82 



reckoning only 480 years, and that, of course, we may in- 

 differently adopt either, according as we approve of their 

 system and reasoning. It is necessary, then, to state the 

 arguments that have induced me to reject the hypotheses of 

 both, and to propose another, that should appear more com- 

 pletely to fulfil the conditions of the problem, as the analysts 

 speak. 



With regard to the system of Usher, I may remark, first, 

 that he has departed from his original principle, in allotting 

 nine additional or intercalary years between the government 

 of Gideon and Abimelech, for which he gives no reason, ex- 

 cept we receive as one, his simple assertion, that he acted on 

 better grounds than other chronologists, (meliore ratione, &c.) 

 who, from a similar motive, (viz. that of completing the sum 

 of 480 years re(|uired by the text,) have granted to Joshua 16" 

 or 17 years, and this when the sacred text (Judges 8-20 ) says 

 expressly, " The country was in quietness AO ijears, in the daijs 

 of Gideon." If he had been consistent with himself, Abime- 

 lech should have succeeded in the same year that the 40 

 years of repose after Deborah concluded ; or, if he had been 

 consistent with Scripture, he should have allotted 40 years to 

 Gideon, instead of nine. 



2d. Again, in allotting to Joshua only 6 years, he is cer- 

 tainly at variance with the whole stream of antiquity, as the 

 fathers unanimously allow him 27 or 30 years at the least, 

 (vide Vossius Capellus, Scaliger, and the authorities they 

 cite, to which add the Alex. Chronicle, which allows him 



27 years. 



