02.10. FROM THE BIRTH OF CHRIST TO THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLE JOHN

CHAPTER 10. FROM THE BIRTH OF CHRIST TO THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLE JOHN. “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, everyone into his own city.” Luke 2:1-3. On this occasion Mary, the mother of Jesus, with Joseph her husband, went up to Bethlehem, and there was born “in the city of David aSAVIOR, which isCHRIST THE LORD.” Luke 2:11.

Cyrenius, a Roman senator and procurator, or collector of the emperor’s revenue, was employed to make the enrollment preparatory to the taxing. “This we learn from the joint testimony of Justin Martyr, Julian the Apostate, and Eusebius, when Saturninus was president of Syria, to whom it is attributed by Tertullian, and in the thirty-third year of Herod’s reign, or B.C. 5, the year of Christ’s birth, according to Eusebius.” — Dr. Hales.

Four years before the Vulgar Era, or — B.C. 5. In order to destroy the infant Jesus, Herod “slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men.”

Matthew 2:16. This occurred a short time before Herod’s death, the time of which is determined by a lunar eclipse, a few days previous (see p. 29), March 13. — B.C. 4. “And when he [the child Jesus] was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast,” and he astonished the doctors by his “understanding and answers.” Luke 2:42-47. — A.D. 8.

Tiberius was admitted by Augustus “colleague of the empire,” or partner in the government, in “the administration of the provinces,” and “in the command of the armies,” two or three years before his death, probably U.C. 765, which partnership was confirmed by a decree of the Roman Senate (see p. 38). This is the time from which most chronologers reckon the years of Tiberius. — A.D. 12. The reign of Augustus is reckoned forty-three years in the Canon of Ptolemy; but that dates, not from the battle of Actium, but from the death of Cleopatra, B.C. 30. Reckoning from the battle of Actium, it would lack but a few days of being forty-four years. Josephus reckons his reign fiftyseven and a half years, but dates from the death of Julius Caesar, A. J. P. 4668. Following the Canon of Ptolemy, and dating from the death of Cleopatra, forty-three years extend to A. J. P. 4727. As the Vulgar Era is reckoned from January 1, A. J. P. 4714, which is A.D. 1, it follows that the reign of Augustus extended to — A.D. 14 . At the death of Augustus Caesar, a portion of the imperial army, called the Pannonian legions, refused to acknowledge the authority of Tiberius as successor to Augustus, and were in a state of revolt, till an eclipse [of the moon,5 A.M., p. 46] — which occurred a few days after the death of Augustus — frightened them into their duty. This eclipse occurred September 27, U.C. 767. — A.D. 14 . TIBERIUS CAESAR succeeded Augustus, and reigned, according to the Canon, twenty-two years, to — A.D. 36 . “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar [from his partnership with his father], Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” Luke 3:1-3. — A.D. 26 .

Pontius Pilate continued ten years in the government of Judea, and was then deposed for the massacre of the Samaritans, some time before the passover of U.C. 789, which preceded the death of Tiberius, March 16, U.C. 790. He was appointed U.C. 778, and reigned from A.D. 25 to A.D. 35.

Philip, tetrarch of Iturea, according to Josephus, died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, U.C. 787, after he had governed Trachonitis thirty-seven years, from B.C. 4 to A.D. 34.

Annas was appointed high priest by Quirinus, U.C. 760, in the thirtyseventh year after the battle of Actium, U.C. 723 (Josephus, Ant. 18, 2, 1), and continued in office about fourteen years, from A.D. 7 to A.D. 21.

Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was appointed about U.C. 777, A.D. 24, and continued in office during the whole of the administration of Pilate — he being removed U.C. 789, A.D. 36. Annas, therefore, was the coadjutor of Caiaphas, the reigning high priest at this time; and on account of his age, rank, and consequence was a man of the first consideration and influence in the State, and is therefore named in connection with Caiaphas. “And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him; and there came a voice from heaven, saying,THOU ART MY BELOVED SON, in whom I am well pleased.” Mark 1:9-11. “Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying,THE TIME IS FULFILLED, and the kingdom of God is at hand.” Mark 1:14-15. “And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age.” Luke 3:23. — A.D. 27 . This epoch must mark the fulfillment of some definite period, or it would not be asserted that “the time is fulfilled.” The time here fulfilled can be none other than that given in Daniel 9:25 : “Unto theMESSIAH THE PRINCE, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks.” — 483 years. This length of time, reckoned back from A.D. 27, reaches to B.C. 457.

Thus, “when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.” Galatians 4:4-5.

After the Saviour commenced his miracles in Cana of Galilee, he went down to Capernaum; “and they continued there not many days. And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.” John 2:12-13. On this occasion he drove out those who defiled the temple with merchandise. And when asked a sign, he said to them: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.” John 2:18-21. Herod the Great began his preparations for rebuilding of the temple, by gathering materials, two years previous to the commencement of the work on the temple, B.C. 19. Reckoning from this, forty-six years extend to, and bring his first passover in — A.D. 28 . “After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.”

John 5:1. Dr. Hales says, “The correcter reading appears to be the feast, by way of eminence, as the passover was styled (Luke 2:42; John 4:45; John 11:56; John 12:12),” which reading is sustained “by twenty-five MSS., including the three oldest.” This, then, was the second passover during Christ’s ministry. — A.D. 29 .

Again we read, “And the passover, a feast of the Jews, was nigh.” John 6:4. The Saviour did not go up openly to this feast, because his time was not then full come, and the Jews were seeking to kill him. After this, the Jews required of him a sign, and he told them that no sign should be given them, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. Matthew 16:4. — A.D. 30 .

Again, the Savior said to his disciples, “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.”

Matthew 26:2. This was the fourth and last passover during his ministry, and, reckoning from the commencement of his ministry, in the autumn of A.D. 27, reaches to the midst of the week, when he should “cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease.” Daniel 9:27. — A.D. 31. The Saviour “sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the passover, that we may eat.” Luke 22:8. And “they made ready the passover. And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with him.”

Luke 22:13-14. On this occasion he instituted the Lord’s Supper, as a memorial of his death, till he should again come. After this, the Jews seized on him, gave him a mock trial, and crucified him. “And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened.” Luke 23:44-45. “This obscuration of the sun must have been preternatural, in its extent, duration, and opposition of the moon at full to the sun. It was observed at Heliopolis, in Egypt, by Dionysius, the Areopagite, afterwards the illustrious convert of Paul at Athens (Acts 17:34), who, in a letter to the martyr Polycarp describes his own and his companion’s — the sophist Apollophanes — astonishment at the phenomenon, when they saw the darkness commence at the eastern brink of the sun and proceed to the western, till the whole was eclipsed; and then retrograde, from the western to the eastern, till his light was fully restored; which they attributed to the miraculous passage of the moon across the sun’s disk. Apollophanes exclaimed, as if divining the cause, ‘These, O good Dionysius, are the vicissitudes of divine events!’ Dionysius answered, ‘EitherDEITY suffers, or he sympathizes with theSUFFERER.’ And that sufferer, according to the tradition record by Michael Syncellus, of Jerusalem, he declared to be ‘The Unknowable God,’ for whose sufferings all nature was darkened and convulsed.” — Hales, vol. ii., p. 897. “A total eclipse of the moon may occasion a privation of her light for an hour and a half, during her total immersion in the shadow; whereas, a total eclipse of the sun can never last in any particular place above four minutes, when the moon is nearest to the earth, and her shadow thickest. “Hence it appears, that the darkness which ‘overspread the whole land of Judea,’ at the time of our Lord’s crucifixion, was preternatural, or miraculous, in its extent; and ‘from the sixth until the ninth hour,’ or from noon till three in the afternoon, in its duration, and also in its time, about full moon, when the moon could not possibly eclipse the sun. The time it happened, and the fact itself, are recorded in a curious and valuable passage of a respectable Roman consul, Aurelius Casiodorus, senator, about A.D. 514: — “‘In the consulate of Tiberius Caesar Augustus V. and Aelius Sejanus (U.C. 784, A.D. 31), our Lord Jesus Christ suffered on the eight of the Calends of April (twenty-fifth March), when there happened such an eclipse of the sun as was never before nor since.’ “In this year, and in this day, agree also the Council of Caesarea, A.D. or 198; the Alexandrian Chronicle, Maximus Monachus, Nicephorus Constantinus, Cedrenus; and in this year, but on different days, concur Eusebius, and Epiphanius, followed by Kepler, Bucher, Patinus, and Petavius, some reckoning it the tenth of the Calends of April, others the thirteenth. Amidst this variety of days, we may look on the twenty-sixth or twenty-seventh of March as the most probable. “And, indeed, that the passover of the crucifixion was an early one, may be collected from the circumstance of ‘the servants and officers’ having made a fire of coals in the hall of the high priest’s house, ‘for it was cold,’ at which they and Peter warmed themselves.” John 18:18; Luke 22:55; Mark 14:54. Whereas, the passovers of the two ensuing years, A.D. 32, April 14, and A.D. 33, April 3, were later in the season, and probably milder. “The preternatural darkness at the crucifixion was accompanied by an earthquake, which altogether struck the spectators, and among them the centurion and Roman guard, with great fear, and a conviction that Jesus was the Son of God. Matthew 27:51-54. “Ignatius and Eusebius both assign three years for the duration of our Lord’s public ministry.” “Eusebius dates the first half of the passion week of years as beginning with our Lord’s baptism, and ending with his crucifixion. The same period, precisely, is recorded by Peter, as including our Lord’s personal ministry: ‘All the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of [or by] John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us,’ at his ascension, which was only forty-two days after the crucifixion.

Acts 1:21-22. And the remaining half of the passion week ended with the martyrdom of Stephen, in the seventh or last year of the week. For it is remarkable that the year after, A.D. 35, began a new era in the church, namely, the conversion of Saul or Paul, the apostle, by the personal appearance of Christ to him on the road to Damascus, when he received his mission to the Gentiles, after the Jewish Sanhedrin had formally rejected Christ by persecuting his disciples. Acts 9:1; Acts 9:18. And the remainder of the Acts principally records the circumstances of his mission to the Gentiles, and the churches he founded among them.” — Hales, vol. ii, pp. 176, 177, 199, 200, 205, 206. In the thirteenth century, Roger Bacon found, by computation, that the Paschal full moon, A.D. 33, fell on Friday; and this circumstance led him, and several others, Scaliger, Usher, Pearson, etc., to conclude that this was the year of the crucifixion. The accuracy of the astronomical calculation has been repeatedly verified; and “this circumstance,” says Dr. Hales, “proves that it was not the year of the crucifixion; for the true Paschal moon was the day before, Thursday, when Christ celebrated the passover with his disciples.” — Vol. ii., p. 205. The Saviour ate the passover the night previous to his crucifixion, which took place on Friday, for “that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.” Luke 23:54. On the third day following — on the first day of the week — he rose triumphant from the tomb, the pledge of the resurrection of all the dead.

Dr. Hale, Usher, and Pearson place the martyrdom of Stephen, and the commencement of the first persecution in — A.D. 34 . With this act Dr. Hales closes the “one week” of Daniel 8:27, during which Christ should “confirm the covenant with many.” The conversion of Saul is assigned by Hales, Usher, Pearson, and others, to — A.D. 35 . CAIUS CALIGULA succeeded Tiberius, and reigned four years from — A.D. 37.

After his conversion, Paul says: “I went into Arabia, and returned again not to Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.” Galatians 1:17-18. — A.D. 38 .

He then went to Tarsus, his native city, in Cilicia (Acts 9:30; Galatians 1:21-22), and remained there three or four years, till Barnabas summoned him to assist in preaching the gospel. Acts 11:25.

About A.D. 39, Caligula commanded that his statue should be set up in the temple at Jerusalem, which so amazed the Jews that they ceased persecuting the Christians. “Then had the churches rest throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria.” Acts 9:31. Before the emperor could enforce his decree he was assassinated. January — A.D. 41 . CLAUDIUS succeeded him, and reigned, according to the Canon, fourteen years. The conversion of Cornelius, Dr. Hales places in — A.D. 41 . When Barnabas had found Saul, “he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people.” Acts 11:26. About — A.D. 43 . “In those days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch. And there stood up one of them named Agabus and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world; which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.” Acts 11:27-28. This famine occurred in the fifth year of Claudius. — A.D. 44 . “About that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword,” and imprisoned Peter. Acts 12:1-2. — A.D. 44 .

About this time Dr. Hales supposes Paul had his remarkable visions recorded in 2 Corinthians 12:1-4.

Barnabas and Saul are separated to the work to which God had called them. Acts 13:2. — A.D. 45 . “Fourteen years after” Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem, he “went up again.”

Galatians 2:1. At this time, the first general council of the Christians was held there. Acts 15:1-41. About A.D. 51. [ The First Epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth in the closing part of — A.D. 52 . The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corint — A.D. 53.] NERO, after Claudius had reigned fourteen years, succeeded him, and reigned, according to the Canon, fourteen years from — A.D. 54 . [The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Ephesus before Pentecost (1 Corinthians 16:8), — A.D. 57 . The Second Epistle to the Corinthians was written from Philippi late in the same year. — A.D. 57 . The Epistle to the Galatians was written from Corinth in the winter (1 Corinthians 16:6; Acts 20:2-3) at the beginning of — A.D. 58 . The Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth at the close of his stay there (Romans 15:23; Romans 15:25), and early in the spring (Acts 20:6; Acts 20:16), — A.D. 58.

Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, and imprisonment two years, before Felix was succeeded by Festus, (Acts 24:1-27) appears to have been in — A.D. 58. “After two years Porcius Festus came into Felix’s room; and Felix, willing to show the Jews a pleasure, left Paul bound.” Acts 24:27. Felix was deposed from office. — A.D. 60 .

Paul, on his appeal to Caesar, was sent prisoner by Festus to Rome, A.D. 60, shortly before “the fast,” or great day of atonement, about the autumnal equinox. Acts 27:9. He was shipwrecked on the island of Malta, and wintered there for three months (Acts 28:11), and so proceeded to Rome (Acts 28:14), early in — A.D. 61 . [The Epistle of James was written in — A.D. 60 or 61. The book of Matthew was written in — A.D. 61 .] “And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God,” “no man forbidding him” (Acts 28:30-31), to — A.D. 63 . [During these two years Paul wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Epistle to the Philippians, the Epistle to the Colossians, the Epistle to Philemon, and the Epistle to the Hebrews. — A.D. 61-63.

Paul was released from prison about the beginning of — A.D. 64. And as the Gospel according to Luke was written before the Acts — compare Luke 1:1-3 with Acts 1:1-2 — it could not have been written later than A.D. 63 or 64, though it also may have been written in these years, or it may have been written before. The only certain point about the time is that it was not later than — A.D. 63 or 64. The book of Mark is supposed to have been written about — A.D. 64 . The First Epistle to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus were written in — A.D. 65 .] In this year war broke out in Judea. Cestius Gallus, president of Syria, besieged Jerusalem with a powerful army, and might easily have taken the city; but withdrew his forces from it. In his retreat, the Jews attacked and routed him with a great slaughter, November 12, A.D. 65, in the twelfth year of Nero. Josephus says: “After this disaster, many of the distinguished Jews quitted the city like a sinking ship.” Bell. Jude. 2:20, 1. These were principally Christians, obeying our Lord’s warning. Matthew 24:15; Luke 21:20. — A.D. 65 . [The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy and the Second Epistle of Peter were written “shortly” before the martyrdom of the two great apostles (2 Timothy 4:5-9; 2 Peter 1:14) in — A.D. 66 . The Epistle of Jude was written in — A.D. 66 ] Vespasian marched a great Roman army into Judea, and took many places, passing by Jerusalem. — A.D. 67 .

Nero was massacred at Rome, June 9, — A.D. 68 .

VESPASIAN, after a contest between the contending parties of Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, which raged until the decisive battle of Cremona, October 18, succeeded to the throne, — A.D. 69 .

Titus, son of Vespasian, who had been left to carry on the war, advanced with an army of 60,000 against Jerusalem, at the time of the Passover, which began that year, April 14, — forty years after the Saviour had told the Jews they should have only the sign of Jonas the prophet. The date of the destruction of Jerusalem is astronomically ascertained, by the date of the lunar eclipse the year previous, on the night of the battle of Cremona. The temple was burned Sunday, August 5, and the upper city, Sunday, September 2, — A.D. 70 . TITUS succeeded Vespasian, after ten years from the death of Nero, according to the Canon, and reigned three years, from — A.D. 79 . DOMITIAN succeeded him, and reigned fifteen years, from — A.D. 81. [The First, Second, and Third Epistles of John were written in — A.D. 90 .] “The unanimous voice of Christian antiquity attests that John was banished by order of Domitian. Irenaeus, Origen, and other early fathers, refer the apostle’s exile to the latter part of Domitian’s reign, and they concur in saying that he there received the revelations described in the Apocalypse.” — Horne’s Introduction,k vol. ii, p. 382. Horne concurs with Dr. Mill, Le Clerk, Basnage, Dr. Lardner, Bishop Tomline, Dr.

Woodhouse, and other eminent critics, in placing the Apocalypse in — A.D. 96 or 97. [Domitian was assassinated by one of his own freedmen at the instance of his own wife and was succeeded at once byNERVA, September 18, — A.D. 96.

John was released from banishment sometime in the year — A.D. 97 .

John returned to Ephesus, where he wrote the Gospel according to John in — A.D. 97 or 98. And so, says Gibbon: — “The Christian Revelation... was consummated under the reign of Nerva.” — Dec. and Fall, chap. 21, par. 7. And the reign of Nerva ended — January 27, A.D. 98.] This closes the chronology of the inspired volume.

CHRONOLOGY OF THE PATRIARCHAL AGE. THE NUMBERS OF THE HEBREW TEXT VINDICATED. 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: (1) Our present Hebrew version; (2) the Samaritan version, and (3) the Septuagint, or Greek version; which differ widely from each other in their chronology, as will be seen by the table on the following page. 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 following 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, 2,008 years by the Hebrew version, 241 more than that number by the Samaritan, and 1,306 years more by the Septuagint.

Adam ............... 130 130 230 800 800 Seth ............... 105 105 205 807 807 Enos ............... 90 90 190 815 815 Cainan ............ . . 70 70 170 840 840 Mahalaleel ............ 65 65 165 830 830 Jared............... 162 62 162 800 785 Enoch............... 65 65 165 300 300 Methuseleh ............ 187 67 167 782 653 802 Lamech ............ . . 182 63 188 595 600 Noah, at the Flood ...... . . 600 600 Total to the Flood ...... . . 1656 1307 Shem, after the Flood...... . 2 2 2 500 500 Arphaxad ............ . 35 135 135 403 303 Cainan ............ . . 130 Salah............... 30 130 130 403 303 Eber ............... 34 134 134 430 270 Peleg............... 30 130 130 209 109 Reu............... . 32 132 132 207 107 Serug............... 30 130 130 200 100 Nahor............... 29 79 79 119 69 Terah to birth of Abraham... . . 130 70 70 75 75 Total from the Flood 352 942 Total from the Creation 2008 2249 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 lengths 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. The Samaritan version principally agrees with the Hebrew in its antediluvian chronology, and with the Septuagint in its postdiluvian. 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?\parTHE 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 treasure 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; Daniel 9:11; Daniel 9:13. When Ezra re-established the temple service, we read (Ezra 6:18) that he did “as it is written in the book 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.” Copies 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 the 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. 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 1,000 years, so that its very existence was disputed. How much it may have been corrupted during that time, is unknown. 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 everyone 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. The question here arise, Did the Hebrew and Septuagint versions ever agree in their chronology? and which has probably been corrupted?

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-Judaeus, 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-Judaeus, Mosis, De Vita Mosis, lib. ii., p. 659. Ed. Francof, 164.

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.

Demetrius Phalereus, who lived about B.C. 220, about sixty 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 Caesarea. In this work he gives the time from Adam to the migration of Jacob to Egypt as amounting to 3,624 years, which agrees with the chronology of the Septuagint. 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.

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. 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 2,656 years; but gives data, amounting to only 2,256. He agrees with the Hebrew in placing the seventy years of Terah in the 292d year after the deluge; but gives data agreeing with the LXX (with the exception of Canaan), making the birth of Abraham 1,000 years after the deluge. In Book 8, ch. 3, sec. 1, he says: “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.” But the data he gives makes the erection of the temple 502 years after the Exodus , 1, 007 after the birth of Abraham, 2,097 after the deluge, and 4,353 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. 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. 1, pp. 312-13), counts seventy-four verbal quotations conformed to the Alexandrian version; forty-seven others borrowed from it, but with some variation; thirty-two which give its meaning, but in different language; eleven which translate the Hebrew more accurately; nineteen 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.

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: — “1. The Massorete 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. “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, Arphaxad, Sala, Eber, etc. ‘The projector forgetting himself,’ as acutely observed by the learned John Gregory, of Oxford, in his disproof of the second Cainan, A.D. 1663. “3 . Those great luminaries of the Jewish Church, Philo and Josephus, both rejected it; for Philo, in his allegorical way, reckoned two decades 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, including Shem and Abraham; and seven from Abraham to Moses, including both. But, in the second decade, Cainan is evidently omitted. And Josephus omits Cainan in his list of the post-diluvian patriarchs. “4. Josephus obliquely censures Demetrius, among those other ancient chronologers, Philo Senior and Eupolemus, who ‘did not err much from the truth.’ — contra Apion., book i, sec 23. “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: *, etc.; but, in the Septuagint, the verb is different, *. “6 . The very learned Origen, who reckoned the date of the creation B.C. 4,830, 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. “7. Eusebius reckoned 942 years from the flood to Abraham, and therefore evidently omitted Cainan; and he was followed by Epiphanius, and Jerome, both adopting the corrected Hexaplar copy, published by Eusebius and Pamphilus. “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. “8. Gregory also ingeniously proves that the second Cainan was an imaginary person. “‘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. “‘When I came,’ saith the king, ‘into the land of Pharsaiacon, &c., the natives said unto me, Lo, here in this isle is the sepulcher 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,’ &c. “‘This,’ as Gregory quaintly observes, ‘is the right owner of those parts and inventions.’” — Hales, vol. i, p. 90.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 rabbis,” 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 rabbis had understood, be assured they would have expunged them.” 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 think 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.

Irenaeus 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.”

Here we find no charge that they have 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.

Dr. Smith next affirms that Tertullian gives the same evidence, 1:e., the same as that of Irenaeus. As his testimony is not quoted by Dr. Smith, we conclude it is no more to the point than that we have already reviewed.

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.

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., vol. iv, chap. 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. 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 been made.

Another kind of evidence adduced by Dr. Smith consists in quotations of Scriptures, where he contends the Jews have willfully 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, Ebal or Gerizim. The former is in the Hebrew, and the latter in the Samaritan version. Dr. Kennicott defends the reading of the Samaritan, and Dr. Smith thinks the Hebrew a willful perversion; but it is not so generally admitted. Dr. Parry has defended it against the Samaritan, in his case between “Gerizim and Ebal 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.

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. 278. “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 5,500 years.”

Abulfaragius, page 72, a writer of the thirteenth century, and an Armenian annalist, states the assumed motive more fully as follows: — “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 7,000 years; and they said, We are still in the middle of the time, and the time anointed for the Messiah’s advent is not yet come.” The learned Gregory of Oxford thus explains the origin of this opinion: — “In the first verse of the first chapter of Genesis, the Hebrew letter Aleph, which in the Jewish arithmetic stands for 1,000, is six times found. From hence the ancient Cabalists concluded that the world would last 6,000 years. Because also God was six days about the creation, and a thousand years with him are but as one day (Psalms 90:4; 2 Peter 3:8), therefore after six days, that is 6,000 years’ duration of the world, there shall be a seventh day, or millenary sabbath of rest.” 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; so 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.” “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 hold it, our Saviour was to come in the flesh in the sixth millenary of the world.”

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.”

According to the chronology of the Septuagint, the advent of the Saviour was 5,466 years from creation. Now the tradition pointed not to the middle of the sixty millenary, but to the end of it.

Menasse, an ancient Jewish rabbi, thus expressed his belief: — “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.”

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.

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 6,000 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 6,000 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 years before Christ, that the world was to endure 6,000 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: — “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.” The learned Joseph Mede, called the “illustrious Mede,” says: — “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 6,000 years.”

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: — “‘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.’ “As if he who observes the holy Sabbath testifies his faith in the great Sabbath in which God will renew the world.” 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 300 years should have elapsed from the time they are accused of altering it. And, instead of the fathers arguing that 6,000 years had expired, Lactantius, who lived about A.D. 310, says, in his “Book of Divine Institutions:” — “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 t