TABLE I. ANTEDILUVIAN JOSEPHUS. THEOPHILUS. AFRICANUS. EUSEBIUS. PASCH. PATRIARCHS. CHRON. A.P. A.P. ages. A.P. ages. A.P. A.P. ages. ages. ages. From Creation Adam 230 230 230 230 230 Seth 205 205 205 205 205 Enos 190 190 190 190 190 Cainan 170 170 170 170 170 Mahalaleel 165 165 165 165 165 Jared 162 162 162 162 162 Enoch 165 165 165 165 165 Methuselah 187 *167 187 *167 187 Lamech *182 188 188 188 188 Noah 500 500 500 500 500 To the Flood 100 100 100 100 100 ———— ———— ———— ———— ———— FIRST AGE 2256 2242 2262 2242 2262 Besides their respective statements above tabulated, these chronographers generally give in their works some additional statements which, with some exceptions, serve to rectify their errors, and to corroborate and confirm the true chronology. Josephus, however, in the present text, is made to say that the period from Adam to the flood is 2656 years; whereas the summation of the _Antepaidogonian ages_ gives only 2256 years! On this point, some advocates of the Hebrew chronology argue that the original number was 1656 years, and that δισχιλιών has been put for χιλιών, or _two thousand_ for a _thousand_; but this is mere assertion; for it is just as easy to say that the original number was 2256 years, and that ἑξακοσιών has been put for διακοσιών, or _six hundred_ for _two hundred_. Now the proof that the latter assertion is the true one, is that the number 2256 agrees entirely with the summation of the numbers given in detail; whereas the number 1656 does not agree, and must consequently be erroneous. Moreover, there are some MS. copies of Josephus in which we find the true reading ἐτων δισχιλιών διακοσιών πευτήκοσταἑξ, or _two thousand two hundred and fifty six years_; and this reading is also to be found in some ancient authors who have followed Josephus in chronology, such as, Eutychius Alexandrinus, Josephus Christianus, Anianus Asceta, &c.[71] A few various readings relating to the _Antepaidogonian ages_ are also to be found in the different MSS. to which we have referred, but they are of minor importance and not sufficient to invalidate the authenticity of the tabular numbers. The same may be said of his statements regarding the _Postpaidogonian ages_ and _whole lives_; but as the chronology does not