Our bible chronology, historic and prophetic, critically examined and demonstrated, harmonized

258 Pages·2009·12.15 MB·English

CORNELL
UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
BS637 .sir" """"'"""' '"'"'*
3 1924 029 283 863
°"„" Overs
Cornell University
Library
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029283863

FIRST SERIES.
OUR BIBLE CHRONOLOGY,
HISTORIC AND PROPHETIC,
CRITICALLY EXAMINED,
AND
DEMONSTRATED,
AND
HARMONIZED WITH THE CHRONOLOGY OF PROFANE WRITERS:
EMBBACINQ
AN EXAMINATION AND KEFUTATION OF THE THEOEIES OF MODERN EGYPTOLOGISTS.
AOOOMPANIBD WITH
EXTENSIVE CHEONOLOGICAL AND GENEALOGICAL TABLES, FROM THE EARLIEST RECORDS TO
THE PRESENT TIME A MAP OF THE ANCIENTS A CHART OF THE COURSE
; ;
OF EMPIRES AND VARIOUS PICTORIAL ILLUSTRATIONS.
;
ON A PLAN ENTIRELY NEW.
Letignedfor theuseofUni/oersities, Colleges, Academies, Bible Glasses, SahhathSchools, Families, etc.
BY THE REV. R. C. SHIMEALL,
A MEMBER OP THE PRESBTTEKT Of"hEW YOEK
:
AtITBOB0»aniLUHmiSHTTOAKTYE,DbnSlOEaIePoTeUdK;AlACTlIeAeKaTti;sAeoCnlIFAeEaTyOeFbE;OOELnESdIAoSfTFIbOAeLlaHo1t8T;OBetTc.;,DeBt.c.WaTTO'SOBmVXlX
NEW YOBK:
A. S. BARNES & CO., Ill & 113 WILLIAM STREET.
CORNER OP JOHN STREET.
1867.
SntoredaccordingtoActofCongress,intheyearEighteenHundredandrifty-nmej
• By E. C. SHIMEALL,
1theClerk'sOiBcooftheDistrictCourtoftheUnitedStatesfortheSouthernDistrictofNew York.
EENNIE,LINDSAY&CO.,
6t^KEDTTPXBIiVDEtXCTBOTTFIHI,
t. SI,*83iN85BWCehYtOeReK-.Sir•eet,
PREFACE
Inquieies into the origin of the world, and of the history of man, liave called into
requisition the pens ofthe learned ofevery age and nation.
Ofthe ancientpbofanb recordswhichtreatoftheantediluvianage,are "theold EgyptianOhro-
nographeon," attributed to Thoth, the first Hermes and second king of Egypt; of Hermes Tris-
magistis; of Sanchoniathon ofBerytus, and Manetho, -who copied from it; of Berosus, the great
Chaldeo-Babylonish historian; thewritings of the Indo-Chinese, Confucius; and the now extinct
original works of the most ancient Phcenicians, Grecians, etc. These ancient annals lay claim
to avastlyremoterantiquity for the origin of the material universe and the history of man, than
thatsetforth in the Sacred Records.
Among the earlier profane postdiluvian historians, the principal are, the works of Manetho,
Eratosthenes, Herodotus, Xenophon,Ctesias,andtheJewish historian,Josephus. The laterare the
"Ohronographia," of Sextus Julius Africanus ofthe third century after Christ; the " Ohronicon,"
ofEusebiusPamphilius, abouta century after; the "Ohronographia," of Syncellus, a. d. 800; and
the "Canon Chronicus," of Sir John Marsham. Fromthese writings are tobe gleanedthechro-
nology ofhistory in general, butparticularly ofthat ofancientEgypt.
Onthe subjectof uninspiredJewish computations, the principalworks are those of Josephus
;
ofAquila orAkiba, about a.d. 120; ofTheodotion, A-d. 178; ofSymmachus,a.d. 193; and ofthe
mostmodern chronicle of"the Seder Olam Kabba," of the ninth century.
The principal Christian ohronographers occupying this field, are Clemens Alexandrinus of the
second century, and Origen ofthe third and amongthe moderns, Soaliger, Hales, Usher, Calmet,
;
Helvetius, Playfair, Jackson, Kennedy, Bedford, Ferguson, Brown, Clinton, Jarvis, Bowen,
Bliss, etc.
Ofthewriters onpropheticchronology, are SirIsaac'and Bishop Newton, Faber,Maitland,Prof.
Stuart, of Andover; Bickersteth, Brooks, Elliott, Cuninghame, Frere, Bishop Hopkins, of Ver-
mont, Dr. Jarvis, Mr. D. N. Lord, and others.
In support ofthe claims of a remoter antiquity in behalf of ancient Egypt, etc., than
that accounted for in the Sacred Eecords, we have the so-called modern science of
I f
"Antheopologt," alias, the revival of the theory of the re-Adamites, aided by Dr.
tTsher's " Geological and Paleontological Features of Human History," and Dr. George
Morton's System of "Ethnology," together with the "archfeological" and "paleo-
graphic"antiquities ofancient Egypt,as setforthin Nott and Gliddon's "Types ofMail-
kind." These writers affirm, in direct opposition to the doctrine of the unity of races,
as taught in Holy Scripture, a diversity of races, etc.; so that, "for aught we know,"
the originofman "maybethousands and millionsofyears beyond ourreach!" "While,
on the otherhand,wehaveDr. Scyffarth'stheoryof the ''•planetaryconfigurations^,'' ofthe
Egyptians and other antique nations, indefence ofthe superiorclaims ofthe chronology
ofthe Qreeh S&piniagvnt over that ofthe Hebrew version.
In view, therefore, of themorethan semi-infidel efforts of this school of modern Egyptologists
to undermine the authority, in these premises, of the inspired cosmogony and history of Holy
Scripture,wehave undertaken, in "our Bible Chronology,"tovindicatethe SacredRecords against
these numerous, subtle, and growingly popular assaults; and we claim, through an exposure of
theirfallacy, to have demonstrated, by an exhibit of the harmonyof the authenticprofane annals
of antiquity with the Sacred Writings, the exact era of human history, from thecreation andfall
ofman, and ofour consequentproximate position, in point oftime, to the final close ofthe present
dispensation.
:
PREFACE.
This has involved, on our part, the necessity of a carefully critical, lahorious, and
patient examination of every extant system or theory, ancient and modern, and also of
both departments of chronology, the historic and the jpfojpTietMi, which we have prose-
cuted, more or less, through a period of at least thirty years of our Bible student-life
and ministry.
Still, we are fully aware that, on this particular subject of sacred and profane litera-
ture, and especiallyin relation to 'ih.QprojpJielionumbersof the BookofDanielandofthe
Apocalj'pse,there exists notonly averywide-spreadimpression butintheminds ofmany
sincere Christians,both ofthe clergyand laity, a deeply-rooted prejudice, adversetothe
possibilityofattaining to anything that maybeentitledto their confidence,in regard to
either. Hence the popular plea of the numherless discrepancies to be found among all
classes ofwriters on tliissubject, injustification of indulgence in a spirit of i/ndifferenoe
in reference to it. The argument here is, that God has left us to grope ourway in total
darkness, as to any reliable data, either historic or prophetic, in the premises.
Nor can it be denied, that the alleged discrepancies of chronographers in both the
above-nameddepartments, have contributedlai'gelytoproduce theseresults. Still,allow-
ing the plea put forward on this ground, if we can, from authenti—c sources, account for
these discrepancies on the one hand, andcorrect the—m on the other the admitted intri-
cacy of the subject to the contrary notwithstanding then we deferentially submit, that
the importance of the subject fairlyentitles us to further indulgence in regard toit.
We
remark, then, in connection with the claims of those belonging to the school of
modern Egyptologists (who, as we have said, allege a vastly greater antiquity for the
origin of the material universe, and of the history of man, than that set forth inthe
Sacred Eecords), two additional circumstances have mainly contributed to produce all
the confusion andperplexity which exist in reference to
I. The Cheonologt of Histoet. These are
1. The fact that sacred history, not being given in the precise order of the events as
they occurred, has rendered the work of a proper adjustment of its chronology one of
great difiaculty.
2. The other fac—t is, that of the existence of theee diffeeent veesions of Scriptur—e,
inwhole or in part the Hebrew,theSamaritanPentateuch, and the OreeJcSeptuagint
each of which, though differing in an aggregate of nearly 3000 years in their totals,
between the Creation and the Nativity, are claimed by their respective advocates as of
egual authority in determining the history ofthe world.
Onthis subject, itmust sufficeus to say, tliat (havingexamined every theory of every-writerof
note, ancient and modern, who have occupied this particular field) tliese discrepancies are to be
traced, nottothe absence ofsufficiently reliable dLatainthe premises—; but, eitherto theindulgence
offancifulvagaries, asInthe case of t—he barbai'ous antique nations the Babylonians,-Egyptians,
Phcenioians, Grecians, Etruscans, etc. or to the want of that careful discrimination, and that
laborious.andpatientinvestigation, whichthenature of the stibjectimperatively demands.
In reference especially to the barbarous antique nations here spoken of, the immediate occasion
of the call of Abraham seemsto havebeenthe prevalence of idolatry in those eai-ly ages of the
world. Ofthosewhoheldintercoursewithsuch as hadwitnessed and escaped the universal catas-
trophe of the flood, we may well suppose that the fear of another such interposition of God's
power in judgmentwould have a strong hold on men's minds. Satan, finding thatitwould be
vainto attempt to eradicate these fears of supernatural agency, succeeded in turning them tohis
ownaccount, byinducing men to substitute for the true God, whom they traditionally knew, a
host of imaginary deities, who began to take God's place in their minds, as theobjects of their
homageandtheirdread. The resultwas,that Satanhimselfas "thegod ofthisworld"(2Oor.iv.4),
under this disguise, became the object of worship. These poor dupes of superstition andidolatry
might not know this; but Scripture tells us, that "the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrificeto devils, and not to God." (1 Oor. x. 20.) The history of allthis, as to themoral pro-
cessbywhichitwasbrought about, wehavein Rom. i. 21-25. When men had thus almost uni-
versallygivenup Godforidols, "God gave them up" to all thewell-knownhorrors of paganism.
Three times, inthepassage justreferred to, we have this expression: Wherefore "God also gave