compelled to make Ahaz father of Hezekiah at the age of twelve, or to reject the regnal years given in the book of Kings. On the whole then the genealogies give, if not extensive, yet valuable confirmation of the truth of the scheme now proposed.

I append a table of the ages of the Kings of Judah, (1) at the birth of their first-born; (2) at their accession to the throne; (3) at their decease, together with the contemporary high priests, which will be useful for reference.

The numbers in square brackets are approximate fillings when no dates are given in the sacred text. The other numbers are taken from the Book of Chronicles, cccasionally corrected from the Book of Kings for the second and third columns; the first column is calculated from the other two.

Finally, to sum up the whole matter now before us, there are four typical schemes of chronology for the period of separation between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel:

First, the Ussherian, which introduces arbitrary inter

regnums, etc., and is in absolute contradiction to the official Assyrian data recovered from the monuments;

Second, Oppert's, which introduces a supposititious second
Menahem, and assumes too large a gap in the list of
Assyrian eponyms;
Third, the scheme of the modern Assyriologers, which
openly asserts the untrustworthiness of the Books of
Kings and Chronicles in all matters chronological, and
arbitrarily alters the lengths of ten reigns by
differences of three to fourteen years; thus cutting
away all ground for belief in the historical fidelity of
the author of this portion of the Scriptures; and
Fourth, the scheme now proposed which, by inserting 25
years for Arbaces in the eponym lists, and by the trans-
position of four verses containing the reign of Pekah, but
making no other change whatever except in passages
which all parties alike admit to require emendation-
by these two simple alterations attains both absolute
agreement with the Assyrian records and internal self-
consistency, and at the same time vindicates the
substantial veracity and fidelity of the original
Hebrew annalists.

DISCUSSION.

The CHAIRMAN.-Professor Hull has a letter from Canon Girdlestone bearing on the question.

The SECRETARY read the following:-"I am sorry I cannot be present to hear Mr. Fleay's paper. He has done good service by his work on Egyptian chronology, and this new essay will help us in the right direction. Probably he does not know the Oxford Helps to the study of the Bible,' for the chronological part of which I am mainly responsible. It will be found to agree to a considerable extent with his conclusions, but was published about fifteen years ago."

The CHAIRMAN.-We have here some distinguished Assyriologists, and no doubt others who can speak on the subject.

We are greatly indebted to Mr. Fleay for his paper, which must have cost him much time and thought.

Mr. THEO. PINCHES, LL.D.-Although I am an Assyriologist, I may say that I cannot claim to be a chronologist. That is a matter arising partly from my natural incapacity to make long and abstruse calculations, and partly from the fact that there is really so much of a doubtful nature connected with the subject that I have held aloof, as far as possible, from all chronological questions.

I

The discrepancy of forty years between the Assyrian and Hebrew chronology has been to my mind sufficient reason for keeping myself from any attempts to form a theory of my own. content myself, in fact, with simply accepting, provisionally, the chronological data as given by my contemporaries who have made a speciality of the subject, and that, I think, is best. I am speaking, of course, from my own point of view. My desire has been not to have to make a confession that I have been mistaken. That may have been cowardly on my part, but still I think it was the best Assyriology, as you know, is a progressive study. We are constantly learning and constantly having to change the opinions we may have formed, and on that account we may expect, at any time, to find materials necessary for filling up gaps or doing what may be necessary to put things straight from a chronological point of view. I need only mention here that the Germans and the English are working on the site of the ancient city of Asshur, the capital of Assyria, and according to the accounts that have come to hand they have found an enormous amount of material and names, from about 1900 years B.C. to the time of Abraham. They have found the names of kings well known.

Owing to pressure of time I have been unable to read this paper through before coming to the meeting, but on hearing it read now for the first this evening, I feel it my duty to add my testimony to its general excellence. I would here wish to remark that Dr. Budge's introduction of a second siege of Jerusalem, shortly before the death of Sennacherib, is a theory that has found acceptance with a great many Assyriologists, and in fact it seems to suit the case very well, i.e., as far as I was able to judge, when dealing with that portion of Assyrian history in my book on the Old Testament and the records.*

* The Old Testament in the Light of Historical Records, 2nd Edit., 1904.

I am quite in agreement with the lecturer concerning the identity of Ahab, and while mentioning that point I may say that instead of reading Dad-idri I read Adad-idri. The way in which his name becomes identical with that given in the Old Testament, viz., Benhadad, is because in the Hebrew they omitted the last portion, and the Assyrians omitted the first.

Concerning the matter of the possiblity of introducing twenty-five years for Arbaces into the eponym list, that I must leave for the present; but as I have said, if I can find any comments to make tending to illustrate the subject I shall do so, and hope they will be published in the Transactions at the end of the discussion.

Professor ORCHARD.-I am sure we shall all agree with what has been said as to the industry and, I might also add, the ingenuity, of the author of this paper.

I cannot, however,
In order to work

I note that he assumes a co-regency between Uzziah and his successors Jotham and Ahaz of twenty years. That, so far as I can judge, is a perfectly reasonable assumption. concur in all the statements of the learned author. out the theory he is obliged to throw over at least two persons. The passage he refers on page 257 (2nd Book of Kings) he appears to think is indefensible. "I can find no defence," he says, "in any way that Hoshea did not obtain the throne by an independent conspiracy but was appointed by Tiglath, who had smitten Pekah, we know from the Assyrian annals." The probability is that he conspired as agent of Tiglath. Then he says "the 20th year of Jotham" is an impossible date, because he reigned only sixteen years. But the statement is not only that he reigned sixteen years, but that he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and he may easily have reigned for some time afterwards somewhere else. Then the author continues to deal with the supposed difficulty. "Moreover he [the sacred writer] contradicts 2nd Kings xvii, 1, which assigns the accession of Hoshea to the 12th year of Ahaz, which cannot by any means be identified with the impossible 20th of Jotham." The 20th of Jotham is not impossible, nor does there seem to be the difficulty the learned author supposes with regard to that verse. "an exactly similar instance of insertion of an unauthentic verse occurs in 2 Kings i, 17," because of the supposed discrepancy in chapter 8, verse 16, but that may be so read as to cause no discrepancy whatever.

He says,

It appears to me that the author, with the best intentions, doubtless, has been somewhat misled by an inordinate estimation of the Assyrian chronology. That it is of great importance cannot be denied. It must, however, be remarked that the Assyrian Records are not quite so inviolable as the author appears to imagine. Again he asserts, "the Assyrian Records, official and therefore authoritative, cannot possibly be in contradiction with the true reckoning (as I contend) preserved in the Hebrew texts." He there makes the Assyrian Records to be the ultimate standard of appeal.

The AUTHOR.-No.

Professor ORCHARD.-It appears to me to be so; but perhaps I was a little hasty in making that assumption. Professor Sayce has pointed out that there are several mistakes in the Assyrian Records with regard to the length of reigns; and Oppert, too, regards those records as being though valuable, unreliable and in his opinion, when there is a difference between the Assyrian Records and the Scripture narrative, that the Scripture narrative should be held to prevail over the Assyrian Records, and I think we should be of the same opinion.

I notice on page 263 of the paper a remark that I thoroughly endorse, where the learned author reminds us that "there lies one radical evil habit, which is gradually but surely undermining the slow but scientific method of historical investigation, viz., the assumption of the truth of some one datum, which, however probable, is not proved, and on it building a superstructure, which ultimately collapses, because its foundation is not on a rock." I venture to say that the assumption in this paper of the untrue datum is the inviolability of these Assyrian Records. We may hope that as this subject is very interesting, we may derive some assistance from those investigations which Dr. Pinches has reminded us are being now carried on by German investigators.

The CHAIRMAN. I think this paper is very valuable indeed. The author seems to have proved absolutely that there is a gap in the eponym calendar of the Assyrians of twenty-five years.

I would also say that he has incidentally touched on an important point regarding the Exodus. I have always been unable to see that taking Rameses II. as Athaiah, we could ever fit the chronology of Egypt with the chronology of the Hebrews.