unaltered; but where the lives did not appear, the addition or subtraction, as regarded the generations, answered every purpose of chronology, while it would be taking trouble to no purpose to extend the alteration to the residues. The corrupters might indeed have omitted the lives, in order to save the trouble of altering the residues; but the absence of the former from both the Hebrew and the Greek, the original and the corrupted, proves that they never appeared in either, and is therefore conclusive for the Samaritan interpolation of eight verses, as above stated.

A very important point, which should not be overlooked, is, that Josephus, who carefully enumerates the periods of the lives of the antediluvian patriarchs, with those of Noah, Shem, and Terah after the Flood, does not give the life of any one of the seven between Shem and Terah; a circumstance which proves, first, that the postdiluvian lives were not stated in his copies, and, secondly, that the centenary differences between the Greek and Hebrew existed in his time as they do now: for why should he state the whole life of Shem, which does not appear in either text, and leave out those of his successors, if it were not that it was in the sum of Shem's generation and residue alone that both texts corresponded?

We are now arrived at the most important result of the differences between the Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek postdiluvian systems; a result which furnishes data for the absolute exclusion of the corrupted numbers, on whichever side they exist, but which could never be obtained without our possessing the three systems to subject to comparison.

It has been seen, that, as the case stands between the Hebrew and Samaritan, the corruption has been effected by transfers of centuries from the generations to the residues, or vice versa, so as to leave the lengths of the lives unaltered. It does not appear from this which is the corrupted and which the original system, but simply that one has been altered from the other. The Samaritan interpolation of the lives directs our preference to the Hebrew; but that argument stands on its own merits. It has likewise been seen, that, as between the Hebrew and the Seventy, the corruption has been effected by simple centenary additions or subtractions, as regards the generations, without affecting the residues, which are in both cases the same. Here again we have no proof on which side the corruptions exist: we can only feel assured that the one text has been altered from the other.

Having considered the relation between the Hebrew and the Samaritan, and between the Hebrew and the Septuagint, let us next take a view of that between the Septuagint and the Samaritan.

The times of the generations being identical in both systems, the variations are confined to the residues and total duration of the lives. We have already seen that the Samaritan residues

are each a century shorter than those of the Hebrew, with which (i. e. the Hebrew) in this respect the Septuagint agrees; and that the sums of the Samaritan generations and residues are identical with the Hebrew, while the sums in the Seventy are each a century greater. But, granting either the Septuagint or the Samaritan numbers to have been the original whence the other system was corrupted, how are their residuary differences to be accounted for? Why did not the compilers of the one copy the other? If the Seventy contain the original numbers, why did the Samaritan compilers curtail the residues in order to accommodate them to the Hebrew sums of the lives? and if, on the contrary, the Samaritan exhibits the original numbers, why did the compilers of the Septuagint protract the residues to the Hebrew standard? It is plain that in either case the assistance of the present Hebrew numbers must have been called in. The obvious consequence of this is, that neither the Septuagint nor the Samaritan Pentateuchs can present the original numbers whence the other reckoning is derived. We must therefore have again recourse to the Hebrew, which we have already seen might have been corrupted from either of the others; or, on the contrary, that either of these might have been corrupted from that source.

The unavoidable result to which we shall be conducted is, that the Hebrew numbers, as they now stand, may have been altered from those of the Seventy, by the omission of a centenary in each generation, leaving the residues as they stood in the original; and that the corruption thus effected may have been remodelled by the centenary transferences from the residues to the generations of the Samaritan compilers. Or, on the other hand, that the Samaritan numbers may have been the original, whence the Hebrew compilers effected their centenary transferences from the generations to the residues; and that the system thus formed may have been remodelled by the centenary additions to the generations of the Greek compilers, the residues remaining as they were.

In either case, the present Hebrew numbers take their place, in point of antiquity, at a date intermediate between those of the Samaritan and Septuagint versions, and consequently long anterior to the Christian era, before which no impugner of the Hebrew integrity ever contemplated the possibility of its chronological corruption. The only possible consequence of the above-mentioned inevitable alternatives, however, is simply this: that the present Hebrew numbers are to all intents and purposes the original, whence both the Samaritan and Septuagint numbers have been altered. These results are so plain and conclusive, that I flatter myself not even Mr. Cuninghame will dispute their effect to the absolute exclusion of the corrupted umnbers and the establishment of the originality of the pre

sent Hebrew system of time. Thus we may perceive the vast importance of the residues of the lives of the Patriarchs towards settling this great chronological question-a character of which Mr. Cuninghame, and, indeed, all the advocates of the Seventy, make but little account.

Having disposed of the question of the centenary differences, and, I trust, proved that the clear understanding of it is of infinitely greater moment to the general inquiry than has been hitherto supposed, I will next proceed to answer several positions and objections of Mr. Cuninghame, in reference to the Patriarchal Table, in the order in which they are proposed; trusting that the result will be found to confirm the opinion expressed in my former papers," that all the objections usually brought against the sacred Hebrew numbers, whether on historical or physical grounds, in reality operate in their favour, while they recoil in full force against all the protracted computations*."

First, of the period of Terah's life, a right understanding of which is of the last importance to sacred chronology, but more particularly to the Hebrew, in which the disputed difference of sixty years becomes of great moment, on account of its increased proportion to the whole time of the Patriarchs. It will be seen by the table, that the patriarch alluded to lived 205 years, according to all the versions and copies of the Hebrew and Greek numbers, including the important testimony of Josephus; and that, the age of Abraham being 75 years at his father's decease (agreeably to Gen. xi. 32, xii. 4, Acts vii. 4), the age of Terah was necessarily 130 when Abraham was born. As, however, it is stated, in Gen. xi. 26, that "Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abraham, Nahor, and Haran," the generality of ancient chronographers have, contrary to the express testimony of Scripture, brought down Terah's death to the 35th year of Isaac ; and St. Augustine has inferred two departures from Haran-the one in the 75th of Abraham and the other in his 135th year-the futility of which must be obvious to every reader of the Bible.

The Samaritan compilers, unaided by the Apostle's testimony, Acts vii. 4, nevertheless saw that the death of Terah and the departure from Haran could not be separated, and to meet the difficulty shortened Terah's life from 205 to 145 years, as beforementioned;-an emendation which Mr.Cuninghame has adopted, notwithstanding the Divine authority he assigns to the numbers of the Seventy, which have 205, in common with all other authorities, the Samaritan excepted.

But the slightest examination of the history of Terah's family will shew that Abraham could not have been born in the seventieth year of his father's age, as the emendation supposes, and

Morning Watch, Vol. II. Part II.

that, of the three sons of Terah, the birth of Haran alone can belong to that date; for the two brothers, Nahor and Abraham, both married daughters of Haran (Gen. xi. 29), and Abraham's wife was only ten years her husband's junior (xvii. 17). That the order in which Terah's sons are mentioned (xi. 26) has relation to their rank, rather than to their primogeniture, appears from the parallel case of the three sons of Noah: "And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth "(v. 32, ix. 18, x. 21): yet we find (x. 21) that the last mentioned son, Japheth, was in reality the eldest (as in the case of Haran, x. 26), agreeably to the order in which his own and his brother's posterity are detailed x. 1, 2, 6, 21, Shem being two years his junior (xi. 10). It is also very remarkable, that, according to the Hebrew text, there is an analogy between the long generation of Noah, by whose three sons the new world was to be peopled, and that of Terah, in the posterity of whose three sons all the families of the earth were to be blessed ;-for as the house of Israel descended in the male line from Abraham, it descended in the female from both Haran the father of Sarah (Gen. xi. 29), and Nahor the grandfather of Rebecca (xxii. 20, 23) and greatgrandfather of Leah and Rachel (xxviii. 5, xxix. 16). The nine generations from Adam to Noah occupied a space of 1055 years a mean of 117-while Noah's generation, 500 years, was equal to about 4 of these. So the seven postdiluvian generations preceding Terah took up a space of 220 years-a mean of 31— while Terah's generation to the birth of Abraham, 130 years, equalled about 4 of the former.

—a

Mr. Cuninghame's objection to the generation of Terah, 130, and his life, 205 years, is grounded on the incredulity of Abraham and Sarah when promised a son at the ages of 100 and 90 (Gen. xvii. 17; xviii. 12, 13). "Where was the difficulty," remarks Mr. Cuninghame, "of Abraham believing that he should have a son at 100, if his own father begat him at 130?" But, admitting for argument sake that Terah begat Abraham at the age of seventy, still, if the seven immediate ancestors of Terah did not beget sons until each of them had attained the utmost age ascribed to that patriarch at his son Abraham's birth-130 years or more, as the reckoning of the Seventy supposes-where, I would ask, was the difficulty of Abraham's belief? where the call upon his faith? Certainly none; because 100 years was far within the established period of procreation, according to the system advocated by Mr. Cuninghame. On the contrary, according to the Hebrew numbers, which fix the period of procreation among the immediate ancestors of Terah and Abraham at its present standard, of about three generations to a century, Abraham's hesitation, at a time of his

life when three such periods had already elapsed, is altogether consistent*. His father (Terah)'s period, whether 70 or 130 years, is likewise an exception to the established order of things; and so were the generations of Isaac-sixty years; of Jacobnot less than eighty years; together with those of the line of Levi to the Exode, and of the line of Judah to David; but more on this as we proceed: it is enough for our present purpose to remark, that while the Hebrew computation presents departures from the laws of nature in the periods of both Terah and Abraham (the latter required by the terms of the promise), the Greek and Samaritan exhibit none whatever.

It follows, that Mr. Cuninghame's argument for the shortening of Terah's life and generation forms, when rightly applied, really a most powerful one for the rejection of the protracted computation, which is thereby proved to be utterly inconsistent with the history of Abraham and the terms of the promise; and for the reception of the authorized Hebrew numbers. It is almost needless to repeat, that as the life of 205 years, sanctioned by all authorities, with the single Samaritan exception, and the consequent generation of 130, are alone consistent with the history of the house of Terah, the chronological adoption of these numbers is inevitable.

Secondly. Mr. Cuninghame insists, that if " the five former patriarchs, from Noah to Eber, outlived Peleg," as the Hebrew chronology supposes, "it would be more proper to say that the earth was divided in the days of Noah, than in the days of Peleg, who died ten years before his great ancestor." To this I answer, that there is no reason for here fixing on Noah, to the exclusion of every contemporary patriarch, because, according to the narrative of Genesis x., the earth was divided in the days of all the seventy descendants of Shem, Ham, and Japheth therein mentioned (x. 5, 20,31,32). The state of the case seems to be, that the life-time of Peleg is assigned as the chronological index to the division of the earth (x. 25), because he was the youngest patriarch of the line of Abraham's descent (in which the account of time is preserved) who was a party to that event, and also the first of that line who died, if we follow the Hebrew account,