insert them as a necessary correction. And if it be further asked, How they could have been interpolated? it is plain that nothing could be more easy than for the Translators or Editors to have inserted the words when they made their versions, or more natural that they should have done so, and nothing more likely than that the corrections would obtain general reception when introduced, even if known to be conjectural emendations. If learned Editors of the present day (as Drs. Bloomfield and Conquest) have not shunned to introduce without distinction these words (and others under similar circumstances) into their versions, much less likely is it that any scruple would be felt upon the point in ancient times. And, that scruple has actually been felt (for the words are found only in the Alexandrian MSS. of the LXX.), is a clear proof to our mind that the text, as we have it now in the Hebrew, is a genuine one. As to the time when the interpolation might have been made, we have intimated that which we think the most probable. It is obvious that the insertion must have been made at a very early date; but abundance of time when it might have happened is afforded. -In saying what we have, we have gone upon the hypothesis of our opponents, that both readings cannot be genuine; and, taking their ground, have used the argumentum ad hominem. It is proper, however, to state that such is not the view we take. We rather think that each reading is genuine, and has had its place, being adapted to suit different computations, as will appear in the sequel.

215. We conclude, on the whole, that this is a precisely similar case to that of Terah's age at death, where the Hebrew and LXX. have 205, but the Samaritan 145. In this instance the decision of Dr. Davidson is, "There is good reason for supposing that this reading arose from the difficulty of conciliation. The Hebrew text is not corrupt; and the mode of solution first proposed is the best."* We doubt not that his verdict, and that of all other divines, would have been to the same effect in the case before us, if there had been a "first solution" which could have been pronounced "the best," or any other solution which could have been maintained at all.

*Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 528.

EXAMINATION OF GEN. XV. 13, 14, 16, AND ACTS VII. 6.

215. The second discrepancy lies between the second and third statements. All the inconsistency that commentators have seen between them, or have thought proper to notice is in reference to the difference of 30 years. Let us see, in the first place, what solutions they have thought sufficient to remove this difficulty.

216. One is, "by aid of the principle that the Scriptures speak in whole or round numbers, when an odd or imperfect number would be more exact." None can be more aware than ourselves of the extent to which the Scriptures use round numbers; but we altogether deny that they use them in the way that is here implied, viz., from an indifference as to accuracy. And though some instances might be adduced which would apparently support "the principle," we doubt whether any single one would be found as to which it would not appear on examination that the want of exactness was intimated by some qualifying word such as "about," or in which it would not be accounted for by the peculiar Chronological systems, or by deficiency in precise knowledge, or by the absolute non-importance of accuracy. But none of these grounds of exception can be alleged here, and it is therefore quite inadmissible to apply the principle in this case. What an illogical mode of proceeding to argue that because round numbers may be used in some instances in which accuracy is not aimed at, or attainable, or of the smallest importance, they may therefore be introduced into Chronological statements, the sole object and only use of which is to indicate accurately the lapse of time and dates of events! But even if the principle were within certain limits legitimately applicable in the case of Chronology, according to the common view of it, it would not sanction such a case as this. If the difference had been only a few-say 2 or 3 years, in a very large number, there would be some colour of justice in supposing that so small a figure in so large a quantity might be regarded as too insignificant to be worth notice. But 30 years out of 430 is far too large a proportion to be thus omitted. And the hypothesis of such an omission is singularly misplaced and decidedly excluded in the present instance by the extraordinary stress

*Davidson's Sacred Herm., p. 527

that has been laid upon minute accuracy even to a day in the passage, into numerical identity with which it is aimed to bring the prophetic 400 years. "And it came to pass at the end of the 430 years, even the self-same day it came to pass.' If the two texts refer to the same duration, why should the precise time have been noted with so much emphasis in the one, but widely departed from in the other, especially considering that the observance of accuracy was of much more importance in the first. In fact, the prophetic character, as coming from the mouth of Jehovah Himself, of the former passage would be greatly damaged, if not destroyed, could it be proved identical with another, which would by so much change its time and meaning. What is the evidential value of a prediction, the statement of which is thus uncertain and capable of being changed? And which, appearing to define the time of its accomplishment with accuracy, is eventually proved not to have done so within 60 years out of 400. We say 60 advisedly; for if accuracy within 30 years on one side of the true amount was not thought necessary, so neither could it have been on the other. Nor can we say that this was the extreme limit that might be taken under this "principle." If the difference had been 90 on either side (= 180 in 400) Horne's "principle" of " leaving out the odd tens" would cover it. But surely this is making "the Word of God of none effect." It is demanding a liberty of interpretation that would make prophecies of Jehovah not one whit more reliable than Oracles of Delphi. Better would it be surely to suppose with us that the Jews of later days may have corrupted the text to suit their numerical fancies. It must further be observed that so far is it from having been commonly the practice of Jewish writers in speaking of the lapse of time to use round numbers to the neglect of large differences, that, in many instances, they observe an accuracy extending not only to single years, but to months and even days, and that in very large numbers. Thus, in Josephus we meet with 470y. 6m. 10d.-477y. 6m.-507y. 6m.-702y. 6m.-491y. 6m.-639. 45d.-130y. 6m. 10d.-1062y. 6m. 10d.-1957y. 6m. 10d.-3513y. 6m. 10d.-532y. 6m. 10d.-240y. 7m. 7d. -466y. 6m. 10d.-471y. 3m.-481y. 3m., and many others. The invalidity of this solution will further appear from all that we shall have to say hereafter in reference to this discrepancy.

217. Another hypothetical solution of this discrepancy would remove it by assigning different dates to the commencement of the 400 and the 430 years. The writer, who in

*

one place adopts the first solution, in another says, "In Gen. xv. 13, the time is calculated from the promise made to Abraham of a son, or from the birth of Isaac; and in Ex. xii. 40, 41, it is reckoned from his departure from Ur of the Chaldees.' We ask for proof of this assertion. But none can be given. It is a mere conjecture; and our assertion in the negative (even if it had nothing to rest upon) would be as good as this in the affirmative; i.e. as good for nothing. But such is not the case. Our assertion will prove to be supported by the whole tenor of the narrative, and that of our opponents to be clearly disproved. In fact, we cannot but stand amazed at the extraordinary blunders made in the above statement, so far as appears to us. Take, first, the assertion that the 400 years is calculated from the birth of Isaac," or from "the Promise." The birth of Isaac was 25 years after the Call of Abram; while, from this last event (the Call), it is evident (and we shall shew presently) that the 430 years applicable to this whole period and terminating at the Exodus, is reckoned. If, indeed, any question could be raised on this point, it would be whether the 430 instead of the 400 years ought not to be computed "from the promise made to Abraham of a son," on the ground of what St. Paul says, that "the Law was 430 years after the Covenant, which was confirmed before of God in Christ," when He gave to Abram the promise of a son. Such a view would be utterly destructive of this solution. We doubt not, however, that the true era is the Call of Abram in his 75th year. But this only gives a difference of 25 years instead of 30 (or 430 → 25= 405), and consequently will not serve the purpose for which it is alleged. A date, fixed at the time of any of the various promises previously made to Abram that he should have a son, will still more diminish the difference, and of course will still less answer the purpose. Take, again, the assertion that the 430 years "is reckoned from Abram's departure from Ur of the Chaldees in obedience to the command of Jehovah." This is certainly not the case, both on account of the reasons assigned above, that his Call from Haran when he was 75 was indisputably the Call, and the Epoch whence computations were made; and because the particulars of the 430 years specially prove that this was the Era in this instance. It is admitted that the period was equally divided at the descent of Jacob. Hence, then, reckoning back

wards :

*Horne's Introduction, v. ii. p. 510.

But what is most strange is, that this is actually the computation made by the writer, who, to remove a difficulty, makes the above assertion in the face of it. In his Chronological Table, both the authorities (Usher and Hales) whom he cites make the 430 years to begin from Abram's departure from Haran; and the latter places it at 15 years after he left Ur. Whether Abram resided so long at Ur may certainly admit of doubt, because the time is not stated. It is, however, said that "he dwelt there" (Gen. xi. 31), which implies some continuance. And, though the probability is (looking at the small likelihood there is that Terah would have entered upon a migratory life at the advanced age of 205 years) that the sojourning in Haran was very much more than 15 years, yet it is just possible that it might not have been more than five. If this were the number, and it could be proved (which it cannot), it would make to the birth of Isaac the required difference. And this is the only reason why an attempt is made to find an era in a Call, not mentioned and of no note, to the rejection of THE Call,-the confessedly great event and ordinary epoch of computation. It may further be objected against this solution of the discrepancy that it rests on an event, the very occurrence of which is conjectural and destitute of proof. That Abram left Ur "in obedience to the command of Jehovah" is asserted on no better authority than that of an ambiguous tense, and a Jewish tradition founded upon a mistaken interpretation of this and one or two other texts, (Gen. xv. 7.; Neh. ix. 7). Gen. xii. 1, might with equal propriety be rendered (as indeed it is in other places; e.g. Ex. xi. 1, and xii. 1)—" Now the Lord said unto Abram.' And that this is the true rendering appears to be placed beyond doubt by the statements which follow this text:-"So

*Hales (according to Horne's Table, but it abounds with errors in our edition) appears to place 6 years between the two Calls.