(published 1824-1853)






"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." Martin Anstey, The Romance of Bible Chronology (1915)





IN the work now offered to the public, the author has attempted to illustrate the Civil and Literary History of Ancient Greece from the age of Pisistratus to the accession of Ptolemy Philadelphus, by exhibiting a chronological view not only of the civil and military affairs of the Greeks, but also of their literature, within that period. The authorities upon which each fact is stated are expressed, and the original words of the authors are given, as far as the necessary brevity would allow.


The first idea of this work suggested itself to the author many years ago, when he found the want of a sufficient chronological guide, while engaged in studying the works of the ancient writers. The remains of the Orators, and of the Comic Poet, to be rightly understood, must be read in the order in which they were composed or exhibited; and with a reference to the transactions with which they were connected. The ancient critics of the best times were diligent in their attention to this particular. Apollodorus and Dionysius carefully marked the dates of their literary works. But the grammarians of later ages, from whose hands we have received the relics of antiquity, so much neglected this necessary point, that no copy of Aristophanes now exists which has the comedies disposed in the order in which they were exhibited; nor any copy of Demosthenes, in which the Harangues and Public Causes are placed with any regard to the order of time. The author originally proposed to himself to arrange the orations and dramas which remain to us from antiquity in their proper order, and to verify the dates by the proper testimonies. This he imagined might have been extensive. Other topics of inquiry presented themselves, and his work increased upon his hands, until it grew into its present form, and into the bulk of a volume. He now ventures to submit it to the world, trusting that it may in some degree supply to others what he formerly wanted for himself.


Before he dismisses this volume, he is desirous of expressing his acknowledgments to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press, collectively, for their reception of his labors. To the Regius Professor of Greek, the REV. THOMAS GAISFORD, individually, for the ready kindness with which he has promoted the publication of this work, the author is bound in an especial manner to declare his obligations.





IN the present edition the author has corrected some errors, and supplied some omissions, which a careful revision of the work enabled him to detect. In many instances the original texts of the authors are exhibited more fully than before. It will not be thought that the testimonies are too copiously quoted, if the advantages of this practice are remembered. A bare reference to authorities is seldom satisfactory. The reader has not always the authors at hand; nor will he always seek out the passages, which are widely scattered through a variety of authors, by consulting the originals. The writer himself is liable to mistake, when the testimonies upon which his propositions are founded are merely indicated; references will be sometimes erroneously given, or perverted to a wrong meaning through inadvertence. But when the original words are transcribed, and the texts themselves are placed before the view, an author will be more accurate in drawing his conclusions, and the reader, surveying the whole evidence at once, will be more competent to pass his judgment.


Some subjects are treated more fully than in the former edition; and some observations on the Extent and Population of Ancient Greece, which were wanting in the former, have been supplied in the present, in an additional Chapter, in which a part of least of the subject is explained.


New marks of favor demand new expressions of acknowledgment. The author has to repeat his obligations to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press for the liberal encouragement which they have shown to the present edition of this work.





IN this third edition the author has endeavored to vindicate some points and to correct others. He has availed himself of those stores of information (so far as they came within his knowledge) which the interval between the former edition and the present has produced. He has profited by the Armenian Eusebius, to which he had not access before; and especially by the Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum which Mr. Boeckh is publishing at Berlin, and by two valuable works from the Oxford Press; the edition of Suidas in 1834, and of the Scholia on Aristophanes in the close of 1839. This Volume might have received still further improvements, if the author had been enabled to use at an earlier period the last mentioned work, the excellent edition of the Scholia published by Mr. Dindorf. He has also to regret that the latter volumes of Bishop Thirlwall's History of Greece did not come into his hands till after this edition was nearly completed.


The author expresses his thanks to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press, to whom he is deeply indebted for their patronage of his work upon this as upon former occasions.





THIS new edition of the Third Volume of the Fasti Hellenici appears like its predecessor, with all the advantages which are conferred by the Oxford University Press, through the favor and patronage of the Delegates, to whom the Author acknowledges his great obligations.


The plan and arrangement of the Tables are described in the Introduction. The Appendix illustrates the Greek writers of this Period, and the Greek kingdoms of Macedonia Syria Pergamus and Egypt; together with those other dynasties of Asia Minor which, although not originally Greek, yet gradually assumed the Grecian arts and manners.


The inscriptions and Coins quoted in this work are given in small letters, to avoid extending the bulk of the citations; and in the Greek Inscriptions accents have been supplied for the convenience of the reader.


The inconstancy in the spelling of some Latin words, and of some proper names in both languages, arises for the most part from the different practice of different authors; at least in the printed copies of their works. Thus, for example, Livy in Drakenborch's edition has adfulsit, conlatis, and the like; but these are affulsit, collatis, &c. in Cicero and many other authors. The name scaevula is thus exhibited in the Capitoline Marbles; but this name is Scaevola in the printed words of writers. Coelius and Caelius both occur. Nonius Marcellus has Caelius: Pighius attests that Coelius is found in an Inscription. In Cicero the inconstancy of the spelling is so great that both forms occur in the same page. . . On some occasions the usage may have altered in the course of years; but many of these varieties are probably to be imputed to the transcriber, and their number would be much diminished, if in every case, by a careful collation of ancient copies, the text could be restored as the author left it.





MORE than two years have passed since the printing of these Tables was begun. The completion of this Volume has been delayed by various causes, which it was not necessary to lay before the reader. The Appendix, which is described in the Introduction, will be proceeded in with as little delay as may be. The author cannot presume to fix the time at which it will be completed; but if health and leisure are permitted to him, he hopes that at no very distant period it may be published.

The author is anxious to acknowledge his great obligations to the Delegates of the Oxford University Press for their kindness. They have liberally assented to the proposal for publishing this Volume. In its progress through the Press they have afforded him every facility; and have permitted according to his convenience.


It had occurred to the author to insert a list of the editions quoted this work. But the design has for the present been laid aside. A complete description would add to the bulk of a Volume already large enough; and the greater part of the references are to well known editions which the reader will probably discover for himself. Of some works however the author was compelled to use such editions as he could procure, when those which he would have preferred were not within his reach. If on account of these it should seem desirable to give a catalogue, this can be done hereafter in the future volume. {a}...






{a} It will be convenient, for instance, to the reader to know that these works


Victor de Caesaribus

Victoris Epitome

Festi Breviarium

Pauli Diac. XI-XVIII post Eutropium Jornandes de regnorum successiounibus


Are all quoted from the following little volume: Historicae Romance epitomae--Flori--Paterculi--Victoris--Festi--Messalae Corvini--Eutropii--Paulli Diaconi--Cassiodori--Jornandis--Exsuperantii--ex Musaeo Nic. Blancardi Lugd. Bat. 1648 12 pp. 728.


The Commentaries of Hieronymus are quoted from Opp. 12 Voll. Folio Francofurti 1684. His Epistles from the following: Romae apund P. Manutium 1566 3 Voll. 12. For Athanasius two editions have been used: Athanasius juxta ed. Parisinam anno 1626 2 Voll. Folio Coloniae 1686. Athansius ad ed. Montfaucon. 4 Voll. Folio Patavii 1777. The pages of the former are quoted; the text has been often corrected by the edition of Montfaucon.



THE present volume completes the original desiring.


It has happened that this, which, with reference to the subject, is the first in order of time, has been the last in the order of publication. But this will be no disadvantage to the work. It will rather facilitate our inquiries, that our foundations were laid in times of authority before we proceeded to survey the remote and uncertain ages.


That favor which the former volumes experienced from the Delegates of the Oxford University Press has been continued to the present; and the author at the close of his undertaking renews his expressions of gratitude to the Members of that Board for their liberality and kindness.












THE history contained in the Hebrew Scriptures presents a remarkable and pleasing contrast to the early accounts of the Greeks. In the latter we trace with difficulty a few obscure facts preserved to us by the poets, who transmitted with all the embellishments of poetry and fable what they had received from oral tradition. In the annals of the Hebrew nation we have authentic narratives written by contemporaries, and these writing under the guidance of inspiration. What they have delivered to us conies accordingly under a double sanction. They were aided by divine inspiration in recording facts upon which, as mere human witnesses {a} , their evidence would be valid. But as the narrative comes with an authority which no other writing can possess, so in the matters related it has a character of its own. The history of the Israelites is the history of miraculous interpositions. Their passage out of



{a} It may be said that Moses was not a witness of the facts which he relates between the birth or the call of Abraham (when the history of the Hebrews may be properly said to commence) and his own time. But there were so few steps between Abraham and Moses that, though not a witness, he was an authentic reporter of evidence. In the following history, from the exode to the rebuilding of the temple, all the writers were, strictly speaking, witnesses.





Egypt was miraculous. Their entrance into the promised land was miraculous. Their prosperous and their adverse fortunes in that land, their servitudes and their deliverances, their conquests and their captivities, were all miraculous. The entire history, from the call of Abraham to the building of the sacred temple, was a series of miracles. It is so much the object of the sacred historians to describe these, that little else is recorded. The ordinary events and transactions, what constitutes the civil history of other states, are either very briefly told or omitted altogether; the incidental mention of these facts being always subordinate to the main design of registering the extraordinary manifestations of divine power. For these reasons the history of the Hebrews cannot be treated like the history of any other nation; and he who should attempt to write their history, divesting it of its miraculous character, would find himself without materials. Conformably with this spirit there are no historians in the sacred volume of the period in which miraculous intervention was withdrawn. After the declaration by the mouth of Malachi {b} that a messenger should be sent to prepare the way, the next event recorded by any inspired writer is the birth of that messenger {c}. But of the interval of 400 years between the promise and the completion no account is given. And this period of more than 400 years between Malachi and the Baptist is properly the only portion, in the whole long series of ages from the birth of Abraham to the Christian era, which is capable of being treated like the history of any other nation. {d}




{b} III. 1.


{c} Or at least the circumstances which preceded it: Luke 1:1-56. Augustine Civ. Dei XVII. 24. has remarked this cessation of prophecy : Toto autem ilh tempore ex quo redterunt de Babylonia post Malachiam Agg&um et Zacita-riam, qui tune prophetaveruut, et Esdram, non habuerunt propltetas usque ad Salvatoris adven-ttim, nisi ahum Zackariam patrem Joannis et Elizabethan ejus uxorem, Christi natimtate jam proximo* Josephus Aption I. 8. admits the fact.


{d} Because during this period divine interpositions were withheld, and the Jews were left to the ordinary course of things". And we may remark that in all ages of their history divine inspiration was vouchsafed in exact proportion to the necessity of the case. Inspiration was afforded to Noah, to Abraham, to Moses; and from Moses to Malachi there was an uninterrupted communication of the divine will through inspired ministers to the chosen people. By this chosen people the knowledge of the Deity was preserved through so many ages in the midst of the darkness and idolatry and polytheism of the other nations of the world. And the measure of inspiration was always in proportion to the exigency. The greatest prophets arose in the most difficult times. The reign of Ahab was distinguished by Elijah and Elisha. Isaiah continued to prophesy through the time of Ahaz. And during the captivity many eminent prophets consoled and instructed the Jews in their calamity. But with Malachi inspiration ceased, and the Jews were left to the exertion of their own faculties. Inspiration appears to have been withdrawn because it was no longer necessary for the purposes of Providence. The character of the Jews in their captivity had undergone a remarkable change. During the period of their judges and kings they had been easily seduced into the idolatries of their neighbors; but, after the return from Babylon, they exhibited a spirit of attachment to their law and to their sacred books which they maintained under all circumstances with incredible firmness. A people of such habits as they had now acquired was eminently fitted for the office for which they were designed, of guardians of the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2). Josephus Apion. I. 8. remarks of his countrymen, (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). Miraculous aid was now therefore no longer necessary to fit them for their office, and was accordingly withheld. As in the material world Providence has everywhere proportioned the means to the end, the forces being not greater than the occasion requires, but it would seem that in his spiritual communications extraordinary aids are only granted when ordinary influence is insufficient. At the birth of the Messiah the greatness of the Occasion demanded that divine communication after a suspension of four centuries, should again be made;





From this spirit of the Scripture history, the writers not designing to give a full account of ail transactions, but only to dwell on that portion in which the divine character was marked, many things which we might desire to know are omitted, and on many occasions a mere out* line of the history is preserved. It is mortifying to our curiosity that a precise date of many remarkable facts cannot be obtained. The destruction of the temple is determined by concurrent sacred and profane testimony to July B. C. 587. From this point we ascend to the birth of Abraham. But between these two epochs, the birth of Abraham and the destruction of the temple, two breaks occur in the aeries of Scripture dates, which make it impossible to fix the actual year of the birth of Abraham; and this date being unknown, and assigned only upon conjecture, all the preceding epochs are necessarily unknown also.


Our knowledge of the time which had passed before the birth of Abraham is derived from two passages in Genesis, in which the years of the antediluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs are recorded. In the antediluvian patriarchs the age of each at the birth of his son is stated with the following variations:



                       Hebr.  Samr. {h}  lxx.  Joseph.    African {f} Theoph. {g}

1.  Adam .............  130    130        230    230       230         230

2.  Seth .............  105    105        205    205       205         205

3.  Enos .............   90     90        190    190       190         190

4.  Cainan ...........   70     70        170    170       170         170
5.  Mahalaleel .......  
65     65        163    165       165         165

8.  Jared ............  162     62        162    162       162         162

7.  Enoch ............   65     65        165   (1)65 {e}   65          65

8.  Methuselah .......  187     67        187    187       187         167

9.  Lamech ...........  182     53        188    182       182         182

10. Noah (at the flood) 600    600        600    600       600         600


              Total.. 1656   1307       2262   2256      2262        2242




These variations are not the effect of accident, but design'; because the years before the birth of the son and the residues in all the cases agree with the totals of lives. Thus Adam has 130+800=930 in the Hebrew and Samaritan, but 230+700=930 in the Septuagint and Africanus. Seth has 105 + 807=912 in the former, but 205+707=912 in the latter; and so through the first five generations. The totals of lives in the first five and in the seventh are the same in Sam. Sept. Heb. In the 6th, 8th, and 9th, the Samaritan varies from the other two. 6. Jared 162 + 800=962 Heb. Sept., but 62 + 785=847 Sam. 8. Methuselah 187 + 782 = 969 Heb. Sept., but 67 + 653=720 Sam. 9. Lamech, 182 + 595=777 Heb., but 188 + 565=753 Sept. and 53+600=653 Sam. In the totals of lives Josephus




and the evangelists and apostles were armed with supernatural gifts and powers adequate to the duties which they were to perform.


{e} Joseph. Ant. I 3, 4. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).


The addition properly made by Oberthur.


{f} Africanus apud Syncellum p. 81.


{g} TheophiL ad Autolyc. III. 24. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).


{h} Eusebiua apud Syncellum p. 83. Chron. I. p. 58. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).


{I} Conf. Augustin. Civ. Dei XV. 13.





agrees with the Hebrew in all the nine. The Septuagint differs only in one, Lamech. The Samaritan differs from all the rest in the 6th, 7th, and 9th, which are shortened to adapt them to the shorter period between Jared and the flood. By this management, Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, all die in the year of the flood.


The Septuagint computation gives 1287 years to the birth of Methuselah and some copies divide the years of Methuselah thus: 167 + 802 = 969; from which this absurdity arises, that Methuselah is made to survive the flood 14 years. {k} But the better copies have 187 + 782 = 969, which brings the death of Methuselah to six years before the flood. Theophilus, as we have seen, followed these faulty numbers {l}; they were also in the copies of Eusebius {m}, Augustine {n}, and Syncellus {o}; but Africanus and Josephus and the Paschal Chronicle {p} all divide the years of Methuselah 187 + 782, as in the Hebrew; and the genuine numbers of the Septuagint, 2262 (not 2242), may be traced in Demetrius quoted below, and are given by Epiphanius. {q} The Septuagint, then, when the true numbers are restored to Methuselah, only differs from the Hebrew (besides the centenary additions) in adding six years to the generation of Lamech, 188 for 182.


Josephus, except in the centenary additions, entirely agrees with the Hebrew numbers; and Africanus with the Septuagint adds six years (besides the centenary additions) to the antediluvian generations, 2262 instead of 2256: but he partly compensates for these by omitting two postdiluvian years before the birth of Arphaxad, computing 2262 + 265 = 2527 to the birth of Eber instead of 2256 + 267 = 2523; thus making the postdiluvian dates only four years more instead of six. Thus he reckons 2262 + 399= 2661 to the birth of Phaleg., while the true numbers (including the centenary additions) would be 2256 + 401=2657. The 145th year of Terah is 2262 + 1015 = 3277 {s}. But, including




{k} Because 1287+969=2256, but 1287+167 + 188+600=2242, or 14 years less than the life of Methuselah. Petavius, among other writers, discusses this question ad Epiphanium p. 5. A.


{l} Hales vol. I. p. 92. has given a totally erroneous account of the dates of Theophilus: " The " distinctest enumeration of the period is given " by Theophilus of Antioch thus: Adam 330y.: " &c. Methuselah 187. Deluge 2362." But Theophilus himself reckons 2242 years to the flood with the current copies of the Septuagint. He thus computes 3278 years from the Creation to the 100th year of Abraham: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) and 1036 (his period from the flood to the 100th year of Abraham} deducted from 3278 will also give 2242 for the period to the flood; agreeing with his numbers in detail. He again gives the same numbers in his summary III. 28. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). His chronology in the following periods shall be given below.

{m} Euseb. Chron. I. p. 54.


{n} Civ. Dei XV. 10. 11.


{o} Syncell. p. 113.114. The copies of Suioas also gave 2242 years: conf, Suid. v. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).


{p} Chron. Pasch, p. 21. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).  The generations in Chron. Pasch. 1. c. give Methuselah 187+862, and make the whole period 2262 years.


{q} Epiphan. adv. Haer. I. p. 5. A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). . He places p. 663. A. the 15th of Tiberius at A.M. 5509=B.C. 5491 for the date of the Creation.


{r} Svmsellus p. 114. A. misunderstands the question, misrepresents Africanus, and himself supposes Methuselah to have survived the flood. We gather, however, from Syncellus that all the copies in his time had the faulty numbers: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).  Augustine Civ. D. XV. 10. had the faulty reading in his copies, 167 + 802 for Methuselah, but (XV. 13) he judiciously applies the proper remedy, and adopts the better reading, 187+782.


{s} Africanus flpud Svncellum p. 86. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). p. 93. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).





the centenary additions, the date would be 2256-1017=3273. The two years after the flood are also omitted by the Paschal Chronicle and by Theophilus.


The question in the antediluvian genealogies will lie between the computation of Josephus and of the present Hebrew copies; whether the genuine and original numbers were 1656 years, according to the Hebrew, or the Hebrew with the centenary addition: to six genera-dons, that is, 1656 + 600=2256 years according to the account of Josephus, The Samaritan numbers err in defect; the Septuagint inserts a supernumerary term of six years. In the postdiluvian generations the question is somewhat different. Here the Samaritan, the Septuagint, and Josephus, all concur in the longer computation.



                       Hebr.  Samr.  lxx.  Joseph  Theoph{w} Afric{x}  Ch.P{y}  Euseb{z}

11. Shem (aged 100).....   2      2     2    12                                  2

12. Arphaxad ...........  35    135   135   135     135       135       135      135

   [Cainan ............              130                               130]

13. Salah .............   30    130   130   130     130       130       130      130

14. Heber .............   34    134   134   134     134       134       134      134

15. Peleg .............   30    130   130   130     130       130       130      130

16. Reu ...............   32    132   132   130     132       132       132      132{a}

17. Serug .............   30    130   130   132     130       130       130      130

18. Nahor .............   29     79    79   120      75        79        79       79

19. Terah .............  130    130   130   130      70        70        70       70

20. to Abraham ........  352   1002  1002  1053     936       940      1070      942



In the Septuagint there is a remarkable discrepancy in the residues of lives, which are not adapted to the centenary additions, as in the antediluvian generations. The Samaritan adapts the residues and adds the total amounts, which are wanting both in the Hebrew and the Septugint {b}. The following Table exhibits these varieties:



                LXX                  HEBREW                   SAMARITAN

            ____________          ____________         _____________________

           |            |        |            |       |                     |

          AGE        RESIDUES   AGE        RESIDUES  AGE     RESIDUES     TOTALS

Shem       100          500      100          500     100       500         600

Arphaxad   135          330{c}    35          403     135       303         438

Salah      130          330{d}    30          403     130       303         433

Heber      134          270{e}    34          430     134       270         404

Peleg      130          209{f}    30          209     130       109         239

Reu        132          207{g}    32          207     132       107         239

Serug      130          200{h}    30          200     130       100         230

Nahor       79          129{i}    29          119      79        69         148

Terah       70       ---205{k}    70       ---205      70       ---         145





{t} Euseb- Chron. I. p. 63.

{u} Euseb. p. 64.

{v} Ant. I. 6, 5. w III. 24. p. 410.

{x Apud Syncellum p. 86.

{y Chron. Pasch. p. 25. 48.

{z Chron. I. p. 61.


{a} In Eusebius 135. But he gives the total amount p. 62. A diluvio ad prim-urn annum Abra-kami cangemntur ann'i 942. from whence it appears that these numbers were 132.

{b} See Hales vol. I. p. 82.

{c} 403 Eoseb. Chron. p. 61. 330 Chron. Pasch. p. 25.

{d} 406 Euseb. 350 Chron. Pasch.

{e} 433 Euseb. 270 Chron. Pasch.

{f} 209 Euseb. Chron. P. African, apud Syncell. p. 86. B.

{g} 207 Euseb. p. 62. Chron. Pasch. p. 48.

{h} 200 Euseb. 230 Chron. Pasch.

{i} 119 Euseb. 129 Chron. Pasch.

{k} 70+135 Euseb. "(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)" Chron. Pasch.



Total ages in Chron. Pasch. p. 25. 48.:

      Arpkaxad ...465

      Salah ......480

      Eber ...... 404

      Pkaleg..... 339


      Servg (300) 360 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

      Nahar...... 208

      Terak...... 275






That the longer computation was in the Greek version from an early period appears from Demetrius, a writer quoted by Polyhistor, whose account is to the following effect: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). These numbers give




From the creation to the flood ................... 2264

From the flood to the Call ....... 1145 }

                                        } ........ 1360

To the going into Egypt............ 215 }





Consequently Demetrius reckoned from the flood to the birth of Abraham 1145-75=1070 years. He therefore agreed with the present copies of the Septuagint in computing 2264 years to the birth of Arphaxad (although he placed the two years before the flood m instead of after it) and in inserting the second Cainan in the postdiluvian genealogy. The second Cainan was in all the copies of the Septuagint in the time of Syncellus, who censures Eusebius for omitting himn. Eusebius was undoubtedly wrong in concealing from his readers that the second Cainan was in the Greek copies. But although there inserted, yet this Cainan has been properly rejected by many judicious chronologers as a spurious addition to the text. Among the arguments for his rejection these are sufficient. He is not in the Hebrew or Samaritan copies, nor in Josephus. The silence of Theophilus makes it probable that he was absent from some copies of the Septuagint. He is wanting in the Hebrew copy{o} of 1 Chron. 1:18, 24. Philo Judaeus omitted him; for Philo reckoned two decades of generations from




{l} Apud Euseb. Praep. IX. 21. p. 422.  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) His summary of the dates is given p. 425. C. Eusebius concludes p. 426 A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Demetrius probably flourished in the time of Ptolemy Philopator: Clem. Al. Strom. I. p. 337· D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [B. C. 222] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) These numbers neither agree with the true periods nor with each other. The true interval between the two captivities was 133 years. The numbers of Demetrius give either 128+ 338-466 or 128+445=573. Either the second or third number in Clemens is corrupted. Where Demetrius placed the captivity of Zedekiah, whether at B. C.631, as Sulpiaus did afterwards, or at B. C, 620 as Africanns did, we are not informed. If the second number is genuine, 573+222 will give B.C. 795 for the capture of Samaria and B. C. 667 for the capture of Zedekiah, about 36 years higher than the date of Sulpicius. The third date of Demetrius, which would bring down the capture of Zedekiah to B. C. 560, we may reject as corrupted.


{m} That is, the Septuagint divides the years to the birth of Abraham thus: 2262+1072=3334. But Demetrius thus : 2264+ 1070=3334.


{n} Syncell p. 169. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [sc. Chron. 1. p. 53 - 66] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


{o} Hales vol I. p. 90. asserts that the Septuagint in 1 Chron. I. 24. omits Cainan ; which is an incorrect account Many copies have Cainan in both the passages of 1 Chron. I. In v. 18. Cainan appears in 21 copies collated by Dr. Parsons, including the Alexandrine. In v. 24, he is inserted in six copies.





Adam to Abraham, computing Noah to be the tenth from Adam and Abraham the tenth from Shem, as in the present Hebrew copies. {p} Berosus {q} places Abraham in the tenth generation after the flood; but if Cainan were admitted, Abraham would be in the eleventh. Jackson {r} imputes great alteration in the Hebrew copies to the Jews of the second century. But as Cainan was wanting in the copies used by Josephus and Philo, it is evident that he was absent from the Hebrew copies as early as the Christian era, before the Jews could have had any motive, from the growth of Christianity, for corrupting the text. Nor is the insertion of Cainan before the time of Demetrius a reason for admitting him; for, if this passage was interpolated by the original translators to augment the amount of years, it would naturally appear in all the early copies. This spurious generation being rejected, our choice will lie between 292 years, the numbers in the Hebrew, and 942 years, the numbers of the Samaritan and corrected Greek copies supported by Josephus. But this amount is still to be enlarged, when the true time of the birth of Abraham is taken into the account. All the authorities which have been quoted suppose Abraham to have been the eldest son of his father, and place his birth at the 70th year and the call at the 145th year of Terah. But Usher has shewn the error of this opinion, and has proved that the birth of Abraham is determined by the narrative of Moses to the 130th year of Terah. {s} We are therefore to add 60 years to the preceding




{p} Philo Jud. De post. Cain. C. 50. tom. Ii. P. 45. ed. Lips. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

The generations which were in the mind of Philo were these:



1. Adam          1. Shem             1. (Abraham)

2. Seth          2. Arphaxad         2. Isaac

3. Enos          3. Salah            3. Jacob

4. Cainan        4. Heber            4. Levi

5. Mahalaleel    5. Peleg            5. Kohath

6. Jared         6. Reu              6. Amram

7. Enoch         7. Serug            7. Moses

8. Methuselah    8. Nahor

9. Lamech        9. Terah

10 Noah          10 Abraham



There were two decades to Abraham, and Moses was the seventh inclusive from Abraham. When Josephus (who omitted Cainan, as we know from his detail Ant. I. 6. 5) calls Abraham the tenth from Noah (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) he computes exclusive of Noah, and has in view a similar division of the patriarchs into two decades.


{q} Joseph. Ant. I. 7, 2. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Repeated by Eusebius Prep. IX. 16. Jackson vol. I. p. 69 - 80, stating the arguments in favor of the second Cainan, and Hales vol. I. p. 90 - 94, the arguments for rejecting him, each pressing his own view of the question with too much eagerness, have sometimes drawn opposite conclusions from the same facts. Jackson considers this passage of Berosus an evidence "that Cainan was in the genealogy;" for that "if we exclude Cainan, there are no more than nine generations after the flood to Abraham inclusive." But according to Hales Berosua is "a powerful authority for the rejection of Cainan, who, if inserted, would place Abraham in the eleventh generation from Shem inclusive." There is no doubt that Hales is in the right.


{r} Vol. I. p. 79.


{s} The proof is easy and complete. Abraham removed to Canaan alter his father's death : Acts VII. 4. and at the time of his removal was 75 years old: Gen XII. 3-5. But 205-75 = 130. Usher accordingly Annals p. 4. observes, " Now when Terah had lived 70 years, there "was born to him the eldest of his three sons:" Gen. XI. 26, and he not Abram, who came "not into the world till 60 years after, but





numbers, and the one computation will give 292 + 60=352 years, the other 942 + 60= 1002 years, for the interval from the flood to the birth of Abraham. {t} The early fathers for the




"Haran." Moreover "Sarai, who was also called Iscah, the daughter of Haran Abram's brother: Gen. XI:29" was only ten years younger than her husband Abraham: Gen. XVII:17." Usher Ibid. And this confirms the fact that Haran was 60 years older than Abraham. The erroneous date for the birth of Abraham placed the call of Abraham into Canaan 60 years before the death of his father, which is contrary to Gen. XI:32; XII:1, 4, and on this account in the Samaritan copy the life of Terah is reduced to 145 years, that his death might be adapted to the supposed time of the call. In Gen. XI:26-27. Abram is named first on account of his superior importance. Thus in Gen. VI:10; IX:18; X:1. The sons of Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, Shem is named first; but Japheth was the elder brother: Gen. X:2, 21. Mr. Greswell Dissert, vol. I. p. 383, adopts the shorter computations, and places the creation with Usher at B. C. 4004, observing, "It is requisite to premise that the only foundation for my calculations which I acknowledge is the Hebrew text; in comparison of which I admit the superior authority neither of the Septuagint nor of Josephus." His arrangement, however, of the years of Abraham is inconsistent with this declaration; for, in order to adapt the years of Terah to that arrangement, he alters the age of Terah upon conjecture to 135 years: p. 388. "The true length of the life of Terah, as it appears to me, was neither 205 nor 145, but 135. Moses might simply have written The days of Terah were 135 years; which some scribe considering to be distinct from the time before specified (that he lived 70 years and begat, &c.) added the one to the other, as making up the sum total of his life. And this conjecture is greatly confirmed by the result: for 70+135=205. It is not likely that Terah would enjoy a longer life than Abraham himself, who died at 175, or than Isaac and Jacob, who died at 180 and 147. I conclude, then, that the age of Terah at his death was 135." By this alteration of the text he places the birth of Abraham in the 62nd year of Terah and the 284th year after the flood; and the death of Terah in the 74th year of Abraham: vol. I. p. 387 - vol. III. p. 341. The assertion that Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, &c, he understands vol I. p. 387, to mean that "they were all begotten before be was 70, because the age of (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) just before the birth of Terah was as early as 29, and in no case since the flood had exceeded 35; so that it cannot be credible that Terah should be twice 35 before the birth of his eldest son." But it is not unlikely that Terah should have lived longer than Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when the lives of all the seven preceding patriarchs had been gradually shortened from 600 to 400 and 200 years. On the contrary it may be said with greater reason that, since Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, lived 175, 180, and 147 years, it is not likely that Terah, who preceded them, should have lived only 135. Nor is it incredible that Terah should have been 70 years older than his eldest son, when Abraham was 86 at the birth of Ishmael, Isaac 60 at the birth of Jacob, and Jacob 78 at the birth of Reuben. This conjectural alteration, then, of the text of Genesis, for which there is no authority in any of the copies, appears to be made without necessity.


{t} Dr. Hales vol. I. p. 104, discerns the number 1002 in the account of Josephus: "The present text of Josephus assigns 120 years to Nahor's generation. But he probably wrote 129; for 29 was the curtailed Hebrew generation, to which according to his system he rightly added a century. And that he originally wrote 129 is proved also from its being necessary to complete the correct period 1002, to which it appears he was no stranger, from his remarkable deviation from Scripture in twelve years, which he substitutes for two, from the deluge to the birth of Arphaxad. For as Josephus adopted the vulgar error that Abraham was Terah's eldest son, there was a deficiency of 60 years in Terah's generation; and these 60 years Josephus most ingeniously supplied by adding 50 years to Nahor's generation (the correct length being 79), and 10 years more to the first interval." But there is no magical virtue in the number 1002, that it was to be obtained by any means. This amount happens to result from the sum of the generations when properly stated, and could only have occurred to those who placed the birth of Abraham at the right year of his father. Josephus, then, displayed no great skill or ingenuity, if, having missed the true place of Abraham's birth (at the 130th year of his father), he corrupted the numbers in two periods in order to produce a term of 1002 years, which be could have no reason for preferring. The opinion of Jackson i.e., more probable, that in the first number there is an error in the text, (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) for (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).





most part followed the longer computation. {v} We must not, however, give to this argument an authority beyond its value. The testimony of the fathers in favor of the Septuagint is of




{v} These are a few examples, to which others might be added. Theaphilus A. D. 181, whose dates have been already quoted. Clemene Alexandrinus A. D. 194. He records p. 338. A. the date of Eupolemus: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Euseb, Prsep. IX. p. 418. C] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Jackson vol. I. p. 71 properly reads (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). The date he fixes at B.C. 296, the 5th year of Demetrius Pohorcetes and the 12th of Ptolemy Soter in Jackson's computation. But this may he doubted. Demetrius reigned in Asia two years with his father from B.C. 303- F. H. III. p. 309. This would place his 5th year at B. C. 29 9/8. Reckoned from the death of his father, his 5th year would be current from August B.C. 297 to August B.C. 296. But neither of these periods coincided with the 12th of Ptolemy, whose first year was reckoned either from Nov. B. C. 305 (F. H. III. p. 399), or from Midsummer B.C.306 (F. H. II. p. 174); in the one case his twelfth year was current from July B. C. 295 to July 294, in the other, from Nov. B. C. 294 to Nov. 293; in neither case corresponding with the 5th of Demetrius. Jackson proposes to write "the 10th of Ptolemy." But Eupolemus might refer to B. C. 235, which was in reality the 5th of Demetrius II. king of Macedon and the 12th of Ptolemy Euergetes. The 12th of Euergetes was current from Nov. B.C. 236 to Nov. B.C. 235: F. H. III. p. 399. The 5th of Detnetrtus II, was also current in B. C. 335, for he began to reign in 239 (F. H. II. p. 220). But 5149+235=B. C. 5384; and 1580+235 = 1815. As Clemens quotes the numbers of Eupolemus with apparent acquiescence, we may conclude that they agreed with his own views. Hippolytus, A. D. 200 apud Routh Rel. Patr. tom. H. p. 349. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) The date of Hippolytus may be also gathered from Photius cod. 202. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Africanus A. D. 220. His computations we have already considered. His whole period is stated by Syncellus p. 18. A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Lactantius A.D. 306 observes VII. 13. Sciant philosophi, qui ab exordio mundi seculorum milia enumerant, nondum sextum millesimum annum esse conclusm. Eusebius. A.D. 315. His periods are, to the flood 2242 y., to the birth of Abraham 942, to the birth of Christ 2015, making 5199 years = B.C. 5201. Epiphanius A.D. 368. See above p. 286. q. Augustine Civ. D. XVIII. 22 reckons 1000 years -- anni non multo amplius quam mille--from the flood to Ninus, whom he places with Eusebius at B.C. 2059. and XVI. 10. he reckons 1072 years from the flood to Abraham. Idem XVIII. 40. Quum a primo homine--nondum sex milia annorum compleantur. Augustine XVIII. 54. gives the date of that treatise: Missus est Spiritus Sanctus per Idus Maias. Numeratis proinde consulibus, 365 anni reperiuntur impleti per easdem Idus Maias. Numeratis proinde consulibus, 365 anni reperiuntur impleti per easdem Idus consulatu Honorri et Eutychiani [A.D. 398]. Porro sequenti anno consule Manlio Theodoro [A.D. 399: Chron. Pasch. P. 306 D.] -- Carthgine Africae Gaudentius et Jovius comites imperatoris Honorii XIV Kal. April. Falsorum deorum templaeverturunt. -- Ex quo usque ad hoc tempus per 30 ferme annos. &c. = A.D. cir. 428. He began the work soon after the sack of Rome by Alaric A.D. 409, and was aliquot annos me tenuit. Retractat. Lib. II. Chrysostom A.D. 398: tom. V. p. 377, 33. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Sulpicius Severus A.D. 400 follows the Septuagint before the birth of Abraham; reckoning I. 5, 2. to the flood 2242 years; to the birth of Abraham I. 7, 1. 1070 years (including the second Cainan); 505 years to the Exode: I. 21, 2. 3. 26, 4. 588 to the temple: I. 70, 3. the collected amount is 4405 years. The death of Samson he places I. 55, 3. at A.M. 4303. Sulpicius I. 72-93. computes 433 years from the building of the temple to the destruction, which he places at B.C. 629 (631): F.H. II. p.. 322 these collected numbers will give B.C. 5467 (5469) as his era for the Creation. Annianus A.D. 405 placed the Nativity at the close of A.M. 5500: Syncell. P. 35. A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) It is needless to enumerate the opinions of later writers, who took the Septuagint for their guide; as Syncellus p. 2. B. p. 315. C. who fixed the Nativity to Dec. 25 A.M. 5500, or the author of the Paschal Chronicle, who placed the Creation at B.C. 5507; since 4905 y. 6 m. are computed





the less weight because they very generally believed that translation to have been miraculously made. {w} Nor are their longer dates to be regarded as so many distinct authorities. The dates of the fathers are the dates of the Septuagint, and all resolve themselves into that one authority. The testimonies, then, to the longer computation in the antediluvian are less cogent than In the postdiluvian period. In the latter we have the additional evidence of the Samaritan dates. In the former the Samaritan rather agrees with the Hebrew. {x} Admitting Josephus, we have two witnesses before the flood, but after the flood we have three.


Jackson and Hales, who adopt the longer computations, argue in this manner: {l} They assert that the shorter generations are repugnant to the course of nature; that, if human life be divided into three periods, the generative powers continued in full vigor during the second period; hence that the age of puberty among the antediluvians began at 160 or 170 years of age; that Terah's eldest son Huron was born near the commencement of his second period, 70 years. {y} It is also argued that the average length of generations in the first ten patriarchs after the flood is shorter than in succeeding periods, when the duration of life was shortened. This last argument may be thus stated. Seven generations of the descendants of Shem {z} according to the short computation occupied 220 years, which give 31 1/3 years for each generation. But in the following period, from the birth of Terah to the birth of Judah, are 373 years, making for the four generations {a} 93 years to each. From the birth of Abraham, to the 40th year of Moses {b} are 465 years and seven generations; {c} giving an average of 66 1/2 years. It is not likely, then, that the proportion would be 3l 1/3 when the standard of life was from 400 to 200 years. {d} 2. They argue that according to the shorter scheme Shem survived




from the Creation to the captivity of Zedekiah: p. 129. C=p. 243. Scal. And this last event is placed at B. C. 602: F. H. II. p. 322.


{w} The tale of the miraculous version was believed by Justin Martyr Cohort, c. 13. Irenaus contra Heeres. III. 21. p. 215. Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. I. p. 341. Tertullian Apologet. c. 18. tom. V. p. 49. Epiphanius de Ponderibus c. 9. tom. II. p. 166. Augustine Civ. D. XVIII. 42. 43. The gradual progress of the tale, from the first narrative ascribed to Aristeas down to the account given by Epiphanius, is traced by Prideaux Connexion vol. III. p. 36-60. Augustine XVIII. 43. attests the authority of the Septuagint version: Hanc quae LXX est tanquam sola esset sic recepit Ecclesia, eaque utuntur Grisci popttli Ckristiani, quorum plerique utrum alia sit (interpretatio) aliqua utique ignorant. Ex hoc LXX interpretation etiam in Lattnam linguam interpretation est quod ecclesue Latintf tenent. Quamvif non ttefiterit temponbus nostris presbyter Hteronymus, homo dociitsimus et omnium trium linguarum periius, qui non ex Gnpco ted ex Hebrao in Latinum eloqutum eat-dem scripiurtu convcrierii. Serf ejut tarn literatim laborem quamvis Judat Jatcantttr este vera-cem, LXX vero Mterpretct in mttUit erratic con. ttmdant, tame eccbxi Christ tot kominut toritaii-nainem judicattt prerferfendum.


{x} It agrees with the Hebrew in seven cases out of ten.


{y} Hales vol. I. p. 85. 86. after Jackson vol. I, p. 50. 51.


{z} Arphaxad, Salak, Heber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor.


{a} Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.


{b} After which he married.


{c} Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses.


{d} Eusebius argues this point Chron. I. p. 66, of the Armenian version. The original is preserved by Syncellus p. 89. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)





all his eight descendants except Heber, and lived till the 148th year of Abraham and the 73rd year after the call. Noah himself survived his fifth descendant Peleg, his eighth descendant Nahor, and lived to the 158th year of Terah. Salah survives Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah. Heber survives Abraham himself. The first four patriarchs after the flood, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Heber, were all firing at the time of the call, which was addressed to the tenth descendant Shem. The remark of Scripture, {e} that Haran died before his father, would scarcely have been thought necessary if the same thing had happened to all the preceding patriarchs. 3. It is remarked by Jackson {f} that the country of Abraham was overspread with idolatry before the call. Terah was an idolater {g}. But the worship of celestial bodies and of deified dead men would scarcely have begun in Chaldea while Noah and Shem and Arphaxad and Salah and Heber were still living. 4. The shorter computation is inconsistent with profane accounts. Upon this subject Hales {h} quotes the observation of Raleigh, that "in Abraham's time all the then parts of the world were peopled, all nations and countries had their kings. Egypt had many magnificent cities, and so had Palestine and all the bordering countries, yea all that part of the world besides, as far as India, &c. which magnificence needed a parent of more antiquity than those other men supposed." And that "if we advisedly consider the state and countenance of the world, such as it was in Abraham's time, yea before his time, we shall find that it were very ill done by following opinion without the guide of reason to pare the times over deeply between the flood and Abraham."


These arguments relate to the postdiluvian period; and, if they were admitted, would make it probable that the interval from the flood to the birth of Abraham was 1002 years rather than 352. In the preceding period the arguments are not so cogent, and it might still happen that the Hebrew numbers might be the true amount before the flood and the Samaritan after it. This would give three variations; and the years to the birth of Abraham inclusive will be either 1656 + 352=2008 with the Hebrew, or 1656+ 1002=2658 with the Hebrew and Samaritan, or 2256+ 1002=3158 with Josephus and the corrected Septuagint. We must here remark, however, that those who, with Clavier, imagine themselves at liberty to enlarge the time to an indefinite amount mistake the nature of the question {i}. The uncertainty here is not an uncertainty arising from want of testimony, like that which occurs in the early chronology




{e} Gen. XI. 28.


{f} Vol. I. p. 90.


{g} Joshua XXIV. 2. Conf. Joseph. Ant. I. 7,1.


{h} Hales vol. I. p. 15. quoting Raleigh p. 228. 277.


{i} Clavier Hist, des Prem. Temps vol. I. p. 6. remarking that Plato asserts Egypt to hare existed in his time 10,000 years, observes, Cette haute antiquite ne s'accorde gueres avec ce qui nous lisons dans la Bible. Mais les theologiens les plus savant conviennent que si nous devons croire sans examen tout ce qu'elle nous easeigne sur le dogme et sur la morale, il n'en est pas tout a fait de meme de ce qui est puremeni historique, surtout lorsqu'il s'agit de nambret qui peuveat avoir ete alteres, et qui l'ont ete effectivement, puisque des chronologistes tres ortkodoxes ont varie de pres de deux mille ans sur l'epoque de la creation du monde; le P. Petau ne la portant qu'a l'an 3983 avant noire ere, et D. Pezron, savant Benedictin, la reculant juscqu'a l'an 5868, sans qu'on traits d'herotique. On pent done bien la reculer encore davantage sans offenser en rien la religion. Petavius founded his dates upon the Hebrew, Pezron upon the Septuagint. But there is no ulterior point to which the epoch can be carried.





of Greece and of many other countries, where the times are uncertain because no evidence was preserved; and an approximation to the truth is to be made by a comparison of different particulars. The uncertainty here is of a peculiar character belonging to this particular case. The evidence exists, but in a double form; and we have to decide which is the authentic and genuine copy. But if the one is rejected, the other is established. Either the space before the flood was 1656 years, or it was 2256; either the period after the flood was 1002 years, or it was 352. These periods could not be greater than the highest of these numbers; they could not be less than the lowest.


That whole argument founded on the length of generations is of very little force. The hypothesis, that the age of puberty did not commence till a third part of life had been passed, is assumed without proof, and founded on no facts. The proposition is not true even in the present condition of human life; and we may collect the contrary from Scripture accounts themselves. In the period from Jacob to Moses the average length of life was from 150 to 120 years; and yet we know from undoubted facts that within this period the age of puberty was the same as at present. Judah could not be more than 48 years of age at the descent into Egypt, as will be shewn below; and yet he had four successions in his line before that epoch. His son Pharez was born after the marriage and death of the eldest son; and yet Pharez had children before the descent into Egypt. {k} The years, then, of these generations could not have been more than these: Judah 15+Er 15 + 2 (the widowhood of Tamar) + Pharez 16=48. Benjamin was under 30 at the going into Egypt; and yet Benjamin had ten sons {l}. Again, there were eight generations between Ephrdim and Joshua {m}; Joshua was born at least 40 years before the exode, Ephraim about 5 years before the coming into Egypt: an interval of 180 years from the birth of Ephraim to the birth of Joshua his tenth descendant. These will give for the nine generations 20 years to each. From the birth of Manasseh to the death of Joseph were about 75 years, as will be shewn below; and yet the grandchildren of Manasseh were born before the death of Joseph {n}, perhaps 30 years to a generation. But in another line, from the birth of Levi to the birth of Moses, are 184 years, and yet in the female line only two generations. The daughter of Levi, then, must have been born after the 120th year of his life. From the birth of Kohath to the birth of Moses are 136 years, giving for the two generations of Kohath and Amram 66 years to each.


From these facts it may be inferred that in the patriarchal times the age of puberty was the same as at present, although the duration of life was longer. If this be so, it is not difficult to trace the increase of population in the first generations after the flood. In the present state of mankind it is calculated that the numbers of a people under favorable circumstances may be doubled in ten years. It has been proved by other calculators that the numbers have actually doubled in periods of I2f years for short periods. It is acknowledged that in parts of North America the people have doubled their numbers in 15 years0. The Israelites in Egypt doubled their numbers in periods of something less than 15 years. {p} Now the first




{k} Gen XLVI:12

{l} Gen. XLVI:21.

{m} Cbron. VII:23-27

{n} Gen. L:23.

{o} Malthus Essay vol. I. p. 8. "According to a table of Euler--the period of doubling will be only 12 years and 4/5. And this proportion is not only a possible supposition, but has actually occurred for short periods. -- Sir W. Petty supposes a doubting possible in so short a time as ten years." On the period of 15 years in some states of North America, see Malthus vol. I. p. 7. vol. II. p. 194.195.

{p} Malthus vol. II. p. 190. quoting Short's Observations on Bills of Mortality p. 259, "It calculated that the Israelites in Egypt doubled their numbers every fifteen years during the





families after the flood were placed in circumstances more favorable to rapid increase than in any other period of mankind. They were not gradually emerging from barbarism, but possessed all the arts and civilization of the antediluvian world. They had unoccupied land before them, and their lives were extended to 500, 400, and 200 years. If we assume, then, that the population doubled itself in periods of twelve years, the population of the earth, beginning from six parents, would in 276 years arrive at more than fifty millions of persons, and in 300 years would amount to two hundred millions. {q} If we take only the actual rate of increase which we know to have occurred in Egypt and suppose 15 years to be the period of doubling, still the numbers of mankind would attain fifty millions m 345 years, and would reach two hundred millions in 375 years from the flood. I think the former calculation the most probable; but even in the latter case the numbers of mankind would have reached two hundred millions in the 24th year of the life of Abraham.


The circumstances of the dispersion of mankind are in favor of the shorter computation of the Hebrew copy. That dispersion was effected by the immediate interposition of Providence in opposition to the inclinations of mankind, who desired to dwell together, and were averse to the dispersion. Their object was to remain collected in one city. They built the tower, lest they should be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.. It is manifest, then, that the dispersion was commanded while they were yet few in number. It was directed prospectively with a view to prevent the evils that would arise from crowded numbers in a limited space. But at the time assigned to this event by the longer dates, more than 500




"period of their stay." The periods, however, of doubling were less than 15 years; for the Israelites in Egypt would have reached 2,293,000 persons in 15 periods of doubling; which, at 15 years to each period, would give 225 years. But they really attained 2,500,000 in 215 years; a larger number in a shorter term.


{q} Six persons were the parents of mankind; for the age of Noah and the silence of the sacred historian make it probable that Noah had no children after the flood. But taking 6 as the element of our calculation, we arrive by an arithmetical progression in 18 periods at 1,572,864; in 20 periods at 6,291,456; in 23 periods at 50,331,648; in 25, at 201,326,692. But, the period of doubling being computed at twelve years, 18 periods would make 216 years, 20 would amount to 240 years, 23 to 276, and 25 would be completed in 300 years. It is plain, then, that the population of the earth might have been 200,000,000 fifty years before the birth of Abraham by the shorter computation. It may perhaps be said that the periods of doubling might proceed at the rate of twelve years to a certain point, perhaps to 23 periods; but that then the progress would be checked, and the numbers remain nearly stationary or slowly advancing; as the Israelites in 215 years multiplied to 2,500,000 persons, but during the 40 years in the wilderness their numbers remained stationary at that point. This check, however, upon the impulse of population was provided against by the dispersion of mankind. After that dispersion, the periods of increase would proceed at the same rate as before among the families of mankind who occupied new countries.


{r} Gen. XI:4. In the Greek version, however (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) But Jackson himself, who adopts the longer genealogies, asserts the true sense vol. I. p. 224. 225. "The Latin Vulgate and Jerome agree with the Greek, that the Arabic translation, taken from the Greek, has it lest we be scattered, in agreement with the Hebrew and Samaritan and with the Chaldee paraphrase and the Syriac version. And this is undoubtedly the true sense of the words. There is no reason to think that these first inhabitants of the new world would spend several years in building a city and a tower which they expected soon to leave. Their design therefore in building the city was undoubtedly that they might live together in it, not intending to separate from one another; they built it for an habitation for themselves and their families." Josephus Ant. I 4,1-3. understands the passage in its right sense" (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)





years after the flood {s}, it is evident that this was do longer the condition of mankind; since (as we have shewn) their numbers would increase in the common progress of things to many millions, their dispersion would then have been no longer a matter of choice, but of necessity. It could not have proceeded from a divine command providing against a future evil, but would have been forced upon them by the actual presence of that evil. The dispersion, then, in the days of Peleg took effect at an earlier period, while the numbers of mankind were yet a few thousands; and Peleg was born where the Hebrew text places him, 101 years after the flood. It is not likely that the numbers of mankind, when they received the command to separate, and prepared to inhabit one city, would exceed 50,000 persons; and this number they would certainly have reached within 160 years of the flood.


The other objections of Hales and Jackson are of no great force. The first patriarchs survived their descendants because the term of human life was suddenly shortened by the immediate will of Providence. The fact that Haran died before his father is not mentioned by the historian as a remarkable occurrence, but merely related as a fact in the narrative necessary to be known in order to explain the following history. That idolatry should have sprung up during the lives of Noah and Shem is nothing wonderful, when we consider the multitudes of mankind, and that after the dispersion they were widely scattered over the face of the earth. We know that Jacob had but little authority in restraining the violence of his sons; and that the Israelites, even in the presence of the holy mountain and during the lifetime of Moses, fell into idolatry, and in the midst of the warnings of their prophets. The influence of Arphaxad and Salah and Heber in Chaldea would not be greater than that of Moses or Elijah over the children of Israel. Besides it is not affirmed in Scripture that all the patriarchs between Arphaxad and Terah were holy men and never deviated into idolatry. That the call should be addressed to Abraham during the lives of Shem and Arphaxad and Salah and Heber is not incredible. It was the design of Providence that the promise should be limited to Abraham and his posterity. But if the call had been addressed to those patriarchs in the 427th year from the flood, this design would not have been so readily fulfilled. In some other branches their immediate descendants might still be living; but in the line of Abraham the descent was interrupted by the deaths of Peleg, Nahor, Reu, Serug, and Terah,


The objection to the shorter computation founded upon profane history, being in reality founded upon the supposed deficient numbers of mankind, vanishes when that subject is better understood. We have seen upon authorities which there is no reason to call in question that an army of Medes occupied Babylon about B.C. 2233; and this is the highest point to which any authentic profane accounts will carry us. But this, as will be shewn, was about 100 years before the birth of Abraham, and consequently 250 years after the flood by the shorter numbers. At this period it has been shewn that the population of the earth would amount to many millions. There is nothing, then, incredible in the account that wars should have occurred.




{s} The Paschal Chronicle p. 25. A. places the dispersion 659 years after the flood, at the 130th Tear of Peleg: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Syncelhis p. 42. B. in the 534th year after the flood. Hales vol. II. p. 47. in the 140th year of Pkaleg, 541 years after the flood. Syncellus p. 42. B. is inconsistent with his own dates; placing the 4th year of Phaleg and the building of the tower in the 494th year, and the dispersion in the 534th year from the flood. But according to the chronology of Syncellus, who includes the second Cainan, Phalug was born in the 531st year; according to those who exclude Cainan, in the 401st year.





Jackson {t} and Hales {v}impute great alterations in the Hebrew copies to the Jews of the second century. That the Jews might endeavor to alter many passages which the Christians applied to Christ is very probable. But it is difficult to imagine what adequate motive they could have for shortening the genealogies. Jackson {w} admits this, observing, "The reasons which induced the Jews to corrupt the prophecies relating to Christ are plain. But the reason for their making so great alterations in the Scripture chronology is not so plain." The first translators, however, of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek had a very obvious motive for enlarging the chronology. The Chaldaeans and Egyptians (whose histories were about that time published by Berosus and Manetho) laid claim to a remote antiquity. Hence the translators of the Pentateuch into Greek might be led to augment the amount of the generations by the centenary additions and by the interpolation of the second Cainan in order to carry back the epochs of the creation and of the flood to a period more conformable with the high pretensions of the Egyptians and Chaldeans.


The space of 545 years from the birth of Abraham to the death of Moses is clearly marked in Scripture. The interval from the call to the exode is declared to be 430 years {x}: Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years. And if came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the self same day it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land of Egypt. That these 430 years are to be computed from the call of Abraham, and not from the going down of Israel into Egypt, is explained by St. Paul himself  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here as in Clinton's original book, but the Scripture he quotes from the New Testament is copied here.) "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." (Galatians 3:17) And the interpretation of Josephus in one place agrees with the explanation of St. Paul: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Demetrius already quoted a agrees in the same interpretation; for he reckons 215 years from the call to the going down into Egypt, and 135 years from this last epoch to the birth of Moses. {b} Eusebius {c} also rightly collects




{t} Vol. I. P. 79.

{v} Vol. I. P74-78

{w} Vol. I. P. 96

{x} Exod. XII:40-41


{a} See p. 288

{b} Demetrius apud Euseb. Praep. IX. 21. p. 425. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Exod. VI:16] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Exod. VI:18] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [137 Exod VI:20]. He computes



To the birth of Kohath . . . . . . . 17

             of Amram  . . . . . . . 40

             of Moses  . . . . . . . 78


             Moses     . . . . . . .  80





Although Demetrius errs in the distribution of the period, yet the total amount is right.


{c} Euseb. Chron. I. p. 68. Jam a primo anno Abrahami ad Moseai egressumtjue Judxorum ab AEgypto, consensu omninm interpretujn, annijiunt 505, quorum est hvjusmodi supputatio; Abra-hama vita; annum 75um agenti Deus conypiciendum se prcebuit recepitijue se proli ejus 'data-rum terrain repromissionts. Sane monumentis litera-rum consignafum est annos 75 natum exivtse Abrahamum e Charanliaque a primortlio stalls Abrahami conjlcmntur anni 75. Deinde a 75° anno Abrahami usque ad exitutn Judaornm ab AEgypto atiiti sut 430. Prufecta ei rei Paulus quoyae apo.ttolus testis accedit.-Nascitur Abrahamo filius Isaacus in ejus 100° anno reprvtnis-sion'ui autem divinae 25°. Decideranlur ad exitum ab AEgypto prerterea anni 405 ut a repromissione ad id tempus conjlentur anni 430. Jam qtti se Abrahamo revelaverat Deus ntrsus eidem appa-rens ait, &c [Gen. XV:13-14]. Nimis diuturnam dicit prolem ut ne de Isaaci cogiiemus tem-poribus. Porro sub exitu fiorum Israelis ab AEggpto commemoraiur spatium annorum 430. Ait enim Scriptura &c [Exod. XII:40-41].





505 years from the birth of Abraham to the exode. That this interpretation of the 430 years is accurate is demonstrated by the circumstances. For if the space from the descent into Egypt to the 80th year of Motes had been 430 years, there would have been 350 years from the going into Egypt to his birth. But the mother of Moses was the daughter of Levi {d} who lived in Egypt 88 years {e}; and if 850 years had intervened between the descent into Egypt and the birth of Moses, his mother would have borne him 262 years after her father's death. Again, as Kohath was born before the descent into Egypt {f}, these 350 years would have been occupied by two generations, Koliath and Amram. But this was not possible, because Kohath lived only 133 years and Amram 137· The other text of Genesis {g}, repeated in the Acts {h}, which limits their stay in Egypt to the fourth generation, confirms the preceding account; And he said to 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 item 400 years;--but in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. In the Acts this passage is quoted. But St. Stephen does not affirm that the Israelites were 400 years in Egypt any farther than this text affirms it. And this text does not affirm it, because it limits their stay to the fourth generation, and the ages of these four generations are delivered by Moses himself, the last of the four. It is plain, then, that the 400 years in round numbers include the stay in Canaan. Theophilus, then, and all those who ascribe the 430 years to the sojourning in Egypt, and who compute 760 years from the birth of Abraham to the death of Moses, are refuted by these facts. {i} And these facts shew that some modern




Age vero, quum anni cumulentur 430 post Dei repromissionem qucE anno Abrahama 75 facta est, prorsus sequitur ut a primo Abrahami anno ad Mosem exitumque ab AEgyplo numerentur anni 505. Quos quidem nonnulli hoc etietm pacto percensent. Scilicet Abrahamus (aiunt) annos natus 100 genuit Isaacum; Isaacus annos natus 60 genuit Jacobum ; Jacobus annos natus 86 genuit Levinum; Levinus annos natus 46 genuit Cahathum; Cakathus annos natus 63 genuit Amramum; Amramus annos natus 70 genuit Mosem. Moses annos natus 80 poputum eduxit ex AEgypio. Con-faiuntur anni 505. This distribution of the last 215 years is more correct than in the account of Demetrius, but still erroneous.


{d} Exod. II:1. And there went a man of the house of Levi and took to wife a daughter of Levi. VI. 20. Amram took Jochebed his father's sister to wife. Numbers XXVI, 59. The name of Amram's wife teas Jochebed the daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare unto Levi in Egypt; and she bare unto Amram Aaron and Moses, and Miriam their sister. Abraham had made a similar alliance. Such alliances were not unlawful until they were forbidden.

{e} See below.

{f} Gen. XLVI:11. Hence we may correct Eusebius, who places bis birth three years after the descent, and Demetrius, who places it 17 years after.

{g} Gen. XV:13, 16.

{h} Acts VII:6.

{I} Theopb. ad Autolyc. III. 34. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) He reckoned 1036 years from the flood to the 100th year of Abraham (see above p. 286. 1), which he accordingly places at A, M. 3278; and 660 years from the 100th year of Abraham to the death of Moses, which he places at A.M. 3938. The numbers in detail correspond with the whole amount.



Isaac .....................  60

Jacob ..................... 130

In Egypt .................. 430

In the Wilderness .........  40





And 3278+660=3938. He had already reckoned 430 years for the stay in Egypt III. 10. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) And he repeats the amount of the periods III. 28. where he again reckons (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Theophilus was misled by a too literal interpretation of Exod. XII:40-41. But the other passages guide us to the meaning of that text. Sulpicius Severus I. 21, 3. rightly collects the period: Ab to tempore quo Abraham





writers have very unreasonably doubted this portion of the Hebrew chronology, as if it were uncertain how this period of 430 years was to be understood. Those who cast a doubt upon this point refuse to Moses an inspired writer (in the account of his mother and father and grandfather) that authority, which would be given to the testimony of a profane author as the same occasion. {k}


The dates in this period ascertained in Scripture are the following, reckoned from the birth of Abraham:



      Birth of Abraham in the 130th year of Terah.


 10   Birth of Sarah: conf. Gen. XVII:17 ten years younger than Abraham.


 75   The call: Gen. XII. 1 -- 4. Joseph. Ant. I. J, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


 86   Birth of Ishmael: Gen. XVI:16. Joseph. Ant. 1.10, 5. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


 99   The promise renewed: Gen. XVII:1. Joseph. I. 10, 5, (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


100   Birth of Isaac: Gen. XVII:17


137   Death of Sarah at. 127: Gen. XXIII:1-2. Joseph. Ant. I. 14. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


140   Marriage of Isaac set. 40: Gen. XXV:20. Joseph. I, 16, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


160   Birth of 2?iiia and Jacob, Isaac being 60 years of age : Gen. XXV:26.


175   Death of Abraham set. 175: Gen. XXV:7-8: Joseph. I. 17 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)





in terra Chanaiusorum consedit in id quot Jacob AEgyptian ingressus eat referuntur anni 215. I. 26, 4. Populus egressus--ab eo quo primum Abraham terrain Chananeeorum accesseral anno 430.


{k} An objection ass been urged, in "the prodigious increase in one family during one generation. In the desert the males of the descendants of Kokath are reckoned at 8600. Kohath had four sons; from each son, then, in one generation must have sprung, on the average, 2150 males." The chief force of this objection lies in the terms in which it is expressed. If we examine the facts, we shall find that the rate of increase in this particular family was not greater than the average rate of increase in the whole nation. From the birth of Kohath to the 80th year of Moses were three generations in the line of Moses and ten generations in the line of Joshua; see above p. 294. Kahath died at least 83 years before the exode, and might have had sons when he was 30 years of age; sons, therefore, at the least 186 years before the exode. From his four sons would proceed in eleven periods of doubling 16,384 persons. These eleven periods, at 15 years to each, would be accomplished in 165 years. But these 165 years would take their beginning from the 51st year of Kohath by the lowest calculation of his age. So that, if he had no other children than these four sons (which is not proved), and if he had no grandchildren born till his 51st year, still his descendants would have reached 16,384 persons at the exode, proceeding only at the same rate of increase as the rest of the Hebrew people. In this calculation it is assumed that Kohath was born only one year before the entrance into Egypt- But the objection founded on the number of his descendants will have still less force, if Kohath should happen to have been born a few years earlier; which there is nothing in Scripture to contradict.






200   First marriages of Esau at. 40: Gen. XXVI:34. Joseph. 1. 18, 4.


223   Death of Ishael, aet. 137: Gen. XXV:17


237   Jacob Kt. 77 goes to Charran: conf. a. 251. Rightly placed at the year 237 by Euse-bius Chron. II. p. 273. Syncell, p. 105. C. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


241   Birth of Levi: Gen. XXIX:34. about four years after Jacob went to Charran. That Levi could not be younger appears from the age of Judah, who had four successions in his line before the descent into Egypt: see above p. 294.


251   Birth of Joseph: Usher Annals p. 9. " Rachel bare Joseph unto Jacob at the end of his 14 years' service ; and then asking leave of Laban to return into his own country, he was held there six years more upon another bargain: Gen. XXX:22, 25, 31; XXXI:41. Now that Jacob was 91 years old when Joseph was born, and consequently 77 when he first began to serve Laban, appears by this; that Jacob being 130 years of age when he first stood before Pharaoh, which was when the 7 years of plenty were passed and two of the famine spent: Gen. XLV:6; XLVII:9. Joseph was then 39 years old, as being 30 what time he first came into Pharaoh's presence immediately before the 7 years of plenty began: Gen. XLI:32, 46. Placed at the year 252 by Eusebius Chron. II. p. 273. Syncellus p. 106. A. rightly collects the time: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


257   Jacob aet. 97 returns to Canaan after twenty years' service: Gen, XXXI:41.


268   Joseph aet 17 sold into Egypt: Gen. XXXVII:2.


280   Death of Isaac aet. 180: Gen. XXXV:28. But Josephus Ant. I. 22. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Eusebius Chron. II. p. 2t4. 180 annorum Isaac moritur relinquens filium Jacob annorum 120. at the year 281.


281   Joseph aet. 30 governor of Egypt: Gen. XLI:46. Joseph. II. 6, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Placed by Eusebius p. 274. at the year 282.


289   Birth of Kokalh, at least before the descent into Egypt: Gen. XLVI:11. Joseph. Ant. II. 7, 4.


290   Jacob aet. 130 goes into Egypt: Gen. XLVII:9.


307   Death of Jacob aet. 147 - Gen. XLVII:28. Joseph. II. 8, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


360   Death of Joseph aet. 110 : Gen, L:26. Joseph. II. 8, 2. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Africanus apud Syncell. p. 106. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Ibid. p. 110. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


378   Death of Levi set. 137: Exod. VI. 16. If he was horn in the 81st year of Jacob (conf.

a. 241), he would be 49 at the descent into Egypt, and would survive that event 88 years. i Africanus places his birth in the 8?th year of Jacob : Syncell. p. 106. A. Eusebiue in the

86th year; Chron. p. 69. who are refuted by the age of Judah. Syncellus p. 106. places | the birth of Levi in the 82nd year. The Paschal Chronicle p. 59- A, in the 83rd year, and

reckons him 47 at the descent into Egypt p. 61. C. Demetrius apnd Euseb. Pr"p. p. 425.

reckons Levi 43 at the descent into Egypt; which agrees with Africanus. Levi then passed at least 88 years in Egypt, and is the first of the four generations who lived there: Gen. XV:16. In the fourth generation they shall come hither (to Canaan) again. The four generations were Levi, Kohatk, Amram, Moses.






422   Death of Kohath aet. 133: Exod. VI:18. Birth of Aaron 83 years before the exode: Exod. VII:7. Jochebed is the mother of Aaron 44 years after the death of her father Levi: see above p. 296.


425   Birth of Moses 80 years before the exode: Exod. VII:7


465   Moses aet. 40 fled to Midian. Acts VII:23. Exod. II:15-22.


505   The Exodus, 430 years after the call, Moses being 80, Aaron 83: Exod. XII:40-41 Joseph. Ant. II. 15, 2. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


545   Death of Miriam in the first month of the 40th year: Numb. XX:1. conf Joseph. IV. 4, 6. -- of Aaron aet. 123 : Numb. XX:28-29.--of Moses aet. 120: Deut. XXXIV:7 In the eleventh month of the 40th year: Deut. 1:3. Joseph Ant. IV. 4, 7. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) 48. 49. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Miriam was at least ten years older than Moses: conf. Exod II:4-8, which would place her birth about the year (of Abraham) 415, when 37 years had passed from the death of Levi: conf. a. 422.



The two generations between Levi and Moses are variously divided by chronologers, but as the sacred historian, the sole authority, is silent, the precise years of the birth and death of Amram cannot be known. {l}


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, Josephus {m} makes this period 43 years; computing


to the division of the lands ...............  5

to the death of Joshua ..................... 20

interregnum or anarchy...................... 18



Theophilus, Clemens} and the Paschal Chronicle11, allow only 27 years for the whole




{l} According to Demetrius apud Euseb. Prsep. IX. p. 426. A. Amram was 78 at the birth of Moses; according to Eusebius Chron. I. p. 69. Amram was born in the 63rd year of Kohath, and Moses in the 70th year of Amram. In Chron. Pasch. p. 61, D. 62 C. 63. B. and in Abulpharagius p. 17, the generations are, Kohath 60, Amram 75; which Hales adopts vol. II. p. 121. But these numbers are merely conjectures.


{m} Joseph· Ant. V. 1, 29. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) V. 1. 19. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) V. 1, 28. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) VI. 5, 4. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


{n} Theoph. ad Autolyc. III. 24. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Strom. I. p. 323. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)





interval from the death of Moses to the first servitude, omitting the years of the anarchy and ascribing these 27 years to Joshua, Eusebius {o} agrees in omitting the years of the anarchy, and reckons to Joshua 30 years in one place and 27 in another. Sulpicius Severus {p} gives 27 years to Joshua, but names no time for the anarchy. Africanus {q} states the period at 25+30 or 55 years; Syncellus {r} at 27+ 18 or 45. Among modern chronologers, Usher {s} makes this interval 38 years, assigning eight to the government of Joshua and 30 to the elders, followed by the Mesopotamian servitude. Blair reckons for Joshua 25 years, for the anarchy 13; agreeing in the whole amount, 38 years, with Usher. Hales allows for Joshua 26 years, for the anarchy 10; or 36 for the whole interval. Lenglet du Fresnoy {t} makes the space 14+12=26 years.


The notices in Scripture show that this period was not very long. The division was 45 years after the second year from the exode. {v} When Caleb was 85 years old. {w} The time of the anarchy included all the days of the elders who overlived Joshua, {x} and lasted till all that generation were gathered to their fathers, and there arose another generation which knew not the Lord. {y} Caleb and Joshua might be both about the same age, about 40 at the exode; {z} 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. {a} Although the anarchy lasted till the elders who overlived Joshua were dead, yet Othntel, who was a military leader in the sixth year after the death of Moses, {b} survived the anarchy 48 years. {c} And Phineas was priest during the anarchy, {d} who was at least twenty 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. {e} The interval, then, between the death of Moses and the first




(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) For (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) we must read (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) expressing the five years of war till the division expressing the five years of war till the division of the lands. Chron. Pasch. P. 77. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) It is computed that Joshua succeeded Moses A.M. 3878, and that the first servitude began A.M. 3905.


{o} Euseb. Praep. X. 14. p. 502. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) But in Chron. II. p. 285 he gives Joshua 27 years; annis 546-572.


{p} Hist. Sacr. I. 44, 3. Jesus mortuus est anno aetatis 110. De imperii ejus tempore parum definio. Frequens tamen opinio est 27 annis eum Hebaeis praefuisse.


{q} Africanus apud Euseb. Praep. X. 10. p. 489. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Euseb. Chron. I. P. 70. Africannus adjungit annos seniorum qui post Josuam fuerunt, quos annos scribit 30.


{r} Syncell. P. 174. C. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) In asserting that Eusebius alone omitted the years of the elders, Syncellus is mistaken; for we have seen four other computations in which they were omitted.


{s} Annals p. 26-28. He places the death of Moses in A. M. 2553, the final division of the lands in 2561, and the first servitude in 2591. The time of the death of Joshua is not assigned. He "dwelt many years after that God had given rest to Israel."


{t} Tablettes Chron. tom. I. p. 284. Josue meurt age de 110 ans, et 14 apres qu'il eut commence a gouverner les Israelite. -- Josephe lui donne 25 ans de gouvernement. Caleb et les ancienx gouvernent pendant 12 ans.


{v} In Numb. X:11, is mentioned the 20th day of the second month, in the second year; and XIII:6. Caleb son of Jephunneh. And in Joshua XIV:7-10. Caleb affirms that he was 40 years old in that second month of the second year, and that 45 years had elapsed since that period.


{w} Joshua XIV:10.

{x} Joshua XXIV:31.

{y} Judges II:10.

{z} Numb, XXVI:65.


{a} Josfaua XIII:1.

{b} He married the daughter of his uncle Caleb at the time of the division of lands: Joshua XV:16.17. Judges 1:12. 13.

{c} Judgee III:8-11.

{d} Judges XX:28.

{e} Joshua XXIV:33.





servitude may be pretty accurately filled, although the years will be assigned upon conjecture and not upon testimony.

From the first servitude to the death of Samson the years are clearly expressed in Scripture.



                                       y                                               EUSEB. CHRON.

1   Servit. Mesopot.  . . . . . . . .  8      7 Sulpic.   8 Chron. Pasch.                      {   8

Othniel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40     50 Clem. Euseb. Praep. Sulp.  32 Chron. Pasch.    {  32


2 Servit. Moab  . . . . . . . . . . . 18                                                        { 18

Ehud  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80     Theoph.              {    56        }              { 62

                                                                  { Chron. Pasch.}

Shamgar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        1 Joseph. African.   {    24        }


3. Servit. Canaan . . . . . . . . . . 20                                                        { 20

Deborah and Barak . . . . . . . . . . 40                                                        { 20


4. Servit. Midian . . . . . . . . . .  7                                                        {  7

Gideon  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40                                                        { 33

Abimelech . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3

Tola  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23     om. Joseph. 22 Sulp. Theoph.                         22

Jair  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22     om. Clem. Al. 20 Syncell.


5. Servit. Ammon  . . . . . . . . . . 18                                                        {  3

Jephthah  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6                                                        {  3

Ibzan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

Elon  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10     8 Clem. Al.                                         om.

Abdon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8     om. Joseph.


6. Servit. Philist. . . . . . . . . . 40                                                         om.

Samson  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  {20   40} Theoph. Clem. Euseb. Praep.

                                     {20   20} Sulpic. Syncell. Chron. Pasch.




The years of Samson are expressly included in the last servitude: He Judged Israel in the days of the Philistines 20 years {f}. Those who reckon the years of Samson exclusive of the 40 enlarge the period to 410 years contrary to the authority of Scripture {g}.




{f} Judges XV:20. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) in the Septuagint.


{g} Clemens Strom. I. p. 324. gives the period of the Judges. Jair is omitted. After Jephthah he has (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Potter remarks, (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) hujus sacrae literae non meminerunt, sed proxime post Ebzan meminerunt Elon Zabulonitam, qui 10, dein Abdon Pirathonitam qui octo. But Ebron the Zabulonite is no other than Elon the Zabulonite, and Eglon the Ephraimite is Abdon the Ephraimite (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Joseph. Ant. V. 7], only Clemens ascribes to each 8 years, instead of 10 to the first and 8 to the second. Hales vol. I. p. 102. observes, "To Abdon no years are assigned by Josephus V. 7, 15. perhaps designedly: for Clemens Alex. Relates that some chronologers connected together the years of Abdon and Elon, or made them contemporary." In this solution there are two mistakes: 1. the years of Elon are omitted in the account of Clemens, and not the years of Abdon, 2. Josephus distinctly makes Abdon (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here), and not contemporary with him. The total amount of this period in the detail of Clemens is 396 years. The Paschal Chronicle p. 78. B. 82 B. gives 402 years. Syncellus p. 154. A. 159. A. 164. 173. B. 408 years. Josephus Ant. V. 3, 2-8,1 (if we insert the years of Tola and Abdon), has 391 years. His present text gives 360. The collected years in Sulpicius 1.45-52. amount to 419 years; whence in I. 55, 3. the numbers may be corrected: A die mortis Jesu usque in id tempus quo Samson definctus est numerantur anni CCCC et IX. Legendum CCCCXIX. which seems to be the reading of some copies. Africanus, as will appear below, had enlarged this period to 490 years. The numbers of Theophilus ad Autolyc. III. 24. seem corrupted. If we restore to Ehud 80 years, "(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)", his amount will give 409 years. Eusebius has three accounts. In Praep.





We then arrive at a second chasm between the death of Samson and the election of Saul. In this interval occurred the government of Eli, the abode of the ark at Kirjath-jearim, and the government of Samuel. Scripture supplies 20y, 7m for the absence of the ark after the death of Eli {h}, and assigns some years to the government of Samuel between the death of Eli and the election of Saul. The child Samuel grew before the Lord--when Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel. {i} He began therefore to prophesy towards the end of the life of Eli. But he was old before the election of Saul. {k} The twenty years of the ark at Kirjath-jearim were not the whole period of its abode there. It remained till the reign of David, who removed it {l}. The twenty years, then, denote the time which preceded the government of Samuel. After these twenty years, he gathered Israel to Mizpeh and judged them in Mizpeh. {m} Thirty-two years, therefore, are not too much to assume between the death of Eli and the election of Saul; a space within which Samuel, who was young at the death of Eli, became old, and had sons grown up and exercising the government {n}. The authority, however, of Scripture is not positive for the insertion of the 40 years of Eli {o}.




X. 14. he makes this period 420 years. In Chron. I. p. 73. 412 years. But in Chron. I. p. 77. and in his Tables p. 286-299. he adopts the Hebrew method of arrangement, including the servitudes within the years of the following Judges: \Post Jesu obitwm dominantur alietttgentE annis VIII, qui cum Gadonielis annis permisceri solent ex Juderorum traditions. Post Godonielem Hebr&i in potestate alienfgenarum fuerunt annis X.yill, qui una. cum Ahodi annis compidanlur ex Judorum traditione. And so of the following servitudes. The 5th is reduced from eighteen years to three, in order to be included in the years of Jephthah: p. 296. Post Jairum Hebrai in Amntanitarum potestate fuerunt annis III, gut cum Jttdictim posteriorum temporibus computan. tur, ui HebreEi dvcent. By this distribution and by the omission of Elon the years of this period are reduced to 288: Annis 573-860.


{h} 1 Sam. VI:1; VII:2.

{I} 1 Sam. II:21-22.

{j} 1 Sam VII:15-VIII:5. Samuel went from year to year in circuit-and judged Israel; -and his return was to Ramah. And it came to pass when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over Israel.-- Then all the elders of Israel came to Samuel--and said, Thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us.

{l} 2 Sam. VI. 3.

{m} 1 Sam. VII. 5. 6.

{n} That the interval was considerable may be inferred from this circumstance. Ahiah was the Lord's priest in Shiloh in the second year of Saul: 1 Sam. XIV:3. conf. XIII:1. and was afterwards put to death by Saul towards the end of his reign, after the marriage of David and Michal: 1 Sam. XXII. with oil the priests that were at Nob. Abiathar son of Ahiah escaped, who ehared the fortunes of David; 1 Sam. XXII:20-23, and succeeded his father in the priesthood: 1 Sam. XXX:7- He continued in the office during David's reign: 2 Sam. XV:24-29. and was deprived of the priesthood in the first year of Solomon ; 1 Kings II:24-27. Abiaihar then was priest more than 40 years, and Ahiah or Ahimelech more than 30, from the 2nd of Saul. But Ahiah the priest in the second year of Saul was the grandson of Phmehas, who died in the last vear of Eh; and his uncle Ichabod was born at the death of Eli: 1 Sam. IV:21. The descent is thus given in 1 Sam. XIV:3 :








   |             |

 Ahitub       Ichabod






Now Phinelias was slain in the flower of his age: 1 Sam. II:33. Between, then, the death of Phinehas and the priesthood of his grandson a considerable space of time intervened Ahitub son of Phinehas was priest between the death of his father and the reign of Saul. Josephus Ant. VI. 6, 2. in the parallel history to 1 Sam. XIV. calls Ahiah (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Afterwards however, VI. 6, 5. he names him Ahitub; (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) - by mistake.


{o} 1 Sam. IV:18. Kusebius remarks Chron. II. p. 300. Hebraicum exemplar habet XL, septuaginta autem dicunt XX. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) in some copies of the Septuagint now extant, Eli has 20 years in Theophilus and Sulpicius, but 40 in Clemens, Africanus, Chron. Pasch. Syincellus p. 176. C. marks the variety: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).





Some, modern chronologers, who contract these times within the 480 years {p}, make the year of Eli conumerary with the 6th servitude. Thus Usher makes Eli and Samson contemporary: Eli succeeded Abdon, and the death of Eli was one year later than the death of Samson. Du Fresnoy {q} adopts a similar arrangement, and places the death of Samson one year later than the death of Eli. Josephus, {r} however, make" the yean of Eli subsequent to the years of Samson. Theophilns, Clemens, Africanus, Cyril, the Paschal Chronicle, {s} also reckon the years of Eli distinct from the years of Samson, Even the Jewish chronology, which limited the space from the exode to the temple to 480 years, yet computed the 40 years of Eli {t} following the death of Samson. And the tenor of the history seems to require it. Samson is twice mentioned as judge for 20 years. {v} Of Eli it is said, {w} "And he had judged Israel 40 years." These governments could scarcely have been contemporary, for they were exercised in the same part of the country. Eli's station was at Shiloh, in Benjamin; on the borders of Benjamin; near the border of the Philistines. Samson's station was at Zora, between Zora and Eshtaol; in the camp of Dan; in the border of Judah, or in Judah; or the country of the Philistines. Eli, then, and Samson both governed in the part to the west of Jordan and the south of Samaria. It is expressly marked that Samson governed in the days of the Philistines; during the 40 years of the 6th servitude. This is marked nowhere else and in no other judge; but the contrary is plainly declared in the case of all of them in detail, and in the general summary it is clearly specified that the first five servitudes were not included in the governments of the judges.


This second break therefore is variously supplied by conjecture. Josephus makes it 52 years, reckoning 40 years to Eli and 12 to Samuel. {x} The Jewish chronology followed by Eusebius computed 40 years, {y} and included Samuel in the years of Saul. Africanus seems to have made the interval 148 years; the Paschal Chronicle 100 {z}; Syncellus 80; {a} Hales 72 {b}. Usher, who omits the years of Eli, computes 21 years between the death of Eli and the election of Saul. Theophilus has 63 years. Those who, with Usher, the Paschal Chronicle, and Syncellus, limit the space between Eli and Said to 21 or 20 years, are at variance




{p} Expressed in 1 Kings VI:1.

{q} Tablettes tom. I p. 290 Heli grand-pretre - gouverne 40 ans dont les 20 premieres annees se passerent sous la sixieme servitude.

{r} Ant. V. 9, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{s} Theophil. ad Autolyc. III. 24. Clemens Strain. I. p. 324. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Africanus reckoned 90 years to Eli and Samuel. Cyril adv. Julian I. p. 11. D. places 60 years between the government of Samson and the death of Eli: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Chron. Pasch. p. 83. C. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Sulpicius I. 55. supposes an interval between them : Quum quot anni inter Heli et Samtonfuerint minime Scrtptura prodidertt., video medit quiddam fuiise temporis, quod laboret am-bigito. Theoph. p. 410. and Syncellus p. 174. B. make this interval 40 years: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{t} Euseb. Chron. I. p. 77. II. p. 299. 300. Anno 841 Samson annis XX. Anno 861 Helt sacerdos annis XL.

{v} Judges XV:20; XVI:31.

{w} 1 Sam. IV:18.

{x} Joseph. Ant. VI. 13, 5. And yet from Ant. VI. 1, 3. 2, 1. it would seem that he reckoned the 12 years of Samuel exclusive of the 20 years of the ark at Kirjath-jearim ; which would make his period 40+20 + 12=72, the period adopted by Hales.

{y} Chron. I. p. 77. II. Anno 901 Samuel an-nis XL. Anno 941 David XL.

{z} Chron. Pasch. p. 83. B. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) 83. C (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


{a} Syncell. p. 174. B--176. C. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{b} See above, note x.





with the accounts of Scripture; for this arrangement would give to Samuel, who began to prophesy while a child towards the end of the life of Eli, about 22+21 = 43 years for his age at the election of Saul. But these are too few for the description {c}. The 12 years in Joseph us and Theophilus, and 9 years in Clemens, are still more erroneous {d}.


The years of the reign of Saul are not mentioned in the Old Testament, but in Acts {e} his reign is attested to have been 40 years. Josephus {f} distinctly ascribes 40 years to Saul. He elsewhere states the sum of the regal government, including the reign of Saul, to have been 514 years {g}. But as the other reigns, from David to Zedekiah inclusive, amount in Josephus to 473y 6m. 20d this will leave 514-474=40 years to Saul. {h}


The period, then, from the exode to the temple is embarrassed by those two chasms in the dates of the sacred narrative, and is variously delivered by chronologers. A short view of the principal varieties will shew where the differences lie. Theophilus gives the following amount of years:




Moses ....................  40

Joshua ...................  27

Judges {i} ............... 409

to Saul ..................  73

Saul .....................  20

David ....................  40

Solomon ..................   3

                       --- 612





{c} 1 Sam. VIII:1; XII:2. rendered by Josephus VI. 3, 2. 3. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{d} Theophilus III. 24. p. 410. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) For the 40 years of peace between Samson and Eli (which the Paschal Chronicle and Syncellus also compute) there is no warrant in Scripture. Samera may be also traced in Sulpicius I. 55. Post Samson judicem Seminar fait, and seems to be Shamgar (who lived in the days of Ehud, and to whom one year is given by Josephus and Africanus) transposed to a wrong place. Clemens, as will be seen below, allowed 9 years to Samuel by one computation, and by another included him wholly in the reign of Saul.

{e} XIII. 21.

{f} Ant. VI. 14, 9. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{g} Ant. X. 8, 4. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) 474 + 20 would give only 494 years instead of

514. whence it is manifest that the number (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) is to be corrected into (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Dr. Hales is inconsistent upon this subject. Vol. II. p. 354. quoting Hudson's correction of Josephus VI. 14,9. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) "18 years and 2 years, and 20 years in all," he remarks, "The present reading 22 years is utterly inconsistent with the history and with Josephus elsewhere, assigning only 20 years to Saul's reign (namely, in X. 8, 4) and 18 to Samuel's joint administration with him (in VI. 13. 5)." Hales had forgotten his own account in vol I. p. 101.102. of the chronology of Josephus, where he exhibits



Saul and Samuel ..... 18 }

                         } 40

Saul................. 22 }


and observes, "It is truly remarkable, and a proof of the great skill and accuracy of Josephus in forming the outline of this period," that he assigns with St. Paul 40 years to Saul."

{h} The appointment of Saul was at the time of wheat harvest: 1 Sam. XII:17 from whence Usher p. 33. determines it to the time of Pentecost, about the end of May or beginning of June.

{i} See p.303. g,

{k} See note d.





Clemens according to Eusebins {l} computes 574 years from Joshua to the temple. The detail of Clemens {m} gives the following numbers:




Moses .....................  40

Joshua ....................  27

Judges {n} ................ 396

Eli .......................  40

Samuel ..........  9 }

with Saul ....... 18 }       27

Saul (last) ...............   2

David .....................  40

Solomon ...................   3




After mentioning Eli, he proceeds, (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) To Saul he gives 20 years: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) From hence it follows that Samuel survived during 18 years of the reign of Saul (which is also the opinion of Josephus), and that he governed alone 9 years, before the election of Saul; the distribution of Clemens 27+2 being equivalent to 9+20. But these 9 years are neglected by Clemens in his collected periods, and Samuel is included in the reign of Saul. He computes thus: {o}



                                           y.  m.

Judges to Samuel ........................ 463. 7.

Saul ....................................  20

David....................................  40

                                       ---523. 7.



And again,


Moses.................................... 120

to the death of David ................... 523. 7.

Solomon .................................  40

                                       ---683. 7.





{l} Euseb. Chron. I. p. 71· Clemens a Josua successor e Mosis ad iempli adtficium annas con-gent 574, quod e primo licet ejus libra cognoi-cere.


{m} Strom. I. p. 324. " See p. 303. g.


{o} Clem. Strom. I. p. 325. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [sc. including Joshua and excluding Samuel] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [exclusive] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) The seven months which appear in all these computations seem to arise from the seven months after the death of Eli, during which the ark was in the hands of the Philistines, expressed in I Sam. VI:1.





In his own detail, from the death of Moses to the death of Eli are 463 years, but the sum of 523 years twice repeated is exclusive of the 9 years of Samuel; and according to these numbers his period from the exode to the temple will be this:



                                              y.  m.

Moses ......................................  40

to the death of David ...................... 523. 7.

Solomon ....................................   3

                                          ---566. 7.



Nine years less than his amount in detail. Eusebius collects the numbers from the amount in detail] and must be understood to mean inclusive of Joshua.


Clemens reports the numbers of other calculators thus; from the death of Moses to the accession of David 450 years; from Moses to Solomon 595 or 576; and again,




Moses ..................... 120

to David .................. 450

David .....................  40




The numbers of Clemens himself err in defect; principally in the times of Samuel and Saul.


Africanus made this period 744 years, according to Eusebius {p}. And this number may be collected from himself in the following account of his chronology {q}:




{p} Eueeb. Chron. I. p. 70.


{q} Africanus apud Euseb. Praep. X. 10. p. 489. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) (recte addit Valesius) (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) His comparative view of the Grecian epochs has been given already p. 6. z. Eusebius Chron. I. p. 70. thus remarks upon the dates of Africanus: Non est praetermittendum ab Africano item chronologies qumque libros essc cottfecios, qni meo quidetn judicio in his quae mox addam crasso errore vagatur. Namque ab exitu Mosis ad Solomonem templique adifiecium suis quidem peculiaribus calculis supputat annos 744; cujus temporis magnam partem sine testimoaio statuens peccat; non eo solum nomine quod divint sermonis libro adversatur, verum etiam quod a se temere fictos centum annos obtrudit. Quippe adjungit annos seniorum qui post Josuam fuerunt, quos annos scribit 30, deinde post Samsonem popularis potestatis annos 40, rursusque pads annos 30. Atque tot atrnorum excessum sine debita cotifirmatione tacite constiuens multorum annorum vim marts proprio inter Mosis tempora regnumque Solomonis inserit, quod spatium annis plus 740 definit. This passage is noticed by Syncellus p. 174. Africanus made up 490 years for the judges by computing the 40+30=70 years between the death of Samson and the government of Eli in addition to the 420 years computed by Eusebius himself: see above p. 303. g. The years therefore (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) which were an undefined interval in Sulpicius, and 40 years in Syncellus and Theophilus were 70 years in Africanus. Vigerus ad Euseb. Praep. p. 489. D. reconciles the sum total of Africanus, 1237, with the particulars by supposing him to have reckoned 41 years in the first term of his series and 71 years in the last. Dr. Routh with greater probability adapts the whole to the parts by reading ky for ke in the years of Joshua: tom. II. p. 299. in which emendation he had been anticipated by Jackson vol C. p. 157.





Moses ...................................   4O

Joshua ........................ (25) "...   27

The Elder" ..............................   30

Judges ..................................  490

Eli and Samuel ..........................   9O

Kings ...................................  490

Captivity ...............................   70


From the exodus to Ol. 55.1 inclusive ... 1237

Deduct 54 Olympiads and one year ........  217


From the exodus to OL 1.1 exclusive ..... 1020



Africanus places the death of Joseph {r} at A. M. 3563, the first year of Eli {s} at A. M. 4292, and the 3th of Solomon {t} at A. M. 4457- The exode was 144 years after the death of Joseph=A, M. 3707. But 4452 (the 3rd of Solomon)-3707=745 years for the period from the exode to the temple. Again, if the 8th of Solomon was in A. M. 4457, the first year of Saul, 87 years before, was in A. M. 4370; and 4370-4292=79 years for Eli and Samuel: 78 years, then, only elapsed before the election of Saul, {v} and the 90 years terminated in the 12th of Saul. We may accordingly arrange the chronology of Africanus in this manner:



A.M.                                                    y.   y.  B.C.

       Moses .........................................       40  1796

       Joshua and the elders .........................       57  1756

       Judges ........................................      490  1699

4292   Eli ...........................................  40}     {1209


4332   Samuel, to the 12th of Saul ...................  50}     {1169


4382   Saul, last 28 years ...........................  28}     {1119

4410   David .........................................  40}     {1091


4450   Solomon .......................................  40}     {1051

4490   Rehoboam to the Captivity ..................... 382}     {1011

1st Zedekiah {w} to 1st Cyrus both inclusive .........      70    629

1st Cyrus Ol. 55. 1. .................................            560



Eusebius in his Tables, as we have seen, limits this period to 480 years. In another




{r} Syncell. p. 106. C. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Genesis] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{s} Syncell. p. 176. A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{t} Syncell. p. 181. D. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{v} The 70 years (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) reckoned by Africanus (see note q) added to these 78 years = 148 will accordingly express his period between the death of Samson and the election of Saul.

{w} From whence Africanus dated the captivity: P. H. II. p. 321. where in line 10 for B. C. 630 read 629. B. C. 629-560, or more properly Ol. 37- 4-55. I, both inclusive, will express the 70 years of Africanus.





place he gives 600 years {x} as the interval. His detail on another occasion gives 613; {y} namely,




Moses .................................  40

Joshua ................................  3O

Judges ................................ 420

Eli ...................................  40

Samuel (no years) ..................... ---

Saul ..................................  40

David and Solomon......................  43

                                        ---- 613



The Paschal Chronicle reckons from the 81st year of Moses to the 2nd of Solomon 630 years {z}; and the numbers in detail agree with this amount:



Moses .................................  40

Joshua ................................  27

Judges {a} ............................ 402

Between Samson and Saul ............... 100 {b}

Saul .................................. 20 }

David ................................. 40 }-62

Solomon ............................... 2  }




The 630 years will be exclusive of the second year of Solomon; the 631 will include it.


Syncellus computed the space at 659 years {c}, which he thus obtained :




{x} Euseb Chron. I. p. 73. Summa temporis quo judices magistratum gesserunt anni omnino 450 usque ad Samuelem, suffragante etiam nuntio nostro apottofa [Act. XIII. 20]. Sunt tamen extra kunc censum states Mosis itemque Jostuf xuccefsoris, necnon Samuelts et Saulis. Sed interim Samuelts et Saulis el josiue tempera sepo-namas. Ex testimonio auiem Apostoli annt Saulis 40 accenseantur judicum annis 450, cut numero additis 40 annis Davidis et 4 annis Solomonis, consurgit annorum summa 534 ; qwe videlicet apostolica traditio est. Jam additts 40 annis quos Moses in deserto traduxit, rursu&que annis 27 Jofute jilii Navi, adstipulantibtts ipsis He-brais, congeruntur attni 600' In this sum he omits the years of Samuel, which he supposed (contrary to the Scripture account, as we have seen) to be included in the years of Saul.

{y} Euseb Praep. X. 14. p. 502. 503. His own dates, however, seem to have been the contracted Hebrew period of 480 years, as exhibited in his tables; for in Prep. X. 9. p. 484. A. B. be reckons 408 years from the 3rd of Laidon, which he places at B. C. 1184, to the 50th of he places at B. C. 776; and determines the 3rd of Labdon to have been seven years before Samson judged Israel, which are nearly the dates of his tables, annis 835, 841, 1241.

{z} Chron. Pasch. p. T1. B. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


{a} See above p. 303. g.

{b} See p. 305. i.

{c} Syncell. p. 175, B. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) His own detailed account gives one less: p. 176. A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Judg. III. 31] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) In reality his detail has two years less than the 450. He states p. 154. A. the first servitude A. H. 3902. p. 174, the death of Samson A. M. 4309. 40 years (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) A.M. 4310. p. 176. B, first year of Eli A.M. 4350. But 3902--







Moses .................................   4O

Joshua ............................. 27}


The elders ......................... 18}

Judges .............................     450

Eli ................................      2O

Samuel .............................      20

Saul ...............................      40

David and Solomon ..................      44




Josephus in the present text has various accounts of this period, 592, 612, 632 years {d}. His detail of the particulars gives 609 years.




Moses ............... 40

Joshua ......... 25 }

                    }-- 43   V. 1, 29. VI. 5, 4.

Interregnum .... 18 }

Judges {e} ........... 391

Eli ..................  40   V. 9, 1. 11, 3.

Samuel ...............  12   VI. 13, 5.

Samuel .......... 18}

                    }-- 40   VI. 14, 9.

Saul............. 22}

David ................  40   VII. 15, 2.

Solomon ..............   3




The error is in omitting the 20 years of the ark at Kirjath-jearim, and placing only 12 years between Eli and Saul. If we correct Josephus by striking out the year of Shamgar and adding the 20 years of the ark, the period will amount to 628 years. {f}




4349 both inclusive are only 448 years. And to obtain these he carries the period 40 years beyond the death of Samson.


{d} We may collect 591 years from Ant. VII. 3, 2. 592 or 590 from VIII. 3, 1. 563 from IX. 14,1. 632 years (namely 1062-430) from X. 8, 5. and 612 years from XX. 10, 1.

{e} See above p. 303. g.

{f} Josephus Ant. VI. 1, 4. mentions the ark: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [7 months with the Philistines, 20 years at Kirjath-jearim: 1 Sam. VI:1; VII:2]. The gathering of the people to Mizpeh by Samuel and their victory over the Philistines (1 Sam. VII:6-13) was during that period of the ark's abode : VI:2, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) And the 12 years of Samuel are described VI:13, 5, as if immediately following the 40 years of Eli: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Jackson vol. I. P. 148. And Hales vol. I. P. 100-102. Have given the chronology of Josephus, but both are inaccurate. Jackson reckons Samson exclusive of the sixth servitude, which is contrary to Josephus; and gives only 20 years to the reign of Saul, to whom, as we have shown, Josephus assigns 40 years. Hales tacitly inserts the 20 years of the ark, although he himself vol. II. P. 337. censures Josephus for his mistake in neglecting them. By this insertion of the 20 years, and by omitting to add the years of Abdon, while he inserts the years of Tola, he brings the period of Josephus to 621 years. These 621 years he affirms to be the true period of Josephus, obtained by comparing the date of the exode X. 8, 5. (1062 years before the destruction of the temple) with the date of the capture of Jebus by David (477 years before the same event) in Bell. VI. 10. This period, however,





St. Paul {g} gives the outline of the period:




Forty years in the wilderness ..............................  40

The division of the lands (in the 6th year) ................   6

The judges to Samuel, or the whole time between  }

                                                 }- ........ 450

the division of the lands and Samuel the prophet }

Administration of Samuel (no years)......................... ---

Saul .......................................................  40

Add David {h} .......................................... 40}

                                                           }- 43

Solomon ................................................ 3 }




We have the authority, then, of St. Paul for 579 years exclusive of the years of Samuel. The 450 years of the Apostle commence at the division of the lands in the 47th year after the exode. {i} But it is not clear when they terminate; whether at the call of the child Samuel in the last years of Eli, or whether at the administration of Samuel after the death of Eli. Now as we have seen already that there were 430 years from the first servitude inclusive to the death of Eli {k}, if these 450 years terminate at that point" they will leave 20 years for Joshua and the elders, and, 32 years being assumed between Eli and Saul, the whole period will be611 or 612 years. Hales supposes the period of the Apostle to end at the call of the child Samuel, which he assumes to be ten years before the death of Eli, This arrangement throws back the division of the lands ten years higher, allows 30 years for Joshua and the elders, and enlarges the whole period to 621 years. I think that the other interpretation is the most probable, and that the 450 years extended to the death of Eli.


The period {j} then, from the exode to the temple, founded on the testimony of St. Paul and on the Old Testament narrative, fluctuates between the 600 years of Eusebius and the 628 years arising out of the corrected numbers of Josephus. The truth lies somewhere between




is not obtained without considerable alterations. He inserts the 20 years before mentioned. He deducts 8 years from the interregnum and transfers them to Abdon: Vol. I. p. 102. " The only alteration here made in the present text of  Josephus is the insertion of Tola and his 23 years, which are inadvertently omitted. To Abdon no years are assigned by Josephus, perhaps designedly. But we may easily reconcile Josephus with Scripture by only deducting 8 years from the 18 years' interregnum after Joshua, which will give Abdoii his quota of years." This is not to restore Josephus, but to remodel him. The 621 years may be nearly the true period, but they are scarcely the period of Josephus.


{g} Acts XIII:18-31.

{h} David in reality reigned 40 years and 6 months; namely. 7 years and 6 months in Hebron, and 33 years in Jerusalem: 2 Sam. II:11. V, 5. Joseph, Ant. VII. 15, 2. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) But his reign is called 40 years: 2 Sam. V:4. 1 Kings II:11. Because Solomon began to reign before the death of David: (1 Kings I:32-40) The 40 years therefore of Solomon (1 Kings XI:42) might begin six months before the death of his fatehr, and the 80 years of these two reigns may be divided thus: David 40y. 6m., Solomon 39y. 6m. See the remark of Usher Annals p. 39.

{i} (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) This passage, and especially the expresion (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) refutes those who supposed that the 450 years of the Apostle are to be dated from the Exodus.

{k} That is, 390 years of the Judges and 40 years of Eli. See p. 303.





these points. We may assume 612 years as the most probable ,· which will give 27 years to one of the two undefined periodsl and 52 years to the other m. The rest of the outline, 40 years of Moses, 390 years fnr the judges, 40 for Eli, and 83 for Saul, David, and Solomon, is supplied by the testimony of Scripture. If any should object that 27 years are too short a space for Joshua and the elders, it may be answered, first, the term" of the Apostle, oej rra<n "/, expressing round numbers, do not fix the amount to a single year, and would be equally true if there were five or six years more than that number. Secondly, the 390 years of the judges are composed of 17 periods; and it is not at all likely that all these were complete years without a deficiency. Many of them might be current years, wanting some months of the complete period; as in the kings many reigns wanted some months to complete the years expressed. And as the first 98 years in the kings of Israel were in reality no more than 93 years, so the 390 years of the judges might be in reality only 384 or 385. The 450 years, then, of the Apostle, commencing at the 47th year from the exode and ending at the death of Eli, might contain 25 or 30 years of that undefined period which preceded the first servitude. {n}


This extended term of 612 years is inconsistent with the date in the book of Kings0, which reckons the foundation of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon to be in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, But the computation of St. Paul delivered in a solemn argument before a Jewish audience, and confirmed by the whole tenour of the history in the book of Judges, outweighs the authority of that date; and we may agree with Jackson and Hales in rejecting it. {p} A term of 300 years mentioned by Jeph-




{l} Between the death of Moses and the first servitude,

{m} Between the death of EH and the election of Saul.

{p} Among the computations of modern chronologers the following may be noticed: 1. Usher Annals p. 39. reckons 480 years, or rather 479. 16·*. Pref. p. 3. He strikes out all the space between Joshua and Othniel, and makes the 40 years of Othniel commence at the 47th year after the exode. He omits all the six servitudes with Eusebius, including them in the judges; and he reckons only 21 years to Samuel. 2. Petavius obtains 519 years. He allows to Joshua and the elders after the division of the lands 18 years. He admits the first four servitudes, but excludes the 5th and 6th. The 6th he divides between Samson and Eli, allowing 20 years to each. He omits Samuel altogether, who is included in the years of Saul. 3. De Touraemine reduces the time to 500 years, which he thus obtains, in Du Fresnoy torn. I. p. 444. He agrees with Petavius in inserting the first four servitudes and omitting the two last. He omits Samson, but gives 40 years to Eli. He strikes out 20 years from Ibzan, Eton, and Abdan, whom he makes contemporary with Eli. He gives Samuel 20 years and Saul 20. 4. Mr. Greswell vol. I. p. 392-394. fixes the period to 549 years, and adapts St. Paul to this amount by dating the 450 years from the exode, contrary to the meaning of the Apostle; and by supposing that the term " about 450 years" may express in round numbers either 426 or 466. 5. Jackson vol. I. p. 145. supposes the 450 years of St. Paul to include Samuel, and assigns the 579 years mentioned at p. 312. as the period. 6. Serrarius enlarges the period to 680 years; which he thus obtains. He reckons the space from the division of lands to the first servitude 71 years, interpolates 9 years of anarchy after the death of Gideon, and gives 41 years to Samuel between EU and Saul. 7· Pezron reckons 962 years. He gives after the division of Canaan 61 years to Joshua and the elders, and he inserts 10 periods of anarchy amounting to 322 years after the several judges. By this enormous computation Otkniel survives his marriage with Caleb's daughter 177 years. 8. Des Vignoles, torn. I. p. 6. 172., who gives 648 years, follows the Scripture dates; and in the two chasms, Joshua and Samuel, where the Scripture is silent, he adopts Josephus. He improperly computes the 20 years of Samson. If these are retrenched, his period becomes 628 years, the corrected number arising from Josephus.

{o} 1 Kings VI:1.

{p} See Jackson vol. I. p. 163. 164. Hales vol. I. p. 17 vol. II. p. 287- considers that number 480 as spurious. Petavius reckoned the 480





thah {q}, which commenced at the 39th year from the exode and terminated at his own time, may be reconciled with the 612 years, if we understand it in round numbers {r}. The actual period to the election of Jephthah would be 347 years; which might here be called 300, as the term 430 years is on another occasion called 400 years {s}.


The kings of Judah, from Rehoboam to Zedekiah both inclusive, reigned 393 y. 6 m. according to the current years marked in Scripture, but 389 y. 1 m. in actual computation. This space may be divided into five periods. The first period extends to the accession of Aihaliah and Jehu {t}; the second to the death of Amaziah; {v} the third to the 6th year of Hesekiah and 9th of Hoshea {v}; the fourth to the death of Josiah {x}; and the fifth to the destruction of the temple {y}.


The reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam began in the same year. The reigns of Atkaliah and Jeku also began together. The first six reigns therefore in Judah were equal to the first eight in Israel. " But," Dr. Hales {z} remarks, " it appears that the six of Judah amount to 95 years, and the eight of Israel to 98. Consequently three years must be retrenched from the latter, to reduce them to an equality with the former." Accordingly he "subtracts one year from each of the reigns of Baajha, Ela, and Onrrz, which are thereby reduced from current to complete years. And this reduction is warranted by the correspondences; for Baasha began to reign in the 3rd of Asa, and Elah in the 26th of Asa; which gives Baaska 23 years complete. Elah was slain, in the 27th of Asa. He reigned therefore only one year complete, and Zimri and Omri reigned in succession from the 27th to the 38th of Asa, or only 11 years complete." All this is very manifest. But for similar reasons we must deduct two years from the 95 of Judah, which were only 93. For the collected reigns of Jehosaphat and Jehoram were in reality only 31 years complete instead of 33. {a}




years current from the death of Moses: whence he obtained 480 + 40-520 years current. Mr. Greswell vol I. p. 400. endeavours to reconcile that date with the true history by computing its beginning from a still lower point The opinion of Hales seems the most probable, that " the period of 480 years is a forgery, foisted into the text."


{q} Judges XI:26. Art thou any king better than Balak the son of Zippor king of Moab? Did he ever strive against Israel, or did ke ever Jight against them, while Israel dwelt in Heshbon and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that are along by the coasts of Arnon 300 years?

{r} Hales vol II. hp. 318. observes, "From the conquest of the lands of Sihon and Og to the election of Jephthah were 356 years [which is the number resulting from his dates], corresponding with the general statement of 300 years in round numbers, judiciously rendered by Josephus Ant. V. 7, 9. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) This is inconsistent with the shorter chronology of the Jews, reckoning the interval 293 years; of Usher, 265 years; and of Petavius, 238 years only." The Jewish period is founded upon erroneous numbers, which are exhibited by Hales vol. I. p. 16. Usher Annals p. 31. makes the interval 264 years, namely, A. M. 2553-2817. But Petavius reckons 326 years, since he places the 39th year from the exode at B. C. 1492 and the accession of Jephtkah at B. C. 1166 : R. Temp I. I. 5. 6. and the same term is produced by his collected numbers in pu Fresnoy Talilettes torn. I. p. 444. Petavius therefore is with us; and concurs in reckoning the 300 years to stand in round numbers for a larger period.

{s} See above p. 297.

{t} This is related in 20 chapters, 1 Kings XII; 2 Kings IX. six of which (XVII-XXII) treat of the reign of Akab ; and in 13 chapters of Chronicles, 2 Chron. X-XXII:9. three of which (XIV-XVI} describe the reign of Asa, and four (XVII-XX) the reign of Jehosaphat.

{v} Described 2 Kings X-XIV. 2 Chron. XXII. 10-XXV.

{w} In 2 Kings XV-XVIII. 2 Chron. XXVI - XXIX.

{x} In 2 Kings XVIII. 13 -XXIII. 30. 2 Chron. XXIX-XXXV.

{y} Related in 2 Kings XXIII. 31-XXV, 30. 2 Chron. XXXVI. 1-21.

{z} VoL II. p. 408.


{a} See the Table at the end of this chapter, at the year T15.





Some dates within this period require notice. 1. The "36th of Asa." This is examined in the following Table at B. C. 941. 2. Forty-two years for the age of Ahaziah {b} are wrong on account of another passage {c}, where it is given "twenty-two years;" and on account of the age of his father, who died at forty. 3. For the " l7th of Jehoeaphat see the Table at the year 996. 4. The "18th of Jehosaphai was the 1st of Joram." {d} This is evidently impossible; for between the accession of Jehoeaphat and the accession of Joram son of Ahab are 18 years complete of Ahab and two years of Ahastah. 5. For the "2nd of Jehoram" {e} see the Table at 895. 6. The phrase "Jehosaphat 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 Jehosaphat died at the commencement of the 25th year, which is therefore the 1st of Jeharam. {g}


In the second period are three reigns and a space of 75 years, from the accession of Athaliah to the death of Amasiah, and the corresponding reigns in Israel give the same amount. {h} Within this period the "37th of Joash {i} is inconsistent with the other dates. Usher {k} here again solves the difficulty by supposing the son to be taken into consortship with the father. For this, however, there is no authority; and, if this had been so, the 16 years of Jehoash would still have been sole years and distinct from the years of his father's reign. The Septuagint, however, has the "39th year;" {l} which might be the true reading.


In the third period the only difficulty consists in adjusting the reign of Jeroboam II, to the corresponding reigns in Judah; and the question to be decided is this, whether the death of Amaziah was followed by an interregnum of 12 years in Judah and the death of Jeroboam II. by an interregnum of 23 years in Israel, or whether there was no interregnum after Amaziah




{b} 2 Chron. XXII:2.

{c} 2 Kings VIII:26.

{d} 2 Kings III:1.

{e} 2 Kings I:7.

{f} 2 Kings VIII:16.

{g} The scheme of Usher for these reigns is this: Annals p. 46-49.



17 Jehosaphat. 1 Joram  |  21 Ahab  1 Ahaziah, in the 17th Jehosaphat.

18 ........... 2 .....  |  22 ..... 2

19 ........... 3 .....  |   1 Johoram "latter end of 18th Johosaphat and 2nd Joram."

20 ........... 4 .....  |   2

21 ...........   .....  |   3

22 ........... Joram 1  |   4

23 ................. 2  |   5 ["Johosaphat makes his son consort in the 5th Jehoram."]

24 ................. 3  |   6

25 ................. 4  |   7

     5 ...............  |   8

     6 ...............  |   9

     7 ...............  |  10

     8 ...............  |  11

Ahaziah "12th Jehoram"  |  12




By this distribution he adjusts the apparently discordant dates. But this is done at the expense of many conjectural alterations of the plain meaning of the Scripture narrative. He supposes three beginnings of the reign of Joram king of Judah. He supposes four of the 8 years to have been conumerary with the years of Jehosaphat. He gets rid of the reign of Ahaziak king of Israel, which is nearly included in that of Ahab. But for all these suppositions there is no authority. If Joram reigned with his father at all, his eight years are still the years of his sole reign. And Akaziah and his acts are dearly marked to be subsequent to the death of Ahab.


{h} In Judah 6 + 40 + 29=75. In Israel we may compute 28 +16 1/2 + 14 + 1/2 =75.

{i} In 2 Kings XIII:10.

{k} Annals p. 51.

{l} 4 Reg. XIII. 10. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)





and only 11 years interregnum after the death of Jeroboam. Hales {m} argues for the double interregnum in the following manner: "Jeroboam II. began to reign in the 15th year of Amaziah, and reigned 41 years. He died therefore in the 16th of Uzziah. But Zachariah his son succeeded him in the 38th of Uzziah; consequently the interregnum in Israel lasted 38-16=22 years. Amaziah survived Joash 15 years. He died therefore in the 16th of Jeroboam. But Uzsaah did not begin to reign till the 27th of Jeroboam; therefore from the death of Amaziah to the accession of Uzziah there was an interregnum of 27-16=11  years." If that date, the 27th of Jeroboam, {n} is genuine, there was undoubtedly an interregnum of 12 years (rather than 11) in Judah, and of 23 (rather than 22) in Israel. Accordingly Du Fresnoy and Le Brun Desmarettes, {o} like Hales, suppose the double interregnum of 11 and 22 years. But this interregnum of 11 or 12 years in Judah is not to be discerned in the Scripture narrative; {p} and an interregnum of 23 years' duration in Israel between Jeroboam and his son is not probable. And Josephus {q}, who knows no interregna, {r}



{m} Vol. II. p. 409.

{n} In 2 Kings XV:1.

{o} See Du Fresnoy Tablettes tom. I. p. 432. 447-451.

{p} Compare 2 Kings XIV:17; 2 Chron. XXV:27, for the death of Amaziah, and 2 Kings XIV:21-22; 2 Chron. XXVI:1-2, for the succession of Uzziah.

{q} Ant. IX. 10, 3.

{r} Dr. Hales vol. II. p. 410 misrepresents Josephus, and supposes him to acknowledge the interregnum: "That he was no stranger to the chasm of 32 years in Israel we may infer from his taking into account the 11 years of interregnum in Judah, necessary to complete his amount of the whole period, from the foundation to the destruction of the temple, 441 years. See vol. I. p. 103." Josephus, however, is so far from taking into account this supposed interregnum in Judah, that he neglects even the two interregna which did actually occur in Israel. His acconnt of the double line of kings is as follows:




Saul ................. 40 VI. 14, 9

David ................ 40

Solomon ......... (80) 40

Rehoboam ............. 17 VIII. 10, 4

Abijah ...............  3 VIII. 11, 3

Asa .................. 41 VIII. 12, 6


Jehosaphat ........... 25 IX.  3, 2

Jehoram ..............  8 IX.  5, 3

Ahaziah ..............  1 IX.  6, 3

Athaliah .............  6 IX.  7, 1

Joash ................ 40 IX.  8, 4. 7, 2

Amaziah .............. 29 IX.  9, 3

Uzziah ............... 52 IX. 10, 4


Jotham ............... 16 IX. 12, 1

Ahaz...... ........... 16 IX. 12, 3

Hezekiah ............. 29  X. 3, 1.

Manaeseh ............. 55  X. 3, 2.

Amon .................  2  X. 4, 1.

Josiah ............... 31  X. 5, 1.



Jehoahaz ............. 3m. 10d. }                { X. 5, 2

                                }                {

Jehoiakim II. ........          }                { X. 6, 3

                                }- 22y. 6m. 20d.-{

Jehoiakin ............ 3m. 10d. }                { X. 6, 3

                                } -------------- {

Zedekiah II .............       } 513y. 6m. 20d. { X. 8, 2. 5.



Jeroboam.............. 22 VIII. 11, 4.

Nadab.................  2 VIII. 11. 4.

Baasha ............... 24 VIII. 12, 3.

Elah ................. 2  VIII. 12, 4.

Zimri 7 days ......... -- VIII. 12, 5.

Omri ................. 12 VIII. 12, 5.

Ahab ................. 22 VIII. 13, 1.

Ahaziah ..............  2 IX. 2, 1.

Joram ................ 12 IX. 2, 2.

Jehu ................. 27 IX. 8, 1.

Jehoahaz ............. 17 IX. 8, 5.

Joash ................ 16 IX. 8, 6.

Jeroboam ............. 40 IX. 10, 1.

Zachariah 6 months ... -- IX. 11, 1.

Shallum 30 days ...... -- IX. 11, 1.

Menahem .............. 10 IX. 11, 1.

Pekaiah ..............  2 IX. 11, 1.

Pekah ................ 20 IX. 11, 1.

Hoshea ...............  9

                 -----239y. 7m. 7d.






reads "the 14th year of Jeroboam," (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) We may concur, then, with Jackson, Des Vignoles, and Mr. Greswell {s}, in rejecting that date, the 27th of Jeroboam, as corrupt.




He calls the reigns in Judah X. 8, 4. 514y. 6m. 10d. (see above p. 306. g), and the reigns in Israel IX. 14, 1. 240y. 7m 7d. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) In each case, as it seems, computing current years for complete. In the reigns of Judah he concurs throughout with Scripture. In two reigns of Israel, Jehu and Jeroboam II., he has two years less than the Scripture account. But both in the sums total and the detail it is clear that he acknowledged no interregna in either line. Hales in vol. I. p. 105, to which he refers, had said, " The insertion of the 11 years' interregnum is warranted by Scripture, and is also necessary to fill up the outline of the period of Josephus." p. 100. "From the subtraction of the genuine period of 621 years from the entire period of 1062 years, we get 441 years; the correct period from the foundation to the destruction of the temple." But this period of 441 years is a number created by Hales himself, who subtracts 621 from 1062. Josephus X. 8, 5, merely says: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) The first number, 470 years, for the duration of the temple is confessedly corrupt, and perhaps arises from the computation of 80 years to Solomon. The second, according to the account of Josephus himself for the Jewish reigns, is rather to be divided thus: 514-84=430+632 = 1062; and will give 632 years from the exode to the temple, and 430 from the foundation of the temple to the destruction.


{s} Jackson vol. I. p. 181. "Uzziah began to reign in the 15th year of Jeroboam II. as the numbers plainly shew. Josephus says that he began to reign in the 14th (ending) of Jeroboam II. Yet by a strange error of numbers it is said 2 Kings XV:1 that he began to reign in the 27th year of Jeroboam. This error is so evident that nothing more need be said to confute it." Vignoles in his Table given by Du Fresnoy tom. I. p. 453. adopts the same arrangement. Uzziah succeeds in the 14th of Jeroboam, and the first interregnum in Israel is 11 years instead of 23. Greswell vol. III. p. 240. "I conclude that 2 Kings XV:1. the 27th of Jeroboam is a corruption of the text for the 15th. There are no means of avoiding this inference except by supposing an interregnum between the death of Amaziah in the 15th and the accession of Uzziah in the 27th; a supposition which some commentators have accordingly made, but for which there appears so little reason that I consider the other assumption (that of error in the text, 27 for 15) on every account to be preferred. Nothing can be clearer than that Uzziah was made king at 16 years old immediately on the death of his father." The two schemes are these:



29 Amaz. Slain  14 Jer. II.

 1 Interregn.   15

 2 ............ 16

 3 ............ 17

 4 ............ 18

 5 ............ 19

 6 ............ 20

 7 ............ 21

 8 ............ 22

 9 ............ 23

10 ............ 24

11 ............ 25            |

12 ............ 26            |  29 Amaz. Slain 14 Jer. II.

 1 Uzziah...... 27            |   1 Uzziah .... 15 ending

 2 ............ 28            |   2 ........... 16

 3 ............ 29            |   3 ........... 17

 4 ............ 30            |   4 ........... 18

 5 ............ 31            |   5 ........... 19

 6 ............ 32            |   6 ........... 20

 7 ............ 33            |   7 ........... 21

 8 ............ 34            |   8 ........... 22

 9 ............ 35            |   9 ........... 23

10 ............ 36            |  10 ........... 24

11 ............ 37            |  11 ........... 25

12 ............ 38            |  12 ........... 26

13 ............ 39            |  13 ........... 27

14 ............ 40            |  14 ........... 28

15 ............ 41            |  15 ........... 29

16 ............  1 Interregn. |  16 ........... 30

17 ............  2            |  17 ........... 31

18 ............  3            |  18 ........... 32

19 ............  4            |  19 ........... 33

20 ............  5            |  20 ........... 34

21 ............  6            |  21 ........... 35

22 ............  7            |  22 ........... 36

23 ............  8            |  23 ........... 37

24 ............  9            |  24 ........... 38

25 ............ 10            |  25 ........... 39

26 ............ 11            |  26 ........... 40

27 ............ 12            |  27 ........... 41 ending

28 ............ 13            |  28 ...........  1 Interregn.

29 ............ 14            |  29 ...........  2

30 ............ 15            |  30 ...........  3

31 ............ 16            |  31 ...........  4

32 ............ 17            |  32 ...........  5

33 ............ 18            |  33 ...........  6

34 ............ 19            |  34 ...........  7

35 ............ 20            |  35 ...........  8

36 ............ 21            |  36 ...........  9

37 ............ 22            |  37 ........... 10

38 ............ 23            |  38 ........... 11

39 ............ Zachar. 6m.   |  39 ........... Zachar. 6m.





It is said of Ahaz that his accession was at twenty years of age. Josephus has the same numbers. But as Hezekiah was 25 at his accession and Ahaz 36 at his death, these dates suppose Ahaz to be only 11 at the birth of his son. The reading of the Septuagint, 25 for 20 {t} removes the difficulty, and makes Ahaz 41 at his death and 16 at the birth of his son Hezekiah. {v}


The amount of the fourth period is clearly marked in Scripture and in Josephus. But the ages of the five last kings of Judah may require some notice. Josiah was 8 years old at his accession. He could not be more, because his father Amon died at 24 years of age. But Josiah died at 39, leaving Eliakim 25 years of age, Jehoahaz 23, and Zedekiah 10. Eliakim again died at 36, leaving Jeconias 18 years of age; the years therefore of Eliakim cannot be abridged. The following numbers result from these ages:



Amon was   16 }                 { Josiah

Josiah.... 14 } at the birth of { Eliakim

Eliakim..  18 }                 { Jeconias



We may assume that Amon was 22 complete and Jonah S complete at their respective accessions; and that Eliakim was only entering his 25th year and Jeconias commencing his 18th. This will lessen the difficulty. Josiah might be 15 at the birth of his son. {w}




The six months of Zachariah began in the 38th and ended in the 39th of Uzziah. It is plain, then, that if that number, "the 27th of Jeroboam," be admitted, there will arise an interregnum of 12 years in Judah and 23 years in Israel. And this interregnum, by interposing 12 years, will derange every preceding epoch; throwing back every date preceding the accession of Uzziah 12 years too high. Usher Annals p. 52. 53. has recourse to the usual expedient of supposing Jeroboam to reign in consortship with his father 11 years, and the 27th year of his reign to describe the 16th year from the death of his father. But according to this hypothesis Jeroboam would only reign 30 years after the death of his father, and if his 27th year was the 1st of Uzziah, his 41st would be the 15th of Uzziah; and there would be left an interregnum of 23 years in Israel instead of 11, to which Usher reduces it p. 55. Mr. Greswell vol. III. p. 236. very justly remarks that with regard to this method of solution (the associating the son with the father), it appears so very questionable, that without the most demonstrative evidence it ought never to be entertained; that there ie no proof that any one of the children of the monarchs of Judah or Israel were associated with them, or, if they were, that the notices of their reigns were dated from that association, and not from the actual death of their predecessors; that Jehoram and Uzziah are cases in point, for, though the former was struck by disease two years before his death, and the latter for probably a longer time was a leper, there is no mention of their sons being associated with them. And he lays it down as a rule that no king's reign bore date except from the demise of his predecessor. In these remarks we shall agree. We shall not, however, concur in another hypothesis, by which Mr. Greswell vol. III. p. 232. vol. I. p. 207. (after Reland) supposes that the lengths of reigns were reckoned by one rule and the synchronisms by another; that the former were referred to some nominal (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here), the latter to the true; that the reign of every king was supposed to begin from Nisan, but that no synchronisms are ever referred except to the true date of the reigns. This scheme, which Mr, Greswell affirms to be an obvious possibility, is, however, so very improbable, that we cannot accept it without direct evidence. Nor does it solve the difficulties; for the difficulties lie in the synchronisms, and these Mr. Greswell admits are still to be adjusted by the true accessions; and many dates remain which he acknowledges to be corruptions of the text.


{t} In 2 Chron. XXVIII:1.

{v} Hales vol. II. p. 453-463. makes no remark, and finds no difficulty in the ordinary reading.

{w} The genealogy stands thus:





The amount of the fifth period from the death of Jonah to the destruction of the temple is determined by Usher {x} to about 22 y. 0m. 25d. In this period the positions of all the preceding epochs are first ascertained, by measuring the dates of Scripture with profane testimony. The fourth year of Jehoiakim was still current 70 years before the 1st of Cyrus (according to Scripture reckoning) at Babylon. {r} We are enabled, however, to bring Scripture and profane accounts to a still nearer coincidence, by comparing the history of Zedelciah and JeftaiaJcin with the dates assigned to the Babylonian kings by the Astronomical Canon.


The 37th year of Jehoiakin's captivity in the 25th day of the 12th month fell within the 1st year of Evil-Merodach. {z} This 25th day of the 12th month was in reference to the months of the Hebrew year, {a} and marked the month of February. But as the 1st of Evil-Merodach was dated from Jan. 11. B. C. 561, this would be February B. C. 561. And as Zedekiah began to reign about June, {b} the captivity of Jehoiakin necessarily commenced in June, and consequently his 37th year in June B.C. 562, since it was still current in February following. But if his 37th year commenced in June B. C. 562, his captivity is fixed to June B. C 598; the 1st year of Zedekiah was completed in June B. C. 587, and the month Ab, in which the temple was destroyed, was in July B.C. 587: which refutes the date of Usher, B.C. 588, {c} for the burning of the temple, because, if this event had occurred in that year, the 37th of Jehoiakin's captivity would have commenced in June B.C. 563, and the 12th month and 25th day would have fallen in February B.C. 562, before the accession of Evil-Merodach. Again, it refutes the date of Jackson and Hales, B. C. 586, because in that case the 37th year would have commenced in June B. C. 561, and February of that 37th year would have fallen in B.C. 560, which would rather belong to the second year of Evil- Merodach. {d}





      Hamutal =============  Josiah  ============= Zebudah

                   |      slain aet. 39     |

                   |                        |

            |-------------|                 |

            |             |                 |

    { Zedekiah          { Jehoahaz      { Eliakim =========== Nehushta

    { Mattaniah         { Shallum Jer.  { Jehoiakim     |

    { captured aet. 32  { XXII. 11.     { ob. Aet. 36   |

                        { died in Egypt                 |


                                                  { Jehoiakin

                                                  { Jeconias

                                                  { Conias

                                                  { released from prison aet. 55.


The sons of Josiah are differently stated in 1 Chron. III:15 namely,


1. The first born Johanan

2. Jehoiakim

3. Zedekiah

4. Shallum


But this account is refuted by Jerem. XXII:11.


{x} See F. H. III. p. 375.

{y} See F. H. II. p. 301.

{z} 2 Kings XXV:27. Jerem. LII:31.


{a} See F. H. III. p. 375. b Ibid,

{b} Ibid.

{c} Usher Annals p. 87-91.

{d} It may be said that the reign of Evil-Merodach or Ilvarodamus in the Canon might have commenced three or four months later than Jan. 11. B.C. 561, and therefore that February B.C. 560 might have fallen within his first year. But it is manifest from the Scripture narrative that Evil-Merodach released Jehoiakin from prison in the beginning of his reign; that this was one of his first acts, and was not delayed till the close of the first year. We may accordingly conclude that his accession really occurred soon after Jan. llth, and that February of the 37th year was the month following. And it must also be observed that the 25th day of the 12th Hebrew month Adar would most probably fall in the beginning of March; which makes it still less likely that this should he Adar of B.C. 560.





The captivity of Zedekiah being determined to June B.C. 587, the accession of Rehoboam, 389 y. 1m. before, is fixed to May B.C. 976; and we ascend from thence to the dates of all the preceding epochs, as exhibited in the following Table:



  B.C.   A.M.                                             y.

[4138]        Adam .................................... 1656

[2482]  1656. The Deluge ..............................  352

[2130]  2008. Birth of Abraham.........................   75

[2055]  2083. The Call ................................  430

[1625]  2513. The Exode ...............................   40

[1585]  2553. Death of Moses ..........................  [27]

[1558] [2580] First Servitude .........................  430

[1128] [3010] Death of Eli ............................  [32]

 1096. [3042] Election of Saul (May or June) {e} ......   40

 1056. [3082] David (40 y. 6m.) {f} ...................   40

 1016. [3122] Solomon (39 y. 6 d.) ....................   40

  976. [3162] Relioboam (May) .........................  389 y. 1 m.



B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


976 |   1 | Rehoboam set. 41. 17 years:              | Jeroboam 22 years: 1 Kings XIV:20.

    |     | 1 Kings XIV:21. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 10. 4.| It appears from 2 Kings XII:12 that the

    |     | (The Greek from the original is          | accession of Jeroboam was prior to that of

    |     | not reproduced here)                     | Jeroboam. Hence the 1st of Jeroboam was

    |     |                                          | conumerary partly with the 1st and partly

    |     |                                          | with the 2nd of Rehoboam, and so

    |     |                                          | successively. The 4th of Asa commenced before

    |     |                                          | the 21st of Jeroboam was ended, and the 1st

    |     |                                          | of Nadab before the 2nd of Asa was ended:

    |     |                                          | hence it follows that the 22nd of Jeroboam

    |     |                                          | was not complete. The ]st again of Baasha

    |     |                                          | commenced before the 3rd of Asa was ended;

    |     |                                          | which shews that the 2 years of Nadab were

    |     |                                          | not complete. These two first reigns in

    |     |                                          | Israel, instead of being 24 years, were less

    |     |                                          | than 23.


974 |   3 | Three years of good conduct :            |

    |     | 2 Chron. XI:17. Joseph. Ant. VIII. 10. 1.|

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     |                         reproduced here) |

    |     |                                          |


972 |   5 | Invasion of Shiskak, 5th Rehob.          |

    |     | 1 Kings XIV:25; 2 Chr. XII:2.            |
    |     | Josephus VIII.10, 2.                     |

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     |                         reproduced here) |

959 |  18 | Abijah 3 vears, 18th Jerob.              | The 18th of Jeroboam conumerary with the 1st

    |     | 1 Kings XV:1-2 Josephus VIII. 10, 4.     | and 2nd of Abijah.

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     | reproduced here)                         |




{e} See above p. 306. h.

{f} See above p. 312. h.







B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


957 |  20 |                                          | 20th of Jeroboam conumerary with the 3rd of

    |     |                                          | Abijah and 1st of Asa.


956 |  21 | Asa 41 years : 1 Kings XV:10 Josephus    |

    |     | VIII. 12, 6. (The Greek from the         |

    |     | original is not reproduced here)         |

    |     | 20th of Jerob. I Kings XV:9 that is,     |

    |     | before the 20th of Jeroboam was ended:   |

    |     | conf. a. 976.                            |


955 |  22 | The 2nd of Asa conumerary with the       | (22) Nadab 2 years, 2nd of Asa. 1 Kings XV:25

    |     | 22nd of Jerob. and lst of Nadab.


954 |  23 | The 3rd of Asa conumerary with the 2nd   |

    |     | of Nadab and 1st of Baasha.              |


953 |  24 |                                          | Baasha 24 years: 1 Kings XV:33. 3rd of Asa:

    |     |                                          | Ibid. XV. 28. 33.


947 |  30 | The 10th of Asa. Tenth year of peace:    |

    |     | 2 Chron. XIV:1. Joaephus VIII. 11. 3.    |

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     | reproduced here) According to Josephus   |

    |     | VIII. 12, 1. after these years of peace  |

    |     | the Ethiopian war followed: (The Greek   |

    |     | from the original is not reproduced here)|

    |     | But the spoil which was offered in the   |

    |     | 15th of Asa in the 3rd month             |

    |     | (2 Chron. XV:10-11) seems to be part of  |

    |     | the spoil taken from the Ethiopians,     |

    |     | which would fix the victory of Asa to    |

    |     | about his 14th year. After this victory  |

    |     | Judah had rent. 2 Chron. XV:15. and no   |

    |     | more war: 2 Chron. XV:19. (that is, with |

    |     | the Ethiopians) until the 35th of Asa.   |

    |     | The Ethiopian war was followed by a      |

    |     | league with Ben~Hadad made in the 16th   |

    |     | of Asa and the 36th of the Jewish        |

    |     | kingdom, or in his 26th year, a little   |

    |     | before the death of Baaaha. conf. a. 941.|


942 |  35 | Covenant with God in the 15th of Asa:    |

    |     | 2 Chron. XV:10-12.


941 |  36 | (Asa's league with Ben-Hadad son of      |

    |     | Tabrimon son of Hezion king of Syria:    |

    |     | 1 Kings XV:18. in the 36tk year of the   |

    |     | reign of Asa: 2 Chron. XVI:1-3 when he   |

    |     | was threatened with war by Baasha:       |

    |     | 1 Kings XV:17. 2 Chron. XVI:1. As in the |

    |     | 36th of Asa Baasha was dead, we must     |

    |     | either correct the numbers to "26th,"    |

    |     | and place these transactions in the year |

    |     | of the death of Baasha, or we must       |

    |     | understand them (with many commentators) |

    |     | to mean the 36th year of the kingdom of  |

    |     | Judah; which would place the league      |

    |     | with Ben-Hadad in the 16th year of Asa.  |

    |     | This is probable, because it is twice    |

    |     | asserted 1 Kings XV:16, 32 that there    |

    |     | was war between Asa and Baasha all their |

    |     | days; which would not be true if war had |

    |     | been delayed till the last year of       |
    |     | Baasha.)                                 |








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


931 |  46 | The 26th of Asa reached the 1st of Elah, | The 24th of Baasha. Elah 2 years, 26th of

    |     | which began before the 26th of Asa was   | Asa: 1 Kings XVI:8.
    |     | ended.                                   |


930 |  47 | The 27th of Asa conumerary with the      | Elah slain in the 27th of Asa: 1 Kings XVI:10

    |     | 2nd of Elah and 1st of Omri in Tirzah;   | Zimri 7 days, in the 27th of Asa:

    |     | 1 Kings XVI:15-16.                       | Omri 12 years: 1 Kings XVI:23.


926 |  51 | The 31st of Asa marks the date of the    | Omri the 31st of Asa. He reigned over Israel

    |     | foundation of Samaria by Omri; which     | 12 years, 6 years in Tirzah: 1 Kings XVI:23.

    |     | was accordingly commenced in the 5th     | Samaria built: Ibid. XVI. 24.

    |     | year of his reign. He reigned in Tirzah  |

    |     | till the 6th year.                       |


922 |  55 | The 35th of Asa 2 Chron. XV:19. And      |

    |     | there rvas no more war [after the defeat |

    |     | of the Ethiopians 2 Chron. XIV:9-15      |

    |     | about the 14th of Asa: conf. XIV:10]     |

    |     | unto the 35th year of Asa. This appears  |

    |     | to mean war with the Ethiopians; with    |

    |     | whom therefore in the 35th year war was  |

    |     | renewed.                                 |


919 |  58 | The 38th of Asa conumerary with the      | Ahab 22 years, 38th of Asa: 1 Kings XVI:29.

    |     | 1st of Ahab who began to reign before    | Consequently from the accession of Jeroboam

    |     | the 38th of Asa was ended. Hence it      | to the accession of Ahab were not quite 58

    |     | appears that the 12th of Omri was not    | years. But the reigns in Israel are

    |     | complete; for, since the 27th of Asa     | 22 + 2 + 24 + 2 + 12 = 62 years: whence it is

    |     | had commenced before the death of Elah   | manifest that these reigns were of current

    |     | (conf. a 930), it ia evident that the    | years and not complete, and that more than 4

    |     | 38th of Asa bad commenced before the     | years are to be deducted from their amount.

    |     | llth year of Omri was concluded.         | Josephus Ant. VIII. 11. 4-13, 1 describes

    |     |                                          | the first reigns in Israel down to the

    |     |                                          | death of Ahab conformably with Scripture.

    |     |                                          | See above p. 316. r.


918 |  59 | Asa's disease in his 39th year:          | The 2nd of Akab commenced in the 39th of Asa.

    |     | 2 Chron. XVI:12.                         |


916 |  61 | Death of Asa in the 41st year of his     | The 4th of Ahab conumerary with the 41st of

    |     | reign: 2 Chron. XVI:13.                  | Asa and 1st of Jehoshaphat.


915 |  62 | Jehoshaphat 25 years aet. 35. in the 4th |

    |     | of Ahab : 1 Kings XXII:41. Josephus      |

    |     | IX:3, 2. (The Greek from the original    |

    |     | is not reproduced here)                  |

    |     | The reigns of Jehoshapkat and Jehoram,   |

    |     | The reigns of Jehoshapkat and Jehoram,   |

    |     | which were 25+8=33 years current, were   |

    |     | only 24+7=31 years complete. For Ahab    |

    |     | began to reign in the 38th of Asa,       |
    |     | and Jehotkaphat in the 4th of Ahab.      |
    |     | But the 5th of Joram was the 1st of      |
    |     | Jehoram, and the llth of Joram was       |
    |     | the last year of Jehoram. Between the    |
    |     | accession, then, of Jehoshaphat and      |
    |     | the death of Jehoram his son, are        |
    |     | 18 years of Ahab, 2 of Ahaziah, and      |
    |     | 11 of Joram; making 31 years complete    |
    |     | instead of 33.                           |









B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


913 |  64 | Book of the Law read in the 3rd year     | The 7th of Ahab conumerary partly with

    |     | of Jehoskaphat: 2 Chron. XVII:7.         | the 3rd and partly with the 4th of

    |     |                                          | Jehoshaphat.


898 |  79 | Jehoshaphat goes out with Akab against   | Ahab slain in battle by the Syrians:

    |     | Ben-Hadad king of Syria: 1 Kings XXII    | 1 Kings XXII. His 22nd year would be

    |     | at the close of his 18th year.           | completed in the 19th of Jehoshaphat.


896 |  80 | The 19th of Jehoshaphat conumerary       | Akaziah 2 years: 1 Kings XXII:51.

    |     | partly with the 22nd of Ahab, partly     | Josephus IX. 2, 1, IX. 2, 2.

    |     | the 1st of Akaziah. The "17th year"      |

    |     | therefore in 1 Kings XXII:51 is          | (The Greek from the original is not

    |     | inconsistent with the other coincidences |                    reproduced here)

    |     | given at the years 916. 915.             |


895 |  82 | Joram son of Ahab is said 2 Kings 1:17   | Joram 12 years: 2 Kings III:1. Translation of

    |     | to have succeeded his brother in the 2nd | Elijah. He was present at the last sickness

    |     | of Jehoram king of Judah. But, as the    | of Ahaziah: 2 Kings 1:3-17, and yet was

    |     | 1st of Jehoram king of Judah was the 5th | translated before the Moabite war:

    |     | of Joram, king of Israel (conf. a. 891), | 2 Kings II:11. His translation, then, and the

    |     | and the 8th of the king of Judah was the | succession of Elisha (2 Kings II:1-15) may

    |     | llth or the 12th of the king of Israel   | be placed in the first year of Joram king of

    |     | (conf. a. 884), this date, "the 2nd of   | Israel. Elisha continued to prophesy about

    |     | Jehoram," is evidently wrong.            | 60 years: conf. a. 837. Elijah is first

    |     |                                          | mentioned in the beginning of the reign of

    |     |                                          | Ahab : 1 Kings XVII:1 and may have prophesied

    |     |                                          | 24 years.


894 |  83 | (Jehoshaphat assists Joram against Moab: | (The Moabite war soon after the death of

    |     | 2 Kings III:7 about the 22nd year ending | Ahab: 2 Kings III:5.)

    |     | of Jehoshaphat and the 2nd beginning of  |

    |     | Joram.)                                  |


891 |     | (The 25th of Jehoshaphat); the 1st of    | The 5th of Joram is conumerary with the 25th

    |     | Jehoram, act. 32. 8 years:               | current of Jehoshaphat and the 1st

    |     | 2 Chron. XXI:5 in the 5th of Joram:      | commencing of Jehoram.

    |     | 2 Kings VIII:16-17 Josephus IX. 5,3.     |

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     |                         reproduced here) |








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


884 |  93 | (The 8th of Jehoram). Ahaziah ret. 22.   | The 12th of Joram conumerary with

    |     | one year: 2 Kings VIII:25-26. In the     | the year of Ahaziak. The Syrian war:

    |     | 12th of Joram: v. 25 - the 11th of       | 2 Kings VIII:28. Ahaziah went with

    |     | Joram; Ibid. IX. 29. Jehoram's death     | Joram Son of Ahab to the war against

    |     | therefore happened before the llth of    | Hazael king of Syria - and the Syrians

    |     | Joram was concluded. Josephus IX. 6, 3.  | wounded Joram. Hazael had murdered

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      | Ben~Hadad; 2 Kings VIII:15. He smote

    |     |                         reproduced here) | Israel in the days of Jehu: 2 Kings X:32.
    |     |                                          | approached Jerusalem in the days of Joash:

    |     |                                          | 2 Kings XII:17 oppressed Israel all the

    |     |                                          |days of Jehoahaz: 2 Kings XIII:3, 22 and

    |     |                                          |was succeeded by his son Ben-Hadad II.

    |     |                                          |towards the end of the reign of Jehoahaz:

    |     |                                          |2 Kings XIII:3, 24. Hazael might reign

    |     |                                          |cir. B.C. 886-840; about 46 years.


883 |  94 | Athaliah 6 years : 2 Kings XI:3.         | Jehu 28 years: 2 Kings X:36. Josephus IX.

    |     |                                          | 8, 1. (The Greek from the original is not     

    |     |                                          |                            reproduced here)

    |     |                                          | Contemporary with Athaliah. 2 Kings IX-XI.


877 | 100 | Athaliah slain in the 7th year:          | The 7th of Jehu is conumerary with the 1st

    |     | 2 Kings XI:4; 2 Chron. XXIII:1.          | of Joash; consequently his 28th year is

    |     | Josephus IX. 7. 1. (The Greek from       | conumerary with the 22nd, and the accession

    |     | the original is not reproduced here)     | of Jehoahaz is in the very beginning of the

    |     | Joash aet. 7. reigns 40 years:           | 23rd of Joash.

    |     | 2 Chron. XXII:12, XXIII:1. XXIV:1;       |

    |     | 2 Kings XI:21, XII:1. Josephus IX. 8, 4  |

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     |                         reproduced here) |


855 | 122 | The 23rd of Joash coincides with the 1st | Jekoakaz 17 years, in the 23rd of Joash:

    |     | of Jehoahaz, Jekoiada still living in    | 2 Kings XIII:1. Josephus IX. 8, 5.

    |     | the 23rd of Joash. 2 Kings XII:6-7. He   |  (The Greek from the original is not 

    |     | died aet. 130: 2 Chron. XXIV:15.         |                             reproduced here)

    |     |                                          | As Josephus gave only 27 years to Jehu,

    |     |                                          | he might place the accession of Jehoahaz

    |     |                                          | in the 21st of Joash.


839 | 138 | To the 39th of Joash inclusive from the  | The 17th of Jehoahaz not completed. Jehoash

    |     | accession of Athaliah there are in Judah | 16 years: 2 Kings XIII:10. In the "39th of

    |     | 6 + 39=45 years. In Israel from the same | Joash" in some copies of the Septuagint.

    |     | epoch are 28+17=45. The 17th, then, of   | The Hebrew text has "37th of Joash;" and

    |     | Jehoahaz coincided with the 39th of      | Josephus IX. 8, 6 (The Greek from the

    |     | Joash. But if the accession of Jehoash   | original is not reproduced here) Josephus

    |     | was within that 39th year, it follows    | is consistent with himself; since he placed

    |     | that the 17th of Jekoahaz was            | the accession of Jehoahaz in the 21st year;

    |     | not complete.                            | conf. a. 655.


838 | 139 | The 40th of Joash conumerary with the    | The 2nd of Jekoash commencing.

    |     | 1st of Jehoash ending and the 2nd        |

    |     | beginning.                               |








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


837 | 140 | Amaziah aet. 25. 29 years: 2 Kings XIV:2 | The 2nd of Jehoash concluded, and the 3rd

    |     | 2 Chron. XXV.:1. In the 2nd of Jehoash:  | commencing. Elisha dies in the reign of

    |     | 2 Kings XIV:1. Josephus IX. 9. 1-3. (The | Jehoash: 2 Kings XIII:14. Jehoash after his

    |     | Greek from the original is not           | death thrice defeated Ben-Hadad son of Hazael

    |     | reproduced here) The reign of Amaziah    | King of Syria: 2 Kings XIII:25 as Elishah

    |     | commenced towards the close of the 2nd   | had predicted to Jehoash at the beginning

    |     | year of Jehoash.                         | of his reign: 2 Kings XIII:14-19. conf.

    |     |                                          | Josephum IX. 8, 6. 7.


823 | 154 | The 15th of Amaziah commenced towards    | The 16th of Jehoash concluded. Jeroboam II,

    |     | the close of the 16th of Jehoash,        | 41 years, in the 15th of Amaziah,

    |     | and contained the accession of           | 2 Kings XIV:23. Josephus IX. 10, 1.

    |     | Jeroboam II.                             | (The Greek from the original is not

    |     |                                          |                           reproduced here)


809 | 168 | The 29th of Amaziah. He survived         | The 14th of Jeroboam II ends and the

    |     | Jehoash 15 years: 2 Kings XIV:17;        | 15th begins in the 29th year of Amaziah;     

    |     | 2 Chron. XXVI:1-3; Josephus IX. 9, 3     | whence it appears that the 15 years which

    |     |                                          | are said to have elapsed from the death of

    |     |                                          | Jehoash to the death of Amaziah were only

    |     |                                          | current years, and that the 29th of Amaziah

    |     |                                          | was complete.


808 | 169 | Uzziah 52 years, aet. 16: 2 Kings XV:2;  | The 1st of Uzziah contained partly the 15th

    |     | 2 Chron. XXVI:1-3. His accession is      | and partly the 16th year of Jeroboam II.

    |     | placed in the "27th year" of Jeroboam in |

    |     | 2 Kings XV:1 but in the "14th" by        |

    |     | Josephus IX. 10, 3. See above p. 316.    |

    |     | Josephus IX. 10, 4.                      |

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     |                         reproduced here) |


783 | 194 | The 26th of Uzziah contained part of the |

    |     | 40th and part of the 41st year of        |

    |     | Jeroboam II.


771 | 206 | The 38th of Uzziah contained the         | As the 15th of Jeroboam II ended in the 1st

    |     | beginning of the reign of Zachariah:     | year of Uzziah, his 41st year ended in the

    |     | 2 Kings XV:8. In the 38th year of        | 27th of Uzziah, But as Zachariah began to

    |     | Azariah did Zachariah the son of         | reign in the 38th, there remains an

    |     | Jeroboam reign, over Israel in Samaria   | interregnum in Israel of about 11 years.

    |     | 6 months.                                |


770 | 207 | The 39th of Uzziah contained the end of  | Zachariah slain in the 39th of Uzziah:

    |     | Zachariah, the month of Shallum, and the |  2 Kings XV:10-13. Shallum-slew him and

    |     | beginning of the 1st year of Menahem.    | reigned in his stead. Shallum began to reign

    |     |                                          | in the 39th year of Uzziah, and he reigned a

    |     |                                          | full month in Samaria. Slain by Menahem also

    |     |                                          | in the 39th of Uzziah: Ibid. 14-17. Menahem

    |     |                                          | reigns 10 years: Ibid. Josephus IX. 11, 1.

    |     |                                          | (The Greek from the original is not

    |     |                                          | reproduced here)








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


759 | 218 | The 50th of Uzziah coincides with the    | Pekaiah two years, in the 50th of Uzziah:

    |     | 1st of Pekaiah.                          | 2 Kings XV:23. Josephus IX. 11, 1. (The Greek

    |     |                                          | from the original is not reproduced here)

    |     |                                          | Since the 1st of Menahem began in the 39th of

    |     |                                          | Uzziah, his 10th year began in the 48th of

    |     |                                          | Uzziah, and was completed in the 49th; and

    |     |                                          | some short interval must have elapsed between

    |     |                                          | the death of Menahem and the accession of

    |     |                                          | Pekaiah.


757 | 220 | The 52nd of Uzziah comimerary with the   | Pekah 20 years, in the 52nd of Uzziah;

    |     | 1st of Pekah.                            | 2 Kings XV:27. Josephus IX. 11, 1

    |     |                                          | (The Greek from the original is not

    |     |                                          | reproduced here)


756 | 221 | Jotham aet. 25. 16 years, in the 2nd of  | The 2nd of Pekah conumerary with the 1st of

    |     | Pekah: 2 Kings XV:32-33; 2 Chron XXVII:1 | Jotham.

    |     | Josephus IX. 12, 1. (The Greek from the  |

    |     | original is not reproduced here)         |


741 | 236 | The 16th of Jotham not complete; for     | The 17th of Pehah contained partly the the

    |     | the 1st of Ahaz began in the 17th of     | 16th of Jotham and partly the 1st of Ahaz.

    |     | Pekiah: 2 Kings XVI:1. Akaz reigned      |

    |     | 16 years, and was 20 years of age:       |

    |     | 2 Kings XVI:2; 2 Chron. XXVIII:1.        |

    |     | Josephus IX. 12, 3. also makes him 20 at |

    |     | his accession: (The Greek from the       |

    |     | original is not reproduced here)  But    |

    |     | the number of the Septuagint better      |

    |     | agrees with the age of Hezekiah. See     |

    |     | above p. 318.


738 | 239 | The 4th of Ahaz. In the reign of Akaz    | The 20th of Pekah, if completed, would

    |     | the kings of Damascus were ended by the  | contain partly the 3rd and partly the 4th of

    |     | Assyrians: Isaiah XVII. One dynasty      | Ahaz. Pekah is slain in the 20th year of

    |     | reigned for eleven generations,          | Jotham: 2 Kings XV:30.

    |     | according to Nicol. Damasc, apud         |

    |     | Josephus Ant. VII. 5, 2. (The Greek from |

    |     | the original is not reproduced here)     |

    |     | [conf. 2 Sam. VIII. 3-6], (The Greek     |

    |     | from the original is not reproduced here)|

    |     | [conf. Joseph, t c. 1 Reg. XX. XXII].    |

    |     | Their reigns would occupy about 300      |

    |     | years. Bnt the succession had been       |

    |     | interrupted by Hazael; conf. a. 884.     |








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


730 | 247 | The 12th of Ahaz is made the 1st of      | Hoshea 9 years: 2 Kings XVII:1 in the 12th of

    |     | Hoshea: 2 Kings XVII:1. But if the 1st   | Ahaz. And, as Pekah was slain in the

    |     | of Hoshea commenced at the close of the  | beginning of the 4th of Ahaz (conf. A. 738),

    |     | 12th, his 4th year would commence at the | hence it is collected that an interregnum of

    |     | close of the 15th of Ahaz. Hence it      | 9 years current intervened between Pekah and

    |     | appears that the 16th of Ahaz was not    | Hoshea.

    |     | complete, because the 1st of Hezekiah    |

    |     | began within that 4th year of Hoshea.    |


726 | 251 | The 16th of Ahaz not complete. Hezekiah  |

    |     | aet. 25. 29 years: 2 Kings XVIII:2;      |

    |     | 2 Chron. XXIX:1. Josephus X. 3, 1. 7     |

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not      |

    |     | reproduced here) His accession is placed |

    |     | in the 3rd of Hoshea: 2 Kings XVIII:1.   |

    |     | But thia is inconsistent with other      |

    |     | dates. The 4th of Hezekiah was the 7th   |

    |     | of Hoshea; the 6th was the 9th. The 1st  |

    |     | therefore was in the 4th. Josephus IX.   |

    |     | 13, 1. (The Greek from the original is   |

    |     | not reproduced here) The 4th of Hoshea   |

    |     | commenced at the close of the 15th of    |

    |     | Ahaz, and concluded in the beginning of  |

    |     | the 1st year of Hezekiah.                |

723 | 254 | The 4th of Hezekiah commenced at the     | Samaria besieged in the 4th of Hezekiah,

    |     | close of the 7th of Hoshea.              | which was the 7th year of Hoskea:

    |     |                                          | 2 Kings XVIII:9. Josephus IX. 14, 1.


722 | 255 | The 5th of Hezekiah at the close of the  | Second year of the siege.

    |     | 8th of Hoshea.                           |


721 | 256 | The 6th of Hezekiah commenced towards    | Samaria taken at the end of three years, in

    |     | the dose of the 9th of Hoshea. Samaria   | the 6th year of Hezekiah, that is the 9th

    |     | therefore was taken in the beginning of  | year of Hoshea: 2 Kings XVIII:10; XVII:5-6.

    |     | the 6th of Hezekiah.                     | Josephus IX. 14, 1. (The Greek from the   

    |     |                                          | original is not reproduced here) Demetrius

    |     |                                          | apud Clem. Al. ascribes the capture to

    |     |                                          | Sennacherib: see above p. 288. 1.


713 | 264 | In the 14th of Hezekiah, Sennacherib invades Judea: 2 Kings XVIII:13. Isaiah XXXVI:1.

    |     | Josephus X. 1, 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Sickness of

    |     | Hezekiah 15 years before his death: 2 Kings XX; Isaiah XXXVIII. Josephus X. 2,1. (The

    |     | Greek from the original is not reproduced here) His sickness was after the retreat of

    |     | Sennacherib: 2 Kings XIX; XX whence we may collect that Hezekiah reigned 29 years

    |     | complete.








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


697 | 280 | Manasseh aet. 12. 55 years: 2 Kings XXI:1; 2 Chron. XXXIII:1. Josephus X. 3, 2. (The

    |     | Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


642 |     | Amos aet. 22. two years: 2 Kings XXI:39; 2 Chron. XXXIII:21; Josephus X. (The Greek from

    |     | the original is not reproduced here)


640 |     | Josiah aet. 8. 31 years: 2 Kings XXII:1; 2 Chron. XXXIV:1. Josephus X. 4, I. (The Greek

    |     | from the original is not reproduced here) X:5, 1. (The Greek from the original is not

    |     | reproduced here)


628 |     | Jeremiah begins to prophesy in the 13th year of Josiah : Jer. 1:2; XXV:3.


623 |     | The 18th of Josiah commences about May B.C. 623.


622 | --- | In the 18th year of Josiah the book of the Law read, the Passover solemnly kept, the

    |     | altar at Bethel destroyed: 2 Kings XXII:3-XXIII:23. Josephus X. 4, 2. (The Greek from

    |     | the original is not reproduced here) The prophecy in the let year of Jeroboam

    |     | (1 Kings XIII:2) was now fulfilled: Josephus X- 4, 4. (The Greek from the original is

    |     | not reproduced here) The 18th of Josiah was the 358th year according to the current

    |     | years of the reigns of Judah marked in Scripture and Josephus, but the 354th according

    |     | to the complete years. If the 18th year commenced in May B.C. 623, the Passover of that

    |     | 18th year would fall in March or April B. C. 622.


609 |     | Death of Josiah. From the age of his son it is probable that he reigned 31 years

    |     | complete. See above p. 318. And if his death occurred in May B.C. 609, his accession

    |     | would be placed in May B. C. 640.

    |     |

    |     | Jehoahaz 3m. Jehoiakim 10y. 6m. 15d. from August B.C. 609.


606 |     | The fourth year of Jehoiakim, from August B.C. 606. The 23rd from the 13th of Josiah:

    |     | Jerem. XXV:3. The deportation of Daniel was in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim: Dan. 1:1.

    |     | Whence we may place the expedition of Nebuchadnezzar towards the end of the 3rd and

    |     | beginning of the 4th year, in the summer of B C. 606. In the 4th year of Jehoiakim

    |     | Baruch writes the book: Jer. XXXVI:1-2.


605 |     | The 5th year of Jehoiakim commences from August B.C. 605. In the 9th month, in the 5th

    |     | year of Jehoiakim, Baruch reads the book: Jerem. XXXVI:8-10.=Nov. or Dec. B.C. 605.

    |     | While the king sat in the winter house: v. 22. Josephus X. 6, 2. (The Greek from the

    |     | original is not reproduced here)


598 |     | The 10th year of Jehoiakim is completed in August B.C. 599. The llth year not complete,

    |     | Jehoiakin 3m. aet. 18: 2 Kings XXIV:8. Josephue X. 6, 3. (The Greek from the original is

    |     | not reproduced here) from the end of Adar (about the beginning of March) to Thamuz or

    |     | June B.C. 598. Taken in the 8th year of the king of Babylon: 2 Kings XXIV:12 which was

    |     | therefore current (by the Scripture compntation) in June B.C. 598. Zedekiah aet.21.

    |     | 11 years: 2 Kings XXIV:18; 2 Chron. XXXVI:11. Josephus X. 7, 2. (The Greek from the

    |     | original is not reproduced here) His 11 years commenced in June B.C. 598, because they

    |     | were completed in June B. C. 587-


587 |     | The llth year of Jehoiakin's captivity commences in June B.C. 588. Ezekiel prophesies

    |     | against Tyre in the llth year in the 1st day of the month: Ezekiel XXVI:1 against Egypt

    |     | in the llth year in the 1st day of the 3rd month: Ezekiel XXXI:1 = March and May

    |     | B.C. 587. The llth year of Zedekiah is completed in June B.C. 587. Jerusalem is taken on

    |     | the 9th day of the 4th month: 2 Kings XXV:2-4; Jer. XXXIX:2; LIL:5-6. Josephus X. 8, 2.

    |     | (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) = June B.C. 587. The temple burnt

    |     | on the 10th day of the 5th month Ab = July B.C. 587: Jer. LII:12. The 7th day of the 5th

    |     | month is mentioned 2 Kings XXV:8 on which Nebuzar-adan came up. But the destruction was

    |     | completed on the 10th (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)  Joseph.

    |     | Ant. X. 8, 5 but more correctly (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

    |     | Idem BelL VI. 4, 5. From this point Usher fixes the accesions of the last four kings in

    |     | Judah: see F. H. III. p. 375. p. The 12th year of Jekoiakin's captivity commences at the

    |     | capture of Zedekiah. Ezekiel prophesies in the 5th day of the 10th month:

    |     | Ezek. XXXIII:21 = Dec. B.C. 587 and in the 1st day of the 12th month: Ezek. XXXII:1 =

    |     | February B. C. 586.








B.C.|   y.|                  JUDAH.                  |               ISRAEL.


573 |     | Ezekiel's vision, in the 25th year of our captivity, in the beginning of the year, in

    |     | the 10th day of ike month, in the 14th year after that the city mas smitten XL. 1. The

    |     | 25th year began in June B.C. 574, and the 1st month=March B. C. 573. The city was

    |     | smitten in June B.C. 587; the 14th year commenced June B.C 574, and was current till

    |     | June B. C. 573.


561 |     | The 37th year of Jekoiakin's captivity commenced in June B.C. 562; the 25th day of the

    |     | 12th month: Jer. LII:31 or the 27th day: 2 Kings XXV:27, Adar or February B.C. 561, fell

    |     | within the 1st year of Evil-Merodach, whose reign is dated from January 11. B.C. 561.

    |     | See above p. 319.



  y.                                y.        y.      B.C.


     Rehoboam ............................... 17       976

 18. Abijah .................................  3       959

 21. Asa .................................... 41       956

 62. Jehoashaphat ............... (25) ...... 24       915

 86. Jehoram ..................... (8) ......  7       891

 93. Ahaziah ................................  1       884

 94. Athaliah ...............................  6       883

100. Joash .................................. 40       877

140. Amaziah ................................ 29       837

169. Uzziah ................................. 52       808 (May)

221. Jotham ..................... (16) ...... 15       756

236. Ahas ....................... (16) ...... 15       741

251. Hezekiah ............................... 29       726

280. Manasseh ............................... 55       697

335. Amon ...................................  2       642

337. Josiah ................................. 31       640

368. Jehoahaz .....................     3m }         { 640

     Jehoiakim .................... 11     }         { 609

                                           }- 22y 1m-{

     Jehoiakin ....................     3m }         { 598

     Zedekiah ..................... 11     }         { 598









BEFORE we enquire into the Gospel Chronology, it will be convenient to take a brief survey of the whole subject of Scripture Chronology as it is set forth in the first Volume of the Fasti Hellenici. It is there shewn that the Hebrew notation gives 1656 years from Adam to the Flood, and 352 from the Flood to the birth of Abraham; that 505 years are marked in Scripture from the birth of Abraham  to the Exode; that from the Exode to the Temple were 612 years. Then followed the last 37 years of the reign of Solomon, and 389 from the death of Solomon to the destruction of the Temple, which happened in the 587th year before the Christian era. Reckoning upwards from this point, we obtain from these collected numbers B.C. 2130 for the birth of Abraham, B.C. 2482 for the Flood, and B.C. 4138 for the creation of Adam.


Mr. Cuninghame, whose laborious calculations and copious Tables are valuable aids to the student in Sacred Chronology, for all the time which follows the birth of Abrahamm, has preferred in the preceding periods the longer generations of the Septuagint, and places Adam at B.C. 5478 and the Flood at B.C. 3217. The chronology of Mr. Cuninghame has been adopted by Professor Wallace, who also accepts the longer computations of the Greek Version and rejects the numbers of the Hebrew Text; and has fully treated the subject in his dissertation on the True Age of the World. {a} The arguments by which he maintained his propositions shall in this place be briefly examined.


1. Professor Wallace p. 50 observes: "The argument that the shorter generations are repugnant to the course of nature is neither placed in a clear nor fairly answered by Mr. Clinton Fast. Hellen. Vol 1 p. 292."


I have affirmed at p. 294 that from Jacob to Moses the average of life was from 150 to 120 and I have shewn from Scripture that in this period Benjamin had 10 sons before he had attained 30




{a} A dissertation on the True Age of the World, in which is determined the Chronology of the period Creation to the Christian Era. By Professor Wallace. London 1844. 8vo pp. 307.





years; that in the line of Judah two generations were of 15 years each; that in the line of 9 generations were of 20 years each. From which facts it was not an unfair but a necessary conclusion that the age of puberty was the same at that time aa at present.


2. Wallace p. 55: "Mr. Clinton sees nothing wonderful in the fact that Idolatry should have sprung up during the lives of Noah and Shem, and accounts for it on the principle of the fecundity of mankind and their dispersion, -- It is very strange however that Tertah, who is mentioned in Joshua XXIV:2 as the only idolater among the post patriarchs, should have dared to follow the practices of the Heathen while all his pious ancestors yet alive!"


The epithet only is added by Mr. Wallace himself. No such expression appears in the original text which is as follows: "And Joshua said -- Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, even Terah the father of Abraham and the father of Nachor, and they served other Gods." {b}


3. At p. 57 it is observed: "The shorter computation is inconsistent with the credible accounts of profane history and the existence of so many populous kingdoms and empires in the days of Abraham. -- The history of the battle of the four kings against five in Gen. XIV implies a very great degree of populousness and civilisation in a single region, and more than can be admitted on the shorter computation. Nor can Sir Isaac Newton's answer be considered decisive, that the numbers of the allied armies must have been small because they were overcome by Abraham with a very small force; for it is the province of the Most High to save by many or by few. The account of Egypt at the descent of Abraham indicates that it was then an ancient populous and long established kingdom, and the profane records of its history -- reach to a period far beyond that assigned by the Hebrew text. In an excellent article entitled Annotations Geologiquee a la Genese, -- it appears that the epoch B. C. 2900 may in fact be considered as that of the foundation of the kingdom of Egypt."


We are not to be misled by the pompous appellations Kings and Kingdoms into the belief of the existence of populous states and empires. In the language of that early time the chief of every petty township was a king. Joshua conquered 31 kings within the narrow apace of Canaan. {c} The territories of all the five kings the allies of Abraham lay within a region perhaps 17 miles in length. {d} With respect to the kingdom of Egypt, the years assigned to the Egyptian dynasties are not sufficiently authentic to justify us in placing that kingdom at B. C. 2900. Josephus  {e} places Menes more than 1300 years before the reign of Solomon; that is, at about B. C. 2320. Jackson {f} in his Chronological Antiquities after a careful investigation places Menes at B. C. 2219, or 2220. Hales {g} at B.C. 2231. {h}


4. p.59: "Mr. Clinton has proved that an army of Medea occupied Babylon about B. C. 2233 -- according to his own computation about 250 years after the Flood, -- when, as he says, the population of the earth would amount to many millions. And yet in the same page he remarks "it is not likely that 101 years after




{b} Thus rendered in the LXX; (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here): Trans Euphratem habitorunt majom vestri antiquissimis temporibus, Terachus pater Abrahami et Nachoris, aliosque duos coluerunt.

{c} Joshua XII:24.

{d} See a Pastor's memorial, by the Rev D. J. Fiske, p. 314 "The original lake might have been 40 miles and the region of the five cities 17 miles in length." Mr. Fiske adds a very judicious remark from Wylie's Modern Judea: "The Kings of those days resembled the Sheikhs of modern times."

{e} Joseph. Ant. VIII. 6, 2 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) B. C. 1016 + 1300=2316 to the first year of Solomon.

{f} Vol. 2 p. 111-114.

{g} Analysis Vol. 3 p. 430.

{h} Although he calls this date "rather too low." p. 432.





that event the population would exceed 50.000 persons, and this number they would certainly have reached within 160 years of the Flood." Now even on the Eolerian ratio this number would increase only to about 6 1/2 millions in his interval of 90 years, which is far from many millions."


There is no inconsistency in my argument. I have assumed as probable that the numbers would double themselves every twelve years for 300 years after the Flood. Not to repeat here the numbers given elsewhere, {i} it will be sufficient to remark, first, that in 156 years thirteen periods would produce 49,152, and in 168 years fourteen periods would produce 98,304. I was therefore justified in concluding that at 160 years from the flood the numbers would be at the least 50,000. Secondly, that in 240 years twenty periods would produce 6,291,456, and in 252 years twenty-one periods would give 12,582,912. Therefore in 250 years from the flood the numbers of mankind were fast advancing to this latter amount, and might be assumed at nine or ten millions. The term many is relative, and ite value is fixed by the other circumstances: 9,000,000 or even 6,000,000 would be many in Holland, but few in France; would be many in Egypt, but few in China. If the inhabitants of the earth had been 9 or 10 millions, these might be called many at 250 years after the flood, at the time of a war between the Medes and Babylonians. When Abraham after the 75th year of his life {k} visited Egypt (in which Professor Wallace p. 58 imagines a difficulty) the population of the earth upon the lower estimate had attained more than two hundred millions. {l}


5. Mr. Wallace p. 61 writes as follows: "Mr. Clinton adds that 'it is difficult to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for shortening their genealogies.' Not more difficult in our opinion than to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for shortening· the life of Jesus Christ. A difficulty however 'to imagine an adequate motive' for any transaction is no proof that it did not take place."


But in this case, in the absence of all evidence, it is absolutely necessary to assign a. motive. He who charges the Jews with corrupting their own genealogies, in order to make his accusation credible, is bound to shew why they did it. The whole force of the charge depends upon this. Mr. Home in his Introduction to the Scriptures, {m} having traced the genuineness of the Pentateuch, up to the reign of Solomon, very justly concludes that the Pentateuch which we possess is genuine because the Jews could have had no motive during the period between Joshua and Solomon for substituting a spurious production.


Professor Wallace however finds that they had a motive for corrupting their genealogies, which he states as follows:


Page 61- "The Jews did not attempt to 'shorten the genealogies,' that is, to corrupt the chronology of the Scriptures, till all the witnesses were dead who knew Jesus.--But when they found afterwards that the Christians constantly proved out of the Septuagmt that Jesua was the Messiah, they had then a sufficient motive for 'shortening the genealogies,' if they could make it appear from the Hebrew text that our Lord had come about 15 centuries earlier than the time fixed by tradition; and that the epoch of the true Messiah's advent had not yet arrived, p. 172 (according to the Rabbins) the world is to last in its fallen state 6000 years, and then is to he restored and purified as at the beginning.--There are to be seven ages of the world, each containing 1000 years, p. 178.179 'The belief of the seven ages,' says Dr. Russell, 'has been detected in the writings of Heathens, Jews, and Christians. It is traced in the Sibylline Oracles, in Hesiod, in the work ascribed to Darius Hystaspes the king of the Medes, to Hermes Trismegistus.--Plato quotes from Orpheus the same mystical doctrine--that the earth was doomed in the seventh age to be consumed




{i} F. H, Vol. 1 p. 295 note q.

{k} Perhaps in his 76th year : Gen. XII:4-19 in the 328th year from the flood.

{l} See F. H. Vol. 1 p. 295.

{m} Vol. 1 p. 54, 55 of the 9th edition, 1846.





by fire.' {n} Dr. Russell discovers in these opinions, however ill founded and absurd they may seem, the principal motive which actuated the Jews about the beginning of the second century in their attempt to vitiate the moat authentic of their chronicles. 'Their rejection of Christ,' says he, 'rendered necessary an extensive change in their dates and calculations.' p. 188 It is manifest that there is great reason to suspect that the numbers contained in the Hebrew text which have reference to dates and to the age of the world have been systematically and extensively altered. Dr. Russell cites a passage from the celebrated Abolpha-rajius, in which he asserts that the Jews, believing it to have been foretold that the Messiah was to have teen sent in the last times, altered the chronology in order to produce a reason for rejecting Jesus Christ. Thus they made it appear by their new computation that Christ was manifested in the very beginning of the fifth millennium, near to the middle of the period to which the duration of the earth was to be limited; that is, -- not more than 7000 years in all. But the computation of the Septuagint, he observes, shewed that Christ did actually come in the middle of the 6th millenary, the very time at which the prediction of the Old Testament led mankind to expect his advent. The learned Doctor refers also to the candid Augustine, who states that the Jews were suspected of having corrupted their copies--and particularly of having altered the generations and lives of the antediluvian patriarchs out of dislike to the Christians.--Though Augustine saw that the temptation to vitiate the sacred text lay with the Rabbins, and that the Greek translators had no inducement to alter the original, he was unwilling to believe that either party could have intentionally altered the Scriptures, thinking it more probable that the differences had originated in the wish of a transcriber to render the generations more natural, p. 191 Dr. Russell states that the publication of the Seder Olam Rabba in A. D. 130 may with certainty be regarded as the epoch at which the Jews altered their genealogies, and changed the dates of the great events."


Hales {o} had already suggested the same argument from Ephrem Syrus and from Abulpharajius that the Jews expected the Messiah in the middle of the 6th millennium, and shortened the genealogies to make it appear that the true time was not yet come. He proceeds to shew that the origin of this notion of 6000 years is explained by Gregory of Oxford, whom he quotes. He refers also to the Sibylline Oracles, Hesiod, Hystaspes, and affirms that this period of 6000 years was adopted by the fathers, and that the prevalence of the tradition throughout the Pagan Jewish and Christian world was a sufficient reason with the Jews for shortening their Chronology.


Hystaspes {p} and the Sibyl are largely quoted by Lactantius VII. 15-21 p. 643-652. It is needless to urge that these are spurious writings, like the writings falsely ascribed to Orpheus and to Sanchoniatho. Nor is it necessary here to examine the authority of that cabalistic period of 6000 years. We have only to enquire how the Jews understood it, and whether they were induced on this account to mutilate their genealogies. This term of 6000 years was understood to terminate at the end of the world. The language was, AEtate in sexta cessabit rnachina mundi. The world was to be destroyed by fire, as in one of the Sibylline lines (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) {q} Then was to follow a regeneration and a reign of Apollo or the Sun, -- as in the Sibyl quoted by Servius ad Eclog. Virg. IV. 4 Finitis omnibus seculis rursulis eadem renorari. The Jews then would not, as Ephrera Syrus and Abulpharajius suppose, have altered their numbers to meet the argument of the Christian fathers. They would assert that the characters described had not yet appeared. The fathers are inaccurate in their period. For if there is any thing in the Jewish period of 6000 years, it is required that the six millenniums should be perfect and complete




{n} Where Mr. Wallace adds this note: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Philebos p. 157 cited by Dr. Ruesell p. 77 of his Connexion." Whether by accident or design I know not, the note of Mr. Wallace has (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) instead of (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).

{o} Analysis of Chronology Vol. 1 p. 78.

{p} Hystaspes is mentioned by Justin Martyr Apol. I. 20. 44. by Agathias II. 24 p. 62 C Clemens Al. Strora. VI p. 636 C Amroianus Marcellinus XXIII. 6, 32. "Conf. Walchh comment, de Hystaspe et ejus vaticiniis apud patres in commentat. Soc. reg. Gotting. torn. II p. 3-18." Wagner ad Ammian. 1.c.

{q} Lactant. VII. 19.





from Adam to the birth of Christ in the reign of Attgitstus. But as the fathers could only obtain five millenniums and a half from, their Chronology, they inaccurately substituted this defective and incomplete period for six millenniums. But how could 5500 years represent 6000 years?


Dr. Bussell quotes and Professor Wallace approves a line of Orpheus from Plato recording the ages of the world and its destruction by fire. Their guide to this error has been Jackson. But it is remarkable that neither Russell nor Wallace should have taken the trouble to consult Plato himself in order to know what Plato really said. {r}


Mr. Wallace refers those mutilations of the genealogies to A. D. 130, which Dr. Russell, whom he follows, has affirmed to be with certainty the epoch. But Mr. Cuninghame himself admits that the shorter genealogies were known to Josephus and were inserted before the Jewish war: Synopsis of Chronology p. vii "I have recently been led to change my opinion upon one point, being now compelled by the force of evidence to conclude that the corruption of the Chronology must have taken place at an earlier period than I formerly supposed. I now believe it to have been in the interval between our Lord's death and the beginning of the Jewish war. This allows more than 30 years for the purpose, which is quite sufficient. I also conceive that it must have been well known to Josephus, and the end for which it was done."


But this fact, that the shorter genealogies were already in the Hebrew within 30 yeans after the Ascension, makes the charge of corruption still less credible. For at that early period the Christians had not yet sufficient influence to be formidable to the Jews, who had hopes, while Jerusalem and their Temple yet stood, of putting down the rising sect. Is it to be believed that within 30 years of the Ascension the Jews would corrupt the genealogies in order to produce so obscure and unintelligible a result as that which arises from the period of 6000 years? To what purpose were they to mutilate their genealogies, when there were yet 500 years to their Messiah's advent, and half a millennium wanting to complete the destined period? If the short numbers were in the copies before the Jewish war, they were there before the Crucifixion. And this is confirmed by another consideration. The Jews are charged with expunging the Second Cainan from the postdiluvian patriarchs when they altered their numbers. It was done at the same time and from the same motive. But Cainan II was absent from the copies used by Philo, and Philo was an old man in A. D. 40 and probably 50 years of age at the time of the Crucifixion. He had therefore studied the Scriptures in Hebrew copies extant before that period. But if Cainan II was absent from those copies, we may infer that the long computations were absent also.


6. Mr. Wallace observes p. 62: "Mr. Clinton finally asserts that the translators had a very obvious motive for enlarging the Chronology because the Chaldeans and Egyptians laid claim to a remote antiquity. But the difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint is only about 15 centuries. This difference indeed was quite sufficient for the purpose of the Jews in denying the advent of the true Messiah, but it was wholly insufficient nay utterly useless for the purpose of coping with the pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, For it appears--that Berosua claimed for the Chaldeans--no less than 470,000 years, and from the fragments of Manetho and the Old Chronicle preserved by Syncellus that for the first Egyptian kings an antiquity is claimed of 36,525 years.--The argument therefore is so very absurd that it completely refutes itself."




{r} Lobeck Aglaophamus p. 788 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Eodemque modo bunc versam Boissardus de Divinat. p. 137 Jacksonus Ant. Chronol. p. 71 aliique hujus ineruditte aetatis, quorum unus ab altero errorem quasi per manus accepit, nullus autem quid tandem Plato dixent quserere dignatua est. Is vero longe almd quiddam dixit m Philebo p. 66 C, ubi Socrates enumerates quinque voloptatum generibus addit (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) pro vulgan perorandt formula (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here). Dr. Russell and Professor Wallace are now to be added to the long list of tbose who have not deigned to consult Plato himself." Second ed. 1845.





The absurdity would be in supposing that these amounts of years were believed to be historical time, which were only astronomical periods. The Egyptians themselves never laid claim to more than 8000 years in the time of Solon, ae we learn from Plato. {t} Eudoxus in the time of Plato interpreted those myriads of years to mean months: Proclus ad Timseum p, 31 1. 50. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) And as months they are explained in the Armenian Eusebius. {v} But the 36,525 years were an astronomical cycle obtained by multiplying 1461 by 25: as Syncellus computes p. 52 A B. la like manner the Chaldean period of 432,000 years in Syncellus p. 30 A is an astronomical period produced by multiplying 24,000 by 18 {w} and 473,040 years were produced by multiplying 1460 by 324. {x}


7. It has been shewn in the first volume of the Fasti Hellenici p. 289 that the second Cainan was absent from the copies of Philo and JosephuSj and omitted by Berosus. On this point Professor Wallace writes as follows:


"Page 35. Syncellus very properly includes Shem in the genealogy, although he is necessarily omitted in the chronology because he was aa antediluvian by birth, his antepaidogonian age being entirely omitted in the Scripture, and the birth of his boh being reckoned from the flood. Hence we find that all the ancient writers reckon Noah the /"p/? from Adam, and Abraham the tenth from the flood, Shem being evidently the eleventh from Adam, and Abraham the twenty-first, p. 40 Nothing is more surprising than the pertinacity of error. -- We have seen that when the second Catnan is admitted into the text Abraham must be reckoned the tenth generation from the flood; consequently, if he be rejected, Abraham must be reckoned only the ninth, contrary to the united voice of antiquity, both sacred and profane. Hales and Clinton have both cited extracts in proof of their argument --- from Berosus Josephus and Philo shewing that Abraham was universally reckoned the tenth generation after the food. The subterfuge adopted by the advocates of the Hebrew verity in reckoning Shem - as one of the generations after the flood in order to make up their number is too weak to require any comment. There is no doubt therefore that both Hales and Clinton are in the wrong and that Jackson and Cuninghame are 'in the right,' p. 245 Africanue states that from the flood and to the descent of Abraham into the promised land were ten generations - and from Adam twenty generations. We have sufficiently discussed the question of the number of generations in pp. 34 - 40. It is quite unnecessary therefore to resume the subject. Suffice it to say that Shem was an antediluvian, and therefore his generation could not oe reckoned in the number of generations after the flood. Neither was it reckoned in the number before the flood, for Noah was reckoned the tenth from Adam, and Abraham the tenth from the flood."


And yet Mr. Wallace had told us at p. 35, 36, that Syncellus had properly included Shem in the genealogy, and that Abraham was the twenty-first from Adam. We are not however left in doubt of the meaning of Philo. For Philo, {xx} having marked ten generations of which Noah was the tenth, proceeds to give ten other generations, of which he expressly names shem as the first and Abraham as the last. And that twenty-one generations were reckoned by those who admitted the second Cainan is proved by Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 41 p. 733 D. For Gregory, who with the LXX admitted a second Cainan, reckons Abraham the 2lst from Adam: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)




{t} Plato Tlmaeo p. 23 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{v} Euseb. Chron. I. 20 p. 93 Ex AEgyptians Manethonis monumentis,---Summa temporum in mule myrtadas consurgit annoram, qui tamen lunares, nempe menstruif sunt, Sed revera dominatto quam narrant AEgyptii Deorum Heroum et Manium tenuisse putatur lunares annos omnino 24,900, ex quibus fiunt solares anni 2206.

{w} See Hales Vol. 1 p. 143.

{x} Hales Vol. 1 p. 144, explaining Diodorus.

{xx} In the passage quoted in Fast. Hellen. Vol. 1. 289 note p.





(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)  But Origen, who omitted Cainan II, reckons Abraham the 20th from Adam: Comm. in Joannem tom. XX Vol. 2 p. 1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) In the first series the ten generations include NOAH, in the second series the ten are exclusive of Noah. On comparing Philo we perceive that Berosua in the phrase (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) speaks inclusively of the generation in which the flood happened; and Hales is in the right in his interpretation of the meaning of Berosus. That Josephus omits the second Cainan will not I suppose be denied, who says Ant. I. C, 4 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


8. In the period from the Exode to the Temple I have the satisfaction of 6nding that the amount which I have assigned, 612 years, is confirmed by Mr. Cuninghame, who agrees also in 612 years for the interval. Mr. Wallace supposes a difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint in this period.


Page 49 "Mr. Clinton endeavours to defend the Hebrew chronology especially ia the first two ages of the world; although he ia forced to yield to the mass of evidence against it in the book of Judges."


He considers p. 59 my date for the flood obtained by "a computation partially interpolated from the Septuagint." That is, in the period from the exode to the temple, in which 1 have added 133 years to the numbers of Usher. But there is no such, difference between the two copies. It will appear from the following list of dates that the Hebrew and the Septuagint agree.




Moses. Deut. I:3 ....                       40

Joshua.......... Joshua XIV:7. 10 {z} .....

the Elders

1 Servit Mesopotam.. Jud. III:8 ............ 8

Othniel .............Jud. III:11 ........... 40

2 Servit Moab .......Jud. III:14 ........... 18

Ehud ............... Jud. III:30 ........... 80

Shamgar ............ Jud. III:31 ...........

3 Servit. Canaan ....Jud. IV:3 ............. 20

Deborah and Barak ...Jud. V:31 ............. 40

4 Servit. Midian. ...Jud. VI:1 .............  7

Gideon ..............Jud. VIII:28 .......... 40

Abimelech ...........Jud. IX:22.............  3

Tola ................Jud. X:2 .............. 23

Jair ................Jud. X:3 .............. 22

5 Servit.. Ammon ....Jud. X:8 .............. 18

Jephthah ............Jud. XII:7 ............  6

Ibzan ...............Jud. XII:9 ............  7

Elon ................Jud. XII:11 ........... 10

Abdon .............. Jud. XII:14 ...........  8

6 Servit Philistin ..Jud. XIII:1 ........... 40

Samson ..............Jud. XVI:31 ........... 20

Eli .................1 Sam. IV:18 .......... 40


David................ lKings II:11 ......... 40
Solomon .... 1 Kings VI:1 .... 3 y. 2 m.





{y} In F. H. Vol. 1 p. 289 note 1.

{z} The 40 years and the 45th year of the Hebrew are in the Septnagint also (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)





The numbers which are the elements of our calculation are identical in both copies.


Mr. Wallace p. 73 speaks of a difference in the regal period: "The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint chronologies in this period amounts only to about fifteen years which is chiefly owing to an interregnum between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah not acknowledged by Usher and his followers."


Again p. 95: "Eusebius acting under Jewish influence reduced the era·--by the omission of fifteen years in the Monarchal period."


But here also no difference exists between the copies. In the texts upon which the interregnum is founded the Hebrew and the Septuagint have the same numbers. {a}


The period from tho death of Solomon to the destruction of the Temple is thus given.



            By Usher -- B.C. 975-588=(388) 387y.

In F. Hellen. Vol. I -- B.C. 976-587=389y. 1m.

       By Cuninghame -- B.C. 990-588=402y.



In the second Volume of the Fasti Hellenici the edict of Cyrus and the termination of the Captivity are assigned to the 536th year before the Christian era. {b} Cuninghame and Wallace also agree in placing these events at that year.




We now proceed to the Gospel Chronology. The various opinions upon the duration of the Ministry have been touched upon in the Tables {c} and the computations of some early fathere, of Irenseus of Clemens Alexandrinus of Tertullian, have been given. It is shewn from Augustine {d} that no evidence remained to fix the year of the Nativity or the year of the Ascension. The early fathers knew nothing upon this subject beyond what was contained in the Scriptures which we now possess. If the apostles in their oral teaching recorded more concerning the life and actions of their Master than is now extant in the Scripture narrative, more was not transmitted to succeeding times. The decisions of the fathers upon the year of the birth of Christ and the duration of the Ministry were founded as ours are upon Scripture and not upon traditions. {e}


The whole Gospel History chronologically considered refers to three periods -- 1. before the Ministry. 2. during the Ministry. 3. from six days before the last Passover to the end of the Gospel History.


1. The following parts of the four Gospels belong to the First Period, including all the time before the Ministry.


Matthew 1:1-4:11.

Mark 1:1-13.

Luke 1:1-4:13.

John 1:1-18 describes the Eternal Existence and the Deity of the Son of God.




{a} The numbers in 2 Kings XIV:21 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) and in 2 Kings XV:1 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)in the LXX are also 16y and the 27th year in the Hebrew The reasons for not admitting the interregnum are offered in F. H. Vol. I p 3I6.

{b} See F H. Vol II p. 301-312=366-378. Towards the close of B. C. 536. within Ol. 61.1 U. C Varr. 218.

{c} See the Tables A. D. 29 col 2. 3. 4.

{d} See the Tables A. D. 29 col. 3 p. 15.

{e} If the three dectxds of years and the three years of the Ministry, which Hales Vol. I p. J99 confidently quotes as the testimony of Ignatius, were genuine, Ignatius might have received these from personal communication with St John. Butthese occur m a spurious passage of the Epist ad Trallenses. Compare the interpolated text in p. 13 of ed. Genev. 1623 with the genuine text in p. 336 of Jacobson's Edition Oxon. 1838.





3. The transactions of the Third Period are contained in these passages.


Matthew XXVI:17 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) to the end, Matthew XXVIII:20.

Mark XIV:12 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) to the end, Mark XVI:20.

Luke XXII:7 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) to the end, Luke XXIV:53.

John XII:16 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) to the end, John XXI:25.


The arrangement of the times of these two parts is sufficiently clear. The Second Part comprehending the intermediate space is more difficult. The only probable method of arranging it is to select some particular facts and to distribute the other incidents around them.


The question is, whether there were three Passovers during the Ministry or only two ; whether the last Passover was the fourth or the third. St. John notices six feasts, three of which are named as Passovers.


1. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) II. 13. The first Passover.

2. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) V. 1.

3. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) VI. 4. The last Passover but one.

4. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) VII. 2.

5. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) X. 22.

6. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) XI. 55. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) XIII. 1. The last Passover.


He mentions the first Passover II. 13 And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went tip to Jerusalem. II. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover in the feast day many believed in his name. This Passover happened before John the Baptist was cast into prison: III:2-2. 24. after this Passover Jesus came into Galilee: IV:3. after that journey another feast : V. I after this there icas a feast of the Jetcs, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. St. John then briefly relates some of the thinge which were done by Jews during that stay at Jerusalem, and then proceeds VI. 1 - 4 After these things Jems went over the sea of Galilee which it the sea of Tiberias* and a great multitude followed him because they saw his miracles which he did on those that were diseased And Jesus went up into a mountain and there he sat with his disciples. And the Passover a feast of the Jews was nigh. Was the second of these three feasts a Passover, mentioned at V. 1, or was it some other feast?


The space from the Baptism to the Ascension was either a little more than three years, or a little more than two. Each of these periods is adopted by some of the ancient writers.


Melito, who flourished about A. D, 160-172, calls the Ministry three years: apud Routh reuq. patrum torn. 1 p. 115. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Siypolytus, who flourished A. D. 220-227, places it within three years: Routh Rel. patrum tom. I p. 136 "Hippolytus in Interpretatione sua in Danielem §. 4 Christum docet advenisae anno mitndi 5530 possum vero esse anno 5533." Origen, who wrote within A. D. 210 - 253, varies in his accounts. In his work (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)  compiled within A. D. 227 - 230 {f} he imagined the period to be a year and a few months. But in the horn, in Lucam he rejects or doubts this opinion. In the work against Oelsus, composed about A. D. 248 {g} he reckons the ministry at less than 3 years; and in the comm. in Matthaeum, composed according to Eusebius after the work against Celsus, {h} almost 3 years {i}. Eusebius A. D. 308-340 computed 3 years and a half. {k}




{f} That is, after A, D. 226 and before 231. See the Tables A. D. 229. 4.

{g} Towards the close of the reign of Philip: See the Tables A. D 246,4.

{h} Tables A. D. 246. 3,

{i} Origenes  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) IV. 3 tom. 21 p. 49l ed Berolin. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Idem Serra. XXXII in Lccam torn. 5 p. 208 Prsdicarf annum Domini -acceptum. [Isaiah LXI:1]. Juxta sim·





Apollinarius of Laodicea A.D. 362-366 reckoned only two years: Hieron. ad Danielem c. 9 p. 503 A Apollinariut Laodicenus -- "Tricesimo enim junta evangelittam Lucam anno aetatis suae coepit in carne Dominus evangelium praedicare, et juscta Joannem evangelistam per tria paschata duos implevit annos." Epiphanius A. D. 347-402 reckons three passovers; Adv. haer. tom. I p. 444 B (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here.) p. 448 A. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here.)  Chrysostom A. D. 381-407 marks the third year current: Ep. 3 ad Olympiadem tom. 7 p. 70, 38 Sav. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here.) Interpreting John V:1 tom. 2 p. 699,32 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here.) he observes (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here.) Gaudmtius A. D. 887 quoted by Lardner Vol. 4 p. 503 allowed only one year: Anniculus est quia post illud baptismum -- usque ad pasaionis suae diem unius anni tempus impleiw. Annionua and Panodonts A, D. 412 reckoned 3 years to the ministry. {l}


The Paschal Chronicle cir. A. D. 629 p. 217 D numbers four passovere and computes 3 years and 76 days {m} from the Baptism to the Passion. Andreas of Caesarea (cir. A.D. 800) assigns three years and a half to the Ministry: Comm. in Apocaljpsin ex versions Peltani p. 170 spatium quod a Christi Baptismate usque ad illius in coelum ascensum fluxit--trieteridem, cum anm semisse. Lastly Syncellius A. D. 808 computes 3 years from the Baptism to the Crucifixion. {n}


Modern chronologers are also divided in their opinions. Scaliger, Archbishop Newcome, White, Hales and Greswell agree in four passovers. Others, as Cardinal Norisll {nn} Bishop Tomline {o} and Mr. Benson, {p} think that the feast in John V:1 was not a passover, and that the last passover recorded in the Gospels was the third and not the fourth.


The Second of the Three Periods into which we divided the Gospel History {q} begins at the Baptism and terminates six days before the Last Passover. But this period again may be subdivided into two parts; the first part ends at the feeding the 5000, a miracle recorded by all the four Evangelists; the second embraces the rest of the second period. The space contained in this second subdivision is accurately defined. It includes the last Passover but one in Spring, the feast of Tabernacles in Autumn, the feast of Dedication in Winter, and ends six days before




plicem inttelligentiam aiunt uno anno Salvaiorem in Judae evangelium praedicasse [see the Tables A. D. 29. 3 p 13]. et hoc esse quod diatur predicare annum Domini acceptum--Nisi forte quiddam sacramenti in praedicalione anni Domini divinus sermo significat. Idem contra Celsuin II 12 torn. 18 p. 157 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Idem Comm. in Matthaeum opp torn. 4 p. 276 Pnfdicalionis Domini fere axnos trea.


{k} For Eusebius see the Tables A. D. 33. 2. But Eusebius has confounded the testimony of St. John with the testimony of St. Luke, and has attributed to St. John what he has not said. Eusebius affirms H. E. III. 24 that the three Gospels (of Matthew Mark and Luke) contain only one year's narrative after the imprisonment of John the Baptist: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) which is inconsistent with his other account of 3 years and a half for the whole Ministry.

{l} See the Tables A. D. 412. 4.

{m} Tables A. D. 32. 2.

{n} Syncellus p. 325 C (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) p. 3 B (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{nn} Norisius tom. 3 p. 517 "Christus anno insequenti Sexta Januarii [Jan. 6 A.D. 27] a Joanne baptizatus fuit, ac proinde tria tantum paschata celebravit antequam mortem duobus Geminis consulibus [A.D. 29] sibiret."

{o} Elements of Christian Theology Vol. I p. 338, 523. Dr. Burton in his edition of the Greek Testament supposes John to speak of only three Passovers, and the feast in V. 1. to be some other feast. See the notes to John 2:13; 5:1; 6:4; 11:55. And yet he calls the Ministry "three years;" note on Luke 13:32. Which, strictly taken, is inconsistent with the former opinion.

{p} As        quoted in Horne's Introduction Vol. 2 p. 354.

{q} See above p. 227.





the last Passover in the spriag following. The transactions of twelve months or a little more are contained in this part of the narrative. Our limits of inquiry are therefore confined to the space between the Baptism and the feeding the 5000. The accounts of the four evangelists in the Second Period are set forth in the following Table.



MATTHEW                 MARK                  LUKE                     JOHN

A the baptism III:13    A the baptism I:9     A the baptism III:21     1 testimony of the Baptist


B the temptation IV:1.  B the temptation I.13 B the temptation IV:1    2 Jesus in Galilee I. 43

                                                                       3 the marriage in Cana II:1

                                                                       4 the PASSOVER at hand.

                                                                       5 he purgeth the temple II.14

                                                                       6 teacheth Nicodemus III:1

                                                                       7 baptizeth in Judea III:22

                                                                       John not yet in prison III:24


C Jesus in Galilee      C Jesus in Galilee    C returned into Galilee  C departeth again into 

After John was cast     after John was cast                     IV:14  Galilee IV:1

Into prison IV:12       into prison I:14                              


                                                                       8 talketh with the woman of

                                                                       Samaria IV. 7.

                                                                       9 healeth the nobleman's son

                                                                       at Capernaum IV:46.


                        D Peter and Andrew,

                        James and John called



E he went into          E he went to          E he went to Capernaum

Capernaum IV:12-13      Capernaum and cast    and cast out an unclean

                        out an unclean spirit spirit IV:31-36.




D Peter and Andrew                                                     D Peter and Andrew James

James and John called                                                  and John called I:37-42.

IV:18-22                                                               Philip called I:43.


                        F Peter's wife's      F Peter's wife's mother

                        Mother healed.        Healed. IV:39.

He teaches through      I:21-27.              he teaches throughout

Galilee IV:23-25        He teaches throughout Galilee IV:43-44

                        Galilee I:38-39.



G the leper VIII:2-4.   G he cures a leper.   G he cures a leper

                        I:40-45.              V:12-15.

F Peter's wife's mother

cured VIII:14-17.


                        H cures a paralytic   H cures a paralytic

                        II:1-12.              V:17-26.


N he calms a tempetst.  I Matthew called.     I Matthew called V:27-32.

VIII:23-27.             II:13-17.

                                                                       10 healeth at the pool of

                                                                       Bethesda, at a feast of the

                                                                       Jews V:1,2. [the Passover].






MATTHEW                 MARK                  LUKE                     JOHN


O casts out the         J ears of corn        J ears of corn gathered 

Legion of devils        gathered on the       Sabbath--VI:1-5.

VIII:28-IX:1.           Sabbath II:23-28.


H cures the paralytic   K the withered hand   K the withered hand

IX:2-8                  II:23-28              VI:6-10


I Matthew called        L he ordaineth the    L he ordains the

IX:18-26                twelve apostles       twelve VI:12-19



P Jairus' daughter                            the Sermon on the

IX:18-26                                      Mount. VI:20-49.


He teaches throughout                         the centurion's

Galilee IX:35.                                serhvant. VII:1-10.


Q sends forth the                             the dead man at nain.

Twelve apostles                               VII:11-17



@ John the Baptist                            @ John the Baptist

sends to enquire                              sends to enquire.

XI:2-6                                        VII:18-24


J ears of corn                                the woman anoints him

Gathered XII:1-8                              at the Pharisee's

                                              house. VII:36-50


K the withered hand                           he preaches again

Healed XII:9-13                               throughout Galilee



M the parable of the    M the parable of the  M the parable of the

Sower XIII:1-23         Sower IV:1-20         sower VIII:4-15


                        N he stills a storm   N he stills a storm

                        IV:35-41              VIII:22-25


                        O casts out a legion  O casts out a legion

                        Of devils V:1-20      of devils VIII:26-39.


                        P Jarus' daughter     P Jairus' daughter

                        V:22-43               VIII:26-39


                        Q he sends forth the  Q he sends forth the

                        Twelve apostles       twelve apostles

                        VI:7-13.              IX:1-6.


R John the Baptist      R John the Baptist    R John the Baptist now

Already dead XIV:1-2    already dead VI:14    dead. IX:7-9

[he parenthetically     [he parenthetically  

relates the death of    relates the death of

John XIV:3-11.]         John VI:17-29.]


S the 5000 XIV:13-21    S the 5000 VI:30-44   S the 5000 IX:10-17      S the 5000 VI:1-14

                                                                       The PASSOVER being

                                                                       Nigh. VI:4.



The four narratives meet at this point From this undoubted and unquestionable date the Gospel History of the Ministry proceeds through the last Passover but one to the last Passover itself; as in the following Table:




MATTHEW                 MARK                  LUKE                     JOHN


(S the 5000)            (S the 5000)          (S the 5000)             (S the 5000)


T Jesus walks on the    T he stills another                            T he walks on the sea

Sea and calms a storm   storm. VI:45-52.                               and calms a storm.

XIV:22-33.                                                             VI:16-71. {r}


                        he returns into the

                        land of Gennesareth








MATTHEW                 MARK                  LUKE                     JOHN


X justifies the         X justifies the                                H He discourses at Capernaum

unwashen hands.         unwashen hands

XV:1-14                 VII:1-23


Z cures a Canaanitish   Z cures Syrophenician

woman's daughter in     woman's daughter in

in the coast of Tyre    borders of Tyre and

and Sidon. XV:21-28.    Sidon VII:24-30.

                        thence coming to the

                        sea of Galilee cures

                        a deaf man VII:31-37.


AA feeds 4000 XV:29-38  AA feeds 4000 VIII:1-9

warns his disciples     at Bethsaida cures a

of the Pharisees.       Blind man. VIII:22-26.



BB Peter's confession   BB Peter's confesion  BB Peter's confession

of Christ XVI:13-20     of Christ VIII:27-30  of Christ IX:18-21


CC Christ foretells his CC Christ fortells    CC Christ foretells

own death XVI:21-27     his own death         his death IX:22-26



DD the Transfiguration  DD the Transfigrtn    DD the Transfiguration

XVII:1-13.              IX:2-13.              IX:28-36.


he casts out the        he casts out the      he casts out the

devil XVII:14-21        devil IX:14-29        devil IX:41


EE he foretells his     EE passes privately   EE he fortels his death

Death while they abode  through Galilee and   IX:43-45

In Galilee XVII:22-23.  and foretells his   

                        Death IX:30-32.


FF comes to Capernaum   FF comes to Capernaum

and pays the tribute    and (GG) teaches

money XVII:24-27        humility IX:33-37


GG teaches humility     his discourse in      GG teaches humility

XVIII:1-14.             answer to John        IX:46-48.



Parable of the                                a in his way to          12 Jesus goeth up from

10,000 talents                                Jerusalem he is rejected Galilee to the feast of

XVIII:21, 35.                                 by the Samaritans        Tabernacles VII:2-53.


                                              b he sends the 70        13 the woman taken in

                                              X:1-16                   adultery VIII:1-11.


                                                                       14 he answereth the Jews



                                                                       15 the man that was born

                                                                       blind restored to sight



                                              c the 70 return 17-24


                                              d the good Samaritan   



                                              e he is received by

                                              Martha and Mary



                                              f the Lord's prayer {s}



                                              g he reproves the

                                              Pharisees {t} XI:37-54.


                                              h the fig tree XIII:6-9





{r} St. John adds VII. 1 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) He remained in Galilee and the adjacent country between the last Passover but one and the feast of Tabernacles: from Spring to Autumn.

{s} Included by St Matthew VI:9 in the Sermon on the Mount.

{t} In Matt. XXIII after the Entry into Jerusalem.






MATTHEW                 MARK                  LUKE                     JOHN


                                              i he cures an infirm

                                              woman on the Sabbath



                                              j journeys towards

                                              Jerusalem XIII:22


                                              k at the house of a

                                              Pharisee on the

                                              Sabbath the parable

                                              of the Great

                                              Supper {v} XIV:15-23


                                              l the lost sheep {w}

                                              and lost piece of

                                              money XV:1-10.


                                              m the prodigal son



                                              n the unjust

                                              steward XVI:1-13


                                              o the rich man and

                                              Lazarus XVI:19-31.


HH he departs from      HH he goes beyond     HH he passed through

Galilee and goes        Jordan into Judea     the midst of Samaria

beyond Jordan XIX:1     of divorce X:1-12     and Galilee as he

                                              went to Jerusalem



                                              p the ten lepers



II blesses the young    II blesses the young  II blesses the young

Children XIX:13-15      children X:13-16      XVIII:15-17


KK the young rich man   KK the young rich man KK the young rich man

XIX:16-30               X:17-31               XVIII:18-30


LL he foretells his     LL he foretells his   LL he foretells his

death XX:17-19          death X:32-34         death XVIII:31-34


MM heals two blind      MM heals a blind      MM heals a blind man

men near Jericho        man near Jericho      near Jericho

XX:30-34                X:46-52               XVIII:35-43


                                              q the conversion of

                                              Zacchaeus XIX:1-10


                                              r the Ten Talents {x}    19 Jesus at Bethany six

                                              related in the ascent    days before the Passover

                                              to Jerusalem XIX:11-28   XII:1-9.


NN his entry into       NN his entry into     NN the entry into        NN his entry into

Jerusalem by Bethphage  Jerusalem by          Jerusalem by the way of  Jerusalem XII:12-15

and Bethany and the     Bethphage and         Bethphage and Bethany   

Mount of Olives         Bethany and the       and the Mount of Olives 

XXI:1-17                Mount of Olives       XIX:29-46.



If the Last Passover but one was the second Passover, a space of less than a year is given from the first Passover named in the preceding table to the feeding the 5000. But the things transacted and the regions visited seem to require a longer time. After the first Pasaover Jesus came into Judea and dwelt there, and the Baptist continued his ministry. {y} Then followed the imprisonment of John, after which event Jesus came into Galilee, {z} then into Samaria, {a} thence again to Galilee. {b} Then he came to Nazareth0. Leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in Capernaum. {d}




{v} In Matt. XXII:2 after the Entry into Jerusalem. 1 John III:22-23.

{w} Told by St. Matthew XVIII:12-14 under GG.

{x} Related by St. matthew XXV:14 at a later period.

{y} John III:22-23

{z} Mark I:14


{a} John IV:3-4.

{b} John IV:43

{c} Luke IV:16

{d} Matthew IV:13





After this he made the circuit of all Galilee, {e} Then he is present at Jerusalem at a certain feast. {f} From Jerusalem he journeys into Galilee. {g} In Galilee he delivers the Sermon on the Mounth, after which he is at Capernaum. {l} He teaches in Galilee {k} and at Capernaum. {i} Then he passed over to the country of the Gadarenes. {m} After this he is at Nazareth. {n} Being in Galilee he sends forth the twelve Apostles, {o} who return from their mission. {p} After their return he passed to the desert of Bethsaida and there wrought the miracle of feeding the 5000. {q} The discourses and actions of Jesus, and the miracles performed in his progress, might well occupy almost two years, extending over a second Passover to the approach of a third.


If the feast in St. John V:1 was not a Passover, this would not determine that no passover intervened between the first and the last but one. For John has omitted other feasts, as for instance he has omitted to name the feasts of Tabernacles and of Dedication which fell within the first year of the Ministry, Jesus was absent from Jerusalem at the last Passover but one, and he might have also been absent from the second Passover, if there were four.


If the expression in St. Luke VI:1 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) is rightly interpreted by Scaliger, Casaubon, {r} Schleusner {s} and others to mean the first sabbath after the Passover, this would at once establish a Passover between the first and the last but one; for, as Mr. Greswell Vol.2 p. 283 justly argues, that narrative must be inserted between John V:1 and John VI:4. But the interpretation offered by Valckenaer and Grotius {t} perhaps equally probable, that (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) means the Sabbath which followed Pentecost. Even this interpretation however would still confirm that a passover intervened between the first and the last but one. For as it is certain that this Pentecost could not have followed the first Passover, it must of necessity have followed a second Passover not named, which occurred between the Passover in John II:13 and the Passover in John VI:4, and therefore adds a fourth Passover to the Ministry.


The precise interval between the Baptism and the First Passover ia not fixed by the Gospel narratives. We may collect however that it could not be long; for the first miracle which Jesus wrought was the miracle at Cana, and after this miracle he went down to Capernaum and continued there not many days, and the Passover way at hand, {v} Chrysostom in Joann. hom. 23 tom, 8 p. 133 A Montf. calls the interval "a few days:" (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Epiphanius places the Baptism, at November 8. {w} The author of the Paschal Chronicle at Jan, 6, reckoning 76 days to the Passover. {x} Some modern chronologers agree in a short interval. Pagi tom. 1 p. 17 and Norisius tom. 3 p. 517 assign Jan. 6 for the Baptism. Mr. Greswell assumes Jan 24 as the day of the Baptism and April 9 as the day of the Passover; and this also places the Passover at the 76th day after the Baptism. Other modern interpreters assume longer periods. {y}




{e} Matthew IV:23.

{f} John IV:54; V:1.

{g} Luke VI:1-4.

{h} Matt. V-VIII:1; Luke VI:20-49.

{i} Matt. VIII:5; Luke VII:1

{k} Matt. IX:35.

{l} Mark III:7-9

{m} Luke VIII:26.

{n} Matt. IX:1.

{o} Matt. X:1; XL:1.

{p} Luke IX:10.

{q} Luke IX:10-17.

{r} Casauboni in Baroninm Exercit. XIV p. 308. 309 Observat Scaliger non a (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) conflatam esse illam voceto sed a (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) ut sit secundo--prinum sabbatum, illud sabbatum quod secundam Paschatie proxime sit secutum. Rationes novae sententite ex ipso auctore petant studiosi lib. VI de emend, temporum in diatriba de tertio Domini Paschate, et leagog. Canonum lib. I. 6, et lib. Ill in commentario ejus capitis.

{s} Schleusner in v. favreponptoros. Mr. Greswell Vol. 2 p. 292 seems also to agree in the interpretation of Scaliger, and refers to Suidas (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [p. 3238 B].

{t} Quoted by Burton in his note upon Luke VI:1.

{v} John II:11-13.

{w} Tables A. D. 28.2. 31.3.

{x} See the Tables A. D. 32. 2.

{y} Mr. Benoet, as quoted by Home Introduction Vol. 2 p. 354, thinks that " the Baptism was performed in or about the month of November:" that is, about 5 months before the first Passover; which coincides with Epiphanius. Hales Vol. 1 p. 202 fixes it "near autumn," or 6 months before the





The beginning of the ministry of the Baptist is limited by the date of Pilate's governmentz. From Josephus we learn that he governed ten years, and we may collect that his first year was current in the 12th year of Tiberius, Our knowledge of the times of the procurators of Judea is derived from Josephue, who relates that after the banishment of Archelaus in A. D. 6 {a} Augustus , appointed three successive procurators, Coponius, Ambimus, and Mufust the last of whom was still in office at the death of Augustus, {b} that Tiberius sent Gratus as the successor of Jtufus, that Gratus remained eleven years in Judea, and was succeeded by Pilate, Ant. XVIII. 2. 2 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Rufus then was still in office Aug 19 A.D. 14. But Gratus, appointed by the new emperor, might arrive in Judea at the close of A. D. 14 or the beginning of A.D 15 His eleventh year would be current from the close of A. D 24 or the beginning of 25. If Pilate then arrived towards the close of summer A D. 25, his predecessor had been eleven years current in his government, {c} and Pilate's first year is current in the 12th of Tiberius which began Aug. 19 A.D. 25. Eusebius H. E. I. 9 interprets Josephus in this manner : (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) {d} Pilate remained ten years in his government, and was then deposed by and sent to Rome: Josephus Ant. XVIII. 4, 2 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Josephus elsewhere observes that Tiberius in a reign of 22 years appointed only two procurators of Judea: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)




Passover. He has not explained his reasons. Usher Annals p. 818, 819 seems, as we collect from his dates, to place the Baptism in November A.D. 27 and the first Passover in the spring of A.D. 30, a space of two years and 5 months. He has not supported this long period by any arguments. When however from John 2:12 he says that Jesus "tarried at Capernaum many days," he has not rendered the sense of the Evangelist, whose words are  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).


{z} Luke 3:1-2. Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea--the Word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.


{a} See F.H. Vol. III p. 256 A.D. 4

{b} Josephus Ant. XVIII. 1, 1  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) XVIII. 2, 2, (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).

{c} Perhaps 10y 8m reckoned from the beginning of A.D. 15, or 10y 10m computed frqm the close of A.D 14.

{d} Eusebius in his Chronicle assigns a lower date to Pilate's government Anno 2042 Tiberri 13 Pilatum Tiberius--mitttt. This year began m Oct. A.D. 20 But it will be shown below that the end of Pilate's government is inconsistent with so low a date for its beginning; and the account of Eusebius bitnself in his history, founded upon Josephus, is to be preferred. Eusebius is consistent with his own date in H. E. I. 9 when he afterwards at I. 10 compares the 15th of Tiberius with the 4th of Pilate  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) But if the 4th was at the 10th, the 1st was at the 12th year.


{e} Joseph Ant. XVIII. 6, 5. Mr. Greswell Vol. 1 p. 281 renders this passage "Tiberius for the first twenty-two years of his reign appointed only two procurators." But this is not said in Josephus, who merely expresses in general terms the reign of Tiberias at 22 years neglecting the fraction, which he adds on another occasion XVIII 6, 10 where he





Norisius tom. 3 p. 516. 517 places the recal of Pilate from his government by Vitellus in November A.D. 36, and his commencement in A.D. 26. {f} But Lardner has shewn from Josepbue himself that after the removal of Pilate Vitellius was present at Jerusalem at a passover in the lifetime of Tiberius; that he returned to Antioch, and from thence by the order of Tiberius proceeded to the Euphrates to negotiate with Artabanus king of Parthia; that after this negotiation he sent an account to Tiberius and received from him an answer; that Vitellius then prepared by command of Tiberius for a war in Petra; that on his way thither he was again at Jerusalem at a feast; finally that four days after his arrival he received the news of the emperor's death. This series of events determines this last visit to Jerusalem to the Passover of A.D. 37, the former visit to the Passover of A.D. 36, and the removal of Pilate (a few months before) to the autumn of A.D. 35, about 18 months before the death of Tiberius, {g} Lardner farther confirms from Tacitus Ana. VI. 31-33 that Vitellius was engaged in Parthian affairs in A.D. 36. But if the 10th year of Pilate ended in September or October A.D. 35, his first year commenced in September or October A.D. 25; and if the Baptist's Ministry began in October or November A.D. 25, it fell within the first year of Pilate's government.


The early fathers founded their era for the birth of Christ upon the narrative in St. Luke, from whom they collected that Jesus was in his 30th year in the 15th year of Tiberius. From hence they placed the Nativity 15 years before the death of Augustus in the 42nd or 43rd year of that emperor's reign computed from the death of Ceasar, or the 28th year computed from the death of Antony. But St. Matthew determines that Jesus was born before the death of Herod, and the death of Herod is fixed by the combined evidence of Josephus and Dio, {h} and of the coins of Herod Antipas, {i} at the Paseover of B.C. 4 in the 18th year before the death of Augustus. {k} The Nativity of our Lord is therefore thrown back to B.C. 5, full 18 years before the death of Augustus, and his 30th year is current in the 12th year of Tiberius, and the first Passover after the Baptism would be in the spring of that 12th year, A.D. 26. If these propositions are true, it will follow




more minutely defines the reign at 22y 5m 3d. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here).


{f} Norisius 1. c. "Pilatus A. U. 789 [A. D. 36] puta circa Novembrem annum deciraum id provincia exegerat, ut in Judieam venisse dicendus sit A. U. 779 A.D. 26, quo anno Johannes Baptista labente Octobri--criminum expiationem populo indicere occepit." These dates are not quite consistent. If the Baptist began his ministry in October 26 and Pilate remained in Judea till November 36, either the Baptist began before the government of Pilate commenced or Pilate was in office more than ten years.

{g} The acts of Vitellius lie in this order in Josephus. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) The comments of Lardner upon these passages are given in Vol. 1 p. 94-96. He repeats them with new observations p. 371-377. The word (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) in Josephus XVIII. 4, 2 Lardner p. 375-377 justly considers to be outweighed by the whole series of the narration, Norisiue Cen. Pisan. p. 330=tom. 3 p. 523 has collected the testimonies to the government of Vitellius in the East He was appointed to the command in Syria in A. D. 35, he was succeeded by P. Petronius in A. D. 39.

{h} See F. H. Vol. III Tables B. C. 4 p. 254. 256.

{i} See the Tables A. D. 39 col. 2.

{k} From March B.C. 4 in Jul. Per. 4710 to Aug. 19 A.D. 14 in Jul. Per. 4727 are 17y 5d.





that St. Luke reckoned the years of Tiberius from an earlier date than the death of Augustus, This solution of the difficulty has been adopted by Norisius, by Pagi, by Usher Lardner Hales Greswell and others, who assume that the years of Tiberius are computed by the Evangelist from U.C. 765 A.D. 12, two years before the death of Augustus. They have however no other reason for selecting that particular year as the epoch than because it is adapted to their own dates for the Ministry of the Baptist.


Those who interpret the 15th of Tiberius{m} literally are beset with still greater difficulties. Samuel Basnage Annales Vol. 1 p. 115. 254. 402 places the Nativity in B.C. 5, the Baptism in the 15th of Tiberius in A.D. 30, and the Crucifixion in A.D. 33 By this chronology Jesus is 34 at his Baptism, whom St. Luke affirms to be 30. Mr. Cuninghame Fulness of the Times p. 6l-69 Supplement p. 19 takes the 15th of Tiberius in its literal sense {n} and rejects the expedient of supposing a higher epoch for his reign. The positions of Mr Cuninghame are The Nativity in the spring of B.C. 3, {o} the Ministry of John in the first two months of A.D. 28, {p} the Baptism of Jesus in spring or summer A.D. 28. {q} But he places the death of Herod in spring B.C. l, {r} which is inadmissible; and he himself adopts the expedient which he had rejected and condemned; for he dates the reign of Tiberius from Jan. 1 A.D. 14, eight months before the death of Augustus. But this also is inadmissible; for the years of Tiberius were computed from August: his tribunician years from June, and the years of his reign from August. {s} Mr. Cuninghame places the Mission of the Baptist in the two first months of A.D. 28 (which he calls the two last months of 27) and supposes the 15th of Tiberius to commence at Jan. 1 A.D. 28. By this expedient he brings the ministry of John within that 15th year. But in reality both the Ministry of the Baptist, assumed to be in the two first months of 28, and the Baptism of Jesus, assumed to be in the spring or summer of 28, would have fallen within the 14th year of Tiberius, whose 15th year commenced August 19 A.D 28.


The two numbers in St. Luke, the 15th year of Tiberius, and thirty years of ago for Jesus at the Baptism, are irreconcilable with each other. But as it was impossible that St. Luke could have been ignorant of the age of Jesus, we are compelled to conclude that he computed the years of Tiberius in a peculiar manner. If the 15th year was current in October A.D. 25 and in the spring of A.D. 26 (within which limits we place the Ministry of John and the Baptism of Jesus), then the first year was current in October A.D. 11 and in the spring of A.D. 12.


It would be desirable to know what interval elapsed between the Nativity of Christ and the death of Herod. After the presentation in the Temple, they returned into Galilee to their own city




{l} Nomiua tom. 3 p. 514-516 "biennio ante mortem Augusti." Pagi tom. 1 p. 19. Usher Annals p. 817. "In the 15th year which was the 13th." Lardner Vol 1 p. 369) "about two years, or about three years, before Augustus died." p. 370-"about 3 years before--about 2 years before." Hales Vol. I p. 191 "More probably U. C. 765." Greswell Vol 1 p. 271-280. "The time requires to be placed either U.C. 765 ineunte or U. C 765 medio."

{m} In Luke III:1.

{n} Fulness p. 63 he "takes the words of St Lute in their plain and literal sense, as meaning the both year of the sole reign of Tiberius." p. 67 he "takes aside the learned fable, and returns to the simple testimony of the written word, that it was in the 15th year of Tiberius' sole reign that the word of God came to John."

{o} Supplement p. 19 "The Nativity in the year B.C. 3 and the death of Herod in B.C. 1."

{p} Fulness p. 83 "The year A C. 27 m the last two months." Mr. Cuninghame however, by his explanation at p. 68, when he says "the two last months of A.D. 27" seems to mean "the two first months of A.D. 28."

{q} Fulness p. 68.

{r} Supplement p. 18 19.

{s} Fulness p. 68 "Counting the reign of Tiberius from Jan. l A.D. 14 according to the principles of the Canon of Ptolemy." But that Canon, in which fractions of years were avoided, was a scientific application of the moveable Egyptian months to the years of Nabonassar, and was only in use among astronomers. In that Canon N. E. 762 is reckoned the first year of Ttherius, and as the year 760 began at Aug 20, that year 762 had almost fallen back to Aug. 19 A.D. 14, the actual day of his accession.





Nazareth. {t} After the visit of the wise men from the East, the Holy Family proceeded to Egypt, and dwelt there till the death of Herod. {v} The time of that visit of the Magi ia not determined by the Gospel Narrative. If they visited Bethlehem within the 40 days, {w} the Star must have appeared to them some months before the Nativity; which is the opinion of Chrysostom. {x} Others have supposed that the Star appeared at the Nativity, and that the Magi came to Jerusalem at a later period; which is much more probable. But the dates assigned by Epiphanius, {y} who places the visit of the wise men two years after the Nativity and the Nativity itself four years before the death of Herod, assume too large a space; for as the highest possible date for Pilate's government and therefore for the baptism of Christ is the autumn of A.D. 25, and as the scheme of Epiphanius would place the birth of Christ in January B.C. 8, his numbers thus would give thirty-three years for the age at the Baptism. We may assume the Nativity in the spring of B.C. 5, twelve months before the death of Herod, and 30 years nearly completed will be the age at the Baptism.


Clemens Alexandrians quoted in the Tables A.D. 29 has recorded various opinions upon the day of the Nativity. But not only waa the day unknown, but for three hundred years after the Ascension no day was set apart for the commemoration of the Birth of Christ. According to authorities quoted by Geiseler, {z} Julius, who was bishop of Rome A.D. 337-352, first appointed the 25th of December for that purpose. That it waa not yet observed in Cyprus in the time of Epiphanius A.D. 376 {a} we collect from his silence; for Epiphanius in an elaborate arrangement of the dates of the Gospel History Haer. 51 p. 429-451 makes no mention of the 25th of December?. {b} Chrysostom in a discourse pronounced at Antioch which may be assigned to Dec. 25 A. D. 387 {c} attests that this day had been observed at Antioch less than ten years: Hom. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)




{t} Luke II:22-39.

{v} Matthew II:13-15; 19-23.

{w} That is, before the Presentation in the Temple.

{x} Chrysostom. Hom. 7 in Matt. tom. 2 p. 45 Sav. = tom. 7 p. 108 Montf. (quoted by Mr. Greswell

Vol. 2 p. 143) (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{y} Epiphanias haer. 20 p. 48 A (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Haer. 51 p. 430 A--D (where he replies to Porphyry and Celsus p. 429 D0 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) p. 441 D (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) p 154 C haer. 30 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Haer. 51 p. 431 D (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) He places the Nativity 4 years before the death of Herod p. 432 A (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) But as he placed the Nativity in January B.C. 2 (see the Tables A. D. 28. 2), he "has brought down the death of Herod to A. D. 3, six years below the true time.

{z} Geiseler Text Book Vol. I p. 292 "According to Epist. Johannis episcopi Nicaeni in Auctar. bibl. Patrum ed. Combefis. tom. 2 p. 297 and an anonymous writer in Cotelenus ad Constit. Apostol. V. 13 thie day was established by Julius."


{a} For this date see the Tables 376. 4 p. 489.

{b} Epiphanius p. 439 A reckons the Epiphany to be the day of the birth of Christ: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Also p. 446 D quoted in the Tables A. D. 28. 2.

{c} Chrysostom in his sermon on the Nativity mentions his discourses against the Jews: tom. 2 p. 361 E = tom. 5 p. 516, 34 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) And in the discourses against the Jews he mentions the sedition at Antioch of Feb. A. D. 387 : Hom, in Jud. VI tom. 1 p. 659 B=(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) tom. 6 p. 343, 43 Sav. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) We therefore obtain Feb.





(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) tom. 2 p. 355 A Montf. - tom. 5 p. 511. 512 Sav.  (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) This testimony will determine the institution at Antioch to Dec. 25 A.D. 378. After this period we have notices of that day; as at Milan in the reign of Theodosius in the year 390, {d} In the year 400 Sulpicius Severus records Dec. 25 as the day of the Nativity. {c} After that date Augustine in his work upon the

Trinity. {f}


In Egypt Dec. 25 was not yet acknowledged when Cassianus published his tenth Conference: Cassiani Collat. X. 2 tom. 2 p. 497 Intra AEgypti reffionem mos iste antiqua traditione seroatttr ut Epiphaniorum die (quern provincia illim sacerdetes vel Dominici laptixmi ml secundum carnem ii esse definiunt, et tdcirco utriusque sacramenti solemnitcitem non bifarie ui in occidms pro-, sed sub una diet httjus festimtate cvncelebmnt] epistolce pontificis Alexandnni per universal AEgypti ecclesias, quibus et initium quadragesimae et dies Paschee nou solum per cicitates ted per universa monasteria designentur. That work of Cassianm was published about A.D. 420. {g} And yet in the council of Ephesus A.D. 431 apud Aota Concil. tom. 3 p. 1613 was recited




of 387 for the sedition (see the Tables A D. 387-2. 3. 4)" Gorpuetis or September of 387 for those discourses against the Jews, and December of 387 for the sermon upon the Nativity. Montfaucon prsef. Tom. 2 p. 415 places this last at Dec. 25 A. D. 386 for no other reason than because that was the first year of CArysos/om'i preaching at Antioch ; and on this account supposes him to refer to three discourses against the Jews of the year 386 instead of five discourses against them of the year 387- But the three which belong to 386 were not all in September, for the first of the three was in August, as Montfaucon admits, tcm. 1 p. 713 ed. Par. 1834. While the five which belong· to 387 were all within 20 days of the month September, as Montfaucon himself has shown tom. 1 praef- p. 715 They offer these notices. Sav. tom. 6 p. 312 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) p. 320, p. 346, p. 354, p. 355, 20; (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) p. 355, 20 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) It is far more probable that these five of the year 387 are those "many and long discourses against the Jews delivered in Gorpiaes" to which Chrysostom refers in his sermon on the Nativity.

{d} See the Tables A.D. 390. 2 p. 520.

{e} Snip. Sev. H. S. II. 39 Natus est-VIII Kalend. Januarias.

{f} Angustin. de Trin. IV. 5 tom. 3. p. 402 Octavo enim Kal Aprilis conceptus creditur---netus autem traditer VIII Kal. Januarias.

{g} For Cossiaus see the Tables 401 p. 551. 433 p. 619. Cassianus in early life passed many years with the monks of Egypt: Cassiani Collat I. 1 torn. 2 p. 23 XI, 1 tom. 2 p. 533. XVII. 31 tom 2 p. 879. In the time of Theophilus: Coliat X. 2 p. 497 post dies admodum paucos quam superior cum abbaie Isaac fuerai agitata collatio [sc coll IX] Theophili praedicli urbis [Alexandria] episcopi solemnes epistoltae commearunt &c. After his ordination as deacon at CP. (see the Tables A.D. 401), he is sent to Rome in A. D, 404 : Palladii dialogue p. 1 1 C (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Tables A. D 400] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [&c. Chrysosiomt], (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Tables A. D. 403. 2, 4. 404. 4.] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Germanus and Cassianus are named hi the epistle of Irmoceniius of Rome apud Sozom VIII. 26 p. 794 D Chrysostomum tom. 3 p. 523 A. The first ten conferences were written (in part at least) in the lifetime, but published after the death, of Castor : Cassiani Collat. I. praef. p. 17 nunc autem qvia derelinguens nos poatifex supradictus (papa Castor) migravii ad Christum, has interim decem Coliationes sunmonan patrum - qui in eremo Scythica [ec. Schetica. conf. Paginm tom 2 p. 64] morabantur, quas ille - simili sibi jusserat sermone conscribi - vobis potissimum, O beatissime papa Leonli et sancte frater Elladi, credidi consecratidas. Castor was still living and addressed by Bonifacau June 13 A.D. 419. See the epistle quoted m c. 2 at the year 419 But it seems probable from Pagi tom. 2 p. 171 that he died Sept. 23 of that year, and we may with Oudin tom. 1 p. 1146 refer the publication of the Collationes decem to 420 or 421.





(The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) This day then was appointed at Alexandria in the episcopate of Cyril (which began in October A. D. 412), within the years 420 and 431.


That our Lord anticipated the Paschal Supper is unanswerably proved by texts of St. John quoted by Casaubon in his argument against Baroniua. The Last Supper of Christ with his disciples was before the Passover. {h} The priests went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the pasaover. {i} It was the preparation of the passover. {k} The sabbath day was a high day. {l} This anticipation was necessary for the Event which was to follow; for from hence it came to pass that Jesus expired upon the cross on the day and in the hour at which the Paschal Lamb was appointed to be slain. The Paschal Lamb was sacrificed towards the close of the 14th day of Nisan, and was eaten three hours afterwards on the evening on which the 15th day of Niton commenced. {m}


The Paschal full moon was in the spring when the sun entered Aries: Joeephus Ant. III. 10, 5 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) and the Paschal Lamb was sacrificed before the full moon: Philo de vita Mosis III. 29 tom. 4 p. 231 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) [Nisan] (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) And yet the month began at the phasis of the moon: Philo de septen. § 17 torn. 5 p. 38 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) And this happens according to Newton {o} when the moon is 18 hours old. Therefore the 14th of Nisan might commence when the moon was 13d 18h old, and wanted ld 0h 22m to the full? But sometimes the phasis was




{h} John XIII:1. Caeanbon. Exerc. in Baronium 16 p. 471 Disertis verbie dicuntur coena et lotio pedum fuisse (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{i} John XVIII:28. Casaub. p. 474 Judaei igitur Paacha nondum manducaverant.

{k} John XIX:14. Caeaub. p. 476 Si dies quo Dominus est cruciafixus parasceue fuit Paschatia, nondum videlicet Pascha praterierat

{l} John XIX:31. Casaub. p. 479 Parenthesis adjecta valet ad indicandum eximium cultum ejus Sabbati.-Illud quseritur, cur ab Johanne sabbatum illud dictum sit dies maymts Constat propter ipsius sab-bati religionem non fuisse ita dictum; nunqnam enim ea appellatio sahbato reperitur tributa propter ipsuro. Causa igitur est concursua alterius diei cui p omen diei magni conveniat-solique sunt e septem diebus Azymorum primus et ultimus qut ita dicti fuerint. Ultimum non convenire loco Johannis certum est; sequitur igitur illud eabbatura appellatam fuisse diem magnum propter concarsum primi Azvmorum.

{m} For the day see Exodus XII:6; Lev. XXIII:5; Numbers XXVIIL:16. Philo Judaeus de Septenario §18 tomn. 5 p. 39 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Josephus Ant. II. 14,6 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Idem Ant. III. 10, 5 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) The hour of the day is marked by Josephus Bell. VI. 9,3 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Philo tom. 5 p. 39 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) That is to say, they began to sacrifice at 3h P.M. and nded at 5h P.M. one hour before the 15th of Nisan, which began at 6 P.M. Mr. Greswell vol. 3 diss. 4 p. 95 has pointed out this coincidence of the ninth hour in Matt. XXVII:46; Mark XV:34; Luke XXIII:44 with that testimony of Josephus, and has successfully argued that the Last Supper was an anticipation of the Passover.

{n} Add Philo de mundi opificio 39 tom. 1 p. 38 quoted by Mr. Greswell Vol. 1 p. 265 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)

{o} Quoted by Mr. Cuninghame Synopsis p. 133.

(p) Mr. Cuninghame Vindication of the True Date of the Passion p. 16 thus states this point. A lunation being 29d 12h 44m, the age of teh moon at the full will be 14d 18h 22m. Now the earlies possible phasis being 18 hours after the new moon gives the earliest possible beginning of th 14th of Nisan at 13d 18h, being before the full moon 1d 9h 22m.




13d 18h  0m

 1   0  22

14  18  22






Delayed till the moon was 17h 0m old, and then, if the 1st of Nisan was deferred till the phasia, the 14th would begin only lh 22m before the full moon. {q}


This precision however in adjuating the month to the moon did not exist in practice. The Jews like other nations who adopted a lunar year and supplied the defect by an intercalary month, failed in obtaining complete accuracy. We know not what their method of calculation was at the time of the Christian era. But we are not to apply to their time the modern Jewish calendar or the cycle of 19 years; nor are we to rely upon the accounts of Maimonides writing in the twelfth century, or of other Rabbinical doctors, for the practice of the Jews in the time of Christ; nor can it be determined from their computations in what year of that period the Paschal sacrifice fell upon the sixth day of the week. {r} They used a cycle of 84 years, which was by no means exact,  (s) and sometimes they observed the passover before the equinox: Epiphan. haer. 70 n. 823 B (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) A Paschal Homily by an unknown author apud Chrysostomum tom. 5 p. 942, 15 Sav. 8 p. 277 C Montf. (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here)


If the first Passover after the Baptism was in the Spring of A. D. 26, the Crucifixion and the fourth Passover are determined to the year 29; and it remains to enquire whether the Passover




{q} Thus calculated by Cuninghame Vindication &c. p. 17 : The latest appearance of the moon was when >he set at 17 hours old, being invisible.




                        0d 17h  0m

add a day .............  1   0   0


phasis at .............  1  17   0

add 13 days ........... 13   0   0


14th of Nisan begins at 14  17   0

before the full moon ..  0   1  22


                        14  18  22



He adds "consequently in this case the whole day of the full moon, except the last lh 22m, belongs to the 14th of Nisan." Where for the "14th" read "13th."


{r} Geiseler Vol. 1 p. 38 "From the uncertainty of the Jewish Calendar of that time it is impossible to find by an exact astronomical reckoning in which of the years the first day of the Passover fell upon a Friday," Mr. Benson Chronology of our Saviour's Life p. 304 also justly condemns those who take for granted either that the vernal equinox always preceded the 15th of Nisan or that we are perfectly acquainted with the Jewish method of computation or that this method was accurate. And he affirms p. 326 that the Jewish method of fixing the passover is not by any means so well known as to permit as to depend upon the precision of modern astronomy in ascertaining the period to which it was fixed at the time of the Crucifixion. And observes p. 334 that the year can neither be affirmed or denied merely by our calculations of the Paschal Full Moon, because we know not with sufficient accuracy the Jewish method of determining the passover.


{s} Epiphanius haer. 51 p. 449 A (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Anatolius apud Bucherium p. 439 Nonnulli 84 tmnorwn circvlum computantes nunquam ad veram Pascfue computandi ralionem pervenerunt. Conf. Nonnum ad fastos con-eulares Opp. torn. 2 p. 620 A. Bingham Vol. 9 p. 109 "The first Christians of Jerusalem had no other way of finding out Easter but by the Jewish cycle of 84 years, which the Jews had used sometime before to settle the anniversary returns of their Paasover. Which cycle, though it was a little faulty, continued to be osed by the Christians for near 200 years" p. 110 "In the time of Hadrian some Christians began to enquire into the defects of the Jewish cycle, which was found to make Easter sometimes anticipate the Vernal Equinox, and so bring two Easters into one year." P. 112 "The Roman and Alexandrian accounts (of Easter) sometimes varied a week or a month from each other, which was owing purely to their different ways of calculation, because the Roman Church still proceeded by the old Jewish cycle of 84 and not by the new Alexandrian cycle of nineteen."





of that year was in March or April. The full moon of March is fixed by Mr. Cuninghame's calculation {t} to Friday March 18 at 9h 16m P.M. If that was the Paschal moon, we obtain these dates: the 14th of Nisan began at 6 P.M. of March 17 and the 15th of Nisan at 6 P.M. March 18, 3h 16m before the full moon; and the Paschal Lamb was slain at 3h P.M. of Friday March 18, 6h 16m before the full moon. It is no insurmountable objection that this was three days before the equinox; for we have seen from the preceding testimonies that a Jewish Passover waa sometimes celebrated before the equinox, and, as Mr. Benson properly remarks, {v} in the Mosaic Law there is no injunction which refers to the equinox at all. It has been objected however that March 18 is inadmissible, because if the 16th of Nisan is at March 20 the corn would not be ripe for an offering. But the Law seems only to require that when the sheaf was offered on the 16th of Nisan the barley should be in the ear. That it could be ripe enough to be reaped and used as food at that early season is scarcely credible. If the passover had been delayed until ripeness in this latter sense had been attained, not only a full moon at the equinox would have been excluded, but many vernal full moons after the equinox; and it could rarely happen that the Passover could be celebrated at a vernal full moon at all. {w}


We are now to consider the full moon of April in A.D. 29. Mr. Benson {x] places the new moon at April 2 at 8 P.M. the full moon in the night between the 16th and l7th of April. Mr. Greswell {y} gives the full moon at April 16. Mr. Cuninghame having assigned the full moon of March, as we have seen, to March 18 at 9h 16 m P.M., his calculation will fix the new moon at April 2 at 3h 38m P. M. and the full moon at April 17 at 10h A.M. {z}


The 17th of April fell upon Sunday in A. D. 29, and, as the crucifixion was upon the 6th day




{t} Vindication &c. p. 14.

{v} Benson'a Chronology of our Saviour's life p. 309.

{w} See Leviticus XXIII:6-11 appointing the 14th of Niaan for the Passover, the 15th for the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, and the 16th for the Sheaf Offering; "Ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruit of your harvest [that is, your future harvest] unto the priest, and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord to be accepted for you." Philo de Mundi opificio 39 tom. 1 p. 39 having mentioned the two great festivals, the Passover in the spring and the feast of Tabernacles in the autumn, observes (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Again de vita Mosis III. 29 torn, 4 p. 230 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) Josephus Ant. III. 10, 5 (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) From the term (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) applied to the preparation of the corn for this offering, it would seem that the grain was not yet ripe. Sozomen VII. 18 p.732 D has been quoted to prove that the corn must be ripe: (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) But the mention of the Samaritans on this occasion is rather a proof that they were more strict in their practice than the Jews themselves; and the word (The Greek from the original is not reproduced here) in Philo, implies perfection of growth; which, is attained when the corn is in the ear, and before it has arrived at ripeness. Mr. Cuninghame Vindication p. 35 reports the evidence of Dr. Robinson, who tells us that in Palestine barley harvest is a week earlier than wheat harvest, and that May is the earliest date which he assigns to wheat harvest; that on the 4th of June wheat harvest was beginning at Hebron; that at Jericho on May 12 the work was nearly completed; that on May 23rd 1838 Mr. Nicolayson writes from Jerusalem the barley harvest is all over. How is it consistent with these testimonies to suppose that the barley should he ready for reaping at the Paschal full moon, that is, in by far the greater number of years, before the middle of April? The account of Josephus shews that the reaping did not hegin till after the 16th. of Nisan.

{x} Chronology &c. p. 327

{y} Vol. 1 p. 269 April 16 "first quarter."

{z} For an entire lunation, or 29d 12h 44m, being added to March 18d 9h 16m P. M. will terminate at April 17, 10h A. M. and half a lunation, or 14d 18h 22m, being added to March 18 at 9h 16m P. M. will give the new moon at April 2, 3h 38m P. M.





of the week, we obtain the following positions. The lst of Nisan commenced at 6h P. M. April 1, at 21h 38m before the new moon according to Mr. Cuninghame; the 14th of Nisan at 6h P. M. of Thursday April 14; the Paschal Lamb was slain at 3 P.M. of Friday Ap. 15, ld 19h before the full moon. Mr.Browne {a} prefers Friday March 18 as the day of the Crucifixion. I incline to the later date, and think that it may be probably assigned to Friday April 15. That Nisan should begin 21h 38m before the new moon is not improbable, when we consider the inaccuracy of ancient cycles. The Attic years of Meton had greater variations, even in the beginning of his cycle. {b}




{a} Quoted by Mr. Cuninghame.

{b} See F.H. II p.338 = p. 409.