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 subsequent generations they all harmonize.

From these data it appears, that in the postdiluvian 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 connection of the historical records which refer to those times. 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

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."-Dissertations, dis. ii, p. 165.

But it may be alledged 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, 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. (Dr. H. Owen's Inquiry, p. 6.) And we have reason to believe that this judgment was not given without careful investigation; for Philo-Judæus, 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."-Philo-Judæus, De Vita Mosis, lib. ii, p. 659. Ed. Francof. 1640.

We are now prepared to enter more particularly into the investigation of this important subject; and, in doing this, shall endeavor 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 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 Philo-Judæus, 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 three hundred and sixty. This statement agrees exactly with that of the Greek version; for, according to it,

From the creation to the deluge were

the deluge to the birth of Abraham

the birth of Abraham to his leaving Haran
thence to the migration of Jacob's family.

Years.

2226

1072

75

215

3624

This agreement is very remarkable; and as Demetrius wrote only about sixty-six years after the Septuagint translation was made, it is not to be supposed that, at so early a period, any material differences between the Greek and the Hebrew Scriptures could have taken place. (See Russell's Connection, vol. i, p. 66.) Nor, supposing the Septuagint numbers to have differed from the Hebrew at first, can we imagine that in this brief space a new and corrupt system could, by possibility, have

obtained such authority as to be selected by an historian for a guide, in preference to old, well-known, and authentic records.

Eupolemus, also, who wrote about fifty years after the last-mentioned author, states, that it was five thousand one hundred and forty-nine years from Adam to the fifth year of Demetrius, king of Syria. This agrees exactly with the reckoning of Demetrius, and the chronology of the Septuagint.

Still more important is the testimony of Josephus. This author, who was himself of the family of the priests, was perfectly acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as with the Septuagint, of which version he has given us an account. He published his great work on Jewish history and antiquities, A. D. 90; and assures us, not only that the Septuagint was carefully examined and publicly approved, but also that he had translated the substance of his history from the Hebrew Scriptures. Yet, with few and unimportant exceptions, his chronology agrees with the Septuagint, as may be seen by a reference to the tables.

We have, therefore, a series of testimonies, extending from about sixty years after the Septuagint translation was made to the latter part of the first century, a period of above three hundred years, which unite in affirming the numbers of the LXX., and-from the circumstances in which the translators of this version were placed, and their entire acquaintance with the Hebrew-thereby warranting the conclusion that at this time the discrepancies which harass us had no existence, and that both versions agreed in teaching the chronology of the modern Septuagint.

There is another branch of evidence which we regard as of the greatest importance. During the first century, the New Testament Scriptures were written under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The authors of these books frequently refer to the Old Testament writings; and we may reasonably conclude that, in regard to chronology, and every other subject, they would certainly quote from the purest text of Moses and the prophets; yet, when we examine such quotations, as far as they relate to the subject under consideration, we find them uniformly at variance with the present Hebrew text, and in agreement with the LXX. We call attention to a few instances.

The first text to which we refer is that in Luke iii, 35, 36: “Sala, which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad." The corresponding passage in Gen. xi, 12, is thus given in the Hebrew Bible: "And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah;" omitting entirely the name and generation of Cainan. The Septuagint, however, renders the passage thus: "And Arphaxad lived a hundred and thirtyfive years, and begot Cainan;......... and Cainan lived a hundred and thirty years, and begot Sala." The Septuagint, therefore, is found in

perfect agreement with the Gospel, while the Hebrew and Samaritan omit the generation.

This is a point of great consequence. We do not mean to argue from this fact, that the circumstance now stated invests the Septuagint generally with an authentic character. We do not contend that it legitimatizes the general scheme of chronology which that version exhibits. But we do think that this quotation, or confirmation of the LXX. by the inspired evangelist, authenticates this particular text. We have never heard any doubt cast on this passage of St. Luke. It is found in every copy and version; and, if written by the sacred penman, we cannot see how a believer in real inspiration can doubt the truth of the fact recorded in the Septuagint, or refuse to admit that we have here an evident omission in the Hebrew. Our view on this subject is strikingly confirmed by the able translator of the "Septuagint Version into English." In his preface, he says: "In reply, then, to the question, How far does the apostolic quotation of a part of the Septuagint warrant the inspiration of the whole?' we venture to state, that it is no warrant at all. What the Holy Ghost touches it hallows: beyond this, the translation, whatever its excellence, comes into our hands as the work

of fallible man.' The passage to which we have just adverted has been so hallowed, and is therefore undoubtedly authentic.

We next turn to Exodus xii, 40, which, according to the present Hebrew, reads: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years." This is clearly contrary to fact, as they dwelt in Egypt but two hundred and fifteen years. This text has consequently given immense trouble to commentators, who have been greatly puzzled to find a solution of the difficulty. The Septuagint does this by supplying an omission in the text: it reads, "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan, was four hundred and thirty years." This true and consistent sense is confirmed by apostolic authority; for St. Paul makes this period extend from the promise made to Abraham until the exodus. Gal. iii, 17.

There is another passage which, in fact, contains the only chronological statement found in the New Testament. We will give it, and its bearing upon our argument, in the words of a celebrated writer. Having referred to the evidence of Demetrius and Eupolemus, already given, he observes: "The united testimony of these two eminent historians carries with it a strong degree of conviction in favor of the agreement which must have subsisted, in their time, between the original Hebrew Scriptures, and the authorized version, in reference at least to

The Septuagint, in English, by Sir L. C. L. Brenton, Bart., chap. v. Bagster.