gers,* some varying two or three years on one side or the other of that date. Waiving the discussion of that point to another place, we assume that as the date of the destruction of the temple.

The chronology of the Septuagint, presented in tabular form, stands thus (that of the Hebrew being added for convenience of comparison) :

The first column of figures in each system denotes the length of the periods, and the second, the date:

*The author of "The History of the World," Philip Smith, B. A., one of the principal contributors to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, in his Note on Chronology, p. 10, says, "The epoch of the destruction of the temple is fixed by a concurrence of proofs from sacred and profane history, with only a variation of one, or, at the most, two years, between B. C. 588 and 586. Clinton's date is June, B. C. 587.” This margin should be extended a little on each side of 586, as some, as Bede, have 589, and some as low as 583.

A close examination of the history of the period shows that the numbers of some of the reigns should be reduced by one to denote complete years. Such we regard the third, sixth, and thirteenth reigns. The grounds for this conclusion will be seen on comparing 1 Kings i. 1 and i. 10, 2 Kings viii. 16 and viii. 25, and xvi. 1 and xvii. 1. We have put down the time of those reigns accordingly.

PERIOD VI. From the DeSTRUCTION OF the Temple BY Nebuchadnezzar to the Birth of Jesus CHRIST.

The duration of this period cannot be determined by any scriptural data alone. For its commencement and chronological details we have to resort to profane history. In reference to this point, the Septuagint and the Hebrew occupy the same ground. For, as we have before intimated, all essential difference between the two is confined to the first two periods, or the patriarchal ages, there being only a slight discrepancy afterward, viz., in the fourth period, the years of Eli or the statement in 1 Kings vi. I. Since, then, our object is to give the chronology of the Septuagint, we, without discussion, remark that the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar has been fixed by means of Ptolemy's canon at about B. C. 586, by the ablest chronolo

*

gers, some varying two or three years on one side or the other of that date. Waiving the discussion of that point to another place, we assume that as the date of the destruction of the temple.

The chronology of the Septuagint, presented in tabular form, stands thus (that of the Hebrew being added for convenience of comparison):

The first column of figures in each system denotes the length of the periods, and the second, the date

* The author of "The History of the World," Philip Smith, B. A., one of the principal contributors to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, in his Note on Chronology, p. io, says, "The epoch of the destruction of the temple is fixed by a concurrence of proofs from sacred and profane history, with only a variation of one, or, at the most, two years, between B. C. 588 and 586. Clinton's date is June, B. C. 587." This margin should be extended a little on each side of 586, as some, as Bede, have 589, and some as low as 583.

A close examination of the history of the period shows that the numbers of some of the reigns should be reduced by one to denote complete years. Such we regard the third, sixth, and thirteenth reigns. The grounds for this conclusion will be seen on comparing 1 Kings i. 1 and i. 10, 2 Kings viii. 16 and viii. 25, and xvi. 1 and xvii. 1. We have put down the time of those reigns accordingly.

PERIOD VI. FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE BY Nebuchadnezzar to the Birth of Jesus Christ.

The duration of this period cannot be determined by any scriptural data alone. For its commencement and chronological details we have to resort to profane history. In reference to this point, the Septuagint and the Hebrew occupy the same ground. For, as we have before intimated, all essential difference between the two is confined to the first two periods, or the patriarchal ages, there being only a slight discrepancy afterward, viz., in the fourth period, the years of Eli or the statement in 1 Kings vi. 1. Since, then, our object is to give the chronology of the Septuagint, we, without discussion, remark that the destruction of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar has been fixed by means of Ptolemy's canon at about B. C. 586, by the ablest chronolo

gers,

some varying two or three years on one side or the other of that date. Waiving the discussion of that point to another place, we assume that as the date of the destruction of the temple.

The chronology of the Septuagint, presented in tabular form, stands thus (that of the Hebrew being added for convenience of comparison) :

The first column of figures in each system denotes the length of the periods, and the second, the date

* The author of "The History of the World," Philip Smith, B. A., one of the principal contributors to Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, in his Note on Chronology, p. 10, says, "The epoch of the destruction of the temple is fixed by a concurrence of proofs from sacred and profane history, with only a variation of one, or, at the most, two years, between B. C. 588 and 586. Clinton's date is June, B. C. 587." This margin should be extended a little on each side of 586, as some, as Bede, have 589, and some as low as 583.