Stack Annex / c c c fflT*TVra k 51 61 81 1 ^^^=; > 1 - 1 JO^ >- O uL w»^ y 0AHVija!l^ <^EUNIVER%. ^10! \ v i Birth of C H R 1ST: •,. B E I N G A ^- Defence of the Computation of the I SEPTUJGINT. I V WITH "' T A BLES, wherein the Greek and Hebrew Accounts are compared together and ad- I jufted to the Julian Period. To which is- added An ESSAY on the Confufion of Lan- guages, and a Difcuffion of that Queflion, Whether the Primitive Language be any where remaining f -i_^_ By Thomas Brett, LL.D. L N D O N: Printed for Fletcher Gyles, again ft Grjy Inn in Holborn. mdccxxix. i i ( I ) A CHRONOLOGICAL ESSAY, &c. Shall not pretend to make any- long Difcourfe concerning the Ufefulnefs of Chronology: This is certain and evident to all that underftand any thing of the Matter, that the bell Hi- llory muft be very lame and imperfect with- out it; and many things may be impofed upon us for undoubted Truths which are not fo, if we are altogether unacquainted with the Series of the Times, and cannot tell the Order wherein Things were tranfa&ed. It B is • ( * ) is the Want of this has caufed the Turks to be fo fhamefully put upon in the Hiftory of ancient Times, as to be made believe that Alexander the Great was the General of So- lomons Army, and Julius Ccefar the Matter of his Horie. For as Scaliger obferves, Chronology is the Life and Soul of Hijlory, without which Hijlory is but a confufed Lu?nj>, a mere Mola, an indigejled Piece of Flejh, without Life or Form. Upon this Account many great and learned Men have thought it worth their while to write elaborate Trea- tifes on this Subject. And it is not any Part of my Defign or Purpofe to find Fault with, or to cavil at any Thing that has been done by others : But conceiving that the mofl Part of thofe, who for this lail Century or the preceding have entered on this Work, have (as I think) without juft Caufe wholly re- jected the Chronology of the Greek Church, as not worth their taking Notice of, a tho' the whole Chrijlian Church, both Eaftern and Wejlern, followed this Computation till theie laft Ages, except St. Auguflin and St. Jerom y I have thought it convenient to com- pofe certain Chronological Tables, from the Creation of the World to the Birth of our Saviour, according to the Computation of the Greeks and the Verfion of the Seventy, and have adjufted them as near as I could to a Prolegom. ad Bibl. Polyg. p. 68. th* ( 3 ) the Computation of the Hebrews, according to Ludovicus Capellus, whole Chronology feems to be the moft exadt and the moft a- greeable to the Scriptures of any that I have feen, and I think is defervedly preferred by b Bifhop Walton to all others. But before I enter upon this Work, it may be convenient to fay fomething in behalf of the Tranflation of the Seventy, which has fuffered much in its Reputation of late Years both with ProteJla?its and Papijls, The Pro- tejlants being wonderfully zealous for the Hebrew Text, and the Pap/fis (fince the Council of Trent) for the Latin Vulgate, have both of them fpoken fo defpicably of the Verfion of the Seventy as if it was of no manner of Ufe and Authority. But when I confider that this Verfion, even in many Places where it differs from the Hebrew Text, contains thofe Scriptures which our Saviour and his Apoftles made ufe of and appealed to, I cannot have fo low an Opinion of it. I fhall give one Inftance of this to the Englijh Reader, who either has not Skill or Oppor- ' tunity to compare the Hebrew and the Sep- tuaginty and that is in the xiv th Pfalm and 3 d Verfe. There if he compares this Pfalm in his Bible, which is tranflated from the He- brew, with the fame Pfalm in his Common- Prayer-Book tranflated from the Septuaginf, > Praefat. ad Proleg. in Bibl. Polyglot. B 2 he ( 4 ) he will find that in his Common-Prayer- Book there are four whole Verfes more than are in his Bible, viz. 3/. 4, 5, 6, 7. yet thefe Verfes are every one of them cited by St. Paul in the fame Words, Rom. iii. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. And certainly St. Paul, who was excel- lently well fkilled in the Hebrew, would not have cited thefe Words from the Septuagint in an Epiftle which he wrote by the Direction and Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, if they had not lain in the authentick Scriptures in this very Order he quotes them, and made a Part of this Pfalm from whence he cites both what goes before and what follows after them. I fay not this with any Defign to in- validate the Authority of the Hebrew Text, which undoubtedly is the mod Authentick, and is to be preferred before any of the Ver- sions how ancient foever, even as much as an Original exceeds the beft Tranflation. However, forafmuch as the Hebrew Bible (tho' written at firft by Men divinely infpired and guided by the Holy Spirit, and therefore authentick in the higheft Acceptation of that Word, and not faulty fo much as in a fingle Letter, yet) like other Books has been often tranfcribed, and the Tranfcribers not being infallible , like the firft Penmen , fome Mi- flakes have been committed, fo that we can- not fay we have one Copy now extant altoge-^ ther free from them ; and it is alfo apparent that there are at this Day various Readings in that ( 5 ) that as well as in other Books of Antiquity, I do not fee it neceffary that we mould in all Points pin our Faith upon the Authority of thofc Hebrew Copies ftill extant, fo as not to vary from it, tbo' there be never fo appa- rent Reafon to do fo. It is then acknow- ledged, and I moil firmly believe, that thofe who firft wrote the Holy Scriptures in their original Language were infallible, and not guilty of any Ivliftake in their Writing even to a Tittle ; but thofe which copied from them were not io -, and it is certain the Copies du- ring the Continuance of the Jewijl: State were very numerous, vaft Numbers of which were burnt and octroyed under the Tyranny of Jlitiochits Epipbtmes, and no doubt '^at a great many alio were loft and perif) I with the City and Temple cf jerufalem, and we have no Aiiuraice that the few ancient Copies which yet remain, were in all Points more authentiek than thofe that are no longer ex- tant. We do pioully believe, that the Provi- dence of God would preferve for the Ufe of his Church fuch a Copy as might have the feweft Faults, but we have not any certain Affurance of it, and there was the lefs need of fuch an authentiek Copy of the Original for the Ufe of the Chrijiian Church, after the Bible had been tranflated into a more general and better known Tongue, as it was by the Seventy, and that Tranflation had been re- commended to the Church by our Saviour i and ( 6) and his Apoftles, who, as I obferved before^ frequently made ufe of it, who cited it often and appealed to the Scriptures as they were contained in that Verfion, as I have {hewed in one remarkable Inftance, and might do in feveral others if it were needfui. I would not however fet the Verfion above the Original, far be that from any Thought of mine. But fince, as I obferved, there were various Copies of the Original, which did differ from one another in fome few Particulars, (tho' God be praifed there is no material Difference in Matters of great Moment) and moffc of thofe Copies are now Loft, and it is alfo certain that the Septuagint was tranflated from a Co- py not now extant, that Tranflation where it differs from the Original now extant may be made ufe of to fhew us wherein the Copy from whence that Verfion was made differ'd from thofe which we now have : And there- fore to urge the Authority of the Septuagint in fome Cafes, is not to prefer the Verfion to the Original, but only amongft various Read- ings of the Original to make a Judgment which is the beft. And ( c as Bifhop Stilling- feet obferves) the whole Controverfy comes at loft to this, whether it be more probable that the Jews, who lived under the fecond Temple (who then were the I'ruftees to whom were com- mitted the Oracles of God) whom the LXX c Orie, Sacr. Both iii. chap. 4. §.9. foh (7 ) follow in their Verfion^ had the true Reading, or the Talmudick Jews after their Difperfion and Banifhment from their Countrey, when they were difcarded by God himj elf from bei?ig his People, when he broke up Houfe among them at the Deftru&ion of Jerufalem and the Temple. However, as I faid, I would not willingly deviate from the Hebrew Bibles we now have without apparent Reafon fo to do. It remains therefore, that I enquire if there be fuch Reafon to prefer the Chronology of the LXX. to that of the Hebrew which we now have. The main Difference between the Hebrew and the LXX, in the Point of Chronology, is from the Creation of the World to the Death of Abraham : After that Time there is very little, if any, Difference between them. Now to fettle the Diftance of Time (which is the Bufinefs of Chronology) from the Creation to the Flood, we have recourfe to the fifth Chapter of Genefs, where we have the Ages of all the Patriarchs from Father to Son du- ring that Period. Now it is not fo material as to this Point how long each of thefe Per- fons lived, as what Age he was of when he begat his Son; for when the Son was born, the Years of the Father and Son were then concurrent, and cannot be reckcn'd as di- ftincl. During this Period the LXX (as may be feen in the Chronological Table) add an ioo Years to the Age of moft of thefe Ante- (8 ) Antediluvian Patriarchs, to the Years affign- ed by the Hebrew Account for their beget- ting their Sons, and fubftract an ioo Years from the Time they lived after the Eirth of their Sons ; fo that altho' there be no Diffe- rence between them as to the Time that each Patriarch lived in all, yet the ioo Years that one has more than the other before the Birth of their Sons caufes fome hundreds of Years Difference in the Chronology of this Period : For according to the Hebrew Account the Flood fell out An, Mund. 1656, and accor- ding to the LXX A. M. 2262. During this Period nothing is recorded as memorable but the Age and Death of each Patriarch, the Wickednefs of Cain and his Pofterity, and how their Daughters being married into the pious Race of Seth corrupted that holy Gene- ration alio, fo that the whole Earth being overfpread with Wickednefs, God was pro- voked to deftroy the whole Race of Mankind, except Noah and his Family, by an univerfal Deluge. All this I muft acknowledge might as well happen within the Space of 1656 Years, which is the Hebrew Account, as in the Space of 2262 Years, which is the Ac- count of the LXX. So that for this Period I confefs I fee no Reafon why one Computa- tion may not be thought as good as the other. Only, as I obferved, we have the Authority of the Primitive Church on the Side of the LXX. But p.) But from the Flood to Abraham the Cafe is very different -, here alfo the LXX make mod of the Patriarchs to have been an hun^ dred Years elder when they begat their Sons, than the Hebrew fuppofes them to have been, as may be feen in the Tables of this Book. So that whereas the Hebrew places the , of Abraham but 2$z Years after the Flood, the LXX place it 1 132 Years after that Time. Here I think there is apparent Rcafon to pre- fer the Chronology of the LXX to that of the Hebrews. For I. The LXX as well in this Period as in that before the Flood, add an 100 Years to the Age of moft of thefe Patriarchs before they begat their Sons; which certainly they would not have done, if it had not been fo in the Copy from which they tranflated : So that it is plain the Hebrew Copy, which they made ufe of, was different in this Place from what we now have. There being therefore various Readings in the Copies of the Origi- nal, we are to make our Judgment which appears to be the moft Authentick. There- fore II. The Original, from whence the Tran- flation of the LXX was taken, ieems to be the moft Authentick ; becaufe the Genealo^ gy on which this Chronology very much de- pends, is more perfect in the LXX than in C the ( io ) the Hebrew we have now, if there be any Weight in the Authority of St. Luke, who tells us, Luke iii. 35, 36. that Sala was the Sgji of Cainan, which was the Son of Ar- phaxad, whereas our Hebrew Bibles fay, Gen, x. 24. and xi. 12. that Arphaxad begat Salah, but the LXX in the fame Places have it, Arphaxad begat Cainan and Cainan begat Sala, which is agreeable to St. Luke, but the other is not fo. Now if St. Luke wrote as he was infpired by the Holy Ghoft, there is no doubt but his Genealogy muft be true, and confequently that the Hebrew Copy from which the LXX made their Verfion muft have the trueft Reading in this Place. Eeza indeed, out of his extravagant Zeal for the prefent Hebrew Text, has put Cainan out of his Translation of St. Lukes Gofpel, having for it the Authority of a fingle Manufcript. But he gave this MS. to the Univeriity of Cambridge, where others have had the Op- portunity of collating it as well as himielf : And Archbifhop XJjher and Bifhop Walton, who both examined it, judged it to be the moft faulty MS. now in being. Particularly in this Genealogy of St. Luke (befides the leaving out Cainan, whofe Name is in all the other MSS. that have been yet collated by the Learned) this MS. has altered the Names of all the Perfons between jfofepb and Salo- mon, and inftead of thofe which are in all o- ther Copies in St, Luke, has put in thofe which ( 'I ) which are in St. Matthew -, which, as Bifhop Walton obferves, makes its Authority of no Weight in this Cafe, fince it is plain, that the "Writer of that MS. did, in this Place at leail , e his Alterations w T ith Deiign. Since 'ore St. Luke does fo apparently irm the Genealogy of the LXX, no doubt but that Gen fogy is the trueft; and we have now be faulty ? logy for this Period, it is more probable that it mould alfo be more faulty in the Chronology of the other Period before the Flood than the LXX. III. The Samaritan Pentateuch, is that which was preferved by the ten Tribes after their Separation from the Houfe of David and the Temple at Jeru/alem, and was by the Prieft which d A(Jar-haddon fetched back from the Captivity to inftrudl: the Cutheans in the Law of the Lord, left with that Peo- ple (who were afterwards called e Samaritans) and by them preferved to this Time (fo that it is no other than another Copy of the ori- ginal Hebrew?) and is exactly agreeable to the LXX in the Chronology of this Period. But \ IV. Unlefs the Chronology of the LXX for this Period from the Flood to Abraham be admitted, it will be a very difficult Mat- d Ez'a iv. i. e 2 r : ' :r r xvi : . iS. C 2 ter « ) ter to reconcile the Scripture with it felf. For the Confufion of Languages and Difper- fion at Babel fell out at the Birth of Peleg y for his Father gave him the Name Peleg on Account of that Difperfion, as we learn from Gen x. 25. which according to the Hebrew Account was but 100 Years after the Flood. Now it is icarce poffible that from three Men in the Space of 100 Years, the World could be fo peopled as it muft have been at the Time of this Difperfion. Befides accor- ding to this Account Noah and his three Sons were living at the very Time when this facrilegious Attempt was made to build a Tower up to Heaven, and yet no Notice is taken of them either as forwarding or pro- hibiting this Work; furely if they had been then living they could not have been uncon- cerned Spectators of it, and Noah a Preacher of ' Right ecufnefs, as the Scriptures call him, would not have failed to have preached a- 'gainft this wicked Undertaking, had he been then living; and his two good Sons Sem and Japhet would have at leaft protefted again ft it, had they not been dead before that Time; and if they had done fo, 1 cannot think but Mofes would have recorded it. We read alfo, that in Abraham's Time the World was well fettled under its feveral Kings ; a very potent Prince reigned then in Egypt, and divers Kings ferved Chederlaomer fourteen Years, and no Regard or Notice is taken of Noah, the 13 } the undoubted King and Father of them all, who according to the Hebrews was ftill living when thefe Kingdoms were created. This is at leaft very improbable. How alfo could the Birth of Ifaac be fo miraculous, when Abraham was but ioo Years old and Ear ah 90, if at that Time Sem, Arpbaxad, Sa/a and Heber, their great-great-great Grandfa- thers were ftill living and getting Children ? But if the Chronology of the LXX. be ad- mitted, all thefe Difficulties vanifh. Accor- ding to that isocount Noah and Sem, and con- fequently his other two Sons, died a pretty while before the Birth of Pe/eg, and the Building of Babel-, Arphaxad, Sa/a and Re- ber, and all the long lived Patriarchs were dead before the Birth of Abraham % and the Lives of Men were contracted to about 200 Years or left before he was born. I (hall not infill: upon the Antiquity of the Afjyrian Em- pire, which according to the moil common Accounts we have of it muft have begun be- fore the Flood or immediately after, if we follow the Hebrew Chronology; becaufe there is no fuch Certainty in the Chaldean Chroni- cles as to give us juft Caufe to queftion the Truth of any other Hiftory merely becaufe it is not agreeable with them ; and the fame may be faid of Egyptian and Chinefe Antiqui- ties : Yet even thefe are reconcileable with tjie Chronology of the LXX. V. What ( M ) V. What I have here laid down is counte- nanced by the Authority of forne of the grea- tefl Men of our own Church in the ialt Age : yizL f Bifhop Walton in his Prolegomena to the Polyglot Bible, g Bifhop Stillingfleet in his Qrigines Sacra, h Ijaac VoJJius Canon of Windfor, » and Sir Walter Rawleigh in his Hijiory of the World, whofe Words are fo re- markable, that I think fit to tranfcribe them here. If we look over all, and do not haftily fatisfy our Underfiaiiding with the firjl 'Things offered, and thereby being fatiated do Jlothfully and drowfly fit down, we fo all find it more a- greeable rather to follow the Reckoning of the LXX, who according to fome Editions make it above 1072 Yean between the Flood and Abra- ham, than to take away any Part of thefe 352 Years given. For if we advifedly confider the State and Countenance of the World, fuch as it was in Abraham'^ Time, yea before Abraham was born, we jhall find that it were very ill done of us by following Opinion without the Guide of Reafon, to pare the Time over deeply between Abraham and the Flood ; becaufe in cutting them too near the S^uick, the Reputa- tion of the whole Story might perchance bleed thereby, were not the Tejlimony of the Scrip- tures 'fupreme, fo as no Objection can approach it: And thai we did not follow withal the i Pag. 68. s Book in. c 4. §. 9. h De LXX In- terpret, i f\ 1. 1.2. c. i. §.7, Precept ( *5 ) Precept of St, Auguftine, that wherefoever any one Place in the Scriptures may be conceived dif agreeing to the whole, the fame is by Igno- rance of Mi/interpretation under flood. For in Abraham'.? 'Time all the then known Parts of the World were peopled: All Regions and Countries had their Kings* Egypt had many magnificent Cities, and jo had Paleftine and all bordering Countries ; yea all that Part of the World befides as far as India : And thofe not built of Sticks, but of hewen Stones, and de- fended with Walls and Rampires, which Mag- nijicence needed a Parejit of more Antiquity than thofe other Men have fuppofed. And therefore where the Scriptures are plainejl and bejl agreeing with Re of on and Nature, to what End fljould we labour to beget Doubts a?id Scruples, or draw all Things into Wonders and Marvels? Giving alfo jlrength thereby to common Cavillers, and to thofe Mens apijh Brains, who only bend their Wits to find Im- pofi'bs lilies and Monfiers in the Story of the World and Mankind. I cannot but fubferibe (fays Biftiop Stilling fleet) to the Words of this judicious Hijlorian, and no doubt but they de- Jerve Confederation. All thefe Things being confidered, I hops it may be of fome ufe to the World, to pre- fent it with a Chronological Table from the Creation of the World to th th of our Saviour, according to the LXX, efpecially fince I do not reject the Hebrew Chronology, i but ( 16 ) but have adjoined a Table of that to the c« ther, fo that the whole Scripture Story is ad-- jufted as near as may be to both Accounts, and every one left to his Liberty which he will follow. Now becaufe there are various Readings of the LXX in this Matter of Chronology, I have chofen to follow Dr. Grade's Edition of the Alexandrian MS. as the raoft Authentick. And one great Caufe which has induced me to rlo this, is becaufe I find this Computation to be exactly agreeable to that of the Greek Church, and as I am perfuaded of the primi- tive Church alio: According to which Ac- count, our Saviour was born towards the End of the Year after the Creadon 5508, and fo you will find in thefe Tables. As to the Hebrew Chronology, I have ex- actly followed that of Ludovicus Capel/us, (except in one Place where I (hew my Reafon for diflent) whofe /acred Chronology, as it is published in the Prolegomena to the Polyglot, I have here tranflated almoft verbatim, it be- ing certainly the beft and moft agreeable to the Scriptures of any yet extant, as will ap- pear evident to all that (hall carefully obferve the Reafons which he gives at the End of each Chronological Table. I have confined my felf to the facred Chronology only, becaufe if I had run into profane Matters I muft have been more vo- luminous than I had either Will or Leiiure to ( -'7 ) to be. However, becaufe all Chronology fince Sca/igers Time has been adjufted to the "Julian Period, I have alfo adjufted thefe Chronological Tables to that Period \ where- by it will be very eafy for any Body to find out when any Aclioii mentioned in prophane Hiftory happened. For if you confult He/- Vitus, or any other Chronologer that has ad- jufted his Chronology to this Period, and then look into thefe Tables to fee what Year of the World, either according to the He~ brews or the Greeks, is concurrent with it, you will thereby difcover what Patriarch Judge or King was Contemporary with the Perfon you find mentioned in any prophane Hiftory. Thus for Inftance, would you know what Year of the World., according either to the Hebrews or Greeks, be/us the Father of Ninns began to reign over the AJfyrians, and what Patriarch was his Contemporary ? Hel- vicus fays, that according to the eldeft Ac- counts Be/us began his Reign An. Per. Jul. 2 357> which by the Tables of this Book is concurrent with the Year of the World 3 152 according to the Greeks, and 1746 according to the Hebrews, and that he was Contempo- rary to the Patriarchs Heber, Ren and Serug^ if we follow the LXX Account, or to Noah % Sem, Arphaxad and Sala, if we follow the Hebrew. in the Hebrew Chronology I have, as I laid before, exactly followed LuJovieus Capelhis, D except ( i8 ) except in the Number of Years fvomjofruas Divifion of the I .and to the Oppreffion of Ijrael by ( . in aich Place I add 20 Years to Ills Account, for which I there give my Reafon, and I hope a very fatisfa- <5tory one. So that whereas he makes the Birth of oui our to fall out A. M. 4102. ording to the Hebrews, I make it to have been A, M. 4122. 1 efore we fubtracT: 4122 from 5508, the Year of the World in which our Saviour was born, according to the Greeks, the Remainder will be 1386; and confequently the firft A. M. according to the Hebrews, will be concurrent with A. M. 1387. according the Greeks, Therefore A. M. 1. accor the Hebrews, being fet againft A. M. 13^7 according to LXX in the fame Line, there will appear a continued Anachronifm in the Lives and Deaths of the Patriarchs from Adam to Abraham -, for the fame Patriarchs will be found to have been born, and to have died upon different Years of the Julian Period, according to the diffe- rent Accounts of the Hebrew and the LXX. But from the Death of Abraham to the Birth of our Saviour, there will be a perfect Syn- chrpnifm between the tw T o Accounts : So that altho' the Years of the World are different in the two Accounts, yet every Action taken Notice of in the Tables will be but once mentioned, as falling out according to both Accounts on the fame Year of the Julian Period, The A. M. * cordt-v t, LXX. 1 230 435 625 795 796 93° 960 1 1 22 I 14-2 I287 I34O I387 H74 IA87 '0/ Abraham. J .ham. 1 5 16 1 5 3 5 1621 i66zj 16 ■ tat 7/2?^, out from t/r of the e. id Abraham went from eed 86, Gen. xvi. 16 7 [So 34^" / 34 8 9 3493 |erthrown,G^/.xvii 24 3494 uob, Gen. xxi. c 35 i5 353 : Ws befpre Page ^ uvu :,; The fi-.jl Cbronokgtcal TABLE, from the Creation of the World to the Death tf Abrah: Adam died aged )}0. 7.,-,-Jhor,l, whoapd !'•: I Stti died .Tied 5 fend died afecd jS* rn, wlu a : til 100 o r died aged 753. Cdiiua, who aged 130 begat > aged 1 S7 be^at Lj. ; u.V /A/<;m created the fixth Day, Stth, who aged 105 begat £«oj, who aged 90 begat i . . - .: ol 70 hciat Mahalalee!, who aged 65 begat Jarea, who aged 162 begat / :>>:;. ', v : , . -. ' 1 ■ . Sim died aged 600. /V/iy born, who agei Tower of Babel w M^hMUfl died aged 895 cji died aged 535. 1 died aged 460. Rcu born, who aged 132 begat Strug. Stvn born, who a ! 100 b;;:.t ./■/^.;.v .■■■■>. The Flood I Pfllg di;d axd 339. Ht-lcr died aged 504. P<7cf, who aged 30 begat fityfedied aged - Abraham born, v i\'),j/> died a fed c Abraham with his Father went out from Ur f the Ch.itita, being 7° Years of Age. 7V f ;A died in /foraa aged 205, and Abraham went from Abraham wnh his Father went out from C 1 ■ ■: Tsn.h died in H.v.« aged 205, and Abraham v zoyo aotavam circumcifed and .Wow overthrown. 2699 Ifaat born, who aged 60 begat ja«£. ... Ijaut mirrdA^ftj v,i K 2749 27 S9 £/&« and ^«* bom. Abraham died aged 175. ~uT. !>;■-..: . .:. (./,.;, .-. .\ . ■ . Gen. xxv.'; ied a^ed 464. Gf«. xi. 16, 1 -i ( i9.) Period, and confequendy to have preceded the Birth of our Saviour by the fame Num- ber of Years. Notes upon thefrji HABL E. Capellus makes two Tables of what I here make but one -, which indeed is very proper becaufe here are two great Periods compre- hended, from the Creation to the Flood, and Tom the Flood to Abraham, But then Ca- pellus does not adjuft the Years of the World according to the LXX and the Hebrew toge- ther, fo as to let us know what Year of the World according to the LXX, is concurrent with the Year of the World according to the Hebrew: Only he fets down in different Co- lumns how many Years each Patriarch lived before he begat a Son, how many Years he lived afterwards, and how long he lived in all, according; to die different Accounts of the Hebrew, the LXX and Samaritan, from Gen. v. and xi. But according to the Me- thod I have taken, I found it more conve- nient to put thefe two Tables into one, be- caufe according to the LXX the Flood fell out man 7 Years before it happened according to the He&rews. If therefore I had ended my Table with the Flood according to the Computation of the LXX, I mull: have left many Transitions which happened tx ore the Flood, according to the Hebrew, for my D 2 fecog ( *o ) feccnd Table.- Or if I had continued my firft Table till the Flood happened, according to the Hebrew, I muft have put into it many Tranfadtions which happened after the Flood according to the LXX, either of which I thought improper. Wherefore I have conti- nued the Table to the Death of Abraham y from which Time forward there is a per- fect Synchronifm between both Computations. This whole Chronological Table is com- pofed from the fifth and eleventh Chapters of Genefis, until the Birth of Abraham, In which Chapters the Age and Death of each Patriarch is fet down, together with the Time when they begat their Sons. For the Paflages which happened after the Birth of Abraham^ I have let down Chapter and Verfe in the Table, to every one of them not contained in the two Chapters above- mentioned. There is a Place in this Table which de- ferves Confideration, wherein both the He- brew and LXX are equally concerned, and that is the Birth of Abraham, Gen. xi. 26. It is faid, Terah lived 70 Years and begat Ab- ram, Nabor and Haran. From whence ma- ny Chronologers have inferred, that Abra- ham was born when his Father was but 70 Years of Age, fuppofing that, he was. the firft- born of thole three Sons, becaufe he is firft- named. But this is- no juft Inference, for Qen. v. 32. Ncah is faid to have begotten Sem y Jlavi ( w ) Ham and Japhet when he was 500 Years old , tho' by the Chronology of Mofes before and after the Deluge Compared together, it is manifeft that San was not born till Noah was a Year or tv/o older : And it is generally fup- pofed, that Japhet was the eldeft of Noah's Sons. But the Dignity of Sem, , the Father of the Holy Seed and Church of God, is aft ligned as the Reafon why he is firft named. And by the fame Reafon Abraham, who is ftyled in Scripture the Friend of God and Fa- ther of the Faithful, may well be put before his two elder Brethren. Thus Ifaac and Iflmiael, the Sons of Abraham 5 Jacob and E/au the Sons of Ifaac ; Mcfes, Aaron and Miriam, the Children of Amram, are fo far from being named according to the Order of their Birth, that they are generally fet in a quite contrary Method, and only according to the Order of their refpeffive Dignity. Be- lides the Continuation of the Chronological Series of Years by Abraham and not by Na- hor or Haran, as well as the like Chronolo- gical Series before by Sem and not by Japhet x is another, and perhaps the moft proper Oc- cafion of their being named firft. And it is probable that Haran, tho' laft named, was the Firft-born, fince Nahor one of his Bro- thers married his Daughter Milcah, and Lot his Son appears to have been not much youn- ger than Abraham. But what I think fets the Matter beyond Difpute, is that which fol- lows ( It ) lows the mention of thefe three Sons of 7V- rah-, which is, that 'Terah after the Death of his Son liar an in Ur of the Cbaldees^ depar- ted from thence with Abraha?n and Lot to go into Canaan, and fojourning a while in the Lard of Haran died there, being 205 Years old. After this, as we learn from the Beginning of the next Chapter, Abraham left Haran, and came into the Land of Ca- naan; and it is faid that Abram was feventy five Years old when he departed out of Ha- ran, Which being after his Father's Death, who died at the Age of 205, it is certain A- braharn could be no more than 75 when 7V- rah died: Therefore fubtradling 75 from 205, the Remainder is 130 for the Age of *ferah at Abraham's Birth. And fo it is in •the Table. Notes upon the fecond T'AB L E. It is not expreffed in the Scripture how old Jacob was when his Father bleffed him and lent him to his Uncle Laban, nor yet at what Age he married and begat his Sons; and confequently in what Year of the World thefe Things happened, is not directly fet down in any Place. However we may plain- ly collect what Jacob's Age was when he married and had Children, by this Method : He was 130 Years old when he went down into Egypt, as appears from Gen. xlvii. 9. He was The fecond TABLE, from ^' tn l out °f E g: A. M. ac- cord ril l<7 LXX. 3617 3 6 3 2 3 6 39 364, 3646 3652 3663 3 6 74 3676 3 632 3684 3701 375 6 3779 3814 3894 934 Julian Period. 2S37 Z847 285I 2857 2868 2879 288l 2887 2889 2906 2961 2984 3OI9 3°59 3°99 3 J 39 A. M. ac- flood befo ManaJJeh and Zs> y^r* went down into 2T,0/>r aged 130, G«>. xlvii. 9. Jacob died in £■£)'// aged 147, Gen. xlvii. 28. Zm died aged 137, Exod. vi. 16. Mofes born, £«i ii. 2. He fled to JV/Are, with whom he ferved 40 Years, Exod. ii. 15. and Acli vii. 23. Forty Years after he returned into Egypt, and brought up the Children of Ifrael from Aas vii. 23. They wandred4o Years in the Wildemefs, and then Moj'es iiei aged 120. Deut. xxxiv. 7. thence, Place this facing Page : ( *3 ) was born, as may be feen in the former Ta- ble, A. M. according to LXX 3554, of the "Julian Period 2759, and A. M. according to the Hebrew 2168. Therefore his Defcent into Egypt 130 Years after, mull fall ouz A. M. according to LXX 3684, of the Ju± lian Period 2889, and A. M. according to the Hebrew 2298. Jofeph was at that Time 38 Years old, for he was 30 Years old when he flood before Pharaoh, Gen. xli. 46. and this was eight Years after, viz. in the fecond Year of the Famine: Therefore fubtradting 38 from 130, there remains 92 for the Age of Jacob when Jofeph was born. Now if we compare Gen.xxx. 21. with Gen. xxxu 41 . we (hall find that Jacob had ferved Laban 14 Years when Jofeph was born. Wherefore fubtracting 14 from 92, the Re- mainder is 78 for the Age of Jacob when he fled to Laban, viz. A.M. according to LXX 3632, of the Julian Period 2837, and A. M. according to the Hebrew 2246. The Time when Mofes was born is thus collected. Mofes was 80 Years old when he fpoke to Pharaoh, and brought the Children of Ifrael out of Egypt, Exod. vii. 7. imme- diately after which the Law was delivered to* him on Mount Sinai, Exod. xix, &c. Now from the Promife made to Abraham to the giving of the Law were 430 Years, Galat. iii. 17. God alfo told Abraham, Gen. xv. 13. and Acls vii. 6. that his Seed fliould be a Stranger ( M ) Stranger or Sojourner in the Land that is not theirs four hundred Years : Which four hun- dred Years muft undoubtedly begin from the Birth of IJaac, who was the fir ft of the pro- mifed Seed, and immediately at his Birth be- gan to fojourn in the Land wherein his Fa- ther was a Stranger. The Promife therefore which was made to Abraham in Mefopotamia before he dwelt in Charran, muft be thirty Years before the Birth of IJaac. Wherefore I have placed Abrahams going out from Ur of the Chaldees with his Father Terah into Char ran , in the former Table , in the feventieth Year of his Age, viz. thirty Years before IJaac was born, where it is faid they dwelt for fome Time, Gen. xi. 31. being probably detained by Terah 1 s Sicknefs, and the Infirmities of his Age, for there he died. And then Abraham with Lot came into Ca- naan when he was feventy five Years old, as has been already obferved and proved. It is alio faid Exod. xii. 40. Now the Jojouming of the Children of Ifrael, who dwelt in Egypt was four hundred and thirty Tears. It is obferva- ble, that this Text does not fay, the Children of Ifrael fojourned in Egypt forfo long 'Time, but only that they dwelt fome Time in Egypt, and that the whole Time they were Sojourners, or dwelt in a Land not their own, was four hundred and thirty Tears. But the Verfion of the LXX is yet plainer, New the fojourn- ing of the Children of Ifrael, as to the Time thn ( i; ) they Jbjoumed in the Land cf Egypt and the Land of Canaan , they and their Fathers, was four hundred and thirty Tears. The Sa- ???aritan Pentateuch alfo has it juft as it is in the LXX. Neither of thefe Readings contra- dict the Hebrew as we now have it, only they are more full and exprefs than the He- brew. And the Fullnefs of Exprefiion in thefe Readings is confirmed by the Apoftle, in the Words above cited from Galat. iii. 17. where he plainly makes thefe four hundred and thirty Years to commence from the firft Promife made to Abraham, from which Time, as has been mewed, he began to be a Sojourner and left his own Countrey, to go into the Land of Canaan, where he fojourned thirty Years before he had his promifed Seed, and then he and his Seed were Sojourners four hundred Years longer in Canaan and Egypt. If therefore we count four hundred and thirty Years from Abraham's Departure out of Ur 9 or four hundred Years from the Birth oflfaac to the Time of the Exodus, or the bringing forth the Children of Ifrael frcm£- gypt, we (hall find that this Exodus happened A.M. according to LXX 3894, of the Ju- lian Period 3099, and A. M. according to the Hebrew 2508 $ confequently that the Chil- dren of IJrael dwelt in Egypt but two hun- dred and ten Years. And that Mojes was born A. M. according to LXX 3814, of the Julian Period 3019, and A. M. according E to (z6) to the Hebrew 2428, as it is fet in thi$ Table. Notes upon the third TABLE. The Period of Time contained in this Ta-^ ble, has very much perplexed Chronologers $ becaufe, tho' the Succeifion of the Judges one to another, and the Number of Years that each Oppreffor tyrannized, be as one would think as plainly fet down as can be defired, as may be evident to any that confult the feveral Texts as they are cited in the Table,, yet the Number of Years, as their whole Sum is given us from the Exodus to the Building of the Temple, 1 King. vi. 1. 'viz. four hundred and eighty Years is not re-- concileable to the Particulars fet down in the foregoing Table by above a hundred Years. The Chrcnolcgers, to reconcile this Difference, have generally put the Years of Oppreffion into the Years of the Judges, thereby to reduce their Number to the above- mentioned Sum , which is by no Means agreeable to the Places where thofe PaiYages- are mentioned. For Inftance, Judg. iii. 8. it it laid, the Children of Ifrael Jerved Chu- fhan-rimathaim eight Tears. Then follows how Othniel delivered them, after which, ver. 11. it is faid that the Land had rejl forty Tears. Now how could the Land have fuch a time of Reft if they were oppreffed f@JF r j oe f Mofes, to the Building of the Solomon. A M. ac- carding to LXX- ian ,. under the Conduct of Jojhua, the Beginning 3935 irs- So the End of that War happened in this Year. 3940 For which lefsthan a Year cannot well beafligned. 3941 8 39 5 I nd the Land had reft 40 Years, Judg. iii. 10, n. 39 6 9 4009 . . r and the Land had reft 80 Years, Ju Ig, iii. 3°< 4027 4107 id refUo Years, Judg. v. 31. 4127 1 4,67 , %afc.viii.a8. 4,74 k?4- «. aa. 4214 ' ^ * M . w 4217 424O, 4262 '* . 4280* XIL7 * 4286 4*93_ 4303 431 X , and judged them 20 Years, Judg. xv. 20, 437 1 •• Iii i 11 - "" 441 1 445 1 449 X L fourth Year of Solomon, \ King. vi. i.*nd 2 CM iii.i ICONS' l &"& VL 3 8 - 42. 453'' Place this • ., ; The third TABLE from Exodus and the Death of Mofes, to the Building of the A. M. 11- Temple, and to the Death oj Solomon. LX.X. 3935 3"4° Hcbrew.' 2549 The Children of Ifrael came into the Land of Canaan under the Conduct of Jefiua, the Beginning oftheYear-afterAft/wdied, Jojh. iii. 1. !94° The War with the Canaanites continued about 6 Years: So the End of that War happened in this Year. •941 3146 The Divifion of the Land was made the Year after. For winch lefsthan a Year cannot well hclfigned. !06l 3166 2575 Ctijhan began to opprefs Ifrael eight Years, Judg. iii. 8. 3969 2583 Othniel began to judge Ifrael and fubdued Cujban, and the Land had reft 40 Years, Judr. iii. 10, 11. 4009 2623 26+1 Eglon opprefled Ifrael 18 Years, Judg. in. 12. Ehud delivered Ifrael from the Oppreffion of Eglon, and the Land had reft 80 Years, Judg. iii. 30. 2721 Jtibin opprefled Ifrael 20 Years, Judg. iv. 3. Debora and Barak delivered Ifrael, and the Land had reft 40 Years, Judr. v. ; i . 4.67 2781 The Midianites oppreffed Ifrael 7 Years, Judg. vi. 1 . Gideon delivered Ifrael, and judged them 40 Years, Judg.v'm. 2S. 27S8 4214 3419 2828 2831 Abimelecb ufurped the Government as King 3 Years, Judg. ix. 2:. Tolab judged Ifrael 23 Years, Judg. x. 1. 4240 2854 J air juda-ed Ifrael 22 Years, Judg. x. 3. 4:62 34 6 7 :8 7 6 The Ammonites opprefs Ifrael 1 8 Years, Judg. x. 8. 4280 3485 2S94 Jephtbah delivered Ifrael and governed 6 Years, Judg. xii. 7. 4286 Ibzan judged Ifrael 7 Years, Judg. xii. 9. 4^93 3495 2907 Elon judged Ifrael 10 Years, Judg. xii. II. 4303 3508 2 9 I 7 Widen judged Ifrael S Years, Judg. xii. r4- 43>1 35,6 2925 The Phili/liues opprefled #?ari 40 Years. 435> 3 5 50 2965 Sampfon began to deliver Ifrael from the Philiflines, and judged them 20 Years, Judg. xv. 20. 4(7' 3 5 76 2 9 8; Eli judged Ifrael 40 Years, 1 Sam. iv. 18. 44ii 3616 3025 Samad and Saul governed Ifrael 40 Years, Well xiii. 21. 445" 3656 306; Z>«w'i/ reigned 40 Years, 2 Saw. v. 4, 5. 4491 3696 3105 &/«»»« reigned 40 Years, 1 King. xi. 42. 4495 3700 3"°9 The Temple began to be built in the Beginning of the fourth Year of Solomon, 1 King. vi. i.and 2 Chr. iti.i. 4502 37°7 3.16 The Temple was finifhed, being 7 Years in Building, 1 King. vi. 38. 3736 3H5 Solomon died, having reigned 40 Years, 1 King. xi. 42. Plate this facing Page 20. ( >7 ) for eight Years of that time ? So again, jud- iv. 3. it is faid of jab in that twenty Tears h~ mightily opprefsd the Children of Ifrael ; and then after the Deliverance by Debora and Ba- rak, Jud. v. 51. we read that the Land had reft forty Tears. How could that be, if the twenty Years OppreiTion took up one half of that time ? And the like may be faid up- on all other PalTages of this Nature, in all which the Years of Oppreffion are as plain- ly diftinguifhed as may be from the Years of reft ; others therefore make the Oppreffions to have continued no more than a few Mcnihs at any time, and that the meaning of eight, or twenty, or {even Years OppreiTion is only that they were oppreffed fome few Months in the eighth, or the twentieth or the ieventh Year of the Jubilee. But this is certainly a very forced ConftrucYion, and what Ground Is there from the Text to give this Conftru- ftion to the Years of Oppreffion, more than to the Years of Reft? This is plainly forcing a great Number of Texts to give place to one. Befides St. Paid cxprefly tells us, Acis xiii. 20. that after the Divilion of the Land of Canaan to the twelve Tribes, God ga r je unto them Judges about the Space of four him- dred and fifty Tears, unto Samuel the Prophet. But there is no making four hundred and rif- ty Years, or any thing near it for the time of the Judges, except the Years of Oppref- fion be taken into the Account, as well as E 2 the ( *« ) the Years of Reft. For if there were four hundred and fifty Years from the Settlement of the Children of Ifrael in the Land of Ca- naan unto Samuel \ as St. Paul exprefly fays there were, there were certainly more than four hundred and eighty Years from Exodus, or the going out from Egypt to the building of the Temple by Solomon. For, as appears by the foregoing Table, there were forty feven Years from Exodus to the Divifion of the Land, forty Years more from the beginning of Samuel's Government to the beginning of the Reign of David, and forty Years from thence to the beginning of Solomons Reign, and three whole Years of the Reign of Solo- mon before the Temple began to be built, which make in all one hundred and thirty Years to be added to the four hundred and fifty St. Paul fpeaks of, none of which can be cut off from the Account. Thefe make together five hundred and eighty Years from Exodus to the Building of the Temple. From whence it is manifeft, that there muft be a Miftake in the Text, i Kings vi. i. which makes it but four hundred and eighty Years from Exodus to the building of the Temple. And yet that fingle Text is the only Ground our modern Chronologers have for confoun- ding the Years of Oppreflion and the Years of Reft, and all the Years of the Judges, and making a Multitude of Texts unintelligible. There is alfo no Queftion, but there was an- ciently ( 19 ) ciently a various reading of that Text, in the Book of Kings, though it is not to be met with either in the original or any of the an- cient Verfions we now have. If it had not been fo, St. Paul would not have afferted what is fo oppofite to it, efpecially in a Dif- courfe to the Jews, who would not have let (lip fuch an Opportunity of confuting him, if they had then had fuch a clear Text of their Side as this now is. Befides Jofepbus a learned Jew, and who flourished a little after St. Paul's Time, makes the Years from Exodus to the Building of the Tem- ple very near the fame with thofe afligned for that Space in the foregoing Table, which, I think, he hardly would have done, if that Text, i King. vi. i. had then determined the Years from Exodus to the Building of the Temple to be four hundred and eighty, as II does now. Some other Number of Years ftood there at that Time, fome Number near fix hundred, little more or lefs For Jofe^ pbus, when he fpeaks of the Building of the Temple, Antiqu. lib. 8. c. 2. fays it was five hundred ninety two Years after the Chil- dren of lfrael came out of Egypt-, and in his fecond Book againft Afiion, not far from the Beginning, he lays it was fix hundred and twelve : Which inclines me to believe that the Text in the Book of Kings did not then, precisely name the Year as now, but faid, about jix hundred Tears after the Children of Ifrae! ( 3° ) Jfrael came cut of Egypt ; and then twelve Years more or eight Years lefs may be agree- able enough to it : But if the Text had then flood as it does now, Jofephus in one Com- putation had differed from it one hundred and twelve, and in the other one hundred and thirty two Years, which I cannot think he would do. But if Jofephus would have fo differ'd from a Text in the Scriptures, \vhich himfelf received as of divine Autho- rity, it is certain St. Paul would not ; and yet, as it now ftands, his Computation differs from \t one hundred and thirty Years, but two Years lefs than the largeft Computation of Jofephus. From all which I conceive it $ jnanifeft, that this Text in the Book of Kings, which has caufed fo much Confufion in the Chronology of the Old Teflament during the Times of the Judges, has been corrupted by the Transcribers fince the Days of St. Paul and Jofephus, and therefore no Strefs is to be laid upon it. Anc» whoever will com- pare the Chronology in the preceding Tables from Adam to the Building of the Temple, according to the Hebrew, with that of Jofe- phus , will find but little Difference betwixt thern. For Jofephus fays, in the forecited Place of his Antiquities, that the Temple Was built five hundred and ninety two Years after the Departure of the Children of Ifrael out of Egypt, and by the foregoing Tables it is fix hundred and one, which is but eleven Years ( 3* ) Years difference. Then he fays it was one thoufand and twenty Years after Abraham came out of Mefopotamia into Canaan -, ac- cording to thefe Tables it is one thoufand and twenty fix, but five Years different. From the Flood he fays it was one thoufand four hundred and forty Years ; and here according to the Hebrew Account, which Jofephus fol^ lows, it will be found one thoufand four hundred and fifty three, but thirteen Years different. And from Adam he fays it was three thoufand one hundred and two; and ac- cording to the Hebrew Account in thefe Ta- bles it was three thoufand one hundred and nine, but kvtn Years different. So that from the Creation of the World to the Building of the Temple, I have differ'd from Jofephus but feven Years. A very inconsiderable Dif^ ference in fo long a Period. But I mult not conceal another Objection may be made againft lengthening this Period from Exodus to the Building of the Temple, and that is the long Life which muft then be attributed to three Men in Succefiion, Boaz^ Obed and Jeffe, who mud each of them be- get a Son when he was one hundred and fifty Years old or more, if we compute the Years of the Judges as I have done. But whoever will look into the Abridgment cf the Philojb- pbical Tranfaftions, Vol. III. pag. 306, 307. and fee the Account there given of Thomas Par, who died 1635. in the 153 d Year of his Age, 3> ) Age, and might have lived much longer if he had not been brought to Court and high fed, will not fee any Reafon to think it incredible that there might be three Men iu cceeding one another who might live to a greater Age, and who might alfo get Children at that Age. So that there is no Occafion to fhorten this Period on that Account. Some modern Chrcnologers diiliking this Method of confounding the Years of Reft with the Years of Oppreffion, have tried ano- ther Way to reconcile this Part of the Scrip- ture Chronology, and to fhorten the Time of the Judges. In order to which, they fup- pofe that the Opprefiions only affe&ed fome Parts of IJrae!, whilft the others had reft, and fo there might be Oppreffion and Reft at the fame Time : Alfo they fuppofe feveral Judges to have been Contemporaries, one judging one Part of the People whilft ano- ther judged the other Part. Upon theie Sup- positions they tell us, that only the eaft Parts were opprefled by Cujhan, and when Othniel had overcome him, the Land had Reft forty Years. Then thofe eaft Parts were again op- preffed by Eglo?t, who being flain by Ekud y the Land had Reft eighty Years. But all the Land had not Reft fo long according to them : For within five Years after this Deli- verance by Ehud, they fuppofe the weft Parts of Ifrael were oppreffed by the Philijimes twenty Years, and that at the End of thofe twenty ( 33 ) twenty Years Jabin oppreffed the north Parts twenty Years more. So that they fuppofe forty Years of Oppreffion to have been con- current with Part of thefc eighty Years of Reft, only in different Parts of the Land. Whereas they fuppofe the forty Years Reft under Othniel, the forty Years under Deborah and Barak, and the forty under Gideon, to have been fo many Years Reft of the whole Land. Yet the Scripture makes no Diftin- ftion between the eighty Years Reft and thole feveral forty Years, as if thefe were total and the other but partial. For the Words Judg. iii. 30. the Land had Reji fourfcore Tears, are as clear and as full as they are, Judg. iii. 11. or 'Judg. v. 3 1. where it is fa id, the Land had Reji forty Tears-, or Judg. viii. 28. the Countrey was in Quietnefs forty Tears. There- fore I can fee no Reafon to fay, that the whole Land had Reft for thefe three forty Years, and that but Part of it mould have Reft for the eighty Years. And indeed I be- lieve we fhall hardly find any Author facred or prophane faying in general Terms that a Land is at Reft, while there is War or Op- prefllon in any Part of it. An Invader many Times comes no further than the Coafts of a Countrey; but whilft he lies upon thofe Coafts and harraffes them, we can't fav in cr e - neral Terms that the Countrey is at Reft, much lefs can we fay fo, when he enters far into the Countrey and oppreiTes a great Part F ef ( 34 ) of it. Therefore I do not fee how the Scrip- ture can fay that the Land had Reft four/core Tears, if Jabin cppreffed one Part of it for twenty Years, and the Philiftines another Part of it twenty Years during that Time. Then they fuppofe that J air, Jephtha, Ibfan and Elo?i judged only North and Eaft Ifrael, whilft Eli judged South and Weft Ifrael, and that Sampjbn lived under the Judicature of Eli. Alfo they fuppofe North and Eaft If- rael to have been oppreffed by the Ammo- nites eighteen Years during the Judicature of J air in thofe Parts, and South and Weft If- rael to have been opprefled by the Philiftines forty Years while Eli judged that Part of the Land. But that Ifrael was not thus oppreffed during the Time they were under the Pro- tection of thefe Judges, appears from Judg. xi. 1 6. where it is laid, the Lord raifed up Judges which delivered them from the Hand of thofe that fpoiled them, Whereas, accord- ing to this Hypothefis, there were feveral Judges who did not deliver them at all. For during the whole forty Years of Eli's Judica- ture, the People were under an heavy and continued Oppreffion of the Philiftines ; and at the fame Time the Part which they fup- pofe to have been under J air, was oppreffed eighteen Years of the tw T enty two Years that he was their Judge. And yet the Scripture reprefents J air as one of the moft flourishing of the Judges, who had, as we read, Judg. x.4. ( 35 ) x. 4- thirty Sens that rode on thirty Afs-colti, •and they had thirty Cities called Havcth-Jair, that is, the Villages of J air Could a Judge that was fubjecl to an opprelTi' e foreign Po- wer, maintain fo numerous a Family in fuch ^Grandare ? Again, Sampfon is faid to have judged Jjrael twenty Years, Judg. xv. 20. and xvi. 3 1. yet according to this Chronology he is fuppofed to have lived altogether under the Judicature of Eli. Kow then could he •be Judge himfelf for fo long Time as the Scripture twice tells us that he was ? Thefe, I think, are juft Objections agai:;ft this Hy- pothefis, which is the latefl has been inven- ted, to reduce the Number of Years from Excdus to the Building of the Temple to four hundred and eighty. Whereas if we follow St. Paul's Computation, and allow four hundred and fifty Years for the Time of the Judges, there would be no need of ma- king fuch Suppofitions as will not accord with the Story of that Time as delivered in Scrip- ture. And we have the Computation of Jo- fephus to induce us to believe the Tranfcribers have been miftaken in the Number four hun- dred and eighty, 1 Kin, vi. 1. But we have no fuch Teftimony to induce us to believe fuch a Miftake has been made, Acl. xiii. 20. I cannot therefore imagine why fo much Pains fhould be taken, and the Scripture fo wrefled to fix that Miftake on die latter Text rather than the former. F 2 I have ( 3*) I have nothing more to add with regard Cp this laft Table, but to give my Reafon why I have added twenty Years to the Table of Lu- dovicus Capellus, between the Divifion of the Land and the Oppreffion of Cujlmn. And that is becaufe it appears from the Scripture that Jq/hua lived, and Ifrael had a confidera- ble Time of Reft after their Wars before any one oppreiTed them. For it is written, Jojh. xxiii. i. And it came to pafs, a \o\\Q CttHC after that the Lord had given Reft unto Ifrael from all their Enemies round about \ that Jolhua waxed old. Now it could not be faid to be a long "Time between the Settlement of the Children of Ifrael in Canaan, and Jofiua's waxing old, if Jofua died immediately as the Children of Ifrael had been fo fettled, as Capellus in his Table fuppofes him to have done. For if fofma died immediately as he had divided the Land between the Tribes, and Cujhan oppreiTed them as foon as he died, Ifrael would nave been fo far from enjoying a long Time of Reft, that they would have enjoyed no Reft at all. Now it is certain that Ifrael was not brought under by Cujhan^ till they forfook the Lord and followed Baal, Jndg. iii. 7, 8 . But the People ferved the Lord all the Days of Jofhua, and all the Days of the Elders that outlived Jolhua, who had feen all the great Works of the Lord, Judg. ii. 7. Therefore for the long Time which Jofhua lived af- ter the Children of Ifrael were fettled in Ca- naan* witii uicihj anu 10 on tne other Hand, if you compare The fourth TABLE, from the Divifion of Judah and Ifrael to the Captivity of Jerufalem. is n 4578 4588 4.629 465, 4 56; 4666 46S, 4695 4707 4757 4758 4767 4778 478o 4865 4867 _4_S.78_ + : ''90 Jehofaphat 2; Years, 1 A«. xxii. 41. (a JErn. viii. n 7«™>; 8 Years incompleat, three of which with his Fathe Ahaziah 1 Year incompleat, 2 Kin. viii. 26. Alhaliah ufurps 6 Years, 2 A/';/, xi. 15. __ of JUDAH. Rehoboam Ahihih rcis 46 reigne in to reign, and reigned 1 7 1 ears, three Years incompleat, 1 Km. t Years, 1 Kin. xv. 9, ■ °- : Kin. 29 Years, three with Jcafli, z A7s. A^j: 16 Yeats, 2 Ai«. xvi. I. 7 with Jotham. Hezekiah 29 Years, 3 with /Aaz, 2 Kin. xviii. Jeroboam reigned 22 Years incomple Nadab reigned z Y'ears incompleat w reigned 24 Years incomple t:.,i lei^ncd 2 Years incompleat, 1 kin. xvi. 8. Zimri 7 Days, Omr; with Tibni 3 Years. alone 12 Years, 1 JH». xvi. (xvi. 29 Ahab 22 Years incompleat, 5 of which with Omri, 1 Kin Abw-Jah z Years incomple Jeram 1 2 Yeats. : Years, 2 Kir. 7± Jehoahaz 17 Years, 2 A7;;. xiii. 1. Joafh 1 6 Years, 3 with Jehoahaz, Jeroboam 41, zKin.xiv. 23. A'."<. X! ntcrregnum of 22 Years. Zaihariab 6 Months, Shalhm Mentibim 1 o Years, 2 Afyf. Pekahiah z Years, 2 A7'/g. xv. i°«-/v;/; 20 Years, 2 Kin. xv. 2 //«/iw 9 Years incompleat, 2 Aw. xvii. 6. Saimancfer believed Samaria, z Kin. xviii. 9 ManaJJih 55 Years, 2 fin. x ////m 2 Years, 2 Ai«. xxi. 1 Jofias 3 1 Years, 2 Aw. xxii. Jehoaz 1 Months, 2 A7». x» J:':;:ukr : : '. : \ c.'.rs, .. A.//, xxni. 3b. Jchoi.uhn 3 Months, 2 A';>/. xxiv. 8. Zsdekiab 1 1 Years, 2 A'w. xxiv. 1 8. Jerufalem befieged by Nebuchadnezzar, and Taken, 2 A7n. xxv. 1, 2. r^ 17 ) naan x and for the Time of the Elders which outlived him, I think we cannot affign lels than twenty Years. Sir Walter Raleigh in his Hiftory (BookW. chap. 6. §. 8. pag. 277.) obferves, that " The Time of Jofouas Rule " is not exprefled in Scripture, which cauf- " eth divers to conjecture diverfely of the " Continuance. Jofephus gives him twenty " five Years : Seaar Ollam Rabbi, the Au- " thors of the Hebrew Chronology, twenty " eight : Mafjiiis twenty fix : Maimonius, ci- " ted by MaJJIus, fourteen : Johannes Luci- " dus feventeen : Cajetanus ten : Eufebius and " St. Auguflin twenty feven : Melanc~lhon " thirty two: Codomcn twenty five." My Conjecture is therefore agreeable to Eufebius and St. Augafline. For I have here allowed feven Years under his Rule for the Conqueft of the Land, and Divifion of it between the Tribes, and twenty more for a Time of Reft during his Life, and the Lives of the Elders which outlived him. Lefs than that, I think, cannot well be called a long 'Time of Rejl for a Nation after its firft Settlement. Notes on the fourth TABL E. Though the Time that every King reign- ed is fet down very expreffly in Scripture, during this whole Period, yet when we com- pare the Reigns of the Kings of Judah with thofe of the Kings of Ifrael contemporary with them ; and fo on the other Hand, if you compare ( 33 ) compare the Reigns of the Kings of Ifrael with thofe of the Kings of Judab their Con- temporaries, there arife Difficulties which are not to be folved without fometimes fuppoling that the Sons were crowned in the Life of their Fathers, and reigned jointly with them, and alfo admitting that there was an Inter- regnwn of twelve Years in the Kingdom of Juddh, and of twenty two Years in the King- dom of Ifrael: And likewife that divers of them did not reign lb many Years compleat as are fet down for the Time they are faid to have reigned, but died in the Beginning of their laft Year. Thus it is faid, i Kin. xv. 2. that Abijah the Son of Reboboam reigned three Years; but it is evident he could not reign three Years compleat, becaufe it is alfo faid 5 that he began to reign in the eighteenth Year of Jeroboam, and that his Son Afa began to reign in the twentieth Year of Jeroboam : So that he could reign but two Years compleat, and Part of the third. Again Nadab the Son of Jeroboam is faid, 1 Kin. xv. 25. to have reigned two Years. But as it is alfo faid, that he began to reign in the fecond Year of Afa^ and that Eaajha flew him in the third Year of Afa, he could reign but little more than one Year. And by the fame Method of com- paring the Year of any King with that of his Contemporary or Contemporaries, and com- puting in what Year of his Contemporary he began to reign, and in what Year of his Con- temporary ( 39 ) temporary he died, an eafy Judgment may be made whether the laft Year of his Reign compleated or only begun, and fuch whole laft Year was incompleat are noted in the Table. So as to the Father and Son's reigning to- gether, it appears that Ahab muft reign ibme time, together with his Father Omri$ for though it be faid, Znnri flew Elah in the 27th Year of Afa, and reigned but izven Days, 1 Kings xvi. 15. and that Omri was immediately made King by the Army; yet ic is faid, ^.23. In the thirty and fir j} Tear of Afa King of Judah, began Omri to reign 0- ver Ifrael twelve Tears. By which it ap- pears that the twelve Years Omri is here faid to have reigned, are not to be computed from the Death of Elah' and the Army's proclaiming him King about the End of the twenty feventh Year of Afa, but from the Death of his Competitor Tibni, three Years after -, that is, the Beginning of the thirty firft Year of Afa, from which time it is faid he reigned twelve Years. From whence it appears, that Omri lived and reigned to the firft Year of Jehofapihit the Son of Afa-, for Afa reigned forty one Years, therefore from the thirty firft of A- fa to the firft of Jehofaphat, are but twelve Years inclufive. Yet y. 29. it is faid that in the thirty eighth Year of Afa King of Judah, began Ahab the Son of Omri to reign over ( 4° ) over IfraeL From whence it follows, that he reigned four or five Years together with his Father. And it is probable, that Omri having before his Eyes the Fate of Nadab and Elab the Sons of Jeroboam and Baa/ha, who not fucceeding till their Fathers Deaths were cut off, while they were yet hardly warm in their Thrones, made his Son his Partner in the Kingdom with him, that he might be fo firmly eftablifhed in the Throne before his own Death, that it fhould be no eafy Matter to form a Party againft him to cut him off as the other two had been. So in the Kingdom of Judah it is faid, i Kin. xvii. 41. Jehofaphat the Son of Afa began to reign over 'Judah in the fourth Year of A- hab King of Ifrael, and he reigned twenty five Years. And it is faid, 1 Kings xvi. 29. that Ahab reigned twenty two Years -, there- fore Ahab died in the eighteenth Year of Jehofaphat \ that is {even Years before Jebo- Japbat's Death ; yet it is faid, 1 Kings xxii. 51. Ahaziab the Son of Ahab began to reign over Ifrael in the feventeenth Year of Jeho- faphat, that is a Year before his Father's Death, and reigned two Years, that is one Year or little more with his Father, and a fhort time after him - 9 for his Brother, 2 Kin. iii. 1. Jehoram the Son of Ahab began to reign over Ifrael in the eighteenth Year of Jehofaphat-, fo that Ahaziab and his Father both died within the Year, the Father pro- * bably (4i ) bably at the Beginning of the Year, and the Son towards the End of it; for it is certain, Ahaziah outlived his Father and reigned alone fome Time: We may therefore fay, that the firft Year of J or am the Son of A- hab was concurrent with the nineteenth of Jehofaphat ; then the fifth Year of Joram mull be concurrent with the twenty third of Jehofaphat, and then 2 Kings viii. 16. Jeho- ram the Son of Jebofaphat began to reign Co-partner with his Father, as is there ex- prefly faid : For it is written, In the fifth Tear of Joram the Son of Ahab King of If- rael, Jehofaphat being then King of Ju- dah, Jehoram the Son of Jehofaphat, King of Judah began to reign. And as Jehofaphat reigned twenty five Years, and as his Son be- gan to reign with him in his twenty third Year, it is evident they were Co-partners in the Kingdom three Years. It is probable, that Jehofaphat having entred into ftricl: Alliance with the Houfe of Ahab, and his Son hav- ing married a Daughter of Omri, was wrought upon by the Artifices of his Daughter-in- Law Athaliah, (a politick ambitious Wo- man) to make his Son King in his own Life- time, as Omri and Ahab had done. Sir Wal- ter Raleigh, in his Hiftory of the World, fhews that Jehofaphat made his Son Jehoram Co-partner with himfelf in his Kingdom twice, once in the feventeenth Year of his Reign, when Ahab made his Son Ahaziah King, at G the (4* ) the Time when they were both preparing for a War with the Syrians -> and therefore it is faid, i Kings i. 17. Jehoram King of Ifrael reigned inftead of his Brother Ahaziah , in the fecond Year of the Reign of Jeboram King of Judah. But for fome Mifbehaviour Jehofaphat faw it neceffary to reduce him a- gain to the Condition of a Subject; however he afterwards made him his Co-partner again, and fo he continued to his Death. And indeed there is no other Way of reconciling the two Texts, the one of which fays that 'Jehoram King of Ifrael reigned inftead of his Brother, in the fecond Year of Jehoram King of Judah ; and the other, which fays that Jehoram King of Judah began to reign in the fifth Year of Jehoram King of Ifra- el And when fuch a Precedent was fet in both Kingdoms, of taking the Son into a Co- partnership with the Father, it is not to be wondered at, that it fhould be followed as well in thefe Kingdoms, as it was afterwards in the Roman Empire. As to the Interregnum in the Kingdom of Judah, it appears from hence ; Jeroboam the fecond is faid 2 Kings xiv. 23. to have be- gun his Reign in the fifteenth Year of Am a- ziah King of Judah, and in the fecond Verfe of that Chapter, Amaziah is faid to have reigned twenty nine Years ; therefore Ama- ziah died in the fifteenth Year of Jeroboam King of Ifrael And it is faid, f. 21. of that (43 ) that Chapter, that all the People of Judah took Azariah and ?nade him King injlead of his Father Amaziah. Confequently Azari- ah was the next that fucceeded Amaziah, and was but fixteen Years old when he was made Kins;: Yet it is laid, 2 Kings xv. I. In the twenty feventh Tear of Jeroboam King of If- rael, began Azariah, Son of Amaziah King of Judah to reign -, fo that from the Death of Amaziah in the fifteenth Year of Jeroboam King of IJrael to the twenty feventh Year of the fame Jeroboam, that is for twelve Years Space there was no King in Judah. It ap- pears from hence, that Azariah called alio Uzziah, was but about four Years old when his Father w T as murdered, and being fo young, the Confpirators, who were fo pov/erful as not only to drive his Father from his Capi- tal City Jerufalem, but from thence to pur- fue him to Lacbijh, and to flay him there, may very well be fuppofed ftrong enough to keep him from getting PofTeffion of the Crown, till he was fixteen Years of Age. The Interregnum in the Kingdom of If rael happened at the Death of the foremen- tioned Jeroboam. For it is faid, 2 Kings xiv. 23. Jeroboam reigned forty one Years. There- fore as the Reign of Azariah King of Ju- dah began in the twenty feventh Year of Je- roboam King of IJrael, the Death of Jero- boam muft be in the fourteenth Year of A- zariah, and yet his Son Zachariah did not G 2 reign ( 44 ) reign till the thirty eighth Year of Azariah King of Judah, 2 Kings xv. 8. Sir Walter Raleigh fays, that after the Death of Jero- boam, " probable it is, that the Captains of " the Army, (who afterward flew one ano- the Romans from jfavan ; and the Men to whom thefe Names belonged, were born and named before the Building of Babel. But to this it may be anfwered, that there is no Ground in Scripture to induce us to be- lieve that the primitive Language or Religi- on was prefer ved in the Family of Heber, for it is certain that the true Religion was loft, or at lead moft grievoufly corrupted in that Family as well as in all others ; for the Defcendants of Heber were Idolaters as well as others: Even Abraham himfelf was fo, till God was pleafed to call him to the Knowledge of his Truth, and command him to leave his native Country. This the Scrip- ture exprelly teaches, d Thus faith the Lord God of Ifrael, your Fathers dwelt on the other Side of the Flood in old Time , even Terah the Father of Abraham, and the Father of Nachor : And they ferved other Gods. It is evident therefore, that the Family of He- ber, from whence Terah and his Sons Abra- ham and Nachor defcended, had loft the; d Jofli. xxiv. 2 true ( 79 true Religion as well as others. Neither did they retain the Hebrew Language, but what they fpoke was the Chaldean, a very diffe- rent Language from the other. e We have a convincing Evidence of this Difference, when Lab an of the Family of Heber, who remained in Cha/dea, and had preierved the Language of his Ancestors, gave the Name of J agar-Sahadutha, to the Heap of Stones which they gathered together ; whereas Ja- cob called it Galaad, both of them fignify- ing the Heap of Witnefs : That Heap of Stones being a Monument or Testimony of the Covenant there made betwixt them: It is then certain, that in thofe Days the Chal- dee Tongue, which Nachor and Terah the Defendants of Heber and Anceftors to Abra- ham, and which Laban ftill fpoke, becaufe he refided in Mefopotamia, was different from that which Jacob fpoke, which was the He- brew: Coniequently if the Hebrew was the original Language fpoken before the Diiber-, lion from Babel, (which mall be examined hereafter) it is certain it was not preferved in the Family of Heber : For his Defendants, as appears from Laban, fpoke another Lan- guage. Nor was there only this Difference in a fingle Word, but in the whole Lan- guage. For the Aramick, Chaldee ocAjfyrian Tongue was fo different from the Hebrew or e Gen. x*x . 47. Language ( So ) Language of the Jews, that the common People of the Jews did not underftand it. And when ^Rabjhekah, the King of A/Tyrias General, would have excited the People to a Rebellion, he ipoke Hebrew to King Heze- kial/s Deputies, that the People might under- ftand him: And they prayed him to fpeak in the Aramick or Syrian Language, for they understood it, and not to fpeak in the Jew* ijh Tongue which the People on the Wall u nderftood. The Prophet Jeremiah a! fc fore- telling the Ruin of the Jews by the Chalde- ans fays, g God would bring upon them a Na- tion from jar, a mighty ancient People, whoje Language they know not, neither do they under- ftand. It is therefore I think very plain, that neither the primitive Language nor Religi- on was preferred in the Family of Heber ra- ther than in any other Family. And from whencefoever Abraha?n, Ifaac and Jacob re- ceived the Hebrew Language, it is manifeft they received it not from the Sons of Heber, the Ancestors of Abraham, for they fpoke a Language very different from it. Neither are the Names given to the anci- ent Patriarchs in Scripture a fufficient Proof, that they fpake the Hebrew Language, or that they were originally called by Hebrew Names. For Mofes might change ancient Names into Hebrew Names of the fame Sig- * i Kings xviii. 16. £ Jer. v. 15. nification 8i ) nification : And we have diverfe Examples of this Cuftom from Greek and Latin Au- thors, and even from the Interpreters of the Scripture. Thus it is, that Avidia to imitate the Allufion, which is in the Name of Ifcb and IJcba % that is Man and Woman, made ufe of the Terms ' An}* and " Avtyg. The Au- thor of the Latin Vulgate has alfo imitated the Hebrew, by tranflating Ifcha into Virago y derived from the Word Vir as the Hebrew is from Ifcb. Thus alfo the Evangelifts chan- ged the Name of Cephas into that of Petrus, to preferve the Signification of the Syriack Word Cephas, and the Allufion to Petra : And the Woman who was called 'Tabitha in Hebrew was called Dorcas in the Greek, be- ing of the fame Signification. It is laid al- fo in Exodus, that Pharaoh's Daughter gave Mofes that Name, becaufe (he drew him out of the Water -, but Pharaoh's Daughter fpoke not the Hebrew Language, but the £- gyptian, and no doubt gave him this Name from an Egyptian Word of that Significati- on, which Mofes himfelf changed into the Hebrew. Thus about the Time of the Re- formation, Erajmus, Melancthon and others changed their Dutch Names into Latin or Greek of the fame Signification. For Eraf mns's original Name w r as Gerardus Gerardi, or Gerard the Son of Gerard-, this he chan- ged to Defiderius Erajmus, the one Latin, the other Greek of the fame Signification. The M other's ( U ) other's Name was Siamrtzerd, and he caHed himfelf and was called by others Melancthon y which is derived from the Greek, and of the fame Signification in that Language, that the other is in Dutch. The Septuagint have tranflated the Name of Babel by the Word 2Jy%uo-if, which fignifies Confufion, as Babel does in the Hebrew. And fome Greeks have tranflated Efau or Edcm y which fignifies red, bv Ersthrean, which has the fame Significati- on in 'Greek. There is a great Number of this Sort of Changes to be found. The Name Adam, which is not a proper Name, but the appellative Name of Man, which was gi- ven to the firil Man by Way of Excellence, might have been changed without any Dif- ficulty ; and the ancient Name, as well as that of Adam, might have been derived from the Word, which then fignified the Earth ; as the Latin Word Homo is derived from the Word humus , which fignifies the Ground. But fuppofe that Mojes did not change the Names, it will only prove that fome Words of the original Language were preferved in the Hebrew, and there is as good Proof that fome of them were preferved in other Lan- guages, which differed from the Hebrew. I have already fliewed that the Chaldee was a Language fo different from the Hebrew, that thofe who underftood the one did not under- fland the other , yet many of the foremen- tioned Names, as Eve, Cain, Pkaleg and Ba- bel, ( «3 ) &el, #re as eafily derived from Chaldee Words as from Hebrew And the Etymology of the Name Tubal-Cain (an Antediluvian Name) may be found in the Arabick, where Tuba- Ion and Kunaon fignify a Plate of Brafs y but not in the Hebrew. So that if we fetch our Proofs from the Etymologies of fome Names, the Chaldee and the Arabick may .bid as fair for the primitive Language as the Hebrew. And as there is no Proof fufficient to con- vince us that the Hebrew was the original Language fpoken by Adam and NoaJb, and others who lived before the Confufion of Languages; ib there is very good Proof that it was not that Language, for indeed it was the Language of Canaan, and is caL- led fo by the Prophet h . Now we cannot fuppofe that God would mew fuch a parti- cular Favour to Canaan, whom Noah curled foon after the Flood, together with his Poste- rity 1 , as to preferve the primitive Language in his Family rather than in any ether. This Language Abraham learned when be iojourn- •ed in that Land, and his Posterity prefer ved it. For I have already iiiewed that the Chat* dee was the Language, which Abraham's An- ceftors ufed in Mesopotamia-, confequently which he himielf learned from them, and .ufed till fuch Time as by God's Command- fa Ifa, xix iS. ; G:i. i:;. ;.c. - 2 ment ( u merit he went away from his Kindred, and from his Country, and came into the Land of Canaan. After he came there, God having promifed to give him that Country and to plant his Pofterity there, he learned and fpoke the Language of that Country, and it became the Language ufed in his Family ; fo "Jacob his Grandfon learned it, as has been {hewed, and gave Names to Places in that Language, while Laban preferved the Language of their common Anceftors. For Laban, who con- tinued in the Country firft planted by their common Anceftors, could not change the Language which they fpake, and introduce another in that Place. But Abraham, who was removed into another Country, lived there near an hundred Years, traded there, and daily converfed with the Inhabitants of that Place, could not help learning their Lan- guage j and Ifaac and Jacob who were born there, and though they required but fmall Portions of Land there, yet on the Account of the Promifes looked on it as the Place of their Inheritance, learned the Language un- doubtedly from their Infancy, and it became the native Language of them and their Po- fterity. Therefore as it is evident, that Ja- cob and Laban, though both defcending from the fame Stock of Heber, yet ufed different Languages, Laban fpeaking the Chaldee and Jacob that which is now called the ancient Hebrew, it muft needs be that Jacob had learned (*¥ ) learned another Language. And where mould he have that other Language, but in the Country where he had his Birth and Educa- tion. And this, if we had no other Proof, would be fufficient to prove that the He- brew Tongue was the original Language of Canaan. Another Proof may be taken from the Names of Men and Places in the Land of Canaan, whereof Mention is made in Genejis and Jojhua. As the proper Names Melchi- zedech, Adoni-Bezech , Abimelech , &c. the Names of the Ctmaanitijh Kings are Hebrew, and the Names of Towns, as Jericho, Salem , Sichem, Bethlehem, &c, which were the Names of thofe Towns while the Canaanites pofieflcd them, and are Hebrew Names, and of Hebrew Original. A third Proof may be drawn from hence, that it is no where obferved in Scripture that the Ifraelites and Canaanites had different Languages, and did not underftand one ano- ther, as it is obferved with relation to the Chaldeans and Egyptians. The Scriptures fpeak often of the Conferences of Abraham, Ifaac and Jacob with the Canaanites, and always as if they understood one another ; nor is it ever faid that they made ufe of Interpreters. When Abraham k and Abimelech made a Covenant together, they did not give two different k Gen :•::■ \\. 3 r, \\. Names ( 86 ) Names (though of the fame Signification) to the Place where they made their Contract, as Jacob and Laban afterwards did. But as A* braham called it Beer-Jheba or the Well of the Oath, fo Abimelecb gave it no other Name. Jacob and Laban gave different Names to the Heap of Stones they erected, but fignifying the fame Thing, becaufe they fpake dif- ferent Languages : But here Abraham and A- bimelech agree in the fame Name, to fignify the fame Tiling, therefore they fpoke the £ame Language. A fourth Proof is founded on the Hiftory of Jofeph and his Brethren. It is faid that Jofepb, not willing to make himfelf known to them fpoke to them by an Interpreter. If the Tongue which they fpoke had been pe- culiar to their Family, (and that it muft be if it was not the Language of the Canaanites, for I have proved that it was not the Lan- guage of Abraham's Anceftors) where could Jofeph have found an Interpreter in Egypt that underftood it ? It was therefore the Language of Canaan where they then dwelt, and fo an Interpreter might eafily be found. A fifth Proof is taken from the Conformi- ty there is between the Punick or Carthagini- an Tongue and the Hebrew, for it is agreed on all Hands that the Carthaginians were a Colony of the Phenicians or Canaanites. And Procopius in his Hi/lory- of the Vandals fays, there were two Pillars anciently to be ktn in thofe ( 87 ) thofe Parts with this Infcription, in the Phe- nician or Hebrew Language, We are they that fed from the Face of Jofhuah the Son of Narr the Robber. So that if Credit is to be given to this Infcription, the Carthaginians, and thofe who fettled on the Coaft of Africk bordering on the Mediterranean, were originally thofe Nations of the Canaanites which Jofhuah drove out of that Countrey when he gave the Pof- feffion of it to the Children of IfraeL But how- ever that be, and whether the Canaanites fettled there at that Time or fome other Time before or after, it is certain thofe Coafts of 'Africk were a Colony of the Phenicians or Canaanites, their very Names Pcehni mew them to have been fo, and all Authors that have fpoken of their O- riginal have afferted it; and I know not that it was ever queftioned. Now St. Augaftine and St. Jerom both allure us that the Punick Lan- guage was very near the fame with the Hebrew. St. Jerom fays, l They are called Pozni corruptly in/lead 0/Thozni, whofe Language for the mojl part is nearly allied to the Hebrew. And St. Jerom was the beft fkilled in the Hebrew Tongue of any Man in his Age or for fome Ages before or after, having tranflated the whole Bible out of that Language. St. Au- guftin, who was an African, fays, m Hun, the Hebrews call Meffias, which Word agrees with the Punic Tongue 5 as do many other Hebrew 1 Lib. v. injercm. cap. iy ni Contra lib. Petil. c. 104, 2 Words, ( 88 ) Words, nay ahnofl all of them. It may be faid that it might be near the Hebrew Tongue, which is all that thefe Fathers affert, but this does not prove it the fame. To which it may be anfwered , that thefe Fathers lived near "a thoufand Years after the Babylonijh Captivity, at which Time the Hebrew Tongue ceafed to be a living Language, and no Books remained written in that Language but the Scriptures of the Old Teftament. What Wonder then if the Punic Tongue had received confide- rable Alterations in fo long a Space of Time ? Therefore as it was then nearly allied to the Hebrew, we have no Reafon to queftion but it was originally the fame. We have ftill a Fragment of the Punic Language remaining in Plautus's Panulus, beginning N'yth alonim valonuth, &c. which are plain Hebrew Words fignifying, Iworfhip the Gods and Gcddefjes, &c. And the whole Fragment has been proved by thole who were well {killed in that Tongue to be no other than Hebrew. From whence it is evident that Hebrew was originally the Language of the Canaanites, confequently that Abraham and his Pofterity learned it there: For they fpoke another Language whilft they lived in Ur of the Chaldees, as is evident from what has been obferved before from the diffe- rent Languages cfLaban and Jacob. However there ftill remains one Objection to be cleared, and that is, If Hebrew was not the original Language of the World, and preferred 8 9 ) preferred in the Family of Heber , whence did it derive its Name? Surely the Language of Heber, and not the Language of the Canaanites , fhould be called the Hebrew ^Tongue. But to this it may be anfwered, that it was not called the Hebrew Tongue for ibme Ages after the Children of Ijrael were in full Polfeilion of the Land of Canaan-, and I do not remember that it is called lb once in the whole Old Teftament, though it be there (as has been obferved) ex- preil recalled the Language ofCa?iaan n . There- fore being not called the Hebrew Tongue till io many Ages after it became the Language of the Posterity of Abraham, who were called Hebrews from him, it might very well derive that Name from thence, though it was origi- nally the Language of the Canaanites. Nay, that Language which is called the Hebrew in the New Teftament was not the Language we are now treating of, but the Language which the yews fpake at that Time, a mix'd Lan- guage compounded of this and feveral ethers : So that I know not whether the Language in which the Old Teftament was written was e- ver called the Hebrew Tongue, till fince the NewTeftament was alio written) that is, many Ages after it had ceaied to be a living Lan- guage. It may perhaps be farther urged, that ad- mitting this to be lb, yet how came the Children of Ijrael to be caHl'dHeirewsfiowi Heber 3 rather Ifti xix. 18. N than ( 9° ) than any other of that Patriarch's Defcendant^ unlefs it was that they preferved the Religion and Language of their Anceftor more pure and uncorrupt than the others did ? But I anfwer, that I have already fufficiently pro- ved that the Ijraelites received neither their Religion nor Language from fo remote an An- ceftor as Hebe?'-, that Terab the Father of A- braham was an Idolater, and it is certain that the Covenant God made with Ifrael, whereby he chofe them to be his People, can be car- ried no higher than to Abraham, and from him, not Heber, they alio derived the name of He- brews. For Hdbar, from whence Heber and Hebrew are derived, figrrifies to pajs over or to come from another Place y or go to another Place, and the Subfiantive deriv'dfrom it fignifies thofe which live beyond fome great River or fome Sea which mujl be pajsd over before they can come to us, as we would fay here a Man from beyo?id Sea, that is a Stranger or Sojourner come to foiourn among us from beyond Sea. And in thisSenfe it was that Abraham ° was called the Hebrew, which the Septuagint has therefore rendred ras ?r^drrj the Stranger or Sojourner. And as he and his Seed were Strangers in a Land not their own by the Space of four hun- dred Years, the Name of Hebrews or Stran- gers was affixed and became appropriated to them : And they continued it after they were fully fixed and fettled in the Land of Canaan, G Gen. xiv, 13. xv. 13. that ( 9' ) that they might always remember that they were originally Strangers both there and in the Land of P Egypt: God himfelf ha- ing given it as a Reafon why he required them to be kind to Strangers, becaufe they had been long Strangers themfelvcs. And what fo proper to pat them in Mind of their having been Strangers for fo long Time, as their continuing to themfelves the Name of Hebrews or Strangers ~- ? Hence then it was that Abraham and his Poderityby Ifaa " and Jacob were called Hebrews, and not from Heber. For no Reafon can be given why A- bra-ham mould have the Name Hebrew from Heber, who was, though an Anceflor, yet a very remote one from him, and that none of Heber s nearer Defcendants mould ever be cal- led fo. But we have feen that there is vc good Reafon why he and his Pofrerity mould be called Hebrews, as they were Strangers that came into Canaan from beyo?id the Eut Thole who object that Sem is called the Father of ail the Children erf Heber r , as if the Word Heber were in this Place the Name of that Patriarch, beg the Thing in Queftion. For the Word Heber in this Place fignifies from beyond, and the Senfe is the Children or Inhabitants beyond, or beyond the Euphrates. For Mofes might well think it proper to ac- quaint us that the Nations beyond the Eu- phrates were the Pofterity of Sem, but he p Exod. xxii.21. i Levit. xix. 33. * Gen. x.n. N 2 could ( 9> could have no Inducement to tell us that he was the Father, or Anceftor of the Children of his great Grand-fon. To that which fome others object, that if the Name Hebrew de- rive its Origin as is here maintained \ it had been no more proper to the Pofierity of Abra- ham, Ifaac and Jacob, than to thofe of Lot, Iihmael and Efau ; for Ifhmael and Efau were the Son and Grand-fon of Abraham, and Lot was a Stranger in Canaan, as well as he, and came from the fame Place with him : It may be anfwered, that thofe will lye un- der the fame Difficulty from this Objecti- on, who derive the Name Hebrew from the Patriarch Heber ; for Lot, IJkmael and Efau were his Defcendants, as well as the Ifraelites. However, we need not fence againft this Ar- gument by retorting it. For there is very good Reafon why this Name mould be fix- ed to the Ifraelites and not to the other, be- caufe the Children of Ifrael continued to be Strangers and Sojourners four hundred Years together; and alfo continued diftindt in their Religion and Cuftoms from all other Nations ; whereas the Pofterity of Lot, Ijhmael and Efau were in a little Time fettled in the Countries of Mcab 3 Ammon, Arabia and E- dom, and abandoned the Religion of their Fathers, and embraced that of other Nations, that is Paganifm or Polytheifm. But the Children of Ifrael always dwelt alone f , that f Nam. xxiii. 9. is, ( 93 ) is, in fuch a Manner as to be ever diftinguifh- ed from other People, and were not reckoned among the Nations. And thus it was that the Name which was firft common and appella- tive, did by Cuftom become proper to the Children of IfraeL Thefe Reafons I think are fufficient to prove that there is no folid Foundation for that Opinion, which maintains that the He- brew is the primitive Language which Adam. himfelf fpake, which was tranfmitted by him to all the Antediluvian Patriarchs, then was preferved by Noah and his Sons, tranfmitted by Sem, Arphaxad and Salah to Heber, and preferved in his Family after the Confufion at Babel. But as there is no Ground to think that Hebers Family was exempted from the Punifhraent inflicted on the Builders of Ba- bel, and it is certain that neither the true Religion, nor the Language which we call the Hebrew was preferved in his Family un- to Abrahams Time; (for his Pofterity, and par- ticularly "Terah, the Father of Abraham fer- ved other Gods, and fpake the Chaldee Lan- guage) alfo that what we call the Hebrew- Tongue was the Language of Canaan ; and there is no Reafon to think that Canaan fhould be fo particularly favoured as to have the primitive Tongue continued to his Po- iterity, when it was confounded in all other Families or Nations : We may very fafely conclude, that Hebrew was not the original } Tongue ( 94 ) Tongue fpoken by Noah and the Antedilu- vian Patriarchs. It is Honour enough for ir, that after it became the vulgar Language of Abraham and his Pofterity, God vouchfa- fed to reveal his Laws in that Tongue, and , that the moft ancient and many of the moil: facred Books are penned in it, even all the J Books of the Old Teftament. \ And if the Hebrew Language be not the - primitive Tongue fpoken by Adam and the ] Antediluvian Patriarchs, there is no other can lay any juft Claim to it: Nor do I think it worth my While to confute what fome have faid in Favour of the High Dutch, and others of the Celtick, but mall conclude that it was entirely loft at Babel, or at leaft that no one can tell where it was preferved, which is much to the fame Effect. f i n i s i viyi i^ii i mi > y 0AHv»]^ ^UlBRARYtf^ ^ILIBRARY^ <5»rUNIVER% $ ;s SO I University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. JMK j' ^fOJIlV>JO ,\WEUNIVER%. 1^ ^UJS-ANGElfj^ ■%3AIN(l-3tf^ ^OF-fALIFOfcfc ^OF-CALIFOR ^•LIBRARY*?/- ^FCALIFO/?^ ^•UBRARY^. ^fOjnvD-jo*" ^OF-CAllFOto #Awaan-T^' ^AavaaiH^ ^»E-UNIVER% f ^HDNY-SOV^ .5ME-UNIVERS/A ^clOS "*&«■