FASTI HELLENICI
&
FASTI ROMANI
THE
SCRIPTURE AND GOSPEL
CHRONOLOGY
APPENDIXES
(published
1824-1853)
BY
HENRY FYNES CLINTON, Esq. M. A.
LATE STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH
"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)
PREFACE
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.
WELWYN,
HERTS, JANUARY 5, 1824.
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.
WELWYN,
HERTS, JANUARY 25, 1827.
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.
WELWYN,
HERTS, NOVEMBER 14, 1840.
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.
WELWYN,
HERTS, AUGUST 22, 1851.
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}...
WELWYN,
HERTS, SEPTEMBER 11, 1845.
-----------------------------
{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.
WELWYN,
HERTS, APRIL 21, 1834.
SCRIPTURE CHRONOLOGY
(FROM: FASTI HELLENICI)
HFC283
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.
HFC284
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;
HFC285
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.
HFC286
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).
HFC287
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
Reu.........339
Servg (300) 360 (The Greek from the original is not
reproduced here)
Nahar...... 208
Terak...... 275
\+
HFC288
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
\-
{y}
From the creation to the flood
................... 2264
From the flood to the Call ....... 1145 }
} ........ 1360
To the going into Egypt............ 215 }
____
3624
\+
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.
HFC289
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
HFC290
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).
HFC291
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
HFC292
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)
HCF293
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.
HFC294
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
HFC295
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)
HFC296
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.
HFC297
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
_____
135
Moses . . .
. . . . 80
_____
215
\+
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].
HFC298
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
_____
660
\+
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
HFC299
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.
HFC300
\-
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.
\+
HFC301
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
---43
\+
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)
HFC302
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.
HFC303
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.
______
390
\+
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.
HFC304
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 :
\-
Eli
|
Phinehas
|
---------------
| |
Ahitub Ichabod
|
Ahiah
\+
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
interpret.es 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).
HFC305
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.
HFC306
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:
\-
y
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.
HFC307
Clemens according to Eusebins
{l} computes 574 years from Joshua to the temple. The detail of Clemens {m}
gives the following numbers:
\-
y
Moses
..................... 40
Joshua
.................... 27
Judges {n} ................ 396
Eli ....................... 40
Samuel .......... 9 }
with Saul ....... 18 } 27
Saul (last) ............... 2
David ..................... 40
Solomon ................... 3
---575
\+
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.
HFC308
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,
\-
y.
Moses ..................... 120
to David .................. 450
David ..................... 40
---610
\+
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.
HFC309
\-
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
}--90-{
4332
Samuel, to the 12th of Saul ................... 50}
{1169
4382
Saul, last 28 years ........................... 28}
{1119
4410
David ......................................... 40}
{1091
}-490-{
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.
HFC310
place he gives 600 years {x} as
the interval. His detail on another occasion gives 613; {y} namely,
\-
y.
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 }
----631
\+
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--
HFC311
\-
y.
Moses ................................. 4O
Joshua ............................. 27}
}--45
The elders ......................... 18}
Judges ............................. 450
Eli ................................ 2O
Samuel ............................. 20
Saul ............................... 40
David and Solomon .................. 44
---659
\+
Josephus in the present text
has various accounts of this period, 592, 612, 632 years {d}. His detail of the
particulars gives 609 years.
\-
y-
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
---609
\+
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,
HFC312
St. Paul {g} gives the outline of the
period:
\-
y.
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 }
------
579
\+
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.
HFC313
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
HFC314
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.
HFC315
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)
HFC316
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:
\-
y.
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.
\+
HFC317
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.
|
\+
HFC318
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:
HFC319
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.
HFC320
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.
HFC321
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC322
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC323
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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) |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC324
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC325
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC326
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC327
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC328
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\+
HFC328
\-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
\+
HFC220
GOSPEL
CHRONOLOGY
(FROM:
FASTI ROMANI)
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.
HFC221
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.
HFC222
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.
HFC223
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.
HFC224
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.
HFC225
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.
HFC226
(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
Saul
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)
HFC227
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.
THE
GOSPEL CHRONOLOGY
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.
HFC228
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·
HFC229
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.
HFC230
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
I:15-36
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
1:16-20
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.
I:21-27
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].
\+
HCF231
\-
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
III:13-19
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
X:1-XI:1
@ 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
VII:1-3.
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
VI:53-56.
HCF232
\-
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.
XVI:5-12.
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
VIII:31-38
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.
IX:38-50.
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
VIII:13-59
15 the man that was born
blind
restored to sight
IX:1-X:21
c the 70 return 17-24
d the good Samaritan
X:29-37.
e he is received by
Martha and Mary
X:38-42
f the Lord's prayer
{s}
XI:1-10
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.
HFC233
\-
MATTHEW MARK
LUKE JOHN
i he cures an infirm
woman on the Sabbath
XIII:10-17
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
XV:11-32.
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
XVII:11.
p the ten lepers
XVII:11.
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.
XI:1-11.
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
HFC234
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
HFC235
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
HFC236
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.
HFC237
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.
HFC238
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.
HFC239
(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.
HFC240
(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.
Because
\-
13d 18h
0m
1 0 22
-------------------
14 18
22
\+
HFC241
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."
HFC242
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.
HFC243
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.