66 



remains undecided. These observations the author would 

 rely upon as an apology for his attempt; and he will venture 

 to hope, that thei/ will plead with the candid and the impartial 

 in favour of any effort, however humble, to investigate the 

 causes of this singular difference of opinion, on a question of 

 such acknowledged importance; and to give a solution of its 

 subject, consistent with the legitimate rules for interpreting 

 scripture, and reconciling the difficulties of history. 



The great ground of controversy and discussion is the aa- 

 thority of the celebrated passage in the 1st Book of Kings; 

 which afibrds the chronologic characters of the a;ra of the 

 foundationof the temple; and the consistency and agreement 

 of the interval therein delivered with the several periods de- 

 ducible from the history of the Judges, and the various for- 

 tunes of the Jewish nation, from the exod to the commence- 

 ment of the regal state. 



The passage itself in question is thus rendered conformably 

 to the Vulijate in our translation : 



1 Kings, vi. I. — And it came to pass, in the four hundred 

 and eightieth year, after the children of Israel were come out 

 of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign 

 over Israel, in the month of Zif, which is the second month, 

 that he began to build the house of the Lord." 



Before I proceed to develope the peculiar views of my own 

 system and hypothesis, it may be useful to deliver a rapid 

 and concise analysis of the different theories, which have been 

 already sabmitted on the subject of this enquiry ; and to 



examine 



