Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

neomenia of Nisan coincided with the vernal equinox, which still fell upon that day as before. It may be proved also that they both coincided with the first day of the week. For if A. M. 2446, April 3 fell on the Sunday, then A. M. 2474, after one solar cycle, it would fall on the Sunday again; and A. M. 2485, at the end of the eleventh year of a second, its place would again be Sunday. This too would be an observable coincidence; for as the entrance into the promised land, after a forty years' wandering in the wilderness, was so far a new epoch in the history of the Jews; what fitter conjuncture of circumstances could be selected to characterise that epoch, than the time when the neomenia of Nisan, the vernal equinox, and the first day of the week all appear to have fallen out together?

B. C. 1521. A. M. 2484. New moon, March
Deduct for one year's epact

B. C. 1520. A. M. 2485. New moon, March
Add one mean lunation

Moon new again, April

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

According to the method of calculation, before referred to, the sun entered the vernal sign in the same year, on April 3. 13. 6. 34. the hours, in each instance, being reckoned from midnight.

[blocks in formation]

APPENDIX.

DISSERTATION XII.

On the Chronology of the Kingdoms of Judah and of Israel. Vide Appendix, Dissertation xi. supra.

THE chronology of the kings of Judah, from Solo

mon downwards, and as far as they run parallel with each other, that of the kings of Israel, upon which I did not enter in the preceding Dissertation, is yet of so much importance, and encumbered with so many difficulties, that its consideration may justly be pronounced a desideratum. I trust, therefore, that no apology will be requisite for devoting to this subject the following pages.

I shall assume for the present, that no more is known of the chronology in question than the data already established: viz. that the first of Solomon coincided with B. C. 1014, and the fourteenth of Hezekiah, either wholly or in part, with B. C. 710; and therefore his first, either wholly or in part, with B. C. 724. The first of Hezekiah then, B.C. 724, being considered as an intermediate period, the two following Tables will exhibit a synopsis of the order and succession of the reigns in question, of their Scriptural or historical lengths, and of the years before Christ in which they began, from the first of Solomon to the last of Zedekiah.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

With regard to the verification of these Tables; the great practical difficulty concerns the absolute lengths of the reigns ascribed to each particular king, and the synchronisms of particular years of one reign with particular years of another. Nor can any single rule be devised which will apply alike to each, and reconcile them both together. But it is an obvious possibility that the lengths of the reigns might be reckoned by one rule, and the synchronisms by another; that the former, for instance, might be referred to some nominal apxý-and the latter to a true. This distinction, in my opinion, does actually hold good: the lengths of the reigns are referred in every instance to a nominal apx", but the synchronisms to the true. The reign of every king, where the contrary is not distinctly specified, is supposed to begin and to end with Nisan; the first month in the sacred year. Hence the years of their reigns are necessarily reckoned as full years; and current years are taken for complete. But no synchronism is ever referred except to the true date of the reigns in question, or to the month in which they actually began. If there is any doubt as to the existence of this double rule, I think it will be entirely removed by the analytical examination of each particular reign in its order.

First, then, as the reign of Solomon has been shewn to have begun in the spring, so, from 1 Kings xii. 1.3. 5. 12. 20. 25-33. may it be collected that it terminated in the spring: and, consequently, that he reigned

forty years complete. On this principle both the true and the nominal apx" of Rehoboam, and by parity of consequence of Jeroboam, alike will bear date from Nisan, B. C. 974. Hence the following synchronisms, 1 of Rehoboam. 1 of Jeroboam. Nisan B. C. 974-973. 17 958-957.

......

17

.....

Nowa the first of Abijam began in the eighteenth of Jeroboam: whence it seems a reasonable inference that Rehoboam reigned seventeen years complete.

Hence, again as before, both nominally and truly,

1 of Abijam. 18 of Jeroboam. Nisan B. C. 957-956. 955-954.

3

20

Now Abijam could not have reigned more than two years and part of a third year; for as his reign began in the eighteenth, so did Asa's in the twentieth, of Jeroboam. We may suppose, then, that he died about the middle of his third year, the Tisri, B. C. 955. The first year of Asa, therefore, will bear date truly from Tisri, but nominally from Nisan, B. C. 955: both in the twentieth of Jeroboam.

Hence 1 of Asa. 20 of Jeroboam. Nisan B. C. 955-954. 953-952.

3

........

22

Now the first of Nadab began in the second of Asac; yet the first of Asa had begun in the twentieth of Jeroboam. Both these statements would be true, if Jeroboam died in his twenty-second year, after the Nisan, but before the Tisri, B. C. 953. For, then, the first of Nadab would truly begin in the second of Asa, sometime before Tisri, B. C. 953.

Hence 3 of Asa. 1 of Nadab. Nisan B. C. 953-952.

4

.........

2....

952-951.

Now Nadab died in the third of Asad, though he began to reign in his second. If so, Nadab did not reign

a 1 Kings xv. 1. 2. xiv. 21. xv. 25. d Ibid. xv. 28.

2 Chron. xiii. 1. b 1 Kings xv. 9. c Ibid.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »