Wv73

ly f ej .f-n. /ea' (' (/

BIBLE CHRONOLOGY
CAREFULLY UNFOLDED.

SHOWING:

I. — That there is a Bible Chronology, which is strik
ingly definite and evident to the searcher after truth.
II. — That there is no outside Chronology, at all reliable,
to set aside the Bible Chronology.
III. — That therefore the Scriptures are historically truth
ful, giving a correct account of ancient events and dates.

TO WHICH IS ADDED A
RESTORATION OF JOSEPHUS.

BY REV. SMITH B. GOODENOW, A. M.,
Author of "The Pilgrim Faith Maintained;" "Immortality and the
Doom of Sin;" "Inspired Truthfulness ofthe Original Scriptures,') etc'

FLEMING H. REVELL COMPANY,
New York, Chicago, Toronto.
1896.

SOME OTHER TREATISES
Auxiliary to this work, by
the same author.

The Classic Chronology.

The Early Christian Chronicles.

The History of the Christian Era.

The Adjustment of Eras.

Cycles, Epacts, Equinoxes, etc.

Copyright, 1896, by Smith B. Goodenovv, Battle Creek, Iowa.

INTRODUCTION.

There is a measure of truth in the sentiment of Horace Bushnell,
that "Every man's life is a plan of God." At least to any one who
has from youth devoted himself to the service of his Maker there is a
consolation in feeling, that everything down to old age, however mys
terious, the Providence, has ministered to the achievement of that
service. The present writer was led from his boyhood, at 14 years of age, in
' the. City of Providence, Rhode Island, under the venerated Charles G.
Finney, in A. D. 1831, to consecrate himself, soul an'd body, for life,
to the work of the Master, and the vindication of his truth. Being
beset with opposition, frequent lone hours of devotion on the neigh
boring hills were solaced by gazing into the stars and repeating all
through that wonderful hymn (then just produced):
"Jesus, I my cross have taken,
All to leave and follow thee;
Naked, poor, despised, forsaken,
Thou from hence my all shalt be.
* - * * * * *
^ Go, then, earthly fame and treasure !
Come, disaster, scorn and pain !
In thy service pain is pleasure,
With thy favor loss is gain."
Has the omen proved true?
He forthwith found himself engaged with a corps of S. S. workers
and others in various Old Testament studies connected with Moses
and the Jewish kings. The chronological investigations and
manuscripts then evolved, before the age of. 15 and 16, have been of
service to Oris day. And the result was a ladies' education society
formed in the church and the youthful investigator started by them
through a course for the ministry.
Never did the fervor of that first zeal for God's truth abate. And
the boy thus set apart by hallowed sanctions for the search and de
fense of God's word, has never forgotten to use all his natural faculty
and acquired scholarship in elucidating and magnifying the Book Di
vine. Whatever vicissitudes and disappointments have attended the
ministerial work in general, an unseen hand has led; and most of the
unspent energy which others gave to vacation pastimes and promis-
cupus literature, was for fifty years spent in delving in remote
libraries, copying voluminous masses of material from different lan
guages, and searching out abstruse and difficult points. Thus the
youthful bent was pushed into the enthusiastic work of a life-time;

4 INTRODUCTION
and what was represented by most as a very uncertain and unprofit
able study, was found to develop into a research of untold interest and
value. The writer was early impressed very strongly with the fact that
the coming contest over the Bible would center about the question of
its historical truthfulness; and he could not fail to see, that the ques
tion of truthfulness would turn largely upon the chronological certi
tude of the dates given. To that point he has bent his energies, and
he has reached the most convincing conclusions. Today, when the onset
has really come, and the Old Testament veracity is on all hands as
sailed, the chronological results here reached find their use, and serve
as a breast-work against the tide of archaeological assault, which
threatens to make havoc of the Old Testament history. As the New
Testament has signally won in the chronological struggle, so the Old
Scriptures are destined to win. The research thus begun in boyhood,
is thus proving the sure determiner of faith in old age. Was it not in
the plan ? I
When we pushed with zest into the datings of Scripture, we were
surprised to find almost everybody casting reproach upon the study,
as trivial and of little account. From the little interest taken in the
subject, and from the vague and irrational methods of inquiry
adopted, it came to pass, that very defective results were reached,
and this led to reproach upon the whole investigation. A. vast variety
of different results were claimed, where sober sense should have
shown but a single interpretation possible; and Bible datings were
represented as a matter of very great uncertainty. As long ago as in ,
the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1858 (p. 289),* there was such a representation
of Bible Chronology, as if it were a perfect bank of fog. Since then,
various similar articles have been' published; and within a few years
latterly, there have appeared' labored treatises (by men otherwise
sound in the faith), vainly trying to make the chronology of Gen. v
and xi, to be no chronology at all, but only undated genealogical, tables!
(See the Bib. Sacra, 1873, p. 323, and 1890, p. 285.)
One aim and result of our work is, to scatter all these illusory
notions concerning the uncertainty of Bible datings, (which in general
arise from fcery superficial study of the subject), and to convince the
Bible student, how sure and determinate a matter Scripture chron
ology is. As a basis for all, the date of Christ's death, as on Friday,
April 7th, A. D. 30, is found to be sure and unmistakable, and now
generally agreed upon; instead of being assigned to almost every
other year but that, as was the case when this work was undertaken.
The nativity, as near the beginning of B: C. 4, together with all the
other N. T. dates, we have here taking their definite position, — in
place of the multiplied, vague and erroneous figures commonly given
fifty years ago.

INTRODUCTION 5
Then follows the Old Testament dating, assuredly started with B.
C. 587, as the time of Nebuchednezzar's capture of Jerusalem (not
588, as put by Usher); whence the Jewish kings are easily seen to date
back, first 133 years to B. C. 720 at the capture of Samaria— and then
254 years more to the death of Solomon in B. C. 974— and 37 years
more toithe founding of the temple in the 4th year of Solomon, B. C.
ion; a total of (133+254+37=) 424 years from the capture of Jerusa
lem back to the founding of the temple, or (67+133+254+37=) 491
years from the second temple in B. C. 520, back to the first temple in
B. C. ion, just as given by Josephus as well as the Scriptures.
All this is made so plain and sure, by the many unmistakable dates
and cross dates given, interlocking in every way, that by this simple
and certain method of self adjustment, the Bible Chronology is made
indisputable back to the founding of the temple in the 4th year of Sol
omon, as being in B. C. ion (not 1012, as Usher's B. C. 588 instead of '
587 for Jerusalem's destruction makes it.) This date for Solomon's
Temple may be considered as perfectly assured in the Bible. And
the attempt of archfeologists to construct from the Assyrian Eponym
Canon another chronology of tlie kings, 40 or 50 years later than that
of Scripture, is thus shown to leave Bible Chronology itself untouched.
The true Bible Chronology of human history back to the founding of
Solomon's Temple, as in B. C. ion, is fixed and assured.
The time from Solomon's Temple back to the Exodus, is the first
interval where we come to any scriptural doubt; but careful study
shows the uncertainty to be much less than supposed. The I Kings
vi: 1, probably covers "the 480th year" of actual reign, excluding 100
years of foreign subjugation deemed unworthy of recognition. This is
made probable by the 580 years reckoning of the New Testament,
(Acts xiii:1 17-21); and it reaches almost a certainty, when we find
Josephus and all the early fathers, both Jewish and Christian, giving
only the longer interval, with no allusion to the shorter now found in
I Ki. vi: 1.
Most likely, the "480th" is a copyist's variation or addition to the
previous reading, taken from the margin as an explanation of the orig
inal value intended, which was " 580 years " (expressed or more prob
ably understood). *
* There might be a single copyist's error here or there in Scripture;
and indeed we know for a certainty, that there "is occasionally a cor
ruption of a date or number. But there could not be any such whole
sale corruption of the dates generally as the Assyriologists ascribe to
the history of the Jewish kings. What they call harmonizing Scrip-
ture'with Assyriology, is rather a demolition of the Bible to make way
for alleged Assyriology. If the Scripture is so corrupt as they make it,
(i. e., in most of its dates), then it is no true history, and is not to be
believed at all.

0 INTRODUCTION
Thus Scripture is made consistent with itself (in Acts and Judges
as compared with I Ki. vi: i); and the Exodus is carried to B. C. 1591
(instead of Usher's 1491). " This is more consistent with the monu
ments, than are the anti-scriptural theories of the Egyptologists at
present current, which put down the Exodus to about B. C. 1300. .
The interval from the Exodus back to the birth of Abram is very
plainly (430+75=) 505 years; making the birth of Abram to be in
B. C. 2096, in place of Usher's 1996: Thus far back Bible Chronology
is remarkably simple and sure. The preceding Diluvian Chronology
(post- and pre-diluvian), adds to this, either in the Hebrew (+352+1656),
making 4104 B. C. for the creation, or in the Greek of Josephus
(+992+2256), making the creation B. C. 5344. With the Hebrew B. C.
4104, the human race is six thousand years old in A. D. 1897, but with
the Greek, the human race was' seven thousand years old, somewhere
from A. D. 1471 to 1721, according to variations of the Septuagint.
This great divergence in the copies as to the full age of the world,
may have been providentially allowed (by the corrupt copying either of
the Hebrew or of the Greek text), for the very purpose of preventing
any sure fixing prematurely of prophetic "times and seasons" (pur
posely hidden, though told, Acts i: 7); while at the same time giving
that exactness of dating so characteristic of the Bible, which vouches
for the history as truthful and leaves the total assured within a few
hundred years.
This work is intended to supply
A LONG EXISTING WANT,
— to furnish A BIBLE TEXT-BOOK,
indispensable to every thorough student of Scripture.*
* "With nearly all existing books in this department, the weakest
part is the treatment of the Old Testament data. Men put in their
best work for deciphering some obscure inscription that has been dug
up somewhere, and in deciding what inferences may, and what may
not, be drawn from it; but they fancy that they know without much
study what the Old Testament says. So they heedlessly accept some
crude traditional interpretation of an Old Testament statement, in
stead of looking freshly and keenly to find out what the statement
actually is. The extent to which existing criticism is vitiated by this
process is appalling. * * * In the department of Old Testament
study, such (thorough) work is now more needed than work of .any
other kind." {Sunday School Times, Sep. 28, /8pj, p. 620.)

CONTENTS.
Bible Chronology may, for convenience, be divided into seven por
tions, denoted by the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G, as follows:
A. From Creation to the Flood.
B. From the Flood to the Birth of Abram.
C. From the Birth of Abram to the Exodus.
D. From the Exodus to the Founding of Solomon's Temple.
, E. From the Founding to the Burning of the Temple.
F. From the Burning of the Temple to the Christian Era.
G. From the Christian Era to the Close of the New Testament.
In our examination of the subject, we work backward, from the.
most obvious to the most obscure, beginning with the Crucifixion and
ending with the Creation, as follows:
Period G. The JVeiv Testament.
Part I. The Date of Christ's Death, historically and astronomically
fixed, on Friday, April 7th, A. D. 30, \ 1.
Chap. I. Historical Review, \ 4.
1. Historical Age, § 4.
2. Equinoctial Cycle Age', § 11.
3. Later Theory Age, etc., \ 17.
Chap. II. Astronomical Demonstration, § 18.
1. The State of the Case, § 18.
2. The Means of Adjustment; Lunar Cycles, 1 23.
3. The Lunar Calculations; Corrections, $ 33. 1
4. The Data Combined, {j 39; The True Date, 244.
5. Important Results, § 48.
Appendix.
A. Christ's Resurrection on Sunday, § 56; Crucifixion on Fri
day, I 57.
B. The Jewish Months were Lunar, \ 67.
C. Ancient Lunar Cycles Exhibited, $ 73.
D. Was the Crucifixion on the 14th or 15th Nisan ? I 80.
E. Corrected Reckoning of the N. T. Lunar Dates, $ go.
Part II. Sundry New Testament Dates, § 95.
Chap. I. Christ's Baptism, f 95; the Nativity, § 96.
Cyrenius Governor, $ 99; Day of Nativity, \ 101.
Pauline Dates, \ 102; N. T. Events, (j 106.
Roman Emperors, § 107; Jerusalem Taken, A. D. 70,.
{* 109; Local Rulers, $ no.
Chap. II. Women at the Tomb; a Harmony of the Resurrection,
ilrii. Table of Bible Dates, § 120.

8 CONTENTS
Old Testament Chronology; the certainty and importance of it, p. ioz.
Assyriology and. Egyptology, p. 104. "¦
Period F. The Exile and After.
From the Captivity to the Christian Era.
Part I. The Intervening Dates, § 1; Ptolemy's Canon, I 1; Josephus
and the Maccabees, \ 3; The Year B. C. 163, I 5; The
Detailed Reigns, \ 9; Corroborations, §12; Back to the
Captivity, § 14.
Part II. Jerusalem Destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar B. C. 587, not
588, § 15; Corrected View of Jer., lii:. 28-30, I 20; Script
ure Evidence, §26; The Sabbatic Year, §29; Further
Confirmation, § 32; Origin of the Error, § 36.

Period E. The Kings.
Part I. From Solomon's Temple to the Captivity, 'i 1.
Chap. I. The Capture of Samaria, § 2.
Chap. II. Hezekiah's 14th year; Harmony of Isa. xxxvi: 1, ? 7;
Assyrian Assaults, § n; Isaiah, ch. 20, 21, $ 15; Sen-
acherib's Account, # 18.
Part II. Bible Chronology of the Kings.
Chap. I. The Bible Dates, (j 21; Table of Synchronisms, § 25; Ex
planations, \ 27.
Chap. II. The Bible Method, \ 34; But One Bible Meth'od, § 42;
Corroborations, \ 45.
Chap. III. Jubilee Reckonings, \ 49; Given Jubilee Years, § 56;
Given Sabbatic Years, § 65.
Chap. IV. Unfounded Theorizings, \ 75-80.
Part III. Assyriology and the Jewish Kings, \ 81; First Division,
Pul and Ahaz.
Chap. I. Who was " Pul" of Assyria ? $ 82.
(1) Vul-ni'rari, § 86.
(2) Assur-daan, $ 89.
(3) Tiglath-pileser, $ 93.
Chap. II. " This is that king Ahaz," \ 100; Interregnum in Israel,
\ 109; Second Division, Ahab and Jehu.
Chap. III. The Inscriptions, i in. ,
(a) As to Jehu, \ 114; (6) as to Ahab, \ 115.
Chap. IV. The Surroundings, \ 120;
The Ahab and Jehu Interval, I 126;
The Course of Events, \ 128.
Conclusion, \ 132.

CONTENTS 9
/
Part IV. Comparative Reliability of the Jewish and the Pagan
Chronology, § 133.
Chap. I. Assyriology and the Bible, § 133.
1. As to Consecutiveness, § 138.
2. As to Accuracy of Reporting, § 143.
3. As to Certainty of Interpretation, § 149.
Chap. II. Tyrian History and the Bible, § 151.
Chap. III. Egyptian History and the Jewish Kings, \ 159; The
Olympic Era, \ 164; Astronomical Allusions, § 168.

' Period D. The Judges.
Part I. From the Exodus to Solomon's Temple, {j 1.
Chap. I. The Interval of 580 years, § 1; The Period of "450
years," \ 2; Period of the Judges, § 5; Confirmation,
\ 8; Ancient Authorities, § 14; The Church Fathers,
Chap. II. Attempted Defenses of the "480th year," I 21;
Overlapping the Reigns, § 24; The Text of Acts xiii: 20,
§27; "Twenty Years," I Sam. vii: 2, §32;- Other
Points, § 35. Appendix.
A. The "4th year" of Solomon, §41.
B. The Astronomical Date, § 44.
C. Attempts to make "480" years, § 47.
D. That " Canonical Formula," § 54-
Part II. Origin ofthe "480th year" Reading, §58; The "612" in
Josephus, § 63; The Original 980, § 65; The "440th" of the
Septuagint, § 71; The "480th" of the Hebrew, § 78.
Appendix.
A. Josephus and the Priest Record, § 85.
B. Independence Era of Ehud, § 88.
C. Israel's Stay in Haran, § 96.
D. Corruption of the Scripture Text, g 99.
E. Reliability of Josephus, § 100.
Part III. The Pharaoh of the Exodus, I 101.
Chap! I. Egyptia'n Chronology, § 101.
Chap. II. Theories of the Exodus, § 109; The 18th Dynasty, § 113;
Probable Exodus Date, g 117.
Chap. III. Meneptah as Pharaoh of the Exodus, § 120.
Chap. IV. Thotmes IV, the Pharaoh of the Exodus, § 130-149.
Period C. — The Patriarchs.
Part I. From the Birth of Abram to the Exodus, § 1.
The " 4ooyears," § 3; Generations, \ 9.
The Census of Israel, § 14.

10 CONTENTS
Part. II. When Was Joseph Sold ? § 19.
Order of Events, §20; Argument, § 22; Results, § 25.

Periods A, B. — Diluvian Chronology.
Part I. The Differing Texts, § 1.
Chap. I. Is the Hebrew Corrupt? § 9.
Chap. II. Process of Corruption, § 21.
Chap. III. Is the Septuagint Correct ? §29.
Chap. IV. Net Result, § 38.
Part II. Chronology of Gen. v and xi, § 44.
The Non-Chronology Theories, § 48.
Gen. v and xi are Genuine Chronology! § 58-
Part III. Primeval Man, §61.
Two Periods of Creation, § 64; The First Man, §70.
Part IV. History and Prophecy, § 72.'
Chap. I. Age of the World, § 72.
End of 6000 Years, § 78.
Chap. II Prophetic Datings, § 84; "Trodden Under Foot," §89;
The " 2300 days " or years, § 94.

Restoration of Josephus.
Part. I. The Primary Mistake, § 4; The Occasion of it, § 10; Cor
rection of the 57 years, § 14; Chronology of the "War,"
§16.
Part II. Jewish Datings Expounded, §21; The "70 years" Cap
tivity, §25; The Priest Record's "414 years," §31; Its
"466 years," §37; Its "612 years," §44.
Part III. Josephus' One Consistent System, §48; Josephus' "470
years," §54; The Caption Datings, §62; Josephus'
Whole Chronology, § 69.
Supplementary Note.
Appendix.
A. Reliability of Josephus, § 74 (Period D, § 100.)
B. The View of Jacob Schwartz, § 75.
C. Scripture and Josephus Compared, § 80.
D. The Numbers in the " Jewish War," §83.
E. The Finished Capturing, § 87.
' F. How the Critics Differ, § 89.
G. Josephus' "592 years," §90.
H. The Davidic Era, § 95.
I. The Captions Amended, § 97.
J. Josephus' One Consistent System, § 101-103.

PERIOD G-THE NEW TESTAMENT.
PART I.
The Date of Christ's Death
Historically and Astronomically Fixed on Friday, April jth,
A. D. 30.

$ 1. "I determined,", says Paul, "not to know anything among
you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." And that death scene
of Calvary is still the great central theme of all our thoughts and
teachings. How important that we be able to speak of it, not as a
story located at about such a time in the world's progress, but as an
actual event, of assured occurrence, at its own proper and unmistaka
ble date. That crucifixion day was a day by itself, the like of which
this fallen world has never beheld. It was in the counsels of God
marked out from eternal ages for this particular transaction, and to
eternal ages it will be commemorated as the birthday of human
redemption. § 2. To treat the Messiah's . passion only as belonging somewhere
within a space of four or five years, as the church so long has been
doing,* savors too much of mythologic tradition for this scientific and
sceptical age, when "many run to and fro, and knowledge is in
creased." God has suffered darkness, in this as in other matters, to
creep over His Zion during the long ages of her wilderness wandering:
but now, as the new day of her triumph begins to dawn, the better
light of her earlier days may be expected again to brea,k forth.
g 3. Moved by these considerations, over forty years ago we set
about this investigation; and here is the result then reached (now
recopied).f Soon after that date, Weisler's like result in Germany
reached this country, that being the first promulgation of A. D. 30;
but this investigation was made in entire ignorance of that. Their
independent concurrence is a confirmation of the agreeing date found,
April 7th, A. D. 30.
*Now (in A. D- r855), the Vulgar Chronology of Usher makes it
April 3, A. D. a. The great system of Hales puts it March 27, A. D.
31; The elaborate work of Clinton sets it April 15, A. D. 29. All
dates but the true one have been confounding the minds of men.
f This treatise was a revision made in A. D. 1855, by request of
Prof. Edwards A. Park, D. D., editor, for the purpose of publication
in tbe Bibliotheca Sacra.

12 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
We will first give an Historical Review of New Testament dating;
to be followed by an Astronomical Demonstration of the crucifixion,
date. CHAPTER I.
Historical Review.
§4. Our examination of history* has developed the following
facts :
(I.) The Historical Age. The earliest historical dating of the cru
cifixion which has come down to us, outside the New Testament, is the
testimony of Clemens of Alexandria (A. D. 189-205), concerning the
teachings of Basilidesf (A. D. 134). Clemens tells us, that some of
Basilides' disciples " assign the passion of Christ to the r6th year of
Tiberius, — some putting it on the 25th day of Pharmonti. " This "16th
year of Tiberius," reckoned from the death of Augustus (on Aug. 19,
A. D. 14), fixes the crucifixion in the spring of A. D; 30; and "the 25th
of Pharmonti" in the Egyptian rotary 'year was then April 7th
Julian!, which was a Friday, and was at the ,Paschal full moon that
year, as we shall prove astronomically.
* Fully given in a preliminary essay.
f Basilides was a Gnostic Christian, and therefore not considered
thoroughly orthodox; but his testimony as to facts is unimpeached. ,
% The language of Clemens is this: "The passion of Christ some
of them, (the followers of Basilides) assign to the 16th year of Tiberius,
the 25th day of Phamenoth, some put it the 25th of Pharmonti (phar-
montike), others the 19th, somesay the 24th or25th." {Clem. Strom., I,
P. 340.) Now in the 16th of Tiberius (A. D. 30) the rotary 1 Thoth or new-
year day of the Egyptians came on the 16th day of August, Julian,
(having1 moved from Aug. 20 in the 16 years since Augustus' death,
and from Aug. 29 in the 52 years since his introduction of the fixed
year, Aug. 29, B.' C. 23). And as the Egyptian year consisted of 12
thirty-day months with 5 days added at tbe end, therefore, its rotary
months now began at the Julian Aug. 16, July 12, June 12, May 13,
April 13, March 14; and the 25th of this 8th month." Pharmonti " was
(March 14+24= 38—31=) April 7th.
It would not thus come on 16 Tib. after A. D. 30, nor on April 7 in
any year after A. D. 31; for the next year (A. D. 32 bissextile) 1 Thoth
changed to Aug. 15th. And it could not thus come on Friday, April
7th, except in the year 30, the 16th year of Tiberius after the death of
Augustus, — as Clemens here gives the early tradition derived through
Basilides. So that, in this number he is evidently giving the passion-
date originally assigned; it being (as he adds) by some called "the
24th or 25th" (April 6th or 7th), according as they dated " the pas
sion " from the crucifixion Friday, or (like Theophilus Caes., A. D.
196) from the betrayal by Judas the day before.
We therefore suppose all these day-dates named to have originated

DEATH OF CHRIST 13
I 5. Here then we have a dating of our Lord's passion historically
on April 7th, A. D. 30, in accordance with the facts. This A. D. 30,
while the 16th year of Tiberius (after Augustus) was the year 78 of the
Caesars, from the close of B. C. 49, when Julius Caesar, having crossed
the Rubicon, gained possession of Rome. The Christian fathers gen
erally until the 4th century adhered to this reckoning of Christ's death,
as in the 16th year after Augustus, or the year 78 of the Caesars,
which means A. D. 30.
§ 6. Eusebius Pamphilus (A. D. 308-340) tells a story which fixes
the same date.* The day-date April 7th (or Egyptian "Pharmonti
from that as the first and true tradition, somewhat as follows:
The rotary year having fully given way to the fixed year of Egypt,
— it seems from Clemens that the passion-day dating had become mis
understood and perverted. For, as the 1 Thoth was stopped and fixed
by Augustus when it was at Aug. 29, soon after his conquest of Egypt,
by the insertion of the Julian leap-day then recently established, (by
means of which the 5 extra days preceding each Thoth were properly
increased to 6 every 4th year),  therefore, this fixed year beginning
Aug. 2g, was after 52 years 13 days later than the rotary year, begin
ning Aug. 16, A. D. 30. And the passion-date, April 6, 7, (or Phar-
tnonti 24, 25, rotary), was thought by " some" to mean 13 days later,
April ig, 20, (or Pharmonti 24, 25, fixed.)
This mistake made by some was in forgetfulness of the old rotary
year; which, although ended by authority in Egypt just before the
Christian era, as we saw, yet had still continued to be used among
Jews and others, as appears in this passion-date, in Censorinus, etc.
For the Jews, so soon afterward dispersed, had not yet worked out of
the 365 day reckoning long since borrowed from their Egyptian neigh
bors, into the Julian 365M -day reckoning so lately imposed upon the
world by their Roman conquerors.
But after the Alexandrines with their long-fixed year had vitiated
the Palestine passion-date, as if meaning April 19, 20, (instead of April
6j 7)— then some (it seems) thinking that altogether too late, put back
the passion by conjecture a month earlier, i. e., at Marcb 21 (or
' " Phamenoth 25 " instead of " Pharmonti 25 "); just as it is afterward
given by Epiphanius (A. D. 4C0), also Proterius (A. D. 457), and Victor
(A. D. 566). Others, finding (by the lunar cycle then i.n use) that m
the 16th of Tib. (A. D. 30), the April 19, 20, (as well as Mar. 20, 21),
came on the wrong day of the week, moved back the passion-date to
Friday, April 14, (or " Pharmonti 19 " instead of "25 "). Those days
were loosely assigned a century after the event, without calculation as
to lunar requirements, in that age of rude cycle knowledge.
Such was the state of things as Clemens found them after Basili
des, in the second century, reporting them to us as above— not as his
own speculations, but as traditions handed down from those before
him. And thus was the true passion-day confounded and lost, its sub
stitutes leading on to the confusing and losing afterward of the true
year-date also. For, the dates, April 14 and March 21, as being (ac
cording to the same lunar cycle) near the full moon of 15 Tib. (A. D.
29) and 17 Tib. (A. D. 31) respectively, encouraged the subsequent
cycle assignment of the passion to those respective years.
* The legend is this: •" After Christ's resurrection from the dead,

14 NEW test, period g
25"), was soon lost through a confounding of the .fixed with the ro
tary years of Egypt, as seen in the note just given. And the year
itself after a time, became confused in ways which we proceed to no
tice. At first the Christians had the nativity rightly 33 years before
A. D. 30, or 4 years before our Christian era, and the baptism at the
beginning of A. D. 27:* which was "the 15th .year of Tiberius"
(Lu. iii: 1) reckoned from his joint reign with Augustus. f But aft
erwards, mistaking Luke's *' 15th year of Tiberius " as if meaning the
15th year after Augustus' death, the fathers put the baptism along to
A. D. 29, which threw along the nativity also to be only 2 years be
fore our A. D., reducing the ministry of our Lord to but little over a
year, i. and his whole life to only 31 years. ||

Judas called also Thomas, moved thereto by Divine impulse, sent
Thaddeus to Edessa to be a preacher and evangelist of the doctrine
of Christ. * * * The written evidence of this matter we have out
of the Office of Records within the princely city of Edessa, in which
Agbarus then was governor. It is there preserved to this day as fol
lows [the citation ends] : ' These things, were done in the 340th year.'
Which also we have translated word for word out of the Syriax
tongue." [Euseb. Eccle. Hist., B. /"., ch. 13.) As the Edessenes used
the Seleucic Era, making their year 1 equivalent to our B. C. 311 (as
shown in the previous essay), therefore, this year 340 closed at our
A. D. 30, where, consequently, they must have assigned the cruci
fixion. Whatever may Be thought of the story here related, these re
mote traditions and records do show the dates early assigned to New
Testament events; thus corroborating the astronomical demonstration
which we afterward give. (See the comments of Valerius on this
passage of Eusebius, Edit. Val. Paris, 165Q, Camb., 1683.)
* Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (A. D. 90-115), the second in suc
cession from Peter, and himself a disciple of John, says: " God the
.Word * * * having'lived in the world three decades of years was
baptized, and having preached the gospel three years was crucified."
{Coteletinus, Patres Apost.) This is called spurious by Clinton. " Me-
lito, who flourished about A. D. 160-172, calls the ministry three years.
En te trietia meta to baptisma.'] {Apud Routh. Relig. Patrum, Tom. I,
p. it j.) Hippolytus (A. D. 220-226) places it within" three years." {Id.
p. 136. See Clinton's Fas. Rom. Vol. II, p. 227.) So Origen.
f Luke may have simply antedated the reign of Tiberius to the
previous new year, as was the way of Ptolemy's Canon and other
ancient Chronicles; and he may then have numbered inclusively, reck
oning in as years the fractions at both ends, according to Jewish cus
tom — so virtually covering a joint reign. For such a joint reign there
is ample testimony in Roman historians, as given here, in I 95.
% No one in view of the Scripture narrative, could ever have
given so short a ministry, except -under constraint of the already as
signed " 16 Tib." for the crucifixion (compared with Lu. iii: 1), both
taken as after the death of Augustus. So that, this traditional " 16
Tib." could be made no later, but had to adhere to A. D. 30.
| "Irenius (A. D. 197) and Tertullian (A. D. 214) put the nativity
in U. C. 751 or [end of] B. C. 3." {Hales' Tech. Chron. on Eras.) So

DEATH OF CHRIST 15
I 7. Not only Clemens Alex. *, but also Africanus, the first
great Christian chronologistf (A. D. 200), and others, kept the year
to the 16th of Tiberius (or A. D. 30). The shortened life of Christ
was afterward amended by Eusebius and Jerome in the 4th century;
so as to make the ministry over 3 years and the life of Christ over 32;
with the baptism and passion at the originally assigned places, A. D.
27 and 30, and the nativity 3 years before our A. D.X
\ 8. With Julius Africanus (A. D. 221) was fully established the
vernal reckoning of reigns, as beginning with the March after their
afterward Photius (A. D. 860) "Veterum multorum opinio fuit,
Christum uno tantum anno praedicasse, eoque passum fuisse. Ex
eorum numero fuit Africanus, ut testatur Hieronymus in ix Dan.
Quem recte ex auctoritate evangelica Georgius [Syncellus] redarguit."
(Petavius, De Graec. Eris, Cap. IV, p. 1410.) " Eusebius makes the
nativity by Africanus to be 2 years before A. D." (Dissert, of
Bredov. in Syncel, Vol. II, p. 6.) In his work Peri Arc hon, Origen
has the ministry "a year and a few months." But in his Com. in
Lucam, he departs from that view; and in his Adv. Cel., he reckons
the ministry between 2 and 3 years, confirming the same in his Com. in
Mat. " If he began the years of Tiberius, as was the custom of the
ancient Christians and others, from the paschal month preceding, the
same year would be thought the 16th of Tib. which otherwise was the
15th." {Petavius.) " Gaudentius (A. D. 387) allowed only 1 year to the
ministry." (Clinton, Fas. Rom. Vol., II, Art. V.)
* Clemens' Alex, not only gave the crucifixion date " 16 Tib." as
derived from Basilides (see before), but he adhered to it himself, put
ting the Baptism at the " 15th Tib." (A. D. 29) and even antedating
vernally the 15th Tib., to carry back the baptism to the spring of A.
D. 28 (with the nativity 2 years B. C. as in Africanus), and thus allow
2 years of ministry; expressly saying that from this baptism to the cap
ture of Jerusalem (in A. D. 70) "was 42 years and 3 months." All
these express statements of Clemens (Strom. I, p. 310, 340), are cited
in full in the previous essay. Jerome afterward spoke of the same
"42 years " of preaching and warning for the Jews, from the baptism
of Christ to the overthrow of Jerusalem. The notion of some, that
it was the 16th Tib. (or the crucifixion) which Clemens and his cotem-
poraries were putting in A. D. 28, is too palpably wrong to need re
futation. f Africanus (A. D. 221) says of the crucifixion: "Hos een olumpiados
sb' etos deuteron Tiberiou de Kaisaros heegemonias etos ek-kaidekaton,"
[Olym. 202: 2, the 16th of Tiberius.] Chronograph, lib. 5 in Euseb.
Demonst.VII, p. 389, 390. Compare Routh, Vol. II, p. 187-190. So
cited in Syncellus, p. 323. , ' ' Christon chronon . . . mechris hek-
tou kai de'katou Tiberiou Kaisaros hoper een Olumpiados sb' etos deu
teron"; " until " (the beginning of the) 16th Tib. postdated vernally, and
Olym. 202: 2, antedated vernally, as both beginning with 1 Nisan in
March, A. D. 30. This vernal chronology of Africanus is fully shown
in the previous essay.
% One year was lost to the life of Christ by the reckoning of Lu.
iii: 23, as meaning "the 30th year" (ton hiakonta eniauton.) Athan-
asins, torn. I, p. 586. So Bede seems to explain Dionysius; and so Clin-

16 , NEW TEST. PERIOD G
real start.* So that, he had Augustus as beginning March, B. C.
43, and Tiberius March, A. D. 15, and Vespasian March, A. D. 70.
He thus had the crucifixion of A. D. 30, at the beginning of his ' ' 16th
Tiberius," with the baptism a year before, and the nativity 31 years
before, at 2 full years B. C, where he placed his A. M. 5500.7 And
the capture of Jerusalem in the 2nd of Vespasian, he thus had in A.
D. 71 (instead of the true 70); making it the 42nd year after the cruci
fixion (not after the baptism as Clemens had it).| This vernal
chronology of Africanus was followed by his cotemporaries, Tertul
lian (A. D, 214); Hippolytus (A. D. 227), Origen (A. D. 253), and many
afterward. \ 9. It has been supposed that Tertullian has an earlier crucifixion
date than Africanus. But, using a suggestion of Petavius, we find a
substantial agreement between them. Tertullian, having the same
vernal reckoning as Africanus, locates the crucifixion as at the old
Equinox March 25 (of A. D. 30), the very end of " 15th Tiberius " and
the " two Gemini " consuls thus vernally reckoned as reaching to the
Equinox;! while Africanus calls it the beginning of the " 16th Tibe-
 y 
ton seems to teach. (Fas. Rom., A. D. 29.) That- the chronology of
Eusebius was as here stated, not the different reckoning often ascribed
to him, we fully show in tbe previous essay.
* The well-assured Vernal Chronology of the Christian fathers is
fully set forth and demonstrated in the previous essay. (Contrast
Ptolemy's Canon, here § 108.)
f Africanus "commenced his years A. M. from the paschal
month," yet "makes the baptism to be in the consulship of the two
Gemini, when by Luke it was the 15th of Tiberius." So says Petavius
(Dissert, de Graec. Eris., c. ii: in op. Euseb. i. p. 1402). Syncellus
cites Africanus as "by agreeing apostolical tradition putting the
incarnation in 5501 A. M. [beginning], while numbering the passion
5531 A. M. [ending], and having about 31 years to Christ, an error of
2 yearstoo little." (See in Syncell.,p. 609, 614, Vol. xii: Hist. Byzant.,
and in Petavius, Graec. Eris, ii: p. 1402, and iv: p. 14.10.) The "about
31 years " cover 5501-5531 inclusive,, with a few days allowable on 5500
and also on 5532 (from Nisan 1 to 14 of A. D. 30). Hippolytus has
about the same reckoning. «
X Origen (A. D. 253), who was no chronologist, having been a
student of Clemens Alex., either misconstrued his remark, or applied
it to the new post-vernal reckoning, and called the destruction of Jeru
salem "42 years" (or the 42nd year) after the crucifixion, viz., from
April 7, A. D. 30, to September of A. D. 71, in the 42nd year by his
post-vernal reckoning. Others in later times (such as Clinton and
Schwartz) have misunderstood the "42 years" and "42nd year"
datings of the fathers, as if they were intended to change the cruci
fixion year from A. D. 30; and thus have they sadly confounded the
Bible Chronology, and the history of it, as we show in the previous
essay. || The "15th Tib." o'r A. D. 29 was by Tertullian made to end
at March 25, A. D. 30; so that the "2 Gemini," the consuls of that pre-

DEATH OF CHRIST 17
rius," as being on the 14th Nisan, with the year vernally reckoned as
starting from the 1st Nisan. And thus they have the same date with
different new-year start. This reconciles all Tertullian's dates of the
baptism and of the nativity as well as the crucifixion, with those of
his cotemporary Africanus. The peculiar vernal reckoning, as applied
to the consuls by Tertullian, and followed by many subsequent writers,
has led to great errors in chronology.* But the true understanding
of Tertullian,! and especially of Africanus, clears up aU doubt ae
to the real crucifixion date, A. D. 30.
vious year, were represented as continuing till the crucifixion. Thus
the "rsTib." and the "2 Gemini" of A. D. 29, became associated
¦ with the crucifixion, instead of the baptism as formerly. And after
ward, many Latin authors followed the Latin Tertullian in this
respect; such as retained his vernal reckoning meaning of course (like
him), to designate the end of that chrona.1 year, in March, A. D. 30,
as the passion-date. The following writers thus assign the "two
Gemini " to the crucifixion; Lactantius (A. D. 317), Sulpicius (400),
Augustine (438), Idatius (461), Victorius (457); also, the Catalogus
Pont. Rom. Apud Pasch. Chron., torn, ii: p. 198 (616); and the Fasti
apud Noris. The full citations we give in the previous essay.
* It is seeming divergence between Tertullian and Africanus as
to their vernal reckoning, the one having the crucifixion of A. D. 30 as
the end of the " 15th Tib," the other as the beginning of " 16th Tib."
(so creating a confusion as to the Gemini consuls, as if in different
years, A. D. 29-31), — it is this, and mistake in regard to this, that has
given rise to the two rival errors of modern crucifixion-dating; that of
Hales, putting it in A. D. 31, and that of Clinton, putting it in A. D.
ag. To these we subsequently revert, when we come to give " Modern
Views. " (This whole history and origin of errors is fully treated in the
course of our investigation.)
f Tertullian puts the baptism as well as the crucifixion in the
same "15th Tiberius; " which he must have believed to mean fourteen
full years after Augustus' death, or else he could not have allowed so
short a ministry. So that, like Africanus, he had the baptism at A. D.
29, and the nativity 30 years before that, at full 2 years B. C. His
language is : " Christ was born in the 41st year of the Emperor Augus
tus after the death of (Julius); and Augustus survived fifteen years
[and over] afterwards. Anno xv, Tiberii Christus Jesus de coelo man-
ere dignatus, spiritus salutmis [etc., at his baptism]. In the 15th year
of Tiberius he suffered [z. e., he suffered through the 15th year], hav
ing about thirty years (annos habens quasi xxx), when he suffered (or
while suffering). * * * The passion was perfected [by crucifixion]
under Tiberius Caesar, the consuls being the two Gemini [z. e., put ai
then ending] in the month of March, at the time of the passover, the
VIII Kal. Apl." (Tertullian, Adv. Jud., c. 8.)
It is here plain, that Tertullian (like Africanus) dates post-vernally ,
viz., from March, B. C. 43, after the death of Julius, 41 years to
March B. C. 2, as near the nativity; then fifteen (and over) to the
death of Augustus (Aug. ig, A. D. 14); or +30 from the beginning
of B C. 2 to the beginning of B. C. 29, as the baptism, with the
crucifixion in A. D. 30, as at the end of "15th Tib." reckoned post-

18 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
§ io. Concerning Afriqanus, Petavius says: " On this perplexing
point my view is this: That in the opinion of Africanus the incarna
tion was 2 years before the common era,* at his 5501 A. M. [begin
ning,— its latter part would be only 1 year B. C.]; the baptism was in
the 15th Tib., the two Gemini being consuls, at his 5530 A. yt.' ending
[z. e. at beginning of A. D. 29, Christ being 30 years of age] ; and the
passion was at the end oi 5531 A. M., 5532 beginning from that pass-
over, i. e., in April oi our vulgar A. D. 30, [actually April 7], the i6tk
of Tiberius, and the 2nd year of the 202nd Olympiad, not yet begun
from the summer months, but by prolcepsis anticipated (from Jan. or
some other time), — for such things were done * * * Africanus
makes the baptism to be in the consulate of the 2 Gemini, when by
Luke it was the 15th of Tiberius, allowing a solid year for the minis
try [evidently from first of the 15th to first of the 16th]; whereas, if
he meant to put the passion also in the early part of thefGemini con
sulate [A. D. 29], he could have only 3 or 5 months to the ministry;
which I do not believe was the opinion of Africanus." (Petavius De
Graec. Eris, ch. II, in Patrilog. Migne, Paris, p. 139J.)
Clinton also agrees (with writers generally) that ' ' the passion was
in the year A. D. 30, according, to Africanus," quoting from him as we
do above. (Clinton Fas. Rom., vol. I, year 30.)
vernally from March, A. D. 15. This is just like Africanus' dating.
And Clemens Alex, also (another cotemporary) has the same, as we
saw; only that he reduces Christ's "30 years," at baptism to "30th"
(or about 29, i. e. 30 from conception), in order to get the years of Tibe
rius antedated, with the baptism at A. D. 28, and so a longer ministry of
two years. Thus the fathers of that generation agreed in this thirty-
one year reckoning of Christ's life from two years before Christ to
A. D. 30.
Jerome (A. D. 400) undertook to show the agreement of Tertullian
with Africanus, by citing the latter mutilated into accord with the for
mer, thus: He quotes the very passage of Africanus which we have
already cited (note to § 7), yet makes it read, "the 15th of Tib.
about the 31st year of Christ," at the crucifixion, instead of "the 16th
Tib.", as it is in the Greek. {Hieron. Com. Daniel.) Syncellus (A. D.
860) quoting from Jerome, perpetuates this alteration oi ^.fricanus.
And so also does Bede (A. D. 700), saying: "Africanus believed the'
passion to be at the 15th of Tib." {De Teinp., Rat. ix, p. 334.) They ,
seemed to suppose that Africanus was not consistent with himself with
out this change. But by the vernal chronology we find that he1 was
consistent, meaning by "the 16th of Tib." the very beginning/ of it at
14 Nisan, A. D. 30, which Tertullian calls the end of "the 15th Tib."
On the other hand, in later years, Clinton (and so Schwartz) has assid
uously taught, that Tertullian (and others following him) were putting
the crucifixion earlier, he says in A. D. 29. But Petavius has lucidly
shown, that no such amending of Africanus is needed; whence we see
that his A. D. 30 is equally applicable to Tertullian.
* Jusfc as Bredovius says that Eusebius puts him. But the
Encyc. Brittan. wrongfully says, that "Jul. Africanus put the nativity
three years before our era, so that A. D. began in 5503 of Africanus."/
This error has led Schwartz and many others astray.

DEATH OF CHRIST 19
I ii. (II). The Equinox Cycle Age. It was Theophilus, Bishop of
Caesarea, and his Council there held (A. D. 196), under the sanction of
Victor, Bishop of Rome, that first promulgated the new and fanciful
theory of Christ's resurrection, as most fitly to be located on the Equi
nox, supposed to be then March 25; because that must have been the
first day of Creation, when light begins to prevail over darkness, and
because it was fitting, that He, the Author of light should then rise to
the light of the new creation, on that very day when He first created
light !* Thus was the age of historical day-dating passed, the
true April 7th being now lost; arid the age of theory and idle specula
tion had dawned.
I 12. This equinoctial theory was the root of that methodical di
viding of the year which afterward came into vogue, whereby Dec. 25,
March 25, June 25, and September 25, were set apart for special com
memorations. (See § 101.) These quarter-days of the old Julian year,
we all know, have no basis either of astronomy or of well attached
historical events; and they are not essential to a "Christian year,"
which properly begins from "the 14th of Nisan, " not from any sup
posed equinoctial day.
§ 13. Theophilus thus set March 25 as the original Resurrection
Sunday; but Tertullian a few years later made March 25 the original
Crucifixion Friday, f This divergence of theory at the very start
shows how purely fanciful and theoretical this whole equinoctial
scheme was, without any basis of historical fact. These two methods
of applying the theory were widely disseminated and reiterated by the
writers of subsequent ages,:): the true crucifixion date being entirely
buried out of sight. Some portions of the Christian world (the
churches of Gaul, for instance), escaped from the prevailing quarta-
deciman controversy (as to whether the 14 Nisan or the Sunday follow
ing it should be Easter), by taking neither side, but settling down upon
the fixed March 25 of the equinoctial theory.
$ 14. The new theoretical assignment of the day-date of crucifixion
was not intended as any change in the year-date always called A. D.
30 (or 16 Tiberius). For, we have already seen Tertullian virtually
retaining that year assignment of Africanus and Clemens Alex.,
although he gives the day as March 25. It is true that this day and
this year will not agree together, either in lunar or week-day reckon
ing; and how (it may be asked) could such a date be set forth in face
* Theophilus in Consil. Caesareae, apud Bede, De Ord. Pasch.,
vol. I. p. 607. Also Petav. De Graec. Eris, Chap. Ill, p. 1406.
fTertullian, Adv. Jud. ch. viii. See citation given before $9,
note. % See list of writers in preceding essay.

20 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
of such an incongruity?* The answer is simple. The true cycle
reckoning of the moon and of the week (backward over 200 years) was
in that age but little understood:! and when it was looked into the
intervening chronology was so little fixed that a year or two of the
reigns between Titus and Diocletian was overlapped or interjected as
occasion required.:): And so they made the cycles reach back
with seeming fitness to the New Testament times, without disturbing
the long-fixed year^dateof crucifixion as "the 16th year of Tiberius"
after Augustus' death, the year 78 of the Caesars.
I 15. When the more satisfactory lunar cycles of 19 years (as at.
the Council of Nice) came in, then there were made such applications
of those cycles in reference to the times long past, as to be deceptive
concerning old-time dates. Particularly the misleading cycles of Ana-
tolius (A. D. 279) and of Victorius (A. D. 451), seem to have been ar
ranged as if purposely to accommodate the current equinoctial dating
of crucifixion as at March 23 or 25, and to fit those day-dates to certain
year-dates finally devised, A. D. 29, 28, 31, etc. ||
(S 16. Thus were new year-dates of crucifixion at length brought in,
not by any historical data, but by theoretical day-dates applied to
misleading cycles. By these means, such writers as Theophilus and
Tertullian, and the many who followed their equinoctial theory, were
made to seem as if meaning to date the passion in A. D. 31, 29, and

*This query has led Schwartz to doubt whether these church
fathers believed the Bible "14 Nisan" to have had any reference to
the stage of the moon. But this idea is entirely inconsistent with the
fact that these very fathers were themselves carefully adjusting their
Easters to the lunations of their day.
f Schwartz himself has shown what a strange medley of er
roneous cycle reckoning was made out by the ogdoad cycles of Hip
polytus (A. D. 236), whereby the lunations were set many days out of
place. X Every one knows what confusion exists in the Early Christ
ian chronicles as to the length of those reigns; one reign being short
ened a year or two, and another lengthened a year or two, as the ex
igencies of their reckoning required. So, that, it has been found diffi
cult to reconstruct the true chronology of those times. Thus great
was the evil of being without an established era such as we now have.
|| Those cycle adjustments are fully discussed in a separate
essay. Clinton and others have been led astray by theoretical assign
ments into the adopting of A. D. 29 for the crucifixion year, as if so
taught by Tertullian and his successors. But Tertullian, like Afri
canus, meant A. D. 30; just as asserted in a note to Tacitus (Delph.
London, 1823); "Traditque, his coss (Gem. et Gem.) Christum Salva-
torem passum, id est, liberii 16 (A. D. 30). "

DEATH OF CHRIST 21
even 28.* Whereas, upon examination, we find no intentional de
parture, for some 400 years, from the original assignment of the cruci
fixion, as " Tiberius 16th," or A. D. 30.
$ 17. (III.) The Later- Theory Age. We have seen (g 8), that Afri
canus had the life of Christ but 31 years, from two whole years B. C.
to A. D. 30, the ministry being put as only one year, A. D. 29-30. We
have further seen (§ 16) that the Alexandrine cycle, dating from the
time of Epiphanius (A. D. 400) got the thirty-one years as reaching
from one whole year B. C. to A. D. 31, for the crucifixion.f We here
only add, that afterwards, the life of Christ was lengthened from the
31 to its proper 33 years; which carried the crucifixion to A. D. 33.
Dionysius Exiguus (A. D. 525) had the incarnation thus at B. C. 1, and
proposed this date for the Christian Era. But the Venerable Bede
(A. D. 700) misunderstood him as meaning that the nativity was at the
* Augustine, C. D. 18,34. Sulpicius, S. H. 240. Descript. Con.,
p. 891, Vol. LI. Migne Patrilog. Catalog. Pont. Rom. apud Pasch.
Chron. , torn. II, p. 198, Narrat. 18 Tib. Refer also to Gaudentius,
Apollinarius, Chrysostom, etc. Victorius (A. D. 451, Can. Pasch., p.
8, 9, 15), got the passion at A. D. 28. But before bim, the Alexan
drines (who had most to do with the cycles) had judged the equinoc
tial theory of passion to require A. D. 31. For, that year alone gave
the passover on Friday, according to the 19-year cycle, with the
resurrection coming on Sunday, March 25, as they understood the
equinoctial theory to demand.
This A. D. 31 then became the Alexandrine or current dating, from
Epiphanius at the end of the 4th century (See Clinton. Fas. Rom. , p.
31), down to the Paschal Chronicle at the beginning of the 7th cen
tury. (Corp. Hist. Byzant., Vol. 16; down to A. D. 616.) Hales has
wrongly followed this A. D. 31 as if the true historical dating; just as
Clinton has wrongly followed the A. D. 29. The truth is between
them, at A. D. 30. This A. D. 31 dating increased the life of Christ
again to its full and proper 33 years (as reckoned by Eusebius) from 3
years before our A. D. to A. D. 31. (Cassiodorus Chron. Migne, Vol,
69, p. 1214.) But as reckoned by many from 2 years before A. D., it
made only 32 years. (Anianus in Syncel., Vol. j, p. 82.)
And indeed, those who followed the 31-year reckoning of Africanus,
now reduced the nativity to only 1 year before our A. D. This was
the method of Panadorus (A. D. 400 in Syncel. Hist. Byzant., Vol.
XII, p. 614), and of Dionysius Exiguus. (A. D. 523, Epis. in Petav. De
Doct. Temp. App.) And from the latter our Vulgar Era was after
ward erroneously deduced, as 1 year later still. But every date of the
crucifixion except A. D. 30 was purely theoretical, derived from later
cycles as applied to the equinoctial theory, without any basis of his
torical fact.
t With this review of the early history of the crucifixion date, here
brought down to A. D. 400, we may suspend for the present our his
tory of opinion (which we have carried down to the present day) in
order to give next our Astronomical Demonstration of the crucifixion
date' as unmistakably A. D. 30, Friday April 7th Julian.

22 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
endoi i B. C. (or beginning of i A. D.), and so established the Christian
Era as it now is, four years too late; which made the life of Christ,
33# years (as he rightly reckoned it), extend to A. D. 34.
(IV.) The Astronomical Age. At length, science showed that the
long-followed passion date of Bede, A. D. 34, was astronomically im
practicable; and Roger Bacon (A. D. 1256) fell back upon A. D. 33,
April 3, Friday, as the crucifixion date, because more in harmony with
the lunar reckoning for the passover. And this reckoning, A. D. 33,
has ever since, down to the present century, been the currently re
ceived date for the death of Christ.
CHAPTER II.
Astronomical Demonstration.

I. The State of the Case.
§ 18. When the date A. D. 33 for the crucifixion, as assigned by
Roger Bacon and Archbishop' Usher, was abandoned at the beginning
of the present century, instead of a return to the .original and correct
date, A. D. 30, there was a two-fold wandering to A. D. 31 and A. D.
29. Hales in his great work (A. D. 1812) set forth A. D. 31, and Clin
ton (A. D. 1845) elaborated A. D. 29, as the crucifixion date. The dif
ficulties of each of these systems arise largely from the neglect of both
to make a strict astronomical verification of the result; which, if intro
duced would at once disprove both theories, and reveal the true date
as A. D. 30.
Thus Clinton finds that according to Cunninghame it was full moon on
Friday, March 18, A.'D. 29, at 9 p. m., and that he and Browne regard
that as the paschal day, five days before the actual, and nine before
the standard equinox of those times ! contrary to all acknowledged
modes of puschal reckoning. But Clinton also finds that, by adding
14X and 29/^ days, he gets a new moon April 2 at 3 p. m., (five hours
earlier than Benson), with a full moon on April 17 at g a. m., that is,
on Sunday. So he concludes to assign the passion to the previous
Friday, two days before the full moon ! making the lunar month com
mence over a day before the change of the moon !
I 19. A similar difficulty in the case of Hales is thus described by
him: " If the year of crucifixion was A. D. 31, as is most likely, it fol
lows from an eclipse of the moon in Pingre's tables, April 25 at 9 p. m.
[of that year], that the paschal full moon [a month earlier taken as the
crucifixion date] fell on the 27th of March; which, in the calculation of
Newton, Ferguson, Lang, and the compilation of Bacon, is reckoned
Tuesday," But Christ died on Friday. This formidable difficulty

DEATH OF CHRIST 23
Hales surmounts by adding: " But there is sometimes an error of a
day or two in these computations of the days of the week; so that, it
[the full moon] might have happened on Thursday. On the other
hand, Scaliger, Dodwell, and Mamie reckon the paschal full moon a day
earlier, the 26th of March, and Petavius the 23d day of March. * This
shows the. uncertainty of the precise day of full moon ( ! ) and how little
stress can be laid on such calculations, as Petavius says."
Indeed! we may well exclaim, what " uncertainty " can there.be
about the age of the moon at the time of an eclipse, accurately cal
culated and recorded in the astronomical tables ? And what uncer
tainty can there be about the length of time back to the full moon be
fore ? And what can all these guesses of theorists, made to carry
their point, weigh against the scientifically established place of a
heavenly body? Such random assertions of "uncertainty" do but
serve to cover the weakness of a favorite but untenable hypothesis.
^ 20. It is not strange, perhaps, that with such vague theories, we
find Clinton speaking thus: "It can not be determined from their
[Jewish] computation, in what year the paschal sacrifice fell on the
6th day of the week. So also says Gjesler, Vol. I, P. 38. Benson
justly condemns those who take for granted that the time may be
known * * * We cannot fix it by astronomy." f
Of course not, by such astronomy as here displayed. In like man
ner, Hales gives his theory as only a thing "most likely," an hypothe
sis dependent upon some imaginable error of all the scientific men,
concerning the days of the week and of the moon!
How idle thus to speculate on such a matter, when these data may
be so readily and so exactly verified. For, it surely can be no more
difficult, to ascertain beyond a possibility of error, the particular day
of the week on which any new moon or full moon fell, at any point of
past history, — than it has been to calculate to a minute the eclipses
occurring at them, and indeed to fix, as is done, every eclipse ever re
corded, at any full moon and new moon since the beginning of history!
§ 21. Hear the distinguished Herschel on this point: "Now that
the lunar theory is fully understood, remarkable eclipses [and of course
the new and full moon] can be calculated back for several thousands
of years, without the possibility of mistaking the days of their occur
rence. And whenever any such eclipse [or lunar phenomenon] is so
interwoven with the account given by an ancient author, of some his
torical event, as to indicate precisely the interval of time between the
I  '_  : 
-* Hurrying up the moon, to accommodate the preceding Friday !
What a farce does this make of science !
t Fas. Rom., Vol. II, P. 241. Farrar also, in his Life of Christ,
says, "The date of our Lord's crucifixion cannot be depended on."

24 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
eclipse and the event, and at the same time completely to identify the
eclipse, that date is recovered and fixed forever." (Outlines of Astron.
by Sir F. W. Herschel, Bart, K. H., London, 1851. 8 Vo., P I, Ch.
vi, § 933-)
§ 22. It is by astronomical determination, therefore, that the orig
inal and historical date of the crucifixion is at length to be restored. *
And this determination is a practicable one, imposing no uncertain
ties. If, in the calculations of Newton, Bapon, and others, there may
have been found, as Hales asserts, some misprints or mispennings of
one or two days, the whole Gospel need not and should not be left
hanging on such trivial possibilities, but should be verified by new
and unmistakable reckoning. It is a wonder that Hales, and Clinton,
with all their research and thoroughness in other respects, should
have left this matter thus loose. It may be a want of astronomical
taste or mathematical skill, that allows men to propagate (with excus
able zeal) such dates as the figures will not sanction.
And is it not time, that, amid all the advance of modern science,
throwing its light upon Bible scenes and events, conflicting theories
should be set at rest, by a simple demonstration of the crucifixion date
in astronomical as well as historical facts? As no one else undertakes
this, we venture upon the attempt. The wish is, to give all the prin
cipal steps of the abstruse calculation, yet so simplified as to be within
the grasp of any average scholar, to judge for himself the accuracy of
the result. II. The Means of Adjustment.
\ 23. There is in the Gospel History the fortunate and providen
tial concurrence of two chronological determinations, namely, the
age of tlie moon and the day of the week when our Lord suffered; and
these data, truly and astronomically calculated, should determine the
day of the passion. That the day of the week was Friday few have
undertaken to call in question; and there is so little to sustain any
different view, that we need not dwell upon the matter here.f In
regard to the age of the moon at the crucifixion passover, we lay down
the following As the true and incontrovertible statement: The time-
for slaying the Jewish passover'was within a few hours after the full of
the moo?i which next followed the vernal equinox. Here are three1
points to be noticed:
* "These astronomical observations, being mathematically sure and
reliable, instituted upon the occurrence of important events, * ' * *
because none of these planetary configurations can occur twice in his
tory, * * * do determine the dates of the events connected with
them with mathematical certainty." (Seyffarth, Recent Discov., p.
22.) f We have fully discussed the week-date of crucifixion and of resur
rection, in Appendix A, \ 51.

DEATH OF CHRIST 25
$ 24. (1) The passover always followed the vernal equinox* This
the Jewish appointments concerning first-fruits and Pentecost required;
this the "Jewish Calendar," continued to this day, demonstrates;
this the writers of all ages have confirmed and settled. \ The Jews
must have had a rule upon this point; and no other can be assigned
but. this, which they now employ; while the referring of the date by
Josephus to " the sign of Aries " shows that this was indeed their rule. %
(2) The passover was at the full moon. That is, in being fixed to
the close of the 14th day of the 1st Jewish month, it was a lunar month
referred to, and such were always, as now, the months of the Jews.
The Mosaic appointments and history show this fact, and it has been
conceded by about all writers. |
\ 25. (3) The passover in the New Testament times was immedi-.
ately after rather than before the full moon. For, the new month and
new year was not reckoned till the moon was about two days old.
* That is, the Jewish New-year began with the new moon nearest
to the equinox. Dodwell, Petavius, and all others reckon thus, mak
ing the passover never later than our April 18, or earlier than our
March 21. "When the passover would fall before the equinox, they
put in a month. " (Encyc. Brit. Art. Chronol.) It came "about that
full moon which fell upon or next after the day of the vernal equi
nox." (Hales' Anal., P. 63.) So the Jewish Calendar, De Sola, Mon
treal 3614=1854. " The paschal term or 14th of the Easter moon can
fall only on 29 different days, from March 21 to April 18 inclusive."
(Nicholas' Chronol. of Hist.)
t Clinton alone, at this late day has attempted to throw doubt upon
this point; but he does not succeed. (Clin. Fas. Rom., Vol. II, P. 240,
242.) He says, "Benson properly remarks, that in the Mosaic law
there is no injunction which refers to the equinox at all." But that
law did require a certain state of the grain, which necessitated the
•adoption of this rule. (Lev. xxiii: 5-16.) "In order to secure the
proper reduction of the lunar to the solar year, Moses obliged the
priests to present the first-fruits on the 16th day of the 1st month.
So they had to put in an intercalary, usually in the 3d year." (Jahn's
Arch.) For this purpose, "the 19-year cycle was divinely revealed
through Moses," says De Arg. Lun., P. 723 in Bede. In like manner,
"the Greek Olympiads were begun at the full moon of that month
whose new moon fell nearest to the summer solstice." (Note to Hier
on., P. 351.) "The Mosaic ordinance decrees, that the passover is
not to be observed before the day of the equinox. So Anatolius (A.D.
279) attests; so Philo evidently teaches, and Josephus, and before
them Agathabulus, and also Aristobulus, one of the Lxx. So says
Eusebius, and we say the same." (Bede, Cap. xxx, P. 426.) So, "the
council of Nice established the Easter full moon to follow the vernal
equinox, from xii Kal. April, to xiv Kal. May." (Epistle Dionys. Exig.,
A. D.523.) In this all the fathers were agreed.
X He says that was the time which "the law ordained." (Jos.
Antiq., 3, x, 5.) So Philo.
| This matter of Lunar Months we discuss in Appendix B., §67.

2K NEW TEST. PERIOD G
From the early times the Jews began the month with the signal of
trumpets, (Psa. Ixxxi: 3), not sounded by the priests till the new moon
was seen. Nor was the new moon inaugurated without the further
delay of signaling by watch-fires over all the land. * By these
means, the 14th or paschal day of the month was prevented from
coming till the full moon had arrived; the average time of which full
moon being near 15 days after the moon's conjunction with the sun,
included nearly 2 days before the month, with 13 days of the month,
until the beginning of "14 Nisan," the average date of the full moon.
§ 26. When, from clouds or other reason, the moon did not appear
till 30 days from its last appearance, they knew that its time had fully
come, and began the new month accordingly, f Philo tells us (as in
Hales), that in that clear climate, they sometimes saw the moon when
only about a day old: But the witnesses had then to be examined,'
the decree of the Sanhedrim issued, X *be signal fires lighted, and the
tidings fully spread; so that the month could hardly commence under
two days after the moon, ff This view is confirmed by Robinson,
Home, Jahn, and Jewish and Christian writers generally.!
* "Formerly, fires were lighted on the tops of the mountains, to
announce the appearance of the new moon. They lighted the flaming
brands, and kept them moving to and fro, until they could perceive
the same repeated by another person on the next mountain," etc.
" But when the Samaritans led the nation into error, by lighting these
mountain beacons at wrong times, to mock and mislead the Jews, it
was, ordained that messengers should be sent out." "At Nisan and
Tisri they went as far as Syria." (Mishna, Rosh Hashanah, ch. II,
% 2,3. Trans, of DeSola &° Raphael, p. 137.) \ Id.
X " Formerly, evidence as to the appearance of, the new moon was
received from any one; but afterward, all the witnesses met and were
examined in a large court at Jerusalem, called Beth Yanzek, as to the
form of the moon, the direction of the horns, her elevation, etc. The
chief of the tribunal then gave decree." (Mishna, g 1, 6, 7.)
ft "When the moon is in perigee and her motion quickest, she
does not usually appear until the 2d day; nor in apogee when slowest,
until the 4th." (Old Greek Astron. Geminus, B, C.'6o. See Hales,
p. 67.) " After the moon's conjunction, it is generally 2 days or more
before any part of her enlightened surface is visible." (Dick's Solar-
Sys.,II.5,p.pi.) | " They did not begin it [the month] from that point of time when
the moon was in conjunction with the sun, but from the time at which
she first became visible after that conjunction; and the beginning of
the month was proclaimed by sound of trumpet." (Robinson's Calmet,
at Month.) " The Jewish m6nths being lunar, were originally calculated from
the first appearance of the moon, on which the feast of the new moon,
or beginning of the month was celebrated. It was proclaimed by the
sound of trumpets." (Home's Introd. Antiq., P. III. Ch. iv: \ 2.)
' ' The days of the new moon were not obtained by astronomical cal-

DEATH OF CHRIST ' 27
§ 27. The process we have been describing answered for the
Hebrews in determining their months, only while they continued in
their own land. So that, when scattered abroad, as they were at an
early day, they had to resort to some more scientific method, and no
doubt some such improvement was introduced into their own land.
For this purpose, they made use of a lunar cycle, probably the
same 19-year cycle which the Greeks employed for a like end, and
which is still used (in adapted forms) by the Jews as the "Jewish
Lunar Cycle" in our almanacs, and by Christians as the "Golden
Number." These cycles show with great accuracy the date of return
ing new moons in successive years for generations and even centuries
continuously; but every such 19-year cycle has a slight fractional
excess, by which in a very long lapse of time it little by little overlaps
the moon's lunations, carrying the new moon date gradually later and
later after the new moon itself, to the total amount of 1 whole day in 310
years. *
§ 28. Take, for example, the old Greek cycle of ig years estab
lished by Meton, B. C. 433, and readjusted by Calippus in B. C. 330;
which was probably used, more or less, by the Jews in the subsequent
culation, as the Rabbin's assert, but when the moon was seen, as
maintained by the Caraites. It is evident, that neither Josephus nor
Philo knew the difference of the astronomical and the apparent new
moon." (John's Archaeology.)
' ' The beginning of the month was determined only by sight. When
a new moon became visible, a new month began. When the 15th of
Nisan would have occurred before the vernal equinox, an intercalary
month was inserted. " (Encyc. Brittan. Art. Chronology.)
"The moment of conjunction can only be known through an
amount of astronomical knowledge and calculation, which there is no
evidence to show that the Israelites possessed so soon after their
departure from. Egypt. The commencement of the new moon festival
can only be understood, therefore, of the first phases or appearance
of the moon, which God ordered as a season that they were fully able
to determine themselves by their own observation." "The reader
will please remember, that the beginning of the Jewish months was
not reckoned from the moon's conjunction with the sun, but from the
time the former emerges from the latter, and is first visible in the
west after sunset. " (Jewish Calendar, Montreal, p. 12.)
The contrary view of Hales cannot be sustained, as the Jewish
Calendar ably shows. ' ' Theophilus planned, that on the 14th of the-
moon it be seen to rise in the heavens with full orb at that moment
when the sun sets." (Cyril, Prologue in Petav. Dbc. Temp.)
* The ig years taken as Julian, with 365 days each and an extra
day allowed every 4 years (or ig in every 76 years, as arranged by
Calippus), contain 6g3gd.75 each on an average. But the 235 lunations
therein, each being 2gd. 5305885, come to 6g3gd.6882g, which is less by
.0617 of a day. This fraction multiplied by i6# cycles (amounting to
310 years) will give a whole day of excess to the cycle in that length of.
time. That is, the cycle's Julian years exceed by that much its total
lunations during that time.

28 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
centuries, even as used by them now.* As adjusted by Calippus, this
cycle had its year i at B. C. 330, and at every repetition of 19 years
from that time downward; viz, at 311, 292, etc.— at B. C. 45, 26, 7, arid
A. D. 13, 32, etc. Every year 1 of that cycle had Epact o, year 2 had
Epact 11, year 3 had Epact 22, year 4 had Epact (33—30=) 3, and so
on through; each Epact increasing by ri days, with a whole lunation
of 30 days dropped whenever reached.!
§ 29. The several Epacts showed the age of the new moon com
mencing the successive years, at the return of a fixed annual date, the
standard point of the solar year. Thus, year 1 of Calippus' cycle
(viz, B. C. 330, A. D. 32, or the like), had Epact o; that is, the new
moon had no age, occurring upon the standard day itself, namely, the
day of the Summer Solstice. The year 2 (namely, B. C. 329, A. D.
33, or the like), had Epact n, that is, the new moon, was ri days old
on the standard day of the Summer Solstice; so that the 15th day of
the first lunar month, or full moon day, when the Olymphic Games
were to be celebrated (viz, always at the first full moon after the Sum
mer Solstice, as the first month, of their year), would that year be (15
— 11=) 4 days after the Solstice. And so of every new year and its full
moon festival; all were exactly regulated as to their date by the re
volving cycle.
§ 30. Now the Standard Day of Calippus and the Greeks was June
28 Julian (or its equivalent) as the supposed Solstice day of those
times, X and to that day the Epacts were applied. But they would ap-
* " Employed by the Jews even from the time of Alexander," says
Dr. Hales. (Tech. Chron., Vol. I, p. 66.) He even says; "It has
been suspected, and not without foundation, that this celebrated cycle
was borrowed by Meton from the ancient Jewish tables. This was the
opinion of the learned Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicaea, about A. D.
270." So also teaches the Jewish Calendar; "The 19-year cycle was
divinely revealed through Moses." (De Arg. Lun., p. 723 in Bede.) '
f The Epacts of the cycle are as follows:
Cycle Yr. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, .10, n, 12, 13, 14, 15, r6, 17, 18, 19.
Epact, o, 11, 22, 3, 14, 25, 6, 17, 28, 9, 20, 1, 1.2, 23, 4, 15, 26, 7, 18.
X Meton had it more correctly on June 27, (says Prideaux, Vol. II,
p. 409), i. e. on " Phamenoth 21 " in B. C. 432; and the Solstice was in
deed that year on that very day, June 27, at n>£ a. m. in Greece,, as
we find by our exact calculation. But, because the exact length of the
solar year was then unknown, and until Calippus, leap-days were not
always inserted regularly to adapt the rotary Egyptian year to the
Solstice, therefore Calippus wandered to June 28 in beginning his cycle,
the very day of new moon in B. C. 330, at 3X p. m. in Greece, by our
mean reckoning.
"The Calippic cycle began June 28, B. C. 330. M. Biot has shown
that the Solstice and new moon not only coincided on the day here set
down as the commencement of the Calippic cycle, but that by a happy
coincidence a bare possibility existed of seeing the crescent moon at
Athens within that day, reckoned from midnight to midnight." (Hers-
chel, Outlines of Astro n., London, 1831 .) More correctly, the Solstice
was then June 26th, 27th.

DEATH OF CHRIST 29
ply equally well to March 31, just 3 lunations before; so that the Jews
could easily use those Greek Epacts for the adjustment of their years.
For instance, the year A. D. 30 was cycle year 18, having epact 7; that
is, by the cycle the new year month was 7 days old on June 28 or on
March 31 (ending at sunset); * so that the 15th of the'ist month Nisan
or Abib by the cycle began on April 7 at sunset, before which the pas
chal lambs must be slain. And the ist month began the new year at
sunset of March 24; which was near 2 days after the actual new moon
in the night of March 22-23.
§ 31. This tardiness of the cycle in beginning the month and year
arose (as we have seen) from its accumulation of excess in the lapse of
about 400 years, amounting to 1 day and several hours, added to part of
a day's overlap at the very beginning. Thus every cycle year in the
New Testament times would be near two days later than the moon.f
So that, whether reckoning by an old cycle like that of the Greeks, X
or by their still more ancient method of observation concerning the
moon's reappearance, the Jews would naturally have their months and
years, beginning about two days affer the moon's conjunction with the
sun, and their slaughter of the lambs (near the close of the 14th
Nisan) coming just after rather than before the full moon.
\ 32. In view of the foregoing well-established principles, see now
the certainty of error in the dates of crucifixion assigned by Hales and
by Clinton. Astronomical calculation, according to their own state-
* The Jewish days thus began, as we learn from Gen. i: 5, etc.,
Lev. xxiii: 32. So all authors agree.
\ Herschel remarks (Astron., § 926), that the cycle of Meton itself
was begun at "the earliest possible visibility" of the moon, and was,
therefore, 1 day too late for astronomical accuracy. So, also, Clin
ton (F. R., ii, p. 242, and F. H., ii, p. 338). So, in A. D. 1856, the new
moon came April 4, while the Jewish ist month Nisan did not begin till
April 6. See Amer. Almanac. "The new moon occurs 1, 2 or 3
days before the day marked by the epact, rarely falling on the day
indicated." (Lardner's Nich. Chron.) Compare II Ki. xxv: 27, with
Jer. lii: 31. So the modern Jews have an 18-hour rule," and a
duplicate new moon day, to adjust visibility with conjunction.
(Jewish Calendar p. 24, /J.) "According to Newton, the phasis
occurs when the moon is i8h. old; but the month is sometimes delayed
till the moon is id. 17I1. old." (Clinton, F.R.,ii:p. 240.) "Ifthe con
junction is after sunset, it is not the ist but the 30th day of the
month. In the 19th year, the moon might be even 2 days before the
cycle." (Bede.)
X When the Jews applied the epacts to the equinox (as the Greeks ap
plied them to the Solstice), they had to reduce them each by 3, for the
3 days from March 31 down to the old equinox, March 28, or by 6, for
the 6 days down to Julius Caesar's equinox, March 25. How they
changed their Lunar Cycle along 9 years to its present order, is shown
in Appendix C, § 73.

30 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
ments, has determined that the paschal full moon of A. D. 31, was on the
27th of March, being Tuesday, the 3d day of the week, and that of A.
D. 29, was April 17th, being Sunday, the ist day of the week.* But
the Gospel history tells us that Christ was crucified at the passover,
and therefore, at the full moon on Friday, the 6th day of the week.
Of course, it could not have been in either of those years, A. D. 29 or
31, unless, indeed, these astronomical calculations are false, and
unless the full moon and the Friday can somehow be brought together.
This divinely recorded and purely natural concurrence of the moon's
aspect with the day of the week, a matter fixed and umistakable and
capable of existing in only one particular year out of several, this
must settle the true date, or else the Gospel History is not true to
nature and is false !
III. The Lunar Calculations.
I 33. A re- calculation, therefore, of the astronomical facts, set
forth with clearness and certainty, is what every inquirer needs, in
order to determine for himself beyond a doubt the date of crucifixion, f
This calculation requires, that we enter somewhat into the complicated
phenomena of the moon's motions, which are so numerous and intri
cate, that nearly fifty particulars have to be minutely adjusted in the
reckoning of an eclipse. X However, it will not be necessary here to
exhibit in full any but the mean reckoning (with the two largest correc
tions), which will settle the days and hours in question, and which may
be comprehended by all. We will first take the mean time of new
moon in our day, and by mean reckoning will find our way back to the
new moon or new year preceding the Saviour's death.
\ 34. We find by the Astronomical Tables, ft that at the time of this
writing, in A. D. 1855, the mean new moon fell on the 18th of January,
at 6h. 3m. a. m., Greenwich time, || which in the longitude of Palestine
was -z% hours later, at 8% A- M-TT If we restore the twelve days of
* Hales' New Anal.,z» Loco. Clinton's Fas. Rom. Vol. ii. p. 242.
f " If we could determine in what year, between A. D. 28 and A. D.
37, the passover occurred on Thursday or Friday, we might ascertain
the year of our Savior's crucifixion." (Prof. Packard Bib. Soc, 1858,
p. 289.) This is the candid confession of an article, which finds and
leaves all chronology as but a bank of fog. It reveals the want and
the craving of many minds.
$ Dick's Celestial Scenery, ch. iv, p. 113.
ft Gummere's Astron. Table xviii. Robinson's University Astronomy ,
Table xi, etc.
| See Nautical Almanac, 1855.
IT This date is a convenient starting point. For, being so near to
the earth's perihelion, which in the present generation is January 1
(See Naut. Al.), the true new moon is made by the shape of the earth's

DEATH OF CHRIST 31
Gregorian correction which have been omitted (io in the 16th century,*
one at 1700, and one at 1800), we have our January 18th equivalent to
January 6 of Old Style Julian reckoning, which it is necessary to use
in these old time calculations. Thus have we the time O. S. of the
mean new moon in our own day (viz., 1855, January 6, O. S., at 8%
a. m., in Palestine); and we are prepared to trace our way back from
this to any new moon in the ancient time.
\ 35. Take, for instance, the new moon of March, A. D. 3if. We
say, A. D. 1855 — A. D. 31=1824 yearsX365X=666,2i6 days from Janu
ary 6, O. S. 1855, back to January 6, A. D. 31. As this carries us farther
back than we wish, we take out thirty-one days to February 6, and
twenty-eight days to March 6, leaving 666,157 days back to March 6,
4. D. 31. This number of days is found to contain 22,558 lunations of
the moon, or waxings and wanings of 29^ days from new moon to
new. Each of which lunations being reckoned at the exact present
length of a lunation, J the whole amount to 666,151 days, with a deci
mal (.015) which gives >£ hour over. But as, by reason of the moon's
acceleration of motion, its present lunations are slightly shorter than
of old, making nearly three hours difference in the past twenty-six cen
turies, || — therefore we must add to' the lunations of eighteen centuries

orbit but \% hour later than the mean. And being only fifteen hours
before the moon's mean perigee, (which was January 18, at 9 p. m., at
Greenwich, See Appendix E), it is made by the shape of the moon's
orbit, but 1% hour later than the mean. So that, between the two cor
rections, the time of true new moon is only o,yi. hours later than the
mean, viz., January 18, 1855, 8% a. m., at Greenwich. (See Nauf. Al.)
*Oct. 5, A. D. 1582, by order of Pope Gregory; adopted in Eng
land, Sept. 3, A. D. 1752, when the 10 days had become 11. See Her-
schel, \ 926.
f We take this rather than another year, because, compared with
our starting point, it gives an even number of 4's or leap days, enabling
us to multiply by 365X.
IThat is, 2gd. 5305885. Hales and others give 2gd. 12I1. 44m. 2.s;
vet his figuring makes the last decimal figures8g. Olmstead says 2S.8;
vet he makes the last decimal figures 87. So the Astronomy of Hind
Lyon's Jewish Calendar has 2S.8283, which brings the last decimal
figures 83. But the decimal now in use has 85, as we here use it, for
the nicety of which we are indebted to the courtesy of S. H. Wright,
Astrbnomer of the American Almanac. All these differences, how
ever, can not affect the result more than the small fraction of an hour.
1 It is found that the moon's present motion and length of lunations
are a little too quick and short, to reach the hour of an eclipse recorded
by the Chaldeans in B. C. 720, but carry us to a point when the moon
was nearly ij^ degree past the sun. (Olmstead' sAstron.) And as the
moon (moving daily 13°- 17640, while the sun moves 00.98565), gains on
the sun over 12° every day, or ^ a degree in an hour therefore the
phases of the moon were nearly three hours earlier m B. C. 721, than
our present lunations give them.

32 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
about two hours, making the whole amount to 666, 151 days 2>^ hours.
This lunar amount taken from the above Julian amount (666,157 days),
leaves a remainder of 5 days 21^ hours; the lunations falling that
much short of filling up the Julian years.
As therefore the time of mean new moon was in A. D. 1855 on Janu
ary 6 O. S. at 8X a. m. in Palestine, therefore its time in the year A.D.
31, by our mean reckoning was 5 days 21.K hours later than that hour
of March 6, namely, March 12 at 5% a. m., as the mean new moon in
Palestine, A. D. 31.
§ 36. How was it in the adjacent years ? If we multiply 29d. 53 by
12, we find that the 12 lunations in a year by mean reckoning, amount
to 254d. 36; and if we subtract this amount from 365 days, we have left
iod. 63, or 10 days 15 hours; showing that the mean new moom in any
ordinary year comes so much earlier than the year before, and in a
leap year, when there are 366 days, it will come 1 day earlier still.
Therefore, as the year A. D. 32 was leap year, if we substract 11
days 15 hours from March 12 (A. D. 31), at 5% a. m., we find that the
mean new moon was in A. D. 32, February 2g at 2% p. m. ; as well as
2gd. i2^h (2gd. 53) afterward, March 30 at 3^ a. m. If we next sub-!
tract 10 days 15 hours, we find that the mean new moon was, in A. D.
33, March ig at J4 p. m. And substracting yet again, we find it, in A.
D. 34, March 8 at g% p. m., or 2gd. \%%h. afterward, April 7 at ioj£ a.
m. So, on the other hand, if to the hour in A. D. 31 we add the 10
days 15 hpurs, we find that the mean new moon was in A. D. 30, March
22 at 8% p- m.; and adding again we find it in A. D. 29, April 2 at 11^
A. M. Thus we have the mean dates of those new. moons. And we shall
arrive at the subsequent mean full moons of the several years, by add
ing to each the half of a full mean lunation, or 14 days i8# hours.
\ 37. To al] these mean dates, there are two considerable correc
tions to be applied, in order to have the approximate true time of new
moon and full moon in each case. These corrections are made with
reference to the position, (I) of the earth's perihelion, (II) of the
moon's perigee, as relatively situated at the respective dates. But these
allowances made for eccentricity of orbit affect only the hours of our
calculation, never amounting to a day. And we need not here give the
particulars determining their respective values, but will only give their
results; referring the reader for the details]to our examination of them'
elsewhere. * Nor need we trouble ourselves in this investigation with
the nicety of minutes and seconds, a certainty of the day and hour
being sufficient for our present purpose.
§ 38. Summing up, therefore, all our calculations, we obtain as
follows: * The full complicated process is given in Appendix E, § go.

DEATH OF CHRIST

33

True New Moon.

Year

Mean

Corrections

True

A. D.

New Moon.

I II

New Moon.

29

, Apl. 2

II&+A. M.

-3Xb+4^h

7#+ p. m. Apl. 2

3°

Mar. 22

8% p. m.

-4 — 5lA

7)4 p. m. Mar. 22

31

Mar. 12

SU A. M.

-4 —9H

0 a. m. Mar. 12

33

Mar. 30

372 A. M.

-5'A — 9%
9^ p. m. Mar. 29
33
Mar. ig
yi. P. M.
-4 — 3X
11^ a. m. Mar. ig
34
Apl. 7
IO^ A. M.
h3^ + U
272 p. m. Apl. 7
True
Full Moon.
Year
Mean
Corrections
True
A. D.
Full Moon.
I II
Full
Moon.
29
Apl. 17
6 a. m.
-2Mh— *,%h
3*
A. m. Apl. 17
30
Apl. 6
3 am.
-m -
"2/2
9 ,
p. m. Apl. 6
31
Mar. 27
O A. M.
"3 "
-w
11&
a. m. Mar. 27
32
Apl. 13
Q.% P. M.
"3 , '
-qU
10^
A. m. Apl. 1^
33
Apl. 3
6% A. M.
-M -
-6
4#
P. m. Apl. 3
34
Apl. 22*
472 A. M.
I-2K -
hi*
8^
A. M. Apl. 22
34  rt.pi. -tiir 472 a. m. -T4/2 T1-/*  <
* Or, Mar. 23, the very day of the true equinox
NflTE.
then.
Verification. In A. D. 31, the mean full moon Mar. 27 at o a. m.
+2gd. i2/zh.=Apl. 25 at 72 p. M.+corrections2#+6X=9 ?• m. of Apl.
25; and Pingre's Tables give an eclipse of the moon as occurring in
"A. D. 31, Apl. 25 at g p. m." (See here g 19.) This proves to a cer
tainty that our reckoning is correct.
Again, Benson gives the full moon as "at the beginning of Apl. 17,
A. D. 29, (here 3^ a. m., Clinton says 10 a. m.); and he puts the preced
ing new-moon as "Apl. 2 at 8 p. m.", (here about 772 p. m., Clinton says
3 p. m.)." This is close agreement with our result.
Our list above also proves Cunninghame's statement that the full
moon in A. D. 29 was Mar. 18, correcting Greswell's Apl. 16. It fur
ther confirms Usher (annals yr. 4036) and Hales, in saying that the
paschal full moon of A. D. 33 was Apl. 3, of A. D. 32 was Apl. 14, and
of A. D. 31 was Mar. 27. At the same time, it shows the inaccuracy
of Dodwell and Manne m calling the latter Mar. 26; and the random
notion of Petavius, setting it at Mar. 23.. (See Hales' as before cited,
§19.) Our dates will be found in accord with the noted eclipses calcu
lated for ancient times;, that near Augustus' death, Sep.. 27, A. D. 14
{Hales I, p. 76, slsoEdin. Cyclo.); that near Herod's death, March
13, B. C. 4, at % a. m. (Hates' Anal., Whiston in Jos. Antiq., 17, vi:
4, Edinburgh Cyclo., etc. See calculation of this eclipse at end of
Ast. Lect. Latin ed. p. 451, 2.) Exact agreement will also be found
with the " Eclipse of Thales," as demonstrated in the Philosophical
Transactions ofthe Royal Society of London, (Vol. C. I., 1811, p. 220);
namely, Sep. 30? B. C. 610 at 8% a. m., conjunction at Greenwich.
Usher and Prideaux give this- as the eclipse of Sep. 20, B. C. 601;
Bayer and Hales, as that of May 18, B. C. 603.
Being thus in agreement with all the data laid down by astrono
mers, there cannot be any possible mistake about these our dates here
34 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
set forth. (Bowyer has also given tables of the time of the paschal
full moons, in his "Conjectures on the N. T." note on John vi.)
Thurmah says the new moon of A. D. 30 was Mar. 22 at 7% p. m. in
agreement with our 772 p. m.
IV. — The Data Combined.
g 39. It only remains to ascertain the days ofthe week on which the
respective full moons and passovers fell. As the days of the week
change 1 in every ordinary year, they would return to the same place
every 7 years but for the intervention of a leap-day every 4 years.
This prevents a sychronism until 4 times 7 or 28 years; at which time
the order returns precisely as before. The days of the week are,
therefore, the same at an interval of any number of times 28 years.
say 65 times 28 or 1820 years. That is, the days of the week are at
the same place in the Julian Year A. D. 1854 (O. S;, without the
Gregorian correction), as they were 1820 years before, in A. D. 34.
§40. But in A. D. 1854, by the Almanacs, March 12, N. S.,
which is equivalent to O. S. March o (7, 14, 21, 28,) was Sunday.
Therefore, March o, (7, 14, 21, 28), A. D. 34, being 1820 years before,
was also Sunday. And since, in any ordinary year having 365 days,
one more than even weeks (52X7=364), any Julian date comes one
day later in the week than it did the year before, while after a leap-
day it comes two days later than before; therefore, March o (7, 14,
31, 28) in A. D. 34 being Sunday, in A. D. 33 it was Saturday, in A.
D. 32 Friday, in A. D. 31 (passing a leap-day) it was Wednesday,
in A. D. 30 Tuesday, in A. D. 29 Monday, and in A. D. 28, Sunday.*
* Remember this fact: Julian dating gives Sunday, March o (7,
14, 21, 28) in A. D. o (28, 56, etc.); Therefore we have this useful
Rule. — Divide the year A. D. by 28, and the remainder by y, and
to the second remainder add 1 for every 4 contained in the first re
mainder: the result shows the days to be added to Sunday on March,
o (7, 14, 21, 28) of the given year A. D. Then, if necessary, reduce to
the N. S. or Gregorian date.
Note. — It will be already N. S. if we reckon the A. D. as so many
years after 1700 for the 18th century, after I7g6 for the igth century,
after 1892 for the 20th century. Always number Jan. and Feb. in the
previous year. With a B. C. date, take 1 less than the year and sub
tract tbe result (increased by 1 if there be a remainder when dividing
by the 4) from Sunday.
Examples. — A. D. 34 -s- 28 leaves 6, which ¦+- 7 leaves 6 with + 1 (in
the previous 6) = 7, i. e., o days after Sunday, giving us Sunday,
March o (7, 14, 21, 28), in A. D. 34.
Again, A. D. 1854-1796 = 58 years ¦+- 28 leaves 2 which -+- 7 leaves
2 with + o (in the previous 2) = 2, i. e. , 2 days after Sunday, viz. Tues
day, March o (7, 14, 21, 28) A. D. 1854. So that the N. S. March 12,
A. D. 1854, was Sunday as seen above.
Again, on what day of the week will July 4, 1894 fall? The 1894 —
?7g6 = g8 yrs -3- 28 leaves 14, which -f- 7 leaves o with + 3 (in the pre
vious 14) = 3, i. e., 3 days added to Sunday, viz. Wednesday, March o,

DEATH OF CHRIST

35

et
O KtoST

2;
O

crq o

O.P

B
orq

OJ-p.

Ol

OJ to

OJ M

Oj O

to
U3

•iuiuioq ouuy

>

'S

£

£

£

>

tj

I"

p

p

p

TJ

1-1

1-1

M

•-1

^

jj
H
IP
to
M
JO
to
to
£~<
0
0
M
~J
&
X
*:
ioN
K
Tj
>
Tj
>
I"
y
S
S
g
.g
g
s
H
Tl
£
H
H
to
1=
H
0
B
B"
B
01cn
B
0)cn
B
B
>
"S. NIbJ
>
OJ
>
£p
to
en >
TEL 01
>
0 E.2.
00
¦">
0
M
OJ
p
iK
*X
!R
X
^
>
y
>
>
ji
>
3
s
s
a
s
2
to ba
- (3.
to p
r+S?1
¦ OuSO
TJ3.Oj
3
3CO0.BCIenO.P
¦<:
H BCD
cn O.P
£0B0.P
3^S
re to 0
o-H v
B „000
oj
to
M
IO
M
OO
H
i-l t— 0 B
¦ et B> p1-1
2SM O
(0
M
O
H
~J
OJ l" 0 a*
(0
H
00
Ol
• CD
>
£
£
£
£
>
8,5 ^
'"S.
SJ>-l
p1-1
p
p
TJ
1 — '
M
to
00
0
?H
OJ
+¦
-f.
H
Tj
fe?
H
TJ
£
b,
0
B
0
CO
cn>
>
p >
UI£
>
13
B
>
5 K 0
TJ
TJ
Tl
•1
TJ
Jo»<
^1
—
2_
¦ i-l
to
t-i
to
M
(0
OJ
-t>
¦~J
-J
00
oB5'
cm
t,13os
to H
O
4 Tj
Ct 1-1
et o
w 3
P rt-
rt- <t
D* ""
ct
ct
Oict
O Ct
cr
.J> CD
M Oi5'
^ PC
n ct
r h,
w o
ct a
» 3.
& b
n ft
b]S
cn -vj
O -
< ^_
Hh tO
ct -
p?j" CO
ct B
P1-1 et
¦ Po
>v
5 *<
Oi ct
ct ^
o ct
o3ct p
CT* cn
Ct ^
O. ch
3 ^
S ct
cnO p
EL o
•— ' i-h
O r+
§ 5*
•-1 ct
A. D. i8g4, with (Mar. 31, April 30, May 31, June 30 to July 4= 126
days -5- 7 leaves) o change, giving Wednesday, July 4, A. D. i8g4.
Once more, on what day of the week will fall inauguration day
in A. D. igoi? The igoi — 1892= 9 yrs, which -*- 28 leaves 9, which ¦*¦
7 leaves 2 with + 2 (in the previous g)= 4, i. e. , 4 days after Sunday,
viz. Thursday, March o, A. D. igoi. So that we have Monday March
4, A. D. igoi.
36 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
2 42. We have a striking proof from archaeology, that our astro
nomical calculations here are accurate. " An inscription of the year
A. D. 26 has been found at Berenike in Egypt, in which the last day
of the feast of tabernacles (observed by the Jews) is said to have oc
curred on the Egyptian Paophi 25th, which was the Julian October
22d." (/. Schwartz, archaeologist, New York, 1890. See his letter
Jan. 11, 'go.) The last day of the feast of tabernacles was.at the sunset
ending the 21st day of the 7th Jewish month; so that, as this was in
that year on Oct. 22, the ist day of that 7th month began on the ist
day of October. Take out the 6 previous lunar months (alternating
2g and 30 days) i. e., 177 days, and we are brought to April 7 as the be
ginning of 1 Nisan that year. But by the Lunar Cycle of those times
(as in the table here), A.D. 26 was cycle year 14, having Epact 23 (see
before \ 28 note); that is, the month was 23 days old on March 31, and
1 of the next month Nisan would be after 7 days, viz. : on April 7, just
as the inscription makes it.
§43. This is a perfect demonstration, "not only that the Jewish
months were certainly lunar months, but also that those lunar months
began about two days after the moon's conjunction with the sun, as
we have shown; and that the Greek Lunar Cycle of those times gave
the very date of Jewish new year then, showing correctly the Jewish
dating then, as given in the table. Our tabular exhibit is thus shown
to be accurate beyond a question.* »
The table proves the utter impossibility of Hales' and Clinton's
theories, that our Lord was crucified in one or the other of those years,
A. D. 2g or 31. f From this table it moreover appears that the only
years in which the crucifixion date is astronomically possible are A. D.
30 and 33; and that the former, A. D. 30, is the only year astronomi
cally probable, as alone having the full moon on the Thursday night

is

* Our table agrees exactly with "Ferguson's Astronomy, where there
.„ a calculation of the exact time of full moon in A. D. 30, viz as be
ing Apl. 6." (/. Schwartz, as above.) The table shows that' Clinton
is right in calling Apl. 17 A. D. 2g, Sunday; and that the computation
which Hales cites from Newton, Bacon, etc., is correct, in making the
paschal Mar. 27, A. D. 31, to be on Tuesday; and it thereby shows the
fallacy of Hales' surmise, that this might have been later in the week
The table also agrees with the tables in Nicholas' Chron. Hist in
Lardner's series; for these give the year A. D. 2g with O. S. Domini
cal Letter B, which puts March 1 on Tuesday, as above. ' The whole
matter is fully exhibited in my essay on " Cycles and Epacts."
t Hales' argument for A. D. 31, that the early passover of Mar 27
agrees with the statement of John xviii: 18, that ' ' they had made a fire
of coals," is of little weight; since the difference of 16 days later would
make but a small difference in the weather, and a little fire was needed
in the night air all along through the spring.

DEATH OF CHRIST 37
wherein Christ ate the supper, and having the Jews' passover on the
. Friday wherein he suffered.*
The True Date.
§ 44. This A. D. 30, therefore, must have been the true date. For,
by astronomical demonstration, the only infallible method, it is settled,
that the crucifixion could not be either in A. D. 31 or in A. D. 2g,
where the systems of Hales and of Clinton assign it; while A. D. 33,
the only possible alternative for A. D. 30, is proved to be astronomi
cally improbable, as well as historically false, according to Chap. I of
this discussion.
There remains, therefore, a moral certainty, that Christ's death
occurred in the year A. D. 30, Friday, April 7TH, the 16th year
after Augustus' death, and the 33d year after Herod's death, just
where the early Christians and fathers had it down to the 4th century of
the church.
I 45. All cycle theories of the' intermediate ages being dropped,
this last or astronomical age comes into harmony with the first or
historical age; and what might well have been supposed is verified — the
people of that very age knew their own times best. By return to their
reckoning, we find everything reconciled, — the evident 33 years of
Christ's life, the 30 years at his baptism and the 3 of his ministry.;
while the imagined difficulty concerning the " 15th year of Tiberius,"
is found to be (as the 15th year from his partnership with Augustus)
no diffiqulty at all. And so, as the Saviour's birth and baptism have
*The crucifixion was certainly as late as the 14th of the ist month;
and as the 14th, therefore, could not end later than Friday at sunset,
the month and year could not commence later than Friday also, two
weeks before. This in A. D. 33 was Mar. 20, when the moon was only
1% day old, less than seems requisite, whether they began the month
by sight or by the cycle. On the other hand, in A. D. 30, this Fri
day night of New Year, came March 24, when the moon was nearly
2 days old, as required by either mode of commencing the months.
If any one chooses to maintain (as some do), that Christ died on the
15th of Nisan instead of the 14th, or on Thursday instead of Friday^
he will only be compelled the more decisively to renounce A. D. 33,
and accept A. D. 30 as the year. But to claim (as some 7th day
" Sabbatarians" now do), that the 15th Nisan ended as early as Thurs
day, is to violate entirely the astronomical data, — putting the new
month and new year before the occurrence of the new moon.
" Roger Bacon found by computation, that the paschal full moon
of A. D. 33 fell on Friday; and this circumstance lecf him and several
others, Scaliger, Usher, etc., to conclude, that this was the year of
the crucifixion. But, admitting the computation to be exact, as after
wards verified by Scaliger, Newton, Manne and Lang, this very cir
cumstance proves that this was not the year of the crucifixion; for the
true paschal, full moon then was the day before, on Thursday, when
Christ celebrated the passover." (Hales I, p. 99.)

38 ne.w test, period g
been by degrees restored, from their wrong calculation in the old vul
gar chronology, back to the place where the first Christians assigned
them, — in like manner is the crucifixion, by the harmony of history
and astronomy, now at length restored. *
I 46. This conclusion of our calculations is corroborated by John
ii: 20, where the Jews observe, at Christ's first passover, " forty and
six years was this temple in building;" or we may read, " forty -six years
this temple has been built upon." f Now Herod began this new con
struction, J as Josephiis definitely tells us, in "the 18th year" of
his reign, XX and died when he had -reigned 54 years; || and so, as his
death was in B. C. 4, his 18th year was in B. C. 20. IT To this add 46
years, ft and we are carried to A. D. 27, the very time of Christ's first
* " Ferguson, in his Astronomy, has shown that in A. D. 30, there
was a paschal full moon on Thursday, April 6, which Bengel thought
was the true date" of passion. (Prof. Packard, in Bib. Sac, i8j8,p.
2gg.) Why has Bengel been so long alone in this correct identification
of the year of passion as A. D. 30 ?
Postcript. When this treatise was written (in A. D. 1855), we could
find no writer adopting A. D. 30. Soon afterward came from Germany
Weisler's acceptance of that year; and in 1869, Thurman was found
adopting it in America. Now (in 1893) A. D. 30 is very commonly ac
cepted as the date. So Dr. Simon of England gives it from Gaspari,
in the Bib. Sacra, July, 1871, p. 469.
t " ' This temple hath been six and forty years building. ' Dr. Light
foot has well shown that the original word may signify as we here ren-
derit." (Doddridge, Expos. Jn., ii: 20.) Thefacts "amend our English
translation to read, ' 46 years hath been building.' " (Hales, So
Calmet, Scott, David Brown, etc.)
}He did not finish it, but the Jews kept adding to and adorning it.
For, Josephus, as late as A. D. 65,, (Antiq. 20, ix: 7),- speaks of its
being then at length finished, and the workmen dismissed. (Compare
John viii: 59, and x: 31.) So Whiston's translation, ' 46 years hath
this temple been built,' is not only inapplicable but unnecessary; as
well as Fleming's reference -of this passage to the times of Nehemiah.
XX Antiq. 15, xi: 1, 5, 6. | Antiq. 17, viii: 1.
TTJosephus says expressly (in Bk. 16), that Herod's 28th year,
when he held the dedication, 10 years after he began to build, was in
the ig2d Olympiad. This ended in B. C. 8; therefore, his 18th year,
when he began to build, was as soon as B. C. 18. He also tells us (14,
xii: 5, comp. with 17, viii: 1), that three years before Herod began fo
reign was the 184th Olympiad. This ended in B. C. 40; so that, his
reign could not begin later than B. C. 37 (as all agree), or his i8thyear
later than B. C. 20, as above.
ft Doddridge thus date's from B. C. 20, but reckons 47 years (47th)
to A. D. 28, so as to agree with the delayed view of Christ's death, as
A. D. 31. While Hales himself (Vol. II, p. 601) reckons only 45 years
(46th) from B. C. 17 ( ! ) to A. D. 28, (by mistake of adding), this being
really but 44 years. So Calmet dates from B. C. 17, presuming to say
that two years after Herod's 18th year were consumed in preparation.

DEATH OF CHRIST 39
passover, three years before his death in A. D. 30, as our demonstra
tion shows.
2 47- The same conclusion is still further corroborated by "the
sign of Jonas," given by Christ not long before his death. To the
Pharisees demanding a sign, he answered: "A wicked and adulterous
generation seeketh after a sign; and no sign shall be given unto it,
but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them and departed. " *
The sign did not now, as on a former occasion, f mention his resurrec
tion, but referred rather to the Ninevites, who, to save their city from
destruction, "repented at the preaching of Jonas," i —a fit sign of.
present duty (Jesus would teach) in view of the impending danger
which some of "this generation " should live to see. Jonah came cry
ing: " Yet 40 days [prophetic form of 40 years | ] and Nineveh shall
be overthrown. "If Such was the sign to the Ninevites; and the same
belonged to " this generation." For Christ was now by this sign pro
claiming: " Yet 40 years and Jerusalem shall be overthrown." And,
according to our determination, it was just 40 years from the death of
Christ in A. D. 30, when he finished his warning, to A. D. 70, when
Jerusalem was destroyed, ff
And thus is the year A. D. 30 confirmed as the year of Christ's
death, by references backward and forward, both historic and pro
phetic; while itself absolutely determined as the year by historical and
astronomical demonstration. V- Important Results.
§ 48. From this demonstration of the time at which Christ died,
we not only arrive at this fact so important in itself, but we also de
rive therefrom other highly valuable results, which we elsewhere
more fully discuss.
1. We help to settle the long-mooted controversy concerning the

Doddridge countenances the same idea, reckoning 47 years to A. D.
30, so as to make out the Usher view of Christ's death as in A. D. 33.
Whereas, all such preparing by Herod came before, from his 16th to
his 18th year, as we learn from Josephus (War. 1, xxi: 1); and he ex
pressly tells us (Ant. 15, xi: 5, 6) that the main' temple was done (not
prepared for) in a year and a half after the beginning in the 18th year,
and the cloisters in eight years more, so that all his erecting was
finished in the 10th year after, viz. : in his 28th year. The falsity of
those datings of the "46 years " by different writers, appears at once
from the simple reckoning above.
* Mat. xvi: 4; Mark viii: 13. f Mat. xii: 40.
X Lu. xi: 2g-32. || Ezek. iv: 6, etc. IT Jonah iii: 4.
ft The generally acknowledged date.

40 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
post-paschal theory of the crucifixion,* and the double passover of
Jesus and the Jews, f
2. We adjust all the dates of our Saviour's ministry; fixing the time
of his tabernacle sermon, of his dedication discourse, and of his clos
ing labors with many other like interesting determinations.
3. We fix still more certainly the year of Herod's death; and we
establish the date of Christ's nativity beyond all reasonable doubt;
at, the same time bringing to light the true, history and basis of our
vulgar Christian Era. In fact, we have thus a fixed and sure starting
point for the whole Bible Chronology.
4. We settle the accuracy of Daniel's "70 weeks," as reckoned by
Usher, Prideaux and others (from the 7th of Artaxerxes, B. C. 437, to
A. D. 34=4go years); by finding the crucifixion, A. D. 30, at the very
middle of the 70th week, as required by Daniel's vision. (Dan. ix: 27.)
And thus we have a more certain- basis for the hitherto uncertain cal
culation of prophetic dates. X
5. But chiefly, we furnish a most convincing demonstration of the
historical truth of Christianity, such as infidels must find it impossible
to gainsay. The scientific accuracy of the recorded date, proves
the .genuine accuracy of the narrated fact. And the determinate
time of crucifixion cuts off the sceptical query, whether there was any
such event as the crucifixion of Christ. , >
§ 4g. No event can be historically assigned to a particular day, with
a correct indication ofthe moon's age or aspect on that day, except in one
* This post-paschal theory, that the crucifixion was not on the 14th,
but on the 15th Nisan, after the passover had been eaten by the Jews,
we fully discuss in Appendix D, 8 80. (See also a full discussion by
Rauch in the Bib. Repository for 1.834, P- 108.)
t It seems as if Thursday, April 6th, A. D. 30, could not have
ended the 14th Nisan; because it was before the full moon, in con
travention of all we have here shown. (See § 31.) Therefore, we
acknowledge a double paschal observance, Thursday night by cbrist,
Slnd Friday night by the Jews. Hales agrees with this, and thinks it
arose from the double reckoning of months, by sight and by cycle-'
seen also in the duplicate new moon day of the modern Jews. (? 80.)
X Josephus (Antiq. n: v. 1, 2) wrongly puts the decree or "com
mandment " given to Ezra, as in " the 7th year of Xerxes " (B. C. 478,
instead of the correct B. C. 457). This shows a common error of those
NeWj Testament times, by which the "70 weeks" of Daniel (or 4go
years) " from the going forth of the commandments' to restore and
build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince," would expire about (B.
C. 578—490 yrs.—) A. D. 13. So that then, in the very middle of
Christ's life, the Jewish people were set upon a discussion about the
expected Messiah living then, in the mood we find them at Christ's
public appearing, of questioning expectancy and wonderment. This
throws a remarkable light on many incidents and utterances of the
Saviour's ministry.

DEATH OF CHRIST 41
of two ways, either (i) by being so assigned artlessly, at the very time
of occurrence, by the witnesses of the actual event then taking place; or
else (2) by being laboriously calculated in later times, by the precise
developments of astronomy. But,
(I) The great event of the Gospel is assigned by its writers to a
particular day of a particular year, with a statement of the paschal
or lunar aspect for that day; and the correctness of that assignment,
as being at the only possible point of agreement between the narra
tive and the moon's position, is now at length proved, after the lapse
of 18 centuries, by this second mode of assignment, a full astronom
ical calculation, with all the modern data.
(II) That Gospel assignment was made long before this exact
reckoning of modern astronomy was possible in making the assign
ment, or even imaginable as a future test of it. And it was so evi
dently without calculation or design, that the year itself is not stated
by any of the Gospel writers, but is made sure only from incidental
allusions gathered from them all. These allusions, such as Matthew's
mention of Herod's slaughter, Luke's mention of 30 years later, John's
mention of three passovers later still — these allusions exhibit not even
an attempt at the dating of Christ's death; and yet, when combined,
they do all point unmistakably to the 33d year after Herod's death,
that is to A. D. 30, the very year required by astronomy, as the cru
cifixion date.
§ 50. (Ill) Therefore this incidental assignment in the Gospel,
given with accuracy yet unquestionably without calculation, could
have been made only in the other method, namely at the very time
mentioned, by witnesses of the actual event then occurring before
them.* Let any one attempt, without exact data, in a fictitious nar
rative, to name an eclipse or a full moon on a definite day, even no
longer than five years ago; and lo ! how certainly will astronomy ex
pose the fiction. And so, by astronomy superadded to history, the
Gospel is proved to be no after invention, but a genuine and authen
tic narrative, originating in the very times and among the very events
described on its pages.
Upon this basis of scientific facts rests the story of Jesus. And
thus is the historic origin of Christianity determined, beyond the peril
of assault !
- * "All such configurations were real perceptions of the human eye,
not at all results of astronomical calculations. For, without the Co-
pernican system and astronomical tables, which were denied to the
ancient world, nobody was able to determine what places of the
heaven were at a certain time occupied," etc. (Seyfforth Recent Dis-
cov. p. 151.) Cycles were not yet applied to measure large intervals,
and if so applied, being inaccurate, they would only lead astray, as
we see was afterward the case.

42 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
APPENDIX A.
(For § 23.)
Christ's Resurrection on Sunday.
And His Crucifixion on Friday.
I 51. That Christ's Resurrection was 'on Sunday morning early,
was never called in question, so far as we know, until now (in A. D.
1892), some 7th-day "Sabbatarians" think it necessary, for the fur
therance of their ism, to claim with strenuous argument, drawn solely
from Mat. xxviii: 1-6, that Christ rose before sunset on Saturday. A
complete and overwhelming refutal of this notion is Luke xxiv: 21:
"To-day (Sunday p. m.) is the third day since these things were done,"
i.e., the very day when Christ promised to rise. Nothing more than
this really needs to be said against the absurd Saturday scheme. But
that no claim, however unreasonable, may seem to be slighted, we give
the following exhibit:
? 52. (I) As to Mat. xxviii: 1. The best scholars think this verse
expresses the time as very early Sunday morning, in harmony with
Mark xvi: 2; Luke xxiv: 1; John xx: 1, (so conceded by all). But it is
no matter whether Matt.xxviii: 1, means Sunday morning early or Sat
urday at sunset; if it means the latter, still that will not remove the
resurrection from its assured place on Sunday morning. For, if the
statement here is, that the women came to the tomb Saturday even
ing, then the order of events in ver. 1-6 is chronological, and the
descent of the angel, and opening of the tomb, and resurrection of
Christ, were after the women had come and gone, they having "come
to see the sepulchre,'' and left it till morning because they found it
sealed up.
The only way in which a Saturday resurrection is loosely inferred
from a Saturday night coming of women, is by interpolating the word
" had" into verse 2, so' making it read, " and behold there had been g.
great earthquake," etc., that is, before the women came. And Mr.
Reihl in arguing the case actually quotes the Scripture as reading in
that way, — "an angel had descended" and "Jesus had risen," he
reads it. Now, it is true, that if ver. 1 means (as commonly supposed),
early in the morning, then a previous idea must be implied (not
expressed) in ver. 2, as if it read " had." But this cannot be claimed
if the time of ver. 1 is Saturday p. m. In that case, to put in "had "
is a plain falsification of the text. Hence, this being the only argu
ment for a Saturday resurrection, the theory at once and forever
perishes. '
<j 53. (II) The allied facts stated in the history all instantly crush
the notion of a Saturday resurrection.

DEATH OF CHRIST 43
_ I. In their morning coming, the women were troubled " and they
said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the
door of the sepulchre." (Mark xvi: 2, 3.) Of course, then, the tomb
had not been found open the night before.
2. Their morning visit was "bringing the spices which they had
prepared" to anoint the body. (Lu. xxiv: 1.) Of course, then, no one
had heard that the tomb was open and the body gone the night
before. 3. Mary Magdalene in the morning was astonished to find the
tomb open and Jesus gone, and " she runneth and cometh to Simon
Peter" and John to tell the news ; whereupon they quickly "ran both
together" to see if it was indeed so. (Jn. xx: 1-4.) Of course, then,
nobody had visited an opened and emptied tomb the night before ; for
if so, the news would have spread like wild-fire, and Peter and John
would not have been coolly delaying a visit to the tomb.
4. Mat. xxviii: 9, says: "And as they went to tell His disciples
behold Jesus met them, saying, All hail," etc. This could notbe Sat
urday evening, because Mark xvi: 9, tells us: " Now when He was
risen early on the first day of the week, he appearedfirst to Mary Magda
lene," i. e., first to her alone (J no. xx: 14) on her second visit Sunday
morning, says Mr. Reihl himself. Therefore, as Mat. xxviii: ver. 9, be
longs to Sunday morning, the preceding verses, 2-8, also belong to
Sunday morning, even if ver. 1 does not.
5. No report of an open tomb was carried to the city and to the chief
priests by the guards until the women had fled from the tomb in the
morning, and then the soldiers were hired to say, " His disciples came
by night and stole him away while weslept." (Mat. xxviii: n-13.) Of
course, then, they could not tell any such story if Jesus arose on
Saturday, nor could they delay their tidings till Sunday morning.
Luke xxiv: 22, shows the same.
§ 54. (Ill) The testimony of the two disciples going to Emmaus
Sunday p. m. (Lu. xxiv: 21, revision): " It is now the third day since
these things came to pass," is perfectly overwhelming and unanswer
able. When presented to Mr. Reihl he attempted an answer by
change of translation, and when this was shown to be impossible he
attempted again an evasion of the language equally monstrous.
(1) He claimed that the Greek word rendered "is" should be
rendered "brings," so giving as the statement " this day brings the
third day," which means (he says) "this is the fourth day." ( ! )*
* Yet, strange to say, a writer in the Bib. Sacra, (July, 1894, p.
510) reiterates this folly. He says: "The day on which Cleopas
spake was the fourth, but it brought with it the third day as aready
past." ( ! ) Was ever such senseless utterance in so respectable a
publication? See its folly shown in the same volume of the Bib.
Sacra, p. 339.

44 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
Only smiling at the absurdity of this, we gave these comments on the
Greek word.
The passage in Greek is idiomatic, and somewhat difficult for an un'
critical reader to translate into smooth English. For this reason vari
ations of the Greek have crept in. But they all agree in meaning with
our English Bible, and with all versions ever made into any language.
The Latin reads (tertiam diem ho die agit) " To-day it leads, along or
carries through .[more simply is] the third day. " The Greek of the
revision is (triteen tauteen hemcran agei: "This third day it carries "
itself, or is going on, or simply it is. The pith of the statement is iri
the expression "this third Day"; and the question, how best to
render the idiomatic agei into smooth English cannot change the as1
sertion made of this Sunday (the time of speaking) as being the third
day. § 55. This verb (agei) ordinarily means carry, bring or lead, as Mr.
Reihl says. But hardly any word is confined to a single shade of
meaning. And this word, tho' usually thus transitive, often becomes
intransitive or reflexive, meaning to carry one's self, i. e., to go ov pass
along; as translated at Matt, xxvi: 46; Mark i; 38, and xiv: 42;Jn. xiiy,
15, 16, and xiv: 31. Winer, in his N. T. Grammar (§ 38, 1),' states this
principle concerning many Greek verbs, giving this verb agein as his
first example, " let us carry ourselves," i. e., " let us go."
So also in Mat. xiv: 6, " Herod's birthday feast going on," common
version, "was kept," revised version "came." Also Ac. xix: 38,-
"the courts are going on," common version " the law is open," re
vised version " the courts are open," margin " court-days are kept."
All these are correct renderings of the word agei, whether in Latin or
Greek, a.nd the only question is, which is the smoothest way of saying
it in English.
In the passage before us, the agei is impersonal (without a nomina
tive), and means as in the other passages, " it carries itself," or " it is
going on." The verse reads literally, " And besides all this it carries
itself (or is going on) this third day since these things were done; of
to simplify the English, " it is now the third day since " those events,
as the Revision correctly puts it.
Winer (§ 66, 3, note) says of this Lu. xxiv: 21," "in Greek the nu
meral 'was considered simply as a predicate adjunct"; so that he trans
lates the verse thus:. "To-day it is going on the third day since"
these events. No translator ever gave the passage any other mean
ing, and no critical scholar can discover any other sense. To say
that it means "it is now the fourth day " is— what? Let the candid
reader say what.
§ 56. (2) The final device was, to say the statement means, "This is
the third day since " the tomb was sealed oh "the next day," after the

/ /

DEATH OF CHRIST 45
crucifixion (Matt, xxvii: 62)! But what had the remark of the two dis
ciples to do with the sealing of the tomb ? They said expressly, ' ' to-day
is the third day since these things were done, of which they were speak
ing, namely, the ' delivering ' and ' crucifying ' of their Master (ver. 20).
Why did they emphasize the fact and the expression "the third day? "
Because that was the expression their Master had repeatedly used in
promise to them (as in this very chapter, ver. 7 and 46), of what should
next occur to him after his death; so that, it was time for them to expect
the rising he spake of. It was his words and his promise they were
tenderly calling to mind; and to suppose that, instead of this, their
language only referred to an intervening freak of the officials, which
had no bearing on the promise, and which yet they were trying exactly
to date for no possible reason, such an assumption is simply mon
strous. Plainly, it is a mere get-off. There is no excuse whatever for
such attempts to mutilate the Word of God, as is this theory of a
Saturday resurrection.
The lately discovered apocryphal "Gospel of Peter," understood
to have been written about A. D. 150, very distinctly puts the resurrec
tion on Sunday, repeatedly calling it "the Lord's Day;" which shows
how certainly that designation of John in Revelation (1:10) was from
the first established as the name of the Christian sacred day. For in
stance, Tertullian (A. D. 190) customarily calls Sunday "solo die
dominico resurrectionis." (Neander, Vol. I, p. 296, 301*
II. Christ's Crucifixion on Friday.
§ 57. Those ' 'Sabbatarians " who try to get the resurrection on Sat
urday, at the same time attempt to make the crucifixion on Wednesday.
This scheme is so unreasonable, that we do not need to waste rnany-
* " In the Catholic Epistle ascribed to Barnabas (companion of Paul
as some think) Sunday is designated as the day of Jubilee in remem
brance "of Christ's resurrection." Neander, Vol. I, p. 295.) In our
copy it is at Chap, xiii: 10. Barnabas here puts resurrection and
ascension together, as if occurring on one and the same Sunday.
Neander notices this view of the ascension; and Prof. Bush (Resur., p.
157), adopts it. See John xx: 17.
Dr. Wm. De Loss Love, in his treatise on the Sabbath (Bib. Sacra,
October, 1880, p. 662) shows, that the Lord's Day resurrection as on
Sunday is set forth by Barnabas in the first century, by Pliny the
Younger (A. D. 112), by Justin Martyr (A. D. 140), by the Epistle to
the Magnesians (A. D. 150), by Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth (A. D.
170), by Melito, Bishop of Sardis (A. D. 170), by Ireneus (A. D. 178),
by Clement of Alexandria (A. D. 189), by Bardesanes (A. D. 190), by
Tertullian (A. D. 195), by Minucius Felix (A. D. 198); and he adds
(p. 671): " In the first century after the apostle John's death, we find
eleven thoroughly credible witnesses concurring in the fact that the
Christians of that era regarded and observed the first or ' Lord's Day '
as the chief of all days (the day of Christ's resurrection); and we find
no contemporary testimony to the contrary."

46 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
words upon it. We simply ajlude to the evident erroneousness of this
Wednesday theory, in its professed "harmony " (given in the monthly
" Truth," Chicago, April, 1892); wherein all the working and noisy events
of Matt, xx: 29 to xxi: 17, the travel from Jericho finished, the triumphal
«ntry to Jerusalem, the casting out of profaners from the temple (all
five days before the passover, as seen from Jn. xii: 1, 12) — these all are
made to come on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, about which the Jews
, were so scrupulous. We only note further, the fatuity of putting
between the burial and the resurrection two whole Sabbath days, with
a third whole day (Friday) between them! Whereby the Saviour is
kept "three days and four nights" in the tomb, in violation of His
own words!
But there are some good Christian people who have doubted,
whether the crucifixion was not really on Thursday instead of Friday.*
And for their sake we give the following exhibit.
\ 58. (1) The crucifixion was on " the preparation of the passover, "
" that is the day before the Sabbath " occuring at the passover, "for
that Sabbath-day was a high-day." John xix: 14, 31, 42, with Mark
xv : 42. )f And no subsequent Sabbath is anywhere referred to besides
that Sabbath which thus immediately followed the crucifixion. In
fact, no other day was called "the Sabbath " among the Jews, besides
the weekly Sabbath and the solemn day of atonement. See Lev. xxiii:
3, 32, 38; (also xvi: 31). In verses 24, 39, it is a different Hebrew word,
shabatone (not shabat), translated "solemn rest " by the Revisers'.
In this 23d of Leviticus, "the morrow after the Sabbath, at vers.
11, 15, 16, means "the morrow after the weekly Sabbath occurring
within the seven days of unleavened bread; that is, as the weekly
* Thus taught Seyffarth (Rec Discov., p. 184). He not only put
the crucifixion on Thursday, but he also had it before the equinox, at
the new instead of the full moon, and in the year A. D. 33. Thurman,
in A. D. 1868, advocated Thursday as the day of crucifixion. And
Rev. J. K. Aldrich argued the same, in the Bibliotheca Sacra (July,
1870, p. 401), and afterward in a book.
f Mark xv: 42, "It was the preparation, that is, the day before the
Sabbath." Some say there was no "preparation" for the weekly
Sabbath. But certainly, there was from the very first commanded a
preparation of food; see Ex. xvi: 22-26. The apocryphal Gospel of
Nicodemus, which was in use in some of the churches 200 years after

(ix: 7)— and that " after the Sabbath " (ver. 8,
13), and then after "the 40th day " (xi:25), and then "on the morrow,
.being a preparation day" (ver. 17), Joseph came again before the
authorities; that is, after forty-two days, or just six weeks from the
crucifixion, Friday, was again a "preparation" Friday. This shows,
that the ' ' preparation ' ' was understood to be simply a Friday or 6th
-day of the week, before any weekly Sabbath.

DEATH OF CHRIST 47
Sabbath came any day from Nisan 14 to 20 inclusive, so the first-fruit
offering came any day from Nisan 15 to 21 inclusive, the days when
the great "convocation "were together (ver. 7, 8). Many wrongly
suppose the meaning to be " the morrow after the festival-rest day,"
or 15th of Nisan, so as to bring the first-fruit offering always on the
16th of Nisan, as it was when our Lord rose from the dead.* But the
wrongfulness of this view is easily seen, as follows:
The strict order (in ver. 14) was, "ye shall eat neither bread, nor
parched corn, nor green ears— until the self-same day that ye have
brought an offering unto your God." But the very first offering and
eating of first-fruits that ever occurred, upon the entering into Canaan,
we are told in Josh, v: 10, 11, was "on the morrow after the pass-
over," which had been kept "on the 14th day of the month at even."
And this "morrow after the passover," Num. xxxiii: 3, exactly defines
as "the 15th day of the first month." (See D, § 12.)
I 59. These passages prove two things: (1.) That the term
"passover" was applied only to "the 14th day at even," and the day
time of the 15th was called "the morrow after the passover, " so that
in John xviii: 28, the 15th Nisan could not have arrived. (2.) That,
as that first occurrence of the first-fruit offering was of course in ac
cordance with the law just established for it, its being on the 15th
Nisan is a complete overthrow, from the start, of the uniform 16th day
theory; while showing that " the Sabbath" referred to in the law was
a weekly Sabbath (that year on the 14th), f not a feast Sabbath (taken
as the 15th Nisan).
g 60. It is true that in the latest days of the temple, a Rabbinical
reckoning came into use, for some reason, putting the first-fruit offer
ing as regularly on the 16th Nisan. The first mention we have of this
is by Philo, the Jew, in A. D. 40 to 50, and Josephus also gives it in A.
D. go (Antiq. 3, x: 4). Dr. Lightfoot, the learned Hebraist (followed
by most commentators since) takes this late Rabbinical reckoning as
if the true meaning of the Levitical law. But we have here proved
the contrary. (See it also proved in the Bib. Sacra., April, 1894, p.,
339; also July, 1880, p. 426.)
Even the late Jews, in setting the first-fruit offering as " the 16th
* "The morrow after the seventh 6abbath " (ver. 16) can mean
nothing but the first day of the week as always Pentecost. The 16th
of the ist month, plus 49, to the 6th of the 3d month, could not be the
constant reckoning. " If this were the true meaning, why was not the
date given by tbe day of the month, as in the case of all the other
annual feasts mentioned in this chapter, rather than by such a mis
leading expression ?" (Bib. Sacra., April, 1894, p. 340.)
¦f The slaying of the paschal lambs was not regarded as a breach
of the Sabbath, even as the " daily sacrifice was slain every Sabbath."
{Ex. xxix: 38-42.)

48 NEW TEST. PEEIOD G
of Nisan," did not call the 15th Nisan a " Sabbath." Josephus him
self says (Antiq. 13, vi: 1): "That festival which we call Pentecost
did then (that year)' fall out to be next day after the Sabbath (meta to
sabbaton); nor is it lawful for us to journey, either on the Sabbath
day or a festival day." Hence it is made plain that when a weekly
Sabbath came next to a festival day, they were not both called Sab
bath.* § 61. (2) To speak of the 15th Nisan as itself a Sabbath is not
Scripture usage. When it fell upon a weekly Sabbath, thatwas what
made it (as in the year of Crucifixion) specially " a high day." (John
xix: 31.) "The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that
the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath, for the
day of that Sabbath was high (or great), besought Pilate," etc.
Here Sabbath is twice over emphasized as "the Sabbath," "that Sab
bath;" and the conviction can not be avoided that it is the special
weekly Sabbath of complete rest thatis referred to. Thus only was
it possible to speak of resting on that day following the crucifixion as
the very sabbath spent in waiting for " the first-day of the week"
when the Sabbath was past. Thus exactly is the matter presented in
Mark xv: 42, to xvi: 2, and Luke xxiii: 54, to xxiv: 1; and it is impossible
to make that account tally with more than one intervening ' ' Sabbath, "
or with any Sabbath but that immediately following the crucifixion.
No sane man like Mark could mean by " Sabbath," in xvi: 1, a dif
ferent day from the Sabbath just named in xv: 42; and the Sabbath
that "drew on," during which they "rested," was not merely a Sab
bath, or simple Sabbattic time, but was the " Sabbath-day," thatis, the
special day of that name. This record in Mark and Luke, of one single
continuous Sabbath between "the preparation " day and' the "first
day of the week," is^proof positive that the crucifixion was on Friday,
and by no means on Thursday, much less on Wednesday, as claimed
by some. Difficulties Disposed Of.
§ 62. (1) It was only about "the 9th hour " (Matt, xxvii: 46) or 3 p.
m; when Jesus died — thatis, " when the even was come " (ver. 57) or
last quarter of the day, in which Joseph intervened; and when the
* See this, our view, proved by Prof. Murphy in the Bib. Sacra,
Jan., 1872, p. 77. If the Pentecost mentioned by Josephus was in the
year after Hyrcanus' accession, as Josephus seems to make it, i. <?.,
in B. C. 134, then the 16th Nisan that year was Sunday, April 10, by
the Greek Cycle of Calippus (see here £ 81, 83). But if that Pentecost
was in the year before Antiochus' death, as Rollins puts it (Vol. vii:
p. 248), i. e., in B. C. 131, then the 16th Nisan that year was Sunday,
April 6, by one day earlier observation of the moon. But in either
ease, this occurrence of " first-fruits " on the 16th Nisan (as in the year
of Christ's death) does not prove that it was on that same 16th Nisan
every year, even in those last Rabbinical years, much less that it was
so in the original law and custom of Moses.

DEATH OF CHRIST 49'
burial was finished, it was still "the preparation, and the Sabbath!
drew on " simply (Luke xxiii: 54), as sunset had not yet arrived, "for
the sepulcherwas nigh at hand," John xix: 42). So that the women had
time to run into the city before sunset, and they "bought sweet
spices" (Mark xvi: 1) ; and thus beginning to prepare them, they
"rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," (Luke
xxiii: 56), evidently the fourth commandment. At sunset of Saturday
they doubtless renewed their preparations, and very early in the
morning they came unto the sepulcher bringing the spices which they
had prepared," (xxiv: 1). Spices might be bought after the Sabbath
or before. So that no extra day need be interposed for their prepa
rations as some allege.
I 63. (2) The only other objection offered against Friday as the
crucifixion date, is, that this does not furnish an interval of "three
days and three nights" before the resurrection. But the usual' ex
pression is "on the third day," and thirteen times over this expression
is used. Matt, xvi: 21, and xvii: 23, and xx: 19, and xxvii: 64; Mark ix.
31, and x: 34;-Luke ix: 22, and xviii: 33, and xxiv: 7, 21, 46; Acts x:4o,
I Cor. xv: 4). It is certain that this was the Jewish mode of counting
(as from Friday to Sunday), i. e. inclusively, beginning with the day
or object started from. So Luke xiii: 32; Acts xxvii: 18, 19; Ex. xix: 10,
11; Lev. vii: 16, 17; and xix: 6; Johnxx: 26-30; and so I Sam. iv: 7, marg.
("Woe unto us ! for there hath not been such a thing yesterday nor
the day before") literally ("nor the third day"). Like II Sam. iii: 17;
II Ki. xiii: 5; II Chron. xi: 2; Ex. iv: 10; Deut. xix: 4, 6; Josh, iii: 4:
So also Lev. xxv: 8-10, etc. See particularly II Chron. x:5-i2. *
Jesus said (John ii: 19), " Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it up: " that is, "within three days," as his revilers reported
it (Mark xiv: 58, and xv: 29; Mat. xxvii: 40). The Jewish rulers
expressed it as " after three days " (Mat. xxvii: 63); but they immfcdi-
*, "The expression meta treis hemeras always means three days after
[i. e.. the third day], and not as usually rendered. So Josephus in
his Jewish War (1, xiii: 1) says 'two years after,' but.in his Antiq. (14,
xiii: 3) he gives it as 'the second year.' This is according to classi
cal usage. Theophrastus says of the Egyptian thorn, 'When it is cut
down, meta triton etos it sprouts again,' which Pliny (N. H., xiii: 9) rend
ers, 'caesa anno tei tio resurgit.' Demosthenes uses meth' hemeras duo
in the sense of 'two days after.' Cicero adopts it. Speaking to
Anthony of the Ides of March, on which Csesar was assassinated, he
says: ' I neither saw you that day, nor the day after, hutpost diem ter-
tium (the third day after) I came into the Temple of Tellus.' (Philip
pic, ii: 35.) Some learned commentators, such as Beza,' Grotius,
Campbell, Newcome, render such phrases, 'within three days,' etc.,
which certainly conveys the meaning, but is not the literal translation
of the preposition meta, after." (Hales, Vol. I, p. 21.)
For further proofs, see Home's Introd., Vol. II, P. 77.

50 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
ately explained this as meaning only "the third day" (ver, 64)
"That deceiver said while he was yet alive, after three days I will rise
again; command, therefore, that the sepulcher be made sure until the
third day." (So Gen. xiii: 17, 18.) Jesus himself once said (Mark
viii:3i), he would " after three days rise again." But we have just seen
that with the Jews ' ' after three days " or " three days after ' ' meant the
same as "the third day after." This further appears from I Kings xii:
5,12; II Chron. x:5,i2: "Come again unto me after three days," said
the king: " so they came on the third day as the king bade." Can any
thing be more certain than this determination of the case before us ?
But see also Luke ii:3i, with Lev. xii:3, where " eight days were, ac
complished " when it was only " the eighth day." (Compare Gen. xvii:
12.) See also John xx:26, where one week or "the eighth day after,"
is expressed as "after eight days." And see Lev. xxiii:i6, where "fifty
days ' ' means ' ' the fiftieth day ' ' or Pentecost; while ' ' the fiftieth year' '
(xxv: 10, ri) has but forty-eight full years between its successive occur
rences, — just as in the case before us, ' ' the third day " has but one full
day between its extreme days.
§ 64. In Matt. xii:4o, Christ says: "For as Jonah was three days
and three nights in the belly of the sea-monster, so shall the Son of
Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." This
is the one great stumbling block of those, who (in view of it) try to be
rid of Friday as the crucifixion date. There were parts of ' ' three days "
after the crucifixion, as we have seen; but where are the "three
nights? "it is asked. Answer: " Three days and three nights" was
only a colloquial phrase equivalent to three diurnal periods, and
the word nights contained in it had no special significance. ' So in Es
ther iv: 16, and v: 1. " Fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three
days night or day, I also and my maidens will fast likewise." And " on
the third day she put on her royal apparel," having finished the fast.
So also in I Sam. xxx:i2,i3, " He had eaten no bread nor drunk any
water three days and three nights," yet he immediately says, "the'
third day ago I fell sick," and was left thus to famish; (so the Hebrew
¦ should be rendered, as Scott observes). Here we find used the very
expression before us, "three days and three nights," applied to an af
fair which was only "on the third day " inclusive, as the Jews counted.
They spoke in round numbers, of the third day as counting three day-
night units.
I 65. But further: The Council of Caesarea, in A. D. 196, with its
renowned leader, Bishop Theophilus, thus decreed: " Passus namque
Dominus ab zi Kal. Apl. , qua node a Judaeis traditus est et ab 8. Kal
resunexit, quomodo ergo hi tres dies * * * intra termanum inducantur,'
etc. - "For our Lord suffered from the nth Kal, of Apl., in which
night he was betrayed, and rose the 8th Kal.; therefore those three

DEATH OF CHRIST 51
days (from betrayal to resurrection) must be included within the limit',
of allowable Easter days. We here see that the ancient fathers,
(though getting the month-date wrong) spoke of the "three days " of
Christ's passion as reaching from the Thursday "night on which he
was betrayed;" they seeming to understand thus the "three days and
three nights " during which he was "in the heart of the earth," or under
the dominion of death, as they appear to have interpreted it. Why is
not this a plausible explanation of Christ's fuller meaning ? Not that
he was to be entombed just so long, (the tomb was not even under
ground); but that he was to be overwhelmed under the world's will and
the sway of death for "three days and three nights" from Gethsem
ane to Resurrection — just as expressed in the typical swallowing up of
Jonah. I 66. But at any rate, this citation from the fathers proves that
the tradition of Friday as the crucifixion date, instead of being im
posed upon us by the later Romanism (as some allege), was the well-
established view of those earlier times (in the second century) — since
they reckoned but three days from the betrayal to the resurrection,
thus fixing the crucifixion on Friday. And other like testimonies
might be brought from the fathers.* There is no excuse whatever for
disturbing the time honored fact, so fully demonstrated that our Lord
died on Friday, the sixth day, of the Jewish week.
The surest proof of all is the astronomical demonstration. It is
now known beyond doubt (and generally agreed), that the year of
Christ's death was A. D. 30. Astronomy proves to us that the
New Moon of A. D. 30 was March 22nd at 7:30 p. m. Consequently,
the New Moon could not be observed and reported and the New Year
or ist Nisan made to begin before the sunset of March 24. This
makes the 14th Nisan to be on Friday, April 7th. And this lunar
assignment of the New Year must hold, whether it were made by
observation of the moon, or by a lunar cycle, which after use for some
time would necessarily (by aggregation of slight deficiency in all such
cycles) give later reckoning than the moon itself. (See \ 31.) And

* Justin Martyr (A. D. 140) expressly names Friday as the cruci
fixion day. (Schwartz.) His language is: "Sunday is the day on
which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day, on
which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter,
made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose
from the dead. For he was crucified on the day before that of Saturn
[Saturday] ; and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of
the sun, he appeared to his apostles." (Ant. Nic. Lib., Vol. II. p. 65,
66. See Bib. Sac, Oct. 1880, p. 665.) So early and so general an
establishment of Friday and Sunday as the dates (see § 56, note) must
be correct.

52 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
thus it is, that the Friday reckoning is the key to the whole New Test
ament chronology.
To assign the crucifixion as Wednesday, would put it on the 12th of
Nisan, .three days before the passover festival ! . To ascribe it to Thurs
day, is nearly as bad. Nothing can be plainer than that our Lord
was crucified on Friday, April 7th (Julian), and rose on Sunday, April
9th A. D. 30.

APPENDIX B.
(For $ 24.)
* The Jewish Months were Lunar.
2 67. Seyffarth .was one of the very few who have ventured to.
deny that the Jewish months were lunar. (Rec. Discov., p. 186.) How
little account we can make of his view, will appear from the fact, that
he makes the same denial concerning the Greeks, and substitutes
Julian reckoning in the Jewish Calendar! Following in the same line;
Jacob Schwartz, the learned librarian in New York City, comes for
ward (A. D. 1889), denying that the Jews had lunar months; and sub
stituting therefor a novel Calendar of his own device, to throw the
crucifixion (conceded to be in A. D. 30) upon the old Julian Equinox,
March 25! In disproof of these theories, see the full evidence of
Lunar reckoning in the Encyc. Brit., Art. Chronology.
The use of 30 day months at the flood, and in prophecy, is no dis
proof of lunar months (alternating 2g and 30 days) in the practical sys
tem of the Jewish code. This lunar system was evidently based upon
the commanded observance of "new-moon" festivals, .so obvious
throughout the Jewish scriptures. Lev. xxiii: 24; I Sam. xx: 5, 18; II
Ki. iv: 23; I Chron. xxiii: 31; II Chron. ii: 4, and xxxi: 3; Ezra iii: 5;
Neh. x: 33; Psa. Ixxxi: 3; Isa. i: 13, 14, and lxvi: 23; Ezek. xxxxv: 17,
and xxxxvi: 1, 3, 6; Amos.viii: 5; Hos. iii: n; Col. ii: 16. Hear also the
ancient writers:
(S-68. "Our fathers left Egypt on the 15th day of the lunar
month " tessara kai dekatee kata seleeneen, en Ario (in Aries) tou heelipu
kathestotos. (Josephus, Antiq. 2. xv: 2, and 3. x: 5.) The months
certainly were lunar in the times of Josephus and the New Testa
ment. .
' ' The passover, a public feast, was to be celebrated on the 14th
day, the moon's circle coming to be full-shining," tessara kai dekatee
heemera, mellontbs tou seleeniakou kuklou genesthai pleesiphaous.
(Philo. De Vita Mosis, p. 530.) Could anything be plainer than such
testimony? So also, Noumeenia gar orchetai photizein oistheeto to phezzi
ho heelios seleeneen, " for at the new month the sun starts to enlighten
the moon," etc. (id.)

DEATH OF CHRIST 53
So the Council of Csssarea, A. D. ig6. So also Anafolius, A. D. 287.
{See in Bede, and Hales.) "The law commands the passover to be
slain on the 14th by the moon." (Bede, cap. 47, p. 491.) So Proter-
ius, A. D. 457, " He rose on the 17th of the moon." (Migne, vol. 67,
P-507-) " The Greek Olympiads commenced at the full moon." (Jerome.)
The Greeks and other ancients proposed to have the months lunar
and the years solar, that the sacrifices might come always about the
same time of year, as more acceptable to the gods." (Geminus, the
great astronomer, about 240 B. C, in Euseb. II, p. 747.) "In proof
that the Greeks counted the days accurately according to the moon's
-age, note that the solar eclipses always happened on the 30th day of
their month, and the lunar at its middle." (Hales I, p. 24.) As the
Greeks then had lunar months, why not also the Jews?
To make plain the certainty that the Jewish months were lunar, we
here bring forward several express cases, all but the first cited by
Schwartz himself.
(1) April 7, A. D. 30, at the full moon, was certainly the crucifixion
passover, as assigned at an early date, being called " Pharmonti 25 "
of the rotary Egyptian year. See here, \ 3.
§69. (2) "In A. D. 26, there was an inscription at Berenike in
Egypt, in which the last day of the feast of Tabernacles is said to
have occurred on Paophi 25. The fixed Alexandrian Paophi begins
Sep. 28 [the fixed Thoth 1 being Aug. 29]'; so that the 25th is Oct.
22, hence 1 Tisri was Oct. 1." (J. Schwartz, Letter, Jan. 11, 1890.)
As the 7th month Tisri 1 began at sunset of Oct. 1, the ist month
Nisan 1 began 6 lunar months or.(29J4 X6=) 177 days before, at sunset
of April 7. This agrees exactly with the Greek Lunar Cycle (as ap
plied by the Jews, — see here,1 at § 28 note); thus, A. D. 26=Cy. yr. 14
(from B. C. 330 as yr. 1), epact or age of the moon 23 on (June 28 and)
March 31; giving 1 Nisan as beginning (30 — 23=) 7 days later on April
7, — the moon's conjunction itself being about two days before that.
The only question that can be raised is, whether " the last day of
the feast" on the inscription meant Tisri 21 or 22. The " Paophi
25" = Oct. 22 was Tisri 21 till sunset, after that Tisri 22. In any
case, Tisri 1 was Oct. 1 at sunset (as Schwartz concedes), till the sun
set of Oct. 2.
The "last day of the feast of tabernacles" was really Tisri 21;
for over and over we are told it was to last " seven days," viz., 15-21
inclusive. (Lev. xxiii: 6, 8, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42.) The "8th day"
mentioned in ver. 39 (and II Chron. vii: 8, 9, 10) was not considered a
day of the feast. " The feast of tabernacles, strictly so-called, is sup
posed to have continued only 7 days, during which all the Israelites
dwelt in booths. The ' 8th day ' is thought to have been an additional

54 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
festival — of thanksgiving — celebrated in their own houses." (Scott's
Com.) This extra 8th day (the 22nd) Solomon lengthened (on the 23d)
into full 7 days. extra in dedication of the temple. (II Chron. vii: 9,
10.) At any rate, "the 8th day " as Tisri 22 began in the year A. D.
26 on " Paophi 25 " or Oct. 22, in agreement with the inscription. It
may even have begun at the sunset before, if observation instead of
the cycle were then in use. In either case, the months are proved to
have been certainly lunar.
§70. (3) "In A. D. 70, Josephus says, the temple was burnt
on Lous 8 (= Sat. Aug. 5) — the 5th Macedonian month;— and the city
was captured on Gorpieus 8, the 6,th Macedonian month. The tradi
tion of the Jews and the express testimony of Roman historians (Dio
for one) make them both Saturdays." (Schwartz' Letter.)
As Josephus calls the 5th Jewish month Ab by its Macedonian name
Lous, on what Roman date does he here put its 8th day ? That year
A. D. 70 was (like the year 32) year 1 of the Lunar Cycle (from B. C.
330), with epact o on March 31, June 28, and August 26. Therefore,
the 6th lunar month began at sunset of August 26, and the 5th lunar
month began at sunset of July 27; so that, the 8th day of the 5th month
ended at sunset on August 4 of that year, A. D. 70; which was Satur
day, as the tradition requires (not Saturday, August 5, as Schwartz
has it).
i_i For, by the week-day rule (at I 40 note), — A. D. 70-H28 leaves 14,
wh. -;- 7 leaves 0 + 3 (in the previous 14)= 3 days to be added to Sun.
-=Wed. Mar. o, A. D. 70 + (Mar. 31 +30 + 31 + 30 + 31 + Aug. 4=)
157 days s- 7 leaves 3d + Wed. = Saturday, Aug. 4, A. D. 70.
We thus see, that the Jewish reckoning was certainly by the lunar
months; and that the Jewish tradition rightly has the burning of the
temple on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday, Lous or Ab 8, A. D. 70).
But the destruction of the city could not be also on the Sabbath, if the
" Gorpieus 8 " is correct; for the intervening whole month cannot thus
be reduced to even weeks.
$ 71. (4) "Pompey captured the city in the 3d ecclesiastical
month, Sivan 23, a fast day, and a Saturday, as Dio testifies, in 64 B.
C." (Schwartz' Letter.) He adds, "In a lunar year the 23d day of
Sivan would fall on June 21, in B. C. 64." That is right. For, this B.
C. 64 and the A. D. 70 (just considered) are exactly 133 years apart, or
7 lunar cycles; so that, by the cycle, 1 Nisan began in both years alike.
That is, in this year 1 of the cycle, with epact o on Mar. 31, the 1
Nisan began at sunset on March 31. Therefore, 1 Sivan, 59 days later,
began May 29, and 23 Sivan ended at sunset on Saturday June 21, B.
C. 64, as "the fast day."
We find it to be Saturday by the rule (at § 40 note), thus: B. C. 64
— 1 — 63 -s- 28 leaves 7, which -*- 7 leaves o, to which we add 1 (for the

DEATH OF CHRIST 55
i four in the 7), and add 1 more (for the rest of the 7), making 2 days
before Sunday, i. c. Friday, March o, B- C. 64.. Then, March 31 +
April 30 + May 31 + June 21 = 113 days -*- 7 leaves 1 after Friday, Mar.
o, making Saturday, June 21, B. C. 64. The Jewish months are thus
proved to have been lunar.
(5) " Judas' defeat of Nicanor on Adar 13 (1 Mac. vii: 43) = March
12, B. C. 161; which was a Sunday, as plainly appears by 2 Mac, xv: 1,
37." (Schwartz' Letter.) It was at least soon after the Saturday Sab
bath, in the I52d year Seleucic (see 1 Mac. vii: 1) i. c. in B. C. 160 (not
161), when Adar 13 was Feb. 24 by the Lunar Cycle. For, that was
cycle year 19, epact 18 on March 31; i. e., 1 Nisan beginning Mar. 13 =
Adar 30, so that Adar, 13 = Feb. 24, — which was Sunday.
We know it was Sunday thus: B. C. 160 — 1 = 159-;- 28 leaves 19,
which -4-7 leaves 5+4+1 more, making 10 or 3 days before Sunday, i.
e., Thursday, Mar. o, B. C. 160. So that we have Sunday, Feb. 24,
B. C. 160. Thus the months were lunar.
\ 72. (6) ' ' The capture of the first temple by Nebuchadnezzar
was on Ab 8, according to the Jewish traditions; and they claim that
this was a Saturday." (Schwartz' Letter.) That is, it was supposed
to be the day after the coming, 2 Ki. xxv: 8. We have elsewhere
proved that it was in the year B. C. 587 (not 588 or 586 as often given).
Josephus says, that Titus' burning of the temple was "the same month
and day" as that of Nebuchadnezzar, viz. "Lous (or Ab) 8," when
the burning began, ( War 6, iv: I, 2, 8) though the burning continued
till "Lous or Ab 10," (<J 5).
B. C. 5871s 616 years before A. D. 30, or 8 years over 32 of the 19
year cycles. Those 8 years carry the months back two days; (see
epact o or 30 changed to 28 after 8 years, n changed to 9, etc., — in the
list of epacts, § 28 note.) So that, 1 Nisan in B. C. 587 began by
cycle March 22, instead of the March 24 (at sunset) in A. D. 30. But
if the cycle when Meton put it forth (in B. C. 432) agreed nearly with
the moon, it would in B. C. 587 be nearly a day before the new moon.
Therefore, that year, instead of 1 Nisan begun on March 22, the new
moon itself was not until March 23; and (going then only by observa
tion) they began the new year, 1 Nisan, two days after, at sunset of
March 25. This made the 8th of Ab (the 5th month) begin at sunset
of Friday, July 28, and Saturday, July2g, B. C. 587, was the Ab 8, on
which' tradition puts the destruction of the temple.
We know it was Saturday thus: B. C. 587—1=586-^-28 leaves 26,
which -i-7 leaves 5+6+1 more, making 12 or 5 days before Sunday, i. e.,
Tuesday March o, B. C. 587. Then March 31+April 30+May 31
+June 30+July 29=151^-7 leaves 4 days after Tuesday, Mar. o, mak
ing Saturday, July 29, B. C. 587; Thus the months were lunar.
Indeed, B. C. 587+A. D. 30=616 years, which contain just 22 solar

56 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
cycles of 28 years each. And July 29— March 25=126 days, or just
even weeks after March 25. Therefore, as March 25, A. D. 30, was
Saturday, so the July 29, B. C. 587, was Saturday also (on the 8th day
of the 5th lunar month Ab).
And the tradition cited is thus found to be well grounded, that the
temple was burned this time also upon the Jewish Sabbath; while the
year date B. C. 587 is thus also verified, as the fundamental or start
ing, date for the whole Old Testament Chronology.
All the foregoing dates, therefore, go to prove demonstratively, that
the Jews employed lunar months all through their history. At the
same time they show, that, in the later centuries at least, they had
their months beginning about two days after the new moon conjunc
tion; in accordance with the lunar cycle, confirming our demonstra
tion of the crucifixion date as on the 14th Nisan, or Friday, April 7,
A. D. 30.

APPENDIX C.
(For §31.)
Ancient Lunar Cycles.

I 73. Although Calippus used June 28 (or its equivalent) as his
solstitial standard day for the lunar epacts, as we have seen, yet
Meton before him had more correctly, assigned June 27 (or its
equivalent) as his standard summer solstice.
" Meton observed the summer solstice to be, in this year B. C. 432,
on the 21st day of the Egyptian month Phamenoth, which reduced to
the Julian year falls on the 27th of June. And therefore the Greeks
having received the cycle from him, did, from this time forward, cele
brate their Olympiads on the first full moon after the 27th day of our
June; beginning their year from the new moon preceding." (Prideaux,
Connex, Vol. I. p. 409.)
This was a correct placing of the solstice; since, by our exact
reckoning, the solstice in B. C. 433 was on June 27- at 4 A. m. at Green
wich, or 5}^ a. m. in Greece, — and in B. C. 432 it was on June 27 at
10 a. m. at Greenwich, or n>£ a. m. in Greece. Thenceforward, it was
found necessary to add a day from time to time to the Egyptian date
of the solstice, making the Phamenoth 21 to become Phamenoth 22,
and then 23, etc., to keep their solstice day right in that rotary year of1
Egypt. But this was done irregularly, the exact length of a solar or
equinoctial year not being then understood; so that a day was added
sometimes in 3 years, sometimes in 5 years, two days being sometimes
added when there was too long delay.

DEATH OF CHRIST 57
After ioo years, Calippus found that 25 days in all had been
inserted, carrying the solstice to Pharmonti 16; therefore he judged
that about 1 day in each 4 years'was the right change required. And he
deemed it expedient to establish a rule of change with his improved
cycle, viz., that at each return ofthe Olympic games (in B. C. 332, 328,
324, etc.) the solstice should be considered as havingmoved 1 day later
in the Egyptian year. He thus got in an extra day-change at B. C.
432, making 26 days added since Meton (instead of the correct 25), and
carrying the solstice from Phamenoth 21 to Pharmonti 17 (instead of
the right 16); which Pharmonti 17 in ,B. C. 330 (his cycle year 1) was
June 28 Julian, instead of Meton's more correct solstice June 27.
\ 74. Thus the standard solstitial date of the Greeks became from'
that time equivalent to June 28 Julian, although June 27 had been
started by Meton 100 years before, as the more correct solstice date.
Calippus found the mean new moon of that B. C. 330 to be on that
very Pharmonti 17 ( = June 28 Julian) at 3 % p. m. in Greece. And
therefore, he called that B. C. 330 year 1 of his 76-year cycle (4 of the
19's), with epact o, or no age of the month on June 28. (See here,
S30.) Meton, having epact o on June 27 (as really year 1 of his ig-year
cycle), while the new moon — by our exact mean reckoning — was June
26 at 2 p. u. at Greenwich, or 3)^ P. M. in Greece, — we see that he had
the months, from the very start, beginning a day after the mean new
moon, as if assigned by observation. The next year, B. C. 432, was
really. year 2 of his cycle, with epact 11, showing the month n days
old on June 27; so that, another new month that year would begin after
(30 — 11=) ig days from June 27, viz., on July 16.
But most writers call this year, B. C. 432, the beginning of Meton's
cycle, as if he had the epacts n, 22, 3, &c, instead of the o, n, 22,
&c, of Calippus. And they put its beginning at the new month July
16, B. C. 432, instead of the new month June 27, B. C. 433.* But this
throws the Olympic full moon too long after the Solstice, or has an
intercalary month at the very 1 of the cycle, which is not at all likely.
After 5 cycles of Meton, or gs years from B. C. 433, the year B. C.
338 was a proper year 1 of Meton's cycle. -But Calippus interposed an
8-year cycle, making his cycle year 1 to be B. C. 330. That inter-

*The Edinburgh Encyc. says: "The cycle of Meton was adopted
July 16 B.C. 433 [432]." Herschel's Astron. tells us: "The Metonic
cycle (astronomical epact) began July 15, B. C. 432. The civil epoch
of it was 1 day later than the astronomical, the latter being the epoch
of the absolute new moon, the former that of the earliest possible visi
bility of the lunar crescent in a tropical sky." The Chronology of
History says: "The beginning of the Metonic cycle was July 15, B. C.
432-"

58 new test, period g
posed 8-year cycle increased the epact of B. C. 330 by 2 days from 28
to 30 or o; but being applied to June 28, instead of the previous June
27, it was really an increase, of only 1 day in the age of the month,
into nearer agreement with the actual age of the moon. And that was
probably one reason why the Calippic change was introduced. For, ,
in that year, B. C. 330, the mean new moon was on June 28, at 3^
p. m: in Greece; i. e., on the very day of epact o, instead of a whole
day before, as in the case of Meton.
§ 75. Assuming that, at or after the time of Meton and Calippus,
the Jews used a ig-year cycle, they, of course, would apply it to the
equinox, not (as did the Greeks) to the solstice. Considering Meton's
solstice as correct (equivalent to June 27), and regarding the equinoxes
as gi days (or one-quarter of the year) before and after that date
(equivalent to March 28 and Sep. 26), in applying the cycle at first (for
fixing their civil year) to the autumnal equinox as Sep. 26, the Jews
would have their epacts 2 larger than those of Calippus (1 larger in
part of the cycle), because the 91 days (from June 27 to Sep.. 26) were
-l1/z day more than the three lunations (89^ days).
This was adding another 8-year cycle to Calippus, as he added an
8-year cycle to Meton. And now, calling epact n (instead of o) the
epact of the cycle year 1, the Jews had their year 1 (twice 8+1 or) 17
years later than that of Meton, as if in B. C. 416 (instead of 433). So
that year 1 of their cycle was the same as year 18 of" Meton. And in
this shape they have it to this date. For, the "Jewish Lunar Cycle,"
as given in o.ur Almanacs and as found in the Calendars of the Modern
Jews, has year 1 as A. D. 1884, i. e., B. C. 17, and A. D. 3, and 22,
etc., with its year 9 at A. D. 30, etc. When the Jews used the cycle
to assign the -vernal new year, they had simply to take 5 from each
autumnal epact, and apply the remainder to their vernal equinox.
March 28; because the 182 days (or two 91 's) from Sep. 26 back to
March 28 were 5 days more than the 6 intervening lunations (6 times,
29^ or) 177 days.
Thus the epact 9 in year 10 of Calippus' cycle became autumnal
epact n in year 1 of the Jewish cycle, or, used vernally ( — 5) epact 4
as the age of the month on March 28, with 1 Nisan consequently
beginning at sunset of March 24 in A. D. 30. And so, by cycle reckon
ing (as well as by observation), whether the cycle were that of Calip
pus, applied at March 31, or a modified form of it, as the Jewish Lunar
Cycle, handed down to our times with (+2—5=) 3 less epact applied to
the old equinox, March 28, in either case, the Jews had 1 Nisan
beginning about 2 days after the new moon; i. e., at sunset of March
24 in A. D. 30, the year of crucifixion. (As to the lunar reckoning of
Julius Caesar,, see afterwards, in Appendix D.)
\ 76. The Council of Nice (in A. D. 325) reduced the standard day

DEATH OF CHRIST

for epacts from the old Greek, June 28, or Mar. 31 (as used by the
Jews) down to March 22, as the day after the true equinox then
(March 21), and as the earliest date allowable in the paschal term.
This loss of nine days (from Mar. 31 to 22) in applying the epacts
required a -corresponding reduction of the epacts by 9. But the cycle
error of two days (in the more than 600 years since Calippus) being
allowed for, the reduction would be seven days. They in fact reduced
the epacts but six days, and so over-corrected the cycle, carrying their
new months one day before the new-moons. This they did, perhaps,
in order, to anticipate further error of the cycle— which they foresaw
would accrue. But, in order to have year 1 of the cycle still at epact o,
this reduction of six days required them to move along the cycle six
years; so that, its year 1 came where the .year 7 of Calippus came,
viz., at B. C. 1 instead of' B. C. 7 (and before in B. C. 330). Thus the
year 1, or "Golden Number" 1, of the Nicene cycle was A. D. 323,
when the mean new moon was March 23.*
And thus have we the Nicene Lunar Cycle (still in use as the
Golden Number, with year 1 at B. C. 1), three years earlier and greater
than the Jewish Lunar Cycle (with year 1 at A. D. 3). And it had,' at
the start, its year 1 or A. D. 323, with epact o on March 22, o?ie day
¦ before the mean new moon of March 23.
I 77. In the lapse of time, the equinox so went down in the Julian
year, that in the 17th century the standard March 22 (or day after the
equinox) had reached March 12; and pope Gregory droppeel ten days,
throwing it back to be March 22 again: But meanwhile, the mean
new-moon had moved along in the Julian year (at the rate of one day
in 310 years) to be nearly five days earlier at cycle-year 1, viz., on
March 18, Julian, instead of the March 23 — i. e., on March 28 of the
new Gregorian dating. So that, if March 22 were still used for apply
ing the epacts, they would now make the months begin (28 — 22=) six
days too soon. Hence it was concluded, to apply the epacts no longer
to March 22, but to March 30, or (what was the same thing) to January
1, the modern New Year, just three lunations before.
§ 78. But as the mean new moon of Cycle-year t was at March 28
(as just seen), this putting of its epact o as at March 30 (or January 1)
was making the months begin with March 31, or three days after the
mean new moon. However, the Gregorian loss of another day at

* For, A. D. 1855—323=1532 years X 365/^=559.563 days and 18,948
lunations X 2gd.5305885=559545d. 591 (or ^h+i-Mfh acceleration— 15^
hours trom the 55g,563 days=i7d 8Xh+the mean new moon in A. D.
1855, viz., March 6, Julian, at 8% a. m. at Rome=the mean new-moon
in A. D. 323, on March 23, at \% p. m. at Rome (G. N. 1, epact o, on
March 22). /

<30 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
A. D. i7oo,f carried the new moon of March 28 (in Cycle-year.i) up to
be March 2g, making the last century to have the cycle months begin
ning but two days after the mean new-moon. And the loss of another
day at A. D. 1800, parried the new moon (in cycle-year 1) up to be
March 30, making the present century have the cycle months begin
ning but one day after the mean new moon. 1 So that when, directly,
A. D. 1900 shall have lost to us still another day, the next century
will have the cycle months beginning just about with the mean new-
moon. In other words, the Gregorian loss of 12 days now reached offset
by 5 full days correction of the lunar cycle (in 1873—325 = 1550 yrs -=-
310), has left 7 days change of epact needed, from the new moon of
Mar. 23, A. D. 323, to the new moon of Mar. 30, now (in cycle yr.i);
so that our present' putting of epact o (in cycle year 1) on Mar. 30 or
Jan. 1, gives the lunar months as beginning but a single day after the
mean new moon.
g 79. Comparative View of -Ancient Cycles and Epacts.
Year B. C. 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 i I 1234

Metonic, June 27  *o 11 22 3 14 25 6 17 28 9 20 1 12 23 4
Callippic, June 28  1 12 23 4 15 26 7 18, Po 11 22 3 14 25 6
Jewish, Sep. 26  3 14 25 6 17 28 9 20 1 12 23 4 15 26 7
Jewish, Mar. 28  28 9 20 1 12 23 4 15 26 7 18 o 11 22 3
, Nicene -j K"',.22  25 6 17 28 9 20 1 12 23 4 15 26 7 18 *o
Golden Number  •- . . 678 9 10 n 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 *i
*Beginning of the cycles — Metonic, Callipic, Nicene, Jewish.

15 26
17 28
18 0 *
14 25

7 18
9 20
11 22
*6 17

II 22

3 14

2 3

4- 5

APPENDIX D.
(For §48.)
Was the Crucifixion on the 14TH or the 15TH Nisan ?
§ 80. There has always been going on an earnest and elaborate
debate, as to the question, on which of the Jewish days Christ was
crucified, on the 14th of Nisan, the day of slaughtering the paschal
lambs, or on the 15th of Nisan, the first festival day of the passover.
Centuries ago this question was agitated, and every year or two in this
f As England then dropped the eleven days just=a year's change of
the lunar epacts, "the Gregorian epact for any year was the same
with the Julian epact for the year preceding it." (Chambers' Cyc).
X Thus, in A. D. 1855, the Almanacs give the Golden Number (or
Nicene cycle-year) as 13, with epact 12, i. e., with the lunar month i2d
old on January 1, making it 3od old (or epact o) of the next lunar
month on (30—12=) i8d after, or January ig; whereas, that mean new
moon was January 18, at 6 a. m'., as we saw.

DEATH OF CHRIST Gt
*
century there appears a labored discussion and alleged determination
qf the matter one way or the other. This debate excites the more in
terest because the gospel of John seems to be all written in favor of the
14th day, and the other three gospels are thougbt to support the 15th
day as the date of crucifixion.
Sceptical critics of Scripture love to harp upon these appearances
of collision between the gospels, and to array the one against the
others in alleged proof of the unreliability of the history. It is worth
our while, therefore, to inquire if there is any plain and plausible ex
planation of the seeming discrejpancy. A new elaboration of the sub
ject, just appearing (from Prof. Whitford, Outlook, October, i8g2),
emboldens us to present the following view, which we have long enter
tained: § 81. The Jewish months were lunar, and they felt obliged by the
Mosaic law carefully to conform their new year and their months to the
successive returns ofthe new moon, so that the sacred festival's should
come at the very times divinely appointed, and the passover feast and
the feast of tabernacles should be at the full moon or 15th day' of their
respective months. Now, the 15th Nisan1 would not thus come cor
rectly at the full moon, unless that first month should be started prop
erly soon after the new moon of the new year appeared.
In order thus to start the year right, in all their earlier history, the
rulers had an artless method of announcing annually the arrival of the
new year's new moon, as seen by careful observation within a. day or
two after the change. Whoever first caught sight of the new moon
was rewarded for reporting it to the authorities, and the order was at
once issued by the Sanhedrim fixing and starting 1 Nisan on its way,
while bonfires lighted on the hills spread at once the news of the new
year begun. (See here § 25.) This was a rude method of early times,
and would, of course, give way to simpler and surer ways of in
augurating the year, as knowledge of the movements of the heavenly
- bodies advanced.
In B. C. 432 Meton gave to the Greeks the wonderful Lunar Cycle
of ig years, each year having set to it an Epact, or moon's age, on a
fixed starting or standard date (the day of the summer solstice). So
that the commencement of each lunar year was known by'the simple
Epact number of that year, and after ig years the same succession re
turns over again, with only a slight departure from perfect accuracy,
there being only a deviation from the exact new moon of one day in 310
years. This cycle of the Greeks was still further perfected by Calippus in
B, C. 330, which was made year i,of a 76-year period or four-fold re
turn of the 19-year cycle. In that year B. C. 330 (cycle year 1) the
mean new moon was June 28 at 1% p. m., and so that day, June 28,,

62 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
then taken as the day of the summer solstice (see Appendix C, § 74) was
a suitable starting point for the Epact or age of the moon each year..
Thus B. C. 330, as cycle year 1, had Epact o, i. e., no age of the moon
on June 28; B. C. 329 as cycle year 2 had Epact n, i. e., moon 11 days
old on June 28; next year 3, Epact 22, and so on, the Epact increasing
11 days each year, with 30 days dropped whenever reached; until the
20th year as again year 1 brought Epact 29, called o by a " saltus "
here of 1 day to keep the cycle right.
§ 82. This Greek 19-year cycle proved such a convenience that
Julius Csesar, in reforming the Roman Calendar, B. C. 46, established
his new year at Jan. 1, B. C. 45, purposely located on the day of the
new moon; so tbat this year being year 1 of the cycle (because 15 times
19=285 years from B. C. 330=B. C. 45), — the Epact of this year should
beo, z. e., no age of the moon on Jan. 1. The next year as cycle year
2 would thus have Epact n (or moon 11 days old on Jan. 1), the next
year or cycle year 3, Epact 22; next year, Epact 33—30=3, etc.
In thus accurately fixing his Jan. 1, at the new moon, Julius had
corrected out the 1 day of error, that had (in 310 years) accumulated in
the Greek cycle. For the 178 days from their summer solstice
reckoned as June 28, back to January 1, was one day more than the 6
lunations or 177 days that intervened. So that, changing the stand
ard date for applying the Epacts from June 28, not to January 2 or 177
days earlier, but to January 1 or 178 days earlier, with the same
Epacts applied; — was really increasing all the Epacts 1 day; which
was just what the error of the Greek cycle after that length of time
required. § 83. Now the Jewish nation could not escape from these improve
ments of their times, in the methods of determining the lunar new years.
And they had their choice in our Savior's time, whether to use the
original Greek cycle, or to use the later corrected Roman cycle of
Julius. It is not at all likely that they would, after becoming intimate
(as they were) with the Greek language and learning, and with the
Roman government and control, and after seeing therefore the simple
and sure method they had of knowing when the lunar year began, — it
is not at all likely, that they would confine themselves to the old rude
way of waiting for observation. But they would naturally learn
how, by the cycle, to determine the new year beforehand, and have it
known all over the land, without the need of bonfires to spread the
news. But which would they follow, the Greek or the Roman reckon
ing, differing (we see) by one day ?
A Jewish application of the cycles would work thus: The Greek
Epacts applied to June 28, would apply with equal accuracy to March
31, just three lunations earlier. But the Roman Epacts (the same in
value) applied to Jan. 1, would apply with equal accuracy to March o

DEATH OF CHRIST 03
or March 30, just two or three lunations later. The question was,
which should they do? Should they with the Greeks apply the
Epacts to March 31, or should they with the Romans apply the same
Epacts (o, n, 22, 3, etc.) one day earlier at Mar. 30 ?
For instance, in A. D. 30; the year of Christ's crucifixion, which
was the year 18 of the cycle, ( because the year A. D. 32 is 361 years
or just 19 times 19 years after B. C. 330, and therefore the same cycle
year 1), the Epact was 7. Which, if applied Greek-wise to March 31,
made 1 Nisan to be March 25, and the 14th Nisan to be Friday, April
7th as the crucifixion day; but if applied Roman-wise to March 30, the
same Epact 7 made 1 Nisan to be March -24, and the 13th Nisan to be
Friday, April 7th, as the crucifixion day. Which was it ? Here is
the whole question of the ages condensed before us.
\ 84. The Jewish rulers could but see that the Roman dating
(having been corrected a day) was the more accurate, giving 1 Nisan
as soon as the moon could anyway appear; while the Greek dating put
1 Nisan when the moon was two days old. But then the Greek
method was the older and better known, perhaps long used by the
Jews before Julius' method was known. And then again, the Jews
had a prejudice against adopting the ways of their Roman conquerors,
while the Greeks had a great influence over them. Says Neander,
(Chh. Hist., Vol.1 p. 50), concerning those times: "In the course of
those centuries (from Alexander the Great) the peculiar asperity and
stiffness of the Jewish character must have been considerably tem
pered by intercourse with the Greeks. * * * The Jews (in Alexan
dria), completely imbued with the elements of Hellenic culture, en
deavored to find a mean betwixt these and the religion of their
fathers." Of course, then, the Sanhedrim would more naturally
follow the old Greek reckoning of the lunar year, even though not
quite so exact as the more modern Roman way, especially as the later
Greek dating agreed nearer with rough observation of the moon. And
so they had their months and their passovers really one day too late.
And yet, this would not be without remonstrance of some among
the people, of those most intelligent and least prejudiced against the
Romans, and most anxious to conform to the strict time assignments of
the law, — a characteristic of the Saducces, and of the later sect of
Caraites. Perhaps there were disputes, when the new moon was
sometimes so long before 1 Nisan was allowed to come, — questioning
whether the new year and the passover ought not to be a day sooner.
And, perhaps our Savior purposely allowed himself to sanction that
earlier and more correct date for the passover (well understood, it may
be, by the disciples), by celebrating his anti-typical passover on the
evening beginning the Sanhedrim's 14th Nisan (which was really the true
15th Nisan, if rightly numbered), in ordef himself to be put to death as

64 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
" the Lamb of God " next day, at the hour when they slaughtered the
Lambs. (See §48, note.)
5 85. The law allowed the keeping of the passover out of its regu
lar time (in the 2nd month instead of the ist) when necessity required
(Num. ix: 10, 11); and Hezekiah availed himself of this privilege (2
Chron. xxx: 2, 3, 15). The present Jewish traditions allow a duplicate
day in special cases for a new moon or other observance. And who
shall say, that the slaying of paschal lambs " between the evenings "
of the 14th Nisan (Ex. xii: 16) might not at times be construed as per
mitting such paschal observance in the beginning of 14th Nisan, be
tween its own initial evening and the evening of the 15th following it ?
There seems at Acts ii: 1, an intimation of such a double reckon
ing of the feast days that year. "When the Day of Pentecost was
fully come," Revis. marg., "was being fulfilled;" as if there had been
an initial day claimed by some for the festival, but the official date was
waited for.
The three first evangelists, writing earlier, when the dispute about
days was in mind, and when most likely (as a result of the dispute) the
newer and more correct cycle reckoning had come into use, took pains
to say, that Christ commanded paschal preparations to be made on the
correct 14th Nisan "when the passover must be killed," (ought to be
killed, or was due to be killed, Lu. xxii: 7); so that it was really a true
and legal passover that Christ observed, not a sham passover as some
might claim. Whereas, John, writing long afterward, When such
trifles were lost sight of, emphasized rather the fact, >that Christ was
sacrificed as "the Lamb of God," at the very hour of the Jews' 14th
Nisan when they were slaying the lambs. (John i: 31, etc.)
5 86. If we are asked, then, on which day Christ died, the 14th or
the 15th Nisan of the movable lunar year, our answer is: He died
on what everybody knew to be, and what he treated as being, the
proper 15th Nisan,— but on what was by edict of the Sanhedrim the
official (though incorrect) 14th Nisan of the Jews that year, which thus
has become the historical date of the crucifixion.
The work of Chs. Ed. Caspari (Hamburg, 1869), well proves this
date, A. D. 30, April 7, Friday, the 14th of Nisan. (Bib. Sacra., July,
, 1871, p. 469.)
The lately discovered apocryphal "Gospel of Peter," understood
to have been written about A. D. 150, testifies that the crucifixion was
not on the feast day but on the day before. For it tells of Herod as
speaking to Pilate about the burial of Jesus, and saying, "Already
the Sabbath draws on; and it is written in the law, that the sun must
not go down upon a person put to death on the day before their feast,
the feast of unleavened bread." This shows the opinion entertained'
upon this subject in those early days.

DEATH OF CHRIST 65
"They crucified him on the day before the feast of the passover."
(Babylonian Gemara, Tract. Sanhedrim, Fol. 43. In Bib. Sac, Oct.,
1868, p. 742.) "The Talmud places the crucifixion on Nisan 14th."
(Schwartz.) In Mark xv: 21, and Luke xxiii: 26, "Simon the Cyrenian" was
"coming out of the field," — so the word (agros) is- commonly trans
lated in other passages. And this would not be likely. if that, crucifix
ion day was the 15th Nisan, the day of festival rest. (So says
Schwartz.) That the supper which our Lord ate with his disciples, was in an
ticipation of the passover eaten by the Jews the next evening, and that
this was probably occasioned by a diverse reckoning of the lunar date,
has been suggested by several writers; though none have given the ex
plicit form to the thought which we have exhibited above. Hales gives
this view in general, and Farrar in his life of , Christ mentions it.
Cudworth gave a distinct form to the theory, saying: _ "If after [the
later assigning of the new moon] reputable witnesses came from far,
and testified that they had seen the new moon in its. due time, the
Senate [Sanhedrim] were bound to alter the beginning of the month,
and reckon it a day sooner. As the Senate were very unwilling to be
at the trouble of a second consecration when they had once fixed on a
wrong day, ... .they afterwards made a statute to this effect, 'That
whatever time the Senate should conclude on for the calends of the
month, though it were certain that they were in. the wrong, yet all
were bound to order their feasts according to it.' " This is what Cud
worth gathered from the Babylonish Talmud and from Maimonides;
and he supposed that this was what actually took place in the time of
our Lord; showing from Epiphanius, that there was contention
(thorubos), a tumult among the Jews, about the passover that very
year. (See Prof. Townsend's Notes on the Gospels,. p. 158.)
I 87. Rev. J. K. Aldrich (in the Bib. Sacra, July 1870, p. /418)
adopts this view; but he errs (as we think) in making Christ's earlier
15th Nisan begin on Wednesday at sunset, with, Christ crucified on
Thursday as the 14th day of the Sanhedrim. His ground for it is the
allegation of " Roger Bacon, Manne and .Scaliger, Dodwell and Fer
guson," that the paschal full moon that, year, A. D. 30, was on
Wednesday. We have shown the folly of such random astronomical
assignments (here at g 17-22), and have demonstrated (at § 41) that
the full moon was not till Thursday night at 9 p. m, of April 6 in A. D.
30. So that all this Wednesday reckoning of our Lord's supper falls
to the ground; and with it the whole theory pf a Thursday crucifixion.
The early churches of the 2nd century, divided on the question,
whether the crucifixion and resurrection (or Easter) should be cele
brated always on Friday and on Sunday, as they occurred in the week,
: '" '''"'""' I--V -,:
..(..'': '¦'•'

66 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
or always on the 14th and 16th Nisan, as they occurred in the lunar
mb'tith. The western churches contended for Friday and Sunday and
at last prevailed, giving us Easter as (we have it now; the eastern
churches, more influenced by Jewish ideas, long adhered to the 14th
and 10th of the Jewish month as their Easter dating. They were
therefore called " quartadecimani," which shows that the later claims
of the 15th Nisan as crucifixion day had not then arisen. Neander
(Vol. I, p. 298,) finally comes to this conclusion.
As we have shown that the crucifixion was on Friday the 14th
Nisan of the Jews, it follows that the day of " First Fruits " (the 16th
Nisan " the morrow after the Sabbath " (Lev. xxiii: 11), was on Sun
day, the morning of "first fruits " and of Christ's resurrection; veri
fying the words cf Paul (I Cor. xv:. 20, 23), that Cbrist rose as." the
firstfruits of them that slept " ; even as he. also says (I Cor. v: 7),
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," having died at the very hour
when the passover lambs were slain. There can be no doubt that the
apostle in these passages is indicating how closely Christ the antitype
occupied the place and the time of the types, as a paschal " Lamb " ,
slain and as the " First Fruits" of harvest. So that here we have a
convincing p.rdo*f that our chronological reckoning, in agreement with
all church tradition, is right.
Moreover, it follows that the day of Pentecost, just 7 weeks after
the day of first fruits (on "the morrow after the 7th Sabbath," Lev.
xxiii: 15, 16), was on Sunday, the first day of the week; thus, by the
outpoured Spirit, sanctifying and affirming that, as the newly estab
lished " Lord's Day " of the Christian church. This is in accordance
with all the early traditions. These valuable facts are lost to us by
the theory that Friday was the 15th Nisan as the day before "first
fruits," §6o, (the day of crucifixion as held by Weiseler, the day
after crucifixion as held by Aldrich.)*
I 88. It only remains to notice the passages, which are cited from
the gospels as proving a discrepancy, in the opinion of Tholuch and
others. John's gospel plainly assigns the Lord's Supper to the night
before the Jews ate the passover. (John xiii: 1, 2, and xviii: 28, and
xix: 14, 31, etc.) But the other three gospels (at Mat. xxvi: 17, Mark
xiv: 12, Luke xxii: 7) seem as if teaching that the Lord's Supper was in
the very night of the Jews' passover. The appearance of discrepancy,
however, is unduly magnified. What Matthew says (xxvi: 20), when
exactly rendered, is not that Jesus sat down with the twelve "when the
even was come, ' but simply "it being evening (opsias genomenees) he
*The Bib. Sacra, April, 1894 (p. 33g), by rejecting the 16th day
theory '(§59), retains "Christ the first fruits" on Sunday as the
17th of Nisan; but, by thus putting the crucifixion Friday on the 15th
of isisan; it fails to make " Christ our passover sacrificed, for us."

DEATH OF CHRIST 67
sat down with the twelve." (Mark, "in the evening he cometh;"
Luke, " when the hour was come.") It was late in the evening; and
the evening may have been going on all the while from the first men
tion of preparation till the sitting down.
Hence Luke xxii: 7, "Then came the day of unleavened bread,
when the passover must be killed," need not mean (as usually as
sumed) "then come the day-time of the 14th Nisan," but rather,
" Then came (or was coming on) the evening or first part of the Jews'
14th Nisan, during which day (usually in its last hours qf sunlight)
the passover would be killed." The disciples may have started at sun
set of Thursday, and easily made ready in two or three hours; since
Jesus had evidently arranged things beforehand, and told them they
would find the room "furnished and prepared." Even a lamb killed
early in the evening of the 14th Nisan would be "between the two even
ings " of that day, and might be thought legal in emergency; or they
may have dispensed with the lamb, making this only a preparatory
supper, to be completed (the disciples thought) the next night. The
message sent to the owner of the house shows a forestalling of tne
feast: " Say unto him, the Master saith, My time [for the passover]
is at hand. I make it with thee." In this view of the case discrep
ancy disappears, and both Jesus and the Jews have the same 14th
Nisan. §89. Mark Christ's language at the table (Luke xxii: 15): "With
desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer," —
not that I am actually eating the full passover, but I have earnestly
desired to eat it. As if to say: " I have so earnestly desired this op
portunity of establishing the Lord's Supper in place of the passover
that I have taken pains by anticipation to get you around this table
before I die, (as die I must to-morrow, though you know it not); — not
indeed eating the full desired passover with the Jews, but substituting
for it a better memorial of my death. My strong desire has led me
thus to forestall my death." This passage, instead of showing that
Jesus was eating the paschal lamb with the Jews (as often argued), in
dicates rather the contrary.
And all the three evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, do them
selves (like John) show, that the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Christ,
were not on the 15th but on the 14th Nisan. For they give the
preliminary agreement of the rulers: " Not on the feast-day, lest there
be an uproar among the people (Mat. xxvi: 2,5, Mark xiv: 1,2, Luke xxii:
1, 2, 6.) " The feast day " or day of holy convocation, when there was
a great concourse of people, and might easily arise an " uproar," was
the 15th Nisan. And after so prudently planning to avoid that day,
they (and Judas) hurried up matters on the 14th. It is entirely unbe
lievable, that they went through all the hubbub of arrest, trial and

DO NEW TEST. PERIOD G
crucifixion during that "feast day " which they had resolved to avoid;
to say nothing of their scrupulosity not allowing such doings on a
day wherein the law forbade them to do any servile work.
Thus the synoptists, instead of being in collision with John, as al
leged, are confirmatory of him. The seeming discrepancy between
the Evangelists is harmonized, and the historic accuracy of the. Gos
pel is verified and assured. [Appendix E left in manuscript.]

PART 1 1.

Other New Testament Dates.

CHAPTER I.
Christ's Baptism, Etc
I 95. The Gospel of John enumerates four passovers in the minis
try of Christ, viz.: (1) John ii: 13, (2) John v: 1, (3) John vi: 4, with
vii: 11, (4) John xii: 1. The second of these is called simply " a
feast," or, rather, " the feast," as given (from many ancient authori
ties by Tischendorf, last edition), and by the margin of the Revised
Version. That it means the passover is shown by Robinson (Harm.
of the Gosp. $ 36, note).
The four passovers prove that Christ's ministry was over three
years, so that his baptism must have been near the beginning of A. D.
27, just as was taught by the earliest fathers of[the church. (See §.6.)
When John began his work, probably six months before, at thirty
years of age, that is, in A; D. 26, it was "the 15th year of Tiberius
Caesar (Luke iii: 1, 2). So that Luke must, have reckoned the reign of
Tiberius, not from the death of his predecessor Augustus, Sep. 19, A.
D, 14, but from the joint reig'n of the two, beginning' A. D. 12. The
certainty of this joint reign, as understood in the provinces, is shown
by the ancient Roman historians, Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Sue
tonius and Dion Cassius, "who all agree that Tiberius was colleague
of Augustus two or three years, and this was confirmed by decree of
the senate." (Hales.)
" Senatus populusque Romanus, postulante patre ejus, ut equum
ei jus omnibus provinciis exercitibusque, quam erat ipsi decreto,
complexus est." (Velleius Paterculus, B. II, c. 121, speaking of Tib.
and Aug.)

VARIOUS DATES 09
"Lege .per consules lata, ut provincias cum Augusto communiter
administraret, simulque censum ageret, condito lustro in Illyricum
profectus est." (Suetonius in Tiberius, c. 21.)
" Simulque censum ageret, i. e., during the time when a provincial
census was being taken. This then was (B. C. 4 + 15 = ) A. D. 12, as
the beginning of indiction one." (Schwartz.)

The Nativity.
\ 96. Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great. But
when was his death ? A short time before Herod died, there was an
eclipse of the moon, which has been identified as occurring March
13th, B. C. 4. In June of that year B. C. 4 began the 34th year from
Herod's conquest of Jerusalem, on "the fast of the 3d mo." (Antiq.
14, xvi: 4) i. e., in June, B. C. 37. Josephus says that he reigned " 34
years." (Antiq. 17, viii: 1; War 1, xxxiii: 8.) His death in the 34th
year would, therefore, be some time between June, B. C. 4 and June,
B. C. 3. And at the following passover, (Whiston says of B. C. 3,
Jos. Antiq. 17, ix: 3), sedition was raised against Archelaus* before he
was confirmed as successor by Rome. '
The birth of Jesus will thus be somewhere near the beginning of B.
C. 4, not far from the time of the eclipse occurring befbre Herod's
death. (Seethe possibilities of the occasion depicted' in my series on
"The Setting up of a New Kingdom.") This agrees exactly with
Luke iii: 21-23, " And Jesus himself began to be about 30 years of
age" at his baptism early in A. D. 27, /. e., 30 years after the begin
ning of B. C. 4. The nativity could hardly have been near the begin
ning of B. C. 3 (as Schwartz and others suppose), with only 2g years
to the baptism; for this will put along the death of Herod in B. C. 3
too long after the eclipse of March 13, B. C. 4. "<
§ g7. From June, B. C. 37 to Herod's death was strictly the 34th
year, or only 33 full years. This appears evident thus: The year of
Archelaus' banishment Josephus calls " the 10th year" of his govern
ment (Ant. 17, xiii: 2), at the beginning oi "the 37th year of Caesar's
victory over Anthony at Actium" (18, ii: 1). Therefore, he cannot
* If, m order to have Herod's full " 34 years " of. reign to B. C. 4,
as well as the full " 107 years" given' by Josephus,, we should call the
accession of Herod B. C. 38, instead of 37, — this would require us to
use Josephus' " 125 years " (instead of his " 126 " ), reducing his " 27
years" after Pompey to 26; and it would hardly comport with Herod's
"7th year "at Actium. Or, this would require Pompey's capture of
Jerusalem to be at B. C. 65, violating the Olympic dating, as well as
other facts. Therefore, Herod's death must be B. C. 37. (Period F, §3.)

70 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
here begin Archelaus over (37th — 10th or 36 — 9=) 27. years after the
battle of Actium; which (being Sep. 2, B. C. 31) he assigns to " the 7th
year" of Herod, (15, v: 1, 2), whose first 6years reached from June, B.
C. 37 to June 31. Now, the 27 years after that date which he thus
allows to Herod, carries Herod only to the summer of B. C. 4, (i. e.,
31-27), where he begins to reckon Archelaus. He here gives but
(6+27=) 33 years to Herod, instead of 34.
The "34 years" for Herod's reign seems (as full years) to be
reckoned to the accession of his successor Archelaus by the Roman
consent, * which was not until B. C. 3, some time after Herod's death.
(Antiq. 17, xi: 4.) From that date Josephus reckons "6g years" to the
coming of Vespasian against Jerusalem in A. D. 67 (War, Book 2,
title). This was early in A. D. 67. For, after Vespasian's arrival,
Josephus recites all his campaigns, from early spring of A. D. 67
(War 3, iv: 2, and vii: 3, 2g), through the autumn, (4, i: 10), to the next
spring of A. D. 68, the 3d month Sivan or May, (at War 4, viii: 1.)
Two or three months after this, in July or August, Vespasian was
informed that "Nero was dead," (ix: 2), — he having died early in
June, A. D. 68. (Chambers' Cyc. says "June n, A. D. 68.") f
So then, the death of Herod was in B. C. 4 (not 3), and the birth of
Christ was no doubt not far from the beginning of B. C. 4. (See
2 101 note.)
§ g8. As Schwartz puts Herod's death too late (B. C. 3), so others
set it too early, or only about 20' days after the eclipse of Mar. 13, B.
C. 4. Thus, H. B. Tristam, D.D., L.L.D., F.R.S. in the S. S. Times,
July 7, i8g4, says: "Herod died about a week before the passover,
which fell on the 12th of April, B. C. 4." Whereas, his death was
probably not before summer of that year, when he had entered upon
his 34th year from his conquest of Jerusalem, which cannot be re
moved from June, B. C. 37. (See § 96, note.) Josephus repeatedly
says: "Herod reigned 34 years," z". <?., till. Archelaus was,acknowledged
at Rome' as his successor in the summer of B. C. 3. True, Archelaus
started for Rome just after a passover, (Jos. War, 2, ii: 1, Antiq. 17,
ix: 3); concerning which Whiston correctly says: "This passover
*See Restor. of Jos., ? 21.
fThat Josephus has Nero's death in June, A. D. 68, appears further
thus: He makes the death of Vitellius and the full accession of Ves
pasian to be on "Casleu 3," i. e., Nov., A. D. 69 (War 4, xi: 4); and he
gives Vitellius "8 mo. 5 days " (id.) + Otho " 3 mo. 2 days " (ix: 9) -\-
Galba "7 mo. 7 days" (ix: 2);— total 18 mo. 14 days, reaching back
from the 9th month (Casleu 3) to the 19th of the 3d month (June n) in
the year A. D. 68, for the death of Nero. Before which, in the spring
of A. D. 67, Vespasian came to Jerusalem; whence Josephus' " 69
years " carry us back to the beginning of B. C. 3 (or thereabouts) for
the death of Herod (or rather the accession of Archelaus).

VARIOUS DATES 71
was not one but thirteen months after the eclipse of the moon, Mar.
13, B. C. 4." The mistake of Tristam and so many pthers, arises
from calling the interval but one month, with only about 20, days from
the eclipse to the death of Herod, and witn only a week or 10 days
from Herod's death to the passover; into neither of which spaces is it
possible to crowd the events narrated by Josephus.
After the eclipse, Herod's malady increased, he consulted various
physicians, journeyed beyond Jordan, visited the warm baths at Cal-
lirhoe, had oil baths administered, came again to Jericho, inade mur
derous plots in view of his death, got letters from Rome about his son
Antipater, whom he kept in prison awhile, and then ordered slain, and
after.five days more died himself; could all these things take place in
20 days after the eclipse of Mar. 13 ? No, they reached till June at
least, as the time of his death. Then there was funeral pomp seven
days, followed by many consultations with the people, resulting finally
in bitter complaints against Archelaus, and at last a long insurrection,
with violent abuse of him "on all occasions," delaying his intended
visit to Rome, till at length at the next passover it broke put into war,
and he slew 3,000 Jews, and then after the passover started for Rome;
did all these events occupy but a week or ten days after Herod's
death ? No, they reached from the summer of B. C. 4 (at Herod/s
death) to the passover in April, B. C. 3.

"Cvrenius Governor of Syria."
\ 99. Christ's birth at Bethlehem was occasioned by an enroll
ment (for taxation), "the first enrollment made when Cyrenius was
governor of Syria," (Luke ii: 2, Rev.) Now Josephus gives us an ac
count of the enrollment*and "taxing " referred to in Acts y : 37; which
he says occurred in A. D. 8, the year after the banishment of Arche
laus, telling us it was t^en that Cyrenius became governor of Syria.
(Antiq. 17, xiii: 5 and 18. i: 1, andii: 1.) Neither Josephus nprany other
author mentions Cyrenius as governor of Syria at any previous time,
and Tertullian says Christ was born when Saturninus was governor of
Syria. The seeming difficulty is explained in several different ways,
which are described in Lange's Commentary. The most prpbable ex
planations are these two: Either,
1. Read the "first" adjectively, as in the Revision, thus: "This
was the first enrollment (made) with Cyrenius governing Syria." In
which case Cyrenius is understood as having twice rule4 there; either
(a) both times as governor, for which some evidence is planned by
Zumpt, Momsen, and Schaff (in Lange); or (b) the first time in B. C.
4 as a mere census legate under another as governor of Syria,— so

72 , ' NEW TEST, period G
taught by Browne in his Ot do . Seculorum and by others. Or, Luke
may be supposed to speak elliptically, meaning, "This was the first
of two enrollments finished up when Cyrenius was governor of Syria."
Or else, if preferred, -
2. Read the "first" adverbially, with the common version and
many writers, thus: ' ' This enrollment or the enrollment itself (as read
by Hales, Paiilus, Lange, Van Oosterzee, etc.), was firstmade (or ac
complished) when Cyrenius was governor of Syria," in A." D. 8; it
having been only '" decreed" and partially acted upon in B. C. 4, as
in verse 1 and 3, 4 — while verse 2 is parenthetic, alluding to the final
result. This is substantially the view of Van Oosterzee, and is cer
tainly reasonable. Did not the Jews, hearing of the decree, in their
peculiar zeal for tribal genealogy, hasten (many of them) to their own.
tribe to register? And did not the main enrollment get postponed (per
haps by'the death of Herod), and so become overlooked in history, —
as indicated by Joseph's ready retreat to Egypt without waiting for
the taxation itself?
• § 100. Concerning this subject Hales informs us (Chron. vol 3,
p. 49) :
" The enrollment was made by Cyrenius (called Quirinius by Taci
tus), as we learn from Justin Martyr, Julius the Apostate and Euse
bius, when Saturninius was president of Syria (as given by Tertullian),
and in the 33d year of Herod's reign,. _as given by Eusebius [i. e. in B.
, C. 4]. After Archelaus, Cyrenius was again sent, this time as presi
dent of Syria. We may read 'the taxing itself was first made when
Cyrenius was governor of Syria, ' with the first word (ante) without as
piration." We have further testimony, as follows:
"Zumpt has shown by an exhaustive analysis of all the facts in
our possession, that Cyrenius was governor for the first time in the
latter part of the year B. C. 4, Varus' having preceded him in the
early part of that year. But there is a more certain and much shorter'
method of demonstrating that Cyrenius was at a census in this year.
The old cycle of Indictions, as Ideler has shown, simply indicated
epochs of the taxing of the provinces (each 15 years). According to
the Chrpiticon paschale, one of these epochs began on Sep. 1, B. C.
4g, and this date is confirmed by the revival of the cycle by the Em
peror Constantine on Sep. 1 of A. D. 312; for 311 +49= 360, or 24 of
such cycles. Hence, if an epoch began on Sep. 1 of B. C. 4g, it fol
lows that the indiction epoch that coincided with the birth of Christ
must have begun on Sep. 1 of B. C. (49 — 3 times 15 = ) 4. Hence,
our Lord was not born any earlier than Sep. 1, B. C. 4." (Schwartz
Chris. Chron. A, I 3.) We should rather say: The period for the
taxing was to end on Sep. 1, B. C. 4, so that Joseph hastened to Beth
lehem early in B. C. 4, bringing the nativity there.

various dates 73
The Day of Nativity, Etc
§ 101. The day-date of the nativity, as Well as of the baptism of
Jesus, is utterly beyond our knowledge. The assignment of Dec. 25
for the nativity, as well as of March 25 for the passion, was a part of
that arbitrary arrangement of quarter-days in the calendar for
religious observance, on the supposed dates of the equinoxes and sol
stices, Mar. 25, June 25, Sep. 25, Dec. 25; which scheme was at a
later date made to apply to church festivals; and has no authority
either from Scripture . or the early fathers. (See § 12.)
"Easter," or the resurrection Sunday, is known as at the vernal
exquinox; but all other dates of the " Christian year," (so-called) are
mere random assignments agreed upon solely for convenience of co
operative worship. It is not at all likely that the birth of Jesus, with
shepherds by night out on the hill-sides, took place ip the cold weather
of Dec. 25.*
Like other early writers, " Eusebius nowhere mentipns'the day. It
was the common opinion of the Western churches that Christ was
born on the 8th Kal. of Jan. [Dec. 25] ; butthe Eastern churches thought
differently, that he was born on the 8th Ides of Jan. [Jan. 6], so much
Valensius. The learned have found so great difficulty in assigning the
day of our Saviour's birth that Scaliger said, ' unias Dei est non
hominis definere.' " (In Euseb. Eccle. Hist., I. 3; page 73.)
" The Oriental Christians kept the memorial of the Saviour's birth
and of his baptism on one and the same day, viz., the 6th of Jan., and
this day they called Epiphany." (Murd. Mosheim, Cen. iv: p. 2, ch.-
4, is-)" * Very likely the nativity was about the time of the lunar eclipse,.
March 13, B. C. 4; and 30 days afterwards with the crowds at the
passover the '1' wise men" appeared at Jerusalem; and 10 days later
(just after the paschal seven days were through) the 40 days to the
purification ended; and it may have been in Jerusalem the very night
after the presentation in the temple that Joseph was warned to flee to
Egypt from the slaughter-edict which Herod was just then issuing. This
flight to Egypt prevented immediate return to Nazareth, on their way
to which they probably were in going to the temple, since, of course,
they did not contemplate a return to continued residence at Bethlehem.
Why should they go back there ? The slaughter-edict probably
meantinfants of " the second year and under, " asHorne's Introduction
shows (Vol. II, p. 77), covering the 25 days that had passed since the
spring inew year, March 28, and the 15 or more days of the previous
(or second) year, back to the date given by the wise men (as we are
expressly told; so that, the 40 or 50 days. covered -would include but a
very few infants born in so small a town as Bethlehem, and the non
mention of the, slaughter in outside history is thus accounted for.
Herod died in the summer (§ 98), and some tipie after that Joseph re
turned from Egypt.

74 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
" From Clemens Alex. (Strom. I, page 340), the only passage of an
ante-Nicene writer referring to any nativity festival: ' Some say the
nativity was on the 5th Pachon [20th May]. Followers of Basilides
say the baptism was on the 15th Tybi [Jan 10], some say the 16th.' "
(Coleman's Chris. Antiq.)
" Not only was the day of nativity unknown, but for 300 years after
the ascension no day was set apart for the commemoration of the birth
of Christ. According to authorities given by Giesler, Julius, who was
bishop of Rome, A. D. 337-352, first appointed the 25th of Dec. for the
purpose. Then, it was not observed in Cyprus in the time of Epi
phanius, A. D. 376, as learned from his silence in his elaborate ar
rangement of the ecclesiastical dates. Chrysostom, A, D. 387, attests
that this day had been observed at Antioch less than 10 years. After
this period we have notices of the day. In Egypt it was not yet ac
knowledged in A. D. 420; it was appointed in the episcopate of Cyril be
fore A. D. 431." (Clinton, Fas. Rom, Art. v: p. 233.)
"The idea of a birthday festival was foreign to the Christians of
the early period. * * * Besides, nothing definite was ascertained
respecting the date of Christ's birth. * * * Clement Alex, seems to
censure inquiry as to it as idle and unprofitable." (Neander, Vol. I,
p. 301, 2.) "In the earlier ages there were several different deter
minations of the day of Christ's nativity. " (II. , p. 314.)

Pauline Dates.
5 102. Paul's voyage to Rome was in the winter of A. D. 60-61
For, he arrived in Rome in spring, after wintering at Malta; and he
sailed from Palestine at the beginning of the preceding autumn, and
was in Crete in October, soon after the " Fast" (Acts xxvii: 9), which
was on the 10th of Tisri. He was sent to Rome by Festus upon his
appeal to Caesar; and his hearing before Festus had taken place about
a fortnight after the arrival of Festus in the province. (Acts xxiv: 27
to xxv: 6.) Hence, the arrival of Festus (and consequently the depart
ure of Felix) took place in the summer preceding St. Paul's voyage,
when Paul had been , a prisoner two complete years (dietias piero-
theises), since his confinement at pentecost. (Acts xx: 16, and xxiv: 27.)
That summer when Festus took the place of Felix was A.* D. 60, as
fulby .ptpved in Conybeare & Howson. (Life of St. Paul, Appen
dix C.)
This A. D. 60, is the date given also by Spanheim, Pearson, Tille-
mput, Bertholdt, Winer, Koehler, Feilmoser, Wurm, Anger, Weiseler,
Lechler, De Wette; Schaff says 60 or 61; (and 61 is given by Meyer,,
Hug, Schmidt, Schrader, Schott, and Ewald; see Lange's Acts, Chron.

VARIOUS DATES

Chart). So that, there is pretty general agreement upon A. D. 60, as
the date of Paul's starting for Rome.
i 103. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv: 2) was held about
A. D. 51. For, "reckoning backward from the ascertained epoch
A. D. 60, when St. Paul was sent to Rome, we find that he must have
begun his second missionary journey in A. D. 51, and that therefore
the council must have been either 50 or 51. This calculation is based
upon the history in Acts." (Con. &• How. Ch. 7 end.) With this
date, 51, agree also Tillemont, Koehler, Anger; De Wette says 51 or 50;
(and 50 is given by Basanage, Schott, Wieseler, and Schaff.) Thus is
there here also an extensive agreement.
I 104. Paul's first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion
(Acts ix: 26) was about A. D. 37, the very year in which Aretas became
supreme in Damascus.* (II Cor. xi: 32). For, in Gal. ii: 1, Paul says,
"fourteen years after" that "I went up again to Jerusalem with
Barnabas, and took Titus with me also," that is, to attend that
council (as seen by Acts xv: 2). Now A. D. 51— 14— A. D. 37, or A. D.
50— I4=A. D. 36; and so Paul's first visit was in A. D. 37 (or possibly
36). It is set at A. D. 37 by Baronius and Tillemont, and at A. D. 36
by Petavius and Vogel, and still earlier by Bengel and Suskind.
Conybeare and Howson, by calling the " 14 years " only the 14th
year or but 13 full years, get this first visit at A. D. 38; and there also
Meyer, Usher, Pearson, Hug, ,FeilmjOser, Olshausen, Sanclement, and
Ideler have it. (And others have it later still.) But this later dating
pf it is because all these writers put Christ's crucifixion too late (viz.,
A. D. 31 or 33, instead of the right A, D. 30. )\
Not only have we the before-named six authors, who put Paul's
first visit as early as 7 years after Christ's crucifixion (i. e., at A. D.
37 or before), but we have also Meyer, Bassanage, Heinrich, Hug,
Schrader, and Schott, putting.it just 7 years after, and Baronius,
Petavius, Usher, Pearson, Tillemont, Bengel, Vogel, Suskind, Koeh
ler, Feilmoser, and Olshausen, give it less than 7 years after. Indeed,
a majority of authors give 7 years or less for the interval, rather than
mpre. Therefore we are safe in saying that this first visit was 7 years
after the crucifixion, i. e., in A. D. 37, as already found.

* This supremacy over Damascus of Aretas, king of Arabia, was
occasioned, either by the emperor Caius on his accession to the
throne in March, A. D. 37, or else by the withdrawal of Vitellius, gov
ernor of Syria, upon hearing of Tiberius' death in March, (as Con. &
How. show in Chap. 3).
f Conybeare & Hpwson (Ch. 7, end) fully show, that the " 14 years "
must end at the Council, and npt at any pther visit tp Jerusalem.

76 new test, period g
§105. The conversion of Paul, having been "three years"
before his first visit to Jerusalem (Gal. i: 18), took place -in A. D. 34
(possibly 33). Baronius and Tillemont agree with us on A. D. 34, and
Jerome, Petavius and Vogel agree on A. D. 33. Moreover, Meyer,
Bassonage, Michaelis, Heinrichs, Hug, Schrader, and Schott, all put
the conversion just 4 years after the crucifixion, just as we do; while
Jerome, Baronius, Petavius, Usher, Pearson, Tillemont, Bengel,
Vogel, Suskind, Koehler, Feilmoser, and Olshausen, all put it less
than 4 years. Indeed, a large majority of authors give 4 years.or less
from Christ's death to Paul's conversion. "Within tbree years of the
death of Jesus, we see the principal and most zealous agent in the
persecution,' suddenly allying himself, body, soul and spirit, with the
community against which he had, ' breathed out threatenings and
slaughter.' " (Rev. Dr. D. W. Simon, Berlin.) Bib. S,ac„,, Oct.,
1868, p. 746.'
So that, as we prove the crucifixion to have been in A. D. 30, we
are authorized in saying that Paul's conversion was in A. D.,34; which
is just at the end of the "seventy weeks" or 490 years of Daniel,
reaching from the 7th year of Artaxerxes, B. C. 457, to A. D. 34. The
last of those weeks, or the final 7 years, began at the baptism, A. D.
26-27, the beginning of the Gospel to the Jews, and reached to the con
version of Paul and Cornelius, A. D. 33-34, the finished Gospel for the
Gentiles.* Thus "he confirmed the covenant with many for one
week" (Dan. ix: 27); while "in the midst of the week," i. e., in A. D.
30, Messiah " caused sacrifice and oblation to cease," nailing it to his
cross when he was "cut off" (ver. 26). f And so, all our datings are
confirmed, and the divine prophecy is proved true. (See period F,
§ 14, and E, % 68.)  '
§ 106. New Testament Events.
Birth of Christ, 4 B. C. •
Annas, H. P.,1 8 to 15 A. D.
Caiaphas, H. P., 25 to 34 A. D.
* " Paul was summoned to evangelize the heathen (Acts ix: 15), and
Peter began this (with Cornelius) almost simultaneously. The great
transaction of admitting the Gentiles to the church was already
accomplished when the two apostles met at Jerusalem (A. D. 37, Gal.
i: 18). The early chapters in the Acts are like the narrations in the
Gospels; it is often hardly possible to learn how far the events related
were contemporary or consecutive." (Conybeare and Howson, ch. iv.)
f Formerly, when Christ's death was supposed to be at A. D. 33 (or
even 34; see § 17), the last week of the 70 was explained as covering
John's ministry and Christ's ministry, each reckoned as half the week.
But the true explanation is far more satisfactory.
X Annas, or Ananus, was father-in-law to Caiaphas, and officiated
witb him.

VARIOUS DATES nn

Baptism of Christ, 27 A. D., early.
Death of Christ, 30 A. D., April 7th, Fri.
Conversion of Saul, 34, and Cornelius.
Return to Jerusalem, 37, Acts ix: 26.
Death of Agrippa, 44, Acts xii: 23.
Council of Jerusalem, 51, Acts xv: 2.
Ananias, H. P., 47 to 63, Acts xxiii: 2.
Voyage to Rome, 60, Acts xxvii: 1.
End of Acts, 62, Acts xxviii: 30.
War begins, 66, in May.
Jerusalem destroyed, 70, 6th mo., 8th d.

Roman Emperors.

I 107. We have already seen (at § g7) that Josephus has the
death of Nero at June (11) A. D. 68; so that, with Nero's reign given
as in Josephus' present text, at " 13 years 8 days," (War 4, xviii: 2),
his 12th year of Nero would begin near the beginning of June, A. D.
.66. But he himself says, (War 2, xiv: 4): " The war began in the 12th
year of the reign of Nero, in the month of Artemisins [Jyar]," that is,
in April, A. D. 66. So that Nero's 12th year must have begun earlier
than his length of reign makes it; and that reign must have been
longer than his present text gives it.
Most authorities give Nero's reign as 13 yrs.* and 7 or 8 mo., mak
ing the 13th year begin the previous October. The months may have
been dropped out from Josephus' value; or he may have written 8
mo. instead of the 8 d. now found in his text. Taking this last 'as
Josephus' true reckoning,* — and also calling his 3 years 8 mo. for
Caius as 3 years 10 mo., (so given by Schwartz and others), — we have
the dates of Josephus as follows:

* This makes Nero's 12th year end Oct., A. D. 66, just where Jo
sephus ends his Book 2 chap, xix of the War. The rest of that Book
is spent upon the 'events of Nero's 13th year, until the early spring of
A. D. 67, when Vespasian came to the army in Palestine, as related
at the beginning of Book 3. For on arriving, he met his son Titus at
Ptolemais (or Acre), who had arrived by a winter voyage "sooner
than the winter season did usually permit. " (War 3. iv: 2.) The pre
vious " 12th year of Nero," A. D. 66, was "the 17th year of Agrippa"
(War-2, xiv: 4), and the 2d year of Florus " the ruler of Judea. (Antiq.
20, xi: 1.)

78

NEW TEST. PERIOD G

I 108. Josephus' Dates

Julius Caesar. . . .
Augustus 
Tiberius 
CaiUs 
Claudius 
Nero 
Galba 
Otho 
Vitellius 
Vespasian

War.

I,

xi: i

2,

ix: i

2,

ix: 5

2,

xi: i

2,

xii: 8

4.

ix: 2

4.

ix: 2

4.

ix: 9

4,

xi: 4

4,

x: 1-5

Antiq.
14, xi: 1
18, ii: 2
18, vi: 10
19, ii: 5
20, viii: 1

"3d Casleu'
July, 69

3yr-

7 mo.

57-6— 2d.

22-6—3

3-8 [10]

3 - 8—20

i3-[8]-(8)

r7-7

•

3-2

,8-5

B. C
Aug. 9, 48

Mar.Sep.Mar.
Jan. Oct.
June Dec. Mar.
Nov.

44 14
37
4i 54
68 6869
69
A. D.

From the death of Julius=ii2 yr. gm. gd.

Ptol. Can.
A.D. 14
36
40 54

68

The 3 yrs. 7 mo. of Julius Caesar are reckoned from the battle of
Pharsalia, Aug. g, B. C. 48 (Cham. Cyc.) to March, B. C. 44, the death
of Julius Caesar. Then five reigns carry the date 111 yrs. 2 mo. 25d.
to early in June, A. D. 68, at the death of Nero. And then the short
reigns cover 18 mo. i4d., to late in Nov., A. D. 69, — or 112 yrs. g'mo.
gd. after the death of Julius Caesar in March.
Ptolemy's Canon (in the last column, see Period F, \ 2), dates by
whole years, from the Thoth or Egyptian new-year (in Sep. or Aug.)
preceding each king's accession; but reckons Tiberius from A. D. 14,
because' the transition (Sep. 19) was so near the Thoth (Sep. 20). Ves
pasian is reckoned from July 1, A. D. 69, when he was proclaimed
emperor by the army in Syria (Jos. War 4, x: 4); so that the Canon
puts his accession to the Thoth of A. D. 68, throwing the rest of the
short reigns upon Nero. Although Josephus has the death of Vitellius
in Nov. A. D. 6g, yet reckoning Vespasian from the previous July 1,
he has the destruction of Jerusalem in Aug. A. D. 70 as in the second
year of Vespasian.

Jerusalem Taken A. D. 70.
§ 109. As we are showing the dates of Josephus backward from his
own time to the distant epochs of the Old Testament, it is necessary
for us to be assured concerning his starting point, the destruction of

various dates

79

Jerusalem by Titus, "in the 2d year of Vespasian," as he says. That
this was fastened by him to the year A. D. 70 (not 69 as Schwartz
asserts), is seen already by his datings from the Maccabees and from
Herod downward. Particularly,
1. Josephus gives " 107 years " back to Herod's capture of the city
in B. C. 37. This latter date is fixed and certain, as we show, (period
F, ? 4); and if we add the 107th year (z. e., 106 full years), we are car
ried to A. D. 70.* The full " 107 years." taken from A. D. 70 show B.
C. 38; and thus it is impossible to get the terminal date any earlier than
A. D. 70.
2. Josephus gives the exact length of reigns, in years, months, and
days, for every emperor down to Vespasian; and the total of all his
numbers (in his present text uncorrected) is in years, n months, 17
days from the accession of Augustus to the death of Vitellius. This
(112 years) cannot begin earlierthan March, B. C. 44, when Julius Cae
sar was assassinated, and therefore reaches to A. D. 69. So that, the
destruction of the city in "the 2d year ot Vespasian" must by Jose
phus be in A. D. 70. f
3. A. D. 70 is proved by the headings of Books in Josephus' War.
The " 167 years" heading Book 1 cannot begin before the spring of B.
C. 170, since Josephus himself says (Antiq. 12, v: 3), that this taking
of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes was in "the 143d year " Selenic.
The " 167 years, " therefore, cannot end earlier than the spring of B.
C. 3 for the death of Herod. The "69 years " heading Book 2 extend
thence to the spring of A. D. 67 for " Vespasian's coming." The time
"about 1 year" heading both Book 3 and Book 4, more correctly
amounts to 2 years and g months, (as seen at §g7, 108); which carry us
to the siege of Jerusalem at the end of A. D. 69. And then the 6
months and 1 month heading Books 5 and 6, end in August A. D. 70
for the fall of Jerusalem. No other date can be made out.|

*In adding from any year A. D. to any year B. C. (and vice versa)
the number of years is reduced 1, because A. D. 1 and B. C. 1 are
adjoining years, without a year o between.
fThe only variations needed in Josephus' numbers are, 2 mo. added
to Caius, and 8 mo. substituted for 8 d. in the reign of Nero. And then
we have the true reckoning, as universally accepted; which (as taken
from Josephus) is here given at $ 108.
t.Schwartz' attempt to make Josephus have A. D. 69 for Josephus'
date of the destruction of Jerusalem, is part of his strange theory, that
all the Roman dates of emperors, etc., should be shoved back 1 year
earlier than they are universally put, Augustus' death at A. D. 13,
Tiberius' death at A. D. 36, etc.

80

NEW-TEST. PERIOD G

I no—

jocal Authorities.

JUDEAN RULER.

SYRIAN GOVERNOR.

OUTSIDE JUDEA;

Herod the Great

— 3 B. C.

Archelaus,
— 8 A. D.
Cyrenius,
Copernius,
—n "
M. Ambianus,
'
Annius Rufus,
— x3 " .
Valerius Gratus,
— J5
 26
Flaccus,
Pontius Pilate,
-36 "
—37 "
Vitellius,
Marcellus,
Petronius,
37 Agrippa I. -
Murullus,
Agrippa I,
—41 "
-44 "
—46 "
—49 "
Longinus,
44 Agrippa dies
Cuspius Fadus,
Tib. Alexander,
Quadratus,
4g Agrippa II.
Cumanus,
Felix,
—53* "
—60 "
Festus,
—62 "
Albinus,
—65 "
Cestius Gallus,
66Agrippa's 17th yr.
Gessius Florus,
Vespasian came,
— 67 early
Titus came,
— 70 early
CHAPTER II.
Women at the Tomb.
a harmony of the resurrection accounts, f
" The first day of th'e week . . . Mary Magdalene came, and told the disciples
that she had seen the Lord." — John xx: i-i8.%
§ iii. The resurrection of Christ was a momentous event. Upon
the certainty of it hangs our eternal hope. For He is the first-fruits;
and if the first-fruits fail, no harvest can come of resurrection to us.
*Felix began at the "beginning of the 13th year of Claudius."
(Jos. Ant., 20, vii: 1 .) "Tacitus places the beginning of Felix earlier:
but on such a question his authority is not to be compared with that
of Josephus." See Weiseler (Con. &° How., Appe'n. 3.)
f Reprint from the Andover Review, November, 1886.' The editor
ofthe Review, in volunteering . a liberal reward for .the article, said:
' ' You are very thorough in this investigation. No scholar hereafter
examining this subject, can afford to miss your exhaustive treatment
of the matter.'' '
VARIOUS DATES 81
Is the thing sure ? There are four narrators of Christ's resurrection.
And there is a seeming diversity in their accounts, especially in regard
to the women at the tomb. Hence infidels cavil; and even Christians
may have misgivings. How important that the history be harmonized
in our minds !
Many harmonies have been offered; but none of them are per
fectly satisfactory. Meyer says: "In no section of the evangelical
history have harmonists, in their critical mosiac work,, been compelled
to expend more labor, and with less success, than in the section on the
resurrection. The adjustment of the differences between John and the
Synoptists, as also between the latter among themselves, is impos
sible." And Professor Westcott ("Gospels," p. 327) says: "The
various narratives of the resurrection place the fragmentariness of the
Gospel in the clearest light. They contain difficulties which it is im
possible to explain with certainty. ... In this point of view, we
can dismiss without any minute inquiry the various schemes which
have been proposed, for bringing the accounts, as they stand at pres
ent, into one connected narrative."
Notwithstanding this discouraging outlook, we have carefully gone
over the ground, and have reached a more satisfactory result, which we
give, as follows:
The guide to this whole narrative is to be found in John xx: 1-18.
For, of all the four narrators, John was the only eye-witness, and was
most likely to give the true order of events, as Doddridge well
remarks. Let us therefore take him for our guide. We will divide
off his account of the resurrection morning (contained in these 18
verse.s into seven successive periods of time, putting into each the con
temporaneous items mentioned by the other narrators.
I 112. The Seven Periods.
Period 1. (John, verse 1.) Women at the Tomb. (Jphn, 1 verse;
Luke, 2 verses; Matthew, 3 verses; Mark, 4 verses.) Jphn mentions
Mary Magdalene alone, (for reason see afterwards); Matthew mentions
also the other Mary; Mark adds Salome; Luke adds Joanna and
others. 1
Period 2. (John, wer. 2, 3.) Mary gone; -meanwhile a vision of one
angel. Matthew and Mark, through 8th verse; Luke, ver. 3, 5, g, has it
mixed in with a later scene.
Period 3. (John, ver. 4-10.) Peter and John at the Tomb. (Luke,
ver. 12,24.) The women meanwhile flying and silent (Mark, ver. 8), meet
(it may be), and some of them return with Mary, between the two
visions (Matthew and Mark, ver. 8; Luke, ver. 9).
Period a,. (John, ver. 11-13.) Mary and the women together again
at the tomb; a vision of two angels. John speaks of Mary as if alone

82 . NEW TEST. PERIOD G
(for reason see afterwards). She was not alone (Luke, ver. 3-5, 10).
Two angels were, now seen by them all.
Period 5. (John, ver. 14-16.) Mary turns aside and sees Jesus (she
"first," Mark, ver. 9). Meanwhile the other women are still in the
angel-vision in the tomb (Luke, ver. 5-8).
Period 6. (John, ver. 17.) Other women coming out from the tomb see
Jesus with Mary, and fall at his feet; He says, "Touch me not"
(Matthew, ver. 9, 10; Luke, ver. 9). Someoi the women, hurrying out
and scattering, get no sight of Jesus, but run and tell of angels only
(Luke, ver. -g, 22, 23).
Period 7. (John, ver. 18.) The sight of Jesus reported, by Mary
(Mark, ver. 10), and by those with her (Luke, ver. g, 10). But they are
perhaps delayed about it, by being met and questioned by the author
ities (Matthew, ver. n); so that the two disciples had started for
Emmaus before this last message arrived (Luke, ver. 22, 23). Their
tidings were hardly believed (Mark and Luke, ver. 11). " But Peter -
arose" (Luke, ver. 12). West, White, and Doddridge favor the regard
ing of this as a second visit of Peter, connected with this sight of
Jesus (ver. .34). Recapitulation.
Period 123 4 5 67
John xx : 1, 2,3, 4-10, 11-13, 14-16, 17, 18.
Thus the narrative of John is seen to be exact and consecutive;
Matthew and Mark having the same order, only filling in different de
tails (with some left out which were best known to John). Luke alone
seems somewhat to mix the two visions of angels; and lie, throughout
his Gospel, is notoriously less exact than the rest in regard to dates —
his account being supervised by Paul, who was not an eye-witness.
We here see that there were two visions of angels (instead of one or
three, as some make out). These were (1) the one-angel vision, seen by
others in absence of Mary; (2) the two-angel vision, afterwards seen
by Mary with the rest (not by them separately in two visions, as
usually taught). The errors and perplexities of the harmonists are
ftius happily resolved; and the whole story becomes luminous, con
sistent,' aridsbeautiful. \ 113. Erroneous Views Considered.
Let us now look more particularly at the errors committed, and the
way we are led to escape them.
Matthew and Mark (first eight verses) narrate only a one-angel vis
ion of the women; and Luke (first eight verses) narrates only a two-
angel vision of the women; while John seems to give no angel-vision

VARIOUS DATES 83
of the women at all, but only a two-angel vision of Mary alone. The
whole trouble is in locating the women's two visions of the first three
Gospels into harmony with Mary's vision in John. So that the two
great questions are, with the errors concerning them:—
I. Where in this account of John does the one-angel vision of Mat
thew and Mark belong ?
Error i, putting the one-angel vision too early; error 2, putting it
too late; error 3, having no one-angel vision at all till the close.
II. Where does the two-angel vision of Luke belong ?
Error 4, putting the two-angel vision too late; error 5, putting it too
early; error 6, mixing together the one-angel and the two-angel vision.
One-angel Vision.
I. Where does the one-angel vision of Matthew and Mark belong?
Here three errors are committed: —
Error 1. Putting the one-angel vision too early, that is, before
Mary ran to tell Peter (in John ver. 1, at our period 1). This is the
error of Calmet and White, of Guyse and Clarke; and it is open to
these objections: (1.) It does not comport with Mary's meagre seeing,
as in John, ver. 1; nor with her meagre tidings to Peter (Meyer), as in
ver. 2. Nor would she have said to him and afterwards to Jesus, " we
know not where they have laid " our missing Lord, if she had already
received angelic assurance that He was risen. (2.) This view leaves
the women unaccounted for, during all Mary's flight and Peter's visit
to- the tomb, or even longer. (3.) As Calmet and White have both the
women's visions here mixed together, they thus incur all the additional
objections of that view, as seen directly (at error 6).
Error 2. Putting tbe one-angel vision too late, that is, not until
after Peter and John left the tomb (in ver. 10, at our period 4; see Dodd
ridge). This might seem a plausible plan between other extremes; but
it is liable to these objections: (1) It leaves the women still unaccounted
for, during all Mary's flight and Peter's visit (John ver. 2-10, periods 2
and 3). Or, if to obviate this Doddridge difficulty we adopt the
amendment of President Edwards, Olshausen, Ebrard, and even
Meyer, not having the women start for the tomb till some time after
Mary, — then (2) not only does this contradict Matthew, Mark, and
Luke (ver. 1),. that they all started together very early; but it is also
difficult to think of Mary, a lone female, going off to visit a sepulchre
"while it was yet dark," without any company, — especially as in her
report of it she says "we" (John, ver. 2).
Error 3. Having no one-angel vision till after Mary's visit (all be
ing left till John ver. 18, at period 7). This is the error of Doddridge
(with West) and President Edwards; and it is liable to these objec
tions : ( 1 . ) It leaves the women unaccounted for from their arrival (ver.
1) through all'Mary's adventures (John ver. 1-18, period 1-7). Dodd
ridge and Dr. Clark are forced to say that they must have "fled to
some retired place astounded!" — a statement certainly astounding.
President Edwards delays even the coming of the women till this latest
point, by which means Mary does not join them at all, contrary to
Matthew, Mark, and Luke (ver. 1), who all put them with her. as start
ing very early in the morning, as it began to dawn. (2. ) This view
violates the order in Ma'rk (ver. g), which puts Mary's sight of Jesus as

84 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
after a vision of the women. (3.) This view compels the putting of the
women's two-angel vision also at this late point, with all the objec
tions attending that mixed method, as directly seen (at error 6; also
error 4).
Since, therefore, we have seen the place of the first angel.-vision to
be too late after the visit of Peter and John to the tomb, and too early
before Mary ran to them from the tomb, — it follows that this first
angel-vision belongs truly between those two points, namely, in the in
terim between Mary's leaving the tomb and Peter's reaching it, (that is,
in period 2). Luke (ver. 12) puts Peter's starting for the tomb as "then,"
when an angel-vision had but just transpired. According to this,
Mary, first coming to the tomb, and finding it open and empty, runs off
at once to tell Peter and John; while the rest of the women stopping
behind are addressed by an angel inside, (none but the keepers having
seen the angel outside, Matthew ver. 2-4), contrary to Meyer; after
which Peter and John come running up; and afterwards Mary returns
with women to another vision of angels.
$ 114. This more correct view of the matter, advanced by Scott in
his Commentary, 1788, and by White in his Diatessaron, 1799, as well
as McKnight, has latterly been adopted by Robinson, in his English
and Greek Harmonies; by Gardiner in his Greek Harmony; by Brown
in the new British Commentary; by Olshausen, and Barnes, and
Lange, and Meyer, in their Commentaries; and by Haley, Ebrard,
Kitto, etc. And it may now be considered as settled that tbis is' the
true arrangement for the first or one-angel vision.
Two-angel Vision.
II. Where does the two-angel vision of Luke belong ? Here also
three errors are committed: —
Error a,. Putting the twp-angel vision too late, that is,. after Mary's
interview with Jesus (at John ver. 18, in period 7).. This is the error of
Doddridge, with West, and Guyse, of President Edwards, and Scott,
and White, and Lange, and it is open to these objections: (i.)Tt
allows no tidings from women about a vision of angels only (more than
one without Christ seen) to come to the disciples, before the two
started for Emmaus, and before Mary came telling of Jesus seen ; as
required by Luke (ver. 22, 23); noted by Godet. (2.) After their first '
visit the women fled (Matthew and Mark, ver. 8); and there is in this ar
rangement no accounting for their being back (especially so soon) and
after Mary had left a second time. Doddridge and Edwards try
to escape this objection by mixing both visions of the women (thus de
layed) into one, and so having no return of women after a flight. But
they thus fall into all the other difficulties of this mixed method (at
error 6, also 3).
Error 5. Putting the two-angel vision too early, that is, before
Mary's return to the tomb. Thus Calmet, and White, and even Godet
(seemingly), put the two-angel vision, mixed with the one-angel vision,
as all seen by Mary before her running to tell Peter. They thus not
only fall into the other objections (given at errors 1 and 6), but they
add these: (1.) This leaves the women unaccounted for from Mary's
leaving the tomb until all her proceedings are through (that is, all the
six periods after John ver. 1, on to 18); when after appearing to Mary
(Mark, ver. 9), Jesus met them as they went from the tomb (Matthew,
ver. 9), although (according to this view) they left there with Mary at the
first ! (2.) This makes Mary have the two-angel vision twice over,
which certainly cannot be.

VARIOUS DATES 85
J,,fn*l?M*T ""i* a^0id the difficulty by putting the one-angel vision
before Mary s leaving the tomb, and the two-angel vision aftfr she had
ivlrtl J^,- • I S6n the \w0 vl,sl0ns in ™»™diate succession, but (not
of twi7 m™?g.them) w^ld make actually three angel-visioAs instead
,?n l«r~ Zw ls an ™P°sslb <\ vlew! because objection (i) still remains
«i g nP rt' aDd Ejection (2) of the previous error 4 is added; but
from aany * "T -obJectl°n <3> ^omes to/viz. : that after fleeing in fear
trom an angel-vision, the same women would not immediately enter
again to a new vision of multiplied angels. Morison, Eddy, and even
r ^m.ayrTieum aS lf t?ndmg to this view" But certainly Robinson,
Gardiner, O shausen, Meyer, and Barnes mix up the. two visions as
both one and the same, occurring just after Mary ran from the tomb—
the proper place of the one-angel vision only. This still leaves the
objection (1) just given, with all the objections against mixing the two
visions. Which latter we now proceed to give:—
Error o, the most common of all. Mixing together the one-angel
a?^ j.. ^°'an!e, vlslons- as if they were the same. This is the error
of Doddridge, Edwards, Calmet, White, Macknight, Robinson, Gardi
ner, Godet, Meyer, Olshausen, Barnes, Morison, Elliott, and Eddy
and indeed of nearly all the writers we have consulted. We can
except only Guyse, West,* Scott, White, and Lange; all but the first of
whom have the second women's vision at period 7, after Mary's sight
of Jesus (as at error 4), making three angel-visions, instead of two as
most reckon. Scott, White, and Lange have the first vision correctly
at period 2; and Guyse (cited in Doddridge) has two visions at our
periods 1 and 4. I 115. Mixing the Two Visions
Is exposed to the following grave objections : (1. ) The sight of two angels
and oi one angel only do not harmonize as the same event. At the
first visit to the tomb one angel alone sat inside the tomb (Mark, ver. 5),
one angel having left the outside (Matthew ver. 2-5); but at the second
visit two angels stood and spoke (Luke, ver. 3 4),. arising in sight from
a reclining posture. (See Haley and Macknight; John, ver. 11.) (2.)
The message of the two angels was quite different from that of the one
angel, as shown by Godet. (Compare Luke and Mark, ver. 6-8. Luke
mixes the two.) The one angel alarmed them (flying with fear) by
saying, "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is' not
here, but is risen — see where he laid— go tell — and meet him in Gali
lee.'' The two angels soothed them (retiring calmly) by tenderly
inquiring of Mary, "Woman, why weepest thou?" and then (seem
ingly in view of her answer) continuously reminding them all how Jesus
himself had foretold these very scenes of death and resurrection. (3.)
The mixed view necessitates two separate visions of the two angels, one
of them with Mary all alone, which is not likely; so that Kitto entirely
ignores one of the two. (4.) Mary did return to a later two-angel
vision, after leaving the tomb (John, ver. 2, n); and others of the
* The Resurrection of Christ. By Gilbert West, Esq. London,
1747. 8vo. Highly commended in Home's Introd. Bib. Ind., p. 61.
Doddridge in his Expositor cites and approves West; and he is nearly
followed by Towson. 1793, and by 'White's Diatessaron, i7gg (says
Home as above). With the last named, Clarke nearly agrees.

86 NEW TEST. PERIOD G
women would be likely to meet her, and return also (as Macknight
shows), they thus seeing the two angels when she did, not when,
before, they had seen but one. (5.) If they did not thus, like Mary,
return to the tomb after leaving it, what could they be about in all the
interval of John (ver. 2-18, period 2-7)? — until after" Mary's second visit
and her interview with angels and with Jesus — not until after which
did He appear to them also, " as they went " fleeing from the tomb.
This can not mean their fleeing at first before even Peter was there,
when even Mary had not seen Him; but it must teach (as Barnes
insists) that they " went " away a second time.
Mark (ver. 2) indicates two arrivals at the tomb, mixed in the account
— the one "very early " (Matthew, " as it began to dawn "); the other,
"at the rising of the sun." (See Meyer.) Also ver. 8 indicates that
after the first visit the women zVz fear reported nothing; whereas, the
mixed account of Luke (ver. g) gives their joy and their announcement
after the second visit, — which Gardiner himself rightly shows must be
different affairs. Doddridge, West, Scott, Lange, Haley, and Godet
suggest a second set of women coming out — Joanna, etc. (Luke, ver. 10).
Brown, in the British Commentary (at Mark, ver. g), suggests a return
of women with Mary; Barnes has them back without her; but neither
has them see angels. What could they be about ?
Robinson, Olshausen, and others, to meet the difficulty of Mark
(ver. g) in their mixed method without women again at the tomb, have to
interpret the "first" appearing of Jesus to Mary as meaning, not the
first appearing of all, before his appearing to the women, but only the
first-named by Mark! — a very untenable idea. But they thus, by hav
ing an earlier appearing of Christ to the women, fall into the greater
absurdity of having no party of women come telling of angels alone
seen (with Christ not yet reported as seen), so late as the start to
Emmaus, as required by Luke (ver.' 22, 23). To Kitto this is inexplic
able; but Doddridge, Lightfoot, Macknight, and Lange try to meet
the difficulty by denying the literal truth of Matthew (ver. 9), that Jesus
met women as they returned from the tomb. To such straits are
expositors reduced to get along with their mixing of the two-angel with
the one-angel vision. | 116. The Correct View.
Now, then, since we have found that the women's two visions can
not be mixed, and that before Mary's vision is too early for their sec
ond visipn, and after her vision is too late — therefore, we have to
regard the two-angel vision of the women as closely allied with the two-
angel vision of Mary herself. Doddridge does in fact make the women
enter the tomb while Mary, near by but unseen, is conversing with
Jesus. Rather, we say, they came out of the tomb, while she, Unseen
by some of them, was thus conversing; so that some ran to tell of the
angels seen, while others lingering saw Jesus with Mary, arid they with
her afterwards brought this greater news.
This separation and double report of the women upon going away
is testified to by Gardiner, Barnes, and other harmonists. Godet even
tells us that the women's sight of Jesus in Matthew (ver. g), is the same

VARIOUS DATES 87
as Mary's sight of him in Mark (ver. 9), John (ver. 17); in confirmation of
which he bids us compare " embraced his feet," and " tell my breth
ren," in the one account, with "touch me not," and " go to my breth
ren," in the other. Lange says: "The special experience of Mary
[in seeeing Jesus] is [at Mark, ver. 9] incorporated with the vision of the
other women." Yes! the things were indeed " incorporated " together;
for they are but parts of a single scene.
No view but this will harmonize Matthew (ver. 9) with John (ver. 17)
and Mark (ver. 9). The fact, so inexplicable to Kitto and others, that
the women " held Jesus by the feet," while yet he required' of Mary
"touch me not," is not explainable except in this view of a mingled
scene. For they could have "held him by the feet " only just before
his charge " touch me not." Matthew '(ver. 9) shows why Jesus spoke
as in John (ver. 17). That the women passed from the tomb just as Mary
recognized the Saviour, appears from a trifling yet very suggestive
phrase, noted by Meyer,— as Jesus said "Mary ! " she " turned herself
and saith unto him, ' Rabboni,' " showing that she had turned around,
—I would say, at the rush of women. Did Providence leave this little
key (unnoticed so long till Meyer) on purpose now at last to unlock this
harmony of the resurrection story?
Of all the expositions to be found, the plan of Scott, White, West,
and Lange alone seems to approach our view, in the separate locating
of the one-angel and the two-angel vision. They haye the first vision
rightly in Mary's absence from the tomb; but they put the second after
Mary's vision of angels, not in conjunction with it, as we alone do.
Moreover, Lange strangely puts Matthew's one-angel vision as coinci
dent with Luke's two-angel vision; somewhat as Guyse (cited in Dodd
ridge), while rightly making two angel-visions, and even seeming to
make one of them coincident with Mary's, yet strangely mixes up the
accounts of them.
The now current view of most writers differs from ours chiefly in
this: that it combines the women's sight of two angels with the one-
angel vision, instead of combining it with Mary' s sight of two angels' (-as,
is here done). Several writers come very near, but no one quite seizes
this determining idea.
\ 117. According to the improved arrangement we have now
established, the events at period 4 proceed as follows: —
Mary Magdalene, after starting out Peter and John, on herway back
to the tomb takes with her some women not before starting ("Joanna
and other women," — Luke, ver. 1, 10; "several others," Meyer, —
"bringing the spices," not named at the previous coming, — Mark, Mat
thew, John, ver. 1), with other returning women, perhaps, whom she
meets (Mark ver. 8). Being arrived there the women (mostly a new set)
enter the tomb; while Mary stands in the doorway stooping down, and

88 NEW test, period g
sees "two angels sitting" (John, ver. n, 12). The angels speak to
Mary weeping in the doorway, and she answers them (ver. 13, 14).
As the angels rise in presence of the women, just then Mary hears a
footfall without, and turning she sees a stranger off a little one side.
So stepping away from the tomb to ask him for help she, after a little
conversation, discovers that it is Jesus himself whom she is addressing.
Meanwhile, the women in the tomb who, while Mary was addressed
by the angels, were bowing down their faces to the earth in fear (Luke,
ver. 5), as soon as Mary turned away were themselves addressed by the
angels (now arisen plainly in view); whom they didnot answer, as Mary
had done (ver. 5-8), — no question being asked. But in timid joy (Mat
thew, ver. 8) over the comforting reminder of the angels, "they returned
from the sepulchre " (Luke, ver. g). Some of them hurry off for the
city, to tell of angels seen (Luke, ver. 22, 23); while others, turning a
little/ one side, run directly upon Mary talking with Jesus himself, —
just as she "turned herself" from looking at them as they came up,
and discovering who he was exclaimed, " Rabboni — Master ! " As he
salutes them all, they all fall in worship and embrace his feet (Mat
thew, ver. 10). Upon which he says to them all (including Mary),
',' Touch me not . . . but go to my brethren " (John, ver. 17); "Be not
afraid: go tell my brethren" (Matthew, ver. 10).
They all start to go; but are met by the watchmen (ver. 11), who are
preparing for an overhauling of the matter before the council ; and being
questioned and detained (perhaps) as witnesses, they do not reach the
disciples with their message from Jesus till later in the day (Luke, ver.
g, 10; Mark, ver. 10; John, ver. 18). Meanwhile, the two disciples have
started for Emmaus, not knowing that Jesus himself has been seen
(Luke, ver. 22, 23). Peter's sight of Jesus does not come in till now,
later in the day (ver. 33, 34).
Thus is the whole history beautifully harmonized, and made simple
and consistent. And this is done by the now accepted method of put
ting the first-angel vision during Mary's absence from the tomb,
together with this our newly-arranged method, of putting the two-angel
vision afterward on the return of Mary, with her and the women all
present in it, as one single two-angel vision.
§ 118. A Summary Argument,
to show that Christ's appearing to Mary and to the other women was
all really in one continuous event, as suggested by Godet : —
Three Evangelists have a mention of a woman-sight of Jesus, and
each has but one such account ; Mark and John only saying that it
occurred to Mary Magdalene, but Matthew saying that it occurred to
the women promiscuously, including Mary (ver. 1, g); "... came
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary . . . and as they went Jesus

VARIOUS DATES 89
mel tk(TC-u Therefore, as each Evangelist has but one such event, and
as by Matthew the plural case is made to. include the singular, it is plain
that there were not two separate events to be distinguished by anyone
of the writers but a single affair, to be told in fulf or in part by the
writers, according as it was impressed on the mind of each. Nor does
the word first (at Mark, ver. g) make Mary's meeting of Jesus entirely
separate from that ot the women, but only the first step in it. Mary
did first see Jesus, as there stated; but she was not alone in seeing
him tor the other Mary " joined her in it (Matthew, ver. i, 9), and
perhaps others too. Matthew expressly gives Mary Magdalene's
'SIf-. °LJe?us and the women's sight of Jesus as but one whole event,
while Mark and John only state Mary's part in it as commencing
There was a particular reason why John remembered Mary's vision
and sight of Jesus more than that of the other women, all mention of
which he entirely omits. It was she who came running to hiin and
Peter and first startled them with tidings from the tomb, which sent
them hurrying thither themselves. (This reason Tholuck notes.) For
the same reason, Peter also remembered chiefly Mary's part in the see-
nig of Jesus; and telling it to his amanuensis, Mark, he thus secured
the insertion in that Gospel also, without mention of the other women.
But Matthew, who had no such personal reason to fasten Mary indeli^
bly m mind, has told the fact in its general form, " Jesus met them,"
—the women. And Liike, having only Paul's tuition, who was not
present to be thrilled by the women 's story of seeing Jesus alive, says
nothing about it; and also mixes up the visions.
I need only say, in closing, that we find in this Harmony of the Res
urrection (so happily adjusted at last) a wonderful confirmation of the
inspired accuracy of the Evangelists. Substantial agreement, with
varied selection of details, especially when that agreement is seen only
by careful sifting of those details, — this is the very height of corrobo
ration" to the testimony of independent witnesses. The cavils of infi
dels ujjon this very point of alleged discrepancy in the narrations are
here met by a demonstration of unpremeditated concurrence that sets
all objection at rest.
At the same time, the dates at which the several Gospels were
written, as well as the identity of their authors, receive here a striking
illustration. The mention of Mary Magdalene, and of the personal
meeting with Jesus that first-day morning, is in each writing just what
the authorship calls for, as already seen. The story ofthe first three
Evangelists, evidently unadjusted by any collusion, could hardly be put
together into harmony; until the fourth Gospel comes in at a later date,
and without- any seeming reference to the previous accounts, by means
of new details personally known by John, furnishes a key which in
consecutive order reconciles together the whole seemingly diverse
account. How beautiful, how grand, is the Harmony of Divine Revelation !
Note. — The following harmony has been arranged as a Sacred Drama or Bible
Reading exhibited by a Sunday School as an Easter Service ; being set forth by five male
and five female readers, personating the individuals concerned in the Gospel narrative.

90

I 119. Harmony of Christ's

MATTHEW XXVIII.

MARK XVI.

I„UKE XXIV.

i In the end of the sabbath, as
it began to dawn toward the first
day of the week, came Mary Mag
dalene and the other Mary to see
the sepulchre.
2 And, behold, there was a
great earthquake: for the ange;
of the Lord descended from
heaven, and came and rolled
back the stone from the Boor,
and sat upon it.
3 His countenance was like
lightning, and his raiment white
as snow.
4 And for fear of him the
keepers did shake, and became
as dead men.

i And when the sabbath was
past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary
the mother of James, and Salome,
had bought sweet spices, thai
they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morn
ing, the first day of the week
they came unto the sepulchre
(at the rising of the sun).
3 And they said among them
selves, Who shall roll us away
the stone from the door of the
sepulchre ?
4 And when they looked, they
saw that the stone was rolled
away; for it was very great.

¦ I Now upon the first day of
the week, very early in the
morning, they came unto the
sepulchre, bringing the spices
which they had prepared,
and certain others with them.
2 And they found the stone
rolled away from the sepul
chre.

5 And the angel answered and
said unto the women, Fear not
ye, for I know that ye seek Jesus,
which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is
risen, as he said. Come, see the
place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his
disciples that he is risen from the
dead; and, behold, he goeth be
fore you into Galilee: there shall
yeseehim:lo, I have told you.
8 And they departed quickly
from the sepulchre with fear and
great joy; and did run to bring
his disciples word.

5 And entering into the sepul
chre, they saw a young man sit
ting on the right side, clothed in
a long white garment; and they
were affrighted.
6 And he saith unto them, Be
not affrighted : ye seek Jesus of
Nazareth, which was crucified :
he is risen; he is not here; be
hold the place where they laid
him. 7 But go your way, tell his
disciples and Peter that he goeth
before you into Galilee: there
shall ye see him, as he said unto
you. 8 And they weut out quickly,
and fled from the sepulchre; for
they trembled and were amazed :
neither said they anything to any
man; for they were afraid.

(3 And they eutered in, and
. . . 5 [it was] said unto them,
Why s'eek ye the living among
the dead? 6 He is not here,
but is risen : remember how
lie spake unto you when he
was yet in Galilee. . . .
9 And [they] returned from
the sepulchre.}

[Omitted.)

{Omitted.)

12 Then arose Peter, and
ran unto the sepulchre; and
stooping down, he beheld the
inen clothes laid by them
selves, aud departed, won
dering in hiniself at that
which was come to pass.
24 And certain of them
which were with us went to
the sepulchre, and found it
even so as the women had
said : but him they saw not.
{Lttke combines the second
tngel-vision after this period
with the one before.)

Resurrection.

91

JOHN XX. (KEY).

ORDER OF KVF.NTS.

PERIOD.

i The first day of the week com
eth Mary Magdalene early, when it
was yet dark, unto the sepulchre,
and seeth the stone taken away
from the sepulchre.

At dawn there was an earthquake, and
the stone was rolled away by an angel.
Mary Magdalene comes (the other Mary
and' Salome following her), and they find
the stone rolled away. Thinking the tomb
robbed, and not waiting for the others

3
o B
ADVer
AoBcr

2 Then she runneth, and cometh
to Simon Peter, and to the other
disciple, whom Jesus loved, and
saith unto them, They have taken
away the Lord out of the sepulchre,
and we know not where they have
laid him.

Mary runs off to Peter and John, and
they start for the tomb.
Meanwhile, the other women (left behind
by Mary) venture into the tomb, and there
listen to a single angel (the one who had
sat on the stone). He assures them of Je.
sus' resurrection, and sends them off with
a message to the disciples.

g
-atra oa«o0
AteD
n a<
5'p

3 Peter therefore went forth, and
that other disciple, and came to the
sepulchre. 4 So they ran both together: and
the other disciple did outrun Peter,
and came first to the sepulchre.
5 And he stooping down, and look
ing in, saw the linen clothes lying:
yet went he not in.
6 Then cometh Simon Peter fol
lowing him, and went into the sepul
chre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
7 And the napkin that was about
his head, not lying with the linen
clothes, but wrapped together in a
place by itself.
8 Then went in also that other dis
ciple, which came first tothe sepul
chre, and he saw, and believed.
g For as yet they knew not the
Scripture, that he must rise again
from the dead.
io Then the disciples went away
again unto their own home.

Just after their leaving, John arrives at
the tomb.
Peter next comes up, and goes in. They
find no body of Jesus, and no angel ap
pears. But they see the grave-clothes
lying. Presently they return home.
Meanwhile, Mary Magdelene is on her
way back to the tomb, taking with her
Toanna, and other women met by the way
(at sun-rise).

LO otrE*V0
a<*A-1Ptro
o0c

92

Harmony of Christ'3

MATTHEW XXVIII.

MARK XVI.

LUKE XXIV.

[Mary, with Joanna and
0tkers, returns i to the sepul
chre.)

(2 . . . They came unto
the sepulchre at the rising of
the sun.)

3 And they entered in, and found
not the body of the Lord Jesus.
4 And it came to pass, as they were
much perplexed thereabout, behold,
two men stood by them in shining
garments :
5 And as they were afraid, and
bowed down their faces to the earth,

( Women in the tomb.)-

9 Now when Jesus was
risen early the first day of
the week, he appeared first
to Mary Magdalene, out of
whom he had cast seven dev
ils.

they said unto them, Why
seek ye the living among the dead?
6 He is not here, but is risen: re
member how he spake unto, you
when he was yet in Galilee,
7 Saying, The Son of Man must
be delivered into the hands of sinful
men, and be crucified, and the third
day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words,
g And returned from the sepul
chre.

9 And as they went to tell
his disciples, behold, Jesus
met them, saying, All hail.
And they came and held him
by the feet, and worshipped
him. io Then said Jesus unto
them, Be not afraid: go tell
my brethren that they go in
to Galilee, and there shall
they see me.

( Two sets of •women.)

22 Yea, and certain women also of
our company made us astonished,
which were early at the sepulchre ;
23 And when they found not his
body, they came, saying, that they
had also seen a vision of angels,
which said that he was alive.
(13 And, behold, two of them went
that same day to a village called
Emmaus. Ver. 22, 23.)

ii Now when they were
going, behold, some of the
watch came into the city,
and shewed unto the chief
priests all the things that
were done.
12 And when they were as
sembled with the elders, and
had taken counsel, they gave1
large money unto the sol
diers.

1 io And she went and told
them that had been with him,
as they mourned and wept.
ii And they, when they
had heard that he was alive,
and had been seen of her,
believed not.
12 After that he appeared
in another form unto two of
them, as they walked, and
went into the country.

9 . . They returned from the sep
ulchre, and told all these things un
to the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 It was Mary Magdalene, and
Joanna, and Mary the mother oV
James, and other women that were
with them, which told these things
unto the apostles.
11 And their words seemed to them
as idle tales, and they believed them
not. (12 Now Peter had arisen, &*c.
13. And behold two of them had
gone that same day to a village, &*c.
See the Gr. and the Rev. and Marg.)

Resurrection {concluded.)

93

JOHN XX. (KEY).

ORDER OF EVENTS.

n But Mary stood without at the
.sepulchre weepiug: and as she wept,
she stooped down, and looked into
the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white
sitting, the one at the head, and the
other at the feet, where the body of
Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman,
why weepest thou? She saith unto
them, Because they have takeu away
my Lord, and I know not where they
have laid him.
14 And when she had thus said
she turned herself back, and saw

The other women go right into the tomb ;
but Mary stands in the doorway, stooping.
They-all see a vision of two angels within
The angels speak to Mary weeping in
the doorway, and she answers. Perceiving
a shadow behind her, she turns, and step
ping from the tomb,

Jesus standing, and knew not that
it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman,
why weepest thou? whom seekest
thou? She, supposing him to be the
gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou
have borne him hence, tell me
where thou hast laid him, and I«will
take him away.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary,

she beholds a man be
fore her who kindly inquires her business
Him she addresses as the gardener. He
simply responds in a familiar tone
"Mary I"
Meanwhile, the women in the tomb are
addressed by the two angels. They now
leave the tomb.

She turned herself, and .saith unto
him, Rabboni ; which is to say, Mas
ter. 17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me
not; for I am not yet ascended to
my Father: but go to my brethren,
and say unto them, I ascend unto
my Father, and your Father; and to
my God, and your God.

Some of them, hurrying to the city, tell
of angels seen : while others, turning one
side, run directly 'upon Mary, just as she
recognizes the voice of Jesus saying
Maryl" and exclaims, "Rabboni, Mas
ter 1"
They all at once fall to grasp his feet
in worship. Whereupon he says, "Touch
me not: I am soon to ascend. But go to
my brethren, and then to Galilee, where I
shall be seen."

18 Mary Magdalene came and told
the disciples that she had seen the
Lord, and that he had spoken these
things unto her.

They start to go; but are met by the
watchmen, who are preparing for an over
hauling of the matter by the council. With
this detention (perhaps used aS'witnesses)
they do not reach the disciples with their
message from Jesus himself, until later in
the day, when the two have started for
Emmaus, not knowing that he has been
seen.

ERRATA.
P. 3g, end of § 46, insert (See also Period E, § 62, p. i5g.)
P. 4g, § 63, line 10, read 'Judges', not John.
P. 4g, § 63, line 13, read 'I Chron.', not II Chron.
P. 50, line 11, read 'Lu. ii: 21', not 31.
P. 52, § 67, last line, read 'Hos. ii: 11,' not iii: 11.
P. 64,- line g, read (Ex. xii: 6), not 16.
P. 64, I 85, last line, read (John i: 2g etc.), not 31.
P. 72, § 100, line 9, read (aute), not (ante).
P. 73, par. 2, line 6, read ' unius ', not ' unias '.
P. 103, line 7, read 'Gen. v and xi', not v: 11.
P. 108, line 2, read 'kingdom', not king.
P. 124, § 30, line 1, read 'Zedekiah's 8th year', not 9th.
P. 126, line 5, read '515', not 575.
P. 136, line 4 from bot., read 'repeated', not repented.
P. 138, I 19, line 2, read 'sacked', not sucked.
P. 155, line 8 from bot., read '332', not 532.
P. 155, line 6 from bot., insert 'to' before 'the spurious'.
P. 187, line 8 from bot., read 'verses', not years.
P. 218, <S 7, line 4, read '^580,' not 585.
P. 221, line 5 from bot., read '1491', not 1493.
P. 231, line 3-5 from bot., read 'Astruc', and 'p 678' and '§ 19'.
P. 245, end of 2nd par., read 'Gal. iii: 17', not 7.
P. 245, line 6 from bot., read 'p 775', not 375.
P. 251, <S 80, line 3, read '§ 1, 5', not 4.
P. 255 line 12, after 'dedication' insert ')to the gth of Darius('
P. 258, § g3, line g, read 'vii: 13', not ix-: 13.
P. 260, line 3'from bot., read '(xxx: 2g)', not (ver. 29.)
P. 261, line 5 from bot., read 'ch. xxxvii', not xxvii.
P. 261, line 3 from bot., read 'xxxiv, xxxv', not 35.
P.' 262, line 9, read 'xxxi: 41', not 40.
P. 278, § 129, line 7, read '§ 146', not 156.
P. 280, line 6, after 'Thotmes' insert (")
P. 282, par. 3, line 1, read (Jos. § 26), not 'here'.
P. 289, line 9 from bot., read 'xxi: 5', not 3.
P. 292, line 5, read 'Gen. xv', not xiii.
P. 292, line 9, read 'D. § 10', not 6.
P. 295, § 29, line 7, read (9-15), not ix: 15.
P. 297, § 23, line 7, 8, read 'ch. xxxiv, xxxvii', not xxiv, xxvii.
P. 298, line 5 from bot., read 'xxxiii: 19', not 11.
P. 304, § 10, line 3, read '1, vi: 5', not 3, vi: 5.
P- 3°5i §J3, line 3> read 'Psa.', not Isa.
P- 3!3> § 33> line 6, read 'Jos 11', not II.
P- 335i § 72> line 6, read (A — F) not (A — E).
P- 335, § 72, line 14 from bot., read '1997', not 1977.

95

P- 337, line 6, read '5530' and '1470', not 5510 and 1490.
P. 341, §84, line 10, read 'i: 12', not i: 2.
P. 343, line 11 from bot., read 'vision', not division.
p- 354, § 7, line 5, read 'here, § 4', not p. 3.
P. 360, line 4, read '1130.55', not 1030^.
P. 367, line 8 from bot., read 'citation 1, § 4', not p. 3.
P- 3^8, § 36, line 2, read '646', not 649.
P- 37°, § 41, line 1, read 'the year of Jozedek', not 'about'
P- 373, S 47, line 3 from end, read '§23', not p. 13.

is 120. Table of Bible Dates.
„ ., ,, , ... , . B. c. B. C.
By the Hebrew lext. Usher. Correct.
Creation  4004 , 4104
Birth of Abel  3874 3974
' ' Enos  : . . . 3769 3869
" Cainan...,  3679 3779
' ' Mahalael  '.  3609 3709
Jared  3544 3644
' ' Enoch  3382 3482
Methuselah...  3317 3417
Lamech  3!3° 3Z3°
Noah  2948 3048
Shem  ,  2446 2546
The Flood  ,.  2348 2448
Birth of Arphaxed  \  2346 2446
Saleh  231 1 2411
Eber  2281 2381
Peleg  .'  -  2247 2347
Reu  2217 2317
Serug  2185 2285
Nahor  '  '•¦¦¦ 2155 2255
' ' Terah  • • - 2126 2226
Abram  • 1996 2096
Abram to Canaan  • T92i 2021
Isaac born  '¦'¦¦¦¦ l896 1996
Isaac offered  l884 *984
Jacob born  , • • • l83& !93°
Jacob to Haran  1760
Joseph born  x746
Jacob to Canaan  •  1740 1840
Jacob to Egypt  1706 1806
Exodus from Egypt  1491 i5°i
Arrival in Canaan  H51 I55I

18801846

96 — ioo

table of bible dates — Continued.

By the

B. c.

B. C.

By the B, C.

B. c.

Hebre-w Text.

Usher.

Correct

Hebrew Text. Usher. Correct.

Joshua's death,

fl576

Manasseh ends,

642

Chushan ends,

1508

Arnon ends,

640

Othniel end's,

1468

Josiah ends,

6og

Eglon ends,

1450
Jehoiachin taken,
598
Ehud ends,
137°
Jerusalem-destroyed, 588
587
Jabin ends,
!35°
Capturing finished,
583
Barak and Deb. end
' ,x
1310
Jehoiachin ends,
561
Midian ends,
in
1303
Cyrus' Decree,
537
Gideon ends,
"
1263
Darius' Decree, 520
520
Abimelech ends,
w.<
1260
2nd Temple Jubilee,
513
Tola ends,
(S
1237
Ezra Decree, 7 Art. ,
457
Jair ends,
T3
1215
Nehemiah Decree 20 Art.,
444
Ammon ends,
¦•0
1 197
Malachi, end of O. T.,
408
Jephthah ends,
ngi
Alexander the Gr't ends,
323
Ibsan ends,
ftj
1 184
Seleucic Era begins,
312
Elon ends,
ID
1174
Ant. Epiph. pol'tes Temp. -*¦
fi68
Abdon ends, ) ^
ID &
1 166
Judas Maccabeus begins, "^
163
Eli begins, [¦ %
8.9
1 146
Judas Aristobulus King, [i7
106
Samson begins, ) 0*
'-.->
1126
Pompey takes Jerusalem, tj
64
Samuel begins,
1 106
Julius Caesar ends, -2
44
Saul begins,
1094
Herod takes Jerusalem, <u
37
David begins,
*
10.54
Christ born,
4,5
Solomon begins,
. 1014
Herod dies, B.C. v
.4, 3
Temple, 4th of Sol.,
1012
IOII
Archelaus ends, A.D. ^
8
Temple, dedication,
1004
1003
Christ in the temple,
9
Solomon ends,
974
Tiberius' co-reign,
12
Rehoboam ends,
957
Augustus Caesar endsf
x4
Abijah ends,
954
Pilate begins,
26
Asa ends,
in
9i3
John Baptist begins,
26
Jehos. wi Jehoram,
rn
8g6
Christ baptized,
27
Jehoshaphat ends,
M
888
Christ crucified,
30
Jehoram ends,
<un
884
Saul, Cornelius, & Gentiles,
34
Ahaziah ends,
w
883
End of " 70 weeks,"
Athaliah ends,
T3
877
Paul visits Jerusalem,
37
Jehoash ends,
0
838
Agrippa I begins,
41
Amaziah ends,
33
8og
Council of Jerusalem,
51
Azariah ends,
Oh
757
Felix begins,
53
Jotham ends,
74i
Festus begins,
60
Ahaz ends,
W
726
Paul sent to Rome,
60
Samaria captured,
721
. 720
Vespasian comes,
67
Hezekiah ends,
697
Jerusalem destroyed, A.D
70
* Josephus, by giving Solomon 1 year of joint-reign with David, has
David's reign B. C. 1053-1013. Then, in the Antiq. , he puts the temple
building 1010-1003, offsetting by 1 year given to Shamgar. (See Period
D, § 5, note, and Restor. Jos.,1 § 18, 51.)
(Go to Page ioi.)
OLD TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY.

OLD TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY.

Its Certainty and Importance.
77z<? several intervals of Old Testament chronology are clear and
determinable beyond reasonable dispute. Each interval may in its turn
be called in question, and honestly discussed. But these occasional
questionings do not combine to unsettle the several datings, or bring
the whole chronology into uncertainty. On the contrary, the whole
certainty is increased by the interplay of the several questionings. '
Thus, i. The certainty of the scripture interval 254 years, from the death
of Solomon to the capture of Samaria, B. C. g74 to 720, as the dura
tion of the Ten Tribes, may be denied by some Assyriologists; but not
denied as biblical (that were impossible), only denied as not in accord
ance with Assyriology. But this can throw no doubt on scripture
chronology as such; it can only raise the question whether there is a
possible rival to overturn it. The fact is, the interval 254 years is the
only one that scripture gives or can give without self-contradiction.
And whether that 254 is correct, is only a question whether the scrip
tural dating is worth anything or not ? No question arises as to what
date is given by scripture; it is only, what use can be made of it ? (See
Period E, $34, 44.) Again, *
2. The- certainty of the scripture interval 580 years given by Paul
(in Acts xiii: 18-22) and the book of Judges, reaching from the Exodus
to the Temple, may be denied by some Egyptologists and others —
denied as inconsistent with some other scripture (say I Kings vi: 1), or
more likely denied as disagreeing with some late theory of Egyptology.
But this unsettles nothing. The presumption is in favor of the Bible
reckoning; and any uncertainty as to what that Bible1 reckoning is,
research is fast clearing away. (Period D, § 1, 40.) Yet again,
3. Uncertainty as to the scripture interval 430 years of sojourning
at Ex. xii: 40, may be brought forward. But the whole chronology
viewed together keeps it quite sure that the entire sojourning in
Canaan as well as in Egypt is included in the 430; and the harmony of
the complete history is helped, not hindered, by the separate points
raised. (Period C, § 1, g.) Still further,

OLD TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY- 103
4. The certainty of Abraham's delay of sixty years in reaching
Canaan, till " his father was dead" (Acts vii: 6), may be called in ques
tion. But it certainly is scripture teaching, and will probably stand as
long as Bible datings are acknowledged at all. (Period A, B, §58.)
Once more,
5. The certainty of the diluvian periods 1656 + 352 = 2008, given
in Gen. v: 11 (Period A, B, §72), may be questioned as more probably
correct in the Septnagint (2242+1172 = 3414—866 Period A, B, §75).
But the late attempts to make out here no chronology at all, must fail;
and the doubt between the Hebrew and Greek texts will not always
confound Bible chronology. (Period A, B, §39, 40.)
These are all the great questions that disturb Old Testament dating
as a whole. And the notable thing about them is, that they do not
combine to make a chaos of the subject, as some would represent; but
the combining of these different points reduces the difficulties of the
whole. The one grand fact made apparent by the whole Old Testa
ment considered together, is, that the Bible has a chronology, a clearly
intended and plainly marked plan of dating, all its own. And the
second thing apparent, is, that it has no rival system of chronology,
Assyrian, Egyptian, Tyrian, or other, to set it authoritatively aside.
The overwhelming result is, to set forth the scripture dating as the one
only universal chronology of the world; which has the right of way,
with full presumption in its favor; so that every opposing claim must
bear the whole burden of proof, and only assert itself by proving the
Bible false.
Hence the way many Bible apologists have, of telling over the many
chronological difficulties of the Bible, as rendering the whole uncertain,
like, a mere bank of fog, is entirely to be deprecated. Says the Sun
day School Times (October 27, 1894): " Is there anything in the
Bible text that forbids the supposition that man was created ten thou
sand years before the Christian era ? Is there any approximate agree
ment among the more strict interpreters of the letter of the Bible text
as to the world's chronology, and that of the Bible ? If so, the editor
of the Sunday School Times is not aware of the fact. She (the writer
referred to) is permitted to say her say on that vague and unessential
subject."' What we object to in this way (so common) of treating the
subject, is not the pointing out of the things that are under discussion,
but the representing of the points in dispute as more numerous and
flagrant than they are, and especially turning off the whole matter of
chronology (thus befogged in people's minds) as being " a vague and
unessential subject."
The certainty of a true Bible chronology is what we wish emphat
ically to set forth. And the importance of it, we urge as being the
fundamental historical basis of Bible truth. If God has kept the

104 OLD testament chronology
time-piece of the universe, and correctly adjusted his inspired word
thereto, it is well for God's people to know and utilize the fact.
Assyriology and Egyptology.
During this last part of the nineteenth century, Assyrian excava- '
tions and decipherings have made great progress, and have thrown
much light upon Bible manners and events. We duly appreciate the
many illustrations and confirmations of scripture thus furnished; but
are sorry to find among Assyrian scholars too much of a disposition to
underrate the Bible chronology, and to bring Assyrian datings into
collision with it, for which there is no occasion whatever.
The fragments of a supposed annual chronicle of Assyrian rulers
have been found, which, when pieced together, give a seeming record
of two hundred years during the time of the Jewish kings. This
Assyriologists call the " Eponym Canon," and by it many undertake
to prove, that the Bible chronology of the kings Is forty or fifty years
out of the way, in having the death of Solomon, B. C. 974, which they
say should be about B. C. g2g. (See Period E, § 79.) This theory can
not be reconciled with scripture, except by a complete destruction of
all the scores of Bible numbers given in the books of Kings and Chron
icles, etc. So that this newly announced Assyrian chronology com
pletely overturns the whole Bible dating, and can not escape with the
plea, that some single passage of scripture is corrupted.
With the greatest confidence this anti-biblical chronology is being
propagated as if the genuine and certain reckoning, in defiance of
scripture. And it is put forward in many of our Sunday School Lesson
Helps, without a note of warning that it is merely an unproved theory,
-by no means displacing the Bible dating. (For specimens of the bold
assurance of leading Assyriologists in giving this innovation as the
absolute truth, see Dr. McCurdy on "Oriental Research and the
Bible," in Sunday School Times, M-ay n, 1895, and many similar
articles in that and other quarters.)
Now, a little study shows the complete uncertainty of all this
theorizing in Assyriology, and the fallaciousness of building any sys
tem of chronology on such a flimsy basis, in contradiction of the mul
tiplied and assured assertions of the Bible. One great object of this
present work is to show how sure is the Bible dating, especially
through those' times of the kings, and how impossible it is for
Assyriological theory to overthrow it. Moreover, the late and present
attempt to contradict by 200 years the Bible date of the Exodus, by
means of Egyptology, is here shown to be equally futile. These
archaeological researches of our day are found to be greatly corrobora
tive of the Bible history, and in no respect contradictory to it.

PERIOD F-EXILE AND AFTER.
PART I.

a

ai

B

pi

a!

O

>, '

>,

XI
(^
aJ
m
«
I
cd o
a
a!
'3 oCD
a "j
ro Vj
^! rt
<* CD
T) >>
9g a m
ni
THE INTERVENING DATES.
55 i. The standard of chronology, from the close of the scripture back
to the Old Testament kingdom of Israel, is Ptolemy's Canon, whose
datings we here give : Years.
' Nabonassar  14
[We omit]  108
Nabopolassar  21
Nebuchadnezzar  43
Evil Merodach  2
Neriglisar  4
, Nabonadus  17
Cyrus  g
Cambyses  8
Darius 1  36
Xerxes  21
Artaxerxes 1  41
Darius II  ig
Artaxerxes II  46
Ochus  21
Arogus  2
Darius III  4
f Alexander Mac  8
Philip Arid  7
Alexander iEgus  12
Ptolemy Lagus  20
Philadelphus  38
Euergetes 1  25
Philopator  17
Epiphanes  24
Philometor  35
Euergetes II  »  2g
Soter  36
Dionysius  29
t Cleopatra  22
' Augustus  43
Tiberius  22,
Caius Calig  4
Claudius  14
Nero  14
Vespasian  10
•j 'Titus  3
Domitian  15
Nerva  1
Trajan  19
Adrian  21
Antonius Pius  23
I
60
w
ct)<D
acii
s o
Total
B. C. iThothbegins.
O
4- 747 Feb. 26, 747.
14
733
122
625
14=,
604
1 8b
561
18S
559
192
555
209
538
218
529
226
+ 521 Jan 1=747.
262
4- 486 Dec. 31=748.
283
465
324
424
W
405
^Sq
359 Nov.
410
338
412
336
416
332
424
324
431
317
44S
3°5
46 3
285
SOi
247 Oct.
52b
222
543
205
S67
181
602
146 Sep.
631
"7 ,
bb7
81
69b
52
718
4- 30 B. C.=748.
761
= 14 A. D.+747.
783
36 Aug.
7»7
40
801
54
815
68
82s
7S
828
81
843
96 July.
844
97
863
116
884
i37
907
= 160 A. D.+747.
907 Nab. years total, from Feb. 747 B. C. to July, 160 A. D.
10G PERIOD F

Remarks.

Ptolemy, the author of the Canon, lived in the middle of the second
century, and he gives (as above) the correct chronology of the reigns
back from his own day to the beginning of the Nabonassan era in Bab
ylon, B. C. 747. He employs the Nabonassan or Egyptian year of just
365 days.
This Nabonassan year was rotary, revolving about the seasons 1461
times in 1460 Julian years of 365X days each. Its year 1 began with 1
Thoth at Feb. 26, B. C. 747. In B. C. 521 (bissextile) 1 Thoth came
on Jan. 1 and -also on Dec. 31, two Canon years starting in the same
Julian year. This makes the B. C. dating (in the table above) change
one year at that point. But one year is also lost in passing from B. C.
to A. D. or vice versa (because there is no year o); so that from B. C. 1
to A. D. 1 is but one year, and from B. C 3 to A. D. 4 is but six years.
In B. C. 1 or A. D. o to 3, the 1 Thoth came on August 23; in A. D.
12 to 15 it came August 20, and Augustus died August 19, A. D. 14.
Hales (following Dodwell) has shown conclusively that the Canon of
Ptolemy ante-dates each reign; that is; it begins each reign (as a
whole number of years) from the Nabonassan new year or first of
the month, Thoth next before the accession of the king.. The only
exception was the case of Augustus, whose death (Aug. 19) was so near
the 1 Thoth (then Aug. 20), that the succession was put there in
the same year (A. D. 14). This rational view of the case exhibits
a natural courtesy shown to the reigning monarch on the part of the
court recorder of the time, in calling his first fractional year a
whole year, it suiting a king's vanity to seem to have ruled not less but
rather more than he had.
Hales says: "Alexander began at the battle of Arbela, Oct. 1, B. C.
331, but the Canon puts him at the preceding new year, Nov. 14, B. C.
332. The»death of Alexander was May 22, B. C. 323, but his successor
is set down in the Canon at the previous new year, Nov. 12, B. C. 324r
which is confirmed by Censorinus, who reckons from thence 294 years
to the beginning of Augustus (alone) in B. C. 30. Again, Tiberius died
Mar. 16, A. D. 37; but his successor is put at the preceding new year,
Aug. 14, A. D. 36. Vespasian began July 1, A. D. 6g; but the Canon
reckons him from the previous new year, Aug. 6, A. D. 68. Petavius
had complained that Ptolemy often makes the reigns begin a year too
soon; but this new year antedating explains it all." (Hales.) See
all this confirmed at Period G, § 108.*

*§ 2. Note — Schwartz makes a desperate attempt to reverse this
well-established law of Ptolemy's Canon, and to show that \tpost-o\-sXes
each reign, instead of ante-dating as shown above. For this purpose
he claims that the death of Alexander the Great in Olym. 114: 1, was at

exile and after 107
Josephus and the Maccabees.
§ 3. To learn the Jewish dating for 170 years before the Christian
era, Josephus is our best authority, together with the books of Macca
bees in our O. T. Apocrapha.
Josephus' reckoning of those times is learned from the following
citations: 1. " King Antiochus returning out of Egypt, for fear of the Romans,
the beginning of that Olympic year, not toward its close, in the spring
of B. C. 523. The only argument he gives is that Plutarch puts the
death of Alexander in the month "Daesius," which he (Schwartz)
claims as "corresponding to the Athenian month Hecatombion" in
August (B. C. 324, he says). This is very dubious, to say the least.
The month "Daesius" must mean "Desius," which Josephus gives as
the Macedonian name for the 3d Hebrew month "Sivan" (May).
Whiston's Josephus (War., 3, vii: 2g, 31, 32), gives it as "the
month Desius [Sivan"]; and the context (§3, 39) gives before it "the
2d month Artemesius [Jyar]," and after it the 4th month Panemus
[Tamuz] " or June.
Accordingly, all historians tell us, like Rollin, that Alexander "died
in the middle of the spring, the first year of the 114th Olympiad. [Hales
says May 22, B. C. 323]. He was 32 years and 8 months old." "He
was born in the first year of the 106th Olympiad, when his father had
just won in the Olympic games." (Rollin v, p. 192, and iv, p. 278).
From the beginning of Olymp. 106: 1, the 32 years 8 mo. carry us to
the spring ending Olymp. 114: 1, i. e., May, B. C. 323. And Josephus
tells us that " Hecateus, the philosopher, who was contemporary with
Alexander, mentions the battle near Gaza, in the nth year after the
death of Alexander, and in the 117th Olympiad." (Jos. vs. Ap. I„ §22.)
Now to reach Olym. 117: 1, the "nth year," must run back only 11
years to the end of Olym. 114: 1, as the time of Alexander's death, viz.,
in the spring of A. D. 323. Soon after this battle at Gaza, Seleucus
entered Babylon, and then began the famous Seleucic era, B. C. 311-
312 (4- the 11 years=the 323 B. C.)
Another fact proves the same. At Alexander's death he had been
in Babylon "almost a year" (p. 189). But one of the first things
he had done after entering Babylon was the writing of " a letter which
was to be read publicly in the assembly of the Olympic games "
(p. 186). This letter must have been written just before the games
of Olym. 114, in July of B. C. 324, and his death, "almost a year"
afterward, was m May, B. C. 3:23. It is not possible to disturb
this well-established date.
Mr. Schwartz further claims (Letter July 28, '93), that ' Augustus
was emperor, so far as Egypt was concerned, Aug. 1, B. C. 30, but
Ptolemy's Canon dates his first year from Aug. 31 of that year,
post-a\ati.n% again." To which we answer, not so. True, " Caesar
Augustus gained Anthony's fleet on the Kal. of August" (Clinton, B. C.
30); buthe did not enter Alexandria till the last of August (Clinton
at A. D. 14); and Cleopatra did not die till some time after, as all
agree. The Egyptians could not reckon the reign of Augustus as
beginning until their Queen Cleopatra was dead in September. So
that Ptolemy's Canon certainly rtzzte-dates in putting it at 1 Thoth or
Aug. 31, B. C. 30. (Note continued ou next page.)

108 period f
made an expedition against the city of Jerusalem; and when he was
there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the king of the Seleucidae,
he took the city without fighting, those of his party opening the gates
to him." (Antiq. 12, v: 3.)
2. "The temple was made desolate by Antiochus (Epiphanes), and
so continued for three years. This desolation happened to the temple
iri the hundred and forty-fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of the
month, Apelleus [Kisleu], and in the hundred fifty and third Olympiad;
but it was dedicated anew, on the same day, the twenty-fifth of the
month Appelleus, in the hundred and forty-eighth year, and in the
hundred and fifty-fourth Olympiad." (Antiq. 12, vii: 6.)
3. "Then the fore-named Antiochus (Eupator) and Lysias, the
general of his army, deprived Onias, who was also named Menelaus,
of the high-priesthood, and slew him at Berea, and put Jacemus into
the place of the high-priest." (Antiq. 20, x: 1.) "This was in the
hundred and fiftieth year of the dominion of the Seleucidae ....
It was the seventh year, in which by our laws we are obliged to let it
(the land) lie uncultivated. ... So the king sent Menelaus to
Berea, a city of Syria, and there had him put to death." (Antiq. 12,
ix: 3, 5. 7-)
4. "The city was taken [by Pompey] in_ the third month, on the
day of the fast [the 23d Sivan], in the one hundred seventy-ninth
Olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were con
suls." (Ant. if, iv: 3.) " This destruction [by Herod] befell the city of
Schwartz also claims that Augustus died in A. D. 13, a year before
Ptolemy's Canon has it (A. D. 14). And he gives Dio in evidence, with
his 76 years only for the life of Augustus, and 56 years only for
Augustus' reign, i. e. (he says) from B. C. 44 to A. D. 13. But
this very " Dio tells us that Augustus reigned 44 years from the battle
of Actium " (so says Usher), i. e. from Sept. 2, B. C. 31 to Aug. 19, A.
D. 14. (His 56 years may have begun from B. C. 43, just as Ap-
pleton's Cyc. of Biog. and some other authors now put it; which
will not change the terminus, A.D. 14). ' Schwatz himself says that
Dio has the "Aug. 19" wrong for the death of Argustus; so his 56 and
76 may also be wrong.
Josephus, who was almost contemporary, is certainly better evi
dence than Dio 300 years afterward. And Josephus (Antig. 18, ii: 2)
says that Augustus "lived 77*years," and "reigned 57 years," i. e.,
from B. C. 44 to A. D. 14. Ptolemy's Canon has 43 years for Augustus
alone, from A. D. 14 back to the death of Cleopatra (its next reign)
in September, B. C. 30 (not to the defeat of Anthony, Aug. 2, nor
to Augustus' entrance into Alexadria the last of August, as alleged).
Schwartz makes but 42 years, from B. C. 30 to A. D. 13. He decides
that Augustus died, not on August ig (as in Dio), but on Sept. 22
(which he works out from Velleius). This agrees better with Josephus
and at the same time it more fully verifies/ Ptolemy's Canon, as always
ante-dating an accession. The contrary theory can not by any possi
bility be maintained. See Period G, § 108,- Period E, § 3, S5 142.

exile and after 109
Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius were consuls of Rome,
in the hundred eighty and fifth Olympiad, in the third month, on the
solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had
returned, since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews
were taken by him on the same day, and this was twenty-seven years'
time." (Antiq. 14, xvi: 4.)
5. "And thus did the government of the Asmoneans [or Macca
bees] cease, a hundred and twenty-six years after it was set up." (Ib.)
At 17, vi: 4, it is " 125 years."
6. " The number of the high-priests from the days of Herod until
the day when Titus took the temple and the city and burnt them, were
in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was a hundred
and seven years." (Antiq. 20, x: 1.)
7. " Herod died, having reigned since he had procured Antigonus
to be slain [and took Jerusalem] thirty-four years; but since he had
been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven." (Antiq. if, viii: 1.)
"Herod died, having reigned thirty -f our , years since he had caused
Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty- seven years
since he had been made king by the Romans." (War. 1, xxxiii: 8.)
See further in Restor. of Jos., § 4.
§ 4. These several statements being collated, give the following
as the intervals and dates of Josephus:
Intervals of Josephus.
Jerusalem taken by Antiochus  B. C. 170 — " 2 "
Antiochus Ep. profanes the temple  B. C. 168 — " 3 "
Judas Maccabeus cleanses it  B. C. 165 — 2
Ant. Eupator deposes Menelaus  B. C. 163 — 57
Judas Aristobulus puts on a crown  B. C. 106 — 42
Pompey conquers Jerusalem  B. C. 64 — " 27 "
Herod conquers Jerusalem  B. C. 37 — " 34 "
Herod dies  B. C. 4-3 — 40 ,
Josephus is born  A. D. 38— 32
Titus destroys Jerusalem.  A. D. 70 — 24 £"
Josephus writes his Antiquities  A. D. g4

110

PERIOD f

2,KK2.2."3§ ""
2 2 2 2 2 o>3
tn &.S. -o 3^

ct, n> J-^
Co Co CT cj
B b g-S

Oj co co vj*f. en o
-- p ™ - a>
»-l< — i p-hco
ffl £>g2^
o^o" On
P :[*• a. p
g: g: : :
p . g . . .

p-trB p

Is-
e. fl
at P
fO_fOB"B"

8 S 5r*D b S s 2
BP.O o g.p.3,g

w

3 cn &SjOj«>t3 -
f° s'cTiS a 0 i p
h-1 ," CD C/} rt- T
22.3,3a ? ftrP '

w<w
z

4=. HHHHMMHMMHMM
I h »(jh*ij> ai-<i ^j oojU)-(i-Lnc_n oioioiai o^j
lq ou) h<io-i> o io qm-» o^ui ui ^j o uj J>m coo

o

--cwno
CftOJ 00 O^LO -P»- — '

- -U)

B* : ;

*34"th "27"

00a>a>
S"
p
\0

<£) vo

Cfr O ML« *0

MMHMHMMI-tHM
<I "<t CT.U1 Oi Oi 4^ 4^ -t>- 4^
¦vj O O C?\OJ o 'O GOUi OJ

OCT*w O
to O

4^ OJ OJ m
OT<l OJ OJ

cn cn
H o
OJ KO

CD v*
S3

CO p
o*cp

00pcro-p

00p cityp

00 po"
CT P

W
arr.

ITEMS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
The Year 163 B. C.
§ 5. (I.) The deposition of Menelaus from the high-priesthood by
king Antiochus Eupator, as the era of substituted Maccabean rule, was
in B. C. 163, and could not, in Josephus' reckoning, be any earlier.
Proof. Antiochus Epiphanes died in the Seleucic year i4g, as
stated by Josephus (Antiq. 12, ix: 2), and in the First Book of Maccabees
(6:16). But in II Maccabees (10: 23, 33) the son, Antiochus Eupator,

EXILE AND AFTER 111
after his accession, dates his message to Lysias and to the Jews, on
" the 15th of Xanthicus [Nisan] in the year 148." Whiston, in a note
to Josephus (Antiq. 13, vi: 7), tells us that "the era of Seleucus is
known to have begun in the 312th year before the Christian era, from
its spring in the first book of Maccabees, and from its autumn in the
second book of Maccabees; it did not begin at Babylon till the next
spring, in the 311th year. See Prideaux at the year 312," where we
find similar statements. Accordingly, the year 149 of I Mac. and Jos.
began in the spring of B. C. 164; but the year 149 of II Mac. did not
begin till the autumn of B. C. 164. Therefore, theXanthicus or Nisan
of its 148, when Ant. Eupator issued his message, was in April of B. C.
164; and he must have come to the throne just before that, within the
same month. And the letter of Lysias, his general, dated "in the
year 148, the 24th day of the month Dioscurus," or the twin month
(II Mac. 11:21, see in Lid. & Scott Gr. Lex.), may have been in Sivan
or June, B. C. 164. These messages brought peace; " and when these
covenants were made, Lysias went to the king, and the Jews gave
themselves to husbandry." (II Mac. 12: 1.)
§ 6. . But according to this chapter (II Mac. 12), Judas Mac. spent
this year, B. C. 164, in various warlike operations, which I Mac. (Ch. 5)
followed by Josephus (Ant. 12,1 Ch. viii), narrates before mentioning
the death of Ant. Epiphanes, which preceded these things, in the spring.
It was not till the next spring, of B. C. 163, that is, at the beginning of
Josephus' Seleucic "year 150," that Judas attacked the foreign citadel
in Jerusalem, as Josephus states (Antiq. 12, ix: 3). And thereupon,
King Ant. Eupator being vexed changed his policy of peace, and with
Lysias came against Judas; when the siege of Bethsura and of Jerusa
lem followed (Antiq. 12, ix: 2-5; I Mac. vi: 18-54; U Mac. xiii: 1-21). This
was in the summer of'B. C. 163, before the Seleucic year 149 of II Mac.
ended in the autumn (II Mac. 13: 1). It was also (in September) the end
of the Jews' Sabbatic year, causing great scarcity of food in the siege.
(Antiq. 12, ix: 5; I Mac. vi: 49-54.)
A peace was finally concluded, and the enemy left that fall. It is
here at the leaving of Ant. Eupator, toward the close of B. C. 163
(I Mac. vi: 55-63; II Mac. xiii: 22-26), that Josephus mentions his depo
sition of Menelaus, the high-priest, and having him put to death (Ant.
12, ix: 7). But in II Mac. (13: 3-8), whence the account comes, it is put
in the early summer, at the coming of Ant. Eupator. At any rate, it
was in B. C. 163; and it can not be got any earlier, because the attack
of Judas upon the citadef, which preceded it, did not occur until this
year 150 Sel., which began in March, B. C. 163. Moreover, the fact
that that was the Sabbatic year, proves that it must be B. C. 163 to
agree with the Sabbatics given at B. C. 135, 37 and 23. In the next
•spring, B. C. 162, Seleucic " 151," beginning, Ant. Eupator was slain,

112 PERIOD F
as stated in I Mac. (vii: 1-3), having reigned just "two years," as Jos
ephus says (Ant. 12, x: 1.)
§7. (II.) The deposition and death of Menelaus, as the era of
established Maccabean rule, was in B. C. 163, ahd it could not, in
Josephus' reckoning, be any later, for example in B. C. 162. This is
not only proved by the above exhibit of the events and. dates-, but by
the following demonstrations. (See citations from Jos., §3.)
(1.) Citations 5 and 6: The " 126 years" 4- the " 107 years." Here
is given the time, from the Menelaus event, when fully "the Asmo-
nean government was set up," to " the day when Titus took the tem
ple" in A. D. 70 — given as "126" -f- "107 " = 233 years, or the 233d
year, viz., from A. D. 70 back to B. C 163, which is just .232 years or
the 233d year. From A. D. 70 to B. C. 37 is 106 years or the " 107 "th
year, and from B. C. 37 to 163 is just the " 126 years." given. What
could be a plainer demonstration, that we are correct in our reckoning
of Josephus? (2.) Down to Josephus' Day, the "471 years" -{-the "200 years."*
Here (War. 1, iii: 1; Ant. 3, viii: 9) the time from the end of "the
Babylonish slavery when our people came down into this country,"
until the date when Josephus "composed this book " of Antiquities, is
given as "471 "4- " 200 " = 671 years,, or the 671st year. But in Ant.
20, x: 1, the time from the end of the Babylonish captivity, "when
they were returned home, "until King Ant. Eupator" when he "de
prived Menelaus of the high-priesthood," is given as "414 years." So
that, from the deposition of Menelaus to the date of Josephus' writing,
he gives as 671 — "414" = 257 years, or the 257th year. And in Jos.
Life, § 1, he gives his own birth as "in the first year of the reign of
Caius Caesar," which was A. D. 38 (Tiberius having died March 16,
A. D. 37); so that his 56 years (Ant. 20, xi: 3) reached into A. D. 94,
where also ended "the 13th of Domitian who began in A. D. 8.1. And
in that " 56th year" of his life, or A. D. 94, he says he was writing.
§ 8. Hence, his "200th year before that must reach to B. C. 106,
the year when " Aristobulus put on the diadem; and his 257th year just
now found reaches 57 years farther, from B. C. 106 to 163, at, the
-deposition of Menelaus. We thus find, that the two events, when
"Aristobulus changed the government into a kingdom and was the
first to put a diadem on his head" (War. 1, iii: 1), and when "the
breast-plate (of the high-priest) left off shining, God having been dis
pleased at the transgression of his laws (Ant. 3, viii: 9) — were syn
chronous events, both occurring at the year 106 B. C, just 57 years
after the deposition of Menelaus. Could anything be plainer than this
doubled demonstration of Josephus, by the combination of all his
intervals, that we have him correct? But note,
* See Restor. of Jos., § 4, citations 2, 3.

exile and after 1j3
The Detailed Reigns.
(3.) Take the detailed reigns from Antiochus to Herod, to see how
they corroborate the " 126 years " and all our reckoning.
§ g. (a.) The Maccabean era. Josephus says (Ant. 20, x: 1), that
after the captivity the Jews "until Ant. Eupator were under a demo
cratic government 414 years,* and then" Menelaus was "deprived of
the priesthood " or supremacy, giving full place for the new dynasty of
Judas Maccabees and his successors. It is true, Judas gained great
victories before that event, but he could not be officially recognized as
the head of the goverment, so long as the high-priest Menelaus, was in
power. And it is true, when Menelaus was deposed and killed, an
other man (Alcimus or Jacimus) was appointed in his place by the in
vader Eupator; but the Jews did not acknowledge him (II Mac. xiv:
3-7), and Judas was now recognized as their only sovereign. That
year, B. C. 163, Seleucic 150, was the era of established Maccabean su
premacy. §10. (b.) The 57 years of Maccabean supremacy, until the "put
ting on of the diadem." This period is made up by Josephus as fol
lows: B. c.
163 ="150" (12, ix, 3)
Judas Mac. till Alcimus dth  "3 yrs" —160 (Ant. 20, x, 1)*
" after "  "3 yrs" —
. . ., . ,, . . . x57 (Ant. 12, xi, 2) %%
Jonathan in the interim  "4 yrs" — (Ant. 13, ii, 3)
153 ="160" (13, ii, 1)
after  10 yrs 
143 ="170" (13, vi, 7)
Simon  /  "8th  136 (Ant. 13, vii, 4)|
Hyrcanus I  "30 yrs" —
 106 (Ant. 20, x, i)f
57 yrs
*At 12, x: 6, it is wrongly "4 years."
tAt 13, x: 7, it is wrongly "31 years."
tit reads "in all 8 years," including Jonathan's captivity (13, vi : 2).
$$At 20, x: 1, thisis made an interregnum i. e., without high-priests "7 years," till B,
C. 153, Jonathan being ruler "these seven years," and high-priest also 10 years more.
Also 1 Mac. ix: 18, 56 makes Judas die before Alcimus.

"The citations 1, 2, 3, at §3 show, that the "414 years" date to
Eupator was reduced by 2, by 5, and by 7 years, to give the several
special dates of Eupator's predecessor, Epiphanes. For, the Seleucic
"150, 148, 145, 143," were the years B. C. 163, 165, 168, 170; so that
the desolating by Antiochus Epiphanes began in B. C. 170, or 7 years
before the "414 years" expired, i. e., after 407 years, called the
" 408th " year. (See Restor. of Jos., %4cit. 1, 4, and%ji-jj.)

114 PERIOD F
§11. (c.) "The 126 years" of Maccabean supremacy until Herod.
Besides the foregoing 57 years, there are contained 6g other years,
thus: B. c.
After Menelaus  57 yrs
 — 106
. Aristobulus, diadem  "1 year"  (Ant. 13, xi, 3)
"* ¦ 105 ' 1
'? Alexander  "27"th — (Ant. 13, xv, 5)*
* 79
;* Alexandra  "9 yrs" — : (Ant. 13, xvi, 6)
7°
c Hyr. & Aristobulus  6 yrs — (Ant. 20, x, i)f
< 64
.1 ( Hyrcanus II ("24 more"). .,.. . "24 yrs" — ( )
IS. ) 40
-N (Antigonus  "3X yrs" — ( " )
 37
69 yrs
After Menelaus, total  "126 yrs" — (Ant. 14, xvi, 4)
Herod, ("37 after Hyr.")  "34th" — (Ant. 17, viii, i)X
B. C. 4

*It is given "27 years," but this includes the, ignoble year 01 the brother Aristo
bulus before it.
tit reads "3 years and 6 months," which is plainly a corruption for 6 years (and 3
mo. of Hyrcanus? Ant. 14, i:2.) See this correction in Prideaux. Pompey's con
quest of Jerusalem thus comes B. C. 64, i. e., at 99 years of the Maccabees, with 133 on
ward to Titus. (Prideaux calls it the early summer of B. C. 63.)
tThe full "34 years" and "37 years" given will bring Herod's death to B. C. 3;' but it
seems as though it could not be so long after the eclipse of Mar. 13, B. C. 4. (See Antiq.
17, vi : 4, note, and what follows. See also our period G, § 96-98.)
Corroborations.
§ 12. (4.) The Olympic dates of Josephus prove that our exhibit of
his reckoning is correct, as above. Thus, examining his eight in
stances of such dating,^ as shown in the table here (at §4), we find but
one definite Olympic year specified, viz., Olym. 177: 3=707, which
year must have begun in June, B. C. 70, since Olympic year 1 began in
June, B. C. 776. Taking this, then, as the test of all his Olympic dates,
we find six of the nine in agreement with his other dates (by Seleucicx
years, by reigns, and by Sabbatics); namely, atnOlympic years 609,
707, 7i3. 740, 746, 7°7-
But at the Olympic year 641 he is plainly wrong, as Whiston has
pointed out; Josephus' "Olympiad 162" beginning with year 645,
should certainly read "Olympiad 161" beginning with year 641.
Furthermore, the Olympic year 612 is one year too small for his
"Olym. 154," and the Olympic year 737 is one year too large for his
tJHe has a ninth instance, at Ap. I, 21, viz., the death of Alexan-
der "in the 114th Olympiad, i. e., May 22, B. C. 323. (Hales.)

EXILE AND AFTER 1J5
"Olym. 184." These two cases of one year error in opposite directions
prove,- that we have him right, and that his three errors are either cor
ruptions, or mistakes of a single unit in the number of the Olympiad
in these two cases. On the whole, we may conclude from these nine
uses of the Olympic dating, about the only ones occurring in Josephus,
that he was not particularly an expert in the use of that Olympic era'
which was not very familiar to the Jews. But he gives enough accu
rate dating of this sort, to demonstrate our exhibit of him as correct.
§ 13- (5-) The Sabbatic Dates of Josephus further corroborate all
our adjustments of him as exact and accurate. He describes at least
four Sabbatic years within 140 years' time, as seen in the table on page
5, with the hostile invasions invited by them, and the lack of food
caused by them,, under the judgment of heaven. And they all harmonize
with the datings we assign him, as regular multiples of the returning 7
years' interval; from B. C. 163 to 135, to 37, to 23, and thence to A. D.
27, as each being (in September) the close of a Sabbatic year— and
the last two being Jubilee Sabbatics.* The correctness of this is indi
cated by the striking fact, that in the summer of A. D. 27 (the first
year of His ministry), our Lord publicly read the Jubilee selection of
scripture in the synagogue of Nazareth (Lu. iv: 16-21.) Nothing is
wanting from the demonstration of our exhibit, as the assured and in
disputable dating of Josephus. Back to the Captivity.
§ 14. From B. C. 170 backward, the dating of Josephus is very
vague. Especially when he has passed by the Seleucic Era (B. C.
312), and has given the " 12 years " of Alexander the Great (Ant. 12,
ii: 1), who died in May or June, B. C. 323— beyond that he is all
afloat. And we have to depend almost entirely on Ptolemy's Canon,
to reach the dating of the captivity.
We thus find (by the Canon) that the ist year of Cyrus begun in
January B. C. 538 (Nabonassan), so that the conquest of Babylon may
have been some months later than that. And since there follows a
" first year of Darius the Mede" (Dan. ix: x, and xi: 1), doubtless the
decree in favor of the Jews "in the first year of Cyrus" (Ezra i: 1),
was in B. C. 537.
The renewal of that decree in " the 2d year of Darius" Hystaspes
(Ezra iv: 24), is fixed to the year B. C. 520; and the completion of the
second temple in "the 6th year of Darius" (vi: 15), was in Adar
* Prideaux dates the rule of Judas Mac. from his father's death.
Hales puts it (as we see Josephus does) from the death of Menelaus,
when Judas was formally acknowledged by Ant. Eupator. And he
also puts Hyreanus I as beginning at B. C. 136, because of the Sab
batic years, which he says must come at 135 and 163 B. C, just as
shown above.

116 PERIOD F
(March) of B. C. 516 (or 515, if the Jews delayed the Babylonian year
to their own new year in spring. § 33.
The 7th year of Artaxerxes (Ezra vii: 7), when the decree " to re
store Jerusalem " was issued to Ezra, ended by the Canon in Decem
ber B. C. 458; but probably some months later by the King's actual
accession, namely, in B. C. 457. So that, no doubt it was in the
spring of this Sabbatic year (ending B. C. 457), that Ezra received -his-
commission. From this decree the " 70 weeks " of Daniel are reck
oned, reaching, the first "7 weeks" or 49 years of restoring to B. C.
408, the next " 62 weeks " or 434 years to Christ's baptism in the early
spring of A. D. 27 (Jubilee Sabbatic), the whole "70 weeks" or 4go
years to A. D. 34, when the gospel was opened to the Gentiles. (See
period G, § 105, and E, § 68.)

PART II.
Jerusalem Destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in B. C. 587,
not 588 as Generally Assigned.

Leading Evidence.
§ 15. All agree, that the reign of Nebuchadnezzar was (in accord
ance with Ptolemy's Canon) 43 years long, from the January Thoth
- (or Nabonassan New Year) of B. C. 604 to the January Thoth of B. C.
561.* Now it was in summer, the middle of Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth
year, by this Ptolemaic-Babylonian reckoning, that Jerusalem was des
troyed; which event must therefore be in B. C. 587, not in 588 as given
in the vulgar (or Usher) chronology.
That it was in the summer of Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year
by the Babylonian reckoning, is expressly declared^by Josephus in two
of his works, this being the only numbering which he gives. Antiq.
10. viii: 5. Versus Apion i: 21. He gives Nebuchadnezzar only 43
years of reign (Antiq. 10, xi: 1); thus following the Babylonian reckon
ing of Ptolemy's Canon, so that his eighteenth year of Neb. is Baby
lonian reckoning or B. C. 587.
Moreover, Josephus expressly tells us (Vs. Ap. i: 21), that "in our
books (the O. T. ) it is written, that Nebuchadnezzar in the eighteenth
year of his reign laid our temple waste." Where in the Old Testament
is this written ? It is at Jer. lii: 29; and this statement of Josephus
concerning it, jproves that we have here the Babylonian reckoning of
Nebuchadnezzar's reign — and that the capturing here spoken of is that
connected with the destruction of Jerusalem (as given at II Ki. xxv: 9-11;
II Chron. xxxvi: 19, 20; Jer. xxxix: 7-9; lii: n-15).
That the destruction of the city was thus in the summer near the

*We have found only Schwartz calling this in question, and putting
it B. C. 605 to 562. But he gives no proof, except his novel theory, that
Ptolemy's Canon has all its dates from the Thoth after (not before)
accession.

118 PERIOD F
middle of the Babylonian year, appears not only from Josephus (as
above), but also from scripture. (II Ki. xxv: 8-n; Jer. xxxix: 2; xli:.i; lii:
5-7. 12- )
Further Proof.
§ 16. Josephus (Antiq. 10, ix: 7) says, that " in the fifth year after
the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the twenty-third of the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar, he [by his captains] took captive those that were
there (in Egypt — II Ki. xxv: 26), and led them away to Babylon." This
is the very thing -asserted of this " twenty-third year" of Babylonian
reckoning, here at Jer. lii: 30. (See xliii: 7-12; xliv: 27, 28.)
Again, as Jerusalem was destroyed eleven years (of Zedekiah's reign)
after the beginning of Jehoiachin's captivity, therefore, the twenty-
fifth year of that captivity corresponds with the fourteenth year after
the destruction of Jerusalem; just as it is declared in Ezek. xl: 1.
Moreover, as thus Jehoiachin's captivity began eleven years before the
eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar, it began in the seventh of Nebuchad
nezzar. And this is the very thing asserted of this "seventh year"
of Babylonian reckoning, here at Jer. lii: 28. We have seen that
Josephus expressly affirms this to be the correct view of this lii: 29.
To escape it, Whiston most strangely says (Note in Jos., Ap. i: 21),
"This number in Josephus, that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the tem
ple in the eighteenth year of his reign, is a mistake in the nicety of
chronology; for it was in the nineteenth" — i. e., by Jewish reckoning.
But see the fallacy of this.
§ 17. (1.) Josephus does not follow that Jewish reckoning of Neb
uchadnezzar, in any of his datings, and therefore could not rightly give
the " nineteenth year. " (2.) Hegivesit as in the "eighteenth of Neb
uchadnezzar" not only here but also in his other work, as seen above,
consistently adhering always to that Babylonian number. (3.) He
found this "eighteenth Nebuchadnezzar" (he says) given in his Bible
for the destruction of Jerusalem, viz., at this Jer. lii: 29. To say that
Josephus here mistakes, is to say that he everywhere mistakes, and
that the Bible itself mistakes, and that there was no Babylonian reck
oning, but that the Jewish reckoning alone was correct. On the con
trary, Josephus is right. He gives only the Babylonian reckoning (one
year different from the Jewish); and he gives it correctly, taking it from
the book of Jeremiah which has it correctly. Its " eighteenth Nebu
chadnezzar " for the capturing of Jerusalem and its people is the true
Babylonian date for its fall, which necessarily is B. C. 587.
Yet again, this true reckoning makes the thirty-seventh year of
Jehoiachin's captivity correspond with the (7 -\- 37=) forty-fourth year of
Nebuchadnezzar. But as Nebuchadnezzar reigned only forty-three
years, his forty-fourth year was really the first year of his successor
Evil Merodach, B. C. 561; just as asserted of this " thirty-seventh year

EXILE AND AFTER 119
of Jehoiachinls captivity " here in Jer. lii: 31, as taken from II Kings xxv:
-27- § 18. Once more, this makes the twenty-seventh year of Jehoi
achin's captivity correspond with the (7+27=) thirty-fourth year of
Nebuchadnezzar, or B. C. 571, when he had just finished the thirteen
years' seige of Tyre (Ezek. xxix: 17, 18), viz., atthe end of B. C. 572.
The correctness of this date is seen from the reckoning of Josephus (Vs.
Ap., i: 21), where he says that "on the seventh year of Nebuchad
nezzar he began to beseige Tyre for thirteen years." This makes the
taking of Tyre (6 -\- 13) nineteen of Nebuchadnezzar (i. e. , of his
career from his final invasion of all Syria, Judea, and Egypt, at the be
ginning of B. C. 590) — namely, at the close of B. C. 572, as here found.
The same is seen from Philostratus (in Josephus, Vs. Ap. i: 21, and
Ant. 10, xi: 1), who says, "Nebuchadnezzar beseiged Tyre for thirteen
years in the days of Ithobal their king; after him reigned Baal ten
years (followed by reigns of ) two months and ten months, and three
months, and six years, and one year, and four years, then Hiram
twenty years; under his reign Cyrus became king of Persia" — viz., in
his " fourteenth year, " adds Josephus. This fourteenth year of Hiram
as the first of Cyrus, is here made to be the thirty-sixth after the taking
of Tyre at the end of B. C. 572, viz., the beginning of B. C. 536; when,
in the view of Josephus and the Jews, Cyrus issued his decree in his
first year after the death of "Darius the Mede." "So that (adds
Josephus) the whole interval is fifty-four years besides three months;"
i- ''• (35+I3 + 2 years of Nebuchadnezzar), "fifty years" from the
end of B. C. 537 back to 587 or ( 4- 4=) " fifty-four years " to the end
of B. C. 591.
§ 19. Prideaux treats Josephus as if beginning Cyrus with the fall
of Babylon in B. C. 538; and so he makes the thirty-sixth year preced
ing carry the fall of Tyre back to B. C. 583, and the fall of Jerusalem
to B. C. 588. But that Josephus puts the Cyrus decree at the begin
ning of B. C. 36, appears from Vs. Ap. i: 21, where he says: " In the
eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign he laid our temple desolate,
and so it laid in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the
second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid," etc., i. e.,
the decree for that purpose having been issued in the first year of
Cyrus. (See Ezra i: 1, comp. with iii: 8-13.) This "fifty years" cer
tainly begins with B. C. 587, and therefore ends with B. C. 537, as we
have seen. The decree itself Josephus puts in " the first year of Cyrus "
(Ant. 11, i: 1), i. e., in B. C. 537, -by no means so early as B. C. 538.
Corrected View of Jer. lii: 28-30.
§ 20. Jeremiah proper ends with the 51st chapter, as seen by its last
verse. The 52d chapter was added as a summary, being taken from
II Kings xxiv: 18-25, 30; except~that for ver. 212-26 in Kings is interpo-

120 PERIOD F
lated the summary of ver. 28-30 in Jeremiah. This interpolation is
evidently a Babylonian enumeration of the captives, and therefore is
expressed with Babylonian numbering of Nebuchadnezzar's years (7
and 18 and 23, for 8 and 19 and 24), instead of the Hebrew numbering
found in the rest ofthe Bible. /
The British Commentary (of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown) rightly
assigns the seventh and eighteenth of Nebuchadnezzar as here given,
to the beginning and end of Zedekiah's reign. But it fails to give the
true reason why these numbers are here used in place of eighth and
nineteenth employed elsewhere (See Ver. 12). Its explanation con
cerning the fewness of the captives here enumerated is in part correct.
Ver. 28, 29, "Nebuchadnezzar carried away," give only the official
captives, sent or coming to Nebuchadnezzar's headquarters, and by
him personally taken to Babylon, as seen at II Kings xxiv: 12, 15, and
II Chron. xxxvi: 10, and Jer. xxxix: 4-7, and lii: 7-11, with Josephus 10,
viii: 2; not including the greater numbers carried off by means of his
generals, as seen at II Kings xxiv: 14, 16, and xxv: 11, with Jer. xxxix: 9,
and lii: 15 (also Ver. 30).
§ 21. From an oversight of the fact here brought out, that Jer. lii:
28, 30, is a later addendum drawn from Babylonian data, being the list
of Nebuchadnezzar's own official captives, has arisen the error of
Usher, Lowth and the vulgar chronology generally; which treats the
"7th " and " 18th " here given as the Hebrew numbering of years. So
that they are thus made to refer to some unrelated capturings one year
before the great capturings of the " 8th " and "19th" years given in II
Ki. xxiv: 12, and xxv: 8 (copied at Jer. lii: 12).
Thus Lowth (in Scott): "Archbishop Usher supposes that this Jer.
lii: 28, 30, gives an account of the lesser captivities, which the Jews
suffered under Neb., whereas there were three others, viz: in the ist
year of his reign, in the 8th year, and in the 19th year when the city"
was destroyed." Prideaux even strangely calls this "7th year " (of ver.
28) the 7th of Jehoiakim instead of Neb.; although it is the latter alone
referred to, and there is no allusion to the former in all the context.
To such marvelous devices does a missing of the truth lead on.
Now note, on the contrary, that neither in the Bible nor in any
other history have we the least hint of any such carrying away of cap
tives in those extra imagined years; nor do the circumstances allow such
suppositions. And above all it is impossible to regard the book of Jer
emiah as here summing up the captives by announcing: '¦'¦This is the
people whom Neb. carried away captive," and then naming only three
"lesser captivities" with the three principal (in fact the only real)
capturings entirely unnoticed! ! It is plain, that the capturings here given
are at the closed reigns of Jekoiakim and Zedekiah, 11 years apart,
together with the later deportations, at which three times occurred the
only general capturings known; since that of Dan. i: 3, was only a
selection of " children."

EXILE AND AFTER 121
Josephus' " 23D Neb."
§ 22. Although Josephus gives the final capturing of the Jews as
' ' on the 3th year after the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the 23d
year of the reign of Neb." by Babylonian reckoning; yet he probably
thought of it as only four full years, or at the very beginning of the
Babylonian 23d (or end of the Jewish 23d), putting the Babylonian
year as closing along with the Jewish year (in September), only 1 year
later. So he made the Babylonian ist of Neb. parallel with the 5th of
Jehoiakim, B. C. 605-4. (See Antiq. : 10. vi: 1.)
This " 23d of Neb." as in the autumn of B. C. 583 for 4 years after
the destruction of the city), was the time ]ews got through leaving Pal
estine for Egypt, there to be captured and carried to Babylon. For the
migration into Egypt, stated at II Ki. xxv: 26, Jer. xliii: 7, was doubt
less in successive bands going to different localities (xliv: 1, 26) during
four years; until a last flight at rumor of the new coming Babylonian
invasion of 23d Neb. (See our Restor. of Jos., § 29.)
Hebrew Reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar.
§ 23. The Hebrews at Jerusalem began the reckoning of Neb.'s reign
earlier, from his first coming to besiege Jerusalem before the death of
his father; namely, in the summer of B. C. 606, over a year from the
Babylonian beginning of his reign.
This Jewish beginning of Neb. was near the close of the 3d year of
Jehoiakim, as stated in Dan. i: 1; II Ki. xxiv: 1. So that the years of
Neb. were computed along with the Jewish civil years, the 4th of Je
hoiakim being called the ist of Nebuchadnezzar, as said at Jer. xxv: 1,
and xlvi: 2, and beginning from September B. C. 606. (So Prideaux
connec.) Thus Neb's reign was made over 44 (instead of 43) years; and
from its beginning in B. C. 606 to the Cyrus decree (at the end of B. C.
537) there were 70 years of servitude, as foretold at its beginning.
(Jer. xxv: 1, g, 11.) The Bible is mostly written with this Hebrew reck
oning of Neb., the only exception being Jer. lii: 28-30, as shown above
— unless we add also Dan. ii: 1.
Study of Daniel ii: 1.
§ 24. Most expositors interpret " the 2d year of the reign of Neb
uchadnezzar," in Dan ii: 1, as meaning his 2d Babylonian year, B. C.
603. But this seems hardly to comport with chapter 1, or with this
chapter 2, verse 13, 25, 26, 48. How could Daniel, only 3 years after his
boyhood of chapter 1, be regularly numbered among the wise men of
Babylon? and yet so soon, within a few weeks after, i: ig, 20, be all un
sought for by Neb. in his extremity? and so little known and understood
by him? and how improbable, that a youth (not over 18) was then made
a great' man and ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief

122 PERIOD F
of the governors." Moreover, the complete supremacy of Neb. de
scribed in verses 37, 38, seems better to fit him after his later conquests.
§ 25. This dilemma is escaped by Josephus; who (in Antiq. 16, x. 3)
renders it, as " two years after the destruction of Egypt," and he else
where (Vs. Ap. i, 21) dates the years of Neb. from B. C. 5go. (See
here §18.) The meaning might be (as in the LXX) "the second year
of supremacy, that is, over Egypt, or over the nations generally, or
over Jerusalem destroyed in B. C. 587. This would well fit Ezek. xiv:
12-20,* and Ezek. xxviii: 3.+,
Scripture Evidence.
§ 26. The Hebrew reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar is seen at Jer. xxxii:
1, which says, "the 10th year of Zedekiah was the 18th year
of -Nebuchadnezzar"; also in Jer. xxv: 1, 3, which says, "the 4th year
of Jehoiakim was the ist year of Nebuchadnezzar," being "the three
and twentieth year from the 13th year of Josiah." Now, Josiah's 31
years with 12 whole years taken out leave ig, and 3 whole years of his
son Jehoiakim added make 22 whole years, giving the 4th of Jehoiakim
as the 23d year from Josiah's 13th — just as here stated.
This made the nth of Jehoiakim to be the 8th of Neb., at the close
of which nth year (in summer) Jehoiachin was taken captive, as stated
*Ezekiel's first reference to Daniel as already celebrated, is near
or after the destruction of Jerusalem. For his first 15 chapters reach
from the 5th year of Jehoiachin's captivity (i: 2), past the 6th year
(viii: 1), on through the nth (xii: 26-27), ar,d still on after the destruction
of Jerusalem (xiii: 1, 5, 10, 16). After which, at chap, xvi, a new series
goes back to an earlier date, and forward again to^the 7th year (xx: 1),
and to the gth year (xxiv: i), and the nth year (xxvi: 1), and afterward.
So that chapter xiv may thus come after the destruction of Jerusalem,
at about B. C. 585; as seen at verses 21-23, "When I send my judgments"
as I have, "a remnant shall be brought — they shall come forth unto
you [to Bablyon, as in Jer. lii: 30] — and ye shall be comforted concern
ing the evil that I have brought upon Jerusalem," and at xv: 5-7, "they
shall go out from one fire, another fire shall devour them," viz: in
Egypt (comp. Jer. xiii: 7:11, and xliv: 12-14).
fThis comparing of Tyre with Daniel was made long after
the destruction of Jerusalem, when the fame of Daniel was widely
spread. (Dan. ii: 46-48.) For the prophecies of Ezekiel are in clusters.
Those against Tyre begin with the 26th chapter: viz., in the nth year
of Jehoiachin's captivity and of Zedekiah's reign, Sep., B. C. 588;'and
they continue from time to time (xxvii: 1; xxviii: 1; xi: 20), until Tyre was
taken (xxix: 17) just before the 27th year beginning Sep., B. C. 572.
Then Egypt is treated from the 10th year (xxix: 1), with episode (ver. 17)
to the' nth year (xxxi: 1), and the 12th year (xxxii: 1, 32): after which,
chap, xxxiii-xl is general, beginning before the 12th year (xxxiii: 21.)
As Ezek. xxix: 17 is at the 27th year," viz., B. C. 472, the reference to
Daniel at xxviii : 3, may well be about°B. C. 580, not 588 as Prideaux
makes it.

exile and after 123
in II Ki. xxiv: 12. So, 10 years afterward, "the 10th of Zedekiah was the
18th of Neb., as given at Jer. xxxii: 1. And the next year, the destruc
tion of Jerusalem (in summer) near the close of Zedekiah's nth year
(Jer. i: 3) was also the close of Neb.'s 19th year in this reckoning, just
as given at II Ki. xxv: 8, and copied at Jer. lii: 12.
As the ist year of Neb. by this reckoning began with the Hebrew
civil year, Sep., B. C. 606, the 19th Neb. thus ended 19 years after-
< ward, at Sep., B. C. 587; just before which, in the summer of that 587,
Jerusalem was destroyed; for it was in the 5th Jewish month (or Aug
ust), as stated at II Ki. xxv: 8.
And thus, by both reckonings alike, Jerusalem's destruction was in
B. C. 587, not 588 as commonly said; which was 25^ years before
Neb.'s ending at the Jan. Thoth of B. C. 561, and 17^ years after
Neb.'s accession in B. C. 604; total 43 years.
Decisive Verification.
§ 27. There were 22 whole years from the destruction of Jerusalem
back to the death of Josiah, For, Jehoiakim reigned 11 whole years
(including 3 months interposed, 1 1 Ki.xxiii: 31,36; II Chron.xxxvi:2,5); and
then Zedekiah reigned 11 whole years (including 3 mo. 10 days inter
posed, II Ki. xxiv: 8,18; II Chron.xxxvi:g,n; Jer.i:3.) Now these 22 years
back to Josiah added to the last 18 years of Josiah, give just 40 years
from the destruction of Jerusalem back to the end of Josiah's 13th
year, at which time Jeremiah's warning prophesy commenced. (Jer.
li: 2.) From the finished capturing 4^ years after the destruction of Jeru
salem (Neb. 23d, Jer. lii: 30), there were also just 40 years back to Jo
siah's reformation, at the spring Passover of his 18th year, 4^ years
after his 13th year ended, II Ki. xxii: 3, and xxiii: 21-23, II Chron. xxxiv:
8, and xxxv: 1, 17), from which 18th year Ezekiel's waning prophesy was
dated. For, he says (i: 1, 2), his " 30th year was the 5th year of Je
hoiachin's captivity," i. e. , there were 25 years between his date and
the capture of Jehoiachin, viz., the 11 years of Jehoiakim and 14 years
of Josiah's 31 (II Ki. xxii: 1, 2; II Chron. xxxiv: 1), making his date to
begin with Josiah's 18th year, from B. C. 623 to 583.
Now, Ezekiel (iv: 6) assigns just these 40 years for the "iniquity (or
hardening) of the house of Judah," until the accomplished "siege of
Jerusalem" (verse 7, 8). This proves our reckoning of the reigns to be
correct. §28. But we thus have 19 whole years from the destruction of
Jerusalem back to the first invasion of Neb., which was near the close
of 3 full years of Jehoiakim, as shown before. That invasion was in
the summer, as Jerusalem was finally taken in the summer; so
that there were even years. These ig years were from B. C. 587 back

124 PERIOD F
to B. C. 606 in summer, at which time the 4th of Jehoiakim must com
mence, i. e., with the Jewish civil year in September, called also by
the Jews the ist year of Neb., owing to his then invading the land.
This brings the destruction of Jerusalem near the- end of Neb.'s igth
; year by the Hebrew, reckoning (viz., iri the summer of B. C. 587), just
as declared in scripture, and even by Usher himself (at year 3416).
The Sabbatic Year.
§ 29. The destruction of Jerusalem being rightly assigned to B. C.
587, near the end of Zedekiah's nth year, it follows that the com
mencement of the siege, in the 9th year in the 10th month (II Ki.
xxv: 1; Jer. xxxix: 1, and lii: 4; Ezek. xxiv: 1), was in December, B. C.
590 (as set by Prideaux himself); just before which, in that year 590,
Zedekiah had revolted. (II Ki. xxiv: 20; II Chron. xxxvi: 13; Jer. lii: 3.)
So Josephus (Antiq. 10, vii: 3, 4, and viii: 1, 2, 5), _ "When Zedek
iah had preserved the league for 8 years, he broke it * * * the
king of Babylon made war * * * but departed from Jerusalem
* * * the false prophets deceived Zedekiah * * * Jeremiah
said they should serve Babylon seventy years * * * Jeremiah
was imprisoned * * * Now in fhe 10th year of Zedekiah on the
10th day of the month, the king of Babylon made a second expedi
tion against Jerusalem, and lay before it 18 months and besieged it
* * * a famine and pestilence * * * siege 18 months * * *
the city was taken on the gth day of the 4th month in the nth year
of Zedekiah * * * in the 5th month, ist day in the nth year of'
Zedekiah, and the 18th of Neb., he also burnt the place."
§ 30. Now the Jewish Sabbatic year ended with Zedekiah's gth year
in September, B. C. 5go. For, according to Josephus, the year B. C.
137 closed a Sabbatic, as also B. C. 163. (§ 13.) So 40 Sabbatics before
that, or 280 years, at B. C. 443, ended a Sabbatic (see Neh. x: 31, that
year); and so, 77 years before that, at B. C. 520; also 10 Sabbatics be
fore that, at B. C. 5go. At that time, Zedekiah, warned by the prophet,
proclaimed liberty to Hebrews in servitude, in accordance with the
Mosaic law (Jer. xxxiv: 8, g); and also himself declared independence
of Babylon. But when Nebuchadnezzar, after being thus brought
upon him (ver. 1), had left for a time to meet the king of Egypt (ver.
21 and xxxvii: 11), Zedekiah grew arrogant, and again enslaved the
freedmen; for which Jeremiah rebuked him (xxxiv: 11-22) in B. C. 58g.
(See period E, § 6g~74.)
Then Neb. returned, just one year after his previous siege began,
as Josephus states, viz., in Dec, B. C. 58g, the 10th year of Zedekiah
having begun in Sep. along with the 18th of Neb. by Jewish reckoning
(Jer. xxxii: 1, 2); and after 18 months' siege he destroyed the city, in
the 4th and 5th months, or summer of B. C. 587. So then, from Zede-

exile and after 125
kiah's revolt arid Neb.'s siege at the close of the Sabbatic, B. C. 590,
there were just 70 years of land-sabbath (II Chron. xxxvi: 13, 20, 21),
to the close of the Sabbatic, B. C. 520, the 2d of Darius, when his de
cree practically released the land.
§ 31. Now the fact of the Sabbatic in B.C. 590, fixing the arrival of
Neb. and so the beginning of the gth Zed. to that year, and aggravat
ing the consequent famine (Jer. xxi: -z, g), compels the ending of nth
Zed. and the destruction of the city (Jer. i: 3) to be in B. C. 587, over
30 months afterward. And when Prideaux makes the taking of the
city only some 18 months afterward, he is confounding the second ap
proach of Neb. after having gone to meet the Egyptians (which Jo
sephus expressly says was 18 months before the conquest, viz., in 10th
Zed. or Dec. j., B.C. 58g), with his first coming a year before, in thegth
Zed. 10th month, or Dec. B. C. 5go. (This 10th month from spring
must not be misunderstood, as the ioth month of ^he year's reign,
which began in September. Confusion on this point has made much
of the current mistaken reckoning.)
Further Confirmation.
§32. The destruction of Jerusalem being rightly assigned to B. C.
587, there are just 70 years oi fasting for the temple desolation, from
this time to the finishing of the second temple with the year B. C. 517,
as stated in Zech. vii: 5. For it was at the beginning of B. C. 516
(as set by Hales) that the dedication of Ezra vi: 15-ig, took place, not
in B. C. 515, as set by the Usher Chronology.
The ist year of Darius, by Plotemy's Canon was the Nabonassan
year of (365 days) from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, B. C. 521 (Julian Bissextile),
each of those dates being that year the Egyptian Thoth or new year's
day. (§ 2.) We learn from Ezra iv: 24, etc., that the temple was re
commenced in the second year of Darius (B. C. 520), and from Hag.
i: 1-15, we learn that it was commenced in the sixth Jewish month of
that year, viz., Elul (about September) Haggai prophesied in that
month, and also in the seventh and ninth months (Hag. ii: 1, 10, 18,
20). In the fourth year of Darius, "in the fourth day of the ninth
month, even in Chisleu, (Zech. vii: 1-5), i. e., in December, of B. C.
518, Zechariah received a Divine message concerning the fasts, which,
had then been observed "these seventy years;" i. e., seventy times
annually from the destruction of Jerusalem, B. C. 587-518 inclusive.
And in the sixth year of Darius, on the third day of the month
Adar (the twelfth Jewish month), i. e., about the end of February, the
temple was finished; its dedication being closely connected with the
following passover about the beginning of April. (Ezra vi: 15-22.)
This was B. C. 516, the sixth of Darius having begun with' the Baby-

126 period f
Ionian year, December 30, before. So that'.the seventy years of temple
ruin reached from the summer of B. C. 587 to the summer of B. C.
517, a few months before the new temple was dedicated.
§33. Prideaux and others in the vulgar chronology, make this
dedication to be in the spring of B. C. 575, considering "the sixth
year of Darius " here as delayed to end with the Jewish year at Nisan
(or March). But this is not probable. For, although Zech. i: 1-7,
looks like such a delay of the Babylonian year there is no other in
stance of such delayed reckoning; certainly not in Ezra. On the con
trary, Jer. i: 3, is decisive that " the fifth month " was near "the end
of the year " of a reigning king; and Nehemiah (i: 1 & 2: 1), makes the
ninth Jewish month (December) and the following first Jewish month
(April) to be both in the same 20th year of Artaxerxes at the Persian
court; which therefore does not begin with the Jewish new year, but
back as early as the Egyptian new year or Thoth, then at December
12th. This plainly settles it, that the reckoning of Ezra and Nehe
miah, who lived at the Persian court, was the Persian reckoning, not.
delayed, but back as far as from Thoth to Thoth. Since, therefore, it
is Ezra who says that the temple was finished in "the twelfth month
which was in the sixth year of Darius," he must mean that twelfth
Jewish month which came in the sixth Persian or actual year of Da
rius (as early as December, B. C. 517 to December, 516), namely, the
March of B. C. 516, not of 515 as Prideaux alleges; which latter is
over seventy-one and one-half years after the destruction of Jerusalem
in B. C. 787.
Indeed, Prideaux himself (at year 561), bases his chronology on the
fact, that the Jews reckoned the years of the Bab. kings as beginning
before their own vernal new year; thus making the 37th year of their
own king Jehoiachin to end in the first year of Evil Merodach. The
Zech. i: 1-7, is very likely a relict of that Jewish antedating (not delay)
of Babylonian regnal years as coincident with the Hebrew regnal or
civil year (from September) which prevailed before (as we have seen)
in the days of Nebudchadnezzar. Thus viewed, Zech. i: 1, is, in the
last part of the actual first year of Darius, and verse 7 is near the
beginning of the actual second of Darius, when as yet the temple was
not recommenced (see vers. 12-16) of which there is no intimation till a
later day (iv: i-g).
§ 34. In September of this second year of Darius, B. C. 520,
ended the Sabbatic year, just seventy years (as said in Zech i: 12)
after the Sabbatic of B. C. 5go, when Neb. invaded the land. And as
then, it was followed by a famine. This was employed by Haggai (II:
6-11, and ii: 16- ig) as an argument for recommencing the temple.
That work was accordingly entered upon before this 2d of Darius ex
pired (Hag. i: 1, 12-15, and ii: 1, 10, 18, 20); although some pleaded "the
time is not come, the time that the Lord's house should be built," i. e.y

exile and apter 127
the seventy years of its actual desolation (from B. C. 587) were not yet
out. This would< hardly have been said had the interval been longer,
from B. C. 588 as commonly alleged.
After this, "in the 4th year of King Darius, in the fourth day of
the ninth month, even in Chisleu," i. e., in Nov., B. C. 518, Zech. (vii:
1-5), received a divine message concerning the fasts "in the fifth and
seventh month " (as -well as the fourth and tenth months, viii: ig),
which had then, been observed "these seventy years." Now the fasts
of the fourth, fifth and seventh months were for the destruction of Je
rusalem, andof the temple, and of the remnant under Gedaliah (II
Ki. xxv: 2, 3, 8, 25), in July, August and October of B. C. 587; and the
1 seventieth recurrence of these (including the events themselves) was in
the year B. C. 518, when Zechariah (vii: 1-5) thus spoke of it. The fast
of the tenth month (viii: ig) was for the assault of Neb. in December,
B. C. sgo (II Ki. xxv: 1, etc.), and his renewed seige in December, B.
C. 58g (Jer. xxxiv: 22; and xxxii: 1, 2), and had been observed just
seventy years, in November, B. C. 518, when Zechariah (vii: 1-5) gave
that duration of the fasts. Thus all the datings were reconciled by our
corrected view.
§ 35- And so, reviewing our study here, we see that the captivity
was cumulative, having not only a seventy years of capture from B. C.
606 to 536 the return; but then also a seventy years of land- Sabbath
from the Sabbatic, B. C. sgo to the Sabbatic, B. C. 520, of recultivation;
and still further a seventy years of desolation from the ruin to the re
building of the temple, B. C. 587 to 517-16. *
Origin of the Current Error.
Usher mistook the time of Neb's, first invasion of Judea, supposing
(on account of Dan. i: 5, 18) that the Jewish pre-reckoning of his reign
must be over two whole years before the Babylonian commencement
of it; namely, in B. C. 607 (instead of B. C. 606, over one year before
January, 604). So that nineteen years of Neb. from this invasion thus
reckoned end in B. C. 588; and there he puts the destruction of Jerusa
lem in the vulgar chronology which has come down from him.
* Josephus makes out another seventy years, from the Sabbatic B.
C. 583, which ended the finished capturing of 23d Neb., to the Sabbatic
B. C. 513; not until which passover does he make the second temple to
be really finished and re-dedicated, after seven years' progress from
the Sabbatic B. C. 520. (Ant. 11: iv: 7). This gives him "seventy
weeks," or 4go years or ten jubilee periods from the dedication of Solo
mon's temple at the jubilee passover of B. C. 1003 (the correct date
as he has itr one year later than Usher) down to the jubilee passover
pf B. C. 513, as the rededication date. Such was the divine cycle as
cherished by Jewish tradition, preliminary to the " seventy weeks " of
Daniel ix: 24.

128 period f
Thus we read in Usher: "A. M. 3467 (beginning October, 538 B. C),
last part of the first year of Darius the Mede (z. <?.., of B. C. 538); here
begins the seventieth year from the taking of the city at the first of
Neb.," which is thus made to be in (5384-6g=) 607 B. C. Again he says:
"A. M. 3416 (ending October, 588), Jerusalem taken, the last of Neb's.
nineteenth year, the beginning of. the first year of the 48th Olympiad
year, 160 of Nabonassar." These data all make Neb. begin in B. C.
607. Modified Form of Error.
§ 37. Usher's long antedating of Neb. was soon seen to be utterly
untenable. For, according to Berosus in Josephus, Ant. 10, xi: 1, and
Vs. Ap* I, ig, at his invasion of Judea Neb. was on his way to subdue
Egypt; which, was no sooner done in the very next year, than he at once
took the throne at Babylon; his father having died -before Egypt was
left. Therefore, since a Babylonian reign was by the canon numbered
only to the January Thoth or new year before its close, the first of Neb.'
by the canon could not begin more than one whole year after the inva
sion into fudea.
Consequently, Prideaux, Calmet, and others corrected back the in
vasion of Neb. to its true year, B. C. 606 (requiring the "three years "
of Dan. i: 5, 18, to reach to the very end of B. C. 604, the "second year
of Neb. in ii: 1): But they failed to correct back also, the destruction
of Jerusalem to its true year, B. C. 587, as required to make out the
nineteen years for a certainty intervening. For, they still wrongly
thought, that the Jewish antedating of Neb. was just two full years,
or rather, was a regular Babylonian partnership of the throne, and not
Jewish antedating. And by this means, they had B. C. 588 still in the
Jewish nineteenth of Neb. though not ending at its close.
§38. See now the necessary results. (1.) The required nineteen
years from the invasion to the destruction of Jerusalem are reduced to
eighteen, and the interval back to Josiah is only twenty-one instead of
the correct twenty-two years; and the reign of Zedekiah is reduced to
ten years, in place of the assured eleven. This eleven is certain, not
only from II Kings xxiv: 8, 18, and II Chron. xxxvi: g, 11, before cited,
but also from Ezek. xl: 1 ("25th year minus 14th year"= 11 years); and
especially from Jer. i: 3 ("unto the end of the nth year of Zedekiah"),
and Ezek. xxxiii: 21, the news of Jerusalem's overthrow not reaching
Ezekiel in Babylon until "the 12th year," viz, December, B. C. 587.
Prideaux does indeed try to mend the matter, and to get the destruc
tion of Jerusalem (at his B. C. 588) within the beginning of Zedekiah's
nth year, by putting back the beginning of the Jewish regnal years to
the spring, in place of their true autumnal reckoning by the civil year.
But this device is by no means allowable, as we show elsewhere; and

exile and after 129
this beginning of the nth year by no means makes out eleven years as
required. § 3g. (2. ) Moreover, the forty years of Ezek. iv : 6, from the i8th of
Josiah to the completed capturing at 23d Neb., are reduced to thirty-
nine, contrary to the claim of Prideaux himself (at year 584). Here
note that, beyond Josiah the Usher reckoning is returned to by Prid
eaux, an extra year being gratuitously inserted after Arnon, to make up
for the one he has wrongfully left out from Zedekiah. Because, he
remarks, " the chronology of the ensuing history makes necessary to be
here supposed * * * certain odd months over and above " ! Indeed !
If he had only left the destruction of Jerusalem correctly at B. C. 587,
he would have had all right and even, without need of supposition and
"odd months " contrived.
(3.) Not'only is all this falsity produced by this too-long antedating
of Neb's invasion, but, moreover, the two years of co-reign is in itself
unallowable. The testimony of Berosus, from whom alone the facts
are learned, is, that the father "committed to his son, who was still
but a youth, some part of his army, and sent them against the enemy,"
Not a word about "admitting him as partner in the empire," as Pri
deaux (year 607) and Rollin (Hist. Assyr.) put it. That theory is a pure
assumption without authority. It was a Jewish antedating of Neb.,
and, therefore, must correspond with Jewish civil years, numbering
Neb. along with their own regnal years from September to September.
This was the very time of year when he attacked their city, as Pri
deaux himself testifies, saying he did not get possession of the city till
November, B. C. 606.
§ 40. (4.) Still further, this putting of the ist Neb. to begin back
in the 3d of Jehoiakim, instead of having it correspond with the 4th of
Jehoiakim, is directly contrary to Jer. xxv: 1, and xxxii: 1, and Jos. Ant.
10, vi: 1, and the testimony of Prideaux himself (at year 607). Moreover,
thus to make the Jewish igth Neb. expire in January of B. C. 587, be
fore Zedekiah's eleven years are out in September, contrary to II Ki.
xxiv: 18, with xxv: 8, this is to make the Jewish 8th Neb. expire in Janu
ary, B. C. 5g8 before Jehoiakim's eleven years are out in September,
contrary to II Ki. xxiii: 36, with xxiv: 12.
(5.) And yet again, this vulgar date, B. C. 588, for the destruction
of Jerusalem, is only the 17th of Neb. by the Babylonian reckoning;
whereas it was certainly the 18th of Neb., as given by Josephus, who
evidently follows that forty-three-year reckoning of the reign, and as
given also by Jeremiah (lii: 39). There is no authority whatever for
putting this event back to the 17th of Neb., or 27^ (instead of the
correct 26^) years before the end of his forty-three-year reign.

130 period f
Important Conclusions.
§ 41. For these reasons, we pronounce the 588 assignment an evi
dent mistake, and set down B. C. -587 as most clearly the date of Jeru
salem's destruction.*
The wrong dating of this event has put back the whole previous
chronology of Usher one year too early. And, since the Usher intervals
can be shown to be otherwise correct back to the reign of Solomon,
this vulgar chronology has the date of David's reign, and Solomon's
temple, and all subsequent events down to the captivity, one year
wrong. Hence the present readjustment is important, as a basis for all the
Old Testament dates.

* The theory of a still later assignment for Jerusalem's overthrow,
as in B. C. 586, was early given by Syncellus, followed by Scaliger,
then by Jackson, and finally by Hales within the present century. It
was founded upon an attempted modification of Ptolemy's Canon, and
is here passed by as entirely untenable. The strange theorizings of
Seyffarth and Thurman, upon still later assignments, need not here be
noticed.

PERIOD E— THE KINGS.
PART I.

From Solomon's Temple to the Captivity.
§ 1. Proceeding backward, the last division of the kings reaches
back to the capture of Samaria; the middle division reaches thence to
the death of Solomon; and the earlier division reaches thence to the
founding of the Temple. CHAPTER I.
The Capture of Jerusalem, etc
The capture 6f Jerusalem being fixed at B. C. 587, it follows that
the capture of Samaria was 133 years before, at B. C. 720. For the
intermediate reigns are certainly as follows: Hezekiah's 29 — the 6
elapsed=234-Manasseh 55+Amon 2+Josiah 31+Jehoahaz and Jehoi-
kim n+Jehoiachin and Zedekiah n=total, 133 years. These num
bers are assured to us by II Ki. xviii: 2, 10, and xxi: 1, 19, and xxi: 1, and
xxiii: 31, 36, and xxiv: 8, 18; and the same numbers are doubly assured to us
by II Chron. xxix: 1, and xxxiii: 1, 21, and xxxiv: 1, and xxxvi: 2, 5,9, 11.
There is no way to increase the total 133, so as to carry the capture of
Samaria to 722 B. C,
§ 2. It has been fashionable of late, particularly among Assyriolo
gists, to assign the capture of Samaria to B. C. 722; and the reason
given is, that an Assyrian monument of King Sargon says, that in "his
13th year" he conquered Babylon, while Ptolemy's Canon "makes
Sargon begin his reign over Babylon at B. C. 7og." (Die. of Relig.
Knowl., Art. Assyria.) Hence, it is argued that Sargon must have be
gun in (B. C. 7og+i3=)722; and as one of his inscriptions says he con
quered Samaria "in the beginning of his reign," therefore that event
must have been in B. C. 722. But see how fallacious is this reckoning.
§ 3. As B. C. 7og was only "the 13th year" of Sargon, his first
year began but twelve whole years before, in B. C. 721; and his con
quest of Samaria near "the beginning of his reign" was natural^ in
B. C. 720 (during his first year), just as scripture makes it. Moreover,

132 PERIOD E
while one inscription of Sargon (K. 2688) thus makes his conquest of
Babylon to be in his thirteenth year, another inscription of his (a tablet
in the Louvre) calls it "the twelfth year of Sargon" (see Eponym
Canon, p. 86), which certainly puts the capture of Samaria in B. C.
720. Still further observe, that since the canon of Ptolemy always
dates a reign from the Thoth before it actually began (as shown con
clusively by Hales and others)*, therefore, its assigning of Sargon to
Babylon in B. C. 709, shows that his real conquest there was certainly
as late as the endoi B. C. 709, with his first year down to B. C. 720. f
§ 4. There is, therefore, no occasion to change the date of Samaria's
overthrow away from its established location as in B. C. 720, where
scripture assigns it. In B. C. 723, after three years of Hezekiah,
Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, besieged Samaria, and after his death,
his son, Sargon, took the city in B. C. 720, when Hezekiah had reigned
six years. (II Ki. xviii: g, 10.) The expression " they took it," indicates
that it was not the same king ending the siege as the one who began
it. There is no way to increase the total 133 years, so as to. carry the
capture of Samaria back to B. C. 722.
The Death of Solomon.
§ 5. The history of the Ten Tribes, or the time between Solomon's
death and the capture of Samaria is the great modern battle-ground of
scripture chronology. We shall presently proceed to demonstrate
that this interval, covering the duration of the Kingdom of Israel, was
by scripture put 254 years from B. C. 720 to g74, the date of Solomon's'
death (though Assyriologists are trying to reduce it over 40 years, to
about B. C. g3o). For the present take for granted the B. C. 974 as
the true Bible date. The Founding of the Temple.
§6. This was "in the 4th year of Solomon," and as Solomon
reigned "40 years," it was (40^4th=) 37 years before his death, viz., in
*See Period F, § 2.
fSchwartz tells us that in its method "the canon of Ptolemy simply
exemplifies the universal Semitic habit, as illustrated by the Eponym
canon (of Assyria) and by the annals of Judah and Israel." So then,
the canon's assignment of B. C. 709 for the beginning of Sargon at
Babylon may indicate a real beginning of reign there in B. C. 708; —
and "the 13th year" will carry us only to B. Cs 720 as the real begin
ning of Sargon, which in like manlier is antedated to the new year in
B. C. 721 (not 722) by the Eponym Canon. Note also, that this accords
better with the Eponym Canon itself, which has Sargon as Eponym in
B. C. 719, making his accession (the usual two years before) to be in B.
C. 721. "Prof. Hechler, in his address before the Oriental Congress
in London on 'Assyriology and the Bible,' said, that the biblical state
ments and the results of scientific research unite in making 721 or 720
B. C. the date for the capture of Samaria." (Boston Watchman, Oct.,
1892.)

the kings 133
(B. C. 974+37=) ion B. C. For a discussion of "The 4th year of
Solomon," see Period D, Appendix A, §41. This B. C. ion may be
considered as the determinate scripture date for Solomon's Temple.
Usher has Nebuchadnezzer's destruction of Jerusalem in his A. M.
3416, B. C. 588, with the interval 133 years back to the fall of Samaria,
as in B. C. 721, and 254 years back to the revolt of Jereboam as in B.
C. 975, and 40 years back to the death of David as in' B. C. 1015, or
427 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in B. C. 588. But we
have shown conclusively (in Period F, ^ 15, etc.) that Nebuchadnezzar
took the city a year later, in B. C. 587; and this throws down all those
dates one year to B. C. 587, 720, g74, 1014, which last may be con
sidered as the now-settled date of Solomon's accession to his "40
years' " reign.
There is one other subject belonging here, as introductory to our
study of the Assyriological claims (which will presently come before
us), viz:

CHAPTER II.
Hezekiah's "14TH Year.
The Harmony of Isaiah, xxxvi: i, with Assyrian Datings.
"Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah,
that Sennacherib, King of Assyria, came up against all the defenced
cities of Judah, and took them."
§ 7. By the scripture chronology, Hezekiah's 14th year of reign
began B. C. 712. At which time Sargon was king of Assyria, reigning
B. C. ^721-705, followed by his son Sennacherib, who, on his inscrip
tions at B. C- 701-2 (we are told by Assyriologists), describes his third
campaign as an invasion and plundering of Hezekiah's domain. This
would be Hezekiah's 24th year, instead of the " 14th; " and, therefore,
some propose to consider the "14th" as a corruption of the text, as
suggested by Dr. Geikie, in the S. S. Times, Jan. 9, 1892.-
But this supposition involves a similar corruption at II Ki, xviii: 17;
aud worse still, it contradicts the subsequent history; which (at Isa.
xxxviii: 1, and II Ki. xx: 1) gives Hezekiah's sickness as " in those days "
(viz. of Sennacherib's coming). And as the sickness was " 15 years"
before the end of his 2g (ver. 5), its date must be in the end of his 14th
year_the coming of Sennacherib having been near the beginning of
that 14th year. Therefore, we can not suppose the "14th year" date
to be a corruption; since Isa. xxxviii: 1, would in that case be without
sense or truth.

134 period e
§8. More probable is the suggestion drawn from Rollins in his
Ancient History (Assyr. ch. 2), that scripture for some reason speaks
of Sargon under the name of Sennecherib. Or, we may take sugges
tion from the British commentary of Fausset, which gives Sargon as
ending B. C. 715, and Sennacherib as then commencing; who (it says)
in his 3d year of service (B. C. 711-712) "overran Syria, took Sidon
and other Phoenician cities, and then passed to sduthwestern Pales
tine, where he defeated the" Egyptians and Ethiopians," as his inscrip
tions state. .
§ g. Our suggestion is, that Sennacherib may have become viceroy
at about B. C. 712, going for his father on the campaign against Pales
tine in the west, while the father Sargon devoted himself in the east to
those successive campaigns of B. C. 7ii-7og, by which at last in 7og he
conquered Babylon, as Sargon's inscriptions show. (See Die. Relig.
Knowl.) At about this same time (709) the son, Sennacherib, would be
(in his 3d year of service) threatening Palestine and Egypt in the west,
in the name of his father Sargon, who still lived till B. C. 705.* At
any rate, the Jews seem to have come in contact with the son rather
than the father, and so to have recorded him as the " King of Assy
ria" — at first prospectively and at last actually the king — who so
threatened them and met with such a disastrous end.
We, therefore, propose to read the scripture passage before us as
meaning, when properly rendered with an italic thought-word supplied,
as follows: "Now it came to pass in the fourteenth year pf King Hezekiah,
that Sennacherib, future king of Assyria, came, up against all the de-
fenced cities of Judah, and he took them," in the course of time. (See
II Chron. xxxii: 1.)
There is, then, no corruption of the text; but only a slight hiatus of
the thought, requiring the italic word inserted.
§ 10. The only remaining difficulty arises from the common under
standing of Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine, as all occurring
within a single season; so as to fit together Isa. xxxvi: 1, and xxxviii: 1,
as at beginning and end of the same year. Whereas, in truth, there
are given three distinct campaigns, evidently covering several years of
time. '
When the first campaign (at xxxvi: 1) is named, the writer thinks
best to go on at once and describe the subsequent campaigns, even to
the terrible death of the invader many years later; so as to show up
the whole story of Sennacherib complete, in the graphic manner of
*This case is thus parallel to that of Nebuchadnezzar, whose reign
was' prereckoned by the Jews while his father still lived. (See period
F, §23.)

the kings 135
anticipation so common in writing history, and especially so common
in scripture. Then (at xxxviii: i) he returns to finish his account of
"the 14th year of Hezekiah, begun at xxxvi: 1, the two intermediate
chapters being passed over in thought as parenthetic.
The Assyrian Assaults.
§ ii. Our Bibles ought to show a space or distinct paragraph nota
tion, at Isa. xxxvi: 2, and at xxxvii: 9. For, at those points are prob
ably commenced new and distinct campaigns, separated by years of
time. At xxxvii: 9, the "he" does not mean "Rabshakeh," as some
times thought, but "the king of Assyria," as shown by the "my " in
Ver. 12.
There is here no "when" in the Hebrew, but it reads literally,
"And he heard, and he sent." The meaning probably is (by con
structs pregnans): " And he hearkened and yielded" (to the "rumor,"
i. e., acted in view of it). "And afterwards he sent to Hezekiah." For,
often this word "hear" implies thus fully an obeying, as here at Ver.
16, " Hearken not to Hezekiah "; where the Hebrew "hearken *' is the
same word "hear."
§12. Hence, the following "sent" may be (after a colon) a long
time subsequently (see Scott's Com.), even after Sargon's death. For
now (in ver. 11-13) he boasts, as not before, of "all lands " destroyed,
naming the regions of "Eden" and all about Babylonia as now con
quered by " my father," i. e., by Sargon in the conquest of Babylon
(B. C. 709), which had intervened since his former coming. It was
'1' Samaria" most prominent before as overthrown (xxxvi: 19); but now
it was " Babylon fallen," (as seen at xxi: g.) A "rumor " of Tirhakah's
approach (xxxvii: 7, 9) alarmed Sennacherib away from Judea; but the
real onset against Tirhakah and Egypt may have been years after.
At xxxvi: 2, also, there is certainly a long preceding interval; for
there is an omission here, supplied at II Kings xviii: 14-16. Hezekiah
obtained terms from the invader at his first campaign, and bought him
off by payment of a large price set by the invader himself, for a with
drawal or " return from " the land. Of course, a year or two (at least)
must have elapsed, before a claim for more tribute would bring the
invader back. See also II Chron. xxxii: 1-9; where other operations in
tervene, and " after this " the second campaign comes in.
The Inscriptions.
§ 13. The Assyrian inscriptions tell us that "The Assyrian Sargon
conquered Babylon, and announced himself as king of it, in the thir
teenth year of his reign, B. C. 709." And again: " Sargon fought
with Merodach-baladam of Babylon in 710 and in 709, becoming final
victor in the latter year." (Die. Relig. Knowl art. Assyriology.)
This was at the east; what was going on at the west?

13(i PERIOD E
' ' The inscriptions tell us, that Sargon received tribute from a
Pharaoh of ' Egypt, ' besides destroying in part the Ethiopian ' No-
Ammon' or Thebes; also that he warred with the cities of Ashdod,
Gaza," etc. — in harmony with Isa. xx: i. (British Com. of Fausset.)
This campaign " against Ashdod was B. C. 711 " (says the Die. Relig.
Knowl.); and it was followed by the second campaigns against
Hezekiah (at Isa. xxxvi: 2).
For, II Ki. xviii: 17, informs us that "the king of Assyria sent to
King Hezekiah," the same " Tartan " whom " Sargon sent against Ash
dod " (in Isa. xx: 1). Hence, the two affairs are closely connected.
And the taking of Hezekiah's cities comes last (say in 710 or 709), be
cause Sennacherib's inscription says he gave those cities when taken
to the Philistines of "Ashdod," who must, therefore, have been pre
viously subdued and brought into allegiance.
§ 14. We thus find, that the same years (B. C. 712-708), in which
the western campaigns to Palestine and Egypt were going on, were
also occupied with the eastern campaigns (B. C. 710, 709), in which
Babylon was assailed and finally conquered. What more natural,
then, than that Sargon himself should take charge of the eastern or
home operations about Babylon, and should entrust the western or dis
tant operations at Palestine to his son Sennacherib as viceroy ? In
deed, how could the son, full-grown and warlike as we know he then
was, help joining thus in the fight ? *
The Assyrian army, after passing from Lachish to assault Libnah
(Isa. xxxvii: 8), and after giving to the Philistine "Ashdod" the cities
taken from Hezekiah (pay in 709), went on south to attack Tirhakah
and Egypt, stirring up all Arabia with fleeing hosts. But years after
ward, when Sargon had died (B. C. 705), Sennacherib may have
returned to the onset upon Tirhakah and Egypt, and may then again
have threatened Hezekiah (as at Isa. xxxvii: 9). How else, if there be
no gap at Isa. xxxvii: 9, can "the Egyptian prisoners and Ethiopian
captives " after " three years," as told in Isa. xx: 3, 4, be brought in ?
Isaiah Ch. xx: 21.
§ 15. The "Ashdod" account at Isa. xx: 1, shows that the script
ure itself knew of "Sargon," and recognized him as really "king of
Assyria " at the time of these Palestine invasions. So .that its else-
*The revisers tell us that "Tartan," etc., are "the titles of As
syrian officers." Tartan being the first and leading officer named, its
meaning to a Hebrew in the Chaldean idiom, as a contracted com
pound Tar'-tank,- would be " the royal court repented," or the second
porte (in the Turkish sense of porte). See Gesenius at J? "I T\ or teray.
And might not this be the title of Sennacherib himself, as the heir
apparent, or viceroy of the king ?

THE KINGS 137
where attributing the invasions to the son Sennacherib as "king"
must be only as prospectively king, or "king apparent" in his father's
place and (to them especially) even more notable than his father.
That section of Isaiah (ch. xx: 21) is certainly connected with the
campaigns against Hezekiah and belongs to his 14th to 18th years as
B. C. 712-708 (see Scott's Bible) — not B. C. 701 — as plainly shown by
its contents.
In ch. xx, "in the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod" and Jeru
salem (B. C. 712-710), Isaiah declares the folly of Palestine's depend
ence on Egypt for help, foretelling that during "three years" the
"king of Assyria shall lead away the Egyptian prisoners" (ver.
3-4). Then in ch. xxi he gives "the burden of the desert" east
ward to Euphrates, and prophecies "Babylon is fallen, is fallen"'
(ver. 9), i. e., is taken by Sargon (B. C. 709) in anticipation of its final
destruction by Cyrus. And he closes (at ver. 13) with ' ' the burden
upon Arabia," when "within a year " (from 709 ? ) that country should
be stirred up by the fleeing hosts from the Assyrian invasion through
Palestine upon Egypt, when "they fled from the swords" (ver. 15-16).
§ 16. All centers about the year 709 B. C. , when Sargon conquered
Babylon and when Isaiah had "walked naked and barefoot three years
for a sign and a wonder upon Egypt " (xx: 3), i. e., from B. C. 712, the
fourteenth year of Hezekiah, the first of Assyrian invasion. Our ex
position here of the Fall of Babylon, in Isa. xxi: 9, as mea'ning primarily
its conquest by Sargon in B. C. 709, is new and striking. Is it not more
satisfactory than the view universally given which overlooks entirely
that event ?
§. 17. What, then, have we learned ?
1. That "in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah " (B. C. 712) Senna
cherib came (for his father, Sargon) against Judah, but was bought off
and induced to return.
2. That afterward (say in three years, B. C. 709) Sennacherib
again made invasion with Tartan and Rabshakeh and (in the name of
his father, Sargon) having before taken Ashdod and other Philistine
cities, as recorded in Isa. xx: 1-6, he now assailed Hezekiah again as
in xxxvi: 2. And now, perhaps, he mostly did what is by anticipation
in xxxvi: 1, "he took them," the defenced cities of Judah, giving them to
the Philistines (as he says in his inscription).
3. Then, it may be long after, even after Sargon had died in B. C.
705, Sennacherib, going to fight Tirhakah and Egypt, again threat
ened Hezekiah (by letter), as told at xxxvii: 9, but miserably perished
as at ver. 36-38. (In this view the mention of King "Sennacherib " in
Isa. xxxvii: 17, 21, 37; II Ki. xix: 16, 20, 36; II Chron. xxxii: 9, 22, would
be correct, and the mention of "Sennacherib" in Isa. xxxvi: 1, might
be treated as the error of some ancient copyist writing the Hebrew

138 PERIOD E
"Senherib" in place of the Assyrian "Sharukin" or " Shargina, " that
error finding its way to the parallel, II Ki. xviii: 13, and-II Chron. xxxii:
1, 2.) Sennacherib's Account.
§ 18. The inscription of Sennacherib ' ' on the third column of his
hexagonal clay cylinder, discovered in 1830 in the ruins of Nineveh,"
as translated by Professor Hilprecht (S. S. Times, Jan. 9, 1892), is a
mixed up and pompous account of his various adventures above men
tioned, as if all in a single "third campaign, B. C. 701, with plain in
tent to cover up his final disaster. When examined, it clearly confirms
the orderly history of affairs in scripture as indicated above.
The invader concedes that Hezekiah ." sent his envoy to pay over
the tribute" to him when distant from Jerusalem. Which shows that
this was what bought off the enemy for a time at the beginning of
affairs, just as described in II Ki. xviii: 13-14, and was not money ex
acted at the end, as he tries to make it appear.
The many captives and much plunder he tells of carrying off, came
also' not at the close, as he would like to have it thought ; but, doubt
less these were largely "the Egyptian prisoners and Ethiopian
captives" whom Isaiah foretold near the beginning (Isa. xx: 1-6) as
doomed to be carried off, i. e., after the second campaign (xxxvii: 8).
Sennacherib says: " The Arabs and Hezekiah's allies took fright."
And so, Isaiah follows that prophecy of Egyptian capture (chap. 20) with
a flight, as "the burden upon Arabia," to come "within a year," when
he foresaw that they " fled from the swords." (xxi: 13, 15, 16.)
§19. Sennacherib's inscription says: " Hezekiah's cities that I had
sucked, I separated from his country, and gave them to the king of
Ashdod, of Ekron, and of Gaza, and thus reduced his country." This
shows that before Hezekiah's "fenced cities" were taken, "Ashdod"
and those other coast cities of Philistia had been subdued and brought
into allegiance; as we have been explaining.
He also says: "I added another payment of tribute from Hezekiah,"
showing that there had been a period of rest after the tribute paid at II
Ki. xviii: 15. All these circumstances prove that the procedures from
that point onward do not occur in the 14th of Hezekiah, when invasion
commenced, but a considerable time afterward; even reaching, it may
be, into Sennacherib's sole reign, or to Hezekiah's 24th year, B. C. 701-2.
At that time, or some time after all was over, Sennacherib, undertak
ing to cover up his final disaster, jumbles the whole story of previous ad
ventures together in a pompous display of conquest.
[It is not necessary here to notice the impossible scheme of destruc
tive critics who try to reconstruct the whdle reign of Hezekiah, to
accommodate the Assyrian account. That is rending instead of har
monizing scripture.]

THE KINGS 139

Result.

§ 20. In view of this exposition, we find the Assyrian inscriptions
wonderfully corroborating the scripture history; indeed demonstrating
its reality and accuracy beyond the need of dispute.
But we here learn, that there must be thorough sifting of the whole
scripture, and critical analysis of its construction, as well as careful
sifting of Assyrian datings themselves, before the harmony of the two
appears. So that, we are set upon the closest study of the Bible, along with
archseologlcial and critical research, to get at the whole truth, and
learn the beautiful accord of true science and Divine Revelation.

PART II.

Bible Chronology of the Kings.
(Shown to be Remarkably Obvious, Simple and Certain. )
CHAPTER I. '
The Bible Dates.
§ 21. A well-settled starting-point for Old Testament chronology is
the 2d year of Darius Hystaspes, King of Persia, at B. C. 520; when
that king re-issued the decree of Cyrus for the rebuilding of the temple
at Jerusalem. And from that time there are just 200 years back to the
capture of Samaria and the exile of the ten tribes in B. C. 720.
These 200 years are made up as follows: From the 2d of Darius,
B. C. 520, there are 67 years to the destruction of Jerusalem, B. C.
587, in the 19th of Nebuchadnezzar (II Ki. xxv: 8). Hence, the kings
of Judah reach back 133 years, thus: Zedekiah and Jehoiachin n4-Jeho-
iakim and Jehoahaz n+Josiah 31+Amon 2+Manasseh 55+23 of Hez
ekiah's 29=133 years to B. C. 720. (II Ki. xviii: 9, 10.) Ptolemy's
Canon and the Bible carry us securely thus far.
§ 22. From the capture of Samaria in B. C. 720, the Bible gives
2g4 years back to the death of Solomon in B. C. 974, and then-)-40 to
the beginning of Solomon in B. C. 1014. The current Usher chron
ology makes 1 year more, having David's death in B. C. 1015, and the
destruction of Jerusalem in B. C. 588, leaving the reigns of the kings
just the same length as here given. Usher's mistake of 1 year too
early for the destruction of Jerusalem, dnd so for Solomon's temple
and reign, we fully exhibit elsewhere. .
The Kingdom of Israel.
The period from the death of Solomon to the capture of Samaria,
though much called in question by recent critics in their attempts to
satisfy supposed Assyrian dates, is very obviously 254 years by the
scripture accounts; which have here the advantage of giving contem
poraneous reigns, in the two kingdoms oi Judah and Israel, which by
their continual synchronisms generally confirm each other; with the

THE KINGS

141

extra advantage of a double record in the books of Kings and Chron
icles, together with many corroborative datings found in the prophets.
There could scarcely be more favorable and trustworthy data, or a
more easily adjustable reckoning of dates, in any period of human '
history. § 23. As the Kings of Judah are a single hereditary line, without
any break, while the kings of Israel are a broken series of usurpers, with
anarchies or interregnums between, it is plainly the kings of Judah
.whose reigns in succession are to indicate the time. We proceed to
give the reigns in both kingdoms, as filling up the 254 years.

Table of Reigns.

JUDAH.
Rehoboam  17 yrs
Abijah  3 yrs

Asa 
Jehoshaphat. 25 yrs.

•Jehoram, 8(th i. e., 7 yrs).
Ahaziah 

K

41 yrs
18 yrs
4 yrs
3 yrs '
4- yrs J
iyr
6 yrs
39 yrs)

Athaliah 
Jehoash, 4o(th, /. e,,....
Amaziah, 29 yrs  \ 14 yrs
Azariah 

5 yrs
52 yrs

Jotham 
Ahaz, i6(th, i. e., 
Hezekiah, 29 yrs 6(th t

16 yrs
15 yrs
6 yrs)

67

(Added, 260.]

ISRAEL.
Jeroboam  22(nd, z", e.
Madab  2(nd, i.
Baasha  2+fth, i.
Elah  2(nd, ?.
Omri  I2(th, i.
Ahab  22(nd, i
Ahaziah  2(nd, /
Jehoram 

Jehu  28(th, i.
Jehoahaz  i7(th, i.
Jehoash  1 

Jeroboam, II 
Interregnum. .
Zachariah, &c 
Menahem 
Pekaiah 
Pekah, 20 yrs 

Anarchy.
Hoshea 

21 yrs)
1 yr)
23 yrs)
1 yr)
11 yrs)
21 yrs)
iyr)
12 yrs

27 yrs)
16 yrs)
16 yrs
41 yrs
12-H5 mo
0-I-7 mo
10 yrs
2 yrs
iyr
19 yrs
9 yrs
9 yrs

(Added, 241-7 mo. -7 ds.)

254

§ 24. It is worthy of note how little variation has to be made from
the Bible figures, thus to balance the reigns in the two kingdoms. The
reigns in Judah, as here given from scripture, add up just 260 years;
but three of these are an overlap of Jehoram upon his father, Jehosha
phat, as everybody concedes, and scripture itself teaches. (Comp. I
Ki. xxii: 42; II Ki. iii: 1, and viii: 16), and 3 years are only apparent,
being the current year given for the complete years, 1 less, in three
cases, at Jehoram, Jehoash and Ahaz. Thus, the 254 years appear at
once. {So also Josephus, see § 55.)
Note. — The 254 from Solomon's death to the capture of Samaria is
about the same in the Modern Jewish chronology; for that has Sol. 40
+Israel, 256-hJudah, 114, to beginning of captivity in the 4th year of
Jehoiakim = "410" years. They evidently took the total of Judah's
reigns, viz., 260 years, omitting only 3 or 4 of the 6 years' omission

142

PERIOD E

here shown to be required. The Talmud itself, compiled in B. C. 32,
says (at the end of Solomon the IVtse), "Four hundred and thirty-
three years (433) elapsed between the date of Solomon's reign and that
of the temple's destruction;" that is 40+260+133=433. And thus it
has the interval 260 of exact Bible addition without any reduction.
All the early kings of Israel seem to have their reigns thus given
current, i. e., 1 more than complete years; and Schwartz thence infers
(Bib. Sac, 1888, p. 71), that they must always be so reckoned. But
the proper rule is that only as the synchronism of the reigns require
it, must any number, whether in I srael or in Judah, be considered as
current rather than complete. There are nine' such cases in Israel, be
sides two evident interregnums pr periods of anarchy not accounted for.
, § 25. All the numbers of the foregoing table are fully confirmed by
the numerous synchronisms and cross-references between particular
years of contemporaneous kings compared, as given in the books of
Kings and of Chronicles. And only a few comments are needed to har
monize all the Bible data. This is seen by the following table:
TABLE OF SYNCHRONISMS.

Judah.

B.C.

Israel.

ist Rehoboam, 17. .
(18th) Rehoboam . . .
ist Asa, 41, 41st . . .
2d Asa 
3d Asa .'. 
26th Asa 
27th Asa 
31st (31) As£ 
38th Asa 
(42d) Asa 
(ist Jehoram) 
2d Jehoram 
ist Jehoram, 8 (th).
(4th) Jehoram 
(8th) Jehoram 
ist Athaliah, 6 
(7th) Athaliah 

ist Amaziah, 29 
(3d) Amaziah 
. 15th Amaziah 
(30th), 15 years after.

ist Jotham, 16.
(17th) Jotham .
20th Jotham. . .

ist Hezekiah, 29 .
4th Hezekiah. . . .
6th (6.) [7th] 

ist Abijah, 3.
= (4thAbijah)..

=^ist Jehosh., 25 (22).
=i7th (17) [18th] 
=i8th (18) [19th] ....
= [23d) 
=(25th end., he died.
=ist Ahaziah, 1 ....
= (2d) Ahaziah 
=ist Jehoash, 40 (th)
23d (22d) [21st] 
37th (37) 
= (40th). 

=ist Azariah, 52 
(27th) Azariah 
38th (38) Azariah...
39th Azariah 
39th (39) Azariah
50th Azariah 
52d Azariah 
(53d) Azariah 
=ist Ahaz, 15 (th)..
= (4th Ahaz) 
12th (12) 
(i6th)[i5th] 

= After 3 years.

ist Nadab, 2 (nd)...
(2d) Nadab 
ist Elah, 2 (nd) 
(2d) ElahOmri 
(7th) Elah Om. 6 
ist Ahab, 22 (nd) ...
4th (4) [5th] Ahab . . .
(^22d) Ahab 
ist Jehoram, 12 
5th Jehoram 
(8th) Jehoram 
12th, nth (ri) Jeho.
(13th) Jehoram 

ist Jehoahaz. 17 (th)
(17th) Jehoahaz 

(ist Jeroboam, 53) 
ist Jeroboam, 41 [40].
(16th) 27th Jeroboam,
(42d) Jeroboam 
(54th) Jeroboam 
ist Shallun, 1 mo 

ist Pekaiah, ;
(3d) Pekaiah.

ist Hoshea 
ist Hoshea, g.. .
3d (3) Hoshea..
7th'Hoshea 
9th (g) Hoshea..

= ist Jerob., 22 (nd).
= i8th Jeroboam
=20th (20) [21st]
= (22d) Jeroboam-
= ist Baasha, 24 (th)'
= (24th) Baasha.
=Zimri, 7d.
= ist Omri (6) 12 (11)..
= (7th) Omri.

= ist Ahaziah, 2 (nd)
= (2d) Ahaziah.

= ist Jehu., 28th [27]
=7th Jehu.
= (28th) Jehu.
= ist Jehoash, 16.
=2d (2) Jehoash.
= (5th) Jehoash.
= [i7th] Jehoash.

interregnum, 12.
= istZacharia, 6 mo.
,-|-5mo..
= ist Menahem, 10.
= (nth) Mefiahem.
= ist Pekah, 20.
= 2d Pekah.
= i7th(i7)[i8th)
= (2ist) Anarchy, 9.

Capture of Samaria

THE KINGS 143
The one thing remarkable about this table is, that the dates B. C.
here given are none of them assigned by ourselves, or by any human au
thority; but come where they are of themselves from the scripture num
bers themselves (set opposite to them in order). None but the Bible num
bers (and all the Bible numbers) are used in the table; yet these, simply
inte-rpreted and set in order, of themselves give the B. C. dates here
exhibited, as their necessary and unmanufactured result. This self-
interpretation of the Bible datings , containing so many and so repeated ¦
numbers and cross-references, is a perfect demonstration of its accuracy.
And no theory of how the events ought to be dated, can avail to set aside
this simple artless exhibit of how the events are here in the Bible
plainly and certainly dated.
§ 26. In the foregoing table, the parts in parentheses ( ) are simple
necessary inferences, the parts in brackets [ ] are from Josephus; all
the rest is taken from the scripture. What is remarkable is, there is
no deviation here from scripture figures (besides the current and com
plete year often interchanged), except the 3 year overlap upon Jehosha-
phat's reign, plainly indicated in scripture, and the " 23d Jehoash "
changed to the 2zd Jehoash," in accordance with Josephus' copy,
" 21st year " or 21 years. (Ant. 7, viii: 5.)
The Scripture Numbers, as Above.
There are in the table 92 scripture numbers, here all harmonized
together, as follows: In the days of
Rehoboam. I Ki. xiv: 20, 21, "22 yrs., 17 yrs."; ver. 25, "the 5th
yr. of Reho." (969 B. C.) So II Chron. xii: 13, " 17 yrs."
Abijam. xv: 1, "18th yr."; ver. 2, "3 yrs." So II Chron. xiii: 1,
2, " 18th yr., 3 yrs."
Asa. xv : 9, " 20th yr."; ver. 10, "41 yrs."; ver. 25, "2d. yr., 2 yrs.";
ver. 28, 33, "3d yr., 24 yrs."; xvi: 8, "26th yr., 2 yrs."; ver. 10, 15,
"27th yr., 7d."; ver. 23, "3istyr., 12 yrs., 6 yrs."; ver. 29, "38thyr.,
22yrs." So II Chron. xvi: 1, "36th yr. [26th]"; ver. 12, "39th yr.";
ver. 13, "4istyr."
Jehoshaphat. xxii: 1, 2, "3 yrs., 3d yr."; ver. 41, "4th yr."; ver.
42, "25 yrs."; ver. 51, " 17th yr., 2 yrs."; II Ki. iii: 1, " 18th yr." Soil
Chron. xx: 31, " 25 yrs."
Jehoram. II Ki. i: 17, "2d yr."; viii: 16, " 5th yr."; ver. 17, 8yrs. '
So II Chron. xxi: 5, "8 yrs."; ver. 19, " 2 yrs."; ver. 20, " 8 yrs."
Ahaziah. viii: 25, " 12th yr."; ver. 26, " iyr."; ix: 29, "nthyr." So,
II Chron. xxii: 2, " 1 yr."
Athaliah. x: 26, "28 yrs."; ver. 4, "6 yrs."; ver. 5, 7th yr. bo
II Chron. xxii: 12, "6 yrs."; xxiii: 1, "7th yr."
Joash. xii: 1, "7th yr., 40 yrs."; xiii: 1, "23d yr., 17 yrs."; ver. 10,
"37th yr., 16 yrs." So II Chron. xxiv: 1, "40 yrs."
Amaziah. xiv: 1, "2dyr.";ver. 2, "2gyrs."; ver. 17, " isyrs."; ver.
23, " 15th yr., 41 yrs." So II Chron. xxv: 1, "29 yrs."
Azariah. xv: 1, "27th yr."; ver. 2, " 52 yrs."; ver. 8, "38 yrs."; ver.
13, "39thyr., 1 mo."; ver. 17, " 39th yr., 10 days,"; ver. 23, "50th
yr., 2 yrs."; ver. 27, " 52d yr., 20 yrs." So II Chron. xxvi: 3, 52 yrs.

144 PERIOD E
Jotham. xv: 32, " 2d yr."; ver. 33, " 16 yrs." So II Chron. xxvii: 8,
"16 yrs."
Ahaz. xvi: 1, "17th yr."; ver. 2, "16 yrs."; xv: 30, ".20th yr. of
Jotham"; xvii: 1, " 12th yr." So II Chron. xxviii: 1, " 16 yrs."
Hezekiah. xvii: 6, "gth yr. of Hoshea"; xviii: 1, "3d yr." ven 2,
"29 yrs."; ver. 9, "4th yr.=7th yr."; ver. 10, " 3 yrs., 6th yr.=gth
yr."; ver. 13, " 14th yr." So II Chron. xxix: 1, "29 yrs."; ver. " 3, ist
yr." The table shows so close a conformity of our dating (and that of
Usher) with the scripture data, that there are needed for difficult
passages only a few. '
Explanations. '
§ 27. Jehoram. In the " 5th year " of Joram of Israel, Jehoram of
Judati began his "8 years" (II Ki. viii: 16, 17); and in the beginning,
ofthe "12th yearpf Joram," Ahaziah of Judah began his " t year,".
(ver. 25, 26) i. e., at the end of Joram's " nth year " (ix: 29). Thus,
Ahaziah's 1 year covers Joram's 12th year, since they both died at the
end of Joram's " 12 years" (viii: 28, and ix: 24, 27). Therefore, Jeho-
ram's "8 years " can reach only from Joram's ¦"'5th year " begun to his
" 12th year ", begun, or 7 full years; and the " 8 years " must mean the
8th year current. But as Jehoram thus began 4 years after Joram (in his
" 5th year" begun), whose reign began in Jehoshaphat's " 18th year"
ending (iii: i)=2d year of Jehoram's joint reign (called a " mistake " in
fhe Bib. Sacra., Oct., 1870, p. 641) — therefore, Jehoram begun those
8 (7) years after (i8+4=)22 years of his father Jehoshaphat's reign of
" 25 years " (I Ki. xxii: 42). And consequently, Jehoshaphat was still
alive when his son Jehoram began his 8 (7) years, just as is expressly
stated (at II Ki. viii: 16, 17). And the remaining (25 — 22=)3 years of
the father's reign lap over upon Jehoram's 8 (or full 7), giving but
(7 — 3=)4 years of Jehoram alone, after his father's 25 and at death.
Note. Several writers (Hales, Cunningham, Jarvis, Bowen,
Elliott, Browne in Coleman, Akers, Seiss, and "Time of the End,"
Boston, Jewett, 1836), entirely neglect the overlap of Jehoram's reign,
calling the three reigns 41+25+8, and so enlarging the interval back to
Solomon by 4 years. But this violates II Ki. viii: 16, 17, and all the
dates back to the reign of Ahab.
§ 28. Omri. According to I Kings xvi: 8, 2g, there were twelve
years from the accession of Elah to that of Ahab. So that, as Elah
reigned one of those years (ver. 8, 15), therefore the " twelve years "
of Omri (ver. 23) means the twelfth year current, or eleven full years
only; as in the case of all these adjacent reigns in Israel. The "thirty-
first year" of Asa here must mean full thirty-one years; so that there
were for Omri after this, six full years to the ' ' thirty-eighth year " (ver.
29), and "six years" back to the " twenty -sixth year" (ver. 8); i. e.,
¦five full years of anarchy, besides one year left for Elah. At II Chron.

I
the kings. 145
xv: ig and xvi:,i, the "35th year" and "36th year" are evidently a cor
ruption for 25th and 26th; and Josephus so has the numbers in his copy
(So Scott.)
§ 29. Jehoahaz. According to II King xiii: 1, 10, Jehoahaz seems to
have room for but fourteen of the seventeen years reign there assigned
him. Therefore, his reign (like so many in Israel) is current 17th, or
but sixteen full years; and the "37th year" (at ver. 10) must mean 37th
ending, or full thirty-seven years (i. e., 38th beginning; some 70 copies
read "39th." See this explained in Clinton, and by Newman in Kitto.)
Moreover, we must correct the "23d year" (ver. 1) to 22d year; for,
Josephus' copy has it " 2 ist " (i. e. , ending) — and Jehu's 28 current or 27
full years (as in Josephus) reach only thus far (the 28 for Jehu, carrying
us back to his conspiracy before Joram's death (II King ix: 14, 24.)
This reckoning makes the "40 years -of Jehoash of Judah (xii: 1), to be
current 40th, or full 39 years.
§ 30. Jeroboam II. According to II King xiv: 17, 23, with xv: 1,
there was a (27th — 16th =) n years regency of Jeroboam II with his
father Joash; concerning which we read in the marginal references of
Scott's Bible, "his father made him consort at his going to the Syrian
wars." See also II King xiii: 13, 17, 22-25.
Note. But Newman in Kitto prefers to call the "27th year" a
corruption for 17th or 16th; so Petavius, Usher, Marsham, Clinton,
Winer, Bowen, Elliott. And some, without any warrant, put an inter
regnum of 11 or 12 years before Azariah at xv: 1, thus lengthening
that much the interval back to Solomon; so Hales, Jarvis, Akers,
Comprehen. Com., and "Time of the End." But (as Clinton remarks)
this has no possible ground, and it doubles the difficulty about the
interregnum in Israel, etc.
Moreover, from II Kings xv: 8, we learn that there were (15 + 38 =)
53 years from the beginning of Jeroboam II to the accession of his son,
Zechariah; from which, deducting his 41 years' reign (xiv: 23), we find
an interregnum' of 12 years.
Note. Clinton and others say 11 years. But Newman in Kitto
prefers to lengthen Jeroboam's reign, as 51 instead of 41 years.
§ 31. Jotham. We are told at II Ki. xvii: 1, that Hoshea began his
9 years at the end ofthe " 12th year of Ahaz; " butinxv: 30, he is said to
have commenced, -or rather to have killed his predecessor (with inter
vening anarchy) 9 years earlier, namely, in the "20th year of Jotham."
From this it would seem that Jotham lived 4 years after his " sixteen
years" of reign ended (xv: 33), or rather find an explanation given here
(at §109). See to the like effect the British Commentary of Jamiesori.
Note. Newman in Kitto prefers to reject the "20th of Jotham " as
corrupt, and to change the "20 years " of Pekah (ver. 27) to 30, so as
to cover the anarchy.
§ 32 Hezekiah. As Hoshea began in the "12th year of Ahaz"
(II Ki. xvii: 1), whose successor, Hezekiah, began in Hoshea's "3d year"

146 period e
(18: i), therefore, there can be but 3 years between the accession of
Hezekiah and the end of Ahaz' 12th year; and Ahaz' " 16 years " (xvi: 2)
must be current 16th, or only 15 full years, and it must be Hoshea's
"3d year" ending. Hence, "the 6th year of Hezekiah, that is the
gth year of Hoshea" (xviii: 10) is 6 full years of Hezekiah and 9 full
years of Hoshea (xvii:r), so as to make "the end of 3 years " from the
"4th year of Hezekiah, which was the 7th year of Hoshea" (xviii: 9, 10).
Some wrongly put this capture of Samaria after on,ly 5 years of Heze
kiah. His age at accession was "25 years" (ver. 2), and his father's
age at accession was "20 years" (xvi: 2), and the father's intervening
reign of 15 years brings, his age at death up to 35; from which, taking
Hezekiah's age then as "25 years," we have his father but 10 years
old at his birth ! So that, one or the other of those age numbers must
be wrong. § 33. The above are about the only scripture points needing explan
ation. The self-adjustirig table here given, though constructed with
out any regard to the common chronology of Usher, yet shows a
remarkable agreement with it; the only obvious variation being a
change in the starting point, B. C. 587 (not 588) for the destruction of
Jerusalem, bringing B. C. 1014 (not 1015) for the beginning of Solomon's
reign. This shows how nearly he must have used our own simple
process of interpretation. Let us , here note the common-sense sim
plicity of this.
CHAPTER II.
The Bible Method.
§ 34. The reason why all our numbers in the tables (§ 23, 25) fall
together so harmoniously, without effort on our part, and with scarcely
any deviation from the scripture text, is be'cause we have here adopted
the only natural and rational method of ascertaining what is the Bible
chronology of this period. We have merely let the scripture speak for
itself and harmonize its own reckoning- without interference from us.
We adopt no theory (as do the destructive critics) prejudging how the
reigns and synchronisms must have been calculated; but we allow them
each and all to tell their own story, and combine as they will. As we
have the reigns and their multiplied synchronisms in the two contem
porary kingdoms of Judah and Israel, there is no honest way but to
put all these numbers together into one harmonious whole, speaking
their own language with the least possible change of figures. This
method reveals only three slight self-evident adaptations, as follows:
§35. (1.) Any single synchronism allows one year of variation in
the reckoning; and a double synchronism allows a variation of two
years, if the context so requires. Thus, if a reign in one kingdom

the kings 147
begins in the "third year " of a reign in the other kingdom, it may be
either near the beginning or near the end of that third year; that is,
after two years or after three years of reign. (See example II Chron.
xvi: 3, comp. I Ki. xv: io.) Again, if a reign begins in the "third year"
and another in the "eighth year," the interval may be simply five
years; or the first date may be at the beginning of the third year and
the second at the end of the eighth year, giving an interval of six years;
or the first may be at the end of the third year and the second at the
beginning of the eighth year, giving an interval of but four years.
(See example I Ki. xv: i, 9, comp. ver. 2; and II Ki. xv: 17, 23.) No
greater variation than this is in harmony with the figures; but a varia
tion within these bounds is no violation.
§36. (2.) A length of reign is ordinarily to be understood asso
many full years, the fraction less of one reign being offset with the
fraction more of another; but sometimes, the fractional year may have
been (by a careless way of the first scribe) allowed to both reigns, re
quiring a year to be deducted from one or the other of the two reigns.
But the synchronisms in the context show such an over-numbering,
and no error results. For example "Jeroboam twenty-two years " is
required by the contiguous synchronisms to denote a reign to his
"twenty-second year," i. e., twenty-one full years only. The fact that
this usage is found with the first seven kings of Israel, only shows the
habit of that earlier scribe; and it does not warrant Schwartz (Bib.
Sac, Jan., '88) in imposing this as a fixed rule iox all the kings of
Israel and denying it to any king of Judah. The artless Bible histo
rians were not tied down to mathematical canons such as modern critics
are disposed to invent for them; much less would the same author
have two sets of kings intermingled in his dating with a different rule
for each' set. Our only authority for letting any reign go as one year
less than its nominal figure, is the requirement of the writer's own
synchronisms in the context, proving necessarily how he, in that case,
was reckoning. We have no right otherwise to modify the value named,
and thus do violence to his. figures.
§37. Doctor Orr of Scotland (in the Pres. Review, Jan., 1889), in
order to make out a scheme of Bible chronology in accordance with
alleged Assyrian dates, applies the arbitrary rule, that all Bible reigns
both in Israel and in Judah must be reduced one year; claiming that
every reign is given inclusive of the fractions reckoned at both ends,
like the " three days " ascribed to our Savior in the tomb. But it is
altogether unnatural to suppose that inclusive mode of reckoning
applied rigidly to all numbers, to successive reigns and larger periods,
which certainly were intended to express the actual length of time.
For instance, the age of Moses is given as "full forty years " when he
fled to Midian (Acts vii: 23); his stay there is given as full "forty years

148 period e
expired" (ver. 30); and his wilderness sojourn is given as "forty
years " (ver. 26); while the whole is summed up as " 120 years " of life
(Deut. xxxiv: 7). And so of the reigns and ages generally. It is pre
posterous to foist upon the artless Jewish annals any such machine
system of stereotyped and premeditated curtailment as the destructive
critics are trying to devise for the accommodation of their Assyrian
reckoning. The very diversity and contrariety of their theories prove
them to be all fallacious.
§ 38. (3.) A synchronism may require either a vacancy (anarchy or
interregnum) understood after the father, or a regency understood with
the father named. But which is required in each case, depends upon
the surroundings of the text. Such are the two difficult synchronisms
of II Ki. xv : 1 and 8. The first presumption is in favor of an interreg
num; because this is letting the scripture speak for itself without any
explanation attempted. And therefore we let this interpret verse 8;
there being nothing in the way of this purely biblical interpretation.
We would do the same at verse 1, were there not three biblical facts
against it. (a.) The fact that Azariah was taken " by the people " at
or even before his father's death, and made king (xiv: 19-21), which for
bids an interregnum between, (b.) The fact that an interregnum here
would double the interregnum after Jeroboam, which is impracticable.
(c.) The fact that such a doubling of interregnum cannot be avoided
by supposing a mere regency of Azariah with his father to be referred
to in verse 8, since verse 13. etc., forbid. Therefore, we have to con
clude that verse 1 refers to a regency of Jeroboam with his father not
reckoned in his "forty-one years" given ; and this harmonizes the
whole account without any mutilation.
§ 39. As for supposing more than a regency, a real overlap or joint
reign reducing the length of reign given, this can not be allowed; for
it would be a violation of the text, which, unless there is proof to the
contrary, must be accepted as meaning to give by the successive reign
lengths the whole' space of time passed over in those reigns. Hence
we can not let a supposed]o\nt-s:e\%n reduce the declared lengths of reign;
unless, indeed, there is an express statement to that effect, as there is
in one case only, the case of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, I Ki. viii: 16.
It is sometimes said, as by Schwartz, that our Bible chronology is in
consistent, in having verse 8 make an interregnum and verse 1 a
regency; but the above explanation shows, that, on the contrary, one
consistent rule is followed, of letting scripture in each case speak for
itself, with no theory interposed, the Bible numbers being allowed to
fall into place of themselves, giving such result as they will.
§40. Note. That Zechariah's six months of reign, ver. 8, was
only the culmination of a period of anarchy following Jeroboam's
death, appears from the very wording of the narrative in scripture.
At every other reign we are told that this king and that king " began"

THE KINGS 149
to reign in the year mentioned; but in this particular case there is a.
striking variation: " In the thirty and eighth year of Azariah, king
of Judah, did Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam reign [not begin to
reign] over Israel in Samaria six months." That is, he only then, and
for a few months, succeeded in getting to actual reign in the capital.
" Samaria," on account of a long- preceding anarcfiy, which now re
sulted in his own speedy murder (after only six months) by a usurper,
who in turn was immediately assassinated by another usurper Mena-
hem — who only succeeded by regular war and conquest of 'the people
(ver. 8-15). Scripture thus makes it plain, that Zechariah's real claim.
to the throne "was durmg the thirteen years of anarchy, though his
actual possession of the throne was only the last six months of it.
§41. Indeed, all the last years of Israel were so anarchical, that it
is no wonder that, after the subsequent murder of Pekahiah by the
usurper Pekah, and after his murder by the new usurper, Hoshea, (with
aid from the Assyrian king), this last usurpation failed for nine years
to get Hoshea really seated upon the throne, there being that' much of
new anarchy between the reign-lengths given in scripture. The cause
of anarchy in this latter case is more fully shown by the Assyrian
inscription, which (as Schwartz himself informs us) reads: " I [Tiglath-
pileser] slew Pekaha, and 'Hosea 1 made king." As it was this very
Assyrian king whom Ahaz of Judah (in the fisst part of his reign) hired
to come against Pekah of Israel (II Ki. xvi: 5, 7-10) — as it was he who
really caused the death of Pekah (through Hoshea instigated by him),
surely such new usurpation in Israel, through a foreign invasion^ as
well as domestic massacre, was calculated to intensify the anarchy of
embroiled Israel, and prevent Hoshea, for a long time, from reaping
the reward of his treachery, or being allowed to occupy in " Samaria "
the throne which he had usurped and could only gain at length by
Assyria's aid. But One Bible Method.
g 42. By the above three simple common-sense adaptations of the
one common-sense method of interpretation, the Bible numbers (both
reigns and synchronisms) are all happily reconciled with each other.
And in such a harmony of many complex reckonings, there is a moral
assurance that we have the mind and intent of the Bible writers, such
as no other method of treating the matter can give. In .contrast with
it, look at the mutilating processes applied to scripture by speculative
manipulators of Assyrian' dates. These are theories for the reconstruc
tion of Bible Chronology, in striking contrast with our plan of
simply ascertaining it as it is. Mr. Schwartz claims that there are
"three methods of reckoning Bible dates, instead of the only correct
way here claimed: (1) By adding up the lengths of reigns as given for
Judah; (2) By adding up the lengths of reigns as given for Israel; (3)
by selecting from among the synchronisms given such as will serve to
make out the length of time desired !
This last is little better than the theory adopted by Dr. Orr (Pres.
Quar., New York, Jan., '89) that all the synchronisms given in the script
ure history are spurious, being interpolations made by a later editor,
whom he calls, .the synchronist; so that he makes a Bible chronology

' 150 PERIOD E
to suit himself, using -only such synchronisms as please him, and
throwing the rest away! Such is the "higher" criticism of chro
nology with which we are being so largely entertained. Who does not
see, that every one of these conflicting methods is partial, one sided,
and unfair to the full scripture truth ?
§ 43. It must be evident to all, that the only impartial, unpreju
diced, and honest way is that which we here adopt, to let the Bible num
bers tell their own story, without any theories or canons imposed. This
fair and faithful method takes every regnal number in Judah or in
Israel; and' every synchronism given (without selection), and pombines
the whole, reigns and synchronisms, in one complete and consistent
harmony, without any mutilation or collision of numbers. It is won
derful that such a harmony is found; and this is the best proof of the
inerrancy of scripture, and of our having the right view of its numbers.
How contrary to this are the diverse distorting schemes cited above !
The proposed adding up of reigns in one kingdom to the exclusion
of the other, is entirely one-sided, and, therefore erroneous (as seen in
the errors of Hales and others.)* As for a culling out of synchronisms
to suit each theorizer's whim, that is intolerable. Instead of being
"the synchronistic method," as Schwartz claims, that is the abdica
tion of all real method. Instead of having three diverse chronologies
*Take, for example, what the book editor of the S. S. Times (June
9, i8g4, p. 363) asserts": ',' There are just two systems of chronology for
this period (from Solomon to the capture of Samaria), the biblical and
the Assyrian, each computed at its prima facie value. The true chro
nology is either one or the other of these- two, or else some combination
of them that has not yet been demonstrated and adopted. The bibli
cal numerals, computed at what appears to be their value, make the
first year of Jeroboam I to be g82 B. C. — The chronology of Usher is a
compromise," etc.
What is said here about the issue, as between the one chronology of
the Bible and the alleged chronology of Assyriology, is just right. But
there can be no compromise or " combination " between them, without
a rejection of both. And the one obvious Bible Chronology is here very
foolishly given as the added reigns of Judah, with all the other script
ure datings ignored. Thus: 260 years of added reigns + 722 B.. C.
taken for the capture of Samaria= "g82 B. C." here given for the
death of Solomon. Of course, such an un- scriptural dating will have
to be "compromised " and rejected. But the obviously scriptural date
derived from all the datings harmonized, we show to be 254 years of
reigns + 720 B. C. at the capture of Samaria = g74 B. C, as the true
Bible date of Solomon's death; and the issue is between this alone and
the claims of Assyriology. The 254 is demonstrably the correct script
ure interval, and not a compromise even if Usher does have it.
We insist upon starting with scripture, ' ' computed at its prima
facie value," which is the true value; and the 260 years taken at its
value for the interval before us, as made up from a part of its datings
with the rest ignored, is certainly not the scripture's correct or "prima
facie value."

THE KINGS 151
of the Bible, we are offered three unreasonable theories beclouding its
one simple reckoning, with neither of which have we anything to do.
Our own procedure is as different from all these as light is from dark
ness. It can not be stigmatized as " another theory " in competition
with those theories. We have no theory on the subject; we do not
believe in studying scripture with preformed theories to be therefrom
proved. All our business is to discover the one self- asserting, self-
harmonizing chronology of the Bible. If it is found clashing with some
outside dating, and is, therefore, to be rejected as untrue, that is an
after question, which must be honestly decided by itself.
§ 44. It is plain that the sacred writers meant what they say; and
they either told the truth (to the disproval of what contradicts them),
or else they mistook the facts and wrote their history incorrectly.
What they meant and said (whether true or false) is a matter of im
partial exegesis simply, which we have resolved to know. And we
think we have ascertained it very nearly in the tables we have drawn
up. It is entirely disingenuous for scholars to twist and tear the
Sacred Word, tryingto distort its simple teachings into alleged agree
ment with something they have found outside of it. There is no hon
oring of scripture in such forced agreement. It were better to concede
discrepancy between sacred and profane history, and let either record
prevail according to the weight of its own authority. Let us own the
truth, and treat the Book honestly "though the heavens fall."
Corroborations. ,
§ 45. The harmony of dates as herein set forth leaves so little diffi
culty with any passage, and is at the same time so undesignedly accord
ant with the accepted Usher chronology, as to commend itself at once
as the true Bible dating. But there are certain important corrobora
tions of our reckoning. First, we have the confirmatory evidence of
prophecy. Ezekiel (in iv: i-g) foretold "40 years" for filling up the
iniquity of Judah, that is, from the 18th of Josiah (when he began his
prophecy, Ch. i: 1, 2), to the final capturing four years after the de
struction of Jerusalem (Jer. lii: 12, 30)— i. e., from B. C. 623 to 583; and
he foretold "3go years" for final finish of Israel, from the finished
revolt of Jeroboam a year after Solomon's death, to this same final
ravaging of the whole land— z. <r., from B. C. g73 to 583, just as in our
table. Josephus (Ant. 10, iv:4) thus reckons the prophecy of Ezekiel as
covering "3gi years" from the death of Solomon; minus 40 = 351
(corrupt 361) to the " 18th of Josiah."
§ 46. The 4go years interval from temple to temple (§ 49), was
regarded as the fulfillment of prophecy, as in II Chron. xxxvi: 20, 21.
"They were servants to him [the king of Babylon] and his sons, until
the reign of the kingdom of Persia. To fulfill the word of the Lord by

152 period e
the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had enjoyed her Sabbaths; for as
long as she lay desolate she kept Sabbath, to fulfill three-score
and ten years," foretold. (See Lev. xxv:4-26, and xxvr.34, 35; Jer.
xxv: n, 12, and xxix: 10; Zech. i: 12.) These seventy Sabbatic years of
captivity x 7 = 490 years, or 10 jubilee periods, reached from the com
pletely finished temple at,B. C. 513 (F, § 35) back to the finished tern-.
pie of Solomon at B. C. 1003. This Divine arrangement of time (made
to preserve the true Sabbatic reckoning, and to induce a Sabbatic
reyival after the captivity),* was an intimation; that, as soon as God's
people got fully equipped for their worship, they began to decline there
from. Sad truth of all ages! We have here a signal confirmation of
the Bible Chronology of this Sabbatic interval from temple to temple,
as taught also by Josephus and the Jews.
§ 47. Uncanonical Jewish authors confirm our reckoning, showing
the Bible datings as well understood in their times. Josephus (Ant. 10,
viii: 4) expressly states the duration of the Jewish kings, including "20
- years " for Saul, as being "514 years, 6 months and 10 days;" which
is our own addition of the reigns just as the Bible gives them (even to
the months and days), from 20 years before David to the death of
Jehoiachin the last surviving king, (38—11 =) 27 years after the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, (II Ki. xxiv: 8, 15, and xxv: 2, 4, 27; Jer. lii: 5, 31).
Thus we have 20 years + David, 40+ Sol., 40 + Israel, 254 + Judah
133 + 27 of captivity = 514 years from B. C. 1074 to 560.
Josephus also (9, xiv: 1) gives the duration of Israel (reckoning
simply by its given reign-lengths added), as 240 yrs., 7 mo., 7d.,"
while the Bible figures (changing his Jehu 27 to 28) add up 1 year more,
as' here at § 23. (For the months and days, see II Ki. xv: 8, 13, and I Ki.
xvi: 15.) We see by this how accurately preserved we have the Bible
numbers, just as, Josephus and the Jews originally had them. More
over, the Jewish Priest Record copied by Josephus (20, x) gives the
old standard interval, from Solomon's temple to the Cyrus decree for
rebuilding it, as "466 yrs., 6 mo. and 10 days," i. e., from B. C. 1003
to 537-6 — just as our table has it. (See further testimony of Josephus
a-t § 55i of Eupolemus and Demetrius at -§ 54, and of the Talmud
at § 24.)
§ 48. There /has been discovered in our day a wonderful monu
mental confirmation of the Bible chronology as our table sets it forth.
"In the stele of Mesha, King of Moab, he states that Omri and his
house reign exactly 40 years." (See Schwartz.) Now we are told of
Omri (at I Ki. xvi: 23), "Six years reigned he in Tirzah;" i. e., as only
the ruler of a faction (ver. 21, 22) — the other 6 of his total " 12 years "
being alone known abroad as actual reign without a rival, began in the
"31st year of Asa," in the now permanently established capital
"Samaria" (ver. 24). And from the beginning of Omri's 6 years of
* See Neh. x: 31; Jos. Ant. 11, viii: 5.

THE KINGS 153
actual reign to the death of his last grandson, Joram (the end of the
dynasty), is by our Bible Chronology just 40 years, B. C. 923-883.*
What is striking about the agreement is, that this chronology was
formulated by us (as given in the table § 25) many years ago, from the
Bible alone, before anything was known of the monumental inscription
from Moab. The peculiar value of this 40-year verification is, that it
covers the joint reign of Jehoram of Judah with his father, Jehosha
phat, the only case where our chronology has an overlap of the regnal
years, and proves our reckoning (at that, its most difficult point) to be
correct. Besides, it confirms the full 13 years between Ahab and
Jehu, which proves that it can not be those kings referred to (as alleged)
in the Assyrian canon.
Note. Schwartz tries to make the 40 years of the Moabite in
scription cover the whole rule of Omri, before he got full possession of
the throne in Samaria (contrary to "the 31st of Asa" m verse 23);
and for that purpose he reduces the reigns as found in Scripture, from
(Omri 6+Ahab 21+Ahaziah i+Joram 12=) 40 — See § 25 — down to
(6+ig+i+g=) 35+5 more of Omri's previous rule=40 in all. But
what a perversion is here of the Bible's figures for Ahab and Joram!
This is a fair specimen of the steps taken, in the now popular recon
struction of Bible numbers in the interest of alleged Assyriology.
CHAPTER III.
Jubilee Reckoning.
§ 4g. This Bible dating is thoroughly fixed and assured by the
jubilee reckoning of the Jews. They and their scribes noted from the
first the striking fact, that the final founding of the second temple by
royal decree, in the 2d of Darius (B. C. 520), was just 4go years after
the first founding of Solomon's temple in the 4th of Solomon (put at
B. C. 1010); these 490 years being just 10 jubilee periods of 49 years
each, or in other words "70 weeks" of years like those described in
Daniel's prophecy. And what was still more notable, the dedication
of Solomon's temple 7 years after its founding (or in B. C. 1003), was
thus the Year of Jubilee; giving 490 years or 70 weeks, or 10 jubilee
periods, thence to the gth of Darius (B. C. 513) as also a jubilee year.
§ 50. It was for this reason, although Ezra vi: 15, records the sec
ond temple as "finished " at1 the close of "the 6th year of the reign of
Darius the king," yet "the dedication" which is thereupon described
(ver. 16) as connected with a passover' following (ver. ig-22), is said by
Josephus to have been "in the gth year of the reign of Darius," the
*In the Bib. Sacra (July, 1870, p. 642), our reckoning of the 40 years
is verified, but there is much unnecessary confusion thrown over the
computation.

154 period e
temple being "built in 7 years' time," he says, as was the first temple.
(Antiq. n, iv: 7.) No doubt there was an adjustment of both these
dedicatory occasions to the jubilee dates, to which providentially the ,
building operations were brought so nigh. And the coincidence in
each case was well fitted to stir the Jewish heart. (See § 46.)
§ 51. This ten-fold jubilee reckoning, or 70 weeks' dating (made
more correctly 4gi years by reckoning the 4th of Sol. as B. C. ion) thus
fixed in their temple history, and mixed with their most sacred associa
tions, became the favorite measuring line of Jewish history, by which
as a talismanic time-length of 4go years, they ever afterwards en
deavored to map out all the ages. Step by step they theorized with
this magic meter applied to Bible dates; even sometimes corrupting
figures by conjectural emendations, when they did not quite agree with
inexorable jubilee adjustment. Until, after a time, they had a full-
fledged jubilee theory of Jewish history, which shows itself in the
" Book of Jubilees," issued in about the New Testament time.
§ 52. The republic of scholars owe a debt of gratitude to Professor
Schodde of Alleghany University, for his invaluable service in recently
translating from the Ethiopic this memorable book of Jewish lore,
showing the Hebrew method of dating scripture in the time of Christ.
Thanks to the Bibliotheca Sacra for giving his translation to the public
(see the Nos. during 1886-7); though it now can be had in book form.
The same jubilee reckoning appears in the modern Jewish chronology,
still followed by them; which was set forth soon after the Book of
Jubilees, viz., in about A. D. 130, through the labors of the famous
Rabbi Akiba. That chronology calls this year (A. D. 1888) their year
A. M. 5649; putting the creation 3761 years B. C. And these 3761
years B. C. they make up as follows (as given by Hales): Before the
flood i65(6)+to Abraham 2g(o)+to the exodus 5o(3)+to Solomon's
temple 48oth+to the captivity 410+70+40 to the Seleucic era+312 to A.
D.=total 3760X, or the 3761st year.
§ 53. The Jews in their ignorance of history during the dark ages
following \he close of the Old Testament, regarded the Persian Empire
as having lasted but 52 years, to the 32d year of Darius Hystaspes,
the last date of the Bible. (Neh. xiii: 6. See Prideaux' s Connection,
I., p. 218, anno 486.) And of these 52 years, the modern Jewish chro
nology gets but 40' after the 70 years of captivity, as if 20 years only
were allowed from the temple dedication to the 20th Artaxerxes. For,
as Jewish tradition put the finishing of the temple 20 years after the
Cyrus-decree for restoring it, which decree ended the 70 years cap
tivity as prophesied by Jeremiah, (Dan. ix: 1, 2; Jer. xxv: 1, 11, 12,
comp. Ezra vi: 3, 15), we see that half the Persian 40 allowed in the
modern Jewish chronology, really belonged before the temple dedica
tion.

THE KINGS i 155
So that, we find therein the full jubilee reckoning, thus: From
Greation to the exodus (as there adjusted) 1656+290+503=2450111 year,
or 50 jubilees; then 480 (construed as reaching to the beginning of
Solomon and of preparation for the temple, I Ki. v: 17, 18, as indicated
in the arrangement of the LXX text)+io of Solomon to the dedica-
tion=4go years, or 10 jubilees; or 480+410+70+20=980 years, i. e., 20
jubilees to the dedication of the 2nd temple (as if 490 from B. C. 1013
to 533 and 513 for "the second temple bulit"), viz., 70 jubilees back to
the creation; and then 20+3 12+ A. D. 159=490 years, or the "70
weeks " of Daniel, made to reach on beyond their own day (A. D. 130),
with current jubilee reckoning ignored now that their land was lost*
so as to controvert the Christian claim, that the 70 weeks of Daniel
were more than out, and Messiah had already come.
§ 54. Wethus know, from the modern Jewish chronology, as well
as from the reckoning of Josephus, and of Eupolemus before him, and
other ancient authorities (as. we fully show elsewhere, that the ten-
jubilee period of 490 years from temple to temple, was well established
from the first, as the basis of all ancient chronology. Eupolemus,
* Schwartz tells us, that some of the rabbis give the taking of
Jerusalem by Titus as 35 years after a jubilee. That is, having lost the
jubilee reckoning in passing from the Old Testament, they started a
new jubilee period from the famous Maccabean Era, B. C. 163, in place
of the current jubilee B. C. 170); which, after (4 times 49=) 196 years
brought a jubilee at (ig6 — 163 B. C.=)34 A. D. (in place of the correct
A. D. 27); so that 35 years from its ending (in A. D. 35) reached to Sep
tember, A. D. 70. This made a jubilee come 63 years afterward, at A.
D. 132, exciting the Jews remaining about Jerusalem then to revolt in
hope of the city's restoration, as had occurred 63 years after its pre
vious ruin (reckoned as from B. C. 583 to 520, as in Josephus. See
Rest, of Jos., § 28-30). This Rabbinical reckoning of jubilees was evi
dently gotten up at that era (A. D. 130) when their false modern chro
nology was invented; and it was what led to the Jewish outbreak which
the Emperor Hadrian then quelled. (See Period A, B, § 15.)
But even this Rabbinical chronology retains traces of the correct
Old Testament dating of the Jewish kings and captivity, with the true
jubilees then existing. Thus: It has the accession of Solomon as if
rightly at B. C. 1013, minus "410 years" to B. C. 603, minus "70
years" to B. C. 533 for Cyrus and "second temple built," minus 20
years to B. C. 513 (or 603 to 583 and 513), for Josephus' gth-Darius and
the temple finished. But this gth Darius being falsly- treated as at the
accession of Alexander the Great (as conquering this Darius) in B. C.
532 (a loss of 181 years), a minus 20 reached B. C. 312, the Seleucic
Era. This made (20+20=140 years only from the well known B. C.
312, the spurious "B. C. 352," as the time of ist Cyrus decreeing "the
second temple built. ' ' (As taken from Ganz by H ales, my notes iv : 1 1 . )
Those who give Darius 23 more years, or 32 years in all (as cited above
from Prideaux), must thus have reduced the previous "70 years to 47
years, as if from 587 B. C. to 540," for the dates' for "the temple
burnt" and again "built."

15G period e
mentioned by Clement Alex., as writing in B. C. 174, giving 5i4g years
from the creation down to B. C. 294. This he could nbt make out
without the 4go years, from temple to temple. The same is indicated
by Demetrius, who wrote in B. C. 220 a history, of the Jewish kings.
(See citation of Alex Polyb., in Euseb. Praep'. Evang., ix:2i, Jackson's
Chronol.) § 55. Josephus' testimony ( War. 6, iv. 3, and a. i) is, that from
the completion of the second temple back to the completion of
Solomon's temple, was ("1130 — :63g"=)4gi years, i. e., 4go years to Sol
omon's dedication put as one year later. And this interval he makes
up as follows: The 70 years captiyity+the "639" years at its clpse
=7og years (or "2177 — 1468"); and this 709+421=" 1130 years " back
to Solomon's finished temple (after 70+421=491 years); which 1130+g
of Sol. +40 of David=" ii7g years" to the beginning of David's reign;
i. e., ("ii7g — 7og "=)" 470" [not '477 '] before the 70 years of captivity,
begun at the completed capturing (the 23d of Neb., Jer. lii: 30, Antiq.
10, ix: 7).
The 470 — 4g=42i being thus from g years of Sol. to the 23d of Neb.,
it is 417 to the destruction of Jerusalem in the igth of Neb., or (417+7
=)424 years duration of the temple from its founding at 2 years of
Sol. (One year more being here in the war allowed iox joint reign with
his father — whereas, in the Antiq., 3 years put to Solomon alone reduce
the 424 to 423.) The 423-4 years duration of the temple is just the
scripture reckoning; and is plainly made up thus: The 133 years after
Samaria captured+the 254 before (to B. C. g74)+36-37 of Sol=423
— 4 years (to B. C. 1010-1011). Thus we see that Josephus used the
scriptural 234 years duration of Israel, not the gross 260 of added reigns
in Judah, as Schwartz contends. This harmonized reckoning of
Josephus is fully expounded elsewhere; and all his values show that
4go years were universally understood as separating temple from
temple. Given Jubilee Years.
§ 56. We have sufficient indications of the very years in which the
ancient jubilees occurred, to fix the place where the 4go year period
from temple to temple belongs. The building and dedication of
Solomon's temple plainly indicate the Sabbatic and jubilee year
(I Ki. vi: 37, 38): "In the 4th year of Solomon was the foundation of
the house of the Lord laid, and in the nth year was the house finished.
So was he seven years in building it." (Ch. viii: 2): " And all the men
of Israel assembled themselves unto King Solomon, at the feast of the
month Ethanim, which is the seventh month [the month for sounding
the jubilee trumpet] . And they brought up the ark of the Lord. So
the king and all the children of Israel dedicated the house of the Lord.
And at that time Solomon held a feast, and all Israel with him, * * *

THE KINGS 157
seven days and seven days, even fourteen days;" i. e., 7 for the
ordinary , celebration, and 7 for the jubilee dedication (Ver. 2, 63,
65.) "They kept the dedication of the altar seven days and the
feast seven days; and on the three and twentieth day of the seventh
month he sent the people away unto their tents, glad and merry in
heart for the goodness of the Lord." So the tabernacle feast lasted
(as usual) from the 15th to the 22d of that 7th month; and if the
dedication feast preceded it from the 8th to the 15th, it would make
14 days (the 8th to the 22d). The festivities would begin from the 8th
(at sunset), and on the morning of the tenth the jubilee trumpet had to
sound, as commanded in Lev. xxv: a: "Seven Sabbaths of years shall
be unto to thee forty and nine years. Then shalt thou cause the
trumpet of the jubilee to sound on the tenth day of the seventh month;
in the day of atonement shall ye make the trumpet sound throughout
all your land."
§ 57. Usher, and most chronological authorities, accept that year
B. C. 1003, following Solomon's temple, as the Jewish jubilee.*
Reckoning by the vulgar text of I Ki. vi: 1, we shall have 8 years
of building the temple+the "480th "=487 years from that jubilee back
to the exodus. So that the common chronology has the first ten
jubilees, or 70 weeks' period of 490 years, reaching-from (490-487=)
3 years before leaving Egypt to the dedication of Solomon's temple.
That is, the first jubilee period of 49 years is reckoned from three
years before the exodus to six years after the entering of Canaan,
when, at the 7th year of Joshua, as the first Sabbatic of Canaan
possession, is understood to have been the celebration of the first
jubilee finished.
§ 58. Thus we read (at Josh, xi: 23): "So Joshua took the whole
land * * * and theland rested from war." (Ch. xiv: 6-10): "Ahd
Caleb * * * said unto him# * * * forty years old was I when
Moses sent me to spy out the land * * * and now, behold the Lord
hath kept me alive, as he said, these, forty and five years * * * and
now, lo, I am this day fourscore and five years old." That is, five
years after the arrival in Canaan, in the 6th year, the land had pretty
much been conquered. Thereupon, in the 6th year, the land was
divided by lot (xviii: 1, 10, and xix: 51); and cities of refuge were estab
lished (ch. xx, xxi). And by this view the seventh year having
* ' ' This dedication did not take place till eleven months after the
completion of the edifice. The delay most probably originated in
Solomon's wish to choose the most fitting opportunity, when there
should be a general rendezvous of the people in Jerusalem; and
that was not till the next year. That was a jubilee year; and he re
solved on commencing the solemn ceremonial a few days before
the feast of tabernacles, which' was the most appropriate of all seasons."
(Dr. Jamieson in Brit. Com. oh I Ki. viii: 1.)

358 period e
come, "the Lord gave them rest round about" (xxi: 43, 45); and
with Sabbatic rest closed with jubilee rejoicing, the two and a half
tribes were dismissed from war to their home beyond Jordan (ch. 22),
Not till " a long time after" this was it that "Joshua waxed old and
stricken with age" (xxiii: 1; xiii: 1, out of place). Compare Period
D, § 8, 9.
§ 59. From that 7th of Joshua (made the 8th by Usher), B. C. 1444
back through the first jubilee period of 49 years, we are carried to B.
C. 1493, three years before the exodus in B. C. 1490 (Usher says
1491). And from that B. C. 1493 at the beginning of jubilees, the first
ten jubilees or 4go years take us to Solomon's dedication, B. C. 1003.
And the next 490 take Us to B. C. 513, the dedication of the second
temple (according to Josephus, above). Whether the former of these
periods is right (as given by the vulgar text of I Ki. vi: 1), or whether
that text (" 480 ") and that reckoning, taken from the modefnjewish
chronology, which is plainly founded on the peculiar jubilee theory
of Jewish history, is a corruption suggested by and meant to com
plement the 4go period between the two dedications, which is un
doubtedly correct; this question is fully discussed by us elsewhere,
and we can not enter upon it here. (See Period D.)
§ 60. Though the appointed Sabbatics and jubilees were but little
maintained by the apostate Jews, yet the reckoning of them was kept up
down to the New Testament times and as long, at least, as Jerusalem
remained. In their faithful observance was a divine promise Of two'
years' food extraordinarily provided (Lev. xxv: n, 19, 22): "I will
command my ble ssing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring
forth fruit for three years. And ye shall sow the eighth year, and eat
of old fruit until the ninth year, until its fruits come in ye shall eat of
the old store." But when they failed to carry out the jubilee enfran
chisement required, the promise failed, and disaster came'. The
seventy years of captivity were brought in that the land might
" enjoy her Sabbath" of which she had been deprived. (Lev. xxvi;
20» 33i 35> H Chron. xxxvi: 21.)
§ 61. From the jubilee of Solomon, B. C. 1003, srx jubilee periods
or 294 years carry us to B. C. 709, when there was evidently a jubilee,
in about the 17th year of Hezekiah's reign according with the descrip
tion given. (Isa. xxxvi: 1; xxxvii: 8, ,30.) "And this shall be a sign
unto thee: ye shall eat this year such as grows of itself; and the second
year that which springeth of the same; and in the third year sow ye and
reap, and plant vineyards and eat the fruit thereof. ' ' This makes Hez
ekiah's reign begin about B. C.726, as required by the accepted chro
nology given above (§ 25). ,
§ 62. Other jubilees must have'COme at B. C. 611, near the end of Jo
siah's reign; and at B. C. 562, "in the midst of the years " of captivity

• the kings 159
(Hab. iii: 2). In that year, the (B. C. 5g8 — 562=) " 37th year of the cap
tivity of Jehoiachin" (II Ki. xxv: 27; Jer. lii: 31-35), he was appropri
ately given his jubilee liberty, and raised to honor: so that, by this
foretokening of captivity to end, God did ' ' in wrath remember
mercy." Another jubilee came at B. C. 513, when the second temple
was dedicated (according to Josephus) and the captivity came fully to
an end; and then again at B. C. 464, the close of Xerxes' reign.
From that date, ten jubilees or 490 years carry us to A. D. 27 as the
jubilee year. This it plainly was, leading Christ, then in the first year
of his ministry, to read in the synagogue from Isaiah (very likely the
appointed lesson for the occasion) that memorable jubilee passage:
" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath sent me to set at
liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the
Lord. And he closed the book, * * * And he began to say unto
them: This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears." (Luke iv: 17,
21). That is, " In this jtibilee, this acceptable year, I come preaching
. jubilee freedom and deliverance to the captives of sin."
§ 63. At 49 years before this A. D. 27, i. e., in B. C. 23, the 14th of
Herod (from B. C. 37), occurred the last previous jubilee, and a sad
time of famine it was. Josephus (Antiq. 15: xx: 1) says: "Theninthis
very year, which was the 13th year of the reign of Herod, very great
calamities came upon the country * * * The ground was barren.
When the fruits of the first year were spoiled, and whatever they had
laid up beforehand was spent, the misery increased upon them; and
that not only in this year, but what seed they had sown perished also,
by reason of the ground not yielding its fruits in the second year," the
14th of Herod.
§ 64. Concerning this, Whiston, the editpr of Josephus, observes:
" This famine for two years that afflicted Judea and Syria in the 13th
and 14th years of Herod, which are the 23d and 24th years before the
Christian era, was remarkable. It is well worth our observation here,
that these two years were a Sabbatic year and a year of jubilee, for
which Providence, during the theocracy, used to provide a triple crop
before hand; but they became now, when the Jews had forfeited
that blessing, the greatest years of famine since the days of Ahab."
Given Sabbatic Years.
§ 65, Thus evident are the true jubilee reckonings. There are
similar plain indications of Sabbatic years. The ideal Sabbatic was a
time, not only for rest and recuperation of the land lying fallow for
a year, but for rest and recuperation to the agriculturist himself,
usually so driven and confined (as we see in our day) by the exacting
and unremitting, duties of farm life. How else can hehave any "vaca
tion," such as men in other walks of life plan for themselves? When,

160 period e
among the Jews, the land lay at rest, and debts were released, and bond
men went free, then there was a season of leisure, convenient for
religious, social, educational or political convocations; when the people
generally could be stirred up to any great enterprise or reform that
might be needed. *
§ 66. Such a revival seems to have occurred in the Sabbatic that came
79 years after the founding of Solomon's temple, viz., in B. C. 940.
For that appears to be the 15th year of Asa's reign in Judah, reck
oning 36 more of Solomon+17 of Rehoboam+3 of Abijah+14 of Asa=
70 years from beginning to beginning of Sabbatic. Then, early in
Asa's 15th year (according to II Chron. 15th ch.), there was a notable
time of reformation, assembling and worship.
§ 67. And 28 years later, at the Sabbatic of gi2 B. C, near the be
ginning of Jehoshaphat's reign, may have occurred the remarkable
work of missionary preaching recorded in the 17th chapter, particularly
at ver. 7-10, when the king sent many evangelists to "teach in the
cities of Judah," and "they had the book of the law of the Lord with
them, and went about throughout all the cities of Judah and taught the
people and the fear of the Lord fell upon all the kingdoms of the land
that were round about." This is said to have been in Jehoshaphat's
"3d year," which, if reckoned in this particular case from Asa as
reigning' but 40 full years (xvi: 13), or rather, if reckoned from Asa's
total disability the year before (ver. 12), agrees with the Sabbatic B. C.
gi2, after 42 years from Asa's accession.
§ 68. In like manner John Baptist came preaching in the Sabbatic
of A. D. 26-7, which culminated in the jubilee of A. D. 27. A won
derfully convenient season that, for such a wide-spread reformation,
when, with more than ordinary leisure the people flocked to him from
every direction, and there "went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea,
and all the region round about Jordan." (Mat. iii: 5.)*
The well-established calculation of 'Daniel's "seventy weeks" of
"Messiah the Prince" (ix: 24-27), is from the Sabbatic ending in
B. C. 457, fhe 7th year of Artaxerxes, when Ezra went to Jerusalem
with the king's decree of restoration, onward 4go years to the Sabbatic
ending in A. D. 34, when Saul was converted, and the gospel was fully
opened to the Gentiles. The preaching of John Baptist, of Christ, and
of the Apostles, "confirmed the covenant with many for one week"
Sabbatic, from A. D. 26-7 to 34; and "in the midst of the, week," A. D.
30, the death of Christ caused the ' ' sacrifice and .oblation to cease, ' '
the Messiah being then "cut off."
*That we have the right reckoning of the sabbatics is further evident
from Josephus' description of a Sabbatic at the death of Simon, B. C.
135, and at Herod's conquest of Jerusalem, B. C. 37 (Antiq. 13, viii: 1,
and 14, xvi: 2). Also at B. C. 163. (See Period F.)

THE KINGS 161
§ 6g. But the most distinctly notable Sabbatic in Jewish history, is
that of B. C. sgo, i. <?., 21 years after the previous jubilee of B. C. 611.
This was at the end of the 8th year of Zedekiah's reign, at the close of
whose n years' reign (3 years later) in B. C. 587, Jerusalem was
destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. (Usher says B. C. 588, Hales, 586; we
elsewhere ¦ prove that it was 587.) For Zedekiah " after 8 years"
(Josephus, Ant. 10, vii: 3) of subordination rebelled against Nebuchad
nezzar (II Chron. xxxvi: n-13, II Ki. xxiv: 17-21). So that Nebuchad
nezzar came against Zedekiah "in the 9th year of his reign " (xxv: 1),
besieging Jerusalem till its destruction at the end of Zedekiah's n
years (ver. 2, 8).
§ 70. The siege was raised temporarily by the approach of Pharaoh
from Egypt (Jer. xxxvii: 53); whereupon Jeremiah was cast into
* prison (ver. 6-21). " In the 10th year of Zedekiah " the siege was re
newed (xxxii: 1-3). Jos. (Ant. 10, vii: 4) says it was on "the 10th day
of the 10th month in the 10th year of Zedekiah," just a year, after the
siege began before (II Ki. xxv: 1), with "18 months " of further siege,
till the city was taken " on the gth day of the 4th month in the [end of
the] nth year of Zed." (Jos. viii: 1, 2). Now, before this return
of Nebuchadnezzar to the siege (Jer. xxxiv: 21, 22), i. e., some two years
before the taking of the city, Jeremiah rebuked Zedekiah and the
princes for having broken a covenant made at the Sabbatic year
(then just past) giving liberty to the bondmen, according to the Sab
batic law of Moses (ver. 8-22). See Period F, § 2g.
§ 71. This proves, that that Sabbatic was three years before the tak
ing of the city, when Zedekiah had reigned 8 years, and revolted from
Nebuchadnezzar. Taking advantage of the Sabbatic year of libera
tion (B. C. 590), Zedekiah declared his own independence, securing
the popular enthusiasm in it by pledging also the required Sabbatic en
franchisement of those in servitude. (Chap, xxxiv: 8, 9.) "This is
the word that came unto Jeremiah from the Lord, after that the king
Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people which were at
Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty unto them; that every man should let
his man-servant, and every man his maid-servant, being a Hebrew or
a Hebrewess, go free; that none should serve himself of him,1' to wit,
of a Jew, his brother."
§ 72. This was a concession to duty and to God, adhered to but a
little while, under tne alarm of Nebuchadnezzar's approach to the
siege. But when the siege was temporarily raised, about the end of
Zedekiah's gth year (B. C. 58g), he became haughty, and the pledge
was disowned and broken (ver. 10, 11). "Now when all the princes
and all the people which had entered into the covenant, heard that
every one should let his man-servant and every one his maid-servant
go free, that none should serve themselves of them any more, then they

162 ' PERIOD E
obeyed, arid let them go free. But afterward they turned, and caused
the servants and the hand-maids whom they had let go free, to return,
and brought them under subjection for servants and for hand-maids."
§ 73. Thereupon, Jeremiah denounced God's anger.
Verse 12-17: "Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: I made a
covenant with your fathers, in the day I brought them forth out of the
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying? At the end of
seven years let ye go every man his brother, a Hebrew, which hath been
sold unto thee; and when he hath served thee six years, thou shalt let
him go free; but your fathers hearkened not unto me, neither inclined
their ear. And ye were now turned, and had done right in my sight,
in proclaiming liberty every man to his neighbor; and ye had made a
covenant before me, in the house that is called by my name; but ye
turned, and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and
every man his hand-maid, whom he had set at liberty, at their pleasure,
to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for serv
ants and for hand-maids. Therefore, thus saith the Lord, ye have
not hearkened unto me, in proclaiming liberty every one to his brother
and every man to his neighbor: Behold, I proclaim a liberty for you,
saith the Lord, to the sword, to the pestilence, and to the famine; and
I will make you to be removed unto all the kingdoms of the earth,"
etc.* * Prideaux (Connec. Pref., pageix) discards all jubilee and Sabbatic
reckoning, saying of this passage (Jer. xxxiv: 8-10): "Every Hebrew
servant was to be released in the 7th year of his servitude, though it
were neither a jubilee nor a Sabbatical year." But, though this general
principle, that no Hebrew should serve over six years, was the first
thing announced (at Ex. xxi: 1) before the Sabbatic year was arranged
(at Ex. xxiii: g, 10), vet upon the full establishment of that Sabbatic
year as a land-sabbath (Lev. xxv: 1-7, 20), it was constituted a "year
.of release " (Deut. xv: 1, g, 12, and xxxi: 10), for the canceling of all
Hebrew debts, and consequently all claims for service. That the fixed
Sabbatic year was thus introduced for the carrying out and insuring of
the previously ordained principle of 7th year rest and release, is evi
dent from the fact that Moses thus set it forth fully in his final address
in Deuteronomy. He there (in Deut.) says nothing about it as a land-sabbath (de
scribed in Leviticus), but he fully explains it as a bankruptcy law, or
" release " of debtors, and a release from servitude. Notice particu
larly, that in the midst of his discourse on this " year of release " com
ing " at the end of every seven years " (Deut. xv: ver. 1, g, and ending
at ver.*i8), he introduces at ver. 12 the release of service "in the 7th
year," without any particle or.note of transition as if to another sub
ject, showing plainly that he reduces the whole to one Sabbatic insti
tution. When the Sabbatic year came round, and they were releasing'
all their brother Hebrews from debt, they could nbt help being reminded
of that special debt of service which they were required also to release^
' They then would see that this obligation, too, was carried out; and
especially when (as in Jer. xxxiv: 8-17), the congregation generally took
it up as a reform. This reformation made (as we show) in the very
" year of release," or Sabbatic year (ending B. C. 590), as well as that
other reformation, of Nehemiah (x: 31), made in the Sabbatic year
(ending B. C. 443), just 21 Sabbatics afterward, both show that we
rightly calculate the Sabbatic years of the Jews.

THE KINGS 163
§ 74. Here we have an express exhibit of Sabbatic law, and its his
torical application, a thousand years after its establishment; showing
us in striking language the exact date of its reckoning down to that time
<B. C. 590), and proving that we have the Sabbatic and jubilee reckon
ing correct, with the destruction of the city in B. C. 587. The chro
nology of Jewish history back to Solomon's temple is thus placed on
an impregnable basis. CHAPTER IV.
Unfounded Theorizings.
§ 75. Thurman in his chronology, (The Bible Chronology estab
lished by Wm. C. Thurman, 3d Ed., Phila., 1864), laboring to make ©ut
a particular scheme of dates, undertakes to,get the Sabbatic of Zede-
ldah later in his reign, or near the time of the city's capture, instead of
three years before, as we have proved it above. He says the covenant
of emancipation was not made until under the alarm of Zedekiah's
sending to Jeremiah at the first siege in Zedekiah's ninth year (Jer.
xxxvii: 3-5); and even then he claims that it was only a covenant in
anticipation of the Sabbatic year, which did not begin (he alleges) till
the next spring, the last of Zedekiah's tenth year. But this makes
the Sabbatic itself to be spent in a re-enslavement of bondmen, who
had been freed before it began ! for they had certainly enjoyed a
period of actual freedom (xxxiv: 10, 11, 16). And after the rebuke for
their re-enslavement, the siege had not re-begun (ver. 21, 22), viz., in
the tenth of Zedekiah (xxjrii: 1, 2), i. e., eighteen months before the
capture of the city. How certain that their temporary release was
ended at least two whole years before the city was destroyed. How
impossible any such theory as that of Thurman !
t; 76. He thus claims that the Sabbatic began as late as the spring-
of B. ,C. 588' (instead of 590), and so .twenty-one years before, in the
spring of B. C. 609, when Josiah died. Otherwise, he claims, Josiah
would commence offensive war in a Sabbatic year, which could not be.
But, as the true jubilee reckoning here shown has the Sabbatic ended
on the day of atonement in the autumn of B. C. 590, and so of B. C.
611, it was all over a year later in 610, the year before Josiah's death;
that is, long before he entered the war in which he was slain. More
over, Thurman makes the Sabbatic fourteen years before, to be in B.
C. 623, the eighteenth of Josiah, instead Of the correct 625. And still
more strangely, he makes that eighteenth of Josiah (as Bv C. 623) to
be the jubilee Sabbatic ! whereas the jubilee was B. C. 611, as we have
thoroughly proved.
§ 77. Thus wildly does Thurman speculate; and all his chronology
of the ages is founded on this misplacement of all the Sabbatics by

161 PERIOD E
two years and of all the jubilees by twelve years ! This is only a
specimen of the many reckless and uncritical theories of chronology
that have been put forth in our day. We are sorry to say that the
scholarly Bunsen himself indulges in such fanciful theorizings. And
very recently, a writer in the Bibliotheca Sacra (January; 1888) sets
forth with much ingenuity a scheme of the sort. He sets aside the
whole established chronology of Jewish history, giving a new reckon
ing throughout; which he bases upon a jubilee theory of his own,
with the established dating of the jubilees and Sabbatics (as shown
above) entirely ignored. He starts his jubilees backward from A. D.
32 put as a jubilee ! instead of the well known A. D. 27; thus having
no jubilee and no Sabbatic in all his reckoning correct.
§78. He puts the "seventy weeks" as reaching from jubilee
to jubilee, /. c, from his A. D. 32 back 490 years to his 458 B.
C. (he says) as a jubilee year; instead of the correct jubilee 464. He
thus has not even learned how to carry any number of years from a
date A. D. to a date B. C, or vice versa, viz., with 1 extra added to
the date (because of two years, 1 B. .C.and 1 A. D., with no year o
between; so that, from A. D. 34 to B. C. 437 are 490, not 491 years).
His jubilee A. D. 32 requires jubilee B. C. 459, not'458 as he puts .if,
entirely oblivious of even chronological arithmetic. Thus, all his
jubilee and Sabbatic reckoning, back through the dates of the Jewish
kings and the whole Bible history, is based on this erroneous ' and
inconsistent calculation. And so, by his own peculiar jubilee theory,
he gets (B. C. 458+490=) 948 B. C. as a jubilee year — and then he has
(B. C. g48+4go=) 1438 B. C. as the beginning of jubilee periods a^his
Exodus, instead of Usher's, two or three years before the Exodus.
§ 7g. But as he has the death of Solomon in B. C. g2g (or forty-five
years after its Bible date, B. Q. 974); and as he has also devised. a
peculiar 'date for the Exodus as B. C. 1438; therefore, in order to use
"the 480th year" of I Ki. vi: 1, he has to say (1438 — 48oth=) 959 B.
C. for "the fourth of Sol." or 962 for the beginning of his reign.
Thus he has arbitrarily reduced the reign of Solomon from the script
ural forty (or 39 sole) to thirty-three years only (from B. C. 962 to
929) ! And he has the dedication of the temple in the nth of Solomon
or B. C. 952, four years before his jubilee Of 948 B. C. It is only by
such mutilating of numbers, such unsabbatic reckoning of events, that
the destructive critics are enabled to lessen -by forty or fifty years the
scriptural time back to Solomon, as they feel obliged to do in order to
satisfy the supposed demands of Assyrian chronology. This process
of mutilation is applied to all the multiplied regnal numbers and
synchronisms so interlocked throughout the books of Kings and Chron
icles — with utter disregard of jubilee and Sabbatic requirement. And
this course is pursued as if on the presumption, that any sort of crit-

the Kings 165
ical handling will answer for the Bible — no matter how authentic
and well proved its data — to save a pagan record (supposed to be de
ciphered and explained without possibility of mistake) from appearing
to have any misspelling of names or any defect of reckoning
about it !
§ 80. Thus the current method of procedure is, first to fix out from
inscriptions excavated of late in Assyria, a pagan chronology assumed
to.be perfect and infallible; and then to attempt a reconstruction of
the sacred writers into harmony with it. The time has fully come for
a reversal of this process. We have first ascertained what the Bible
chronology is, and must be, in the harmony of its own consistent
exegesis; and now only are we prepared to learn if the Assyrian
inscriptions can be reconciled with it. Not God's word harmonized
with a heathen record, but the heathen record harmonized (it may be)
with God's well verified word. That second stage of the process must
be reserved to another article. The subject may well be investigated
from this Bible standpoint; with the presumption thus fixed, that, by
multitudinous datings of diverse writers in different kingdoms, fortified
by numerous verifications, there is no chance of mistaking the Bible
chronology back to the reign of David; and that (unless otherwise dis
proved) there is no event of human history whose date is more certain
or more simply demonstrable, than the dedication of Solomon's
Temple in B. C. 1003.

PART III.
Assyriology and the Jewish Kings.
SHOWING THAT THE BIBLE CHRONOLOGY CAN NOT BE IMPEACHED.
§ 81. We have shown that Scripture has an exact and certain Chro
nology; especially fixing the interval of Israel's duration from the
accession of Jeroboam I to the capture of Samaria as 254 years, from
B. C. 974 to 720. But now Assyriology comes forward, and with its
excavated and deciphered inscriptions, claims to prove that the Bible
Chronology is wrong, having the times of Menahem and Azariah over
twenty years, and the times of Ahab and Jehu (with all beyond) over
forty years too far back. We are here to investigate whether the
Assyrian inscriptions do give ,a different dating to the kings, or whether,
on the other hand, they can be harmonized with the Bible Chronology.
The larger part of the inquiry comes under two heads, (I) as to "Pul "
of Assyria and " Ahaz " of Judah, (II) as to Ahab and Jehu of Israel.

166 PERIOD E
FIRST DIVISION.
" Pul " of Assyria and " Ahaz " of Israel.
CHAPTER I.— Who Was " Pul, King of Assyria?"
// Ki. xv: ig, 2g: I Chron. 5: 26.
§ 82. While many monuments and inscriptions of the earlier and
the later Assyrian kings have been found and deciphered within the
past generation, the period for 25 to 50 years preceding Tiglath-pileser
is remarkably destitute of any discovered inscriptions. "The total
absence of contemporary dated documents during these reigns (previ
ous to Tiglath-pileser) is remarkable; and the Assyrian Canon is here
the only proof of the reigns of these kings." (Geo. Smith, Ep. Can.,
li. 83, 116.)
For this reason, the statements of different Assyriologists concern
ing these kings and their reigns, are very mixed and confusing. The
Assyrian " Eponym Canon " indicates the following reigns, as given by
Smith: Vul-nirari, beginning about B. C. 812.
Shalmaneser, " 783.
Assur-daan, " " 773.
Assur-nirari, " " 755.
Tiglath-pileser, " " 745.
583. Concerning the first of these, "Vul-nirari," Rawlinson (in
Smith's Bible Die, Art. Pul) says: "The Assyrians have a king, the
grandson of Samsi-vul, whose name is read very doubtfully as ' Vul-
lush ' or 'Iva-lush,' at about the period when 'Pul' must have lived
(say B. C. 800-750). He states that he made an expedition into Syria,"
etc. Chamber's Cyc. (1880) calls him "Iva-lush, probably the Pul of
the Scriptures." It also says : " With this king ends the first dynasty ,
(at Tiglath-pileser), in which we have eighteen monarchs from Bel-
lush to Iva-lush (1273-747 B. C), where begins the later Assyrian Em
pire." The "eighteen monarchs " include the four upper names given
above, and. yet the writer says the uppermost (Vul-nirari) ends "the
earlier empire." The Encyc. Brit. (1887) calls him not Vul-nirari but
" Rimmon-nirari, 811-782 B. C." And it adds: " The first Assyrian
Empire came to an end in B. C. 744, being overthrown by the usurper
Tiglath-pileser after a struggle of three or four years. He, in 740, took
tribute of Menahem (which a false reading in the Old Testament
ascribes to a non-existent Pul."
g 84. Rawlinson (in Smith's Bible Die. Art. Assyria) says, that
after " Salmanasur (B. C. 860-825), his grandson (Vul-nirari, the inter
mediate father being Samsi-vul) is thought to be Pul, Phul, or Phalech,

THE KINGS 167
the first Assyrian king named in Scripture. * * * By the synchron
ism of Menahem, the date of Pul may be determined to be about 770
B. C, i. e., twenty-three years before Babylon became independent,
according to Ptolemy's Canon, in B. C. 747." This is the view of
George Smith, the distinguished Assyriologist, in his "Assyrian Epo
nym Canon." The British commentary of Dr. Jamieson (1872) says:
" This name ' Pul ' has been recently identified with that of Phalluka
on the monuments of Nineveh, and that of ' Menahem ' has been discov
ered also." —
Prof. Oppert (1868) gave the names of the kings thus: Samsi-vul=
" Samas-bin; " Vul-nirari=" Belochus " (with Semiramis); " Shalmane-
ser; " Assur-daan = " Assur-edibel; " Assur-nirari = " Assur-likhis.''
Rev. D. H. Haigh, another Assyrian scholar (1871) gave the names
thus: Samsi-vul=" Samsi-barku; " Vul-nirari=" Barka-narar," " Sal-
manaris; " Assur-daan=" Assur-idili; " Assur-nirari=" Assur-narar; "
Tiglath-pileser=" Tukulti-palesar." (See in Geo. Smith's Ep. Can., p.
3-6.) § 85. In this diversity of the decipherings, it is somewhat difficult
to determine the exact truth. We have here found the reign beginning
B. C. 812 (and taken as that of " Pul" by George Smith, and Cham
bers' Cyc, and Smith's Bible Die), given with seven different spellings
of the king's name, viz., as Vul-nirari (by the Canon of Geo. Smith),
as Rimmon-nirari (by the Encyc. Brit.), as Barku-narar (by Haigh), as
Bel-ochus (by Oppert), as Pul, Phul, or Phalech (by the Bible Die),
as Phalluka (by the British Com.), and as Iva-lush or Vul-lush (by
Chambers' Cyc. and Rawlinson). We can only say, that the "Vul"
in the Canon forms a sufficiently near identification with the " Pul " or
Phul of the Scriptures.
Now then, in consistency with the Scripture dating, we may adopt
either of three theories concerning the identity of "Pul." (1.) We
may, with the authors cited above, consider Pul as the Assyrian king
" Vul-nirari" (or Phal-luka, or Bel-ochus, or Iva-lush), who ascended
the throne in B. C. 812. Or (2), we may recognize Pul in the Assyrian
king " Assur-daan " (or Assur-dana-pul) who ascended the throne in B.
C. 773, as being the famous " Sar-dana-pulus " at the end of the earlier
Assyrian Empire. Or (3), we may regard Pul as the subsequent Tig
lath-pileser himself (or Takulti-pal-eser or Pulus), in the character of a
usurping king of Assyria long before his regular accession to the throne
at Nineveh in B. C. 745. 1. Vul-Nirari.
§ 86. . George Smith (in the Ep. Can., p. 183) thus gives his reasons
for accepting this king as the " Pul " of Scripture:
" It has been one of the greatest problems of Assyriologists to dis
cover which king of Assyria is called Pul in the Bible. This question

168 PERIOD E
forms the key of the whole chronological problem. My own theory for
the solution of the problem is founded on the principle I have followed
put in all these dates, the principle of taking the Assyrian records to
be correct as to Assyrian dates, and the Hebrew records as to Hebrew
dates. The date I fix for the accession of Zachariah, king of Israel,
(and Menahem) is B. C. 773; according to out marginal dates, the sub
mission pf Menahem to Pul took place within two years of this, that
is, in B. C. 771. Now it is a curious fact that in this period, at the
commencement of the reign of Menahem, the Assyrian Canon registers
two successive expeditions to Palestine, in B. C. 773 to Damascus, and
in 772 to the neighboring city of Hadrach. These expeditions so closely
correspond in tirne with the Biblical date of Pul's expedition, that I am
strongly of opinion that one of these campaigns was the occasion on
which Menahem invoked the aid of the Assyrian monarch.
"The expedition of B. C. 773 occurs, however, according to the
Canon, in the reign of Shalmaneser III, whose name cannot by any
process be tortured'into a resemblance to Pul. This objection I think
can be explained by a curious n'otice in two inscriptions of- Vul-nirari,
the predecessor of Shalmaneser. From this notice I judge that Shal
maneser was the son of Vul-nirari, and did not reign independently,
but was associated with his father during his lifetime; and I believe
that Vul-nirari continued to reign at least as late as B. C. 773. The
passage in question reads: ' Palace of Vul-nirari, the great king, king of
nations, king of Assyria. The king, whom in his son, Assur, king of
the spirits, has renowned, and a dominion unequaled has given to his
hand.' This allusion to Vul-nirari being renowned through his son
points to his being associated in the government.
"Again, in his principal inscription, Vul-nirari celebrates a special
expedition to Damascus, and immediately before it states that he took
tribute from Tyre, Sidon, the land of Omri (or Israel), Edom and
Philistia. , Now, the expedition to Damascus in B. C. 773, is the only
one in the Eponym Canon to that place which comes anywhere near
the time, of Vul-nirari; and his statement that he took tribute from the
land of Omri corresponds precisely with the Biblical statement that
Menahem, king of Israel, paid tribute to Pul.
"It has been conjectured for many years that the name of Vul-
nirari contains the elements of the Biblical Pul. Pur or Pul is one of
the well-known values of the first element in the name, and it was quite
in accordance with Assyrian custom to shorten similar names in com
mon use; thus, the king Agukak-rimi is generally called Agu, and
Ragmu-sevi-ina-namari, a long name in the Izdular legends, is often
shortened to Ragmu. So the name Vul-nirari, which was probably
Pul-nirari, was quite possibly shortened to Pul.
" On the strength of the inscription in which he states that he sub
dued and took tribute from the land of Omri, or Israel, Sir Henry

THE KINGS ' 169
Rawlinson, some years back, identified Vul-nirari with the Biblical
Pul; but he afterward abandoned this view when he discovered the
Eponym Canon."
§ 87. We might object to this view, that it requires Menahem to
begin in B. C. 773 or before; whereas we can not, without violation of
the Scripture numbers, make him begin before B. C. 770 (or at most
771). For the ist year of Pekah, beginning "in the 52d year" of
Uzziah, can not be earlier than (the " 16 years " of Jotham + the "16
years " of Ahaz =) 32 years added to Hezekiah's accession (B. C. 726),
that is, corresponding with B. C. 758; and Menahem's accession "in
the 3gth year " of Uzziah, can not be more than (52d-3gth =) 13 years
earlier, viz., in (758 + 13=) 771 B. C, instead of the 773 that Smith
claims (by stretching Menahem's "10 years" to 12 years from B. C.
761 to 773).
But this objection may be overcome thus: The years 770, 771 B. C.
are (as Smith remarks) anomalous in the, Canon. For they have as
eponyms, 771 "the king," 770 "the tartan," or commander-in-chief,
which are here entirely out of their order, with no other prime ministers
following, but with rulers of cities proceeding before and after as if
not interrupted by those two extraordinary eponyms. (See Ep. Can.,
p. 63, 25.) Smith tries to explain this by saying (p. 82): " It is con
jectured that the reason for this omission "(of so many officials who
ought here to come in as eponyms) lies in the fact that these officers
had so. recently held the office of eponym during the last reign that
their names were passed over. " But this is unlikely, because just aft
erward, at the accession of Tiglath-pileser, where the succession is
just as recent, no such omission of officials occurs.
§ 88. The two anomalous eponyms at B. C. 770, 771, have led Rev.
D. H. Haigh to assume that there is here a gap in the Canon of 10 or
15 years, wherein the omitted eponyms belong. This Smith rejects,
yet says: " But it must be allowed that in this place, if anywhere, a
gap should take place, as there is a break here in the titles of
eponyms." We suggest not a gap but a mere excess here of these two
years not really belonging in the Canon.
It will be noticed as a curious coincidence that these two eponyms
are not found on any except one of the seven copies of the Canon
which we possess, namely, on copy I. (See Ep. Can., p. 35, 46, 47.)
Suppose now that in making copy I (at p. 35) the scribe or artist at
this point glanced wrongly at the years 752-3 of the copy which he was
following, instead of the right place (after 772) which he had reached,
then, by mistake he would write at 771, " Assur-nirari, the king," and at
770 " Samsi-il, the tartan." But directly, discovering his mistake, he
would erase these two lines, as seen on copy V (p. 46), and would go on
with the right names. (As at 76g, 768, etc.) Then, afterward, some one
seeing the two lines vacant, and supposing that two eponyms were

170 • PERIOD E
there accidentally obliterated, might scrutinize the erasure to discover
the lost names. He makes out the partial name, "Assur  king,"
and the next line, " Samsi-il tartan," but is at a loss to fill out the
Assur  king; and remembering that he has heard of a king " As-
sur-dana-pal " — (see directly, § 8g) — which name he finds .nowhere on
the list, he concludes that this must be the lost name, and inserts so
much pf it as the space between "Assur" and " king " allows, so that
the two lines now read "Assur-daan king" and " Samsi-il tartan."
And thus we have copy I, with these two erased lines (of real vacancy)
wrongly filled up with names. The expeditions named in copy V
might be further conjecture, made because all the years in this copy
had expeditions put to them.
So then, if years 770, 771 are spurious in the Canon, then the
eponyms and expeditions now set at years 772, 773 belong in their place,
and there is here no change of kings; but Shalmaneser continues right
along till B. C. 755, and the tribute of Menahem to Pul as the still liv
ing father Vul-nirari, might be during the "expedition to Damascus"
771, or that "to Hadrash " 770, or even later. With this small correc
tion which we suggest in the Canon, this theory concerning Pul as Vul-
nirari may be maintained, as is done by George Smith, and Chambers'
Cyc, and Smith's Bible Die. 2. Assur-daan.
§ 89. This king's name looks as if a contraction from " Assur-
dana-pal," the name of a son of King Shalmaneser in the previous cen
tury. " It is related, in the monolith inscription of Samsi-vul III (be
ginning B. C. 825), that during the reign of his father, Shalmaneser II,
another son of that king, named Assur-dain-pal, revolted against him,
and was followed by twenty-seven districts of Assyria, principally in
the east and south. These districts were subdued, and again brought
under the rule of Shalmaneser by Samsi-vul, who afterward succeeded
to the throne instead of the rebel prince." (Ep. Can., p. /j.) So,
"Assur-daan," as a son of the next Shalmaneser, may have had the
same name "Assur-dani-pal " as in the earlier case; which he perhaps
tried to shorten by dropping the pal, to distinguish himself from that
other Assur-dani-pal who had reigned in rebellion. Having a double
name, he would naturally reject the second or nick-name Pal or Pulus,
used by his enemies in sarcastic allusion to that case of rebellion. But
that very name Pal or Pul would be the one which would reach the
Jews, and would find a record in their scriptures, which up to this time
had no mention of an Assyrian name. In this view, the tribute of
Menahem, if not as early as the "expedition to Hadrach " in 772 B. C,
might be as late as the "expedition to Hadrach " in 765 B. C, or else
some time between.

THE KINGS 171
§ go. This theory concerning Pul will serve to clear up the account
of Ctesias, the early Greek historian (B. C. 400); whose story of those
times has always perplexed scholars, while giving color to all attempted
histories of Assyria until the present generation of inscription decipher
ment. He depicts the effeminate " Sardanapalus " as -the last king.
precipitating by his folly the overthrow of Nineveh; which (he says)
fell a prey to the united onset of Arbaces of Media and Belesis of
Babylon. But he gets those events back at about B. C. 842, i. e., 282
years before the conquest of Media in B. C. 560. Very likely he heard
of the rebel " Assur-dani-pal," son of Shalmaneser, who undertook to
reign not far from that time, as seen above; and calling him " Sardan
apalus," applied to him facts which really belonged to the later " As-
sur-dana- [pal] " whom we have here indicated, as beginning to reign
in B. C. 773, being one of the very last kings of the earlier empire.
And what Assyrian king was really meant by ' ' Sardanapalus ? "
And at what date did he reign ? This has been a great puzzle to his
torians. The name (in that form) does not occur on the monuments,
or in the Eponym Canon. But it would seem that it must have come
from the royal name " Assur-dani-pal; " for the " Assur " readily be
comes "Sar," the consonants being the same, both in this part and
throughout the name. If, as we here suggest, the full name of king
"Assur-daan was Assur-dana-pal," then, as being the real "Sardan
apalus," that might be true of him which Ctesias relates. For, it would
seem from the Canon that this king might be effeminate, not accom
plishing much; since, instead of an " expedition" every year, as in pre
vious and later reigns, the record gives no expedition in g of his 18
years, but mentions a stay "in the country " in 4 of the years, and a
"revolt" in some great city in 5 other successive years. This state
of the case on his part and of dissatisfaction on the people's part,
well 'matches the account given of Sardanapalus. (See Schwartz'
Review, p. 4.)
§ gi. The next king, " Assur-nirari," may have been the Median
" Arbaces," who is described by Ctesias as conquering Sardanapalus,
and reigning in his stead. And as to the Babylonian "Belesis," who
(he says) aided Arbaces, receiving the rule of Babylon as his reward,
it is indeed generally agreed that Belesis was that " Nabonassar," who
in B. C. 747 got possession of Babylon, founding the Nabonassan Era
of Ptolemy's Canon from that date (February 26, B. C. 747). Perhaps
he was aided by Arbaces, in return for help in overcoming Sardan.
apalus 8 years before (in B. C. 755). Thus the much disputed history
of Ctesias may be set to rights.
The above account agrees mostly with that long ago given by such
historians as Prideaux, Rollin, Anthon, etc.— Anthon's Classical
Dictionary (following Ctesias) says: "Arbaces, a Median officer, con
spired with Belesis, the most distinguished member of the Chaldean

172 PERIOD E
sacerdotal college, against Sardanapalus, King of Assyria. After sev
eral reverses, he finally succeeded in his object, defeated Sardanapalus
near Nineveh, took the city, and reigned in it 28 years [as if covering
the two reigns B. C. 755-727]. With him commenced a dynasty of
eight kings, of whom Astyages (about B. C. 600) was the last."
"Arbaces prornised Belesis, in case of success, the government of
Babylon, which the latter, after the overthrow of Sardanapalus, ac
cordingly obtained." Says Rollin (Ane Hist., Vol. II, p. 60): "Belesis
is the same as NaD°nassar; in the Holy Scriptures he is called
Baladin." Arbaces, governor of Media, formed a conspiracy against
Sardanapalus. Belesis, governor of Babylon, entered into it. Nineveh
was taken, Babylon was given to Belesis" (p. 58-60). ' ' Several
writers believe that Arbaces then immediately became sovereign.
Heroditus is not of this opinion" (p. 58). "Pul is supposed to be
the king of Nineveh who repented with all his people at the preaching
of Jonah. He is also thought to be the father of Sardanapalus, the
last king of the Assyrians, called, according to the custom of the east
ern nations, Sardan-pul; that is to say, Sardan, the son of Pul" (p.
58). This last idea of Rollin agrees with view 1 above combined with
2, treating Pul as Vul-nirari, and Sardanapalus as his son (or grand
son) Assur-daan- [pal].
\§ 92. Prideaux (at year 747) says that on the fall of Sardanapalus,
not only did Arbaces become the sovereign in his stead (suggested
above as possibly the " Assur-nirari " of the Canon), but that Arbaces
was actually Tiglath-pileser, who, as a result of that conspiracy and
overthrow of Sardanapalus, left Babylon to the rule of his confederate
Belesis or Nabonassar-baladin, and himself (as Tiglath-pileser). got
possession of the throne at Nineveh. This is not accepted by Rollin
and others who follow Heroditus, and make Tiglath-pileser a different
usurper distinct from Arbaces.
Chambers' Cyc. says of the final overthrow of Nineveh (about B. C.
609): " It is uncertain whether Nineveh was destroyed under King
Assher-emib-alli, or under a successor, the Saracus of Berosus, the
effeminate Sardanapalus of the Greeks." And the Encyc. Brittan.
treats " Assur-bani-pal " (beginning B. C. 668 in the Canon) as being
Sardanapalus, the last king of Assyria. This late placing of the enig
matical '¦' Sardanapalus " of Ctesias and the Greeks, or the supposi
tion of ' a second monarch of the same name, is perhaps a doubtful
theory. May not all conflicting schemes be harmonized. upon the view
of Sardanapalus we have here given, as being the " Assur-daan- [pal]"
of the Canon ? 3. TlGLATH-PlLESER.
§ g3. Those who think the name "Pul" can be best identified
with that of Tiglath-pileser, may adopt that view without impairment
of the Scripture history, as we proceed to show. It is agreed that

I

THE KINGS 173

Tiglath-pileser, the real beginner of the new empire, was a usurper.
The Encyc. Brittan. says: "The first Assyrian Empire came to an
end in B.. C. 744, being overthrown by the usurper Tiglath-pileser,
after a struggle of three or four years." Now, it may have been not
alone four years of final fighting, but many years of struggle begun by
open usurpation, that preceded Tiglath-pileser's final accession to the
throne. For, the ErJonym Canon indicates that there was commotion
in Assyria during that period, for 18 years before Tiglath-pileser's ac
cession in B. C. 745.
Back there at B. C. 763, the Canon reads, " revolt in the city of
Assur;" next year, 762, "revolt in the city of Assur;" next year, 761,
"revolt in the city of Arbaha;" next year, 760, "revolt in the city of
Arbaha;" next year, 759, " revolt in the city Gozan." Five successive
years of "revolt," in place of each year's recorded "expedition"
usual to other reigns. And then at B. C. 746, the year before Tiglath-
pileser's accession, there is a similar record, ' ' revolt in the city of
Calah," i. e., in the old capital city, not far south of Nineveh. (Gen.
x: 11.) This last outbreak, almost under the walls of Nineveh, was
seemingly the crowning onset of the usurper, whose opening onset 17
years before had been by "revolt in the city of Assur," that other
capital, 60 miles south, of Nineveh (toward Babylon). If it was the
war-like Tiglath-pileser thus fomenting trouble through the land, the
starting-point of all on his part may have been an open usurpation of
the throne about 772 or 3 B. C. ; after which, being disowned by the
government (in 769), his embittered passion would stir up the subse
quent revolts, raising him finally to the fully-acknowledged kingship
over the whole realm.
§ 94. This view of the matter will furnish a new explanation of the
two anomalous eponyms found at years 770, 771 of the Canon, a differ
ent explanation, confirming the accuracy of the Eponym Canon.
Suppose then, that the original Tiglath-pileser, then known only by
his private name Pulus, usurped the Assyrian throne, overwhelming
the officials, and compelling them (as the common custom for a new
king) to put him as eponym of B. C. 771, under the title of king "As
sur-daan " (the other part of his double name " Assur-dana-pal" or
pul.) This compulsory honor would follow to " the tartan " in B. C.
770. But by that time the indignant officials may have wrought up
the people to effectual resistance. And under the leadership of the
preceding king, Shalmaneser newly acknowledged, either driving out
the usurper from Nineveh,, or themselves removing as the real gov
ernment to another of the capital cities, Calah or Assur, they would
refuse longer to follow his bidding; but, being in possession of the
Eponym records, they would again go on with the old order of
eponyms, as if those two had not been forcibly interjected.

174 PERIOD E
There is in the Canon some indication of a removal of the govern
ment for a time from Nineveh. If in B. C. 769, when the usurper was
disowned, the loyal government (under Shalmaneser still) set up its
authority at the old capital Assur, leaving the intruder possessing Nin
eveh for awhile; then we see why that usurper stirred up so continued
a "revolt" year after year in that very " city of Assur" (B. C. 763,
762), followed by revolts in other cities, Arbaha and Gozan (B. C. 76if
760, 759). And when in B. C. 759, at the accession of a new king,
" Assur- nirari," we read in the Canon, " from the city of Assur the
return," we seem to see the new king with young valor driving out the
intruder from Nineveh and makh^ " the return from Assur" of him
self and his government. Of course, the expelled usurper would still
try to keep up a local sway, inciting revolts; until by revolt fomented
at Calah; in the very face of the authorities, he got full possession of
the throne.
§ 95. And now, in order that there should be no ousting of him
again, as not the real king, the conquerer introduced a new feature in
the record — and had the fact of his real accession recorded on the
Eponym Canon of thatyear(B. C. 745); which reads: Eponym " Nabu-
,bel-uzur [governor of] Arbaha, in the month of Iyyar, 13th day, Tugulti-
pal-esar the throne ascended." Such a record of the fact and date of
a king's accession had never before been known in any copy of the Ep
onym Canon; and George Smith (page 206) says of it: " It should be
noted thai no accession is ever marked in the Assyrian Eponym Canon
before that of Tiglath-pileser II, B. C. 745. It would appear that
great precision was then introduced into the Assyrian records; and it is
curious that the date of this change, B. C. 745, nearly synchronizes
with the date of the commencement' of Ptolemy's Canon at Babylon,
B. C. 747, so that it is probable that some change in this respect took
place at both capitals, at nearly the same time."
Anthon's Classical Die tells us, from Polyhistor and Berosus,
through Syncellus: " Nabonassar having collected the acts of his pred
ecessors, destroyed them, in order that the computations of the reigns
of the Chaldean kings (in Babylon) might be made from himself." As
thus the usurping king at Babylon wanted to fix definitely the fact and
date of his accession, so his- companion usurper at Nineveh wanted to
establish his right to the throne (before set aside) by an exact official
record. § 96. The newly instated monarch of Assyria had already the
name Pil-esar or Pulassur (the Die of Relig. Knowl. gives it as Pal-
esarra); which seems to be only the last and first of his original name
inverted — a very common custom concerning names in those times.
Thus Assur- [dana] -pal would readily become Pal-assur or Pileser. But
upon his new enthronement, he naturally prefixed a new cognomen,
"Tiglath" or "Tukulti,",as successor of an early Assyrian king of

THE KINGS 175
that name. With this view of Tiglath-pileser as an old usurper "Assur-
daan- [pal]," i. e., Pal-assur or Pileser restored — we have the Eponym
Canon left with Shalmaneser, whose reign began in B. C. 783, still
reigning at 771, 770, until B. C. 755, when his successor Assur-nirari
might be the " Sardanapalus " of Ctesias, overthrown by the usurpers
Arbaces (as Baladin or Nabonassar) with Belesis (as Pal-assur or Pil
eser) at the re-enthronement called Tiglath-pileser.
(Note. — The greatest objection to regarding Pul and Tiglath-pileser
as the same, is, that the Scriptures seem so plainly to regard them as
two distinct persons; as in II Ki. xv: ig, 29, I Chron. v: 26. For, the
"he " in the latter verse evidently means he the last named (Tiglath-
pileser), since Pul produced no such captivity as described.)
§ 97. If Tiglath-pileser was originally the very ' ' Pul " of Scripture,
then his mention (on his inscriptions) of " Menahem of Samaria" and
" Azariah of Judah " is a very natural matter. For these two inscrip
tions, like the rest in his reign, are not dated; so that, as George Smith
observes (page 116): "The annals of Tiglath-pileser are very muti
lated; and the fragments referring to Palestine are so detached, that
it is difficult to determine their dates. The dates given here are only
approximate calculations, and future discoveries may alter them
considerably." In these inscriptions (conceded to be among his ear
liest) he no doubt gives a combined reminiscence of all he had ac
complished hitherto, without being particular to distinguish dates.
This appears particularly from the aspect of that inscription which
contains mention of Minnichimtni or Menahem. A great many diverge
localities are mentioned as conquered, and then follows a list of tributes
received, — ' ' The tribute of Kutaspi of Kummaha, Rezin of Syria, Mena
hem of Samaria, Hirom of Tyre," and fourteen more named.
§ 98. These four that head the list seem to be peculiar cases of
continuous standing; for in another early inscription, a similar list
starts with three of them, and the first one heads another like list on an
inscription several years later. Indeed, all the names deciphered on
the earliest inscription are contained in the list on the subsequent in
scription; and most of these are contained in the list many years later
(viz: 14 out of 18 names.) This evident stereotyped character of these
lists suggests the remarks of Geo. Smith (p. 179): " I am able to bring
some evidence to show that these tribute lists were sometimes care
lessly compiled, and in error as to names." (Hementions several cases '
of error, and says): "There is another instance in the tribute-list in
the first expedition of Assur-banipal, which so far as it is preserved,
contains the same names as that of Esarhaddon, about 13 years be
fore, being most probably a literal copy of the earlier document, with
out any attempt to ascertain if these kings were still reigning, and if
they really paid tribute. * * * These evidences of error in the
tribute lists are accompanied by similar false statements as to foreign

176 PERIOD E
proper names in the annals of some of their kings, and should serve
as a caution against attaching too much importance to a difference in a
proper name between the Bible and the inscriptionsj"
Tiglath-pileser would not like to direct attention to the date of his
first usurpation, when he was soon repulsed,; so he mentions his
achievements of those days in a general way in summing up his past
exploits. "The submission of Menahem, etc., appear in the annals of Tig
lath-pileser in a paragraph that immediately precedes an event in the
¦gth year. * * * The events preceding the gth year of Tiglath-
pileser might be merely a summary or recapitulation, and they might
have happened in any of the years " of Tiglath preceding. (Schwartz1
Letter, Oct. 29, 1888, p. 20.)
§ gg. According to this view, Tiglath-pileser had dealings with
Menahem and Azariah in those days (B. C. 771-7^) when he was actu
ally on the throne for a while, and was known in approaching Pales
tine as "Pul, King of Assyria."1' (The expeditions set down at those
years may not have been his, but those of the then overshadowed
Shalmaneser.) Indeed, the Hebrew word "Pul" or "Phul" means
his highness, or royalty. , Says Gesenius: "The name signifies either
elephant, ox lord, king, like the Sanscrit, pala, lofty, highest." (Com
pare the pul in names of Assyrian kings.) The derivation is from
Heb. pulay, wonderful, mighty. So that the Jews, as yet unfamiliar
with Assyrian names, would readily call this first king with whom they
had to do, simply " Pul," his highness, the mighty one.
Indeed, so many of the Assyrian kings had pal at the end of their
name, or vul (i. e., phul) at the beginning or end, as seen in the Canon,
(viz: Assur-nazir-pal, Assur-dani-pal, Samsi-vul, Vul-nirari, covering
over half , perhaps five-sixths of the 115 years previous to Menahem),
that the simple Hebrews might think that " Pul" or Phul was a gen
eral term for an Assyrian king, like "Pharaoh" in Egypt. So that,
whoever that particular king may be, whether either or neither of the
three we have here proposed, the Scripture name Pul is amply ac
counted for, without any mutilation of the Scripture history or chro
nology. The original tribute paid to Pul was about 770 B. C, where
the Bible puts it; while a mention of it, and a repetition of it, as "the
tribute of Menahem," is given many years afterward by Tiglath-
pileser. CHAPTER II.— "This is that King Ahaz."
// Chron. xxviii: 22.
% ioo. When we have settled the question, "Who was Pul?"
without viewing him as Tiglath-pileser — (for- George Smith and others
prefer the first view above, making him Vul-nirari — and we ourselves
incline to the second view, making him " Assur-dana-[pal]," ) — then

the kings 177
the new question arises, How could Tiglath-pileser on his monuments
speak of dealing with "Azariah of Judah," as well as "Menahem of
Samaria," who both died many years before Tiglath-pileser's acces
sion in B. C. 745; the former in B. C. 757, and the latter in B. C. 760,
by the Scripture dating ? A careful study of the history will make the
matter plain.
§ 101. It seems that Jotham, the .pious father of Ahaz, gave him
the name "Jeho-ahaz," meaning whom Jehovah possesses. And Tig
lath-pileser, king of Assyria, calls him by that full name, in an inscrip
tion belonging about 732 B. C. Giving a list of tributaries, he men
tions "The tribute of Kustaspi of Kummaha, * * * Metinto of
Askelon, Jeho-ahaz of Judah, Chemosh-melek of Eden," etc. — 22
countries in all. But this king of Judah was so wicked and idolatrous,
more so than any of his predecessors or successors, that the Jews
themselves disliked to attach the 'epithet "Jeho " (or Jehovah) to his
name, and so for short they called him simply by the other part of his-
name "Ahaz." And they derisively said, "This is that king Ahaz ! "
It was common, then as now, to abbreviate proper names in this
way; and the difference in designation of the Bible records and the
foreign record occasions no difficulty among scholars. All are agreed
that the Jeho-ahaz of the Assyrian inscription is the same as the Ahaz
of Scripture, who did just about that time pay tribute to Tiglath-
pileser, as described here in II Chron. xxviii: 20-25. This variation of
a name at the outset should prepare us not to be surprised, if we find
other variations as we proceed. Thus, also, these late-discovered in
scriptions from the excavated Assyrian ruins, furnish a wonderful con
firmation of Scripture, in this and many other respects.
§ 102. But the name Jeho-ahaz itself was among the Hebrews con
vertible into Ahaz-iah (or Ahaz-jah), meaning him who possesses
Jehovah; for this is in fact the same name as the other, only with
the two parts inverted. Therefore, we find the same king called in
close connection both Jehoahaz and Ahaziah, as in II Chron. xxi: 17
and xxii: 1. This inversion of names was common in those days.
Moreover, this latter form of the name, Ahaziah, was so similar in
sound and aspect to Azariah, which was more easily pronounced, that
the two names were sometimes used interchangeably; as we find in the
very case just referred to; II Chron. xxi: 17, and xxii: 1, with ver. 6.
Here is the remarkable circumstance, that within 10 verses the same
man is called, first "Jeho-ahaz," secondly "Ahaziah," and thirdly
" Azariah." It is perfectly plain, then, that these three forms of the
name were interchangeable; and "Ahaz," who was primarily "Jeho
ahaz," might also be called "Ahaz-iah," and likewise. "Azariah."
Accordingly, we find Tiglath-pileser, on two inscriptions some years
earlier than the one above mentioned, calling Ahaz by this name
" Azariah."

178 period e
It would seem that at first Tiglath-pileser became most familiar
with this form of the name as " Azariah." And why ? We may learn
why, by reading the story as given in II Ki. xvi: 2-g. " Twenty years
old was Ahaz when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in
Jerusalem, and did not that which w£s 'fight in the sight Of the Lord
his God, like David his father. But he walked in the way of the kings
of Israel, yea, and made his son fo pass through the fire, according to
the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord cast out from before
the children of Israel. And he sacrificed and burnt incense in the
high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree. Then
Rezin, king of Syria, ahd Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, came
up to Jerusalem to war; and they beseiged Ahaz, but could not over
come him.
" So Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, say
ing, I am thy servant and thy son; come up, and save me out of the
hand of the king of Syria', and out of the hand of the king of Israel,
which rise up against me. And Ahaz took the silver and gold that was
found in the house of the Lord, arid in the treasures of the king's house,
and sent it for a present to the king of Assyria. And the king of As
syria harkened unto him; for the king of Assyria went up against Da
mascus, and took it, and carried the^people of it captive to Kir, and
slew Rezin."
§ 103. Notice now the perfectly abject posture of Ahaz, when thus
early in his reign (lasting from B. C. 741-726), viz., in 740-738 B. C.
(before his 4th year= Jotham's "20th year," II Ki. xv: 30), he bowed .
and truckled before the king of Assyria, begging him in piteous tones
to come to his help against his enemies. " I am thy servant, and thy
son," he said, " come up, and save me put of the hand " of Rezin and
Pekah. Such was the letter which the "messengers " bore to Tiglath-
pileser. No doubt, this fawning sycophant filled in that letter with
adulation and self-flatteries, about his own pious ancestors and As
syria's great exploits in their day; telling how long his good grand
father " Azariah " had reigned in peaceable relations with the kings1 of
Assyria, while Menahem of Samaria "had felt compelled to become
voluntarily their tributary. " Come up," he cried, "and help me too,
the son of such friendly ancestors, in my war wiijh Samaria, and you
too may gather in and perpetuate ' the tribute of Menahem of Samaria.' "
He no doubt signed his name in full, "Jeho-ahaz," or "Ahaz-iah,"
laying full claim to the ancestral piety, and scorning the mere nick
name "Ahaz," which the Jews in his impiety had learned to give him.
"This was that king Ahaz !"
§ 104. Tiglath-pileser thus cajoled came with his armies, and con
quered Pekah and Rezin for Ahaz, as he describes in his inscriptions
of those very years (B. C. 740-738). But of course, he does not speak
of his confederate as "Ahaz," but in full as he had signed himself

the kings 179
"Ahaziah." Or rather, he mixes up the names of the grandson and
grandfather, whose fame had been portrayed to him, and (like the
Jews themselves) he uses the more pronounceable form "Azariah," as
the designation, on the monuments, of his Judean confederate. The
pronunciation Azar-iah came more natural to an Assyrian, because
they had so many names beginning with similar sound, "Assur — ."
In the discovered fragments of his monument he writes: "* * *
course of my expedition the tribute of the kings * * * Azariah of
Judah like a * * * Azariah of Judah in * * * without number
to high heaven were raised * * * their cities without number I
pulled down, destroyed * * * to Azariah turned and strengthened
him, and *- * *." Again he says: "* * * Judah * * * of
Azariah my hand greatly captured * * * right * * * tribute
like that of * * * to his assistance the city of Ma * * * cities
helping them * * * 19 districts of Hamath, and the cities which
are round them, which are beside the sea of the setting sun in sin and
.defiance to Azariah had turned, to the boundaries of Assyria I added,
and my generals governors over them I appointed * * * The trib
ute of Kustaspi of Kummaha, Rezin of Syria, Menahem of Samaria,
Hirom of Tyre [and 14 others], gold, silver, lead, iron, skins," etc.
§ 105. We, in common with the great Assyriologist, Geo. Smith,
and others, regard the Azariah here as meaning Ahaz-iah or Ahaz of
Judah. Observe how well the coloring and aspect of the inscription
fit the relation of Tiglath-pileser to Ahaz, as seen in the Bible story.
He does not number him among his enemies or those made tributary;
but he speaks of him more as if a confederate. As Geo. Smith remarks
(p. 180), the meaning ' ' is not quite certain, owing to the mutilation of
the fragments. " But the language seems as if meaning to say : "* * *
their cities I pulled down [and then] to Azariah turned and strength
ened him * * * 19 districts of Hamath * * * in sin and defiance
to [against] Azariah turned, to the boundaries of Assyria I added
[them]." Certainly, the distant northern regions of " Hamath " were
not fighting for Judah, but more likely were confederate with their
nearer intervening neighbors Samaria and Damascus 'against Judah.
And so, Ahaz as at first in the distance an obsequious confederate of
Tiglath-pileser, was loosely termed " Azariah; " but several years
afterward, when Tiglath-pileser had proved false, and had come and
exacted tribute (instead of being content with gifts), and " king Ahaz
went to Damascus to meet Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria," and to con
fer with him in person (see II Ki. xvi: 10, 17, 18, with II Chron. xxviii:
ig-21), then better acquaintance led to the record on the tribute list more
exactly, as the tribute of "Jeho-ahaz of Judah."
§ 106. As to the mention made of the tribute of ' ' Menahem of Sa
maria," we have already shown (§ 98) how little these tribute lists can
be depended upon as recording only what took place at the time of

180 PERIOD E
writing, since they evidently sum up loosely the tributes of the past,
including some of an established and permanent soft, kept in mention
to swell the boastful claims. We have also suggested how Ahaz at
this time had probably reminded Tiglath-pileser of Menahem of Sa
maria, and of his celebrated tribute bffering, which might be now re
enforced. So that it was not wonderful that when Tiglath-pileser
had taken the hint, and had now in truth subdued Samaria and exacted
tribute, he should set it down in the list as ' ' the tribute of Menahem
of Samaria" renewed. Perhaps his expression in the inscription,
"* * * right * * * like the tribute of * * * " means
" Azariah (or Ahaz) first acknowledged my right by a free-will offering
like the tribute of Menahem." For certainly we know that that par
ticular offering of money by Menahem became a famous incident to
the Assyrians, long cited as a current phrase to express the panicky
purchase of peace. i
Notice how apt was that instance as an illustration of extravagant
surrender. Menahem had just seized the throne of Israel with cruel
butchery and savagery that made him very unpopular. (II Ki. xv: 16,
19, 20.) ¦ "And Pul, the king of Assyria, came against the land: And
Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver that his hand might be
with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted
the money of Israel, even of all the mighty . men of wealth, of each-
man fifty shekels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the
king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land." How
eager Menahem was to give away other people's money, extorting it
from them to purchase an undeserved peace for himself! His
very name, " Menahem," signifies their gift (from Heb. Minehah
gift; so hadorah, ornament, hence the proper name Hadoram, their or
nament). And perhaps he got the name fastened on him by the people
as a reminder of the " 1,000 talents," their gift, extorted to purchase
his peace !.
§ 107. That we have rightly represented this as a current phrase
long afterward used in Assyria, appears from the fact that not only
does Tiglath-pileser mention "Menahem of Samaria" in his tribute
list thirty years after the original event, but also Sennacherib, over
thirty years later still, has the same " Menahem of Samaria" at the
head of his list of tributes taken (Ep. Can., p. 132); as if to charac
terize all those tributes as (like his) free gifts to purchase peace. We
are astonished that among all those whom we have found discussing
this subject no one has ever^mentioned this fact, that Sennacherib
uses the phrase as well as Tiglath-pileser. If we must conclude (as
many argue) from the mention of " Menahem," that he was living in
the time of Tiglath-pileser, by the same logic we must conclude that
he was living still later in the time of Sennacherib. Or, if some new
and unheard-of ruler of the same name "Menahem," had arisen in

THE KINGS 181
Samaria in the time of Sennacherib, then, perhaps (as Prof. Oppert
sets forth, Ep. Can., p. 182), some unheard-of pretender of the same
name had obtained power and paid tribute in Samaria in the time of
Tiglath--pileser during that g years interregnum after the death of
Pekah, while Hoshea was struggling for the throne (B. C. 738-72g.
See II Ki. xv: 30, and xvii, 1.)
§ 108. Rather, we say, whenever tribute was taken from Samaria,
it was called "the tribute of Menahem of Samaria," as being a repe
tition of that. This George Smith shows by other examples taken
from the inscriptions (page 195): " We can see how a name like Men
ahem might be continued in the list of Assyrian tributaries, and his
country be accounted as subject to Assyria, long after Menahem and
Pul were dead; the new king of Assyria ignoring the march of events,
and not admitting that the tributary was dead, and the subject country
in revolt." He adds the caution which we have cited in § g8. So
then, we come to the conclusion, that the phrase ' ' tribute of Mena
hem," occurring in Tiglath-pileser's inscription, is only a stereotyped
expression, especially as connected with Samaria; and that "Azariah"
is simply the diplomatic form for " Ahaziah," equivalent to "Jeho
ahaz." "This was that king Ahaz."
The concurrence of these names on the monument, seemingly out
of place, is a singular incident; but it need not destroy our faith in the
accuracy of Scripture; especially when we find the Bible Chronology,
so indubitably demonstrated as it is by its own inherent combinations
and corroborations, as well as by the chronology of Josephus. We can
still honestly believe that the original tribute paid to Pul was about
B. C. 770, where the Bible puts it; while a mention of it and a repeti
tion of it, as " the tribute of Menahem," is given thirty years later in
B. C. 738-740 by Tiglath-pileser, and again sixty years later by Sen-
necherib. 
§ 109. There is another point that requires notice here. The gap
or interregnum of nine years in Israel (from B. C. 738 to 729, which
Scripture leaves unfilled after Pekah, George Smith proposes to fill up,
by calling Pekah's "20 years" (II Ki. xv:27), a corruption for "30
years." But the objection to this is, that this makes out not one but
two impossible corruptions. For, the "20th year of Jotham" (in ver.
30) must also, in that case, be a corruption for "30th year of Jotham."
But this last is unsupposable; for, the " 20th year of Jotham," means
simply the "20th year after Azariah;" * and if it intended to say
* The writer had (at ver. 5) named "Jotham," the successor of
Azariah; but he had not yet come to any mention of such a king as
"Ahaz" to follow. Therefore, he expresses his date here as the
"20th year of Jotham," which was equivalent to the 4th year of Ahaz,
after Jotham's death.

182 PERIOD E
"30th year," this event would not be recorded here (sd long before its
occurrence), but at Ch. xvii: i, where that point of time, is taken up.
The very language at this last-named place shows, that Hoshea's
attempt to reign had up to this point been a failure. " In the 12th
year of Ahaz, king of Judah, began Hoshea, the son of Elah, to reign in
Samaria over Israel nine years." It is not said that then he began
reigning, but then he began to reign in Samaria nine years; showing
that his previous rule was only as an unacknowledged usurper outside
the capital. Notice, that all previous reigns are expressed differently,
as actually ..begun in Samaria.
§ no. Tiglath-pileser in one of his inscriptions speaks of going to
"the boundary of the land of Beth Omri" [Samaria], and says:
" Pekah, their king * * * and Hoshea to the kingdom over them I
appointed * * * their tribute I received and * * * to Assyria
I sent." Some Assyriologists date this inscription as in B. C. 732-
730, and claim that then Tiglath-pileser must have himself slain
Pekah, (though that word slain is wanting in the fragment); so that
(they argue) the Scripture account of Pekah as slain by Hoshea in B.
C. 738 must be wrong. But a good Assyriologist (Geo. Smith) calls
this inscription a " General Summary " of, events "from 740^730,"
telling us that all these inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser are very doubt
ful as to their date. This one is as likely to belong to B. C. 738 as
anywhere else. It contains mention of four places as captured (Had
rach, Saua, Uznu Sihanu), whose capture is described in the inscrip
tion conceded as belonging in B. C. 738.
Indeed this inscription concerning Pekah and Hoshea, relates the
capture of the very city "Abel [beth Maacha] which is the boundary
of the land of Beth Omri" [Samaria] — the account of which is given
in II Ki. xv : 29, showing that this expedition, wherein Pekah and Ho
shea are named, is the very occasion here described by Scripture as
connected with the change from Pekah to Hoshea (in B. C. 738).
This is very confirmatory of the Bible truthfulness.' Whenever the
inscription was made, it was a mere recounting of what took place
with Pekah in B. C. 738, (Tiglath-pileser's instigation to his death by
the hand of Hoshea). And when he says, " Hoshea I appointed over
them," he does not tell us how long it took the "appointed " Hoshea
to get possession of the capital Samaria, as the de facto king.

THE KINGS 183
SECOND DIVISION.
Are " Ahab " and " Jehu " on the Monuments ?
CHAPTER III.— The Inscriptions.
§ in. When the mystery as to Pul, Menahem, and Azariah, is
settled, there remains the question: Are'the names of "Ahab "and
" Jehu " found on the Assyrian monuments, as alleged by many Assy
riologists, with dates still further removed from those of Scripture, re
quiring- the whole Bible chronology of those and previous times to be
reduced forty or fifty years ? The facts are these:
An inscription of king Shalmaneser, dated with the eponym pf B. C.
854 according to the Canon, contains as follows: "In the eponymy of
Dayan-assur, the month Iyyar, 14th day, from Nineveh I departed, the
river Tigris I crossed," etc. ''From Argana I departed, to Aroer
[Quqa] I approached, Aroer my royal city I pulled down, destroyed,
and in the fire I burned; 12,000 chariots, 12,000 carriages, and 20,000
men of Dadidri [Benhadar] of Syria, 700 chariots, 700 carriages, and
10,000 men of Irchulin [Irhuleni] of Hamath, 2,000 chariots and 10,000
rhen of Achu-abbu mat Sir'lai [Ahab of Sirhala], 500 men of the Goim,
* * * i ' These 12 kings to his aid he brought, to make war and bat
tle to my presence they came," etc., * * * with them I fought.
From Aroer to Kirzan their overthrow I accomplished," etc.
§ 112. In two other inscriptions (undated) he gives the same ac
count more briefly, saying it was "in my sixth year," and describing
the confederacy as "Benhadar of Syria, Irhulini of Hamath, and the
12 kings beside the sea, * * * with them I fought." He repeats
about the same in two other inscriptions, as to what occurred "in my
tenth year" and "in my eleventh year;" and in two other inscriptions
besides, one of them as "in my fourteenth year"' In still another in
scription (also undated) he says: " In my eighteenth year * * *
Chaza-ilu [Hazael] of Syria * * * with him I fought * * * To
save his life he fled. After him I pursued, in Damascus his royal city
I besieged him * * * In those days the tribute of Tyre and Sidon,
of laua [Jehu] son of Omri I received." In yet another inscription he
says: " Tribute of laua son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, cups
of gold, bottles of gold, vessels of gold * * * royal utensils, rods
of wood I received of him." And in another he tells of "my twenty-
first year," and says he conquered Chaza-ilu of Syria."
^~ In the above, the names in brackets [ ] are as George Smith
gives them; before the brackets they are as given in the Die of Relig.
Knowledge (1889).

184 PERIOD E
§ 113. The larger part of professional Assyriologists contend that
the "Acha-abbu mat Sir'lai" given as conquered by the king in his
" 6th year," means "Ahab of Israel " put as at B. C. 754; and that the
"laua, son of Omri" given as put under tribute in the king's " 18th
year," means "Jehu, successor of Omri," in Israel put as at B. C. 742;
which are 42 and 41 years after the Scripture dates for the death of
Ahab (8g6) and the accession of Jehu (883). On the contrary, we (with
George Smith and others) claim that it can not be so, for three reasons,
which concern, (1) the contingencies, (2) the names, (3) the surroundings. :
1. There is no certainty in the Assyrian deciphering and dating;
while on the other hand the biblical reckoning is settled by indubitable
demonstrations and corroborations, as shown in our "Chronology of
the Kings." The continuity of the later part of the Eponym Canon is
pretty well assured back as far as B. C. 763, by an eclipse of the sun
recorded in the Canon as occurring "in the month Sivan of that year;
which eclipse has been calculated by Mr. Hind, and the results tabu
lated by Mr. Airy, the Astronomer Royal, showing that eclipse to have
been June 15th, B. C. 763. (Ep. Can., p. 83.) And the very facts as
recorded in Scripture being explainable in accordance therewith, as we
have shown, form a decisive confirmation of that part of the Canon.
But we have no assurance that there are not one or more gaps in the
Canon before that date, as maintained by the Assyriologist Rev. D. H.
Haigh and others. (Prof. Oppert also argued for a long gap.) In this
state of things, no chronology can be made out from the Canon which
will positively confute the accuracy of the assured Scripture datings.
2. The names on the inscriptions of Shalmaneser, which are
deciphered and construed as meaning "Jehu " and " Ahab," can not
be proved to stand for those kings of Israel.
(a) As to Jehu.
§ 114. The inscription reads "laua, son of Omri" as given in the
Die of Religious Knowledge (i88g), and "Yahua, son of Khumri" as
given in Chambers' Cyc. (1880). Now the "son of Omri" means
merely that the king named was king of Samaria, that city being well
known as founded by "Omri," king of Israel. (I Ki. xvi: 22-24.) So
that, among the Assyrians, Samaria was ever after known as the city
and kingdom of Omri. It is so called not only in the inscription of
Shalmaneser before us, but also in the inscription of Vul-nirari (begin
ning 812 B. C), who names the countries from which he exacted
tribute thus: "Tyre, Sidon, Omri [/. e., Samaria], Eden, and Phil-
istia." And in an inscription of Sargon (B, C. 715) he describes the
people substituted for the Israelites, "when Hoshea and his forces were
conquered and carried into captivity, as being "enslaved and caused
to be placed in the land of Beth Omri," i. e., ' the land of Samaria

the kings 185
the house or home of Omri.' Tiglath-pileser also uses the same ex
pression for Samaria, "Beth Omri," as we have seen before. Thus
Omri=Samaria, as all are agreed; and the king laua or Yahua named
by Shalmaneser must have been a Samaritan or Israelitish king.
But not Jehu. For, the son of Jehu, viz: "Jehoahaz" is justas
readily identified with the laua or Yahua of the inscription, as the
father Jehu is. Indeed, the Die of Relig. Knowl. gives Iau-chazi as
the way "Jeho-ahaz" is spelled by Tiglath-pileser. As lau means
" Jeho-[ahaz] " in the later day, so laua merely means Jeho-[ahaz] in
the earlier day. It was very common to omit one half of a. double
name, as we have seen before. Now the reign of Jeho-ahaz was, ac-
. cording to Scripture, 17 years long, from Bv C. 857 to 840; and in the
last part of his reign, at B. C. 842, was the very time when, according
to the Canon, Shalmaneser, of Assyria, received tribute from him.
This is a most beautiful confirmation of the accuracy of Bible History
and Chronology, as well as of our interpretation put upon the monu-
, mental inscription. Each satisfactorily corroborates the other.
(b) As to Ahab.
§ 115. The inscription reads, "Acha-abbu mat Sir'lai " as given in
the Die of Relig. Knowl., which is " Ahab of Zirhala " as George Smith
gives it (in Ep. Can., j>. 189). And he there says of if: "The Rev. D.
H. Haigh has pointed out, that Zir is not the usual reading of the first
character, and that the name should be Suhala; and he suggests that
the geographical name Samhala or Savhala, a kingdom near Damas
cus, is intended in this place, and not the kingdom of Israel. The
hypothesis of Rev. D. H. Haigh may be correct; certainly he is right
as to the usual phonetic value of the first character of this geographical
name; but on the other hand, we find it certainly used sometimes for
the syllable zir. Even if the view of Rev. D. H. Haigh has to be given
up, and if the reading ' Ahab the Israelite ' has to be accepted, it would
be possible that this was not the Ahab of Scripture. The time when
this battle took place, B. C. 854, was, according to the chronology here
suggested, during the reign of Jehoahaz, king of Israel, B. C. 857, to
840; and at this time part of the territory of Israel had been conquered,
and was held by the kingdom of Damascus; it is quite possible that in
the part of the country under the dominion of Damascus a ruler named
Ahab may have reigned, and that he may have assisted Benhadad with
his forces against the Assyrians." (Geo. Smith.)
§ 116. It is doubtful if Zirhala or Sir'lai means Israel. For, that
was not the Assyrian way of mentioning the domain of a king; but they
distinguished him by the name of his capital city or district, as seen in
the list of Shalmaneser before us. The proper word here would have
been Samaria or Beth Omri, as in other places. But if any one feels

186 PERIOD E
\
constrained to accept the meaning there as " Israel," it must be on
some such ground as that given in the Die. of Relig. Knowl., namely,
that though "the first syllable of Yisrael (Israel) is lacking in Sir'lai—
the terminal ai being simply the adjective ending in Assyrian, the whole
has been reasonably identified as "Ahab of the Israelitish land." If
then the mat Sir'lai he identified as "the Israelitish land," still
the first half of the king's name given Acha, is no more like the name
Ahab, than it is like the name Ahaz, which is half the name Jeho-ahaz
(or its equivalent Ahaz-iah, as we have seen, § 102).
§117. But what of the "abbu"? Our supposition is,, that this is
not meant as a second half of , the name, but as the title given to the
individual named, like the title tartan in Assyria. Gesenius in the He
brew Lexicon defines thus: " Ab, father. It is a primitive word (like
am, mother, imitating the simplest labial sounds of the infant child);
and it is common to all the Semitic dialects, Arabian, Chaldean, and
Syriac. (Abbu, his father.) But the word father often has a wider
sense, forefather, ancestor, founder, author, benefactor, master,
teacher (or protector)." The word is often appended to personal
names, as Eli-ab, God my father, A-binad-ab, Aholi-ab, etc. The Brit
ish Com. of David Brown on Rom. viii: 15, says: "Abba is the Syro-
Chaldaic word iox father;" and an Assyrian king would understand
and use this word in that sense.
Our supposition is, that the king of Israel obtained an audience witli
Shalmaneser, either before or after the battle, and told him all the
truth; that he was not an enemy to Assyria, but was forced into
this alliance by Benhadad of Damascus, who was all the while dis
tressing Israel (See II Ki. xiii: 3, 4), that he would willingly be sub
ject or tributary to Assyria if she would protect him from the tyranny
of Syria; that he was only acting in defense of his country, as the
"father" ox patriarch or protector of Israel, which was signified by
his very name, part, of which (Jeho-) meant Jehovah, the God and
Father of Israel; that he was willing to act under the protectorate of
Shalmaneser, as thus simply the father of his country, a subordinate
under a greater king. It was common thus to speak of a ruler as a
Father to his people. (See Isa. xxii: 21; Jer. xxxi: 9, etc.) So Shal
maneser, recognizing that title abba "father" by which Jeho-ahaz
called himself in asking of him favor and alliance, wrote him down on
his inscription as "Acha (for Ahaz or Jeho-ahaz) Abbu mat Sir'lai"
(father or protector of the Israelite land). This, was by the Canon in
B. C. 854, the 6th year of Shalmaneser, and it was about the 3d year
of Jeho-ahaz' reign of 17 years (from B. C. 857 to 840), just as indi
cated in the story in II Ki- xiii; 3~6-
§ 118. In this unusual designation of a tributary we seem to see a
touch of sympathy rather than of sarcasm on the part of Shalman
eser. At any rate pity was shown in response to the earnest entreaty.

THE KINGS 187
Wicked as Jehoahaz was in some respects, he did act. the part of a
suppliant in behalf of his land, and there was a favorable response
(II Ki. xiii: 4-6). Hear it: "And Jehoahaz besought the Lord, and
the Lord hearkened unto him; for he saw the oppression of Israel, be
cause the king of Syria oppressed them. And the Lord gave Israel
a savior [who else but Assyria?]; so that they went out from under
the hand of the Syrians; and the children of Israel dwelt in their tents as
aforetime." Here we have a vivid picture of just the way in which
Shalmaneser seems to have responded to an appeal of Jehoahaz. He
befriended Israel, and subordination to the far-off Assyrian empire, by
the protection and intimidation that it afforded, proved a salvation of
the land from the near Syrian oppression.
This explains why in all Shalmaneser' s accounts of this conquest,
upon six different inscriptions in different years, while mentioning the
two previous names, Damascus and Hamath, he never again mentions
Israel among ,his conquests after that first allusion to "Abbu mat Sir'
lai." He had accepted that land in a different attitude from the rest.
Shalmaneser kept off their enemies, and Jehoahaz was very willing
to pay him tribute for his protection, as we have already seen he did
near the close of his reign (in B. C. 842). This surrender to Shalma
neser also explains why Jehoahaz was left with such a mere handful
of forces. .(II Ki. xiii: 7.) " Neither did he leave to Jehoahaz but fifty
horsemen and 10 chariots and 10,000 footmen." Why? Because Shal
maneser took from him "2,000 chariots and 16,000 men," as he says
in his inscription. This havoc made of Israel's resources was all
brought about by Syria's outrages, compelling the confederacy against
Shalmaneser. § 119. It may be a surprise to some that Shalmaneser should call
the same king of Israel by two different names — in his 18th year nam
ing him laua ox Yahua, i. c, Jeho-, and; in his 6th year naming him
Acha or Ahaz. But we have seen how common it was thus to divide a
name into its two parts (Jeho-ahaz=Ahaz-iah), and to use either half
alone, as occasion or impulse suggested. And we have fully exhibited
a case, the( very parallel to this, and with the same compound name,
"jeho-ahaz" thus separated years apart. If any one is troubled with
two different nariies given to one person by the same speaker or writer,
we simply leave him to the solution of the question why the same
writer of II Chron. ch. xxi and xxn has within 10 years (at ver. 17, 1, 6)
called the same king by three different names !
§ 120. Our view above given concerning II Ki. ch. xiii, and the
striking expression there, "The Lord Gave Israel a savior," was
all written out and published abroad a number of years ago, before we
had seen or heard anything of the view of George Smith, the famed
Assyriologist in his "Eponym Canon," wherein he maintains the
same as we do concerning that expression and that chapter,

188 period e
as the true exhibition of the events mentioned by Shalmaneser.
We refer to this fact because it shows how independent think
ers without communication arrive at the same conclusion as reasona
ble and satisfactory, and gives additional proof of the correctness of
our results. (Our suggestion in regard to "abbu" we have found no
where.) The full study of this great Salvation to Israel forms a very
interesting section in the comparison of Assyrian and Jewish history,
and it exhibits one of the very best evidences of the correctness of
the Bible Chronology, and its harmony with archaeological research
when fully and fairly investigated.

CHAPTER IV.
The Surroundings.
3. The historical surroundings of the life of Jehoahaz agree with
facts given in the Shalmaneser inscriptions, better than do the sur
roundings in the times of Ahab' and Jehu.
Benhadad and Hazael.
§ 121. It will be at once objected, that Shalmaneser in his sixth '
year and' afterward tells of conquering " Benhadad of Syria, and in his
eighteenth year and afterward tells of fighting " Hazael of Syria;"
whereas, there was (as alleged) no king of Syria but Hazael, through
all the reign of Jehoahaz. To that we reply : This is making Hazael
reign from about six years after Ahab's death (II Ki. viii: 15, 16),
through the reign of Joram (7 years), and Jehu (28th year) and Jehoa
haz (17 years, II Ki. xiii: 1, 22, 24) and through three years at least of'
Jehoash, a very long reign of 54 years, from B. C. 891 to 837 according
to Scripture — and with fierce warfare at the very close. (II Ki. 12: 17-
21.) Such a protracted warlike reign was not likely to occur in those
troublous times. On the other hand, the obvious impression of
II Ki. xiii: 3, with ver. 22, is, that the reign of Jehoahaz, while pre
ceded by the reign of a Hazael, contained the reign of a Benhadad, his
son, and that Jehoahaz' reign ended in the time of another Hazael.
For, ver. 22 does not teach (as some assume) that this last Hazael was
reigning "all the days of Jehoahaz," in contradiction of ver. 3, but
only that this last Hazael "oppressed Israel all the (remaining) days
of Jehoahaz, /. e. , as long as Jehoahaz lived. The ver. 3 can not be
speaking of the Benhadad of ver. 24; for the latter was not like the
former a successful oppressor of Israel "all his days," but was a
weak king who was beaten by Jehoash three times, and lost all "the
cities which his father (Hazael) had taken out of the hand of Jehoahaz
by war."

THE KINGS 189
§ 122. We are right, therefore, in claiming that the first Hazael
died not far from the time when Jehoahaz began his reign, say in his
second year, B. C. 755-6; that in B. C. 754 Shalmaneser found his son
Benhadad on the throne; and that twelve years later, in Jehoahaz' 15th
or 16th year, B. C. 742, when he paid tribute to Shalmaneser, a second
Hazael was on the throne of Syria, having reigned (say) four years,
from B. C. 746. This second Hazael must have reigned at least ten
years; for at the death of king Joash of Judah (B. C. 736) Hazael was
alive (II Ki. xii: 17-21; II Chron. xxiv: 23-25). J. Schwartz, AsSyriolo-
gist, of New York, objects, that this will allow more Syrian kings than
Josephus makes out. Josephus (Antiq. 7, v: 2) says: " Nicolas of Da
mascus makes mention of the first Syrian king, Hadad, in the fourth
book of his history, where hespeaks thus. '* * * Hadad reigned
over Damascus and the other parts of Syria, excepting Phoenicia. He
made war against David, the king of Judea. * * * ' He says ofhis
posterity, ' When Hadad was dead, his posterity reigned for ten gener
ations, each of his successors receiving from his father that his domin
ion and this his name, as did the Ptolemies in Egypt. But the third
was the most powerful of them all; he made an expedition against the
Jews, and laid waste the city which is now called Samaria, in the
reign of Ahab.' "
§ 123. Schwartz tells us that this means "ten kings from Hadad
to Rezin," and that the Assyrian records name three Syrian kings
between Rezin and the last Benhadad. George Smith (Ep. Can., p.
igi) gives but two from the inscriptions, viz.: "Hadara," in the
inscription of Tiglath-pileser, given on p. 121, and Mariha in the inscrip
tion of Vul-nirari, given on p. 115. We find, therefore, the following,
as the list of Syrian kings:
1. Hadad, in the reign of David and Solomon; II Sam. viii 15, 6, 14; I Ki.
Xi : 14-25.
Benhadad I, son of Hadad, in Asa's time ; I Ki. xv : 18  B. C. 936-917
3. Benhadad II, in Ahab's time; I Ki. xx: 1, 34  B. C. 917-891
4. Hazael I, in Jehu's time ; II Ki. viii : 7, 15  B.C. 891-856
5. , Benhadad III, in Jehoahaz' reign ; II Ki. 13 ; 3  B.C. 856-846
6. Hazael II, in reign of Jehoahaz and Jehoash ; II Ki. xiii : 22-24  B. C. 846-835
7. Benhadad IV, in reign of Jehoash and Jeroboam, II Ki. xiii : 25  B. C. 835-810
Mariha, in reign of Jeroboam, inscrip. Vul-nirari  B. C. 810-780
Hadara, in reign of Menahem, inscrip. Tiglath-pil  B.C. 780-750
Rezin, in the reign of Pekah : II Ki. xv : 37  B. C. 750-738
If a third king be inserted between 7 and 10, then Hadad is not
numbered, but only his successors, as intimated in the language used,
"when Hadad was dead, his posterity for ten generations reigned."
§ 124. Schwartz rejects our 5 and 6, and makes up the total 10, by sub
stituting two unauthorized names at the start; that is, he has " 1, Had-
arezer; 2, Rezon; 3, Hezion; 4, Benhadad I," etc. Here " Hadarezer"
is a mistake for Hadad; and " Rezon " (from I Kings xi: 23, 24) is a tem-

190 PERIOD E
porary partner during Hadad's time, and not one of his ten "pos
terity " referred to by Nicolas. (Hazael was probably of the family.)
" Hezion " (from I Ki. xv: 18) is no king at all, but only ab ancestor of
kings! The Hebrew reads: "Asa sent them to the son of Hadad,
(the son of Tabrimon, the son of Hezion) king of Syria." The pa
renthesis merely gives the ancestors of Hadad (the founder of the
family) as Rezon's descent is given at I Ki. xi: 23. George Smith puts
in both the "Tabrimon " and the " Hezion" as two additional kings
-of Syria, calling the latter the same as "Rezon" and he strangely
makes out two kings of Syria at I Ki. xx: 34! There is some confusion
-as to the original Hadad. Josephus thinks he was actually reigning in
Damascus when David conquered Hadarezer, king of Tobah (II Sam.
viii: 3, 4). Schwartz confounds him with Hadarezer himself.
§ 125. But the fact seems to be, Hadad was an Edomite, and
" yet a little child" at that time (comp. II Sam. viii: 3, 14, with I Ki.
-xi: 15-17). He fled from David as Rezon fled from Hadadezer, when
David conquered Edom and Zobah, I Ki. xi: 17-23, comp. II Sam. viii:
3, 14. Long afterward they both met at Damascus, got possession of
the kingdom, and there reigned together for a while (I Ki. xi: 24, "and
they [Hadad and Rezon] went to Damascus, and dwelt therein and
reigned in Damascus"). Rezon died, and Hadad (or his son) became sole
king of Syria after Solomon's time, as the British Com., Jamison, says.
The very writer Nicolas, who is our only authority for there being just
ten "posterity," particularly affirms that "the third king was the Ben
hadad II who in Ahab's day besieged Samaria (I Ki. xx: 1), just as we
put it. Whereas, Schwartz makes him the fifth king in order.
If Josephus is right in saying, that any Syrian king was on occasion
called by the one name Benhadad, or " Son of Hadad" the father of
the line, just as kings of Egypt were all called " Ptolemy," — then, even
a Hazael in the time of Jehoahaz \might, on an Assyrian monument, be
written as "Ben-hadad," and it would answer the purpose of the
canon. But we have made it plain that we have the Syrian kings right
with a second Hazael in the list. So certainly is there a ' ' Benhadad "
in the reign of Jehoahaz (B. C. 854) to answer all the purposes of the
Assyrian Canon and inscription! In this respect the surroundings are
all that can be required. The Ahab-Jehu Interval.
§ 126. In respect to reign adjustment, the surrounding facts of
Ahab and Jehu can riot possibly be made to fitt he inscription, while at
Jehoahaz' reign the dates and the inscribed facts exactly match. Be
tween the death of Ahab and the accession of Jehu were i3years, viz.,
Ahaziah "2 years" (or 2d year) from "the 17th year "to "the 18th
.year" of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoram "12 years" from " the 18th year of

THE kings

191

Jehoshaphat" to the death of Ahaziah of Judah (I Ki. xxii: 51; II Ki. iii:
1, and ix: 16, '24, 27). The 13 years is thus determined, not only by
lengths of reigns in Israel, but also by three synchronisms with Judah,
viz., the "17th year" and the "i8thyear" of Jehoshaphat, andthe
death of Ahaziah.
And it is further established by the given reigns in Judah, viz., Je
hoshaphat's "25 years" (I Ki. xxii: 42, II Chron. xx: 31) after 22 of
which, viz., in the 5th year of Joram, king of Israel," Jehoram of Judah
began his " 8 years " (II Ki.viii:i6, 17, II Chron. xxi:s). Butthe "8 years"
means only that he ended in his 8th year after 7 full years. For, begin
ning "in the 5th year," he ended " in the 12th year "of Joram of Israel
' ' the 1 ith year " then ending — when Ahaziah succeeded him ' ' 1 year "
(II Ki. viii: 25, 26, and ix: 2g, II Chron. xxii: 2). Thus Jehoshaphat lived
3 of his 25 years after his son Jehorairi's'8 (or 7) began, it being then 5
years after Ahab's death. And these 5 years added to the 8 years of
Jehoram and Ahaziah =13 years as the interval between Ahab's death
and the death of both Judah's and Israel's kings, at the accession of
Jehu. The same is proved by the synchronisms, Jehoshaphat's first
year, we are told, began in " the 4th year of Ahab" (I Ki. xxii: 41); so
that, the 23d of Jehoshaphat began in the 26th of Ahab (had he lived) i.
e., 5 years after Ahab's death, given as " the 5th year" (beginning) of
his second son, Joram's reign. And hence, after 8 more years through
the 12th and last year of Joram, must be (5+8=) 13 full years from
Ahab to Jehu, and must reach through (22+8^)30 years of Jehoshaphat
(had he lived), leaving (30 — 22=) the 8 years for the reigns of Jehoram
and Ahaziah in Judah.
§ 127. Thus we know for a certainty, that if the Bible story is any
true history at all, its interval between Ahab and Jehu is full 13 years,
fixed and assured by so many eras and datings of reigns in two king
doms recorded in two different books, that it can not possibly be made
less. (If urgency should try to assume some further fractional excess
needing deduction, the interval certainly could not be got below 1 2 years. )
So that a summer campaign in the first year of Jehu, must be 14 years
after a summer campaign 'in the last year of Ahab. And, since, Assy
riologists generally concede that the campaign in which Shalmaneser
fought Benhadad could not be in Ahab's last year (when Ahab was
slain fighting against Benhadad), but must be in the next before his
last year, therefore, this could not be less than 15 years before a cam
paign in the first year of Jehu. By closest pinching, the interval be
tween the two events could not be made less than 14 years. Whereas,
the Assyrian inscription demands only 12 years, from the 6th to the
18th year of Shalmaneser (by-the Eponym Canon, B. C. 854-842). This
proves unmistakably, that the application of this inscription to such
events ascribed to Ahab and Jehu is erroneous, and that our applica
tion of it to the reign of Jehoahaz is reasonable' and true.

192 PERIOD E
Any attempt to reconstruct the multiplied scripture numbers given
above, which go to fix the 14 or 15 years' interval, so as to crowd it
down to the 12 years wanted, must be abortive; even as the attempts
of Schwartz and of others have been shown to be abortive. For the
reduction can not be forced, without such a mutilation of the Scripture
numbers given, as would leave it a repudiated record, not by any pos
sibility corrupted to what it is, but necessarily and originally a false
history, gotten up by writers who did not know what they were talking
about. The same may be said of all the circumstances and surround
ings of the history; they can not be made to agree with the theory of
Ahab and Jehu as brought under subjection and tribute to Assyria.
(See a remarkable monumental confirmation at § 48.)
The Course of Events.
§ 128. ' ' It does not seem likely that the biblical Ahab, who was
the foe of the king of Damascus, sent any troops to his aid; at least,
.such a circumstance is never hinted at in the Bible, and is contrary to
the description of his character and reign. Under these circumstances,
I have given up the identification of the Ahab who assisted Ben-hadad
at the battle of Quarqar, B. C. 854, with the Ahab, king of Israel, who
died, I believe, '45 years earlier." (George Smith, Ep. Can., p. 190.)
It is irrational to think of Ahab as ever a confederate helping Ben
hadad. For, the Scripture history of Ahab, which seems on its face
reliable and in harmony with all that precedes and follows, presents
Ahab as repeatedly at war with that arrogant Benhadad, and success
ful against him and his confederates, " thirty and two kings" (I Ki. xx:
1-6, 11, 20, 21, and ver. 26, 2g, 30), — and at last as meeting his death in
•fighting him. (Chap. 22.) After his victories Ahab had been too leni
ent in letting Benhadad live, and a prophet had warned him that he
would suffer for it (xx: 34, 42). Benhadad, broke his promise to restore
the cities of Ramoth Gilead; and after the novelty of three years with
out war between Syria and Israel (xxii: 1), Ahab again, in company
with Jehoshaphat, went forth against Benhadad, for the recovery of
Gilead (ver. 3), and Ahab was slain (ver. 17). Now it is in that inter
vening truce of three years (which probably contained only two whole.
years, after the Jewish fashion of speech), that Assyriologists try to
work in the inscription account of Benhadad conquered at Aroer (or
Quarqar) with his confederate Ahab and others. '
That is, j:hey would represent' Ahab as fighting in helpful confed
eracy with Benhadad, only one year before Ahab died fighting against
Benhadad, for a grievance existing all these years — and less than two
years after Ahab had awfully whipped — almost annihilated Ben-hadad,
mercifully letting him off with his life, upon a promise which being.
forthwith broken compelled this last fatal fight. Does the theory of an

the kings 193-
intermediate alliance of Ahab under Benhadad look at all likely or
reasonable on its face ? Here was Benhadad completely broken up
and crushed two years in succession by Ahab, 100,000 of his men slain
in one day, and 27,000 the next day (Ch. xx: 2g, 30, 21), yet represented
as within two years heading a confederacy with large forces against
Assyria,— and stranger still, as having under him as subaltern that
very King Ahab to whose mercy he owed his life, and whose new rage
he was already exciting by breach of the life-pledge he had given !
§ i2g. So absurd is the theory that the Assyrian inscription refers
to the Scripture Ahab, that Chambers' Cyc, while accepting the in
scription of the 18th year of Shalmaneser as meaning Jehu, yet omits
all mention of the inscription of his 6th year, as being altogether toe
doubtful to be claimed as meaning Ahab. And Dr. Orr, in the Presby
terian Review (New York, January, i88g), while in general sustaining
the Assyrian dates as against those of the Bible, yet after all his
endeavor to work in Ahab, decides as most probable, that' the name
interpreted as Ahab is an Assyrian mistake. He says (p. 57): "The
date for the death of Ahab is about a year too high to admit of his-
presence at the (Assyrian) battle of Karkar in B. C. 854, which yet, it
is allowed, can not be put earlier than Ahab's last or second-last year,
This raises an interesting question. Wellhausen strongly contends,
and Kemphansa agrees with him, that the king who sent a contingent
to the battle of Karkar could not have been Ahab. There is the chron
ological difficulty; but apart from this, it is agreed that it is in the
highest degree improbable * * * that Ahab should fight as a volun
tary ally of Benhadad. * * * Wellhausen therefore thinks that the
battle of Karkar took place after the battle of Ramoth Gilead; that the
king who sent a contingent to it was not Ahab but Joram; and that the
mistake in the name arose from the ignorance or carelessness of the
scribe, who knew nothing of the changes on the throne of Israel.
There is much to be said for this view." Thus distinctly is it con
fessed by Assyriologists, that no dependence can be put upon the
Assyrian naming of a Jewish king.
§ 130. There was no place for either voluntary or forced alliance
with Syria, till long after the days of Ahab. In the reign of Ahab's
successor Jehoram, still "the king pf Syria warred against Israel " (II
Ki. vi: 8), but was not successful (ver. 23); and yet afterward (ver. 24)
" Benhadad, king of Syria, gathered all his host, and went up, and be
sieged Samaria;" but was beaten (vii: 6. 7). Still again, after some
years, Jehoram was in "war against Hazael king of Syria" (viii: 28);
in which war Jehoram was wounded, and soon was slain by Jehu (ix
24). When Jehu, thereupon, under appointment of God, was so val-
iently sweeping down all enemies^was such a dashing, daring, suc
cessful king as he the man to succumb without a fight and pay the
first tribute to a distant power, as alleged ? For, be it noticed, the

194 period e
Assyrian inscription says nothing of any fighting with ' ' the son of
Omri" only of tribute received from him, as if a natural expected con
tinuation of past affairs. This fits the case of Jehoahaz, as we saw,
but is quite out of place as a first payment of tribute from such a man
as Jehu. The warfare against Syria went on. In Jehu's time, about B. C.
860, we read (II Ki. x: 23): "In those days the Lord began to cut
Israel short. And Hazael (king of Syria) smote them in all the coasts
or Israel," Jordan, Gilead, Galilee, etc. It was war, war, continually
repeated w'ar between Israel and Syria; and now at last it was getting
to be more fatal to Israel. But it was not till Jehu's son, the weak Je
hoahaz, ascended the throne and reigned from B. C' 856-7 to 840 (II Ki.
xiii: 1), that there seems any place for the king of Israel to be found in
a strained confederacy .with any Benhadad or Syrian king. Then at
length the king of Syria had got the upper hand, and could dictate
terms; and* he soon after turned his arms against Judah also (xii: 17).
§ 131. Israel was left, under its feeble Jehoahaz, to submit to the
Syrian oppressions (xiii: 1-3): "The anger of the Lord was kindled
against Israel, and he delivered them into the hand of Hazael, king of
Syria, and into the hand of Benhadad,, the son of Hazael, all their
days." So that, as now, reduced to be an unwilling confederate with
the king of Syria, Jehoahaz may well have got beaten with him in a
conflict with the king of Assyria, in B. C. 854, two or three years after
he (Jehoahaz) began to reign, just as the inscription of Shalmaneser
describes. Or rather, he may have taken the opportunity to become a betrayer
instead of a helper of Benhadad, by getting the Assyrian monarch to
be to him "a savior" from the rapacity of Syria (xiii: 4, 5). The
struggle would still go on between the neighboring nations (ver. xxii);
but the overshadowing favor of the far-off monarch toward Jehoahaz
would keep Syria somewhat in check and Jehoahaz would gladly of his
own accord pay tribute to Assyria for this protection, as the inscrip
tion describes, concerning this " son of Omri," in B. C. 842.
Conclusion.
§ 132. We see not how it could be possible for Israel to receive
so great an onset from Assyria as the inscriptions suppose — Israel's
first connection with that great world-power — without any allusion to
it in the Jewish history, so full and complete; which is the predicament
in which the critics who claim Ahab and Jehu as the kings referred to,
find themselves placed. But if the reference was to Jehoahaz, then
we have in the Jewish history a striking allusion to this great turn in
Jewish affairs — an allusion obscure indeed, as we might expect it to be
because calling that great world-power " a savior," which was yet to

the kings 195
be the waster and destroyer of Samaria — but an allusion whose
mystery hitherto is now happily cleared up by these Assyrian inscrip
tions excavated, so well bringing forth the meaning and corroborating
the truthfulness of God's Holy Word.
Nebuchadnezzar too, of Babylon, was spoken of as in some sense
a savior of Judah from utter extinction, by the very means of his
capturing Jerusalem; and the captives were exhorted to go cheerfully,
under the saving mercy, to the exile in Babylon. (See Jer. xxvii: 6-17,
and xxxviii: 2, and xiii: n, and xliii: 10.) So light comes out of dark
ness; and the truth of Scripture emerges from the smoke and error of
criticism !

PART IV.
Comparative Reliability of The Jewish and The
Pagan Chronology.
CHAPTER I.
Assyriology and the Bible.
§ 133. The chronology of the Jewish Scriptures for their 4gi years
from the second year of Darius, B. C. 520, to the fourth of Solomon,
B. C. ion, is what we here compare with the chronology of the same
time as given by the surrounding nations, Assyria, Egypt, Tyre, etc.
In all past ages, the Bible Chronology, back through the Jewish
kings (to the beginning of David's reign as"in B. C. 1053 or 5), has been
accepted universally as the only reliable reckoning we have; Assyrian,
Egyptian, and Tyrian data being seen to be very uncertain, and
unworthy of comparison with the Scripture authority.
But there has now (in i8g2) arisen a belief, particularly among
Assyriologists, that the " Eponym Canon, " so-called— a record deciph
ered from the inscriptions unearthed at Nineveh by Layard, and
described by Sir Henry Rawlinson in the London Athenasum for May
and July, 1862 — give us a sure chronology of those times, differing
greatly from the Scripture reckoning; which (they say) must be cor
rected accordingly.
Our purpose is to show that there is no certainty about the alleged
new chronology; that the Bible history and chronology still remains
more reliable than any other; and that it is altogether premature to

196 period e
alter our ancient dating, as some are beginning to do, * or to lose faith
in Scripture as a true and reliable history of the ancient ages.
§ 134. The first and foremost claim of an Assyriologist will be
that Scripture is only a book, copied from age to age, and so liable to
all kinds of corruption and alteration; while the inscribed rock or plas
ter is, we are sure, the original, just as prepared two or three thousand
years ago. So the monumental statement is thought to have vastly
more authority than any book utterance can have. But this depends,
as we shall see. There may be much less difference than at first sup
posed, in the authority of stone or mortar over parchment or paper.
The weight which any document has in determining truth, depends
(1) upon its source, (2) upon its contents; and both must combine to
give authority to the writing. Though the source of an excavated
monumental inscription should give it at first glance a greater authority
than if transmitted on more perishable material, yet its contents when
studied may be found so much less clear, and decisive, and self-
convincing, as to be entirely overcome in weight by the paper state
ment. If in some old cemetery a grave-stone should be found, stating that
the deceased died in A. D. 1767 on the very day when American Inde
pendence was declared, that would not revolutionize the accepted date
of the American Revolution as contained in books. And if an Assyrian
inscription has been found, with obscure or uncertain indications of
some Bible event out of its place, that is not sufficient to overturn the
unmistakable dating of Scripture history.
§ 135. What are the facts ? On the, one hand we have the Jewish
Scriptures, of whose correct transmission to us from the very times of
the kings, without serious alterations or mistakes there can be no doubt,
and no one has a doubt; f while the time covered by those kings is
therein clearly and repeatedly explained in multiplied dates and cross-
dates so fixed and determined as to make certain'that we have the very
* Some of the Lesson Helps to "our International Sunday School
studies are already giving changed Bible dates, drawn from the uncer
tain theories of Assyriology.
f To show how surely the Bible numbers are transmitted to us un
changed, as certainly as if found inscribed on contemporary monuments,
notice the following facts: The great historian, Josephus, in the first
century, avowedly quoting from' the Hebrew Scripture, gives the same
total of added reigns in Judah and Israel as we have now m our Hebrew
Bible. This we have elsewhere shown. And now I find in the Talmud
(" Solomon the wise," p. 204 of London Ed., 5636, A. M.), that from
Solomon's reign to the destruction of the temple was "433 years ;"
which is precisely what the reigns as given in our Hebrew Bible still
add up, thus: Solomon 40 + to capture of Samaria 260 -f- to end of Zede
kiah 133 = total 433. It is evident that there has been no mutilation of
the original.

THE KINGS 197
reckoning intended by the writers, and to leave no possibility of our
misunderstanding the length of time they meant to describe. The
writers are reliable, their own statements are plainly before us, and
the meaning can not be mistaken. If ever there was an indisputable
record of assured dates, it is here in the Jewish history of ' ' the kings. "
§ 136. On the other hand, Assyrian research has unearthed for us
certain fragmentary tablets of those olden times, inscribed with a long
list of Assyrian names, which are interpreted as designating the suc
cessive years; some of which names are found given on other monu
ments, which in a few cases are thought to allude to Jewish incidents;
and those names counted up, as meaning one year to each name, do
not make out so many years as the Jewish history claims between those
incidents thought to be alluded to. So that, if this Assyrian theorizing
be considered true and infallible, the Bible account must be false in all
its dating, and over 40 years must be dropped out of its details, item
by item, greatly mutilating its various statements, to bring it into
agreement with this (so called) "Eponym Canon" of Assyria thus
treated as infallible.
§ 137. It will be seen at once, how precarious and uncertain is this
Canon reckoning, compared with the sure word of Scripture; and how
evidently the seeming superiority of the monumental source of infor
mation is outweighed by the obscurity and uncertainty of its contents.
So that the sure and plain-speaking Bible has more historical authority
than the enigmatical Canon, and can never be overturned by it without
further light. The Assyrian inscriptions do indeed give wonderful con
firmation to the scriptural events as occurring about as the Bible records
them. But those Assyrian items are not dated with sufficient definite-
ness and certainty, to put the precise and assured dates of Scripture
in fault. Let us examine the Canon reckoning more closely, and see how
much of authority it has as an alleged infallible chronology. There
are three respects, in which we shall find its certainty impaired; (1) as
to the perfect and sure consecutiveness of years; (2) as to the certain
accuracy and infallibility of those reporting the list of names; (3) as to
the correctness and certainty of Assyriologists in their interpreting of
events referred to and their identifying of names alleged.
§ 138. (I.) As to the perfect and sure consecutiveness of years indi
cated by the list of names, Geo. Smith in his valuable work on ' ' The
Eppnym Canon," London, 1875 (p. 22), thus explains the case:
"In Assyria, the practice of dating documents according to the
regnal years of the reigning monarchs was seldom used; by far the
greater number of inscriptions being dated by the names of certain
officers called by the Assyrians limu; a word which, by general consent,
is translated 'eponym.' The Assyrian limu or eponyms were ap
pointed according to a general rotation; and each one in succession held

198 PERIOD E
office for a year, and gave name to that year; the usage of the Assyrians
in this respect being similar to that of the Archons at Athens, and the
Consuls at Rome. The Lord Mayors of London are also appointed for
a year, and a parallel case would be presented if we dated our docu
ments according to the years when successive Lord Mayors held office,
calling the years after their names."
Now we see at once how uncertain is such a mode of dating applied
to long periods of time. The same official may at times serve two or
more years in succession, or years of peculiar emergency may occur
when no assignment takes place. Periods of tumult or revolution may
come interrupting the order. And when after a time the old list is
written down to date, the new names may not be rightly joined to the
old. Thus in various ways the consecutiveness of the years may be
broken up.
§ i3g. Mr. Smith gives the naming of years by the Roman consuls
as an illustration. This plan was accurate for a few years at the time
of occurrence; but it was found -often misleading, in dating back after
a long period had elapsed. We all know how ihixed up became the
consular reckoning, as used by the early Christian chroniclers for
measuring the times of the New Testament history. Thus Epiphanius
(A. D. 403) omitted the consuls of A. D. 4 in explaining the years of
Christ's life, as shown by Clinton (Fas. Hel., at A. D. 14). From him
this error in the consular list was propagated down the ages in the
" Paschal Chronicle." And Eusebius got an extra consulate interpo
lated at A. D. 6g. Afterward Prosper and Victorius had the early
consuls much disarranged. (See my " History of the Early Christian
Chronicles,'- p. 4i-4g.)
How uncertain must be such a method of dating long intervals,
with no lengths of reign given, and no periods of time designated (such
is the Assyrian reckoning) — compared with the Jewish method, giving
the length, the beginning, and the end of each reign, with the inter
locking synchronisms, and dates of two contemporaneous series of
kings, in Judah and Israel, and with long prophetic and typical
periods comfirming the whole. Some writers speak of the wonderful
excellence of the Assyrian chronology, and even present it in dispar
agement of Bible chronology as far less reliable. But looked at care
fully and honestly, that Pagan method can no more stand before the
Scripture dating than a candle can illuminate the sun.
§ 140. It does not matter whether we can point out any break in
the order of Eponym years; the system is liable to such breaks, and
this destroys the certainty of its chronology as a whole, whatever
assurance we have about particular parts of it. Some of the shrewd
est Assyriologists, Oppert, Haigh, etc. (see Eponym Canon, p. 73),
have thought they saw evidence of gaps; and whether they were right
or wrong, we ourselves perceive great possibility of more or less inter-

THE KINGS 199
ruption of the order especially in the early part of the canon, from
B. C. 820 backward, where the canon is most fneager (giving only the
list of names without any explanation of their office or mention of any
thing occurring in each year). It is iri this meager part of the canon,
that the greatest conflict with Scripture is imagined; and just here is
the most uncertainty in the canon itself.
§ 141. When the canon's list of names has been applied to reach
backward to B. C. 820, soon after Sam-si-vul III began to reign, we
find that there, at B, C. 820 and 821, there is extant only a single copy
of the canon (called copy I), with nothing to confirm its names, or the
number of the names there belonging. There it seems as if the
original list ended; and in adding what follows, which was not done
until 120 years afterward (as shown by George Smith, Ep. Can.,
p. 151), there may very easily have been an interruption of the regular
order. Rev. D. H. Haigh, Assyriologist (Ep. Can., p. 73), believed there
was a gap hereabouts, at B. C. 82g; and thought he could show the
length of it as ig years. But without accepting his view, we see how
greatly possible it is, that hereabouts, at the close of Shalmaneser's
reign, in the turnult of those times, there may be a gap of some years
in the record of names.
Says George Smith (Ep. Can., p. 73): " It is related, in the mono
lith inscription of Samsivul III [beginning B. C. 825], that during the
reign of his father, Shalmaneser II, another son of that king, named
Assurdainpal, revolted against him, and was followed by twenty-seven
districts of Assyria, principally in the east and south. These districts
were subdued, and again brought under the rule of Shalmaneser by
Samsivul, who afterward succeeded to the throne, instead of the
rebel prince."
§ 142. Who does not see the likelihood of interruption in the
record of Eponyms during such a rebellion, and of a gap occurring in
the joining on of the subsequent list, not made up till 120 years after
ward ? There is an unprecedented incident of B. C. 828, given by the
canon for that year, which corroborates this suggestion. The canon
gives " Shalmaneser, the king," as Eponym of that year again, after
he had been Eponym 30 years before. This return to a position occu
pied by no other kirig but once, may either have instigated the rebel
lion that occurred, or may have resulted from it as a re-instatement of
the king. In either case, the1 Eponym list had hereabouts an interrup
tion of order, very possibly resulting in a loss of some years' reckoning.
We do not present this as proof of a gap. We only show that a
gap is possible. It can not be proved, and probably never can be, that
there was no gap in the canon; and that being so, there can be no such
certainty as some claim in the Assyrian dating, wherewith to set aside
the sure record of Bible history. We may have pretty good confidence

200 PERIOD E
in the later part of the Eppnym canon, where an eclipse of the sun in
the month Sivan of B. Cj 763 gives confirmation* (though not full assur
ance; because the day of the month is not given, nor the degree of
eclipse, so that in a choice of many years, there might be a dupli
cate eclipse within that month). But as to the earlier and more meager
part of the Canon, where the chief conflict with Scripture is alleged,
we can have no assurance at all.
§ 143. (II.) As to the certain accuracy and infallibility of those
reporting the Eponym list of names to the sculptor, George Smith,
the esteemed Assyriologist, informs us (p. 151): "The earliest known
copies of the Assyrian Canon mere made in the reign of Sennacherib
(about B. C. 700), that is, about 150 years after" the alleged reference
to Ahab and Jehu. What proof have we that these first copies give
an accurate account of those earliest years occurring so long before
their time ? Why was not the engraver or sculptor of B. C. 700 liable
to have the period from B. C. 8go to 820 somewhat disarranged,? If
New Testament scholars could bring no evidence for the events nar
rated in the four gospels, except a first reference to them 150 years
after their alleged occurrence, with no known existence of those gos
pels till that late date — certainly there would be a great outcry of scep
ticism against the claim of certainty as to the New Testament history.
What better claim has the alleged Assyrian dating of Ahab and Jehu
to be considered a certainty ?' ,
§144. Man is fallible. And even an Assyrian fashioner of inscrip
tions was liable to get in a mistake, either of a name, or of its spelling,
or of the location of an incident occurring 150 years before his time.
Even an Assyrian inscription is not necessarily infallible. A Pagan
writer or engraver was just as likely, to say the least, to commit a
blunder concerning Jewish affairs, as was a native Jew in writing by
* Yet, that very fixing of the Eponym Canon at B. C. 763 may prove
that there is an omission of one year somewhere after that in the Canonl
For, as1 Schwartz tells us (Letter, April, 1893), " Ptolemy's Canon has
the accession of Esar-haddon, Assur-banipal, Nabonassar, Nebuchad
nezzar, and Evil-merodach, at B. C. 680, 667; 625, 604, and 561, all one
year too late by the Eponym Canon." Instead of proving by this (as
Schwartz attempts, and even Geo. Smith thoughtlessly allows, Ep.
Can., p. 102) that Ptolemy's Canon post-dates the reigns — a theory en
tirely untenable' (see Period F, § 2) — this discrepancy more likely
shows that the "Eponym Canon has lost one year (say) right before
" Eponym Shalmaneser, king of Assyria," B. C. 723. For, there would
regularly come as Eponym the governor of Arbela, and there is there
but a single copy oi the Canon; so that, the omission might readily
occur in the ponfusion at the death of the king, so peculiarly then just
serving as Eponym. With a year there inserted, the Eponym Canon
would agree with Ptolemy's Canon in all the dates referred to, and so
(by that indisputable authority) would be greatly confirmed as far back
as B. C. 763.

THE KINGS 201
authority the history of his own land in his own time. The Pagan was
only stringing together lists of names handed down to him from 150
years before, with no certifying or rectifying number accompanying
them. Whereas, the Jew was an official recorder of the current his
tory, giving numbers of years and coincidences of reigns in two king
doms, and passing his work along from one generation to another of
official history.
We say nothing here of any divine inspiration or special providence,
guarding the Jewish history against error. We only claim, that the
method of record and transmission gives far greater credibility to the
Scriptural than to the alleged Assyrian chronology, and more than
counterbalances any advantage thought to arise from an unearthed in
scription over a written book. Look, for illustration, at the careful
ness, fullness, and assured contemporary accuracy of the Jewish period
from Solomon's death to the reign of Elah, the fourth king of Israel —
as given in the book of Kings.
§ 145. " Rehoboam reigned 17 years, and Jeroboam 22 years (I Ki.
xiv: 20, 21); in Jeroboam's 18th year Abijam of Judah began his 3 years
(xv: 1, 2); in Jeroboam's 20th year Asa of Judah began his 41 years
(ver. g, 10); in Asa's 2nd year Nadab of Israel began his two years
(ver. 25); in Asa's 3d year Baasha of Israel began his 24 years (ver. 33);
in Asa's 26th year Elah of Israel began his 2 years " (x: 8).
This Bible reckoning, put into tabular form, has to read as fol
lows : Judah. B, C. Israel.
ist Rehoboam 17  = 974=  ist Jeroboam 22(nd)
(18th) " = ist Abijam 3  =957=  18th "
ist Asa 41 = (4th) "  =954=  20th " (ended)
2nd "  =953=ist Nadab 2(nd)= ..(22nd) "
3d "  =952=(2nd) " =...ist Baasha 24(th)
26th"  =929=ist Elah 2(nd) = ...{24th " )

Total  = 45 years. (See § 25.)
§ 146. Here the reigns in Judah (17+3+25) just equal the total 45
years elapsed, and explain and establish the reigns in Israel, as each
reckoning in the terminal fractions of a reign as if 1 whole year, (which
shows the custom then of the Israelite scribe). The Bible numbers
can not possibly be put together (without the violation of any one of
them), except thus to make out 45 years; so that there can be no chance
for dispute about the chronology. The numbers given are so numer
ous, and the 'datings and cross-synchronisms are so carefully inter
woven, as to show that it must have been contemporaryhistoxy given
by those on the spot; while the complication of the dating explains its
own method, and rectifies what otherwise might lead to error.
This is only a fair specimen of the whole history and chronology of
the kings as given in Scripture; where it is reiterated and confirmed
with the'same figures in the books of Chronicles, and in Isaiah, etc., —

202 PERIOD E
giving us one whole consistent and unassailable chronology. No
author, ancient or modern, has taken such pains to explain carefully
and fully the datings of his history, as have these sacred writers. And
their figures simply put together and allowed to speak for themselves
(without change), give us the most determinate, exact, and certain
chronology that has ever been found, or is likely to be found, in the
world. § 147. That we have before us the very facts and figures given by
the writers of the books of " Kings " without any serious corruption,
and that they are as genuinely the original text as if transmitted on an
excavated monument, is certain from the same numbers given in the
books of " Chronicles," and in the prophetic books, as also in the Sep
tuagint translation into Greek (B. C. 200). It is also known from Jose
phus, using the same unchanged text and figures; as well as other
Jewish authors, and the New Testament writers, and the Chronicles
prepared in the later centuries. Moreover, the scripture datings are
so blended and interwoven into one whole, by synchronisms and cross-
reckonings, that there can be no corruption of a few figures, whose
correction might satisfy the Assyrian theorizings.*
§ 148. The Bible Chronology of the Kings must stand or fall as one
whole; for as we have the text, it is certainly not to any extent corrupt,
but is just what its authors meant it to be. If Assyriology overturns
it, that whole scripture history is made to be misleading and false; and
those who wrote it are convicted of relating as history what they knew
little about. On the contrary, the Bible dating carries on its face the
evidence of its truthfulness.
Compare the careful method of contemporary dating in scripture
with the mere stringing out of names to represent years, reported tp
us 150 years after they were passed, as seen in the Eponym Canon;
and say which is the most reliable and sure. Nothing in history can be
more certain than that the bible numbers put together without mutila
tion give jus^t 254 years to the kingdom of Israel, from the death of
Solomon to the capture of Samaria (B. C. g74 to 720). The mere
string of Eponym names from Nineveh, in their meagerness and falli
bility of information, can never reduce this to about 210 years, as As
syriologists claim.
§ i4g. (III.) — As to the correctness and certainty of Assyriologists
in their interpretation of events and their identification of names, al
leged to be found in the inscriptions. It must be conceded that there
*This is shown by the sweeping and destructive mutilation of script
ure made by every recent scheme put forth attempting such a forced
agreement of the Bible with the alleged requirements of Assyriology.
See the treatise pf J. Schwartz of New York, in the Bib. Sacra, for
Jan. and July, 1888; and that of Dr. Orr of Scotland, in the Pres. Re
view for Jan., i88g. (See also my criticism of these schemes.')

THE KINGS 203
are great difficulties in the decipherment and exposition of excavated
monuments; and that there have been considerable differences of
opinion among the ablest scholars concerning the contents of inscrip
tions found. How could we expect certainty in understanding records
consisting mostly of proper names, especially those names which were
foreign to the language of the recorder? Every one knows the diver
sity of naming and of spelling names even within a single language;
how much greater the confusion when names and terms are roughly
translated into a strange tongue by invading armies and carried off
for mention in an alien clime.
We are continually laughing at the mistakes of foreign writers con
cerning names, times, and places in our own land. Yet many arch
aeologists speak with the greatest confidence of identifications which
they think they see, in the mention of places and persons, three or four
thousand years ago, by rude foreign inscribers who knew little or noth
ing about the localities or the personages referred to. Valuable hints
may often be got from similarity of names on ancient monuments to
other names we know of; and sometimes plausible theories may be
thence deduced. But there can be little certainty in many such
speculations, where few details and mostly mere names are given.
Scholars, elated with antique discoveries, are apt to speak with too
much assurance as to their inferences therefrom. We commend the
greater modesty and caution of George Smith, one of the most
esteemed and trustworthy Assyriologists, who candidly owns the dif
ficulties of identification, and sees no necessity of setting the Eponym
Canon in collision with Scripture. *
§ 150. Those whom we find speaking so confidently of the Script
ure chronology as quite set aside by three or four supposed identifica
tions of Jewish names in the Assyrian inscriptions far out of their
scripture place, are by no means so certain about this as they claim to
be. They are but fallible men like the rest of us; and their interpreta
tion of the facts may be wrong. In the other chapters of this treatise,
we have fully examined those facts of Assyriology; and we think we
have shown, that they give us no assured evidence of untruthfulness
or error in the Bible Chronology.
Assyriology,' in its source and its contents, carries far less authority
as to assured accurate dating, than does the Jewish history. And the
same is still more emphatically true of the Tyrian and Egyptian an
nals; which are only random items and uncertain lists picked out here
and there from written manuscripts, like the Bible, only far less reli-
* " Professor Hechler, in his address' before the Oriental Congress
in London, on ' Assyriology and the Bible, ' asserted that the harmony
of the books of Kings and Chronicles could be established by arch
aeology." (Boston Watchman, Oct., '92.)

204 PERIOD E
able than that. We may rest assured, that the Jewish history will yet
long stand, as the correct and trustworthy history of ancient times. It
must stand, at least until far greater evidence is found in disproof of
it, then has yet been brought forward.
CHAPTER 1 1.
Tyrian History and the Bible.
§ 151. Does the Tyrian History contradict the Bible Chronology of
Solomon's Temple as begun in B. C. 1011 ?
"The date of the revival of Olympic games by Iphitus is, accord
ing to Eratosthines (B. C. 200) at 884 B. C; according to Callimachus
(B. C. 250) at 828 B. C; Mr. Clinton prefers the latter date." "The
Olympiads began to be reckoned from the year 776 B. C, in which year
Corcebus was victor in the foot-race. We have lists of the victors from
that year." (Anthon's Class. Diet.)
So then, the first of the revived Olympic games was (828-776=) 52
years before the first numbered Olympiad.
Now,' Josephus, using the historian Menander (B. C. 300), speaks of
the building of Carthage as 143 years and 8 months after the building
of Solomon's temple (vs. Ap. I. 17, 18.) He thus puts it, according to
his Bible Chronology (ion, Antiq. 1010), at (1010 — 144=) 866 B. C. ;
which is 38 years before the first Olympic games in 828 B. C.
Thus it seems, that the historian Menander, B. C. 300, (if cited
rightly by Josephus) had the 7th year of Pygmalion, king of Tyre, and
the flight of his sister Dido for the building of Carthage, at the year
866 B. C, 38 years before the first Olympic games of Iphitus in B. C.
828. § 152. But soon after, Timasus (B. C. 260) expressed this as " the
38th year before the first Olympiad," thus (perhaps by mistaking his
predecessor Menander) speaking of the building of Carthage as if 52
years later, viz., at (866 — 52=) 814 B. C, (i. e. 776+38.) Dionysius of
Hulicarnassus (B. C. 30) in citing Timseus says, he knows not "by
what canon " he thus dates, as if there was a doubt about its correct
ness, in view of Menander's different " canon."*
*That Timaeus might be mistaking Menander, will appear from what
is said by Anthon: "The historical work of Timssus did not contain a
synchronistic relation of events, but consisted rather of detached por
tions of history, in each of which the author treated separately of some
important event. Cicero cites Timasus. * * * Polybius, and after
him Diodorus Sieulus, have charged Timaeus with credulity and un
fairness. * * * The ancients praisedh is geographical knowledge,
and his care in indicating the chronology of the events which he de
scribes. He appears also to have composed another work on the Olym
piads, and it is said he was the first historical writer that employed this
era." Hence any error of his would be largely copied.

THE KINGS 205
Cicero, B. C. 50 (who cites from Timaeus), puts the building of Car
thage thus like him as being the 3gth year (or 38 years) before the first
Olympiad, and 64 or 65 years before the founding of Rome. That is,
B. C. 776+38=814— 6s=74g B. C.for Rome. (Or rather, B. C. 753 for
Rome according to Varro, who lived in " closest intimacy with Cicero,"
says Anthon, +65=818—28=780 B. C. for beginning of the ist Olympic
period — as said to be reckoned by Africanus and others.)
Velleius (A. D. 20) has this same "65 years" before Rome, as if
drawn directly from Cicero; i. e„ 748 B. C. +65=813, for the rise of
•Carthage, which he says was " 668 years before its fall in B. C. 145-6.
{Rollin says 145, Anthon 146.)
Long afterward, Eusebius (A D. 300) at his year B. C. 145-6 says:
" Carthage surrenders to Scipio, having stood 66g [other reading 668]
years "; which carries us to the same 813-14 B. C. for its founding.
§ 153. These five writers, Timasus, cited by Dionysius, Cicero,
Velleius, and Eusebius, are the only ones found giving B. C. 814 for the
building of Carthage. And their statements all seem to be derived
from the first writer (Timaeus), whom Dionysius directly cites, and
who seems to have wrongly construed the previous reckoning of Me
nander (found in Josephus), th'e only really Tyrian annalist, as mean
ing "38 years before the ist Olympiad," whereas he had it 38 years
before the ist Olympic of Iphetus, viz., at B. C. 866 instead of 814.
This 52 years' difference between the two datings of Carthage has
come down to us from the ancients. And the earlier date of Menan
der is, to say the least, as likely to be true as the later date; because
given by the earliest author (B. C. 300), and he the only special annalist
of Phoenician affairs, giving specifically the lengths of reigns making
up the time, as none of the other writers do.
§ 154. Indeed, no other writer but Menander explains his date, as
that of the flight of Dido from her brother Pygmalion, king of Tyre.
Menander (in Josephus) makes this B. C. 866 to be "the 7th year" of
Pygmalion's 47 years of reign. And who can show that this is not the
date of his reign? If those later writers mistook Menander's 38 years
before the first Olympic year of Iphitus (B. C. 828) as meaning " 38
years before the first Olympiad" (B. C. 776), this error of 52 years
later was merely disconnecting the building of Carthage from the flight
of Dido; or else it was assigning her flight and the reign of Pygmalion
to a later date than than that given by Menander's reigns. In either
case, the earlier writer Menander was most likely to be correct. And
at any rate, his reckoning as 52 years earlier than the other reckoning
indicates plainly that the difference arose from the different number-
ings of Olympic years (52 years apart, from 828 and from 776 B. C.)
So that, whichever is right (866 or 814), there is no necessary discrep
ancy with the Bible Chronology; which (by Josephus) has Solomon
commencing the temple at (866+Menander's 144=) 1010 B. C, or (814
+Timaeus' ig6=) 1010 B. C. (See Restor. of Jos., § 51.)

206 PERIOD E
§ 155. Some attempts have been made, by comparison of different
dates and writers, to make out the B. C. 866 to be impossible as Me
nander's reckoning. Thus, Aristotle's statement that Utica was built
287 years before Carthage, is, put with Pliny's statement, that Utica
originated 1178 years ago (z. e., from A. D. 77 back to B. C. noi); from
which taking the 287, we have 814 not 866 B. C. Again: The state
ment of Castor of Rhodes, that there were 382 years from the Lydians
down to the end of the Phoenician dominion over the sea, is put with
a roundabout calculation from other writers, of the Lydian kingdom as
beginning B. C. ng7; so that ng7 (changed to 1196!) — 382=814 B. C.
Once more: Justin's statement, that Tyre was built in the year before
the destruction of Troy, is put with Josephus' statement, that Tyre
had been built 240 years when Solomon began his temple (Ant., 8, iii:
1); so that, calling the destruction of Troy ng7 B. C, we have 1198 —
240=g58 B. C. for the beginning of Solomon's temple; whence Menan
der's 144 years carry us to B. C. 814, not 866.
§ 156. But no such mingling of one writer's date of one event with
another writer's date of another event, proves anything concerning
either's estimate of the interval between. For instance: Who knows
that Pliny believed in Aristotle's 287 years from Utica to Carthage ?
— without which he could not believe in Carthage as built in B. C. 814.
And who knows that Josephus thought Tyre was built the year before
Troy fell, or in the year ng8 B. C.?— without which he could not think
Solomon's temple began in B. C. 858. And who knows that Justin
thought there were 384 years between the beginning of Tyre and of
Carthage? — without which he could not think the latter to be B. C.
814. And so of every similar case. One or the other writer may be
mistaken;* and the self -confirming Bible Chronology can not thus be
overturned. § 157. It is by such coupling of diverse authors, that J. Schwartz
tries to boast of twelve ancient writers as testifying to B. C. 814, in
stead of the five shown above, all derived from one (probably mis
taking) source, viz., Timaeus, as we have seen. (Letter, Nov. 29,
1888.) Look at the matter again. We can not with any assurance combine
the date given by Cicero and others for the building of Carthage, with
(*Note.— That Josephus himself may perhaps be mistaken as to
Menander's amount of years, appears from the fact, that he (Josephus)
puts the founding of Solomon's temple in "the 12th year" of King
Hiram of Tyre; while we know that it was much later than that in
Hiram's reign. (See II Sam., v: 11, and I Ki. v: 1.) Moreover, Hiram's
reign as he cites it from Menander is but "34 years," while' it requires
his whole life of Hiram, "53 years," to make out his total down
to Dido. This, whole matter of Hiram's reign seems to be given
wrongly.)

THE KINGS 207
the interval given from Menander for the. flight of Dido. How long
was the building of Carthage after Dido quit Tyre? Who knows?
Menander makes her brother Pygmalion still reign at Tyre 41 years
after "his sister fled away from him;" and she, after a while getting
up an expedition, and subsequently stopping with her fleet in Cyprus,
may have lived as long as her brother, before in Africa she saw Car
thage rebuilt.
§ 158. We now give a sure proof, that the Bible Chronology can
not, by any device, be reconciled with the date 814 B. C. of Timaeus
for the building of Carthage, and at the same time with the 144-yeat
interval of Menander back to the temple. This makes Solomon's
temple to begin at (814+144=) 958 B. C. ; and Schwartz sb assigns it.
But when he and others interpret the Assyrian Chronology in the
Eponym Canon as referring to Jehu, king of Israel, the first year of
Jehu is thus compelled to be no later than B. C. 841; leaving but (958-
841=) 117 years from the founding of the temple to Jehu. ¦ Now, script
ure makes the time from Jehu back to the death of Solomon to be 91
years, and the multiplied interlocking cross-dates or synchronisms
utterly forbid any shorter reckoning. To which adding only 36 of Solo
mon's "40 years " back to his "4th year," makes (91+36=) 127 years,
as the shortest possible interval from.Jehu back to the founding of the
temple, or from 841 to 968 B. C.
This latest possible date is 10 years (or at least 9) earlier than the
958-9 B. C. which Timaeus' 814 + Menander's 144 requires. So that,
to overcome the discrepancy, Schwartz* has to reduce Solomon's " 40
years" reign arbitrarily by six years ! and then to reduce the subse
quent interval to Jehu by 3 years more, so as to reach B. C. 959 (sub
stituted for' 958), — in violation of numerous concurring synchronisms
and reign-lengths of Scripture ! Such mutilation of the Bible is not
harmonizing it with profane chronology, as professed; but it is treating
the inspired book as utterly inaccurate in its historical accounts.

CHAPTER III.
Egyptian History and the Jewish Kings.
§ 159. It is claimed that Egyptian chronology puts the beginning of
Shishak's reign (I Ki. ii: 40 and xiv: 25) as much as 40 years too late
to agree with the scripture date of Solomon's death as B. C. 974. We
proceed to show, that the Egyptian reckoning is altogether uncertain,
and cannot set aside the Bible Chronology, which is so well assured
and indisputable in its data.

**Theolog. Monthly, London, 1889, March, p. 163.

¦308 period e
There are three sources of argument used for the Egyptian dating
-claimed, (i) The added Egyptian dynasties of Manetho. (2) Man-
¦etho's mention of the Olympic era. (3) Astronomical allusions.
Manetho's Dynasties.
§160. (I.) The added Egyptian Dynasties of Manetho. George
Rawlinson, in his History of Ancient Egypt (Vol. II, p. 7) says:
"Thus far back (to 'Tirhakah ', II JCi., xix: a ) the dates are as nearly
as possible certain, and accord with Scripture. From the date of Tir-
hakah's accession, we are thrOwn almost entirely upon Manetho," —
who wrote his history of Egypt nearly 500 years after Tirhakah.
Here let us remark, how uncertain is any reckoning that depends upon
Manetho. His work is lost; and we have to rely altogether upon the
conflicting accounts of it contained in various authors.
Says Anthon (Class. Die), ." Considerable fragments are preserved
in the treatise of Josephus against Apion; but still greater portions in
chronicles of George Syncellus, a monk of the gth century, which
were principally compiled from the chronicles of Julius Africanus and
from Eusebius, both of whom made great use of Manetho's history.
The work of Africanus is lost; and we only possess a Latin version of
that of Eusebius, which was translated out of the Armenian version at
Constantinople." It will be seen at once how undecisive must be dif
fering data derived thus second and third handed from the original
historian, even supposing him to be fully reliable, which is a matter in
question. § 161. The Encyc. Brittanica (newest edition, art. Egypt) tells us:
" Manetho gave a list of .30 dynasties and the length of each, with in
some cases the duration of the indivual reigns. Manetho's list 'is un
happily in a very corrupt condition." Schwartz says: "Manetho's
dynasties have not come down to us in their original form, but through
successive corruptions, in which each successive author tried to accom
modate them to his special ' system ' of Biblical chronology. It is
therefore necessary, by comparing the various versions, to restore the
original form of the lists." Yet Schwartz thinks to make out an as
sured date for Shishak (contrary to that of the Bible) from data so con
fused and corrupted as these ! And to make out such an anti-biblical
reckoning, he entirely throws out one dynasty, and makes the dynas
ties overlap each other; while Schwartz arid Bunsen, and other kin
dred critics, greatly disagree as to'the manner and extent of the over
lap. (See period D, § 102).
§ 162. Prof. Lepsius and M. Mariette are the two Egyptologists
who give a definite arrangement of the dynasties throughout. (See
in Encyc. Brittan.) Their tables of dynasty lengths agree, from the be
ginning of the igth dynasty to the beginning of the 22d, total 482 years

the kings 209
(Eusebius makes 502 or 510.) M. Mariette has Shishak beginning the
22d dynasty B. C. 980, Lepsius 961. This 22nd dynasty Lepsius makes
174 years, and M. Mariette makes it 170 years, or 34 years more than
the " 116 or 120 years " given by Africanus. Bunsen well says; " It
is generally admitted that, according to~the monuments, [we add ac
cording to the Scriptures also] , more time must be allowed for the en
tire reigns of the 22nd dynasty" than this "120 years" of Africanus
seems to give. So he arbitrarily makes it 148 years (from B. C. 948),
while Schwartz arbitrarily calls it 143 years (from B. C. 937).
Here, then we are all afloat, and any assured dating is out of the ques
tion. Here are four different lengths given for the 22nd dynasty (from
the accession of Shishak downwards) by as many different writers of
Egyptology; viz., 143, 148, 170, 174 years ! How evidently uncertain is
the whole reckoning. Hence, our calculations of th&dynasty as 154 or
i5g years is as likely to be true as any of the others.
§ I631. George Rawlinson (Vol. II., p. 7) tells us: "To the two
dynasties preceding the 24th, (viz. to the 22d and 23d dynasties),
Manetho assigned 2og years, according to Africanus in Syncellus; "'
which makes the 22d dynasty 120 + 8g years for the 23d, (or 160+49
see § 166). He says: " The Saite dynasty (the 24th) consisted of but
one king, Bocchoris, who reigned 44 years according to the Manetho of
Eusebius inSyncellus; " which, with the death of Bocchoris (at the ac
cession of Seveh or "So," II Ki. xvii: 4) put as B. C. 722, makes
" Shishak begin (B. C. 722 + 44 + 209=) g75 B. C.,"says Rawlinson,—
(adding, that the 6 years only of Bocchoris in Afric. 's Manetho would
reduce it 38 years).
Thus Rawlinson finds Manetho's dynasties giving B. C. g75 for the
beginning of Shishak; while M. Mariette finds it B. C. g8o, i. e. 5 years
earlier. And the accession of " So " was probably as much as 5 years
earlier, in B". ,G. 727, instead of 722. (It must be before Hoshea's 9
years from B. C. 729 to 720 had far advanced. See II Ki. xvii: 1-4.)
Both these distinguished Egyptologists thus found the dynasties of
Manetho yielding a date for Shishak in harmony with Scripture.
The Olympic Era.
§164. (II.) Bunsen remarks, that " Manetho -states positively
that the first Olympiad was celebrated in Egypt during the 40 years'
reign of Petubastes, the first king of the 23d dynasty." It must be
remembered that Manetho was writing more than 500 years after the
time spoken of, and might easily mistake as to a date so far away; so
that this remark, if correctly reported, and if meaning just what is as
cribed to him, (which may be doubted), can have no such sure author
ity as to overturn the assured dating of the contemporary Scripture
history.

210' period e
Besides, there is something peculiar in the expression as to cele ¦
brating an " Olympiad," instead of holding Olympic games, and as to
this being "in Egypt,'" rather than at Olympia in Greece. This sug
gests that the reference is not to the current Olympic Era, 776 B. C,
but to the beginning of the first Olmpic period of 4 years, as ended not
begun (by Egyptian estimate) at 776 B. C, i. e., as beginning B. C.
780; or even as beginning back at B. C. 828, when Iphitus first revived1
these Olympic games, according to Callimachus, (endorsed by Clinton,
Fas. Hel., vol. 2, p. 408, note h. So in Anthon's Class. Die, Art.
Olympia. (See here, § 151.)
If the Olympic era referred to means B. C. 828, then the 22d
dynasty may end anywhere from B. C. 868 to 828, and even the 120
years given by Africanus for the 22d dynasty will carry us to any point
from B. C. 988 to 948 for the beginning, of Shishak; which agrees with
the scripture dating of him, as reigning at B. C. 975.
§ 165. But if the^lympic era referred to means B. C. 780, as the
beginning of a first Olympic period supposed then to begin, (with the
first Olympiad ending in B. C. 776,) — this will accord with Schwartz'
own reckoning of Olympiads, by which alone (as ante-dating B. C.
776) he makes out his chronology of the period, (he making Africanus
have the Olympiads beginning as early as B. C. 779). And this will
also give a scriptural dating for Shishak. ,
For, Manetho's naming of the celebration of a first Olympiad in
connection with the reign of Petubastes' 40 years, would be a very
vague way of speaking, unless he meant that that reign did not close till
that date, or had some such special reference. Therefore, the 40 years
are as likely as any way to begin at (B. C. 780+40=) 820 B. C. as the
beginning of' the 23d dynasty (instead of M. Mariette's 8ioj Bunsen's
800, Schwartz' 794, or Lepsius' 787.) Then, the 120 years given by
Africanus from Petubastes to Shishak, which all the "critics enlarge
one way or another, is best considered as having originally referred not
to tlie beginning of Shishak, but to his end in (B. C. 820+120=) 940
B. C. So that, the reign of Shishak (34 years in Syncellus) is to be
added to the 120 years of Africanus^ making 154 years as the real length
of the '22d dynasty (rather than the 143, 148, 170, 174 of the various
authors.) This carries us to (B. C. 940+34=) 974 B. C. for the begin
ning of Shishak, the very year of Solomon's death according to the
Scripture chronology. It might be the news of a new dynasty in Egypt
(inimical to Solomon's father-in-law), that led Jeroboam to flee to that
particular retreat just before Solomon died. (See I Ki. iii: 1, comp.
xi: 40.) *
* For our reckoning of Manetho's Olympic reference as putting it
earlier than B. C. 776, we have the sanction of Schwartz, as seen
above. For our inclusion of all the 40 years of Petubustes in the pre-

the kings ' 211
§ 166. Suppose we understand Manetho as putting the end of Petu
bastes' 40 years at the Olympic B. C. 776. This carries the beginning
of that king (and dynasty) to B. C. 8i6^and requires dynasty 22 to be
only 159 years long (similar to Rawlinson's value — see above—), in
order to reach B. C. g75, as a scriptural dating point for the reign of
Shishak. (M. Mariette increases the isg to 170, and Lepsius to 174
years.) Rawlinson notes, that Manetho in Eusebius has the 23d dynasty but
44 years, (like the 24th); so that, Manetho has here left out (89 — 45=)
44 years, and may have offset (in Euseb.) by adding 40 or 45 to the pre
vious 22d dynasty, making it thus (i20+40=)i6o years (as seen in §163),
or even 165, (not Mariette's 170 or Lepsius' 174.) Then, by Manetho in
Eusebius, we have the 22nd dynasty 160 years from B. C. 975 to 815 (or
even 165 years from the B. C. g8o of Mariette), and the 23d dynasty 44
years from B. C. 815 to 771, and the 24th dynasty also 44 years from
B. C. 771 to 727, as the death of Bochoris and the beginning of " So"
(or Shabak) in the 3d year of Hoshea, (II Ki. xvii: 1-4), which last
(727) is a more reasonable date than the 722 of Rawlinson, (see §163.)
And these dates, B. C. g75 for the accession ,of Shishak, and B. C. 815
for the accession of Petubastes are in accordance with the requirements
of the case. (See §164. Also, Period D, §115.)
Thus to put the beginning of Petubastes (and the 23d dynasty) in.
the neighborhood of B. C. 820, is certainly a more reasonable assign
ment than the later dates, given, (M. Mariette 810, Bunsen 800,
Schwartz 7g4, Lepsius 787). 'For, the next two dynasties (23d and 24th)
Olympic period, we have the sanction of Bunsen, when he says, that
, with that 40 and the 120 of Africanus preceding it (total 160 years) reck
oned from his (Bunsen's) beginning of Shishak's sole reign (as in B. C.
935)i we should have B. C. 775; so that, the year of the ist Olympiad in
B. C. 776 would have fallen in the reign of Petubastes. Then again,
for our reckoning of the "120 years " of Africanus as reaching back
only to the end of Shishak, we have also the sanction of Bunsen, when
he takes the smaller "116 years " of Africanus, and reducing it to 114,
makes this reach back from Petubastes (B. C. 800) to his end of
Shishak (as gi4)+34=g48 B. C. for his beginning of Shishak.
Thus we have every step of our reckoning (B. C. 780+40+120+34=
g74 B. C), endorsed by these critics themselves; which shows that this
our combination of those values is as likely as any reckoning to be
right. Our treatment of the ' ' 120 years " without alteration is certainly
more simple and rational than that of Bunsen in arbitrarily reducing it
to 114, or that of Schwartz in arbitrarily increasing it to 130 back to
Shishak's invasion, or 143 to his accession.
(This notion of Schwartz, that Africanus (in giving but 21 years to
Shishak), purposely left out 13 years as being before the invasion, and
that Eusebius also (in giving Petubastes but 25 years), purposely left
out 15 years as being beford the Greek Olympic era reckoned as 77g
B. C, is certainly more fanciful than convincing.)

212 period e
will rightly give us 92 years, from B. C. 820 or 816, to B, C, 728 or 724,
as the proper date of the scriptural " So " beginning the 25th dynasty.
Both Bunsen and Schwartz give dynasty 23 as 58 years (the same as
Lepsius); and Bunsen puts dynasty 24 as 34 years; making 92 years as
just given. Rawlinson says that Eusebius has Manetho's dynasty 24
as 44 years, and the 23d also as 44, making the two 88. But he tells us
that Africanus gives Manetho's 22d and 23d together as 209 years, which
+Eusebius' 44 for dynasty 24=253 years, from B. C. 722 (for "So")
back to B. C. 975 (for Shishak.) So says Rawlinson. And thus, Man e-
tho's dynasties, when taken continuously, — without one whole dynasty
dropped out completely (as done by the critics) under the unproved
assumption ofl contemporary feigns, are found to be in complete agree
ment with Scripture.
§ 167. For there (in II Ki. xvii:'i-4) we read of Hoshea, who reigned
B. C. 729-720, as seeking alliance with " So (Sabaco), king1 of Egypt;"
which therefore must have been somewhere from B. C. 728 to 722, as
just now reckoned. And (at xix: g) we read of "Tirhakah, king of
Ethiopia," kinsman of Sabaco, (see Prideaux, year fio), as coming to-
attack the Assyrian king (in B. C. 712-708). Thus that 25th dynasty
began with "So" or Sabaco somewhere before B. C. 728 or 722.
(Usher has it 727, Rawlinson has it 722). "It was then that Sabaco,
king of Ethiopia, having taken Bocchoris (who constituted the 24th
dynasty), and burned him alive, set up the new or Ethiopic dynasty,
the 25th of Manetho." (Chambers' Cyc. Art. Egypt.) *
* " After reigning 8 years, Sabaco (or So) was succeeded by his son
Sevechus, whom Heroditus calls Sethon." (Prideaux yr. 720). Raw
linson says of "the synchronism of Shabak (Seveh or So) with
Hoshea," — " It is generally allowed, that the 'So' or Sevekof II Ki.
xvii: 4 represents Shabak, in whose name the k is unimportant, being
merely the suffixed article.1 (See Brusch)." Anthon (Art. Egypt)
tells us: "The (four) names inscribed on the monuments are Schabak,
Sevek-otheph, etc., all of whom are mentioned either by Greek or
sacred historians, under the names of Sabacon, Sevechus, etc. No
more than three of these kings are mentioned in the list of Manetho as
belonging to this dynasty, the last being included in that which fol
lows." "
But Bunsen names the father Zeth or Sethos, making his reign (as
31 yrs.) an addition to the 23d dynasty, with 23 yrs. of it spent along
side of Bocchoris of the 24th dynasty (as contemporary), and making
the last 8 yrs. of it spent (seemingly in joint reign) with the son Sevek
(as ending B. C. 711). He says: "The last king of the 23d dynasty
was Zeth, long recognized as the Sethos whom Heroditus helps us to
identify with the, advance of Tirhakah, B. C. 711." M. Mariette has
the 24th dynasty only 6. yrs. (B. C. 721-715), and Lepsius has it but 13
yrs. (B. C. 72g-7i6). Schwartz begins the 26th dynasty at B. C. 6g2,
and throws out entirely the 25th dynasty, as contemporary with the
24th and 26th. It is only by such gratuitous violations of Manetho's
dynasties, that the critics try to make out their later dating of Shishak.
How unreliable such chronology!

the kings 213
Astronomical Allusions.
§168. (III.) Schwartz (Letter, Oct. 29, 1888) says: "Shishak 34
years from B. C. 937 to 903, then Osorkon I for ig years to B. C. 884,
then Tukelut I; his 15th year=870 B. C, in which an eclipse of the
moon is recorded, as occurring on the 25th of the month Mesori; and
the only eclipse visible in Egypt during that gth century B. C. that
fell on the 25th Mesori was in B. C. 870." But what if the eclipse
occurred (say) forty years earlier, in the previous century? In 40
years, 25 Mesori would range through 10 days of the Julian year
during which it would be very remarkable for no eclipse of the moon to
occur, — since every lunar eclipse is visible in all places. Besides, we
have no assurance, that the reigns were only 67 years from this
eclipse back to I Shishak, as Schwartz here makes them. So that,
there is no certainty about this astronomical argument.
§ i6g. Again Schwartz says: " My researches place the ist yr. of
Tukelut II in B. C. 852 (or 32 years after Tukelut I began); so that his
nth year would be B. C. 842; — in which year we are told that the
rising of Sothis heliacally was on the ist of the month Tybi; and
that ist Tybi fell on July 20 (the Sothiacal date) only in B. -C. 845-2."
But, though July 20 was the Sothiacal date in the time of Censorinus,
(A. D. 238), it was not so in B. C. 842. Besides, Mr. Schwartz'
"researches" may be misleading; and we have no assurance that the
reigns were only 85 years from the, ist Tukelut II back to the ist
Shishak, as Schwartz here makes them. There may have been 123
years or more back to B. C. g75 or earlier, as the researches of others
indicate. So that, there is no certainty about thisastronomical argument.
§ 170. On the whole, our calculation of Shishak (from Manetho) as
beginning the 22nd dynasty in B. C. g75 or 4, the year before Solomon's
death, in conformity with Scripture reckoning, is as reasonable as any
of the theories devised by the critics. At the same time, the entire dis
cussion shows, how very uncertain are all those outside historical reckon
ings, compared with the full, duplicated, harmonious Bible chronology.
The result of all is, that the Egyptian chronology plainly can
give us no assured dating to compete with Bible chronology, or to set it
aside as incorrect. And it is just so with the Tyrian and the Assyrian
data. All these pagan reckonings are vague and uncertain, as com
pared with the Hebrew records, which we have shown to be very exact
and evidently prepared upon the spot with careful effort to measure the
time. The best that these outside figurings can do, is to show, that z/Script-
ure itself should be found to require a later dating of Shishak and Sol
omon, the pagan reckonings could be made to conform thereto. But
with the Bible chronology as it stands, there is nothing outside
that can prove it untrue.
[The reply to Schwartz Review is left in MSS. J

PERIOD D.— THE JUDGES.
PART I.

From the Exodus to Solomon's Temple.

CHAPTER I.
The -Interval of the 580 Years.
§ 1. The dates and the length of time from the exodus to David, are
very distinctly and unmistakably given us by Paul, in his speech at
Antioch, Acts xiii: 17-22; making, to Solomon's Temple, as follows:
Moses, in the wilderness, 40 years, A.cts xiii: 18.
Joshua, until the allotment, 7 " " " ig*
udges, to and with Samuel, 450 " " " 2of
Saul, the first king, 40 " " "21
David, the man of God, 40 " II Sam. v: 4
Solomon, until the Temple, 3 "II Chron. iii: 2
Total, 580 years.
This period of 580 years, therefore, is most clearly and decisively
the true Scripture interval from the - Exodus out of Egypt to the
founding of Solomon's Temple. In I Ki. vi: 1, the date of the temple
is given as "in the 480th year"; where the 4 (instead of 5) is evi
dently a mistake of copyists, which was not misleading Paul, as it is
misleading many in our day.
There are known to be two or three instances (at the least) in the
Old Testament of the miscopying of a single figure; and it is wonder
ful that there are no more. One of the cases is at II Chron., xxxvi: g,
"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign;" which is
corrected by II Ki., xxiv: 8, " Jehoaichin was eighteen years old when
* " Destroyed seven nations " is equivalent to "gained possession in
seven years." The allotment began in the 47th year,- z. e., 46^ years
from the Exodus; as we learn from Josh., xiv: 1, 2, 7, 10, comp. with
Num., x: 11, and xiii: 25.
fAs to the revised reading of this text see § 27.

THE JUDGES 215
he began to reign." So, the "480th year" of I Ki., vi: 1 is corrected
by the enumeration of Paul in Acts 13th. We may perhaps fairly as
sume, that God has not suffered any copyist's error of this sort to
creep into His Word without some means of correcting it, as in these
cases. The "450 Years."
§ 2. The precise agreement of Paul's enumeration with the num
ber given in I Ki., vi: 1, as thus set right, is proof that his value
"about 450 years " is the true interval from the allotment of Canaan
to the beginning of the kingdom under Saul. And this is the exact
amount found by adding up the several lengths of time given in the
book of Judges, with 40 years added from the first-named oppression
of " Chushan-rishathaim 8 years " (Ju., iii: 8), back to Joshua's allot
ment of the land.
The book of Judges plainly intends to give a continuous history,
with its successive numbers showing the whole length of time occu
pied. The honest way, therefore, is to add up all its numbers as giv
ing the period that it covers, leaving the subsequent books (of Ruth ,
and Samuel) to begin back upon the same period, if they so appear.
Treated in this fair manner, the book of Judges adds up just 4iQ,years;
and the " about 450 years " of Paul for possession of the land and for
"judges," evidently means to cover the book of Judges, with a ter
minal 40 years for the events at its beginning and close.
This mode of adding up the 450 years made the judges to end with
the book of Judges, viz., with Samson's 20 years at chap, xvi: 31,
where the book properly ends.% For, the last five chapters of Judges
are an Appendix, belonging chronologically to the anarchy that pre
vailed in the time of the first two chapters, until Othniel, the first of
the Judges (iii: g). " In those days there was no king (or judge) in
Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes. " (Ju.,
xvii: 6, and xviii: 1, and xix: 1, and xxi: 25.) It is in this order that Jo
sephus gives tjie history (Antiq., 5, ii) and all expositors are agreed in
this arrangement.*
§ 3. Moreover, the following book of Ruth, and the first chapters
of I Sam. are cotemporary history, dating back into the time of the
book of Judges, as is now generally agreed. Samson's dying slaughter
of the Philistines, with which the order of history in Judges ends
(with chap, xvi), so emboldened God's people, that "Israel went out
?We must add, by way of postscript, that in the Bib. Sacra (Oct.,
1891, p. 660, 661), appears a treatment of this Appendix to Judges as if
belonging there chronologically. It is' one or the most astounding
oversights by professed bible scholarship that we have ever seen com
mitted in so high a quarter.

216 PERIOD D
against the Philistines to battle "; which battle resulted in Eli's death,
as narrated in I Sam., iv: 1-18. So that Eli's 40 years of judging
(ver. 18) had counted backwards over Samson's 20, and beyond, cover
ing the last 20 of the Philistine invasion (Ju., xiii: 1). Eli ruled at
Shiloh where the ark abode; and Samson ruled at the same time in the
more southern or Philistine country. This is the reckoning as still
given in our common chronologies (from Usher); that of Scott's bible,
for instance, which describes it as the reckoning of "some learned
men. (Note.— The Septuagint has Eli ruling but 20 years, i. e., the
same 20 as Samson, following the Philistine 40 years.)
But to reckon the well-understood "450 years" of the judges as
thus beginning at Joshua's apportionment of the land, would not agree
with the fact that the first judge, Othniel, did not begin till long after
that (Ju. iii: g); so that, some were led to substitute (for this 40-year
interval at the beginning) the 40 years of Eli as if additional at the
end. So Eusebius gives it. Still, this left no time for Samuel as one
of the judges; concerning whom Josephus tells us (Antiq. 6, xiii: 5):
"He governed and presided over the people alone, after the death of
- Eli the high-priest, twelve years, and eighteen years together with
Saul the king." These 12 years given to Samuel as judge, allowed but
28 of the 40 to go back before the judges, to reach Joshua's allotment of
the land.
§ 4. And Josephus, accordingly, reckons it just this way. For he
says (Ant. 5, i: 2g), "Joshua became Israel's commander after Moses'
death twenty-five years; " that is, 18 more after the 7 years at the
allotment of the land.* , (So Julius Africanus, A. D. 221, also puts it.)
And then Josephus adds (6,-v: 4), "In the days of Moses and his dis
ciple, Joshua, who was their general, they continued an aristocracy;
but after the death of Joshua, for 18 years in all, the multitude had
no settled form of government, but were in an anarchy [as also says
Ju. xvii: 6, etc.] ; after which they returned to their former government,
they then permitting themselves to be judged by him Who appeared to
be the best warrior, and most courageous; whence it was,. that they
called this interval of their governmeut 'the judges.' "
These " 18 years " of " anarchy," therefore, reach to the first judge
Othneil (iii: g), including the 8 years subjection to Chushan (ver. 8),
with 10 years before; which 10, with the 18 years of Joshua after the
allotment, amount to 28 years here at the beginning, with the 12 of
Samuel at the cloae, making up 40 of the 450-year period. Thus this
period, according to the Bible and Josephus, is constituted as follows:
* Eusebius gives Joshua 27; and he wrongly treats this whole reign
of Joshua (instead of his first 7 years), as excluded from the "450 years
of Acts xiii: 20; and he thus increases Paul's total, 580 from the Exodus,
up to the 600 years which he attributes to Paul.

THE JUDGES

217

§ 5. Period of the Judges.

9-
10.11.

13- 14.

Joshua ...... 18 more
Anarchy .... 10
Chushan  8
Othniel ..... 40
Eglon  18
Ehud  80
Jabin  20
Barak  40 (& Deb.)
Midian  7 [ ]
Gideon  40
Abimelech... 3
Tola  23 (22) [ ]
Jair  22
(¦ '300 years") 32g ["over 300."]
Ammonites . . 18
Jephthah .... 6
Ibsan  7
Elon  10
Abdon  8 '[ ]
Philistines ... 40 Eli 20

I-

s- as0)>,o

"Samson  20 Eli 20
Samuel  12
Total. '.  450*

1-2

Josephus

, 5, i: 29.

6, v: 4.

Judges,

3:8.

11.

(C

i4.

30.

4:3-
"
5:31-
6: 1.
i (
7: 28.
' '
g: 22.
"
10: 2.
((
3-
( t
11: 26.
"
10: 8.
12: 7.
i £
9-
' '
11.
14.
13: 1.
( C
15: 20.
Josephus
6, xiii: 5
Acts,
13: 20.
These Scripture numbers are all given just the same by Josephus,
except the three marked [ ], which are not clearly stated by him, (Tola
not being mentioned at all), though his aggregate requires all but
Abdon. This shows that our Hebrew bible is uncorrupted and just as
he had it (in the main), and that his view of the whole interval was
about the same as that of Paul, living at about the same period. The
reckoning agrees with the round number "300 years " mentioned in the
book of Judges (xi: 26) and in Josephus (5, vii: g), as seen above.
§ 6. Thus evident is it, that we have here the true Bible reckoning.
Every number is given in the Scripture itself, except the length of
Samuel's separate rule (12 as part of the "20" at I Sam. vii: 2), and
the gap after Joshua's allotment. And these two points (at beginning
?Josephus' reckoning, with 1 year given to Shamgar (Ant. 5, iv: 3; Ju.
iii: 31), will give, the total as 451, (i. e., " about 450 years, " as Paul says);
and this Josephus offsets by only 2 (not 3) years given to Solomon,—
the 40th year of David being dropped as a year of joint reign with Sol
omon. This makes Josephus have David begin B. C. 1053, instead of
the B. C. 1054 of our reckoning here. The reader may decide which is
right. Clement Alex, interprets Paul's "about 450 " (like Josephus) as
451, but with Josephus' extra 12 put into it, making it "463." (See
Restor. of Jos. § g2.) See Appendix A, here, § 41.
218 PERIOD D
and end of the 450 years period) are very clearly established by Jofce-
phus; while their amount and the total interval are decisively fixed by
the figures of Paul.
But it is around these two points that the chief divergences of opin
ion and variations of reckoning have arisen. By adding Eli's 40 years
(with or without Saul reduced 20 years), one and another of the Jew
ish teachers and early Christian fathers, got the interval from the Ex
odus to the Temple as 600 or 620 years (instead of Paul's 580). Jose
phus, reckoning the full (Philistine 40 + Samson 20 + Eli 40=) 100
before Samuel, instead of the right 60, — and then reducing Saul's 40 to
20, — made out 20 too many, or a total of 600 (as given in Eusebius).
But for a reason which we elsewhere explain (see here, § 69), Jose
phus reduced the 600 to 592, by letting the 8 of Abdon overlap (not
naming it in his account). Subsequently, Theophilus (A. D. 171) got
the interval to 612, so using the 612 of Jos.' Priest-Record as if ending
at the 4th of Solomon. (The Paschal Chronicle gets in 20 more, making
632.) Clement Alex, increased thei" 450 years " of Paul by 13 years up
to "463 "; and he had the 592 to the temple, though sometimes calling
it 573 and 566 (which last number Eusebius cites as ' ' from the Syrian
Records"). See Jackson. .All these values are derived from a 58 J
years' reckoning originally understood, but not expressed in I Ki. vi! 1.
The Exodus Date.
§ 7. In Period E, § 5, we have shown, that Solomon began the tem
ple in the 4th year of his 40 years' reign, B. C. ion, i. e., 3 years from
his coronation or from his father's death. (See here, § 41.) With our
interval of 580 years back from this point, we reach (1011 + 585=) 1591
B. C. as the date of the Exodus. But with "the 480th year " of I Ki.
vi: 1, we reach only (ion +479 =) i4go B. C, not Usher's i4gi, as the
Exodus date.
No early writer gives any such smaller reckoning as ' ' the 480th year, "
until it is set forth by Eusebius (A. D. 325). In agreement with many
able scholars,' we j ridge that this 480 must be a corruption of the text,
that crept in not very long before Eusebius' day. (This is fully dis
cussed here, in Part II, §58.) We here proceed with the proof, that
580 (not 480) is the correct Scriptural number.
Sabbatic Confirmation.
§ 8. The 580 years reckoning gathered from Paul and the Judges,
is shown to be right by the Sabbaticand Jubilee reckoning of the Jews.
Josephus instructs us (Antiq. 14, xvi: d), that a Sabbatic year ended at
Herod's conquest of Jerusalem, in the autumn of B. C. 37 (as well as
B. C. 163, etc.), — with Jubilee Sabbatic ending in B. C. 23. So that it
was a Jubilee at A. D. 27, when Christ spake as in Luke, iv: 19; and

THE JUDGES 219
just 21 Jubilee periods before, in B. C. 1003, Solomon's temple was •
dedicated (I Ki. viii:63, 65), at a Jubilee as is generally agreed. And 12
Jubilee periods, or 588 years before, carry us to B. C. 1591 as the Ex
odus date, 580 years before the founding of the temple in B. C. ion.
So that, by this reckoning, the starting point of Jubilees was at the Ex
odus, where it should be, at the grand epoch of Jubilee deliverance.
(See Period E, §4g, etc.)
Hence the first Jubilee period of 4g years ended at g years of Joshua
(viz., at Josh, xxii: 1-34), when, the land being conquered and divided
by lot, the 2>£ tribes were sent away, and all settled down to their
home cultivation of the country. Not until then could they begin to
count their six years of established land-culture, followed by a 7th
"Sabbatic year," as required. (Lev. xxv: 3.) They could have no
Sabbatic till six years of orderly tillage; and no such orderly tillage
was there in the turmoil of war.
§ g. In the first seven years Joshua "destroyed seven nations"
(Acts xiii: ig), finishing the chief conquest of the land, and beginning
its allottment, as at Josh, xii-xv. But after a few tribes had received a
temporary apportionment, there was a suspension of the work, and
considerable delay in thoroughly surveying and more equitably allotting
the land, (Josh, xviii: 2, 7, etc.); until cities of refuge were assigned,
and cities for the Levites (eh. xx, xxi). And after that, when (in ch.
xxii) the 2^ tribes had been, sent away over Jordan, and, the army be
ing disbanded, all were settled in their homes, — then at length, after 9
years in Canaan, the nation felt that their Jubilee of finished exodus and
inheritance had come; and that, in beginning now their peaceful home
tillage, and no longer living as they had on the spoils of war, they must
count first six years of husbandry and then a Sabbatic year of rest, ac
cording to command.
Is riot this a more reasonable view of the begun Sabbatics (at 9 years
of Joshua or 49 from the Exodus), than the view maintained by some
(the Usher Chronolpgy , for instance) , — that the Israelites held their first
Sabbatic year, and let the land rest, as soon as they had been there 6
or 7 years only, fighting all the while and gathered in battle array,
away from any settled homes ? Would they, or could they, observe a
Sabbatic year with no non-Sabbatic or cultivation years before it, and
with no reference to a 49 year Jubilee interval preceding it ? This
Usher reckoning makes the Jubilees all date as from 2 or 3 years before
the Exodus, instead of all pointing back (as they should) to that great
honored epoch of Jubilee freedom to the Jews. We feel assured, that
we rightly reckon the Jubilees from the Exodus date, as the Modern
Jewish Chronology does. (See Period E, § 57~5g.)

220 PERIOD D

The "14 Generations."
§ 10. The same appears more certain from the Jewish reckoning of
generations, as given in Mat. i: 17. For convenience and symmetry they
made summaries of generations conformable to the Jubilee periods.
From Abraham to David they reckoned 70 years to a generation, in ac
cordance with the teaching (of Moses?) in Psm. xc: 10.* So that, the
deliverance from Egypt in 215 years from the arrival of Jacob there
was said to be "in the fourth generation" (Gen. xv: 16), i. e., after 3
times yo or 210 years.
And names were taken (of distinguished successors) to conform to
this number of generations: as at Ex. vi: 16-20, Levi, Kohath, Amram,
Moses. So at Mat. i: 3, Judah, Phares, Esrom, Aram, four names (after
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) finishing the first seven generations of 70
times 7=4go years in all. As many more added, or g8o years in all,
make 20 Jubilee periods, or twice -" seventy weeks " of years, or the
"fourteen generations," reaching from B. C. ig83, the Jubilee year, or
year following the offering of Isaac (at 12 years of age in ig84) down to
B. C. 1003, the Jubilee year of temple dedication, following the year
of finished temple sacrifice (on the same Mt. Moriah, in 1004.) This
was about g8o years from Isaac's birth to Solomon's accession; thatis,
14 generations (of yo years) from the call of Abraham to the reign of
David. § 11. Thus was the generation reckoning of the Jews conformed to
their favorite Jubilee periods, especially to those two celebrated Jubi
lees of sacrifice on the mount, B. C. 1003 and ig83, just 20 Jubilee
periods apart. And this generation reckoning gives
7 years for building the temple.
580 years back to the Exodus.
430 years back to Abraham's arrival, (see period C.)
— 37 years to the offering of Isaac.
g8o years=i4 generations.
*From David downward, the Jews halved the reckoning to an average
duration of 35 years for a generation of people, instead of 70 years for
individual life; having now 10 (instead of 20) Jubilee periods, viz, 4go
years to 14 generations. So that, the second "14 generations" in
Matthew reach from the temple Jubilee B. C. 1003 to the second temple
Jubilee B. C. 513 (or about 4go years from the accession of David, to
the death of the last king, in "the carrying away into Babylon," Jer.
lii: 31). And the third "14 generations" reach 4go years from the
second temple Jubilee B. C. 513 fo the Jubilee of Herod, B. C. 23; or
(roughly) from the generation containing the former date to the genera
tion (of 35 years) containing the later date and the birth of Christ. (In
the Bib. Sacra, 1888, p. 452-463, is a most complex, artificial, arid un
satisfactory theory of these "generations.")

THE KINGS 221

The Passover Sabbath.

§ 12. We have found confirmation of our 580 years reckoning in the
Jubilee and Sabbatic years of the Jews. We shall now find similar con
firmation in the Passover Sabbath. In connection with the. passover,
"the morrow after the Sabbath " was a notable day, the day of "first
fruits." (Lev. xxiii: 11, 15, 16.) Some think "the sabbath" here
means the 15th Nisan, the first of the seven days feast of unleavened
bread; so that the first-fruit offering would always be on the 16th Nisan.
But we have shown conclusively, (N. T. Appendix A, § 58), that "the
sabbath" here means the weekly sabbath coming on any day of the
paschal feast, from the 14th tp the 20th Nisan inclusive; so that, the
first-fruit offering came on any day of the seven days feast, from
-the 15th to the 21st Nisan inclusive.
The first occurrence of the first-fruit offering, on entering Canaan,
is recorded. in Josh, v: 10, 11; where we learn, that the eating, and
nesessarily the offering, of first-fruits was "on the morrow after the
, passover"; which we are expressly told (in Num. xxxiii: 3) means "on
the 15th day of the first month " Nisan. We thus learn unmistakably,
that "the morrow after the sabbath" being then on the 15th Nisan,
that weekly sabbath was on "the 14th of Nisan at even " when the pass-
over was observed. And we thus have the concurrence of a fixed date
<the Saturday sabbath) with an astronomically assignable date (the 14th
day of a lunar month.) See period G, § 58.
§ 13. This is the same concurrence, by means of which we have
astronomically demonstrated the Date of Christ's Death; and by this
same means we may now determine the correctness of our date assigned
for the Exodus, viz., B. C. 1591. For, we here demonstrate, that just
40 years after our Exodus date, viz., in 1551 B. C, the 14th of Nisan
¦ended (as it should) at sunset on Saturday, April 16 (O. S.), — just as
required by Josh, v: 10, n, and Num. xxxiii: 3.*
Then, just 40 years before this, the original passover of the Exodus
occurred, at sunset of Thursday, April 8, B. C. 1591; and Friday was
the 15th Nisan (or Abib), when the Israelites left Egypt (Num. xxxiii:
2). So that, adding 2g days, "the 15th day of the second month " was
oh Saturday, when they came unto the wilderness of Sin (Ex. xvi: 1).
Then, after 6 days of gathering manna, there followed the Saturday
*By the same process we learn, that in B. C. 1451, the 14th, of Nisan
¦ended on Tuesday, April 20; but in B. C. 1450, it ended On Saturday,
April g. So that, the (1451+40=) I4g3 B. C. (of Usher) will not answer;
though the 1450+40=) i4go B. C. would do, so far as Joshua's passover
is concerned, but the week-day of the Exodus and of the arrival at Sin
would not harmonize as above. (For the whole astronomical process,
see Appendix B, § 44).

222 PERIOD D
" Sabbath" (ver. 5, 22-26). Here we have a most wonderful concur
rence of dates, astronomically fixed, such as could hardly thus combine
harmoniously with Scripture in any other Exodus assignment. B. C,
i5gi seems to be proved as the year.
The view we here present, that the original reckoning at I Ki. vi: I
was 580 years, and that there was no "480th " in the original text, was
ably argued by the' learned John Jackson, in his Chron. Antiq. (Lon
don, 17*52, 3 vol. folio). And it was also defended in Elliott's Chron
ology, and elewhere; (though none of these writers have found the
true year of Exodus, B. C. isgi, because of error in period E.) We be
sides appeal to the following Ancient Authorities.
§ 14. In demonstration that we have rightly the reckoning of
Paul for the period of the Judges as about "450 years," and the whole
time intended at I Ki. vi: 1 as 580 years from the Exodus to the
temple, — we have the testimony of several ancient authors at and
before the time of Paul, giving us about the same values, as what they
learned from the Scriptures of their day.
First, we name Josephus (in Paul's own day), whose general reli
ability none can question. (See Rest, of Jos., Appendix A.) In his full
and careful history drawn from the Old Testament, and in his other
works, he repeatedly and constantly gives the interval from the Exodus
to the temple as " 592 years." (See Rest, of Jos. , Appendix G.) And
upon examining his method of reckoning, we find that he derived this
number from a 580 years value previously understood (but not ex
pressed) at I Ki. vi: 1. We have not room here to explain this in full;.
but we give the complete exhibit in our succeeding treatise, (" Origin
of the 480th year," §69 here). It is plain, that there was no such
reading as "480th year" in the Scripture text in the time of Josephus
(and Paul); for, if there had been, he would not,, in entire neglect and
evident ignorance of it, have given and insisted on the larger value, as
he does. § 15. We next cite two noted Jewish historians, who wrote about
200 years B. C; namely Eupolemus (B. C. 174) and Demetrius (B. C.
210). These authors give the LXX chronology as 2262 years frofn.
creation to the flood+1362 to Jacob's going to Egypt+215 to the Exodus
=3839 A. M. for the date of theExodus+" 1310" years to the 5th year of
king Demetrius in Asia, B. C. 294; saying that this latter date was
"5i4g A. M.," which (says Jackson) was 1012 — 2g4 B. C.=7i8 years
after the 4th year of Solomon. 'So that, they have ("1310" — 718=)
5g2 years from the Exodus to the 4th of Solomon, the same as Josephus
has. They know nothing of a "480th year " in Scripture, but only the
longer reckoning derived from 580, perhaps in the same way as
Josephus derived it. (See Rest, of Jos., Appendix G.)

the judges 223

The Old Priest Record.
§ i6. We now come to the original document, most plainly corrob*
orating our view. The Priest Record of the Jews already referred to
as used by Josephus, gives the lengths of the high-priesthoods from
the Exodus to the end of the captivity, as " 612 years " to the death of
Zadok (in .Solomon's reign), and then "466^ years" to (and including)
the captivity. This makes (612+466=) 1078 years, or just (1078-5-49=)
32 jubilee periods complete, between the start of jubilees at the Exodus
date and the jubilee at the close of the captivity.* This was prob
ably the official record of the Jews, and it agrees exactly with the
Scripture Chronology which we have shown in Period E, and with the
580 years which we claim as Scripture in Period D.
§ 17. For we proved the Scripture interval, from the founding of
the temple in the 4th of Solomon, to the beginning of the second tem
ple in the 2nd of Darius, to be 491 years (from B. C". ion to 520), just
as given by Josephus himself in the War; or, 490 years (10 Jubilees)
from Solomon's dedication in B. C. 1003 to the traditional dedication
given by Josephus at B. C. 513.! Now, the (612+466=) total 1078 years
of the Priest Record reaches back from its traditional B. C. 513 as the
end of captivity to B. C. isgi as the Exodus date, just where our 580
years reckoning puts it. That is, the total 1078 of the Priest Record,
minus the 4go, leaves 588 years before Solomon's dedication, or 580 be-
*That the ' ' 466 years " is meant to include the captivity, is apparent
from" three facts: (1) This Priest Record says, that in this interval
_" eighteen priests took the high-priesthood at Jerusalem; and, though
it names Jozedek as the last one at the capturing, yet Josephus' own
list (given at Ant. 10, viii: 6) has but 17 after Zadok, even including his
omitted Azarias, and requires the addition of Jozedek's son Jeshua
who served at the restored temple. (2) This Priest Record itself goes
on to give'the next interval down to the Maccabees, beginningit from
the restoration after captivity, as all scholars are agreed. The only
question raised is, at what particular point of the restoration it begins;
which shows that the previous captivity is certainly included in the
previous interval. (3) The Priest Record designates its latest interval
as the period of " democratical government," which shows that its
calling the previous interval a period of "regal government" meant,
that the Jews were under royalty (domestic or foreigri) until the " dem
ocratical government " was- fully established by them at the end of 70
years captivity. (See Rest, of Jos., §37.)
t Ezra vi: 15, 16, appears as if putting no time between the finish
ing and the dedicating of the second temple. But as at Solomon's
temple there was a year's delay after the finishing, purposely to bring
the dedication at the Jubilee festivity (from B. C. 1004 to 1003), — so Jo
sephus in the Priest Record follows the traditional view, that there was
similar delay at the second temple, purposely to bring this dedication
also at the Jubilee date (i. e., from B. C. 516 in Ezra vi: 15, to B. C,
513 in verse 16, the 6th to gth Darius.) See Restor. of Tos., § 24.

22i PERIOD D
fore the beginning of the temple, just as we claim. This shows that
. (612 — 580=) 32 years of the Priest Record's " 612," extend beyond the
beginning of the temple to the death of Zadok.
§ 18. Thus the 612+466=1078 of the Priest Record is the very 580
+8+4go=I078 of our reckoning drawn from Scripture, in agreement
with Josephus and Paul. Does not this prove that we are right, and
that this Priest Record is the original and official dating, of the Jewish
history found in the Bible?
The 1078 years of the Priest Record + the 400 years preceding the
Exodus (Gen., xv: 13; Acts, vii: 6), give 1478 years back from B. C. 513
to B. C. iggi, as the date of Ishmael's Egyptian "mocking" of Isaac
(at 5 years of age). So that, 8 years later (reducing the 1478 to 1470
years back) at B. C. ig83, the Priest Record had 1470 years of priestly
sacrifice, or (1470-=^=) just 30 Jubilee periods, — from the Jubilee fol
lowing the second temple sacrifice, back to the Jubilee following the
Isaac sacrifice (a year after he was 12 years old). A notable concur
rence of the Priestly with the Jubilee period!
' The Church Fathers.
§ ig. We further summon as witnesses all the early Christian fathers
and chroniclers, Theophilus of Antioch (A. D. 171), Clement Alex. (i8g),
Julius Africanus (221), the Paschal Chronicle, etc.; who all give the
longer interval from the Exodus to the temple, and know nothing of
the "480th year." Clement Alex, gives Josephus' reckoning 5g2
years, but he really makes out the true 580.* Theophilus increases it
to 612, the Pas. Chron. to 632. Eusebius had 600, Syncellus made it 659,
and attributed to Africanus '741. Eusebius (A. D. 320) is the first writer
proclaiming "the 480th year"; but he also gives Paul's reckoning as
600 (he should say 580), calling it the "apostolical tradition." f
* Clement Alex, gives the 592 years of Josephus, Demetrius, etc.
(as seen. in the Rest, of Jos., Appendix G), attributing the reckoning to
the "barbarians " or non-Christians. But he really by his numbers
makes the true 580 (though he wrongly adds). For, he puts the
" about 450" of Paul as being "463," and follows it by 27 years to
David, increasing the one and decreasing the other by 13, and so
reaching no change of total, thus: — Moses 40+Josh. 7+Judges 463+
27 to David+David 40+Solomon 3=580 years.* But by leaving out
the 7 of Joshua, he adds it up as only " 573." And again he adds it
thus: 40+7+Paul's 450111+27+40+3=" 566 " years only,— all evidently
false addings, founded on the true 580.
f Eusebius gives all the items from the book of Judges, the same
as in Josephus; except that Samuel is increased 8 (from 12 to 20), mak
ing Samuel and Saul amount to 40 years, and increasing the 592 to 600;
with Josephus' loss of 8 years at Abdon changed to a loss of 8 years
from the 10 of anarchy after Joshua, leaving but 27 years from Moses
to Chushan (as if all belonging to Joshua.) This 600 years reckoning of

THE JUDGES 225-
§ 20. A still more striking witness is Origen (A. D. 220). ' ' Origen
(Com. in Joh. p. i8y) cites the text I Ki., vi: 1, leaving out all that part"
about the 480th year interval. (Jackson, Chron. Antiq.) Here is as
good a proof of what Ovigen found or did not find in his copy of the
Old Testament, as if we had before us his own Ms. of the book of
Kings. And this is much earlier than any Ms. of Scripture that we
have. What further proof is needed, that the "480th year " is an in
terpolation, not introduced into the Hebrew text until as late, as the 3d
century, a short time before Eusebius?.

CHAPTER II.
Attempted Defences of "the 480TH Year."
§ 21. There are many who (with the Usher Chronology) attempt
to maintain "the 480th year" as the genuine originally given length of
time in I Kings, 6: 1. This 100 years of decrease from the 580 of the
items given in Scripture, is sought to be made out in different ways.
I. — The old method, reported by Eusebius as "Jewish tradition,"
was, to drop out the periods of foreign oppression named in the Scrip
ture narrative, they being treated as contemporaneous with the periods
of rule given to the judges. But there are insuperable objections to
this view.
§ 22. This is to treat the book of Judges in a manner entirely
anomalous, and unheard of in the interpretation of any other, history.
The book (until the appendix is reached at chapter 17) is on its face a
plain and orderly account of successive events, carefully giving the-
time-length of the peaceful periods and of the intervals between them.
Notice how explicitly the author introduces his history (at ii: 13-21), as
containing successive and alternating periods of servitude and inde
pendence (particularly ver. i_8, 19). And notice also how similarly
Samuel (at I Sam., xii: 9-1 1) and all the sacred writers ever afterward
described those alternating periods of peace and distress. A fondness •
for round numbers may have led the writer, in some instances, to put
a successive 19+ and 41 — as 20 and 40, or the like; but we have no
good reason to distrust the numbers, as meant for an accurate account
of the lapse of time.
Eusebius is adopted by Jaqkson as his own chronology; except that he
lets Samson's 20 years cover 20 years of the previous Philistine inva
sion, thus reducing the total to the right 580 years, which is Jackson's
reckoning. We pref er to use the same 580 years, with the items of
Josephus (and Paul), instead of Eusebius (and Jacksori) — namely: 10
not 2 of anarchy after Joshua's 25 years, offset by 12 not 20 for Sam
uel, with 40 for Saul not an extra 40 for Eli.

226 period d
§ 23. For instance, at the first transition (Chap, iii) we read (verse
il): " And the land had rest forty years. * * * And the children
of Israel did evil again — and because they had done evil (ver. 14), the
children of Israel served Eglon, the king of Moab, eighteen years; but
when they cried unto the Lord (ver. 30), Moab was subdued that day
under the hand of Israel, and the land had rest fourscore years." No
ingenuity can make it believeable, that those 18 years of intervening
foreign servitude are meant to be included as a part of either period
when " the land had rest."
So, also, when "the Lord delivered Israel into the hand of Midian
seven years," (vi: 1) — to include this either within the previous rule of
Deborah when "the land had rest forty years" (v: 31), or within the
subsequent rule of Gideon when ' ' the country was in quietness forty
years in the days of Gideon (viii: 28), i. e., after his conquest of Midian
— this seems really absurd. Moreover, in Deborah's time when "the
land had rest forty years," to include in this Jabin's period when "for
twenty years he mightily oppressed the children of Israel " after
" Ehud was dead " (iv: 1-3) — this seems equally absurd.* And so of
the whole book.
II. — In fact, so plain are the incongruities of this theory, of the
foreign oppressions as included in the reigns, that for a long time it
has been practically abandoned. And instead of it, various plans of
overlapping the reigns have been devised. A period of anarchy after
Joshua, without any reign, has to be allowed; and hardly any two
writers can agree as to the amont of this, or as to the right places for
making the overlap of reigns.
§ 24. A common way of trying to make out the 480th year is seen
in Scott's Bible, and is elaborated by J. Schwartz in the Bib. Sacra,,
(July, 1888, p. 449). The 40 years of Philistine oppression (xiii: 1) are
dated back over the previous reigns, beginning (it is said in the west)
when the oppression of the Ammonites began (in the east, x: 8). And
this is alleged, merely because " the Philistines " are named there (at
x: 6, 7) ! — though the very next verse (8) carefully distinguishes, that
the oppression begun "that year" was that of the Ammonites, "on
the other side Jordan" — in Gilead. And by this theory, the 20 years
of Samson, as well as the 40 years of Eli, are also dated back, as all
going on during, those 40 years of Philistine oppression! So that, the
109 years (of chap, x to xvi inclusive) after Jair to the death of
Samson, as given in Scripture (see our table before), are thus reduced
into the one item of Philistine oppression "40 years," with 69 years
entirely cast away !
* Deborah was perhaps mitigating the oppression during those 20
years of Jabin (see iv: 4); but those 20 years certainly were not in
cluded in the following 40 years of "rest."

THE JUDGES 227
§ 25. But even with this plan decided upon, hardly any two writers
can agree upon other required overlaps. The incongruities and con
tradictions of different attempts , made, we fully show in Appendix C,
§ 47 (which see). In such ways is the whole chronology of the judge
ship period thrown into confusion; though it is so simple and definite
when the full Scripture numbers are followed, as shown above.
Indeed, it is from this cause chiefly, that it has become fashionable,
even among scholars, to say, that the Bible Chronology generally, and
particularly in this period, is very confused and unreliable. It is so,
when you depart from the simple Bible record (compared in all its
parts, and so found consistent and plain), and undertake to fashion it
over to fit some fictitious number or plan. The Scripture numbers are
as authentic as any other Scripture statements; arid in the whole Bible
datings we find as yet but three or four miscopyings of a figure, (as few
and as easily correctible as other slips of the pen). Thus the Scripture
dates and periods of time are wonderfully lucid and definite, more so
than any history we know of, whether ancient or modern.
§ 26. Rightly studied and accepted as a whole, Bible Chronology is
one of the exact sciences. It forms a most convincing evidence of
divine inspiration; as we have shown in pur treatment of its various
periods. For instance, in the period before us, take the simple
inspired statements of Paul, compared with the book of Judges (un-
mutilated), and all the numbers harmonize most beautifully together,
as seen above (in our tables, § 1, 5); with all the complaints about con
fusion and uncertainty brushed out of the way.
Revised Reading of Acts, xiii: 20.
III. — Some of late have tried to bring confusion into the clear state
ments of Paul in Acts, 13th, by pleading the new reading of verse 20
(given in the Revised Version); as if it could be twisted into a dating
backward, or as saying " 450 years after Abraham's (or Jacob's) day,"
or the like. But,
§ 27. (1) What has Abraham's (or Jacob's) day to do with the story
Paul is telling, concerning Sod's guidance of " this people Israel" from
Moses to David, beginning (as he does) most explicitly from the Exo
dus ? He is plainly meaning to give an exact outline of that definite
period, with the correct intervals of time that elapsed from Moses to
David, showing how long it took to prepare the Israel redeemed from
Egypt for the kingdom of David and his son Messiah. And to pervert
his plain teaching, of the time the land was given to this-people Israel
as democratically their own, until they voluntarily gave it away to, a
king, (see I Sam., viii: 14), — to pervert this as if an irrelevant refer
ence back to some unknown date, which nobody can fix, — this is only
to throw ourselves gratuitously into that very confusion of chronology,
of which we forthwith proceed to complain.

228 PERIOD D
§ 28. (2) As the common reading of our King James Bible cer-
tainly does not admit of such a perversion, no more does .the new read'
ing admit of it. The revisers did not think that view possible, as is
shown by the "for" they insert. Neither their construction nor the*
Greek idiom allows us to understand it "450 years after" some vague
unnamed date; but the land is given as theirs "for 450 years," till
they give it away. If the changed order of the words must be ac~
cepted, (which is by no means certain), that somewhat peculiar order
is accounted for, thus:
Paul first names the 450 years of possessing the land democratically
until King Saul: but after giving the number, he bethinks himself to
add (parenthetically), that after a part of this period had elapsed, there*
were judges ending with Samuel. So the sentence is to be understood
in this way: " He apportioned the land as theirs about four hundred
and fifty years (and afterward gave Judges) till Samuel the prophet,"
who was superseded by King Saul. The parenthetic clause was meant ¦
to express, that the period of the Judges was not the whole 450 years of
inheritance, but began somewhat later, as we have seen (above) that it
did. § 29. And that the beginning of the kingdom under Saul was a not
able epoch, fit to be used by the Scriptures, as making the end of .430
years of democratic possession of the land, will appear very obvious to
any one reading the 8th chapter of I Samuel; where this man of God so
strenuously warns the people, that in obtaining a king, they are sur
rendering to him their land and its very soil, which had been graciously
given them to be enjoyed as their own in severalty. "And he said:
This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will
take your fields, and your vineyards, and your olive'yards, even the
best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the
tenth of your seed, — and the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his
servants" (ver. 11, 14, 17). The people's decision to have a king is
called a rejection of God and of the democratic homestead God had
given them in bringing them "out of Egypt" (x: 18, 19). And so, that
"450 years " interval became a marked period in the history of Israel's
discipline, which Paul did not fail to emphasize.
§ 30. (3) It is by no means certain that the revisers' new reading of
the text is right. The early Christian fathers read Acts, xiii: 20 just
as we do, with the 450 dating forward over the Judges. Earlier than
any of our Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Eusebius (A. D.
320) wrote, affirming that " Paul says there were 450 years of Judges. \
(Hist. ch. 16, Migne 150.) This testimony is better than even another
uncial Ms., in confirmation of the King James text of the passage; ori
at least, it confirms the sense we draw from the passage. For if, as
changed in the Revision, it compels a different meaning, then certainly
the copies used by the learned Eusebius (who would seek out the best

THE JUDGES 229
copies) did not contain the Revised text. This is a very strong argu
ment for the King James text; 'or at least, it demonstrates that the
"450 years " covers the period of the Judges, as we claim.
§ 31. Thus Paul's dates are simple and plain, and there is no need
of any confusion or mistake about the chronology, if we only take the
numbers as they are given. The attempt to get rid of the 450 years of
democratic land possession, is only a part of the attempt to maintain
the wrongly copied "480th year" of ist Kings; and the whole proced
ure is a most destructive one, violating numerous Scripture numbers
(as well as statements), just to save that one number "480." We in
our next chapter discuss fully the reasons that probably led to the mis-
copying of it (as 480 instead of the original 580); and when Paul's recti
fication of it is accepted, everything is left plain.
§ 32. The I Sam. vii: 2.
IV. — There are many who make a needless complication of the
" 20 years " statement in I Sam. vii: 2, and some other datings in the
same book. That is an incidental remark of the writer, introduced by
natural suggestion. When speaking of the ark taken to a certain place,
it was natural to mention by the way how long it was there; and to con
found things, as is done, by understanding this as a gap of 20 years-in
the history (a Philistine servitude, say some, the first half of 40 years in
Jud. xiii: 1, says Schwartz), intervening before the next event given, Sam
uel's victory over the Philistines — is an altogether needless derange
ment of the chronology. The writer simply remarks in passing, that
after the ark was recovered from the Philistines, remaining a long
while (about 60 years) at its new resting-place, Israel attended faith
fully to the worship of God in connection with it for the first twenty
years; that is, during the twenty years of Samuel's full care over them,
from Eli's death and the return of the, ark, until the rejection of Saul
as king, which led Samuel to retire from public affairs to a more private
administration. (Comp. xv: 35, and vii: 15.)
§ 33. In this verse (vii: 2), instead of " Israel lamented," the Re
vision marg. has " Israel was drawn together; " and Gesenius' Hebrew
Lex. (at J-l'fl'J Nahah) translates it, " 'all the house of Israel as
sembled themselves after Jehovah,' constr. pregnaus for 'they all with
one mind followed after Jehovah.' " And (at nTfil hahyah) it tells
us that after "it was" the seeming and often means that, "it was
that, and it came to pass that." So that, we should read here, " the
time was long; and it was twenty years that the house of Israel was
drawn together after Jehovah." It was not twenty years of Philistine
servitude, but twenty years of happy ark-service and worship under
Samuel, until the rejection of Saul.
These "20 years " covered the 12 years of Samuel's separate judge
ship from Eli's death to Samuel's address at the beginning of Saul's

230 PERIOD D
reign, and 8 more years till Saul was cast off, and the people again
strayed from God. And it was near the beginning of these twenty
years (and not at their close) that Samuel's reformation of the people
and triumph over the Philistines occurred (as vii: 13 asserts). This is
just the way in which. Josephus clearly arranges the years of Samuel;
and his account is reliable and in accordance with the Bible. There
need be no confusion of reckoning here; for Paul's account in Acts is
exactly conformed to these same years of Samuel and of Saul. (See
the tables at our beginning. )
§ 34. It seems that Samuel was born at about the beginning of
Eli's 40 years judgeship, being 12 years old when called of God, Eli
then being 70 or "very old" (as said at ii: 22, comp. iv: 15). So that,
at Eli's death (aged g8) Samuel was about 40 years old, and then
judged 12 years till he was 52; at which time he is called " old " (at viii:
:i) and "grey-headed" (at xii: 2). This does not mean "very old," as
in the case of Eli at 70. The Levites generally were regarded by the
Mosaic law as too old for full service at the age of fifty (Num. iv: 3,
23, 30, and viii: 25). As Samuel lived on through the greater part of
Saul's 40 years of reign, he must have been 80 or go years old at his
death. Other Points.
'§ 35. Professor Harper (in the S. S. Times, July 20) thinks that
there must be a gap of some years at chapter xi, because Saul is a
young man up to that time, and forthwith (at xiii: 1, 2) he has a grown
son Jonathan going to war. But the real account is rather this:
Chapter ix and x to ver. 17 is an episode, or going back to narrate pre
vious private affairs, suggested to the writer by his account of the
public complaints in chap. viii. When the people beg for a king, the
writer is reminded to go back and tell how, years before, Samuel had
privately anointed a youth to become ruler sometime (not then ex
pressed as a king); after which episode he resumes (at x: 17) the ac
count from chap, viii about the public demand and selection of a King.
That the demand for a king (chap, viii) connects close with the ac
count of Nahash (at chap, xi) is shown by what Samuel says at xii: 12.
And that the private anointing was years before is evident from the
whole story of it, which represents Samuel as at that time in his
prime, going about all his official circuit from place to place, long be
fore he had on account of years devolved much upon his sons, which
led to the open demand for a king. Thus Saul, like David, was pri
vately set apart years before his public recognition.
§ 36. Here we see an important principle followed in the writing -
of scripture as of other history. It is the principle of retrospection and
anticipation. Some open event often suggests to a writer some previous
preparatory incident, which he proceeds to interject into the account.

THE JUDGES 231
Nowadays, the use of the pluperfect (had been) carries us thus back
ward, and saves all mistake as to the order of time. But in the lack
of a pluperfect tense among the Hebrews, we have to watch the nar
rative more carefully to see when there is really a pluperfect sense.
This idiom will explain many points of chronology in the bible, which
some have thought obscure. For instance, the case before us; and
also Gen. i: 16, which means, "And God had made two great lights"
(the sun and the moon; that is, had made them before the six days be
gan, and now only set or exhibited them for regulators of day and
night on the earth's surface, by clearing away the clouds.
§ 37. In like manner, when a writer has struck upon a subject, he
incidentally anticipates the result of it, in order to finish that point be
fore going on with his current narrative.* Thus, as we have seen here
at I Sam. vii: 1, having told how the ark got to Kirjath-jearim, the
writer incidentally pauses to mention how long it there was treated with
respect; and then, at ver. 3, he returns to the events that followed its
being brought there.
Thus, also, at xvi: 14, the writer having just told how the Spirit of
the Lord first came upon David, is reminded to tell how, years after
ward, that Spirit of the Lord left Saul, and David was called in to
drive away the evil spirit that disturbed hirn. When this episode of
anticipation is finished with the chapter, the writer (at chap, xvii) goes
on with his regular history. And it will be found that the affair of the
episode belongs near the beginning of chap, xviii. f It was very likely
Jonathan here awakened to love, who afterwards was the "young
man " (xvi: 18, Revision) that came forward and had David sent
for. This arrangement relieves the otherwise inexplicable mystery of
Saul's not knowing David, at xvii: 55-58. (Note that David had
become a "valiant man of war," xvi: 18.) It also gives time for
the change in Saul at xviii: 8, otherwise unaccountable. In ver. 6
it seems to be David's later slaughter of Philistines (see Revision
marg.) not Goliah alone referred to. And xvii: prefers to David's going
"to and fro " (Revision) from his home to Saul's army (vex. ig).
§ 38. A similar case occurs at Gen. xxxv, where the writer finishes up
Jacob's affairs in Canaan, and is led by the mention of Esau (in ver. 29)
to go on and give the whole subsequent genealogy of Esau's race.
Whereupon, he returns (at chap. 37) to begin the story of Joseph, which
probably dates back before the events of the 34th chapter, % when Jacob,
returning from Padan-aram, first came and tarried awhile with his
* Thus are readily explained the interjected events of Gen. xxxviii,
etc., on which the critic Astrue (A. D. 1750) based his documentary
theory. (See Bib. Sacra, 1884, Oct., p. 673; and here, Period
C, § 29).
t Note that xvii: 55 to xviii: 5 is wanting in thelxx. See Revision.
X See Appendix D, § 54.

232 PERIOD D
father Isaac at Hebron. (Comp. xxxi: 3, 30, and xxxiii: 18, and xxxv: 9,
15, and xxxvii: 14. ) This we have fully shown in the' Bibliotheca Sacra,
July, 1887, p. 553.
A few such common-sense principles of interpretation, applied to
the Bible history as to other books, give us an harmonious Scripture
Chronology; which is wonderfully complete and satisfactory, greatly
confirming our faith in the Word of God. The loose remarks we so
often hear, about the uncertainty of Bible dating, and the little im
portance of correct dates, are made by those who have not thoroughly
studied this subject.
§ 39. As to the Egyptian monuments and inscriptions, the light
which they give toward fixing the date of the Exodus, is as yet very
vague and uncertain; and the most learned Egyptologists are very
widely divided in opinion as to the year, and as to which of the
Pharaohs was then in power. Their results will agree with the date
we give as well as with any others. This we will proceed to show in a
future number, — Part III, § 101.
§ 40. A life study of the subject has convinced us, that the safest
way is to search out and stand by the Bible datings in their simple and
harmonious consistency, as presumably correct; and wait for any fuller
scientific researches, to see if they can thoroughly prove at last that
such a palpable interpretation of the Bible is incorrect. It will be
time enough to begin tampering with the record, and readjusting the
obvious scripture dates, when excavation of inscriptions has fixed some
date for certainty, with the concurrence of investigators generally, —
a point far from being reached at present. Till then, we candidly own
our faith, that the simple Bible will come out uppermost in all re
spects.

APPENDIX A.
For § 5 note.
The "4TH Year of Solomon."
§ 41. In the Bib. Sacra (July, 1888, p. 447), J. Schwartz, Egyptol
ogist, of New York, says: "For some peculiar reason, not yet satis
factorily explained, the early Christian chronologists placed the build
ing of the temple in the 2nd, in place of the biblical 4th year of Solo
mon." Some light may come from the following:
The early chronologists largely followed Josephus; and Josephus
reckoned a joint reign of Solomon with hia father. (See I Kings, ist
chapter.) So that Solomon's 4th year iri all was reckoned as but 2
years after his father's death. The founding and finishing of the tem
ple in the "4th " and "nth " years of Solomon (I Ki., vi: 1, 38) were

THE JUDGES 233
in B. C. ion and 1004, the death of David beingin B. C. 1013, but with
the reign of Solomon beginning in B. C. 1014, and with that interme
diate year B. C. 1014-1013 as a joint reign. This made David begin in
(1013+40=) 1053 B. C, and Solomon end in (1014 — 40=) 974 B. C,
with only 79 (not 80) years to both reigns. And this made only 42
years and 49 years from the beginning of David to the beginning and
finishing of the temple, with one year more (an 8th of the temple, a
50th in all) to the dedication in B. C. 1003.
§ 42. This is just the chronology which Josephus gives in his
¦earlier work, the War; and this correct dating of Solomon's temple as
begun in B. C. ion, when put with the "480th year" (in I Ki., vi: 1),
gives the Exodus as B. C. 1490 (not Usher's 1491), or, put with the cor
rected 580 years, it gives the Exodus as B. C. 1591, the Bible date we
claim. (See § 13, note.) But now, on the other hand, if we treat the
temple founding in B. C. 1011 as "the 4th year of Solomon" alone,
{not 2 years but 3 years after the death of David), then the year of
joint reign is B. C. 1015-1014 (being an extra year in addition to Solo
mon's 40); and David's accessionis then B. C. 1054 (not 1053), andthe
total of both reigns is 80 (not 79) years. But, as in this case Josephus'
1 year of Shamgar is dropped instead of his 1 of Solomon dropped, the
Exodus and all previous dates remain unchanged. It is by this latter
method, with David's accession at B. C. 1054, that we reckon here, (at
§ 1, etc.); while Josephus always has it at B. C. 1053. Which is the
more correct, everyone may judge for himself.
$ 43. We have given above the chronology of Josephus in the
War. But in the Antiquities, he seems to change the temple one year,
while still retaining David's accession as B. C. 1053. He there reckons
"" the 4th year of Solomon" as not including the year of joint reign
B. C. 1014-1013, but as 3 years (instead of 2) after the death of David
in B. C. 1013, viz., in 1010 (not ion), for the founding of the temple.
This was to understand the " 4th year " and the " nth year " of Solo
mon as 43 and 50 (not 42 and 49) years after David's accession, from B.
C. 1010 to 1003 (instead of ion to 1004 as previously) — with the 8th year
¦omitted, i. e., with the dedication in B. C. 1003 taken as the same 7th
year as the finishing of the temple.* But this change of 1 year in the
founding of the temple (from ion to 1010) made Josephus' " 592 years"
Teach 1 year later for the Exodus, and for all the previous chronology.
*To reach this result, Josephus had only to regard the finishing in-
the 8th month (I Ki., vi: 38), to mean simply, that the 7 days feast of
tabernacles in the 7th month followed by the 7 days feast of dedica
tion (II Chron. vii: 9) finished up the 7th month; so that, the 8th
month had arrived when ' ' the house was finished, with all the appur
tenances thereof, and with all the ordinances thereof" (I Ki., vi: 38,
Revision, marg.), Some Scripture reasons may be pleaded for this
view, which we have exhibited in a supplement.

234

PERIOD D

APPENDIX B.
For § 13.
The Astronomical Date.
We know from Josh, v : 10, n, (with Num. xxxiii : 3), that the day of first-fruits on en-
tering Canaan came on " the 15th day of the ist month " Nisan. So that, it being nec
essarily " on the morrow after the sabbath," (Lev. xxiii: 11, 14), the sabbath that yeai
must have come on Saturday the 14TH of Nisan. Our purpose is, to find whether, in
our year for Joshua's entering Canaan, viz., B. C. (1591 — 40=) 1551 B. C, the paschal 14th
Nisan did come on Saturday. (See Period G, Appendix A.)
§ 44. The astronomical process for the Exodus dating, is just as
in our New Testament reckoning (Period G. § 34, etc). It goes as
follows: From A. D. 1855 to B. C. 1550=3404 years (just divisible by
4); which X365X=i2433ii days from Julian (orO. S.) Jan. 6, A. D. 1855,
to Julian Jan. 6, B. C. 1550; or( — godays=) 1243221 days back to Apl.
6, B. C. 1550, at 8% a. m.
On the other hand, an exact lunation, 2gd. 5305885 being X 42100
lunations = i243237d. 77585, which is i6d. 776 excess over the 1243221
days to April 6. Or, adding acceleration of the moon's motion for 3400
years (viz., the .154 of a day), we have i6d. g3 excess back to the new
moon in that April.
This excess carries the new moon from the April 6 at &% a. m. back
that much earlier, to March 20 at 10 a. m. in B. C. 1550. Then, if
1 Nisan began at sunset of March 22, the 14 Nisan ended at the pass-
over sunset of April 5, — which was Wednesday, and will not answer
our purpose. This passover was very nearly on the equinox: which
was then April 4-5, as seen thus: A. D. 325+B. C. 1550=1874 yea'rs^-
130 yrs. (for each day-change)=i4d. 4+Mar. 2i=April 4-5.
The next year after, viz., B. C. i54g, had the new moon (2gd. 5306
Xi2=) 354d. 367 from 366 days=nd. 15 hours earlier than the Mar. 20
at 10 a. m., and also 2gd. — i-z%h. (or 1 lunation) afterwards, i. e., on
April 7 at 7% a. m. Then, if 1 Nisan began at sunset of April g, the
14 Nisan ended at the sunset passover of April 23, — which was Tues
day, and will not answer our purpose.
§45. In the next year before B. C. 1550, i. e., in 1551, the new
moon was iod. 15I1. later than the Mar. 20 at 10 a. m., viz., on March
31 at 1 a. m.* Then, if 1 Nisan began at sunset of April 2, the 14
Nisan ended at the passover sunset of April 16, — which was Saturday,
as the Scripture requires.
This fact, that April 16, B. C. 1551, was Saturday, we learn by the
Rule given at Period G, § 40, thus: One less than the year is 1550,
which-T-28 leaves 10, and this-^7 leaves 3, to which we add 2 (for the
two 4's in the 10), and add 1 more (for the rest of the 10), making 6 days

*This is the mean reckoning, which corrected will be about 3 hours
later, both for new and for full moon.

the judges 235
before Sunday, i. <?., Monday, March o and 28, and April 4; whence,
Saturday was April 2, and g, and 16, in B. C. 1551.
At this sunset of Saturday, April 16, B. C. 1551, the Israelites must
have kept their passover, at the close of their Sabbath day — just as
described in Josh, v: 10, 11 — with the First-fruit offering coming the
next day, i. e., "on the 15 Nisan, the morrow after the passover " (see
Num. xxxiii: 3). As that was their first passover upon entering Canaan,
it was just 40 years after their original passover at the Exodus; so that
the Exodus was in (1551+40=) isgi B. C.
Now in those 40 years, there were 4g5 lunations, which X 2gd 5305885
==i46i7d. 64, i. e., id i^Yzh more than the (40 X 365X)=i46io days in 40
years. This carries the new moon of Mar. 31 at 1 a. m. in B. C. 1551,
to be in B. C. 1591, on March 23, at g>£ a. m. And if 1 Nisan began at
sunset of March 25, then 14 Nisan ended at the passover sunset of
April 8 — which was Thursday. For, 1591 — i=i5go-j-28 leaves 22-^7
leaves 1+5 (for the 4's in 22)+i (for the rest of the 22)=7 or o days
before Sunday, March o and 28 and April 4. So that April 8 was
Thursday. Therefore the Exodus on the next day, the 15 Nisan, was
Friday, April g, B. C. 1591.

§ 46. So much for the Exodus date B. C. 1591, as derived from the
580 years interval. Now look at the Usher date of the Exodus B. C.
1491, as derived from " the 480th year " (given in the present text of
I Ki. vi: 1). Usher takes his B. C. 1012 for the founding of the temple
in "the 4th year of Solomon," and says, B. C. 1012 -j- the "480th "=
1491 B. C. for the Exodus; which brings the passover of Josh, v: 10, 11
at (1491 — 40=) 1451 B. C.
But in that year the passover was Tuesday, April 20, B. C. 1451; so
that the Saturday passover of Josh, v: 10, 11, could not be that year.
Whereas, the year after, the passover was n days earlier, on Satur
day, April 9, B. C. 1450. (This we learn by the same process as above,
reckoning either with the 100 years difference, or with the whole interval
from A. D. 325.) Therefore, the passover of Josh, v: 10, 11 might be
in that year 1450, and the Exodus might be in 1490 B. C; but it was
not possible in B. C. 1491.
This proves the correctness of our date B. C. ion (not 1012) for the
4th of Solomon at the founding of the temple; for, 1490 — the 48oth=
ion B. C. Moreover, we thus find Usher's 1 year too early at the
destruction of Jerusalem (B. C. 588 for 587 propagated all the way back
to the Exodus (B. C. 1491 for 1490.)
In the above reckoning, we have put 1 Nisan as beginning when the
moon was about 2 days old. For, the new month and the new year
was not commenced till the new moon festival was - observed, after
report of the new moon seen, and then proclamation and congregating

236

PERIOD D

for the purpose. All which, in that early day of rude observation,
must usually cover two days at least after change of the moon — and
especially as clouds often prevented the observation. (See Period G,

APPENDIX C.
For§ 25.
Attempts to Make "480."
§ 47. To show the incongruities and contradictions of all attempts
to reduce the Scripture numbers to the 480th year, we will here com
pare the current Usher method in Scott's Bible with the later method
of J. Schwartz in the Bib. Sacra, (July, 1888, p. 451). The interval
from the Exodus to the Temple being for convenience divided at the
Ammonite invasion (Jud. x: 7), the periods before and after that point
we call the Pre- Ammon and the Post- Ammon periods. And the figures
are these:

Moses  ¦. . . j
Pre- Ammon  j
Whole  (Totat
Whole  :
Post -Ammon 
David 40, Sol. 3. . .

Scripture.

Scott.

¦ 40

40

336

. 2go

376

33o

589

479

204

149

161

106

43

43

Schwartz.

Error. I

Dif.

40
3i5355
479) 124 8143

f

) Scott Sch. Sch.

-46

[ J-55 -80
— 101 — 101

+25

—25

The difference of the two periods in the two writers is 25 years,
which Scott adds in as extra 25 years of Samuel, but which Schwartz
takes off from Samuel and adds, in after Chusan. For Scott has the
peculiar scheme, of letting Ehud's 80 cover both Eglon 's 18 and Oth
niel's 40, thus losing 58 years, — 25 of which Schwartz thus restores.
This leaves 33 still to be restored after Chushan; which Schwartz (mak
ing up correctly all the 301 total of the numbers given in Judges down
to the Ammonite invasion), accomplishes by substituting 33 taken
from before Chushan, thus:
§ 48. The Scripture amount before Chushan is (anarchy 10 -\-t Joshua
25=) 35, which taken from the true Pre-Ammon amount 336, leaves
301 as fhe amount of the nurnbers given in the book of Judges'] from
Chushan to the Ammonite invasion. But Scott's loss of 58 after
Chushan reduces this 301 to 243, which taken from his required Pre-
Ammon amount 2go, leaves 47 as his amount before Chushan. (By an

THE JUDGES 237
oversight, Scott's Bible has 2 years more (making 4g), caused by a loss
of 2 from Jabin's 20.)- Schwartz Ireducing this 47 by 34 (as Just
seen) has left but 14 years from Moses to Chushan, — including the
whole reign of Joshua and the anarchy that followed! — or only
301+14= 315, instead of the correct 336,down to the Ammonite invasion.
This necessitated feature of deficiency after Moses in the Schwartz
method is alone sufficient to condemn the whole scheme; while in
avoiding this, Scott's necessitated method of dating back Ehud's 80
years of "rest" over not only Othniel's 40 but also Eglon's 18 years
of Moabite tyranny over Isrsel, is alone enough to condemn that
scheme also.
And further, Scott's scheme of losing so much after Chushan re
duces his total from Moses to the Ammonite invasion, — by a net 58 —
<his 47-351=46, — from the 336 down to 2go years; in violation of the
" 300 years " given at Ju. xi: 26. But notice now the incongruities and
errors caused by this whole plan of overlapping the reigns after the
Ammonite invasion.
§ 4g. (1) In xiii: 1, the people "did evil again" (marg. "Heb.
added to commit evil "), after the events and dates given before. So
that the 40 years of Philistine oppression now to be brought upon them
can not be thrown back, as if it stated that they had transpired
already. (2) This back reckoning makes Abdon (xii: 13) reach 9 years after
the death of Samson and Eli! and so his 8 years are dropped out en
tirely by many. Schwartz has these 8 years of Abdon ruled along with
Samuel, as the first part of the latter's supposed 20 (at I Sam. vii: 2)
spent during Philistine oppression, in direct contradiction of verse 13.
And he says that Josephus had Abdon's 8 years thus reckoned; though
it is notorious, on the contrary, that Josephus has Samson and Eli
between Abdon and Samuel, as necessitated by his aggregate number
592 years.
(3) The 20 years judgeship of Samson (xv: 20 to xvi: 31) begins "in
the days of the Philistines, ' ' reaching 20 years after their 40. What
sort of a judgeship would his be (and that of Jephthah, etc., put at the
same time), with the people "delivered into the hands of the Philis
tines" all the while?
§ 50. (4) The last 20 years judgeship of Eli, (which is all the lxx
gives him, under the administration of Samuel, as described in I Sam.
iii: 20 to iv: 1, — synchronizing with Samson's 20, — could not be during
the subjection to the Philistines. For though there was subjection
before (Jud. xv: 11), yet when Samson's 20 years began "in the days of
the Philistines" (ver. 20), he kept the Philistines subdued while he
lived, as seen by chap. xvi.
(5) A leading absurdity is, that, after the 40 years of Philistine op
pression, thus made: to cover all Samson's and Eli's judgeship, this

238 PERIOD D
view makes another Philistine oppression of 20 years immediately to fol
low after Eli's death,— interpreting in this way I Sam. vii: 2-12. Think
of sixty years oi. continuous Philistine domination! yet at Jud. xiii: 1
limited to forty years! But the Philistine battle at I Sam. iv: 1, and
after 7 mo. at vii: 7, was not a new oppression of 20 years, but only a
new attempt after the death of Sampson, and. ended all their attempts
(ver. 13). See § 32.
§ 51. (6) To be rid of this extravagant 60 years of continuous
Philistine domination, the resort of Schwartz is, to let the "40 years "
oppression of Jud. xiii: 1 cover the "20 years" mentioned at I Sam.
vii: 2, as the last half of the Philistine domination; during all which
last 20 years of foreign servitude Samuel's administration was going
on! This is in direct contradiction of I Sam. vii: 13, which says: " So
the Philistines were subdued [by Samuel], and they came no more
into the coast of Israel; and the hand of the Lord was against the Phil
istines all the- days of Samuel. ' '
(7) To escape this difficulty, the Usher chronology in Scott's Bible
has Samuel's rule delayed till after the alleged Philistine domination at
I Sam. vii: 2 is over; and so puts in an extra 25 years for Samuel after
that, — reducing Saul from 40 to 20 for the purpose. By this plan, the
first 20 years of the Philistine dominion is covered by the judgeship of
Eli taken as only 20 years. So that the Scriptural "40 years " of Eli
reach back 20 years before the Ammonite invasion (as seen in
Schwartz)! and Samsonls beginning to "judge Israel" is only the be
ginning of a 40 years domination of Philistia over them!
§ 52. (8) Trying to relieve this last absurdity, Schwartz intro
duces a worse one. He puts Samson's 20 years along later, to begin
from the death of Eli, and cover the last 20 years of Philistine domin
ation (as the "20 years" of I Sam. vii: 2). This is saying that " Sam
uel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh" (I Sam. vii: 7) during all
the time when " Samson judged Israel twenty years," while also Jeph
thah, Ibsan, and Eglon "judged Israel," (Jud. xii: 7-11, and xvi: 31) —
and while at the same time the people were under two foreign domin
ions, being "delivered into the hands of the Philistines 4oyears " (Jud.
xiii: 1), and being " sold into the hands of the children of Ammon," i&
years of the same time (x: 7, 8)! Surely, a wonderful combination of
mixed up simultaneousness! Thus Samuel's victory over the Philistines
is made one with Samson's death-triumph over them; while all Sam
uel's previous twenty years of "judging Israel" (I Sam. vii: 2, 6, 13).
is represented as a domination of Philistia!
(9) Josephus takes 20 from Saul's 40 years, but adding them to 20
more as a 40 of Eli put in (with Abdon's 8 not added), he gets (40 — 28 =)
12 extra, instead of a loss from this lessening of Saul. Scott has the 20
from Saul put upon Samuel, thus not reducing the time after Eli.
But Schwartz drops entirely the 20 years taken from Saul, and so has

THE JUDGES 239
but 40 years left from Samson to the reign of David ! — while Saul is
given only 20 years, and Samuel full 40 between Eli and Saul !
§ 53- (i°) All these methods are inviolation of the history contained
in the book of Ruth. It is generally taken for granted, that Ruth lived in
the early days of the Judges. But Josephus positively asserts (Ant. 5, ix:
1), that it was "under Eli, the high priest and governor ofthe Israelites."
And the contents of that book, its pleasant and peaceful story of do
mestic life, requires such an assignment, rather than in previous war
like and disorderly times.* Now Ruth's son Obed was grandfather of
David (Ruth iv: 17); and this requires his birth to be 70 or 80 years be
fore David's reign. Accordingly, our Scripture reckoning gives (Saul
40 + Samuel 12 + Eli 40 =) 92 years to the beginning of Eli; or 72
years to the end of Philistine oppression, at the beginning of Samson's
20 years. Whereas, the Usher reckoning (in Scott) has but (20 + 25 =) 45
years, and Schwartz has but (20 + 20 =) 40 years back to the end of
Philistine domination; while the latter has but 60 years to the full sweep
of their warfare, in the very region of Bethlehem, the home of Boaz and
Ruth, — before Samson began to restrain the enemy ! This deficiency
of n time, as well as the diverse and contrary methods attempted, all
shows how impracticable the shortened system is, which tries to get
only the "480th year." APPENDIX D.
For § 37.
That "Canonical Formula."
§ 54. Some have thought, that the events narrated in the first
-chapter of Judges did not occur "after the death of Joshua," as said
in verse 1; simply because in verse 10, 11 two cities, Hebron and
Debir, are named among those assailed by the army of Judah; which
two cities are given at Josh, x: 36-38, as fully conquered and utterly
destroyed by Joshua (ver. 40).
Certainly, Jud. i: 10-15 is a parenthetic digression, taken from Josh.
xv : 14-19, by way of retrospection; being suggested by what is said in
Jud. i: 9. So that verse 10 properly reads thus: "And Judah went
against the Canaanites that dwelt in Hebron. (Now the name of
Hebron beforetime was Kirjath Arba; and beforetime they slew She
shai," etc., to veT. 17, all properly in the parenthesis.) But the pre
vious topic, Judah's warfare in concert with Simeon, which occupies
verses 1-9 and is resumed at ver. 17 onward, belongs after the death of
Joshua just as certainly, as verse 1 asserts.
*A writer in the Bib. Sacra (Oct. 1891, p. 659) urges this view. Per
haps there is a gap before Boaz, in the genealogy. (Ruth iv: 21.)

240 PERIOD D
§ 55. It was Joshua, not a league of Judah with Simeon, that con
quered "all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale,
and of the springs," and " all the mountains of Judah," as recorded in
Josh, x: 40, and xi: 21. Such a sectional league of two tribes, to fight
in their "lot" at the people's demand (Jud. i: 1-3), would have been
entirely unnatural and out of the question under Joshua's generalship,
and especially then, when the land had not been allotted. And,
though of those found in the conquered places Joshua "left "none re
maining, but utterly, destroyed all that breathed," yet of course some
had escaped before their cities were fully invested, and returned after
wards (in Israel's lukewarmness) to recover their possessions. So that,
there was real occasion for Judah (with Simeon) to go " down against
the Canaanites that dwelt in the mountain, and in the south, and in
the valley "—" after the death of Joshua," as told in Jud. i: 1, 9.
§ 56. Yet, strange to say, the writer in the Bib. Sacra. (Oct. 1891, p.
652), argues at length, that all this opening portion of Judges belongs
back in the time of Joshua; and that the first dating clause, " after the
death of Joshua," must be an interpolation, which should be struck
out ! And, stranger still, he argues, — that because the story of Ruth
does not belong till the judgeship of Eli, which is recorded (not in the
book of Judges, but) in I Samuel, — therefore its dating (put at Ruth i:
1, " Now it came to pass in the days when the Judges ruled," etc.),
is also spurious, and should be erased ! Just as if Eli and Samuel did
not belong among "the judges; " and just as if Eli's judgeship (because
forsooth not recorded in the book of Judges) was not "in the days
when the judges ruled " ! Was ever greater folly than this set forth as
bible criticism ?
The writer even quotes approvingly (p. 660) the random talk of an
author, about the foul stories in the last chapters of Judges (concern
ing Micah, Gibeah, etc.), as being entirely incongruous for the times
of Naomi and the "pastoral idyl" of Ruth. He seems to be entirely
ignorant that those last chapters of the book (xvii-xxi) are universally
recognized as an appendix, belonging chronologically at the beginning
of Judges (see xxi: 25), and have nothing to do with "the days when
judges ruled," — and when Ruth and Naomi are declared to have
lived !
§ 57. Now comes the climax. Upon this ground alone, — of the
two books of Judges and Ruth alleged to be wrongly dated at their
opening, the writer before us would blot out every date given at the
beginning of the books between Deuteronomy and Chronicles, as a
conjectured spurious "canonical formula " put in by an editor in unit
ing the books together, and needing to be expunged ! Was ever a
wholesale scheme of Bible mutilation reared upon so flimsy a basis ?
The critics seem to be finding enough fault with Scripture, without the
need of gratuitous errors thus foisted upon it.

the judges 241
We recite this case, as a sample of the' treatment which the Bible
is receiving, and especially its chronology, from alleged scholars, who
merely skim its surface, seemingly bent on nothing but to pick all the
flaws they can.

PART II.
Origin of the " 480TH Year " Reading.
In I Kings vi: I.
§ 58. What we are here to undertake is, first, to prove that no such
number as 480 was originally in the Scripture text; and secondly, to
show (as tar as we can) how it comes to be now there.
CHAPTER I.
No 480TH Originally.
We have learned by our study of the chronology of the Judges, that
the founding of Solomon's temple in his 4th year was 580 years from
the exodus, not "the 480th year" as given in I Kings vi: 1. It follows
that the 480 must be a corruption of the Hebrew text; and there is such
corruption of the original text in several Old Testament passages,
especially in the case of numbers (as at II Chron. xxxvi: 9, comp. II
Kings xxiv: 8). The cause or reason of such a corruption may some
times be traced; and in the case before us, it becomes an interesting
and useful study to search out (if we may) the origin of this 480 error.
§ 5g. In our modern times a new theory of the exodus has come
into vogue, making it but about 300 years, instead of the "480th year"
before the temple, i. e., about B. C. 1300. This view has been set
forth by Brugsch and other Egyptologists, as a supposed necessity
arising from their study of the monuments. The large number of
Bible scholars who follow chronologically these speculations of the ar
chaeologists, of course reject "the 480th year" of I Kings as altogether
too large. On the contrary, we show by Egyptology itself, that this
' ' 480th year " is a corruption 100 years too small. The number of
those who still adhere to "the 480th year" as correct, is very small.
§ 60. We know for a certainty, that the 480 could not have been in
the Hebrew text in the New Testament times. For, not only does the
testimony of Paul (in Acts xiii: 17-22) prove this, as we have shown,
but also the testimony of Josephus (written about the same time), to
gether with earlier Jewish historians, is decisive on the point. Jose
phus and Paul in the first century, as well as Theophilus, Clemens
Alex., Hippolytus, Julius Africanus (A. D. 200), and other early chroni
clers of the church, all found no such number there in Kings; but all
their reckonings of the Bible times are based upon the larger number, 580
ears, between the exodus and the temple. Let us examine this matter

242 period d
particularly in regard to Josephus, the most careful and reliable of all
ancient writers, in his work of rehearsing fully the substance of the Old
Testament records. (See here, \ 100.)
In his "Antiquities of the Jews," he recounts to us in full detail the
history found in the Old Testament; and his work contains (he says in
his preface) "all our antiquities and the constitution of our govern
ment, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures." Using thus the
original Hebrew text, as he does, we can see from his statements what
his copy of the Hebrew Scriptures did, and what it did not contain.
§ 61. When he comes to the founding of the temple at I Kings, 6th
chapter, he gives very explicit datings of that event, based on the num
ber 580 (as we will presently show); and he manifests no knowledge
whatever of any such contrary num,ber or reckoning as the "480" now
found in that passage. In several other parts of his work, and espe
cially in .his other, work, "The Jewish War," he reiterates that same
larger reckoning of the interval between the Exodus and the temple;
and everywhere he is in utter ignorance of any such lesser reckoning
480, as ever seen or heard of in his time. Therefore, it is simply im
possible that this number couldohave been in the Hebrew text as used
by Josephus, as well as by Paul, by Africanus, and by other ancient
Bible scholars.
We must here remark, that the chronology of Josephus, when care
fully studied, is a simple and harmonious system, drawn from the num
bers given in the Hebrew Bible as he understood them; and it is not
any such jumble of conflicting dates as has been imposed upon him by
diverse editors, trying to amend, but sadly corrupting his text. A
thorough sifting of his work has led to a "Restoration of Josephus " in
respect to datings (which see); showing a methodical and beautiful
harmony of the whole, accordant with the Hebrew text as interpreted
by him. We shall see parts of this restored chronology as we proceed.
§ 62. Josephus uniformly makes the interval " 5g2 years " from the
exodus to the temple begun "in the 4th year of Solomon's reign."*
But how does this comport with the ' ' 612 years " found in his writings?
Josephus is thought by many to be vacillating in his chronology, and to
have other numbers besides the 5g2 years for the interval between the
exodus and the temple. For instance, the 612 is a value named. But
this number is given by Josephus (at Ant. 20, x, 1), not as a length of
reigns, but as the length of priesthoods from Aaron through Zadok to
the end of [building (I Kings ix: 10); though he loosely speaks of it as
if reaching only to the building of the temple. Zadok's priesthood,
re-established by Solomon (I Kings ii: 35) is included in the 612
years (as required by the number of priests given, 13; see Antiq. 5, xi, 5,
and 8, i, 3); and it covers probably a large part of Solomon's reign.
*See Appendix G, in " Restor. of Jos.," § go.

THE JUDGES

243

Josephus no doubt understood it as thus covering the "20 years time "
that Solomon spent in building. (Antiq. 8, v, 1,3, I Kings vii, 1), from the
4th year to the 24th of Solomon. This is shown by the reduced period
"466 years" (given in the same passage as the 612) for the length of
priesthoods to the return from captivity — in place of Josephus' whole
491 years (War, 6, iv, 8). Thus he understood his 592 as in agreement
with the 612 — 20. 1
It is plain that this closing episode of Josephus' Antiquities (20, x,)
is a sort of Appendix, giving the Priest Record, as drawn from the
Jewish archives. It was not a part of Josephus' own chronology. And
he in fact misunderstood it, as we show in our " Restoration of Jose
phus." The 612 thus somewhat obscured in meaning, Josephus men
tions in one other place (Apion ii, 2), as if ending at Solomon's temple;
but whenever speaking exactly he has his own 592 years' interval. (See
Appendix A, § 85.) The 612 Years in Josephus.
§63. The 612 years is, in fact, a wonderful confirmation of the original
reckoning to the temple as built after 580 years; it being in exact ac
cordance with that Scripture dating. For, the Bible reckoning of Jose
phus in the war makes ("1030" — "639"=) 4gi years from the end of
captivity back to Solomon's finished temple, or (491+7=498) to the tem
ple founded; while the Scripture makes 580 years before that to the exo
dus. And the total of these is (498+580=) 1078 years from the end of
captivity back to the exodus, i. e., from B. C. 513 to 1591. On the other
hand, the Priest Record, with its 612, gives ("612 "+"466"=) 1078
also, the same number of years for the same interval of events. How
striking the coincidence! How marked the proof, that the Priest
Record, and Josephus, and Scripture, all rest on the same basis of
chronology! Thus the Priest Record reckoning seems to have been developed
historically as follows:

IDC. 4) .
'Ei'ft'S

C-- O M O"

<d m g< <a

in u"i *o MH TJ
¦ — .
— , O
"i 0 H "c-h SC1
0 x <2 Sv 8
0
TJ al
S w !? 2 8
N
H W <J\ H
Scripture Reckoning.
Jubilee Reckoning. . .
580 +8+
466
+17+7= ( 1078
588 +
490
Priest Reckoning. . . .
(588 +
j 612
24+466 +466
= \ 1078
[12+ 580 +8+
12+466
+ 5+7=1 '
Josephus' War 
592 4
1 592 +
-20+471 491
^= > 1090
\ 592 + 8+
490
= J
244 period d
§ 64. We thus see how a misunderstanding of the Priest Record has
misconstrued its ' ' 612 years " of priests ending during Solomon's reign,
as if they reached only to the founding of the temple, whereas they in
clude 580 years only down to that event. Here then we have this
earliest form of the Jewish chronology (evidently arranged before
Josephus), giving us the 580 years as the correct reckoning at I Kings
vi: 1. This Priest Record thus confirms and vindicates our revision of
the text, in accordance with Paul's account in the 13th chapter of Acts.
It was only by mistaking the distance by which the "612 " overlapped
Solomon, that Josephus got his ' ' 592 years " at the founding of the
temple, in place of the correct 580 years which the Priest Record had
intended. The great question now is this: How was it possible for Josephus
to give the "592" as his only reckoning, if his Hebrew Bible, which
was his only authority, gave the ' ' 480th year " as we now have it (at
I Kings vi: 1)? Or how any better, if the Lxx version, which he must
have known, gave the "440th year" as we now have it? Or how any
better, if the I Kings vi: 1, then read or meant 580 years as we allege?
The Original 980.
§ 65. Our answer is: The I Kings vi: 1, did not originally read as
it now does, namely:
" And it came to pass, in the four hundred and eightieth year of the
exodus [Heb. and Gr.] of the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,
in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, * * * that he
built [Rev. Marg.] the house of the Lord."
But it probably read or was understood thus— with the part in
brackets [ ] at first as a mere gloss in the margin:
' ' And it came to pass [in the nine hundred and eightieth year from
foreign affliction from the land of Egypt] , in the fourth year of Solo
mon's reign, * * * that he built the house of the Lord."
Whether the clause in brackets [ ] was in Josephus' day actually in
the text, or was only a note put by some one in the margin, or was
simply a traditional understanding of the date at that point, we do not
here say. We only claim that in Josephus' time the dating of the
temple was so understood.
§66. That well known "980 years" from foreign affliction, as
handed down, had been understood to date from the same point as the
"400 years " of foreign " affliction " foretold in Gen. xv: 13; viz., from
the mocking by the Egyptian Ishmael (Gen. xxi: 9-11), just after the
weaning of Isaac; which was when Isaac was five years old, i. e., 30
years after Abraham's .arrival in Canaan (g8o years before B. C. ion,
viz., in B. C. iggi).
Therefore, as the "400 years" of affliction from the mocking of

the judges 245
Isaac reached to the exodus out of Egypt (see in Period C), so the " g8o
years ' ' contained (980 — 400 =) 580 years after the exodus to the found
ing of the temple in B. C. ion. And the offering up of Isaac on Mount
Moriah being understood as 7 years later than the mocking (viz., at 12
years of age), the same 890 years reached thence to the finishing of the
temple on Mount Moriah 7 years after the founding (viz., in B. C. 1004).
The double dating (to the temple as begun and as finished) seems ac
cordant with the exact language used — after so long ' ' he built the tem
ple." Moreover, the 980 years were just 20 Jubilee periods (of 49 years
each), from the year after the offering of Isaac to the year of dedica
tion following the finished temple, i. e., from B. C. 1983 to 1003.
§ 67. That the age of Isaac at being brought to the altar was 12
years (not 25 as some put it), is evident from the fact that Jewish tra
dition thenceforward made this the age at which youth were brought
to the temple service, as seen in the case of our Lord (Luke ii: 42). It
is moreover obvious, from the childish submission of Isaac, and from
his being called "the lad," and being so easily " bound and laid on the
altar" by his aged father. (Gen. xxii: 5-9.) Such then seems to have
been clearly the original understanding of the temple's date, as "980
years" after Isaac, or "580 years " after the exodus, as seen in the
reckoning of Paul. (Gal. iii: 7; Acts xiii: 17-22.)
There were reasons why this particular dating, . "980 years," was
impressed upon the Jewish mind, and minuted (as text or as gloss) at
I Kings vi: 1, while there are in the Bible so few long comprehensive
reckonings like this. The sacrifice of Isaac was a marked event, typi
cal of the Messiah; and the after selection of that very spot, on Mount
Moriah, as the site of the temple, where sacrifice was continually to be
offered, and where Messiah was to manifest himself, was an intended
and notable concurrence,* — timed seemingly on purpose at 980 years,
as a peculiar and significant number in Jewish Chronology.
* That the coincidence of place was specially noted and marked,
appears not only from the scripture account, giving name to the spot as
"the mount of the Lord" (Gen, xxii: 2, 14; II Chron. iii: 1), and from
Josephus, who repeatedly declares that the temple was built on the
spot where Isaac was offered (Antiq. 1, xiii: 2, etc.), but also from the
identification which the Samaritans afterward attempted of Mt. Mo
riah withMt. Gerizim. (SeeBib. Sacra, Oct. 1868, p. 765.) The great
wonder expressed in that article, that no mention was made in Jewish
literature of the striking coincidence of place, is somewhat met by our
exhibit here of the dated interval (980 years) as the early Jewish ex
pression of interest in the coincidence. The writer of that article (at
p. 375) is staggered at the improbability of God's countenancing such
a chance for local superstition. But certainly it was not beneath the
dignity of Divine Providence to encourage such a typical coincidence
of time and place prospective of the Messiah, for the strengthening of
Jewish faith in those crude times, — as witness the " seventy weeks " of
Daniel given for the same purpose.

246 , period d
§68. For, this 980 is just twice 490 years, or twice the "seventy
weeks " of Daniel; that is, twice 10 Jubilee periods of 49 years each; and
twice 7 generations of 70 years each (as generations were then reckoned,
Psa. xc: 10), making the " regenerations'" of Mat. i: 17 (i. e., 14X70 =
980). This 14 generation arrangement at the opening of Matthew, is a
striking proof of our view, that the time from Abraham (and Isaac) to
David (and Solomon's temple) was 400 + 580 = 980 years, not 400 +
480 = 880 as the shortened reckoning makes it. (See our exposition of
Mat. i: 17, in " Chronplogy of the Judges, here § 10.)
Jewish scholars always made much of this Jubilee reckoning, by 49
and 4go years, as before shown. (See Period E, § 69.) In their various
writings they reckoned Jubilee periods from the creation downward.
And such a marked interval as the twice 490 years seen to exist between
Isaac on Mount Moriah and the temple built on Mount Moriah, would
naturally awaken their enthusiasm, and cause a noting of that partic
ular epoch at I Kings vi: 1 — in continuance of the "400 years" of it
ending at the exodus. This will well account for a " 980 years " put as
text or marginal note in the early Hebrew of that passage in Kings.
And thus we have the original of I Kings vi: 1, without any "480th"
in the text, as now, but probably with a note in its margin, saying,
' ' 980 years from foreign affliction " ; which was understood as meaning
((980 — 400=) "580 years from the exodus out of Egypt."
§ 69. But this original understanding of the matter had been lost
sight of in Josephus' time (except as Paul was inspired to accuracy)..
For, we find Josephus, contrary to previous tradition, saying of Isaac
at the time he was offered on Mount Moriah, " Now, Isaac was twenty-
five years old." (Antiq. 1, xiii: 2.) That is, he makes that sacrificial
event to be, no longer seven, but twenty years after Isaac's 5 years,
when the "400 years " of affliction began. So that, he has there but
<400 — 20=) 380 of the 400 years left, instead of the (400 — 7=) 393 before.
.understood. This change of 13 years made him 'say: The still known "980
years " from the Isaac sacrifice to the temple built on the same Mount
Moriah— minus the 380 (left of the 40o)=6oo years from the exodus to
the dedication of the temple; which is " 592 years " to the founding of
the temple 8 years before. Here at length we find the origin of
Josephus' error, in putting 5g2 years instead of the right 580.
§ 70. When for some reason Josephus had changed the traditional
and correct age of Isaac at being offered, from 12 to 25 years, his error
of chronology would have been 13 years; i. e., 5g3 after the exodus
instead of 580. But he at the same time made another mistake of 1
year, in treating the terminus of the g8o (and so of his 600) as at the
dedication instead of the completion of the temple, 8 years instead of
7 years after the founding, so getting (600—8) instead of (600—7). He

the judges 247
was thus confounding the 980 of sacrifice, from B. C. 1984 to 1004, with
the 980 of Jubilee reckoning, from B. C. ig83 to'[ioo3. And by this
means, he made his excess of chronology 12 years (not 13), from 12
years to the 25th year of Isaac, i. e., from B. C. isgi to 1603 for the
exodus; and thus he exactly offset (or caused) his 12 years deficiency
of reduction from the 612 (reduced 20 years instead of 32) — so leaving
also a void of 12 years at the end of the "466 years." (See Rest, of
Jos., § 27.)
He took his 5g2 as the 612 — 20, in the way we have seen, and we can
account for his doing so; for he certainly had no Scripture number to
contradict it. And it is evident that in Josephus' day there could not
be in I Kings vi: 1, any such number as "480," or even "580"; but
there might be simply the "980 years " from Isaac, either in the text,
or more likely as a mere note in the margin. And from this ' ' 980
years " he must have worked out his 592 years, as we have here seen.
Which number of his differs from the true original 580 years from the
exodus only because he put the Mt. Moriah sacrifice at 25 instead of
the correct 12 years of Isaac's age (with also 1 year of error at the
dedication). And thus Josephus has, from Abraham's arrival in Canaan 25 years
to Isaac's birth + 25 to Mt. Moriah + 380 to the Exodus + 592 to the
temple=i022 years (i. e., 430+5g2) back to Abraham's arrival, as he
himself gives it. (Antiq. 8, iii: 1, corrupted 1020.)
See Josephus' whole chronology, at " Rest, of Jos." § 18.
The 592 reckoning found previous to Josephus, in the Jewish his
torians, Eupolemus and Demetrius, may have originated the error,
which Josephus only followed.* But the 612 of the Priest Record in
Josephus (Antiq. 20, x: 1) was no error, but only an adaptation of- the
true " 580 years " itself, as we have shown.
CHAPTER II.
The Septuagint "440."
§ 71. The error of Josephus in his " 592 years " arose from his for
getting that the original "980 years" began with the "400 years" of
foreign affliction, not with the offering of Isaac. But others, while
not thus shoving down the 980 as beginning later than the 400, yet had
long before Josephus adopted a double reckoning of the ' ' 430 years " of
sojourning; which led on to the present corruption of the text. Thus:
Since, in Ex. xii: 40, the "430 years" is called "the sojourning of
the children of Israel," an opinion arose that this number began
strictly with the sojourning of Israel himself (or Jacob) rather than of
* See Appendix G, in "Restor. of Jos.," § 93.

248 period d
Abraham; that is, when he left home for Haran (Gen. xxvii: 43), taken
as at 56 years of his age, or (130—56=) 74 years before he stood before
Pharaoh (Gen. xlvii: 9). This made that period of "sojourn" begin
(2.15— 74=) 141 years later; or 25 from Abraham's coming + 60 from
Isaac's birth (Gen. xxv: 26) + 56 years from Jacob's birth=i4i years
later than Abraham's coming to Canaan, the original date of sojourn.
(Appendix C, § 96.)
This delay 'of 141 years in beginning the "430 years" of sojourn
carried down its ending to 141 years after the exodus, viz., to the
judgeship of Ehud, at the end of foreign servitude, after the children of
Israel served Eglon, king of Moab, 18 years " (Jud. iii: 14). For the
years from the exodus°are as follows: Moses 40+Joshua 25+anarchy
10+Chushan 8+Othniel 40+Eglon i8='total, 141 years. (See Chron.
of the Judges, here § 1, 5.) And that this ended foreign servitude,
see Appendix B, § 88.
§ 72. The 141 years thus taken from the beginning of the "430
'years "sof sojourning and added to their end, constituted a second reck
oning of the 430 years, viz., from "Israel" to Ehud; with the first
reckoning still retained (Ex. xii; 4P, comp. ver. 41), in accordance with
the Jewish fondness for double reckoning of dates, of which we
are having constant examples as we proceed. (See here § 66, etc.)
And this second " 430 years," from Israel to Ehud was looked upon as
a period' of ^'^ojourning " and of servitude to foreigners, mostly in
Egypt, and'also in Canaan. So that the Lxx translators put in the <
gloss at Ex. xii:^4p-:-' " they sojourned in Egypt and in Canaan," plac
ing the Canaan sojourn after rather than before that of Egypt. By
thus making an after sojourn in Canaan cover a part of the ' ' 430
years," they plainly show their method of carrying down that, period
below the Exodus. (See. Appendix, § 88.) Moreover, those translators
finish out the book of Joshua (or the "hexateuch ") to reach down to
this era of Ehud, as we see in the Lxx, at Josh, xxiv: 33, onwards. (See
Appendix B, § 90.)
Knowing still the (980—400=!=) 580 years, dating from the exodus to
the temple, but using the new era of Ehud, 141 years after the
exodus, as an era of ended foreign servitude or of independence, the
Jews now came to speak of the (580 — 141=) " 440th year " of thisinde-
pendence era (after the lengthened hexateuch) as the date when
Solomon commenced the temple.
§73. The use of this "440th year" of independence was en
couraged, not only by the fact that this number 440 expressed the
years of comparative freedom downward from Ehud with 141 years
of unsettled condition left out, but also by the further fact, noticed by
the Rabbis, that this 441 would likewise express the reigns and judge
ships from the exodus to the temple with the interregnums of foreign
invasion omitted as of no account in Israel's nationality. Thus, the

the judges 249
anarchy after Joshua was io years+Chushan 8+Eglon 18+Jabin 20+
Midian 7+Ammon 18+Philistines 40 (at Jud. xiii: i)+20 years at I Sam.
vii:- 2=141 years of total invasion to be dropped out from 580, leaving
the "440th year." (See Chron. of the Judges here, § 5.)
The originators of this "440th year" reckoning may therefore have
intended to include the 141 years of separate foreign invasion (all the
way down to king Saul) in with the Egyptian oppression, leaving the
"440th year" to express only the 440th year of reigns or of Jewish
supremacy. They thus meant no shortening of the chronology.
§ 74. This "440th year" of freedom from servitude or foreign
"affliction" (Gen. xv: 13), was a gloss in the margin of I Kings vi: 1,
put as a current and correct application of " 980 years " found in the
margin of other Hebrew copies. The Lxx editors, choosing to insert
this (as a supposed correct date) in their translation — it seemed to them
more popular and patriotic to mention merely the length of their inde
pendence, than to include the long period of their affliction under
foreign oppression. And these Greek translators being in Egypt, and
translating for Egyptian use, would naturally make the national life of
Israel as short as they could at the building of their one great
temple; because this would best comport with Egyptian ideas of piety,
the earliest work of all their kings being the erection and adornment
of magnificent temples to the gods. The " 440th year " of independ
ence put at the founding of Solomon's temple, answered this purpose
better than would the retention of the "980 years" from foreign
affliction. § 75. But in choosing this "440th year" reading of the margin for
insertion in their Greek translation, they mistook its meaning, and in
stead of its exact Hebrew sense "440th year from servitude," or
foreign affliction,'1 they rendered it into Greek as it now stands, "440th
year of Exodus from Egypt" — supposing that to be the thought in
tended. They thus innocently but carelessly dropped out 141 years
from the chronology. For, while the inditer of the gloss correctly
meant "440th year oi final freedom from foreign servitude in general
at Ehud, the translators, by giving it as the special exodus from Egypt,
have thrown out all the 141 years between. Such was the Septuagint
when it was issued, over 200 year's B. C. But still, there was no such
number in the Hebrew, and Paul and Josephus, and writers generally,
were guided by reference to the "980 years " gloss handed down from
the first.
We here see that the Septuagint error of shortening the chronology
arose from a forgetting of the double reckoning of the "430 years," as
ending at Ehud as well as at the Exodus. The Ehud era being lost
sight of, the "440th year" got put back from that place as if beginning
at the Exodus. And so the changed expression, " exodus from Egypt, "
crept into the Septuagint text.

250 PERIOD D
§76. A Presumption. It may well be presumed that it was not the
Lxx translators themselves who got in the changed expression ' ' exodus
from Egypt" (though they did insert the "440th year" gloss); but that
the change of expression was a corruption that crept in long afterward.
Otherwise, there could not be (as there is both in Josephus and in the
New Testament) an absence of all knowledge of the shorter reckoning
between the exodus and the temple, while the longer reckoning is so
constantly reiterated as drawn from the Old Testament itself. How
and why this reduced reckoning came in is the question. There is no
trace of it till it is cited by Clemens Alex, about A. D. 200. We quote
from J. Schwartz in the Bibliotheca Sacra (July, 1888, p. 447):
' ' Clement of Alexandria, who flourished about A. D. 192, or over 100
years before Eusebius, among a mass of undigested extracts from
chronologists before his time (contained in Book I, chap, xxi of his
' Stromata'), gives the following fragment: ' From the birth of Moses
till the captivity, 972 years * * * From the reign of David till the
captivity, 452 years 6 months.' (Ante- Nicene Lib., Vol. iv, p. 432.)"
These "452^ years" are plainly the length of the Jewish kings
from the end of David to the end of Jehoiachin in captivity. (See Rest.
of Jos. § 52, 53.) And this is the correct Scripture value, viz., from B.
C. 1013 to 561=452 years+K year from spring to autumn; just as
Josephus (War., 6, x: 1) givesit, " 470^ "—David 40+22 last years of
Jehoiachin=the "452K " here. Josephus also has it as (452^+David
40+22 of Saul=) " 514.H years" for the whole duration of the kings
after Samuel, (so he says in Antiq. 10, viii: 4, with 6, xiv: 9).
§ 77. Thus this fragment in Clemens Alex, gives (972 — 452^=)5ig>^
years from the end of David back to the birth of Moses, which is
(5ig — 80=) 43g years back to the exodus from the death of David, and
this gives 440 years to the 2d of Solomon alone, regarded as the 4th of
Solomon's whole reigning at the founding of the temple. I^ere, then,
we have the first intimation anywhere in history of such a shortened
reckoning as the " 440th year " from the exodus to the temple.
This shows that at some time (the reader may judge when) before
Clement in the 2d century, the Lxx had received this exodus interpreta
tion. Its previous reading, the ' ' 440th year of the exit of the children
of Israel ixorn foreign affliction " (meaning from Ehud downward), had
very naturally been misunderstood as meaning "from the exodus out1
of Egypt," and no doubt, by a gloss in the margin, the text itself be
came corrupted to its present form. There may have been no inten
tional corruption, but only a natural misunderstanding of the meaning.
And the new reading, as apparently plainer and better, would soon find
its way into all new copies. So that, as we have no very early manu
scripts of the Lxx, we find no copies with the earlier reading.

THE JUDGES 251

CHAPTER III.

The Hebrew "480."
§ 78. When the Lxx had thus become unintentionally corrupted ta
its present form, the original Hebrew was easily misunderstood, for it
probably had in its text no back date at I Kings vi: 1, except (perhaps)
a marginal gloss, saying ' ' g8o years from foreign affliction, " abreviated,
it may be, to read simply "g8o years." Its anciently known reference
to Isaac being forgotten, it was thought that the Lxx's number must be
more nearly correct. So that, a conjectural emendation was inserted
[480] for the 980, bringing it into nearer agreement with the Lxx. This
may have been at first a mere gloss in the margin, but as appearing to
be a very reasonable correction, it would soon find its way into the
text. § 79. There were reasons why, instead of the Lxx's "440" being
adopted into the Hebrew, there was simply| the change made of a
figure (980 to 480. ) The Lxx now having come to read ' ' in the 440th
year of exit (or exodus) of the children of Israel from Egypt," was un
derstood as really denoting the 440th year of full exit and entrance to
Canaan, requiring the addition of the 40 years in the wilderness to give
the whole interval. And when the reigns and judgeships were now
added up, as being the items supposed by some to be alone included,
they were found to be more accurately a total of the "480th year," —
the previously supposed 141 years of interregnums being more correctly
but 101 years. For, the " 40 years " at Jud. xiii: 1, were seen to cover
only 20 years before the 40 years of Eli. So that there was in the
book of Judges (anarchy 10+Chushan 8+Eglon 18+Jabin 20+Midian
7+Ammon 18+Philistines 20=) 101 years of invasion, taken from the
full amount 580, and leaving the " 480th year " which has been put into
the present Hebrew text.
§ 80. The total of the numbers given us in Scripture from the
exodus to the temple is certainly 580 years, as shown in our " Chro
nology of the Judges." (§ 1, 4.) If that total number was ever inserted
in the Hebrew text, as a gloss rightly derived from "g8o" (minus 400
years of affliction) — then the present "480th" of the Hebrew text is
simply a corruption from that "580th " by the mere accidental change
(in some copy giving the. numbers by letters) of 5 into 4, or (in Hebrew)
|"f into ~\ ; i. e., the mere failure to insert one slight little dash (1).
But one way or another, there was now made an actual corruption or
reduction of one hundred years from the chronology — a result never
known or heard of before that time. When and by whom was the
present corruption made ?
Eusebius (A. D. 320) is the earliest writer found to have any knowl-

252 period d
edge of the "480th year" reckoning.* He says (Hist. ch. 16, Migne,
p. 150): " From the Exodus to the Temple are 600 [580] years accord
ing to the Apostle, but by the Hebrew Scriptures is put as 480 years."
He goes on to give the .Christian fathers before him, Africanus,
Clement, and Theophilus, as also all having the longer reckoning.
But he himself abandons this "Apostolic tradition," as he calls it, and
adopts the "480th year," which he calls "Jewish tradition; " saying,
"the Jewish doctors affirm the 480 to be made out by not reckoning
the foreign rulers separate."
This last statement of Eusebius reveals the secret as to how the
interval got reduced. It was a leaving out of the periods of invasion;
at first, no doubt, as a mere slighting of those years in the record,
without denying their reality as lengthening the time; but afterward1,
an ignoring of them entirely, as is done by many now.
§ 81. Eusebius gives, as the principal reason for rejecting the
longer reckoning, the fact that, of the " 14 generations " in Mat. i: 17,
"only five names are given after the Exodus (he should say six), viz.,
Naason (Num. i: 7), Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David; making each
generation too long (600-^5=120) as he says. He should say, 580-^6
=g6. Thus is he led astray by not perceiving (what we have shown
in "Chron. of the Judges," here § 10) that the "14 generations" de
note merely "14 seventies "=g8o; and that the names are not to be
taken as an exact list of all the links 0/ descent', but are only meant to
give life to the several steps, f
It is thus probable that some time in the 3d century, between
Eusebius and Clement, or even earlier, the "480th year," reading
crept into the Hebrew text. And it- looks as though it came from the
Jews, who in those days were the chief handlers of the Hebrew Script
ures. "On account of the prevalent ignorance of the Hebrew and
Chaldee languages among the early Christians, the Alexandrian Greek
version (or Lxx) was the authority employed." (Chambers Cyc. Art.
Bible.) While the church thus trusted to their Greek copies, -the Jews
clung to their Hebrew text, and had it pretty much in their control.
They were very faithful custodians, of Scripture until they were cast
off for their rejection of Christ; but after that their malignant opposi
tion to Christianity tempted them to any measure which would
oppose it.
§ 82. About A. D. 130, their leader, Rabbi Akiba, originated their
modern Jewish Chronology, to which they still adhere; and in this
* J. Schwartz, in the Bib. Sacra (July, 1888,. p. 447), has tried to
make out a knowledge of the 480th year reckoning in Castor of Rhodes,
just before Clement; but the figuring is very complicated and far
fetched, and reaches no reliable result.
t See a similar case explained in Period C, § 12.

THE JUDGES / 253
they made the age of the world as short as they could, in order to deny
the Messiahship of Jesus by alleging, that "the last times " required
by prophesy had not yet arrived when he appeared.' This chronology
(found in the present Jewish calendar) as fully established in the 3d
century, has from Creation the 2451st year to the Exodus+480 to the
Temple+410 to the Captivity+490 to Jerusalem's overthrow by Titus
=total 3831st year (minus A. D. 7o)=376ist year B. C, instead of
Usher's 4004. This seems to be, then, the origin of the "480th year"
assigned at the founding of the temple,* — along with the greater error
of only (490 — A. D. 70=) 4ig years put from the beginning of the cap
tivity to the Christian Era! Such is the blundering Jewish reckoning
of their Hebrew chronology.
Aquila was a pagan who became a Christian, and then apostatized
to Judaism; and in A. D. 138 he put forth his Greek translation of the
Old Testament, to take the place of the Septuagint, which the Jews
had by that time pretty generally discarded as too favorable to the
Christians. If Aquila, under the teaching of Rabbi Akiba (who was
his preceptor) adjusted his Greek version with the "440th year of the
exodus from Egypt" at I Kings vi: 1, in the way we have indicated
above — it would soon find its way as a seeming improvement into all
copies of the Greek Lxx, because his version was at once accepted as
more correct than that. And it would not be long before the Hebrew
text itself would. show its gloss (and then its corruption) "480th year,"
as we have shown. " Origin cites the text I Kings vi: 1, leaving out
all that part (concerning the exodus); nor is it in that parallel place' of
Chronicles." (fackson.)
§83. There is one fact very noticeable here: "All the eastern
copies of the Hebrew have 1656 years before the flood; but all the western
copies have 1556, leaving 100 from Jared; so we are told by an author
of good credit." (Jackson.) It would thus seem, that older copies
(scattered in the west) had no 480 reducing the period from the Exodus
to the Temple by 100 years, but had instead a 100 reduction before the
flood. Whereas, when eastern copies, by insertion of the 480 would
lower the whole chronology 100 years, an offsetting 100 years was
added to Jared, to keep the total A. M. unchanged, viz., 3761 B. C,
as in the modern Jewish Chronology. ' This looks like a purposed ad
justment of the reckoning about the 2d century. (See Period A, B, §
27.) But we need not here allege any intentional corruption of I Kings
vi: 1; though such complaints have been freely made by many writers. f
We have shown sufficient grounds for explanatory words, inserted in
*Eusebius says he took it from "the Jewish doctors."
fSee Appendix D, § 99.

254 PERIOD D
the margin, and finding their way into the text, as a supposed correc
tion or improvement. And this is all that we feel called to insist upon.
But, one way or another, the ' ' 48othyear " reckoning must have crept
into the Scripture account at some period, seemingly later than when
Paul, and Josephus, and the other early writers lived. (See Appendix
E, I ioo.) Conclusion.
§84. So then, we seem to have shown, that the present "480th
year " in our I Kings vi: 1, is a corruption, from an original reckoning1
580 years, probably written as " 980 years " from Isaac, and changed
to 480th year by mistake, as a supposed correction of the number.
There appears but one question unanswered, viz: Was the number
"g8o" in the original Hebrew as Josephus and Paul had it — or was
the text without a date at that point, until the "480th year " was subse
quently put in ?. The deranged order of- the Lxx text favors the latter
view; but the change to "480th " favors the former view.
If the Hebrew text originally had "g8o," the form of statement
then must have been different from what it now is; not "480th year of
exit from Egypt," but "g8o years from foreign affliction," or the like.
And so also, when the "440th year " was a mere gloss to the Lxx, it
must have read ' ' 440th year of exit from foreign affliction, ' ' not as now
"440th year of exit from Egypt." But most likely, there was origi
nally no number given in the text of I Kings vi: 1. If it were there in
Kings, why is so marked a date omitted in the later chronicles going
over the same events ?
We have thus given a plausible account of the way in which the
corruption of our present I Kings vi: 1, may have come about; while
yet the New Testament writers, with Josephus and others, had for a
certainty no such number there as we now have. The real value, the
580- years, carries us from the founding of the temple ' ' in the 4th year
of Solomon," B. C. ion, to B. C. isgi as the true date of the exodus,
not B. C. i4gi as Usher has it.

APPENDIX A.
For § 62.
Josephus and the Priest Record.
§ 85. We have shown before (in the previous Period E) that
Josephus reckoned the 70 years captivity as ending at the Jubilee B. C.
513, regarded by tradition as,the time of the second temple's dedica
tion (delayed like Solomon's dedication to concur with the Jubilee).
And we now see that in this Josephus was only following the Priest

THE JUDGES 255
Record given by him (which perpetuates that tradition), though he
mistakingly thought that record lacked 12 years of reaching down to B.
C. 513, and therefore added 12 years to it to make his own chronology,
as we shall presently see. (§86.)
The true Bible chronology, as we showed in Period E, has a
marked interval, 466 years, as the duration of reign to David's line, from
the accession of David in B. C, 1053 to the destruction of Jerusalem in
B. C. 587. This same interval was applied by the Jews to reach from
Solomon's dedication 50 years later in B. C. 1003, down to the Cyrus
decree for restoration as also 50 years later in B. C. 537. And this
same interval was applied in the Jews' Priest Record as reaching from
the death of Zakok (taken as 24 years after Solomon's dedication
(as also 24 years after the Cyrus decree), viz., in B. C. 513. These
were all correct applications of the ' ' 466 years " interval. (See Restor.
of Jos., §42, 43.)
§ 86. But in after times Josephus mistook the Priest Record's 612,
as reaching down only 20 years affer the 4th of Solomon (the definite
period of building, I Ki. ix: 10), instead of 24 years after the 12th of
Solomon, the time of dedication. This made a difference of 8+4=) 12
years, causing the Priest Record's, 466 years to fall 12 years short of
its true terminus in B- C. 513. He therefore had to add these 12 years
as 5+7) to reach first the 2d and then the gth' of Darius), and in
this way he, in his own reckoning, reached 12 years earlier than
the Record, viz. (i5gi+i2=) 1603 B. C. for the exodus, with (580+12=)
5g2 from thence to the temple.
(Note. Since the continuator of the Priest Record, who, before
Josephus had appended the "414 years" down to the Maccabees,
began it, by a similar mistake, at the 2d instead of the gth Darius, there
is thus now in the Priest Record an apparent excess of only 7 years in
stead of the 12 put in by Josephus.)
§ 87. As Josephus thus increased by 12 both the Priest Record
total 1078 (up to iogo) and its earlier portion 580 (up to 5g2), his remain
ing portion (iogo — 592=) 498 was thus left the same as that in the Priest
Record, viz., 1078 — 580=) 498- years from the 4th Solomon to the
gth Darius, or (4g8 — 8=) 4go years from dedication to dedication (B. C.
1003 to 513). This makes 4gi years from the founding of one temple
to that of the other (put as B. C. ion to 520) — just as Josephus gives it
in the War, in precise accord with the Priest Record, as here seen.
(See further in Period E.)
Thus the Bible chronology seems to have been developed historically,
first into the correct reckoning of the Priest Record, and then into
the modified reckoning of Josephus (correct from temple to temple), as
seen in the table at § 5.

256 period d

APPENDIX B.
For § 71.
The Independence Era of Ehud.
§ 88. We find in the Greek Septuagint three striking and related
peculiarities, which combine to show the theory upon which its chro
nology at I Ki. vi: 1, is based.
(1) The passage at Ex. xx: 40, has in the Lxx an inserted clause, as
follows: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, which they
sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was 430
years." (The Samaritan pentateuch has a similar clause, but inserted
before instead of after the mention of Egypt.)
§ 8g. (2) The Lxx has I Ki. vi: 1, reading "in the 440th year," in
stead of the 480th year of the Hebrew text. Moreover the whole pas
sage (from v: 16, to vi: 2) is transposed and confused, showing that it
has been tampered with. It reads thus":
I Ki. v: 16, " — the people that wrought in the work. 17. And
they prepared the stones and the timbers [three years. And it came
to pass, in the four hundred and fortieth year of exodus of (the) chil
dren of Israel from 'Egypt, in the year the fourth, in month the second
of the King Solomon reigning over Israel,]
17. And [that] the king commanded that they should take great
costly stones for the foundation ofthe house, and' hewn stones.
18. And the men of Solomon and the men of Huram hewed and
placed them.
vi: 1. In the year the fourth he founded the house of the Lord, in
month of Zif, even in the, second month.
(38.) In the eleventh year, in month Baal (that is the eighth
month) the house was completed, etc. [No "seven years."]
2. And the house which the king built for the Lord," etc.
Remarks.
The original lxx evidently was without the sentence in brackets
[]; without which, that version reads much like the Hebrew— ex
cept that ver. 38 is brought back to fill out ver. 1 with the finished
temple dating (instead of the exodus date).
After the inserted "three years," on the margin was the gloss con
tained in brackets [],' which afterward wrongly got into the text.
This is evident from the awkward manner of its insertion, in the
wrong place (at v: 17, instead of vi: 1— introduced by "And " without
any following verb— and repeating the year and month of ver. 1).
Subsequently, by way of supposed correction of the lxx, the gloss

THE JUDGES 257
was inserted in the Hebrew also, at the more fitting place (ver. i) as
"480th" not 44oth^thus avoiding the repetition of the year and
month. § 90. (3) The Lxx has the book of Joshua not ending as does our
Bible with the Hebrew verse 33 of the last chapter, but has an addi
tional paragraph, as follows:
"In that day the children of Israel took the ark of God and carried
it about among them; and Phinehas exercised the priest's office in the
room of Eleazar, his father, till he died; and he was buried in his own
place Gebaar [the hill]. But the children of Israel departed every
M,one to their place and to their own city. And the children of Israel
worshiped Astarte and Ashtaroth, and the gods of the nations round
about them; and the Lord delivered them into the hands of Eglon,
King of Moab, and he lorded it over them eighteen years."
This is an abridgement of the history given in Judges (i: 1, to iii: 30),
taking its statements particularly from ii: 6, 12, 13, and iii: 12, 14; but
the first statement about Phinehas and the ark has no parallel. The
early Jews, in framing the Lxx version, evidently followed in this mat
ter a tradition, which linked the book of Joshua with the five books of
Moses as a " hexateuch, " carrying the history to the end of Jewish
servitude. And they understood that the nation did not really gain
its independence till Ehud's 80 years of peace, after the 18 years of
servitude to Eglon, King of Moab; with which latter events, therefore, '
the book of Joshua (or of subjugation) was considered as properly
closing. §91. Caleb's nephew Othniel, really the first "judge," seems to
have been looked at as simply a survival of " the days of Joshua and
of the elders that outlived Joshua" (ii: 7); and so long as the ark was
"carried about among them," without a settled headquarters for the
people,* their actual exodus out of Egyptian bondage was not looked
back upon as complete. They thus came to regard the accession of
Ehud,^when he " blew a trumpet " and cried " Follow after me !"
completely routing Moab, — as a grand epoch in their history; from
which they dated forward and backward, as the dividing line of coloni
zation (or pilgrimage) and of nationality. And it is this era oi finished
independence that seems to have been originally meant by " the 440th
year " at I Ki. vi: 1, of the Septuagint.
§ g2. Can any one in any better way than this account for the fact,
that the Lxx has this different number of years, put with the singular
* It would seem, from the above extract from the Lxx, that after
the " tabernacle" was located at Shiloh (Josh, xviii: 1, 10) the " ark "
itself was from time to time " carried about " for safety or for prestige,
in those troublous times, until it was fixed in its place at Shiloh
upon Ehud's triumph. (Jud. iii: 30, and xviii: 31. See I Sam. iv: 4.)

258 period d
fact, that it has also this parallel addition at the close of Joshua,
which just meets the requirements of the changed number (440), — to
gether with the other fact, that at Ex. xii: 40, a sojourn "in Canaan "
is added as following the sojourn in Egypt ? The seventy translators
who so publicly by official authority sent forth the Septuagint from
Alexandria, certainly would not boldly change the number contained
in the well-known Hebrew Scripture, except as they supposed them;
selves to be giving an equivalent date more understandable or accepta
ble in their times.
It was natural for the Jews, and especially there in Alexandria, sur
rounded by an Egyptian atmosphere, to lump all their original servi
tude in with the Egyptian bondage, and not concede that they had
been actual slaves to other nations after their boasted exodus was
complete. And they did not like to magnify the time after their full
freedom before their most illustrious monarch had built their world-
famed temple; when everybody knew that the first business of Egyp
tian monarchs was to erect their stately temples of worship. They
therefore preferred to date Solomon's Temple back only from the era
of their full independence, with distinct recognition that it was before
that era in the times of Moses and Joshua and their immediate colonial
successors, that "the ark" of their worship was allowed to wander
about without a home.
§ g3. And that there was some excuse for this traditional era of
Ehud as the end of national servitude, will appear from the fact, that
up to that point the Scripture expression used is, "The children of
Israel served Chushan-rishathaim," " The children of Israel served
Eglon" (Ju. iii: 8, 14); i. e., they were in actual servitude or subjection,
whereas no such expression occurs afterward. It is only said that
the enemy "oppressed" (iv: 3) " prevailed against " and "impover
ished" (vi: 2, 6), " vexed" and "distressed" (x: 8, 9), and "came into
the coasts of Israel (I Sam. ix: 13), in order to prove Israel" (Ju. iii:
1-5). It was only in banter that the Philistines considered themselves
" rulers " and the Hebrews their " servants" (I Sam. iv: 9; Ju. xv: n);
they were simply annoying invaders, not subjugators like Chusham
and -Eglon, in the former .days of real servitude. At least, so the
Jews liked to look back upon it in after times, putting an era of com
parative independence from Ehud onward.
Moab (like'Edom), though unmolested, yet refused a passage to the
Israelites when they entered the land. (Num. xxii.) Moab", under Ba
lak, opposed their progress, and caused a great plague to Israel.
Hence Balaam's famous Messianic prophecy (Num. xxiv: 17), "I shall
see him, but not now: I shall behold -him, but not nigh: there shall
come a star out of Jacob, ahd a scepter shall rise out of Israel and
shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of
Sheth."

THE JUDGES 259
It was just ioo years afterward, when Eglon (king of Moab in
Balak's place) had subjugated Israel for 18 years (their last real bond
age); and Ehud, as a typical "star out of Jacob and scepter out of
Israel," came and smote most terribly Eglon and Moab, with slaughter'
of 10,000 (Jud. iii: 12-30). "And there escaped not a man. So Moab
was subdued that day under the hand of Israel; and the land had rest
four score years."
§ 94. No wonder that the Jews seem to have regarded this acces
sion of Ehud as a great era in their history, the end of their bondage,
and their full attainment of Canaan. No wonder that they looked
upon Ehud as the Star and the Scepter smiting Moab, the type of their
very Messiah. Those 100 years (plus the 40 in the wilderness) they
were disposed to class with their earlier bondage, rather than with
their later freedom; and this was what seems to have led to the cor
ruption' of I Ki. vi: 1, from its original intent (580) to be as we now
have it, "the 440th year "of the Septuagint.
Josephus (Antiq. 5, v: 1) calls the 80 years of Ehud " a short breath
ing-time after the slavery under the Moabites"; and his editor, Dr.
Whiston, takes advantage from this remark to suggest, that Josephus
may have intended only 8 years instead of 80 for Ehud, thus seeking
to reach the shortened "480th year" of I Ki. vi: 1. But such a sur
mise is entirely foreign to all Josephus' reckoning. He only means,
that 80 years of freedom seemed but "short" compared with Israel's
preceding 400 years of trouble. In reality, the 80 years of Ehud were
lengthened into (80+20+40=) 140 years of comparative quiet. For
the intervening "20 years" of Jabin's oppression (not of servitude)
were relieved seemingly by the simultaneous administration of Sham-
gar and Deborah before the victory of Barak. (See Ju. iii: 31, and iv:
4, "at that time.") Some expositors have omitted those 20 years from
their list of omitted foreign servitudes. (See Scott's Bible.)
§ 95. There was also, in the Jewish double method of reckoning
epochs, a special reason for this epoch of Ehud. As the Lxx puts the
period "430 years" distinctly as that of the sojourning "in the land
of Egypt and in the land of Canaan" (not Egypt alone as in our He
brew); and as the Samaritan copy has the same in different order, viz,
" in Canaan and in Egypt"; it is obvious that the Jews understood
* this period as covering the whole time of pilgrimage, however reckoned
— whether from Abraham's first coming to Canaan and Egypt down to
the first exodus (where the number is put), or, as applied particularly
to Israel, from the time of Israel's going off to sojourn in Haran to
the time of Israel's perfected exit out of servitude (with a wandering
ark J at the triumph of Ehud. For this latter interval they made "430
years " as truly as the other. (This we show in our next Appendix.)
(Note. The translators of the Lxx were led to the insertion of their
extra clause ("and in the land of Canaan") in the text of Ex. xii: 40, as

260 period d
a necessity of their wrong rendering— "the sojourning— which they
sojourned." For they saw that it was not true, that the 430 years so
journing was all in Egypt. That notion, which some now adopt, did
not enter their minds. The revisers, unfortunately, adopt their ren
dering without their added clause to preserve the truth. But, doubt
less, our received English version has it right. Now the sojourning
of the children of Israel who sojourned in Egypt, was 430 years.
This is strictly true, and does not assert that the 430, years was ah
spent in Egypt. ) APPENDIX C.
For § 71.
Israel's Stay in Haran.
§ 96. The " 430-year " interval was reckoned from " Israel " him
self, as well as from Abraham. That is, as Ehud began at the (40+25
_|_IO+8+40+i8=)i4ist year after the Exodus, for a second ending of
the 430-year period— so Israel's removal to Haran was regarded as
(Ab. 25+Isaac 60+Israel 56 =) the 141st year after Abraham's arrival
in Canaan, for a second beginning of the 430-year period. This shows
an early Jewish opinion, that Israel went to Haran when 56 years old
(not 77 as usually reckoned) ; * and that his stay there was 40 years (in
stead of 20). Perhaps they understood Gen. xxxi: 41 as meaning, "I
have been twenty years in thy house; also I served thee 14 years and 6
years; "instead of viewing the two clauses as covering one and the same
20 years, as is commonly done.
In Gen. xxxi: 38, 41, the Hebrew has no verb "have been," and no
word "thus; " but the (zeh-zeh) at beginning of the two sentences may
be adversative, "this— that," or " one— another; " justas at I Ki. xxii:
20. Thus these old Jews seem to have read the passage, verse 38,
" This twenty years I (have been) with thee " working on shares, with
no damage to thy flocks; verse 41, " That (first) twenty years (was) in
thy house," serving, first for wives and then for flocks, (as at xxx: 32,
" and they shall be my hire " for the six years over- work already per
formed; and so henceforth).
§97. It thus appears,, that the compiler of Genesis, after entering
upon the family register at xxix: 31, went on to finish it, without mixing
in business arrangments (a common method of writing history); and
then, at xxx: 25, went on to give the revision of business arrangments
then made, after some 34 years spent with Laban. This leads him
now, at xxx: 2g, to go back and relate the.previous origin of these busi
ness arrangements, when "20 years in Laban's house" had elapsed,
xxxi: 41, " for he (Jacob) had said unto him," etc. (ver. 2g.)
*They called Joseph 40 (not 3g) when Jacob was 130, making Jacob
g6 (not g7) on leaving Haran.

THE JUDGES 261
Thus Laban's offer at xxx: 28, is a repetition ofhis previous pro
posal in ver. 31, made some fourteen years before; and the repetition
of statement here (in ver. 29 and 31) plainly shows a lapse of time be
tween two bargains. At the second bargaining in ver. 28, after com
plaint of " wages changed iotimes " (xxxi: 7, 41), Laban has to promise
clearly to stick to his bargain, and say, " appoint me thy wages, and I
will give it," i. e., without further variation. And thereupon (after
the episode of ver. 29-36, belonging back after xxix: 30), the account
goes on, at ver. 37-43; to relate what occurred for the remaining six
years, which make up the 40 years of Jacob's abode in Haran. The.
first 20 years were in " Laban's house " (xxxiii), buying wives and cat
tle (down to xxx: 32, "they shall be my hire," i. e., for the past six
years overworked) ; — and the last twenty years were on shares ' ' with
Laban " (xxxi: 38), with no ground of complaint.
The Westminster S. S. Quarterly, for April, i8g4, says, Jacob's
return from Haran was " 20 years, or, accordingto other authorities, 40
years, after the vision at Bethel." In the S. S. Times, Feb. 24, i8g4,
Prof. Beecher, of Auburn, says: " An obscure tradition affirms that
there was an interval of 20 years between the 14 years and the 6 years,
regarding the 20 years of verse 38 as different from the 20 of verse 42.
That there was such a long interval the facts conclusively show."
(He recites them.)
The learned Dr. Kennicott accepts as correct this old traditional
view of the Jews, putting Jacob's sojourn 40 years. (See marg. of
Polyglott Bible, Gen. xxvii: 1.) And there is certainly some ground for
this view, that there was a 20 years of serving and an additional 20
years of sojourning. Jacob was certainly 96 or 97 years old at his re
turn to Canaan, (Joseph being about 6, see Geh. xxx: 25, and xxxi: 41);
and there were go org 1 years difference in the age of Joseph and Jacob
(see xii: 46, 47, and xiv: 6, and xlvii: 9); and so Jacob was 56 or 57 not
77 at his leaving home. For,
§ 98. (1) That is the more likely age for Jacob to go seeking a
wife, (xxviii: 1, 2, comp. xxvii: 41). Esau was married at 40 (see
xxvi: 34).
(2) The longer sojourn seems necessary to account for all the
births and acquisitions in Haran. (Ch. xxix to xxxi.)
(3) Also, to account for the advanced boyhood of Reuben before
the birth of several of his brothers, (xxx: 14.)
(4) To account for the difference of age seemingly required between
Joseph and his brethren. (Ch. xxvii, etc.)
(5) To account for the mature age of the daughter Dinah, as given
before the birth of Benjamin on the way to Isaac. (Ch. xxxiv: 35, and
xlviii: 7.)
(6) To account for the successive births and marriages of Judah's

262 period d
children, and the birth of children's children, the great grandchildren
of Jacob, all within 33 years after leaving Haran, and within 42 years
after Judah's own birth, if there were but 20 years' stay in Haran.
(Ch. xxxviii and xlvi.)
All these facts of the Scripture narrative seem to require the births
(of xxix: 32, to xxx: 21) to be not shut up within 7 years; as a 20-years'
stay in Haran puts them, but to be strung along through 27 years, as a
40-years' stay makes them.
However, those afterward who took Gen. xxxi: 40 in the com
mon view as covering but 20 years of sojourn, had the 161st year
(instead of 141st) from Jacob's 75 yrs. back to Abraham's coming; and
they tried to parallel this by making out the 161st year (instead of
141st) from the exodus to Ehud. This they did by lengthening Joshua
2 years (from 25 to 27) and lengthening the subsequent anarchy 18
years (from 10 to 28), as we find the numbers given by Eusebius. Thus
having the 161st year down to Ehud, the adding of ' ' the 440th year " of
the lxx, made just 600 years to the temple, instead of the correct 580th
year. Here, then, is seen one source of the enlarged reckoning (600,
etc.) of this interval, which so prevailed in later times, and which
we more fully discuss elsewhere.
APPENDIX D.
For § 83.
Corruption of the Scripture Text.
§99. From the Chronol. Antiq., by John Jackson, London, 1732,
3 vol. folio. " The Hebrew was corrupted by the later Jews them
selves, and so the Christians were imposed upon. The true chronology
was divinely preserved in Josephus, who says he followed the Hebrew
copies. . The corruption is no older than the 2d century. Augustine
(De. Civ. Dei. xv: 1) relates, that the Jews were suspected of having
corrupted their copies (as to the antediluvians) out of envy to the Christ-
tians, and to diminish the authority of the Greek Scriptures used by
the Christian Church, — and to confound the time of Christ's coming.
This was easy to be done through their Sanhedrim, who controlled all
Jews. * * * In the 2d century great changes were made in the
Hebrew. For, the new Greek translations of Aquila (A. D. 128),
Theodotian (185), and Symmachus (200) vary much from the Septua
gint. In this corrected Hebrew the whole chronology was shortened.
" Few Christians understood the Hebrew, so that it was easy to
corrupt it; and most Hebrew copies were lost at the destruction of
Jerusalem, and the destruction in the reign of Hadrian. Then Aquila
was employed to get up a new translation (in A. D. 128), and this was
the only reason for it. Epiphanius (De Mensa, p. ifi) says that

THE JUDGES 263
Aquila perverted the Hebrew text to invalidate the prophesies concern
ing Christ, etc. It was promoted by the false Christ that the Jews
then got up. Justin Martyr (A. D. 142) mentions several instances of
the altering and erasing of prophesies oconcerning Christ in the lxx.
* * * Abul-Pharagius is very express in charging the Jews with
this mutilation for this purpose.
"Eusebius followed a groundless Jewish tradition, including the
foreigners in the reigns; which led to error of opinion concerning this
period. The I Ki. vi: 1, has been corrupted by the Jews, and the ' 480 '
was not known to the ancient Jewish and Christian writers. Eusebius
is the first that mentions the 480. * * * Very likely the 480 was in
serted in I Ki. vi: 1, to support the 'Jewish tradition' mentioned by
Eusebius, of foreigners included in the reigns, and as a contrivance to
shorten the chronology, getting it nearly as in the Lxx before Eusebius
(viz. , 440). But there was no number there known by Paul or Josephus,
either in Greek or Hebrew. It was introduced no later than the 3d
century. For Origen cites the text I Ki. vi: 1, leaving out all that
part. Nor is it in the parallel place of Chronicles. And Panadorus
(A. D. 400) found fault with Eusebius for this. Also Syncellus." (See
Periods A, B, § 20.)
See also Russel's Connection of Sacred and Profane Chronology
(Wheeler's edition) Vol. 1, p. 79-81, which is cited by J. Schwartz in
Bib. Sac, 1888, p. 447. APPENDIX E.
For § 83.
The Reliability of Josephus.
I 100. The learned Wm. Whiston (A. D. 1750), in highly eulogizing
Josephus, says: " Let me set down the sentiments of, perhaps, the
most learned person and the most competent judge that ever was, as
to the authority of Josephus, — I mean of Joseph Scaliger (A. D. 1600)
in his Emend. Temp., p. 17: 'Josephus is the most diligent, and the
greatest lover of truth of all writers; nor are we afraid to affirm of him,
that it is more safe to believe him, not only as to the affairs of the
Jews, but also as to those that are foreign to them, than all the Greek
and Latin writers; and this because his fidelity and his compass of
learning are everywhere conspicuous.' "
Eusebius (A. D. 320) often quotes from Josephus as reliable author
ity, and says (Hist, i: 11): " Since this writer, sprung from the
Hebrews themselves, hath delivered these things in his own work,
what room is there for any further evasion ? "
Ambrose (A. D. 360) says of Josephus: " He is an author not to be
rejected." " If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believe

264 PERIOD D
their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man,
hath spoken truth. It was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a
(Christian) believer, but this adds more weight to his testimony."
Isidore (A. D. 410) calls Josephus "a Jew of the greatest reputa
tion, and one that was zealous of the law; one also that paraphrased
the Old Testament with truth, and acted valiently for the Jews. He
made interest give place to truth, for he would not support the opinion
of impious men."
Sozomon (A. D. 440) says: " Now Josephus, the son of Mattathias,
a priest, a man of very great note both among the Jews and the
Romans, may well be a witness of credit as to the truth of Christ's
history." Cassiodorus (A. D. 510) calls Josephus "a man of great nobility
among the Jews, and of great dignity among the Romans," a reliable
source of "truth."
The Chron. Alex. (A. D. 640) cites Josephus as " a wise man among
the Hebrews." And Malela (A. D. 850) calls Josephus "the philos
opher of the Hebrews."

PART III

The Pharaoh of The Exodus.
§ 101. We have shown the date of the exodus according to Script
ure.* But does not modern research into Egyptian antiquities require
a different dating? No. Egyptology is unable to determine the date
of the exodus; and the Bible reckoning must stand upon its own
merits. For, look at CHAPTER I.
Egyptian Chronology.
(1) There is no Egyptian account of the exodus. This is conceded
by all. Their monuments and inscriptions recorded achievements, not
disasters. It is only incidental circumstances that can be picked out
here and there, to indicate where the exodus might have been; and
there are in Egyptian history several such possible epochs, hundreds of
years apart, where such an event might well have come in. It is not

* Usher givesit as (B. C. 588+424=B. C. ioi2+48oth=B. C. 1401
We show it to be more probably (B. C. 587+424=101 1+580=) B.C.

THE JUDGES 265
likely that exploration will ever bring any determination of the case.
For, § 102. (2) The Egyptians had no chronology, as the Hebrews so
exactly had. Hear what George Rawlinson, the learned professor, of
Oxford, says upon the subject:
"The great defect of the monuments is their incompleteness. The
Egyptians had no era. They drew out no chronological schemes.
They cared for nothing but to know how long each incarnate god,
human or bovine, had condescended to tarry upon the earth. * * *
They omitted to distinguish the sole reign of a monarch from his joint
reign with others. A monarch might occupy the throne ten years in
conjunction with his father, thirty-two years alone, and three years in
conjunction with his son; in an Egyptian regnal list he will be credited
with forty-five years, although his first ten years will be assigned also
to his father, and his last three to his son. * * * Only one calcu
lation of the time which had elapsed nbetween a monarch belonging to
one dynasty and one belonging to another, has been found in the whole
range of Egyptian monumental literature; and in that, which is the
(apparently) rough estimate of 400 years, neither the terminus a quo nor
the terminus ad quem is determined.
"The only monumental list which is chronological at all, the Turin
papyrus (as to the 18th dynasty), exists in tattered fragments, the orig
inal order of which is uncertain, while the notices of time which it
once contained are in many cases lost or obliterated. * * * These
many and great defects of the Turin papyrus it is quite impossible to
supply from any other monumental source. A casual correction of the
numbers given in the papyrus may be made from the annals of the
kings; but there is no possibility of filling up its gaps from the monu
ments, nor of constructing from them alone anything like a consecutive
chronological scheme, either for the early, or the middle (Hyesos), or
even the later empire. This is confessed by most Egyptologists,
though not as yet very clearly apprehended by the general public.
" Brugsch says: ' It is only from the beginning of the 26th dynasty
(B. C. 692) that the Egyptian chronology is founded on data which leaves
little to be desired as to their exactitude. ' Bunsen says : ' History is not
to be elicited from the monuments; not even its frame-work, chronol
ogy. ' Stuart Poole says : ' The condition of the monuments with regard
to the chronology is neither full nor explicit.' Lenormant says: ' The
greatest obstacle to the establishment of a regular Egyptian chronology
is, that the Egyptians themselves never had any chronology . ' Even for
the last empire a monumental chronology is absolutely unattainable."
(Rawlinson's Hist, of Ane. Egypt, Vol. II, Ch. 12, p. 2.) See here,
Period E, § 160, etc.
§ IQ3- (3) Egyptology can not even assign for certainty the time of
any Egyptian king before Solomon, or tell within 100 years when any

266 PERIOD D
pharaoh reigned. The only means of putting hi order at all the reigns
of those ancient pharaohs, is the list of dynasties given by Manetho
(B. C. 304); and his figures in some cases are proved by the monuments
unreliable; while it is not even agreed in what cases the dynasties
overlap each other, or when the reigns are successive. Compare such
a jumble of reckoning with the careful and orderly specification of
reigns and synchronisms and eras given in Scripture, and judge
whether it is possible for any theory of Egyptian dating ever to com
pete with or disparage a plain Hebrew date. Egyptian darkness will
not eclipse Bible light.
§ 104. (4) The excavated monuments of Egypt do not determine
definitely the time in which those ancient pharaohs lived. They
merely tell, in a few cases, how long one particular king reigned, not
at what period of time his reign was located. There are four inscrip
tions sometimes cited, in which the rising of Sirius, the dog-star, is
mentioned in connection with the dating of the seasons; and attempts
have been made to deduce therefrom, astronomically, the years
wherein those mentions are made. But it has been shown that no
date of any reign can thus be definitely ascertained. (See this fully
discussed in my essay on " Monumental Inscriptions and the Egyptian
years.) Egyptologists assign their chronology of the ancient Pharaohs
in entire contradiction and defiance of such calculations.
§ I05- (5) There is but one other means of information, by which
alone a probable starting point has been reached for the locating of the
ancient pharaohs. It is the remark of Theon (A. D. 365), that the
Sothic era, running 1460 years, was called "the era of Menophres."
This tradition is positively all we know of the time when any ancient
pharaoh lived. And Egyptologists are all agreed in accepting this as
the one reliable dictum upon which the ancient Egyptian chronology
must be "based.
As A. D. 136-9 is known to be the ending of the Sothis period,
when Sirius rose heliacally on July 20, Julian, the I Thoth of the
Egyptian rotary year, its beginning must be at (1460 yrs. — A. D.
136-9-—) B. C. 1325-2. And this is the date which Theon says the
Egyptians call "the era of Menophres," one of the pharaohs. Who
was he? Egyptologists almost universally are agreed that it is " Men
eptah," the son and successor of " Rameses II the Great," and fourth
king of the 19th dynasty of Manetho. So that, as the Sothic era B. C.
1325-21 is taken as coming in the reign of Meneptah, the igth dynasty
is assigned as beginning about B. C. 1477, by putting in the three previ
ous reigns as given by Manetho, whose lengths of dynasties also
confirm the same.
§ 106. For, as given by Geo. Rawlinson (Hist. Ane. Egypt, 1889,
p. 7), "Tirhakah [II Ki. xix: 9] reigned 26 years, and we may there-

THE JUDGES 267
fore place his accession in B. C. 698. Thus far back the dates are as
nearly as possible certain, and from here we are thrown almost entirely
upon Manetho, who makes the rest of the 25th dynasty 22 or 24 years,
i. e., to B. C. 722 for the accession of ' So ' [agreeing with II Ki. xvii:
4]. Then the 24th dynasty is 44 years (from Euseb. in Syn.), and the
23d and 22d dynasties are 209 years (from Afric. in Syn.), carrying us
to B. C. 975 for the accession of Shishak [the year before Solomon's
death, in agreement with I Ki. xi: 40], or B. C. 935 if, at dynasties 25
and 24, the 22 yrs. and 6 yrs. (from Afric. in Syn.) be substituted for
the 24 yrs. and 44 yrs. (from Euseb. in Syn.) [Mariette makes it B.
C. 980.] Then the 21st, 20th, and igth dynasties are (from Afric.) 474
years, or (from Euseb.) 502 years; making, when added to g75, the
19th dynasty begin B. C. 1449 to 1477 (the latter being the Eusebian
reckoning throughout)." So says Rawlinson (abridged). Prof. Lep
sius and M. Mariette (in Encyc. Brittan.) reduce the 19th dynasty from
(94 to 174, which will make its Eusebian igth dynasty begin B. C. 1457.
Wilkinson, Birch, and Lenormant reduce the igth dynasty to 160
years, which will make it begin B. C. 1443.*
§ 108. We may, therefore, set B. C. 1477 to 1443 as the limits for
the beginning of the 19th dynasty, as assigned by Egyptologists from
the Eusebian reckoning of Manetho's dynasties — in close agreement
with the date obtained ,from the Sothis period as beginning iri the
reign of Meneptah. For, that B. C. 1325-2, with only Manetho's two
preceding reigns given as 125 years, will make B. C. 1450, before putting
*The 19TH Dynasty.
§ 107. The Eusebian reckoning of Manetho's dynasties, both in the
Latin of Jerome and the Greek of Syncellus, puts the —
B.C. 21st. 20th. B.C. 19th. B.C. Begin.
Begin: of 22d dy  =g75+i30+i78=i283+ig4=i477=ig dy.
Another copy  (202=1485)-
The Armen. of Euseb  172=1277+194=1471 (1479)
Lepsius & Mariette reduce to  174=1457
Mariette has g8o,& thus 1288+174=1462
But with Euseb  194=1482 (1476)
Wilkinson, Birch, and Lenormant re
duce to  160=1443
Afric. in Syn. (in Anthon) has  135=1240+210=1450
(in Rawlinson)  2og=i44g
(another copy)  204=1444
An. Old Chronicle has  +121+228=1324+^4=1518
Lepsius has the 961 (14 less than Euseb.) 1269+174=1443
Others reduce to g35( (from Afric,
making  +174=1417 -(or less.)

268 PERIOD D

in any reign of Meneptah himself or of Ramses I, which may carry us
to B. C. 1477. Here, then, at B. C. 1477 to 1450, is the highest proba
bility that Egyptology can reach, for a date of beginning the igth
dynasty, as a basis of the doubtful chronology within two hundred
years each way from that time.*

CHAPTER II.
Theories of the Exodus.
§ iog. With the igth dynasty thus located within certain limits,
there have followed three sorts of assignment for the exodus; (1) as be
ing just before, (2) as being over a century before, (3) as being over a
century after the igth dynasty began.
1. The Midway Assignment.
§ no. The standard reckoning of all who follow the Bible, and ac
cept "the 480th year" date (of I Ki. vi: 1) has for centuries put the
exodus just before the igth dynasty, viz., in B. C. i4gi (as given by
Usher), as the "480th" year added to "the 4th year of Solomon."
This throws the event into the last reign of the 18th dynasty, assumed
to be the reign of the last " Amenophis " of Manetho (as given by Jo
sephus, Vs. Apion, i: 15). He is understood as the one who expelled
the lepers from Egypt, according to Manetho's account there given.
This Amenophis reckoning of the exodus is given by the great
Egyptologist Champolion (A. D. 1830), and will be found fully ex
plained in Anthon's Classical Dictionary (A. D. 1856), Art. Egypt and
Sesostris. Champolion puts the exodus in the 3d year of that Pharaoh
(Amenophis), leaving 17^ of his ig>£ years reign to go before the 19th
dynasty taken as begun in B. C. 1473, thus making up the B. C. 1491
to the exodus. Pharaoh himself was not regarded as drowned in the
* The only exception to this as the universally accepted foundation
of dating for those times, is the recent scheme of Jacob Schwartz, of
New York, put forth in the Bib. Sacra, for July, 1888, and in the Lon
don Theolog. Monthly for March, July and August, 1889. He throws
out the 21st dynasty entirely (as overlapping the 20th and 22d) ! and so
brings down the 19th dynasty to begin at the Sothic era B. C. 1325-2;
with Ramses I there put as the " Menophres " of Theon; because (he
says) Ramses I had "a throne name" Menpehora, which serves for
identification. But this novel scheme so violates the dynasties upon a
bare assumption (to make out a theory), and is so contrary to all views
of Egyptologists, that we hardly need to consider it here.

the judges 269
Red Sea; but Roselini, thinking he was drowned, assigned the
exodus to the very close of his reign, putting the 19th dynasty that
much earlier.
There is little in the surrounding circumstances or incidents of that
period to encourage the assignmpnt of the exodus there. The story
told by Manetho of Egyptian lepers expelled by Amenophis has little
to fasten it upon the Hebrews; and the imputation was justly repelled
by Josephus. Besides, this whole understanding of Manetho's
"Amenophis," the expeller of lepers, as being the king ending the 18th
dynasty, has been long ago universally discarded. So that there is
nothing left to sustain this dating of the-exodus, save the bare Script- _
ure number "480th year," which would put it there. This itself is an
argument against the genuineness of that number. Therefore, we
turn to 2. The Earlier Assignment.
§ in. When the Scripture number (in II Ki. vi: 1) is taken as more
properly " 580 years," it carries back the exodus 100 years further to
B. C. 1591, i. e., into the middle of the 18th dynasty, in the reign of
Thotmes III or IV, or thereabouts. And the circumstances and sur
roundings there are much more consonant with the event than in the
other place. The particulars in this respect we will give at a later
stage of the inquiry. This fact itself is evidence that the longer
reckoning of the Judges and the earlier dating of the exodus must
have precedence, as the more probable of the two Scripture views, and
more accordant with the teachings of Egyptology.
Among Egyptologists Wilkinson long ago assigned the exodus to
the reign of Thotmes III. (See Anthon.) And others put it at the end
of Thotmes IV, giving special reasons therefor. Recently, Jacob
Schwartz, of New York, has fully and with much force argued out the
certainty (as he thinks) that Thotmes III was the Pharaoh of the
Exodus. (London Theolog. Monthly, March and July, 1889.) There
is much to be said in favor of Thotmes III and IV, or their epoch, as
the times of Hebrew oppression and release. But we will not
expatiate here. For, we must mention

3. The Later Assignment.
§ 112. Egyptologists, almost universally, in rejecting (as they think
they must) the old standard or midway view of the exodus as just be
fore the 19th dynasty, have fallen upon a much later and entirely un-
scriptural date, having no warrant in the Bible, but utterly opposed to
its teachings. They have assigned it to about the Sothic era itself,

270 PERIOD D
B. C. 1325-2, saying, dogmatically and often sceptically, that the exo
dus musthave taken place (if at all) in the reign of Menepteh, near the
last of the igth dynasty.
This theory has taken root only within this last generation, but is
now entirely in the ascendant, especially among German and sceptical
explorers of monuments and inscriptions. It is too much patronized
and deferred to, even by Christian scholars, as if it might assist in Bible
investigations; whereas, like the most objectionable form of the
" higher criticism," of which it is in fact a part, it repudiates not only
"the 480th year" of the Scripture text, but all its other datings,— re
ducing the interval from the ^exodus to the founding of Solomon's tem
ple ("if there were any exodus") down to about (1310—1010 = 300
years! or at most 350 years by 'shoving down Solomon 40 or 50 years.
Modern Egyptology thus sets aside the whole Bible Chronology, as of
no account; though some attempt to make it over arbitrarily to suit the
alleged requirements of monumental research. '
The i8th Dynasty.
§ 113. It remains for us to find to what point in the 18th dynasty
the earlier or "580 years" reckoning (deduced from I Ki. vi: 1) will
take us back. This is no easy task, because not only is the length of
the igth dynasty greatly disputed (as we saw), but the whole
reckoning of the 18th dynasty, and especially the last part of it, is in
the greatest confusion, as conceded by all. Manetho in Josephus
(Vs. Ap. I, 15, 16) gives the 18th dynasty as having 18 reigns with 327
years (as added, or 3g3 as stated by Josephus). But modern Egyptolo
gists cut off the last 6 or 7 reigns, or all but 200 years.
' Says the Encyc. Brittan.: "Manetho's list is here in a very cor
rupt state. If the line ends with the accession of Ramses I [right
after Orus as the nth king], we can make a sum of not much over 200
years for the line." If we end thus with Orus and his alleged daugh
ter, Manetho's list has 12 rulers, with 208 yrs. and 3 mo. Mariette has
it 241 years (from B. C. 1462 to 1703), seeming to add in the next three
reigns, which make up 241 yrs. and 11 months.*
§ 114. But all that can be said with safety is what Schwartz as
serts: "The three last kings are simply duplicates or repetitions of
dynasty 19, as nearly all Egyptologists are agreed." Or, he should
* Schwartz (in the Lon. Theolog. Monthly, p. 154) takes out the last
three reigns, 81 years (he says 87), and the next five reigns, 49 yrs. 10
mo. (he says 4g); but he adds in an extra " 13 years " at Horus; so that
he has (8g+4g 10-12—13=) 117 yrs. 10 mo. less than Manetho's total
327, leaving 209 yrs. 2 mo. for his 18th dynasty, — very nearly as given
above.

the judges 271
rather say, the three kings before the last are duplicates.* The very last
king given in Manetho's list, as if ending the 18th dynasty, viz.,
"Amenophis, 19 yrs. and 6 mo.," is the most inexplicable of all, and
has given rise to great diversity of opinion. But we show elsewhere f
that this last king (wrongly located by Josephus) was probably men
tioned incidentally out of place by Manetho, who was here simply re
ferring back to "Amenophis IV," whom he had not named before, be
cause it was a rejected reign (as the monuments show) and contem
porary with " Orus " or his successors.
There is a circumstance which shows that we are right in this ex
planation. " Manetho says that the chief adviser of his Amenophis
(the expeller of lepers) was his namesake Amenophis, the son of
Papis." (Josephus, Vs. Ap. I, 26.) Now " the monuments show that
the principal personage in the reign of Amenotep III was, in fact,
Amenotep surnamed Si Hapi, that is, son of Hapi or Apis."
(Schwartz, § 4.) Schwartz infers from this that the final "Amen
ophis " named by Manetho is this Amenotep or Amenophis III. But
we learn rather, that it was the hitherto unnamed "Amenophis IV"
who had as adviser the aged namesake who had been his father's
prime minister, — that it was he, the son, to whom Manetho refers back.
The driving out of lepers will more appropriately fit this reign of
Amenophis IV.
§ 115. So then, this final "Amenophis" of Manetho's list being
taken -as Amenophis IV, and not to be counted (because he was a
duplicate in the times of Orus and his successors), X we have
the three preceding reigns, " Armais, Rameses, and Armesses
Maiammon," as being ' duplicates of the brothers "Armais" and
"Rameses" with their successor " Sethosis," who are here given (in
Jos., Ap. I, 15) as beginning the igth dynasty. And thus we have
Manetho's 18th dynasty as ending after Orus, with four successors oc
cupying 45 years, g mo. | Add to these the preceding " Orus 36 yrs.
5 mo. + Amenophis (III) 30 yrs. 10 mo. and we have (by this list of
Manetho in Josephus) a total of 113 years of this 18th dynasty, reach-
* The last four reigns are these: " Armais, 4 yrs. i.mo. ; Rameses,
1 yr. 4 mo.; Armesses Maiammon, 60 yrs. 2 mo.; Amenophis, 19 yrs.
6 mo.;" total 85 yrs. 1 mo.
f See my essay "In the Days of Horus," etc.
X The details concerning these boundary reigns of the 18th and 19th
dynasties, are discussed more fully in my essay, " In the Days of
Horus." I \ 116. This takes off (4 1-12 + 1 4-12 + 60 2-12 + 19 6-12=) 85
yrs. and 1 mo. from the 327 years of Manetho's list in Josephus; leav
ing his 18th dynasty there as 241 years, 11 mo. long (Mariette says 241
for 18th dy.), as follows:

272

PERIOD D

18th

dynasty

241 yrs.

19th

a

(from

Euseb.)

194 yrs.

20th

i 1

178 yrs.
2ist
^t
130 yrs.
22d
t .
' ' about 160 yrs.
23d
t (
44 yrs.
24th
a
44 yrs.
ing back to the death of Manetho's "Thmosis" br Thotmes IV; so
that the last year of Thotmes IV, was the 114th year before the 19th
dynasty. This will leave 241 years in the 18th dynasty, just the amount
which Mariette gives. And the total of Manetho's dynasties (as given
by Eusebius) from this point will go thus: 1718 B. C.
1477 1283
1 105
975815771
727 " (E, I 166.)
ggist year.
informs us (Letter, Apl. 16, 1893):
all the years he had enumerated,
from the expulsion of the Hyesos in the 5th year of Amasis, first king
of the 18th dynasty [then beginning] , to the invasion and conquest of
the Ethiopians in the 6th year [or at the end] of Bocchoris, and gave
the total as ggo years." What a wonderful confirmation is this "990,"
that our reckoning of Manetho (from Eusebius) is right ! (See Period
E, \ 166.) Probable Exodus Date.
§ 117. Now the B. C. 1477 of the Eusebian Manetho (above shown
at I 106), as the beginning of the 19th dynasty + this 113 years (Euse
bius) of the 18th dynasty = B. C. 1590 (-91), just the date of the exo
dus required by the Scriptures, with the I Ki. vi: 1, read as the " 580
Put this with what Schwartz
' Manetho made a summary of
The i8th Dynasty.
In Jos. Manetho.
1. Alisphragmuthosis.
2. Thetmosis, 23 y.
4 m.
Monuments. [Rawlinson.)
1. Aahmes.
2. Amenophis I,
3. Cheron, 3 y.
4. Amenophis, 20 y.
5. Amesses (sis.) 21 y.
6. Mephres, 12 y.
7 m.
9 m.
9 m.
0 c
3. Thotmes I. X, B
4. Thotmes II. J 2 > 2
5. Hatesu (sis.) \ t* J -
6. Thotmes III. ) go £
OT m
7. Amenophis II. (over 30)*
8. Thotmes IV. (over 6 y.)
g. Amenophis III. (over 35)
10. Amenophis IV.
7. Mephramuthosis, 25 y
8. Thmosis, 9 y.
g. Amenophis, 30 y.
10. Orus, 36 y.
. 10m,
8 m.
to m.
5 m.
10.
Amen IV.
11. Acencheres, 12 y.
12. Ruthotes (bro.) g y.
13. Acencheres, 12 y.
14. Acencheres, 12 y.
1 m.
3 m.
11 12
13- 14.
Horus. - 1
Three I g » = .
other V-JjJ § g
reigns ) ^ *"¦-
- rt ri
n. ( Three 1 g 2
12. -j sons )¦ M.a
13. ( in-law ) >s B
14. Horusi. £J5
241 y. 11 m. (Mariette 241.)
* But Rawlinson says, " a short reign of 7;or 8 years."
* But Rawlinson says, " a short reign of 7;or 8 years."
No. 4 of Manetho appears put back to 2. The yrs. of Nos. 9, 10
may be exchanged.
the judges 273
years," which we have shown to •accord with Scripture requirement.
This is a somewhat remarkable coincidence; for here we have the exo
dus brought exactly to the last year of Thotmes IV, where former
writers had assigned the event; and this date we reached unexpectedly,
without any theory, by simply adding up the numbers of Monetho as
given in Eusebius and Josephus.*
§ 118. The four reigns following Orus (in Josephus Manetho), and
occupying 45 yrs., g mo., are, in the Encyc. Brit, called three reigns
occupying " about a generation"; and in Chamber's Cyc. and Rawlin
son they are put as three reigns before Orus, said (in Chamber's) to
occupy "about 33 years," i. <e., 12 yrs., 9 mo. less than Manetho's
amount. This would reduce the distance back to the death of Thot
mes IV to (113 — 12%=) 100 years, or to his accession 109 years; which
latter from the exodus as B. C. 1591 leaves B. C. 1482 for the begin
ning of the igth dynasty, the same as given by Mariette with Euseb. 's
ig4 substituted for his 174. f (See § 107.)
§ ng. On the whole, the most probable beginning of " the 580
years " taken as the date for the exodus (meant in I Ki. vi: 1) is at the
death of Thotmes IV, reckoned as in B. C. 1590 or 91, where we have
found it here (I 117). Nothing can be brought against this date for the
death of Thotmes IV, and it is about the date set by Egyptologists
generally. There are, indeed, two or three monumental inscriptions,
which, in the way they have been interpreted, seem to date even Thot
mes III as late as B. C. 1470 or 50; and Schwartz has taken advantage
of this circumstance to attempt the lowering of all the ancient Egyp-
* Of course, a number of variations can be made upon this reckon
ing, by taking, on the one hand, the different assignments for begin
ning the igth dynasty, and, on the other hand, different lengths of
reigns in the 18th dynasty. For instance, to make the exodus reach
(9 8-12+25 10-12=) 36 yrs. 6 mo. farther into the 18th dynasty, i. e., to
the death of Thotmes III, would require the reduction of the 19th dy
nasty to (194 — 35>£=) 158 or 9 years; and Wilkinson, Birch, and Lenor
mant do reduce it to 160 years. Then the 19th dynasty will begin
(1477 — 35>£=)i442 B. C; and Lepsius has it 1443 B. C. Again, we
might say (ii3th+g 8-12 =) 122 yrs. back to the accession of Thotmes
IV for the exodus; and then (B. C. i5go— 122=) 1468 B. C. at begin
ning of igth dynasty; which is about what Mariette and the Armenian of
Euseb. 's Manetho make it.
t Schwartz reduces the four last reigns of 45X yrs. to a mere 13 (of
"Osasiph" taken as Orus); and besides these 32^ yrs. of reduction,
he drops 6 mo. (from the 25 yrs., 10 months in Manetho); so that he
has 33% yrs. less than the (113+35^=) 148^, or only 115X yrs. back
to his end of " Mephres" (or Thotmes III). And then his 115X yrs.
back to his place for the exodus, really reach (by Manetho's numbers)
back only to 2^ yrs. before the 113 to the death of Thotmes IV, where
we reach the exodus. Thus he and we have the exodus about the
same distance back into the 18th dynasty.

274 PERIOD D
tian chronology by some 150 years ! and so to bring Thotmes III as the
Pharaoh of the exodus in harmony with "the 480th year of I Ki. vi:
1. ¦ (See in the Lon. Theolog. Monthly, March, 1889.)
But we have shown (in our dissertation on Monumental Inscriptions
and the Egyptian Year), that, by a more rational interpretation of
those Sothiac&l manifestations referred to in the inscriptions, there is
no such late dating of those ancient Pharaoh's; and that the Egyptolo
gists are right, when (almost without exception) they assign Thotmes
IV to about the date we put him, as ending in B. C. isgo or '91. Here
then, in accordance with I Ki. vi: 1 (taken as "580"), is the most
probable assignment of' the exodus.
CHAPTER III.
Reasons Given for Making" Meneptah the Pharaoh of the
Exodus.
§ 120. We have now gone as far as Egyptian chronology, in its
uncertainty, can carry us, toward the reaching of a probable date for
the exodus. It must be remembered, as we showed at the start, that
only a probable date can be expected from this source. And we have
shown that the midway assignment of the exodus as near the begin
ning of the 19th dynasty, or at B. C. i4giaas in Usher (in accordance
with "the 480th year") is now almost entirely abandoned. This
leaves only two theories: (1) The Later Assignment of the Egyptian
Meneptah as the pharaoh of the exodus, about B. C. 1320; and (2) Our
Earlier Assignment, which we here ljave indicated as the most probable
Scripture dating, in accordance with I Ki. vi: 1, as meaning 580 years,
and which makes Thotmes IV the pharaoh- of the exodus, B. C. 1591.
The decision lies between these two theories.
What, then, we have now to do, is first to notice the arguments used
by Egyptologists, in favor of their unscriptural assignment of Menep
tah as the probable pharaoh of the exodus. These we find set forth
most fully by Prof. Ebers (in the S. S. Times, Apl. 30, i88y).
§ 121. (1) Various Egyptian papyri ascribed to the times of
Ramses II and his son Meneptah, refer frequently to "the. city of
Rameses" (supposed to be Tanis). Ebers says: "The men who
were compelled to carry bricks as serfs are called ' Aperu ' and
' Apuiriu ' by the papyri. * * * These papyri would give conclu
sive evidence of the exodus, if it could be proved that the ' Aperu '
were Hebrews. Chabas was the first to pronounce them to be He
brews, and all his colleagues agreed with him, until H. Brugsch
objected to the view [also Essenbehr and M. Maspero, says Rawlin
son]. * * * Stude, on account of difficulties connected with the
sounds of the words, maintained that the Egyptian name ' Aperu ' and

the judges 275
'Apuiriu' was not that for the Hebrews." Ebers himself thinks it
was. The Encyc. Brittan. says doubtfully: "If the identification
were certain, we should have much reason for dating the oppression
under Ramses II, bringing the exodus under Menepteh. The diffi
culties of this theory are not slight."
§ 122. The main objection against understanding the word 'Aperu '
to mean Hebrews, which Ebers himself says " appears to be of great
weight," is that "among the monuments discovered by Mariette at
Abydos, there is one, which, although it very probably belongs to the
time of the 13th dynasty, that is, a long time before the Hebrews
could have emigrated to Goshen, — yet represents builders who are
called 'Aperu.' So then, it is certain, that the ' Aperu ' was a general
name for such laborers, without any special reference to the nation
ality as being Hebrews. Moreover, the same class ot 'Aperu' are
named long afterthe exodus of the Hebrews " at the beginning of. the
20th dynasty, when it is said that 2,083 of them lived under Ramses
III, in Heliopolis, the biblical On."
There is, therefore, no particular identification of Hebrews in Egypt
in the time of Ramses II and Meneptah, more than at other times.
Such representations of enslaved laborers at work are found 200 hun
dred years earlier than that; and indicate Thotmes III as the Pharaoh
of the Hebrew oppression, full more strongly than in the case of Ram
ses II. (See afterward, § 131.)
§ 123. (2) The recent excavation of the ruins of Tell-el-Maskootah
by the famous Geneva Egyptologist, M. Naville, have convinced
scholars that this is the treasure city " Pithom" spoken of in Ex. i: 11;
and as this was built along with another city " Rameses " (supposed to
be Tanis), it is argued, that they must both have been built by the
1 Hebrews for Ramses II as the oppressor of the Hebrews. But, what
if we do thus have the interesting evidence of inspection, that the
Hebrew account of those building operations is true ? That by no
means shows when they built -those cities; it may have been genera
tions before Ramses II reigned. It is said that statues of Ram-
esses II were found at the uncovered ruins. But that may only indi
cate that he rebuilt or enlarged -works first built generations before by
the Thotmes-es; which we know to have been the case in many in
stances. "The fixing of their sites (the treasure cities built) has no
bearing at all on the question of date." (Major Conder, translating the
tablets. ) There is here no evidence that the exodus took place in those
late times. The only real arguments for that date are the following:
§124. (3) One of the cities they built is called "Raamses"
¦(Ex. i: 11). Therefore it may be argued, this building must have been
done by the Hebrews after the Rameses began to reign. So it appears
at first thought. But notice, that the land of Goshen itself was called
" Rameses." (Gen. xlvii: 6, n.) Therefore, the city built (orimproved)

276 period d
was called " Raamses," perhaps as meaning chief city of the land oi
Rameses; and the Ramses kings may have got that name from the
region where they originated, not thereverse. Many think the use of
this name in Genesis, and perhaps also in Exodus is by prolepsis.
"Pithom and the city afterwards called Raamses." We have no as
surance, that any one of the Ramesides had yet reigned when the
"treasure city " was built.-
§ 125. (4) Ramses II made several invasions into Syria_, passing
with his armies through Palestine, and making conquests there; all
which (it may be argued) must have occurred before the Israelites took
possession of Canaan, since their Bible history gives no hint of any
such Egyptian invasion after the conquest of Joshua. This argument,
not named by Ebers and not generally put forward, is really the only
point of any weight seeming to favor the late assignment of the exodus
after Ramses II, contrary to the Bible chronology. But there is in
this circumstance no real collision between Egyptian and Scripture
history. For, the book of Judges is by no means a full history of those
times, but only an outline of the eras that marked the Jewish progress,
with a few only of the most striking events mentioned which particu
larly affected- the Israelitish estate. Foreign affairs not- definitely re
lated to them, are entirely ignored. And the Egyptian invasion of
Syria was such. The scene of conflict was on the Orontes, north of
Lebanon. " Kadesh on the Orontes " was captured, which was head
quarters of the Amorites, classed under the general term "Hittites."
But this was a region not pertaining to Israel, and the war there did
not trouble them.
§ 126. True, the Egyptian afmy "went home in triumph through
Palestine," as Rawlinson says, and Salem (or Jerusalem) and one or
two other towns then unpossessed by the Israelites, but held still by
Canaanites, were captured on the way. But no harm was done to
Hebrews, who are not even mentioned in the Egyptian accounts, per
haps because they only formed the rural population of the country,
not as yet much congregated in cities. The route from Lebanon down
past Jerusalem was the public highway for all nations from Mesopo
tamia to Egypt, and the march even of an enemy that way, in those
early times, did not molest the Jews sufficiently to be described in
their brief history, so long as they as a people were let alone.
The Jews seem to have had a prejudice against even noticing their
old oppressors; and the Egyptians in turn seem to have been shy of
searching out or troubling a people whose strange Deity had wrought
them such havoc. Providence appears thus to have reared a barrier of
moral influence, or superstition; between the two races, to preserve (as
at first to separate) the chosen people, left so near to their former foes.
It is only in such manner, that we can account for the striking fact

THE JUDGES 277
that nothing is said about Egyptian affairs through all the Scripture
history of over 500 years, from Joshua to Solomon, — filling the book of
Judges and the two books of 0 Samuel. Besides about nine references
to the exodus (Jud. ii: 1, 12, and x: 11, and xix: 30, I Sam. iv: 8, and
vi: 6, and x: 18, and* xii: 6, and xv: 6), there are only two mentions of an
individual as an " Egyptian" in the days of David (I Sam. xxx: 11-
13; II Sam. xxiii: 21). Not another word about Egypt during the 500
years. § 127. The whole lower region from Migdol of Egypt up to the
Dead Sea was conquered by the Egyptians, as well as the regions be
yond Lebanon. But Israel remained unmolested, as under the shel
tering, wing of Jehovah; until at length, after the mutual prejudice and
shyness of the early times of first separation had died away, Egypt at-
length became the frequent helper of Israel against other foreign foes;
insomuch that the prophets had to warn them against too much
' ' looking to Egypt " for help.
Canaan was for a long time full of unsubdued cities and fortifica
tions of the aborigines, which Israel could not conquer, as the book of
Judges shows (Comp. Deut. vii: 22) — and it was even a help to Israel
for Egypt to pass through and subdue such places, though not a mat
ter to record as part of their own history. To see how readily an
Egyptian army might-pass through Palestine, and even capture such a
fortress hostile to the Jews, without causing them any disturbance,
lopk at the case of the Pharaoh whose daughter in later times Solomon
married. (I Ki. iii: 1, and ix: 16, 17.) We are told, that thereupon
' ' Pharaoh, king of Egypt, had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it
with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it
for a present (or dowry) unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Sol
omon built Gezer.1' This inroad of Pharaoh was certainly not de
spoiling but helping Solomon, though aii entirely foreign affair within
Solomon's borders, not a part of Solomon's own administration or his
tory. In like manner, the earlier doings of Ramses II and his associ
ates were a real (though unmeant) help to Israel, not needing any
special mention.
§ 128. In the Chicago "Advance (April 28, 1892, p. 346), Prof.
Sayce announces the, important discovery from the monuments, that
Ramses III (B. C. 1200) conquered the " country of Salem" and the
"Springs of -Hebron," etc., which were afterward the territory of
JudaH. Here we have another Egyptian inroad made into Palestine
still later by 100 years than that of Ramses II; which proves conclu
sively, that the late putting of the expdus as in Meneptah's reign is
open to the same objection as the earlier assignment, — so that these
later intrusions into the land can not be offered against either view of
the exodus.

278 period d,
Here is a leading authority: " The chief strongholds were occupied
by the Canaanites, Hittites, Jebusites, etc., during Egypt's 19th dy
nasty; and are so represented on the monuments describing the at
tacks on them by Seti I and Ramesses,I. The open country was held
by the Amorites, against whose iron chariots Israel could not stand
(Jud. i: 19); so the district from the south border northward is called in
the monuments ' the land of the Amorites.' (Comp. Jud. v: 6,) 'the
highways were not occupied, * * * the villages ceased * * *
war was' in the gates (of the strongholds). Was there a shield or spear
seen among 40,000 in Israel? ' Thus the Egyptian armies in traversing
Syria would encounter no Israelites in the field, and would only en
counter Israel's foes." (Fausset 's Bib. Cyc, 1880, art. "Egypt.")
J. Schwartz, Egyptologist, of New York, also strenuously urges, the
same view.
§ 129. There is, therefore, nothing in the contemporaneous history
requiring the later date for the exodus which Egyptologists claim. And
we have absolutely nothing in connection with Meneptah , to indicate
him especially as the Pharaoh of the exodus. Indeed, that claim is
founded almost entirely upon the fitness of his predecessor Ramses II
to be the previous pharaoh of the oppression, — as is indicated in Miss
Edwards' opinion (here \ 156.) But we have seen that the monuments
and inscriptions no more point out Ramses III than they do Thotmes
III (over 150 years before), as the oppressor of the Hebrews. We
therefore turn now to notice the indications which favor this last named
view of Thotmes III as engaged in the Hebrew oppression, with Thot
mes IV as the Pharaoh of the exodus.
CHAPTER IV.
Reasons Pointing to Thotmes IV as Pharaoh of the Exodus.
g -130. (1) We have already seen that the Bible Chronology
which clearly brings the exodus "580 years" from the founding of
Solomon's temple, viz., in B. C. isgi, thus carries it just about to the
death of Thotmes IV, as assigned by Egyptologists generally, in ac
cordance with the true reckoning of Sothiacal inscriptions. This date,
therefore, has the primary advantage of being in accotd with
Scripture, whereas the Maneptah date (about B. C. 1320) is directly
opposed to all Scripture reckoning, — as strongly opposed to the "480"
number of I Ki. vi: 1, as to any other number over 300 years.
I 131. (2) The inscriptions give the most vivid exhibit of foreign
slaves (or the "Aperu ") in the time of Thotmes, driven tp their brick-
making work. " In a chamber of a tomb in the hills of Abd-el-Quviah,
there is a graphic representation of the making of bricks by captives of
Thotmes III, many of whom show strong Jewish features." (Brugsch,

the judges 279
Hist. Egypt, I, 3f3.) The overseers are represented with sticks, and
' insist with vehemence on obeying the orders of the great skilled lord, '
* * * and the overseer speaks thus to the laborers : ' The stick
is in my hand, be not idle. ' ' ' Compare this with the Biblical account (Ex.
v: 17), where we have almost the identical words of the overseeer; and
there can scarcely be any reasonable doubt that this pictorial repre
sentation and Biblical account of the oppression refer to the same
thing." (J. Schwartz, in Theolog. Monthly, London, March, i88g, # 14
a.) See the description of this in Geike's Hours with the Bible.
And yet, so learned a man as H. B. Tristam, D. D., L. L. D., F.
R. S., in the S. S. Times, April 14, i8g4, falls into the mistake of say
ing : ' ' When Rameses, the great builder, appears, he compels the foreign
(Hebrew) shepherds to toil in the unaccustomed woxY of brickmaking
and bricklaying." (!)
i t-Z2- (3) Says Schwartz. (Theolog. Monthly, § 14 b): "To
make the identification doubly sure, there is a curious fact brought out
by Palmer (Egypt. Chron. I, 194, ig5), as follows: ' The monuments
supply another indication, approaching still nearer to a proof that he
[Thotmes III] and no other is the Pharaoh of the exodus [rather of
the oppression, say 50 years before]. For, in the mounds of Heliopolis,
one of the cities, according to the Lxx, which were fortified by the
labor of the Hebrews, many sun-burned bricks bearing the stamp of
Thotmes Illhave been used, — which on being broken show that they
were made without straw; whereas ordinarily the earth of which these
bricks are made is held together by a mixture of chopped straw. It
is impossible1 not to see how this singularity is accounted for by the
Scripture.' "
§ 133. (4) It is quite evident, and is generally accepted by
scholars, that Jacob removed to Egypt under the reign of the Hycsos,
or " Shepherd Kings," and not long before the close of their reign; so
that the rising of " a new king that knew not Joseph " was the coming
in of the new 18th dynasty, in which the several Thotmes-es ruled.
(Comp. Gen. xlvi: 34, and Ex. i: 8.) Now the stay of the Israelites in
Egypt was but 215 years, as all the Jewish and ancient chronology is
agreed, and as is absolutely required by the apostle's language in Gal.
iii: 16, 17. This distance after the Hycsos entirely forbids" so late a date
for the exodus as the reign of Meneptah in the last part of the 19th
dynasty, and it readily agrees with the end of Thotmes IV in the 18th
dynasty as the exodus date; 80 years from which carry us back (by
Manetho's numbers in Josephus) to 10 years after the death of Thot
mes I for the birth of Moses in the times of oppression; and 40 years
more carry us to the beginning of the 18th dynasty, 16 years after the
death of Joseph, as the dynasty of the "new king that knew not
Joseph."

280 period d
Says the Encyc. Brittan. (Art. Egypt): "There is the remarkable
occurrence of a name similar to that of Jacob, or identical with it, in
the record of the conquests of Thotmes III. This may only be a reminis
cence of Jacob, as M. de Ronge suggests. But it would be more natural
to take it to indicate that the exodus was anterior to [or in times not
far from] the time of Thotmes.
I 134. (5) Geike (in Hours with the Bible, Moses, ch. Ill)
says: "The Bible history demands the continuance of a long
reign" in those days of oppression; and this he uses as an argu
ment for Rameses II as the oppressor. (But what does he mean by
saying, "Moses on his return to Egypt after his 40 years in Midian
found the same king still on the throne " ! On the contrary,
see Ex. ii: 23, and iv: 19.) Rather is this an argument for Thot
mes III as the great and long-reigning oppressor. His reign was 54
years, as all assert from the monuments, in which he included the pre
vious reign of his sister, and most likely the reign of his brother before
her. It is a striking story, the history of this family, from Thotmes I
to Thotmes IV, during a period of 90 years, the period of Egypt's
highest dominion and supremacy, as all writers concede. Read Raw-
linson's glowing picture of those kings, especially of Thotmes III, and
see how fitted was this king with his family to be the great oppressor
of Israel.
. \ 135. The great Thotmes I, dying, left his throne to his three chil
dren, two sons and a daughter. The elder son first reigned as Thot
mes II (for 20 years and 7 months by Josephus); then the daughter
Hatasu reigned (for 21 years and 9 months, according to Manetho in-
Josephus), a large part of it with her younger brother as partner. Then
that brother reigned alone as Thotmes III (for 12 years and 9 months
more). The whole reign of the three children (54 years by the monu
ments) was a period of unparalleled supremacy and autocratic power,
as well as of building operations on the ¦ grandest scale, with enforced
slave labor. Especially was Thotmes III the most brilliant as well as
the most daring of all the Pharaohs, his spirit being dominant from his
very boyhood when his father died, and leading him to swallow up to
himself all the achievments of his brother and sister before him.
Such a family, and such a dominating spirit in it, might well be the
operator of the Hebrew oppression. The birth of Moses will come
after the first 9^ of the 54 years reckoned to Thotmes III (when
Hatasu, "Pharaoh's daughter," was beginning to assume authority
with her first brother), and the remaining 44^ years reckoned to
Thotmes III will extend beyond Moses' flight to Midian,— while the
reign of his son Amenophis II for 25 years 10 months, and of his grand
son Thotmes IV for g years 8 months, will carry us just 80 years to the
Exodus as ending the reign of Thotmes IV in B. C. isgo [91].

the judges 281
I 136. (6) Queen Hatesu was well fitted to be the "Pharaoh's
daughter" who brought up Moses. For already then, in her compar
ative girlhood, she began to be prominent as ruling with her brother;
and before long, on his death, she took the reins of government, striv
ing for a long time to keep down her younger brother, Thotmes III.
She seems to have been without family of her own; but ambitious and
somewhat unscrupulous, especially as she grew older in power. And
she might well wish to adopt an heir (like the beautiful Hebrew boy),
in the hope to leave the throne to him, instead of the brother she was
striving to displace. This trio of rulers, the children of one great
Pharaoh, would well be called among the people "the daughter of
Pharaoh" and "the sons of Pharaoh," without need of further des
ignation. And yet, the pious Moses, growing up, might well fly from
such a despotic schemer's house, and refuse longer "to be called the
son of Pharaoh's daughter."*
$ 137. Josephus gives the name of Pharaoh's daughter as ' ' Ther-
muthis," and he gives the Manetho name for Queen Hatesu as
"Amesses." But in Eusebius the name of- Pharaoh's daughter is
"Merris"; and Rawlinson (Hist. Ane. Egypt, p. 133) says, "Thot
mes III married Hatesu-Merira." As this is, in its first part, thename
of his sister, Queen Hatesu, so it may in full be her name, and may
thus show that "Merira," or "Merris," as in Eusebius, was, indeed
"Hatesu-Merira" the queen, daughter of Pharaoh. It would seem
that this family name was taken on by the brother's wife, or else that
he is represented as marrying his own sister with whom he reigned, (a
custom common in that family). f
I 138. (7) Though the Egyptians seem to have carefully avoided
giving any account of the Exodus, so disastrous to them, yet Manetho
betrays hints of the truth, mixed fabulously in his somewhat confused
* " Professor Hechler, in his address before the Oriental Congress
in London, on ' Egyptology and the Bible,' expressed his firm convic
tion that the Pharaoh of the Exodus (oppression) was Thotmes III and
not Rameses II, and — that the princess who saved Moses from drown
ing was just such a person as Queen Makara Hatesu." — (Boston
Watchman, Oct., 1892.)
f Schwartz (in Essay, Jan., i8go, P. II, p. IV) says, that Jewish
tradition "preserved by Artapanas and Abulfaragius," makes "Pha
raoh's daughter " to be wife instead of daughter of Thotmes I, and
that her name in Artapanas is "Merrhis," but on the monuments
" Amon-Merit " (Rawlinson says " Arhmes "), his own sister, daugh
ter of Amenophis I; who (those authors say) married Chenophres,
called Cheon by Manetho in Josephus, that is Chanera Tutmes I.
" Her name Merit explains the 'Thermuthis' of Josephus and the
Tremotisa of Abulfaragius; for MERT reversed = TREM-otisa."
(Schwartz.) The daughter "Hatesu" may have derived the name
"Hatesu-Merira" or Merris from her mother. Egyptian notables
generally had several names.

282 PERIOD D
narrative. He describes the Hycsos or "Shepherd Kings" as finally
bargained with, and allowed to leave the country peaceably; while the
monuments show them to have been forcibly expelled. He has thus
mixed in with that affair a tradition of another departure actually by
permission, viz., the Hebrew Exodus, not very long after the Hycsos
removal. Moreover, he says that the very king who bargained with
them to go in peace was named Thermosis or Thetmosis, (Jos. vs. Ap. I,
14. 15), the son or descendant of another king, Alisphragmuthosis;
whereas, the monuments show that the expeller of the, Hycsos was
Aahmes, first king of the 18th dynasty, a predecessor of the Thotmes
kings. We here see that Manetho mixes with the Hycsos account the name
of the subsequent Exodus Pharaoh," Thetmosis," whom Schwartz
therefore supposes to be Thotmes III, but whom we are showing to be
more probably his grandson, Thotmes IV.
Still further, Manetho, in his later attempt (here I 26) to identify
the Hebrews with the "lepers" banished by Amenophis IV, does
thus imply, that there was a vague tradition of the Jews having
gone from Egypt some time during the Amenophis and Thetmos kings,
which he was here mixing with a subsequent banishment of lepers,
perhaps some leprous remnant of the Hebrews, left behind in their
flight. All these vague and misleading hints from Manetho point to a
real Hebrew Exodus, known to tradition but concealed in Egyptian
history, and lying somewhere between the story of the "Shepherd
Kings " and the story of the "lepers." All the above arguments indi
cate Thotmes III as Pharaoh of the oppression, while other indica
tions point out Thotmes IV as Pharaoh of the Exodus.
I i3g. (8) The monumental history indicates that after Thotmes
IV, there had been a loss of troops as well as of laborers and
builders in Egypt, leading to great efforts to replace them. We find
that the immediate successor of Thotmes IV (viz., Amenophis III),
though engaged in the erection of several structures, yet refrained
from the grand military movements which had characterized his
predecessors. " His reign was not very military. He did not extend
the power of Egypt, either in the North or the South. He was con
tent to make raids against negro tribes, and to carry off into
captivity hundreds of their numbers. But it is absurd to speak of him
as a conquering monarch. I can not agree with Bruscgh in this. His
negro-hunts were certainly not great wars." (Rawlinson, Ane. Egypt,
p. 142.) To such straits of negro-hunting were the Egyptians reduced, to
get slaves for their/ brick-making and building operations, when they
had lost their Hebrew subjects; and to such ignoble exploits were the
weakened forces of Egypt applied, when they had been decimated by

THE JUDGES 283
the disaster at- the Red Sea. In the subsequent reign of Amenophis
IV, " there were only a few military expeditions " (Rawlinson), and
many discords followed. "Egypt was still recognized as Mistress of
Syria; but we have no evidence of tribute from Mesopotamia subse
quent to Amenophis III." (Id.) Long afterward, in the reign of
Rameses II, we are told: " In reality, he himself does not appear to
have shown any remarkable military genius, or to have effected any
important conquests. * * * His object rather was to obtain
captives, vast bodies of foreign laborers being necessary for his nu
merous and gigantic building projects.'.' (Rawlinson.)
§ 140.. Still at it, we see, trying to make good the loss of the
Hebrews. We see that Rameses II, instead of building his structures
by their service, was scouring the .world for prisoners of war to false
their place, long since vacated by the Exodus. His weak successor,
Meneptah, was engaged in disastrous wars, " and built no great
edifice. He was vacillating, and had the name of appropriating to
himself the work of former kings, by erasing their names and substi
tuting his own. He received into Egypt as new settlers several tribes
of Bedouins, who were desirous of exchanging their nomadic habits for
a more settled life; and he established them in the rich lands about the
city of Pithom." (So says Rawlinson.) Instead of being at all like
the oppressing Pharaoh of the Exodus, he was a weak monarch, evi
dently trying to re-settle the land of Goshen, long since depopulated
by the departure of the Hebrews.
Rawlinson thus, describes the doings of those times: "One, and
perhaps the main, result of Rameses' expeditions was, the acquisition
of many thousands of captives, some Asiatic, some African, carried off
from' their homes by the grasping conqueror, whose main object this
seems to have been." Says Lenormant: "Man-hunts upon a mon
strous, scale were organized throughout the whole country of the
Soudan. The aim was no longer, as under the Thotmes-es, to extend
the frontiers of Egypt. The principal or sole object was to obtain
slaves. Nearly every year there were great razzias which started for
Ethiopia and returned dragging after them thousands of captive blacks
of all ages and both sexes, laden with chains. And the principal
episodes of these negro-hunts were sculptured upon the walls of tem
ples as glorious exploits.5' It was of course in connection with his
passion for ' great- works ' that Rameses desired and obtained this vast
addition to his store of ' naked human strength.' " (Rawlinson, p. 163,
See the like given in Geike, ch. III.)
Thus were the Rameses kings occupied in filling Egypt with slaves,
made necessary by the Exodus of the Hebrews before this in the time of
the Thotmes kings.
§ 141. (g) The new religion introduced into Egypt at the expiration

284 PERIOD D
of the reign of Thotmes IV, indicates the awakening of a moral influ
ence, such as would be likely to follow the marvelous plagues and
Red Sea disaster, when Jehovah did "marvelous things in the sight
of their fathers, in the land of Egypt, in the field of Zoan." (Psa.
lxxviii: 12.) Amenophis III, the immediate successor of Thotmes IV,
whose sudden overthrow at the Red Sea may have brought him unex
pectedly to the throne, was the son of an Ethiopian mother (for the
father was the first monarch except Aahmes who had married a for
eigner); and he himself married a strange foreign wife, Tai, whose
nationality can not be made out. Under her influence new and foreign
ideas of religion were introduced in this reign, having more reference
to one supreme Deity than had been usual to the Egyptians. It was a
sprt of sun-worship in a higher form, the " sun's disk" being adored
as representing the great God; and hence the wife encouraging it is
thought by some to have been from Arabia. Possibly, she was mar
ried as some pious waif pitched upon in the superstitious horror awak
ened at the flight and miraculous escape of the Hebrews.
§ 142. At any rate, this king proceeded to ' ' favor changes in the
state religion, which were looked upon as revolutionary," says Raw
linson. He must be viewed as having paved the way "for the fuller
establishment of the new religion " in the reign of his son. For, .'"' he
instituted a new festival in honor of the Solar Disc, exalting one God
only." The son Amenophis IV next ruled under direction of his
foreign mother, and fuljy carried out the new religion. He was a
singular character, with strange foreign physiognomy; and the new
worship created two great parties, and convulsed Egypt for a long
time. Horus was set up as1- a rival king, and after a generation or two,
under the Rameses kings of the igth dynasty, the old religion was at
length fully restored.
It is not hard to see in all this religious awakening under Amenophis
III and IV, following right after the 'father Thotmes IV disappears,
the moral effect for a season of Jehovah's miraculous manifestations
attending the Exodus. Must not such displays of divine power have
produced just such a revival of the idea of one , Supreme Deity to be
adored ?
§ 143. (10) There are individual incidents known in regard to
Thotmes IV and his successor, which point to him as the probable
Pharaoh of the Exodus. He himself patronized particularly the deity
of the great sphinx; and he "set up between the paws of the sphinx
a massive memorial tablet on which he recorded his dream, and no
doubt the happy accomplishment of his enterprises; (see Birch Hist.
Egypt, Vol. I, p.' 413); it was recently uncovered by Dr. Lepsius.
(Birch, p. 418.)" So says Rawlinson, p. 140. It is reported that the in
scription on this memorial tablet breaks off abruptly, as if left for fur
ther record of exploits (presumably not obtained by reason of some dis-

THE JUDGES 285
aster to him); and that no naming of this Pharaoh has yet been found,
though the names of the kings before and after him are recovered.
(See the account in Dr. Cummings' work, London. Also, in the pub
lished discourse of Dr. Bailey, Ottumwa, Iowa.)
At any rate, his career was short. " He reigned only 8 or g years,"
says Rawlinson; who remarks (p. 140): " It would seem that Thotmes
IV was not the eldest son, or expectant heirof his predecessor, since
he ascribes his accession to the special favor of the deity " of his
favorite sphinx, "who appeared to him as he slept, and raised his
thoughts to the hope of sovereignty." (See Bruscgh.) Thus Thotmes
IV being not a "first-born," was himself spared in that great slaughter
<Ex. xii: 2g), when " at midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in
the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne,
unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon." And the
authors above referred to think there is evidence that the successor,
Amenophis III also was not a first-born son. That he was young,
and called unexpectedly to the throne, would appear from his taking
for his prime minister an older namesake, "Amenophis Hapu," his
second cousin, the grandson of his own grandfather, Amenophis II,
as Rawlinson shows, (p. 140), and as Manetho testifies. (Jos. vs. Ap.
1,26.) § 144. (11) From the Exodus to the beginning of Ehud (Jud. iii:
15, 30) were 141 years, (see §72); and these reach from the end of
Thotmes IV regarded as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, through the re
maining 113 years of the 18th dynasty (see § 115), and 28 years into the
igth dynasty,' or "to about 11 ye.ars of the joint reign of Rameses II
with his father, according to the current reckoning of those kings.
This allows 5 years for Rameses I (according to Manetho in. Josephus)
+12 for Seti I, to the beginning of joint reign for Rameses II, and then
the 21st year of Rameses II, in which he concluded his expeditions
through Palestine by his final treaty with the Hittites near Kadesh, of
Lebanon, will carry us to the 10th year of Ehud's peace in Israel.
But if the 21st year were that of Rameses' sole reign after 5g of his
father (as given by Manetho), then that treaty of his does not come
till the 57th year of Ehud's 80 years of peace.
Hence we may say, that our view of the Exodus, brings the exploits
of Rameses II in the region of Lebanon, somewhere between the 10th
and 60th of Ehud's 80 years. And this location for them in the midst
of that long period of profound tranquility to Israel, is the most fitting
place that could be found. The "480th year " of I Ki. vi: 1, will bring
these operations of Pharaoh through Canaan to come about the time
of Joshua's- conquest of the land; when it would be simply impossible
to occur (with Israel so up in arms) without a renewal of the Exodus con
flict, and some mention made in the history. But when, in disarmed re-

286 PERIOD D
pose, the Israelites were long settled to their quiet husbandry, in ac
cordance with our "580th year" reckoning, Egypt's monarch might,
with his army, pass through, and even capture heathen towns on the
way, without a ripple of disturbance to the Hebrew nation, as we have
shown before. (§ 125-129, )
§ 145. Such, encroachments on their enemies would even be a
benefit to the Jews; though they would scarcely give their old oppres
sor, Egypt, the credit of it in their history. So long as the Hittite con
federacy about Kadesh was thus kept under by Egypt, so long they
were kept from invac-ing Israel. But when, by the final league
secured, they were made somewhat independent of Egypt, then it was
not long before, at the death of Ehud; their leader, "Jabin, king of
Canaan, who reigned in Hazor," near Kadesh, (Jud. iv: 1-4, 10) began
a 20 years' oppression of the Jews. Ahd the captain or prime leader
of Jabin's confederacy (v: 2, 13) wa§ that very Si-Sar-a (Sisera) whose
name is indicated in the exploits of Pharaoh a little before against this
Hittite confederacy! (Schwartz,)
(Note. Schwartz (in Essay, Jan., 1889, P. II., p. v.), makes the
invasion of Pharaoh to come still later, and to be a conflict with Jabin
himself, in connection with Deborah and Barak. He cites a general
of the Hittite monarch antagonized by Pharaoh as being called " Si-
Sar-a." But Schwartz' further attempt to reconcile these events
with the "480th yr.," by dropping out 150 years from Egyptian his
tory, is opposed to all the teachings of Egyptologists.)
§ 146. (12) For the foregoing and other reasons, we think we are
safe in saying, that Thotmes IV is a ^probable PharSToh of the Exodus,
with ThOtmes III as a probable Pharaoh of the oppression. The
Egyptologist Wilkinson put Thotmes III at the Exodus; so also
Schwartz; but we (with others) look with more favor upon Thotmes
IV as consummating the oppression and perishing at the Exodus, in
B. C. isgo [gi]. Nothing is claimed but a probability in this or any
other date; and we deprecate the fashion of talking dogmatically con
cerning any pagan reckoning in. those days of such chronological'
obscurity. Professor Ebers himself says: " We begin by admitting
that, among the narrative works of Egyptian literature, nothing has
been found as yet', which refers indubitably to the historical event of
the Hebrew Exodus." (S. S. 'Times, Apl. 30, i88y.) We add, that no
such discovery is likely to be made. Why, then, should he speak so
positively of being sure that the time of Meneptah is the true and only
possible date? ^
Miss Edwards, the noted Egyptologist, is much more modest in her
utterance, and there speaks doubtingly concerning that assignment.
The era of Menemptah for the Exodus is in violation of all Scripture
numbers. But the era of Thotmes IV, as argued above, is in exact

THE JUDGES 287
accordance with Bible Chronology as we have unfolded it in our pre
vious essay. We are therefore disposed to rest in this Bible Chronol
ogy, till something more tangible appears to call it in question.
Postscript. April 15, i8g3. All the foregoing was written years
ago, without knowledge that the Tel-el-Amarna tablets threw any
special light upon the subject. . But now come testimonies as fol
lows: 3 147. Listen to a good authority: "Major C. R. Conder, the
famous Palestinian explorer and scholar, has made a translation of the
Tel-el-Amarna Tablets discovered in 1887, at the site of the ancient
Arsinoe jn Egypt. They date from about 1480 B. C, and are written
to the king of Egypt and some of his officials by Amorites, Philistines,
Phoenicians and others, and include accounts of the conquest of
Damascus by the Hittites, of Phoenicia by the Amorites, and of Judea
by the Hebrews. Major Conder - has endeavored to make an
accurate translation, with no thought of supporting any particular
theory of interpretation. ,He dissents sharply from Dr. Brugsch and
the now fashionable theory which places the conquest of the south of
Palestine by the Hebrews in the time of Seti II [or Meneptah], but
claims that the tablets represent the conquest as much earlier, and
as contemporaneous with the dates named in the Bible." (Boston
Cong'ist, Apl. 13, 1893.)
" Major Conder contends that the Exodus had already occurred (at
the time of the Tel-el-Amarna tablets), and that the Israelites were
established in the mountains of Palestine when the correspondence
occurred, in 1480 B. C." (The Thinker," June, 1893, Christian Lit. Co.)
"The Tel-el-Amarna tablets are composed of letters written from
Palestine at the time of the Exodus by some of the very men named in
the book of Joshua. The political condition of the land (and it is
a most peculiar one) is the very condition pictured in Jashua.
The name of the country and the names of the adjacent territories in
these letters are identical with those in the Pentateuch. "v (" Truth,"
May, 1894, p. 241, Revell Co.)
\ 148. "In 1888 at Tel-el-Amarna, half way between Thebes and
Memphis, 100 miles south of Cairo, a large number of clay tablets were
discovered, first by a peasant woman, at the site of the palace of
Amenophis IV, on the east bank of the Nile. (See Prof. Jastrow's
article in Journal of Bib. Lit., Vol. xi, 1892.) Some of these tablets are
letters- from Palestine, dated about B. C. 1400 to 1500, and five or
seven are from Jerusalem, which mention menacing danger from the
gradual encroachment from the Habiri, which Dr. Zimmern and
others regard as none other than the Ibrim or Hebrews; either
the descendants of Abraham remaining in Palestine, or (if the Exodus
was in 1491) the Hebrews under Joshua taking possession of the

288 PERIOD D
promised land, as is far more probable. These- letters tend to con
firm the ordinary (Bible) date." (Dr. Peloubet, in the Advance, May 3,
1894.) No! we remark, not to confirm the "ordinary" dating, i4gi,
but certainly to confirm our revised date, isgi. We have shown (at
§ 115) that the last year of Thotmes IV was 113 years before the igth
dynasty of Egypt, or B. C. 1591, and that Amenophis began 31 years
later, in B. C. 1560, not reigning in " B. C. 1480," as the "Thinker"
gives it above. The B. C- T440 to 1450, where Peloubet would put
Amenophis IV is down in the 19th dynasty; and it is not possible
for that Pharaoh to be got down to so'low a date as this, by any means,
except the revolutionary and violent means of Schwartz. (See I 108,
note.) The 40 or more years by which the Assyriologists reduce
Shishak will not do it.
§ 149. Therefore, since Amenopolis IV reigned from B. C. 1560 to
1540, his reign was just in the days of Joshua, who (by our "580
years'" reckoning) began in (B. C. 1591 — 40=) 1551 B. C. So that the
Tel-el-Amarna tablets were written in these very first seven years of
Joshua, wherein he was taking possession of the promised land," i. e.,
when the "580 years" are taken as the true Bible reckoning. But,
taking the '"480th year" of I Ki. vi: 1, the tablets were written
one hundred years before Joshua, who in that case began (B. C. i4gi —
40=) 1451 B. C. Hence the certainty that these tablets do confirm the
Bible date, not by the "ordinary" method of Usher with the 480th
year, but with our 580 years' reckoning above.
Now mark ! Here is a demonstration from the inscriptions of B. C.
1591 as the Exodus date, just as we proved it from the Scriptures before
knowing anything about this monumental proof ? Is not our unbiased
result thus completely corroborated ?

PERIOD C.--THE PATRIARCHS.

PART I.
From the Birth of Abraham to the Exodus.

§ i. We next examine the period from the birth of Abraham to the
Exodus of Israel from Egypt. In Ex. xii: 40, 41, we read as follows:
-" Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt (or sojourned)
in Egypt, was 430 years." This is the correct rendering as given in
our King James Bible; and its statement is, not that Israel dwelt in
Egypt 430. years, but that the whole "sojourning of" God's people
(the Israelitish dwellers of Egypt) lasted 430 years. The Jews always
understood this' "sojourning" as covering all their unsettled state
without a land of their own; particularly the time from the promise of
Canaan to their going to take possession of it — that is, from Abraham's
arrival in Canaan to the Exodus. All this time they " confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." (Heb. xi: 13; Gen.
xv: 13, and xvii: 8, and xxiii: 4, and xxviii: 4, and xxxvii: 1, and xlvii: g.)
§ 2. Josephus very distinctly explains the matter, (Ant. 2, xv: z),
" They left Egypt in the month Xanthicus [Nisan], on the 15th day of
the lunar month; four hundred and thirty years after our forefather
Abraham came into Canaan, but two hundred ,and fifteen years only
after Jacob removed into Egypt." The 215 years thus allowed to the
patriarchs before Jacob's going to Egypt* is found to be the exact time
given by Scripture. Thus: from Abraham's arrival at 75 years of age
to Isaac's birth" 25 years + Isaac 60 at birth of Jacob + Jacob 130
when reaching Pharaoh = 215 in all. (Gen. xii: 4, and xxi: 3, and xxv:
26, and xlvii: g.)
§ 3. After the 430 years had advanced about 10 years from
Abraham's arrival in Canaan, God appeared to him and foretold how
his numerous seed should become bondmen in Egypt; with the definite
statement (Gen. xv: 13), "They — that is, Egyptians — shall afflict
them four hundred years." This 400 years affliction, of course, ended
at the Exodus, along with the 430 years of sojourning. So that, it
commenced 30 years later than the sojourning, that is, when Abraham

290 PERIOD c
had been 30 years in Canaan. Then Isaac was 5 years old, and (soon
after being weaned) was mocked at by Ishmael, whose mother was
Egyptian, (Gen. xvi: 1, and xxi: 8-14); and this was looked upon as the
beginning of Egyptian affliction,— first from Ishmaelites (who sold
Joseph into Egypt), and then from full-blooded Egyptians themselves.
Josephus says (Ant. 2, ix: 1), '-' four hundred years did they spend
under these afflictions;" and this language, though obscured by its
position in the midst of the bondage, is meant to cover the whole -period
of affliction to Abraham's seed, beginning with Isaac at the mocking by
Ishmael. § 4. Such was the understanding of Josephus and of all Jewish
writers, both in ancient and in modern times, as seen in the Jewish
Calendar and Chronology of the present day. And such is the reckon
ing given by the New Testament authorities, Paul and Stephen, and
by all the church fathers down the ages. No other view was ever
taken of the matter, and no longer estimate of the time spent in Egypt
was ever dreamed of, so far as we can learn; until, in the present gen
eration a few persons have decided, that the "430 years" were allspent
in the Egyptian bondage* and have thus increased the time from
Abraham to the Exodus by 215 years.
\ 5. This new theory has arisen mostly from archaeological stu
dents and others, who, having first reduced the true 580 years period
between the Exodus and the Temple to "the 480th year" of I Ki. vi:
1, wrongfully taken as genuine, have ended with rejecting that -480th
year altogether, claiming (as almost all Egyptologists now do) that the
interval was only about 350 years. This loss of over 200 years from
Solomon's Temple back to the Exodus, leads them to seek in offset ah
addition of over 200 years before the Exodus, in order to restore Abra
ham to -about his right place (near 2000. B. C), where Egyptology
itself requires him to be.
\ 6. But this pushing down of the Exodus to a 215-year later date,
by putting the Scripture "430 years" as all spent in the Egyptian'
bondage, can not be sustained as true Scripture chronology. It is true,
the Bible revisers have unfortunately encouraged this new theory, by
adopting the Septuagint method of translating this Ex. xii: 40, thus:
" Now the sojourning of the children of Israel which they sojourned
in Egypt, was 430 years," in place of our King James' rendering,
"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who sojourned in
Egypt, was 430 years." But, when the Lxx mistakingly so translated,
knowing that this rendering gave a false impression of the whole time
as if spent in Egypt, they felt necessitated to append "in Egypt and
Canaan," to save the truth of the passage. And the Samaritan text
* So the Bib. Sacra., April, 1890, p. 291.

THE PATRIARCHS 291
has the same, only with inverted order, "in Canaan and Egypt."
Scott says of this gloss, "this is merely a comment, though a just one."
And this comment of both those earliest versions proves conclusively
that such a gloss is necessary, whenever the text is so rendered. But
unfortunately the revisers have so rendered without putting in the
required comment of the Lxx and Sam. to prevent mistake. It is
plain, that our King James' rendering is the true reading when without
comment inserted; and that there is really no encouragement in the
passage for the modern notion, that all the 430 years were spent in
Egypt. This is forbidden not only by all Jewish and Christian author
ities, as before said, but especially by the inspired authorities of the
New Testament.
§ 7. Paul's lauguage (in Gal. iii: 16, 17) is this: " Now to Abra
ham and his seed were the promises made. * * * And this I say,
a covenant [of promise] confirmed beforehand by God, the law, which
came four hundred and thirty years after, doth not disannul, so as to
make the promise of none effect." This is perfectly decisive testimony,
that the 430 years extend from " Abraham" to the giving of the law
ammediately after the Exodus. But the new theorists try to make the
here-given "430 years after" to mean "after Jacob," not after the
covenant of promise to Abraham, as it reads. This is preposterous.
The apostle argues that a covenant-promise so long standing fully
ratified, could not be nullified by a law coming so long afterward. Of
course, he takes the earliest establishing of the covenant-promise, in
order to express as long a time as he can; not the "400 years," but the
full "430 years" back to Abraham's coming to Canaan, when the
covenant-promise was first established.
§ 8. How unreasonable to suppose him pushing down his reckon
ing over 200 years less, at JacoVs coming to Egypt, when no such
covenant-promise was inaugurated ! If he could have said "over 600
years after" (as this new theory makes it), would he have limited it to
just "430 years"? The apostle spestks distinctly of the Abrahamic
promise as the gospel promise, "in Thee and Thy seed shall all the
families of 'the' earth be blessed;" which was given to Abraham at his
first coming to Canaan (Gen. xii : 3), and we have no account even of the
repetition of that gospel form of promise at 'Jacob's coming to Egypt.
(xlvi: 3.) How unfit a dating place for it was this latter event,
especially in the use which Paul was making of the date. It is plain
as anything can be, that Paul thought the "430 years" was the age-
length of the promise, dating from Abraham's coming to the giving of
the law; whether he was correct in that thought or not. And it is not
for us to deny the inspired accuracy of the apostle's statement.
£ g. . So, also, Stephen (in Ac' vii: 6) rehearses Gen. xv: 13, giving
the " 400 years,'" not as all years of the "bondage," but as the time

292 PERIOD c
of affliction wherein the alien nationality should "entreat them evil."
Put the New Testament statements with those of Josephus and all other-
authorities, as well as the tenor of the Hebrew Scripture itself, and we
find no warrant for the new theory of 430 years in Egypt. For, one
token of Scripture is, the divine statement at Gen. xiii: 16, that" in the
fourth generation they shall come hither again," — that is, the bondage
shall continue only into the 4th generation. Now, in our essay on
"The Generations of Matthew i," (see our treatise on "The Chro
nology of the Judges, Period D, § 6), we have shown that a " genera
tion " then meant simply 70 years, the appointed age of man (Psa.
xc: 10). So that, " in the 4th generation" meant "in the 4th 70,"
i. e., after (3X700=210, or in 215 years.
§ 10. With this agrees the fact, that the four generations are
expressly assigned by the sacred writers, with four names of father,
son, grandson, and great-grandson, as in certain cases covering the
time of the bondage, 215 years. (See Matt, i: 3.) .This could not be if
the bondage were 430 years; as is well shown in the Bib. Sacra (April,
1890, page 291). "The names, which are found without deviation in
all the genealogies are — from Jacob — Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses.
(Ex. vi: 16-20; Num. iii: 17-19, ahd xxvi: 57-59; I Chron. vi: 1-3, 16, 18,
and xxiii: 6, 12, 13.) Now unquestionably Levi was Jacob's own son.
So, likewise, Kohath was the son of Levi, and born before the descent
into Egypt (Gen. xlvi: n). Amram also was the immediate descendant
of Kohath. It does not seem possible, as Kurtz proposes, to insert
missing links between them." All this is well said by Prof. Green in
the Bib. Sacra. '
§ n. And we add, it is scarcely believable that any "missing link "
can be inserted between Amram and- Moses,- as Prof. Green there tries
to do. The record is this: Ex. vi: 20, "And Amram took him Joch
ebed his father's sister to wife, and she bare him Aaron and Moses."
Num. xxvi: 59, "And the name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the
daughter of Levi, whom her mother bare to Levi in Egypt; and she
bare unto Amram, Aaron and Moses, and Miriam, their sister."
I Chron. vi: 3, "The children of Amram, Aaron and Moses and >
Miriam." Ch. xxiii: 13, "The sons of Amram, Aaron and Moses.""
Lev. x: 4, calls Amram's brother "Uzziel the uncle of Aaron," which
also makes Amram the father of Aaron. Language could not express
more explicitly than do all these passages, that the father of Aaron and
Moses was Amram.
? 12. And the ages of, the successive parents show the same. At
Ex. vi: 16-20, we are told the ages, thus: Levi lived1 137 years, his son
Kohath, 133, his son Amram, 137, his son Moses at the Exodus was 80
years old. We will say, that 65 years after the descent into Egypt
Kohath begat Amram, and 70 years afterward Amram begat MOses;.

THE PATRIARCHS 293
then we have in Egypt, Kohath 65 years + Amram 70 years + Moses
80 years = 215 years in all to the Exodus.* Here we have very simply
" the 4th generation " of God's promise (from Levi, the first to enter
Egypt), with three generations or average 70's of lifetime between
them. And does it not look plain and rational, that in the 215 years of
stay, with successive parents living so long as these, this actual case
occurred, of only four generations in succession ?
The four successive lives in this case covering the whole time,
would not prevent a greater number of lives in most cases occupying
the time; even ten successive lives, of 21 years each at the birth of a
son, might occur in the 215 years of bondage, as in the genealogy of
Joshua. (I Chron. vii: 23-27. Prof. Green here wrongly reads eleven
generations.) § 13. There are four difficulties in explaining Amram as not the
father of Aaron and Moses: (1) We are told in two different books,
that "Jochebed bare unto Amram, Aaron and Moses." (2) In two
places we read, " the children Of Amram, Aaron and Moses." (3) We
are expressly told that Amram's brother was "the uncle of Aaron."
(4) If at Ex. vi: 20, we make Aaron and Moses only remote descendants
of Amram, we shall have to change ver. 21 and 22 in the same way,
making "the sons of Izhar" and " the sons of Uzziel " to be only their
remote descendants; which is supposing a very complex and unlikely
combination of unusual terms here heaped up. Now any one of these
variations of meaning may sometimes be found in Scripture, as Prof.
Green has well shown. But the combination of all of them in such
profuse urlnaturalness upon all the varied mentions of this one case,
is altogether beyond belief. It would never have been' dreamed of,
but for the desperate effort to make out 430 years of Egyptian bondage,
by enough "missing links" imagined in the genealogy to make that
possible. § 14. Prof. Green mentions one objection against the shorter
bondage of only 215 years; namely, that in Num. iv: 36, the census of
the adult male Kohathites gave " 2750" of them at the Exodus, — and
one man (Kohath) could not have originated this number, if he were
only the grand-father of Moses, — and Amram, one of the four sons of
Kohath (iii: 27), " could not have originated one-fourth of this number
(or 687) in Moses' own days," if Moses were his son.' So says Prof.
Green. But look at the figures already given. With Amram 70 years
old when his son Moses was born, we have (70+80=) 150 years from
* The Jewish historian Demetrius (B. C. 220) puts the-birth of Amram
57 years after the descent into Egypt, and the birth of Moses 78 years
afterward; so that he has 57+78+80=215 years. (See Chron. Antiq. t of
Jackson, page 119.)

294 PERIOD c
Amram's birth to the Exodus. At the age of 30 each father might
have 5 sons (and as many daughters); so that in (4 times 30 or) 120 years
there might easily be 5x5 x 5x5= 625 males; and in 30 years more
(making up the 150 years to the Exodus), there might be 625 male
adults, the youngest of them 30 years old. An average of 5 2-10 sons
each will give 731 at the end; which is more than the 687 required.
§15. Again: If each father at the age of 37 years had 5 sons, then in
(5 times 37 or) 185 years there might easily be 5x5x5x5x5 = 3125
males) and in 30 years more (making up the 215 years of bondage),
there might be 3125 male adults, the youngest of them 30 years old;
and all coming from one man (Kohath) beginning at the descent into
Egypt, — whereas only " 2750" are required by. Scripture.
Once more: If each father at the age of 32^ had 5 sons, then in
(6 times 32^ or) 195 years there might easily be 5x5x5x5x5x5
= 15,625 males; and in 20 years more (making up the 215 years of
bondage), there might be 15,625 male adults, the youngest of them 20
years old; and all coming from one man at the descent into Egypt.
So that, if there were only 40 males to begin with, (and there were
more than that, see Gen. xlvi: 8-27), there might easily be at the Exo
dus (15,625X40=) 625,000 male adults over 20'years of age. Whereas,
only " 603,500" are required by Scripture, (Num. i: 46.)
§ 16. Such is the rational census of that prolific people under the
helping hand of God. (See Ex. i: 19, 20.) This completely removes,
not only Prof. Green's objection in the case of the Kohathites, but also
the popular objection often urged against the bondage of only 215
years, — that this was too short a time to produce such a population.
Thus have we fairly set aside the only objections ever suggested against
the 215 years reckoning of the Egyptian bondage; and the "430 years "
of "sojourning" are thus left covering the whole interval from Abra-
< ham's arrival in Canaan to the Exodus out of Egypt, — just as St. Paul,
and Josephus, and all other authorities taught it from the first. This
makes the whole period (75+430=) 505 years from the birth of Abra
ham to the Exodus; ae given by all ancient authorities.
§ 17. We found the Bible date of the Exodus to be B. C. 1591;
which Josephus has 12 years too large, or B. C. 1603, on account of
his 5g2 years after the Exodus instead of the right 580 years. Thus
we have the scriptural, date for the birth of Abraham as B. C. (1591+
505=) 2096 B. C; which Josephus increases 12 years to B. C. 2108 [7
in the Antiq.]) +his post-exilian error of 57 years.
Thus far back the chronology of human history is pretty well as
sured: Abraham born B. C. 2096 (by Usher, 1996).
§ 18. For a study of Jacob's stay in Haran (as 40 not 20 years), see'
Period D, Appendix C, § g6-c)g.

\ \ \ \ \ ¦

THE PATRIARCHS 295
PART II.
When Was Joseph Sold ?
A Critical Study of Genesis xxxvii. •

[Reprint from the Bibliotheca Sacra, July, 1887. ]
\ 19. Without troubling ourselves concerning the "higher criti
cism" of Genesis, we all have long acknowledged that its events are
not in all cases recorded in exact chronological order. Gen. xxxvii: 2,
14. "Joseph being 17 years old," Jacob "sent him out of the vale of
Hebron, and he came to Shechem." I judge that this account of
Joseph belongs directly after xxxiii: 18, with only xxxv: 1-5, (g-15), 27
between. The writer at xxxiii: 18, having mentioned " Shechem,"
thinks best to go on and tell all about the residence- there at a later
date, leaving the account of Joseph's departure to come near to the
whole story of his life, as a closing up of the book.
Order of Events.
§ 20. The real order of events seems to be this: Jacob found the
vicinity of Shechem to be a good country for his flocks; and, therefore,
either at first or afterward, "bought a parcel of a field where he had
spread his tent " (xxxiii: ig) for a residence there. But he now tarried
not long, for he must reach his father Isaac, whom he had not seen
for so long. So he passed on to Bethel (xxxv: 1-5), where God ap
peared to him again (ix: 15), and he soon reached his father at Hebron
(27). Isaac seems to have moved thither from Beer-sheba, further
south, where Jacob left him in going to Haran (xxviii: 10).
Here Jacob resided near his father for some years, but sent his
flocks back (more or less) to the better pasturage about Shechem;
where, in charge of his sons, a part of the flocks may have lingered
even from the first. When Jacob had been from Haran 10 or 12 years,
the departure of Joseph to Shechem from "the vale of Hebron" took
place, as in chapter xxxvii.
Soon after the loss of his son, Jacob himself seems to have moved
to Shechem, where he had already bought a home (as we saw) in
order to be nearer the flocks, and nearer his sons who were getting
settled in life; perhaps, also, with a secret hope of yet finding Joseph,
who had been so mysteriously lost in the wilds near Shechem. (xxxiii:
18-20.) But the trouble that there occurred about his daughter Dinah (ch.

296 PERIOD c
jxxxiv) obliged him to leave the country (ver. 30); and he again moved
southward, and came to Luz or Bethel once more (xxxv: 6, 7). Here
" Deborah, Rebekah's nurse, died," (v. 8); which shows that she was
now living with Jacob, having been taken by him from Hebron, when
he moved north to Shechem, his mother Rebekah being then dead.
§21. Passing on still further southward, Jacob came to Bethle
hem, where Benjamin was born, and his mother Rachel died (v. 16-20);
then, after a stay "beyond the tower of Edar," (v. 21-26) he again
reached Hebron (v. 27), about 20 years after leaving Haran; where
ahout 5 years afterward his father Isaac died. (v. 28, 2g.) For,
Isaac's age being 180, Jacob, who was born when he was 60, must now
be 120 years old, which makes Isaac's death to be 10 years before
Jacob went to Egypt (xlvii: 9), i. e., at the very time when Joseph
stood before Pharaoh at 30 years of age (xii: 46), having been in
Egypt 13 years. During those 13 years since Joseph was lost at
Shechem, the events we have been reciting (from xxxiii: ig, to xxxv:
29), must evidently for the most part have taken place.
The funeral of Isaac brought together Jacob and Esau (xxxv: 29);
and this leads the waiter to go on and give the genealogy of Esau's
descendants (Ch. xxxvi). But, having Jacob now back at Hebron, with
most of the history disposed of except what relates to Joseph, the
writer now feels ready to go back to Jacob's earlier residence here,
when he sent off Joseph from Hebron to Shechem; beginning (here at
Ch. xxxvii) that wonderful story of Joseph's life, which forms the finish
and the crown of the book of Genesis. But, since quite a gap of time
intervenes- between the loss of Joseph in Shechem and the discovery of
him in Egypt, the writer artistically allows one chapter (the xxxviii) to
come in and fill the gap, with the story of Judah, which began about
the time Joseph disappeared. This single episode does not unduly
interrupt the history of Joseph, or draw attention from it; therefore it
is left here in its order, although other intervening events have been
disposed of first (in ch. 34-36), so as tpbe out of the way of Joseph's con
tinuous biography. Argument for This Order.
§ 22. Jacob upon coming from Haran, must have soon reached his
father at Hebron. For,
(1) Nature calls for such a meeting of the family, which was indeed
the very object of the journey (xxxi: 3, 13, 18, 30), "for to go to Isaac
his father;" as Laban said to Jacob (30), "thou would'st needs be
gone, because thou sore longedst after thy father's house." Says
Scott:' " It should not be concluded from the silence of Scripture, that
Jacob had not before this (xxxv: 27) visited his father; " which only
recorded visit is, in the order of narration, at least twelve years (prob
ably 20) after the arrival in Canaan.

THE PATRIARCHS 297
(2) The fulfillment of Jacob's vow (xxviii: 22), as recorded at xxxv:
1-7, 14, 15, must have been soon after his return to. Canaan, on a
first trip through Bethel to his father at Hebron; not ten (or twenty)
years after, when the affairs at Ch. xxxiv had occurred. Especially is
this plain from the statement (at xxxv: 9, 10), that this was "when he
came out of Padan-aram," with reaffirmation of the change of name
which had occurred just before (xxxii: 28). Particularly,
(3) The fact of Deborah's death, with Jacob at Bethel, (xxxv: 8),
shows conclusively, that Jacob had already been with his father at
Hebron, and had brought her thence away with him, probably on
account of his mother Rebekah's death. Deborah naturally clung to
the mother-boy Jacob, whom she had nursed in infancy, and whose
wife Rachel needed her company.
§ 23. As therefore Jacob must have come and made some stay at
Hebron before the recorded events of Ch. xxxiv, it was doubtless during
that earlier residence there that Joseph was lost. For,
1. There is a gap of many years time at the clos'e of Ch. xxxiii, con
cerning which nothing is said. All expositors are agreed, that there
were at least 8 or 10 years from the arrival in Canaan to the opening of
the chapter xxiv. Into this interval naturally falls the account of
Joseph in the chapter xxvii. By this view is saved that forced crowd
ing of events afterward, which results from retaining Ch. xxxvii in the
order recorded; whereby all chapters, xxxiv-xxxvii, are pressed into a
space of one or two years, after that long gap unaccounted for.
2. At the return to Hebron in the order of the record, the date is
altogether too late for Joseph to be then only 17 years old, as stated.
(xxxvii: 2.) In Ch. xxxiv, Dinah must have been at least 15 years old,
probably more; and Joseph being probably older than she (as Scott
observes), was at least 16. Fi;om that time, through chapter xxxiv and
xxxv, (and we say into a second period of residence in Hebron), after
Jacob's sons had been some time back in Shechem with their flocks,
must be some years ; (Scott, by the closest reckoning, tries to reduce it
to two years) ; so that then Joseph must be at least 18 or 19 years,
probably much more.
3. It seems from xxxvii: 29, 30, that Reuben yet felt his birth-right
responsibility ; which therefore he had not yet lost ; as he afterward
did. (xxxv: 22, comp. xlix: 4, 5, 10, with I Chron. v: 1, 2.) This goes to
show, that much of chapters xxxiv to xxxvii belongs chronologically
after chapter xxxvii. But chiefly,
4. The loss of Joseph near Shechem, when he was 17 years old, as
recorded in Ch. xxxvii, must have occurred before the story of Dinah,
recorded in Ch. xxxiv. For, the terrible slaughter by Jacob's sons of
Shechem and his father and the male inhabitants of the town, with the
plunder of all their wealth (v. 25-29), could not be before those sons,
Simeon- and Levi, who accomplished it, were at least 21 years old ; —

298 i PERIOD c
which would make Joseph as much as 17 already. Probably they were
all much older than that, and Dinah much older than 15 ; Joseph hav
ing been sold before this second residence at Shechem. This slaughter
and havoc there by his sons, so disgusted Jacob as well as the people
thereabouts (xxxiv: 30), that Jacob left the country (as at xxxv: 6-8),
proceeding by way of Bethel back to Hebron (v. 16-27).
§ 24. Now it was not possible, that on this return to Hebron, he
could immediately send back these very murderous sons with the flocks
to feed about Shechem, the very scene of their recent butchery. And
especially, he could not (immediately, as the recorded order would
require), send off his young beloved Joseph, to hunt them up in that
country so aroused against them. Plainly, this feeding of flocks, this
visit of Joseph, was in the early days after arrival at Shechem; when
we are expressly told that " Jacob came in peace to the city of Shechem,"
(xxxiii: 18, Revision); in evident contrast with the warlike catastrophe
that afterward drove and kept him and his family away from that
region. This proves beyond a doubt, that the story of Joseph's departure
(in Ch. xxxvii) belongs back, before the story about Dinah (in Ch. xxxiv);
and that there (probably at xxxiii: ig) comes in the visit of Jacob to his
father Isaac (xxxv: 27), during which first stop at Hebron, Joseph was
sent back to his brethren at Shechem, as the history proceeds to nar
rate (in Ch. xxxvii).
The reason of this inverted order in the narrative, I -have sufficiently
shown; it being a skilfully artistic arrangement, by which, when Shec
hem is once named, the subsequent events there disconnected with
Joseph are related. The same plan being again followed when Bethel
is once named, and when Hebron is once named and Esau ; all inter-
ruptive affairs are thus disposed of beforehand, so that the story of
Joseph, when once begun, can go on without any disturbing intermix
ture. 5. A fifth proof should be named. The death of Isaac, and the
consequent discourse about Esa-i) (xxxv.: 28 to xxxvi: 43), is certainly
put put of its chronological order, by an anticipation of some years,
as all expositors observe. And this evidently is done for the very ob
ject we have explained, that Hebron being once named (xxxv: 27),
everything there may be sb disposed of, as not to interrupt the story
of Joseph when begun. All I do is, to extend this acknowledged antic
ipation back still farther to chapter 33.
6. If Gen. xlviii: -22, refers to the same land as xxxiii: 11 (as gen
erally thought), then Jacob must have come back to live there a sec
ond time, recapturing the land, say, after the loss of Joseph, — just as
here argued. "The Amorite" may mean in general the "Canaan
ites," including Shechemites, as at Gen. xv: 16.

THE PATRIARCHS 299

Results.

? 25. The principal result of this view is, that the birth of Ben
jamin (and the death of his mother Rachel) is thus brought after the
sale of Joseph into Egypt; showing several things:
1. Why Joseph "was the son of his old-age " to Jacob, (xxxvii: 3);
which he could hardly be called, if the younger Benjamin were already
born. (See xliv: 20.)
2. Why "Israel loved Joseph more than all his brethren" (xxxvii:
3), notwithstanding xxxv: 18, which must be afterward. " His father
called him (the last son) Benjamin," i. e., "son of the right-hand,"
marg., meaning "particularly dear and precious, — as some think, orig
inally Benjamim, i. e., "a son of days," or of old-age. — famieson.
When Joseph was -so singled out, it was as being the only son (as yet)
of Jacob's beloved Rachel. Such specializing would hardly have
been, if the infant Benjamin were already present.
3. Why Jacob said (v. 10), "Shall Land thy mother and thy
brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee ?" He qould
not have thus spoken to Joseph of his own "mother," if she were
already dead. Joseph's dream had in it eleven stars to make obei
sance to him (v. g), as meaning the eleven children (including Dinah,
who was numbered with the heads of families, xlvi: 15); or else, as
prophetic that there was to be "another son." (See xxx: 24.)
4. Why we are told of " Rachel weeping for her children; she' re
fused to be comforted for her children, because they are not," (Jer.
xxxi: 15; Mat. ii: 18). The living Rachel herself, it seems, literally be
gan this weeping over her lost Joseph; (comp. Gen. xxxv: 18, marg.,
" son of my sorrow " over Joseph.) She only mourned as herhusband
Jacob did, who also "refused to be comforted" (xxxvii: 34, 35), say
ing, "Joseph is not," (xlii: 36); — to Rachel "Joseph was not" till
she died uttering those words.
5. Why Benjamin is called so young, as being a mere "lad"
when he was taken to Egypt; (xliii: 8, 29, and xliv: 20, 22, ,31, 32, 33,
34), " a child of his old age, a little one," — just as Joseph at 17 years
is called "a lad" (xxxvii: 2). It is probable that Benjamin was not
older than 17 also; instead of being about 25, as the current view
makes him, when he was thus called "a lad — a child, a little
one." (Note. The "inductive studies" of the Institute of Sacred
Lit. in the S. S. Times, April 7, 1894, even says: "Benjamin was'
at least 30 years old" on meeting Joseph!)
6. Why Joseph was so moved at mention of Benjamin when (says
Judah, xliii: 7), " He asked straightly concerning ourselves, and con
cerning our kindred, saying, ' Is your father yet alive, ? have ye any

300

PERIOD c

other brother ? ' (comp. xxx: 24), and we told him," — doubtless men
tioning that the mother died when the boy was born. How Joseph
schemed to get a sight of the lad, his only own brother, never yet seen,
now the sole memento left him of his long-desired mother !
How he sought assurance, that it was indeed his own mother's
boy ! (xliii: 29, 30.) " And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother
Benjamin, his mother's son,- and said, IS this your younger brother,
of whom ye spake unto me? And he said, God be gracious unto thee.
my son. And Joseph made haste, for his bowels did yearn upon his
brother; and he sought where to weep, and he entered into his cham
ber, and wept there." At length (xiv: 14), "he fell upon his brother
Benjamin's neck and wept ! "
In view of all considerations, is not the arrangement here given
worthy of thoughtful examination ?

PERIOD A, B-DILUVIANCHRONOLOGY.

PART I.
The Differing Texts.
§ i. Diluvian Chronology has two periods, (A) antediluvian, and
(B) postdiluvian (reaching to the birth of Abraham), as recorded in
Genesis v and xi. We have three differing texts of these tables of
chronology, the Hebrew of our English Bible, the Samaritan penta
teuch, and the Septuagint or Greek version made 250 B. C. Josephus
professes- to give the old Hebrew as he had it; but it may be claimed,
that as his numbers are about the same as those'of the Septuagint,
they are only copied therefrom. We take them as at least fairly rep
resenting the Septuagint. The three texts compared give us as follows :
§ 2. The Three Texts.
A . , Period. B
Present Hebrew  1656 + 2gzf
Euseb. Samaritan*  1306 + g42
Jos. Septuagint  2256 — + gg2
600 700 1300
* The 1306 of the Samaritan was written as the " 1307th " year for
the flood (as seen in Eusebius); the 53 years of Lamech being doubt
less only the 53d year (or 52 complete), i. e., 30 years taken from [i]82,
as 20 are taken from Methuselah's [i]87, with Jared [i]6o.
f With the age of Terah (Gen. xi: 32) alike in the Hebrew and the
Lxx, the- inspired statement -of Stephen in Acts vii: 4 (see ver. 55),
drawn doubtless from authentic tradition, requires the addition of 60
years to the chronology of Period B, making 352 years as. Usher and
others have put it. . Gen. xi: 27, is explained as a reversal of the sons'
names, Abraham being put first on account of his pre-eminence in the
history to follow, though Har.an was probably the first-born at "70
years " of his father; while Abraham was born 60 years (later, or "75
years" before his father died at 205. (Compare ver. 32 with xii: 4.)
The greater age of Haran is indicated by his previous death, with a
son Lot to emigrate at an early date out of Chaldea. (xi: 31.) See
i 58, note.

650

= 1948

300

50

= 2248

IOOO

= 3248



302 PERIOD A, B
§ 3. We here learn the following facts:
(1) The tens and units agree in the present Heb. and the Sept. as
represented by Jos., and substantially so in the Sam. Therefore, the
changes made among them are even hundreds to or from, the numbers
of Josephus. (2) The changes were made purposely, by even hundreds transferred
from one side to the other of the births, adjusting both Periods A and
B at once and applied to some two out of the three texts, Heb., Sam.,
1 Sep'. § 4. (3) The Sam. is inconsistent as to birth ages in the Periods A
and B, and in other respects. It shows its artificiality in the changed
life-ages of Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech, adjusting them all to die
at the flood; and this can not have been the original text. Therefore,
the only question is this: Is the present Heb. a diminution from Jose
phus as the original Heb., or is the Sep. represented by Josephus an
enlargement from the present Hebrew as the original?
(4) Upon this question, testing the different totals obtained in the
three texts as to the favorite jubilee reckoning of the Jews, we have as
follows: A, B, +- Period C = Exodus A. M.
Heb .... 1948 ) ( 2453 ) ( —3 dropped = 50 jubilees
Sam. . . .2248 \ + 505 = \ 2753 \ -f- 49 \ +40 to Josh. = 57 jubilees-
Sep  3248) (3753) ( = 76 jubilees and 29 over.
 Here we see that the Sep . reckoning is the only one free from the
superstitious Jewish calculation of jubilees; and this gives a strong pre
sumption in favor of the Sep. as the original text. (See afterward.)
I 5. (5) If the Sep. is an enlargemept upon the Heb. p.s the orig
inal text, then it became so at its formation, as early as 250 B. C. For,
no copy of the Sep. has ever 'been found containing the Heb. num
bers; and not only Josephus, as early as the first century, but also De
metrius, the Jewish historian (220 B. C), as well as Eupolemus (174
B. C), use the larger Sept. values alone.
(6) As a purposed change of the text* made at that time there is no
conceivable motive adequate to account for it. Is it suggested that
all peoples have a tendency to magnify their antiquity? But in this
case the lengthening made by Jews is not of their own nationality, but
of pre-national times.
Is it suggested (as in the Bib. Sacra, April, i8gp, p. 300), "that
these changes were made by the Sep. translators or others for the sake
of accommodating the Mosaic narrative to the imperative demands of
the accepted Egyptian antiquity?" But when we remember that the
fabulous Egyptian -chronology, made 30,000 years before the flood, and
over 4,000 down thence to the time of the Israelitish Exodus, we see
that there is no possible imitation of this in the Septuagint.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 30^
§ 6. Moreover, to suppose such an imperative demand, is much
more of an argument for its having been originally met in the Hebrew
text by Moses himself, who was "learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians "; especially when it is claimed (as it is by the writer cited)
that Moses could not have meant to give the shorter reckoning of the
Hebrew as a bona fide chronology in presence of the Egyptian claims
to antiquity. If the Hebrew numbers were not meant as chronology,
but only " as a conspectus of individual lives " and their length, as the
writer urges, — then Moses could have selected and arranged those num
bers to look like satisfying Egyptian demands, just as well as the Lxx
could do it; and he would be the more likely originator of the larger
numbers. § 7. Or, if the Lxx also viewed those numbers as not meant ' fof
chronology (as the writer' also urges), then still they could not deliber
ately change them, whether to suit Egyptians, or merely " to make a
more symmetrical division of individual lives " (the reason urged by
the writer), without a belying of the individual lives given by the He
brew text. A desire on the part of the Lxx translators to furnish more
time for the play of Egyptian fables concerning their antiquity, or
especially a mere wish to make the numbers look more symmetrical,
could, by no possibility, be an adequate motive to constrain those 70
learned Jewish magnates to violate the Hebrew text before them, and
purposely falsify the Scripture which all Jews (down to the New Tes
tament times) so sedulously guarded.
(7) If the Sep. is thus an enlargement upbn the Heb., then the
Sam. is also a modification made upon the Heb. ; and as such it is
utterly inexplicable. For, the Sam. enlarges the Heb. in Period B, but
diminishes it in Period A, the result being a net increase of only 300,
instead of the 1300 excess of the Sep. For so slight a result as an en
largement of time there could be no motive. And to suppose the
change made (as does the writer in the Bib. Sacra, p. 300) merely to
render the numbers in Period A more symmetrical, while Period B is
thus put in still more unsymmetrical contrast with it, offers no ade
quate motive at all for such proposed mutilation of Scripture.
I 8. If the Sam. manipulator merely thought it important enough
to mutilate by reducing Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech, so as to have
a regular diminution of life and age of parentage down to the flood,
why did he proceed in Period B to do the very opposite, by enlarging
the ages of parentage after the flood to 100 years more than those
before, when by leaving the Hebrew here untouched he would have
his desired decrease all the way through ? We repeat, the Sam. text
is utterly inexplicable on the supposition that the Hebrew was the
original text.

304 PERIOD A, B
CHAPTER I.
Is the Hebrew Corrupt ?
g 9. (8) But if, on the contrary, the present Heb. is a diminution
made from Jos. (or a Sep. value) as the original text, then it was not
made until about the second century, or after the time of Josephus.
For he professes to be giving the numbers from his Hebrew Bible, (see
in his preface to the Antiq.); and he has them in -the enlarged form of
the Sep. This is seen at Antiq. I, iii: 4, and vi: 5. Thus, 2256+992;
Nahor's 129 being corrupted to 120, and the 2 years after the flood cor
rupted to 12; while the present Hebrew total 292 here is a corruption
from Jos.' own true total "992," as seen from his items added up.
Neither Jos. nor any writer as early as he has the diminished total of
the present Heb., though great efforts have been made, by corruptions
of his text, to have him so appear.
"Josephus' total after (as well as before) the flood has been corrupted
so as to agree with the present Heb. so confusing Jos. that chronologists
can not agree on him. It was all done before the time of Eusebius,
who cites him as having to the death of Moses 'near 3,000 years,1"
instead of the correct 'near 4, 000.'" Jackson, p. 119. For- Jos. says
that- the Old Testament down to Nehemiah (over 1,000 years later)
"contains the history of 5,000 years." Antiq. Pref. 3, Vs. Ap., 1, 1.)
See Restor. Jos., $71.
§ 10. At Antiq. 10, viii: 5, the interpolation is evident, leaving out
the " 2 years after the flood " (Gen. xi: 10), which Josephus is careful
to put in (see his 3, vi: 5). Thus it reads as if " 1062^ "+505+290=
"i857/4" back to the flood (corrupted to ig57^)+i656= "3513^
to creation; whereas, Jos. would have put it ' io62^'+505+gg2=
2559/^+2256=4815^. There is like interpolation at Ant. 8, iii: 1,
where we are given " 1022" (corrupt io2o)+Ab. 75+60+290=" 1447 "
(corrupt 1440) to the flood+i6s6=" 3103 " corrupt 3102) to the creation.
In the interpolation, not only is the "2 years after the flood" left out,
but the 60 years (of Usher) before Abraham's birth are put in, which
may go to indicate when this corrupt figuring was imposed upon
Josephus. Plainly a mighty effort has been made by corruptors
to make Jos. seem to endorse the present Heb. text. But this attempt
to set Jos. in-confusion and contradiction of himself is obviously
exposed. So the present Hebrew numbers can not be found as early
as Josephus. I n. (9) If the present Heb. is a diminution made from Jos. (or
a Sep. value) as the original text, and gotten up (say) within a century
after his day, then we can see an adequate motive to account for
the purposed change made in the Heb. text. For the Jews, who

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 305
mostly possessed and controlled the Hebrew, were then very bitter
against the Christians, and, in order to disprove the claims of Jesus as
the Messiah appointed to come "in the last days, they may have been
tempted to the desperate step of lessening the Biblical age of the world
so as to plead that "the last days " of it were not yet arrived. (And
may they not have excused themselves for such mutilation by
some such theory as that lately gotten up, that those numbers were
not really meant for chronology, and so might be adjusted differently
without much harm)?' They were early accused of making such cor
ruptions, and for this very purpose, and may not the complaint, be
true ?
§ 12. Here note these particulars:
(a.) It was the Jews, who in the second century mostly possessed
and controlled the Hebrew Scriptures. " Few Christians then under
stood the Hebrew. So it was easy to corrupt it. And most Hebrew
copies were lost in the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction in
the reign of Hadrian." (Jackson.) In the early centuries the Christ
ians used and depended upon the Sep., which was, therefore, slighted
by the Jews, who watched to see if it was not corrupted by the Christ
ians. "Even Jews would have detected and condemned it had it
been the Sep. corrupted." (id.) " Since the destruction of Jerusalem
the Jews condemn ahd reject the Sep. as a corruption and falsifica
tion of the word of God, and the Talmud' designates the origin of the
Sep. as a disastrous day." (Seyffarth, p. 131.)
§ 13. (b) It was a theory very current in the early Christian
church, that the world was to last a great week, or seven of the 1000-
year days of God, (Isa. xc: 4; II Pet. iii: 8); and that in "the last
days " of that world's week, according to the prophets, Messiah would
appear. And, as by the Septuagint chronology, they had the age of
the world in the time qf Herod as about 5500 years, they judged this to
be in the very midst of the sixth day (or Friday of time) i. e., in the
last days of the world's week. This the early Christians urged as an
argument for Christ as the true Messiah, he having thus appeared at
the fitting time in the world's history. Rom. v: 6. (See authoiities
given by Jackson, p. 97.)
§ 14. We see how prominent, was this view, by the testimony of
the " Gospel of Nicodemus," one of thepurest and most valuable of
the apocraphal books; which we are told was " of very great antiq
uity," and being ' ' in use for public reading in some of the churches two
hundred years after the apostles," must have existed long before that.
It says, ch. xiv: 5, "The angel said to Seth, thou canst not, by any
means obtain it [the blessing] till the last day and times, namely, till
five thousand and five hundred years be past; then will Christ come on
earth," etc. The same is repeated at ch. xxii: n, and again at ver. 13;

306 period a, b
after which follows a computation of the Old Testament dates to make
out the 5500 years at the birth of Christ. (See \ 78.)
This reckoning of 5500 A. M. at the nativity formed the basis of
the .chronology. of Julius Africanus (A. D. 200), and all the other early
chroniclers of the church. Of course, this reckoning and this claim as
to "the last days " must have provoked the Jewish leaders, who were
so bitter against the Christians, and would naturally tempt them to
make the figures of their original Hebrew show a more recent origin
of the world, as only 4,000 years old or less; so that they could plead,
that the last days had not come and Messiah was not yet due. *
§ 15. (c) We know that the Jews did in those days purposely cor
rupt their chronology of the time back to the captivity, in order to ad
just the " seventy weeks " prophecy of Daniel to their own wishes for
a Messiah not yet due, in opposition to the Christian claims. In A. D.
130, Rabbi Akiba in behalf of the Jewish people devised the modern
Jewish chronology, still used by the Jews of our day; wherein the time
is put as " seventy years captivity +352 years to the Christian era+6g
years to A. D. 7o=the 4gist year (10 jubilees) to the destruction of
J erusalem. " This makes the 4go years or "70 weeks ' ' of Daniel reach
from the close of the 70 years captivity to 70 years after the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, i. e., to A. D. 140,^ just after the devising of this
scheme, : — or later, according as the 70 weeks were started from any
point- after the captivity. "This view was promoted by the false
Christ whom the Jews then got up, about A. D. 128." (fackson.) Or
rather, the false Christ grew out of this chronological figuring. (See
Period E, § 53, note.)
§ 16. , Here was a very adroit scheme of Jewish chronology (still
existent before our eyes), gotten up evidently on purpose to postpone
Messiah's coming, to the overthrow of the Christian claim concerning
Jesus of Nazareth; — a scheme which did not scruple to drop out near
200 years from the true chronology of the captivity, which we all know
ended 537 B. C, instead of the 352 B. C., where they assign it. Since
* So in the " General Epistle of Barnabas," companion of Paul, sup
posed by many to belong properly in the New Testament canon, we
read (ch. xiii: 4-6): "Consider, my children, what that' signifies.
He finished them [His works] in six days. The meaning of it is this:
That in six thousand years the Lord God will bring all things to an
end. For with him a thousand years are one day. * * * When
His Son shall come * * * then he shall gloriously rest in that
seventh day." Ver. g, 10, ' The Sabbaths, saith He, which ye now
keep, are not acceptable unto me, but those which I have made, when,
resting from all things, I shall begin the '8th day, that is, the begin
ning of the other world. For which cause we observe the 8th day
with gladness, in which Jesus rose from the dead."x (How general this
tradition then was, concerning 6,000 years, see Coteler, Annot. in loco,
Edit. Oxon., p. 90.)

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 807
the Jews of that day did thus fabricate a false chronology in their
attempt to defeat Christianity; the only question is, Did they go
further, and corrupt the numbers of Genesis for the same purpose ?
Did they drop Out from 1300 to 1500 years from the Hebrew text (then
in their control, in order to reduce the world's age below 4000, so as to
destroy the argument of Christians concerning "the last days."
§17. (d) It is a grave charge to make ; against them. But- the
charge was freely made in those early times. " Justin Martyr (A. D.
142) mentions several instances of their altering and erasing prophesies
concerning the death of Christ in the Septuagint. * * * Epiphanius
(A. D. 380) in De Mensur, p. 171, says that Aquila (pupil of Rabbi
Akaba) perverted the Heb. text to invalidate the prophesies concern
ing Christ," etc. (Jackson.) " Origin ( Cont. C. I, 40), Justin Marty r^
(Dial, c. Tryph., 68, 71), Epiphanius, Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine,
Julian of Toledo, Syncellus, and many others, declare that the true
chronology of the pentateuch was preserved in the Sep., but shortened
by the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem." (Seyffarth, p. 137.)
"The Jews in Spain openly assailed the Christian church, A. D.
680, with the reproach that Christ having been born 1500 years too
early, was therefore a false Messiah; whilst they maintained that the
true Messiah would come 1500 years later, i. e., in the sixth thousand
years after the creation." (Id., p. 133.)
§18. "Jerome asserts again and again (A. D. 360), that the
Hebrew text had been corrupted by the Jew's; e. g., at Gal. iii: 10, 13.
Augustine (A. D. 400), Civit. Dei., xv: 11, says: ' The Christians be
lieve that the truth is contained in these [the Sep. Scriptures], not in
those of the Jews; * * * that it is incredible that the seventy
interpreters could have erred, or could have lied, as they had nothing
to gain by it; but that on the contrary the Jews had made certain
alterations in their books, in order thus to diminish the authority of
ours.' " (Seyffarth, p, 138, the Latin given. Also Jackson.) Syncel
lus says (p. 84): " I concur entirely in the opinion, that this shorten
ing was a criminal act of the Jews." — "Augustine himself lays the
blame to a first copier of the Septuagint, in order to make the ages at
puberty agree." (Jackson.)
§ ig. This idea of Augustine is the only early .suggestion we find,
of a possible corruption by {he Sep. And Augustine could not have
seen Josephus' numbers, cited from the Hebrew just as in the Lxx; or
he would not have made such a suggestion. And as to the modern
suggestion, that the Lxx themselves expanded the original chronology
1500 years to harmonize it with the Egyptian antiquity — we have
already seen (here at fj 5) that neither this nor the theory just

308 PERIOD A, B
named is reasonable, or furnishes an adequate motive for such corrup
tion at that time. *
We will not presume to decide the question, whether the present
Hebrew numbers in Gen. v, xi, are a corruption introduced by the Jews,
as above charged. But we must say, that an adequate motive is seen
for such corruption, — while no motive can be discovered for the Sep.
numbers as a corruptio'n, since they were in existence long before
Christianity and the controversies arising from it.

* § 20. Take some later opinions :
"Abraham Ecchelensis (Hist. Orient. Sup., p. 173), a learned
Syrian Maronite, charges the Jews with having corrupted the chronol
ogy of their Scriptures, upon the testimonies of their most ancient
rabbis," etc. (Jackson.) ,
" Abulfeda says: ' The Jews diminished the age of the world 1475
years, in order to make themselves living z';z the midst of the 7000 years
agreed by all, not in the last times. The Greek version is approved by the
most accurate chronologists." (Seyffarth, p. 144. The Latin is given.)
" Abul-pharagius, another learned Mohammedan, says: 'Accord
ing to the Hebrew, from creation to the Messiah is 4220 years, but by
the Sep. in the hands of almost all Christians it is 5586. Which
diminution ofthe Hebrew is ascribed to the Jewish doctors, because by
the law, the prophets, and the ancient rabbis, Christ was to come in
the last times. So they reduced the patriarchs, bringing Jesus in the
, 5th milleniad, about the midst of the world's years, which all give, as
7000, saying the time of Messiah is not yet arrived. But the Sept.
reckoning makes it the 6th milleniad, and the proper time for Mes
siah.'" (Seyffarth, p. 144. The Latin is given.)
" There is extant also a modern edition of the Heb. Bible, with a
German-Rabbinical interpretation, in which Daniel's seventy weeks
are wanting." (fd., p. 126.)
"Luther and, others- showed in many places, e. g., Isa. ix: 6, that
..the rabbis did, in A. D. 800, falsify the Hebrew text, for the purpose
of discrediting or obliterating certain prophesies in respect to Christ."
(Id., p. 170.)
" The Hebrew was corrupted by the later Jews themselves, and so
the Christians were imposed- upon. The true Mosaic chronology was
divinely preserved in the Greek translation, established centuries be--
fore these corruptions were introduced. It was also preserved in Jo
sephus, who says he followed the Hebrew copies. The variations
were made to confound the time of Christ's coming. But by a good
Providence the truth was preserved. So Josephus has been corrupted
in many places to agree with the present Hebrew; and the new Greek
translations of Aquila (A. D. 128), Theodrftian (185), Symmachus (2co)
vary much from the Sep. The change (in leaving out -Cainan) was
made between A. D. 100 and 120, before Aquila was employed to get up
the new translation." (Chron. 'Antiq. by John Jackson, folio, London
1732.) See Period D, Appendix D, §100.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 309
CHAPTER 1 1 .
Process of Corruption.
§ 21. (io) If the present Hebrew is a diminution made from Jos.
(or a Sep. value) as the original text, and gotten up (say) within a cen
tury after his day, — then we can see how the Samaritan copy got its
peculiar values, which are inexplicable with the theory that the Sep.
is the corrujjted text. (See here, \ 7.) The Samaritan was used
as a medium for corrupting the Hebrew, by a process traceable as fol
lows: ,
If the Hebrew text is corrupt, then the Samaritan is also corrupt.
(See here, I 4.) And the corruption of the Samaritan copy prob
ably preceded that of the old Hebrew copy, preparing the way for it.
For, we find the Samaritan chronology existent before we have any
traces of the Hebrew reckoning. The Jewish " Book of Jubilees " is
a work written about the year A. D. 100, as all are agreed.* It is a
Pharisaic ' ' Targum of those days in the spirit of the New Testament
Judaism." It wonderfully exalts all the legal niceties of ritualism,
teaching that they were first ordinances in heaven, whence they were im
parted to Moses. And it carefully dates every event of Genesis by a
system, of -fifty Jubilees as reaching from creation to Joshua's enter
ing Canaan; thus making Jubilee Chronology to antedate the Mosaic
institution of Jubilees, and indeed to have been prearranged " in the
councils of heaven," even " according to the weeks of the Jubilees to
eternity." (See its ch. i: 22-24.)
*§22. "Book of Jubilees. Theeditorof the Ethiopic texts and Ger
man translator of this book, Prof. Dillman, has proved to the satisfac
tion of scholars in general, that the book is a production of the first
Christian century. Ewald shows that the book presupposes and cites
those parts of the book of Enoch which date up to about the birth of
Christ, while it, in turn, has been used and quoted by the Test, of the
Twelve Pat. , a work similar in- spirit and a product of the early part
of the second century. This will decide the end of the first century
after Christ as the date for the composition of the Book of Jubilees.
By Christian authors the work is not quoted until later. Epiphanius,
Jerome and Rufinus are the first to mention it, while Cedrenus, Syncel
lus, and other Byzantine writers quote from it at length. But the
testimony of the Test, xii, Pat. is decisive as to the terminus ad quem.
Ronsch confidently claims that it was written before the destruction
of Jerusalem.
" As the book is undoubtedly the work of a Palestinian Jew and written
in Hebrew, it can faifly be condsidered as an outgrowth of.that school
and spirit of Judaism, which we in the New Testament find arrayed in
opposition to Christianity and its work. The book, can best be de
scribed by calling it a haggadic commentary on certain portions of
Genesis and the opening chapters of Exodus, and it is thus the oldest

310 period a, b
This Book of Jubilees has the time " 1307 years " of the Samaritan
Pentateuch as the period before the flood, saying (v: 20) that Noah
entered the ark at "the 6th year of the 5th week of the 27th Jubilee,"
i. e., at 1307- years. So, then, the present corrupted text of the
Samaritan copy was in existence at that time, about A. D. 100. Already
had the Sep. number (of Jos.) "2256 years " before the flood, been low
ered goo years,1 by transferring 100 years from the time before to the time
after parentage of each patriarch; and lowered also by 20 years more
taken from Methusaleh's, and 30 years more taken from Lamech's age
at parentage, in order to make a regular decrease in the age of parent
age throughout. And thus had the 1306 years (called 1307th year) been
obtained, or a reduction of gso years. This, with a loss of 50 years
from the gg2 of the Sep. (as in Jos.) after the flood, gave a reduction,
of 1000 years; which lessened the Sep. from about 55O0 to only about
4500 at the time of Herod, and plainly answered a purpose of argument
agamst the Christian claim as to "the last days." The Samaritan
corruption thus seems to have been the first attempt in that direction,
made some time in the first century of the Christian era.*
§ 24. But, as found in the Jewish Book of Jubilees, it was a later
attempt. For this book adds a large reduction of the period after the
flood to that already made in the period before. The corruption of
the Samaritan copy had not ventured to meddle seriously with the
time after the flood, leaving it as g42 (as found also in some copies of
the Lxx, see Euseb.), and thinking the loss of 1000 years sufficient for
its purpose. But the writer of the Book of Jubilees, to make still fur
ther reductions, and at the same time to accommodate his1 Jubilee
ofthe Midrashim, and a representative example of the manner in which
the learned contemporaries of Christ made use of the Biblical books
for their own peculiar purpose and object. It is a sample of an exeget-
ical Targum of those days in the spirit of New Testament Judaism.
* * * One scholar advocates a Samaritan origin, another an Essene;
but all agree as to its thoroughly Jewish origin, and in general its rep
resentative character, while Ronsch even thinks that he detects an
anti-Christian tendency. * * * The center of its orthodoxy is the
law, and its paraphernalia, and all means lawful and unlawful, are put
into requisition to exalt the importance of that law and to increase its
authority. Outwardly the leading feature is the chronological system
of the book, namely, its division of all ancient history of the Israelites
according to the sacred periods of Jubilees of forty-nine years; andthe
time between the creation and the entrance of Israel into Canaan is
counted as fifty Jubilees, or 2450 years." (Pref. of Prof . Schodde to the
English Trans, in Bib. Sacra, 1885, Oct., p. 62g.)
*One form of the Samaritan reckoning (reported in a note to
Jerome's Euseb.), reduced the period before the flood down as low as
" 1070 years "—probably by dropping all the 12 hundreds to give the
1056 year down to Noah's 500th year, and then adding 25 to Seth's age
at parentage (as in Jerome's list), so making i056th+25=) 1070.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 311
theory, called the time just fifty Jubilees from creation to Joshua's
entering Canaan (when he supposed the Jewish Jubilee practically to
begin). This required him to have the Samaritan 1307th year+6ooth
after the flood+505 to the Exodus+40 to Joshua=245ist year or 50
Jubilees. (But by mistake, putting Abraham's entering Canaan at 40
Jubilees, so as to have the two migrations just 70 weeks or 490 years
apart, he has i307th+58oth+525+40=245ist year as before.)
§ 25. This further reduction of (942 — 6ooth=) 343 years more after
the flood (distributed variously upon the ten generations), increased
the Samaritan loss from 1000 up to 1343, giving that much more advant
age in the argument against the Christians. And so the matter stood
at the writing of the Book of Jubilees, (say 100 A. D.) But when the
Jewish Rabbi Akiba (about A. D. 130) started the present Jewish Chro
nology, wherein we find the first mention of the present Hebrew values
of Gen. v, xi, and wherein the chronology from the captivity to the
Christian era is reduced from 537 to 352 years, as we have seen — the
object in this whole reckoning was evidently to get as small a world-age
as possible, seemingly for the purpose of denying "the last days "
alleged by the Christians.
§ 26. Not satisfied, therefore, with the Samaritan reduction of
1,000 (made mostly by whole 100' s in Period A (before the flood) — and
seeing that the further reduction in the Book of Jubilees, not being by
even ioo's, could not creditably be applied to the Scripture text — they
concluded not to follow the Samaritan plan, of taking 100 years ^from
every parent in Period ,A, but not Period B (which seemed inconsistent
and irregular); but proceeded to take 100 years from each parent in
both periods, except in the case of Methusaleh, Lamech, and Noah,
where this could not be done without disturbing the other numbers
which give the life-length of those men.
" § 27. This left them 1556+292 instead of the Sep. 2256+gg2 (as in
Jos.), a reduction of 700 years upon each period (a very systematic
thing), and gave them an advantage of 1400 years loss in the argument
with the Christians (in place of the 1343 years given in the Book of
Jubilees.) However, when the corruption of the period (D) from the
Exodus to the temple became soon established as "the 480th year"
(instead of the true value, the 580 years, as we have shown elsewhere),
then this by offset allowed Jared (in Period A) to retain his original 162
(not 62), so as to have no age at parentage go below 65, which was
deemed a proper thing. Thus the whole loss was kept at 1400, but was
now only 600 in Period A, and 700 in Period B, with 100 in Period D
(while some copies of the Lxx by insertion of Cainan, etc., had the
whole variation 1500 or even more). And thus it came to pass, that
"all eastern copies of the Heb. (earliest made?) have 1556, but all
western copies have 1656, we are told by an author of good credit."
(Jacksori.) See Period D, § 83.

312 PERIOD A, B
§ 281 We can thus clearly see the steps by which the Samaritan
and then the Hebrew corruption came in, within the first and then
within the second century; until- Eusebius (A. D. 320) sets forth the
completed corruption in full. All this upon the supposition, that the
Septuagint numbers (as in Jos.) agreed with the original Hebrew text.
No such consistent and natural process of corruption can we find on
the opposite supposition, that our present Hebrew is the original.
Hence the presumption is strongly in favor of the Septuagint as
correct. CHAPTER III.
Is the Septuagint Correct ?
§ 2g. (11) f.t is worthy of nbte, that when the new Hebrew text
reduced Jos. 2256 to 1656, the reduction by 600 was the same as Noah's
age at the flood; so that the manipulator of the corruption was merely
making the 1636 years of Jos. at the birth of Ntiah reach instead to the
flood. And this may be what settled down the change to 1656, instead
of 1556 as at first proposed; it was leaving unchanged a familiar total
before the flood, only applied somewhat differently. In like manner,
when the Samaritan copy reduced Jos. 2256 to 1306, the reduction by
950 years was the same as Noah's total age; so that the manipulator of
the corruption was merely making the 1636 of Jos. at the birth of Noah
reach instead to the death of Noah — a well known total retained, but
differently applied. Both facts are curious; and do they not serve to
show, that both cases were corruptions from the original Sep. reck
oning ?
? 30. There are other presumptions in favor of the Septuagint.
Jared, Methusaleh, and Lamech are alike in Josephus and the He
brew, and these numbers must be correct. But these look as if giving
the ages at puberty, as about one-fifth the whole ages, which is rea
sonable; and the presumption is that all would be about the same, as
Jos. has them. Adam, of course, is older at the birth of Seth, there
being children before him. Also the agreement of the Samaritan with
the Septuagint in Period B after the flood, looks -in favor of the Sep.,
as seen in the process of change above shown.*

* § 31. We have used the i6s6+gg2 of Jos. as fairly representing
the Sep. values, in supposed accordance with the old Hebrew text.
But the following variations are found in the Sep. text itself; each of
which has to be considered by itself, in determining what were the
original figures:

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY

313

§ 32. (12) Another fact strongly favors the Septuagint as the genu
ine original reckoning. We have seen how popular it was with the
Jews, to conform their chronology to Jubilee periods of 49 y*ears and
seventy-week periods of 10 Jubilees or 4go years. They often strained
a point in trying to make such cycles fit the history. So we find
them making Jubilee reckoning before there were any Jubilees, from
the giving of the Law back to the creation. Thus, the Samaritan
copy, which we have seen as the first form of corruption, has just 57
Jubilees from creation to possession of Canaan; namely, 1307111+942
+75+430=2753+40 to Joshua =2793 years -j-4g=just 57 Jubilees, to
the first year of another Jubilee. (See \ 4.)
% 33. Probably the Samaritans reckoned n more Jubilees to Solo
mon's temple, and 10 more to the second temple, 'or (21X413=) i02g
years from Joshua down to the dedication of the second temple as in
B. C. 513, where Jos. has it), with 2 more Jubilees down to B. C. 415,
as the date when their temple was built on Mt. Gerizim by Sanballat,
for Manasseh in' the reign of Darius Nothus, (Jos. II, viii); at which
time probably the Samaritan copy of the Pentateuch was originated
for the uses of that temple. (Prideaux' s Connection, Vol. 1, p. 424.)
Thus the Samaritans reckoned just (57+23=) 80 Jubilees or 3920 years
A. M. from creation to the building of their temple. And this even
calculation by Jubilees is doubtless what determined the numbers in
the corruption of the Samaritan Pentateuch, with its exact number of
Jubilees at Joshua's entering Canaan. This shows the artificial char
acter of the reckoning as a sure corruption.

¦Josephus, (In Jackson),
Euseb. LXX,
Demetrius,

Vatican LXX,
Bib. Sac, Apl'.

'76.

A B
2256 gg2
+6 Lamech -50 Nahor.
2262 (Dem.) g42 (Sam.)
— 20 Methu.
2242 g42
+130 Cainan.
2242 ' + 1072 — 2=3212-^-2=1656.
2262 - + 1072= " 3334 " +2go= "3624.
+100 Nahor
2242 1172
2262 1 172

J. Jackson, 2256
(Origen. 1656)
Origen. Hexap., & Euseb.
Theophilus, (ig8 A. D.)

-130 1072 (only 6 less than Dem.)
1072 (Africanus.)
g42 (Aquila, &c, left out the 130.)
936 (Euseb. & Jerome " )

314 PERIOD A, B
§ 34. Then followed the Book bf Jubilees itself (A. D. 100), carry
ing out the Jubilee scheme still more fully, as we saw; with that inter
val from creation to Joshua's entering Canaan put as just 50 Jubilees,
instead of 57. And next, the Hebrew text, as we have it, is found
introduced in the current Jewish Chronology (devised about A. D. 130),
with the same 50 Jubilees, but reckoned now to the Exodus, no
longer to Joshua. (Here § 4.)
I 35. For, this present Hebrew text has i656+2g2+75+43o=2453
years to the Exodus; (which Usher increases to 2513, by 60 years — see
\ 2, note— put in at the, birth of Abraham, as required by Acts vii: 4).
This 2453 at the Exodus is 3 years over 50 Jubilees, or 2450 years; and
this makes the first Jubilee observed (4g years ¦ after) to come at the
beginning of Joshua's 7th year, about the time when it is usually under
stood to have been actually held; that is in"bonnection, with the first Sab-
batic year in the promised land. The artificiality of this scheme, with
just 50 Jubilee periods worked in before any Jubilee reckoning was
known, is evidence that the Hebrew text before and after the flood
has been " doctored " to give this result.
And this is no less apparent when we find the Modern Jewish
Chronology treating the present Hebrew text as giving them just 2450
years, or fifty Jubilees exact, to the Exodus itself, iri the view that
there began the first actual Jubilee period. They make it out by dis
carding the 2 years mentioned at Gen. xi: 10, and then treating the
number at Ex. xii: 40, as the 430th year; so that they have i6s6+2gb+
505th=245o years, or 2451st year, the beginning of the 51st Jubilee
period at the Exodus.*
§ 37. Thus the artificial Jubilee reckonings found both in the
Samaritan and in the present Hebrew text, are evidence (seemingly'
convincing) against their either of them being the original and genuine
account. On the other hand, the Septuagint, in any form, is not sub
ject to this objection. As given in Josephus, it has 2256+gg2+505=
3753-;"49=76 Jubilee periods and 29 years over; and none of the varia
tions in the Sep. will give even Jubilees, either to the Exodus or to

* I 36. Even Eusebius (as late as A. D. 320) follows this fanciful
scheme of pre-dated Jubilees; but, strangely, takes 50 years to a Jubi
lee! Thus he gives the Hebrew text =2453 to the Exodus + the 47th
year to the 7th of Joshua = the 2500th year, or the beginning of
"the 51st Jubilee:" making this (505+46=551 years, or) the 452d
"year of Abraham." Then he makes just 30 more of these Jubilees,
or 1500 years to the end of Daniels' 70 weeks (A. D. 34), calling that
(2500+1500=) 4000 A. M., or the end of 80 Jubilees from the creation,
and the year (551+1500=) "2051 of Abraham." Such a fabulous
machine-scheme is made out of our present Hebrew text, by the very
author who first introduces it fully to the Christian church!

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 315
Joshua.* This freedom of the Sept. reckoning' from all the artificial
Jubilee theories found in the Samaritan and Hebrew texts, — with the
real Jubilee of the Mosaic law left to take care of itself as applying
only after its establishment, — this is a convincing proof in favor of
the Septuagint Chronology. CHAPTER IV.
Net Result.
§ 38. We are not going to give our ipse dixit, that the Septuagint
represents the original Hebrew text of Gen. v, xi; because the present
is eminently a case of reasoning from combined probabilities, and every
reader must judge for himself what the balance of probabilities is. We
will only say, that to us the argument seems as strong, at least, for the
Septuagint as for the present Hebrew.
§ 3g. The one great objection, perhaps the only real objection,
-against accepting at once the Septuagint chronology as correct, is the
fear that this would weaken our hold upon our Hebrew Bible as the
accurate text of God's Word, handed down to us with scrupulous care
and fidelity by the Jews themselves. We know that they did most
sedulously guard against the corruption of the Hebrew in the earlier
days, and until long after the Septuagint version came in. And we are
anxious to preserve intact this argument for the validity of the Old
Testament as we have it.
§ 40. But we know that there are some corruptions in the Hebrew
text.f And may we not safely take the ground, that the Jews were the
best of custodians for the Scriptures, until 'they were cast off for their
rejection of Christ; but that then they became so embittered against the
truth, that they may have even corrupted numbers which they thought
against them; but only where it could be done by change of a single
figure (as by an even hundred), without altering the structure of a sen
tence or the count of the words, and without daring to go further and
modify any essential truth. This at least we know, that, in God's all-
wise Providence, even this was not permitted to occur, until the Sept
uagint version had been prepared, and had received a divine sanction
through Christ and his apostles, — so as-to preserve the text, and to be
* J. Schwartz (in the Bib. Sacra., Jan., 1888), tries to make it do so
by taking it as 2262+1040+60+Ab'm 99+430=3921-^-49=80 Jubilees
and 1 over. But this (especially the 99 for Ab.) is a monstrous perver
sion of the Septuagint.
f Comp. "8 years " in II Chron. xxxvi: 9, with " 18 years " in II Ki.
xxiv: 8. In some cases, the Heb. is corrected by the Sept. See Ezek.
xiv: 5, Revis., marg.

316 PERIOD A, B ,
a sure corrector of any corruption that might thereafter creep in. See
what Jackson says on this point (here at I 20, note).
§ 41. The Septuagint has its imperfections, we know, especially in
some parts. . But on the whole it was a faithful translation; and it is
conceded that the Pentateuch is the most exactly rendered portion of
the whole. Philo, the learned Jew, says of it, in the first century,
' ' The Sept. translation was made with such care and exactness, that
there was not the least variation in it from the sacred Hebrew original,
either by-additions, omissions, or otherwise." Josephus also bears wit
ness to its excellence. And our divine Lord and his inspired apostles
made use of it as indeed the word of God. So that it must not be
decried.* Doubtless the Septuagint has b,een furnished by God to help
us to the right knowledge of the original Scriptures.
S42. In all this discussion, we have used only the argument of
textual criticism, and have made no reference to the argument of science
and common sense. The science of archaeology wants all the time of the
Septuagint back to the flood, to accommodate the early traditions of
Egypt and other ancient civilizations. The science of paleontology.
wants all the time of the Septuagint back to the creation, to explain the
human fossils that point out the antiquity of man. And common-
sense promptly decides against the probability, that Noah was living
in the times of Abraham, and Shem was living in the, times of Jacob,
as the Hebrew text requires, with nothing said about them or their
dying in those late days.
§ 43. " Mark the absurdity of regarding Noah as living so long in
Abraham's life,' and no notice taken of it ! Of the earth's so soon
becoming so populous as it was ! Think of Shem living 109 years after
the establishment of circumcision and the Abrahamic covenant ! and
with such settled idolatry fled from in the life-time of Noah ! " (fack-
son.) Prof. Green, of Princeton, points out the impossibility of accept
ing such a chronology. (Bib. Sacra, Apl., 1896, p. 303.) We verily
believe, that, were it not for the prejudice arising from the fear of con
ceding any corruption in the Hebrew text, as we just now explained,
there would be at once a general acceptance of the Septuagint Chro
nology in Gen. v, xi, as the correct report of the Hebrew original.
v * Augustine says: " the very highest respect is due to the translators
of the Lxx, who, as the better informed.Christians maintain, translated
under such an influence of the Holy Spirit, that all were of one andthe
same mind."
"Julius Pomeranius, the Catholic bishop of Toledo, did not hesitate,
A. D. 685, to demonstrate, in spite of the already authorized vulgate,
that between the creation and Christ's advent 6,000 years had inter
vened, and that especially the chronology of the Septuagint was the
work of the Holy Sjririt." (Seyffarth, p. 1^8.) "The learned Morinus
contends for the integrity of the Sept. He shows how the Bab. and
Jeru. Talmuds extol the Sept., mentioning the very few differences,
but none on the ea'rly chronology." (Jackson.)

DILUVIAN CHRONdLOGY 317
PART II.
The Chronology of Gen. v, xi.
§ 44. In an essay accompanying this (see Part III),* we show the
possibility that the primeval man was a race physically human, before
the spiritually human Adam began. We do this in the interest of the
Bible Chronology; in order that it may not be deemed necessary to
quarrel with the Scripture datings, for the purpose of satisfying a sup
posed scientific demand for a greater antiquity of man. Some Bible
scholars feel anxious to forestall objections in this direction, and have
thought to defend the book from dreaded assault, by belittling before
hand its teaching as to dates. For some time there has been a fashion
of treating Bible datings as unreliable and of little account. And
especially, in order to make way for a greater allowable antiquity of
Adam, the Scripture Chronological tables of the period from Adam to
Abraham, as contained in" Gen. v and xi, have been urgently called
in question. These tables proceed as follows:
Gen. v: 3. "And Adam lived a hundred and thirty years, and
begat a son in his own likeness, after his image, and called his name
Seth. And the days of Adam after he begat Seth were eight hundred
years; and he begat sons and daughters. And all the days that Adam
lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died. And Seth
lived a hundred and five years, and begat Enos. And Seth lived after
he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and
daughters. And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve
years, and he died. And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan."
And so on, through the ten .names to the flood, and the ten other
names to (and including) Abram. Thus we have as follows the
Bible's

*Prof. G. Frederick Wright, D. D., LL. D., editor of the Biblio
theca Sacra, June 29, 1893, wrote thus of these two Essays: "I have
taken pains to read over, in connection with your table of contents,
the two Mss. which you sent me, and which I see are two chapters of
your great work. Permit me to say, that I have the highest admira
tion of your faithfulness in pursuing through so many years the intri
cate lines of investigation which you have been following, and an
equal admiration for the clearness of your style, and the logical char
acter of your arrangement of material. The two Mss. which I have in
hand ought to be published in the Bibliotheca, and I can say to you
positively, that if you will let them remain in my hands, I will work
them into the January and April numbers."

318 period a, b
§ 45. First Chronological Table.
1. Adam was 130 years old, when to Adam was born Seth.
+ 800 = 930.
2. Seth was 105 years old, when to Seth was born Enos.
+ 807 = 912.
3. Enos was 90 years old, when to Enos was born Cainan.
+ 815 = 905.
4. Cainan was 70 years old, when to Cainan was born Mahalael.
+ 840 = gio.
5. Mahalael was 65 years old, when to Mahalael was born Jared.
+ 83o = 8g5.
6. Jared was 162 years old, when to Jared was born Enoch.
+ 800 = g62.
7. Enoch was 65 years old, when to Enoch was born Methusaleh.
+ 300 = 365.
8. Methu. was 187 years old, when tp Methu. was born Lamech.
+ 782 = g6g.
g. Lamech was 182 years old, when to Lamech was born Noah.
+ 595 = 777-
10. Noah was 500 years old, when to Noah was born Shem, etc,
+ 450 = 950. *
Noah + 100
1656 years at the flood.
This Chronological table contains a genealogical list (on the right
hand): "To Adam was born Seth, to Seth was born Enos," etc.
Such genealogies are frequent in Scripture, but except here they are
without any Chronology given with them. Take for example at Mat.
i: 7, where we learn that, — To Solomon was born Rehoboam, to Reho
boam was born Abijah, to Abijah was born Asa, to Asa was born Je
hoshaphat, to Jehoshaphat was born Joram, to Joram was born
Uzziah, to Uzziah was born Jotham, etc. Here we know, that
Uzziah was the great-great-grandson of Joram (II Chron. xxi: 16, to
xxvi: 1). So that, there are three generations omitted in this list; and
we thus learn, that in a mere genealogical list " begat" is not always
followed by the immediate son, but sometimes indicates only a descend
ant born to the before-named person.
\ 46. Such an omission of names is thus seen to be a liability in
any mere genealogical list found in Scripture. For illustration: In
the above genealogical list contained in the Chronological table of
Gen. v. — "To Adam was born Seth, to Seth was born Enos," etc.,
there might possibly be names omitted; Seth (for example) being not

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 319
the son, but (say) the great grandson Of Adam; and Enos being not
the son but the descendant of Seth, and so on. But this would have
no effect on the Chronology of the table containing the names. Sup
pose that when Adam was 70 years old, a son Alvah, was born, and
when that son Alvah was 60 years old his son Seth was born; in that
case a name (Alvah) is omitted in the genealogy; but this does not
change the chronological fact given that ' ' Adam was 130 years old
when to Adam was born Seth." All the variation is, that in such case
Seth is born to Adam, not as a son, but as a grandson or descendant.
And so at every step in the table.
Omission of names in a genealogy can not affect the interval of time
between any two names given consecutively. Omission of names does
not change date numbers.
The interval between Adam's birth and Seth's birth is given as
" 130 years," and the interval between Seth's birth and Enos' birth is
given as "105 years," making 235 years of Adam at Enos' birth; and
no insertion of omitted names will change this length of time. The
Chronological Table given here, as is not the case with other mere-
genealogical lists, fixes the duration of the genealogy contained in it.
Yet, evident as this is, attempts have been made to invalidate the
chronology. §47. "Some have supposed, that along with the patriarchs
named their races and peoples are meant to be included; Rosenmuller,
¦ Freidreich, and others think that from these orally transmitted geneal
ogies many names had fallen out. Hensler holds that the expression
' year ' denotes among the patriarchs lesser spaces of time. To the
first supposition is opposed the definite characterizing of single per
sons; to the second the fact that in the same manner the son always
follows the father; to the third the constant signification of the year as
tropical." (Lange on Gen. v: 4.)
Such have been the vain endeavors to change the lengths of time as
given in Scripture. But the more recent attempts have sought to open
the way for lengthening the antiquity of man, by breaking down the
Bible Chronology (particularly of Gen. v, xi) as being no definite
chronology at all.
Two notable examples of such endeavors have appeared in the Bib
liotheca Sacra; the earlier in April, 1873, p. 323, by Prof. Gardiner of
Middletown, Conn., which we will call theory A; the later in April,
i8go, p. 285, by Prof. Green, of Princeton, N. J., which we will call
theory B.
§ 48. The Non- Chronology Theories.
I. Theory A gives the purpose of the sacred writer as not chrono
logical, but simply this:
" It was sought to record two facts in one — the age in each case of
commencing paternity, and the name of the particular son by whom

320 PERIOD A, B
the line was continued. Thus Seth, a. g., might have begun to be a
father at 105, but might have actually begotten Enos at any reasonable
time during the 807 years which he afterward lived; so that the true
meaning of the text would be shown by a paraphrase running in this
wise: ' Seth lived 105 years, and begat children, among -whom was
Enos; and Seth lived after his beginning to beget children 807 years,
and begat both sons and daughters; and all the days of Seth were 912
years, and he died.' " (P. 324.)
That is, the language of Genesis is supposed to mean: " Adam was
130 years old when to Adam was born " — not Seth, as it says, but—
"some unnamed elder brother of Seth! " And so on through.
I 49. The writer concludes, that the sum of the ages before pater
nity (i056years to Noah) is only the minimum length of time; while
the actual length of time is an undetermined quantity, the sum of any
different ages of the several parents, each taken somewhere between
the age of first parentage and "a reasonable time " (say 100 years) be
fore death (except in Enoch's cas,e) as the end of parentage.
Thus, the total ages of all but Noah being 7625, take out eig'ht 100's
and we have 6825 years+600 years of Noah^7425 as the maximum
number of years possible before the flood; which, with the minimum
1656 (the sum of the birth' ages given) leave us a range of (7425 —
i656=)576g years; — "by which length of time the chronology, on this
theory, is uncertain and variable," says the writer.
In the same way he works out a possible variation of " some 1500-
to 2000 years" above the minumum or accepted chronology from Shem
to Abram. This gives him a possible enlargement of the Bible chro
nology of (say 5769+2000=) some 7700 years, — using the Hebrew
.text. But now notice the insuperable difficulties of this scheme:
I 50.. (1) He imagines the purpose of the sacred writer to be, not
to give chronology, but to give "the age in each case of commencing ¦
paternity." And he gives Seth (at the second step) as illustration.
Why did he not give us Adam (at the first step)? That will upset his
whole theory! Adam was the father of Cain, and of Abel, and of
Cain's wife (?) and of an indefinite number of people, before Seth was
born. So the very first step is not a case of " commencing paternity ";
which proves that the writer had no such purpose as alleged, — and
the whole scheme is nipped in the bud without further words. How
irrational to suppose an exact minimum dating carefully given, and
also a maximum dating, but the real date suppressed! And how intol
erable the claim, that when Scripture reads, " And Seth lived after he
begat Enos 807 years, ' ' — it means, ' ' And Seth lived after his beginning
to beget children (long before Enos) 807 years ' ' !
(2) The theory well owns, that the purpose of the sacred writer
must be "in each case " to give " the name of the particular son by

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 321'
whom the line was continued." But it has to be conceded, that the
particular .son Seth was born at the very date given (130 years of
Adam), as pre-asserted at Gen. iv: 25, 26; and that to Noah a particu
lar son named was born at the very date given (500 years of Noah), as
made sure by Gen. xi: 10. The cases, at the beginning of both lists,
prove the method of the whole series, and show (what the language
itself requires) that in every case the particular son is named as being
born at the particular time stated. There could be no objectinsoeciiy'-
ing the time, except to show the date when that individual was born.
(3) No case can be found in Scripture to warrant the theory.
' When a date is given with the birth of a son (or descendant), it always is
and must be the date of that very mentioned person 'vs birth. So Gen.
xxi: 5, and xxv: 26, etc. NorisGen.v: 32, an exception. "AndNoahwas
500 years old; and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth;" i. e., one of
the three named was born at the date named, and the other names are
mentioned on account of their importance in peopling the new world.
Again, Gen. xi: 26, "Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram,
Nahor, and Haran;" where the names are probably inverted, because
of Abram's prominence in the history, though the Samaritan text
gives Abram's birth as the particular one meant at Terah's 70 years.
In no case is the birth-date given of a person un-named, as the theory
wrongly alleges.
§ 51. (4) The great fault of the theory is, that while conceding ten
definite dates limited to ten definite generations, it denies all definite
dating, results; thus leaving no adequate motive for 'giving the dates.
The chronology of this distinct Chronological Table is thus annulled,
as if it were a mere genealogical list of names, which it is not. No
wonder it has been thought that a new attempt must be made; namely,
II. Theory B. This theory cuts loose from all limit of genera
tions, supposing not one but any number of generations for each of
the ten dates given. In other words, it does not confine the un-named
births (supposed after each given date) to the single parent named,
but imagines them as successive generations extending on indefinitely
any number of years; till the Jast member of that race (or dynasty) is
taken as the next name given in the list, wherewith to begin a new
race. It is as if the record read thus: "And Adam lived 130 years,
and begat (an ancestor of) Seth; and Seth lived 105 years, and begat
(an ancestor of) Enos," etc.
And thus the language of Genesis is interpreted as if meaning:
" Adam was 130 years old when to Adam was born " — not the descend
ant Seth, as it says, but — " some un-named son who was an ances
tor to Seth ! " And so on through. Notice that the difficulties here
are still insuperable.
§ 52. (1) The chronology is thus broken up completely. The
very purpose of the writing as an evident • Chronological Table is

322 PERIOD A, B
ignored and denied, and it is treated as a mere genealogical list like
those in other parts of Scripture, which it plainly is not. We have
already shown (above), that the supposition or assertion of omitted
names in a Chronological Table with definite dates, will not and can
not affect those dates. The ancestor's ages will remain, as given,
whether it be the name of a son, or of a grand-son, or of any more
remote descendant, assigned to that date.
There is no getting round this fundamental defect of the theory.
The "begat " indicates the birth of the person named after it; and the
date of that birth being given, it matters not how many un-named
generations intervene. The chronology is fixed and unchanged. ' No
such anomaly is known in Scripture, or in reason, as a dating given
to an un-named ancestor's birth. The chronology here added to the
genealogy forbids any such fast-and-loose play upon omissions.
§ 53. (2) This theory takes away all purpose on the part of the
sacred writer in giving the birth-dates he has so carefully arranged.
The author of the theory thus describes what he considers the only
design of the statements in Genesis:
" They merely afford us a conspectus of individual lives. And for
this reason doubtless they are recorded. They exhibit in these
selected examples the original term of human life. They show what
it was in the ages before the flood. They show how it was afterward
• gradually narrowed down. But in order do to this it was not necessary
that every individual should be named in the line from Adam to Noah
and from Noah to Abraham, nor anything approaching it. A series
of specimen lives, with the appropriate numbers attached, was all
that was required. And, so far as appears, this is all that has been
furnished us." .(Page 2g7.)
Now, if this had been the sole design, the account in Genesis would
certainly have run simply somewhat thus: " And Adam lived 930
years, and he' died. And his descendant Seth lived 912 years, and he
died," etc. There -is no possible reason for putting in besides, at
every stage, a double date, before and after the birth of each successor,
— except by this means to give the successive dates or chronology of the
whole series. Mere " specimen lives " are given, we are told. How
was Seth's life made a specimen life by putting the next specimen
(Enos) as beginning, at Seth's 105th year? And so through. It is
plainly a consecutive interlocked series. The theory before us rules
out entirely all chronological intent on the part Of the sacred writer.
and so makes utterly idle and senseless two-thirds of all the numbers
so carefully given.
$ 54. On the other hand, our current reasonable view of the pass
age adds to that simple design of giving life-lengths the higher purpose
of giving dates and lengths of duration, which required the assertion
also of the age of parentage in each case. And then, in the first table

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 323
(ch. v), were inserted the ages after parentage, to be for" us an admira
ble proof through all time (by addition) that there is no error or cor
ruption by mistake in any of the numbers.
This proof -purpose is so evident that all scholars now are by this
means aware that variations here in the Septuagint and Samaritan
texts can not be mistakes, but must have come from designed change.
Could there be any method -devised to show more conclusively than
does this multiplying and interlocking of dates that the purpose of the
historian was strictly chronological? and that too with uncommon ex
actness of reckoning?
If this be not chronology then there can be no chronology. No
mode of speech could be contrived to give successive dates to Bible
generations if those tables in Genesis be denied as such. It surely is
undesirable to reduce the carefully elaborated reckonings of Gen. v and
xi to a mere jargon of senseless and purposeless verbiage, as the theory
proposes to do. No reverent reader wishes to regard this, or any por
tion of God's inspired word, as such a comparatively useless mass of
inflated speech. A straining of interpretation, so far-fetched and
forced, against the obvious meaning, would open the door to an ex
plaining away of almost anything in Scripture.
§ 55- (3) The theory has no support in any of the surroundings of
the Scripture in question. The author of the theory thinks the birth-
ages are not meant to be added together, because the writer of Genesis
has not himself added them up. So, the birth-dates of Abram, Isaac,
and Jacob as "sojourners in Canaan," (viz., ioo — 75, 60, and 130, in
Gen. xii: 4, and xxi: 5, and xxv: 26, and xlvii: g), are nowhere summed
¦up; yet we just as certainly know that the amount was 215 years from
Abram's reaching to Jacob's leaving Canaan., Revelation was not given
to do all our thinking for us, but it always leaves enough untold to task
our study, and lead us to "search the Scriptures." But the theory
tells us: " So far as the biblical records go we are without any data
whatever, which can be brought into comparison with these genealo
gies " (of Genesis) for the purpose of testing their continuity and com
pleteness. (P. 2g5.) On the contrary, see Jude 14, " And Enoch also,
the seventh from Adam, prophesied," This certainly means "the
seventh individual or generation from Adam, not the seventh dynasty
or race. There is really but one sum total of years in the Old Testament,
the " 430 years " of Ex. xii: 40; where the sum had to be given, as
there were no items given from which to compute it; and this shows
how certain was the Scripture purpose to give a complete chronology .
The "480th year " found in I Kings vi: 1, is no doubt an interpolation,
as all the facts concerning it go to prove. (See here Period D, I 1, 21.)
Paul in Acts, xiii: 17-22, as well as the Book of Judges, have supplied
the lack by a statement of the items. The full giving of all needed

324 PERIOD A, B
items in Genesis, according to Bible usage, precluded the giving of
totals there.
The genealogy given at Ex. vi: 16-20, is cited as favoring the theory
before us; but it is decidedly against it. There the plain intent was not
chronology, but mere genealogy; and therefore only the life-lengths
were "given, (137,133, 137), which can furnish no dating; so that the totaL
covering the period had to be given (as at xii: 40). But at Gen. v, xi,
no total being furnished, the successive items or birth-datings had to
be inserted in addition to the life-lengths, in order to give the chronol
ogy. In Exodus there are no such birth-dates, and so no chronology.
In Genesis the given birth dates make the genealogy into a complete
chronological table, needing no total given. Nothing could demon
strate more plainly than this comparison the complete difference be
tween the chronology in Genesis and the mere genealogies found else
where. Thus we see -the futility of trying to rule out chronology from
Gen^v, xi, because it is not found in other genealogies.
§ 56. (4) The objections 2 and 3 to the other theory, A, are*just as
forcible against this. (Read them over.)
(5) The theory is contradicted by facts and circumstances named in
the account. There are, indeed, births to Adam before that of Seth,
which shows it to be no purpose of these birth-dates to give the age of
beginning paternity; so that they have no purpose whatever in this
theory, and such previous birthsjDmitted can not affect the chronology
as we have seen. But the birth of Seth was certainly the birth of
a son, and not of a remote descendant of that name. For beforehand
(at iv: 25) we learn that he was born to Eve herself who herself
also named him " Seth," the appointed seed in place of her own
son Abel. The same is shown (at ver. 26) concerning the next
descendant Enos, who was named 'by Seth himself as his own " son,"'
not a remote descendant. And again Shem was the immediate son of
Noah; and Peleg was the immediate son of Eber, for another son was
"his brother" (x: 25). Moreover, at every step in ch. v, xi, the after-
life of eaxh parent is expressly said to be "after" the birth of
the persons named, as being a son, not a remote successor. Every
thing indicates that the individuals are consecutive.
§ 57. It is urged, that these lists are too artificial to be an exact
account of all the names or generations included; for, it is -said, there
are just ten steps in each list, with triple names at the close of each.
But when yqu take Shem and his brothers as the last step, the first
list (to the flood) has n steps, and the second list (after Shem and the
flood) has but g steps (in the Hebrew) including Abram and his broth
ers. So that, the alleged artificiality is wanting; and Peleg, "the
divider," does not artificially divide the list in the middle, as claimed.
"In the number ten there is in truth a symbolical significancy; but a
symbolical number is not on that account a, mythical [or an unreliable]

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 325
number," says Lange concerning the ten antediluvians. Such trifling
objections can. not overturn the clearly marked chronology of these
Scripture tables.
The author of theory B thinks, that the Septuagint version made in
the 3d century B. C. purposely changed the numbers from the Hebrew
text, yet had no idea of those numbers as containing any chronology
in them. But, to show that such an absence of chronology from the
views then held concerning the subject could not exist, we cite the
Jewish historians Demetrius (B. C. 220) and Eupolemus (B. C. 174);
both of whom use that longer reckoning of the Lxx (so soon after its
issue in that version), and both of whom employ it as giving the chro
nology or age of the world down to their day, viz., "5147 years from
creation to Ptolemy Soter, B. C. 290." (Chron. Antiq., by John Jac-kson,
I752-) S 58. The Result.
We have thus shown, that the non-chronology theories of Gen.
v, xi, both theory A and theory B, are untenable. The grand error
of both theories is in detaching the birth-dates given from the off
spring to whom they are applied, for which no Scripture and no rational
excuse can be found. Theory A transfers the given birth-date to an
elder brother ot the person named; theory B transfers the given birth -
date to a remote ancestor of the person named. As both these devices
are unscriptural and irrational, the result is, that we are shut up to
the Bible Chronology as to the antiquity of Adam and Eve in Eden.
The Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan text, all give dif
ferent lengths of time for the two periods, the antediluvian and the
postdiluvian, contained, in the two chapters. The birth of Abraham
being, by the Usher reckoning, B. C. igg6, or by the later, more relia
ble reckoning, B. C. 2og6, we have the values as follows:

Birth Abram, B.
Period B,

C. C. C.

Hebrew .
20g6 352

Samaritan. 2096 942

Septuagint. 2096 1232

The Flood, B.
Period A,

Z448
¦1656 4104

3038 1307

3328
2262

The Creation, B.

4345

5590

Gen. xi: 10-26, adds up 292 years;- and some, therefore, put this as
the interval to the birth of Abraham, instead of the 352 or 60 years more
here given. But the Scripture is definite and certain here, as else
where, generally, in its chronology. Gen. xi: 32, through xii: 4, in the
revision, reads, thus: "And the days of Terah were two hundred
and five years; and Terah died in Haran. Now the Lord said unto

320 PERIOD A, B
Abram, Get thee out of thy country. * * * So Abram went, as
the Lord had spoken unto him: and Lot went with him: and Abram
was seventy-five"years old when he departed out of Haran," and came
to Canaan. ( " Now the Lord had said unto Abram," etc., xii: i, is an
error of the Kingjames version.) See § 2, note.
We are expressly told that Abram was seventy-five years old, when
his father had died aged 203; so that Abram was born when his father
Terah was 130 years old. And this 130 years of Terah gives the 352
years after the flood, not the 292. The New Testament asserts the
same date, Acts vii: 4, " From thence [Haran] when his father was
dead, he removed him [Abram] to this land." So that this date is cer
tain. And Gen. xi: 26, does not contradict this; for the three sons of
Terah, viz., Abram, Nahor and Haran, were certainly not all born at
once, at Terah's 70 years; and Abram is named first, not because first
born, but because most prominent in the history.
Haran was probably born first, as he died first; and Abram was
doubtless born last, at Terah's 130 years, as just now found. The
only other similar case, of a father and three sons named, is treated by
the writer just this way. Gen. v: 32: "And Noah was 500 years old;
and Noah begat Shem, Ham and Japheth." Here Shem is named
first, because the most prominent in the history, although he was not
first-born of the three, since Noah was 502 years old (not 500) at his
birth, as' we learn from vii: 6, and xi: 10. How careful is Scripture thus
to give us exact and sure datings in every case, even when to a casual
view there might seem to be ambiguity.
§59. We are persuaded that all ancient history can be brought
within the duration thus given by the Bible, if not in the Hebrew, at
least in the Septuagint copy, with its 3328 years B. C. back to the
flood. Or, if the flood were not universal, then we should have 5590
years back to the creation, or 4104 even in the Hebrew text. The
-question between the Hebrew and the Septuagint texts, as to which
is correct, is by no means decided, the evidence in favor of the Septua-
. gint being at least equal to that on the other side. (See Part I, $ 29.)
Some archaeologists have ascribed to th'e ancient Egyptian civiliza-
'tion a very great antiquity; but later research has inclined to a more
sober view. "Egyptian history involves the date of the earliest his
torical epoch of man. * * * The epoch of Menes is the first point
in the chronology of the history of ancient Egypt, and has been placed
by Lepsius B. C. 3892, by Bunsen 3643; by Poole 2717, by Nolan 2673
B.C." (Chambers' Cyc.) "With Menes, the first known human king
¦of Egypt, the historical times of Egypt commenced,' according to that
ingenuous and profound writer Gorres, 2712 years before the Christian
¦era." (Anthon's Clds.Dic.)
" We have the Eponyon Canon, and also a ¦ synchronistic history'
«of Assyria and Babylon covering about B. C. 1450— 850 * * * The

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 327
-earliest Assyrian ruler known to us is in B. C. 1850. About 2100 B. C.
an energetic native ruler gained the chief power, and made Babylon
the seat of his government. * * * B. C. 2500 or even 3000 is proba
bly well within the truth as the time of the beginning of Shemitic
dominion in Mesopotamia." (Die. of Relig. Knowl.)
The Hebrew Bible has the confounding of language at Babel as
about 2300 B. C; the Septuagint has it about 2800 B. C. "Ninus and
Semiramis are to be considered as mere inventions of Greek writers.
The earliest known king of Assyria is Bel-lush, about 1273 B. C."
¦{Chambers' Cyc.)
S 60. We thus see, that the Bible Chronology will amply cover all
the demands of authentic history, as really known or to be known;
so that there is no necessity or excuse for discarding the chronology of
¦Gen. v and xi.

PART III.
Primeval Man.
| Reprint from the Bibliotheca Sticru, Jan.. r8g4.]
S 61. The Hebrew Bible fixes the placing of Adam in Eden at
about 4000 years before the Christian era. The current Usher chro
nology has it 4004 years; but the most reliable reckoning ofthe Hebrew
increases it to 4104 years. So that 6000 years from Adam expire in A.
D. 1897. This expiration, within a few years from now, oi the six week
days of human history (since "one day is with the Lord as a thousand
years." 2 Pet. iii: 8), is drawing some attention to the speedy opening
-of the seventh thousand years, or Sabbatic day of human history, as a
supposed millennial epoch described in Revelation xx: 1-7.
But in a different quarter there is an awakened interest in the scien
tific question: How are we to reconcile so short a period of human
existence as the six thousand years of Hebrew chronology, now about
expiring, with the accumulating geologic facts, which go to show, by
human fossils and relics of human handiwork, that man has existed on
the earth much more than six thousand years ? The Septuagint, or
earliest Greek version of the Old Testament, translated from the He
brew about 200 B. C, allows some fifteen hundred years more than
the six thousand; but this is thotight not sufficient for the geologic de
mands. What more can be done about it ?
In order to forestall this alleged difficulty of science, some biblical
scholars are trying to invalidate the early chronology of the Bible,
from Adam to Abrariam, as given in Genesis v and xi;* so as, by having
no Bible chronology of early times, to allow science full sweep for
-speculation as to the antiquity of man. (Part II.)
* See the Bibliotheca Sacra for April, 1873, pp. 323-331; April, 1890,
pp. 285-303.

338 PERIOD A, B
$ 62. The present writer is fully convinced that these endeavors
to do away with the Bible chronology can not succeed; and, further,
does not entertain the apprehension that any greater antiquity for
man than the Bible chronology allows, will be positively proved by
science; so that he does not feel that need of "hedging" (to use a term-
current in worldly business), in behalf of the Bible, which is stirring.
many scholars. For we believe that the geologists of our day are
somewhat infatuated with the idea that they know the rate with which
nature's changes proceeded in prehistoric times. Whereas, we have
no witnesses (except God) to testify at what an amazing pace vast de
velopments might leap forward in the young gush of nature under new
conditions, — such developments as require ages under the settled envi
ronment of the present.
Nevertheless we are ready, in our life-long research of Scripture,
to lend a helping hand to those that feel it needful to be prepared
against any emergency, with time enough on hand to allow modern
science full sweep in its venturesome theorizing. It can do no harm to
be fore-armed, even though we expect modern science to grow more
sober and modest as it increases in age; it may finally withdraw its
challenge against God's testimony as to the time of his own handi
work, at least in primeval eras, where there is no other witness to
speak. Yet we are the more willing to aid in discovering time enough
for every exigency, in harmony with God's word, in order to check. (if
possible) the present tendency to undervalue and undermine the chron-
nology of the Bible, which we consider one of the main bulwarks of its
strefigth.
Our Method.
§ 63. What, then, is our method of finding time enough for all geo
logic emergencies without impairing in the least the Bible chronology ?
We find the ample time desired in the very place where reverent geology
has all along been finding it— not within the Adamic limit of Bible
chronology, but before that Adamic limit (at the garden of Eden)
begins, in the six unmeasured days of creation. It is now universally
allowed that there is time-enough in those six untimed periods to meet
all the demands of geology. Each "day " may be thousands of years
in length; and the "sixth day " may be as long as any day before it.
And the last half of the sixth day, wherein man was being created, from
his physical manhood on to his full spiritual manhood in Eden, may
have occupied many thousands of years, with successive generations
of incipient, decaying, physical nien, before the completed spiritual
Adam emerged (for aught the Bible contains), if science should insist
on claiming human fossils so old as that.
In short, our claim is, that Gen. i : 27, may cover any amount of time
that the discovered facts of human palseontology may require.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 339
'i 64. All advocates of the evolution theory will at once accept this
view. And they are welcome to find, if they can, their needed " miss
ing links " among the fossils of that palaeolithic age of unfinished physi
cal man which we here concede to have possibly existed. But we our
selves reject the idea of a long evolutionary process, and hold to imme
diate creation, in only two steps; first, the physical or animal man;
and second, the spiritual or godlike man— with an undefined length of
time between — as recorded in Genesis (i: 27; ii. 7).
It was all in " the sixth day " of creation. But the human body or
physical being may have been "created" at mid-day; and the inbreath
ing of the higher divine spirit, whereby the individual Adam became
"a living soul " complete, may have been at the close of the day; with
possibly many generations of time and physical propagation between,
as intimated at the start. (See i: 27, 28.)
That man at first was mortal, like other creatures, giving oppor
tunity for human fossils in that pre-Eden era, is rendered quite plaus
ible by the fact, that it was not till after the completed Adam appeared
(ii: 7), that an Eden-enclosure was fitted up for him (ver. 8-15), and a
"tree of life " furnished to him, as if to guard him from outside perils
and to keep him from a mortality before inevitable. When he sinned,
he lost the " tree of life " which had saved him from death, and fell
back to the outside reign of mortality.
Of course, any attempt to explain the particulars of such an unac
customed view must be of the nature of hypothesis. And while we
venture to name a few points of conjecture, and our reasons for them,
we want to be understood as only theorizing, not giving positive
opinions or doctrines to be maintained either by ourselves or others.
Mere Scripture theory here serves to offset the mere geologic theory
calling for it. Let us try, then, to answer hypothetically two or three
questions that will at once be asked.
§ 65. Unity of the Race.
1. If a race of men, physically such, existed for generations long
before the perfected spirital man Adam, what became of that race,
when " the first man Adam " — the first complete man — began ? Must
they not still survive ? and does not this necessitate a denial of the
unity ofthe human race? By no means, we answer. If God so chose,
he could readily bring about an extinction of all else of that race at
about the close of the sixth day, when he used the individual Adam for
development into a new race. And this could occur as simply and as
naturally as in previous extinctions of species, which all geology
teaches, whether at the "evenings" following the "mornings" of
creation, or at other points of time.
In A. D. 1655, the, French scholar Peyrerius broached the theory of

330 PERIOD A, B
"Preadamite Man." But that view marie the preadamites to be our
still surviving human race complete as we are now; while Adam and
his family were regarded as merely the selected Jewish race, preserved
afterward in part from the flood, which was looked upon as only a
limited disaster confined to the Jewish or Adamic family. Such a
crude theory we of course utterly repudiate. Our hypothesis is, on the
contrary, that of an extinct prehistoric race, physically but not spirit
ually human, and only namable as preadamite man in the sense,
that they were the unfinished race of men— the bodily mold for our
humanity; which mold was broken (so to speak), in the common
fate of other lost fossil species, when the consummated perfect Adam
was reached.*
I 66. There is nothing contrary to reason or to science in the claim
of such a loss of an imperfect human species. Indeed, the indications
of geology suggest two stages of advancement in the most ancient
human fossils discovered. Says Professor G. F. Wright, in theBiblio--
theca Sacra: f "Between the polished-stone period (or Neolithic,
according to Lubbock's classification)1 and the Palaeolithic period, or
the period in which flint implements show no signs of having been
ground, there is a wide separation, which no student of the subject can
fail to recognize as of great significance. It is the evidence of the great
antiquity of the Palaeolithic period that now attracts the principal '
attention of students of this subject." Moreover, the certainty
that there was some cataclysm or crisis extinguishing species between
the earlier, or Palaeolithic, and the later, or Neolithic, age of human
remains, appears from the geologic fact mentioned by the same writer,
thus: —
" The explorations by a committee of scientific men — of whom Mr..
Evans and Sir John Lubbock are members — of, among others, Kent's
cavern, in Torquay, England, fully substantiate the evidence that had
been before adduced in proof of the fact that the cave was inhabited by
men of the Palaeolithic period, at a time when the mammoth (eleph as
* If any one, accepting our hypothesis in general, should proceed to
imagine that some at least of the primeval imperfect race may have
survived, and furnished the much-inquired-after wife of Cain in the
"land of Nod" (Gen. iv: 16, 17), as well as the "daughters of men"
put in contrast with the Adamic " sons of God," producing " giants "
bodily, and monsters morally (as told in vi: 1-4): — such a speculation is
of no practical account, since the universal 'flood (vii: 21-23) soon swept
away all races except a remnant from Adam and Eve. Not until scien
tific research shall have positively found some human race actually
without a conscience or spirit-soul, can any question be raised against
the presumption of universal extinction for all humanity save the
family of Noah.
f April, 1873, p. 382.

DILIHIAN CHRONOLOGY 331
primigenius), the wooly rhinoceros, the cave bear, the cave hyena,
the reindeer, and many other extinct gigantic mammalia, abounded in
England. These remains are separated from later species and more
recent marks of rnan's presence above them by a continuous layer of
stalagmite, from one to three feet thick; and bones of existing species
are conspicuous for their absence from the lower deposit."
§ 67. Now, since various other species of animals became extinct
after man in some condition was present, as seen by the Palaeolithic
fossils: there is no reason known why the then-existent species of
animal man may not also have become extinct, between the Palaeolithic
and the Neolithic age, that is, at the end of the " sixth day," — being
succeeded by the now-existent and newly created or perfected human
race of Adam, the fossils of which are those found in the new, or Neo
lithic, age of geology. Our view of the "six clays" of creation as
actual days of " light " followed by actual nights of "darkness " (their
length- being undefined), will corroborate this view, of darkness (and
consequent crisis in nature) as following "the sixth day."
Nor is there wanting in the Bible narrative some intimation of a
possible cataclysm or crisis in creation at the close of the sixth day, as
well as of the previous days. After the full perfecting of Adam (at ii:7),
and the establishing of Adam in the Eden fitted up for him (at ii: 8-17).
we are next told (at ver. 18-20), "And the Lord God said, It is not good
that man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him. And
out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and
every fowl of the air, and brought them unto Adam, to see what he
would call them. * * * And Adam gave names to all cattle. * * *
But for Adam there was not found an helpmeet for him." Here are
two singular points given, which need to be accounted for.*
§ 68. (1) An interval of time between the existence and action of the
complete Adam, on the one hand, and the strange originating of Eve,
on the other hand. Whereas, the earlier account- (at i: 27, 28) repre
sents the creation of male and female as if simultaneous, with an imme
diate direction for propagating the race. This seeming discrepancy is
at once adjusted, if we suppose that the sexes of the unperfected man at
once existed and propagated as in chapter i., which is according to the
teachings of natural science; but that after a time, at the close of the
sixth day, some crisis obliterated the unperfected race, — except that
the physical form of one drowned individual was providentially rescued
and used for perfecting a new and complete humanity, as in the second
chapter. In this view, chap, i: 26-23, is a first exhibit of the divine plan and
its execution summed up as a whole,— so as to complete the " six days "
and bring out the Sabbath institution (ii: 1-3), while chap. ii. 4-25. is a
second exhibit of the executed plan, with fuller details (especially of
the sixth day's work); the creation of man being shown in its two-stages

332 PERIOD A, B
at ver. 7, and the new and strange production of woman being shown
afterward (as a necessity of the race, extinction), coming in the "deep
sleep " that naturally closed the sixth day of creation.*
This view is not affected, whether we consider the two -chapters as
two -different documents used by the writer (Moses), or as merely two
recitals,.— one in general, the other in detail— prepared by one and the
same writer. But such a view as presented by our theory throws light
on the peculiar and non-scientific creation of Eve, which has always
puzzled students of the Bible. Only a single human body was recovered
from the extinct human race, as the man-form which God had
" formed "—through undefined lapse of time— '•' from the dust of the
ground "^this being the record of a first stage given at ver. 7. And
this one human form, when perfected into Adam, seems to have con
tained the elements of both sexes: so that woman came forth by sep
aration, not by simultaneous double creation, as at the start (in chap. i). ,
Perhaps the anomalous re-creation of Adam required this anomalous
non-scientific evolution of sex.*
§ 69. (2) A second difficulty in the account is the fact that at ii: 19,
in the midst oi divine planning as to a needed "helpmeet" for man,
(begun at ver. 18 and continued to the close of ver. 20), we have- the
statement: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast
of the field," etc.,— as if here came in the creation of animals, after the
completed formation of man in ver. 7. • This looks like a contradiction
¦of chap, i, which finishes the creation of animals before the creation
of man. But the Samaritan Pentateuch has a different reading,—
"the Lord God once more formed every beast," etc. So also, the
Septuagint has "Iti," still or yet further formed. As if there had beeh
a crisis or wasting of animals., now followed by a new furnishing of
species here at the close of the sixth day. However, this is not
decisive; for, instead of the Samaritan reading, we may suppose that
our Revisers should have' translated the Hebrew as a pluperfect, "had
formed," as in ver. 8.
The striking feature here is, that the interposed arraying of all the
animals in sight of Adam, for him to inspect and to name, was evi-
* Gen. ii: 2, says: "And on the seventh day God ended his work
which he had made." The Samaritan copy avoids this seeming dis
crepancy by reading here " on the sixth day." But may it not rather
be true, that the work of creation ended with the sixth day at ii: 7, with
the' work of providence going on the seventh day through chap, ii: (as it
still goes on); so that, the furnishing of the Eden residence, the
instructions given to Adam, and the providing of a helpmeet (which
items finish up that chapter), were indeed a providential ending on the
seventh clay of the created work of the sixth day? If so, man's first,
da}' of life being the seventh day of creation, the first day of Adam and
Eve together was the eighth da}', or the first day of a new week.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 833
dently meant to convince Adam that there was no creature to be found
as a fit companion to him. This review and naming of creatures is be
gun by God's statement, "It is not good that the man should be
alone; I will make him an helpmeet for him." And it closes with this
statement, ' ' Adam gave names to all * ::" * but for Adam there
was not found an helpmeet for him." Whereupon, God proceeds at
once to the formation of Eve. In view of this account, how plausible
the idea that God, having chosen for completion but one individual
from a perished race, thought best to impress upon this perfected
individual the fact that he was the sole survivor of his kind, and' that
only Sovereign Power could give- him a suitable mate, as he saw that
all other creatures had. This then is a rational ground for the
hypothesis of a perished race, as here-presented. *
S 70. Further Queries.
2. Another question may be asked. Is not our theory inconsistent
with I Cor. xv: 45 (Revision), "And so it is written, the first man
Adam became a living soul?" We reply: He who when finished
"became a living soul, " was indeed "the first man Adam" complete.
The Bible was given for the use and benefit of our present historical
human race; and it knows nothing and cares nothing about pre-
existent races. Our theory does not pretend to be Scripture teaching;
it is extra-biblical, and only asks to be received as not forbidden by the
Scriptures. As to Gen. v: 1, 2, it is certainly true, that God called
their name Adam in the day when they were created;" namely, in
the sixth clay wherein both stages of their creation were completed.
If any one skould deem our theory too great a modification of the
current literal understanding of Adam and Eve's creation, we would
simply suggest — that the other scheme, for lengthening the antiquity
of man by destroying the Chronology of Genesis, looks far more like a
wresting of Scripture, and a rending of its plain import in chaps, v and
xi, than anything here proposed -concerning the account of double
formation in chaps, i, ii.
3. There is a still further question: Since the primeval man is
here treated as a mere unfinished or animal race, before the first com
plete man Adam existed, could the primeval creature be rightly called
"man"? No, we answer, not in the biblical sense, as denoting the
present race of morally accountable beings, possessed of a spirit from
God as well as a body from the dust. But for the uses of geology, and
* " Adam was created, and his wife in his side, and (afterward) he
showed her to him." — Book of Jubilees, A. D. 100. " That is, she was
created at the same time with Adam, but in and within him, and it was
only afterward that she became a separate creature." — Professor
Schodde, in Bibliotheca Sacra (January, 1886), p. 58.

334 PERIOD A, rs
in the discussion of fossils as indicating the age of races and of species,
the title "man" applies simply to the physical creature of that struc
ture, with no great capacity required. And in the sense of words as
used by modern science, no higher than the highest animal nature is
requisite to express the geological status of man. For. animal intel
ligence in its fullest development greatly resembles human thought.
I 71. Indeed, many of our most distinguished scientists are agnos
tics and sceptics-, denying that man has any higher or spirit nature, or
that he is anything more thaifthe highest species of the animal races.
Of course, all such thinkers must regard the unfinished primeval man
that we speak of as being full manhood complete; with no new creation
or new nature given to Adam,, but only . an evolution of primeval
faculty. With such unbelievers we can have no contention. If they
have not been able to find out that they have a spirit-soul, and insist
on ranking themselves as merely the highest.grade of animals, they put
their origin just where we put it — in the times of the earliest human
like fossils: and our theory remains unimpaired.
We simply add to their materialistic view our spiritualistic biblical
doctrine; declaring, as in Job (xxxii: 8), "But there is a spirit in
man, and the breath of the Almighty hath given them understanding."
And we see this higher bestowment announced in Gen. ii: 7, as the sec
ond stage oi human creation: — "and (God) breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and man became a living soul" in" God's image, no
longer merely human but also divine. The perfect man is later than
the first formed physical humanity; and, according to the theon' here
broached, there may have been a long interval between.
Our view is exactly the scientific view;* only we can'}' the develop
ment a step farther on, and insist that ever since Adam (if not always
before) man has a soul as well as a body, a spirit-substance as well as
a matter-substance. And we are sure that whatever physical human
ity may have existed before Adam, it was with the finished Adam and
Eve of the Bible that accountable human spirits began.
* Prof . Agissiz suggested this very view. See Bib. Sacra, Jan.,'
1868, p. 197.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 335
PART IV.
History and Prophecy.

CHAPTER I.
Age of the World.
i. By the Hebrew.

\ 72. By the chronology of the Hebrew Bible we have as follows:
Pre-diluvian (A)=i656 yrs. (Usher same.)
Post-diluvian (B)= 352 yrs. (Usher same.)
Total to birth Ab.=20o8
Birth of Abram (C \ 17) 2096 B. C. (Usher — 100.)
Total (A — E.)=4io4 B. C. (Usher 4004.)
From 6000 yrs.=i8g7 A. D.
Four Views Compared. Clin- Good-
Usher, ton. Elliott, enow.
Diluvian  2008 2008 2008 2008
To the Exodus  505 505 505 505
To 4th Solomon  480th 612 580th 580
To 2nd Darius  4g2 4g3 516 4gi
To A. D  520 520 520 520
Total B.C  4004 4138 4128 4104
From  6000 yrs 6000 6000 6000
A. D  '  ig77 1863 1873 1897
Here are given the most approved views of the Hebrew reckoning.*
Which is right ? All agree down to the Exodus, and after the 2d of
Darius; the only divergence is in the two periods preceding and fol
lowing the 4th pf Solomon. After the 4th of Solomon Usher is nearest
right, though he has a year too much (having all thrown back a year
by Nebuchadnezzar's destruction of Jerusalem, put at B. C. 588
instead of the correct 587. ) We have shown that Solomon began build
ing the temple in the spring of B. C. ion, a sabbatic year ending the
next September, and that he dedicated it 8)4 years afterward, at the
blowing of the jubilee trumpet in September of B. C. 1003. Usher has
*That of Archbishop Usher set forth A. D. 1650; that of Clinton, of
¦Oxford, A. D. 1845, in his Fas. Rom. and Fas. Hel., and that of Elliott
still later.

330 PERIOD A, B
the dedication at the beginning of the sabbatic, Oct., B. C. 1004, aud
the founding in the 4th of Solomon he puts 8% years before in the
spring of B. C. 1012. (Josephus in his "War" has it B. C. ion, vary
ing to 1010 in his "Antiquities.")
§ 73'. But the interval thence back to the Exodus is evidently more
correct as given by Elliott,' viz., 57g years (rather 586 years), just as St.
Paul makes it in Ac. xiii: 18, 22 (see D I 1), which is given as "480th
'year "in our present copies of I Ki. vi: 1, as Usher uses it; We have
elsewhere shown (D g 63), how the true 580 years by mistake got inter
preted into 612 (in Josephus) as Clinton puts it, and how it finally got
abridged into "480th," as used by Usher. This present reading
(480th) may be not so much a corruption as a misunderstood text. It
may mean " The 480th year of recorded reigns, " with 100 years of odi
ous and ignored foreign oppressions left out. (D | 73.)
So then, Elliott's chronology is correct, with the exception of
the period betweed the two temples. This .516 years is 25 years more
than the correct 4gi. And it is plain to see how he gets this error.
He puts 70 years of captivity between Nebuchadnezzar's destruction
of Jerusalem and the Cyrus decree for rebuilding,* whereas there were
certainly not over 51 years (B. C. 587-536). Here is an excess of ig
years, carrying his capture of Samaria from B. C. 720 to 73g. Then
by merely adding the reigns in Judah, without allowing for 6 years of
joint reign (the certainty of which we have shown, Period E, ja 23), he
has Solomon's death six years more too early, or (rg-j-6=) 25 excess in
all, making 516 instead of 4gi.
\ 74. We thus see that most certainly the Hebrew chronology of
the Bible has not 4004 years, as in Usher, but 4104 years at the begin
ning of the Christian era. Whence it follows that the 6000th year of
the world's history will come, according to the Hebrew Scripture, in
A. D. i8g6-7. For 4i04-|-i8g6=6ooo A. M. (With Solomon given but
39 years alone, as in Josephus, the 6000 years run out in A. D. i8g7,
giving him full 40 years, it is 1896.)
2. By the Septuagint.
S 75- By the Greek chronology of the Lxx, we have,
Lxx. of Euseb. Of Josephus. Corrected. Vatican.
Antediluvian (A) = 2242 yrs. 2256 2262 2242
Post-diluvian (B) =? 942 yrs. gg2 1132 1172
Total to birth Ab. = 3184 3248 33g4, ^^
'Birth of Abra. (C, § 17) = 2og6 B. C. 2og6 B. C. 2og6 B. C. 2og6 B. C.
Total, B. C. 5280 5344 54go 5510
From 7000 7000 7000 7000
A. D. 1720 1656 1510 i4go A. D.

* The ver}- error ascribed to Josephus (Rest, of Jos., § 36.)

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 337
Here Josephus corrected will have for A 2262 of Demetrius; and
will have for B 1132, made up of his gg2— his extra 50 on Nahor -f- 130
for Cainan (in agreement with Luke iii: 36) + 60 before Abraham's
birth (which we adopt from Usher, as required by Ac. vii: 4) =\total
1 132. The Vatican Lxx above, with its 2242 enlarged to 2262, gives B.
C. 5510, and has its 7000 ending A. D. i4go.
I 76. Jewish Chronology. The modern Jewish Chronology is a
fabrication, giving no true idea of the age of the world. It goes thus:
To the flood 1656, to Abraham's birth 290, to the Exodus 505, to the
temple 480th year, to its destruction 410, then the captivity 70, then
40 to the Seleucic era, then 311 to the Christian era= total 3761 B. C.
Hence, the year 1893 A. D. they call (3761 + 1893) 5654 A. M.*
Look at the progress of Jewish corruption in their chronology. Jo
sephus gives their original view, drawn from the numbers of the Lxx,
which he claims to get from his "Hebrew Scriptures," (Pref. to Antiq.,
I 2, and Ap. I. 10, etc.), viz.; that the scriptures "contain in them the
history of 5000 years," /. e., from the creation to-the time of Nehemiah
with whom the Old Testament ends. Philo confirms the same view;
and, down to that New Testament age and afterward, we find no trace
qf any other or shorter reckoning (like our modern Hebrew) known by
anybody either among Jews or Christians.
I 77. But presently, the theory came in, that the 5000 years reached
down to the Maccabees, put as B. C. 161, with the previous Persian
period (of which they were very ignorant) reduced to suit this reckon
ing. This made them have (5000+161=) 5161 years B. C. Then,
when the Christians claimed full 5500 years as properly completed
clown to the last days of the Messiah (as the Friday morning of the
World's Week), the Jews, in order to oppose their claim, and to argue
that the world was not so old, and the time for Messiah had not yet
arrived, boldly dropped 1400 years (by single hundreds changed in
periods A and B, so it is claimed), reducing their 5161 to 3761 B. C.
(See § 27.)
This modern Jewish chronology was originated by Rabbi Akiba in
A. D. 130; and it has (70+40+31 i+6g=)490 years, i. e., the " seventy
weeks " of Daniel, reaching from the Nebuchadnezzar to the Titus

* Some give the 2go as 292, then the 505, then the 480th as full 480.
Then the 410+ 70 = 480 also; then the 40 + 311 = 351 is put as 352 or
40 + 312 (i. e., 246 to Aristobulus' royalty + 106) to the Christian era.
(See in Prideaux, yr. 486; and Hales; and Jewish Calendar, Montreal.)
Nicholas' Chron. of Hist, gives the total as 3760^ years B. C. Hales
says the Rabbi's have 3740 to 3616. The Talmud Chron. Table (Lon
don, 5636) gives Titus' triumph in A. M. 3828, which — 69 = 375g yrs.
B. C.

338 PERIOD A, B
destruction of Jerusalem. And moreover, their new A. M. (3761+69=)
3830 for th£ latter event, enabled them to claim yet (4000—3830=) 170
years before the Messiah was likely to come after even 4000 years of
the world's age. See here unfolded the spuriousness of the later Jew
ish figuring, and' the probability that that people, in their hostility to
the Christian Messiah, are responsible for the clashing between the
Hebrew and the Greek chronology. -
The End of 6000 Years.
S 78. The current belief of the early Christian church, that the
world's week of duration was to last 6000 years, when a, Sabbafic 1000
years would be ushered in, grew in part out of Rev. xx: 4-7, where th.e
"thousand years" millenium is described. It! was corroborated by
II Pet. iii: 8, where, speaking of " the day of judgment," the apostle
assures us that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years,
and a thousand years as one day." Also Psa. xc: 4, "A thousand
vears in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past." (See § 13.)
The Creation Week was thus regarded as a type ofthe creation's
duration, and God's rest on the 7th day as a type of Messiah's reign,
when "the stone which the builders refused" should become "the
head of the corner." "This is the day (they said) which the Lord
hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it." (Psa. cxviii: 22-24.)
There may be something in this view of thousand-year periods in his
tory; and with all of us an interest attaches -to the date when 6000
years expire, although we may not be able to determine just what event
in human development belongs at that point.
\ yg. Notice that, by the Septuagint chronology, with the two earlier
dates for the end of 7000 years (as given here at § 75), viz., A. D. i4go
(or -70) and 1510, we have a suggestion of the thousand-year theory of
the early church (as above) in a somewhat modified form. Having the
birth of Christ (as they did) at about 5500 years from the Creation (as
if on Friday morning ofthe World's Week), — let us, instead of putting
the consummation at 6000 years (as they thought, i. e. , as if at Friday
night of the World's Week) — let us put it at 7500 (i. e., as if on the
Sunday morning of a new, resurrection World- Age). Then 7000 years
or about A. D. 1500 bring us down to the Saturday night of Creation,
when the evening of a Millenial Sunday commences with the discovery
of a "new world" and the "reformation" of the old; to be followed
after about 500 years by the dawn of the Lord's Day morning of .Crea
tion. This is the new Sabbath of a renewed' earth, overtopping (for an
indefinite time) the old Sabbatarian reckoning; as was typified by our
Lord's resurrection on the 8th clay, following the finished week and
buried Sabbath of the law.

diluvian chronology 339
£ So. In this view, the period from Egypt to the Temple (about
A. M. 4000 to 4500) was the "evening " preceding the Hebrew day of-
royalty. And the period from the Exile to the Christian Era (about
5500) was the evening preceding the gospel morning, which reached to
A. D. 500. And the period from popery begun to popery fully fixed
(about 6000 to 6500 or A. D. 500 to 1000) was the evening of a " dark
age" continuing 500 years more (to about 7000 or A. D. 1500.) While
the period from the Reformation (7000 to 7500 or A. D: 1500 to 2000) is
the "evening" of a millenial "morning," to dawn at 7500 A. M. (or
about A. D. 2000, and to continue through "a thousand years of
indeterminate length."
Notice how many grand events centered around the epoch 1500 A.
D. here pointed out as the world's Saturday evening: — The discovery
of the " new world," A. D. i4g2 and the years following (so close to
the 1490-1 of the Vatican Lxx noted above;) — the establishment of the
inquisition in Spain (A. D. 1481) and the birth of Luther (A. D. 1483)
to begin the reformation; — and just before, the invention of printing
(A. D. 1447), and the end of the eastern Roman empire (A. D. 1453),
in preparation for those other great events. The present 500 years
(from A. D. 1500 to 2000) are certainly the advancing eve of a more re
splendent clay now near at hand.
i 81. There is amodification-of the 6000-year idea, which it may be
well to mention.
Suppose a ' ' thousand years ' ' prophetic to be purposely ambiguous,
because it was not for them in those early days " to know the times
and the seasons;" and supposethe expression is found (as the end ap
proaches) to mean twenty-five jubilee periods, or ^wo and-a-half times
the "seventy weeks" of Daniel, i. e., (a,oox2l/2 =4gx25=) 1225 years.
If this be the length of each clay of the world's week, then the six days
will be out in (1225x6=) 7350 A. M., instead of 6000 years. Now, if the
Period B (after the flood) in Josephus be corrected from his " 992
years" to 1102 years by adding the 50 years more to Nahor which are
found in the Vatican copy of the Lxx (see here, Part I, I 31, note)
and also adding the ,60 years' correction before Abraham's birth
which we adopt from Usher, (see Part I, 1 2, note),— then we
shall have from Josephus corrected (Cainan not being inserted),
Period A, 2256 years + Period B, 1102 years + 2096 B. C. for Abra
ham's birth = total 5454 B. C. which taken from the whole 7350
years (composing the six world days) = 1897 A. D.,— the same as
reached by the 6 times 1000 years of the Hebrew chronology.
S 82. Two of these world days, or 50 jubilees, or 2450 years, minus
one jubilee, are 2401 years; which is the square oi the jubilee period,
49 years, or the 4th power of the sacrednumber 7. Singularly enough,
the interval between A. D. i8g7, and the time when Daniel had the

340 PERIOD A, B
vision pointing to it (in chap, vii: ver. 25), viz. B. C. 554,* is just two
of these world-day periods of 1225, i. e., 2450 years (or exactly one-third
of the world's time) from B. C. 554 to A. D. 1897. f
Another curious fact is, that this 1225 years solar equals 1260 years
lunar, each lunar year being taken roughly as 355 days (which Schwartz
informs us was the reckoning of the Romans in their old lunar calen
dar).:): So that (1260-1225 =) 35 years, or a loss of one whole Jewish
" generation " (See period D, \ 10, notes), left just (1225 -^-35=) 35 gen
erations in the interval, or (6 times 35=) 210 generations in 6 such inter
vals, i. e. (210 times 35 =) 7350 years of , history in all.
§83. Thus the "1260 days" of Scripture (or "42 months," or
"time, times, and a half,") may designate 1260 lunar years, as equal
the 1225 solar years before us (or 25 Jubilee periods); each of these 1225
year intervals being a world-day of human history shortened, — as Christ
said (Matt, xxiv: 22), " for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."
These world-days (and half clays) will date thus:
 - Creation.
4842  Cainan 12 years old.
 Enoch 103 years old.
3617  Noah 182 years old.
3004  Arphaxad 57 years old.
23g2  Nahor 13 years old.
 Jacob died i7gi.
1167  End of Abdon.
 Daniel's vision, I Beishazzar.
58  Nero's 4th year.
 Romanism Latinized.
6.  — — 1283  Wicliffe born.
End of the world-week.
7350 =, total world-age, -s- 6 days =1225 yrs. each.
Is it not possible, that the Hebrew text before Abraham is, as to
dates, a corruption from the Septuagint (as here given), providentially
ordered on purpose that men might not too soon come ' ' to know the
times and the seasons " of the coming kingdom?

B.

C.

5454

B.

C.

422g

B.

c.

3004

b:

,-C.

1779

B. A.

C.
D.

554
A.D. 672

A.

D.

1897

* The date of the vision is given (Dan. vii: 1) as "the ist year of
Beishazzar," whose 17 years ended at the capture of Babylon, B. C.
538. Hence that ist year was B. C. 554.
Clinton makes the vision of chap, viii to be B. C. 553, " Belshazzar's
accession according to Ptolemy's Canon being 555," soon after which
in his ist year the previous vision of chap, vii took place.
fThe " Book of Jubilees" (A. D. 100) uses this very two-day period
or " 2450 years," so figuring as to make it cover the interval from crea
tion to Joshua, which it calls a period of "fifty jubilees " (See here
Part I, § 24, 34.)
X With exact lunations 354 ch+336, the 1260 lunar years=L223 solar
years.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 341
CHAPTER II.
Prophetic Datings.
§ 84. Christ told his disciples (Acts i: 7): " It is not for you to
know the times and the seasons which the Father hath put in his own
power." We are warned by this not to look in Scripture for exact
dates of future events, especially as to the coming of "the kingdom "
here inquired about. Yet we know for certain, that there are some im
portant datings given long beforehand, such as the " seventy weeks "
of Daniel, made sufficiently plain to serve as a general guide when the
event approached. (See Isa. vii: 8, etc.) We are expressly instructed
to watch "the signs of the times " foretold; and Bible numbers may in
some cases have been furnished, not to be understood then (I Pet. i: 2),
but to be developed as time advances. There are certainly prophetic
times given in the Word of God.
In the " seventy weeks," and in some other cases, a day stood for a
year, as we are expressly informed (Ezek. iv: 6;- Num. xiv: 34); and
many think a large part of the prophetic dates are thus intended,
especially the apocalyptic numbers 1260, i2go, 1335, 2300, 666, etc.
Much can be said in favor of this view. One strong argument for it
is, the seeming pettiness of foretelling an event centuries distant with
out giving its date; yet taking pains to specify the exact number of
days for its continuance — a number which can not be verified as days,
even after the occurrence, as in case of the "2300." Of what possible
use can such a prophesy be to anybody? and what could be the intent
in giving it? But without adopting the year-day theory, we shall find
in past history some striking illustrations of its application, which are
remarkable coincidences, to say the least. Take a few examples.
§ 85. In regard to the ending of 6000 years at A. D. i8g7 (see here,
previous chapter), it is worthy of note that the prophetic number given
by Daniel in closing his visions (xii: 11), viz.: " i2go days, "if interpreted
as usual upon the year-day theory as meaning i2go years, will reach
back from A. D. 1897 to A. D. 607, the very time when the Romish;
hierarchy was fully established. And the "1260" which he gives at
ver. 7, and also at vii: 25 (as "time, times, and a half" for the " little
horn " of Rome=3J^ years of 360 days each=i26o days or years, or
"42 montlis',' of 30 days each, — so at Rev. xi: 2, 3, and xii: 6, 14, and!
xiii: 5), — these 1260 extend from that same A. D. 607-10 down to 1866-70,
when the Romish hierachy began to end by being shorn of its temporal
power! The Roman Emperor Phocas ascended the throne November 23,
A. D. 602. In the 5th year of his reign, August 1, A. D. 607 ("indie.
xi " beginning) is dated his decree making Boniface III, the Bishop of

342 PERIOD A, B
Rome (who had commenced the 18th of February, before) to be Pope
and "head of all the churches, ") " Papa— caput esse omnium ecclesi-
¦arum"), both east and west, including the church of Constantinople
(the Emperor's capital) as well as of Rome (the seat of the Pope.)
This was but the carrying out and enforcement Of a previous similar
-decree of the emperor Justinian dated in A. D. 533. Pope Boniface III
lived but three months more, dying November 10, A. D. 607; so that,
it was Boniface IV that enjoyed the first papal supremacy, under the
emperor Phocas who died in A. D. 610, having in 608 donated to his
papal protege the Roman Vatican, thenceforward dedicated to the Vir
gin Mary and all the saints. Thus was the Romish church supremacy
fully established in A. D. 607-610.*
§86. And after 1,260 years, in A. D. 1867-70, that supremacy re
ceived its consuming stroke by the loss of its temporal power, just as
it was putting on its latest airs as anti-Christ, asserting the Papal in
fallibility. In 1866-7 several Romish countries succumbed to their
foes, and a rebellion in Rome had to be put down by French troops.
In 1869 the Pope gathered an immense council, which on July 18th,
1870, proclaimed him infallible. The very next day the war of France
against Prussia was proclaimed. The fall of Napoleon III and the
jproclamation of the Republic followed. On the 21st of August the
French troops -evacuated Rome, and September 20th, A. D. 1870, Victor
Emanuel entered Rome with the Italian troops, from which time the
Pope's temporal power was at an end.
Thus did the supremacy of the Romish Papacy, arising in A. D.
,f6o7-T0, finish its 1260 years in A. D. 1867-70 with the loss of its tem
poral power, wherewith it was able to ' ' wear out the saints of the ,
Most Hi^h * * * until a time and times and the dividing of time,"(i26o
yrs. Dan. vii: 25), in the last days following the fourth great empire
1 (the Roman world; ver. 23, 24.) f What further awaits it, at the end
of the "i2go" '(of Dan. xii: 11), viz: at A. D. 1897-1900, where ends the
*/The ist year of the emperor Phocas, A. D. 603, was just 666 years
after Rome first conquered Jerusalem through Pompey in B. C. 64.'
And in Rev. xiii: 18, this" 666 " is given as "the number of the beast "
— the second or ecclesiastical development of the Roman beast (ver.
11). Is not this Roman hierarchy here numbered by the date oi the
•emperor (Phocas) who gave it supremacy? — a date of the interval be
fore him during which the Romans had held sway over God's people.
Did not the Roman hierarchy thus have a date-number 666, as weU as
a " number qf the name" 666 4s expressed by the letters of the Roman
designation Lateinos " ?
rf-Scott's Commentary (as early as 1812) following Faber, gave the
Tise of Popery by the decree of Phocas as A. D. 606, saying: " Prob
ably at the end of 1260 years from A. D. 606 [in A. D.,1866] the glowing
events predicted will begin to receive a remarkable fulfillment."
i^Com. on Dan. vii: 23.)

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 343
6,000 years from Creation, remains to be seen. But there is another
side to these - prophetic numberings, which is worthy of close con
sideration. '
§ 87. Daniel's vision of the Papal '" horn " in the 7th chapter, as
just cited (ver. 8, 20, 25), was followed by another vision in the 8th
chapter (ver. 1), a vision of the Down-Treading "horn" (ver. g-14.)
Many have supposed this to mean the same power as in the previous
chapter; but the fourth or Roman kingdom is left out entirely from this
vision, and the down-treading horn comes out from one of the four di
visions of the Greek Kingdom (ver. 8, g, 21-23.) Its primary reference
may have been to Antiochus Epiphanes coming out of the Macedonian
division, and in B. C. 168-5 overpowering Jerusalem with a brief literal
fulfillment of the abominations here depicted. The Maccabees at that
time so understood Daniel's prophecy (see I Mac. i: 57, 62, etc.) and so
did Josephus afterward (Antiq. 10, xi: 7, and 12, vii: 6.)
But Daniel's vision plainly had a much further reach, as is evident
from the explanation of it given by the angel (ver. 17), "Understand,
O son of man, for at the time of the end shall be the vision." (See ver.
ig-23.) " Shut thou up the vision, for it shall he for many days " (ver.
26). At a later date, that same Gabriel came to make Daniel "under
stand the matter and consider the vision'' (ix: 21-23), which evidently
meant the vision now before us in the 8th chapter, for the angel now
tells about the very taking away of the sacrifice and setting up of ab
omination (ix: 27), which that vision relates (viii: 11-13). And in this
angel-explanation of the down-treading " horn" is put (at ix: 23-27)
the full exhibit of the " seventy weeks " that were to intervene before
the finished work of "Messiah the Prince." Moreover, in chapter g
(ver. 21), it was the same " Gabriel * * * seen in the vision at the
beginning," viz: at chapter viii: 16, who explains the whole two
chapters (though years apart) as pertaining to the same vision.
\ 88. Those " seventy weeks, " or 70 times 7 days of years=4go
years, are universally thus expounded upon the year-day theory, as
reaching from the Ezra decree (B. C. 457) to Christ's finished announce
ment to the Gentiles (A. D. 34), he being "cut off in the midst of the
week ending the seventy, viz., in A. D. 30. This goes to confirm the
year-day theory. And thus the division reaches down to the time of
Christ, at least. Christ himself cited this " abomination of desolation
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, " applying it to the Roman army
(Mat. xxiv: 15, Mark xiii: 14). We are certain, therefore, by the testi
mony of our Lord, that the down-treading ' ' horn " of Daniel was meant
to include more than the literal days of Antiochus Epiphanes. It,
doubtless, was intended as a picture of down-treading and oppression
to God's people, and especially to the Jews (his original people), down
to "the time of the end," as the vision itself declares (viii: 17), when
Daniel himself by resurrection should "stand in his lot at the end of
the days." (xii: 2, 12.)

344 PERIOD A, B

'Trodden Under Foot."

§ 89. What, then, have been the signal indignities offered to Jeru
salem and the sanctuary or temple of the Jews, which might well be
viewed in the vision as "the place ofhis sanctuary cast down " (ix: 11),
and "the abomination of desolation " set up, and "both the sanctuary
and the host (or people of God) trodden under foot," (viii: 13, and ix:
,27, and xii:i-i) ? We answer: The depredations of Antiochus showed
such a typical disaster and its cure: the later Roman invasion and
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was a more complete fulfil
ment of the casting down part of the vision. But beyond and above
all, the still later seizing of Jerusalem by the Mohammedans, and the
rearing of a Moslem pagoda, the Mosque of Omar, on the very site of
the temple, there remaining to desecrate holy ground to this day, — this.
is the crowning or "overspreading of abominations" to the Jewish
"sanctuary," "making it desolate (he says) even until the consumma
tion, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate" (ix: 27),
as we see it to-day.
The learned Faber, and after him Dr. Scott in his commentary,
has fully and ably shown, how clearly that down-treading vision of
Daniel depicts the Mohammedan power: and the British Commentary
of Fausset and others concur in this view. Arising in Arabia, the
southeastern division of the third (the Greek or Macedonian) Empire,
the bloody Moslem sword swept ' ' toward the south (Africa), and toward
the east (Asia), and toward the pleasant land" of the Jews (viii: g);
and with a professed commission from God himself ' ' the place of his
sanctuary was cast down" (ver. n), and a Mohammedan mosque was
"set up" in its place, as an "abomination of desolation" (ver. 13)
to all after ages. It was in A. D. 637 that these Moslem hordes got
possession of Jerusalem, and marked the site for the mosque of Omar
on the ruins of the Jewish temple. (See Chambers' Cyc. and all authori
ties.) That mosque then built has ever since stood as the sign of the
down-treading of both Judaism and Christianity by the Mohammedan
"horn." § go. And what was to be the length of this treading-down by the
Mohammedan ' ' horn ' ' ? After Daniel's Vision of the 8th and gth chap
ters, an angel came to make him understand "the vision" (x: 14),
which he was told related to "what shall befall thy people in
the latter days." This shows, both that the time of the vision
reached to remote ages, and that even there it had some relation to the
literal Jews (Daniel's own people), and to their own Jerusalem and the
place of their sanctuary, as profaned by the Moslem mosque. In this
last explanation the angel gives particulars reaching down even to the
final resurrection of the dead (xii: 2), and then at ver. 7 (Revision) the

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 345
¦duration of the closing part of the vision (the treading-down portion or
Moslem profanation) is given. The angel "lifted up his right hand
and his left hand to heaven, and sware by Him that liveth forever, that .
it shall be fOr a time, times and a half, and when he shall have made
an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these
things shall be finished." That is, the treading-down shall end at the
end of the days, when God's people shall seem to be completely scat
tered and forsaken. The same-duration of the treading-down is given by
John in the Revelation (xi: 2), evidently cited from Daniel. ' ' The court
which is without the temple * * * is given unto the Gentiles, and
the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months,"
i. e., 1260 days or years, the same as the 3% " times " or years of
years. Now mark that these 1260 years of the Moslem profanation or com
pleted treading under foot, carry us from A. D. 637, when the mosque
of Omar was established at Jerusalem then captured by the armies of
Mohammed, down exactly to A. D. i8g7, when 6000 years of the world's
history expire, according to the Hebrew chronology of the Bible.
This certainly is a most striking coincidence, concerning the meaning
¦of which every one must judge for himself. Does it mean that then
about A. D. i8g7, the Mohammedan power, already so weakened in the
hands of the Turks, is to lose completely its hold upon Jerusalem, and
even the mosque of Omar is to fall or to become consecrated to the
use of the true Israel of God ? Things as strange as that have happened
in our day.
§ 91. But another striking point occurs in this closing chapter of
Daniel. As soon as he was -told of his " time, times and a half," or
1260 years, he was still more definitely instructed thus (ver. n): "And
from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the
abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand
two hundred and ninety days," or years. These 30 more years are.
given, evidently .back to an earlier datel i. e., from another starting
point specified — not the treading-down but the end of sacrifice. In
other words, these 1290 years carry us back from A. D. i8g,7 to A. D.
607, just 30 years before the A. D. 637, when the mosque of Omar was
founded in Jerusalem. And what occurred then ? The crushing of the
true -spiritual daily sacrifice by the rise of Mohammedanism as well as
Popery, both at that time.
Mohammed' was born "about A.D. 570; "he first proclaimed his system
at " about 40 years-of age," i. e., about A. D. 610. So says Chambers'
Cyc, and all authorities agree. The " Hegira" or flight from Mecca,
from which the Mohammedan calendar dates its years, was July 16, A,
D. 622, which was "ten, thirteen or fifteen years (according to the
-different traditions) after his assuming the sacred office." (Chambers
Cyc.) The 13 years makes his work begin A. D. 6og; the 15 years

346 period a, b
makes it begin A. D. 607. We may safely say, therefore, that
Mohammedanism arose from A. D. 607 to 610, and Daniel's 1290 years '
for its existence carry us to the point A. D. 1897 to 1900.
I 92. But why is this 1290 reckoning added to the 1260 reckoning
above ? It would seem that the angel, after telling Daniel the length of
Moslem possession or treading-down of the holy city literally, wished to
notif y-him that there was a higher sense in which spiritually the Moslem
sway was to be dated from its rise, when it did in reality begin to ' ' take
away the daily sacrifice " or true worship of God, and to " set up the
abomination of desolation "or false worship, even in "the place of the
sanctuary," or the regions held before that by the Christian church,
the true Israel, the real Jerusalem, the spiritual, temple of God. And
this Christian or New Testament notation of the time was added, no
doubt, in order to connect the more Judaic reckoning as to the literal
Jerusalem with the Papal reckoning which pertained to the Christain
church or spiritual Israel.
For, let it be here well noted, that the Mohammedan power and the
Papal both arose together, as twin monsters of religious error
and persecution, treading down the true church of God. Mohammed
set forth his system from A. D. 607 to 610, as vne have seen; and the
Papacy began its universal supremacy in A. D. 607 with the decree of
the Emperor Phocas, more fully carried out to his death in A. D. 610.
Thence the 1260 years, as given for the Papacy particularly in Dan.
vii: 25, and in Rev. xii: 6, 14, and xiii: 5, reach to A. D. 1867 to 1870,
as we saw, when the Pope's temporal power was taken away, as the
beginning of the end. And the 30 years extra, here added at the end
in case of the Pope (instead of the Moslem 30 coming at the beginning),
carry us to the "consummation" or end of 6000 years at A. D. 1897
to 1900. The prophesying of the "two witnesses clothed in sackcloth"
"(Rev. xi: 3), understood as the Word of God experienced in the true
church (z. e., "the Spirit and the Bride saying Come," xxii: 17), may
not only reach through the 1260 years of complete Roman Supremacy
(A. D. 606-10 to 1866-70), but may also cover a preliminary 1260 years
of Bible Apostacy, from A. D. 254, when the Novation reform was
suppressed, (Neander, Vol. I, p. 237, 246, 248), to A. D. 1514, when
Tetzel's Popish indulgences led to Luther's reformation. (See my
essay on " Antichrist and the Two Witnesses.")
§ g3. Thus do the prophetic numbers, both of Daniel and of John,
wonderfully combine in the harmony of history, concerning the two-
great opposing religious powers of Christendom. Mormonism and the
like are but forms of the Moslem heresy; and all church hierarchy
and formalism is but an offshoot of Popery. These all must share the
same fate, as one common Antichrist or man of sin, "whom the Lord

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 34?
shall consume with the spirit of his mouth (as he is already doing),
and (presently) shall destroy with the brightness of his coming." (II
Thes. ii: 8.) Th.e "2300 Days" or Years.
\ 94. There is another aspect of these prophetic numbers, which
calls for our special notice. In Daniel's downtreading vision of the
8th chapter, its full length is given as " 2300 days " or years (ver. 14);
and the "70 weeks " or 4go years are said to be "determined." (Heb.
cut off), as if those 70 weeks began the 2300 as years. If then we date
both from B. C. 457 (where the 70 weeks certainly begin), the 2300
years will reach to A. D. 1844. And what was to take place then, at
the close of the 2300-year vision ? The Angel says: "Then shall the
sanctuary be cleansed," i. <?., from the down-treading and abomination
which took away the daily sacrifice or true worship. This would!
seem to mean,' that "the sanctuary " or region of God's earlier wor
ship would then be cleansed, or begin to be cleansed, from the Moham
medan ',' abomination " of oppression which had trodden down the
true daily sacrifice, or worship of God.
And that very thing did take place in A. D. 1844. A decree of
religious toleration was wrung from the Ottoman government, the
Turkish Pasha at Constantinople, giving liberty of worship throughout
his Mahomedan dominions, including Palestine and Jerusalem; so
that, from that time the daily sacrifice of true worship (till then com
pletely trodden down^is set up, and the old sanctuary of Jewish and
Christian service in and about "the holy city " is so far cleansed from
the "abomination" of Moslem despotism. The edict was dated
March 21, A. D. 1844. Then was "the sanctuary (in a measure)
cleansed," as the beginning of the end, which is soon to sweep away
the Moslem and the Papal powers together. Prophetic students just
before that event noticed this pointing of the 2300 to that year, and
thought something was coming then. Whatever folly may be thought
to have attended the Miller excitement of 1843, there was at least this.
one true idea connected with it. Something biblical did then occur,
as we see, a striking omen Of the end.
§ 95- We have seen (at § 87) that the 70 weeks of chapter g and
the 2300 days or years of chapter 8 begin together as one vision, at B. C.
457. The selection of so late a date, at the Ezra-Nehemiah decree of
Artaxerxes, as the first starting point for the whole vision (both of the
70 weeks and of the 2300 days), is at first a matter of surprise. But a
little thought shows us'the probable reason. The question was (viii:
13), " How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and
the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the
host to be Irodden under foot ? " So then, " the daily sacrifice " and

348 PERIOD A, B
"the transgression " against it were the two things covered by the vis
ion and its "2300" years,— the literal continuance of the daily sacrifice
bein£ covered by its first part, the "70 weeks,"— and the transgres
sion against it occupying the rest of the 2300 years, particularly the
last ' ' 1260 years " of it. This last part, Christ calls ' ' the times of the
Gentiles," (Luke xxi: 24); and Paul refers to the same. (Rom. xi: 25.)
Now "the- daily sacrifice" probably was not fully re-established
till the coming of Ezra to Jerusalem. For, although Jeshua began it
in B. C. 537, (see Ezra iii: 3, 4), yet it was at once interrupted for 21
years till the dedication of the temple in B. C. 516, (see vi: 15-18); and
then a great gap of decline. followed (at vii: 1) for 59 years (or 80 years
in all) till in B. C. 457 Ezra came (followed by Nehemiah), with a de
cree "to restore and build Jerusalem." Ezra chiefly restored things
in a religious and civil way, reinstating the sacrifices, etc. (vii: 17, and
ix: 5); while Nehemiah soon added the material building up. This
date, then, the 7th of Artaxerxes, was the real era of a fully restored -
daily sacrifice, and well selected as the date beginning its continuance
and its subsequent suppression.
§ 96. Since the 1260 years of Mohammedan power over Jerusalem
(from A. D. 637) reach " an end" at A. D. 1897, and the 2300 years
(from B. C. 457) reach to the beginning of the " sanctuary cleansed "
in A. D. 1844, as we have seen, — it seems there are (i8g7— 1844=) 53
years of cleansing between. That is, the total 2300 (from B. C. 457 to
A. D. 1844), applies also to the interval 53 years later (from B. C. 404
to A. D. 1897). And as there were 53 years of wall-building and pre
paration at the beginning, so there are also 53 years of preparing the
end, viz., from A. D. 1844 to 1897. And the 70 weeks or 4go years be
ginning the 2300 thus also apply 53 years later, from B. C. 404 to A. D.
87-* ,
These 53 years are 1% weeks of years; and it will be noticed, that
the 70 weeks are divided into 7 weeks and 1 week in addition to 62
weeks, "the midst" or. half of the 1 week being put at the end of all
(Dan: ix: 27), or — by equivalence — after the first 7 weeks, making 7^
weeks or 53 years (from B. C. 457 to 404) as the full time of decree and
preparation. So that the 62 weeks (or the 434th year) before "Mes
siah the Prince," extends from \he crucifixion in A. D. 30 back to B. C.
404. § 97. And why was that year B. C. 404. thus marked? Probably
as the date of Malachi and the close of the Old Testament, or as a
close of preparation and wall building both for the city and for the

* An intermediate reckoning of the 2300 is that of Dr. Hales, viz.,
from B. C. ,421 to A. D. 70 and to A. D. 1880.

DILUVIAN CHRONOLOGY 349
book.* In like manner, the "70 weeks" dated again from that time
to A. D. 87, may give us the date of John's book of Revelation and
the closing of the New Testament Canon; as indicated at Dan. ix: 24,
where we are told that the 70 weeks are "to seal up vision and proph
ecy." A. D. 87 will answer as the date of Revelation, since we only
know from Ireneus that it was in the reign of Domitian, A. D. 81-96.
And such a double reckoning of the 490 and 2300 is scriptural, as seen
in the case of the 70 years' captivity and other intervals, f
I 98. But the most singular thing about these numbers is yet to be
named. Not only did the down-treading vision of Daniel 8th and gth
point out a 70 weeks or 490 years " cut off " at the beginning of the
2300, but also a 1260 years cut-off at the end, as the special portion of
Moslem down-treading. The 1260 solar years reach back from A..D.
1897 to the beginning of Moslem down-treading in A. D. 637; but at
the same time, 1260 Mohammedan or lunar years are (3l|f25 of 1260=)'
1222K solar years, from A. D. 1844 back to A. D. 622, the era of " the
Hegira," whence Mohammedans number their years. So that, as 1260
of their years reach from the Moslem Era to 1844, therefore the year
A. D. 1844 w;as the very Mohammedan year " 1260, " when the decree
of toleration was issued, and the "treading-down " of the sanctuary
began to have a let-up, in accordance with Daniel's prophecy concern
ing "time, times, and half a time." Is not this a wonderful coinci
dence between prophecy and history ? Who can deny that this offers
some argument in favor of the year-day theory ?
These remarkable coincidences we have given, not as any dogmatic
assertion of the year-day theory, but simply as facts worthy of the
thoughtful consideration of mankind.
* Many think that Malachi prophesied during Nehemiah's reforma
tion, after his second coming to Jerusalem (Neh. xiii: 6, 7), say about
B. C. 425; because Malachi's earlier chapters preached a like reforma
tion. But if so, yet the life and the book of Malachi did not end till
afterward; as indicated by the " 7 weeks " of restoration cut off from
the 70 weeks of Daniel. ' ' Re-establishing the holy law and the holy
city was a work effected by Ezra and Nehemiah, with the aid of Mala
chi, in a period of about half a century, ending with the death of
Malachi and Nehemiah in the last ten years of the 5th century B. C,
that is, the 'seven weeks.'" (British Com. of Fausset et al.)
f If the 53 years from B. C. 404 back to 457 be put with the 97 years
thence back to B. C. 553-4 when Daniel had the vision, there are just
150 years after the vision to B. C. 404, its final ^starting point for the
4go and the 2300. So that, the 150+the 2300=the 2450, or two of the
world-days from B. C. 554 to A. D. i8g7. (See in Chap. I.)

RESTORATION OF JOSEPHUS.
I i. In the study of the Holy Scriptures there is no greater out
ward help than the works of Josephus. Living and writing in the very
time of the apostles, and going over in detail, as he does, the whole
biblical ahd Jewish history from Adam to the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus, his books throw a flood of light and confirmation over the
contents of the Bible. For, Josephus is a remarkably faithful and
painstaking historian. (See the citations in commendation of Jo
sephus 'from various authors, ancient and modern, in Bib. Chrpn.,
Period D, § ioo.)
§ 2. Josephus is particularly full and exact in regard to dates and
intervals of time; and his figures, when rightly construed, furnish the
best vindication we have of the Bible History and Chronology, as the
true record of the early -career of mankind. But alas ! the present
,copies of Josephus are sadly disfigured with evident corruptions of his
text in the matter of time intervals; which have resulted from the at
tempts of critics to accommodate his numbers to their diverse theo
ries. Not comprehending certain Jewish modes of speaking about
time intervals, as expressed by Josephus, scholars have greatly mis
taken his meaning, and by their side notes and conjectural emenda
tions have brought in corruptions and interpolations, which render his
originally beautiful system of chronology so confused and contradic
tory as to be utterly incomprehensible in its mutilated form.
" Among early Christians Josephus' chronology was in the highest
repute. He was a consummate chronologist, an illustrious historian,
a profound antiquarian; but his text, especially the dates, we find
greatly mangled. The younger Spanheim in his chronology has de
voted an entire chapter to errors, anachronisms and inconsistencies in
Josephus, mostly from mistakes of transcribers and theorists. He
says the recovery of the genuine computation is very difficult and haz
ardous." (Hales.)
§ 3. Hales undertook a ' ' Restoration of Josephus, " but his method
and results are as unsatisfactory as those that went before. We in
our turn have searched out the source of all this error and confusion,
and we think we have found a key that unlocks the whole mystery and
reveals to us Josephus' chronological system, beautiful and harmoni-

352 RESTORATION

ous, and almost entirely in conformity with the sacred Scriptures, giv
ing them a wonderful confirmation. To exhibit this key we must begin
with Josephus' Maccabean history. (See O. T. Chron., Period F.) ,

PART I.
The Primary Mistake.
§ 4. The dating of Josephus is so nearly correct, both in New Tes
tament and in Old Testament times, that we see his error to be chiefly
in passing from one to the other. We learn the state of the case by
the following: Citations from Josephus.
1. "After the term of the seventy years' captivity under the
Babylonians, Cyrus, king of Persia, sent the Jews from Babylon to
their own land, and gave them leave, to rebuild their temple; at which
time Jesus, the son of Jozedek, took the high priesthood over the cap
tives, when they were returned home. Now he and his posterity, who
were in all fifteen, until King Antiochus Eupator, were under a demo-
cratical government for four hundred and fourteen years; and.then —
the fore-named Antiochus and Lysias, the general of his army, de
prived Onias, who was also named Menelaus, of the high-priesthood,
and slew him at Berea, and put Jacemus into the place of the high-
priest." (Antiq. 20, x: 1.) "This was in the hundred and fiftieth
year of the Seleucidas [B. C. 163] * * * It was the seventh year "
Sabbatic. (Antiq. 12, ix: 3, 5, y.-)
2. " Aristobulus changed the government into a kingdom, and was
the first to put a diadem upon his head, four hundred seventy and one
years and three months after our people came down into this country,
when they were set free from the Babylonish slavery." (War. 1, iii:
1.) "When their father Hyrcanus was dead, the elder son Aristo
bulus intended to change the government into a kingdom, for so he
resolved to do; he, first of all, put a diadem on his head, four hundred
and eighty [seventy] and one years and three months after the people
had been delivered from the Babylonish slavery, .and were returned to
their own country again." (Antiq. 13, xi: 1.) This was B. C. 106.
3. " Now the breast-plate, and this sardonyx [on the high-priest]
left off shining two hundred years before I composed this book, God
having been displeased at the transgression of his laws." (Antiq. 3,
viii: a.) " This very year is the 13th year of Caesar Domitian and the
56th year of my own life." (Antiq. 20, xi: 3.) I was born to Matthias
in the first year of the reign of Caius Caesar." (Jos. Life, I 1.)

OF JOSEPHUS 353
4. "This desolation [by Antiochus] came to pass according to the
prophecy of Daniel, which was given four hundred' and eight years be
fore; for he declared that the Macedonians would dissolve that wor
ship [for some time]." (Antiq. 12, vii: 6.)
See further in Period F, § 3.

JOSEPHUS' 57 YEARS EXCESS.
<? 5. The Jews originally reckoned downward from the finished
captivity the same correct interval which is given us by Ptolemy's
Canon. This will appear as follows:
The original Jewish Chronology may be discovered from the Priest
Record of Josephus (Antiq. xx: 10), whose principal numbers he evi
dently borrowed from some previous official document. It was there he
learned of the "414 years " downwardfrom the finished captivity; but
he misunderstood by 57 years the terminus ad quem where that 414 was
intended to end. He applied it as reaching only down to the depo
sition of Menelaus from the high priesthood by Antiochus Eupator, in
B. C. 163 (See Period F, § 9); and he so made that Priest Record to
read, as seen in Citation 1 (here at § 4). But in this he was unwittingly
, misrepresenting the intent of the number "414," which, as given before
Josephus in the Priest Record document, was meant to terminate at
the change of government when Aristobulus "put on a diadem " in B.
C. 106, or 57 years later than where Josephus put the terminus. He
thus carelessly introduced an error of 37 years excess in his chronology;
which increases that much all his intervals of time that reach back
from the later times to the captivity or beyond.
This is the simple explanation of that which has confounded all
chronologists in regard to Josephus, and which has thrown all his sim
ple and harmonious system into the utmost jargon of absurd and incon
sistent datings, according to the teachings of many learned men. In
order to clear up the fog concerning this excess, the reasons for it, and
the exact amount of it (about which there has been such dispute and
bewilderment), let us examine, first
I 6. (I.) The certainty that Josephus made the mistake of just 57
years as above explained, and the cause of it.
It is certain, to begin with, that the "414." is assigned by Josephus
to B. C. 163 (see in Period F, § 9), and that this is altogether too early
a date for 414 years from the finished captivity to terminate. Now we
will show that it was at B. C. 106 (instead of, 163) that those 414 years
were at first intended to end.
This very Priest Record, that gives the 414 years, says that

354 RESTORATION
"Judas, who was also ' called Aristobulus, — kept the priesthood
together with the royal authority; for this Judas was the first to put on
a diadem for his one year; " after which " the royal authority " was
kept up by his successors. (See what his second successor says of
himself and of his father as kings, Ant. 14, III, 2.) Elsewhere Jose
phus tells us (Antiq. 13, xi: 1), how "Aristobulus resolved to change
•the government into a kingdom, and so he first of all put a diadem on
his head." And in his other work (War. 1, III, 1), Josephus says:
' ' Aristobulus changed the government into a kingdom, and was the
first that put a diadem upon his head, * * * after our people came
down into this country when they were set free from the Babylonish
slavery." The time when Aristobulus thus took the crown, we have (in Period
F), learned from the reckoning of Josephus to have been in B. C. 106;
at which time also the priest's oracular "breastplate left off shining,"
as Josephus tells us, 200 years -before his writing, " God having been
displeased at the transgression of his laws."
§ 7. Now that very Priest Record, which thus makes that memora
ble epoch, and clearly explains the year's reign of Aristobulus as the
era of democracy ended and royal government begun, asserts that
" the Jews were under a democratical government 414 years'" down
ward from the finished captivity, and then — " (See Citation r here, p.
3). And what then? It 'must have meant to say — "and then the
democratical government ended, and the royal authority was assumed
by Aristobulus," with the cessation of the priestly oracle. As Jose
phus himself says (Ant. 11, iv: 8), "the high priests were at the head
of their affairs; until the posterity of the Asmoneans (the Maccabees)
set up kingly government."
This is the only consistent story that the original Priest Record
could have told. And this was the exact truth of history. For it was
just 414 years from B. C. 520 (the year 2 of Darius, when the decree of
restoration after the captivity went into effect, down to B. C. 106,
when Aristobulus put on the diadem of royalty. Eusebius uses this
414 years of the Priest Record just as we put it here; for he says,
(Hist. B. 1, p. 178.) "Aristobulus took the diadem in the year 484
after the Bablonish captivity," i. e., (484-70=) "414 years" after its
close, just as the original Priest Record had it, not as Josephus
wrongly makes it, (414+57=) "471 years," (See citation 2, here §4.)
I 8. But this accurate account pf the original Priest Record which
Josephus had before him, was so loosely worded, or somehow so mis
taken by Josephus, that he gives the terminus ad quem quite different
from 'its intent. He has got it to read (20 x: 1) " The Jews were
under democratical government 414 years" downwards; "and then

OF JOSEPHUS 355
— (not democracy ended, but) — theh" the high-priest Menelaus was
deposed by Eupator. The mistake of Josephus is obvious, which thus
thrust 57 extra years into his chronology. Plainly, the numbers given
were1 those of a document, which he was editing in that closing chapter
of his Antiquities; and it shows a mixture of the previous reckoning
and of his own mistaken application of it.
§ 9. But how could Josephus make such a large mistake in the
chronology of these inter-testimental times ? The error was caused
or facilitated by the general ignorance prevalent among the Jews, and
evident in Josephus as well as in Christian writers afterward, concern
ing the pre-Seleucic history. The true inter-testimental interval of
time in the dark age between Xerxes and Alexander the Great was
lost. (Had Josephus seen the Greek historians, as he had the Baby
lonian and Tyrian, the early Olympic dates would have set him
right.) Josephus shows how ignorant he was of the Persian history,
by his meager and mixed account of this long period (Book.xi). This
is his one weak spot. When with Nehemiah he reached the end of the
Bible record, he was all afloat, until he got to the Seleucic era in B.
C. 312. Hales, like others, seems to have no idea of the cause or occa
sion of error, only intimating by the word "present" that there may
have been some corrupting of the text. But the fact that all Josephus'
reckoning is based upon this error, forbids such a supposition.
§ 10. (II.) Having thus shown the cause of error, — inter-testa-
mental ignorance, — let us now note the probable occasion of it. The
Jews were of course greatly interested in the "seventy weeks" of
Daniel, which seemed to fix distinctly beforehand the time of their
expected Messiah, or deliverer from foreign oppression, as they inter
preted it. They, therefore, early began to figure upon the application
of the " three-score and two weeks," (434 days taken as years, Dan.
ix: 25), and of the "seven weeks" (49 years), as well as the, "one
week " (7 years) and the whole "70 weeks " (490 years).
In their ignorance of the Persian history, the Jews of that day esti
mated the decree of Cyrus in his ist year (Ezra i: 1) as 20 years before
the renewal of it by Darius in his 2nd year, (Ezra iv: 24). This is
shown by Prideaux, who (at the year 486) says: " The Jews have a
tradition, (Abraham Zacutus in Juchasin. David Gang in Zemach
David. Sedar Olam Zuta, etc.); and from that tradition they reckon
thus: Darius the Median reigned 1 year, Cyrus 3 years Cambyses 16
years, and Darius 32 years;— and they tell us that the kingdom of the
Persians ceased also the same year, and that the whole dominion of
the Persian empire was only these 52 years," from Cyrus to the end of
Darius. This very reckoning is found in the modern Jewish chronol
ogy, still followed by that people. (See in my treatise on Diluvian

356 RESTORATION
Chronology, Period A, B.) Here Cyrus 3 years + Cambyses 16 years
make 20 years to 2d Darius, z. <?., 52-32 (See here, at § 30). *
|n. As they found their Priest Record giving them "414 years " -
from the restoration at 2d Darius down to Aristobulus (B. C. 520 to 106),
reckoning as here shown from Darius back to Cyrus, they would have
the Cyrus decree 20 years earlier as (414+20=) 434 years before Aris
tobulus (as if in B. C. 540). 'And this 434 years was just the "62
weeks " "from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to
build," as issued by Cyrus. (Dan. ix: 25.) This, of course, fired the
Jewish heart, and led many to fancy (at first) that the time of Messiah
was arrived, and that Aristobulus in assuming royalty was the
promised "king of the Jews," who was to deliver them from all for
eign foes. Or, it may have been this enthusiastic figuring that led
Aristobulus to "put on the diadem," and also led to the 20 years cal
culation from Cyrus to Darius, f
§ 12. But Aristobulus was forthwith himself cut off, with no great
deliverance following from his assumption of the crown; and faith as
to his being a Messiah must have soon died out.:): New figuring of the
"weeks " had to be made. And the thought arose, that the same cal
culation that had been made upon " Judas who was also called Aris
tobulus " (as the Priest Record expresses it), would better apply to the
other Judas before, Judas Maccabeus; who did indeed arise as a signal
deliverer of the Jews from the foreign. tyrants; and who became fully
recognized as their sovereign when Menelaus the high priest 'was
deposed and killed.
§ 13. The irregular substitution in the high-priesthood of the ineli
gible Alcimus by a foreign invading king. Ant. Eupator, so soon after
the awful three- years' profanation of Jerusalem and the temple by his
father, Ant. Epiphanes, and the wonderful restoration wrought by
Judas Maccabeus, as a redeemer of Zion; all this made a deep im-
\pression ever after on the Jewish mind, and seemed, when looked back
* In accordance with this, is Josephus' reckoning of the reigns be
fore Cyrus back to the destruction of Jerusalem (Vs. Ap, I, 20): "Neb
uchadnezzar (43—18=) 25+ Evil-merodach, 2 yrs. [Antiq. 1%] + Ner-
iglassar 4+ Labo. 9- mo. + Nabonedus [Baltazar] 17th "=47 years
from B. C. 587 to B. C. 540 as the ist year of Cyrus (or 50 years from
B. C. 5go.) The same reckoning is given at Antiq. 10 xi: 1, 2, much
corrupted. f As to the other "seven weeks " of Daniel's vision, they may have
thought of them as reaching on after the accession of Aristobulus; or
else, as reaching back from the ist Cyrus 4g years to the siege of
Jerusalem at the end of B. C. sgo, —since the Jews were accustomed
to reckon the captivity from B. C. sgo to 520. (See here, § 30.)
X To him Gamaliel may refer, when he says (Acts v: 36): "For
before these days rose up Theudas boasting himself to be somebody,

OF JOSEPHUS 357'
upon, as a fulfillment, in part at least, of Daniel's seventy weeks,—
more so than the assumption of royalty by Judas Aristobulus, where'
their first attempt at fixing those seventy weeks had fastened. And!
so, the ending of the 414 years at Aristobulus was transferred to Judas
Maccabeus, fifty-seven years earlier; whieh carried the 62 weeks or
434 years to the ist Cyrus back too far, making the 2nd of Darius to
be thus (163+414=) 577 B. C. or 57 years too early.
This could be done notwithstanding the previour correct dating'
of the original Priest Record, on account of the prevalent ignorance
that came in concerning those Persian times intervening, as we have
pointed out. And so, Josephus got the Priest Record corrupted to the
form- of statement which he has in it; the cause being ignorance of the
Persian period, and the occasion being the speculations of Jewish
Rabbis concerning the " seventy weeks." (See Appendix B, § 75.)
§ 14. We have now thoroughly learned, that Josephus' estimate of
the interval between the Maccabees and the captivity was overdrawn
by just the 57 years between B: C. 106 and 163; and that therefore 57
years must be taken 'from all his datings that reach over that interval,
in order to have his true Old Testament Chronology without this ex
cess. Thus, he calls the time from Aristobulus (B. C. 106) "471
years " back to the decree of the 2d Darius, or his B. C. 577, (see in ci
tation 2, here at § 4), which is 57 years more than the correct 414 years
to B. C. 520. This clinches our reckoning beyond all dispute.
And we thus find that Josephus has the 2d Darius or B. C. 520 right,
when his unwitting excess of 57 years is dropped. So of all his Old
Testament dates. What' has been considered by many as his jumbled
and senseless method of reckoning, now becomes, under the unlocking
wrought by this magic key, a beautiful system of correct and scriptural
chronology. Andthe Bible has a most wonderf ul'backing and confirm
ation in the datings of Josephus, when once they are simply and ac
curately understood.*
§15. As Josephus has the Priest Record's "414 years," reaching
from the 2d' Darius down to "the 150th Seleucic year," or B. C. 163

* * * who was slain * * * and brought to naught." The name Theu-
das was very likely the same as Thadde,us, as Olshausen remarks; and!
this latter was only another name for Judas, as we see in the case of
our Lord's disciple. ¦ (Mark iii: 18.) So that "Judas" Aristobulus
may very possibly be the " Theudas " referred to. (See further in my
treatise on the Seventy Weeks.)
*' Jacob Schwartz, a learned librarian of ' New York, having exam
ined this 57-year and 70Jweek exposition here given; says of it: " It is
a wonderful discovery and throws a flood of light upon the subject" of
Josephus' chronology. (See his letter.)

-358 RESTORATION
(when Menelaus was slain),— so he has 7 years less or 407 years reach
ing down to " the 143d ' Seleucic year," or B. C. 170 (when Antiochus
Epiphanes 'captured Jerusalem). This 407 reached also from the B. C.
163 back to the "g Darius," where Josephus puts the finished dedica
tion of the second temple, after "seven years" from its beginning in
2d Darius. (Antiq. n, iv: 7, see here §32.) Thus, Josephus has the
¦captivity ended there at g Darius, viz., at (B. C. 163 + 407=) his 57°
B. C; from which deducting his excess of 57 years we have B. C. 513
as Josephus,' correct date for the g Darius. In the same manner all his
Old Testament dates are rectified, and are found to agree with script
ure all the way back to the accession of David.
We are now prepared to apply this result to Josephus' system of
.chronology.

JOSEPHUS' CHRONOLOGY IN THE WAR.
§ 16. The main outline of Josephus' Old Testament chronology is
found in a compact form, clear and intelligible, at the close of his first
work, the "Jewish War," namely, at 6, iv:8,and6, x: 1. Wewill first
give the two citations and then will unfold in tabular form the num
bers there presented in the light of what we have already learned.
1. "One can not but wonder at the. accuracy of the period; for the
same month and day were now observed, wherein the holy house was
burnt formerly by the Babylonians. Now the number of years that
passed from its first foundation [establishment] which was laid by King
Solomon till this its destruction, which happened in the second
year of the reign of Vespasian, are collected to be one thousand one
hundred and thirty, besides seven months and fifteen days. And from
the second building of it, which was done [finished] by Haggai in the
second year of. King Cyrus [corrupt for Darius] till its destruction un
der Vespasian, there were six hundred and thirty-nine years and forty-
five days." ( War. 6, iv: 8.)
2. "And thus was Jerusalem taken, in the second year of the reign
of Vespasian, on the 8th day of the month Gorpieus (Elul). It had
been taken .five times before. * * * The King of Babylon con
quered it and made it desolate, one thousand four hundred and sixty-
eight years and six months after it was built (by Melchizedek). How
ever, David, the king of the Jews ejected the Canaanites and settled
his own people therein. , It was demolished entirely by the Babylo
nians four hundred and seventy-seven years and six months after

OF JOSEPHUS

359

him [corrupted from 470^].* And from King David, who was the
first of the Jews who reigned therein, to the destruction under Titus,
were one thousand one hundred and seventy-nine years." (War
6, x: I.) % 17. Josephus' Intervals.

War 6
Melchiz. '
David,Mel. to Da,
75'Abram

X' 1
'2177'' VM
H79" LK]
998
—18 980 42

Mel'chiz. "2177" ['/2]
Captivity, "1468^ "
Titus, 7og
David, "n7g"[/4]

War 6, iv.
ist Temp. "
2d Temp. ,
Tem. to Tem.
Cyrus,
Temp, to Cy.,

8.
1130^" "639" 49 iK
20

Ab. to Da.
Temple,

Da. to Cap. "470^ "
(not 477^)

47iK

Ab. toTem. '
Fall of Jeru.

' 1022 "
Fall, A

David, "n7g" \Yz\ (6, x: 1.
ist Temp., "1130^" (6, iv: 8.)
Interval, 49 years f
18. Josephus' Dates.
(War, 6, x: 1.)
D. 70 B. C.

)

Captivity,

Fall, B
Fall,Spring,
Spring, '
Spring, Spring,
Spring,

c 570—57= 513

7070^ " .

r"ii79'

Ml

Captivity, David,

640 " 583
 "4
' mo " 1053

Temple, Exodus,
75 Abram,

1068 " ion ' 1
 •" 592 " 1 " 1022 "
1660 " 1603 [(Antiq. 8
 "430 "J
' 2090 " 2033 .0

iii: 1.)

Melchiz.

]

"2i77"[^ —709

*
" 1468^ "
* This is conceded by Schwartz, and, by critics generally.
f The 49 would be 50 if reckoned back from the dedication at the
Jubilee, with but 4go years after it, instead Of the 491. Josephus here,
in the War, reckons the temple as built from 2 years to 9 years of Sol
omon (not from 3 to 10), understanding the "4th of Solomon," and
the "nth of Solomon" in I Ki. vi: 1,38, to include one year of reign
with his father.'
360

restoration

-

(War. 6, iv: 8.)

Titus,
Fall, A. D
Fall, B. C.
Fall, Spring, "
70 B. C.
"639"
isj 27
1 l464^ 7
" 1022 " (A
18
2d Temp.,
Cyrus, ist Temp.
57c—57= 5i3
597 " 540
1061 " 1004
Founded,
Spring, "
Spring, ' '
Spring, "
(See Appendix
1068 " ion-
75 Abram,
20go " 2033
Melchiz.
2108 " 2051
C, I 80.)
2177 "UAl
§ 19. Remarks.
}" 103,0/2"
Josephus (Antiq. n, iv: 7) puts the building of the 2d temple as-
from 2d to gth Darius, which was B. C. 520 to 513 (his B. C. 577 to
570). So here-he has an excess of (570— 513=557 years between his own
time and the 2d temple; and all his dates B. C. have to be lowered 57
years. When the 57 years excess is taken from all Josephus' Old Testa
ment numbers, everything is clear and correct. And it is wonderful,
that all his dates back to David are thus found to be the accurate
Scriptural dates, as seen in our Bible Chronology; namely, B. C. 513
for gth Darius, 520 for 2d Darius, 583 for 23d Nebuchadnezzar, 1004
for nth Solomon, ion for 4th Solomon, 1013 for Solomon alone, and
1053 for ist David. *
| 20. In the War reckoning above, Josephus gives " 1130" — "639"
=) 491 years from Solomon's finished temple to the end of 70 years
captivity. Ahd we have found the Bible Chronology to have 580 years
from Solomon's temple begun, or 587 from the temple finished, back
to the Exodus. The two values added together give (491 + 587 =) 1078
years from the Exodus to the end of captivity (B. C. 1591 to 513); and
this is the very value (" 612 " + " 466 " = ) 1078 given by the Priest
* This true reckoning of Josephus is traceable in many authors fol
lowing him. For instance, the "Gospel of Nicodemus " (written say
200 A. D.) seems to build upon Josephus dates. For, one copy of it
(in my -N. T. Apocrapha) has Josephus' " 510 from Moses to David +
500 from David to the captivity; " resembling Josephus' 470 + 43 = 513
to Cyrus. Another copy of it (in Ante-Nicene Fathers, Edinburgh,)
has Josephus' 470 from Abram through Moses + " 511 " to David (Jos.
510) + " 464 " to 19 Neb. (Jos. 466) = 1445, — about the same as Jose
phus' (430 + 5g2 + 424th = ) 1446th; while it puts that ig Neb. at 636
B. C, nearly the same as Josephus' 644 B. C. (with his ,57 years excess
included). (See Appendix D, § 82.)
OF JOSEPHUS' 361
Record in Josephus' Antiquities (20, x: 1), taken as a continuous dating
•of the high priesthoods from the official archives of the Jews. This
proves the accuracy of our Bible Chronology as here given, and the
correctness of our interpretation of Josephus in harmony with it; and
this links together the Priest Record (in the antiquities) with Josephus'
¦chronology in the War, forming a key to unlock all the mysteries of
his dating. (See \ 40.)

PART II.
Jewish Datings Expounded.
Let us now examine the respective dates given in this Chronology of
Josephus. JOSEPHUS' PECULIAR METHOD.
I 21. One reason why Josephus' numbers have been misunder
stood is, that his critics have not noticed a peculiarity of his method,
in naming events and giving their dates. He has a way of looking at
an epoch as progressive and cumulant, covering a series of years rather
than a single point. So that, he commonly names the chief event dis
tinguishing an epoch, while at the same time he gives the. date number
marking the close or culmination of the epoch. In a word, he is apt to
date to the finished event rather than to the single noted item of that
event, Take three examples of this peculiarity in his chronology, as
we have here given it from the War.
§ 22. (1) The' Finished Temple. Josephus (in citation 1, | 4)
names "its foundation [establishment] which was laid by King
Solomon;" but to this he attaches the date of finishing the temple, 7
years later. For he, gives that later date (" 1130 years" ago) as 4g
years after David's accession to the throne (" ii7g years "ago, in cita
tion 2). From which it is plain that he reckons 40 years of David,
and 2 of Solomon to the founding, (Solomon's "4th year" being
understood as including a joint year with David, see I Chron. xxiii: 1),
and 7 more to the finishing of the temple (I Ki. vi: 1, 38), total 4g
years. This makes it certain that Josephus dates to the finished tem
ple, although it is the founding of the temple that he names in giving
the date. Here is a very clear case determining the peculiar method
of Josephus; and it is a neglect of this as a key to Josephus' chronol
ogy, that has led to the confusion of his annotators concerning his
reckoning. I 23. (2) The Finished Capturing. Josephus (in citation 2)
names Jerusalem as "conquered and made desolate" and " demol-

362 RESTORATION
ished" by Babylon, which, plainly points to "the ig Nebuchadnez
zar " when the city was destroyed; but to this naming of the most
notable event of that epoch he attaches the date of "the 23 Neb.," 4
years later (Jer. lii: 30), when Babylon finished its capturing and com- '
pletely "made desolate" the land, so finishing the epoch named.
That Josephus is actually dating to 23 Neb. (instead of the ig Neb. of
destruction referred to) is evident; for he gives it as ("2177" —
"1468 "=) 7og years ago,' viz., (A. D. 70 from 7ogyrs.=) his B. C 640,
or (counting out his 57 excess=) the correct B. C. 583, which is 23 Neb.
as in the Scripture. And here again is a plain example of his method,,
naming the most notable event, but dating to the finished epoch.
§ 24. (3) The Finished Captivity. Josephus treats the second
temple as'he does the first; and he dates to the finished captivity as he
does to the finished capturing. He follows the old Jewish tradition of
a delay after Ezra vi: 15, with " 7 years " for finishing the temple (as in
the case of Solomon), so that the dedicating was not complete till
" the g Darius," as he says (Antiq. n, iv: 7). Thus, while he dates
the finished capturing at B. C. 583 (by means of his " 709 "), he puts in
the next 70 years as a finished captivity at B. C. 513 (by means of his
"639"). And so we see, that Josephus consistently carries out his
peculiar method (of finality dating) at all these epochs. * Such sys-
temized chronal numbering (with the accompanying double reckoning,
(see | 29), suited the Jewish mind. And when we put this peculiarity
along with the 57 years excess of Josephus, we have most of the
mysteries of his Chronology cleared up.
THE "70 YEARS" CAPTIVITY.
§ 25. In getting at the captivity reckoning of Josephus, there are
three parties concerned, viz., the original Priest Record, the continu-
ator of the Priest Record, and Josephus himself.
(1.) The original Priest Record of the Jews ended the 70 years
captivity at 9 Darius, the Jubilee year. For thus it gives the correct
Scripture dating, viz., " 612+466 "=1078 years (22 Jubilee periods)
from the Exodus1 in B. C. isgi to the g Darius in B. C. 513; that is,
1078 minus (580 + 8 of the first temple, or) 588=4go years (10 Jubilee
intervals) from temple to temple, B. C. 1003 to 513, the traditional
Jubilee years for both dedications complete. Moreover, Josephus in
the War, gives this 'same 4go years from B. C. 1003 to 513. (See § 18.)
§ 26. (2) But the continuator of the Priest Record, who (about B.
C. 100) appended to it the "414 years " down to B. C. 106, began them
at B. C. 520, the 2 Darius, 'supposing the previous "466" to end
there (instead of beginning 407 years from 9 Darius, as he might have
* See an example at § 86, and § 53, and | 35, note. ,

OF JOSEPHUS 363
done). This makes an apparent excess of 7 years in the Priest Record
taken as a continuous whole; viz., 612 + 466 + 414 "=1492, instead of
the correct " 612 + 466" +407=1485 years from the Exodus in B. C.
1591 to the royalty in B. C. 106. (For this correct isgi, see Period D,
I 7-) Thus the 466 was treated as reaching from 2 Darius back to 25 (in
stead of 32) years of Solomon's temple. But when the continuator
construed the Priest Record's "612 years" of high-priests as reaching
to the death of Zadok as at 20 years (instead of 32) after the founding
of Solomon's temple in B. C. ion,— he thus had (20 + 466=) 486 years
after that founding, to B. C. 525 for the death of Jozadek; which was 5
years before the second temple began in B. C. 520, where the continu
ator put the 70 years' captivity as ending. By this means the continu
ator had ("612" — 20=)5g2 years from the Exodus to the 4th of
Solomon, as Demetrius had already (in B. C. 220) reckoned it. The
466 thus became (466+5=) 471 to 2 Darius and (+20=) 491 from 4 Sol.
(as at § 17 18); which in the Antiq. are 470 and 490. (See § 51.)
But he thus had the Priest Record distorted twelve years; viz., the five
years which would carry that record to the 2 Darius, plus the seven
years more which it actually reached to the 9 Darius. And this twelve
years deficiency was offset by the twelve years excess which the con
tinuator allowed at the 4th of Solomon, ("592 "+20=612, instead of the
original " 58O "+32=612. See D, \ 62),
And so, the method of reckoning the seventy years captivity be
came changed (about 100 B. C), from the original counting of it as
from B. C. 583 to 513, to the new counting of it as from B. C. 590 to 520;
that is, it was now put as reaching from the beginning of the siege in
the 16 Neb. to the beginning of the temple in the 2 Darius, instead of
the previous putting, from the finished capturing in the 23 Neb. to the
finished temple as dedicated in the 9 Darius.
§ 27. (3) Josephus' Chronology, given in his first work, the Jewish
War, .'ollows the original Priest Record's reckoning of the seventy
years captivity, as ending at the 9 Darius; but he uses after the Exodus
the "592" of the continuator (a'nd of Demetrius), instead of the Priest
Record's correct 580 (i. e. 580+32+466=1078). And he retains the
established tradition of 490 years from dedication to dedication in the
Jubilee years B. C. 1003 to 513 (i. e., 491 from B. C. 1004) — which was
really in the Priest Record (though he saw it not therein). By this
combination, Josephus has twelve years longer chronology than the
Prie'st Record's correct reckoning; viz. (592+8 temp. +4go=) iogo years
from B. C. 1603 to 513, instead of the true (580+8 temp. +4go=)io78
years from B. C. 1591 to 513. And in the War he uses, not the "414
years " of the Priest Record, but this value reduced seven years (to
correct the continuator's change from 9 to 2 Darius), viz., 407 years
from B. C. 513 to 106.

364 RESTORATION
Thus, leaving out his 57 years excess (in changing -106 to 163), we
have Josephus' Chronology as follows: B. C. 106+407=8. C. 513+70=
B. C. 583+421=6. C. I004+7=B. C. ion. And all these are the very
dates which Josephus correctly gives, as we see at | 18. His only
error (besid'es the 57) is the twelve excess of his 592 over the true 580
back to the Exodus.
§ 28. We have in Josephus' Antiquities the plain evidence that he
followed an established Jewish tradition, putting the seventy years
captivity from the 23 Neb. to the 9 Darius, i. e., from B. C. 58310 513,
—and that in this he was no doubt following the original reckoning of
the Priest Record.
(1) As to the g'Darius, B. C. 513, Josephus says (Antiq. 11, iv: 7):
"Now the temple was built in seven years' time; and in the gth year
of the reign of Darius, on the 23d day of the 12th month, which is by
,us called Adar, the priests and Levites, and the other multitude of the
Israelites offered sacrifices, as the renovation of their former posterity
after their captivity, and because they had now the temple rebuilt."
This language shows that this year was regarded as the date of full
"restoration " from, " captivity " and of the reinstated high-priesthood,
with a now fully established "democratical government." And in
accordance with this, Josephus gives ' ' 63g years " back to the restored
temple (War, 6, iv: 8), i. e.,. 63g — 70 A. D.=570 B. C, minus Josephus'
excess 57=B. C. 513 or g Darius. This 9 Darius began in Dec. B. C.
514; so that the finishing of the temple is put in "Adar " (or March) of
B. C. 513. There-must have been an established tradition that, after
Ezra vi: 15, the dedicating was delayed (as in the case of Solomon) to
reach tlie Jubilee year.
I 29. (2) As to the 23 Nebuchadnezzar, B. C. 583. This is given
in Jer. lii: 26, 30, as the date when the capturing of the Jews by Baby
lon was finished. And Josephus (Antiq. 10, ix: 7) recites it thus: " On
the 5th year [four full years] after the destruction of Jerusalem, which
was the 23d [beginning] of the reign of Neb., he made an expedition
against Coelosyria, and made war against the Ammonites and Moabites,
and fell upon Egypt, * * * and he took those Jews that were cap
tives, and led them away to Babylon." (See Jer. xliv: 14, 30.) No
doubt captives were taken at this time from Judea as well as from
Egypt. (So say Scott, Fausset, and other expositors.) It is at this
point that Josephus makes comparison and gives the interval back to
the finished capturing of the ten tribes. And from this finish of the
.capturing in B. C. 583, he evidently begins his seventy years for the
captivity down to B. C. 513. (See Appendix E, § 87.)
We have thus made it plain, that Josephus reckoned the seventy
years, like the original Priest Record, from'B. C. 583 to 513. And we
have seen just now, how the continuator of the Priest Record changed
the reckoning seven year, to end at 2 Darius in B. C. 520, with the

OF JOSEPHUS 365
seventy years before at B. C. sgo, the beginning of the siege in 8 Zede
kiah (Jer. xxxvii: 5, and xxxix: 1). Thus (about B. C. 100), there had
come to be among the Jews these two reckonings of the captivity — one
from finished capturing to finished dedication, the other from siege
begun to temple begun.* Such double reckoning of epochs was a
favorite method with the Jews, as pointed out elsewhere. (See ? 24,
etc.) The exacter dating, from destruction to reconstruction of the
temple, was between these two reckonings, viz., from B. C. 587 to 516.
§ 30. We have seen (at §,io) how, before B. C. 100, there had come
in a reckoning of the Cyrus decree as twenty years before the Darius
decree of B. C. 520. This brought 1 Cyrus in B. C. 540, or 50 years
after the beginning of the siege in B. C. sgo. Thus the double-dating
of the captivity went as follows: B. C. Interval.
16 Neb. begin, of siege  5go ) ist 2nd
 7
23 Neb. completed capturing  583
^"43
1 Cyrus  540
— 20
Decree of 2 Darius  520
— 7
Dedication of g Darius  513
Josephus in the war ends the 70 years at the original Priest Record's
B. C. 513 (the terminus of his "63g," or 407 years before B. C. 106.)
Eusebius, following Josephus, ends the 70 years at the B. C. 520 of the
Priest Record continuator, with the 414 instead of the 407 from B. C.
* Besides these' two reckonings of the seventy years in his system -
ized chronology, Josephus was aware of one or two other reckonings
of the 70. Thus in Antiq. n, i: 1, he gives " the 70th year " before
Cyrus, as recognized by Daniel (ix: 2, and Jer. xxv: 1, 11, 12); which,
with his ist Cyrus put at B. C. 540, will begin the captivity at the ist
instead of the 4th Jehoiakim (B. C. 6og instead of 606), when Josiah
was slain, and Jehoahaz was captured by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt.
(II Ki. xxiii: 29, 34; II Chron. 36: 3, 4; Antiq. ib, v. 1, 2.) In this vic
tory of Necho (recorded by Heroditus) on the way to the Euphrates,
some captives from Josiah, fleeing away, may have got carried to
Babylonia; so that Josephus there mentions Jeremiah's prophesy of
the captivity (10, v: 1).
Josephus thus had just fifty years from Cyrus back to Nebuchadnez
zar's devastation, reckoned as B. C. 590 to 540 (and by some Jews from
B. C. 583 to 533). He seems even to have had correctly the fifty years
from B. C. 587 to 537. For he says expressly (Vs. Ap. i: 21): " Nebu
chadnezzar laid our temple desolate; and so it lay in that state of
obscurity for fifty years; but in the 2d year of the reign of Cyrus its
foundations were laid, " etc. (For the " 2d year. " See Ezra iii: 8, 10.
He thus understood B. C. 537 as "the 70th " year from B. C. 606. See
Period F, ? 15.)

366 RESTORATION
106. ' For Eusebius says (Hist. B. I., p. 178), "Aristobulus took the
diadem in the year 484, after the Babylonish captivity;" that is 414+
70, from B. C. 106 to 520, and then to 590 B. C, as the beginning of
captivity. (See §24.) This shows that neither the "414" nor the
"639 "of Josephus went back to 1 Cyrus (as many allege); a point
which we proceed to discuss.
The Priest Record's "414 Years."
§31. We have all the way argued that, while the original Priest
Record's "466 years. " reached down to the end of captivity as at the g
Darius, on the other hand, the continuator of the Priest Record (and
Josephus) applied the added "414 years" as from the 2 Darius,-
changing from the original by these 7 years. On the contrary most
writers have claimed that the "414 years" were reckoned from 1
Cyrus, not from 2 Darius; and by this means they, have been kept'
from seeing the secret of Josephus' chronology in his 57 years excess,
as we have exhibited it. It becomes necessary, therefore, for us here
to set forth clearly the state of the case. Cyrus or Darius ? That is .
the question.
The only clear argument for 1 Cyrus as the starting point of the
"414 years " in citation 1 here at | 4 (from Ant. 20, x: 1), is the " 408
years " in citation 4 (from Ant. 12, vii: 6). The argument is this: The
"414" must be from 1 Cyrus to 150 Seleucic (or B. C. 163), because
the "408" (as 408th or 407 full years) is put from 3 Cyrus (Dan. x: 1
with xi: 31) to 145 Seleucic (or B. C. 168), i. e., from the vision of
Daniel to the desolation by Antiochus.
? 32. But this makes the "408 years" mean the 408th year, or
only 407 full years; and as such it may be only a reflection of the 407
years which Josephus himself puts from g Darius to 150 Seleucic, i. e.,
the 414 minus the 7 from 2 to g Darius (see § 15). He is speaking of
the " desolation " wrought by Antiochus, which he begins with his'
capturing of Jerusalem in " 143 Seleucic " (Ant. 12, v: 3), 7 years be
fore his terminus of the " 414 " years " in "150 Seleucic " (Ant. 12, ix:
3, 5, 7). So that he naturally names the "desolation" as the 408th
year, or 407 years (z. <?., the 414 minus the 7 from 143 to 150 Seleucic),
looking back to the same 2 Darius, when the rebuilding decree (as
Josephus understood it) set forward the 70 week prophecy of Daniel,
as a " going forth of the commandment to restore." (Dan. ix: 25.)
He may be dating not so much from the vision as from " the prophecy
of Daniel, which was given (or was going forth) the 408th year before"'
Antiochus' "desolation" of Jerusalem began. (See F, \ g, note.)
1 33. Or, the "408 years "may be a corruption for 428. As we
have shown (here ? n), that Josephus regarded the " 414 years " back
to 2 Darius as giving 434 years (or "sixty-two weeks") back to 1

OF JOSEPHUS 367
Cyrus, therefore, from Daniel's "vision " 2 years later to the " deso
lation" 5 years earlier, would be 7 years less than 534, or the 528th
year. The middle figure 2 may have dropped out accidentally; or
some editor, supposing Josephus' 414 went to 1 Cyrus (asso many have
thought), may have made this change as a supposed correction of
Josephus' number. At any rate, the "408 "is no insuperable objec
tion to our view.
I 34. On the other hand, in offset to that undecisive argument,
we have given positive proofs, that the "414 "and the "408th" (or
407), both being reckoned back to the close of captivity, and differing
only 7 years, must refer to 2 Darius and to 9 Darius, two dates which
Josephus himself carefully distinguishes. It must be so, because there
are no other two dates seven years apart to which he can refer. To
maintain (as does Schwartz), that Josephus, while following the Priest
Record as his own, yet in the war changes its "414" years to 407,
using both as referring to 1 Cyrus ! — this is a charge of absurdity on
Josephus' part too gross to be believed.
, Josephus makes up his full chronology in the War. (See § 16.) And
he reckons it thus: From the fall of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, he has
the "107th" year to Herod's accession in B. C. 37, and then " 126
years " to the death of Menelaus in B. C. 163. (See F,' | 5); and then
"407 years" to the "g Darius" in his B. C. 570, or (deducting his 57
years in excess) in B. C. 513. Thus he has (107^+126+407=) his
"639" years back to the time when "the second building of the
temple was done," (War, 6, iv: 8), not back to 1 Cyrus, when no tem
ple was built. This is positive proof that "the second year of Cyrus "
x found there in the present text is a corruption for "second year of
Darius, meaning built from 2 Darius onward." It was " done by (or
under) Haggai," he says; and neither does he nor the Scripture recog
nize Haggai as present till the time of Darius. (Antiq. 11, i: to iv: 7;
Ezra v: 1; Hag. i: 1.)
I 35. Thus certain is it, that Josephus in the War lays out his full
Old Testament chronology, from Darius (not Cyrus) as his starting
point. And in his later work, the Antiquities, he only uses the "414
years" of the Priest Record instead of the 407, reaching 2 Darius in
stead of 9 Darius, or (B. C. 163+414=) 577, instead of (B. C. 163+407
=) 570, i. e., (minus his 57 excess=) B. C. 520 instead of 513. The
language giving the "414 years" (see citation 1, p. 3), indicates Da
rius, though at first glance it looks as if pointing to Cyrus (as so many
think). His expression " at which time " has a wide import, covering
the whole period from the Cyrus , to the Darius decree; and he ex
pressly dates the "414 years of democratical government" from the
time when "Jesus the son of Jozedek took the high-priesthood over
the captives when they were returned home," by which last expres
sion Josephus means the time of Darius.

368 RESTORATION
For, there was no settled "government" till1 then for them to be
under, and Josephus knows nothing of the high-priest Jesus till then.
In this part of his history he does not follow our canonical Ezra, but
the whole of Ezra ii: i, to iv: 6, he transfers till afjer "the 2d Darius "
at Ezra v: 1 (viz., at his Antiq. 11, iii: 1, through ch. iv). Until which
2d of Darius he has no mention of "Jesus," or "Jeshua" (viz., at ch. iii:
1, and iv: 1. Thus, the seeming start of the "414 years " from Cyrus,
turns out to be, by Josephus' own account, a start from Darius, where
alone he recognizes "Jesus," or "Jeshua," as " taking the high-priest
hood over the captives when they were returned home." *
I 36. Moreover, the very fact that 70 years are given between
Nebuchadnezzar's desolating and the " 63g " or 407 of the War (the 64g
or "414" ofthe Antiquities), proves that these latter datings are to
Darius, and not to Cyrus. Josephus says: "2177 " — " 1468 "=7og years
minus the "63g"=7o years. (War, 6, x: 1.) But he expressly asserts
(Ap. I, 21), tha^ there were but " fifty . years " between the desolation
by Neb. and Cyrus. In Book n of the Antiquities (see the caption
dating) but 50 of the 70 years are put before Cyrus; how then could
Book 20 (ch. x) of the same work mean to give the whole- 70 years
crowded into the 50 years space? Josephus has no such mixed-up ab
surdities as are thus ascribed to him by Schwartz and others. \
The proof seems unmistakable; and, on the whole, we feel well
assured that the two datings of Josephus, both to the end of the cap
tivity, yet 7 years different, refer not both to 1 Cyrus, but the one to 2
Darius and the other to g Darius.
. The Priest Record's "466 Years."
I 37. We have all the way argued that the original Priest Record's
"466 years" reached down to the g Darius, or B. C. 513. But this
could not be with the language now found in the Priest Record, which
reads thus (Antiq. 20, x: 1): "Eighteen high-priests took the high-
priesthood at Jerusalem, one in succession to another, from the days
of King Solomon until Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, made an expe
dition against that city, and burned the temple, and removed our
nation into Babylon, and then took Jozedek, the high-priest captive;
* Josephus (in Antiq. 11, iv: 7)' says, "the temple was built in seven
years time," being finished "in the 9th year of Darhrs." Yet (in Vs.
Ap. i: 21) he says: " In the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid,
and it was finished again in the 2d year of Darius," i. e., finished in the
2d to 9th of Darius. This shows clearly Josephus' peculiar method of
cumulant or finality dating (see § 21), and proves unmistakably that
when (in the War, 6, iv: 8) we read, " The second building of the tem
ple was done in the 2d year of Cyrus [Darius] the king, "—the meaning-
is "it was done in the 2d to 9th year of Darius."
f See Appendix F, | 89.

OF JOSEPHUS 369
the time of these high-priests was four hundred and sixty-six years
(six months and ten days), while the Jews were still under the regal gov
ernment. But after the term of 70 years captivity under the Babylon
ians, Cyrus sent the Jews from Babylon, and Jesus, the son of Jozedek,
took the high -priesthood over the captives when they were returned
home." I 38. Our idea is, that the original Priest Record went no far
ther than this; and that, when the subsequent part was appended
(about B. C. 100), some change was made in joining the two parts to
gether, in order to fit the addition to the closing portion of the original
above; particularly in the clause we have italicised. So that, in our
view; the original read somewhat thus: " — four hundred sixty-six
years, until the Jews were established under a democratical government,
after the term of seventy years captivity. But Cyrus," etc. We have
already shown (§ 35), that the re-establishment of high-priesthood
under " a democratical government is here assigned as under Darius.
And we now add, that when the continuator had so stated in what he
has appended, — to avoid a repetition of the same expression "under
a democratical government," he struck that clause from the original
reading and substituted the present text, which agrees with the con-
tinuator's idea of the original intent.
§ 39. Now look over the original as thus restored. It expressly
starts the priesthood of the " 466 years " as being " from the days of
king Solomon," which seems to exclude a large part of Solomon's
reign; and it ends the "466 years" with the changed "democratical
government," as a marked epoch proper for beginning a new number
ing; while the " 70 years captivity" are included as a finish of the "466
years" period; at whose beginning "the government was regal, " as
previously declared by the original Priest Record itself. Moreover, it
includes, "18 high-priests," which necessitates the numbering of
" Jeshua son of Jozedek " with the rest. (For Josephus gives the list,
at Antiq. 10, viii: 6, and he has after Zadock, who closes the previous
period, only 17 high-priests before Jeshua, even including Azariah
after Hilkiah, from I Chron. vi: 13, 14, whom he has omitted.)
| 40. But here it will be asked, did not the original Priest Record
have this" "466 years " thus ending at 2 (not 9) Darius, just as the con
tinuator naturally understood it to mean, as we concede? In reply we
say: Our reason for thinking g Darius (not 2 Darius) to have been or
iginally intended, is (1) that thus it gives the right scriptural interval
of time. We are assured that the Bible is correct in giving (as it does)
a total of 1078 years from the Exodus to the g. Darius (as B. C. isgi to
513). And the presumption is, that the original official Priest Record
of the Jews has that same correct biblical interval, when it gives a total
of (612+466=) 1078 also. We so think (2) because the total 1078 of the

370 ' RESTORATION
Priest Record is- plainly meant for a Jubilee interval; it being just 22
times 49, or 22 Jubilee periods, doubtless meant to reach from the Ex
odus Jubilee (B. C. 1591) to the Jubilee of 9 Darius '(B. C. 513) just
after the second temple was built; (as 12 Jubilee periods ended in B. C.
1003, just after the first temple was built.)
| 41. Scripture does not tell us about Jozedek being carried to
Babylon. And when Josephus mentions it (at Antiq. 10, viii: 6) in his
catalogue of priests, he merely speaks of him as " the son of Seriah "
(who was then high-priest, see II Ki. xxv: 18), probably a boy, "car
ried captive to Babylon " he says, not telling when. And (at Antiq. 20,
x: 1) we merely read: "The king of Babylon made an expedition
against the city, and burned the temple, and removed our nation into
Babylon, and then took Jozedek captive"; and then, i. e., at the very
end of all. Here is a catalogue of Neb.'s doings, and the "then " evi
dently means, not at the expedition, not at the temple burning, but at
the completion of all, the taking captive, which Josephus treats as ac
complished fully at 23 Neb., as we saw before (§ 23). The truth may
be, that the original records thus treated his capture as closing up
their disasters, (as Josephus says, Antiq. io; ix:-7, "the end of the na
tion "), with the capturing of the boy Jozedek, the heir to official au
thority being thus gone at last; though left as an unnoticed youth- be
fore, just as the "daughters of Zedekiah" were left. (Antiq. 10, ix:
4.) Thus treating the capture' of Jozedek, the original Priest Record
would naturally add the 70 years captivity down to the Jubilee at B. C.
513, as the epoch of full deliverance, according to tradition.
§ 42. But it is plain that the continuator of the Priest Record took
it as reaching only to 2 Darius; and Josephus may have looked upon
the " 466 years " as not including the captivity, but as ending at the
destruction of Jerusalem. Viewed in that light, the "466 years " reach
back, by correct scripture reckoning agreeing with his, to the acces
sion of David exactly, i. e., from B. C. 587 to 1053. This makes the
Priest Record as a whole to be not continuous chronology, but having
a gap at the captivity and an overlap upon the " 612. " And if the gap
andthe overlap be alike, each 74 yrs., i. e., from B. C. 513 to 587, and
from 32 years after to 42 years before the founding of Solomon's tem
ple, then the correct scriptural chronology is still in the Priest Record ;'
and it simply furnishes a specimen Of that double reckoning so popular
with the Jews. (See § 24, 29, etc.)
That is, "the 466 years, while reaching as we have argued from
Zadok's death to 9 Darius (B. C. 97g to 513), reached also from David's
accession to ig Neb. (B. C. 1053 to 587). And the language of the
Priest Record is somewhat mixed, as if (purposely) to fit in part the
one, in part the other reckoning.
(Note. That the later placing of the "466" as continuous after
the whole "612" is included in the reckoning, is evident from the ex-

OF JOSEPHUS 371
press statement, that it reached "from the days of King Solomon"
(Antiq. 20, x: 1), not from King David). This view of the original
"466 years " as a scripturally correct but two-fold dating, is certainly
more rational than the current theories, that make this ancient and
seemingly official Record of priesthoods to be entirely discordant with
correct Bible chronology.
§43. Schwartz thinks the "466 years" end at ig Neb., but
reach back only to the capture of Jerusalem by David after 7 years of
reign, rather than to his accession. This violates all the Bible chro
nology by 7 years, making-the accession of David B. C. 1060, the found
ing of the temple B. C. 1018, with 431 years (instead of 424) thence to
B. C. 587. We think it more likely that this original document was
biblically right.
Josephus, using his peculiar method oi finality reckoning (see § 21),
preferred to say "470 years " to the finished capturing B. C. 583, in
stead of the "466 years " to the destruction pf the city, B. C. 587. *
And, this ' ' 470 years " is the interval that he uses in his Chronology in
the 'War, as we have seen. This is still correct reckoning, though
carried to a different point. Then adding; the 70 years captivity, he
has (470 + 70= ) 540 years to 9 Darius, and leaving off David's reign
he has (540 — 40 = ) 500 years from the (joint) accession of Solomon in
B.' C. 1013, or (500 — 9=) 491 years from 9 years of Solomon at B. C.
1004 ii. e., 490 years or 10 Jubilee periods between the two temple dedi
cations.) Thus all his chronology harmonizes.
The Priest Record's "612 Years."
§ 44. We have all the way argued, that the original Priest Rec
ord's " 612 years " extend to the death of Zadok, 32 years after the
founding of the temple; leaving 580 years back to the Exodus, which
we show to be the true Scripture reckoning. (See Period D.) But
Josephus, taking the 6i2,as reaching but 20 years after the founding of
the temple, put 592 (instead of 580) back to the Exodus. The manner
of his making this mistake, we show in our "Origin of the '480th
year' reading," (D, § 6g). Schwartz and others think the whole "612
years " were put between the Exodus and the founding of the temple.
What are the facts in the case ?

* The original and correct double reckoning of Scripture, was the
Priest Record's "466^ years" (instead of Josephus' 470^), reaching
(1) from ist David to igth Neb. (B. C. 1053 to. 587), and fifty years later
reaching (2) from 11 Solomon to ist Cyrus (B. C. 1003 to 537); with the
same 466^ years also (3) from the death of the high-priest Zadok to
the'full accession of Jeshua, son of Jozedek to the high-priesthood,
(B. C. 979 to 513). But Josephus, following the current idea of ist
Cyrus (as 20 yrs. before 2d Darius) expressed the double reckoning
with his enlarged "470^ years," as shown above.

372 RESTORATION
I 45. The "612" is expressly given in the Priest Record as -"the
number of years during the rule of these" 13 high-priest's, inclusive-
of Zadok as serving "in, that temple which Solomon erected." The 13
beginning with Aaron could not be made out without including Zadok.
(See Antiq. 5, xi: 5); and his service continued long into Solomon's
reign, being "in the temple'' as the Record declares, not ending
wheh the temple was founded. " It is not known when he died, but
his successor was his son Ahimiaz, who enjoyed the high-priesthood
under Rehoboam." (So says Calmet.) There were 20 years of build
ing (I Kings ix: 10); and Josephus then ends the 612, giving the 20 less,
or "592 years," as his interval before the temple, several times
repeated. Only once (in another work, Vs. Ap. II, 2) does he forget ¦-
himself, and fail to deduct the 20 years. Everywhere else he gives
5g2 before the temple, which he evidently considers as consistent
with the "612." See the many proofs of his sg2 at Appendix G, § 90.
To suppose, as Schwartz does, that Josephus, while explicitly
teaching 592 years, both in Antiq. 8 (iii: 1) and in Antiq. 10 (viii: 5),
straightway, in the same Antiq. 20 (x: 1) teachesas his own number
(says Schwartz) 612 years for the same interval, — is to accuse Josephus
of an inconsistency and stupidity altogether unbelievable.
§46. In order to make out the theory, that in the War Josephus
has 612 years back to the Exodus, contrary to his reckoning in the
Antiquities, Schwartz interprets his reckoning of "2177 years " back
to Melchizedek's building of Jerusalem as meaning back to Abraham's
arrival in Canaan ! He thus says: The 2177 years— 430 to the Exodus-
and — 612 to the temple = ii35 years + 44 — his " 1 179 years " to the
accession of David. But this makes 44 years before the temple,
while Josephus plainly makes but 42 (see | 18). Moreover, this makes
the " 1179" reach back to the accession of David, while Schwartz' own
theory claims that it reaches only to David's capture of Jerusalem !
Mark bow contradictory of himself this makes Josephus to be. His-
chronology in the War expressly gives 49 years from the completion of .
the temple back through David's reign, as the epoch from which his
numbers are dated. This settles his whole reckoning, and makes it
simply impossible for him to intend any other starting point.
Schwartz himself (when pressed) has to concede this; but he is thus
necessitated to claim that all these numbers in the War are "a
blunder" of Josephus! falsifying his real chronology here intended,/
by 7 years' deficiency in all the numbers, and^ by 3 years more
deficiency in most of them. To start thus an entire reconstruction of
Josephus (not a " restoration "'), by asserting that he was such a- gross
bungler and "blunderer" as this, is a theory wei can by no means
accept; Josephus has no system of chronology , unless it is here in the
War, where he carefully brings together the combined numbers that

OF JOSEPHUS 373
constitute jt as one whole system. And the capture of Jerusalem by
David as an epoch is here completely ruled out.
§ 47. As for Melchizedek, we know that he was already well fixed
as "king of Salem" before Abraham's arrival in Canaan, (Gen.
xiv: 18); so that, the notion that not till then he began to build the
city, is altogether too unlikely to be ascribed to Josephus, especially
as he makes no reference to Abraham in this connection. And how
could Josephus be reckoning 612 years to the temple, which would be
(612 — 35 =) 577 to David's capture of Jerusalem, — when he so expressly
gives it as only 557, i. e., 42 years from the Exodus to 2 years of
Joshua + his "515 years" thence to David's capture of Jerusalem?-
(Antiq. 7, iv: 2. See here, Appendix G, ? go.) Impossible !
It is true, Josephus mentions that David captured Jerusalem; but
when he gives the date, he says only that it was " from King David,
who was the first of the kings who reigned therein," (War, 6, x: 1).
Though he spoke of the place, it was the personality of king and people
in the Davidic line that gave him the date; and so it was at the end,
"470 years" later. (See p. 13.) We dismiss the theory referred to,
(that 1 David is used by Josephus blunderingly, while 8 David is
meant by him)) as utterly out of the question.*

PART III.

Josephus' One Consistent System.
§ 48. We have now- exhibited Josephus' system of chronology, as
' set forth in his earlier work, the "War." It is one consistent whole,
without regard to any reckoning found in his later work, the "An
tiquities; " which, however, we find carrying out the same chronology,
with only the variation of one year at "the 4th of Solomon." At the
same time, we have found this one unchanging chronology of Josephus
to be based upon, and in agreement with, the Priest Record (of Antiq,
20, x: 1); which Record gives the correct Bible Chronology.
FROM TEMPLE TO TEMPLE,
The chief point of interest about Jooephus' chronology is, that, by
our showing, he has the same interval from temple to temple as script
ure has; and particularly, he has the duration ofthe ten tribes of
Israel, from the ist of Jeroboam to the capture of Samaria, as the very
same 254 years which the Bible figures demand. And thus his testi
mony confirms and establishes our Bible Chronology -as correct.
* Appendix H, §g5.

374 ' RESTORATION
I 49. The certainty of the 254 years as the reckoning of Josephus,
is seen both from the foregoing exhibit from the War, and also from
express statements in the Antiquities.
1. In the War. The " 1 130 years " at g years of Solomon minus
the "63g years" to the end of 70 years' captivity, give 4gi years;
which, taking out the 70, are 421 years from 9 years of Solomon to the
beginning pf 70 years captivity. These 421 years can only be made up
thus: One year of Solomon being put as joint reign with his father,
there are 30 more years of Solomon + the 254 of Israel + the 133 to the
19 "Neb. =417 years + 4 years more=42i years to the 23 Neb., as the
.'final capturing which Josephus makes the beginning of his 70 years.
(S 24.). 2. In the Antiquities, (10, iv: 2, 4) Josephus says: "The prophet
who came to Jeroboam foretold (etc.) These predictions took effect
after three hundred and sixty-one years," "when now Josiah was in
the 18th year of his reign." Now, the 254 years + 23 more of Hezekiah
+ 55 of Manasseh + 2 of Ammon + 17 of Josiah=35i years, which is evi
dently the correct reading of the 361. For that 361 can in no way be
made out, and the 260 (claimed by Schwartz in place of the 254) can by
no means be got in.
? 50. This is conclusive. And it proves that Josephus, like Script
ure, has this 351 + U4 more of ,Josiah + ii + n + 4 years more, or) 40.
more, making the 391st year, or full 390 years, and 40 years, from the
final capturing in 23 Neb., for "the burden" of Israel and of Judah
respectively, as at Ezek. iv: 5, 6. (See Period E, \ 45.) And it proves
that Josephus had the duration of the temple as (37 more of Solomon+
the 254 + the 133 to 19 Neb. =424 years, not 430 (or 431) as Schwartz
claims. I 51. ,We have seen, that, while Josephus in the War has
Solomon's dedication rightly after~io years of his sole reign (which is 11
years in all), yet he there has the temple built from 2 years to g years
of the sole reign (which is 3 to 10 years in all). But in the later writ
ten Antiquities he seems plainly to put the building of the temple one
year later (from B. C. 1O10 to 1003 instead of B. C. ion to 1004), i. e.,
from3yearsto 10 years of the sole reign; thushavingthe completion and
the dedication of the temple both in the same autumn, after 10 years
of Solomon's sole reign, and after 7% (no longer 8l/2 ) from the found
ing. This leaves Josephus but 4go years (instead of 4gi in the War)
from one temple's building to the other temple's building, with 50
years (instead of 4g) back to the beginning of David. The only change
thus made in the numbers of the War, is " 1130" reduced to ii2g.
(See Period D, § 41.)
/
I 52. Let us look further at the Antiquities, and see how Josephus
adheres to his one consistent chronology of the War. He says (at

OF JOSEPHUS 375
Antiq. io, viii: 4): "The kings of David's race thus ended their lives,
being in number 21, until the last king, who altogether reigned 514
years 6 months and 10 days; of whom Saul, who was their first king,
retained the government 20 years, though he was not of the same tribe
as the rest. * And (at Antiq. n, iv: 8) he says: " Before their cap
tivity and the dissolution of their polity, they at first had kingly gov
ernment, from Saul or David, for 532 years 6 months and ig days; but
before these kings such rulers governed them as were called judges."
In both these passages, Josephus evidently reckons Jehoiachin
" the last king " till "he ended his life " in Babylon, ,22 years after the
23 Neb., i. e., in B. C. 561, which was "the 37th year " of his reign (or
-captivity beginning B. C. 5g8). (Jer. lii: 31-34.) And so, in the second
of the two passages, Josephus says: These 22 years + the "470
years " back to I David + Saul 40 years = " 532 years " for the kings.
Here Josephus shows a vestige of the correct "40 years " for Saul, as
rightly given by Paul (in Acts xiii: 21). But in the first of the two cita
tions, Josephus gives his own reckoning of Saul as " 20 years." This
will reduce his total " 532 " to 512, and how does he get the other two
years? Whiston, in a note at Antiq. 6, xiv: g, interprets his "2
years" for Saul as "twenty and two," and thus would account for
these extra 2 years. The " 514 " may be a corruption for 512. f
Josephus' "470 Years."
I 54. We have seen (§ 10) how, in Josephus' day, the Cyrus decree
had come to be regarded as twenty years before the 2 Darius, i. e., as
if in B. C. 540; which divided JosephusJ seventy years captivity into
* Notice Josephus' peculiar style of speaking; "Kings ;of David's
line" are the subject, yet the predicate "reigned 514 years " includes
Saul's 20 years; ("of whom Saul," is his expression).
t I 53. Everybody knows that in Josephus' day there were current
two estimates of Saul's reign, he making it 20 or 22, and Paul calling it
40; and in the "532," we see Josephus falling into the latter view.
(See I qfi.)
Schwartz objects to our inclusion of Jehoiachin's captivity in
Josephus' period of the kings, because it is given at the mention of
Zedekiah's overthrow. He seems unaware of Josephus' peculiarityof
method, his fondness for tnentioning an epoch by its most striking
¦event, while he carries down the time interval to its finished results.
(See § 21.) Thus, he mentions the fall of Jerusalem and the Jews at
ig Neb., but he carries the time interval (his " 1468 " and his "470" in
the War) down to the finished capturing in 23 Neb. So, he mentions
the end of the reigning kings, but he carries the interval of kings down
till all had "ended their lives," as he himself expresses it. (Ant. 10,
viii: 4.)
Schwartz himself, trying1 to figure out the amount without Je-
hoiachim, gets 534 years instead of the ' ' 532." €0 that theory will not
work.

376 ' RESTORATION
forty-three years before Cyrus and twenty-seven years after him.
(§30.) When, with this forty-three years from 23 Neb. to Cyrus,
Josephus put also forty-three years (instead of the forty-two) from the
accession of David to the founding of the temple, as shown above -
(§ 51), he thus had a new double leckoning (not only at the captivity as
before seen, but also) from temple to temple. For with the 427 years
from 4 Sol. to 23 Neb. (B. C. 1010 to 583), he had forty-three years
more (making 470) back to 1 David (B. C. 1053), and also forty-three
years more (making 470) forward to 1 Cyrus (B. C. 540), as follows:
B. C. Intervals.
1 David, 1053 - 43)
4 Solomon, 1010 \ 470 years, of Jerusalem.
— 427 J )
23 ,Neb'zar, 583 V 470 years of the temple.
— 43 )
1 Cyrus, 540
This double reckoning (so popular; see \ 24, 2g, 42), was doubtless
one reason for changing from 42- to 43 years at the 4th of Solomon.
But this second reckoning of the 470 years (for the temple), is a pecu
liarity of Josephus' Antiquities, which has more completely non
plussed chronologists generally than any other dating he has given.
The difficulty arises from the ambiguousness with which Josephus
¦assigns the terminus of the 47O years. We will try to unravel the
mystery. \ 55. At Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem (Antiq. 10, viii: 5)
Josephus thus writes: " Now the temple was burnt 470 years 6months
- and 10 days after^ it was built. It was then 1062 years 6 months and
10 days from the departure out of Egypt;" — that is, there was 1062^'
— the 470,^=) 5g2 years between the Exodus and the Temple, just as
he elsewhere puts it.
Here it does look as if the "470^ years " must end at the burning
of the temple in the igth of Neb. (B. C. 587.) But that is simply im
possible to be meant by Josephus. For, the caption-datings at the
head of these three books (8, g, 10) are (163+157+180^ [182^]=) a
total of 500; and 3 years of Solomon + the 470 = 473 out of the 500,
leave but 27 years from their close to the end of Book 10; whereas we
know that the last 50 years of this Book's " 180^' years " extend from
Neb.'s capturing to Cyrus. (See Ant. 10, ix: 7.) Therefore to consider
the terminus of the "470 years " as at the ig Neb. is tojeave but 27
years from that time to Cyrus, or (50—27 =) 23 years less than the
caption dating declares. The igth Neb. can not be the terminus meant
for the f'470 years." What then was the intent of Josephus' reckon
ing here?

OF JOSEPHUS 377
I 56. We just now showed that the temple's "470 years" as a.
second reckoning of Jerusalem's "470 years" correctly reaches by
scripture from the "4th Solomon" to the ist Cyrus (as reckoned by
Josephus, 20 years before the 2d Darius, or 27 years before the tem
ple's dedication as' in the gth Darius. So that, if the intended ter
minus of the temple's 470 years be indeed at Josephus' ist Cyrus, then
the remaining 27 years of the 500 given in the captions is a mistake of
the caption writer; and they really carry us down to the g Darius,
with the 470+20 = 4go years to the 2 Darius, or from temple to temple
as shown above. The surplus 27 years plainly belongs in the next
Book after the ist of Cyrus. This will solve the riddle of the ' ' 470
years." § 57.. We have seen that Josephus' favorite assignment for the
captivity was from 23d Neb. to gth Darius (B. C. 583 to 513). To the
Jews these 70 years were a blank, a lost period which they disliked to
count by itself. But in the midst of it was one bright spot, at the de
cree of Cyrus, put by Josephus as 43 years after the beginning and
27 years before the closing of these 70 years captivity (i. e., at B. C.
540), which they looked upon as the era of finished destruction and
dawning restoration: That era Josephus had in his eye, and his " 470
years " dating should properly have been there (some pages later) at
the close of this Book 10. For, his thought was of that finished de
struction, that dawning restoration of the temple. By some means
his dating is out of place; and while he wrote "built" and "burnt,"
he really meant "built" and "ready to be rebuilt." Therefore,
reading between the lines we interpret Josephus' language thus:
' ' Now the temple was [and remained] burnt 470^ years after it was
built, " till the edict for it to be rebuilt.
I 58. This we deem the solution of this great mystery in Josephus,
and by it his whole system of chronology is preserved in harmonious
truthfulness. For thus, we have his ( ' ' 639 "+7 = ) 646 years back to
2d Darius (B. C. 520) + 20 = 666 years back to ist Cyrus (as B. C.
540) + this "470 years" (for the 471 in the War) = 1 136 years back to
the building of Solomon's temple (put as from 1 136 to 1 129 years, or
B. C 1010 to 1003) — in place of the XI37 to "1130 years" (or B. C. 1O11-
1004) given in the War.
With this harmonize all Josephus' computations. In the War he
has this same number " 470^ years," given as the interval from the
finished capturing in 23d Neb. (B. C. 583) back to the beginning of
David's reign (in B. C. 1053). And now here, he takes the two termini
each 43 years later, viz., B. C. 1010 (after 40 years of David and 3 of
Solomon), ahd B. C. 540 (after 43 years of captivity), — and he has these
points also (B. C. 1010 and 540) just the same "470 years" apart.
Such double reckonings of striking time intervals we have seen to be a

378 ^ RESTORATION
favorite study of the Jewish scribes, and Josephus has them fre
quently. (See I 24, 29, 42, 54, 58.)
§ 59. The attempt of some scholars to make this "470 years" of
Josephus mean so long from the death of David (instead of his acces
sion) to the destruction of Jerusalem, is utterly impracticable.- For,
that contradicts Josephus' own fixing of it in all his War numbers, as
shown fully above, as well as in the datings we have just cited. And
it also contradicts Josephus' other "470 years " dating (of the temple)-
just now recited. As he says the temple which began z« 4th Solomon
went on 470 years (till 19 Neb. say these scholars), — how could he at
the same time (in the War) be reckoning only 470 years from ist Solo
mon to 23d Neb? This distance must be an excess of 7 years over the
other, and must require.477 instead of 470 years. That very corrup
tion of Josephus' number has crept into his text (at War, 6, x; 1),
through just such attempts to reconstruct him as we are pointing Out.
§ 60. The most futile attempt of all is to fasten upon Josephus
himself the absurd 40 years corruption of his text, by which (at Antiq.
8, vii:- 8) the reign of Solomon is increased to 80 3'ears ! with his age
correspondingly enlarged. This, say the scholars, accounts for the
large reckoning of Josephus' (470 years) given to the duration of the
temple; and "Josephus always adds in those 40 years with' all his
numbers," says even so acute a chronologist as Jackson;, from whom
the sentiment is re-echoed down to this day. In order to have the 40
years just fill out the 470, Schwartz insists on 430 years as Josephus -
previous reckoning in the Priest Record; but how in the same work
(the Antiquities) he could have both 470 and 430 for the duration of the
temple, it is hard to explain. And great straining is used to make out
the diverse medleys of Josephus reckoning which have been hereupon
invented! It is pitiable to witness the tergiversations and distortions.
of chronplogy, which have thus been wrought out and (alas ! ) imposed
upon Josephus, as if parts of his system, which on the contrary is so
beautiful and consistent.
I 61. The 40 years corruption of Solomon is so gross and mon
strous, so abhorrent to all Josephus' numbers, as we have shown, that
it is a wonder for a critical scholar to be deceived thereby. After
framing so plain and so consistent a system of Old Testament dating
as Josephus shows in his earlier work (the War), how is it possible for
any thoughful man to imagine, that in his later, riper work (the Anti
quities) Josephus deliberately repudiated and upset the whole, by so
absurd and unscriptural a notion" as "80 years " for Solomon's reign?
and especially when he so repeatedly employs in the Antiquities the
very reckoning of the War, as we have seen? It is entirely impossible
to believe the careful Josephus guilty of such consummate tolly; and
we must find some other origin of the 40 year corruption, rather than
to ascribe it to Josephus himself. A very slight inspection of his work
betrays the source of the corruption.

OF JOSEPHUS 379

The Caption Datings.
\ 62. Look at the captions over the several books of Josephus' An
tiquities. They include in each case a statement of the number of
years covered by the book. These numbers are plainly the work of
some editor, not oi Josephus himself; for they in many cases mistake
Josephus' reckoning, as we proceed to show. In our examination we
shall find that this erroneous editing of the captions was the origin of
the 40 years corruption in the reign of Solomon.
I 63. The caption numbers and Josephus' own reckonings proceed
as follows:
' /
Book. Captions. Josephus.
1. Creation to death of Isaac  3833 years. 3533
2. To the Exodus  ¦ 220 ' ' 220
3. Rejection of that generation  2I " 1
4. To death of Moses  38 I 00 39
5. To death of Eli  476 j S 477
6. To death of Saul  32 J 32

7. To death of David  • f 40 40
nn +41 | Sol. ext.
8. To death of Ahab  §,\ 122)— 6 , 116
9. To capture of 10 tribes  <r>\ 157+ 20 177
10. To I Cyrus  I 182 ^-[2]* 180^
Overlap, 27

ro H
+

11. To death of Alexander the Great 253^—7= j 190
1+57
12. To death of Judas Maccabeus . . . ( 170 )
13. To .death of Alexandra. . . :  <» j 82 y +2= 286
14. To death of Antigonus  ( 32 )
15. Finishing the Temple  ( 18 18 )
16. Death of Alex, and Arist  $ j . 12 12 ^ ?
17. Banishment of Archelaus  (' 14 H )
18. jews from Babylon  '.  I 32 )
19. Fadus Procurator  fi ] 1% \ +5= 6z
20. To Floras (and the War)  ( 22 )
Back to Captivity  639 "639 yrs."
J- + 27.
Back to 1 David  540^= ( 5I3J4

1179^ "n79[^]"

* The "182^ years " at Book 10 is evidently a misprint for the cor
rect 180.^ as Schwartz also concedes.

380 restoration

The Manipulation.
I 64. Note the many variations between the caption numbers and
Josephus' own dating. In inserting those caption numbers, the editor
'(or manipulator) forgot the 5 years omitted after Floras; and
argued that Josephus' "63g years"- reached from Titus to I Cyrus
instead of the proper 9 Darius (just the mistake continually made);
and therefore, that the books 11-20 covering thatoperiod must contain -
639 years. And the headings of these books do so add up. Whereas,
Josephus has "639 years" to 9 Darius (B. C. Ji3)+27 to I Cyrus (as
B. C. 54o)=666 years in those books, leaving but 513K years in his
books 7-10, which carry us back (666+513^=) "ii7g[^] years" to
I David. (§17.) But the manipulator finds left a full(" xxigMl" —
" 63g "=(540 y2 years (instead of Josephus' 513^ years left), to be got
in some way into the four books back from 10 to 7. He must contrive
a way to make out this excess of 27 years, in order to reach the total
"ii7g[>£]" years of Josephus-at the beginning of'David. What does
he devise ?
\ 65. At book 10 he has lost 27 years of his material (from g Da
rius to I Cyrus), and proceeding backward to books g and 8 he loses
14 more. This he does by taking a random remark of Josephus (at
Ant. g, xiv: 1, — never used by him as chronology), — that the reigns in
Israel add up "240^ years"; and using this 240 as the reckoning of
Josephus, — instead of the 260 of added reigns in Judah, correctly
reduced by 6 to 254 in Josephus, on account of overlaps, — the manipu
lator has an added loss of (20 — 6=) 14, put with the other loss 27,
making a total loss of 41 years which he finds he has accumulated,
or 40 years loss when Solomon is given 40 solus instead of Josephus'
3g. And thereupon, as he has now reached the farthest book back
ward, where the accumulated error must somehow be got rid of (to
make out the total "1130^" to the temple and "ii79[>£]" to 1
David), — the manipulator grows desperate, and — dumps the whole loss
into a 40-year surplus built for it upon Solomon !
§ 66. Calling Solomon "80," is giving him an excess of 41; for
Josephus has but 39 to Solomon solus, 1 of his 40 years being given
to joint reign with his father. And thus we see, that this "80 years"
corruption originates with the very editor who invents the caption
numbers. That astute manipulator rolls up the 40 years' deficiency,
book by book, as he numbers backward; so that when reaching his
limit at Solomon, he feels necessitated to assume for him a longer
reign, — not having the wit to see how his deficiency has arisen. And
so he increases this caption number from 123 to " 163," and brackets
in a needed [80] of reign, which in time becomes fixed as the real
reading. '

OF JOSEPHUS 381
By this happy expedient of an 8o-year Solomon, the manipulator
recovers from all his losses, and Josephus is fixed out nicely ! A
clever dodge, perhaps. But, was ever a more shallow corruption ? And
yet, learned magnates to this day are ringing in our ears the wonder
ful dictum that Josephus himself put the reign of Solomon at 80
years ! Let us hear it no more.*
I 67. They tell us that Josephus "always adds in " the 80 years. ,
And Jackson gives" as a specimen Antiq. 9, xiv: 1, where we read:
"The ten tribes were removed out of Samaria 947 years after their
forefathers were come out of the land of Egypt and possessed this
country, but 800 years after Joshua had been their leader; and 240
years, 7 months, and 7 days after they revolted- from Rehoboam."-)-
Jackson tries to make out the "947 years" thus; The "612" of the
Priest Record +(80—3=) 77 of Solomon +260 as the added reigns of
Judah=g4g years. But (1) this does not give thenumber required, (2)
not one of these items, is a reckoning of Josephus, (3) what then
becomes ofthe " 240K years" andthe " 800 years" after Joshua
here given ? Indeed, the whole attempt is monstrous.
This passage is plainly one of the interpolations thrust upon Jose
phus, to help out some one of the scores of theories concerning him.
Very likely Josephus did make the remark about "240^ years " as the
added reigns in Israel; but he made no use of it as chronology. He
did not even use 260 of added reigns, in Judah, but correctly reduced
them to 254 by overlaps, as we have proved. Some one has taken ad
vantage of this 240 year, remark here, to insert other numbers with it,
whereby to make out a theory thus: Josephus' " 5g2d " year to the
temple+( Josephus' 3g — 3=) 36 more of Solomon+the "240" not thus
used by Josephus=) 867 years from the Exodus, minus 40 of Moses and
27 of Joshua (from Africanus not Josephus who has 25)=",8oo years
after Joshua." The "g47" is a pure fabrication or misprint. (Or,
see I g3.)
§68. Schwartz repeats the usual assertion, that Josephus includes
80 years of Solomon in all his reckonings, saying there are " at least
10 instances of this." But he enumerates only five, besides which we
can find no others; and his number 5 is not a case from Josephus, but
-from the mutilating editor of the caption-datings, the very originator
of the 80 year corruption. Moreover, his number four is only the dup
licate of number three; sO that he has in fact but 3 places cited from
Josephus. One of these is the "470 years " considered above. The
other two are disposed of here at § 52.
* See Appendix I, at $97.
f The Scripture numbers add 141^ , but Josephus' numbers really
add but 239^, since he drops a year each from Jehu and Jeroboam
II.

382 RESTORATION
Instead of Josephus " always adding in " the extra 40 for Solomorf,
no case can be proved'of his adding it in. And the assumption that
Josephus himself got up this 80 years enormity, in face of his beauti-,
ful, harmonious, and scriptural system of chronology everywhere ap
parent, is a monstrous absurdity, impossible of belief.* We repeat,
there cannot be found in the " Antiquities " any departure (except one '
year of change at the 4th of Solomon) from the full and consistent
plan of Old Testament dates laid out at the close of the "Jewish
War," which we have exhibited above. (§ 17.)
» Josephus' Whole Chronology.
{? 6g. We have seen that Josephus (in the War) "gives " 1130X '
years " 'from Titus back to the finished temple of Solomon, "and
"79 " Ml back to the beginning of David's reign; with the 4g interven
ing years covering 40 of David and 9 of Solomon, — the founding of the '
temple being thus set as at 2 years of Solomon's sole reign (after' i
year with his father). Those two numbers (ii$oj4 and 1179^) minus
57 of excess and minus A. D. 70, give 1004 B. C. and 1053 B. C. as Jose
phus' dates for the finished temple and the beginning of David. The
building of the temple, thus assigned to B. C. 1011-1004, Josephus in
his later work (the Antiquities) changes one year to B. C. 1010-1003;.
and this is the only change he anywhere make's in his chronology.
$ 70. The interval from the temple back to the Exodus, and thence
back to Abraham, is given by Josephus (at Ant. 8, iii: 1) as " 592 +
430 = 1022" (corrupt 1020) years "from, Abraham's coming into
Canaan " to the time when " Solomon began the temple in the fourth
year of his reign." The "592" back to the Exodus is confirmed by
other passages. (Ant. 10, viii: 5, etc. See my ' ' Hist, of the 480th year
reading" in I Ki. vi: 1, Appendix A.) The "612" of Josephus (found
at Ant. 20, x: 1) is simply the Priest Record's duration of high-
priesthood from Aaron to the death of Zadok, understood by Josephus
as reaching 20 years after the founding of the temple, and so in agree
ment with his "592" back to the Exodus. (See the same Hist, of
* If anyone prefers (like Schwartz) to think that the author of the
headings was rightly including the 5 years at the close, and also the 2
years of error he has seemingly lost, making his real total nbt the
" 639 years " of Josephus, as it now stands, but 646 (thought to reach
back to 1 Cyrus); then this 646 taken from Josephus' "ii7g years"
leaves 533 years (not the proper 540) back to his date for David. And
this will indicate that the writer of the caption-datings himself under- ,
stood Josephus as reckoning from the 8th, not from the ist of David
(See §43-47.) But this does not fasten such a reckoning on Josephus
himself; it only suggests that this mistake ooncerning Josephus arose
very early, even with the author of his headings, — it may be Clemens
Alex, himself. (See Appendix -J, \ 101.)

OF JOSEPHUS 383
mine.) Josephus once (Ap. ii: 2) speaks loosely of the period by the
" 612 " number; but when trying to be exact he always puts it " 5g2."
The 430 years from Abraham's arrival in Canaan to the Exodus, is
confirmed by the numbers in the War (6, x: 1), thus: The " 2i77[>£]"
— " 1130,54 " = 1047 — 7 and — 5g2 = 448 from Melchizedek — 18 = 430
from Abraham's arrival. Then we have (+ 75 years back = ) 505 from
Abraham's birth to the Exodus, just as all writers have it. Thus, in
his Antiquities, Josephus has
Founding of the Temple, B. C. 1010 — 592 years.
Exodus from Egypt, B. C. 1602 — 505 years.
Birth of Abraham, B. C. 2107
And in the War these dates are all one year earlier.
Diluvian Chronology.
I 71. The post-diluvian period, from the flood to the birth of Abra
ham, is given at Antiq. 1, vi: 5, and is much the same as the Septua
gint and the Samaritan (not as our Hebrew) text. Thus: The "2
years (corrupt 12) after the flood" + 135 + [no Cainan] + 130 + 134 +
130+ 130 + 132+ Nahor 129 [corrupt 120] + Terah 70= "gg2 years "
[corrupt 2g2]. The corruption here is evident, and the reason of it, —
an attempt to make Josephus agree with the Hebrew text, which has
700 less than Josephus, or "2g2." The Samaritan has 50 less than
Josephus (at Nahor), i. e., g\-z. The Septuagint has Josephus' "gg2,"
or (with Cainan) " 1072 " or "'1122," or more, in different copies. (See
my Diluvian Chron., Period A, B, § 58, 75.)
The ante-diluvian period, from Creation to the Flood, is given at
Antiq. 1, iii: 4, and is much the same as the Septuagint (not as the
Samaritan or the Hebrew) text. Thus: Adam 230 + 205 + ^0 + 170 +
165 + 162 + 165 +187 +182 + Noah 600 = total "2256 years." Here a
like corruption has been attempted, by insertion of [1656] in brackets,
which is the Hebrew value, the Samaritan having but 1307. But the
larger (or Lxx) values in both periods are obviously the true reckon
ing of Josephus. Of course, the heading of his Book I, with its "3833
years from the Creation to the death of Isaac," is not Josephus' num
ber; but should be (2256 + gg2+ Ab. 100 + Isaac 185=) 3533 years.
The corruptions here attempted are introduced also at Ant. 8, iii:
1, and at 10, viii: 5. At the former place the corruption is intro
duced thus: Josephus' 1022 [corrupt 1020] back to Abraham's arrival+
75 to his birth+60 of Terah (as in Usher)+Hebrew text 2go (with 2 at
the flood lost)=" 1447 years" [currupt 1440] back to the flood as
given. Then, the 1447+Heb. text 1656=" 3103" [corrupt 2] back to
creation, as given. At the latter place the corruption is introduced

384

RESTORATION

thus: Josephus' " 1062^ " back to the Exodus+505 to the birth of
Abraham (without Usher's 6o)+Heb. text 2go (with 2 at the flood lost)
=" 1857^ " years [corrupt 1957^] back to the flood, as given. Then,
1857^ +Heb. text 1656=" 3513^ years," back to creation, as given.
The diverse methods of corruption here apparent may indicate some
what when the respective corruptions were made. (See our Chron.,
Period A, B, I 9, 10.)
I 72. We thus have all Josephus' Old Testament chronology as
follows:

Creation, B. C. 5356
Flood, B. C. 3100
Birth Abram, B. C. 2108 *
Exodus, B. C. 1603
4th Solomon, B. C. ion
2d Darius, B. C. 520
Christian Era, B. C. o

— 2256 =Period A.
— gg2 =Period B.
— 505 =Period C.
— 5g2 =Period D.
— 4gif=Period E.
— 520 =Period F.

§ 73. We have now sufficiently examined all Josephus' Old Testament -
chronology, and we find it when freed from corruption and misunder-
stauding, a beautiful and harmonious system, accordant with. Script
ure, except in one or two small particulars easily explainable. (See
interval D, "5g2" years, and the date of ist Cyrus, B.C. 540.) We
have-prosecuted this study in the interest of the Holy Scriptures, which
are greatly illucidated and corroborated by these authentic datings of
the great Jewish author. Indeed, we believe that no branch of research
will throw such light upon the Bible and show the accuracy of its history
so clearly as will this Restored Chronology of Josephus. Therefore,
in the hope of rearing a Bible bulwark against incoming tides of assault
upon the historical and chronological verity of Scripture, we have pur
sued this labor of love. Let it demonstrate, as it must, the truthful
ness of Gon's Word !
[Appendix A to J left in Ms.]

* This 2108 B. C. of Jos. for the birth of Abram is but 12 years more
than the true Scriptural date-(B. C. 2og6) as we have shown it (Period A,
B, ? 17), and this arises from his 5g2 instead of 580 after the Exodus.
t In his later work, the Antiquities, Josephus has one year less at
Solomon's temple (see § 51.) And his Priest Record (at Ant. 20/x: j)
if taken continuously would give 5 years less (i. e., 7 years excess -in
stead of Jos. 12), or a total of 5351 B. C. (viz., B. C. io6+"4i4" +
"466^" +"612 "=1598 B. C. forthe Exodus.). See § 26.

OF JOSEPHUS ' 385

Supplementary Note.

As the great aim of all the foregoing work is to show the truthful
ness of Scripture, and its consequent claim to our acceptance as the
Word of God, — it was not possible to follow this line of thought, with
out awakening a kindred desire to justify the religious contents of the
Bible, as indeed the Good Word of a Gracious God, worthy to be ac
cepted and loved by all. This led to a thorough overhauling of theo
logical thought as evolved simply from the Bible history; to discover,
if possible, what little screw was loose in men's theories of dpctrifie,
making them grate so harshly on the sensibilities of mankind.
The result was, another work on " Immortality and the Doom of
Sin "; wherein it is shown, that the orthodox faith of Christendom, in
a moderately Calvinistic (or rather Calv-arminian) form, commends
itself to all minds as the Bible Truth, — with all appearance of over-
harshness and severity removed, — when only the little false notion of
natural inborn immortality is left out from the unwarranted philoso
phizing about Eden, and each person's eternity is left to the wise order
ing of God. Immortality is thus brought to light in the Gospel, rather
than philosophized out of Genesis. In fact, a limited immortality,
meted out to individuals in righteousness and love as occasion re
quires, with opportunity for natural Decay in Sin where endless misery
is not by stubbornness necessitated, — this is found the key, to unlock
all doctrinal difficulty, and to exhibit the Bible as an inspired record,
not only in itself absolutely truthful, but coming from a God infinitely
lovable, and therefore a record eminently fit to be true.
No sooner was this work accomplished, than now the tide of scep
tical and agnostic criticism from Germany strikes us, denying the
truthfulness of all that has been held most true, — denying that even
inspiration secures truth, or that there is any proof or any need of
truthfulness in the Word of Christ or in the Word of God as given; —
claiming, in short, that historic verity is of very little account in relig
ion, and that Christianity can flourish and must be pushed (like other
religions) on grounds of pious tradition and natural evolution. The
sad eclipse of Faith foretokened by these wide-spread belittlings of
Scripture, we have tried to ward off by a few clear and sharp-cut
thrusts from the Sword of the Spirit, — such thrusts as seem lament
ably wanting, though Urgently called for by the times. And this fin
ishes our three-fold work in behalf of the inspired truthfulness of the
original Scriptures.
This last outbreak of Bible unbelief amply justifies, our whole un
dertaking from the first; and shows that the church must begin back
from the foundations, and demonstrate (as here attempted) the histo
rical truthfulness of the Bible. Does not God at last show his hand in

386

supplementary

the hitherto hidden plan of our life-work, as a needed investigation for
our times ? " The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice!"
(Private Remark. I regard as one of the tokens of divine Provi
dence, that, from severe sickness, God has raised me so far as to be
able to write this note, as a completion of the book. Thank God! for
the faithful wife, a daughter of Mt. Holyoke, whose gentle hand and
untiring devotion (in true Mary Lyon spirit) have kept me alive so
long, to finish the work.)
Smith B. Goodenow,
Battle Creek, Iowa, May 16th, 1893.
The End.

Another large work by the same author.

IMMORTALITY,

and the doom of sin.

Treated Rationally, Scripturally , Historically, and Psychologically.

Being an attempt to vindicate the Bible and the ways of God in
every human destiny, as seen in orthodox Scripture doctrine; by the
view that endless conscious being is only for intelligent accepters and
rejecters of Christ.

Part I.

Part II.

Part III.

Part IV.

Part V. *

Part VI.

Part VII.

Part VIII

Part IX.

Part X.

Part XI.

Part XII.

In Twelve Parts.
Everlasting Punishment Attended With Everlasting De
cay. (Chicago, 1873.)
The Pilgrim Faith Maintained. (Boston, 1884.)
The Crying Want of Our Times. (Set forth in sundry
essays.)
The Early Church on Retribution. (" Advance, ""1874.)
Psychology, or the Science of Spirit. (Compared with
the science of matter.)
Vital Theology. (More than moral theology.)
The Eden Destiny. (Not eternalizing.)
New Testament View of the Fall. (Exposition of Rom.
v: 12.)
The Way to Endless Being.
Is Christianity Universal ?
Is Gospel Judgment Universal ?
One Great Eternal Sin. 1

Also
Sundry Essays, Showing the Truthfulness of the Bible as the
Word of God.