the apostle, as well as with the history of the Book of Judges. and the present order and reading of them is supported by the Syriac version, and most of the ancient MSS., especially by all the Our great chronologer Archbishop Usher, MSS. of Robert Stephen, with the Com- puts another sense upon the apostle's words, plutense and all the old editions. And in and would have them mean; And after the words the apostle in plain and express these things which were done in the space of terms reckons 450 years unto Samuel from 450 years, [viz., from the time God chose the time of the division of the land of their fathers, ver. 17, to which remote verse Canaan by Joshua amongst the tribes of he refers them] He gave them judges, and Israel in the seventh year after they came so on. The various reading or order of some into it; and thence forty years more to the manuscripts in this passage of Scripture, death of Saul; in all 490 years. If we add which favours Archbishop Usher's sense, forty years from the exodus to the death of Dr. Mill rightly judges to have been made Moses; and six years from thence to the on purpose to avoid the difficulty of the division of the land in the seventh year; apostle's calculation, and to make it conand forty years for the reign of David: and sistent with the four hundred and eightieth three years of Solomon's reign; the whole year of the Book of Kings. But he thinks sum from the exodus to the foundation of the learned prelate's sense, above given, may the temple, in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon is exactly 579 years; and so the temple was begun to be builded in the five hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. be admitted without altering the common or received reading and position of the words of the text. But in this Dr. Mill is mistaken; for this sense is neither so natural or grammatical, nor will the calculation agree This reckoning of the apostle was the with it neither. The apostle had spoken received computation of the Jews in his before of the time which the Israelites spent time, and was deduced from the history of in the wilderness, after their coming out of the Judges, and as it is irreconcileable to the Egypt; then he proceeds to mention their present number of 480th year in the Book of wars with, and conquest of, the seven nations, Kings, we may be assured that the apostle and the division of their land amongst the knew of no such number there. It farther tribes by lot; the term of this also is related appears from the above cited words of St. in Scripture: then he goes on in the history, Paul, that the whole term of the government as was natural, to speak of the years of the of Samuel as judge, and of Saul as king, judges, after this division, unto Samuel, who was exactly forty years. Eusebius under- was the last of them, and their years also stands the 450 years of St. Paul to refer to are set down in their history: and from the times of the judges, though he himself Samuel he proceeds to mention the kingly differs from the computation of the apostle, government of the Jews, and tells us the which he supposes to have been the then years of Samuel's and Saul's administration, received reckoning only, but not the true one. which are not recorded in Scripture, but Eusebius took his lesser computation from which, from the received tradition of the later traditions of the Jews, after they had Jews, were, he says, the space of forty years; altered the chronology of the Scriptures, as and concludes his narration with David, from I have before proved at large; and St. Paul whose family Christ descended, ver. 23. It followed the Scripture history itself, and the is therefore a very unnatural and forced inyears set down in the Book of Judges: and terpretation to refer the words of the apostle, knew nothing of the lesser number, which which are immediately, and in natural conwas long after his time inserted into the struction applied to the times of the judges Book of Kings. Syncellus also understands of the Israelites, to what is said three verses the 450 years of the apostle to refer to the before of God's choosing their fathers. And time of the judges; nor does any other in- if we should without reason allow them to be terpretation of them appear ever to have connected with what is said so remotely as been thought of by the ancients; nor would ver. 17, yet the 450 years brings us no any other probably have been thought of by higher than the birth of Isaac. But God the moderns, but only for the sake of the had chosen Abraham the first of their interpolated number of the Book of Kings, fathers twenty-five years before, when he which is inconsistent with the reckoning of called him out of Haran, into the land of Canaan, Gen. xii. 1-5. So wholly unsup- | foundation of the temple. And he himself ported is Usher's sense of the apostle's words. computes it to be 520 years as observed And as the apostle's computation of 450 above. years from the division of the land of One considerable objection to the term of Canaan amongst the Jews to the time of 580, or more exactly 579 years, between Samuel's judging Israel, agrees exactly to the exodus and the temple remains to the beginning of the building of the temple, be cleared; and it is this; the Scripture in the five hundred and eightieth year after mentions no more than five generations the exodus; SO the message of judge between Naashon, prince of the children of Jephthah to the king of the Ammonites, Judah, Num. i. 7; ii. 3, and Solomon, viz., Jud. xi. 13-26, agrees to this calculation. Salmon or Salma, Booz, Obed, Jesse, and The king of the Ammonites, as a pretence David. Matt. i. 5, 6; Luke iii. 31, 32; for making war upon the Israelites, tells the Ruth iv. 21, 22; 1 Chron. ii. 11, 12. This messenger of Jephthah that the people of objection, I confess, is stronger against the Israel had unlawfully seized upon his country term of 580 or 579 years, than against the after they came out of Egypt: to this charge sum of 480 or 479 years. But the learned Jephthah replies by his messengers, that Usher found it insuperable even against his Israel's title to this country could not be lesser number of 480 years, as appears by called in question, who at first conquered it his way of reconciling these generations to in a lawful war, in which the king of the it. Amorites, to whom it belonged, was the Taking it for granted that Salmon married aggressor; and had been in possession of it Rahab the harlot or inkeeper, mentioned in three hundred years, ver. 26. Josephus reads the Book of Joshua to have concealed the it, more than three hundred years. And it spies whom Joshua sent into Jericho, chap. was more; for Sihon king of the Amorites ii. 1, he supposes that Salmon married her was conquered in the end of the fortieth forty-two years after the Israelites came into year after the exodus, Numb. xxi. 24, 25, the land of Canaan, and that she was twenty and from thence to the time of Jephthah's years of age when they first came thither, undertaking the war against the Ammonites and so bare Booz when she was sixty-two or was 346 years, which Jephthah might well sixty-three years of age. This though not call 300 years, or more; and from Jephthah impossible, is yet very highly improbable. to the temple was 194 years; and thirty-Then he supposes Booz to be 102 years old, nine more from the exodus to the conquest at the birth of his son Obed; and Obed to of the Amorites being added, the whole from be 111 years old at the birth of his son the exodus to the temple was 579 years. Jesse; and Jesse as many at the birth of Sulpitius Severus in his Sacred History, David. The supposition of three such wrote in the beginning of the fifth century, generations together is altogether incredible; reckons the interval from the exodus to the and is not to be found in Scripture since the temple 588 years; and observes that the days of Serug, the great grandfather of Greek number 440 in the Book of Kings Abraham; and it is observable, that from must be a corruption of the text, and this the birth of Abraham to only 470 years corruption both in the Hebrew text and in years after, there were nine generations, viz, the Greek version has been fully proved in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judas, Phares, the foregoing observations. Melchior Canus, Esrom, Aram, Aminadab, Naashon : for a learned Popish writer and commentator, Eusebius makes Naashon thirty-five years suspected the number 480 in the Book of old at the exodus, which was 505 years Kings, though authorized by the Latin Vul- after the birth of Abraham; whereas six gate, to be a corrupt reading both in that generations from Naashon to Solomon made, copy and in the Hebrew text; and that the Greek text was corrupted also. And the more learned Jesuit Petavius owns that many great men among the Papists have been of opinion, either that this text of the Book of Kings has been corrupted, or however that the number of it is not the true and whole number of years from the exodus to the as was supposed, 600 years at least. Syncellus takes notice of this difficulty of reconciling the account of six generations from Naashon to Solomon to the great number of years in that interval, which he observes were no less than 600: and asks the question how this number of years was to be accounted for, making, according to this reckoning, 100 years, one generation with another? Syncellus offers | Amariah was the son of Azariah or Ezias, no solution to the difficulty, not knowing as he is called 1 Esd. viii. 2, and that what to say to it. But Eusebius endeavours Azariah was the son of Meraioth, Ez. vii. to solve it by throwing all the years of servi-2-5. Or if instead of those after Uzzi of tude out of the number, and reckoning no the line of Eleazar we reckon those who more than 479 years from the exodus to succeeded him in the high priesthood of the Solomon's temple. But this lesser number line of Ithamar, there were eight generawe have seen is by no means reconcileable to tions or rather nine, viz., after Uzzi the so few intervening generations. There is fourth high priest above, the fifth was Eli. but one way, I think, to solve the difficulty, 6. Ahiah the son of Ahitub, the son of and that is by supposing some generations to Phineas, the son of Eli, 1 Sam. xiv. 3, 18. have been omitted in recording this gene- Joseph. Antiq. Jud., lib. vi., c. 6. And his alogy. This was the opinion of the ancient father Ahitub might be high priest before Jews. The Chaldee paraphrase on Ruth i., and him, as Reland thinks [Antiq. Sac. Vet., iv. 21 says, that Booz was Ibzan, who judged Heb., p. 161]. 7. Achimelech; 8. Abiathar; Israel at the time of the famine, mentioned 1 Sam. xxii. 20. Here are eight generations chap. i. 1. Josephus brings him lower, and besides the vacancy between the death of says, that the famine happened after the Eli and Ahias his great grandson, unless his death of Samson, when Eli was the high father Ahitub was high priest before him, priest; so that Booz was contemporary with and succeeded Eli; and therefore we may Eli; and this may probably be the truth, reckon nine generations in this genealogy and makes the succeeding generations from also. Booz to David to be agreeable to the common Now it is no way probable that there course of nature in those days. If this is should be more years by thirty or forty in admitted, since Salmon lived at least 400 five generations only recorded from Naashon years before Eli was high priest, he could to David, than in nine or ten successive not be the father of Booz, who was con- descents in the families of the high priests, temporary with Eli; and there must have from Eleazar and his brother Ithamar to been some generations either between David. There is no doubt therefore to be Naashon and Salmon, or between Salmon made, but that several generations from and Booz, not mentioned in Scripture. These generations could not be between Naashon and Salmon if the Rahab he married, as mentioned by St. Matthew was Rahab the harlot, or innkeeper, mentioned in the Book of Joshua at the taking of Jericho. But as she is never mentioned in the Old Testament to have married Salmon, nor does St. Matthew style her Rahab the harlot, as she is called where she is mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews xi. 31, we cannot be certain who she was. However, I am most inclined to think that four or five generations are omitted between Salmon and Booz the father of Obed, and for the following reasons: In the interval of these five generations after Naashon to the death of David, there are recorded no less than nine or ten generations of high priests, from or after Eleazar the son of Aaron, though he outlived Naashon who was his uncle, Exod. vi. 23, many years. 1. Phineas; 2. Abishua; 3. Bukki; 4. Uzzi; 5. Zerahiah; 6. Meraioth; 7. Amariah; 8. Ahitub; 9. Zadok, 1 Chron. vi. 4-8, and ver. 50, 53. Ezra makes ten successions in this interval: for he says, that Naashon to David, either have not been recorded in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, or have been left out in the present copies by some very ancient error. Such an omission has happened in the descent of Ezra the scribe, who is reckoned the fifth in descent from Zadok, who was high priest in the reign of Solomon. For he is said to be the son of Seraiah, the son of Azariah, the son of Hilkiah, the son of Shallum, the son of Zadok, the son of Ahitub, the son of Amariah, the son of Azariah, the son of Meraioth, &c., Ezra vii. 1, 2, 3; 1 Esd. viii. 1, 2. But the number of years from the death of Zadok to the birth of Ezra being four hundred, in four intervening generations, would justly incline us to think, if there was no other evidence, that some generations are wanting in this interval. And this is fact, and these generations are supplied in the Book of Chronicles; otherwise we should have been puzzled as much in the genealogy of Ezra as in that from Naashon to David. There were in the genealogy of Ezra two Zadoks, and all the generations between one and the other, are omitted in the Books of Ezra and Esdras or in both the parts of lectiones vel sententias protulerunt.* Ab Ezra, but are recorded in the Book of egressu, ad fundationem templi, Gliras p. 2, Chronicles, and are no less than seven numerat annos 330. Melch. Canus. 374. ó generations. 1. Ahitub; 2. Amariah; 3. (prout à Sixto 5 correcti, et à Sulpitio citati Azariah; 4. Johanan; 5. Azariah; 6. sunt, quos etiam sequitur Oecumen) numerat Ahimaaz: 7. Zadok, 1 Chron. vi. 4-15, annos 440. Beda annos 490. Joseph. where we read the whole genealogy entire. Antiq. 8 in Ruffini versione 502. Sed in Josephus also has it at large, and reckons Græco textu, et in Gesseni versione 592. more descents. Therefore, if Salmon was Sulpicius, prout à Sigonio corrigitur, 510, sed the immediate son of Naashon then Booz, prout in textu, 588. Clem. Alex. 566 sim. the father of Obed, was a remote offspring; Tyrii apud S. Theophilum. Cedrenus 672.† and if there were two of that name, one the Ego numero 680 annos. Sentio annos non son of Salmon, and the other the father of solum esse 480, sed centenos huic numero Obed, the intermediate generations might addi oportere.§ Quæ viros doctos huc perbe omitted by the negligence of an ancient pulerunt, ut textum aut immutarent aut discopier passing from one name to the other. torquerent, duæ fuerunt præcipuæ rationes; And as this was the cause of the omission altera ex Act. xiii. 20, altera ex numeris of several generations in the genealogy of annorum in libro Judicum expressis, qui Ezra, there is no reason why we may not longiùs quàm 480 annorum intervallum conclude it to have been the same in that postulare videntur.|| [Alii tamen numerum from Naashon to David. If to these obser- in textu positum servant, ut videbimus. Divations we add, as taken notice of before, that in the fourteen generations from Abraham to David, there are more years in the last five from Naashon to David, than in the preceding nine from Abraham to Naashon; this is sufficient to clear the difficulty, and to put it out of all doubt that some generations between Naashon and David have been omitted. esse spiciamus ergo quomodo viri docti difficultatem hanc expediunt.] 1. Quidam mendum in numeris agnoscunt, vel hîc, vel in Act. xiii. 20. Ità Capel. et Cajet. Luth. Func. Mercat. Bunting. Temporar. Perkins. Pius, Lydiat. Lansberg. et alii.¶ Locus librariorum negligentiâ corruptus est, ait Sulpit. 1. 1 histor. Et ad eum sic Sigonius, In numeris annorum Regum Judæ et Israel tanta diversitas, et Ken.-Testimonium Origenis multum va-aliquando absurditas est, ut tutius lebit ad probanda duo vitia, chronologiam videatur confiteri eos librariorum culpâ alinunc obscurantia. In 1. Reg. vi. 1 numerus quando vitiosos esse, quàm ad ineptas interannorum ab exodo ad templum Solomonis pretationes et solutiones confugere.** Non est secus est in Hebraico textu, ac in Græcâ hæc aut fidei, aut religionis questio, quæ versione; quem tamen utrumque numerum hîc de numero habetur.†† [Gerhard. Vossius falsum esse, e sacrâ patet historiâ. Origines numerum annorum à se positum sic astruit,] hunc textum citavit, omisso computo chrono- Israelitæ erant in deserto annis 40. A fine logico, qui nunc pars ejus est præcipua; illorum, sive à morte Mosis ad Othonielem adeo ut probabile sit, numerum tum temporis tempus non potest certò præfiniri; sed hìc defuisse in codicibus Heb. pariter ac videtur fuisse 34 annorum: quorum 26 Græcis. En verba ejus: yeyрaπтaι ev tribuantur Josuæ et Senioribus, accensito τρίτῃ των βασιλείων-Ητοιμασαν τους λιθους spatio quo Israelitæ peccando irritarunt και τα ξυλα τρισιν ετεσιν· εν δε τῷ τεταρτῳ Deum. His adde annos 8, quibus Chusan ετει, μηνι δευτερῳ, βασιλεύοντος του βασιλεως servierunt, Jud. iii. 9, funt 34. Othoniel Zoλoμwvτos em Iopanλ, &c. Computus igitur, præfuit per annos 40, (Jud. iii. 11). Sequi hic non expressus est, fortassis additus quitur servitus Moabitica (de quo Jud. fuit post an. 230; vide rationes, hanc in iii. 14), an. 18. Aod præest annis 80, rem adductas a Jacksono, Chronol. 1, 133-170. τη Pol. Syn.-1 Quadringentesimo et octogesimo anno egressionis, &c.] Ità Heb. et Chald. et plerique Græcorum codices. Multi tamen conciliandæ Judicum chronologicæ, summæque totius cum partibus suis componendæ difficultate deterriti, varias vel * Abrami Pharus, lib. 10, c. 2. + Abram ex Ser. § Vos. Isagog. chronol., c. 7. Usser. ib., p. 194, sic Ser. (Jud. iii. 30.) Israel servit Cananææis, an. | 40 judicavit, pax fuit et otium, tyranno 20, (Jud. iv. 3.) Debora et Barac præsunt judicis auspiciis superato.* [Aliis hæc senan. 40, (Jud v. 31.) Isr. servit Midian an. tentia non placet;] Contradictionem involvit, 7, (Jud. vi. 1.) Judicat Gedeon an. 40, Hebræis uno et eodem tempore tribuere et (Jud viii. 28.) Abimelech an. 3, (Jud. quietam libertatem, et exercitam servituix. 22.) Thola an. 23, (Jud. x. 2.) Jair tem.t Manifestè distinguit scriptura inter an. 22, (Jud x. 3.) Fuit servitus Ammo- tempora servitutis, sive pœnæ; et tempus nitica per annos 18. Jepthe præest an. 6, quietis atque misericordiæ; ut liquet ex in(Jud. xii. 7.) Abesan an. 7, (Jud. xii. 9.) spectione horum locorum, Jud. ii. 18; et Achialon an. 10, (Jud. xii. 11.) Abdon iii. 8-12, &c., et iv., et vi. 1, 7.1 Lian. 8, (Jud. xii. 14.) Servitus sub Philistæis, benter agnoscimus belli et servitutum tem(ut est Jud. xiii. 1) annis duravit 40 (in pora, à pacis et quietis temporibus secerquibus includuntur 20 Sampsonis anni, quos nenda esse. § 2. Vox exitus ex Ægypto ideo non numero.) Heli (ut est 1 Sam. iv. diversimodè sumi potest; ità ut vel prin18) judicavit an. 40. Sic fiunt anni 496. cipium, vel medium, vel finem ejus indicet. (Optimè hoc convenit cum Act. xiii. 20 ubi De principio res clara est; de medio item et Judicibus tribuit annos 450: deme à 496 fine eadem dicitur, Psal. cxiii. vel cxiv. 3. annos Mosis 40 et Josuæ sexennium ante In exitu, &c. - mare vidit, &c. Jordanis divisionem terræ, manent 450.) Sequuntur conversus est retrò, &c., et Deut. iv. 45. anni Samuelis et Saulis 40. Davidis item Quæ locutus est quando egressi sunt de 40, et tres Salomonis. Inde confiunt anni Ægypto trans Jordanem, &c. Hæc tamen 83. Jungantur reliquis, sunt anni 579; loquutus est anno 40 à primo exitu. Non sive annumerato quarto Salomonis anno, est novum ex eo loco unde eximus denomiquo templum condi cœpit, fiunt anni 580. nari totam profectionem, quamvìs diuturnam, Quid his apertius ?* [Quomodo hoc cum quæ durat donec perveniatur ad locum cujus præsenti loco concordat, ex ipso tandem adeundi causâ iter suscipiebamus. Chroaudiemus. Serarius, ut audivimus, annos nologorum mos est, ut, cùm interstitium centum his addit; et 680 numerat. Cen- inter extrema duo metiuntur, finem antum verò illos annos sic colligit,] 1. tecedentis spectent, et initium sequentis; Pro 34 annis quos Vossius numerat ut si dicam à regibus ad Augustum à Mose ad Othonielem, supponit 8 annos erant 500 anni; nemo non intelliget fuisse primæ servitutis, Jud. iii. et 50 alios tempus à regibus exactis ad Augusti initi annos Josuæ, et statûs utriusque ante computari. Hic autem peculiaris etiam Judices. [In quo superat Vossii calculum ratio fuit. Cùm enim ædificatione templi annis 24.] 2. Sampsoni post 40 annos Philist. potissimùm Arca sacrarium quæreretur, servitutis annos tribuit 20. 3. Post Samp-1 Paral. xxii. commodissimè ducitur chrosonem tempus Historiarum, Jud. xvii. et nologiæ ratio ab eo tempore, quo, egressu xviii. facit annorum 8. [Quod tamen Vossius Israelitarum, et longâ illâ in deserto pereintra 34 illos primos annos gestum fuisse grinatione finitâ, Arca requievit.** Exitus existimat.] 4. Samueli paulò ante Heli mortem, et deinceps prophetam agenti adscribit annos 20. Et 5 eidem Samueli soli ante Saulem gubernanti annos assignari vult ad minimum 28 +. 2. [Alii annos ab egressu ex Ægypto ad fundatum templum rectè hîc numerari statuunt. Sed non uno (quod habetur Deut. iv. 45), quod modo rem expediunt.] 1. Judæi, populum nunquam Judice caruisse arbitrati, annos quietis, Judici ibidem nominato attribuunt; in quibus et opprimentium annos (ut sub eorum præfectura cœptos et finitos) comprehendunt. Hos sequitur Eusebius et plerique chronologi. Acsi Scripturæ hic fuisset sensus: (v. g.) Othoniele principe, qui annis ex Egypto tempus illud comprehendit, quo Israelitæ in deserto oberrantes ad itineris terminum pervenerunt, et Jordanem transierunt; ait Dion. Petavius, quem sequitur Petrus Possinus. Sed non placet. Distinguendum est inter illa loca, in quibus est tempus post exitum generatim tantùm et Usser., Chron., p. 196. † Abram. Phar., 10, 5. § Usser., Chron., p. 197. || Abram. Phar., 10, 27. 5 C |