Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

Book Fifteen — the multiplication of mankind after the flood

EIGHTH DISPUTATION. How long the city of Niniue stood

LatineEnglish

EIGHTH DISPUTATION. How long the city of Niniue stood.1

OCTAVA DISPUTATIO. Quamdiu steterit urbs Niniue.

EXPOSUI breviter aliorum sententias de duratione imperii Assyriorum. Sequitur ut, quamdiu steterit urbs Niniue caput eius imperii et sedes regia, et quo tempore primum ceciderit et funditus eversa sit, pari et iam brevitate dicamus…
I have briefly set forth the opinions of others concerning the duration of the Assyrian empire. It follows that, with equal brevity, we now say how long the city of Niniue stood — the head of that empire and the royal seat — and at what time it first fell and was utterly overthrown…2
Herodotus libro 1 scribit Cyaxarem Medorum regem regnasse quadraginta annis, et extremo fere principatu expugnasse Niniue: proximum autem in imperio successorem Cyaxaris facit Astyagem, eique quinque et triginta regni annos assignat. Astyagi porro successisse ait Cyrum, cuius primo imperii anno solutam ab eo esse captivitatem Babylonicam ex sacris literis didicimus. Ex his concluditur, secundum Chronologiam Herodoti, Niniue subversam esse intra septuaginta illos captivitatis Babylonicae annos.
Herodotus in book 1 writes that Cyaxares king of the Medes reigned forty years, and near the end of his rule took Niniue by storm: and he makes Astyages the next successor of Cyaxares in the empire, and assigns him thirty-five years of reign. He says, moreover, that Cyrus succeeded Astyages, in whose first year of empire the Babylonian captivity was released by him, as we have learned from the sacred letters. From these things it is concluded, according to the chronology of Herodotus, that Niniue was overthrown within those seventy years of the Babylonian captivity.3
COMMUNIS sententia est Niniue destructam esse cum Sardanapalus ab Arbace vel Arbaco Medorum praefecto victus et voluntaria morte defunctus est, quemadmodum tradunt Diodorus libro 3 cap. 7 et Strabo libro 16, necnon et Eusebius atque complures alii Eusebium secuti. Verum quia Sardanapalus eo tempore fuit quo apud Iudaeos regnabat Ozias, secundum Diodorum autem longe post, regnante scilicet Manasse, ut supra diximus: hinc fit ut secundum Eusebium Niniue corruerit regnante Ozia, plus autem centum annis post regnante Manasse subversa sit secundum Diodorum. Iosephus, ut paulo supra indicavimus, cum dicat libro nono regnante Ioathan excidium urbis Niniue praedictum fuisse a propheta Nahum, idque centum et quindecim annis post contigisse, necessario debet casum et ruinam civitatis Niniue in tempus regni Manassis conferre.
The common opinion is that Niniue was destroyed when Sardanapalus, conquered by Arbaces or Arbacus the prefect of the Medes, died a voluntary death, as Diodorus hands down in book 3, chapter 7, and Strabo in book 16, and also Eusebius and very many others following Eusebius. But because Sardanapalus was at the time when Ozias reigned among the Jews, but according to Diodorus long after, namely while Manasseh reigned, as we said above: hence it comes about that, according to Eusebius, Niniue fell while Ozias reigned, but according to Diodorus was overthrown more than a hundred years after, while Manasseh reigned. Josephus, as we indicated a little above, since he says in the ninth book that, while Joatham reigned, the destruction of the city Niniue was foretold by the prophet Nahum, and that this happened 115 years after, must necessarily refer the fall and ruin of the city Niniue to the time of the reign of Manasseh.4
SANCTUS Hieronymus in Praefatione Commentariorum suorum in Ionam prodidit eversam fuisse Niniue secundum Graecam historiam (id est secundum Herodotum) regnante apud Medos Astyage: secundum autem sacram Chronologiam, regnante apud Iudaeos Iosia; quae sententia non satis constare sibi nec secum ipsa cohaerere videtur. Primo, secundum Herodotum, non Astyages sed pater eius Cyaxares expugnavit Niniue. Sed fortasse, quia scribit Herodotus sub finem imperii Cyaxaris accidisse expugnationem Niniue, conici posset illam quidem fuisse inchoatam a Cyaxare, sed ab Astyage perfectam. Deinde sumit quasi certum Beatus Hieronymus aequalem Iosiae fuisse Astyagem et eodem tempore regnasse; quod non incertum modo, sed etiam falsum videri posset. Astyages enim regnare coepit triginta quinque annis ante Cyrum, id est, ante solutionem Babylonicae captivitatis; Iosias vero mortuus est nonaginta circiter annis priusquam ea captivitas solveretur. Quid, quod idem Sanctus Hieronymus in Praefatione sua in prophetam Nahum scriptum reliquit Nahum, regnante Ezechia, iam decem tribubus in captivitatem ductis, prophetasse Niniue subvertendam a Chaldaeis; at enim qui primus Chaldaicum imperium auxit et extulit, aliquot annis post Iosiam, fuit rex Nabuchodonosor.
Saint Jerome, in the Preface of his Commentaries on Jonah, handed down that Niniue was overthrown, according to Greek history (that is, according to Herodotus), while Astyages reigned among the Medes; but according to sacred chronology, while Josiah reigned among the Jews — which opinion does not seem consistent enough with itself, nor to cohere with itself. First, according to Herodotus, not Astyages but his father Cyaxares stormed Niniue. But perhaps, because Herodotus writes that the storming of Niniue happened near the end of Cyaxares's reign, it might be conjectured that it was indeed begun by Cyaxares but completed by Astyages. Next, Blessed Jerome takes as certain that Astyages was contemporary with Josiah and reigned at the same time; which might seem not only uncertain but even false. For Astyages began to reign thirty-five years before Cyrus, that is, before the release of the Babylonian captivity; but Josiah died about ninety years before that captivity was released. What of the fact that the same Saint Jerome, in his Preface on the prophet Nahum, left it written that Nahum, while Hezekiah reigned, the ten tribes having already been led into captivity, prophesied that Niniue would be overthrown by the Chaldeans — whereas he who first increased and exalted the Chaldean empire, some years after Josiah, was king Nabuchodonosor?5
HEBRAEI in sua maiori Chronologia, quam appellat Seder-Holam, cap. 24, tradunt Niniue subactam esse a rege Nabuchodonosor primo regni eius anno; idemque significasse videtur Beda in libro de sex aetatibus Mundi…
The Hebrews, in their greater Chronology, which one calls Seder-Holam, chapter 24, hand down that Niniue was subdued by king Nabuchodonosor in the first year of his reign; and Bede seems to have signified the same in his book On the Six Ages of the World…6
Atque haec fere sunt quae ab aliis de tempore quo perduravit imperium Assyriorum et quo urbs Niniue stetit, disputata et literis prodita reperi.
And these are nearly all the things which I have found disputed and committed to writing by others concerning the time during which the Assyrian empire endured and during which the city Niniue stood.7
NON erit, opinor, non gratum lectori, si eum in tanta opinionum varietate, reique ob vetustatem abstrusissimae obscuritate, nostri quoque iudicii ac sententiae participem faciamus. Ego ita sentio: si loquamur de ultima et perfecta regni Assyriorum eversione et civitatis Niniue ruina, postquam scilicet eversionem Assyrii nec amplum nec potens et florens imperium unquam obtinuerint, nec urbs Niniue magnitudine et frequentia floruerit; si de hoc, inquam, loquamur excidio Assyriorum, non dubitabo dicere omnes supra expositas auctorum sententias esse falsas. Hanc meam opinionem persuadere lectori divinarum literarum non imperito ac rudi facillimum fuerit. Namque, ut ordiar ab Eusebio (quem complures Ecclesiastici scriptores secuti sunt), cum is tribuat regno Assyriorum a Nino usque ad Sardanapalum mille ducentos quadraginta annos, necesse est finem eius regni eum ponere in septimo anno regni Oziae regis Iuda. Si quis enim ab hoc septimo anno Oziae, retro secundum sacram Chronologiam recurrens ad primum usque Nini annum, interlapsos colligat annos, reperiet illos mille ducentos quadraginta, quos Eusebius adscribit regno Assyriorum: videlicet quadraginta duos annos regis Nini ante ortum Abrahae; ab ortu Abrahae usque ad Hebraeorum egressum ex Aegypto, quingentos quinque; hinc usque ad quartum annum regis Salomonis, quo anno templum aedificari coeptum est, quadringentos octoginta; ab hoc quarto anno regis Salomonis usque ad septimum Oziae, ducentos tredecim. Ex supradictis omnibus annis conficitur ea, quam dixi, summa annorum mille ducentorum quadraginta.
It will not, I think, be unwelcome to the reader if, amid so great a variety of opinions, and in the obscurity of a matter most abstruse on account of its antiquity, we make him a partaker also of our own judgment and opinion. I think thus: if we speak of the last and complete overthrow of the Assyrian kingdom and the ruin of the city Niniue — after which overthrow, namely, the Assyrians never obtained an ample, powerful, and flourishing empire, nor did the city Niniue flourish in size and population — if, I say, we speak of this destruction of the Assyrians, I shall not hesitate to say that all the opinions of the authors set forth above are false. This my opinion will be most easy to persuade a reader of the divine letters not unskilled and rude. For, to begin from Eusebius (whom many ecclesiastical writers have followed), since he attributes to the kingdom of the Assyrians, from Ninus down to Sardanapalus, 1,240 years, it is necessary for him to place the end of that kingdom in the seventh year of the reign of Ozias king of Judah. For if anyone, from this seventh year of Ozias, running back according to sacred chronology to the very first year of Ninus, gathers the years elapsed, he will find those 1,240 which Eusebius ascribes to the Assyrian kingdom: namely, the forty-two years of king Ninus before the birth of Abraham; from the birth of Abraham down to the going-out of the Hebrews from Egypt, 505; thence down to the fourth year of king Solomon, in which the temple began to be built, 480; from this fourth year of king Solomon down to the seventh of Ozias, 213. From all the aforesaid years is made up that sum, which I said, of 1,240 years.8
AT enim non fuisse in septimo anno Oziae omnino subversum regnum Assyriorum nec desolatam Niniue, tribus evidentissimis argumentis ex ipsa Scriptura ductis convincitur. Primo, plus octoginta annis post septimum Oziae annum transactis, propheta Nahum, regnante Ezechia, ductisque iam in captivitatem decem tribubus (ut recte sensit B. Hieronymus in sua Praefatione in prophetam Nahum) praedixit futuram ruinam et Niniue et Assyriorum: tunc igitur stabat imperium illud, et caput eius Niniue. Deinde illo ipso tempore maxime floruerunt duo reges Assyriorum, Salmanasar et Sennacherib, quorum regum imperii magnitudinem atque potentiam et magnificentiam satis declarat Scriptura in libro quarto Regum et apud Isaiam capite decimo.
But that the Assyrian kingdom was not at all overthrown in the seventh year of Ozias, nor Niniue made desolate, is proved by three most evident arguments drawn from Scripture itself. First, more than eighty years after the seventh year of Ozias had passed, the prophet Nahum, while Hezekiah reigned, and the ten tribes having already been led into captivity (as Blessed Jerome rightly judged in his Preface on the prophet Nahum), foretold the coming ruin of both Niniue and the Assyrians: at that time, therefore, that empire was standing, and its head Niniue. Next, at that very time two kings of the Assyrians especially flourished, Salmanasar and Sennacherib, the magnitude, power, and magnificence of whose reigns Scripture sufficiently declares in the fourth book of Kings and in Isaiah, chapter ten.9
ACCEDIT ad id concludendum tertia ratio validissima quae ducitur ex Historia Tobiae. Tobias quippe vicinus morti praedixit ruinam et eversionem Niniue propinquam iamque imminentem: non est autem mortuus Tobias ante trigesimum annum regni Manassis, id est, plus centum triginta annis post septimum illum regni Oziae annum, in…
There is added, to conclude this, a third most valid reason, drawn from the History of Tobias. For Tobias, near death, foretold the ruin and overthrow of Niniue, near and now imminent: but Tobias did not die before the thirtieth year of the reign of Manasseh, that is, more than one hundred and thirty years after that seventh year of the reign of Ozias, in…10
…in quo, ut dixi, finis imperii Assyriorum auctore Eusebio locandus est. Quod autem dixi de tempore mortis Tobiae, ad hunc modum ostendo: caecitas Tobiae accidit post mortem Sennacherib, ut patet ex primo et secundo capite libri Tobiae. Est autem occisus Sennacherib post annum decimum quartum Ezechiae regis, vel eo ipso anno, ut indicat Scriptura quarto Regum capite decimo octavo: caecitatem porro quatuor annis tulit: exinde post restitutum visum duos et quadraginta annos vixit, ut ex libri Tobiae capite decimo quarto licet intelligere. Ergo post decimum quartum annum regis Ezechiae vixit Tobias, ut minimum, quadraginta sex annos. Dixi „ut minimum,“ quia ex historia Tobiae non potest liquido iudicari quanto tempore post necem Sennacherib, parvo ne an longo, caecitas ei contigerit.
…in which, as I said, the end of the Assyrian empire is to be placed, on the authority of Eusebius. But what I said about the time of Tobias's death I show in this way: the blindness of Tobias happened after the death of Sennacherib, as is clear from the first and second chapters of the book of Tobias. But Sennacherib was killed after the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, or in that very year, as Scripture indicates in the fourth book of Kings, chapter eighteen: and he bore his blindness for four years; thereafter, after his sight was restored, he lived forty-two years, as may be understood from the fourteenth chapter of the book of Tobias. Therefore, after the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah, Tobias lived at least forty-six years. I said ‘at least,’ because from the history of Tobias it cannot be clearly judged how long after the killing of Sennacherib — whether a short or a long time — the blindness befell him.11
CONTRA Diodori vero sententiam, secundum quam finis imperii Assyriorum incidit in decimum quartum regni Manassis annum, tribus validis argumentis pugnari potest. Unum sumitur ex historia Tobiae, qui non ante trigesimum annum regis Manassis, ut ostendi, mortuus est stante adhuc Niniue. Alterum petitur ex historia Nechao regis Aegypti quarto Regum capite vigesimo tertio, qui mortuo iam Iosia, id est, plus triginta annis post mortem Manassis, contendit cum magno exercitu adversus regem Assyriorum: stabat igitur etiam id temporis regnum Assyriorum. Tertium argumentum ducitur ex historia Herodoti, qui primo libro scribit a Cyaxare Medorum rege, novissimo eius principatu, expugnatam esse civitatem Niniue. Si quis autem Chronologiam Herodoti cum sacra Chronologia comparet, expugnationem illam Niniue plus triginta annis post captivitatem Babylonicam accidisse comperiet.
But against the opinion of Diodorus — according to which the end of the Assyrian empire fell in the fourteenth year of Manasseh's reign — three valid arguments can be made. One is taken from the history of Tobias, who did not die before the thirtieth year of king Manasseh, as I have shown, while Niniue was still standing. The second is sought from the history of Nechao king of Egypt in the fourth book of Kings, chapter twenty-three, who, Josiah being now dead — that is, more than thirty years after the death of Manasseh — contended with a great army against the king of the Assyrians: the Assyrian kingdom, therefore, was still standing at that time too. The third argument is drawn from the history of Herodotus, who in the first book writes that the city Niniue was stormed by Cyaxares king of the Medes, in the last part of his rule. But if anyone compare the chronology of Herodotus with sacred chronology, he will find that that storming of Niniue happened more than thirty years after the Babylonian captivity.12
AD extremum, tam B. Hieronymo, qui eversionem Niniue confert in tempus regnantis Iosiae, quam Bedae et Hebraeis excidium illius urbis referentibus ad primum annum regni Nabuchodonosor, plane adversari videtur historia libri Iudith, in cuius exordio memoratur quidam Nabuchodonosor rex Assyriorum potentissimum habens imperium et regnans in civitate Niniue: quod autem eo in libro narratur, post solutam Hebraeorum captivitatem reditumque in patriam, sub monarchia Persarum evenisse arbitrantur plurimi; Eusebius quidem in Chronico et Beda in libro de sex mundi aetatibus, tempore Cambysis; secundum Beatum Augustinum, regnante Cyro; ut autem placet Severo Sulpitio libro secundo de sacra historia, quo tempore regnabat apud Persas Artaxerxes sive Darius Ochus, hoc est, plus ducentis annis post reditum Hebraeorum ex captivitate Babylonica.
Finally, the history of the book of Judith seems plainly to oppose both Blessed Jerome, who refers the overthrow of Niniue to the time of Josiah's reign, and Bede and the Hebrews, who refer the destruction of that city to the first year of the reign of Nabuchodonosor; in whose opening is mentioned a certain Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, holding a most powerful empire and reigning in the city Niniue. But what is narrated in that book, most judge to have occurred after the release of the Hebrews' captivity and their return to their fatherland, under the monarchy of the Persians: Eusebius indeed in the Chronicle, and Bede in the book On the Six Ages of the World, in the time of Cambyses; according to Blessed Augustine, while Cyrus reigned; but as it pleases Severus Sulpitius in the second book of the Sacred History, at the time when Artaxerxes, or Darius Ochus, reigned among the Persians — that is, more than two hundred years after the return of the Hebrews from the Babylonian captivity.13
QUAENAM igitur est nostra sententia vel potius coniectura? Equidem censeo, si nolumus quae tot tantique auctores de imperii Assyriorum et Niniue eversione tradiderunt, ut falsa et sacris literis contraria damnare ac prorsus abiicere, necessario nobis dicendum esse nec regnum Assyriorum nec civitatem Niniue semel tantum esse subversa, sed iterum atque iterum et diruta atque vastata, et denuo refecta atque instaurata fuisse…
What, then, is our opinion, or rather conjecture? For my part I judge that, if we are unwilling to condemn and utterly cast off as false and contrary to the sacred letters what so many and so great authors have handed down concerning the overthrow of the Assyrian empire and of Niniue, we must necessarily say that neither the Assyrian kingdom nor the city Niniue was overthrown only once, but again and again was both demolished and laid waste, and again repaired and restored…14
…quemadmodum enim accidit Iudaeis, quorum principatus saepe labefactatus et reparatus, et itidem urbs Hierusalem; et sicut civitas Babylon saepe capta, direpta, incensa et destructa est, ut nos ostendimus libro septimo nostrorum Commentariorum in Danielem, ubi, explicatis aliquot ultima verba capitis quinti Danielis, et de regno Chaldaeorum et de civitate Babylonis quaestiones tractavimus in sexta earum quaestionum: ita quoque regno Assyriorum et Niniue civitati existimandum est contigisse.
…for just as it happened to the Jews, whose sovereignty was often shaken and repaired, and likewise the city Jerusalem; and just as the city Babylon was often taken, plundered, burned, and destroyed, as we have shown in the seventh book of our Commentaries on Daniel, where, having explained the last words of the fifth chapter of Daniel, we treated questions both about the kingdom of the Chaldeans and about the city Babylon in the sixth of those questions: so too one must judge it to have happened to the Assyrian kingdom and the city Niniue.15
PRIMAM porro regni Assyriorum et civitatis Niniue ruinam atque eversionem credo equidem fuisse eam quam regnante Ozia minatus est Ionas; sed ea propter Niniuitarum poenitentiam aliquandiu dilata est. Eam vero ruinam multis annis post, regnante Ezechia, ut omnino futuram praedixit Nahum; et Thobias paulo ante mortem suam ut iam appropinquantem denuntiavit: quam nos putamus circa quadragesimum regni Manassis annum contigisse.
The first ruin and overthrow of the Assyrian kingdom and the city Niniue, moreover, I believe to have been that which Jonah threatened while Ozias reigned; but it was for a while deferred on account of the repentance of the Ninevites. That ruin, however, Nahum foretold as altogether to come, many years after, while Hezekiah reigned; and Tobias, a little before his death, announced it as now drawing near: which we think happened about the fortieth year of the reign of Manasseh.16
ERGO Diodori opinio affirmantis civitatem Niniue atque imperium Assyriorum stetisse annis mille trecentis sexaginta, quorum annorum finis competit, ut supra ostendimus, in decimum quartum annum regni Manassis, non longe abest a nostra sententia, quam nos esse veram aut certe vero simillimam arbitramur. Quocirca numero annorum Diodori si annos circiter viginti quinque addamus, imperium Assyriorum a Nino et ab exordio urbis Niniue usque ad Sardanapali eiusdemque civitatis occasum annis mille trecentis et circiter nonaginta vere determinabimus. Ex quo apparet inter omnes auctorum opiniones supra commemoratas Diodori sententiam vero propiorem esse iudicandam. Iam vero post primam hanc Niniue urbis et regni Assyriorum ruinam ea iterum fuisse excitata et reparata aperte demonstrat historia Iudith, ut supra ostendimus. Si tamen ea contigit florente monarchia Persarum, ut multis visum est; namque magna de hoc, et adhuc sub iudice lis est. Quam nos controversiam cum cura, subtiliter et copiose tractavimus in libris quos de Chronologia totius scripturae veteris testamenti scripsimus, et in tempore (si Deo placuerit) in publicum dabimus.
Therefore Diodorus's opinion, affirming that the city Niniue and the Assyrian empire stood 1,360 years — the end of which years falls, as we have shown above, in the fourteenth year of the reign of Manasseh — is not far from our opinion, which we judge to be true or at least very like the truth. Wherefore, if to Diodorus's number of years we add about twenty-five years, we shall truly determine the Assyrian empire, from Ninus and from the founding of the city Niniue down to the fall of Sardanapalus and of that same city, at 1,390 years or thereabouts. From which it appears that, among all the opinions of the authors mentioned above, Diodorus's opinion is to be judged nearer the truth. Now, that after this first ruin of the city Niniue and the Assyrian kingdom it was again raised up and repaired, the history of Judith plainly demonstrates, as we have shown above — if, however, that befell while the Persian monarchy flourished, as has seemed to many; for there is a great dispute about this, and the case is still before the judge. Which controversy we have treated carefully, subtly, and copiously in the books which we have written On the Chronology of the whole Scripture of the Old Testament, and shall in time (if it please God) give to the public.17

Translator’s notes

  1. Liber XV, Disputation 8 (title): how long the city of Nineveh stood. ↩
  2. §94. Disp. 8 opens: how long Nineveh, the capital and royal seat, stood, and when it first fell (continues p. 439). ↩
  3. §94 (concl.). Herodotus (bk. 1): Cyaxares king of the Medes (40 yrs) stormed Nineveh near his reign's end; succeeded by Astyages (35 yrs), then Cyrus, in whose 1st yr the Babylonian captivity ended. So by Herodotus, Nineveh fell within the 70 yrs of the captivity. Margins: Herodotus; Cyaxares; 1 Esdras 1. ↩
  4. §95. The common view: Nineveh fell when Sardanapalus, beaten by Arbaces, died by his own hand (Diodorus 3.7, Strabo bk. 16, Eusebius, etc.). But the dating splits: Eusebius puts Sardanapalus under Ozias, Diodorus 100+ yrs later under Manasseh. Josephus (bk. 9: Nahum foretold it under Joatham, fulfilled 115 yrs later) must place the fall under Manasseh. Margins: Diodorus; Strabo; Eusebius; Josephus. ↩
  5. §96. Jerome (Preface to Jonah): Nineveh fell under Astyages (Greek/Herodotus) = under Josiah (sacred chronology). Pererius finds this inconsistent: (1) per Herodotus it was Cyaxares, not Astyages, who stormed it (perhaps begun by Cyaxares, finished by Astyages); (2) Jerome wrongly makes Astyages contemporary with Josiah — Astyages began 35 yrs before Cyrus/the captivity's end, but Josiah died ~90 yrs before it; (3) Jerome's Preface on Nahum says Nineveh would fall to the Chaldeans, but Nabuchodonosor (who built up the Chaldean empire) came years after Josiah. Margins: Jerome; a remark on Jerome's opinion; Jerome (on Nahum). ↩
  6. §97. The Hebrews (Seder Olam ch. 24): Nineveh subdued by Nabuchodonosor in his 1st year; Bede (On the Six Ages of the World) seems to agree (continues p. 440). Margins: the Hebrews; Bede. ↩
  7. §97 (concl.). Summary: these are the various opinions of others on the durations of the Assyrian empire and the city of Nineveh. ↩
  8. §98. Pererius's own view: if we mean the final, complete overthrow (after which Assyria/Nineveh never flourished again), all the above opinions are false. Following Eusebius's 1,240 yrs, the end must fall in Ozias's 7th yr: the sum = 42 (Ninus before Abraham) + 505 (Abraham→Exodus) + 480 (Exodus→Solomon's 4th yr / start of the Temple) + 213 (Solomon's 4th→Ozias's 7th) = 1,240. Margins: the author's opinion; per Eusebius the Assyrian kingdom must have ended in Ozias's 7th year. ↩
  9. §99. But Nineveh was NOT destroyed in Ozias's 7th yr — three Scriptural proofs (first two here): (1) 80+ yrs later, under Hezekiah (with the ten tribes already captive), Nahum foretold Nineveh's coming ruin (Jerome), so the empire still stood; (2) at that time the two great Assyrian kings Salmanasar and Sennacherib flourished (2 Kgs; Isa 10). Margins: Nineveh was not overthrown while Ozias reigned; Jerome. ↩
  10. §100. Third proof, from Tobias: dying, Tobias foretold Nineveh's imminent ruin; but he died no earlier than Manasseh's 30th yr — 130+ yrs after Ozias's 7th yr (continues p. 441). Margins: Tobit (last chapter); when Tobias died. ↩
  11. §100 (concl.). Proof of Tobias's late death: his blindness came after Sennacherib's death (Tob 1–2); Sennacherib was killed in/after Hezekiah's 14th yr (2 Kgs 18); Tobias bore blindness 4 yrs, then lived 42 more (Tob 14) — so he lived 46+ yrs after Hezekiah's 14th yr, far past Ozias's 7th. So Nineveh stood well beyond Eusebius's date. ↩
  12. §101. Against Diodorus (end in Manasseh's 14th yr) — three arguments: (1) Tobias died no earlier than Manasseh's 30th yr, Nineveh still standing; (2) Nechao of Egypt fought the Assyrian king after Josiah's death (2 Kgs 23), 30+ yrs after Manasseh, so it still stood; (3) Herodotus: Cyaxares stormed Nineveh near his reign's end — by sacred chronology, 30+ yrs after the Babylonian captivity began. Margins: Diodorus refuted; Herodotus. ↩
  13. §102. Against Jerome (fall under Josiah) and Bede/Hebrews (Nabuchodonosor's 1st yr): the book of Judith names a Nabuchodonosor, king of the Assyrians, powerful and reigning in Nineveh — most date this after the captivity's release, under the Persians: Eusebius/Bede under Cambyses, Augustine under Cyrus, Severus Sulpitius under Artaxerxes/Darius Ochus (200+ yrs after the return). Margins: the opinion of Jerome, Bede, and the Hebrews examined; Eusebius; Bede; Augustine, City of God 18.26; Severus Sulpitius. ↩
  14. §103. Pererius's own conjecture: rather than condemn all the great authors as false, we must say Assyria and Nineveh were overthrown not once but repeatedly — destroyed and rebuilt again and again (continues p. 442). Margin: the author's opinion. ↩
  15. §103 (concl.). The analogy: as the Jews' rule and Jerusalem were often shaken and restored, and Babylon often taken, sacked, and burned (treated in his Commentaries on Daniel bk. 7, on Dan 5), so it was with Assyria and Nineveh. Margin: Babylon, Jerusalem, and Nineveh often overthrown and rebuilt. ↩
  16. §104. The first ruin = the one Jonah threatened under Ozias, deferred for the Ninevites' repentance; foretold as certain by Nahum (under Hezekiah) and as imminent by the dying Tobias — happening ~Manasseh's 40th yr. Margins: the first ruin of Nineveh, what it was and when; Tobit (last chapter). ↩
  17. §105. Diodorus's 1,360 yrs (ending Manasseh's 14th yr) is near Pererius's view; adding ~25 yrs gives ~1,390 yrs (Ninus/founding of Nineveh → Sardanapalus's fall) — so Diodorus is closest to the truth. After the first ruin Nineveh was rebuilt (book of Judith) — whether under the Persians is disputed (treated in his forthcoming On the Chronology of the whole Old Testament). Margin: a more probable opinion on the duration of the Assyrian kingdom. ↩