236 Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. 



F. On the 13th (14th ?) of Ab, that is the 19th day of Pachons, the 26th 



year of Artaxerxes the king. 

 G and H. The dates of these papyri are too incomplete for use in this 



discussion. 

 J. On the 3rd of Chisleu, the 7th (8th ?) year, that is the 11th (12th?) 



day of Thoth, the 7th (8th ?) year of Darius the king. 

 K. On the 23rd (24th ?) of Shehat, the 13th year, that is the 8th (9th ?) 



day of Athyr, the 13th (14th ?) year of Darius the king. 



Most of the difficulties in the interpretation of these dates are due to our 

 ignorance. The Egyptian calendar, indeed, is well known — that is to say, in 

 any given year the day and month of the Julian calendar corresponding to a 

 given day and month of the Egyptian calendar can be found. Nothing, 

 however, is known about the constitution of the Jewish calendar at this 

 period, except the order of the months; but we may fairly assume that it was 

 a luni-solar calendar, and that the first day of each month coincided approxi- 

 mately with the apparent new moon. We do not know, however, which was 

 the first month of the year, or the method of intercalation adopted in order 

 to reconcile the lunar months with the solar year. And though the years in 

 which these Persian kings came to the throne are known, to a high degree of 

 probability, from historical sources, we do not know the particular point in 

 the year from which the years of the reign were counted : hence our reduc- 

 tion to Julian dates may be erroneous by one year, either in excess or defect. 

 We do not know whether the years of the reign were post-dated or ante-dated ; 

 and we must admit the possibility that in different calendars the years were 

 counted from different points. In these papyri our difficulties are increased 

 by doubts in several cases as to the correct reading and interpretation of the 

 numbers. Till these difiiculties have been overcome and these questions 

 have been answered, it is useless to attempt to formulate theories about the 

 constitution of the Jewish calendar, and its system of intercalation. 



It is necessary to make some assumptions with regard to the years, 

 Jewish and Egyptian, which are employed in the documents ; but these 

 assumptions must be as few as possible. If we find that the results are 

 hopelessly inconsistent, we should rather draw the conclusion that some of 

 our preconceived opinions are erroneous, than take refuge in the assertion 

 that the papyri are forgeries. This is the conclusion arrived at by Professor 

 Belleli,' who regards the disagreement of the documents with his conceptions 

 about the Jewish calendar as a proof that they are spurious. Those who 



^ Jn a Paper leacl at the Victoria Institute, April 15, 1908, 



