The chronology of Israel and the Jews...

Preface

It appears evident from an examination of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that it was originally the purpose of God, that his Church should be furnished with a Chronology of the World from its Creation, for the purpose of guiding her to such a knowledge of the times and the seasons as might at once throw light upon his past dispensations, and prepare her for the coming of Messiah, which was to take place at that fulness of time, ordained by the

Father in his infinite wisdom. To a knowledge derived from Patriarchal tradition of what that appointed fulness was, in addition to the Prophecies of Daniel, we may probably trace the general belief which prevailed in the Jewish Church, that the advent of Messiah was to take place about the middle of the sixth Millenary, or the year of the world 5500, and the consequent expectation of his coming, which pervaded the whole eastern world in the age that He actually appeared.

That such a belief did exist, is a fact stated by different ancient writers. Thus Ephraim Syrus, who died in the year 378, says, " The Jews have abstracted 600 years from the " ages of Adam, Seth, &c., that they may conceal the Mes- " siah, lest their own books should convince them of the com- " ing of Christ, who was to appear after 5500 to deliver man."f

* Gal. iv. 4.

t See the place cited by Dr Keniiicott in his Dissertatio Generalis, p. 37, fiom_a MS. in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

iv

PREFACE.

The same belief, as I learn from Mr CiiUimore, liad been previously mentioned by Julius Africanus. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, who died in the year 181, fixes also, in conformity to this tradition, the birth of Christ in the year of the vy^orld 5507.* Syncellus, as I learn from Kennicott,f places it in the year 5500, in which date he is followed by Eutychius of Alexandria. The Abyssinian Chronicle of Oxum, according to Bruce, agrees with these writers. J

The opinion now prevalent among the Jews, as I learn from a Hebrew Tract referred to in p. 69 of this work, of the approaching advent of the Messiah at the end of 112 Jubilees from the Creation, which period they suppose will elapse in a. d. 1840, answering to the year of the w^orld, in their curtailed Chronology, 5600, § may probably also be traced to the same source of primitive tradition, that the Messiah was to appear about the year of the world 5500. It is true that, by calculating the Jubilee at 50 years, contrary to the truth of the Scriptures, they make out now a period of 5600 years : but if we assume the Jubilee at 49 years, which is proved in these pages to have been the computation of the Synagogue, as it is certainly that of the Scriptures, then 112 Jubilees are exactly 5488 years.

Next, let it be observed, that according to the Prediluvian and Postdiluvian Chronology of the Seventy, and the scheme established in this work, from the Exodus to the destruction of the first Temple, the length of the whole period from the creation to the Christian era is as follows :

To the Deluge, . . . . 2262 years.

Thence to the birth of Abraham, . . 1072

Thence to the Exodus, . . . 505

Thence to the Christian era, . . . 1639

This sum, it will be seen, is just 10 years short of the pe-

* Kennicott ubi supra. f Ibid. p. 48. % Hales, vol. i. p. 211. ^ See also a Jewish prophecy in the Morning \A''atch, vol. i. p. 626.

TREFACE.

V riod of 112 Jubilees at 49 years; and, if we add 28 years to it, we are brought to tbe year of Christ 28, being the 35th Jubilee year from the Exodus as established in these pages. Thus, according to the authentic Chronology of the Seventy, it is proved that a period of 112 Jubilees and 17 years did actually elapse from creation to the baptism of the Messiah in Jordan, and the descent of the Holy Ghost upon Him, which I suppose took place in that year.

Since, however, the Jubilee is a sacred period which has especial reference, not to creation but to redemption, I am forced to dissent from the opinion of the celebrated Frank, as well as of the Jews, that it ascends so high as the Creation. A single Jubilee measured a period, at the close of which every one in Israel returned to his lost or alienated inheritance, and every past alienation was annihilated ; and therefore I am led to conclude, that the great series of Jubilees could not begin to run or be counted till our first parents, by their disobedience, lost their inheritance. I conceive, then, that the year of their expulsion from Paradise was probably the epoch of the great Jubilean period.* If, therefore, we suppose that event to have occurred in the year 17 of the Creation, and that the great Jubilean period then began, it will follow that the year of Christ 28, when He was baptized in Jordan, was the 113th Jubilee year from the fall, the 112th Jubilee having expired in the year before. This perhaps affords as probable a ground of conjecture as any that has yet been offered

* It may at first view appear incongruous, that the first Jubilee should be dated at the period of the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Paradise. But let it be considered that then was given to them the promise of the Incarnation of Messiah, the Seed of the Woman. Then were sacrifices instituted, and our first parents clothed with the skins of the animals slain. Then also the manifestation of the glory of the Shechinah first took place, the symbol of the grace and favour of God to fallen man, at the east of the garden of Eden to keep the way of the tree of life. The expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden was in itself an act of mercy. There is no incongruity then in supposing that the Jubilee Trumpet then first sounded. For the sweet words, it shall bruise thy head, were to our first parents the note of Jubilee.

vi

PREFACE.

with respect to the era of the fall, concerning which, as the Scriptures are wholly silent, our learned men have differed so widely in opinion ; some, as Usher, supposing that Adam fell the very day he was placed in Eden, while Dr Hales goes into the opposite extreme, and places the fall 100 years after the creation of Adam.

That this event took place so soon as is generally supposed, seems very unlikely ; for it is not to be supposed that the first great commandment of the Creator should have made a very slight impression on the mind of Adam, or that Eve was left unwarned and unguarded by him at a very early period. It seems more consistent, also, with probability, that the wily tempter did not at once enter upon the execution of his hellish enterprise, but waited a fit opportunity, when the sense of danger was, in a measure, worn oif, by long familiarity with the sight of the forbidden tree. On the other hand, the period of Dr Hales, I cannot but concur with the learned editor of Dr Stackhouse's History of the Bible, in thinking very improbable. It is also inconsistent with the Oriental tradition, — that Seth was not born till 130 years after the murder of Abel.

These things, it will be understood, are offered only as conjectures. But that 112 Jubilees and 17 years did elapse from the creation to the year of Christ 28, is not a conjecture, but, I presume, a fact established by the testimony of the Septuagint. There is, indeed, a difference between the various copies of that version to the extent of 20 years in the antediluvian Chronology, which the Vatican edition makes 2242 instead of 2262 years, the discrepancy being in the age of Methuselah when he begat Lamech, which the Alexandrian and Aldine copies of the Seventy accord with the Hebrew in making 187 years, while the Vatican makes it only 167. But the testimony, also, of Josephus, is added to that of the Hebrew text in favour of the former number, and there can be no hesitation in preferring it. There is, moreover, another, and a most powerful testimony, for this Chronology, which has been preser^^ed by Eusebiiis in his Prseparatio

PREFACE.

vii

Evangelica, lib. ix. c. xxi. He quotes, from the writings of Alexander Polyhistor, an extract from the History of Demetrius, who lived about 220 years before Christ,* as follows,

There w^ere from Adam to the descent into Egypt of the " family of Joseph 3624 years, and from the deluge to the " arrival of Jacob in Egypt 1360 years."

Now, the first of these sums of years, it will be seen, accords exactly'with the genuine Chronology of the Alexandrian and Aldine copies of the Seventj^

From the Creation to the Flood .... 2262 years

From the Flood to the birth of Abraham . . . 1072

To the call of Abraham 75

To the descent of Jacob into Egypt . . , . 215f

Total from the Creation .... 3624

The second period from the flood is deficient 2 years ; for the three last numbers 1072 + 75 215 = 1362 years. But it appears probable, either that Demetrius calculated from the birth of Arphaxad, 2 years after the flood, or that the 2 has dropped from his text or that of Eusebius. Be this as it may, a difference of 2 years cannot affect the general conclusion in favoiu" of the Chronology of the Alexandrian copies of the Seventy from the testimony of Demetrius, who lived at Alexandria about half a century after it was made, and, therefore, had access, most probably, to the original autograph, deposited in the library of that city. This testimony, then, appears quite conclusive. Or, were w^e to prefer the antediluvian period of Josephus, which is 2256 years, arising from a difference of 6 years in the age of Lamech when he begat Noah,

* See Hales, vol. i. p. 289. Dr Russell's Connect., vol. i. p. 63.

f The particulars of this period are,

To the birth of Isaac .... 25 years

Jacob's age when he stood before Pharaoh 130 viii

PREFACE.

it would only make a corresponding difference of 6 years, being 11 years instead of 17, between the creation and the supposed commencement of the Jubilean period.

The stream of the Scriptural Chronology begins with the generations of the antediluvian patriarchs, goes through the book of Genesis, and proceeds, without interruption, through the Pentateuch and book of Joshua to the division of the lands, which was in the 7 th year after the entrance into Canaan. Thence to the beginning of the 1st Servitude, under Cushan-rishathaim, the first blank occurs, there being no Scriptural Chronology now in existence of the intervening period, although there is reason to suspect, from the Stromata of Clemens of Alexandria, that the number of 27 years was formerly noted in some copies of the book of Joshua as measuring the interval between the death of Moses and the 1st Servitude, this period being called by Clemens, as it is by most of the ancient Chronographers, that of the administration of Joshua himself; but the sums total of their various schemes of Chronology show that they included in it the whole interval till the 1st Servitude, much in the same way that Ptolemy continues the years of the reign of Alexander ^gus for 5 years after his death, to the accession of Ptolemy Soter of Egypt.

The Scriptural Chronology commences again at the 1st Servitude, and proceeds, without interruption, through the administrations of the Judges to the end of the 7tli Servitude, 1 Sam. vii. 2. Here we have a second chasm, neither the length of the administration of Samuel nor of the reign of Saul being found in the Old Testament. Through the good providence of God, however, the former is supplied by Josephus, who informs us in his Antiq. vi. 13. 5., that Samuel ruled the people alone, after the death of Eli, 12 years, and with Saul 18 years. This 12 years administration begins after the 7th Servitude, already mentioned, as is evident from 1 Sam. vii. 13. The length of the reign of Saul is fixed by St Paul, Acts xiii. 21.

The Scriptural stream begins once more in 2 Sam. v. 4.,

PREFACE.

ix and goes do'5\ai5 without interruption, till the 37 th year of the captivity of Jeconiah, '2 Kings xxv. 27., where it comes in contact with the Astronomical Canon of Ptolemy, as shown in the 2d chapter of this Work. In the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Haggai, and Zechariah, various dates are also given to us, which bring down the Chronology to the 20th of Artaxerxes, or the year b. c. 445. There is also mention in Neh.xiii. 6. of Nehemiah's returning to Artaxerxes in the 32 d year of his reign, and again, after certain days, how long, various conjectures have been formed, coming to Jerusalem. The 32d year of Artaxerxes was in the year B. c. 433, and it is the latest point of Chronology in the Old Testament. It is true that Dr Hales supposes that the narrative of Nehemiah brings dowTi the line of high priests to Jaddua.* But as the priesthood of Jaddua did not begin till B. c. 341, being 104 years after the date of Nehemiah's commission, it will be at once seen that this is altogether improbable, and, therefore, we must conclude with Dr Gill, that the 11th, 22d, and 23d verses of Neh. xii. have been added since his time. Malachi, the last of the prophets, lived about the time of Nehemiah. Prideaux supposes he prophesied about B. c. 431, and Hales, 11 years later; but as no date is affixed to his prophecies, and we cannot, therefore, fix the exact time of his appearance, vv-e are still pinned down to the above-mentioned year, b. c. 433, as the latest authentic point of the Chronology of the Old Testament.

The next inquiry which presents itself to the mind is, upon what principles the years of the generations, and the administrations, and reigns, which form the basis of the Scriptural Chronology, are computed; whether in complete or current time. The determination of this point is attended wdth some difficulty, but, from an analytical ^n.ew of the reigns of Jehoiakim and Zedekiah of Judah, who are both said to have reigned 11 years, making a sum of 22 years, considerable light is thrown on the question.

* Hales, vol. ii. p. o30. b

X

PREFACE.

Josiali was slain in battle in the year b. c. 610, and was succeeded by Jelioahaz, who reigned 3 months. It is proved in this Work, that the following year, b. c. 609, was the first of the reign of Jehoiakim, and that his 4th year was the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar. Further, it appears from 2 Kings xxiv. 12, that the 3 months' reign of Jehoiachin, who succeeded him, was in the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, and from 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 10, that it was not till the year was expired that he was carried captive to Babylon and Zedekiah made king in his room. It is, therefore, demonstrated by these facts, that the reign of Jehoiakim was only 10 years and some months in complete time, and that the 3 months' reign of Jehoiachin was included in his lltli year.

In the next place, we learn from what has been said, that the reign of Zedekiah began at the commencement of the following year, or in Nisan. It is accordingly manifest, that the years of his reign, and of the captivity of Jehoiachin, are equally computed from Nisan in the books of 2 Kings and EzekieL The eleven years' reign of Zedekiah was, however, as we knov/ from Jerem. xxxix. 2, in complete time only 10 years, 3 months, and 8 days, and we thus learn that his reign, like that of Jehoiakim, was computed in current time. Various other examples of this mode of reckoning occur in the Tables in this Work, especially in the reigns of the kings of Israel. I content myself with mentioning the reigns of Nadab, Baasha, and Ela of Israel, in p. 20, and the passages of Scripture referred to. I shall also, with regard to the Chronology of the kings of Israel, cite a remark of Mr Scott on 1 Kings xxii. 51. " Learned men," says he, " suppose that the Chronology of the kings of Israel was adjusted to that of the kings of Judah." This I believe to be the exact state of the case. For the Chronology of the church, and, therefore, the world, is carried on through the line of the patriarchs and rulers of the church till the rise of the four Gentile monarchies ; and Judah, and not Israel, being, properly speaking, after the revolt of the ten tribes, the Churchy the Chronolog}^ of the lyings of Israel is only introduced, as a connecting link

PREFACE.

xi as it were, to tliat of the kings of Judali, and to throw mutual light upon the histories of both branches of the family of Abraham.

I proceed to observe, in the next place, that though we have thus seen that the reigns of individual kings are computed in current time, yet there must have been some principles whereby the series of reigns were equalized with complete years; for otherwise, there would be no well defined Chronology in the Scriptures. All would be doubt and uncertainty, and the very purpose for which the Chronology was given, would, in a great measure, be defeated. It is, accordingly, undeniable, that the Jews themselves, as well in their popular and current scheme of Chronology, as in the writings of their learned men, Josephus for example, do always calculate the series of the generations and administrations in the Scriptures as being in complete time. St Paul, in the synagogue of Antioch, Acts xiii. 20, adopts the same principle, since, as is shown in this Work, his period of 450 years comes out with the greatest exactness.

The mode in which this was effected seems to me to have been as follows. The years of each king were reckoned from the 1st of Nisan. A king who reigned ten years and a half of complete time, counting his first year from Nisan, was computed to reign the whole of the 11th year, and his reign was therefore recorded as being 11 years. His successor would, in such a case, begin to reign six months before the end of the former computed reign ; but the first year of the reign of the successor was not, in the Scriptural reckoning, that in which he actually began to reign, but it commenced in the Nisan following. The table in p. 20 affords an example of this. Asa reigned in the 20th of Jeroboam of Israel, whose reign was 22 years. But as Nadab, the successor of Jeroboam, began to reign in the 2d of Asa, it is plain that the 21st of Jeroboam was computed the 1st year of Asa and not the 20th, when he actually began to reign.

When, on the other hand, a king died in the earlier part of a year, aSj for example, the first or second month, it appears xii

PREFACE.

to me that the converse of the above rule obtained. Thus, in the same 20th page, Rehoboam must have lived till the beginning of the 18th of Jeroboam, since Abijah's reign began in that year. The odd months, or weeks, or days of Rehoboam, after he completed his 17th year, are, however, not counted to him, but the reign of Abijah is reckoned from the 1st of Nisan before the death of Rehoboam and his own accession.

By these means, in a series of reigns and administrations, the years of each are made complete time. The only exception to this in the whole main stream of the Scripture Chronology, appears to be in the account of the reign of Jehoram of Judah, which, I have shown in the 3d chapter, must, in order to harmonize the Scriptures with themselves, be reduced from 8 years current to 6 complete, I do not pretend to be able to assign a reason for this anomaly, but I have, in the proper place, given, as it appears to me, the most irrefragable arguments from the Scriptures to prove that this reign must be limited to 6 years.

I shall only say further on this subject, that, as the reigns of the kings of Israel do not form the basis of any Scriptural Chronology, but seem to have been introduced for the illustration and confirmation of the Chronology and the history of the kings of Judah, the length of these reigns will be frequently found computed in current time, as will appear by a reference to the tables in this Work ; but the text itself, as in the case of Jehoram of Judah, contains such internal marks as to enable us to reduce them to complete time.

There is one other point which it now becomes necessary to touch, in consequence of my having been forced into a controversy respecting it.* The Tract on the Jubilean

* The whole of the discussion which follows, upon a point as to which all men of real knowledge of the subject are now agreed, namely, the true length of the Jubilee, has been forced upon me by the endeavours of the Reviewer of my Tract on the Jubilean Chronology in the Investigator, to overthrow my whole reasoning, asserting that I am wrong as to the length of the Jubilee, which he maintains to be 50 instead of 49 years. It was

PREFACE.

xiii

Chronology, wliicli was piiblislied by me about a year ago, proceeds, like the tables of this Work, upon the foundation, that the Jubilean period is exactly 49 solar years, a point which, to those who have obtained any knowledge of the analogies of the Scripture, is no less certain than that the week contains 7 days. This computation, as I have sho\m in the last chapter of the present Work, is that of the ablest Jevvish writers, and of the synagogue itself, as is demonstrated by the extract from Maimonides, containing the computation of the Jubilees, both before and after the captivity. Among Christian wTiters, it is supported by Usher, W. Lowth, Shuckford, Calmet,* Scaliger, Hales, Frank, Horne, Gill, Scott, the \^Titers of the Ancient Universal History, and many others. It will be found also, that some at least, I suspect the greater number, of those who are named as holding the opposite view, do, in effect, accord with us. Josephus, for example, says the Jubilee was the 50th year, and even Usher says the same.f But Josephus nowhere says that 50 complete years elapsed from Jubilee to Jubilee. In effect, to say that it was the 50th

my intention to have exposed the mistakes and misstatements of the above writer in this Preface. But his errors are so numerous, that it would require more time and space than I can now spare to do it completely ; the task is also an ungrateful one, and, as he has actually confessed, in his Number for December last, the latest I have yet seen, that he is not icell versed in the subject generally, or, in other words, that he is ignorant of it, and also, that he had not, when he wrote the notice of my Work, taken the trouble to read what I had previously written on the same subject, I shall, for the present at least, leave his critical labours in the vale of that oblivion where they will speedily repose. I might here, in a very few words, say some very severe things against this writer, who, by the sarcastic and bitter tone of his last article, has given me abundant provocation ; but it is forbidden to me to return evil for evil. I shall therefore refrain from doing so, but simply add, that three different scientific persons have favoured me with remarks on the Tract he has endeavoured to overthrow, and they exhibit a complete contrast to the spirit he has manifested. Men of real science always do justice to the labours of othei-s.

* Calmet in his Dictionary expressly says, that the interval between Jubilee and Jubilee is 49 years.

t " Hence also," says he, viz. from the 1st Sabbatic year, " the years of Jubilee, or of every fifty years space, is (are) to be reckoned." Annals, p. 27.

xiv

PREFACE.

year, is just saying tliat there were 49 complete years from Jubilee to Jubilee, on the same principle that one Sunday is the 8th day from the Sunday before. It is, in point of fact, quite as absurd to say that the Jubilee, being the 50th year, authorizes us to affirm that there are 50 years in the period, as it would be to maintain, that because Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost came down on the Apostles, was the 50th day from the day of the waving of the first-fruits of the barley harvest, when our Lord arose, therefore there were 50 complete days in the interval.*

I remark, in the next place, that Josephus has in fact in his own history decided the point, since he informs us, as is shown in the last chapter of this Work, that the years b. c. 135 and 37 were both Sabbaths. For the interval between them is 98 years, being the space of 2 Jubilees at 49 years. Now, had the Jubilean period been 50 years, since it is acknowledged by all who hold that view, that the Jubilee year always was the year after the 7tli Sabbath, then the year B. c. 135, being a Sabbath, the year b. c. 37, instead of being a Sabbath, must have turned out the 5th of a Shemittah, and the Sabbath woidd have been 2 years afterwards, in b. c. 35. In like manner, the various Sabbatic years which I have established from the year b. c. 891 downwards, do all establish the true length of the Jubilee, placing it upon the immoveable basis of the authentic history of the Scriptures.

Before, however, I leave this subject, I must be permitted to refer to a striking fact, in confirmation of the length of the Jubilee, with which I was first made acquainted by a scientific friend, in some remarks he favoured me with on the astronomical cycles of Mons. de Chesaiix : —

" The simple perfect cycle of which the others are formed " is that of Meton, the basis of the Athenian calendar, a pe-

* It may appear almost incredible, but it is quite true, that the reviewer in the Investigator has actually asserted, (see the No. for December, 1834, p. 124,) that the interval here mentioned, from the day of the waxing of the first-fruits to Pentecost, is 50 complete days. Now, it is quite in vain to reason with a person offering sucli absurdities to the public.

PREFACE.

XV

" riod of 19 years; but its base is a prime, and will not re- " solve itself into factors. Tlie others are formed from it " by multiplying by the nimibers up to 20, or beyond ; the " nearer the more accurate, and adding- 11.

" Taking then 1 for the multiplier, we have 30 years at " once a simple and composite cycle, as it resolves into the " factors 2, 3, 5, which, wdth 7, are the base of most sacred " numbers. Thus the prophetic month, or the difference " between the two periods of Daniel's prophecy, 1260 days " and 1290 days, interpreted a day for a year, is the simplest " sacred and perfect cycle. Taking then 2 for the multi- " plier, we have 49 years, like the other, at once perfect and " composite, as it consists of 7 X 7 years. This is still more " remarkable, as being the great Sabbatic or Jubilee period, " composed of seven Sabbaths of years, the great and most sa- " cred cycle of the Jewish economy."

The cyclical character of the period of 49 years, thus stated in the remarks of my scientific friend, forms the basis of the Jubilean system of the learned Professor Frank, of w^hich an account is given by Mr Granville Penn, in his Work on the Mineral and Mosaical Geologies.* According to Frank, 49 tropical years are equal to 50 lunar years and a half, 1 day and 8 horn's. I have, however, made the calculation, and find by the tables of lunations of Mayer, that the difference is somewdiat less, being 1 day, 7 hours, 58 minutes, 4 seconds, 42 thirds. The period of 49 years is thus a luni-solar cycle, at the end of which, the sun and moon are foimd vrithin 1 day, and somewhat less than 8 hours, of the point in the heavens from whence they set out. The proof of tliis is as follows :

D. H, U. S. Til.

49 Tropical years contain . . 17,896 20 ol 12 0 50|- Lunar years, or 606 Lunations, contain 17,895 12 53 7 18

The difference or the Epact is . . 1 7 58 4 42

It hence follows, that the 49 th year of the Jubilee is tlie xvi

PREFACE.

last half of the SOth, and the first half of the 51st lunar year.