danes who reigned during the interregnum, and who are not marked in the Canon because each reigned less than a year. In their successor Belibus, both in the name and the duration of his reign, Polyhistor and the Canon agree. The next king Apronadius appears on a comparison of the two historians with the Canon to be no other than the son of Esarhaddon the Sennacherib of the two historians, the 25th king of Assyria, who conquered Babylon. During this period B. C. 699-693, while Esarhaddon was master of Babylon, the colony was planted in Samaria described in the following passage h: And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon and from Cuthah and from Ava and from Hamath and from Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria and dwelt in the cities thereof. Ascribed to Esarhaddon by Ezra'. In the same

capture of Nineveh would be improbable so long after the event, overlook the shortness of his reign, only two years; within which it is not likely that the works ascribed to Nitocris could have been accomplished. Herodotus omits the short and troubled interval of six years, which occurred between the death of Nebuchadnezzar (Labynetus I) and the accession of Nabonnadius, and passes to the last Chaldæan king of Babylon, Labynetus II., the son according to his account of Nebuchadnezzar and Nitocris; in which he is confirmed by the prophet Daniel V. 1-18. by whom Nebuchadnezzar is repeatedly called father of Belshazzar (Labynetus II). The true account of that interval seems to be this: EvilMerodach was murdered by Nericosolassar or Neriglissar, who usurped the throne: Beros. apud Joseph. Apion. I. p. 1176. and whose son Laborosoarchod was also put to death. All these events happened within six years. After the usurpers were removed, τὴν βασιλείαν περιέθηκαν Ναβοννήδῳ τινὶ τῶν ἐκ Βαβυλῶνος Berosus apud Joseph. Ναβαννίδοχον ἀποδεικνῦσι βασιλέα προσήκοντά οἱ ové Abydenus apud Euseb. Præp. IX. p. 457. B. Rendered thus: Nabonedochus nullo jure fretus ad regni sedem accedere jussus est apud Euseb. Chron. I. p. 28. That this is not accurate we know from Daniel and Herodotus. But there is no reason for concluding Nabonnadius or Labynetus II. to be the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar rather than the son according to the plain meaning of Daniel and Herodotus. That Nitocris was the wife of Nebuchadnezzar is confirmed by another circumstance. According to Abydenus and Polyhistor already quoted, a daughter of Cyaxares (by them called Astyages) was betrothed to Nebuchadnezzar. But a work ascribed to Nitocris by Herodotus I. 186. is ascribed to a Median princess: Philostrat. Vit. Apoll. I. 25. p. 33. γυνὴ γὰρ λέγεται Μήδεια, τῶν ἐκεῖ ποτε ἄρχουσα, τὸν ποταμὸν ὑποζευξαι τρόπον ὃν μή πού τις ποταμὸς ἐζεύχθη. which Olearius ad locum improperly refers to the fabulous Semiramis of

Diodorus, who never reigned at Babylon, and who was not a Mede by any accounts. Nitocris then in Herodotus, the Median princess in Philostratus, and the daughter of Astyages (Cyaxares) in Abydenus and Polyhistor, are the same person. And as Belshazzar was son of Nebuchadnezzar, the queen who appears in Daniel V. 10. in B. C. 538 was probably his mother Nitocris. In that case, as she was betrothed (before the fall of Nineveh) about 70 years before, she must have been betrothed in infancy. Nitocris being placed in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, cir. B. C. 585, will agree with B. C. 747 for the time of Semiramis five generations, or 160 years, before; and we may conclude with Larcher that this Semiramis was the wife of Nabonassar.

g This prince from the time of Hezekiah's reign must have been a distinct person from the Merodach-Baladan of Scripture. See above p. 273. 1.

h 2 Kings XVII. 24.

i Ezra IV. 2. We do sacrifice-since the days of Esarhaddon the king of Assyria, who brought us up hither. Josephus IX. 14, 3. where he paraphrases 2 Kings XVII. 24. refers this colony to the time of Shalmaneser: οἱ δὲ μετοικισθέντες εἰς τὴν Σαμάρειαν Χουθαῖοι, ταύτῃ γὰρ ἐχρῶντο μέχρι δεῦρο τῇ προσηγορίᾳ διὰ τὸ ἐκ τῆς Χουθᾶς καλουμένης χώρας μεταχθῆναι, αὕτη δ ̓ ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ Περσίδι, καὶ ποταμὸς τοῦτ ̓ ἔχων ὄνομα. Χ. 9, 7. Σαλμανασάρης μὲν οὖν ἀναστήσας τοὺς Ἰσραηλίτας κατῴκησεν ἀντ ̓ αὐτῶν τὸ Χουθαίων ἔθνος, οἳ πρότερον ἐνδοτέρω τῆς Περσίδος καὶ τῆς Μηδίας ἦσαν, τότε μέντοι Σαμαρεῖς ἐκλήθησαν. Again XI. 4, 3. where he paraphrases Ezra: ¿èkeivou τοῦ χρόνου ἀφ' οὗ Σαλμανασάρης ὁ τῶν ̓Ασσυρίων βασι λεὺς ἐκ τῆς Χουθίας ἡμᾶς μετήγαγε καὶ Μηδίας ἐνθάδε. But the text of Ezra has Esarhaddon; and in 2 Kings Men of Babylon are mentioned, which better agrees with Esarhaddon's time, when we know that Babylon was subject, than with the time of Shalmaneser, when it was probably independent. The mention of Medes does not agree with the reign of Esarhaddon, whose au

year in which the 26th king began to reign in Assyria, we find a new reign also at Babylon; and may conjecture that this city became independent again upon the death of its conqueror. The interregnum of 8 years, which shortly follows, marks a period of trouble; probably many kings arose within that period, whose names are not in the Canon because none of them reigned a year. At about this period, then, the king of Assyria who captured Manasseh (either the 27th or the 28th king in Abydenus) acquired Babylon again.

Polyhistor from Berosus describes a term of 526 years which ended at the accession of Pul. And Pul is the predecessor of Sennacheribk. Eusebius understands Pul to be the king so named in Scripture. But this is very uncertain. Between Pul and Sennacherib came two other kings. We have seen that Sennacherib in Polyhistor was in reality Esarhaddon, and that by an error in mistaking an Assyrian for a Babylonian kingm he was placed at a date twenty-two years below the time of Sennacherib and nineteen years below the accession of Esarhaddon. It is extremely uncertain, then, what king is described in Polyhistor under the name of Pul. The period, however, of 526 years terminates at this reign. Sennacherib is placed in Polyhistor (as we have seen) at B. C. 692". To Pul no years are assigned. But if we assume 19 or 20 years for this reign, we shall have B. C. 712 or 711 for the termination of that period of 526 years. The coincidence of this account both in the number and the date with that of Herodotus leaves little doubt that in this term of 526 years ending about B. C. 711 was expressed by Berosus the period of the Assyrian empire, called by Herodotus 520 years, and terminating at B. C. 711°; and that Berosus gave the exact term of that empire, Herodotus the term in round numbers. The precise date of its termination B. C. 711 is given by Scripture, with which Herodotus agrees; and we accordingly obtain 711+526=B. C. 1237 for the commencement. Polyhistor reckons 45 kings in this period P. According to which account Pul would be the 46th and Sennacherib the 47th. But Abydenus, who also seems to follow Berosus 9, calls Sennacherib the 25th king, which would leave 24 reigns for the preceding period. Esarhaddon, then, whom they called Sennacherib, had 24 predecessors instead of 46. And this seems to be the true number, for 24 × 22=528 would give 22 years to each king, about the average proportion of reigns. And we may collect from all these particulars compared that the Assyrian empire commencing B. C. 1237 subsisted 526 years under a dynasty of 24 kings; that under Esarhaddon the 25th king the

P See p. 270.

q That Abydenus drew from Berosus is proved from his account of Sennacherib compared with that of Polyhistor, who followed Berosus; for both accounts agree in the main particulars.

In these 45 reigns Berosus, perhaps Polyhistor himself, seems to have included the contemporary Babylonian kings, who reigned as vassals of the Assyrians.

s In Polyhistor the 526 years end at the accession of Pul. But we know that the Assyrian empire really terminated at the accession of Esarhaddon. We are therefore justified in making his accession the limit of the empire of 526 years, and in placing within that period all the twenty-four kings his predecessors.

empire was lost, but that the Assyrian monarchy was continued under six kings for a farther term of 105 years; and that it terminated with the 30th king in B. C. 606 t. Ctesias in his period of 1306 years had confounded the Assyrian empire with the Assyrian monarchy, and had assigned to this monarchy a date considerably too high. But as the monarchy ended in B. C. 606, and the empire in B. C. 711, we have B. C. 1912 for the commencement of his period of 1306 years; and this period B. C. 1912—606 includes within it the 526 years of the empire. The period of 1306 years may possibly have been a genuine period, but it is a false account that the period began and ended where Ctesias has placed it; and a false account that it was occupied by only 33 or 36 reigns.

Polyhistor gives 975 years w as the interval between the Median conquest of Babylon and the commencement of the Assyrian empire of 526 years. This would give 1237+975=B.C. 2212 as the date of that Median conquest. Niebuhr *, remarking that the observations sent by Callisthenes to Aristotle from Babylon went back 1903 years before the time of Alexander, that the beginning of this period nearly coincides with the date assigned by Berosus to the taking of Babylon by the Medes, and that this series of observations probably went back to some great political epoch (as the era of Nabonassar was the commencement of a later and

t See above p. 278.

▾ Prideaux and Usher place the termination of the Assyrian empire at B. C. 747, and refer Arbaces and Belesis to this date. Usher Annals of the World p. 29. adapts to it the 520 years of Herodotus: B. C. 1267. Ninus the son of Belus founded the empire of the Assyrians; which continued in Asia by the space of 520 years, as Herodotus affirmeth, &c. p. 60. B. C. 747. The conspirators took the city and proclaimed Arbaces for their king-and so the kingdom of Assyria came to destruction. The kingdom therefore now falling to be divided, Arbaces, having freed his countrymen the Medes from the Assyrian yoke, enabled them to live in aftertimes according to their own laws, as Herodotus affirmeth. Belesis, who in Holy Writ is called Baladan, but by Ptolemaus is called Nabonassarus, held the kingdom of Babylon 14 years. Prideaux vol. I. p. 1. adopts the same date B. C. 747 for the termination of the period, but retains the 1300 years Ctesias: The ancient empire of the Assyrians, which had governed Asia for above 1300 years, being dissolved by the death of Sardanapalus, there arose up two empires, the one founded by Arbaces, the other by Belesis. Belesis had Babylon, Chaldæa, and Arabia, and Arbaces all the rest. This happened in B. C. 747. Arbaces in Scripture is Tiglath-pileser, Belesis is the same with Nabonassar, and in the Holy Scripture Baladan. But at this date B. C. 747 the Medes were still dependent upon Nineveh, as we know from Tobit I. already quoted, who describes them in the reign of Shalmaneser; and the era of Nabonassar is an insulated and independent date, not connected by any accounts with Assy

of

ria or with Media. The inconsistency of this date with the true time of the defection of the Medes is shewn by Jackson vol. I. p. 303. 304. Jackson himself, however, assigns an erroneous date to the period of 1300 years; for he supposes them to end at the revolt of the Medes B. C. 711; and adds another century to the Assyrian monarchy, which he carries down to the capture of Nineveh B. C. 606. But it is evident that the term of Ctesias was intended to include the whole duration of the kingdom, and to terminate at the fall of Nineveh. Jackson thus extends the monarchy to 1410 years, although he admits p. 307. that" Ctesias applied to Arbaces "and Belesis what plainly related to the de"struction of Nineveh and of the Assyrian

66

kingdom under the last king by Cyaxares king "of Media and Nabopolassar prefect of Baby"lon." Whence he might have seen that the 1300 years of Ctesias terminated at that point, B. C. 606. The dates of Prideaux are inconsistent with himself; for he supposes the empire of Asia to have been acquired in B. C. 2047, which according to the dates he followed was fifty years before the birth of Abraham. But we know that no Assyrian empire governed Asia at the time of the war described in Gen. XIV. and those events occurred not long before the birth of Ishmael, about the 85th year of Abraham's life, which according to Prideaux was in B. C. 1912, 135 years after the Assyrians are supposed to have governed Asia.

I.

w See p. 272.

* As quoted in the Philological Museum vol. P. 38.

more accurate series), concludes with very great probability that the capture of Babylon by the Medes is to be placed 1903 years before the time of Alexander. This will place that epoch at B. C. 2233 y, only twenty-one years above the date obtained from Polyhistor, whose period for the times before the Assyrian empire will be extended by this addition from 975 to 996 years. This is the more probable, because in the 48 years ascribed to the eleven reigns z the numbers are doubtfula. In that passage, then, we may substitute some other number, perhaps 69, for 48; which will raise the preceding period of 224 years to B. C. 2233. With only this alteration in the numbers, founded on the observation of Niebuhr, the following Table will exhibit the leading epochs according to the positions which have been established in the preceding inquiry :

The Assyrian empire had not yet extended over Asia at the time of the Exode of the Israelites, when many independent kings are mentioned ; nor at the time of the first servitude, when an independent king reigned in Mesopotamia d. Down therefore to B. C. 1550 e Mesopotamia was not subject to the Assyrians. These facts confirm Herodotus and Polyhistor, and refute those who following Ctesias have supposed the empire of Asia to have been acquired by the Assyrians 1300 years before the end of their monarchy. And although Platof supposed the kingdom of Priam to be within the authority of the Assyrians, it is probable that the Assyrian empire within that period of 526 years was principally confined to the Upper Asia, and not extended far to the westward. We know that Syria was a powerful and independent kingdom from the time of Ahab to the time of Joash; cir. B.C. 915—8458;

26. the kings of Midian: XXXI. 8. the king of Bashan: Deut. III. 1.

d Judges III. 8.

e B. C. 1405 according to the dates of Usher. f Plato Leg. III. p. 685. oi nepì tò "Ikıov olkoũytes τότε πιστεύοντες τῇ τῶν ̓Ασσυρίων δυνάμει τῇ περὶ Νῖνον γενομένῃ θρασυνόμενοι τὸν πόλεμον ἤγειραν τὸν ἐπὶ Τροίαν, κ. τ. λ. τῆς ἀρχῆς γὰρ τῆς ἐκείνων ἦν μόριον. Ast ad locum rightly observes that Plato here follows Ctesias, according to whom apud Diod. II. 2. Ninus conquered the whole of Asia Minor.

g Compare 1 Kings XX. 1. 2 Kings XIII. 25.

and that the Assyrians did not acquire dominion in Syria till after B. C. 769 h, less than sixty years before the independence of the Medes. Herodotus, then, accurately limits the Assyrian dominion to the Upper Asia. Dionysius follows Herodotus in ascribing a limited dominion to the Assyriansk.

In the fabulous account of Ctesias, Ninus 1000 years before the Trojan war conquers with the help of the Arabians Babylonia, Armenia, Media, Egypt, Phoenicia, Colesyria, Asia Minor, Hyrcania, Carmania, Persis, Susiana, all these in 17 years; then after building Nineveh he conquers Bactriana, whose king according to Justin m was Zoroaster. After the death of Ninus, Babylon is founded by Semiramis. Ctesias has here ascribed to one person the acts of many. Babylon was really conquered about 50 years before the date of Ctesias; but it was conquered by the Medes, and Zoroaster was the first Median king of Babylon ". We may place the conquest of Bactriana and Media 1000 years after the supposed time of Ninus. Phoenicia, Syria, and the adjacent countries, were not subdued till 1400 years after the epoch of Ctesias. The western and southern countries of Asia Minor were probably never subjected at all till the time of Esarhaddon and his successors, who pushed their conquests in that direction when they were excluded from the Upper Asia by the Medes.

V.

SCRIPTURE CHRONOLOGY.

THE history contained in the Hebrew Scriptures presents a remarkable and pleasing contrast to the early accounts of the Greeks. In the latter we trace with difficulty a few obscure facts preserved to us by the poets, who transmitted with all the embellishments of poetry and fable what they had received from oral tradition. In the annals of the Hebrew nation we have authentic narratives written by contemporaries, and these writing under the guidance of inspiration. What they have delivered to us comes accordingly under a double sanction. They were aided by divine inspiration in recording facts upon which, as mere human witnesses, their evidence would be valid. But as the narrative comes with an authority which no other writing can possess, so in the matters related it has a character of its own. The history of the Israelites is the history of miraculous interpositions. Their passage out of

ing the foundation of Babylon is noticed by Berosus apud Joseph. Apion. I. 20. μéμpetaι Tois Ἑλληνικοῖς συγγραφεῦσιν ὡς μάτην οἰομένοις ὑπὸ Σεμιρά μιδος τῆς ̓Ασσυρίας κτισθῆναι τὴν Βαβυλῶνα. Referred to by Wess. ad Diod. tom. I. p. 390.

a It may be said that Moses was not a witness of the facts which he relates between the birth or the call of Abraham (when the history of the Hebrews may be properly said to commence) and his own time. But there were so few steps between Abraham and Moses that, though not a witness, he was an authentic reporter of evidence. In the following history, from the exode to the rebuilding of the temple, all the writers were, strictly speaking, witnesses.