pretend to have been destroyed by Earthquakes and Inundations But it appears to me unreasonable to call to our Aid the Elements to maintain the Authority of a Foreign Aegyptian Priest in Opposition to what has been asserted for Truth by so many Greek and other Historians § 2. Those that contradict the Destruction of Some Arguments for and against the Destruction of Troy Troy alledge also in their behalf that Homer was both the first Poet and Author among the Greeks It is true that all the Greek Historians whose Names have been transmitted to Posterity have lived some Ages after the Trojan War yet is it not from thence to be inferred that Homer was either the first or the only Author who has given an Account of the Expedition of the Greeks against the Trojans A certain Poet says (p) Lib. 14. c. 21. var. Hist Aelian whose Name was Syagrus lived after Orpheus who first of all brought the Trojan War into Metre And what Ovid says of Macro is a sufficient Argument that there were not wanting among the Latins who endeavoured to supply the Defects of Homer in the Trojan War These are his Words Tu canis aeterno quicquid restabat Homero Ne careant summa Troica bella manu § 3. As there are some who reject the whole Concerning the Authority of Homer History of Troy as fabulous so there are not wanting such as put Homer in the same Rank with other Historians Both are in my Opinion in an Error as is manifest out of what is related concerning the wooden Horse which though it be not only circumstantially described by Homer and Virgil but also was used in a Proverbial Sense among the Roman Orators as is manifest from these Words of Tully Out of the School of Isocrates like out of the Trojan Horse came forth a vast Number of great Men Yet (q) In At. Pausanias himself is very plain in telling the World that this Horse was nothing else but a certain Engine invented by one Epeus a Pattern of which stood in the Castle of Athens to batter the Walls of strong Cities And he adds that those who believe otherwise must needs look upon the Trojans to have been the greatest Fools and Blockheads in the World Neither does (r) L. 2. Aen. Virgil seem to have been quite ignorant of it when he introduces Laocoon speaking these following Words Aut hoc inclusi ligno occultantur Achivi Aut haec in nostros fabricata est machina muros Inspectura domos venturaque desuper urbi § 4. Some are of Opinion that the Destruction Troy was a whole Kingdom of Troy was comprehended only in one City But according to (s) L. 13. Strabo the Country under the Jurisdiction of the Trojan Kings consisting in nine large Principalities was called Troja which being invaded and conquered by the Greeks they at last made themselves Masters of Troy the Capital City which has questionless introduced this Mistake of converting this War which lasted in all ten years into a Decennial Siege § 5. This Epocha was so famous in most ancient The Destruction of Troy was much celebrated among the Ancients time that if we believe (t) Prâ—â—em â— 1. Diodorus Siculus this was the first Term unto which the Greek Historians related their most ancient and remarkable Transactions And what has rendred this Epocha the more famous to Antiquity is that the Conquest of Troy was bought with the Loss of so many brave and great Heroes from whence is arisen the Proverb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 thus expressed by Catullus Troja nefâ—s commune sepulchrum Europae Asiaeque Troja virûm virtutum omnium acerba cinis § 6. The Chronologers disagree also as to the true time of this Epocha for besides the various Different Opinions concerning this Epochâ— Opinions alledged by Clemens Alexandrinus Porpoyrius has made the Destruction of Troy coincident with the Reign of Semiramis as on the contrary (u) In Chron. Cap. 34. Johannes Georgius Herwart ab Hohenâ—urgh has put no more than seven Ages betwixt the Destruction of Troy and the Epocha of Christ But to set aside these extravagant Notions there are three several Opinions more which carry with them the greatest Probability The first fixes the taking of Troy in the 3530th year of the Julian Period which is also our Opinion for Reasons alledged in the beginning of this Chapter as well as of Dionysius Petavius and Jacobus Capellus The second is of Josephus Scaliger with his Followers Calvisius and Emmius who affirm that Troy was destroyed in the year 3531 of the Julian Period on the 22d of June in the year of the World 2767. The Third Opinion is of Buntingus who maintains that the Destruction of Troy hapned in the year of the World 2787 in the year of the Julian Period 3532 on the 21st of June § 7. As the greatest part of the Trojan History is involved in great Obscurity so its time remains Kings of Troy as yet undetermined we being ignorant how long Teucrus reigned over that Kingdom Out of the following Table it will appear that from the time of Dardanus Son-in-law to Teucrus till the Destruction of Troy under Priamus there was a continual Succession from Father to Son of six Kings for 296 years  Years An. Pe. Jul. 1. King Teucrus   2. Dardanus his Son-in-law 65 3234 3. Erichtonius his Son 46 3299 4. Tros his Son 49 3345 5. Ilus his Son 40 3394 6. Laomedon his Son 44 3434 7. Priamus his Son 52 3478 From Dardanus to the Destruction of Troy 296 3530 § 8. There is also a great Dispute who was the Founder of the City of Troy or Ilium The first Founder of Troy The common Opinion is that Ilus the Son of Tros was the Founder of this City according to which Supposition Troy has not stood an Age and an half Of this Opinion is (x) L. 13. Geor. de Regn. Troj p. 174. Strabo and Conon in Photius Reinerus Reineccius with some others attribute it to Tros Others go back as far as to King Dardanus to whom they give the Honour of having laid the first Foundation of Ilium or Troy with whom consents (y) L. 5. Aen. Virgil when he says thus Dardanus Iliacae primus pater urbis auctor Electrâ ut Graji perhibent Atlantide cretus Advehitur Teucros c. CHAP. XII Of the Epocha of the Reign of David and his Successors in both Kingdoms of Judah and Israel 1. The beginning of the Reign of David is coincident with the 30th year of his Age (a) 2 Sam. 5. v. 4. 3. 2. The first year of this Epocha precedes the Death of David 40 years (b) Ibid. Chron. 3. v. 4. c. 30. v. 27. 3. The 44th year of this Epocha or the fourth of the Reign of Solomon is coincident with the 480th year after the going of the Children of Israel out of Aegypt (c) 1
Tatianus ought to be followed before others according to the Computation mentioned by Eusebius (a) Lib. 1. Chron. 2. According to the Testimony of these Authors but especially of Castor 372 years ought to be counted betwixt Inachus and Sthenelus the Son of Crotopus 3. The Kingdom of Argos fell after it had flourished 544 years till the time of Pelops 4. After Acrisius reigned Sthenelus 8 years He was succeeded by Euristheus who reigned 43 years Him succeeded Atreus and Thyestes who reigned 65 years after whom reigned Agamemnon whose Reign lasted fifteen years and in the last year of his Reign Troy was destroyed by the Greeks according to the Authority of the above-mentioned Authors 5. Vpon the Computation of these most ancient Authors Scaliger has founded his Calculation who affirms that the Epocha of Inachus begins in the 2857th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 1. ☽ 7. 6. If therefore 2856 years be subtracted from any To find the year since the beginning of this Epocha certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the Beginning of this Epocha and if on the other hand the said Number be added to 2856 years the Product must be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. WE did judge it not beyond our purpose The Antiquity of this Epocha to afford a peculiar Chapter for this Epocha considering the Antiquity and famous Transactions of these Kings on whose History depends in a great measure that of the Destruction of Troy And tho' the Sicyonians were also in former Ages in great Renown among the Greeks yet if we rely upon the Authority of Pausanias the first contended for the Priority with all the rest § 2. There are some who deduce the Origin The Origin of the Argivi of the Argivi ou◠of Aegypt but with the same Uncertainty as most other Nations Inachus their first King however has been very famous in the ancient History as among others may appear out of these following Lines of (b) Lib. 2. Carm. Od. 3. Horace Dives ne prisco natus ab Inacho Nil interest an pauper infima De gente sub dio moreris Victima nil miserantis orci Omnes eodem cogimur Omnium Versatur urna serius ocyus Sors exitura nos in aeternum Exilium impositura Cymba § 3. The Names and the Kings of Argus and The Names and Order of the Kings of Argus the time of their several Reigns is expressed in the following Table in which we have followed the Footsteps of Eusebius in imitation of Scaliger and Petavius unto which is added the year of the Julian Period in which each of these Kings began his Reign Names of the Kings Time of their Reigns Julian Period According to Pausanias Inachus 50 2857  Phoronaeus 60 2907 Phoroneus Apis. 35 2967 Argus Argus 70 3002 Pirasus Criasus 64 3072 Phorbas Phorbas 35 3126 Tropas Triopas 46 3161 Jasus Crotopus 21 3207 Crotopus Sthenelus 11 3228 Sthenelas Danaus 50 3239 Gelanor Lynceus 41 3289 Danaus Abas 23 3330 Lynceus Proetus 17 3353 Abas Acrisius 31 3370 Acrisius Stheneleus 8 3401 c. Euristheus 43 3409  Ath. Thyestes 65 3452  Agamemnon 15 3517  § 4. The Ancients are much divided in their Various Opinions concerning the Chronology of these Kings Opinion concerning the Chronology of these Kings for Pausanias Hyginus and Clemens Alexandrinus disagree with Eusebius and those other above-mentioned Authors Pausanias mentions several Kings not named by Eusebius and omits others who is followed by Hyginus and according to the Computation of Clemens Alexandrinus there are no more than 400 years to be computed from the beginning of this Epocha till the time of the Destruction of Troy Tho' it cannot be denied that Pausanias has been industrious in collecting the History of the Graecian Kings yet considering that his Relation is not free from Fables and incompleat the Times of the Reigns of each of these Kings being left out we have all the Reason in the World to prefer the Authority of Eusebius in this Case CHAP. VIII Of the Epocha of Cecrops the first Founder of the Kingdom of Athens and his Successors 1. For want of more ancient Monuments of Antiquity concerning the Epocha of Cecrops its Origin must be investigated partly out of Eusebius partly out of the Asiatick Chronicle which being come to light but some years ago is known by the Name of Marmora Arundeliana 2. The time of Cecrops is coincident with that of Moses according to (a) In Chron. Eusebius and Eustachius (b) In Hexamer Bishop of Antiochia 3. According to Eusebius there are 375 years from the beginning of the Reign of Cecrops till the time of Mnestheus 4. According to Pausanias the same Number of years ought to be accounted from thence to the Destruction of Troy 5. The Succession of these Kings ought to be regulated in such a manner as to make the Destruction of Troy coincident with the last times of the Reign of Mnestheus the said City being taken by the Greeks in the 22 d year of his Reign according to the Marmora Arundeliana 6. According to the Computation of Clemens Alexandrinus Theseus reigned near fifty years before the Destruction of Troy 7. Vpon these and other Characters Scaliger has founded his Computation of the beginning of the Government of Athens which at first being Monarchical began in the 3158th year of the Julian Period Cyc ☉ 22. ☽ 4. 8. If therefore 3157 years be subtracted from any To find out the year since the beginning of this Epocha certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the true year since the beginning of this Epocha and if the same Number of 3157 be added to the years of the Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE Athenian Monarchy is commonly Th◠several Dynasties of the Athenians distinguished into three several Classes the first being of their Kings the second of their Archontes or Princes who reigned during Life the third of their Decennial Archontes a Catalogue of which may be seen in the following Chronological Table according to Scaliger out of Eusebius and the Animadversions of Petavius The first Dynasty of the Athenian Archontes Num. Reg. An. Reg. Scal. Pe. Jul. An. Reg. Petav. P. Jul. 1. Cecr Diphyes 50 3158 50 3156 2. Cranaus 9 3208 9 3206 3 Amphyction 10 3217 10 3215 4. Erychtonius 50 3227 50 3225 5. Pandion 40 3277 40 3275 6. Erichteus 50 3317 50 3315 7. Cecrops II. 40 3367 40 3365 8. Pandion II. 25 3407 25 3405 9. Aegeus 48 3432 48 3430 10. Theseus 30 3480 30 3478 11. Mnestheus 23 3510 23 3508 12. Demophoon 33 3533 33 3531 13. Oxynthes 12 3 12 3564 14. Aphydas 1 3578 1 3576 15. Thymoetes 8 3579  3577 16. Melanthus 37 3587 37 3585 17. Codrus 21 3624 21 3622 The second Dynasty of the Athenian
Philopater 17 543 119 Epiphanes 24 567 143 Philomater 35 602 178 Euergetes II. 29 631 207 Soter 36 667 243 Dionysius 29 696 272 Cleopatra 22 718 294 V. Of the Roman Kings  Anni Regn. Nab. Philipp Augustus 43 761 337 Tiberius 22 783 359 Caius 4 787 363 Claudius 14 801 377 Nero 14 815 391 Vespasianus 10 825 401 Titus 3 828 404 Domitianus 15 843 419  Phil. Nab. Phil. Nerus I. 1 844 420 Trajanus 19 863 439 Adrianus 21 884 460 Antoninus 23 907 483 CHAP. XIX Of the Epocha of the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians and the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel 1. Samaria the Capital of the whole Kingdom of Israel was taken by the Assyrians in the sixth year of Hezekiah King of Judah (a) 2 Reg. 18. v. 10. 2. In the ninth year of the Reign of Hosea King of Israel (b) 2 Reg. 17. v. 1. 3. Vnder the Reign of Shalmanassar King of Assyria (c) Ibid. 4. Some time before Sennacherib who in the 14th year of the Reign of Hezekiah came up against the City of Jerusalem (d) 2 Reg. 18. v. 13. 5. As likewise before the time of (e) 2 Reg. 19. v. 37. Assarhaddon the Son of Sennacherib who transferred the Royal Seat of the Assyrian Kings from Ninive to Babylon For the Successour of Hezekiah Manasseh was carried by the King of Assyria to Babylon (f) 2 Chr. 33. v. 11. 6. King So reigned at that time in Egypt as is apparent out of 2 Reg. 17. v. 4. 7. From whence we conclude that the Conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians hapned in the year of the Julian Period 3991 Cycl ☉ 15. ☽ 1. If therefore from any certain year of the Julian Period To investigate the Year since thâ— beginning of this Epocha be subtracted 3390 years or the same Number be added to any certain year of this Epocha the Residue of the one and the Product of the other will shew the year either of the time since the Beginning of this Epocha or of the Julian Period § 1. IT has been controverted among the Chronologers Whâ— was Shalmanassar who this Shalmanassar was that conquer'd Samaria (g) Chron. part 2. Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus confound him with Sennacherib Funccius Buntingus Mercator and several other of the most Learned Modern Chronologers affirm this Shalmanassar to have been the same Nabonassar of which mention is made by Ptolemy But this Opinion has been sufficiently refuted by (h) De Emend Temp. Scaliger by Calvisius and Behmius The Celestial Characters fixed by Ptolemy to the Times of Nabonassar having not the least Relation to this Hypothesis § 2. There arises also another Controversie Of the Synchronism of Hosea and Ahaz concerning (i) 2 Reg. 15. v. 30. Hosea who is said to have slain Pekah in the 20th year of Jotham and to have succeded him in the Kingdom The 20th year of the Reign of Jotham was questionless the 4th of the Reign of Ahaz who reigned 16 years So that Hosea began to reign in the 4th year of Ahaz But it being said 2 Reg. 17. v. 1. that in the 12th year of Ahaz Hosea began to reign the Question is how the beginning of his Reign can be fixed both in the 4th and 12th year of Ahaz Unto which it is answer'd that the beginning of the Reign of Hosea may be considered in a double respect For from the 4th year of Ahaz till his 12th he reigned as Sovereign whereas after the said 12th year he was tributary to the King of (k) 2 Reg. 18. v 1-9 10. Assyria § 3. There is no less Dispute among the Chronologers concerning So the King of Egypt of Of King So mention'd in the H. Scriptuâ—e whom mention is made in the Scripture whom some call Bochorin Saitin others by another Name But I take it for granted that Cambyses King of Persia did according to Eusebius and Herodotus conquer Egypt in the 5th or 6th year of his Reign which according to Ptolemy was the 225th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha or the 4191st year of the Julian Period I will in the following Table give you a Catalogue of the Egyptian Kings which from the year 4191 to count backwards have reigned till the year of the Julian Period 3991 when the Destruction of the Kingdom of Israel hapned from whence it will appear that at that time Sabacus the King of Aethiopia reigned in Egypt In the first Column you will see the Names and in the second the Times of the Reigns of these Kings in the third the year of the Julian Period when they began to reign and in the fourth the last year of each of their Reigns in the fifth you will find the several Places cited out of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus which confirm our Assertion The Pages are cited out of Herodotus according to the Edition of Henricus Stephanus An. 1592 and out of Diodorus Siculus according to the Edition of Laurentius Rhodomannus An. 1604. Names of the Kings An. Reg. Init. An. Per. Jul. Fin. An. Pe. Jul. Testimony of Psammenit 0 4190 4191 Herod p. 187 Amasis 44 4147 4190 186 Apries 25 4122 4147 173 Psammis 6 4116 4122 173 Necas 17 4099 4116 172 Psammetic 54 4045 4099 171 Dodecharc 15 4030 4045 Diodor. 59 60 Interregn 2 4028 4030 Di dor 59 Sabacus 50 3978 4028 Herod 161 § 4. (l) Lib. 9. c. 14. Ant. Josephus affirms that the Israelites were How many years the Kingdom of Israel flourished forced to quit their Country 947 years after their going out of Egypt 800 years after the Death of Joshua and 260 years 7 months and 7 days after the Division of the Kingdom under Jeroboam But the Computation of Josephus is contradictory to it self For according to his Calculation from the time of the Israelites going out of Egypt the Destruction of that Kingdom must have hapned in the year of the Julian Period 4163 and consequently later But according to his Computation from the time of the Distribution of the Kingdom this Destruction must have hapned in the year of the Julian Period 3973 and consequently sooner than our Epocha It is therefore our Opinion that according to the Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel which we have given heretofore the whole Duration of the Kingdom of Israel from the time of Jeroboam till the Destruction by the Assyrians was only of 257 years § 5. Concerning the Place whither the ten Tribes of Israel were carried into Captivity we read Whither the Israelites were carried thus in the Holy (m) â— Reg. 17. v. 6. 18. v. 10. Scripture The King of Assyria did carry away Israel into Assyria and put them in Habah and in Habor by the River of Gozan and in the Cities of the Medes From whence we conjecture that the Israelites were dispersed in Assyria and Media and more especially in those Provinces bordering upon the
Julian year as a constant and acurate rule of their times whence it happens that they do not only refer to the Julian Calendar those things which came to pass after it's first Institution but by way of prolepsis make use of the same from the beginning of the World nay before the beginning it self and that for 3 Reasons 1st Because this sort of year is universally known and as equally fitted to the Egyptian and Nabonassarean as other years 2ly That after the Nabonassarean it is the most plain and easie of any 3dly Because the same Months in this year have the same changes of the Seasons fixed which and other like Reasons induced that famous Mathematician Kepler to lay aside the Gregorian and make use of the Julian in his Tables of Heavenly Bodies nay and Petavius tho' very much addicted to the Gregorian Stile cannot but give the Julian this Character viz the Julian year says he when fitted to use is the most agreeable to the Nature of things since that comes as near as can be to the course of the Sun and is no less fit to Register the times for which reason it is made use of in the Chronicles and Annals of most Writers and that not only in recording of things since its Institution but before nay from the beginning of the World it self Wherefore for example sake when they would assign the Eclipses of the Sun or Moon or the Wars of Cities and Kingdoms and their famous Actions in their years and seasons they always make use of the Julian Years and Months as if they were then used by them which by Anticipation and a sort of fiction they institute by which ours will more easily agree with them being fitted to the common times Nor will the Reader be tired in observing the different sorts of years For Petavius saith that it is the most exact Account of time and easiest to be made use of and which beyond all others is most fitted to common use and cometh nearer to the Revolution of the Sun than any other sort of year whatever and these and many other Reasons there are why the Julian year should in general be explain'd being likewise the Receptacle of all other Epocha's § 12. The Ancients did not add at the end Of the Bissextile of the year that whole day arising from the 4 times 6 hours but to February reckoning the 6 of the Calends of March twice over yet still accounting those two Days for one in which sense Celsus (c) De Verb. sig L. 2. takes it For says he it matters not whether it be on the former or the latter days since that those are but accounted one which Marcellinus notes was always thought by the Romans unfortunate § 13. Since a Julian year is taken to be 365 The difference between a Solar Tropical and a Julian year days 6 hours and the Solar Tropical mean years according to Longo-montanus to be 365d 5b 48′ 55″ it thence appears that the difference of quantity between them following the said Longomontanus's Hypothesis is but 11′ 5″ which Chronologers usually call the Civil Equinoctial Procession and that because in so much time the places of the Equinox do vary in the Julian year by which means in the space almost of 130 years the Equinoctial and Solstitial points seem to go backward a whole day § 14. As to the space of time of the great Of the great Canicular year Canicular year which is called the Stoick or Cynick period Censorinus gives us this account of it f The Moon says he belongs not to the Egyptian year which we call Canicular because it begins the first day of the Month they call the Thoth when the Dog-Star arises For their Civil d De Die Nat. c. 18. year has only 365 days without any intercalatory day therefore the space of 4 years with them is almost a day less than the Natural 4 years by which it happens that in the year 1461. it revolves to the same place This year is by some called Heliacal as belonging to the Moon and by others 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 § 15. As the Heathens were destitute of the Of Plato's great year light of Scripture and consequently of the Original of the World so they err strangely about its end The great year of Plato was a very notable fiction The Stoicks as well as the Platonicks thought that the World must have naturally an end when all the Stars were again revolved to the same point but what Period of years this Revolution may require is not as yet known even Kepler himself despairs of the Possibility of this invention when he asserts that the Motion of the Stars are incommensurable with themselves § 16. Lastly as to Aristotle's Greatest year some Of Aristotle's greatest year confound it with Plato's great year from which notwithstanding it differs which Censorinus further thus speaks of There is says he another year that Aristotle calls the greatest rather than the great which the Spheres of the Planets constitute when they come together to the same places where they were before the Winter of which made the Worlds Deluge and its Summer will make the last Conflagration c. but Marsilius makes mention of another real year in which the Soul of Man finishes its Circuit of Transmigration which time they say is perform'd in 12000 years to 3 of which years the great year of the World is equal consisting of 36000 years wherein the Anima Mundi performs its Course but Peter of Aliacus the Cardinal does otherwise determine the Quantity of the great year for says he as from the beginning of Aries to the end of Virgo is equal to the half of that space which is from the beginning of Libra to the end of Pisces so ought there to be from the Birth of Christ to the end of the World as much time as was from Adam or the Creation of the World to the coming of our Saviour this space was 5260 years therefore according to him from the beginning of the World to the end will be 10400 all the Stars finishing their Courses c. CHAP. VII Of the Epacts 1. Vnder the Name of Epacts we usually understand the Difference between a Lunar and Julian year 2. The Epacts are either Civil or Astronomical 3. The Civil Epacts are days intercepted between the common Julian year of 365 days and the Lunar taken at large of 354 days hence the Annual Epacts consist of 11 days except in every 19 year in which there are 12. 4. The Astronomical Epacts may be termed those Days Hours and Minutes which are intercepted between the common Lunar year and the mean or equal Julian year which are 10d 12h 11′ 22″ 16‴ § 1. THe word Epact is derived from the Greek The Etymology of the Epacts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which besides other things signifies to intercalate In which sense Plutarch in Numa uses it and in the Egyptian
Reg. 6. v. 1. 4. The same 44th year is the year of the building of the Temple of Solomon (d) 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. 5. The 81st year of this Epocha is the first of the Reign of Jeroboam and of the 390 years of the Iniquity of the House of Israel because Solomon and his Father reigned each 40 years (e) Ezec. 4. v. 5. 6. The Reigns of the Successors of David in both Kingdoms ought to be regulated according to the true Synchronism of the sacred Writ the years of their Reigns being involved in no small Difficulties From whence it is apparent that the first year of David 's Reign is coincident with the 3654th year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 14. ☽ 6. 7. If therefore the 3653 years be subtracted from To investigate the Year since the beginning of this Epocha any certain year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of this Epocha and if 3653 be added to the Number of years of this Epocha the Product is the year of the Julian Period § 1. THE Interval betwixt the 3260th year of Difficulties concerning the Nativity â—f David the Julian Period when the Jews first conquered Palestine and the 3624th year of the Julian Period when David was born being of above 360 years and to be divided betwixt Salmon Boatz Obed and Jesse involves the Nativity of David in no small Difficulty For the Genealogy of the Ancestors of David is thus represented (f) Ruth 4. v. 2â— seque And Nashon begot Salmon and Salmon begot Booz and Booz begot Obed and Obed begot Jesse and Jesse begot David So that every one of these must be supposed to have begot Children when they were near 100 years old it being evident that Nashon entred Palestine with Joshua (g) Numb 1. v. 7. c. â— v. 3. c. 7. v. 12. Lyra Salianus Genebrardus Catharinus Jansenius Esthius and their Proselytes to remove this Difficulty have substituted two more of the same Name with Boaz but in vain since the same Genealogy is repeated in three several other Places to wit 1 Chron. 2. v. 11 12. in St. Matth. 1. v. 4. in St. Luke 3. v. 32. Our Opinion is that without having Recourse to these Tergiversations it may rationally be supposed that the Ancestors of David begot Children in their old Age as it is evident in Boatz out of the Book of Ruth (h) C. 3. v. 10. and in Obed out of 1 Sam. 17. v. 12. § 2. There being a seeming Contradiction in Difficulties concerning the Kings of Judah Israel the Chronological Computation of these Kings in the Hebrew Text Dionysius Petavius Alstedius Torniellus Buntingus and several others believe the same to have been adulterated But this being the way to dissect but not to dissolve the Knot it will be more convenient to find out some other way to reconcile these Differences It is therefore observable that in this Chronology sometimes the incompleat years are taken for compleat ones as for Instance when Ieroboam is said to have reigned 22 years is to be understood of 21 compleat years at the beginning of the 22d Thus it is also to be taken with the 24 years attributed to (k) 1 Reg. 15. v. 33. Baasha instead of 23 with the 12 years of (l) 1 Reg. 16. v. 23. Amri instead of 11 c. In other Places instead of the incompleat years expressed the compleat ones ought to be understood As for Instance when it is said that (m) 1 Reg. 15. v. 9. Asa began his Reign in the 20th year of the Reign of (i) 1 Reg. 14. v. 20. Jeroboam is to be taken in this sense that he began his Reign at the beginning of the 21st year of Jeroboam In some Passages it appears that several but especially Father and Son reigned at the same time so it is said of (n) 1 Reg. 15. v. 25. Nadab that he reigned in the first year together with his Father Jeroboam Of (o) 1 Reg. 16. v. 8. Ella that he reigned at the same time with his Father Baasha The same is said of (p) 1 Reg. 22. v. 52. Ahaziah and Ahab of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram 2 Reg. 3. v. 1. Of this there is an evident Example in (q) 1 Reg. 16. v. 21. Amri who is said to have reigned 12 years to wit including the time that Thibni assumed the Royal Dignity It is further observable that in the Chronology of these Kings the Computation begins not always from the beginning of their Reigns but from some remarkable Epocha or Revolution As it is said that (r) 2 Chron. 16 v. 1. Baasha came up against Ramah in the 36th year of the Reign of Asa when it is evident that he died in the six and twentieth year of the Reign of Asa (s) 1 Reg. v. 6. 8. some interpret thus that here is to be understood the 36th year since the Division of the Kingdom after Solomon's Death as if it had been expressed thus In the thirty sixth year after the Division of the Kingdom of which Asa was King There are also some Footsteps of certain Vacancies of the Throne betwixt Amaziah and Azariah the Kings of Judah and betwixt Jeroboam and Zacharias Kings of Israel All which we leave to the Choice and Decision of the judicious Reader § 3. There is no better way to reconcile the How to reconcile these Differences Chronological Differences about the Kings of Judah and Israel than by making a due Comparison betwixt the Synchronisms and Combinations of Years of the several Kings of both these Kingdoms The following two Tables exhibit at the same instant the Mutual Connection of the Reigns of these Kings according to the Tenure of the Sacred Scriptures But because the Years of their Reigns are not always correspondent to this Connection I have added those other Years which by reason of their Usefulness in reconciling these Differences I have called the Chronological Years An. P. J. Succession of the Kings Scrip. Years of the Kings of of Judah of Israel Jud. Israel 3654 1 David  40  3694 1 Solomon  40  3734 1 Rehoboam 1 Jeroboam 17 22 3751 1 Abijam 18 3  3753 1 Asa 20 41  3754 2 1 Nadab  2 3755 3 1 Baasha  24 3778 26 1 Ella  2 3779 27 1 Simri   3783 31 1 Amri   3790 38 1 Ahab  12 3793 1 Jehoshaph 4 25 22 3809 17 1 Ahaziah  2 3810 18 1 Jehoram  12 3814 1 Jehoram 5 8  3821 1 Ahaziah 12 1  3822 1 Athaliah 1 Jehu 6 8 3828 1 Jehoash 7 40  3850 23 1 Jehoahat  17 3864 37 1 Joash  16 3865 1 Amaziah 2 29  3879 15 1 Jerob II  41 3905 1 Azariah 27   3942 38 1 Zacharias 52 6 m. 3943 39 1 Shallum  1 m. 3943 39 1 Menahem  10 3954 50
Others Opinion concerning the same the Authority of the Sacred Writ and yet disagree with us in our Hypothesis are of Opinion that in the above-mentioned (h) Ibid. Computation of 480 years betwixt the time of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt and the Epocha of the Temple of Solomon are only accounted the years of each of the Judges that ruled over Israel without including the several Intervals of their Bondage oâ— Anarchies Ludovicus Capellus is of this Opinion but above all others (i) Isag Châ—on c. 7. Gerhardus Johannes Vossius patronizes this Fiction alledging from the Authors of the Sacred History his Intention had been only to give an Account of those times the Israelites were governed by Moses Joshua the Judges and Kings without taking any Notice of those Intervals when the Israelites lived in Servitude the Memory of which could not but be very dreadful to them But this appears to me a very frivolous Reason since I cannot see why the Time and Interval might not be inserted with as much Ease as the Relation of the Servitude it self Besides that according to this Supposition both the Time and Circumstances of the Destruction of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah must have been pass'd by in Silence they being much more dreadful than the Anarchies and Intervals of Servitude of the Israelites § 3. There are also others who maintain that the Some begin this Interval from another time the Computation of these 480 years ought to be interpreted not from the time they passed thro' the Red Sea but from the time of the Distribution of the Land of Canaan by Lot which Interpretation they pretend to prove to be consonant to the Sacred Historical Phrase from the Words in Deuterenomy 4. v. 44 45 46. And this is the Law which Moses set before the Children of Israel These are the Statutes and Testimonies and the Judgments which Moses spake unto the Children of Israel after they came forth out of Aegypt on this side Jordan in the Valley over against Beth-peor in the Land of Sihon King of the Amorites who dwelt at Heshbon whom Moses and the Children of Israel smote after they were come forth our of Aegypt They add to this a Parallel Passage out of the 115th Psalm v. 1 2 3. When Israel went out of Aegypt the House of Jacob from a People of strange Language Judah was his Sanctuary and Israel his Dominion the Sea saw it and fled Jordan was driven back Which has induced Lautentius Codomannus to affirm the above-mentioned Term of 480 years had its Beginning not till that time when the Tribe of Dan had its peculiar Inheritance assigned to them according to which Supposition he computes from the first beginning of the Israelites leaving of Aegypt 599 years and Sabellicus Melchior Canus and Michael Moestlinus account 592 years Dionysius Petavius (k) Lib. 9. de Doctr. Temp. computes 520 years by adding 40 years the Israelites were in the Desart to the 480 years But Petavius as well as the other above-named Chronologers have put a wrong Sence upon the Phrase of the whole Scripture in these two Passages of Deut. 4. and Psalm 114 which they alledge as Parallel to one another there being not intended the least distinct Account of the time of the Israelites going out of Aegypt but only mentioned in general Terms it being evident that the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt is in the Scripture Phrase to be understood from the time of their passing through the Red Sea As for instance in Numb 33. v. 38. it is said And Aaron the Priest went up into Mount Hor at the Commandmont of the Lord and died there in the fortieth year after the Children of Israel were come out of the Land of Aegypt in the first day of the fifth Month. § 4. Dionysius Petavius and some others who pretend to enlarge this Computation of 480 years alledge that it is contradictory to the Calculation Whether this Computation of 480 years be contradictory to the Sacred Writ of the times of the Judges and Intervals of Bondage of the Israelites But these Gentlemen have neglected what has long ago been observed by some Interpreters that the Intervals of the Bondage of the Israelites are included in the times of their Judges and that sometimes several Tribes have had their several Judges so that two or more have been their Heads at the same time To confirm which let us look into the Book of the Judges c. 4. v. 2. where it is related that the Israelites lived in Subjection undeâ— Jabin twenty years and yet in the 4th Verse it is added And Deborah a Prophetess the Wife of Lapidoth she judged Israel at that time Who can be so much beyond himself as to suppose that the twenty years of their Bondage ought to be separately computed besides the time of Deborah which is confirmed by another Passage in the the same Book where it is said of Sampson (l) Judges 15. 20. be judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 20 years § 5. Though it be not always requisite in How the 480 years were divided between the Kings and Judges a Chronologer to give an exact Account of all the particular Intervals of time when the whole is beyond Question yet for the better Satisfaction of the Curious we will represent in the following Table several Opinions of some of our modern Chronologers concerning these Intervals From the time of the going out of the Israelites out of Aegypt are computed Years according to  Petavius Is Vos Wil. Lang. Ours Scripture Proofs Moses 40 40 40 40 Numb 14. v. 33. Joshua 14 26 14 17  The Seniors 10  13   Bondage under      Chushan 8 8 8   Othniel 40 40 40 40 Judg. 3. v. 10. Servit under the Moab 18 18 0   Ehud 80 80 80 80 Judg. 3. v. 20. Bond. under Jabin 20 20 0   Deb. Bar. 40 40 40 40 Judg. 4. v. 4. Servit under the Midian 7 7 0   Gideon 40 40 40 40 Judg. 8. v. 32. Abimelech 3 3 40 3 Judg. 9. v. 22. Thola 23 23 3 23 Judg. 10. v. 2. Jair 22 22 23 22 Judg. 10. v. 3. Servit under the Ammonit 0 18 22   Jephtha 6 6 18 6 Judg. 12. v. 7. Ibzan 7 7 6 7 Judg. 12. v. 9. Elon 10 10 7 10 Judg. 12. v. 11. Abdon 8 8 18 8 Judg. 12. v. 14. Bond. under the Philist 0 40 20   Sampson 20 20 3 20 Judg. 15. v. 20. Eli 20 40  40 1 Sam. 4. v. 18. Sam. Saul 40 32 20 40 Acts 13. v. 21. David 40 40 20 40 2 Sam. 5. v. 4. Solomon 4 3 4 4 1 Reg. 6. v. 1. Sum 520 667 479 480  CHAP. XIV Of the Epocha of the three hundred and ninety years of the Iniquity of the HOVSE of Israel mentioned in Ezec. Chap.
the Reign of Darius Hystalpes being the 58th since the Beginning of the Reign of Cyrus in Persia is coincident with the 246th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha when there hapned another Eclipse of the Moon according to Ptolemy 6. The 31st year of the same Darius Hystaspes or the 69th since the beginning of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus was the 257th year of the Nabonassarean Epocha when according to Ptolemy there hapned another Eclipse of the Moon 7. The ancient Persian Empire to reckon from the first year of the Reign of Cyrus did stand 728 years according to Agathias From these Characters we conclude that the first year of the Reign of Cyrus was coincident with the 4155 year of the Julian Period or at least with the latter End of the 4154th year Cycl ☉ 10. ☽ 13. If therefore 4154 years be subtracted from any certain To investigate the year since the beginning of this Epocha year of the Julian Period the Residue shews the year since the beginning of the Persian Epocha of Cyrus Or if 4154 years be added to the known year of the said Epocha the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. BEroaldus with some others is of Opinion Of the Vncertainty of the ancient Persian History that the ancient History of the Persian Empire is involved in so many fictitious Relations by the Greeks that it is less difficult in our Eye to judge of the Truth of that History than it was at the times of Herodotus Josephus Manetho Megasthenes or Ctesias to whom we are beholding for the most ancient Monuments of Antiquity in the Persian History Yet they seem to be too severe in their Judgment it being beyond all question that these as well as many others of the ancient prophane Historians have confirmed their Computations by undeniable Celestial Characters and therefore not to be absolutely rejected by reason of the Mixture of some fabulous Relations § 2. There is not any other Epocha which is Of the Certainty of the Beginning of this Epocha so well established by the General Consent of all the ancient Historians in reference to the time of the Olympiad than the Persian Epocha of Cyrus who all agree that Cyrus began his Reign in Persia at the time when the fifty five Olympiad Games were celebrated in Gracia § 3. But concerning the time of his Reign Of the Reign of Cyrus and of his Death there are various Opinions Lucianus allots him a hundred years and (c) Lib. 1. de Diâ—in Cicero threescore and ten of which he reign'd 30 years But as this Epocha is founded upon the time of his Reign So it is sufficient for us to know that according to Ctesias Dionysius Justin Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus Cyrus reigned in all 30 years Herodotus speaks of 29 and Sulpitius of 31 years § 4. There is a remarkable Difference betwixt the Chronological Computations of Xenophon Concerning the different Opinions of Xenophon and Herodotus about Cyrus and Herodotus concerning the Reign of Cyrus For Xenophon makes Astyages the last but one among the Median Kings whereas Herodotus affirms him to have been the last Xenophon relates that Astyages died in Peace when Cyrus was but very young leaving the Kingdom to his Son Cyaxares but Herodotus says that Cyrus conquered Astyages Xenophon says that the Father of Cyrus was one of the Princes of Persia descended from Perseus and that he had all the Advantages of a most generous Education in his Father's and Grandfather's Court whereas Herodotus makes him the Son of one Cambyses of an ignoble Birth and that without the Knowledge of his Grandfather he was educated among the Shepherds Xenophon allots no more than 11 years for the Reign of Cyrus but Herodotus 29. The first says he died upon his Bed the last that he was slain in the War against Tomyris the Queen of the Massagetes In answer to which we will alledge the Words of Cicero Cyropoedia Xenophontis non ad fidem historicam sea ad effigiem justi imperii atque optimi principis est conscripta § 5. The Dispute is no less great among the Of the Succession of Cyrus and Daratron of the Persian Empire Chronologers concerning the Succession and true Computation of the years of the Persian Monarchs in order to reconcile the Prophane History with the Sacred Writ The Jews allow of no more than four Persian Kings mentioned in the Scripsures Beroaldus and his Followers don't contract the Persian Monarchy into so narrow a Compass allowing 130 years to this Empire but cannot agree in the Chronological Computation and what Character to allot to each of these Monarchs as may be seen out of the following Table set down by Beroaldus Cyrus Major 2. Assuerus Artaxerxes 3. Darius Assyrius 4. Artaxerxes Pius 5. Xerxes the Terror of Greece 6. Artaxerxes Longimanus 7. Darius Nothus 8. Artaxerxes Mnemon 9. Ochus 10. Arses otherwise Arsanes 11. Darius Codomannus Brother of Arsanus Son of Ochus But if we follow the Footsteps of the Ptolemean Catalogue of Herodotus Thucydides Ctesiâ—â— Justin Diodorus Berosus and many others the following Table gives an exact Account of the Succession and Chronology of the Persian Kings  Compleat Years 1. Cyrus Major 29 2. Cambyses cum Magis 8 3. Darius Hydaspes 34 4. Xerxes 21 5. Artaxerxes Longimanus 43 6. Darius Nothus 19 7. Artaxerxes Mnemon 43 8. Ochus 23 9. Arses 3 10. Darius Codomannus 5 The Total Sum of the Years of the Persian Kings 228 § 6. The Character mentioned by (d) In Vit. Alexand. Of thâ— last Period of the Persian Monarchy Plutarch in the last year of the Reign of Darius Codomannus much strengthens our Opinion concerning the Duration of the Persian Empire For he says That at that very time when the last Battle was fought betwixt Darius and Alexander there hapned an Eclipse of the Moon which according to the true Astronomical Calculation was in the 446th Olympian Year or in the second year of the 112d Olympiad on the twentieth day of September which evidently proves the Mistake of Beroaldus who affirms that the Death of Darius hapned in the first year of the 113th Olympiad If therefore a true Balance be made betwixt the 217th Olympian Year being the first of the 55th Olympiad when Cyrus began to reign in Persia and the 446th Olympian Year it will demonstratively appear that the Persian Empire according to our Assertion flourished about 228 or 229 years CHAP. XXIV Of the Babylonian Epocha of Cyrus and the End of the first Monarchy 1. Cyrus put an End to the first Monarchy by the Conquest of Babylon under the Reign of Darius Medus who being called in prophane History Nabonnedus succeeded Balthasar in the Babylonian Empire according to Berosus Herodotus Ptolemy and many others 2. Cyrus marched with a vast Army out of Persia and after having carried Fire and Sword thro' Asia attack'd Babylon in the 17th year
would deduce its Origin not from the time of this solemn Edict or Commandment but from that time when God foretold the rebuilding of the Temple and City by the Prophet But the Jews make themselves most ridiculous in that to invalidate the Arguments of the Christians by which they prove from this Prophecy that the Messias is already come they pretend to put this fictitious Computation upon the World that the Weeks of Daniel ought to begin with the Destruction of the first and end with the Destruction of the second Temple so that the 70 years of their Captivity during which time the Temple remained desolate is to be added to 410 years which they say is the time the 2d Temple has stood as may be seen in their Chron. Major in Rabbi Isaac Abarbinel Rabbi Isaac Ben Abraham and others of the same Stamp This Opinion is contradictory to the express Words of the Angel That from the going forth of the Commandment to restore the City these 70 Weeks are to be computed Besides that it is l Cap. 9. v. 17. absolutely false that there is an Interval of 490 years betwixt the Destruction of the first and the second Temple For as has been sufficiently demonstrated before n the Destruction of the first Temple hapned in the Year of the Julian Period 4124 whereas the second Temple was laid in Ashes in the Year of the Julian Period 4783 so that the whole Interval amounts to no less than 659 years It is also quite beyond the Purpose when the Jews pretend to explain the Words of the Angel concerning the Messiah of King Cyrus For tho' we read in (o) C. 45. v. 1. Isaiah Thus said the Lord to his Anointed to Cyrus no Infetence is to be made from thence that the Word Messiah either by it self or with such Attributes as occur in this Passage of Daniel are ever applied in the Scripture to any Earthly Prince See D. Mulleri Judaism c. 10. and Constantini L'Empereur Annotat. ad Jachiâ—d § 5. We read of four several Edicts concerning Four several Edicts concerning the Rebuilding of the City occur in the Scripture the Restauration of the Jews and the Rebuilding of the Temple and City in the Holy Scripture The first we meet with is in (p) C. 1. v. 1. Ezra In the first Year of Cyrus King of Persia that the Word of the Lord by the Mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled the Lord stirred up the Spirit of Cyrus King of Persia that he made a Proclamation throughout all his Kingdom and put it also in Writing saying Thus said Cyrus King of Persia The Lord God of Heaven hath given me all the Kingdoms of the Earth and he hath charged me to build him an House at Jerusalem which is in Judah Who is there among you of all his People His God be with him and let him go up to Jerusalem which is in Judah and build the House of the Lord God of Israel he is the God which m Ch. 22. is in Jerusalem c. The same Words we read also in the (q) C. 6. â— â—2 2â— Chronicles pursuant to the Prophecy of (r) C. â—â— Isaiah The second Mandate or Edict concerning this Restitution is describ'd likewise by (s) C 6. v. â—â— 11. 12. Ezra which being sent by Darius in the same year that the Prophets Haggai and Zechariah began to prophesie to the Governours beyond the River contains the following Words Let the Work of this House of God alone Let the Governour of the Jews and the Elders of the Jews build this House of God in his Place c. Also I have made a Decree that whosoever shall alter this Word let Timber be pulled down from his House and being set up let him be hanged thereon and let his House be made a Dunghil for this And the God that hath caused his Name to dwel there destroy all Kings and People that shall put to their Hand to alter and to destroy this House of God which is at Jerusalem I Darius have made a Decree let it be done with speed And the Prophecies of Hâ—ggai and Zachariah cited by Ezra mention expresly the second Year of Darius and the Month. for thus we read in Haggai Chap. 1. v. 1. seq In the second Year of Darius the King in the sixth Month in the first Day of the Month â—â—me the Word of the Lord by Haggai the Prophet unto Zetubbabel the Son of Shealtiel Governour of Judah and to Joshua the Son of Josedech the High Priest saying thus saith the Lâ—rd of Hosts c. Go up to the Mountain and bring Wood and build the House and I will take Pleasure in it and I will be glorified said the Lord The same Mandate is repeated by (t) C. 1. v 1. Zâ—chariah in the eighth Month of the same second Year of Darius when pursuant to God's Commandment and the Decree of the Persian King the Work was happily brought to Perfection according to the Words of Ezra (u) C. â— v. 15 16. And this House was finished on the third Day of the Month Adar which was in the sixth year of the Reign of Darius the King And the Children of Israel the Priests and the Levites and the rest of the Children of the Captivity kept the Dedication of this House with Joy The third Edict is likewise described by (x) C. 7. v. â— sâ—qâ— Ezra This Ezra went up from Babylon and the King granted him all his Request according to the Hand of the Lord his God upon him And there went up some of the Children of Israel and of the Priests and the Levites and the Singers and the Porters and the Nethinims unto Jerusalem in the 7th year of Artaxerxes the King And he came to Jerusalem in the 5th Month which was in the 7th Year of the King This Decree of King Artaxerxes granâ—s full Liberty to the Jews to return to Jerusalem and exempts all the Priests Levites and other Ministers of the House of God from Toll Tribute or Custom The fourth Edict concerned particularly Nehemiah (y) Ezr. â— v. 13. 24. who in the 20th year of King Artaxerxes got leave to go to Jerusalem with the King's Letter to the Governours beyond the River and unto Asaph the Keeper of the King's Forests that he should give the Jews Timber to make Beams for the Gates â—f the Palace which appeâ—tâ—ineth to the House and for the Wall of the City and for the House he was to enter into as may be seen more at large in Nehemiah Chap. 2. from the 1st to the 9th Verse And these are the four several Mandates concerning the Restauration of the Jews and the Rebuilding of the Temple and City unto one of which the Beginning of these 70 Weeks mâ—st be fixed For the better understanding of the different Opinions of the Chronologers concerning the Time and Reigns of these Kings unto whom the said Mandates are ascribed we have
time of this The End of the 70 Weeks is to be fixt at the time of the Destruction of the City Epocha would have this Interval of the 70 Weeks finish at the time of the last Destruction of Jerusalem for which they alledge the Words of the (a) Daniel 9. ver 26. Angel And after threescore and two Weeks shall the Messiah be cut off So that according to their Opinion these threescore and two Weeks are to be added to the seven Weeks mentioned before by the Angel which together make up 59 Weeks till the final Period of this Epocha But as we shall have Occasion to say something more about the Division of this Epocha in 7 and 62 so we grant without the least Contradiction that the Birth and Passion of the Messiah hapned in this Interval of the 70 Weeks but cannot see that the least Consequence can be drawn from the Words of the Angel to make the final Period of this Epocha coincident with the time of the Passion of Christ For the very INSCRIPTION of this Interval expresses clearly the Meaning of the (b) Dan 9 v. 24. Angel which is THE REBUILDING AND DESTRUCTION OF THE HOLY CITY Seventy Weeks are determined upon thy People and upon thy Holy City And it would be very hard to suppose that the Angel should recede in his subsequent Narration from what he had intimated before in his Introduction Certainly the Relation of an Historian would be look'd upon as very incompleat who having promised in his Preface to give an Account of Matters till the last Destruction of Jerusalem should break off the Thread of his History 40 years before the said Destruction hapned Besides if we look upon the 26th and 27th Verses of the 9th Chapter of Daniel it will be obvious that the End of these 70 Weeks is described in such a Manner as has a most particular Relation to the Destruction of the City by the Romans the Forerunner of which was the Abomination of Desolation cited by (c) Mat. 25. v. 15. Mark 13. v. 14. Christ out of Daniel and who could be a more excellent Interpreter of the Angelical Prediction than Christ himself § 17. Having said enough concerning our Hypothesis Concerning the Divisiâ—n of the 70 Weeks into â—â— and 62. of the Beginning and End of this Interval we must add something also concerning the Division of it These are the Words of (d) L. 6. de emend Temp. Scaliger In this Division some look for a Mystery others divide them into several Intervals so as to begin the first Interval of 7 Weeks with the time of the first Edict of Darius the second from thence of 62 Weeks unto which they add one at last I am against both For I see no more Mystery in the Division of this Interval of 70 Weeks than in the Division of the Shekel in Ezekiel c. Which Opinion is likewise embraced by (e) Orat. de 70 Hebd Calixtus Tho' we have for the most part agreed with Scaliger as to the Beginning and End of this Epocha yet we cannot but blame his Presumption in making so little Account of the Division of this Interval made by the Angel himself and I am perswaded that there are few who will imagine that this exact Division of the 70 Weeks in so solemn a Prophecy as this could be accidental and of no Moment See (f) Lib. 3. can 5â— Clas Philol. Sacr. And concerning the Passage in Ezekiel with an Answer to the Argument of Scaliger consult (g) Disp 10. Thes 16. Francius in Schol. Sacrif § 18. Scaliger as he makes the Beginning of Whether the 20 and 12 Weeks have a different Beginning the 70 Weeks coincident with the 2d Year of Darius Nothus and its End with the last Destruction of the City of Jerusalem So he finishes the 62 Weeks with the Passion of Christ and fixes their Beginning in the 5th Year of Artax Memor with whom agree in this Opinion Tremellius Junius and several other Modern Authors as there are not wanting on the other hand some who alledge that if the 70 and 62 Weeks had a different Beginning the Word Commandment or Edict mentioned by the Angel should have been express'd in the plural Number Those who cannot agree with the Opinion of Scaliger I would advise to fix the Beginning of these 62 Weeks in the 2d Year of Darius Nothus and to include in that Interval the 7 Weeks allotted for the Rebuilding of the Streets and Walls of the City But lest we should exceed the Bounds of an Epitome we will conclude this Chapter leaving the Determination of the Matter to every one 's own Judgment CHAP. XXX Of the Epocha of the Graecian Empire in Asia and the Beginning of the Epocha after the last Battle fought betwixt Alexander the Great and Darius Codomannus and of the Period of Calippus 1. The Origin of the Graecian Empire in Asia must be traced to that time when Alexander the Great was declared Imperator over all Greece who succeeded his Father in the Kingdom in the same Year that Eveneto was Archon at Athens and L. Furius and C. Menius were Consuls at Rome 2. Darius Codomannus began his Reign over Persia much about the same time that Alexander succeeded his Father Philip in the Kingdom of Macedonia 3. Just before the Graecian Expedition against Asia the Thebans were vanquished at which time Alexander pursuant to the Resolution taken in the Council did totally destroy the City of Thebes and thereby put all the other Graecian Commonwealths that were much inclined to revolt under a great Consternation 4. In the same Year that Ctesicles was Archon at Athens and Caius Sulpicius and Lucius Papyrius Roman Consuls Alexander marched at the Head of his Army to the Hellespont from whence having transported his Forces out of Europe into Asia he fought the Battle of Granicum 5. In the second Year of the Asiatick War when the Battle near Issus was fought Nicocratus was Archon at Athens and Caesus Duilius and L. Papyrius Consuls of Rome 6. In the third Year of this Asiatick War of the Greeks Nicocratus was Archon among the Athenians and M. Attilius and M. Valesius Consuls of Rome 7. In the same third Year and in the second before the Battle of Gaugamela was the 114th Olympiad celebrated where Grylus of Chalcedon carried the Day and in the same Year Tyrus was likewise taken by Alexander 8. In the 4th Year of this Asiatick War when Darius was vanquished at Gaugamela Aristophanes was Archon of Athens and Sp. Posthumius and T. Veturius Roman Consuls 9. In the same Year that the Battle of Gaugamela was fought Alexander after his Return from the Temple of Jupiter Hammonius founded the City of Alexandria For these Characters we are obliged to (a) Lib. 17. Diodorus Siculus which are for the most part approved by other Historians 10. Alexander after the Victory obtained over Darius near Gaugamela made himself
4. Agesias was Archon at Athens in the same year that Alexander died See Diodor. Sicul. Arrian 5. In the same year were Consuls of Rome C. Poetelius and L. Papyrius See Diodorus Siculus 6. In the same year was the 114th Olympiad celebrated where Micinas of Rhodes carried the Day (e) L. 1. contr Appion Josephus Diodor. Sic. (f) L. 7. Arrian (g) L. 8. demonstr Evang Eusebius 7. Alexander died 236 years after Cyrus who began to reign over Persia at the Beginning of the 55th Olympiad Euseb L. cit 8. From the Beginning of the Nabonassarean Epocha till the Death of Alexander are computed 424 years according to (h) L. 3. Ptolemy 9. The year of the Christian Aera 238 was the 562 d after the Death of Alexander according to (i) de D. N. c. 21. Censorinus 10. 1214 years after the Death of Alexander there was a Solar Eclipse observed at Aracta both the great Luminaries being in the Sign of the Lion and that the same Eclipse hapned in the year of Christ 891 on the 8th day of August about Noon is manifest from the Ecliptical Calculations Albategn 11. The Death of Alexander is thus related by (k) Vit. Alex. Plutarch On the 18th day of the Month Daesius being seized with a Fever he remain'd all that Night in the Bath The next day after Bathing he hept his Bed-Chamber where he played at Tables with Medius Having bathed again at Night and assisted at the Sacrifice he eat with much Eagerness The same Night his Fever return'd again The 20th day of the Month after having bathed again he assisted at the Solemn Sacrifice and being laid down in the Bath he pass'd his time with a certain Commander of a Ship who gave him a Relation of his Voyage and of what he had observed otherwise most remarkable in the Ocean The 21st being pass'd in the same manner his Fever encreased towards Night And the next day the Fever growing more violent he was carried from thence to another Place near the great Bath where he entertain'd himself with the Generals of his Army giving his Orders to them On the 24th day his Fever still encreasing he would assist at the Sacrifice whither he was forced to be carried and ordered the Generals and other Chief Men to tarry within the Court and that the Colonels and Captains should keep Guard without the Gates On the 25th he was carried into one of the inner Apartments of the Castle where he slept a little But his Fever did not diminish When the Generals came to attend him he had already lost the Use of his Tongue which continued thus on the 26th The Macedonians believing him to be dead came in a tumultuous manner to the Gates and having forced those that attended to admit them within the King's Apartment they all passed one by one without their Arms by his Bed On the same day Python and Seleucus were dispatch'd to the Temple of Serapis to consult the Oracle whether Alexander should be conveyed thither But they received for Answer that they should not remove Alexander from the Place he then was in On the 28th towards Night he died Thus it is recorded in the Diary 12 It is very probable that the Month Daesius of the Macedonians was in the same Year coincident with the Month Thargelion of the Athenians of which these are the Words of Aelianus (l) L. 2. c. 35. Var. Hist It is reported also that Alexander was born and died on the self-same Day being the 6th of the Month Thargelion 13. After the Death of Alexander and many and long Debates among the Generals Aridaeus the Son of Philip who also had taken the Name of Philip was by the Majority of Suffrages constituted King and Perdiccas unto whom Alexander when at the Point of Death had given his Ring was chosen Regent pursuant to which all the Governours of the Provinces and other principal Officers were ordered to obey their Commands This was done in the same year when Cephisodorus was Archon of Athens Diod. Sic. L. 68. From these Characters it is evident that Alexander died in the Spring of the 4391st year of the Julian Period Cycl ☉ 23. ☽ 2. and that from the same year about the Summer Season when another Archon succeeded at Athens the Philippean Period had its Beginning If therefore from any certain year of the Julian To investigate the year sinâ—e the beginning of these Epoc. Period given 4390 years and 3 Months be subtracted the Residue shews the year since the Death of Alexander the Great To find out the Year since the Beginning of the Philippean Period several Months more must be subtracted And if the same Number of Years and Months be added to the year since the Beginning of these Epocha's the Product will be correspondent to the year of the Julian Period § 1. THere is some Dispute about the true About what time Alexander died time of the Death of Alexander the Great For A. Gellius allots no more than 11 years for the Reign of Alexander whereas (m) L. 15. Strabo accounts as many after his last Victory obtained against Darius But neither of these two are of sufficient Authority to counterbalance what has been said before concerning the true time of his Death § 2. It is also call'd in question whether his How Alexander died Death was occasioned by Poison or Debauchery Of the first Opinion is (n) L. 16. c. 16. Justin He was says he vanquished at last not by the Bravery of his Enemies but by the Perfidiousness of his own Friends and Subjects And Curtius (o) L. 10. says expressly It was believed that his Death was occasioned by Poison c. But (p) Vit. Alex. Plutarch says that this Account of his being made away by Poison was look'd upon as a Fiction because his Body shew'd not the least Marks of it after his Death tho' it laid several Days exposed to the Heat of the Sun whilst the Contentions lasted among the Generals § 3. After the Death of Alexander the whole The Change of Affairs after the Death of Alexander Body of this vast Empire was torn in many Pieces among which four Kingdoms are the most remarkable pursuant to the Vision of Daniel For Ptolemy seized Egypt Seleucus Babylon Antigonus the Lesser Asia and Antipater Macedonia and Greece § 4. The Histories of these Times make Mention of two Philips the first Philip the Son Who was that Philip that gave the Name to the Philippean Period of Amyntas II. Father to Alexander the Great the second Aridaeus the natural Brother of Alexander Scaliger Christmannus Serarius and others attribute the Origin of this Epocha to the first But the same having been unknown till after the Death of Alexander the Great it appears more probable to me that it owed its first Off-spring to Philip the Brother of Alexander who was born of Philinna a Thessalian Lady and Mistress
five after he had caused his Son Antipater to be slain He reigned in all forty years Chron. Temp. Sec. 8. The 18th year of the Reign of Herod was the 15th year after his taking the City of Jerusalem and in the same year he began to rebuild the Temple which he had caused to be pulled down before See (g) L. 17. c. 10. Ant. Josephus 9. The Days that Herod reigned over all the Jews are 37 years and Herod died a Man who had been very prosperous in his Vndertakings These are the Words of the Hebrew Text of (h) L. 5. c. 41. Josephus translated by Sebastianus Munsterus from the Constantinopolitan Copy and published by Hen. Petrus in the year 1540 at Basil For the true time of the Beginning of the Reign of Herod over all the Jews must be computed from his taking the City of Jerusalem 10. When Herod 's Recovery was despaired of Judas Sariphaeus and Matthias Margalothus made their Attempt upon the Golden Eagle for which they and their Adherents were burnt alive And in the same Night hapned a Lunar Eclipse and the King grew worse See (i) L. 17. c. 8. Josephus Another such Eclipse hapned a year before the vulgar Epocha of Christ 11. The Tyrant died not many Months before the Feast of the Passover For Archelaus who by the last Will of Herod was appointed his Successour in the Kingdom did engage at the time of the Feast of the Passover with those that were risen in Rebellion to revenge the Death of Matthias and his Friends of whom after he had slain several thousands he ordered that all such as by reason of the Feast were come to Jerusalem should return to their Homes See (k) L 17. c. 11. Josephus 12. Our Saviour's Birth and the Murder of the Children of Bethlem under two years of Age of which mention is made in (l) c. 2. v. 16. Matthew hapned before the Death of Herod 13. Archelaus before he had reigned quite 9 years was despoiled of the Kingdom and banish'd into France (m) Jos l. 2. c. 6. de Bell. Jud. after which Judaea from being a Kingdom being annexed to the Province of Syria Quirinus or Cyrenus was sent thither as Governour to take their Inhabitants and to dispose of the private Estate of Archelaus Quirinus brought along with him Coponius a Commander of a Body of Horse unto whom he left the Administration of Affairs in Judaea (n) Jos l. 17. c. 1. It was in the 37th year after the Battle of Actium and the taking of Alexandria (o) Jos l. 18. c. 3. that this Taxation was made which is coincident with the 7th or 8th year of the vulgar Aera of Christ According to these Characters we conclude that the time of Herod is to be regulated in the following manner He was made Prince of Galilea about the year of the Julian Period 4667. 2. He was declared King at Rome in the Year of the Jul. Period 4674. 3. He conquered Jerusalem in the year of the Jul. Period 4684. 4. Augustus confirmed his Reign in the year of the Jul. Period 4684. 5. He rebuilt the Temple of Jerusalem about the year of the Jul. Period 4691. 6. He died in the year of the Jul. Period 4713. before the Feast of the Passover 7. His Successour was banished about the year of the Jul. Period 4721. If therefore any certain year of the Julian Period be given subtract from that year for the Beginning of the Princely Dignity of Herod 4666 years for the Beginning of his Reign 4673. years for his Conquest of Jerusalem 4676 years for his being confirmed in the Kingdom by Augustus 4683 years for the Rebuilding of the Temple 4690 years for his Death 4712 years for the Banishment of Archelaus 4720 years And if the same Numbers which have been subtracted be added to the several years known by the Residues the Products will be correspondent to the years of the Jul. Period § 1. NIch. Damascenus who was a familiar Friend Of the Family of Herod of Herod himself traces his Origin from the Babylonian Jews which tho' it has been contradicted by Josephus yet has been embrac'd by the Author of the Hebrew History cited by (p) Ad Sulp. Sever. p. 250. Drusius and among the Christians by Torniellus Africanus Eusebius Baronius Serrarius and others deduce his Origin from the Philistians of Ascalon but Josephus makes Herod an Idumean which is a Demi-Jew the Idumeans who were conquered by Joh. Hircanus having embraced the Jewish Religion which being the most probable Opinion is likewise confirmed by the Testimony of the Author of the Chronicle of the 2d Temple § 2. Is Causab Sealiger Kepleras Torniellus Herod was made Governour of Galilea in the 15th year of his Age. Spanhemius Langius and almost all the modern Chronologers accuse Josephus of a notable Error in appointing the 15th year of Herod's Age when he was made Prince of Galilea by his Father Antipater in lieu of which they would have it 25 or 26 years But the Circumstances of the whole History sufficiently evince that Josephus did commit no Mistake in putting 15 instead of 25. The only Objection is that according to Josephus himself Herod was but 15 years old at the time of the Alexandrian War and the Beginning of the Julian Epocha and in the 45th year of the Julian Epocha when he died he is said to have been 70 years old To which it is to be answered That the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 made use of by Josephus may be taken here for one of above 60 years old or else that the Text is adulterated in this Passage rather than contradict so many unquestionable Circumstances relating to this History § 3. The true time of the Death of Herod is When Herod died involved in no small Difficulties Joh. Kepl. Dion Petav. and Fred. Spanhem refer his Death to the 42d Julian Year to wit three years sooner than has been asserted by us But Herod having received the Royal Diadem in the 6th Julian Year after the Feast of the Passover from thence to the 42d Julian Year cannot be computed more than 35 years whereas Josephus expresly mentions 37 years Furthermore if Herod be supposed to have died in the 42d Julian Year it must follow that our Saviour was born in the 41st Julian Year from whence to the 74th Julian Year which is coincident with the 15th year of the Reign of Tiberius are about 33 years which according this Hypothesis must have been the Age of our Saviour which is contradicted by (q) C. 3. v. 1. 23 St. Luke and to affirm that Herod died before the Birth of Christ is contrary to the Evangelical History § 4. Those before-mention'd Authors who What Reasons are alledged against our Opinion anticipate the Death of Herod three years before us alledge in their behalf the Text of Josephus which mentions not only 37 years for the Reign of Herod
the Siege and the whole War taking of the City of Jerusalem there perished of the Jews 1100000 which is confirmed by (u) In Chron. Eusebius (x) L. 7. c. 6. Orosius and Sulpitius Severus But J. Lipsius has computed the whole Number of the Jews slain and taken Prisoners in their Civil and Foreign Wars within the space of the last 7 Years in the following manner At Jerusalem by the Command of Florus 630 At Caesarea by the Inhabitants 20000 At Scythopolis 13000 In Askalon 2500 At Ptolemais 2000 At Alexandria 50000 At Damascus 10000 At the taking of Joppa 8400 In the Mount Cubulon 2000 In the Battle near Ascalon 10000 By Surprise 8000 At Aphac 15000 In the Mount 〈◊〉 11600 At Iotap 30000 At the taking of Joppa a second time 4200 Near Taricha 6500 At Gamala 9000 In their Flight from Giscala slain 2000 Taken 3000 Of those of Gadar slain 13000 taken 2200 Slain in Idumaea 10000 At Gera 1000 At Macheron 1700 In the Forest of Jardes 3000 In the Castle of Massada 960 At Cyrene 3000 During the Siege of Jerusalem 1000000 made Prisoners 97000 The whole Number 1339690 § 9. According to the Latin Version of the Whether the Kingdom of the Jews â—â—ased with the Destruction of Jerusalem Chronicon of Eusebius translated by St. Hierome and the Chronicle of the before-mentioned Rabbi David Ganz the Royal Dignity was quite abolished among the Jews at the time of the last Destruction of the Temple which is contradicted by Scaliger who demonstrates by a certain Coin with this Inscription Post captam Judaeam adhuc erat 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Agrippa did not die in the 3d Year of the 212th Olympiad We agree thus far with Scaliger That Agrippa did retain the Royal Title after the Destruction of Jerusalem of which Photius in (y) Cod. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has these following Words The Chronicle of Justus Tiberiensis was read which had for its Title THE HISTORY OF JUSTUS TIBERIENSIS OF ALL SUCH AS WERE CROWNED KINGS OF THE JEWS This Author was a Native of Tiberias a City in Galilee which has given him his Sirname He begins his History with Moses which he continues till the Death of Agrippa the 7th King of the Family of Herod and the last of the Jewish Kings He received the Crown under the Reign of Claudius his Power encreased by Nero and became more potent under Vespasian He died in the third Year of the Reign of Trajan with which Year he concludes his History But it is very evident out of several Passages in Josephus that Agrippa was neither King of the Jews nor Jerusalem For he allows him not the least Authority over Judaea unless what concerned the (z) L. 20. c. 8. Ant. Temple but says (a) L. 20. c. 3 5. that by the Favour of Claudius he was put in the Possession of the Kingdom of Chalcis and by Nero regaled with the Cities of Tiberias Tarichaea and Julia with 14 other Towns of less Note And that the whole Judaea the greatest part of Galilee and Samaria was under the Jurisdiction of the Roman Praefects is according to the Testimony of Josephus past all Dispute CHAP. XLIII Of the Epocha of Dioclesian which is commonly called by the Aegyptians the AERA OF MARTYRS by Eusebius the AERA 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or of Persecution by the Aethiopians the AERA OF GRACE and by the Mahometans the AERA ELKUPTI 1. The Aera of Dioclesian begins in the same Year that Dioclesian after the Death of Carus and Numerianus was declared Emperour 2. The Emperour Dioclesian entred Nicomedia in Triumph on the 15th day of September and the first of January following appeared in publick as Consul 3. About that time Carinus the 2 d time and Numerianus were Roman Consuls who were succeeded by Dioclesian already declared Augustus and Aristobulus This is not only thus related in the Chronicon Alexandrinum but also by (a) Lib. 23. Ammianus Marcellinus who says expresly that when Dioclesian was Consul with Aristobulus he was dignified with the Title of Augustus And thus we find it recorded in the Publick Records called Fasti Capitolini IMP. CAES. C. AVRELIO DIOCLESIANO AVG. II ..... ARISTOBVLVS 4. The 3 d Indiction then began with the Month of September according to the Chronicon Alexandrinum 5. The first year of the Reign of Dioclesian is coincident with the 2301st year of the Epocha of Abraham unto which if 2696 years be added the Product shews the year of the Julian Period as has been demonstrated before according to Euseb in Chron. 6. In the 89th year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian says (b) L. 10. Ep. 83. ad Epiph. St. Ambrose the Full Moon falling then out upon the 21st day of March we did celebrate Easter upon the last day of March Those of Alexandria and other Places in Aegypt the Full Moon happening with them on the 28th day of the Month Phamenoth did celebrate their Easter on the 5th day of the Month Pharmuth which was like among us the last day of March Again in the 93d year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian it being then Full Moon on the 14th day of the Month Pharmuth and Sunday they celebrated Easter on the next following 21st day of the same Month which according to our Calendar is the 14th day of April 7. The 92 d year since the Beginning of the Reign of Dioclesian is coincident with the 12th year of the Reign of Valentinian and Valens and the 8th of Gratian. 8. It was in the 248th year since the Beginning of the Reign of this Tyrant when Dionysius sirnamed Exiguus first began his Paschal Cycle according to Dionysius Exiguus himself in his first Epistle mentioned by (c) Append. de Doct. Temp. Dionysius Petavius Consult also (d) C. 45. de Rat. Temp. Beda 9. The Aegyptians began the Years of the Aera of DioclesianI with the Month Thot being our 29th day of August 10. In the same Year that Dioclesian a second time and Aristobulus were Consuls at Rome Carinus Margo was slain and Dioclesianus was exalted to the Empire Thus says (e) In East Idacius 11. In the 19th year of the Reign of Dioclesian in the Month Dystius which is among the Romans the Month of March Easter being near at Hand the Emperour caused a Proclamation to be published that all the Churches should be pulled down and laid level with the Ground that all their Papers should be burnt and the Christians be deprived of all their Places and Dignities and that such among them as persevered in their Faith should be accounted infamous and be made Slaves Of which see Eusebius (f) L. 8. c. 3. Hist Eccl. Metrophanes and Alexander in (g) Cod. 256. Photius as likewise Ignatius the Patriarch of Antioch of which mention is made by Scaliger (h) L. 5. p. 49â— de Em. Temp. 12. In the same year being