The mention of ** Merodach-Baladan, son olf Bala- dan, king of Babylon," apparently in or not long af- ter 14 Hezekiah (2 Kings xx, 12), forms yet another synchronism in this reign. For Sennacherib's in- scription records his defeat of this Babylonian king in his first year; a Marudakh-Baldan appears in Polyhistor's extract from Berosus as king in Babylon early in Sennacherib's reign, but with circnmstancee which make it extremely difficult to make out the identity of the three persons with each other, and with either the Mardok Empad, who in the Canon reigns in Babylon from 721 to 709, or the Mesesi Mordak of the same document, from 692 to 688. See Mbrodach- Baladaiv. Here it may be sufficient to mention that Dr. Hincks (Trant, of Royal frith Academy^ vol. xxii, 364), retaining the 55 years of Manasseh, proposes to solve the difficulty by placing Sennacherib's invasion €>t Judsa in Hexekiah's 25th instead of his 14th year, at the date 701 B.C< ; Hezekiah's illness remams at its earlier date. Bnnsen, tacitly adopting this con- struction, makes 8 Sennacherib fUl in 24 Hezekiah, and imagines that the invasion which terminated dis- astrously to the Assyrian king was a second, in Heze- kiah's ^th year, on which latter occasion it was that Tirhakah came to the relief of Jerusalem (^^. 8t, b. IT, p. 505). Retaining for this Egyptian king an ep- och B.C. 712, which is plainly disproved by the Apb inscriptions (see above), he makes it possible for So= Sevek II to have been contemporary with Hoshea. It must be owned that the received chronology of Heze- kiah's reign is beset witii difficulties on the side both of Egypt and of Assyria and Babylon. But from nei- ther have we as yet an the facts we need, and the fhller and clearer information which is confldentiy ex- pected from the cuneiform inscriptions, in particular, win probably make much bright that is now dark. Colonel Rawlinson indeed regards it as "now genera aUy admitted that there were two invasions of Pales- tine during the reign of Hezekiah ; the first in B.C. 701, when Sennacherib overran the country and ex- acted a heavy tribute, as stated in the inscriptions and 2 Kings xviH, 13-16, and the second some thirteen or fourteen years later, which ended in the discomfiture of the Assyrians" {London AthencBum, August 22, 1868, p. 247 5). But the learned antiqui^ian has ignored the fact that the same inscriptions do not speak of two invaaionfl, and the Bible expressly identifies those here assumed as distinct Indeed, the paper in which this and other wholesale changes of the Biblical numbers are advocated contains in itself abundant evidence of the precarious elements upon which the whole sys- tem of reconstructed Assyrian chronology, as drawn from the monuments, is based ; and we feel only the more coiifirmed by its perusal in the belief that we cannot safely correct the definite and consecutive dates of the BibUcal accounts by me«ns of such vague and incoherent data. At least the attempt is yet evident- ly premature, and we are justified, by the changes which these decipherers and collators of the cuneiform
legends are constancy obliged to make in their own computed results, in waiting until they have arrived at some settied and consistent chronology before we adopt it as the basis for rectifying the established points of Scriptural history. See Semmacherib.
In connection with this discussion, a passage of Demetrius Judaeus has been deemed important (Von Gumpach, ui wp. p. 90, 180). He seems to have put forth a chronological account of the BibUcal history, from which Eusebius, Prtep. Ev. ix, 21, 29, g^ves — quoting it from Polyhistor — what relates to the pa- triarchs and Moses; another passage, preserved by Clem. Alex. Strom, i, § 141, is a summary of the pe- riod elapsed from the captivity of the Ten Tribes to his own times. Its substance is as foUows : From Sen- nacherib's invasion of Judah to the last deportation from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, 128 years 6 months ; fitmi the captivity of the Ten Tribes to Ptol- emy IT (Pldlopator), 478 years 9 months (so we must read for 578) ; from Nebuchadnezzar's deportation from Jerusalem, 888 years 3 months. As the epoch of Ptol- emy IV hi the Canon is B.C. 222 (24th October), this gives for Nebuchadnezzar's ** last deportation" B.C. 560 (July) ; for Sennacherib's invasion, B.C. 688 (Jan.) ; and for the captivity of Samaria, B.C. 695 (Jan.). But unless we are prepared to set aside the Astronomical Canon, at least its dates for Nebuchadnezzar and Evil- merodach, the captivity under Nebuchadnezzar, wheth- er it be that in his 19th year (Uth Zedekiah), or **the last," in his 28d year, Jer. lii, 80, cannot faU so low as B.C. 560. That the final deportation is meant is plain frt>m the exact correspondence of the sum witii the Bib- lical items — Hezekish, 15 ; Manasseh, 55 ; Amon, 2 ; Josiah, 81; Jehoiakim, 8; Nebuchadnezzar, 22=128 years. The 6 months over are perhaps derived fi^>m the 3 of Jehoahaz and 8 of Jeconiah. M. v. Niebuhr, fU sup, p. 102 sq., sets himself to solve the difficulty ; but tiie whole matter may easUy be explained by an error in the ordinal of the Ptolemy referred to. Set the goal at Ptolemy III (Energete8)=B.C. 247, Oct ; then we have for the captivity of the Ten Tribes, 720 (Jan.) ; for Sennacherib in Jndsa, 718 (Jan.) ; for the deportation in 28 Nebuchadnezzar, 585 (July) ; and consequenUy 589 for the destruction of the Tem- ple— very nearly in accordance with the date for the last, assigned by Clement of Alexandria, B.C. 588, Strom, i, § 127. In fact, the chronological statements in this portion of the StromcUa swarm with numerical errors, and a careless scribe might easQy misread TE- TAPTOY for TOTTPITOY. Be that as it may, it is a great mistake to suppose that Demetrius or any oth- er Jew, of his or later times, can be competent to rule a question of this kind for us. He may have been, as M. V. Niebuhr thinks, '* a sensible writer" (though oth- ers, judging ftt>m the fhtgments preserved by Eusebi- us, may fairly think otherwise) ; that ** he may have handed down good materiak" is just possible ; the prob- abnity Is that he gives us the results of his own inqui- ries, confined to the text of the sacred books, except that he gathered from the Astronomical Canon the year corresponding to 23 Nebuchadnezzar, the last recorded in the sacred books. See Hezekiah.