Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that a very considerable degree of

plausibility might attach to such sentiments among the early Christians,

from the occurrence of such expressions as the following in the writings

of the Apostles: 2 Peter iii. 8, “One day is with the Lord as a thousand

years, and a thousand years as one day.” This expression, however,

merely exhibits in words suited to our ordinary conceptions, the great

truth which should ever be present to our minds, that all time appears

but as a single moment to the eternal Jehovah, who sees the end from the

beginning, and to whom the ideas both of space and time, as they exist

in our finite understandings, are altogether unknown. The same sublime

sentiment, similarly expressed, is also to be found in one of the

Psalms, the authorship of which is ascribed to Moses, the man of God:

thus, “a thousand years in thy sight, are but as yesterday, when it is

past, and as a watch in the night.” It is evident, therefore, from the

extreme generality of the expressions employed, that no specific

conclusion can be drawn from these and similar passages of Scripture,

respecting the true period of the world’s duration. Their simple intent

is to convey to our minds an idea of the eternity of the Almighty, and

they are of the same import as the following, which proves the eternal

Divinity of our Lord; namely, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day,

and for ever.” Hence, it is plain that the idea, entertained by many

divines, of the duration of the world for a period of only _Seven

thousand_ years, (a period, which, in fact, as we have shown in our

_First Part_, it has already passed) is a figment of the human

imagination, which has no foundation in real tradition or prophecy, and

which is contrary to the express revelations of Scripture. In a note to

this paragraph, consisting chiefly of references to the authors who have

treated of or touched upon the opinion of Irenæus and the whole

Christian church after the Apostolic times, the learned reader will find

sufficient ground for the belief that the longer or Septuagint

chronology was universally held by ancient writers both before and after

the Christian era.[56] We proceed to notice the evidence on this point,

which may be gathered from the testimony of the Heathen.

“The belief of this singular notion, concerning the _Seven ages_,” says

Dr. Russell, p. 76, vol. i. of his _Connection_, “has been detected in

the writings of Heathens, Jews, and Christians. It is traced in the

Sybilline oracles, in Hesiod, in the work ascribed to Darius Hystaspes

the King of the Medes, and in Hermes Trismegistus, the celebrated

founder of Egyptian learning and science. Plato quotes from Orpheus the

same mystical doctrine; handing down to more recent times the persuasion

of the first generations of the human race, that the earth, which was

given to them for a habitation during _Six ages_, was doomed in the

_Seventh_ to be consumed by fire.”[57] Dr. Russell discovers in the

prevalence of these opinions and expectations, however ill-founded and

absurd they may seem, the principal motive which actuated the Jews about

the beginning of the Second century, in their attempt to vitiate the

most ancient of their chronicles. “Their rejection of Christ,” says he,

“rendered necessary an extensive change in their dates and calculations;

and if we may trust to the assertions of Justin Martyr and other

primitive apologists for our holy faith, we cannot doubt that their

fraudulent purpose was realized to a considerable extent. ‘I entreat you

to remember,’ says the Father now named, when addressing Trypho the Jew,

‘that your Rabbis have taken away entirely many texts of Scripture from

that version which was made by the Elders who were at the court of

Ptolemy, in which it was declared, that Jesus who suffered death upon

the cross was both God and man: and wherein it was also predicted that

he was to be crucified and submit to the power of the grave. These

texts, because I know that your nation now rejects them, I will not

insist upon in the course of our inquiries, but shall content myself

with appealing to those prophecies and descriptions respecting the

divine power, which are still allowed to remain in your sacred books.’

After quoting a passage from Jeremiah, which the Christian author

applies to the point in discussion, as an argument in favour of the

views adopted by the Church, he reminds his antagonist, that the text

now in question was still found in certain copies of the Old Testament

which continue to be read in the Synagogues; for, says he, this portion

of Holy Writ has been but lately expunged by your doctors; and that on

account of the unanswerable demonstration founded upon it, in regard to

the conduct of the Jews towards Christ, against whom it was predicted

that they would take counsel, and afterwards put him to death.”

Archbishop Usher, in reference to this passage of Justin Martyr, says,

in his “Syntagma,” pp. 44, 45, that this Father produces _four_

testimonies concerning Christ the Saviour which he affirms were

abstracted from the version of the Seventy Elders: the _second_ of which

is still found entire in all our books, namely, Jeremiah xi. 19. But the

_first_, abstracted from the book of Ezra, chap vi., which is testified

by Lactantius, lib. 4. Institut. cap. 18, is as follows: _And Ezra said

unto the people, This passover is our Saviour and our Refuge; and if ye

did consider, and it came up into your heart, that we shall humiliate

him in a sign, and if afterwards ye shall believe upon him, this place

shall never be left desolate, saith the Lord of Hosts; but if ye will

not believe on him, nor hearken to his preaching, ye shall be a

laughing-stock to the Heathen_. The _third_ testimony, which is found in

Irenæus, lib. 5, cap. 26, is said to have been cut out of Jeremiah: _But

the Lord God of Israel remembered his dead who slept in the land of

heaps, and descended to them to declare unto them the good news of his

salvation_. The _fourth_ and last is taken from Psalm xcv. (or xcvi.

according to the Hebrew) v. 10, where the reading should be, _Declare

among the Heathen, The Lord reigned from the tree_; the words “_from the

tree_” are said to have been erased by the Jews, although they are to be

found in the ancient editions of the Latin Psalter, and are cited by

several ancient authors whose names and works the Archbishop enumerates.

The best proof, however, that the Jews have tampered with some passages

of Scripture, is to be found in the discrepancy which exists between

most of the passages which are cited in the New Testament out of the

Old, and which agree more nearly with the Septuagint, mutilated as it

has been, than with the present Hebrew Text. The most striking case of

this kind is to be found in the passage cited by Paul, Hebrews x. 5,

from Psalm xl. 6; where instead of the words “mine ears hast thou

opened” as in the Hebrew, we have “A body hast thou prepared me,” as in

the Septuagint. The straining of commentators to make these totally

different readings signify _exactly_ the same thing is perfectly

astonishing, when we consider that the simple admission of the

corruption of the Hebrew text in this passage at once solves the

difficulty! Another remarkable case is the passage cited by the same

Apostle, Romans iii. 10–18, from Psalm xiv. 3, where the greater part of

the quotation, from v. 13 to v. 18 inclusive, is entirely omitted in the

present Hebrew text, but is to be found verbatim in the Septuagint,

Vatican edition. The reason assigned by Dr. Wall for its insertion in

this edition, and its omission in the Alexandrine MS., is not at all

satisfactory; because it does not in the least account for the full

quotation of the passage by the Apostle; it does not at all answer the

question, where did St. Paul get the verses? A third case is that of the

celebrated passage in Psalm xxii. 17, where, instead of the words “they

pierced my hands and my feet,” as in the Septuagint, the Hebrew has to

this day, the reading “as a lion my hands and my feet;” but as this

passage had no sense or meaning, the English translators were fain to

avail themselves of the reading of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate.

But it is unnecessary to multiply discrepancies of this kind; enough has

been adduced to show that implicit reliance is not to be placed on the

present Hebrew text. As to the discrepancy in Gen. ii. 2, between the

Hebrew and Septuagint, regarding the day on which “God ended his work,”

it can only be accounted for on one or other of the following

principles: either a mistake has been committed in transcribing the

Hebrew text; or, a change has been wilfully introduced into that text.

For it is quite inconsistent with the fact, and with the preceding

context, to say that God _ended_ his work on the _Seventh_ day! In that

context, Gen. i. 31, we are told that “God saw ALL that He had made, and

behold it was very good; and the evening and the morning were the _Sixth

day_.” It is manifest that to _end work_ on the _Seventh day_, would be

to perform a _part_ of it on _that day_; and, consequently, the _whole_

of the Sabbath could not be said to have been _devoted to rest_, nor

_wholly_ blessed and sanctified _on this account_. It is easy to see

that a loop-hole is thus given, by an error in that text and in our

translation, we fear more wilful than accidental on the part of the

Jews, to the _partial_ observance of the Sabbath, and to the _notion_

acted on by many in former ages, and by multitudes in the present, that

it is only _that part_ of the Sabbath devoted to religious services in

public, which is to be accounted _sacred_; the remainder of the day

being devotable either to work, to literary pursuits, or to sensual

enjoyment. Mankind, both Jews and Christians, has in all ages been too

anxious to throw off the strict and unalterable obligation of keeping

the Sabbath holy to the Lord; but the true Christian, he who is a “Jew

inwardly,” though “not outwardly,” feels his highest enjoyment in the

Scriptural employment of that Holy Day, considering it as a foretaste

and an earnest of the glorious and eternal Sabbath in Heaven.

A strong argument against the accuracy of the present Hebrew text, is

derived, as we have seen, from the different accounts of the census of

the Hebrew Patriarchs and their families, at the epoch of their

migration into Egypt, to be found in the Old and New Testaments. In Acts

vii. 14, we find that the martyr Stephen, in his defence before the High

Priest of the Jews, gives this census, including the grandsons and great

grandsons of Joseph, who, as well as his sons, had previously migrated

in their father’s loins, as amounting in all to “threescore and

fifteen,” or “75 souls.” On referring to the Mosaic narrative, Gen.

xlvi. 27, we find, according to the _Hebrew text_, that this census

amounts only to “threescore and ten,” or “70 souls;” but, according to

the _Septuagint_, that it amounts to “75 souls.” Here, assuredly, the

authority of the Septuagint must be reckoned superior to that of the

Hebrew text, inasmuch as that version not only perfectly agrees as to

the census with the reckoning of St. Stephen in the place now cited, but

in the same chapter, it enumerates the names of the _three_ grandsons

and the _two_ great grandsons of Joseph, making up the _five_ persons

whose names are totally omitted in the Hebrew. The census of the

Septuagint also agrees with that of the New Testament, in other places

where Moses has occasion to remind the Israelites of the smallness of

their number when their fathers went down into Egypt; see Exodus i. 5;

and Deuteronomy x. 22. It is proper to remark, however, that the number

in the latter citation agrees with the Hebrew, in the _Vatican edition_

of the Septuagint; but, not in the _Alexandrine codex_, or the Grabian

edition, where it is correctly given as in the other places which have

been cited. Dr. Hales, in his “Analysis,” vol. ii. p. 159, has

grievously mistaken the composition of the census in question; for, he

includes in it, the wives of Jacob’s sons, amounting to nine persons in

all, according to his account. The Sacred text, however, includes Jacob,

and Joseph with his two sons, in the number 70; now if the nine _wives_

were also included, the census would amount to the number 79; because

the names of the 70 _men_ are all distinctly enumerated even in the

Hebrew text itself. In order, therefore, to get rid of this difficulty,

and reduce the number from 79 to 75, the Dr. excludes the _four men_

just mentioned, and includes the _nine women_, whether they are _kindred

or not kindred_! His solution, however, does not agree with the express

words of Scripture, which, in fact, _excludes the women_, the words

being according to the Septuagint, χωρὶς τῶν γυναικῶν, “without the

wives;” and _includes the men_, in the number 75, the words of Stephen

being “his father Jacob, and all his kindred,” descended, ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν

ἀυτοῦ, “out of his loins.”

In reference to the numerical statements of the Hebrew text, the

disingenuity of modern commentators renders the following remarks

necessary, for the sake of truth and common sense. It is well known that

the numbers which occur in the Old Testament are always expressed in

words at length, and not in abridged characters or arithmetical symbols;

hence, the possibility of transcribers mistaking one character or symbol

for another, in consequence of the similarity of the letters, is

completely removed. It is an unfair inference, therefore, to say,

because the Jews employed the letters of their alphabet to denote

numbers in their later writings, or to indicate chapters and verses in

the sacred writings, and because some of these letters are extremely

similar, though they denote very different numbers; that numerical

errors might arise from this cause in those parts of the Scriptures

where no such arithmetical characters or symbols were ever used. Among

unfair reasoners of this class, may also be placed those who maintain

that all knowledge of the ancient Hebrew is lost, because forsooth it

has been preserved in Chaldaic characters, and mystified by the

Masoretic points! It does not follow, however, that the language itself

is lost, because the characters are changed in their form, even

supposing this to be the fact. If so, then we might as well assert that

the English language is lost, because we have changed the Old English

character for the Roman; that it has become utterly unintelligible to us

by the change; or that the accented, punctuated and misspelt words of

Orthoëpists must render every genuine English word of doubtful meaning!

Moreover, it has likewise been gravely said that because some Hebraists

choose to assert that the same word in Hebrew signifies both _to bless_

and _to curse_; therefore, all or most of the words of that language may

be translated so as to mean any thing you please; this is at least the

conclusion which would be drawn from such random assertions on the part

of Lexicon writers and compilers of Hebrew dictionaries. We ask such

persons, if they know any thing at all of Hebrew, to arrange the names

of the Antediluvian Patriarchs in one line, so as to form a Hebrew

sentence, and to try whether, among the “thousand and one” varieties of

rendering of which it is affirmed the words are capable, it will not

bear the following translation, demonstrative of the fact that the

Antediluvians were, during the days of God’s grace, and in addition to

the tradition of Enoch’s prophecy, taught the knowledge of a Divine

Saviour, even by the symbolical names which the Patriarchs were directed

by the Spirit of God, to impose upon their children:—

‏‘.אדם‎—“Man _was_ appointed miserable _and_ wretched, _but_ the blessed

God shall descend, teaching _that_ his death shall send to the

afflicted, Rest.” The consolation which a sentence like this was

calculated to give to the Patriarch Noah, and to his family, in the near

prospect of the “end of the world that then was,” may be more easily

conceived than described; nor let it be forgotten that in continuation

of this Divine nomenclature, the Patriarch was instructed to call his

son, who was to be the progenitor of the wonderful Being whose coming is

predicted in this sentence, by the name of _Shem_, in prophetic

anticipation of the future development of that glorious _Name_, in which

both Jews and Gentiles were afterwards to trust, and on which the

salvation of both worlds was suspended.

To return from this lengthened digression; it is manifest that there is

great reason to suspect that the numbers contained in the Hebrew text

which have reference to dates and to the age of the world, have been

systematically and extensively altered. Dr. Russell cites a passage from

the celebrated Abulfarajius, in which he asserts that the Jews,

believing it to have been foretold that the Messiah was to have been

sent in the _last times_, altered the chronology in order to be able to

produce a reason or apology for their rejection of Jesus Christ. Thus

they made it appear by their new computation, that Christ was manifested

in the very beginning of the _fifth_ millennium, near to the middle of

the period to which the duration of the earth was to be limited, that

is, according to their glosses upon Scripture, not more than 7000 years

in all. But the computation of the Septuagint, he observes, showed that

Christ did actually come in the _sixth_ millenary age of the world; the

very time at which the prediction of the Old Testament led mankind to

expect his advent. The learned Dr. refers also to the candid Augustine,

who states that the Jews were suspected of having corrupted their copies

of the ancient Scriptures, and particularly of having altered the

generations and lives of the Antediluvian patriarchs, out of dislike to

the Christians, and in order to weaken the authority of the Septuagint,

which was used not only in their churches during divine service, but

also in their writings and controversies with the Jews. Though Augustine

saw that the temptation to vitiate the sacred text lay with the Rabbins,

and that the Greek translators had no inducement to alter the original,

he was unwilling to believe that either party could have intentionally

altered the Scriptures; thinking it more probable that the differences

between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, had originated in the wish

entertained by an early transcriber, to render the _generations_ of the

patriarchs more natural, and less disproportioned to the total length of

their lives.[58] This disproportion, as we have remarked in our First

Part, was only partial in the Hebrew, and the discrepancy in this

respect is a strong argument in favour of the more natural proportion of

the Septuagint. But men in all ages have endeavoured to reduce the

Antediluvian standard of human life and generation, without regard to

the actual record of Holy Scripture. Some curious specimens of reasoning

on this point will be found in Usher’s “Syntagma,” cap. ii. p. 13 et

seq. What, for instance, can be more ridiculous than the following

remark on this subject by the learned Dr. Isaac Barrow? “No one,” says

he, “can pretend to assert, as a certainty, that the age of Methusalem

[Methuselah!] himself, who lived _a thousand years wanting one_, [999

instead of 969!] was really longer than that of a man, who now dies at

_a hundred_! _Why might not the Sun, being then younger and more

vigorous, have performed his periods ten times sooner than at this

time?_” See his “Geometrical Lectures,” translated by Stone, 1735.

_Credat Judæus!_

Dr. Russell states that Augustine was not aware that 400 years had

elapsed from the time when the Septuagint version was made, before any

discrepancy between the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures was ever

imagined to exist; and that there flourished in that interval, the

chronographers Demetrius, Philo, Euphorus, Eupolemus, and Polyhistor, in

whose writings, compiled from the books of Moses, we find the events,

numbers, dates and proper names, agreeing with the Septuagint, but

differing from the modern Hebrew. The ignorance of this early Father in

reference to these writers, though it were admitted, for which however

we see no good reason, and his want of reference to the works of

Josephus, form no ground of objection whatever to the facts of the case;

nor can we conclude from his silence regarding their testimony that he

was not biassed in favour of the Jewish system of chronology in

consequence of the high authority of Jerome in the Christian Church. Dr.

Russell gives a very full and clear account of the manner in which this

system originated. He states that the publication of the _Seder Olam

Rabba_ in A.D. 130, may with certainty be regarded as the epoch at which

the Jews altered their genealogies and changed the dates of the great

events which are recorded in their Sacred Books; and that Theophilus,

bishop of Antioch, was the first Christian chronologer who attempted to

compute the age of the world from the facts and dates only which are

contained in the Bible. He judiciously remarks that the bishop must have

possessed a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures or at least of the Pentateuch,

which had escaped the innovations of the Jews; for his dates of the

deluge and the birth of Abraham differ from both the Hebrew and the

Septuagint.[59] Moreover, we find that Eusebius, in the middle of the

fourth century, who was well aware of the discrepancies between the

Hebrew and the Septuagint in the matter of chronology, still writes as

follows: “On all sides therefore the version of the _Seventy_, being

demonstrated to have been translated from an ancient, as it appears, and

a correct copy of the Hebrew, we have with reason made use of it in the

present chronography, and the more especially since the church of Christ

spread through the whole world adheres to it alone, the Apostles and

disciples of our Saviour having from the beginning delivered that it is

to be used.”[60] Dr. Kennicott, in his “Dissertatio Generalis,” Sect.

83, p. 37, also cites the words of Ephrem Syrus, who flourished near the

end of the same century, in which he charges the Jews with having

abstracted 600 years from the generations of the Antediluvian patriarchs

in order that their own books might not convict them concerning the

coming of Christ, who had been predicted to appear for the deliverance

of mankind after 5500 years.

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_.

The Greek and Roman Poets borrowed their sublime ideas concerning the

Ages of the World, from the Sacred writings and traditions of the Jews;

and alas! they transmuted the fine gold of Mount Sion into the base

metal of Helicon and Parnassus. Hence arose the Poetical appellations of

the first _Six ages_ which are to be found in the most ancient and

celebrated writings of the Heathen. The distinct recognition of the

_Seventh age_ appears not to have been very general, at least among the

poets; or rather, it seems to have been frequently confounded or

identified with the _Sixth age_. The following, however, is an

enumeration of the _Poetical_ ages which is clearly to be traced in the

writings of the oldest authors; to each, we have added the names of the

corresponding _Scriptural_ Ages, for the sake of comparison and

connection. _First_, the _Golden_ Age which corresponds to the

_Antediluvian_; _Second_, the _Silver_ Age, to the _Postdiluvian_;

_Third_, the _Brazen_ Age, to the _Patriarchal_; _Fourth_, the _Heroic_

Age, to the _Critarchal_; _Fifth_, the _Iron_ Age, to the _Monarchal_;

and _Sixth_, the _Last_ or _Cumæan_ Age, to the _Hierarchal_. In this

enumeration, we do not mean, of course, to convey the idea that each of

the _Poetical_ Ages is precisely limited by the epochs which serve to

fix and determine the _Scriptural_ Ages of the Jews; but merely to

indicate that there is such a connection between them as serves to prove

their common origin, and to establish the chronology of both on a secure

and authentic foundation. There seems, however, to our mind, such a

striking analogy between the _real_ and the _feigned_ events ascribed in

history to the different periods above mentioned, as to justify us in

drawing the parallelism close, and in allotting to the various ages of

the world, the appellations which have been ingeniously assigned to them

by the poets and historians of Greece and Rome. One of the oldest

Heathen writers, whose authentic works have reached our times, is the

poet Hesiod, who, according to some authorities, was the contemporary of

Homer, and who, according to Mr. Clinton, flourished from 859 to 824 B.

C. His description of the _Six Ages_ contained in the poem entitled Ἐργα

καὶ Ἡμέραι, or _Works and Days_, is in many parts unquestionably

borrowed from Scripture History. Dr. Hales has advanced and defended

this opinion in his “Analysis,” vol. i. pp. 38–46; after having shewn,

in pp. 35–38, that Sir Isaac Newton has mistaken, and consequently

misrepresented Hesiod’s ages, in his “Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms,”

by confounding the word γένος, _a race_, employed by the poet to denote

_an age_, with γενεὰ, the usual word for _a generation_; and that this

error has not only deranged all his dates of Grecian history, but has

vitiated his entire system of ancient chronology. With the opinions of

Dr. Hales on the subject of _Hesiod’s Ages of the World_, we in general

coincide; but we think that he has neither carried out the above

mentioned analogy sufficiently far, nor applied it in so clear and

distinct a manner as he might have done, to the illustration of the

connection between Sacred and Profane Chronology. It may be of some

importance, therefore, to enlarge a little upon this interesting point.

The description of the _First_ or _Golden Age_ given in the _Works and

Days_, extends from v. 108 to v. 126,[61] and as Dr. Hales justly

remarks, bears no relation at all to Grecian history. It refers to the

time when “The immortal gods and mortal men were as members of the same

family, and (μερόπων) partook of the same likeness; when Saturn (Κρόνος,

quasi χρονος, Time) reigned in Heaven, and men lived as gods, with minds

free from care, without labour and sorrow, or the feebleness of old age;

and always the same (πόδας καὶ χεῖρας) in strength and activity, they

enjoyed continual feasting, free from all evils, rolling in wealth, and

beloved by the blessed gods; they died as overcome by sleep; to them,

all things were good; and the fertile field spontaneously brought forth

varied and abundant fruit; seeking only their own ease, they mingled

their operations with innumerable pleasures; and when (γαῖα) the green

sod covered their bodies, they became good angels, by the will of mighty

Jove, and were confined to the earth, as the guardians of mortal men;

they became observers of good and bad actions, and inhabiting the aerial

regions, they everywhere roamed through the earth, the dispensers of

riches; such indeed was the royal honour which they obtained.” This

description is a curious admixture of the traditions concerning the

_Antediluvian age_ to be found in the early history of all ancient

nations, and of the lofty but extravagant imaginings of the Poet derived

from the absurd mythology of ancient Greece. It evidently alludes to the

creation of man in the likeness of God, and to the Sacred communion

which Adam held with his Creator in the garden of Eden; to the wonderful

length of human life, amounting in the case of the Patriarchs, in

general, to _nearly a thousand years_, when indeed _Time_ might be said

to reign, and _Death_ for ages to be disappointed of his prey; to the

generation of sons and daughters to a late period of the lives of

mankind; and to the piety of the righteous generations of the line of

Seth, who were called the “Sons of God,” some of whom had communion with

God, and received peculiar marks of his favour. The description of the

“royal honour” of the happy dead, seems to have had its origin also in

the Scripture record of the frequent appearance of angels in the

likeness of men in the _Postdiluvian_ and _Patriarchal ages_, and of the

promises which God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, regarding the

number, the wealth and the glory of their seed; and of the appearance of

Samuel to Saul, when he predicted his speedy fall and admittance to

Hades: of the divine appearance to Solomon, when he was promised riches

and honour, so that no king was like to him: and of the divine vision of

the young man in Samaria, who saw the mountain full of horses and

chariots of fire round about Elisha: with many others of the very

singular and preternatural phenomena which were divinely vouchsafed to

the chosen people of God in all ages, before that in which the Poet

himself flourished. Hesiod is also cited by Josephus among the ancient

writers who before his time recorded that the men of the _first age_ of

the world lived a _thousand years_; but Dr. Hales observes that this

statement is “no where to be found in his present [extant] works.”

The description of the _Second_ or _Silver age_, extends from v. 127 to

v. 142, and refers to the time after the flood, when as the Poet says,

“the men were much inferior to those of the _Golden age_, being unlike

them both in body and mind; then, indeed, the boy of a _hundred years_

was brought up by his careful mother, as a child, passing much of his

time at home; but when he grew up and reached the age of puberty, his

life was speedily shortened, being embittered by ignorance; for they

manifested injurious pride towards each other, and refused to serve the

immortal gods, or to sacrifice at their sacred altars, which was the

customary rite among civilized people; these, therefore, Jupiter the son

of Saturn buried, being incensed because they honoured not the blessed

gods who inhabit Olympus; and when the green turf had covered their

bodies, then the blessed dead confined to the earth, were called

_Secondary angels_; thus, they also had their share of honour.” This

description contains internal proof that it refers to the _Postdiluvian

age_, in opposition to the sentiments of some modern writers, who have

supposed that the _Golden age_ referred solely to the _Paradisaical

state_, and the _Silver age_ to that which immediately succeeded it. The

_Golden_ age must have evidently included the _Post-Paradisaical state_,

because the Poet contemplates men as _mortal_, which they had become in

consequence of their loss of perfect innocence, and speaks of them as

having increased in numbers, or in other words, become “multiplied on

the face of the earth,” which took place only after the expulsion of the

great progenitors of the race from Paradise. The _Silver age_ must have

been after the flood, because the usual period of human life had not

been diminished till after that event, but had in fact been rather

increased just immediately before it, as in the case of Methuselah; and

Noah himself the connecting link of both worlds, was longer lived than

Adam. Moreover, the Poet’s account of the _Antepaidogonian age_ of

mankind, corresponds in a very remarkable degree to the statements of

the Septuagint, the Samaritan Text, and Josephus, on this point, and

proves almost to a demonstration that the Hebrew Text originally

contained the longer computation; for the traditions concerning the

_Postdiluvian age_ were, of course, known to Hesiod, about _Six

centuries_ before the Septuagint was in existence. The causes assigned

by the poet, for the shortening of human life, seem clearly to refer to

the breaking up of the ecclesiastical polity of Nimrod at Babel; and the

destruction of the impious, to the later event, the overthrow of the

“cities of the plain,” and the formation of the Lake Asphaltites. The

distinction drawn between the fate of the good, and the fate of the bad

in this age, evidently refers to the selection of a few among mankind,

as the depositories of Sacred Revelation, and to the appointment of

others as the friends of God, and the Fathers of the faithful to all

generations. Such statements as these plainly indicate a belief in the

immortality of the soul, or, at least, its existence after death in a

separate state, and forcibly remind us of the argument which our Saviour

held with the Sadducees, in proof of the resurrection of the dead: “Have

ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake to him,

saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of

Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye,

therefore, do greatly err;” Mark xii. 26. The conclusion was indeed

manifest; Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, as to their souls;

therefore, their souls are immortal. Because God lives, they live also;

for he is still _their_ God. But life and immortality were brought to

light by the Gospel; and because Christ rose from the dead, they shall

also rise from the dead; for he has become the first-fruits of them that

slept. From the preceding remarks, it is evident that Dr. Hales is in

error, both when he limits the “termination of the _Silver age_ to the

days of Peleg;” and when he refers the latter clause of the Poet’s

description to the “first and purest Patriarchs of this age;” for the

upright and blessed Job lived in the latter part of it; and the divinely

honoured Abraham left Ur of the Chaldees at its close.

That Hesiod’s description of the three subsequent ages appears to relate

entirely to the history of Greece, is the opinion of Dr. Hales. Without

disputing the general accuracy of this opinion, we still think that we

can perceive traces of the history of other countries. The allusions to

Scripture are, it is true, more obscure in this part of the poem; but

they are not wholly imperceptible. Indeed, the ingenuity of the

“cunningly devised fables” which it contains, would not be deemed

complete without the admixture of some sacred truth, without the

addition of some egregious perversion of the Inspired records. The

description of the _Third_ or _Brazen age_, extends from v. 143 to v.

155, and refers to the time when the men, “wholly unlike those of the

_Silver age_, were strong and mighty in the use of the spear, rejoicing

in war and deeds of rapacity; they ate not (σιτον) the food of culture,

but, unyielding in their disposition, they had minds as hard as adamant;

possessing immense force and unpolished hands, nature furnished them

with powerful limbs, from the shoulders downwards; they had _brazen_

armour, _brazen_ houses, and they worked in _brass_; for _iron_ was not

yet in use; these, indeed, slain by their own hands, went to the dark

domains of gloomy Pluto, unrecorded in song; for sable death seized

them, though mighty in strength, and they left the shining light of the

Sun.” This passage seems very clearly to describe the state of the world

in the days of Abraham. The battle of the four kings against five in the

Vale of Siddim (Destruction), the slaughter of the kings and the sacking

of their cities, the capture of Lot and all his family and property, as

recorded in Genesis xiv., is a sufficient proof of the warlike and

rapacious character of this age; and then, no doubt, originated the

migration of those marauding parties which, proceeding from Assyria,

Phenicia, and Egypt, spread themselves over Greece and her islands for

colonization and settlement, and founded the early kingdoms of Sicyon

and Argos. The testimony of the Greek historians Herodotus and

Thucydides, respecting the state of society during this period, confirms

the description of the Poet; and, according to Dr. Hales, the rape of

Io, the daughter of Inachus, which was followed more than a century

afterwards by that of Europa, the daughter of Agenor, king of Tyre, are

instances of the wicked conduct of those whom Jove is reported to have

sent a flood to destroy, at the close of the _Brazen age_. Dr. Hales,

however, is in error when he refers this flood to the age of Deucalion;

it appears more clearly to belong to that of Ogyges, who was earlier

than Deucalion by more than _two centuries_, and in whose reign,

according to Dr. Russell,[62] the inhabitants of Bœotia were compelled

to leave the plains of their native country, which was that of our poet,

and to seek an asylum in the mountains of Attica.

The description of the hardihood of the men of the _Brazen age_

corresponds also to that of the King of Egypt, when he expressed his

fears concerning the increase of the children of Israel. The very weak

argument of Sir Isaac Newton against the longer computation, which he

draws from the speech of Pharaoh, Exodus i. 9, respecting Egypt being

“thinly peopled” before the birth of Moses, is very satisfactorily

answered by Dr. Hales in his explanation of the succeeding verse;

“Analysis,” p. 88. The correct translation, however, of the former

verse, according to the Septuagint, which appears to have retained the

true meaning of the passage, renders even Dr. Hales’ explanation

unnecessary. Thus, “And he said to his nation, Behold the race of the

sons of Israel is a great multitude, and their (bodily) strength is

greater than ours!” This observation will appear both natural and just,

when we consider that the Egyptians, as a nation, must have by this time

reached a degree of luxury and refinement, the consequences of extensive

empire and early civilization, which rendered them more effeminate or

less robust than the hardy sons of Israel. The dread, therefore, of the

increase of such a nation, which they held in cruel bondage, and which,

though vastly fewer in numbers, was greatly superior to their own in

individual and personal strength, was a sufficient reason for the

precautionary policy announced from the throne, by which the rigour of

the bondage of the Israelites was to be increased, in the expectation of

thus diminishing their numbers. This policy, however, having failed, the

king resorted to one still more cruel and sanguinary; but the very cause

which he had assigned as a reason for the adoption of cruel measures

towards an unoffending race, was wisely ordained, so as to render those

measures completely abortive; and, we thus perceive, from its

acknowledged truth, an additional force and beauty, in the simple

defence made before the king, by those heroic females who bid defiance

to his wrath, by refusing to become the detestable instruments of his

cruelty; Exod. i. 19.

That the Greeks from a very early period were distinguished from other

nations by the use of _Brazen Armour_ is well known; and it is

remarkable that in Scripture prophecy this characteristic is selected by

the Spirit of God to point out the nation to which it belongs, and to

predict the rise of that Universal empire which it once maintained over

all the kingdoms of the known world. In the description of the different

parts of the great Image which King Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream,

Daniel ii. 31–45, and which prefigured the four Great Monarchies or

Empires of antiquity, we find the _Assyrian_ or _Babylonian_ Empire

denoted by the head of _gold_, the _Medo-Persian_ by the breast and arms

of _silver_, the GREEK or _Macedonian_ by the belly and thighs of BRASS,

and the _Roman_ by the legs and feet of _iron_. Moreover, the Greeks are

commonly denominated by Homer in his Iliad, the χαλκοχίτωνες Αχαιοὶ, or

_Brazen-coated Achaians_, that is, wearing brazen coats of mail; and

they are described in Herodotus, according to the words of the oracle,

as χαλκέων ἀνδρῶν ἐπιφανέντων, or _men glittering in Brazen armour_.

Hence, it may be truly said with the poet, that they lived in _brazen_

houses, and performed their works in _brass_; for, they spent all their

time in deeds of arms, perpetually seeking to increase their wealth, and

to form new settlements, at the cost of the native inhabitants of the

soil, the natural consequence of such predatory incursions was premature

death in battle; and until they had gained a complete footing in Greece,

by a series of splendid victories, it could not be supposed that their

names would be transmitted to posterity with renown. Thus the hosts of

original adventurers belonging to this age, according to the poet,

descended to the grave, Νώνυμοι (pro Ἀνώνυμοι,), without name and

without fame, receiving no share of honour like the men of the former

ages, but sinking into irretrievable oblivion, both in this world, and

in the world of souls.

The description of the _Fourth_ or _Heroic age_, which Dr. Hales remarks

is included by Ovid in the Brazen age, extends from v. 157 to v. 174,

and refers to the time when the men “spread over the boundless earth,

were more upright and more just than those of the former age, and

received the name of _Demigods_; these also, calamitous war and

tremendous battle destroyed; some before the seven-gated Thebes, in the

territories of Cadmus, fighting for the wealth of Œdipus: but others

before the walls of Troy, having been transported across the broad sea

in ships, on account of the fair-haired Helen: to the former, death

brought final destruction; to the latter, father Jupiter, the son of

Saturn, having granted life and a settlement apart from mankind, he

planted them at the ends of the earth, far from the immortal gods, where

Saturn reigns their king; and these happy heroes, having minds free from

cares, dwell in the Islands of the Blessed, near the deep deep Ocean; to

them, the fertile soil produces ripe fruit, as sweet as honey, three

seasons of the year.” In this description there seems to be a very

considerable want of incident, when we compare it with the history of

Greece during the _Heroic age_. For, it was in this age, that the

Kingdom of Athens was founded; that the flood of Deucalion took place;

and that the chief founders of the Greek nation made their descent into

the country itself, namely, Danaus, Pelasgus, Cadmus and Pelops. It was

in this age also, that the events most celebrated in history and poetry

took place; such as, the birth and the labours of Hercules; the

expedition of the Argonauts; the wars at Thebes and the fall of Troy,

which the poet has particularly noticed; the Return of the Heraclidæ;

and the Æolic and Ionic Migrations. The meagreness of detail in this

portion of the poem, therefore, would lead us to adopt the opinion of

many critics, that it has not reached us in a perfect but in a

fragmentary state; enough of it, however, remains to enable us to

determine the limits of the poetical ages. We have seen that the flood

of Ogyges was the event which, according to the testimony of the

ancients, terminated the _Brazen age_, and of course, formed the

commencement of the _Heroic age_; now, according to the testimony of

Julius Africanus and others, this event was _coeval_ with the Exodus

from Egypt; and, according to the testimony of Eratosthenes and others,

as expiscated by Mr. Clinton, the Ionic migration was a few years

earlier than the foundation of Solomon’s temple, and may, therefore, be

considered as the event which terminated the _Heroic age_, and not the

fall of Troy, as stated by Dr. Hales, which, according to the best

authorities, occurred about a _century and a-half_ before the Scriptural

era in question. No shorter period than this at least would be

sufficient to settle all the mighty events which resulted from the ἰλιὰς

κακῶν, or multitude of evils springing from the Trojan war, and the

final catastrophe of the ancient city of Priam; and in no less a time,

would the heroes who survived this great event, and who went in quest of

new settlements and peace, far from the scenes of strife, be able, in

the name and power of their posterity, to build cities and plant

vineyards, and to form new states and create dynasties in foreign lands.

“Tantæ molis erat Romanam condere gentem.”

The description of the men of this age as “divine,” and the idea of

giving to heroes the name of _Demigods_, thus commingling earth and

heaven, seems to have originated in the Sacred history of the wars of

the Israelites in Canaan, at the beginning and during the progress of

the _Critarchal age_. The remarkable interpositions of Providence which

accompanied this people, under the guidance of Moses in the wilderness,

under the command of Joshua in the promised land, and under the

government of the Judges when settled there, would lead all the Heathen

nations around them to ascribe to their leaders _more than mortal

power_; hence would naturally arise the title of _demigod_. Moreover,

the history of the transactions recorded in “the book of the wars of

Jehovah” (Numbers xxi. 14), of which no doubt our poet had “heard by the

hearing of the ear,” would inspire him with feelings and language

similar to that which the Philistines uttered when they heard that the

Israelites had brought the ark of God into their camp: “Woe unto us! who

shall deliver us out of the hands of these mighty Gods? these are the

Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues of the wilderness;”

(1 Sam. iv. 8). The extraordinary exertions of the Judges to deliver

their countrymen from a foreign yoke, roused and assisted as they always

were by the hand of God, might well strike terror into the hearts of

their enemies, and give rise to the name and the notion of their being

of supernatural origin. For instance, the remarkable atmospheric and

celestial phenomena which occurred under the leadership of Joshua, when

“the Lord cast great stones from heaven” upon the enemy, and when, at

the voice of a man, the _Sun and Moon_ “stood still” in the heavens for

“a whole day,” would not be soon forgotten among the Heathen; because

“there was no day _like that_ before it or after it, for the Lord fought

for Israel;” (Josh. x. 13, 14). Again, we are told in the song of

Deborah and Barak, that “the stars fought from heaven; the stars in

their courses, fought against Sisera;” and when we consider that the

Heathen worshipped the heavenly bodies, including the stars, as

divinities, we see how the idea of gods and demigods fighting the

battles of men, would naturally arise in their minds from the recital of

such a song as this; and we can thus trace the origin of the

mythological machinery which is so finely wrought and so eloquently

described in the pages of Heathen poesy.

In like manner, we find that the description of the settlement of the

“Happy Heroes in the Islands of the Blest,” at the close of this age,

savours strongly of the lofty ideas and the poetic language to be found

in the prophecies concerning the future happiness of God’s chosen

people. The establishment of the Israelites in the promised land, so

long the subject of prophecy, was no doubt the great prototype, which

the Poet had in his “mind’s eye” in this description; and the fame of

God’s gracious dealings with them having spread abroad throughout the

whole world, was no doubt the inciting cause which led mankind in

general to think of improving their condition, and to make those

frequent descents and migrations into other countries, which were so

common in this and the preceding age. Our Poet had no doubt heard of the

blessing of Jacob, which predicted the coming of Shiloh and the

happiness of the tribe of Judah, who, as its representative, should

“wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of grapes;” and whose

“eyes should sparkle with wine, and whose teeth should be whiter than

milk;” also, the felicity of the tribe of Joseph, who, in like manner,

should be blessed “with blessings of heaven above, and blessings of the

earth beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the matrix, and blessings

of his progenitors, which should prevail beyond the everlasting

hills.”[63] But the Song and the Blessing of Moses, which belonged to a

later age, and which heightened the expectations of the twelve tribes by

a clearer revelation, were still more likely to have reached the poet’s

ears through the traditions of those early times. From the former, he

would learn that the “Lord’s portion is his people;” and “Jacob the lot

of his inheritance;” that “the Lord alone did lead them,” and “there was

no strange god with them;” that “he made Israel ride on the high places

of the earth, that he might eat the increase of the fields; and he made

him to suck honey out of the rock, and oil out of the flinty rock;

butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the

breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and he

drank the pure blood of the grape;” Deut. xxxii. 12–14. By the latter,

he would be informed that Jehovah “was King in Jeshurun, when the heads

of the people, the tribes of Israel were gathered together;” that “the

land” of Joseph was Blessed of the Lord, “for the precious things of

heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath; and for the

precious fruits of the changes of the _Sun_, and for the precious things

produced by the _month_, and for the chief things of the ancient

mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the

precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will

of him that dwelt in the Bush;” that “there is none like unto the God of

Jeshurun, he who rideth upon the heaven thy helper, even the most

glorious of the sky;” and that “_Israel should dwell alone_: the

fountain of Jacob should be in a land of corn and wine; and his heaven

should drop down dew.” In the contemplation of such a glorious prospect,

he might be led to say with the great lawgiver himself: “Happy art thou,

O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people, saved by the Jehovah, who is

the shield of thy help, and the sword of thy excellency!” Deut. xxxiii.

5, 13, 26. Truly as the poet said “the Eternal (Κρονος, _Time without

end_) now reigns their King.”

The sudden transition of the Poet from the description of the _Fourth

age_, to that of the _Fifth_, with his rapid glance at the _Sixth_,

which extends from v. 174 to v. 201, shows that his mind must have been

wrought up to a great pitch of feeling and sublimity, in reflecting on

the glorious deeds of the past age, and the splendid anticipations of

the future. With the description of the _Fifth_ or _Iron age_ in which

he himself lived, we cannot but deeply sympathise, feeling as we do that

it has returned in our own days, and that its features are precisely the

same as those which now characterize this _age of Bronze_.[64] “Oh! how

I wish,” says he, “that I had not lived in the _Fifth age_ (πέμπτοισι

ἀνδράσιν), but had either died before it, or lived after it; for, now

indeed is the _Iron age_; and they will rest neither day nor night from

labour and misery, corrupting each other; but the gods shall give them

unutterable sorrows; still even to these shall good and evil be

intermingled; but Jupiter shall destroy the men of this age, for they

shall become grey-headed soon after their birth; because the father will

not live in unity with his children, nor the children with the father;

the guest with his host, nor the friend with his companion; and the

brother will be no longer affectionate, as in former ages; and soon

shall they dishonour their parents growing old; then also shall the

wicked attack them, speaking cruel words, and not fearing the wrath of

the gods; nor shall the lawless then yield to their aged parents the

rewards of their education; but one shall destroy the city of another;

and no favour shall be shown to the pious, or the just, or the good; but

they will rather honour the evildoer, and encourage injustice; nor shall

there be any justice or modesty in their hands; and the wicked man shall

injure the good, addressing him with hard speeches, and even be guilty

of perjury; and croaking envy of hateful countenance, rejoicing in evil,

shall pursue the whole race of miserable mortals; and then shall

blushing Modesty and indignant Virtue, clothed in their white robes,

having forsaken mankind, pass from the spacious earth to Olympus, to

mingle with the immortal gods; then shall they leave direful woes to

mortal men; and there shall be no help for the evil.” In this

description, the Poet, who, according to the best authorities, lived

about the end of the first century of the _Iron age_, seems to have

partly borrowed his description from the sacred poetry of the Jews, and

having himself experienced the evils of injustice at the hands of his

own kindred, to have partly anticipated the wickedness of the age, in a

fine prophetic vein. Solomon, with whose glorious reign the _Monarchal

or Iron age_ began, uttered sentiments concerning the wicked, to which

the ideas of our poet have a striking similarity: “For they,” said he,

“sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken

away, unless they cause some to fall. For they eat the bread of

wickedness, and drink the wine of violence;” Prov. iv. 16, 17. The

following passages in the book of Proverbs, to which we shall only

refer, with others which might be cited, would almost lead us to imagine

that Hesiod had been familiar with the writings of Solomon: Prov. i.

11–19; v. 3–14; vi. 16–19; ix. 13–18; xxiii. 27–35; xxiv. 1, 2, 15–22;

and xxx. 11–23; but in the psalms of David, we find a more vivid and

sustained description of the wickedness of the wicked, and one to which

that of the Poet bears a more marked similarity than any of the passages

yet cited: thus, “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. They

have corrupted themselves, they have done abominable works, there is

none that doeth good, there is not even one. The Lord looked down from

heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did

understand, or seek after God. They are all gone out of the way, they

are together become useless, there is none that doeth good, no not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used

deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of

cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction

and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known:

there is no fear of God before their eyes.” Psalm xiv., according to the

Septuagint. When we consider that even on the lowest computation, the

poet Hesiod must have preceded the prophet Micah, by at least 100 years,

we cannot but be struck also with the similarity of their descriptions

of this age in which they both lived, and we cannot but admit that the

description of the former written as it is in the future tense, partakes

strongly of the character of inspiration. “The good man,” says the

latter, “is perished out of the earth: and there is none upright among

men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every man his brother

with a net. That they may do evil with both hands earnestly, the prince

asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and the great man, he

uttereth his mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The best of them is

a brier, the most upright is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy

watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall be their perplexity. Trust

ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide: keep the doors of

thy mouth from her that lieth in thy bosom. For the son dishonoureth the

father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter-in-law

against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own

house;” Micah. vii. 2–6.[65] This passage, which was frequently

appropriated by our Saviour when on earth, as describing the effects of

his Mission upon the wicked, to whom the Gospel is the savour of death

unto death, (Matt. x. 21, 35, 36; Luke xii. 53 and xxi. 16,) was

eminently descriptive of the _Iron or Monarchal age_, from its beginning

to its end, Hesiod, Micah and Ezekiel, as well as all the prophets,

being Judges; (Ezek. xxii. 6–13; and 29–31). The Poet’s description of

envy is strikingly just, and is manifested in a powerful degree in every

unregenerate human heart; and to their shame be it said, it is not

completely rooted out of the hearts even of Christians, till death has

done its part: see the confession and exclamation of Paul, and the

pointed description of James, to which the heart of every one must fully

respond: Rom. 18–25; James iv. 1–5. The idea of the flight of Modesty

and Virtue to heaven, leaving nothing but sorrows behind them, is also

conceived in the finest vein of true poetry, which is always correct in

its descriptions; nor is there any remedy for the evil until (as the

Poet perhaps said, had we his works entire,) the return of the _Golden

age_, when earth shall be as heaven.

With regard to the _Sixth age_, it is true, as Dr. Hales remarks, that

Hesiod does not expressly announce that it shall succeed the _Iron age_,

nor that it should be a state of _regeneration_ or a revival of the

_Golden age_; but his language strongly implies that it would be

superior to the _Fifth age_, inasmuch as he earnestly expresses his wish

that it had been his lot to have lived after the latter, in the words ἤ

ἔπειτα γενέσθαι. Moreover, in his address to his brother Persa, we find

a description of the happy effects which would result from doing

justice, extending from v. 225 to v. 237; and this description

corresponds exactly to the language used by the poets of the succeeding

age, in describing the return of the _Golden age_ at the close of the

_Sixth_: thus, “But they who grant strict justice to strangers and

citizens, and depart not in the least from equity, shall have a

flourishing city, and flourishing people within its walls; and peace,

the nurse of the young, shall dwell in the land; and Jupiter who sees

afar, shall never bring upon them the horrors of war; neither shall

famine or destruction annoy men strictly just; to them also the earth

shall bring forth plenteous subsistence; and on the mountains, the pines

shall produce apples at the top, and honey at the middle; and the

fleece-bearing sheep shall be laden with wool; and wives shall give

birth to children like their parents; and they shall flourish among the

good with perpetual bloom; and there shall be no need of navigation; for

the fertile ground shall produce all manner of fruit.”

It is to the poets and other writers of the _Sixth age_ itself, however,

that we are to look for the prophetic anticipations of the glorious

event which was to illuminate its close. At the beginning of this age,

flourished the _Seven Wise Men_ of Greece, whose laconic, but excellent

aphorisms, indicated the approach of better times. To them we owe,

according to Plato, the celebrated maxim Γνῶθι σεαυτόν,—_Know thyself_;

but even to know himself was more than man could attain, without a

revelation from heaven;—how much more necessary was it, therefore, that

the knowledge of the everlasting God should emanate from the same

source! Accordingly, we find in the Scriptures, the following maxim

perpetually inculcated, which is as much above that of the Seven Sages,

as the Heavens are above the earth. “The fear of the Lord is the

_highest_ wisdom;”[66] to which we may add, with Solomon, David, and

Job, who all uttered the same aphorism—“And to depart from evil is

understanding;” (Prov. i. 7; Psalm cxi. 10; and Job xxviii. 28.) and it

is easy to give it the laconic form, if this be any recommendation to

the admirers of the wisdom of the Heathen, who prefer to drink at their

muddy streams, and neglect the fountain of truth; for we have only to

say Γνῶθι θεὸν,—_Know God_; and we concentrate in these two words, all

that is necessary for man’s happiness, both in this world, and that

which is to come: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee,

the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent;” John xviii. 3.

He indeed, who knows God, knows himself also; for he knows that in the

sight of God, he is “wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and

naked;” and that he must buy of God, through Jesus Christ, “gold tried

in the fire,” that he may be rich; and “white raiment,” that he may be

clothed, and that the shame of his nakedness may not appear; and

“eye-salve” to anoint his eyes, that he may see; Rev. iii. 17, 18.

When a century and a-half of the _Sixth age_ had passed away, arose

Socrates, the wisest of all the Greeks, who, as Cicero remarks, brought

philosophy down from heaven to earth, and taught all that man could know

about Divine things, which, according to his own confession, was

positively nothing, with the exception of some obscure ideas which he

had learned from primitive tradition. He indeed appears to have had just

views of man’s ignorance, and according to Plato, his illustrious

disciple, who survived his master half a century, he considered that

there was no real way of finding out the truth concerning God, but by a

revelation from Heaven, by the hand of a Divine Messenger. This appears

evident, both from some passages in Plato’s Dialogue, entitled the

“Phædo,” and from the following remarkable passage in that entitled the

“_Second Alcibiades; or, of Prayer_,” which we copy from the 2nd vol. of

Dr. Hales’s “Analysis,” p. 1231.

“SOCRATES.—We must needs wait then, _Alcibiades_, until we can learn how

we ought to behave toward God and men. ALCIBIADES.—When shall this time

come, _Socrates_? and who shall be the _instructor_? for I long to see

_this man_ (τουτον τον ἀνθρωπον) whosoever he is. SOCRATES.—He it is who

_careth for thee_ (ᾡ μελει περι σου); and I think, that as _Minerva_ in

Homer (Iliad 5, 127) removed the _mist_ from the _eyes_ of _Diomedes_,

that he might _well know_ both _gods_ and _men_; so it is necessary in

the first place, that He should remove _the mist_ from _your soul_ that

is now attached thereto; and next that He should apply _the means_ by

which you shall know both _good_ and _evil_ in future; for now indeed

you seem not to be able. ALCIBIADES.—Let him remove the mist, or

whatever else it is, since I am prepared to decline none of his

directions, _whosoever this man is_, (ὁστις ποτ’ έστιν ὁ ἀνθρωπος),

provided I may be able to _become better_. SOCRATES.—Truly _that same

person_ (κακεινος) _hath a wonderful regard for thee_. ALCIBIADES.—I

think then, the best way will be to _postpone sacrificing_ until that

time. SOCRATES.—You think right, for it is safer than to run so great a

risk [of sacrificing improperly.] ALCIBIADES.—Then indeed, shall we give

to THE GODS _crowns_ and other _legitimate offerings_, when I see that

day coming, and _it will come in no long time_, THE GODS _willing_.”

From the same work, to which we have been so much indebted, we cannot

avoid extracting the following lines to the same purport, taken from the

Hymn of Eupolis, another disciple of Socrates, as translated by

_Wesley_, not the founder of Methodism, but his father, Dr. Hales

remarks:—

“And yet, a greater _Hero_ far

(Unless great _Socrates_ could err)

Shall _rise_ to _bless_, some _future day_,

And _teach_ to _live_, and teach to _pray_.”

Dr. Hales has also given, at p. 1378, the following striking description

from Plato, of the sufferings of the JUST ONE, and of the reception he

should meet with from a heedless and ungrateful world. “He shall be

stripped of every possession, except his _virtue_; stigmatized as

_wicked_, at a time when he exhibits the strongest proofs of _goodness_;

endowed with _patience_ to resist every _temptation_, and _reverse of

fortune_, but inflexibly maintaining _his integrity_; not _ostentatious_

of his good qualities, but desiring to be _good_ rather than to _seem

so_. In fine the recompense which the JUST ONE so disposed (οὑτω

διακειμενος ὁ δικαιος), as I said, shall receive from the world is this;

he shall be _scourged, tortured, bound, deprived of his eyes_,

(μαστιγωσεται, στρεβλωσεται, δεδησεται, εκκαυθησεται τω οφθαλμω), and at

length, having suffered all sorts of evils, _he shall be crucified_

(ανασχιν δυλευθησεται); [Works] vol. ii. p. 361, 362, Edit. _Serrani_.”

He adds, “Plato who travelled into _Egypt_, unquestionably collected

this singular _character_ and _sufferings_, of the JUST ONE, from the

Hebrew Scriptures, of the _Psalms_, _Isaiah_, _Daniel_, and _Zechariah_,

with the last of whom, he was nearly contemporary.”

As the time, the long-expected, and eagerly-wished for time, drew nigh,

when the Messiah was to appear, and as (the συντελεία τῶν αἰώνων) the

_consummation of the ages_ hastened on, we find that the expectations of

the Heathen for this Divine Instructor, this mighty King and Saviour,

increased in magnitude and intensity,—a certain proof that the arrival

of the _Seventh_, or the return of the _Golden age_, was the subject of

their calculation, as well as the theme of their song. On this subject

we need only refer to the works of Virgil, who flourished B.C. 40, in

the reign of Augustus Cæsar, and particularly to the celebrated

_Eclogue_ entitled “_Pollio_,” in which he gives a condensed summary of

the prophetic anticipations of all preceding poets and philosophers from

the days of Hesiod to his own. To those who may not have viewed the

_fourth_ Eclogue in this light, the following extract of a poem so well

known, may not be unacceptable:—

“Now the last age of Cumic song has come:

A cycle vast of ages new appears;

Virtue returns, and Saturn’s former reign:

Now a new race descends from lofty heaven.

O chaste Lucina, hail the coming prince,

Who shall the death of _Iron rule_[67] behold,

And resurrection of the _Golden age_:

For in this age, the Great Apollo reigns.

This glorious year, O Pollio, is thine;

And now the vast lunations are begun.

This year, if any trace of crime remain,

With its destruction, fear for ever flies.

That prince, on earth, the life of gods shall lead,

Heroes with gods in council he shall see,

And they with wonder shall behold his deeds:

While with paternal sway, the world he rules.

O, prince! to thee spontaneous earth shall bring

Her early fruits, and sweetest smelling shrubs,

On velvet flowers thy infant feet shall tread;

Before thy face, the serpent shall succumb,

And poisoned herbs their baneful power shall lose:

The Rose of Sharon everywhere shall spring.

In early youth thou shalt delight to read

The praise of heroes, and thy father’s deeds,

And all that tends to form the virtuous mind;

Soon shall the fields be to the harvest white,

And prickly thorns be changed to blushing vines,

While honey sweet the knotty oak shall yield.

Yet traces of man’s early sin shall rise,

And lead him to renew his toils at sea,

To wall his towns, and cultivate the ground.

Again, the Argonauts shall skim the main;

Again, the Theban war shall be begun;

Again, to Troy, shall Peleus’ son descend.”

This description has a manifest reference to Hesiod’s account of the

different ages of the world, and forms a complete supplement to that

interesting relic of antiquity. Here we trace the _last_, or _Sybilline

age_, in which Hesiod wished he had lived, the commencement of a great

succession of ages, the return of the virgin _Nemesis_ or _Astræa_, the

Goddess of Justice, whom we have denominated _Virtue_, and who fled at

the close of the _Iron age_; the return of _Saturn’s_ reign, which was

to begin with the _Seventh_, or _Golden age revived_; and the reign of

_Apollo_, who was the representative of the _Solar deity_, and the

reviver of all things. The humanity and the divinity of the expected

prince, is strangely shadowed forth by the poet, in his allusion to his

intercourse with _gods_, _demigods_ and _heroes_, according to the Greek

mythology. The misapplication, however, of the Cumæan or Sybilline

prophecies, which were evidently borrowed or stolen from the Hebrew

Scriptures, to the expected son, of _Pollio_ according to some, or of

_Augustus_ according to others, is a proof that the time of our

Saviour’s advent at the close of the _Sixth age_ was known to be near;

and that while there were some who, like aged Simeon, waited for the

consolation of Israel; or, like Anna, the prophetess, departed not from

the temple at Jerusalem, in earnest expectation of Him who suddenly came

to it, and gladdened their eyes; so there were some even among the

Heathen who, like Virgil, had heard of the expected Saviour, and who

gladly hailed his approach, although they were mistaken as to the signs

of his coming, and were ignorant of the distinguishing characteristics

by which he was to be known. It can scarcely be doubted indeed, that in

this Eclogue, Virgil had the prophecy of Isaiah in his mind, in which

the Messiah is described as a “rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a

Branch out of his roots,” and which he might have even read in the Greek

version of the _Seventy_. The following are some of its more striking

points of similarity: “With righteousness he shall judge the poor, and

convince the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the

word of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the

wicked. The wolf also shall feed with the lamb, and the leopard shall

lie down with the kid; and the young calf, and the bull, and the lion

shall feed together; and a little child shall lead them. And the ox and

the bear shall feed together; and their young ones shall be together:

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And an infant shall put his

hand on the holes of asps, and on the nest of young asps. They shall not

hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of

the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea;” Isaiah xi. 1–9;

taken partly from the Septuagint. In a similar passage of the same

prophet, which is perhaps still more to be admired on account of the

richness of its promises to the people of God, and its striking

resemblance to some passages in the book of Revelation, we find a very

singular remark which seems, to our dark and finite understandings, to

mar the beauty of the description; we refer to Isaiah lxv. 17–25. At v.

20, the prophet says, “but the sinner, being a hundred years old shall

be accursed;” but for this sentence, we should have taken the whole

passage for a figurative description of the happiness of the heavenly

state allotted for the righteous after death. In imitation, perhaps of

this singular passage, our poet introduces into his description of the

renewal of the _Golden age_, the acute remarks with which the preceding

extract terminates, and in which it seems as if he had anticipated the

wars which have since desolated Christendom.[68]

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. Cunninghame’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.

Although the chronology of the Septuagint receives the strongest

confirmation from the writings of the ancient chronographers, it must

not be concealed that some of them have committed very strange and

unaccountable errors in the computation of the different ages of the

world; while, the works of others have come down to us in such an

imperfect and corrupted state, that implicit dependance cannot be placed

in the chronographical statements which they now contain. The latter

remark is peculiarly applicable to the writings of Josephus, whose

authority, notwithstanding all his errors, has been followed by many

modern chronologers in preference even to that of the sacred Scriptures.

Surely the question of chronology lies between the Hebrew text and the

Septuagint version, and not between either of these and the works of the

chronographers whether ancient or modern. By a fair examination,

however, of their Sacred Chronology, we shall find that the testimony of

the oldest and best chronographers is almost entirely in favour of the

chronology of the Septuagint, and that wherever they differ from it in

their works, they commit errors which in general, can easily be detected

and accounted for, unless the passages in question have been so entirely

vitiated by the wilful mistakes of transcribers as to render it

impossible to determine what were the real and actual statements of the

author. We shall select for this purpose, the names of five authors who

possess the greatest influence among the learned on the subject of

chronography, and whose statements are more or less followed by all

later writers on the same subject: namely, Josephus A.D. 90, Theophilus

A.D. 180, Africanus A.D. 220, Eusebius A.D. 315, and the author of the

Paschal Chronicle.[70]

The names of these chronographers have been particularly selected

indeed, and their statements tabulated by Mr. Clinton himself, as the

best authorities, at least so far as regards the first two ages of the

world. We do not follow him, however, in placing their statements on a

level with those of the ancient texts and versions of Scripture; but we

class them together as possessing the next claim to our attention. The

following table, which for the sake of comparison, is marked by the same

_number_ as the corresponding table in our _first Part_, contains the

_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Antediluvian Patriarchs_, and the

_Extent_ of the _First age_ of the world according to each

chronographer:

TABLE I.

ANTEDILUVIAN JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.

PATRIARCHS. CHRON.

A.P. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. A.P.

ages. ages. ages.

From Creation

Adam 230 230 230 230 230

Seth 205 205 205 205 205

Enos 190 190 190 190 190

Cainan 170 170 170 170 170

Mahalaleel 165 165 165 165 165

Jared 162 162 162 162 162

Enoch 165 165 165 165 165

Methuselah 187 *167 187 *167 187

Lamech *182 188 188 188 188

Noah 500 500 500 500 500

To the Flood 100 100 100 100 100

———— ———— ———— ———— ————

FIRST AGE 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262

Besides their respective statements above tabulated, these

chronographers generally give in their works some additional statements

which, with some exceptions, serve to rectify their errors, and to

corroborate and confirm the true chronology. Josephus, however, in the

present text, is made to say that the period from Adam to the flood is

2656 years; whereas the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives

only 2256 years! On this point, some advocates of the Hebrew chronology

argue that the original number was 1656 years, and that δισχιλιών has

been put for χιλιών, or _two thousand_ for a _thousand_; but this is

mere assertion; for it is just as easy to say that the original number

was 2256 years, and that ἑξακοσιών has been put for διακοσιών, or _six

hundred_ for _two hundred_. Now the proof that the latter assertion is

the true one, is that the number 2256 agrees entirely with the summation

of the numbers given in detail; whereas the number 1656 does not agree,

and must consequently be erroneous. Moreover, there are some MS. copies

of Josephus in which we find the true reading ἐτων δισχιλιών διακοσιών

πευτήκοσταἑξ, or _two thousand two hundred and fifty six years_; and

this reading is also to be found in some ancient authors who have

followed Josephus in chronology, such as, Eutychius Alexandrinus,

Josephus Christianus, Anianus Asceta, &c.[71] A few various readings

relating to the _Antepaidogonian ages_ are also to be found in the

different MSS. to which we have referred, but they are of minor

importance and not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the

tabular numbers. The same may be said of his statements regarding the

_Postpaidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_; but as the chronology does not

depend on these statements, it is unnecessary to make them the subject

of discussion.

It is a very remarkable thing that Josephus differs here from the

Septuagint only in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, and that in this

point he agrees with the Hebrew text. Nor are we aware of the existence

of any various reading which would lead us to suppose that it had been

otherwise in the text of Josephus. This circumstance alone, though there

be many others, would almost lead us to conclude, with Mr. Cuninghame,

Preface to his “Synopsis,” p. vii., “that the corruption of the

Chronology must have taken place at an earlier period” than is commonly

supposed by the learned. He believes “it to have been in the interval

between our Lord’s death and the beginning of the Jewish war. This

allows more than 30 years for the purpose, which is quite sufficient.”

He also conceives “that it must have been well known to Josephus, and

the _end for which it was done_;” and he adds, “It was, however, yet of

too recent an origin for him to venture upon the bold experiment of

openly substituting it [the corrupted chronology] for the universal

chronology of his own, as well as other nations, and the Christian

church, and therefore he has introduced both schemes, namely, the _short

and the long_ [_computation_], in such a manner as to perplex and

utterly confuse the whole subject, and to draw from some of our most

learned men, the acknowledgment that his chronology is involved in

hopeless obscurity.” The following explanation of the discrepancy

between Josephus and the Septuagint in regard to the _Antepaidogonian

age_ of Lamech will be to the general reader more satisfactory than that

to which we referred in our _first Part_, p. 23. “Josephus, who in all

the other Antediluvian generations follows the Greek, does in this of

Lamech follow the Hebrew, and the effect of it is, that his Diluvian

period from Creation is 2256, while that of the best copies of the

Seventy, and of Demetrius, is 2262 years. This difference of 6 years,

therefore, goes through his whole Chronology. At the beginning of the

1st book of his Antiquities [_that is in the Title to the Book_] he

tells us, that it contains a period of 3833 years, to which, adding the

6 years above mentioned to make it accord with the Greek chronology of

Demetrius, the sum is 3839 years. If the reader will next turn to the

Table in the Fulness of the Times, p. 34, he will see that this period

of 3839 years, measures exactly the interval, from Creation, to the end

of the year B.C. 1640, when the children of Israel left Egypt. Now as it

is in the nature of things impossible that this most remarkable

coincidence should have been unknown to Josephus, the necessary and the

legitimate conclusion is, that the above period of 3833 years is his

authentic chronology from Creation to the Exodus. It divides itself as

follows:

Years.

1st. To the Deluge 2256

2nd. To the Birth of Abraham 1072

3rd. To the Exodus 505

————

Total from Creation to the Exodus 3833

It, moreover, necessarily includes the disputed generation of Cainan,

proving that it was in his text originally; and it excludes Usher’s

addition of 60 years to that of Terah. But the narrative of the 1st book

of the Antiquities comes no lower than the _death of Isaac_, which was

226 years before the Exodus, and the 2nd book contains the history from

the death of Isaac to the Exodus. Yet Josephus, after having at the

beginning of his 1st book already given the period which measures the

narrative of _both books_, does nevertheless at the commencement [that

is, in the Title] of his 2nd Book, tell us that it contains a period of

220 years in _addition_ to the former, and to this extent his chronology

of the whole period from the Creation to the Exodus is _forged_.” For

the rest of his remarks on the delinquencies of Josephus, and the

detection of his errors, we must refer our readers to the Preface to

Part II. of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” pp. x, et seq.

whence the above extract is taken.

It is proper, however, to add the promised explanation, as abridged as

possible. Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Fulness of the Times,” pp. 138, 139,

shows that in curtailing the true chronology, the Jews preserved the

_Jubilean Series_ from the birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob to

Padan-aram; for, according to the Septuagint, this interval is 3136

years, or 64 Jubilees; but, according to the Hebrew text, and Usher,

2009 years, or 41 Jubilees; the difference, therefore, is 1127 years or

23 Jubilees. Now this difference consists of the following periods

struck off in the Hebrew chronology:

Years.

From the birth of Enos to the Flood 406

From the Flood to the birth of Terah 720

Antedate of Jacob’s departure 1

————

Total 23 Jubilees, or 1127

Mr. Cuninghame argues from the cyclical nature of this period, that the

Rabbis who curtailed the true chronology, “were well aware that from the

birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob for Padan-aram, there was an

exact series of Jubilees, and that in corrupting the Sacred text, they

have, with profound artifice, contrived to preserve a series of complete

Jubilees, by subtracting exactly 23 Jubilees, or 1127 years.” He adds

the following proof regarding the _single_ year; in the true chronology,

the birth of Abraham is B.C. 2145, and the departure of Jacob, B.C.

1908,—interval, 237 years; in the curtailed chronology these events are

respectively dated B.C. 1996, and B.C. 1760,—interval, 236 years; hence,

the antedate is one year. Now in the preceding interval from the birth

of Enos to the flood, the period of 6 years which was subtracted from

the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, is an essential element in the

argument; otherwise that interval would be only 400 years instead of

406, and the whole of the argument would then fall to the ground.

Another argument, in favour of the 6 years is, that if the longer

chronology of Josephus be so far correct, which is proved from the

Septuagint, it is surely proper to follow the authority of that version

in regard to the 6 years, _as well as_ in regard to the 600 years; if we

trust to its accuracy for the _greater_ number, we may also trust it for

the _less_! It seems ridiculous and absurd to take the evidence of the

highest authority at _second_ hand, and to reject a small part of that

evidence, because it is not fairly brought forward by the _same_ hand;

although it be pressed on our notice by many other witnesses! Surely in

regard to these 6 years, the testimony of the Septuagint and the whole

Christian Church, is before that of Josephus.

In reference to the tabulated statements of Theophilus, we find only the

very singular and unaccountable error of 20 years in the

_Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah, which the Vatican codex, if we may

trust the editions of the Septuagint said to have been taken from it,

appears to have retained. That this chronographer has evidently read 167

years instead of 187 years, can scarcely be doubted from his subsequent

statements, and particularly from his statement respecting the extent of

this age, that “all the years till the flood were 2242.”[72]

The statements of Africanus as to the Antediluvian period, entirely

agree with those of the Septuagint, which shows that he had taken his

numbers from a more correct copy of that version, and one that agreed in

this respect with the celebrated Alexandrine codex now deposited in the

British Museum. He confirms the truth of his particular statements by

the following summary ones: _first_—“Therefore, from Adam till the birth

of Enos all the years are 435;” _second_,—“Therefore, from Adam till

Noah and the flood are 2262 years.”[73] As to the statements of

Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle, they are of a later

age, and must therefore have been copied from one or other of the former

authors, or from the copies of the Septuagint extant in their time. From

the notes upon the Chronicon of Africanus, added by Routh,[74] it is

evident that both Eusebius and Syncellus adopted the numbers in the

preceding table which we have arranged under the name of the former; and

that Epiphanius and the author of the _Paschal_ or _Alexandrine_

Chronicle adopted the correct numbers of the Septuagint, which we have

placed under the title of that work. After stating that according to

Africanus, “there were 3000 years from Adam to the death of Peleg;”

Syncellus adds, “but according to Eusebius, 2980 years;” the difference

between these numbers is 20 years, which is precisely the same as the

difference between their dates of the year of the flood, viz: A.M. 2262,

and A.M. 2242. Moreover, although Syncellus states that Africanus gives

the former of these dates, as the true epoch of the deluge; he adds his

own opinion, that “from Adam to the flood there were 2242 years,” and

“contra Africanum pugnat,” _fights against Africanus_, in favour of the

erroneous number. The author of the Paschal Chronicle says explicitly,

that “in the 100th year of Shem, the 600th of Noah, and the 2262d year

of the world, the flood was upon the earth; and this is the exact number

which Africanus exhibits at this epoch since the correct copies of

Genesis shew 187 years as the age of Methuselah when he begat Lamech.”

Epiphanius, in his first book “against Heretics,” after narrating that

Noah was saved in the ark, says “and thus the 10th generation extended

to the 2262d year [of the world,] and the flood brought it to an end.”

Thus it appears to have been the general opinion of the oldest and best

writers that the _First age_ of the world was of the _precise length_

which we have assigned to it; and that the only difference among them

was, whether it were not shorter by 20 years, in consequence of some

foolish mistake committed by an early transcriber in the

_Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah; for in this age, the correct copies

of the Septuagint perfectly agree with the Hebrew text.

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_.

We now proceed to notice the errors of these chronographers, in their

statements regarding the _Second age_ of the world. The following table,

which should be compared with Table II. in our first Part, contains the

_Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Postdiluvian Patriarchs_, and the

_Extent_ of the _Second age_, according to each chronographer.

TABLE II.

POSTDILUVIAN JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.

PATRIARCHS. CHRON.

A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages.

From the Flood *12 *0 *0 2 *0

Arphaxad 135 135 135 135 135

Cainan *0 *0 *0 *0 130

Salah 130 130 130 130 130

Heber 134 134 134 134 134

Peleg 130 130 130 130 130

Reu 130 132 132 132 132

Serug 132 130 130 130 130

Nahor *120 *75 79 79 79

Terah 70 70 70 70 70

To the Call of 75 75 75 75 75

Abraham

———— ———— ———— ———— ————

SECOND AGE 1068 1011 1015 1017 1145

In regard to the _Extent_ of this age, Josephus is made to say, in the

present text, that Abraham “was born in the 292d year after the

flood;”[75] while the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives 993

years, to which adding the age of Abraham at the Call, we have 1068

years! As we can scarcely suppose Josephus to have been guilty of so

extraordinary an absurdity as to commit an arithmetical error of this

magnitude, we cannot only attribute the discrepancy to the evil design

of his transcribers, and say “an enemy hath done this!” Moreover, the

same wicked hand that dared to alter this and other numbers of our

author, has no doubt, also dared to omit here the genealogy of the

_Second Cainan_. Nor can we see what good purpose it could serve to make

him say that “Arphaxad the son of Shem, was born 12 years after the

flood,” instead of 2, as in the Sacred text; and that “Nahor when he was

120 years old begat Terah,”[76] instead of 79, as in the Septuagint. But

since in these details, Josephus has in general adopted the numbers of

the Septuagint, it is plain that he must have followed the same

authority in their sum total, and that the sum of 292 years must have

been inserted instead of the true sum of 1072 years, by some early

advocate or supporter of the Hebrew chronology. Besides, we have shown

in our preceding remarks on the _Extent_ of the _First age_, that

Josephus has prefixed a number to his _first Book_, which in reality

belongs to his _first and second Books_, and which includes the extent

of the _first three ages_, all but 6 years. That number is 3833 years, a

period wholly inexplicable on any other principle than that which Mr.

Cuninghame has laid down. To him, we are therefore justly indebted for

its true and satisfactory explication; and he has clearly shown that

Josephus must have originally inserted in his Antiquities, the true

number of 1072 years, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham; although

the text is now so vitiated that it cannot be made out from the place in

question.

The errors of Theophilus in this age are both strange and unaccountable,

except on the principle of Jewish influence, when we consider that his

error in the first age, was only 20 years, while here it amounts to 132

years. He states that from the Creation “till Abraham, there are 3278

years,”[77] that is, to the birth of Isaac as appears by the context. If

from this number we subtract his extent of the first age, viz. 2242

years, the remainder is 1036 years, or his period from the flood to the

birth of Abraham; and from this period, deducting 25 years, the time

which elapsed from the Call to the birth of Isaac, we obtain a remainder

of 1011 years, which is the extent of the _Second age_, according to

Theophilus. Hence, it is plain that he omits the _Second Cainan_, the 2

years after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad, and 4 years in

the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor. The second omission is manifest also

from the context, where he says, “but _immediately_ (ἐυθέως) after the

flood, Shem being 100 years old, begat Arphaxad.” We shall see that he

endeavours to make up for these omissions, by a curious balance of some

of these errors in the succeeding age. In addition to the tabular

statements, Africanus says that, “Arphaxad begat Salah in A. M. 2397;

Salah begat Heber in A. M. 2527; and Heber begat Peleg in A. M. 2661.”

He says also that “Peleg at the age of 130 begat Reu, and having lived

other 209 years, died;” so that “from Adam to the death of Peleg there

were 3000 years.”[78] According to the true chronology, Peleg died in A.

M. 3132; hence, from the dates of Africanus, if correctly reported, it

appears that he omits the genealogy of the _Second Cainan_, and the two

years after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad. The difference

between the dates of Africanus and those derived from the Septuagint, is

therefore 132 years; and this number must be added to the subsequent

dates of Africanus, until other errors appear, in order to obtain the

true dates. If this be done, we shall find that throughout the whole of

this age, the dates of Africanus will perfectly agree with those of the

true chronology. Connected with the tradition of the renovation of the

world at the end of 6000 years, there appears to have been an idea

current among the early chronographers, that the period from the

Creation to the Advent of Christ was exactly _bisected_ at the death of

Peleg; because the Scripture says that “in his days the earth was

divided,” by which they seem to have understood the whole period of its

existence! Hence, the apparent reason of the omission of the _Second

Cainan’s_ generation, and the _Postdiluvian biennial_ period.[79]

Africanus further states that “in A. M. 3277, Abraham entered the

promised land;” consequently, an interval of 277 years had elapsed since

the death of Peleg; but this corresponds exactly with the interval of

the Septuagint, for 3409 − 3132 = 277; see Tables V. and VIII. of our

_first Part_. Moreover, he states that “from the flood and Noah to the

descent of Abraham into the promised land, were ten generations or 1015

years, and from Adam, twenty generations or 3277 years.”[80] We have

sufficiently discussed the question of the _number_ of generations here

mentioned, in our _first Part_, pp. 34–40; it is quite unnecessary

therefore, to resume the subject; suffice it to say that _Shem_ was an

_Antediluvian_, and therefore his generation could not be reckoned in

the number of generations after the flood; neither was it reckoned in

the number before the flood: for Noah was reckoned the _tenth_ from

Adam, and Abraham the _tenth_ from the flood. In this respect,

therefore, _Shem_ was like _Melchizedec_, as far as the generations or

genealogies on which the Chronology depended, was concerned, viz.,

“Fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither beginning of

days nor end of life, being assimilated to the Son of God,” who “remains

a priest for ever;” and who “hath made us [true believers in Christ]

kings and priests unto God even his Father; to” whom “be glory and

dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Heb. vii. 3; and Rev. i. 6.

The statements of Eusebius and the author of the Paschal Chronicle

respecting this age are taken from Mr. Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol.

i. p. 287; he appears to have very carefully sifted these numbers, in

order to arrive at the exact truth concerning the opinions of their

authors. He gives the following extract from the Chronicon of Eusebius;

“From the flood to the first year of Abraham are collected 942 years;”

if to this number we add 75 years, the age of Abraham at the Call, we

have 1017 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second age_ according to

Eusebius. The author of the Paschal Chronicle appears to have omitted

the two years after the flood; hence, the preceding 75 years being added

to 1070 years, the period which he assigns between the flood and the

birth of Abraham, we have 1145 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second

age_ according to that work. Routh, however, justly remarks that “in the

_Hieronymian version_ of the _Eusebian Chronicle_, the years of this

[the _Second_] Cainan are still extant;” hence, even according to

Eusebius, the true extent of the Second age appears originally to have

been 1147 years. The following testimony collected by Syncellus in his

Chronographia, from the works of Eusebius and Africanus, in support of

the computation of the Septuagint before the flood, and of the

Septuagint and Samaritan after the flood, we extract from Dr. Russell’s

“Connection,” vol. i. pp. 96, 97, on account of its important bearing on

the _Extent_ of the _first two ages_:—“Since, according to the most

ancient Hebrew copy preserved among the Samaritans, and which agrees

with the Septuagint translation, they who lived after the flood down to

Abraham did not beget children till after the age of 100 years and more,

what reason can be assigned that their predecessors before the flood,

whose lives were longer by many years, should begin to beget children

sooner, and not rather at the ages set down in the Septuagint? On mature

consideration, we must incline to the latter computation, and

necessarily conclude, that the Jewish-Hebrew reckoning of the times from

Adam to Abraham is wrong in all the ages excepting three, Jared,

Methuselah, and Lamech; and that the Samaritan-Hebrew computation is

also wrong in the period from Adam to the flood; for in the years from

the flood to Abraham it agrees entirely with the Septuagint. But the

error of the Jewish-Hebrew text is evident from hence, that it makes

Abraham and Noah contemporaries, which is inconsistent with all history:

for since according to the Hebrew text, there are no more than 292 years

from the flood to Abraham, and since, according to the same text, Noah

lived 350 years after the flood, it is evident that he lived to the 58th

year of Abraham!”

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 400 years.

The following table which contains the statements of the chronographers,

regarding the _Third age_ of the World, ought to be compared with Table

VIII. in our _first Part_; as it contains the Chief _Patriarchal Eras_

and _Intervals_ according to each chronographer:

TABLE III.

PATRIARCHAL JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.

ERAS. CHRON.

Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.

From the Call

The Eisodus 215 215 215 215 215

To the Exodus 215 430 215 215 215

———— ———— ———— ———— ————

THIRD AGE 430 645 430 430 430

The testimony of Josephus to the Extent of this age is very explicit. He

states that the Israelites “left Egypt in the 430th year after that our

father Abraham came into Canaan, and in the 215th year after the Eisodus

of Jacob into Egypt;”[81] and he mentions some of the minor intervals,

in a very clear and distinct manner, in his 2nd Book. It is evident

indeed that he rightly understood the testimony of Scripture as to the

true intervals of this prophetic period; although he seems to waver from

the truth in the 9th chapter of that Book, where he speaks of the

afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt for a period of 400 years,

according to Gen. xv. 13. The latter text, however, appears to have been

the stumbling block of Theophilus in his chronology; for he agrees with

the Scriptures, as regards the intervals from the call to the Eisodus;

and then he says that “the sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt was 430

years!”[82] He seems therefore to have confounded the period of 400

years with the period of 430 years, and to have applied the whole period

to the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt alone, exclusive of Canaan,

contrary to the testimony of the Septuagint, Exodus xii. 40, Alexandrine

edition, and that of St. Paul, Galatians iii. 17. By this means, he

increases the Extent of the _Third age_ to 645 years, making it greater

than the true Extent, by 215 years! It would almost seem, therefore, as

if he had intended this error to compensate in some measure for those

which he committed in the preceding ages; inasmuch as it is of an

entirely opposite character. This excess of 215 years makes up not only

for the omission of the 20 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of

Methuselah before the flood, of the 130 years of the generation of the

_Second Cainan_, of the 2 years after the flood, and of the 4 years in

the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor; but gives a surplus of 59 years at

the end of the _Third age_ in his chronology. For, adding the 40 years

wandering in the Wilderness to his amount of the _first three ages_, he

says that “all the years are 3938,”[83] from the Creation of the world

to the entrance of the Israelites into the promised Land. By a reference

to Table X. of our _first Part_, it will be seen that the true date of

this entrance is A.M. 3880, and making allowance for the single year we

have added to this date, on the ground specified at p. 65, it follows

that the date of Theophilus is erroneous in excess by 58 years.

The statements of Africanus respecting this age have not been preserved

in a perfect state; but from the following fragments, it will appear

that he took the correct and Scriptural view of its _Extent_ and

_Intervals_. Syncellus says that according to Africanus, “Joseph was 40

years old in the 130th year of Jacob; consequently, Joseph lived 70

years after the arrival of Jacob in Egypt;” and that “from Adam to the

death of Joseph, were 23 generations, and 3563 years.[84]” Now, if to

the latter number, we add 132 years, for reasons already mentioned p.

244, we shall have 3695 years for the correct number according to the

true Chronology; see Table VIII. of our _first Part_. Again, he says,

“it has been shown that there were 1020 years from Moses and Ogyges to

the first Olympiad, that is, from the Passover or first year of the

Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, when the flood of Ogyges happened in

Attica.”[85] Here, if we take the last year of the first Olympiad as

that to which Africanus refers, namely B.C. 773, and add to it the

preceding number, we shall have B.C. 1793, for his date of the Exodus;

but as this chronographer constantly reckons the period from Creation to

the Birth of Christ as 5500 years,[86] it is evident by subtraction,

that his Mundane date of the Exodus is A.M. 3708; to which, adding the

constant number 132 as before, we shall obtain A.M. 3840, or B.C. 1639,

for the date of the Exodus according to the true system of chronology.

Again, if we take the difference between either the dates of Africanus,

or the true dates of the death of Joseph and the Exodus, which we have

deduced from his by the addition of a constant quantity, we shall obtain

the interval of 145 years, which, added to the period of 70 years above

mentioned, makes 215 years as his interval between the Eisodus and the

Exodus; consequently, his interval between the Call and the Eisodus must

have been the same amount, and his whole extent of this age 430 years.

Mr. Clinton has given a very full extract from the Chronicon of

Eusebius, in which he states that from the first year of Abraham to the

Exodus were 505 years; that Abraham left Charran in the 75th year of his

age; and consequently, from that year to the Exodus were 430 years. He

then states the Scriptural intervals from the Call to the birth of

Jacob, and traces through his genealogy, the intervals from thence to

the birth of Moses and the Exodus; but since, as Mr. Clinton remarks,

his “distribution of the last 215 years is more correct than in the

account of Demetrius, but still erroneous,” we need not repeat his

enumeration in this place; suffice it to say, that his estimate of the

whole period is correct. Mr. Clinton also cites the following passage

from the Paschal Chronicle, which shows that its author’s estimate of

the Extent of this age was likewise correct: “Joshua, the son of Nun, 27

years;—Chushanrishathaim, 8 years; in all, 3912 years.” For, adding to

the latter number, the two years which he omits after the flood, we

shall have 3914 years; and from this, subtracting the 35 years just

cited, we shall have 3839 years, and consequently, A.M. 3839 for his

date of the Exodus, which is within a year of the true date for reasons

already alluded to; he, therefore, must have reckoned the period of 430

years from the ingress of Abraham into Canaan, to the egress of Israel

out of Egypt.

The adjustment of the period mentioned in Gen. xv. 13, can occasion no

difficulty to the careful reader of Scripture, for it is evident that

the commencement of this period must be reckoned from the day that Isaac

was weaned, or perhaps a year or two after; inasmuch it related

specifically to _the seed_ of Abraham which were to be strangers in “a

land not theirs,” and to be “evil entreated 400 years;” Acts vii. 6.

This evil treatment began when Isaac was a child, and was able to play,

say at 5 years old, with the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, the son of the

bondwoman, who was not to be heir with the son of promise and of

_laughter_. _Isaac_ was his name; but Sarah saw Ishmael _Isaaking_ or

_laughing_ at her son, and mocking him, and accordingly, she demanded

that the “bondwoman and her son” should be cast out,—a striking emblem

of the punishment that shall befal all the mockers of and laughers at

the people of God; for the Apostle truly says “but as then he that was

born after the flesh _persecuted_ him that was born after the Spirit,

even so it is now:” Galatians iv. 22; yea, and the term “_Saints_,” or

“_Holy ones_” of God, is become a term of mockery, of scorn, and of

reproach, in this very age in which we now live; although it be written

that “without _Holiness_ no man shall see the Lord!” Precisely then, for

the space of 400 years did this affliction and persecution continue

against the seed of Abraham, till God brought them out of the land of

Egypt “with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm;” and precisely

in the same manner shall all the true Israel of God be rescued from

their enemies, and be in due time delivered from the land of darkness

and of death.

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.

The following table, which exhibits the statements of the chronographers

regarding the _Fourth age_ of the world, should be compared with Table

X. in our _first Part_; as it contains the _Critarchal Eras_, and

_Intervals_ according to each chronographer. With regard to this period,

we omitted to observe that the reading in most of the MSS. and editions

of the Septuagint, in 1 Kings vi. 1, is 440 years instead of 480 years.

TABLE IV.

CRITARCHAL JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS.│ EUSEBIUS. │ PASCH.

ERAS. │ │ CHRON.

Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.│Intervals. │Intervals.

From the 40 40 40│ 40 40│ 40

Exodus │ │

Joshua and 27 27 *55│ *30 27│ 27

Elders │ │

1st SERVITUDE 8 8 │ 8 *0│ 8

Critarchate of 40 40 │ *50 40│ *32

Othniel │ │

2nd SERVITUDE 18 18 │ 18 *0│ 18

Cr. of Ehud 80 *8 │ 80 80│ 80

and Shamgar │ │

3rd SERVITUDE 20 20 │ 20 *0│ 20

Cr. of Deborah 40 40 │ 40 40│ 40

and Barak │ │

4th SERVITUDE 7 7 │ 7 *0│ 7

Cr. of Gideon 40 40 │ 40 40│ 40

Of Abimelech, │ │

Tolah, and 48 48 │ 48 47│ 48

Jair │ │

5th SERVITUDE 18 18 │ 18 *0│ 18

Cr. of 6 6 │ 6 6│ 6

Jephthah │ │

Of Ibzan, Elon 25 25 │ 25 *15│ 25

and Abdon │ │

6th SERVITUDE, 40 40 490│ *60 *20│ *60

(Samson) │ │

Critarchate of 40 *81 │ 40 40│ *80

Eli │ │

7th SERVITUDE 20 *0 │ *0 *0│ *0

Cr. of Samuel 12 12 90│ *0 *0│ *20

Reign of Saul 40 *20 │ 40 40│ *20

Reign of David 40 40 │ 40 40│ 40

To the │ │

Foundation 3 3 70│ 3 4│ 3

of Solomon’s │ │

Temple │ │

———— ———— ————│ ———— ————│ ————

612 541 745│ 613 479│ 632

With regard to this much disputed period, the testimony of Josephus is,

in several places of his works, highly satisfactory. _First_—In the

title of the fifth book of his Antiquities, which records the history of

the interval from the death of Moses to that of Eli, he states that it

contains a period of 476 years; and in the title of the 6th book, which

records the history of the interval from the death of Eli to that of

Saul, he states that it contains a period of 32 years. These intervals

taken together make a period of 508 years; to which, if we add the 40

years in the wilderness, the 40 years of David, and the three years of

Solomon, we have 591 years; this period wants only about 20 years to

make it correspond with the true chronology, and these 20 years appear

to have been omitted in the Seventh Servitude; for the short period of

32 years is manifestly erroneous. The truth is, that the longer interval

should be only 456 or 457 years, in order to correspond exactly with

Acts xiii. 19, 20; and the shorter interval 72 years, in order to

correspond with Acts xiii. 21, and 1 Samuel vii. 2.[87] These intervals

would then make together 529 years; to which, if the numbers above

mentioned be added, the true amount is 612 years, as in the Table.

_Second_,—That 612 years is the true _Flavian Extent_ of the _Fourth

age_ of the world is evident from the 20th book of the Antiquities x. 1,

where the author says “but the number of the years which the thirteen

[high priests] ruled, from the day our fathers left Egypt, Moses being

leader, until the foundation of the temple which Solomon the king built

in Jerusalem, was 612 years.”[88] From this distinct statement of the

true extent of the _Critarchal age_, it is evident that the text of

Josephus, in books 5th and 6th of the Antiquities, must have originally

contained the true Scriptural numbers, although now we find the

following errors have supervened. The first error is in Book vii. 5, 4,

where, speaking of the form of the Hebrew Government under Moses and

Joshua, he says, “but after his [or their] death, for _the whole_ 18

years, anarchy ruled their people.”[89] The words τοῖς πᾶσι, _the

whole_, seem plainly to indicate that a connecting sentence has been

omitted here; and that _these 18 years_ must have been part of the

government of Joshua and the Elders, which appears to have been so mild

and _Patriarchal_, after the division of the land, when “the Lord had

given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about,” that humanly

speaking, they were _without government_, although they were living

under the best of all governments—_a Theocracy_. After the death of

Joshua and the Elders, indeed, there must have been a short period of

anarchy, perhaps about two years,[90] when the children of Israel

“forsook the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth,” and when “an angel of

the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim” to reprove them for their

Idolatry, (Judges ii. 1–5,) previous to their being “sold into the hand

of the King of Mesopotamia;” (iii. 8.) This _anarchal period of two

years_, with the _18 years of rest under Joshua_, and the _7 years of

his active government_ during the war and the allotment of the land,

will clearly make up the number of 27 years, a period to which all the

ancient chronographers bear the most distinct and unequivocal

testimony;—“Frequens tamen opinio est 27 annis eum [Jesum] Hebræis

præfuisse.”[91] A further proof of the opinion we have here advanced

respecting the 18 years, is that Josephus does not make the slightest

mention of them at the proper place in the history, where he speaks of

the death of Joshua, and the accession of Judah to power according to

the Divine word, Judges i. 2; but incidentally introduces them into a

reflection which he makes on the different forms of the Hebrew

government, on the occasion of the renewal of the Kingdom to Saul at

Gilgal; 1 Samuel xi. 14.

The second error relates to the critarchate of Shamgar, which is usually

reckoned at _one_ year by those who undertake to expound the chronology

of Josephus; but there is no warrant for this either in the Scriptures,

or in Josephus; for he merely says, in v. 4, 3, that “Shamgar died _in

the first year_ of his government,” which might have been at the very

commencement of it, and perhaps in the 80th year of Ehud. The next error

of Josephus is the _total omission_, in the present text of the

Critarchate of Tolah, who succeeded Abimelech, and preceded Jair; this

omission amounts to 23 years; but it must have been reckoned by

Josephus, otherwise he could not have recorded such numbers as he has

done in every place for the whole length of the period. Again, the name

and progeny of Abdon are mentioned in v. 7, 15; but the years of his

critarchate are omitted, in the present text, evidently by mistake or

oversight. Lastly, an error has been attributed to Josephus by some

chronologers,[92] in making Saul reign only 20 years; but this is a

mistake on their part; for he distinctly states in vi. 14, 9, that “he

reigned 18 years while Samuel was alive, and 22 years after his death,”

which clearly makes 40 years in all. Further, he states in vi. 13, 5,

that “after the death of Eli, the high priest Samuel alone ruled the

people 12 years; and after Saul was king, 18 years;” thus plainly, as in

the present text, omitting the _Seventh Servitude_, when the ark was at

Kirjathjearim for the space of 20 years; 1 Samuel vii. 2. _Third_,—in

his 2d Book _against Apion_, Sect. 2, Josephus says, “But Solomon

himself built the Temple, 612 years after the Exodus of the Jews from

Egypt.”[93] This is a very important testimony, occurring as it does in

an argumentative treatise concerning the “Antiquity of the Jewish

Nation,” in opposition to the pretensions of the Greeks, Egyptians, and

Chaldeans, to a vastly more remote origin than the Hebrews. Here,

Josephus, or his transcribers, having no particular end to serve in

reference to dates, has allowed the simple fact concerning the true

length of the period to remain on record. Most likely it has escaped

their notice, otherwise it might have shared the fate of the dates and

periods of his Antiquities, which have been by wilful alteration, thrown

into such inextricable confusion.

Having thus shown that Josephus originally held the true chronology of

this period, we may select some other instances of the manner in which

it has been misstated either by himself or others in the present text of

his works, the error being in general a period of about 20 years, either

above or below the truth. In the Antiquities vii. 3, 2, he says “But all

the time from Joshua being commander of the expedition against the

Canaanites, until David expelled them from Jerusalem, was 515

years.”[94] Now adding to this number the 40 years in the Wilderness,

the 33 years which David reigned in Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 5, 6, 7), and

the 3 years of Solomon, we have 591 years as before, a period which is

deficient by about 20 years. Again, in viii. 3, 1, he says, “But Solomon

began the building of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign, 592 years

after the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt;” but according to

_Tostatus_, cited by Hudson, the number found in some copies was 612

years.[95] Next, in ix. 14, 1, he says, “Therefore the Ten Tribes of

Israel migrated from Judea 947 years after the time when their

forefathers, having left Egypt, possessed the land; but after the time

when, having rebelled against Rehoboam, the grandson of David, they

transferred the kingdom to Jeroboam, 240 years, 7 months, 7 days;”[96]

now, if we reckon the captivity of the Ten Tribes from the Foundation of

the Temple, by allowing, according to Josephus, viii. 7, 8, for the

reign of Solomon 80 years, taking off 3 years, and adding the remaining

77 years to the latter interval above mentioned, neglecting the months

and days, we have 317 years for the amount; and if we subtract this

amount from the former interval, we have 630 years for the remainder,

which is evidently the period here reckoned between the Exodus and the

Foundation of the Temple, and it errs in excess by 18 years. Lastly, in

x. 8, 5, he says, “But the temple was burned 470 years, 6 months, and 10

days after it was founded; and 1062 years, 6 months, and 10 days after

the Exodus of the people from Egypt;[97] hence it follows, that the

period from the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple is here reckoned

592 years, which is deficient as above by 20 years. The object of the

author, or of his corrupters, appears to have been to make the

chronology square as much as possible with the extended reign of

Solomon, and to throw back upon this period a moiety of the surplus

years which he has thought fit to add to the length of this reign; but

we shall see more evidence on this point in the next section.

The intervals of Theophilus, according to the text extant, must have

been strangely corrupted, when we find that they make the extent of this

age only 541 years. If we restore to the Critarchate of Ehud the period

of 80 years instead of 8, a mistake which might easily occur in the

Greek, by the writing of Η for Π, and omit the _single year_ allotted to

_Samira_,[98] out of place, and void of authority, we shall at once have

the true number 612 years. We can scarcely, however, attribute the

corruption of the text of Theophilus to simple mistake in this manner;

for we find that he reckons from the entrance of Israel into the

promised land “till the [end of the] reign of David, all the years were

498:” now if to this interval, we add the 40 years in the Wilderness,

and the 3 years of Solomon, we shall have the precise period inserted in

the preceding Table, as his extent of the _Fourth age_. Theophilus has

committed other errors, which however balance each other, and produce no

effect on the whole period. After stating that “the Philistines ruled”

the Israelites “40 years,” he says that “Samson judged them 20 years;”

thus forgetting the Scriptures which says, that “he judged Israel _in

the days of the Philistines_ 20 years;” Judges xv. 20. He then says that

“there was peace among them for 40 years,” an assertion wholly

unauthorized by Scripture, and by the whole crowd of chronographers.[99]

These errors are compensated for by allotting to Eli only “20 years”

instead of 40 years, by omitting the _seventh servitude_ of 20 years,

and by putting only “20 years” instead of 40 years, for the reign of

Saul.[100] Dr. Russell, in his “Connection,” vol. i. pp. 128, 129, gives

a view of the chronology of this period according to Theophilus, where

he strangely misdates the age in which he lived, and contrary to the

copy of his work to which Mr. Clinton or ourselves have referred, makes

out that his Extent of the Critarchal age is 612 years! He makes no

remark whatever about the error of Theophilus in regard to the years of

Ehud, but assumes them at once at 80; he retains the one year of

Shamgar, and puts him in his proper place; and he makes the years of

Tolah 22 instead of 23; thus he easily obtains the correct number, but

by no means in a satisfactory manner, when compared with the text of the

author. Indeed, trusting to the view which Dr. Russell has given in the

passage referred to, we have at p. 71 stated, and at p. 92 considered,

that the extent of this period is, according to Theophilus, 612 years;

but we now have some doubts whether this was his genuine number, seeing

that he has included the erroneous number of 541 years in his subsequent

dates and intervals, as will be shown in another section.

In this age also, we have to regret the deficiency of the intervals of

Africanus, owing to the fragmentary state in which his works have

reached us. The testimony of Eusebius, both in his Chronicon and his

Præparatio Evangelica, as well as that of Syncellus, enables us to

exhibit the chief _Intervals_ and the whole _Extent_ of the _Critarchal

age_ according to this Chronographer. In the extracts of his third book,

which have been preserved, he says “From the Exodus of Moses to Cyrus,

who reigned after the Captivity, were 1237 years; for the remaining

years of Moses were 40; the years of Joshua, who succeeded him as

leader, 25; the years of the Elders, the Judges after Joshua, 30; the

years of those contained in the book of Judges, 490; the years of the

High Priests Eli and Samuel, 90; then, the years of the Kings of the

Hebrews, 490; [and the years of the captivity, 70;] the last year of

which was the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as we have before

said.”[101] The sum of these numbers is only 1235 years, instead of 1237

years, which shows that he must have originally written 27 years for

Joshua instead of 25 years.[102] From this passage we learn that the

interval from the Exodus to the accession of Saul is, according to

Africanus, 675 years. From Syncellus, we learn that “according to

Africanus, the years from Adam till the last of the Judges and the first

of Eli the High Priest, were 4292;” and that “from Adam till his

[Solomon’s] 8th year, there were, according to Africanus, 4457

years.”[103] Taking 5 years from the latter number, we have A.M. 4452

for the date of the Foundation of the Temple, being the 4th year of

Solomon. The difference, therefore, between this date and the first year

of Eli, is according to Africanus, 160 years; and the difference between

the latter number, and the 90 years allotted by him to Eli and Samuel,

is 70 years; hence, if we add this difference to the interval of 675

years above mentioned, we have 745 years for the _Extent_ of the

_Critarchal age_, according to Africanus. Eusebius in his Chronicon,

cited by Mr. Clinton, p. 308, makes this period 744 years, the

difference being “only a single year,” which may have arisen from a

slight difference in the mode of computation, and accounts for its

elongation by the addition of 100 years, which are wholly unauthorised

by Scripture: viz.—the 30 years ascribed to the Elders who outlived

Joshua, the 40 years of supposed anarchy after the death of Samson, and

the 30 years of imaginary peace which succeeded the anarchy. The grand

object of Africanus in the chronology of this age, appears to have been

to make up at once for the deficiency of the generation of the _Junior

Cainan_, and the two years after the flood, by the enlargement of the

period from its true length 612 years, to his surreptitious length of

744 years; for the difference between these numbers is just 132 years,

the precise difference between the dates of Africanus and the true dates

of the epochs in the two former ages. By the manufacture of the

intervals of the _Fourth age_, therefore, he has contrived to bring

about the true date of the Foundation of Solomon’s Temple in his

Chronology, and to compensate for his former errors in such a manner as

to restore the ancient computation of Scripture at this important and

well-known epoch.

Of the Extent of the _Critarchal age_, and the length of its

_Intervals_, as Mr. Clinton remarks, Eusebius has three accounts. For

the account taken from his _Præparatio Evangelica_, Lib. x. c. 14, and

the account taken from his “Chronicon,” which we have placed side by

side in the preceding table, we are partly indebted to Russell and

partly to Clinton.[104] As Dr. Russell has endeavoured to make the

former account, by the correction of some of its intervals, speak the

language of the “Chronicon” in a passage, for the citation of which we

are indebted to Mr. Clinton;[105] we have thought it right to restore

the original numbers, in order to show what was the real opinion of

Eusebius, respecting this age, on the occasion of writing his “Gospel

Preparation.” According to his opinion, therefore, the Extent of the

_Fourth age_ was 613 years, the difference between this number and the

Scriptural one, being only a single year! The author, however, commits a

number of errors in detail, which balance each other, and in their

summation, bring out almost exactly the true period. The chief errors

are, the omission of the _Seventh Servitude_, 20 years; and of the

Critarchate of Samuel, 12 years. In order to compensate for these

omissions, he reckons the Critarchate of Samson, apart from the _6th

Servitude_, 20 years; he adds 10 years to the Critarchate of Othniel;

and gladly seizes upon the 30 years for Joshua and the Elders instead of

27 years; in order to bring out the correct number for the whole period,

as nearly as possible, as he well knew that it was 612 years. That this

was his real opinion, is also evident from the following passage in his

“Chronicon” already referred to: “The amount of the time during which

the judges bore rule until Samuel, was altogether 450 years, our apostle

himself testifying it by his declaration, [Acts xiii. 20]. There are,

however, besides this reckoning, the periods of Moses and Joshua his

successor, as well as of Samuel and Saul. But let us pass, in the

meantime, the periods of Samuel, and Saul, and Joshua. Now from the

testimony of the Apostle, the 40 years of Saul must be added to the 450

years of the judges, to which number the 40 years of David and the 4

years of Solomon being added, the sum of the years amounts to 534; which

is, in fact, the apostolical tradition. Then, the 40 years which Moses

led in the desert, and again the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, to

which the Jews themselves agree, being added, the years amount to 600.”

This is a very important and clear statement of the truth, _with the

exception of the 12 years of Samuel_, “which,” Mr. Clinton says, “he

supposed to be included in the years of _Saul_.” We do not agree with

Mr. Clinton in this point; we think the passage bears evident marks that

he had the separate period of Samuel in his mind; particularly, from his

cunning “interim seponamus,”—“_let us pass in the mean time_.” In fact,

he only pretends to forget it; for he knew that if he had added it,

along with the periods of Joshua and Saul, he would have had the correct

number at once, namely, 612 years! His accommodation to the spirit of

the age in which he lived, by the insertion of the Hebrew chronology of

this period in his Tables, instead of the Septuagint or ancient

chronology which he has so clearly established by Apostolical tradition,

exhibits a degree of vacillation and imbecility wholly unworthy the

character of an able historian and chronographer, and quite unbecoming

an ardent advocate of the Truth. We have sufficiently refuted this

chronology in our _first Part_; and it is unnecessary to go over the

same arguments, or attempt to strengthen them by the admissions of our

opponents. Suffice it to remark that the Hebrew intervals of Eusebius

amount only to 479 years, instead of 480 years, which it ought to reach

according to 1 Kings vi. 1, and that even the Hebrew intervals of Usher

amount only to 478½ years, p. 68; and although these amounts differ only

by half a year, the details of their intervals exhibit a very surprising

difference. Thus, Eusebius allows 27 years to Joshua and the Elders,

Usher _none_, with the exception of 6⅓ years for the war and the

division of the land; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Gideon at 40

years, Usher at 49⅙ years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Tolah at

22 years, Usher at 23 years;[106] Eusebius omits the Critarchate of

Ibzan 10 years, and of Samuel 12 years; Usher admits the former, and

reckons the latter 21 years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Samson

20 years, and Usher omits it altogether. Eusebius and Usher are indeed

very fit authors to be classed together: both no doubt pious men and

exemplary Christians; but both too much given to yield to the pressure

of the times as historiographers and chronographers; and too much

influenced by the bold assertions of the Jews respecting the immaculate

purity of the Hebrew Text.

The Extent of the _Fourth age_ and the lengths of the _Intervals_,

according to the Paschal Chronicle, are given by Mr. Clinton, but in

such a rambling manner that we have had some difficulty to expiscate

them from his extracts. As to the extent, the author of the Chronicle

says “the whole time, from the 81st year of Moses, in which the Exodus

from Egypt took place, to Solomon and the Foundation of the Temple

amounts to 630 years.”[107] We have seen that this is the number

collected from Josephus Book viii. 7, 8; but the intervals given by the

author of the Chronicle, amount to 632 years. The first error he commits

is making the Critarchate of Othniel only 32 years; or, which is the

same thing, including the _1st Servitude_ in the 40 years of that

judge;[108] the next is reckoning the years of Samson distinct from

those of the _6th Servitude_, and interposing an unauthorised period of

40 years peace between Samson and Eli;[109] and the last is omitting the

_7th Servitude_, reckoning the critarchate of Samuel 20 years, and

reducing the reign of Saul to 20 years.[110] The author probably

reckoned only 39 years of Moses and 2 of Solomon, when he calculated the

whole period at 630 years. But from the Chronicon itself, the number of

632 years is clearly made out; for the 81st year of Moses is reckoned

A.M. 3837, and the 3rd of Solomon A.M. 4469. The coincidence between its

author and Josephus, which we have remarked above, is very singular, and

seems to indicate that this error of putting 630 years for 612, on the

part of both, had a common origin. Mr. Clinton also particularly

investigates the statements of Clemens Alexandrinus, and Syncellus,

regarding this period; but as we do not attach so much importance to

their statements as to those we have already discussed, we have thought

proper to omit them; suffice it to remark in general, that they

strengthen and confirm the lengthened chronology of the older

chronographers. The concluding observations of Mr. Clinton, p. 312,

appear to us surprising, considering the mass of evidence he has brought

forward in favour of the true period of 612 years. He says that “it

fluctuates between the 600 years of Eusebius, and the 628 years arising

out of the corrected numbers of Josephus. The truth lies somewhere

between these points. We may assume 612 years as the most probable.”

There appears to us to be no probability in the case; we have seen that

the statements of Josephus, Theophilus, Eusebius, and the author of the

Paschal Chronicle, _when corrected for obvious errors_, according to the

authority of Scripture, all speak the same language and announce the

invariable period of 612 years. The details of the period assigned by

Africanus are lost; but his case is peculiar; he was evidently desirous

to make this period compensate for former errors; and he has effected

his purpose to a single year. His date, therefore, of the Foundation of

the Temple is correct; and this appears to have been his chief aim.

According to their estimate of the extent of the different ages of the

world up to this epoch, their respective dates, according to the

preceding Tables will stand thus:—

TABLE V.

AGES OF THE JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.

WORLD. CHRON.

Years. Years. Years. Years. Years.

1st Age 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262

2nd Age 1068 1011 1015 1017 1145

3rd Age 430 645 430 430 430

4th Age 612 541 745 480 632

———— ———— ———— ———— ————

TO SOLOMON’S 4366 4439 4452 4169 4469

TEMPLE

Had we corrected these dates on grounds already stated, and which by

many would have been deemed sufficient, we could have shown a much

nearer coincidence between them and the true date; but our object was to

show what the details of the different authors really are as exhibited

in their works now extant. It is satisfactory, however, to observe that

the difference between the latter and either of the former, is very

small, and in the case of the greatest magnitude, is very easily

accounted for on the principle of Rabbinical authority and influence.

The following remark of Mr. Clinton, p. 313, is much more in point than

the former above cited; our only wonder is that he seems to think the

extent of the period itself not sufficiently established: “This extended

term of 612 years is inconsistent with the date in the Book of Kings (1

Kings vi. 1), which reckons the foundation of the Temple in the 4th year

of _Solomon_ to be _in the 480th year after the children of Israel were

come out of the land of Egypt_. But the computation of Paul, delivered

in a solemn argument before a Jewish audience, and confirmed by the

whole tenor of the history in the Book of Judges, outweighs the

authority of that date; and we may agree with Jackson and Hales in

rejecting it.” To this he might have added, and we ought rather to agree

with the whole Christian Church in adopting the extended period, than

with the Jews, the persecutors and vilifiers of that Church, in adopting

the curtailed period, and thus giving countenance to their

interpolations of Scripture.