CHAPTER II.

EXTENT OF THE SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.

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:—

TABLE IV. POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. A.P. Born A.P. Born A.P. Born ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M. From the Flood 2 2 2 Arphaxad 35 1658 135 2264 135 1309 Cainan[10] 130 2399 Salah 30 1693 130 2529 130 1444 Heber 34 1723 134 2659 134 1574 Peleg 30 1757 130 2793 130 1708 Reu 32 1787 132 2923 132 1838 Serug 30 1819 130 3055 130 1970 Nahor *29 1849 79 3185 79 2100 Terah 70 1878 70 3264 70 2179 To the Call of 75 1948 75 3334 75 2249 Abraham ———— ———— ———— SECOND AGE 367 years. 1147 years. 1017 years.

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:—

TABLE V. POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. P.P. Died P.P. Died P.P. Died ages. A.M. ages. A.M. ages. A.M. Arphaxad 403 2096 403 2802 303 1747 Cainan[10] 330 2859 Salah 403 2126 303 2962 303 1877 Heber 430 2187 270 3063 270 1978 Peleg 209 1996 209 3132 109 1947 Reu 207 2026 207 3262 107 2077 Serug 200 2049 200 3385 100 2200 Nahor *119 1997 *129 3393 *69 2248 Terah *135 2083 *135 3469 *75 2324 Abraham 75 2123 75 3509 75 2424

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:—

TABLE VI. POSTDILUVIAN HEBREW. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. PATRIARCHS. W. No. W. No. W. No. lives. lives. lives. Arphaxad 438 1 538 1 438 1 Cainan[10] 460 2 Salah 433 2 433 3 433 2 Heber 464 3 404 4 404 3 Peleg 239 4 339 5 239 4 Reu 239 5 339 6 239 5 Serug 230 6 330 7 230 6 Nahor *148 7 *208 8 *148 7 Terah *205 8 *205 9 *145 8 Abraham 175 9 175 10 175 9

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.”

An important argument in favour of the longer computation is derived from the consideration that the decrease in the duration of human life after the flood, for the first ten generations, is more natural and progressive in the Septuagint than in the other two texts; for, in the latter there are greater leaps between the terms of the progression, and some of the differences even become negative, which is not the case in the former. Moreover, the decrease in the Greek series of lives, seems to be more in accordance with the usual proceedings of God’s providence, and with the history of the human race,—instances of longevity having slowly and gradually diminished both in number and extent, according as mankind approached a greater degree of civilization and refinement. In the preface to part second of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” p. xvii., the author has discussed this question in a very full and satisfactory manner. He shews that, in the Septuagint, “there are deep analogies observable in the gradual diminution of human life.” Thus, “from Arphaxad to Serug are seven generations,” and “from Nahor to Kohath are seven generations.” Now, from his observations, it appears that the _lives_ of the first and last of both septenaries, constitute, with the highest average of human life in the days of Moses (Psalm xc. 10), a series of terms very nearly in geometrical progression, namely, 538, 330, 208, 133, and 80, of which the approximate ratio is 0.62; but if the same test be applied to the Hebrew _lives_, namely 438, 230, 148, 133, and 80, (the two latter terms being the same in both texts,) the regularity of the progression utterly fails; for, if the ratio of the first two terms were continued, the succeeding terms would be so much reduced, that the highest average of human life would become less than half its true length! The omission of the statements respecting the _whole lives_ in the Septuagint, can only be accounted for, on the principle of undue deference to the Hebrew text and to Jewish prejudices, after the era of the publication of the Hexapla, the Octapla, and the Enneapla of the celebrated Origen. This daring innovator in the Church of God, so altered the original form of the Septuagint, in order to make it correspond with the Hebrew text,—which he appears to have first received from the hands of the Jews with the most unsuspecting confidence,—that the complete restoration of the autograph of the Seventy interpreters, is, at this immense distance of time, a question extremely problematical.

5. Mistake of Usher, adopted by Hales and Clinton, as to the Antepaidogonian age of Terah—Mr. Cuninghame’s arguments unanswerable—His proof of the chronology of the Seventy from the discovery of its Cyclical character—Testimony of Eusebius to the true data of Abraham’s birth—Table VII. Extent of the _first two ages_ of the world.

The extraordinary hallucination of Usher in adopting the unfounded opinion of some of the later chronographers, that Abraham was born when Terah was 130 years old,[15] is implicitly followed by Mr. Clinton, although he admits that “all the authorities which have been quoted” by him, adhere to the Scriptural number, 70 years; and he argues in favour of the former, by conjecturing without a shadow of evidence, that the Samaritan text was altered in Genesis xi. 32, from 205 years to 145, in order that Terah’s “death might be adapted to the supposed time of the Call.” This time is distinctly marked in Scripture, and therefore requires “no supposition” at all. It is plain, from Genesis xii. 4, that Abraham was 75 years old, when he obeyed the Call; and, from Genesis xi. 26, that he was born when Terah was 70 years old. It is, therefore, justly inferred that Terah was 145 years old, at the time of the Call; but as he died before Abraham left Charran (Acts vii. 4), then 145 years was also his age at his death, as in the Samaritan, and not 205, as in the other two texts. The inconsistency of the latter number, however, cannot by any means affect the chronology, so long as the authenticity of the former numbers is maintained. The addition of 60 years, therefore, to the _Antepaidogonian_ age of Terah, in order to preserve the consistency of the number 205, is an unwarrantable assumption on the part of Usher and his followers, and demonstrates that they have _virtually_ altered the Hebrew text in Genesis xi. 26, from 70 years to 130, in order that Terah’s age at the birth of Abraham _might be adapted to the supposed time of his death_! There is no doubt that both Hales and Clinton, who follow human conjectures on this point, are again in the wrong; and, that Jackson, Russell and Cuninghame, who follow the plain statements of Scripture, are “in the right.” In the preface to Part II. of the “Fulness of the Times,” p. xv., the author has placed the inconsistency of Usher’s scheme in such a clear light, that further argument on the subject is needless; the following is his unanswerable conclusion:—“the greatness of Abraham’s faith, in believing that he should have a son at 100, is every where spoken of in the Scriptures” as miraculous, “while he himself, on this scheme, is procreated by his father at 130!” The author has, moreover, shown in this work, that “the whole chronology of the Seventy is arranged in various parallel series of Astronomical time, Jubilees, Metonic cycles, and the larger cycles of the universe;” and, that these “depend upon the _exclusion_ of the 60 years added to Terah’s generation by Usher; for if that period be _inserted_, they are all destroyed. This, then, is complete evidence that the _framer_ of the Septuagint chronology, did not consider the 60 years as any part of the chronology of the book of Genesis, which is utterly incredible, had it then existed. _Therefore, it did not exist._” On the other hand, he has shown that “in the formation of the Hebrew chronology, the _insertion_ of the 60 years was essential to the preservation of a Jubilean character; therefore, since there was a time when” this period was “not a part of the chronology, the unavoidable and necessary inference is, that the _Greek_, and _not_ the _Hebrew_, is the _original chronology_.”

From the Postdiluvian tables, it appears that the birth of Abraham took place, according to the Masorete text, 292 years after the flood; but, according to Usher’s interpretation of it, 352 years. The Samaritan text gives 942, and the Septuagint 1072 years; the latter number being that given by Eusebius, at the beginning of his Chronicon, translated by Jerome, as testified by Scaliger in his “Thesaurus Temporum,” p. 10, and referred to by Usher, in his “Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vi. p. 97; although in some of the finest copies, we have seen it absurdly printed 1720 years, by an unaccountable transposition of the figures! See the edition by H. Stephans, in 1542. The following table exhibits the whole amount of the discrepancies of the three texts, in the first two ages of the world:[16]—

TABLE VII. AGES OF THE WORLD. HEBREW. USHER. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. Years. Years. Years. Years. Years. Antediluvian Age 1656 1656 2262 1307 Postdiluvian Age 367 427 1147 1017 ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── FIRST TWO AGES 2023 2083 3409 2324