26,250 days, as being the true amount of seventy years. Now 25,200 days in seventy years are at the rate of 360 days in a year. Hence, because Solon in his calculation first reckons the number of days in seventy years of 360 days each without taking the leap-months into the account, Mr. Marshall argues, that the collective sum of seventy such years was not equal to seventy solar years.

The passage, whence he draws this conclusion, scems to me plainly to prove the very reverse. Solon, so far from teaching us that the collective sum of seventy years of 360 days each was only 25,200 days, tells us, that, when the intercalated months were taken into the account, it was 26,250 days. The gross error of this mode of intercalation it is superfluous to point out: but the passage itself, so far from proving that lunar years were used without intercalation, and that a series of them taken 'collectively fell considerably short of a corresponding series of solar years, decidedly proves, that they were not used without intercalation, and that the expedient of intercalation was adopted (however in the present instance it would soon be found insufficient) for the express purpose of making the seasons of the year fall out at their proper times*, and of thus

* Ἵνα αν ώραν συμβαίνωσι παραγινόμεναι ες το δέον. Herod. lib. i. §. 32.

rendering

rendering any series of lunar years collectively equal to the same series of solar years.

(2.) His second argument is deduced from the continuance of the Babylonian captivity. This is declared in Scripture to be seventy years. Now 70 years of 360 days each are equal, within two days, to 69 solar years. Mr. Marshall therefore attempts to shew, that the Babylonian captivity lasted no longer than 69 solar years: and thence infers, that years of 360 days each were used collectively without intercalation. For this purpose he reckons, that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the November of the year A. C. 606, when the captivity of Judah commenced; that Babylon was taken by Cyrus towards the end of the year A. C. 539; and that Darius the Mede died towards the close of the year A. C. 537, when Cyrus attaining to undivided empire enacted his decree for the restoration of the Jews, and thus put an end to the captivity at the expiration of 69 solar years or 70 years of 360 days each after its commence

ment.

With respect to the dates on which this hypothesis is founded, I certainly believe with Mr. Marshall, that Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the November of the year A. C. 606, as Dr. Prideaux supposes, not in the November of the year A. C. 607, as Abp. Usher supposes: but it may

2

nevertheless

nevertheless be shewn, from a comparison of the canon of Ptolemy with Scripture and Xenophon, that more than 67 solar years must have elapsed between that event and the capture of Babylon by Cyrus; whence it will follow, since Darius the Mede reigned 2 years after the capture of Babylon, that more than 69 solar years must have elapsed between the taking of Jerusalem and the commencement of the undivided reign of Cyrus.

Daniel informs us, that Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came against Jerusalem to besiege it in the third year of Jehoiakim*; and Jeremiah delivered one of his prophecies of the seventy years immediately before the city was taken, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which he tells us was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar t. But it appears from Daniel, that Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon in Jehoiakim's third year also; because he says, that in that very third year, then being king, he came against Jerusalem to besiege it. It will follow therefore, that the first year of Nebuchadnezzar must have coincided with the latter part of the third and the former part of the fourth year of Jehoiakim t. And, since Jerusalem was taken in

* Dan. i. 1.

+ Jerem. xxv. 1.

the

It seems to have commenced almost at the close of the third year of Jehoiakim: as Abp. Usher observes, "desinente

❝ tertio,

the fourth year of Jehoiakim, it will likewise follow that it must have been taken in the latter part of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar-Daniel fur, ther informs us, that he and other captives were maintained and taught at the king's expence three years*. Such being the case, the first of these years must have coincided with the close of Nebuchadnezzar's first year and the greater part of his second year: the second, with the close of his second year and the greater part of his third year; and the third, with the close of his third year and the greater part of his fourth year. But Daniel tells us, that after these three years he was brought before Nebuchadnezzar to interpret his dream, and that this happened in the king's second year ↑. Hence it is evident, that the fourth year of Nebuchadnezzar, according to Jeremiah's reckoning, coinciding as it does with the greater part of the third of Daniel's three years of education, must coincide with the second year of Nebuchadnezzar, according to Daniel's reckoning. It will follow therefore, as chronologers justly calculate, that Nebuchadnez

"tertio, et ineunte quarto Jehojakimi anno, ex Dan. i. 1. "collato cum Jerem, xxv. 1. intelligimus," Annal. in A. P. J. 4107.

On the authority, as Dr. Prideaux remarks, of Berosus apud Joseph. Ant. Jud. lib. x. c. 11. et coutra Apion. lib. i.

zar

zar reigned two years in conjunction with his father Nabopollassar; and that Jeremiah computes from the beginning of his joint reign, while Daniel computes from the beginning of his undivided reign. Consequently, the two last years of Nabopollassar are the two first of Nebuchadnezzar, according to Jeremiah's reckoning: and Jerusalem, having been taken by Nebuchadnezzar in his first year according to that reckoning, must have been taken in the penultimate year of Nabopollassar. Now, Now, according to the canon of Ptolemy, which gives the reign of each king from the death of his predecessor, Nabocolassar, the Nebuchadnezzar of Scripture, reigned 43 years; Elyarodamus, 2 years; Nericassolassar, 4 years; and Nabonadius, the Belshazzar of Scripture, 17 years: amounting, in the whole, to 66 years*. But Nebuchadnezzar reigned conjointly with his father 2 years; and, at the latter end of the first year of his copartnership in the empire, Jerusalem was taken by him. To the 66 years therefore we must add a year and a fraction of the 2 years of Nebuchadnezzar's joint reign; and we shall have 67 years and a fraction of uncertain length, at the end of which Babylon was taken and Belshazzar slain-After Nabonadius or Belshazzar Ptolemy places Cyrus, and ascribes to him 9 years: but

See the canon of Ptolemy in the Appendix.

Scripture