Scripture places the reign of Darius the Mede in Babylon, between Belshazzar and Cyrus; and Xenophon ascribes to Cyrus only 7 years. Darius therefore, who is overlooked by Ptolemy, must have reigned jointly with Cyrus 2 years. Hence it will follow, that the scriptural first year of Cyrus must be the same as Xenophon's first year of Cyrus; and that this first year must coincide with his third year according to the canon of Ptolemy. Add the 2 years of Darius, or Ptolemy's 2 first years of Cyrus, to the 67 years and a fraction, and the product will be 69 years and a fraction-This space of time then must have elapsed between the capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and the accession of Cyrus to undivided empire. Therefore, supposing Cyrus to have enacted his decree for the restoration of the Jews immediately upon the death of Darius and at the very beginning of his scriptural first year (sooner than this he could not have enacted it consistently with Ezra's account), there still would be more than 69 solar years or 70 years of 360 days each between the capture of Jerusalem and the enacting of the decree of Cyrus *.

What

• Dr. Prideaux, by a somewhat similar calculation, brings out a result of 69 solar years and two months, as being the pe riod of time that elapsed between the capture of Jerusalem and the accession of Cyrus to sole empire. I suspect however, that C

he

What has been said sufficiently invalidates Mr. Marshall's argument, which is founded on the opinion that exactly 69 solar years was the length of the Babylonian captivity. Yet, while I am persuaded that its duration was 70 solar years, I cannot altogether assent to the arrangement either of Usher or Prideaux. I fully agree with the latter of these authors, as I have already observed, that Jerusalem must have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the November of the year A. C. 606. This point may, I think, be sufficiently proved. That the city was taken on the eighteenth day of November or on the corresponding day of the ninth month Cisleu, appears from the annual fast in commemoration of it still kept by the Jews*: the only question therefore is, in the November of what year it was taken. Now it appeared from the preceding discussion, that it was taken in the penultimate year of Nabopollassar, according to the canon of Ptolemy: but this year coincides with the year A.C, 606: therefore the city must have been taken in the November of the year A. C. 606. And, that this is the true date of its capture, we may further collect from the sum of years ascribed by Ptolemy

he makes the fraction of a year too short. See his Connect. Part i. B. ii. p. 135.

• Usser. Annal. in A. P. J. 4107-Prideaux's Connect. Part i. B. i. p. 64.

to the Babylonian princes after Nabopollassar. This sum, as we have seen, is 66 years. Add to it the year and a fraction of the reign of Nabopollassar, which elapsed after the capture of Jerusalem, and we have 67 years and a fraction. And add to this last sum the 2 years of Darius, and we have 69 years and a fraction. Thus we learn, that 69 years and a fraction of indefinite length elapsed between the capture of Jerusalem and the acces sion of Cyrus to undivided empire. But the scriptural first year of Cyrus coincides with the year A. C. 536. Now, from whatever point in this year we suppose his sole reign to have commenced, if we reckon back from that point 69 years, we shall be brought to the corresponding point in the year A. C. 605: and, if from this point in the year A. C. 605 we reckon back the additional fraction of a year to the first November, we shall be brought to the November in the year A. C. 606. Or, if we suppose with Prideaux the sole reign of Cyrus to have commenced at the very close of the year A. C. 537, the result will still be the same: for, in that case, the 69 years reckoned backward will bring us to the very close of the year A. C. 606; and the additional fraction, to the November of the same year. Thus I think it certain, that Jerusalem must have been taken by Nebuchadnezzar in the November of the year A. C. 606. That prince, however,

c 2

however, invaded Judea about two months before he made himself master of the capital; that is to say, immediately after the great fast of expiation, which was kept by the Jews on the tenth day of their seventh month Tisri, and during which Baruch read Jeremiah's roll to the people*. From this invasion of Judea I conceive that the seventy years ought to be reckoned: because they were the years of the desolation of the land †: and the land began to be desolate, when it began to be devastated by the inroads of an hostile army. If then we reckon 70 years from the middle of the month Tisri in the year A. C. 606, we shall be brought to the middle of the month Tisri in the year A. C. 536. Let us proceed to inquire how far this era may be deemed a proper termination of the period.

Dr. Prideaux fixes the capture of Babylon to the very close of the year A. C. 539: but I am rather inclined to think with Abp. Usher, that it must have been taken in the spring of the following year; and I further think, that there is at least a high degree of probability that it was taken in the night between the last day of April and the first day of May.

• Jerem. xxxvi. 1-8. See Usser. Annal. in A. P. J. 4107. and Prideaux's Connect. Part i. B. i. p. 64.

+ Jerem. xxv. 11.

f

It was taken during the celebration of a great festival in honour of the Chaldèan gods*: and, from the splendor and universality of the festival, it being celebrated (according to Xenophon) by all the Babylonians †, no less than by the thousand lords mentioned by Daniel, we may reasonably conclude that it was the greatest festival of this description. Now it is well known that Bel was the principal god venerated by the Babylonians; and Herodotus tells us, that there was a yearly festival observed in honour of him. This very festival then in honour of Bel, and in honour likewise (I may add) of the other kindred deities (for Bel, like each of the great gods of the old mythologists, was a pantheus); this very festival I strongly suspect to have been observed on the night in which Babylon was taken §. Such an opinion is confirmed

*Dan. v. 4, 23.

† Cyropæd. lib. vii. p. 331. Oxon.

Herod. Hist. lib. i. § 183.

§ That Babylon was taken on a stated annual festival of some description, and not on one accidentally observed, is manifest from the language of Xenophon. Ο δε Κύρος, επειδη ἑορτην τοιαύτην εν Βαβύλωνι ήκεσεν ειναι, εν τη πανίες Βαβυλωνιοι όλην την νυκία πινεσι και κωμαζέσιν EV Tal-Cyrop. lib. vii. p. 331. "But Cyrus, when he had heard that a festival was celebrated "in Babylon of such a nature, that all the Babylonians drank "and revelled the whole night upon the occasion"-These words certainly imply, that Cyrus heard of its being customary

εν

for