mankind. He plants the laurel beside the plough, and allures thousands to come, and, after having toiled within its fragrance, to sit beneath its shade."*

ART. II. THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.

By Rev. M. C. SUTPHEN, Pastor of the Scotch Church, New York. DOES the History of the Human Race fall within the limits of Scripture Chronology?

Assuming the ethnographic universality of the deluge, this question is resolved into two subordinate ones:-first, does the ante-diluvian history of man fall within the ante-diluvian chronology of Scripture; and, secondly, does his post-diluvian history fall within the post-diluvian chronology?

The first of these questions, will give rise to no debate. We meet nothing in the ascertained ante-diluvian history of the race, that may not be readily compassed within the geneological table of the sons of Adam. We address our attention, therefore, at once to the second, viz.-does the post-diluvian history of man, or the history of the race in its present developments, fall within the postdiluvian chronology of Scripture?

To determine this question we must first inquire, What is the chronology recorded in Scripture, or what the length

* After all, mankind, especially the young, will be governed by their ideas of the beautiful more than utility, in politics, morals, religion, and general life; nor would a benevolent man wish to exterminate this fundamental principle of our nature. But there is all the difference in the world between conventional beauty, the beauty of fashion and expense, and that which is simple, natural, and eternal. Let us look at a few particulars: a rich shawl to a young lady's eye is beautiful; so is a rose. But the one is a conventional beauty, the other a natural. The one lasts while the fashion lasts; the other, i. e., its essential beauty, until flowers shall be no more. Take the fluctuations of female dress: sometimes its beauty depends solely on the fashion; sometimes it approaches to the everlasting laws of nature. The old stays and high-heeled shoes of Queen Ann's day were mere conventional beauties; the Grecian dress is natural and essentially beautiful. Now, it seems to me, what we are to seek is, that cheap, simple, essential beauty, which promotes the progress of mental refinement, but never leads to the expense which plunges families and nations in ruin. Let the conventional and natural meet in one line of inseparable union.

of the period, according to the Bible, from Adam to Noah, and especially that from Noah to Abram? The readers of this REVIEW need not to be reminded of the fact, emphasized by Prichard, that the Scriptures furnish us no chronology, properly so called, of the earliest ages. We have simply two genealogical tables, of ten names each, giving the respective ages of each member of the line, when his successor was born, and when he himself died. These tables are found in four forms-that in the Hebrew text, in the Greek Septuagint, in the Samaritan Penteteuch, and in Josephus. These forms agree and disagree in remarkable ways.

Take the first table. From Adam to Noah the Hebrew makes 1656 years, the Septuagint 2262 years, the Samaritan 1307 years, Josephus 2256 years. In the total ages of the first five patriarchs, and of the seventh, they all agree. Of the numbers before the birth of a successor, which is of special importance for the chronology — the units, as Prof. Murphy* has indicated, agree in all but Lamech, the tens in all but Lamech and Methuseleh, while the hundreds differ in a seemingly designed and systematic way, except in Noah. In Jared, Methuseleh and Lamech, the Hebrew, Septuagint and Josephus agree in a number, greater by a hundred than the Samaritan. In the remaining six, the Hebrew and Samaritan agree, while the Septuagint and Josephus agree also in a number greater by a hundred.

So much for the first table. Let us now turn to the second, or that reaching from Noah to Abram-Abram's entrance into Canaan. Here the totals again differ-the Hebrew making 422 years, the Samaritan 1072, the Septuagint 1308, and Josephus in his sum 422, while his separate numbers, which agree very nearly with the Septuagint, aggregate about the same total with the Greek. In the years of life in this genealogy, the Hebrew, Samaritan and Septuagint agree in Shem, the Hebrew and Septuagint in Terah, the Samaritan and Septuagint in Eber, and the Hebrew and Samaritan in all the rest. In regard, however, to the years of paternity, the Hebrew stands alone, as Prof. Murphy indicates, against the Samaritan and Septuagint agreeing, except in Terah,

*Com. in loc.

where they all agree. The difference here, again, is not in the units or tens, but in the excess over the Hebrew number of a hundred years in each case, except that of Nahor, where it is 50 years, or 150 according to the Codex Vaticanus of the Septuagint.

Which, now, of these forms is the correct one? The question lies, as all scholars agree, and as a short investigation of the tables themselves will convince, between the Hebrew and the Greek. As to the relative claims of these, authorities are greatly divided. It has usually, or latterly at least, been contended, that the internal evidence favors the Hebrew, and the external the Greek. It may be added that the Eastern churches in all ages have adhered to the Greek, while the Western now incline to the Hebrew. The arguments advanced on either side, and which we can only indicate, we will classify and consider under two heads-those common to both, and those peculiar to each.

1. The apologists of each claim that the other has been altered. Some partisans of the Hebrew contend that the Greek text was changed at the time the Septuagint translation was made, or about 280 B. C.; others, that it was corrupted after the Christian Era. They agree in affirming as the motive, the desire to make the chronology of Scripture more nearly comport with the vast antiquity of Egypt. The Septuagintarians make the counter affirmation, that the Hebrew was altered by unbelieving Jews, in order to throw back the birth of our Lord from the Sixth Millenary, in which it had been commonly expected he would appear, to the fourth. Which is the more likely of these changes? Let us sift them.

(a) Which the more likely in view of the respective motives alleged? We will premise that evidently no change was made in the Septuagint before the time of Christ. This is proved to a demonstration, by the fact that our Lord and the Evangelists and Apostles repeatedly quote from the Septuagint, and that Luke expressly follows its peculiar chronology in his genealogical table. It is incredible that such eminent sanction should have been given to this version, and also to its chronology, if a willful and wicked addition of 1500 years had been made by it to the original text. The conclusion

is inevitable, that the Hebrew and the Greek stood together in the time of Christ, as Josephus and Philo both indicate. The question, then, narrows to this: was the Greek chronology lengthened by the believing Jews of Egypt, to approximate the enormous tables of that land, or the Hebrew shortened by the unbelieving Jews of Palestine, to ante-date the birth of Jesus, and so discredit his Messiahship?

Which of these motives had been the stronger? Undoubtedly that of the unbelieving Jew, to overthrow a popular argument for the Messiahship of the hated Nazarene. The believing Jew, or Gentile, of Alexandria, could effect very little toward the end with which he is accredited; for what is an addition of 1500 years, compared with the almost countless ages claimed by the Egyptian chronicles for the reign of their gods and demi-gods and heroes? Besides, the chronology of the Septuagint does not harmonize with the later periods of Egyptian chronicles, no matter how the latter be interpreted. The object sought, and the end effected, are, therefore, immensely greater in the alteration of the Hebrew than of the Greek.

(b) Again, the facility of alteration was greater in the case of the Hebrew than of the Greek text. This will appear, when we remember that, after the conquests of Alexander, the Greek version came into almost universal use in Palestine, as well as elsewhere. Copies of it were indefinitely multiplied. It was, accordingly, impossible to corrupt its text in any quarter, without the discovery of the fraud, and especially as this version was in possession of unbelieving, as well as believing Jews. Unquestionably, the former had been vigilant to expose and denounce a change which would furnish an argument for the Messiahship of Jesus. But, per contra, it was possible to propagate among the unbelieving Jews a corrupted chronology of the Hebrew text, because, in the overthrow of Jerusalem and the other cities of the land, and the dispersion of the Jews, nearly all the copies of that text perished. The very limited knowledge of Hebrew, even among Jews, would also contribute to this end. It was easy, then, to alter the small number of manuscripts remaining, according to the new reading. Besides, at that time, as existing manu

scripts intimate, every roll was full of alterations and obliterations, as it was a custom with the ancients to compare different copies of a book, and to mark the various readings in the margin or in the text itself. Thus the changes introduced by Akiba, who is charged by the Fathers with this corruption, would readily become current, and especially if, as alleged, he claimed for them the authority of old and correct manuscripts. We submit, therefore, that the evidence is against the Hebrew text, so far as concerns the charge of alteration. 2. A second argument urged for the Hebrew text, but which also favors the Greek, is drawn from concurring testimonies. In the ante-diluvian table, the Hebrew, in seven out of the ten numbers, is supported by the Samaritan, on the point of the several ages of paternity. The Septuagint is supported by Josephus, in nine instances out of the ten, on the same point. In the post-diluvian, the Hebrew is sustained on the ages of paternity by the Samaritan and Josephus, each, in one case only out of the ten, while the Septuagint is sustained on the same point by the Samaritan in nine cases out of the ten, and by Josephus in eight out of the ten. The age of paternity is taken for the obvious reason that this is the basis of the chronological reckoning. The argument from concurrent testimonies thus decidedly favors the Greek, and especially in the post-diluvian table, which is chiefly concerned in our investigation.

3. A third argument advanced for the Hebrew is, that it presents more proportional consistency in the respective ages which it gives of paternity and death. It is urged especially against the post-diluvian table of the Greek, that though the total age of life is reduced to nearly one-half of what obtained before the flood, the age of paternity remains about the same as before the flood. But let us carefully test this. We find by calculation that in the ante-diluvian table, according to the Hebrew, the average age of paternity is a little more than one-fifth the total age of life, and in the post-diluvian a little more than one-seventh; while, according to the Greek in the ante-diluvian, the average for the same is a little more than one-third, and in the post-diluvian just about one-third.