Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

Scriptures, to one regular and certain series of chronology? The proof that they have not is their perpetual disagreement. -The ages of the patriarchs, if the Hebrew copies be genuine, fix the deluge at A. M. 1656: but, from that period, he must be a conjurer indeed who shall be able to reconcile the biblical dates, and furnish a connected chronological chain to the æra of Jesus Christ. The chronology of the Judges and Kings is attended with insuperable difficulties; and almost every new writer frames to himself a new system, in order to solve them. Mr. W. has laboured in the same field, with as little success, we think, as some of his predecessors; and the chronological knowlege which he has added to the common stock is neither great nor precious.

That our readers may form some judgment of this work, we give the second chapter entire; with a very few remarks on some particular parts of it:

First Age of the World.

Chronology of the Pentateuch.

[blocks in formation]

A.M. J.P. B.C.

I

O 709

Deluge cnds 1656 2365 2349 710 4004*

-Events and Dates.

[blocks in formation]

1657 2362 2351

A scheme of the primeval week, according to both computations,

is thus exhibited:

ANNALS. October.

Days of the week 1 23 B.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

2 24 m.

2 23 t.

in

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

6 28 f.

God blessed and

[blocks in formation]

6 27 S
7 28 G.

By this scheme it is evident, that the very respectable author, conformably to the general opinion of the age in which he wrote, supposed that Saturday was the viith day of the primeval, and of all the subsequent weeks from the creation; and that the change from the seventh to the first day of the week, first took place from the day on which Christ rose from the dead. Misled by this problematical hypothesis, the very learned Metropolitan chose for the source of his calculations the number of the Julian period 710, which was not the

* The Primate's confusion of terms is here exemplified. A. M. 1 is placed in coincidence with the 4004th before the Christian era. He means the vulgar computation; whereas A. M. 4004 is in truth the historical year of Christ's birth, and the 4th before, (but not including,) the common term A. D. 1. which last is coincident with the number of the Julian Period 4714.'

T

first, but the fifth from the origin of things. By the scheme of the Annals Saturday, the 29th October, was the day, which the Creator blessed and consecrated, in its periodical returns, for rest and devotion. But in the proposed Arrangements, which, agreeably to the sacred chronology, assign to the creation an earlier date by four years, Sunday, the 28th October, was the seventh of the primeval week, and its repetitions were observed by the patriarchs, from Adam to Moses, as the weekly Sabbath. At the Exodus the day of holy rest was transferred from the seventh of the patriarchal, to the first of the Mosaical, week; and at the resurrection of Christ the first of the Jewish and Christian week, was, and still continues, astronomically coincident, in the rotation of weeks, with the primeval Sabbath.

The proofs which establish this conclusion cannot be specified, much less set forth at large, in this brief Analysis. Suffice it to observe, 1. That in the year before, (but not including,) the first of the Christian era, 4008, the autumnal equinox fell within the limits of the 25th October. 2. That the two great luminaries were set in the firmament of heaven on the fourth day of the creation week. According to the ARRANGEMENTS, the moon was full, and the sun in Libra, on Thursday the 25th October in that week. But in the ANNALS the 25th October was Tuesday, the third of the week *. 3. If the calculation be framed on the principle of astronomical, (not Julian years,) and consequently on the hypothesis of stationary equinoxes; if likewise this calculation be continued progressively to A. D. 1792-the 28th October fell on a Sunday, the seventh of the patriarchal, but the first both of the Jewish and the Christian week †. Thus is the uniform rotation of weeks ascertained during the lapse of 58 centuries, now past. Should it be the will of the Almighty to continue the planetary revolutions 58 centuries more, Sunday will again fall on the 28th October, in the year of the world 11,600. With the fundamental principle of the ANNALS, this uniform, and invariable, series of weeks is incompatible.

The Mosaical chronology is constructed on the genealogy of the patriarchs; the age of each father at the birth of each specified son, respectively, being exactly defined, the sum of the intervals between the several descents, independently on the duration of particular lives, constitutes the measure of the distinct periods from the creation to the deluge; thence to the sojourning of Abraham; and thence to the Exodus.

In the first and second of these periods each specified year of procreation is counted from and to the autumnal equinox. For example Adam lived 130 years and begat Seth." The 130th of the father's life is continued to the subsequent autumnal equinox, and from that cardinal point is computed the first year of the son. This is the general rule. Otherwise the same year would be twice counted.

This first age of the world comprehends 1657 expanded years, ending with the six hundredth and first year of Noah's life.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Stages of the Flood for astronomical Stile, according to the Hebrew and Roman Calendars.

In the first series of columns are expressed the numbers, names, and days, of the patriarchal months. On the same line, in the second series, are marked the names and days of the Roman months; and the column on the margin to the right exhibits the alphabetical signatures for the days of the primitive week, the Sabbaths being characterised by capitals. The numbers in the column to the left, denote the days of the flood.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

That inestimable monument of astronomical antiquity, Noah's journal, specifies several chronological characters, which define the number and quantity of the patriarchal months, and explain the mechanism of the Hebrew year, in its primitive form. Hence the author of these papers constructed a table in expanded days. In the preceding scheme, those only which are historically mentioned, subsequent to the first week, it was judged proper to insert.'

We have no objection to Mr. Walker's new arrangements, because we think it a matter of little moment whether he or Usher be in the right: though we believe that, were the learned Usher alive, he would easily refute all that our author has said against his chronology of the O. T. :-but, when Mr. W. draws from his arrangements this conclusion, that the pre

T3

sent

sent Sunday is the primeval Sabbath, we must insist on some better proofs than he has given in this analysis; and which, he confesses, cannot be specified in so brief a work: yet it is a work of more than 400 closely printed pages.

In order to complete what he calls an inestimable monument of astronomical antiquity, Noah's journal,' Mr. Walker makes Noah send forth the dove seven days after the sending forth of the raven: but he surely did not find this in Noah's journal, nor in Noah's journalist. The Scripture says; "Also he sent forth a dove from him :" but no mention is made of seven days between that emission and the emission of the raven : -yet seven days were necessary for Mr. W.'s almanac.

In the second age of the world, Mr. W. differs from Usher only one year in the following dates-termination of the floodbirth of Arphaxad-birth of Pelig-the difperfion of Babel-birth of Abraham, and the death of Terah, which he places A. M. 2084.

The third age furnishes a greater difference. The vocation of Abraham is laid by Usher, A. M. 2083; by Walker 2079. Usher fixes the birth of Isaac in 2108; Walker in 2109. According to Usher, Jacob is born in 2168; to Walker, 2169.The Exodus is placed by Usher in 2513; by Walker two years

later.

With this latter term (says our author) began a new reckoning by weeks, months, and years; the seventh day of the week, and the seventh month of the year, as counted from the creation, (that is, from the last day of the primeval week,) having become respectively the first of the new serics.

From Sunday the 28th October, when the Almighty rested from all his works, to Saturday the 27th April, when the first passover was solemnized in Egypt, the intermediate space, as defined by the sacred historian, is precisely 2514 solar tropical years, and 26 weeks wanting one day; for the week of the Exodus consisted of but six natural days. On the morning of the seventh day, after midnight, all the hosts of the Lord went out from Egypt. That day, the weekly Sabbath from the creation, being signalized by the departure of the twelve tribes, was thenceforth, on all its subsequent returns, accounted the first of the Mosaical week; and Saturday, the sixth by the patriarchal computation, observed as the Sabbath of the Israelites.

In the year of the Exodus, Abib, or Nisan, began on Sunday, coincident with the 14th April, whence all the sacred years of the Hebrews were computed, according to the course of the moon. From the first paschal new moon to Pentecost, the historical transactions, with their dates in the Hebrew and Roman calendar, for N. S, are thus exhibited, in correspondent lines and columns.'

All this is wonderful: but how came Mr. W. to the knowlege of it? We trust that he will be able to tell us in his

larger

Marger work of Researches, in two volumes in quarto, which he

announces.

The following events, posterior to the Exodus, are thus fixed by Mr. W,:

Death of Moses 40 years afterward.

Death of Joshua 80.

War with Eglon 166.

Gideon's victory 293.

Death of Eli 359.

These, and the other dates in the table, the reader who has inclination and leisure may peruse in the work, and compare with Usher, Bedford, and Vignoles.

It will not be expected that we should follow our author through all his tables and corrections. Of one, however, we must say a word or two. In his chronology of Saul's reign, we find the following remark, quoted from Dr. Wall:

The ancient Hebrews expressed numbers, not by words at length, but by alphabetical characters. In the first clause the numerical sig natures were probably (31.) and these being accidentally omitted, YEAR in the singular number only remained: in the second clause may have stood 40, which in transcribing was mistaken for 20. The whole verse thus completed is, "Saul was 31 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 40 years over Israel." Wall adds, "Abp. Usher, adhering stifly to the words, mangled as they are, has very much disturbed his own chronology."

We did not expect that this critical observation would be adopted by Mr. W.: for we imagined that he considered the Hebrew text as uncorrupted and unmutilated. If a lamed and an aleph, and a mem, were all dropt out of the text in a single verse, and these letters all numerical signatures; why, in the genealogies of the postdiluvian patriarchs, may not a numerical signature have likewise fallen; and why may not those defective numbers be corrected in the Greek translation and Josephus, as Wall and Walker would correct the passage in Samuel, from the reading of an old scholiast in Bos, and from the 13th ch.' of Acts?

We meet with another remark of the same kind, p. 75, in the chronology of Ahaziah; where the author thinks, and thinks with justice, that the number 42, in the present He brew text of Chronicles, should, from one of Kennicott's MSS., the Syr. and Arab. versions, and the parallel place in Kings, be altered to 42 *.

In truth, as Mr. W. advances, and finds it necessary to depart from the Hebrew text, he grows more reasonable in his

* A similar critique is found, p. 258, with respect to Josiah.

T 4

assertions,

« AnteriorContinuar »