To, the Editor of the Dear S1n,—In your issue of Oct. 17th, Lobserve a'reply of Mr. MoUlatchie's to letter which appeared in the Herald of Oct. 10th, In that reply, the writer charges me with confusion of ideas," "strange mistake," and a strange im conception" of the authorities I quoted and what is more serious, he affirms that 1 have made one of my authors guilty of a grave error" through my misconception and also, that by "still adhering to my mistake," Ihave made the author quoted from Kitto's Eye. of Bib. Lit. assert that the Samaritan Chronology is fabricated from the LXX, which most decidedly is not the ease." Such are the words of the reverend gentleman. Other charges and insinuations there are in his reply, which I shall not take the trouble to notice, except by stating, that the "confusion of ideas," the mistake, and the errors, are all his own and not mine; and they arise from an illogical, ungrammatical, and unscholarly twisting of the language and purport of my letter and its quotations.
Passing over the irrelevant matter of it. M.'s reply, I shall make a few remarks on what I consider his two important misrepresentations.
1.—The distinction between the Sama tan' Chronology sud "the Sam. Pent. self." This, though true, and clearly indicated in my letter, is of no use to 'MIN.; for the writer quoted and the authorities referred to, reject the Samaritan Chronology in particular, as well as the Samaritan text in general, What cai Mr. M, understand by such expressions as the following, which occur in the quotations from Smith's Bib. Diet. "Gesenius abolished the remnant of the authority of the Sum. Pent." if the remnant. ofts authority be abolished, logy 1 enn what authority can remain in its Chrono-
"Again, since Gésenius's masterly work, there "Fias' been' and will be no further ingestion a8 tothe absence of all value in this tied tu its pretend ementdations."
absence of all value," in the Sam. Pent, itself be a settled. question, what value can there begin its Clvonology? IE its pretended emendations ate of no value, what value can'there be in'its chronological emendations Tee silenced the utterly unfounded, though time-hallowed claims, of the Sam, Pent.," what claims can remain to its van What could Mr.M. be at, when misunderstood the plain En; Firth, Geomius divided the digurent quotations from Smith's Bib. Dictionary
readings of "the Sam. Pent. itself," into eight classes; another author, Frankel, divides them into "two or three other and "Kirchheim enumerates thirteen."
In Gesenius's classification of the different readings of the Sam. Peut., the chronological variants come under the sixth class, and Kirchheim gives them under th thirteenth. After enumerating Geseni classification, the writer in Smith's Diet. proceeds thus;—From the immense num ber of these worse than worthless variants, Gesenius has singled out four, which he thinks preferable on the whole to those in the Masoretic text." (Bib. Diet. Vol. ILL P. 1110). "They, too, have since been, all but unanimously, rejected." (Ibid p. 1111). 'These four variants of the Sam. Pent., which Gesenius thought preferable to the Masoretic text. are, (I) Gen. IV. 8; (2) Gen, XXIL 13; (8) Gen. NULX. 14; (4) Gen. XIV. 14.' A reference to these passages will shew that they have nothing to do with Chronology.
Now, Sir, if all the immense number of the variants found in the Sam. Pent., except these four passages in Gen worse than worthless," what there be in the chronological variants to that text? Further, if the writer in Smith's Bib. Diet. thought it possible to except the Samaritan chronology from the utter worthlessness of the Samaritan text, would he not, in the interest of trath in general, and of biblical chronology in particular, indicate that exception Undonbtedly He would have done so, if he could have done it honestly. But his language clear; and the meaning of the whole is, that "the Samaritan Pent., itself," and its chronology, must be rejected.
The preceding remarks equally apply to the other quotations and references given in my letter.
2—Mr. McOlatchio asserts that the writer of Kitto's Art. Chronology, in the pa quoted in my letter, speaks of the text of the Sam. Pent.," and not of its chronology. He further says, that by mistake Imake my author assert that the Samaritan chronology is fabricated from the LXX, which most decidedly is not the case."
Now, Sir, it were well if Mr. M. had been less decided in his assertion, and more attentive in his reading of my letter. The division of the Art., from the middle of sshich I made my quotation, is headed Biblical chronology." The whole di trentsof thischronology, and of nothing The immediately preceding context of quotation gives the number of years from Adam to 70th year, The last numbers given are those of the Sam, Pent, And in connection with this: the writer in Kitto's aays,—' This last, [i. the number of years from Adam to Terah's 70th year as given in the Samasitan text,] need not come into consideration." it this is not speaking of the Samaritan Chronology, what is it Further, the author gives the reason for setting aside those' chronological numbers of the Sam. tex; that reason is, it being well understood that the Samaritan text here as elsewhere, is merely fabricated from the Greek." Is there any "schoolboy who would mistake the meaning of the word here" in the cited paragraph, as Mr. M. has done? Does Mr. M. sincerely think that the author of the. article on Chroology in Kitto's, could: pen' such nonsense as the following,—"it is' well understood that the Sam:-tezt here [i.e. in the text] as elsewhere, is merely fabricated" &c. This, however, is the meaning.which Mr. M., in his reply, gives to" the writer's words.
Really, Mr. Ed., if Mr. M, can misunderstand simple English in this fashion, what may he not do by way of misunderstanding his Chinese authors As to Mr. Faber's learning &e., no one that I know, will dispute it; but his single thority on a question of this kind, is of little weight against the almost unanimous opinion of modern biblical critics, and the fact that chronologists such as Usher, Hales, Petavius, Clifton, Jackson, Poole &e., do not accept the Samaritan Chrono. logy. This latter fact alone should have kept Mr. M. from asserting so dogmatically that the Samaritan Chronology is." the only reliable" one, and that a single ror in which has never yet been discovered."
The fact is, that the Chronology of the Holy Scriptures is at present. unexplained, and hence undefined as a system; and no man has a right to make it the measure of all history, as many writers and teachers are prone to do. Those gentlemen who are labouring to unravel and define the Chronology of the Chinese, deserve the hanks of every lover of truth, and the wers of none. And for my own part, 1 would express to them. my warmest ks, however little may be its worth, branch of chronological investigation must throw some light on the world's history, and eventually help to form a more accurate estimate of the Chronology of our Bible.
Apologizing for trespassing at so great Jength on your space, Tremain, yours truly,
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.