proof yet standing to sustain idiocratical theories of ante-Columbian intercourse between the American continent and any other centres of human creation on our terraqueous planet. Until something very different in calibre be discovered by future explorers, the section of our General Table devoted to AMERICAN ORIGINS will survive, as the plain result of palæographic science in Anno Domini 1853. OUR brief inquiries into a subject which possesses such manifold ramifications may be conveniently heralded by an extract or two from the works of some learned contempo raries: "We must therefore acquiesce in the conclusion, that the Hebrew copies represent the original and authentic text of the book of Genesis. . . . On historical grounds, very formidable objections present themselves to the Hebrew Chronology. . . . The difficulties are still greater when the Mosaic chronology is applied as a measure to profane history. . . . It is not, however, in these difficulties alone that we find reason for doubting whether the genealogies of the book of Genesis, taken either according to the Hebrew or the Septuagint, furnish us with a real chronology and history. . . . No evidence, therefore, remains, by which we can fix the interval which elapsed between the origin of the human race and the commencement of the special history of each nation. . . . The consequence of the method which has been commonly adopted, of making the Jewish chronology the bed of Procrustes, to which every other must conform in length, has been, that credence has been refused to histories, such as that of Egypt, resting upon unquestionable documents; and we have voluntarily deprived ourselves of at least a thousand years, which had been redeemed for us from the darkness of ante-historical times." (317) "From this. discrepancy we may infer, securely as it seems to me, that the Biblical writers had no revelation on the subject of chronology, but computed the succession of times from such data as were accessible to them. The duration of time, unless in so far as the knowledge of it was requisite for understanding the Divine Dispensation, was not a matter on which supernatural light was afforded; nor was this more likely than that the facts connected with physical science should have been revealed. . . . The result of this part of our inquiry is, in the first place, that a much longer space of time must have elapsed than that allowed by modern chronologers between the age of Abraham and the Exode; (318) and, secondly, that generations have certainly been omitted in the early genealogies. . . . By some it will be objected to the conclusions at which I have arrived, that there exists, according to my hypothesis, no chronology, properly so termed, of the earliest ages, and that no means are to be found for ascertaining the real age of the world. This I am prepared to admit, and I observe that the ancient Hebrews seem to have been of the same opinion, since the Scriptural writers have always avoided the attempt to compute the period in question. They go back, as we have seen in the instance of St. Paul's computation, to the age of Abraham, at the same time using expressions plainly denoting that they make no pretension to accurate knowledge, and could only approximate to the true dates of events; but they have in no instance, as far as I remember, attempted to carry the computation of time further back, nor has any one writer alluded to the age of the world. . . . Beyond that event (the arrival of Abraham in Palestine) we can never know how many centuries nor even how many chiliads of years may have elapsed since the first man of clay received the image of God and the breath of life." (319) (317) Rev. JOHN KENRICK: Primæval History; London, 1846; pp. 56, 57, 58, 61, 62. (318) The contrary is now held by the highest Egyptologists: viz. there being but ISAAC, JACOB, LEVI, KOHATH, and AMRAM — five generations, or about 165 years— between ABRAHAM and MOSES, this interval must be curtailed. Vide LEPSIUS: Chronologie der Ægypter; and infra. (319) PRICHARD: Researches into the Physical History of Mankind; 1847; v., "Note on the Biblical Chron. ǝlogy," pp 557, 560, 569, 570. "The Roman researches of Niebuhr had proved to me the uncertainty of the chronological system of the Greeks, beyond the Olympiads; and that even Eusebius's chronicle, as preserved in the Armenian translation, furnishes merely isolated, although important, data for the Assyrian and Babylonian chronology beyond the era of Nabonassar. Again, as regards the Jewish computation of time, the study of Scripture had long convinced me, that there is in the Old Testament no connected chronology, prior to Solomon. All that now passes for a system of ancient chronology beyond that fixed point, is the melancholy legacy of the 17th and 18th centuries; a compound of intentional deceit and utter misconception of the principles of historical research." (320) With Germanic virility of diction, Bunsen further insists "This fact must be explained. To deny it, after investigation once incited and begun, would imply, on the part of such investigator, small knowledge and still smaller honesty." (321) "But (il s'en faut) much is wanting, we are convinced of it, that religious truth should be thus tied to questions of literature or of chronology. Christian faith no more reposes upon the chronology of Genesis, than upon its physics and its astronomy; and besides, to restrain ourselves to the subject that occupies us, the career of examination has been largely opened to us by men who certainly were far from holding Christian orthodoxy cheap." (322) Nor does our learned authority confine himself to mere assertion; because, within a year after the publication of the above passage, he illustrates the slight estimation in which he holds Genesiacal chronology in the following emphatic manner : "It must be known that I wish to make public a monument of which the interpretation, if this be admitted, will push back the bounds of historical certitude beyond everything that can have been imagined up to this day. . . . Because, one must not dissimulate, Manetho places king MENCHERES in the IVth dynasty; and the most moderate calculation, if one follows the ciphers of Manetho, makes the author of the third pyramid remount beyond the fortieth century before our era. A monument of six thousand years! And what a monument! . . . We obtain the sum of 63 years, which, joined to the 4073 years, result of the preceding calculations, would give, to the end of the reign of Mycerinus, the date of 4136 before J. C." (323) That is, our author means, the third Pyramid was built in Egypt just 153 years before the world's Creation, and exactly 1809 years before the Flood; according to the " Petavian" chronology of that Catholic Church in which M. Lenormant is a most devout communicant. We have thought it expedient to preface our chronological inquiries with the above four citations. Each of them will protect us, like an Egis raised on the stalwart arm of Jove or of Pallas. We have selected, out of the multitude before us, the highest representatives of distinct schools; who, nevertheless, perfectly agree in rejecting Scriptural chronology: 1st. The Rev. Dr. John Kenrick-author of many standard classical works, and of "Egypt under the Pharaohs," 1850,- one of the most brilliant Protestant scholars of England. 8d. Chev. Christian C. J. Bunsen- the successor of Niebuhr as Prussian Ambassador at the court of Rome, and of Wilhelm von Humboldt at that of St. James; the pupil of Schelling, and the friend of Lepsius. (324) 4th. Prof. Charles Lenormant - the companion and disciple of Champollion-le-Jeune ; alike famed for Hellenic erudition, and for severe Catholicity; who now fills the chair of Egyptology, vacated by Letronne's demise, at the Collège de France. (325) It will moreover be remarked that our quotations set up no claim, as yet, for the respect (320) BUNSEN: Egypt's Place in Universal History; London, 1848; i., Preface, pp. 1. 2. (321) Ibid.: Egyptens Stelle in der Weltgeschichte; Hamburg, 1845, i., Einleitung, pp. 6, 7—unaccountably omitted in Egypt's Place by the accomplished English translator. (322) LENORMANT: Cours d'Hist. Ancienne; Paris, 1838; p. 122. (323) LENORMANT: Éclaircissements sur le Cercueil du Roi Memphite Mycerinus; Paris, 1859; pp. 3, 6, 24. (324) Read Dr. ARNOLD'S eulogies of this illustrious gentleman. (325) GLIDDON: Otia Egyptiaca; 1849; pp.) 91, 92. ability of the chronological systems of other nations at the expense of Judaism. On the contrary, they bear with undivided force upon Hebrew computations, viewed for themselves alone. Not less truthfully does the language of a profound thinker-expression of a fifth, and far more liberal philosophy, — set forth the effeteness of Jewish chronology. Luke Burke's writings are unmistakeable: his "Critical Analysis of the Hebrew Chronology" (326) is one of the most masterly productions our literature can boast. Curtailment is injustice to its author: to the reader garbled extracts would be unsatisfactory; and the sincere investigator knows where to peruse the whole. We content our present requirements with one specimen : "Such, then, is the character and importance of the most brilliant and important of Primate Usher's improvements in chronology!' [as Dr. Hales terms the fabulous notion that Abraham was not the eldest son of Terah!] It consists, first, of an argument that turns out to be groundless, in every one of its elements; and, which, if well founded, would prove the Old Testament to be one of the most absurdly written books in existence; and secondly, of an assumption which, apart from this argument, is wholly gratuitous and improbable; and which also, if admitted, would bear equally hard against the character of the very writings for the support of which it was invented. And it is by such arguments as these that grave and learned divines seek to ascertain the realities of ancient history, and endeavor to place chronology upon a rational and sure foundation! And it is to such as these that men of science are required to bow, at the risk of being deemed sceptical, dangerous, profane, &c., &c. For it must not be supposed that the present is an isolated or exceptional instance of theological argument. On the contrary, it is a rule. Volumes upon volumes have been written in precisely the same spirit-volumes numerous enough, and ponderous enough, to fill vast libraries. Until a comparatively late era, all historical criticism, on which Scriptural evidences could in any manner be brought to bear, was carried on in this spirit. Nothing else was thought of; nothing approaching to genuine independence would have been tolerated. And thus the human world rolled round, century after century; the brave trampled upon by slaves; the wise compelled to be silent in the presence of fools; the learned alternately serfs and tyrants, deluded and deluding, cheating themselves, and cheating others with sophistries which, upon any other subject, would disgrace even the mimic contests of schoolboys! For ourselves, we should feel a humiliation to contend with such sophistries seriously, and in detail, were we not firmly convinced that to do so is not merely the most legitimate, but also the only mode by which truth can be rendered permanently triumphant. Wit and sarcasm may obtain a temporary success, they may awaken minds otherwise prepared for freedom, but they are often unjust, usually unbenevolent, and consequently, in the majority of cases, they merely awaken antagonism, and cause men to cling with increased fondness to their opinions. Nothing but minute, searching, inexorable argument will ever obtain a speedy, or a permanent triumph over deep-seated prejudices." (327) "But, fortunately," winds up another and a sixth formidable adversary to Hebrew computation no less an archéologue than the great Parisian architect, Lesueur-"fortunately, questions of ciphers have nothing in common with religion. What imports it to us, to us Christians, who date so to say from yesterday, that man should have been thrown upon our globe at an epoch more or less remote; that the world should have been created in six days, or that its birth should have consumed myriads of centuries? Can God, through it, become less grand, his work less admirable? We are, since the last eighteen hundred years, dupes of the besotted vanity of the Jews. It is time that this mystification should cease." (328) Italian scholarship speaks for itself:-(329) "The Bible is, certainly, as the most to be venerated, so the most authoritative fount of history; but, in so many varieties of chronological systems, which are all palmed off by their authors as based upon indications of time taken from the Bible; in the very notable difference of these indications between the Hebrew and the Samaritan text, and the Greek version, and between the books of the Old and of the New Testament; finally, in the indecision, in which the CHURCH has always left such controversy, that, I do not see any certain standard, by which the duration of the Egyptian nation has to be levelled, unless this (326) London Ethnological Journal; June, July, November, December, 1848. (327) Op. cit.; pp. 274, 275. (328) Chronologie des Rois d'Égypte―ouvrage couronné par l'Académic: Paris, 1848; pp. 304, 305. (329) BARUCCHI, Director of the Museum of Turin; Discorsi Critici sopra la Cronologia Egizia; Torino, 1844; pp. 29, 43, 44, 147. become determined through an accurate examination of all its historic fountains.... Leaving therefore aside anysoever system of biblical chronology; because, of the quantity hitherto brought into the field by the erudite none are certain, nor exempt from difficulties the most grave; and, because the CHURCH, to whose supreme magistracy belongs the decision of controversies appertaining to dogma and to morals, has never intermeddled in pronouncing sentence upon any one of the systems aforesaid, of which but one can be true, while all peradventure may be erroneous. ... I shall finish by repeating in this place that which already I declared elsewhere, viz.: it is not my intention to combat any systems regarding biblical chronology; but inasmuch as, of these, not one is propounded as true under the CHURCH's infallible authority; I have placed all these (systems) aside in the present examining, in order to treat Egyptian chronology through the sole data of history and of Egyptian monuments." Finally, we quote Lepsius:— (330) "The Jewish chronology differs in a most remarkable manner from every other; and even in times as modern as those of the Persian kings the difference amounts to no less than 160 years, from known dates. Its several sources present but little difference among themselves. They count according to years of the world; a calculation which, as also IDELER (Hand. d. Chron. I. pp. 569, 578, 580), considers most probable, was invented, together with the whole present chronology of the Jews, by the Rabbi HILLEL HANASSI, in the year 344 after Christ and thenceforward gradually adopted. They fix the creation of the world 3671 B. C.; and all agree, even Josephus, in the usual calculation of the Hebrew text. They fix the deluge at 1656, the birth of Abraham at 1948, Isaac's 2048, Jacob's 2108, Joseph's 2199, Jacob's arrival in Egypt 2238, Joseph's death 2309, years after Adam." . . . “ The question is now, how must we explain this obvious dislocation of facts as compared with the true dates. IDELER has demonstrated that the introduction of the era of the world, and consequently of the whole system of chronology, must be ascribed to the author of the Moleds, (or New Moons,') and in general of the whole later Jewish calendar, the Rabbi HILLEL who flourished in the first half of the IVth century." Reserving further extracts until we take up the Hebrew chronology, it here suffices to notice that MOSES, who lived about the fourteenth century B. C., is not amenable for numerical additions made, to books that go by his venerable name, about 1800 years after his death, by a modern Rabbi. The unanimity of science in the rejection of any system of biblical computation might be exemplified by many hundred citations: either, of savans who, establishing grander systems more in accordance with the present state of knowledge, pass over the rabbinical ciphers in contemptuous silence; or, of divines who, like the Rev. Dr. Hitchcock (President of Amherst College, and Professor of Natural Theology and Geology) strive, vainly we opine, to reconcile the crude cosmology of the infantine Hebrew mind with the terrestrial discoveries of matured intellects like Cuvier, De la Beche, Murchison, Owen, Lyell, or Agassiz. Nevertheless, Calvinism in the pages of Hitchcock begins to affect a more amiable disguise than was worn by the magnanimous slayer of SERVETUS, or by the iconoclastic John Knox; to judge by the following admissions : ... "If these positions be correct, it follows that, as we ought not to expect the doctrines of religion in treatises on science, so it is unreasonable to look for the principles of philosophy in the Bible. But a still larger number of [clerical] authors, although men of talents, and familiar, it may be, with the Bible and theology, have no accurate knowledge of geology. The results have been, first, that, by resorting to denunciation and charges of infidelity, to answer arguments from geology, which they did not understand, they have excited unreasonable prejudices and alarm among common Christians respecting that science and its cultivators; secondly, they have awakened disgust, and even contempt, among scientific men, especially those of sceptical tendencies [!], who have inferred that a cause which resorts to such defences must be very weak. They have felt very much as a good Greek scholar would, who should read a severe critique upon the style of Isocrates, or Demosthenes, and, before he had finished the review, should discover internal evidence that the writer had never learned the Greek alphabet." (331) How true the latter part of this paragraph is, the reader has convinced himself by the perusal of our Essay I. [supra]; where the Hebraical knowledge of Calvinistic divines in Ame (330) Chronologie der Egypter: "Kritik der Quellen," i. pp. 259, 360, 361, 362 (331) The Religion of Geology; Boston, 1852; p. 3, and Preface, p. 7. rica has been compared with that of coetaneous Lutherans and Catholics in Europe. Contentions between scramblers for the loaves and fishes may, however, be left to the diverted contemplation of the gatherers of St. Peter's pence. None of them have real bearing upon the science of mundane chronology, to which our present investigations are confined. Until very recent times, it was customary, among chronologers, to follow the Judaic and post-Christian system in assigning eras to events; viz.: by assuming that a given occurrence had taken place in such a year (Anno Mundi) of the Creation of the world. This arrangement would have been absolutely exact, if the precise moment of Creation, according to the "book of Genesis," had been previously settled, or even conventionally agreed upon: but, unhappily, no two men ever patiently reckoned up its numerals and exhibited the same sum total; as will be made apparent anon, in its place. Besides, this arrangement was found by experience to be theologically unsafe; because, on the one hand, the Christian Fathers, by assuming the Septuagint computation, demonstrated that Jesus, appearing exactly in Josephus's 5555th year of the world, could be no other than the Xpio70s, "the anointed;" (332) whilst, on the other hand, the Jewish Doctors, proving through computation of the Hebrew Text that the birth of Jesus had occurred in the year of the world 3751, demonstrated that he could not possibly be their MeShaia H. (333) "There was an old tradition," says the profound Kennicott, (334) "alike common among Judæans and Christians, sprung from the mystic interpretation of Creation in six days, that the duration of the world should be 6000 years: that the Messianic advent should be in the sixth millennium; because he would come in the latter days. The ancient Jews, therefore, their chronology having been previously contracted, made use of an argument sufficiently specious, through which they did not recognize Jesus: for the Messiah was to come in the sixth millennium; but Jesus was born (according to the computation of time by them received) in the latter part of the fourth millennium, about the year of the world 3760 (Seder Olam, edit. Meyer; pp. 95 and 111). The very celebrated [Muslim-Arab] Abul-Pharagius, who lived in the XIIIth century, in his history of Dynasties, thus proffers a sentence worthy of remembrance; by Pococke so rendered into Latin:-'A defective computation is ascribed by Doctors of the Jews-For, as it is pronounced, in the Law and the Prophets, about the Messiah, he was to be sent at the ultimate times: nor otherwise is the commentary of the more antique Rabbis, who reject Christ; as if the ages of men, by which the epoch of the world is made out, could change. They subtracted from the life of Adam, at the birth of Seth, one hundred years, and added them to the rest of the latter's life; and they did the same to the lives of the rest of the children of Adam, down to Abraham. And thus it was done, as their computation indicates, in order that Christ should be manifested in the fifth [fourth, K.] millennary through accident in the middle of the years of the world; which in all, according to them, will be 7000: and they said, We are now in the middle of this time, and yet the time designated for the advent of the Messiah has not arrived.' The computation of the LXX also indicates, that Christ should be manifested in the sixth millennary, and that this would be his time. . . . The old Italic version, which, according to St. Augustine, was 'verborum tenacior cum perspicuitate sententiæ,' is the foundation of the chronologia major of the Latin Church, to this day (1780); for, 'in the Roman Martyrology, which is publicly chanted in church, on the 8th Jan., the Nativity of the Lord is thus announced to the people from the ecclesiastical table: Year from the creation 5099 (5199 in Martyrol. Rom. Antwerp. 1678, p. 388): and from the deluge year 2957 (HoD., p. 447)." A quotation from a Christian work next to canonical will establish the belief of those early communities who lived nearest to the apostles: the 5500 years, be it noted, had been, by Nicodemus, "found in the first of the seventy books, where Michael the archangel" had mentioned them to "Adam, the first man." "13 By these five cubits and a half for the building of the Ark of the Old Testament, we perceived and knew that in five thousand years and half (one thousand) years, Jesus Christ was to come in the ark or tabernacle of the body; 14 And so our Scriptures testify that he is the Son of God, and the Lord and King of Israel. 15 And because after his suffering, our chief priests were surprised at the signs which were wrought by his means, we opened that book to search all the generations down to the generation of Joseph and Mary the mother of Jesus, supposing him to be the seed of David; (332) HENNELL: Christian Theism; 1845; pp. 82, 83. (333) Seder Olam Rabba, composed about A. D. 130; apud HALES. |