Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 27 - CHI-ELD.pdf/100

 74

CHRONOLOGY, BIBLICAL employ a fixed chronological standard; and the numerous it need hardly be remarked, belong to the prehistoric contract-tablets, and lists of kings and yearly officials, period, and equally with the figures are destitute of discovered within recent years, afford striking evidence historical value. of the precision with which they noted chronological (2) From the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Gen. xi.). details. Biblical chronology is, unfortunately, in many Age of each at birth of next. respects uncertain. Prior to the establishment of the monarchy the conditions for securing an exact and conLXX. Sam. Heb. secutive chronology did not exist; the dates in the earlier s 2 135 135 35 Arphaxad (438). period of the history, though apparently in many cases 130 Cainan (460) [cf. Luke iii. 27] precise, being in fact added long after the events described, 130 130 30 Shelah (433) and often (as will appear below) resting upon an artificial 134 134 34 Eber(464). 130 130 30 basis, so that the precision is in reality illusory. And Peleg (239). 132 132 32 Reu (239) after the establishment of the monarchy, though the con130 130 30 Serug (230). ditions for an accurate chronology now existed, errors 79 79 29 Nahor (148). by some means or other found their way into the 70 70 70 Terah (205). figures; so that the dates, as we now have them, are in Abraham (175); age at Call 75 75 75 (Gen. xii. 4). . . many cases at fault by as much as two to three decades of years. The exact dates of events in Hebrew history 1145 1015 365 Total from the Flood to the can be determined only when the figures given in the Call of Abraham Old Testament can be checked and, if necessary, corrected by the contemporary monuments of Assyria and BabyThe variations, are analogous to those under (1), except lonia, or (as in the post-Exilic period) by the knowledge that here the birth-years of the patriarchs in both Sam. which we independently possess of the chronology of the and LXX. differ more consistently in one direction, being, Persian kings. In the following parts of this article viz., almost uniformly higher by 100 years. It has been the chronological character of each successive period much debated, in both cases, which of the three texts of the Old Testament history will be considered _ and preserves the original figures. In (2) it is generally agreed explained as far as the limits of space at the writer’s that the Heb. does this, the figures in Sam. and LXX. disposal permit. having been arbitrarily increased for the purpose of I. From the Creation of Man to the Exodus.—In the lengthening the entire period. The majority of scholars whole of this period the chronology, in so far as it consists hold the same view in regard also to (1); but Dillmann of definite figures, depends upon that part of the Penta- gives here the preference to the figures of the Sam. The teuchal narrative which is called by critics the “ Priestly figures, of course, in no case possess historical value: Code” (see Pentateuch in Ency. Brit, ninth edition, accepting even Ussher’s date of the Exodus, 1491 B.c., vol. xviii.). The figures are in most, if not in all cases which (see below) is earlier than is probable, we should artificial, though the means now fail us of determining obtain from them for the creation of man 4157 B.c., or upon what principles they were calculated. It is also to (LXX.) 5328,4 and for the confusion of tongues, which, be noted that in the Samaritan text of the Pentateuch, according to Gen. xi. 1-9, immediately followed the Flood, and in the LXX., the figures, especially in the period from 2501 b.c., or (LXX.) 3066 b.c. But the monuments of the Creation to the birth of Abraham, differ considerably Egypt and Babylonia make it certain that man must have from those given in the Hebrew, yielding in Sam. a lower, appeared upon the earth long before either 415/ B.c. or but in the LXX. a much higher total. The following 5328 B.c.; and numerous inscriptions, written in three distables will make the details clear :— tinct languages—Egyptian, Sumerian, and Babylonian— are preserved, dating from an age considerably earlier than (1) From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Gen. v., either 2501 B.c. or 3066 b.c.5 The figures of Gen. v. and and vii. 11). xi. thus merely indicate the manner in which the author Age of each at birth of next. of the priestly narrative—and probably to some extent LXX. Sam. Heb. tradition before him—pictured the course of these early ages of the world’s history. The ages assigned to the 230 130 130 Adam (930). several patriarchs (except Enoch) in Gen. v. are much 205 105 105 Seth (912). greater than those assigned to the patriarchs mentioned 190 90 90 Enosh (905). 170 70 70 Kenan (910). in Gen. xi., and similarly the ages in Gen. xi. 10-18 are 165 65 65 Mahalalel (895) higher than those in Gen. xi. 19-26 ; it is thus a collateral 162 62 162 Jared (962). aim of the author to exemplify the supposed gradual 1651 65 65 Enoch (365). diminution in the normal years of human life. 187 67 187 Methuselah (969) 188 53 182 Lamech (777) The Babylonians, according to Berossns, supposed that there 600 600 600 Noah (950); age at Flood were ten antediluvian kings, who they declared had reigned for the portentous period of 432,000 years : 432,000 years, however, 2262 1307 Total from the Creation of 1656 it has been ingeniously pointed out by Oppert (Gott. Gel. NachMan to the Flood richten, 1877, p. 205 /l) = 86,400 lustra, while 1656 years (the Heb. date of the Flood) = 86,400 weeks (1656 = 72x23; and 23 The figures in parentheses indicate the entire ages years being = 8395 days+ 5 intercalary days = 8400 days = 1200 assigned to the several patriarchs; these are generally the weeks); and hence the inference has been drawn that the two same in the three texts. The Sam., however, it will be periods have in some way been developed from a common basis, Hebrews taking as their unit a week, where the Babylonians noticed, makes in three cases the father’s age at the birth the took a lustrum of 5 years. of his eldest son less than it is in the Heb. text, while 2 the LXX. makes it in several cases as much as 100 years Shem, the father of Arphaxad, is aged 100 at the time of the higher, the general result of these differences being that Flood, and lives for 600 years. 3 the total in the Sam. is 349 years less than in the Heb., Disregarding the “two years” of Gen. xi. 10 : see v. 32, vii. 11. 4 while in the LXX. it is 606 years more. The names, 5 Taking account of the reading of LXX. in Ex. xii. 40 (p. 75). See further the present writer’s essay in Hogarth’s Authority and 1 Archceology (1899), pp. 32-34. Or, according to some MSS., 167.