existing list of Eusebius.

For if we reduce the Shepherd dynasty 284 years to 259 or 260, the sum of xii-xvii. will from 1750 become 1725 or 1726, just what it is in the Then 1726+3952121. Look now at the cor rected list of Josephus. Here we find from the beginning of the dynasty to Rameses Mei Amun a period of 259 3m almost fractionally identical with the term assigned to the Shepherds, 259' 2m. This may enable us to reconstruct the scheme in an earlier stage of its growth, viz.: This term of 259 or 260 years was designed to be the length of the 18th dynasty. It was enlarged into 263 years because the period of 8× 216=1728 was reduced to 1725: viz. 1728 +260 = 1988, and 1725 +263 = 1988.

§ 579. Turn now to the list of Eusebius. Here,

1. xii-xvii = 1725: and 1728+393 = 2121, the number expressed in the epigraphe.

2. The sum of the numbers set down in xviii. dynasty, is 338 or 348, for the text varies. Now 338 +55=393 years ending at Rampses = Rameses.

3. The sum of the numbers upward from Cambyses to xxth dynasty inclusive is 651: hence the reign of Thuoris (7 years), to which the taking of Troy is referred, ends 1176, and begins 1183, just a year after the received date of the fall of Troy. This proves that the sum of 651 years is that which Eusebius contemplated, and not corrupt.

4. The sum of the 19th dynasty is expressed as 194 years; yet the items amount to only 162: hence at least 32 years are omitted. Then, from Rampses (No. 2) to the end of the dynasty, are 194-55 139 years, and 1176 +139 = 1315 B. C., for the epoch of Rampses. This comes so near to 1322, that one is inevitably led to suppose a further error. Suppose e.g. that Eusebius placed the fall of Troy at the end of Thuoris, then the epoch of Rampses is precisely 1322 B. C., and the dynasty may be thus restored:

5. Eusebius refers the Exode to the reign of Chencherres, of course to the end of it. His date of that event is 1511 B.C.

Hence his date for the last year of Chencherres is 1377 +134 = 1511. ы.C., if his date for Rampses be 1322 B.c. This greatly establishes the foregoing determinations.

It appears then that Eusebius's scheme, whoever were its author, aims, like that of Africanus, at getting a period of 8× 216 plus 393 or 2121 years, ending at Rameses: but Eusebius makes the epoch of Rameses also the epoch of the Sothiac cycle 1322 B. C., while Africanus places him at 1404 B. C. or 5 x 216 years before the era of the Greeks.

§ 580. We may now reconstruct this part of the Chronology according to the mind of both authors.

$581. One or two remarks must be added to what has been said.

1. Africanus's epoch of Amosis is, of course, 1797 + 25 = 1822 B.C., just the epoch of Joseph = Salatis. In other words, the epoch of the 18th dynasty is carried back to the true epoch of the Shepherds. Africanus assigns to the Shepherds 284 years. This number is derived from the 259 years 2 months of the earlier account by adding thereto the 25 years of Amosis. The scheme, in this stage of its growth, consisted of these items:

The retrojection of the first period of 284 years to the 15th dynasty, belongs to a later stage. Then the whole period xii-xvii. was expanded into 1728, making xii-xviii = 1728 + 259 = 1987 years, which subsequently was distributed thus,

The grounds of these processes have been already described.

2. Between the scheme of Africanus and that of Eratosthenes, are these

And from Moscheres to Sesostris-Rameses are 395 years, as in Africanus from Amosis to Rameses 393.

3. It deserves also to be remarked, that in this scheme the true date of the Exode lies very nearly (1584) at the beginning of the reign of that Chencherres to which Eusebius (placing it 75 years later than the truth) assigns it.

4. The scheme of Eusebius gives xii-xvii = 1725, representing an earlier statement of 1728 = 8×216. He rightly places the Shepherds with a reign of 103 years (for which replace 106) immediately prior to the 18th dynasty. Hence his epoch of the Shepherds is 1715 +106 = 1821, which is, again, the true epoch of Salatis = Joseph. Then from this epoch to the first Ramesses are 1821-1483 = 338 years: and from Amosis to Sethos also 338 years. This is a further indication of what I before said, that Ramesses, No. 15, is the duplicate of Sethos.

5. Lastly, Horus in Eusebius begins to reign almost exactly at the true time of the Exode, 1578 B.c. or 1587, if his reign lasted 37 years (as Africanus). This is significant in connexion with the mythus of the God Horus.

IV.

OUTLINES of a CHRONOLOGICAL HARMONY of the GOSPEL HISTORY of our LORD'S MINISTRY; with an Attempt to explain the Structure of that part of the First Gospel which is included between the Baptism of Christ and the Martyrdom of John the Baptist.

§ 582. In our investigation of the time of our Saviour's Passion, it appeared that the astronomical element of the question pointed to the year 29, in which alone of the years within which that great event must necessarily be placed, the 14th Nisan could coincide with the sixth day of the week. This determination seemed the more likely to be the true one, because it appeared that the year thus marked is precisely that which is given in a great majority of ancient testimonies, especially in the almost unaminous tradition of the early Latin Church. Nay, the very day, Friday 18 March, stood recorded in a document of which at least the ground-work was derived from the most venerable antiquity, § 83. We have since found a further attestation in the fact that the Churches of the first two centuries made the 18th March their paschal terminus, § 429. It was shown further, that the Chronology of S. Paul's history implies this year as the year of the Crucifixion, § 100. And lastly, a great number of very remarkable arrangements belonging, as it would appear, to an Order of Divine Providence, point precisely to this year and day: § 342, 343, 344, 346, 348, 352, 359, 360, 361, 372-5, 382, 390, 391.

But it resulted from this conclusion, that our Saviour's Ministry, from the Baptism to the Crucifixion, occupied a period of only one year and a few weeks. For not only is the year of the first Passover of that Ministry defined by an historical note of time, § 72, but it would be almost impossible, on any other supposition to reconcile, with that conclusion the chronological statement with which S. Luke opens his history of the Lord's Ministry. On the supposition that our Lord was baptized early in the year 28, that statement is attended with no great difficulty, inasmuch as the consular year in which the 15th of Tiberius began is the year 28. Besides, in our subsequent investigation of the O.T. chronology, we have discovered at least one clear instance of an anticipation similar in kind to that which we suppose in the present case: § 234, note, and § 267.

Moreover, this result, also, was found to be in accordance with the most venerable tradition of early opinion, § 85 ff. It seemed, too, when taken in connexion with the concurrent testimony of antiquity in respect of the day of our Saviour's Baptism, to be stamped with a peculiar character in respect of Prophecy: § 348. But then directly at variance with this conclusion was a text of S. John, in which there is mention of a Passover intermediate between the Passover after the Baptism and the Passover of the Crucifixion. It appeared however that there are strong grounds for doubting the genuineness of that mention. It is

almost certain that the word "Passover" was not found in the copies of the fourth gospel which existed in the three first centuries, in some copies even later, § 89-92. To which I will now add a further piece of evidence, the value of which, however, must be left for the consideration of those who are more versed in the history of the Ecclesiastical Calendars. It is certain that the first miracle of feeding occurred soon after the return of the Twelve Apostles from their first mission, Luke ix. 7 ff. compared with Matt. xiv. 12 ff.: but that return nearly coincided in time with the marytrdom of John the Baptist, for it was upon receiving tidings of that event that our Lord retired into the wilderness on the very day of the miracle, Matt. xiv. 13. Now the Roman Calendars, from which our own was formed, place the 'F. of S. John Baptist beheaded' at 29 August. I am aware (indeed any one may learn from Wheatley) that according to Durandus the true original name and intent of the Festival was 'F. collectionis S. Johann. B.', the celebration of the miraculous discovery and collection of the remains of S. John: but how little credit is due to this monkish comment will be evident on inspection of the Paschal Chronicle p. 174 (217 ed. Par.), where the beheading of S. John is assigned to the 29th of Lous August, the very day to which the Latin Calendars assign the F. decollationis S. Johannis Baptistæ1.

=

It seems that this date must have been assigned on one or other of these two grounds. Either there existed an original tradition purporting that S. John's martyrdom occurred about this time of the year, in which case the time of the miracle of feeding could not have been near the Passover: or, those with whom the date originated, and from whom it was derived to the Calendars of both Greeks and Latins, were led to it by comparing the Gospels, and perceiving that the miracle occurred shortly before the Feast of Tabernacles. Certainly, one cannot see how they came to fix on this time of the year, if their copies of S. John, like ours, called that Festival the Passover.

It remains now that we should consider whether it be possible to comprise "all that Jesus did and taught," from His Baptism to His Crucifixion, within the period of time thus defined, that is, within the space of about 440 days. In discussions relating to the chronology and harmony of the Gospels, it is often asserted that our Lord's ministry must have occupied a much longer period than this; and this is assumed on à priori considerations which I cannot but deem very much misplaced, and somewhat rationalistic and irreverent. Thus we are told, that the vastly greater dignity of our Saviour's ministry necessarily implies a longer space of time in comparison with the Baptist's ministry; that such and

1 It appears that the modern Zabians or disciples of S. John (representatives of the ancient Hemerobaptists) celebrate the Festival of their Prophet in the month of August: so says Kämpfer in

Augusti Denkw. aus der Chr. Archäologie iii. 367. who does not mention the day. Ignatius a Jesu ibid. refers this celebration to the month of April, perhaps confounding it with some other.