sible to disentangle the true thread, wove them up into such fabrics as the mystical fancy of each inclined him to prefer, or such as would accord with the various chronographical systems. It seems certain that the Tables, as we have them, are not in a state to be applied to any practical purpose, or made to bear any burden, and hence we are not likely to be losers if we regard them in this light. V. CONCLUSION. 831. In bringing this Essay to a conclusion, it seems proper to offer some remarks on these three points; — the origin and source of these computations, the extent to which our investigations affect or modify the doctrine of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, and the amount of authentic Chronological knowledge they may be supposed to leave. 1. ORIGIN AND SOURCE OF THE COMPUTATIONS. 832. First, whence did these curious combinations and cyclical arrangements of events proceed? (1). 833. Came they from man, or specially from God? 834. If it were merely a case of the disposition of the principal occurrences in the history of the chosen people, so as that they should happen at intervals prescribed by certain selected numbers, or according to the revolutions of predetermined cycles, there would be no à priori presumption against such a disposition, and consequently no difficulty ought to be felt with regard to it. On the contrary, the analogy of nature would give rise to a presumption in favour of such an arrangement. The God, who has appointed to every thing in heaven and on earth its precise time and season,-who, in particular, has so meted out the motions of the heavenly bodies, that the very existence of all is dependent on the accomplishment by each and every one of its allotted course within a moment of time, may well be expected to govern his special actings by the same rule. He who has ordained that our earth should rotate say in 24 hours, and revolve in 365 days, may He not have likewise ordained that the crises in the history of His chosen people should occur according to a cycle say of 430 years? Undoubtedly He may. Only, as this would not happen in the common course, (seeing that such crises are dependent upon moral causes, which are not governed by a law of rigid cyclical recurrence), but would require a special, if not a miraculous interposition of Divine power, it would be necessary that those alleging it should be able to shew an end in view worthy of such special action, the exhibition of "a - worthy end" being allowed by all divines to be necessary to accredit the claim to a special intervention of the Deity. This condition, however, might readily be met in the present case. For the accumulated and ever-accumulating evidence, which such a wonderful order of " times and seasons" would afford to a Divine revelation, would fully satisfy it.— But the case before us is not such a one as we have supposed. It presents not one clear, simple, and well-authenticated chronological line, in which the great events of the history are found to coincide with certain chosen numbers, and to be governed by prescribed measures and the revolutions of certain cycles; but an endless variety of such lines mutually inconsistent and contradictory. Even in times past,—with the exercise of all the ingenuity and the help of all the learning that could be brought to bear on the subject during 15 centuries and more, with the unlimited use of conjecture and assumption of corruptions, the learned have been unable to approximate remotely to a decision between the two most widely-discrepant systems of Chronology. So nearly balanced is the evidence in support of each, that it would be difficult to determine which, even down to the present day, has a preponderance of authorities in its favour. But the case has now assumed quite a new aspect. The hypothesis of a vast amount of accidental corruptions has been set aside by the manifestation of an end which the different readings had in view, and the allocation of a place in some system or other to all the various numbers. It were as vain as it must be unnecessary to attempt to recapitulate, however briefly, the evidence which has been collected in the preceding pages; but the adduction of only one example may suffice for the solution of the question now before us. 835. The Ante-Abrahamic chronology depends on the two Genealogical Tables in Genesis v. and xi. These are diversely recorded in 3 different recensions. Hitherto it has been supposed that a choice must be made between the three, or, rather, between two of them; for it is considered to have been proved that the Samaritan is only a corrupt version of the LXX., and has no independent authority. But our researches have shewn, as it would seem, that all the three Tables have been constructed on the same principle and with the same object, and are, in fact, parts of one system, which would be incomplete if either were wanting. How then can either part be accepted as Divine, or divinely authenticated, and the other two be rejected as human falsifications? Must not all stand or fall together? All, however, cannot co-exist as statements of facts or records of the lapse of time, since they are mutually contradictory. And hence the position, that these Chronographies and Computations proceed from a Divine source, and come to us under a Divine guarantee for their authenticity, cannot for a moment be maintained. In fact, the marks of human artifice, which have been elicited through the whole course of our inquiries, place the question in so clear a light, that it would be an insult to the understanding of our readers to dwell upon it further. We therefore turn to the next question that arises. (2). 836. From what man or body of men have these curious chronographical and numerical systems proceeded, or to what age of the world may they be assigned? 837. It is obvious that only an approximate and conjectural answer can be given to this question. Indeed no answer, probably, can be given, which will not be liable to the most grave and weighty objections. And consequently any thing that we may say on this point must be understood as offered only in the way of conjecture, with the greatest diffidence, and as suggestive and tentative rather than as expressive of opinion, much less of dogmatic assertion. 838. These mystical chronographies come to us, in their complete form, exclusively from the Works attributed to Josephus. Hence it would seem to be the first step, in the way of approximation, to ascertain whether any doubt can be entertained with regard to the authorship and age of these celebrated writings. If not, a proximate date will be obtained, anterior to which the origin of the computations must be sought. But if a doubt may reasonably be felt on this point, then these mystical systems, in the form we have them, may have a date as much later as may be the date of the Works which contain them. We pretend not to be competent to do justice to the inquiry. But we will, first, briefly advert to the evidence adduced to prove that the works attributed to Josephus did really proceed from a learned Jew of that name, a leader in the rebellion, and who (according to Whiston and others) published "the Wars" about A. D. 75, when he was but 38 years of age, -the "Antiquities" 18 years afterwards, in the 13th year of Domitian (as he himself tells us) A. D. 93, and the 2 books Contra Apion. not till after the 3rd of Trajan, A. D. 100. Afterwards, we will bring forward some objections to the opinion that such a person was really the Author, not, however, pretending to present a complete view of these (which might require a volume to set them forth fully), but only adducing such as may most readily be collected, and can be stated in few words. [1.] 839. The only direct evidences that Josephus was the Author of the Works which bear his name we presume to be the assertions which they themselves contain to that effect, and the testimony of later Writers. 840. The first is inadmissible in the present case, such assertions being as likely to proceed from a forger as from a genuine Author. 841. As to the second, it does not appear, so far as we have the means of ascertaining, that these works are referred to as the productions of Josephus earlier than 50 or 60 years after the last of them is supposed to have been published. If this be so, such testimony is of small account indeed. We have seen within these few years, in the case of Meinhold's Amber Witch, how readily a purely fictitious tale may be palmed, even upon the learned, as a genuine historical narrative. If this could be done in the 19th century, when Critics vaunt so much the powers of their philological science, and the impossibility of imposing upon their critical acumen, how much more in the 3rd century, when readers were comparatively few, and little likely to be competent or concerned to detect a forgery. The probability of detection would be extremely small in the case of such works as those attributed to the Jewish historian, seeing that they consist to a great extent of compilations from earlier histories, and probably contain nothing but what was in accordance with or derived from received traditions; and consequently nothing to provoke inquiry and antagonism. Suppose them to have been composed in the latter half of the 2nd century, and falsely attributed to Josephus. Who was likely to detect the forgery, or concerned to expose it? Or, if any one did, who were likely to be favourably disposed to listen to him? The arms and prowess of the Romans are too much lauded to make it likely that a Roman would investigate a question of doubtful Authorship. The unmerited sufferings and brave resistance of the Jews during their last War, and the professed object of the Works to place their nation in a more favourable position in the eyes of the Gentile world, would gain their good-will. And the like tendency in reference to Christianity as an offspring of Judaism, as well as the testimony given to Christ, would propitiate Christians, and predispose them to receive readily Writings, of which they might, and we know they did, make so much use in their |