THE JOURNAL or SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD. EDITED BY THE REV. HENRY BURGESS, LL.D., Ps.D., MEMBER OF THE ROYAL SOCIBTY OF LITERATURE. VOL. V. LONDON: ALEXANDER HEYLIN, PATERNOSTER ROW. EDINBURGH: W. OLIPHANT AND SON. DUBLIN: 8. B. OLDHAM. 1857.172 Correspondence. [April, Smerdis, I add what may be viewed as a necessary inference from Scrip- ture, that Cyrus was certainly King of Media as well as of Persia and Babylon. For we read in Ezra vi. 2, that at the beginning of the reign of Darius he was sovereign of “ Achmetha in the province of the Medes.” It was too early in his reign to have achieved the conquest of Media, which must therefore have already formed a part of the empire which Cambyses received from his father Cyrus, who, doubtless, at the death of Sai the Mede, became sovereign of Media and Babylon, as well as of ersia. 8. The Behistun rock.tablets teach us that Cambyses (Kabujiya) was the son and successor of Cyrus, and sovereign of Persia and Media ; that he put to death his brother, and afterwards invaded Egypt. He appears to have undoubtedly received Media from his father Cyrus. The inscrip- tions teach us also, that the Magian usurper succeeded Cambyses, and was put to death by Darius Hystaspes, who ascended the throne which had belonged to Cambyses ; and that, early in the reign of Darius, an im- postor arose, who claimed the sovereignty of Babylon, but was overcome and slain by Darius. As this rebellion took place in Babylon, at the com- mencement of Darius’ reign, we necessarily infer that Babylon formed a part of the empire which Darius acquired on the death of the Magian, Smerdis. If so, Babylon as well as Media must have belonged to Cam- byses, and been inherited from his father Cyrus. Indeed, the very fact that (as the Behistun tablets declare) Cambyses marched from Persia into Egypt, is a proof that he inherited Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, from his father. The rock-tablets, as we have already seen, agree with Herodotus in stating that two sovereigns, Cambyses and the Magian usurper, intervened between Cyrus and Darius. Ezra also, the sacred historian, inserts the names of Ahasuerus and Artaxerxes between those of Cyrus and Darius. G. B. P.S.—Dr. Hincks and Colonel Rawlinson are of opinion that Nineveh was taken by the Medes cir. 625 B.c. It has been supposed that as Pharaoh. Neeko is said (2 Kings xxiii. 29,) to have marched against the King of Assyria, that at that time (cir. 610 B.c.,) Nineveh had not yet been finally taken. But this is not a sufficient argument, as Ezra (vi. 22) calls Darius Hystaspes “the King of Assyria;” and Herodotus calls the realm of the Babylonian Labynetus, ‘the Assyrian dominion.” BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY. To the Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature. Srr,—Permit me to offer a few last words in reply to Dr. Hinck’s letter in your Journal of January, p. 462. It is seldom in controversy that two disputants are equally willing to rest the decision of the question between them on the settlement of a single matter of fact. Such fortunately is the case in this instance. Dr. Hincks candidly admits, that if Mr. Airy has1867] Biblical Chronology. 173 proved that the eclipse of the 28th May, 8.c. 585, is that which termi- nated the Lydian war, ‘i would be impossible to maintain the received chronology.” 1 have already declared in your Journal of July last, p. 480, that ‘whenever the decision of Mr. Airy and Mr. Hind shall have been set aside, the first of whom has stated, that ‘the date B.c. 585, is now established for the eclipse of Thales beyond the possibility of doubt,’ I shall be the first to revise my opinion.” We are both, I believe, honestly in search of the truth, and Soth content that the rejection or adoption of our respective schemes of chronology should rest upon the determination of this cardinal date in ancient history. So let the matter rest. In leaving the question, however, in this position, I would not be supposed to express any doubt in my own mind that it has already been ly decided. Dr. Hincks, who has thrown around the subject a mys- terious array of figures, does not profess to maintain more than a con- i opinion “that the effect of the correction of the secular equations, sach as would suit the eclipse of Agathocles, might bring the shadow of the moon over a possible field of battle in either 603 or 610.” He states, indeed, that he “entertains no doubt that the eclipse of 18th May, 608, was that which terminated the Lydian war ;” but I do not understand that he has advanced any further towards a proof of his convictions, than when in August last, at the Meeting of the Society for the promotion of Science, he observed, ‘I should be glad to be informed what the track of the moon’s shadow was in the eclipse of May, 603.” Nor do I think that the historical grounds of his present opinion can rest upon any very solid or consistent foundation, when I call to mind that in July last a decided preference was given by him to the eclipse of B.c. 621. For the satisfaction, however, of those who have done me the favor of examining my arguments, and who are disposed to enter into my view of the ques- tion, I may state that I have recently received an assurance from the very highest astronomical authority, that no competent person can entertain any doubt as to the true date of the eclipse being B.c. 585. Il. Dr. Hincks has also exp himself ready to abandon the received chronology, if I can substantiate my opinion, that the thirty-five ears’ reign of Astyages, King of Media, terminated in the year B.c. 539, This again is a question which must be ultimately decided by reference to the date of the eclipse of Thales. Cyaxares, the father of Astyages, was reigning at the time of the eclipse. If therefore p.c. 585 is the true date, Cyaxares must have died after the year 585, not in the year 595, “the latest ible date” according to Dr. Hincks, and the accession and death of Astyages must be lowered in proportion. There is no ques- tion that, whether right or wrong, the ancients universally considered the year 585 to be the date of the eclipse of Thales; and if so, must have placed the reigns of Cyaxares and Astyages lower than we find them in the received chronology. There is no question also that the conquest of Astyages by Cyrus was placed by the earliest chronologists in the 55th Olympiad, B.c. 560. It is equally clear that in some of the copies of Ptolemy’s Canon, viz., in the ouly two copies known to Syucellus, called the Astronomical Canon and the Ecclesiastical Canon, the death of Astyages is placed in the year B.c. 539. Now Herodotus tells us that174 Correspondence. [April, the Medes held possession of that part of Asia which is beyond the river Halys for 128 years, exclusive of the twenty-eight years of Scythian dominion ; and the termination of the period is undoubtedly fixed at the conquest of Astyages by Cyrus in B.c. 560; after which Cyrus added by conquest the provinces on this side the Halys. He also es distinctly tells us that the, reigns of four successive Kings of Media, viz. :— Deioces.. 150 amounting together to 150 years terminated at the same point of time. How is this evident contradiction to be explained? uch has been written concerning it, and nothing satisfactory. I submit that a very ancient mode of solving the difficulty was by counting the 128 years from the year B.c, 688 and ending them in B.c. 560, and by counting the 150 years from the same date and ending them in 3.c. 589; and that if both ancients and moderns are correct in placing the eclipse of Thales in B.c. 585, this is the only mode of solution consistent with what we are told in history concerning Astyages, who confessedly lived for some years after his defeat by Cyrus, and according to Ctesias on terms of alliance with his conquerors, and who was buried with kingly honours. I do not ques- tion the correctness of Dr. Hincks’ translation of the word wapef, as “exclusive of.” But the question still remains, whether Herodotus intended to express that the Medes reigned 128 years, from which the ears of Scythian domination were to be excluded, or 128 years after having excluded the years of Scythian domination from the computation. The chronological question as regards an important period in Bible history of nearly 200 years, from the invasion of Juda by Sennacherib in the 14th year of Hezekiah to the rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius, stands thus; the commonly received dates are, 14th Hezekiah. . Fall of Jerusalem. Rebuilding of th The correctness of the intervals clearly established, that neither of them can be raised or lowered without affecting the other two to the same extent. T. Now Sir Gardner Wilkinson has undertaken to shew from the tombs of the sacred bulls at Memphis, that the invasion of Sennacherib in the time of Tirhakah and Hezekiah must be lowered many years. II. If astronomers, ancient and modern, are correct a8 ie eclipse of B.c. 585, the last year of Pharaoh-Necho, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, the fall of Jerusalem, and all the events connected with those kings must be lowered to the extent of about 26 years. TI. Daniel, Demetrius, and St. Matthew, as shewn in my last letter, bring down the date of the fall of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple about the same number of years. T am, ete., Claysmore, Feb. 8th, 1867. J. W. Bosanquer.