Page images
PDF
EPUB

RULE III. Not to adopt any Date, that shall be repugnant to any other established Date.

This rule is essentially requisite to give uniformity and consistency to the whole system of Ancient Chronology, sacred and profane.

Thus, the generally received date of the destruction of Solomon's temple, B.C. 588, is inconsistent with the true and only date of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, B.C. 604, as established and verified by Ptolomy's scientific canon; by the application of which, the unfounded hypothesis of a double commencement of his reign, during his father's life, and after his death, is discarded. The sagacious Jackson detected an error of two years even in Ptolomy's celebrated canon, but he omitted the necessary compensation in the reign of Cyrus, as dated from the capture of Babylon, B.C. 536. This rectification of the canon itself discovers the correct date of the expiration of the Babylonish captivity, which has been hitherto an apple of discord among the chronologers.

RULE IV. Never to frame an Hypothesis, nor to assign a conjectural Date, except in Cases of downright Necessity.

Thus, until every other resource had failed, I did not venture to assume the preaching of Jonah to the Ninevites, B.C. 800, according to Jackson's conjecture; that of the Bible Chronology, B.C. 862, being too early: nor the accession of Astyages, B.C. 601, two years before the birth of his grandson Cyrus. Petavius has an excellent remark on the subject, which cannot be too carefully attended to by Chronologers:-"As nothing is more easy, so nothing is less tolerable, than to transfer to the most ancient writers the fault of our own error and unskilfulness; on the contrary, nothing is more prudent and more desirable than to attribute very much to the authority and fidelity of the ancients; and not to recede therefrom, unless when we are admonished and convinced by the clearest and plainly necessary indications of truth." Petav. Vol. II. p. 87. Indeed, to rash conjectures, and fanciful hypotheses, may we attribute very much of the disrepute which the science of Chronology has unjustly incurred, by the treatment it has experienced even from Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Newton, and Jackson.

RULE V. Carefully and critically to distinguish between different Persons, in different Ages and Countries, called by the same Name; and, on the other Hand, to unite or identify Persons bearing different names, in different Authors, or at different Times of their Lives.

The diversity of persons bearing the same name, and the diversity of names attributed to the same person, in sacred and profane history, form two of the most frequent and prominent causes of error and perplexity in adjusting sacred and profane Chronology. Thus Nimrod, and one of his descendants in the Assyrian empire, were both called Ninus, and the exploits of the former attributed to the latter, to the great embarrassment of the history on the other hand Sesostris, the celebrated Egyptian conqueror of Herodotus, was called Sethosis and Osymanduas by Diodorus Siculus, and Vexoris by Justin, &c.

By the sober and skilful application of these rules, suggested experimentally, and matured gradually, in the course of these researches, both by my own mistakes, and those of my predecessors, in this most abstruse and difficult investigation; and by more careful and critical revision and comparison of all the various original documents, still extant, of ancient History, Antiquities, Etymology, Mythology, and Astronomy, connected with Chronology, I am persuaded, that the whole of Ancient Chronology, Sacred and Profane, may be reduced to one simple, uniform, and consistent system, in which all the parts shall correspond with each other, and with the whole, without "the many repugnancies most justly complained of," in all the systems that have hitherto appeared; and the whole be brought to the highest degree of probability, bordering on moral certainty, beyond which it cannot be raised, from the imperfection of several of the leading data: for "who can count the sand of the sea, and the drops of rain, and the days of the world," with absolute certainty, but HE that made them all-THE ANCIENT OF DAYS.

ART. II. REVISION AND COMPARISON OF THE SHORTER HEBREW, AND LONGER GREEK COMPUTATIONS, IN THE PATRIARCHAL GENEALOGIES.

The removal of error is the first step towards the discovery of truth. Let us therefore proceed to examine carefully and critically the most ancient of these venerable documents, which have survived the ravages of time, and are still extant in the records of the genealogies of the antediluvian patriarchs, Gen. v. and of the postdiluvian, Gen. xi.; for upon these, every system of Patriarchal Chronology must necessarily be built.

The first circumstance that strikes us on comparing these lists, as they are given in the Masorete and Samaritan Hebrew texts, in the Greek version of the Septuagint, and in Josephus, (who was well acquainted both with the original Hebrew, and with the Greek version) is a remarkable difference in the lengths of the successive generations, amounting to 600 years in the antediluvian, and to 700 years in the postdiluvian; and which, it is evident, could not have originated from accident, but from premeditated design: for in the Hebrew, the centenary deficiencies in the lengths of the generations are added to the residues of the lives; whereas, in the Greek version, the centenary additions to the lengths of the generations are subducted from the residues of lives, so as to make the totals of lives equal, according to the following tables.

[blocks in formation]

TABLE II. AFTER THE DELUGE.

GENERATIONS.

RESIDUES.

LIVES.

[blocks in formation]

Heb. Sam. Sept. Joseph. Heb. Sam. Sept. Heb. Sam. Sept. 2 12 500 500 500..

1. Deluge. Shem 2

2. Arphaxad
[Cainan II...

600

135 .. 403

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Thus, Adam's generation, or his age at the birth of Seth, is reckoned by the Masorete and Samaritan Hebrew texts, 130 years; the residue of life, 800 years; and the total, 930 years; whereas, in the Septuagint and Josephus, the generation is enlarged to 230 years; the residue of life diminished to 700 years; so as to make the total 930 years the same *.

Besides this general and uniform difference of the addition or subtraction of a century, in the respective lists of generations, there are considerable variations in the four lists of the Masorete, Samaritan, Septuagint, and Josephus, some of which must be accidental, others designed.

Originally, however, there did not exist any remarkable difference between the Hebrew and Greek copies. This we learn from the important attestations of Philo and Josephus, those great antiquaries and historians.

Philo, of Alexandria, who flourished in the Apostolic age, thus speaks of the accuracy and fidelity of the Greek version, and of the high veneration in which it was held by the Jews in his time :

"The 72 interpreters seriously reflected with themselves, how

* This remark is as old at least as Augustine's time, who flourished about A.D. 395. "In his autem continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo; ita ut ante genitum filium qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem, ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint; ut summa conveniat. Et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione invenitur. Videtur habere quandam, si dici potest, error ipse constantiam; nec casum redolet sed industriam.-De Civit. Dei, Lib, xv. 13.

[blocks in formation]

arduous a task it was to interpret or translate the laws contained in the Divine Oracles, so as neither to add nor diminish, nor to alter any thing, but to retain their original form." And he observes, that the most learned Jews, best skilled in both languages, the Hebrew (which he calls Chaldee) and the Greek, at the time it was made, B.C. 240, styled the translators, "not interpreters merely, but prophets, who with the purest spirit had entered into the genuine sentiments of Moses." And he adds, that "an annual festival was celebrated in the isle of Pharos, where the version was made, until his time, to preserve the memory of it, and to thank God for so great a benefit." De Vita Mosis.

Josephus also, who flourished in the next generation after Philo, and published his admirable Antiquities, about A.D. 94, relates, that "at the request of Ptolomy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, a copy of the law [of Moses] was sent by the high-priest from Jerusalem to Alexandria, written in letters of gold, upon leaves of parchment wonderfully joined together. And that the version, after it was finished, was read in public, in order that every one might observe whether it was in any respect redundant or deficient; but the interpretation was adjudged by all to be so well done, that it ought to remain, as it was, without alteration." Antiq. 12, 2, 12, p. 517. Hudson's edit.

And Josephus himself, who was well skilled in both languages, professes that he translated his Antiquities from the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, without adding to, or diminishing from, the original, for which he expresses the highest veneration. See his Life, §. 2; Proem: §. 2, 3; and Antiq. 10, 10, 6.

From these joint testimonies of Philo and Josephus, therefore, we may safely conclude, 1. That there was originally no difference between the Hebrew genealogies and those of the Greek version; and 2. That the computation of Josephus was conformable to both in his time; and consequently, 3. That either the Hebrew copies, or the Greek copies, both of the Septuagint and of Josephus, have been adulterated since his time.

II. That the adulteration took place in the Hebrew copies, rather than in the Greek, is most highly probable, for several

reasons:

The superstitious veneration for the "Hebrew verity," as it was called, or supposed immaculate purity of the Masorete editions of the Hebrew text, which possessed some of the prin

« PreviousContinue »