of his father, from 205 years the whole age of Terah, it follows, that Terah was 130 years old when Abram was born. Here then we see the grounds of the difficulty. According to the first cited text, Terah was only 70 years old when Abram was born; and yet according to other two he was 130; which makes a difference of 60 years. Those chronologers who contend for the lesser number, appeal to the first cited text; and in opposition to the second, which states that Terah lived 205 years, they adduce the Samaritan version, which states that he lived only 145 years, being the sum of the two numbers 70 and 75. This argument no doubt, if it were well founded, would settle the question; but the Samaritan version is at best of little value, and when opposed to the united testimony of the Septuagint, the Hebrew, and Josephus, as in the present case, it is of no value at all. Those, on the other hand, who contend for the higher number, maintain that the first cited text is indefinite, and that therefore it must be interpreted by the definite statements of the other two. According to the first passage it would seem that the three sons of Terah were all born in the same year, and yet no writer supposes any such thing. It appears evident, therefore, that all that the passage teaches is, that Terah was 70 years of age before any of his three sons were born. That Abram is mentioned first, by no means proves that he was the oldest of the three. The dignity of Abram furnishes a sufficient reason for his being mentioned first. Besides, the fact that Abram married the daughter of his brother Haran, namely Sarah, who was only ten years younger than himself, shows that Abram was considerably younger than Haran. The probability, therefore, is, that Abram was the youngest son of Terah, and—as Dr. Hales we think successfully maintains-by a second wife.

Now these considerations at once reconcile the apparently conflicting passages, and shew that, although Terah began to have sons when he was 70 years of age, yet Abram was not born until Terah was 130 years of age.

For further evidence on this point, I must refer the reader to Dr. Hales, and especially to the first volume of Smith's Sacred Annals, where he will find it discussed with a clearness and an ability which can scarcely fail to set the question at rest.

The conclusions, then, to which we have now arrived respecting the second Cainan, and the age of Terah, make the period from the deluge to the birth of Abram, to have been 1,072 plus 60=1,132 years.

THIRD PERIOD.-FROM THE BIRTH OF ABRAHAM TO THE DESCENT OF

JACOB'S FAMILY INTO EGYPT.

Concerning the duration of this period, there is no difficulty, and no diversity of opinion. Abraham was 100 years of age when Isaac was born.-Gen. xxi. c. 5 v. Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born.-Gen. xxv. c. 26 v. And Jacob was 130 years old when he and his family arrived in Egypt.-Gen. xlvii. c. 9 v. Adding these three numbers together, then, we have 290 years from the birth of Abraham to the descent into Egypt.

FOURTH PERIOD.-FROM THE DESCENT INTO EGYPT TO THE EXODUS.

The determination of the length of this period is a question of considerable difficulty, and will require a greater amount of attention than has been devoted to it by any chronographer whose works I have had an opportunity of consulting. The question is, whether the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, or only 215. The lesser number is generally adopted by expositors and chronologers, and is founded chiefly on Gal. iii. c. 17 v., where St. Paul reckons 430 years from the covenant with Abraham to the giving of the law. This covenant, it is said, must be dated from the call of Abraham when he was 75 years of age; from which event to the migration into Egypt we have 215 years; and then other 215 years, for the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, make up the 430 years according to the statement of St. Paul. Thus the question is usually disposed of, and so satisfactorily it would seem, that Bishop Russell deemed it unnecessary to bestow a single remark on the subject; and Professor Wallace observes, that "as all commentators and chronologers are now agreed that the commencement of the 430 years was reckoned from the date of the call, it is unnecessary to revive former disputes on this point."* This is certainly a very summary method of proceeding, and saves a great amount of trouble. Professor Wallace is, however, mistaken when he states, that "all commentators and chronologers are now agreed" on the point in question. Kenrick, the author of "Ancient Egypt under the Pharoahs;" Dr. Beard, member of the Historico-Theological Society of Leipzig; Havernick, the author of the "General Historico-Critical Introduction to the Old Testament ;" Olshausen, the biblical commentator; and others that might be named, are all opposed to the interpretation which he and Bishop Russell regard as perfectly settled. Such being the state of the question, and feeling exceedingly dissatisfied with the manner in which it is usually disposed of, we must enter into an examination of the various points of evidence which bear upon the subject.

In Gen. xv. c. 13 v., we have the following statement delivered by Jehovah to Abraham, "And thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years." On this passage, Mr. Ainsworth, as cited by Dr. Adam Clarke, remarks, that the 400 years' affliction began when Ishmael, the son of Hagar, mocked and persecuted Isaac. This notion is adopted both by Dr. Clarke and several other commentators; and it is regarded as so obviously correct, that Professor Wallace states, that the adjustment of these 400 years can occasion no difficulty to the careful reader of scripture, for it is evident that the commencement of this period must be reckoned from the day that Isaac was weaned." "This evil treatment," says he again, began when Isaac was a child, and was able to play, say at five years old."t Such is the mode of interpretation adopted with reference to the

66

* Age of the World, p. 64. † Ibid, p. 253.

:

66

above passage. To those who employ it, it is no doubt satisfactory: I must say, however, that, to me, it is not only unsatisfactory, but also full of inconsistency. The affliction spoken of, which the seed of Abraham should endure, was evidently not an ordinary state of things it was to be restricted to a given period; and therefore not to be confounded with the common afflictions through which both the Israelites and the people of God in all ages have had to pass. But was there anything peculiarly afflictive in Ishmael, who was a mere boy, laughing at, or mocking, a child of five years old? And is it consistent either with the dignity of prophetic announcement, or with the dictates of unbiassed reason, that such a childish circumstance should be regarded as the epoch in the history of the Israelites from whence to date a period of extraordinary suffering? St. Paul, it is true, mentions the circumstance, and calls the mocking, persecution; but he mentions it only as a type of the persecution which Christians have to endure from the men of the world, and not as the commencement of a period of special affliction to the Israelites, to be limited to 400 years.-Gal. iv. c. 29 v. Again, the affliction was to be imposed by those to whom the seed of Abraham should be in a state of servitude. This is the express statement of the passage; but was Isaac in a state of servitude to Ishmael? And further, the affliction of the seed of Abraham was to take place at some future period, and in another country; thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs;" clearly teaching that the affliction should not be endured in Canaan where Abraham then resided, and where Isaac always resided, but in another land, to which the seed of Abraham should at some future period migrate. And then, lastly, the interpretation in dispute is at variance with the whole history of the seed of Abraham for more than 200 years after the weaning of Isaac. During this period they experienced no affliction at all beyond the common lot of humanity. On the contrary, their circumstances were not only easy, but prosperous in a high degree; and as to their being in a state of servitude to the Canaanites, there is not a single instance recorded. To suppose, therefore, that the 400 years' affliction commence dat the weaning of Isaac is to antedate it more than 200 years: it is, in fact, a falsification of the sacred history; and to fix upon the isolated instance of the mocking of a child by his brother, two centuries before either servitude or affliction was known, as the commencement of these 400 years' affiction, is, in our judgment, a piece of trifling utterly irreconcilable with all rational exposition. Every part, therefore, both of the passage in question, and of the history of the period, is inconsistent with the notion that the 400 years' affliction commenced with the mocking of Isaac; and refers, with all the clearness that can be required, to the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, and to their residence there only; nor can it be for a moment supposed that any other construction would ever have been put upon it by any sensible interpreter, had it not been for some other consideration not involved in the passage itself. As to the argument in favour of the common interpretation, which is sometimes founded upon Gen. xv. c. 16 v., I would observe,

that if the 400 years are to be dated from the mocking of Isaac, the four generations must be dated from that time too; for the latter is evidently expressive of the same period as the former. To date, therefore, the commencement of the 400 years from the mocking of Isaac, and the commencement of the four generations 190 years afterwards, as Dr. Hales and others have done, I cannot regard in any other light than as a piece of sheer management, utterly unworthy of a biblical expositor. Such management, it is true, is rendered necessary by dating the 400 years from the mocking of Isaac; because from that period to the exode there are six generations; but this necessity only still further shews the inconsistency of dating the 400 years from the circumstance already named. With regard to the method of determining the length of periods, by the number of recorded generations, some observations will be made in a subsequent part of the dissertation. It may be proper here to state, however, that the Hebrew word which is rendered generation in the passage before us, is exceedingly indefinite, and signifies a circle of a hundred years, just as well as the average circle of human life; and it is in the first of these significations that it appears to be employed in the passage to which we have just now referred.

From the examination which we have now instituted relative to the 400 years' servitude and affliction, we come to the conclusion that the period did not commence with the mocking of Isaac, but that it refers solely to the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, and to the sufferings to which they were there subjected; and in support of this conclusion we have the express statement of Josephus twice recorded. In Book I, chap. x. sect. 3, he states that a divine voice came to Abraham, "declaring that their neighbours would be grievous to his posterity when they should be in Egypt, for four hundred years, during which time they should be afflicted." And then in Book II, chap. ix, sect. 1, after describing the various kinds of hardships, which the Egyptians imposed upon the Israelites he observes: "and four hundred years did they spend under these afflictions."

The next scripture passage which we have to consider occurs in Exodus xii. c. 40 v.-" Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty-years.' One would have thought that a statement like this, so plain and decisive, would settle the question of the duration of the residence of the Israelites in Egypt. But such is by no means the case. Dr. Kennicott observes, "That the descendants of Israel did not dwell 430 years in Egypt, may be easily proved, and has often been demonstrated." And the author of the Sacred Annals, after citing the above text, which states that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt 430 years, remarks, "This is clearly contrary to fact, as they dwelt in Egypt but two hundred and fifteen years.' "Such affirmations as these are somewhat startling, and coming from the quarter from which they do, and under the circumstances of the case, they can scarcely

• Patriarchal Age, p. 17.

66

fail to excite some degree of surprise. That, in the manner to which reference is made in the commencement of the discussion of this period, it "has often been demonstrated," that the descendants of Israel did not dwell 430 years in Egypt, is true enough; but, that it "is clearly contrary to fact," that they dwelt in Egypt so long, is a statement which neither the nature of the evidence, nor the consent of expositors, sustains. Had it not been for the indefinite observation of St. Paul in his epistle to the Galatians, which will be considered ere long, it is doubtful whether the positive declaration of Moses, in the passage just cited, would ever have been called in question; for in every argument that has come under my notice on the popular side of the dispute, St. Paul has been regarded as the final and decisive source of appeal; and therefore, it is not clear, that the statement of Moses now under consideration, is contrary to fact. But let us see how this statement of Moses is sought to be disposed of. Two methods are employed, each of which is fatal to the other. The first consists in charging the statement with an omission, and in trying to supply the omission from other sources; and the second consists in charging it with a redundancy, and in trying to pare off the superfluous member. As to the first: the alleged omission is supplied partly from the Septuagint, which adds the expression, and in the land of Canaan :" but this being insufficient, recourse is also had to the Samaritan, which adds the expression, "and of their fathers;" so that the passage is made to read thus: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, (and of their fathers,) which they sojourned in the land of Egypt (and in the land of Canaan,) was 430 years.' These additions, says Dr. Hales, are absolutely necessary to adjust the chronology of the period.* doubt they are, on the assumption that, the Israelites were only 215 years in Egypt: but the question is, are these scripture additions, or are they mere human additions? To say that they are scripture additions, is to charge the Jews with mutilating the Hebrew text, in order to lengthen their chronology-a charge which has never been preferred, and which is directly at variance with the charge of corrupting their text in order to shorten their chronology, which Dr. Hales has so successfully established. The fact is, that these additions are of human origin; otherwise, both the Hebrew and the Septuagint must be charged with corruption; and the Samaritan, which is stated by biblical scholars, to be of no authority as a source of emendation,† must be regarded as the true text. So obviously indeed are these additions merely human, that Dr. Davidson, although contending that the Israelites were only 215 years in Egypt, resigns them as worthless. And Mr. Smith too, although in his Patriarchal Age, he has appealed to one of them as the only means of reducing the 430 years to 215; yet, in a subsequent work he abandons them both, and states, "More careful inquiry, however, has tended to establish the credit of the Hebrew as the correct text."§ From

No

• Analysis, vol. 2, p. 181. + Kitto's Biblical Cyclopædia, vol. 2, p. 675. Kitto's Biblical Cyclopædia, vol. 2, p. 675. § Manual, p. 502.