received as of authority by the Jews dispersed over the countries of the Mediterranean, quoted by the Evangelists, and reverenced by the early Christian fathers, almost beyond the Hebrew text itself, it must ever be regarded on doubtful points as an authority of no mean weight. There are added in the fourth column the numbers as given by the famous historian Josephus, in his "Jewish antiquities," and which he translated, he tells us, (this was about 94, A. D.) faithfully from the original."

165 is doubtless the correct reading.

"It is important to observe that the variations in this table are evidently not the effect of accident, but design; because the years before the son's birth and the residues agree in all the cases with the totals of lives;-with this exception, that in the Samaritan, the residues in the 5th, 7th, and 9th, are shortened, to adapt them to the shorter period between JARED and the FLOOD."

Thus, in the Heb. and Samaritan Adam has 130+-800-930

In the Sept. and Josephus. ... ...230+700-930 years.

Again, in the Heb. and Samar., Seth has....105+807-912
In the Sept. and Josephus ...

..205+707=912)

years.

"On the whole, in this table the question will lie between 1656 years, the computation in the Hebrew, and 2256, that in Josephus." With the latter, the Septuagint agrees in every point, but in having 188 instead of 182 in the case of LAMECH; and here the Heb. supports Josephus: with the Heb, the Samaritan agrees in seven cases out of the ten; and where it differs, Josephus and the Septuagint are with the Hebrew.'

In the table of the Post-diluvian Patriarchs the case is different. Here the Samaritan, Septuagint, and Josephus, all agree in the longer computation.

* Abraham's birth is usually placed at the 70th year of Terah, on the supposition of his having been Terah's eldest son. But the nar

"Here the choice will lie between the 352 years of the Heb., and the 1002 of the Samaritan and corrected Septuagint copies :"-corrected by the rejection of the second Cainan as a spurious generation. For as the Septuagint itself omits this in its repetition of the -genealogies 1 Chron. i., 24; and in Gen. xi., 12, not only the Heb. and Samaritan copies omit it, but Josephus also, and all the ancient versions and Targums without exception; the most judicious chronologers whether adopting the Hebrew chronology or the Septuagint, agree, for the most part, in rejecting it.

Now, then, the question of the comparative credibility of the numbers, as given in the Greek and Josephus, or in the Hebrew, the evidence to be considered is threefold: comprehending-1. The authority of the respective MSS.-2. The evidence from the nature of things treated of,— and 3. Supposing wilful adulterations of the text to have taken place on one or the other side, (of which there can be no doubt,) the evidence as to any probable inducements with one, rather than with the other, to make the alteration.

I. The direct evidence of MSS., may be considered as preponderating in favor of the Hebrew, in the Table of the ante-diluvian patriarchs, the Samaritan generally agreeing with it;-in that of the post-diluv

rative of Moses, as Usher has shown, determines his birth to the 130th year of Terah. For, comparing Gen. xi. 32, and xii. 4, it appears that on Terah's death, at the age of 205, Abram, who then left Haran, was 75 years old. Haran appears to have been Terah's eldest son.

ian it may rather be considered as in favor of Josephus and the Septuagint, the Samaritan agrees more nearly with them. There is, however, this important circumstance in favor of the Hebrew, that the Samaritan, adding the totals as well as the residues, (which the Hebrew and Septuagint do not,) these totals do, with two exceptions, accord with the Hebrew computation, not with that of the Septuagint. This disagreement indicates error and tampering with the passage, either in the Septuagint or the Samaritan; and consequently diminishes the evidence derivable from their agreement in favor of those numbers in the first column in which they agree.*

On the whole, there being on this head of evidence nothing sufficiently conclusive, increasing importance attaches to

*The Rev. Jos. Wolff informs me-" In the ancient MSS which I saw at Bokhara the chronological notices of the length of the lives both of the Ante-diluvian and Post-diluvian patriarchs were exactly according to the received H B EW text, though the letters of the MSS resembled the Samaritan."

II. The second head of evidence, viz, that from the nature of the things treated of. This is of a kind within the reach of every understanding; and it is on this that Mr. Clinton has argued conclusively, as it appears to me, in favor of the Hebrew.

AGAINST the Hebrew, Hales and Jackson had raised the following arguments; 1. that the age of puberty (of the naidoɣoria) may be considered as beginning after the lapse of one third part of life; and consequently, that, when the average length of life was from 400 to 200 years, it was contrary to the course of nature for a man to have a son so early as 32 years of age, the average age according to the Hebrew, from ARPHAXAD to TERAH. 2. That the short HEBREW computation is inconsistent with our accounts of the populousness of the earth at the time of Abraham; —as also 3. with the prevalence of idolatry in Abraham's country before his call;- Noah, Shem, &c., being by the computation, still living.

a

The answer is, as to the first; the age of puberty begins now much earlier than after the passing of third part of life: and what it is now, that we have Scripture evidence to prove that it was when the longevity of man was much greater. For instance, Judah at 48 was a great-grandfather. Ben jamin at 30 had 11 sons. Between Ephraim and Joshua there were 10 generations and 180 years; which gives 20 years on an average to a generation.

This being the case, the παιδογονια beginning then at about the same age as now, and continuing