CHAPTER III.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HEBREW AND SEPTUAGINT CHRONOLOGIES.

Thus, it appears that there is a difference of _thirteen centuries and a-quarter_ between the Hebrew-Usher and the Septuagint chronologies, at the epoch of the Call of Abraham,—a difference which is increased by another _century and a-half_, in the remaining ages of the world up to the birth of Christ,—making in all, a difference of _fourteen and three-quarters_ exactly, or nearly _fifteen centuries_! To account for this difference, the advocates of the longer computation not only impugn, as we have seen, the accuracy of the Hebrew text, but adduce various important and conclusive arguments against the shorter computation, in order to show the inconsistency of its statements. Mr. Clinton, in citing these arguments, chiefly from Jackson and Hales, endeavours to rebut them, and to defend the Hebrew chronology, especially in the first two ages of the world; although he is forced to yield to the mass of evidence against it, in the period of the Judges.

1. Argument against the shorter computation, founded on the proportion between the Antepaidogonian Ages and Whole Lives of the Patriarchs—Reasons for the enlargement of this ratio, and the diminution of the length of human life.

The first argument, which is, that “the shorter generations are repugnant to the course of nature,” is neither placed in a clear light, nor fairly answered by Mr. Clinton; Fast. Hell. vol. i. p. 292. Although the extraordinary longevity of man both before and after the flood, has no parallel in the subsequent history of the world, and we are therefore deprived of a satisfactory means of comparison; yet we perceive a suitable proportion in the Greek numbers, between the Antepaidogonian ages and whole lives of the Patriarchs in the first two periods, which entirely fails in the Hebrew numbers. Thus, taking the averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the great discrepancy in the Antediluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that the former is about _one-fifth_ part of the latter in the Septuagint, and about _one-ninth_ part in the Hebrew. If these ratios be applied to the present average duration of human life, we find that men, according to the former text, would beget children at the age of _fourteen_ years; but, according to the latter, at the age of _eight_ years! Again, taking the averages of the _six Antepaidogonian_ ages which occasion the chief discrepancy in the Postdiluvian period, and the corresponding _whole lives_, we find that the former is about _one-third_ part of the latter in the Septuagint, and about _one-eleventh_ part in the Hebrew. Applying these ratios as before, we find that men, according to the former text, would beget children at the age of _twenty-three_ years; but according to the latter, at the age of _seven_ years! On the supposition, therefore, which we think not unreasonable, that in these periods, the development of the powers of the human frame was proportional to the length of human life, it is manifest that there is a propriety and consistency in the Greek numbers, which are not only totally wanting in the Hebrew, but which render the idea of generation at the ages now to be found in that text, utterly impossible. It may be objected even to the Greek numbers, that the ratio in the Antediluvian period is rather premature, but it is not impossible; and we see in the enlargement of the ratio, and in the diminution of the length of life in the Postdiluvian period, according to the Septuagint, the wise arrangement of an overruling Providence! For, the wickedness which led to the destruction of the old world, appears to have had its origin in the premature and unlawful connections which were formed between “the sons” of the worshippers of the true God, “who kept not their first estate” or original principles, and “the daughters” of those sensualists of the Cainitish race, who are, with them, “reserved in perpetual chains under darkness to the judgment of the great day!” In order, therefore, to prevent such a fearful superabundance of vice in future ages of the world, we see that the duration of the life, as well as the development of the natural powers of man, was reduced to narrower limits.

2. Argument founded on the regular succession of human generations—Anomalies and Paradoxes of the Hebrew text—Remark of Eusebius—Objections of learned men unanswered.

The second argument, which is, that the shorter computation is inconsistent with the regular succession of human generations, is rather too quickly passed over by Mr. Clinton; nor do we wonder at his haste, for in our opinion, this argument possesses very great weight, and is very difficult to answer in a satisfactory manner. In the Postdiluvian age, where he admits that it is more cogent, there were, according to the Hebrew chronology, no less than _ten_ generations all alive on the earth at the same time, contrary to the principles of providential government so often referred to in Scripture, and the following strange anomalies and paradoxes took place. The last two Antediluvian Patriarchs were contemporary with all the Postdiluvian; and after having witnessed the destruction of the old world, they were doomed to behold the violence of Nimrod, the rebellious, the wicked project of the building of Babel, and the judgment of God in the confusion of tongues and the sudden dispersion of mankind. Noah also survived the deaths of Peleg and Nahor; so that, contrary to the express words of Scripture, the earth was divided in the days of Noah instead of the days of Peleg. Eusebius has even remarked that Noah was the contemporary of Abraham for _fifty-eight_ years! To avoid this obvious inconsistency was no doubt a strong reason for Usher’s adoption of the _sixty_ years additional to Terah’s Antepaidogonian age, the Hebrew chronology standing so much in need of this extra time at the point of its greatest poverty. Shem, the Antediluvian, survived the deaths of all the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, excepting Heber; he was alive at the marriages of Isaac, Ishmael and Esau; and, having buried nine generations of his descendants, including the Father of the Faithful, witnessed the destruction of Sodom, and died without partaking of the Covenant of Circumcision! Terah, the father of Abraham, was an idolater; while Noah, the living witness of God’s judgment on the old world, and a preacher of righteousness, and his son Shem, the heir of his father’s blessing,—both Terah’s ancestors—were still alive! The promise made to Abraham, that he should “go to his fathers in peace,” and be “buried in a good old age,” most distinctly implies that all those fathers,—the Postdiluvian Patriarchs,—were dead and buried before him; but, according to the Masorete text, Shem, the Antediluvian, and _seven_ of the Postdiluvian Patriarchs, all his ancestors, were alive at his death; and the same Antediluvian, with _two_ of the Postdiluvians, Salah and Heber, even survived him! But it is quite unnecessary to dwell on these paradoxes so contrary to the ordinary providence of God, and to the whole tenor of holy writ. Enough has been adduced to show the inconsistency of the shorter computation, and the difficult problems which its advocates have yet to solve, in order to establish it on a secure foundation, and to meet the unanswered objections of the host of learned and pious men in all ages, who have, either wholly or in part, adopted or defended the Septuagint chronology; such as, the early chronographers, and historians down to Syncellus, the early Christian Fathers, and in later times, Morinus, J. Vossius, Pezron, Raleigh, Stillingfleet, Walton, Kennicott, Jackson, Hales, Horsley, and Russell. This argument is ably enforced by Mr. Cuninghame in the “Essay” to his “Chart of Sacred Chronology” pp. 17, 18, the “Discourse,” in his “Dissertation on the Apocalypse” pp. 533–536, and his other Chronological works.[17]

3. Argument founded on the inconsistency of the co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and within a short period from the flood—Remarks on the building of Babel—Mr. Clinton refuted—Mr. Cuninghame’s argument from Scripture—The judgments of God forgotten.

The third argument is, that the Hebrew computation is inconsistent with the co-existence of idolatry and the worship of the true God, in the same family, and within so short a period from the flood. This argument has been partly anticipated; but it receives additional strength from the following considerations. If the short account of the building of Babel, Gen. xii. 1–9, be critically examined, there can be no doubt that this politico-religious project, which was headed by Nimrod, the “_Great Intolerant_ before the Lord,” was the earliest attempt on record to establish the Zabian system of idolatry. For the arguments in favour of this opinion, we must, for brevity’s sake, refer to a work recently published, alike remarkable for the novelty of its views and the Scriptural simplicity of its style, entitled the “Religious History of Man,” by Mr. D. Morison, pp. 157–168. Mr. Clinton sees “nothing wonderful” in the fact that “idolatry should have sprung up during the lives of Noah and Shem;” and he accounts for it on the principles of the fecundity of mankind and their dispersion at the confusion of tongues. It is very strange, however, that Terah, who is mentioned in Joshua