MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY. Vol. LXVI1I. No. 3. January 1908. Price to Non-Fellows, 2s. 6<-/. CONTENTS. PAGB Fellows elected . . . .................................81 Candidates proposed ..............................................ib. Auditors appointed..................................................82 Presents announced . . . . . . , . . . . ib, A. R. Rinks, Solar Parallax Papers, No. 6. Construction of a Standard Catalogue of photographic star places.................ib. H. H. Turner, Note on the position of the Sun’s axis of rotation, as deduced from Greenwich Sun-spot measures, 1886-1901. Papers of the I. U.S.R. Computing Bureau, No. 1 .... 98 A. S. Eddington, On the mean distances of the Groombridge stars . 104 P. H. Cowell, On ancient eclipses ....... 109 P. H. Cowell and A. C. D. Crommelin, The perturbations of Halley’s Comet in the past. First Paper : the period 1301 to 1531 . in Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Observations of Comet d 1907, from . photographs taken with the 30-inch reflector of the Thompson Equatorial and the Astrographic 13-inch refractor . . . 126 Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Note on photographs of Phoebe . 127 A. M. W. Downing, Occultations of Uranus by the Moon in 1908, visible at British Observatories . . ... . . ib. R. T. A. Innes, The transit of Mercury, 1907 November 14 . . 128 E. T. Whitelow, Observations of the transit of Mercury, 1907 s November 14...........................................130 R. Jonckheere, Observation du passage de Mercure sur le soleil, le 14 Novembre 1907..............................................131 Lunar Nomenclature Committee, Note by H. H. Turner, and proposals by Julius H. G. Franz, P. Puiseux, W. H. Pickering, and S. A. Saunder .......... 134 Printed by Neill & Co., Ltd., Bellevue, Edinburgh; and published by the Royal Astronomical Society, Burlington House, London, W., Jan. 1908. 334 Mr. K Knobel, On the Ancient Jewish lxviii. 5 sented by the. Carnegie Institution ; J. A. Repsold, Geschichte der Astronomischen Messwerkzeuge, presented by Mr. Franklin. Adams; E. B. H. Wade, Field method of determining longitudes by observations of the Moon, presented by the Egyptian Survey Department. Astrographic Chart; 32 charts, presented by the Royal Observatory, Greenwich; 20 charts, from Algiers and Paris Observatories, presented by the French Government; and 2o charts, presented by the San Fernando Observatory. Series of 36 collotype reproductions of photographs of the Milky Way, etc., presented by Professor E. E. Barnard ; photo-graph of the Nebula in Orion (transparency) from negative taken by Professor Perrine with the Crossley reflector, presented by the Lick Observatory. A suggested explanation of the ancient Jewish. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri translated by Professor A. H. Sayee and Mr. A. E. Cowley. By E. B. Knobel. The Aramaic papyri discovered at Assuan, on the site of the ancient Syene, which have been recently translated and published by Professor Sayce and Mr. Cowley, are of unique interest and importance owing to the duplicate dates given to each document. These documents cover a large part of the fifth century b.c. extending from B.c. 471, nine years only after the battle of Salamis, to b.c. 410. The papyri all relate to a Hebrew colony established at that period at Syene, and deal with rights of property, conveyance of land and buildings, marriage portions, and legal processes. They are all deeds most carefully drawn, signed, sealed, and witnessed and they are dated according to both the Egyptian and Hebrew calendars, in the regnal years of the kings of Persia. The Egyptian year and calendar are well understood. The year was a vague solar year, and consisted of 365 days without intercalation or correction, consequently the Julian date of the commencement of the Egyptian year recedes one day every four years. The year consisted of twelve months, each of thirty days, and five additional days, called epagomence, were added after the last month, There is consequently no difficulty with this calendar in determining the corresponding Julian date. Very little, however, is known of the Jewish calendar in use at the period under consideration. The present reformed calendar dates only from the time of Hillel in the fourth century a.d., though it was probably not finally settled until after the fifth century. It is known that in olden times the year was a lunar year, and certain months, and ordinances connected with the months and seasons, are mentioned in the Old Testament. There is no mention of an intercalary month in the Bible, and it is not Mar. 1908. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri. 335 known whether the correction to the solar year was applied in ancient times by the addition of one month in three years, or by the adding of ten or eleven days at the end of each year. No information appears to exist that there was anything like a settled Jewish calendar so far back as the fifth century B.c. It is very generally stated that prior to the adoption of the reformed calendar the Jews employed the era of the Seleucidie, the years of which were Julian of 365 days, but this could not have been the case at the period under discussion. Burnaby’s work on the Jewish calendar gives little assistance in the present investigation. Mr. Margoliouth—a high authority—writes: “No lists of pre-Christian Jewish dates reconciled with Egyptian or other dates are so far available to throw light on the exact form of the calendar used for the dating of the Aramaic documents published by Professor Sayce and Mr. Cowley. In the fifth century b.c. the Jewish calendar depended entirely on the observation of the Sun and the Moon, particularly the latter. The decisions must have been made by a central court, as was practically the case down to ■559 A.D., so that great uncertainty would be caused in distant parts (such as Syene in Upper Egypt, to which the papyri belong) by the delay in transmitting the announcements. “It is also uncertain whether the Jewish lunar year was in ancient times harmonised with the solar year by the addition of one month in three years, or by lengthening the last month in each year. The difficulties connected with the dates given in the recently published papyri may possibly have to be ascribed to the uncertainties mentioned.” Professor Schiir-r has discussed the subject in the Theologische Literaturzeitung for February 1907, in which he claims that the papyri confirm the fact that the Jews began their months with the appearance of the new moon, and further that they show that “jt was far from the case that, any definite system had been adopted.” I)r» Lidzharski has also reviewed these papyri in the Deutsche Literaturzeitung for 1906, but his discussion is more particularly philological, and contributes little towards the question of the ancient calendar of the Jews. The object of the present paper is to inquire whether more definite information on the subject cannot be derived from the Aramaic papyri themselves. The dates of each papyrus, as given by the translators, are as follows. The figures in brackets indicate possible alternative dates according as a certain slanting mark in the writing is considered as forming part of the numeral or not. The present opinion is that it should do so, and that the higher number is the correct one, which I have accordingly adopted.* A. On the 17th (18th?) of Elul, that is the 27th (28th?) day of Pachons, the 14th (15th I) year of Xerxes the king .... * An exception may probably be made in the day of Thoth in B. 336 Mr. E. B. Knobel, On the Ancient Jewish lxvui. 5 B. On the 18th (?) of Chisleu, that is the 6th (7th ?) day of Thoth the 20th (21st?) year (of Xerxes), the beginning of the reign when Artaxerxes the king ascended his throne .... C. Mutilated as to the dates. D. On the 21st Chisleu, that is the 1st of Mesore, the 6th year of Artaxerxes the king .... E. On the 3rd of Chisleu, that is the 10th day of the month Mesore, the 19th year of Artaxerxes the king .... F. On the 13th (14th?) of Ab, that is the 19th day of Pachons the 25th year of Artaxerxes the king .... G. On the 26th (?) of Tishri .... the 6th (day) of the month Epiphi [the 25th year of Artaxerxes the king] .... H. In the month Elul, that is Payni, the 3rd (4th?) year of Darius the king. J. On the 3rd of Chisleu, the 7th (8th?) year, that is the nth (12th?) day of Thoth, the 7th (8th?) year of Darius the king .... K. On the 23rd (24th?) of Shebat, the 13th year, that is the 8th (9th?) day of Athyr, the 13th (14th?) year of Darius the king .... The dates definitely adopted from the translation are as follows;— A. 15 th year of Xerxes, 28th Pachons = 18th Elul. B. 1 st ,, Artaxerxes, 6th Thoth = 1 Sth Chisleu. E. 19th n h 10th Mesore = 3rd Chisleu. F. 25th 19th Pachons = 14th Ab. J. 8 th „ Darius, 12th Thoth = 3rd Chisleu. K. 14th n n 9th Athyr = 24th Shebat. F< or the regnal years of the kings I have adopted the dates given by Picard in his edition of Plutarch, thus:— Cambyses, Smerdis (7 months),* Darius Hystaspes, Xerxes the Great, Artabanus (7 months), Artaxerxes Longimanus, Xerxes II. (a month), Sodgianus (7 months), Darius II. (nothus) 1st year B.c. 529 » „ 522 „ M 521 »> »> 485 » » 464 ,5 » 464 J> » 425 j> j, 424 „ » 423 The order of the Egyptian and Hebrew months is as follows:— Egyptian Months. Days. Hebrew Months. Days. Thoth. 3° Tishri. 3° Phaophi. 3° Marheshvan. 29 or 30 Athyr. 3° Chisleu. 30 or 29 Choiak. 3° Tebeth. 29 Tybi. 3° Shebat. 3° Mechir. 3° Adar. 29 Oppert. Mur. 1908. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri. 337 Egyptian Months. Days. Hebrew Months. Days. Phamenoth. 3° Ye-Adar. 3° Pharmuthi 3° Nisan. 3° Pachons. 30 Iyyar. 29 Payni. 3° Sivan. 3° Epiphi. 30 Tammuz. 29 Mesore. 3° Ab. 3° 5 Epagomense. Elul. 29 In the papyri the Julian dates corresponding to the Egyptian dates are all known, and the problem, in the absence of all information on the subject, is to construct a reasonable and probable Jewish calendar which shall satisfy all the Jewish dates. Fortunately the papyri E. and J. offer some assistance towards the solution of this difficult question. The Egyptian dates in Julian reckoning are as follows:— E. B.c. 446 ... 10th Mesore = November 17, J. u.c. 416 ... 12th Thoth = December 16, but the Jewish date of both documents is the same, viz. 3rd Chisleu ; consequently the period b.c. 446 November 17 to b.c. 416 December 16 should be an exact number of Jewish years. It has been assumed by writers generally that the commencement of each month was determined by observation and announcement, and this was no doubt the common practice in the ecclesiastical year, which began with the 1st Nisan. The Jewish civil year, however, began unquestionably with the 1st Tishri; and with such a practical business people aa the Jews, who, as we should infer from the papyri under consideration, enjoyed at this period a high state of civilisation, it is almost inconceivable that they should not have had in current use some calendar upon which they could base their business negotiations. The reformed Jewish calendar is based upon the Lunar cycle of nineteen years—the so-called Metonic cycle—and it is notunreason-able to assume that this cycle was in use with the Jews long before the time of Hillel. With one exception, that of the French Revolution calendar, history does not record the creation of any calendar, but only the correction, reformation, or amendment of preexisting calendars. Dr. Mahler pointed out in a paper read to the Oriental Congress of 1892 (“Das Kalenderwesen der Babylonier”) that the Lunar cycle was in use by the Jews at Babylon before it was adopted by the Greeks, and that it was really of Babylonian origin. In discussing the order of the intercalary months, Al Biruni (a.d. 973-1048) {The Chronology of Ancient Nations) mentions one particular order which he says is preferred by the Jews, because they attribute its invention to the Babylonians.* In this attempt to explain the Jewish calendar dates in the * The period we are dealing witli was only about sixty years after the Captivity, and it is reasonable to suppose that some of the colonists at Syene may have migrated from Babylon, as Professor Sayce particularly indicates Babylonish names among those mentioned in the documents. 338 Mr. E. B. Knobel, On the Ancient Jewish lxviil 5, papyri, it may therefore be justifiable to assume that the nineteen-year Lunar cycle was in current use. I have accordingly adopted the cycle with the same intercalations as are to be found in the present Jewish calendar, which is unchanged since the fourth century A.D., and upon this basis I have constructed a table for the whole period covered by the MSS., the intercalary months disposed according to Scaliger’s rule, “ ter, ter, bis, ter, ter, ter, bis.” * Normal Lunar Cycle. No of Year. Days. I 354 2 354 3 Emb. 384 4 354 5 355 6 Emb. 384 7 354 8 Emb. 3S4 . 9 354 IO 355 11 Emb. 3S4 12 354 13 354 14 Emb. 3S4 IS 355 16 354 17 Emb. 3S4 18 354 19 Emb. 3S4 Applying this tentative calendar to the cases of papyri E. b.c. 446, and J., b.c. 416, it will be seen that there is only one possible position for those years in this Lunar cycle, and that b.c. 446 was the 17th and B.c. 416 the 9th year of that cycle, for this is the only position in which twelve intercalary years can be brought into a period of thirty years. This gives coincidence between the number of days from b.c. 446 November 17 to b.c. 416 December 16, and the number of days in thirty Jewish years beginning with cycle No. 17 and endiixr with cycle No. 8 inclusive. On any other calculation there would be a difference of a month, and both deeds could not be dated in the same month Chisleu. b.c. 446 Nov. 17 to B.c. 416 Dec. 15 inclusive =10,987 days 30 Jewish years, cycle No. 1 7 to cycle No. 8 inclusive= 10,986 * In the old Chinese and Japanese calendar the intercalary months are disposed in this order. Mar. 1908. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri. 339 It should be mentioned in explanation that were Dr. Mahler’s Babylonian cycle employed, then B.c. 446 would be the 6th and B.C. 416 the 17th year of that particular cycle. So again in the cycle which Al Biruni says was preferred by the Jews, b.c. 446 would be the 14th and B.c. 416 the 6th year. The table appended to this paper of the 1st day of Tishri from B.C. 523 to B.c. 406 has been constructed in the following manner :— The Lunar cycle numbers are laid down for the whole period from the numbers fixed for b.c. 446 and B.c. 416, and the days of each Jewish year appended. The Jewish astronomical computation of the length of a Lunar cycle is 6939 days 16 hours and 595 chaiakim.* As the table extends over six cycles, an empirical correction had to be made making some cycles 6940 days, so that the mean length of the six cycles is 6939 days 16 hours.t It was then necessary to find reliable data for determining the I st day of Tishri for any year, so that a calendar could be constructed so far on a sound basis. Fortunately this was afforded by the most interesting discovery a few years ago by Father Strassmeier of a Babylonian tablet recording a partial lunar eclipse at Babylon in the 7th year of Cambyses. This cuneiform tablet has been fully translated and discussed by Oppert {Zeit-schriftfur Assyriologie, vol. vi.). It has an entirely unique interest, as it is an account of one of the eclipses recorded by Ptolemy in the Almagest. Ptolemy states that the eclipse occurred in the 7th year of Cambyses, in the 225th year of Nabonassar, on the night of the 17th and 18th of the Egyptian month Phamenoth. Strassmeier’s Babylonian tablet gives the date as the 7th year of Cambyses, on the 14th day of the Jewish month Tammuz. The Julian date of the eclipse is determined by Pingre and Oppolzer as b.c. 523 July 16. From this it is easy to calculate the date of the 1st Tishri as September 29 ; and as the 7th year of Cambyses is well identified as B.c. 523, the table appended is calculated entirely from this date—from b.c. 523 to b.c. 406. It gives the Year b.c.—Julian period — No. in Lunar cycle—Days in each year — Julian date of 1st Thoth—Julian date of the 1st Tishri; and Greenwich Mean Time of New Moon nearest to the 1st Tishri taken from Ginzel’s Hattdbuch der Matheniatischen und Technischen Chronologic. In considering the coincidence of Julian and Jewish dates, it should be remembered that the Jewish day is defined in Genesis : “Ami there was evening and there was morning, one day,”—that is to say, the day begins at 6 o’clock in the evening and goes on to 6 o’clock the next evening, consequently one Jewish date extends over part of two Julian days. * 1080 chaiakim equal i hour, t I have avoided complicating the question by reference to the “regular,” “ deficient,” and “ abundant ” years, as exactitude is impossible, and it seemed sufficient to secure the correctness of the mean Lunar cycle. 340 Mr. E. B. Knobel, On the Ancient Jewish lxviii. 5 Discussion of Dates. A. 15th year of Xerxes ... B.C. 471 ... 1st Thoth ... Dec. i(J 28th Pachons ... Sept. i2 1 st Tishri ... Sept. 24 18th Elul ... Sept. 12 B. ist year of Artaxerxes ... B.c. 464 ... 1st Thoth ... Dec. 1- 6th Thoth ... Dec. 22 ist Tishri ... Oct. 5 18th Chisleu ... Dec. 21 This papyrus is too much injured for the dates to be deciphered The authors state that it is written by the same scribe as I), and that there is strong evidence for considering both C. and 1). as of the same date. D. The MS. states: “On the 21st Chisleu, that is the ist Meson-, the 6th year of Artaxerxes the king.” By no possibility can these dates—2 ist Chisleu and 1st Mesore—be harmonised. But there is a crease in the papyrus just before the words “ 1 Mesore,” and in this crease there is an indication of a character which cannot be deciphered until the crease is flattened out. It is probable that the Egyptian date has not been correctly deciphered. Mesore is the last month of the Egyptian year, and it is followed by the five Epagomem®, which were kept as feast days. The question may be asked, whether in dating deeds such as those under consideration the five Epagomeme were not treated as continuous dates of the previous month, Mesore? Dr. Budge informs me that he has no experience of such a case, but he sees no reason why it should not be suggested. I venture to hazard the suggestion that the first Epagomene was designated as the 31st Mesore. Upon this pure assumption we should have, as the best that can be done for D.,_______ B.c. 460 ... ist Thoth ... Dec. 16 31st Mesore ... Dec. 11 ist Tishri ... Sept. 21 2ist Chisleu ... Dec. 9 E 19th year of Artaxerxes ... b.c. 446 ... ist Thoth ... Dec. 13 10th Mesore ... Nov, [7 ist Tishri ... Sept. 17 3rd Chisleu ... Nov. 17 jyfar. 1908. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri. 341 -eth year of Artaxerxes ... b.c. 440 .. ,. 1st Thoth .. Dec. 11 * J * 19th Pachons . .. Aug. 26 1 st Tishri .. Oct. 10 14th Ab .. Aug. 25 G. The papyrus is very mutilated. The dates 26th Tishri and 6th Epiphi are fairly certain, but the regnal year of Artaxerxes is conjecture. The authors state that the date of this deed cannot be earlier than 446, and hardly later than 440. We have to find coincidence between 6th Epiphi and 26th Tishri. The table gives the following dates :— B.C. 446 6th Epiphi ., ,. Oct. 14 26th Tishri .. .. Oct. 12 445 ». 13 „ 30 444 „ 13 >> 19 443 „ 13 Nov. 7 442 „ 13 Oct. 28 44i ,, 12 ,, 16 440 ,, 12 * Nov. 4 From this it is probable that the year is B.c. 446, and this conclusion is supported by the fact that the scribe of G. is also the scribe of E., which is clearly B.c. 446. The regnal year would thus be the 19th of Artaxerxes. H. 'Fhe papyrus states, “in the month Elul, that is Payni, the yd (4th ?) year of Darius.” 3rd year of Darius I Payni began Sept. 2 ended Oct. 1 b.c. 421 J Elul ,, Sept. 11 ,, Oct. 9 4th year of Darius | Payni began Sept. 2 ended Oct. 1 B.c. 420 f Elul „ Aug. 31 „ Sept. 28 Clearly the 4th year of Darius, B.c. 420, suits the case best. Sth year of Darius ... b.c. 416 ... 1st Thoth ... Dec. 5 12th Thoth ... Dec. 16 1st Tishri ... Oct. 15 3rd Chisleu ... Dec. 15 K. 14th year of Darius ... B.c. 410 ... 1st Thoth ...Dec. 4... b.c.411 gthAthyr ...Feb. 10 ...b.c. 410 1st Tishri ... Sept. 20 ... b.c. 411 24th Shebat... Feb. 8 ... b.c. 410 342 Mr. E. B. Knobel, On the Ancient Jewish Lxvin. 5 The final results are as follows :— Julian Date from Egyptian. Computed Date from Table. A. Sept. 12 Sept. 12 B. Dec. 22 Dec. 21 C. Mutilated. D. Uncertain. Dec. 11? Dec. 9 ? E. Nov. 17 Nov. 17 F. Aug. 26 Aug. 25 G. Oct. 14 Oct. 12 H. B.c. 420 J. Dec. 16 Dec. 15 K. Feb. 10 Feb. 8 The above results are too near coincidence to be fortuitous, and, so far as the civil year is concerned, they refute the opinion that the commencement of the month was determined by the appearance of the new moon. Two conclusions from the foregoing investigation may be safely hazarded : first, that the Lunar cycle of 19 years was in use in the Jewish calendar at this remote period, which, as Professor Sayce says, was little more than a century after the grandfathers and great-grandfathers of the parties mentioned in the papyri had tied into Egypt with Jeremiah; and secondly, that the order of intercalation at that time was not dissimilar to that in use to-day. In drawing any conclusions, one may put aside possible errors of the scribe. It is highly improbable that in the first line of original and important deeds like these papyri the scribe would make such errors as would be common in copies. These deductions do not harmonise with the views of the late distinguished chronologist M. Oppert. It may be assumed that what was current with the Jews at Babylon during the Captivity would have been continued by them in their subsequent migration. M. Oppert states that the apparition of the crescent moon signalised the commencement of the month, and in a paper “ Sur l’ancien Calendrier Perse,”* he claims to have proved that the Babylonians had no fixed system for their calendar until after the year b.c. 367; that prior to that period the 19-year cycle was in use, but the intercalary months were inserted without any order, and solely on astrological grounds ; and that it was the Greek influence which gave to Babylon a fixed system, assigning to each year of the cycle its particular character, whether common or embolismic, and he denies the correctness of Dr. Mahler’s conclusions. This view can hardly be sustained, for in making the Babylonian date b.c. 523, 14th Tammuz, the basis of the appended table, it is most improbable that we should arrive at such coincidence of the Egyptian and Jewish dates of the papyri if there had been no fixed system at all. The table connects in a systematic manner * Oriental Congress, 1897. In this paper he calculates October 6th as the 1st day of Tishri, b.c. 521, as it is found in the present table. Mar- 1908. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic, Papyri. 343 Babylonian dates with the dates used by the Jews at Syene over a century later; and, notwithstanding M. Oppert’s characteristic remark that “ on fait I’llistoire avec les livres historiques et non pas avec les Eclipses,” the rock upon which this investigation is built is the lunar eclipse at Babylon in the 7th year of Cambyses. Table of the ist Tishri from n.c. 523 to B.C. 406. Year B.C. Julian Period. Lunar Cycle. Days. ist Thoth. 1 st Tishri. G.M.T. New ({. 523 4’9’ 16 354 Jan. 1 Sept. 29 Sept. 27 57 522 2 ’7 384 Sept. 18 P-OS 521 3 3 18 354 Dec. 31 Oct. 6 5'13 52° 4 ’9 384 Sept. 25 24'80 5’9 5 I 354 Oct. 14 ’3'85 518 6 2 354 < >ct. 3 3'27 5’70 7 3 384 Dec. 30 Sept. 21 21 "41 516 8 4 354 Oct. 10 io-i6 5’5 9 5 355 Sept. 29 29'17 5’4 4200 6 384 Sept. 19 18'46 5’33 1 7 354 Dee. 29 Oct. 7 6'47 5’2 2 8 384 Sept. 26 26'11 5” 3 9 354 Oct. 15 15-18 5’° 4 10 355 Oct. 4 477 5093 5 11 384 Dec. 28 Sept. 23 23’’3 508 6 12 354 Oct. 12 ”'95 507 7 ’3 354 Oct. 1 30-93 506 8 ’4 384 Sept. 20 20'02 5°5 3 9 ’5 355 Dec. 27 Oct. 8 7'9’ 504 4210 16 354 Sept. 28 27-41 5°3 1 ’7 384 Sept. 17 ’7 07 502 2 18 354 Oct. 6 6'15 501 3 3 ’9 384 Dec. 26 Sept. 24 2469 500 4 1 355 Oct. 13 1361 499 5 2 354 Oct. 3 272 498 6 3 384 Sept. 22 2172 497 3 7 4 354 Dec. 25 Oct. IO 9’50 496 8 5 355 Sept. 29 28'81 495 9 6 384 Sept. 19 18'38 494 4220 7 354 Oct. 8 7'47 493 3 1 8 384 Dec. 24 Sept. 26 26 10 492 2 9 354 Oct. 15 15-12 49’ 3 10 355 Oct. 4 4-45 49° 4 11 384 Sept. 24 23'5’ 4S93 5 12 354 Dec. 23 Oct. 12 ”•25 488 6 ’3 354 Oct. I 3O-34 487 7 ’4 384 Sept. 20 Sept. 19-72 344 Mr. E. B. Kno bel, On the Ancie .nt Jewish lxvih. 5, Year B.c. Julian Period. Lunar Cycle. Days. 1 st Thoth. i st Tishri. G.M.T. New ([, 486 4228 15 355 Dec. 23 Oct. 9 Sept. 877 485 3 9 16 354 Dec. 22 Sept. 28 27-42 484 4230 17 384 Sept. 17 17’06 483 I 18 354 Oct. 6 6’03 482 2 19 384 Sept. 25 25-26 481 3 3 I 355 Dec. 21 Oct. 13 •3-04 480 4 2 354 Oct. 3 203 479 5 3 384 Sept. 22 21'21 478 6 4 354 Oct. 11 10-15 477 3 7 5 355 Dec. 20 Sept. 29 28 72 476 8 6 384 Sept. 19 18'41 475 9 7 354 Oct. 8 7-47 474 4240 8 384 Sept. 27 26'91 473 3 1 9 354 Dec. 19 Oct. 15 1478 472 2 10 355 Oct. 4 3-81 471 3 11 384 Sept. 24 22-83 470 4 12 354 Oct. 13 11'67 4693 5 13 354 Dec. 18 Oct. 1 30-08 468 6 14 384 Sept. 20 1971 467 7 15 355 Oct. 9 878 466 8 16 354 Sept. 29 28 40 465 3 9 17 384 Dec. 17 Sept. 17 1677 464 4250 18 354 Oct. 6 5’59 463 1 19 384 Sept. 25 24 59 462 2 1 354 Oct. 14 ‘3-35 461 3 3 2 354 Dec. 16 Oct. 2 i-54 460 4 3 384 Sept. 21 21'02 459 5 4 354 Oct. 10 Io 09 458 6 5 355 Sept. 29 2976 457 3 7 6 384 Dec. 15 Sept. 18 l8‘33 456 8 7 354 Oct. 7 7-25 455 9 8 384 Sept. 26 2639 454 4260 9 354 Oct. 15 15-15 453 3 1 IO 355 Dec. 14 Oct. 3 3-i5 452 2 11 384 Sept. 23 22’44 45i 3 " 12 354 Oct. 12 ii'44 45° 4 13 354 Oct. 1 1 '08 449 3 5 14 384 Dec. 13 Sept. 19 1972 448 6 15 355 Oct. 8 8'75 447 7 16 354 Sept. 28 28'11 446 8 17 384 Sept. 17 17'18 445 3 9 18 354 Dec. 12 Oct. 5 4’91 444 4270 19 . 384 Sept. 24 23-99 443 1 1 355 Oct. 13 Sept. 12 89 iVlar. 1908. Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri. 345 year B.C. Julian Period. Lunar Cycle. Days. ist Thoth. 1 st Tishri. G.M.T. New ( 442 4272 2 354 Dec. 12 Oct. 3 Sept. 238 441 0 3 3 3S4 Dec. 11 Sept. 21 21-O4 44° 4 4 354 Oct. IO 10’12 439 5 5 355 Sept. 29 2966 438 6 6 3^4 Sepl. 19 18 93 437 0 7 7 354 Dec. 10 Oct. 7 672 436 8 8 384 Sept. 26 2570 435 . 9 9 354 Oct. 15 14’49 434 4280 IO 355 Oct. 4 378 4330 1 11 384 Dec. 9 Sepi. 23 22’35 432 2 12 354 Oct. 12 "•44 431 3 '3 354 Oct. 1 I ’07 43° 4 14 384 Sept. 20 20’55 4290 5 '5 355 Dee. 8 Oct. 8 8’43 428 « 6 16 354 Sept. 28 27'48 427 7 17 384 Sept. 17 16-48 426 8 18 354 Oct. 6 5'3' 425 0 9 19 384 Dec. 7 Sept. 24 2370 424 4290 1 355 Oct. 13 '2’74 423 1 2 354 Oct. 3 2'39 422 2 3 384 Sept. 22 22’03 421 3 3 4 354 Dec. 6 Oct. 10 10’01 420 4 5 355 Sept. 29 29’24 419 5 6 384 Sept. 19 18-26 418 6 7 354 Oct. 8 7'02 417 0 7 8 384 Dec. 5 Sept. 26 2518 416 8 9 354 Oct. 15 14’12 4’5 9 IO 355 Oct. 4 370 414 4300 11 384 Sept. 24 23-38 4'30 1 12 354 Dec. 4 Oct. 12 ”•43 412 2 '3 354 t Oct. 1 3045 4" 3 14 384 Sept. 20 20-05 410 4 '5 355 Oct. 9 8-8i 4093 5 16 354 Dec. 3 Sept. 28 26’80 408 6 17 384 Sept. 17 16 07 407 7 18 354 Oct. 6 5’°4 406 8 '9 384 Sept. 25 Sept. 24’67 32 Tavistock Square, London, W. C.: 1908 March 11. MONTHLY NOTICES z \ ' . ’ . X , * ' „ > <' ■. t . z OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY. Vol. LXIX. No. 3. January 1909. Price to Non-Fellows, 2s. 6d. H. C. Plummer, The relations between position angle and distance and standard (photographic) coordinates...........................100 W. S. Franks, Analysis of the colours and magnitudes of 3630 Stars between the N. pole and 250 S. declination . * . . . . iog Julia Bell, Note on spectral class and stellar colours .... 108 E. M. Antoniadi, Note on some photographic images of Mars taken in 1907 by Professor Lowell . . . . . . . .110 E. E. Barnard, Photographs of Comet c 1908 (Morehouse) . . .114 Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Observations of Comet c 1908 from photographs taken with the 30-inch reflector of the Thompson Equatorial.................................................... .116 Max Wolf, A new “ Cave Nebula ” in Cepheus . . . . .117 J. W. Gifford, An improved telescope triple object-glass . . .118 Major P. A. MacMahon, On the determination of the apparent diameter of a fixed Star ........ i2g Karl Pearson and Julia Bell, On some points with regard to the lightfluctuations of Variable Stars.......................................I28 George Forbes, The Comet of 1556; its possible breaking up by an unknown Planet into three parts, seen in 1843, 1880, and 1882 . ij2 Erratum.................................................................i62 Printed by NEILL & Co., Ltd., Bellevue, Edinburgh ; and published by the Royai Astronomical Society, Burlington House, London, VV., Jan. 1909. 446 Mr. J. K. Fothcringham, Note on the LXIX. 5, Note on the Regnal Years in the Elephantine Papyri By J. K. Fotheringham, M.A. {Communicated j>y E. B. Knobel.) Mr. Knobel has attempted, in Monthly Notices, Ixix. pp. g-n to discover historically the dates of accession of the Persian kino/ and by a comparison of these dates with the regnal years recorded in the Elephantine papyri, to discover the system by which the regnal years were reckoned. He mentions three different systems on which it is supposed that regnal years were reckoned at the period in question (the fifth century b.c.),—(i) from the accession of the king; (2) from the 1st. Nisan following the accession • M from the 1st. Thoth preceding the accession. I doubt, however whether it would be possible to produce tangible evidence of any system in use at that date which did not reckon from the New Yrear’s day following the accession, though the New Year’s dav may have been different in different countries and in different calendars. The historical data which Mr. Knobel uses are unfortunately very faulty. He quotes Oppert for evidence that Darius was livin.r in September 485 b.c. But Oppert’s dates for the reign of Darius have been shown to be one year too low, and this date should be corrected to September 486 B.c.* He next asserts that Xerxes was assassinated by Artabanus in the beginning of the archonship of Lysitheus, in the 4th. year of the 78th. Olympiad, from which he infers that the assassination of Xerxes was not earlier than July 465 B.c. The date is apparently derived from Diodorus,f who gives the name of the Athenian archon and the Roman consuls but does not specify the time of year. Diodorus’ reputation as a chronologist for the period between the Persian and Peloponnesian wars is unfortunately very low, and in any case we do not know that the authority from whom his date is derived reckoned the year from the entrance of the archon on office. Diodorus, in fact always identifies the Athenian official year which began in summer with the Roman official year, which appears to have begun at very different seasons at different dates. I do not think any reliance can be placed on this date. Mr. Knobel is even more unfortunate when he attempts to date the accession of Artaxerxes from Thucydides. According to him “Thucydides records that in the 4th. year of the 78th. Olympiad July 465 b.c. to June 464 b.c., Themistocles went up the country,” * See Professor Weissbach’s article, “ Uber einige neuere Arbeiten zur babylonisch-persischen Chronologie,” Zeitschrift der deutschen morgen-landischen Gesellschaft, Band Iv. (1901), pp. 195-220, especially p. 220 • also his article, “ Zur neubabylonischen und achamenidischen Chronologie,” ibid. Band Ixii. (1908), pp. 629-647. ’ ’ t xi. 69. Mar- 1909. Regnal Years in the Elephantine Papyri. 447 etc. As it happens, Thucydides * does not assign a date to this event and knows nothing of the reckoning by Olympiads. Mr. Knobel’s next citation is happier. He asserts that “ the death of Artaxerxes is recorded by Thucydides as occurring in the winter of the archonship of Stratocles—the 4th. year of the 88th. Olympiad} about December 425 B.c.” Here, again, Thucydides f says nothing about archons and Olympiads, but places the event in question in the winter of the 7th. year of the Peloponnesian war, i-e- in the winter of 425-4 b.c. This is consistent either with roy view that Darius Nothus, who followed after the short reigns of Xerxes II. and Sogdianus, began to reign between Nisan (March or April) and Thoth (December) 424 b.c., or with Mr. Knobel’s view that he began to reign in December 424 b.c. Similarly, the treaty between Sparta and Tissaphanes, which is one of the last events mentioned by Thucydides | in his full narrative of the winter 412-411 B-Co a,1(l which is dated in the 13th. year of Darius, might well fall within that regnal year, whether we reckon it with Mr. Knobel from December 412 b.c., from a spring New Year in 412 B.c., or from some other date which may have served as New Year’s day in Caria or Lydia. Diodorus’ date for the death of Artaxerxes and the accession and death of Darius Nothus would suit Mr. Knobel’s dates and mine equally well. Mr. Knobel briefly dismisses the theory that the regnal years are reckoned from 1st. Nisan after the accession by pointing out that in this case the date of Papyrus A, 12th. September 471 b.c., would not fall in the 15th. year of Xerxes, but this conclusion is based upon Oppert’s date for the accession of Xerxes, which is, as has been seen, one year too low. There can be no doubt about the identification of the regnal years of Xerxes, because this period is covered by the eighteen years’ list which extends into a period when astronomical dates are numerous. The 15th. year, according to the Babylonian reckoning, must have begun in Nisan 471 B.c., although the Babylonian regnal years are reckoned from 1st. Nisan. The earliest dated tablet in the reign of Xerxes belongs to 22nd. Arah-samma in the year of his accession, probably 1st. December 486 B.c. Ptolemy reckons his first year from 1st. Thoth = 23rd. December 486 b.c. Mr. Knobel goes on to suggest that the years are reckoned from the 1st. Thoth preceding the accession, except where two different regnal years are given in the same papyrus, and here he admits that the lower regnal year is computed from Nisan. To this I should reply, that the papyri afford no evidence which would enable us to determine whether the dates reckoned from Thoth are computed from the Thoth preceding or the Thoth following the accession, though the latter theory is more consistent with the practice of the age. It is also easier to believe that the Jewish dates are reckoned from Nisan, and the Egyptian from Thoth. There are only three instances in the series where the two systems of reckoning would give different regnal years. In two of these * i. 137- t iv. 50. J viii. 58. 448 Regnal Years in the Elephantine Papyri. lxix 5 three (J and K) both regnal years arc given. In the remaining instance (B) two regnal years are given, but are not annexed to the different calendar dates, and presumably belong to one system of reckoning. Here we read “The 21st. year (of Xerxes), the beginning of the reign when Artaxerxes the king ascended the throne.” Now there is no dispute that the 1st. year of Artaxerxes was the year following the 21st. year of Xerxes; if, therefore Mr. Knobel were right in supposing that the 1st. year of Artaxerxes was reckoned from the New Year’s day preceding his accession, it would follow that his accession would fall in the year after the 21 st. of Xerxes, i.e. the 22nd. of Xerxes, continuing the enumeration of his years after his death. It is clear, therefore, that this date i8 not reckoned from a New Year’s day preceding the actual accession If Professor Schiirer’s identification, which 1 have accepted, be correct, the date (2nd. January 464 B.c.) falls into the 21st. year of Xerxes reckoned from Nisan, which is also the accession year of Artaxerxes. From this it would follow that the Jewish dates are computed from the New Year’s day (in this case 1st. of Nisan) before the king’s accession. Mr. Knobel’s objection to Professor Schiirer’s date is, as has been seen, based upon a precarious interpretation of a historian chronologically untrustworthy. The date which he himself suggests (23rd. December 464 B.c.) is inconsistent with his own chronology, according to which the 2nd. year of Artaxerxes, corresponding to the 23rd. of Xerxes, should have begun on the 17th. of December 464 B.c. The date on this papyrus is interesting as being the earliest known date in the reign of Artaxerxes. Mr. Knobel even goes the length of suggesting that the regnal years in Palestine in the time of Nehemiah were computed from the 1st. of Thoth, on the ground that Chisleu in the 20th. year of Artaxerxes preceded Nisan in the same year. Surely it would be easier to suppose that these years are reckoned, according to the Syrian and modern Jewish practice, from the autumn New Year’s day, the 1 st. of Tishri. On the whole, I see no reason for abandoning the opinion that the Jewish dates on the Elephantine papyri are certainly, and the Egyptian probably, reckoned from the New Year’s day preceding the actual accession of each king: in the case of the Jewish dates this New Year’s day would be the 1st. of Nisan, and in the case of the Egyptian dates the 1st. of Thoth. 12 Holywell, Oxford .-1909 March 6. I^ar. 1909. Period and Density of Alyol-Vdriables. 449 On the Relation between Period and Density of Algol- Variables. By the Rev. J. Stein, S.J., Sc. D. {Communicated by Prof. H. H. Turner, D.Sc., F.R.S.) (. As is well known, a maximum value of the mean density of an Algol-system can be derived from the period (P) and the total duration of eclipse (2Q.* If the orbit is supposed to be circular, this maximum-value 1) is given by D A. 27T - : n = — P2 sin 3n/0 P where P and tQ may be expressed in hours, D in the mean density of the Sun as unity. This value is identical with the real mean density (8) if the two stars are of the same size, and if the inclination of the line of sight to the orbit is zero. In order to determine the constant K we put— P = one year = 365’25 x 2411; 74^ = 32' 3"’64 = mean apparent diameter of the Sun; consequently I) = | and K = 31’17. Thus P2 sin 3n<0 and 31’17 being =1’005 7T3, we can bring this into the simple form— Meriau has shown that 1) is not very different from 3, if one star is not considerably larger in size than the other. 2. In the Mitteilungen der Hamburger Sternwarte, No. 11, ])r. Graff has deduced from his own observations the elements of the orbits of 10 Algol-variables. A slight extension was given to these by Professor Ristenpart (As/. Nach., No. 4250), who derived from the elements the mean density of the systems by the formula P2( I + K3) (4) where a is the radius of the relative orbit, k the radius of the dark satellite, both expressed in the radius of the bright star as unity. If P is given in hours, then C = }K. Arranging the stars according to decreasing periods, Ristenpart finds a nearly progressive increase of density ; and he adds that this might be expected with regard to formula (4): “ Natiirlich * M. Meriau, “ Densite des etoiles variables du type d’Algol,” Comptes Rendus de I'Acad. d. Sciences, vol. 122(1896), p. 1254. MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, CONTAINING - PAPERS, ABSTRACTS OF PAPERS, AND %>..< / REPORTS OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SOCIETY FROM NOVEMBER 1908 TO NOVEMBER 1909. VOL. LXIX. LONDON: ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY, BURLINGTON HOUSE, W. I909. 12 Mr. J. K. Pother ingham, Calendar Dates lxix. i, Calendar Dates in the Aramaic. Papyri from Assuan. By J. K. Fotheringham. {Communicated by E. B. Knobel.) Those who are interested in ancient calendars and their astronomical significance will be grateful to Mr. Knobel for the close examination that he has given the dates in the Assuan papyri in the Monthly Notices of March 1908. Mr. Knobel’s verification of these dates is in the majority of cases beyond controversy, and is a marked improvement on the dates given by Mr. Cowley from a mere reckoning by the years of Persian kings without reference to astronomical data. There are, however, two instances where it seems to me that Mr. Knobel’s dates are capable of emendation, and I think it is also doubtful whether he is right in the calendar principles by which he attempts to explain them. The papyri edited by Professor Sayce and Mr. Cowley* belong to a series of Aramaic papyri, which also includes three papyri edited by Professor Sachau j- and translated into English by Canon Driver, j and one papyrus edited by Professor Euting.§ All these papyri contain lunar dates with Aramaic month-names, but in those edited by Professor Sayce and Mr. Cowley these dates are accompanied by the corresponding dates of the Egyptian calendar, doubtless because they are all of the nature of contracts dealing with rights of property in Egypt, whereas the papyri edited by Professor Sachau and Professor Euting, which are of the nature of petitions to Persian authorities outside Egypt, contain none but the Aramaic month-names. It has been assumed by all writers whose works have met my eye that the months with Aramaic names belong to the Jewish calendar, probably because the papyri belonged to a Jewish community. The argument does not appear to me to be conclusive. It is w’ell known that these names are of Babylonian origin, and were not adopted by the Jews till the captivity, nor were they adopted by the Jew’s only, but also by the other peoples of Syria and Mesopotamia. || It may therefore be better to call these month-names Aramaic until it is determined to what calendar they belong. A very brief inspection of the papyri will show that these Aramaic dates belong to a lunar calendar; and since the Egyptian calendar is well known, each year consisting of 365 days, it should be possible by a comparison of a table of Egyptian dates with a table of new moons to date precisely each papyrus that bears a double date, and to fix accurately the regnal years of Persian kings to which they are referred. The papyri that bear only an Aramaic * Aramaic papyri discovered at Assuan, 1906. t Abhandlungen der konigl. preuss. Akademieder Wissenschaften, 1907. I The Guardian, Nov. 6, 1907, p. 1827 f. § Notice sur un papyrus Egypto-Aramecn de la Bibliotheque imperials de Strasbourg, 1903. II See Schiaparelli, Astronomy in the Old Testament, Oxford, 1905, p. 111. Nov. 1908. in the, Aramaic Papyri from Assuan. 13 date cannot by themselves be dated with the same precision, but as they too are assigned to definite regnal years, the other papyri do in effect enable us to date them also. In Mr. Knobel’s citations of the text of the papyri and his interpretation there is little which calls for criticism. 1 have examined each date in detail, and am inclined to accept Professor Schiirer’s conclusion in almost every case.* * * § Professor Schiirer and Mr. Knobel are, as will be seen, certainly right in accepting the higher numerals, bracketed by Mr. Cowley, as the only ones capable of bringing the chronology into any consistency. In papyrus B, where Mr. Knobel accepts Mr. Cowley’s conjectural restoration of a lacuna with the date 6th. (7th.?) of Thoth, Professor Schiirer prefers to read 17th. Again in papyrus J, where Mr. Knobel, following Mr. Cowley, reads 7th. (8th. 1) for the year of Darius according to the Egyptian reckoning, Professor Schiirer reads 9th. and Mr. Knobel has informed me that he now accepts this reading. In this case Mr. Cowley acknowledged that there seemed to be traces of an additional stroke, but preferred the reading 7th. (8th. 1) in order to/make the numeral agree with that in the Aramaic reckoning, not realising that the double insertion of the regnal year was due here, as in the following papyrus, to a difference between the Aramaic and the Egyptian reckoning. To examine the dates more closely, we need, as I have suggested, a comparative table of the Julian and Egyptian calendars, such as is provided by Professor Mahler,t and also a table of new moons, such as is provided by Professor Ginzel. J Professor Ginzel gives the new moons in decimals of a day, reckoned from Greenwich mean noon. I have converted these into hours and minutes, reckoned from Assuan midnight. The addition of nine minutes more will convert these dates into Jerusalem time. Professor Ginzel’s calculations are based upon Oppolzer’s values for lunar and solar constants, and are made by means of Dr. Schram’s Mondtafel.g The method of calculation is far from exact, and the error may easily amount to the greater part of an hour. We have also to allow for possible errors in Oppolzer’s values for the constants. By substituting Professor Newcomb’s values || for Oppolzer’s we obtain a date three minutes later for the mean new moon of Elul, 471 b.c., and by substituting Mr. Cowell’s values we obtain a date thirty minutes later than Oppolzer’s for the same mean new moon. On the other hand, by substituting * See his article in Theologische Literaturzeitung, Feb. 2, 1907. In one case I propose a correction of two days, and in one case I date a papyrus which he leaves undated. Otherwise my dates are the same as his. t Chronologische Vergleichungstabellen—I. Agypt etc. griech. 1888. t Handbuch der Chronologic (1906), I, 551-3. § Denkschriften der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Math.-naturw. Klasse, xlv. (Vienna, 1882), reprinted in Schram’s Kalendario-graphische und Chronologische Tafeln, 1908, pp. 356-9. || I take these from Mr Cowell’s paper in Monthly Notices, Ixv. (1905), p. 863. II Monthly Notices, Ixvi. (1906), p. 525. 14 Jfr. J. K, Pother Ingham, Calendar Dates LXIX. I, Professor Ginzel’s own values, we obtain a date twenty-three minutes earlier than Oppolzer’s. For the mean new moon of Shebat, 410 b.c., these differences must be reduced to two minutes, twenty-eight minutes, and twenty minutes respectively. For the intervening new moons the corrections resulting from the substitution of these values will fall between the extremes just given. Mr. Knobel’s lunar cycle must, I am afraid, be set aside, partly because we do not know that the calendar with which we are dealing is Jewish, partly because we have no accurate information about the Jewish calendar in the fifth century B.c., and partly because the initial date from which his supposed Jewish calendar is calculated, the eclipse of 14 Tammuz, 523 b.c., really belongs not to the Jewish, but to the Babylonian calendar. We must be content to assume in each case that the lunar month began near the new moon, and see what results from this. Taking the papyrus dates one by one, we get the following results:— A. 17 (18) Elul = 27 (28) Pachons in 14 (15) Xerxes. The only date that could possibly correspond to 14 (15) Xerxes in which either the 27th. or 28th. of Pachons could be the 17th. or 18th. day of a lunar month is 471 b.c., when 27 (28) Pachons was the Julian 11 (12) September; so that we have 17 (18) Elul = n (12) September 471, 1 Elul = 26 August 471. Professor Ginzel gives for the new moon August 24'1 i8h 45111; if this is later than sunset, Elul would appear to have begun at the sunset after new moon. We also get 14 (15) Xerxes = 472-1 or 471-0. B. 18 Chisleu (18 appears to be the correct figure) = 6 (7) [1 7 ?] Thoth in Xerxes 20 (21), beginning of Artaxerxes. Now if Xerxes 14 (15) is 472-1, Xerxes 20 (21), should be 466-5. 6 (7) Thoth would then be 23 (24) Dec. 466, and 17 Thoth would be 3 Jan. 465, impossible dates for the 18th of a lunar month, and exceedingly early for the accession of Artaxerxes. But if Xerxes 14 (15) is 471-0, Xerxes 20 (21) should be 465-4, the year beginning somewhere before Elul, presumably in Nisan, and 17 Thoth will be 2 Jan. 464. Mr. Knobel proposes to identify 6 (7) Thoth with 22 (23) Dec. 464, but Xerxes 20 (21) cannot be extended so late unless we suppose, firstly, that Xerxes 14 (15) is an error for Xerxes 13 (14), and, secondly, that the accession year of Artaxerxes is contrary to the Assyrian and Babylonian method of reckoning, the same as his “first year” and also the same as the 21st. year, the last regnal year, of his predecessor. These assumptions are, 1 think, too violent to be maintained. We are therefore compelled with Professor Schiirer, to adopt the synchronism: 18 Chisleu = 17 Thoth = 2 Jan. 464. It will be observed that as 21 is always given as the last regnal year of Xerxes, the lower numbers, where Mr. Cowley gives us alternatives, already appear highly improbable ; for if we were to accept them, the 20th. year of Xerxes would be the accession year of Artaxerxes. We now have 1 Chisleu = 16 Dec. 465, Chisleu beginning at the sunset after the new moon of Dec. i5d ib om. C is too much injured for the dates to be deciphered, but Mr. Has van Nov. 1908. in the Aramaic Papyri from Assuan. 15 Cowley appears to be right in suggesting that it is of the same date as 1). 1). 21 Chisleu = 1 Mesore in 6 Artaxerxes. Mr. Knobel explains this on the bold assumption that 1 Mesore ought to be read 31 Mesore, and that 31 Mesore is a name, found nowhere else, for the first Epagomene. He also assumes that 6 Artaxerxes is at latest 460-459, four years later than the year which he identifies as the accession year of Artaxerxes, and, as will be seen hereafter, fourteen years earlier than 19 Artaxerxes. If he had, with Professor Schiirer, chosen a date only one lunar month earlier, the most difficult of these assumptions would have been obviated. We then have 21 Chisleu = 1 Mesore = 11 Nov. 460. 1 Chisleu is then = 22 Oct. 460, and Chisleu begins at the sunset following the new moon of Oct. 21'1 2h i2m. The 6th. year of Artaxerxes is, however, still 460-459, five years after his accession year, but 14 years before what we shall find enumerated as his 19th. year. On either Mr. Knobel’s or Professor Schiirer’s assumption, it appears to be necessary to correct the 6th. year to the 5th., but Professor Schiirer’s hypothesis involves no further difficulty, and may be accepted as correct. E. 3 Chisleu =10 Mesore in 19 Artaxerxes. Both Professor Schiirer and Mr. Knobel identify this with 17 Nov. 446. This would give us for 1 Chisleu 15 Nov. 446, and Chisleu would begin at the second sunset before the new moon of Nov. 16d 611 2’11, a surprising result, which we should nevertheless be compelled to accept were there not other evidence, to be mentioned hereafter, pointing to an error in this date. For 19 Artaxerxes we get 446-5, agreeing with an accession year of 465-4, but not with a 6th. year of 460-59. F. 13 (14) Ab =19 Pachons in 25 Artaxerxes. This is indisputably = 26th August 440. 1 Ab is therefore 14 (13) August. The date of the new moon is given by Professor Ginzel as Aug. i2d 1911 28111, so that if we accept the reading 14 Ab, as seems to follow from the regnal years of Xerxes above, Ab would appear to begin at a sunset almost simultaneous with new moon, if anything slightly preceding it. The difference between the two is apparently within the range of error of Professor Ginzel’s tables, of ancient Babylonian computations, and even of modern theory. 25 Artaxerxes is clearly 440-39. G. 26 Tishri = 6 Epiphi. The number of the year is lost here, but Mr. Cowley argues that it cannot be earlier than 446 or later than 440. He himself prefers 440. As his dates for papyri E and F are confirmed by our astronomical investigations, we may accept these dates as they stand. Professor Schiirer abandons the attempt to date this papyrus. Mr. Knobel proposes 14 Oct. 446. The only dates astronomically possible appear to be 14 Oct. 446 and 13 Oct. 443. The former gives for 1 Tishri 19 Sept. 446, the month beginning at the sunset after the new moon of Sept. 17'* i8h 31"', and the latter gives 18 Sept. 443, the month beginning at the fourth sunset after the new moon of Sept. 13d 2211 48"1. 16 Mr. J. K. Fotheringham, Calendar Dates lxix. i, As nearly all the dates in the series involve a commencement of the lunar month at the sunset immediately following the new moon, I prefer to accept Mr. Knobel’s date, in spite of a further difficulty which it involves. We now have in 44.6 the two dates 26 Tishri and 3 Chisleu separated by only 34 days, but even if we suppose that in this year both Tishri and Marheshvan were 29-day months the interval ought to be 35. If either had 30 days, as was probably the case, the interval should be 36. Now, Chisleu appears in D to begin two days too soon, on the second evening before the new moon instead of on the evening after the new moon. There are therefore two independent reasons for assuming an error of two days in the date of E, and for correcting either 3 Chisleu to 1 Chisleu or 10 Mesore to 12 Mesore. It will be observed that this error is assumed as much by Mr. Knobel’s theory as by my own, in spite of Mr. Knobel’s protestation against assuming any error in the dates contained in these papyri. It may be remarked that errors in other parts of the papyri are not uncommon. H. Elul — Payni in 3 (4) Darius. Payni, as Mr. Knobel points out, would in 420, which is the most probable date, run from 2 September to 1 October, and is almost conterminous with a lunar month. This does not permit us to fix the beginning of the month with certainty, but renders September 29 the probable date for the new moon of Tishri. J. 3 Chisleu, 7 (8) Darius = 11 (12) Thoth, 7 (8) [9?] Darius. If, as Professor Schiirer suggests, and as seems probable, 9 is the correct reading in the Egyptian date, we have the regnal year repeated, because it was different in the two calendars used. The date is clearly 15 (16) Dec. 416, so that 1 Chisleu is 13 (14) Dec. If we accept the higher figure, as seems to be indicated by the date in B, and as will be seen by the date in K, Chisleu will begin at the sunset following the new moon of Dec. i2d 2 3h 33“. The 8th. year of Darius, according to the Aramaic reckoning, will be 416-5 ; and if we accept Professor Schiirer’s reading, the 9th. according to Egyptian reckoning will also be 416-5. K. 23 (24) Shebat; 13 Darius = 8 (9) Athyr, 13 (14) Darius. The date here is clearly 10 Feb. 410, five years later than J., whether we begin the year in Nisan, in Tishri, or in Thoth. This makes it clear that 8, not 7, was the correct figure for the Aramaic year in J., so that the higher figures bracketed by Mr. Cowley are to be preferred to the lower figures in his text. The Aramaic 13 Darius and the Egyptian 14 Darius must both be 411-0, the former apparently beginning in Nisan,* the latter in Thoth. If 24 Shebat=io Feb., 1 Shebat will be 18 Jan., the month beginning at the sunset after the new moon of Jan. i7d 311 9’". This finishes the dates on the papyri edited by Professor Sayce and Mr. Cowley, but the data thus obtained enable us to date the remaining papyri more closely than would be otherwise possible. Tammuz in the 14th year of Darius, mentioned in the papyrus * From the comment on B above, it appeared that the Aramaic years began somewhere before Elul. Nov. 1908. in the Aramaic Papyri from Assuan. 17 edited by Professor Euting, and in the first and third of those edited by Professor Sachau, clearly belongs to 410 b.c., while 20 Marheshvan in the 17th year of Darius, on which the second and third of Professor Sachau’s papyri are dated, just as clearly belongs to 407 B.C. Lt may be well to arrange in parallel columns the dates proposed by Mr. Cowley, and those supported in the present article, to show how far the astronomical investigation affects the dates of the papyri. Papyrus. Mr. Cowley's Date. Date now proposed. A 471 471 Sept. 12 B 465 464 Jan. 2 C 459 460 Nov. 11 (?) D 459 460 ,, 11 E 446 446 ,, 17(19'0 F 440 440 Aug. 26 G 44° 446 Oct. 14 H 421 420 Sept. J 417 416 Dec. 16 K 411 410 Feb. 10 The next problem is to determine how far the dates obtained in the foregoing inquiry enable us to infer a theory of intercalation. Professor Schiirer has calculated the date of 14 Nisan from each of the dates above. In order to compare better with Mr. Knobel’s table, I have preferred to compute the new moon of Tishri, assuming in each case that Tishri is not preceded by an intercalary month, as it sometimes is in the Babylonian calendar. The dates given below are those of the astronomical new moon, as given in Professor Ginzel’s tables. Year b.c. New Moon of Tishri. 471 23 Sept. 465 16 Oct. 460 23 Aug. 446 17 Sept. 440 10 Oct. 420 29 Sept. 416 14 Oct. 411 20 Sept. All these dates except 23 Aug. 460 are consistent with a systematic intercalation. But even if we could abandon the August date, it would not follow that the intercalations were actually governed by rule, and notTy the discretion of an authority possessing some astronomical knowledge. ""But the August date suggests that "the~”lnlercalations were not regular. Professor Schiirer thinksHthat they were determined on principles similar to -----— -----------------------------—---------J—r — 18 Mr. J. K. Fotheringham, Calendar Dates lxix. I, those which guided the sanhedrim at a later date when the weather and The state of the crops were consideretTasVen as the course of the sun, t’or my own jai'b J cannot but think of the Irregular intercalations of the Babylonian calendar,jts proved by the contract intercalations ot the Babylonian cal—, . .. . tablets used by the late M. Oppert.* &I. Oppert believed that the regular intercalations of the 19 years cycle were disturbed from time to time by the natural desire to prevent important astrological phenoniena'from falling on unlucky dates. Whatever the cause, the fact appears to be"certain ; and°l sliouTThave inferred that the dates in these papyri were Babylonian but for a difficulty that will be mentioned later^~^^ It will have been observed that, with two doubtful exceptions (E and F), all the lunar months in these papyri begin with the sunset following the new moon. The exception in E appears, as has been seen, to be due to an error in the papyrus, and when corrected, confirms the rule. If we substitute the mean new moon for the true new moon, we get rid of the exception in F. There we have i Ab =13 August 440, with August i2d 19'* 28111 as the date of new moon. Dr. Guinness t gives for the mean new moon August i2d 1411 7111, Jerusalem mean time reckoned from midnight, so that if mean new moons were the basis of this calendar and not true new moons, the exception would disappear. On the other hand, the mean new moon in K might possibly be a little too early. Dr. Guinness gives for this 410 January i6d 1711 23'", whereas 1 Shebat is 18 January. The date given by Dr. Guinness falls just after sunset at Jerusalem, but before sunset at Assuan ; it must, however, be remembered that the modern Jewish calendar is calculated on the basis of a mean sunset at 6 p.m., and a calendar based on a mean new moon would probably also be based on a mean sunset. Most of the modern values for lunar and solar constants would give a slightly earlier date. Reckoning by means of Oppolzer’s tables with Hansen’s constants, I get 411 25“ p.m. Assuan mean time; with Professor Ginzel’s constants I get 41' 48m, with Oppolzer’s 511 8m, with Professor Newcomb’s 511 io,n, and with Mr. Cowell’s 5h 24“. The last of these would give 5h 33111 p.m. for Jerusalem. It is far from certain, however, how the compilers of an ancient calendar would reckon the mean new moon. The modern Jewish calendar would give 1711 14"* (Jerusalem time) as the date of niean new moon on 16 January 410 b.c., but it is not likely that the mean new moons of the modern calendar are older than the great calendar reform of the fourth century a.d., though it is surprising that the date should be so accurate at such a distance of time. * See his article, “La fixation exacte de la chronologie des derniers rois de Babylone,” Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie, 1893, pp. 56-74. Professor Ginzel gives a list of all known intercalary years in the Babylonian calendar, Handbuch der Chronologic, 1 pp. 133, 134. They clearly do not conform to a nineteen years’ cycle. + Creation centred in Christ, Astronomical Appendix (1896). Nov 1908. in the Aramaic Papyri from Assuan. 19 The question then arises whether it is possible to fix the mean new moon later than 6 p.m. on 16 January 410, without moving any of the other mean new moons from one day to the next, and, if so, what value the authors of this calendar used for the mean lunation. Of all the other mean new moons in the series earlier than 6 p.m., the one that comes nearest to that hour is the mean new moon of 21 October 460, which Dr. Guinness gives as 14*' I4m, and which the modern Jewish calendar dates 1411 i6Iu. This mean new moon need only be transferred to 15*' 2'“, still well before sunset, if the mean new moon of 16 January 410 is to be transferred to 6 p.m. There is, therefore, no difficulty in supposing that the Aramaic months began at the sunset following mean new moon; and it is, of course, easier to suppose that those who had control of the calendar calculated the mean new moon than the true new’ moon. I have made a further investigation to see what duration of the synodical month is involved in these dates, on the supposition that no month begins before the mean new moon, and none more than twenty-four hours after the mean new moon. I find that these dates can only be reconciled with such a principle on the supposition that the synodical month was reckoned at not less than 2qd I2h 43,n 53s‘5o, and not more than 2Qd I2h 44'“ 5 is’i 5. This calendar implies, therefore, a more exact value for the lunation than that adopted by the Greek astronomer Melon in 432 B.c. No such exact calculation seems to have been propounded in Greece before the time of Callippus, whose first cycle began in 330 b.c. But a value for the synodical month falling within the limits mentioned could be inferred at once from the eighteen years cycle of eclipses, and must have been known wherever that cycle was used. The knowledge necessary for the prediction of eclipses was possessed by Thales in 585 B.c., and must have existed at Babylon at an earlier date. But this calendar is not Babylonian. All our evidence seems to show that the Babylonian months began with the first appearance of the crescent, though whether at the calculated or at the empirical date of the appearance is not so certain. In the Babylonian tables of appearances of the moon published by Epping,* the interval between new moon and the first appearance of the crescent varies from 18’8 hours to 52'2 hours, and only on two occasions out of thirty-three does the moon appear at the first sunset after the new moon. It follows that the months on these papyri generally began one day earlier than the Babylonian months/lBut If the calendar wasTnot Babylonian, neither wasTFthe same as that used by the Jews in the age preceding the Mishna. The Jews of that period found the beginning of the month by simple observation, and therefore this theory, though maintained by Professor Schiirer, is open to the same objection as that which would regard the dates as Babylonian. The calendar rules suggested by Mr. Knobel will not hold, because in only two instances do they give exactly the same dates as those of the papyri. I have tested the modern * Astronomisches m Babylon (1889), pp. 18-24. 20 Calendar Dates in the Aramaic Papyri. lxix.. i, Jewish rules, by which each day of the year can only fall on one or other of certain days of the week, and by which the different months, with the exception of Marheshvan and Chisleu have fixed durations, Tishri alone being computed directly from the mean new moon ; and I find that neither of these rules will apply to the calendar dates before us. It remains that these dates belong to a hitherto unknown calendar, where intercalation appears to be more or less arbitrary, but where the length of each month is rigidly fixed by the rule that each begins at the sunset after the mean new moou. The mean new moon may have been simply calculated from an astronomical value, or a cycle may have been framed which would give effect to the rule. The shortest such cycle, consistent with the length found above for the synodical month, would be one of 49 months, based on a value (as it happens, a very accurate value) of 297^ days for the lunation. Such a cycle would be composed of two periods of 17 months and one of 15. If we arrange each of these periods with months of 29 and 30 days alternately, beginning each period with a 29-day month, and giving the last month of each period 30 days instead of 29, and if we place the 15-month period last of the three, the calendar dates of these papyri will be found to accord with such a cycle, on the assumption that the first month mentioned on our papyri, Elul 471 b.c., is the 6th, Sth, 23rd, 25th, 38th, 40th, or 42nd of the cycle. Working with such a cycle, and assuming that the new moon of Tishri 407 b.c., like all but one of the Aramaic Tishris that we have been able to date, falls not earlier than 1 7 September, nor later than 16 October, we find that 20 Marheshvan 407 in the second and third of Professor Sachau’s papyri, the one exact Aramaic date which is given without a corresponding Egyptian date, will be either 24 November or 25 November 407 b.c. This calendar, whether its dates were computed by direct astronomical calculation or by a lunar cycle, is clearly much more scientific than the merely empirical rules used by the Jews of the first and second centuries of our era. If this was the calendar of the Jews of Palestine, their calendar must have afterwards developed in a retrograde direction. It seems easier to suppose that as the Jews of Elephantine had a temple of their own, they had their own council of prie-ts or elders who regulated the beginning of the month by strict rules and the beginning of the year according to their own discretion. Whether the astronomical knowledge involved was acquired from Egypt or from Babylon, I cannot say. We have not, so far as I know, any evidence as to the Egyptian value for the synodical month at the date to which these papyri belong. 12 Holywell, O.vford: 1908 July 25. Nov. 1908. Oppolzer's and Ginzel's Corrections to Hansen. Oppolzer’s and Ginzel's Corrections to Hansen. By .J. K. Fotheringham. Oppolzer, in his Syzygientafeln (1881), p. 15, proposes certain corrections to Hansen’s values for the mean motions and accelerations of the Moon. As these corrections have been applied in the calculation of Oppolzer’s Canon der Finstemisse (1887), it is important that they should be correctly interpreted by those who have occasion to use the Canon der Finstemisse. Oppolzer gives his corrections in the form— A7’=> + 0'0006 « + 0'00009 s2 -|-o'ooo 00009 s3 A(y-Ho) = - 0019s -0 0004 s2 -0 ’000 0004 s3 Ay = + 0°003 s2 + o°ooo 003 s3 where s is the interval in centuries since 1800 0, T is the time of mean syzygy expressed in decimals of a day, y is the mean anomaly of the Moon, w is the longitude of lunar perigee measured from the ascending node. As Oppolzer’s tables exist for the purpose of computing the elements of a syzygy, not of constructing an ephemeris, his corrections naturally apply to the moment of mean syzygy, not to a fixed moment of time; further, since his tables express g in centesimal degrees, and y + w in sexagesimal degrees, it seems reasonable to suppose that the corrections are expressed in the same form. In order to make sure that these principles of interpretation are correct, I have computed the corrections for -101 and -462, and find that they only agree with the corrections actually applied if interpreted as described above. Unfortunately, Oppolzer gives no warning as to the interpretation of his corrections, and they have 111 consequence been frequently misunderstood. The misunderstanding is rendered the easier by the use of the symbol ° for centesimal degrees. I have not found any other passage in Oppolzer where that symbol is used for any but sexagesimal degrees. Professor Ginzel, in his Astronomische Untersuchungen uber Finstemisse in Sitzungsberichte der kaiserlichen Alcademie der Wissensch often math, naturw. Classe, Ixxxix. (2), (1884), uses Oppolzer’s Syzygientafeln as the basis of his corrections, and, while realising that the corrections are to be applied to the moment of mean syzygy, interprets Ay as if it were expressed in sexagesimal degrees. The corrections thus obtained are, however, tested by the eclipses used and made the basis of further corrections, which are not affected by the misunderstanding of Oppolzer’s Ay. Dr. Schram, in his Reductions! afeln (Denkschriften der k. Alcademie der IF. math, naturw. cl., Ivi.) (1889), in reducing Professor Ginzel’s MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL astronomical society. Vol. LXXL No. 5. March 1911. Price to Non-Fellows> 2s. 6rf. ■ Contents. Proceedings of OiisERVATORiEs-^con^nwed .■ page Liverpool Observatory . ..................................-00 Radcliffe Observatory, Oxford . .....................,7, Temple Observatory, Rugby.................................-302 Royal College of Science, South Kensington • • ■ ■ ib Solar Physics Observatory, South Kensington . -303 Stonyhurst College Observatory............................-305 Wolsingham Observatory (Rev. T. E. Espin) .... a, Mr. Franklin Adams’ Astrographic Laboratory • • ■ . ib. Mr. Newbegin’s Observatory, Sutton, Surrey . . . -306 Sir Wilfrid Peek’s Observatory, Rousdon, Devon .... Rev. T. E. R. Phillips’ Observatory, Ashtead, Surrey'. . -307 Mr. Saunder’s Observatory, Crowthorne, Berks .... Kodaikiinal and Madras Observatories........................75 Adelaide Observatory, South Australia ..... >og Melbourne Observatory . . . . . . -310 Perth Observatory, Western Australia. . . -312 . Sydney Observatory ......... 3^ , Mr. Tebbutt’s Observatory, Windsor, N.S. Wales . • 3!5 Lovedale Observatory, South Africa (Dr. A. W. Roberts) . Transvaal Observatory......................................ib. Notes on some Points connected with the Progress of Astronomy during the Year: Miner Planets .......... 317 The Comets of 1910 . . . . . . -318 The Orbit of Halley’s Comet . . ■ 320 . Tables of Jupiter’s Satellites........................... 323 Solar Parallax .•...- 324 Solar Activity in 1910 326 Solar Research in 1910 ........ 328 The International Union for Co-operation in Solar Research . 332 Double Stars 336 Variable Stars . . . . '. . 339 The Photography of Nebulae ....... 342 Stellar Spectroscopy in 1910 . . . . -346 Star Catalogues ..........................................353 The Astrographic Chart and Catalogue • ■ • • • 357 The “ Astrolabe a Prisme ”................................358 The Eotvos Torsion Balance . . . . ■, . -359 List of Public Institutions and of Persons who have contributed to the Library, etc. since the last Anniversary . . • . 362 Address delivered by the President, Sir David Gill, K.C.B.. on presenting the Gold Medal of the Society to Dr. P. H. Cowell . 368 Suggestions by the President on future practical policy in some departments of British Astronomy . . . / . • . 380 Election of Officers and Council ........ 386 Printed by Neill & Co., Ltd., Bellevue, Edinburgh; and published by the Royal Astronomical Society, Burlington House, London. W., March 1911. 66o The Transformation of the Moons Latitude, lxxi. 8, j j' i s' 3 f i s' u 2 0-4 + 0'02 0 2-4 -0*02 - 2 - 75 - 2 - -09 - 1 - 'OI 0 - 2-2 + '02 - 2 0-4 + '02 2 + '02 - 2 + '3$ 0 - 74 1 1-4 •03 2 - 1 *14 - 2 - '35 4 - '02 O + '02 3 0-2 - -07 - 1 - I - 2 - '02 0 - -04 O + '31 2 - ‘02 2 - -07 -3 0-2 + '04 1 - 1-4 + 'OI 0 - ’ii - 2 4 '07 2 + "02 O + ‘03 4 - -oS 2 + '02 4 0-2 + 'OI - 1 1-4 - 'OI O + '02 - 2 + '19 0 - ’33 -4 O O - '02 2 1 0 - '02 0 1-4 - ’>7 -3 + "02 - 2 - 1 0 + '02 - 2 - 2’26 2 + '02 O + 'IO 2 - '02 2 - 1 - 2 - 'OI 0 + '02 0 -1-4 + -o8 - 2 +1’3° - 2 1 - 2 + 'OI - I - '06 0 - '02 O + 'i6 2 + '04 New Haven, Conn. : 1911 May 6. June 1911. On Calendar Dates in the Elephantine Papyri. 661 A Reply to Professor Ginzel on the Calendar Dates in the Elephantine Papyri. By -I. K. Fotheringham, Litt.D. Professor Ginzel, in the second volume of his Chronological Manual,* discusses the calendar dates in the Elephantine papyri, which had been previously discussed by Mr. Knobel and myself in Monthly Notices, Ixviii. 334-345 ; Ixix. 12-20. The section devoted by Professor Ginzel to this subject is an expansion, with full references to the literature, of the subject, of Schurer’s article, Der jiidische Kalender nach den aramaischen Papyri von A ssuan, f for which Professor Ginzel himself had supplied the chronological material. Professor Ginzel and 1 arc in general agreement about the identification of the dates found in these papyri and about the irregularity of the intercalation, though he does not mention my correction of two days in the date of papyrus E and the date which I assign to papyrus G, which he had left undated. We differ, however, in our opinions about the method by which the beginning of each Jewish month was determined. According to Professor Ginzel, this was obtained by observation of the lunar crescent; while 1 hold that it was obtained by calculation, each month beginning at the sunset following the mean new moon. Professor Ginzel estimates that if we assume that the Moon made its first appearance at the age of i| or jdays, the dates of first appearance will satisfy the requirements of the papyri; and in order to exemplify this, he gives a list of dates of the astronomical new moons in question, expressed in Aswan mean time reckoned from noon, and also of the assumed dates of the first appearance of the crescent. In order to make the relation of the two more clear, 1 have substituted for the latter the times of the sunsets at Aswan at which the different calendar months are shown by the papyri to have begun, i.e. the time of the sunset at the beginning of the first day of each month, and I have added the resultant interval between new moon and this initial sunset. 1 have added to the list the dates which I have obtained from papyrus G. I thus obtain— A Date of New Moon. -470 August 24’28 Date of Initial Sunset. Difference, Sunset - New Moon <1 0’99 August 25 27 B -464 December 14’54 December 15’22 0’68 I) -459 October 20’59 October 21’23 0’64 G -445 September 17’27 September l8’25 0’98 E -445 November 1575 November 14’22 - 1 S3 F -439 August 12’31 August 12’27 - 0’04 J - 415 December 12 ’48 December 13’22 0’74 K - 409 January 16’63 January 17’23 o’6o * Handbuch der mathematischcn und technischen Chronologic, ii. (1911), pp. 45-52. + Theologischc Literaturzeitung, Feb. 2, 1907. 662 On Calendar Dates in the Elephantine Papyri, lxxi. 8, As 1 mentioned in my previous paper, the date of E is not only unique in implying a calendar month beginning at the second sunset before new moon, but is inconsistent with the date of G, which suggests an error of two days in the date of E. If E is omitted from consideration, the calendar months will be seen to begin, with one exception, at the sunset following the astronomical new moon, but the interval falls far short of the i ] or i J, days which Professor Ginzel desiderates. The question, therefore, arises whether the Moon could possibly have been seen at the comparatively short intervals after conjunction, resulting from the above table. In order to test this, 1 have availed myself of the rule which 1 published in Monthly Notices, Ixx. 530, and which Professor Ginzel has reprinted in his Manual,* and have computed the true altitude of the Moon and the true difference in azimuth of Sun and Moon at Elephantine for each of the sunsets above, except that of the erroneously dated papyrus E. Professor Ginzel remarks f that the result of my rule may be essentially modified by atmospheric conditions, and that the lunar places obtained from our tables for distant dates are only vaguely approximate. I think I may estimate the maximum error in my altitudes, resulting from the latter cause, at ± o°’2. I find in this way— Dilference In Azimuth, Sun - Moon. Altitude of Moon. Altitude required to render Moon visible. 0 0 A 6'8 IOI 117 B 3'i 9’2 ii’9 D 2-8 87 ii’9 G ”7 5’2 u’3 F - 0’7 - 0’1 120 J 8*3 4’5 11 ’6 K 0-4 8’5 12 0 The difference between the figures in the second and third columns of this table is so striking that, when all allowance is made for the possibility of the air at Elephantine being clearer than at Athens, at which the observations which 1 used were made, and for the possibility of the Moon being occasionally seen at a lower altitude than would normally be possible in fair weather, it remains evident that in all or nearly all these instances the Moon would not be visible on the evening of the sunset with which the calendar month began. I feel bound, therefore, to reject Professor Ginzel’s opinion that the beginning of the month was determined by observation of the lunar crescent, and to hold to the view which I formerly expressed, that strict calendar rules were employed which aimed at making ii. 318. t Ubi supra. June 1911. On the Hartmann-Cornu Formula. 663 , each month begin at the sunset following mean new moon. As 1 stated in my former article, the dates in the papyri before us imply a value for the mean lunation of not less than 29° 1211 43"* 44s,6$, and not more than 29* I2h 44"1 51s* 15.* Magdalen College, Oxford: 1911 June 8. On the Hartmann-Cornu Formula for the Reduction of Spectrograms. By F. .1. M. Stratton, M.A. § 1. The Hartmann-Cornu Formula.—The method in most general use for the reduction of prismatic spectrograms is the very convenient one developed by Dr. Hartmann in No. 42 of the Publicationen des Astrophysikalischen Observatoriums zu Potsdam (appendix to vol. xii.). If n is the measured scale-reading of a line of wave-length A, and if we plot the points (X, n) corresponding to a given spectrogram, then the points obtained lie on a curve which can be very well represented by the formula c (1) where a is a constant depending on the spectrograph employed ; n0, c, Xo are constants determined for each plate by making the curve pass through three of the plotted points, i.e. by using three of the measured lines as standards. § 2. Proposed modification of the method.—This paper extends the use of the above formula so as to admit of more than three lines being used as standards in the reduction. The growing number of lines of accurately known wave-lengths, based on the international system, renders possible a wider choice of suitable standard lines in a comparison spectrum to a star photograph, while the use of a one-line comparison spectrum in the determination of radial velocities by an objective prism makes it desirable to find some method of using more than three star lines in order that sufficient accuracy may be obtained. Another reason for using a large number of lines in the reduction lies in the systematic difference found by Hartmann t and Newall in the behaviour of faint and and strong lines. Professor Newall suggests, as a probable explanation of this difference, varying refrangibility across the prism, which affects the strong lines due to light coming through the whole of the prism. In a star spectrum the lines measured frequently differ considerably in density. Errors arising from this fact might be to some extent smoothed out if numerous comparison lines could be chosen of varying density. * See my paper in Monthly Notices, Ixix. 19, and erratum. t Ast. Nach., Bd. 155, 93. ARAMAIC PAPYRI OF THE FIFTH CENTURY B.C. EDITED, WITH TRANSLATION AND NOTES, BY A. COWLEY OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS 1923 X LIST OF BOOKS AND ARTICLES Pognon, Journal Asiatique 18 (1911), p. 337 (on dates). Poznanski (S.), Zycie Zydowskie 1907 (nos. 13, 14), p. 219. ----Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1921, p. 303. PraSek, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 168 (on Sprengling AJSL 1911). Pritsch, Zeitschrift f. Assyriologie 1911, p. 345 (on pap. 20). Sachau, Drei Aramaische Papyrusurkunden. Berlin, 1908. ----in Florilegium de Vogue. Paris, 1909, p. 529 (on pap. 35). Sayce, Expositor 1911, pp. 97, 417. Schultess, Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 1907, p. 181. Schiirer, Theologische Literaturzeitung 1907, pp. I, 65. Schwally, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 160. Seidel, Zeitschrift d. alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft 1912, p. 292. Sidersky, Journal Asiatique 16 (1910), p. 587 (on dates). Smyly, see Introduction, p. xiii, note 6. Spiegelberg, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1913, p. 15; 1912, p. 1 (on names). Sprengling, American Journal of Semitic Languages 27 (1911), p. 233. ----American Journal of Theology 1917, p. 411 ; 1918, p. 349. Staerk, Die jiidisch-aramaischen Papyri ... in Kleine Texte, nos. 22, 23. Bonn, 1907, and no. 32, 1908. ----Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1908 (Beiheft). Torczyner, Zeitschrift d. Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 1916, p. 288 (bibliography). ----Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 397. Ungnad, Aramaische Papyrus . . . kleine Ausgabe. Leipzig, 1911. de Vogii£, Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Inscriptions 1906, p. 499. Wensinck, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung 1912, p. 49 (on Ahikar). TABLE OF THE PAPYRI AS ARRANGED IN PREVIOUS EDITIONS, SHOWING THEIR NUMBERS IN THIS EDITION. Sayce and Cowley This edition A no. 5 B 6 C 9 . D 8 E 13 F 14 G 15 H 20 J 25 K 28 L (Ungnad. no. 88) 11 Sachau Ungnad This edition Plate Papyrus 1, 2 1 no. 1 no. 30 3 2 2 3i 4 3 3 32 4 5 4 33 5 4 5 17 6 6 6 21 7 7 7 16 8, 9 8 8 26 IO 9 9 36 11 IO 10 37 12 11 11 38 13 12 12 39 13 14 13 40 14 '3 14 41 15 15 16 34 15 29 15 29 16 16 17 42 17 17 18 12 17-20 18 19 22 21, 22 19 20, 21 24 23 20 22 23 23 21 23 19 23 23 24 5i 24 22 25 52 24 24 26 S3 25, 26 25 27 2 26 27 28 7 xii TABLE OF THE PAPYRI Sachau Ungnad This edition Plate Papyrus 27 26 • no. 29 no. 3 28, 29 28 30 10 30 30 3i 1 3i 31 - - 32 46 . . 32 32 - 33 44 32 36 34 45 33 • 33 35 43 33 34 36 18 34 35 37 35 35 37 38 47 35 38 39 48 36 39 40 54 36 40 4i 55 36 4i 42 4 37 42 - 43 58 37 43 44 56 38 44 45 49 38 45 46 57 38 . 46 47 5° 39 47 48 60 39 47 49 59 40-50 49-59 50-63 Ahikar (pp. 212-20) 5i 60 64 69 52, 54- 57 61, 62 &c. 65-68 D Behistun (pp. 251-4, 265-9) 53 61 rev. 69 63 55 col. 2 67, ii 61 56 rev. 68 E 62 57 70 B 64 58 7i 65 59 72 66 60 73 67 61 74 68 75 (Euting’s papyrus) 27 CIS. ii. 1, no. 144 70 145 7i 146 72 147 73 148 74 149 (Ungnad, no. 64) 69 150 75 151 76 152 77 153 78 Ungnad, no. 89 79 9° 80 PS BA 1907, p. 260 81 1915, p. 217 82 Harrow Papyrus 83 Giron’s Papyrus Appendix, p. 316. INTRODUCTION The present volume comprises all the legible pre-Christian Aramaic papyri known to me.1 The best preserved and the most important are nos. 5, 6, 8, 9,11,13-15, 20, 25, 28, published by Sayce and Cowley in Aramaic Papyri Discovered at Assuan (London, 1906); no. 27 published by Euting in Me moiresprlscntds .. .a I'Acad dm ie des Inscriptions (Paris, 1903); and many of those published by Sachau in APramaische Papyrus . . . (Leipzig, 1911). The rest are fragments from Sachau, some much mutilated texts from the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum ii, 1, two others published by me in PSBA 1907, p. 263 (with notes by Sayce), and 1915, p. 217, and one fragment of accounts, not previously published, which was brought to my notice by Mr. F. LI. Griffith, in the Harrow School museum.2 The genuineness of the papyri published by Sayce-Cowley and Sachau has been questioned3 on the ground that the double dates in some of them do not seem to be consistent. I do not propose to deal with the dates, because they have been discussed by such competent authorities as Mr. Knobel,4 Dr. Fotheringham,5 * and Dr. Smyly,0 and the possible errors are not a sufficient ground for condemning the texts. A more serious attack has been made by Prof. Margo-liouth,7 whose opinion deserves every consideration. His arguments however have not gained acceptance, and a careful study 1 For a bibliography of the texts known up to 1906 see Seymour de Ricci in Sayce and Cowley, p. 25. Some post-Christian pieces were published in the Jewish Quarterly Review, xvi (Igos'), P- r- 2 The late 'Mr. B. P. Lascelles kindly procured photographs of this for me. ■3 By L. Belleli in An Independent Examination . . . 1909, and by G. Jahn in Die Elephantine* Papyri, 1913 ; reviewed by Rothstein in ZDMG 1913, p. 718, to whom Jahn replied in ZDMG 1914, p. 142. 4 Monthly Notices of the R. Astron. Soc., March 1908, p. 334, and Nov. 1908, p. 8. 5 Ibid., Nov. 1908, p. 12; March 1909, p. 446; June 1911, p. 661, against Ginzel’s Handbuch der . . . Chronologic ii (1911), p. 45. ® Proc. R. Irish Academy 1909, C, p. 235. 7 Expositor 1912, p. 69. xiv INTRODUCTION of the texts will furnish the unprejudiced reader with answers to them. The collection consists of letters, legal documents, lists of names, accounts, and three literary pieces. Some of these are complete, others are more or less fragmentary. A large proportion of them are dated, unmistakably, and these have been arranged here chronologically, so as to form an historical sequence. In many cases the date is given both in the Egyptian and the Jewish reckoning, and there may be errors in these equations (sec above, p. xiii). Some texts which are not dated can be fitted into the sequence from their contents: others, which give no certain clue as to date, are put at the end. The dated texts cover practically the'whole of the fifth century B.C., and on palaeographical grounds the undated texts (with a few exceptions) may be assigned to the same century. They thus confirm the brilliant discovery of Mr. Clermont-Ganneau1 that the similar texts in the CIS (which were all he had to go upon) belong to the period of the Persian rule in Egypt. The exceptions are nos. 81-83, in a much later style of writing. Since, however, it is unlikely that Aramaic continued in popular use in Egypt long after the time of Alexander the Great, we may with some confidence date these before or about 300 B. C. The interest of documents such as these is that they are contemporary with the events to which they relate. They present therefore a trustworthy picture of their surroundings, not distorted by lapse of time, nor obscured by textual corruption. These particular documents have the additional interest that they were written by Jews. They are therefore the earliest Jewish texts we possess, with the exception of the Siloam inscription and the ostraka from Samaria, and (with those exceptions) the only Jewish literature of so early a date, outside the Old Testament. The literary pieces, it is true, are evidently of non-Jewish origin, but they show nevertheless the kind of literature which was current in the community. And their interest consists not only in what they say but in what they omit: in 1 * Origine perse des monuments aram^ens d’figypte’, in the Rev. Arche’ol. New Series 36 (1878), p. 93, and 37 (1879), p. 21. INTRODUCTION xv the light they give and in the darkness in which they leave us (see below). The language in which they arc written is Aramaic, the same (with some reservations) as that of parts of the book of Ezra. Though there arc Hebraisms in it and the names are Hebrew, there is no document in Hebrew, nor any direct evidence that Hebrew was used by the community for any purpose. (But see p. 119). As long as the Oriental empires continued to dominate the civilized world, Aramaic was the language of commerce and diplomacy, succeeded in Ptolemaic times by Greek. We have proof of its use in Assyria in the ‘ dockets ’ written in ink on the edge of cuneiform tablets as early as the seventh century B.C.1 It was no doubt used even earlier, since Babylonian sculptures show scribes writing on scrolls, which would not be used for cuneiform, and it was not used only by Jews, nor (in this community) because it was in any sense a Jewish language. Assur-banipal had Aramaean scribes in his employ, Darius apparently sent abroad an Aramaic version of his great inscription at Behistun, and (in no. 26) a Persian satrap sends his orders to an Egyptian boat-builder in Aramaic.2 It was evidently also an official language in the law-courts. It was only in Egypt, however, that papyrus could survive. Early documents on any such material inevitably perished in the climate of Mesopotamia or Palestine. In Egypt Aramaic probably gave way to Greek by about 300 B.C. In the East it continued, gradually becoming more corrupt, among the Jewish schools down to mediaeval times, and in some Christian communities to the present day. The authors of most of these texts were Jews if names mean anything — not Samaritans, as argued by Hoonacker3— nor Israelites. They call themselves N'llH' ‘the Jews’, and their community &6'H ‘the Jewish force’. Sometimes the term ’ons is used, but no other designation is found, and the name 1 See Clay, ‘ Aramaic Indorsements in O. T. Studies in Memory of W. R. Harper 1908), p. 285, and Delaporte, Apigraphes arameens, 1912, &c. 2 In Ezra 62 the official record of the decree of Cyrus was on a (a scroll) which probably implies Aramaic writing. 3 In his Schweich Lectures for 1914 {Une Communaute Judeo-Arame'enne . . . , London, 1915). xvi INTRODUCTION Israel does not occur. These Jews seem to have been domiciled specially in Elephantine. Other western Asiatics were settled in Sycnc under the general name Aramaean. But ‘ Aramaean ’ might also include Jews,1 so that we sometimes find a man described in one place (correctly) as a Jew of Elephantine, and in another (more loosely) as an Aramaean of Syene when he had in some way become connected with that station. Three times (252, &c.) we find an ‘Aramaean of Elephantinewhere the man is evidently a Jew, but the description may be due to mere carelessness. See on 52. How did they get there? The Jewish force, or garrison, can only have been a military settlement, and there was no doubt likewise an Aramaean garrison at Syene. They were therefore mercenaries in the employment of the Persian king. This is corroborated by several indications. They were divided into ‘ companies ’ or ‘ regiments ’, each bearing a name, Babylonian or Persian, probably that of the commander.2 Another division was xriND ‘ centuria’ (2219 20), but whether larger or, more probably, smaller than the dcgel is not clear. They were under the supreme command of the &6'nri ‘ commander of the garrison ’, and they received rations, (xddd, see e.g. 2439) and pay (DID iig, &c.) from the government. The writer of the Letter of Aristeas mentions (§ 13) that Psammetichus used Jewish mercenaries in his campaign against Ethiopia. If this means Psammetichus ii (cf. Herodotus ii, 30) their employment would have begun between 595 and 590 B.C. —therefore just before the fall of Jerusalem and the beginning of the Exile. They were afterwards apparently put in charge of the fortresses of Elephantine and Syene as a defence of the southern frontier of Egypt against Ethiopia, for when Cambyses came into Egypt, in 525, they were already settled in Elephantine (3013). With the passing of the government of I£gypt, these mercenaries must also have passed under Persian control. When these papyri begin, early in the fifth century, the colony, while retaining its military organization, had become a settled community. Its members could buy and sell land and houses, 1 Cf. Deut. 26s “13k 'KHK. 2 But see note on H[n]l. 2812, and on SiT, 52. INTRODUCTION xvii they engaged in trade, they could go to law before the civil courts and they held civil posts under government. Moreover they had their wives and families, and the women could hold property and take legal action in their own right, and were even reckoned as belonging to the degel, whether through their relation to the men, or independently, does not appear. We have thus the outline of a picture of a Jewish community, its life and manners, in the fifth (and sixth) century B.c.. which is the more valuable because it is not an intentional description, and therefore need not be discounted as tcndencieux. They lived on equal terms with the Egyptians, transacted business with people of various races, intermarried,1 and sometimes bore alien names, (cf. OT names in -baal). But they aroused anti-Jewish feeling, and suffered violence which they ascribed, as always, and probably with as little reason then as now, to hatred of their religion. No doubt their animal sacrifices offended Egyptian susceptibilities, but much is also to be ascribed to natural suspicion of a community with customs differing from those of its neighbours, holding aloof from the common pursuits of its fellow-citizens, and showing contempt or hostility to everything outside itself. The great pogrom described in nos. 27, 30-34 may have brought the colony to an end. The internal affairs of the community were directed by a head-man with ‘his colleagues the priests’, very much as at the present day by the chief rabbi and his beth-din. In the latter part of the fifth century the chief man was Yedoniah b. Gcinariah. It was to him that the edict of Darius (no. 21) was addressed in 419; it was he who received the contributions to the temple funds (22120 121) in the same year; it was he who drew up the petition to the governor of Judaea (no. 30) in 408, and a similar petition (no. 33) about the same time, and he was one of the notable prisoners mentioned in no. 34 about 407 B.c. Whether he was a priest is not certain, but it is probable on general grounds, and also from his connexion with religious affairs (21, 22). At any rate he was politically recognized by the Persian government. 2599 1 But cf. introduction to no. 14. b xviii INTRODUCTION But to most students of this dark period the papyri will be chiefly valuable for the indications they give as to the state of Jewish religion in the colony. It would no doubt be still more interesting to have similar documents relating to Jerusalem in the fifth century, or indeed any early century, but the state of things in the colony may to some extent be taken to represent what had been in Judaea before the days of Ezra. The colonists were not better than their fathers —nor perhaps much worse. To begin with, they regarded themselves as specially devoted to the worship of the national God. whom they call IFI'. This name, as I have argued elsewhere,1 is not an abbreviation of nW, but an earlier form, and only another way of writing the earliest form V. As the n seems to be a mere vowel-sign, or perhaps hamza, I have adopted here the transliteration Yau, as an approximate pronunciation, rather than the customary Yahn or Yeko, which are no forms. He is generally called, between Jews, simply ‘Ya’u the God’ (1314, 221, 25°); in dealings with Persians, ‘ the God of heaven ’ or ‘ Ya’u the God of heaven ’ ($02.15.27 cf $O6.24.26], $23 cf 338]), anJ often jn JetteiS. Yet we also find other gods mentioned besides Ya’u. The most explicit case of this is in 22123-125 where the temple-fund is to be divided between Ya’u and 'Anathbethel in nearly equal shares, and Ishumbethel who receives much less. In the law-courts they swear usually by Ya’u, but in 44s an oath is recorded ‘ by the temple and by ‘Anathya’u ’, and in 77 a man is challenged to swear ‘by Herembethel the god’. There are also personal names like Heremnathan and Bethelnathan (184), formed like the orthodox Jonathan and Elnathan. Whether other gods were recognized besides these, whether these were all distinct or e.g. 'Anathbethel was the same as 'Anathya’u, what was the meaning of the various compounds, and what relation the different divinities bore to one another, the evidence docs not show. It would seem that besides Ya’u they recognized 'Anath, Bethel, Ishum and Herem. There may have been others, but it is at least a coincidence that we have the names of five gods and that there were five gates to the temple (309). 1 JRAS iQio. p. 175. INTRODUCTION xix Of these names ‘Anath is known as that of a goddess in Syria and elsewhere, so that it has been suggested that 'Anathya’u was intended as a consort of Ya’u—the Queen of heaven (Jer. 4417), as He was the God of heaven. Bethel has long been recognized as an early Canaanite god (cf. Gen. 3113). These two therefore may well have been brought by the colonists with them from Judaea. It was not a case of falling away from a monotheistic ideal, but a continuation of the pre-exilic popular beliefs. Ishum (if that is the pronunciation of DPK) may be the Babylonian demon of that name, but it is also worth while to remember the persistent tradition that the Samaritans worshipped a divinity called Ashima, to whom it has been thought reference is made in Amos S\t? nna 'l[lll jSp^] 2 rrira mnnt [n]S 'iwSpk n or ny kfitS \ v spaS 3 na nS |Fi3N «S n ki-tth \ m*S [II III] III pSn ibd3 4 m'n m* nS ?[n3]»StJM irxn mn* n'nno 5 Sa Sy raa *S anani triw jo 'S b5[n]3* n 'did j» 6 Sa *]S noSty nS pi nS dSc’o mnx n spa 7 •pea spy* \ll III [III] jw ninn n-i' ay nrra-o naoa 8 htS ht ’Sy naa mn'i 'Sy nsne*' n nn*aa»i 9 ■jS vudSpn n dv ay 10 N'ant? 11 piobw aa ppy 12 'aanm aa 'aup 13 h'jt aa h'dhd 14 rraar aa n'aSo 15 oar xasD Sy a k'W DsSy i'hk aa k“idd ana 16 1 Said X b. Y to Z \o. Yathma as follows: You have given me the sum of 2 4 shekels by the sm'ght of Ptah, at the rate of 1 shekel to 10, and interest shall be due from me at the rate of 2 hallurin 3 for the sum of 1 shekel per month, till the day when I repay it to you, so that the interest on 4 your money shall be 8 hallurin each month. Any month in which I do not give you 6 interest, it shall be (added to the) capital and shall bear interest. I will pay it to you month by month 6 out of my 2599 D 34 ARAMAIC PAPYRI No. n salary which they give me from the treasury, and you shall write me a receipt for all 7 money and interest which I pay to you. If I do not pay you all 8 your money and the interest thereon by the month of Thoth in the 9th year, your money shall be doubled (?) 9 and the interest on it which is outstanding against me, and interest shall be due from me month by month 10 until the day when I repay it to you. Witnesses: 11 ‘Ukban b. Shemesh-nuri. 12 Kozri b. Ya’hadari. 13 Mahseiah b. Yedoniah. 14 Malchiah b. Zechariah. 15 Gemariah b. Ahio wrote the deed before the witnesses who(se names) are upon this deed. Line 1. can be restored with certainty from other deeds. There is perhaps a slight trace of S. Line 2. [)Spt/] must be restored, since the interest is in hallurin, but the number of them is less certain. Four is most likely. When the text was first published this seemed too small a sum for so formal a document, but no. 10 now removes that objection. HDD is right. Else- where always XD^D 'JDXD. The ‘weight of Ptah’ would be that used in his temple at Memphis and no doubt represents the Egyptian scale (of the revolt) as distinguished from the Royal (Persian) weight. (So in demotic documents frequently ‘ of the double house of Ptah.) ’ The standard is here described as 1 shekel to 10, whereas the ordinary standard is 2 R to 10. If this means the proportion of alloy, the standard of the revolt had twice as much alloy as before. \. is not found in legal documents usually for 1 shekel. Line 3. nmni i. e. ‘ so that it shall be '. Line 4. The numeral must be under 10 and must be divisible by 2. Therefore either 4 or 6 or 8. The space best suits 8. Therefore the shekels in 1. 2 must be 4. Line 5. D'XI illiT. The grammar is inaccurate. It ought to be (n_)xn'D“lD and mnn as in 1. 3. The verb is no doubt attracted to the gender of D’X“I (cr. HD1' in io°). D’XI is the Hebrew form. Line 6. 'DID ‘ share ’ ‘ portion i. e. wages. The debtor was still in the employment of the provisional government, as he had been under the Persian regime, and the same terms are used. Cf. 216, but there is no mention here of XD^D n'D or paS 'T T33 must mean a ‘note’, i. e. a receipt. As an Aramaic word it occurs in the Samaritan Targum Lev. 168-10 for Heb. and is no doubt there a loan-word from Arab. The meaning is hardly the same here, and I am still inclined to take it (against Halevy) as a Persian form from (see PS13 A 1903, p. 207), a ‘written’ receipt. Johns (PSP A 1905, p. 187) cites an Assyrian word nibzu in this sense, but with no Semitic etymology. Line 7. 'DID should be HH'ZHD as in 11. 8, 9 and in no. 10. ARAMAIC PAPYRI No. u 35 iTlHK not common in this Aramaic (as later) for Cf. 1. 9 ran nw for nzrr. Line 8. The numeral is certain since units are always grouped in threes as far as they go. But the point of naming the 9th year is not clear. The 9th year from the date of writing is a long time for so small a loan. If the deed was dated in the «th year of the freedom of Egypt (cf. the Jewish coins of the revolt) the loan would only be for 9-w years. The nature of the penalty is not clear enough to help. It can hardly be the 9th year of a king, though the 9th year of Artaxerxes I (456 b.c.) would be a suitable date. F|py' is very difficult. In 11. 4, 5 the outstanding interest is to be added to capital. LI. 8, 9 are therefore unnecessary unless qpy adds a further penalty. In no. 10 the outstanding interest in the first year is to be added to capital, but in the second year the creditor might distrain. Here distraint is not mentioned, but one would expect something corresponding. Perhaps f|py = i__ in the sense of ‘ be doubled ’. Lines 11-16 are not arranged in the usual manner. L. 16 should complete 1. 10, and the witnesses’ names be written continuously. Cf. no. 1 and frequently. Line 13. '“Tirin'. Probably for 'Tin in' ‘ Ya’u is my glory’. Line 16. K12D is ‘document’ not ‘scribe’ in both places. N'*iny is unusual. It is generally DD^y or DM of one of the parties ‘ according to (instructions from)’. The interested party said what he warfted written, and the scribe put it into formal language. The witnesses would hardly give such instructions, so that here perhaps DD^y means rather ‘ in presence of’. Why the name of the debtor is not given (as in no. 10), is not evident. No. 1 2. List of Names, undated. There are several lists of names in the collection, but the purpose of them is not always apparent. Some are connected with accounts. In mediaeval Jewish communities lists of this kind were often drawn up to commemorate members of the congregation who had suffered for their religion. It is undated. If it is a memorial list it may be related to no. 34 (about 407 b. c.), which is probably connected with no. 30. Sachau, however, points out that the sons of Menahem b. Posai (1. 7) are mentioned in 2 278-79. As the name Posai occurs only in these two d 2 6o ARAMAIC PAPYRI No. 20 broken place, but is fairly certain. npb. The omission of the object is awkward. Line 7. The construction is very awkward. 'T 'n'K seems to mean ‘ they are things which are . . The following 3 requires a noun, and is most likely. npen is Lidzbarski’s suggestion. S-C read 'pDl. If a Hophal is admissible it gives a sense, but the form is not found, I believe, elsewhere in these texts. Line 8. passive as in 163. Line 9. Jp'm * we withdraw from you ’, i. e. renounce all claims. TO an oversight for D33D. Line 13. After D3FI531 there is a faint x which has been erased. If the document were a forgery this would be evidence that it was written by an Arab who used the dual suffix l5—referring to two persons. Line 14. 'Tl as elsewhere for 't ;oi. Probably subject, not object, of which I restore as plural, as at the end of the line, in spite of IDS*1 singular. The writer is confused by his own verbiage. xby adverbially, cf. U3. XiTTBX or XJT. A Persian term for ‘ fine’, as in 2515, 2810, but the etymology is not clear. Line 15. DDK, not “inx as S-C. p’rri too much obscured to read, but it is the word required. nSx is more probable than "J^X (S-C). Line 16. The same scribe as in no. 25. Line 19. The second DFW is a mistake for nhw. No. 21. Order to keep the {Passover and} Feast of Unleavened * Bread. 419 b. c. See Barth in OLZ 1912, 10, and Ed. Meyer in Sitzb. Berl. Akad. 1911, p. 1026. This is one of the most interesting and important of these texts. See Introduction, p. xvi. The date is the 5th year of Darius. This must be Darius II, since Yedoniah, who is addressed evidently as head of the community, holds the same position in no. 30 (408 b. c.). The year is therefore 419 b .c. It is a letter from Hananiah, whose mission must have been official and important, since his arrival in Egypt is mentioned as a well-known event in 387. Unfortunately the papyrus is very imperfect, half of the lines 4-10 being lost, but enough remains to show that it contains a direction to keep the festival of (Passover ? and) Unleavened bread, and gives instructions for doing so. What is still more remarkable is that this direction is ARAMAIC PAPYRI No. 21 61 based on the authority of Darius himself The question then arises, was this community, which possessed a temple and offered sacrifice to Ya’u, ignorant of the greatest of Jewish national festivals? Had they never celebrated it before? Was it a new institution ? What had the Persian king to do with it ? Something has already been said on these points in the Introduction, p. xvi + . A few remarks may be added here. In the first place, we have no evidence that the Passover before this date was a regular annual ceremony. In the earliest documents (as estimated by the majority of critics) it is the seven days of Unleavened bread on which stress is laid. A national Passover-feast is unknown to J and E. The earliest mention of it is in Deut. 16, where it is closely related to the feast of Unleavened bread. Moreover in 2 Kings 23s22 it is expressly stated of Josiah’s Passover (which is usually believed to be closely connected with the ordinance in Deut.) that such a celebration had never been held 'til 'D^ID 'ID' . ♦ D'DDIWl 'D'D ‘in the days of the Judges . . . and all the days of the kings’. If then the Passover, as a national (but not necessarily an annual) institution, was introduced only in 622 B.c., it is not surprising that this colony, which was probably (already or) soon afterwards established in Egypt, should either know nothing of it, or should regard it as intended only for residents in Palestine, to be celebrated at Jerusalem, which indeed is the natural meaning of Deut. 166. No doubt the national festival was founded on primitive practices of some kind, but that is a totally different question. It is true that in the present broken condition of the papyrus the word Passover does not occur, but I think there is reason to believe that it was originally mentioned (see note below) and that the directions given here agree with Deut. 16 in connecting the Passover and Unleavened bread. If not, and if the papyrus refers only to the feast of Unleavened bread, then it is still remarkable that directions were necessary for the keeping of so old and, one would think, so well-established a festival. In either case the explanation may be found perhaps in the rabbinical saying quoted in the Introduction, p. xix. That ‘ Ezra gave the Law a second time ’ is not a paradox but a statement of historical fact. Whatever parts of the Pentateuch were in existence before the fifth century b. c., it cannot be held that its provisions had any great influence on the people in general. The earlier parts of the O. T. and the prophets, if read without prejudice, seem to me to show quite the reverse. In fact the kings were too much occupied with politics and other mundane matters to enforce a ceremonial law, even if they had the desire to do so, and the times of the Judges were too anarchic to admit of it. Josiah’s great JEWISH ANTIQUITIES: u" Course of LECTURES Oa the Three First BOOKS of Godwin’s Moses and Aaron# To which is annexed; DISSERTATION IS1 O N HEBREW LANGUAGE. r *7* *'f * ■ •. ' ifc • • V.. ■ M ft ♦ • +v By the late Rev. DAVID JENNINGS, D.D. '■ . »• • • ’V K ; V O L. II. * * i ~r-—‘ LONDON;. ** d Printed for J. Johnson and B. Davenport, at the Globe in Paternofter-Row. ♦ MDCCLXVI. .tty Fcafa, LIB, UI. . > And this inflation they noted with this abbreviate on ns that is, i8. became of thofe eighteen hours which occafioned it The reafon of was, that two Sabbaths^ or feaft-days might not immediately follow Ca each other; (b) becaufe, fay they-, it was unlawful 1 ' thofe two days to drefs meat, or bury the dead 5 and it was like wife inconvenient to keep meat dreiled,or the dead unburied two days. Yet here two exceptions mutt be remembred, when the meeting of two Sabbaths could not be d'voided. < Firft, when the Paffeover, or the fifteenth day of Ni/au, fell on Sd/mU? 5,for then the Peittecoji nnift needs fall on Sunday, Secondly, when the Paffeover fell on Sundays, for then their Fajjeover immediately followed their rree^r ly Sabbath,' . ’ r\ . • • ^inian. de The firft (i) Author of this VolilickTranflation wa$ ^.feft.p.6. a certain chief man amongft them, named Eleazer 5 three,hundred and fifty years before Cbrift His Nati» , pity* • z ! r . The fever al fpecies or kindrof Pvlrtickjraxflatiom were five. The firft, VIK Adu, The fecond, TO Badu. The third, VU Gabvz, The fourth, mZabad, The fifth, UK-dgtf. For the understanding of thefe abbreviatures, wemuft know, thafin thefe made words the letters only ftand for numbers, and are applied • to the feven days of the week, thus R 1. Sunday □ 2. Munday. 2 ^.Tuefday, 1 4. Wedntfday, n ^.Ihurf-day, 1 6. Friday. 1.7. Saturday’Which was the Jews Sabbath. . Their rules touching PokiicJ^ tranjldtion^ flood thus, (d) Firft, that neither their Netvyearsday which was the firft of the month T^fri 5 neither their L IB. Ill* Tranfiation of Feafis. their Feaft ofTabernaclesfWhtc^ was the fifteenth day of the fame month , (hould be celebrated on Adu, that \s on Sunday, or Wedne/day, or Friday, Noton Sunday, or Friday, becaufe then the weekly Sabbath muft needs concur with it, either going immediately before or following after: not on Wednefday,becaufe then the Feaft of expiation, which is the tenth of that month , would fall on Friday, the day going, im* mediately before their weekly Sabbath. This rn-ftance is only concerning the firft of Ttfri, which is called the Feafl; of Trumpets: butit holdeth alfo, by* way of conference, in the fifteenth day, which is the Feaft of Tabernacles, becaufe the fifteenth muft ah ways neceflarily be the feme day of. the week that the firft is; Therefore if the firft be not Adu, the fifteenth cannot be Adu. . • The (b) fecond rule was, that the Paffeover (hould b Badu,. not be obferved on Badu 5 that is on Munday, Wed-nejday, or Friday,. The (c) third rule is, that Pentecoft was not obferved on Gahazj that is, on Titefday, Thurfday, or Sa~c Gaha* turday. The-(^) fourth rule is, that the Feaft of Purim, or d ubad. cafting lots, was not obferved on Zabad? that is, on Munday, Wednejday, or Saturday, The (ej fifth rule is, that the Feaft of Expiation was c not obferved on Agu 5 that is, on Sunday, Tuefday, or Friday. . Maxt tranfiation is, when both the Lunary and the Politickyneet in the changing of days. And the tranfiation occafioned by this mixture or meeting of both thefe two, is twofold. Firft, Simple, And Secondly, Double. - ■ , Simple tranfiation is, when the Feaft is tranflat^d to K 3 the 12$ TrauflatiOn of Feafl* Lift 1l£ the next day following. - For example* fake, if the Moon changed after noori-tide on Sunday, here the Feaft mutt be tranftated, for tworeafons: The firft is v Lunary, becaufc the point of the change was after eighteen hones 3 the fccond, Politic^ becaufc the rule Adu forbids Sunday to be kept: Notwithftanding,in as much as the very next day, namely Monday , was obferyed ^ Itcrmt^istranflauonjfap/e. Of this fort was^haVjtranflation which they called Batu ud{phat. itAtyhat. tfSpnXQ (f) Batutakphat, is a word invented for help of memory 5 each letter is a numeral, and may be thus refoWed, Dfiprhb- The meaning is, > that in the year following Annum Bmbolymanm (wherein one whole month was ingrafted) if the point of the change happened upon the fccond day of the week, that is, Munday, not before the fifteenth hour, and the 589 moment, the Feaft of the New Muon was translated unto Tuefday. How both the Lunary and P^. litick tranflation work* in this change^ read Scaliger .de emend, temp.lib. 2. pag. 87. \ Double Tranflation, is, when thcFcaJi is tranflated not to the next, but to fome further day : as if the firft day of the month Tijri (hotrid happen upon Saturday $ here, if the Moon hath not overpaft her conjunction before the afternoon, Lunary tranflation remo* veth this Feaft till Sunday, becaufc of TP, thafr is, the eighteen hours'. Politic^ tranflation removeth it till Munday, as appeareth by the rule Adu, forbidding Sunday: of this fort is Gat rad. TUJ Gatradf is a made word, each letter ft a numeral, and it may be thus revived, 44.10s. TI*m- The meaning thereof is thus: In their connr on year f when a whole month is not inferted) if the point .of thg change happen upon the third day of the week, ' that "LIB. HL TrarfafionafFeaJls. that Is, Tnefdi^ not Wore the ninth hout, andthe ,204 moment of an hour, than the-Nw Mw fhall be transited to Thursday,,• . Note in the lift place, (If) that 1080 c<* The Feaft of Tabernacles was ob (efved in the month Tifri, and therefore that could not be obferved the morrow after t^eFSabbath, as appeareth by the rule Adu. The Pa/fewer was obfeVved in the month Nifan, and therefore that might be obferved the morrow after the Sabbith, as appeareth by the rule Bad*. If any ask the teafbn Why tne P^jfcover might be obferved ihe next day after the Sabbath, feeing the Feafl of Tabernacles might not ? I take it to be thus j All the after tranjlatidns depended upon the firji translation thefirjinew Moon in T/fribut that could no.be fochanged, as to prevent all concurrence of two Feajls, and thus to have their Paflewer fometimes to follow their Sabbath, they thought the moft con* veftienteft ordering of the year, becaufe though not all meetings of two Sabbaths, yet moft were hereby prevented. y . This traft of tranfhtion of Feafts, it ferveth partly to open the cuftoms of th^ Jews: parfly to give light for the underftanding bf that great drfpure a-mong whether our Saviour Abd. anticipate the Pafleozer. The Greek. CbnrchQ}holds,that he kept.a j Paffeover'by himfelf with his Difiiples,. on the thir-1^.$ 1.^147.-teenth day of the monthj when unleavened bread was “ not yet to be ufed, and chehce they do both ufe and S-urge a neceflityfarjof leavened bread in tfie Fords Sup- nica per a But this opinion we rejeft. Firft, becaufe it ac-cordeth not with the truth of Evangelical Hifl ory, ScScafau^n. exer> condly>becaufe it plainly tnaketh Chrift to be a tranf 16 greffor, 118 ' Tr&fiation of Ftafts. ’’"“ETTTTIP ’M*. w» greffor, not a fulfiller of the Uw. (irJOthers (at,that ** up. a . • becakfethat year their Paffeover fell.on Friday, hence the feaft was tranftated unto Saturday by the rule du, Their inference is, that Cbrill kept the fourteenth day of the month, which was Friday, and the Jew, - kept Saturday. He kept Gods Command, they the 7«fe^Sc.t. tradition of the Elders, (o) Laftly, others more pro. :• baby hold, that both Cbrifi and the Jews did eat the Pafieovcr the fame day and hour 5 namely, on Friday or the fourteenth day of the month, if we count the beginning of Friday according to the manner of the Jen x, from fix a clock at night on Thurfday, Friday morning he was judged, and crucified j and in the at ternoon, about three of the dock, when the prepara, tion of the Sabbath began 5 he was buried 5 There laid they Jefsss, becaufi of the Jews preparation, John 19,24 For reconciling the Evangelifis in this point, we muft note thefe particulars, which are more at large proved in the Chapter of the Paffeover. 1. The four. * z teenth day of the months on which the Pafehal Lamb was eaten , was called the firft day of unleavened bread 5 the Feaft of unleavened bread drew near, which is called the Paffeover, Luke 12.1. * The fourteenth day was not holy, but the fifteenth w as. In the fourteenth day of the firft month is the Pajfeoier of the Lord, and in the fifteenth day of his month is the Feaft, NxrwA.28.16,17. Some of them thought, bevauf^ Judas had the bag, that Jefiss had faid unto him, buy thofe things that, we have need of againft the Feaft, John 13.29. The Sheep and Bullocks offered upon this day, are -called the Pajfeover, De at 16.2. And of this we are to underftand S. John, Job. 18.28. They themfelvcs went not into the common Hall, left they fhould be . ’*• defiled, 11B. 11L Twjlation of Feafls. r 29 defiled, but that they might eat the Pajfeoier. So that this eating of the Yafleover is not underftood of the Pafchal Lamb. But feme may queftion, How they fhould have been defiled by entring into the common Hall? The anfwer is, that upon (p) Holy day-Em, »pri Pk which they termed days of preparation, they held it unlawful for their Judges to Jit on lifeand death.Hence rw it is, that they brought Je/us to Pilate the Rowan De C3V Tip puty, Secondly, they withdrew themfelvesout of the common Hall. Thirdly, for this rcafon they faid, It is MjmnJibM not lawful for us to put atty man to death, Job.18.31. (Jf) ia£c.Sa*e-that is upon this, op fuch like day 5 for tho their qX/n^F.' high Court of Sanedrim were put down at this time, > *4- « yet all power in cafes of Life and death was not taken from them, as is implied in the words following. ItoS*’/iT was that the word of JeJus might be fulfilled, which hefpake lignifying what death he fhould die, tw.32. an.BeJaZ * Which text intimateth, that that unlawfulneG wasG ,8-7Mn’ urged by the fpecial providence of God, that he might be crucified, being judged*by dilate: for if the Jews had judged, they ufed no fuch kind of death towards Malefactors. Again, Stephen was condemned by them to be (toned, All .7. And they complained before Felix, that when they were about to proceed a-gainft Paul according to their own Law, the chief Captain Eyfias with violence took him out of their hands, Alls 24. Which argueth, that all power in caufes capital was not taken from them • But of this .fee the Chapter Of their capital punishments. $ CHAP . 4^ Of the Sadduce:. LIB. 1 had refpeft chiefly to the negative Comntandements^ but he that conformed for love, efpecially refpefted the Affirmative. C H A P. XI. Of the Sadduce:. ^1^0 omit other Etymologic: of the name, there are 'I two only, which have ftiew of probability. ' Epiphan.lib.i. (J) Some derive it from Sedel^ Jufticia 5 as if they *4* had been Jufticiaries^ fuch as would juftifie themfelves before Gods Tribunal, (t) There are that derive it, to i * and t^iat uPon more warrantable grounds, from Sa-doc, the firfr Author of the herefie , fo that the Sad-rheopb)iaU. duces were fo called from Sadoc, as the Arrians from Arrius, the Pelagians from Pelagius, the Donatijis from Donatus , &c. This Sadoc lived under Antigones Sochseus , who fucceeded Simon the fuft. He was Antigonus his Icho-lar, and by him brought up in the doctrine of the Pharifees^ but afterward fell from him , and broacht the herefie of the Sadduces 5 which herefie, becaufe it j Ef^rerti!i much affinity with that which the Heretique Do-Oepr^crip^ fitheu-s taught., hence are the Sadduces faid to ( w) be c- 45-. a branch or skirt of the Dofitheans, though in truth ^etfum.nLt.ra DoJitheusYivcd not till (x) after Chriji 5 and although yxpipb. luref. thefe two herefies did agree in many things 5 yet in J3‘ a main point they -differed, (y) Dofitheus believed the Refurredion, the Sadduces denyed it ; and by c-on-fequence the Dofitheans believed all other points ne-ceffarily flowing from this. z Abotb.cap.u The occafion of this herefie was this.(z>) When Anti-; 1 gonua IB. I. - Of the ^adduces, qy gonuf taught^ that we muft not ferveGod as fervants ferve their Matters, for hope of reward, -his fcholars* Saddc and Baitbus underftood him, as if he had utterly denied all future rewards or recompence attending a godly life, and thence framed their herefie, denying the refitrre&ion, the-world to come, Angels, ■ Spirits, Their Dogmata,Canons,or Conftit ntions were, i They rejetted (a) the Prophets, and all other Scripture fave only j/Yv-iS-the five Boo^s of Mofes.Therefore our Saviour,when he 1' would confute their errour concerning the refurre-dion of the dead, he proves it not out of the Pro* phets,but out ofEx^.3.6. Ians the God of Abraham', the God of Ifaac, and the God of Jacob, Mat,22.32, 2. They rejetted (b) all traditions.- Whence, as they were called r\pO Min nor I ' punifhment for ill, in the world to come. Hence Saint Paul perceiving that in the Conned the one part were Sadduces, the other Pharifees, he cried out, Of the hope I \.of the reward expetted, and of the refarrettion of the I dead, lam called in quefiion, Aft.23.6. ! 4. They denied the refitrrettion of the body, KQl,2^,3, Mat.22.23. Luke 20.2 7. 1 - 5. They faid the fouls of men are. (d) annihilated at ' their death. * ft fob- <*| 6. They denied-Angels and fpirits, Atts 23.8. 7. TAey Cap, 8.. of/i Cafai hu]us temper is diet pofiint Sa du tai. DE a) Cams non omnes idem fentiunt. Qnidam cos diftinguunt i Saduexis. Liber annotationum in A both, Sunt qui die ant Sadueaos & Bai th* fas ejfe illos quos alii Caravs appellant. Sunt qui diffentiant dieentes t Car Ms . ejfe ahudgenus hareticorum. Concilio has fententias. Iain probatum eft vctercs Saduexos appcllari Carxos. Aliud 136 ftatuendum de Carxis noftn temporis. Nam hi refur-•reftioncm carnisfatcnttir. In titulo lohafin, Indeliquet Sadycaos non effe Car ms, qui nojlris temporibus. Nam hi con. jitentur pramium & panam & refurreHionem : quod non fa. ciuntSaducai. De Carxis aliqnid Quxft L1.qu.44... Qui-bus addo qx libro lohafin fol. 1 $. Temporibus horum regum (de loh. Hyrcano cjufq-, filio Alcxandro loquitur) expit fee? a Caraorum, qui ctiam vocantur Saducai (j Baithufti. Et fol. 11S. b) Anan Saul e}usflius Carai er ant. Ecce Caicos dicit Saducxos, de quorum inftitutis & kgibus riti* bufqucquidam librum compofait. Ei nomen Achan, eft, py. Deleatur nomen ejus ut Achanis, ait commentator quidam fuper«Aboth, a quohxchabeo. Iterum dico, Carai hodierni divcrfi font a Saducxis. Nam cre-dunt refurieftionem : item prxmio affici juftos & poena t improbos. Alio fignificatu Carxus, id eft ’Wp vocatus eft R. Eliezer filius*Simeonis, inScriptura, qiixCara, dicitar? optimc vcxiatus- Sic legimus in lohafin fol. 69, pag. s. rUDilORUM LIB. in. Ip pag. 2. Rab. & Samuel & Rab. lohanan Car«i t quia ij7 verba corum fimilia verbis Seripturx, id eft, Knp'o. ADDENDA. a) Carat locum ilium Nojis Levit. 1S.1S. Non accipies lierem adfororemefl* expofuerunt de duabus uxorib**, pag, 3. ex Phejifiha fol.yp.col. i. itclafam attritione koi (ft fturum inaX), conf un dun t Deut.23. 1. (ft 2. Phefitlba So. 2. -7biai nXJKWa’’Xlp *\r\vytv\.Genus quoddam Saducaorum eft qui cenfent immundos ejfe qui tangunt corpora etiam viva, de quibus Levit. 11 .Vide sibene^ra/p ad ver f'24. ‘yaxmbvo .Levit. if. 11. exponunt , qui nut? it a aut ed*fta eft a patre^a tuo. Vtde jlbene^ram. Idem Levit .7 10. ^ nit ad me Sadu^ CMS quidam interrogation an cauda eff'et vetita ex Ige (ftc. Fide Ji placet. ibi Saduceumvocat Ca, aum Lertt.u ip, Dicunt Saducai gallum ejje. Su l 1 homines quu in^ dtcavit eis. Fide not as meat ad ilium locum. b)' Dub it 0 an hi Saducai fuermt & ev labor utcredam au-tores fuijfte nova (ell a Caraorum qua tantum tr adit tones reji-liebat. C’X'lp de Saducau in ( hron. T. S. ubi de Alexandra lanao. Inebriati flint cum eo magnates Caraorum fol. 40. col. 3. in principio. PauUo poft col. 4. de Ariftobalo Hyr. cani junior is Jratre can3*e xniai TUdJTiK HWin% Pt moxt erat imperium Pharifaortim f'upcr Caraos. Carao-rum me nt io apud Gerund, in Levit. 196. 2. bur arra zmab zv ■'F'rvo . .Quippe prre delere. i^dnan (ft Saud quinam fuerint lucha.i 1S.2. De Saducftis .i. Carais i^dben. Levit 23 .^o .ubi eos vocal a’*? ■'W quod cor de nibilvideanl. Sed videJi placet. C A Y. 9.' vrovhctns rejccerint. R 2 • . De 172 The paflbver. B. III. it is faid, “ when thou flialt go up to appear before the Lord thy God thrice in the year(«).** This is, by the way, a very remarkable inftance of the fovereign and abfolute power, which God exercifes over the hearts and fpirits of men. Accordingly we find not in the whole fcripture hiftory, that any fueh evil ever befell the Ifra-elites on thefc occafions; infomuch that though in many other cafes they were backward in believing God’s promifes; yet at thefe feafons they would leave their habitations and families without the leaft apprehenfion of danger. Having thus confidered a circumftance, which was common to the three grand anniverfary feafts, we are now to treat of the firft of them, namely, the paflbver. Of the inftitution of this feftival we have an account in the twelfth chapter of the book of Exodus. It is called in the hebrew NHD£) pafcha, from HDD pafach, tranfiit. In the greek it is called but not from the verb patior, to fuffer, on account of Chrift’s having fuffered at the time of this feaft, according to the illiterate fup-pofition of Chryfoftom, Irenaeus and Tertul-lian. Chryfoftom faith, nao-^a Myrrnt, oti toti tir&to o Xpr H it - tab m Talmud. traQ.de fefto Tabernaatlo-’m. cap. Wd.Tremel, Jtin 7.57. n. Bwxfor/. in —.! LI IL'AT f* 5 day/of this whole feaft of Tabernacles weretef. med Hofannytb, from the ufual accl a mation; abbreviatur, people, whiles they carried the Boughs up and down, And* this eighth day was called Hojanua Rabba^ the great Hofanna, or the great day of the feaft, Job 7.37, (»3 Upon this day they did read the laft Seftionof ’ the Law; and likcwife began the firft, left they might ‘btherwife feemmore joyful in ending their Stations, g Tremei. job. r^an willing to* begin them, f 0) U pon this day alf© 7 ?7-exT4/- by the inftitution of the Prophet Haggis and Za-chary, and fuch like Prophetical men, they did with great folcmnity and joy, bring great ftore of water from the River Shiloah to the T emple, where it being delivered unto the Pnefts, it was poured upon the Altar, together with Wine, and all the peoplefung that of the Prophet Efay 12.3. With joy Jhall ye draw water out of the Wells of Salvation. Our Saviour is thought to have alluded unto this, in that fpeech which heufed on this very day, john 7.38. He that believeth in me, out of his belly jball flow Rivers of waters of life. ft is worth our noting allo, that whereas God commanded the obfervation of this Feaft on the fif. teenthofthefevtnth monthTjr/rij Jerobcant, that he might work in the people a forgetfulnefsofthe true * /Jofpinian. de Worftiip of God, appointeth the Celebration of a ea^ ’n the eighth month, on the fifteenth day there. of, which is thought to.be this very Feaft of bernacles. . CHA? QftfeFeaft of Trumpets f&c. . W* CHAP. VIL '• :Jr ' ' t- ■ >' ’ ' '{•'/ », ,. . Bk 1 ' . ^ ’ Of the Fea fl of Trumpet st and their New, Moons. FOr the underftanding of the time when this Feaft was to be obferved, we muft note, the month Tifri was the fiventh month, according to their faired computation y and therefore it is commanded to be celebrated the firft day of the fiventh month, Levit.z 3.24. But according to their civil Computation \t'was theitfrft month, 10 that thisFeaft may be termed their Neyp-j ears-day. The firftdayof every month had its fblemnities. Firft, when they repaired to the Prophets for the hearing of the word, as on other Sabbaths, Wherefore wilt thou go to him to day ? It is neither New Moon, nor Sabbath day, 2 Kings 4. 23. Secondly, it was then on. lawful to buy and fell •• Wlien will the New Moon be gone, that we may fell corn ? Amos 8.4. Thirdly They had then (pedal facrifica over and above their daily facrifices. ' - Notwithftanding, this Feaft o£ Trumpets differed from other New Moons. Firft, in refpeft of their facrifices s in their ordinary New Moons they offered (betides the daily facrifice) two Bullocks, one Rani, fiven Lambs, for burnt offerings with their meat and'drink-offerings, and a Goat for afin offering, Num. 28.11,1'5. But at this New Moon, which was the beginning of their year, they offered all the fordaid facrifices, and over and befides them, one Bullock, one Ram,and fiven J\ambs,for burnt -offerings, and a Go# for a fih-offerinp* R . Numb. ! . . X ... . . ■ . . ' M» Gf-tit 7***)k)i UniW ; 29.1,6.Secondly,in other New AW; they blow- cdnoTrMWperj.lnr^xheybloWcJ (4) from the Sw. rifitg till night: \tyheace tffe fcarfl What New Moon it is that AnWfpeaketh of. PpZ.^i.g. Blow the Trumpet in the New'1*00*4 inth^timi ^b*ttld,aloHb Feajiday. The reafon in general Of this blowing, and great noi/e of Trumpets, I take to have been, to make their New-ycars day the there remarkable, tbecaufe front |t all their Deeds and'G«wa&bore date, and theH? Sabbatical years and Jubilees were Counted thence : But why it thould be made remarkable by 4he found of Trumpets, or Comets, there are three co£ jedures. »•' ,F.t\Livit. ~ Firftyhe (ft) Hebrews thitfk it wasddue in memory of Ifaac his deliverance , and that they did there- , fore (bund Rams hams, becaufe a Rant was (acrificed isfdinpfaL inftead of him. Secondly, (cJBafil is of opinion, that th$ people were hereby put in mind of that day, wherein they received the law in Mount Sinai With blowing o f Trumpets. • Thirdly, Others think it was to put them in remembrance of the Reftrre&ion, which (hall be with the found of Trumpet s\ He (ball fend his Angels with 4 great found of a Trumpet, Ma(, 24.gr. sc dig dee- There are (d) three things confiderable in Neto •ndtemp.pag. Nioons. Fir ft, the conjun&ion of the Me on i. Zr.^. 105. with the Sun. Secondly, the waxing of the Moon. Thirdly, w* ■, the prime of the Moon. In thefirft it was quite darft^ in the fecond it did.oprn it ftlf to receive the^tn^beams: In th£ laft it did appear, comicidatity homed. H/fm. de 0- Becaufe in all thefe three degrees of the change, •’there was a kind of mutual participation both of »tenet etiam the Old and New Moen: (e ) Hence the Jews obferve two ^ays’ ™neiy> the laft of every Month, and the l.diemts. jhft lib. nr. fonjMo* fyf*- 123. firft day of fane xt following. • Now btttMfe tfib 'thirtieth was the laft m their longeftmonthrj HrnCeZ/c?-race calkth thefc laft days, TriceftnM Sabbata: The firft days they termed * Neonfate, newMisons. For certain reafons the J