(2.) The remarkable discrepancies in nearly all the names as to the respective ages before and after the birth of the eldest son, while the totals given general- ly agree, has occasioned greater variety in the schemes A different Biblical chronologers than any or all other
is here of more weight, but in his present text it shows contradiction, though preponderating in favor of the Sept. numbers. A comparison of the lists would kad us to suppose, on internal evidence, that they had fint two forms, and that the third version of them origios- ted from these two. This supposed later venioo of the lists would seem to be the Samar., which certainly is less internally consistent, on the suppositioo of the original correctness of the numbers, than the other two. The cause of the alterations is most nncertais. It has indeed been conjectured that the Jews shorten- ed the chronology, in order that an ancient prophMT* ! that the Messiah should come in the sixth nuUensiy I of the world's age might not be known to be folfiUed I in the advent of our Lord. The reason may be soifi- ' cient in itself, but it does not rest upon sufficient eri- denoe. It is, however, worthy of remark, that in the apostolic age there were hot discussions respecting genealogies (Tit. iii, 9), which would seem to indicate that great importance was attached to them, perfaspi also that the differences, or ^me difference, then ex- isted. The different proportions of the genentknu and lives in the Sept. and Heb. have been asserted to afford an argument in favor of the former. At a later period, however, when we find instances of longeTitr
CHRONOLOGY
299
CHRONOLOGY
reccNrded in aU venions, the time of marriage is not diflbrent from what it is at the present daj; although there are some long generations. A stronger argu- ment tar the Sept., in view of the onity ot the homan raee, is fbimd in the long period required from the Flood to the Dispersion and the establishment of king- doms. This supposition would, however, require that the patiiarclial generations should be either exception- al or represent periods. For the former of these hy- potheses we shall see there is some ground in the sim- ilar case of certain generations, just alluded to, from Abraham downwards. With respect to probability of accuracy, arising from the state of the text, the Ueb. certainly has the advantage. There is every reason to think that the R&bbins have been scrupulous in the extreme in making alterations ; the Sept., on the oth- er hand, shows si^ns of a carelessness that would al- meet p^mit change, and we have the probable inter- polation of the po^t-diluvian Cainan. Itf however, we consider the Sunar. form of the lists as sprung from the other two, the Sept. would seem to be earlier than the Heb., since it is more probable that the antedilu- wian generations would have been shortened to a gen- eral agreement with the Heb., than that the post-dilu- vian would have been lengthened to suit the Sept. ; for it is obviously most likely that a sufficient number of years having been deducted from the earlier genera- tions, the operation was not carried on with the later. It is noticeable that the stated sums in the post-dilu- wian generations in the Samar. generally agree with the computed sums of the Heb., and not with those of the Sept., which would be explained by the theory of an adaptation of one of these two to the other, although it Vould not give us reason for supposing either form to be the earlier. The general presumption, on exter- nal grounds, would certainly be in favor of the Heb., both as being unquestionably the original from whic|^ the odiers (except perhaps the Samar., which, singu- lariy enon^ is the least probable, on other consider^ ations, of all) are known to have been translated — and a version can never rise higher in authority than its source; and also because of the manifestly greater state of purity in which this text has been transmitted to us, in comparison with either of the others. See Septuaoimt; Samabitah Fezttatbuch. The text of Josephtts is too corrupt in its numbers to be at all relied npon, as may be seen frx>m the slightest compari- son of the sums in the title of the chapters with the de- tailed contents, having doubtless been tampered with by readers who psed only the Sept or Yulg. versions. There can be no question that the author or last redactcHT of the book of Genesis hitended that the nar- rative should be connected by this continuous series of time-marks. Jewish and Christian chronographers accepted the statements unquestioned, and held that the series of 3rears of the world thus formed, from the creation of ti^ first man to the death of Joseph, ac- corded with the truth of &cts. The import and the authority of the numerical statements Were to them umimpeachable ; the only question was that which re- lated to their genuine form. And supposing the in- quirer to have decided in favor of the Greek text, even so there are diversities to be discussed, for the Sept. has various readings of some of the numbers both be- fore and kfter the Flood ; in particular, while most of the copies have a second Cainan after Arphaxad, with t descent of 180 years, this addition is ignored by oth- er copies and by important authorities (see Browne, Ordo S<eeL § 807, and note ; Mill, On the Letcent and Porenioffe of the Samaitr, p. 143 sq.). These consid- erations wfll account for the enormous discrepancy wiiich appears in the estimates formed by different efaronologists of the number of years contained in the book of Genesis. The Hebrew numbers, fixmi Adam to Terah's 70th year, make 1656 pbu 292 years ; the Sept., with its various readings, 2242 or 2262 />lKt 942, or 1042, or 1072, or 1172 ; the Samaritan, 1807 plus 942.