Ft1 [“The week is a period of seven days, having no reference whatever to the celestial motions, — a circumstance to which it owes its unalterable uniformity.. . . It has been employed from time immemorial in almost all Eastern countries; and as it forms neither an aliquot part of the year nor of the lunar month, those who reject the Mosaic recital will be at a loss, as Delambre remarks, to assign to it an origin having much semblance of probability. — Encyclopedia Britannica, article Calendar — Ed.] In New Style, the last year of centuries which can be divided by without a remainder are reckoned as bissextile, the last year of other centuries, as common years.

Ft3 Except as this order is varied by the common year at the end of centuries. Unless it be the last year of a century, when to be a bissextile, see note on page 14. [“It is material to observe, that as the Olympic years and periods begin with the 1st of July, the first six months of a year of our era correspond to one Olympic year, and the last six months to another. Thus, when it is said that the first year of the incarnation corresponds to the first of the 195th Olympiad, we are to understand that it is only with respect to the last six months of that year that the correspondence takes place.

The first six months belonged to the fourth year of the 194th Olympiad.

In referring dates expressed by Olympiads to our era, or the contrary, we must therefore distinguish two cases. “1. When the event in question happened between the 1st of January and the 1st of the following July, the sum of the Olympic year and of the year before Christ is always equal to 776. For example, Varro refers the foundation of Rome to the 21st of April of the third year of the sixth Olympiad, and it is required to find the year before our era.

Since five Olympic periods have elapsed, the third year of the sixth Olympiad is 5x4+3=23; therefore, subtracting 23 from 776, we have 753, which is the year before Christ to which the foundation of Rome is referred by Varro. “2. When the event took place between the summer solstice and the 1st of January following, the sum of the Olympic year and of the year before Christ is equal to 777. The difference therefore between 777 and the year in one of the dates will give the year in the other date. Thus, the moon was eclipsed on the 27th of August, a little before midnight, in the year 413 before our era; and it is required to find the corresponding year in the Olympic era. Subtract 413 from 777, the remainder is 364; and 364 divided by 4 gives 91 without a remainder; consequently the eclipse happened in the fourth year of the 91st Olympiad, which is the date to which it is referred by Thucydides. “If the year is after Christ, and the event took place in one of the first six months of the Olympic year, that is to say, between July and January, we must subtract 776 from the number of the Olympic year to find the corresponding year of our era; but if it took place in one of the last six months of the Olympic year, or between January and July, we must deduct 777. The computations by Olympiads seldom occurs in historical records after the middle of the 5th century of our era.” — Encyclopedia Britannica, article Chronology.

Ft6 The Merodach Baladan of the Bible.

Ft7 “Thus Josephus, in one passage, states that Herod died on the fifth day after the execution of his son Antipater (Ant. 17, 8, 1)); in another, ‘five days after’ ( Beli. Jud. 1, 33, 8 ).” The author seems to admit that Melchisedek was Shem. But although there has been indeed “much dispute” upon this subject, all such disputing is in vain. The word of God says that he was Melchisedek, and that he was “king of Salem and priest of the Most High God;” and that is exactly who he was. It is better to believe it than to enter into “much dispute” to prove that he was somebody else. — Ed.] Dr. Hales places the marriage of Jacob with both his wives at the commencement of his service with Laban; but the text seems to place it at the end of the first seven. Genesis 29. He quotes from Abulfaragi, that Levi was born when Jacob was eighty-two years old. In his “Ordo Saeclorum.” Between these two, Dr. Hales supposes a period of forty-two years. “The Syriac, Arabic, and several MSS. of the Vulgate, supported by Josephus, Theodoret, and the context, read ‘four years,’ the present reading being inexplicable.” — Hales.s The fact that the difference is precisely one hundred years, is an argument in favor of there being a mistake in the text of Kings of just that duration, and of there being no space of time between the two periods referred to. The kings of Israel are distinguished from those of Judah by being in italics, while the latter are in Small Capitals. The names of prophets are thus distinguished \by a different font\. Rezin and Pekah had formed an alliance, with the set purpose of destroying Ahaz and putting up over Judah a creature of their own as king. The Bible says this was “the son of Tabeal” without giving his name, but Tiglath-pileser says his name was Ashariah. Isaiah 7:2,5,6, and Lenormant’s “Ancient History of the East,” book iv, chap. iii, sec. 1. — Ed.] Although Shalmaneser began the siege he did not finish it. He died in the second year of the siege, and was succeeded by Sargon — mentioned in Isaiah 20:1 — who pushed the siege to the complete destruction of the city and the total captivity of the ten tribes as stated in the text. Sargon’s brief account of it is in these words: “I besieged, took and occupied the city of Samaria, and carried into captivity 27,280 of its inhabitants. I changed the former government of the country, and placed over it lieutenants of my own.” — Lenormant, book 4:chap. iii, sec. 2. It was he who sent up those people from Cutha, and from Babylon, and from Ava, Sepharvaim, etc., and placed them in Samaria instead of the children of Israel, as is related in 2 Kings 17:24-41. Sargon was the father of Sennacherib. — Ed.] Ft18 The way in which the passages of Scripture are connected in this paragraph is liable to convey a wrong impression to the mind of the reader. The author may not have intended it, but the idea is here conveyed that all this happened at the same invasion of Judea, and that the Assyrian host was smitten at Jerusalem. We know that many have thought so, but it is a mistake. There were two distinct invasions, and the slaughter was not at Jerusalem at all. The first invasion is related in 2 Kings 18:13-16 and 2 Chronicles 32:1-8. Sennacherib came up “against all the fenced cities of Judah and took them.” Hezekiah submitted and sent to him to Lachish, “saying, I have offended; return from me; that which thou puttest on me I will bear.” Sennacherib demanded three hundred talents of silver, and thirty talents of gold; and Hezekiah stripped the temple of its gold and treasures to pay the fine.

The Bible does not tell us what Hezekiah did that “offended” the king of Assyria. However Sennacherib himself tells: The people of Ekron had rebelled from the Assyrian rule, but their king, Padi by name, stood faithful to Sennacherib and refused to take part in the rebellion. At this the rebels laid hold on Padi, bound him in chains, and sent him to Hezekiah at Jerusalem for safekeeping. Hezekiah’s receiving him, of course made him partaker in their rebellion. Sennacherib came out and crushed the rebellion with an iron hand, crucifying or selling as slaves the chief movers in it, and then invaded Judea to deliver Padi from prison and to punish Hezekiah for his share in the rebellion.

Sennacherib says: “I came up against him, and by force of arms and by the might of my power I took forty-six of his strong fenced cities; and of the smaller towns which were scattered about I took and plundered a countless number. And from those places I captured and carried off as spoil 200,150 people old and young, male and female, together with horses and mares, asses and camels, oxen and sheep, a countless multitude. And Hezekiah himself I shut up in Jerusalem, his capital city, like a bird in a cage, building towers round about the city to hem him in, and raising banks of earth against the gates to prevent escape....

Then upon this Hezekiah there fell the fear of the power of my arms and he sent out to me the chiefs and the elders of Jerusalem with thirty talents of gold, and eight hundred talents of silver [800 Assyrian silver talents was exactly equal to 300 Jewish], and divers treasures, a rich and immense booty.” “I brought Padi... out of Jerusalem and restored him to the throne of his royalty. — Seven Great Monarchies, Second Mon., chap. 9; Lenormant’s Ancient History of the East, book 4, chap. 2, sec. 3.

This was Hezekiah’s offense, and how he had to confess it and yield to the power of Sennacherib. Then Sennacherib did “return from” him, and went home to Nineveh, where he says Hezekiah sent him the tribute. Such was the cause and the end of the first invasion. THE SECOND INVASION, and the destruction of the Assyrian host, is related in 2 Kings 18:17-37; 19:1-35; 2 Chronicles 32:9-21; and Isaiah 36:2-22; 37:1-36. 2 Chronicles 32:9 says: “After this did Sennacherib king of Assyria send his servants to Jerusalem,” &c. The cause of the second invasion was that Hezekiah formed an alliance with the king of Egypt, (Isaiah 30:1-7; 31:1) and Sennacherib heard of it (2 Kings 18:19-21) and moved around and established his forces between Judea and Egypt, and himself, with the main part of his army, laid siege to Lachish (2 Chronicles 32:9), while he sent “Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh” — his commander-in-chief and chief cupbearer and chief eunuch — with a part of his army to demand the submission of Hezekiah and the surrender of Jerusalem. 2 Kings 18:31,32. Hezekiah made them no answer at all, but sent word to Isaiah of what Rabshakeh had said. Then “Rab-shakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria warring against Libnah; for he had heard that he was departed from Lachish.” 2 Kings 19:8. Then Sennacherib “heard say of Tirhakah king of Ethiopia, Behold, he is come out to fight against thee,” and then, from Libnah, “he sent messengers again unto Hezekiah” with a letter. “Hezekiah received the letter of the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up to the house of the Lord, and spread it before the Lord,” and prayed. 2 Kings 19:9,14. Then Isaiah sent word to him, “Thus saith the Lord concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it.” 2 Kings 19:32. Then in “that night the angel of the Lord went out, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand” of them. But instead of being around Jerusalem, the camp of the Assyrians was somewhere between Libnah and Egypt. Libnah was about twenty miles from Jerusalem. Herodotus says this defeat happened near Pelusium, on the border of Egypt. — Ed.] By a careful comparison of 2 Kings 17:24 with Ezra 4:2,9 it will be seen that they refer to two distinct deportations to Samaria. In the first, the people were brought from Babylon, Cutha, Ava, and Sepharvaim, which were all cities in Babylonia; and from Hamath in Coele-Syria. In the second, the people were Dinaites from the neighborhood of Cilicia; Apharsathehites, Tarpelites, and Apharsites from the borders of Media and Persia; Archevites from Erech in the land of Shinar; Susanchites from Susa or Shushan; Elamites from Elam between Persia and Media; Debavites from the wilds of Persia; and Babylonians. The first importation was by Sargon, the second was by Esarhaddon. From the time of Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15:29) this wholesale system of transplanting peoples was carried on in the conquests of the Assyrian kings. The Arabians mentioned in Nehemiah 4:7; 2:19, were first carried to Samaria by Sargon. Others may have been added to this number by Esarhaddon, as he overran the principal parts of Arabia. For further account see Rawlinson’s Monarchies, Second Monarchy, under the kings named. — Ed.] [ This should be Sargon instead of Shalmaneser. See pages 117, 118 — Ed.] This should be Sargon instead of Shalmaneser. See pages 117, 118 — Ed.] Ft22 Dr. Jarvis was not by any means the only one who decided that Nabonadius was this Belshazzar. Even Josephus said so. Many books were written to prove that Belshazzar was Nabonadius, or Evilmerodach, or Neriglissar, or almost anybody at all but Belshazzar.

Some went so far as to declare flatly that there never was any Belshazzar, and that therefore the Bible was false in its statement. But not many years ago excavations began to be made in the ruins of Nineveh, Babylon, and other cities, and bricks were found with inscriptions upon them. One of these found at Babylon is an inscription by Nabonadius himself, in which he calls Belshazzar his “eldest son.” It is in a prayer that Nabonadius had written in which he said: “Me, Nabunahid, king of Babylon, from sin against thy great divinity, do thou save me, and health and long days numerous do thou multiply.

And of Belshazzar, my eldest son, the delight of my heart, in the worship of thy great divinity, his heart do thou establish, and may he not consort with sinners.” The finding of his inscription at once put a stop to all the controversy as to who Belshazzar was, and confirmed the exactness of the truth of the Bible statement. The Encyclopedia Britannica says: “The numerous works written on this subject before the discovery of the cuneiform inscriptions are now of little value.” — Art. Belshazzar. The fact is that they never were of any value at all.

This instance ought to be sufficient to cause men to accept as true what the Bible says, and to set aside as false whatever does not agree with it. — Ed.] As Belshazzar was Nabonadius’s son, it is evident that the first year of Belshazzar as king was not B.C. 555, nor was his third year B.C. 553, as is given by Usher’s Chronology in the margin of the Bible, at Daniel 7:1 and 8:1. These were the first and third years of Nabonadius and not of Belshazzar. Belshazzar was associated with his father in the kingship, but it is not known in exactly what year. However, as in the records of deeds in Babylonia the third year of Belshazzar is the latest record that has been found, and as Babylon fell in July, 538 B.C., Belshazzar’s first year as king could not have been later than 540 B.C.

It is probable that it was not later than 541. For, (1) Cyrus started from the Median capital on his expedition against Babylon in the spring of 539, although he did not reach Babylon till the spring of 538. (2) When he did reach Babylon, Elam was joined with Media in the attack and in the capture of the city. Isaiah 21:2. But (3) in the third year of Belshazzar Elam was yet a province of the empire of Babylon, for in that year Daniel was in the province of Elam on business for the king of Babylon, and there had his vision of the eighth chapter. Daniel 8:1,2,27. Allowing this to have been in the year before Babylon fell, then Belshazzar’s third year would be 539, his second 540, and his first year 541. It may have been even a year later, that is 540. For it may be that Daniel was in the province of Elam on “the king’s business” in the beginning of the year 538. It is not improbable that the king of Babylon, suspecting the revolt of Elam, sent Daniel over there to see about it. Under this supposition, B.C. 538 would be Belshazzar’s third year, and his last. We are therefore inclined to place the first year of Belshazzar in 541 or 540. — Ed.] This opinion of Dr. Mayer’s is entirely gratuitous and of very doubtful propriety at that. Because, (1) it is exceedingly improbable that a person of the character of Belshazzar, and who did not even know Daniel, would be spending his time in studying the opinions of the Jews on any subject, much less on the subject of prophecy. (2) It was only sixty-eight years anyhow from the first conquest of Judea by Nebuchadnezzer till the fall of Babylon, and even though it be allowed that Belshazzar was so close a student of prophecy as is here implied, it is hardly likely that he would rejoice over the defeat of the prophecy two years before the time expired. Nor was there any such difference in the computation of time by the Chaldeans and the Jews as to cause the Chaldeans to get two years ahead of the Jews in the count of time, as is here suggested. The Babylonians were the best astronomers of all ancient times and were nearest to the correct time, and the Jews were not so far wrong as to be two years out of the way. As a matter of fact, the Chaldean and the Jewish computation of time were the same. (3) Cyrus knew that this feast was going to be held. If it was an appointed feast for the purpose here suggested, how did Cyrus know of it? Had he been studying prophecy too?! (4) Besides all this we now know exactly what feast it was and why it was held. And instead of being such as is conjectured by Dr. Mayer, it was the regular idolatrous feast of Tammuz, the Babylonian Adonis. “We are told in Daniel that Babylon was captured on the night of a great feast to the idol gods, at which the wives and concubines joined in a wild revelry. But the women were not in the habit of feasting with men — how is this? An account, by Cyrus himself, of his capture of Babylon, was dug up only five or six years ago. In it he declares that Babylon was captured ‘without fighting,’ on the fourteenth day of the month Tammuz. Now the month Tammuz was named in honor of the god Tammuz, the Babylonian Adonis, who married their Venus or Ishtar; and the fourteenth of Tammuz was the regular time to celebrate their union, with lascivious orgies. On this day of all others, the women took part in the horrible rites; and it was in this feast of king, princes, wives, and concubines that Babylon was taken and Belshazzar slain.

The Bible is here fully and wonderfully corroborated.” — Wm. Hayes Ward, D. D., in Sunday School Times, Vol. 45, pp. 659, 660. ] “Two hundred years” are too many. Besides, it is inconsistent with the author’s account. 1. Isaiah wrote the prophecy 712 B.C. 2. Babylon was taken by Cyrus B.C. 538. 3. Cyrus was then sixty-one years old — see second paragraph above. 4. Therefore Cyrus was born 599 B.C. 712 minus 599 leaves 113 years before Cyrus was born that God, by the prophet Isaiah, called him by name. Isaiah 45:1-4. — Ed.] We think they do. The list that is drawn out by name in Ezra 2:2-60 and Nehemiah 7:7-62 gives only “the number of the men of the people.”

Ezra 2;2; Nehemiah 7:7. While “the whole congregation together,” — men, women, and children all together, — was the number as quoted in the text. — Ed.] This is not clear — the text does not say so. They sent to Cambyses an accusation, and that is all there is about it. There is no record that they gained their purpose, or that the work was interrupted. But when Smerdis came to the throne they sent up a new accusation and secured a decree stopping the work; then they made the Jews “to cease by force and power.” Now if the work had been interrupted during the whole of the reign of Cambyses, and by his authority, then why was it necessary to send up a new accusation and plea, just as soon as he was dead and a new king was in his place? This shows that the work was not interrupted “during the whole of that time,” and that it was not interrupted till the decree of Smerdis Artaxerxes (Ezra 4:6-21) — was sent up to the enemies of the Jews. Dr. Clarke stated more than the record will justify. — Ed.] Oeschylus is wrong. Smerdis was slain at Sictachates, in Media, by Darius and six fellow conspirators, and was succeeded immediately by Darius. So says Darius himself. — Ed.] It is now well known that the Ahasuerus of Esther was Xerxes, and not Artaxerxes Longimanus. The following from the Encyclopedia Britannica presents the matter in as few words as anything that we can give: “1. The Hebrew Ahashuerosh is the natural equivalent of the old Persian Khshayarsha, the true name of the monarch called by the Greeks Xerxes, as now read in his inscriptions. 2. There is a striking similarity of character between the Xerxes of Herodotus and the Ahasuerus of Esther. 3. Certain coincidences in dates and events corroborate this identity, as, e. g., ‘In the third year of his reign Ahasuerus gave a grand feast to his nobles, lasting one hundred and eighty days (Esther 1:3); and Xerxes in his third year also assembled his chief officers to deliberate on the invasion of Greece.’ Herodotus vii, 8. ‘Again, Ahasuerus married Esther at Shushan in the seventh year of his reign; in the same year of his reign Xerxes returned to Susa with the mortification of his defeat, and sought to forget himself in pleasure.

Lastly, the tribute imposed on the land and isles of the sea also accords with the state of his revenue, exhausted by his insane attempt against Greece.’ Kitto’s Cyclopedia, s. v., Ahasuerus. To this it may be added that the interval of four years between the divorce of Vashti and the marriage of Esther is well accounted for by the intervention of an important series of events fully occupying the monarch’s thoughts, such as the invasion of Greece.” — Art. Ahasuerus. Chronologically the place of the book of Esther is between the sixth and seventh chapters of Ezra. — Ed.] After three years. — Dr. Hales. It was not completed till A.D. 62. The matter inclosed in brackets from here to the end of this chapter is by the editor. The dates are compiled from the latest and best authorities, such as Horne, Clarke, and Barnes. The dates of Paul’s Epistles are those of Conybeare and Howson, and Archdeacon Farrar.

As for Farrar, however, it is but just to state that he is not always consistent with himself in his dates. — Ed.] “Berosus, the Chaldean historian, about B.C. 324-Cir. 300, indirectly noticed Abraham, though without naming him, as ‘living in the tenth generation after the deluge; and celebrates him for his eminent piety and skill in astronomy.’ “And Eupolemus, about B.C. 174, confirms the testimony of Berosus, and expressly names Abraham as living in the tenth generation after the deluge. These two ancient heathen writers, of whom Berosus was earlier than Demetrius and the Septuagint version, are powerful authorities for the rejection of Cainan, who, if inserted, would place Abraham in the eleventh generation from Shem inclusively.” See Chris. Obs. xii, p. 170. Examin. of an Indian copy of the Pentat., p. 8. Horne’s Introduction, vol. i, pp. 219, 220. Two-volume edition, 1834. Prolog. in Bib. Polyg. Bagsteriana, 4:sect. 11. Grabe, Epit. an doct. Mill Oxford, 1705; et Dissertat. de variis vitiis lxx, Interpretum, p. 50, Oxon. 1710. — Samuel Lee: Proleg. in Polyg.