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. Cunninghame’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.

Although the chronology of the Septuagint receives the strongest confirmation from the writings of the ancient chronographers, it must not be concealed that some of them have committed very strange and unaccountable errors in the computation of the different ages of the world; while, the works of others have come down to us in such an imperfect and corrupted state, that implicit dependance cannot be placed in the chronographical statements which they now contain. The latter remark is peculiarly applicable to the writings of Josephus, whose authority, notwithstanding all his errors, has been followed by many modern chronologers in preference even to that of the sacred Scriptures. Surely the question of chronology lies between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version, and not between either of these and the works of the chronographers whether ancient or modern. By a fair examination, however, of their Sacred Chronology, we shall find that the testimony of the oldest and best chronographers is almost entirely in favour of the chronology of the Septuagint, and that wherever they differ from it in their works, they commit errors which in general, can easily be detected and accounted for, unless the passages in question have been so entirely vitiated by the wilful mistakes of transcribers as to render it impossible to determine what were the real and actual statements of the author. We shall select for this purpose, the names of five authors who possess the greatest influence among the learned on the subject of chronography, and whose statements are more or less followed by all later writers on the same subject: namely, Josephus A.D. 90, Theophilus A.D. 180, Africanus A.D. 220, Eusebius A.D. 315, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle.[70]

The names of these chronographers have been particularly selected indeed, and their statements tabulated by Mr. Clinton himself, as the best authorities, at least so far as regards the first two ages of the world. We do not follow him, however, in placing their statements on a level with those of the ancient texts and versions of Scripture; but we class them together as possessing the next claim to our attention. The following table, which for the sake of comparison, is marked by the same _number_ as the corresponding table in our _first Part_, contains the _Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Antediluvian Patriarchs_, and the _Extent_ of the _First age_ of the world according to each chronographer:

TABLE I. ANTEDILUVIAN JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. PATRIARCHS. CHRON. A.P. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. A.P. ages. ages. ages. From Creation Adam 230 230 230 230 230 Seth 205 205 205 205 205 Enos 190 190 190 190 190 Cainan 170 170 170 170 170 Mahalaleel 165 165 165 165 165 Jared 162 162 162 162 162 Enoch 165 165 165 165 165 Methuselah 187 *167 187 *167 187 Lamech *182 188 188 188 188 Noah 500 500 500 500 500 To the Flood 100 100 100 100 100 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— FIRST AGE 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262

Besides their respective statements above tabulated, these chronographers generally give in their works some additional statements which, with some exceptions, serve to rectify their errors, and to corroborate and confirm the true chronology. Josephus, however, in the present text, is made to say that the period from Adam to the flood is 2656 years; whereas the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives only 2256 years! On this point, some advocates of the Hebrew chronology argue that the original number was 1656 years, and that δισχιλιών has been put for χιλιών, or _two thousand_ for a _thousand_; but this is mere assertion; for it is just as easy to say that the original number was 2256 years, and that ἑξακοσιών has been put for διακοσιών, or _six hundred_ for _two hundred_. Now the proof that the latter assertion is the true one, is that the number 2256 agrees entirely with the summation of the numbers given in detail; whereas the number 1656 does not agree, and must consequently be erroneous. Moreover, there are some MS. copies of Josephus in which we find the true reading ἐτων δισχιλιών διακοσιών πευτήκοσταἑξ, or _two thousand two hundred and fifty six years_; and this reading is also to be found in some ancient authors who have followed Josephus in chronology, such as, Eutychius Alexandrinus, Josephus Christianus, Anianus Asceta, &c.[71] A few various readings relating to the _Antepaidogonian ages_ are also to be found in the different MSS. to which we have referred, but they are of minor importance and not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the tabular numbers. The same may be said of his statements regarding the _Postpaidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_; but as the chronology does not depend on these statements, it is unnecessary to make them the subject of discussion.

It is a very remarkable thing that Josephus differs here from the Septuagint only in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, and that in this point he agrees with the Hebrew text. Nor are we aware of the existence of any various reading which would lead us to suppose that it had been otherwise in the text of Josephus. This circumstance alone, though there be many others, would almost lead us to conclude, with Mr. Cuninghame, Preface to his “Synopsis,” p. vii., “that the corruption of the Chronology must have taken place at an earlier period” than is commonly supposed by the learned. He believes “it to have been in the interval between our Lord’s death and the beginning of the Jewish war. This allows more than 30 years for the purpose, which is quite sufficient.” He also conceives “that it must have been well known to Josephus, and the _end for which it was done_;” and he adds, “It was, however, yet of too recent an origin for him to venture upon the bold experiment of openly substituting it [the corrupted chronology] for the universal chronology of his own, as well as other nations, and the Christian church, and therefore he has introduced both schemes, namely, the _short and the long_ [_computation_], in such a manner as to perplex and utterly confuse the whole subject, and to draw from some of our most learned men, the acknowledgment that his chronology is involved in hopeless obscurity.” The following explanation of the discrepancy between Josephus and the Septuagint in regard to the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech will be to the general reader more satisfactory than that to which we referred in our _first Part_, p. 23. “Josephus, who in all the other Antediluvian generations follows the Greek, does in this of Lamech follow the Hebrew, and the effect of it is, that his Diluvian period from Creation is 2256, while that of the best copies of the Seventy, and of Demetrius, is 2262 years. This difference of 6 years, therefore, goes through his whole Chronology. At the beginning of the 1st book of his Antiquities [_that is in the Title to the Book_] he tells us, that it contains a period of 3833 years, to which, adding the 6 years above mentioned to make it accord with the Greek chronology of Demetrius, the sum is 3839 years. If the reader will next turn to the Table in the Fulness of the Times, p. 34, he will see that this period of 3839 years, measures exactly the interval, from Creation, to the end of the year B.C. 1640, when the children of Israel left Egypt. Now as it is in the nature of things impossible that this most remarkable coincidence should have been unknown to Josephus, the necessary and the legitimate conclusion is, that the above period of 3833 years is his authentic chronology from Creation to the Exodus. It divides itself as follows:

Years. 1st. To the Deluge 2256 2nd. To the Birth of Abraham 1072 3rd. To the Exodus 505 ———— Total from Creation to the Exodus 3833

It, moreover, necessarily includes the disputed generation of Cainan, proving that it was in his text originally; and it excludes Usher’s addition of 60 years to that of Terah. But the narrative of the 1st book of the Antiquities comes no lower than the _death of Isaac_, which was 226 years before the Exodus, and the 2nd book contains the history from the death of Isaac to the Exodus. Yet Josephus, after having at the beginning of his 1st book already given the period which measures the narrative of _both books_, does nevertheless at the commencement [that is, in the Title] of his 2nd Book, tell us that it contains a period of 220 years in _addition_ to the former, and to this extent his chronology of the whole period from the Creation to the Exodus is _forged_.” For the rest of his remarks on the delinquencies of Josephus, and the detection of his errors, we must refer our readers to the Preface to Part II. of Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” pp. x, et seq. whence the above extract is taken.

It is proper, however, to add the promised explanation, as abridged as possible. Mr. Cuninghame, in his “Fulness of the Times,” pp. 138, 139, shows that in curtailing the true chronology, the Jews preserved the _Jubilean Series_ from the birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob to Padan-aram; for, according to the Septuagint, this interval is 3136 years, or 64 Jubilees; but, according to the Hebrew text, and Usher, 2009 years, or 41 Jubilees; the difference, therefore, is 1127 years or 23 Jubilees. Now this difference consists of the following periods struck off in the Hebrew chronology:

Years. From the birth of Enos to the Flood 406 From the Flood to the birth of Terah 720 Antedate of Jacob’s departure 1 ———— Total 23 Jubilees, or 1127

Mr. Cuninghame argues from the cyclical nature of this period, that the Rabbis who curtailed the true chronology, “were well aware that from the birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob for Padan-aram, there was an exact series of Jubilees, and that in corrupting the Sacred text, they have, with profound artifice, contrived to preserve a series of complete Jubilees, by subtracting exactly 23 Jubilees, or 1127 years.” He adds the following proof regarding the _single_ year; in the true chronology, the birth of Abraham is B.C. 2145, and the departure of Jacob, B.C. 1908,—interval, 237 years; in the curtailed chronology these events are respectively dated B.C. 1996, and B.C. 1760,—interval, 236 years; hence, the antedate is one year. Now in the preceding interval from the birth of Enos to the flood, the period of 6 years which was subtracted from the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, is an essential element in the argument; otherwise that interval would be only 400 years instead of 406, and the whole of the argument would then fall to the ground. Another argument, in favour of the 6 years is, that if the longer chronology of Josephus be so far correct, which is proved from the Septuagint, it is surely proper to follow the authority of that version in regard to the 6 years, _as well as_ in regard to the 600 years; if we trust to its accuracy for the _greater_ number, we may also trust it for the _less_! It seems ridiculous and absurd to take the evidence of the highest authority at _second_ hand, and to reject a small part of that evidence, because it is not fairly brought forward by the _same_ hand; although it be pressed on our notice by many other witnesses! Surely in regard to these 6 years, the testimony of the Septuagint and the whole Christian Church, is before that of Josephus.

In reference to the tabulated statements of Theophilus, we find only the very singular and unaccountable error of 20 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah, which the Vatican codex, if we may trust the editions of the Septuagint said to have been taken from it, appears to have retained. That this chronographer has evidently read 167 years instead of 187 years, can scarcely be doubted from his subsequent statements, and particularly from his statement respecting the extent of this age, that “all the years till the flood were 2242.”[72]

The statements of Africanus as to the Antediluvian period, entirely agree with those of the Septuagint, which shows that he had taken his numbers from a more correct copy of that version, and one that agreed in this respect with the celebrated Alexandrine codex now deposited in the British Museum. He confirms the truth of his particular statements by the following summary ones: _first_—“Therefore, from Adam till the birth of Enos all the years are 435;” _second_,—“Therefore, from Adam till Noah and the flood are 2262 years.”[73] As to the statements of Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle, they are of a later age, and must therefore have been copied from one or other of the former authors, or from the copies of the Septuagint extant in their time. From the notes upon the Chronicon of Africanus, added by Routh,[74] it is evident that both Eusebius and Syncellus adopted the numbers in the preceding table which we have arranged under the name of the former; and that Epiphanius and the author of the _Paschal_ or _Alexandrine_ Chronicle adopted the correct numbers of the Septuagint, which we have placed under the title of that work. After stating that according to Africanus, “there were 3000 years from Adam to the death of Peleg;” Syncellus adds, “but according to Eusebius, 2980 years;” the difference between these numbers is 20 years, which is precisely the same as the difference between their dates of the year of the flood, viz: A.M. 2262, and A.M. 2242. Moreover, although Syncellus states that Africanus gives the former of these dates, as the true epoch of the deluge; he adds his own opinion, that “from Adam to the flood there were 2242 years,” and “contra Africanum pugnat,” _fights against Africanus_, in favour of the erroneous number. The author of the Paschal Chronicle says explicitly, that “in the 100th year of Shem, the 600th of Noah, and the 2262d year of the world, the flood was upon the earth; and this is the exact number which Africanus exhibits at this epoch since the correct copies of Genesis shew 187 years as the age of Methuselah when he begat Lamech.” Epiphanius, in his first book “against Heretics,” after narrating that Noah was saved in the ark, says “and thus the 10th generation extended to the 2262d year [of the world,] and the flood brought it to an end.” Thus it appears to have been the general opinion of the oldest and best writers that the _First age_ of the world was of the _precise length_ which we have assigned to it; and that the only difference among them was, whether it were not shorter by 20 years, in consequence of some foolish mistake committed by an early transcriber in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah; for in this age, the correct copies of the Septuagint perfectly agree with the Hebrew text.

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_.

We now proceed to notice the errors of these chronographers, in their statements regarding the _Second age_ of the world. The following table, which should be compared with Table II. in our first Part, contains the _Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Postdiluvian Patriarchs_, and the _Extent_ of the _Second age_, according to each chronographer.

TABLE II. POSTDILUVIAN JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. PATRIARCHS. CHRON. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. From the Flood *12 *0 *0 2 *0 Arphaxad 135 135 135 135 135 Cainan *0 *0 *0 *0 130 Salah 130 130 130 130 130 Heber 134 134 134 134 134 Peleg 130 130 130 130 130 Reu 130 132 132 132 132 Serug 132 130 130 130 130 Nahor *120 *75 79 79 79 Terah 70 70 70 70 70 To the Call of 75 75 75 75 75 Abraham ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— SECOND AGE 1068 1011 1015 1017 1145

In regard to the _Extent_ of this age, Josephus is made to say, in the present text, that Abraham “was born in the 292d year after the flood;”[75] while the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives 993 years, to which adding the age of Abraham at the Call, we have 1068 years! As we can scarcely suppose Josephus to have been guilty of so extraordinary an absurdity as to commit an arithmetical error of this magnitude, we cannot only attribute the discrepancy to the evil design of his transcribers, and say “an enemy hath done this!” Moreover, the same wicked hand that dared to alter this and other numbers of our author, has no doubt, also dared to omit here the genealogy of the _Second Cainan_. Nor can we see what good purpose it could serve to make him say that “Arphaxad the son of Shem, was born 12 years after the flood,” instead of 2, as in the Sacred text; and that “Nahor when he was 120 years old begat Terah,”[76] instead of 79, as in the Septuagint. But since in these details, Josephus has in general adopted the numbers of the Septuagint, it is plain that he must have followed the same authority in their sum total, and that the sum of 292 years must have been inserted instead of the true sum of 1072 years, by some early advocate or supporter of the Hebrew chronology. Besides, we have shown in our preceding remarks on the _Extent_ of the _First age_, that Josephus has prefixed a number to his _first Book_, which in reality belongs to his _first and second Books_, and which includes the extent of the _first three ages_, all but 6 years. That number is 3833 years, a period wholly inexplicable on any other principle than that which Mr. Cuninghame has laid down. To him, we are therefore justly indebted for its true and satisfactory explication; and he has clearly shown that Josephus must have originally inserted in his Antiquities, the true number of 1072 years, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham; although the text is now so vitiated that it cannot be made out from the place in question.

The errors of Theophilus in this age are both strange and unaccountable, except on the principle of Jewish influence, when we consider that his error in the first age, was only 20 years, while here it amounts to 132 years. He states that from the Creation “till Abraham, there are 3278 years,”[77] that is, to the birth of Isaac as appears by the context. If from this number we subtract his extent of the first age, viz. 2242 years, the remainder is 1036 years, or his period from the flood to the birth of Abraham; and from this period, deducting 25 years, the time which elapsed from the Call to the birth of Isaac, we obtain a remainder of 1011 years, which is the extent of the _Second age_, according to Theophilus. Hence, it is plain that he omits the _Second Cainan_, the 2 years after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad, and 4 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor. The second omission is manifest also from the context, where he says, “but _immediately_ (ἐυθέως) after the flood, Shem being 100 years old, begat Arphaxad.” We shall see that he endeavours to make up for these omissions, by a curious balance of some of these errors in the succeeding age. In addition to the tabular statements, Africanus says that, “Arphaxad begat Salah in A. M. 2397; Salah begat Heber in A. M. 2527; and Heber begat Peleg in A. M. 2661.” He says also that “Peleg at the age of 130 begat Reu, and having lived other 209 years, died;” so that “from Adam to the death of Peleg there were 3000 years.”[78] According to the true chronology, Peleg died in A. M. 3132; hence, from the dates of Africanus, if correctly reported, it appears that he omits the genealogy of the _Second Cainan_, and the two years after the flood previous to the birth of Arphaxad. The difference between the dates of Africanus and those derived from the Septuagint, is therefore 132 years; and this number must be added to the subsequent dates of Africanus, until other errors appear, in order to obtain the true dates. If this be done, we shall find that throughout the whole of this age, the dates of Africanus will perfectly agree with those of the true chronology. Connected with the tradition of the renovation of the world at the end of 6000 years, there appears to have been an idea current among the early chronographers, that the period from the Creation to the Advent of Christ was exactly _bisected_ at the death of Peleg; because the Scripture says that “in his days the earth was divided,” by which they seem to have understood the whole period of its existence! Hence, the apparent reason of the omission of the _Second Cainan’s_ generation, and the _Postdiluvian biennial_ period.[79] Africanus further states that “in A. M. 3277, Abraham entered the promised land;” consequently, an interval of 277 years had elapsed since the death of Peleg; but this corresponds exactly with the interval of the Septuagint, for 3409 − 3132 = 277; see Tables V. and VIII. of our _first Part_. Moreover, he states that “from the flood and Noah to the descent of Abraham into the promised land, were ten generations or 1015 years, and from Adam, twenty generations or 3277 years.”[80] We have sufficiently discussed the question of the _number_ of generations here mentioned, in our _first Part_, pp. 34–40; it is quite unnecessary therefore, to resume the subject; suffice it to say that _Shem_ was an _Antediluvian_, and therefore his generation could not be reckoned in the number of generations after the flood; neither was it reckoned in the number before the flood: for Noah was reckoned the _tenth_ from Adam, and Abraham the _tenth_ from the flood. In this respect, therefore, _Shem_ was like _Melchizedec_, as far as the generations or genealogies on which the Chronology depended, was concerned, viz., “Fatherless, motherless, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, being assimilated to the Son of God,” who “remains a priest for ever;” and who “hath made us [true believers in Christ] kings and priests unto God even his Father; to” whom “be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.” Heb. vii. 3; and Rev. i. 6.

The statements of Eusebius and the author of the Paschal Chronicle respecting this age are taken from Mr. Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 287; he appears to have very carefully sifted these numbers, in order to arrive at the exact truth concerning the opinions of their authors. He gives the following extract from the Chronicon of Eusebius; “From the flood to the first year of Abraham are collected 942 years;” if to this number we add 75 years, the age of Abraham at the Call, we have 1017 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second age_ according to Eusebius. The author of the Paschal Chronicle appears to have omitted the two years after the flood; hence, the preceding 75 years being added to 1070 years, the period which he assigns between the flood and the birth of Abraham, we have 1145 years for the _Extent_ of the _Second age_ according to that work. Routh, however, justly remarks that “in the _Hieronymian version_ of the _Eusebian Chronicle_, the years of this [the _Second_] Cainan are still extant;” hence, even according to Eusebius, the true extent of the Second age appears originally to have been 1147 years. The following testimony collected by Syncellus in his Chronographia, from the works of Eusebius and Africanus, in support of the computation of the Septuagint before the flood, and of the Septuagint and Samaritan after the flood, we extract from Dr. Russell’s “Connection,” vol. i. pp. 96, 97, on account of its important bearing on the _Extent_ of the _first two ages_:—“Since, according to the most ancient Hebrew copy preserved among the Samaritans, and which agrees with the Septuagint translation, they who lived after the flood down to Abraham did not beget children till after the age of 100 years and more, what reason can be assigned that their predecessors before the flood, whose lives were longer by many years, should begin to beget children sooner, and not rather at the ages set down in the Septuagint? On mature consideration, we must incline to the latter computation, and necessarily conclude, that the Jewish-Hebrew reckoning of the times from Adam to Abraham is wrong in all the ages excepting three, Jared, Methuselah, and Lamech; and that the Samaritan-Hebrew computation is also wrong in the period from Adam to the flood; for in the years from the flood to Abraham it agrees entirely with the Septuagint. But the error of the Jewish-Hebrew text is evident from hence, that it makes Abraham and Noah contemporaries, which is inconsistent with all history: for since according to the Hebrew text, there are no more than 292 years from the flood to Abraham, and since, according to the same text, Noah lived 350 years after the flood, it is evident that he lived to the 58th year of Abraham!”

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 400 years.

The following table which contains the statements of the chronographers, regarding the _Third age_ of the World, ought to be compared with Table VIII. in our _first Part_; as it contains the Chief _Patriarchal Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to each chronographer:

TABLE III. PATRIARCHAL JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. ERAS. CHRON. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. From the Call The Eisodus 215 215 215 215 215 To the Exodus 215 430 215 215 215 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— THIRD AGE 430 645 430 430 430

The testimony of Josephus to the Extent of this age is very explicit. He states that the Israelites “left Egypt in the 430th year after that our father Abraham came into Canaan, and in the 215th year after the Eisodus of Jacob into Egypt;”[81] and he mentions some of the minor intervals, in a very clear and distinct manner, in his 2nd Book. It is evident indeed that he rightly understood the testimony of Scripture as to the true intervals of this prophetic period; although he seems to waver from the truth in the 9th chapter of that Book, where he speaks of the afflictions of the Israelites in Egypt for a period of 400 years, according to Gen. xv. 13. The latter text, however, appears to have been the stumbling block of Theophilus in his chronology; for he agrees with the Scriptures, as regards the intervals from the call to the Eisodus; and then he says that “the sojourning of the Hebrews in Egypt was 430 years!”[82] He seems therefore to have confounded the period of 400 years with the period of 430 years, and to have applied the whole period to the sojourning of the Israelites in Egypt alone, exclusive of Canaan, contrary to the testimony of the Septuagint, Exodus xii. 40, Alexandrine edition, and that of St. Paul, Galatians iii. 17. By this means, he increases the Extent of the _Third age_ to 645 years, making it greater than the true Extent, by 215 years! It would almost seem, therefore, as if he had intended this error to compensate in some measure for those which he committed in the preceding ages; inasmuch as it is of an entirely opposite character. This excess of 215 years makes up not only for the omission of the 20 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah before the flood, of the 130 years of the generation of the _Second Cainan_, of the 2 years after the flood, and of the 4 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Nahor; but gives a surplus of 59 years at the end of the _Third age_ in his chronology. For, adding the 40 years wandering in the Wilderness to his amount of the _first three ages_, he says that “all the years are 3938,”[83] from the Creation of the world to the entrance of the Israelites into the promised Land. By a reference to Table X. of our _first Part_, it will be seen that the true date of this entrance is A.M. 3880, and making allowance for the single year we have added to this date, on the ground specified at p. 65, it follows that the date of Theophilus is erroneous in excess by 58 years.

The statements of Africanus respecting this age have not been preserved in a perfect state; but from the following fragments, it will appear that he took the correct and Scriptural view of its _Extent_ and _Intervals_. Syncellus says that according to Africanus, “Joseph was 40 years old in the 130th year of Jacob; consequently, Joseph lived 70 years after the arrival of Jacob in Egypt;” and that “from Adam to the death of Joseph, were 23 generations, and 3563 years.[84]” Now, if to the latter number, we add 132 years, for reasons already mentioned p. 244, we shall have 3695 years for the correct number according to the true Chronology; see Table VIII. of our _first Part_. Again, he says, “it has been shown that there were 1020 years from Moses and Ogyges to the first Olympiad, that is, from the Passover or first year of the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt, when the flood of Ogyges happened in Attica.”[85] Here, if we take the last year of the first Olympiad as that to which Africanus refers, namely B.C. 773, and add to it the preceding number, we shall have B.C. 1793, for his date of the Exodus; but as this chronographer constantly reckons the period from Creation to the Birth of Christ as 5500 years,[86] it is evident by subtraction, that his Mundane date of the Exodus is A.M. 3708; to which, adding the constant number 132 as before, we shall obtain A.M. 3840, or B.C. 1639, for the date of the Exodus according to the true system of chronology. Again, if we take the difference between either the dates of Africanus, or the true dates of the death of Joseph and the Exodus, which we have deduced from his by the addition of a constant quantity, we shall obtain the interval of 145 years, which, added to the period of 70 years above mentioned, makes 215 years as his interval between the Eisodus and the Exodus; consequently, his interval between the Call and the Eisodus must have been the same amount, and his whole extent of this age 430 years.

Mr. Clinton has given a very full extract from the Chronicon of Eusebius, in which he states that from the first year of Abraham to the Exodus were 505 years; that Abraham left Charran in the 75th year of his age; and consequently, from that year to the Exodus were 430 years. He then states the Scriptural intervals from the Call to the birth of Jacob, and traces through his genealogy, the intervals from thence to the birth of Moses and the Exodus; but since, as Mr. Clinton remarks, his “distribution of the last 215 years is more correct than in the account of Demetrius, but still erroneous,” we need not repeat his enumeration in this place; suffice it to say, that his estimate of the whole period is correct. Mr. Clinton also cites the following passage from the Paschal Chronicle, which shows that its author’s estimate of the Extent of this age was likewise correct: “Joshua, the son of Nun, 27 years;—Chushanrishathaim, 8 years; in all, 3912 years.” For, adding to the latter number, the two years which he omits after the flood, we shall have 3914 years; and from this, subtracting the 35 years just cited, we shall have 3839 years, and consequently, A.M. 3839 for his date of the Exodus, which is within a year of the true date for reasons already alluded to; he, therefore, must have reckoned the period of 430 years from the ingress of Abraham into Canaan, to the egress of Israel out of Egypt.

The adjustment of the period mentioned in Gen. xv. 13, can occasion no difficulty to the careful reader of Scripture, for it is evident that the commencement of this period must be reckoned from the day that Isaac was weaned, or perhaps a year or two after; inasmuch it related specifically to _the seed_ of Abraham which were to be strangers in “a land not theirs,” and to be “evil entreated 400 years;” Acts vii. 6. This evil treatment began when Isaac was a child, and was able to play, say at 5 years old, with the son of Hagar, the Egyptian, the son of the bondwoman, who was not to be heir with the son of promise and of _laughter_. _Isaac_ was his name; but Sarah saw Ishmael _Isaaking_ or _laughing_ at her son, and mocking him, and accordingly, she demanded that the “bondwoman and her son” should be cast out,—a striking emblem of the punishment that shall befal all the mockers of and laughers at the people of God; for the Apostle truly says “but as then he that was born after the flesh _persecuted_ him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now:” Galatians iv. 22; yea, and the term “_Saints_,” or “_Holy ones_” of God, is become a term of mockery, of scorn, and of reproach, in this very age in which we now live; although it be written that “without _Holiness_ no man shall see the Lord!” Precisely then, for the space of 400 years did this affliction and persecution continue against the seed of Abraham, till God brought them out of the land of Egypt “with a mighty hand and with an outstretched arm;” and precisely in the same manner shall all the true Israel of God be rescued from their enemies, and be in due time delivered from the land of darkness and of death.

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.

The following table, which exhibits the statements of the chronographers regarding the _Fourth age_ of the world, should be compared with Table X. in our _first Part_; as it contains the _Critarchal Eras_, and _Intervals_ according to each chronographer. With regard to this period, we omitted to observe that the reading in most of the MSS. and editions of the Septuagint, in 1 Kings vi. 1, is 440 years instead of 480 years.

TABLE IV. CRITARCHAL JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS.│ EUSEBIUS. │ PASCH. ERAS. │ │ CHRON. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals.│Intervals. │Intervals. From the 40 40 40│ 40 40│ 40 Exodus │ │ Joshua and 27 27 *55│ *30 27│ 27 Elders │ │ 1st SERVITUDE 8 8 │ 8 *0│ 8 Critarchate of 40 40 │ *50 40│ *32 Othniel │ │ 2nd SERVITUDE 18 18 │ 18 *0│ 18 Cr. of Ehud 80 *8 │ 80 80│ 80 and Shamgar │ │ 3rd SERVITUDE 20 20 │ 20 *0│ 20 Cr. of Deborah 40 40 │ 40 40│ 40 and Barak │ │ 4th SERVITUDE 7 7 │ 7 *0│ 7 Cr. of Gideon 40 40 │ 40 40│ 40 Of Abimelech, │ │ Tolah, and 48 48 │ 48 47│ 48 Jair │ │ 5th SERVITUDE 18 18 │ 18 *0│ 18 Cr. of 6 6 │ 6 6│ 6 Jephthah │ │ Of Ibzan, Elon 25 25 │ 25 *15│ 25 and Abdon │ │ 6th SERVITUDE, 40 40 490│ *60 *20│ *60 (Samson) │ │ Critarchate of 40 *81 │ 40 40│ *80 Eli │ │ 7th SERVITUDE 20 *0 │ *0 *0│ *0 Cr. of Samuel 12 12 90│ *0 *0│ *20 Reign of Saul 40 *20 │ 40 40│ *20 Reign of David 40 40 │ 40 40│ 40 To the │ │ Foundation 3 3 70│ 3 4│ 3 of Solomon’s │ │ Temple │ │ ———— ———— ————│ ———— ————│ ———— 612 541 745│ 613 479│ 632

With regard to this much disputed period, the testimony of Josephus is, in several places of his works, highly satisfactory. _First_—In the title of the fifth book of his Antiquities, which records the history of the interval from the death of Moses to that of Eli, he states that it contains a period of 476 years; and in the title of the 6th book, which records the history of the interval from the death of Eli to that of Saul, he states that it contains a period of 32 years. These intervals taken together make a period of 508 years; to which, if we add the 40 years in the wilderness, the 40 years of David, and the three years of Solomon, we have 591 years; this period wants only about 20 years to make it correspond with the true chronology, and these 20 years appear to have been omitted in the Seventh Servitude; for the short period of 32 years is manifestly erroneous. The truth is, that the longer interval should be only 456 or 457 years, in order to correspond exactly with Acts xiii. 19, 20; and the shorter interval 72 years, in order to correspond with Acts xiii. 21, and 1 Samuel vii. 2.[87] These intervals would then make together 529 years; to which, if the numbers above mentioned be added, the true amount is 612 years, as in the Table. _Second_,—That 612 years is the true _Flavian Extent_ of the _Fourth age_ of the world is evident from the 20th book of the Antiquities x. 1, where the author says “but the number of the years which the thirteen [high priests] ruled, from the day our fathers left Egypt, Moses being leader, until the foundation of the temple which Solomon the king built in Jerusalem, was 612 years.”[88] From this distinct statement of the true extent of the _Critarchal age_, it is evident that the text of Josephus, in books 5th and 6th of the Antiquities, must have originally contained the true Scriptural numbers, although now we find the following errors have supervened. The first error is in Book vii. 5, 4, where, speaking of the form of the Hebrew Government under Moses and Joshua, he says, “but after his [or their] death, for _the whole_ 18 years, anarchy ruled their people.”[89] The words τοῖς πᾶσι, _the whole_, seem plainly to indicate that a connecting sentence has been omitted here; and that _these 18 years_ must have been part of the government of Joshua and the Elders, which appears to have been so mild and _Patriarchal_, after the division of the land, when “the Lord had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about,” that humanly speaking, they were _without government_, although they were living under the best of all governments—_a Theocracy_. After the death of Joshua and the Elders, indeed, there must have been a short period of anarchy, perhaps about two years,[90] when the children of Israel “forsook the Lord and served Baal and Ashtaroth,” and when “an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim” to reprove them for their Idolatry, (Judges ii. 1–5,) previous to their being “sold into the hand of the King of Mesopotamia;” (iii. 8.) This _anarchal period of two years_, with the _18 years of rest under Joshua_, and the _7 years of his active government_ during the war and the allotment of the land, will clearly make up the number of 27 years, a period to which all the ancient chronographers bear the most distinct and unequivocal testimony;—“Frequens tamen opinio est 27 annis eum [Jesum] Hebræis præfuisse.”[91] A further proof of the opinion we have here advanced respecting the 18 years, is that Josephus does not make the slightest mention of them at the proper place in the history, where he speaks of the death of Joshua, and the accession of Judah to power according to the Divine word, Judges i. 2; but incidentally introduces them into a reflection which he makes on the different forms of the Hebrew government, on the occasion of the renewal of the Kingdom to Saul at Gilgal; 1 Samuel xi. 14.

The second error relates to the critarchate of Shamgar, which is usually reckoned at _one_ year by those who undertake to expound the chronology of Josephus; but there is no warrant for this either in the Scriptures, or in Josephus; for he merely says, in v. 4, 3, that “Shamgar died _in the first year_ of his government,” which might have been at the very commencement of it, and perhaps in the 80th year of Ehud. The next error of Josephus is the _total omission_, in the present text of the Critarchate of Tolah, who succeeded Abimelech, and preceded Jair; this omission amounts to 23 years; but it must have been reckoned by Josephus, otherwise he could not have recorded such numbers as he has done in every place for the whole length of the period. Again, the name and progeny of Abdon are mentioned in v. 7, 15; but the years of his critarchate are omitted, in the present text, evidently by mistake or oversight. Lastly, an error has been attributed to Josephus by some chronologers,[92] in making Saul reign only 20 years; but this is a mistake on their part; for he distinctly states in vi. 14, 9, that “he reigned 18 years while Samuel was alive, and 22 years after his death,” which clearly makes 40 years in all. Further, he states in vi. 13, 5, that “after the death of Eli, the high priest Samuel alone ruled the people 12 years; and after Saul was king, 18 years;” thus plainly, as in the present text, omitting the _Seventh Servitude_, when the ark was at Kirjathjearim for the space of 20 years; 1 Samuel vii. 2. _Third_,—in his 2d Book _against Apion_, Sect. 2, Josephus says, “But Solomon himself built the Temple, 612 years after the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt.”[93] This is a very important testimony, occurring as it does in an argumentative treatise concerning the “Antiquity of the Jewish Nation,” in opposition to the pretensions of the Greeks, Egyptians, and Chaldeans, to a vastly more remote origin than the Hebrews. Here, Josephus, or his transcribers, having no particular end to serve in reference to dates, has allowed the simple fact concerning the true length of the period to remain on record. Most likely it has escaped their notice, otherwise it might have shared the fate of the dates and periods of his Antiquities, which have been by wilful alteration, thrown into such inextricable confusion.

Having thus shown that Josephus originally held the true chronology of this period, we may select some other instances of the manner in which it has been misstated either by himself or others in the present text of his works, the error being in general a period of about 20 years, either above or below the truth. In the Antiquities vii. 3, 2, he says “But all the time from Joshua being commander of the expedition against the Canaanites, until David expelled them from Jerusalem, was 515 years.”[94] Now adding to this number the 40 years in the Wilderness, the 33 years which David reigned in Jerusalem (2 Sam. v. 5, 6, 7), and the 3 years of Solomon, we have 591 years as before, a period which is deficient by about 20 years. Again, in viii. 3, 1, he says, “But Solomon began the building of the Temple in the 4th year of his reign, 592 years after the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt;” but according to _Tostatus_, cited by Hudson, the number found in some copies was 612 years.[95] Next, in ix. 14, 1, he says, “Therefore the Ten Tribes of Israel migrated from Judea 947 years after the time when their forefathers, having left Egypt, possessed the land; but after the time when, having rebelled against Rehoboam, the grandson of David, they transferred the kingdom to Jeroboam, 240 years, 7 months, 7 days;”[96] now, if we reckon the captivity of the Ten Tribes from the Foundation of the Temple, by allowing, according to Josephus, viii. 7, 8, for the reign of Solomon 80 years, taking off 3 years, and adding the remaining 77 years to the latter interval above mentioned, neglecting the months and days, we have 317 years for the amount; and if we subtract this amount from the former interval, we have 630 years for the remainder, which is evidently the period here reckoned between the Exodus and the Foundation of the Temple, and it errs in excess by 18 years. Lastly, in x. 8, 5, he says, “But the temple was burned 470 years, 6 months, and 10 days after it was founded; and 1062 years, 6 months, and 10 days after the Exodus of the people from Egypt;[97] hence it follows, that the period from the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple is here reckoned 592 years, which is deficient as above by 20 years. The object of the author, or of his corrupters, appears to have been to make the chronology square as much as possible with the extended reign of Solomon, and to throw back upon this period a moiety of the surplus years which he has thought fit to add to the length of this reign; but we shall see more evidence on this point in the next section.

The intervals of Theophilus, according to the text extant, must have been strangely corrupted, when we find that they make the extent of this age only 541 years. If we restore to the Critarchate of Ehud the period of 80 years instead of 8, a mistake which might easily occur in the Greek, by the writing of Η for Π, and omit the _single year_ allotted to _Samira_,[98] out of place, and void of authority, we shall at once have the true number 612 years. We can scarcely, however, attribute the corruption of the text of Theophilus to simple mistake in this manner; for we find that he reckons from the entrance of Israel into the promised land “till the [end of the] reign of David, all the years were 498:” now if to this interval, we add the 40 years in the Wilderness, and the 3 years of Solomon, we shall have the precise period inserted in the preceding Table, as his extent of the _Fourth age_. Theophilus has committed other errors, which however balance each other, and produce no effect on the whole period. After stating that “the Philistines ruled” the Israelites “40 years,” he says that “Samson judged them 20 years;” thus forgetting the Scriptures which says, that “he judged Israel _in the days of the Philistines_ 20 years;” Judges xv. 20. He then says that “there was peace among them for 40 years,” an assertion wholly unauthorized by Scripture, and by the whole crowd of chronographers.[99] These errors are compensated for by allotting to Eli only “20 years” instead of 40 years, by omitting the _seventh servitude_ of 20 years, and by putting only “20 years” instead of 40 years, for the reign of Saul.[100] Dr. Russell, in his “Connection,” vol. i. pp. 128, 129, gives a view of the chronology of this period according to Theophilus, where he strangely misdates the age in which he lived, and contrary to the copy of his work to which Mr. Clinton or ourselves have referred, makes out that his Extent of the Critarchal age is 612 years! He makes no remark whatever about the error of Theophilus in regard to the years of Ehud, but assumes them at once at 80; he retains the one year of Shamgar, and puts him in his proper place; and he makes the years of Tolah 22 instead of 23; thus he easily obtains the correct number, but by no means in a satisfactory manner, when compared with the text of the author. Indeed, trusting to the view which Dr. Russell has given in the passage referred to, we have at p. 71 stated, and at p. 92 considered, that the extent of this period is, according to Theophilus, 612 years; but we now have some doubts whether this was his genuine number, seeing that he has included the erroneous number of 541 years in his subsequent dates and intervals, as will be shown in another section.

In this age also, we have to regret the deficiency of the intervals of Africanus, owing to the fragmentary state in which his works have reached us. The testimony of Eusebius, both in his Chronicon and his Præparatio Evangelica, as well as that of Syncellus, enables us to exhibit the chief _Intervals_ and the whole _Extent_ of the _Critarchal age_ according to this Chronographer. In the extracts of his third book, which have been preserved, he says “From the Exodus of Moses to Cyrus, who reigned after the Captivity, were 1237 years; for the remaining years of Moses were 40; the years of Joshua, who succeeded him as leader, 25; the years of the Elders, the Judges after Joshua, 30; the years of those contained in the book of Judges, 490; the years of the High Priests Eli and Samuel, 90; then, the years of the Kings of the Hebrews, 490; [and the years of the captivity, 70;] the last year of which was the first year of the reign of Cyrus, as we have before said.”[101] The sum of these numbers is only 1235 years, instead of 1237 years, which shows that he must have originally written 27 years for Joshua instead of 25 years.[102] From this passage we learn that the interval from the Exodus to the accession of Saul is, according to Africanus, 675 years. From Syncellus, we learn that “according to Africanus, the years from Adam till the last of the Judges and the first of Eli the High Priest, were 4292;” and that “from Adam till his [Solomon’s] 8th year, there were, according to Africanus, 4457 years.”[103] Taking 5 years from the latter number, we have A.M. 4452 for the date of the Foundation of the Temple, being the 4th year of Solomon. The difference, therefore, between this date and the first year of Eli, is according to Africanus, 160 years; and the difference between the latter number, and the 90 years allotted by him to Eli and Samuel, is 70 years; hence, if we add this difference to the interval of 675 years above mentioned, we have 745 years for the _Extent_ of the _Critarchal age_, according to Africanus. Eusebius in his Chronicon, cited by Mr. Clinton, p. 308, makes this period 744 years, the difference being “only a single year,” which may have arisen from a slight difference in the mode of computation, and accounts for its elongation by the addition of 100 years, which are wholly unauthorised by Scripture: viz.—the 30 years ascribed to the Elders who outlived Joshua, the 40 years of supposed anarchy after the death of Samson, and the 30 years of imaginary peace which succeeded the anarchy. The grand object of Africanus in the chronology of this age, appears to have been to make up at once for the deficiency of the generation of the _Junior Cainan_, and the two years after the flood, by the enlargement of the period from its true length 612 years, to his surreptitious length of 744 years; for the difference between these numbers is just 132 years, the precise difference between the dates of Africanus and the true dates of the epochs in the two former ages. By the manufacture of the intervals of the _Fourth age_, therefore, he has contrived to bring about the true date of the Foundation of Solomon’s Temple in his Chronology, and to compensate for his former errors in such a manner as to restore the ancient computation of Scripture at this important and well-known epoch.

Of the Extent of the _Critarchal age_, and the length of its _Intervals_, as Mr. Clinton remarks, Eusebius has three accounts. For the account taken from his _Præparatio Evangelica_, Lib. x. c. 14, and the account taken from his “Chronicon,” which we have placed side by side in the preceding table, we are partly indebted to Russell and partly to Clinton.[104] As Dr. Russell has endeavoured to make the former account, by the correction of some of its intervals, speak the language of the “Chronicon” in a passage, for the citation of which we are indebted to Mr. Clinton;[105] we have thought it right to restore the original numbers, in order to show what was the real opinion of Eusebius, respecting this age, on the occasion of writing his “Gospel Preparation.” According to his opinion, therefore, the Extent of the _Fourth age_ was 613 years, the difference between this number and the Scriptural one, being only a single year! The author, however, commits a number of errors in detail, which balance each other, and in their summation, bring out almost exactly the true period. The chief errors are, the omission of the _Seventh Servitude_, 20 years; and of the Critarchate of Samuel, 12 years. In order to compensate for these omissions, he reckons the Critarchate of Samson, apart from the _6th Servitude_, 20 years; he adds 10 years to the Critarchate of Othniel; and gladly seizes upon the 30 years for Joshua and the Elders instead of 27 years; in order to bring out the correct number for the whole period, as nearly as possible, as he well knew that it was 612 years. That this was his real opinion, is also evident from the following passage in his “Chronicon” already referred to: “The amount of the time during which the judges bore rule until Samuel, was altogether 450 years, our apostle himself testifying it by his declaration, [Acts xiii. 20]. There are, however, besides this reckoning, the periods of Moses and Joshua his successor, as well as of Samuel and Saul. But let us pass, in the meantime, the periods of Samuel, and Saul, and Joshua. Now from the testimony of the Apostle, the 40 years of Saul must be added to the 450 years of the judges, to which number the 40 years of David and the 4 years of Solomon being added, the sum of the years amounts to 534; which is, in fact, the apostolical tradition. Then, the 40 years which Moses led in the desert, and again the 27 years of Joshua the son of Nun, to which the Jews themselves agree, being added, the years amount to 600.” This is a very important and clear statement of the truth, _with the exception of the 12 years of Samuel_, “which,” Mr. Clinton says, “he supposed to be included in the years of _Saul_.” We do not agree with Mr. Clinton in this point; we think the passage bears evident marks that he had the separate period of Samuel in his mind; particularly, from his cunning “interim seponamus,”—“_let us pass in the mean time_.” In fact, he only pretends to forget it; for he knew that if he had added it, along with the periods of Joshua and Saul, he would have had the correct number at once, namely, 612 years! His accommodation to the spirit of the age in which he lived, by the insertion of the Hebrew chronology of this period in his Tables, instead of the Septuagint or ancient chronology which he has so clearly established by Apostolical tradition, exhibits a degree of vacillation and imbecility wholly unworthy the character of an able historian and chronographer, and quite unbecoming an ardent advocate of the Truth. We have sufficiently refuted this chronology in our _first Part_; and it is unnecessary to go over the same arguments, or attempt to strengthen them by the admissions of our opponents. Suffice it to remark that the Hebrew intervals of Eusebius amount only to 479 years, instead of 480 years, which it ought to reach according to 1 Kings vi. 1, and that even the Hebrew intervals of Usher amount only to 478½ years, p. 68; and although these amounts differ only by half a year, the details of their intervals exhibit a very surprising difference. Thus, Eusebius allows 27 years to Joshua and the Elders, Usher _none_, with the exception of 6⅓ years for the war and the division of the land; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Gideon at 40 years, Usher at 49⅙ years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Tolah at 22 years, Usher at 23 years;[106] Eusebius omits the Critarchate of Ibzan 10 years, and of Samuel 12 years; Usher admits the former, and reckons the latter 21 years; Eusebius reckons the Critarchate of Samson 20 years, and Usher omits it altogether. Eusebius and Usher are indeed very fit authors to be classed together: both no doubt pious men and exemplary Christians; but both too much given to yield to the pressure of the times as historiographers and chronographers; and too much influenced by the bold assertions of the Jews respecting the immaculate purity of the Hebrew Text.

The Extent of the _Fourth age_ and the lengths of the _Intervals_, according to the Paschal Chronicle, are given by Mr. Clinton, but in such a rambling manner that we have had some difficulty to expiscate them from his extracts. As to the extent, the author of the Chronicle says “the whole time, from the 81st year of Moses, in which the Exodus from Egypt took place, to Solomon and the Foundation of the Temple amounts to 630 years.”[107] We have seen that this is the number collected from Josephus Book viii. 7, 8; but the intervals given by the author of the Chronicle, amount to 632 years. The first error he commits is making the Critarchate of Othniel only 32 years; or, which is the same thing, including the _1st Servitude_ in the 40 years of that judge;[108] the next is reckoning the years of Samson distinct from those of the _6th Servitude_, and interposing an unauthorised period of 40 years peace between Samson and Eli;[109] and the last is omitting the _7th Servitude_, reckoning the critarchate of Samuel 20 years, and reducing the reign of Saul to 20 years.[110] The author probably reckoned only 39 years of Moses and 2 of Solomon, when he calculated the whole period at 630 years. But from the Chronicon itself, the number of 632 years is clearly made out; for the 81st year of Moses is reckoned A.M. 3837, and the 3rd of Solomon A.M. 4469. The coincidence between its author and Josephus, which we have remarked above, is very singular, and seems to indicate that this error of putting 630 years for 612, on the part of both, had a common origin. Mr. Clinton also particularly investigates the statements of Clemens Alexandrinus, and Syncellus, regarding this period; but as we do not attach so much importance to their statements as to those we have already discussed, we have thought proper to omit them; suffice it to remark in general, that they strengthen and confirm the lengthened chronology of the older chronographers. The concluding observations of Mr. Clinton, p. 312, appear to us surprising, considering the mass of evidence he has brought forward in favour of the true period of 612 years. He says that “it fluctuates between the 600 years of Eusebius, and the 628 years arising out of the corrected numbers of Josephus. The truth lies somewhere between these points. We may assume 612 years as the most probable.” There appears to us to be no probability in the case; we have seen that the statements of Josephus, Theophilus, Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle, _when corrected for obvious errors_, according to the authority of Scripture, all speak the same language and announce the invariable period of 612 years. The details of the period assigned by Africanus are lost; but his case is peculiar; he was evidently desirous to make this period compensate for former errors; and he has effected his purpose to a single year. His date, therefore, of the Foundation of the Temple is correct; and this appears to have been his chief aim. According to their estimate of the extent of the different ages of the world up to this epoch, their respective dates, according to the preceding Tables will stand thus:—

TABLE V. AGES OF THE JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. WORLD. CHRON. Years. Years. Years. Years. Years. 1st Age 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262 2nd Age 1068 1011 1015 1017 1145 3rd Age 430 645 430 430 430 4th Age 612 541 745 480 632 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— TO SOLOMON’S 4366 4439 4452 4169 4469 TEMPLE

Had we corrected these dates on grounds already stated, and which by many would have been deemed sufficient, we could have shown a much nearer coincidence between them and the true date; but our object was to show what the details of the different authors really are as exhibited in their works now extant. It is satisfactory, however, to observe that the difference between the latter and either of the former, is very small, and in the case of the greatest magnitude, is very easily accounted for on the principle of Rabbinical authority and influence.

The following remark of Mr. Clinton, p. 313, is much more in point than the former above cited; our only wonder is that he seems to think the extent of the period itself not sufficiently established: “This extended term of 612 years is inconsistent with the date in the Book of Kings (1 Kings vi. 1), which reckons the foundation of the Temple in the 4th year of _Solomon_ to be _in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt_. But the computation of Paul, delivered in a solemn argument before a Jewish audience, and confirmed by the whole tenor of the history in the Book of Judges, outweighs the authority of that date; and we may agree with Jackson and Hales in rejecting it.” To this he might have added, and we ought rather to agree with the whole Christian Church in adopting the extended period, than with the Jews, the persecutors and vilifiers of that Church, in adopting the curtailed period, and thus giving countenance to their interpolations of Scripture.

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 Scriptural 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.

The following Table which exhibits the statements of the Chronographers regarding the _Fifth age_ of the World, should be compared with Table XII. in our _First Part_; as it contains the _Monarchal Eras_ and _Intervals_ according to each chronographer.

TABLE VI. MONARCHAL ERAS. JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. CHRON. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Foundation of Solomon’s *77 37 37 *33 Temple Rehoboam 17 17 17 17 Abijah 3 *7 3 3 Asa 41 41 41 *44 Jehoshaphat 25 25 25 25 Jehoram *8 *8 *8 *10 Ahaziah 1 1 1 1 Athaliah 6 6 *7 6 Jehoash 40 40 40 40 Amaziah 29 *39 29 29 Interregnum *0 *0 *0 *0 Uzziah 52 52 52 52 Jotham 16 16 16 16 Ahaz 16 *17 16 16 Hezekiah 29 29 29 29 Manasseh 55 55 55 55 Amon 2 2 *12 *12 Josiah 31 31 31 31 Jehoahaz 0¼ 0¼ 0¼ 0¼ Jehoiakim 11 11 *12 *12 Jehoiachin 0¼ 0¼ 0¼ 0¼ Zedekiah *11 *11 420 *11 *11 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— FIFTH AGE 470 445 420 442 442

The principal errors of Josephus in this age, are his addition of 40 years to the reign of Solomon, and his omission of the interregnum between Amaziah and Uzziah. The former error appears to have been peculiarly his own; the latter he seems to share in common with most, if not all, the ancient chronographers. In his Antiquities, Book x. 8, 5, he says, “the temple was burned 470 years 6 months and 10 days after its foundation;”[111] and this period is clearly made out from the summation of the years of the reigns of the kings of Judah as laid down by him, in Books Eighth, Ninth and Tenth. Moreover, these books contain the history of the Jews from the accession of Solomon to the end of the Babylonish captivity; but we find, by the summation of the titulary periods prefixed to them, that the whole amount of this period is only 502½ years; and, deducting from this amount, the first 3 years of Solomon’s reign and the 70 years of the Captivity, we have 429½ years for a remainder, which is a totally different result. In order to arrive at the proper explanation of the difference between this number and the former, we shall exhibit the comparison of the summation of his periods and his reigns in these Books with the true chronology in the form of a table; premising, that the history of the VIIIth Book extends from the accession of Solomon to the death of Ahab, in the 19th year of _Jehoshaphat’s_ reign; of the IXth Book, from the same year to the Captivity of the Ten Tribes of Israel, in the 6th year of _Hezekiah’s_ reign; and of the Xth Book, from this same year to the end of the Babylonish _Captivity_. In the following Table, the first column exhibits the _periods_ announced in the titles of the different books, the second the amount of the years of the different reigns they contain, and the third the amount of the same years according to the _true_ chronology:

TABLE VII. MONARCHAL PERIODS. │ JOSEPHUS. │ TRUE │ │CHRONOLOGY. │ Periods. Reigns. │ The VIIIth Book comprehends │ 163 160│ 119 The IXth Book „ │ 157 180│ 190 The Xth Book „ │ 182½ 203½│ 185 │ ———— ————│ ———— Total, including Captivity │ 502½ 543½│ 494 Deduct the three years of Solomon │ 3 3│ 3 │ ———— ————│ ———— │ 499½ 540½│ 491 Deduct the years of the Captivity │ 70 70│ 52 │ ———— ————│ ———— Extent of the Fifth age │ 429½ 470½│ 439

Here the discrepancy between the amount of the _Periods_ and the amount of the _Reigns_ is manifest; and the cause of the discrepancy is plainly the 40 years surreptitiously added to Solomon’s reign; for if this number be subtracted from 470½ years, the result of the _reigns_, the remainder is 430½ years, which agrees with the result of the _periods_ to a single year, and this year may have been added for the 1st of Cyrus. The latter amount, however, still differs from the true period by 10 years; and this difference evidently arises from the omission of the interregnum of 12 years, and the addition of 2 years to the reign of Jehoram. The extraordinary want of agreement between the different _periods_ and the corresponding amount of the _reigns_, shows that the former must have been manufactured to serve some particular purpose, the most probable being the concealment of the error of 40 additional years in the reign of Solomon. This is so far ingeniously done, and might deceive a cursory reader; for the first period of 163 years is his exact interval from the _Foundation_ of the Temple to the end of _Jehoshaphat’s_ reign; the second period of 157 years is exactly 40 years less than his interval from the end of _Jehoshaphat’s_ reign to the end of _Hezekiah’s_ reign; and the third period of 182½ years is only 2 years more than his interval from the end of _Hezekiah’s_ reign to the end of the _captivity_.

That this tortuous chronologer and historian must have originally reckoned his periods in this age according to the true system of chronology, is manifest from the following passage in Book x. 4, 4; where, speaking of the fulfilment of the prophecy concerning the idolatrous altar at Bethel (1 Kings xiii. 1), he says, “and he [Josiah] burned the bones of the false prophets upon the altar which Jeroboam first built,” and “these things were fulfilled after a period of 361 years.”[112] Now, according to the testimony of Scripture (2 Chronicles xxxiv. 3), cited by Josephus (x. 4, 1),[113] we find that this fulfilment took place in the 12th year of the reign of Josiah; and from the 1st year of Jeroboam, when the altar was built, to the epoch in question, the interval, according to the chronology of Josephus in the preceding Table, is only 351 years; but, according to the true Chronology, it is exactly 361 years. It is plain, therefore, that Josephus in this passage, must have reckoned an interregnum of 10 years between Amaziah and Uzziah: and, if we reckon the reign of Jehoram only 6 years as in the true chronology, instead of 8 years as in that of our author, and add the surplus of 2 years to these 10 years, we shall have the correct Interregnum of 12 years, as stated at p. 74, under the head of the Septuagint; see 2 Kings xv. 1.[114] It is true that the 10 years which we have thus detected in the Antiquities, might have been added by Josephus, as by Theophilus and Clemens, to the reign of Amaziah, but this would not alter the _total amount_. Some chronologers, as Polyhistor cited by Eusebius,[115] have added 10 years to the reign of Amon instead of to that of Amaziah; but in either case the effect is still the same,—to make the _whole period_ more consistent with the true chronology. Thus we have expiscated the truth concerning this period even from the unwilling pages of Josephus; for the rest of the computation concerning the _Fifth age_ will be clearly seen from the following Table, which harmonizes with the previous result:

TABLE VIII. TRUE FLAVIAN PERIODS. Years. From the 1st of Jeroboam to the 12th of Josiah 361 The rest of Josiah’s reign 19 The remaining Jewish reigns 22 ———— From the 1st of Jeroboam to the 10th of Zedekiah 402 The previous years of the Reign of Solomon 37 ———— Extent of the _Fifth Age_ 439

Although Josephus in his “Antiquities” has generally reckoned the 70 years of the Captivity from the Destruction of the Temple to the 1st year of Cyrus, which is contrary to the true chronology and to the Canon of Ptolemy, yet we have evidence in his “Jewish War” that he was perfectly acquainted with the correct period of 52 years, which we have shown in our _first Part_, at pp. 80, 81, to be the true interval. Thus, in Book vi. 4, 8, of the latter work, when speaking of the Destruction of the Temple, he says, “and from the _first_ foundation which King Solomon laid, till the present destruction, which happened in the 2d year of the Emperor Vespasian, are reckoned 1130 years 7 months and 15 days; but from the _second_, which Haggai effected in the 2d year of Cyrus the king, till the destruction under Vespasian, 639 years and 45 days.”[116] Not to dwell on the glaring anachronism of referring the _foundation_ of the temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus (Ezra iii. 8), to the _renewal_ of the work of building it in the 2nd year of Darius (Ezra iv. 24, and v. 1), it is plain that the difference between the two periods mentioned in this passage, viz. 491½ years, is the true interval from the destruction of Solomon’s temple to the foundation of the second Temple in the 2nd year of Cyrus; for omitting the half-year, as the 2nd year had just commenced at the latter epoch (Ezra iii. 8), and subtracting the 52 years above mentioned, from 491 years, we have the remainder 439 years, for the true Extent of the _Fifth age_ as before. The proof, however, that he was acquainted with the true interval, at least within a year or two, is manifest from a passage which occurs in his 1st Book _against Apion_, sect. 21; where he says, “For it is written in them [the Hebrew Scriptures] that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed our temple in the 18th year [the 19th year, 2 Kings xxv. 8] of his reign, and it was in ruins for 50 years; but in the 2nd year of the reign of Cyrus, the foundations were laid, and in the 2nd again of the reign of Darius they were finished.”[117] The difference of 2 years is easily accounted for by supposing that he took the reign of Cyrus in Babylon at 9 years, according to some copies of the Canon of Ptolemy, instead of 7 years, according to Scripture, that is, by supposing his reign to have begun 2 years earlier than the true period. He appears, however, to have tacked these two years to the true interval in question, in another chapter of the same book, viz. “Jewish War,” vi. 10; where, speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem, he says “David, King of the Jews, having expelled the people of the Canaanites, made his own inhabit it; and 477 years 6 months afterwards, it was destroyed by the Babylonians.”[118] Now as David reigned 33 years in Jerusalem, and the temple was founded in the 4th year of Solomon, if we subtract 36 years from the preceding number, we obtain 441½ years for the period from the foundation of the temple to its destruction, which is only 2½ years more than the true period, a surplus which appears to have arisen from his unwarrantable addition to the true period of the 10th Book of the Antiquities. The last passage which we shall adduce from this extraordinary historical production, so full of chronological errors, is from the 20th Book, where speaking of the High Priests, he says, Nebuchadnezzar “took Josedek the High Priest captive; and the time of their hierarchy was 466 years, 6 months, and 10 days, during the reigns of the Jewish kings.” Now Josedek was taken captive, not when the temple and city were burned, as Josephus erroneously says in the context, but when the “king of Babylon took Jehoiachin in _the 8th year of his reign_,” and “carried away all Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the mighty men of valour, 10,000 captives, and all the craftsmen, and all the smiths; none remained, save the poorest sort of the people of the land;” 2 Kings xxiv. 11–16, and 1 Chronicles vi. 15. But as Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem _in the 19th year of his reign_ (2 Kings xxv. 8), the difference of time between the _first_, or Jehoiachin’s captivity, and the _second_, or Zedekiah’s captivity, is evidently 11 years, which being added to the preceding period, makes a total of 477½ years as before. In these two passages, therefore, Josephus is consistent with himself, and he differs from the true chronology in this period only by the small interval of about 2 years; a difference which, as we before remarked, may be due to his mistake in reference to the Scriptural commencement of the reign of Cyrus, King of Babylon. For a more extensive inquiry into this period of the Chronology of Josephus, we refer to Mr. Cuninghame’s “Fulness of the Times,” pp. 27–60, to which we have been indebted for some suggestions in the preceding discussion.

The errors of Theophilus in the intervals of the _Fourth age_ are few, and chiefly of a compensating nature; and his error in its extent amounts only to about 6 years. He states the reign of Abijah at 7 years instead of 3; of Jehoram at 8 years instead of 6; and of Amaziah at 39 years instead of 29; but the two latter errors make up for his omission of the interregnum of 12 years. He next reckons the reigns of Ahaz and Zedekiah, each a year too much, which, with the error in the reign of Abijah, makes the whole period erroneous in excess by about 6 years, its _Extent_ being 445 years, according to the Table. This Extent is confirmed by the following statement in his general summary: “from the death of David, till the [end of the] sojourning of the people in the land of Babylon, were 518 years, 6 months, 10 days.”[119] Now, if from this period, we subtract the first 3 years of Solomon, and the 70 years of the captivity, we shall have for the remainder 445 years, the period from the foundation to the destruction of the Temple, according to Theophilus. Again, he says, all the time, from the beginning of the world till the end “of the sojourning in the land of Babylon, is 4954 years, 6 months, 10 days.”[120] Now, if we add together his different ages up to this epoch, including the 70 years of the captivity, we shall have this precise amount; thus, 2242 + 1011 + 645 + 541 + 445 + 70 = 4954 years. This confirmatory statement, therefore, shows the accuracy of our estimate of the chronology of Theophilus; and thus we see that like other chronographers, he has, contrary to Scripture, reckoned the period of the 70 years’ captivity from the destruction of Jerusalem to the 1st year of the reign of Cyrus. The errors of Africanus in the _intervals_ of the _Fourth age_ cannot be detected, owing to the loss of this part of his Chronicon; we can only decide upon the inaccuracy of his statement regarding its _Extent_ from the extract already cited at p. 265, where he assigns 490 years as the whole period of the Jewish Kings. We have seen at p. 266, that 70 years of this period belong to the former age, according to Africanus; it follows, therefore, that 420 years must be his _Extent_ of the _Monarchal age_, which we have accordingly inserted in the Table. We have scarcely any means of confirming the correctness of this result, until we show, from his remaining fragments concerning the succeeding age, that it is quite consistent with his great Mundane period from Adam to Christ. It is necessary, however, to make one remark on this subject, namely, that Syncellus has committed an error in stating that “Africanus reckoned the 70 years of the captivity from the 1st year of Zedekiah,”[121] as we shall see in the sequel.

The statements of Eusebius, in the preceding Table, are taken from the Hieronymian[122] and Armenian[123] versions of his Canon; those of the author of the Paschal Chronicle from that work itself.[124] The former places the foundation of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon; the latter erroneously in his 8th year. Both authors in several places of their works, state the extent of the _Fifth age_ at 442 years, and in order to preserve this number entire they appear to have manufactured two or three of the reigns. Thus, Eusebius reckons the reign of Jehoram at 8 complete years instead of 6, that of Athaliah at 7 instead of 6, and that of Amon at 12 instead of 2. In the Armenian version the reign of Jehoiakim is reckoned at 12 years instead of 11, which seems necessary to make up the total 442 years. In the Paschal Chronicle, the reign of Asa is reckoned at 44 years instead of 41, that of Jehoram at 10 instead of 6, that of Jehoiakim at 12 instead of 11, and that of Amon at 12 instead of 2. Abating the errors thus pointed out, and admitting the interregnum, both authors testify to the true length of this period, which, notwithstanding the former, they have only overrated by 3 years.

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.

The following Table exhibits the errors of the chronographers in regard to the _Sixth age_ of the world. In our _first Part_, we have denominated the _Eras_ of this age _Hierarchal_, Table XIV. p. 80, to indicate the internal form of Government which prevailed among the Jews during the period from their return to their own land to the Advent of the Messiah; here we style them _Ethnocratic_, to indicate the _Iron rule_ which the _Heathen Kings_ exercised over the remnant of the ancient people of God, till “_in the days of these kings_ the God of Heaven set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed,” but “should break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and _stand for ever_.” In this table, we have introduced an additional column, showing the periods of the _Four Great Monarchies_ or _Empires_ foretold in the book of Daniel, in as far as they relate to the _Sixth age_, according to the Canon of Ptolemy, which is accounted by chronologers as one of the most valuable and precious relics of Antiquity.

TABLE IX. ETHNOCRATIC PTOLEMY. JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. ERAS. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. Intervals. From Solomon’s Temple. THE ASSYRIAN 52 EMPIRE. Jewish 70 70 70 70 70 Captivity. Roman 54 Regifugium PERSIAN 205 230 190 206 EMPIRE Jewish 414 Hierarchy The Asamonean 125 Dynasty. GRECIAN 302 298 301 296 EMPIRE Roman 453 Republic TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE. 28 33 46 30 27 29 Birth of Christ ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— THE SIXTH 587 642 623 628 588 601 AGE

In this Table the extent of the _Ethnocratic age_ is 587 years according to the Canon of Ptolemy;[125] this is 2 years more than we assigned at p. 80, owing to the reign of Cyrus being estimated at 9 years instead of 7, which brings the _Sixth age_ up to the vulgar era of the Birth of our Saviour. The Canon assigns 43 years respectively to the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Augustus Cæsar; hence the former reigned 25 years after the taking of Jerusalem,[126] and the latter 28 before the Christian era;[127] thus the extreme intervals of the first column of the table were obtained. The intervals of Josephus were determined from the following passages:—Book XI. 1, 1, “In the first year of the reign of Cyrus, and this was the 70th from the day that it befell our people to remove from home to Babylon;”—Book XX. 10, 1, “After the period of the 70 years’ captivity, &c. Joshua the Son of Josedek, took the office of High Priest; and his posterity, in all 15, held the democratic form of government for 414 years, till the reign of Antiochus Eupator;”—Book XIV. 16, 4, “Thus ceased the government of the Asamonean [race] after 126 years;”—Book XVII. 6, 3, “for 125 years during which they [the Asamoneans] reigned;”—and, Book XVII. 8, 1, “Having reigned, after he [Herod] caused the death of Antigonus, 34 years, and after he was appointed by the Romans, 37 years.”[128] Now, taking the period of the Asamonean dynasty at 125 years, and the years of the reign of Herod before Christ was born, at 33, we have, from the preceding extracts, the intervals in the Table, and the extent of the whole period 642 years, according to Josephus. This result receives a striking confirmation from the summation of the periods contained in the Titles of the different Books of the Antiquities which relate the History from the 1st year of Cyrus to the death of Herod. Thus,

Years. The Captivity continued 70 The XIth Book comprehends 253 The XIIth Book „ 170 The XIIIth Book „ 82 The XIVth Book „ 32 The XVth Book „ 18 The XVIth Book „ 12 The XVIIth Book to the year before the death of Herod, 5[129] comprehends ———— Total 642

Thus it appears that Josephus, or his corrupter, conscious that by the omission of the Second Cainan, he had curtailed the length of the true age of the world, has compensated for this generation, by enlarging the Postdiluvian _biennial period_, the Antepaidogonian age of Nahor, the reign of Solomon, and the extent of the Hierarchal age; for, we shall see that by the summation of the different ages as we have now determined them from the Antiquities, we obtain the true period from the Creation to the Christian Era, viz. 5478 years!

The extent of the _Sixth age_ according to Theophilus, is obtained from the following extracts: “The 70 years being finished, Cyrus king of the Persians, in the 2d year of his reign,” proclaimed the return of the Jews; “then, Cyrus having reigned 29 years died,” U. C. 220; “at which time Tarquin surnamed Superbus began to reign” at Rome, “who reigned 25 years. After whom, the Consuls and Tribunes reigned 453 years.” To these, succeeded the Emperors, “First Caius Julius, 3 years, 4 months, 6 days; then Augustus, 56 years, 4 months, 1 day.”[130] From these extracts, it is evident that Theophilus reckoned 54 years from the end of the Jewish captivity to the Regifugium at Rome; and 46 years from the beginning of the Roman Empire to the Christian Era.[131] Thus, according to Theophilus, the whole extent of this period is 623 years; and consequently, the period from Creation to the Christian era, 5507 years. We obtain the extent of the _Sixth age_ according to Africanus, from the following fragments of his work:—“For after the 70th year of the captivity, Cyrus having sent” the Jews to rebuild the temple, “we find the kingdom of the Persians extending to 230 years, and that of the Macedonians to 300 years; and thence to the 16th year of Tiberius Cæsar, 60 years.” Again, “the whole time of the Macedonian empire, was 300 years wanting 2,” from its commencement till its termination with Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies, in the 14th year of the Roman monarchy;—“all the years from Adam being 5472.”[132] Here, Africanus appears to have forgotten himself, and after saying that the period of the Grecian Empire was 298 years, he still reckons it 300, and thus obtains the number of 5472 years from the Creation. Taking 298 years for the correct period of that Empire, and 30 years as the true interval from its termination to the Christian era, we have 628 years for the extent of the _Sixth age_, according to this chronographer; and consequently, the whole period from the Creation to the Christian era, 5500 years.

The extent and intervals of the _Sixth age_ according to Eusebius in his Chronicon, were obtained from the same sources as before, see p. 286. He dates the proclamation of Cyrus in the 30th year of the Captivity, and his death in the 60th year. He next dates the 70th year of the Captivity in the 2nd of Darius Hystaspes, and thus annihilates 40 years of the Persian Empire before that epoch; consequently, only 190 years remained after it, as he reckons the whole period 230 years. He next reckons 6 years of the reign of Alexander the Great, independently of the Grecian Empire, which he estimates at 295 years under the Ptolemies; thus making the whole period of the Macedo-Grecian empire 301 years. Lastly, he dates the Birth of Christ in the 42d year of Augustus Cæsar, his 15th year being reckoned coincident with the 22d of Cleopatra, the last of the Ptolemies; hence, the period from the end of the Grecian Empire to the Christian era, is 27 years, and the extent of the whole period under discussion, 588 years. Thus Eusebius, by an admixture of the Hebrew and Septuagint Chronologies in his Canon, makes the period from Creation to the Christian era, 5199 years. The intervals and extent of the _Sixth age_, according to the author of the Paschal Chronicle, were obtained from his work, see p. 286. He follows Eusebius in his epochs of the 1st of Cyrus and the end of the Captivity; but he reckons the whole period of the Persian Empire at 246 years, and thus makes the remainder 206 years after the Captivity. He estimates the period of the Grecian Empire at 296 years, including Alexander; and the reign of Augustus Cæsar as sole Emperor, at 44 years; thus making the period from the end of the Grecian empire to the birth of Christ 29 years, and the extent of the whole period in question, 601 years. According to this author, therefore, by the summation of his periods the number of years from the Creation to the Christian era, is 5512; but he states it himself at 5507 years. He seems to have obtained this period, by annihilating 2 years in the extent of the 4th age and 3 years in that of the 5th age, in order to make it coincide with that of Theophilus.

The following table exhibits the summation of the _Six ages_ of the world, according to their extent, as determined in the preceding pages, from the works of the ancient chronographers; including those of the Septuagint, with the _Sixth age_ as determined by the Canon of Ptolemy.

TABLE X. MUNDANE SEPTUAGINT. JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. AGES. CHRON. Years. Years. Years. Years. Years. Years. First 2262 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262 Second 1147 1068 1011 1015 1017 1145 Third 431 430 645 430 430 430 Fourth 612 612 541 745 480 632 Fifth 439 470 445 420 442 442 Sixth 587 642 623 628 588 601 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— Total 5478 5478 5507 5500 5199 5512

The following table exhibits the summation of the different periods into which the four Christian chronographers subdivide the Great Mundane period, from Creation to the Era of Redemption.

TABLE XI.

1. _Eras and Intervals according to Theophilus._[133]

Years. From Creation to the Flood 2242 From the Flood to Abraham 1036 From Abraham to Moses 660 From Moses to David 498 From David to the Captivity 518 From the Captivity to Aurelius 744 ———— From Creation to Aurelius 5698 From the Christian Era to Aurelius 191 ———— From Creation to the Christian Era 5507

2. _Eras and Intervals according to Africanus._[134]

Years. From Adam to the Flood 2262 From the Flood to Abraham 1015 From Abraham to Joseph 286 From Joseph to Eli 729 From Eli to the Captivity of the Ten Tribes 458 From the Captivity to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ 781 ———— 5531 From the Birth to the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ 31 ———— From Adam to the Christian Era 5500

3. _Eras and Intervals according to Eusebius._[135]

Years. From Adam to the Flood 2242 From the Flood to Abraham and Ninus 942 From Ninus to Moses and Cecrops 505 From Cecrops to the Fall of Troy 329 From the Fall of Troy to the 1st Olympiad 406 From the 1st Olympiad to Darius 256 From Darius to the 15th of Tiberius 548 ———— From Adam to the 15th of Tiberius 5228 From the Nativity to the 15th of Tiberius 29 ———— From Adam to the Christian Era 5199

4. _Eras and Intervals according to the Paschal Chronicle._[136]

Years. From Adam to the Flood 2262 From the Flood to the Exodus 1575 From the Exodus to the Temple 614 From the Temple to Cyrus 480 From Cyrus to Alexander 249 From Alexander to the 15th of Tiberius 356 ———— From Adam to the 15th of Tiberius 5536 From the Nativity to the 15th of Tiberius 29 ———— From Adam to the Christian Era 5507

We shall now conclude this work, with a Chronological Table of the principal epochs and events from the Creation of the World to the Advent of our Saviour. The epochs of Sacred History determined according to the true Chronology, are printed in Roman letters, and the epochs of Profane History in _Italics_. In the former, Cuninghame is our best authority; in the latter, Clinton, with occasional reference to Russell, or Hales. Some dates that seem to be well founded, are taken from Julius Africanus. The epochs marked with a Star are either traditional or conjectural. The Critarchates, Reigns, Missions, Commissions, &c., are all dated at their respective commencements; and the extent of each of the two former may be determined from the table, by taking the difference of the dates of any two consecutive Critarchates or Reigns.

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.

FIRST AGE OF THE WORLD.

A.M. B.C. −21 _Traditional Epoch of the Creation_ 5500 −21 *_Higher Astronomical Epoch of the Brahmins_ 5500 1 True Epoch of the Creation 5478 100 *Death of Abel 5379 230 Birth of Seth 5249 435 Birth of Enos 5044 625 Birth of Cainan I. 4854 765 _Chronological Epoch of the Julian Period_ 4714 795 Birth of Mahalaleel 4684 931 Death of Adam 4548 960 Birth of Jared 4519 1070 *Apostacy of the Sons of God 4409 1086 _Samaritan Epoch of the Creation_ 4393 1122 Birth of Enoch 4357 1142 Death of Seth 4337 1179 _Lower Astronomical Epoch of the Brahmins_ 4300 1286 *Astronomical Revelations of Uriel 4193 1287 Birth of Methuseleh 4192 1340 Death of Enos 4139 1406 _Astronomical Epoch of Laplace_ 4073 1474 Birth of Lamech 4005 1475 _Hebrew-Usher Epoch of Creation_ 4004 1487 Translation of Enoch 3992 1535 Death of Cainan I. 3944 1662 Birth of Noah 3817 1690 Death of Mahalaleel 3789 1719 _Modern Jewish Epoch of Creation_ 3760 1922 Death of Jared 3557 2142 Prediction of the Flood 3337 2162 Birth of Japhet or _Iapetus_ 3317 2164 Birth of Shem 3315 2165 Birth of Ham 3314 2227 Death of Lamech 3252 2256 Death of Methuselah 3223 2256 _Flavian Epoch of the Flood_ 3223 2262 True Epoch of the Flood 3217

SECOND AGE OF THE WORLD.

2263 Descent of Noah from the Ark 3216 2263 First appearance of the Rainbow 3216 2264 Birth of Arphaxad 3215 2377 _Hindoo Epoch of the Calyougham_ 3102 2399 Birth of Cainan II. 3080 2401 First Jubilee of Jubilees from Creation 3078 2526 _Chinese Epoch of Fohi_ 2953 2529 Birth of Salah 2950 2579 _Foundation of Egypt by Mizraim_ 2900 2612 Death of Noah 2867 2659 Birth of Eber 2820 2764 Death of Shem 2715 2793 Birth of Peleg or Phalec 2686 2802 Death of Arphaxad 2677 2859 Death of Cainan II. 2620 2923 Birth of Reu or Ragau 2556 2962 Death of Salah 2517 3018 _Chinese Epoch of Tchouen-Hiu_ 2461 3055 Birth of Serug 2424 3063 Death of Eber 2416 3079 *Foundation of Babel 2400 3081 *Confusion of Tongues 2398 3081 *Division of the Earth 2398 3122 _Chinese Epoch of Yao_ 2357 3132 Death of Peleg 2347 3152 _Foundation of Memphis by Menes_ 2327 3185 Birth of Nahor 2294 3249 *Birth of Job 2236 3246 _Babylon taken by the Medes_ 2233 3246 _Chaldean Astronomical Epoch_ 2233 3262 Death of Reu 2217 3264 Birth of Terah 2215 3297 _Foundation of the Assyrian Monarchy_ 2182 3334 Birth of Abraham 2145 3343 *Trial of Job 2136 3385 Death of Serug 2094 3406 *Abraham arrives in Haran 2073 3409 Death of Terah 2070 3409 True Epoch of the Call of Abraham 2070

THIRD AGE OF THE WORLD.

3410 Descent of Abraham to Egypt 2069 3418 Canaan promised to Abraham 2061 3420 Birth of Ishmael 2059 3433 Covenant of Circumcision 2046 3433 Destruction of Sodom 2046 3434 Birth of Isaac 2045 3471 Death of Sarah 2008 3474 Marriage of Isaac 2005 3483 *Death of Job 1996 3494 Birth of Jacob and Esau 1985 3509 Death of Abraham 1970 3522 _Foundation of Sicyon_ 1957 3534 Marriage of Esau 1935 3557 Death of Ishmael 1922 3571 Jacob goes to Padan-aram 1908 3571 Marriage of Jacob 1908 3572 Birth of Reuben 1907 3574 Birth of Simeon 1905 3575 Birth of Levi 1904 3576 Birth of Judah 1903 3587 _Foundation of the Assyrian Empire_ 1892 3591 Jacob returns to Canaan 1888 3598 Birth of Benjamin 1881 3602 Joseph carried into Egypt 1877 3614 Death of Isaac 1865 3615 Joseph made Regent of Egypt 1864 3616 First Year of Plenty 1863 3622 Birth of Kohath 1857 3624 Eisodus of Jacob into Egypt 1855 3641 Death of Jacob 1838 3684 Birth of Amram 1795 3695 Death of Joseph 1784 3712 Death of Levi 1767 3726 _Descent of Phoroneus_ 1753 3755 Death of Kohath 1724 3756 Birth of Aaron 1723 3759 Birth of Moses 1720 3787 _Foundation of Argos_ 1692 3799 Moses flies to Midian 1680 3837 _Flood of Ogyges_ 1642 3840 True Epoch of the Exodus 1639

FOURTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

3840 The Law proclaimed at Sinai 1639 3879 Death of Aaron and Moses 1600 3880 Passage of the Jordan 1599 3886 Division of Canaan by Lot 1593 3896 Death of Joshua 1583 3894 _Foundation of Athens_ 1585 3907 First Servitude of Israel 1572 3915 Critarchate of Othniel 1564 3955 Second Servitude 1524 3973 Critarchate of Ehud 1506 3988 _Indian Astronomical Epoch_ 1491 4013 _Descent of Danaus and Pelasgus_ 1466 4043 _Flood of Deucalion_ 1436 4043 Third Servitude 1426 4073 Critarchate of Deborah and Barak 1406 4096 _Reign of Dardanus and Erectheus_ 1383 4113 Fourth Servitude 1366 4119 _The Sphere of Chiron or Musæus_ 1360 4120 Critarchate of Gideon 1359 4146 _Azan, Aphidas and Elatus, in Arcadia_ 1333 4160 Critarchate of Abimelech 1319 4163 Critarchate of Tolah 1316 4166 _Descent of Cadmus_ 1313 4186 Critarchate of Jair 1293 4196 _Descent of Pelops_ 1283 4208 Fifth Servitude 1271 4218 _Birth of Hercules_ 1261 4226 Critarchate of Jephthah 1253 4232 Critarchate of Ibzan 1247 4239 Critarchate of Elon 1240 4249 Critarchate of Abdon 1230 4254 _Argonautic Expedition_ 1225 4257 Sixth Servitude 1222 4266 _First Theban War_ 1213 4292 _Destruction of Troy_ 1184 4297 Critarchate of Eli 1182 4303 _Reign of Orestes at Argos_ 1176 4337 Seventh Servitude 1142 4355 _Æolic Migration_ 1124 4357 Critarchate of Samuel 1122 4369 Reign of Saul 1110 4375 _Return of the Heraclidæ_ 1104 2227 Death of Lamech 3252 4379 Birth of David 1100 4405 _Reign of Aletes at Corinth_ 1074 4409 Reign of David 1070 4417 Capture of Jerusalem 1062 4435 _Ionic Migration_ 1044 4449 Reign of Solomon 1030 4452 Foundation of Solomon’s Temple 1027

FIFTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

4459 Completion of Solomon’s Temple 1020 4464 _Foundation of Smyrna_ 1015 4489 Revolt of the Ten Tribes of Israel 990 4489 Reign of Jeroboam and Rehoboam 990 4492 Lapse of the Twelve Tribes into Idolatry 987 4494 Invasion of Shishak 985 4506 Reign of Abijah 973 4509 Reign of Asa 970 4511 Reign of Nadab 968 4512 Reign of Baasha 967 4517 _Acme of Homer_ 962 4520 Asa defeats the Ethiopians 959 4535 Reign of Ela 944 4536 Reigns of Zimri and Omri 943 4537 _Acme of Hesiod_ 942 4540 Foundation of Samaria 939 4546 Reign of Ahab 933 4550 Reign of Jehoshaphat 929 4553 Jehoshaphat appoints Judges 926 4555 Mission of Elijah 924 4558 Destruction of the Prophets of Baal 921 4568 Reign of Ahaziah 911 4569 Translation of Elijah 910 4569 Mission of Elisha 910 4570 Reign of Joram 909 4575 Reign of Jehoram 904 4581 Reign of Ahaziah 898 4582 Reigns of Athaliah and Jehu 897 4588 Reign of Jehoash 891 4595 _Olympiad of Iphitus_ 884 4604 Mission of Jonah 875 4610 Reign of Jehoahaz 869 4627 Death of Elisha 852 4627 Reign of Joash 852 4628 Reign of Amaziah 851 4633 Reign of Jeroboam II. 836 4657 Interregnum in Judah 822 4669 Reign of Uzziah 810 4684 Interregnum in Israel 795 4684 Missions of Hosea and Amos 795 4703 _Era of the Olympiads_ 776 4706 Reigns of Zechariah and Shallum 773 4708 Invasion of Pul 771 4718 Reign of Pekahiah 761 4719 Mission of Isaiah 760 4720 Reign of Pekah 759 4721 Reign of Jotham 758 4726 _Foundation of Rome_ 753 4729 Mission of Micah 750 4732 _Era of Nabonassar_ 747 4737 Reign of Ahaz 742 4739 Captivity of the Transjordanic Tribes 740 4740 Interregnum in Israel 739 4745 _Foundation of Syracuse_ 734 4750 Reign of Hoshea 729 4752 Mission of Nahum 727 4753 Reign of Hezekiah 726 4758 Captivity of the Ten Tribes 721 4766 Invasion of Sennacherib 713 4767 Destruction of the Assyrian Army 712 4768 _Revolt of the Medes_ 711 4782 Reign of Manasseh 697 4792 _Foundation of the Median Empire_ 687 4796 _Creon First Annual Archon at Athens_ 683 4802 Captivity of Manasseh 677 4802 Second Jubilee of Jubilees from Creation 677 4802 Captivity of the Remnant of Israel 677 4822 _Foundation of Byzantium_ 657 4837 Reign of Amon 642 4839 Reign of Josiah 640 4840 _Birth of Thales_ 639 4850 Josiah reforms the Land 629 4851 Mission of Jeremiah 628 4856 The Book of the Law found 623 4856 Mission of Zephaniah 623 4858 _Legislation of Draco_ 621 4859 Missions of Joel and Habakkuk 620 4863 Reign of Pharaoh Necho 616 4867 Destruction of Nineveh 612 4868 _The acme of Sappho_ 611 4869 Reign of Jehoahaz 610 4869 _Birth of Anaximander_ 610 4870 Reign of Jehoiakim 609 4873 Reign of Nebuchadnezzar 606 4873 Era of the Babylonish Captivity 606 4874 First Vision of Nebuchadnezzar 605 4876 Rebellion of Jehoiakim 603 4876 _Epoch of the Eclipse of Thales_ 603 4880 Reign of Jehoiachin 599 4881 1st year of Jehoiachin’s Captivity 598 4881 Reign of Zedekiah 598 4884 _Birth of Crœsus_ 595 4885 Mission of Ezekiel 594 4885 _Legislation of Solon_ 594 4889 Siege of Jerusalem 590 4891 Destruction of Solomon’s Temple 588

SIXTH AGE OF THE WORLD.

4891 The BABYLONIAN or ASSYRIAN EMPIRE 588 4893 _Celebration of the Pythian games_ 586 4893 _Era of the Seven Sages of Greece_ 586 4907 _Acme of Esop_ 572 4918 Reign of Evil Merodach 561 4937 Release of Jehoiachin 562 4920 _Reign of Neriglissar_ 559 4920 _Reign of Cyrus in Persia_ 559 4924 Reign of Nabonadius or Belshazzar 555 4924 The First Vision of Daniel 555 4924 The Second Vision of Daniel 557 4931 _Anaximenes flourished_ 548 4931 Cyrus takes Sardis 548 4939 _Pythagoras flourished_ 540 4941 Cyrus takes Babylon 538 4941 _Xenophanes flourished_ 538 4941 Reign of Darius the Mede 538 4941 The Third Vision of Daniel 538 4943 MEDO-PERSIAN EMPIRE 536 4943 1st year of Cyrus the Persian 536 4943 Commission of Zerubbabel and Joshua 536 4944 Foundation of the Second Temple 535 4945 The Fourth Vision of Daniel 534 4948 _Anacreon flourished_ 531 4950 Reign of Cambyses or Ahasuerus 529 4954 _Cambyses conquers Egypt_ 525 4954 _Birth of Æschylus_ 525 4957 _Usurpation of the Persian Throne_ 522 4958 Reign of Darius Hystaspes 521 4959 Missions of Haggai and Zechariah 520 4959 The Second Temple re-founded 520 4961 _Birth of Pindar_ 518 4963 The Destruction of Babylon 516 4963 The Second Temple completed 516 4970 _The Roman Regifugium_ 509 4971 _Expulsion of the Pisistratidæ_ 510 4979 _Birth of Anaxagoras_ 508 4984 _Birth of Sophocles_ 495 4989 _The Battle of Marathon_ 490 4994 Reign of Xerxes the Great 485 4995 _Birth of Herodotus_ 484 4996 _Ostracism of Aristides_ 483 4999 _Battle of Salamis_ 480 4999 _Birth of Euripides_ 480 5008 _Birth of Thucydides_ 471 5011 _Birth of Socrates_ 468 5015 Reign of Artaxerxes Longimanus 464 5015 _Zeno flourished_ 464 5019 _Births of Democritus and Hippocrates_ 460 5021 The Commission of Ezra 458 5021 The 1st Week of Daniel begins 458 5024 _Empedocles flourished_ 455 5028 _The Roman Decemviri_ 451 5030 _Restoration of the Consuls_ 449 5034 The Commission of Nehemiah 445 5035 _Military Tribunes at Rome_ 444 5046 Nehemiah returns to Artaxerxes 433 5047 _Meton flourished_ 432 5048 _The Peloponnessian War_ 431 5049 Mission of Malachi 430 5050 _Birth of Plato_ 429 5051 _Aristophanes flourished_ 428 5055 Close of the Old Testament Canon 424 5056 Reign of Darius Nothus 423 5070 The 7th Week of Daniel ends 409 5075 Reign of Artaxerxes Mnemon 404 5075 _Lysander takes Athens_ 404 5078 _The Anabasis of Xenophon_ 401 5081 _Ctesias flourished_ 398 5089 _Rome burnt by the Gauls_ 390 5095 _Birth of Aristotle_ 384 5108 _Battle of Leuctra_ 371 5111 _Eudoxus flourished_ 368 5113 _Consuls restored at Rome_ 366 5119 The 14th Week of Daniel ends 360 5120 _The accession of Philip_ 359 5121 Reign of Ochus 358 5123 _Birth of Alexander the Great_ 356 5138 _Birth of Epicurus_ 341 5139 _Demosthenes flourished_ 340 5141 _Battle of Chæronea_ 338 5142 Reign of Arses 337 5143 _Reign of Alexander in Macedon_ 336 5144 Reign of Darius Codomannus 335 5145 _Alexander crosses the Hellespont_ 334 5147 Tyre taken by Alexander 332 5147 _Alexandria founded_ 332 5148 _Battle of Arbela_ 331 5150 MACEDO-GRECIAN EMPIRE 329 5156 Death of Alexander 323 5159 Ptolemy takes Jerusalem 320 5168 The 21st Week of Daniel ends 311 5167 Era of the Seleucidæ or Contracts 312 5174 _Reign of Ptolemy Lagus_ 305 5180 _Arcesilaus flourished_ 299 5194 _Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus_ 285 5199 Reign of Antiochus Soter 280 5200 _Irruption of the Gauls into Greece_ 279 5202 Epoch of the Septuagint Version 277 5215 _First Punic War_ 264 5217 The 28th Week of Daniel ends 262 5218 Reign of Antiochus Theus 261 5232 _Reign of Ptolemy Evergetes_ 247 5233 Reign of Seleucus Callinicius 246 5238 _Sicily ceded to Rome_ 241 5254 Reign of Seleucus Ceraunus 225 5256 Reign of Antiochus the Great 223 5257 _Reign of Ptolemy Philopator_ 222 5261 _Second Punic War_ 218 5263 _Battle of Cannæ_ 216 5266 The 35th Week of Daniel ends 213 5274 _Reign of Ptolemy Epiphanes_ 205 5289 _The Romans cross the Hellespont_ 190 5292 Reign of Seleucus Philopator 187 5298 _Reign of Ptolemy Philometor_ 181 5304 Reign of Antiochus Epiphanes 175 5304 Antiochus persecutes the Jews 10 years 175 5304 End of the Jewish Hierarchy 175 5309 Antiochus sacks Jerusalem 170 5311 _Macedon subdued by the Romans_ 168 5312 Martyrdom of the Maccabees 167 5313 The Asamonean Dynasty 166 5313 Reign of Judas Maccabeus 166 5315 Reign of Antiochus Eupator 164 5315 The 42d Week of Daniel ends 164 5317 Reign of Demetrius Soter 162 5318 The Jews allied with the Romans 161 5329 Reign of Alexander Balas 150 5330 _Third Punic War_ 149 5333 Reign of Demetrius Nicator 146 5333 _Reign of Ptolemy Physcon_ 146 5333 _Destruction of Carthage_ 146 5336 Reign of Antiochus VI. Epiphanes 143 5337 Reign of Trypho 142 5341 Reign of Antiochus Sidetes 138 5351 2d Reign of Demetrius Nicator 128 5354 Reign of Alexander Zebina 125 5356 Reign of Antiochus Grypus 123 5362 _Reign of Ptolemy Soter_ 117 5364 The 49th Week of Daniel ends 115 5374 _Africa made a Roman Province_ 105 5384 Reign of Seleucus Nicator 95 5387 Reign of Philip 92 5389 _Cicero flourished_ 90 5396 Reign of Tigranes 83 5397 _Sylla made Perpetual Dictator_ 82 5398 _Reign of Ptolemy Auletes_ 81 5410 _Birth of Virgil_ 69 5410 Reign of Antiochus Asiaticus 69 5413 The 56th Week of Daniel ends 66 5414 _Birth of Horace_ 65 5414 Syria made a Roman Province 65 5416 Jerusalem taken by Pompey 63 5419 _First Roman Triumvirate_ 60 5421 _Birth of Livy_ 58 5421 _Julius Cæsar invades Gaul_ 58 5425 _Julius Cæsar reduces Britain_ 54 5428 _Reign of Cleopatra_ 51 5431 _Battle of Pharsalia_ 48 5434 The 59th Week of Daniel ends 45 5434 _The Julian Era_ 45 5435 _Death of Julius Cæsar_ 44 5436 _Second Roman Triumvirate_ 43 5437 _The Battle of Philippi_ 42 5441 The 60th Week of Daniel ends 38 5441 _The Spanish Era_ 38 5442 Reign of Herod 37 5442 End of the Asamoneans 37 5448 The 61st Week of Daniel ends 31 5448 _The Battle of Actium_ 31 5449 _Egypt made a Roman Province_ 33 5449 THE ROMAN EMPIRE 30 5449 Reign of Augustus Cæsar 30 5452 _The Augustan Era_ 27 5455 The 62d Week of Daniel ends 24 5455 THE TEMPLE OF JANUS SHUT 24 5462 The 63d Week of Daniel ends 17 5462 The Temple at Jerusalem rebuilt by Herod 17 5476 The 65th Week of Daniel ends 3

5476 BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST 3

5478 Reign of Archelaus 1

A.D. 5478 VULGAR ERA OF CHRISTIANITY 1 5486 Judea made a Roman Province 8 5492 Reign of Tiberius Cesar 14 5504 The 69th Week of Daniel ends 26 5505 Pontius Pilate procurator of Judea 27 5506 BAPTISM OF CHRIST 28 5511 The 70th Week of Daniel ends 33

5511 THE CRUCIFIXION AND ASCENSION 33

5511 THE FIFTH EMPIRE 33

-----

Footnote 1:

‘Ο πᾶs χρόνος καὶ τὰ ἔτη δείκνυται, τοντοῖς βονλομένοῖς πείθεσθαι τῇ ἄληθείᾳ.—Theoph. ad Autol. Lib. III. p. 273, Oxon. 1684.

Footnote 2:

See his “Syntagma de Septuaginta,” p. 13, Lond. 1655, and his “Chronologia Sacra,” p. 46, Oxon. 1660. In our subsequent citations, these editions are followed; the latter is denominated “Opus Posthumum hucusque ἀνέκδοτον.”

Footnote 3:

This translation, which is from the Septuagint, may be considered as too free by some; but we conceive that it expresses the true meaning of the passage, which is not conveyed in our common version; for the earth abideth _not_ for ever!

Footnote 4:

The reader will find an explanation of Mr. Cuninghame’s argument in the second part of this Dissertation.

Footnote 5:

Revelation xiii. 17.

Footnote 6:

Ibid. xxii. 19.

Footnote 7:

Dr. Hales says, “The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, of the highest authority among the Jews, thus paraphrases Gen. iv. 25: ‘And Adam knew his wife when 130 years were completed after Abel was killed.’ And the same account is furnished by the Bereshith Rabba, More Nevochim, Midrash Tanchuma, Solomon Jarchi, Elias, and others of their principal writers.”—See his “Analysis of Chronology,” vol. i. p. 80. Indeed, the whole of the second article of the second section of his Introduction, is well worth perusal, being full of very curious and interesting matter, all tending powerfully to prove that the longer computation of the Septuagint was the true and original computation of the Hebrew text. His comparison of the Masorete and Samaritan texts in regard to Genesis xi. 10–32, is very valuable; see p. 82.

Footnote 8:

“Syntagma,” cap. iv. p. 34.

Footnote 9:

We refer here to the date of the division of the earth as determined by Mr. Cuninghame; see the Preface to his “Synopsis of Chronology,” pp. 18–22, and his “Fulness of the Times,” p. 44. In these works, he makes out that the division commenced in A. M. 3081 or B. C. 2398; that it continued during a jubilean period, or forty-nine years; and, of course, that it terminated in A. M. 3130, or B. C. 2349. We confess that we do not see the necessity of allowing so long a period for the division of the earth; and we think it more likely to have been finished than to have been begun at the former date.

Footnote 10:

This name is marked in this and the two following Tables, on account of its omission in the Hebrew and Samaritan texts.

Footnote 11:

Usher’s “Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vi. p. 87.

Footnote 12:

The citations from Dr. Hales’ work are referred to the 4to. edition, Lond. 1800–1812.

Footnote 13:

Collatio Codicis Cottoniani Gen seos, &c. Lond. 1778, p. xiii.

Footnote 14:

“Analysis of Chronology,” vol. i. p. 84.

Footnote 15:

“Chronologia Sacra,” cap. vii. p. 120.

Footnote 16:

It is remarkable that both Hales and Russell, notwithstanding their acknowledged veneration for the Holy Scriptures, have chosen to follow the testimony of Josephus, in regard to the extent of the first two ages of the world; but “their witness agrees not together;” for the former makes it 3333 years, and the latter 3403 years!

Footnote 17:

See the Prefaces to the “Synopsis of Chronology;” the “Chronology of Israel;” the “Hebrew and Septuagint Chronologies Tried;” the “Scientific Chronology of the year 1839,” and its Supplement; and the “Season of the End.”

Footnote 18:

“History of the World,” pp. 228, 277.

Footnote 19:

The Eulerian ratio here referred to, is that the numbers of mankind are doubled every 12⅘ years. Now, in 90 years, the doubling would occur about 7 times, which would occasion the original number to be increased 128 times; because the 7th power of 2 is 128. Hence, 50,000 multiplied by 128, gives 6,400,000, which is nearly 6½ millions. If the calculation be performed with the greatest mathematical nicety, the result will only be 6,540,256, which is rather more than 6½ millions.

Footnote 20:

The pretensions of any nation to a remote antiquity could only arise from ignorance of the sacred records, and of the true traditions of its ancestors, or from a bold disbelief of both. The Jews cannot be charged with either of these, their character being remarkably the reverse until Christ came. Hence we cannot suppose that the Seventy Interpreters would wilfully shut their eyes to the glaring facts, that the true age of the world was well known to their countrymen, that many of them were then living in the hope of the fulfilment of the prophecies concerning the Messiah, and that they were then accustomed “to calculate the times.” Any attempt on their part, therefore, to increase that age by 1500 years, would have been looked upon with abhorrence; nor could they hope to escape detection and severe reprobation; unless, indeed, we can suppose that they had assembled all the Jews “from every nation under heaven,” and made them privy to the transaction! Before the advent, therefore, such an alteration in the sacred text was impossible; but after that event it was not only possible, but actually took place, not in the _Greek_ but in the _Hebrew_, the former being read all over the world, but the latter being confined to the Jewish synagogue.

Footnote 21:

Chronologia Sacra, pp. 162 and 171.

Footnote 22:

Although the extent of the _third_ age is clearly established by the reference of Paul to the period of 430 years, from the confirmation of the covenant to Abraham to the promulgation of the law from Mount Sinai, yet it will be satisfactory to observe, that the passage cited from the book of Exodus originally stood as follows:—“And the sojourning of the children of Israel, _which they and their fathers_ sojourned in the land of Egypt _and in the land of Canaan_, was 430 years. And it came to pass, after the 430 years, that all the host of the Lord went out of the land of Egypt _by night_;” see the Septuagint, Alexandrine edition, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, Exod. xii. 40, 41. The words in Italics in this passage are omitted in the Hebrew text, and the words “_even the self-same day_,” are interpolated. That this is an interpolation is quite evident, for even in the Hebrew, in the very next verse, we are _twice_ told that “It is a _night_ much to be observed unto the Lord,” for this great deliverance. Thus, by the testimony of _three_ witnesses against _one_, the true reading is established. Nevertheless, Archbishop Usher calls the passage just cited from the Septuagint a _paraphrastic explanation_ of the words of Moses; and he says that the corresponding passage in the Samaritan text is _interpolated_ from the Greek version!—“Chronologia Sacra,” cap. viii. p. 127. Biblical critics and commentators, in general, _now_ admit that these texts have preserved the _true reading_; see the note on this passage, by the editor of the Religious Tract Society’s Commentary on the Bible, from Henry and Scott. Mr. Clinton also very properly defends the right _interpretation_ of the passage; for he says, “some modern writers have very unreasonably doubted this portion of the Hebrew chronology;” see “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. page 299.

Footnote 23:

The following is the passage as written by Origen, in his commentary on the Gospel of St. John:—γέγραπται γὰρ έν τῃ τρίτῃ τῶν βασιλειων, ὡς ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ ξύλα τρισὶν ἔτεσιν· ἐν δὲ τῳ τεταρτῳ ετει, μηνι δευτέρῳ, βασιλεύοντος τοῦ βασιλέως Σολομὼντος ἐπὶ Ισραήλ, ἐνετείλατο ὁ βασιλέυς, κ.τ.λ.; which reads thus:—_It is written in the third [book] of Kings, so they prepared stones and timber for three years; and in the fourth year, in the second month, of the reign of King Solomon over Israel, the king commanded, &c._ 1 Kings v. 18; and vi. 1.

Footnote 24:

Mr. Cuninghame’s remarks on Usher’s system, in his “Synopsis of Chronology,” pp. 18–20, are very appropriate. We are forced to abridge them as follows:—“I have in my former works, shown that the learned prelate’s Chronology of this period is _manufactured_; and in this conclusion I have the support of the most eminent writers, including the names of Hales, Kennicott, Dr. Russell, Mr. Clinton, added to the whole of the ancient chronographers. The latest attempt made to prop up or patch his system as a whole, is that of the author of the Chapter on Chronology, in the last edition of Mr. Bickersteth’s _Guide to the Prophecies_. But while this learned chronographer thus sets his seal to the almost _exact truth_ of Usher’s _sum total_ of years, he no less sets his seal to the fact that Usher has _filled up_ the period by a _false chronology_. According to this learned writer, it is therefore undeniable that Usher’s chronology of the period from the Exodus to the first of Solomon is, as to its _particulars_, manufactured and erroneous. Now it is quite a fair question to Mr. Bickersteth and his friend, to ask them by what arithmetical process they have found out that the scheme which they thus bear testimony to be _false_ as to its _particulars_, is yet _true_ as to its _sum total_. Is it a newly discovered principle that many falsehoods make one truth? As to the scheme of particulars substituted for that of Usher in these tables, it is like that of the learned prelate himself, utterly opposed to the narrative and testimony of the book of Judges. There is one part of the scheme, however, which merits even more severe animadversion. The author of the Table makes the period in Acts xiii. 20, expire at the return of the ark from Kirjathjearim. Are we then to conclude that he has clipped down St. Paul’s 450 to 350? I can see no other mode of explaining his calculation.”

Footnote 25:

This is the Hebrew title of the most famous Jewish work on chronology, and signifies “The Great Chronicle of the World.” Dr. Hales says, “This was the first curtailed system of Jewish chronology, fabricated by Rabbi _Josi_, under the auspices of Rabbi _Akiba_, the abettor of the rebel-impostor _Barchochab_, A.D. 130, in the reign of Adrian.”—See his “Analysis,” p. 13.

Footnote 26:

“I have endeavoured to shew,” says Mr. Cuninghame, in the former of the places cited, “that the periods of 390 and 40 mystic _days_, during which Ezekiel was commanded to lie on his sides, bearing the iniquity of Judah and Israel, are a period of 430 _years_, computed from the finishing of the Temple, B.C. 1020, to the beginning of the siege of Jerusalem, B.C. 590. But it now appears to me that the 430 years may with equal probability be computed from the first Passover in the Temple. The dedication was in the month Tisri of B.C. 1019, which is exactly 91 jubilees from the creation; the first Passover was therefore in Nisan B.C. 1018, whence to the taking of the city in Ab B.C. 588, are 430 years and three months; and computing back from B.C. 588, the second period of 40 years, it brings us to B.C. 628, the 13th of Josiah, and the very year, according to Prideaux, of the commission of Jeremiah. * * * Whether, therefore, we compute the period of 430 years from the finishing of the Temple B.C. 1020, to the _beginning of the siege_ B.C. 590, or as above, from the first Passover to the _taking of the city_, it comes out with equal exactness.”

Footnote 27:

See a full account of this Canon, in Dr. Hales’ “Analysis,” vol. i. pp. 275–288; and a short account of it, in the “Breviarium Chronologicum” of Strauchius, translated by Sault, pp. 262–264, 3rd edition, Lond. 1745.

Footnote 28:

See his “Chart of Sacred Chronology.”

Footnote 29:

See his “Apology, &c.,” translated by the Rev. T. Chevallier, B.D., p. 221, Cambridge, 1833.

Footnote 30:

Mr. Cuninghame says that “Mr. Gresswell produces a mass of quotations from the Fathers, scarcely two of whom entirely agree, to prove that they nearly all held that our Lord’s death was in one of the years 29 or 30, [A. M. 5507 or 5508], or some of them in 31, [A. M. 5509]; yet with respect to some of his witnesses, he is obliged to exclaim, ‘_So little solicitous do these writers seem to be about verifying their dates, before they allowed them to remain on record_.’ If he were to give us 100 volumes of such passages to wade through, which is merely wading through a mass of contradictions, they can avail nothing against the unequivocal testimony of St. Luke, that in the 15th of Tiberius our Lord was 30 years of age, and was therefore born in B. C. 3, [A. M. 5476]; and the other fact, founded on the unerring principles of Astronomy, that from the year 28 to 33, [A. M. 5506 to 5511], no Passover could possibly have fallen on a Friday; and, therefore, the death of our Lord is pinned down to A. D. 33, [A. M. 5511].” “Season of the End,” p. 85.

Footnote 31:

Jerome even went further than this, and adopted the curtailed system of the Jews in some of his writings, if not in all.

Footnote 32:

The Birth of Christ took place according to

_The Septuagint._

In the 5476th year from Creation; the 3215th from the Deluge; the 2143d from the birth of Abraham; the 1637th from the Exodus; and the 1068th from the accession of David; the 65th prophetic week of Daniel; the 193d Olympiad; the 751st year of Rome; and the 42d of Augustus.

_The Hebrew Text._

In the 4000th year from the Creation; the 2344th from the Deluge; the 1992d from the birth of Abraham; the 1487th from the Exodus; and the 1051st from the accession of David; the 65th prophetic week of Daniel; the 193d Olympiad; the 749th year of Rome; and the 40th of Augustus.

Footnote 33:

Rabbi _Salomon Jarchi_, qui nous a donné l’explication de cette tradition, dit que les deux mille ans de _Tohu_, ou d’_Inanité_, ont duré depuis la création du monde jusque vers la cinquante ou soixantième année d’Abraham, et que les deux milles ans de Loi ont commencé vers ce tems-la, lorsque Dieu le fit sortir de Chaldeé, et lui donna des lois pour lui et pour toute sa posterité, principalement celle de la circoncision; et qu’ils ont fini vers la destruction de Jérusalem par Titus. Il ajoute enfin ces paroles: _Mais nos péchés sont la cause que le Messie n’est point venu au bout des quatre mille ans_. p. 1527.

Footnote 34:

The rules for the determination of the approximating ratios of any two numbers by the method of _Continued Fractions_, are very clearly explained, on _Algebraical_ principles in _Hind’s Algebra_, 5th edition, pp. 273–292; and, on _Arithmetical_ principles in _Thomson’s Arithmetic_, 16th edition, pp. 241–246. We subjoin the operation, as much abridged as possible, by which the preceding series of fractions was obtained. Reducing the above lengths of the year and the month into seconds, we have the numbers 31556929·7 and 2551442·87; hence,

2 255144287 3155692970 12 187923052 3061731444 ————————— ————————— 2 67221235 93961526 1 53480582 67221235 ————————— ————————— 1 13740653 26740291 1 12999638 13740653 ————————— ————————— 1 741015 12999638 17 402383 12597255 ————————— ————————— 338632 402383 1 &c.

Quotients, 12, 2, 1, 2, 1, 1, 17, 1, 1, &c. Ratios, ¹⁄₁₂, ²⁄₂₅, ³⁄₃₇, ⁸⁄₉₉, ¹¹⁄₁₃₆, ¹⁹⁄₂₃₅, ³³⁴⁄₄₁₃₁, ³⁵³⁄₄₃₆₆, ⁶⁸⁷⁄₈₄₉₇, &c.

Unmathematical readers will find a much more simple, but of course, a more lengthened explanation, of these ratios in Mr. Cuninghame’s “Synopsis of Chronology,” pp. 6–10, and 54–60.

Footnote 35:

We have much satisfaction in giving the following abridgement of the remarks of Mr. Birks, on this interesting subject; pp. 371, 372. Thus, he says, “A fresh light is thrown upon the words of the Psalmist, _He appointed the moon for seasons_. A divine ladder of time is set before us, and, as we rise successively from step to step, days are replaced by years, and years by millenia; and these, perhaps, hereafter, in their turn, by some higher unit, from which the soul of man may measure out cycles still more vast, and obtain a wider view of the immeasurable grandeur of eternity. Human science has strained its utmost efforts in calculating the actual motions of the Moon and the Earth; but the determining causes which fixed at first the proportion of their monthly and yearly revolutions have altogether eluded its research. Yet these elements of the natural universe are linked in, by these sacred times and celestial cycles, with the deepest wonders of Providence, and the whole range of Divine prophecy. How glorious, then, must be the inner shrine, lit up with the Shechinah of the Divine Presence, when the approaches themselves reveal such a secret and hidden wisdom!”

Footnote 36:

See his work “On the Jubilean Chronology of the Seventh Trumpet of the Apocalypse,” pp. 1–3, and 19–26.

Footnote 37:

Dr. Hales, in his “Analysis,” vol. ii. p. 1354, gives the following explanation of the “_enigmatical_ number of the name of the second _Beast_, in its second stage, after the _image_ was made,” from _Fuardentius_, an early Romish writer, followed by _Walmsley_. The number 666 is the numeral amount of [Mahomet] the _False Prophet’s_ name, written Μοαμετις or Μαομετις, by the Greek Historians _Zonaras_ and _Cedrenus_:—

Μ, Α, Ο, Μ, Ε, Τ, Ι, Σ. 40 + 1 + 70 + 40 + 5 + 300 + 10 + 200 = 666.

This is very curious, and indicates the strong likeness between _Popery_ and _Islamism_, in some grand point, namely, _the Spirit of Persecution_!! John xiii. 35. The following explanation of the number of the Beast, is taken from Mr. Cuninghame’s “Supplement to the Scientific Chronology of the year 1839,” pp. 28, 29. “In my Dissertation on the Seals, I have adopted the usual Protestant Solution and application of this number, as being found [first by Irenæus] in the name of LATINUS, the founder of the LATIN KINGDOM, written with the epsilon, Λατείνος, according to the ancient Greek orthography; or, if it be written without the ε, according to the later usage, then we owe to Mr. Clarke the important discovery, that is found in the name of the LATIN KINGDOM,—Ἡ Λατίνη Βασίλεία.

Λ = 30 Ἡ = 8 Β = 2 α = 1 α = 1 τ = 300 Λ = 30 σ = 200 ε = 5 α = 1 ι = 10 ι = 10 τ = 300 λ = 30 ν = 50 ι = 10 ε = 5 ο = 70 ν = 50 ι = 10 ς = 200 η = 8 α = 1 ———— ———— ———— 666 = 407 + 259

Now, without in the least departing from this interpretation, I remark, that while it correctly ascertains the PERSON or POWER to whom this number belongs, namely, THE LATIN EMPIRE, BOTH SECULAR AND SPIRITUAL; yet it does not COUNT or COMPUTE the number itself, or discover to us its ROOT in arithmetic. The expression, _Let him that hath understanding_ COUNT, “Ψηφισατω”, _the number of the Beast_, cannot mean to find the number itself, for this is given; nor does it merely signify to find out the name which expresses that number; but it also means that the root of the number must be found, and the number computed from it; and further, it signifies, I apprehend, that we must apply the number to the chronology of the Beast himself, in connection with that of the World, in which he exercises his dominion.”

Footnote 38:

See _Note A_. p. 130.

Footnote 39:

This abstract of his arguments was communicated to the author by Mr. Cuninghame.

Footnote 40:

See _Note B_. p. 132.

Footnote 41:

In L’Estrange’s Translation of Josephus, p. 10, he says “God commanded Eve to tread upon his [the Serpent’s] head, both as the fountain of all our woes, and as the part where he most easily receives a mortal wound.” Reland says “Quia interpres vetus hæc reddit, _ut mulier ejus capiti plagas inferret_, &c. Nulla apud Josephum est mentio mulieris, nec ullum hactenus codicem Josephi conspectum memini, in quo hoc loco mulier commemoratur.”—Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. page 8, note c.

Footnote 42:

For the accuracy of _this number_ we have the testimony of Josephus in two different places of his works, which have escaped the alterations made in the text of his Jewish Antiquities, by wicked and designing persons. See the Proœmium to that work, paragraph γ; and the Prologue to his first Book against Apion.

Footnote 43:

This eminent Prophet was favoured with a vision of God’s glory, which, though preceded by storm, and earthquake, and fire, was accompanied with a _still small voice_. This was the _voice_ of love and mercy, whose sweetest notes were heard at Calvary without the gate; for the Septuagint says, κακεῖ Κυριος, _and the Lord was there_; 1 Kings xix. 12.—See the Alexandrine edition.

Footnote 44:

A name of Apollo, or the Sun; hence, perhaps, Ορος, a _mountain_, because the _morning sun_ first appears on the mountain-tops.

Footnote 45:

This inversion, or _Metathesis_, is not uncommon in Hebrew, see Joshua xix. 50, and xxiv. 30, compared with Judges ii. 8, 9, where it occurs in this very word in composition.

Footnote 46:

“The construction of this sentence in the original, indicates that _Baal_ and the _Sun_ are to be considered as one and the same; for the copulative ‏‘ו‎ _Vau_, is not put between them as it is between the remaining words; thus, _and_ the Moon, _and_ the Planets (or, more literally, _and_ Mazzaroth), &c.” The latter term, which occurs also in Job xxxviii. 32, is understood by most critics, to signify the _Twelve Signs of the Zodiac_; if this be its real meaning, the doctrine of the _Celestial Sphere_ must have had a very early origin, and long anterior to the famous sphere of Chiron or Eudoxus.

Footnote 47:

“Religious History of Man,” p. 248, second edition.

Footnote 48:

Russell’s “Connection,” vol. i. p. 401.

Footnote 49:

Dr. Russell gives the following curious extract from the _Canon Chronicus_ of Sir John Marsham: “Plures in Oriente _Joves_ est investigare, Græcis Romanisque longe recentioribus, nullus datur hîc locus. Varro _trecentos Joves_ introducit: Nos originem quærimus, non multitudinem. Sane omnis de Jove theologia ex Egypto derivata est; nec Jovis solum, sed omnium etiam deorum numina inde petenda sunt.”—See his “Connection,” pp. 389–406.

Footnote 50:

The inversion and amalgamation of the letters ‏ד‎ and ‏ש‎ producing Z.

Footnote 51:

ΘΕΟΣ δὲ λέγεται, δὶα τὸ ΤΕΘΕΙΚΕΝΑΙ τὰ πάντα ἑπὶ τᾔ[τᾕ?] ἑαυτοῦ ἀσφαλείᾳ, καὶ διὰ τὸ ΘΕΕΙΝ· τὸ δὲ θέειν ἐστι τὸ τρέχειν, καὶ κινεῖν, καὶ ἐνεργεῖν, καὶ τρέφειν, καὶ προνοεῖν, καὶ κυβερνᾷν, καὶ ζωοποιεῖν τὰ πάντα. ΚΥΡΙΟΣ δὲ ἐστι, διὰ τὸ ΚΥΡΙΕΥΕΙΝ ἀυτὸν τῶν ὅλων, κ.τ.λ.—Theoph. ad Autolycum, p. 10., Oxon. 1684.

Footnote 52:

The celebrated historian of Astronomy, Delambre, following the opinions of Sir William Jones and Mr. Bentley in the “Asiatic Researches,” sneers at the supposed antiquity of the Hindoo Astronomical Tables contained in the _Surya Siddhanta_, and ridicules Bailly and Playfair for maintaining such an opinion. But ridicule is not a test of truth; and after all, his conclusion is only this, that the question _seems_ to be settled! Without insisting on the antiquity of the Tables, it may be urged on very satisfactory grounds, that some of the observations to which they refer, were _real_ and not _fictitious_. Delambre has brought no proof of his own to shew that they _must_ be fictitious, but has merely copied the statements and arguments of Mr. Bentley. For these, we refer to his work entitled, “A Historical View of the Hindu Astronomy,” London, 1825.

Footnote 53:

Even the splendid creations of Milton’s genius, in his “Paradise Lost” have been often substituted for the truths of Sacred Inspiration.

Footnote 54:

Πατὴρ τοῦ μελλόντος ἀιῶνος: Isaiah ix. 6; See the Alexandrine edition of the Septuagint.

Footnote 55:

Ὁσαισ ... ἡμέραις έγένετο ὁ κόσμος, τοσαύταις χιλιοντάσι συντελεῖται. καὶ διὰ τοῦτό φησιν ἡ γραφή· “καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ ὀυρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτών. καί συνετέλεσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ϛʹ τὰ ἔργα ἀυτοῦ, ἁ ἐποίησε; καὶ κατέπαυσεν ὁ θεὸς ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῇ ζʹ ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν έργων ἀυτοῦ.” τοῦτο δ’ ἐστι τῶν προγεγονότων διήγησις, καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων προφητεία. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα Κυριόυ ὡς ᾳ ἐτη· ἐν ἑξ οὖν συντετελέσθαι τὰ γεγονότα· φανερόν οὖν, ὁτι ἡ συντελεια ἀυτῶν ϛʹ στ ἐτος ἐστίν.—Irenæus contra omnes Hæreses; pp. 444, 445, Grabe’s edition, Oxon. 1702.

Footnote 56:

Hæc Irenæi sententia de mundi permansione, tot tantosque habet vindices et confirmatores, ac plausibiles persuasiones, modo divinæ potestati nihil temerè præscribatur, ut in eam lubens descenderem. Primò enim Ethnicorum omnium clarissimos et antiquissimos scriptores, Hydaspen Medorum Regem; Mercurium Trismegistum, ac Sybillas hoc præcinuisse et firmasse, testis Lactantius, lib. vii. cap. 14, 15 et 18. Hebræos idem sequi, testimonio est oraculum, quod Heliæ nomine circumferunt Thalmudistæ, libro Sanhedrin, capite Helec: et lib. Havoda Zara, cap. liphne-edehen: cujus verba recitantur, nec refelluntur, a doctis et Catholicis Authoribus, Galatino libro iv. cap. 20., Pico Mirandulano lib. vii., Heptapli cap. 4. et Francisco Veneto lib. de Harmonia Mundi Cant. iii. Tono 7, cap. 7. Oraculum hoc declarant, ac conjecturis multis et non spernendis confirmant insignes Rabbini Selomo et Isaac. Ex Latinis Ecclesiasticis Patribus, sententiam hanc amplectuntur et tuentur Lactantius lib. vii. cap. 14., Hilarius in cap. 17. Matth., Hieronymous Epist. ad Cyprianum, et Comment in cap. iv. Micheæ, Gaudentius Brixianus Tract. x. de Lectione Evangelica. Refert eandem et Augustinus lib. xx Civitat. Dei cap. 7, ut verisimilem, licet alibi illam impugnaverit. Glossa etiam, quæ Ordinaria vocatur constanter affirmat, in 5 cap. Genes. Inter Græcos vero placuit hæc opinio Justino Martyri, seu cuivis alteri Authori Quæstionum ad Orthod. Quæst. 71. Sex istis millibus quingentos annos addere visum est Hippolyto, Cyrillo, et Chrysostomo, ut author est Germanus Constantinopolitanus libro de theoria rerum Eccles. Perspectum mihi, est hanc sententiam oppugnari ab Augustino Comment, in Psal. 6 et 89. atque Epist. 89. insuper à Beda in Psal. 89. an vero illam expugnent, viderint docti et acuti eorum Lectores. Hæc autem ni fallor, aliquod emolumentum adferent ad eorum reprimendos clamores, qui temere nullaque ratione B. Martyri hac de re vehementius insultant, et lapsos, quos putant, Patrum aliquanto contumeliosiùs insectantur. _Feuardentius._—Grabe’s Irenæus, pp. 444, 445.

Footnote 57:

Ἑπτα ἐν γενεῄ κατακαύσεται κόσμος ἀειδὴς.—Philebos, p. 157., cited by Dr. Russell, p. 77 of his “Connection.”

Footnote 58:

Augustine de Civit. Dei, lib. xv. c. 11–13; cited by Russell, p. 81 of his “Connection.”

Footnote 59:

Russell’s “Connection” pp. 80–84.

Footnote 60:

Πανταχόθεν τοιγαροῦν τῆς τῶν ό ἑρμηνείας ἐκ παλαιας, ὡς ἐοικε, καὶ ἀδιάστροφοῦ Ἑβραιῶν γραφῆς μεταβέβλησθαι συνιστάμενης, εἰκότως ταὺτῇ καὶ ἡμεῖς κέκρημεθα κατὰ την παροῦσαν χρονογραθιαν, ὁτε μάλιστα καὶ ἡ καθ’ όλης τῆς οἰκουμένης ἡπλωσμένη χριστοῦ ἐκκλησία ταυτῇ μονῇ προσέχει τῶν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ἀπόστολων τὲ καὶ μαθήτων ἀρχῆθεν ταὺτῇ χρῆσθαι παραδεδώκοτων.—Eusebius, cited by Syncellus, p. 89, Bonn, 1829.

Footnote 61:

We refer to Robinson’s edition of Hesiod’s works, quæ supersunt, cum notis Variorum, Oxon. 1737.

Footnote 62:

“Connection,” vol. ii. p. 465.

Footnote 63:

Genesis xlix. 11, 12, 25, 26. The above passages are improved a little by reference to the Septuagint, of which see a Translation according to the Vatican edition, just published by Bagster and Sons, from the pen of Sir L. C. L. Brenton, Bart.

Footnote 64:

The character of the present age, which is remarkable for vulgar _Infidelity_, and the entire worship of _Mammon_, especially in the metropolis, has made many of the people of God sigh and cry for the abominations of the land, and fear that the Apocalyptic vials of wrath are about to be poured out upon this devoted country; for to whom much is given, of them much will be required. The crying sin, in our estimation, is that which makes a _gain of godliness_, and which puts men into the _priest’s office_ for a piece of bread; for by this _craft they have their_ ἐυπορια, _wealth_, Acts xix. 25; or, as it might be rendered, _respectability_. This age indeed makes vast pretensions to _respectability_, but it is only that which arises from _wealth_. Now it is very remarkable that the letters of the Greek word ἐυπορια, which was used by the craftsmen who made silver shrines for Diana, when they complained of the spread of the Gospel, and set Ephesus in an uproar for _two hours_, added up according to their value in the Greek system of notation, make the sum of 666, the well-known number of the Beast! Thus:—

Ε Υ Π Ο Ρ Ι Α 5 + 400 + 80 + 70 + 100 + 10 + 1 = 666.

What does this indicate, but that the beast reigns triumphant in the present age; for the whole world has gone a wondering after him, and the image which he has set up? And what is this image but _wealth_ or _respectability_, which all are so anxious to acquire and maintain? Let Christians beware of falling into this snare, and let them attend to the warning voice of the beloved Apostle; Rev. xviii. 4. For the discovery of the above singular numerical coincidence, we are indebted, through the publisher, Mr. Bagster, to the author of a work just published, entitled “WEALTH, The Name and Number of the Beast, &c.”

Footnote 65:

The similarity of this description to that of Hesiod, is in some points, even more marked in the Septuagint.

Footnote 66:

Ἀρχη σοφιας which is the same as ‏‘ראשית‎ signifies literally the _beginning_ or _summit of wisdom_, and consequently the _highest wisdom_.

Footnote 67:

Here Virgil, by a Poetic licence, melts the _Iron age_ and the _Cumæan age_ into one. This was natural for him to do, as a Roman; for no doubt he was aware that the ascendancy of the _Roman Power_ had been predicted in ancient prophecy under the figure of _Iron Rule_: and he might hope that the _Fifth Monarchy_ would spring from the same source.

Footnote 68:

This learned and illustrious poet, who had no doubt, borrowed his “_priscæ vestigia fraudis_”[69] from the 2d Chapter of Genesis, might have also anticipated the gross wickedness which should continue to prevail, notwithstanding the advent of the Divine Instructor, until death should put an end to mortal strife, and the spirits of the just be made perfect. It is lamentable in the present _Age of Respectability_, to behold so many of these _vestigia_ as the newspapers exhibit, those daily records of crime and debauchery, murder and suicide; to read the reports of the police, inquest, and law courts, one would scarcely believe that he lived in a Christian country, but rather that he dwelt in the midst of Pagan Rome. It is our deliberate opinion that the publication of such reports is injurious to the morals of the country, and that an immediate stop should be put to it by legislative enactment. The reading of newspapers is now so universal, and the taste for _The Horrible_ so rabid, especially among the lower orders, that we are fully persuaded that the perusal of the reports of trial for crime, under the temptation of the Devil, and the pressure of similar circumstances, too frequently leads to its commission. It would serve all the good purposes that can possibly be gained by publicity, merely to record the names and crimes of the offenders, without entering into all the shocking details, so disgusting to the truly humane and Christian portion of the community.

Footnote 69:

“_Traces of Man’s early sin._”

Footnote 70:

The works of these authors to which we shall chiefly refer, are, the “Jewish Antiquities” of Josephus, the treatise “To Autolycus” of Theophilus, the remains of the “Chronicon” of Africanus, the mutilated “Chronicon” of Eusebius, and the “Chronicon Paschale.”

Footnote 71:

See Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. pp. 13, 14; note _a_.

Footnote 72:

Lib. iii. ad Antolycum, p. 262, Oxon. 1684.

Footnote 73:

See Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. pp. 126, 129.

Footnote 74:

Ibid, pp. 242, 243, 248, 250.

Footnote 75:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 26.

Footnote 76:

See Hudson’s Josephus, pp. 26, 27.

Footnote 77:

Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 262.

Footnote 78:

Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. p. 130.

Footnote 79:

On this point, see the “Cours Complet de Theologie,” tom. iii. p. 1538; and “Chronicon Paschale,” p. 340, Venet. 1729.

Footnote 80:

Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. p. 131.

Footnote 81:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 111.

Footnote 82:

Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 262.

Footnote 83:

Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 265.

Footnote 84:

Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 155.

Footnote 85:

Ibid, p. 136.

Footnote 86:

Μετὰ τοῦ ἀληθοὺς δια τοῦ Μωσέως πνεύματος διδαχθέντες, ἐκ τε τῶν λοιπῶν Ἑβραϊκῶν ἱστοριῶν, ἀριθμὸν ἐτῶν πεντάκις χιλίων πεντακοσίων ἐις τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν τοῦ Σωτηρίου Λόγου τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς μοναρχίας των Καισάρων κηρυσσομένην παραδεδώκασιν. Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. p. 132.

Footnote 87:

The 20 years taken from the former period, and the 20 years of the servitude omitted, being both added to the short period, will make it exactly 72 years.

Footnote 88:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 979.

Footnote 89:

Ibid, p. 322.

Footnote 90:

Russell’s “Connection,” vol. i. p. 147.

Footnote 91:

Sulpicius Severus in Hist. Sacr. i. 44, 3; cited by Clinton.

Footnote 92:

See Russell’s “Connection,” p. 128; where he gives a very erroneous view of the critarchate of Samuel and the reign of Saul. He is also mistaken as to the critarchate of Samson.

Footnote 93:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 470.

Footnote 94:

Hudson’s Josephus, p. 371.

Footnote 95:

Ibid, p. 422.

Footnote 96:

Ibid, p. 506.

Footnote 97:

Hudson’s Josephus, p. 528.

Footnote 98:

Probably intended for _Shamgar_; see Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 266.

Footnote 99:

Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 306, note _d_.

Footnote 100:

Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, p. 266.

Footnote 101:

Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 160, 161.

Footnote 102:

Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 308, note q.

Footnote 103:

Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. vol. ii. pp. 167, 169.

Footnote 104:

Russell’s “Connection,” pp. 130, 131; and Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. pp. 303—310.

Footnote 105:

See the vol. last cited, p. 310, note _x_.

Footnote 106:

We have observed the correct number in the series of the Judges prefixed to the Armenian copy of the Chronicon of Eusebius.

Footnote 107:

Clinton’s Fast. Helle. p. 310, note _z_.

Footnote 108:

Ibid, p. 304.

Footnote 109:

Ibid, p. 305.

Footnote 110:

Ibid, p. 305, note _z_.

Footnote 111:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 528.

Footnote 112:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 113:

Ibid, p. 516.

Footnote 114:

On this point, see Clinton’s “Fasti Hellenici,” vol. i. p. 316; where the author makes a wrong citation from the Septuagint, viz., 4 Reg. xiii. 10.

Footnote 115:

Euseb. Chron. Canon. Book I. 5, 2, ex Haicano Codice, Mediolan. 1818.

Footnote 116:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 387.

Footnote 117:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. ii. p. 452.

Footnote 118:

Ibid, p. 400.

Footnote 119:

Lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. 281.

Footnote 120:

Lib. III. ad Autolycum, p. 269.

Footnote 121:

Routh’s Rel. Sac. vol. ii. p. 174.

Footnote 122:

Ven. 1483.

Footnote 123:

Mediolan. et Ven., 1818.

Footnote 124:

Ven. 1729.

Footnote 125:

See Hales’s “Analysis,” vol. i. pp. 276–278.

Footnote 126:

2 Kings xxv. 4.

Footnote 127:

Luke iii. 1, 23.

Footnote 128:

Hudson’s Josephus, vol. i. pp. 547–979.

Footnote 129:

See Dr. Hales’s “Analysis,” vol. ii. p. 652.

Footnote 130:

Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, pp. 268–277.

Footnote 131:

Luke iii. 1, 23; and p. 89, _Part I_.

Footnote 132:

Routh’s Rel. Sac. pp. 181, 186, 187.

Footnote 133:

Lib. iii. ad Autolycum, pp. 276–281.

Footnote 134:

Routh’s Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. ii. pp. 129–193.

Footnote 135:

See the Hieronymian version of his “Chronicon,” Ven. 1483.

Footnote 136:

See “Chronicon Paschale,” p. 179, Ven. 1729.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

Page Changed from Changed to

90 τρίτῃ τῶν βαςιλειων, ὡς τρίτῃ τῶν βασιλειων, ὡς ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ ἡτοίμασαν τοὺς λίθους, καὶ τὰ ξύλα τρισὶν ξύλα τρισὶν

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. ● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=. ● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to individual characters (like 2^d) and even entire phrases (like 1^{st}).