The cuneiform inscriptions and the Old Testament - The Search For ...

EXCVRSU8 ON CHRONOLOGY. 173
On the contrary, we must acknowledge the artificial
character of the Biblical chronological data both for the
time succeeding as well as for the time preceding the year
722, On the other hand, the historical record of the Bible,
apart from these chronological details, is on the whole sustai-
ned. We have had to note few inaccuracies, comparatively
speaking, and, at all events, the contemporaneous relation
of persons and events, required by the circumstances in-
volved, has been, as a rule, fully demonstrated. See the
notes on 1 Kings XVI. 29 (Vol. I, pp. 183—190);
2 Kings IX. 2 (Vol. I, pp. 199 foil.); 2 Kings XV. 1
(p. 213 foil.); XV. 30. 37 (p. 251 foil.); XVI. 8. 9
(p. 255 foil.); XVII. 1. 3 foil. (p. 255 foil.); XVIII.
1 foil. (p. 277 foil.); XIX. 3. 7 (Vol. II, p. 17 foil.);
XX. 12 (Vol. II, p. 23 foil.) etc. etc.
Though the chronological system of the Books of Kings,
as compared with that of the monuments, is shown to be
untenable, yet in other respects the Bible receives from the
latter, even in the matter of chronology, satisfactory corro-
boration.
We have thus far endeavoured to exhibit clearly the
relation of the two systems of chronology, with which we
are at present concerned. It remains for us to show how
that system, which we hold to form the basis for compu-
tation , is to be absolutely fixed and receive throughout
its requisite chronological adjustment; and what fixed data
are available for this object. For the Hebrew chronology,
we have this fixed datum, as all are aware, in the death of
Herod in the year 4 before the era of Dionysius ; and also 468
in the Dedication of the Temple on the 25^'' Kislev in the
year 148 of the Seleucid era i. e. December 164 B. C.
In both cases we take into consideration the dates of the