Thus far the same statement is given in the Præp. Ev. ix. 41'. But in the Armenian Chronicle the extract is continued in these words: Darius rex de regione depulit aliquantulum. (The meaning is obscure, but Abydenus is a confused writer.) What king Darius can he mean but this Darius the Mede, whom the Medes and Persians, with Cyrus their commander in the siege, raised to the throne of Babylon? The fact thus vaguely noticed is of a piece with what Abydenus has related on another occasion, in the prophecy which he puts into the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar: οὗ δὴ συναίτιος ἔσται Μήδης, τὸ Ἀσσυ piwv auxnua "in which (overthrow of Babylon) the Mede, the boast" (vaunted friend and ally) "of the Assyrians" (as the Medes at time were the friends and allies of the Assyrians of Babylon)" shall have a hand.”

1 Abydenus in Euseb. Præp. Ev. ix. 41. p. 457. Β. Εὐιλμαλούρουχος ἐβασί λευε. τὸν δὲ ὁ κηδεστής ἀποκτείνας Νηριγλισάρης λεῖπε παῖδα Λαβασσοαράσκον. τούτου δὲ ἀποθανόντος βιαίῳ μόρῳ Ναβαννίδοχον ἀποδείκνυσι βασιλέα προσήκοντά οἱ οὐδέν. τῷ δὲ Κῦρος, ἑλων Βαβυλῶνα Καρμανίης ἡγεμονίην dwpéeral. Berosus ap. Joseph. c. Apion.i. Ναβόννηδος ἡττηθεὶς τῇ μάχῃ, καὶ φυγῶν ὀλιγοστός συνεκλείσθη εἰς τὴν Βορσιππηνῶν πόλιν. Κῦρος δὲ Βαβυλῶνα καταλαβόμενος καὶ συντάξας τὰ ἔξω τῆς πόλεως τείχη κατασκάψαι ανέζευξεν ἐπὶ Βόρσιππον ἐκπολιορκήσων | τὸν Ναβόννηδον. τοῦ δὲ Ναβοννήδου οὐκ ὑπομείναντος τὴν πολιορκίαν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐγε χειρήσαντος αὐτὸν, πρότερον χρησάμενος | Κῦρος φιλανθρώπως, καὶ δοὺς οἰκητήριον αὐτῷ Καρμανίαν, ἐξέπεμψεν ἐκ τῆς Βαβυλωνίας. Ναβόννηδος μὲν οὖν τὸ λοιπὸν τοῦ χρόνου διαγενομενος ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ χώρα κατέστρεψε τὸν βίον. (Both passages are quoted by Mr. Clinton, F. H. Vol. II. App. p. 304). This account is at variance not only with the Scriptures but with Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 5. 1— 32, who, like Daniel, makes the last king of Babylon to have perished in the siege. The account given by Berosus and Abydenus is a mere falsification of the facts, prompted by national vanity.

|

On this subject I cannot do better than transcribe Mr. Clinton's critical remark. "Abydenus and Berosus could only compile from books. The value of the materials which would be in their hands we shall not estimate very highly, when we consider the character of those materials. In the great monarchies of Asia, Oriental history has seldom been faithfully delivered by the Orientals themselves. In the ancient times, before the Greek kingdoms of Asia diffused knowledge and information, it is not likely that history would be undertaken by private individuals. The habits of the people, and the form of their governments, precluded all free inquiry and any impartial investigation of the truth. The written history of past transactions would be contained in the archives of the state; and these royal records drawn up under the direction of the reigning despot, would deliver just such a representation of facts as the government of the day thought fit to give; just so much of the truth as it suited their purpose to communicate." As a case in point, Mr. Clinton compares Ctesias's account of Assyrian history I which was derived from the royal archives, with the truth of facts as ascertained from Herodotus and the Scriptures. (Fast. Hell. ii. App. p. 307.)

§ 178. To the same purport is the tradition recorded by Eschylus within sixty years of the times of which we are writing, from which we may at least learn what was the current belief of well-informed Athenians in his age.

Μῆδος γὰρ ἦν ὁ πρῶτος ἡγεμὼν στρατοῦ·

ἄλλος δ ̓ ἐκεινοῦ παῖς τόδ ̓ ἔργον ἤνυσε,

φρένες γὰρ αὐτοῦ θυμὸν οἰακοστρόφουν

τρίτος δ ̓ ἀπ' αὐτοῦ Κῦρος, &c. Pers. 756 f.

That is, the first steps towards empire were taken by one, (Astyages) whose son completed the work, by the conquest of Babylon to him succeeded Cyrus, who enlarged the empire, as the poet relates in the following verses, by the conquest of Lydia, Phrygia, and Ionia.

:

§ 179. That Cyrus was the principal actor in the conquest of Babylon' there is no reason to doubt; and if Darius, or Cyaxares, already an old man, held the throne but a short time, it is easy to account for the comparative silence about him in the traditions followed by Herodotus. Daniel mentions only "the first year of Darius," ix. 1, at which time the seventy years of captivity were nearly at an end. Certainly he reigned more than one year, and perhaps less than two years altogether. There is therefore no reason to call in question the fact involved in the Scripture Chronology, that in the month Nisan of B. C. 536 the first year of Cyrus was just begun. For it is certain, from the express testimony of the Jews themselves, that the captivity lasted just seventy years, as had been foretold by Jeremiah. And it has been proved that the epoch of the seventy years, or the fourth year of Jehoiakim, is the year 606 B.C. Hence, as the seventy years end at the first year of Cyrus, that year must be the year 536 B.c3.

180. The succession of the last kings of Babylon in Josephus is as follows:

As the capture occurred at the time of some great festival or solemnity, Dan. v. 1, it is supposed to have been at the time of the Sacea, which was celebrated in the month Lous. If so, the date of the capture would be July or August, B.C. 538, for the technical date in the Canon is 29 Dec. B. C. 539; then the reign of Darius the Mede would be about a year and 8 months.

3 Ussher finds it in accordance with this result that Xenophon places the death of Cyrus soon after his seventh visit to Persia, Cyrop. viii. 7. 1. μáλa ôŋ πрeσβύτες ὧν ὁ Κῦρος ἀφικνεῖται εἰς Πέρσας τὸ ἕβδομον: which he takes to mean seven annual visits, implying a reign, at Babylon, of seven years. Now Cyrus certainly died 529 B.C., hence his first year

would be 536 B. C.

Nebuchadnezzar...43 years. Ant. x. 11. 1.

Evil-Merodach, his son, 18 years. ib. 2. But the number 18 is undoubtedly corrupt: Josephus c. Apion. i. quotes Berosus to this effect: "His son, Evil-Merodach, after a lawless and riotous reign of two years, was conspired against and slain by Neriglissar, his sister's husband." Besides, Syncellus, p. 226. A. attests that Josephus followed Abydenus and Polyhistor in assigning two years to this reign.

Neriglissar...40 years. Ant. x. 11. 2. Again, the text is corrupt; the true reading is "four years:" Berosus ap. Jos. c. Apion i. "After that Evil-Merodach was slain, Neriglissar reigned four years."

Labosordach, reigned only nine months. Ant. x. 11. 2. Berosus u. 8. "His son Laborosoarchod reigned nine months, being a child, but manifesting an evil disposition, he was conspired against and slain by his friends."

Baltasar or Naboandelus reigned seventeen years. Ant. x. 11. 4. Berosus u. s. 66 By common consent they gave the kingdom to one Nabonned a Babylonian. In the seventeenth year of his reign, Cyrus from Persia invaded Babylonia."

Darius, son of Astyages, conquered Babylon with his kinsman Cyrus, being 62 years old. Ant. x. 11. 4. The length of his reign is not expressed.

181. Compare these with the Canon:

The lists differ only in the omission of the short reign of Labosordach and the reign of Darius the Mede.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROPHECIES OF JEREMIAH.

182. THE prophecies and narratives of the book of Jeremiah, as they lie before us in the Hebrew text, seem, at first sight, so strangely confused in respect of the order of time, that we are inclined to imagine that the several parts were

thrown together by some later hand, almost without a plan. Yet upon a closer examination it will be found that, in the main, we have this book as it proceeded from Jeremiah himself; that it is practicable to analyse it into its component parts by means of the several headings, such as "The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord," and to refer these by express notes of time or internal evidence to their proper dates, and, in general, to account for the place which each portion holds in the existing collection. Ewald, in his recent German version of the Prophets, (die Propheten des alten Bundes) has very satisfactorily proved this, and after the best consideration I could give to the subject, I have on the whole adopted his arrangement. Unhappily, this profound Hebraist and admirable critic, like so many of his countrymen, treats the scriptures of the Old Testament as a peculiar "literature," entirely ignoring their claim to be the inspired documents of God's dealings with an elect nation. Of course, the notion of genuine inspired predictions recorded before the event. which fulfilled them, is wholly abandoned, as if it had been long ago exploded as an absurdity in the nature of things. Hence, whatever portions of Jeremiah and the other prophets, if written before the event, would be true predictions in this sense, this writer quietly assumes them to have been written after the event, simply on the ground of the coincidence of the terms of the description with the circumstances of the event. This is mere prejudice, not criticism: but where this unhappy bias does not interfere, his analysis and arrangement seem to me to be very successful.

It is to be born in mind that Jeremiah began to prophecy in the 13th of Josiah = 628 B. C. (xxv. 3); that in the 4th of Jehoiakim, the eventful year 606 B. c., he was enjoined to record in writing all the prophecies which he had till then delivered against Judah, Israel, and the heathen; that this roll was destroyed by Jehoiakim in the 9th month of the following year, Dec. 605, when a fresh roll was made to which were added "many like words." It is possible to shew pretty clearly what were the contents of this roll. To it were added, during the reign of Zedekiah and after the catastrophe, sundry other sections of historical or prophetical matter. The entire collection is composed of seven portions.

I. The Introduction, chap. i.

II. Prophecies, reproofs, &c., delivered before 606 B. C. chap. i-xx. These, together with the subsequent addition, chap. xxi-xxiv., form seven parts.

III. The Prophecies of Judgment against Judah and the Gentiles, in respect of Nebuchadnezzar, delivered in the fateful year 606, chap. xxv. and xlvi—xlix. The latter were sub

sequently detached from the connexion in which they stood in the original roll, and placed, together with the oracle against Babylon, chap. 1. li., at the end of the collection. To this portion chap. xxvi-xxix. were afterwards added as an historical appendix.

IV. The counterpart to the preceding, or Prophecies of Mercy, xxx-xxxiii., together with an appendix of historical incidents, xxxiv. xxxv.

V. The history of the writing of the Roll: chap. xxxvi. and xlv: this became disjoined from No. III. by the insertion of the counterpart, No. IV.; and when xlvi-xlix. were removed from No. IV. to the end, chap. xlv. from No. V. I went with them.

VI. The history of the siege, в. c. 590—588, and of the remnant in Judæa and Egypt, xxxvii-xliv.

VII. The prophecy against Babylon, sent to the exiles at Babylon in the 4th of Zedekiah, 1. li., but aptly placed here at the close of the prophetical and historical scenes of Jerusalem's judgment. "He that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity: he that slayeth with the sword, shall be slain with the sword. Here is the patience and faith of the saints."

The 52nd chapter is added at the close, from the book of Kings, with the addition of v. 28 ff. by some later hand.

PART I. Chap. i. The history of Jeremiah's call and commission to the prophetical office. This occurred in the 13th year of Josiah, B. c. 628, five years before the great reformation, and (what is interesting to observe) just forty years before the crisis of the judgment of which Jeremiah was the herald.

PART II. Prophecies delivered before 606, ii-xx. with a subsequent addition, xxi-xxiv. This part consists of seven sections: