In Josephus we find the recognition of an annus magnus containing as many [a]ἔτη] as the nerus did: [a] ἔπειτα καὶ δι' ἀρετὴν καὶ τὴν εὐχρηστίαν ὧν ἐπενόουν ἀστρολόγιας καὶ γεωμὲτριας πλέον ζῇν τὸν Θεὸν αὐτοῖς παρασχεῖν ἅπερ οὐκ ἧν ἀσφαλῶς αὐτοῖς προειπεῖν ζήσασιν ἑξακοσίους ἐνιαυτούς· διὰ τοσοῦτον γὰρ ὁμέγας ἐνιαυτὸς πληροῦται].—Antiq. i. 3.
The following doctrine is a suggestion, viz. that in the word sosus we have the Hebrew [a]שֵש] = six. If this be true, it is probable that the sosus itself was only a secondary division, or some other period multiplied by six. Such would be a period of five days, or ten [a]ἔׁτηׁ] (so-called). With this view we get two probabilities, viz. a subdivision of the month, and the alternation of the numbers 6 and 10 throughout; i. e. from the [a]ἔτος][4] (or 12 hours) to the sarus (or five years).
After the reading of this paper, a long discussion followed on the question, how far the sarus could be considered as belonging to historical chronology. The Chairman (Professor Wilson) thought there could be no doubt that the same principles which regulated the mythological periods of the Hindoos prevailed also in the Babylonian computations, although there might be some variety in their application.
1. A mahayuga or great age of the Hindoos, comprising the four successive yugas or ages, consists of 4,320,000 years.
2. These years being divided by 360, the number of days in the Indian lunar year, give 12,000 periods.
3. By casting off two additional cyphers, these numbers are reduced respectively to 432,000 and 120, the numbers of the years of the saroi of the ten Babylonian kings, whilst in the numbers 12,360 and 3600 we have the coincidence of other elements of the computation.