=

computation, in the tenth year of his reign. But this, according to the Roman method of computation, was only the ninth year of his reign. For February, J. P. 4711+9 years J. P. 4720. Archelaus therefore, having been banished before the conclusion of J. P. 4719, was evidently banished, speaking literally and after the Roman manner, in the ninth and not in the tenth year of his reign. Thus upon the supposition that Josephus uses the Jewish method of reckoning when he says that Archelaus was banished in the tenth, and the Roman when he says that he was banished in the ninth year of his reign, it is plain that his calculations may be clearly reconciled both with each other and the assertions of Dio, and that they contain no contradiction whatever to the opinion we have advanced of Herod's death having taken place in the beginning of J. P. 4711.

It may perhaps appear to some that instead of assuming the correctness of Josephus when he says that Archelaus was banished in the ninth year of his reign, and endeavouring to reconcile to that supposed correct statement the other passages in which he speaks of his having been banished in the tenth year of his reign; the proper way would have been to reverse this order of proceeding, and assuming his correctness when he says that he was banished in his tenth, to endea

vour to reconcile to this the other passage, in which he places his banishment in the ninth year of his reign. This seems to be the proceeding naturally pointed out by that numerical preponderance of testimony in favour of the tenth year, of which we have already taken notice,—and I should have felt myself bound to follow this course had it been in my power,—had there in fact been any possible way of reconciling Josephus to himself upon this supposition.-But though there is a method, which I have already pointed out, of shewing why and how he might assign a greater number of years to the reign of Archelaus than actually belonged to it, I know of none by which it could be explained how or upon what grounds he could in any instance give to any Jewish reign a less than its due number of years. The excess admitting the truth of the lesser number of years may, but the deficiency assuming the greater number of years in Archelaus's reign, cannot be accounted for, and it is for this reason that I have adopted the course already laid down, and by that course, I trust, been enabled at once to reconcile Josephus to himself, to Dio, and to our date for the death of Herod.

Such are the answers which I have been enabled to offer to the several difficulties attending this most intricate point of chronology. What

effect my observations may have upon the minds of others I cannot tell. But this I think is plain, 1. That Herod could not have died before the passover, J. P: 4710, because he could not then have entered upon the 37th year of his reign, according to the express and reiterated testimony of Josephus. 2. That he could not have survived the commencement of the year, J. P. 4712, because, if he did, Archelaus could not have completed the 8th year of his reign, when banished in J. P. 4719. 3. That Herod did die a short time before some passover, and consequently must have died a short time before the intermediate passover, J. P. 4711. The only serious objection to this date arises from the difficulty which it has been supposed to create in reconciling the intimations of Dio and Josephus with regard to the banishment of Archelaus, and had it not been for the existence of that imaginary contradiction, I apprehend it would have received universal approbation. That stumbling-block I have endeavoured to remove by a recurrence to the known and simple fact that in almost every different method of computȧtion the year commences at a different period. Whether by that consideration I have satisfactorily removed it must be left for others to judge. I would be permitted, however, in conclusion to observe, that by the very same node which I have adopted of reconciling the apparent

variations of historians with regard to the death of Herod, namely, the different periods at which they fixed the commencement of the year, the ingenious and learned author of "L'art de verifier les Dates" has very satisfactorily accounted for some seeming contradictions in the annalists, with respect to the year of the death of Charlemagne, and has closed his inquiry with the following remark. "On doit regarder comme suffisamment prouvée la confusion q'avoient jettée dans les Chroniques les differens usages de commencer l'année."

V

Dissertation sur les dates. vol. I. p. 7.

It is to avoid the confusion springing from this cause, that I have adopted the Julian Period as the rule of my computations,"egregiam hanc periodum;" says Beverege, "quâ nihil unquam in Chronologiâ præstantius inventum fuit." Instit. Chronol. lib. ii. cap. 9. I cannot forbear justifying and recommending the practice I have followed by the strong authority of Petavius, the more to be trusted on the present occasion, because the Julian Period was the introduction of one whom he constantly opposed of Scaliger. "Magnopere Chronologiæ tyronibus auctor sum, uti Julianam hanc periodum ejusque tractationem et usum sedulò condiscant, certoque sibi persuadeant sine hôc præsidio difficilem et erroribus obnoxiam temporum esse doctrinam; e contrario vero tutissimam ac facillimam iniri viam si quis'eam sibi, quam dixi, periodum præscribat. Itaque nos in toto hôc opere nostro non aliter, quam hâc ipsâ periodo intervalla computamus." Petav, de Doctr. Temp. lib. vii. cap. 8. in fine,

CHAP. III.

THE PROBABLE DATE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH.

SECTION I.

The probable YEAR of the Nativity.

TAKING the correctness of the arguments in the preceding Chapter for granted, we conclude that the death of Herod took place certainly not later than the passover, J. P. 4711, and certainly not before the 13th of March, J. P. 4710, and upon this foundation we must now proceed in our endeavours to determine the date of the birth of Christ.

In the Gospels we meet with no direct information as to the year or period of the year at which Jesus was born. We are left to gather it from a comparison of the several circumstances which have been incidentally recorded or alluded to by the Evangelists. The only thing we are expressly told is, that Jesus was born before the death of Herod, "in the days of Herod the king,” Matth. ii. 1, and consequently before the passover, J. P.