tion to the Freedom will be 480 years. From the Deluge to the Return 1920 years (=480 x 460 x 32). - And from the Deluge to the Freedom 2348 years, - the time that elapsed between the Deluge and the birth of Christ, according to Usher.

716. 7. DEMI-SEPTUAGINTAL OR OLD-EGYPTIAN-YEAR

717. (1). If the Hebrew reading of No. 5 (viz. 480) were substituted, the sum-total would become 3640 or 364 × 10. N. B. 3600 × 364–360 × 3640 and 3600 × 360=356 × 3640. (2). Again, reckoning the Captivity at 70 years, it would be 3650-365 × 10, also 3600 × 360=355 × 3650. (3). Substituting both the above-mentioned readings, together with that of 430 against No. 4, the amount would be 3700 370 x 10. (4). And further adding Shem's intercalation of 10 years,-3710=371 × 10. (5). To 3700 add the 6 centenary additions found in the 2nd division of the Samaritan (¶ 25), and the sum will be 4300=430 × 10.— If Cainan's be also added, 440 x 10. (6). Subtract from the 4300 Shem's 10 and the 10 added to No. 4, and the remainder will be 4280+= 428 × 10.

=

(7). Add to

* One computation from the Creation to the Call nearly equals this amount. For 2256 + 1270+75=3601(=430 × 83).

This amount may nearly be obtained thus:

From Creation to 1st building Temple (VIII. iii. 1)
From 1st building to 2nd destruction (XX. x.)

Or thus,

To Call (VIII. iii. 1)

To Melchizedec, say

To 2nd destruction (Wars VI. x. 1)

Years.

- 3102

1180

4282

2082

L L

21 - 2177

4300 the 3 centenary additions found in the 1st division of the Hebrew Table No. 1, and the sum will be 4600=460 x 10 or 46 x 100. Also 3700+300=4000. (8). Instead of the last addition, introduce the 9 centenary additions of the LXX., and we have 5200=520 x 10=40 x 130. (9). 3700, plus 17 centenary additions of the LXX.,=5400; or plus the 16 of Josephus,=5300. (10). Again, 1307+6 (Noah's and Terah's intercal.) +365+10 (Shem's intercal.) +430+ 440+408+ 70+639=3675=490 × 7. (11). The same amount as that in No. 9 may also be obtained as follows:

1. From Adam to the Flood (¶ 25, Col. 19) 2. Thence to birth of Abram, (id.)

3. Thence to Call of Abram, (id.)

4. From meeting with Melchizedec to 2d. detruction (Wars VI. x. 1)

Creation to 2nd destruction

Years.

2156

992

75

2177

5400-360 x 15.

The

It will be observed that here the interview of Abram with Melchizedec is regarded as contemporaneous with the Call. This view is taken on the ground that, the date of this interview not having been positively fixed, it appears to have been purposely left open for such a construction. mention of 12, 13, and 14 years in Gen. xiv. 4, 5 does indeed lead to the inference that at least 14 years had elapsed since the Call; but this is not absolutely certain, because the date of the first Assyrian invasion relatively to Abram's age is not stated. It may have been contemporaneous with Abram's 75th year and his migration from Haran, or it may have been 14 or 15 years prior to these,— about the time possibly that he removed from Ur. Certainly it is a plausible conjecture that the irruption of these nations may have had something to do with one, if not both, of his migrations. But, seeing that the time of it is not determined, and that Josephus draws several of his longest Chronometrical lines from the meeting with Melchizedec, (an event the date of which is not fixed, while the ordinary æra of computations is unquestionably the Call, the date of which is fixed), it would appear as though in some of his calculations he eliminated the difference. It may be observed, however, that if the Various Reading of the LXX. which would reduce No. 1 to 2142 were substituted, exactly 14 years would be given for the interval between the Call and Melchizedec. (12). If into this computation the 3

centenary additions in the Hebrew (¶25, Col. 11) were introduced, the sum-total would become 3900. And this number leads us to advert here to a series of which it is a multiple.

8. 1300-YEAR COMPUTATIONS.

718. The occurrence in succession of two periods of 1300 yrs. in the passages we are about to quote led us to expect that we should find a series composed of items of this amount. But we have not done so; although we have found one closely approximating to it, and combinations of which. the sum-total is divisible by this number. Below are examples.

719. Josephus in Ant. VIII. vi. 2 says: "If any inquire why all the kings of Egypt from (aro) Menes (who built Memphis, and was many years earlier than our forefather Abraham), until Solomon (where the interval was more than 1300 years), were called Pharaohs," &c. After stating the reason, he goes on: "I suppose also that *Herodotus of Halicarnassus, when he said there were 330 kings of Egypt after (uera, post) Menes, did not tell us their names, because they were in common called Pharaohs."...." However, I have discovered from our own books that, after Pharaoh, the father-in-law of Solomon, no other king of Egypt did any longer use that name." Josephus had said just before (Ant. VII. xv. 3): "David was buried by his son Solomon with great magnificence. Moreover, he had great and immense wealth buried with him, the vastness of which may be readily conjectured from the fact, that 1300 yrs. afterwards Hyrcanus the High Priest, when he was besieged by Antiochus, opened one room of David's sepulchre, and took out 3000 talents." (Comp. XIII. viii. 4). "Nay, after him, and that many years, Herod the King opened another room, and took away a great deal of money." (Comp. XVI. vii, 1, where the historian says: "As for any money, Herod found none (as Hyrcanus had done), but only that furniture of gold and those precious goods which were laid up there: all which he took away.")

....

720. It seems as though in the first of these quotations the historian wished to insinuate that the reigns of the Pharaohs measured as nearly as possible the time from the Deluge to

*Euterpe § C. Diodorus (ii. 25) has preserved a statement of Ctesias to the effect that 30 Assyrian Kings governed previous to Sardanapalus, during 1300 years.

the accession of Solomon. He could not in so many words state as a fact what would appear so great an absurdity as that the kingdom of Egypt was established in all its grandeur at the time of the Deluge; yet, where these diverse chronologies were in use, this might possibly be intended, the absurdity being evaded by the ability to plead that what was the date of the Deluge according to one computation was many centuries below it according to another. Hence it might be meant to convey that the two peoples, the Egyptians and the Jews, were running their course in contrary directions, previous to the time of Solomon. Menes was the type of Solomon. From Menes, their most celebrated monarch, the Egyptian nation pursued a downward course; until, at the time when the Jewish nation, continually progressing, had reached the height of its glory under Solomon, the famous dynasties of the Pharaohs became extinct.

721. We have been partly led to suspect that it was the historian's intention to make the Pharaonic line coeval with one date of the Deluge by the circumstance that the duration he assigns to the interval between Menes and the last Pharaoh is very nearly the same as that which the shortest computation gives for the interval between the Deluge and Solomon's accession. He evidently means to convey that the father-in-law of Solomon was the last of the 330 kings" who reigned after Menes. And though he says "after" and "from" Menes, it can scarcely be doubted that he means to include Menes in the 330. So that between the accessions of Menes and Solomon he may be understood to place 1300+ years. The received rate of computation by generations will bear this out. For it has been shewn, (¶¶ 259, 261) that, after Moses, 40 years was reckoned to be the permanent length of a generation. And 330 x 40=1320. And now for the shortest computation. It runs thus. From the Deluge to the Call, 367 + to the Exode 420+ Moses and Joshua 65+Judges 360+ Eli 40+ Samuel, Saul, and David 72=1324. Thus, from the accession of Menes to the end of the Pharaohs, may be reckoned the time from the Deluge to the accession of Solomon. And with this agrees Usher's scheme of chronology. He places the Deluge B.C. 2348. And 1300+x+1015=2315+x. If the statements of Josephus are taken in their strictly literal significations, and Menes not included in the 330 kings, then as 30, 60, and 62 years have been assigned to his reign, the epoch of

* Mæris (Herod. Euterpe § CI.), say = David.

his accession would coincide with, or be antecedent to, Usher's date of the Flood.

722. On the hypothesis then, that the epoch of Menes was reckoned that of the Deluge, the following computation may have been formed.

=

Creation to 2nd destr. 4112 (=total of Comp. ¶¶ 694, and 699.)

On the right are shewn the combinations that would be formed if the two figures in the units' place were removed. The first has heretofore been proved to be intercalary. On the supposition that this only was eliminated, and that the last number, as being fractional, may have been taken at 204, the sum-total may have been made 4104 (=216 × 19).

723. But, laying aside the hypothesis on which we have hitherto proceeded, let us take the numbers apart from any reference to the Deluge or the Pharoahs, and try what combinations they will form with other numbers.

724. From the Creation to the Deluge, according to one reading in Josephus, there were 2656 years. 14 added for Noah's and Shem's intercalations will make 2670.- From the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, according to certain readings of the LXX., were 1270 years. Allow the odd 70 for the time that Menes was before Abraham. A computation may then be drawn out thus:

725. It may be noted as singular in connexion with these 1300's that Manetho appears to have placed the epoch of Menes 3900 years B. C. (=1300 × 3).

726. If against No. 1, the reading 2656 alone be introduced, plus 1 year for the Deluge, the sum-total will become 6660 (=666 × 10=1332 × 5).