warranted in assuming an older alteration of the numbers, whereby even the calculation of the Septuagint (or that of Josephus) is made 100 years too little in the first part of the lives of each. A comparison of the Samaritan and Hebrew texts with that of the Septuagint also plainly shows that such alterations have frequently been made and possibly with different views. In the Hebrew it must have taken place very early, as it has been introduced into the Septuagint, and may therefore be, perhaps, dated from the time of Esdras. In the Samaritan the corruption has been introduced at a later period and carried

still further, because that people would not be behind the Jews, but rather make what was supposed improbable still more probable and correct. The last alteration probably took place after Josephus had written his excellent works, as it has not found its way into them. At all events we must now transfer these 100 years from the latter portion of each life to the former." Taking Josephus and the Septuagint as the older numbers, and those on which most reliance can be placed, as having been altered only once, and adding the 100 years to the first portion of the lives, we get the following amended table:

This table requires no further comment, as by the process adopted the ages in both instances are reduced to the ordinary average of about 70 years each for the whole life, except Enoch, who died young, and the number of years for a generation is also nearly the ordinary average.

It is not necessary for the elucidation of this subject, to dwell upon the coincidences between the times and names of the Hebrews with those of the Egyptian and Babylonian traditions of these early ages; a whole chapter might be written upon this alone; suffice it to point out that the Adam of the Hebrews is in close relation in many respects to the Egyptian Horos and the Babylonian Alóros; that the legend of Noah and the flood agrees closely with the Babylonian Sisuthros to whom Kronos revealed the flood which should destroy mankind; and that the name of the third Adamite Enos is written, which may not only read Enosh, but by punctuation also Anovish, the similarity of which to the third Egyptian Anubis is selfevident.

But, to pass on to the second period, it will be found that a difference in the life

It is requisite that the period from Shem to Abraham should be divided into two sections, as the ages at birth of the firstborn son do not agree on the average, a change occurring after Serug; where the age at birth of first-born averages 130 years, afterward only about 70; the latter we shall consider afterward. In this table it would seem that the 100 years have again been deducted in the Hebrew text, but as the other three all agree in retaining it, we may safely conclude that their numbers, with the exception of one or two clerical errors, are in the main correct. Assuming this, we find, if we apply the same system pursued in the first series, that we shall not obtain the same satisfactory results, the ages being much too small.

As there is evidently a change in the number of years assigned to each member after the flood, it is only fair to infer that a change took place in the method of computing time. We find a significant hint that such was the case in Genesis viii. 22, a verse which perhaps would not strike a casual reader as conveying any such intimation, yet, when it is pointed out and compared with the teachings of other ancient writers, seems full of meaning. "While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, heat and cold, summer and winter

shall not change." There are ancient Jewish writers who expressly fix the order and names of these six seasons, which thus beyond all doubt were afterward used as units of time. The Hindoos and Arabians also early adopted this mode of reckoning according to some of the best authorities, as Sir William Jones and Golius. And, further, Censurinus expressly states that the Egyptians, at one period, actually had two years of two months each. Assuming then the correctness of the numbers in Josephus, this section will stand thus, when treated as bimonthly years:

Yrs. Ms. 26 4 23 4

There is evidently an error in the Hebrew text which ascribes to Nahor only 29 years at the birth of Terah, and indeed there is some confusion among all the texts referring to this epoch, the differences in some instances amounting to 100 years; but for many reasons* too numerous to particularize here, it would seem that the Septuagint is probably the most correct version, namely, 79 years.

Now this method of dividing by three is not a mere arbitrary assumption, but has considerable authority from Diodorus,

* See Rask on the Patriarchs, pp. 61, 62.

Plutarch, and others, who expressly as cribe to the Egyptians a similar year, founded on the distinction of the three seasons of four months each, spring, summer, winter; as in the first section of this period the bimonthly year was founded on the six ancient seasons.

There is a chasm somewhere in the Hebrew series of something like 380 years as compared with the similar period in the Egyptian and Babylonian chronologies, but, beyond remarking that it is probably capable of being bridged over, we need not concern ourselves here, as it is not necessary to our purpose.

The third period may be tabulated as follows:

Now it is evident that if we use the fourmonthly year in this case, we again get improper numbers. But if we make use of a year of six months, founded on the usual double rainy season in warm countries, we obtain the same result as before. It is not necessary to form another table to show this, as the numbers above given are easily divided by two, which will reduce all the ages to a reasonable figure. This year of six months is again not a mere arbitrary conception. The ancient Germans, according to Bredow, reckoned by the two seasons summer and winter, spring being included in one and autumn in the other; it is also probable that the early Greeks used the same measure, and to this day the Icelanders do the same: they are now only, of course, considered as half-years, but in some of the Eddaic Poems they are not used in that sense. peculiarities in this period which seem at first sight to militate against this method of reckoning; thus Joseph was only 17 (i.e., 81⁄2) when he was sold by his brethren, and only 30 when he was promoted by Pharaoh. This would seem clearly to indicate real and not half-years in this computation, and it is more than probable that such was the case, as a boy of Egypt of 15 would scarcely be made ruler of Egypt on account of his wisdom. It is very possible that this tradition may have

There are some

been written in Egypt at a time when that people reckoned by whole years, which was, no doubt, earlier than some other nations; and therefore we may consider them as such, and, adding this sum to the 110 years given in Genesis 1. 22, 23, we get 140, or 70 real years as the lifetime of Joseph. Somewhat the same is probably the case with Moses. His age, as given in Deuteronomy xxxiv. 7, of 120 years is evidently composed of two parts-the 80 years before the departure being only half years-40 whole years-and then 40 real years which he passed with the children of Israel in the desert, making together 80 years as his age at death.

Thus far it is plain that, by the methods suggested above, the whole of these fabulous ages are reduced within the limits of an ordinary life, and whilst Professor Owen's physiological statements as to their impossibility and absurdity may be accepted as perfectly true and accurate deductions from biological science, yet a simple-minded and uneducated man may accept the interpretation freely and fully,

without doing violence to his belief in the authenticity of the earlier chapters of the Bible. We see also, in this method, the gradual progression of the human race, in knowledge and observation, from the earlier rude measurements of the waxing and waning moon in what we may call the Adamic period; then the more comprehensive grasp in the six seasons of eastern climes, in the earliest Shemite period, reduced to three in its later portion; then the still higher generalization of the two seasons, heat and cold, or summer and winter, in the Abrahamic period; until, finally, the two seasons are grouped together, and form one longer recurring period of a real year in the Mosaic period.

Of course these considerations would, and do, materially alter the generally accepted chronology, but that is a point which really concerns not the purpose of this article, though naturally arising out of it; and which, if permitted, will be reserved for a future communication.

From Frazer's Magazine.