Читать книгу The Pentateuch, in Its Progressive Revelations of God to Men - Henry Cowles - Страница 7

Table of Contents

From the Birth of Christ totheCreation.

BY general consent the birth of Christ is made the central point of all sacred chronology, the Christian ages being reckoned forward from that point (A.D.) and the Jewish or earlier ages being reckoned backward (B.C.). We treat of the latter only.——Going backward from the Christian era, there is general agreement and no reasonable ground for diversity till we reach the period of the Judges of Israel. The cardinal points are:

	B. C.
The decree of Cyrus for the restoration of the Jews.	536
The duration of the captivity, from the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 70 years.	606
(But counted from the fall of the city under Zedekiah, 52 years only.)
From the revolt, first year of Rehoboam to the fall of the city, 388 years.	976
To the founding of the temple, beginning of Solomon’s fourth year, 37 years.	1013

This last epoch has chronological importance—the foundation of the temple laid—A. D. 1013.

The first disputed, diversely estimated, point is the period of the Judges; yet the proof texts and authorities cover the period from the Exodus to the temple. Usher makes the period of the Judges 339years; Jahn and many others, 450. Usher relies on 1K. 6:1: “In the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel ... he began to build the house of the Lord.”

His computation runs thus:

	YEARS.
Hebrews in the wilderness.	40
Hebrews under Joshua.	17
Samuel and Saul together.19	40
David (2Sam. 5:4,5).	41
Solomon up to the founding of the temple.	3
Judges—to fill out 480.	339
	480

The long period for the Judges rests primarily on Acts 13:20, which states that “after having divided to them the land of Canaan by lot, God gave them judges 450 years until Samuel the prophet.” Placing 450 in the above computation in place of 339—an excess of 111 years—we find the date of the Exodus B.C. 1604 instead of Usher’s figures B.C.1491.

In support of this long period for the Judges may be urged—

(1.) The authority of Paul as above (Acts 13:20) which makes this period 450 years.

(2.) Josephus makes the interval from the Exodus to the founding of the temple 592 years, and not 480. The Jews of China also make it 592—facts which favor the supposition that the Hebrew text of 1K. 6:1, is in error. It can not be supposed that either Josephus or the Chinese Jews adjusted their figures to harmonize with Paul.

(3.) The internal dates in the Book of Judges demand the long period and can not be harmonized with the short one:——Thus Judges 11:26 shows that the Hebrews had then dwelt in Heshbon, Aroer and along the coast of Arnon 300 years. These years lie between the entrance into Canaan and the beginning of Jephthah’s judgeship. We have then this computation:

	YEARS.
300 years, minus 17 years for the term of Joshua, is	283
Add for Jephthah (Judg. 12:6)	6
For Ibzan 7 years; for Elon 10; for Abdon 8 (according to Judg. 12:8, 11,14)	25
Servitude to the Philistines (Judg. 13:1)	40
Sampson (Judg. 15:20 and 16:31) not less than	20
Eli (1Sam. 4:18)	40
A period without dates (narrated Judg. 17–21) estimated at	40
Makes a total of	454

It is entirely impossible to bring these internal dates in the history within the short period of 339 years for the Judges. We must therefore accept the long period—450 years—and place the Exodus in 1013 + 591 = B.C. 1604.

The next period of conflicting authorities is the Sojourn in Egypt. The issue lies between the long period, 430 years, and the short one, 215 years.——The first proof text is Ex. 12:40: “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel who dwelt in Egypt was 430 years.” Next is Gen. 15:13: “Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not theirs and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them 400 years”:—which is quoted substantially by Stephen, Ac. 7:6.——On the other hand stands Gal. 3:17, which makes the giving of the law on Sinai 430 years after the covenant made with Abraham. The interval from that covenant to Jacob’s standing before Pharaoh is readily computed thus: From the covenant with Abram, he being then 75 years old (Gen. 12:4) to the birth of Isaac, Abraham 100 years old (Gen. 21:5) is 25 years.——From birth of Isaac to birth of Jacob (Gen. 25:26) 60.——Jacob standing before Pharaoh (Gen. 47:9) at 130, the sum of which numbers is 215. According to Paul, this would leave for the sojourn in Egypt but 215 years.

A distinct class of proofs came from an estimate of the generations between the fathers who went down into Egypt and the sons who entered Canaan. Of this, presently.

Reverting now to the obviously conflicting proof texts above cited, we may note that Ex. 12:40 is read variously—the Septuagint (Vatican text) adding after “dwelt in Egypt,” the words—“and in the land of Canaan;” while the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint adds also—“they and their fathers.” Both these additions appear also in the Samaritan text and in the Targum Jonathan; while the Masoretic Hebrew is supported by the more reliable Targum of Onkelos; also by the Syriac and the Vulgate. These additions as in the Septuagint are clumsily made. The dwelling in Canaan, referring to Abraham and Isaac, should come in before the dwelling in Egypt if at all, and not after. The diversity between the two texts of the Septuagint is suspicious. The authority of the old Hebrew text stands unshaken.

The passage Gen. 15:13 is strong to the same purport, since it was “in a land not his own” (i.e. not Canaan), and was a state of tyrannous oppression which was to continue 400 years—points which forbid us to include in this 400 years the life-history of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.——As to Paul (Gal. 3:17) his readers had before them only the Septuagint; he would therefore naturally follow its authority, and the more readily because the difference between that and the Hebrew in the length of the interval was a point of no importance to his argument.

The evidence from the lapse of generations during the sojourn in Egypt is of great, not to say decisive, importance to our question. Here, however, opinions as to its bearing differ totally. One of the test passages is Ex. 6:16–20, which makes the whole age of Levi 137 years; of Kohath, his son, 133; of Amram—apparently his son and the father of Moses, 137. The age of Moses when he stood before Pharaoh (Ex. 7:7) was 80. Kohath was born in Canaan; his father was older by several years than Benjamin; presumably, therefore, his children were older; yet Benjamin had ten sons when he went down into Egypt (Gen. 46:21). If we suppose that Kohath was 25 when he went into Egypt, then he lived there 108 years. Amram lived there 137, and Moses at the Exodus had lived 80. With these given generations and ages, this computation is stretched to its utmost extent since it supposes Kohath’s death at 133 and Amram’s birth to have occurred in the same year; also Amram’s death at 137 and the birth of Moses to be in the same year; yet the sum is only 325, which is less by 105 years than the long period. With these data the short period (215) might be readily provided for.

But several circumstances combine to show that there must be several omitted links between the Amram here spoken of, and Kohath. For in this genealogical list (Ex. 6:16–20) we have but two names between Levi, the tribe-father, and Moses, viz. Kohath and Amram. But between Joseph, a younger tribe-father, and Zelophehad, a contemporary of Moses, there are four intervening names (Num. 26:28–33); between Judah and Bezaleel there are six (1Chron. 2:3–5, 18–20); between Joseph (through Ephraim) and Joshua, there are nine (1Chron. 7:22–27).——Again, we have in Num. 3: 27,28, a census of the four Kohath families. The males, from one month and upward, are 8600. If we set off one-fourth of these to Amram (i.e. 2150) and remember that the Amram who was father to Moses had but one other son, Aaron, (known to this genealogy) with four sons, and that Moses had but two, we shall see it utterly impossible that the male offspring of Moses and of Aaron could number 2150. Therefore Amram, the immediate son of Kohath, must have been several generations back of the Amram who was father of Moses.——The genealogy of Jochebed, the mother of Moses, might also be explained, but space forbids.——The vast increase of Hebrew population, from the 70 souls who went down into Egypt to the 600,000 men of age for war who went out (Ex. 12:37), suggests a longer time than 215 years. The evidence on the whole preponderates decisively against the shorter and in favor of the longer period, 430 years.

The third doubtful period in Hebrew chronology lies between Abraham and his father Terah, the question being the age of Terah at Abraham’s birth. Some authorities make it 70 years; others, 130. The proof texts are—​(a.)Gen. 11:26; “Terah lived 70 years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.”——​(b.)Gen. 11:32; “The days of Terah were 205 years; and Terah died in Haran.”——​(c.)Acts 7:4; “Abram came out of the land of the Chaldeans and dwelt in Haran; and from thence, after his father was dead, he removed into this land wherein ye now dwell.”——​(d.)Gen. 12:4; “Abram was 75 years old when he departed out of Haran.”——The difficulty is that if Abram was born when his father was 70 and lived with him till his death at the age of 205, he should have been 135 and not merely 75 when his father died and he went into Canaan.——To surmount this difficulty some construe the text (a.)to mean that Terah lived 70 years before the birth of his first son; that Abram was not his first-born but is named first on account of his greater prominence in history and in character; and that Abram was not born till his father was 130.——Others assume that Stephen made the slight mistake of supposing that Terah was dead when Abram left Haran for Canaan, misled by the circumstance that the historian, in order to dispose of his case, narrated Terah’s death before he spoke of Abram’s emigration to Canaan, although (as they assume) it in fact occurred 60 years afterwards.——Others assume an error in the number of years assigned as the full age of Terah, making it 145 instead of 205—the Samaritan text giving these figures.

The assumption that Stephen was mistaken is to be rejected; partly because it was vital to the purposes of his speech that his historic points should be accurately made—at least in harmony with current Jewish opinion—to say nothing of the further fact that he is before us as one “filled with the Holy Ghost” and specially inspired; partly because the history represents Terah as sympathizing fully in the spirit of the removal from Ur to Canaan, and apparently prevented from going only by the infirmities of age.——The choice seems, therefore, to lie between the first named explanation and the last. The first—making the passage (Gen. 11:26) mean only that Terah lived 70 years before the birth of his eldest, but became the father of three sons—leaving us at liberty to fix Abraham’s birth at his 130th year—is a possible construction, but is rendered somewhat improbable by Abram’s question (Gen. 17:17) “Shall a son be born to him that is 100 years old”? How could he have thought this strange if in fact he himself had been born when his father was 130?——There may be an error in the number of years of Terah’s life; the Samaritan text may be right in making it 145. This is below the average age of his fathers; but in those as in all other days, men were subject to die before they reached the maximum age of their generation. It would seem that he set out from Ur with the reasonable expectation of going to Canaan. Hence a probability that he died unexpectedly, and at an earlier age than his fathers. I can express no positive opinion upon this case.

Two other doubtful periods remain to be considered, viz. The interval from the creation to the flood; and the interval from the flood to the call of Abram. The question upon these two intervals is substantially the same, so that they may properly be presented together. It hinges in both cases upon the authority of the texts—viz. for the former interval, Gen. 5:3–32; and for the latter, Gen. 11:10–26.——In form these tables are not chronological but genealogical. They do not reckon from any given era, as if (e.g.) to show the interval from the creation to the flood, but give the age of each member of the genealogical line when his son of the same line was born. It is therefore by adding together these measured portions of each man’s life, viz. the years he lived before the next member in the line was born, that we obtain the entire interval.——The tables give three facts as to each man’s life; (a.)how old he was when his son in this line was born; (b.)how long he lived afterwards; and (c.)the sum total of his years. If the chain is perfect, with neither missing nor supernumerary links, and if the numbers of the first class are all correct, the result must be reliable. But plainly the result will be changed at once by changing the first set of numbers and the second to correspond,—without changing the third at all.

In the present case from Adam to Noah inclusive are ten generations. The sum of the first class of numbers as it stands in our Hebrew text is 1656, to the year of the flood. The only question of difficulty is upon the authority of the text. The Septuagint makes the same interval 2262—an excess above the Hebrew of 606 years.——In like manner from the birth of Arphaxad to the call of Abram (ten generations inclusive) the Hebrew text makes a total of 365 years; the Septuagint 1015, or by another text of the Sept. 1115, making an excess of 650 or 750 years. The sum of excess in the two periods is 1256 or 1356.——The following tables will serve to show how these diverse footings are produced. The numbers given by Josephus have some interest: I therefore place them in the table for the period before the flood. The numbers given in the Samaritan text are frequently brought into this comparison. They differ considerably from either of the other authorities, but seem to me of no particular value, and are therefore omitted.

A.
NAMES	HEBREW TEXT.	SEPTUAGINT.	JOSEPHUS.
Age at Son’s birth.	Rest of life.	Total.	Age at Son’s birth.	Rest of life.	Total.	Age at Son’s birth.	Rest of life.	Total.
1.	Adam	130	800	930	230	700	930	230	700	930
2.	Seth	105	807	912	205	707	912	205	707	912
3.	Enos	90	815	905	190	715	905	190	715	905
4.	Cainan	70	840	910	170	740	910	170	740	910
5.	Mahalaleel	65	830	895	165	730	895	165	730	895
6.	Jared	162	800	962	162	800	962	162	800	962
7.	Enoch	65	300	365	165	200	365	165	200	365
8.	Methuselah	187	782	969	*187	782	969	187	782	969
9.	Lamech	182	595	777	188	565	753	182	595	777
10.	Noah	500	450	950	500	450	950	500	450	950
	To the flood	100			100			100
	Total	1656			2262			2256
* The Vatican text of the Seventy makes this number 167.

Comparing the Hebrew figures with those of the Septuagint, it seems plain that one set or the other has been altered by design. It should be borne in mind that the Septuagint is a translation from Hebrew into Greek, made about 285 B.C., which is not far from 1500 years prior to the date of our oldest Hebrew manuscripts. Also that Josephus wrote in the latter part of the first century after Christ, giving Jewish history quite faithfully as then understood.——In the first table Josephus sustains the Septuagint with only the one slight exception of making Lamech 182 instead of 188 at the birth of Noah—his total being thereby six years less.

The reader will note carefully how these main differences between the Hebrew and the Septuagint stand. In the first five names and in the seventh, the years in the first column—i.e. the age of the father at the birth of his son, are less by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, or (what amounts to the same thing) greater by 100 in the Septuagint than in the Hebrew. To correspond, the years in the second column are greater by 100 in the Hebrew than in the Septuagint, so that the totals as they appear in the third column come out the same in both texts.——These are the only important variations. The other is a slight one—the Septuagint adding six years to the age of Lamech at Noah’s birth, or the Hebrew taking six years off from the number as in the Septuagint. In this case Josephus is with the Hebrew text.——It may be noted also that in the cases of Jared and Methuselah, the figures agree.——Now the question is—Which text is pure, and which has been corrupted?

A better view perhaps of the whole question will be obtained if at this point we study the corresponding table for the period from the birth of Arphaxad (two years after the flood) to the call of Abram, made up from the Hebrew text, from the Septuagint and from the Samaritan text of Gen. 11:10–26:

B.
NAMES	HEBREW TEXT.	SEPTUAGINT.	SAMARITAN.
Age at Son’s birth.	Rest of life.	Total.	Age at Son’s birth.	Rest of life.	Total.	Age at Son’s birth.	Rest of life.	Total.
1.	Shem	100	500	600	100	500	600	100	500	600
2.	Arphaxad	35	403	438	135	400	535	135	303	438
3.	Salah	30	403	433	130	330	460	130	303	433
4.	Eber	34	430	464	134	270	404	134	270	404
5.	Peleg	30	209	239	130	209	339	130	109	239
6.	Reu	32	207	239	132	207	339	132	107	237
7.	Serug	30	200	230	130	200	330	130	100	230
8.	Nahor	29	119	148	179	125	304	79	69	145
					[or 79]
9.	Terah	130	135	205	130	135	205	70	75	145
		[or 70]			[or 70]
10.	Abram, his call	75			75			75
	Total	365			1015			1015

Here it will be noticed that the important differences are of the same sort as in the corresponding table before the flood. In a series of six names (Arphaxad to Serug inclusive) the Hebrew has 100 years less in each life than the Septuagint before the dividing point. In the first (the important) column, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint. The years in the second and in the third columns are quite irregular. In the case of Nahor the Septuagint exceeds the Hebrew either 50, as in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, or 150 as in the Vatican text.

On the question—Which of these texts, the Hebrew or the Greek, has been corrupted? it may be said in favor of the integrity of the Hebrew:

(a.) That it is the original.——​(b.)That in general it has been preserved by the Jews with extreme care and guarded against corruption with the greatest vigilance.

In favor of the integrity of the Septuagint on the points now in question may be urged—

(a.) As to the period from Adam to Noah, the general concurrence of Josephus—an independent and reliable witness as to the state of all the Jewish authorities of his time. In regard to the period after the flood, the corresponding concurrence of the Samaritan text in all vital points.

(b.) The fact that there is no known reason for intentional corruption; while over against this it has been supposed (with how much probability it is difficult to say) that the Jews during their controversies with the Christians on the great question of the Messiah (A.D. 150–400) found it for their interest to shorten the period from the creation to the Christian era in order to prove that the Messiah had not yet come. This presupposes it admitted on both sides that he was to come within some given number of years after the creation—perhaps 4500 or 5000. We have already seen reason to suppose that the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 6:1 is in error—perhaps corrupted. It is manifestly less than the truth by the difference between 480 and 591.

(c.) The accuracy of the Septuagint chronology on these contested points does not appear to have been called in question until at least 400 years after the translation was made—never before A.D. 150, about the date when the controversy arose respecting the Christian Messiah.

(d.) It was in use and fully accredited before the Christian era.

(e.) It was used and its authority fully admitted by the fathers of the Christian church.——This fact and the next preceding render it at least probable that the Hebrew text at that time was in harmony with the Septuagint.

(f.) The Chaldean and Egyptian annals seem to demand more time back to the flood or to the creation than the present Hebrew text admits, and therefore lend their influence (to be taken for what it is worth) in favor of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew because of its longer periods.

(g.) In table A it will be readily seen, comparing the figures of the first column in the Hebrew with the corresponding figures in the Septuagint, that the latter are very uniform while in the Hebrew there is a wide diversity between the highest and the lowest, four standing considerably below 100 and two above 180. The probability seems to be somewhat against so wide diversity.——In table B the Hebrew figures in the first column are sufficiently near each other. Out of seven in succession the extremes are 29 and 35. We have an equal uniformity in the first column of the Septuagint and of the Samaritan, six of these figures being the same as in the Hebrew with only the addition of 100. The Hebrew figures seem low relatively to the total years; and on the other hand the Septuagint figures seem too high. Especially is this objection formidable when we remember Abram’s surprise that God should promise him a son when 100 years old (Gen. 17:17). “Shall a child be born to him that is 100 years old?”—as if it were a thing unknown in then recent history. But if all Abram’s ancestors back to the flood begat their respective sons in this line at ages ranging from 135 to 130 (or all but Terah) it is somewhat difficult to account for his surprise. The best we could say would be that the average human life was fast lessening. I regard this as the most serious objection of internal character against the integrity of the Septuagint text.——On the whole the chronological questions at issue between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, turning upon the authority of their respective texts, are very much complicated and not a little doubtful. I have laid before the reader what I regard as the main arguments, and rest the case here, hopeful that greater light may yet arise, leaning, however, toward accepting the authority of the Septuagint.

Reviewing the points made in this examination of Hebrew chronology, it will be seen that we extend the time beyond Usher’s system, (a.)In the period of the Judges at least 111 years; (b.)In the sojourn in Egypt 215 years; and (omitting the interval between Terah and Abram as uncertain), (c.)In the interval from the flood to the call of Abram (if the Septuagint be followed) at least 650 years, and perhaps 750; and (d.)In the period from the creation to the flood, 606 years—a total of 1582 or 1682 years.——Or, to put the case in another form, we put the Exodus in the year (B.C.) 1603; Jacob’s going into Egypt, B.C. 2033; the call of Abram, B.C. 2248; and by the Septuagint the flood, 3265 or 3365; and finally, by the Septuagint, the creation, B.C. 5527 or 5627.

This approximates toward harmony with the reported results of the Indian chronology which locates the creation B.C. 6174; also the Babylonian, B.C. 6158, and the Chinese, B.C. 6157—the excess of the latter above the longest sacred chronology being only 530 years. The approach toward harmony in these three not sacred chronologies—the Indian, the Babylonian and the Chinese—the extreme difference being only 17 years—is certainly a remarkable fact.