HEBREW CHRONOLOGY.
_From the Birth of Christ to the Creation._
BY general consent the birth of Christ is made the central point
of all sacred chronology, the Christian ages being reckoned forward
from that point (A. D.) and the Jewish or earlier ages being reckoned
backward (B. C.). We treat of the latter only.――――Going backward from
the Christian era, there is general agreement and no reasonable ground
for diversity till we reach the period of the _Judges of Israel_. The
cardinal points are:
B. C.
The decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews. 536
The duration of the captivity, from the fourth year of
Jehoiakim, 70 years. 606
(But counted from the fall of the city under Zedekiah,
52 years only.)
From the revolt, first year of Rehoboam to the fall of
the city, 388 years. 976
To the founding of the temple, beginning of Solomon’s
fourth year, 37 years. 1013
This last epoch has chronological importance――the foundation of the
temple laid――A. D. 1013.
The first disputed, diversely estimated, point is the _period of the
Judges_; yet the proof texts and authorities cover the period from the
Exodus to the temple. Usher makes the period of the Judges 339 years;
Jahn and many others, 450. Usher relies on 1 K. 6: 1: “In the 480th
year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt,
in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel ... he began to build
the house of the Lord.”
His computation runs thus:
YEARS.
Hebrews in the wilderness. 40
Hebrews under Joshua. 17
Samuel and Saul together.[19] 40
David (2 Sam. 5: 4, 5). 41
Solomon up to the founding of the temple. 3
Judges――to fill out 480. 339
―――――
480
The long period for the Judges rests primarily on Acts 13: 20, which
states that “after having divided to them the land of Canaan by lot,
God gave them judges 450 years until Samuel the prophet.” Placing 450
in the above computation in place of 339――an excess of 111 years――we
find the date of the Exodus B. C. 1604 instead of Usher’s figures
♦B. C. 1491.
In support of this long period for the Judges may be urged――
(1.) The authority of Paul as above (Acts 13: 20) which makes this
period 450 years.
(2.) Josephus makes the interval from the Exodus to the founding
of the temple 592 years, and not 480. The Jews of China also make
it 592――facts which favor the supposition that the Hebrew text of
1 K. 6: 1, is in error. It can not be supposed that either Josephus
or the Chinese Jews adjusted their figures to harmonize with Paul.
(3.) The internal dates in the Book of Judges demand the long period
and can not be harmonized with the short one:――――Thus Judges 11: 26
shows that the Hebrews had then dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer and along the
coast of Arnon 300 years. These years lie between the entrance into
Canaan and the beginning of Jephthah’s judgeship. We have then this
computation:
YEARS.
300 years, minus 17 years for the term of Joshua, is 283
Add for Jephthah (Judg. 12: 6) 6
For Ibzan 7 years; for Elon 10; for Abdon 8 (according
to Judg. 12: 8, 11, 14) 25
Servitude to the Philistines (Judg. 13: 1) 40
Sampson (Judg. 15: 20 and 16: 31) not less than 20
Eli (1 Sam. 4: 18) 40
A period without dates (narrated Judg. 17–21) estimated
at 40
―――――
Makes a total of 454
It is entirely impossible to bring these internal dates in the history
within the short period of 339 years for the Judges. We must therefore
accept the long period――450 years――and place the Exodus in 1013 + 591
= B. C. 1604.
* * * * *
The next period of conflicting authorities is the _Sojourn in Egypt_.
The issue lies between the long period, 430 years, and the short one,
215 years.――――The first proof text is Ex. 12: 40: “Now the sojourning
of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years.” Next is
Gen. 15: 13: “Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs and
shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 400 years”:――which
is quoted substantially by Stephen, Ac. 7: 6.――――On the other hand
stands Gal. 3: 17, which makes the giving of the law on Sinai 430 years
_after_ the covenant made with Abraham. The interval from that covenant
to Jacob’s standing before Pharaoh is readily computed thus: From the
covenant with Abram, he being then 75 years old (Gen. 12: 4) to the
birth of Isaac, Abraham 100 years old (Gen. 21: 5) is 25 years.――――From
birth of Isaac to birth of Jacob (Gen. 25: 26) 60.――――Jacob standing
before Pharaoh (Gen. 47: 9) at 130, the sum of which numbers is 215.
According to Paul, this would leave for the sojourn in Egypt but 215
years.
A distinct class of proofs came from an estimate of the generations
between the fathers who went down into Egypt and the sons who entered
Canaan. Of this, presently.
Reverting now to the obviously conflicting proof texts above cited,
we may note that Ex. 12: 40 is read variously――the Septuagint (Vatican
text) adding after “dwelt in Egypt,” the words――“and in the land of
Canaan;” while the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint adds also――“they
and their fathers.” Both these additions appear also in the Samaritan
text and in the Targum Jonathan; while the Masoretic Hebrew is
supported by the more reliable Targum of Onkelos; also by the Syriac
and the Vulgate. These additions as in the Septuagint are clumsily
made. The dwelling in Canaan, referring to Abraham and Isaac, should
come in _before_ the dwelling in Egypt if at all, and not _after_. The
diversity between the two texts of the Septuagint is suspicious. The
authority of the old Hebrew text stands unshaken.
The passage Gen. 15: 13 is strong to the same purport, since it was
“in a land _not his own_” (_i. e._ not Canaan), and was a state of
tyrannous oppression which was to continue 400 years――points which
forbid us to include in this 400 years the life-history of Abraham,
Isaac and Jacob.――――As to Paul (Gal. 3: 17) his readers had before them
only the Septuagint; he would therefore naturally follow its authority,
and the more readily because the difference between that and the Hebrew
in the length of the interval was a point of no importance to his
argument.
* * * * *
The evidence from the lapse of generations during the sojourn in Egypt
is of great, not to say decisive, importance to our question. Here,
however, opinions as to its bearing differ totally. One of the test
passages is Ex. 6: 16–20, which makes the whole age of Levi 137 years;
of Kohath, his son, 133; of Amram――apparently his son and the father
of Moses, 137. The age of Moses when he stood before Pharaoh (Ex. 7: 7)
was 80. Kohath was born in Canaan; his father was older by several
years than Benjamin; presumably, therefore, his children were older;
yet Benjamin had ten sons when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 46: 21).
If we suppose that Kohath was 25 when he went into Egypt, then he lived
there 108 years. Amram lived there 137, and Moses at the Exodus had
lived 80. With these given generations and ages, this computation is
stretched to its utmost extent since it supposes Kohath’s death at 133
and Amram’s birth to have occurred in the same year; also Amram’s death
at 137 and the birth of Moses to be in the same year; yet the sum is
only 325, which is less by 105 years than the long period. With these
data the short period (215) might be readily provided for.
But several circumstances combine to show that there must be several
omitted links between the Amram here spoken of, and Kohath. For in this
genealogical list (Ex. 6: 16–20) we have but two names between Levi,
the tribe-father, and Moses, viz. Kohath and Amram. But between Joseph,
a younger tribe-father, and Zelophehad, a contemporary of Moses, there
are four intervening names (Num. 26: 28–33); between Judah and Bezaleel
there are six (1 Chron. 2: 3–5, 18–20); between Joseph (through Ephraim)
and Joshua, there are nine (1 Chron. 7: 22–27).――――Again, we have in
Num. 3: 27, 28, a census of the four Kohath families. The males, from
one month and upward, are 8600. If we set off one-fourth of these to
Amram (_i. e._ 2150) and remember that the Amram who was father to
Moses had but one other son, Aaron, (known to this genealogy) with four
sons, and that Moses had but two, we shall see it utterly impossible
that the male offspring of Moses and of Aaron could number 2150.
Therefore Amram, the immediate son of Kohath, must have been several
generations back of the Amram who was father of Moses.――――The genealogy
of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, might also be explained, but space
forbids.――――The vast increase of Hebrew population, from the 70 souls
who went down into Egypt to the 600,000 men of age for war who went out
(Ex. 12: 37), suggests a longer time than 215 years. The evidence on
the whole preponderates decisively against the shorter and in favor of
the longer period, 430 years.
* * * * *
The third doubtful period in Hebrew chronology lies between Abraham
and his father Terah, the question being the age of Terah at Abraham’s
birth. Some authorities make it 70 years; others, 130. The proof texts
are――(a.) Gen. 11: 26; “Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor,
and Haran.”――――(b.) Gen. 11: 32; “The days of Terah were 205 years; and
Terah died in Haran.”――――(c.) Acts 7: 4; “Abram came out of the land
of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran; and from thence, _after his father
was dead_, he removed into this land wherein ye now dwell.”――――(d.) Gen.
12: 4; “Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran.”――――The
difficulty is that if Abram was born when his father was 70 and lived
with him till his death at the age of 205, he should have been 135
and not merely 75 when his father died and he went into Canaan.――――To
surmount this difficulty some construe the text (a.) to mean that Terah
lived 70 years before the birth of his first son; that Abram was not
his first-born but is named first on account of his greater prominence
in history and in character; and that Abram was not born till his
father was 130.――――Others assume that Stephen made the slight mistake
of supposing that Terah was dead when Abram left Haran for Canaan,
misled by the circumstance that the historian, in order to dispose
of his case, narrated Terah’s death _before_ he spoke of Abram’s
emigration to Canaan, although (as they assume) it in fact occurred
60 years afterwards.――――Others assume an error in the number of years
assigned as the full age of Terah, making it 145 instead of 205――the
Samaritan text giving these figures.
The assumption that Stephen was mistaken is to be rejected; partly
because it was vital to the purposes of his speech that his historic
points should be accurately made――at least in harmony with current
Jewish opinion――to say nothing of the further fact that he is before
us as one “filled with the Holy Ghost” and specially inspired; partly
because the history represents Terah as sympathizing fully in the
spirit of the removal from Ur to Canaan, and apparently prevented
from going only by the infirmities of age.――――The choice seems,
therefore, to lie between the first named explanation and the last.
The first――making the passage (Gen. 11: 26) mean only that Terah lived
70 years before the birth of his eldest, but became the father of
three sons――leaving us at liberty to fix Abraham’s birth at his 130th
year――is a possible construction, but is rendered somewhat improbable
by Abram’s question (Gen. 17: 17) “Shall a son be born to him that is
100 years old”? How could he have thought this strange if in fact he
himself had been born when his father was 130?――――There may be an error
in the number of years of Terah’s life; the Samaritan text may be right
in making it 145. This is below the average age of his fathers; but
in those as in all other days, men were subject to die before they
reached the maximum age of their generation. It would seem that he set
out from Ur with the reasonable expectation of going to Canaan. Hence
a probability that he died unexpectedly, and at an earlier age than his
fathers. I can express no positive opinion upon this case.
* * * * *
Two other doubtful periods remain to be considered, viz. _The interval
from the creation to the flood; and the interval from the flood to the
call of Abram._ The question upon these two intervals is substantially
the same, so that they may properly be presented together. It hinges
in both cases upon the authority of the texts――viz. for the former
interval, Gen. 5: 3–32; and for the latter, Gen. 11: 10–26.――――In
form these tables are not chronological but genealogical. They do
not reckon from any given era, as if (_e. g._) to show the interval
from the creation to the flood, but give the age of each member of
the genealogical line when his son of the same line was born. It is
therefore by adding together these measured portions of each man’s life,
viz. the years he lived before the next member in the line was born,
that we obtain the entire interval.――――The tables give three facts
as to each man’s life; (a.) how old he was when his son in this line
was born; (b.) how long he lived afterwards; and (c.) the sum total
of his years. If the chain is perfect, with neither missing nor
supernumerary links, and if the numbers of the first class are all
correct, the result must be reliable. But plainly the result will be
changed at once by changing the first set of numbers and the second to
correspond,――without changing the third at all.
In the present case from Adam to Noah inclusive are ten generations.
The sum of the first class of numbers as it stands in our Hebrew text
is 1656, to the year of the flood. The only question of difficulty
is upon the _authority of the text_. The Septuagint makes the same
interval 2262――an excess above the Hebrew of 606 years.――――In like
manner from the birth of Arphaxad to the call of Abram (ten generations
inclusive) the Hebrew text makes a total of 365 years; the Septuagint
1015, or by another text of the Sept. 1115, making an excess of 650 or
750 years. The sum of excess in the two periods is 1256 or 1356.――――The
following tables will serve to show how these diverse footings are
produced. The numbers given by Josephus have some interest: I therefore
place them in the table for the period before the flood. The numbers
given in the Samaritan text are frequently brought into this comparison.
They differ considerably from either of the other authorities, but seem
to me of no particular value, and are therefore omitted.
A.
HEBREW TEXT. SEPTUAGINT. JOSEPHUS.
――――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――――
Age Age Age
at Rest at Rest at Rest
Son’s of Son’s of Son’s of
NAMES birth. life.Total. birth.life.Total. birth.life. Total.
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
1. Adam 130 800 930 230 700 930 230 700 930
2. Seth 105 807 912 205 707 912 205 707 912
3. Enos 90 815 905 190 715 905 190 715 905
4. Cainan 70 840 910 170 740 910 170 740 910
5. Mahalaleel 65 830 895 165 730 895 165 730 895
6. Jared 162 800 962 162 800 962 162 800 962
7. Enoch 65 300 365 165 200 365 165 200 365
8. Methuselah 187 782 969 *187 782 969 187 782 969
9. Lamech 182 595 777 188 565 753 182 595 777
10. Noah 500 450 950 500 450 950 500 450 950
To the flood 100 100 100
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
Total 1656 2262 2256
* The Vatican text of the Seventy makes this number 167.
Comparing the Hebrew figures with those of the Septuagint, it seems
plain that one set or the other has been altered _by design_. It should
be borne in mind that the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew into
Greek, made about 285 B. C., which is not far from 1500 years prior
to the date of our oldest Hebrew manuscripts. Also that Josephus wrote
in the latter part of the first century after Christ, giving Jewish
history quite faithfully _as then understood_.――――In the first table
Josephus sustains the Septuagint with only the one slight exception of
making Lamech 182 instead of 188 at the birth of Noah――his total being
thereby six years less.
The reader will note carefully how these main differences between the
Hebrew and the Septuagint stand. In the first five names and in the
seventh, the years in the first column――_i. e._ the age of the father
at the birth of his son, are less by 100 in the Hebrew than in the
Septuagint, or (what amounts to the same thing) greater by 100 in the
Septuagint than in the Hebrew. To correspond, the years in the second
column are greater by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, so
that the totals as they appear in the third column come out the same
in both texts.――――These are the only important variations. The other
is a slight one――the Septuagint adding six years to the age of Lamech
at Noah’s birth, or the Hebrew taking six years off from the number as
in the Septuagint. In this case Josephus is with the Hebrew text.――――It
may be noted also that in the cases of Jared and Methuselah, the
figures agree.――――Now the question is――_Which text is pure, and which
has been corrupted?_
A better view perhaps of the whole question will be obtained if at this
point we study the corresponding table for the period from the birth of
Arphaxad (two years after the flood) to the call of Abram, made up from
the Hebrew text, from the Septuagint and from the Samaritan text of
Gen. 11:10–26:
B.
HEBREW TEXT. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
――――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――――
Age Age Age
at Rest at Rest at Rest
Son’s of Son’s of Son’s of
NAMES birth. life.Total. birth.life.Total. birth.life. Total.
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
1. Shem 100 500 600 100 500 600 100 500 600
2. Arphaxad 35 403 438 135 400 535 135 303 438
3. Salah 30 403 433 130 330 460 130 303 433
4. Eber 34 430 464 134 270 404 134 270 404
5. Peleg 30 209 239 130 209 339 130 109 239
6. Reu 32 207 239 132 207 339 132 107 237
7. Serug 30 200 230 130 200 330 130 100 230
8. Nahor 29 119 148 179 125 304 79 69 145
[or 79]
9. Terah 130 135 205 130 135 205 70 75 145
[or 70] [or 70]
10. Abram,
his call 75 75 75
―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ――――
Total 365 1015 1015
Here it will be noticed that the important differences are of the same
sort as in the corresponding table before the flood. In a series of six
names (Arphaxad to Serug inclusive) the Hebrew has 100 years less in
each life than the Septuagint _before_ the dividing point. In the first
(the important) column, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint. The
years in the second and in the third columns are quite irregular. In
the case of Nahor the Septuagint exceeds the Hebrew either 50, as in
the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, or 150 as in the Vatican text.
On the question――Which of these texts, the Hebrew or the Greek, has
been corrupted? it may be said in favor of the integrity of the Hebrew:
(a.) That it is the original.――――(b.) That in general it has been
preserved by the Jews with extreme care and guarded against corruption
with the greatest vigilance.
* * * * *
In favor of the integrity of the Septuagint on the points now in
question may be urged――
(a.) As to the period from Adam to Noah, the general concurrence of
Josephus――an independent and reliable witness as to the state of all
the Jewish authorities of his time. In regard to the period after the
flood, the corresponding concurrence of the Samaritan text in all vital
points.
(b.) The fact that there is no known reason for intentional corruption;
while over against this it has been supposed (with how much probability
it is difficult to say) that the Jews during their controversies with
the Christians on the great question of the Messiah (A. D. 150–400)
found it for their interest to shorten the period from the creation to
the Christian era in order to prove that the Messiah had not yet come.
This presupposes it admitted on both sides that he was to come within
some given number of years after the creation――perhaps 4500 or 5000.
We have already seen reason to suppose that the Hebrew text of 1 Kings
6: 1 is in error――perhaps corrupted. It is manifestly less than the
truth by the difference between 480 and 591.
(c.) The accuracy of the Septuagint chronology on these contested
points does not appear to have been called in question until at least
400 years after the translation was made――never before A. D. 150, about
the date when the controversy arose respecting the Christian Messiah.
(d.) It was in use and fully accredited before the Christian era.
(e.) It was used and its authority fully admitted by the fathers of
the Christian church.――――This fact and the next preceding render it at
least probable that the Hebrew text _at that time_ was in harmony with
the Septuagint.
(f.) The Chaldean and Egyptian annals seem to demand more time back to
the flood or to the creation than the present Hebrew text admits, and
therefore lend their influence (to be taken for what it is worth) in
favor of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew because of its longer
periods.
(g.) In table A it will be readily seen, comparing the figures of
the first column in the Hebrew with the corresponding figures in the
Septuagint, that the latter are very uniform while in the Hebrew there
is a wide diversity between the highest and the lowest, four standing
considerably below 100 and two above 180. The probability seems to be
somewhat against so wide diversity.――――In table B the Hebrew figures
in the first column are sufficiently near each other. Out of seven in
succession the extremes are 29 and 35. We have an equal uniformity in
the first column of the Septuagint and of the Samaritan, six of these
figures being the same as in the Hebrew with only the addition of 100.
The Hebrew figures seem low relatively to the total years; and on the
other hand the Septuagint figures seem too high. Especially is this
objection formidable when we remember Abram’s surprise that God should
promise him a son when 100 years old (Gen. 17: 17). “Shall a child be
born to him that is 100 years old?”――as if it were a thing unknown in
then recent history. But if all Abram’s ancestors back to the flood
begat their respective sons in this line at ages ranging from 135 to
130 (or all but Terah) it is somewhat difficult to account for his
surprise. The best we could say would be that the average human life
was fast lessening. I regard this as the most serious objection of
internal character against the integrity of the Septuagint text.――――On
the whole the chronological questions at issue between the Hebrew text
and the Septuagint, turning upon the authority of their respective
texts, are very much complicated and not a little doubtful. I have laid
before the reader what I regard as the main arguments, and rest the
case here, hopeful that greater light may yet arise, leaning, however,
toward accepting the authority of the Septuagint.
* * * * *
Reviewing the points made in this examination of Hebrew chronology,
it will be seen that we extend the time beyond Usher’s system,
(a.) In the period of the Judges at least 111 years; (b.) In the
sojourn in Egypt 215 years; and (omitting the interval between Terah
and Abram as uncertain), (c.) In the interval from the flood to the
call of Abram (if the Septuagint be followed) at least 650 years, and
perhaps 750; and (d.) In the period from the creation to the flood, 606
years――a total of 1582 or 1682 years.――――Or, to put the case in another
form, we put the Exodus in the year (B. C.) 1603; Jacob’s going into
Egypt, B. C. 2033; the call of Abram, B. C. 2248; and by the Septuagint
the flood, 3265 or 3365; and finally, by the Septuagint, the creation,
B. C. 5527 or 5627.
This approximates toward harmony with the reported results of the
Indian chronology which locates the creation B. C. 6174; also the
♦Babylonian, B. C. 6158, and the Chinese, B. C. 6157――the excess of
the latter above the longest sacred chronology being only 530 years.
The approach toward harmony in these three not sacred chronologies――the
Indian, the ♦Babylonian and the Chinese――the extreme difference being
only 17 years――is certainly a remarkable fact.