1. Table XIV. Hierarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
Cuninghame—Determination of the Intervals from
Scripture—Period of the Seventy years Captivity—Period of
the Seventy prophetic weeks of Daniel—Table XV. Date of the
Crucifixion determined—Truth of the Ancient Tradition
respecting the First Advent of the Messiah demonstrated 79
2. Determination of the Epoch of the Birth of Christ—Labours
of Mr. Cuninghame on this point—Coincidence of the extent of
the period of Patriarchal Pilgrimage with that of Hierarchal
Bondage—Table XVI. Extent of the _Six Ages_ of the
World—Difference between the true and vulgar dates of the
Nativity—Mr. Cuninghame’s dates of the Nativity and Public
Ministry of Christ deduced from the chronology of the
Septuagint 84
SECTION II.—CONFIRMATION OF THE GREAT EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.
CHAPTER I.—HISTORICAL CONFIRMATION OF THE TRUE SYSTEM OF CHRONOLOGY.
Testimonies of the ancient chronographers and historians
before and after Christ, in favour of the chronology of the
Septuagint—Demetrius, Eupolemus, Josephus, Justin Martyr,
and all the early fathers of the first three
centuries—Theophilus, Hippolytus, Africanus, Origen,
Cyprian, Lactantius, Epiphanius, Ambrose, Ephrem Syrus,
Augustine, Chrysostom, Sulpicius Severus, Annianus,
Syncellus, Eutychius, the author of the Paschal Chronicle,
and the Council called “Synodus in Trullo”—Probable cause of
minute variations among the ancient chronographers 90
CHAPTER II.—REDUCTION OF THE MUNDANE ERA OF REDEMPTION.
Errors of Eusebius, Jerome, and the western
churches—Consistency of the eastern and southern churches to
the latest period—Chronology of the Russians and Armenians,
that of the Septuagint—Testimony of
Abulpharajius—Chronological innovations of the Venerable
Bede—His denouncement as a heretic on this
account—Chronology of the Roman Church different from that
of the Latin Vulgate—The chronology of the Masoretes an
abridgement of the true—The chronology of the Roman
Martyrology preserved by Pontifical authority to the present
day—Extract from Strauchius—An important testimony in favour
of the true chronology 95
CHAPTER III.—CHRISTIAN AND JEWISH SYSTEMS OF CHRONOLOGY ERRONEOUS.
Chronology of the English Bible erroneous—Usher influenced by
the Masoretes—Tradition of the House of Elias—Its complete
refutation both from Scripture and fact—Utility and
application of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Chart of
Chronology”—Reasons assigned by the Jewish Rabbis why their
expected Messiah is not yet come—Their curse upon all who
calculate the Times 99
CHAPTER IV.—CYCLICAL CHARACTER OF THE MUNDANE TIMES.
1. The revolutions of the heavenly bodies appointed for
cycles—Origin of the cycles of the year and the month—The
subject of Enoch’s prophecy—Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of
the cycle from the Creation to the Era of
Redemption—Scriptural cycles of frequent occurrence—The
numbers of Jubilee and of Pentecost—of pilgrimage and
persecution—of omnipotence, glory and wisdom; and of
mystery, vengeance and forgiveness—The prophetic numbers of
Daniel—Discovery of their connection with the higher cycles
of astronomy, by M. de Chesaux and Mr. Cuninghame 102
2. Lengths of the tropical year and the synodical period of
the moon, according to Sir John Herschel—Application of the
method of _continued fractions_ to the determination of
their approximating ratios—Various lunisolar cycles—The
Octaëteris of the Greeks—The cycle of nineteen discovered by
Meton, but probably known to the Hebrews—The period of
Calippus—Proof that the numbers of Daniel are lunisolar
cycles—Remarks of Mr. Birks in his “Elements of
Prophecy”—Observations of Mr. Cuninghame in his “Scientific
Chronology”—Proof that the prophetic month and the jubilean
period are lunisolar cycles 106
CHAPTER V.—DISCOVERY OF NEW MUNDANE CYCLES.
1. Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of the mystical signification of
the seventy years’ captivity—Its connection with the era of
the French Revolution—Confirmed by the sentiments of the
modern Jews—Prediction of Rabbi Joseph Crool—Prediction in
the Hebrew Tract “Explanation of the Times,” published in
1794—The latter prediction not fulfilled—Hope concerning
Israel 111
2. Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of seven streams of time, of
seventy jubilees each, in the true system of chronology—This
test wholly inapplicable to any other system—His discovery
of five streams of time of different Jubilean
periods—Utility of his “Fulness of the Times” where these
discoveries are developed—Notice of his more recent works 113
3. Various cycles which enter into the true system of
chronology—Mr. Cuninghame’s discovery of the _trinal
fraction_—Its explanation and application by an Algebraic
formula—Original form in which it was discovered—Its
superiority to the formulæ of the _figurate
numbers_—Remarkable instance of its application to
Scriptural and other numbers, and to lunar and solar
cyclical numbers—Mr. Cuninghame’s definition of the trinal
fraction the most correct—The series deduced from its
formula possesses curious properties 115
4. Application of the theory of the trinal fraction to the
discovery of the meaning of the _Number of the Beast_ in the
Revelation of John—Proof that the number 666 is the number
of a Man—Its indication of _spiritual_ and _secular_
dominion—of tyranny and persecution—Recent efforts to raise
the Beast again to power—A warning to Protestants 119
CHAPTER VI.—DEMONSTRATIONS OF THE SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGY.
1. Mr. Cuninghame’s application of the lunisolar cycles and
septennary periods to the settlement of chronological
questions—The Septuagint proved to be the _exact truth_ by a
complex harmony of scientific time—His “Synopsis of
Chronology” recommended 122
2. Evidence in favour of the Septuagint and Hebrew
Chronologies compared and tested by Mr. Cuninghame—His
detection of the scheme of fraud invented by the Jewish
Rabbis for shortening the chronology of the Scriptures—His
exposition of this scheme in _three distinct acts_, and the
result of the whole 123
3. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Septuagint and Hebrew
Chronologies Tried”—His description and table of the great
periods of 1838—His table of both Chronologies—His appeal to
the disciples of Usher—His view of their chronological
difficulties and paradoxes—His call to them to produce their
evidence in favour of their system 126
4. Recommendation of Mr. Cuninghame’s later works—Summary of
the remarkable and original subjects of which they treat—His
remarks on the Theories of modern Geologists
recommended—Their large demands upon time not warranted by
the simplicity of the Mosaic narrative—The authority and
authenticity of the Inspired Record endangered by their
speculations—Another mode of solving geological difficulties
recommended—A boon of 1500 years additional granted to
Geologists—Recommendation of Mr. Morison’s “Religious
History of Man”—Mr. Cuninghame’s discoveries concentrated in
his “Chart of Chronology” and “Essay,” and in the Appendixes
to the fourth edition of his “Dissertation on the
Apocalypse” 128
PART II.
CHAPTER I.—THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.
Primeval prophecy concerning the Messiah—Errors in the
translation of it, in different versions—Correct in the
Septuagint—Tradition of this prophecy in the Ante and Post
Diluvian ages—Its clearer development in the Patriarchal
Age—Dr. Lamb’s explanation of the word _Shiloh_—Prophecy of
Balaam in the Critarchal Age—Predictions of Moses and
Hannah—The glorious revelations of the Monarchal Age—The
testimony of the Psalms to the Messiah—Explanation of the
last words of David from Kennicott—Application of the term
_Sun_ to Jehovah—Testimony of the Prophecies to the
Messiah—Isaiah, the Evangelical Prophet—The predictions at
the close of the Monarchal and the commencement of the
Hierarchal Age—Testimony among the Heathen 135
CHAPTER II.—TESTIMONY OF THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH TO THE SUBJECT OF
PROPHECY.
1. Object of the Disposition of the Cherubim at Eden—Its
disappearance from the earth—The remembrance of its glory
transmitted to the Postdiluvians—Its occasional
re-appearance to Abraham, to Moses, to Israel, to Elijah,
and to Isaiah—Identity of the visions of Isaiah, Ezekiel,
and John—Similarity of the visions of Daniel, John, the
Three Disciples, and Paul—Object of these glorious
representations in heaven and on earth—Known among the
Heathen, and grafted on their religious worship—Origin of
Zabaism, and its spread over the world 146
2. The Sun worshipped by the Babylonians, Assyrians, and
Chaldeans, under the names of Baal, or Beelsamen—By the
Egyptians, under the names of Orus and Osiris—Connection
between the Sun and Sirius—The Sun and his Satellite
worshipped by the Israelites, under the names of Molech and
Remphan, Baal, and Ashtaroth, during the Critarchal age—The
Zabian idolatry set up at Jerusalem in the Monarchal age—The
partial Reformation of Josiah—The ancient Persians, Sun and
Fire worshippers—Origin of Mithras—The gods of Phenicia,
Elioun, and Adonis or Tammuz 152
3. The gods of the Hindoos, Vishnu, Buddha, Brahma, and Seeva,
form no Trinity—The theft of their names and attributes from
the Hebrew evinced by their meaning—Buddha an avatar of
Vishnu—Origin of Fohi, the god of the Chinese—Druidical,
Peruvian, Mexican, and Parsee worship—Origin of Surya,
Suras, and Asuras—Russell’s citation of Macrobius on the
worship of the Solar god—The concentration of Paganism 158
4. Origin of the Greek and Latin names of the Supreme
God—Ingenious derivation by Dr. Hales—Confutation of that
given by Francoeur in his “Uranographie”—Origin of the New
Testament titles of Christ—Citation of Theophilus on this
subject—Irrefragable proof of the Divinity of our
Lord—Original temple of the Sun—Connection of Religious
worship and Astronomical observation—Antiquity of the
Hindoos and Chinese 163
CHAPTER III.—TRADITIONARY AND POETICAL AGES OF THE WORLD.
1. Tradition concerning the Seventh Age—Prophecy of the
Universal Saviour—Traditions of the Jews—Opinion of Irenæus
and the Christian Church in his time—Dr. Russell’s opinion
confuted—Testimony of the Heathen to the Tradition of the
_Seven Ages_—Digression on the Corruptions of the Septuagint
and the Hebrew text—Arguments against the numerical accuracy
of the latter—Remarkable prophecy contained in the names of
the _Antediluvian_ Patriarchs—Opinions of Augustine and
Abulfarajius—Notion of Dr. Isaac Barrow—Important admission
of Eusebius—Opinion of Ephrem Syrus 168
2. Description of the Ages of the World from Hesiod—Error of
Newton—The Golden Age corresponds to the Antediluvian—The
Silver to the Postdiluvian—The Brazen, Heroic and Iron ages,
to the Patriarchal, Critarchal and Monarchal—These ages
relate chiefly to Greece—References to Scripture history in
all—The Sixth or Cumæan age corresponds to the
Hierarchal—Wisdom of the Heathens—Their expectation of a
Divine Instructor—Socrates, Plato, Eupolis, Virgil, and
others, anticipate his glorious Advent—The close of the
_Sixth age_ indicates the arrival of the _Seventh_, or the
return of the _Golden age_ 193
CHAPTER IV.—ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.
1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the
ancient chronographers—The testimony of the latter chiefly
in favour of the Septuagint—The testimonies of Josephus,
Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the
Paschal Chronicle selected for examination—Table I.
Containing their statements relating to the _First age_ of
the world—Errors of Josephus—Corruption of his text—Mr.
Cuninghame’s detection of his blunders in regard to the
first age—His discovery of the truth from the titulary
statements of the first and second books of Josephus—His
explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this author appears
to have been accessory—Error of Theophilus, and accuracy of
Africanus in this age—Similar error of Eusebius and
Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the
Paschal Chronicle 229
2. Table II., Containing the statements of the ancient
chronographers relating to the _Second age_ of the
world—Absurd errors of the text of Josephus—The discrepancy
between his detailed numbers and his sum total, the work of
an enemy to the truth—Proof that the true sum was in his
text originally—Errors of Theophilus and Africanus in this
age due to Jewish influence—Notion entertained by the
ancient chronographers regarding the bisection of the
Mundane period at the death of Peleg—The genealogy of Shem,
like that of Melchisedec, in the chronology—Reference to Mr.
Clinton—Error of Eusebius, rectified in the Hieronymian
version of his Chronicon—Accuracy of the Paschal Chronicle,
with the exception of the biennial period—Valuable Testimony
of Eusebius and Africanus, preserved by Syncellus in his
Chronographia, on the extent of the _first two ages_ 240
3. Table III., Containing the statements of the ancient
chronographers relating to the _Third age_ of the world—The
testimony of Josephus to the true chronology very
explicit—Misinterpretation of prophecy the cause of wavering
in Josephus and blunder in Theophilus—The testimony of
Africanus correct—Eusebius, Demetrius, and the author of the
Paschal Chronicle correct—Explanation of the period of _Four
Hundred_ years 248
4. Table IV., Containing the statements of the ancient
chronographers relating to the _Fourth age_ of the world—The
testimony of Josephus to the extent of this age highly
satisfactory—Proof that it was 612 years—Strange errors of
Theophilus—Method of rectifying them—Compensating errors of
Africanus—His date of the foundation of Solomon’s Temple
correct—Errors of Eusebius—His _Præparatio_ correct in
amount, his _Chronicon_ wrong—He confutes himself and adopts
the Hebrew chronology—Comparison between him and
Usher—Errors of the Paschal Chronicle—The author coincides
with Josephus—Hesitancy of Mr. Clinton—Table V., The _first
four ages_ of the world, and date of Solomon’s Temple
according to the different chronographers 254
5. Table VI. Containing the statements of the chronographers
relating to the _Fifth age_ of the world—The errors of
Josephus peculiar—His elongation of the reign of
Solomon—Disagreement of his titulary periods with the
summation of the reigns in Books Eighth, Ninth and
Tenth—Proof that the former is nearly correct—Table VII.
_Monarchal Periods_ of Josephus—Comparison with the True
Chronology—Evidence that these periods have been
manufactured—The true chronology of this age detected in his
works—Table VIII. _True Flavian Periods_, showing the true
Extent as originally held by Josephus—Proof that he knew the
true epoch of the Captivity—The errors of Theophilus in this
age few—He is also mistaken as to the epoch of the
Captivity—Africanus diminishes the true extent of this
age—He is misrepresented by Syncellus—The Statements of
Eusebius taken from the Hieronymian and Armenian Versions of
his Canon—Those of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from
that work itself—Their errors pointed out—The difference
between their Extent of this age and the true Extent only 3
years 274
6. Table IX. _Ethnocratic Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to
Ptolemy’s Canon and the ancient Chronographers—Accuracy of
the Canon—Josephus erroneous but consistent in the _Sixth
age_—His remarkable coincidence with the true Chronology in
the Mundane period—Theophilus follows the Roman Chronology
in this age—Africanus the prophetic—Both erroneous—Errors of
Eusebius, and accuracy of his Extent of this age—Errors of
the Paschal Chronicle considerable and unaccountable—Table
X. Summation of the _Six ages_ of the world according to the
Septuagint and the ancient chronographers—Table XI.
Summation of the Periods of the Christian Chronographers,
adopted by themselves—_Chronological Table_ of the Principal
Epochs and Events from the Creation to the Advent of Christ 287
A
DISSERTATION
ON
THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD.
=Part I.=
INTRODUCTION.
1. State of the World at the Birth of Christ—Tradition concerning his
Advent—Its epoch determined from Prophecy.
The Christian era was ushered into notice, by a state of peace among all
nations, unprecedented in the history of the world. The temple of Janus
at Rome was shut, after the lapse of seven centuries of incessant
warfare. At this period, a very general belief prevailed among men, that
the long-expected Saviour of the world was about to appear. Many
incontestable proofs of this fact are to be found in ancient history.
Soter or Saviour, had indeed become a common appellation among kings,
both in Syria and Egypt; and the foreshortened shadows of coming events
indicated the near approach of the “Desire of all nations.” Poets
anticipated his happy reign; historians longed for the promised age of
miracles; and philosophers panted for the Advent of a heaven-born
Instructor of mankind. The epoch assigned, by universal tradition, for
the epiphany of this wonderful personage, was the _Sixth Age_ of the
world; or, according to the ancient Hebrew chronology, the middle of the
_Sixth Millennium_ or _Chiliad_, of years from the creation of the
world.
Respecting the true origin of the assigned epoch, a considerable
difference of opinion exists. It is, however, generally referred to the
ancient tradition among the Jews, that the world was destined to last
for a period of _seven millenaries_ of years, the first _six_
corresponding to the _six days_ of creation, and the _seventh_ to the
_Sabbath_ or day of rest; and that previous to the last _millennium_,
the Messiah should appear in great power and glory. Traces of this
tradition may be found in the vaticinations of the Sybilline oracles,
and in the writings of the Greek theogonists and cosmogonists. The
prevalence of the same tradition in the time of our Saviour and his
Apostles, had evidently led the disciples to associate, as
contemporaneous events, the _first_ Advent of Christ, and the
restoration of all things. See Matthew xxxiv. 2, and 2 Thessalonians ii.
1.
Although there be no foundation in Scripture for the Jewish tradition
itself, yet the fact of its existence at an early period of the
Christian era, added to the universal belief among ancient writers, that
the Messiah did appear at the assigned epoch, affords a strong
presumptive proof that it was the true one. Theophilus, bishop of
Antioch, who flourished in the second century, ingeniously unites the
historical fact and the Jewish tradition, when he intimates that as the
_first Adam_ came into existence on the _sixth day_ of creation, so the
_second Adam_ came into the world on the _sixth day_ of the Chiliads,
_each day_ being reckoned as “_a thousand years_.” It is evident,
however, that this early father had derived his knowledge of the true
epoch from its original and only source; for, he says, “the whole time,
even all the years” from the Creation to the Crucifixion, “are shown” in
the Scriptures, “to those who are willing to obey the truth.”[1]
Accordingly, we assert that it was possible to ascertain at a very early
period,—almost five centuries before Christ,—the true length of the
whole interval in question, by a careful examination of the Sacred
Records; the exact period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the
Crucifixion, being assigned in the prophecies of Daniel; while, the
period from Creation to the Return of the Jews from Babylon, can be
determined from the other books of the Old Testament. Before we proceed
to demonstrate the truth of this assertion, we must shortly glance at
the history of these Books.
2. Short history of the Septuagint Version of the Old
Testament—Discrepancies between the Hebrew and Septuagint—Their
effect on Sacred Chronology.
It is universally admitted that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek
about three centuries before Christ, for the use of the dispersed tribes
of Israel, and particularly of the Jews, who had settled in Alexandria,
and other parts of the Grecian Empire. Although the history of this
translation given by Aristeas, Josephus, and others, savours too much of
the marvellous for modern belief, yet all antiquity agrees that it was
executed in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and, according to some,
at his request, by seventy-two interpreters selected from the most
learned and eminent men among the Jews by the High Priest and Sanhedrim
at Jerusalem. It is moreover asserted, that the other books of the Old
Testament were translated about a century later than the Pentateuch; and
this assertion is in some measure proved by a considerable diversity of
style and sentiment. It is quite certain, however, that the Greek
version of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, now called the
Septuagint, was in public use at least a century before the Christian
era; and that the Evangelists and Apostles made citations from this
version in the New Testament, in preference to the original text.
Such being the origin and authority of this ancient and venerable
version, its value cannot be too much appreciated; for, without it, the
Christians would have been entirely at the mercy of the Jews, as to the
authenticity, the integrity, and the meaning of the Holy Scriptures;
first, of the Old Testament, on account of their ignorance of the
Hebrew, and the danger of the glosses and traditions of their opponents;
and second, of the New Testament, on account of its being the complete
elucidation and fulfilment of the Old. Besides, although the Jews were
for ages the appointed custodiers of the Hebrew text, and are generally
considered to have been faithful to their trust; yet we must not conceal
the fact that it now differs considerably from the Septuagint in many
important places, particularly in the prophecies relating to the
Messiah; and, that its chronology of the whole period from the creation
to the first advent, is completely at variance with that of the Greek
version.
The chronological discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
which amount in all to nearly fifteen centuries of difference in regard
to the true age of the world, have occasioned disputes among the learned
ever since the third century. The Christian Church, however, has always
followed the longer computation of the Seventy, from the earliest period
of its history till the era of the Reformation; while the Jewish Church
has retained the shorter chronology of the Hebrew text from the second
century till the present day. Archbishop Usher, the great modern
authority in chronology, endeavoured to fix and determine the true epoch
of the birth of Christ from that text alone. Dr. Hales, a later and more
accurate authority, made a similar attempt, founding his computation on
the Septuagint. As this subject has been lately revived by writers of
considerable eminence on both sides, we shall endeavour to place the
whole Scriptural evidence before our readers, in the following critical
analysis of the question.
SECTION I.
AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.
The whole period from the Creation to the birth of Christ, whatever may
be considered as its real extent, is generally divided by chronologers
into six subordinate periods, called _Ages_. The _first_, which is
reckoned from the Creation to the Deluge, is called the _Antediluvian_
age; the _second_, from the Deluge to the Call of Abraham, the
_Postdiluvian_ age; the _third_, from the Call of Abraham to the Exode
of the Israelites from Egypt, the _Patriarchal_ age; the _fourth_, from
the Exode of the Israelites to the foundation of Solomon’s Temple, the
_Critarchal_ (or, _judge-ruling_) age; the _fifth_, from the foundation
to the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, the _Monarchal_ age; the
_sixth_, from the destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the birth of
Christ, the _Hierarchal_ age. We have, for the sake of distinctness and
brevity, given to the last four ages, names derived from the four
different states of the Hebrew Polity, namely, the governments of the
_Patriarchs_, the _Judges_, the _Kings_, and the _High Priests_; the
government of the latter terminating in Judea becoming a Roman province.
Besides the great epochs which limit the six ages of the world, there
are many intermediate eras of very considerable importance in the
settlement of disputes both in chronology and history, sacred as well as
profane. Thus: in the _first_ age, we have, the fall of Adam, the births
and deaths of the Patriarchs, and the translation of Enoch; in the
_second_, the confusion of tongues, the foundation of Babel and Nineveh,
and the eras of the Calyougham of the Hindoos, and the Chinese emperor
Yao; in the _third_, the destruction of Sodom, the migration of the
Hebrew Patriarchs into Egypt, and the foundation of the Greek kingdoms
of Sicyon and Argos; in the _fourth_, the servitudes of the Israelites
in Canaan, the foundation of Athens and Jerusalem, and the destruction
of Troy; in the _fifth_, the eras of the Olympiads and Nabonassar, the
foundation of Rome, and the captivities of Israel and Judah; in the
_sixth_, the return of the Jews from captivity, the destruction of
Babylon, the death of Alexander the Great, and the eras of the Seleucidæ
and the Cæsars.
CHAPTER I.
EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.
1. Discrepancies of the Hebrew, Septuagint and Samaritan
Texts—Solution of the difficulty by the chronographers of the
middle ages—Consistency of the Septuagint and the New
Testament—Numerical errors of the Hebrew text.
The extent of the _first_, or Antediluvian age, is ascertained from the
text of Genesis, v. 3–32, and vii. 6, by summing up the ages at which
the Patriarchs begat their eldest sons, including the date of the flood
from that of Noah. This amount is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656
years; according to the Septuagint version, 2262 years; and according to
the Samaritan Pentateuch, 1307 years. This astonishing discrepancy,
which is found in all the codices of the three texts, is a Gordian knot,
which has puzzled the Christian Church for more than fifteen centuries!
The difference of the three computations is the more remarkable,
inasmuch as all the three texts are considered to have been very
carefully preserved! The Samaritan Pentateuch rivals the Hebrew text in
point of antiquity, and is reckoned by some to be the nearest to the
true Mosaic text; while, the Septuagint version is rendered almost
sacred, by the authority of the Apostles and the early Fathers of the
Church. Which then, is the true computation? So difficult of solution
was this question deemed in the middle ages, that chronographers, in
order to reconcile the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint,
even argued the possibility of both texts _being equally correct_! The
Hebrew computation, however, has been followed in modern times chiefly
on the authority of the Latin vulgate, which is said to have been
translated by St. Jerome. The Samaritan computation has had
comparatively few supporters; while that of the Septuagint, which was
universally followed by the ancient chronographers and historians, both
sacred and profane, has never been wholly abandoned by the Church even
to the present day.
With regard to the evidence of the two principal witnesses, it is
manifest that the citations from the Old Testament, which are to be
found in the New, are, in general, not only in more perfect accordance
with the Septuagint version than with the Hebrew text (at least, as we
now have it); but they are more consistent with the general tenor of the
Sacred Writings. There is, on this account, therefore, an _à priori_
presumption in favour of the accuracy of the numerical statements of the
Septuagint. This presumption is strongly confirmed by a reference to
several passages not at all connected with chronology, of which the
following are striking instances. Thus, the day on which God _ended_,
that is, finished, or completed the work of creation, is said to be the
7th in the Hebrew, and the 6th in the Septuagint; but the latter
statement is plainly the correct one, being confirmed by the context;
see Genesis ii. 2, and i. 31. Again, the number of persons present at
the Eisodus of Israel into Egypt, is said to be 70 in the Hebrew, and 75
in the Septuagint; but the latter number is unquestionably the true one,
because it is confirmed by the New Testament; see Genesis xlvi. 27, and
Acts vii. 14. In general, it may be observed, that the numerical
statements of the Hebrew text, in many places differ materially from
those of the Septuagint, and even from those of other places of that
text, where we are certain, from the nature of the context, that they
ought to be precisely the same. The following instances, taken at
random, (and their number might be greatly increased,) will confirm this
assertion, by a comparison of the different passages, even in our own
version:—Exodus xii. 37, and xxxviii. 26, with Numbers i. 46, and ii.
32; Numbers xxxv. 4, with Numbers xxxv. 5; 1 Samuel xviii. 27, with 2
Samuel iii. 14; 2 Samuel xv. 7, with 1 Kings ii. 11; 2 Samuel xxiv. 13,
with 1 Chronicles xxi. 12; and 1 Kings ix. 28, with 2 Chronicles viii.
18.
2. Origin and effect of various readings—The immaculate purity and
miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text, a figment—Consistency
of the word of God.
From the occurrence of such discrepancies as these, both in the original
texts and the ancient versions, it is evident, that the authenticity of
each numerical statement must be carefully examined _per se_, and tested
by the multiplied means for the discovery of the truth which we possess
in modern times. For, although the providence of God has watched over
the Sacred Scriptures in a very remarkable manner, yet still they are
found liable to the same causes of textual error as all other writings;
so true is the Apostle’s humbling remark, that, “we have this” heavenly
“treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of
God and not of us.” Accordingly, from the necessity and frequency of
copying the MSS. (Deuteronomy xvii. 18) during so many ages previous to
the invention of printing, and from the inaccuracy and inadvertency of
uninspired scribes, have arisen what are called “Various Readings” in
the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament; and, although these,
and other discrepancies above mentioned, do not in the slightest degree
affect the grand question of salvation, yet they have a serious
influence on important questions in sacred history and chronology, and
in the interpretation of prophecy.
Indeed, the extraordinary and multiplied collations of Hebrew MSS. and
editions of the Old Testament, accomplished by the indefatigable labours
of Kennicott and De Rossi, have brought to light such a host of
variations in the original text, as completely to put to flight the
antiquated notion of the “immaculate purity” and “miraculous
preservation” of the _Hebrew Verity_, which was so long and so
strenuously maintained by critics and divines, and which held fast its
position in their hermeneutical Canon, even so late as the 18th century.
Moreover, it is manifest _à priori_, that it is quite impossible for two
different numbers, or sets of numbers, both relating to the same facts,
and in precisely the same manner, to be _perfectly accurate and
authentic_! We shall feel no hesitation, therefore, in preferring the
Septuagint version to the Hebrew text, or the Hebrew text to the
Septuagint version, according as the evidence for the truth, appears to
us, to preponderate in favour of the one document or the other. It is
even possible that the true number connected with some important event,
though originally in both documents, cannot now be found in either. We
shall, in such a case, feel perfectly justified in adopting that number
which can be demonstrated to be the true one, whether it be discovered
in an ancient version or commentary, history, or chronicon. The word of
God, like all truth, must be perfectly consistent with itself; and if
through the lapse of ages, any part of that word has been corrupted or
lost, it becomes a Christian duty, as well as a philosophic employment,
to make all possible search for its recovery, not only that our own
faith may be strengthened and confirmed, but that the mind of every
sincere enquirer may be satisfied.
3. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the
Antediluvian Patriarchs: Table I., In their Antepaidogonian
ages—Table II., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table III., In
their whole lives—Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in
favour of the computation of the Septuagint—The Discrepancies of
the Hebrew and Samaritan the work of design—Proof of this fact
from the Scriptures.
We now proceed to state our arguments in favour of the computation of
the Septuagint, which we consider as that of the original and genuine
chronology of the Sacred Scriptures. As we shall have frequent occasion
to refer to the ages at which the Patriarchs began to beget their
children, and to the residues or remaining portions of their lives, we
shall adopt a phraseology sanctioned by the example of Usher,[2] and
call the former their _Antepaidogonian_ ages, and the latter, their
_Postpaidogonian_ ages. The following Table, relating to the _first
age_, exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the
_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, and the _Anni
Mundi_, or _years of the world_, in which they were born:—
TABLE I.
ANTEDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
PATRIARCHS. A.P. Born A.P. Born A.P. Born
ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M.
From Creation 0 0 0
Adam 130 1 230 1 130 1
Seth 105 130 205 230 105 130
Enos 90 235 190 435 90 235
Cainan 70 325 170 625 70 325
Mahalaleel 65 395 165 795 65 395
Jared *162 460 162 960 *62 460
Enoch 65 622 165 1122 65 522
Methuselah *187 687 187 1287 *67 587
Lamech *182 874 188 1474 *53 654
Noah 500 1056 500 1662 500 707
To the Flood 100 100 100
———— ———— ————
FIRST AGE 1656 years. 2262 years. 1307 years.
The numbers marked with a star in this and subsequent Tables, are those
in which the discrepancies are the most striking, and produce the most
anomalous or absurd results in Chronology.
The following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _Postpaidogonian ages_ of the same Patriarchs,
and the A.M., or _years of the world_ in which they died:—
TABLE II.
ANTEDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
PATRIARCHS. P.P. Died P.P. Died P.P. Died
ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M.
Adam 800 931 700 931 800 931
Seth 807 1042 707 1142 807 1042
Enos 815 1140 715 1340 815 1140
Cainan 840 1235 740 1535 840 1235
Mahalaleel 830 1290 730 1690 830 1290
Jared 800 1422 800 1922 *785 *1307
Enoch 300 987 200 1487 300 887
_translated_
Methuselah 782 1656 782 2256 *653 *1307
Lamech *595 1651 565 2227 *600 *1307
Noah 350 2006 350 2612 350 1657
Lastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _Whole Lives_ of these Patriarchs, and the
_number_ of their generations from Adam:—
TABLE III.
ANTEDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
PATRIARCHS. W. No. W. No. W. No.
lives. lives. lives.
Adam 930 1 930 1 930 1
Seth 912 2 912 2 912 2
Enos 905 3 905 3 905 3
Cainan 910 4 910 4 910 4
Mahalaleel 895 5 895 5 895 5
Jared 962 6 962 6 *847 6
Enoch 365 7 365 7 365 7
Methuselah 969 8 969 8 *720 8
Lamech *777 9 753 9 *653 9
Noah 950 10 950 10 950 10
Let us now examine the internal evidence afforded by these tables in
favour of our argument. On looking at Table III., we perceive that the
_whole lives_ of these Patriarchs, with the exception of that of Lamech,
are all exactly the same, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; but
that in the Samaritan, three of them are very considerably different,
namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. It is plain, therefore,
that we must prefer the testimony of the two former witnesses to that of
the latter. Moreover, it is evident that the lives of the three
Patriarchs in question have been shortened in the Samaritan, in order
that their deaths should be represented as all occurring in the _year of
the flood_, see Table II.; for, had their lives been preserved as entire
in this text, as in the other two, they would, contrary to the express
words of Scripture, have _survived the flood_ by 115, 249, and 100 years
respectively! The evidence of the Samaritan text being thus clearly
excluded, we have only to settle the claims of the other two witnesses
on the question of the life of Lamech. As in this case all the witnesses
differ in their statements, we are deprived of the evidence of double
testimony, and we must resort to another test of the truth. In the mean
time it is proper to observe that the _date of the flood from creation_
will not, in the slightest degree, be affected by the discrepancy of the
three texts on this point.
The most striking discrepancies, however, are to be found in the first
two Tables. On looking at Table I., we perceive that _six_ of the Hebrew
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the first five, and the seventh, have
been _diminished_ by the exact number of 100 years; for, omitting that
of Noah, which is the same in all, the remaining _three_ agree with
those of the Septuagint, with the exception of six years only, in that
of Lamech. Again:—On looking at Table II., we perceive that the _six_
Hebrew _Postpaidogonian_ ages, corresponding to the six former ages,
have been _increased_ by the exact number of 100 years; for, the
remaining _three_, corresponding to the three former ages, agree with
those of the Septuagint, with the exception of 30 years in that of
Lamech. It is manifest, therefore, on the slightest consideration of the
question, that the _centenary increase_ of the _six Hebrew
Postpaidogonian_ ages was made to balance the _centenary decrease_ of
the _six Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages, in order to preserve the
integrity of the _whole lives_ of the Patriarchs. These discrepancies,
especially the _regular centenary difference_ which occurs six times,
have led to the uniform opinion among almost all chronologers, from the
period of their first discovery, in the second century, till the present
day, that they were _the work of design or artifice_, and not the
offspring of chance or mistake!
The regularity of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages of the Septuagint, argues
very strongly in favour of their accuracy; while, the irregularity of
those of the Hebrew text militates powerfully against the supposition of
_their_ being correct. For, in accordance with the language of
Scripture, and the experience of all ages, “generation comes, and
generation goes, and the earth continues stationary for the age,”
(Ecclesiastes i. 4);[3] little change is therefore likely to have taken
place in the _Ante_ and _Post Paidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_ of
those almost millenarian patriarchs, except by the special interposition
of God, and for some specific purpose, which he would have condescended
to reveal unto man. Hence, we find that when the Patriarch Enoch, “the
seventh from Adam,” was appointed, as the first Prophet on record, to
announce to the old world the mingled news of redemption and judgment,
he was afterwards translated to heaven without dying, before three of
his ancestors (according to the Septuagint), and about six centuries
before the usual term of human life in that age of wonders; so soon and
so strikingly did the Lord sanction the message of his faithful servant,
and admit him at once to his eternal and glorious reward.
4. Reasons assigned for the alterations in the Hebrew and
Samaritan—Accuracy of the Septuagint demonstrated—An objection to
its chronology removed—Utility of the publication of _fac simile_
editions of the codices—Late origin of the _printed_ Hebrew
text—Its original agreement with the Septuagint proved.
Moreover, the remarkable circumstance that _three_ of the Hebrew
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech,
exceed _other three_, namely—those of Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch, by
a difference of about 100 years, although the former patriarchs stood so
nearly related to the latter, argues that some good reason must have
existed in the minds of those who dared to make the alterations, for not
abstracting the usual _centenary difference_ from the former.
Accordingly, we find that if this alteration had been effected on the
_Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, in order
to make them uniform with the rest in this respect, the flood would,
according to that text, have taken place in A.M. 1356, their
_Postpaidogonian_ ages would have been 900, 882, and 695 years, and they
would, contrary to Scripture, _have survived the flood_ by 66, 200, and
95 years respectively! This anticipated result affords the strongest
presumptive evidence that the _Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ ages must all
have been _originally_ the same as those of the Septuagint; and that to
serve some particular purpose, a _century_ was abstracted from _six_ of
them, but not from the remaining _three_; because if this had been done,
either the integrity of the _whole lives_ corresponding to them would
have been destroyed, or the _three_ patriarchs in question would have
been falsely represented, as having long survived the deluge. The Hebrew
text (as it now exists), represents Methuselah as dying in the very year
of the flood, although only _forty_ days of it had elapsed when Noah
entered the Ark! Thus, according to that text, the only man of that age
who “walked with God,” and was “righteous before him in that
generation,” would have, in addition to the distressing cares and the
unutterable sympathies attending the arrival of God’s awful
judgment,—the personal and relative sorrow of heart arising from the
death and burial of his pious and aged grandfather; but we know that God
“doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men;” and we
have much reason, therefore, to question the accuracy of this
coincidence; for, to suppose with some, that Methuselah was swept away
by the deluge, would be to contradict the Scripture, which affirms that
Noah was “just and perfect in his generations.”
This difficulty is entirely removed by the accurate copies of the
Septuagint, which places the death of Methuselah _six_ years before the
flood. Again, by the Hebrew text Lamech is represented as having died
five years before that catastrophe, and consequently before Methuselah,
being the only instance in the generations of the righteous from Adam to
Noah, in which the son paid the debt of nature before the father. But
this anomaly evidently arises from the alteration which was made in the
Hebrew _Antepaidogonian_ age of Lamech, by the abstraction of _six_
years, the difference between it and that of the Septuagint; for, if the
original number had been retained as in the case of Methuselah, Lamech
would then have been represented as surviving the deluge by _one year_!
According to the present text of the Septuagint, Lamech is indeed
represented as having died _twenty-nine_ years before his father; but if
his _Hebrew Postpaidogonian_ age be considered as the correct one, his
death would then have taken place _five_ years before the flood, and
_one year_ after that of his father; thus, the natural anomaly would be
removed, and the difference between the years of his _whole life_, in
the Hebrew and the Septuagint, reduced from _thirty_ years to _six_, the
amount of alteration in his _Hebrew Antepaidogonian_ age. The whole
question is ably and fully discussed in Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the
Times,” pp. 138, 139, and his “Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies
tried,” pp. 36–45, on the supposition that Lamech’s _Postpaidogonian_
age and _whole life_, as given in the Septuagint, are strictly correct;
but his reasoning is of so lengthened and recondite a nature that we
must refer our readers to the works themselves for complete satisfaction
on the subject.[4]
The Samaritan text is more consistent than the Hebrew with regard to the
_centenary decrease_ of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages; all of them but that
of Noah, having been submitted to its operation. This alteration alone,
however, was found to be totally inadmissible; because, as formerly
remarked, the text would then have represented _three_ of the Patriarchs
as long surviving the deluge; it was therefore necessary to make a
farther alteration, but on what principle it is difficult to divine. We
only know that two of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages, those of Methuselah
and Lamech, were reduced still more, namely from 87 and 82 years, to 67
and 53 years respectively; thereby occasioning a corresponding
_decrease_ in the _Postpaidogonian_ ages of Jared, Methuselah, and
Lamech, namely, from 900, 882, and 695 years, to 785, 653, and 600 years
respectively, in order to shorten their _whole lives_, and to bring the
dates of their deaths to coincide with the _year of the flood_!
Moreover, the idea thus conveyed, that these three Patriarchs, either
all died within _forty_ days of that event, or were swept away in the
common ruin,—is, as we have shown in the case of the Hebrew text, so
contrary to nature and to Scripture, that it cannot be entertained for a
moment. Whatever, therefore, may have been the object of these
complicated alterations in the Samaritan, it is plain that they have
been made with much less skill and ingenuity than those of the Hebrew,
the clumsy artifice being so easy of detection. Thus, we are forced, by
internal evidence alone, to conclude that the numerical statements of
the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_
ages,—on which their chronology is considered entirely to depend,—have,
with very few exceptions, been manufactured to serve some particular end
or design; and that those of the Septuagint are not only entirely free
from any appearance of this kind, but being perfectly natural and
consistent with themselves, possess all the marks of genuineness and
authenticity.
It has been objected to the accuracy of the chronology of the
Septuagint, that some copies of that version, were found at an early
period of the Christian era, having 167 instead of 187 years for the
_Antepaidogonian_ age of Methuselah, and 802 instead of 782 years for
his _Postpaidogonian_ age, whereby this Patriarch was represented as
surviving the flood by _fourteen_ years! Common sense, however, teaches
that this discrepancy must have been purely owing to a mistake in the
transcribers of these copies; because, other copies were extant at the
same period which contained the correct numbers. Mr. Clinton, in his
“Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 286, proves by extracts from the early
chronographers and historians, that some, as Theophilus, Eusebius,
Augustine, and Syncellus, had the faulty reading in their copies; while
others, as Demetrius, Josephus, Africanus, Epiphanius, and the author of
the Paschal Chronicle, followed the correct copies; and he states that
although “Augustine had the faulty reading in his copies,” yet “he
judiciously applied the proper remedy, and adopted the better reading.”
This difference in the copies has even reached our own times, and is
found in the two oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Septuagint
at present known to exist, namely, the Vatican and Alexandrine codices;
the edition of the Scriptures printed from the former having the faulty
reading, and that printed from the latter having the true one. The
librarians of the British Museum have indeed, conferred an invaluable
boon on the world, by the publication of the _fac simile_ of the
Alexandrine codex; and we most anxiously hope that ere long, the Pope
will permit[5] the _fac simile_ of the Vatican codex to be published,
especially as it is already printed and ready for circulation! The
acknowledged fact that discrepancies exist between this manuscript and
the editions printed from it,[6] increases the solicitude of all the
pious and learned in this country for its immediate publication. Would
that we could purchase even a single copy!
The last argument we shall adduce here in favour of the chronology of
the Septuagint, and it applies both to the Ante and Post Diluvian ages,
is derived from the deliberate opinion of Dr. Kennicott. In his valuable
posthumous work, entitled “Remarks on Select Passages of the Old
Testament,” p. 16, he says, “It has been proved from _Eusebius_, that
some Hebrew copies” of the Old Testament, “having the _larger_ numbers,
existed in the fourth century; and others, on the authority of _Jacob
Edessenus_, as late as the year 700; whilst others much later, are
mentioned in the chronicle of _Ecchellensis_. And though such
manuscripts are all perhaps now lost, yet are these testimonies
confirmed by the traditions still preserved among the _Jews_ themselves,
as to _Seth being born a hundred and thirty years after Abel’s death_!”
Moreover, it is acknowledged by biblical critics, that all the copies of
the present Hebrew text were taken from manuscripts of date later than
the ninth century; and, that the striking uniformity which all the
printed editions exhibit, is to be attributed to the fact, that they
were all copied from the same codex. Dr. Hales also gives citations from
Eusebius, from the Jewish Targums, and from other works, in which
decided reference is made to the _larger_ numbers as they anciently
existed in the Hebrew.[7] In fine, Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Dissertation
on the Apocalypse,” p. 535, fourth edition, proves, on the authority of
ancient Jewish tradition, that Adam was _two hundred and thirty years_
old when he begat Seth; consequently, by the argument _ex uno disce
omnes_, we conclude that the whole of the _Antepaidogonian_ ages are
correctly given in the Septuagint, and that the true extent of the
ANTEDILUVIAN AGE, is 2262 years.
CHAPTER II.
EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.
1. Discrepancies of the three texts—Unfounded hypothesis of
Usher—Agreement of Josephus with the Septuagint—Authority of this
Version in the Church—Its chronology confirmed by the most
authentic Chinese annals—Reasons why the Jews altered the Hebrew
text.
The extent of the _Second_, or Postdiluvian Age, is ascertained from the
text of Genesis x. 21–25; xi. 10–32, and xii. 4; by summing up the
_Antepaidogonian_ ages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, including the
date of the Call of Abraham from that of Terah. This amount is,
according to the Hebrew text, and the Latin Vulgate, 367 years;
according to Usher’s view of that text, 427 years; according to the
Septuagint, 1147 years; and, according to the Samaritan, 1017 years.
This enormous discrepancy is another Gordian knot of equal difficulty
with the former, and requiring for its resolution, a similar process of
investigation and argument. Before resuming the discussion, however, it
is proper to notice a very able and logical article in the “Cours
Complet de Theologie” of M. L’Abbé Migne, entitled “Chronographiæ LXX
Interpretum Defensio.”
The author of this dissertation enters fully into the critical history
of the Septuagint version, and investigates the causes of the existing
discrepancies between it and the Hebrew text. He powerfully vindicates
the authenticity and authority of the Septuagint; he clearly refutes the
absurd suppositions which have been advanced from time to time by
critics in order to account for the numerical errors which the advocates
of the _Hebrew verity_ suppose it contains; and, he completely
demolishes the unfounded hypothesis of Usher as to the fancied existence
of two Greek versions, both of which were ascribed to the Seventy
interpreters![8] He next discusses the authority of the Samaritan
Pentateuch, and proves that it, as well as the Hebrew, originally
contained the same numerical statements as the Septuagint; and shews
that it is entitled to be heard as an additional witness in regard to
the Postdiluvian age, notwithstanding its error in the matter of the
Junior Cainan. He treats, in a very full and impartial manner, of the
authority of Josephus as an historian and chronographer, and institutes
a careful and searching inquiry into his numerical statements, which are
universally admitted to be so puzzling and contradictory. He clearly
elicits, however, the undeniable fact that the numbers of Josephus
originally agreed with those of the Septuagint, both before and after
the flood; but he avows that they have been so vitiated by careless or
designing copyists, that it is impossible to establish a perfect
coincidence.
The author then shows that in the first ages of Christianity, the
Septuagint translation was esteemed a divine production; that by the
citations made from it in the New Testament, it has received the stamp
and seal of Christ and his Apostles, as a genuine and faithful witness
of the truth; and that the ancient chronology of this version was
reckoned authentic by the whole Christian Church till the ninth century.
He next inquires into the authenticity of the chronological statements
of profane historians, particularly among the Chinese and the Egyptians;
and shows that the true and ancient records of these nations are wholly
irreconcileable with the shorter chronology. Thus, the era of the
Emperor Yao, according to the most authentic Chinese annals, is B. C.
2357; so that, according to the Hebrew chronology, even as expounded by
Usher, he flourished _thirteen_ years before the flood! While, according
to that of the Septuagint, he flourished in the ninth century after the
flood, or _forty-one_ years after the division of the earth among the
primitive founders of the nations.[9]
The author next refutes some popular objections to the computation of
the Septuagint, founded, _first_, on the supposed immaculate purity and
miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text; _secondly_, on the supposed
antiquity of the Chaldee paraphrasts, the Syriac version, and the Indian
and Chinese copies of the Pentateuch; and _thirdly_, on the decree of
the Council of Trent, in reference to the paramount authority of the
Latin Vulgate. He concludes by offering some reasonable conjectures on
the causes of the discrepancies in question; and, he shows that the
early Fathers were generally of opinion that the Jews had violated and
mystified the numbers of the sacred text, in order, to disturb and
confuse the times which related to the Advent of the Messiah, and
thereby to confute the Christians, by pretending to prove from that
text, that Jesus Christ could not be the true Messiah, because he had
appeared before the period predicted by the prophets, namely, the middle
of the sixth millenary from Creation. Such is but a short and hasty
sketch of one of the ablest treatises we have yet seen, on the Ante and
Post Diluvian chronology of the Septuagint.
2. Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the
Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV., In their Antepaidogonian
ages—Table V., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table VI., In their
whole Lives.
The following Table relating to the _Second Age_, exhibits the
discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the _Antepaidogonian_
ages of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs, and the _years of the world_, in
which they were born:—
TABLE IV.
POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
PATRIARCHS. A.P. Born A.P. Born A.P. Born
ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M.
From the Flood 2 2 2
Arphaxad 35 1658 135 2264 135 1309
Cainan[10] 130 2399
Salah 30 1693 130 2529 130 1444
Heber 34 1723 134 2659 134 1574
Peleg 30 1757 130 2793 130 1708
Reu 32 1787 132 2923 132 1838
Serug 30 1819 130 3055 130 1970
Nahor *29 1849 79 3185 79 2100
Terah 70 1878 70 3264 70 2179
To the Call of 75 1948 75 3334 75 2249
Abraham
———— ———— ————
SECOND AGE 367 years. 1147 years. 1017 years.
The following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _Postpaidogonian_ ages of the same Patriarchs,
and the _years of the world_ in which they died:—
TABLE V.
POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
PATRIARCHS. P.P. Died P.P. Died P.P. Died
ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M.
Arphaxad 403 2096 403 2802 303 1747
Cainan[10] 330 2859
Salah 403 2126 303 2962 303 1877
Heber 430 2187 270 3063 270 1978
Peleg 209 1996 209 3132 109 1947
Reu 207 2026 207 3262 107 2077
Serug 200 2049 200 3385 100 2200
Nahor *119 1997 *129 3393 *69 2248
Terah *135 2083 *135 3469 *75 2324
Abraham 75 2123 75 3509 75 2424
Lastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three
texts with regard to the _whole lives_ of these Patriarchs, and the
_number_ of their generations from the flood:—
TABLE VI.
POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
PATRIARCHS. W. No. W. No. W. No.
lives. lives. lives.
Arphaxad 438 1 538 1 438 1
Cainan[10] 460 2
Salah 433 2 433 3 433 2
Heber 464 3 404 4 404 3
Peleg 239 4 339 5 239 4
Reu 239 5 339 6 239 5
Serug 230 6 330 7 230 6
Nahor *148 7 *208 8 *148 7
Terah *205 8 *205 9 *145 8
Abraham 175 9 175 10 175 9
3. Authenticity of the _Second Cainan_—Dilemma of the Venerable
Bede—Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne—Usher’s
Dissertation—Inconsistency of authorized translations of the
Bible—Rashness of Beza—The Second Cainan in the most ancient
Codices—Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers.
Let us examine the internal evidence again afforded by these Tables, in
favour of our argument. On comparing their different columns, we find
that the name and generation of one of the _Postdiluvian_ Patriarchs,
called by chronologers the _Second_ or _Junior Cainan_, has been either
entirely lost or wilfully omitted in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts.
This assertion we make with the utmost confidence, because in Luke iii.
36, this Cainan is distinctly enumerated in the genealogy of our Lord
Jesus Christ; and his name is found in all the MSS. of the New
Testament, with the exception of the _Codex Bezæ_, which it is well
known has been corrupted in this place. The hallucinations of
commentators and chronologers on this point, are perhaps the most
extraordinary which the annals of Criticism can furnish. To refer no
farther back than to the days of the venerable Bede, we find him, in the
preface to his commentary on the Acts, confessing himself unequal to the
task of solving this difficult question; and, he greatly marvels why
“_ten_ generations only, from the flood to Abraham, are found in the
_Hebrew verity_,” while the inspired Luke chose to put “_eleven_ in his
Gospel, Cainan being added according to the Seventy Interpreters.” In
his exposition of that Gospel, he touches on the same question, and says
with singular naïveté, “but which of these is the truer, or whether both
can be true, God knoweth!”[11] Modern critics appear to have had much
less difficulty in settling this important matter.
Mr. Clinton, “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. pp. 288–297, after citing all
the testimonies of the ancient chronographers _for_ and _against_ the
generation of the second Cainan, hastily concludes that it is a
“spurious addition to the text;” and, although he admits its existence
in the “Greek copies,” yet he entirely omits to cite the testimony of
St. Luke, who must have been better acquainted with the genealogy of
Christ than any of the chronographers! His silence on this point would
seem to indicate that he had some doubts of the authenticity of the text
in question. He has, however, given an extract from Syncellus, affirming
that the second Cainan was in all the copies of the Septuagint in his
time, censuring Eusebius for omitting him, and stating that St. Luke
reckons him the 13th from Adam. Syncellus, in this passage, very
properly includes Shem in the genealogy, although he is necessarily
omitted in the chronology; because, he was an _Antediluvian_ by birth,
his _Antepaidogonian_ age being entirely omitted in the Scriptures, and
the birth of his son being reckoned from the flood. Hence, we find that
all the ancient writers reckon Noah the _tenth_ from Adam, and Abraham
the _tenth_ from the flood, Shem being evidently the _eleventh_ from
Adam, and Abraham the _twenty-first_. With feelings of the greatest
respect for the extensive learning and deep research of Mr. Clinton, we
would seriously advise him to consult the _Codex Alexandrinus_ in the
British Museum, and convince himself by ocular demonstration, as we have
done, of the genuineness and authenticity of the testimonies of the
Evangelist and the Seventy Interpreters to the undeniable fact of the
existence of the Postdiluvian Cainan. Dr. Hales, “Analysis of
Chronology,”[12] vol. i. p. 90, appears to have strongly felt the weight
of St. Luke’s authority on this point, although, following the recent
Masorete and Samaritan texts, he rejects this generation.
Mr. Horne, “Critical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” vol. iii. p.
561, 7th edition, asserts that “St. Luke wrote for those Christians who
read the Greek version more than the original Hebrew, and consequently
he preferred their version, which adds the name of Cainan to the
genealogy of Shem!” The desire to humour the prejudices of any set of
readers, by adding a spurious generation to “the genealogy of Shem,” is
too serious a charge to bring against the Evangelist; but when we
consider that this would be, in fact, adding a spurious generation to
“the genealogy of Christ,” the charge becomes infinitely more serious!
The attempt of chronologers to mutilate this authentic document, by the
exclusion of one of the ancestors of our Lord, is so great an injury to
the _Christian verity_, that we do not wonder at the pointed question
put by Mr. Cuninghame, “Fulness of the Times,” p. 200, “Did St. Luke
prefer a lie to the truth, to please men?” In order to satisfy his own
mind, and to vindicate his system of chronology from the charge of
having unwarrantably omitted this generation, by following too closely
the _Hebrew verity_, Usher deemed it necessary to write in his
“Chronologia Sacra,” a prolix Dissertation, entitled “De Cainano
Arphaxadi filio, &c.,” to which our limits permit us only to refer. The
whole question, however, is discussed in a very clear and satisfactory
manner, in Dr. Russell’s “Connection of Sacred and Profane History,”
vol. i. pp. 158–167. There is also a most admirable summary of the
arguments in proof of the existence of this Cainan, in Mr. Cuninghame’s
work above cited, where our readers will find some very judicious
strictures on the “Scripture Chronology” of Mr. Clinton; see pp.
187–207.
A candid perusal of these works must lead to the inevitable conclusion
that the name of the _Second Cainan_ ought not to have been rejected
from the Sacred Text. It is strange, however, to observe that in our
authorized version of the Scriptures, this generation has been excluded
from the Old Testament, while it has been admitted into the New. Such a
manifest inconsistency should have been avoided in a version intended
for public use in all the churches, and sanctioned by royal authority!
The Latin Vulgate, published by the “supreme authority” of the Roman
Pontiff, is equally liable to the same charge of inconsistency; while
Theodore Beza, in his Latin version of the New Testament, has omitted
this generation altogether! For this bold step, Beza had no other
authority than the “Codex Græcolatinus,” which, from having been in his
possession, bears his own name; and which, while reckoned of “little
critical value,” is the only manuscript of the New Testament discovered
to be deficient in this respect. The _Second Cainan_ is, moreover, found
in all the Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, both in Genesis x.
24, and xi. 13; and, also in many copies, in 1 Chronicles i. 18 and
24,—this chapter being imperfect in the Vatican Codex, but complete in
the Codex Alexandrinus.
In confirmation of our argument, it is proper to state, that there
exists a fragment of a very ancient codex, which lays claim even to a
higher antiquity than either of these codices, being described in the
words of Usher, “Syntagma de Septuaginta,” cap. ii. p. 18, as “omnium
qui uspiam hodie extant vetustissimus,” and known by the name of the
“Codex Cottonianus.” Of this codex, unfortunately, a certain portion of
Genesis only remains; but it is of immense “critical value,” as it
confirms the true readings of the Ante and Post Paidogonian ages of
Methuselah, and of the passages relating to the second Cainan. In the
collation of this fragment “cum editione Romanâ,” that is, with the
Vatican edition, by Dr. Grabe,—posthumously published by Dr. H.
Owen,—there are two _fac simile_ engravings of a portion of the
manuscript, exhibiting the old, uncial Greek letters, unaccented and
unspirited, like the codex Alexandrinus, and (curious to remark)
exhibiting also the effigies of four of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,
spoken of in the adjacent text,—one being the very identical personage,
whose existence is not recognized by the Masorete and Samaritan texts,
and is therefore so stoutly denied by the defenders of the _Hebrew
verity_! We copy from the preface, the explanation of one of the
pictures, the plates of which were engraven at the expence of the
Antiquarian Society of London, in 1744:—“Figurarum Explicatio.—Tabula
Prima. Fig. II. Arphaxadus, Semi filius, cum uxore sua et filio Cainane.
Gen. xi. 12, 13.”[13]
The unaccountable mistake committed by Bede, in supposing that Abraham
would be the _eleventh_ generation from the flood, if the Junior Cainan
were admitted into the text, has been copied by a host of chronologers
since his time, including both Dr. Hales and Mr. Clinton! Nothing,
however, is more surprising than the pertinacity of error, especially
when it rests on the authority of an esteemed or a learned man. We have
seen that when the Second Cainan is admitted into the text, Abraham must
be reckoned the _tenth_ generation from the flood; consequently, if he
be rejected, Abraham must be reckoned only the _ninth_,—contrary to the
united voice of antiquity, both sacred and profane! Hales and Clinton
have both cited extracts in proof of this argument, from the most
ancient chronographers, particularly Berosus, Josephus, and Philo,
shewing that Abraham was universally reckoned the _tenth generation
after the flood_. The subterfuge adopted by the advocates of the _Hebrew
verity_, in reckoning Shem,—an _Antediluvian_,—as one of the generations
after the flood, in order to make up their number, is too weak to
require any comment. There is no doubt, therefore, that both Hales and
Clinton are in the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell, and Cuninghame,
who admit the Second Cainan, are “in the right.” The ancient testimonies
which the former authors cite in favour of their own argument, most
decidedly confirm that of their opponents; consequently, _they_ have the
merit of drawing “opposite conclusions from the same facts,”—conclusions
alike opposite to the truth, and to the New Testament.
4. Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the
computation of the Septuagint—Omissions in the Hebrew and
Septuagint retained in the Samaritan—Accordance of the Septuagint
with nature and providence—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from
analogy—The alterations of Origen in the text of the Septuagint.
With reference to the three _Postdiluvian_ Tables, we find that the
discrepancies of the three texts exhibit greater irregularities in
Tables V. and VI. than in Table IV. It is manifest that _these_
discrepancies are also _the work of design or artifice_, and not the
offspring of chance or mistake. The regular _centenary difference_
between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, occurs in _six_ of the
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, namely, the _first seven_, omitting the
_second_, which, as we have seen, is wanting both in the Hebrew and the
Samaritan; while, singular to remark, in these six ages, the Samaritan
agrees exactly with the Septuagint! To counterbalance this _regular
centenary decrease_ in the _Antepaidogonian_ ages in the Hebrew, we
should have expected, as in the former case, that there would be a
_regular centenary increase_ of the corresponding _Postpaidogonian_
ages, in order to preserve the integrity of the _whole lives_. This
appears, however, to have been considered as a matter of no moment in
regard to the _whole lives_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, because the
usual obituary statements regarding them have been entirely omitted both
in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, while they have been preserved in the
Samaritan. Accordingly, we find that the Samaritan, in the
_Postpaidogonian_ ages, agrees only _in two out of the six_ with the
Septuagint, and _in none at all_ with the Hebrew. Moreover, the
difference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew, is an _exact centenary_
in _five out of the six_; while the Hebrew coincides entirely with the
Septuagint in _four_,—_one_ of the remaining _two_, being the only case
in which there is an _exact centenary increase_ to balance the
_centenary decrease_ in the corresponding _Antepaidogonian_ age. In the
corresponding _whole lives_, the Samaritan agrees with the Hebrew in
_five out of the six_, while the Septuagint and the Hebrew agree only in
_one_. The assimilation of the Samaritan to the Hebrew in the _whole
lives_, and its almost perfect agreement with the Septuagint in the
_Antepaidogonian_ ages, while it differs so much from both in other
respects, render its testimony as an uncorrupted witness quite
inadmissible; yet, as it contains manifest traces of the truth,
especially in regard to the latter statements, on which the chronology
mainly depends, we deem the double testimony of the Septuagint and
Samaritan of very considerable importance to our argument. This
importance is greatly increased, when we consider that the statements
respecting the _whole lives_ in the three texts cannot be compared,
because they are now only to be found in the Samaritan, and, even in it,
in a mutilated form; the Hebrew and Septuagint columns of Table VI.
having been obtained from those of Tables IV. and V., by the simple
process of addition. We, therefore, entirely agree with Dr. Hales[14] in
the opinion, that they must have originally existed in all the texts;
first, because they are given in all in the Antediluvian period, and no
sufficient reason can be assigned why they are not also given in all in
the Postdiluvian period; and secondly, because, though no trace of them
is left in the Hebrew, yet there is some in the Septuagint, the latter
still containing the last clause of each statement, in the words—καὶ
ἀπεθανε,—“and he died.”
An important argument in favour of the longer computation is derived
from the consideration that the decrease in the duration of human life
after the flood, for the first ten generations, is more natural and
progressive in the Septuagint than in the other two texts; for, in the
latter there are greater leaps between the terms of the progression, and
some of the differences even become negative, which is not the case in
the former. Moreover, the decrease in the Greek series of lives, seems
to be more in accordance with the usual proceedings of God’s providence,
and with the history of the human race,—instances of longevity having
slowly and gradually diminished both in number and extent, according as
mankind approached a greater degree of civilization and refinement. In
the preface to part second of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,”
p. xvii., the author has discussed this question in a very full and
satisfactory manner. He shews that, in the Septuagint, “there are deep
analogies observable in the gradual diminution of human life.” Thus,
“from Arphaxad to Serug are seven generations,” and “from Nahor to
Kohath are seven generations.” Now, from his observations, it appears
that the _lives_ of the first and last of both septenaries, constitute,
with the highest average of human life in the days of Moses (Psalm xc.
10), a series of terms very nearly in geometrical progression, namely,
538, 330, 208, 133, and 80, of which the approximate ratio is 0.62; but
if the same test be applied to the Hebrew _lives_, namely 438, 230, 148,
133, and 80, (the two latter terms being the same in both texts,) the
regularity of the progression utterly fails; for, if the ratio of the
first two terms were continued, the succeeding terms would be so much
reduced, that the highest average of human life would become less than
half its true length! The omission of the statements respecting the
_whole lives_ in the Septuagint, can only be accounted for, on the
principle of undue deference to the Hebrew text and to Jewish
prejudices, after the era of the publication of the Hexapla, the
Octapla, and the Enneapla of the celebrated Origen. This daring
innovator in the Church of God, so altered the original form of the
Septuagint, in order to make it correspond with the Hebrew text,—which
he appears to have first received from the hands of the Jews with the
most unsuspecting confidence,—that the complete restoration of the
autograph of the Seventy interpreters, is, at this immense distance of
time, a question extremely problematical.
5. Mistake of Usher, adopted by Hales and Clinton, as to the
Antepaidogonian age of Terah—Mr. Cuninghame’s arguments
unanswerable—His proof of the chronology of the Seventy from the
discovery of its Cyclical character—Testimony of Eusebius to the
true data of Abraham’s birth—Table VII. Extent of the _first two
ages_ of the world.
The extraordinary hallucination of Usher in adopting the unfounded
opinion of some of the later chronographers, that Abraham was born when
Terah was 130 years old,[15] is implicitly followed by Mr. Clinton,
although he admits that “all the authorities which have been quoted” by
him, adhere to the Scriptural number, 70 years; and he argues in favour
of the former, by conjecturing without a shadow of evidence, that the
Samaritan text was altered in Genesis xi. 32, from 205 years to 145, in
order that Terah’s “death might be adapted to the supposed time of the
Call.” This time is distinctly marked in Scripture, and therefore
requires “no supposition” at all. It is plain, from Genesis xii. 4, that
Abraham was 75 years old, when he obeyed the Call; and, from Genesis xi.
26, that he was born when Terah was 70 years old. It is, therefore,
justly inferred that Terah was 145 years old, at the time of the Call;
but as he died before Abraham left Charran (Acts vii. 4), then 145 years
was also his age at his death, as in the Samaritan, and not 205, as in
the other two texts. The inconsistency of the latter number, however,
cannot by any means affect the chronology, so long as the authenticity
of the former numbers is maintained. The addition of 60 years,
therefore, to the _Antepaidogonian_ age of Terah, in order to preserve
the consistency of the number 205, is an unwarrantable assumption on the
part of Usher and his followers, and demonstrates that they have
_virtually_ altered the Hebrew text in Genesis xi. 26, from 70 years to
130, in order that Terah’s age at the birth of Abraham _might be adapted
to the supposed time of his death_! There is no doubt that both Hales
and Clinton, who follow human conjectures on this point, are again in
the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell and Cuninghame, who follow the
plain statements of Scripture, are “in the right.” In the preface to
Part II. of the “Fulness of the Times,” p. xv., the author has placed
the inconsistency of Usher’s scheme in such a clear light, that further
argument on the subject is needless; the following is his unanswerable
conclusion:—“the greatness of Abraham’s faith, in believing that he
should have a son at 100, is every where spoken of in the Scriptures” as
miraculous, “while he himself, on this scheme, is procreated by his
father at 130!” The author has, moreover, shown in this work, that “the
whole chronology of the Seventy is arranged in various parallel series
of Astronomical time, Jubilees, Metonic cycles, and the larger cycles of
the universe;” and, that these “depend upon the _exclusion_ of the 60
years added to Terah’s generation by Usher; for if that period be
_inserted_, they are all destroyed. This, then, is complete evidence
that the _framer_ of the Septuagint chronology, did not consider the 60
years as any part of the chronology of the book of Genesis, which is
utterly incredible, had it then existed. _Therefore, it did not exist._”
On the other hand, he has shown that “in the formation of the Hebrew
chronology, the _insertion_ of the 60 years was essential to the
preservation of a Jubilean character; therefore, since there was a time
when” this period was “not a part of the chronology, the unavoidable and
necessary inference is, that the _Greek_, and _not_ the _Hebrew_, is the
_original chronology_.”
From the Postdiluvian tables, it appears that the birth of Abraham took
place, according to the Masorete text, 292 years after the flood; but,
according to Usher’s interpretation of it, 352 years. The Samaritan text
gives 942, and the Septuagint 1072 years; the latter number being that
given by Eusebius, at the beginning of his Chronicon, translated by
Jerome, as testified by Scaliger in his “Thesaurus Temporum,” p. 10, and
referred to by Usher, in his “Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vi. p. 97;
although in some of the finest copies, we have seen it absurdly printed
1720 years, by an unaccountable transposition of the figures! See the
edition by H. Stephans, in 1542. The following table exhibits the whole
amount of the discrepancies of the three texts, in the first two ages of
the world:[16]—
TABLE VII.
AGES OF THE WORLD. HEBREW. USHER. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN.
Years. Years. Years. Years. Years.
Antediluvian Age 1656 1656 2262 1307
Postdiluvian Age 367 427 1147 1017
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
FIRST TWO AGES 2023 2083 3409 2324
CHAPTER III.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.
Thus, it appears that there is a difference of _thirteen centuries and
a-quarter_ between the Hebrew-Usher and the Septuagint chronologies, at
the epoch of the Call of Abraham,—a difference which is increased by
another _century and a-half_, in the remaining ages of the world up to
the birth of Christ,—making in all, a difference of _fourteen and
three-quarters_ exactly, or nearly _fifteen centuries_! To account for
this difference, the advocates of the longer computation not only
impugn, as we have seen, the accuracy of the Hebrew text, but adduce
various important and conclusive arguments against the shorter
computation, in order to show the inconsistency of its statements. Mr.
Clinton, in citing these arguments, chiefly from Jackson and Hales,
endeavours to rebut them, and to defend the Hebrew chronology,
especially in the first two ages of the world; although he is forced to
yield to the mass of evidence against it, in the period of the Judges.
1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the proportion
between the Antepaidogonian Ages and Whole Lives of the
Patriarchs—Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio, and the
diminution of the length of human life.
The first argument, which is, that “the shorter generations are
repugnant to the course of nature,” is neither placed in a clear light,
nor fairly answered by Mr. Clinton; Fast. Hell. vol. i. p. 292. Although
the extraordinary longevity of man both before and after the flood, has
no parallel in the subsequent history of the world, and we are therefore
deprived of a satisfactory means of comparison; yet we perceive a
suitable proportion in the Greek numbers, between the Antepaidogonian
ages and whole lives of the Patriarchs in the first two periods, which
entirely fails in the Hebrew numbers. Thus, taking the averages of the
_six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the great discrepancy in the
Antediluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that
the former is about _one-fifth_ part of the latter in the Septuagint,
and about _one-ninth_ part in the Hebrew. If these ratios be applied to
the present average duration of human life, we find that men, according
to the former text, would beget children at the age of _fourteen_ years;
but, according to the latter, at the age of _eight_ years! Again, taking
the averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the chief
discrepancy in the Postdiluvian period, and the corresponding _whole
lives_, we find that the former is about _one-third_ part of the latter
in the Septuagint, and about _one-eleventh_ part in the Hebrew. Applying
these ratios as before, we find that men, according to the former text,
would beget children at the age of _twenty-three_ years; but according
to the latter, at the age of _seven_ years! On the supposition,
therefore, which we think not unreasonable, that in these periods, the
development of the powers of the human frame was proportional to the
length of human life, it is manifest that there is a propriety and
consistency in the Greek numbers, which are not only totally wanting in
the Hebrew, but which render the idea of generation at the ages now to
be found in that text, utterly impossible. It may be objected even to
the Greek numbers, that the ratio in the Antediluvian period is rather
premature, but it is not impossible; and we see in the enlargement of
the ratio, and in the diminution of the length of life in the
Postdiluvian period, according to the Septuagint, the wise arrangement
of an overruling Providence! For, the wickedness which led to the
destruction of the old world, appears to have had its origin in the
premature and unlawful connections which were formed between “the sons”
of the worshippers of the true God, “who kept not their first estate” or
original principles, and “the daughters” of those sensualists of the
Cainitish race, who are, with them, “reserved in perpetual chains under
darkness to the judgment of the great day!” In order, therefore, to
prevent such a fearful superabundance of vice in future ages of the
world, we see that the duration of the life, as well as the development
of the natural powers of man, was reduced to narrower limits.
2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human
generations—Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew text—Remark of
Eusebius—Objections of learned men unanswered.
The second argument, which is, that the shorter computation is
inconsistent with the regular succession of human generations, is rather
too quickly passed over by Mr. Clinton; nor do we wonder at his haste,
for in our opinion, this argument possesses very great weight, and is
very difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. In the Postdiluvian
age, where he admits that it is more cogent, there were, according to
the Hebrew chronology, no less than _ten_ generations all alive on the
earth at the same time, contrary to the principles of providential
government so often referred to in Scripture, and the following strange
anomalies and paradoxes took place. The last two Antediluvian Patriarchs
were contemporary with all the Postdiluvian; and after having witnessed
the destruction of the old world, they were doomed to behold the
violence of Nimrod, the rebellious, the wicked project of the building
of Babel, and the judgment of God in the confusion of tongues and the
sudden dispersion of mankind. Noah also survived the deaths of Peleg and
Nahor; so that, contrary to the express words of Scripture, the earth
was divided in the days of Noah instead of the days of Peleg. Eusebius
has even remarked that Noah was the contemporary of Abraham for
_fifty-eight_ years! To avoid this obvious inconsistency was no doubt a
strong reason for Usher’s adoption of the _sixty_ years additional to
Terah’s Antepaidogonian age, the Hebrew chronology standing so much in
need of this extra time at the point of its greatest poverty. Shem, the
Antediluvian, survived the deaths of all the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,
excepting Heber; he was alive at the marriages of Isaac, Ishmael and
Esau; and, having buried nine generations of his descendants, including
the Father of the Faithful, witnessed the destruction of Sodom, and died
without partaking of the Covenant of Circumcision! Terah, the father of
Abraham, was an idolater; while Noah, the living witness of God’s
judgment on the old world, and a preacher of righteousness, and his son
Shem, the heir of his father’s blessing,—both Terah’s ancestors—were
still alive! The promise made to Abraham, that he should “go to his
fathers in peace,” and be “buried in a good old age,” most distinctly
implies that all those fathers,—the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,—were dead
and buried before him; but, according to the Masorete text, Shem, the
Antediluvian, and _seven_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, all his
ancestors, were alive at his death; and the same Antediluvian, with
_two_ of the Postdiluvians, Salah and Heber, even survived him! But it
is quite unnecessary to dwell on these paradoxes so contrary to the
ordinary providence of God, and to the whole tenor of holy writ. Enough
has been adduced to show the inconsistency of the shorter computation,
and the difficult problems which its advocates have yet to solve, in
order to establish it on a secure foundation, and to meet the unanswered
objections of the host of learned and pious men in all ages, who have,
either wholly or in part, adopted or defended the Septuagint chronology;
such as, the early chronographers, and historians down to Syncellus, the
early Christian Fathers, and in later times, Morinus, J. Vossius,
Pezron, Raleigh, Stillingfleet, Walton, Kennicott, Jackson, Hales,
Horsley, and Russell. This argument is ably enforced by Mr. Cuninghame
in the “Essay” to his “Chart of Sacred Chronology” pp. 17, 18, the
“Discourse,” in his “Dissertation on the Apocalypse” pp. 533–536, and
his other Chronological works.[17]
3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence of
idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and
within a short period from the flood—Remarks on the building of
Babel—Mr. Clinton refuted—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from
Scripture—The judgments of God forgotten.
The third argument is, that the Hebrew computation is inconsistent with
the co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the
same family, and within so short a period from the flood. This argument
has been partly anticipated; but it receives additional strength from
the following considerations. If the short account of the building of
Babel, Gen. xii. 1–9, be critically examined, there can be no doubt that
this politico-religious project, which was headed by Nimrod, the “_Great
Intolerant_ before the Lord,” was the earliest attempt on record to
establish the Zabian system of idolatry. For the arguments in favour of
this opinion, we must, for brevity’s sake, refer to a work recently
published, alike remarkable for the novelty of its views and the
Scriptural simplicity of its style, entitled the “Religious History of
Man,” by Mr. D. Morison, pp. 157–168. Mr. Clinton sees “nothing
wonderful” in the fact that “idolatry should have sprung up during the
lives of Noah and Shem;” and he accounts for it on the principles of the
fecundity of mankind and their dispersion at the confusion of tongues.
It is very strange, however, that Terah, who is mentioned in Joshua
xxiv. 2, as the only idolater among the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, should
have dared to follow the practices of the Heathen, while all his pious
ancestors were yet alive! And, that, as Mr. Cuninghame justly remarks,
“the Scriptures should tell us nothing” of the matter, seeing that the
sacred historians invariably record such awful apostacies in the
families of the righteous, as a warning to all future generations.
Idolatry, in fact, sprang up in the family of Ham, in the _third_
generation; but, not in that of Shem, till the _ninth_; shewing that the
example and the memory of pious ancestry had the effect of so long
retarding the influence of surrounding evil among their descendants. The
whole history of the period, indeed, indicates that ages not a few, had
elapsed between the flood and the Call of Abraham; and, that during that
interval, the remembrance of the judgment of the old world was almost
obliterated, the worship of the true God virtually superseded, and the
memory of the early Patriarchs practically forgotten. Moreover, the
remarkable interposition of Providence in the confusion of tongues and
the dispersion of mankind, calculated so deeply to renew in the minds of
men the recollection of former judgments, and to put a stop to farther
progress in idolatry, appears in the lapse of time to have shared the
common oblivion, and to have failed in producing that striking
impression which was sure to be felt among contemporaries and their
immediate successors.
4. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the accounts of Sacred and
Profane History—Remark of Sir Walter Raleigh—Sir Isaac Newton’s
objection refuted—Epoch of the Foundation of the kingdom of
Egypt.
The fourth argument is, that the shorter computation is inconsistent
with the credible accounts of profane history, and the existence of so
many populous kingdoms and empires in the days of Abraham. The
insuperable difficulties in reconciling the chronology of sacred and
profane history, which have perpetually puzzled modern historians, are
in a great measure removed by the longer computation. The often-cited
passage of Raleigh,[18] which contains his cutting remark on the danger
of “paring the times too near the quick,” lest thereby “the reputation
of the whole story might perchance bleed,” has, in fact, never been
fairly answered on the principles of the Hebrew chronology. The history
of the battle of the “four kings against five,” in Genesis xiv., implies
a very great degree of populousness and civilization in a single region,
and more than can be admitted on the shorter computation; nor can Sir
Isaac Newton’s answer to this objection be considered as decisive, in
which he implies that the numbers of the allied armies must have been
small, because they were overcome by Abraham with a very small force;
for, the Scriptures inform us that it was “the Most High God that
delivered his enemies into his hand,” and that it is His province “to
save by many or by few.” The account of Egypt, at the descent of
Abraham, in Genesis xii. 10–20, indicates that it was then an ancient,
populous, and long-established kingdom; and the profane records of its
history, though mingled with much that is fabulous, contain
well-attested facts which reach to a period far beyond that assigned by
the Hebrew text. In an excellent article, entitled “Annotations
Géologiques à la Genèse,” vol. iii. of the “Cours Complet,” it is shewn,
by a careful and critical analysis of the historical notices of Egypt,
in Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Artapan, Josephus, Eratosthenes, Pliny,
the author of the Old Chronicle, and Syncellus, that its various
dynasties were not _consecutive_ but _collateral_; and, from the
unsuspected agreement of the reigns of different kings, it appears that
“the epoch B.C. 2900,” or A.M. 2579, “may, in fact, be considered as
that of the foundation of the kingdom of Egypt.” This epoch, according
to the Septuagint, corresponds to the patriarchate of the _Junior_
Cainan, about 300 years after the birth of _Mizraim_, and about _fifty_
years after that of Salah;—now, it is universally admitted that Egypt or
Mizraim (Genesis x. 6) was one of the first kingdoms founded after the
flood. According to the Hebrew, however, the same epoch corresponds to
the patriarchate of the _Senior_ Cainan, upwards of 500 years before the
flood, and long before Mizraim was in existence!
5. Arguments founded on the deficiency of the numbers of mankind—Epoch
of the occupation of Babylon by the Medes—Calculation of the
numbers of mankind on the Eulerian ratio—Mr. Clinton refuted.
As to the argument founded on the “numbers of mankind,” Mr. Clinton has
proved, Fast. Hell., vol. i. p. 282, that an army of Medes occupied
Babylon about B.C. 2233, that is, according to the Hebrew-Usher
computation, 115 years, and according to his own, partially interpolated
from the Septuagint, about 250 years after the flood,—when, as he says,
“the population of the earth would amount to _many millions_;” and yet,
in the same page, he remarks, it is not likely that “101 years” after
that event, the population “would exceed 50,000 persons, and this number
it would certainly have reached within 160 years of the flood!” Now,
even on the Eulerian ratio, cited from Malthus, this number would
increase only to about 6½ millions,[19] in his interval of ninety
years,—which is far from “_many millions_;” while, in the Usherian
interval, on his own showing, it would have barely reached the former
number! Such are only a few of the difficulties attending the shorter
computation, and such some of the shifts to which its abettors and
followers are driven for its support. The simple and consistent
chronology of the Septuagint places the above mentioned event at the
distance of nearly 1000 years after the flood, and rather less than a
century previous to the birth of Abraham; so that in his days the world
had had sufficient time to reach a state of populousness and
civilization corresponding to the history of the period, as recorded
both by sacred and profane authors.
6. Argument founded on the alteration of the Hebrew text by the
Jews—Testimony of the early Fathers on this point—Mr. Clinton’s
admission as to the prophecies—His refutation as to the
chronology—Motives of the Jews for shortening the genealogies.
Mr. Clinton states that “Jackson and Hales impute great alterations in
the Hebrew copies” of the Scriptures, “to the Jews of the second
century.” It would have been more correct to have said that Irenæus,
Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and
Abulfarajius imputed such alterations to the Jews, not only in the
passages which applied to Christ,—which he considers “very
probable,”—but also in the numbers relating to the Ante and Post
Diluvian genealogies; because the testimonies of these ancient authors
are either cited or referred to by the former. Mr. Clinton adds, that
“it is difficult to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had
for shortening the _genealogies_.” Not more difficult, in our opinion,
than to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for
shortening the _life_ of Jesus Christ! A difficulty, however, “to
imagine an adequate motive” for any transaction, is no proof that it did
not take place. The Jews did not attempt “to shorten the genealogies,”
that is, to corrupt the chronology of the Scriptures, till all the
witnesses were dead who knew Jesus, and who had “companied with them
that were witnesses of his resurrection!” But when they found afterwards
that the Christians constantly proved out of the Septuagint, that Jesus
was the Messiah, they had then a sufficient motive for “shortening the
genealogies,” if they could make it appear, from the Hebrew text, that
our Lord had come about _fifteen centuries_ earlier than the time fixed
by tradition; and that, as the chronology of that text did not agree
with the chronology of the Septuagint, the epoch of the true Messiah’s
advent had not yet arrived! They have accordingly continued to assert,
in contradiction even to their own Scriptures, and up to the present
day, that Jesus of Nazareth was not their Messiah!
7. Motives ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters for enlarging the
chronology—Pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a
remote antiquity—Insufficiency of the scheme adopted by the
Interpreters—Self-refutation of Mr. Clinton’s hypothesis.
Mr. Clinton finally asserts that “the first translators of the Hebrew
Scriptures had a very obvious motive for enlarging the chronology,”
because the “Chaldeans and Egyptians laid claim to a remote antiquity!”
The wished for inference is, that the Jewish translators, from a very
natural desire not to be behind their neighbours in these pretensions,
went upon an opposite tack, and “lengthened the genealogies!” This
statement, for argument it cannot be called, proves a great deal too
much; because the scheme which they adopted, falls immensely short of
the end proposed. We have seen that the difference between the Hebrew
and Septuagint chronologies, is only about _fifteen_ centuries! This
difference was, indeed, quite sufficient for the purpose of the Jews, in
denying the advent of the true Messiah; but, it was wholly insufficient,
nay, utterly useless, for the purpose of coping with the pretensions of
“the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a remote antiquity.” For, it appears,
from the testimony of Cicero, Diodorus, and others, that Berosus claimed
for the _first_ Chaldean kings, an antiquity of no less than 470,000
years! And, from the fragments of Manetho and the Old Chronicle,
preserved by Syncellus, that for the _first_ Egyptian kings, an
antiquity is claimed, of 36,525 years! But, what are _fifty-five_
centuries of antiquity, to 365 centuries, or to 4,700 centuries? To add
_fifteen_ centuries was to add nothing! The Jews should have added 1500
or 15000 centuries, in order to meet the exigency of their “obvious
motive!” The argument, therefore, founded on the supposition that the
Seventy Interpreters enlarged the chronology of the Scriptures, in order
to place the claims of the Jews to “a remote antiquity,” on a par with
those of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, is so very absurd, that it
completely refutes itself:[20]
CHAPTER IV.
EXTENT OF THE THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.
Table VIII. Patriarchal Eras and Intervals from Usher—Table IX. Extent
of the _first Three Ages_ of the World—Date of the Exodus of
Israel from Egypt.
The extent of the _Third_, or Patriarchal age, is ascertained from the
text of Exodus xii. 40 and 41. That this passage originally stood in the
Hebrew as it now stands in the other two texts, is evident from
Galatians iii. 17; and as all commentators and chronologers are now
agreed that the commencement of the 430 years was reckoned from the date
of the Call, or the year following, it is unnecessary to revive former
disputes on this point. The following table, partly from Usher,[21] who
distinctly enumerates all the texts of Scripture on which their
determination depends, exhibits the _intervals_, between the
_Patriarchal eras_ of this period, and the corresponding _years of the
world_, according to the Hebrew and Septuagint computations:—
TABLE VIII.
PATRIARCHAL HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT.
ERAS. Intervals. A.M. Intervals. A.M.
From the Call 0 2083 0 3409
Birth of Isaac 25 2108 25 3434
Birth of Jacob 60 2168 60 3494
The Eisodus 130 2298 130 3624
Death of Joseph 71 2369 71 3695
Birth of Moses 64 2433 64 3759
To the Exodus 80 2513 80 3839
———— ————
THIRD AGE 430 years. 430 years.
In the above and following tables we omit the Samaritan computation, and
adopt the Hebrew as interpreted by Usher, as the question of the true
chronology in modern times is considered to lie between the latter and
the Septuagint. The next table exhibits, according to these two systems,
the extent of the first three ages of the world.
TABLE IX.
AGES OF THE WORLD. HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT.
Years. Years.
First two Ages 2083 3409
Third Age 430 430
———— ————
FIRST THREE AGES 2513 3839
Mr. Cuninghame, “Fulness of the Times,” p. 36, gives an ingenious
explanation of “the sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt,” and
shows that, strictly speaking, the period of 430 years should be
reckoned from the date of Abraham’s descent into that land, after his
arrival in Canaan, or _one_ year later than the date of the Call. Hence,
the Exodus took place in A.M. 3840, according to the computation of the
Septuagint.[22]
CHAPTER V.
EXTENT OF THE FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.
Palpable Forgery of this period in 1 Kings vi. 1.—Table X. Critarchal
Eras and Intervals, from Usher and Cuninghame—Object of Usher in
determining this period—Testimony of Paul and the Book of Judges
as to its true extent—Testimony of Origen—Table XI. Extent of the
_first four ages_ of the world—Verification of the true extent of
the _fourth age_ by Chronographers—Agreement on this point between
Mr. Clinton and Mr. Cuninghame.
The extent of the Fourth, or Critarchal age, is ascertained from the
books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, and confirmed by Acts iii.
17–22. Many disputes have arisen as to the true length of this period,
in consequence of the interpolation of a passage in 1 Kings vi. 1,—both
in the Hebrew and Septuagint,—which is now very generally admitted to be
a _palpable forgery_! The following table, partly from Mr. Cuninghame,
“Synopsis of Chronology,” p. 15, and partly from Usher, “Chronologia
Sacra,” p. 203, both of whom distinctly enumerate all the texts of
Scripture on which their determination depends, exhibits the intervals
of the _Critarchal eras_, and the corresponding _years of the world_,
according to the two systems:—
TABLE X.
CRITARCHAL HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT.
ERAS. Intervals. A.M. Intervals. A.M.
From the Exodus 0 2513 0 3840
Passage of Jordan 40 2553 40 3880
Division of the 6⅓ 2559 7 3887
Land
1st SERVITUDE 0 28 3915
Critarchate of 40 2599 40 3955
Othniel
2nd SERVITUDE 0 18 3973
Cr. of Ehud and 80 2679 80 4053
Shamgar
3rd SERVITUDE 0 20 4073
Cr. of Deborah and 40 2719 40 4113
Barak
4th SERVITUDE 0 7 4120
Critarchate of *49⅙ 2769 *40 4160
Gideon
Of Abimelech, Tolah 48 2817 48 4208
and Jair
5th SERVITUDE 0 18 4226
Critarchate of 6 2823 6 4232
Jephthah
Of Ibzan, Elon and 25 2848 25 4257
Abdon
6th SERVITUDE 0 40 4297
(Samson)
Critarchate of Eli 40 2888 40 4337
7th SERVITUDE 0 20 4357
Critarchate of *21 2909 *12 4369
Samuel
Reign of Saul 40 2949 40 4409
Reign of David 40 2989 40 4449
To the Foundation
of Solomon’s 3 2992 3 4452
Temple
———— ————
FOURTH AGE 479 years. 612 years.
The object of Usher in determining the Hebrew computation of this
period, as given above, was evidently to square or fashion the intervals
so that their sum should not exceed the _interpolated period_ of 480
years! This he has effected by the omission of the intervals of all the
SERVITUDES, which are expressly recorded in Scripture, the interpolation
of 9⅙ years between the critarchates of Gideon and Abimelech, and the
addition of _nine_ years to the critarchate of Samuel. The remark,
therefore, of Mr. Cuninghame, in treating of the distinguishing marks of
the true and false systems of chronology, “Fulness of the Times,” p.
141, is no less just than severe:—“it is plain that had Usher given to
this part of his chronology the title of _An attempt to pervert the
testimony of the Book of Judges_, it would have been a just description
of it!” Moreover, Paul, when he addressed the Jews at Antioch in
Pisidia, with the book of the Law and the Prophets in his hand, must
have been perfectly well acquainted with the period in question, and his
summary of the intervals completely confirms the reckoning of the
Septuagint, which was followed by all the ancient chronographers,
notwithstanding the interpolated passage, which is manifestly the work
of a later age. In this summary, he marks out the intervals of “_forty_
years in the wilderness,” of the judges “about 450 years” from the
division of the land, “until Samuel _the prophet_,” and of the reign of
Saul “_forty_ years,”—the amount of which is 530 years. If to this be
added the intervals of the _five_ years’ war (Joshua xiv. 10), of the
_two_ years for the completion of the conquest of Canaan and the
division of the land, of the _twenty_ years’ abode of the ark at
Kirjathjearim, of _twelve_ years for the critarchate of Samuel, of the
_forty_ years’ reign of David, and of the first _three_ years of
Solomon’s reign, making in all _eighty-two_ years,—the whole amount is
exactly 612 years. The only _one_ of these intervals not now mentioned
in Scripture, is the critarchate of Samuel at Mizpeh, which has
fortunately been preserved by Josephus and Theophilus, both of whom,
without doubt, had more perfect copies of the Hebrew and Septuagint
texts, and who state its length at _twelve_ years. Independently,
however, of this interval, the Book of Judges clearly establishes the
_true_ period as far as 600 years, and completely overthrows the
_forged_ period of 480 years. It is worthy also of remark, that Origen
cites the immediate context of the interpolated passage, giving the
sentences both _before_ and _after_ it, but making no mention whatever
of the number itself;[23] which clearly shows that it was not in the
Hebrew text in his time. The following table exhibits, according to the
two systems, the extent of the first four ages of the world:—
TABLE XI.
AGES OF THE WORLD. HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT.
Years. Years.
First three Ages 2513 3840
Fourth Age 479 612
———— ————
FIRST FOUR AGES 2992 4452
In the learned works of Russell, Clinton, and Cuninghame, will be found
numerous and important verifications of the true extent of the _fourth_
period, from different authors, ancient and modern, of which the
following are the most important. Josephus makes it 612 years in two
different places of his works, and 592 in another, where he omits the
7th Servitude;—Dr. Russell, 592 years, following Josephus in the latter
number;—Theophilus, 612 years, some of his intervals being inaccurate,
but the errors balancing each other;—Eusebius, 613 years in his
“Preparatio,” and 600 in his “Chronicon,” where he omits the critarchate
of Samuel;—Jackson, 579 years, by the omission of both; and Hales, 621
years, by the interpolation of an interregnum of _ten_ years;—lastly,
Mr. Clinton, 612 years, his intervals being very nearly the same as
those of Mr. Cuninghame. Thus, by the double testimony of Scripture, and
by the admission of the ablest defender of the _Hebrew verity_ in modern
times, it is manifest that the forged period of 480 years current, or
479 complete, falls short of the truth by 133 years! Hence, Mr. Clinton
places the creation of the world in the year B. C. 4138, instead of the
Usherian year B. C. 4004.[24]
CHAPTER VI.
EXTENT OF THE FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.
Table XII. Monarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
Cuninghame—Correction of the mistakes of chronologers as to the
true extent of this period, by Mr. Cuninghame—Table XIII. Extent
of the _first five ages_ of the World—Confirmation of the true
extent of the _fifth age_ from sacred history and prophecy.
The extent of the _Fifth_, or Monarchal Age, is ascertained from the
Books of Kings and Chronicles, and confirmed by chronological notices of
the Prophets. The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint
chronologies in this period, amount only to about fifteen years, which
is chiefly owing to an interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and
Uzziah not acknowledged by Usher and his followers. The following table,
from Usher’s “Chronologia,” pp. 2–23, and Mr. Cuninghame’s “Synopsis,”
p. 73, where the texts of Scripture containing them are distinctly
enumerated, exhibits the intervals of the _Monarchal Eras_, and the
corresponding _years of the world_, according to both systems:—
TABLE XII.
MONARCHAL HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT.
ERAS. Intervals. A.M. Intervals. A.M.
From the Foundation of 0 2992 0 4452
Solomon’s Temple
Death of Solomon 37 3029 37 4489
Reign of Rehoboam 17 3046 17 4506
Abijah 3 3049 3 4509
Asa 41 3090 41 4550
Jehoshaphat 25 3115 25 4575
Jehoram *4 3119 *6 4581
Ahaziah 1 3120 1 4582
Athaliah 6 3126 6 4588
Jehoash *39 3165 *40 4628
Amaziah 29 3194 29 4657
Interregnum *0 *12 4669
Reign of Uzziah 52 3246 52 4721
Jotham 16 3262 16 4737
Ahaz *15 3277 *16 4753
Hezekiah 29 3306 29 4782
Manasseh 55 3361 55 4837
Amon 2 3363 2 4839
Josiah 31 3394 31 4870
Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, 11 3405 11 4881
and Jehoiachin
To the Destruction of *11 3416 *10 4891
Solomon’s Temple
———— ————
FIFTH AGE 424 years. 439 years.
The discrepancies in the different columns of this table, have been very
carefully and laboriously investigated by Mr. Cuninghame, in his
“Chronology of Israel,” pp. 18–39, 87, 88, 115 and 116; and in his
“Fulness of the Times,” part i. pp. 193–197, and part ii. pp. 32–49, and
56–60, where the errors of Usher, Lightfoot, Hales, Russell and Clinton,
and of the “Seder Olam Rabba,”[25] are clearly pointed out and refuted
on Scripture authority; and, by the correction of obvious mistakes of
two or three current years in their computation, the testimonies of
Josephus, Clemens, Theophilus, and Eusebius in favour of the true
chronology, are satisfactorily established. By excluding the
interregnum, and reckoning the years of each reign complete, Dr. Russell
and Mr. Clinton, both estimate the length of this period at 430 years;
the latter, however, in his tabular view, p. 329, vol. i., ultimately
reduces this number from 430 current, to 426 complete years, by
reckoning from Rehoboam to Zedekiah 389 years. Jackson reckons this
period at 428, and Hales at 441 years. The true extent of the _fifth_
age being determined at 439 years, the following table exhibits
according to the two systems, the extent of the _first five_ ages of the
world:—
TABLE XIII.
AGES OF THE WORLD. HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT.
Years. Years.
First four Ages 2992 4452
Fifth Age 424 439
———— ————
FIRST FIVE AGES 3416 4891
The true extent of the fifth age is strongly confirmed by Ezekiel iv.
1–8, where, in the fifth year of Jehoiachin’s captivity, or in A. M.
4885, the prophet is commanded to predict in a striking manner the siege
of Jerusalem, and to lie on his left side 390 _days_, according to the
_number of the years_ of the iniquity of the house of Israel; and, on
his right side _forty days_, according to the _number of the years_ of
the iniquity of the house of Judah; EACH DAY FOR A YEAR. The sum of
these prophetic days, namely 430, is therefore, the whole _number of the
years_ of the iniquity of Israel and Judah. This number of years
singularly coincides with that of the period appointed for the
“sojourning of the fathers and children of Israel,” and has no doubt a
very extensive prophetic signification. But the period of 390 years more
particularly points at some _great general defection_, when the iniquity
of Israel was particularly prominent. This iniquity in fact, rose to its
highest pitch, when the Ten Tribes separated themselves from the house
of Judah, and took to the worship of the golden calves. Now, it appears
from 2 Chronicles xi. 13–17, that the general defection from the worship
of the true God, both in Israel and Judah, did not take place till
_three_ years after the accession of Rehoboam to the throne of David,
and the election of Jeroboam to the kingdom of Israel. For a period,
therefore, of _forty years_ after the foundation of the Temple, the
iniquity of the Twelve Tribes was restrained, and an apparent desire to
worship God aright, prevented the full manifestation of their idolatrous
propensities. After this, however, “Rehoboam forsook the law of the
Lord, _and all Israel with him_,” (2 Chron. xii. 1); and by this time
the subjects of Jeroboam had become more accustomed to the “new gods
that came newly up” at his accession, and had begun to think that it was
indeed “too much for them to go up to Jerusalem” to worship; and
accordingly, they went to worship a golden calf, “even unto Dan,” (1
Kings xii. 30). If from this epoch, A. M. 4491, therefore, the period of
390 years be computed, it will terminate in the first year of the
_captivity of Jehoiachin_, A. M. 4881; and, if the whole period of 430
years be computed from the epoch of the _completion of the Temple_, A.
M. 4459, it will terminate in the ninth year of Zedekiah’s reign, A. M.
4889, when the _holy city was besieged_ by Nebuchadnezzar; and when,
according to Ezekiel’s prophecy, “he and all his host came against
Jerusalem, and pitched against it, and built forts against it round
about,” (2 Kings xxv. 1). Moreover, in two years after this epoch, in A.
M. 4891, and when the 439 years from the _Foundation of the Temple_ in
A. M. 4452, were completed, the “city was broken up,” the “walls were
broken down,” and the Temple was “burned with fire!” (2 Kings xxv.
1–10). Thus, the true extent of the _fifth_ age is established by Sacred
History, and confirmed by prophecy. On this subject, see Mr.
Cuninghame’s “Synopsis,” p. 47, and “Fulness of the Times,” p. 195.[26]
CHAPTER VII.
EXTENT OF THE SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.
1. Table XIV. Hierarchal Eras and Intervals, from Usher and
Cuninghame—Determination of the Intervals from Scripture—Period
of the Seventy years Captivity—Period of the Seventy prophetic
weeks of Daniel—Table XV. Date of the Crucifixion
determined—Truth of the Ancient Tradition respecting the First
Advent of the Messiah demonstrated.
The extent of the _Sixth_, or Hierarchal age, is ascertained from
chronological notices interspersed in the Historical and Prophetical
Books of Scripture, and confirmed by the Astronomical Canon of
Ptolemy.[27] The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint
chronologies in this period, amounts only to two years, its length,
according to Usher’s “Chronologia,” p. 44, being 583 years, and,
according to the following table, 585 years. This table, in which we
have taken the Hebrew dates and intervals from Usher’s “Annals,” because
they are wanting in the Chronologia, exhibits only the Scriptural
intervals of the _Hierarchal eras_, and the corresponding _years of the
world_, according to both systems:—