CHAPTER II.

THE SEPTUAGINT COMPUTATION THE TRUE CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE.

In the discussion of this subject some facts will have to be stated, which, although sufficiently known to the chronological student, cannot fail to surprise the ordinary reader. The notions which the generality of Christians entertain respecting the Holy Scriptures, are so traditionary, contracted, and in some cases superstitious, that to be told of the existence of corruptions and irreconcilable discrepancies in the various copies and versions of the Sacred Book, will almost shock their religious sensibility, and perhaps unsettle for the moment the very foundation on which they rest their hopes. Consequences of this nature however, since they arise from the absence of information in the persons whose notions are disturbed, form no valid reason why the facts alluded to should not be made known. The interests of Christianity can never be permanently promoted by keeping truth out of sight. Besides, in this book-reading age, truth cannot be kept out of sight for any great length of time, even if, for the sake of certain weak-minded Christians, it were desirable. The people generally will know, if not from one source, yet from another; and with regard to the members of Christian congregations, it can admit of no question, from whom they ought to receive their information, either directly or indirectly, on all subjects affecting the records of Divine inspiration. If Christian pastors, whether from inability or design, act on the principle of keeping their congregations in ignorance of certain facts and theories, on the ground that such facts and theories will unsettle established and hereditary notions, the congregations will not fail ultimately to dis cover such inability or design; contempt or suspicion will be the necessary consequence; and the inquiring part of the audience will seek for information elsewhere.

With regard to the Chronology of the Bible, it cannot be denied that, the facts to which we have adverted, are at first view, of a somewhat startling description: but they must be known notwithstanding, and will be known; and who so likely to present them in their proper aspect, as Christian pastors? If the exhibition of truths apparently damaging to divine revelation be left to sceptics and infidels and such has too frequently been the case-they are exhi

bited in the most objectionable light possible, and employed as arguments of considerable plausibility for the utter subversion of the truth of the sacred oracles: nor can it be doubted, that such attempts, if they are allowed to continue, will be, in time to come, as they have been in time past, crowned with lamentable success. It seems clear therefore, that Christian pastors, if they value the enlightened spiritual welfare of their hearers, ought to take the initiative in all such cases; prudently to anticipate the objections of the sceptic; and thus by a correct representation of Bible corruptions and discrepancies, to place the members of their congregation in a position that will render them proof against the attacks of an infidel sophistry.

It is under the influence of the above sentiments then, that I have deemed it right to bring before the reader a series of facts connected with Scripture Chronology, and which will shew, first, that the common notion, that Adam was created 4,004 years before Christ, is founded on a Rabbinical corruption of the sacred oracles; and secondly, that the true Bible computation carries the creation of man nearly 2,000 years farther back.

I.-BIBLE CHRONOLOGY AND ITS CONFLICTING COMPUTATIONS.

The versions of the sacred scriptures which we have to notice, as exhibiting the most serious differences in chronology, are the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint. Into a history of these three versions it is not necessary at present to enter. It will be sufficient to say, that the Hebrew scriptures were compiled and written in their present form, about the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. The Old Testament Canon, as it is called, was then completed. The Samaritan Pentateuch was used by the Samaritans, who succeeded the ten tribes in Palestine, after the exportation of the latter to Assyria; but when, and by whom, the version was made, is unknown. And then the Septuagint is a Greek translation from the Hebrew, executed about 280 years before Christ, for the use of the Alexandrian Jews. The following tables will exhibit at one view, the chronological differences of these three versions, from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham.

TABLE I.-THE ANTEDELUVIAN PATRIARCHS.

From the Flood to the birth of Abraham 292 years

942 years 1072 years

By attending to the first of these tables, it will be seen that, the three versions agree in one number only; namely, the 600 years that Noah lived before the flood. The Hebrew and Samaritan agree in six instances; but in each of these instances, they are 100 years lower than the Septuagint. The Hebrew and Septuagint agree but in two instances, while the Samaritan and the Septuagint agree in The result is, that, the period which elapsed from Adam to the flood is 2,262 years according to the Septuagint; 1,656 according to the Hebrew; and 1,307 according to the Samaritan; thus making a difference of 606 years between the Septuagint and the Hebrew, and 955 years between the Septuagint and the Samaritan.

none.

By looking at the second table, it will be observed that, the Septuagint assigns 130 years to a second Cainan, while the Hebrew and the Samaritan omit altogether both the name and the number. With this exception, the Septuagint and the Samaritan agree in every instance; whereas the Hebrew differs from them in seven of the generations, 50 years in one, and 100 years in each of the other six; thus giving as the period from the flood to the birth of Abraham, 1,072 years according to the Septuagint, 942 according to the Samaritan, and only 292 according to the Hebrew; which make a difference of 130 years between the Septuagint and the Samaritan, and 780 years between the Septuagint and the Hebrew. Adding then the results of the two tables together, the period that elapsed from the creation of Adam to the birth of Abraham, was 1,948 years according to the Hebrew, 2,249 years according to the Samaritan, and 3,334 according to the Septuagint; amounting to a difference of 1,386 years between the highest and the lowest.

With regard to the entire ages of the patriarchs, the Hebrew and the Septuagint differ only in three instances; namely, first, Lamech, to whom the Hebrew assigns 25 years more than the Septuagint; secondly, Eber, to whom the Hebrew assigns 60 years more than the Septuagint; and thirdly, Nahor, to whom the Hebrew assigns 60 years less than the Septuagint: while the Samaritan differs from both the other versions in five instances. As these discrepancies in the entire ages of the patriarchs, however, do not affect the chronology of the period from Adam to Abraham, except as hereafter to

be noticed, I have not deemed it necessary to insert them in the tables.

II. THAT THE PRESENT CONFLICTING COMPUTATIONS OF THE THREE

VERSIONS DID NOT ALWAYS EXIST.

The period to which this proposition applies, extends from B.c. 280 when the Septuagint version was made, to the commencement of the second century of the Christian era. That during this period of 400 years, the conflicting computations already noticed did not exist, is sustained by all the evidence which the nature of the subject requires. This evidence is both negative and positive. The negative evidence consists in the entire absence of the slighest allusion to any chronological discrepancy, by the authors who lived during the period in question. And this evidence of itself, even if there were no other, is decisive; because the authors referred to wrote on topics, which rendered it necessary that they should notice chronological discrepancies, if such discrepancies existed.

The first author is Demetrius, who flourished about 220 years before Christ. He wrote a history of the Jewish Kings, and noticed also the period that elapsed from Adam to the residence of the Israelites in Egypt. This work, observes Bishop Russell, is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, and preserved in the volumes of Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea. Here then we have a work immediately bearing on the chronology of the Bible-the very subject to which the conflicting computations already noticed refer. And yet, in this work there is no allusion whatever to any chronological disagreement, either between the Septuagint and the Hebrew, or between the Samaritan and either of the other two. Such an omission, on such a subject, and under the circumstances of the case, is utterly unaccountable on every hypothesis, but that of the chronological agreement of the versions.

The second author is Eupolemus, who flourished about 170 years before Christ. He also wrote a history of the Jewish Kings, and like his predecessor, carried his chronological reckonings as far back as the time of Adam. The work itself is lost, but several citations and chronological notices from it have been preserved by Clement of Alexandria. These are in perfect unison with the chronological statements of Demetrius, and there is not the slightest allusion to any existing chronological discrepancies relative to any epoch mentioned in the sacred oracles.

The third author is Alexander Polyhistor, who lived about 80 years before Christ. He was surnamed Polyhistor on account of the prodigious extent of his historical erudition. His work in 42 books, which is unfortunately lost, is said to have contained a historical account of nearly all the countries of the ancient world. That such a man was acquainted with the chronology of the Jews, cannot be doubted; and it is rendered certain by the fact, that, he cited from the history of Demetrius; but, that he knew of no discrepancies in this chronology, may be fairly inferred from the absence of any intimation of the kind. His works it is true are lost, but it cannot

be doubted that Philo, and Josephus, and some of the Christian fathers read them; nor can it reasonably be doubted that, if his own works had contained any notice of such discrepancies, some of these writers would have alluded to it; but no such allusion is found in any part of their productions.

The fourth author is Philo Judæus, who flourished about A.D. 40, and was therefore cotemporary with the Apostles. He was a Jewish writer of great eminence at Alexandria; and four volumes of his works, translated by Yonge, and published by Bohn, have recently issued from the press. In these works he takes a view of the leading facts of scripture history from the beginning, but not a syllable escapes his pen relative to any discrepancies between the three versions of the sacred book: and yet had he known of any discrepancies, and especially of such startling ones as those which now exist, it is incredible that he should not have noticed them, either directly or indirectly.

The fifth author is Josephus, the great Jewish historian, who flourished about 35 years after Philo. In his Jewish antiquities, he traces the history and chronology of the Old Testament throughout its entire records, and states, in some cases with minute exactness, the various chronological periods. If therefore, the chronological dates of the three versions had differed then, as they differ now, he must have noticed them, and assigned some reason why he adopted the dates of one version, to the exclusion of those of the other two. But not the slightest allusion to any discrepancy whatever occurs in any part of his works. It is clear therefore, that in the time of Josephus, the three versions already noticed, exhibited no chronological discrepancy. And then further; the chronology of the authors now mentioned, so far as it can be ascertained, is substantially the same; a fact which affords additional evidence of the non-existence, during that period, of the discrepancies in question.

The last negative evidence that I shall notice, is that of Christ and his Apostles. Is it credible, if the three versions of the scriptures contained the same differences then which they do now, that neither Christ nor his Apostles should ever have alluded to them? Is it credible that corruptions and discrepancies so serious should have been allowed to pass without the slightest animadversion? Is it eredible that these discrepancies could exist without the knowledge of the Jews? and is it credible that amid the various perplexing questions which they proposed to Christ, they should never have imposed upon him the task of reconciling their conflicting chronologies? Christ charged the Jews with corrupting their traditions, but he never charged them with corrupting the scriptures. But had the corruptions existed then which exist now, on what principle could he have omitted to charge them with an offence so iniquitous and flagrant? Not a word of the kind however was uttered either by the Redeemer, or his inspired ambassadors. Nor is this all: the citations from the Old Testament, both by Christ and his Apostles, were made indiscriminately both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint, thus placing the seal of divine approbation on the one as well as the