t>. From the Destrwlion of Solomon* s Temple to the Re- turn from Babylon,— ThB determination of the length of tliis period depends upon the date of the return to Palestine. The decree of Cyrus leading to that event was made in the first year of his reign (Ezra i, 1), which, if it date from his conquest of Babylon (q. v.), as de- termined by Ptolemy's Canon, would be B.C. 588 ; but the decree in question appears to date from his person- al supersedure of " Darius the Mede" (q. v.) at Baby- lon, B.C. 536, where the edict was evidently issued. See Ctbus. Others date the decree from, the earlier point, and suppose that so great a migration must have occupied much time ; they therefore allow two years as not too long an interval for its complete accomplish- ment after the promulgation of the decree.
Another method of arriving at the time in question is by means of fixing the termination of the so-called * * 70 years' captivity. " Two numbers, held by some to be identical, must here be considered. One is the pe- riod of 70 years, during which the tyranny of Babylon over Palestine and the East generally was to last, prophesied by Jeremiah (xxv), and the other, the 70 years of the city's overthrow and utter depopulation (2 Chron. xxxvi, 21 ; Dan . ix, 2). The commencement of the former period b plainly the Ist year of Nebu- chadnezzar (as viceroy), and 4th (according to Dan. i, 1, the 8d complete) year of Jehoiakim (Jer. xxv, 1), B.C. 606, when the successes of the king of Babylon be- gan (xlvi^2), and-the mberies of Jerusalem (xxv, 22); and its conclusion will be the &11 of Babylon (ver. 26). The famous 70 years of captivity would seem to be the same period as thb, since it was to terminate with the return of the captives (Jer. xxix, 10). The eecond pe- riod of 70 years dates i¥om the burning of the Temple, late in B.C. 588 (Ezek. xl, 1), and terminates with its complete reconstruction, some time in B.C. 517 (Ezra vi, 15). The two passages in Zechariah, which speak of such an interval as one of desolation (i, 12), and during which fasts connected with the captivity had been kept (vii. 5), are quite reconcilable with thb explanation. These two passages are of the 2d and 4th years of Da- rius Hystaspis, in whose 6th year the Temple was fin- bhed.
The detaib of this period are made up of the follow- ing Babylonian reigns, from profane sources :
« ^ , Y««i8. Ymts.
NebnchadncEzar (vlceroyshlp) 18
Nebnchadnezmr (raddae) 86 .... 27
"Evil-Merodftch" 2.... 9
Nerikoliuisar 4.... 4
*^ Belshazzar,** vice Nabonned IT 17
Capture cf Rahylon cT
^^ Darius the Mode,'* or Cyazares S 2
Cyrus's 2>e<;rfe 70
Cynw (reiidne) 6
^^ Ahaauerua," or Cambyms 8
^ Anaxerzet,'* or 9monUa 0
^^ Darina,*' L e. Hystaspis (beginning) ... 5
TempU rebuOt .' "to
6. From thb point downward, the cofaicideiice with (Grecian and R<nnan annals becomes so deftr, to the junction with the Christian sbia, that th«i« can be 00 doubt respecting the chronology aa a whole. The pro- phetic period of Daniel's " Seventy Weeks" (q. v.) cot- ers this period, and accurately sketdies the ontKiie of Jewish history. The detaib will be oooaider«d nndsr the special heads to which they belong, e. g. D^axiEL; EzBA; Nbhemiak; ^ccabkbs; Jesus; Acts, ete. III. Bynckrommu with Profane AnmaU.'-TlMie an a number of leading dates which may be regarded m more or less settled by a comparison* of the fbr«gang Biblical statements with those found in i*lawrlfiil^ Ja- dsao-ecdesiastical, and monunental history. , 1. The Delvffe.^The Flood, acooiding to the forego- ing adjustments, would end near the dose of &C.
2515, and would have begun near tlie dose of B.C.
2516. It b most reasonable to suppose the Noaebun colonbts to have begun to spread not long after the Flood ; scriptural intimations, aa commonly interpret- ed, assign their dissemination to the beginning of the second century after that event. If the DiTiaien at Peleg's birth be really the same as the Dbpervloo (q. v.) after the building of the Tower of Babel, this sap- posed interval would not necessarily hare to be length- ened, for the text of the account of tlie building of the Tower does not absolutely prove that all Koah^a de- scendants were concerned in it, and theiafoie sonw may have previously taken their depaiture ttom the primeval settlement See Pelbo. The chimiologT of Egypt, derived from the monuments and Manetiw, is held by some to indicate for the foundation of its first kingdom a much earlier period than would be consist- ent with thb scheme of approximative Biblical datca: but other and more careful authors greatly reduce these computations (see J. C. K. Hofmann, jEyspHtehe a. /jr. Zeiirechmmff, Ndrdl. 1847, 8vo). The Assyrians and Babylonians liare not been proved, on aatisfactoiy grounds, to have reckoned back to so remote a time as the Egyptians ; but the evidence of their monuments, and the ft-agments of their hbtoiy preserved by aadcot writers, as hi the case of the Egyptians, cannot well be recondled with the short interval preferred by Usher. The most cautious calculations, based upon indepead- ent historical evidence, points to no earlier period *>>*w the middle of the 25th centuiy B.C. as the time of the foundation of kingdoms, although the chronology of Egypt reaches to about thb period (Osbum, Monmmm tai Hia. of Egypt, p. 684, concludes that Menee found- ed the Egyptian empire at Memphb in B.C. 2429), while that of Babylon and other states does not great^ ly fall short of the same antiquity, although the Assyr- ian empire was much hiter (Layard,£a£^bii emd Nin- eveh, p. 531, dates, according to the latest oondusieas from the inscriptions, the reign of the first Khievile king, Derceto, fh)m B.C. 1250). See Noah.