teenth. Besides, on this principle, he would be just in his twenty-first year, in the fourth year of his reign, when he began the building of the temple. And he might possibly defer it until then on purpose; for the age of twenty, not earlier, was the Levitical age of majority. I consider it therefore highly probable that Solomon was in his eighteenth year, B. C. 1014: and consequently was born B. C. 1031, in the twenty-fourth year of David.

The course of events, which ensued upon the birth of Solomonk, and begin to be related 2 Sam. xiii. 1, might begin with the very year of his birth, B. C. 1031. The first of the number was the violation of Tamar from which to the death of Amon there were two full years. This death took place at shearing time, that is, in the spring quarter of the year. Hence, the violation of Tamar was B. C. 1031, a vere, and the death of Amon, followed by the flight of Absalom to Geshur, was B. C. 1029, a vere.

The time of Absalom's exile at Geshur is stated at three years"; but not at three years full. Hence, if it began B. C. 1029, spring, it might expire B. C. 1026, ineunte, not long before barley harvest: and he would have been two full years returned at the same time, B. C. 1024, when he set the field of Joab on fire. Moreover, B. C. 1024 ineunte was the last half of the sixth year of a sabbatic cycle: when there could not but be barley on the ground. For 1507-1024 = 483 = 69 × 7.

The note of time which follows next, xv. 7, 8, is grossly corrupted. But 2 Chron. xxii. 2, compared with 2 Kings viii. 26, is a case in point to prove how easily the number two might have been corrupted into m Ibid. 23-27. n Ibid. 38.

k 2 Sam. xii. 24. 1 Ibid. xiii. 1—22. o Ibid. xiv. 28-33.

the number four: for the age of Ahaziah, which is stated at forty-two in the former, is represented at twenty-two in the latter: and that only can possibly be the truth. We may infer then that in this passage of the Book of Samuel the true reading originally was two years, if referred to the time of Absalom's reconciliation with David, or four, if referred to the time of the return from Geshur: a construction which verse eighth appears to justify. In this case the course of events is brought down to B. C. 1022, ineuntem, as the year of the rebellion of Absalom.

From 2 Sam. xvi. 1, 2. xvii. 19. 28, 29. xix. it may be collected that the flight of David from Jerusalem, the defeat and death of Absalom, and the king's restoration, were all events of this same year, B.C. 1022, between the spring and the autumn.

The three years' famine, which is next mentioned P, might begin the year after the death of Absalom; and if it began, as it ended, at barley harvest, it would begin B. C. 1021, spring, and expire B. C. 1018, spring. On this principle that famine would only just be over in the year of the numbering itself; nor could any harvest as yet have been reaped before the time of the Passover or Pentecost in the next. Four years of famine then must already have elapsed consecutively up to B. C. 1017, medium; and if three years more were still to ensue from the same time forward, there would be virtually seven years in all. And thus the statement in the book of Samuel (which has also the support of Josephus") admits of being reconciled with that in the Book of Chronicles.

A careful perusal of the whole of the reign of David will satisfy an impartial reader that there is not a single fact disclosed in it, which can be shewn to be q Ibid. 9, 10.

p 2 Sam. xxi. I.

r Ant. Jud. vii. xiii. 2.

at variance with this distribution of the last seventeen years of its duration : nor would it be difficult to arrange these facts, from B. C. 1054, to B. C. 1031, in their proper chronological order. But it is not necessary that we should do it at present. We may observe only that, with respect to 2 Sam. xiv. 27. and xviii. 18. since the three oldest sons of David, Amnon, Chileab, and Absalom, were born in that order, and while he was reigning in Hebron, between B. C. 1055. medio, and B. C. 1047. ineuntes, though Absalom had been born only B. C. 1053, he would still be thirty-one years old B.C. 1022, in the year of his death; and might have had children born to him, who yet might then be dead. The context of 2 Sam. xiv. 27. seems to imply that they were all born before, or not after, B. C. 1024, when their father would be twenty-nine years old. Again, with respect to Mephibosheth, who was five years old at the time of the death of Jonathant, B. C. 1055. medio; he would be twenty years old, B. C. 1040, and twenty-five, B. C. 1035: and if he was then admitted to the table of David", he might well have a young son and at the time of the rebellion of Absalom, when he was accused by Ziba of aspiring at the throne of Israel, he would be in all the maturity and vigour of his age.

I think we have now done sufficient to establish our original position, that the lengths of the reigns of the kings both of Judah and of Israel are referred to a nominal date, and the synchronisms of one reign with another to a true; the former the first month in the sacred calendar, the latter the particular month in which they happened to begin. I think also we have done somewhat towards the confirmation of another assertion which we made, page 452, supra; that from s 2 Sam. iii. 2. 5. v. 14—16.

t Ibid. iv. 4.

u Ibid. ix. 1-13.

the beginning of the reign of Solomon, to the commencement of the seventy years' captivity, the Bible chronology was safely to be trusted. I do not know, indeed, that this truth required any corroboration from our own investigations; but it is a source of satisfaction to find that our own conclusions, in a plurality of instances, have the support and concurrence of the eminent men to whom the arrangement of that chronology is due.

There are yet some interesting coincidences which might be pointed out with respect to the reigns of contemporary kings of Egypt, who begin to be alluded to from the last year of Josiah downwards. These are Pharaoh-Necho and Pharaoh-Hophra, the former the Nechos, and the latter the Apries, of profane history and it would be easy to shew, from the beginnings and the ends of their reigns respectively, that they must have been reigning, as is implied, 2 Kings xxiii. 29. 2 Chron. xxxv. 20. Jerem. xliv. 30. xlvi. 13-end. Ezek. xxx. 20-26. xxxi. 1, 2. xxxii. 1, 2. 17, 18. 31. between the last year of Josiah, B.C. 609. and Ezek. xxix. 1-17. B. C. 572, the beginning of the twenty-seventh year of Jehoiachin's captivity *.

* Among these coincidences, however, there is one in Isaiah a, relating to Tyre, which I will notice, but in brief.

The predicted desolation of that city, like the duration of the Jewish captivity, was to last exactly seventy years from some beginning or other; which, it seems to me the most reasonable supposition of all, is the date of its capture, or at least of its siege, by Nebuchadnezzar. It may be collected from Philo

a xxiii. 15. 17.

stratus, and from the Tyrian archives, that the siege of Tyre lasted thirteen years in all; and from Ezekiel xxix. 17, 18. that its last year was the twentysixth of Jehoiachin's captivity, B. C. 573, in the thirty-fourth of Nebuchadnezzar. The Tyrian archives, if they are rightly quoted by Josephus, confirm the same conclusion; for, from the close of the siege to the first of Cyrus, the interval which they specify is not

b Apud Jos. Ant. Jud. x. xi. 1. c Contra Apionem, i. 21.

I shall conclude, however, with some remarks on another subject.

It is not distinctly asserted in the Old Testament that Saul reigned forty years; yet, I think, it is presumptively to be inferred from it. We may ground this inference on 2 Sam. ii. 10. which specifies the age of Ishbosheth as forty, when he began to reign; viz. in the

e Contra Apionem, i. 21.
h Ibid. Appendix, cap. 18.