« AnteriorContinuar »
lix hundredth and first rear. Now, suppo
sing he waited for the Return of the Dove i seven Days, then that will make ten Months
and thirteen Days, and bring us to the first of the thirteenth Month, or more properly, to the first of the first Month of the ensuing Year of Noah's Life.
The vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible seems to favour this Hypothesis ; for we read there, chap. viii. ver. 8. Emisit quoque Columbam poft eum, ut videret si jam terasent aquæ super faciem terræ. If the Waters were yet abated; which Expression yet is not in our English Version. Now from thence we may very well suppose Noah had waited some considerable time; the Word jam, yet, carrying with it the Idea of a long and tedious Expectation; and such a one we may the more reasonably suppose Noab to have been in, if we conlider that the Raven he had sent out before, Egrediea batur, & non revertebatur donec Siccarentur ayuæ fuper terram. Went forth and returned not till the Waters were dried from off the Earth. Or as our Version has it, Went to and fro till the Waters were dried from the Earth. And indeed it is very natural to think, that Noah having sent out the Raven to see if the Waters were dried away, should wait some time before he sent ouç a second Messenger, especially so tender a Bird as the Dove. There would thereB 2
fore be, I conceive, no Absurdity in placing here the Month that remained to be ac counted for...i mi?...
There is, indeed, one Objection that seems to make strongly against it. And that is what we read in the tenth Verse, namely, that he slaid yet other seven Days; which Phrafe implies his having already waited seven, and thereby seems to fix the Interval of time between the sending out the Raven, and the fending out the Dove, to seven Days. But we find that in several authentick Greek Copies * the Word Other, êtépas, is wancing. So that according to those Copies, what I have here proposed may very well be admitted; this Objedion being thereby taken away. . .
Fixing then here the Month unaccounted for, we shall find the Particulars of the Flood to agree exactly with the general Account given us of it. For according to the foregoing Scheme, we have found that from the beginning of the Flood to Noah's removing the Covering of the Ark, there were ten Months and thirteen Days. In chap. viii. ver. 13. we are told, that, in the fix hundredth and first Year, in the firš Month, the first Day of the Month, the Waters were dried up from off the Earth; which makes eleven Months and thirteen Days:
** Ed. Ox. do Compl.
and ver. 14. that, in the second Month, on the twenty Seventh Day of the Month, was the Earth dried. Which being added to eleven Months and thirteen Days, makes just twelve Months and ten Days. Whence it will follow, that a Year was equal to twelve Months of thirty Days each, or to three hundred and sixty Days in all.
Thus have I endeavour'd to prove the Antediluvian Years to have been of the Length and Duration I just now mentioned,
from the Account of the Flood as we have - it in our English Version; but it will appear ' still far more evident to us that they were
so, if we examine the Account of the Flood as it is delivered in the most authentick Copies of the Septuagint Version. For we shall there find several Errors, that occur in our Latin, English, and French Bibles, rectified, and the Account will be made plain and easy to us... -Ánd first; according to the Latin, English, and French Versions, the Flood is made to have lasted a Year and ten Days; namely, from the seventeenth of the second Month of one Year, to the twenty seventh of the sea cond Month of the ensuing Year. But according to the Septuagint Version, it lasted only just a Tear. For the beginning of the Flood, which in the Latin, English, and French Versions, is said to be on the seventeenth of the second Month, is there faid to
be on the twenty seventh Day of the second Month. Tp deutépo Mweuós, ébdóun xai fixés Tð uleras. And therein all the moft authentick Copies agree. But least it should be laid, that then, the Proof I have brought of the Months consisting of thirty Days each, by reason of the five Months, from the sea venteenth of the second Month, to the reventeenth of the seventh Month, being made equal to an hundred and fifty Days, would thereby be destroyed; I must not forget to observe, that in the Septuagint Version, the Ark is said to have rested on the twenty fes venth of the seventh Month, on the Moun, tains of Arrarat. Kät, iné Jirev xebatos Xx Mies ta El3dópicais eedóun xori fixado tog mlw's.
ne te ien ta' Agapet.' So that the five Months are still made equal to an hundred and fifty Days, and the Proof remains in force.
This leads me to take notice, by the way, of an Error in the Vulgar Latin Edition of the Bible, that renders that Version still more faulty than either the English or the French ones. It places indeed the beginning of the Flood on the seventeenth of the second Month, as ours and the French one does, but then it makes the resting of the Ark to have been on the twenty seventh of the feventh Month, and thereby makes an hundred and fifty Days equal to five Months and ten Days, or each Month to consist on
ly of twenty eight Days; whereas 'tis manifest they consisted of thirty..
Another Error that occurs in all the English, French, and Latin Versions, is in the eighth Chapter of Genesis, at the fifth Verse, where we read thus; In the tenth Month, on the first Day of the Month, were the Tops of the Mountains seen. Now I think there is little Reason to doubt, but we ought to read the eleventh Month. The Vatican, and Complutensis Editions indeed have it the tenth Month. But the Alexandrian MSS. and the Editio Aldina, both have it the eleventh Month. Îv TÔ Evd Exéty. Which Reading I am persuaded any one will be induced to prefer, who does but confider how agreeable it is to Reason, and how perfectly it reconciles the Account of the Flood to it's self, and clears up all those Difficulties we have hitherto met with, in endeavouring to adjust it. And certainly the Authority of those Copies, efpecially of the Alexandrian MSS. which the learned Dr. Prideaux, in his Account of the Septuagint, justly esteems to have the Preference of all the Copies of that Version, is a fufficient Warrant for our so doing. - I shall say nothing more to recommend the Corre&tions I have made of our Version, from the different Readings in the Septuagint, I have mention'd; but proceed to conlider, as briefly as poffible, the Account of