| The Romance of Bible Chronology
(1913) REV. MARTIN ANSTEY, B.D., M.A. (London)
 [Credits to R H Johnston (scanning); Greg Kiser (text editing)]
CLICK HERE
FOR PDF FILE OF CHAPTERS ONE THROUGH FIVE
An Exposition of the meaning, and a Demonstration of the Truth, of every Chronological statement contained in the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.
VOLUME I.
THE TREATISE.
BY THE
REV. MARTIN ANSTEY, B.D., M.A. (London)
MARSHALL BROTHERS, LTD.,
LONDON, EDINBURGH AND NEW YORK.
1913.
Dedication.
To my dear Friend
REV. G. CAMPBELL MORGAN, D.D.
to whose inspiring Lectures on
"THE DIVINE LIBRARY IN HUMAN HISTORY"
I trace the inception of these pages, and whose intimate knowledge and unrivalled exposition of the Written Word makes audible in human ears the Living Voice of the Living God,
I DEDICATE THIS BOOK.
THE AUTHOR.
October 3rd, 1913.
FOREWORD.
VOLUME 1.-THE TREATISE.
INTRODUCTION.
CHAPTER
1. Scope, Method, Standpoint and Sources
Other Texts and Versions
Ancient Literary Remains
Ancient Monumental Inscriptions
Classic Literature of Greece and Rome
Astronomical Observations and Calculations
Ancient and Modern Chronologers
2. Trustworthiness of Testimony
3. Canons of Credibility
PERIOD I. - THE PATRIARCHS - Genesis.
4. Ante-diluvian Patriarchs: Adam to Noah
5. Noah-Shem Connection: Noah's age at Shem's birth
6. Comparative Chronology: Adam to Noah
The Hebrew, the LXX. and the Samaritan Version
Theophilus, Africanus and Josephus
7. Post-diluvian Patriarchs: Shem to Abraham
8. Terah-Abraham Connection : Terah's age at Abram's birth
9. Comparative Chronology: Shem to Abraham
The Hebrew, the LXX. and the Samaritan Version
Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius and Josephus
Evolution and the Origin of Man
Archaeology and the Antiquity of Man
Biblical Criticism and the Early History of Man
10. Hebrew Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph
11. Joseph-Moses Connection: Joseph's death to Moses' birth
12. Comparative Chronology: Abraham to Moses
Egypt : The Mereuptah Stele
Babylon: The Khammurabi Stele
PERIOD II. - THE THEOCRACY - Exodus to 1 Samuel 7.
13. Israel in Egypt from Moses' birth to the Exodus
14. The Forty Years in the Wilderness
15. Seven Years' War: Entry into Canaan to Division of Land
16. Joshua-Judges Connection: Division of Land to Cushan
17. The Judges, including Samuel
18. Eli-Saul Connection: Eli's death to Saul's election
19. Comparative Chronology: Moses to Samuel
The 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1
Egypt: The Pharaoh of the Exodus
PERIOD III. - THE MONARCHY - Samuel 8 to 2 Kings 23.
20. Saul, David and Solomon
2I. Israel and Judah to the Fall of Samaria
First Period : Rehoboam to Jehu
Second Period : Jehu to the Fall of Samaria
22. Judah from the Fall of Samaria to the Captivity
23. Comparative Chronology: Saul to the Captivity
Egypt The Shishak Inscription at Karnak
Moab: The Moabite Stone
Assyria : The Assyrian Cuneiform Inscriptions
Shalmaneser II (III)
Tiglath-pileser III (IV)
Shalmaneser IV (V)
Sargon II
Sennacherib
Esar-haddon
Ashur-bani-pal
The Assyrian Eponym Canon
PERIOD IV. - GENTILE DOMINION - 2 Kings 24 to Esther.
24. The Captivity
25. The Return
Cyrus
Ahasuerus (Ezra 4) = Cambyses
Artaxerxes (Ezra 4) = Pseudo-Smerdis
Darius Hystaspes=Artaxerxes(Ezra 6-Neh. 13)=Ahasuerus(Est)
26. Comparative Chronology : The Captivity and the Return
The Egibi Tablets
The Nabonidus Cylinder
The Cyrus Tablet and the Cyrus Cylinder
The Great Behistun Inscription of Darius Hystaspes
Later Persian Inscriptions
Josephus
The Old Testament Apocrypha
Greek writers : Herodotus, Ctesias and Xenophon
Darius Hystaspes = Artaxerxes (Ezra 6 - Neh. 13)
Darius Hystaspes = Ahasuerus (Est.)
CONCLUSION.
27. Messiah's birth according to Daniel
28. Comparative Chronology:Messiah's birth according to Ptolemy
INDEX
SCRIPTURE REFERENCES
FOREWORD
BY REV. G. CAMPBELL MORGAN, D. D.
It is with pleasure, and yet with reluctance, that I have consented to preface this book with any words of mine.
The reluctance is due to the fact that the work is so lucidly done, that any setting forth of the method or purpose by way of introduction would be a work of supererogation.
The pleasure results from the fact that the book is the outcome of our survey of the Historic movement in the redeeming activity of God as seen in the Old Testament, in the Westminster Bible School. While I was giving lectures on that subject, it was my good fortune to have the co-operation of Mr. Martin Anstey, in a series of lectures on these dates. My work was that of sweeping over large areas, and largely ignoring dates. He gave his attention to these, and the result is the present volume, which is invaluable to the Bible Teacher, on account of its completeness and detailed accuracy.
Bible study is the study of the Bible. There are many methods and departments; none is without value; all of them, when done thoroughly rather than superficially, tend to the deepening of conviction as to the accuracy of the records.
In no case is this more marked than in departments which are incidental than essential.
If, in such a matter as that of dates - which seems to be purely incidental, and is of such a general nature that few have taken the trouble to pay particular attention to it - the method of careful study shows that these apparently incidental references are nevertheless accurate and harmonious, then a testimony full of value is borne to the integrity of the writings.
To this work Mr. Anstey has given himself, with great care, and much scholarship. The results are full of fascination, and are almost startling in their revelation of the harmony of the Biblical scheme.
The method has been that of independent study of the writings themselves with an open mind, and determination to hide nothing, and to explain nothing away.
The careful and patient student is the only person who will be able to appreciate the value of this work; and all such will come to its study with thankfulness to the Author; and having minds equally open and honest, will be able to verify or correct. In this process I venture to affirm that corrections will be few, and the verification constant.
WESTMINSTER CHAPEL,
BUCKINGHAM GATE, S.W.,
October 11th, 1913.
ho tolmoon ti paralassein toon gegrammenoon ap' argees, ouk en hodoo aleetheias histatai.
He who attempts to alter any part of the Scriptures, from indolence or incapacity, stands not in the path of Truth.
Epiphanius Against Heresies, Book I.
PREFACE BY THE AUTHOR.
THE Studies embodied in the following pages have been undertaken with a view to ascertaining and exhibiting the exact chronological relation of every dated event recorded in the Old Testament. The object of the writer is the production of a Standard Chronology, which shall accurately represent the exact date at which each event took place, so far as this can be ascertained from the statements contained in the text itself.
No other dates are given. All merely approximate or estimated dates are omitted as inexact. All merely probable or conjectural dates, inferred from speculative reconstructions of the historical situation, and not guaranteed by the words of the text, are rejected as unverifiable. All dates certainly known, but derived from other sources - such as profane history and modern discovery are excluded from the Chapters on the Chronology of the Old Testament. They appear only in the Chapters on Comparative Chronology and in the Chronological Tables (Vol. II). The Chronology adopted in these pages is supported by Josephus, but does not lean upon him. It is, to some extent, confirmed by the results of modern discovery, as tabulated in the Guides to the Babylonian, Assyrian, and Egyptian Antiquities published by the Authorities of the British Museum, but it stands upon its own foundation, and is dependent upon none of them.
Chronology is a branch of History. As such it is governed by the laws which determine the validity of the results reached by the process of scientific investigation and historical enquiry. It is also a branch of Applied Mathematics, and Mathematics is an exact Science. In a truly scientific Chronology there is no room for any date which is not demonstrably true. This view of the limits of the subject accounts for the absence of the note of interrogation (?) after any date in the Chronological Tables, and for the somewhat dogmatic or Euclidian tone in which the conclusions reached by this method are expressed. Like Mathematics, Chronology has its axioms, its postulates, and its definitions, of which the most important and the most fundamental is the trustworthiness of the testimony of honest, capable, and contemporary witnesses, like that of the men whose testimony is preserved in the Records of the Old Testament.
CHAPTER I. - SCOPE, METHOD, STANDPOINT AND SOURCES.
THE purpose of the present work is to construct a Standard Chronology of the period covered by the writings of the Old Testament.
In addition to the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, there are many other sources affording data for the construction of a Chronology of this period, of which the principal may be classified as follows:-
1. Other Texts and Versions such as (1) the Septuagint (LXX) or Greek Version of the Old Testament, and (2) the Samaritan Pentateuch.
2. Ancient Literary Remains, such as those fragments of Sanchoniathon of Phoenicia, Berosus of Chaldea, and Manetho of Egypt, which have come down to us; the national traditions of Persian History preserved in the writings of the Persian poet, Firdusi; the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha; the works of the Jewish Historian Josephus, and the Talmudic Tract, Sedar Olam.
3. Ancient Monumental Inscriptions upon Rocks, Temples, Palaces, Cylinders, Bricks, Steles and Tablets, and writings upon Papyrus Rolls, brought to light by modern discoveries in recent times.
4. The Classic Literature of Greece and Rome.
5. Astronomical Observations and Calculations, especially eclipses of the Sun, eclipses of the Moon, and the risings of Sirius the dogstar with the Sun.
6. The works of Ancient and Modern Chronologers.
The results obtained from any one of these several sources must, if true, be consistent with the results obtained from each of the other sources.
The aim of the present work is to make an exhaustive critical examination of the data contained in the first of these several sources only, and to develop and construct therefrom a Standard Chronology of the events of the Old Testament, so far as this can be obtained from the chronological data which lie embedded in the Hebrew Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, and independently of any help which may be derived from any other source.
The results thus obtained will be compared at every stage with those obtained from the data afforded by the other sources named above, but whilst the data afforded by the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament are made the subject of an exhaustive critical examination, every step in the series being scientifically investigated and rigorously established in accordance with the recognized laws of historical evidence, the data afforded by these other sources are not thus dealt with, but are left over for investigation by other workers in these several branches of chronological enquiry and research.
The establishment of a Standard Chronology of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament is a first requisite for the correct interpretation of the results obtained from other departments of chronological study, as, without this, no true and sure comparison can be made between the dates given in the Old Testament and those obtained from other sources.
The Method adopted is that of accurate observation and scientific historical induction. Each recorded fact is accepted on the authority of the text which contains it. Each book in the Old Testament is carefully examined, and every chronological statement contained therein is carefully noted down. After thus collecting all the relevant statements of the text, and making a complete induction of all the facts, a chronological scheme is constructed, in which every dated event in the Old Testament is duly charted down in its proper place. There is no selecting of certain facts to the exclusion of certain other facts. There is no attempt to reconcile apparently discrepant statements by conjectural emendations of the text. The scheme is not bent to meet the exigencies of any particular theory, but all the statements that bear upon the subject of Chronology are brought together and interpreted in relation to each other in such a way as to form one complete harmonious table of events in which the whole of the relevant facts contained in the Old Testament are exhibited and explained in the light of the time relations which obtain between them.
An attempt is made to exhibit the results thus obtained to the eye, by means of Diagrams, Charts, Tables and other forms of graphic representation, clearness of apprehension being regarded as equally important with accuracy and precision of statement, in any adequate and satisfactory presentation of this somewhat intricate and difficult subject. In this way an endeavour is made to secure a result which shall be at once both Scriptural and scholarly, and at the same time easy to understand.
The present essay deals only with the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament in the form in which it has reached us from the hands of the Massoretes. That Text has an origin and a history, and our view of its origin may perhaps influence us in our estimate of its value and its authority. Into the question of the authorship, the date, and the composition of the various books of the Old Testament, the integrity of the Text, and the various sources from which it has been derived, the present author does not now enter. In like manner, all questions relating to the preservation and transmission of the Text are left untouched, the sole aim of the writer being to ascertain and to elicit from the Text as it stands the chronological scheme which lies embodied therein. The authenticity of the records, and the accuracy of the Text in its present state of preservation, is taken for granted. The results obtained from this study will be authoritative within the limits of the authority accorded to the text itself. The materials afforded by the Text are dealt with in accordance with the requirements of modern scientific method. Care has been taken to secure for each step in the Chronology the value of historic proof or demonstration, so that each subsequent induction may proceed upon an assured scientific foundation.
The authority to be accorded to the results obtained from the six other sources named above is that of corroborating or conflicting witnesses, not that of the verdict of a jury, and not that of the pronouncement of a Judge.
The results obtained from the testimony of these other witnesses may be compared with those obtained from the Old Testament Record, but they must not be erected into a Standard of established Truth, and used to correct the testimony of the principal witness.
(1) Other Texts and Versions.
1. The Septuagint (LXX) is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament into Hellenistic Greek. It was made at Alexandria in Egypt, a portion at a time, the Pentateuch being the portion translated first. The translation of the entire work occupied some 70 years (B.C. 250-180). It was commenced in the reign of Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, King of Egypt (B.C. 284- 247). It was translated by Alexandrian, not Palestinian Jews, and was the work of a number of independent translators, or groups of translators, separated from each other by considerable intervals of time. It was the work of a number of men who had none of that almost superstitious veneration for the letter of Scripture, which characterized the Jews of Palestine. A Palestinian Jew would never dare to add to, to take from, or to alter a single letter of the Original. The translators of the LXX, on the contrary, are notorious for their Hellenizing, or their modernizing tendencies, their desire to simplify and to clear up difficulties, their practice of altering the text in order to remove what they regarded as apparent contradictions, and, generally, their endeavour to adapt their version to the prevailing notions of the age, in such a way as to commend it to the learning and the culture of the time. Hence the centenary additions to the lives of the Patriarchs in order to bring the Chronology into closer accord with the notions of antiquity that prevailed in Egypt at that time. Like the modern critic, the LXX translator did not hesitate to "correct" the record, and to "emend" the Text, in order to make it speak what he thought it ought to say.
2. The Samaritan Pentateuch is a venerable document written in the very ancient pointed Hebrew Script, which appears to have been in use (1) in the time of the Moabite Stone which dates from the 9th Century B.C. (2) in the time of the Siloam Inscription, which dates from the 7th Century B.C., and (3) in the time of the Maccabees, i.e., in the 2nd Century B.C. The Manuscript, which is of great age, is preserved in the Sanctuary of the Samaritan Community at Nablous (Shechem). It modifies the Hebrew Text in accordance with the notions prevailing amongst the descendants of the mixed population introduced into Samaria by the Kings of Assyria, from Sargon (2 Kings 17:24) in the 8th Century B.C. to "the great and noble Asnapper" (Ezra 4:10) probably Ashurbanipal, in the 7th Century B.C. It alters "Ebal" to "Gerizim" in Deuteronomy 27:4, bears traces of a narrowing, rather than a broadening outlook, and represents the tendencies that prevailed amongst the Samaritans in the 9th to the 2nd Centuries B.C. If it is not so old as the LXX, the constructor of the Text may have had before him both the Hebrew Original and the Greek LXX Version, and may have picked his own way, selecting now from the one, and now from the other, in accordance with his own predilections and his own point of view. But it is more than probable that the Samaritan Pentateuch is much older than the LXX, and that it was translated from Hebrew into Samaritan about the time of Hezekiah in the 8th Century B.C. (See The Samaritan Pentateuch and Modern Criticism, by J. Iverach Munro,. M.A., 1911).
The tendency of the modern mind, which is imbued with Greek rather than with Hebrew ideals, is to over-estimate the authority of the LXX as compared with the Hebrew. Many scholars look upon it as a translation of a different Hebrew Text from that Preserved in our Hebrew Bibles, but the variations are all easily accounted for as adaptations of the Original Hebrew to meet the views of the Hellenized Jews of Alexandria. The differences in the order of the books, the various omissions and the many additions, show that the point of view has been changed, and though the framework and the main substance of the LXX is the same as that of the Hebrew, the modifications are sufficient to indicate that we are reading a translation of the same original produced in the new world of Greek culture rather than the translation of a different original produced in the old world of Hebrew religion. The patriarchal Chronology of the LXX can be explained from the Hebrew on the principle that the translators of the LXX desired to lengthen the Chronology and to graduate the length of the lives of those who lived after the Flood, so as to make the shortening of human life gradual and continuous, instead of sudden and abrupt. The Samaritan patriarchal Chronology can be explained from the Hebrew. The constructor of the scheme lengthens the Chronology of the Patriarchs after the Flood, and graduates the length of the lives of the patriarchs throughout the entire list, both before and after the Flood, with this curious result, that with the exception of (1)
Enoch, (2) Cainan, whose life exceeds that of his father by only five years, and (3) Reu, whose age at death is the same as that of his father, every one of the Patriarchs, from Adam to Abraham, is made to die a few years younger than his father. This explains why the Chronology of the years before the Flood is reduced by 349 years. Could anything be more manifestly artificial? The LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch may take their place in the witness box, but there is no room for them on the bench.
CHAPTER I. - SCOPE, METHOD, STANDPOINT AND SOURCES.
(2) Ancient Literary Remains.
Of ancient literary remains outside the classical literature of Greece and Rome, but little has been preserved. A collection of these, known as Cory's Ancient Fragments, was made and published by Isaac Preston Cory in 1832.
1. Sanchoniathon is said to have written a History of Phoenicia, and to have flourished in the reign of Semiramis, the Queen of Assyria, the wife of Ninus, and, with him, the mythical founder of Nineveh. She lived B.C. 2000, or according to others, B.C. 1200. Sanchoniathon was quoted by Porphyry (b. A.D. 233) the opponent of Christianity, in his attack on the writings of Moses. Porphyry says, Sanchoniathon was a contemporary of Gideon, B.C. 1339. His writings were translated into Greek by Philo Byblius in the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 76-130). Philo was a native of Byblos, a maritime city on the coast of Phoenicia. He had a considerable reputation for honesty, but some scholars believe his work to be a forgery; others believe that he was himself deceived by a forger. According to Philo Byblius, Sanchoniathon was a native of Berytus in Phoenicia. His Phoenician History may be regarded as one of the most authentic memorials of the events which took place before the Flood, to be met with in heathen literature. It begins with a legendary cosmogony. It relates how the first two mortals were begotten by the Wind (Spirit) and his wife Baau (Darkness). It refers to the Fall, the production of fire, the invention of huts and clothing, the origin of the arts of agriculture, hunting, fishing and navigation, and the beginnings of human civilization. Sanchoniathon gives a curious account of the descendants of the line of Cain. His history of the descendants of the line of Seth reads like an idolatrous version of the record in Genesis. The whole system of Sanchoniathon is a confused, unintelligible jargon, culled from (1) the mythologies of Egypt and Greece, and (2) a corrupt tradition of the narrative in Genesis. It may well have been forged by Porphyry, or by Philo Byblius, in order to prop the sinking cause of Paganism, and to retard the rapid spread of Christianity in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries of the Christian Era. Sanchoniathon is said to have written, also, a history of the Serpent, to which he attributed a Divine nature. These fragments of Sanchoniathon, or Philo Byblius, or whoever the author was, have been preserved to us in the writings of Eusebius.
2. Berosus was a Chaldean priest of Belus, at Babylon. He lived in the time of Alexander the Great (B.C. 356-323). About B.C. 268, he wrote in the Greek language a history of Babylonia from the creation, down to his own time. Only fragments of his work remain. These have been preserved to us in the pages of Apollodorus (B.C. 144), Polyhistor (B.C. 88), Abydenus (B.C. 60), Josephus (A.D. 37-103), Africanus (A.D. 220), and Eusebius (A.D. 265-340), who give varying accounts of those parts of Berosus' work which they quote. Berosus obtained the materials for his history from the archives of the temple of Belus at Babylon. His story of the creation of the world, of the ten generations before the Flood, and the ten generations after it, correspond somewhat with the Mosaic narrative in Genesis. The first man, Alorus, was a Babylonian. The tenth, Xisuthrus, corresponds to Noah, in whose reign Berosus places the great Deluge. The ten Kings before the Flood occupy a period of 120 Sari (Hebrew eser = ten, a decad) or 1,200 years, each containing 360 days, a total therefore of 432,000 days, which the Chaldeans in after years magnified into 432,000 years in order to enhance their antiquity. In the reign of the first King, Alorus, an intelligent animal called Oannes came out of the Red Sea, and appeared near Babylonia in the form of a fish with a man's head under the fish's head, and a man's feet which came out of the fish's tail. This is Berosus' account of Noah, who appears again under the name of Xisuthrus, whilst Alorus, the Nimrod of Genesis and the founder of Babylon, is placed at the top of the Dynasty of ten Kings, of which Xisuthrus, or Noah, is the tenth. Xisuthrus builds a vessel, takes into it his family, and all kinds of animals and birds, and when the waters are abated, birds are sent out from the vessel three times, quite after the manner of the Biblical Noah. Mankind starts from Armenia, and journeys toward the plain of Shinar, following the course of the Euphrates. There, Nimrod, aspiring to the universal sovereignty of the world, builds the Tower and the City of Babel. The builders are dispersed, and the Tower is destroyed. There is a reference to Abraham, and a detailed account of the reigns of the Kings of Babylon from Nabopollasar, who overthrew the Empire of Assyria, to Nebuchadnezzar and his destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem. Berosus also mentions Evil Merodachus, Neriglissoorus, Laborosoarchodus, and Nabonnedus, in the 17th year of whose reign, at the end of the Seventy Years during which Jerusalem was in a state of desolation, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army and took Babylon.
3. Manetho, of Sebennytus in Egypt, was a learned Egyptian priest. At the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus, King of Egypt (B.C. 284-247), he wrote, in the Greek language, about the year B.C. 258, a work on Egyptian Antiquities, deriving his materials from ancient records in the possession of the Egyptian priests. The work itself is lost, but portions of it are preserved in Josephus, Africanus, and Eusebius. It contains a list of the 31 dynasties of the Kings of Egypt, from Menes, the first King, with whom the civilization of Egypt takes its rise, to the conquest of Egypt by Cambyses (B.C. 529-521). Its value for historical and chronological purposes is problematical, for (1) the accounts of the work handed down to us by Africanus and Eusebius contain contradictions in almost every dynasty, (2) the lists are incomplete, and (3) we have no means of ascertaining which of the dynasties are consecutive, or successive, and which are co-existent, or contemporary.
4. The Persian Epic Poet, Firdusi (A.D. 931-1020) was born at Khorassan. He wrote the history of Persia in verse, from the earliest times down to A.D. 632. This is not Chronology. It is not even history. It is a poetic rendering of the legendary national traditions of Persia. The uncritical nature of the poet, and the unhistorical character of his work, may be gathered from the fact that the reigns of the first four Kings of the second, or Kaianian dynasty, are reckoned as follows :-
1. Kai Kobad 120 years.
2. Kai Kaoos 150
3. Kai Khoosroo 60
4. Lohrasp 120
The unique value of Firdusi's poem arises from the fact that it gathers up and preserves the national Persian tradition of the Chronology of the period between Darius Hystaspes and Alexander the Great (B.C. 485-331), just as the Talmudic Tract, Sedar Olam gathers up and preserves the national Jewish tradition of the chronology of the same period.
The Chronology of this period has never yet been accurately determined. The received Chronology, though universally accepted, is dependent on the list of the Kings, and the number of years assigned to them in Ptolemy's Canon. Ptolemy (A.D. 70-161) was a great constructive genius. He was the author of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy. He was one of the founders of the Science of Geography. But in Chronology he was only a late compiler and contriver, not an original witness, and not a contemporary historian, for he lived in the 2nd Century after Christ. He is the only authority for the Chronology of this period. He is not corroborated. He is contradicted, both by the Persian National Traditions preserved in Firdusi, by the Jewish National Traditions preserved in the Sedar Olam, and by the writings of Josephus.
It has always been held to be unsafe to differ from Ptolemy, and for this reason. His Canon, or List of Reigns, is the only thread by which the last year of Darius Hystaspes, B.C. 485, is connected with the first year of Alexander the Great, thus :-
PERSIAN KINGS AS GIVEN IN PTOLEMY'S CANON.
PERSIAN KINGS REIGNS NABONNASSARIAN ERA B.C. CONNUMERARY B.C. JULIAN
Cyrus Reigned 9 years from 210 538 538
Cambyses Reigned 8 years from 219 529 529
Darius I. Hystaspes Reigned 36 years from 227 521 521
Xerxes Reigned 21 years from 263 485 486
Artaxerxes I. Longimanus Reigned 41 years from 284 464 465
Darius II. Nothus Reigned 19 years from 325 423 424
Artaxerxes II. Mnemon Reigned 46 years from 344 404 405
Artaxerxes III. Ochus Reigned 21 years from 390 358 359
Arogus or Arses Reigned 2 years from 411 377 338
Darius III. Codomannus Reigned 4 years from 413 335 336
Alexander the Great Reigned – years from 417 331 332
[TOTAL] 207
From this 207 years of the Medo-Persian Empire, we must deduct the first two years of the Co-Rexship of Cyrus with Darius the Mede. This leaves seven years to Cyrus as sole King, the first of which, B.C. 536, is "the first year of Cyrus, King of Persia" (2 Chron. 36:22), in which he made his proclamation giving the Jews liberty to return to Jerusalem. That leaves 205 years for the duration of the Persian Empire proper.
In Ptolemy's Table of the Persian Kings, all the Julian years from Xerxes to Alexander the Great inclusive are connumerary. Therefore each requires to be raised a unit higher to give the Julian years in which their reigns began. Ptolemy reckons by the vague Egyptian year of 365 days. The Julian year is exactly 365 1/4 days. Had Ptolemy never written, profane Chronology must have remained to this day in a state of ambiguity and confusion, utterly unintelligible and useless, nor would it have been possible to have ascertained from the writings of the Greeks or from any other source, except from Scripture itself, the true connection between sacred Chronology and profane, in any one single instance, before the dissolution of the Persian Empire in the 1st year of Alexander the Great. Ptolemy had no means of accurately determining the Chronology of this period, so he made the best use of the materials he had, and contrived to make a Chronology. He was a great astronomer, a great astrologer, a great geographer, and a great constructor of synthetic systems. But he did not possess sufficient data to enable him to fill the gaps, or to fix the dates of the Chronology of this period, so he had to resort to the calculation of eclipses. In this way then, not by historical evidence or testimony, but by the method of astronomical calculation, and the conjectural identification of recorded with calculated eclipses, the Chronology of this period of the world's history has been fixed by Ptolemy, since when, through Eusebius and Jerome, it has won its way to universal acceptance. It is contradicted (1) by the national traditions of Persia, (2) by the national traditions of the Jews, (3) by the testimony of Josephus, and (4) by the conflicting evidence of such well-authenticated events as the Conference of Solon with Croesus, and the flight of Themistocles to the court of Artaxerxes Longimanus, which make the accepted Chronology impossible. But the human mind cannot rest in a state of perpetual doubt. There was this one system elaborated by Ptolemy. There was no other except that given in the prophecies of Daniel. Hence, whilst the Ptolemaic astronomy was overthrown by Copernicus in the 16th Century, the reign of the Ptolemaic Chronology remains to this day. There is one, and only one alternative. The prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27 fixes the period between the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem (in the first year of Cyrus) to the cutting off of the Messiah (in the year A.D. 30) as a period of 483 years. If this be the true Chronology of the period from the 1st year of Cyrus to the Crucifixion, it leaves only 123 years instead of the 205 given in Ptolemy's Canon, for the duration of the Persian Empire.
Daniel Ptolemy
Persian Empire (Cyrus to Alexander the Great) 123 years 205 years
Greek Empire (Alexander the Great to A.D. 1) 331 years 331 years
[TOTAL] 454 years 536 years
A.D.1 to the Crucifixion, A.D.30 29 years 29 years
[TOTAL] 483 years 565 years
a difference of 82 years.
Consequently the received or Ptolemaic Chronology, now universally accepted, must be abridged by these 82 years. The error of Ptolemy has probably been made through his having assigned too many years, and perhaps too many Kings, to the latter part of the period of the Persian Empire, in the scheme which he made out from various conflicting data.
We have to choose between the Heathen Astrologer and the Hebrew Prophet.
Other interpretations have been given of the date of "the going forth of the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem" (Dan. 9:25).
Bishop Lloyd, the author of the Bible Dates in the margin of the Authorized Version, reckons the 483 years from the leave given to Nehemiah to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem in the 20th year of Artaxerxes, whom he identifies with Artaxerxes Longimanus (Neh. 2:1), and to make the fulfilment fit the prophecy on the erroneous Ptolemaic reckoning of the Chronology he has to curtail the interval by reckoning in years of 360 days each.
Dr. Prideaux reckons the 483 years from the date of Ezra's return in the 7th year of Artaxerxes (Longimanus), Ezra 7:1-28.
Scaliger reckoned the 70 weeks of Daniel as commencing in the 4th year of Darius Nothus, B.C. 420, and ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, AD 70.
Others have reckoned the 483 years from the going forth of the commandment in the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 519) to build the Temple (Ezra 4:24, 5:1-6:15).
But the true point of departure for the 70 weeks, and therefore for the 483 years also, is unquestionably the 1st year of Cyrus (Dan. 9, 2 Chron. 36:20-23, Ezra 1:1-4, Isa. 44:28, 45:1-4,13), and no other epoch would ever have been suggested but for the fact that the count of the years was lost, and wrongly restored from Ptolemy's conjectural astronomical calculations.
It would be far better to abandon the Ptolemaic Chronology and fit the events into the 483 years of the Hebrew prophecy.
The one great fundamental fact to be remembered is the fact that modern Chronology rests upon the calculations of Ptolemy as published in his Canon or List of Reigns. And since the foundation of Greek Conjectural Computation Chronology, upon which Ptolemy's Canon rests, is unstable, the superstructure is likewise insecure. Ptolemy may be called as a witness. He cannot be allowed to arbitrate as a Judge. He cannot take the place of a Court of Final Appeal. He cannot be erected into a standard by which to correct the Chronology of the text of the Old Testament.
5. The Books of the Old Testament Apocrypha are useful as showing the interpretation put upon the books of the Old Testament in later times, but they are not authoritative. The 1st Book of Esdras is useful as showing how the writer interpreted the narrative of Ezra. Sir Isaac Newton says "I take the Book of Esdras to be the best interpreter of the Book of Ezra." The view which makes the succession of the Kings of Persia mentioned after Cyrus in Ezra 4, (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2) Ahasuerus (=Xerxes), (3) Artaxerxes (= Longimanus) is the view now held by many modern Biblical scholars.
In Esdras 3:1-2, 2:30, cp. Ezra 4:5, the Ahasuerus of Esther is identified with Darius Hystaspes. This identification is adopted by Archbishop Ussher and by Bishop Lloyd (Esther 1:1 A.V. Margin), the date there given (B.C. 521) being that of the accession of Darius Hystaspes. See Ussher's Annals, sub anno mundi 3484. Ussher identifies the Ahasuerus of Esther with the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1-Neh. 13:6, and also with Darius Hystaspes, Ezra 6:14 (translate Darius even Artaxerxes). There is every reason to believe that this double identification is correct.
The 2nd Book of Esdras is of no value for chronological purposes. In the book of Tobit, Cyaxeres the Mede, who with Nebuchadnezzar's father (also called Nebuchodonossor) took Nineveh, is identified with Ahasuerus, In Bel and the Dragon, Darius the Mede, the predecessor of Cyrus, is identified with Astyages.
There is great confusion between the use of the names Cyaxeres and Astyages. As Sir Isaac Newton says: "Herodotus hath inverted the order of the Kings Astyages and Cyaxeres, making Cyaxeres to be the son and successor of Phraortes, and the father and predecessor of Astyages, whereas according to Xenophon the order of succession of the Kings of Media is (1) Phraortes, (2) Astyages, (3) Cyaxeres, (4) Darius the Mede, after which comes (5) Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire." The testimony of these various authorities is perplexing and confusing. They must all be called as witnesses, but in no case can they be looked upon as authorities to be accepted in preference to the text of the Old Testament.
6. Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37-103), the famous historian of the Jews, was a cultured Jew, a Pharisee, and a man of good family. He went to Rome, A.D. 63, and when the Jewish war broke out he led the Jews of Galilee against the Romans. Eventually he surrendered. His life was spared, but he was put in chains for three years. He gained the favour of Vespasian, and later on that of Titus, to whom he urged his countrymen to surrender. After the fall of Jerusalem he lived as a Roman pensioner till his death, A.D. 103. His three great standard works are (1) The Antiquities of the Jews (published A.D. 93), a history of the Jewish people from the Creation to the time of Nero, without exception the most valuable record of ancient history next to that of the Old Testament, on which it is almost entirely dependent as far as the history related in the Old Testament goes. (2) The Wars of the Jews (published A.D. 75), the story of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, A.D. 70. (3) Contra Apion (written A.D. 93), an appendix to his Antiquities, and a defence of his statements in that work respecting the very great antiquity of the Jewish nation.
These three great works contain most valuable chronological materials, but the figures given are not reliable. They are not always self-consistent, in some cases they have been carelessly copied, and in others they have been "corrected" by his Hellenistic editors in order to bring them into accord with those of the LXX. Apart from this it must be admitted that Chronology was not a strong point with Josephus, and Chronology being but a secondary object with him, he was not always over careful in his calculations. His original figure for the years from Adam to the Flood was probably 1656, the same as in the Hebrew Text, but his Hellenistic editors have (1) "corrected" his ages of the Patriarchs, making the six centenary additions in accordance with the figures of the LXX, and then (2) "corrected" the total by turning the one thousand of the number 1656 into a figure 2, thus making it 2656, whereas the correct addition of the figures as altered would be 2256. For the period from Shem to Terah's 70th year the number given is 292 years, the same as the Hebrew Text, but the numbers assigned to the Patriarchs have again been "corrected" by his editors by means of the centenary additions of the LXX, and consequently when totalled up they amount to 993 instead of 292. The consequence is that the Chronology of Josephus in its present state is a mass of confusion. Nevertheless, his history is that of a historian of the first rank, and since his account of the closing years of the Persian Empire agrees with that of the National Persian Traditions incorporated in the poem of Firdusi, and that of the National Jewish Traditions preserved in the Sedar Olam, he stands as a witness against the longer Persian Chronology of Ptolemy, now universally accepted, and for the shorter Chronology of the Prophet Daniel.
Josephus' account of the monarchs of the Persian Empire is as follows:-
1. Cyrus.
2. Cambyses = Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23.
3. Darius Hystaspes. 2nd year, Temple foundation laid.
9th year, Temple finished.
4. Xerxes = Artaxerxes of Ezra 7:1-8:36
25th year, Nehemiah came to Jerusalem
28th year, Walls of Jerusalem finished.
5. Cyrus (son of Xerxes), called by the Greeks Artaxerxes, and identified with the Ahasuerus of Esther.
6. Darius the last King, a contemporary of Jaddua and Alexander the Great.
Altogether Josephus gives only six monarchs instead of Ptolemy's ten, of which six monarchs the last is contemporary with Jaddua, the son of Johannan, the son of Joiada. So that Jaddua was contemporary with Alexander the Great, and Jaddua's father (or his uncle), the son of Joiada, was contemporary with Nehemiah, who chased him (Neh. 13:28). Consequently from Nehemiah and the son of Joiada, whom he chased, to Alexander the Great, is only one generation. But Ptolemy makes it 100 years, or, if the Artaxerxes of Nehemiah is correctly identified with Darius Hystaspes, 150 years.
We may reject the Chronology of Josephus, but his succession of the High Priests, and the Kings of Persia is good evidence against the list given by Ptolemy, and in favour of the shorter Chronology of the prophet Daniel, and the Book of Nehemiah.
7. The Sedar Olam Rabbah, i.e., "The Large Chronicle of the World," commonly called the "Larger Chronicon," is a Jewish Talmudic Tract, containing the Chronology of the world as reckoned by the Jews. It treats of Scripture times, and is continued down to the reign of Hadrian (A.D. 76-138). The author is said to have been Rabbi Jose ben Chaliptha, who flourished a little after the beginning of the 2nd Century after Christ, and was Master to Rabbi Judah Hakkodesh, who composed the Mishna. Others say it dates from A.D. 832, and that it was certainly written after the Babylonian Talmud, as it contains many fables taken from thence.
The Sedar Olam Zeutah, i.e., "Small Chronicle of the World," commonly called the "Lesser Chronicle," is said to have been written A.D. 1123. It is a short chronicle of the events of history from the beginning of the world to the year A.D. 522.
Both contain the Jewish tradition respecting the duration of the Persian Empire. This tradition is that in the last year of Darius Hystaspes, the prophets Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi died, that thereon the spirit of prophecy ceased from among the Children of Israel, and that this was the obsignation or sealing up of vision and prophecy spoken of by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 9:24). The same tradition tells us that the Kingdom of the Persians ceased also the same year, for they will have it that this was the Darius whom Alexander the Great conquered, and that the whole continuance of the Persian Empire was only 52 years, which they reckon thus:-
Darius the Median reigned 1 year
Cyrus 3 years
Cambyses(whom they identify with the Ahasuerus who married Esther) 16 years
Darius (whom they will have to be the son of Esther) 32 years
Total 52 years
This last Darius, they say, was the Artaxerxes who sent Ezra and Nehemiah to Jerusalem to restore the state of the Jews, for they tell us that Artaxerxes among the Persians was the common name for their Kings, as that of Pharaoh was among the Egyptians."
Now we may say with Dr. Prideaux in his Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments, published in 1858, from which the above extract is taken, that "this shows how ill they have been acquainted with the affairs of the Persian Empire," and that "their countryman, Josephus, in the account which he gives of those times, seems to have been but very little better informed concerning them," or, we may draw the contrary conclusion, that Josephus knew the history of his own country better than Ptolemy.
How long did the Persian Empire last? We may ask the Persians themselves, and if we do they will tell us that they have no records of the period, these having been all swept away by the Greek and Mohammedan Invasions. But they have certain vague, floating, national traditions, cast into an epic poem by Firdusi, and from these we learn that the succession of the Persian Monarchs was as follows (1) Darius Hystaspes, (2) Artaxerxes Longimanus, (3) Queen Hemai the mother of Darius Nothus, (4) Darius Nothus the bastard son of Artaxerxes Longimanus, and (5) Darius, who was conquered by Alexander the Great. All the Kings between these two Dariuses they omit.
Or again we may ask the Jews, and if we do they will tell us that the Persian Empire lasted only 52 years, from the first of Cyrus to the first of Alexander the Great. We may go to Ptolemy, and if we do he will determine the length of the period and make out a list of kings for us by means of astronomical calculations and conjectural identifications of recorded with calculated eclipses, and then we shall get a Persian Empire lasting 205 years. But if we take the account given in Nehemiah, and the years specified by the prophet Daniel, we shall find that the Persian Empire continued for a period of 123 years.
The Jews shortened it to 52 years. "Some of them," says Sir Isaac Newton, "took Herod for the Messiah, and were thence called Herodians. They seem to have grounded their opinion on the 70 weeks, which they reckoned from the first year of Cyrus. But afterwards, in applying the prophecy to Theudas and Judas of Galilee, and at length to Bar Cochab, they seem to have shortened the reign of the Kingdom of Persia." This explains why the Jews underestimated the duration of the Persian Empire, and it shows that originally they reckoned about 123 years. Now,
From 1st year Cyrus, to 1st year Alexander the Great 123 years
From 1st year Alexander the Great to Herod (B.C. 331-4) 327 years
From 1st year Cyrus, to the birth of Christ 450 years
If, then, the wise men from the East had heard of Daniel's prophecy, and had kept an accurate account of the years, and if the Jews of Palestine were also expecting the Messiah at the very time when He was born (B.C. 4) on the ground that it was then within 33 years of the 483 predicted in Daniel for His appearance, and therefore now time for Him to be born, this would indicate that they reckoned the time between the 1st year of Cyrus and the birth of Christ as a period of 450 years. And since the 327 years (B.C. 331 to B.C. 4) from Alexander the Great to the birth of Christ were in all probability accurately computed by the Greeks, for they began their reckoning by Olympiads within 60 years of Alexander's death, it leaves exactly these 123 years for the duration of the Persian Empire, and abridges the accepted Ptolemaic Chronology by 82 years, for 205-123 = 82, which is the exact year expressed for these events in the Chronology of the Old Testament, as developed in these pages, for Cyrus' 1st year is shown to be the year AN. HOM. 3589, whence 3589 + 483 = 4071 (inclusive reckoning), for the Crucifixion, and as Christ was about 30 years of age when He began His ministry, and His ministry lasted three years, He was born AN. HOM. 4038, or exactly 450 years after the 1st year of Cyrus, Christ having been born four years before the commencement of the Christian Era. But 450 years before the actual date of the birth of Christ is B.C. 454. The true date of the 1st year of Cyrus is therefore B.C. 454, not B C. 536, which makes the Chronology of this period 82 years too long.
It may be objected that in the Battle of Marathon, which was fought B.C. 490, Darius Hystaspes was defeated by the Greeks, and that the Greek Chronology, which was reckoned by Olympiads from B.C. 776 onward, cannot be at fault to the extent of 82 years. But that is just the very point in dispute. The Greeks did not make a single calculation in Olympiads, nor had they any accurate chronological records till sixty years after the death of Alexander the Great. All that goes before that is guess work, and computation by generations, and other contrivances, not the testimony of contemporary records.
The Sedar Olam, therefore, may be called as a witness, and it is not to be ruled out of court by any objections raised by the Greeks, but it must be called as a witness only, not as arbitrator or Judge.
(3) Ancient Monumental Inscriptions.
Ancient Monumental Inscriptions upon rocks, temples palaces, cylinders, bricks, steles, and tablets, and writings upon papyrus rolls, brought to light by modern discovery in recent times, constitute one of the most valuable sources affording data, not for the correction of Biblical data, but for the construction of a Chronology of their own, for the period covered by the writings of the Old Testament. The witnesses are exceedingly numerous, and when they are rightly interpreted, they may be regarded as authentic, though of course errors may be graven upon the rock, or written upon ancient papyrus rolls, quite as readily as upon Hebrew manuscripts. In no case can it be allowed that recent discoveries either have made, or can make good a claim to the infallibility which modern scholarship denies to Pope and Bible alike. The Monuments themselves may, and do, sometimes err. They may, and sometimes they do, chronicle the lying vanities of ambitious tyrants. They may be incorrectly deciphered, incorrectly interpreted, or incorrectly construed, in relation to other events.
It is a matter of fundamental importance, and it cannot be too emphatically pointed out, that the interpretation at present put upon the Chronology of the monuments is predetermined by the assumption on the part of the interpreter of the validity of the accepted Ptolemaic Chronology.
Should it be proved that that Chronology is overstated by 82 years, the monuments would bear exactly the same witness to the truth of the revised Chronology as they now bear to the truth of the Ptolemaic dates. The Ptolemaic Chronology is assumed by the interpreter of the testimony of the Monuments as one of his premises. It is therefore bound to come out in his conclusion, but it is not thereby proved to be true.
An illustration will make the matter clear. The Sayce-Cowley Aramaic Papyri discovered at Assuan in 1904, and published in 1906 by Robert Mond, are dated quite confidently and quite absolutely from 471 or 470 to 411. Papyrus A bears date "the 14th (15?) year of Xerxes." This is interpreted as meaning, and is quite definitely declared to be, the year B.C. 471 or 470. Now in Ptolemy's Canon the date of Xerxes is given as the equivalent of B.C. 485. His 14th year will therefore be B.C. 471, and his 15th B.C. 470.
Again in the Drei Aramaische Papyrus Urkunden aus Elephantine' (Three Aramaic Papyrus Documents from Elephantine'), published by Prof. Sachau, of Berlin, in 1907, the date given in the original is "the month of Marcheschwan in the 17th year of Darius." This is interpreted as referring to Darius Nothus, whose date is given in Ptolemy's Canon (allowing for the fact that Ptolemy's year is one of 365 days only) as B.C. 424. His 17th year will therefore be 408 or possibly 407. With this interpretation, derived solely from Ptolemy's Canon, the document is forthwith dated B.C. 408-407.
In both cases the interpreters have assumed that the Chronology of Ptolemy's Canon is the truth, and they are ready, without more ado, to interpret or to correct the dates given in Nehemiah in the light of these "modern discoveries," For Prof. Sachan proceeds at once to draw chronological inferences from the fact that "Delajah and Schelemjah, the sons of Sanaballat, the Pekah of Samaria" are mentioned in lines 29, 30, and, in his comment on these lines, he exclaims, "Have then the Jews of Elephantine' obtained no knowledge whatever of Nehemiah and his great national work? Or had so much grass grown over the contention with Sanballat since the return of Nehemiah to Babylon somewhere about the year B.C. 433, that the Jewish community at Elephantine' believed themselves able to disregard these things?"
The assumption of the truth of Ptolemy's Canon is of course perfectly legitimate, so long as it is remembered that it is an assumption, and not a conclusion. But if any attempt is made to fix the date of Nehemiah from references to the sons of Sanballat in the Sachau documents, the argument is invalid. It moves in a circle. It first assumes the truth of the Ptolemaic, Chronology, and then uses a deduction from that assumption to prove the truth of it. It is correcting the Hebrew Text of Nehemiah by Ptolemy using the testimony of one witness (Ptolemy) to adjudicate against the testimony of the other (the Hebrew Text of Nehemiah), when the whole point at issue is which of these two witnesses is to be believed. It is not therefore correct to say that the date of Nehemiah is fixed by these modern discoveries at Assuan, apart altogether from the question raised by Prof. Margoliouth as to whether they may not be forgeries. All the facts contained in the Assuan documents can be fitted into the revised Chronology necessitated by the Hebrew Text, as easily as, if not indeed more easily than, they have been fitted into the received Chronology of Ptolemy. It is of primary importance to remember that the whole point in dispute is as to the truth of one or the other of two conflicting witnesses, the Hebrew Old Testament and Ptolemy. It is absurd to attempt to adjudicate upon the matter by first assuming the truth of one witness, and then on the basis of that assumption pronouncing judgement against the other.
Similarly the dates assigned by modern scholars to the Monuments of Egypt go back far beyond the year of the creation of Adam as fixed by the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, 4038 years before the actual birth of Christ, i.e., in the year B.C. 4042. These Monumental dates rest upon a basis of hypothesis and conjecture, and involve the assumption of the truth of the testimony of the witness Manetho. But since one witness cannot he used to correct another, Manetho and the dates derived from the assumption of the truth of his testimony cannot be used to prove the incorrectness of the chronological statements of the Old Testament.
All sources must be used, and all witnesses must be heard, but it must be remembered that the witness of the Old Testament is not confuted by an interpretation of the testimony of Monumental Inscriptions which depends for its validity on the truth of the conflicting testimony of Manetho.
Moreover the whole trend of the results of recent discovery in the realm of Biblical Archaeology has been toward the establishment of the Text of the Old Testament as an unimpeachable witness to the truth. The Stele of Khammurabi, the Tel-El-Amarna Tablets, the Moabite Stone, the Behistun Inscription, Babylonian and Assyrian and Egyptian Monumental Records, The Assyrian Eponym Canon, the discoveries of Layard, George Smith, and Sir H. Rawlinson, and all the more recent discoveries of our own time, when rightly interpreted, point in the same direction.
CHAPTER I. - SCOPE, METHOD, STANDPOINT AND SOURCES.
(4) Classic Literature of Greece and Rome.
The Classic Literature of Greece and Rome is the prime source of our information respecting the Chronology of the civilized world.
Of the principal Greek and Roman Historians, who may be regarded as authentic witnesses to the facts of contemporary history, as distinguished from mere Chronologers or Compilers of dates, whose writings stand on an entirely different footing, the following are worthy of special mention:-
I. Greek Historians.
1. Herodotus, the "Father of History" (B.C. 484-424), born at Halicarnassus, author of the world-famous "history" of the Persian War of Invasion from the first expedition of Mardonius, son-in-law and General of Darius Hystaspes, to the discomfiture of the vast fleet and army of Xerxes. Translated by George Rawlinson.
2. Thucydides (B.C. 471-401 or 396), author of the History of the Peloponnesian War, one of the greatest monuments of antiquity. Translated by Benjamin Jowett.
3. Xenophon (B.C. 430-c.357), the essayist, historian, and military leader who was appointed General of the 10,000 Greeks, who joined the expedition of the Persian Prince Cyrus the younger against his brother Artaxerxes Mnemon, and were defeated at Cunaxa (B.C. 401). Xenophon was the author of (1) the Anabasis, an account of this expedition, (2) the Cyropaedia, a historical romance of the education and training of Cyrus the Great, (3) the Hellenica, a history of contemporary events in Greece, and (4) the Memorabilia or Reminiscences of Socrates.
4. Polybius (B.C. 204-122), one of the 1,000 hostages carried off by the Romans after the Conquest of Macedonia, B.C. 168. He became acquainted with Scipio Africanus, and wrote a history of Greece and Rome for the period (B.C. 220-146).
5. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (B.C. 70-6), essayist, critic and historian. He lived at Rome for 20 years (B.C. 30-10), where he amassed materials for his Romaike Archaiologia, a history of Rome from the early times down to the first Punic War.
6. Strabo (B.C. 63-A.D. 21), the world-famous geographer, born at Amasia in Pontus, Asia Minor. He was educated at Rome. He travelled from Armenia to Etruria, and from the shores of the Euxine to the borders of Ethiopia. The fourth book of his celebrated Geography is devoted to Gaul, Britain and Ireland. He also wrote Historical Memoirs and a Continuation of Polybius, but these are both lost.
7. Diodorus Siculus (fl. A.D. 8), a native of Sicily. Hence his name Siculus. A historian of the time of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He travelled widely in Asia and Europe, and devoted 30 years to the writing of a Universal History of the World down to Caesar's Gallic Wars. Only 15 of his 40 books, with some fragments, have survived.
8. Plutarch (A.D. 50-120), the most attractive and the most widely read of all the Greek writers. He lectured at Rome during the reign of Domitian. His famous Parallel Lives of Greek and Roman Writers, 46 in all, are universally known and admired. His essays and his biographies breathe a fine moral tone. They inspired some of Shakespeare's greatest plays, and much of the noblest literature of modern times.
9. Arrian (2nd Century A.D.), served in the Roman army under Hadrian, and was Prefect of Cappadocia, A.D. 135. He sat at the feet of Epictetus, and composed a treatise on moral philosophy. His most important works are (1) his History of Alexander the Great, (2) an account of India, and (3) a description of the coasts of the Euxine. He also wrote on military subjects and on the chase.
10. Lucian (A.D. 120-200), a humorous writer, born at Samosata on the Euphrates, in Syria. He practised as an advocate at Antioch, travelled through Greece, Italy and Gaul, and was appointed Procurator of part of Greece. He ridicules the religion and the philosophy of the age, and gives a graphic account of contemporary social life. He wrote the Dialogues of the Gods, the Sale of Philosophers, Timon, and other works. His famous Dialogues of the Dead are intended to show the emptiness of all that seems most precious to mankind.
11. Dion Cassius (b. A.D. 155), the "last of the old historians " who knew the laws of historic writing. He was born at Nicea, and was the son of a Roman Senator, but his mother was a Greek. Dion Cassius himself became a Roman Senator, and was appointed Governor of Pergamos and Smyrna. He composed a history of Rome from the time of Aeneas to his own day.
12. Appian (2nd Century A.D.), a Greek of Alexandria. He wrote in Greek a valuable history of Rome. He was contemporary with Trajan, Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. He deals with the history of each of the nations that was conquered by Rome, and of the civil war which preceded the downfall of the Republic. He preserves the statements of earlier authors whose works are now lost.
II. Roman Historians.
1. Cicero (B.C. 106-43), orator, statesman, philosopher, and man of letters. He was Consul, B.C. 63. He foiled the Catiline conspiracy. He was exiled and recalled. He supported Pompey against Caesar. After the overthrow of Pompey, Caesar received him as a friend. He then lived in literary retirement and wrote his great works. After Caesar's death he delivered his philippics against Antony, and was proscribed and put to death by Antony's soldiers. His De Amicitia, De Officiis, and De Senectute awaken thought and form pleasant reading.
2. Julius Caesar (B.C. 100-44), general, triumvir, dictator, and man of letters. In nine years (B.C. 58-49) he proved his great military genius by subduing Gaul, Germany, Britain, and most of Western Europe to the Roman yoke. In B.C. 55 and again in B.C. 52 he invaded Britain, from which he retired, virtually discomfited. Caesar espoused the cause of Democracy, Pompey that of Aristocracy. In January, B.C. 49, Caesar crossed the Rubicon. He drove Pompey out of Italy, and in B.C. 48 he defeated him at Pharsalia, and was appointed dictator. Coins were struck bearing his effigy, and the title Imperator was made a permanent addition to his name. With the assistance of the Greek Astronomer Sosigenes, he reformed the Calendar, and introduced the Julian year, which began on January 1st (A.U.C. 709 = B.C. 45), the first year of the Julian Era. The Julian year consisted of exactly 365 1/4 days; the first three years contained 365 days, and another day, making 366, was added for every fourth year. The Julian year remained in use till December 22nd, 1582, when the year was again reformed by Pope Gregory XIII, assisted by the mathematician Clavius, and for the Roman World that day became January 1st, 1583. The Gregorian year was not introduced into England till September 3rd, 1752, which day became September 14th by Act of Parliament. The Gregorian year drops the additional leap year day every century (A.D. 1700, 1800, 1900, etc.), except when it is divisible by four (A.D. 2000). Julius Caesar was about to embark on a great career of statesmanlike economic and political reorganization when he was assassinated by Brutus on the Ides of March, A.U.C. 710 = B.C. 44.
3. Sallust (B.C. 86-34), a member of the Roman Senate. Expelled for immorality. An adherent of Julius Caesar. Appointed Governor of Numidia. He wrote the history of the Catiline Conspiracy, and the War with Jugurtha.
4. Livy (B.C. 59-A.D. 17), lived at Rome at the Court of his patron and friend Augustus. He wrote 142 hooks of Annales, a history of Rome, of which, however, only 35 remain.
5. Cornelius Nepos (1st Century B.C.), a native of Verona, and a friend of Cicero. He wrote De Viris Illustribus. Only a fragment of it remains, and the authorship of this is disputed.
6. Tacitus (A.D. 54-117), an eminent Roman historian. Appointed quaestor, tribune, praetor, and consul suffectus. His De Situ Moribus et Populis Germaniae is our earliest source of information respecting the Teutons. His Historiae, covering the period A.D. 68-96, and his Annales covering the period A.D. 14-68, are historic works of first rate importance. They give a terrible picture of the decay of imperial Rome.
7. Suetonius (born c. A.D. 70), a Roman advocate, and private secretary to the Emperor Hadrian. His Lives of the Twelve Caesars is valuable for its anecdotes, which illustrate the character of the Emperors.
It is through the Greeks that we have received our knowledge of the history of the great Empires and civilizations of the East. Even Sanchoniathon and Berosus and Manetho, have all come to us through the Greeks. It was the Greeks who created the framework of the Chronology of the civilized ages of the past, and fitted into it all the facts of history, which have reached us through them. Apart from the Bible, the vague floating national traditions of the Persians and the later Jews, and the direct results of modern exploration, all our chronological knowledge reaches us through Greek spectacles. Here as everywhere else it is "thy sons O Zion against thy sons, O Greece" (Zech. 9:13). It is Nehemiah and Daniel against Ptolemy and Eratosthenes. It is Hebraic Chronology against Hellenic Chronology. And here the Greek has stolen a march upon the Hebrew, for he has stolen his Old Testament and forced his own Greek Chronology into the Hebrew record, Hellenizing the ages of the Hebrew Patriarchs in the Greek LXX.
Are we then to accept the testimony of the Greek as correcting or antiquating the testimony of the Hebrew? By no means. Let the Greek be heard as a witness, but let him not presume to pronounce sentence as a Judge. Clinton's Fasti Hellenici is perhaps the most valuable treatise on Chronology ever produced. But it is not infallible. Clinton's standard is Ptolemy's Canon; Sayce's standard is the Monuments. But neither of these sources is competent to correct the Hebrew Old Testament, which must be placed in the witness-box alongside of them, not in the dock, to be sentenced by them.
To begin at the beginning, the point of departure for Greek Chronology, the 1st Olympiad, B.C. 776, upon which everything else depends, rests upon no firmer foundation than that of tradition and computation by Conjecture.
The opening sentence of Clinton's Tables reveals the basis upon which he builds. He says: "The first Olympiad is placed by Censorinus in the 1014th year before the Consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, A.D. 238 = B.C. 776. Solinus attests that the 207th Olympiad fell within the Consulship of Gallus and Verannius. These were Consuls A.D. 49, and if the 207th Games were celebrated in July, A.D. 49, 206 Olympiads, or 824 years had elapsed, and the first games were celebrated in July 776."
But Censorinus wrote his De Die Natali, A.D. 238, and Solinus also belongs to the 3rd Century A.D. They are not, therefore, contemporary witnesses and we do not know how far their computations were derived from hypothesis and conjecture, or how far they rest upon a basis of objective fact. Nevertheless, this point has been made the first link in the chain of the centuries, a chain flung out to float in the air, or attached, not to the solid staple of fixed fact, but only to the rotten ring of computation and conjecture. The Canon of Ptolemy rests upon this calculation. Eusebius (A.D. 264-349) adopted it, and set the example of making Scripture dates fit into the years of the Greek Era. Eusebius is based upon Manetho (3rd Century B.C.), Berosus (3rd Century B.C.), Abydenus (2nd Century B.C.), Polyhistor (1st Century B.C.), Josephus (A.D. 37-103), Cephalion (1st Century A.D.), Africanus (3rd Century B.C.), and other sources now lost. Eusebius' Chronology was contained in his "Chronicon." This was translated by Jerome, and has been followed by all subsequent writers down to the present day.
The one infallible connecting link between sacred and profane Chronology is given in Jeremiah 25:1. "The fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar." If the events of history had been numbered forward from this point to the birth of Christ, or back from Christ to it, we should have had a perfectly complete and satisfactory Chronology. But they were not. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar and the birth of Christ was not known. It has been fixed by conjecture, with the assistance of Ptolemy. Clinton fixes it at B.C. 606, Sayce at B.C. 604, and from this date, thus fixed, Chronologers reckon back to Adam and on to Christ. The distance between the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar and the birth of Christ has not been measured by the annals or chronicles of any well-attested dated events. It was originally fixed by Ptolemy, by means of computation and conjecture, and recorded events have been fitted into the interval by computing Chronologers as far as the fictitious framework would allow.
The opening sentence of Sir Isaac Newton's Introduction to his Short Chronicle from the first memory of things in Europe to the Conquest of Persia by Alexander the Great, shows how entirely fluid and indeterminate were those first years of Grecian history.
"The Greek Antiquities," says Newton, "are full of poetic fictions, because the Greeks wrote nothing in prose before the conquest of Asia by Cyrus the Persian."
The uncertainty as to the epoch of the foundation of Rome and the Era which dates from that event, is just as great as the uncertainty as to the beginnings of the history of Greece. The following is a list of the dates that have been sanctioned by various writers:-
B.C.
Varro, Tacitus, Plutarch, Dion, Aulus Gellius, Censorinus, etc. 753
Cato, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Solinus, Eusebius, etc. 752
Livy, Cicero, Pliny and Velleius Paterculus 753 or 752
Polybius 751
Fabius Pictor and Diodorus Siculus 747
L. Cincius 728
A margin of 25 years.
These uncertainties in Greek and Roman Chronology, and the late and purely conjectural character of the foundation upon which they rest, show how impossible it is for us to erect the Chronology of the classic literature of Greece and Rome into a standard by which to correct the Chronology of the Hebrew Old Testament.
Nearly all the great Empires of the East seem to have thrown the origin of their dated history back into the 8th Century.
B.C.
Babylon (Nabonassarean Era) 747
Greece (1st Olympiad) 776
Rome (Foundation of the City) 753
Lydia 716
China 781
Media 711
It may be of interest to add the following remarks respecting the origin of the Vulgar Christian Era:-
It was not until the year A.D. 532 that the Christian Era was invented by Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian by birth, and a Roman Abbot. He flourished in the reign of Justinian (A.D. 527-565). He was unwilling to connect his cycles of dates with the era of the impious tyrant and persecutor Diocletian, which began with the year A.D. 284, but chose rather to date the times of the years from the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ "to the end that the commencement of our hope might be better known to us and that the cause of man's restoration, namely, our Redeemer's passion, might appear with clearer evidence." The year following that in which Dionysius Exiguus wrote these words to Bishop Petronius was the year 248 of the Diocletian Era. Hence the new Era of the Incarnation as it was then reckoned was 284 + 248 = A.D. 532. Dionysius abhorred the memory of Diocletian with good reason, for in the 1st year of his reign, from which the Diocletian Era begins, he caused a number of Christians who were celebrating Holy Communion in a cave to be buried alive there. The Diocletian Era was, from this fact, sometimes called the Era of the Martyrs.
Dionysius reckoned the year of our Lord's birth to be the year A.U.C. 753, according to Varro's computation, i.e., the year 45 of the Julian Era. Dionysius obtained this date from Luke's statements that "John the Baptist began his ministry in the 15th year of the reign of Tiberius," and that "Jesus was beginning to be about 30 years of age" (Luke 3:1-23). Tiberius succeeded Augustus, August 19th, A.U.C. 767. Therefore his 15th year was A.U.C. 782. Subtract the assumed year of the Nativity, 753, and the remainder is 29 years complete, or 30 current.
But according to Matthew, Christ was born before the death of Herod, that is, according to the computation of the Chronologers, before 749. Hence the year of the Incarnation, the year A.D. 1, was fixed four years too late, and to remedy this we have to express the true date of our Lord's birth by saying that He was born B.C. 4. It was subsequently discovered that the source of the error lay, not with the Evangelists, Matthew or Luke, but in the fact that Tiberius began to reign as colleague or partner with Augustus some years before Augustus died, and that the length of his reign after Augustus' death was not 26 years, but 22. In this way the difficulties were cleared up. The Era of the Incarnation was allowed to remain and the birth of Christ was set down as having occurred in the year B.C. 4.
(5) Astronomical Observations and Calculations.
Astronomical Observations and Calculations are regarded by many Chronologers as the surest and most unerring data for fixing the dates of various events. Eclipses can be calculated both backward and forward. They are distinguished from each other by the time when, and the place where, they can be seen, the duration of the eclipse, and the quantity or number of digits eclipsed. They have therefore been regarded as a means of correcting and determining the dates of the events at which they have occurred, and the results thus obtained have been invested with a kind of quasi-infallibility. The date of our Lord's birth is fixed by means of an eclipse of the moon recorded by Josephus as having occurred shortly before Herod's death.
Tables of eclipses have been furnished by Chronologers and Astronomers from B.C. 753 to A.D. 70, and a list of 44 of the most remarkable of these (25 eclipses of the sun, and 19 eclipses of the moon) is given in Hales' New Analysis of Chronology. The most celebrated of these eclipses is that known as the "Eclipse of Thales," from the fact that Thales foretold the year in - which it would happen. It has been used by Chronologers to adjust the various Eras and the Chronologies of Assyria, Babylon, Media, Lydia, Scythia and Greece. But it has proved an apple of discord. Five several eclipses, occurring at as many different dates, have been identified by different astronomers as the one in question. The eclipse is described by Herodotus as occurring in the sixth year of the war between the Medes and the Lydians, on the river Halys, when during an obstinate battle the day suddenly became night. Both armies ceased fighting, a treaty of peace was arranged, and confirmed by a marriage compact.
This "Eclipse of Thales" thus described by Herodotus has been identified with the following five distinct astronomically calculated eclipses of the sun
(1) On July 30, B.C. 607 By Calvisius.
(2) On May 17, B.C. 603 By Costard, Montucla and Kennedy.
(3) On Sept 19, B.C. 601 By Ussher.
(4) On July 9, B.C. 597 By Petavius, Marsham, Bouhier and Larcher.
(5) On May 28, B.C. 585 By Pliny, Scaliger, Newton, Ferguson, Vignoles and Jackson.
It will be seen from the above that there are many sources of error which must be allowed for, before attaching to the chronological result arrived at the infallibility which belongs to a mathematical calculation.
There may be errors of observation on the part of the historian, errors of calculation on the part of the astronomer, and errors of identification on the part of the Chronologer, who may wrongly conclude that the dated eclipse calculated by the astronomer is one and the same with the eclipse described by the historian. The mistake of investing these astronomically determined chronological dates with the infallibility of a mathematical calculation, is that of assuming that the strength of the chain is that of its strongest link, instead of that of its weakest link. The astronomical calculations may be infallibly correct, and demonstrably accurate to the tick of the clock, but that only fixes the infallibility of one link in the chain, the strength and security of which cannot be transferred to the other links, or to the result as a whole. We cannot, therefore, obtain from Astronomical Observations and Calculations the material we need to enable us to use them as a standard by which to test the truth of the Chronological Statements of the Old Testament. Like the testimony of the Monuments, and all the other witnesses, the testimony of Astronomy must be heard and adjudged upon; it must not presume to adjudge upon the testimony of other witnesses.
CHAPTER I. - SCOPE, METHOD, STANDPOINT AND SOURCES.
ANCIENT AND MODERN CHRONOLOGERS
The works of ancient and modern Chronologers are of great help in enabling us to correlate the testimony derived from all the various sources from which evidence can be secured.
But Chronologers are not infallible; sometimes they arrive at differing and contradictory conclusions, sometimes they follow each other like a flock of sheep, each adopting the conclusions reached by his predecessor; sometimes they are dominated by a scheme or plan into which they endeavour to fit the facts, and in this endeavour the facts are sometimes distorted. The millenary schemes of Ussher (that prince of Chronologers), and of the early Christian fathers, the septenary scheme of R. G. Faussett, developed in his most excellent and valuable work on the Symmetry of Time, the hypothetical Chronology of modern Assyriologists and Egyptologists, constructed in such a way that it can be made to fit in with their interpretation of the testimony of the Monuments, the determination of dates by Ptolemy's method of fitting the facts into his scheme of calculated eclipses, are all instances of the danger of bending the facts in order to make them fit the theory of the constructor. The only safe and true method of Chronology is to take into consideration the whole of the facts, weigh them one and all as evidence is weighed in a Court of Law, and to draw only such conclusions as may be warranted by the laws of evidence or testimony, or historic proof.
A brief notice of the principal works of some of the more important Chronologers will serve as a fitting introduction to our own investigations. They may be classified as follows:- (1) Early Greek and Latin Chronologers, (2) Early Christian Chronologers, (3) Byzantine Chronologers, (4) The Great Armenian Chronologer, Abul-Faragus, (5) Modern Chronologers.
I. Early Greek and Latin Chronologers, from the 5th Century B.C. to the Christian Era.
1. Hellanicus (b. B.C. 496), a Greek logographer. He drew up a chronological list of the priestesses of Juno at Argos. He constructed his Chronology on the principle of allowing so many years to each priestess, or so many priestesses to a century.
2. Ephorus (4th Century B.C.), was a disciple of Isocrates (B.C. 436- 338). He was the first Greek who attempted the composition of a universal history. He begins with the return of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus (B.C. 1103) and ends with the 20th year of Philip of Macedon, the father of Alexander the Great.
3. Timaeus Siculus (B.C. 260) wrote a history of Sicily, his native country. He was the first to use the Greek Olympiads as the basis of Chronology. As he wrote in the 129th Olympiad, B.C. 260, the preceding 128 Olympiads are not contemporary chronicles, but chronological computations. Timaeus instituted a comparison between the number of successive Ephors and Kings at Sparta, Archons at Athens, and Priestesses at Argos, arranging them into his chronological scheme of Olympiads. He brought the history down to his own time, and where he left off Polybius (B.C. 204-122) began.
4. Eratosthenes (b. B.C. 276) has been called the "Father of Chronology," and it is worth noting that his method was the method of conjecture, not the method of testimony. He was a native of Cyrene, a man of letters under the Ptolemies of Egypt, and keeper of the famous library at Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy IV. Euergetes (B.C. 246-221). He discovered the obliquity of the ecliptic, and wrote some important works on mathematical geography and on the constellations. He made the first scientific measurement of the earth, but his result was one sixth too large. He made the parallel of Rhodes, in ancient astronomy what the meridian of Greenwich is to us. His Chronographia is an exact scheme of general Chronology. He wrote about 100 years after Alexander the Great, and arrived at his chronological conclusions by reckoning about 30 or 40 years to each generation or succession of Kings, Ephors or Priestesses, and thus greatly exaggerated the antiquity of the events of Greek history.
5. Apollodorus (2nd Century B.C.) followed the lines laid down by Eratosthenes. He wrote a metrical chronicle of events from the fall of Troy to his own day.
6. Ptolemy, the author of Ptolemy's Canon (or Claudius Ptolemaeus to give him his full name), deserves a more extended notice. He was the originator of the Ptolemaic System of Astronomy, so called because it was collected from his works. The main idea of this system or theory of the Universe was that the earth was stationary, and that all the heavenly bodies rotated round it in circles at a uniform rate. It was displaced by the Copernican system in the 16th Century.
Ptolemy flourished in Egypt in the 2nd Century A.D., during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. He was an astronomer and a geographer. His Geographia, a work in eight books, was illustrated by a map of the world, and 26 other maps. He was the first to attempt to reduce the study of geography to a scientific basis. He took Ferro in the Canaries as the westernmost part of the world, placed it nearly 7 degrees too far east, and calculated his longitudes from it, whilst his latitudes were reckoned from Rhodes.
Ptolemy was born at Pelusium in Egypt. The date of his birth is generally given as A.D. 70, and he survived Antoninus Pius, who died A.D. 161. This would make him 91 years of age. But the Arabians say he died at the age of 78, in which case he must have been born later than A.D. 70. He recorded observations at Alexandria between A.D. 125 and 140. The authentic details of the circumstances of his life are extremely few. The following particulars are gleaned from Ptolemy's Tebrabiblos or Quadripartite, being four books on the influence of the Stars, by J. M. Ashmand (pubd. 1822). Ptolemy was looked upon by the Greeks as being a man most wise and most divine on account of his great learning. He was a man of truly regal mind. He corrected Hipparchus' Catalogue of the fixed stars, and formed tables for the calculation and regulation of the motions of the sun. moon and planets. He collected the scattered and detached observations of Aristotle, Hipparchus, Posidonius and others on the economy of the world, and digested them into a system which he set forth in his Megaly Suntaxis, the Great System, or Great Construction, a work divided into thirteen books, and called after him the Ptolemaic system. All his astronomical works are founded on the hypothesis that the earth is at rest in the centre of the universe. Round the earth the heavenly bodies, stars and planets move in solid orbs, whose motions are all directed by one primum mobile, or first mover, of which he discourses at large in the Great System. He also treats in the same work of the motions of the sun, moon and planets, gives tables for finding their situations, latitude, longitude, and motions. He treats of eclipses, and the method of computing them. He discourses of the fixed stars, of which he furnishes a catalogue with their magnitudes, latitudes, and longitudes.
Ptolemy's Order, false as it was, enabled observers to give a plausible account of the motions of the sun and moon, to foretell eclipses, and to improve geography. It represented the actual phenomena of the heavens, as they really appear to a spectator on the earth.
In the year A.D. 827, the Great System was translated by the Arabians into their own language, and by them its contents were made known to Europe. Through them it came to be known as the "Al Magest" (The Great Work). In Latin it became "Magna Constructio" and in English "The Great System," "The Ptolemaic System," or "The Great Construction."
Ptolemy was not so much an author as a practical astronomer. His Geographia is not a treatise on Geography, but an exposition of principles and directions for the construction of a map. Ptolemy's Canon is simply a Canon or List of Kings, with the years of their reigns. It is not accompanied by any explanatory treatise. It is generally regarded as the most precious Monument of ancient Chronology. In it he uses the Egyptian Vague or Calendar year, of exactly 365 days. By this means, his New Year's Day works back, and occurs one day earlier every four years, and the year B.C. 521 (the Julian year of 365 1/4 days) contained the New Year's Day of two of the Egyptian Vague, or Calendar years of Ptolemy's Canon, one on January 1st, and the other on December 31st. They are the years 227 and 228 of Ptolemy's Nabonassarean Era. Ptolemy gives to each king the whole of the year in which his predecessor dies. This year is his first year. Cyrus died, and Cambyses began to reign in the year B.C. 529. But the whole of that year is given to Cambyses and is reckoned as his first year. In the same way Ptolemy took no account of the short reigns of less than a year. These odd months were included in the year of the preceding or the following king.
Ptolemy terminates his Canon at the reign of Antoninus Pius, in which he lived. It was continued by Theon, his successor in the chair of astronomy in Alexandria, and later on by other writers. Ptolemy's fixed point of departure is the New Moon on the 1st day of the 1st month (Thoth) of the first year of the Era of Nabonassar.
In view of the incomparable importance of Ptolemy's Canon as the basis upon which alone the determination of the date of the commencement of our own universally accepted Vulgar Era, the Common Christian Era, depends, the list is here reproduced entire. It is taken from the British Museum Copy of the Tables Chronologiques des Regnes de C. Ptolemaeus, Theon, etc., par M. L'Abbe' Halma (published in Paris, 1819).
PTOLEMY'S CANON.
Table of Reigns.
YEARS OF THE REIGNS BEFORE ALEXANDER INCLUDING HIS OWN.
KING YEARS OF REIGN ACCUMULATION
Nabonassar 14 14
Nadius 2 16
Chinzar and Poros 5 21
Iloulaius 5 26
Mardocempad 12 38
Arcean 5 43
First Interregnum 2 45
Bilib 3 48
Aparanad 6 54
Rhegebel 1 55
Mesesimordae 4 59
Second Interregnum 8 67
Asaridin 13 80
Saosdouchin 20 100
Cinilanadan 22 122
Nabopollassar 21 143
Nabocolassar 43 186
Iloaroudam 2 188
Nericasolassar 4 192
Nabonad 17 209
PERSIAN KINGS REIGN ACCUMULATION
Cyrus 9 218
Cambyses 8 226
Darius I 36 262
Xerxes 21 283
Artaxerxes I 41 324
Darius II 19 343
Artaxerxes II 46 389
Ochus 21 410
Arogus 2 412
Darius III 4 416
Alexander of Macedon 8 424
YEARS OF THE MACEDONIAN KINGS AFTER ALEXANDER'S DEATH.
KING REIGN ACCUMULATION
Philip 7 7
Alexander II 12 19
Ptolemy Lagus 20 39
Ptolemy Philadelphus 38 77
Ptolemy Euergetes 25 102
Ptolemy Philopator 17 119
Ptolemy Epiphanes 24 143
Ptolemy Philometor 35 178
Ptolemy Euergetes 29 207
Ptolemy Soter 36 243
Dionysius the Younger 29 272
Cleopatra 22 294
ROMAN EMPERORS.
EMPEROR REIGN ACCUMULATION
Augustus 43 337
Tiberius 22 359
Caius 4 363
Claudius 14 377
Nero 14 391
Vespasian 10 401
Titus 3 404
Domitian 15 419
Nerva 1 420
Trajan 19 439
Adrian 21 460
Aelius Antoninus 23 483
The following is the list of Ptolemy's works:-
1. Hee Megalee Suntaxis = Magna Constructio = Almagest = The Great System of Astronomy. This was his great masterpiece. It is a treatise on Astronomy, containing all the principles of the Ptolemaic system.
2. Tetrabiblos = Quadripartite. A treatise in four books on the influence of the stars. A thoroughly pagan treatise on Astrology.
3. Karpos or Centiloquy, or Book of a hundred aphorisms; a fifth book Containing the fruit of the former four, and a kind of supplement to them. As an example of the aphorisms, we may quote the following, "Love and hatred lessen the most important, as they magnify the most trivial things."
4. A Treatise on the Signification of the Fixed Stars. A daily calendar of the risings and settings of the stars, and the weather produced thereby.
5. The Geographia.
6. The Canon or Table of Reigns given above.
Ptolemy's Canon is described in the article on "Chronology," in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, as "the only authentic source of the history of Assyria and Babylonia before the recent discoveries at Nineveh." This expresses the view now held by most modern scholars, but we must not overlook the fact that the authenticity here ascribed to it belongs equally to the Biblical Record. It is frequently said that the Assyrian List of Eponyms confirms the Assyrian part of the Canon of Ptolemy, and that this ought to give us confidence in the rest of the Canon. True, but wherever the Assyrian List of Eponyms confirms the Assyrian part of the Canon of Ptolemy, it confirms also the Assyrian part of the Biblical Record of the Old Testament. It is strange that scholars do not see this. Still more strange that since the Canon of Ptolemy agrees with the Assyrian Eponym list in those parts in which the Biblical Record also agrees with it, they should regard this as proof of the authenticity of the Canon of Ptolemy, but not as proof of the authenticity of the Biblical Record, which they immediately proceed to correct by the Canon of Ptolemy, in those later parts, in which there is no Assyrian Record, and by the Assyrian Eponym List, in those earlier parts of which there is no record in the Canon of Ptolemy. If agreement with the Assyrian Records authenticates Ptolemy's Canon it authenticates the Biblical Record also. The three records are in agreement wherever they all meet together. The Biblical Record does not positively disagree with the Assyrian Record, but there is a period for which there are no Assyrian Records, for the contemporary Assyrian records, from the 14th year of Amaziah (B.C. 833) to the 35th of Uzziah (B.C. 772), are a blank. According to Willis J. Beecher this is a period of 61 years, during which the only Assyrian Records are those of the 10 years' reign of Shalmanezer III (IV), a net blank of 51 years between the two Assyrian Kings, Ramman-nirari III and Asshur-daan III. The Assyrian Records omit these 51 years, consequently we must either omit 51 years of the history contained in the Biblical Record, or else add 51 years to the Assyrian Record, for the events of the Biblical and the Assyrian Records synchronize both before and after.
As Ptolemy's Canon does not begin till B.C. 747, or 25 years after the close of this period of 51 years, it is illegitimate to say that the agreement between the Assyrian Eponym Canon and Ptolemy's Canon at a later period must lead us to pass sentence in favour of the Assyrian Records and against the Biblical Records, at an earlier period, for at that later period there is the same agreement between the Assyrian Eponym Canon and the Biblical Records that there is between the Assyrian Eponym Canon and Ptolemy's Canon.
The real explanation of the difference between the Assyrian Records and the Biblical Records is probably this: Assyria was overtaken by some disaster, and the 51 names were either lost by accident, or destroyed by design. The longer Chronology of the Biblical Records is supported (1) by the Biblical accounts of the events which took place during these 51 years, (2) by the long numbers given in Josephus, (3) by the synchronism of the Egyptian date of the Invasion of Shishak, in Rehoboam's time, with the Biblical date B.C. 978, and not with the Assyrian date B.C. 927, and (4) by the explanation given by Georgius Syncellus (c. A.D. 800), in his Historia Chronographia, of the reason why Ptolemy commenced his Canon in the year B.C. 747, and did not include in it the earlier period in which the discrepancy of 51 years occurs, viz., that the Assyrian Records for that period had been tampered with. He says "Nabonassar, King of Babylon, having collected the acts of his predecessors, destroyed them in order that the computation of the reigns of the Assyrian Kings might be made from himself." It is most probable that Assyria was overtaken by some unknown disaster just after the time of the powerful monarch Ramman-nirari III, at the beginning of the blank period of 51 years. For in his time we find the Assyrians taking tribute from the whole region of the Mediterranean, Judah alone excepted, whilst at the end of the blank period, in the reign of Asshur-daan III, we find that their power over this region had been lost, and that they were now engaged in a desperate struggle to regain it.
The fact is (1) the Biblical, the Assyrian and the Ptolemaic Records are all agreed with regard to a certain central period; (2) the Biblical and the Assyrian Records do not agree at an earlier period unless we admit a break of 51 years, but there the Ptolemaic Record has not begun. On the other hand (3) the Biblical Record (as interpreted by the present writer) and the Ptolemaic Record do not agree with regard to a later period, but there the Assyrian Record has ceased. Any conclusion drawn from these premises to the effect that since the chronological data of Ptolemy are confirmed by the Assyrian Chronology our verdict must be pronounced against the Scriptural System, is absolutely unwarranted. The authenticity of the Canon of Ptolemy is established, by its agreement with the Assyrian Eponym Canon, just so far as the authenticity of the Biblical Record is established by its agreement with the Assyrian Eponym Canon, but no further. The point in dispute between Ptolemy's Canon and the Biblical Record lies, not in the Assyrian but in the Persian Period.
One other fact must be borne in mind. Ptolemy is not like the Greek and Latin historians, such as Herodotus and Tacitus, bearing witness to the truth of contemporary events. He belongs to the 2nd Century A.D., and the point in dispute refers to his figures for the period of the Persian Empire some 500 years before. He writes no history. He merely gives a list of names and figures. He is not a historian vouching for the truth of facts of which he has personal knowledge, but the contriver of a scheme filling up gaps in the history he has received, and dating events by means of astronomical computations. Such testimony cannot for one moment be compared with the continuous records of contemporary witnesses like Ezra, Nehemiah and Daniel.
To the list of these six early Greek authors must be added the name of the Latin writer Censorinus.
7. Censorinus (A.D. 238) wrote his work De die Natali in the year A.D. 238. Like Ptolemy he was a compiler of dates and a calculator of Eras. He fixed the date of the last Sothic period before his own time, as that covered by the years B.C. 1321 - A.D. 139. This calculation is used by Egyptologers in dating the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The passage is one of first rate importance. It is therefore given in full. Censorinus says:-
"The Egyptians in the formation of their great year had no regard to the moon. In Greece the Egyptian year is called 'cynical' (doglike), in Latin 'canicular' because it commences with the rising of the Canicular or dogstar (Sirius), to which is fixed the first day of the month which the Egyptians call Thoth. Their civil year had but 365 days without any intercalation. Thus with the Egyptians the space of four years is shorter by one day than the space of four natural years, and a complete synchronism is only established at the end of 1461 years" (Chapter XVIII).
"But of these Eras the beginnings always take place on the first day of the month which is called Thoth among the Egyptians, a day which this present year (A.D. 238) corresponds to the VIIth day of the Kalends of July (June 25), whilst 100 years ago this same day corresponded to the XIIth day of the Kalends of August (July 21) at which time the dogstar is wont to rise in Egypt" (Chapter XXI).
This information is used by Egyptologers in translating the Egyptian Vague year of 365 days into the Julian year of 365 1/4 days. Taking together the somewhat doubtful testimony of Manetho and the calculations of modern Astronomers, based on the information given by Censorinus, they are able to arrive at a date for the reign of Merenptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus. But the validity of the result obtained is dependent upon the truth of a considerable number of assumptions, and cannot be regarded as anything but hypothetical or tentative.
Another calculation by Censorinus of still more fundamental importance is his determination of the date of the 1st Olympiad. This he places in the 1014th year before the consulship of Ulpius and Pontianus, A.D. 238. Of these 1014 years, 238 belong to the present Era A.D. This leaves 776 for the number of years before the Commencement of the present era, and accordingly the 1st Olympiad is dated B.C. 776.
The fragment is here given in full. It is taken from Cory's Ancient Fragments.
"I will not treat of that interval of time which Varro calls historic; for he divides the times into three parts. The first from the beginning of mankind to the former cataclysm. The second, which extends to the 1st Olympiad, is denominated Mythic, because in it the fabulous achievements are said to have happened. The third, which extends from the 1st Olympiad to ourselves, is called historic, because the actions which have been performed in it are related in authentic history.
"The first period, whether it had a beginning, or whether it always was, certainly it is impossible to know the number of its years. Neither is the second period accurately determined, yet it is believed to contain about 1600 years, but from the former Cataclysm, which they call that of Ogyges, to the reign of Inarchus, about 400 years, and from thence to the 1st Olympiad, something more than 400; of which alone, inasmuch as they are the last years of the Mythic period, and next within memory, certain writers have attempted more accurately to determine the number. Thus Sosibius writes that they were 395; Eratosthenes 407; Timaeus 417; Orethres 164. Many others also have different opinions, the very discrepancy of which shows the uncertainty in which it is involved.
"Concerning the third interval, there was also some disagreement among different writers, though it is confined within a period of only six or seven years. Varro has, however, examined the obscurity in which it is involved, and comparing with his usual sagacity the chronicles and annals of different states, calculating the intervals wanted, or to be added by reckoning them backwards, has at length arrived at the truth, and brought it to light. So that not only a determinate number of years, but even of days can be set forth.
"According to which calculations, unless I am greatly deceived, the present year, whose name and title is that of the consulships of Ulpius and Pontianus, is from the 1st Olympiad the 1014th, reckoning from the summer, at which time of the year the Olympic games are celebrated; but from the foundation of Rome it is the 991st; but this is from the Palalia (April 21st), from which the years, ab urbe condita, are reckoned. But of those years which are called the Julian years,. it is the 283rd, reckoning from the Kalends of January, from which day of the year Julius Caesar ordered the beginning of the year to be reckoned. But of those years which are called the Augustan it is the 265th, reckoning also from the Kalends of January of that year, in which, upon the 16th of the Kalends of February (Feb. 15th) the son of the Divine Julius Caesar was saluted Emperor and Augustus, on the motion of Numatius Plaucus, by the Senate and the rest of the citizens in the consulship of himself for the 7th time, and M. Vipsanus Agrippa.
"But the Egyptians, who two years before had been reduced under the dominion of the Roman people, reckon 268 Augustan years; for by the Egyptians in like manner as by ourselves, certain years are recorded, and they call their era the Era of Nabonnagarius, and their years are calculated from the first year of his reign, of which years the present is the 986th.
"The Philippic years also are used among them, and are calculated from the death of Alexander the Great, and from thence to the present time 562 years have elapsed. But the beginning of these years are always reckoned from the first day of that month which is called by the Egyptians Thoth, which happened this year upon the 7th of the Kalends of July (25th of June), for a hundred years ago from the present year of the consulship of Ulpius and Brutius the same fell upon the 12th of the Kalends of August (21st July), on which day Canicula regularly rises in Egypt. Whence we know that of this great year which was before mentioned under the name of Solar Canicular or Trieteris, by which it is commonly called, the present current year must be the 100th.
"I have been careful in pointing out the commencement of all these years, lest anyone should not be aware of the customs in this respect, which are not less various than the opinions of the philosophers. It is commenced by some with the New Sun, that is at the Winter Solstice, by many at the Summer Solstice; others again reckon from the Vernal, or from the Autumnal Equinox. Some also begin the year from the rising or the setting of Vergilia (Pleiades), but many from the rising of the Dogstar."
Hence the year B.C. 776, thus determined by Censorinus, has been made the pivot upon which Chronology has been made to depend. The scheme or framework being determined beforehand, all that remained was to make the facts fit into the space allotted to them, and all dates, both sacred and profane, have been made to conform to the requirements of the scheme.
Eusebius accepted this basis, and adapted the Chronology of the Old Testament to it, and he and Jerome, who translated his work into Latin, are followed by all subsequent writers. They all adopt the principle, though they differ somewhat in their application of it. Eusebius identifies the year B.C. 776 with the 49th of Uzziah. Elsewhere he Copies Julius Africanus and identifies it with the 1st year of Ahaz. Syncellus identifies it with the 45th year of Uzziah. Clinton says it was in reality the 33rd year of Uzziah. But the method adopted is the same, and through Eusebius the Era has passed into the works of all subsequent writers, and thus the space of time between the first of Cyrus as Sole Rex and the year of our Lord A.D. 1, has been fixed beforehand, as a space of 536 years instead of 454, as it is by Daniel. The important thing to note is that this fixing of the dates is not based on contemporary testimony like that of Jeremiah 25:1, in which we are distinctly told that the 4th year of Jehoiakim was the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, but is arrived at by a process of computation worked out 1,000 years after the event, and resting ultimately upon the shadowy calculations of Eratosthenes and Timaeus, who obtain their data by multiplying the number of Ephors, Kings, Archons or Priestesses by the number of years which they imagined each of these various officers would be likely to have occupied these several posts.
II. The Early Christian Chronologers.
1. Theophilus of Antioch (3rd Century A.D.) was one of the great luminaries of the Early Christian Church, and the founder of the historical school of Antiochian Theology, which was opposed to the allegorical school of Clement and Origen of Alexandria. According to Abulfaragi, he reckoned 5197 years from the Creation to the Era of the Seleucidae, B.C. 312, which gives the date of Creation as B.C. 5509, in accordance with the longer reckoning of the LXX. But he reckons 330 years from the Creation of Adam to the birth of Seth, and he omits the two years after the Flood.
2. Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 220-230), ambassador to Elagabolus, A.D. 218. He rebuilt his native town, Emmaus, A.D. 222, and died in. 232. He was the author of Pentabiblos, a system of Chronology beginning with the Creation of Adam, which he dated B.C. 5500, in accordance with the reckoning of the LXX. He omits the two years after the Flood, a very common error, and he calculates the death of Peleg, whose name he interprets as signifying a great fundamental division of time, at precisely 3,000 years from the Creation. Other millenary systems usually make it 3,000 years to the 130th year of Peleg, his age at the birth of his son Reu, according to the figures of the LXX.
3. Clement of Alexandria (3rd Century A.D.) was a disciple of Pantaenus, the founder of the famous catechetical school at Alexandria, and the teacher of Origen. He was a widely-read scholar, familiar with the whole body of classic literature, and with the books of the Old and New Testaments. He was the founder of the allegorical school of Biblical Interpretation, and the author of some able defences of Christianity against the absurdities and immoralities of pagan theology. The four works of his that have come down to us are (1) An Admonition to the Gentiles, (2) The Paedagogue, (3) Stromata, and (4) Who is the rich man that is saved? Amongst his lost works the most important, known to us only through fragmentary paraphrases in other authors, was his great work entitled Hypotyposes i.e., Types or Adumbrations.
4. Eusebius (A.D. 265-340) was the Father of Ecclesiastical history, and the most learned man of his age. In his Ecclesiastical History he traces the history of the Christian Church from the birth of Christ to the year 324. His Preparatio Evangelica and his Demonstratio Evangelica still exist in an imperfect form. Of his Chronicon, the treatise in which he elaborates his Chronology, we have fragments in Greek, and a translation into Latin by Jerome. The name of Eusebius is one of first rate importance in the history of Chronology. It was Eusebius who first adopted the hypothetical Era of the Greek Olympiads, and assuming its truth, equated the years there given to the annals of the Old Testament, thus creating an error of 82 years according to the present writer's interpretation of the Hebrew Records, by placing the 1st Olympiad 82 years higher than the truth, and adapting the events of history to the Chronology thus framed, instead of adapting the framework of the Chronology to the events. The importance of Eusebius lies in the fact that the example which he set, and the figures which he gave, have been followed ever since.
5. Epiphanius (A.D. 310-402) was born in Palestine. He became Bishop of Constantia, in the Island of Cyprus, in the year A.D. 367. He was a good theologian, an accurate scholar, and a great linguist. His Refutation of all Heresies was a standard defence of Christianity against all forms of Pagan, Gnostic and Arian error. It is from the first book of his work Against Heresies that the motto of the present work has been taken, as an indication of the writer's belief that any departure from the methods of exact science, and any alteration of the Massoretic Text, or any variation from the words of the Hebrew Verity can only lead us away from the Truth. Epiphanius accused Aquila, first a Pagan, then a Christian, and finally a renegade Jew, of wresting Scripture in his translation of the Old Testament into Greek (published A.D. 128) in order to invalidate its testimonies concerning Christ.
6. Ephraem Syrus (A.D. 325-378), a Syrian theologian, born at Nisibis. He retired to Edessa, where he lived in, retirement. He wrote in Syriac, but his works have been translated into Greek and Latin. He adopted the Chronology of the LXX. and accused the Jews of having subtracted 600 years from the generations of Adam, Seth, etc., in order that their own books might not convict them of the fact that Christ had already come, He having been predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind after 5,500 years. In this Ephraem was wrong, for it was the Greek Translators of the LXX. text who added the six centuries to the Chronology of the Hebrew Text, and not vice versa. The "prediction" alluded to was the almost universal tradition of the Jews that the world would last for 7,000 years, and as man was made on the sixth day, and fell by sin, so the Messiah would come to redeem the world in the sixth millennium, AN. HOM. 5000 to 6000, and the date of the Creation according to the LXX. was B.C. 5508.
7. Jerome (A.D. 340-420), called in Greek Hieronymus, was one of the most learned scholars of the Early Christian Church. He studied Hebrew, and spent some years in a cave at Bethlehem, where he lived a celibate life, and devoted himself to the work of translating the Old Testament into Latin, his version, the Latin Vulgate (A.D. 397), being regarded as authoritative, or Canonical in the Roman Catholic Church ever since the Council of Trent, A.D. 1545-1563. His other writings included his De Viris Illustribus, and his Dialogi contra Pelagianos and his translation into Latin of Eusebius' Chronicon, which thus determined the Chronology of Western Europe, till the time of Bede, Eusebius being followed by all sorts of authors right down to the present day.
III. Byzantine Chronologers. These are contained in the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae, a collection of works by various authors, the three principal of which are the works of Georgius Syncellus, and Johannes Malalas, and the Chronicon Paschale.
1. Georgius Syncellus (A.D. 792), Monk and Historian. His Chronographia contains a most valuable account of the Chronology of the Byzantine School of learning in the Centuries between the Early Christian Fathers and the Revival of Learning in modern times, led, in the department of Chronology, by Scaliger. Syncellus has given us two very valuable Canons, or lists of Kings, (1) The Astronomical Canon which he entitles "The Years from Nabonassar - according to the astronomical Canon." This is precisely Ptolemy's Canon from the first year of Nabonassar to the last year of Alexander the Great. (2) The Ecclesiastical Canon, which he entitles "The years from Salmonasar, who is also Nabonassar according to the Ecclesiastical reckoning, up to Cyrus, and thence to Alexander of Macedon."
2. Johannes Malalas or Malelas (9th Century A.D.), another Byzantine historian, writes another Chronographia.
3. The Chronicon Paschale also belongs to this group.
IV. The Great Armenian Chronologer - Abulfaragus, Abulfaragi, Abul-Faraj, Gregory or Bar-Hebraeus (A.D. 1226-1266).
This celebrated historian, whose real name was Gregorius Bar-Hebraeus, wrote a Compendium of Universal History from the Creation of the World to A.D. 1273, entitled The History of the Dynasties. Abulfaragus was an Armenian Jew. He was brought up as a physician. After his conversion he settled in Tripoli, and became the first Bishop of Guba (1246) and afterwards Bishop of Aleppo. Although he was a leader of the Jacobite sect of Christians in Syria, he was much admired by Mohammedan, Jewish and Christian writers. He was at once the most learned, the most accurate, and the most faithful historian of all the Syrian writers. His history of the world contains valuable information respecting the Saracens, the Tartar Mongols, and the Conquest of Ghenghis- Khan. Around his name there has sprung up an extensive literature, the titles of which occupy many pages in the Catalogue of the British Museum. To Abulfaragi we owe the most correct adjustment of the Saracen Dynasty.
V. Modern Chronologers.
Of these the number is legion. We select only a few of the more important. Most of them are mentioned in the article on "Chronology" in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (11th edition).
1. Joseph Scaliger (A.D. 1540-1609) was born at Agen in France. He studied at the University of Paris, and was a man of exceptional genius, and consummate scholarship. He was converted to Protestantism, and lectured at Geneva. His writings mark the rise of a new era in historical criticism. His monumental work De Emendatione Temporum (published A.D. 1596) laid the foundations of the science of modern Chronology. He was distinguished by the brilliancy of his genius and the extent of his erudition. He invented the Julian period of 7980 years from B.C. 4714 to A.D. 3266, formed by the multiplication of the cycles of the Sun 28 years, the moon 19 years, and the indiction 15 years. In its first year the cycle of the sun was 1, of the moon 1, and of the indiction 1. The three cycles will not so correspond again till the end of the cycle. The Julian period has no relation to the Julian year or the Julian Era, both of which take their names from Julius Caesar. The Julian period is named after the family name of Scaliger, his father's name being Julius Caesar Scaliger. Joseph Scaliger discovered the cause of the precession of the Equinoxes. He interpreted the prophecy of Daniel's 70 weeks as ending at the destruction of Jerusalem, A.D. 70, and consequently as commencing B.C. 420 in the 4th year of Darius Nothus. He inserted the 5 years omitted by the Jews, to make up the 430 years from Abraham's migration into Canaan to the Exodus.
2. Sethus Calvisius (A.D. 1603) was the author of an important work which he called the Opus Chronologicum.
3. Dionysius Petavius (Denis Petau, b. A.D. 1583) was a Chronologer of the first rank. He was born at Orleans, and published in 1627 his great work De doctrina temporum, in 1630 a continuation of the same, and in 1633-4 an abridgment of it, entitled Rationarum Temporum. Petavius was a Catholic, and his system is used principally in the Romish Church. He was learned in languages, deeply read in universal history, a capable mathematician, an astronomer equal to the calculation of eclipses, a man of indefatigable industry and patience, and a consummate Chronologer. He exposed the errors of the ingenious and fanciful scheme of his rival Scaliger. He adhered to the Hebrew Verity and reprobated any and every "emendation" of, or departure from, the Massoretic Text. He entered the following useful caveat against the substitution of chronological hypotheses and unverifiable conjectures for the patient unravelling of the meaning of the Text, in which alone is to be found the testimony of the ancients, the only true basis of scientific Chronology. "As nothing is more easy, so nothing is less tolerable, than to transfer to the most ancient writers the fault of our own error and unskilfulness; on the contrary, nothing is more prudent and more desirable than to attribute very much to the authority and fidelity of the ancients; and not to recede therefrom, except where we are admonished and convinced by the clearest and plainly necessary indications of truth."
4. James Ussher (A.D. 1581-1656), Archbishop of Armagh, was born at Dublin, and educated at Trinity College. He took holy orders in 1601, and Soon acquired a reputation as a powerful preacher, both in Dublin and London. In 1607 he became Professor of Divinity at Trinity College, Dublin. He rose by his transcendent merits, and became in 1625 Archbishop of Armagh, and in 1634 Primate of all Ireland. His greatest work is the Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti (1650-1654), translated in 1658 as The Annals of the world... to the beginning of the Emperor Vespasian's Reign. Ussher was a profound scholar, and one of the brightest luminaries of the Church of Ireland. He was a munificent patron of Oriental Literature. To him we owe the publication of the Samaritan Pentateuch. He always admitted the liability of both the Old Testament and the New to the errors of copyists, but he adhered very closely to the Massoretic Text of the Old Testament, and was enabled thereby to construct a system of Chronology which has held its own to this day. His dates were revised by Wm. Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph (subsequently Bishop of Worcester), and published by him in the margin of his Holy Bible with Chronological Dates and Index. "Lloyd's Bible" (published 1701) is thus the first Bible published with marginal dates.
The principal improvement of Ussher is the correction of the age of Terah at the birth of Abraham, from 70 years to 130. He dates the creation of the world in the year B.C. 4004, a remarkable astronomical epoch which La Place described as "one in which the great axis of the earth's orbit coincided with the line of the equinoxes, and consequently when the true and mean equinoxes were united." His principal errors were his misinterpretation of "the 480th year" in I Kings 6:1, and his misdating of the accession of Uzziah in the 15th instead of in the 27th year of Jeroboam II. His system has prevailed principally in the British Empire, and amongst the Reformed Churches of the Continent, as that of Petavius has prevailed amongst divines of the Church of Rome. Ussher is not infallible, but he thoroughly deserved the universal esteem which his chronological achievements secured for him.
5. Philippe Lobbe (fl. 1651) is the author of a treatise entitled Regia Epitome Historiae Sacrae et profanae.
6. Beveridge (fl. 1669) was a mathematical genius. In his Institutionum Chronologicarum libri duo, he gives rules for adjusting the Julian Period and the Mohammedan Hegeira to the Christian Era.
7. Sir John Marsham (fl. 1672), was the author of the Chronicus Canon Egyptiacus Ebraicus et Graecus, a learned, acute, and ingenious, but unsuccessful attempt to reconcile the comparative Chronologies of Egyptian, Hebrew, Phoenician, and Greek antiquities. He steers a middle course between Petavius and Ussher. He followed Josephus, and was himself followed by Sir Isaac Newton in identifying the famous Egyptian King Sesostris with the Sesac, or Shishak, who plundered the Temple in the reign of Rehoboam.
8. Paul Pezron (fl. 1687), is the author of a chronological work entitled L'Antiquite' des temps re'tablie' et de'fendu, published in 1687. Four years later he published a De'fense of the same.
9. Henry Dodwell (fl. 1701) wrote a treatise on technical Chronology entitled De Veteribus Graicorum Romanorumque cyclis.
10. Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), the illustrious natural philosopher., was born at Woolsthrope Manor in Lincolnshire. He was the greatest mathematician of modern times. He discovered the binomial theorem, and the method of fluxions, and in 1666 the contemplation of the fall of an apple led to his greatest discovery of all, that of the law of gravitation. The following year he discovered the composite nature of light. He held the Chair of Mathematics at Cambridge for 33 years. In 1699 he became Master of the Mint. He represented his University in Parliament, and was elected President of the Royal Society, a post which he occupied for 24 years. He was knighted in 1705. He lived to his eightieth year, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Bishop Burnet described him as the "whitest soul he ever knew." Sir Isaac Newton made a hobby of Chronology, and became an ardent student of the subject during the last 30 years of his life. He read widely, and thought deeply on the problems of early Chronology, and came to the conclusion that the Greeks and the Latins, no less than the Babylonians, the Assyrians and the Egyptians, had greatly exaggerated their antiquity, from motives of national vanity. In his great work The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, which was published posthumously in 1728, the year after his death, he endeavoured to construct a system on new bases, independent of the Greek Chronologers, whose unsatisfactory method of reckoning by generations, reigns and successions he exposed, laying bare the foundations on which their Chronology rested, and thereby overthrowing the elementary dates of Greek, Latin and Egyptian Chronology. He reduced the date of the taking of Troy from B.C. 1183 to 904. He followed Sir John Marshall in identifying Sesostris with Shishak, whose date he thus reduced from B.C. 1300 to 965. Newton cites Thucydides and Socrates, the musician Terpander, and the Olympic disk of Lycurgus, he uses his calculation of the precession of the equinoxes since the time of Hipparcus, and he substitutes a reckoning of 20 years each instead of 33 for the succession of the Kings of Sparta. Newton cannot be said to have established his point, but he has certainly destroyed the possibility of regarding the Chronology of the Greeks as a stable foundation for any system of Chronology that can be used as a standard by which to judge, and correct, the testimony of the Old Testament. Yet this conjectural Chronology of the Greeks is the foundation upon which the Canon of Ptolemy rests, and the Canon of Ptolemy is the only obstacle in the way of the establishment of the Chronology of the Old Testament.
11. Alphonse des Vignolles (fl. 1738), has written a very valuable treatise on Chronology entitled the Chronologie de l'histoire Sainte. Des Vignolles, Jackson, and Hales are the main advocates of a return to the longer Patriarchal Chronology based on the LXX. in preference to the shorter Patriarchal Chronology given in the Hebrew Text, which was adopted by Scaliger, Petavius and Ussher at an earlier date, and subsequently by Clinton. Canon Rawlinson, and most Egyptologists adopt the longer Chronology, or demand a still earlier date for the rise of civilization in Egypt, but the entire weight of their argument rests upon their interpretation of the testimony of Manetho and Berosus, and the astronomical calculations by which it is supported.
12. N. Leuglet Dufresnoy (fl. 1744) is the author of some very carefully compiled dates, entitled Tablettes chronologiques de l'histoire universelle.
13. The Benedictine Congregation of Saint Maur published in 1750, in one large quarto volume, their elaborate treatise L'Art de verifier les dates. This was subsequently enlarged into 38 octavo volumes published between 1818 & 1831.
14. John Jackson (fl. 1752), the author of Chronological Antiquities, and a disciple of the acute and learned Vossius, is the first English Chronologer of the modern school to break away from the sure ground of the Hebrew Text, hitherto accepted by Scaliger, Petavius and Ussher alike, and to adopt the longer Chronology of the Greek LXX. His work is distinguished by learning and ingenuity. It reveals a spirit of adventure, and a love of change, and a bounds in ingenious criticisms and "conjectural emendations" of the received systems. His fundamental error is his introduction of the 130 years of the interpolated Second Cainan, between Arphaxad and Salah, from the LXX. version of Gen. 11:13, where alone it is to be found. He also adopted the common error that Terah was 70 years old at the birth of Abraham, though Ussher had proved that he was 130. He took a step in the right direction in rejecting Ussher's interpretation of the length of the period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon in I Kings 6:1, and substituted 579 years instead of 480. It should have been 594 years. He critically determined his fundamental date B.C. 586 for the destruction of the Temple.
5. John Kennedy (fl. 1752) was the Rector of Bradley in Derbyshire. His system is based on the Hebrew Text, of which he has made a special study from the point of view of astronomy. His New method of stating and explaining the Scripture Chronology upon Mosaic Astronomical principles, mediums and data, as laid down in the Pentateuch develops the astronomical principles followed by Moses, and demonstrates their superiority to modern methods of intercalation from the Metonic and the Callipic cycles to the Julian and the Gregorian rectifications of the length of the year. He translates Hebrew technical terms like Tekuphath Hasshanah = The Vernal or the Autumnal Equinox, explains that Moses always measures time by solar years, and always computes time by lunar years. He shows how time is measured by the Hebrew Shanah or year, consisting of an annual revolution of the earth round the sun, containing the whole of the four seasons, and therefore always invariable, and how the Mognadim (translated seasons), the sacred feasts of the Jews (Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles), are pinned down to this solar year. His exposition of the story of the flood shows that Noah was exactly 365 days in the ark, and explains Moses' method of Computing in terms of the months of the lunar year, whilst measuring time in terms of the solar year. In his great work Physiological Chronology, a bulky quarto volume of 750 pages, he dates the creation B.C. 4007. He postulates the infallibility of the Hebrew Text, which he says "has never been corrupted in the article of Chronology by Jew or Pagan, by chance or design. It is not more certain that there is a sun and moon in the heavens than it is that not a single error of the press, or of a Jewish transcriber, has crept into the present copies of the Hebrew Massoretic Text, to give the least interruption to its chronological series of years." Kennedy's view of the infallibility of the Hebrew Massoretic Text, coupled with his feeling of certainty with regard to the results obtained from his mathematically exact astronomical calculations, accounts for the dogmatic tone which characterizes his works. This note of infallibility is very annoying to modern scholars, who rejoice in the larger liberty afforded by the method of hypothesis and conjecture!
16. John Blair (fl. 1754) takes rank with the most painstaking and accurate Chronologers of modern times. He published his Chronology and History of the World first in 1754, and subsequently prepared a new edition very much enlarged. This was published in 1857. He adopts the method of tabulation, and aims at precision of statement and accuracy in his results.
17. Principal Playfair of St. Andrews, Scotland (fl. 1784), has given us in his System of Chronology a technical and a historical treatise which may be regarded as an improvement on Blair's Chronology. He begins with an account of the principles of the science, and carefully defines his terms.
18. A. H. L. Heeren (fl. 1799) is the author of a work in German entitled a Handbuch der Geschichte der Staaten des Alterthums. It was published in 1799, and is characterized by those qualities of comprehensiveness, thoroughness, and modernity of standpoint which we look for in works by German writers.
19. G. G. Bredow (fl. 1803) has given us another German vade mecum on the subject, entitled a Handbuch der alten Geschichte, Geographie, und Chronologie. It was published in 1803, and contains his Historische Tabellen.
20. Wm. Hales (fl. 1809) one of the ablest and best of our modern Chronologers. The fulness, variety, and sustained interest of his treatment of the subject in the four octavo volumes of his New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy, is altogether beyond praise. This was published in 1809-1814. His object is a comprehensive treatment of the whole subject in all its branches, on principles at once both Scriptural and scientific. He gives an interesting account of the elements of technical Chronology, a review of the history of Chronology, and some valuable rules for "chronologizing." His Chronology of the Old Testament treats of the period from Adam to Herod the Great. His Chronology of the New Testament treats of the period from Herod the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem, to which is appended an exposition of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation, in reference to the prophetic history of the Church. In his final volume he surveys the entire field of profane Chronology, including the remains of Sanchoniathon, Berosus, Manetho, and the important historical works of Ctesias, Herodotus, the Persian historian Mirkhond, Ptolemy, Abulfaragus, and Syncellus. He follows Jackson in adopting the longer Chronology of the LXX., but "judiciously" rejects the Second Cainan. His date for the Creation is B.C. 5411. He has a decidedly modern note, and in his treatment of Scripture he tempers reverence with intelligence, and lowers the "superstitious veneration of the Hebrew Verity or supposed immaculate purity of the Massoretic editions of the Hebrew Text to the proper level of rational respect." His reasons for rejecting the shorter Hebrew Chronology and adopting in preference the longer Greek Chronology of the LXX. are subjective and inconclusive. His work contains a very large quantity of useful chronological material, including many valuable Tables.
21. C. G. Zumpt (fl. 1819) is the author of the Annales Veterum Regnorum.
22. Buret de Longchamps (fl. 1821) has left us some valuable Tableaux Historiques Chronologiques et Geographiques.
23. Henry Fynes Clinton (fl. 1824) is perhaps the ablest, the soundest, and the most complete and satisfactory of all our modern Chronologers. His Fasti Hellenici (1824-1834), his Fasti Romani (1845-1850), and his Epitomes of these two elaborate works (1851-1853) are absolutely indispensable to anyone who desires to make an exhaustive study of the subject. His reasoning is clear, his authorities are numerous, and his tone is moderate. His three large quarto volumes of the Fasti Hellenici alone are a library in themselves. His Chronology contains perhaps fewer errors than that of any of his predecessors. He determines the Joshua-Judges "Chasm" (20 years instead of 13) and the Samuel "Chasm" (32 years instead of 20) by means of a subjective estimate, or conjecture, instead of by inference from the data contained in the Text, and for the Persian and Greek period from Cyrus to Christ, he adopts the figures of the Canon of Ptolemy instead of those of the prophet Daniel. Like most other Chronologers, he does not understand the Scripture method of recording the lengths of the reigns of the Kings of Israel and Judah. He is to be blamed for his assertion that the figures given in the Books of Kings and Chronicles are sometimes "corrupt" and to be rejected. But apart from these errors, which make his Era for the Creation B.C. 4138, just 96 years too long, he is a most worthy and a most judicious guide.
24. Christian Ludwig Ideler (fl. 1825) has produced in his Handbuch der Mathematischen und technischen Chronologie a most valuable treatment of a recondite subject. His researches into the construction of the calendars used by all the different nations of antiquity, have opened up a mine of useful information. His Lehrbuch der Chronologie, published in 1831, is a smaller handbook upon the same subject.
25. M. L'Abbe' Halma (fl. 1819) makes considerable use of Ideler in his great work, Tables Chronologiques des Regnes de C. Ptolemaeus. This was published in Paris in 1819, and is an admirable account of Ptolemy's Canon, which he describes as "the most precious Monument of ancient Chronology."
26. Sir Harris Nicholas (fl. 1833) is the author of a valuable Chronology of History (published in 1833).
27. Edward Greswell (fl. 1852) has left us three large and important works on technical Chronology. (1) Fasti Temporis Catholici (1852), (2) Origines Kalendariae Italicae (1854) and (3) Origines Kalendariae Hellenicae (1862)
28. B. B. Woodward & W. L. R. Cates (fl. 1872) published in 1892 a most valuable Encyclopaedia of Chronology.
29. J. C. Macdonald (fl. 1897) has collected in his Chronologies and Calendars some interesting curiosities of Chronology.
30. David Ross Fotheringham (fl. 1906) has written a useful little handbook on the Chronology of the Old Testament.
Other works of equal importance are omitted for lack of space, or because they deal only with some one special aspect of the subject, but room must be found for the bare mention of (1) Benjamin Marshall's Chronological Tables (1713). Marshall was the literary executor of Bishop Lloyd, whom he closely followed. (2) Dr. Humphrey Prideaux's Historical Connection of the Old and New Testaments. The 1858 edition, revised by J. Talboys Wheeler, contains a valuable account of Rabbinic authorities on Chronology, by Dr. McCaul. (3) Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, a Monumental work, but unfair to the Hebrew Records. (4) Sir Edward Denny's Seventy Weeks of Daniel, he is the first to explain the principle of Anno Dei reckonings. (5) Palmoni an essay written to prove that every date in the Bible is a fictitious construction, having less relation to objective fact than to the exercise of the mythopoetic faculty as applied to numbers. (6) Henry Browne's Ordo Saeculorum, an excellent Chronology of the Holy Scripture, working backwards from Christ to Adam, and eliciting the mystical qualities of the numbers of the years employed in the Divine Administration of the times and seasons. (7) Lumen's startling redatement of the days of Nehemiah in his Prince of Judah. (8) Sir Robert Anderson's Coming Prince. (9) Canon Girdlestone's excellent little 77 page Outlines of Bible Chronology. (10) Charles Foster Kent's Historical Bible, which construes the Chronology in accordance with the Higher Critical theory of the origin of the Text, and last, but not least, two works of surpassing merit. (11) Willis Judson Beecher's Dated Events of the Old Testament (1907), and (12) The Companion Bible, published by the Oxford University Press.
CHAPTERS TWO, THREE: THE ANTE-DILUVIAN
PATRIARCHS - FROM ADAM TO NOAH
PERIOD ONE : The Patriarchs - Genesis
(AN. HOM. 1-1056.)
THE opening verse of Genesis speaks of the Creation of the heavens, and the earth, in the undefined beginning. From this point we may date the origin of the world, but not the origin of man. For the second verse tells of a catastrophe - the earth became a ruin, and a desolation. The Hebrew verb hayah (hayah = to be) here translated was, signifies not only "to be" but also "to become," "to take place," "to come to pass." When a Hebrew writer makes a simple affirmation, or merely predicates the existence of anything, the verb hayah is never expressed. Where it is expressed it must always be translated by our verb to become, never by the verb to be, if we desire to convey the exact shade of the meaning of the Original. The words tohu va-bohu (tohu va- bohu), translated in the A.V. "without form and void" and in the R.V. "waste and void" should be rendered tohu, a ruin, and bohu, a desolation. They do not represent the state of the heavens and the earth as they were created by God. They represent only the state of the earth as it afterwards became - "a ruin and a desolation." This interpretation is confirmed by the words of Isaiah 45:18, "He created it not tohu (a ruin): He formed it to be inhabited (habitable, not desolate)." This excludes the rendering of Gen. 1:2 in the A.V. and the R.V. as decisively as the Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 requires the rendering of hayah by the word "became " instead of the word "was," or better still "had become," the separation of the Vav from the verb being the Hebrew method of indicating the pluperfect tense.
The noble Cathedral, once a perfect work of art, with its crowds of devout worshippers, becomes, with the lapse of ages, a dilapidated ruin. Forsaken by those who once frequented its hallowed courts, it becomes a desolation. Similarly the words of Gen. 1:2, "And the earth became without form and void" are intended to convey to us the fact that the cosmos, once a beautiful and perfect whole, became a "ruin" and a "desolation." What the cause of this catastrophe was, we are not told, though some speculative interpreters have connected it with the fall of Satan. We know neither the cause, nor the time, nor the manner in which the calamitous change took place. There is no point of contact between the Hebrew tohu "ruin" and the Greek conception of chaos, the primeval, shapeless, raw material out of which the world was formed. Genesis 1:2 does not describe a stage in the process of the creation, but a disaster which befell the created earth the original creation of the heavens, and the earth, is chronicled in Gen. 1:1. The next verse, Gen. 1:2, is a statement of the disorder, the ruin, and the state of desolation into which the earth subsequently fell. What follows in Gen. 1:3- 31 is the story of the restoration of a lost order by the creative word of God. Between the creation of the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1) and the catastrophe by which they became a "ruin" and a "desolation" (Gen. 1:2) we place those countless ages required by the geologist for the formation of the various strata of the earth's crust, and the fossil remains embedded therein.
The length of time described by the Hebrew word Yom = day, as used in this chapter, cannot be definitely determined. The word itself is frequently used to express a long period, an entire Era. The time occupied by the whole process of the six days' work is referred to in Genesis 2:4 as "the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth." The use of the expression "and evening came and morning came - day one" (Gen. 1:5; repeated Gen. 1:8,13,19,23,31) seems to suggest a literal day as measured by the revolution of the earth on its axis, but it cannot be said to be proved that the writer is not here using the words "evening and morning" in a figurative sense, for the commencement and the completion of whatever period he intended to mark by his use of the word "day." In the same verse (Gen. 1:5) the word "day" is used to mark a still briefer period, viz. that portion of the day when it is light.
The attempt to parcel out the six days' work into the six geological Eras, to which they somewhat roughly, but by no means accurately correspond, cannot be regarded as a satisfactory explanation of the writer's intention and meaning. There may be certain analogies between the order of Creation as described in the first chapter of Genesis, and the order of the formation of the various strata of the crust of the earth as read by the geologist, and in the order of the occurrence of the fossil remains which are found embedded in the stratified layers of the earth's crust, for God's works are all of a piece but there are also great and manifest divergencies, and these are so great, and so manifest that the two series cannot be said to run absolutely parallel with each other, or to perfectly correspond. The natural interpretation of the narrative, to one who recognizes the greatness of the power of God, is that which understands the chapter as a record of the creation of the world in six literal days; but it cannot be denied that the word "day" may have been used by the writer in a figurative sense, and intended by him to indicate a more extended period corresponding to a geological Era of time.
The creation of Adam took place on the sixth day after the creation of light. Whether this sixth day is to be interpreted as the sixth literal day, as measured by the space of time required for the revolution of the earth upon its own axis, or as a sixth geological Era, must remain uncertain, as there is nothing in the Hebrew Text to decide between the more precise and the more extended connotation of the term.
Similarly the question discussed by Ussher in his Annals of the Old and New Testaments, by Kennedy in his New Method of Scripture Chronology, by R. G. Faussett in his Symmetry of Time, and many other writers, as to the exact month, day and hour at which the first year of the life of Adam began, whether at the autumnal or at the vernal Equinox, cannot be decisively determined.
The following considerations make it appear probable that the original point of departure for the year was the autumnal Equinox, and that this was changed at the Exodus by Divine command, to the vernal Equinox, at all events, as far as the Hebrew people were concerned, whilst other nations may have continued to reckon their New Year's Day from the autumnal Equinox, or may have invented Eras of their own. We know that the later Jews Hellenized their calendar, introducing the principle of intercalation, and using the Greek Metonic cycle of 19 years for this purpose, instead of adhering to the Mosaic principle of direct observation, and eschewing astronomical calculations altogether.
(1) The order of the "evening and the morning" which formed the first day suggests by analogy the propriety of making the year also commence in the autumn.
(2) The autumnal season of harvest, when the fruits of the earth were ripe, seems to be the most appropriate time of the year for the appearance of man on the earth which had been specially prepared for him.
(3) The change of "the first month of the year" to Abib or Nisan occurring at the spring of the year (Exodus 12:2, 13:4, Deut. 16:1) suggests that up to that time the first month of the year was the month which followed immediately upon the Autumnal Equinox. This fixing of Abib or Nisan as the first month of the year may, however, have been a return to the original mode of reckoning from the Creation and a rejection of the Egyptian method of reckoning by the Vague calendar year of exactly 365 days.
But it is not till we reach the fifth chapter of Genesis that we meet with our first definite chronological datum, and here we find a complete list of the ante-diluvian patriarchs. The list is as follows. We adopt the term Anno Hominis rather than Anno Mundi, for, as we have seen, the world was created "in the beginning." This was ages before the creation of Adam, the true starting point of every Chronology. Ussher's date, B.C. 4004, should be removed from Gen. 1:1, and placed at Gen. 1:26, or Gen. 5:1.
The Ante-diluvian Patriarchs: From the Creation to the Flood.
ANNO
HOMINIS EVENT REFERENCE
0 Adam created Gen. 5:1
130+ Age of Adam at birth of Seth Gen. 5:3
130 Seth born
105+ Add age of Seth at birth of Enos Gen. 5:6
235 Enos born
90+ Add age of Enos at birth of Cainan Gen. 5:9
325 Cainan born
70+ Add age of Cainan at birth of Mahalaleel Gen. 5:12
395 Mahalaleel born
65+ Add age of Mahalaleel at birth of Jared Gen. 5:15
460 Jared born
162+ Add age of Jared at birth of
Enoch Gen. 5:18
622
Enoch born
65+ Add age of
Enoch at birth of Methuselah Gen. 5:21
687 Methuselah born
187+ Add age of Methuselah at birth of Lamech Gen. 5:25
874 Lamech born
182+ Add age of Lamech at birth of Noah Gen. 5:28
1056 Noah born
600+ Add age of Noah at the Flood Gen. 7:6
1656 The Flood
The design of this genealogical list is to give a Chronology of the period from Adam to the Flood. The line chosen is the line of Noah the preserver of the race, the line of the promised Messiah the Redeemer of the race. It must not be assumed that the son named in each generation is either always or generally the eldest son of his father. This is not stated, it is not suggested, it is not implied. Certainly Seth is not the eldest son of Adam, nor is Shem the eldest son of Noah, though he is mentioned in this list (Gen. 5:32) before his eldest brother Japheth (Gen. 10:21). Moses selects from the genealogical family records only those entries which relate to the chosen people, and those other races who are brought into contact with them in the course of their later history. The line of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is selected because to them was given the promise of the "Seed," in whom all the nations of the earth are to be blessed. The theme of the Old Testament is the Redeemer. All its selections are governed, and all its omissions are explained, by this fact.
That the interest of the recorder of these Tables was chronological, may be inferred from the careful attention which he has paid to the subject of Chronology, and the very precise nature, and chronological form of the statements made respecting the ages of each of the Patriarchs. It may also be inferred from the fact that though he gives the descendants of the line of Cain, he attaches no Chronology to that line; his chronological purpose is served if the succession of events is accurately and fully recorded along the one line of succession which he adopts as his chronological Era.
The number of the years of the life of each of the Patriarchs is mentioned, in addition to the years before and after the birth of the son named, probably in order to show by this double statement that however extraordinary the length of the life of the Patriarch, there is no mistake about the accuracy of the figures. There is no reason to doubt the fact that our first fathers were endowed with a better physical frame, which enabled them to live a longer life than the men of the present day. The attempt to interpret the names of these men as the eponymous names of tribes or dynasties, or to give the word "year" a different signification from that which it ordinarily bears, or to discount the narrative as mythical, and the personages named in it as fictitious, is a fallacy induced by a presumed, but false analogy between the Biblical narrative and the legendary accounts of the origins of other nations, or by the gratuitous assumption that as things are to-day, so they always have been, and always will be. We have the same authority for believing that Adam was 930 when he died, that we have for believing that Joseph was 30 when he stood before Pharaoh, and 110 when he died.
The narrative nowhere states, and it must not be understood to imply, that each succeeding Patriarch was born on the very day on which his father attained the age named at his birth. As the purpose of the list is chronological, it must be interpreted to mean that the fractions of a year which are not mentioned are included in the age of the father. Moses intended his calculations to be both accurate and complete. He reckons by complete years, and gives the whole of the year in which the son is born to the age of the father at his son's birth. This is proved by the two instances of Methuselah and Noah. Methuselah's age at death is stated to have been 969 years (Gen. 5:27) but he was only 968 years, 1 month and 17 days old, plus whatever fraction of the year of his birth was included in the 65th year of his father
Enoch, when the Flood began. Noah's age when the Flood was upon the earth is given as 600 years (Gen. 7:6), but it was only on the 17th day of the 2nd month of his 600th year that the fountains of the deep were broken up (Gen. 7:11). These statements are given by Moses in order to explain the technical principles on which the Chronology is built. Those who make them into "discrepancies" are self-convicted, (1) of an error of interpretation, and (2) of attributing to the author the mistake which has been made by themselves.
Moses' tables of the Patriarchs, like Ptolemy's Canon of Kings, are constructed on astronomical principles. The numbers taken collectively constitute an uninterrupted series of true, tropical solar years, and register with astronomic accuracy the number of solar revolutions from the creation of Adam to the death of Joseph, which no Chronologer who accepts the statements of the Hebrew Text can make either one year more, or one year less, than 2369. Adam lived 930 years. The first year of his life runs parallel with the year Anno Hominis 1. The year in which he died runs parallel with AN. HOM. 930. Seth was born in the 130th year of Adam's life, the year AN. HOM. 130. It is not suggested that the Patriarchs were all born at the autumnal Equinox, or all on the same day of the same month of the year. The years are integral, and take no account of fractions. The year of Seth's birth is reckoned to Adam. The 131st year of Adam's life, the year AN. HOM. 131, is reckoned as the 1st year of the life of Seth. Hence, we may safely conclude that Moses' reckoning of years is inclusive, and Noah is said to be 600 years old at the beginning, and not at the end of his 600th year.
The numbers given in this genealogical list are characterized by the strictest regard for accuracy and precision. This is confirmed by the fact that since Ussher, no Chronologer who has adopted the numbers given in the Hebrew Text as the basis of his calculation, has ever failed to fix the Flood in the year AN. HOM. 1656, and the death of Joseph in the year AN. HOM. 2369.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE NOAH - SHEM CONNECTION
(Noah's age at the birth of Shem = 502 years).
AN. HOM. 1056 - 1558.
THE early Chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures is contained in a series of connected statements, each covering a definite period. Between each of these definite periods is an apparent chasm, or want of connection. A closer and more attentive study reveals the fact that the connecting link between the several periods is always supplied, but it has to be diligently sought for. The five apparent chasms at which the continuity of the chronological record appears to be broken off are as follows:-
1. The Noah-Shem connection, which determines the exact age of Noah at the birth of Shem, viz. 502 years.
2. The Terah-Abraham connection, which determines the exact age of Terah at the birth of Abraham, viz. 130 years.
3. The Joseph-Moses connection, which determines the exact number of years which elapsed between the death of Joseph, with which the Chronology of the book of Genesis ends (Gen. 50:26), and the birth of Moses, with which the Chronology of the book of Exodus begins (Exodus 7:7), viz. 64 years.
4. The Joshua-Judges connection, which determines the number of years that elapsed during the administration of Joshua and the Elders that overlived him, between the division of the land at the end of the Seven Years' War of Conquest, with which the Chronology of the Book of Joshua ends (Joshua 14:7,10 with Numbers 10:11,12; 13:17,20), and the oppression of Cushan-Rishathaim of Mesopotamia, with which the Chronology of the Book of Judges begins (Judges 3:8), viz. 13 years.
5. The Eli-Saul connection, which determines the number of years that elapsed between the death of Eli and the beginning of the reign of Saul, viz. 20 years. This is given in the summary of I Samuel 7:2.
These breaks in the consecutive statements of the Chronology are made good in various ways. The discussion of them will occupy five separate chapters of this work. They form a series of chronological problems of increasing difficulty, but it will always be found, on closer inspection, that the materials for forming an exact Chronology are always given, so that we are never left to hypothesis or conjecture, and never have to fall back upon the statements of Josephus or other external testimony.
In this chapter we have to deal with the Noah-Shem connection, i.e. to ascertain the age of Noah at the birth of Shem. The problem is solved by the inclusion of an intermediate date, the epoch of the Flood, from which we reckon back to the birth of Noah, and on to the age of Shem at the birth of his son Arphaxad.
The two statements contained in Genesis 5:32, "And Noah was 500 years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japhet," do not give us any clue to the exact age of Noah at the birth of Shem. Shem is mentioned first, because he is the member of the family with whom the writer is mainly concerned.
The Old Testament is a narrative of the story of Redemption. Redemption is through the Messiah, Who is to come through a particular line of descent. He is progressively defined as the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15), the "seed of Abraham " (Gen. 22:18), "the seed of Isaac" (Gen. 26:4) "the seed of Jacob" (Gen. 28:14), "the Shiloh of the Tribe of Judah" (Gen. 49:10) and "the seed of the House of David" (2 Sam. 7:12-16).
References to other families and other races are summary, and incidental. The grand theme of the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures is the coming of the Redeemer, and the things concerning the race from which He springs. References to other races are introduced only in so far as they bear upon the main theme of the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole.
This explains why Shem is mentioned first amongst the sons of Noah. He was not the eldest son, for in Genesis 10:21 (a text misrendered in the R.V. but correctly translated in the A.V.), Japheth is distinctly described as his elder brother. In the same way, and for the same reason, Abram is mentioned before his elder brothers, Nahor and Haran, in Genesis 11:26, "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor and Haran." Similarly Issac is placed before Ishmael in I Chron. 1:28, "The sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael," though Isaac was not the older, but the younger of the two.
We arrive at the age of Noah at the birth of Shem by means of an induction from the facts contained in Genesis 7:6 and Genesis 11:10. From Genesis 7:6 we learn that Noah was 600 years old at the epoch of the Flood. From Genesis 11:10 we learn that Shem was 100 years old, two years after the Flood. Therefore Shem was 98 years old at the Flood, that is Shem was 98 years old when Noah was 600. Therefore Shem was born when Noah was 502. This enables us to connect the Chronology of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs with the Chronology of the post-diluvian Patriarchs, and we may proceed in either of two ways. We may use the intermediate date of the Flood, or we may use the age of Noah at the birth of Shem, at which we have arrived by means of a mathematical deduction from the statements of the Hebrew narrative.
THE NOAH - SHEM CONNECTION.
First Method.
AN. HOM. EVENT REFERENCE
1056 Noah born See Chapter 4
502+ Add age of Noah at birth of Shem Gen. 7:6 with 11:10
1558 Shem born
100+ Add age of Shem at birth of Arphaxad Gen. 7:6 with 11:10
1658 Arphaxad born
Second Method.
AN. HOM. EVENT REFERENCE
1056 Noah born See Chapter 4
600+ Add age of Noah at Flood Gen. 7:6
1656 Date of the Flood
2+ Add years after the Flood when Arphaxad was born Gen. 11:10
1658 Arphaxad born
The date of the Flood is treated as an epoch in the same way as the birth of one of the Patriarchs. It began on the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's age. Noah remained in the Ark for one whole year of exactly 365 days. But the expression "two years after the flood" in Gen. 11:10 is not to be interpreted as meaning two years after the flood was over. The flood is treated as an epoch or point of time from which the Chronology is continued in the same manner as from the birth of one of the Patriarchs.
The Chronology of the Flood year throws an interesting light upon the primitive Hebrew calendar. The commencement of the Flood is dated the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Gen. 7:11). The Ark rested on the 17th day of the 7th month (Gen. 8:4). The interval of five months between these two dates is described as an interval of 150 days, each of these five months consisting of 30 days. The Hebrews always reckoned 30 days to the month, except when they saw the New Moon on the 30th, which then became the 1st day of the new month. Moses may have followed this usage here. But Kennedy interprets him as reckoning 30 days to each of the first 11 months, and 24 days, or where necessary 25 days to the 12th month. Kennedy's account of the Flood year is as follows. The waters decreased continually till the 1st day of the 10th month, an interval embracing the remaining 14 days of the 7th month, and the two following months, or 74 days. The waters were dried up on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 601st year, after a further interval of 95 days, comprising a tenth month of 30 days, an eleventh month of 30 days, and a twelfth month of 24 days, making altogether 84 days to complete the twelve months of the lunar year, and a further 11 days to the eleventh day of the 1st month of the new lunar year to complete the 365 days of the solar year, the 600th year of Noah's life.
At this time Noah "removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold the face of the ground was dry." Nevertheless he remained in the ark until the 27th day of the 2nd month of the new lunar year, a further interval of 46 days, comprising the remaining 19 days of the 1st month, and the 27 days of the second month of the new lunar year, when at the command of God he went forth out of the ark in which he had remained exactly 365 days.
From these particulars Kennedy concludes that in the primitive Hebrew calendar time is measured by the solar year of 365 days, but computed in terms of the lunar year of twelve months, viz. eleven months of 30 days, and a twelfth month of 24 days, when the lunar year or the 12 revolutions of the moon occupy 354 days, and 25 days when the lunar year or the 12 revolutions of the moon occupy 355 days. The facts as viewed by Kennedy may be graphically represented as follows:-
DIAGRAM OF THE FLOOD YEAR
ACCORDING TO
JOHN KENNEDY'S New Method of Scripture Chronology.
[See DIAGRAM for original version]
599th Year in the Life of Noah. AN.HOM. 1655
Beginning of the Solar Year AN.HOM. 1656, which this year coincides with the lunar year
600th Year of the Life of Noah. AN.HOM. 1656
Month 1
Month 2 46 days into year, Noah entered Ark 17th day of 2nd month. Start of the 365 days in ark
Month 3 40 days rain ceased 26thh day 3rdd month
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7 After 150 days of waters prevailed, Ark rested on the 17th day of 7th month
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10 After 74 days of waters decreased, Peaks seen on the 1st day of 10th month
Month 11 Raven sent 11 day 11th month, Dove 1 sent 18 day 11th month, Dove 2 sent 25 day 11th month
Month 12 Dove 3 sent 2 day 12th month
Lunar year ends after 354 days, 84 days after peaks seen (Start of EPACT of 11 days to end of Solar year)
Month 1 After 308 days from entering Ark, Ark uncovered 1st day 1st month 601 year of life of Noah
Solar year 1656 ends after 365 days (601st Year of the life of Noah. AN.HOM. 1657)
Month 2 After 365 days in the Ark, and 46 days from uncovering the Ark, Noah went forth out of Ark 27th day 2nd month
The Biblical year is the luni-solar year. Time is measured by the revolutions of the sun. The feasts are regulated by the revolutions of the moon, and the relations between the solar year are adjusted, not by astronomical calculation, but by observation of the state of the crops, and the appearances of the moon. The resulting system was perfect and self- adjusting. It required neither periodic correction nor intercalation.
According to Kennedy, Moses measures time by the years of the sun. He computes time by the months and days of the years of the moon, which are pinned down to the years of the sun. From the 17th day of the 2nd month of one lunar year to the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following lunar year is a period of 354+11 = 365 or 1st day of the concurrent solar year, we have what is called a year of coincidence. Such a year was the year AN. HOM. 1656, the 600th year of Noah's life. The Flood year occupied 319 days of the solar year 1656, and 46 days of the solar year 1657, the year after the Flood. It also occupied 308 days of the lunar year concurrent with the solar year 1656, and 57 days of the lunar year concurrent with the solar year 1657. A year of commensuration is always followed by a year of coincidence.
The sun was appointed for the measurement of time or years. The moon for the regulation and determination of the periodic returns of the "seasons," i.e. the set feasts and solemn assemblies (Gen. 1:14, Psa. 104:19).
The Mosaic Shanah (a word which like Mishna signifies repetition) invariably denotes a true, tropical solar year containing all the four seasons, and always returning to the same point in the ecliptic. These feasts were pinned down to the solar year, but they were computed and regulated by the months and days of the year of the moon. The first month was the month whose full moon either fell upon or followed next after the beginning of the solar year, Tekuphath hasshanah = the return of the year (Ex. 34:22, I Sam. 1:20 margin, 2 Chron. 24:23 margin, Psalm 19:6.)
From the Creation to the Exodus this "beginning of the year" was fixed at the autumnal Equinox in the month Tisri, but from the Exodus onward it was transferred by Divine command to the vernal Equinox, and to the month Abib, which was henceforth to be "the beginning of months, the first month of the year" (Ex. 12:2, 13:4). So far Kennedy.
Sir Isaac Newton's account of the Hebrew calendar differs somewhat from Kennedy's. "All nations," he says in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, "before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn (Gen. 1:14, 8:22; Censorinus, c.19 and 20; Cicero in Verrem, Geminus, c.6), and in making calendars for their festivals they reckoned 30 days to a lunar month, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the eclipitic into 360 degrees. So in the time of Noah's Flood when the moon could not be seen, Noah reckoned 30 days to a month, but if the moon appeared a day or two before the month, they began the next month with the first day of her appearing. That the Israelites used the luni-solar year is beyond question. Their months began with the new moons. Their first month was called Abib, from the earing of corn in that month. Their Passover was kept from the 14th day of the first month, the moon being then in the full. And if the corn was not then ripe enough for offering the first fruits, the festival was put off by adding an intercalary month to the end of the year, and the harvest was got in before Pentecost, and the other fruits gathered before the feast of the seventh month."
This intercalation is nowhere provided for in the Mosaic law, nor is it ever mentioned or referred to in the whole of the Old Testament. Nevertheless it undoubtedly follows as a necessary consequence of the system. For the revolution of the sun is completed in 365.242242 days, and that of the moon in 29.530588 days, so that 12 moons fill the space of only 354 or 355 of the 365 days in the year. The added month did not come into the calendar. We ourselves never speak of intercalating a 53rd week in our year.
CHAPTER FOUR: THE ANTE-DILUVIAN
PATRIARCHS - FROM ADAM TO NOAH
(AN. HOM. 1-1056.)
THE opening verse of Genesis speaks of the Creation of the heavens, and the earth, in the undefined beginning. From this point we may date the origin of the world, but not the origin of man. For the second verse tells of a catastrophe - the earth became a ruin, and a desolation. The Hebrew verb hayah (hayah = to be) here translated was, signifies not only "to be" but also "to become," "to take place," "to come to pass." When a Hebrew writer makes a simple affirmation, or merely predicates the existence of anything, the verb hayah is never expressed. Where it is expressed it must always be translated by our verb to become, never by the verb to be, if we desire to convey the exact shade of the meaning of the Original. The words tohu va-bohu (tohu va- bohu), translated in the A.V. "without form and void" and in the R.V. "waste and void" should be rendered tohu, a ruin, and bohu, a desolation. They do not represent the state of the heavens and the earth as they were created by God. They represent only the state of the earth as it afterwards became - "a ruin and a desolation." This interpretation is confirmed by the words of Isaiah 45:18, "He created it not tohu (a ruin): He formed it to be inhabited (habitable, not desolate)." This excludes the rendering of Gen. 1:2 in the A.V. and the R.V. as decisively as the Hebrew of Gen. 1:2 requires the rendering of hayah by the word "became " instead of the word "was," or better still "had become," the separation of the Vav from the verb being the Hebrew method of indicating the pluperfect tense.
The noble Cathedral, once a perfect work of art, with its crowds of devout worshippers, becomes, with the lapse of ages, a dilapidated ruin. Forsaken by those who once frequented its hallowed courts, it becomes a desolation. Similarly the words of Gen. 1:2, "And the earth became without form and void" are intended to convey to us the fact that the cosmos, once a beautiful and perfect whole, became a "ruin" and a "desolation." What the cause of this catastrophe was, we are not told, though some speculative interpreters have connected it with the fall of Satan. We know neither the cause, nor the time, nor the manner in which the calamitous change took place. There is no point of contact between the Hebrew tohu "ruin" and the Greek conception of chaos, the primeval, shapeless, raw material out of which the world was formed. Genesis 1:2 does not describe a stage in the process of the creation, but a disaster which befell the created earth the original creation of the heavens, and the earth, is chronicled in Gen. 1:1. The next verse, Gen. 1:2, is a statement of the disorder, the ruin, and the state of desolation into which the earth subsequently fell. What follows in Gen. 1:3- 31 is the story of the restoration of a lost order by the creative word of God. Between the creation of the heavens and the earth "in the beginning" (Gen. 1:1) and the catastrophe by which they became a "ruin" and a "desolation" (Gen. 1:2) we place those countless ages required by the geologist for the formation of the various strata of the earth's crust, and the fossil remains embedded therein.
The length of time described by the Hebrew word Yom = day, as used in this chapter, cannot be definitely determined. The word itself is frequently used to express a long period, an entire Era. The time occupied by the whole process of the six days' work is referred to in Genesis 2:4 as "the day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth." The use of the expression "and evening came and morning came - day one" (Gen. 1:5; repeated Gen. 1:8,13,19,23,31) seems to suggest a literal day as measured by the revolution of the earth on its axis, but it cannot be said to be proved that the writer is not here using the words "evening and morning" in a figurative sense, for the commencement and the completion of whatever period he intended to mark by his use of the word "day." In the same verse (Gen. 1:5) the word "day" is used to mark a still briefer period, viz. that portion of the day when it is light.
The attempt to parcel out the six days' work into the six geological Eras, to which they somewhat roughly, but by no means accurately correspond, cannot be regarded as a satisfactory explanation of the writer's intention and meaning. There may be certain analogies between the order of Creation as described in the first chapter of Genesis, and the order of the formation of the various strata of the crust of the earth as read by the geologist, and in the order of the occurrence of the fossil remains which are found embedded in the stratified layers of the earth's crust, for God's works are all of a piece but there are also great and manifest divergencies, and these are so great, and so manifest that the two series cannot be said to run absolutely parallel with each other, or to perfectly correspond. The natural interpretation of the narrative, to one who recognizes the greatness of the power of God, is that which understands the chapter as a record of the creation of the world in six literal days; but it cannot be denied that the word "day" may have been used by the writer in a figurative sense, and intended by him to indicate a more extended period corresponding to a geological Era of time.
The creation of Adam took place on the sixth day after the creation of light. Whether this sixth day is to be interpreted as the sixth literal day, as measured by the space of time required for the revolution of the earth upon its own axis, or as a sixth geological Era, must remain uncertain, as there is nothing in the Hebrew Text to decide between the more precise and the more extended connotation of the term.
Similarly the question discussed by Ussher in his Annals of the Old and New Testaments, by Kennedy in his New Method of Scripture Chronology, by R. G. Faussett in his Symmetry of Time, and many other writers, as to the exact month, day and hour at which the first year of the life of Adam began, whether at the autumnal or at the vernal Equinox, cannot be decisively determined.
The following considerations make it appear probable that the original point of departure for the year was the autumnal Equinox, and that this was changed at the Exodus by Divine command, to the vernal Equinox, at all events, as far as the Hebrew people were concerned, whilst other nations may have continued to reckon their New Year's Day from the autumnal Equinox, or may have invented Eras of their own. We know that the later Jews Hellenized their calendar, introducing the principle of intercalation, and using the Greek Metonic cycle of 19 years for this purpose, instead of adhering to the Mosaic principle of direct observation, and eschewing astronomical calculations altogether.
(1) The order of the "evening and the morning" which formed the first day suggests by analogy the propriety of making the year also commence in the autumn.
(2) The autumnal season of harvest, when the fruits of the earth were ripe, seems to be the most appropriate time of the year for the appearance of man on the earth which had been specially prepared for him.
(3) The change of "the first month of the year" to Abib or Nisan occurring at the spring of the year (Exodus 12:2, 13:4, Deut. 16:1) suggests that up to that time the first month of the year was the month which followed immediately upon the Autumnal Equinox. This fixing of Abib or Nisan as the first month of the year may, however, have been a return to the original mode of reckoning from the Creation and a rejection of the Egyptian method of reckoning by the Vague calendar year of exactly 365 days.
But it is not till we reach the fifth chapter of Genesis that we meet with our first definite chronological datum, and here we find a complete list of the ante-diluvian patriarchs. The list is as follows. We adopt the term Anno Hominis rather than Anno Mundi, for, as we have seen, the world was created "in the beginning." This was ages before the creation of Adam, the true starting point of every Chronology. Ussher's date, B.C. 4004, should be removed from Gen. 1:1, and placed at Gen. 1:26, or Gen. 5:1.
The Ante-diluvian Patriarchs: From the Creation to the Flood.
ANNO
HOMINIS EVENT REFERENCE
0 Adam created Gen. 5:1
130+ Age of Adam at birth of Seth Gen. 5:3
130 Seth born
105+ Add age of Seth at birth of Enos Gen. 5:6
235 Enos born
90+ Add age of Enos at birth of Cainan Gen. 5:9
325 Cainan born
70+ Add age of Cainan at birth of Mahalaleel Gen. 5:12
395 Mahalaleel born
65+ Add age of Mahalaleel at birth of Jared Gen. 5:15
460 Jared born
162+ Add age of Jared at birth of
Enoch Gen. 5:18
622
Enoch born
65+ Add age of
Enoch at birth of Methuselah Gen. 5:21
687 Methuselah born
187+ Add age of Methuselah at birth of Lamech Gen. 5:25
874 Lamech born
182+ Add age of Lamech at birth of Noah Gen. 5:28
1056 Noah born
600+ Add age of Noah at the Flood Gen. 7:6
1656 The Flood
The design of this genealogical list is to give a Chronology of the period from Adam to the Flood. The line chosen is the line of Noah the preserver of the race, the line of the promised Messiah the Redeemer of the race. It must not be assumed that the son named in each generation is either always or generally the eldest son of his father. This is not stated, it is not suggested, it is not implied. Certainly Seth is not the eldest son of Adam, nor is Shem the eldest son of Noah, though he is mentioned in this list (Gen. 5:32) before his eldest brother Japheth (Gen. 10:21). Moses selects from the genealogical family records only those entries which relate to the chosen people, and those other races who are brought into contact with them in the course of their later history. The line of Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is selected because to them was given the promise of the "Seed," in whom all the nations of the earth are to be blessed. The theme of the Old Testament is the Redeemer. All its selections are governed, and all its omissions are explained, by this fact.
That the interest of the recorder of these Tables was chronological, may be inferred from the careful attention which he has paid to the subject of Chronology, and the very precise nature, and chronological form of the statements made respecting the ages of each of the Patriarchs. It may also be inferred from the fact that though he gives the descendants of the line of Cain, he attaches no Chronology to that line; his chronological purpose is served if the succession of events is accurately and fully recorded along the one line of succession which he adopts as his chronological Era.
The number of the years of the life of each of the Patriarchs is mentioned, in addition to the years before and after the birth of the son named, probably in order to show by this double statement that however extraordinary the length of the life of the Patriarch, there is no mistake about the accuracy of the figures. There is no reason to doubt the fact that our first fathers were endowed with a better physical frame, which enabled them to live a longer life than the men of the present day. The attempt to interpret the names of these men as the eponymous names of tribes or dynasties, or to give the word "year" a different signification from that which it ordinarily bears, or to discount the narrative as mythical, and the personages named in it as fictitious, is a fallacy induced by a presumed, but false analogy between the Biblical narrative and the legendary accounts of the origins of other nations, or by the gratuitous assumption that as things are to-day, so they always have been, and always will be. We have the same authority for believing that Adam was 930 when he died, that we have for believing that Joseph was 30 when he stood before Pharaoh, and 110 when he died.
The narrative nowhere states, and it must not be understood to imply, that each succeeding Patriarch was born on the very day on which his father attained the age named at his birth. As the purpose of the list is chronological, it must be interpreted to mean that the fractions of a year which are not mentioned are included in the age of the father. Moses intended his calculations to be both accurate and complete. He reckons by complete years, and gives the whole of the year in which the son is born to the age of the father at his son's birth. This is proved by the two instances of Methuselah and Noah. Methuselah's age at death is stated to have been 969 years (Gen. 5:27) but he was only 968 years, 1 month and 17 days old, plus whatever fraction of the year of his birth was included in the 65th year of his father
Enoch, when the Flood began. Noah's age when the Flood was upon the earth is given as 600 years (Gen. 7:6), but it was only on the 17th day of the 2nd month of his 600th year that the fountains of the deep were broken up (Gen. 7:11). These statements are given by Moses in order to explain the technical principles on which the Chronology is built. Those who make them into "discrepancies" are self-convicted, (1) of an error of interpretation, and (2) of attributing to the author the mistake which has been made by themselves.
Moses' tables of the Patriarchs, like Ptolemy's Canon of Kings, are constructed on astronomical principles. The numbers taken collectively constitute an uninterrupted series of true, tropical solar years, and register with astronomic accuracy the number of solar revolutions from the creation of Adam to the death of Joseph, which no Chronologer who accepts the statements of the Hebrew Text can make either one year more, or one year less, than 2369. Adam lived 930 years. The first year of his life runs parallel with the year Anno Hominis 1. The year in which he died runs parallel with AN. HOM. 930. Seth was born in the 130th year of Adam's life, the year AN. HOM. 130. It is not suggested that the Patriarchs were all born at the autumnal Equinox, or all on the same day of the same month of the year. The years are integral, and take no account of fractions. The year of Seth's birth is reckoned to Adam. The 131st year of Adam's life, the year AN. HOM. 131, is reckoned as the 1st year of the life of Seth. Hence, we may safely conclude that Moses' reckoning of years is inclusive, and Noah is said to be 600 years old at the beginning, and not at the end of his 600th year.
The numbers given in this genealogical list are characterized by the strictest regard for accuracy and precision. This is confirmed by the fact that since Ussher, no Chronologer who has adopted the numbers given in the Hebrew Text as the basis of his calculation, has ever failed to fix the Flood in the year AN. HOM. 1656, and the death of Joseph in the year AN. HOM. 2369.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE NOAH - SHEM CONNECTION
(Noah's age at the birth of Shem = 502 years).
AN. HOM. 1056 - 1558.
THE early Chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures is contained in a series of connected statements, each covering a definite period. Between each of these definite periods is an apparent chasm, or want of connection. A closer and more attentive study reveals the fact that the connecting link between the several periods is always supplied, but it has to be diligently sought for. The five apparent chasms at which the continuity of the chronological record appears to be broken off are as follows:-
1. The Noah-Shem connection, which determines the exact age of Noah at the birth of Shem, viz. 502 years.
2. The Terah-Abraham connection, which determines the exact age of Terah at the birth of Abraham, viz. 130 years.
3. The Joseph-Moses connection, which determines the exact number of years which elapsed between the death of Joseph, with which the Chronology of the book of Genesis ends (Gen. 50:26), and the birth of Moses, with which the Chronology of the book of Exodus begins (Exodus 7:7), viz. 64 years.
4. The Joshua-Judges connection, which determines the number of years that elapsed during the administration of Joshua and the Elders that overlived him, between the division of the land at the end of the Seven Years' War of Conquest, with which the Chronology of the Book of Joshua ends (Joshua 14:7,10 with Numbers 10:11,12; 13:17,20), and the oppression of Cushan-Rishathaim of Mesopotamia, with which the Chronology of the Book of Judges begins (Judges 3:8), viz. 13 years.
5. The Eli-Saul connection, which determines the number of years that elapsed between the death of Eli and the beginning of the reign of Saul, viz. 20 years. This is given in the summary of I Samuel 7:2.
These breaks in the consecutive statements of the Chronology are made good in various ways. The discussion of them will occupy five separate chapters of this work. They form a series of chronological problems of increasing difficulty, but it will always be found, on closer inspection, that the materials for forming an exact Chronology are always given, so that we are never left to hypothesis or conjecture, and never have to fall back upon the statements of Josephus or other external testimony.
In this chapter we have to deal with the Noah-Shem connection, i.e. to ascertain the age of Noah at the birth of Shem. The problem is solved by the inclusion of an intermediate date, the epoch of the Flood, from which we reckon back to the birth of Noah, and on to the age of Shem at the birth of his son Arphaxad.
The two statements contained in Genesis 5:32, "And Noah was 500 years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japhet," do not give us any clue to the exact age of Noah at the birth of Shem. Shem is mentioned first, because he is the member of the family with whom the writer is mainly concerned.
The Old Testament is a narrative of the story of Redemption. Redemption is through the Messiah, Who is to come through a particular line of descent. He is progressively defined as the "seed of the woman" (Gen. 3:15), the "seed of Abraham " (Gen. 22:18), "the seed of Isaac" (Gen. 26:4) "the seed of Jacob" (Gen. 28:14), "the Shiloh of the Tribe of Judah" (Gen. 49:10) and "the seed of the House of David" (2 Sam. 7:12-16).
References to other families and other races are summary, and incidental. The grand theme of the whole of the Old Testament Scriptures is the coming of the Redeemer, and the things concerning the race from which He springs. References to other races are introduced only in so far as they bear upon the main theme of the Old Testament Scriptures as a whole.
This explains why Shem is mentioned first amongst the sons of Noah. He was not the eldest son, for in Genesis 10:21 (a text misrendered in the R.V. but correctly translated in the A.V.), Japheth is distinctly described as his elder brother. In the same way, and for the same reason, Abram is mentioned before his elder brothers, Nahor and Haran, in Genesis 11:26, "And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor and Haran." Similarly Issac is placed before Ishmael in I Chron. 1:28, "The sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael," though Isaac was not the older, but the younger of the two.
We arrive at the age of Noah at the birth of Shem by means of an induction from the facts contained in Genesis 7:6 and Genesis 11:10. From Genesis 7:6 we learn that Noah was 600 years old at the epoch of the Flood. From Genesis 11:10 we learn that Shem was 100 years old, two years after the Flood. Therefore Shem was 98 years old at the Flood, that is Shem was 98 years old when Noah was 600. Therefore Shem was born when Noah was 502. This enables us to connect the Chronology of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs with the Chronology of the post-diluvian Patriarchs, and we may proceed in either of two ways. We may use the intermediate date of the Flood, or we may use the age of Noah at the birth of Shem, at which we have arrived by means of a mathematical deduction from the statements of the Hebrew narrative.
THE NOAH - SHEM CONNECTION.
First Method.
AN. HOM. EVENT REFERENCE
1056 Noah born See Chapter 4
502+ Add age of Noah at birth of Shem Gen. 7:6 with 11:10
1558 Shem born
100+ Add age of Shem at birth of Arphaxad Gen. 7:6 with 11:10
1658 Arphaxad born
Second Method.
AN. HOM. EVENT REFERENCE
1056 Noah born See Chapter 4
600+ Add age of Noah at Flood Gen. 7:6
1656 Date of the Flood
2+ Add years after the Flood when Arphaxad was born Gen. 11:10
1658 Arphaxad born
The date of the Flood is treated as an epoch in the same way as the birth of one of the Patriarchs. It began on the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's age. Noah remained in the Ark for one whole year of exactly 365 days. But the expression "two years after the flood" in Gen. 11:10 is not to be interpreted as meaning two years after the flood was over. The flood is treated as an epoch or point of time from which the Chronology is continued in the same manner as from the birth of one of the Patriarchs.
The Chronology of the Flood year throws an interesting light upon the primitive Hebrew calendar. The commencement of the Flood is dated the 17th day of the 2nd month of the 600th year of Noah's life (Gen. 7:11). The Ark rested on the 17th day of the 7th month (Gen. 8:4). The interval of five months between these two dates is described as an interval of 150 days, each of these five months consisting of 30 days. The Hebrews always reckoned 30 days to the month, except when they saw the New Moon on the 30th, which then became the 1st day of the new month. Moses may have followed this usage here. But Kennedy interprets him as reckoning 30 days to each of the first 11 months, and 24 days, or where necessary 25 days to the 12th month. Kennedy's account of the Flood year is as follows. The waters decreased continually till the 1st day of the 10th month, an interval embracing the remaining 14 days of the 7th month, and the two following months, or 74 days. The waters were dried up on the 1st day of the 1st month of the 601st year, after a further interval of 95 days, comprising a tenth month of 30 days, an eleventh month of 30 days, and a twelfth month of 24 days, making altogether 84 days to complete the twelve months of the lunar year, and a further 11 days to the eleventh day of the 1st month of the new lunar year to complete the 365 days of the solar year, the 600th year of Noah's life.
At this time Noah "removed the covering of the ark and looked, and behold the face of the ground was dry." Nevertheless he remained in the ark until the 27th day of the 2nd month of the new lunar year, a further interval of 46 days, comprising the remaining 19 days of the 1st month, and the 27 days of the second month of the new lunar year, when at the command of God he went forth out of the ark in which he had remained exactly 365 days.
From these particulars Kennedy concludes that in the primitive Hebrew calendar time is measured by the solar year of 365 days, but computed in terms of the lunar year of twelve months, viz. eleven months of 30 days, and a twelfth month of 24 days, when the lunar year or the 12 revolutions of the moon occupy 354 days, and 25 days when the lunar year or the 12 revolutions of the moon occupy 355 days. The facts as viewed by Kennedy may be graphically represented as follows:-
DIAGRAM OF THE FLOOD YEAR
ACCORDING TO
JOHN KENNEDY'S New Method of Scripture Chronology.
[See DIAGRAM for original version]
599th Year in the Life of Noah. AN.HOM. 1655
Beginning of the Solar Year AN.HOM. 1656, which this year coincides with the lunar year
600th Year of the Life of Noah. AN.HOM. 1656
Month 1
Month 2 46 days into year, Noah entered Ark 17th day of 2nd month. Start of the 365 days in ark
Month 3 40 days rain ceased 26thh day 3rdd month
Month 4
Month 5
Month 6
Month 7 After 150 days of waters prevailed, Ark rested on the 17th day of 7th month
Month 8
Month 9
Month 10 After 74 days of waters decreased, Peaks seen on the 1st day of 10th month
Month 11 Raven sent 11 day 11th month, Dove 1 sent 18 day 11th month, Dove 2 sent 25 day 11th month
Month 12 Dove 3 sent 2 day 12th month
Lunar year ends after 354 days, 84 days after peaks seen (Start of EPACT of 11 days to end of Solar year)
Month 1 After 308 days from entering Ark, Ark uncovered 1st day 1st month 601 year of life of Noah
Solar year 1656 ends after 365 days (601st Year of the life of Noah. AN.HOM. 1657)
Month 2 After 365 days in the Ark, and 46 days from uncovering the Ark, Noah went forth out of Ark 27th day 2nd month
The Biblical year is the luni-solar year. Time is measured by the revolutions of the sun. The feasts are regulated by the revolutions of the moon, and the relations between the solar year are adjusted, not by astronomical calculation, but by observation of the state of the crops, and the appearances of the moon. The resulting system was perfect and self- adjusting. It required neither periodic correction nor intercalation.
According to Kennedy, Moses measures time by the years of the sun. He computes time by the months and days of the years of the moon, which are pinned down to the years of the sun. From the 17th day of the 2nd month of one lunar year to the 27th day of the 2nd month of the following lunar year is a period of 354+11 = 365 or 1st day of the concurrent solar year, we have what is called a year of coincidence. Such a year was the year AN. HOM. 1656, the 600th year of Noah's life. The Flood year occupied 319 days of the solar year 1656, and 46 days of the solar year 1657, the year after the Flood. It also occupied 308 days of the lunar year concurrent with the solar year 1656, and 57 days of the lunar year concurrent with the solar year 1657. A year of commensuration is always followed by a year of coincidence.
The sun was appointed for the measurement of time or years. The moon for the regulation and determination of the periodic returns of the "seasons," i.e. the set feasts and solemn assemblies (Gen. 1:14, Psa. 104:19).
The Mosaic Shanah (a word which like Mishna signifies repetition) invariably denotes a true, tropical solar year containing all the four seasons, and always returning to the same point in the ecliptic. These feasts were pinned down to the solar year, but they were computed and regulated by the months and days of the year of the moon. The first month was the month whose full moon either fell upon or followed next after the beginning of the solar year, Tekuphath hasshanah = the return of the year (Ex. 34:22, I Sam. 1:20 margin, 2 Chron. 24:23 margin, Psalm 19:6.)
From the Creation to the Exodus this "beginning of the year" was fixed at the autumnal Equinox in the month Tisri, but from the Exodus onward it was transferred by Divine command to the vernal Equinox, and to the month Abib, which was henceforth to be "the beginning of months, the first month of the year" (Ex. 12:2, 13:4). So far Kennedy.
Sir Isaac Newton's account of the Hebrew calendar differs somewhat from Kennedy's. "All nations," he says in his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended, "before the just length of the solar year was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn (Gen. 1:14, 8:22; Censorinus, c.19 and 20; Cicero in Verrem, Geminus, c.6), and in making calendars for their festivals they reckoned 30 days to a lunar month, taking the nearest round numbers, whence came the division of the eclipitic into 360 degrees. So in the time of Noah's Flood when the moon could not be seen, Noah reckoned 30 days to a month, but if the moon appeared a day or two before the month, they began the next month with the first day of her appearing. That the Israelites used the luni-solar year is beyond question. Their months began with the new moons. Their first month was called Abib, from the earing of corn in that month. Their Passover was kept from the 14th day of the first month, the moon being then in the full. And if the corn was not then ripe enough for offering the first fruits, the festival was put off by adding an intercalary month to the end of the year, and the harvest was got in before Pentecost, and the other fruits gathered before the feast of the seventh month."
This intercalation is nowhere provided for in the Mosaic law, nor is it ever mentioned or referred to in the whole of the Old Testament. Nevertheless it undoubtedly follows as a necessary consequence of the system. For the revolution of the sun is completed in 365.242242 days, and that of the moon in 29.530588 days, so that 12 moons fill the space of only 354 or 355 of the 365 days in the year. The added month did not come into the calendar. We ourselves never speak of intercalating a 53rd week in our year.
CHAPTER VI. COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY. ADAM TO NOAH.
IN calculating the Chronology of the ante-diluvian Patriarchs, the numbers used in Scripture are our only guide. The figures given above are those of the Massoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.
Other numbers are given in the Septuagint Greek Text, and yet others again in the Samaritan Pentateuch, the sum of the numbers in the LXX. being 606 years longer, and the sum of the numbers in the Samaritan Version 349 years shorter, than those of the Hebrew Text. That the variations are due to contrivance or design, and not to accident, is plain from the systematic way in which the alterations have been made, the only question that arises is as to which of the three versions is the authentic original, and which the modified or concocted scheme.
The figures are here placed side by side in order that they may be easily compared and judgment passed upon their rival claims to originality.
THE ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS.
Chronology of the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan Versions.
Hebrew Septuagint Samaritan
Age at birth of son Residue Total Age at birth of son Residue Total Age at birth of son Residue Total
Adam 130+ 800= 930 230+ 700= 930 130+ 800= 930
Seth 105+ 807= 912 205+ 707= 912 105+ 807= 912
Enos 90+ 815= 905 90+ 715= 905 90+ 815= 905
Cainan 70+ 840= 910 170+ 740= 910 70+ 840= 910
Mahalaleel 65+ 830= 895 165+ 730= 895 65+ 830= 895
Jared 162+ 800= 962 162+ 800= 962 62+ 785= 847
Enoch 65+ 300= 365 165+ 200= 365 65+ 300= 365
Methuselah 187+ 782= 969 {167+
{187+ 802=}
782=} 969 67+ 653= 720
Lamech 182+ 595= 777 188+ 565= 753 53+ 600= 653
Noah
(to Flood) 600+ 350= 950 600 600
TOTAL 1656 2242
2262 1307
The following variations are found in the Early Church Fathers, Theophilus and Africanus, and in the writings of the Jewish historian, Josephus.
THE ANTE-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS.
Chronology of Theophilus, Africanus, and Josephus.
Age at birth of son
Theophilus Africanus Josephus
Adam 230 230 230
Seth 205 205 205
Enos 190 190 190
Cainan 170 170 170
Mahalaleel 165 165 165
Jared 162 162 162
Enoch 165 165 165
Methuselah 167 187 187
Lamech 188 188 182
Noah (to Flood) 600 600 600
TOTAL 2242 2262 2256
Theophilus agrees with the LXX. throughout, viz. with those copies which make the years of Methuselah at the birth of his son 167, and which are thus involved in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years. He is followed by Eusebius, Augustine and Syncellus. But Africanus and Josephus and likewise the Paschal Chronicle, Demetrius and Epiphanius, follow those copies of the LXX. which adopt the unaltered Hebrew figure 187.
Theophilus and Africanus follow the LXX. in making the years of Lamech, at the birth of his son 188, whilst Josephus following the Hebrew Text gives the number as 182.
A careful study of these figures discloses the fact that originality belongs to the Hebrew Chronology to which the Septuagint adds 606 years, but from which the Samaritan deducts 349 years.
The main difference between the Hebrew and the LXX. consists in the addition of 100 years to the age of the six Patriarchs, Adam, Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel and Enoch at the birth of their sons. This 100 years is carefully deducted from the residue so that the total remains the same in each case.
Jared and Methuselah, being already advanced in age at the birth of their sons, are left unaltered. The case of Lamech is exceptional, six years are added to his age before the birth of his son, and thirty years are deducted from the residue, so that the total number of the years of his life is 24 less than the number given in the Hebrew.
The alteration of the age of Lamech from 182 to 188 is accounted for as follows. Africanus starts like the LXX. with a total of 2262 years from Adam to the Flood. He looks to Peleg as the name in connection with which the millenary division of time is to occur, but he places the point of the division, or the epoch of the 3000th year from the date of the Creation, at the death of Peleg, not as Theophilus of Antioch does at the attainment of his 130th year. Like Theophilus, he omits the two years from the Flood to the birth of Arphaxad, a very common error which arises from the mistaken, but very general supposition, that Shem was Noah's eldest son, and was born when his father was 500, instead of when he was 502. The calculation then proceeds as follows:-
The Millenary scheme of Africanus.
EVENT YEARS
Creation to the Flood 2262
Arphaxad to the birth of his son 135+
Salah 130+
Eber 134+
Peleg 130+
Peleg, Residue 209+
TOTAL 3000
To make up this total, the first item must be 2262, that is Lamech's 182 must be altered to 188.
The majority of the Manuscripts of the LXX. give 167 as the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son, and this is confirmed by the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has 67 (always a Century less than the LXX. until we get to Lamech). But if Methuselah was 167 at the birth of Lamech, Lamech 188 at the birth of Noah, and Noah 600 at the Flood, Methuselah would be 955 at the date of the Flood, and since he lived to be 969, the LXX. is involved in the absurdity of making Methuselah survive the Flood by 14 years. To remedy this the alteration of the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son from 187 to 167 was retracted, and the number 187 was restored.
The net effect of these alterations is to give the world an increased duration, and a more respectable antiquity. The men who made the LXX. Version were Jews living in Egypt, about 250 to 180 years before Christ. They were acquainted with the extravagant claims to antiquity put forward by the Egyptian priesthood. They desired to modernise their view of the antiquity of the origin of the race, and to bring it into closer accord with the views that prevailed in the up-to-date Schools of learning at Alexandria, and this they did by adding some 606 years to the Hebrew Chronology of the Patriarchs who lived before the Flood. The native Jews of Palestine cherished a deep and reverential regard for the very letter of Scripture, and would never dare to alter a single word. Josephus describes their veneration for their Sacred Books as being so great that, "notwithstanding the lapse of so many ages, no one had ever dared to add to, or to take from them, or to alter anything in them." He says that it was "innate in every Jew to regard them as the precepts of God, to abide by them, and if need be, cheerfully to die for them."
The translators of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, had no such compunctions. They wished to make such a version as would commend the Hebrew Scriptures to the learned men of Alexandria, whose traditions laid claim to a remote antiquity by the side of which the Chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures seemed insignificant and contemptible. Hence they contrived to add 606 years to the Chronology of the period before the Flood, and to make a similar, but larger addition of 880 years to the Chronology of the period from the Flood to Abraham. The method and the motive of the alterations is perfectly clear.
The irregularity of the Hebrew numbers considering the notorious uncertainty of human life, is a reason for accepting the Hebrew Text as the genuine Original, whilst the more regular succession of the numbers in the LXX. makes it more likely that the LXX. was contrived as an improvement on the Hebrew, than that the irregular Hebrew numbers were designedly fabricated as an improvement on the more regular numbers of the LXX.
CHAPTER VII. POST-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS - FROM SHEM TO ABRAHAM.
(AN. HOM. 1558-2008).
THE Chronology of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs presents the same features as those already met with in dealing with the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs.
The 11th Chapter of Genesis supplies us with a list of Patriarchs in many respects similar to that which we have been studying in the 5th chapter. The most notable differences are, (1) the reduction in the length of the lives of the Patriarchs placed at the head of the list, to about one half of that of the Patriarchs who lived before the Flood, and (2) its further reduction to about one half of the new standard of longevity, when we reach the name of Peleg, which stands very nearly in the middle of the list. Both lists of Patriarchs, the Ante-diluvian List, from Adam to Noah, and the Postdiluvian List, from Shem to Abraham, contain the same number of names, there being exactly ten names in each case. In this list the writer gives the age of the Patriarch at the birth of his son, and the residue of his years thereafter. The sum total of the years of the life of the Patriarch is not stated as it is in the case of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs.
POST-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS.
From the Flood to the Birth of Abram
.
ANNO
HOMINIS EVENT REFERENCE
1656 The Flood – Shem aged 98 Gen. 11:10, see Chapter 5
2+ Add the years after the Flood when Arphaxad was born Gen. 11:10
1658 Arphaxad born, Shem aged 100
35+ Add age of Arphaxad at birth of Salah Gen. 11:12
1693 Salah born
30+ Add age of Salah at birth of Eber Gen. 11:14
1723 Eber born
34+ Add age of Eber at birth of Peleg Gen. 11:16
1757 Peleg born
30+ Add age of Peleg at birth of Reu Gen. 11:18
1787 Reu born
32+ Add age of Reu at birth of Serug Gen. 11:20
1819 Serug born
30+ Add age of Serug at birth of Nahor (Abram's grandfather) Gen. 11:22
1849 Nahor, Abram's grandfather, born
29+ Add age of Nahor at birth of Terah Gen. 11:24
1878 Terah born
130+ Add age of Terah at birth of Abram Gen. 11:26,32; Gen. 12:4; Acts 7:4
2008 Abram born
The design of this genealogical list is to carry forward the Chronology from the date of the Flood to the birth of Abram.
CHAPTER VIII. THE TERAH - ABRAHAM CONNECTION.
Terah's age at the birth of Abraham = 130 years.
In Gen. 11:26 we read, "And Terah lived 70 years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran." We have already seen, in the parallel case of Noah and his three sons, that though Shem was mentioned first, he was not the eldest son of Noah, and was not born till two years after his father was 500 years old, as stated in Gen 5:32
We have now to show that in like manner, Abram, though mentioned first, was not the eldest son of Terah, and was not born till sixty years after his father was seventy years old, as stated in Gen. 11:26.
We begin with the result obtained in our last chapter, that Terah was born AN. HOM. 1878. From Gen. 11:32 we learn that Terah was 205 when he died. Therefore Terah died AN. HOM. 2083. From Acts 7:4 we learn that when Terah died Abram left Haran.
The words of Stephen in Acts 7 make explicit what is implicit in Gen. 11:27-12:5. It is clear that there were two distinct calls given to Abram. In response to the first he left Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of Canaan, but halted when he came to Haran, and dwelt there. In response to the second call he left Haran to go into the land of Canaan, "and into the land of Canaan they came."
The rendering of this passage in the A.V. is faulty in two respects, (1) the insertion of the word "had" in the phrase "Now the Lord had said unto Abram" in Gen. 12:1 is inaccurate and misleading. There is nothing in the Hebrew Text to warrant it. It suggests to the reader that there was only one call instead of two. And (2) the division into chapters breaks the continuity of the narrative in which the connection between Gen. 11:32 and Gen. 12:1 is direct and immediate. It should read thus:-
"Terah died in Haran, and the Lord said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, into a land that I will show thee... So Abram departed as the Lord had spoken unto him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran." Gen. 11:32-12:4.
The consecutiveness of the narrative enables us to say that when Terah died at the age of 205, Abram left Haran at the age of 75, and came into the land of Canaan. But if Abram was 75 when Terah was 205, it follows that Abram was born when Terah was 130. We were, therefore, justified in adding, at the end of the list of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs the figures given in connection with the last name on the list, viz. that of Abram.
ANNO
HOMINIS EVENT REFERENCE
1878 Terah born See Chapter 7
130+ Add age of Terah at birth of Abram Gen. 11:26,32; Gen. 12:4; Acts 7:4
2008 Birth of Abram
The lateness of Abram's birth in the life of his father explains how he could be only ten years older than his half-niece Sarah or Iscah (Gen. 11:29) and therefore of an age to marry her in spite of the fact that he belonged to a generation earlier than the generation to which she belonged. Sarah married her father Haran's much younger brother Abram. Similarly Milcah, Sarah's sister, married her father Haran's brother Nahor. Abram was probably Terah's son by a second wife. If so this would explain how Abram could say to Abimelech, She is the daughter (granddaughter) of my father Terah, but not the daughter (granddaughter) of my mother. Thus:-
Terah.
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| | |
| Haran. |
| | |
| +---------------+-------------+ |
| | | |
Nahor + Milcah. | |
Iscah } |
or } + Abram
Sarah }
The credit of the discovery of the age of Terah at the birth of Abram is due to Archbishop Ussher. It is one of the principal improvements of his system, and a proof of the acuteness of his intelligence, and the keenness of his insight into the chronological bearing of the statements contained in the text of Holy Scripture.
CHAPTER IX. COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY - SHEM TO ABRAHAM.
THE Table of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs, with their ages at the birth of their sons, and the number of years in the residue of their lives as given in the Hebrew Text, has been manipulated in the LXX. and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in the same way that the Table of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs was manipulated by them.
The first of the following tables gives a comparative view of the Hebrew, LXX., and Samaritan figures for the age of each of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs at the birth of his son, the residue of his years, and the total number of the years of his life. This third column is given in the Samaritan Pentateuch but is wanting in the case of the Hebrew and the LXX. It is here supplied in brackets for the sake of comparison.
The second table gives a comparative view of the figures adopted by the Early Christian Fathers, and by Josephus.
COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE POST-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS
According to the Hebrew, Septuagint, and Samaritan Texts.
Hebrew Septuagint Samaritan
Age at birth of son Residue Total Age at birth of son Residue Total Age at birth of son Residue Total
Shem (after the Flood) [98]+2+ 500= 600 [98] +2+ 500= 600 [98] +2+ 500= 600
Arphaxad 35+ 403= 438 135+ 400= 535 135+ 303= 438
Cainan - - - {130+} 330= 460 - - -
Salah 30+ 403= 433 130+ 330= 460 130+ 303= 433
Eber 34+ 430= 464 134+ 270= 404 134+ 270= 404
Peleg 30+ 209= 239 130+ 209= 339 130+ 109= 239
Reu 32+ 207= 239 132+ 207= 339 132+ 107= 239
Serug 30+ 200= 230 130+ 200= 330 130+ 100= 230
Nahor 29+ 119= 141 79+
{179+} 125= 204
304 79+ 69= 148
Terah (to birth of Abram) 130+ 75= 205 70+ 135= 205 70+ 75= 145
TOTAL 352 942
(sic) 942
Add 2nd Cainan 130+
Sub TTL 1072
Add addition to Nahor 100+
TOTAL 1172
COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE POST-DILUVIAN PATRIARCHS
According to the Early Christian Fathers, Theophilus, Africanus and Eusebius and the Jewish Historian, Josephus.
Age of Patriarch at birth of son
THEOPHILUS AFRICANUS EUSEBIUS JOSEPHUS
Shem after the Flood - - 2 12
Arphaxad 135 135 135 135
Cainan - - - -
Salah 130 130 130 130
Heber 134 134 134 134
Peleg 130 130 130 130
Reu 132 132 {132}
{135} 130
Serug 130 130 130 132
Nahor 75 79 79 120
Terah to birth of Abram 70 70 70 70
TOTAL 936 940 942 993
We have now to consider the relative weight and value of the testimony of the following witnesses - The Hebrew, the LXX., the Samaritan, the Early Christian Fathers, and Josephus. All the authorities omit the second Cainan, except the LXX. Theophilus omits the two years after the Flood, and shortens Nahor's 79 years to 75. Africanus omits the two years after the Flood, but otherwise agrees with the LXX. Eusebius gives 135 for Reu, but as he makes the total 942, this must be an error for 132. Josephus is singular in making the interval between the Flood and the birth of Arphaxad 12 years instead of 2. He also adds an additional 41 years to the life of Nahor, making his years 120 instead of 79, thus adding altogether 51 years to the LXX. Chronology of the period. He also reverses the figures for Reu 130 instead of 132, and Serug 132 instead of 130.
We must not give to the testimony of the Early Christian Fathers an authority beyond its value. Their authority is not something additional to that of the LXX. It is the authority of the LXX. weakened by the fact that they manipulated the Text to make it fit in with their millenary chronological schemes. If we admit the testimony of Josephus, we have in favour of the longer Chronology before the Flood, two witnesses, the LXX. and Josephus after the Flood three witnesses, the LXX., Josephus and the Samaritan Text, the testimony of the Fathers being in each case included in that of the LXX. The alternative Chronologies for the period from Adam to the birth of Abram are two.
COMPARATIVE VIEW OF THE LONGER AND SHORTER PATRIARCHAL CHRONOLOGIES.
Alternatives Before the Flood After the Flood TOTAL
The HEBREW supported by the SAMARITAN before the Flood 1656 352 2008
The LXX and JOSEPHUS supported by the SAMARITAN after the Flood 2256 993 3249
The interval from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abram was either 2008 or 3249. The Samaritan Text agrees with the Hebrew before the Flood, and with the LXX. and Josephus after the Flood.
The uncertainty does not arise from the want of testimony like that which occurs in the early Chronology of Greece, and many other countries where the times are uncertain because no evidence was preserved. It arises from a conflict between two different authorities, and we have to decide between them. In the view of the present writer the evidence in favour of the originality of the Hebrew Text and the derivative character of the LXX. under the Hellenistic influences which prevailed at Alexandria (where the LXX. version was made between B.C. 250 and 180) is overwhelming.
Clinton says the objection to the shorter Chronology of the Hebrew Text founded upon the supposition of the deficient numbers of mankind vanishes when the subject is better understood. " An army of Medes," he says, "occupied Babylon about B.C. 2233, and this is the highest point to which any authentic profane account will carry us." This, according to Clinton's Chronology, was "250 years after the Flood," by which time "the population of the earth would amount to many millions." The translators of the Hebrew Text into the Greek LXX. had a very obvious motive for enlarging the Chronology. The history of the Chaldeans by Berosus, and the history of the Egyptians by Manetho were published about this time, and they laid claim to a remote antiquity for the beginning of their respective histories. It was natural that the translators of the LXX. should augment the Chronology of the period by the centenary additions, and by the insertion of the second Cainan, in order to carry back the epoch of the Creation and the Flood to a respectable antiquity, so that it might compare more favourably with that claimed for Babylon and Egypt.
As there is no precedent in ante-diluvian times for placing the age of the Patriarchs at the birth of their sons so low as from 30 to 35 years, it seems probable that the Hebrew Text gives the true ages of the post-diluvian Patriarchs, as in fact they were.
The LXX. and the Samaritan copyists, on the contrary, adapt the figures and give the ages as 130 to 135, and thereby preserve the appearance of a graduated instead of an abrupt fall in the ages of the post-diluvian Patriarchs at the birth of their sons, and at the same time secure another 6 1/2 Centuries for their Chronology, thus throwing the date of Adam another 650 years farther back than the date at which it is given in the Hebrew Text.
Further traces of innovation and contrivance are disclosed in the sum totals of the lives of the Patriarchs. These are no longer expressed, but they are easily calculated, and a glance at the third columns of the three divisions of the Table on [page 80] will show that, whilst the Hebrew Record displays considerable irregularity, the editors of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Texts have graduated the figures in such a way that the life of each succeeding Patriarch is nearly always somewhat shorter, or at all events not longer, than that of his predecessor. Thus, according to the Hebrew Text, the life of Eber is longer than that of Salah, and the life of Terah is considerably longer than that of Nahor, whilst at Peleg we reach another abrupt shortening of the period of human life from about 400 to 200, similar to the abrupt shortening from about 800 before the Flood to 400 in the Patriarchs born immediately after the Flood.
According to the Hebrew scheme Arphaxad and Salah both lived 403 years after the birth of their sons. If the plan adopted by the editors or the copyists of the LXX. in the ante-diluvian scheme had been applied here the residues of the lives of Arphaxad and Salah would have been reduced to 303, and the Chronology would not have been affected thereby.
But the editors of the LXX. appear to have had two motives, viz. two distinct kinds of critics, or potential raisers of plausible objections to the Hebrew Record, to conciliate. They must not only extend the Chronology of the period by adding another 6 1/2 Centuries to the figures as given in the Hebrew Text, but they must also exhibit a graduated scale of reduction in the term of human life, minimizing the abruptness of the fall in the ages of the Patriarchs Arphaxad and Peleg, and lengthening the life of Nahor, who died, according to the Hebrew Text, at the comparatively early age of 148. Hence they make the residue of Arphaxad's years 400, whilst those of Salah are reduced to 330. According to the Hebrew Text, Eber's residue is 430 and his total 464, whilst Peleg, who comes next on the list, lived to be only 209. In order to break the abruptness of the fall from 464 to 209 in the standard of human longevity, Eber's 430 years' residue is changed into 270. The residues of Peleg, Reu and Serug, according to the Hebrew Text, are 209, 207 and 200 years respectively. But the reduction of human life in the case of Eber has been so great and so sudden that no further deduction can be made, so these residues are allowed to stand unaltered. Nahor does not live long enough to meet the requirements of the scheme; he therefore receives an addition of 56 years to bring his age up to within a year of that of Terah, and of these 50 are apportioned to his age at the birth of his son, and the remaining 6 are added to the residue of his years. The reason why Nahor receives only 50 additional years to his age at the birth of his son, instead of the usual 100 years given to each of his predecessors, is, because the addition of the full Century would interfere with the fabricator's idea of the gradual decline in the standard of human life. For other reasons the figures were afterwards altered to 179, an addition of 150 years, in order to make the Chronology square with the presupposition of the Chiliasts, or millenary Chronologers. The net effect of all these alterations is that the list as given in the LXX. exhibits a carefully graded declension in the standard of human life instead of one that is like what we find in nature, irregular, abrupt and startling.
It is impossible to give any rational account of the derivation of the Hebrew figures from the LXX. on the supposition that those given in the LXX. are the original. The compilers of the Hebrew Text might conceivably have deducted the 6 1/2 Centuries if they wished to shorten the Chronology, but no motive can be assigned for their wishing to do this, and even if they had reduced the Chronology of the period in this way no possible motive can be assigned for their interfering with the residues of the post-diluvian Patriarchs, which did not affect the chronological question at all. The sudden abridgment of human life by one half in the case of Arphaxad, as compared with the length of the lives of the Patriarchs who lived before the Flood, and the further sudden drop by another half in the days of Peleg, are not only without motive, but even if they could be shown to be the work of a capricious inventor, or a conscious forger, the results obtained are wholly gratuitous. In the case of the Hebrew numbers we have an irregular list, manifesting a total absence of any indication of manipulation of contrivance. In the case of the LXX. we have unmistakable evidences of a two- fold motive (1) the lengthening of the Chronology and (2) the graduation of the decline in the duration of human life, in order to make the scheme plausible and palatable to the "Wisdom of the Greeks."
In like manner the contriver of the Samaritan scheme manipulates the figures of the Hebrew Text in accordance with his own personal preferences. In the Table of the post-diluvian Patriarchs he adopts the longer Chronology adding the 6 1/2 centuries to the Hebrew in the same way as the LXX. has done, but he still more carefully graduates the decline in the standard of human life, each succeeding Patriarch, including Eber and Terah, being made to die in almost every case at an earlier age than his father.
The argument advanced for the longer Chronology of the LXX. and the Samaritan versions, on the ground that the age of puberty at any period of human history must bear a fixed proportion to the ordinary length of life in that period, is a gratuitous assumption, wholly unsupported by testimony and confuted by the facts recorded in the Old Testament, for in the period to which Jacob, Levi and Kohath belonged, the age of puberty was the same as it is amongst ourselves to-day, viz. about 14 or 15, but the average duration of life was nearly double that of the standard three score years and ten of the present day, for Jacob lived to be 147, Levi to be 137 and Kohath to be 133.
The introduction of the second Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah, in the LXX., adds another 130 years to the longer Chronology of that Version. It is undoubtedly a spurious addition to the Hebrew Text. The motive was no doubt partly the desire to lengthen the Chronology, but the manner in which this is done needs explanation. Possibly the desire to form a second list of 10 Patriarchs from the Flood to Abraham, corresponding with the list of 10 patriarchs from Adam to Noah, may account for the insertion of the extra name. In that case it would seem to have escaped the notice of the inventor of the extra name that the list of Patriarchs from the Flood to Noah, as given in the Hebrew Text of Genesis 11:10-26, already contains ten names and can only be reckoned as nine when the name of Shem is omitted from the list.
The origin and the motive of the insertion of the name of Cainan and his 130 years between Arphaxad and Salah, is amply explained from the enumeration of the years of the period from Adam to Peleg given in the writings of the Christian Chronologer Theophilus (Bishop of Antioch A.D. 176-186).
In his days the leading writers of the Christian Church were dominated with the idea of six millenary ages of the world, which they regarded as equally divided into two periods of 3,000 years each at the 130th year of Peleg's life, when he begat his son Reu, Peleg's name signifying "division." The following is the enumeration of the 3,000 years of this Period given by Theophilus, He first adds 100 years to the life of Adam at the birth of Seth. This makes the period from Adam to the Flood 2,362 years, instead of 2,262 according to the LXX. He then adds, the years of Arphaxad 135, Salah 130, Eber 134, and Peleg 130 at the birth of their sons, which brings the total up to 2,891. This calculation, it will be observed, like that of Africanus, misses out altogether the 2 years from the Flood to the birth of Arphaxad. For the reduction of the years of Methuselah from 187 to 167 a double motive may be assigned. It was done partly to approximate the age of Methuselah at the birth of his son to the ages of the patriarchs immediately preceding him, and partly to cover up, and so to prevent the detection of, the fraud in connection with the spurious addition of the 2nd Cainan, whose name is taken from the list of the Ante-diluvian Patriarchs in Genesis 5:9.
The rest of the story cannot be better told than as it is in the posthumous tract of John Gregorie, M.A., chaplain of Christ Church, Oxford, on "The Disproof of the Second Cainan," in which the matter is put thus:-
"By the period of Theophilus the interval from Adam to Phalec was 2,891 years: to this 110 years were to be added. First, then, to make it look unlike a cheat, they cut off 20 years from Methuselah's sum, and whereas Theophilus had reckoned him at 187, they set him down 176, as in some copies it still standeth. Then it was from Adam to Phalec 2,871 years. This done, they insert a new Cainan, assigning him 130 years, which added to the former sum precisely maketh up 3,000 years from Adam to the 130th year of Phalec."
It was only subsequently that the discovery was made that this reduction of the age of Methuselah, at the birth of Lamech, from 187 to 167, the 20 years being added to the residue of his 969 years, involved the absurdity of making him survive the Flood by a period of 14 years, whereupon the number was altered back to 167. Consequently the copies of the LXX. vary between the two numbers, some giving 187 and some 167.
The occurrence of these various readings in the LXX., as contrasted with the absence of various readings in the Hebrew Text, is an additional argument in favour of the originality of the Hebrew, and the derivative character of the Septuagint.
Many other arguments may be adduced to prove the spurious character of the addition of the second Cainan.
(1) It is omitted from the Hebrew Massoretic Text, and also from the Samaritan, as well as from all the ancient versions and Targums of Gen. 11:12
(2) It is omitted from the Hebrew Text of the two passages I Chronicles 1:18,24, and also from many copies of the LXX. version of that passage, though 21 copies collated by Dr. Parsons have it, in verse 18, and 6 copies have it in verse 24.
(3) Josephus omits Cainan in his list of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs and so does Philo by implication, for he reckons ten generations before the Flood from Adam to Noah, and ten generations after the Flood from Shem to Abraham, which leaves no room for Cainan in the second group.
(4) Berosus (B.C. 284) and Eupolemus (B.C. 174) represent Abraham as living in the 10th generation after the Flood, whereas if the name of Cainan had been included Abraham would have been living in the 11th generation after the Flood.
(5) Origen marks the name of Cainan with an obelisk in his copy of the LXX., to mark his rejection of it as not genuine.
(6) Eusebius excludes him by reckoning only 942 years from the Flood to Abraham, and in this he is followed by Epiphanius and Jerome.
(7) The name is evidently a late invention of the Chiliasts, who reckoned up their Chronology by periods of a thousand years, and where the facts were stubborn they invented others, and thus retained their theory.
It is immaterial as to the date at which the name of Cainan was inserted in the LXX. version of Gen. 11:12, 1 Chron. 1:18,24 Demetrius, a writer who flourished in the time of Ptolemy Philopator (B.C. 222-204) is quoted by Polyhistor as having reckoned 1070 years from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, and the two years from the Flood to the birth of Arphaxad, he invariably includes in the years before the Flood. The LXX. makes the period from the Flood to the birth of Abraham 942 years without, or 1072 years with Cainan. It is plain therefore from the 1070+2 years of Demetrius that the name of Cainan was included in the copy of the LXX. which he used. This, however, only proves the high antiquity of the error.
The fact that the name of the second Cainan occurs in the genealogy of Mary the mother of our Lord, in Luke 3:36, is easily explained. The Bible, as it was held in the hands of the common people, in the time of our Lord, was the LXX. The LXX. was to them what our Authorized Version is to us. Scholars like Paul, and students of the Word like our Lord and His Apostles, had access to the Hebrew Text also, but Luke, the only writer of any book contained in the New Testament who was not a Jew (Col. 4:10-14) and the one writer whose Gospel was specifically addressed to a Greek reader (Luke 1:3), would naturally use and quote from the Greek version in common use, and if the copy of the LXX. which he used contained the spurious addition of the name of the second Cainan, the error would of course be reproduced in his Gospel, just in the same way as any error of translation in the A.V. would be reproduced by any layman occupying a modern pulpit, and acquainted only with the Scriptures in the Authorized Version.
It is just possible, of course, that Luke never wrote the word Cainan in Luke 3:36, for it is omitted in the Codex Bezae, the great Cambridge Uncial of the 6th Century, but the weight of traditional authority is in favour of his having taken the word from his copy of the LXX., for it occurs in all the great Uncials, ALEPH, A, B, L, GAMMA, DELTA, LAMDA, PI, etc., except the Codex Bezae D, though it is spelt Cainam instead of Cainan in some of them.
We have still to account for the alternative addition of 100 years to the life of Nahor at the birth of his son. Here again we trace the influence of the dominating idea of measuring the distance between the great epochs of the Scripture narrative by millenniums. If the Chiliast, who was not satisfied with the alteration of Nahor's age from the 29 of the Hebrew Text to the 79 of the original copies of the LXX., may be supposed to have been acquainted with the fact that Terah's age at the birth of Abram was not 70 but 130, this late alteration from 79 to 179 is satisfactorily explained by R. G. Faussett in his Symmetry of Time. Mr. Faussett supposes the addition of the further 100 years to the life of Adam at the birth of Seth, making it 330 instead of 230, to have been unacceptable. The period from Adam to the Flood is restored, and stands at 2,262 as in the scheme of Africanus. We then proceed as follows:-
Millenary Scheme accounting for Nahor's Age - 179.
Adam to the Flood 2262
Shem after the Flood 2
Arphaxad 135
Cainan interpolated 130
Salah 130
Eber 134
Peleg 130
Reu 132
Serug 130
Nahor 79+100 = 179
Terah 130
To the call of Abraham 75
To the Exodus 430
TOTAL 3999
This, with the addition of the year of the Flood, which some have reckoned as an additional year independent of the years before and after, would make up the 4,000 years complete, and thus account for the addition of the further 100 years to the age of Nahor at the birth of Terah.
These millenary adaptations of the Chronology of the Scriptures have done much to bring the subject of Chronology into disrepute. The only way in which the credit of the Science can be restored is to adhere strictly to the actual statements of the original text, and to deal with these statements in accordance with the laws of the Science of History, which places the criterion of credibility and the test of truth in the testimony of witnesses at once honest, capable and contemporary. The identification of the dates of the dedication of Solomon's Temple and the birth of Christ with the years AN. HOM. 3000 and 4000 respectively must be jealously scrutinized, and the facts must not be warped in order to bring about the exhibition of this result.
Threefold attack on Biblical Chronology.
Three other branches of study have a direct bearing upon the Chronology of this period, and must be briefly, though but very inadequately, referred to here.
In the departments of Geology and evolutionary Biology, it has been maintained that the origin of man must be placed away back in the dim and distant past, some hundreds of thousands of years before the date assigned to it on any interpretation of the earliest historic records that have been preserved to us.
In the departments of Archaeology and Anthropology, it has been maintained that the antiquity of man must be dated at a much earlier period than the 6000 years attributed to it in the Chronology of Ussher, as given by Bishop Lloyd in the margin of our Authorized Version, a scheme of Chronology which does not err by more than 38 years from that which lies embedded in the Hebrew Text, and also at a much earlier period than the 7500 years or thereabout required by the longer Chronology of the LXX.
In the department of Biblical Criticism doubt has been thrown upon the historic character of the testimony of the early chapters of Genesis, which have been regarded as a late compilation of myth and legend, the product of early human fancy, and of the working of the primitive mythopoetic faculty of man upon a rudimentary knowledge of the outer world.
1. EVOLUTION AND THE ORIGIN OF MAN.
(1) Evolutionary Biology.
With regard to the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, it must be remarked, that however widely this theory has won the acceptance of acknowledged authorities in the world of learning and scholarship in the present day, it still remains an unproved hypothesis. The theory is largely grounded upon (1) observed and admitted structural analogies between the skeleton of the anthropoid ape and that of man, (2) upon observed and admitted correspondences between homologous parts, such as the fin of a fish, the wing of a bird, the foreleg of a quadruped and the arm of a man, and (3) upon observed and admitted analogous stages of development in the prenatal condition of the offspring of man, corresponding with stages of development, illustrated in the classification or grouping of the various members of the animal world, as they rise in the scale of life, as determined by the principles of comparative anatomy. The correspondence between the ontogenic or embryonic series, the taxonomic or natural history series, and the phylogenic or geologic or evolutionary series, is admitted. But the fallacy of the evolutionary theory lies in the inference drawn from the fact. The truth is that these homologous parts prove only a common Creator, not a common ancestor; a common Author, not a common derivation. Two works of art exactly resembling each other may be accounted for as products of one and the same artistic genius, without supposing the one to be derived or copied from the other. Two coins exactly alike prove a common matrix, not derivation the one from the other. In like manner the resemblances that obtain between man and the lower animals, clearly prove the unity of their common Creatorship, whilst the transcendent differences between them prove with equal conclusiveness that the one is not evolved or derived from the other.
The theory of evolution requires us to believe that man was originally an absolute savage, and that something like at least 100,000 years must have elapsed from the first beginnings of human life to the development of the civilized condition of man in the present day.
There is no proof of this supposed priority of savagery to any form of civilization. Sir Charles Lyall admits, in his "Antiquity of Man," that "we have no distinct geological evidence that the appearance of what are called the inferior races of mankind has always preceded in chronological order that of the higher races," and a similar confession was made by Mr. Pengelly, at the meeting of the British Association held at Bristol in August, 1875. Sir J. W. Dawson, President of the British Association in 1888, declares that the origin of man is to be fixed geologically within a moderate number of milleniums, say seven or eight. He regards palaeolithic man, to whom Professor J. A. Thompson, in his Bible of Nature, assigns an antiquity of 150,000 to 300,000 years, as the ante-diluvian of Scripture, and he finds indications of a general if not a universal Deluge, within the aforesaid human period of 7,000 or 8,000 years.
Belief in the enormously remote antiquity of man rests upon the assumption of slow and gradual emergence from a prior condition of brutishness and savagery, and proceeds by way of a priori reasoning on these supposed "origins," the arguments employed being in many instances of the most inconclusive and questionable kind.
Lord Salisbury, in his Presidential Address to the British Association in 1894, quoted Lord Kelvin as having "limited the period of organic life upon the earth to 100 million years," and Professor Tait as having "in a still more penurious spirit cut that hundred down to ten." "On the other side of the account," he sarcastically remarks, "stand the claims of the geologists and biologists. They have revelled in the prodigality of the cyphers which they put at the end of the earth's hypothetical age. Long cribbed and cabined within the narrow bounds of popular Chronology, they have exulted wantonly in their new freedom." Where the differences are so enormous they are clearly the result of the exercise of scientific imagination. and are not due to the scientific observation of facts.
(2) Geology.
The computations of the older geologists, based on the rate of deposits and the occurrence in them of human remains, flint implements, and other evidences of man's handiwork, are notoriously unreliable. Professor Boyd Dawkins enters a caveat against such computations, and declares that in his view they have all ended in failure. Mr. Pengelly, in his address to the British Association in 1888, allowed 5,000 years for the deposit of one inch of stalagmite in Kent's Cavern or 300,000 years for 5 feet. But Professor Boyd Dawkins, in Cave Hunting, declares that it might have been formed at the rate of 1/4 of an inch per annum, thus reducing the 300,000 years of Mr. Pengelly to 250 years.
The whole principle and method of these geological computations is vicious. Of course, if there is to be Science, there must be uniformity, but we do not arrive at science by assuming uniformity where it does not exist. We have no warrant for the assumption that the earth was produced at a uniform rate of infinite slowness, by those forces, and those only, which are in operation at the present time.
Cave-bears, Hyenas, and mammoths were formerly referred by geologists to the Tertiary period, i.e. the period preceding the present Quaternary period, and from the fact that human skeletons were found alongside of mammoth skeletons in a cave at Aurignac, on the northern slopes of the Pyrenees, it was inferred that man belonged to the Tertiary period, and was therefore of very great antiquity. But it has now been proved, from the pile- buildings, that the first inhabitants of Europe, who belonged to the stone age, came from Asia not earlier than 2000 B.C., and therefore after the period at which the Deluge is placed in the Hebrew Chronology of the Old Testament. Hence the true inference is, not that man belongs to the earlier (Tertiary) period, but that mammoths belong to the later (Quaternary) or present period.
A glance at the following diagram will make clear the failure of the demand for an antiquity in the human race to be measured only in terms of geologic ages.
GEOLOGICAL TABLE OF ROCKS AND FOSSILS.
[See DIAGRAM]
The movement of evolution has been cyclic. Five cycles, Dynasties (Le Conte), Reigns (Agassiz), or Ages (Dana), have been traced by geologists in the fossil remains embedded in the crust of the earth. (1) Molluscs, (2) Fishes, (3) Reptiles, (4) Mammals, and (5) Man. The Archaean rocks of the earliest Eozoic period of the earth's existence contain no fossils at all. The Primary rocks of the Protozoic period contain no vertebrates. The earth was filled. with molluscs of greater size, number and variety than at any other period in its history. In the Primary rocks of the Deuterozoic period, fishes were introduced and became dominant. They increased rapidly in size, number and variety, and usurped the empire of the sea, whilst the mollusca dwindled in size, and sought safety elsewhere. Amphibians appear in this period, but true reptiles only in the Secondary rocks of the succeeding Mesozoic period. Mammals begin to appear in this period, but not till we reach the Tertiary rocks of the Cainozoic period do they appear in such size, numbers and strength, as to overpower the great reptiles and secure the empire of the earth. We now reach the Quaternary rocks of the latest of the geologic ages, called the Anthropozoic period, because here for the first time fossil remains of man begin to appear. The Anthropozoic period is also called the Pleistocene or "most recent," the Glacial, and sometimes the Prehistoric period. Geology thus witnesses to the recent creation of man, of whom there is no trace till we reach this latest strata. "The low antiquity of our species," says Sir Charles Lyall, in his Principles of Geology, "is not controverted by any experienced geologist. If there be a difference of opinion respecting the occurrence in certain deposits of the remains of man and his works, it is always in reference to strata, confessedly of the most modern order."
On the question how long this period has lasted, or when it first begun, no answer can be given. So far as the facts are concerned, it is an open question, a question on which the natural science of Geology is incompetent to pronounce judgment. If the theory of evolution be assumed, if the "continuous progressive change, according to certain fixed laws, by means of resident forces," which it postulates, be taken for granted, if the countless ages which the theory demands for the evolution of the present condition of the world be conceded, then a fairly plausible theory of the past history of the world has been constructed.
But it must not be forgotten that it is only a construction put upon the facts, and not an explanation derived from the facts; that the theory is incapable of verification and that the rival theory of catastrophic "jumps," "saltations," "leaps," and "lifts" in nature, as opposed to the gradual continuous and infinitesimally slow process of evolution, gives a better explanation of the facts, and commends itself to the judgment of leading geological authorities, of equal repute with those who postulate for man an antiquity incomparably greater than that for which historic evidence can be produced.
The method of obtaining hundreds of thousands of years for the antiquity of the human race, by computing the time required for the deposition of certain alluvial deposits, in which human remains have been found, yields no reliable scientific results. Nothing is more uncertain than these geological computations. The rates of alluvial depositions are so variable, that they mock all calculations. Thus, a vessel containing many antiquities was discovered some years ago in a peat bog in Sundewitt, on the eastern coast of Schleswig. According to geological calculations it was many thousands of years old, but on being searched it was found to contain coins struck between A.D. 300 and 400. Cuvier's argument that the traditions and the historical consciousness of the race do not reach further back than 3,000 years before Christ, and that this would not have been possible, if the race were 100,000 years old, has never been refuted.
2. ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.
Turning from the vague uncertainties of scientific hypothesis respecting the origin of man, to the historic records respecting his antiquity, we at once reach firmer ground.
The study of Egyptian and Chaldean history has materially affected our Chronology of the early history of civilization in these countries. An antiquity is now claimed for the commencement of the annals of these nations inconsistent with the date assigned to the Deluge (AN. HOM. 1656 = B.C. 2348 (Ussher). The Era of Menes, the first King of Egypt, is placed by some as high as B.C. 2717, whilst the Era of the Chaldean dynasty of Berosus, the earliest which has any claim to be regarded as historical, is placed somewhere about the year B.C. 2234. The validity of these claims depends upon the value we assign to the numbers of Manetho for Egyptian Chronology, to those of Berosus for Babylonian Chronology, and the astronomical calculations by which they are supposed to be confirmed.
The antiquity of civilization in Babylon and Egypt is ably treated by Canon Rawlinson, in his little volume on the Origin of Nations. Egypt and Babylon have Monuments to show which antedate all others on the surface of the earth. The conclusion at which Canon Rawlinson arrives with regard to Egypt is that the beginning of civilization there, can be traced back no further than 2250 or 2450 B.C.
The date of the Flood, according to the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament as stated by Ussher, is 2348 B.C. We ought, however, to add 38 years to Ussher's date and make it B.C. 2386, as the present writer hopes to be able to prove. Petavius' date is B.C. 2327, Clinton's B.C. 2482. These all follow the short Chronology of the Hebrew Text. In either case we are well within the limit of compatibility with Bible Chronology if we adopt Canon Rawlinson's lower date. The margin would be still greater if, with Canon Rawlinson, we adopted the Chronology of the LXX., according to which the date of the Flood is B.C. 3246. Hales' date is 3155, Jackson's 3170, Poole's 3159. These all follow the longer Chronology of the LXX. But this we have seen reason to reject.
(1) Egypt.
All the authorities are agreed that however far we go back in the history of Egypt, there is no indication of any early period of savagery or barbarism there. Menes, the first King, builds a great reservoir and a temple at Memphis. His son builds a palace there, and writes a book on Anatomy.
The Great Pyramid of Gheezeh, if not the oldest as well as the greatest and most wonderful structure on the earth's surface, falls very early in Egyptian history, and the hieroglyphics in it prove that even then writing had been long in use.
The epoch of the foundation of the Great Pyramid of Gheezeh is given by Piazzi Smith, Astronomer Royal for Scotland, in his Book, Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid, as 2170 B.C. He regards the peculiarly constructed entrance passage as having been built for astronomical and chronological purposes.
The Great Pyramid is the greatest of all the Seven Wonders of the World, the most perfect as well as the most gigantic specimen of masonry the world has ever seen. It is the earliest stone building known to have been erected in any country. Its finished parts contain not a vestige of heathenism or idolatry. It was not built like the other pyramids as a tomb. Its author was not an Egyptian but a descendant of Shem, in the line of Abraham, but preceding him so early as to be somewhat nearer to Noah than to Abraham. It embodies exact mathematical knowledge of the grander cosmic phenomena of both earth and heavens. It is astronomically oriented on all its sides. Its passages are in the plane of the Meridian. It marks the period of the precession of the Equinoxes as a period of 25,827 years dating from the year 2,170 B.C., a period given by the famous astronomers Tycho Brahe and La Place as 25,816 years. It gives a practical solution of the theoretically insoluble problem of squaring the circle, for its vertical height is to twice the breadth of its base as the diameter to the circumference of a circle, a ratio. expressed in mathematics by PI or 3.14,159 etc. That is to say, its height is the radius of a theoretical circle, the length of whose curved circumference is equal to the sum of the lengths of the four straight lines of its base. It is a standard of linear measure, and each of its sides measures 365.242 sacred cubits of 25.025 British inches, thus measuring another incommensurable quantity, viz., the exact number of days in a year. It monumentalizes the size of the earth and its distance from the sun. In fact the marvels of mathematical and astronomical knowledge embodied in this unquestionably early structure go far to destroy the theory of the original savagery of primitive man.
The dates attributed to the Kings of Egypt in E. A. Wallis Budge's Guide to the Egyptian Collections in the British Museum go back as far as B.C. 4400, a date anterior to the period assigned in the Hebrew Text to the creation of the first man. But as a matter of fact there is a great diversity of opinion among Egyptologists as to the date of Menes, the first King of the first of the 31 dynasties, as the following list of authorities (from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition) will show:-
Date of King Menes and Beginning of Civilization in Egypt according to the views of leading Egyptologists.
EGYPTOLOGIST DATE
Flinders Petrie (in 1906) 5510
Mariette, Director of the Cairo Museum 5004
Lenormant, a pupil of Mariette 5004
Flinders Petrie (in 1894) 4777
Dr. Brugsch, Director of the Berlin Museum 4400
E. A. Wallis Budge, British Museum 4400
Dr. Lepsius, Author of Chronology of the Egyptians 3892
Baron Bunsen (earlier view) 3623
Breasted (American, 1906) 3400
K. Sethe (German, 1905) 3360
Ed. Meyer (German, 1887) 3180
Baron Bunsen (later view) 3059
R. Stuart Poole (British Museum) 2717
Sir Gardner Wilkinson (our greatest English Egyptologist) 2691
All these are the views of men acquainted with the Monuments and competent to translate the Inscriptions. They differ from one another by as much as 2,000 years. This extraordinary variation is a proof of the fact that no sure basis has yet been discovered upon which to reach an assured scientific conclusion. The whole subject is involved in great obscurity and uncertainty.
The fact is the Egyptians themselves never had any Chronology at all. They had no Era. They were destitute of the chronological idea. It was not their habit to enter into computations of times. "The evidence of the Monuments in respect of the Chronology," says Mr. R. Stuart Poole, "is neither full or explicit." Baron Bunsen says, "Chronology cannot be elicted from them." The attempt to construct a Chronology of Egypt would have been abandoned altogether if it had not been for Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Sebennytus (c. B.C. 280-250) who composed a history of Egypt in Greek in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus.
Scarcely anything at all is known of him, except his history, the fame of which was much increased by the fact that he wrote it in the Greek language. The work itself is lost, but fragments of it are preserved in Josephus, Eusebius, Syncellus and other writers. The scheme of Manetho as given by Eusebius in his Chronica, is as follows
Egyptian Chronology according to Manetho.
Reign of Gods 13,900 years
Reign of Heroes 1,255 years
Reign of Kings 1,817 years
Reign of 30 Memphite Kings 1,790 years
Reign of 10 Thinite Kings 350 years
Reign of Manes and Heroes 5,813 years
[SUB-TOTAL] 24,925 years
Thirty dynasties of Kings (viz. 4,922, 4,954 or 5,329 years, according to various readings): about 5,000 years
[TOTAL] 29,925 years
The mythological character of the scheme is apparent. Nevertheless it has been adopted as the basis of numerous speculative chronological systems, or rather schools of Chronology, by Scaliger, Ussher, Bunsen, Poole, and other writers. The Long Chronology followed by Scaliger assumes that the 30 dynasties were all consecutive, and elevates the date of Manes to 5702 B.C. The Short Chronology followed by Ussher assumes that several of the dynasties were contemporary, and endeavours to square the figures of Manetho with the Hebrew Chronology, which dates the creation of Adam B.C. 4004 according to Ussher or B.C. 4042 according to the conclusion of the present writer.
The two principal authorities for the Chronology of Egypt are the Turin Papyrus, a list of Kings compiled in the 19th dynasty, which is in a terrible state of dilapidation, and the list of Kings and dynasties compiled by Manetho. Manetho is the only authority which offers a complete Chronology, and his evidence is very untrustworthy, being known only from late excerpts. For the 19th dynasty Manetho's figures are wrong wherever we can check them.
The Monuments themselves do not begin their records before the 19th dynasty or about B.C. 1590 (Budge, 1350 B.C.).
The source of the prevailing uncertainty is to be found in the fact that some of Manetho's dynasties are contemporary and not successive. This is admitted by every Egyptologist of note except Mariette and Flinders Petrie. Even Lenormant deserts his master here, and makes the 9th, 10th and 11th dynasties contemporary; also the 13th and I4th. Dr. Brugsch makes the 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th dynasties contemporary. Also the 13th and I4th, and several others. Baron Bunsen, Sir G. Wilkinson, and Mr. R. Stuart Poole carry out the principle of contemporaneousness further still.
There is also another source of uncertainty in the numbers of Manetho, arising from the fact that he is variously quoted by Eusebius and Africanus. Thus Eusebius gives 100 years, and Africanus 409 years, for the 9th dynasty. Eusebius makes the three Shepherd dynasties 103, 250 and 190 years. Africanus gives them as 284, 518 and 151, a difference of 410 years. There is no possibility of reconciling these differences, and no possibility of arriving at any assured scientific Chronology of Egypt from the materials in our possession.
Under these circumstances, Egyptologists choose the longer or the shorter period according to their own fancy. In reality Egyptian Chronology cannot be said to begin until the accession of the 18th dynasty. Even then it is far from exact, the best critics varying in their dates for this event as much as 200 years.
Canon Rawlinson places it about the year 1500 B.C. There was an older Egyptian Empire which may have come to an end about 1750 B.C., and to it the pyramids belonged. But its duration can only be guessed. Canon Rawlinson thinks it may have lasted 500 years or so. This would bring us to 2250 B.C. as the date of the establishment of civilization in the form of a settled government in Egypt, or about a hundred years after the date of the Flood (B.C. 2348, Ussher, or B.C. 2386 according to the present writer's interpretation of the Chronology of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament).
The presuppositions which are necessary to give validity to the Chronology of the Egyptologists are admirably stated by Mr. E. A. Wallis Budge, in his Guide to the Egyptian Collection in the British Museum, and the impossibility of arriving at any assured scientific conclusion on the subject in the present state of our knowledge is frankly admitted.
To make a complete scheme of Egyptian Chronology he says "we need a complete list of the Kings of Egypt, and to know the order in which each succeeded and the number of years which he reigned. Now such a list does not exist, for the lists we have only contain selections of kings' names, and of many a King neither the order of his succession nor the length of his reign is known."
The authorities for the names of the Kings are tabulated as follows:-
Sources from which Egyptian Chronology is derived.
1. The Royal Papyrus of Turin.
2. The Tablet of Abydos.
3. The Tablet of Sakkarah.
4. The Egyptian Monuments of all periods, and
5. The King List of Manetho.
The Turin Papyrus was compiled about B.C.1500. It contained, when complete, the names of over 300 Kings, and gave the lengths of their reigns. The Tablet of Abydos was made for Seti I (of the 19th dynasty, B.C. 1350 according to Budge) and contained 76 names. The Tablet of Sakkarah contained 50 names.
The list of Manetho was compiled for King Ptolemy II, Philadelphus (B.C. 283-247), but the work itself is lost, and we only know it in the form in which it has come down to us in
(1) The Chronicle of Julius Africanus (A.D. 3rd century);
(2) The Chronicle of Eusebius (A.D. 265-340); and
(3) The Chronography of George the Monk (Georgius Syncellus of the 8th century A.D.).
The results preserved in Eusebius differ from those given by Africanus for almost every one of the 31 dynasties.
A great many credible facts may be gathered from these sources, but no scientific result can be arrived at by averaging the conflicting numbers of these discordant authorities.
Manetho is the only authority who provides materials for any kind of estimate of the duration of the period from Mena or Menes, who by general consent is allowed to have been the first dynastic King of Egypt. The deduction of 4,000 or 5,000 drawn by E. A. Wallis Budge stands midway between the extremes of Flinders Petrie (5,510) and Sir G. Wilkinson (2,691) but the laws of historical evidence do not on that account allow us to regard it as anything else than a guess. The conditions required to enable us to reach an assured scientific conclusion are these.
1. The trustworthiness of the List of Manetho. But this list cannot be trusted, for one version of it presents us with a list of 561 Kings who reign 5,524 years, whilst another gives the list as consisting of 361 Kings, who reign only 4,480 or 4,780 years.
2. The list must be shown to be successive. But every leading Egyptologist except Mariette and Flinders Petrie admits that at least one if not six or eight of the dynasties were contemporary.
An attempt has been made to arrive at a Chronology of Egypt by means of astronomical observation and calculation. The calendar year of the Egyptians, the Vague or Wandering Egyptian year, contained 365 days exactly. The Sothic year, so called because it began on the day when the Dogstar Sothis or Sirius rose with the sun, was the same as the Julian year, and contained 365 1/4 days, or very nearly the same as the true tropical Solar year, on which the seasons depended. Consequently the 1st of Thoth or New Year's Day of each succeeding Vague Egyptian calendar year of 365 days fell 1/4 day behind the New Year's Day of the Sothic or quasi-Solar year of 365 1/4 days, and in the course of 4 x 365 or 1,460 years it fell a whole year behind, having worked its way back through all the seasons of the year. By reckoning 1,461 Vague Egyptian Calendar years of 365 days to the Sothic period of 1,460 Sothic Julian or quasi-Solar years we can translate the dates of the heliacal risings of Sothis mentioned in terms of the Vague or Calendar year, into the corresponding terms of the ordinary Julian years. We learn from Censorinus, who wrote his De die Natali A.D. 238, that one Sothic period came to an end in A.D. 139. Hence three such Sothic periods must have begun in 4241 B.C., 2781 B.C. and 1321 B.C. respectively. The data obtained in this way will be reliable in proportion to the trustworthiness of Censorinus and the accuracy of the various astronomical observations and calculations involved. The evidence can only be dealt with by astronomical experts. It has not up to the present time led to any positive chronological result.
It is abundantly clear that whatever dates may be assigned to the Kings and Monuments of Egypt in the British Museum Guide, their authority is so much more a matter of subjective assurance than it is of objective certainty, that the idea of bringing them forward to controvert the definite chronological statements of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament is simply preposterous.
(2) Babylon.
The antiquity of Civilization in Babylon can be traced back to the establishment of the Kingdom of Nimrod, the son of Cush, the son of Ham, the son of Noah, some two generations after the Flood (B.C. 2348, Ussher). Out of the land of Shinar, in which Babel or Babylon was situated, went forth Asshur (Gen. 10:10,11) the son of Shem, driven out, the narrative suggests, by the slave-hunting Nimrod, the grandson of Ham. Asshur went forth out of Babylon and builded Nineveh and the other great cities of Assyria to the north of Babylon. There was, therefore, according to the Hebrew Record, a Semitic period of civilization in Babylon anterior to the Kingdom of Nimrod.
According to both profane and sacred history the earliest seats of civilization were Egypt and Babylon. In both these centres writing was practised and attention was paid to history, so that when the Greeks, through whom our knowledge of them is derived, became acquainted with them, they possessed historical records of an antiquity, greater than that which could be claimed for any documents to be found elsewhere, except the writings of the Hebrew Old Testament. These records have been transmitted to us in the writings of Manetho the Sebennyte and Berosus the Chaldean. Attention was first drawn to the writings of Berosus and Manetho by Scaliger, the founder of modern Chronology, and their claims were acknowledged by historical critics like Niebuhr.
Berosus was an educated priest of Babylon, who lived about B.C. 260. in which he professes to derive his information from the oldest temple archives He wrote in the Greek language three books of Babylonian-Chaldean history, of Babylon. The work itself has been lost, but fragments of it have been preserved by Josephus, Eusebius, Syncellus and others. The scheme of Berosus, as given by Eusebius, in his Chronicon, is as follows:-
Babylonian Chronology according to Berosus.
10 Kings from Alorus, the first man, to Xisuthrus (Noah) 432,000 years
86 Kings from Xisuthrus to the Median Conquest 33,080 years
8 Median Kings 224 years
11 Kings 48 years
49 Chaldean Kings 458 years
9 Arabian Kings 245 years
45 Kings down to Pul 526 years
[TOTAL] 466,581 years
The number 48 for the eleven Kings is very doubtful. According to the native tradition that Babylon was founded 1,903 years before its capture by Alexander the Great it should be 258. With this correction the figures of Berosus disclose a chronological scheme constructed in such a way as to fill the Great Babylonian Year or Cycle of 36,000 years, which is made up of the product of the Sossus (60 years) and the Nerus (600 years). Berosus' scheme is divided into two parts. The 432,000 years of the ante-diluvian dynasties to Xisuthrus or Noah is made up of 12 such cycles, 36,000 x 12 = 432,000.
It has been suggested by Gutschmidt that the 36,000 cycle of the historical dynasties was probably made up as follows:-
Babylonian Chronology according to the conjecture of Gutschmidt.
Dynasty of 86 Chaldean Kings 34,080 years
Dynasty of 8 Median Kings 224
Dynasty of 11 Chaldean Kings 258
Dynasty of 49 Chaldean Kings 458
Dynasty of 9 Arabian Kings 245
Dynasty of 45 Assyrian Kings 526
Dynasty of 8 Assyrian Kings 122
Dynasty of 6 Chaldean Kings 67
[TOTAL] 36,000
The numbers are unaccompanied by any history, and are at once seen to be purely artificial. They may tell us something of the writer's subjective thought, but they have no relation to the truth of objective fact.
The antiquity of Assyria is a matter of dispute between the advocates of what is known as the Long Chronology of Ctesias and the Short Chronology of Herodotus.
Herodotus, the oldest Greek historian, usually styled the Father of History, was born at Halicarnassus, in Caria, Asia Minor, B.C. 484. According to Suidas he died about B.C. 408. He travelled widely in Egypt, Palestine, Phoenicia, and even penetrated as far as Babylon and Susa. He also visited all the countries situated on the shores of the Black Sea. In the course of his history he gives an account of the countries he visited, and whenever he gives the results of his own observations and enquiries he exhibits a wonderful accuracy and impartiality. When he is not an eyewitness he usually gives the authority on which he relies for his facts.
Ctesias of Cnidus, in Caria, Asia Minor, was a Greek physician and a historian contemporary with Herodotus. In early life he was physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon, whom he accompanied in B.C. 401 on his expedition against his brother Cyrus the younger. He wrote a history of Assyria and Persia in 23 books called Persica. As Court Physician to Artaxerxes Mnemon he resided for 17 years at the Court of Persia at Susa, where he had many opportunities of consulting the Persian royal archives, on which his history is professedly founded, whereas Herodotus only paid a flying visit to Babylon and was dependent for the most part upon the information given to him by others, though he too must have had access to some of the most important documents in the archives of the Persian Empire. Ctesias wrote his Persica in order to show that Herodotus was a "lying chronicler." Manetho also is said to have written a book against Herodotus. Ctesias introduces his work by a formal attack upon the veracity of his great predecessor. His history was designed to supercede that of Herodotus, and he proceeded to contradict him on every point on which he could do so.
He gives the date of the first establishment of a great Assyrian Empire at Nineveh as 1,000 years earlier than Herodotus. Its duration he reckons at 1,306 years as against the 520 years of Herodotus. He fixes the date of the Median Conquest of Assyria at B.C. 876. Herodotus makes it B.C. 600. He gives the duration of the Median Kingdom as 300 years. Herodotus gives it as 150 years.
The Long Chronology of Ctesias, which places the rise of the Assyrian Empire at about B.C. 2200, was followed by writers of ancient history like Cephalion, Castor, Nicholas of Damascus, Trogus Pompeius, Velleius Paterculus, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Augustine, Moses of Chorene, Syncellus, Dean Prideaux, Freret, Rollin and Clinton. Other historians have regarded his figures as extravagant, and have reduced them by as much as a thousand years.
Among the ancients the scheme of Ctesias was rejected by Aristotle, Plutarch, and Arrian. It was, however, widely accepted until the revival of learning, when Scaliger turned the scale against him. Scaliger is followed by Volney, Heeren, Niebuhr, Brandis and Rawlinson. Canon Rawlinson says, "It is surprising that the ancient Christian Chronologers did not at once see how incompatible the scheme of Ctesias is with Scripture. To a man they adopt it and then strive to reconcile what is irreconcilable. A comparison with the Old Testament Scriptures and with the native history of Berosus first raised a general suspicion of bad faith in Ctesias. Freret is the only modern scholar of real learning who still maintains the paramount authority of Ctesias. The coup de grace has been given to Ctesias by the recent Cuneiform discoveries, which convict him of having striven to rise into notice by a system of 'immoral lying,' whereunto the history of literature scarcely presents a parallel. The Great Assyrian Empire, lasting 1,306 years, is a pure fiction; his list of monarchs from Ninus to Sardanapalus is a forgery made up of names, the mere product of his own fancy. He forges names and numbers at pleasure."
The Persica of Ctesias brings the history of the Persian Empire down to the year B.C. 398. The work itself is lost, but we possess abridgments of it by Photius, an epitome of the second book by Diodorus Siculus, and numerous fragments quoted by Plutarch, Athenaeus and 30 other authors, from Xenophon, B.C. 401, to Eustathius, A.D. 1160, whose names are given in the excellent collection of the Fragments of the Persica of Ctesias, by John Gilmore (Macmillan, 1888).
On the comparative merits of Herodotus and Ctesias, there has been much controversy, both in ancient and in modern times. Herodotus was the abler and perhaps the more honest and trustworthy historian. Ctesias appears to have had opportunities of access to sources that were denied to Herodotus, but we cannot be sure that he made an honest use, and gave a true and faithful account of them.
The classical accounts fix the Era of the Foundation of Babylon at B.C. 2230. The artificial scheme of Berosus implies a belief that real human history had its commencement at Babylon somewhere between 2458 and 2286 B.C. The numbers of the Septuagint indicate for the date of Nimrod's Kingdom some such date as B.C. 2567. The Hebrew Text places it at two generations after the Flood, or, according to Ussher, about B.C. 2218. The fanciful character of the Scheme of Berosus, the doubtful nature of the figures given by Ctesias, and the artifically and purposely exaggerated figures of the LXX. leave us no choice but that of the Hebrew Text, which points to a date some 100 years or more after the Flood. The Monuments do not enable us to carry back the history of Babylon farther than to about B.C. 2025. This allows 300 years for the Semitic Period and 150 for the previous Turanian period, and assumes an average of 25 years for the reigns of the 12 Semitic Kings of the former period and the 6 Turanian Kings of the latter.
Mr. E. A. Wallis Budge, in the Introduction to his Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities, says the earliest Babylonian Empire was that of Sargon of Agade, whose date, according to the cylinder of Nabonidus, would be about B.C. 3800; but recent excavation and research have shown that the scribes of Nabonidus exaggerated the interval between the period of Sargon and their own time, and that no means have yet been found for fixing a date for these early rulers in place of the traditional one. Assuming the necessity of a lengthy period for the evolution of the complex social system, and the highly developed culture of the period of the Sumerian rulers who preceded Sargon of Agade, Mr. Budge estimates that the Sumerian Inscriptions point to a date as remote as B.C. 4000.
But, as with all arguments based on the evolutionary hypothesis, the conclusion is drawn from the unproved assumption of the infinitely slow and gradual rate of the progress made in those early days. From this assumed date of about B.C. 4000 Mr. Budge tells us that little or nothing is known of the country till we reach the period from 2500 to 2000 B.C., between which dates the history of the Monuments begins.
The date assigned to Sargon of Akkad, B.C. 3800, is obtained from the American Excavations of Nippur, where Mr. J. H. Haynes excavated the ruins of the Temple of El-Lil, removing layer after layer of debris, and cutting sections in the ruin down to the virgin soil. Here some large bricks were found stamped with the name of Sargon of Akkad. As the debris above them is 34 feet thick, it is calculated that the debris underneath the pavement, 30 feet thick, must represent a period of 3,000 years (Professor Jastrow, in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., article Babylonia and Assyria).
Chronological computations made on this principle, and which assume a uniform rate for the deposition of debris, are interesting and valuable, but like the similarly obtained geological computations, based on the rate of alluvial deposits, they are highly speculative, and cannot claim the character of exact scientific statements such as the use of the figures implies. When Professor Jastrow comes to deal with the actual chronology of the dynasties of the Kings of Babylon, whose names are obtained from the excavated ruins of the country, he at once reduces his figures to B.C. 2500.
The earliest dates assigned by other leading Assyriologists to the beginning of civilization in Babylon are as follows:-
Beginning of Civilization in Babylon according to leading Assyriologists.
ASSYRIOLOGIST DATE
Oppert B.C. 2506
Sayce B.C. 2478
Winckler B.C. 2425
Delitzsch c. B.C. 2420
Maspero B.C. 2416
Marquart B.C. 2335
Hommel B.C. 2223
Niebuhr B.C. 2193
Hommel (alternatively) B.C. 2050
There is, therefore, nothing in the Literary or the Monumental history of the early civilization of Babylon, which was older than Assyria, to require us to revise the date assigned to this event in the Hebrew Text, since all the earlier dates assigned to it are obtained by methods of computation which involve questionable assumptions, and can only yield highly speculative results.
Assyria and Babylon, Egypt and Phoenicia, all alike lay claim to a high antiquity. But whilst the literature of these mighty empires has perished, the Hebrew Scriptures remain.
(3) Phoenicia.
Of the events which took place before the Flood there are but few and faint memorials among heathen nations. One of the most authentic may be found in the remains of the Phoenician History of Sanchoniathon, who is considered to be the most ancient writer of the heathen world. His history is said to have been composed in the Phoenician language and collected from the archives of Phoenician cities. It was translated into Greek by Philo of Byblos, a Syro-Phoenician Greek, who wrote in the 2nd century A.D. For the preservation of the fragments of the work which remain we are indebted to Eusebius. Philo of Byblos professed to be translating an old Phoenician History, composed by a native priest called Sanchoniathon, in which he claims precedence for Phoenicia as the earliest nation to attain to a knowledge of science, art and civilization generally.
Some suppose that Philo of Byblos was himself the real author of the work. The fragments of it which remain consist of a mythical cosmogony, in which an account is given of the invention of the arts of hunting, fishing, building, architecture, navigation, metallurgy, embroidery and music, in which the ancient Phoenicians excelled. But the great glory of the Phoenicians, and the most decisive mark of their early civilization, is their invention of the art of alphabetic writing. Egypt and Babylon had anticipated them in the invention of a method of representing articulate sounds to the eye by means of pictures and figures, but the Phoenicians were the first to consummate the union of the written and the spoken word.
Nevertheless, the claim of Phoenicia to a civilization more ancient than that of Egypt or Babylon cannot be sustained. The Monuments of Egypt furnish no evidence of Phoenician art or commerce earlier than the 18th dynasty, though the early Monuments of Egypt give the geography of Syria in great detail. "If it be safe," says Kenrick, "to pronounce in any case on priority of knowledge and civilization, it is in awarding Egypt precedence over Phoenicia..... The commencement of the period of Phoenician commercial activity cannot be historically fixed. It may ascend to the years 1600 or 1700 B.C.; it may be several centuries earlier." Canon Rawlinson prefers the later date, and concludes that whilst the Phoenicians may have emigrated from the shores of the Persian Gulf to those of the Mediterranean as far back as B.C. 1800, or even earlier, the rise of Phoenician civilization and the building of the old Phoenician capital Sidon, must be placed somewhere about the year B.C. 1600.
(4) China.
The case for the antiquity of China presents considerable difficulty. Dr. Edkins of Pekin, who writes an appendix on the Antiquity of the Chinese in Canon Rawlinson's Origin of Nations, concludes that "there is nothing in the Chinese classics which demands a longer period for the presence of the Chinese in their own country than 2,800 years." In reaching the conclusion that early Chinese history requires "a longer Chronology than that which Archbishop Ussher adopted," he is governed not by the evidence of historic testimony, but by hypothetical and speculative considerations, such as the time required to allow for the natural development of language, and of the differences which are found to exist between the different races residing in the various climates of our globe.
Du Halde states that the exact history of China begins with the reign of Yaou, B.C. 2357. Other Chinese historians commence their narrative of the history of China with the time of Fuhe, B.C. 2852. The reason for this extension of the history to a period 500 years earlier was the desire to embrace in the history the great legendary personage Fuhe. Confucius commences his history proper with the reign of Yaou, B.C. 2357, but he speaks of a succession of Wise Men who appeared between B.C. 2852 and 2357, and taught the arts of writing, hunting, fishing, agriculture, commerce, building, etc. These, however, partake of the character of legendary heroes. Dr. James Legge, who translated Confucius' Book of History, arrives at an unfavourable conclusion as to its historical character. He regarded it as half legend, and as containing the names of a number of Emperors which were invented by subsequent writers. The credible, self-consistent history of ancient China is believed by many to date from no earlier than B.C. 781, when the history written by Confucius commences. Mr. Mayers, in his Chinese Reader's Manual, treats the history of the period from B.C. 2852 to 781 as half mythical. He divides it thus:-
Chinese History.
B.C. 2852-1154 The legendary period.
B.C. 1154-781 The semi-historical period.
B.C. 781- The period of trustworthy history.
There is, therefore, nothing in the high antiquity of China to conflict with the conclusion arrived at by Du Halde, whose admirable work on China stands unrivalled for the copiousness and correctness of the information it contains, that "two hundred years after the Deluge the sons of Noah arrived in North-West China."
(5) Sir Isaac Newton's "Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended."
Before dismissing this subject, a reference must be made to that most fascinating work of Sir Isaac Newton, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms Amended. The book was published in 1728, the year after he died. We learn from the account which he gave of it, some five months before his death, to his friend Dr. Pearce, Bishop of Rochester, that Chronology was a pet subject of his. "He had spent 30 years," Dr. Pearce tells us, at intervals, in reading over all the authors, or parts of authors, which could furnish any materials for forming a just account of the subject, that he had in his reading made collections from these authors, and had at the end of 30 years, composed from them his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, and that he had written it over sixteen times, making few alterations therein, but what were for the sake of shortening it, leaving out, in every later copy, some of the authorities and references on which he had grounded his opinion." A few days before his death, Bishop Pearce visited and dined with him at Kensington. "I found him," says Dr. Pearce, " writing over his Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms without the help of spectacles, at the greatest distance in the room from the window, and with a parcel of books on the table casting a shade on the table. "Sir," said I, "you seem to be writing in a place where you cannot well see." His answer was, "Little light serves me." He then told me that he was preparing his Chronology for the press, and that he had written the greatest part of it for that purpose."
In this work Sir Isaac Newton brings to bear upon a most intricate and difficult subject the wide and long continued reading, the unrivalled astronomical knowledge and the acute and penetrating insight of an intellectual giant.
His main conclusions, so far as they bear upon the antiquity of man, may be briefly summarized as follows:-
"Greek Antiquities are full of poetic fictions. They wrote nothing in prose before the Conquest of Asia by Cyrus. A little after the death of Alexander the Great (B.C. 323) the earliest Greek historians began to set down generations, reigns, and successions, and by putting reigns and successions as equipollent to generations, and 3 generations to 100 or 120 years, they have made the antiquities of Greece 300 or 400 years older than the truth. Eratosthenes wrote about 100 years after the death of Alexander the Great. He was followed by Apollodorus, and these two have been followed ever since by Chronologers. Plutarch quotes Aristotle as arguing from the Olympic disc which had the name of Lycurgus on it, making him contemporary with Iphitus and his companion in ordering the Olympic Festivals on the first Olympiad, B.C. 776. But Eratosthenes and Apollodorus, and others, computing their Chronology by the succession of the Kings of Sparta, make him 100 years older. Plutarch relates the unquestionably historic interview of Solon with Croesus, but the Chronologers, by their method of computing, make it out that he was dead many years before the date of his visit to Croesus."
"The Chronology of the Latins is still more uncertain. The records of the Latins were burnt by the Gauls B.C. 390, i.e. 64 years before the death of Alexander the Great, and Quintus Fabius Pictor, the oldest historian of the Latins, lived 100 years after that King."
"The Assyrian Empire began with Pul and Tiglath Pileser, and lasted 170 years; accordingly Herodotus made Semiramis only 5 generations, or 166 years older than Nitocris, the mother of the last King of Babylon. But Ctesias made Semiramis 1,500 years older than Nitocris, and feigned a long series of Kings in Assyria whose names are not Assyrian, and have no affinity with the Assyrian names in Scripture."
"The priests of Egypt so magnified their antiquities as to tell Herodotus that from Menes to Moeris, whose date is B.C. 755, was 11,000 years, and they filled up the interval with feigned Kings who had done nothing, thus making the date of Menes and the commencement of civilization in Egypt B.C. 11,755."
"Eratosthenes and Apollodorus compute the time between the return of the Heraclides and the Battle of Thermopylae by the number of the Kings of Sparta, viz. 17, and reckoning 36 1/2 years to each King they make the period 622 years."
Newton suggests that 18 or 20 years would be a more accurate estimate, and reduces the period to 340 years, a reduction of 278 years. He makes the taking of Troy 80 years earlier than the return of the Heraclides. The Argonautic Expedition he places a generation before the taking of Troy, viz. 33 years instead of 42, and the Wars of Sesostris in Thrace another generation, or 28 years instead of 75, before the Argonautic Expedition. Thus:-
Leading Events of Early' Greek History.
Received Chronology. Sir Isaac Newton.
B.C. B.C.
Wars of Sesostris 1300 965
Argonautic Expedition 1225 937
Taking of Troy 1183 904
Return of the Heraclides 1103 825
Battle of Thermopylae 480 480
[Hence] From Wars of Sesostris to Battle of Thermopylae 820 485
485
A difference of 335 years
Thus, according to Newton, the Chronologers, by their computation, have exaggerated the antiquity of Greek history, and antedated its earlier events by 300 or 400 years.
"The Europeans had no chronology at all before the times of the Persian Empire, and whatsoever Chronology thay now have of ancienter times hath been framed by reasoning and conjecture. First Pherecydes, the Athenian, wrote of the antiquities and ancient genealogies of the Athenians in the reign of Darius Hystaspes (B.C. 521-485). He was one of the first European writers of this kind, and one of the best. He was followed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epimenides the historian, Hellanicus and Hipparchus. Then Euphorus, the disciple of Isocrates, formed a Chronology of Greece from the return of the Heraclides to the 20th year of Philip of Macedon. These all computed the years by the number of generations, or successive priestesses of Juno, or Archons of Athens, or Kings of Sparta. The Olympian Era was not used at all, and not even mentioned, nor any other Era till after the Arundelian Marbles were composed, 60 years after the death of Alexander the Great (in the fourth year of Olympiad 128) B.C. 264."
"Not till the following Olympiad, when Timaeus Siculus wrote his history of Greece, was Chronology reduced to a reckoning of years. His Chronology was computed in the same way as that of his predecessors, but was expressed in terms of four years called Olympiads. Eratosthenes wrote 100 years after the death of Alexander the Great (B.C. 220). He was followed by Apollodorus, and these two have been followed by Chronologers ever since."
We see clearly that the basis and foundation on which the structure of Greek Chronology was erected was largely subjective and fanciful, and we readily agree with the conclusion of Newton that, so far as the records of the history of the race are concerned, "Mankind cannot be much older than is represented in Scripture."
3. Biblical Criticism and the Historical Character of the Biblical Records.
We turn now to the department of Biblical Criticism, and to the doubts which have been raised as to the historical character of the events recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. These chapters have been assimilated to the myths and legends which are found in the story of their origins preserved by other nations, and accounted for as the product of the mythopoetic faculty of primitive man. They have also been shorn of their credentials, and regarded as a late compilation by writers who were not contemporary with the events they record, and therefore not qualified to give a true account of the events which they relate. These conclusions are now widely held by modern Biblical scholars. They are not only widely accepted, but they are also being vigorously propagated by those who occupy influential positions in the Colleges and Universities of England and her Colonies, as well as in all other centres of learning in Europe and America.
Nevertheless they are, in the view of the present writer, not only destitute of any reasonable foundation, and incapable of historic proof, but wholly unwarranted by the objective facts which have been urged against the authenticity of the early chapters of Genesis.
The method of the Higher Criticism as practised by its leading exponents, and the presuppositions involved in it as explained by them, are such as to exclude the possibility of arriving at a true estimate of the real value and authority of the Old Testament Scriptures. The Old Testament is nothing if it is not a revelation and a record of a Divine movement in human history, involving, in a very direct and special way, the universal sovereignty and the immediate activity of God, with a view to the redemption of man. Nevertheless the fundamental postulate of one of the leading advocates of the method is that no such activity can be admitted in any one single instance.
"So soon," says Kuenen, "as we derive a separate part of Israel's religious life directly from God, and allow the supernatural or immediate revelation to intervene in even a single point, so long our view of the whole continues to be incorrect. It is the supposition of a natural development alone which accounts for all the phenomena." This applies not merely to the early chapters of Genesis, but even to the very words of our Lord Himself and His interpretation of Old Testament passages; for, in his work on Prophets and Prophecy, Kuenen says, "We must either cast aside as worthless our dearly bought scientific method, or must for ever cease to acknowledge the authority of the New Testament in the domain of the exegesis of the Old." This means, of course, that the said scientific method is of such a nature that it cannot possibly be applied without coming into conflict with the interpretation placed upon the Old Testament by our Lord and His Apostles, an interpretation so sure that if their testimony cannot be accepted on this point, it is quite certain that no other testimony can be accepted on any point whatsoever.
This fundamental postulate of Kuenen's, the impossibility of admitting the truth of any narrative which contains an element of the miraculous, rules out of existence the very thing which constitutes the distinctive characteristic of the Old Testament, and makes it different from every other literature in the world: its story of the creative, selective, directive, redemptive activity of God, both mediate and immediate, in the history of the human race. To postulate the absence from the literature of the Old Testament of an element which constitutes its distinctive characteristic, is to shut the door in the face of truth, and to make a scientific study of the literature impossible.
There are, however, other critics who admit the possibility and the actuality of the miraculous, and yet regard the early chapters of Genesis as unhistorical.
The more carefully these chapters are studied and compared with the mythical and legendary accounts of the origins of the race in other literatures, the more striking will be the contrast between them. One cannot read these Chapters aright without being struck with the unique grandeur and sublimity of their language, and filled with wonder and amazement at the marvel and the glory of their message and content.
No one can place them side by side with the mythical accounts of other religions without being struck by the incomparable distinction which lifts them out of the class and category of all other writings, and proclaims them of another origin, and of another kind. And the one palpable difference between these chapters and all other forms of religious literature is the fact of their objective, historical character. The religions of Greece and Rome, of Egypt and Persia, of India and the East, did not even postulate a historical basis. The mythical period of the Greeks, though similar in form, was distinct in kind from the historic, the objective reality of the scenes and events described as belonging to each period was not even conceived of as belonging to the same order, or as being of the same kind. It is quite otherwise with the religion of the Old Testament. There the doctrine is bound up with the facts, and is so absolutely dependent upon them that without them it is null and void. If there is no first Adam there is no second Adam. The facts are the necessary substratum of the truths or doctrines of the Old Testament, as the truths or doctrines are the necessary substratum of the duties that arise out of them. The Chronology of the Old Testament is in strongest contrast with that of all other nations. From the Creation of Adam to the death of Joseph the Chronology is defined with the utmost possible precision, and only toward the end of the narrative of the Old Testament do doubts and difficulties and uncertainties arise. With all other Chronologies the case is exactly the reverse. They have no beginning. They emerge from the unknown, and their earliest dates are the haziest and the most uncertain, instead of being the clearest and the most sure. If the trustworthiness of testimony and the canons of credibility are accepted, the early chapters of Genesis will answer every legitimate test that can be applied to the determination of their genuine historical character.
The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch has long since been abandoned by many modern students of Biblical literature, and replaced by a theory of composite authorship and late compilation. The present writer believes that all the facts which have been pointed to in support of the new theory are susceptible of another interpretation consistent with the testimony of Scripture to the Mosaic authorship of these books.
It is nowhere directly stated, either in the Old Testament or the New, that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis, but it is everywhere affirmed that he is the author of the Book of the Law, of which the Book of Genesis is an integral part. In support of this we have the testimony of the Pentateuch itself. It is attributed to him five times in Exodus, once in Leviticus, twice in Numbers, and three times in Deuteronomy, where he is said to have spoken 94% of the words which the book contains. We have also the testimony of the rest of the Old Testament. It is attributed to him by Joshua, by the writers of 1 and 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel and Malachi. We have again the testimony of the New Testament writers in John, in the Acts, in 2 Corinthians and in Hebrews. Twice it is attributed to Moses by our Lord Himself. We have the continuous, unbroken testimony of the entire Jewish nation and the Christian Church for 3,500 years, an array of positive evidence which ought by all the canons of Historical Criticism to make the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch an indubitable historical fact.
This conclusion is corroborated by the futility of the arguments that have been advanced against it. For instance, it is said (1) that Moses was not a writer but a man of action. But since all that we know of Moses is derived from the Old Testament, which says he was a writer, the argument not only fails, but discloses the frame of mind of the objector, which is that of a man who seeks to impose his views upon the facts instead of deriving his views from them.
Again, it is said, (2) since the pre-exilic writers do not quote the Priestly Code, it was not in existence till after the date of the return from the exile. But the fact is that they do quote it over and over again, e.g. in Amos 5:21, as frequently as they have any occasion to do so. "Genesis is referred to 149 times; Exodus, 312; Leviticus, 285; Numbers, 168; while Deuteronomy is referred to 617 times." (Companion Bible, Appendix 92).
Again, it is urged, (3) that the state of religious culture was such that it could not have been produced in that early and barbarous age. But this is to beg the very question that has to be proved. The age of Moses was a highly civilized age, an age of schools, books and libraries, of an advanced stage of engineering, art and culture. Moreover the objection rests upon the highly speculative and unverified assumption that the more primitive the period the more it approximates to the condition of barbarism and savagery.
Finally, it is said that the Pentateuch is not by any one author, but is the composite work of many authors represented by the symbols J., E., JE., D., H., P., R1., R2., R3., etc. whose hand can be traced in the various layers or strata, still visible in the closely knit, but still composite work, as it stands today. This theory has passed through six stages known as (1) the Document, (2) the Fragment, (3) the Supplement, (4) the Crystallization, (5) the Modified Document, and (6) the Development Theory, each succeeding stage antiquating and disproving the truth of its predecessor.
Considerable use is made of the fact that in different passages different names of the Divine Being are used, as e.g. in Gen. 1-2:4 the name Elohim or God; in Gen. 2:4-3:24 the name Jehovah Elohim, or Lord God, and in Gen. 4 the name Jehovah or Lord, these three passages being on these and other grounds attributed to three distinct authors.
But the facts as observed and stated are susceptible of another interpretation. The name Elohim (God) is always used when the reference is to the Deity in relation to the universe and man, as their Creator, and the word Jehovah (Lord) is similarly always used when the relation is that of Moral Governor and Responsible Agent, or that of rule and obedience to Moral Law or Divine Command; just as we use the word Emperor instead of King for the Sovereign of England in relation to the Dependency of India. Similarly the name Elyon, translated Most High, is never used of the Divine Being except in relation to his sway over all the peoples of the earth. The names of the Divine Being are always used with a distinction of meaning, and application, and do not in any case suggest differences of authorship. The law of Recurrence, the Law of Synthetic Structure, the Law of Double Reference and the Law of the use of the Divine and other names, account for the facts adduced, far better than the hypothesis of composite authorship. The facts are admitted, but they do not support the theory.
A glance at the following diagram will show the relation in which the several theories of composite authorship that have been advanced, stand to each other.
MOSAIC v. COMPOSITE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PENTATEUCH.
The Six Hypotheses of the Advocates of Composite Authorship.
1. DOCUMENT (Vitringa. Astruc. Eichhorn.)
|
-------------------------------------------------------
| | |
2. FRAGMENT 3. SUPPLEMENT 5. MODIFIED DOCUMENT
(Vater. Hartmann.) (Bleek. De Wette.) (Hupfeld).
| /
4. CRYSTALLIZATION /
(Ewald). /
| /
EVOLUTION. | /
\ | /
------------ | ---------------
| | |
6. DEVELOPMENT.
|
-------------------------------------------------
| |
ADVOCATES. OPPONENTS.
Dutch - Kuenen. German - Dillman.
German - Graf. Delitzsch.
Wellhausen. Havernack.
Reuss. Hengstenberg.
Cornill. Koenig.
Stade. Zahn.
Gunkell. Scotch - James Robertson.
Scotch - W. Robertson Smith. James Orr.
George Adam Smith. English - Cave.
English - Cheyne. Ellicott.
Driver. Lex Mosaica.
American - Briggs. American - W. H. Green.
It will be noticed that the present theory not only gathers up in a comprehensive way the main features of three of the other theories, but derives its present plausibility and maintains its hold on the minds of the present generation of Biblical scholars, by incorporating the Doctrine of Evolution. The unverified assumptions and the highly speculative and hypothetical character of this doctrine render any statement into which it enters liable to subtle errors, which escape the notice and elude the attention of the unwary.
The positive evidence or testimony of the writers of the Old Testament in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, may be briefly summarised as follows:-
I. The Formation of the Book of the Law of Moses.
1. There was a definite book called the Book of the Law. (Josh. 1:8),
2. It was commenced by Moses in obedience to the command of God (Ex. 17:14).
3. It contained the 10 Commandments, and the Book of the Covenant in Horeb in Ex. 20-23 (Ex. 24:4-7).
4. It contained the renewed Tables of the Law and God's Covenant with Moses in Ex. 34 (Ex. 34:27).
5. It contained an account of the journeys of Israel during the 40 years in the wilderness (Numb. 33:2).
6. It contained the whole of Deuteronomy except the last chapter (Deut. 1:5 where to "declare" means to "set forth in writing").
7. It contained the Song of Moses in Deut. 32, which Moses taught to the Children of Israel (Dent 31:22,30).
8. The limits of the Book were strictly defined (Dent. 4:2).
This Book of the Law formed the basis of the whole of the Old Testament. It was expounded and applied to the life of the nation by the Prophets, and to the life of the individual by the writers of the remaining books of the Old Testament.
II. The Custody of the Book of the Law of Moses.
1. Moses wrote it and placed it in the custody of the Priests, who placed it by the side of the Ark (Dent. 31:9, 31:24-26).
2. The King had to make a copy of it for himself (Dent. 17:18).
3. The Priests had to read it in the hearing of all Israel once every Seven years (Deut 31:10-11).
4. It came into the custody of Joshua (Josh. 1:8).
5. Joshua wrote a copy of it upon the stones of an altar in Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:31-35).
6. Just before his death Joshua directed all Israel to do all that was written in it (Josh. 23:2-6).
III. Subsequent additions to the Books of the Law of Moses.
1. It was constantly added to by inspired men of later date, who received what they wrote, as Moses received what he wrote, direct from the Lord (Josh. 24:26, 1 Sam. 10:25).
2. Joshua himself wrote something in it in continuation of the history it contained, probably Deut. 34 and Joshua 1 to 24:28 (Josh. 24:26).
3. Samuel continued the writing in the Book, and retained custody of it. He probably wrote Josh. 24:29-33, the story of Joshua's death, the whole of Judges, the Book of Ruth, and 1 Samuel 1-24 (1 Sam. 10:25, where the "manner of the kingdom" means the constitutional limits of the newly established monarchy, and "a book" should be "the book.")
IV. The Transmission of the Book of the Law of Moses.
1. David had a copy of it, and gave one to Solomon (1 K. 2:1-3).
2. Jehoshaphat had a copy of it and sent men throughout the length and breadth of his Kingdom to teach it to the people (2 Chron. 17:7-9).
3. A copy of the Book was given to Joash at his coronation (2 Chron. 23:11).
4. Amaziah had a copy, and acted upon instructions contained in it (2 Chron. 25:4, cp. Deut. 24:16).
5. In the reign of Josiah whilst the Temple was being repaired, Hilkiah the Priest discovered a copy of the long lost Book of the Law (2 Chron. 34:14).
6. Josiah had a copy, and observed the Passover in accordance with the directions contained in it (2 Chron. 35:6).
7. Ezra had a copy, which he described by various names, (Ez. 3:2, 6:18, 7:6, 7:10, 7:14).
8. Nehemiah had a copy, which he described in different ways (Neh. 8:14, 10:29, 13:1).
9. Daniel had a copy of it (Dan. 9:11).
10. Malachi had a copy of it (Mal. 4:4).
Throughout the whole period of the Old Testament from Moses to Malachi, the Book of the Law, which consisted of the five Books of the Pentateuch, and always included Genesis, was regarded as the genuine work of Moses, divinely authoritative and historically true. It continued to be so regarded by our Lord and his Apostles, by the whole Jewish nation, and by the entire Christian Church, until the beginning of last century, and it is so regarded to-day by those who accept the Canons of Credibility and believe the testimony of the witnesses who have certified its truth.
But testimony is never of such a character as to compel belief, it never amounts to demonstration, and it is always liable to be rejected when it comes into conflict with rationalistic, subjective presuppositions, which do not allow the mind to attach due weight and authority to the objective truth and value of the testimony of competent witnesses.
The book of Genesis, in these early chapters, deals with events that took place so early in the history of the human race that if we do not accept this testimony we are absolutely without any trustworthy and reliable history of the period which they cover. But allowance being made for the distance at which we stand from the period to which these chapters relate, and the tendency of time to destroy all manner of evidence, whether documentary or otherwise, which we might justly require in the case of more recent events, the wonder and the marvel is that so unique an account of the first 2,000 years of the history of the race remains with us to this day, fulfilling all the Canons of Credibility, and commending itself to our intelligent acceptance, as a truly historical record of a great but vanished past. That Moses incorporated earlier written records in the book of Genesis is proved by the express testimony of Gen. 5:1.
We have now compared the Chronology of the period from Adam to Abraham as given in the book of Genesis, with all the evidence that can be alleged against its truth from the standpoint of Evolutionary Biology, Geology, Archaeology, and Biblical Criticism, and after duly weighing, and carefully sifting, all the arguments adduced, we find that the attack has failed on every hand.
Returning to the study of the genuineness of the Record, on the positive side, we find it is amply attested by an incomparable array of incorruptible witnesses, and we proceed to the investigation of the next period of the Chronology, with the assurance that the foundations of the same, having been "well and truly laid," will bear the weight of any superstructure that may be placed upon it.
CHAPTER X. THE HEBREW PATRIARCHs - ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB AND JOSEPH.
(AN. HOM. 2008-2369).
THE theme of the Old Testament is the purpose of God in Redemption. The early chapters of Genesis, which deal with the creation of the world and the fall of man, are introductory and preliminary. The first eleven chapters cover a period of time which is almost exactly equal to that covered by the remainder of the whole Bible, including the last book in the New Testament. It is a marvel of condensation. Its brevity precludes the application of the argument from silence. It is impossible to say that because things are not mentioned here, the author was not aware of them, or that they did not exist. The plan of the writer is selective. His history of these 2,000 years is little more than a genealogical chart, and that, for the most part, he traces only in one line of descent, through Seth and through Noah to Abraham, the father of the chosen race. There are indeed not a few precious fragments of historic truth respecting the origins of other nations, but they are not followed up. From the very beginning the centre of interest is the Messiah, who is first promised as the Seed of the woman in the protevangelium, Gen. 3:15, and it is along the line of the ancestry of the Messiah that the early Chronology and the related history is given.
The Chronology of the remaining portion of Genesis is given on the same principles as that of the first eleven chapters. It follows the line of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob and Joseph. As it is with the ante-diluvian and the post-diluvian Patriarchs, so it is with the Hebrew Patriarchs. The method adopted for measuring the time is that of giving the age of the father at the birth of his son, until we reach the name of Joseph. The age of Jacob at the birth of Joseph is nowhere directly stated, but it can be ascertained by an arithmetical calculation, or a historical induction.
We begin with the result reached in chapter 5. Abraham was born when Terah was 130, in the year AN. HOM. 2008. When Terah died, at the age of 205, Abraham left Haran, in obedience to the call of God, at the age of 75, in the year AN. HOM. 2083 (Gen. 11:32, 12:1, Acts 7:4).
The following Table shows the Chronology of the Hebrew Patriarchs from the birth of Abraham to the death of Joseph, as given in Genesis, chapters 11- 50.
THE HEBREW PATRIARCHS - ABRAHAM, ISAAC, JACOB AND JOSEPH.
From the Birth of Abraham to the Death of Joseph.
AN. HOM. EVENT
2008 Abram born (see Chapter 8).
75 Add age of Abram when he received the call from God (Gen. 11:32, 12:1, Acts 7:4).
2083 Call of Abram, in obedience to which he left Haran and came into Canaan, immediately after the death of his father Terah.
10 Add 10 years to Abram's marriage with Hagar (Gen. 16:3).
2093 Abram, aged 85, married Hagar.
1 Add 1 year to birth of Ishmael, Abram 86 (Gen. 16:16).
2094 Ishmael born. Abram 86.
14 Add 14 years to birth of Isaac (Gen. 21:5).
2108 Isaac born. Abraham 100.
5 Add 5 years to the great feast when Isaac was weaned, and became Abraham's SEED and HEIR. Ishmael cast out (Gen. 21:8-10). This took place 400 years before the Exodus (Gen. 15:13, Acts 7:6). The Exodus was 430 years after the call (Gen 12:1), promise (Gen. 12:3, Gal. 3:17) and covenant (Gen. 15:13) of God with Abraham at the commencement of his sojourn, when he was 75 (Gen. 12:4). Therefore the date of the Exodus was 2083+430=AN. HOM. 2513 (Ex. 12:40,41). Therefore the 400 years sojourn of the SEED of Abraham commenced 2513-400 = AN. HOM. 2113, when Isaac was 5 years old.
2113 Isaac weaned at the age of 5, when he became Abraham's SEED and HEIR, Ishmael being cast out.
32 Add 32 years to the death of Sarah. Sarah was 90 at the birth of Isaac (Gen. 17:17; 21:5). Sarah died at the age of 127 (Gen. 23:1), the only woman whose age is given in Scripture. Therefore Isaac was 127 - 90 = 37 when Sarah died.
2145 Sarah died aged 127.
3 Add 3 years to the marriage of Isaac at the age of 40 (Gen. 25:20).
2148 Isaac married at the age of 40.
20 Add 20 years to the birth of Esau and Jacob (Gen 25:26).
2168 Esau and Jacob born. Isaac aged 60.
15 Add 15 years to the death of Abraham at the age of 175 (Gen. 25:7).
2183 Abraham died aged 175 (2008+175=2183).
25 Add 25 years to the marriage of Esau at the age of 40 (Gen. 26:34) (2168+40-2208).
2208 Esau married at the age of 40.
37 Add 37 years to the day when Jacob left home. Jacob left home at the age of 77 (2168+77 = 2245). Joseph stood before Pharaoh, aged 30 (Gen. 41:46). At the end of 7 years' plenty Joseph was 37 (Gen. 41:29,30). At the end of 2 years' famine, when Jacob came down into Egypt, Joseph was 39 (Gen. 45:6). At the end of 2 years' famine, when Jacob came down into Egypt, Jacob was 130 (Gen. 47:9). Therefore Jacob was 130 when Joseph was 39. Therefore Jacob was 91 when Joseph was born. Jacob had served Laban 14 years when Joseph was born (Gen.30:25). Therefore Jacob was 91 - 14 = 77 when he left home for Padan Aram.
2245 Jacob left home for Padan Aram aged 77.
7 Add 7 years to Jacob's marriage. Jacob married both Leah and Rachel at the same time. He served 7 years for Leah before his marriage and 7 years more for Rachel after it (Gen. 29:21-28,30; 30:1,22,25,26; 31:38-41).
2252 Jacob at the age of 84 married both Leah and Rachel.
7 Add 7 years to the birth of Joseph (Gen. 30:25,26; 31:38-41).
2259 Joseph born. Jacob 91 (Gen. 30:25; 31:38-41).
6 Add 6 years to the time when Jacob returned to Canaan aged 97 (Gen. 31:41).
2265 Joseph aged 6. Jacob returns to Canaan aged 97.
24 Add 24 years to the time when Joseph stood before Pharaoh, aged 30. (Gen. 41:46).
2289 Joseph stood before Pharaoh at the beginning of the 7 years of plenty, aged 30 (Gen. 41:46).
7 Add 7 years of plenty. Joseph aged 37 (Gen. 41:47).
2296 At the end of 7 years of plenty Joseph aged 37 (Gen. 41:47).
2 Add 2 years of famine when Jacob went down into Egypt (Gen. 45:6).
2298 At the end of 2 years of famine Jacob went down into Egypt, aged 130. Joseph aged 39 (Gen. 45:6, 47:9).
17 Add 17 years to the death of Jacob (Gen. 47:28).
2315 Jacob died aged 147 (2168+147=2315). Joseph 56 (Gen. 47:28),
54 Add 54 years to the death of Joseph (Gen. 50:26).
2369 Joseph died aged 110 (2259+110=2369) (Gen. 50:26.)
Each step in the progress of the Chronology is clearly explained in the above table, and the "proof" is given in the "testimony" of the text of Scripture cited. These proof texts are the historical data with which the science of Chronology is built up. The result arrived at is characterized by the accuracy and certainty of an exact science. It cannot be one year more. It cannot be one year less. This is so mathematically exact and so absolutely certain, that since Ussher proved that Terah was 130 when Abram was born, no Chronologer, who accepts the text of the Old Testament, has ever made the period covered by the Book of Genesis from the Creation of Adam to the death of Joseph anything else but 2,369 years. The only exception is R. G. Faussett, who supposes that Abraham left Haran, not as Scripture says, when his father Terah died, but after an interval of 2 years.
The motive for this alteration is to provide the author with materials to illustrate his theory of the symmetry of time, so that e.g. each of the 21 7- year periods of Jacob's life may coincide with a year AN. HOM. divisible by the number 7. Thus e.g. he would be born in the year AN. HOM. 2170 = 7 x 310, instead of in the year AN. HOM. 2168. The temptation is great, but it is the very thing against which Chronologers must guard. No preconceived scheme, whether millennial, septenary, or of any other kind, must be allowed to warp the facts or to bend the figures into any particular symmetrical shape. The sole criterion of chronological truth is evidence, testimony, fact. Another motive for carrying the Chronology forward by 2 years is that Isaac may be 3 years old, instead of 5 years old, when he is weaned, 3 being the usual age at which children are weaned in the East, when the birth of one child is not soon followed by the birth of another (see 2 Macc. 7:27, "My son, have pity on thy mother that gave thee suck 3 years," and cp. 1 Sam. 1:21-23. Josephus, Antiq. II. 9.6). The alteration does not affect the Chronology ultimately, for Faussett deducts the added two years from the interval between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses, meanwhile every event from the birth of Abraham (AN. HOM. 2010 instead of 2008) to the death of Joseph (AN.HOM. 2371 instead of 2369) is placed 2 years too late.
We have now reached the epoch of the two promises (1) to Abraham's seed and (2) to Abraham himself, in connection with which, periods of 400 and 430 years are mentioned. It will be worth while for us to set out these two periods in detail.
The 430 years of Exodus 12:40,41 and Gal. 3:17.
Exodus 12:40,41, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel (who dwelt in Egypt) was 430 years. And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the selfsame day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt."
Gal. 3:17, "The Covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was 430 years after, could not disannul."
This sojourning includes the whole period from the call of Abram (Gen. 12:1) and the promise (Gen. 12:3) and the confirmation of the promise by a covenant (Gen. 15:13-18) to the going up out of Egypt, within 2 months of which the Law was given on Sinai.
From the call, promise and covenant of Gen. 12:1-3, Gen. 15:13-18, Gal. 3:17 = 2083
To the going up out of Egypt, and the giving of the Law on Sinai, Ex. 12:40,41; 19:1,2; Gal. 3:17 = 2513
Years 430
The 400 years of Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6,
Gen. 15:13.
"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, (and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them); four hundred years."
Acts 7:6. Stephen's speech -
"And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land (and they should bring them into bondage; and entreat them evil); four hundred years."
Abraham's seed here means Abraham's posterity, viz. Isaac from the time that he was weaned, and became Abraham's heir (Gal. 3:29-4:5) and Isaac's descendants.
1. They were strangers and sojourners in Canaan (a land not theirs).
From the weaning of Isaac and the casting out of Ishmael (Gen. 21:10) = 2113
To the going down into Egypt (Gen. 47:9) = 2298
[DIFFERENCE] 185
2. They were in favour in Egypt (a land not theirs)
From the going down into Egypt (Gen. 47:9) = 2298
To the death of Joseph (Gen. 50:26) = 2369 = 71
3. They were brought into bondage and affliction in Egypt
From the death of Joseph (Gen. 50:26) = 2369
To the Exodus (Ex. 12:40-41) = 2513 =144 215
Years 400
The structure of Gen. 15:13 and Acts 7:6 shows that the first line corresponds with the fourth line, the second and third lines being a parenthesis, so that the term "400 years" refers to the whole period of the sojourning in Canaan as well as in Egypt, and not to the sojourning in Egypt alone.
----------------
The 430 years of Ex. 12:40 is 30 years longer than the 400 years of Gen. 15:13, because it includes the sojourning of Abraham himself as well as that of his SEED. By a figure of speech the term "children of Israel" is made to include Abraham himself. So Milton speaks of " Eve the fairest of all her - daughters."
DETAILS OF THE TWO PERIODS OF 400 & 430 YEARS.
PERIODS The 400 years The 430 years
From the call, promise and covenant of Abram to the marriage of Hagar 10
From the marriage of Hagar to the birth of Ishmael 1
From the birth of Ishmael to the birth of Isaac 14
From the birth of Isaac to his being weaned and becoming the SEED at the casting out of Ishmael (Gen. 21:8-1O) 5
From the weaning of Isaac, when he became the SEED to the going down into Egypt 185 185
[SUB-TOTAL] 215
From the going down into Egypt to the Exodus - (to make up the 400 years of Gen. 15:13 and the 430 years of Ex. 12:40,41) 215 215
[TOTAL] 400 430
The method of fixing the date of the weaning of Isaac is strictly logical and mathematically exact. We begin with the call, promise, covenant or sojourning of Abraham, which took place immediately after the death of Terah, AN. HOM. 2083. There is the direct and positive testimony of the Hebrew Text for the fact that the period from that point to the Exodus was a period of 430 years; therefore the date of the Exodus must be 2083 + 430 = AN.HOM. 2513. We have again the direct and positive testimony of the Hebrew Text for the fact that the SEED of Abraham should be strangers and sojourners for a period of 400 years. That period ended with the Exodus, AN. HOM. 2513. Therefore it began 2513 - 400 = 2113, and since Isaac was born AN. HOM. 2108, he was then 5 years old. But Isaac became the sole HEIR (with which we may connect the word SEED) of Abraham on the day that he was weaned. On that day Abraham made him a great feast, to celebrate the event. Ishmael was Abraham's heir no longer. Isaac had taken his place. He mocked, and was cast out.
Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling the various statements of the number of the children of Israel who went down into Egypt, viz. the 66, the 70 and the 75 of Gen. 46:26,27 and Acts 7:14, and also in understanding how Jacob's great grandson Hamul, and Ard the youngest son of Benjamin, could have been born at the time when Jacob went down into Egypt, as Jacob was then only 130 years old. The following Tables will make these matters quite clear. They do not give a definite historical induction showing the exact date of the birth of Jacob's sons and grandsons. They are not therefore included in the Chronological Tables (Vol. II) which contain only those dates which are definitely fixed and demonstrably true. They are a demonstration of the possibility of ranging the events recorded within the limits of the 130 years of Jacob's life, without postulating any departure from the ordinary course of nature respecting the age of puberty and the laws of human generation.
THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT.
Gen. 46:5-27, Acts 7:14.
THE 66 THE 70 THE 75
THE SONS OF LEAH - Gen. 46:8-15
1. Reuben 1 1 1
2. Hanoch 1 1 1
3. Phallu 1 1 1
4. Hezron 1 1 1
5. Carmi 1 1 1
6. Simeon 1 1 1
7. Jemuel 1 1 1
8. Jamin 1 1 1
9. Ohad 1 1 1
10. Jachin 1 1 1
11. Zohar 1 1 1
12. Shaul 1 1 1
13. Levi 1 1 1
14. Gershon 1 1 1
15. Kohath 1 1 1
16. Merari 1 1 1
17. Judah 1 1 1
18. Er – not included in either - died in Canaan - - -
19. Onan - not included in either - died in Canaan - - -
20. Shelah 1 1 1
21. Pharez (son of Judah by Tamar) 1 1 1
22. Zarah (son of Judah by Tamar) 1 1 1
23. Hezron (son of Pharez) 1 1 1
24. Hamul (son of Pharez) 1 1 1
25. Issachar 1 1 1
26. Tola 1 1 1
27. Phuvah 1 1 1
28. Job 1 1 1
29. Shimron 1 1 1
30. Zebulon 1 1 1
31. Sered 1 1 1
32. Elon 1 1 1
33. Jahleel 1 1 1
DINAH - Gen. 46:15 1 1 1
THE SONS OF ZILPAH, Gen. 46:16-18
1. Gad 1 1 1
2. Ziphion 1 1 1
3. Haggi 1 1 1
4. Shuni 1 1 1
5. Ezbon 1 1 1
6. Eri 1 1 1
7. Arodi 1 1 1
8. Areli 1 1 1
9. Asher 1 1 1
10. Jimnah 1 1 1
11. Ishuah 1 1 1
12. Isui 1 1 1
13. Beriah 1 1 1
14. Serah (their sister) 1 1 1
15. Heber (son of Beriah) 1 1 1
16. Malchiel (son of Beriah) 1 1 1
THE SONS OF RACHEL - Gen. 46:19-22.
1. Joseph - not included in the 66. Already in Egypt - 1 1
2. Manasseh - not included in the 66. - 1 1
3. Ephraim - not included in the 66. - 1 1
4. Benjamin 1 1 1
5. Belah 1 1 1
6. Becher 1 1 1
7. Ashbel 1 1 1
8. Gera 1 1 1
9. Naaman 1 1 1
10. Ehi 1 1 1
11. Rosh 1 1 1
12. Muppim 1 1 1
13. Huppim 1 1 1
14. Ard 1 1 1
THE SONS OF BILHAH - Gen. 46:23-25
1. Dan 1 1 1
2. Hushim 1 1 1
3. Naphtali 1 1 1
4. Jahzeel 1 1 1
5. Guni 1 1 1
6. Jezer 1 1 1
7. Shillem 1 1 1
"ALL THE SOULS THAT CAME WITH JACOB INTO EGYPT, WHICH CAME OUT OF HIS LOINS, BESIDES JACOB'S SONS' WIVES" (Gen. 46:26) = 66
JACOB HIMSELF (Gen. 46:8). 1 1
"ALL THE SOULS OF THE HOUSE OF JACOB WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT" (Gen. 46:27) = 70
After "Ephraim," in Gen. 46:20 the LXX. (Septuagint), the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by Stephen, adds two sons of Manasseh and three sons of Ephraim, viz.
The sons of Manasseh
1. Machir 1
2. Gilead, (son of Machir) 1
The sons of Ephraim.
1. Shuthelah 1
2. Talhath 1
3. Edem (or Bered or Becher), son of Shuthelah 1
"JACOB AND ALL HIS KINDRED" (Acts 7:14) 75
PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE RELATING TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WHICH CAME INTO EGYPT.
THE 66 SOULS.
Gen. 46:26 - "All the souls THAT CAME WITH JACOB INTO EGYPT, WHICH CAME OUT OF HIS LOINS, besides Jacob's sons' wives, all the souls were threescore and six."
This excludes Jacob, Leah, Rachel, Zilpah, Bilhah, Joseph, Manasseh, Ephraim and the wives of Jacob's 12 sons.
THE 70 SOULS.
Gen. 46:27. - "All the souls of the house of Jacob which came into Egypt were threescore and ten."
Deut. 10:22 - "Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons."
This includes Jacob, Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, in addition to the 66 - but excludes the wives of Jacob and his 12 sons.
THE 75 SOULS.
Acts 7:14 Jacob and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.
Gen. 46:20 The LXX. adds "And there were born unto Manasseh and Ephraim, whom his concubine the Aramitess bare him, Machir; and Machir begat Gilead. And the sons of Ephraim the brother of Manasseh were Shuthelah, Tahath; and the sons of Shuthelah, Edem (or Bered or Becher)."
This addition is probably taken from Numb. 26:28-37 and 1 Chron. 7:20.
Numb. 26:29. "Of the sons of Manasseh; of Machir the family of the Machirites: and Machir begat Gilead."
Numb. 26:35. "These are the sons of Ephraim after their families; of Shuthelah the family of the Shuthalhites, of Becher the family of the Bachrites, of Tahan the family of the Tahanites."
1 Chron. 7:14. The sons of Manasseh; whom his concubine Ashriel the Aramitess bare: she bare Machir the father of Gilead.
1 Chron. 7:20 "And the sons of Ephraim; Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son."
The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament was the version used by Stephen and sometimes by Paul.
Note also the adoption of Joseph's two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, by Jacob,-
Gen. 48:5. "And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee in Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon they shall be mine."
-------------
Jacob went down into Egypt (see above, Chapter 10) at the age of 130, being not necessarily more than 129 when his youngest great grandson Hamul, the son of Pharez, the son of Judah was born, and not necessarily more than 130 when his youngest grandson Ard the son of Benjamin was born. Dinah would have been at Shechem at the early age of 13, and Benjamin would have had a son at the early age of 16 - unless some of Benjamin's sons were twins, in which case Dinah may have been older, and Benjamin may have married later. Benjamin may have had more than one wife, in which case the difficulty disappears.
THE AGE OF JACOB AND HIS DESCENDANTS, WHEN JACOB CAME INTO EGYPT.
Jacob left home (see above, Chapter 10) at the age of 77
Jacob married Leah and Rachel at same time, at the age of 84
Reuben born of Leah when Jacob was, say 85
Simeon born of Leah when Jacob was, say 86
Levi born of Leah when Jacob was, say 87
Judah born of Leah when Jacob was, say 88
Pharez born when Judah was, say 20, and Jacob, say 108
Hezron born, Pharez say 20, Judah say 40, Jacob say 128
Hamul born, Pharez say 21, Judah say 41, Jacob say 129
Dan born of Bilhah, Rachel's maid when Jacob was, say 89
Napthali born of Bilhah, Rachel's maid when Jacob was, say 90
Gad born of Zilpah, Leah's maid when Jacob was, say 89
Asher born of Zilpah, Leah's maid when Jacob was, say 90
Issachar born of Leah when Jacob was, say 90
Zebulun born of Leah when Jacob was, say 91
Dinah born of Leah when Jacob was, say 92
Joseph born of Rachel (see above, Chapter 10) when Jacob was 91
Dinah at Shechem at age of, say, 13 when Jacob was, say 103
Benjamin born of Rachel when Jacob was, say 105
Belah born when Benjamin was, say 16 and Jacob say 121
Becher born when Benjamin was, say 17 and Jacob say 122
Ashbel born when Benjamin was, say 18 and Jacob say 123
Gera born when Benjamin was, say 19 and Jacob say 124
Naaman born when Benjamin was, say 20 and Jacob say 125
Ehi born when Benjamin was, say 21 and Jacob say 126
Rosh born when Benjamin was, say 22 and Jacob say 127
Muppim born when Benjamin was, say 23 and Jacob say 128
Huppim born when Benjamin was, say 24 and Jacob say 129
Ard born when Benjamin was, say 25 and Jacob say 130
Some doubt has been cast upon the number of the children of Israel who went up out of Egypt as expressed (1) in Exodus 12:37, "600,000 men beside children," (2) in Numb. 2:32 "603,550," beside the Levites at the beginning of the 2nd year after they came out of Egypt, and (3) in Numb 26:51, "601,730" at the close of the 40 years in the wilderness.
But these doubts are quite groundless. From the going down into Egypt, AN.HOM. 2298, to the Exodus, AN. HOM. 2513, is 215 years. Mr. Malthus has shown that with an abundant supply of food, a given population may continue to double its numbers in about 15 years, and in favoured cases, in even less time. At this rate of increase the 70 souls who went down into Egypt would have multiplied in 225 years to 2,293,760, which is perhaps about the number of the entire population including Levites, women and children; the 600,000 mentioned in Ex. 12:37, Numb. 2:32 and 26:51, would be the adult males.
CHAPTER XI. THE JOSEPH - MOSES CONNECTION.
From the Death of Joseph to the Birth of Moses = 64 years.
(AN. HOM. 2369-2433)
THE Book of Genesis closes With the death of Joseph at the age of 110. There the Patriarchal Chronology comes to an end, and it ends in a cul de sac. We can go no further in this line, for the age of Joseph at the birth of Ephraim and Manasseh is not stated. We must therefore turn back and start afresh.
Between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus there is a great chronological gulf or chasm. In Genesis we close with Israel in favour in Egypt under one dynasty. In Exodus we open with the rise of a new King, of another dynasty, who "knew not Joseph," and with Israel in affliction in Egypt. The Book of Exodus opens with a recapitulation of the names and the number of the children of Israel who came into Egypt, and of the bitter affliction which overtook them under the rule of the new Pharaoh - the Pharaoh of the Oppression. But the exact point at which the chronological continuity of the narrative commences is the birth of Moses. The problem is, then, how to bridge the gulf, and how to determine the exact number of the years between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses.
The answer is given in the long number of the sojourning and the affliction of Abraham and his seed, which dates from the call of Abraham at the age of 75, Viz. AN. HOM. 2083, and which ends at the Exodus. This period is definitely stated to be a period of exactly 430 years. Now we know that from the call of Abram to the death of Joseph (AN. HOM. 2083-2369) was a period of 286 years, and we know that from the birth of Moses to the Exodus was a period of 80 years (Ex. 2:11-15,23; Ex. 7:7; Acts 7:23-30). If we add these numbers (286 + 80 =366) and subtract the sum of them from the number of years in the entire period (430 - 366 = 64), the remaining 64 years will be the exact length of the period between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses; between the close of the narrative of Genesis and the beginning of that of Exodus. There is here no appeal to Josephus, no speculative hypothesis, no assumption or conjecture. The result is obtained by a historical induction from the facts and figures given in the Text itself, and is mathematically exact.
There are many similar cases of gaps or chasms, like this, in the Chronology of the detailed events given in the narrative of the Text of the Old Testament, but they are always made good by statements which bridge over the gulf by giving the entire length of a longer period which includes, and thereby specifies, the length of the gap or chasm left in the Chronology of the events as related in detail.
These chasms begin with very simple problems, easily solved, like that of the age of Noah at the birth of Shem, and that of the age of Terah at the birth of Abram. They then become slightly more complex, as in the case before us, the problem of the length of the period between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses. After this they become much more complex and involved, as in the case of the Joshua - Judges connection and the Eli - Saul connection, whilst finally, in the determination of the length of the reigns of the Persian monarchs who occupied the throne between the first year of Cyrus and the second year of Darius Hystaspes, and in the length of the period between the first year of Cyrus and the Crucifixion, we reach the most difficult problems of all in Sacred Chronology.
Nevertheless, the solution is always given, either in the Record of the prophetic narrator, or else in the words of the prophet, and given with such precision that the Chronology can be fixed with as great a degree of certainty as the Chronology of any period in secular history.
The demonstration of the length of the period between the death of Joseph and the birth of Moses may be set out in tabular form as follows:-
THE JOSEPH-MOSES CONNECTION.
From the Death of Joseph to the Birth of Moses = 64 years.
2369 Death of Joseph at age of 110 (see previous Chapter) Add 64 years to the birth of Moses, for,Ex. 12:40,41)
Call of Abram to Exodus =
See Chapter 10 on the 400 and the 430 years. 430 years
From Call of Abram to death of Joseph (AN.HOM. 2083-2369) =
See Table of Hebrew Patriarchs, Chapter 10. -286 years
Therefore, Death of Joseph to Exodus = 144 years
Ex. 2:23, Acts 7:29,30, Flight of Moses to Exodus, when Moses was 80 = -40 years
Therefore, Death of Joseph to flight of Moses, = 104 years
Ex. 2:11-15, Acts 7:23-29, Birth of Moses to Flight of Moses, = -40 years
+64 Therefore, Death of Joseph to Birth of Moses = 64 years
2433 Moses born.
CHAPTER XII. COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY - ABRAHAM TO MOSES.
Israel in Egypt.
THE statements of the Hebrew Text respecting this period have not been controverted by ancient testimony or modern discovery. The only doubt that has arisen is in connection with the silence of the Monuments of Egypt respecting so great an episode as the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, the career of Joseph and Moses, and so remarkable an event as the Exodus.
As Professor Sayce says: "There is no direct mention of the Israelites in Egypt on the Monuments or in the papyri, neither is there any representation of their servitude," but they belonged to the servant class of brickmakers and hewers of wood and drawers of water, and would not be likely to be portrayed on temples or walls or tombs. There is also no mention of the plagues, but the nations of antiquity never chronicled their misfortunes their disasters, or their defeats, only their triumphs and their victories.
The Pharaoh of Joseph, the Pharaoh of the Oppression, and the Pharaoh of the Exodus have not been certainly identified, but it is very generally supposed that the Pharaoh of the Oppression was the great Rameses II, who reigned 67 years, and filled Egypt with statues of himself, and that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was his son and successor Merenptah, both of the 19th dynasty. No dates can be given, for the materials for fixing the same are wanting. Two schools of Egyptologists place the date of Rameses II at B.C. 1350 (Budge) and B.C. 1292 (Kent) respectively.
Dr. C. F. Kent thinks the Pharaoh of the Oppression may have been Amenophis IV of the 18th dynasty, whom Budge dates B.C. 1400, and Kent B.C. 1375. The Pharaoh of the Oppression has also been identified with one of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings who were formerly dated B.C. 1750, but whose expulsion is dated by Kent about B.C. 1580.
Professor Sayce thinks the children of Israel came into Egypt in the time of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings, and that on their expulsion there arose a new King, a Pharaoh of a new dynasty who knew not Joseph.
"The Oppression culminated," says Professor Sayce, "in the long reign of Rameses II, for whom the Israelites built the cities of Ramses and Pithom (Ex. 1:11). Ramses or Raamses was the name given to Zoan or Tanis, the old capital of the Hyksos, after its reconstruction by Ramses, and the city of Pithom was discovered only two years ago in the mounds of Tel-el-Maskhuta near Tel-el- Kebir. Inscriptions found on the spot show that it was built by Ramses II as a storehouse for corn or treasure. It contains store chambers strongly constructed, and divided by partition walls as much as 8 or 10 feet thick."
The bricks are sun-baked, some mixed with straw and others not. They may be seen to-day in the Museum at Cairo, where the visitor is also shown the mummies of Seti I, Ramses I, Ramses II (the supposed Pharaoh of the Oppression) and Merenptah (the supposed Pharaoh of the Exodus). The bricks were discovered by M. Ernest Naville, who regards the strawless bricks as the work of the Israelites to whom Pharaoh said, "I will not give you straw" (Ex. 5:10). If Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, the Pharaoh of the Exodus must have been his son Merenptah whose reign was of short duration and full of disaster.
It must not be supposed that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was himself drowned in the Red Sea. The narrative in Exodus 14, and Moses' Song in Exodus 15, both expressly guard the reader against that supposition. The waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them, Ex. 14:28 - "all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea" is a different expression from "Pharaoh and all his host." Again, in Ex. 15:19, we read "the horse of Pharaoh went in with his chariots and with his horsemen," but not "Pharaoh and his horse."
The Merenptah Stele.
The one contemporary allusion to Israel in the Egyptian Monuments is the recently discovered triumphal Stele of this same Merenptah, son of Ramses II, also in the Cairo Museum. In this he speaks of his conquest of Canaan in the following words:-
Plundered is Canaan with every evil.
Ascalon is carried into Captivity.
Gezer is taken.
Yenoam is annihilated.
Israel is desolated, her seed is not.
Palestine has become a widow for Egypt.
All lands are united, they are pacified.
Everyone who is turbulent has been bound by King Merenptah.
The dates of the Egyptian Kings are uncertain, and naturally give rise to different schools of Chronologists, but there is no reason why uncertainty should be introduced into the Biblical Chronology where everything is clear, unambiguous and precise.
Misleading Hypotheses of the Higher Critics.
Nevertheless, many eminent and distinguished men, from Francois Lenormant of the Imperial Institute of France to Prof. C. F. Kent, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in Yale University, will persist in regarding the period of the residence of Israel in Egypt as a period of 430 years. Lenormant says, in his Manual of the Ancient History of the East, "The Hebrews remained 430 years in the fertile land of Goshen." Prof. Kent is still more confusing. He says truly enough that in Genesis 15:16 it is stated that the Hebrews were to return to Palestine in the fourth generation, which they did, as shown by the two passages which he quotes, Ex. 6:16-20 and Numb. 26:57-59.
Levi.
|
-----------------------
| |
Kohath. |
| |
Amram.-------m.--------Jochebed.
|
Moses.
Prof. Kent's difficulty arises from inattention to the structure of Gen. 15:13. "Know of a surety that
A. thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs,
B. and shall serve them;
B. and they shall afflict them;
A. four hundred years."
The structure of this verse is admirably explained in the Companion Bible, sub. Gen. 15:13 The Text is what is known as an Introversion, in which sentences A and A correspond to each other and relate to the same event, whilst sentences B and B likewise correspond to each other, and relate to another event. A and A relate to the whole period of the sojourning and the servitude in Canaan and in Egypt (400 years). B and B are parenthetic, and relate to the servitude in Egypt, and that alone (215 years.)
Gen. 15:14-16 gives further details relating to the period of the servitude in Egypt, referred to in Clauses B and B.
v. 14. "And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge; and afterward shall they come out with great substance."
v. 15. "And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age."
v. 16. "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again; for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full."
Clearly the point of departure for the reckoning of these generations, is the generation that went down into Egypt, viz. either that of Levi, in which case the four generations will be Levi, Kohath, Amram and Moses; or that of Jacob, in which case the four generations will be Jacob, Levi, Jochebed and Moses. The children of Israel returned from Egypt in the generation of Moses, which was the fourth generation from that of Levi, the generation in which they went down into Egypt.
Prof. Kent then adds the misleading and groundless supposition, which he states as if it were a fact: "This implies a period of between 100 and 150 years." Now we know exactly how long this period was. From the going down into Egypt in the year AN. HOM. 2298 to the Exodus in AN. HOM. 2513 was exactly 215 years, no more and no less.
Then follows another quotation, which Prof. Kent introduces in such a way as to suggest that it contradicts the statement that Israel would return from Egypt in the fourth generation: "On the other hand, a late editor in Gen. 15:13 predicts that the period of foreign sojourn was to be exactly 400 years." So it did, but the period of "foreign sojourn " was not the residence of Israel in Egypt, which was 215 years, and not the sojourn of Abraham and his seed, which began AN. H0M. 2083, when Abram left his home and kindred in Haran, and lasted till the Exodus, AN. HOM. 2513, a period of 430 years, but was, as the Text most distinctly states, the sojourn of Abraham's seed, not therefore including the 30 additional years of Abraham's own sojourning, but only the years from AN. HOM. 2113 (when Isaac was weaned and became the heir of Abraham, Ishmael being disinherited) to AN. HOM. 2513, the period of 400 years named in the Text.
A further contradiction is suggested in the following sentence, in which Prof. Kent says, "Another compiler in Exodus 12:40 affirms that the time the Israelites dwelt in Egypt was 430 years." The Hebrew of Ex. 12:40 is accurately rendered in the Authorised Version, which reads, "Now the sojourning of the Children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years." It is inaccurately rendered in the Revised Version, "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned in Egypt was 430 years," the confusion in the minds of the Revisers arising through the want of a proper understanding of the Chronology of the period, which is very exact and always consistent with itself.
Prof. Kent proceeds, "With this passage definitely in mind, the author of Gal. 3:17 assigns 430 to the period from Abraham to Sinai." And correctly so, for he understands the Chronology. The "promise" of Gal. 3:17 was given immediately after Abram received and responded to the call of God to leave his home and kindred and begin his sojourn, AN. HOM. 2083. The Law was given in Sinai 2 months after the Exodus, AN. HOM. 2513, so that "the period from Abraham to Sinai" is a period of exactly 430 years.
Prof. Kent implies that these "contradictions" are due to the fact that the passages quoted are derived from different sources, which he describes as the Northern Israelite history (E), the priestly writer (P), the late priestly writer (P2), a late editor (R1), another compiler (R2). There is no basis in fact for this discrimination between the supposed different sources.
The concluding sentence of Prof. Kent's paragraph is a striking evidence of the blindness of an able scholar, and his inability to see the truth even when he is writing it down with his own pen. He says, "Josephus and the translators of the Samaritan and Greek Versions give the duration of the sojourn as 215 years, which is evidently a compromise between the shorter and the longer periods suggested by the earlier writings." It is nothing of the kind. It is the exact rendering into figures of the statements of the Hebrew Text, which gives 215 years for the sojourn in Egypt, and which cannot possibly be made to give anything else but 215 for it. The shorter period of 100 to 150 years is a baseless conjecture of Prof. Kent, which has no relation to any Scripture fact or statement whatsoever. The longer period is a different period altogether, beginning at another epoch, and referring to another event.
The Hebrew Text of Ex. 12:40 reads: "The sojourning of the children of Israel who sojourned in Egypt was 430 years. The LXX. and the Samaritan insert after Egypt the words "and in the land of Canaan," and consequently read, "the sojourning of the children of Israel who sojourned in Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430 years." The added words agree perfectly with the Hebrew, which is further elucidated, but in no way modified by them. They correctly interpret the meaning of the Hebrew Text, and the fact that the interpretation put upon it is correct is shown by its adoption by Stephen (Acts 7:6) and by the Apostle Paul (Gal. 3:17). But the meaning of the Hebrew is sufficiently clear without the explanatory addition when the Text is properly translated.
The Chronology of the Old Testament is exact and accurate in every detail, and will answer to any truly scientific test to which it is put, but to misinterpret the Text, to infer therefrom what is not therein implied, or to construe it in such a way as to make it mean what it was never intended to mean, can only lead to misunderstanding and confusion.
A glance at the following diagram will make the matter clear.
DIAGRAM OF THE 215, THE 400 AND THE 430 YEARS
OF SOJOURN IN CANAAN, AND THE SOJOURN AND AFFLICTION IN EGYPT.
[See DIAGRAM for original version]
2083 Call Promide and Covenant of Abraham Start of 430 years of Exodus 12:40-41 and Galatians 3:17
30 Add 30 years Abraham sojourns in Canaan.
2113 Weaning of Isaac, who becomes Abraham's Seed and Heir Ishmael disinherited Start of 400 years of Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6
185 Add 185 years Abraham's Seed sojourn in Canaan
2298 Jacob goes down into Egypt Start of 215 years of Josephus, the LXX, and the Samaritan Version
215 Add 215 years The Children of Israel sojourn and are afflicted in Egypt.
2513 The Exodus and the giving of the Law End of 430 years, 400 years, 215 years.
The Khammurabi Stele.
One other important discovery of recent years belongs to this period, one that has entirely vindicated the authenticity and re-established the authority of a unique passage in the Old Testament, formerly rejected by the critics as a late addition dating from about B.C. 300 - the Khammurabi Stele and the 14th chapter of Genesis. The copy of the great Code of Laws drawn up by Khammurabi, King of Babylon (c. B.C. 2200 according to Budge), was discovered at Susa, in the winter of 1901-2. It contains a classified collection of laws, 282 in number, by which the Babylonians were to regulate their affairs. It was set up in Esagila, the temple of Marduk, in Babylon, was carried away by an Elamite King to Susa, and has now been brought to England and placed in the British Museum.
The 14th chapter of Genesis contains an account of an expedition of Chedorlaomer, King of Elam, and his allies, one of whom was Amraphel, King of Shinar, or Southern Babylonia, against the Kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, and their allies four Kings against five. The account was condemned as unhistorical by the critics, partly because it was said to be incredible that a Babylonian campaign should be waged against a distant country like Palestine at that early age, and partly because the chapter represents a King of Elam as a leader of the invading army.
We now find from the Monuments that before the days of Abraham the Babylonian Kings led their armies as far west as Palestine, and even to Cyprus and Mount Sinai. Further, it is now known that in the time of Abraham, Babylon was subject to the Aryan Kingdom of Elam and was divided into two states, the Southern one being called Sumer or Shinar, and the Northern one Akkad. The name Chedorlaomer is an Elamite name, meaning servant of the Elamite God Lagamur. Bricks in the British Museum tell us that Chedorlaomer had conquered Babylon, and that Eri-Aku, son of Kudur-Mabug, servant of the Elamite God Mabug, ruled at Larsa. But Eri-Aku of Larsa is Arioch of Ellassar, and Khammurabi of Sumer is Amraphel of Shinar or South Babylonia, whose Code of Laws has just been recovered.
PERIOD II. THE THEOCRACY - Exodus to 1 Sam. 7.
CHAPTER XIII. ISRAEL IN EGYPT FROM THE BIRTH OF MOSES TO THE EXODUS.
(AN. HOM. 2433-2513).
THE Chronology of this period is very simple; it consists of the first two periods, of 40 years each, of Moses' life. The Table is as follows:-
Birth of Moses to the Exodus.
AN. HOM. EVENT
2433 Moses born (see Chapter II).
40 Add 40 years to flight of Moses (Ex. 2:11-15, Acts 7:23-29).
2473 Flight of Moses.
40 Add 40 years to the Exodus when Moses was 80 years old. (Ex. 2:23, 7:7, Acts 7:29-30).
2513 The Exodus.
Hence Exodus 1:6-12:40,41, from the death of Joseph, AN. HOM. 2369 to the Exodus, AN. HOM. 2513, covers a period of 144 years.
It is definitely stated that Moses was 80 years old when he and Aaron spoke to Pharaoh, and as the narrative is continuous, with no note of time to indicate anything to the contrary, we may conclude that the ten plagues all took place immediately afterwards, and that the Exodus was accomplished that same year. This is confirmed by the fact that 1 1/2 months before the completion of the 40 years in the wilderness Moses died at the age of 120 years.
It is not definitely stated in the Text of the Old Testament that Moses was exactly 40 years old at the date of his flight, but we are told in Ex. 2:11 that it took place "when Moses was grown," a phrase which meant "when Moses was 40 years of age," just as with us the phrase "coming of age" means arriving at the age of 21. This is the interpretation put upon the words by Stephen in Acts 7:23, and on this point he is a credible authority.
But even if we were doubtful as to whether Moses fled to Midian exactly at the age of 40, and led the people out of Egypt at the age of 80, the date of the Exodus would be unaffected by the doubt, and only two intermediate steps in the chronological ladder would be moved up or down, with compensation elsewhere to bring the Exodus down to the year AN. HOM. 2513 as stated in the above Table.
CHAPTER XIV. THE FORTY YEARS IN THE WILDERNESS.
(AN. HOM. 2513-2553)
IN Chapter 13 we reached the conclusion that the narrative of Ex. 1:6-12:40,41 covers a period of 144 years, from the death of Joseph to the Exodus. We have now to show that the remaining portion of the Pentateuch, including the 15 days to the morrow after the Passover, viz. Nisan 15, AN. HOM. 2553 (Josh. 5:10,11), of which details are given in Josh. 1:1-5:10, covers a period of exactly 40 years. The events of this period of 40 years are detailed in the following Tables:-
I. BIBLE DATES IN EXODUS 12:40,41 - 40:38.
Israel in the Wilderness.
From the Exodus to the erection of the Tabernacle, Ex. 12:40,41-40:38.
(1) From the Exodus to the wilderness of Sin.
From 15th day, 1st mo. 1st yr., Ex. 12:2-6,29-41; Num. 33:3 }
To 15th day, 2nd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 16:1 }= 1 month
(2) From the wilderness of Sin to the Giving of the Law on Sinai.
From 15th day, 2nd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 16:1 }
To 15th day, 3rd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 19:1,2 }= 1 month
(3) From the giving of the Law on Sinai to the erection of the Tabernacle.
From 15th day, 3rd mo. 1st yr., Ex. 19:1,2 }
To 1st day, 1st mo. 2nd yr., Ex. 40:17 }= 9 1/2 months
Therefore Exodus 12:40,41-40 covers a period of 11 1/2 months
And the whole Book of Exodus covers a period of 144 years. 11 1/2 mos.
II. BIBLE DATES IN THE BOOK OF LEVITICUS.
Israel in the Wilderness.
From the erection of the Tabernacle to the first census at Sinai.
From 1st day, 1st mo. 2nd yr., Ex. 40:17 }
To 1st day, 2nd mo. 2nd yr., Numb. 1:1 } 1 month.
Therefore the Book of Leviticus covers a period of 1 month.
III. BIBLE DATES IN THE BOOK OF NUMBERS.
Israel in the Wilderness.
From the first census at Sinai to the address of Moses in the plains of Moab.
(1) From the first census at Sinai to the sending out of the Spies at Paran.
From 1st day, 2nd mo. 2nd yr., Numb. 1:1
To 20th day, 2nd. mo. 2nd yr., Numb. 10:11,12; 13:17-30
}
}= 20 days.
(2) From the sending out of the spies at Paran to the death of Miriam.
From 20th day, 2nd mo. 2nd yr., Numb. 10:11,12; 13:17-20
To - day, 1st mo. 40th. yr., Numb. 20:1
}
}= 37 years. 11 mo. 0 days.
(3) From the death of Miriam to the death of Aaron.
From - day, 1st mo. 40th yr., Numb. 20:1
To 1st day, 5th mo. 40th yr., Numb. 20:28; 33:38,39
}
} = 3 mo. 10 days.
(4) From the death of Aaron to the address of Moses in the plains of Moab.
From 1st day, 5th mo. 40th yr., Numb. 20:28; 33:38.39
To 1st day, 11th mo. 40th yr., Deut. 1:3
}
} = 6 mo. 0 days.
Therefore, the Book of Numbers covers a period of 38 years. 9 months.
IV. BIBLE DATES IN THE BOOK OF DEUTERONOMY.
(Including the 15 days of Joshua 1:1-5:10 to complete the 40 years in the wilderness.)
Israel in the Wilderness.
From the address of Moses in the plains of Moab to the entry into Canaan.
(1) From the address of Moses in the plains of Moab to the death of Moses.
From: 1st day, 11th mo. 40th yr. Deut. 1:3
To: (say) 1st day, 12th mo. 40th yr. to make up the 40 years. of Numb. 14:33; 32:13; Josh. 5:6
}
} 1 month.
(2) The 30 days of mourning for Moses.
From: 1st day, 12th mo. 40th yr., Numb. 14:33; 32:13; Josh. 5:6
To: 1st day, 1st mo. 41st yr., Deut. 34:8
}
} 1 month.
(3) From the end of the 30 days mourning to the entry into Canaan.
From: 1st day, 1st mo. 41st yr., Deut. 34:8
To: 14th day, 1st mo. 41st yr., Josh. 1:11 (3 days); 2:16(3 days); 3:1 (1 day); 3:2(3 days); 4:19 (10th day); 5:6 (40 years); 5:10 (14th day)
}
} 1/2 month.
Therefore, the Book of Deuteronomy, including Josh. 1:1-5:10, covers a period of 25 months.
These results enable us to continue the Chronology from the Exodus to the entry into Canaan, as follows:-
The Forty Years in the Wilderness.
AN. HOM. EVENT AMOUNT OF TIME
2513 The Exodus (see previous Chapter)
40 Add 40 years, viz.
Events of Exodus 12:40,41-40
0 years 11 1/2 months
Events of Leviticus 0 years 1 month
Events of Numbers 38 years 9 months
Events of Deuteronomy including Josh. 1:1-5:10 0 years 2 1/2 months
2553 40 years 0 months
CHAPTER XV. THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
From the Entry into Canaan to the Division of the Land.
(AN. HOM. 2553-2560)
IN our last Chapter we arrived at the end of the 40 years in the wilderness, the crossing of the Jordan, and the encampment at Gilgal on the 14th day of the 1st month of the year AN. HOM. 2553. "The people came up out of Jordan on the 10th day of the 1st month and encamped in Gilgal" (Josh. 4:19). At that time the children of Israel who had been born in the wilderness were circumcised (Josh. 5:2). For the children of Israel walked 40 years in the wilderness (Josh 5:6) and they encamped in Gilgal and kept the Passover on the 14th day of the month, even in the plains of Jericho. "And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the Passover, unleavened cakes and parched corn the selfsame day. And the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the old corn of the land; neither had the children of Israel manna any more, but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year" (Josh. 510-12).
The Book of Joshua carries forward the Chronology from the entry into Canaan to the end of the Seven Years' War (at the conclusion of which Joshua divided up the land of Canaan amongst the twelve tribes), but no further.
We are told in Josh. 24:29 that Joshua died at the age of 110 years, but it is not stated how long this was after the division of the Land, and we have no information as to the date of Joshua's birth, so that the date of his death is unknown.
The age of Caleb,however, is given, or rather it may be inferred or obtained by a historical induction, and by this means we arrive at the date of the conclusion of the war of the conquest of Canaan and the division of the Land amongst the twelve tribes, which thereupon immediately ensued.
The date of the Exodus, as we have seen in Chapter 13, is AN. HOM. 2513 (Ex. 12:40,41). The spies were sent out in the 2nd year after the Exodus - "And it came to pass on the 20th day of the 2nd month in the 2nd year, that the cloud was taken up from the Tabernacle of the Testimony. And the children of Israel took their journeys out of the wilderness of Sinai and the cloud rested in the wilderness of Paran," Numb. 10:11,12. " So they departed from the mount a three days' journey" (Numb. 10:33). They murmured, and God sent them quails, of which they ate for a whole month (Numb. 11:20). Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses, and Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days. "And the people journeyed not until Miriam was brought in again" (Numb. 12:15). And afterward the people removed from Hazeroth and pitched in the wilderness of Paran (Numb. 12:16). From the wilderness of Paran (Numb. 13:3) Moses sent out the 12 spies, Numb. 13:17, "at the time of the first ripe grapes" (Numb. 13 20), and they returned from searching the land after 40 days, and they went and came to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation of the children of Israel into the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh" (Numb. 13:25,26). Amongst the number of these 12 spies was Oshea the son of Nun, of the tribe of Ephraim (Numb. 13:8), whom Moses named Jehoshua (Numb. 13:16). With Caleb the son of Jephunneh (Numb. 13:6,30; 14:6-10), he brought back a faithful report and endeavoured to still the murmuring of the people when they heard the evil report of the other ten spies (Numb. 13:30; 14:6,10).
At this time, viz. in the summer or early autumn of the year AN. HOM. 2515, Caleb was 40 years old. "Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the Lord sent me from Kadesh-barnea to espy out the land" (Josh. 14:7). Therefore Caleb was born in the year AN. HOM. 2475. But at the division of the Land (Josh. 13:1; 14:5; and 15:1-19:51), on the conclusion of the war of conquest (Josh 14:15) Caleb said, "And now behold the Lord hath kept me alive, as he said, these 45 years, even since the Lord spake this word unto Moses while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness; and now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old" (Josh. 14:10).
Hence it follows that the division of the Land took place at the end of the war of conquest, when Caleb was 85 years of age, viz. AN. HOM. 2475 + 85 = AN. HOM 2560, and that the war of the conquest of the Land was a Seven Years' War, for from the entry into Canaan in AN. HOM. 2553 (see the previous chapter) to the conclusion of the war, upon which the Land was divided up amongst the 12 Tribes, in the year AN. HOM. 2560, is a period of seven years.
These results may be exhibited in tabular form as follows :-
THE SEVEN YEARS' WAR.
From the Entry into Canaan to the Division of the Land.
(AN. HOM. 2553-2560).
AN. HOM. EVENT YEAR
2553 The entry into Canaan (see Chapter 14)
Add 7 years to division of the Land, for:-
Exodus (Ex. 12:40,41) see previous Chapter = 2513
Spies sent out in 2nd year after the Exodus (Numb. 10:11,12; 13:17-20) = 2515
At that date Caleb was 40 (Josh. 14:7)
Therefore, Caleb was born 2515 - 40
= 2475
But at the division of the Land Caleb was 85 (Josh. 14:10).
Therefore, division of the Land took place in 2475+85
= 2560
7 Therefore, from entry of Canaan to division of Land = 2560 – 2553 = 7 years
2560 Division of the Land at end of Seven Years' War.
CHAPTER XVI. THE JOSHUA - JUDGES CONNECTION.
From the Division of the Land to the Oppression of Cushan = 13 years.
(AN. HOM. 2560-2573).
THE determination of the length of this period has been a great puzzle to the Chronologers. To all of them except the author of the Companion Bible it has proved an insoluble problem. Ussher makes it 31 years. He reckons one year for the period from the division of the Land to the death of Joshua, and the election of the Elders (Judges 2:7), because from the birth of the promised seed Isaac (AN. HOM. 2108) to this time (AN. HOM. 2561) are reckoned 452 years, and from the rejection of Ishmael (AN. HOM 2113) to this time (An. HOM. 2561) 447 years, but between both we may count 450 years."
This is most unsatisfactory, for it not only puts an end to the method of stating the exact year in which an event occurs, the only system which deserves the name of Chronology at all, but it rests upon a forced construction of the passage in Acts 13:17-20, which cannot mean 450 years from the birth or the weaning of Isaac to the entry into Canaan, but must mean 450 years from the completion of the conquest of Canaan, "when he had destroyed seven nations," to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel. The length of the period from the division of the Land to the death of Joshua is nowhere directly stated or implied in Scripture. It cannot, therefore, be directly ascertained.
Ussher reckons an interval of 30 years, or one generation for the anarchy or misrule which succeeded from the death of Joshua to the beginning of the oppression of Cushan. This is not Chronology, if Chronology be a science at all, but the substitution of a good guess, or a subjective impression, for an objective fact, which latter is what we require in all true science.
Clinton fares little better. He says: "After the death of Moses, a chasm occurs in the Scripture Chronology. We are not informed what was the duration of the government of Joshua and the Elders, and of the interregnum or anarchy which followed. The notices of Scripture show that this period was not very long. The division of the Land was 45 years after the 2nd year from the Exode. The time of the anarchy included all the days of the Elders who overlived Joshua (Josh. 24:31) and lasted till all that generation were gathered to their fathers, and there arose another generation which knew not the Lord (Judges 2:10). Caleb and Joshua might be about the same age, about 40 at the Exode, which would bring the death of Joshua to the 30th year after the death of Moses. He was already old and stricken in years, six years after the death of Moses (Josh. 13:1). Although the anarchy lasted till the Elders who overlived Joshua were dead, yet Othniel, who was a military leader in the sixth year after the death of Moses (Josh. 15:16,17, Jud. 1:12,13), survived the anarchy 48 years (Jud. 3:8-11). And Phineas was priest during the anarchy (Jud. 20:28), who was at least 20 years of age in the last year of Moses, when the priesthood was promised to his posterity. His father Eleazar died soon after the death of Joshua (Josh. 24:33). The interval then between the death of Moses and the first servitude may be pretty accurately filled, although the years will be assigned upon conjecture and not upon testimony."
This is only another way of abandoning the science of Chronology and substituting for real dates a table of unverifiable conjectures.
Another method equally inadmissible is that of falling back upon the testimony of Josephus, a late compiler of the 1st Century A.D., who had no authentic information of the Chronology of this period beyond that which we ourselves have in the Text of the Old Testament, except those traditional Rabbinical conjectures which he preserves, and which are as inadmissible as the conjectures of the modern guesswork Chronologer.
Josephus makes the period from the death of Moses to the division of the land 5 years; from thence to the death of Joshua 20 years; from thence to the oppression of Cushan 18 years, or a total of 43 years from the death of Moses to the oppression of Cushan. This gives, if we deduct the 7 years from the death of Moses to the division of the Land, a period of 36 years for the Joshua - Judges chasm, from the division of the Land to the Oppression of Cushan.
The results given by other Chronologers may be tabulated as follows. They are not obtained from the data afforded by the Text of the Old Testament, but have been arrived at by their own favourite method of subjective hypothesis and conjecture. They are therefore of no authority whatever. The variations between them are very numerous, and very large, another proof of the invalidity of the method by which they have been obtained.
THE JOSHUA-JUDGES CHASM.
From the Division of the Land to the Oppression of Cushan, according to the subjective opinions or guesses of Chronologers Ancient and Modern.
Willis J. Beecher 11 years
Petavius 18 years
Du Fresnoy 19 years
Clinton 20 years
Sulpicius Severus 20 years
Paschal Chronicle 20 years
Clement of Alexandria 20 years
Theophilus 20 years
Eusebius 20 or 23 or 48 or 50 years
Hales 29 years
Blair 31 years
Ussher 31 years
Henry Browne 36 years
Des Vignoles 36 years
Josephus 36 years
Syncellus 38 years
A.V. Margin - Bp. Lloyd (B.C. 1444-1402) 42 years
Africanus 48 years
Pezron 61 years
Serrarius 71 years
All the data for determining the number of the years between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan are contained in the text of the Old Testament itself. The number of these years is 13. The honour of the discovery of this fact is due to the author of the Companion Bible, a work from which the present writer has obtained many illuminating suggestions. The Companion Bible is one of the most scholarly attempts to elucidate the meaning of the Scriptures which has appeared in recent years. It contains some errors, which will probably be removed from the second edition. It is dominated by the millenary idea, and the figures are sometimes bent to make the creation of Adam fall exactly 4,000 years before the actual date of the birth of Christ. The conjectural results suggested in part by Lumen, the author of the Prince of the House of Judah, and adopted by the author of the Companion Bible for the period of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, are probably erroneous, but his bold attempt to free the Chronology of the Bible from the tyranny of the Ptolemaic system is one of the many illustrations of the originality of the author's genius, and the keenness of his insight into the meaning of Scripture.
The number of years in the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm from the division of the Land to the Oppression of Cushan is 13. This is involved in the length of the long period from the conquest and occupation of Heshbon by Joshua in the year before the entry into Canaan (Deut. 2) to its reconquest by Ammon 300 years later (Jud. 11:26). Now we know the length of every constituent portion of this period of 300 years, except the period from the division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, and they amount altogether to 287 years. Therefore we conclude by an inevitable historical induction that that period must have contained exactly the remaining 13 years.
Before proceeding to the demonstration of this fact, the reader should glance at the bird's-eye view of the content of the Book of Judges given on page 48 in Vol. II. in the form of a Table of the 12 judges and the one usurper King, whose history is recorded in the Book of judges, with the respective years of servitude, rest, usurpation and judgeship, and other particulars respecting the twelve Judges.
From this Table it will be seen that the judgeship of Shamgar was included in the 20 years of the 3rd servitude under Jabin. This is proved by the words of Judges 5:6,7: "In the days of Shamgar the son of Anath, in the days of Jael, the highways were unoccupied, and the travellers walked through byways. The inhabitants of the villages ceased, they ceased in Israel, until that I Deborah arose, that I arose a mother in Israel."
This places the days of Shamgar, which are the days of Jael, in the 20 years of Jabin's servitude, which lasted "until that I Deborah arose, and were brought to a conclusion by the deliverance of Deborah and Barak.
It will also be seen that the 20 years of the Judgeship of Samson are included in the 40 years of the 6th servitude, under the Philistines. This is proved by the words of Judges 15:20: "And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years." These facts are attested by the same authority as the rest of the facts related as happening during this period, viz. by the writer of the Book of Judges. This writer was probably Samuel, who, no doubt, obtained all the facts from authentic contemporary records. According to oral tradition, dating perhaps from the very time, but first written down in the 1st Century A.D., in the Talmudic Tract Baba Bathra, Samuel wrote the Books of Judges, Ruth, and 1 Samuel 1-24. All the remaining periods of servitude, rest, usurpation and Judgeship in the Book of Judges are strictly consecutive and continuous. They are brought to a conclusion in Judges 16:31.
1 Samuel 1 resumes the narrative, which has been interrupted by three undated illustrative appendices, and is strictly continuous with the story of Samson and the Philistine servitude of Judges 13-16.
The 40 years of Eli's Judgeship begins where the 40 years of the Philistine servitude ends.
The story of Israel begins with the birth of Abram in Genesis 11. From that point on to the end of 2 Kings it is one continuous story throughout, interrupted by occasional illustrations like the two appendices in Judges 17- 21, the Book of Ruth, and the five appendices in 2 Samuel 21-24.
We now return to the demonstration of the fact that the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm, or the period from the division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, was a period of 13 years.
This is one of the most difficult problems of Old Testament Chronology. It can only be solved by giving the closest attention (1) to the structure of the Book of Judges as a whole; (2) to the special characteristics of the general statements prefixed to the first four servitudes in Judges 2:11-23, and to the last two servitudes in Judges 10:6-9. These are summary or prefatory statements of the nature of a preliminary survey of the whole periods of the four and the two servitudes respectively, with which the writer immediately afterwards proceeds to deal in detail; and (3) to the structure of the verse Judges 10:8. This verse, as it stands in the Hebrew, is an introversion, giving first an event and its time, and then another time and its event. The words "that year" refer to the 1st year of the Judgeship of Jair, in which the children of Ammon "broke and crushed" the children of Israel, and thereby recovered possession of Heshbon, and some part of the land of Israel, which they held during the 22 years of Jair; whilst the words "eighteen years" refer to the time when, immediately after the death of Jair, they subdued and oppressed "all the children of Israel" on both sides of the river Jordan.
The 22 years of Jair will therefore be included in the Chronology as an entire period, complete in itself, and distinct from the 18 years of the 5th servitude under the children of Ammon, by which it is immediately succeeded. But neither of these two periods will be included in the 300 years of Jephthah (Judges 11:26), because in "that year," the 1st year of Jair, the children of Ammon "broke and crushed" the children of Israel, threw off their yoke, and recovered possession of Heshbon, and other towns, on the east side of Jordan, so that Jephthah could not say that "Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coast of Arnon" (Judges 11:26) at any time during the 22 years of the Judgeship of Jair. Still less could he say that Israel dwelt in these cities at any time during the 18 years of the Ammonite oppression when all Israel, on both sides of the Jordan, was completely subjugated and reduced to a state of servitude by the children of Ammon.
1. The Structure of the Book of Judges as a whole.
With regard to the first of these three important considerations, the structure of the Book of Judges as a whole, this will be to some extent apparent from the bird's eye view of the content of the Book of Judges given on page 48, in Vol. II, from which it will be seen that the book is a narrative of six apostasies, six servitudes, six cries to God, and six deliverances. The story gathers round the personalities of six deliverers and six other Judges, one Prophetess (Deborah) and one usurper King (Abimelech). The years of servitude, rest after deliverance, usurpation and Judgeship, are in each case unambiguously stated, as also the facts that the deliverance of Shamgar from the Philistines took place during the oppression of Jabin (Jud. 3:31; 5:6,7) and that the Judgeship of Samson was exercised during 20 out of the 40 years of the Philistine oppression (Jud. 15:20; 16:31). The proof of the fact that the Judgeship of Eli is consecutive, and follows on immediately at the close of the 40 years of the sixth servitude under the Philistines, lies in the structure of the Books of Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel taken together. It is one continuous story throughout. The story is interrupted by three appendices, which are given as detailed or concrete illustrations of the period of the Judges, an outline or skeleton of the history of which has been given in the previous chapters. We have first an illustration of the idolatry of the time, the story of Micah and the Danites (Jud. 17-18). Next an illustration of the immorality of the time, the story of the Levite and the men of Gibeah (Judges 19-21), and, by way of contrast, an idyllic picture of rustic piety and purity in the midst of infidelity and immorality. Then, in 1 Sam 1:1, the narrative is resumed. Take out the pictures, and the reading will be seen to be consecutive and continuous. There is, however, a change in the tone of the narrative as we pass from Judges 1-16 into 1 Sam. 1. Judges 1-16 gives the history of the times of the Judges properly so called. 1 Sam. 1-7 gives the history of the transition period from the Theocracy to the Monarchy. The difference is sufficient to account for the insertion of the three appendices, for in 1 Sam. 1 we turn down a page and commence a new chapter in Israel's history. But it must not be forgotten that the whole of the series of historical books from Genesis to 2 Kings is one consecutive, continuous narrative throughout.
In order to make the matter clear we append here a bird's-eye view of the structure of the Books of Judges, Ruth and 1 Samuel. This will show the consecutive, continuous character of the whole narrative, and also the transition character of 1 Sam. 1-7. It will also give us a key to the interpretation of the difficult phrase "that year" in Judges 10:8. It may be exhibited thus:-
BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOOK OF JUDGES.
Theocracy.
PART 1. - FOUR SERVITUDES.
Jud. 1:1-2:10. Introduction.
Jud. 2:11-23. Preliminary survey or summary statement prefixed to the first four servitudes.
APOSTASY. - The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.
SERVITUDE. - And he delivered them into the hands of their enemies.
CRY TO GOD. - They groaned by reason of them that broke and crushed them.
DELIVERANCE. - The Lord raised up Judges and delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them.
Jud. 3:7. The children of Israel did evil.
1st Servitude - Cushan, 8 years. Deliverance - Othniel.
Rest 40 years.
Jud. 3:12 The children of Israel did evil.
2nd Servitude - Eglon, 18 years. Deliverance - Ehud.
Rest 80 years.
(Jud. 3:31). Parenthesis. - And after him Shamgar, he also delivered Israel, viz. during Jabin's oppression (see Jud. 5:6,7). This is not a continuation of the narrative, but an anticipatory summary statement of an event which took place during the period dealt with in the next paragraph.
Jud. 4:1. The children of Israel did evil when Ehud was dead. This connects the 80 years of rest by Ehud with the 20 years of the oppression by Jabin, without leaving any room for Shamgar's deliverance between these two periods.
3rd Servitude - Jabin, 20 years. Deliverance - Barak.
Rest 40 years.
Jud. 6:1. The children of Israel did evil.
4th Servitude - Midian, 7 years. Deliverance - Gideon.
Rest 40 years.
Jud. 8:33-9:57. The Story of Abimelech.
Jud. 8:33. When Gideon was dead Abimelech 3 years.
Jud. 10:1-5. Summary statement of two Judgeships.
Jud. 10:1. After Abimelech arose Tola.
Judged 23 years. Died and was buried.
Jud. 10:3. After him arose Jair.
Judged 22 years. Died and was buried.
This last statement is anticipatory. The historian completes his account of Jair before commencing a new subject, though chronologically he has reached the first year of Jair. Cp. 2 Chron. 29:1,2, a summary statement of the whole of the reign of Hezekiah, followed in verse 3 by a detailed account of it, beginning with the events of the first year.
PART II. - TWO SERVITUDES.
Jud. 10:6-16. Preliminary survey or summary statement prefixed to the last two servitudes.
APOSTASY. - The children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord.
SERVITUDE. - He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and the children of Ammon.
A. And they broke and crushed the children of Israel
A. That year (=the 1st year of Jair).
B. Eighteen years (=after the last year of Jair).
B. All the children of Israel on both sides of the Jordan.
CRY TO GOD. - The children of Israel cried unto the Lord, saying we have sinned.
REFUSAL TO DELIVER. - Go, cry to the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you.
REPEATED CRY TO GOD. - We have sinned. Deliver us this day only.
RESPONSE. - His soul was grieved for the misery of Israel.
Jud. 10:17-12:6 Details of the Ammonite oppression and deliverance by Jephthah.
Jud. 12:7-15. Summary statement of four Judgeships.
Jud. 12:7. Jephthah judged Israel 6 years., died and was buried
Jud. 12:8. Ibzan judged Israel 7 years., died and was buried
Jud. 12:11. Elon judged Israel 10 years., died and was buried
Jud. 12:13. Abdon judged Israel 8 years., died and was buried
Jud. 13:1-16:31. Details of the Philistine oppression and Judgeship of Samson.
(Jud. 15:20). Parenthesis. - Samson judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 20 years.
APPENDICES.
Jud. 17-18. Appendix 1. - Micah and the Danites - Idolatry.
Jud. 19-21. Appendix 2. - The Levite and the men of Gibeah - immorality.
Ruth. Appendix 3. - The story of Ruth - piety and purity in the midst of infidelity and immorality.
Transition to Monarchy.
1 Sam. 1-7. Judgeships of Eli and Samuel.
Monarchy.
1 Sam. 8-2 K. Saul, David and Solomon, and the Kings of Israel and Judah.
2. The Special Character of the Summary Statements, Jud. 2:11-23 and 10:6-9.
From this analysis of the structure of the Book of Judges it will be seen that it is divided into two parts, each commencing with a summary statement of the fourfold cycle of events - apostasy, servitude, cry to God, deliverance - which are thereafter described in detail.
The difficult verse, Judges 10:8, occurs not in the continuous consecutive narrative, but in the preliminary survey or summary statement of the last two servitudes, which are first mentioned together, and afterwards narrated in detail, the Ammonite oppression first, and then the Philistine. Though mentioned together in this summary way, they are two distinct servitudes, not one only, and they are consecutive, not contemporary.
3. The Structure of the Verse Judges 10:8
Jair was a Gileadite. He had 30 sons that rode on 30 ass colts, a sign of princely rank and governmental authority; and they had 30 cities called Havoth-Jair, or the villages of Jair, in the land of Gilead. It is not said that Jair delivered Israel, but only that he judged Israel 22 years, but in Judges 2:18 we read that "when the Lord raised them up Judges then the Lord was with the Judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the Judge," so that, although it is not said that the Lord "raised up" Jair, but only that he "arose," it is most probable that the writer means us to understand that the Ammonites "broke and crushed" the children of Israel in the first year of Jair in such a way that they were able to recover Heshbon and the territory to the south allotted to Reuben, but not Gilead and the territory to the north allotted to Gad, and not any of the rest of the of the Land of Israel, until the death of Jair, when they crossed the Jordan and completely subjected all Israel on both sides of the river and oppressed them for 18 years until deliverance came by Jephthah.
The exact translation of the Hebrew of Judges 10:8,9 is as follows:-
v. 8. A. And they broke and crushed the children of Israel
A. In that year (=the first year of Jair).
B. Eighteen years (=after the last year of Jair).
B. All the Children of Israel who were beyond Jordan in the Land of the Amorites which is in Gilead.
v. 9. "And the Children of Ammon crossed over the Jordan to fight even against Judah and against Benjamin, and against the house of Ephraim, and Israel had great distress."
The construction of verse 8 is very difficult. The second sentence commencing with the words "eighteen years" begins very abruptly, and is elliptical, its verb having to be supplied from the first sentence. The meaning of this second sentence is expanded in the following verse. No other interpretation of the words makes the meaning more clear than that adopted above.
This interpretation, which makes the 22 years of Jair and the Ammonite oppression two complete and consecutive periods without any overlapping of the one by the other, is corroborated by the reckoning of St. Paul, who in Acts 13:19,20, gives a total of about 450 years for the period from the division of the Land by lot to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel. The figure is the exact sum of the number of years attributed to the servitudes, the years of rest, the usurpation and the Judgeships given in Judges and 1 Samuel 1-7, from the oppression of Cushan to the end of the Judgeship of Samuel, reckoning the 20 years of 1 Sam. 7:2 as the length of the Judgeship of Samuel. But as the number of years for the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm, from the division of the Land to the oppression of Cushan, is not specified in the Old Testament, and must have occupied some years, St. Paul allows an indefinite addition to the 450 years by prefixing to it the word "about."
This interpretation is further corroborated by the fact that the 13 years which it gives to the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm, from the division of the Land to the 1st servitude under Cushan, makes up the years of the Theocracy from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon (omitting the six servitudes and the usurpation of Abimelech) to exactly 480 years, as stated in 1 Kings 6:1.
This interpretation of Jud. 10:8 is further supported by the fact that the only possible alternative interpretation of the words "that year," which makes them refer to the last year of Jair, would leave not a single year for the interval between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan. We may, therefore, regard the interpretation which makes "that year" in Jud. 10:8 the first year of Jair as correct.
The determination of the length of the so-called Joshua - Judges Chasm, or the interval between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan, will then be arrived at in the manner indicated in the following Table.
THE SO-CALLED JOSHUA - JUDGES CHASM.
From the Division of the Land (Jud. 2:6) to the beginning of the 1st Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3:8)
PERIODS Years Years Years
From the Conquest of Heshbon to its re-conquest by Ammon, probably in the 1st year of Jair (Jud. 10:3-8; 11:26) 300
DEDUCT
From Conquest of Heshbon to Entry (Ex. 12:40,41; 40:17, Deut. 2:14-37; Josh. 4:19; 5:6) 1
From Entry to Division of Land, 2253-2260 7
[Here follows the so-called Joshua-Judges Chasm]
From 1st Servitude. under Cushan. to 1st year of Jair, viz.:-
1st Servitude, under Cushan (Jud. 3:8) 8
Rest by Othniel (Jud. 3:11) 40
2nd Servitude. under Eglon (Jud. 3:14) 18
Rest by Ehud (Jud. 3:30) 80
Judgeship of Shamgar (Jud. 3:31) included in 3rd Servitude under Jabin (Jud. 5:6-7)
3rd Servitude, under Jabin (Jud. 4:3) 20
Rest by Barak (Jud. 5:31) 40
4th Servitude, under Midian (Jud. 6:1) 7
Rest by Gideon (Jud. 8:28) 40
Usurpation of Abimelech (Jud. 9:22) 3
Judgeship of Tola (Jud. 10:2) 23 279 287
Therefore, the so-called Joshua-Judges Chasm, from the Division of the Land to the 1st Servitude under Cushan = 13
We may now add to our Chronology the following additional link:-
AN. HOM.
2560 Division of the Land (see Chapter 15).
13 Add 13 years, to the 1st Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3:8) as determined by the above Table.
2573 Beginning of 1st Servitude under Cushan.
CHAPTER XVII. THE JUDGES INCLUDING SAMUEL = 450 YEARS.
(AN. HOM. 2573-3023)
THE following Table exhibits the Chronology of the period of the Judges, from the 1st servitude under Cushan to the election of Saul. The years of servitude, rest, usurpation, and Judgeship, are set out in four different columns, and it will be seen that the four totals amount to exactly 450 years. St. Paul, in his address at Antioch in Pisidia, says: "He divided their land to them by lot. And after that he gave unto them Judges about the space of 450 years until (heos = up to and including) Samuel the Prophet." Acts 13:19,20. Here again the minutest accuracy is observed.
It will be seen that the number of the years from the oppression of Cushan to the end of Samuel's Judgeship is not "about," but exactly 450 years. St. Paul is, however, quite right in using the word "about," and he was compelled to use it in order to be accurate, because the period of which he is speaking is the period from the division of the Land to the end of the judgeship of Samuel. It includes, therefore, the so-called Joshua - Judges chasm of 13 years, and as this is not specified in the Text of the Old Testament, and not included in the 450 years that are specified, St. Paul is obliged to allow for this space, and he does so quite naturally and quite accurately by describing this period as a period of "about 450 years."
ISRAEL UNDER THE JUDGES.
From the 1st Servitude, under Cushan to the Election of Saul.
PERIODS Servitude Rest Usurpation Judgeship
1st Servitude, under Cushan 8 - - -
Rest by Othniel - 40 - -
2nd Servitude, under Eglon 18 - - -
Rest by Ehud - 80 - -
(Judgeship of Shamgar included in 3rd Servitude, under Jabin, Jud. 3:31; 5:6,7)
3rd Servitude, under Jabin 20 - - -
Rest by Barak - 40 - -
4th Servitude, under Midian 7 - - -
Rest by Gideon - 40 - -
Usurpation of Abimelech - - 3 -
Judgeship of Tola - - - 23
Judgeship of Jair - - - 22
5th Servitude, under Ammon 18 - - -
Judgeship of Jephthah - - - 6
Judgeship of Ibzan - - - 7
Judgeship of Elon - - - 10
Judgeship of Abdon - - - 8
6th Servitude, under the Philistines 40 - - -
(Judgeship of Samson included in 6th Servitude, under the Philistines, Jud. 15:20)
Judgeship of Eli - - - 40
Judgeship of Samuel - - - 20
(N.B.- 1 Sam. 7:13-17 is a Review, not a continuation of the history)
Totals 111 200 3 136
THE WHOLE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES.
Years of Servitude 111
Years of Rest 200
Years of Usurpation 3
Years of Judgeship 136
[TOTAL] 450
We are now in a position to continue the Chronology from the 1st servitude, under Cushan, to the election of Saul, and this is done in the following Table:-
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES.
From the 1st Servitude, under Cushan to the Election of Saul.
AN. HOM. EVENT
2573 1st Servitude, under Cushan (see Chapter 16).
8 Add 8 years' Servitude under Cushan (Jud. 3:8).
2581 Rest by Othniel.
40 Add 40 years' Rest by Othniel (Jud. 3:11).
2631 2nd Servitude, under Eglon.
18 Add 18 years' Servitude under Eglon (Jud. 3:14).
2639 Rest by Ehud.
Judgeship of Shamgar (Jud. 3:31) included in 20 years of 3rd Servitude, under Jabin (Jud. 5:6,7).
80 Add 80 years' Rest by Ehud (Jud. 3:30).
2719 3rd Servitude, under Jabin.
20 Add 20 years' Servitude under Jabin (Jud. 4:3).
2739 Rest by Barak.
40 Add 40 years' Rest by Barak (Jud. 5:31)
2779 4th Servitude, under Midian.
7 Add 7 years' Servitude under Midian (Jud. 6:1).
2786 Rest by Gideon.
40 Add 40 years' Rest by Gideon (Jud. 8:28).
2826 Usurpation by Abimelech.
3 Add 3 years' Usurpation of Abimelech (Jud. 9:22).
2829 Judgeship of Tola.
23 Add 23 years' Judgeship of Tola (Jud. 10:2).
2852 Judgeship of Jair.
22 Add 22 years' Judgeship of Jair (Jud. 10:3).
2874 5th Servitude, under Ammon.
18 Add 18 years' Servitude under Ammon (Jud. 10:8).
2892 Judgeship of Jephthah.
6 Add 6 years' Judgeship of Jephthah (Jud. 12:7).
2898 Judgeship of Ibzan.
7 Add 7 years' Judgeship of Ibzan (Jud. 12:9).
2905 Judgeship of Elon.
10 Add 10 years' Judgeship of Elon (Jud. 12:11).
2915 Judgeship of Abdon.
8 Add 8 years' Judgeship of Abdon (Jud. 12:14).
2923 6th. Servitude, under the Philistines.
Judgeship of Samson 20 years (Jud. 16:31) included in 40 years of 6th Servitude, under Philistines (Jud. 15:20).
40 Add 40 years' Servitude under Philistines (Jud. 13:1).
2963 Judgeship of Eli.
40 Add 40 years' Judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. 4:18).
3003 Judgeship of Samuel.
20 Add 20 years' Judgeship of Samuel, 1 Sam. 7:2 (N.B.- 1 Sam. 7:13-17 is a review, not a continuation of the history).
3023 Election of Saul.
CHAPTER XVIII. THE ELI - SAMUEL CONNECTION.
From the Death of Eli to the beginning of the Reign of Saul = 20 years.
(AN. HOM. 3003-3023)
THE so-called Joshua - Judges chasm fills the interval between the last dated event of the Seven Years' War of conquest, viz. the division of the Land by Joshua and the first dated event of the 450-year Period of the Judges, viz. the oppression of Cushan. It is determined with great difficulty, by means of the fact implied in Jephthah's message to the children of Ammon (Jud. 11:14- 28).
The argument of Jephthah is this. The children of Ammon were dispossessed by the Amorites, not by the children of Israel. The children of Israel obtained their title to the land by the conquest of Sihon, the Amorite King of Heshbon, which took place in the year before the entry into Canaan, when they took possession of "all the coasts of the Amorites from Arnon even unto Jabbok."
The right of conquest had been supported and maintained by the fact of the uninterrupted possession of the land in spite of the attack of Balak, King of Moab, to wrest it from them, which had failed. The Lord God of Israel had dispossessed the Amorites and given the land to Israel and their claim had been made good by their uninterrupted possession of it for a period of 300 years from the conquest of Heshbon in the year before the entry into Canaan to "that year," the year in which the children of Ammon "broke and crushed" the children of Israel and recovered the territory which Israel had taken from the Amorites, but which the children of Ammon now claimed as originally belonging to them.
With great difficulty, but with a considerable degree of historic certainty we have fixed upon an interpretation of the words " that year" in Jud. 10:8, which identifies it with the first year of Jair, the year which immediately succeeded, but which was not included in the 300 years of Jephthah.
We now approach the discussion of another chronological problem of almost equal difficulty and complexity, and one which has given rise to an equal number of divergent interpretations or rather, "guesses at truth," there being no direct statement as to the exact length of the period from the death of Eli to the end of Samuel's Judgeship at the election of Saul.
The determination of the number of years in this period which coincides exactly with the administration of Samuel is, however, quite simple and quite decisive. The administration of Samuel occupies the interval of those twenty years mentioned in 1 Sam. 7:2.
These years include the fraction of the year during which the Ark was for 7 months in the land of the Philistines, and the whole period of its stay at Kirjath-jearim down to the battle of Mizpeh, at which the Philistines were defeated and the cities which they had taken from Israel were restored to Israel from Gath even to Ekron.
Whereupon the people began that clamour for a King which led to the election of Saul.
This interpretation is necessitated by a proper understanding of the structure of 1 Samuel 7. The analysis of the chapter by Professor Henry Preserved Smith into two sections derived from two sources or documents, is in the highest degree subjective and fanciful, and rests upon no assured basis of objective fact. He assumes the existence of an "Eli document" which begins with 1 Sam. 4 or 5, and extends to the end of 1 Sam. 7:2, the phrase "for it was 20 years" being eliminated by Stenning as a subsequent interpolation or addition by a late redactor. The rest of the chapter Prof. H. P. Smith regards as derived from a "Samuel document," the symbol for which is the abbreviation Sm., whilst Stenning makes 1 Sam. 7:2-8:22 the work of a second Elohistic narrator, who is designated by the symbol E2.
An analysis of the structure of the chapter shows that the first verse belongs to the narrative contained in Chapter 6. There is no reason to doubt the uncontradicted tradition preserved in the Talmudic Tract Baba Bathra, that the author of the first 24 chapters of this book was Samuel himself, and there is no real ground for the assumption of interpolations and later additions by subsequent editors of the Book and redactors of its text. At verse 2 a new epoch is reached and a new subject is introduced, and this should have been marked by the division of the chapter, or the placing of a paragraph mark at this point.
The author proceeds to tell the story of the first great religious revival brought about by the 20 years of Samuel's quiet, unobtrusive, but pervasive religious teaching, at the close of which the people returned to God, and under the leadership of Samuel obtained a great victory over their enemies at Mizpeh, and thus recovered their independence (1 Sam. 7:2-12).
This brings the narrative of the Judgeship of Samuel to a close, and the next consecutive event is the rejection of the Theocracy and the demand for the appointment of a king in 1 Sam. 8.
But before finally dismissing the closing period of the Theocracy, the author sums up in a few brief and pregnant sentences the whole story of the judgeship of Samuel, down to the appointment of King Saul, and intimates that not only down to that point but beyond it, even all the days of his life, Samuel continued to act as Judge. The summary of the Judgeship of Samuel is contained in 1 Sam. 7:13-17. Like the summary of the reign of Saul, in 1 Sam. 14:47-52, it is retrospective and prospective, not continuous. It tells us that the hand of the Lord had been against the Philistines all the days of Samuel, and that this antagonism had now culminated in the great victory at Mizpeh, as a result of which the cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel, and a period of peace ensued, during which the Philistines came no more into the land of Israel.
This summary statement also tells us something of the method of Samuel's administration. He was accustomed to go on circuit from Bethel to Gilgal, and from Gilgal to Mizpeh, after which he returned to his home at Ramah, where he established a centre of religious worship, and where he exercised his function as Israel's Judge all the days of his life, for he continued his work as Judge even after the appointment of King Saul.
Since 1 Sam. 7:13-17 is a retrospective and prospective summary of the administration of Samuel, the continuity of the narrative will be exhibited by connecting 1 Sam. 8:4, the gathering of the Elders to Samuel to demand a King, with 1 Sam. 7:12, the setting up of the stone Ebenezer in memory of the great victory at Mizpeh, and the period of 20 years named in 1 Sam. 7:2 must be interpreted as covering the whole period of Samuel's administration previous to the victory of Mizpeh and the election of Saul, by which it was immediately followed.
This result is obtained from a close attention to the structure of the chapter. It is obtained from a careful consideration of the statements made in the Text itself, and it may be accepted as a true exposition of the author's intention and meaning.
But it does not stand alone. It is corroborated, and indeed necessitated, by the figures given by St. Paul in Acts 13:19-20, in which he states that the period from the division of the Land up to and including (heos) Samuel was a period of about 450 years. The word "about" is introduced to cover the period between the division of the Land and the oppression of Cushan.
The 450 years is made up of the 19 figures specified in the Book of Judges (including 1 Sam. 1-7,) as the number of years contained in each of the six servitudes, the four periods of rest, the one usurpation of Abimelech and the remaining eight Judgeships, of which the last is the Judgeship of Samuel, and which must have been a period of 20 years, as otherwise the years of the period as defined by St. Paul would not have amounted to the total of 450 years.
There can be no doubt that, whether the Apostle Paul was right or wrong, in the figures which he gives, he obtained them by the process of simple addition. He took each figure as it is given in the text of the Old Testament narrative of the period under review, and the result was as follows. Nobody can make it either one year more or one year less:-
Details of the 450 years of St. Paul in Acts 13:20.
Cushan 8 years
Othniel 40 years
Eglon 18 years
Ehud 80 years
Jabin 20 years
Barak 40 years
Midian 7 years
Gideon 40 years
Abimelech 3 years
Tola 23 years
Jair 22 years
Ammon 18 years
Jephthah 6 years
Ibzan 7 years
Elon 10 years
Abdon 8 years
Philistines 40 years
Eli 40 years
Samuel 20 years
Total 450 years
This result is further corroborated by its agreement with the total of 480 years given in 1 Kings 6:1, which is made up of all the figures given for the various periods of the history from the Exodus to the commencement of the building of the Temple in the 4th year of Solomon, always omitting the years of the six servitudes, and the one usurpation, as not to be included in the reckoning of the years of Isra-El, governed by God, and also the years of Shamgar's Judgeship, as falling within the period of the oppression of Jabin, and those of Samson as falling within the period of the oppression of the Philistines.
The Table on p. 49, in Vol. II, Chronological Tables, gives a complete view of the entire period of the Judges, apportioning the number of years assigned to each period in the Text of the Old Testament, and showing its agreement with the number of years in the longer periods of the 300 and the 480 years specified in the Old Testament, and the 450 years specified in the New Testament.
CHAPTER XIX. COMPARATIVE CHRONOLOGY - MOSES TO SAMUEL.
THE so-called Samuel or Eli-Saul chasm, which fills the interval between the last year of Eli and the 1st of Saul, has been as great a puzzle to the Chronologers as the so-called Joshua-Judges chasm. They all persist in the error of supposing that the period is not definitely implied in the statements of the Old Testament, and they either fall back upon Josephus or some other unauthoritative source, or else proceed to fill the gap by setting down the figure which appeals most strongly to their own imagination. The result is the production of an immense variety of discordant figures obtained by guesswork, all alike destitute of any semblance of authority or value. The following Table may be compared with the list of guesses hazarded by Chronologers, ancient and modern, as to the length of the period of the so- called Joshua - Judges chasm, given in Chap. 16.
ELI - SAUL CONNECTION.
From the Death of Eli to the beginning of the Reign of Saul.
According to the subjective opinions of Chronologers, ancient and modern,
or as Clinton phrases it, as "variously supplied by conjecture."
Jewish Chronicle (included in reign of Saul) 0 years
Eusebius 0 years
Petavius 0 years
Clement of Alexandria 0 or 9 years
Theophilus 12 or 23 years
Josephus (Eli and Saul = 52) 12 or 23 years
De Tournemine in Du Fresnoy 20 years
Syncellus 20 or 40 years
Ussher (Eli omitted as contemporary with Philistine Servitude) 21 years
Hales (Eli and Samuel = 72) 32 years
Clinton (32 years are not too much to assume) 32 years
Africanus 38 or 50 or 108 years
Willis J. Beecher (Waiting 20, Samuel 19) 39 years
Companion Bible 40 years
Jackson 41 years
A. V. Margin = Bishop Lloyd (B.C. 1141-1095) 46 years
Paschal Chronicle 60 years
This method of writing history, which records only those facts and dates which lie on the surface, leaving the gaps between them to be "supplied by conjecture," is not one that will commend itself to the modern student of Biblical Chronology.
History and geography are descriptive Sciences. They are not, like physics, chemistry and biology, general Sciences in which hypotheses are allowable, because they can always be tested and verified or disproved by observation and experiment. The Sciences of history and geography depend entirely on direct observation and testimony, and where that is wanting they lose the character of Sciences altogether, unless the problems encountered can be solved by historical induction from well attested facts from which the information required can be deduced by way of inference. It is in this manner alone that the problems of Biblical Chronology can be solved, and the Joshua - Judges, the Samuel and other apparent chasms in the continuity of the Chronology bridged over.
It is for this purpose that the long periods of Scripture are given; to them recourse must be had in every case in which there is a break in the continuity of the dates given in the narrative of the history. The result will show that every gap or chasm in the Old Testament history can be bridged over, and that the materials given in the Text of the Old Testament are sufficient to construct a continuous Chronology of dated events from the creation of Adam to the "cutting off" of the Messiah, without recourse to any outside source of information, or to the adoption of problematical results "supplied by conjecture."
The 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
The long period of 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 has occasioned a considerable amount of perplexity. Some Chronologers, like Ussher, have adopted it into their chronological system and thereby vitiated their entire scheme from that point onward to the extent of 114 years. Others, like Jackson, Hales and Clinton, regard it as "a forgery foisted into the Text," and reject it altogether. Others, again, have not only accepted the number 480 as authentic, and bent the Chronology of the Old Testament to make it accord with this figure, but they have even ventured upon the task of correcting St. Paul, and emended the Text of the New Testament in Acts 13:17- 20 in order to bring it into accord with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
This "amended," or rather this corrupted Text, is the basis of the translation of Acts 13:17- 20 in the Revised Version, a rendering which absolutely precludes the possibility of putting any intelligible construction on the words of Acts. 13:19-20.
The Authorised Version translates the true Text of sTi. D2, E, H, L, P, and many others, item D*d., syr., ar., aeth., "when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He divided their land to them by lot. And after that He gave unto them Judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel the prophet."
The Revised Version translates the "emended" Text of Gb1, ALEPH, A, B, C, and 7 cursives, which yields this nonsense, "when He had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan, He gave them their land for an inheritance for about 450 years; and after these things He gave them Judges until Samuel the prophet."
The great blot of the R.V. throughout the New Testament, is the overrating of the authority of Westcott and Hort's pet MSS. ALEPH and B., two MSS. regarded as amongst the earliest and best authorities by one school of Textual critics led by Westcott and Hort, but really two faulty copies carelessly made by Eusebius for the Emperor Constantine, containing numerous errors, and by no means worthy to be adopted as a standard Text, as is clearly proved by an opposing school of Textual critics led by Burgon and Scrivener.
How could St. Paul have been guilty of perpetrating a sentence which limits the inheritance of the Land by the people of Israel to the time of Eli, and then placing the period of the 14 Judges between Eli and Samuel! Fortunately, the Authorised Version adheres to the better MS. authorities, and gives not only an intelligible but also a true rendering of Paul's great speech at Antioch in Pisidia.
We will first prove (I) that the true extent of the period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon is 594 years: (1) from the Text of the Old Testament, and (2) from the address of St. Paul at Antioch recorded in the New Testament (Acts 13:17-20). We will then explain (II) the nature of the mistake of Ussher, who is followed in this matter by Bishop Lloyd, in the dates given in the margin of the A.V., and finally we will explain (III) the real significance of the phrase "the 480th year," as used by the author of the Text, 1 Kings 6:1, and the exact meaning which he intended to convey thereby.
I. From the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon = 594 years.
I. And first the true extent of the period which lies between the two epochs, the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon, in which the building of the Temple was commenced, is 594 years. Our first step is (I) to prove the accuracy of this figure (594 years) from the Text of the Old Testament. The Table of the 25 dated events of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, given on p.49, in Vol. II, contains full details of the entire period, together with the chapter and verse references which prove the truth of the number assigned to each dated event, except the 13 years of the Joshua-Judges connection and the 20 years, of the Eli-Saul connection, detailed proof of the length of which is given in chapters 16 and 18. The Table is as follows:-
Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon.
(I) According to the Old Testament.
1. The Wilderness Period 40 years
2. The Seven Years' War 7 years
3. The Joshua-Judges Connection 13 years
4. 1st Servitude (Cushan) 8 years
5. Rest by Othniel 40 years
6. 2nd Servitude (Eglon) 18 years
7. Rest by Ehud 80 years
Judgeship of Shamgar included in 3rd Servitude (Jabin) -
8. 3rd Servitude (Jabin) 20 years
9. Rest by Barak 40 years
10. 4th Servitude (Midian) 7 years
11. Rest by Gideon 40 years
12. Usurpation of Abimelech 3 years
13. Judgeship of Tola 23 years
14. Judgeship of Jair 22 years
15. 5th Servitude (Ammon) 18 years
16. Judgeship of Jephthah 6 years
17. Judgeship of Ibzan 7 years
18. Judgeship of Elon 10 years
19. Judgeship of Abdon 8 years
20. 6th Servitude (Philistines) 40 years
Judgeship of Samson included in 6th Servitude (Philistines) -
21. Judgeship of Eli 40 years
22. Eli-Saul Connection = Judgeship of Samuel 20 years
23. Reign of Saul 40 years
24. Reign of David 40 years
25. Reign of Solomon to 4th year 4 years
Total 594 years
Our next step is to prove the accuracy of this figure (594 years), from the address of St. Paul at Antioch, in Pisidia, recorded in Acts 13:17-22 so far as it covers the same ground.
Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon.
(2) According to St. Paul in Acts 13:17-22.
PERIODS Years stated by St. Paul Years omitted by St. Paul
1. The Wilderness Period 40 -
2. The Seven Years' War - 7
3. Division of the Land to 1st Servitude (Cushan) - 13
4. After that He gave unto them Judges, until (=heos i.e., up to and including) Samuel the Prophet 450 -
5. Saul 40 -
6. David - 40
7. Solomon, to his 4th year - 4
Period covered by St. Paul's statement 530 64
Period not covered by St. Paul's statement 64
Total 594
The ground covered by St. Paul's figures alone exceeds the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, to which has, to be added the whole of the 40 years of the reign of David and three smaller periods, which brings the total for the entire period up to 594 years, in exact accordance with the text of the Old Testament.
2. Ussher's mistaken Interpretation of 1 Kings 6:1.
II. We now proceed to explain the nature of the mistake of Ussher, whose dates were first printed, with some slight modifications, in the margin of the A.V. in Bishop Lloyd's Bible, published A.D. 1701. The dates in the margin of the A.V. are in the main exceedingly accurate and reliable. Those in the margin of the Book of Genesis are correct to the last detail. Ussher's dates are seriously astray only (1) in respect of this period, which Ussher assumes to be a period of 480 instead of 594 years, an error of 114 years which vitiates to that extent all previous dates expressed in terms B.C., and all subsequent dates expressed in terms A.M. or AN. HOM.; (2) in respect of the period of Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, perhaps the most difficult and perplexing chronological period in the whole of the Old Testament; and (3) in the marginal note to 2 Kings 15:1, in accordance with which Ussher abridges the Chronology by a period of 11 years, by dating the accession of Uzziah (Azariah) from the 16th year of Jeroboam II instead of from his 27th year, thereby omitting an interregnum of 11 years after the reign of Amaziah of Judah, and reducing the interregnum after Jeroboam II of Israel from 22 years to 11 years.
Ussher's method of reckoning the Chronology of the Judges abridges the period from the division of the Land to the accession of Saul by exactly 114 years. This is done intentionally and purposely, the object being to cut off 114 of the 594 years between the Exodus and the 4th year of Solomon in order to crowd all the events between these points into the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.
Ussher's error in this period may be tabulated as follows:-
Chronology of the Period from the Exodus to the 4th year of Solomon.
Table of Ussher's Mistakes.
EVENT YEARS. TOO MUCH. TOO LITTLE.
Joshua-Judges Connection 31 instead of 13 = 18 -
Rest by Othniel 62 instead of 40 = 22 -
Rest by Ehud 20 instead of 80 = - 60
Rest by Barak 33 instead of 40 = - 7
Rest by Gideon 9 instead of 40 = - 31
Abimelech 4 instead of 3 = 1 -
Jair 4 instead of 22 = - 18
Eli contemporary with the Philistine Servitude 0 instead of 40 = - 40
Eli-Saul Connection (Samuel Judgeship) 21 instead of 20 = 1 -
[TOTALS] 42 156
Deduct errors in excess 42
Net abridgement of the Chronology 114
Ussher's dates are quite correct down to the division of the Land, AN. HOM. 2560 = B.C. 1444 (Josh. 14:1, A.V. margin). He then omits these 114 years in order to square his Chronology with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1. In order to secure this result he assumes that the figures for some of the periods of rest are figures that include the years of the previous servitude, and that the Judgeship of Eli is contemporary with the Philistine oppression. Consequently his date for the accession of Saul is AN. HOM. 2909 = B.C. 1095 (1 Sam. 11:14, A.V. margin) instead of the true date which is AN. HOM. 3023, or just 114 years later than Ussher's date.
3. The real Significance of the Phrase "the 480th year," in 1 Kings 6:1.
III. We now turn to the examination of the real significance of the phrase "the 480th year" as used by the author in 1 Kings 6:8, with a view to ascertaining the exact meaning which he intended to convey to his readers by the use of it.
The Text is undoubtedly genuine, though many attempts have been made to alter, or to get rid of it. Thus the LXX. has "the 440th year." Jackson regards the number 480 as spurious. Clinton rejects it. Hales boldly declares it to be "a forgery foisted into the Hebrew Text."
The indefatigable Petavius, on the contrary, not only adhered to the Hebrew verity, reprobating every departure from or emendation of the Massoretic Text, but actually pronounced an anathema against those "who dared to assert that the number 480 years was corrupt."
A glance at the Table of the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 (see Vol. II, Chronological Tables, p. 49) will at once disclose the fact that the number 480 is arrived at by omitting from the 594 years of the entire period, the 111 years of the six servitudes and the 3 years of the usurpation of Abimelech.
The writer is not computing the Chronology of the world. He is computing the Chronology of Isra-El, i.e. of the chosen people as Governed-by-God, in other words, he is computing the years of the Theocracy that lie between these two crucial epochs, the Exodus at which it began and the commencement of the building of the Temple; at the dedication of which, just 10 years later, the full cycle of seventy-sevens of these Theocratic years was completed. The dedication of the Temple is manifestly an event of first-rate importance in the history of the religion of Israel, and in the relation of Israel to the government of Jehovah.
Hebrew names compounded of the passive participle and the Divine name El, are intended to immortalize that special form of the activity of God which the action of the verb denotes. At Peni-El, "faced by God," Jacob the "heeler," who had outwitted Esau and outbargained Laban, and prevailed with men, became Isra-El, "Governed-by-God." Similarly Samu-El, "heard by God," denotes a child of prayer (1 Sam. 1:20) and a man of prayer (1 Sam. 7:9; 8:6; 12:19-23; 15:11; Ps. 99:6; Jer. 15:1). Dani-El, "judged by God," a man whose judgment is not his own but God's.
Why, then, are these 114 years of servitude and usurpation omitted? Because the author is computing the years of the Theocracy, of the government of God, of Isra-El, and during those years Israel was not Isra-El, not governed by God, but under the heel of the oppressor and the usurper. Hence they are not included in the Theocratic years of the reckoning of God, though they are reckoned in the computation of the years of the age of the World.
The method appears strange and almost impossible to the modern mind, with its highly developed historical sense, its worship of truth, its keen scent for fact, and its pantheistic indifference to distinctions of good and evil. Nevertheless, there are days in the history of individuals and years in the history of the nations which we would fain blot out of the calendar of time. Job desired for the day of his birth that it might perish, that it might "not be joined to the days of the year, nor come into the number of the mouths." We cannot deal thus with the objective facts and events of time, but we can with the chronicle and the record of them.
The monarchs of Assyria, and other nations of antiquity, left copious records of their conquests and their victories, but they did not chronicle their disasters and their defeats. The nations of the East were accustomed to treat their history in this way. They kept account of the years of prosperity, but they omitted from their Chronology altogether the years of national humiliation and disgrace. We do not write our histories in this way, but
"East is East and West is West,
And never the twain shall meet."
It is a first principle of statistical Science that no list of figures compiled for one purpose should be used for another purpose. The purpose of the compiler determines the classification and hence the number of the units. All kinds of statistics are lawful if we use them lawfully.
If I am asked the duration of the Kingdom of England from the accession of William the Conqueror to that of Queen Victoria, I reply 1837 - 1066 = 771 years. But if the purpose of the enquiry is to institute a comparison between a monarchy and a republic then I must deduct the 11 years marked "Abasileutus," or "Commonwealth," between the reigns of Charles I and Charles II, and possibly other periods of Regency, and the 771 years of the duration of the Kingdom will be reduced to 760 or something less.
Now the writer of 1 Kings 6:1 is computing the years of the Theocracy, the years of God's rule, the years of Isra-El, when she was herself, when she was isra-El, when she was Governed-by-God, and the sum total of these years is correctly given.
During the years of the servitudes the people of Israel were not ruled- by-God, for "He delivered them into the hands of Spoilers that spoiled them, and sold them into the hands of their enemies round about." He sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim. They served Eglon - not Jehovah. He sold them into the hand of Jabin. He delivered them into the hand of Midian. Abimelech reigned over Israel - not God. He sold them into the hands of the Philistines and into the hands of the children of Ammon. These are the keynotes of the history of the periods of oppression and usurpation.
It is abundantly clear that these are no Theocratic years at all, and cannot be included in the reckoning of the years of God when He ruled over Israel and Israel served Him. Nothing can be clearer than the fact that these are the years which the writer of 1 Kings 6:1 omits, except the fact that he omits them intentionally and purposely, and does not for a moment pretend to be making an ordinary chronological statement. He does not even say that the space between the two epochs was a period of 480 years. He records a fact which took place in the 480th year, by which he means the 480th theocratic year after the children of Israel were come up out of the land of Egypt.
Contemporary Events in Egypt.
There are no synchronisms between the history of Israel during the period from the birth of Moses to the end of the administration of Samuel (AN. HOM. 2433-3023), and the history of Egypt, Assyria and Babylon, or Greece, either in the literary records which have been preserved to us, or in the Monumental Inscriptions that have been discovered in recent times.
With regard to Egypt, the identification of the Pharaoh of the oppression has not yet been established. We have to choose between two rival schools. Those who adopt the Long Chronology identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Achencheres, Amosis or Amenophis, one of the Pharaohs of the 18th dynasty, and date the Exodus somewhere near the year B.C. 1500. Those who adopt the Short Chronology identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Merenptah (also called Amenophis in the story of Manetho), the son of Rameses the Great, one of the Pharaohs of the 19th dynasty, and date the Exodus somewhere near B.C. 1300.
According to those who adopt the Short Chronology, the Pharaoh who "made the children of Israel to serve with rigour" (Ex. 1:13) and "made their lives bitter with hard bondage" (Ex. 1:14), the Pharaoh for whom "they built treasure cities Pithom and Raamses" (Ex. 1:11), and who died sometime after Moses was 40 years old (Ex. 2:23 with Acts 7:23,30), was Rameses II, whose long reign of 67 years, and whose extensive and enormous Monumental remains ought to form a distinct chronological landmark.
The Short Chronology rests upon the identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with Merenptah, whose reign is dated B.C. 1328-1309. But the only authority for this identification is the account of the Exodus given by Manetho and preserved in Josephus, who, however, regards it as of little or no authority.
The story is that the King, whose name is given as Menophis or Amenophis, but who must be identified with Merenptah the Son of Rameses II, resolved to propitiate the gods by purging the land of Egypt of all lepers and unclean persons. These, to the number of 80,000, were banished to the city of Avaris (Pelusium). Here they chose for their leader an apostate priest of Heliopolis, whose name, Osarseph, was changed to Moses. He gave them new laws, bidding the people to sacrifice the sacred animals. He fortified the city, and called in the aid of the shepherds who had been expelled from Avaris and had settled in Jerusalem. These now advanced to Avaris with an army of 200,000 men. "The King of Egypt marched against them with an army of 300,000, but returned to Memphis through fear of an ancient prophecy. He then fled to Ethiopia, whence he returned after an absence of 13 years, drove the rebels out of Egypt, and pursued them to the frontier of Syria." (Philip Smith's Ancient History).
The story evidently confuses remIniscences of the Hyksos or Shepherd Kings of the 18th dynasty (c. 1500) with the Exodus of the Israelites. It is a manifest invention of the priests of Egypt, a perverted Egyptian version of the great national disaster by which the chariots and the horsemen and all the hosts of Pharaoh were overtaken when "the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the Sea." The mention of lepers recalls the sign of Moses' leprous hand. The people's choice of Moses as their leader, their acceptance of new laws at his hands, the mention of Jerusalem and the description of Moses as an apostate priest, one therefore who was "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians," may be regarded as so many dim reflections of the underlying truth which the legend perverts and yet preserves. The name of the King of Egypt - Amenophis, though he is here identified with Merenptah of the 19th dynasty, is more probably that of the real Amenophis of the 18th dynasty.
The Long Chronology rests upon the identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus with one of the Egyptian Kings of the 18th dynasty, whom Africanus calls Amosis, whose date is somewhere about B.C. 1525, and whom he describes as the first King of the 18th dynasty.
But both the Greek and the Armenian copies of Eusebius place the Exodus under the 9th King of the 18th dynasty, whose name was Achencheres, and who was either the son or the grandson of Amenophis III.
The history of the Empire of the Pharaohs for this period is full of obscurities. It was a time of continual revolution and civil discord. Revolts occurred in most of the provinces, and disorder reigned for nearly half a century after the death of Amenophis III.
The following dates have been assigned to the Exodus by various members of these two rival schools.
THE LONG CHRONOLOGY { Pharaoh = one of the Kings of the 18th dynasty.
{ Exodus = c. 1500 B.C.
The Hebrew Text (according to Ussher) 1491 B.C.
Ussher 1491 B.C.
A.V. Margin (Bishop Lloyd) 1491 B.C.
Bengel 1497 B.C.
Bede 1499 B.C.
Willis J. Beecher 1501 B.C.
Eusebius (Achencheres, 9th King, 18th Dynasty) 1512 B.C.
Africanus (Amosis, 1st King, 18th Dynasty) 1525 B.C.
Petavius 1531 B.C.
THE SHORT CHRONOLOGY { Pharaoh = Merenptah, son of Rameses II, one of the Kings of the 19th dynasty.
{ Exodus = c. 1300 B.C.
Jewish Rabbinical Tradition A.M. 2447 1314 B.C.
Owen C. Whitehouse (Angus' Bible Handbook) 1320 B.C.
Baron Bunsen 1328 B.C.
Lepsius 1328 B.C.
The theory of Lepsius has now been abandoned by recent scholars, and a new theory framed by Mahler, Edouard Meyer and others, has taken its place. Hence we have a third school of Chronologers and a still shorter Chronology, amongst the advocates of which the following names deserve mention:-
1st year of Merenptah.
A. H. Sayce 1280 B.C.
E. A. W. Budge (British Museum Guide) 1263 B.C.
Breasted 1225 B.C.
Flinders Petrie 1207 B.C.
All Egyptian dates for this period are, however, purely conjectural. The date of the Exodus is fixed quite definitely in the Hebrew Text, and as there is nothing certainly known in the records of Egypt to conflict with the Hebrew date there is no reason why it should not be accepted. The Exodus occurred on the 14th of Nisan, in the year AN. HOM. 2513, a year which would be expressed by Ussher as B.C. 1492, but in terms of the scheme of the present writer as B.C. 1530 (Bible dates), and in terms of the ordinary received Chronology as B.C. 1612 (Ptolemaic dates).
There are no synchronisms during this period, AN. HOM. 2433-3023 in Babylonian history. The contemporary monarchs were the Kings of the Kassite dynasty (B.C. 1780-1203), the dynasty of Isin (B.C. 1203-1030), the Dynasty of Elam (B.C. 1030-1025) and the second dynasty of Babylon (B.C. 1025-730) (Prof. Jastrow's dates).
There are no synchronisms during this period with the events of Assyrian history. Babylon was conquered by Tilgath-in-Aristi I (son of Shalmaneser I), King of Assyria about B.C. 1270. The kings of the daughter colony, Assyria, continued to rule the mother city, Babylon, from this time onward for about 600 years, till the destruction of Nineveh by Nabopolassar, King of Babylon, and Cyaxares the Mede, in or before the year B.C. 606.
There are no synchronisms during this period with the history of Greece. The date usually assigned to the taking of Troy is B.C. 1184. Sir Isaac Newton places it in the year B.C. 904.
PERIOD III. THE MONARCHY - 1 Sam. 8 to 2 Kings.
CHAPTER XX. SAUL, DAVID AND SOLOMON.
I. Saul.
VERY little is known of Saul in the way of Chronology. The Old Testament gives neither the year of his coronation, the length of his reign, nor the year of his death.
There is only one date given for his reign, and that is to Commentators and Revisers, both ancient and modern, a puzzle and a mystery. In 1 Sam. 13:1 we read, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel" he established a standing army. The meaning of this verse unquestionably is that Saul had now, at this point in the narrative, reigned one year, viz. from his first anointing by Samuel at Ramah, to his second anointing by him at Gilgal after the defeat of Nahash.
The historian proceeds to tell us that he reigned over Israel two years, that is he reigned two years over the whole of Israel now that he was publicly recognised and accepted by all the people at Gilgal, for before, at the public recognition at Mizpeh, there were some who dissented from the appointment and despised him (1 Sam. 10:17-27).
The implication is that at the end of this two years the Lord cast him off, and anointed David in place of him. The remaining 37 years of his reign is not recognised as legitimate ruling, but is regarded rather as a tyranny, and a persecution. During the two years of his recognised rule over Israel he defeated Moab, Ammon, Edom, the Kings of Zobah, the Philistines and the Amalekites, and thus delivered Israel out of the hands of those that spoiled them (1 Sam. 14:47-48). Then he invaded and conquered Amalek, but here he disobeyed the word of the Lord in sparing Agag, and the Lord cast him off, three years after his first anointing at Mizpeh, and two years after the commencement of his reign over all Israel at his second anointing at Gilgal.
The translation of the verse in the Revised Version is utterly unwarranted, and the marginal note is distinctly misleading. The R.V. rendering is "Saul was (thirty) years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel." The marginal note reads as follows: "The Hebrew Text has 'Saul was a year old'. The whole verse is omitted in the unrevised LXX. but in a later recension the number 30 is inserted."
Now the truth is the Hebrew Text does not say " Saul was a year old." To say that it does is to charge it with perpetrating a folly of which it is incapable. And the charge is a false one. What the Hebrew Text says is not "Saul was a year old," but "Saul was a year old in his reigning" or "in his Kingdom," literally "a son of one year in his reigning," accurately "Saul had been reigning one year." The description of the LXX. which omits the verse altogether as "the unrevised LXX." when it is nothing else but the original LXX. itself, and of the LXX. of Origen's Hexapla, in which Origen himself has interpolated the word "thirty" as a "later recension," implying the superiority of Origen's interpolated text to the original LXX., is an inexcusable and a gratuitous misrepresentation of the facts of the case. The translators of the LXX. omitted the verse altogether simply because they did not understand it. Origen perverted it because he did not understand it. The Revisers prefer the perverted text of Origen to the imperfect text of the original LXX., which omits the text altogether, and both to the true Text as it stands in the Hebrew Verity. If modern interpreters, instead of reading modern ideas into the Text of these ancient writers, would place themselves at the point of view of the writers, we should be spared some of these superfluous "emendations." In truth the Text, as it stands in the Hebrew, is both correct and complete. These first three years are carefully distinguished and marked off from the remaining 37 years of Saul's reign because they are regarded as being years of a different character. The first three years are years of the legitimate rule of Saul, the Lord's anointed. The last 37 years are years of the unrecognised and illegitimate tyranny of Saul, the usurper of David's throne, and the rejected of the Lord.
Josephus says: "Now Saul, when he had reigned 18 years while Samuel was alive, and after his death two (and twenty), ended his life in this manner." There may have been some authentic record to which Josephus had access, and from which he obtained the information here given, and this is all the more probable, because the length of Saul's reign was also known to St. Paul, who gives it in his address at Antioch in Pisidia, as a "space of 40 years" (Acts 13:21).
II. David.
Full details are given of the Chronology of David's reign. He was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 40 years. In Hebron he reigned over Judah seven years and six months; and in Jerusalem he reigned thirty and three years over all Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 2:11; 5:4,5; 1 Chron. 29:27).
Willis J. Beecher, therefore, adds 41 years to the Chronology for the reign of David, assuming that the odd six months would be counted to David as an additional year. But there is no ground for this supposition. The statement in 2 Sam. 2:11 from which that of 2 Sam. 5:5 is derived is quite peculiar. The Hebrew specifies 7 years and 6 months as "the number of days that David reigned in Hebron."
The usual chronological statements of the years of the Kings reckon quite accurately in whole years, without introducing fractions of a year. For these whole years are always calendar years from New Year's Day (Nisan 1st) to New Year's Day. They are not measured from the day of the King's accession to the day of his death. They are designed like the years of the Patriarchs in Genesis, and the reigns of the Kings in Ptolemy's Canon, and in the Assyrian Eponym Canon, to mark the succession of the years in a given chronological Era.
It is not so with a chronological statement which contains fractions of a year like this of David's 7 1/2 years in Hebron. Here we have a statement measuring the exact duration of David's reign in Hebron, as measured from the day of his accession to the day of his removal to Jerusalem. When the statement is reproduced in terms of calendar years in 1 Chron. 29:27, the number assigned to David's reign is not 41 but 40 years.
This is confirmed by the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, for if we give David 41 years, that figure would have to be altered to 481. We could not make David's reign 41 years in that list and still retain the number 480 by reducing the Joshua-Judges chasm to 12 instead of 13, for if we did that we should reduce Jephthah's 300 to 299. These numbers are so locked and inter- locked, so checked and doubly checked, that it is next to impossible to "correct" any one of them without throwing the whole system into confusion.
Other dated events are mentioned as taking place in the reign of David.
(1) In 2 Sam. 15 7 we read, "And it came to pass after 40 years, that Absalom said unto the King, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the Lord, in Hebron." It is the story of the commencement of Absalom's rebellion. If we knew the point of departure from which the 40 years are reckoned we should be able to fix the date of the event, but we do not.
Hales suggests an "emendation" of the Text, and would read 4 years with the Syriac, Arabic, several MSS. of the Vulgate, Josephus and Theodorus, instead of 40, "the present reading being utterly inexplicable."
The proposal is wholly gratuitous. The 40 years is not reckoned from the time of the events detailed in the preceding verses, 1 Sam. 15 1-6, but from some previous event, whether, as Dr. John Lightfoot, Ussher and the Companion Bible suggest, from the anointing of David, or from some other event, is uncertain.
As the last four chapters of the Book (2 Sam. 21-24) contain five appendices on (1) the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21), (2) David's Song (2 Sam. 22), (3) David's last words (2 Sam. 23:1-7), (4) David's mighty men (2 Sam. 23:8- 39), and (5) David's census (2 Sam. 24), incidents which are not arranged in chronological order, and which do not form part of the consecutive history of David; and as almost the very next incident of the consecutive history (1 Kings 1) is the story of David's last days and death, there is no reason why the 40 years may not be reckoned from the 1st year of the reign of David. In that case, 1 Sam. 15:7, "It came to pass after 40 years," means it came to pass in the 40th and last calendar year of David's reign, the 41st as it would be called by us if we reckoned from the day of his accession instead of from the following New Year's Day, as the writers of the Old Testament reckon. As however one cannot be quite sure that this is the epoch from which the 40th year is reckoned, the event is not inserted in the Chronological Tables.
(2) The other dated event belonging to David's reign is the appointment of Officers of State, which took place in the fortieth year of his reign (1 Chron. 26:31).
III. Solomon.
"The time that Solomon reigned in Jerusalem over all Israel was 40 years" (1 Kings 11:42; 2 Chron. 9:30).
The dated events of his reign are the following:- "In the fourth year of Solomon's reign, in the month Zif, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD" (1 Kings 6:1,37), "in the 2nd day of the 2nd month of the 4th year of his reign" (2 Chron. 3:2). In the 11th year in the month Bul, which is the 8th month, the House was finished throughout, so he was 7 years (more exactly 7 years and six months) in building it (1 Kings 6:38)
In the 11th year he commenced to build his own house, and with this he was occupied for 13 years until the 20th year of his reign (1 Kings 7:1; 9:10; 2 Chron. 8:1).
Accuracy of the Round Numbers used in the Old Testament.
The remarkable fact that each of the first three Kings of Israel, Saul, David and Solomon, are said to have reigned 40 years, has been used to cast a doubt upon the accuracy of the record, these figures being used, it is said, as round numbers, and signifying nothing more than a rough approximation to the lifetime of one generation.
The same argument has been applied to other periods of 20, 40 and 80 years in respect of the 40 years in the wilderness, and the periods of rest in the Book of Judges. The argument could not be applied to the Kings of Israel and Judah from Rehoboam and Jeroboam onward without modification, as there, only one out of the 19 Kings of Judah, and only one out of the 19 Kings of Israel, is credited with either 20 or 40 years.
Nevertheless, it has been urged that multiples of five occur with great frequency in the ages of the Kings of Judah, and the years of their reign, and that the natural inference is that the figures given are round numbers or approximations (D. R. Fotheringham, Chronology of the Old Testament). But the total number of the ages and reigns of the Kings of Judah is 36. Of these we should expect, on the theory of averages, that at least 7 would end in a 5 or a 0. As a matter of fact, seven end in a 5 and two in a 0, from which the true conclusion is that the figures given are not approximations, but exact statements of matters of fact.
The same can he said with regard to the periods of 20, 40 and 80 years. The entire list is as follows:-
Periods of 20, 40 and 80 years mentioned in Scripture.
The Wilderness Period 40 years
Othniel 40 years
Ehud 80 years
Jabin 20 years
Barak 40 years
Gideon 40 years
The Philistines 40 years
Eli 40 years
Samuel 20 years
Saul 40 years
David 40 years
Solomon 40 years
The wilderness period is not an approximation, for it is calculated to the day, and full particulars are given of 17 distinct events with the year, the month, and the day of the month on which they happened, especially at the beginning and at the end of the period.
It is not true of David's reign, for this is divided into two parts of 7 1/2 and 33 years respectively. We have no warrant for concluding that the remaining periods of 20, 40 and 80 years may not be made up in the same way either to the day, as in the case of the wilderness period, or within six months, the fraction of a year being allowed for in the Chronology as in the case of the reign of David.
The number of the Kings of England from William the Conqueror to Queen Victoria is 35. On the theory of averages we should expect the number of years in the reigns of 7 of these to end in a 5 or a 0. As a matter of fact, 12 or nearly double that number end in one or other of these figures, yet no one supposes that the length of the reigns of the Kings of England is an approximation.
The Book of Judges is a very condensed account of a long period of time. Its space is apportioned at the rate of 5 pages to the Century. A writer on English Architecture would not be guilty of chronological inaccuracy if he dealt in a similarly brief space with the various styles of Gothic Architecture, tabulating them as follows: 11th Century, Norman; 12th Century, Transition; 13th Century, Early English; 14th Century, Decorated; and 15th Century, Perpendicular. As a matter of fact, each of these styles dates from at least a decade or so before the opening year of the Century to which it mainly belongs. But the Chronology of the entire period is not affected thereby. And it must not be supposed that the round numbers used in Scripture are introduced in such a way as to make the Chronology, as a whole, inaccurate or inexact. The reckoning by forties is just as accurate as the reckoning by Centuries. If these numbers are approximations they are self-compensating and self-correcting, and conduct us to a point quite definite and quite exact, for their totals agree with the long numbers measuring long periods by which smaller component numbers are checked. All the above periods of 40 years are checked either by St. Paul's 450 years, in Acts 13:20, or by the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, and some of them by both of these long numbers.
We are therefore justified in rejecting the theory of round numbers or approximations, and taking the numerical statements of Scripture at their face value. We continue our Chronology from the election of Saul to the accession of Rehoboam and Jeroboam as follows:-
AN. HOM.
3023 Saul (see Chapter 17).
40 Add 40 years for the reign of Saul (Acts 13:21).
3063 David.
40 Add 40 years for the reign of David (2 Sam. 5:4,5; 1 Chron. 29:27).
3103 Solomon.
40 Add 40 years for the reign of Solomon (1 Kings 11:42, 2 Chron. 9:30).
3143 Rehoboam and Jeroboam.
CHAPTER XXI. ISRAEL AND JUDAH TO THE FALL OF SAMARIA.
The Gordian Knot of Bible Chronology.
(AN. HOM. 3143-3413).
[In reading this Chapter continual reference must be made to the Chronological Tables, which are printed separately in Vol. II so that they may lie upon the table at the required opening, ready for use.]
WE now reach the crux of the Chronology of the Old Testament, the period of the Kings of Judah and Israel, "the Gordian knot of Sacred Chronology," as Hales terms it. As was to be expected, we here meet with an unusually large number of attempts to cut the Gordian knot by means of so-called emendations, corrections and rejections of the Text by lame Chronologers, who, one and all, conclude that if they cannot make the figures agree, it is not their own interpretation of the figures, but the Text which is at fault. And yet there is not a single difficulty that has been raised which is not capable of a simple and easy solution without doing violence to the Text; there is not a single difficulty that has not been satisfactorily cleared up in standard works by able Chronologers from the Chronicle of the Old Testament by Dr. John Lightfoot, in the 17th Century, to Willis J. Beecher's Dated Events of the Old Testament, and the scholarly work of the author of the Companion Bible, in our own day.
"In casting up the times of the collateral Kingdoms," says Dr. Lightfoot, "your only way is to lay them in two columns, one justly paralleling the other, and run them both by years, as the Text directs you. But here is nicety indeed, not to see how strangely they are reckoned, sometimes inclusive, sometimes otherwise - for this you will easily find; but to find a reason why they be so reckoned. Rehoboam's years are counted complete; Abijam's are current. Whereas it is said that Jeroboam reigned 22 years - and his son Nadab 2 years; you will find by this reckoning that Nadab's 2 years fall within the sum of his father's 22. This may seem strange, but the solution is sweet and easy from 2 Chron. 13:20. The Lord smote Jeroboam with some ill disease, that he could not administer or rule the kingdom, so that he was forced to substitute Nadab in his lifetime. And in one and the same year, both father and son die."
"Divers such passages as these you will find in this story of the Kings. Ahaziah 2 years older than his father (2 Chron. 22:2), Baasha fighting 9 years after he is dead (2 Chron. 16:1), Jotham reigning 4 years after he is buried (2 Kings 15:30), Joram crowned King in the 17th year of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 1:17 with 1 Kings 22:51), and in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 8:16), and after Jehoshaphat's death (2 Chron. 21:1)."
"For resolution of such ambiguities, when you have found them, the Text will do it, if it be well searched. This way, attained to, will guide you in marking those things that seem to be contradictions in the Text, or slips of the Holy Ghost, in which always is admirable wisdom."
"Admirable it is to see how the Holy Spirit of God in discords hath showed the sweet music. But few mark this, because few take a right course in reading of Scripture. Hence, when men are brought to see flat contradictions, as unreconciled there be many in it, they are at amaze and ready to deny their Bible. A little pains right spent, will soon amend this wavering and settle men upon the Rock, whereon to be built is to be sure."
The key to the solution of all these difficulties is given by Willis J. Beecher, in an article on "The Kings of Israel and Judah," in the American Presbyterian Review for April, 1880.
"In recording dates," he says, "these narratives follow a simple and consistent system. The following rules are obeyed with entire uniformity, in all the dates of the period under consideration:-
"Rule 1. All the years mentioned are current years of a consecutive system. The first year of a King is not a year's time beginning with the month and day of his accession, but a year's time beginning (1) the preceding, or (2) the following New Year's Day - the New Moon before the Passover, Nisan 1st.
"Rule 2. When a reign closes and another begins during a year, that year is counted to the previous reign (Judaite mode).
"Rule 3. Regularly in the case of the earlier Kings of Israel, and occasionally in other cases, the broken year is counted to the following reign as well as to the previous reign (Israelite mode).
"Rule 4. When we use the ordinal numbers (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) which date the beginning or the end of a reign to check the cardinal numbers (1, 2, 3, etc.), which denote its duration, we must count both sets as designating complete calendar years. That is, we must count the date given in the ordinal as being either the opening or the close of the year designated by the ordinal. Otherwise the units represented by the two sets of numbers are of different sorts, and cannot be numerically compared."
The Hebrew Text of the history of this period is self-consistent and self-contained. All the data required for the resolution of any difficulties that may arise are to be found in the Text itself.
There is no need to fall back upon Josephus. Still less is there any need to introduce any of the harmonizing expedients of the LXX. or any of the "emendations," "restorations" and "corrections" of the Text by modern critics, who present us with a view of the history as they think it ought to be, not with a view of the history as it is.
Similarly the use of "Sothic Cycles," the calculation of eclipses and other astronomical methods and expedients for settling Bible Dates, are all alike inadmissible. They are liable to errors of observation on the part of the original observer, to errors of calculation on the part of the modern astronomer, and consequently to errors in the identification of the observed and recorded eclipse with the eclipse reached by astronomical calculation.
They are used mainly in support of assumptions and pre-suppositions already arrived at by the method of hypothesis and conjecture. They may be true or they may not, but in any case they cannot be erected into a standard by which to correct the data given in the Hebrew Text.
Modern Egyptologists make much of astronomical data. Each advocate regards his own scheme as thereby invested with the certainty of a mathematical calculation. But there are many such schemes, and they differ from each other by more than a century. As Willis J. Beecher says, "Each chain has links of the solid steel of astronomical computation, but they are tied together with the rotten twine of conjecture."
A few years ago the scheme of Lepsius was generally accepted by those modern Egyptologists by whom the Biblical data were discarded. A Sothic Cycle known as that of Menophres, terminated A.D. 139, and as the cycle contains 1,461 years it began B.C. 1322. By this calculation they date the Exodus in the year B.C. 1320. The inference depends for its validity upon the truth of the following hypotheses, every one of which partakes of the character of an unverified conjecture:-
1. The trustworthiness of the testimony of Censorinus, the chronological scheme constructor, who lived A.D. 238, and who states in his work De die Natali that a Sothic period came to an end A.D. 139. The testimony may be authentic and reliable, but as it is not contemporary, but given just a century after the event, it is at all events liable to error.
2. The accuracy of the calculation of Censorinus, and the truth of the underlying assumption that the period of 1,460 Sothic years of 365 1/4 days does actually correspond with the period covered by 1,461 of the vague or calendar years of 365 days, and that these vague years were used in the historical records of Egypt throughout the entire period of 1,460 Sothic or 1,461 vague calendar years.
3. The accuracy of the calculation of modern astronomers as to the heliacal rising of Sirius, the rising of the dogstar with the sun in the year B.C. 1322.
4. The accuracy of the identification of this cycle (B.C. 1322 to A.D. 139) with the Sothic cycle of Menophres.
5. The accuracy of the identification of this Menophres with Merenptah the son of Rameses the Great.
6. The accuracy of the identification of Merenptah with the Amenophis IV, to whose reign Manetho, as reported by Josephus, assigns the Exodus.
7. The trustworthiness of the testimony of Manetho, as preserved in Josephus, in referring the Exodus to the reign of this Amenophis IV, and the accuracy of the identification of Manetho's story of the expulsion of the lepers with the Biblical story of the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt, by Moses, at the Exodus.
Lepsius held that the year B.C. 1322 was connected with the reign of Merenptah, the immediate successor of Rameses the Great. It was based on astronomical calculations of the Sothic cycle, and was generally accepted by modern scholars a few years ago.
But to-day the theory of Lepsius is abandoned for another theory also based on astronomical calculations of the Sothic cycle, and elaborated by Mahler, Edouard Meyer, Prof. Breasted, and others. Its advocates claim that their methods are exact, but their results are various and incompatible. The year in which Merenptah succeeded Rameses II is given by Flinders Petrie as B.C. 1207, by Sayce as B.C. 1280, and by Breasted as B.C. 1255.
But the most striking feature in the whole process and method of these scientific calculations is the fact that the synchronism of Amenophis III of Egypt with Burna-buriash of Babylon and Asshur-uballet of Assyria, who are said to have flourished about B.C. 1430, which was formerly used in confirmation of the Lepsian dates, is now used in confirmation of these other dates, which differ from that of Lepsius by 42, 97, and 115 years respectively, "each method abundantly convincing to those already convinced before!"
These quasi-infallible dates arrived at by modern investigators are erected into a standard by which to amend and to correct the dates of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. But this is correcting standard coin of the realm by means of counterfeit fabrications.
The authentic documents of the Hebrew Old Testament are both accurate and self-consistent, complete and self-sufficient. The facts and the events, the dates and the periods there given, are as accurate and as reliable as those other statements upon which we base our confidence in the goodness of God, and rest in hope of eternal Salvation.
We read in Hales' Analysis of Sacred Chronology, the following proud and startling paragraph.
"We are now competent to detect some errors that have crept into the correspondences of reigns; and which have hitherto puzzled and perplexed Chronologers, and prevented them from critically harmonizing the two series; not being able to distinguish the genuine from the spurious numbers.
1. 1 Kings, 22:41. Jehoshaphat began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab. It should be the second.
2. 1 Kings 22:51, Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in the seventeenth of Jehoshaphat. It should be the twentieth.
3. 2 Kings 1:17, Jehoram the son(?) of Ahaziah began to reign over Israel in the second year of Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat. It should be in the twenty-second year of Jehoshaphat, as also where it is again incorrectly stated in the eighteenth (2 Kings 3:1).
4. 2 Kings 8:16, Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat began to reign over Judah, in the fifth year of the reign of Joram the (grand)son of Ahab. It should be,
(1) the fifth year from the death of Ahab, or
(2) the third year of Joram's reign.
'Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah' is an anachronism and an interpolation in the Massoretic Text.
5. 2 Kings 13:10. Jehoash began to reign over Israel in the thirty- seventh year of Joash King of Judah. It should be in the thirty-ninth year; as in the Aldine Edition of the Greek Septuagint.
6. 2 Kings 15:30, Hoshea slew Pekah King of Israel in the twentieth year of Jotham. But Jotham only reigned sixteen years (2 Kings 15:33). It should be in the third year of Ahaz, as collected from 2 Kings 16:1."
Clinton follows in the same groove, though not quite in the same vein. Chronologers generally follow each other like a flock of sheep, each one reproducing and propagating the errors of his predecessor. He says:-
"1. 2 Chron. 16:1-3. Baasha came up against Judah in the 36th year of the reign of Asa. As in the 36th year of Asa, Baasha was dead, we must either (1) correct the numbers to the 26th, or (2) we must understand them to mean the 36th year of the Kingdom of Judah.
2. 2 Chron. 22:2, Forty-two years for the age of Ahaziah are wrong, on account of 2 Kings 8:26, where it is given "22 years," and on account of the age of his father who died at forty.
3. 1 Kings 22:51, The 17th year of Jehoshaphat is inconsistent with the other coincidences given. (So he alters it to the 19th, as Hales does.)
4. 2 Kings 3:1, The 18th of Jehoshaphat was the 1st of Joram. This is evidently impossible; for between the accession of Jehoshaphat and the accession of Joram son of Ahab are 18 years complete of Ahab and two years of Ahaziah.
5. 2 Kings 1:17, Joram son of Ahab is said to have succeeded his brother in the 2nd of Jehoram King of Judah, but as the 1st of Jehoram King of Judah was the 5th of Joram King of Israel, and the 8th of the King of Judah was the 11th or 12th of the King of Israel, this date, the '2nd of Jehoram,' is evidently wrong.
6. 2 Kings 8:16. The phrase, 'Jehoshaphat being then King of Judah,' we may perhaps explain thus: Jehoram began to reign while his father was yet living (as in the accession of Solomon), and Jehoshaphat died at the commencement of the 25th year, which is therefore the 1st Jehoram.
7. 2 Kings 13:10. The 37th year of Joash is inconsistent with the other dates. The LXX. has the 39th year, which might be the true reading.
8. 2 Kings 15:1. We may concur with Jackson, De Vignoles and Greswell in rejecting the 27th year of Jeroboam as corrupt."
All these difficulties are due to (1) misinterpretation of the words of the Text, or (2) unwarrantable inferences drawn by the Chronologer, not from the words of the Text, but from assumptions made by the Chronologer in construing it.
Thus 2 Chron. 16:1-3. Baasha came up against Judah in the 36th year of the reign of Asa. The text says the 36th year of the malekuth = malchuth = Kingdom of Asa, which Kingdom dates from the 1st year of Rehoboam, and which is here contrasted with the Kingdom of Baasha, which dates from the 1st year of Jeroboam. To make it mean the 36th year from the accession of Asa is an error of interpretation.
Again, 2 Kings 13:9,10. Jehoash of Israel began to reign in the 37th year of Joash, King of Judah. It is said that this should be the 39th. Here it is assumed that Jehoash of Israel did not begin to reign until after his father Jehoahaz was dead, and as his father did not die till two years later in the 39th of Joash of Judah, the inference drawn from the Chronologer's assumption is that Jehoash of Israel did not begin to reign till the 39th year of Joash of Judah. But the Text says he began to reign in the 37th year of Joash of Judah, and the true inference drawn from the Text is that Jehoash was Co-Rex with his father, during the last two or three years of his father's reign.
In like manner it can be shown that every other supposed inconsistency is not in the Text, but in the mind of the critic; that the Text is susceptible of another interpretation, and that the construction put upon it by the critic is a false one. This is done in the ensuing Chronological Table of the Kings of Judah and Israel, where each difficulty is explained in accordance with the statements of the Text.
The Table is divided into three periods :-
1. From the 1st of Rehoboam to the death of Ahaziah of Judah, which synchronises with the period from the 1st of Jeroboam to the death of Jehoram of Israel, both these monarchs having been slain at the same time by Jehu.
2. From the 1st of Athaliah to the 6th of Hezekiah, which synchronises with the 1st of Jehu to the 9th of Hoshea, the Text giving the synchronism, "the sixth year of Hezekiah, that is the ninth year of Hoshea," as the date of the fall of Samaria (2 Kings 18:10).
3. From the fall of Samaria in the 6th of Hezekiah to the captivity. The captivity is dated from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim. The following year is characterised by the synchronism, "the fourth year of Jehoiakim that was the first year of Nebuchadrezzar" (Jer. 25:1-11). The captivity lasted for 70 years (Jer. 25:12).
In the first of these three periods, Rehoboam and Jeroboam start level, and their years are parallel or co-numerary as far as they both continue. Similarly, in the second of these three periods, Athaliah and Jehu start level, and their years are parallel or co-numerary as far as they both continue. In the third period, which forms the subject of our next chapter, we have the reckoning of the one Kingdom of Judah only.
The reigns of the Kings of the first two periods are so locked and interlocked, that it is impossible for any error to have crept into the Chronology between the year of the disruption and the year of the fall of Samaria.
The accuracy of the Chronology of the Kingdom of Judah from the fall of Samaria to the captivity is likewise guaranteed, being checked by the long numbers which measure the intervals between two distant events, e.g. the period from the 13th year of Josiah, when the ministry of Jeremiah began, to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, is stated to have been a period of 23 years (Jer. 25:1-3).
The synchronism contained in Jer. 25:1 is the most important date in the Bible. It connects all the previous dates of Sacred Chronology down to the 4th year of Jehoiakim, with all the dates of Profane Chronology that can be connected with the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, for these two years are here identified, and to know any one date in a complete system of Chronology is to know every date connected with it.
We have inserted in Vol. II, pp. 50 and 51, two Tables giving a bird's- eye view of the Kings of Judah and Israel, the years of their reigns, and other particulars contained in the Hebrew Text.
Scripture Chronology deals only with integral years. It reckons a broken year sometimes as one whole year, which it gives to the outgoing King, and sometimes as two whole years, of which it gives one to the outgoing, and one to the incoming King, the year being thus reckoned twice over. It follows from this fact that the Chronology of the period cannot be ascertained by applying the process of simple addition to the figures denoting the length of the reigns of the various Kings. This is easily demonstrated.
In the first period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Ahaziah of Judah is 95 years. The sum of the reigns of the 9 Kings of Israel from Jeroboam to Jehoram of Israel is 98 years. The true Chronology of the period is 90 years. The explanation of the figures 95 and 98 lies in the fact that in them some years have been reckoned twice over.
In the second period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings and 1 Queen of Judah from the 1st of Athaliah to the 6th of Hezekiah, together with the interregnum of 11 years, is 176 years. The sum of the reigns of the 10 Kings of Israel from the 1st year of Jehu to the 9th year of Hoshea, including the interregnums of 22 and 8 years respectively, is 175, reckoning a full year each to Zechariah and Shallum. The true Chronology of the period is 174 years, and the explanation of the figures 176 and 175 years is the same as before.
In the third period the sum of the reigns of the 6 Kings of Judah from the 6th year of Hezekiah to the 3rd year of Jehoiakim is 114. The true Chronology of the period is also 114 years.
We now proceed to consider the case of each reign in detail. The figures cannot be treated mechanically. They can only be interpreted and understood in the light of the accompanying narrative.
The fact that Ahab and his two successors, Ahaziah of Israel and Jehoram of Israel, all reigned in the same calendar year, is illustrated by the knowledge gained from the Assyrian Inscriptions that Ahab of Israel and Benhadad of Syria were engaged in military operations against Shalmaneser II (III) of Assyria, in the 21st year of Ahab's reign, which led to the appointment of Ahaziah of Israel as Co-Rex during his father's absence at the war. But Ahaziah was incapacitated by his fall through a lattice in his upper chamber (2 Kings 1:2). Hence the appointment of his brother Jehoram, either as Deputy or Pro-Rex, whilst Ahaziah was ill, or as Co-Rex with his father Ahab on Ahaziah's death. In that 18th year of Jehoshaphat, Ahab was in his 22nd year and died. Ahaziah of Israel was in his 2nd year as Co-Rex with his father Ahab, and he died. Thereupon Jehoram of Israel ascended the throne, and, in the usual Israelite mode of computation, the same year, the 18th of Jehoshaphat, is also given to him as the incoming King, and reckoned as his first year.
The last year of Edward IV was the year 1483. If his son Edward V had been associated with him in 1482 and had died, and been succeeded by Richard II in 1483 instead of 1485, we should have had a parallel case in English History. Edward IV, Edward V and Richard II all on the throne in the same calendar year.
Similarly, the character of Jehoram of Judah, one of the most wicked Kings that ever sat upon the throne of Judah (2 Chron. 21), explains why he should have been made Pro-Rex with his father in the 17th of Jehoshaphat (the 18th year of Jehoshaphat = the 1st year of Jehoram of Israel being his second year - 2 Kings 1:17; 3:1), then deposed by his godly father Jehoshaphat and subsequently re-appointed, or possibly, prompted by his own wickedness to usurp (2 Chron. 21:4) the throne of his father, in the 22nd year of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat himself being then (in the 22nd of Jehoshaphat = the 5th of Jehoram of Israel) King of Judah (2 Kings 8:16).
Ussher is correct here. Clinton is wrong. Ussher does not "suppose" three beginnings of the reign of Jehoram of Judah. He incorporates these three beginnings in his scheme as a fact definitely stated in the Hebrew narrative.
Clinton does not think the three beginnings probable, but circumstances alter cases, and our business is not to construe the Chronology as we think it ought to be, but as the Hebrew writer says it is.
If we adhere to the facts as given in the Hebrew Text, and never so much as attempt to "emend," to "correct," or to "restore" a single one of them, we shall find that we are here presented with a Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judah which is at once both self-consistent, self-sufficient and correct in every detail.
I. First Period - Rehoboam to Jehu.
We begin with the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. We gather from the narrative that these both commenced in the same calendar year. The 40th year of Solomon is their accession year. The following year is their first year. The 17 years of Rehoboam run parallel with the first 17 years of Jeroboam.
Rehoboam was succeeded by Abijah, who began to reign in the 18th year of Jeroboam, and reigned 3 years (1 Kings 15:1,2). As Abijah's first year is the 18th year of Jeroboam, either his accession year was the 17th of Jeroboam = the 17th of Rehoboam, or else Rehoboam reigned out his 17th year to its close, and Abijah began his reign at the very beginning of the New Year. In either case the three years of Abijah will be the years 18, 19 and 20 of Jeroboam.
The words "began to reign" used throughout this entire period and spoken of almost every King, alike in the A.V. and in the R.V., is not an accurate translation of the Original. The Hebrew is always "he reigned," not "he began to reign."
The intention of the writer is to give us, not the actual day of the King's accession, but the calendar year of the chronological Era in which he came to the throne. As a matter of fact, he may have acceded to the throne in the year which, by the Judaite mode, is reckoned as the last year of the outgoing King, and by the Israelite mode as both the last year of the outgoing King and the year 1 of the incoming King. By the Israelite mode of computation the same year is reckoned twice over.
Abijah's three years are the years 18, 19 and 20 of the reign of Jeroboam. From 1 Kings 15:9,10 we learn that Asa "reigned" in the 20th year of Jeroboam, and that his reign consisted of 41 calendar years. As the 20th year of Jeroboam is already given to Abijah, this 20th year of Jeroboam is Asa's accession year, and Asa's year 1 is Jeroboam's year 21. Of course Asa did reign in the 20th year of Jeroboam, but only during a fraction of it. The Chronology ignores the fraction, and on the Judaite mode of reckoning gives the whole year to Abijah.
Should we make the mistake of entering Asa's year 1 as parallel with Jeroboam's year 20, then Asa's year 2 will be Jeroboam's year 21, and Asa's year 3 will be Jeroboam's year 22, which is Nadab's year 1. But by 1 Kings 15:25-33, Nadab reigned in the 2nd year of Asa, 2 years, and Baasha reigned in the 3rd year of Asa. We must therefore place Asa's year 1 parallel with Jeroboam's year 21, and Asa's accession year parallel with Jeroboam's year 20. What the narrative tells us is that during Abijah's year 3, he died and was succeeded by Asa, whose year 1 begins at the close of Abijah's year 3.
Asa 1 = Jeroboam 21. Therefore Asa 2 = Jeroboam 22. Jeroboam reigned 22 years and was succeeded by Nadab (1 Kings 14:20), who also reigned in Asa's year 2 (1 Kings 15:25). This year, Asa's year 2, is therefore reckoned twice over; it is given to Jeroboam, the outgoing King, as his year 22, and also to Nadab as his year 1. This is the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Nadab reigned 2 years (1 Kings 15:25). His year 1 is Asa's year 2. Therefore his year 2 is Asa's year 3. But in Asa's year 3, Baasha slew Nadab and reigned in his stead (1 Kings 15:28-33) Therefore Asa's year 3 is both Nadab's year 2 and Baasha's year 1. Again, the same year is reckoned twice over. It is given to Nadab, the outgoing King, as his last year, and to Baasha the incoming King, as his first year, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Baasha reigned 24 years (1 Kings 15:33). His year 1 is Asa's year 3. Therefore his year 24 is Asa's year 26. But in Asa's year 26 Elah reigned (1 Kings 16:8). Hence Asa's year 26 is reckoned twice over, once as the last year of Baasha and again as the 1st year of Elah, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning.
Elah reigned 2 years (1 Kings 16:8). His year 1 is Asa's year 26. Therefore his year 2 is Asa's year 27. But in Asa's year 27 Zimri slew Elah and reigned 7 days (1 Kings 16:10-15).
Then the people made Omri King, but half the people followed Tibni, and they both reigned as rival Kings from Asa's year 27 till Tibni died (1 Kings 16:16-22). Again the year Asa 27 is reckoned twice over, to Elah the outgoing King, and to Omri and Tibni as their year 1, according to the Israelite mode of reckoning. On the death of Tibni, in Asa's year 31, Omri reigned over Israel alone (1 Kings 16:22-23) But Asa's year |
