Note that this is presented as part of Whiston’s translation of Josephus, not as modern scholarship and not as my own opinion or work. If you want to argue about its content or its conclusions, I will not answer. Mr. Whiston of course cannot answer. You will need to hold your disputes for the afterlife.
§ 1. In order to state this difficult point, of the genuine chronology of Josephus, I shall make use of the labours of Dr. Wills, in his small, but very valuable dissertation upon this subject; prefixed to Sir Roger Le Strange’s edition of Josephus in English: and of the improvements I formerly made upon it, in my Essay towards restoring the true Text of the Old Testament, Prop. X, XI. pag. 195—219. together with such additional light as I have since gained frmo farther observations upon reading Havercamp’s accurate editoin of this author. Now since it is but too evident, that not a few of Josephus’s numbers, both in his present Greek copies, and those of the old Latin versions; (I mean that of Rufinus of the VII. Books of Antiquities, [sic: read Of the War] and perhaps of the II. Books against Apion; and that of Cassiodorus’s friend, supposed to be Epiphanius Scholasticus of the XX. Books of Antiquities,) have been grossly corrupted, since the days of Josephus; we must, with Dr. Willis, of necessity have recourse to the citations made from his Books in early ages, before those alterations were made; that so we may see what was his own genuine chronology. In order therefore to our discovery of that chronology, we must in the entrance, and by way of a preliminary, observe, that Josephus appears to have finished and published his Greek Books of the Jewish War about A.D. 75. or when he was no more than 38 years of age; and that it was about 18 years afterwards, or in the 13th of Domitian, A.D. 93. i.e. when he was 56 years of age, that he published his Antiquities: as also that he published his two Books against Apion still later, after those Antiquities had been read and censured by the Greeks or Gentiles. All which is plainly proved by Fabricius edit. Havercamp. Vol. II. page 57, &c. As to his own Life, which he intended as an Appendx to his Antiquities, it could not be finished till after the 3d of Trajan, A.D. 100. or after he was 63 years of age: as is clear, tho’ contrary to the common opinion, from his mentioning therein Agrippa IId as then dead, § 65. who yet did not die till that third of Trajan: as the words of a contemporary writer, Justus of Tiberias, to be produced hereafter out of Photius, directly inform us. See the Note upon Justus of Tiberias’s Fragment, after the Life of Josephus, and Havercamp’s Edition Vol. II. pag. 40. and pag. 58—63. And that his two Books against Apion were written after the foregoing, will appear probable hereafter. I proceed therefore to my present design; I mean to state the genuine chronology of Josephus from the ancient citations. And in order thereto I observe,
§ 2. (1) That Josephus certainly reckoned almost 3000 years, and no more, from the creation of Adam, to the death of Moses. This is Josephus’s own express computation in all his present MSS. and printed copies, Greek and Latin; and that in his latest work, against Apion, Lib. I. § 8. And this number is not only in all the present MSS. and printed copies, but was also in those very ancient copies made use of by Eusebius; who quotes the same number from him Hist. Eccl. III.10.85. and whose MSS. still appear, by Valesius’s Notes, to have the same number. That number is also quoted by Niceophorus; and was in the version used by Hermannus Contractus: both in the XIth century: nay was cited accordingly by Bede, about the end of the VIIth century, without the least variation. See Niceph. Hist. Eccl. pag. 162. Herm. Contr. at A.M. 2493. Bede De Natur. rer. fol. 76. and De Rat. Temp. Epist. Apologet. So that here we may securely fix our foot, and affirm, that Josephus, for certain, originally reckoned almost 3000 years, and no more, from the creation of Adam, till the death of Moses.
§ 3. (2) That Josephus did also, for certain, reckon about 1770, 1780, or 1790. years, from the days of Moses, or the Exodus out of Egypt, till the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian, A.D. 70. This computation is most probably taken from Antiq. VIII.3.1. and De Bell. VI.10. and is cited in Clement of Alexandria, by a still earlier anonymous author: who wrote but 77 years after that destruction, and but 54 years after Josephus finished his Antiquities. The remarkable words of this citation are these, Strom. I. p. 341. “Flavius Josephus the Jew,, who composed the history of that nation, when he collected the series of years, says, That from Moses to David: [from the Exodus out of Egypt, to the death of David,]
§ 34. N.B. The foregoing 51 [chronological or number errors] are the principal examples of such mistakes in Josephus’s present copies, as seem to me generally to be his own real mistakes; and not owing to his transcribers or correctors: and the reader will readily observe, that they are chiefly confined to the two first Books of the Jewish War, belonging to elder times, and written, when he was comparatively but a young man, under 38 years of age; when he had read comparatively but a few books, and those not always the most authentick; when in particular he appears never to have seen either the first Book of Maccabees, or the following Chronicle of John Hyrcanus, 1 Macc. 16:23, 24. both written in Hebrew, and both the authentick originals, whence he ought to have drawn the principal facts he was to relate: and which accordingly he closely followed, and carefully abridged when, many years afterward, he wrote his Antiquities. As for the five Books of Jason of Cyrene, or their abridgment, the second book of Maccabees, which were written in Greek; he seems never to have seen them at all. To be sure he has made little or no use of them. Nor is the comparative inaccuracy of Josephus’s history in these first parts of his writings to be denied. Nor was he himself afterward insensible of it; when, in his Antiquities XII.5.2. he begins the history of Antiochus Eupator, with whose history his first book Of the War had also begun, after this manner: “I will now relate distinctly, says Josephus, what concerns this King; and how he seized upon Judea, and the temple. For when I formerly wrote that history, I mention’d the facts only by way of epitome. Wherefore I think it necessary now to go over that history again, and this afer an accurate manner.” And greatly does it tend to the honour of Josephus, that he was so willing in his latter works, to correct the errors of his former; as he appears frequently to have done: though his commentators do hardly ever take notice of it: but instead thereof frequently puzzle and perplex themselves, though generally to little purpose, in reconciling such passages in his following works, to the parallel ones in his first: while they ought rather to have acknowledged them to be not seldom plainly irreconcilable; and to have taken particular notice of the later passages as no other than honest emendations of the former. Nor is it any wonder at all, that the Antiquities, published as I said about 18 years after the Books of the Jewish War; and his account of his own Life, which was an appendix to them; together with two Books against Apion; which I think were written still later; should be more authentick, and more accurate tha the earliest of all his writings the first and second Book of the Jewish War. For the reader is to take special notice, that no farther does this great inaccuracy extend. The rest of the history of that War generally belonging to his own times, and being deriv’d from the most undeniable evidence, what his own eyes saw, or his own ears heard; or from the original information of those whose eyes saw, or ears heard what he relates to us. And thus far concerning Josephus’s Jewish chronology, as it was faithfully taken by him from the known Hebrew records of that nation.
§ 35. But then, we must takenotice farther, what has not, that I remember, been distinctly taken notice of by any hitherto; that Josephus, in his former Book against Apion, § 14, 15, 16, 26, 31. has another different system of ancient chronology; relating, as he thought, to the Jews also: and this taken from Manetho, the great Egyptian chronologer and historian, and his accounts of the Phenecian Shepherds: those Hyc Sos, which Josephus assures us signified either Shepherd Kings, or Shepherd Captives; and which he understood to have been the children of Israel, who came from Phenicia or Canaan, and were, for certain, by occupation Shepherds; when they dwelt in Egypt, from the days of Jacob, till the days of Moses: under which Moses, Manetho himself confesses the Israelites departed out of Egypt. But by Manetho’s chronology, these Phenician Shepherds, which had for many years oppress’d and tyrannized over the natural Egyptians, wen away out of the countrey; no fewer than 393 years before Danaus came to Argos; and 518 years before Amenophis, the uncertain King of Egypt, in the same Manetho; and so, in Josephus’s opinion, near 1000 years before the Trojan war. Which departure of the Phenician shepherds happened, in the sacred chronology, even as stated by Josephus himself, considerably before Jacob and the patriarchs his sons came into Egypt. See my chronological table. This Egyptian chronology however Josephus follows in his Books against Apion, where he debates matters with the Greeks, who despised the Jews and their sacred Books, and would by no means allow them even that less considerable antiquity which Josephus laid claim to from the sacred writings. And if Josephus’s notion, that these old Phenecian Shepherds in Egypt were the Israelites; could have been supported, his argument for their so great antiquity had been, as to Manetho and his heathen followers, perfectly undeniable. However, Josephus seems to have thought they were so; and was the proper occasion that the ancientest Christian chronologers thought so also: till the great Eusebius corrected that grossest of all Josephus’s mistakes, and demonstrated that the abode of the Israelites in Egypt was long after the expulsion of those Shepherds out of that countrey: as the very learned Bp. Cumberland has fully settled that antiquity of the Phenician shepherds in his Sanchoniatho, Lib. II. Sect. iii. iv. pag. 350–415. See also Marsham’s Chronicon. pag. 6, 98–104, 134, 135. Nor is this large chronology peculiar to Josephus, in his debates with Manetho, in the former of these two Books, styled the Books against Apion: but in the debates with Apion himself, and Lysimachus, &c. in the latter book. Where in § 2. he affirms, that from Bocchoris, who was burnt alive by Sabachon the cruel, King of Egypt, to his own time, were no fewer than 1700 years: which very long interval can no way be made out, but on the foot of this Egyptian chronology. See Authent. Rec. Vol. II. p.970. When therefore we remember with what writers Josephus had to do in these his latest Books; and what seems to have been his own opinion concerning these Phenecian shepherds; as also that Josephus’s proper business is to make the fathers of the Jews as ancient as he could, in opposition to such as would not admit them to be of any considerable antiquity at all. We are not much to wonder that he reasons there not from the Jewish records, which they denied; but from those Egyptian records, which they could not deny: and this while he had before, from the Jewish chronology, stated the interval from Mose to his own age, at almost 1900; and in a round number had called it several times 2000 years; a we have already seen; I saw we are not much to wonder that he now advanced it, according to that Egyptian chronology, as he understood it, to above 2000 years. Contr. Apion. II.31. as it is also cited in Eusebius’s Præp. Evang. VIII.8. pag. 369.
§ 36. This observation affords us a very proper occasion to enter into the very secrets of Josephus’s writing the history of the Jewish War; his Antiquities, and other works: viz. That he did not so much undertake to reconcile ancient chronological and historical accounts of the world, and particularly of their nation; or to make hypotheses of his own for their adjustment; which the moderns perpetually do; as to produce fairly and candidly the ancient accounts themselves: whether those of his own, or those of other nations: and honestly leave them to the judgment of unprejudic’d readers. I mean this in particular cases, where such accounts seemed to contradict one another. For where thoes accounts agreed; as, for the main, they usually did, he most frequently observed their agreement; and thereby strongly confirms the Jewish chronology and history upon all occasions. But that Josephus thought himself obliged to that uncommon degree of fidelity in ancient authors, sacred as well as profane, he several times assures us, and protests that he neither added to, nor took from them. See Essay on the Old Test. pag. 190–195. and Antiq. VIII.2.8. I mean in any other sense than an epitome, written for the use of foreigners, and designed for their approbation and instruction, must omit some, and embellish other histories after a more polite manner than the ancient brevity of the Hebrew language, and the simplicity of the ancient Hebrew composition presented them to him in their originals. This appears to be true, not only by those his affirmations, but by the general process of his accounts also. And this exact fidelity I take to be the distinguishing character of Josephus, perhaps beyond that of almost any other but the sacred historians themselves. See Dissertat. I. § 80, 81, 82. and Dissertat. II. § 28. Thus we find him twice setting down the 400 years foretold for the affliction of Abraham’s posterity in Egypt, from Gen. 15:13, Antiq. I.10.3. and II.9.1. Although he seems no more able to reconcile his copy there to other texts of scripture, which plainly imply that the Israelites were in Egypt but 215 years, as Josephus also believed, Antiq. II.15.2. and were not in affliction there near one of that time neither; than we are to reconcile ours at this day. [The word until 400 years would set all right: it being indeed but 405 years from the birth of Isaac, to the Exodus out of Egypt.] Thus we may find Josephus honestly setting down the weight of the pollings of Absalom’s hair, at 200 shekels, or 5 pounds, 2 Sam. 24:26. Antiq. VII.8.5. without giving us any account how that weight could be supposed true in one weeks time; for so often he thought Absolom polled his head. Nor perhaps could he solve that difficulty any better than we can at this day. See my own conjecture [that this weight included the sum of all those pollings at the time of his death; and not the single weight of his hair cut off at each polling:] Lit. Accompl. of Proph. Supplem. pag. 77, 78. Thus Josephus directly mentions the assumptions of Enoch and Elijah to heaven; the speaking of Balaam’s ass; the abode of Jonas in the whale’s belly, and his being cast out in the Euxine sea; in their proper places, with other wonders, the least credible among the heathen, without any scruple. Thus also he records the epistle of Elijah the prophet to King Joram, Antiq. IX.5.2. as he found it in his copies, and as it still stands in all our copies: although he had himself related his transition to heaven, or disappearing about 4 years before. See the Note at that place. Thus also he makes no difficulty to set down the age of Ahaz when he began to reign, of barely 20 years; with almost all the other copies Antiq. IX.12.3. as also with all the other copies, tha he reigned but 16 years, and that Hezekiah his son was 25 years old when he began to reign, X.3.1. Although it thence follow, that Ahaz was but 11 years old when Hezekiah was born: and used to afford one of the most insuperable difficulties in all the Bible history. Of which see the Note on the former of those places. Thus he tells us, Antiq. IX.10.1. with our other copies, that Jeroboam II. the son of Joash, was a very wicked man: nay he adds, that he was the cause ofa vast number of misfortunes to the Israelites: none of which either he or our other copies enumerate: but on the contrary he, with them, gives us a different account; and reckons up the great things he did for that nation; and the blessings of God upon him and them immediately: which I take to have been after his repentance and amendment. Which yet is omitted in all our copies; as well as it was in those of Josephus. Of which in due place hereafter. thus we have seen how Josephus at first estimated the interval between the first defection of Jeroboam, and the captivity of the ten tribes, at no more than 240 years; which is the just sum of the reigns of the several Kings of Israel during that interval: as also how he at first estimated the interval from the building of the temple of Solomon, to its burning by Nebuchadnezzar, at 470 years; which is his just sum of the reigns of the several Kings of Judah during that interval also, without adjusting the reigns in the two Kingdoms together, which was but necessary, and which he seems afterward to have attempted, and that with no bad success, at the end of his Antiquities. Which scheme therefore I look on as the judicious result of his own later enquiries into sacred chronology. But as to that larger Egyptian chronology from Manetho: ’Tis true, that Josephus’s Books against Apion are later than his Antiquities; and perhaps not a few years later also: and so it is possible that in the mean time he might have met with some other Jewish copies or records that might then dispose him to think Manetho’s chronology of the Phenician shepherds, even as understood of the Israelites when they were in Egypt, not to be utterly unjustifiable. But since we have no intimation of this, even in those Books against Apion, we cannot be assured of any such thing. And Eusebius’s later discovery, now generally and justly received, that the Kingdom of these Phenician shepherds was several centuries ancienter than the abode of the Israelites in Egypt, renders it highly unlikely that there ever were any such records extant, as carried Moses to the antiquity here supposed by Josephus. Nor need we, perhaps, ascribe this hypothesis of Josephus’s to anything else, than to his great inclination to make Moses, the Jewish legislator, as much ancienter, as possible, than all the famous heathen legislators: and his observation ad hominem, as we speak, that, in his opinion, the Egyptian chronology of Manetho’s imply’d the same very great antiquity; without any farther concern of his to compare it with, or adjust it to the Jewish chronology.
§ 37. And now I shall take leave to make some farther reflexions on Josephus’s sacred chronology. The impartial reader, upon perusal of the foregoing pages, will easily remark, how very near the several particulars of this chronology, even taken generally from Josephus’s present copies, carefully and fairly considered and compared, come to those ancient surer general numbers for the three grand branches of it: (1.) From the creation of Adam, till the death of Moses [2993 or] almost 3000 years: (2.) From the days of Moses, or the Exodus out of Egypt, till the days of David, or till the death of David, 585 [or rather 588] years: and (3.) From the days, or from the death of David, till the second year of Vespasian, A.D. 70. just 1179 years. These sure ancient numbers put together are 4757, or rather 4760 years: and are very nearly the same which the ten several distinct periods in Josephus’s Antiquitiesm § 9. before, do afford us. He will also readily discover, upon the like perusal of these papersr, that the learned Peter Brinch, as well as other moderns, when they so greatly run down Josephus on account of his pretended very numerous and very great errors in chronology, ap. Havercamp, pag. 291–304. have not entred candidly into this matter; nor gone to the bottom of it: nor indeed judged wisely about it: but have frequently ascribed the gross errors of more modern scribes and correctors to Josephus himself: have several times overlook’d his own second thoughts, and emendations: and have not seldom blamed him unjustly, because he had not by him Ptolemy’s Canon, or Xenophon’s Cyropædia, or other lately discovered helps in his chronology: or indeed sometimes because he does not agree with the numbers of other later and corrupter copies of the sacred books of the Old Testament; which his better temple copy corrected: or with certain modern hypotheses not well supported by such more authentick evidencce as lay before him. The learned, especially those who are critically and peevishly disposed, are here not seldom very sharp-sighted in finding faults in Josephus: and while they, upon weak conjectures of their own, do on many occasions carp at and set aside histories of great consequence in Josephus, for which we have no reason to doubt but he had good authority, they are very fond of exposing his supposed mistakes about them. Josephus was but a man, and so sometimes liable to mistakes, as all men are. Yet had he very evidently at least one much better copy of the Books of the Old Testament than the moderns: as I have proved at large in the second Dissertation prefixed. He had also, bby the index of authors in his two last editions, and repeated in this, at least 80 old heathen authors to consult, when he wrote his Antiquities, and his Books against Apion; of which we have now scarce 14 remaining. He was also a most diligent enquirer into history, and a great lover of truth. And after all this, do the moderns think they can now have sufficient evidence from their other much later and much more imperfect copies of the Old Testament; and much fewer remains of heathen antiquity, to reject and set aside his accounts upon so many occasions as they venture to do? The perpetual rule and standard of our assent ought ever to be this; that we reject nothing affirmed by Josephus, or other ancient writers that have ever been esteemed faithful and honest, and lovers of truth; till our evidence against it preponderate the attestation of those authors. And I confess I cannot but read sometimes with indignation many of our modern learned writers, even the excellent Dean Prideaux himself; who, while they frequently know little of very many transactions of ancient times but what they borrow from Josephus, do yet presume to set several of them aside, without any real contradictory evidence at all; and barely from certain ill-grounded supposals or suspicions of their own. But this is not a proper place to enlarge upon these matters; excepting such as are of a chronological nature: which yet have been, I think, sufficiently treated of in this Dissertation already.
§ 38. N.B. Since I have now finished what I had to propose concerning the chronology of Josephus; it may not be amiss to do as I did formerly in the like case, Essay on the Old Test. pag. 214, 215. and to set down what I my self do now esteem the true sacred chronology all the way. And that will be dne by little more than transcribing my former table of the Essay. I not seeing evidence enough t make any considerable alterations in any period of that chronology. I mean this unless we prefer Eusebius’s and our copies of the Samaritan Pentateuch, before Jerom’s copy of that Pentateuch; which last agrees nearly with Josephus’s copy; as to two readings before the flood: which correction would make the first period 246 years shorter: as has appeared, § 6. and 8. before. Of which see also Authentick Records, Part I. pag. 463, 464. and Essay on the Old Testament, pag. 21, 22.
years. | ||
(1) | From the autumnal equinox next after the creation of Adam, to that at the end of the deluge | 1556 |
(2) | Thence to the departure of Abraham out of Haran, at the Jewish passover, about the vernal equinox | 966½ |
(3) | Thence to the Exodus out of Egypt, at the Jewish passover | 430 |
(Thence to the death of Moses, six weeks before the Jewish passover | 40) | |
(4) | From the Exodus out of Egypt, to the building of Solomon’s temple | 480 |
(5) | Thence to the temple’s conflagration | 464½ |
(6) | Thence to the passover, on the first year of the Christian æra | 587½ |
Sum 4484½ | ||
Therefore from the death of Moses, to the passover in the first year of the Christian æra, are | 1492½ |
N.B. Not knowing what deficient or redundant months there were in the 80 years reign of Solomon, given us by Josephus; who, with our bibles, calls David’s 40 years and 6 months reign, but 40 years in the whole: I allow here 480 years in 1 King. 6:1. to be compleat, instead of current: as are the particulars also that composite the same general sum, § 15. before, which allowance brings this number 1492 exactly to that in my chronological table, published A.D. 1721. According to which table I determine the chronology all along the margin of this version of Josephus.
§ 39. Since that excellent perrson Mons. Toinard, has, I think, in his celebrated Harmony of the Gospels, pag. 9. truly determined; in agreement with the plain sense of the law of Moses, Levit. 25:8, 9, 10, 11. as well as with the most learned Jews, and particularly with our Josephus, Antiq. III.12.3. and Maimonides, in Bp. Patrick on Levit. 25:12. that the Jewish year of jubilee was always the first of a sabbatick week of years: and thence the 50th year also: i.e. the first of the next week of years after the 7 × 7 = 49 years were over. So that every 49th and 50th year were, the former a sabbatick year, and the latter a year of jubilee; without any interruption of the sabbatick cycles by jubilees; it will be fit here to try Josephus’s and others chronologies, and particularly my former chronology made from the Masorete Hebrew, and my present made chiefly from the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Josephus, jointly considered: both which were made without all regard thereto: by this admirable and decretory characteristick; and to see whether any of them can approve themselves to be true and genuine by their agreement to it.
§ 40. ’Tis true, learned men have hardly been able hitherto to observe, either in any of our copies of the Books of scripture; or in Josephus’s Antiquities, one certain year of jubilee, either proclaimed or celebrated: as we do several sabbatical years. See Literal Accomplishment of Prophecies, pag. 75. Yet have I very lately taken notice of a most remarkable one, as it seems to me, in the history of the Old Testament, as well as Josephus; though he gives us no hint of his knowledge that such year was properly a year of jubilee: as I had long ago taken notice of another, perhaps not less remarkable, in a prophecy of Isaiah. By that in the history of the Old Testament I mean the very first year of jubilee of all; the year when Moses died, and Joshua introduced the Israelites into the land of Canaan, and took its first fruits, the city of Jericho. We know that, by the law of Moses, every year of jubilee was still to be proclaimed by a very loud and joyful sound; or by what is peculiarly styled, the trumpet of jubilee: Levit. 25:8. &c. And certainly, as this was the very first year when a jubilee could possibly be proclaimed in Judea; so was no one other year of jubilee so remarkably proclaimed by these trumpets of Jobel or Jobelim as this was. These trumpets our translators have strangely rendred, trumpets of rams horns: without any foundation either in the Hebrew, the Samaritan, the Septuagint, or Josephus. Jobel never signifies a ram’s horn: and though that miserable kind of trumpet might be sometimes used on some smaller occasions, or in a stratagem, as in the case of Gideon, Judg. 7:16, 17, 18. where the Septuagint and Josephus call his trumpets rams horns; yet is there not th least pretence that those poor rams horns were used as trumpets of a loud and joyful sound, as trumpets of jubilee. Nor indeed, excepting that amazing sound of an angelick and metaphorick trumpet, at the solemn delivery of the law on Mount Sinai, Exod. 19:13. is this ord ever used but for the trumpet of jubilee, both in the laws relating to the year of jubilee, and in the account of the siege of Jericho. In the laws no fewer than 18 times, Levi. 25:10, 11, 12. twice, 15, 28, 30, 31, 33, 40, 52, 54. 27:17, 18, 21, 23, 24. Numb. 36:4. and in the siege 5 times: 4 times in the plural Jobelim, and once in the singular, Jobel. Josh. 6:4, 5, 6, 8, 13. This year of jubilee seems to have begun in the life-time of Moses, with the feast of trumpets, or new years day; the first of Tisri, Numb. 29:1. It seems to have proceeded with blowing trumpets against the Midianites, soon afterward; perhaps on the 10th of Tisri; the time appointed by the law for blowing the trumpets of jubilee; had the Jews then been in the promised land: Levi. 25:9. or however, at the fest of tabernacles, presently after it, 31:6. But still, they were not entred into Canaan; and so could not yet make that loud and joyful sound, the sound of liberty; which Josephus, in agreement with the law, Levit. 25:10 says is the signification of Jobel. However, as soon as they were entred into Canaan; Josephus thinks on the first day of the passover; they were injoined to go round Jericho with the priests sounding the trumpets of jubilee, and so once on each of five more days; the five next days of the passover, in the opinion of Josephus; and seven times on the seventh day; the seventh and last day of the passover, in the opinion of Josephus; without any other noise than of these trumpets of jubilee: till at the seventh time, on the seventh day, heaven and earth rang with the united sounds of the shoutings of the people, and of the trumpets of jubilee; till the walls of Jericho fell down, and the city was taken and destroyed. How it has come to pass that we have all so long overlooked this most solemn proclamation of a year of jubilee, I can but guess. But certainly, as I have already noted, this was more solemnly proclaimed by these trumpets of jubilee, than ever any other year of jubilee was proclaimed; from the days of Moses, till the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus Vespasian. Nor indeed can any year suit better, as the first of six years before the first sabbatick year, than this: while the following history, both in our own bibles, and in Josephus’s Antiquities, assures us, that Joshua’s want lasted no longer than the sixth year; counting this for one: and that accordingly the people rested in their new acquisitions on the next year; the first seventh or sabbatick year. Josh. 14:10. 21:43, 44. 22:4. Antiq. V.I.19.
§ 41. We have also, what is perhaps not less remarkable, both in the history of the Kings, and in the Book of Isaiah, an account of a sabbatick year, and a year of jubilee immediately following it; and this in a prophecy of Isaiah’s. It belongs to part of the 18th and part of the 19th year of Hezekiah. This interpretation is almost intimated by Archbishop Ussher at that year; the year of the world, according to him, 3295. and for certain the 710th before the Christian æra. And I have long supposed this to be its true interpretation: though I know not how it has happened, that I never till now in earnest considered it, and examined any chronological tables by it. The words of God by Isaiah are these: This shall be a sign unto ye: ye shall eat this year such as groweth of itself: (as the Jews were always to do on a sabbatick year: Levit. 25:1–7.) And the second year that which springeth of the same: (as the Jews were always to do on a year of jubilee also, ℣ 11.) And in the third year sow ye, and reap, and plant vine-yards, and eat the fruit thereof. 2 King. 19:29. Is. 37:30. i.e. “You shall be so far from being disturbed by Senacherib, of whom you are now so terribly afraid; that you shall be able to keep your two years of rest, which are already begun; your ordinary sabbatick year, and your extraordinary year of jubilee, without any molestation from Senacherib; till you fall to your ordinary occupations the third year, as ye were wont to do in times of the greatest peace and quietness.”
§ 42. And to confirm this interpretation, if we supply what seems most evidently to be lost out of a context of the Book of Leviticus, relating to this very matter, we have an express promise that God would do to them in this case, as he did with the falling of the manna in the wilderness, as to the sabbath or day of rest; when on the sixth day of the week he sent them a double quantity of that heavenly food. Exod. 16:22–26. that is, he not only would give the Jews a double crop on the common sixth year, to supply food for two years; for that sixth year it self, and for the following seventh or sabbtick year: but that he would morever give them a triple crop on the extraordinary sixth year, to supply food for three years; for that sixth year it self, and for the two following years of rest, the sabbatick year, and the year of jubilee. The present text runs thus, after the foregoing laws for the observation of the sabbatick years, and the years of jubilee, Levit. 25:20, 21, 22. And if ye shall say, what shall we eat the seventh year? Behold we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year; and it shall bring forth fruit for three years: And ye shall sow the eigth year, and eat of old fruits until the ninth year; until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old. This is not intelligible, as it now stands in all our copies; how the rest of one year only should distress them for three? the rest of the seventh year only distress them till the ninth? Nor have the commentators any thing material to offer as a solution of these difficulties. Accordingly Ainsworth and Dr. Wall make no attempt towards any solution at all. The context, and the nature of the things themselves evidently require, that it be supplyed after the manner following: And if ye shall say, (in the ordinary case of a sabbatick year) what shall we eat the seventh year? Behold, we shall not sow, nor gather in our increase: Then I will command my blessing on you in the sixth year, and the land shall bring forth fruit for two years; and ye shall sow the eighth year. But if ye shall say, (in the extraordinary case of a year of jubilee,) what shall we eat the eigth year? Behold we shall not sow nor gather in our increase [neither on the seventh, nor eight year.] Then will I command my blessing on you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years, and ye shall eat of old fruit until the ninth year, until her fruits come in ye shall eat of the old. And if we take notice, that the Jews did not sow in one year, and reap the product in another; did not sow in the eigth year, and reap its product in the ninth year; but that the sabbatick years and years of jubilee, as is well known, began in the autumn before feed time; and lasted till after harvest; we shall be forced to allow of this emendation. Nor indeed can I avoid a strong suspicion, that the Jews themselves, after the days of Hezekiah, but before the Samaritan obtained its present form,, and dropped the various readings of the Hebrew text; and before the Septuagint interpreters made their version, abridged and corrupted this context, when they had once left off the strict observation of the rest on the years of jubilee. As loth to permit an express law, that notoriously contradicted their own practice, to stand in its full perfection against them in their Pentateuch. The Rabbins pretend, as Bp. Patrick informs us, on Levit. 25:10. that “After the tribes of Reuben, and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh were carried captive, jubilees ceased.” This cannot well be true; because we have very probably found a jubilee observed in the days of Hezekiah still later; even after the captivity of the ten tribes by Salmanassar. I rather think their careful observation of the rest for the land both on sabbatick years, and years of jubilee, at least of the years of jubilee, was left off by the ten tribes from the days of wicket Jeroboam, who made Israel to sin: but that the observation of the years of jubilee at least, if not of the sabbatick years also was left off from the days of wicked Manasseh; into whose 40th year fell a jubilee: or however during the Babylonish captivity; about whose 44th year fell the death of Nebuchadnezzar, and a year of jubilee also. I say, they seem to me to have been left off at least so soon, even by the two tribes; suspecting however that neither the sabbatick year, nor years of jubilee were duly observed, I mean only as to the rest of the land thereon, under the several apostacies of the Jews to idolatry; whether in the days of the Judges, or of the Kings of Judah. My reasons are two: the one taken from the perfect silence of the sacred historians, and of Josephus about their observation all that time: the other taken from the distinct mention of the neglect of 70 years of such rest for the land, of its punishment by 70 years intire and continued rest of the same land, during so many years captivity of the two tribes; or as many years as they had not allowed it to rest, according to the law of Moses. Compare Levit. 26:33, 34, 35. with 2 Chron. 36:21. Now 70 sabbatick years belong to 490 years; if they be taken by themselves: but if we include the years of jubilee, they are 8 in every 49 years: and belong to 430 years. Now these 430 years must end at the burning of the temple, and intire desolation of the land by Nebuchadnezzar; at the conclusion of the reign of Zedekiah. And if we examine the duration of the several apostacies of all the tribes to idolatry under the Judges, and of the two tribes under the Kings, till that captivity, they may well be estimated at about 430 years also. Nor was the Jewish settlement afer the captivity so compleat, during several periods of jubilees, as to oblige us to expect their restoration any more: I mean as to the observation of the strict rest of the land on those years. None living had then seen any such rest on a year of jubilee: and so those years would naturally vanish out of the peoples minds: unless the prophets of God, or their religious governors had taken care of their restoration. Now I do not find that any one year of jubilee fell out during the times when Haggai, or Zechariah, or even Malachi prophesied among them: or during the governments of Zorobabel, Ezra, or Nehemiah. Though I do not indeed suppose the abridgement or corruption of the text before us to have been made till after the days of Nehemiah: whose copy of the sacred Books I have proved to have been used by Josephus.
§ 43. But as for that common supposal of the moderns, that it would be very hard upon the Jews ever to have two years of rest for the land together; it is already answered by the genuine text, as I have restored it, in Leviticus: and seems to me altogether of a piece with that other false supposal of the modern Rabbins, that it would be too hard upon the Jews to pay three tythes every third year: which yet was certainly a part of the law of Moses, Deut. 14:28, 29. 26:12,13. was certainly practised by good Tobit, even under the Assyrian captivity, Tob. 1:6, 7, 8. and was so understood by Josephus himself, Antiq. IV.8.22. and, I suppose, so practised by religious Jews in his time also. It is moreover of a piece with a supposal that might be made, that it had not been safe for the males that were grown up to go up to Jerusalem at the three festivals every year, as they were certainly commanded to do; and as they certainly did; lest their enemies should come and ravage and plunder their countrey, and destroy their wives and children at such festivals: which, humanely speaking, it was very easy for those enemies to do. He who required three tythes every third year; and had intimated that by such ways Their barns should be filled with plenty; and their presses should burst out with new wine, Prov. 3:9, 10. [See the like under the Jewish Christian church in the Apostol. Constitut. VII.29.] He who had promised and performed it, that No man should desire their land, at their going up thrice in a year to their festivals, Exod. 34:24. could and did always make the land sufficiently fruitful in the third and sixth years, to reward the conscientious observers of those laws. As was such extraordinary fruitfulness a certain demonstration of that especial divine providence which presided over that nation in all those ages: I mean this whilst they submitted to God, as to their supreme King and Governor; and continued in obedience to his laws, given them by the hand of Moses; but no longer. Nor do we find any Sadducees or Scepticks in religion among the Jews till long after their rejection of those divine laws, and after their settlement under political governments; when they were abandoned by God, and had forfeited all the peculiar regards of divine providence. Which is an observation worthy the deepest consideration of the Scepticks of the present age.