16 
490 years) of theirreturn. In the thirty- 
third year, then, of the Chriftian zra (the 
time of the death of Jefus) they con- 
ceived the 490 years.to be on the brink 
ef elapfe. They placed their return 
therefore 457 years before the Chriftian 
wera, which. is the date of the ediét of 
Ezra. Secondly, the Jews defcribe their 
captivity as having lafted 70 years : now, 
tf we reckon back from the edié of Ezra, 
we find, that precifely 70 years before 
that date (527 years before Chrift) Cam- 
dyfes, prince of Perfia, over-ran Syria, 
_ and conquered Paleftine: whereas, in the 
year 514 before Chrift, Paleftine was net 
vifited by a hoftile army. The ews, 
therefore, dated the beginning of their 
gaptivity trom the conqueft of Cambyfes. 
According to Falconer’s €hronological. 
‘Tables, 375 years elapfed between the 
death of Solomon end the captivity of 
‘Jehoiachim : and it does not appear that, 
by reckoning the laft year of each reign 
as identical with the firft year of the en- 
iuing reign, any very fenfible reduGion 
ean be made in this period; at moft, of 
ac years. The chronology of the Books 
of Kings and Chronicles, from the time 
af Solomon onward, is tolerably accu- 
rate. ._ Solomon, then, died, according to 
this computation, about goo years before 
the Chriftian era. Burt this is ftill too 
{eon fr the computation by the year of 
Jeminid. Mufti we not, then, fuppole,. 
that the Thora of Solomon (for the Pen- 
tateuch originally formed one book, under- 
that name ;- fee Geddes’s Preface, p. 20) 
has not defcended to our times; that 
feme prieft of the captivity (2 Kings, ch. 
KVL. ver, 24, &c.) by means of it, indeed, 
famed the Pentateuch; that he intro- 
éuced the Oriental ftory of the Fall, the 
Oriental ftory of the Deluge, the Oriental 
Geography (Genefis, ch. x); and that it 
33 his Samaritan copy which the faithful 
Ezra canonized, and handed down to pof+ 
terity F 
f fhould willingly compute the diftance 
ef time between Solomon and Mofes ; 
But having compared the two contradic- 
tory plans of reckoning fuggefted by 
Breret. (CHuvres de, Freret,. vol..iv. 
Pp. 330) both appear unfatisfaétory. Is 
It impoffible that the Judges, who oc- 
cupy fo vaft en interval of this period, 
were not fucceffive, but in part cotempo- 
¥ary Magifirates, exercifing various local 
jurifdictions? It almoft feems fo: for, 
according tothe pedigree which opens the 
feventh ehapter of Ezra, but feventeen 
enerations elapfed between him and 
asom If, moreover, we fuppole the 
The Greek and Welfh Languages compared. 
[Jane 
Azariah of 1 Chronicles (ch. vi. ver. 10), 
to be the fame perfon with Ezra, and cor- 
rect the genealogies by each other, and 
by. § Chron-ix. 1¢°(ftriking out one name 
between Meraioth and Ahitub,, and in- 
ferting one name between Zadok and 
Azariah) there will remain but fixteen. 
generations between Ezra and Aaron, & 
period, therefore (allowing 33 years to 
each generation) of about 523 years. 
This projeét of computation places Aaror 
about * 150 years only. before Solomon. 
And it muft be owned, the more incon- 
fiderable the diftance between them, the 
more credible becomes any teftimony col-. 
le&ted under Solomon, concerning the 
aétions of Mofes. Befides, the latter wilk 
then appear to have FLOURISHED in the. 
eleventh century before Chrift, during 
which Chronologers are accuftomed to 
place the Expulfion of the Shepherd- 
kings from Lower Egypt: am event, ace 
cording to Manetho, Justin Martyr, Ta+ 
tian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Perizonius 
(Origines Babylonice & Egyptice; vol. i. 
p--349) and common fenfe, identical. with 
the. Exodus of the Ifraelites. 
SES SS 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
. STR 
WW your Second Volume, page 609, ® 
drawn a parallel between theHebrew and. 
the élf,, inorder to fhow their affinity 5. 
thereby intending it as the beginning of 
a feries of proofs, for. fupporting what 
was advanced: before refpecting the uni- 
verfality of the latter of the languages in 
uefzion. TI beg leave now to proceed in 
tne fame brief way, by making a com- _ 
parifon between it and the Greek. 
‘Ebere are four leading evidences to eftaz 
blith a conneétion between the languages. 
in- queftion, of which I fhail take notice, 
and adduce a few examples for the pur- 
pofe of illuftration + 
The &rft proof is, the famenefs of con- 
Jtruction, or fyntax, of which the follow= 
ing paflages will ferve as a fpecimen s__ 
Greek, Exvoy avy aut. 
Wel/b. Ebon’ yna atto. 
They faid therefore to him. 
G. Eyvyey Areor. 
iW”. Yn-nofon lawn. 
. Far (full) in the night. 
* Jn Ruth,ch.iv. ver. 20 to22, it alfo appears, 
that, from Nafhon, a cotemporary of Mofes, to Da- 
vid, were five generations, which, eftimated at 33 
years, make 165 years. To this may be op- 
pofed the pofitive teftimony of r Kings, ch. vi. 
ver. 1, whichmay beft be cluded by fuppofing the 
computation therein made by the four-month 
year of Cenforinus, 
G. Se 
