240 Proceedings of the Roi/al Irish AcademiJ, 



Papyri C and D. 



The date of Papyrus C is not well enough preserved for use in this 

 discussion ; but it is probalDly the same as that of Papyrus D. In Papyrus D 

 there is no doubt about the day of the Jewish month or the number of the 

 year ; but considerable difficulty arises in connexion with the Egyptian 

 date. If it be accepted as it stands, it will be found that the Jewish year 

 must have shifted more than is possible in a properly constructed luni-solar 

 calendar. In consequence of this difficulty, the date will not be made use 

 of in the following investigation, but w^ill be examined later in the light 

 of the information derived from the other papyri. 



Papyeus E. 



The editors have read " On the third of Chisleu." The facsimile of the 

 papyrus seems to have only two strokes to denote the day of the Jewish 

 month ; and my friend Mr. Cowley informs me that it is quite possible that 

 the original had only two : accordingly, I adopt the reading " On the 

 second of Chisleu." 



The 10th of Mesore in the years 449-446 corresponded to the 17th 

 of iSTovember: hence we obtain the 16th of November for the 1st of Chisleu. 

 The only new moon in the period 450-436 which is suitable is that of 

 the 15th of Xovember, 446 ; hence the date of Papyrus E is : — 



2nd of Chisleu = 10th Mesore = 16th of Xovember, 446 B.C. 



Papyiius F. 



In the tirst number there is a considerable difference of inclination in the 

 last stroke, so it remains uncertain whether 13 or 14 should be read. 



In the years 441-438, the 19th of Pachons corresponded to the 26th 

 of August ; the 1st of Ab corresponded to the 14th or the 13th of August ; 

 the new moon is found to be that of the 12th of August, 440 B.C. 



Papyrus J. 



This papyrus differs from those already discussed, in giving the number 

 of the year twice, once after the Jewish month, and again after the Egyptian 

 month. The editors' note runs as follows : — 



" The number of the year is given twice, and presumably is the same 

 in both cases, unless two different reckonings are followed, which is unlikely 

 where the numbers are so nearly the same. The last stroke in both is 

 sloping, and it is doubtful, therefore, whether we should read them as 7 or 8. 



