CHAPTER IV.—ERRORS OF THE ANCIENT CHRONOGRAPHERS.

1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the ancient chronographers—The testimony of the latter chiefly in favour of the Septuagint—The testimonies of Josephus, Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle selected for examination—Table I. Containing their statements relating to the _First age_ of the world—Errors of Josephus—Corruption of his text—Mr. Cuninghame’s detection of his blunders in regard to the first age—His discovery of the truth from the titulary statements of the first and second books of Josephus—His explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this author appears to have been accessory—Error of Theophilus, and accuracy of Africanus in this age—Similar error of Eusebius and Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the Paschal Chronicle 229

2. Table II., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers relating to the _Second age_ of the world—Absurd errors of the text of Josephus—The discrepancy between his detailed numbers and his sum total, the work of an enemy to the truth—Proof that the true sum was in his text originally—Errors of Theophilus and Africanus in this age due to Jewish influence—Notion entertained by the ancient chronographers regarding the bisection of the Mundane period at the death of Peleg—The genealogy of Shem, like that of Melchisedec, in the chronology—Reference to Mr. Clinton—Error of Eusebius, rectified in the Hieronymian version of his Chronicon—Accuracy of the Paschal Chronicle, with the exception of the biennial period—Valuable Testimony of Eusebius and Africanus, preserved by Syncellus in his Chronographia, on the extent of the _first two ages_ 240

3. Table III., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers relating to the _Third age_ of the world—The testimony of Josephus to the true chronology very explicit—Misinterpretation of prophecy the cause of wavering in Josephus and blunder in Theophilus—The testimony of Africanus correct—Eusebius, Demetrius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle correct—Explanation of the period of _Four Hundred_ years 248

4. Table IV., Containing the statements of the ancient chronographers relating to the _Fourth age_ of the world—The testimony of Josephus to the extent of this age highly satisfactory—Proof that it was 612 years—Strange errors of Theophilus—Method of rectifying them—Compensating errors of Africanus—His date of the foundation of Solomon’s Temple correct—Errors of Eusebius—His _Præparatio_ correct in amount, his _Chronicon_ wrong—He confutes himself and adopts the Hebrew chronology—Comparison between him and Usher—Errors of the Paschal Chronicle—The author coincides with Josephus—Hesitancy of Mr. Clinton—Table V., The _first four ages_ of the world, and date of Solomon’s Temple according to the different chronographers 254

5. Table VI. Containing the statements of the chronographers relating to the _Fifth age_ of the world—The errors of Josephus peculiar—His elongation of the reign of Solomon—Disagreement of his titulary periods with the summation of the reigns in Books Eighth, Ninth and Tenth—Proof that the former is nearly correct—Table VII. _Monarchal Periods_ of Josephus—Comparison with the True Chronology—Evidence that these periods have been manufactured—The true chronology of this age detected in his works—Table VIII. _True Flavian Periods_, showing the true Extent as originally held by Josephus—Proof that he knew the true epoch of the Captivity—The errors of Theophilus in this age few—He is also mistaken as to the epoch of the Captivity—Africanus diminishes the true extent of this age—He is misrepresented by Syncellus—The Statements of Eusebius taken from the Hieronymian and Armenian Versions of his Canon—Those of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from that work itself—Their errors pointed out—The difference between their Extent of this age and the true Extent only 3 years 274

6. Table IX. _Ethnocratic Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to Ptolemy’s Canon and the ancient Chronographers—Accuracy of the Canon—Josephus erroneous but consistent in the _Sixth age_—His remarkable coincidence with the true Chronology in the Mundane period—Theophilus follows the Roman Chronology in this age—Africanus the prophetic—Both erroneous—Errors of Eusebius, and accuracy of his Extent of this age—Errors of the Paschal Chronicle considerable and unaccountable—Table X. Summation of the _Six ages_ of the world according to the Septuagint and the ancient chronographers—Table XI. Summation of the Periods of the Christian Chronographers, adopted by themselves—_Chronological Table_ of the Principal Epochs and Events from the Creation to the Advent of Christ 287

A

DISSERTATION

ON

THE TRUE AGE OF THE WORLD.

=Part I.=

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.

SECTION I. AGES AND EPOCHS OF THE WORLD.

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.