CHAPTER III.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.

Thus, it appears that there is a difference of _thirteen centuries and a-quarter_ between the Hebrew-Usher and the Septuagint chronologies, at the epoch of the Call of Abraham,—a difference which is increased by another _century and a-half_, in the remaining ages of the world up to the birth of Christ,—making in all, a difference of _fourteen and three-quarters_ exactly, or nearly _fifteen centuries_! To account for this difference, the advocates of the longer computation not only impugn, as we have seen, the accuracy of the Hebrew text, but adduce various important and conclusive arguments against the shorter computation, in order to show the inconsistency of its statements. Mr. Clinton, in citing these arguments, chiefly from Jackson and Hales, endeavours to rebut them, and to defend the Hebrew chronology, especially in the first two ages of the world; although he is forced to yield to the mass of evidence against it, in the period of the Judges.

1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the proportion between the Antepaidogonian Ages and Whole Lives of the Patriarchs—Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio, and the diminution of the length of human life.

The first argument, which is, that “the shorter generations are repugnant to the course of nature,” is neither placed in a clear light, nor fairly answered by Mr. Clinton; Fast. Hell. vol. i. p. 292. Although the extraordinary longevity of man both before and after the flood, has no parallel in the subsequent history of the world, and we are therefore deprived of a satisfactory means of comparison; yet we perceive a suitable proportion in the Greek numbers, between the Antepaidogonian ages and whole lives of the Patriarchs in the first two periods, which entirely fails in the Hebrew numbers. Thus, taking the averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the great discrepancy in the Antediluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that the former is about _one-fifth_ part of the latter in the Septuagint, and about _one-ninth_ part in the Hebrew. If these ratios be applied to the present average duration of human life, we find that men, according to the former text, would beget children at the age of _fourteen_ years; but, according to the latter, at the age of _eight_ years! Again, taking the averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the chief discrepancy in the Postdiluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that the former is about _one-third_ part of the latter in the Septuagint, and about _one-eleventh_ part in the Hebrew. Applying these ratios as before, we find that men, according to the former text, would beget children at the age of _twenty-three_ years; but according to the latter, at the age of _seven_ years! On the supposition, therefore, which we think not unreasonable, that in these periods, the development of the powers of the human frame was proportional to the length of human life, it is manifest that there is a propriety and consistency in the Greek numbers, which are not only totally wanting in the Hebrew, but which render the idea of generation at the ages now to be found in that text, utterly impossible. It may be objected even to the Greek numbers, that the ratio in the Antediluvian period is rather premature, but it is not impossible; and we see in the enlargement of the ratio, and in the diminution of the length of life in the Postdiluvian period, according to the Septuagint, the wise arrangement of an overruling Providence! For, the wickedness which led to the destruction of the old world, appears to have had its origin in the premature and unlawful connections which were formed between “the sons” of the worshippers of the true God, “who kept not their first estate” or original principles, and “the daughters” of those sensualists of the Cainitish race, who are, with them, “reserved in perpetual chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day!” In order, therefore, to prevent such a fearful superabundance of vice in future ages of the world, we see that the duration of the life, as well as the development of the natural powers of man, was reduced to narrower limits.

2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human generations—Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew text—Remark of Eusebius—Objections of learned men unanswered.

The second argument, which is, that the shorter computation is inconsistent with the regular succession of human generations, is rather too quickly passed over by Mr. Clinton; nor do we wonder at his haste, for in our opinion, this argument possesses very great weight, and is very difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. In the Postdiluvian age, where he admits that it is more cogent, there were, according to the Hebrew chronology, no less than _ten_ generations all alive on the earth at the same time, contrary to the principles of providential government so often referred to in Scripture, and the following strange anomalies and paradoxes took place. The last two Antediluvian Patriarchs were contemporary with all the Postdiluvian; and after having witnessed the destruction of the old world, they were doomed to behold the violence of Nimrod, the rebellious, the wicked project of the building of Babel, and the judgment of God in the confusion of tongues and the sudden dispersion of mankind. Noah also survived the deaths of Peleg and Nahor; so that, contrary to the express words of Scripture, the earth was divided in the days of Noah instead of the days of Peleg. Eusebius has even remarked that Noah was the contemporary of Abraham for _fifty-eight_ years! To avoid this obvious inconsistency was no doubt a strong reason for Usher’s adoption of the _sixty_ years additional to Terah’s Antepaidogonian age, the Hebrew chronology standing so much in need of this extra time at the point of its greatest poverty. Shem, the Antediluvian, survived the deaths of all the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, excepting Heber; he was alive at the marriages of Isaac, Ishmael and Esau; and, having buried nine generations of his descendants, including the Father of the Faithful, witnessed the destruction of Sodom, and died without partaking of the Covenant of Circumcision! Terah, the father of Abraham, was an idolater; while Noah, the living witness of God’s judgment on the old world, and a preacher of righteousness, and his son Shem, the heir of his father’s blessing,—both Terah’s ancestors—were still alive! The promise made to Abraham, that he should “go to his fathers in peace,” and be “buried in a good old age,” most distinctly implies that all those fathers,—the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,—were dead and buried before him; but, according to the Masorete text, Shem, the Antediluvian, and _seven_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, all his ancestors, were alive at his death; and the same Antediluvian, with _two_ of the Postdiluvians, Salah and Heber, even survived him! But it is quite unnecessary to dwell on these paradoxes so contrary to the ordinary providence of God, and to the whole tenor of holy writ. Enough has been adduced to show the inconsistency of the shorter computation, and the difficult problems which its advocates have yet to solve, in order to establish it on a secure foundation, and to meet the unanswered objections of the host of learned and pious men in all ages, who have, either wholly or in part, adopted or defended the Septuagint chronology; such as, the early chronographers, and historians down to Syncellus, the early Christian Fathers, and in later times, Morinus, J. Vossius, Pezron, Raleigh, Stillingfleet, Walton, Kennicott, Jackson, Hales, Horsley, and Russell. This argument is ably enforced by Mr. Cuninghame in the “Essay” to his “Chart of Sacred Chronology” pp. 17, 18, the “Discourse,” in his “Dissertation on the Apocalypse” pp. 533–536, and his other Chronological works.[17]

3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and within a short period from the flood—Remarks on the building of Babel—Mr. Clinton refuted—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from Scripture—The judgments of God forgotten.

The third argument is, that the Hebrew computation is inconsistent with the co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and within so short a period from the flood. This argument has been partly anticipated; but it receives additional strength from the following considerations. If the short account of the building of Babel, Gen. xii. 1–9, be critically examined, there can be no doubt that this politico-religious project, which was headed by Nimrod, the “_Great Intolerant_ before the Lord,” was the earliest attempt on record to establish the Zabian system of idolatry. For the arguments in favour of this opinion, we must, for brevity’s sake, refer to a work recently published, alike remarkable for the novelty of its views and the Scriptural simplicity of its style, entitled the “Religious History of Man,” by Mr. D. Morison, pp. 157–168. Mr. Clinton sees “nothing wonderful” in the fact that “idolatry should have sprung up during the lives of Noah and Shem;” and he accounts for it on the principles of the fecundity of mankind and their dispersion at the confusion of tongues. It is very strange, however, that Terah, who is mentioned in Joshua xxiv. 2, as the only idolater among the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, should have dared to follow the practices of the Heathen, while all his pious ancestors were yet alive! And, that, as Mr. Cuninghame justly remarks, “the Scriptures should tell us nothing” of the matter, seeing that the sacred historians invariably record such awful apostacies in the families of the righteous, as a warning to all future generations. Idolatry, in fact, sprang up in the family of Ham, in the _third_ generation; but, not in that of Shem, till the _ninth_; shewing that the example and the memory of pious ancestry had the effect of so long retarding the influence of surrounding evil among their descendants. The whole history of the period, indeed, indicates that ages not a few, had elapsed between the flood and the Call of Abraham; and, that during that interval, the remembrance of the judgment of the old world was almost obliterated, the worship of the true God virtually superseded, and the memory of the early Patriarchs practically forgotten. Moreover, the remarkable interposition of Providence in the confusion of tongues and the dispersion of mankind, calculated so deeply to renew in the minds of men the recollection of former judgments, and to put a stop to farther progress in idolatry, appears in the lapse of time to have shared the common oblivion, and to have failed in producing that striking impression which was sure to be felt among contemporaries and their immediate successors.

4. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the accounts of Sacred and Profane History—Remark of Sir Walter Raleigh—Sir Isaac Newton’s objection refuted—Epoch of the Foundation of the kingdom of Egypt.

The fourth argument is, that the shorter computation is inconsistent with the credible accounts of profane history, and the existence of so many populous kingdoms and empires in the days of Abraham. The insuperable difficulties in reconciling the chronology of sacred and profane history, which have perpetually puzzled modern historians, are in a great measure removed by the longer computation. The often-cited passage of Raleigh,[18] which contains his cutting remark on the danger of “paring the times too near the quick,” lest thereby “the reputation of the whole story might perchance bleed,” has, in fact, never been fairly answered on the principles of the Hebrew chronology. The history of the battle of the “four kings against five,” in Genesis xiv., implies a very great degree of populousness and civilization in a single region, and more than can be admitted on the shorter computation; nor can Sir Isaac Newton’s answer to this objection be considered as decisive, in which he implies that the numbers of the allied armies must have been small, because they were overcome by Abraham with a very small force; for, the Scriptures inform us that it was “the Most High God that delivered his enemies into his hand,” and that it is His province “to save by many or by few.” The account of Egypt, at the descent of Abraham, in Genesis xii. 10–20, indicates that it was then an ancient, populous, and long-established kingdom; and the profane records of its history, though mingled with much that is fabulous, contain well-attested facts which reach to a period far beyond that assigned by the Hebrew text. In an excellent article, entitled “Annotations Géologiques à la Genèse,” vol. iii. of the “Cours Complet,” it is shewn, by a careful and critical analysis of the historical notices of Egypt, in Manetho, Herodotus, Diodorus, Artapan, Josephus, Eratosthenes, Pliny, the author of the Old Chronicle, and Syncellus, that its various dynasties were not _consecutive_ but _collateral_; and, from the unsuspected agreement of the reigns of different kings, it appears that “the epoch B.C. 2900,” or A.M. 2579, “may, in fact, be considered as that of the foundation of the kingdom of Egypt.” This epoch, according to the Septuagint, corresponds to the patriarchate of the _Junior_ Cainan, about 300 years after the birth of _Mizraim_, and about _fifty_ years after that of Salah;—now, it is universally admitted that Egypt or Mizraim (Genesis x. 6) was one of the first kingdoms founded after the flood. According to the Hebrew, however, the same epoch corresponds to the patriarchate of the _Senior_ Cainan, upwards of 500 years before the flood, and long before Mizraim was in existence!

5. Arguments founded on the deficiency of the numbers of mankind—Epoch of the occupation of Babylon by the Medes—Calculation of the numbers of mankind on the Eulerian ratio—Mr. Clinton refuted.

As to the argument founded on the “numbers of mankind,” Mr. Clinton has proved, Fast. Hell., vol. i. p. 282, that an army of Medes occupied Babylon about B.C. 2233, that is, according to the Hebrew-Usher computation, 115 years, and according to his own, partially interpolated from the Septuagint, about 250 years after the flood,—when, as he says, “the population of the earth would amount to _many millions_;” and yet, in the same page, he remarks, it is not likely that “101 years” after that event, the population “would exceed 50,000 persons, and this number it would certainly have reached within 160 years of the flood!” Now, even on the Eulerian ratio, cited from Malthus, this number would increase only to about 6½ millions,[19] in his interval of ninety years,—which is far from “_many millions_;” while, in the Usherian interval, on his own showing, it would have barely reached the former number! Such are only a few of the difficulties attending the shorter computation, and such some of the shifts to which its abettors and followers are driven for its support. The simple and consistent chronology of the Septuagint places the above mentioned event at the distance of nearly 1000 years after the flood, and rather less than a century previous to the birth of Abraham; so that in his days the world had had sufficient time to reach a state of populousness and civilization corresponding to the history of the period, as recorded both by sacred and profane authors.

6. Argument founded on the alteration of the Hebrew text by the Jews—Testimony of the early Fathers on this point—Mr. Clinton’s admission as to the prophecies—His refutation as to the chronology—Motives of the Jews for shortening the genealogies.

Mr. Clinton states that “Jackson and Hales impute great alterations in the Hebrew copies” of the Scriptures, “to the Jews of the second century.” It would have been more correct to have said that Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Syncellus, and Abulfarajius imputed such alterations to the Jews, not only in the passages which applied to Christ,—which he considers “very probable,”—but also in the numbers relating to the Ante and Post Diluvian genealogies; because the testimonies of these ancient authors are either cited or referred to by the former. Mr. Clinton adds, that “it is difficult to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for shortening the _genealogies_.” Not more difficult, in our opinion, than to imagine what adequate motive the Jews could have had for shortening the _life_ of Jesus Christ! A difficulty, however, “to imagine an adequate motive” for any transaction, is no proof that it did not take place. The Jews did not attempt “to shorten the genealogies,” that is, to corrupt the chronology of the Scriptures, till all the witnesses were dead who knew Jesus, and who had “companied with them that were witnesses of his resurrection!” But when they found afterwards that the Christians constantly proved out of the Septuagint, that Jesus was the Messiah, they had then a sufficient motive for “shortening the genealogies,” if they could make it appear, from the Hebrew text, that our Lord had come about _fifteen centuries_ earlier than the time fixed by tradition; and that, as the chronology of that text did not agree with the chronology of the Septuagint, the epoch of the true Messiah’s advent had not yet arrived! They have accordingly continued to assert, in contradiction even to their own Scriptures, and up to the present day, that Jesus of Nazareth was not their Messiah!

7. Motives ascribed to the Seventy Interpreters for enlarging the chronology—Pretensions of the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a remote antiquity—Insufficiency of the scheme adopted by the Interpreters—Self-refutation of Mr. Clinton’s hypothesis.

Mr. Clinton finally asserts that “the first translators of the Hebrew Scriptures had a very obvious motive for enlarging the chronology,” because the “Chaldeans and Egyptians laid claim to a remote antiquity!” The wished for inference is, that the Jewish translators, from a very natural desire not to be behind their neighbours in these pretensions, went upon an opposite tack, and “lengthened the genealogies!” This statement, for argument it cannot be called, proves a great deal too much; because the scheme which they adopted, falls immensely short of the end proposed. We have seen that the difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint chronologies, is only about _fifteen_ centuries! This difference was, indeed, quite sufficient for the purpose of the Jews, in denying the advent of the true Messiah; but, it was wholly insufficient, nay, utterly useless, for the purpose of coping with the pretensions of “the Chaldeans and Egyptians to a remote antiquity.” For, it appears, from the testimony of Cicero, Diodorus, and others, that Berosus claimed for the _first_ Chaldean kings, an antiquity of no less than 470,000 years! And, from the fragments of Manetho and the Old Chronicle, preserved by Syncellus, that for the _first_ Egyptian kings, an antiquity is claimed, of 36,525 years! But, what are _fifty-five_ centuries of antiquity, to 365 centuries, or to 4,700 centuries? To add _fifteen_ centuries was to add nothing! The Jews should have added 1500 or 15000 centuries, in order to meet the exigency of their “obvious motive!” The argument, therefore, founded on the supposition that the Seventy Interpreters enlarged the chronology of the Scriptures, in order to place the claims of the Jews to “a remote antiquity,” on a par with those of the Chaldeans and Egyptians, is so very absurd, that it completely refutes itself:[20]