writings of Moses. Of these they preserved copies in the original Hebrew character. The Samaritan Pentateuch, although known to Eusebius, and other writers of the fourth and fifth centuries, was afterwards so completely consigned to oblivion, that for a thousand years it was entirely unknown, until its very existence was disputed. Several copies, however, were afterwards discovered, and different editions of it have since been printed.

The SEPTUAGINT, or first Greek version of the scriptures, was made at Alexandria in Egypt. We shall not transcribe the disputed history of this translation, but briefly state. what is universally admitted concerning it. It was made from the original Hebrew, about B. C. 280; it was recognised as a correct version by the highest Jewish authorities, and by their sanction introduced into the synagogues; and it remained thus unchallenged for nearly four hundred years, as a faithful translation of the original scriptures.

Having given this brief sketch of these several scripture authorities, we now proceed to point out more particularly the chronological discrepancies which they contain.

Referring to table, No. 1, and Gen. v. 2-26; vii. 11, the reader will at once perceive that, according to the authorized English translation, and the Hebrew text from which it was made, one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years elapsed from the Creation to the Flood; that the Samaritan makes this period but one thousand three hundred and seven years, the difference of three hundred and forty-nine years arising from the omission of one hundred years from the age of Jared prior to the birth of his eldest son, and by a similar omission of one hundred and twenty years from the age of Methuselah, and of one hundred and twenty-nine years from the age of Lamech. Thus, by reducing the age of these patriarchs at the birth of their eldest sons, the entire term is abridged by the difference of three hundred and forty-nine years. On the other hand, by adding to the ages of the patriarchs, the Septuagint estimate of this period is greatly extended. From Adam to Mahalaleel, five successive generations, this version makes

each patriarch one hundred years older than the Hebrew. Jared is the same as the Hebrew, and both give one hundred years more than the Samaritan. In the case of Enoch the Septuagint has one hundred years more than the Hebrew or Samaritan. In that of Methuselah, the Septuagint and Hebrew agree, both being, as in the case of Jared, one hundred years more than the Samaritan; and, finally, in the case of Lamech, the Septuagint has six years more than the Hebrew, and one hundred and thirty-five more than the Samaritan; the Septuagint, on the whole period, giving us four hundred and six years more than the Hebrew, and nine hundred and ninety-five more than the Samaritan.

In the second table, which illustrates the post-diluvian period, we are first struck by the appearance of Cainan in the Septuagint table, which is not found in either the Hebrew or the Samaritan, and which gives an addition to the period of one hundred and thirty years. Then we find six successive patriarchs, according to the Hebrew, to whose ages prior to the birth of their eldest sons respectively, the Samaritan and the Septuagint agree in adding one hundred years each. Nahor follows; and to his age, in a similar manner, those two versions add fifty years: in the subsesequent generations they all harmonize.

From these data it appears, that in the post-diluvian period the Hebrew gives us but two hundred and ninety-two years, while the Samaritan has nine hundred and forty-two, and the Septuagint one thousand and seventy-two years. This discrepancy will be sufficient to show the importance of the subject. These chronological differences are so great, that no historical scheme applicable to one, can be accommodated to the rest. They are sufficient to derange the entire scope and connexion of the historical records which refer to those times. In order, therefore, to obtain clear and consistent views of the history of the patriarchal age, we must carefully examine the whole subject, and adopt that chronological system which appears to be best entitled to our confidence.

In entering upon this task it may be well to observe, that

we feel quite warranted in regarding each of these versions, the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Septuagint, as so many genuine copies of holy scripture, subject alike to typographical errors, and alike exposed to vitiation from accident, ignorance, or wickedness. No one of these can fairly be called the original in respect of the others, regarded as translations or copies. It is true that the present Hebrew has come to us from the Esdrine text; but, in the transit, it has passed through centuries of danger. With respect to the subject of chronology, to which our attention is specially directed, the numbers of this version possess a great advantage in the estimation of the English reader, in consequence of archbishop Usher having adopted that system, and of its being set forth in the authorized English translation of the scriptures. Yet this should not prevent us from attaching importance to the Samaritan version, possessing, as it undoubtedly does, an antiquity beyond any of our present 'Hebrew copies, coming to us probably in the original character of the Jewish people, and especially when a linguist and biblical critic of Dr. Kennicott's eminence places before us his deliberate judgment as to the course that should be pursued in respect of this subject. "Let," he observes, "the variations of all the manuscripts on each side be carefully collected, and then critically examined by the context and the ancient versions. If the Samaritan copy should be found in some places to correct the Hebrew, yet will the Hebrew copy in other places correct the Samaritan. Each copy, therefore, is invaluable; each copy, therefore, demands our pious veneration, and attentive study. THE PENTATEUCH WILL NEVER BE UNDERSTOOD PERFECTLY, TILL WE ADMIT THE AUTHORITY OF BOTH." *

But it may be alleged, that the Septuagint is undoubtedly a translation. We freely admit the fact; but reply, that it is not a translation from our Hebrew Bible, coming to us, as the latter does, through the hands of the Masorite Jews. The Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew scriptures as they were held by the Jews who lived under the second temple,

* "Dissertations," diss. ii. p. 165.

and who at that time were the trustees to whom were committed the oracles of God. It is more than this: not only was its original the book of scripture as held by the then existing church of God, but the translation also received the unqualified approbation of that church. The high priest and the Sanhedrim approved the Septuagint, and authorized its use in all the synagogues where the Greek language was spoken.* And we have reason to believe that this judgment was not given without careful investigation; for PhiloJudæus, who lived in the age of the apostles, asserts, "that the Hebrews who knew the Greek language, and the Greeks who understood the Hebrew, were so struck with admiration at the entire agreement between the original and the translation, that they not only adored them as sisters, but as one and the same, both in words and things; styling the translators not only accurate scholars, but inspired interpreters and prophets, who, with a singular purity of spirit, had entered into the very sentiments of Moses." +

We are now prepared to enter more particularly into the investigation of this important subject; and, in doing this, shall endeavour to ascertain,

(I.) Whether at any period these several authorities agreed in their chronology; and, if so, whether any one of them at present retains the primitive numbers.

(II.) Whether there be any evidence to show that the numbers in any of the versions have been corrupted.

(III.) Whether an examination of these systems, as to their agreement with the general order of nature, their internal evidence of truth or falsehood, and their accordance with the general evidence of tradition and history, will warrant strong confidence in the genuineness of any one of these systems of numbers.

If we succeed in offering a satisfactory solution of these problems, we shall be prepared to come to some well-founded opinion on the whole subject.

(I.) We proceed with the first subject of inquiry. And

* DR. HENRY OWEN'S "Inquiry," p. 6.

+ PHILO-JUDEUS, De Vita Mosis, lib. ii. p. 659. Edit. Francof. 1640.

:

here we call special attention to the important fact, that two hundred and eighty years before the Christian era it was decided, by the highest Jewish authorities, that the Septuagint translation was most exact. Let the testimony of PhiloJudæus, already quoted, be fairly regarded ;-let it be remembered that Philo was an eminent literary writer on sacred history he must therefore have been well acquainted with the Hebrew scriptures, and with the Septuagint version. Can we, then, in such circumstances imagine that, either when the translation was made, or in the days of Philo, the Hebrew and Greek numbers differed by one thousand three hundred and eighty-six years? Is it possible that either the Sanhedrim or the historian could have overlooked so important a discrepancy?

This improbability amounts almost to an impossibility, when we consider that the Septuagint was not confined to the closets of the learned, but was generally known throughout the length and breadth of Judea, and was publicly read in the synagogues. That this had continued for many years, we have the strongest presumptive proof in the fact, that in those times the Hebrew and Septuagint chronology was the same.

But we do not rely on this single point. There is other evidence which not only goes to prove, that, down to the beginning of the first century, the Hebrew and Septuagint chronologies were identical; but which also shows that the numbers then received were the same as are now found in the Septuagint.

Demetrius, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy the Fourth, about B. C. 220, wrote a history of the Jewish kings, which we find quoted by Alexander Polyhistor, and preserved in the volumes of Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea. In this work the author follows the chronology of the LXX., which, there is no doubt, was, at that time, the same with the Hebrew ; stating, that from Adam to the migration of Jacob's family into Egypt, there elapsed a period of three thousand six hundred and twenty-four years; and that from the Flood to the same migration, the number of years was one thousand