« AnteriorContinuar »
43 761 15 Tiberius,
22 783 37 Caius,
4 787 41 Claudius,
14 801 55 Nero,
14 815 69 Vespasian,
10 825 Titus,
3 828 82 Domitian,
15 843 97 Nerva,
19863 117 Adrian, end of the 2d Sothic cycle,
21 884 138 Bare inspection of the foregoing tables, will be sufficient to satisfy any person that they must all
be essentially correct. But we cannot forbear calling the attention of our readers to a few points which have struck us as truly astonishing. We have remarked above, that the seventy years of “the desolation of Jerusalem," commenced with the destruction of the first temple, in the nineteenth year of Nebuchodnezzar, and ended with the completion of the second temple, in the sixth year of Darius I. By turning to the Pt. Canon, it will be seen, that according to the Chaldean chronology, precisely seventy years elapsed between those two points. So, according to the prophecy of Daniel, (9:25,) four hundred and thirty four years were to transpire, between the thirty second year of Artaxerxes I, when the walls of the city were to be completed, and the birth of Christ. Now by the Pt. Canon, from the thirty second of Artaxerxes I, to the twenty eighth of Augustus, the place of the common era of the birth of Christ was four hundred and thirty one years; but from the thirty first of Augustus, which is supposed by many to be the
date of the true era, it was precisely four hundred and thirty four years. Again ; we learn from the prophecy of Daniel, (9 : 25,) that "from the going forth of the command to build Jerusalem, to the completion of the walls, should be forty nine years. But who issued this command, or when it was given, has always been a matter of doubt. But if we have ascertained the true date of the completion of the walls, of which there can be no reasonable doubt, then the command must have been issued B. C. (434+49 = ) four hundred and eighty three years; which corresponds with the first year of Xerxes, according to the Pt. Canon. There is, however, no distinct evidence that Xerxes ever issued such a command. Yet there are circumstances detailed, which raise a strong presumption in favor of such an opinion. In Ezra, chap. 4, Ahasuerus, winyuny, is placed between Darius and Artaxerxes, the place occupied by Xerxes in the Pt. Canon. It is not easy to see any similarity between these two names in their present form ; but it has recently been brought to light from the cuneiform inscriptions of Persepolis; and confirmed by the Egyptian hieroglyphics, that the ancient orthography was Khshhershe, or Khshvershe, which seems to be a more ancient and harsher form of olüp Shyrshe. After the analogy of this earlier form the Greeks constructed their Xerres, and the Hebrews by prefixing their prosthetic Aleph inade Akhashverosh or Ahasuerus, wint inx.* ' The apparent difference in the two names, therefore, furnishes no argument against their supposed identity.
By comparing the history of the Jews, as detailed in the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, we learn, that some of the Jews were in favor at the Assyrian court from the very accession of Ahasuerus ; that as early as the third year of his reign, Mordecai was resident in the royal palace, (Esth. 1:3, 2:5.) And in the beginning of the reign of Ahasuerus, the enemies of the Jews wrote an accusation against them, (Ez. 4:6;) but, as would seein, without effect. It is not, therefore, improbable, that Ahasuerus issued a command to rebuild the walls of the city, as the temple had been completed in the reign of his predecessor. Every probability is in favor of this supposition; and this also furnishes a double motive for the vindictive conduct of Haman, by supposing that he had resolved to put an end to building the city, by procuring the destruction of the whole nation.
* Gesenius, Heb. Lex. in loco; authorities there referred to,
In this place we ought to mention the Parian Chronicle, which furnishes two points of comparison with Ptolemaic canon, covering the only break in the biblical chronology, from the beginning of time to the birth of Christ; to wit, from the completion of the second temple to the completion of the walls of the city; or from the sixth of Darius I, to the thirty second of Artaxerxes I, being eighty three years. According to the Parian Chronicle, Darius I, began to reign two hundred and fifty six years before the compiling of the Chronicle, and Alexander the Great was born ninety one years before the same time. The latter part of the Chronicle is lost, so that it does not reach down to the death of Alexander; but all history places it in his thirty third year, that is, fifty eight years before the end of the Chronicle. Between these two points, according to the Parian Chronicle, was one hundred and ninety eight years, the precise time given to this period by the Ptolemaic canon, and by the corrected list of Manetho. We have, therefore, for the only period where the chronology of the Bible fails us, no less than three distinct and independent chronologies, of as many different nations, all exactly agreeing as to the length of that period. And what makes this still more singular, is the fact, that this is the only period where the Parian Chronicle can be compared with certainty in any other veritable ancient chronology.
We shall now bring together the various points of comparison and coincidence, mentioned in this and the former article, that our readers may be able to see how strong the probabilities, in favor of the truth of this supposition, are.
1. We have the beginning of the Sothic or Cynic cycle, four hundred and forty three years before the commencement of Egyptian history, on the authority of Manetho.
2. The end of a second cycle, in the last year of Adrian of Rome, the eight hundred and eighty fourth year of the era of Nabonassar, on the authority of Censorinus.
This period includes two thousand nine hundred and twenty years. To fill it up we have,
3. On the authority of Manetho, four hundred and forty three years of the Cynic cycle, and from thence to the death of Necho II, one thousand seven hundred and thirty three years; and,
4. On the authority of Theon of Alexandria, in the Ptolemaic canon, from the first year of Nebuchodnezzar, which we have seen, corresponded with the death of Necho, to the death of Adrian, seven hundred and forty one years, which, added to the preceding, (1733 +443=) two thousand one hundred and seventy six years, gives the interval two thousand nine hundred and seventeen years, falling only THREE YEARS short of the time given to the whole period !!
5. The death of Menophes, the last king of the eighteenth dynasty, corresponded with the year of the Exodus. Comparing the biblical with the Egyptian chronology, and we have;
6. The victory of Shishak, king of Egypt, over Rehoboam, in the fifth year of his reign, (2 Chron. 12:2—7,) in the fifteenth year of Shishak.
7. A comparison of the tables gives also the accession of Asa to the throne of Judah, in the ninth year of Zerah, king of Egypt, making the two kings cotemporary six years; in which time the invasion of Judah by Zerah (2 Chron. 14:9,) took place.
8. In 2 Kings 17:4, So, king of Egypt, is mentioned as cotemporary with Ahaz, king of Judah. By a comparison of the tables it will be seen, that they were cotemporaneous kings cleven years.
9. In 2 Kings 18 and 19, Tirhakah, king of Egypt, is mentioned as an ally of Hezekiah. Our tables make them cotemporaries twenty years.
10. The same tables make the death of Josiah (2 Kings 23, 2 Chron. 35,) take place in the second year of Necho II. If we proceed to compare the biblical with the Chaldean chronology, we have
11. The accession of Nebuchodnezzar, in the fourth year of Jehoakim.
12. The destruction of the temple in the nineteenth year of Nebuchodnezzar, the last year of Zedekiah.
13. The end of the seventy years, at the completion of the new temple, in the sixth year of Darius I, just seventy years from the destruction of the old.
14. The beginning of the four hundred and thirty four years mentioned by the prophet Daniel, in the thirty second year of Artaxerxes I.
15. And the exact harmony of the prophecy with the Chaldean chronology, at the time of the birth of Christ. By proceeding to compare the Chaldean and Egyptian chronologies, we have—
16. The last year of Necho I, corresponding with the first of Nebuchodnezzar.
17. A perfect agreement in the time which elapsed from thence to the first year of Darius I.
18. The same agreement as to the time from the death of Darius II, to the death of Ochus.
19. The exact harmony of the Parian chronicle with the Egyptian and Chaldean chronologies, as to the time from Darius I, to Artaxerxes I.
We have here, therefore, a period of (2338 +138 =) 2476 years, for the whole of which we have at least four different modes of computation, made by different persons, or different nations; with nineteen points of comparison, made by authors of at least four different nations, and the largest variation is less than three years.
An Address, delivered before the Senior Class, in Divinity Col
lege, Cambridge, Sunday evening, July 15, 1838. By Ralph WALDO EMERSON. Boston: James Munroe & Co. 1838. pp. 31, 8vo.
There is such an obscurity in the style of this performance, that its drift and meaning are not easily perceived. On entering this labyrinth of dark words, we hoped that we possessed a clue to conduct us safely through its windings, in the fact, that this address was delivered in a Divinity College. As the audience was composed of young men about entering on the christian ministry, it seemed not unnatural to presume, that in a discourse by one, who had himself borne, and, as we understand, still bears the name of a christian preacher, some possible form of christianity was shadowed forth. As we proceeded, however, the clue, on which we relied, failed us; and if in this misty sojourn we have attained to any light, it appears rather like darkness visible. It will not be expected, therefore, that a regular analysis of this pamphlet should be here attempted. A few passages only will be noticed, where the author speaks with a little less than his usual unintelligibleness, respecting several topics of morals and religion.
The sentiment of virtue,” says Mr. Emerson, “is a reverence and delight in the presence of certain divine laws.” What these laws are, which give rise to this “sentiment of virtue,” he probably means to intimate, where he soon after remarks, that “the child amidst his baubles, is learning the action of light, motion, gravity, muscular force; and in the
game of life, love, fear, justice, appetite, man and God interact. These laws refuse to be adequately stated.” It is in the presence, therefore, of the laws of gravity, motion, and muscular force, if we have arrived at the meaning of the author, and which laws, we are told, refuse to be adequately stated, that the reverence and delight are excited, or