The refpectable Abbé Girard, in the learned work which he has given us under the title of Leffons on Hiftory, gives the preference to the Samaritan chronology, on the rule, certainly in general juft, of giving credit to two witnesses wherever they agree against one. This reafon would undoubtedly be decifive, if it was abfolutely requifite to choofe one of the three verfions in all its parts without referve. But as there are neceffarily errors in one copy, fome mistakes may have alfo crept into all three; and in some points fuch feem apparent in all. It thence becomes neceffary, critically to examine the feveral parts of each verfion, and bring them to the test of that probability which various circumstances seem to indicate. In all that space of time which elapfed between the cre

ation and the birth of Abraham three diftin&t eras prefent themfelves. The firft ends with the deluge, the fecond with the dif perfion of mankind, and the laft comes down to the birth of the father of the Jewish nation.

For many rcafons (ddd) it seems pretty generally agreed, that the Samaritan chronology is too fhort, and therefore erroneous in the first mentioned period. I agree with the above mentioned author, that every circumftance feems to point out that the Hebrew is equally too short in the second; but, for reasons which I fhall hereafter deduce, I am inclined to believe it more exact than either the Samaritan or Septuagint in the third era. The examination of the two laft periods belongs properly to our present purpose..

Noah lived 350 years after the flood. Is it probable that his children, living under the eyes of this common father of mankind, natural lord of the whole earth, fhould determine to divide it amongst them in his life-time, without apparently appropriating any part of it to him, or without its being even fignified what part of it he chose for his own habitation, whilst the different quarters of the world are portioned out to his fons and their defcendants? Yet, according to the Hebrew chronology, this incongruity muft have taken place. Would the pious Abraham in his various travels have never vifited, or even spoken of any relation with this common father of mankind, who, according to that chronology, must have lived 58 years

after

after his birth? Would he never have paid homage to Sem, father of his own particular race, whose residence must have been in western Afia, appropriated to him and to his defcendants, and who was not only living during his time, but, if credit is given to this chronology,, furvived him 53 years? Neither is it probable, that idolatry would be fo fully and fo generally established in the very life-time of the person who had feen the whole world deftroyed by the vengeance of the Almighty, and to whom all the nations of Afia must have yet looked up with filial reverence. It is furely more natural to fuppofe that it was not till after the death of Noah that the divifion of the whole earth amongst his three fons could have been thought of. But the strongest, and I think decifive, argument against the very fhort time allowed by the Hebrew text between the flood and the difperfion, is the infufficiency of numbers to which mankind could in that space have arifen to induce them to this last measure. By the faireft calculations the number of fouls from three ftocks, in the courfe of one hundred years, comprehending at moft five generations, could fcarcely amount to 3000; and of these the laft genera-tion and the moft numerous part muft yet have been in the cradle. Those who have given the largest scope to the quick propagation of the species cannot extend it to above 37000 (eee). Granting even the poffibility of this laft exaggerated number, Armenia could not be infufficient either for the abode, cultivation, or fubfiftence of this yet small tribe. Still lefs could they find themselves ftraitened in the fertile and extenfive plains of Mefopotamia. Even such a

fmall.

fmall nation of hunters could not have been at a lofs for fubfiftence: but we know that they had learnt from their still exifting fathers all the arts of cultivation known in the former world, to which Noah had added that of the culture of the vine. The numbers of mankind, yet insufficient to cultivate a small province, could not furely dream of feparating into very small partics to take poffeffion of extenfive diftant countries (fff). From a fertile country, where all might yet live in cafe and plenty, colonies would not be induced to depart in search of unknown distant regions, unless in fuch numbers, and with fuch concomitant flocks and cattle, as might render their long journey both fafe and easy. we compute 400 years between the flood and the difperfion, all thefe difficulties vanish. Upon a fair computation, mankind might in that space have risen to two millions of fouls (ggg), and the families of the firft leaders of nations would be fufficiently numerous to undertake, without hazard, fuch long marches, and to fettle new regions with a prospect of comfort and fuccefs. In this period, therefore, the addition of 300 years to the Hebrew chronology feems confonant to reafon and the nature of things.

But if with the Samaritan copy

From all the above confiderations it feems evident, that the Samaritan copy has rightly reftored 300 years wanting in the Hebrew chronology, in the foregoing period between the flood and the difperfion; but on very fimilar grounds it appears to me, that it has unwarrantably continued to add a like number of years to the fpace

fpace elapfed between the deluge and the birth of Abraham. The authors of that copy feeing that Phaleg and his predeceffors were born about the 130th year of their fathers, probably deemed it neceffary to continue for fome time to give the like age to that patriarch and his immediate fucceffors at the birth of their fons; and the Septuagint has, on the fame reasoning, continued it a generation. longer. The authors of both thefe chronologies certainly imagined that, during the great longevity of men, the age of puberty did not begin till about that period of life; and this opinion ftill feems to prevail amongst many moderns, though I am perfuaded, without real grounds (bbb). The Samaritan copiers did not advert, that On the of from Heber, was already reduced 200 years. age man, this account the Septuagint feems also to have added 100 years to the term of the lives of these patriarchs; and Eufebius and fome copies have carried this addition quite down to Abraham. The Samaritan transcribers had probably forgot that, according to their own account, feveral of the predeceffors of Noah had been born when age of their fathers were under 70 years old, at a time when the man was double to that of the oldeft poftdiluvian patriarchs. But the defign of Mofes was not to enumerate all the children, or to particularize the first born of any of these patriarchs, but merely to give the genealogies of Noah and Abraham, without pretending to settle the rank, in point of birth, of any of their progenitors. Phaleg, whose birth happened precisely at the time of the difperfion, from whence he took his name, was evidently not only the younger,

but