Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

We may

It remains to notice Mr. Yeates's objection, that it is inconsistent with the Divine economy to suppose that during the life of Shem, “the Blessed of the Lord,” Abraham should have been preferred, and God's covenant made with him in preference to his great ancestor. In reply to this it seems only necessary to remark, that the covenant was made with the seed of Shem, in conformity with the blessing of Noah (Gen. ix. 26); and that, had the covenant been made directly with Shem himself, it must have been with a prospective reference to Abraham, the youngest patriarch of the chosen line then alive: in which case it would assuredly have been confirmed with Abraham ; as was afterwards the case with Isaac and with Jacob in Abraham's life-time, neither of them being, however, as yet in existence at the date of the covenant with Abraham. We therefore, I think, either view a covenant with Shem, when Abraham was in being, as superfluous, or view that with Abraham as the renewal or confirmation of a previous covenant with his great ancestor, as those with Isaac and Jacob were renewals of that with Abraham. It follows, that any objection on this ground to the co-existence of Shem and Abraham falls to the ground.

The last point of difference in the Patriarchal Table is the generation of the postdiluvian Cainan, which appears between Arphaxad and Salah in the Alexandrine and Syncelline copies of the Seventy, but is absent from the Eusebian and Vatican, as well as from the copy of Josephus, the Samaritan and Hebrew texts, and all the versions and copies of the latter. As, however, this Cainan appears in the genealogy of St. Luke's Gospel in all the existing copies, the Cambridge manuscript or codex of Beza excepted, Mr. Cuninghame uses this as an argument “for rejecting the Hebrew postdiluvian chronology, and receiving the Greek.

“I am not ignorant,” says he, " that Dr. Hales, and other learned men who reject the Hebrew chronology, do yet agree with it in excluding the generation of Cainan; but if St. Luke's Gospel is a part of the inspired word of God, all their arguments cannot impugn the authority of this Evangelist.”

Now, I cannot help thinking that Mr. Cuninghame should have sought to confute the arguments opposed to his opinion, rather than have identified the Evangelist's claim to inspiration with a reading depending for its genuineness on the honesty or correctness of transcribers, and, to say the best of it, of very doubtful authority. As this is a question of a very important nature, inasmuch as it affects the integrity of the Hebrew text, which we have seen rises triumphant over all the other objections advanced by Mr. Cuninghame, I will endeavour to state its merits, that the reader may judge whether the impugners of the original text have any strong-hold remaining on the ground of internal evidence.

That the postdiluvian Cainan is as old as the Seventy interpreters, I have already fully admitted in my former papers. The testimony of Demetrius to the originality of the patriarchal generations of the Alexandrine codex, already adverted to, affords ample proof of this, so far as the Seventy are concerned. When to this testimony we add that of all the existing manuscripts of St. Luke's Gospel, the Codex Bezæ or Cambridge manuscript excepted, the case in favour of the postdiluvian Cainan is made out on the strongest evidence of which it is susceptible.

If, on the other hand, we examine the strong-hold of the advocates of the Greek numbers-namely, their unanimous adoption by both Jewish and Christian chronologers during the first four centuries of Christianity, until the publication of the “Vulgate” by Jerome (i. e. by Josephus, Theophilus, Clemens, Julius Africanus, Eusebius, &c.)- we shall find that not one of these writers recognised the generation in question in their accounts of time, although all were zealous in their endeavours to raise the sacred antiquities, in opposition to their heathen antagonists. It follows, on their own shewing, that, to be consistent, those who receive the Greek reckoning ought to reject the second Cainan, particularly if they pay any regard to the opinion of the church.

But the proofs on this head are not confined to chronographers. Philo Judæus, who wrote at the time of the Christian æra, does not recognise Cainan. He does not appear in the Targum of Onkelos, which follows the Hebrew numbers, and which the best critics refer to the early part of the first century; nor in the ancient Syriac version of the Pentateuch, which, there is little doubt, is as old as the beginning of the second century. He was not in Irenæus's copy of Luke's Gospel in the second century, nor in that of Julius Africanus in the beginning of the third ; neither did Origen recognise this generation, nor admit it into his Hexaplar copy of the Seventy; nor Epiphanius, nor Jerome in the Vulgate translation from the Hebrew. The second Cainan is, moreover, absent from the Vatican codex of the Seventy, as is evident by his non-appearance in 1 Chron. i. 18 of that copy, of which the early chapters of Genesis are obliterated. It is true, that Bishop Walton has Cainan in his edition of the Vatican: but he is absent from the first edition by Cardinal Carafa, from whence Walton's is taken; and Carafa is understood to have supplied the wanting parts of Genesis from other manuscripts, that agreed with the Roman codex throughout* The century by which that copy exceeds the Alexandrine in the generation of Nahor, seems to stand in the place of Cainan's generation, and, according to the astronomical data in my former papers, the generations of the Codex Vaticanus come out thirty years older than the Alexandrine. May not the former have been the system of the five Elders spoken of in the Talmud *, and alleged to have preceded the version of the Seventy?

* Horne, vol. II. part I. c. v. sect. i.

With regard to the existing manuscripts of St. Luke's Gospel, it will, I think, be found that the transcribers followed the opinions of the chronographers of their respective ages. The Codex Bezæ--the only one that omits Cainan--of however little critical authority it may be, is nevertheless an indisputable witness in point of antiquity; in which respect all critics agree that it is exceeded by no existing manuscript, and is probably the most ancient of allt. This manuscript, in fact, as an original authority, follows next in chronological order to those of Irenæus and Julius Africanus, and obviously belongs to an age in which neither the church nor the chronographers recognised the postdiluvian Cainan; as, I doubt not, all the more recent manuscripts of Luke's Gospel are of dates when Cainan had been interpolated into the patriarchal chronology from the Alexandrine or Basilian copies of the Seventy by the Byzantine school of chronographers. It is a subject deserving the attention of critics, whether the manuscripts of St. Luke do not, in this respect, go with the sense of contemporary chronologists.

The Cainan of Luke iii. 36 may, however, be a repetition from verse 37; as Levi and Matthat of verse 24 are certainly repetitions from verse 29, if the ancient testimonies of Irenæus, Africanus, Augustin, and others, may be relied upon. On the other hand, if this Cainan was really in St. Luke's original manuscript, still his relationship with Salah is not defined, and the elliptical language of the original may be liable to explanation, as Matt. i. 6. Čainan and Salah may both have been sons of Arphaxad, and Salah might have married the widow of Cainan, and begat Eber. The one would then have had a legal # and the other a natural claim to a place in the genealogy, while Cainan would of necessity be excluded from the chronological generations. Such mighi, however, have been the basis on which the Seventy grounded their chronological interpolation, an interpolation opposed alike by the unanimous testimony of both Jewish and Christian authorities. The above is, however, thrown out only as a probable origin for the interpolation, as we know, from Gen. x. 13, that Arphaxad had other sons than Salah; and it seems preferable to an opinion mentioned by Stranchius (1. iv. c. v.), that Cainan and Salah are two names for the same person. If, however, either conjecture be admitted, it becomes of no chronological import whether or not Cainan the son of Arphaxad had a place in the original manuscript of St. Luke; and it is * Yeates' Essay, p. 26.

+ Horne, vol. II. part I. c. ii. sect. ii. | That the law of legal succession was a patriarchal institution adopted into the Law, like many others, appears from Gen. xv. 2, 3, &c.

most certain that no person can prove, from the original text of that Gospel, that Arphaxad, Cainan, and Salah, were father, son, and grandson. We have an important catalogue of Egyptian kings in the First Book of Josephus (a contemporary of St. Luke) against Apion ; regarding which, hieroglyphic discovery has proved that the consanguinity of many of these Pharaohs was very different from that which had been conjectured from the elliptical language of Josephus: neither could the genealogies of Matthew and Luke be explained with certainty without the parallel history of the Old Testament.

Thus, as, on the one side, we have the authority of the Alexandrine codex of the Seventy, confirmed by Demetrius Phaleræus, for the chronological existence of this generation in the third century before the Christian æra, in harmony with the majority of manuscripts of Luke's Gospel-of which, however, it is evident that even the original would not, chronologically speaking, be decisive on this question ; so, on the other, we have the Hebrew and Samaritan Pentateuchs, the Hebrew Books of Chronicles, the Vatican system of the Seventy, the testimony of Philo and Josephus, the Targum of Onkelos, the Syriac version, the evidence of Irenæus, of Theophilus, of Clemens, of Africanus, of Origen, Eusebius *, Epiphanius, Jerome, with the most ancient manuscript of Luke's Gospel, written in an age when the church rejected the generation in question. It is not difficult to perceive on which side the preponderance of proof lies.

But the test which I finally rely upon for the utter chronological exclusion of this generation, is the circumstance that the seventy families, or nations, of the dispersion--of which the seventy families of the house of Israel formed the antitype (Deut. xxxii. 8), as already fully set forth-are complete without it ; and that, were this generation inserted into Genesis x., one of the most beautiful, most uniform, and most important characters in the machinery of sacred history and chronology would be annihilated,--the beautiful and all-pervading analogy of the Septuagesimal type destroyed. And this test being in harmony with every other internal criterion proposed in the present treatise, I adopt it as finalt.

* It is almost needless to repeat, that the circumstance of Josephus, Theophilus, Clemens, Africanus, and Eusebius, being all zealous advocates for the computation of the Seventy interpreters, renders their testimony against the second Cainan doubly forcible.

+ It has been inferred above, that, if the postdiluvian Cainan ever existed, it was as the brother of Salah ; the one holding the legal and the other the natural place in the genealogy-a circumstance which might have been known to the Seventy interpreters, and formed the basis of, and given colour to, their chronological interpolation. But if this be the truth, it is clear that one of the generations in question is, chronologically speaking, but a repetition of the other; and, accordingly, if we refer to the Alexandrine codex of the Seventy (see Table, column 6), the oldest copy in which the postdiluvian Cainan is recognised, we shall find the very numbers repeated in generation as well as residue—the first standing 130 years, and the latter 330, in both cases—a coincidence, or rather an absurdity, which has no parallel in Scripture, or any where else. This, of itself, forms an important internal criterion, which I should have included in the text had it occurred to my recollection.

I have now concluded the department of the subject founded on “ internal evidence *,” and I trust satisfactorily answered Mr. Cuninghame's objections to the sacred Hebrew numbers, coming under this head; in the course of which it will, I hope, be admitted that a sufficient number of tests have been brought forward to justify the fearless admission in my former essay, that the results « ought not to be insisted on unless it could be proved from internal evidence that the present Hebrew computation is the original ;” and my expressed opinion, “ that all the objections usually brought forward against the sacred Hebrew numbers in reality operate in their favour, while they recoil în full force against all the protracted computations. Enough has, moreover, I trust, been advanced to prove that the validity of the sacred Hebrew computation is far from depending for its defence, on weapons "derived from the armoury of human

Another, equally strong, is discoverable in the circumstance of the Seventy having retained the Hebrew residues while they adopted the Samaritan generations, thereby adding a century to the life of each patriarch between Shem and Terah : for, had this not been done, the 130 interpolated years of Cainan's generation would have raised the death of his father Arphaxad nearly a century above the birth of Peleg, thereby destroying the synchronism between the times of Arphaxad and those of Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided -an event which every ancient authority refers alike to the days of all the seventy heads of families mentioned in the tenth chapter of Genesis, including Syncellus, who, as already mentioned, by an oversight makes Arphaxad die thirty-nine years before Peleg was born, forgetful of the chronological compensation necessary to counterbalance the 130 interpolated years of Cainan. Thus is the retention of the Hebrew residues by the Greek interpreters conclusively accounted for, and that retention identified with the admission of Cainan into the chronology. Finally: it has been noticed, in a former part of this disquisition, that the Eusebian is the only known copy of the Septuagint which uniformly preserves the original principle of retaining all the Hebrew postdiluvian residues; the Vatican exhibiting the Samaritan residues from Arphaxad to Eber, but the Hebrew residues from Peleg to Nahor; while the Alexandrine, the Syncelline, Mr. Cuninghame's Aldine copy, and others, confound the Samaritan and Hebrew in the former case, but agree with the Vatican in the latter. But the interpolated Cainan does not appear in the Vatican copy, and hence the long Hebrew residues were not required. The Alexandrine copy, however, has this generation, and therefore assigns to Arphaxad a long residue, although it exhibits short ones in the cases of his two immediate successors; in all which characters Mr. Cuninghame's Aldine table agrees with it. Thus is the retention of the long residues pinned down to the history of Arphaxad, in connection with the postdiluvian Cainan. A glance at columns 5 and 6 of the general table will make all this very apparent.

* A great part of the remarks on the postdiluvian Cainan come more properly under the head of “ external” than of “ internal evidence”-a departure from the prescribed scope of the present essay required by Mr. Cuninghame's course of proceeding, and the necessity of at once disposing of this part of the subject.

« AnteriorContinuar »