Loading…

Analysis of Sacred Chronology

24/27

CHRONOLOGY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE

THE NUMBERS OF THE HEBREW TEXT VINDICATED. ASC 183.1

The period from the Creation to the birth of Abraham, is the great disputed field in Chronology. Respecting its length, chronologers are greatly divided. The cause of this disagreement is owing to the existence of three several ancient versions of the writings of Moses-1st, our present Hebrew version-2nd, the Samaritan version, and 3rd, the Septuagint, or Greek version-which differ widely from each other in their chronology; as will be seen by the following table. ASC 183.2

Lived before the birth of the son named.Lived after the birth of the son named.
Heb.Sam.Sep.Heb.SamSep.
Adam,130130230800800700
Seth,105105205807807707
Enos,9090190815815715
Cainan,7070170840840740
Mahalaleel,6565165830830730
Jared,16262162800785800
Enoch,6565165300300200
Methuselah,18767167782653802
Lamech,18253188595600565
Noah, at the Flood,600600600
Total to the Flood165613072242
Shem, after the Flood,222500500500
Arphaxad,35135135403303403
Cainan,130330
Salah,30130130403303303
Eber,34134134430270270
Peleg,30130130209109209
Reu,32132132207107207
Serug,30130130200100200
Nahor,29797911969129
Terah to birth of Abraham, 1513070707575135
Total from the Flood,3529421072
Total from the Creation,200822493314

As the length of this period is found by adding the ages of each one named, at the birth of his son, it will be seen by the foregoing table, while our Hebrew text gives 1,656 years as the length of the period from the Creation to the Deluge, that the Samaritan version gives 349 years less, and the Septuagint 586 years more, than that number. Also, that, from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, the Septuagint gives 130 years more than the Samaritan, and 720 more than the Hebrew,-making in all, from the Creation to Abraham’s birth, 2008 years by the Hebrew version, 241 more than that number by the Samaritan, and 1306 years more by the Septuagint. ASC 184.2

The difference in the chronology of this period, it will also be seen, consists principally in the addition of a second Cainan, and a variation of 100 years each in the length of the ages of six of the antediluvian patriarchs, and in the same number of post-diluvian, with 50 years in the age of Nahor, at the birth of their respective sons; which difference is added or taken from the length of their subsequent lives, so that the sum total of the age of each individual is the same in each version. This agreement in the sum total, and the uniform addition or subtraction to the one period of life, of what is varied from in the other period, demonstrates that this variation is not the result of accident, but of design. ASC 184.1

The Samaritan version principally agrees with the Hebrew in its antediluvian chronology, and with the Septuagint in its post-diluvian. As the discrepancy is principally between the Hebrew and Septuagint versions, the inquirer will be directed to their relative merits for authenticity. One of these versions has been corrupted in the words expressing the chronology of this period. Which is the uncorrupted version? ASC 184.2

The Original Hebrew copy of the Pentateuch was written by Moses, and deposited by the side of the Ark of the Covenant, till the erection of the temple of Solomon, after which it had a place in the treasury of the sacred edifice. Some suppose that the original copies of the Scriptures perished, in the burning of the temple, by Nebuchadnezzar; but there is no certain evidence of this. On the contrary, we find Daniel studying the book of Jeremiah, and referring to the law of Moses, in Babylon. (Daniel 9:2, 11, 13.) When Ezra reëstablished the temple service, we read (Ezra 6:18,) that he did “as it is written in the law of Moses.” And when requested “to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel,” (Nehemiah 8:1, 2,) he “brought the law before the congregation.” Còpies of the Pentateuch must, therefore, have survived the burning of the temple, and been in possession of the Jews during their captivity in Babylon. If they were materially corrected by Ezra, which some claim, according to the constant tradition of the Jewish church, as he was an inspired writer, the revised canon would have all the authority of original copies. Josephus (B. 12, ch. 5, sec. 4) speaks of the burning of ancient copies, by Antiochus; but there is no evidence that an abundance of copies were not preserved. ASC 185.1

The Samaritan Pentateuch is in the ancient Hebrew character, preserved by the Samaritans, who were descended from an intermixture of the ten tribes with the Gentile nations, which made them odious to the Jews, and prevented all intercourse between them. The writings of Moses were the only portions of the Scriptures retained or acknowledged by them. Soon after the Christian era, their version fell into entire oblivion, and no copies of it were known for more than 1000 years, so that its very existence was disputed. How much it may have been corrupted during that time, is unknown. ASC 186.1

The Septuagint version is a translation from the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek, made at Alexandria, in Egypt, about B. C. 285. Josephus, (Antiq. 12, 2, 12, p. 517,) who lived at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem, relates that “at the request of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, a copy of the law was sent by the high priest, from Jerusalem to Alexandria, written in letters of gold, upon leaves of parchment, wonderfully joined together: and that the version, after it was finished, was read in public, in order that every one might observe whether it was in any respect redundant or deficient.” And Philo, who lived in the apostolic age, pronounced the seventy-two translators, by whom the version was made, inspired. But these stories of their inspiration, and of the parchment written with golden letters, are evidently mythical, and doubtless were related on the credit of mere tradition. Aside from this, there is no evidence to determine, whether this translation was made from copies of the Esdrine text, or from corrupt MSS. found among the Jews in Egypt. As the Greek language began to be extensively spoken, the translation of the Seventy came into common use among the Jews, and was reverenced by them as of the highest authority. ASC 186.2

The questions here arise, Did the Hebrew and Septuagint versions ever agree in their chronology? and which has probably been corrupted? ASC 187.1

Dr. Hales, and those who contend for the accuracy of the Septuagint over the Esdrine text, claim that they did agree till subsequent to the time of Josephus, and that the Hebrew copies have since been corrupted. Their argument for their original agreement is based on Philo, Josephus, and Demetrius. Philo-Judæus, who lived in the age of the apostles, asserts “that the Hebrews who knew the Greek language, and the Greeks who understood the Hebrew, were so struck with admiration at the entire agreement between the original and the translation, that they not only adored them as sisters, but as one and the same, both in words and things; styling the translators not only accurate scholars, but inspired interpreters and prophets, who, with a singular purity of spirit, had entered into the very sentiments of Moses.”-Philo-Judæus, Mosis, De Vita Mosis, lib. 2., p. 659. Ed. Francof. 164. ASC 187.2

Philo wrote in Greek, and lived constantly at Alexandria. There is no certain evidence that he was very familiar with the Hebrew, or that the question of their chronology had ever attracted his attention. Indeed, the question of the world’s age, did not come up between the Jews and Christians till after his day. While there is a wonderful agreement between the two versions, in most parts, his remarks may have been entirely independent of this discrepancy. ASC 188.1

Demetrius Phalerius, who lived about B. C. 220, about 60 years after the Septuagint was translated, wrote a history of the Jewish kings, which is quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, and preserved in the works of Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea. In this work he gives the time, from Adam to the migration of Jacob to Egypt, as amounting to 3624 years, which agrees with the chronology of the Septuagint. ASC 188.2

His following the Septuagint does not prove its agreement with the Hebrew, or that he was familiar with the Hebrew. He lived at Alexandria, and was president of the college there, which had in its library the translation of the LXX. He would, as a matter of course, adopt its chronology: and this only proves that the chronology of the Septuagint has not been changed since his time. ASC 188.3

Eupolemus wrote about fifty years after the former, and agrees with him in his chronology, and with that of the Septuagint. But he also wrote in Greek, and gives no evidence of his familiarity with the Hebrew, or that he did more than adopt the periods given by his predecessor. None of the preceding furnish any evidence that the chronology of the Hebrew version agreed with the Septuagint. ASC 189.1

The next witness is Josephus. He was familiar with both Greek and Hebrew, and professes to have translated his antiquities from the Hebrew Scriptures, without adding to, or diminishing from, the original. And his chronology usually agrees with that of the LXX. From this it is argued that discrepancies did not then exist between it and the Hebrew. The fact is, however, that, in his chronology, he is not consistent with himself. And although he does not refer to any discrepancies between the two versions, his writings give evidence that he had before him discordant authorities. From the birth of Adam to the flood, he gives 2656 years; but gives data, amounting to only 2256. He agrees with the Hebrew in placing the 70 years of Terah in the 292nd year after the deluge; but gives data agreeing with the LXX., (with the exception of Canaan,) making the birth of Abraham 1000 years after the deluge. In Book 8th, chap. 3rd, sec. 1st, he says: ASC 189.2

“Solomon began to build the temple in the fourth year of his reign, in the second month, which the Macedonians call Artimisius, and the Hebrews Jar, five hundred and ninety-two years after the Exodus out of Egypt, but after one thousand and twenty years from Abraham’s coming out of Mesopotamia into Canaan, and after the deluge one thousand four hundred and forty years: and from Adam, the first man who was created, until Solomon built the temple, there had passed in all three thousand one hundred and two years.” ASC 189.3

But the data he gives makes the erection of the temple 502 years after the Exodus, 1007 after the birth of Abraham, 2097 after the deluge, 4353 from creation. Consequently, there must have been a disagreement in his sources of information; and as he professes to have followed the “sacred writings,” these sources must have been the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. ASC 190.1

The next argument for the Septuagint is that the New Testament writers, who were inspired men, in their references to the Old Testament, quote from the Septuagint version. To this it may be replied, that they quoted the Septuagint only when they adopted its meaning. Horne, in his Introduction to the Scriptures, (vol. i., p. 503,) counts eighty-eight verbal quotations conformed to the Alexandrian version; sixty-four others borrowed from it, but with some variation; thirty-seven which give its meaning, but in different language; sixteen which translate the Hebrew more accurately; twenty-four where the Hebrew is paraphrased to make the sense more obvious;-showing that the New Testament writers were not confined to the version of the LXX.; while that being the version in common use among the Jews, when they could, they would naturally quote from it. ASC 190.2

Dr. Smith, author of the “Patriarchal Age,” refers to Luke 3:35, 36:-“Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad,”-to prove that the second Cainan is correctly inserted in the LXX., and, therefore, that the Septuagint is the correct version. This is the strongest argument for that version which exists. But Dr. Hales, who also adopts the Septuagint chronology for this period, asserts that it is evidently an interpolation, and accordingly rejects it, giving for so doing the following reasons:- ASC 191.1

“1. The Masorete and Samaritan Hebrew texts, and all the ancient versions and Targums, without exception, omit Cainan and his generation of 130 years, in Genesis 11:12. ASC 191.2

“2. The Septuagint version is not consistent with itself; for, in the repetition of the genealogies, 1 Chronicles 1:24, it omits Cainan there, following the Hebrew and all the ancient versions, Ëòöáîáä Óáëá Åáëá Å[Hebrew word]åñ, etc. Arphaxad, Salah, Eber. Ac. ‘The projector forgetting himself,’ as acutely observed by the learned John Gregory, of Oxford, in his Disproof of the Second Cainan, A. D. 1663. ASC 191.3

“3. Those great luminaries of the Jewish Church, Philo and Josephus, both rejected it; for Philo, in his allegorical way, reckoned two decads and a septenary of generations from Adam to Moses; namely, ten generations from Adam to the flood, including Noah; ten generations from the flood to Abraham, 166 including Shem and Abraham; and seven from Abraham to Moses, including both. But, in the second decad, Cainan is evidently omitted. And Josephus omits Cainan in his list of the post-diluvian patriarchs. ASC 191.4

“4. Josephus obliquely censures Demetrius, among those other ancient chronologers, Philo Senior and Eupolemus, who ‘did not err much from the truth.’-Contr. Apion. 1. § 23. ASC 192.1

“5. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who wrote about A. D. 168, omits Cainan in his list of post-diluvian patriarchs; and his testimony is the more valuable, because it differs from the Septuagint, and was taken, as it seems, directly from the Hebrew: Ëñöáîáä åôå÷ãùóå áëá, etc.; but, in the Septuagint, the verb is different, åãåííçóå. ASC 192.2

“6. The very learned Origen, who reckoned the date of the creation B. C. 4830, lower than Josephus and Theophilus, necessarily omitted his generation. According to Procopius, Origen marked him with an obelisk in his copy of the Septuagint, to mark his rejection. ASC 193.1

“7. Eusebius reckoned 942 years from the flood to Abraham, and therefore evidently omitted Cainan; and he was followed by Epiphanius and Jerom, both adopting the corrected Hexaplar copy, published by Eusebius and Pamphilus. ASC 193.2

“From this combination of counter-evidence, it appears that we are fully warranted to conclude, that ‘the second Cainan was not originally in the Hebrew text, and in the Septuagint version derived from it.’ And, since water cannot rise to a level higher than the spring from which it issues, so neither can the authority of the New Testament, for its retention, rise above that of the Old Testament, from which it is professedly copied, for its exclusion. ASC 193.3

“8. Gregory also ingeniously proves, that the second Cainan was an imaginary person, ASC 193.4

“‘I find,’ says he, ‘in a MS. chronicle in the Bodleian library, that, after the flood, Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, wrote astronomy, having found the doctrine of the stars, written by Seth and his sons, on tables of stone.’ But none of all this is due to Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, but to Cainan, the son of Enos; as I shall make it appear by as sound a tradition as these, written back to Aristotle out of India, by Alexander the Great. ASC 193.5

“‘When I came,’ saith the king, ‘into the land of Pharsaiacon, etc., the natives said unto me, Lo, here in this isle, is the sepulchre of an ancient king, whose name was Cainan, the son of Enos, who reigned over the whole world before the flood. He was a wise man, and endued with all kinds of knowledge, and had power given him against the spirits, devils, and destroying angels. This man foresaw, by his wisdom, that the blessed God would bring a flood upon the earth; the prophecy whereof he wrote in tables of stone, which we have, and the writing is Hebrew,’ etc. ASC 194.1

“‘This,’ as Gregory quaintly observes, ‘is the right owner of those parts and inventions.’” Hales, vol. i., p. 90. ASC 194.2

Learned biblical critics have said that the name of Cainan was not found in some of the earlier copies of Luke’s Gospel; but transcribers, seeing it in the Septuagint, took the liberty of inserting it upon their own responsibility. In Griesbach’s edition of the New Testament, in Greek, it is marked as omitted by some, though Griesbach himself retains it. ASC 194.3

Dr. Smith adduces, as a discrepancy between the Hebrew and the New Testament, Acts 13:20, “And after that, [when he had divided their land by lot,] he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet.” This agrees with the chronology of the LXX.; and Dr. Smith says, “Yet Archbishop Usher, following the modern Hebrew, makes but four hundred and eighty years” from the exode to the building of Solomon’s temple. ASC 194.4

It is true that Usher makes four hundred and eighty years for this period; but the Hebrew should not be responsible for Usher’s mistakes-the items for the several periods of the judges and captivities in the Hebrew, agreeing with the time Paul assigns. ASC 195.1

Assuming that the two versions agreed as late as A. D. 200, for which, the evidence presented, as we have seen, affords no proof, Dr. Hales, Dr. Smith, and others, affirm that the Hebrew version was corrupted by the Jews to evade the force of the argument that Jesus was the Christ. In proof, Dr. Smith says, Justin Martyr “distinctly asserts that the Jews had actually erased several whole passages from the Scriptures.” ASC 195.2

Justin Martyr does assert this, but does not assert it of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is found in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew: “Your Rabbies,” says he to Trypho, “have actually expunged many passages from out of the Septuagint version, as I would have you to know.”-“Still I will argue with you from those received passages which ye admit, which, if your Rabbies had understood, be assured they would have expunged them.” ASC 195.3

This witness, (who was himself a Samaritan,) it will be observed, does not charge the Jews with corrupting the Hebrew, which is the point to be proved, but the Greek, which Dr. Hales and others thinks was not corrupted. The assertion that they would have corrupted the Hebrew, if they had seen its bearing, does not charge them with doing it. Besides, we are to make some allowance for charges of this nature, uttered in the excitement of debate by uninspired men. ASC 195.4

Irenæus is next quoted: but what is the nature of his testimony? He says, “If the Jews had known that we should have made use of those testimonies that are to be drawn from the Scriptures, they would never have hesitated to burn their own Scriptures.” ASC 196.1

Here we find no charge that they hare done it, but only that they would have done it. There is, then, no evidence, thus far, that they did do it. Yet Dr. Hales says, “Hence, we may safely conclude, that the adulteration was rather of the Hebrew genealogies than of the Greek; and that it was introduced, probably by Aquila,” about “A. D. 130.” We find no warrant for adopting such a conclusion from such evidence. ASC 196.2

Dr. Smith next affirms that Tertullian gives the same evidence, i. e., the same as that of Irenæus. As his testimony is not quoted by Dr. S., we conclude it is no more to the point than that we have already reviewed. ASC 196.3

Dr. Smith says, that Origen charged the Jews with corrupting their Hebrew Scriptures. He does not give the words of Origen, or the passages claimed to be corrupted, so that we are entirely in the dark respecting the nature of his testimony, and therefore can attach to it no weight whatever. ASC 196.4

Dr. Smith next quotes Eusebius, as saying that Justin “records certain prophetic declarations, in his discussion with Tryphon, showing that the Jews had expunged them from the Scriptures.”-Eusebius’ Eccl. His., v. IV., ch. 18. So says Dr. Smith; but we have already shown, from the words of Justin himself, that it was the Septuagint, and not the Hebrew, that he accused them of corrupting. ASC 197.1

The foregoing is all the testimony from the fathers, of the existence of any such charges against the Jews, near the time when it is claimed the work of corruption was effected. We have seen that no evidence of a charge of having corrupted their chronology can be shown to have then been made. ASC 197.2

Another kind of evidence adduced by Dr. Smith, consists in quotations of Scripture, where he contends the Jews have wilfully corrupted their Scriptures. As it is to be proved that these are corruptions, till that is proved, they are no evidence. One of the most striking of these is in Deuteronomy 27:4. The Jews were commanded, when they had passed over Jordan, to build an altar on one of two mountains, Ebul or Gerizim. The former is in the Hebrew, and the [Original illegible]tter in the Samaritan, version. Dr. Kendicott defends the reading of the Samaritan, and Dr. Smith thinks the Hebrew a wilful perversion; but it is not so generally admitted. Dr. Parry has defended it against the Samaritan, in his case between “Gerizim and Ebul fairly stated.” So has J. H. Verschuir, in his “Dissert. Critica.” As the Samaritans were descendants of the ten tribes and Gentiles intermixed, the corruption must have originated subsequent to the dispersion of the ten tribes. At that time the text would refer to a fact which had been, and not to one which was then to be. The use which was made of the text by the Samaritans, was to prove, that the temple which they had built on Mount Gerizim was the place where men ought to worship, instead of at Jerusalem. But as God had long before, expressly appointed, in other texts, the erection of the temple at Jerusalem, the Jews did not need to corrupt this text, for authority for so doing. Dr. Patrick, in his “Critical Commentary” on this passage, does not hesitate to call the Samaritan text “a manifest corruption.” And thus we pronounce it. The other examples adduced only show that in some texts the New Testament accords more literally with the language of the Samaritan, than it does with that of the Hebrew; but as many texts may be quoted, where the reverse is the fact. These, therefore, weigh nothing for the argument. ASC 197.3

We now come to the motive which they assign for the corruption of the Hebrew by the Jews. It is brought by Ephraim Syrus, who died A. D. 378. ASC 198.1

“The Jews,” says he, “have subtracted 600 years from the generations of Adam and Seth, etc., in order that their own books might not convict them concerning the coming of Christ: he having been predicted to appear for the deliverance of mankind, after 5500 years.” ASC 199.1

Abulfaragius, p. 72, a writer of the thirteenth century, and an Arminian annalist, states the assumed motive more fully as follows: ASC 199.2

“It having been foretold in the Law and the Prophets, concerning the Messiah, that he should be sent in ‘the last times,’ and the earlier Rabbins finding no better device to reject [Jesus, as] the Christ, than to alter the generations of the patriarchs, by which the age of the world might be known, they subtracted a century from Adam’s age until the birth of Seth, and added the same to his residue of life; and this they did in the lives of the rest of Adam’s descendants, down to Abraham. By this device, their computation showed that [Jesus] Christ was manifested near the middle of the fifth millenary of the age of the world, which, according to them, was to last for 7000 years; and they said, We are still in the middle of the time, and the time appointed for the Messiah’s advent is not yet come.” ASC 199.3

The learned Gregory, of Oxford, thus explains the origin of this opinion: ASC 199.4

“In the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew letter [Original illegible], Aleph, which in the Jewish arithmetic stands for 1000, is six times found. From hence the ancient Cabalists concluded that the world would last 6000 years. Because also God was six days about the Creation, and a thousand years with him are but as one day; (Psalm 90:4. 2 Peter 3:8;) therefore after six days, that is 6000 years’ duration of the world, there shall be a seventh day, or millenary sabbath of rest.” ASC 199.5

This early tradition of the Jews was found also in the Sibylline Oracles, and in Hesiod, as we have seen; in the writings of Darius Hystaspes, the old king of the Medes, derived probably from the Magi; and in Hermes Trismegistus, among the Egyptians; and was adopted by the early Christian Fathers, Clemens, Timotheus, and Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who observed, that “upon the sixth day God made man, and man fell by sin; [Original illegible]o upon the sixth day of the Chiliad, (or sixth millenary of the world,) our Lord Jesus Christ came into the world, and saved man by his cross and resurrection.” ASC 200.1

“But to weaken or defend the tradition itself,” says Gregory, “I have no engagement upon me. It yieldeth me this observation, that in the opinion of those who held it, our Saviour was to come in the flesh in the sixth millenary of the world.” ASC 200.2

Dr. Hales remarks that the prevalence of “this tradition throughout the Pagan, Jewish and Christian world, whether well founded or otherwise, was a sufficient reason for the Jews to endeavor to invalidate it by shortening their chronology.” ASC 200.3

According to the chronology of the Septuagint, the advent of the Saviour was 5466 years from creation. Now the tradition pointed not to the middle of the sixth millenary, but to the end of it. ASC 201.1

Menasse, an ancient Jewish Rabbi, thus expressed his belief: ASC 201.2

“As for my opinion, I think that after six thousand years the world shall be destroyed, upon one certain day, or in one hour; that the arches of heaven shall make a stand, as immovable; that there will be no more generation or corruption; and all things, by the resurrection, shall be renovated, and return to a better condition.” ASC 201.3

Menasse also assures us, that “this, out of doubt, is the opinion of the most learned Aben Ezra,” who looked for it in the new earth of Isaiah 65:17. ASC 201.4

Bishop Russell, Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Scottish Episcopal Church, in his discourse on the Millennium, says that “Theopompus, who flourished 340 years before Christ, relates that the Persian Magi taught that the present state of things would continue 6000 years; after which hades, or death, would be destroyed, and men would live happy,” etc. He says also, that “the opinion of the ancient Jews, on this head, may be gathered from the statement of one of their Rabbins, who said, ‘The world endures 6000 years, and in the thousand, or millennium, that follows, the enemies of God would be destroyed.’” “It was in like manner a tradition of the house of Elias, a holy man, who lived about 200 years before Christ, that the world was to endure 6000 years, and that the righteous, whom God should raise up, would not be turned again into dust.” On which the bishop remarks: “That, by this resurrection, he meant a resurrection prior to the millennium, is manifest from what follows.” Again:- ASC 201.5

“It is worthy of remark, that the two ancient authors, whose words have just been quoted, speak of the seventh millennium as that day-the day in which God will renew the world, and in which he alone shall be exalted.” ASC 202.1

The learned Joseph Mede, called the “illustrious Mede,” says:- ASC 202.2

“The Divine Institution of a sabbatical, or seventh year’s solemnity among the Jews, has a plain typical reference to the seventh chiliad, or millenary of the world, according to the well known tradition among the Jewish doctors, adopted by many, in every age of the Christian Church, that this world will attain to its limit at the end of 6000 years.” ASC 202.3

He also informs us that the whole school of Cabalists call the seventh millennium “the great day of judgment,” because then they think God will judge the souls of all men; and he quotes many of their Rabbins to show that they defined the day of judgment, “millennium,” or a thousand years, together with the resurrection and Messiah’s kingdom. For example, David Kimchi, on Isaiah 55:5, says: ASC 202.4

“‘The observance of the Sabbath is essential to the faith; for such only as observe the Sabbath confess that the earth will be renewed: because he who created it out of nothing will renew it.’ ASC 203.1

“As if he who observes the holy Sabbath, testifies his faith in the great Sabbath, in which God will renew the world.” ASC 203.2

This opinion, therefore, however well founded, instead of being an argument against the Jews, would enable them to argue as Ephraim Syrus says they did, that the time for the advent had not expired, without any alteration of their chronology, till more than three hundred years should nave elapsed, from the time they are accused of altering it. And, instead of the fathers arguing that six thousand years had expired, Lactantius, who lived about A. D. 310, says, in his Book of Divine Institutions: ASC 203.3

“Let philosophers know, who number thousands of years, ages since the beginning of the world, that the six thousandth year is not yet concluded or ended. But that number being fulfilled, of necessity there must be an end, and the state of human things must be transformed into that which is better.” ASC 203.4

As there could have been no necessity for such an alteration for more than three hundred years, the motive for such an alteration disappears. And had such a motive existed, can we suppose they would have deducted more than 1300 years, thus deferring the coming of their Messiah beyond their day, and that of their children’s children’s children,-more than an entire millenary,-when a few years only would have been sufficient for their purpose? The idea is not only preposterous, but would have given the lie to their continued instant expectation of their Messiah, whose coming they longed for, to disprove the Messiahship of Jesus. ASC 203.5

In addition to this, the expectation referred to at the end of 6000 years, was not based on any prophetical declarations, but on mere tradition. The only prophecy relating to the time of the first advent, being that of the seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24, which they left untouched, can we suppose they would be so fool-hardy as to alter their chronology 300 years before there was any necessity for so doing, and 1000 years more than was necessary, to obviate the force of a mere opinion, when they did not dare to lay their hands on the only direct and positive prediction which did point to the time of that event? It is true, they pronounced a curse on any who should presume to interpret the seventy weeks, but they left the letter of the prophecy uncorrupted. ASC 204.1

Dr. Smith attempts to show that the Jews claimed the right to alter their Scriptures, and quotes from the Babylonish Talmud, “that it is right and lawful to take away one letter from the law, that the name of God may be publicly sanctified, or may not be publicly profaned.” Had he given us the connection in which this is found, we could better judge of the force of this quotation. We have already seen that some of Dr. Smith’s quotations do injustice to their connection; and it may be the case here. However that may be, the variation of a letter for the honor of God, gives no countenance to a permission to corrupt their Scriptures by the wholesale. On the contrary, we have testimony that they regarded the letter of their Scriptures with superstitious reverence. Says Horne: ASC 204.2

“The copies of the law must be transcribed from ancient manuscripts of approved character only, with pure ink, on parchment prepared from the hide of a clean animal, for this express purpose, by a Jew, and fastened together by the strings of clean animals; every skin must contain a certain number of columns, of prescribed length and breadth, each column comprising a given number of lines and words; no word must be written by heart, or with points, or without first being orally pronounced by the copyist; the name of God is not to be written but with the utmost devotion and attention, and, previously to writing it, he must wash his pen. The want of a single letter, or the redundance of a single letter, the writing of prose as verse, or verse as prose, respectively vitiates a manuscript; and when a copy has been completed, it must be examined and corrected, within thirty days after the writing has been finished, in order to determine whether the writing is to be approved or rejected.” Horne’s Introduction, vol. i., pp. 216, 217. ASC 205.1

Says Josephus:-“It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former of our forefathers, because there has not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation, is evident by what we do; for, during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, to take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews, immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem those books to contain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and if occasion be, willingly to die for them. For it is no new thing for our captives, many of them in number, and frequently in time, to be seen to endure racks, and deaths of all kinds, upon the theatres, that they may not be obliged to say one word against our laws, and the records that contain them.”-Josephus Contra Apion, b. 1, s. 8. ASC 206.1

For the Jews to have corrupted their chronology, as they are charged, the Massorite schools, both at Tiberius and Babylon, must have connived together, in connexion with the Jews scattered throughout the world; for all the Hebrew copies agree in this particular. It is not to be presumed, that those who might wish thus to corrupt the Scriptures, had all the Hebrew copies in their own possession. Nor if they had, could they have accomplished it, without being detected. Conscientious Jews would have protested against them, and exposed them. Those converted from Judaism, who had access to the Hebrew, would have detected the corruption, and brought home the charge to them. A whole nation could not have connived at, and succeeded in, a fraud of such magnitude,-so as to be unsuspected of, and uncharged with it. Not only do all Hebrew copies now extant agree, but no various renderings have been noticed in the Talmuds and the Targums of Onkelos, who lived near the time of the Saviour, or variation in them from the Hebrew copies. Says Professor Gaussen, Theopneusty, p. 90: ASC 206.2

“Now, although all the libraries containing ancient copies of the sacred books, have been called to testify; although the elucidations given by the Fathers of all ages have been studied; although the Arabic, Syriac, Latin, Armenian and Ethiopic versions have been collected; although all the manuscripts of all countries and ages, from the third to the sixteenth century, have been collected and examined a thousand times, by innumerable critics, who sought with ardor, and as the recompense and glory of their fatiguing vigils, some new text; although the learned men, not satisfied with the libraries of the West, have visited those of Russia, and carried their researches even to the convents of Mount Athos, of Asiatic Turkey and of Egypt, to search there for new copies of the sacred text;-‘they have discovered nothing,’ says a learned writer already quoted, ‘not even a solitary reading, which could cast doubt upon any passage before considered certain. All the variations, almost without exception, leave untouched the essential thoughts of each phrase, and affect only points of secondary importance,’ such as the insertion, or omission, of an article, or a conjunction, the position of an adjective, before, or after, a substantive, the greater or less exactness of a grammatical construction.” ASC 207.1

An evidence that the chronology of the Hebrew has not been corrupted, is found in the famous Indian MSS., recently deposited in the library of Cambridge, England, which is as old as the conquest of Jerusalem, by Nebuchadnezzar, and which agrees in its chronology with the present Hebrew version. Says Professor Gaussen, Ib., p. 91: ASC 208.1

“It is now about thirty-three years since the pious and learned Claudius Buchanan, in visiting the western peninsula of India, saw in the hands of the black Jews of Malabar, (believed to be the remnants of the tribes scattered at Nebuchadnezzar’s first invasion,) an immense scroll, composed of thirty-seven skins, dyed red; forty-eight feet long, twenty-two inches wide, and which, in its perfect condition, must have been ninety English feet long. The Holy Scriptures had been copied on it by different hands. There were left a hundred and seventeen columns of beautiful writing; and nothing was wanting but Leviticus and a part of Deuteronomy. Buchanan procured this ancient and precious monument, which had been used in the worship of the synagogue, and he has recently deposited it in the Cambridge library. There are features which give satisfactory evidence that it was not a copy of a copy brought there by European Jews. Now Mr. Yeates has recently examined it with great attention, and has taken the pains to compare it, word for word, letter for letter, with our Hebrew edition of Van der Hooght. He has published the result of these researches. And what has he found? Even this; that there do not exist between the text of India and that of the West, more than forty petty differences, of which not one is sufficiently serious to make the slightest change in the meaning, and in the interpretation of our ancient text; and that these forty differences consist in the addition or retrenchment of an (1) i, or a (7) v, letters, whose presence or absence, in Hebrew, cannot change the power of a word. 17 We know that the Masorites, or teachers of tradition among the Jews, were men whose whole profession consisted in copying the Scriptures; we know how far these men, learned in minutiæ, carried their respect for the letter; and when we read the rules of their profession, we understand the use which the providence of God, who had confided his oracles to the Jewish people, made of their reverence, of their rigor, and even of their superstition. They counted, in each book, the number of the verses, that of the words, that of the letters; they would have said to you, for example, that the letter A recurs forty-two thousand three hundred and seventy-seven times in the Bible; the letter B thirty-eight thousand two hundred and eighteen times, and so of the rest; they would have scrupled to change the situation of a letter evidently misplaced; they would merely have advised you of it in the margin, and have supposed that some mystery was connected with it; they could have told you the middle letter of the Pentateuch, and the middle letter of each of the books that compose it; they would never suffer an erasure to be made in their manuscripts; and if any mistake was made in copying, they would reject the papyrus, or the skin, which was thus stained, to renew their work upon another scroll; for they were equally forbidden to correct a fault, and to preserve, for their sacred scroll, a parchment, or a skin, that had undergone any erasure. ASC 208.2

“This intervention of the providence of God, in the preservation of the Old Testament, will become still more remarkable in our view, if we compare the astonishing integrity of the original Hebrew, (after so many centuries,) with the immense alteration which had taken place in the Septuagint, even in the days of Jesus Christ, (a space of about two hundred years,) although this version had acquired, after the almost universal adoption of the Greek language, an authority, at least semi-canonical, first with the Jews, and then with the Christians; although it was, at a later period, the only text used by the fathers, (if we except Origen and Jerome,) the only one on which Chrysostom and Theodoret wrote their commentaries, the only one from which Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory Nazienzen drew their arguments; although the western world, like the eastern, had, for so many ages, enjoyed no other than this borrowed light, (since the ancient Italian Vulgate-universally employed,-was a translation of the Greek Septuagint, and not of the Hebrew text;) hear what the learned tell us of the alterations in this important monument; of the additions, changes, interpolations, it had received, first from the Jews who lived before Christ, then by the unbelieving Jews, and afterwards, through the negligence of Christian copyists. ‘The evil was such (mirum in modum’) says Dr. Lee, ‘that, in some books, the ancient version could scarcely be recognized;’ 18 and when Origen (A. D. 231) had consecrated twenty-eight years of his noble life to the examination of the various manuscripts, to accomplish for this text (in his Tetrapla and Hexapla) that which modern critics have done for that of the Old and the New Testaments, not only could he not find a copy that was correct, but he even increased the evil. By the unskilfulness of his copyists, (who neglected his asterisks and obelisks,) the greater part of his marginal corrections slipped into the text, so that new errors were accumulated to such an extent, that in Jerome’s day, his annotations could not be distinguished from the primitive text. 19 We repeat it; these facts, viewed in connexion with the astonishing preservation of the Hebrew text, (twelve hundred years older than the Septuagint,) illustrate most impressively the intervention of a particular providence to preserve the purity of the sacred text.” ASC 210.1

We may now inquire if there has been any wilful change in the chronology of the Septuagint? As the most ancient MSS. of the Septuagint have the same chronology as the present, there can have been no change in this respect since at or about the time of its translation. And the change must, consequently, have been then effected. St. Austin, one of the most learned and talented of the men in the early Christian church, charges the earliest transcribers of the Septuagint with a wilful alteration of the dates, and himself follows the Hebrew chronology, which is also followed by Jerome, in his Latin translation of the Bible, and Eusebius in his Chronicle. (In his History, Eusebius follows the Septuagint.) Nor is a MOTIVE wanting. The Septuagint version was not translated for the use of the Jewish synagogue, but for the Alexandrian library. Says a writer in the Pittsburg Christian Advocate:-“The keepers of that library were heathens-men who sought a high antiquity for their country. We do not know how often it was transcribed before it came to be generally used in the synagogue, nor whether the original translation was long retained in the library of the Ptolemies. Perhaps the Egyptians, like some moderns, saw a discrepancy between it and their ancient records, and took upon themselves to alter it. Manetho, who wrote a short time after the translation was made, according to the Hebrew computation, could not find room for his thirty dynasties. He wished to carry Egyptian history to a very remote antiquity; and perhaps some Egyptian Jew might wish to render him assistance. Was there not as much temptation to corrupt the Septuagint as the Hebrew? There was certainly greater opportunity. It may not be possible to answer these queries; but before they are answered, we have no right to assume the correctness of the Septuagint chronology.” ASC 212.1

He also says:-“A circumstance that detracts from our faith in the Septuagint is, that it adds idle legends to the inspired word of God. For proof, the writer would merely refer to the last chapters of Esther and Job; to both of which many verses are added. To the book of Psalms there has also been added a boastful piece, professing to have been written by David, after he had slain Goliah. In the book of Proverbs, the thirtieth chapter is altogether omitted, together with the first nine verses of the thirty-first. In the first chapter of the first book of Chronicles, in some editions, there is an omission of all the verses from the eleventh to the twenty-fourth. These additions and omissions have been noticed by a mere cursory glance; many others might be found by a more careful examination.” ASC 213.1

Another argument which Dr. Hales advances against the Hebrew is, that the ages of the respective patriarchs, at the births of their children, are not proportioned to their subsequent lives; that as those who now live to the age of 80 do not come to maturity till one fourth of that period has elapsed, so he argues there would be the same proportion in the age of those who live to ten times the present age of man. This is, however, entirely an assumption. A man who lives to the age of 100 is matured at as early an age as he who dies at 50. The difference in the age of the two is owing to causes which do not produce the maturity of the person. In the antediluvian age, we may conclude that the purity of the atmosphere, and the absence of causes which have since tended to lessen the age of man, enabled old age to be deferred to a long period. Had there been an entire absence of causes to produce dissolution, man might have lived forever, without its having been necessary that he should have been one fourth of forever in arriving at maturity. The poetic idea- ASC 214.1

“Yet still a hundred years beheld the boy
Beneath his mother’s roof, her infant joy,”
contains less truth than poetry. ASC 215.1

Another argument of Dr. Smith is, that in the age immediately following the flood, all the patriarchs in a direct line, for eleven generations, lived contemporaneously; and in the antediluvian period, nine generations. We see no force in this argument. Because God was pleased to bless the inhabitants of that age with “length of days,” it does not follow that for a proportionably long period they should be destitute of “olive branches” around their tables. And as God saw fit to materially shorten the age of man, it was not necessary that they should die away in just the order of their birth. ASC 215.2

Dr. Hales next argues against the Hebrew version from the shortness of time it allows for the number of inhabitants existing in the time of Abraham. Dr. Smith also asks: ASC 215.3

“Can we believe that, in about 300 years, a single family of eight persons could have covered those immense tracts of country with a population extending from India and Assyria to Ethiopia, Egypt and Greece-that nations should be formed, kings be surrounded with regular courts, money coined, wars levied, and the various classes of society so defined, as the Bible history compels us to believe was the case in the time of Abraham? Again: Is it likely that Nimrod should have formed a kingdom, and assumed the state of a king, in the presence of his father, grandfather, and Noah himself?” ASC 215.4

At the first glance, there is a plausibility to these inquiries. A second look shows their sophistry. In the first place, instead of there being but 300 years from the Deluge to the call of Abraham, the Hebrew chronology gives us 427 years to the death of Terah, when Abraham removed into the land of Canaan, Acts 7:4. This is a material difference. ASC 216.1

2. In the second place, the children of Jacob who went down into Egypt numbered only 75 souls. At the end of 215 years, when they came out of Egypt, they numbered “about 600,000 on foot, men, besides children.” Exodus 12:37. Adding to this the probable number of women, children, and infirm, Dr. Clark estimates that their number could not amount to less than 3,263,000. (See Com.) To amount to this multitude, the original number had doubled once for each 14 years, 20 notwithstanding all their hardships and afflictions. If the posterity of those who survived the Deluge increased in the same ratio, in 427 years, 8 persons would number more than 12,000,000 of souls, a number vastly greater than we are obliged, from the Bible record, to suppose then inhabited those countries, as sparsely as they were then peopled. ASC 216.2

3. As the dispute is not respecting the whole number of years those of each generation lived, it follows that the younger they were at the birth of their first children, so much greater would be the probable number of their children. And as there were but a given number of generations from Noah to Abraham, with a probable larger number in each generation, the number of inhabitants at the call of Abraham would naturally be far greater with the Hebrew, than with the Septuagint computation. ASC 217.1

4. The terms ‘nations,’ ‘kings’, etc., did not then denote extended and populous countries, as at present. Says Sir Isaac Newton:- ASC 217.2

“The four kings from the coasts of Shinar and Elam, who invaded and spoiled the Rephaims, and the inhabitants of the countries of Moab, Ammon, Edom, and the kingdoms of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboim, were pursued and beaten by Abraham, with an armed force of only 318 men.”-Chron. p. 180. ASC 217.3

The reason given by the Egyptian king, who knew not Joseph, for afflicting the children of Israel was: “Behold the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, and let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.” Exodus 1:9, 10. And when Pharaoh pursued the departing Israelites with “all the chariots of Egypt,” he could number but 600, which, according to the most authentic accounts, contained but three persons each. If his cavalry only amounted to that number, his infantry could not be very numerous; and their superiority over Israel must have consisted in their being armed and equipped for battle. ASC 217.4

5. Removing to a distance from his ancestors, as Nimrod did, there was no reason why he should not found a kingdom, any more than if they were deceased. ASC 218.1

Dr. Smith next quotes from the Book of “Enoch,” and the “Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,” where dates seem to correspond with the Septuagint; but he presents no evidence of the authenticity of those dates. Dr. Smith then says:-“We pass from tradition to history, and first direct attention to the annals of China. According to the history of this remarkable nation, Fohi, their first sovereign, began his reign B. C. 2953. It is, however, but fair to say, that there is so much of fable mixed up with the account of this and the six following reigns, that they have been generally considered doubtful; we therefore put them quite out of the calculation. We then come to Yao, who is the first sovereign mentioned in the “Shoo-king,” the celebrated historical work of the great Confucius, which was compiled B. C. 500. But this reign began B. C. 2357, or just nine years before the Hebrew account of the Deluge.” p. 37. ASC 218.2

The commencement of this reign, he also claims, is fixed by Jackson, by an eclipse which is thus recorded in the “Shoo-king:” ASC 219.1

“‘On the first day of the moon, in the reign of Chong Kang, and at the autumnal equinox, there was an eclipse of the sun at eight o’clock in the morning, in the constellation Fang, (which belongs to the forehead of Scorpio) and Hi and Ho, (who presided in the tribunal of Astronomy,) pretended they knew nothing at all of it. They were plunged in wine and debauchery, paying no regard to ancient customs, and entirely forgetful of their duty:’ which was to observe and record this eclipse in the Calendar. And for this neglect they were put to death.” ASC 219.2

1. This eclipse is placed by Jackson, B. C. 2137; but Dr. Hales shows that the eclipse at that time violates all the conditions of this; and says: “Jackson was predetermined to have an eclipse, right or wrong. And on this infallible eclipse, he proceeds to rectify the whole Chinese chronology. The fact seems to be that the eclipse (if there was any such) was interpolated in the Annals, long after, to secure the antiquity of the nation.” Vol. i., p. 299. ASC 219.3

Dr. Hales also denies that there is any evidence of the Chinese being able to compute eclipses till within 500 years of the Christian era. ASC 219.4

2. The date which Dr. Smith assigns for the reign of Yao, B. C. 2357, instead of being nine years before the Hebrew account of the deluge, is only so according to Usher’s Chronology. According to the Hebrew, the deluge occurred B. C. 2505,-148 years before the time named. ASC 220.1

Of the early Chinese history, Dr. Hales remarks: ASC 220.2

“Great uncertainty prevails respecting the origin and first period of the Chinese empire. None of the ancient annals exist, a few fragments excepted; they perished by a singular calamity: the Emperor Hoangti, B. C. 213, like Nabonassar, the king of Babylon, in an earlier age, ambitious of being reputed by posterity the founder of the empire, ordered all the books, medals, inscriptions, coins, and monuments of antiquity, to be destroyed, that there might remain no earlier record, date, or authority relative to religion, science, and politics, than those of his own reign. Hence, their most authentic history, composed from the relics of their ancient books, by Sse-ma-tsien, about a century before Christ, marked neither the dates nor the duration of reigns, or of dynasties, until B. C. 878. And in the Memoirs concerning the History, Arts, etc., of the Chinese, extracted from the Grand Annals, and lately published by the missionaries of Pekin, it is asserted, that all the relations of events prior to the reign of Yao, or Yau, (as differently pronounced by different writers,) which they date, B. C. 2057, ‘are fabulous, composed in modern times, unsupported by authentic records, and full of contradictions. And that neither the Chou-king, or Xu-king, their most ancient and authentic record, nor the books of Confucius, (who died B. C. 479,) or of his disciples, make mention of any genealogies, or princes, before Yao. It is also proved, that the origin of the Chinese Empire cannot be placed higher than one or two generations before Yao.’ ASC 220.3

“This is confirmed by the discordancy of the dates assigned to his reign by different writers: Duhalde asserts, from the most approved Chinese historians, that Yao began to reign B. C. 2357; Martinius and Couplet, B. C. 2159: Freret observes, that nothing certain was recorded in the Chinese Annals previous to the reign of Yao; who flourished B. C. 2325, or B. C. 2307. The latest accounts, we see, reduce it to B. C. 2057, three hundred years lower than the first.” ASC 221.1

Dr. Smith next turns to Egyptian history, and claims that Menes, according to the lowest computation, that of Julius Africanus, began his reign, B. C. 2218, which he claims the Hebrew would make within 134 years of the flood. It would, however, be 287 years after the flood, and 186 years after the birth of Peleg, when there was the confusion of tongues, and consequent dispersion of mankind. Dr. Smith has all along fallen into the error of giving to the Hebrew chronology 150 years less than there is actually given by it. Again he says:- ASC 221.2

“The records of Assyria exhibit equally striking evidence. The fragments of Berosus, and the catalogue of Kings, preserved by Ctesias, place the reign of Nimrod, B. C. 2554, or about 200 years before the Hebrew era of the flood.” p. 38. ASC 222.1

This date would be but 49 years before the deluge, and about 150 years before the probable time of Nimrod. As we have no undisputed testimony respecting the Cha[Original illegible]dean or Assyrian chronology, prior to the era of Nabonassar, B. C. 747, a difference of that period, in the crude records of those ancient times, is not to be received as of more authority than the wonderfully preserved accuracy of the Hebrew text. ASC 222.2

Another argument used against the chronology of the Hebrew text, is derived front the antiquities of Egypt. The hieroglyphics covering the tombs and temples of that ancient country, are just beginning to be deciphered, and are becoming a subject of great interest, not only to the antiquarian, but to the historian and chronologer. In this country, Mr. Glioden, who resided several years in Egypt, and is well versed in all that respects the discoveries there, is decisive in rejecting the shorter chronology. He reiterates many of the objections which have already been replied to. An additional argument of his is, that, according to the Hebrew, Methuselah must have died in the year of the flood; and as those dates are affixed to the common Bible by the British government, he exclaims, “Methuselah is thus drowned by act of Parliament!” There is nothing wonderful in the fact that Methuselah should have died in the year of, and just previous to, the flood; but by the Septuagint reading, he must have survived the deluge fourteen years!! (See table.) Some copies of the Septuagint, however, avoid this absurdity by giving the age of Methuselah as it is given in the Hebrew. ASC 222.3

The principal argument of Mr. Glidden is, however, based on the monumental evidences of a greater antiquity than, he thinks, can be reconciled with the Hebrew text. But is there no room for a mistake in these monumental inscriptions? Were not the subjects of the earlier records traditionary at the time the records were made? Did the national vanity, to be reputed the oldest nation on the globe, have nothing to do with their production? May not the imagination have been drawn upon, and fables been perpetrated on stone and papyrus, as well as on the parchment rolls of other nations? Mr. Glidden claims that the Bible has been designedly altered, and that undesigned errors of transcribers have crept into it. But have there been no designed alterations of Egyptian hieroglyphics? Are none of these records mere copies? Mr. Glidden replies:- ASC 223.1

“The legends of Egypt are exposed to the same errors of translation, and, in their present mutilated condition, are more liable to the same misinterpretation than are the Scriptures; but with this difference, that we are enabled to verify the Egyptian records in the original for ourselves, supposing we choose to consult them in the valley of the Nile, or in European collections, and that we acquire the necessary qualifications to forming a valid opinion.” ASC 223.2

After mentioning various difficulties, which obscure the remoter periods, he says: ASC 224.1

“At last, therefore, we can spread our canvas to the breeze, and begin our voyage down the stream of time. Fogs and mists preclude a very distinct sight of the course. We have many shoals to avoid; and there are many long and gloomy portages over which we must carry our imaginary bark, without knowing precisely the length or the course of the river. As we descend, we shall find enormous landmarks, attesting the greatness of their builders, without always telling the age of their erection. We shall steer by them all, noting the relative bearings of each; till, having reached the obelisk of Heliopolis, B. C. 2088, the mists will gradually dissipate as we proceed; but the shoals are still numerous, and the current still swift. Soon, however, we arrive at the stupendous Hypostyle Halls of Karnac, at the temples and palaces of Thebes, the hoary “Amunei,” or abode of Amun, about the year 1800 B. C.; from which time the voyage will be easy, and the scenery interesting, for a period of 2000 years, when the hieroglyphical annals cease, and subsequent events are chronicled in universal history.” ASC 224.2

If the mists do not begin to dissipate till we reach B. C. 2088, prudence will dictate that we wait till some more certain evidence is reached, before the Hebrew text is surrendered at the command of believers in supposed difficulties. ASC 225.1

Manetho, the great Egyptian annalist, makes thirty-one dynasties, including three hundred and seventy-eight kings, to have existed before B. C. 331. And according to the length of their reigns, the first must have commenced B. C. 5867. To harmonize this with the Septuagint, Mr. Glidden says this may possibly be reduced to B. C. 2715!-though he would not object to an additional 1000 years. If it may thus be reduced more than one half of its assumed antiquity, without affecting its authenticity, why may it not be shortened 400 years more, and harmonize with the Hebrew? Again, how much is known of those early dynasties? The name of but one king is known of the 1st, four of the 4th, and none of the remaining first fifteen dynasties!! ASC 225.2

In another place, Mr. Glidden divides the chronology of Egypt into, 1st, the “Anti-monumental period,” which he says is, “of course, an utter blank.” 2nd, the “Pyramidal,” which he thinks covered “about fifteen centuries.” 3rd, the “Hykshos,” of which no monuments are extant,-with unimportant exceptions,-and, 4th, “The positive Historical period, commencing about 1600 or 1800 years before Christ.” If the positive period is of no earlier commencement, we shall do well to wait for further discoveries, before deciding contrary to the positive numbers of the Hebrew text. ASC 225.3

The only other arguments we notice, are opinions of various writers; but those only prove their adoption of the Septuagint, and not its accuracy. The insufficiency of the arguments advanced against the Hebrew chronology of the Patriarchal Age, leaves it, in our estimation, as the only reliable evidence for the duration of that period. ASC 226.1