1233-747-486 years, and 975 years = 2 × 4871, now 487 Chaldean or Egyptian years are just one third of the cycle 1461 years. § 501. This date, then, of the Median Invasion, 2207 B.C., must not be regarded as purely historical: it is the result of an astronomical adjustment applied to an historical or traditional epoch of Babylonian history. But that it is not very wide of the truth, is indicated by the facts which I proceed to notice. Simplicius in his Commentary on Aristotle, de Calo ii. 123. A, reports from Porphyry that Callisthenes sent to his master Aristotle from Babylon a series of astronomical observations, reaching 1903 years back from Alexander. There is no reason to suspect any great error in the number, for Simplicius says in another place (p. 27. A.), "I have heard that the Egyptians can produce observations of 2000 years old, and the Babylonians still more ancient." Niebuhr, in his remarks on the Armenian Chronicle of Eusebius, suggests, that the 1903 years in question probably bear date from a political crisis similar to that from which the era of Nabonassar proceeds, and this crisis he takes to be no other than the Median Invasion spoken of by Berosus. In this view of the case, the date of that crisis will be 331+1903=2234 B. C., only 26 years before the above-mentioned epoch. There is also this further indication of Babylonian Chronology (interpreted by the celebrated astronomer Bailly, Hist. de l'Astron. anc. iv. § xix. ff.)—Pliny, Hist. Nat. vii. 57, speaking of the antiquity of letters, says: Epigenes apud Babylonios Dccxx annorum observationes siderum inscriptas docet, gravis auctor imprimis: qui minimum, Berosus et Critodemus ccccLxxx annorum. Ex quo apparet æternum literarum usum.-The inference, as the text stands, is ridiculous. It must be as Perizonius conjectured: the numeral M, or else the horizontal line which denotes thousands, has been dropt and must be replaced: Pliny must 2 It is very questionable, however, whether the æra of Nabonassar takes its epoch from any political crisis. I see no reason to believe that Babylon was independent of Assyria before the end of the reign of Esarhaddon, or its beginning, at the earliest, (704 or 712 B. C.) Ideler, Handb. des Chron. i. 220. assumes, with great probability, that the æra of Nabonassar bears date from the introduction of the Egyptian year into the astronomy of the Chaldeans. "Perhaps it was to Nabonassar that they owed the introduction of this Calendar, who thereby conferred upon them the like benefit as Julius Cæsar did upon the Romans. Nabonassar is commonly considered as the founder of a new dynasty, on the assumption that the ara which bears his name served as the epoch of some revolution or other. But what is there to justify the assumption? Diodorus ii. 24, relates, that the Babylonians, after long subjection to the Assyrian yoke, made common cause with the Medes and gained their liberty: but he says not a word of Nabonassar. Ptolemy, Censorinus, Eusebius, Theon, Syncellus, are the only writers who name this Babylonian king, and none of them alleges him as the author of a political revolution. If his merit was such as I have described, this might give occasion to the Chaldean astronomers to make his accession the epoch of an æra to which they referred their astronomical observations." have meant 720,000 years and 480,000. Now Berosus lived under Antiochus Soter, who died 263 B. c. The age of Epigenes is not on record, but Bailly supposes him to have lived under Ptolemy Philadelphus (283-246 B. C.). Reduced to years, at 365 days each, the 720,000 amount to 1972 years nearly. Which agrees remarkably well with the statement of Simplicius above referred to, of the 1903 years' observations down to the time of Alexander, or about 1950 years to the accession and 1990 to the death of Ptolemy Philadelphus. The period of 480,000 years ascribed by Pliny to Berosus is given as 470,000 by Cicero de Div. i. 19: the two accounts are reconciled by Diodorus ii. 31, who gives the number 473,000, ending (he says) at the expedition of Alexander into Asia'. Now 473,000 days exceed 1295 Julian years by only one day. I suppose then, that the computist having before him the equation 1295' = 472,999 days added 1 to each side, thereby expanding a period of 1296 years into one of 473,000 pretended years. Now if these 1296 years end, as Diodorus reports, at Alexander's expedition into Asia 334 B. C., they begin at 1630 B. C., which is unconnected with any known crisis of Babylonian history. But comparing this period with that of 1306 years which Ctesias places between Ninus the founder of Nineveh and Sardanapallus = Esarhaddon, I am led to suspect that the two periods are identical, and that Diodorus mistook his authorities. Now 1306 (Chaldean years) added to 713 B. c. give 2018 as the date of the founding of Nineveh, and 1296 added to 707 B. c. begin 2002 B. C. It is also worth while to notice the following arithmetical relation between the period 1296 and the numbers in the text of Berosus: viz. that is to say: the period from the epoch of the 1296 years to the (alleged) epoch of Semiramis is of the same extent as the period from the epoch of the Arabian kings to the termination of the 1296 years. As soon as one sees reason to surmise the existence of an artificial adjustment, facts of this nature acquire a meaning. This period, then, of 473,000 years representing, under disguise, a period contemplated by the computist, of 1296 years, is based, I think, upon an historical period of about that length, which the national records placed between the founding of Nineveh (Gen. x. 11.) and the great crisis of Assyrian history in the reign of Esarhaddon. And it was given in an artificial form as 1296 years, because this is a Chaldean astronomical period of 72 Sari, or 3× 432, or 6×216, or, finally, 6×6×6×6. For the number 6 is the basis of the Chaldean periods, the Sossus of 60 years, the Neros of 600, the greater Saros of 6× 600=3600 (Euseb. Chron. Armen. i. 11. Syncellus Chronogr. p. 17). 1 Syncellus alludes to this period, calling it 480,000 years. Chronogr. p. 17. The factors 6 and 60 are of course derived from the number 360, the ancient estimate of the number of days in the year. The number 216 is derived from 6x 360 = 2160 = 120 × 18. And the number 18 roughly represents the common Saros of 223 synodical lunations (Ptolemy, Almagest, iv. init.) = 6,585 days 8 hours = 18 Julian years 11 days 8 hours. § 502. We now come to Berosus's account of the earliest period of Babylonian history, as reported by Polyhistor in the newly-recovered excerpt. Post diluvium Chaldæorum regionem Evexius tenebat neris 4. Ac post eum filius ejus Comosbelus per neros 4 et sossos 5. A Xisuthro vero, et a diluvii tempore usque ad illud quo Medi Babylonem ceperunt reges omnino 86 Polyhistor recenset, atque unumquemque ex Berossi volumine nominatim memorat: tempus vero omnium eorum numero annorum trium myriadum et tribus millibus uno et nonaginta comprehendit (33,091). Deinde vero post eos, cum ita firmiter stabiliti erant, repente Medi copias adversus Babylonem comparabant ut caperent eam, atque ex se ipsis tyrannos ibi constituerent. Euseb. Chron. Armeno-lat. 39. These 33,091 years are manifestly derived from a computation by Neri and Sossi (i.e. 600 and 60 years), expanded, as it seems to me, from an earlier statement based upon the number 6×6×6=216. Suppose this to be the case; then observe the result: From the Deluge to the Median Invasion 33,091 Chaldean years. Thence to the era of Nabonassar a complete That is, the entire period from the Flood to the æra of Nabonassar wants but 8 years to make a period of 160 times 216 or 16 × 2160 years. I suspect, therefore, that Berosus wrote 33,099 (novem et nonaginta for uno et nonaginta). I surmise also, that the period of 16 × 2160 is itself generated from an earlier and more modest statement of 16×216-3456 years. For this reason:-Æmilius Sura, quoted by Velleius Paterculus, Hist. i. 6, gives the following outline of mundane history, which he doubtless had from some Chaldean source: Assyrii principes omnium gentium rerum potiti sunt, deinde Medi, postea Persa, deinde Macedones. Exinde duobus regibus Philippo et Antiocho, qui à Macedonibus oriundi erant, haud multo post Carthaginem subactam devictis, summa imperii ad populum Romanum pervenit. Inter hoc tempus et initium Nini regis Assyriorum, qui princeps rerum potitus, intersunt anni M.DCCCC.XCV. He reckons therefore (perhaps from the battle of Pydna 168 B.C.) up to Ninus, or the foundation of the Assyrian empire, 1995 years: agreeing very nearly with Ctesias, whose epoch of the Assyrian empire is 876+1306=2182 B. C., as here 1995 +168 = 2163 B. C. But the number 1995 furnished, as I suppose, by some Chal dean authority, seems to be artificial, for it is just the difference between 16 x 216-3456 and an annus magnus = 1461 1995 Hence I infer, that the Chaldean chronographers, setting out with the intention of making a period of 16× 216 from the Deluge to the æra of Nabonassar, and one of 1461 years from the Median capture of Babylon to the same æra, found the difference, i. e. the interval from the Flood to the Median Invasion, 1995 years. Whence, at a later time, they assigned this same term as the measure of the mundane period from the Median Invasion (confounded with the Epoch of Ninus) to the epoch of the fifth or Roman empire. § 503. From the Creation to the Flood, Berosus made a period of 120 sari or 432,000 years, during which ten kings reigned. The list of their names with the number of sari in each reign is given by Syncellus, p. 18. Here I reduce the great sarus or 3,600 years to the period of 18 years or common sarus, i. e. the 432,000 years to 2160 years. $504. Let us now sum up and compare the several statements relative to the epochs of Babylonian and Assyrian History.-The period of 1903 years, mentioned by Porphyry, leads, if reckoned from Alexander's conquest of Babylon 331 B. C., to 2234 B. C., as the epoch of Babylonian history. But reckoned from the death of Alexander and epoch of the Philippine period of the æra of Nabonassar, or 12 Nov. 324 (p. 486), it leads up to 2227 B. C., the exact year to which, on other grounds, we have assigned to the dispersion of nations at Babel, § 305, 366. Now this date is not the result of artifice. Berosus's date of the Median capture of Babylon is 2207 B. C. This is artificial, for it precedes the æra of Nabonassar by an exact annus magnus. The epoch of Ninus, and of the foundation of the Assyrian empire, is obtained by adjusting the 1306 years mentioned by Ctesias, to their proper bearings, i. e. by placing his Sardanapallus, not as he does at 876 B. C., but at 713. The date hence resulting is 2019 or 2018 B. C. But this, again, is artificial, being generated by adding an annus magnus to the epoch of Cyrus and the Persian empire, 559 B.C. But Berosus's period of 473,000 years, which seems to be a disguise of a period of 6 x 216 1296 years, measured from 707 B. c. (which is the close of the 526' from Semiramis mentioned by the same writer,) leads up to 2003 or 2002 B. c. And this perhaps explains the first item in the list of Berosus, 8 Median kings r. 224. For, from the historical epoch of the foundation of Babylon 2227-6 to the artificial date 2003-2 are just 224. § 505. In conclusion I may just notice the scheme of Georgius Syncellus derived from the ancient chronographers, by which I find some of the preceding conclusions remarkably confirmed. The scheme is as follows: 7 Chaldean kings, reigned 6 Arabians 41 Assyrians, of whom the last, Tonos-Concolerus, was over- 8 Medians, from Arbaces to Astyages, who was overthrown Sum 225' 215 1460 276 2176 Now it should be observed that there is a certain measure of contrivance in the scheme of this chronographer. Having accepted the belief of earlier writers, that the birth of our Saviour coincided with the completion of 5500 years from the Creation, he so arranged the details of the several monarchies, beginning with the Chaldean and Egyptian, which he made to begin in one and the same year, that they should ascend up to his A. M. 2776, which year he chose because it is distant just one lunar dominical cycle (28 × 19 = 532) from the Septuagint date A. M. of the Flood. With this view he must be supposed to have altered a year or two here and there from the numbers which he found in his authorities. The sum of the whole period above given, from the first year of Babylon to the first of Cyrus, is 2176 years, which is 16 years more than 10 x 216 years. And it is curious that 16 years is just the error which he has admitted in the interval between the æra of Nabonassar and the first of Cyrus. The true interval is 747 - 558 = 189 years: he makes it 205 years. We may hence be pretty confident that his authorities gave the period as 10 × 216 years. Here is one point of agreement, the period of 216 years used as a measure of an artificial system. Again: I have shown that the Chaldeans counted one complete annus magnus to the duration of the Assyrian empire from the Median Invasion to the epoch of the Babylonian æra of Nabonassar. In this scheme of Syncellus we have just this period of 1460 years assigned to the Assyrian empire. The only difference is, that agreeably with the Me-dian Chronology of Ctesias (which he preferred, yet with some modification, to that of Herodotus, because it better suited the chronology of the LXX) the rebellion of the Medes and (supposed) dissolution of the Assyrian empire is thrown back 120 years. And further, whereas the scheme followed by Berosus gave a dynasty of 224 years as the first item of the 1460 years, while another estimate made this same item = 216 years, Syncellus, or his authorities, prefixed both, as distinct periods, to the commencement of the annus |