them, before we give a lift of those monarchs, of what has been already obferved P, and will hereafter be more fully explained, concerning the vaft and almoft irreconcilable difference between the Hebrew and Samaritan chronology, as well as between these two, and that of the feptuagint to fay nothing of Jofephus, and other Jewish writers.

2.

BUT these are not the only caufes of the difficulty that occurs in fettling the Jewish chronology: we beg leave to add a few others equally confiderable; viz. 1. That the facred writers affected to use round numbers in their large computations, without minding too fcrupuloufly the odd years that fell over or under them. The fame they did in their leffer reckonings; thofe, for inftance, of their kings reigns, which they computed by complete years, and overlooked the odd months, which the first and laft happened to fall fhort of; by which it ofen happened, that a whole year was gained within the compass of two or three reigns, or of forty or fifty years. 3. The book of fudges, whoever was the author of it (Q), compared with Jofephus's hiftory of them, feems

P See vol. i. p. 252.

(Q) It is plain, that it was not begun and continued by feveral hands, under the government of each judge, as fome have imagined, not only from the uniformity of ftyle throughout, but also because the author of it, whoever he was, gives a kind of epitome of the whole book at the beginning (85); and the expreffion which often occurs in it, that in those days there was no king in Ifrael (86), fhews it to have been written after the beginning of their monarchy. On the other hand, those who date it after their captivity; because it is faid there (87), that Jonathan and his fons con

tinued to be priests until the day of the captivity of the land, which they think muft at least be that of Tiglath-pilefer (88); feem to post-date it prodigiously, not confidering, that by what the author fays at the beginning (89), that the children of Benjamin dwelt with the Jebusites in Jerusalem, unto this day, he must have lived before these were driven out of it by David. It is therefore more probable, as the Jews think, that the captivity here fpoken of, was the battle which the Ifraelites loft against the Philistines, when the ark was taken by them; at which time, one may reasona

(86) Cb. xvii. 6. xviii. 1. xix. 1, & (88) See 2 Kings xv. 39. (89) Ch.

bly

feems only a fhort account of so many perfons, and of their government, without regard to the interregnums and anarchies, which happened between any of them. It feems, indeed, as if they were defignedly paffed by, as dead epochas not worth recording. But, laftly, and to mention no more, after the divifion of the two kingdoms, the length of every king's reign feems indeed exactly fet down, and the fynchronisms between those of Judah and Ifrael exactly obferved; and yet there often happen fuch jarring and disagreement between them, as cannot be reconciled by any other way, than by fuppofing, that fome of those monarchs, in either kingdom, were taken into copartnership with their predeceffors; and that the beginning of their reigns was dated from that time, and not from that of their father's death. The neceffity of this fuppofition cannot but be obvious to those who are converfant with chronologic works, efpe

bly fuppofe, a great number of the people were also taken captive.

away their strange gods to ferve the LORD alone (91).

It feems, therefore, very probable to us, that a mistake has been committed in the last word of that 30th verfe, from the likeness of the final letters; and that,instead of PIR-DISI, the captivity of the land, it was originally written

What makes this conjecture ftill more probable is, that, in the very next verfe to that where the captivity is mentioned, the author adds, that the Danites fet up Micah's ephod all the time that the house of GOD was in Shiloh, which was, the taking of the ark. only till they fetched the ark From all which it will follow, from thence, to carry it against that Samuel lived at the time the Philiftines; and this was this book was written; and about the beginning of Samuel's confequently, that he is moft time; for, after his return, it likely to have been the author was not carried back to Shiloh, of it. Neither will the suppo but to Kirjath-jearim (90). If fition of a much later captivity the ephod then continued no deftroy this conjecture, if we longer in Dan, there was no fuppofe that Ezra, or any of farther need of keeping any the infpired writers, who re priests to facrifice to it. Nei- turned from that of Babylon, ther, indeed, is it credible, that might add this circumftance, fuch a notorious piece of ido as we have made it probable latry could have continued un- already, they did many others der Samuel's government, when to the historical books, by way it is exprefly faid, that he made of illustration. the children of Ifrael put

(90) Conf. 1 Sam. iv. 4. & vii. 1, 2.1

(91) Ibid. ver. 3, 46.

cially those of the learned Usher. How far the Jewish computation by lunar years, their ignorance of aftronomy, and want of exact tables, of which we have lately had occafion to fpeak under another head, may have increafed thefe difficulties, we need not fayc. But thefe, and many more, which we willingly omit, have induced a great number of learned chronologers, antient and modern, fuch as St. Jerom, Scaliger, Voffius, Genebrard, and others, to think it next to impoffible to adjust the Jewish chronology by thofe few books we have extant, and which are but epitomes of more full and comprehenfive hiftories, long fince loft.

We need not tell our readers, that the hiftories of feveral kings are said in the text to have been written by cotemporary prophets, of whom we have nothing extant but their names; and that the books of Kings and Chronicles conclude every king's reign in words to this effect: Now the rest of the acts of fuch a king, his va lour and conqueft, and the like, are they not written in the book of the Kings (or Chronicles of the kings) of fudab (or Ifrael)? Now it were abfurd to fuppofe, that thofe we have extant, under the name of Kings and Chronicles, do refer to one another, feeing, fome few inconfiderable particulars excepted, they all mention the fame things, and almoft word for word; and are alike regardless of all the other particulars of thofe reigns. It is therefore more reasonable to fuppofe, that they referred the readers to more exact and voluminous annals or hiftories, written by proper perfons in every reign, and which either perished during the captivity, or fince. But whether we afcribe the difficulties of the Jewish chronology to the lofs of these books, to the Jews corrupting of the text, or to the carelesness of tranfcribers; each of thefe will fufficiently account for the different ways by which almoft every chronologer has endeavoured to fix the various eras before the birth of CHRIST.

THE Jews indeed, whether antient or modern, do not differ fo widely from one another in this refpect, as the Chriftians do; but then it is plain, as will appear from the tables, which we fhall exhibit in the general preface, that they have fhortened, one and all, the space between the creation of the world, and the birth of Chrift, by 240 years, little more or lefs, of the vulgar era. Whether, therefore, this was wilfully done, and with defign to explode the completion of the prophecies concerning the time of • See before, p. 33, & feqq. P.33,

VOL. III.

R

the

the Meffiah's coming, which is but too likely, feeing their chronology, from that time to this, doth exactly agree with ours; or whether it happened through the inadvertency of copyifts, which yet was hardly ever granted by any true Jew; their chronology can no more be reconciled to ours, than to that of the Egyptians, or of any other nation.

THE truth is, that all their records, the facred books excepted, are not only of a more recent date than their Talmud, but feem wholly directed by it. So that whatever fmall difference is to be met with between them, in point of chronology, is rather owing to a different reading or understanding of that book, than a deviation from it; and, of what authority both this and the others ought to be to us, we need not tell the reader. However, for the fatisfaction of fuch as are not acquainted with these chronological works, "we fhall fubjoin fome few of the most confiderable, together with their authors, as far as they are known, and the time in which they were compiled (A).

THE first is the Sedar Holam Rabbah, or large chronicle; which contains a fhort hiftory from the creation, and is generally attributed to one rabbi Jofe Ben Chalephta, who flourished, if we may believe the generality of the Jews, about 130 years after CHRIST, and is faid to have been mafter to the famous Jehudah Hakodesh, the compiler of the Mishna d; but what fhews him to be of more modern date is, that his work is continued down to the time of the emperor Adrian (B).

2. THE a Vid. WOLF. biblioth. rabbin. num. 848. p. 462, & feqq. - See MORIN. BARTOLOC. Buxr. & al.

(A) And here we fhall pass by their fictitious Jofephus Ben Gorion, whom they have obtruded upon the world instead of the real one, fo well known to the Chriftians, and fo often mentioned in this hiftory. The reader may fee an account of these two, and the reasons for the former being trumped up by the Jerus, in oppofition to the latter, in Prideaux's Cannection(1), where he will find also

3

a fuller account of the following chronological works; which we fhall, for that reason, content ourselves with the bare mention of, and only observe here, that they follow the Hebrew text as far as it goes; the reft is mostly supplied by the Talmud, to the time of its being compiled, and then by authors of later date.

(B) Dean Prideaux obferves, that the book is ftuffed with

(1) Preface to the 3d vol, p. 18, & feqq.

rabbinic

2. THE Shealoth and Tefhuboth, or queftions and anfwers, dialoguewife, of rabbi Sherira, furnamed Gaon, or the fublime. This is a chronological epitome, the author of which flourished from the year 967 downward h.

3. THE Sedar Holam Zutta, or leffer chronicle, another epitome of hiftory, from the creation to the year of CHRIST 552; but whofe unknown author lived, as the book itself fays, about the year 1123 i.

4. Sepher Gabbala Rabbi Abraham Levita Ben Dior ; this book pretends to give a continual and uninterrupted fucceffion of all the patriarchs, prophets, elders, and wife men, through whofe hands the oral tradition paffed, from Adam to Mofes, and fo on to the compilers of the Talmud, and from thence to the year of CHRIST 1141 (C).

5. THE Sepher Juchafin, or book of genealogies, from the creation to the year of CHRIST 1500. This is a much larger work than any of the former.

6. THE Shalfheleth, or chain of the cabbala, of the fame kind with the Juchafin.

7. THE Tzemach David, or fprout of David, treats on the fame fubject with the two last (D).

THESE, efpecially the first feven, are the books which the Jews urge against our chronology, and from which

h Vid. WOLF. & PRID. ubi fup.

1 Vid. Sepher Ju

chafin, Shalfheleth, & Tzemach David, ap. WOLF. ubi fup.

rabbinic fables, which certainly appear to have been taken out of the Babylonish Talmud ; from which he concludes, that it was written after it (2). To this we may add what a learned few tells us (3), that he had feen a copy of it, in which it was faid, that the author lived 760 years after the deftruction of the temple.

(C) This author doth often abridge the fictitious Jofephus Ben Gorion, and is fuppofed to be the first, who brought that fpurious author and his book into credit among the Jews.

(D) These three are still more modern, and less worth our notice (4). Befides these, we find an apocryphal book, intitled, Dibre hajamim, or chronicle of Mofes; but which is univerfally rejected by the Jews as well as Christians. As for the Samaritan chronicle, published by Bernard (5) and Bafnage (6), it is so short, obfcure, and incorrect, that it could yield us but little help in this particular, were it of greater authority than it is.

(3) R. Azar, meor benalm, pt. 3. (5) Ap. Calmet, fub voc. Croniq.

(2) Prid. ubi fup. Prid. ubi fup. des Juifs, t. vi. lib, viii. c. 6,

R 2

(4) Id. & (6) Hiftoire

they