deftruction S. 2. Those that contradict the Destruction of Troy, Some Aralledge alfo in their behalf, that Homer who was both guments the first Poet and Author among the Greeks, and a for and aPerion of indigent circumstances, is the chief Spring gain the from whence the Story is derived. It is true, that all of Trdy: the Gree Historians, whofe Names are tranfmitted to Pofterity, lived fome Ages after the Trojan War; yet it is not from thence to be inferred, that Homer was either the firft or the only Author who gave an Account of the Expedition of the Greeks against the Trojans. A certain Poet, fays Elian Lib. 14.c.21. vr. Hift. whofe Name was Syagrus,lived after Orpheus, who first of all brought the Trojan War into Metre. Befides, all the circunftances of that Hiftory are not derived from Homer; for not to mention the Paralipomena of Quintus Calaber, Lefe'seus, Steficharus, &c. what Ovid fays of Macrus is a fufficient Argument that there were not wanting among the Latins, who endeavoured to fupply the Defects of Homer in relating the Trojan War: Thefe are his Words: Tu canis æterno quicquid reftabat Homero, Ne careant Summa Troica bella manu. §. 3. As there are fome who reject the whole Hifto- Concernry of Troy as fabulous, fo there are not wanting fuch ing the Au as put Homer in the fame Rank with folid Hiftorians, thority of Both are, in my Opinion, in an Error, as is manifeft Homer. from the Account of the Wooden Horfe, which both Homer and Virgil defcribe, as cramm'd with Men in Ambush, and in which Senfe twas ufed Proverbially among the Roman Orators. For Paufanias himfelf is very plain in telling the World in At. that this Horfe was nothing elfe but a certain Engine invented by one Epeus (a Pattern of which ftood in the Caftle of Athens) to batter the Walls of ftrong Cities: And hé adds, that thofe who believe otherwife, nuft, needs look upon the Trojans to have been the greatest Fools and Blockheads in the World: Neither does Virgil L. 2. Æn. feem to have been quite ignorant of it, when he introduces Laocoon, fpeaking thefe following Words: This This hollow Fabrick either muft inclofe J. Dryden. Troy was §. 4. Some are of Opinion that the Destruction of a whole Troy was comprehended only in one City; but accordKingdom. ing to Strabo L. 13. the Country under the Jurifdicti The De on of the Trojan King confifting of nine large Principalities was called Troja, which being invaded and conquered by the Greeks, they at last made themselves Matters of Troy, the Capital City, which has, queftionless, introduced the Miftake of converting this War, which lafted in all ten years, into a Decennial Siege. S. 5. This Epocha was fo famous in ancient times, Atruction of that if we believe Diodorus Siculus Præem. L. 1. it Troy was was the first Term to which the Greek Hiftorians remuch cele-fered their most ancient and remarkable Tranfactions. brated a- And what has rendred this Epocha the more famous mong the to Antiquity, is, that the Conqueft of Troy was bought Ancients. with the lofs of fo many brave and great Heroes ; from whence is arifen this Proverb ίλιας κακῶν. §. 6. The Chronologers di fagree alfo as to the time Different of this Epocha: for befides the various Opinions alOpinions concerning ledged by Clemens Alexandrinus, Porphyrius has made this Epothe Destruction of Troy coincident with the Reign of cha. Semiramis, as on the contrary Johannes Georgius Herwart ab Hohenburgh in Chron.nov.cap. 34.bas put no more than feven Ages betwixt the Deftruction of Troy and the Epocha of Chrift: But, to set aside these extravagant Notions, there are three feveral Opinions more, which carry with them the greatest probability. The firft fixes the taking of Troy in the 3530th year of the Fulian Period; which is alfo our Opinion (for Reafons alledged in the beginning of this Chapter) as well as that of Dionyfius Petavius and Jacobus Capellus. The fecond is that of Jofephus Scaliger with his Followers Calvifius and Emmius, who affirm that Troy was deftroyed in the year 3531 of the Julian Period, one the 22d of June, in the year of the World 2767. The third Opinion is Buntingus's, who maintains that the Destruction of Troy hapned in the year year of the World 2787, in the year of the Julian Period 3532, on the 21st of June. §. 7. As the greatest part of the Trojan Hiftory is Kings of involved in great Obfcurity; fo the Duration of that Troy. Kingdom remains as yet undetermined, we being ignorant how long Teucrus reigned over it. Out of the following Table it will appear that from the time of Dardanus, Son-in-Law to Teucrus, till the Deftruction of Troy under Priamus, there was a continual Succeffion, from Father to Son, of fix Kings for 296 years. §. 8. There is alfo a great Difpute who was the Founder of the City of Troy or Ilium. The common Founder of The first Opinion is, that Ilus the Son of Tros was the Founder Troy. of this City, according to which Suppofition Troy did not stand an Age and an half. Of this Opinion is Strabo L. 13. Georg. and Conon in Photius. Reinerus Reineccius, de Regn. Troj. p. 174. and fome others, attribute it to Tros. Others go back as far as to King Dardanus, to whom they give the Honour of having laid the first Foundation of Ilium or Troy; with whom confents Virgil, l. 8. En. when he fays, Dardanus, Iliace primus pater Urbis, &c. $9.Virgil fays the Moon was filent when the Grecian What VicFleet appeared before Troy which fome take for a gil meat Metonymical Defcription of Night, others for an in- by the fi finuation of its fhining bright. But 'tis moft proba-lent Moon. Q 2 ble ble he meant, that it was near the Change, which a computation of the Moons Age from the Characters of the times will confirm. CHA P. XII. Of the Epocha of the Reign of David and his Succeffors in the Kingdoms both of Judah and Ifrael. RULES. 1. The beginning of the Reign of David is coinci dent with the 30th year of his Age, 2 Sam. 5. v. 4. 2. The first year of this Epocha precedes the Death of David 45 years, Ibid. 1 Chron. 3. 4. c. 30. V. 27. 3. The 44th year of this Epocha, or the fourth of the Reign of Solomon is coincident with the 480th year after the going of the Children of Ifrael out of Egypt, Kings 6. 1. 4. The fame 44th year is the year of the building of the Temple of Solomon, 1 Kings 6. 1. 5. The 81ft year of this Epocha is the first of the Regim of Jeroboam, and of the 390 years of the Iniquity of the House of Ifrael; because Solomon and his Father reigned each 40 years, Ezec. 4. v. 5. 1 Kings 11.42. 6. The Reigns of the Succeffors of David in both Kingdoms ought to be regulated according to the true Synchronism of the facred Writ, the years of their Reigns being involved in no fmall Difficulties. 7. From thefe Characters it is apparent that the first year of David's Reign, was the 3654th year of the Julian Period, Cyc. O, 14, ). 6. 8. If therefore 3653 years be fubtracted from any To investicertain year of the Julian Period, the Refidue fhews&ate the the year fince the beginning of this Epocha; and if the begin fyear finee 3653 be added to the Number of years of this E-ning of pocha, the Product is the year of the Julian Period this Epo chi. §. 1.THe Interval betwixt the 3260th year of the Difficul Fulian Period, when the fews firft con- ties conquered Palestine, and the 3624th year of the Fulian cerving the Period when David was born, being of above 360 Nativity years, and to be divided betwixt Salmon, Boatz, O. of David. bed and feffe, involves the Nativity of David in no fmall Difficulty. For the Genealogy of the Ancestors of David is thus reprefented Ruth 4. v. 20. feq. And Nathon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Booz,and Booz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jeffe,and Jeffe begat David. So that every one of these must be fuppofed to have begot Children when they were near 100 years old; it being evident that Nafhon entred Palestine with Joshua Numb. 1. v. 7. c. 2. v. 3. c. 7. v. 12. Lyra, Salianus, Genebrardus, Catharinus, Fanlenius, Efthius, and their Profelytes, to remove this difficulty, have fubftituted two more of the fame Name with Boaz; but in vain, fince the Genealogy is repeated in three feveral other places, to wit, 1 Chron. 2. v. II, 12. in St. Matth. 1. 4. in St. Luke 3. 32. Our Opinion is, that without having recourse to these hifts, it may rationally be fuppofed, that the Anceftors of David begot Children in their old Age, as is evident in Boatz out of the Book of Ruth c. 3. v. 10. and in Obed out of 1 Sam. 17. V. 12. §. 2. There being a feeming Contradiction in the Difficul Chronological Computation of thefe Kings in the He- ties conbrew Text, Dionyfius Petavius, Alftedius, Torniellus, cerning the Buntingus, and feveral others, believe the fame to have Kings of been adulterated. But this being the way to cut, Judah and but not to folve the Knot, it will be more convenient to find out fome other way to reconcile thefe differences. It is therefore obfervable, that in this Chronology fometimes the incompleat years are taken for compleat ones; as for inftance, when Feroboam is faid to have Reigned 22 years, it is to be understood of 21 compleat years, at the beginning of the 22d. The fame Q.3 Ifrael. |