the Editor of the Dean Sm,—As ''Philalethes," after a month's meditation, merely repeats his mistake, viz., confounding the general text of a book with the Chronology compiled from it, I have no other alternative than to refer him back to my previous letter, which contains my reply on that subject.
Is not Philalethes aware that the Hebrew text is received where the Hebrew Ohronology is rejected? The Post-diluvian Sama-titan Chronology is also received, where the Samaritan text is rejected. These are simple matters of fact, and yet Philalethes denounces all such distinctions as "ignorant": "betraying total ignorance of texts,"
Your correspondent states that I have misunderstood a in his first letter ich he gave as follows: "This last, how-the Sam. Pent need not' come ration, since it is well understood that the Samaritan text here [i. e. in Chronology from Adam to Terah's 70th year] as elsewhere, is merely fabricated from the Greek," &e.' This passage "interpolated in the latter part, reads thus; This last, however, [i. ¢. the Sam. Pent need not come into. cor ce it is well understood that the Samaritan text hero as elsewhere is merely fabricated from the Greek." That is plain enough. The "text" mentioned hero is evidently the general text of the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the writer plainly takes one side inn controversy which still exists amongst the learned. Philalethes. however, is evidently not aware of this latter fact, or he would not have quoted from an author whose statement as to the fabrication of the Samaritan text from the Greek has been denied by scholars of reputation, (see for instance, Cassell's Bib. Diet.); and hence, any conclusion arrived at as to Chronology on that ground, is worthless, I may remark here that this author, according to the interpretation now put upon this passage by your correspondent, distinctly distinguishes between text and' Chronology, or he could not argue that the corruption of the one proved the corruption of the other. But Philalethes, by his interpolation given above, as usual, confounds these two things together, and gives a totally different meaning to the stotment of his author in his first letter, to that which he now gives it in his second one. In his first letter his interpolation stood that the Samaritan text here [ie in is, as already quoted, "it is well under-
the Chronology from Adam &c.,] as elsewhere is fabricated" &c. Now, Philalethes here obviously quotities what his author, on your correspondent's own admission, intended to be the nominative case to the verb "fabricated." His author makes the word text' the nominative, whereas by his interpolation makes the the text in the Chronology" the nominative to the verb. The author speaks of the text of the Samaritan Penta-touch, but your correspondent makes him speak of " the extin the Chronology" of the Sam. Pent. It apy then, from his" remarks in his second letter that Phil cannot even parse an. English sentence coming from his own pen. A "schoolboy" would doubtless have understood the pas: sage if your correspondent had not mystic fied it; but as it stands, with his inter:
lation, it isin reality, meaningless, at is _meant by the text in the not know that Chronology is calculated. Chronology" &c. 1 Does Philalethés reali
from genealogies &o., which make but a small portion of the general text, and may be correct while the general text of the book itself mnay be corrupt; and vice versa? To speak of the Chronology in the text may pass, but to speak of "the text in the Chronology" &e., favours of the "non. sense" which your correspondent endea-yours to attach to my statements, What is the meaning of, for instance, "tire text in the date B. C. 4,000;" or "in the date B.C. 1,000"? Such phrases would be simply absurd.
If Philalethes did not mean Chronology here, why did he thus interpolate the passage? If he intended to make it mean Chronology, then, as Ihave proved, the statement is glaringly incorrect. If, as by now says, the author argues that Because the text is corrupt, therefore the system of dates derived from it is incorrect, then, his author and himself are guilty of " plain non sequitur. And lastly, any reference to the antediluvian Chronology is irrelevant, The dates from Noah to Isaac in the postdiluvian Chronology (which is the subject under consideration) precisely coincide with the statements of our Hebrew text, As a sample of the manner in which Philalethes deals with th it first letter (Oct. ") he quotes and inter-pare the following statement
palates his author thus: 'This Inst, however, (i.e. the Sim. Pent.] need not' come into' consideration" &., In. his second letter (Nov. 9th) he thus quotes and inter-ates the very same passage:.\¢ This last
tan text] need not come into consideration" rah' 70th yea, us given in the Samari, the number of years from Adam to
&c. In his first letter your correspondent interpolates his author #0: ns to make his words apply to the Samaritan Pentatewch while in his second, being wholly unconscious of what he had, previously' written, interpolates the very) same sentence in a ferent way, in order to make his author's words apply to the Samaritan' Chronolug of course placing oneself at siderable disadvantage to con cussion with so careless a. writ besides taking liberties' with: hi Inbours under a hopeless confusion of ideas. His signature has surely been chosen on the "incus a non tucendo" principle.
12th Nov.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.