date when the controversy arose respecting the Christian Messiah. (d.) It was in use and fully accredited before the Christian era. (e.) It was used and its authority fully admitted by the fathers of the Christian church. -This fact and the next preceding render it at least probable that the Hebrew text at that time was in harmony with the Septuagint. (f.) The Chaldean and Egyptian annals seem to demand more time back to the flood or to the creation than the present Hebrew text admits, and therefore lend their influence (to be taken for what it is worth) in favor of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew because of its longer periods. (g.) In table A it will be readily seen, comparing the figures of the first column in the Hebrew with the corresponding figures in the Septuagint, that the latter are very uniform while in the Hebrew there is a wide diversity between the highest and the lowest, four standing considerably below 100 and two above 180. The probability seems to be somewhat against so wide diversity. In table B the Hebrew figures in the first column are sufficiently near each other. Out of seven in succession the extremes are 29 and 35. We have an equal uniformity in the first column of the Septuagint and of the Samaritan, six of these figures being the same as in the Hebrew with only the addition of 100. The Hebrew figures seem low relatively to the total years; and on the other hand the Septuagint figures seem too high. Especially is this objection formidable when we remember Abram's surprise that God should promise him a son when 100 years old (Gen. 17: 17). "Shall a child be born to him that is 100 years old?”—as if it were a thing unknown in then recent history. But if all Abram's ancestors back to the flood begat their respective sons in this line at ages ranging from 135 to 130 (or all but Terah) it is somewhat difficult to account for his surprise. The best we could say would be that the average human life was fast lessening. I regard this as the most serious objection of internal character against the integrity of the Septuagint text. On the whole the chronological questions at issue between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, turning upon the authority of their respective texts, are very much complicated and not a little doubtful. I have laid before the reader what I regard as the main arguments, and rest the case here, hopeful that greater light may yet arise, leaning, however, toward accepting the authority of the Septuagint. Reviewing the points made in this examination of Hebrew chronology, it will be seen that we extend the time beyond Usher's system, (a.) In the period of the Judges at least 111 years; (b.) In the sojourn in Egypt 215 years; and (omitting the interval between Terah and Abram as uncertain), (c.) In the interval from the flood to the call of Abram (if the Septuagint be followed) at least 650 years, and perhaps 750; and (d.) In the period from the creation to the flood, 606 years-a total of 1582 or 1682 years. -Or, to put the case in another form, we put the Exodus in the year (B. C.) 1603; Jacob's going into Egypt, B. C. 2033; the call of Abram, B. C. 2248; and by the Septuagint the flood, 3265 or 3365; and finally, by the Septuagint, the creation, B. C. 5527 or 5627. This approximates toward harmony with the reported results of the Indian chronology which locates. the creation B. C. 6174; also the Baylonian, B. C. 6158, and the Chinese, B. C. 6157-the excess of the latter above the longest sacred chronology being only 530 years. The approach toward harmony in these three not sacred chronologies-the Indian, the Baylonian and the Chinese-the extreme difference being only 17 years-is certainly a remarkable fact. CHAPTER IV. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN RESUMED. As to the antiquity of Egyptian art, civilization and political power, there are two main questions: 1. How much time, after Noah, is required? 2. How much can be allowed in harmony with the most reliable authorities of Hebrew chronology? 1. Under the head of time required, it is in place to note the circumstances which favored the very rapid growth of Egyptian civilization and also of the numerical and political power of Egypt. (a.) Mizraim, the father of Egypt, who gave his name to the kingdom, was a grandson of Noah and the father of seven sons (Gen. 10: 1, 6, 13, 14). Consequently he started early and strong. (b.) The fertility of the Nile valley was prodigious; it was capable, therefore, of sustaining an immense population, and so would attract other people besides the lineal descendants of Mizraim. Every thing was propitious for the early and rapid peopling of their country. (c.) Fixed residence, coupled with cheap bread and abundance of it, put the Egyptian on vantage-ground above any other ancient nation for the early culture of art and for rapid growth in all that made Egypt great. (d.) It is a capital mistake to assume that the arts and sciences were originated in Egypt after the flood, and that therefore a very long time must be allowed for their growth and development up from utter barbarism. For there was surely no insignificant amount of art and science among the builders of Noah's ark. The yet earlier history of the race names "the father of all such as handle the harp and organ," and also "an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron" (Gen. 4: 21, 22). (e.) It is a significant fact that the Chaldean tradition of the deluge as preserved by Berosus sets forth the special care taken by Noah to preserve and transmit to the new-born nations after the flood the arts and sciences which had been developed before that catastrophe. They say he was admonished to put in writing an account of these arts and sciences and deposit it in a place of safety until the flood should be past. This tradition reveals the fact of a current belief that there was such knowledge to be preserved, and that means were used to preserve it. 2. Under the head of time required it remains to give a synopsis of the latest and most reliable results of Egyptologists in regard to the Egyptian date of Menes, their first king, and of the building of the three great pyramids-these being the most important epochs of the earliest Egyptian antiquity. The standard historic authority (not, however, above suspicion) is Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Heliopolis, of the age of Ptolemy Philadelphus (reigned B. C. 284– 246), who is supposed to have made up from the ancient records of his nation a list of thirty or thirty-one dynasties of Egyptian kings, beginning with Menes and ending with the conquests of Alexander the Great, giving the years of each king's reign. Unfortunately it comes down in a somewhat fragmentary condition, as copied by Julius Africanus (died A. D. 232), who was himself in part copied by Eusebius (of the fourth century) and by Syncellus (flourished A. D. 780). Until recently it has been the current opinion of the best authorities (still held by many) that these dynasties were at some points contemporary and not successivesome of them reigning in Upper Egypt, others in Middle or Lower Egypt, at the same time. This would raise the problems-How many and which were contemporary? How much is the entire period actually shortened by this contemporaneousness?Moreover it has been supposed also that on the same throne there has been at some points a joint occupancy of two or more kingsfather and son perhaps, or of some rival claimants; so that the entire duration of a given dynasty may be less than the sum of the reigns of its enumerated kings.* *It is a telling fact that according to Julius Africanus, Manetho's numbers for the entire reigns of all the kings foot up 5404 years, while the aggregate duration of all the dynasties (within the same chronological termini) is 3555 years-i. e. the sum of all the dynasties is less by 1849 years than the sum of all the kings' reigns The problem of whole duration being complicated by these elements of uncertainty, it has been the great aim of recent investigation to gather in all possible aid from the monuments and bring their testimony to bear upon the tables of Manetho. The results are variously estimated and the problem can not be regarded as yet fully settled. I place together the opinions of some of the best authorities: I. For the date of Menes, reputed the first king. Bunsen's latest revised recension of Egyptian Chronology locates him*.... B. C. .3059 ..3000 J. P. Thompson at least as far back as. ities, in no respect inferior to Manetho........2793 Other estimates from less reliable authorities carry him back yet further. For convenience of comparison we place here our corrected Bible Chronology for the call of Abraham-viz. B. C. 2248; and for the flood, by the longest Septuagint text, B. C. 3425, and by the shortest, B. C. 3325. These dates afford ample time for Mizraim, grandson of Noah, to make a home and found a community in Egypt, in which Menes might presently reach the dignity of being the first king. II. The date of the Pyramids. B. C. ..2600 Bunsen in his latest recension, about..... These dates may be compared with the call of Abra which make up those dynasties. See Burgess on the Antiquity of Man, pp. 70, 73. * Bunsen is cited not as the best authority, but as one of the most strenuous for an exceedingly, not to say excessively, long duration. |