq from
manuscripts in the kin of France's librbry, in the
second volume of his Bationarium Temposum. His
text accords with the '' Canon Chronicus Babylonionun
&gum ex Cod. MS. C1. Ptolemmi de Hypothesibus Plan o m e n q n &c., given by Sir John M a r s h , and first
published b Dr. Bambridge from a manuscript in the
Bodleian ~ i g r a r ~By
. the side of this I have placed
two lists from the Paris edition of Syncellus, p. 207-9.
The firm is called by that author the Astronomical Canon,
and is no other than the Canon of Ptolem corrupted.
T h e last, which he calls the Ecclesiastical mputation,
was taken by him from a work, now lost, of Julius Afri.
canna. It is srrtisfaotory t o oompare them; but the
reader must not be misled by the attempts made, either
in the Astronomical D a m , ~ the Ecclesiastical reconcile the names thev oontaih with those
in the &ripturea. Let him not forla moment suppose
that Nabonassar and Shaimaneser were the same Derson !
that the seventeenth king was Wtazar or ~el&ezzar;
or that the eighteenth, wag the same as Aatyages, ~ a r i u ;
Assuerus. or Artaxerxes. It is these unskilful atternate
- r which haie thrown the subject into so much confusion,
and occasioned among modem chronologers so many
conflicting opinions. The Canon of Ptolemy, taken by
itself, is an illustrious monument of antiquity, perfectly
in accordance with Scripture history, and furnishing the
only sure w t h o d by which we can d ' u s t its dates with
the modern cornpotations of time. Arbis, therefore,
let us confine ourselves.
There can be no doubt, I think, that the Naboeolasearns of Ptolemy is the Nebuchadnezzar of the Bible.
The Greek L and D ( A and A) are so henrly alike, tbat
a Greek oopyist 'unskilled in Hebrew names would ve
s u i l y mistake the o m for the other. For ~ a b o c o z
nassar, or, as he is called in the Se tua int, Nabocodbnbsor, it would be easy to R i t e IVaI!oco&ua*.
ploofs will 'appear hereafter. By a similar rocem it
would not be diiKcult to change Eear Ha dod into
Aem Ad&.


According, then, to the Canon of Ptolemy, the first

year of Nebuchadnezzar coincides with the 144th year
bf Nabon~ssar,which began, by our table, January 21,
A. T. P. 41 10, B. c. 60). It appears from Jeremiah xxv.
1, compared with Daniel i. 1, that the first year of Nebuchadneziar corresponded with the end of the third
and beginning of "tho fourth ear of Jehoinkim the son
of Josinh kin. of Judah.''
Hhis might wall be, if the
years of tho Jewish monarchs were counted from the
moath Nisan, which began with the new moon nearest
to 'tbe vernal Eqninsx. The nineteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, corresponding with the eleventh year of
h d e k i a h (2 Kings, xxv. 2, a), and the year in which
tbe Temple was destroyed, was the 162d of Nabonassar,
and began January 17, A. J. F. 412$ B. c. 586. As it
was the eleventh year of Zedekiah, that king began t o
reign A. Nab. 152, wbich began January 19, A. J. P.
4118, B. c. 596. Without counting the short reign of
Jehoiachin, of three months and ten days, the reign of
Iehoiakim began eleven ears earlier, A. f i b . 141.
T h i accords
perfectly nit{ the testimony of Jeremiah
and Daniel as we have reconciled that testimony; for
in the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, A. Nab. 144, the
fourth year of Jehoiakim began at the vernal Equinox.
The third year of Jthoiakim b e e n at the vernal

The second year OF
The first
The year of Nabon-


A. Nab. 143

141 began Jan. 22, A. J. P. 4107,~.c. 607.

Josiah reigned 31 years, bringing u the period to

the vernal Eqainox, if we make no a lowance for the
three months' reign of Jehoabaz, A. Nab. 110, beginning January 30, A. J. P. 4076, B. C. 6%. Amon began
t o reign A. Nab. 108, A. J. P. 4074, B. c. 640. Manae
mh re' ned fifty-five years, from A. Nab. 53, which
n o h 13, A. J. P. 4019, B. c. 695. Hezekiah began
to reign A. Nab. 241, which commenced Feb. 20, A. J. P.
3990, B. c. 7241. The reign of A h began 16 yeam
earlier, A. Nab, 8, Feb. 24r, A. J. P. 3974, B. C. 740 ; and
UI Jetham reigned 16 years, his reign commenced


3958, B. c. '756 ; so that the first year of h e

em of Nabonassar coincided with his teath.
Having traced thus far the reigns.of the kings of

A. J. P.

fudah, let us now tura to the affairs of the kingdom of

Israel. Samaria was taken by Shalmaneeer, (2 K i n a
xviii. 10 m the sixth year of Hezekiab, and the ninth
year of $&ea k i y of Israel. If Hezelckh b e t o ~
reign in the twenty- oarth yearof N a b o m s ~ rhis
, sixth
year would begin A. Nab. 29, which would be the ninth
of Hoshea, and consequently the firat of Hoshea weald
be A. Nab. 21, A. J. P. 3987, B. c. 727. Allowipg, then,
with Dr. Hales an interregnum of ten years htween
Hoshea and Pekah, that interregnum would have coxw
menced A. I. P. 3977, a. c. 737, and the twentieth y~
of Pekah would have coincided with A. J. P. 3976, B. C.
738. Consequently the first year ef Pekah would be
A. J. P. 3857, B. c. 757, and the first year of the err of
Nabonassar, A. I. P. 3967, B. c. 747, would be the eleventh of Pekah's reign j which is correot.
But there is an error in this assendmg series which
that eminent chronologer seems to have overloeked
when he made the interregwm betweem Pekah apd
Hosbea ten years. This enor tve must correet by tracing the series downwards in connection with the eollateral reigns of the kin a of Judah.
It appears from 2 kings, xv. 32, that "Jotham the
son of Uzziah king of Judah began to reign in the second
ear of Pekah the son of Remaliah lung of Israel."
fotham began to reign, as we have s e n , A. 1. P. 3918,
B. c. 75%. Consequently Pekah began to reigh the year
before, A. J. P. 3957, B. c. 757. The td& ear ef Jotham
wns therefon the eleventh of Pekah, and the twentieth of
Pekah the year 10 of Nabonassar, A. J. PI3976, B. c. 738,
.s we have seen by the aseending -rim - So f u all h
csrrect. Bat it appears by 2 Kinga, xvi. 1,that A h a be
to wign in Judah m the seventeanth year of P a ,an .
the first year of Nabonassar was the aleoehth of Pek.4
m the seventh of N b a s ~ A.r J. P. 1873, B. c. 741,
was the seventeenth of Pekah, snd therefore the firat ob
Abu. By the ascend'
seriee, thb reign of Ahu
the next per. %SI
di.cdlty is obviated by


er~lidmingthe reign of Mltl

ably beginshg
towards the close of the year 7 of abonassu, a. J. P.
B73, B. c. 741. P e k d reipod 20 years, and themfore
died three years after the soaersion of Absz, A. Nab
10, A. J. P. 3976, a o. 738. But by 2 Kingq xvii 4
Hoshea began to reign in the twelfth year of A h a
This was towards the close of the year 19 of Nabmaw
mar; so that the interregnum betweem Pekd and Htw
ehea was nine years, and not ten, as Dr. Haler su
s e ~
@nsequently the ninth year of H o s k w o u P S " d
towards the clom of the y e u 28 of Nabonaew, or pwt
of a year earlier than the date we arrived at in oat
~ p m r dpro eeh We must therefom place the ertino*
tion of the Engdorn of Israel in the autumn of the y a
3994 of the Julian Period, or B. c. 720. This was the
m a h year of Hezekiah, and his reign may have cam*
nrenoed towards autumn of the year 93 of Nabonasmu,
A. J. P. 3989, B. c. 725.
Before the era of Nabonassrr we count bauk thue :
Fkst, ten years of Pekah+two of Pekahhth+ten of
Menahem42 yearr. Menahem be an to re'
hdlurn, in
ing to 9 Kings, xv. 14, 17, by the eath of %"+codh e thirty-ninth year of Azariah. Therefore the first of
Menahem and thirtpninth of Azariah coincided with
A. J. P. 3945, B. c. 769 ; and the thirtyaighth year of
Azariah, in which Zachsriah reigned over Icrael,
Kings, xv. B), was A. J. P. 3944, B. c. 170. Azari
therefore, began to reign (3944-37
or 770+37) in
A: J. P. 3907 or B. C. 807: and that ear, by 2 Kings,
st. 1, was the twenty-eeventh yew o Jeroboam 11. king
of Israel. Jeroboam reigned 41 years. If t h e r e h e r. a.
P. 3907, B. c. 807, wse his twenty-seventh year, then hi.
kst year was 3901+14) A. I . P. 3921, B. c. 793. Corn
requently the ifference between A. J. P. 3944,B. c. 774
the year when Zacharinh reigned, and A. J. P. 3921,
r. c. 793, the hat ear of Jeroboam II., or twcnty-thres
arq was the pe od of interre urn in Israel b e t m a
fmboam 11. and Zschnhh and hall- .ad not twew
M.y a r s as . ( . ~ dby Dr. Hales. Them were evident&
two interregnums at least in Israeli and the nun of
Beth is equal to 3%yeerq M Dr.HJer hol, mid. Th)


only incorrectness in his compntation #s in ndakkg

them 22+ 10 iwtead of 23 9 years.
Between the reigns of Amaziah and Azariah in Judsh,
was the regency of eleven years. It began a. J. P.
3896, B. c. 818, and continued until A. J. P. 3906, or
B. c. 808 inclusive. The reign of Amaziah, of 29 yeare,
began A. J. P. 3867, B. c. 047. The reign of Jehoash
of 40 years, began A. j. P. 3827, B. c. 887; and that of
Athdiah, for 6 years, A. J. :P 3821, B. c. 893. In the
same year began Jehu to reign over Israel. Thus are
have established the epoch of the second period in the
collateral reigns of the kinge of Judah and Israel; a
period extending to the sixth of Hezekiah and the ninth
of Hoshea inclusive, or from A. J. P . 3821, B. c. 893, to
A. J. P. 3994 B. c. 720, inclusive, or 1'74 solid years. In
this way we teat our previous ascending series of years,
and find that there cannot be any important error in our
Assuming then the beginning of A. J. P. 3821, B. c.
893, as the commencement of the second period, and
recollecting that the first period from Rehoboam and
Jeroboam to Athaliah and Jehu was adjusted so as to
measure 95 complete or solid ears, i t will then follow
that 3821-95 or 893+95 wi 1 give the first year of
Rehoboam and Jeroboam, A. J. P. 3726, a c 988.
Hence the first year of Solomon was 3726-40 or 988+
W=A. J. P. 3686, B. c. 1028 ; and the foundation of the
Temple having been laid in the fourth year of Solomon,
that event took place (3686f3 or 1028-3)
A. J. P.
3689, B. c. 1025. We have before eeen that the Temple
m o d 440 years, rtnd that it was deatroyed in the year
of Nabonasssr 162, corresponding with A. J. P. 4128,
a c. 586. Subtract from or add to these several sums
and the result is the same, A. J. P. 3689, B. c.
1025, aa the epoch of the foundation of SolomonyeTemple.
Having now traced the ascendin series p t i l we
arrive at an age of the world explicit y marked in the
chronology of the Bible, whatever computation we may
choose to follow, whether' of the Jewish-Hebrew, the
Samaritan-Hebrew, or the Septuagint, we roceed again
&y the. descending .srio. to trace the cohteral reigm .

of the kings of Judah and Israel during tho fret perid1

ef 95 years,


HLoga ofJudah.

. A. J.P. B. C.

came ttibutary

-to Bhishak o


. ; .if787 9a'l

5 Jehorrun a@&%, a 2 m2
6 Ahazish 1 yeat, 3820 894

-. . . . 3821 I893 .


7 badah ayean, 3807

8 Seh1st~~tl2yean


.. .

- -.




Second period of the kings of JuQh a d Iuael,

embracing 174 d i d years.

40 yearti,

3881 887

- -j



12Hezekiah began
to reign yr. 23
The extinrtion o
the kingdom o

The extinction of
the kingdom of
place in the
autumn, being
the elose of the
9th year of Hoshea, E. N. 28. 3994 720

place in the
autumn, being
rent year ofH

-h r a t i o n of the second period,

from the 1st of A t h a l i b to
the 6th of Hezekiah, current
inclusive, from A. J. P. 3821
to3994inclusive, or 174 yrs.

Duration of the second period,

from the 1st of Jehn to the
elow of the 9th of Hahecr,
inclusive, from B. C. 893 to
B. C. 720, inclusive, or 893
-719= 174 years.

.Third period, kinge o f Judah ,done, 134 years.


. -. . . . . . . . .. .. 3994
14 Amon reigns 2 years, beginning E. N. 108 . . . . 4074
15 J a i a h reigns 31 years, beginning E. N. 110 . . . 4076 63
16 Jehoahnz reigning only 3 months, is not counted.
The t K i period begins after the destmction d the
kingdom of Israel,
13 Manaseeh reigns 55 years, beginning E. N. 53



17 Jehoiakim reigos 11 yean, beginning E. N. 141

4107 607
18 Jeboiakin reigning only 3 months and 10 days, is not
19 Zedekiah reigns I1 years, beginning E. N. 152
4118 586
The deatraotion of Jerusalem taka place E. IV. 162 4128

-Duration of the third period, from after the destruction of the

kingdom of Israel to the 11th current y a r of Zedekiah, i n c h

rive, or from A. J. P. 39% to A. J. P. 4 1 9 , inclarive. 4129
--3995= 134 years, B. C. 719-585= 134 yean.
The first period from Rehoboamyears 96
The second period Cc Athaliah=
The third period 68 Hezekiah VI.= " 134

The ~ e m ~being
l e founded in the 4th year
of Solomon, add 40-3=37
. .37
And ir makes the duration of the Temple 440
The kingdom of Israel continued 96+174=
. 26B yeam.
The kingdom of Judah from Rehoboam to Ztdekirb 403
From David to Zedekiah, 40+40+03
. . 483


k waa m e m a y ta d j o e t tbe h a l o g y of Jndab

m d Isreel before preeeedhg to-consider that ef the
Assyrian Empire, that we might bring the Bible to eur
assistance in clearing our path through the tangled c o p
pice of early profane history. The sacied historiaas and
chronologm ppere led astray by the fabulous narrative
of Ctesias. The whole account of the ancient Assyrian
Empire in the second book of Diodarus Siculus rests
upon that author taa its only authority. It was h p o s *
wble to r e o m i l e the statements of Ctemae with those
of Herodotus ; and the veracity of the last-named venerable historian was inconsiderately called in question
the teetimony of a writer of romance, eupported by
the opinion of (in tha8 instance) the prejudiced Platarch.
This ihjnstiae has extended even to Our own times.
Not to mention RoHin and a crowd of inferior writers,
it influenced even the great and truly learned Arch.
bishop Usher. But without entering into the tedious
and almost interminable path of correcting eirors, let us
confine our attentien to the t r u t h which the mental
mnfticts of the learned have struck out and established.
'Yhe idea of a great Assyrian Empire extending back
almost to the times pf the Deluge, is universally exploded.
Et is not only uneupported by the Holy Scriptures, bat
is absolutely eontrdicted by them. The .kings of
ancient times, as Sir Jehn k m h a m observes, were a s
numerous as the cities : '' quot urbes, tot regna."
Egypt and Isrwl excepted, there were no e t e d patioas,
The kingdoms of Nineveh and Babylop coasieted each
of one mighty city with its environs. Bryant calls them
"walled rovinces. The people ploughed and sowed,
and had ruits and pastures within their walls."'
The whole book of Genesis mntaiss not a vllable
concerning any great Assyrian Empire; nor are there
traces of any euch name as a kingdom even of Aseyria,
anti1 we wme to 2 Kings, xv. 19, and 2 Chron. xxviii.
16. The earliest prophet speaks only of a kingdom of
Wineveh (Jonah i. 2, iii. 2-10, iv. 11); nor do we hear

Bwool's AMWSof A m i a Myth*.

1907. VoL ii. p. a76.

Ed. 3.


of a ti.g sf miding at W i d a r Bir

till we come to the prophey of Nahum, in which the
hstrtmtiom ~f that mat city iu so rublimely predicted.
N&um iii. 18). Ifhm the J u n were newly returned
lrom ths hbyloniaa Captirity, they thug con(oaaed their
m i a s : ''Now 'therefore our God---let
not all the trouBle seem little before thee, that h t h came upon uq on
omr kin- on our primer, and on our prieetq rod om
. r r prophets, and on our fmtlrerq and on all thy people
dries the time of LAC k i q p of .8srynryna.
wnb this do 'j
Nehem. is. 3% Hence Sir Luo Newton infen t&t
the Assyrian Empire arere" about the time "when
Lings of Assyria b e p to diet the inhabitant. of Pde,
tine.:' Thi., according to 2 Kings, xv. 19, m when
" Pul the king of Assyria came nrt the land," e u l y
in the reign of Menahem king of mrael. The first year
ef Menabem, u we hare before ~ s acoincided
A. J. P. 3945, B. c. 769. That is die emliest limit of
titme in which Pul can have t r o m d the Euphrates ; and
it was the twenty-second year before the era of Nabonasear, the 220th year after the revolt of the ten tribes,
and the fiftieth year bdme ths extinetiem of the kingdom of Isrml.
Pul is with resron suppored to be the Belos ef the
Greeks. The letters B and P bcia both labhls, are
frequently interchanged ; and the reek terrninathm
k i n rewned, there is little difference between Be1
rdkx~The mbsequent mares of the Asepriro mo.rrchs are compmnb. Tiglath Pileser is equimhnt
t e Tiglath-Pul-Aear, which means, according to Dr.
klsr, "the tyger-lerd of Assyria." Shalmsneaer, or
8bdmem-Assar, is e d e d b Hosea (I. 14) simply Shale
man. The *uceerion of Lyriun lingo mamtiand in
tbe .Scriptures l
1. Pul, or Phol, 2 Kiuge, arv. 18, 1 Ch-.
v. 26.
II. Tiglath Pileaer, 2 Kingu, xv. 29, 1 Chron. V. M,
B Chron. rxriii. 90.
III. Shahnawmer, 2 Kinga, xwii. 3, xviii. 9.
Iv. Sennaelmrib, 2 Xing., tviii. 13, xix. S,
2c h m
1, Isaiah, x m i .
V. h Haddon, 2 ILingr, rix. 37, Irirh, ntrii. 88.


This meension is clearly supported by the frrgmeritr

of the Chldrean Historians prewwed by Jonephus and
E u ~ e b i a qand co ied from them by succeeding writemn.
The books of osephus agaimt Apion are q e n e d y
known to English readers by means of Whirton s T r a n e
lation. A useful collection of ancient fragments of the
Phanioian, Cbaldsan, E ptian,--and other writen,
published, with an %!nglirh t m l t i o n , by Lra
Preston Cory, Eq., which came to a second edition i
London in 1832. All the sources from which Mr. Cory
compiled bis work are in the hands of the present
writer; and he proceeds to insert here meh portlonr of
them a s may serve to illusQate the Scriptare birtoq.
This done, he will endeavor to .how the general harmony
of the whde.


fmdkmdet Polyhiatw concernkg the bvildk8

o the Towr of Babel p r d
Euaebiua. Prap.
ix. B, and Chronicon.
1. Ed. Venice.
Tom. 1. p. 41.



After whom, he 9%
them was a king of the C M deans whose name was W d u s : of whom, also, the
Biaorkal. writings of the Hebrews make mention under
t h e name of Wulur (Pul), who, h e y say, invaded t h e
ooantry.of the Jews.
"And after him Polyhistor nays that Senechcriir
was king. Bob Isaiah the prophet and the books of
the Hebrews relate that he reigned in th. time of kiog
Hezekiah. For the Divine Scripture oceedr to say,
And it cams to pass in tk fourteen%
of H e m
kiah tbe king, that Sinecberib, king of the Ass r h a ,
went up againn the fortiled cities of Judeaa a n 1 took
them.' And after the whole himtoy it adds thus : ' A d
bordan, his son, reigned in his stead.' And like&
fanher on it adds, ln that time it came to pam that
Hezekiah fell rick.'
It then relates in order that In
that time Marodaeh Baladan, king of the Babyloaims,
lent ambaasadom with a letter and prewutr to H e l a
h h . ' Them thin my the writin of the Hebrewr.
The c h d d - t ~ l a i . .L.s e a mentiom of Sine-

cherib B i n d and Asordanw, his ma, d Marodach

Baladanus, as well as Nabuchodonosorus."

''From the rcrrs dlexandsr coacans'n$ Scnccbcrib and

Nabcrchodonoeor, atad concern
thew act8 and qwli. ties." Chronicon. P. 1. Ed. enice, p. 42. Tom. 1.


I' After the brother of Senecharib had reigned ; and

after Aciees (Ed. Milan says, Hagises) had ruled over
the Babylonians and wnu killed b Marodach Baladan
when he had not held the kin dam thirt day.; and
Marodach Baladan himself h a f held it
force six
montha; he was killed by one Elibus, who reigned in
his stead. But in the third year of his reign, Senecheribuq king of the Assyrians, raised an army a ainst the
Babylonians, oorquered him in battle, and orfered him
to be carried captive with hie friends into the land of
Qe Assyrians.
" Having thue the dominion over the Bab lonians, he
appointed his son Aeordanius their king, an he himself
retired again ioto the land of the Assyrians.
When he had received a re ort that the Greeks had
he marched against
made n hostile descent upon
them, and fou'ht with them a pitched battle, in which,
Bough be suf?ered great loss in his own army, he over'threw them, and, as a monument of the victory, left his
own statue erected upon the spot, ordering an inscription
to be engraven upon it in Chaldee charactera, ns a memorial to future time of his fortitude and courage. He
founded, also, the city of Tarsus, after the likeness of
Babylon, which he called Tharsis.' And after relating
all the exploits of Sinnecherim, he adds that ' when he
had lived 1%yearm (in empire) he departed this life by
the plots which hie son Ardumueanus bad prepared
against him,' Thus far Polyhistor."
Eusebius then add8 : This account of time agrees
with the words of the Divine Scriptures. For under
Herekiah 'rei ned Sinecherim,' as Polyhistor sets forth,
a 18 years, a n t after him, his eon, 8 years.
Next Sammuges (the Milan ed. ra s Sammughes) 21 yeara, and
hi. brother 91 gears., &en N a b o p l a r 20 yeam, and




after him Nabutedrossoms 43 yearo. From S h b e v h

to Nabucodroasorus there are comprehended in all 88
" According to the books of the Hebrews a h , if an
one diligently examines, he will find the like things.PI.
Eusebiur proceeds to compute the united 'reigm of
Manassas, ~ m o or
s Amon, shd J o s i l , tw amoun6ng to
88 years, and then states that Nebuchadnezzar came
and besieged Jerusalem in the beginning of the reign of
Jehoiakim, and carried the Jews captive. He then
gives a further extract from Polyhietor ar followa:
After Snmuges (the Milan ed. again reads Sarnmuhes) Sanlanapallus, the Chaldaean, rei ned 21 yeam
h e sent an army to the aid of Astyagss, f the JIede, rhe
was the prince and satrap of the race (familis) that he
might give Amuhean, the daughter of Astyrges, in m.rc
riage to his son Nabucodtoseor. And then N a b u d
rosror reigned 43 years, and, coming with his collected
forces, he led captive the Jews and Ph~nicianmand
'L And after Nabucodrossor reigned his eoq Amilnmrudoch 12 years, (whom the bistory of the Hebrews calls
Ilmarodoch.) And after him, says Polyhititor, Neglhu
rei ned over the Chaldeens four yeare, and afterward6
~a%odenus1'7 years. Under whom C ns; the son of
Camb see, led an army into the h a d of t%e Babylonin8.
~ ~ b o want
B aout
~ to~ meet
~ him, and being conquered
took to flight. Cyrus reigned at Babylon 9 years ; and
then, in another engagement, died on the field Dam.
After him Cambyses reigned 8 years, and then Dariua
86 years; after whom Xerxee and the other kings of
the Persians."
"Moreover Polyhistor describes the several eventa with
as much brevity as Berosus; and it appears from both
that Nabuchodonosor collected forces and earried the
Jews captive ; and that 70 ears were comprised
from this time to that of Cyms i e king of the Persi-.
The. Miha edltbn mdr Aadahages, and in a note Asdahagh,
the pr-t
a d ntq of the M d i nation, n c b or trihe.

And with them the history of the Hebrewa


v i e that tbey p s w d 70 years in captivity, if you cempute the captivity of the Jews from tItu first year of N a b chodonoeor to Cyrus king of the Persians. Abydeoue
relates the emme thing in his history of the Chaldaeana."

I omit the extracts from Abydenuo, becauw they contain no dntee, and, M Eusebias observer above, agree in
robstance with the narrative of Polyhintor. The saccesrion of kings from Nebuchadnezzar, according to
this author, war, 1. Nabucodonosor ; 2. Amil-Marodoa
Ed. Milan. Amil-Marodach, Greek, Evil-Maluruchur
Niglisear, (Gr. Neriglissar); 4. Labossoracuq ( r.
Labaseoaraecus) ;5. Nabonedoch, (Gr. Nabannidochus) ;
6. Cyrus, &c.
I aleo omit the extracte from Josephus against Apion
B. 1, because Whiston's translation is in everybody's
hands j but as in the years of Nabopolassar the prewnt
copies of Josephue mad 29 for 21, 1 give the extract
from Berosus as it a ears in the Evangelical Preparation of Euabius, ~ i p i x c.. 40. The Armenian version
of the Cbro~iconof Eusebius has also 91 and not 29, as
the number of years of the reign of Nabopolnsmr. Tqe
mistake can easily be accounted for ; being occasioned
by writing Bvvua for Ova or 6 for a.



" Nabucbodonoror, warring against an insurgent, overcame him and reduced the country under his dominion.
About this time it came to pass that his father Nabopohsrar war takea ill and died in the City of Bab lon
when he had reigned 21 years. Nabuchodonosor,
in been soon informed of his father's death, arnrrged
a airs in E t and the neighboring countries, and hawing confide=
Jewish, Phmnician .ad S rim captlvto the oare of lome of his frieuda, retuxueZt0 Babylon."
Eusebius then pasws over the aeeouat extracted by
Joaephes from Beroaas, that NeblraLsdmuu built the
fameus han 'ng gatdenr and d l r of B e l o o , and proor& u foEws :


After other matters be says ! Nabuehodoaaa, altsi

be had began the before-mentioned wall, fell rick end
died, when he had reigned 48 ears.
His son Evil-maluruchus ( 0s. Eviknrtadothos) W*
ceeded him, who, presiding over affeirs disorde
licentiously, was assassinated insidiously Nerig Ismar,
who had married his sister, when he ha reigned two
years. After his mhrder the c m p i r a t a Nerigli' mcceeded to the empire and reigned four years.
son Chabaessoarachw (Joe. Laborowearehodas) gorerned the kjngdom, bemg a boy, nine months ; but on
account of his depraved habits, which were vety conspicuous, he was conspired ngainst and privately killed
by his own friends. After his death the coaopinttorr
assembled and agreed to invest with the sovereignty
Rabonnidus, one af the Babylonians engaged in the eonopiracy. Under him, the walls of the City ef Babylon
towards the river were adorned with 8 facing of brick
and asphaltum. In the 17th year of Bis reign, Cyrus of
Persia came with a great host, a d hsting overturnad
the rest of his kingdom, marched upon Babylon.
Naboonidus, informed of his approach, met him with him
army ; but being vanquished in fight, and eseapin with
few companions, he abut himself q in the [ity of
the Borsi peni. Cyrus, having taken Babylon, and
having orlered the outermost wall to be thrown down,
becauee the city seemed to him exceedingly hard to be
taken, moved towarde Borsippurn to besiege Nabonnidue. But Nabonnidus, not awaiting a siege, gave himself t ~ pto.Cyruq who treated him kindly, and gave him
Caramania, where he remained the rest of his life.
" Thisnarrative, saysJoseph~s,
agrees with o s t baok ;
fbr it is written in them that Nabuchodonosor, in the
eigheenth year of his reign, laid waste ear tempk, and
i t was &a destroyed for fifty eare. But the fonadalions bin^ laid in the secoaJ year of Gyms, it m a
completed at length In the tenth year of the reign of

9 Td

It would be eoey to add more authorities of ,this

mature; but these extraoh fmm three of the a h t
ChJdean hirtorimr are d o i c . \ m comcatian with

tbe Canom of Ptolemy, to erhibit the dmirabb acanaey

-of the Scripture history even wbere that aacmasy h
been tbe most strongly doubted. I allude to tbr aecmnt
.given in 2 Kings, xx. 12-19, and in Isaiah, uxir, a d
merely noticed very briefly but remaxkably in 2 Chroa
t n i i . 81.
It appears, that after the diacm6tnre of Sennaaherib
in the fourteenth year of He~ekiah.and the eevsm illness of that menarch, which, as his lile wmproloagad
fifteen years, must have immedistel followed, an e m
h w y was r o t to him horn Baby16a. It was rm,
according to 2 Ki s, xx. 12. by Berodach Baladan, kkg
of Babylorn ; eccoqiug to Isaiah, zxxir. I, by Meroddl
Baladan, king of Babylon; and a c d i
to 2 Chroa.
n x i i . 31, by the princes of Babylon. T h i s excited a
sinful pride in the heart of Herekiah, made him forgetful
fet a while of his dependence npon God, and drew
down upon him the disp1e.sul.e of the Almighty. Pn*
riour to+he publication in 1818 ef the Armenian translation of tbe Ohtanicon of Eueebiua, tbe name of such a
king of Rabylon as Merodach Baladan was not to be
found in any of the profane historians. The Canon of
Pmlemy contained it not. This fact m e triumphantly
alleged ns an instance of contrdiction between that
celebrated Canon and the Holy Scriptures. The Cbmndagus, even as late as Dr. Hales, tried to find the
Merodach Baladan of the BiMe in the MardoeEmpad of
Rolemy. And thus the whdc cbronotogy of that priod
was thrown into disorder, when lo ! by the diacorrry in
1818 of -the extract given above from Aleunder Polyhistor, preserved nowhere else but in the Chronican of
Eusebius, the whole difficulty is at once removed, the
ebcurity cleared-up, and the chrowlogy adjusted witb
tbs most wonderful acaumcy !
We learn from the Canon of Ptolemy that them was
. en interregnum of two years m the kingdom of Babylon
frem r. N. 44 to 46, or from A. J. P. 4010, B. C. 704, to
A. J. a Q01!&,~.
c. 702. Prolemy adds that a king named
Belibus reigaed for three years, E. N. 46,47,48, or from
A. J. p.4052, B. c. 702, to-a. J. P. 1M114,~.c.700 inclusim.
Now aempnre this with Pol@atdr e.nrtiw 4tbh

Bibls. After the brother of Sennacbrib hsd ntigae8,

wboue name he does not give, but who, it may be pnsumed, was the Arkianus or Arkian of Ptolemy, tbere
was a state of oligarchy and faction at Babylon rightly
referred to in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31, and there apt1 deeignated as a time when " the princes of Bab lon ruled.
They had doubtleu ut Adtianas the brotiev of Ssa
nacherib to death. fn the pmgrer of this anarchy
A c i m scized the kingdom, but was killed, after he had
reigned scarce1 a month, by another of the princes
Merodaoh ~ a l a d n nthe son af B a l d u r He retained the
kingdom by force only six months, and was then in his
turn put to death by E l i b q the Belibus of Ptolemy,
another of the insurgent prinoee, who, according to both
accounts, held the sovereignty three years. Ptolemy
never mentions any reign which did not co~tinuefor at
leart a ear. He therefore passes over Acises and
~ e r o d a c KBaIadu, in silence, but mentions Belibus or
Elibus becauee his reign continued three years. It WM
during the eix months' reign of Merodach Baladan that,
wishing to etrengthen bimaelf against Sennacherib,
whose power and ven emnce he jurtly drea&d, he sent
the embassy to Heze iah recorded ia the Seripturee.
That event happened therefore daring the laat six
months which preceded the reign of Belibus ; that is, in
the last half of E. N. 45, or A. I . P. 4Q 11, B. c. 703. Hexekith began to reign, as we have seen, townrds the cloae
of E. n. 23, A. J. P. 3989, B. c. 725. Consequently, the
e m b a w took place in the twenty-aecond year of his
reign, or in tbe eighth year after the miraculous dertructiou of Sennacherib'e army and Hexekiah's illness.
It may possibly be objected that the Scripture phrase
'' at that time" shown that the embassy must have been
nearer to the time of hie illneaq and that the remsoer
assigned for the embasay prove this. Merodach Baladan "had heard that Herekinb had been sickn (2 King4
n 12, Iui. uxix. 1);and the ambassadors were rent
" to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land"
(2 Chron. xxxii. 31). This moat have been the going
back of the s h d o w on the eon-dial of Ahar. The
a r t r ~ n o u k a elmematha
of the C h a l d a m ~w0mU lead

tlram to n4Lioe b a t gBe~ornrrwn; a d tho i q i q wa

b made soon after the wonder happened.
Bat these reasons are more specious than soIid. T h

" at

tbat time," is often used i ~ d e 6 n i J y; aod

the repsons aseigned were the pretext, the osteasibh

motive oaly. The real objeat was to eater into a leqgye

ofinuive and defeasive against Sennacherib. The PioJr.sss of Hezekiah may or may not have been heard d
early at Babylon. The fact of the destruction nf Sew
nacherib'e army was no doubt known there won after it
bappeaed; hat the lpanative of Herodotus show^ that it
wan attrihuted to natural causer, and connected mow
with the power of the E ptians than of the Jew&
(Herod. 3. It, 5. 141.) Yhe celemtial phenomena
would doubtleee be noted at the time d its occurrence;
bpt so fttz as the Chaldreoqs could perceive, it bad me
hecessary connection with an event in Jewish hist
u d .oms tipa mu* ban e a p r d before tht?~
barn anything of a mLaeukuo mga The fact thr\t
Sennacherib had never again vestured to invade Judrsq
u d ths reet proepesity of Hwekiah after bia illneq,
would a1 tend to impresr the king of Babylon mom
strongly in the twentyseeond year than in the yeore
hmedintely following bia recovery, with a some of the
importance of an alliance with the Jewish monarch.
We must aleo rajeot all the authority of prafa: biotory,
onleee we yield to the setded canclwion that the errlr
bsssy ef Merodaeh Baladur waa in the twentyteecond
year of Hezekiah.
The Scriptures say nothiag aoncernbg the lsegrh a#
the reign either of Seonocberib ar of E w Hbddaa
Polyhistor speaks of the latter under the pame Of
Aeordan, Asordanus, or Aaorbnius, and a t s a th&
father appointed him to be Icing of Bsbylon while he
himself retired again into Assyria, tbat ia to NineveB,
which was its capital. In this narrative Polybistor evi.
dently pawea over in silence the king# of Babglm
oamed by Ptolemy after Belibus until the reoond h t ~ regnum. The rearm of this it would be in vain .to WQjeeture. Tbey may bave been he vicsroye of stawe
oberih ; or ?onsidering Babylon no an appanage of t&


empire, they may have bean younger branebs of the

blood royal. That Sennacherib was obliged to interfere
the meond time on account of the turbulent spirit exiding in Babylon, and that he then placcd his youngest
ron Esar Haddon on the throne of that dominion, appean
to me the only hypothesis by which we can explain the
a parently confiicting teetimon of Polyhistor and
It i~ certain from the riptores, that on t k
assassination of Sennacherib By his mns Admm-melech
and Sharezer in the temple of his God Nisroch in
Nineveh, E m Haddon succeeded to the t h m d
Asqria. Euwbius m t e s that Esar Haddon reigned u
the successor of his father ei ht years. The Canon of
Ptolemy muips to A m ~ d % ias
n king of Babylw
From this I am led to infer
reign of thirteen
that duriag his fatrerf ealife-time he was king of Babyloa
five years, and after his father's death, the monarch d
Aryria and Babylon united for eight years. If this be
so, we are at ouce furnished with a clue to guide ur
through the labyrmth of Asqrian chronolo
AsAddin reigned as king of Babylon from the
to the
80th year inclusive of the Em of Nabonassor ; that in,
according to our synchronized table, from Feb. 9th
A. J. P. 40%, B.C. 680, to Feb. 5th, A. J. P., -7,
B. a.
667 ; for on the 6th of Feb., A. J. r. 4067, the H l s t ear
of Nab. began. The last eight years of t h b perialtrtend from Feb. 8th, E. r. 73, A, J. P. 4039, e. c. 675.
Conmequently the laat year of Sennacherib was E. N. 72,
A. J. r. 4Q38,B. C. 676. This was the twentieth year of
Manaweh. The tradition of the Jews is therefore very
probable that in the twentycsecond year of Manaseeh, he
was carried ca tive to Babylon by EM? Haddon ; a d
Arohbishop U E ~ ~conjecture.
~ ~ I I is also very prohblq
that in tbe uune year the gleanings of the ten tribe8
were carried away by the =me monarch ealled alao
Sar oa and Sluehedon, Isai. xx. 1-3., Tobit i. 2t,
9 d r o n . miii. 11, sixty-five p a r s after Iriah's prophecy, vii. 8. These events may therefore be placed in
the same year, E. a. 74, A. J. E. 4040, B. c. 674. Bpt
thew conjectural dateq the reauk of mere compatati
coa never be made the mre h a i r of any ehronologie

olem my.


To return Crom h
i slight digrowion : Ths ha mention made of Shalmnnewr, king of A~lryria,is in h
sirth year of Herekieh, and the ninth of Hoshea, when
he destroyed the kingdom of Israel. The first mention
of Sennacherib, his succemor, is in tbe fourteenth yew
of Hezekiah, when he came up against all the fenced
oities of Judah, 2 Kingq xviii. 10, 11. It followq therefore, that Shalmaneser must have died, end Sennacherib
have succeeded him, some time during the seven intervening years. la whet precise year is uncertain. Them
i+ some confusion in the language of Polyhistor as it ir
represented in the Cbronicon, and in the attempts of
Eusebius to harmonize it with his conceptions of the
meaning of the Bible. The words of Polyhistor are,
When be had lived eighteen years (in Empire) he de=
parted this life.'' The exprerion "in E m p ~ r e " P11,
rio] enclosed in brackets, I take to be ioaerte in tho
tran~lationfrom the Armenian. becauae the trine
ktor felt the absurdity of re resenting Sennacherib a0
usebius inter rets the Ian*
living on1 eighteen yean.
p a g e of olyhistor asmeaning that Sennac erib reigned
under Hezekiah eighteen years; and this I believe u
tbe true meaning, for the fourteenth year of Hezekiah
with the fifteen y e u s during which Mr life was pro=
longed, make sixteem yearm. It is to be aherved &o
that the sum of the reigns of the three kingo omitted
by Polyhistor, together with the second interregnum
before the reign of Esrv Haddon, is nineteen yearr,
(6+ 1+4+&19);
and if tothese we add the five years of
his reign at Babylon during his father's lifetime, w have
twenty-four years after the subjugation of Belibur, or
Elibuq by Sennncherib, which must have been in E. n
48, A. J. P. 4014, B. c. 700, or tbe twenty-fifth year of
Hezekiah. I conclude, therefore, that Sennacherib
reigned from E. N. 35, A. J. P. 4001, B. c. 713, to r. a.
7% A. J. P. 4038, a c. 676 ; or from the twelfth year of
Hezekiah to the twentieth of Y.aeaaeh inclusive, a period of thirty-eight years.
It WEE ingeniously conjectured by Sir IWC Newton,
ued thai conjecture has been subreqaentl adopted by
the authors of the Universal History on8 y Dr. Hales,


that 'Piglath P i h e r w a ~
the elder, a d N a b . n ~ . rthe
unger son of Pul or Phnl, the M a s of the Greeks.
91, at his death, divided his kingdom betweem thew
two sm ; w that Tiglatli Filemer began to migo in Niweveh, and Nabonnsaar at Babylon, in the same year. If
his be SO, then the reigns of Tiglath Pilear and his eoa
aalmanewr occupied the first thirty-four years of the
sm of Nabonwear. Ahaa Began to reign E. M. 7, and Peknh, the son of Remaliah, king of I m d , slain g. N. 10.
* Hoshea began to reign over Ierael in the twelfth year of
Ahaz, and a inst him came up Shalmameser, king of A+
+a ;and oshea beeame his servant, and gave him pra
mts." 2 Kings, xvii. 1-3. These few drt+s will enable la
to arrive by approximation at the probeble length of the
earlier reigns. Tighth Pilesn invaded the north-eastern
prut of the ten triber, and carried them into captivity in
the days of Pedcah (9 Kingq xr. 20) ; co~equentlynot
later than a. N. 10. Ahaa became tributary to T i g U
Pileaer to m u r e bimmif from the attacks of Rezin, k i q
of Syria, and Pelrah, king of Ismel; cowquently after
B. N. 7, and before B. A. 10. Sbalmaneeer came up
, e a i n s t Hoehem in or after the fimt year of the l a t ~ ,
d i c h war the twelfth of Ahaz ; conseque~tlymot ealc
Her than B. II.
19. We may t h e n k r e make the reign
ef Tiglath Pilessr eighteen, a d that of Shaimureeer sixteen yeam; for 18+ 1 6 ~ 3 4 .If, hen, we asoign twe*
five or thirty years to the reign of Pul, as he was coetemporary with Menahem, we carry up tbe origia of the
empire or kingdom of A q r i r as high as we can with
m y probability go, that is, to A. J. P. 3%2 or 3937, a.
c 77'2 or 777, during the firmt interre num in I s r d , coeval with the cemmeneement of the lympiads.
Haviag traced the Assyrian menarohy up to its ori in,
rs must n o r return to the end af the reign of &ar
Haddon, which, as we bare seen, war the year R. N. 80,
in order to determine the year in whkh Niaereh w u da
~ o y dB that event the Assyrian monarchy was t e e
minated, an the great Babyloeisa empire began, which
firmed the head of Daniel's prophetlc image, d war
tbe fimt of the four p a t empirecl deaaribed in hi. s n b
quent vkions.


It appears from the history of Herodotus, that the

Assyrian mouarch wms firdt weakened by the inroads
of the Medes. d i t h o u t going into the intricacies of
their chronology, which would be tedious and foreign
from the present purpose, it is sufficient to observe that,
according to that author, Dejocee, who was elected by
them a s their king, who collected the scattered tribes
together, and may therefore be considered as the founder of their nation, reigned fifty-three years. His eon,
Pbrrorteo, subdued the Persians, and then overran Asia.
In the progress of his c o n q ~ ~ e s he
t s encountered the
Assyriane, ~ n dproceeded to attack that part of them
which inhabited Nineveh. This expression of Herodotm
I understand a s menning that he did not attack the kingdom of Babylon, but was rnther disposed to co-operate
with that branch of the Aseyriari empire agninst the parent state. Herodotus proceeds to observe of the Assyriane of Nineveh, that they were formerly the firet power
in Asia, but that, although they were still respectable,
they were weakened by internal divisions. In an ercursion against the Ninevitea, Phrnorter perished in the
twenty-second year of his reign.
He was succeeded by bis eon Cynxawu, who carried
military discipline to its greatest height.
strengthened himeelf by a league, offensive and defensive, with the different nations of Asia be ond the Halya,
be proceeded with ell his forces againet ineveh, deeilc
ing to avenge the death of bis father, arid to make himself master of the Assyrian capital. He vnnquiehed t h e
Ae3yriens in a pitched battle; but rvhile engaged in the
riege of Nineveh, wns surprined and overcome by t h e
irruption of a northern horde of Scythiane. These kept
entire poe~eesiond the regions which they overran for
twentyeight years; but being at length weakened by
intemperance, they were destro ed by stratagem, and
at the ex iration of that time yaxares recovered hie
power. 'fhe Medes then took Ninoeh, and subdued kll
t h e Assyrians but thoee who inhabited the province d
Babylon. Cyaxares died after reigning forty yeare, including the twenty-eight of t h e Scythian irruption, and
war rucceeded by his m, Asryageq the ~ ~ d l a t h of


Cyrus the Persian. APter a reign of thirty-6ve years,

Astyagea was deposed by his grwdsoo, the Persians
having, under his command, revolted from tbe Medes.(Herodot. Clio, Q 98-130)Here then we have a period of 160 yearn from the
election of Dejoces to the deposition of Astyages: 5342-2+40+35= 150. We have now to see if we ean q n chronize any one of these years with dates already
established. It is evident from tbe narrative of Heros
dotus, that the first siege of Nineveh by C y a x ~ e was
in the early part of hie reign ; and that from the time of
that siege 1s to be dated the Scythian period of twentyeight yeara. It is also evideut that the second siege
and capture of Ninevoh took place after the taentyeight years were ended, and the Scythians expelled;
and was tberefore towards the close of the reign of Cp
uares.-(Herod. Lib. 1.1 106).
In a previous part of his first book, Herodotus speaks
of an engagement between the Lydians in tbe time of
their king, Alyattes, and the Medes under Cyaxares.
The reign of Alyattes was long, being 57 yeara His
son Croesus began to reign at the age of thirty-five; and,
d o u g h older, was contemporary with Cyrus. His daughter Aryenis was given in marriage to Astyages, the son
of Cyaxaree, after the engagement between the Lydians
and the Uedea, as one of the terms of peace. After
Cyrns had de oeed hie grandfather Astyages, the war
commenced &tween the Lydia- and the Persians;
Croesus having a desire to revenge on Cyrua the dethronemeat of hi4 brother-in-law. & therefore croseed
the Halys, which divided his dominiom from thoae of
tbe Medeo, and advanced into Cappadocia. In this be
was amisred by the philosopher Tha!eq the Mileaim..
A drawn battle ensued; a d Crateus returned to h d i s ,
where be was afterwards taken captive by Cyms in the

* T h l war
~ born, a c d i n g to hertius, when D a m h VUJ
Archon of Athens 8 and his Arehonehip Diysius of Haliearaasclur
places in the second year of the thirty-Nth Olympiad, corresponding
With the lart six months of A. I. P. 4 ~ 7 5 uld
the first six month of
A. 3. r. 4076, a c. 639-638. The d i p r e ocenrred May 18, A. J . r.
U11,&c. 6 0 a , a ~ T h a k ~ r r 3 5 ~ o l d .

.fourteenth year of his reign ; or (35fl4) in the fortyninth year of his age.-(Clio,
Q 25-86).
The engagement in the time of Cyaxares, to which
reference is here made, was occasioned, according to
the some historian, by the protection which Alyattes
gave to some of the Scytbians who had fled from the
vengeance of their Median conqueror. As Alyattes refused to give them up, a war ensued for five years ; and
"in the sixth year," says Herodotus, in the midst of
an engagement, the dny suddenly became night." This
total eclipse had been foretold to the Ionians, b Thalee.
the Milesian. The fear which it occnaioned ed t o a
peace ; and that peace wa8 confirmed by the marriage
of Aetyages and Aryenis.-(Herod.
Clio, Q 74).
Chronologers are divided in sentiment concerning the
date of this memorable eclipse. The unerring science
of astronomy narrows the field of controversy t o
92 years; but within that bounds
the followin
eclipset~hare severally been considereyas the suppow
eclipee of ThaIes :-

1. Accordiog to Calviaiwm. c. 607. July 30. Memoon, 1 h. 66'.

Din. Ee. 8.
2 ~cctdiqg
Ma~er,C o s m , B. C. (303. May 18. Morn- '
Bnkely, Lslaarle, Pbm$ Mon-3
ing, 9 h. 301 ~ - 1 .
Kennedy, Playfnir, Haler
3. According to Archbishop Usher-B. C. 601. Sept. 19. Morning, 10 b.
67'. Dig Ee. 9.
4. According to Petavlnr, Mmham, a. c. W . July 9. A h a .
Hardouin, Bonbier, Lareher
1I. Dig. k IOe 33'.
6. According to Pliny, Sealiger, Stmuchins, Riccioli, Newton, Ferguson,
Vixnoleti, Jackaon

-- I

-- - -

- n'~h~~~&~i:a;k

0; these five eclipses it win be seen that tbe only tot&

eclipse was B. c. 603 ; and the only eclipses approaching
near to total, were B. c. 597 and 585. Now, according
to Dr. Hales : " 1. The only discriminating circumstance
of this eclipse, recorded by Herodotus, and whicb he d r
terwards repeats, 8 103, namely, that 'the day suddenly
became night,' intimates that it was total. Consequently,
four of the eclipses, B, c. 607,601,597,585, are excluded,
because they were all partial, more or less; and only
tbe eclipse of B. c. 603 is left ; which, according to the
accurate calculation of Hayw, in his Memoire, entitled

Chronologia Scytliica, of the Pe#ersbrrrgh Tranusctiens,

17.25, proved to be total ei cum mora; the moon
being then in perigee, and the sun in apogee. And his
calculation was afterwards verified by two English aatronomers, Costard and Stukely, respecting the quantity
of the eclipse, and the track.of the moon's shadow on
tbe earth'a disk, in the Philosophical l'ramsactio~,A. D.
"According t o their joint calculations, the moou's
.badow in the eolipec of B. c. 603, entered opon the
earth's disk about 23 degrees of longitude, reckoned
from the Isle of Ferro, and one degree north of the
Equator. It traversed the mouths of the Nile, crossed
the Jlledilmanean, p a s e d through Cilicia and O'appadocia, as far as Trebisoade, under n breadth of forty-six
German miles; and therefore traversed the field of
battle, which probably was near the mouth of the river
Hulys, about half after nine in the morning ; at wbich
time of the day it was likely that the engagement had
"2. T h e other ec.lipses are also excluded on account
of their tracks. For that of B. C. 585, followed die
course of the Mediterranean Sen, and did not touch Coppadocia; that of B. c. 597, traversed Scytliia and the
Paha Naotis, north of the Caspian Sea; that of B. c.
601, passed considerably to the north of the Euxine
Sen ; and that of B. C. 607, traversed the earth's disk, in
the viainity and direction of the Equator. Consequently,
none of these eclipses, even supposing they had been
total, could have been the eclipses coarsely predicted
by 'l'hales, who noticed only the year, but not the day
or hour of the eclipse."-Montucla, Hist. des Mathematiques, Tom. 2, p. 101, 713. Ed. 2, quoted by Dr. Hales.
Analysis, Tom. I, p. 77, 78. Ed. 2. 1830.
. By the table, the Canon of Ptolemy and the calculations already made, the reader has seen that the first
year of Nebuchadnezzar began with E. N. la, A. J. P.
4110, B. C. 604. Conseqrlently the battle took place i n
the second year of Nebuchadneezar, E. N. 145, A. 3. P.
4111, B. C. 608. That year began Jan. 51, and the
battle was on the 18th of the following May. It was in
A. D.

the rixth year of the war. Five solid years had ela s d
at *e l a s t ca~cu~ation
does the ~cythiansh d
conquered by Cyaxares. Making allowance of r o w
little time between the conquest aad almost entire extermination of the Scythians, and the proteetion of tbe fert
fu itives by Alyattes at Sardis whieh began the war, it
w e not be deemed ext,nt,
if we consider tbo y a p
of the battle as the seventh or eighth efter the general
expulsion of the Scythians. We may therefore lace
that event in the year e. c. 609 or 610. Now i e r o dotus tells us that it was after the Medes had tau8
naovered their lncieat importance, that they took
Nineveh, (Clio, 4 1106.) Consequently, it wasafter B. c.
609, and before the battle with the Lydians, May 18th,
a C. 603 ; and thus it is undeniably proved, that it wan
after the seventeenth year of Nnbopolassar, the father aC
Nebuchsdnezzar, and during the last four year8 of tbe
reign of that prince, that Nineveh, and the Assyriaa
empire, was destroyed.
Let the reader now revert to t h e extract from Alexander Polyhidor, and he will see confirmation strong of
these deductions. The Sardanapallus of Polyhietw,
who reigned 21 years, and was the father of Nabucodrossor, war evidently the N n b ~ l l a s e a r of Ptolemy,
He sent an army to tbe aid of Astyages the Mede, t l u
prince and ratre of the Median nation. Cyaxarea, it
10 true, was rtil the king of the Medes; but it war
towards the close of his long reign of forty years ; and
hie son Astyngw, soon to be his successor, may well
have had a daughter by one of his wiven, old enough t9
be the bride of a prince so young as Nebushadne~at
thenewas. The object of sending this army to aid the
Medes, appearr by the following exthct from the-hi*
tory of Abydenus reserved in the Armenian Chron~aon
of Euebius. I lve it in the English traoslation
Cory, from the
tin of the Armenian editor. +' After
him [i. e. Axerdis, as Mr. Cory thinks, and
to me most probable] Saracns reigned orer the
be was informed that a very great
rianq and &n
multitude of barbarians had c o w up from tbe eta a*
urtaek him, he rent Bamlouorur a8 Bir prud





to Babylon. Bot he, having with a treasonable desiga

obtained Amuhean, the daughter of Astpges the prince
of the Medes, to be nffianced to bis son Nabuchodrossorus, marched straightways to surprise the city of Ninus,
tbat is Nineveh. But when Saracus tbe king was apprised of all these proceedings, he burnt the royal palace.
And Nabuchodrossorus succeeded to the Empire, and
wrrounded Babylon with nrstrong wall."-Euseb.
Ed. Venice, Tom. 1, p. 54 ; Cory's Ancient Fragments.
p. 64.
These extracts from Chnldaeen history to see
tbe accuncy of Herodotus, and also account for the d i e
tinetion he makes when he says that tbe Medes subdued
the Assyrians excepting those who dwelt in Babylon.
We have brought down the reigns of rbe Ass rian
monarchs to the close of the reign of Ehar Ha don,
which terminated, as we have seen, with the year E. a.
80. Leavmg there the line of successive reigns, w e
have proceeded to ascertain as nearly w we could by
circumstantial evidence, the date of the destruction of
Nineveh. We have thus brought it within the last four
years of Nabopolasear in Ptolemy9s Canon, that is,
within the vears E. N. 140, 141. 142 and 143. The
remaining pkriod therefore .of the Assyrian Empire
would be at the shortest (140-80) 60, or at the longest
63 yeus. We'find thi;svce
occupied i i t h e
non by three reigns at Babylon, Saosducheus, Chyni.
hdanus and Nabopollassarus. In the observations of
Euoebiua upon the extract from Alexander Polybistor
(p. 131) we also find three reigns at Nineveh; Snmmuges or Sammughes ; his brother, wbom Eusebius doer
mot name ; and lastly, Nabupalrar. 'I'here is a great
diversity amon historians in the name of the last king.
Some call him 8nrdannpalus ; a name given by othen
to Nabopolassar. Abvdenus calls him Saracus. Them
eonfiictibg accounts hay, 1 think, be reconciled in the
followina manner. After the death of Esar Haddoa.
&mmuges or Ssrnmugbes reigned 21 yean. During tb;
firat 20 of tbese yeam Saosducheus kigned at Babylon
hie vieeroy ;and on bis death Sammu hem appointed
Chynihhm to m a e d h h . A



died, and was succeeded nt Nintveh by his brother,

who may have been the Axerdis of Abydenus. He
reigned 'll years and was succeeded by Sarncum. Chyniladanus dying in the same year with Axerdis, Saracus
appointed one of his generals called by Abydenus BUMlossorus, and b Ptolemy Nabopollassarus, to be his
viceroy in E3aby&n. Saracus being an effeminate and
weak prince addicted to his pleasures, Nabpolanear
acquired over him that asceodeocy which the mayors
of the palace obtained at the close of the Merovingian
dynasty in France. Hence while Saracus wos the
nominal, he was the real sovereign of Ass ria; and as
he is evidently the Sardnnepallus of Po yhietor, the
n a m e of Saracus and SarLnapallus were confounded.
All historians agree that the last Assyrian mooarch
destroyed himself and his treasures; but they hare eonfou~ded the names. The arnbitiour Nabopollassor or
Sardanapallus, despising his master, determined to
unite with the Medes in destroying Nineveh, that he
might found a new empire of which Babylon was to be
the sole capital. In this manner all the accounts are
easily reconciled, and the whole chronology from the
beginning to the end of the Assyrian Kingdom may
be adjusted.
The length, and consequently the commencement of
the reign of Pul, the earliest monarch of whom we have
any certain accounts, is doubtful. Sir Isaac Newton
carries his reign as high as the year B. C. 790. He
supposes that the king of Nineveh to whom Jonah was
sent (about B. C. 800) was Pulls f9ther. But of c o u r n
thin is all conjecture ; we have no certain roof earlier
than the time of Menabem, B. c. 769 ; an as Sir Inarc
Newton placed the death of Pul in the year before the
eta of Nnbonassar began, B. c. 748, or before Feb. 26,
a. c. 747, the only queetion ir which is most pmbnble,
that he reigned 30 yenrs from B. C. 777, or 43 years
from B. c. 790 ? Without attempting to decide whet
cannot be known, the succession of Assyrian kings from
the time of Pol, and the consequent probable duration of
the Aasyrian Monarchy, may be thus shoed.

Chinziras and P m r

Thus it appnm that Niwveh was destroyed B. C.

This is the date araigned to that event b Dr.
Haks. He auumes the computation of Sir 1snac kewton as to the commencement of Pul's reign and that of
Tiglath Pileser ; but he makes the reign of Shalmaneser
commence B. c. 726, and that of Sennneherib B. c. 714.
Having written before the first part of the Chronicon of
Eusebius was discovered, he embraced the erroneour
w p osition that Merodttch Beladan was the mme person
as bardolt Emp/d. This error led to many others,
among which may be mentioned the uowcrrantable hypothesis that there were two Esar Haddonn, the one of
Assyrie, the other of Babylm.


This began from the destruction of Nineveh. Naboassar appears to hnve immedintely associated his son
ebuchadnezzar with himself in the empire. This may
bave been one of the terms of the contract by which the
Median princess, the dnu hter of Astyngeq was given
to his son in marriage. hence Abydenus speaks only
of Nabuchodroseorur as succeeding to the empire ; nod
the prophet Daniel, explaining the vision of the imnge,
takes no notice of the father, but says to the king, "Thou
art this bead of gold," DM. ii. 88. Certain it is, from
Beroeus, thnt Nebuchadnezzar was sent at the head of
tbe army to effeet the conquest of Syria, Phcenicia,
Egypt, and the neighboring countries, in the first year
of the destruction of Nineveh, nnd in hie fitther's lifetime. We must, therefore, add one year to the fortythree whioh he reigned nfter his father's death, as mentioned by Ptolemy. In other words, we must count the
g a r of Nebuchadnezzar's demth as the forty-fourth of
the Babylonian empire.
Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Evil-Meredoch, Jerem. lii. 31 ; 2 Kings, xxv. 27. That prince, in
the first yenr of his reign, released Jehoiachin, king of
Judah, from prison, in the thirty-seventh year of his
cnptivity. Jehoiaehin reigned at Jerusalem three months
and ten days, and was then taken captive to Babylon, in
the eighth y e u of Nebuehhezzar'r reign, E. N. 151, A.


J . 1. 4 117, B. a. 597. That wss the 6rrc year of his captivity, and eossequently the chirtyaeventh year was E. n.
187, A, I. P. 4 15, B. c. 561. Oa consulting the Cnaon of Ptolmy, i t will be seen that precimely in the y e a E. n. 187,
Illuerodamus began to reign. Tbir proves that the EviE
k stbe -same person as the
Merodach of rbi; ~ e r i ~ t u is
Amil-marudosh, Evil-malurucbus, kc., of
tbe profane i i s t o r b s . Bemeus and Ptolemy agree that
b reigned enly two years, and not twelve, as incorrectly
sbtd in the Armenian extact from Polyhistor.
All the historians agree that the hushad of his sister,
Neriglimr, tbs Nwicwdaeear of Ptolem left a son
nuned Laborosoarehod, who was put to z a t h aftem a
reign of nine months. As he did not reign a whole
ses him over
Tear? Ptolerny, sncardiog to his cwtom,
m ulence, and speaks only of ~ a b o n a c s one
, of the
cwIpiratoro elected by the met as his srwzcessor. This
being &be b t king of tbe Chaldaaa dynasty, must have
bean the B e l s ~ s uof Daniel. I nay must h m bean,
notwithetanding the various conjectures uaeed by tbe
c s ~ t d i o t o r -tints
#of Daniel, Polyhistor and Beros u DopiefT e x p s d y , 1. that night w*u Belshazzar slain, and arius the M d e took the k i n g d ~ r n . ~
Dm. v. 30, 31, To what bimg 10 h
i nirenmstanees of
the case nnit &we words to be applied 'I Not to
~ v i l . r n e r ~ hlor
; that is hL Soripture mme,.od there
is ne evidcoce of his baring another ; not to Neriglisor,
for be w e a n to have died a natural death ; not to hie
6% Laborawarohod, for he
but a boy, and the cirof the feant m l d not, with any probability,
w l y to him. D J a b d i u e oaly remaim ; but to him it
is, in the first place, objected, that he was one of the
wwpuatoro who dew Laboresoarchod, and was not of
tho MaQd royal ;wberear, in Daaiel, Belehazurr is spokea
of as a descendant of Nebuchadnezmr, Dan. w. S11, 13,
1% 3,. To this it laby be replied, that Nabonadius may
heve been a son or near relative of Evil-merodach, and
so a liwel deeaendaat fnom Nebuchadnezzar, which Nerisor and his eon, Leboruaoarchod, certainly were not.
is objected, eeeondiy, that Naboaadiue rurrendered
himself to Cyrus, a d WM not only kept alive, but an.
mde gwarnol ef C.rrauok for the re& of him life.


But to this it may be answered, that Daniel was a contemporary writer nnd an eyewitness ; whereas Berosus
and Polyhistor lived several centuries after the event,
mnd on ti subject affecting their hationa] vanity ma have
h e n deceived by false reports. It is objected,
that Darius the Median took the kingdom, according to
Daniel, and not Cyrus, and hence it is argued that the
events could not have been the same. But, if Cyrus War
the enwal, commanding the united forces of tbe Meder
and ersians, and Darius the Mede was no other than
Cyaxares II., the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrug it war
rfectly roper to say that Darius the Median took the
Engdom, pacause it waa taken in his name ;and equally
proper to say that Cyrus took the kingdom, because he
was the general commanding. That Darius the Mediae
was Cyarares II., the son of Astyages, ~ n dbrother of
Xandane, the mother of Cyrus, is admitted by Dr. Haler.
But that eminent chronologer appears to me to indulge
too boldly in conjecture, when he makes Belshazzar the
eon and successor of Evil-merodaoh, and Nabonadius a
Babylonian nobleman, the viceroy of Darius the Mede,
B. C. 553, besieged in Borsipp, the citadel of Babylon,
B. c. 538, and finally token by Cyrur, B. C. 536 !
I prefer to follow more simply the testimony of the
Scriptures, and that of the Canon of Ptolemy, which
we hare found to be so accumte. According to these authorities, therefore, I thus arrange the dates of the Babylonian em ire, from the destruction of Nineveh to the
death of f;elshazzar, and the conquest of Babylon by the
Medea and Persians.


D e a l d i n , qf Nined a d tk Buyrioa Empire,

A. J. P. 4108, s. c. 606.


Yeam. E.N.






h i a t e reign dN.bopdluu aad hia

mn Nebnchodnezzar,
Bole reign of Nebnehadnezzar,
Evil-Muodseh, or Ilnnrodpmns,
N e r i g l i , or Niricassolwu,
Laborowarchod, hie sw,9 m., not counted.
Wabm.dius, or Belsbezzar,
Babylon taken by the Meder and Persians,
when the Empire had luted 67 years; 67
or, 142
67 109 yeam f m ~ lNa-


E. H.


193 4159




It has been already remarked that to enter into all the

intricacies a~isingfrom the conf~rsion of names and
, dates among the ancient Greek historians, would be
equally tedious and unnecessary. The general accuracy
of Herodotus is so we11 established, that I shall confine
myself to his account of the rise of the Medes. In considering the chronology of the Assyrians, we have
alrendy established the fact by means of the eclipse of
Thales, tbat the general expulsion of the Seythians took
place in the year a N. 138 or 139, A. r. P. 4104 or 4105,
B. c. 6 10 or 609. Counting back 28 years, the duration
of the Scythian dominion, according to Herodotus, we
arrive at B. C. 637 or 638, a s the time of the first siege of
Nineveh by the Medes, early in the reign of Cyaxares.
Consequently, we may, with Dr. Hales, place the death
of Phrliortes in the twenty-second year of hie reign, in
E. N. 107, A. I . P. 4073, B. c. 641 ; and the first year of hie
reign, B. N. 86, A. J. P. 4053, B. c. 662, Dejocee, therefore, founded the kingdom of the Medes, E. N. 33, A. J. P.
3999, B. c. 715, i n the tenth year of Hezekiah, and consequently about four or five years after the destruction
of the kingdom of Isrnel by Shalmaneser.
t The chronology of the Medes may therefore be thug




1 Dejoeccr
2 Phraortea


3 Cyaxam 1. 40

4 h y ~ y -



- 107


--- A. J. P.

- 182



- 4073

- 4113

R. C.




- 641
- 601

- SBb

Before proceeding to the Persian chronology, I tbisk

it necesmry to lay before the reader the Canon of
Ptolemy concerning the reign of the Persian king8 at
Babylon. This, it will be observed, completes the eriod
of I241Egyptian y e m which ha calls the E n of k a b o
naesar. Aker the year in which Alexander died, he
begins a new computation named from Philip Aridmnq
the half brother of Alexander, which will come under

consideration in treating of the Mocedonian Empire,

the third of Dasiel'u great monnrrl~ies.

Kiog of 1bc P a h n r

I Cgrus

. .

. . .
... ...
. .. ..
. .. .. ..

I 1 Aleunder thebXseko&n

TIMwhrl.. ~ ~ , I I I I I .

Ymn of $81 y. ar- a oll ct d a

ench Ki~rr. U I cad











.. .. 424


< \ ,

Petiivius has justly observed that "The early year&

pf Cyrus are the crrdinnl point and found.11ion on which
depend the arrangement of preceding nnd socceedin&
times. and the concord of sacred and profane history.
Whcrefpre we with all labor and diliqence search
out the beginrrinp of Cyrus and tbe Persian reign," De
Doct. Temp., Lib. x. c. 14. By the preceding table it
will be seen that the reign of Cj.rlls, on the cornputntio~
of which so much depends, is to be divided into t w a
periods: the first preceding the capture of Babylon ; the
second following that grent event.
The original sources of inroraotion respecting Cyrup
ere, 1. 'I'be Persian historians. 2. The G r e e t writers
of profvne history, Herodotus, Xenophon, Ctesias, nod
thc abridgment of 'I'ro~uaPompei~rsby Justin. 3. T h e
Computntions sf the Fathers and Ecclenias~icnlhistorians, 'I'he Persian historians pay little or no regurd
tochronology ;and are useful only in correcting oriental
names tvbich are sadly disfi~ured by the (:reeks,-in
eorrobomtiog the leading fcrcta of history,-end esp*
cially in forming the connecting link, by means .oJ

which we can trttce tbe affinities of sacted and profand

authorities, even where they seem widest apart, and the
most a t variema. 3 s iHastmte this last remark we m y
observe that the refit xu, CY,of the Greeks e o r r e s l ~ o n h
with the KAI o f t e Persians, which, it ia mid, means a
king or prince. Remove this prpfix, for example, from
Cyaxareq and the remainder of the word may be more
easily made t o accord with oriental names.
Of the Greek historians, Herodotus seys that c y m s
i e i g d 0-9 years. Xenophon does not mention the
entire length of his reign, but mys o111ythat he reigned
&t Bhbylon seveh yearn. Ctesias affirms, and bo does
Justin, that he reigned 30 years. Of the Flithers and
~ c c t e s i a s t i c ahistorians,
Theophilus, the earliest extant
who hns attempbd to settle ebroadogical questions,
gives him 38 years (Ad Autolpeum, Lib. iii.) ; but as
'this author states that he died in the 6 ~ Olympiad,
b u s t have been an error in his text, a s will uoon be
b a d e to appoar. Clemens Alexandrinus (Srrom., Lib. i.)
and Eusebius say 30 years; and Sulpitius Severun, 31.
W e may take 30 as the mean ; and that number is given
by Cicero,who seya (De Divinat., Lib. i. s.28) that he lived
till his seventieth year, and began to reign when he was
40 pears of age. The date d his death ie determined
by three eclipses recorded by P~oletryt,all of which, aa
Petavius has fully sbown, accord exactly with modem
Computations. I shall mention the 6rat only, which
h s of the moon, and, according to Ptolemy, took place
fn the seventh year of Cambyses, E. ~ ~ 2 1on
5 ,the 17th day
of Phamenoth. According to modern computntion, it
took lace in the night between Wednesday and Thutw
Hay, fuly 16 and 17, A. J. P. 4191, a. c. 593, at the beginnin.
bt the second year of the sixty-fourth Olympiad. T h
ear E. i(. 215 began, a s the reader will see by the tabk,
an. lrt, A. I. P. 4191, B. C. 533. This war the seventh
e&r of Cambysee. Consequently the first peer of
arnbyses was E. N. 219, and the last year of Cyma
b.~. 218,which began Jan. 3, A. J . P . 4184, ~ . c . 5 3 0 .
T b e flrst new moon after the summer soletice in
'tttttt y m , began the third year of the sixty-recond Olymiad, in which Theophilus maye that Cyrus died. C o u n t i q
L o * 70 Ye-8 we
to B. N. 149, which begen Jan.

$0, A. J. P. 4115, B. C. 599, a s the yerr of the birth of

Cyrus ; and then counting forward to his fortieth year, in
wbich Cicero says he began to reign in Persia, on the
dearb of his futher Cambyses, we find that it was B. x.
188, which began Jan. 10, A. I. r. 4154, a c. 560. Now
this is corroborated by the following extract from the
third book of the chronography of Africanus, wbich is preserved by Eusehius (Proep. Evangel., Lib. x. c. 10) whore
he says : " The celebrnted transportation of the Hebrewq
carried into captivity by Nabuchodonosor, king of
Babylon, continued for 70 ears as Jeremiah predicted, and as Ber6ssue, the I! abylonian, relates of N p
buchodonosor. But after the 70 years captivity, C rur
began to reign over the Persians in the fifty-fifth 0 ympiad ;a s may be found from the Bibliotheca of Diodorur,
and the histories of Thrllus and Castor, and also from
Polybill~and Phlegon, and otherr who have attended t o
the O l y m p i ~ d s ;FOR ALL ABE AGBE6D A S TO TEE DATE.
Cyrus, therefore, i n
of his reign, which
Olympiad, kc., b.,P.
wns the first year of
Ev., Ed. Colon. 1688, p. 488. Africanus committed the
gross rniotake of confounding the first year of the reign
of Cyrus in Persia, with the first yeor of his reign at
Babylon. The first year of the fifty-fifth Olympind begap
at the first new moon after the summer solstrce A. J. a.
4154, B. c. 560, and continued till the same season in
the following year. l'hur, with almost mathematical
certainty, do we estnblish the beginning of the reign of
Cyrus a s king of Persia in the last half of B. c. 560, or
the first half of A. I. P. 4155, a. c. 559. If we n s s ~ ~ m e
this lnst date, we make the reign of Cyrus thirty yearn
exactly to the end of E. N. 218, A. I. P. 4184, B. C. 534
which corresponded with the first half of the third year
of the sixty-second Olympiad. W e bavd seen from
Herodotus that Astyages was dethroned by C rue ,at
the end of a. a. 18% A. J. P. 11.1.8,B. c 566. rt watt,
therefore, while he was prince of Persia, in bis father'n
lifetime, nnd full six years before his accession to tbe
throne. It matters not whether Autyages was dethroned
by Cyrub, as Herodotus aeaerts; or wbether ha abdioated the throne voluntarily, a s Dr. Hales will have it.


All the historians agree a s to the fact ; and the Persian

historians relate that he was succeeded, not by C ~ r u s ,
but b his own son, the ,uncle of Cyrus, whom they
call d a i b o r r , and who is called, by Daniel, Darius the
Median, or, as it is in Hebrew, Dariynverh. Sir John
Malcolrn soya, somewhere in his history of Persia, that
Dara signifies a prince ; nnd Daniel evidet~tlyassociates
him with C y r ~ ~ s So
. this Daniel prospered in the reign
of Dnrius, and in the rei n of Cyrus the Persian. Whether he acted at 8abyTon as the associate or as the
depnty of Cyrus is a matter of ho consequence. As he
was the uncle and father-in-law of Cyrus, it i n more probable that in the nttnck upon Babylon, Cyrus, commandinp the united forces of the Medes and Persians, acted
for his uncle ; but as he was the more conspicuous of
the two. and so shortly became the sole sovereign cf
the bledo-Persian Empire, it was natural for Ptolemy
not to mention Dnriua but to speak of C rus alone. I n
t l ~ i sway do we reconcile the account of enophon, who
eays that Cyrus reigned at Babylon only seven years,
with the Canon of Ptolem , which says that he reigned
nine y m r r Dnrius, or Jraiborz, or Cyaxares II., by
all which nomee he is known, wns 62 years old \r tien
Babylon mas tnken (Dan. v. 31) at the close nf E A .
203, A. J. P. 4175, B. c. 539. Counting bnck 62 solid
yeurs, we find that he \\as born E. N. 148, A. J. P. 41 14,
B. C. 600, the very yenr in which his father, Astyages,
ascended the throne of Media and Persia. Consequently he mas thirty.five yenrs old when by the abdication of his father he began to reign at Ecbatana. He
reigned over bledia 97 yenrs, and then wit11 Cyrus as his
associate for two yearsat Babylon, till his denth ; so that
he reinned in the whole 29 yenrs, and died at the end of
6. W. 211, A J. P. 4177, B. c. 537, \\hen he \\-as 64 yenrs
old. With him ended he kingdom of the Medes after
it hnd continued from the first year of Dejoces, 179
years, (53+29.+40+ 39+29=179.)
Cyrus, by the denth of his fa~her,began to reign in
,Persin when he was 40 yenrs old, and cor~tinuedfrom
E. N. 188 to 209, or 21 yenrs. H e then became assoeinted with his uncle fnr two yenra at Babylon, and after
his death continued seven years longer, and then died.


As t o the rnrnrner

in wbicb he died, Herodotus and

Xenophon are completely at issue. Which of them is
right affects not our argument. From the reign of
Cyrcrs in Persia, e. c. 560. to the year B. N. 417, A. J. F.
4.382, B. C. 332, when Alexander the Great began to
reign, is exnctly 228 years. This accords with Agathias, " A Greek historian of high character, who,"
according to Dr. Ha!es, "eonsulted the Persian Records,
aad who states, that, from the first year of the reign d
Cyrus, the ancient Persian Empire subsisted 228 years."
Awlysis, vol. 4, p. 89, note. We arc now prepared ta
ire rr synchronized view of the second of Daniel's four
kingdoms, ubich b e p n at the t e r m i n ~ i o nof the first
by the capture of Btlbylon.

I t must here b e observed that PtoJemy, iin his Canan,

Includes Alexander among t h e Persian kings; but t h i s *
w a s done only on account of his ending t h e period o f :
time which he chlls the E r a of Nabonassar with t h e
denth of the Grecian conqueror. A s he colnputes t b e
reigns from t h e first of Thoth in each year, regrrdleae
of the precise month o r duy in wtlich t h e several kings
began or ended their reign, t h e last of the four years of
Darius Codomnnnus i s counted from the 14th of Kovember, B. C. 333, t o the 13th of November inclusive of
t h e year B. c. 332. But t h e decisive battle of Arbela
took place Oct. I, B. c. 331, towards t h e close oF that
year which IJtolemy counts ns the first of Akxsader,
and which ended Nov. 13, B. c. 331. T h i s ia known
with absolute certainty ; becuc~se,according t o Plutarch,
there was a totnl eclipse of the moon eleven dnye before
that battle. It is found by con~putationthat in t h e
meridian of Arbela, the moon was eclipsed Inore than
14) digits in t h e night between Monday and Tuesdny,
September 20th, A. J. P. 4 3 3 , B. c. 331, one month and
twenty-four dnys before t h e termination of E. K. 417.
Coneequently the battle was fought on t h e first of Octuber of that year. Dorius was killed not long after ; and
this will account for the computation of Eusebius followed by Petnvius, that the unhappy monarch reigned
mix years, and net four, a s in the Canon of Ptolemy.
But though t h e death of Dariue took place towards t h e
close of that year which Ptolemy calls the first of Alexaader's reign, there is another difficulty of still greater magnitudeconcerning thelast year of Alexander. '&Itisngreed
b y all," says Josephrls, "that Alexander died in t h e hundred and fourteenth Olympiad." (Cons. Apion. Lib. i. $29.)
Eusebius, in his list of Olympiads, saps the same thing.
(Eus. Chron. Arm. Ed. Ven. Tom. i. p. 297.) But the first
y e a r of the 114th Olym. began a t tbe sommer solstice,
A. J. r. 4390, B. c. 3% ; and the years.N. 423 began on t h e
twelfth of November of that year. Alexander, then, mud
bave died bet\@eenthe summer solstice and the eleventh of
November, A. J. P. 4390, B. c. 324, if h e died in the y e a r
N. 424, and nlro in t b e 114th Olympiad. W h e r e a s
Flutarch quotes his own diary t o mhbwthat his laat sickod t h e eighteenth of the month Dedus, and

;hat he died o n the twenty-eighth in t k evening, corrcrepoeding with t h e !?2d o r 23d of May. \ire nre
reduced, therefore, t o this dilemma : if h e died in t h e
year E. 8 . 4W,it must h a r e been a t lenst a month preceding t h e Olympiad. If be died in the first yenr
of the 114th Olympiad, i t must have been In Mny, A. J. P.
W1, B. c. E3, in t h e year E N. 425, rerkelied by
Ptolemy ns t h e first year of I'hilip Aridreus. W i t h
these remnrks I proceed t o t h e secuod part of lJtolemy'r
Canon, entitled
T h e years of t h e kings who reigned after t h e death of
the king Alexander.
Philip who reigned aRer Alexander the Founder
Alexander Aem.
. I: 19
K i n p of the Greeks in Egypt.
1 Ptukmy Lagus
2 Ptolemy Philadelphus
38 77
3 Ptolemy Emergetea I.
26 102
4 Plolemy Philopator
17 119



. . . . .

. ..

PtolemyEpiphaiter .
Ptolemy Philometor . .
P~olemyEncrgetesII. .
Plofemy Soter . . ,
.. .. ..















. .

24 143
35 178


Kings of tile Romnns.


. ..

. , . .
. . . . .
.. .. .. .. ..
. . .. , ..


.. . .. ..
.. .. .. ..
.. . .. ..

W e now come t o our fifth genera1 head, viz :

43 337
22 359
14 511
10 401
13 419
1 420
21 460
23 403




Ensebius bas preserved in his Chroaieon an e x t r a s t

from t h e hilosopher Porphyry, giving an account of
tbe ~ a c e B o n i a nkingdom from t h e death of Alexander
the h a t until i t s rubjugation by t h e Romans. I t m
i too
long for insertion here, and I must c o n t e s t toysell witb
a n abstract.
" Aridaeus, t h e son of Philip and Philennn, t h e Thesealinn, succeeded t o the empire of Alexander, a s \we hare
mid, in ,the mecond e a r of the one hundred and fourteeatb Olympiad. d i s y e a n a r e computed u eight j f o r
b e lived t o the feurth year of t h e 115th OlympiadAlerrnder had left two sons-Hercules,
by Pharsina
(Gr. Marsinah t h e daughter of Phnrnabazus,--and Alexander, by Roxana, the daughter of Oxynrtee,
Bactrians. Olgmpias, the mother of
G n a t ) , slew Arideus ; and C a s s a d e r , the son of Antiter, d e w her and t h e t w o sons of Alexander. O n e he
~rnselfkilled ; t h e other, the son ofMarsina, he oent f o r
T h e body of Olyrnpiar
tbar purpose to Polyeperchon.
b e -st out unburied, and declared himself king of t h e
bilacedonians. Having mnrried Thessalonicn, the daught e r of Pllilip, he continued t o reign 19 years, a n d them
died of a painful diacnre. H i s reign, in which is reckoned the time after Aridreus in which Olfrnpias held t h e
government, i s computed from t h e firat year of t h e
116th t o the third year of t h e 120th Olympiad. Hia
s o a r Philip, and ~ l e x a n d e r ,and Antipater, succeeded
him, and reigned three years and sir months. Philip
died i n Elatia. Antipater havin , slain h i s motber,
whom h e was put
T h d o n i c a , b d to Lysimachus,
to death. Alexander married Lyaandra, t h e daughter of
Ptolemy, a n d having mnde an alliance against his
ounger brother, Ptolemy, with Demetrius, the son of
I n t i g o n u s , surnamed Poliarcetes, ru m u r e r e d by him,
. m d Demetrius himrelf enjoyed t h e mrereignty.
in whioh t h e mom of Caaamdsr reigned, a r e com-



puted from the fourth year of the llOth to the third

of the 131st Olympiad. Demetrius hnving reigned six
years, was expelled from his throne by Pyrrhus, king
of Epirus-who reigned over the Mncedonians seven
months. In the eighth month, Lysimachus, tbe son of
Agathocles, sueeeeded him, n l'heasalian from Cranon,
and w e of the body-guard of Alt xnnber. He was then
reigning in Thrnce and the Chersonesus, when he thum
tooli possession of the bordering kingdom of Mncedon.
H e reigned over Macedc~ninfive gears and s i r months,
from the second gear ofthe 1ISd Olympiad to the third
ofthe 124th. He was at length conquered and killed
by Sele~icusNicanor, king of Asia; but soon after the
kictory, Ptolemy, the on of Lngus, s ~ ~ r n n m eCernunuq
slerv Seleucus, and reigned over the Mncedonions. He
was slain when he hnd reigned one yenr and five
month* ; so that the time of his reign is computed from
t h e fourth yenr of the 124th Olympiad, to the fifth
month of the first year of the 1.75th Olympiad. Ptolemy
tvas succeeded hy his brother hleleager, \\.horn the h'acedonians expelled after he had reigned two ~nonths.
They then made Antipnter king for 45 days. Sosthenel,
one of the people, who expelled him, held the gorernment two years, and then died. After this, there was
an anarchy, so that from Ptolemy to the end of the
enarehy, that is, from the fourth yenr of the 1'24th to the
126th Olympiad, we find that Ptolemy held the government one year nnd 5 months ; !kleleager, two months ;
Antipater, 45 days; Sosthenes, two years; and the rest
of the time is considered as anarchy.
Antigonus the son of Demetrius Poliorcetes, called
Gonntns, from Goni of Thessoly, where he \rvssbrought
~ p reigned,
as all ngree, 4.4 yenrs; for he \\.as king
before he o b t ~ i n e dMucedon full 10 years. He became
king, therefore, in the second yenr of the 123J Olgmnpiad, and Ling of Mneedon in the first year'of the 126th
Olympiad. He conquered Greece, and lived in all 83
, dying in the first year of the 135th Olympiad.
IS son Demetrius succeeded him, nnd becoming master
of all Libya and Cyrene, nnd recovering all his father'm
former possessions, reduced them t o one monarchy,


which hg mled for ten years. He pawried ow, of

Pie captivea napled Chryaeis, b ~vhombe had a son, whg


Philip thqt first carriedlon m-ar ribh the Bomanq

h a m e the cauw of many evils to the MaoedQnkns. He pro~ided for this eon whom he left )
@iRQr, o gusrdiaq of the royal race named Antigonus
@uscua. Tbe Macedoniana perceiving the uprightnew
& Fuecua iw his adpinistration, caused him to marry
Chryaeir and b e c w tbeir king. This he did without
p~ejudieeto Ebilip, to whom at his death he left tbe
firawn, Antigonvs Fuocue died after he bad held the
gQverqrnent 12 years, and had l i v ~ d42, in the four&
veer nf the 119th Otytnpiad. Philip began to reiga
dooa from the 140tb Olympiad, and wigaed 42 full
genrs. Perwua, the SOP of Phili having by falae aacurorions to bio fatker procured t e dentb of his brother
Dewetriug reigaed t e p years and eight months ; but in
&Lp fourth year of the 153d Olympiad, Lucius Emiliue
~ p ~ q u e r him
e d in en Rngagement with the Macedoniaos
w a r Pydna. Pereeue fled into l3amothraoia. He them
voluntarily surrpdered himself iato the bands of h 4
WnquprQrs,osd was cerrid by thein to Alba, where be
died ia wptivity at the epd of five years. Thus under
him was pa end put to the independence of Macedon.
T!:e Bomnns then, out of reverence for the glory and
m u t y vwereignty of the Macedonians, permitted them
%p live under their own laws. But in the nineteenth
yw;, abicb correapopds with the third of the hundred
Cfty-wvepth Olympiad, one Andrkus, falsely
cnlllng h~mselfa son pf Ferseus, and assuming the name
of Philip, far hid r e a w he is cnlled the Pseudophilip, powwed himself of Mnced-oniab force, relying
04 tho Thrcians as his apxiliarios. d e held it one
@or,. a d being then conquered in battle escaped inta
fbnge. B them ba war delivered up, and was sent a
,rii.pnsr tq kowe. The Rowns then made the Macer@~iana
tributary becauae they had been so thankless a8
t o d e b the Pseudo-Philip, in the fourth year of the hundred pad tifty-seventh Olympiad. Thur from AlexCDQS; the Great, or frop the second yenr of tjie huadxgJ ~ $ fourtegntb
Olympiad, to the fwrtb year of
t b

B Q thus


fhe hundred and fifty-seventh <Hymgiad, in which the

Macedonisns k a m e tributsry \a tbe Roman ern pi^,
was in all 43 Olym iads and two pears, making in the
*hole 174 yenn.!
Porpb. y. Lamb Cbroh. Arm.
Tom. 1, pp. 825-337.
then proceeds to give 1 Iht of theme reigns
&s d summary bf Potphyly'a evidence. Tbiir it is net
necessary to insert bere, IS it wiU BB induded when #.4
&owe to lldjnst there dates wjlh modern e o m p u ~ t l o n ~
6t time.
1 must bet6 ask the reader's ieate to refer ta the
tbbles in my Iatroductory volhme to Eceleaiasti~lHi,
tory, for the puldiaatioa of which p r o p l d a have be#&
issued. fn that work the Olympiads have been ayhchtaaized with moderh cow utations, as the years of N e b
nasear a d Philip have {een in the ptemat work. The
results, therefore, which I shall now give him, may b6
de ended upon with mathemntieal aertainty.
!otphyry here assign8 to the reign of Philip dridaur
tight years, inetead of peven, as in the h n o n of Ptolemy,
The difference, however, is not important, end proceeds
merely from their different modes of computing time,
*ill appear from the following calculation. According
to Por yry, Aridoeus Hved to the fourth year of the
115th lympiad. That p e r begnn at the summer mlstice, A. J. P. 4397, B. c. 317, and ended at the same
Ireasen, A. J. P. 4308, B. c. 816. According to the &no.
of Ptolemy, Aridaeus reigned From E. N. 425 to 481 inclusive. This last year, as will be seen by the table,
began Nov. 11, A. J. p. 4396, B. c. 318, and ended NOV.
9, A. J. P. 4397, B. c. 317. If therefore Aridseua was
killed by O l g m p i ~anywhere
between the summer
rolstice and Nov. gth, A. J. r. 4 3 7 , B. c. 317, it is evident that the &tee of the two bjstorians perfectly a m
respond. Now r e learn from Diodorus Siculus that
Aridaeus was killed four months later in the year than
the death of Alexander; and as Alexander died May
Y2d or UQ,
Arkleeus must have been murdered aboot
the 2Qd or 23d of September, A. J. P. 4397, B. c. 317,
a. N. 4.31. 'J'his war not far from the end of the third
m o d m the fourth y m d ' the 115tb Olympiad ; and by
aounting back eevm years and four months, i t brings ur


to the 23d of Mny, A. J . r..4390, B. c. 324,as the day af

Alexander's denttr ; and l h i was
~ obout one month before
tlre tirst year of the 114th Oly~npiadhepn. This is o
surprising aoincidence i n the datesof the several profine
historiiins, and gives 11s confidence i n their accuracy.
.Cnssander, snys Porphyry, r s i g d , including the
govenlmeot of Olympiaq from the death o f Aridsus;
but his reign i s computed ns 19 years from Olyrn. 116,
yenr 1, to Olym. 130,. year 3. Four solid Olympiadr
from 116 to. 119 inclunive, are 16 years. T o these add
three years i n the 120~11
Olylnpiad, and the period from
September 23, A J. P. 4397, to the summer .solstice i q
the next year, when the 1 16th olympiad began, ond it
nrt~kesabout nine mol~thsmore; so that the reign of
A. J. P. +:397,
C ~ s s ~ n drnust
e r becotn;)~~ted
from Scpt.",,
B. c. :i17, to the wnlrner solstice i n A. I. P. 4417, a. c.
297, or from ~ l t ecloee of E. N. 431, to four months
befibre the end o f E. N. 45 1.
P.~sdngovw the succeeding reigns, which were disorderly, t i l l we come to. the end o f t h e Anarchy, we fiud
that ~111ti:onus Gooatas begon to reign i n tlre tirst j e a r
d Olym. 126.
The intervening period therefore extends from Olym.
1%. 4 to 125.4, both inclusive, or 2 1 eolid years, within
which the ioterveoing reigns must be adjusted, thus:
y. m.

Sons of Cawander,

3 6




r. r.


Pyrrhw, k. oFEpirur,
7 ) Olym. 120.4 Olym. 124.4
Lysimachus, k. of l'hrace, 5 6
Meleaqer his brother,
E. N.
468 E.N. 472
Olym. 125.1 01ym. 125.4
A.J.P. 4434

years 21

Agnin, passing over the ensuing reigns until we come

t o the h t r l e o f Pydnn, by \vhich the Romonsgeined their
first foot-hold i n the Mncedonian Empire, we are able to
fix its date with precision, by the total eclipse o f the
moon which took place the evening &fore the battle,

Tuesday, Juae21at, P.X, 8h. 2In.,~.J. P. 4M6, B.Q.

8. n. 530 (Liv. Lib. xliv.)
This wpa just at the clow oL
the fourth year of the J52d Olympiad, as Porphyq
stat~ a s e q u e n t l ytbt iaterveeping time from tbe
close of Olym. 1.25, 4, was exactly 27 solid Olylapiadr,
or 27x4) 108 ears ; and the intsrveGog reigns must
b e t us a d d : ;bntigonusClamarty 3; 2 l!doL?i34 1%

\ -

10 8

114 GI36 4 44714461

136 4-139 4 4481-4493
139 4-160 2 4493-4636
150 2 1 5 2 4 4535-4546

221- 179


1% 1-157 3 4tM-465









la r
i ! w ~ s a a 149448
Aftst which, t4e Mecedonianr became tributary to 'the
Roman power.
(From Puacb. C h r m Arm. Ed. V .Tom. I. pp. 343468.)
In the sixth year of Philip Arideuq and the third year
of the hundred and fifteenth Olympiad, Antigonus began
to reign over Am& and he reigned 18 years, having lived
in all 86 years. He became tho m o s t formidable of all
the kin s in his time; sad he died in Phry ia, jurt
when a 1 the pnwerq through fear, bad com 'ned to
attack him, in the fourth year of the 119th Olympiad.
.His eon, Demetrius, snved himself by flight, takiag refu e
in Ephesus. Being deprived of all Asia, he was thoug t
.to be the most crael of all kings in the liege of placm,
, whence he was called Poliorcetes (the besieger).
reigned 17 years, having c o d e t e d 54 years of his life.
.Beginning from the 6ret year of the 120th Olympiad, he
reigned two years with hi8 hther, which are wrnbered
in the 17 years of his reign. For in the fourth war of
tbe 120th olylgpiad baing taLm by 9deuou+
carried prlnner into Cilicia, where, though he wan kept
in custody, yet he was detained in a manner brfitting.4
' king, uwil be died in the fourth gear of the 124th-Olyapiad.


lrgsimochur r e w d in Lydia t.wu&


the pa of

Tbracs; Seleocuq in the upper regions, and Syria

.Both held their government in the first year of the 114th
Olympiad. The matters pertaining to Lysirnachus being
omitted, let us proceed to relate hew the affairs of Seleucus were trenurcted.
Wben Ptolemy, tbe firkt king of Egypt, had come
against the ancient Gnza, he prepared for w a against
. Demetrius, the son of Antigonus, and having conq~~ered
. him, constituted Seleucus king of Syria and the upper
I regione.
Seleucus bavin made an expedition against
, t h e barbarians, conquere5 and was proclainled king,
whence he wns called Nicanor, 5. e. conqueror. He held
the kingdom 32 years, from the fitst year of the 117th
to the fourth year of the 12bth Olynipiad. He lived in
a11 75 years, till at length by the machinations of hm
friend Ptolemy, surnamed Cerasnue, he was slaia.
He WM succeeded by him son Antiochus, born of his
wife Apama, wbo was from Persia. He was called Soter,
i.e. Saviour. He died in the first year of the 129th
' Olympiad, when he had lived altogetber 64 years and
had reigned 19, namely : from the first year of the 125th
01 mpiad to the third year of the 129th Olympiad.
be had the W l m i n g children by Stratonice, tho
daughter of Demetrius; a son named Antiochus, and
' two daughters. Stratonica imd Apama. Of these. carrping & h a m a ; he married her, and Demetrius, king of
the Macedanians. married Stratmica. Antiochus Soter
being dead, ~ntibchus,murnamed Theos, succeeded him
in the empire, beginning from the fourth year of the
129th Olympiad. After a reign of 19 years, he died ef
disease at Ephesus in the third ykar of the 135th Olympiad, when be had lived in all 1M) years. He had two
sonr ; Seleucus, surnamed Callinicus, and Antigonos ;
two daughters hlso, by Laodice, the daoghter of Acheus,
' one of whom Mithtidates married, the orher, Arathea
He wds rncceeded by his eldest son, Seleucus, surnamed,
'an we have already said, Callinicus. He began to reign
- i n the third year of the I B d , and continued to the
second year of the 138th Olympiad, haviog ruled the
. empire 31 years.
- At'him decease, him son Seleocuq wrnamed ~ d n u a w ~ u ~

swoeeded him.

I n the life-time, however, of Callinicns

Seleucus, his younger brother, Antigonue, unwilling to
s u e t , made imurrection against bim, being aided by
Alexander tbe brother of Laodice, his mother, who then
held the city of Sardis, and a h o in two engagemeats by
the Galatre, his auxiliaries In Lydia, where the first battle
was fought, Seleucus conquered, but h e took neither
Sardie ner Epbaeus, becauem Ptolemy held the latter
city. But when the second ctnpagement took place in
Cappadocia against Mithridates, two myriads (20,(MO) of
his forcea were mlain by the barbarians, end he bimwlf
perished among the slain. Ptolemy, who was also called
Triphon, occupied the parts of Syria; but the siege
which took place at Darnamus and Orthosm, was terminated in the rbird year of the 1 3 4 h Olympiad, when
Seleucus descended thitber. Antigonus, the brother of
Callinicus, traversed the greater Phrygia, campellin the
inhabitante to pay tribute, and sending tbe genera s of
his army against Seleucus. But being betrayed to the
barbarians by the ministers s f his own pleasures, and freeing himself from them with only a few of his followers, he
departed f ~ hlagnesia,
and there on the next day he
marshalled bis forces by the nid of Ptolem conquered
the rest, and married the daughter of ~ i e ? Ncvertheleea, in the fourth year of the 137th Olympiad, having
twice carried the war into Lydia, he was r a t e d , and a
battle having been fought with Attalus from the region
of Colrra, he was forced by Attalus to escape into Thmce
in the first year of the 1 3 ~ t hOlym iad, and there died
after the battle fought in Caria. S e eucus, who wae called Callinicua, the brother of Antigonus, died the next
year. His son Alexander succeeded him, who gave himself the nume of Seleucus, but by the army was called
Ceraunus. f l e had a brother whose name was Antiochua.
Seleucua, wben he had reigned after hia fotber three
years, was killed in Phrygin by the secret treachery of
one Wicagor, a Galatipn, about the first year of the 139th
Olympiad. His brother Antiochus was substituted for
him by the army, which recalled him from Babylon, and
was surnamed the Great. He rei ned 34 [it should be
36) years from the secqpd year o the 139th Olympiad,

to the second year of tbe 148th Olympiad. In that y,

having entered 9and the upper p.ovinoes of the
a t r a p q be warn slain ~ i t bhis whole army in a b a a
witla .the Elasiter (Pcraiaw) l e a v e two .on#, S e b
CUB a d Anrlodrws.
Seieuep. mucaeeaed his father in the third yeadof t
148th Olympiad, and reig~mg12 y-s,
e w e to ths
6rmt year of tke 151st Olynrpisd, having eornphbd hb
mixtiethyear. At h i s deecaeo, hi. brother Antiocbus,
who wag called Epiphanes, n u c e d e d him, a d reigred
II years, from the third year of the 151st to the Birst
year ef b e 154th Olympiad. Wkle Antiochus E p i
phanes was still living, his son Antiochus, eatfed E u p
tw, succeeded him and reigned twelve years, h n fathm
coutinuing to lire o w year and six months wader him.
But Dernetriw, wbom his father SeIeucus bad given ss r
hostage to tbe Romans, escaping from Rome, repaired
to Trapoh, a city of Phcenicin, slew both Lyeim, t b e
b y ' s guardian, and Antioehus bimeelf, and then reigned
f r m the feurtk year of the 154th OJympiad tothe foortb
p a r of the 157th Olympiad. He was surnslned Soter,
rsd reigned 12 years. He died in a bnttte for hie bhgdom againut Alexander, r h o had foreign mercenaries,
bein exeited by eu plies obtained from Ptolemy, a d
-xi ieriea from the mg of Attnlir.
Alexander obtained the domiion mar Syria in the
*Bird year of tb. 157th Olympiad and poreaecd it five
But in cCre fourth year o l the 1 W h Olympiad,
slain ; for in tho conflict with Rolerny, the eoadjutor of Demetrius the son of Demetrius, near the city
d Antioch, he fell in the psoraiscuous t h n g of the
battle, a d Ptolemp himself was also killed. The abovenamed Demetrins the eon of Lbemetrius, canied en the
wrir ; SO tbat Demetrius the con of SeIewns, and Antiochus the SOD of Alexander, rnsbing wpm one another
and the e i q of Antioch, Demetrius conquered,
.nd rergned in the firnt year of the 160th Olympiad. In
the second year, aullecting his forces against Araaees,
he went be BP 1011 and the upper regions. Bu! tbe
next year, whie wss the third of the 180th Olympiad,
be w w taken csptiw by.Amiaaq wbo sent him into



htthin, there to be held i n custody. Hence he was

enlkd both N i c ~ n o r , i. e. conqueror, because he hod

conquered Ahtiochus the son o f Alexander, and also
Sidiritee (Iron-bound), because he went into captivity,
r o d was i n confinement bound with chains'
younger brother of Demetrius, named Antiochus, and
educated in the city of Sida, whence he was called
Sidatuq when he undwstood that his brother D e m a
trius wae deposed and bound in chainr, went from
the city o f Sida, and occupied Syria in the fourth yeam
of the 160rh Olympiad. He therefore reigned nine
yeare. - This kinp subdued the Jews by siege, demolished
the walls d their city, and cruelly put to death their
choicest inhabitants i n the third year of the 162d Olympiad. I n the fourth year of the 162d Olympiad, Arsacem
came upon him with twelve myriads (120,000 men),
and used the artifice of releasing hie brother Demetriua,
who wns i n captivity, and sending him into Syria. Antiochue, though i t was i n the winter season, rushed upon
the barbarians i n a narrow place, and bravely began the
figbt ; but be fell mortally wounded, and died i n the
35th year 04 his age. His eon Seleucus, who, though
of tender age, had followed his father, woe taken captive
by king Araaces, but treated with the respect due to his
Antiochur had five children, three sons and two
daughter$. Both the daughters hod the same name, and
were called Laodice. Antiochus was the third child,
and he and his sisters died of grief. The fourth waq
Seleueue, whom Arsaces took captive. The fifth waa
Antiochus, who is also onlled Cyzicus, because, being
educated by the eunuch Craterus, through fear of Deaetrius he took refuge i n Cyzicum with Crnterus and
the other servants o f Antiochus.
Demetrius having been set at liberty by Arsacea,
gan to reign again io the secoad year o f the 162d Olympiad, after muahring a captivity of ten years. B u t as
moon ar he had returned from captivity, he turned his
thought8 ag~instthe E yptinns; and when he had arrived at Pelusiurn, and f a d bern met nnd rep~llsedb y
Ptolemy Physcus, he returned, because his eoldiera hate4
him and were disaffected towarde hie government.


- Pto)emy, filled with i ~ d i g ~ a t i a ibeslums

bad attacked Pelusium, sent as king ef Ask, Alerandm,
as being the san of Alexander, tbat iq ss if he were the
um of Abxander ; who being @opposedto be bo&t by
Ptolerny, received from the Syrians @heappellation of
Zabinas. The conflict took place near Damscuq a ~ d
Demetrios, being eonqnered, fled to Tyre. Net b a i ~ g
permitted to enter that eity, and being on all eidcs
mitten, and his forces scattered, he escaped an board
rhip in the first year of the 164th Okympiad, r h e a be
bad reigned, before his eaptivitg thme years, and 8 f t ~
his return four.
To Demetrius succeeded bis 8- &hueas, bat on
Irecount of his mother's calumniee he fertbwith died.
Antiochus, his younger brother, obtained the kingdoer
ia the second year of the 104th Olympiad; d in the
tbird year he conquered Zabinas, who, not enduring his
defeat, destroyed himself by poison. Antiochaa reigned
deven years to the fourth year of the 166th Olympiad ;
for the one year of the reign of his brother Sebuaus is
counted with his. He wne called Gl y p a , or one who
bas a crooked nose, and also Philometor. And because
his brother by the same mother, and his brother's sob
on the father's side, was called Cyziceorr, of whom we
have before spoken, he retired from the empire, and &parted to Aspendurn whence the name person who was
calted Orgpos and hilometor was also called Aspew
After Antioehus had retired t o A s p n h m , Antiochus
Cyzicenus reigned from the first year of the 167th Olymp ~ a d; but m the second year of the same -Olympiad,
Aotiochus having returned from Aapendum, oecupied
Syria, and Cyzieenue Cmlosyrie. The empire therefom
being dividtd, Orypus held it t o the fourth year ef the
trOth Olympiad, living after hia return fifteen years ; so
tbat he rei ned altogether twenty-eix years : viz. eleven
d o n s end fteen after the empire was divided.
Cyhcntus h v i o g reigned from the first year of rhs

Thi. kt m~tencct very &we,

and bas glrea
the aitm. I do not Lnor @atk is correctly trmrl.ted.

!@?A O1ympMd, died in the fimt peer d the 17ld

Obgmpiad, having reigned eighteen, and lived in all fifty
years. He died in the following manner. Antiaeh6 q p u s dying at the time before-mentioned, Seleucnn
bis eon, marching throngh the country with h i army,
snbdned many cities. Antiochus Cyzicenus, bringing
his forces ont of Antioeh, and joining battle, m s cow
w e b . Being borne by his horse among tbe enemy,
wben they wew about t o seize him, he killed h i m l p
with his own sword. The whole kingdom now pert&
Ing to &eleucus, be took possewivn of Antioch.
Put Aetiachua the son of Cyzicenus made war a p q
him ; and an engagement taking place in Cilicia, near
tity catled Mopsneetia, Antioehus conquered. Seleuclts
fleein into the city, aad'asking of the inhabitants if they
knew im, was told that they did know him. Whereupon, fearing lest they should burn him alive, he put himmlf tb death. His twin brothers, Antiochuwand Philip
suddenly appearing in force, and taking possension o t
the city, revenged their brother's death by razing it to
its foundations. The eon of Cyzicenur, coming upon
them, conquered them in battle; and Antioahu~the
brother of Seleucus, driving his horse frorn the combat,
plunged into the river Orontes and perished in its current.
There alas now a strife for the kingdom between the
other two ; namely, between Philip the brother of Seleucus and sou of Antiochus Grypus, and Antiochus the
son of Antiochus C zicenus, be inning from the first
year of tbe i?Int dlyrnpind. &wing well appointed
forces, and being masters of different parts of Syria,
they waged war for the dominion of the whole. At
length Antioehus, being conquered, fled to the Parthians,
and afterwards delivered himself into the handr of Pom, that by him he might be brought back to Syria
Pompey, seiiing the t-urn
of the inhabitants of
Arttiocb, eared no more for Aatiochuq but permittd
the city to live under its own laws.
The Alexandrians having sent Menelaus, Lampon a d
Calimandrur, to invite him (Antiockus) to reign over
Egypt, instead of Ptolemy, the son of Dionyriur, whom


&y had e l p d b d with tbe daughters of Ptolemy, Ire

was taken ill and died. Philip, of whom we have eow
rpoken, who was the eon of Grypus and Tryphena, the
daughter of Ptolemy the Eighth, was now releasedfrom 8
rival, w d wished to go down into Egypt; for the Alexandrian~had also sent for him to t a b the sovereignty.
But Gabinius the Roman, who conrmbded Syria, as
Pompey's lieuteoent, prohibited him ;and thus the royal
ruccession of Syria, which hiid continued hitherto, wm
m w brought to an end."
Eusebius baving given t h extract
from Porphyry,
proceeds to give a summary of the several reigns; and
.s this serves to cerrect tiom errors which bave arept
either into the original t a t , or the Armenian translation
of Porphyry, I think it neceasery to subjoin it here.
" The k!ngs of Aeie aod Syria are therefore ia order
.s f9llows :I.

- - - - - -- - - --- - - - - - - --- -- --


Antigonw reigned over Asia

Demetrius Poliorcetes over the upper regions and Syria
Seleucus Nicrtor (the Victorious)
Antioohus Seter (the Saviour, or Deliverer)
Antiochus Theos, or Deus (the Ood)
VI. Seleuous CalP&us (the gloriow er resplendent Victor)
VII. Seleuous Cerauum (the Thunderer)
VIII. Antiochus Megaa, ot Magnus (the Great)
X. Antiuchus Epiphanee (the Illustrious)
XI. Antiochus hia son, surnamed Eupator
XII. Demetrius Soter (the Saviour or Deliverer)
XIV. Demetrius, the son of Demetrius
XV. Antiochue &Betee (of the city of Blda)
XVI. Dmretrius again
XVIII. Antiochus Cyzieenus-Armenian yeam 17,
XIX. Philippus, the son of Grgpas-Arm. none.
Under whom the Empire of Syria came to an end."




----- 21L
--- 2649

I now proceed to adjuat theme dates to modern competationm. It has been already remarked that the diffetent modes oaf computation of Ptolemy and Porphyry will
-count for tbe apparent, but not real, differences in
According to Ptolemy, the sixth year of Philip
Arldmua was B. H. 430, That year began November 11,

319, ami srrded Nar. t0,A. 3. P,4388, B. a

318. According to Porphyry, Antigonuebegm td & g ~
in the sirth year of Pblhp kridawq Olym. 115, y. 3,
Thnt year began & er near the summer wlstice, A. s. P.
4396, B. c. 31x. Consequently Antigonus began to nip
after the solstice, and before November 10th. He rei ned
eighteen years to E. N. 4M, A. J. P. 4 1 4 , B. c. m, 0 pm.
119, y. 4. Therefore, he died befare the summer 4stice in t h t year, bemuse at that timu b e g a ~O l y c
120, y. 1. Thtm far t h e n is re dilhdiyBut with regard te the reign of his eon Demetriee PQliorcetee, there is a ood deal of difficohy, rowing out
of its turbulence, a n i the fact of his unsett ed position.
Porphyry expresol states that he reigned two ears, out
d t h e seventeen w ieh he aaigns to him in rbe ifetime of
hie father. He muet, rhereCwe, bare begvn tereign MHD~wbere in O l p . 119, y. 3, or after the sommer eohriee,
A. r.r. 4412, B. c. 302,~.
n.446. His solereign -king d
Syria began Olym. 120, y. 1, abost the mummer ~olstice,
r.r.r.4114, B.c.W,
~ . ~ . 4 4 8InOlym
110, y.4,hewar
taken prisoner by Seletzeus. This c w t d n& have been
later than the summer sebtice, 1. J. r. 4418, B. e. 996.
This would make his a s s o c ~ t ereign,'befon his eapliv
ity, six years, end bis sele reqn four yearn. If he d i d
in OIym. 124, y. 4, it could not have been'sarlier than
the summer solstice, n. J. P. 4433, a. e. 1181, wBen t h e
pear began. But iF we count from his mseeciate reign,
we have twenty-me years, a d if from hie sole reign,
niatteen years, te the dny ot hi. death. How, then,
are the seventeen yenrs of his reign to be computed t
Again : in Porphyry'e account of the kings of Mne*
don, he eays that Dbmetrit~sk i n d Abxander, t h e son o r
Catssander, some time i n Olym. 131, y. 3. Supposing this
te have been at the elose of A. 3. P. 4420,s. e. 299, whiA
weeld dlow to $he som of Cassander the t b n e y*w awl
six momthe assigned to them by Porphyry ; tben D e w
trius reigned six years in Macedo@,froa~A. J. P. 4421, B. a.
fS3, to A. r. r. 41.96, B. C. 289, inclusive. Corn ariag the
two statements together, it would seem that
remained a primmer with Seleaaus from the smnmw of'
A. 3. h cUf8, B. C. a96,te the etrd d A. J. P. 4420, B. tr.

A. J. P. 1395,~.c.


t~ about two yearr d six month*. Re t h

raiged six yeers in Macedon, but was expelled by
Pyrrbua, king of Epiwe, at tbe close of A. J. P. 4426, B.
c. 988. We eaa now eompute the yeam of his eventful
life,. or follows :


.. ..
. .....
. , . . . . . . . . . . .


is associate reign m dsia with his fhtber an tip^

is wle reign in Asia, aRer his father's death
Hi Brd captivity with &lencus .
. . 6
re@ i m Mocednn, to 01pn~i.h
is,y. 1
His eubsepoellt reign ii A& to.&
15 y w s
y w~thSeleucus,when he wan continfined
far life 4

Yeam, 21

As the death of ,Antigoatas, t h e father of Demetriua.

Poliorcetes, led to the greater elevation. of Seleucns, it
ie rsaeees&ry to go fa-her into the adjustment of th&
e~ronolopicaldifficulties. We turn, therdore, to the affaus of gysimaqhuo and Seleucus.
Both, as Porphyry tells ua, held theit respective governments in Olym. 114, y. 1, A. a. P. 4390, B. c. 3%
when Alexabder died ;not yet as kings, but as governors, appointed by him. Porphyry tells us that Seleueue
was made king of Syria by Ptolemy, when he eame
a g r i ~ s Demetrius
Poliorcetes, and that he then begna
to enlarge hie domi~ioasby conquest. His kingdom ia
dated from Olym. 117, y. 1. That year began at the
new moon nearest the summer solstice, A. J. P. 4402,
B. C. 31'2, E. N. 436.,
As he reigned 32 years, these are
equivalent to eight solid Olympiads, and thus they cooa- .
plet,e Olym. 124, y. 4, ending at the summer solstice,
A, J. P. 4434, B. c. 280, & N. 468.
With tbe commencement of this reign began the
f a m w era called the Era of the Seleucib. It is the
era, from which the years are reckooed in the first and
second books of the Maccabees; but whereas the beathen historians began to reckon from the summer solstice, tbe reqder, if he would avoid mistakes, must
eZmsys bear in mind that the author of the first book of
Maccabees reckons each year as beginning with Nisan,
tbe first ec~lesiasticaJmonth of tbe Jews ; wbile the aw-.

tbor of the seaond makes his to begin with tbe civil

year of the Jews, or the aatumnal month, 'I'isri. Thir
era is called by the Jews the Era of Contracte, and by
the Arabs Dil-Carnaim, of the two-horned, i. e. of Alexandeb as the son of Jupiter Ammon. Bat to proceed.
From Porphyry's account of the kingdom of Maceden,
. i t a p p m tbaz Lysimachus was killed by Seleucus
Nicator, Olymp. 124, y. 3, A. I. P. M32, e. c. '288,
wen after which Sehucna himself was killed by f t d e m y
Ceraunus, who was the eon of Ptolemy Lague, and not
Ptolemy Lagus himself. This event Porphyry places.
in the fifth month of 01fm. 125, y. 1, i. e. at the close
of A. J. P. 44341, B. c. 280, and not at tbe rammer 801stice of that year. These alight differeacea will happen
when rhe reigns are aounted In one place as current, in
another, ss eemplete years.
AlenircAu, Sotrr, therefor%, the nest M succession,
reigmd from the beginning ef A. I. P. 4435, B. c. 279,
the last six months of Olym. 125, y. 1, and died Olym.
189, y. 3. This year ended. at ttw aummer solstice,
A. J. P. 4153, B. c 261.
This proves that he rei ned
only 19 current years ; for 19 full yearr would inc ude
the first six months of Olym. 129, y. 4.
- Aecotding to the Armenian text, AntiocAus Them
reigned from Olyw H9, y. 4, to Olym. 135, y. 3, 19
years ; but here there is sn evident mistake ; for thie
would m a h him reign at least 92 years. Eusebius
giws the mote correat estimate of 15 years. If he
began to reign after the summer solatioe A. J . P. 4453,
B. C. 261, which must have been the case if we allow 18
gears and 6 month. to Antiochus Soter, then if he.
reigned 15 pears, the end would be at the beginning of
Olym. 133, y. 3. Thir would be at the summer 901stiee in A. J. P. 44.68, B. c. 246. And this accords with
what Por~hyryBays of the cornrnaacernent of the next
reign, to which we now proceed.
Seiencur Cdlinieus began to reign Olym. 133, y. 3,
and reigaed 21 years. This also means current, not
complete years ; for he continued to Olym. 138?y. !+
From Olym. 133, y. 3, to Olym. 138, y. 2, inclusive, IS
only 20 cemplete years. Yet Porphyry expressly eoyq

rlrst &leuour W l i a i w s died the em &r his &b

Antigootam. 8, A a t i g m ~ sdierafter &e bat& in
O a k Olym. 138, y. 1. Oonaeqoentiy Catlinkus, died
Olym. 188, y. 2. Ssleucu~Callinbus, ~otwhhstandiog
his title d bb glorkw victor," wes s e ~ r t d yu n f ~ r t r
.ets. After the death ef big brotber, whe ao pewweeiqgly oppesed him, be had d i n g but troable snd mi..
f e n u w tv-ths day of hir death
Hie ren Alexader, kaowa in histmy, for tk ressspr
umigaed by Borpbyry, under the wutw OF Sdcucw
Gwagms, reig.ed Jwe years f m Olym. 188, y. 3, to
Olym. 139, jr. 1, inclusive, LJ. r. 44&8, B, c. 2f26, to
a, r. P. 4A91, p. c. 223.
kitled, lfis bsothcr Adoclhu rke' G r d
A&er he
qeigped 36 yeue, from Olyol. 139, y. 2, A J. P. 4.491,
a. c. 223, to Olym. 148, y. 2, A. J.-P. 4528, B. c. 186, in
which he wu daia. Jf bath t h q dates be inrluded
a d a o 4 as complete yearu, t h y would amount to
87 years. The number 34 in the Armcnisn text is uridsr~tlyerroneova ;a d 36, the number d complete yeam,
given a h w a r d s by Ensebius, is correct. The extremes
must be considered as eurrent-years.
S e l e u c w ~Fhilopotor) sueaee8ed his
~ r y s orpbyry, Olym 148, y. 3, and r e i g d 12
yews, to Olym. 151, y. 1. Theas twelve years womld
extend t a i h e end of Olytn. 130, y. 4. But JNiocpK,
&pipAme~,hie brother, r e ~ g 11
d yeam From Oly m. 154,
y. 3, to Olym. 15&, y. 1. Hem t b e ~is r r#ancy of
~ W O
p a r s b B t w e e ~the r t d af the reign of Sdrucua
Euprp~coread ths hyinniag at that of JaalioeAm~Bpighataes. Porphgry NICQ~&
the faat, but takes so &r
antice of it.
There is still a reeter dipimhy. While Antiecham
tEpipbanes w ~ stil
e living, says Porphyry, his tion Antioobuo Euparor succeeded b k and reignsd 12 yearn, bis
father continuing to live undez him one yaw and six
maothr. The aeast~latiooof this -saw
a e e ~ ~to
imply,.thet Pftac Aatiochus ~ ~ i p h a &h s a oolepletd
falevee raws. he asdi-d
tha tbrone ia favor d his

m t b s Antbbm Eaptor m@d 4his fitber's

life-time 1 y e u lrnd 6 moatha, and after his fitbs98
death, 10 yean a d 6 maatha. Easebiua, on the contrary, allows but one year and six month ar the whole
migm of Euparor dter t b &ven ysarr of bin &the?.
Te rsomcils this daonlty, we muat examine the d a t r
sf the pteeedin and subsoquest reigtrs.
Seleacua Phi optor, the edecerun of h i e e h w
Bpipbaeq reigned to t h e m of Ohm.lS0, y. C Demetriur Sorer, the rcmmmr of Antioche Euputor, reigned
12 pars to Otym. 151, y. 4. Tbe d i m e of t h e from
Olym. 150, y. 4, to Olym. 151, y. 3, m 27 years; ia whioh
must be iaaluded the rsigna d Antiochur Epipbarrw,
Antbebas Eopator, and Dewtrias Soter, to ray nothing
ef the interregoam of 2 years between Seleoams PhiloF o r and Aotiochns Epiphanes. But u the wtnbem
m m @turd in the Aremnian test, tbow.three reigar
aaoumt to 35 yshrm. I annut but tbial, therefhe, thst
the number of y e r n in the reigo of Anti~cbusEe&odd hava been two and not twelve. Precisely muah
m enor bae crept into the pentdilmim c k o n o l o q of
Joseptius as wo bave had d a t . m i o m ~o obrerve ; and with
thie emodeion, nnd the tnrertien of tire two yearn of
herregmpaa, the reduction is m p e r k t acuoHknce
with tbe narmtive. The irrtemgdmn lasted daiag the
Brat two ye11rs of Olym. 151, A. J. r. 46384540, a a.
The reign ef Antieehos Epiphmes, Olga.
#I, y., 3.-IM, y. 1, A. I. ~.4&M-M3l, B. a. 114-163.
The nrrgn of Antlochar BBptar, Ohm. 154, y. 2, 3, A. J.
r. #55 1-4653, B. c. 163--161. The reign of Demetrim
s Sotot, O l p .
y. G151, y. 3, i r r c b t e , A. r. P.
s c. 161-149, (inter. %+Ant. Ep. I1+
A*. Eupat. Z+-Demacl6ui~Sute? 1-97
yema), Eaparor thmefore reigned ly. Tm. daring bh father's llfb
timq and air months after his death. Antimima
-Bpiphaaer was naturally deskam to mettle the smcce,
aSon d his ran, aa he was r minor, during hi8 own liferime. He tbetdore plaeed lriaa under the guardianlip
sl Lyriaq and b l a r e d him kin Qld then m t i d from
meraignty. 8Lortly after %it# &nth Damtrim
~ s t d t r o r B o m s , . n d h c # g a o b i l d .adwt8rane,

him aad hia g t m d k Ly6iaa to datb,d h k e d

imself king.
Jlexanda, having slain Demetriua Sotar, reigned five
earn from O l p . 157, 4, to Olym. 158, y. 4, inclumve.
list of re, s by $.obius gives him 15 yearn and
not tive ; but r t both tbese numbers are incorrect will
on examination be evident, unless in this period d
extreme turbulewe.and conhsioa, it be admitted that
ther~WM a state of anarchy after his death at the close
of O l p . 158,y. 4, which lasted until Demetrius, tbe son
of Dwletrinq began to reign in the first year of tbe
hundred and sixtieth Olympiad. Thia appears to me to
meeord with the narrative of Porphyry, and to afford
&e emiest clue to glzide us thrdugh its imtrimcies.
reigned five years from Olym. 157, g. 4, A.
s . ~ . C 5 6 5 , a c. 1S9,to Olym. 1 5 8 , q ~ ~
. .~.4570,n.c.
164. The otmggle began during the last-named yea^
between him and Demetrius, the sun of Demetrius; and
be was killed in battle with Ptoleary. dnriochus his
llon continued the war witb Demetries, from (Hym.
169, y. 1, A. J P. 4570, B. c. 144, with doubtful iasueo,
till Olym. 159, y. $ inclusive, A. J. P, 4574 e. c. 180.
At lmgth De~netriuqthe am of Dtmetrius, coaquered,
Olym. 160, y. 1, A. J. P. 4574, B.C. 140. The next yertr
Olym. 160, y. 2 , ~ J.
. P. 4575, B. c. 139, be went with his
army to Babylon and the upper provinces, where in the
following year, Olym. 160,.y. 3,A. J. P. 4H6-4577, B, e.
138-137, he was taken pr~aooerby Arsacea king of the
Parthians, when he had rei
three current years.
The younger brothtr of ~ e t r i t r s , Y B n ~ 'Sidciu,
now asmmed tbe sovereignty, OIW. 160, y. 4, L. J. P.
4577, B. c. 137, and reigned nine culrent yeua. He
oubdned the Jews and treeted them with meat cruelty,
01ym. 162, p. 3, A. J. R 4584, B. c. 130; -but lh the nest
y w , Olym. 162, y. 4 A. J. P. 4585, a c. 129, Areaces
earns apon him aitb an army of li!O,000 men, and Antio c h was killed in tibe winter of that year. This e.tablirbea the date with w i e i g of the termination d
his reign with his life, at the age of 35, and in the winter of A. J. P. 4565,r a 199.
Ahod r e d the polioy.ol-il
his primaxes


Demetrius in the second year of the 162d Olympiad, A.

J. P. 4583, B. c. 131. If he was to be considered ar
reigning then, as the wards of Porphyry imply, he was
kept a prisoner not ten years as he aseerts, but at tho
most eight ; that is from Olym. 160, y. 3, A. J. r. 4576,
B. c. 138 to Olym. 162, y. 2, which ended in A. J. r.
)584, B. c. 130. But if we reckon his second reign from
the death of Antiochns Sidetes, the interval between the
two reign6 was ten years from A. J. P. 4576, B. c. 138,
to A. J. P. 4586, B c. 128.
Dernttrius then begen to reign the second time, A. I.
P. 4586, B. c. 128, and he wae conquered by Alexander
Zabinas in Olym. 164, y. 1, wbich began A. J. P. 4590, e.
c. 124, and ended A. J. P. 4591, B. c. 123; so that his
seeond reign WRB full four years as stated by Porphyry.
Antiochus Gripus, the son of Demetrius, reigned eleven
years from Olym. 164, y. 2, A. J. P 4591, B. c. 123, to
Olym. 166, y. 4, which ended A. J. P. 4603, B. c. 113.
In this eatimnte is included the short reign of Seleucaq
the elder eon of Demetrius, which Eusebius does not
notice in his list. Thie Antiochus, at the expiration of
eleven years, retired to Aspendum, and was succeeded
by ddochuar Cyzieenw, who began to reign Olym. 167,
y. 1, A. 1. P. 4602, B. C. 112. But Antiocbus Gripus
returned the next year, Olym. 167, y. 2, A. J. P. 4603, e.c.
111, and the empire being now divided between the
two, he continued to r e i p 15 years longer to Olym.
170, y. 4, wbich began A. J. P. 4617, a. c. 97, and ended
A ,J. P. 4618, B. c. 96. He reigned therefore altogether
26 years, as rtated by Porphyry, even omitting the ear
of him retirement. Antiocbu~Cyzieemus reigned $om
Olym. 167, y. 1,A. S.P. 4602,B. c. 112, to 01 m. 171, y: 1,
A. J. r. 4619, B. c. 95, being 17 years, as t e Anmn-m
reads in the list given by Ensebius.
R e strife now ensued from Olym. 171, y. 1, nhiah
ended in the destruction of the Syrian monarchy two
years later as ~tatedby Eusebius, or about the end of
the third year of the one hundred and seventy-first
Olympiad. We ma therefore place its rubju ation by
the Roman8 under ompey and Qabinius in t at y ~
rhrt is, at tbe .beginni~gof A. r. P. 4621,~.c. 93.

I know lot &her ttrc r d a r brr ha8 tbe patiextee

to follow r B through this tedious examination; but it
was abeols ely necessary to do it, ia order to ancertain
the certair y of many of those important datea on the
accuracy f which the right interpetation of prophecy is ~ainlydependent. For his relief, if he has
not been w lling to undergo a toil f u slighter than mioe,
I present t him the following rrunmary of ite results :

iato wbieh tbe Errrpira of A h of Thrace founded by Lysiauw

e b q fell an easy prey to tbe Romans, after they bad
mbdued Macedon ; and as it does not particularly enter
into tbe historical interpretation of prophepy,I have not
thought ir necessary to notioe it my further h a u it
ie iacidsntall mentioned in the preceding narratives of
Porphyry. #he Macedoninn kingdom, as being that
which the Romans firrt subdued: the Syrian, as tbat
witb which the Jews were most canneeted, u d from
which they suffered most; and the Egyptian, as that
which brought to our sssistance 4 e accurate caloule
tions of astronomical science, as that which is conetautly
the theme of prophecy, aad aa that which J c Romans
subdued the latest ; these three kingdo-, it wn8 necermry to describe with precisian, w far as the sncctesion
of their kin s and the ad'ustment of dotes is concerned.
How w e b this dimcult wid thorn path L s been
cleared it is not for me to ra J but I
now accomplished a11 that was p r o m i d a t t t ~ ebeginning of this
A pendix. For any fauhs which the reader may find,
I &re only to plead the diiEcolt of the subjeet, and
r b n i= n ~ u ~ lno
l y ~ X C U S ~but
wig ptitb lo to
the necessity of writing in basta, and OCCSsioually the absence of books which I should have
found it con~enientto consult. Much of this Appendix
hae been written at a distance from ray libra~y,in the
houses of friends whom I was vieitimg.
I .rhall conclude with a rrnmmary of tbe
epochs which this esaay hm attempted to eetab rob, wd
wbieb, when added together, will enable the reader to
oolrrpute the preae~~t
age of the world, eo f u
nature of the subjaet will permit.


to the present year,

As the author mwmble to mprintend the printiog,
several errors have crept into thir work, wbiab the d e r
is requeated to correct.
P. 14, line I, dele note after " chuitr I" mdin- it aRer CLrirt 'P
h e 3 h m top.
p. 2.6, 1. 19 and 23, dele the bnekets.
p. 43,l. 20 from top, dele t and iaclert the note ta which it den u
a part of the text at the beginning of the next p-ph.
p: 65,l. 24 for menth of Zif," read M month Zif."


66, 1. 16, for Zin," read " Ziu."

67,l. 3 1, dele {te~~ian].
80,l. !26, for (Mait. i. %--pi. IT)," led a Matt. i. 2-17."
185,lanl line, br priest'n office" read " p r i w ' offifice."
108, line 22, for considering tbe period of time," read * aomidaing, with Dr. Hales, the period of tiaw."
106,l. f.5, Ibr will be as Ibllars," read muld be iu fbllow~'~
108,L 30, for m"(be~innioga period with numerab) mad
Three hundred and rixty-flve."
109,l. 2
, M e 1424.1
110, 2d 26. Em Nab., table, nnder year 18, for Feb. U," mad
Feb. 22."
110,36 d:E n Nab.,,andax year 64, for Feb. 20," 4
" Feb. 10."

h e the arrsngqeot of the Tsbk.s in easily seen, the

reader oao detect and correct, with hia pen, any other
mutakes which may exist. .