270 F. GARD FLEAY, ESQ., M.A., ON THE SYNCHRONOUS 



Various methods have been tried to explain the discrepancy 

 between the Assyrian and Hebrew reckonings : — 



1. The most popular at present is that of the Assyriologers 



Kamphausen, Schrader, etc., adopted by Sayce, Driver, 

 Cheyne and many other high authorities. They 

 maintain the unbroken continuity of the eponym 

 Canon and sacrifice the Hebrew numbers altogether, 

 but have utterly failed to avoid the contradiction thus 

 introduced between the dates of Shishak and Eeho- 

 boam. They do not, however, for the most part, go so 

 far as Kobertson Smith, who maintains that the 

 Hebrew numbers were based on cycles of 240 or 480 

 years, the smaller intervals being filled in by mere 

 guess ; a hypothesis utterly unworthy of so sagacious 

 a writer. 



2. Another group mostly of writers of lower repute in 



Assyrian matters, though better acquainted with 

 Egyptian, take refuge in denying the identity of 

 '•Ahabbu of Sirhala (Sir'lai) " with Ahab of Samaria, 

 and of " Jehu son of Omri " with Jehu son of Nimshi 

 These require no refutation. 



3. Oppert and others have suggested breaks in the eponym 



lists at impossible places. Oppert, for instance, 

 would insert 47 years before Tiglath Pileser, but there 

 can be no doubt of the identity of the eclipse in the 

 month Sivan of the eponym Purilsaggali with that of 

 June, 763. 



4. The view now proposed that there was a break of 25 or 



26 years just before this eponym. 



Let us examine the accounts of the Median kin^s given by 

 Herodotus and Ctesias. 



