CHAPTER I.

EXTENT OF THE FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.

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:—

TABLE I. ANTEDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. A.P. Born A.P. Born A.P. Born ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M. From Creation 0 0 0 Adam 130 1 230 1 130 1 Seth 105 130 205 230 105 130 Enos 90 235 190 435 90 235 Cainan 70 325 170 625 70 325 Mahalaleel 65 395 165 795 65 395 Jared *162 460 162 960 *62 460 Enoch 65 622 165 1122 65 522 Methuselah *187 687 187 1287 *67 587 Lamech *182 874 188 1474 *53 654 Noah 500 1056 500 1662 500 707 To the Flood 100 100 100 ———— ———— ———— FIRST AGE 1656 years. 2262 years. 1307 years.

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:—

TABLE II. ANTEDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. P.P. Died P.P. Died P.P. Died ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M. Adam 800 931 700 931 800 931 Seth 807 1042 707 1142 807 1042 Enos 815 1140 715 1340 815 1140 Cainan 840 1235 740 1535 840 1235 Mahalaleel 830 1290 730 1690 830 1290 Jared 800 1422 800 1922 *785 *1307 Enoch 300 987 200 1487 300 887 _translated_ Methuselah 782 1656 782 2256 *653 *1307 Lamech *595 1651 565 2227 *600 *1307 Noah 350 2006 350 2612 350 1657

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:—

TABLE III. ANTEDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. W. No. W. No. W. No. lives. lives. lives. Adam 930 1 930 1 930 1 Seth 912 2 912 2 912 2 Enos 905 3 905 3 905 3 Cainan 910 4 910 4 910 4 Mahalaleel 895 5 895 5 895 5 Jared 962 6 962 6 *847 6 Enoch 365 7 365 7 365 7 Methuselah 969 8 969 8 *720 8 Lamech *777 9 753 9 *653 9 Noah 950 10 950 10 950 10

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.