Page:A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis (1910).djvu/237



These differences are certainly not accidental. They are due to carefully constructed artificial systems of chronology; and the business of criticism is first to ascertain the principles on which the various schemes are based, and then to determine which of them represents the original chronology of the Priestly Code. That problem has never been satisfactorily solved; and all that can be done here is to indicate the more important lines of investigation along which the solution has been sought.

1. Commencing with the MT, we may notice (a) the remarkable relation discovered by Oppert between the figures of the biblical account and those of the list of Berossus (see the next note). The Chaldean chronology reckons from the Creation to the Flood 432,000 years, the MT 1656 years. These are in the ratio (as nearly as possible) of 5 solar years (of 365-1/4 days) to 1 week. We might, therefore, suppose the Heb. chronologist to have started from the Babylonian system, and to have reduced it by treating each lustrum (5 years) as the equivalent of a Heb. week. Whether this result be more than a very striking coincidence it is perhaps impossible to say. (b) A widely accepted hypothesis is that of von Gutschmid, who pointed out that, according to the Massoretic chronology, the period from the Creation to the Exodus is 2666 years: i.e. 26-2/3 generations of 100 years, or 2/3 of a world-cycle of 4000 years. The subdivisions of the period also show signs of calculation: the duration of the Egyptian sojourn was probably traditional; half as long (215 years) is assigned to the sojourn of the patriarchs in Canaan: from the Flood to the birth of Abraham, and from the latter event to the descent into Egypt are two equal periods of 290 years each, leaving 1656 years from the Creation to the Flood. (c) A more intricate theory has been propounded by Bousset (ZATW, xx. 136-147). Working on lines marked out by Kuenen (Abhandlungen, tr. by Budde, 108 ff.), he shows, from a comparison of 4 Esd. 9$6$ 10$5$, Jos. Ant. viii. 61 f., x. 147 f., and ''Ass. Mosis'', 1$26$ 10$9. 28$, that a chronological computation current in Jewish circles placed the establishment of the Temple ritual in 3001, the Exodus in 2501, the migration of Abraham in 2071; and divided this last interval into an Ante-diluvian and Post-diluvian period in the ratio of 4:1 (1656:414 years). Further, that this system differed from MT only in the following particulars: For the birth year of Terah (Gn. 11$40$) it substituted (with G and [E]) 79 for 29; with the same authorities it assumed 215 (instead of 430) years as the duration of the Egyptian sojourn (Ex. 12$38ff.$); and, finally, it dated the dedication of the Temple 20 years after its foundation (as 1 Ki. 6$45f.$ G). For the details of the scheme, see the art. cited above.