But'these discrepancies are increased by the computations made, since 1628 a. d ., upon
MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch, -which generally yield an interval between the Creation
and the Deluge of years 1307.
The hasis of all these calculations lies in the hyperbolical lives of the ten antediluvian
Patriarchs. It will be seen, through the skilful synopsis of a learned divine, how admirably
the numerals of the Hebrew and Samaritan texts correspond, not merely with; each
other, but with those of the Septuagint version, and of Josephus: —
“ The following tabular schemes exhibit the variations; the numbers expressing the
parent’s age at the son’s birth, except in the eases of Noah and Shem.(346)
A n t e -D e luvian
P a tr ia r c h s.
Hebr. Samr. LXX. Josep. P o s t -D ilu v ia n
P a tr ia r c h s. Hèbr. Samr. LXX. Josep.
, 1. Adam...... ...............
m2. Seth.........................
3. Enos........... •.............
4. Cainan................... .
130
195
90
70
' 65
162
65
187
182
600
130
105
90
70
• 65
62
65
67
53
600
• 230
205
190
170
165
162
165
187
.188
600
230
205
190
170
165
162
(1)65*
187
182
600
11. Shorn (aged 100 at
th e Flood) ...........
12. Àrphaxad...... .........
■ [C a in a n spurious...
. 2
35
30
34
80
32.
30'
29
130
2
135
130
134
| 180
132
130
79
130
2
1 3 ^
130
130
134
130
132
130
79
130
12
•135
130
134
130
130
,132
120
-.130
6. Jared...... -i..............
7. Enoch...'........i.V.....
8. Methuselah...............
9. Lamech......V.,........
10. Noah (at the Flood)
14. Heber.......................
15. Peleg.......................
16. R e u ...................
17. Serug......................
18. Ndhor......................
19. Terah (Gen. xi. 32,
xii. 4.)
* 165 is doubt-)
less t l i e correct (Total
. reading. J
1656 1307 2262 2256
So to Abraham.... 352 1002 1002 1053
The above, 'like all other tables, compiled by theological computators to illustrate .So-
called “ Biblical chronology,” assumes the numerals of current printed exemplars to be
correct-; but, if we set to work, jirehmologically, to verify the original Hebrew, Greek, and
Samaritan manuscripts, we find even this apparent uniformity to be a delusion — indeed,
another orthodox figment. A few instances pleasingly exhibit this fact (347) : —''
“ In one of ‘the manuscripts collated by Dr. Kennicott, and which is marked in his Bible,
codex clvii., this century [in the Hebrew generation of Jabbd] is omitted, and there is much
■probability that it was also omitted in the copies used by the eastern Jews. According to
the testimony of Ismael Sciahinshia, an eastern writer, all these copies reckon only 15ob
years from Adam to the flood, instead of 1656. . . . According to the numbers still existing
in the vast majority of [Greek] manuscripts, Methuselah dies 14 years after the déluge,
and had not the fifty-three, of the generation of Lamech, been changed to eighty-eight, he
would have died 49 years after the deluge. . . . The deluge occurred, according to the feep-
tuagint in the year of the world 2242, and by adding up the generations previous to his,
we shall find that he was born in the year 1287. He lived 969 years, and therefore died
in 2256. But this is 14 years after the deluge! . . . And had they [the theologers] not, by a
previous system of changes, added a century [in Greek MSS.] to all the generations, he
would have died 249 years after it. . . . Origen appears to have been the first who gave
notoriety to the contradiction ; and for a long time, the fact greatly disturbed theologians.
The reader will be hardly surprised to learn that in a subsequent age some manuscripts
were found with the error corrected. . . . Some [Greek MSS.] make the generation of Adam
380 years : one makes it 240. Another gives 180 to Canaan, a third 170 to Jared, while
others allow 177 or 180 to Methuselah One [Hebrew] manuscript, codex » ! ot
Holmes, makes the age of Methuselah 947 : three or four other authorities make the generation
of Lamech 180 : the two corrections conjoined, bring the death of Methuselah to
the year of the deluge. We also find three other authorities making the generation ot
Methuselah 180 years; this connected with the 188 of Lamech, places the death o
Methuselah only one year after the deluge, even allowing him full age. Another manuscnp
makes his generation 177 * years, three other authorities give the number 165, while one
manuscript makes his total age 965. . . . Dr. Kennicott has given readings of 320 Hebrew
manuscripts of the book of Genesis. 97 of these have been collated throughout, 223 M
part only. . . . One manuscript (codex clvii.) omits the hundred years in his [JaRed sJ
generation; two others (codices ci. and clxxvi.) omit it in that of Methuselah; and one
(codex xviin) in that of Lamech. Codex clxxvi. makes the generation of Lamech 1 /2 and
his total age 772, and codex xviii. makes his total age 909. . . . We also find that, in three
(346) Rev. E. B. E lliott, A.M. : Horce Apocalyptïçoe ; London, 1846; iv. p. 254, note. Compare “ Tables of the
discrepancies of the three Texts with regard to the Antediluvian Patriarchs ” in W allace : Dissertation on Oie
True Age of the World ; London, 1844, pp. 14-10.
(347j) Burke: Ethnological Journal ; 1848; pp. 27, 28, 82, 83, 84, 87, 78-91.
or four manuscripts, some of the numbers of Methuselah are written over erasures. This,
of course, looks suspicious. One manuscript (codex civ.) makes Enoch live after the birth
of Methuselah | five and sixty and three hundred years I [i. e., the old 365 days of an Egyptian
vague year !'] , instead of 300 years simply.”
Thus far Luke Burke in his studies of the Hebrew variations exhibited by Kennicott. (348)
The annexed Table shows how he found matters in the Greek of Holmes. (349)
“ Ta b l e III.
B e fo r e G en erat io n . A f t e r G en er a t io n .
E n o s . .. ..
Ca in a n .'
Mahalaleel
J a r e d . .. .
E noch. ., .
Methuselah
330 4
240 1
130 2
f 132
1.805!
(180
«140
180,
65
170
65
165
177
180
(MSS. 31,121, Aid.
( Theöp. p. 13.
MS. 77....................
Slav., Arm. Ed.....
MS. 127......
Coptic.........
MS. 65....
MS. 75....
MS. 127..
MS. 106\.
MS. 127..
MS. 75....
MS. X ................
(MS. 106,107, Com-
l pl., Georg.
MS. 75.....................
f MS. 71,Slav., The-
1 op. p. 133. ‘ ’
MS. I, X, 15,16,55,
59, 64, 68,83,120,
121,131,135,187,
Aid., Alex., Chry-
sos. lV., Arm. Ed.
and a few others.
( MS. 75,187, Chry-
1 sos. IV.
J Arab: 2. Chron.
(_ Orient.
f 705
1_800
MS. 135.............
Slav., Ostrog., 12‘
MS. 127.
MS. 135.........
“ 14,78,130,133s
MS 127.;..'..........
MS. 127.............. .
MS. 127............
MS.I., X.,14,15,
20, 25, 55,57,59.
64,68,71,73,75!
77,78,79,83,121!
128,130,131,133
135, Aid., Cat
Nic., Arm. 1,
Arm. Ed., Arab.
1,2,Alex.,Slav.,
& perhaps another
examin’d
[by Vossius.
795
847
,465
Corrected in
the margin to
120(J 1 930,300 having
been accidentally
p u t for 30;
^MS. 18
(910 1 MS. 19.
902 1 MS. 18.
(772 1 Arab. 2.
915 1 MS. 79.
[MS. 14, 25, 31.
9 1 38, 57, 73, 77'.
(78, 79.
1 MS. 127.
1 MS. 71.
1 MS. 57.
I MS. 82.
733 1 Arm. 1.
755 3 MS. 19,107,107
765 1 MS. 25.
768 1 Arab. 3.
1 Arab. 2.
* In this case, nine hundred has been corrected by another hand into seven hundred. There are several
minor remarks and explanations relative to this table, which we should have been glad to have afforded,
were we not much pressed for time and space. These, however, would, after all, be of little interest to the
general reader, and the learned reader will not need them.
• ■ • The first glance at this table will show the inquirer, that he has got into a region of
various readings, very different from that presented to him by the Hebrew manuscripts.
Instead of some eight or nine variations, found in some three hundred manuscripts, he has
about 118, founfi in a much smaller number of manuscripts ! . . . Are we to say, then, that
the Christian scribes were, in general, so wretchedly careless, that they made twenty errors
where a Jew made but one? . . . These things, therefore, evince design, not accident. We
find one variation followed by more than 32 authorities, another by 18, a third by 9.
There are three which are each copied by four manuscripts, four which are copied by
three each, and two which have each two manuscripts agreeing in them : thirty-one only
are single variations, and some of them, at least, are as clearly intentional as any of the
others. As to the variation which makes Methuselah live 782 years after the birth of Lantech,
instead of 802, no one can doubt of its being intentional. ‘ 788 is the Hebrew date,
and it was here copied from the Hebrew for the same reason that the Hebrew was previously
invented, v iz .: for the purpose of bringing the death o f Methuselah within the
antediluvian period, instead of fourteen years after it. . . . Codex LVII. has the total age
(348) Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum, cum variis lectionibus ; folio, Oxon. 1776-’80.
(349) Vetus Testamentum Gfroecum, cum variis lectionibus; folio, Oxon. 1798-1827.