ARTICLE II. SACRED CHRONOLOGY. BY PROF. JOSEPH PACKARD, D. D., THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, FAIRFAX, VA. The uncertainty of ancient chronology and the want of agreement among chronologists have passed into a proverb. Scaliger complains that no two systems could be found to agree, and that he rose from the study more doubtful than ever. It was the fond hope of Lord Bacon that "by persevering industry and scrupulous attention to genealogies, monuments, inscriptions, names, letters, traditions and archives, fragments of history and scattered passages from rare books on very different subjects, a venerable tablet might be preserved from the shipwreck of time; a work operose and painful to the author, but extremely delightful for the reader,”—a plan worthy of Bacon's comprehensive mind to conceive, but alas! we fear, never to be realized. Hales is persuaded that the whole of sacred chronology can be reduced to a simple, uniform, and consistent system, and the whole brought to the highest degree of probability, bordering on moral certainty. From an attentive examination of his Analysis, we think that he has failed, from want of sufficient soundness of judgment, to realize his own conception. While his work contains a vast amount of information, it is characterized by rashness of opinion and by unsound interpretations of Scripture. We are sorry to damp sanguine hopes of success in the attainment of certainty in this science; but when we remember that Sir Isaac Newton spent a great part of the last thirty years of his life in this study, and wrote over his system sixteen times! without settling the 1 Whiston in his life says that Sir Isaac wrote out eighteen copies with his own hand, differing slightly from each other. disputed points, and that this subject has exercised the great minds of an Usher, Scaliger, and Playfair, without much success, we dare not hope that, where they have failed, others will succeed. As long as we are deficient in historical and chronological data, so long the difficulty will remain. Our object will be, to exhibit what can be known as to the most important epochs in sacred and profane chronology, and to give general information on the subject, which is to be found scattered in a number of works, not generally accessible. Our hope is that this sketch may serve to some as an introduction to the study, and prepare the way for its further profitable investigation. It was in vain that we looked for a similar guide, when commencing the study. If it but teaches us how narrow is the horizon which bounds human investigation, of what an immense deal we are ignorant, and where information can be found, the lesson will not be wholly without profit. If we are ignorant of the great events which happened before we were born, we are, as Cicero tells us, always children. "Nescire enim quid antea quam natus sis, acciderit, id est semper esse puerum." — De Orat. Lib. II. 13, 14. - We have spoken of the want of agreement among chronologists. In proof of it we might mention that there are on record no less than three hundred different opinions as to the era of the creation, their greatest difference being no less than 3268 years. The amount of variation as to the date of the Deluge is no less than 1142 years, and of the period from the Exodus to the building of Solomon's temple 262 years. And in an event so recent and important as the nativity of our Saviour, there is a difference of some ten years. Unfortunately, ancient chronology had no fixed and uniform era. Had there been such a one from the beginning, the confusion in which the subject is now involved might have been prevented. It would require an observation of many years, and considerable knowledge of astronomy, to determine the true year, and without this no scientific system can be constructed. The lunar year of 354 days was in use till the time of Julius Cæsar. He first introduced the solar year, and began it in January. To make up for the quarter of a day by which it exceeded 365 days, he inserted a day in every fourth year, which was called Bissextile or Leap Year. The confusion had become so great before this simple and ingenious mode of reckoning was adopted, that May had fallen back into March, and the vernal equinox fell on the ides of May instead of the 23d of March; and thus the civil months no longer corresponded to the proper seasons of the year, but had shifted their places. Different nations have adopted different eras, which continuing for a limited period, have created great embarrassment in their comparison. The earliest mode of computing considerable periods of time was by generations. In the Hebrew language we find the word generations put for history. We have a specimen of this in the fifth and eleventh chapters of Genesis. The next mode was by reigns, a more variable and uncertain mode than even by generations. As Newton well says: "kings are succeeded not only by their eldest sons, but by their brothers; sometimes they are slain or deposed, so that it is very difficult to determine the average duration of reigns. There may be also minorities and interregna." There would be next a tendency to reckon from the date of any remarkable event, such as the Institution of the Olympic games and the Foundation of Rome. As the only mode of reckoning by the Greeks for so long a period was by Olympiads, they deserve here some notice. They were celebrated every four years or in the first month of the fifth year, and continued for five successive days. On each of these days were celebrated the different games of leaping, running, throwing the discus, darting, and wrestling. Not only did the inhabitants of Greece resort to Olympia, where they were held, but those of other countries. The first commenced July 19, B. C. 776, and we find them mentioned as late as A. D. 65. The Romans reckoned from the foundation of Rome, which took place July 5, B. C. 753. In fixing this day as the true date of the founding of Rome, we have an admira ble illustration of the application of Astronomy to history. Livy says, "there was a total eclipse of the sun A. U. C. 566." Cicero and Plutarch both testify that there was a total eclipse on the day of the founding of Rome. Astronomers have demonstrated that there was a total eclipse visible at Rome July 5, B. C. 753. But it is with sacred chronology that we are now most concerned; and, when we come to examine the most ancient documents, we find the Hebrew and Septuagint chronologies differing from each other more than 1300 years. The Septuagint genealogies exhibit so uniform and systematic a deviation from the Hebrew text, as to lead us to suspect that they have been tampered with, to make them conform to current chronological opinions and to remove difficulties which lie in the way of the Hebrew. In the Septuagint no son is born before the father is 150 years of age. In case the Hebrew makes him out less, they add a century and subtract it from the residue of his life, so that they both agree in the sum total of their lives. Augustine observed the uniformity of the variation, and ascribed it to design, though ignorant of its cause; "ignoro qua ratione sit factum. Videtur habere quandam, si dici potest, error ipse constantiam; nec casum redolet sed industriam." By thus making the father a century older before paternity than the Hebrew, in the first five generations, and also in the seventh, and adding six years to Lamech's age before paternity, the Septuagint increases the interval between the creation and Deluge 606 years. In Jared's genealogy, the Hebrew and Septuagint agree, and do not differ, according to some MSS. of the Septuagint, in Methuselah's. In the post-diluvian genealogies, the Septuagint also adds a century to every generation after Shem to Nahor. It inserts Cainan, 130 years, and adds 50 years to Nahor, and thus adds to the Hebrew 780 years, in the period from the Deluge to Abra Augustine: In his autem continuatur ipsius mendositatis similitudo; ita ut ante genitum filium qui ordini inseritur, alibi supersint centum anni, alibi desint; post genitum autem, ubi deerant supersint, ubi supererant desint, ut summa conveniat. Et hoc in prima, secunda, tertia, quarta, quinta, septima generatione invenitur. ham. The cause assigned by Hales, why the Hebrew chronology has been shortened, that it was done to invalidate a prediction or tradition among the Jews, that the Messiah was to come in the sixth Millennium, and that appearing as he did in the fifth, he could not be the true Messiah, is very improbable; and the time he fixes upon for the interpolation, A. D. 130, is equally so. When so many copies were in existence, it would be quite out of the question. It would shake our confidence in the scrupulous care of the Jews, in preserving inviolate the lively oracles of God, and would go far in undermining our belief in the integrity of the Hebrew text. Why did they not alter the seventy weeks of Daniel for the same reason? To increase the difficulty, Josephus has a chronology of his own, sometimes agreeing with the Hebrew and sometimes with the Septuagint. Where he agrees with the Hebrew, Hales thinks his text has been interpolated; Michaelis thinks the same is true of his text where he agrees with the Septuagint. As his text now stands, he is certainly self-contradictory. His editors have been very careless, and there have been many errors of transcribers. The recovery of his genuine computation is probably out of the question. The weight of antiquity and of the earliest fathers, with the exception of Origen and Jerome, the most capable of deciding the point, was in favor of the Septuagint. This may be explained from the general ignorance of the Hebrew original, and the extensive circulation and use of the Septuagint. The longer chronology was adopted in the church of Rome till the time of Bede. It was rejected subsequently, and Petavius is now the standard of the church of Rome. The Septuagint chronology has been defended by Walton, Vossius, Houbigant, Pezronius, Hudson, Whiston, Kennicott, Jackson, Hales; while Gesenius, Michaelis, Scaliger, Petavius, Usher, Newton, Kennedy, Playfair, Stuart, have adopted the Hebrew. Gesenius, in his dissertation on the Samaritan Pentateuch speaks of the departure of the Samaritan and Septu 1 Page 48. |