Introduction.

1.

State of the World at the Birth of Christ—Tradition concerning his Advent—Its epoch determined from Prophecy.

The Christian era was ushered into notice, by a state of peace among all nations, unprecedented in the history of the world. The temple of Janus at Rome was shut, after the lapse of seven centuries of incessant warfare. At this period, a very general belief prevailed among men, that the long-expected Saviour of the world was about to appear. Many incontestable proofs of this fact are to be found in ancient history. Soter or Saviour, had indeed become a common appellation among kings, both in Syria and Egypt; and the foreshortened shadows of coming events indicated the near approach of the “Desire of all nations.” Poets anticipated his happy reign; historians longed for the promised age of miracles; and philosophers panted for the Advent of a heaven-born Instructor of mankind. The epoch assigned, by universal tradition, for the epiphany of this wonderful personage, was the Sixth Age of the world; or, according to the ancient Hebrew chronology, the middle of the Sixth Millennium or Chiliad, of years from the creation of the world.

Respecting the true origin of the assigned epoch, a considerable difference of opinion exists. It is, however, generally referred to the ancient tradition among the Jews, that the world was destined to last for a period of seven millenaries of years, the first six corresponding to the six days of creation, and the seventh to the Sabbath or day of rest; and that previous to the last millennium, the Messiah should appear in great power and glory. Traces of this tradition may be found in the vaticinations of the Sybilline oracles, and in the writings of the Greek theogonists and cosmogonists. The prevalence of the same tradition in the time of our Saviour and his Apostles, had evidently led the disciples to associate, as contemporaneous events, the first Advent of Christ, and the restoration of all things. See Matthew xxxiv. 2, and 2 Thessalonians ii. 1.

Although there be no foundation in Scripture for the Jewish tradition itself, yet the fact of its existence at an early period of the Christian era, added to the universal belief among ancient writers, that the Messiah did appear at the assigned epoch, affords a strong presumptive proof that it was the true one. Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, who flourished in the second century, ingeniously unites the historical fact and the Jewish tradition, when he intimates that as the first Adam came into existence on the sixth day of creation, so the second Adam came into the world on the sixth day of the Chiliads, each day being reckoned as “a thousand years.” It is evident, however, that this early father had derived his knowledge of the true epoch from its original and only source; for, he says, “the whole time, even all the years” from the Creation to the Crucifixion, “are shown” in the Scriptures, “to those who are willing to obey the truth.”^[1] Accordingly, we assert that it was possible to ascertain at a very early period,—almost five centuries before Christ,—the true length of the whole interval in question, by a careful examination of the Sacred Records; the exact period from the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the Crucifixion, being assigned in the prophecies of Daniel; while, the period from Creation to the Return of the Jews from Babylon, can be determined from the other books of the Old Testament. Before we proceed to demonstrate the truth of this assertion, we must shortly glance at the history of these Books.

2.

Short history of the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament—Discrepancies between the Hebrew and Septuagint—Their effect on Sacred Chronology.

It is universally admitted that the Pentateuch was translated into Greek about three centuries before Christ, for the use of the dispersed tribes of Israel, and particularly of the Jews, who had settled in Alexandria, and other parts of the Grecian Empire. Although the history of this translation given by Aristeas, Josephus, and others, savours too much of the marvellous for modern belief, yet all antiquity agrees that it was executed in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, and, according to some, at his request, by seventy-two interpreters selected from the most learned and eminent men among the Jews by the High Priest and Sanhedrim at Jerusalem. It is moreover asserted, that the other books of the Old Testament were translated about a century later than the Pentateuch; and this assertion is in some measure proved by a considerable diversity of style and sentiment. It is quite certain, however, that the Greek version of the whole of the Hebrew Scriptures, now called the Septuagint, was in public use at least a century before the Christian era; and that the Evangelists and Apostles made citations from this version in the New Testament, in preference to the original text.

Such being the origin and authority of this ancient and venerable version, its value cannot be too much appreciated; for, without it, the Christians would have been entirely at the mercy of the Jews, as to the authenticity, the integrity, and the meaning of the Holy Scriptures; first, of the Old Testament, on account of their ignorance of the Hebrew, and the danger of the glosses and traditions of their opponents; and second, of the New Testament, on account of its being the complete elucidation and fulfilment of the Old. Besides, although the Jews were for ages the appointed custodiers of the Hebrew text, and are generally considered to have been faithful to their trust; yet we must not conceal the fact that it now differs considerably from the Septuagint in many important places, particularly in the prophecies relating to the Messiah; and, that its chronology of the whole period from the creation to the first advent, is completely at variance with that of the Greek version.

The chronological discrepancies between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, which amount in all to nearly fifteen centuries of difference in regard to the true age of the world, have occasioned disputes among the learned ever since the third century. The Christian Church, however, has always followed the longer computation of the Seventy, from the earliest period of its history till the era of the Reformation; while the Jewish Church has retained the shorter chronology of the Hebrew text from the second century till the present day. Archbishop Usher, the great modern authority in chronology, endeavoured to fix and determine the true epoch of the birth of Christ from that text alone. Dr. Hales, a later and more accurate authority, made a similar attempt, founding his computation on the Septuagint. As this subject has been lately revived by writers of considerable eminence on both sides, we shall endeavour to place the whole Scriptural evidence before our readers, in the following critical analysis of the question.

The whole period from the Creation to the birth of Christ, whatever may be considered as its real extent, is generally divided by chronologers into six subordinate periods, called Ages. The first, which is reckoned from the Creation to the Deluge, is called the Antediluvian age; the second, from the Deluge to the Call of Abraham, the Postdiluvian age; the third, from the Call of Abraham to the Exode of the Israelites from Egypt, the Patriarchal age; the fourth, from the Exode of the Israelites to the foundation of Solomon’s Temple, the Critarchal (or, judge-ruling) age; the fifth, from the foundation to the destruction of Solomon’s Temple, the Monarchal age; the sixth, from the destruction of Solomon’s Temple to the birth of Christ, the Hierarchal age. We have, for the sake of distinctness and brevity, given to the last four ages, names derived from the four different states of the Hebrew Polity, namely, the governments of the Patriarchs, the Judges, the Kings, and the High Priests; the government of the latter terminating in Judea becoming a Roman province.

Besides the great epochs which limit the six ages of the world, there are many intermediate eras of very considerable importance in the settlement of disputes both in chronology and history, sacred as well as profane. Thus: in the first age, we have, the fall of Adam, the births and deaths of the Patriarchs, and the translation of Enoch; in the second, the confusion of tongues, the foundation of Babel and Nineveh, and the eras of the Calyougham of the Hindoos, and the Chinese emperor Yao; in the third, the destruction of Sodom, the migration of the Hebrew Patriarchs into Egypt, and the foundation of the Greek kingdoms of Sicyon and Argos; in the fourth, the servitudes of the Israelites in Canaan, the foundation of Athens and Jerusalem, and the destruction of Troy; in the fifth, the eras of the Olympiads and Nabonassar, the foundation of Rome, and the captivities of Israel and Judah; in the sixth, the return of the Jews from captivity, the destruction of Babylon, the death of Alexander the Great, and the eras of the Seleucidæ and the Cæsars.

1.

Discrepancies of the Hebrew, Septuagint and Samaritan Texts—Solution of the difficulty by the chronographers of the middle ages—Consistency of the Septuagint and the New Testament—Numerical errors of the Hebrew text.

The extent of the first, or Antediluvian age, is ascertained from the text of Genesis, v. 3–32, and vii. 6, by summing up the ages at which the Patriarchs begat their eldest sons, including the date of the flood from that of Noah. This amount is, according to the Hebrew text, 1656 years; according to the Septuagint version, 2262 years; and according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, 1307 years. This astonishing discrepancy, which is found in all the codices of the three texts, is a Gordian knot, which has puzzled the Christian Church for more than fifteen centuries! The difference of the three computations is the more remarkable, inasmuch as all the three texts are considered to have been very carefully preserved! The Samaritan Pentateuch rivals the Hebrew text in point of antiquity, and is reckoned by some to be the nearest to the true Mosaic text; while, the Septuagint version is rendered almost sacred, by the authority of the Apostles and the early Fathers of the Church. Which then, is the true computation? So difficult of solution was this question deemed in the middle ages, that chronographers, in order to reconcile the difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, even argued the possibility of both texts being equally correct! The Hebrew computation, however, has been followed in modern times chiefly on the authority of the Latin vulgate, which is said to have been translated by St. Jerome. The Samaritan computation has had comparatively few supporters; while that of the Septuagint, which was universally followed by the ancient chronographers and historians, both sacred and profane, has never been wholly abandoned by the Church even to the present day.

With regard to the evidence of the two principal witnesses, it is manifest that the citations from the Old Testament, which are to be found in the New, are, in general, not only in more perfect accordance with the Septuagint version than with the Hebrew text (at least, as we now have it); but they are more consistent with the general tenor of the Sacred Writings. There is, on this account, therefore, an à priori presumption in favour of the accuracy of the numerical statements of the Septuagint. This presumption is strongly confirmed by a reference to several passages not at all connected with chronology, of which the following are striking instances. Thus, the day on which God ended, that is, finished, or completed the work of creation, is said to be the 7th in the Hebrew, and the 6th in the Septuagint; but the latter statement is plainly the correct one, being confirmed by the context; see Genesis ii. 2, and i. 31. Again, the number of persons present at the Eisodus of Israel into Egypt, is said to be 70 in the Hebrew, and 75 in the Septuagint; but the latter number is unquestionably the true one, because it is confirmed by the New Testament; see Genesis xlvi. 27, and Acts vii. 14. In general, it may be observed, that the numerical statements of the Hebrew text, in many places differ materially from those of the Septuagint, and even from those of other places of that text, where we are certain, from the nature of the context, that they ought to be precisely the same. The following instances, taken at random, (and their number might be greatly increased,) will confirm this assertion, by a comparison of the different passages, even in our own version:—Exodus xii. 37, and xxxviii. 26, with Numbers i. 46, and ii. 32; Numbers xxxv. 4, with Numbers xxxv. 5; 1 Samuel xviii. 27, with 2 Samuel iii. 14; 2 Samuel xv. 7, with 1 Kings ii. 11; 2 Samuel xxiv. 13, with 1 Chronicles xxi. 12; and 1 Kings ix. 28, with 2 Chronicles viii. 18.

2.

Origin and effect of various readings—The immaculate purity and miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text, a figment—Consistency of the word of God.

From the occurrence of such discrepancies as these, both in the original texts and the ancient versions, it is evident, that the authenticity of each numerical statement must be carefully examined per se, and tested by the multiplied means for the discovery of the truth which we possess in modern times. For, although the providence of God has watched over the Sacred Scriptures in a very remarkable manner, yet still they are found liable to the same causes of textual error as all other writings; so true is the Apostle’s humbling remark, that, “we have this” heavenly “treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.” Accordingly, from the necessity and frequency of copying the MSS. (Deuteronomy xvii. 18) during so many ages previous to the invention of printing, and from the inaccuracy and inadvertency of uninspired scribes, have arisen what are called “Various Readings” in the Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament; and, although these, and other discrepancies above mentioned, do not in the slightest degree affect the grand question of salvation, yet they have a serious influence on important questions in sacred history and chronology, and in the interpretation of prophecy.

Indeed, the extraordinary and multiplied collations of Hebrew MSS. and editions of the Old Testament, accomplished by the indefatigable labours of Kennicott and De Rossi, have brought to light such a host of variations in the original text, as completely to put to flight the antiquated notion of the “immaculate purity” and “miraculous preservation” of the Hebrew Verity, which was so long and so strenuously maintained by critics and divines, and which held fast its position in their hermeneutical Canon, even so late as the 18th century. Moreover, it is manifest à priori, that it is quite impossible for two different numbers, or sets of numbers, both relating to the same facts, and in precisely the same manner, to be perfectly accurate and authentic! We shall feel no hesitation, therefore, in preferring the Septuagint version to the Hebrew text, or the Hebrew text to the Septuagint version, according as the evidence for the truth, appears to us, to preponderate in favour of the one document or the other. It is even possible that the true number connected with some important event, though originally in both documents, cannot now be found in either. We shall, in such a case, feel perfectly justified in adopting that number which can be demonstrated to be the true one, whether it be discovered in an ancient version or commentary, history, or chronicon. The word of God, like all truth, must be perfectly consistent with itself; and if through the lapse of ages, any part of that word has been corrupted or lost, it becomes a Christian duty, as well as a philosophic employment, to make all possible search for its recovery, not only that our own faith may be strengthened and confirmed, but that the mind of every sincere enquirer may be satisfied.

3.

Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the Antediluvian Patriarchs: Table I., In their Antepaidogonian ages—Table II., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table III., In their whole lives—Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the computation of the Septuagint—The Discrepancies of the Hebrew and Samaritan the work of design—Proof of this fact from the Scriptures.

We now proceed to state our arguments in favour of the computation of the Septuagint, which we consider as that of the original and genuine chronology of the Sacred Scriptures. As we shall have frequent occasion to refer to the ages at which the Patriarchs began to beget their children, and to the residues or remaining portions of their lives, we shall adopt a phraseology sanctioned by the example of Usher,^[2] and call the former their Antepaidogonian ages, and the latter, their Postpaidogonian ages. The following Table, relating to the first age, exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the Antepaidogonian ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs, and the Anni Mundi, or years of the world, in which they were born:—

The numbers marked with a star in this and subsequent Tables, are those in which the discrepancies are the most striking, and produce the most anomalous or absurd results in Chronology.

The following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the Postpaidogonian ages of the same Patriarchs, and the A.M., or years of the world in which they died:—

Lastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the Whole Lives of these Patriarchs, and the number of their generations from Adam:—

Let us now examine the internal evidence afforded by these tables in favour of our argument. On looking at Table III., we perceive that the whole lives of these Patriarchs, with the exception of that of Lamech, are all exactly the same, both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint; but that in the Samaritan, three of them are very considerably different, namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech. It is plain, therefore, that we must prefer the testimony of the two former witnesses to that of the latter. Moreover, it is evident that the lives of the three Patriarchs in question have been shortened in the Samaritan, in order that their deaths should be represented as all occurring in the year of the flood, see Table II.; for, had their lives been preserved as entire in this text, as in the other two, they would, contrary to the express words of Scripture, have survived the flood by 115, 249, and 100 years respectively! The evidence of the Samaritan text being thus clearly excluded, we have only to settle the claims of the other two witnesses on the question of the life of Lamech. As in this case all the witnesses differ in their statements, we are deprived of the evidence of double testimony, and we must resort to another test of the truth. In the mean time it is proper to observe that the date of the flood from creation will not, in the slightest degree, be affected by the discrepancy of the three texts on this point.

The most striking discrepancies, however, are to be found in the first two Tables. On looking at Table I., we perceive that six of the Hebrew Antepaidogonian ages, namely, the first five, and the seventh, have been diminished by the exact number of 100 years; for, omitting that of Noah, which is the same in all, the remaining three agree with those of the Septuagint, with the exception of six years only, in that of Lamech. Again:—On looking at Table II., we perceive that the six Hebrew Postpaidogonian ages, corresponding to the six former ages, have been increased by the exact number of 100 years; for, the remaining three, corresponding to the three former ages, agree with those of the Septuagint, with the exception of 30 years in that of Lamech. It is manifest, therefore, on the slightest consideration of the question, that the centenary increase of the six Hebrew Postpaidogonian ages was made to balance the centenary decrease of the six Hebrew Antepaidogonian ages, in order to preserve the integrity of the whole lives of the Patriarchs. These discrepancies, especially the regular centenary difference which occurs six times, have led to the uniform opinion among almost all chronologers, from the period of their first discovery, in the second century, till the present day, that they were the work of design or artifice, and not the offspring of chance or mistake!

The regularity of the Antepaidogonian ages of the Septuagint, argues very strongly in favour of their accuracy; while, the irregularity of those of the Hebrew text militates powerfully against the supposition of their being correct. For, in accordance with the language of Scripture, and the experience of all ages, “generation comes, and generation goes, and the earth continues stationary for the age,” (Ecclesiastes i. 4);^[3] little change is therefore likely to have taken place in the Ante and Post Paidogonian ages and whole lives of those almost millenarian patriarchs, except by the special interposition of God, and for some specific purpose, which he would have condescended to reveal unto man. Hence, we find that when the Patriarch Enoch, “the seventh from Adam,” was appointed, as the first Prophet on record, to announce to the old world the mingled news of redemption and judgment, he was afterwards translated to heaven without dying, before three of his ancestors (according to the Septuagint), and about six centuries before the usual term of human life in that age of wonders; so soon and so strikingly did the Lord sanction the message of his faithful servant, and admit him at once to his eternal and glorious reward.

4.

Reasons assigned for the alterations in the Hebrew and Samaritan—Accuracy of the Septuagint demonstrated—An objection to its chronology removed—Utility of the publication of fac simile editions of the codices—Late origin of the printed Hebrew text—Its original agreement with the Septuagint proved.

Moreover, the remarkable circumstance that three of the Hebrew Antepaidogonian ages, namely, those of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, exceed other three, namely—those of Cainan, Mahalaleel, and Enoch, by a difference of about 100 years, although the former patriarchs stood so nearly related to the latter, argues that some good reason must have existed in the minds of those who dared to make the alterations, for not abstracting the usual centenary difference from the former. Accordingly, we find that if this alteration had been effected on the Hebrew Antepaidogonian ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, in order to make them uniform with the rest in this respect, the flood would, according to that text, have taken place in A.M. 1356, their Postpaidogonian ages would have been 900, 882, and 695 years, and they would, contrary to Scripture, have survived the flood by 66, 200, and 95 years respectively! This anticipated result affords the strongest presumptive evidence that the Hebrew Antepaidogonian ages must all have been originally the same as those of the Septuagint; and that to serve some particular purpose, a century was abstracted from six of them, but not from the remaining three; because if this had been done, either the integrity of the whole lives corresponding to them would have been destroyed, or the three patriarchs in question would have been falsely represented, as having long survived the deluge. The Hebrew text (as it now exists), represents Methuselah as dying in the very year of the flood, although only forty days of it had elapsed when Noah entered the Ark! Thus, according to that text, the only man of that age who “walked with God,” and was “righteous before him in that generation,” would have, in addition to the distressing cares and the unutterable sympathies attending the arrival of God’s awful judgment,—the personal and relative sorrow of heart arising from the death and burial of his pious and aged grandfather; but we know that God “doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men;” and we have much reason, therefore, to question the accuracy of this coincidence; for, to suppose with some, that Methuselah was swept away by the deluge, would be to contradict the Scripture, which affirms that Noah was “just and perfect in his generations.”

This difficulty is entirely removed by the accurate copies of the Septuagint, which places the death of Methuselah six years before the flood. Again, by the Hebrew text Lamech is represented as having died five years before that catastrophe, and consequently before Methuselah, being the only instance in the generations of the righteous from Adam to Noah, in which the son paid the debt of nature before the father. But this anomaly evidently arises from the alteration which was made in the Hebrew Antepaidogonian age of Lamech, by the abstraction of six years, the difference between it and that of the Septuagint; for, if the original number had been retained as in the case of Methuselah, Lamech would then have been represented as surviving the deluge by one year! According to the present text of the Septuagint, Lamech is indeed represented as having died twenty-nine years before his father; but if his Hebrew Postpaidogonian age be considered as the correct one, his death would then have taken place five years before the flood, and one year after that of his father; thus, the natural anomaly would be removed, and the difference between the years of his whole life, in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, reduced from thirty years to six, the amount of alteration in his Hebrew Antepaidogonian age. The whole question is ably and fully discussed in Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” pp. 138, 139, and his “Septuagint and Hebrew Chronologies tried,” pp. 36–45, on the supposition that Lamech’s Postpaidogonian age and whole life, as given in the Septuagint, are strictly correct; but his reasoning is of so lengthened and recondite a nature that we must refer our readers to the works themselves for complete satisfaction on the subject.^[4]

The Samaritan text is more consistent than the Hebrew with regard to the centenary decrease of the Antepaidogonian ages; all of them but that of Noah, having been submitted to its operation. This alteration alone, however, was found to be totally inadmissible; because, as formerly remarked, the text would then have represented three of the Patriarchs as long surviving the deluge; it was therefore necessary to make a farther alteration, but on what principle it is difficult to divine. We only know that two of the Antepaidogonian ages, those of Methuselah and Lamech, were reduced still more, namely from 87 and 82 years, to 67 and 53 years respectively; thereby occasioning a corresponding decrease in the Postpaidogonian ages of Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech, namely, from 900, 882, and 695 years, to 785, 653, and 600 years respectively, in order to shorten their whole lives, and to bring the dates of their deaths to coincide with the year of the flood! Moreover, the idea thus conveyed, that these three Patriarchs, either all died within forty days of that event, or were swept away in the common ruin,—is, as we have shown in the case of the Hebrew text, so contrary to nature and to Scripture, that it cannot be entertained for a moment. Whatever, therefore, may have been the object of these complicated alterations in the Samaritan, it is plain that they have been made with much less skill and ingenuity than those of the Hebrew, the clumsy artifice being so easy of detection. Thus, we are forced, by internal evidence alone, to conclude that the numerical statements of the Hebrew and Samaritan texts, with regard to the Antepaidogonian ages,—on which their chronology is considered entirely to depend,—have, with very few exceptions, been manufactured to serve some particular end or design; and that those of the Septuagint are not only entirely free from any appearance of this kind, but being perfectly natural and consistent with themselves, possess all the marks of genuineness and authenticity.

It has been objected to the accuracy of the chronology of the Septuagint, that some copies of that version, were found at an early period of the Christian era, having 167 instead of 187 years for the Antepaidogonian age of Methuselah, and 802 instead of 782 years for his Postpaidogonian age, whereby this Patriarch was represented as surviving the flood by fourteen years! Common sense, however, teaches that this discrepancy must have been purely owing to a mistake in the transcribers of these copies; because, other copies were extant at the same period which contained the correct numbers. Mr. Clinton, in his “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 286, proves by extracts from the early chronographers and historians, that some, as Theophilus, Eusebius, Augustine, and Syncellus, had the faulty reading in their copies; while others, as Demetrius, Josephus, Africanus, Epiphanius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle, followed the correct copies; and he states that although “Augustine had the faulty reading in his copies,” yet “he judiciously applied the proper remedy, and adopted the better reading.” This difference in the copies has even reached our own times, and is found in the two oldest and most complete manuscripts of the Septuagint at present known to exist, namely, the Vatican and Alexandrine codices; the edition of the Scriptures printed from the former having the faulty reading, and that printed from the latter having the true one. The librarians of the British Museum have indeed, conferred an invaluable boon on the world, by the publication of the fac simile of the Alexandrine codex; and we most anxiously hope that ere long, the Pope will permit^[5] the fac simile of the Vatican codex to be published, especially as it is already printed and ready for circulation! The acknowledged fact that discrepancies exist between this manuscript and the editions printed from it,^[6] increases the solicitude of all the pious and learned in this country for its immediate publication. Would that we could purchase even a single copy!

The last argument we shall adduce here in favour of the chronology of the Septuagint, and it applies both to the Ante and Post Diluvian ages, is derived from the deliberate opinion of Dr. Kennicott. In his valuable posthumous work, entitled “Remarks on Select Passages of the Old Testament,” p. 16, he says, “It has been proved from Eusebius, that some Hebrew copies” of the Old Testament, “having the larger numbers, existed in the fourth century; and others, on the authority of Jacob Edessenus, as late as the year 700; whilst others much later, are mentioned in the chronicle of Ecchellensis. And though such manuscripts are all perhaps now lost, yet are these testimonies confirmed by the traditions still preserved among the Jews themselves, as to Seth being born a hundred and thirty years after Abel’s death!” Moreover, it is acknowledged by biblical critics, that all the copies of the present Hebrew text were taken from manuscripts of date later than the ninth century; and, that the striking uniformity which all the printed editions exhibit, is to be attributed to the fact, that they were all copied from the same codex. Dr. Hales also gives citations from Eusebius, from the Jewish Targums, and from other works, in which decided reference is made to the larger numbers as they anciently existed in the Hebrew.^[7] In fine, Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Dissertation on the Apocalypse,” p. 535, fourth edition, proves, on the authority of ancient Jewish tradition, that Adam was two hundred and thirty years old when he begat Seth; consequently, by the argument ex uno disce omnes, we conclude that the whole of the Antepaidogonian ages are correctly given in the Septuagint, and that the true extent of the Antediluvian Age, is 2262 years.

1.

Discrepancies of the three texts—Unfounded hypothesis of Usher—Agreement of Josephus with the Septuagint—Authority of this Version in the Church—Its chronology confirmed by the most authentic Chinese annals—Reasons why the Jews altered the Hebrew text.

The extent of the Second, or Postdiluvian Age, is ascertained from the text of Genesis x. 21–25; xi. 10–32, and xii. 4; by summing up the Antepaidogonian ages of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, including the date of the Call of Abraham from that of Terah. This amount is, according to the Hebrew text, and the Latin Vulgate, 367 years; according to Usher’s view of that text, 427 years; according to the Septuagint, 1147 years; and, according to the Samaritan, 1017 years. This enormous discrepancy is another Gordian knot of equal difficulty with the former, and requiring for its resolution, a similar process of investigation and argument. Before resuming the discussion, however, it is proper to notice a very able and logical article in the “Cours Complet de Theologie” of M. L’Abbé Migne, entitled “Chronographiæ LXX Interpretum Defensio.”

The author of this dissertation enters fully into the critical history of the Septuagint version, and investigates the causes of the existing discrepancies between it and the Hebrew text. He powerfully vindicates the authenticity and authority of the Septuagint; he clearly refutes the absurd suppositions which have been advanced from time to time by critics in order to account for the numerical errors which the advocates of the Hebrew verity suppose it contains; and, he completely demolishes the unfounded hypothesis of Usher as to the fancied existence of two Greek versions, both of which were ascribed to the Seventy interpreters!^[8] He next discusses the authority of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and proves that it, as well as the Hebrew, originally contained the same numerical statements as the Septuagint; and shews that it is entitled to be heard as an additional witness in regard to the Postdiluvian age, notwithstanding its error in the matter of the Junior Cainan. He treats, in a very full and impartial manner, of the authority of Josephus as an historian and chronographer, and institutes a careful and searching inquiry into his numerical statements, which are universally admitted to be so puzzling and contradictory. He clearly elicits, however, the undeniable fact that the numbers of Josephus originally agreed with those of the Septuagint, both before and after the flood; but he avows that they have been so vitiated by careless or designing copyists, that it is impossible to establish a perfect coincidence.

The author then shows that in the first ages of Christianity, the Septuagint translation was esteemed a divine production; that by the citations made from it in the New Testament, it has received the stamp and seal of Christ and his Apostles, as a genuine and faithful witness of the truth; and that the ancient chronology of this version was reckoned authentic by the whole Christian Church till the ninth century. He next inquires into the authenticity of the chronological statements of profane historians, particularly among the Chinese and the Egyptians; and shows that the true and ancient records of these nations are wholly irreconcileable with the shorter chronology. Thus, the era of the Emperor Yao, according to the most authentic Chinese annals, is B. C. 2357; so that, according to the Hebrew chronology, even as expounded by Usher, he flourished thirteen years before the flood! While, according to that of the Septuagint, he flourished in the ninth century after the flood, or forty-one years after the division of the earth among the primitive founders of the nations.^[9]

The author next refutes some popular objections to the computation of the Septuagint, founded, first, on the supposed immaculate purity and miraculous preservation of the Hebrew text; secondly, on the supposed antiquity of the Chaldee paraphrasts, the Syriac version, and the Indian and Chinese copies of the Pentateuch; and thirdly, on the decree of the Council of Trent, in reference to the paramount authority of the Latin Vulgate. He concludes by offering some reasonable conjectures on the causes of the discrepancies in question; and, he shows that the early Fathers were generally of opinion that the Jews had violated and mystified the numbers of the sacred text, in order, to disturb and confuse the times which related to the Advent of the Messiah, and thereby to confute the Christians, by pretending to prove from that text, that Jesus Christ could not be the true Messiah, because he had appeared before the period predicted by the prophets, namely, the middle of the sixth millenary from Creation. Such is but a short and hasty sketch of one of the ablest treatises we have yet seen, on the Ante and Post Diluvian chronology of the Septuagint.

2.

Tables of the Discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the Postdiluvian Patriarchs: Table IV., In their Antepaidogonian ages—Table V., In their Postpaidogonian ages—Table VI., In their whole Lives.

The following Table relating to the Second Age, exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts, with regard to the Antepaidogonian ages of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, and the years of the world, in which they were born:—

The following auxiliary Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the Postpaidogonian ages of the same Patriarchs, and the years of the world in which they died:—

Lastly, the following Table exhibits the discrepancies of the three texts with regard to the whole lives of these Patriarchs, and the number of their generations from the flood:—

3.

Authenticity of the Second Cainan—Dilemma of the Venerable Bede—Mistake of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Horne—Usher’s Dissertation—Inconsistency of authorized translations of the Bible—Rashness of Beza—The Second Cainan in the most ancient Codices—Mistake of Bede, Hales, and other chronographers.

Let us examine the internal evidence again afforded by these Tables, in favour of our argument. On comparing their different columns, we find that the name and generation of one of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, called by chronologers the Second or Junior Cainan, has been either entirely lost or wilfully omitted in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts. This assertion we make with the utmost confidence, because in Luke iii. 36, this Cainan is distinctly enumerated in the genealogy of our Lord Jesus Christ; and his name is found in all the MSS. of the New Testament, with the exception of the Codex Bezæ, which it is well known has been corrupted in this place. The hallucinations of commentators and chronologers on this point, are perhaps the most extraordinary which the annals of Criticism can furnish. To refer no farther back than to the days of the venerable Bede, we find him, in the preface to his commentary on the Acts, confessing himself unequal to the task of solving this difficult question; and, he greatly marvels why “ten generations only, from the flood to Abraham, are found in the Hebrew verity,” while the inspired Luke chose to put “eleven in his Gospel, Cainan being added according to the Seventy Interpreters.” In his exposition of that Gospel, he touches on the same question, and says with singular naïveté, “but which of these is the truer, or whether both can be true, God knoweth!”^[11] Modern critics appear to have had much less difficulty in settling this important matter.

Mr. Clinton, “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. pp. 288–297, after citing all the testimonies of the ancient chronographers for and against the generation of the second Cainan, hastily concludes that it is a “spurious addition to the text;” and, although he admits its existence in the “Greek copies,” yet he entirely omits to cite the testimony of St. Luke, who must have been better acquainted with the genealogy of Christ than any of the chronographers! His silence on this point would seem to indicate that he had some doubts of the authenticity of the text in question. He has, however, given an extract from Syncellus, affirming that the second Cainan was in all the copies of the Septuagint in his time, censuring Eusebius for omitting him, and stating that St. Luke reckons him the 13th from Adam. Syncellus, in this passage, very properly includes Shem in the genealogy, although he is necessarily omitted in the chronology; because, he was an Antediluvian by birth, his Antepaidogonian age being entirely omitted in the Scriptures, and the birth of his son being reckoned from the flood. Hence, we find that all the ancient writers reckon Noah the tenth from Adam, and Abraham the tenth from the flood, Shem being evidently the eleventh from Adam, and Abraham the twenty-first. With feelings of the greatest respect for the extensive learning and deep research of Mr. Clinton, we would seriously advise him to consult the Codex Alexandrinus in the British Museum, and convince himself by ocular demonstration, as we have done, of the genuineness and authenticity of the testimonies of the Evangelist and the Seventy Interpreters to the undeniable fact of the existence of the Postdiluvian Cainan. Dr. Hales, “Analysis of Chronology,”^[12] vol. i. p. 90, appears to have strongly felt the weight of St. Luke’s authority on this point, although, following the recent Masorete and Samaritan texts, he rejects this generation.

Mr. Horne, “Critical Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,” vol. iii. p. 561, 7th edition, asserts that “St. Luke wrote for those Christians who read the Greek version more than the original Hebrew, and consequently he preferred their version, which adds the name of Cainan to the genealogy of Shem!” The desire to humour the prejudices of any set of readers, by adding a spurious generation to “the genealogy of Shem,” is too serious a charge to bring against the Evangelist; but when we consider that this would be, in fact, adding a spurious generation to “the genealogy of Christ,” the charge becomes infinitely more serious! The attempt of chronologers to mutilate this authentic document, by the exclusion of one of the ancestors of our Lord, is so great an injury to the Christian verity, that we do not wonder at the pointed question put by Mr. Cuninghame, “Fulness of the Times,” p. 200, “Did St. Luke prefer a lie to the truth, to please men?” In order to satisfy his own mind, and to vindicate his system of chronology from the charge of having unwarrantably omitted this generation, by following too closely the Hebrew verity, Usher deemed it necessary to write in his “Chronologia Sacra,” a prolix Dissertation, entitled “De Cainano Arphaxadi filio, &c.,” to which our limits permit us only to refer. The whole question, however, is discussed in a very clear and satisfactory manner, in Dr. Russell’s “Connection of Sacred and Profane History,” vol. i. pp. 158–167. There is also a most admirable summary of the arguments in proof of the existence of this Cainan, in Mr. Cuninghame’s work above cited, where our readers will find some very judicious strictures on the “Scripture Chronology” of Mr. Clinton; see pp. 187–207.

A candid perusal of these works must lead to the inevitable conclusion that the name of the Second Cainan ought not to have been rejected from the Sacred Text. It is strange, however, to observe that in our authorized version of the Scriptures, this generation has been excluded from the Old Testament, while it has been admitted into the New. Such a manifest inconsistency should have been avoided in a version intended for public use in all the churches, and sanctioned by royal authority! The Latin Vulgate, published by the “supreme authority” of the Roman Pontiff, is equally liable to the same charge of inconsistency; while Theodore Beza, in his Latin version of the New Testament, has omitted this generation altogether! For this bold step, Beza had no other authority than the “Codex Græcolatinus,” which, from having been in his possession, bears his own name; and which, while reckoned of “little critical value,” is the only manuscript of the New Testament discovered to be deficient in this respect. The Second Cainan is, moreover, found in all the Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament, both in Genesis x. 24, and xi. 13; and, also in many copies, in 1 Chronicles i. 18 and 24,—this chapter being imperfect in the Vatican Codex, but complete in the Codex Alexandrinus.

In confirmation of our argument, it is proper to state, that there exists a fragment of a very ancient codex, which lays claim even to a higher antiquity than either of these codices, being described in the words of Usher, “Syntagma de Septuaginta,” cap. ii. p. 18, as “omnium qui uspiam hodie extant vetustissimus,” and known by the name of the “Codex Cottonianus.” Of this codex, unfortunately, a certain portion of Genesis only remains; but it is of immense “critical value,” as it confirms the true readings of the Ante and Post Paidogonian ages of Methuselah, and of the passages relating to the second Cainan. In the collation of this fragment “cum editione Romanâ,” that is, with the Vatican edition, by Dr. Grabe,—posthumously published by Dr. H. Owen,—there are two fac simile engravings of a portion of the manuscript, exhibiting the old, uncial Greek letters, unaccented and unspirited, like the codex Alexandrinus, and (curious to remark) exhibiting also the effigies of four of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, spoken of in the adjacent text,—one being the very identical personage, whose existence is not recognized by the Masorete and Samaritan texts, and is therefore so stoutly denied by the defenders of the Hebrew verity! We copy from the preface, the explanation of one of the pictures, the plates of which were engraven at the expence of the Antiquarian Society of London, in 1744:—“Figurarum Explicatio.—Tabula Prima. Fig. II. Arphaxadus, Semi filius, cum uxore sua et filio Cainane. Gen. xi. 12, 13.”^[13]

The unaccountable mistake committed by Bede, in supposing that Abraham would be the eleventh generation from the flood, if the Junior Cainan were admitted into the text, has been copied by a host of chronologers since his time, including both Dr. Hales and Mr. Clinton! Nothing, however, is more surprising than the pertinacity of error, especially when it rests on the authority of an esteemed or a learned man. We have seen that when the Second Cainan is admitted into the text, Abraham must be reckoned the tenth generation from the flood; consequently, if he be rejected, Abraham must be reckoned only the ninth,—contrary to the united voice of antiquity, both sacred and profane! Hales and Clinton have both cited extracts in proof of this argument, from the most ancient chronographers, particularly Berosus, Josephus, and Philo, shewing that Abraham was universally reckoned the tenth generation after the flood. The subterfuge adopted by the advocates of the Hebrew verity, in reckoning Shem,—an Antediluvian,—as one of the generations after the flood, in order to make up their number, is too weak to require any comment. There is no doubt, therefore, that both Hales and Clinton are in the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell, and Cuninghame, who admit the Second Cainan, are “in the right.” The ancient testimonies which the former authors cite in favour of their own argument, most decidedly confirm that of their opponents; consequently, they have the merit of drawing “opposite conclusions from the same facts,”—conclusions alike opposite to the truth, and to the New Testament.

4.

Internal evidence afforded by the Tables in favour of the computation of the Septuagint—Omissions in the Hebrew and Septuagint retained in the Samaritan—Accordance of the Septuagint with nature and providence—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from analogy—The alterations of Origen in the text of the Septuagint.

With reference to the three Postdiluvian Tables, we find that the discrepancies of the three texts exhibit greater irregularities in Tables V. and VI. than in Table IV. It is manifest that these discrepancies are also the work of design or artifice, and not the offspring of chance or mistake. The regular centenary difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, occurs in six of the Antepaidogonian ages, namely, the first seven, omitting the second, which, as we have seen, is wanting both in the Hebrew and the Samaritan; while, singular to remark, in these six ages, the Samaritan agrees exactly with the Septuagint! To counterbalance this regular centenary decrease in the Antepaidogonian ages in the Hebrew, we should have expected, as in the former case, that there would be a regular centenary increase of the corresponding Postpaidogonian ages, in order to preserve the integrity of the whole lives. This appears, however, to have been considered as a matter of no moment in regard to the whole lives of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, because the usual obituary statements regarding them have been entirely omitted both in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, while they have been preserved in the Samaritan. Accordingly, we find that the Samaritan, in the Postpaidogonian ages, agrees only in two out of the six with the Septuagint, and in none at all with the Hebrew. Moreover, the difference between the Samaritan and the Hebrew, is an exact centenary in five out of the six; while the Hebrew coincides entirely with the Septuagint in four,—one of the remaining two, being the only case in which there is an exact centenary increase to balance the centenary decrease in the corresponding Antepaidogonian age. In the corresponding whole lives, the Samaritan agrees with the Hebrew in five out of the six, while the Septuagint and the Hebrew agree only in one. The assimilation of the Samaritan to the Hebrew in the whole lives, and its almost perfect agreement with the Septuagint in the Antepaidogonian ages, while it differs so much from both in other respects, render its testimony as an uncorrupted witness quite inadmissible; yet, as it contains manifest traces of the truth, especially in regard to the latter statements, on which the chronology mainly depends, we deem the double testimony of the Septuagint and Samaritan of very considerable importance to our argument. This importance is greatly increased, when we consider that the statements respecting the whole lives in the three texts cannot be compared, because they are now only to be found in the Samaritan, and, even in it, in a mutilated form; the Hebrew and Septuagint columns of Table VI. having been obtained from those of Tables IV. and V., by the simple process of addition. We, therefore, entirely agree with Dr. Hales^[14] in the opinion, that they must have originally existed in all the texts; first, because they are given in all in the Antediluvian period, and no sufficient reason can be assigned why they are not also given in all in the Postdiluvian period; and secondly, because, though no trace of them is left in the Hebrew, yet there is some in the Septuagint, the latter still containing the last clause of each statement, in the words—καὶ ἀπεθανε,—“and he died.”