66

66

"birth of his son being reckoned from the flood. Hence we "find that all the ancient writers reckon Noah the tenth from "Adam, and Abraham the tenth from the flood, Shem being evidently the eleventh from Adam and Abraham the twenty'first. p. 40 Nothing is more surprising than the pertinacity "of error.-We have seen that when the second Cainan is "admitted into the text Abraham must be reckoned the "tenth generation from the flood; consequently, if he be "rejected, Abraham must be reckoned only the ninth, contrary to the united voice of antiquity, both sacred and pro"fane. Hales and Clinton have both cited extracts in proof "of their argument-from Berosus, Josephus, and Philo, "shewing that Abraham was universally reckoned the tenth "generation after the flood. The subterfuge adopted by the "advocates of the Hebrew verity in reckoning Shem-as one "of the generations after the flood in order to make up their "number is too weak to require any comment. There is no "doubt therefore that both Hales and Clinton are in the "wrong, and that Jackson and Cuninghame are in the right.' p. 245 Africanus states that from the flood and "Noah to the descent of Abraham into the promised land "were ten generations,—and from Adam twenty generations. "We have sufficiently discussed the question of the number "of generations in pp. 34-40. It is quite unnecessary "therefore to resume the subject. Suffice it to say that "Shem was an antediluvian, and therefore his generation "could not be reckoned in the number of generations after "the flood. Neither was it reckoned in the number before "the flood, for Noah was reckoned the tenth from Adam, " and Abraham the tenth from the flood."

66

And yet Mr. Wallace had told us p. 35, 36, that Syncellus had properly included Shem in the genealogy, and that Abraham was the twenty-first from Adam! We are not however left in doubt of the meaning of Philo. For Philo, having marked ten generations of which Noah was the tenth, proceeds to give ten other generations, of which he expressly names SHEM as the first and Abraham as the last. And that twenty-one generations were reckoned by those who admitted the second Cainan is proved by Gregory of Nazianzus. For Gregory, who with the LXX admitted the second Cainan,

reckons Abraham the twenty-first from Adam. But Origen, who omitted Cainan II, reckons Abraham the 20th from Adam. Africanus reckoned Abraham the 20th from Adam, because Africanus omitted the second Cainan; which Professor Wallace has forborne to mention. On comparing Philo we perceive, that Berosus in the phrase "in the tenth generation "after the flood" spoke inclusively of the generation in which the flood happened; and Hales is in the right in his interpretation of the meaning of Berosus. That Josephus omits the second Cainan will not, I suppose, be denied; for he says "Salah is the son of Arphaxad, and Heber of Salah .

In the period from the Exode to the Temple I have the satisfaction of finding that the amount which I have assigned, 612 years, is confirmed by Mr. Cuninghame, who also agrees in 612 years for the interval. Mr. Wallace supposes a difference between the Hebrew and the Septuagint in this period. p. 49 "Mr. Clinton endeavours to defend the He"brew chronology especially in the first two ages of the "world; although he is forced to yield to the mass of evi“dence against it in the book of Judges." He considers, p. 59, my date for the flood obtained by "a computation "partially interpolated from the Septuagint." That is, in the period from the exode to the temple, in which I have added 133 years to the numbers of Usher. But there is no such difference between the two copies. In the following list of dates the Hebrew and the Septuagint agree.

e Ant. I. 6, 4 Αρφαξάδου δὲ παῖς γίνεται Σάλης· τοῦ δὲ Εβερος.

х

Solomon.... 1 Kings VI. 1.... 3 y. 2 m.

The numbers which are the elements of our calculation are identical in both copies.

66

Mr. Wallace p. 73 speaks of a difference in the regal period. "The difference between the Hebrew and Septuagint Chronologies in this period amounts only to about "15 years, which is chiefly owing to an interregnum between "the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah not acknowledged by "Usher and his followers. Again p. 95 "Eusebius acting "under Jewish influence reduced the era-by the omission of "15 years in the monarchal period."

But here also no difference whatever exists between the two copies. In the texts upon which the interregnum is founded the Hebrew and the Septuagint have the same numbers f.

The period from the death of Solomon to the destruction of the temple is thus given :

By Usher B. C. 975-588-(388) 387 years.

In F. H. Vol. 1 B. C. 976-587-389 1m.

By Cuninghame B. C. 990-588=402 years.

In the second volume of the Fasti Hellenici the edict of Cyrus and the termination of the Captivity are assigned to

f The numbers in 2 Kings XIV. 21 "16 years," and in XV. 1 "in the 27th year of Jeroboam" in the LXX, are also 16 years and the 27th year in

the Hebrew. The reasons for not admitting the interregnum are offered in F. H. I p. 316.

the 536th year before the Christian eras. Cuninghame and Wallace also agree in placing those events at that year.

We now proceed to the Gospel Chronology. The various opinions upon the duration of the Ministry have been touched upon in F. Rom. Vol. 1 p. 12-15, and the computations of some early fathers, of Irenæus, of Clemens Alexandrinus, of Tertullian, have been given. It is shewn from Augustine that no evidence remained to fix the year of the Nativity or the year of the Ascension. The early fathers knew nothing upon this subject beyond what was contained in the scriptures which we now possess. If the Apostles in their oral teaching recorded more concerning the life and actions of their Master than is now extant in the Scripture narrative, more was 'not transmitted to succeeding times. The decisions of the fathers upon the year of the birth of Christ and the duration of the Ministry were founded, as ours are, upon Scripture and not upon traditions.

The whole Gospel History chronologically considered refers to three periods; 1, before the Ministry; 2, during the Ministry; 3, from six days before the last Passover to the end of the Gospel History.

1. The following parts of the four Gospels belong to the First Period, including all the time before the Ministry.

Matthew I. 1-IV. 11.

Mark I. 1-13.

Luke I. 1-IV. 13.

John I. 1-18 describes the Eternal Exist

ence and the Deity of the Son of God.

3. The transactions of the Third Period are contained in

these passages.

Matthew XXVI. 17 to the end. XXVIII. 20.

Mark XIV. 12 to the end. XVI. 20.

Luke XXII. 7 to the end. XXIV. 53.

John XII. 1 to the end. XXI. 25.

The arrangement of the times of these two parts is sufficiently clear. The Second Period comprehending the intermediate space is more difficult. The only probable method of arranging it is to select some particular facts and to distri bute the other incidents around them.

g Towards the close of B. C. 536, within Ol. 61.1 U. C. Varr. 218.

11

The question is, whether there were three Passovers during the Ministry, or only two; whether the last Passover was the fourth or the third. St. John notices six feasts, three of which were Passovers.

1 The First Passover II. 13.

2 A feast of the Jews V. 1.

3 The last Passover but one VI. 4.

4 The feast of Tabernacles VII. 2.

5 The feast of Dedication X. 22.

6 The Last Passover XI. 55. XIII. 1.

He mentions the first Passover II. 13 And the Jews' Passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. II. 23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover in the feast day many believed on his name. This Passover happened before John the Baptist was cast into prison: III. 22. 24. After this Passover Jesus came into Galilee: IV.3. After that journey another feast: V.1 After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. St. John then briefly relates some of the things which were done by Jesus during that stay at Jerusalem, and then proceeds VI. 1—4 After these things Jesus went over the sea of Galilee which is the sea of Tiberias, and a great multitude followed him because they saw the miracles which he did on those that were diseased. And Jesus went up into a mountain and there he sat with his disciples. And the Passover a feast of the Jews was nigh. Was the second of these three feasts a Passover mentioned at V. 1 or was it some other feast?

Each

The space from the Baptism to the Ascension was either a little more than three years, or a little more than two. of these periods is adopted by some of the ancient writers. Melito, who flourished about A. D. 160-172, calls the Ministry three years. Hippolytus, who lived A. D. 220—227, places it within three years. Origen, who wrote within A. D. 210-253, varies in his accounts. In his work de principiis, compiled within 227-230, he imagined the period to be a year and four months. But in the hom. in Lucam he rejects or doubts this opinion. In the work against Celsus, composed about A. D. 248, he reckons the Ministry at less than three years; and in the comm. in Matthæum, composed according to Eusebius after his work against Celsus, "almost