CHAPTER IV. FROM THE DIVISION OF THE KINGDOMS OF JUDAH AND ISRAEL TO THE SEVENTY YEARS' CAPTIVITY. $214. In the first portion of the preceding chapter we verified that element of the scheme of the Mosaic Aio which is the terminus ad quem of the second cycle of 490 years. By a very strict and rigorous discussion and combination of Scriptural and profane notes of Chronology, we proved and established beyond all question, that the Seventy Years' Captivity began as in the Introduction to this Work we assumed, upon the authority of Mr. Clinton and other Chronologists—in the year 606 B.C. We have now to ascertain the exact sum of the years contained in the interval between the accession of Rehoboam and the year 606. For about 250 years of this term we find a double series of time-marks in the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel. These two series being parallel must mutually adjust each other. For our primary purpose, however, it is not necessary to examine the whole series of synchronisms, but only such of them as are strictly constructive for the whole term. This done, and having thereby obtained the year B.C. which answers to the 1st of Rehoboam, we will consider the details belonging to this part of the history. § 215. In order to construct the Chronological Canon of the kings of Judah and Israel, we have first of all to ascertain a principle of adjustment, if such exist. Is the sum of the several terms of reign the sum of the whole period, as in the astronomical Canon of Ptolemy? Is each term, as there, a term of years complete? A very little consideration will shew that this is not the case. Thus, 1. Rehoboam reigned 17 years: 1 Kings xiv. 21. Jeroboam began to reign in the same year, and "the days which he reigned were twenty-two years:" ibid 20. 2. Abijam succeeded Rehoboam in the 18th of Jeroboam and reigned 3 years: xv. 1. 5. To him succeeded Asa in the 20th of Jeroboam. ibid 9. After Nadab, Baasha in the 3rd of Asa: ibid 28. = Now if 1 Rehoboam 1 Jeroboam, and the years are in instance complete, we have every Thus on the plan of making all the years complete, the results in the four first synchronisms contradict the history three times. If we suppose all the years to be current, but each reign to bear date from a fixed epoch in the year (suppose 1 Nisan): On this plan, the results contradict every synchronism of the history. It is evident, then, that some of the reigns are enumerated in years current, others in years complete. § 216. That the years of each king bear date from a fixed epoch is highly probable in the nature of the case, and the supposition is warranted by the fact that this mode of enumeration always, so far as we know, obtained among the Jews, as it did among the Egyptians'. And if by enumerating the years, 1 According to the Rabbis 1 Nisan is the epocha regum et festorum. Inde etiam anni regum Hebræorum supputantur ita ut siquis rex in Adar regnaret, a Nisan alter annus imperii ejus inciperet," Reland. Ant. Heb. iv. 1. Buxtorf. Synag. Jud. xvii. throughout, on this principle, we find the multifarious details of the history in any degree harmonized, in the same degree may we be confident that we have got the true principle. For the kings of Judah, there can be no other epoch than the 1st Nisan. It by no means follows-but rather the contrarythat the reigns of Israel go by the same rule. It was the policy of Jeroboam to remodel the ecclesiastical polity for the ten tribes, and it is certain he innovated upon the regulations of the ecclesiastical year. For "he ordained a feast in the eighth month, on the fifteenth day, like unto the feast that is in Judah...even in the month which he had devised of his own heart; and ordained a feast unto the children of Israel." 1 Kings xii. 32, 33. Now 1. let us suppose the reign of Jeroboam began, and that he dated his years from an epoch m months later than the 1st Nisan. Then But the 1st of Abijam began in the 18th of Jeroboam : therefore, either the 1st of Abijam did not begin on the 1st Nisan (which is contrary to the hypothesis), or the 1st of Jeroboam did. 2. Let us suppose then, that the years of Jeroboam and his successors, like those of the kings of Judah, bear date from 1 Nisan. Then That is, since Nadab succeeded in the 2nd of Asa, which, on this principle, is identical with the 21st of Jeroboam, it follows that Jeroboam's reign had not numbered even 21 years complete. This plainly contradicts Scripture; "the days which he reigned were twenty-two years:" not complete perhaps, but certainly more than 21 years; whereas this mode of enumeration gives but 20 years and a fragment. 217. There is therefore no other way of reconciling the different notes of time, but to suppose that the epoch of Jeroboam's reign is earlier than that of Rehoboam: a supposition which will be found nowise incredible, when it is considered that the kingdom was solemnly conferred upon Jeroboam in the name of the Lord by the prophet Ahijah in the lifetime of Solomon, and apparently just at the end of his reign. 1 Kings xi. 29-40. Jeroboam had doubtless some reason for selecting a day in the eighth month for the great annual festival of his church: possibly this may have been the day on which Ahijah announced to him that the kingdom of the ten tribes should be his: at all events, Jeroboam was very likely to date his reign from that day, thereby antedating the epoch of Rehoboam by some months. But however it is to be explained, the fact is, that the years of Jeroboam bear an earlier date than Rehoboam's. The epoch may have been the 1st of the 7th, or the 15th of the 8th month, or some other date which we cannot define, but certainly it must precede the 1st Nisan by some months, for there is no other supposition on which we can harmonize the chronological items of the subsequent period of the history. Thus, therefore, The last year of Solomon contains m months of 1 Jeroboam. The 1st of Nadab commenced in the second of Asa: therefore the reign of Jeroboam numbered 21 years complete, and his 22nd year was current at his death. But, by the hypothesis, the 1st of each new king begins not at the death, but at the fixed epocha regum (whatever in this case it might be) preceding the death, of his predecessor. Thus, if a king of Judah died (e. g.) in the 5th or 7th month of his 3rd year, he may be said to have reigned 3 years, but the reign of his successor bears date, not from the demise of the crown, but from the preceding 1st of Nisan, i. e. 1 Nisan of that 3rd year, as above in the case of Abijam and Asa. $218. It is not necessary in this determinative argument to take all the data in succession: we will select only such as are strictly constructive for the whole period. Το each year thus determined we append its ordinal in the Era of Rehoboam, beginning at 1 Nisan. 1 Rehoboam...... 1-2 Jeroboam... Reh. r. 17, 1 Kings xiv. 21. .17-18.. 18-19. .19-20.. 20-21... 1 21 J-1 Nadab. § 219. 1 N-1 Baasha ..1 Ahab... Jer. r. 22 (curr.) ib. 20. Ab. began 18 Jer. r. 3. (curr.) xv. 1. Asa b. 20 Jer. xv. 9. Nad. b. 2 Asa, r. 2o (curr.) xv. 26. ...Baa. b. 3 Asa, r. 24', xv. 33. Ah. b. 38 Asa, xvi. 29. Jeh. b. 4 Ahab, xxii 41. After the reigns of Jehoshaphat and Ahab, the dates for a time become confused: some of the numbers of the Hebrew text are palpably corrupt, as the following analysis will shew. 1. Jehoshaphat reigned 25 years, 1 Kings xxii. 42. 2. Ahab 22 1 Kings xvi. 29. 3. Ahaziah succeeded Ahab 17 Jehoshaphat: reigned 2 years, 1 Kings xxii. 51. This cannot be: for 17 Jehoshaphat begins in 20 Ahab, and Ahab reigned 22. 4. Joram s. Ahab succeeded Ahaziah in 2 Joram s. Jehosh. ; 2 Kings i. 17. This contradicts the statement of 2 Kings viii. 16, that Joram s. J. began in 5 Joram s. A. The passage 2 Kings i. 17 reads like an interpolation: at all events, the numbers are corrupt. 5. Joram s. Ahab began 18 Jehosh. ; 2 Kings iii. 1. Neither can this be true, for 18 Jehosh. = 21-22 Ahab, and therefore falls, in part, in the last year of Ahab's 22', or in the first of Ahaziah's 27. The data being thus confused through the corruption of the text, which was, doubtless, occasioned by the perplexing identity |