Chapter IV: Errors of the Ancient Chronographers

1. Authority of the Scripture texts superior to that of the ancient
chronographers—The testimony of the latter chiefly in
favour of the Septuagint—The testimonies of Josephus,
Theophilus, Africanus, Eusebius, and the author of the Paschal
Chronicle selected for examination—Table I. Containing their
statements relating to the _First age_ of the world—Errors of
Josephus—Corruption of his text—Mr. Cunninghame’s detection of
his blunders in regard to the first age—His discovery of the
truth from the titulary statements of the first and second books
of Josephus—His explanation of the Jewish fraud to which this
author appears to have been accessory—Error of Theophilus, and
accuracy of Africanus in this age—Similar error of Eusebius and
Syncellus, and accuracy of Epiphanius and the author of the
Paschal Chronicle.

Although the chronology of the Septuagint receives the strongest confirmation from the writings of the ancient chronographers, it must not be concealed that some of them have committed very strange and unaccountable errors in the computation of the different ages of the world; while, the works of others have come down to us in such an imperfect and corrupted state, that implicit dependance cannot be placed in the chronographical statements which they now contain. The latter remark is peculiarly applicable to the writings of Josephus, whose authority, notwithstanding all his errors, has been followed by many modern chronologers in preference even to that of the sacred Scriptures. Surely the question of chronology lies between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version, and not between either of these and the works of the chronographers whether ancient or modern. By a fair examination, however, of their Sacred Chronology, we shall find that the testimony of the oldest and best chronographers is almost entirely in favour of the chronology of the Septuagint, and that wherever they differ from it in their works, they commit errors which in general, can easily be detected and accounted for, unless the passages in question have been so entirely vitiated by the wilful mistakes of transcribers as to render it impossible to determine what were the real and actual statements of the author. We shall select for this purpose, the names of five authors who possess the greatest influence among the learned on the subject of chronography, and whose statements are more or less followed by all later writers on the same subject: namely, Josephus A.D. 90, Theophilus A.D. 180, Africanus A.D. 220, Eusebius A.D. 315, and the author of the Paschal Chronicle.[70]

The names of these chronographers have been particularly selected indeed, and their statements tabulated by Mr. Clinton himself, as the best authorities, at least so far as regards the first two ages of the world. We do not follow him, however, in placing their statements on a level with those of the ancient texts and versions of Scripture; but we class them together as possessing the next claim to our attention. The following table, which for the sake of comparison, is marked by the same _number_ as the corresponding table in our _first Part_, contains the _Antepaidogonian ages_ of the _Antediluvian Patriarchs_, and the _Extent_ of the _First age_ of the world according to each chronographer:

TABLE I.
ANTEDILUVIAN JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH.
PATRIARCHS. CHRON.
A.P. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. A.P.
ages. ages. ages.
From Creation
Adam 230 230 230 230 230
Seth 205 205 205 205 205
Enos 190 190 190 190 190
Cainan 170 170 170 170 170
Mahalaleel 165 165 165 165 165
Jared 162 162 162 162 162
Enoch 165 165 165 165 165
Methuselah 187 *167 187 *167 187
Lamech *182 188 188 188 188
Noah 500 500 500 500 500
To the Flood 100 100 100 100 100
———— ———— ———— ———— ————
FIRST AGE 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262

Besides their respective statements above tabulated, these chronographers generally give in their works some additional statements which, with some exceptions, serve to rectify their errors, and to corroborate and confirm the true chronology. Josephus, however, in the present text, is made to say that the period from Adam to the flood is 2656 years; whereas the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives only 2256 years! On this point, some advocates of the Hebrew chronology argue that the original number was 1656 years, and that δισχιλιών has been put for χιλιών, or _two thousand_ for a _thousand_; but this is mere assertion; for it is just as easy to say that the original number was 2256 years, and that ἑξακοσιών has been put for διακοσιών, or _six hundred_ for _two hundred_. Now the proof that the latter assertion is the true one, is that the number 2256 agrees entirely with the summation of the numbers given in detail; whereas the number 1656 does not agree, and must consequently be erroneous. Moreover, there are some MS. copies of Josephus in which we find the true reading ἐτων δισχιλιών διακοσιών πευτήκοσταἑξ, or _two thousand two hundred and fifty six years_; and this reading is also to be found in some ancient authors who have followed Josephus in chronology, such as, Eutychius Alexandrinus, Josephus Christianus, Anianus Asceta, &c.[71] A few various readings relating to the _Antepaidogonian ages_ are also to be found in the different MSS. to which we have referred, but they are of minor importance and not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the tabular numbers. The same may be said of his statements regarding the _Postpaidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_; but as the chronology does not depend on these statements, it is unnecessary to make them the subject of discussion.

It is a very remarkable thing that Josephus differs here from the Septuagint only in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, and that in this point he agrees with the Hebrew text. Nor are we aware of the existence of any various reading which would lead us to suppose that it had been otherwise in the text of Josephus. This circumstance alone, though there be many others, would almost lead us to conclude, with Mr. Cuninghame, Preface to his “Synopsis,” p. vii., “that the corruption of the Chronology must have taken place at an earlier period” than is commonly supposed by the learned. He believes “it to have been in the interval between our Lord’s death and the beginning of the Jewish war. This allows more than 30 years for the purpose, which is quite sufficient.” He also conceives “that it must have been well known to Josephus, and the _end for which it was done_;” and he adds, “It was, however, yet of too recent an origin for him to venture upon the bold experiment of openly substituting it [the corrupted chronology] for the universal chronology of his own, as well as other nations, and the Christian church, and therefore he has introduced both schemes, namely, the _short and the long_ [_computation_], in such a manner as to perplex and utterly confuse the whole subject, and to draw from some of our most learned men, the acknowledgment that his chronology is involved in hopeless obscurity.” The following explanation of the discrepancy between Josephus and the Septuagint in regard to the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech will be to the general reader more satisfactory than that to which we referred in our _first Part_, p. 23. “Josephus, who in all the other Antediluvian generations follows the Greek, does in this of Lamech follow the Hebrew, and the effect of it is, that his Diluvian period from Creation is 2256, while that of the best copies of the Seventy, and of Demetrius, is 2262 years. This difference of 6 years, therefore, goes through his whole Chronology. At the beginning of the 1st book of his Antiquities [_that is in the Title to the Book_] he tells us, that it contains a period of 3833 years, to which, adding the 6 years above mentioned to make it accord with the Greek chronology of Demetrius, the sum is 3839 years. If the reader will next turn to the Table in the Fulness of the Times, p. 34, he will see that this period of 3839 years, measures exactly the interval, from Creation, to the end of the year B.C. 1640, when the children of Israel left Egypt. Now as it is in the nature of things impossible that this most remarkable coincidence should have been unknown to Josephus, the necessary and the legitimate conclusion is, that the above period of 3833 years is his authentic chronology from Creation to the Exodus. It divides itself as follows:

Years.
1st. To the Deluge 2256
2nd. To the Birth of Abraham 1072
3rd. To the Exodus 505
————
Total from Creation to the Exodus 3833

It, moreover, necessarily includes the disputed generation of Cainan, proving that it was in his text originally; and it excludes Usher’s addition of 60 years to that of Terah. But the narrative of the 1st book of the Antiquities comes no lower than the _death of Isaac_, which was 226 years before the Exodus, and the 2nd book contains the history from the death of Isaac to the Exodus. Yet Josephus, after having at the beginning of his 1st book already given the period which measures the narrative of _both books_, does nevertheless at the commencement [that is, in the Title] of his 2nd Book, tell us that it contains a period of 220 years in _addition_ to the former, and to this extent his chronology of the whole period from the Creation to the Exodus is _forged_.” For the rest of his remarks on the delinquencies of Josephus, and the detection of his errors, we must refer our readers to the Preface to