three hundred and sixty-five days, and endeavoured to settle the Grecian chronology Strabo supposes to a year of that measure. that Plato and Eudoxus were the correctors of the Greek year; but he means, that they were the first of the Grecians who found out the deficiency of almost six hours in the year of Thales; for he does not say, that Plato and Euxodus were the first that introduced three hundred and sixty-five days for a year, but speaks expressly of their first learning the defect before-mentioned. The year had been settled to consist of three hundred and sixty-five days almost two centuries before the times of Eudoxus or Plato. The correction of Thales was not immediately received all over Greece; for Solon, in the time of Croesus, king of Lydia, was ignorant of it." Strabo, lib. 17, p. 806. Herod. lib. 1, sec. 32. Solon seems to hint, that a month of thirty days should be intercalated every other year but this is supposing the year to contain three hundred and seventy-five days. Either Solon k The most ancient year of the Romans was formed by Romulus. Whence, or how he came by the form of it, is uncertain; it consisted of but ten months,' very irregular ones, some of them being not twenty days long, and others above thirty-five; but in this respect it agreed with the most ancient years of other nations, for it consisted' of three hundred and sixty days, and no more, as is evident from the express testimony of Plutarch. The Jewish year, in these early times, consisted of twelve months, and each month of thirty days; and three hundred and sixty days were the whole year. We do not find that God, by any special appointment cor was not acquainted with Thales's measure of a year, or Herodotus made a mistake in his relation, or the Greeks were about this time trying to fix the true measure of the year, and Solon determined in one way, and Thales in another. i Thus Ovid. Fast. lib. 1. Tempora digereret cum Conditor Urbis, in Anno Constituit Menses quinque bis esse suo. Plutarch. vitar. p. 71. ! Id. ibid. rected the year for them; for what may seem to have been done of this sort," at the institution of the Passover, does not appear to affect the length of their year at all, for in that respect it continued the same after that appointment, which it was before. And we do not any where read that Moses ever made a correction of it. The adding five days to the year under Assis, beforementioned, happened after the children of Israel came out of Egypt; so that Moses might be learned in all the learning of the Egyptians, and yet not instructed in this point, which was a discovery made after his leaving them. A year consisted of twelve months in the times of David and Solomon, as appears by the course of houshold-officers" appointed by the one, and of captains by the other; and we no where in the books of the Old Testament find any mention of an intercalary month; and Scaliger is positive, that there was no such month used in the times of Moses, or of the Judges, or of the Kings. And that each month had thirty days, and no more, is evident from Moses's computation of the duration of the Flood. The Flood began, he tells us, on the seventeenth day of the second month; prevailed without any sensible abatement for one hundred and fifty days,' and then the ark lodged on mount Ararat, on' the seventeenth day of the seventh month. So that we see, from the seventeenth of the second month, to the seventeenth of the seventh month, (i. e. for five whole months) he allows one hundred and fifty days, which is just thirty days to each month, for five times thirty days are a hundred and fifty. This, therefore, was the ancient Jewish year; and I imagine this year was in use amongst them, without emendation, at least to a much later period than that to which I am to bring down this work. P Lib. de Emend. Temp. in capite de Anno piscorum Hebræorum Abrahameo. Dean Prideaux' treats pretty largely of the ancient Jewish year, from Selden, and from the Talmud and Maimonides; but the year he speaks of seems not to have been used until after the captivity." From what has been said, it must be evident that the chronologers do, in general, mistake in supposing the ancient year commensurate with the present Julian. The 1656 years, which preceded the Flood, came short of so many Julian years, by above twenty-three years. And in like manner after the Flood, all nations, till the era of Nabonassar, which begins exactly where my history is to end, computing by a year of three hundred and sixty days, except the Egyptians only (and they altered the old computation but a century or two before) and the difference between this ancient year and the Julian, being five days in each year, besides the day in every leap-year; it is very clear, that the space of time between the Flood, and the Preface to the first volume of his Connection. |