of the eclipse were computed by the latter, by the aid of
Hansen's Lunar Tables and Le Verrier's Solar Tables. The result, when
plotted on a map, showed that the shadow line just missed the site of
Nineveh, but that a very slight and unimportant deviation from the
result of the Tables would bring the shadow over the city of Nineveh
where the eclipse was observed, and over Samaria where it was predicted.
The identification of this eclipse, both as regards its time and place,
has also proved a matter of importance in the revision of Scripture
chronology, by lowering, to the extent of 25 years, the reigns of the
kings of the Jewish monarchy. The need for this revision is further
confirmed, if we assume that the celebrated incident in the life of King
Hezekiah, described as the retrogradation of the Sun's shadow on the
dial of Ahaz, is to be interpreted as connected with a partial eclipse
of the Sun.

We will now consider this event, and see what can be made out of it. One
Scripture record (2 Kings xx. 11) is as follows:--"And Isaiah the prophet
cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by
which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." This passage has greatly
exercised commentators of all creeds in different ages of the Church;
and the most divergent opinions have been expressed as to what happened.
This has been due to two causes jointly. Not only is the occurrence
incomprehensible, looked at on the surface of the words, but we are
entirely ignorant of the construction of the so-called "dial" of Ahaz,
and have little or no material directly available from outside sources
to enable us to come to a clear and safe conclusion. No doubt, however,
it was a sun-dial, or gnomon of some kind. Bishop Wordsworth lays stress
on the apparent assertion that the miracle was not wrought on any other
dial at Jerusalem except that of Ahaz, the father of Hezekiah, and he
treats as a confirmation of this the statement in 2 Chron. xxxii. 31,
that ambassadors came from Babylon to Jerusalem, being curious to learn
all about "the wonder that had been done in the land" (_i.e._ in the
land of Judah). But there is more taken for granted here than is
necessary, or, as we shall presently see, is justifiable. To begin with,
how do we know that there was any other dial at Jerusalem like that of
Ahaz? But, in point of fact, we must make a new departure altogether,
for it has been suggested (I know not exactly by whom, or when for