corrupted* Egyptian chronology. Josephus himself contended for the antiquity of his nation, but I think it very clear that he contended for this antiquity agreeably to the time given by the Hebrew text; for the corrupters of Josephus' text, in their endeavours to assimilate it to the corruptions made in the Septuagint, left sufficient fragments of the correct Hebrew time in his text, to demonstrate the correctness of the Hebrew text, and to prove that Josephus' original manuscript was conformable to the time given in the Hebrew text; therefore, I consider that the charge thou bringest against Josephus, for wilfully inserting corruptions into his writings, is unjust, because not well founded. As to the period when these corruptions of time were inserted into the Septuagint, and also into the writings of Josephus, there is reason to believe it was done about the second century after Christ. From the writings of Plutarch, which were composed about 100 years after Christ, it appears there were great disputes concerning chronology at that time, for he mentions there were thousands who were then writing chronologies. From the investigation I have made, I believe that the corruptions of the time, in the Septuagint, and in Josephus' text, were made about 100 to 250 years after Christ, and it is evident that less care would be taken of the Septuagint and of Josephus' writings than of the Hebrew

* That the Egyptians corrupted their chronology to a great extent, is a fact that is proved by the table of Abydos, correctly interpreted by John Lamb, D.D., Cambridge, which strongly corroborates the chronology derived from the Scriptures.

text by the Jewish Scribes; there is great praise due to them for taking such care of the Hebrew text, as not to admit the corruptions that were made in the chronology of the Septuagint, and in the writings of Josephus. I hope, before concluding this letter, to be able to demonstrate to thee, that the time from the creation of Adam to the birth of Christ, as recorded in the Hebrew text, is the true time; and that the charge which thou preferrest against the Jewish Scribes, for having wilfully corrupted the Hebrew chronology in their sacred books, is altogether unjust.

As Demetrius' chronology squares with the corrupted chronology of the Greek version, it shows he transcribed it from the Septuagint, probably about 100 to 250 years after Christ, in order to exhibit to the Latins, Greeks, and Egyptians a greater show of antiquity, as belonging to the Jews; and further, as I will show, that there was an additional stronger reason for doing this; viz., throwing aside the prophecy, which showed that Christ came on the the fourth day, or fourth thousand year. Demetrius' chronology might have been written previous to A.D. 100, but there is no reason to believe that it was written previous to Josephus' writings, as it is evident that Josephus' text was corrupted, not by himself, but afterwards by others, from its agreement with the Jewish Hebrew text in some of its chronological particulars, also with a portion of the corrupted Chronology of the Septuagint. That Josephus had access to the Hebrew text is evident; for he mentions "that Titus gave to him the charge of the Jewish sacred books ;" and concerning the translation of the Septuagint, Josephus says,

near the end of his preface, "The second of the Ptolemies, king of Egypt, did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the Law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books. They indeed contain in them the history of 5000 years."

The 5000 years mentioned here is clearly a corruption, because the chronology of the five books of Moses is only a period of 3799 years, according to the Septuagint itself.

From ancient history we learn that there were many persons who had the name of Demetrius; therefore, there is no reason whatever to identify the author of the chronology with Demetrius Phalereus, who superintended the translation of the seventy, in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. It might be that those who corrupted the chronological time in the Greek version, made a chronology agreeable to their corruptions of the Greek text, and put it in the name of Demetrius, in order that they might better deceive the world.

In page 15 of thy Supplementary Dissertation, thou sayest," Such is the scheme of Usher and his followers, and such are some of the paradoxes and absurdities to which they demand our assent, besides the other paradoxes, that Abraham was the contemporary of Shem, Arphaxed, Salah, Eber, and Serug."

That Abraham was the contemporary of Shem, the chronology of the Hebrew text proves it; and there are other parts of Scripture which also show that this was the case.

I learn from the life of Jacob, before he went to

Egypt, that he was living in peace, taking care of his cattle; and before Joseph was separated from him, I find Jacob and Joseph speaking of sheaves of corn, which shows the peaceable manner in which the aged Patriarchs lived and employed themselves among their descendants without anything particular to bring them into much observation. But when such an event arrived, as in the days of Abraham, when a portion of the human race rose up, headed by kings, carrying ruin and destruction before them, and fighting against each other, when Abraham's brother's son was taken captive, which induced Abraham to attempt to relieve him; if there were a man alive of the Patriarchs, who recollected the warning God gave to Noah concerning the abomination of shedding blood, and the consequence of such violence as was before the floodan event like this was sufficient to bring him forward on the then political stage. Such a one came forward under the name of Melchisedec king of Salem; and from the description given of him by the writer to the Hebrews, I believe him to have been none other than Shem, Abraham's own progenitor, at once the type and progenitor of the Messiah.

As to his receiving the title of King of Righteousness, and King of Peace, this might arise very probably from the friendly and active part he took in maintaining peace among his own and his brother's descendants, who, at that time, were killing and destroying each other; and besides it is very probable he followed up his system of righteousness and peace at that time, so as to induce the then inhabitants of the earth to remain in peace at that time, as well as for

many generations afterwards; but according to thy calculations-drawn as they are from the corrupted Greek chronology-the Patriarch Shem would be dead many hundred years before Abraham; if so, then agreeably with thy plan, who among the patriarchs wilt thou fix upon to answer to the character given to this king of Salem?

Extract from Anthony Purver's translation of the Bible-Note on Genesis, xiv. 18.

"Omitting the various opinions who this Melchisedek was, as also the reasons alleged by some that it was Shem, I will offer one which I take to be new, and stronger than any other, that Shem was called Melchi-zedek.

The name is parted in Hebrew: the former part signifying King, and Sanchoniatho, as in chap. iv., call Shem, Sydyc, which small alteration might well be in another language, especially the Hebrew vowels being left out, and so inserted arbitrarily in the other, the s with 2, and the c with k being quite commutable.— Probably Shem at that time went by the name of the Righteous King, which is the meaning of Melchizedek. Sanchoniatho lived but about 600 years after his death, which might not be many generations then, and compiling his history from the records in Berytus, begun by Thoth, Ham's Grandson may well be supposed to know by what name he was called."

In page 29, Supplementary Dissertation, thou sayest that the time that elapsed from the leaving of Egypt to the fourth year of Solomon when the foundation of the temple was laid was 612 years, and that Clinton agrees with this calculation, and that this is quite