These times would certainly not be considered so turbulent and barbarous, much less would they be taken, contrary to the clearest evidence and to the analogy of all history, for a heroic age, if they were viewed without the prejudices of a precon ceived hypothesis. It must never be forgotten that the book of Judges is by no means a complete his tory. This no impartial inquirer can ever deny. It is, in a manner, a mere register of diseases, from which, however, we have no right to conclude that there were no healthy men, much less that there were no healthy seasons ; since the book itself, for the most part, mentions only a few tribes in which the epidemic prevailed, and notices long periods during which it had universally ceased. Whatever may be the result of more accurate investigation, it remains undeniable that the condition of the He brews during this period perfectly corresponds throughout to the sanctions of the law ; and they were always prosperous when they complied with the conditions on which prosperity was promised them ; it remains undeniable that the government of God was clearly manifested, not only to the Hebrews, but to their heathen neighbours ; that the fulfilling of the promises and threatenings of the law were so many sensible proofs of the uni versal dominion of the Divine King of the Hebrews ; and, consequently, that all the various fortunes of that nation were so many means of preserving the knowledge of God on the earth. The Hebrews had no sufficient reason to desire a cbange in their constitution ; all required was, that they should observe the conditions on which national prosperity was promised them.' The chronology of the period in which the judges ruled is beset with great and perhaps insuperable difficulties. There are intervals of time the extent of which is not specified ; as, for instance, that from Joshua's death to the yoke of Cusban Risha thaim (ii. 8) ; that of the rule of Shamgar (iii. 3r) ; that between Gideon's death and Abimelech's ac cession (viii. 31, 32) ; and that of Israel's renewal of idolatry previous to their oppression by the Ammonites (x. 6, 7). Sometimes round numbers seem to have been given, as forty years for the rule of Othniel, forty years for that of Gideon, and forty years also for the duration of the oppres sion by the Philistines. Twenty years are given for the subjection to Jabin, and twenty years for the government of Samson ; yet the latter never completely conquered the Philistines, who, on the contrary, succeeded in capturing him. Some judges, who are commonly considered to have been succes sive, were in all probability contemporaneous, and ruled over different districts. Under these circum stances, it is impossible to fix the date of each par ticular event in the book of Judges ; but attempts have been made to settle its general chronology, of which we must in this place mention the most successful.
The whole period of the judges, from Joshua to Eli, is usually estimated at 299 years, in order to mect the 48o years which (t Kings vi. r) are said to have elapsed from the departure of the Israelites from Egypt to the foundation of the temple by Solomon. But St. Paul says (Acts xiii. 2o), God gave unto the people of Israel judges about the space of 450 years until Samuel, the prophet.' Again, if the number of years spe cified by the author of our book, in stating facts, is summed up, we have 410 years, exclusive of those years not specified for certain intervals of time above mentioned. In order to reduce these 410 years and upwards to 299, events and reigns must, in computing their years of duration, either be entirely passed over, or, in a most arbitrary way, included in other periods preceding or subse quent. This has been done by Archbishop Usher, whose peculiarly faulty system has been adopted in the Authorized Version of the Scriptures. He excludes the repeated intervals during which the Hebrews were in subjection to their enemies, and reckons only the years of peace and rest which were assigned to the successive judges. For example, he passes over the eight years of servitude inflicted upon the Hebrews by Cushan-rishathaim, and, without any interruption, connects the peace ob tained by the victories of Othniel with that which had been conferred on the land by the government of Joshua ; and although the sacred historian re lates in the plainest terms possible that the children of Israel served the king of Mesopotamia eight years, and were afterwards delivered by Othniel, who gave the land rest forty years, the archbishop maintains that the forty years now mentioned began, not after the successes of this judge, but immediately after the demise of Joshua. Nothing
certainly can be more obvious than that in this case the years of tranquillity and the years of op pression ought to be reckoned separately. Again, we are informed by the sacred writer, that after the death of Ehud the children of Israel were under the oppression of Jabin king of Hazor for twenty years, and that afterwards, when their deliverance was effected by Deborah and Barak, the land had rest forty years. Nothing can be clearer than this ; yet Usher's system leads him to include the twenty years of oppression in the forty of peace, making both but forty years. Al] this arises from the obligation which Usher unfortunately conceived himself under of following the scheme adopted by the Masoretic Jews, who, as Dr. Hales remarks, have by a curious invention included the four first servitudes in the years of the judges who put an end to them, contrary to the express declarations of Scripture, which represents the administrations of the judges, not as synchronising with the servitudes, but as succeeding them. The Rabbins were indeed forced to allow the fifth servitude to have been distinct from the administration of Jephtliah, because it was too long to be included in that administration ; but they deducted a year from the Scripture account of the servitude, making it only six instead of seven years. They sank entirely the sixth servitude of forty years under the Philistines, because it was too long to be contained in Samson's administration ; and, to crown all, they reduced Saul's reign of forty ycars to two years only.
The necessity for all these tortuous operations has arisen from a desire to produce a conformity with the date in Kings vi. 1, which, as already cited, gives a period of only 480 years from the exode to the foundation of Solomon's temple. As this date is incompatible with the sum of the dif ferent numbers given in the book of Judges, and as it differs from the computation of Josepluis and of all the ancient writers on the subject, whether Jewish or Christian, it is not unsatisfactory to find grounds which leave this text open to much doubt and suspicion. We cannot here enter into any lengthened proof ; but that the text did not exist in the Hebrew and Greek copies of the Scripture till nearly three centuries after Christ, is evident from the absence of all reference to it in the works of the learned men who composed histories of the Jews from the materials supplied to them in the sacred books. This may be shewn by reference to various authors, who, if the number specified in it had existed, could not fail to have adduced it. In. particular, it is certain that it did not exist in the Hebrew or Greek Bibles in the days of Josephus ; for he alludes to the verse in which it is contained without making the slightest observation in regard to it, although the period which he, at the same time, states as having elapsed between the exodc and the foundation of the temple, is directly at variance with it to the extent of not less than r 12 years (Antsq. viii. 3). If the number 48o years' had then existed in the text, he could not, while referring to the passage where it is now inserted, have dared to state a nuinber so very different. Then we have the testimony of St. Pau] (Acts xiii. 2o), who makes the rule of the judges until Samuel' extend over 450 years, which, with the addition of ascertained nunibers, raises the amount for the whole period to 592 years. This evidence scems so conclusive that it is scarcely necessary to add any other ; but it may be mentioned that Origen, in his Commentary on St. yohn, cites Kings vi. r, and even mentions the year of Solomon's reign, and the month in which he beg,an to build the temple, without the slightest notice of the number of years (as now stated in the text) which intervened between that event and the exode. It has consequently been inferred, with good reason, that in A.D. 230, when Origen wrote, the interpo lation of the date in question had not yet taken place. Eusebius, however, in his Chronicon, written about A.D. 325, does use the date as the basis of a chronological hypothesis ; whence it is inferred that the date was inserted about the beginning of the 4th century, and probably under the direc tion of the Masoretic doctors of Tiberias. It is also to be remarked that Eusebius, in the Prop. Evangelica, a work written some years after the Chronicon, and in all his other works, uses the more common and ancient system of dates.