Mr. Cuninghame argues from the cyclical nature of this period, that the Rabbis who curtailed the true chronology, “were well aware that from the birth of Enos to the departure of Jacob for Padan-aram, there was an exact series of Jubilees, and that in corrupting the Sacred text, they have, with profound artifice, contrived to preserve a series of complete Jubilees, by subtracting exactly 23 Jubilees, or 1127 years.” He adds the following proof regarding the _single_ year; in the true chronology, the birth of Abraham is B.C. 2145, and the departure of Jacob, B.C. 1908,—interval, 237 years; in the curtailed chronology these events are respectively dated B.C. 1996, and B.C. 1760,—interval, 236 years; hence, the antedate is one year. Now in the preceding interval from the birth of Enos to the flood, the period of 6 years which was subtracted from the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Lamech, is an essential element in the argument; otherwise that interval would be only 400 years instead of 406, and the whole of the argument would then fall to the ground. Another argument, in favour of the 6 years is, that if the longer chronology of Josephus be so far correct, which is proved from the Septuagint, it is surely proper to follow the authority of that version in regard to the 6 years, _as well as_ in regard to the 600 years; if we trust to its accuracy for the _greater_ number, we may also trust it for the _less_! It seems ridiculous and absurd to take the evidence of the highest authority at _second_ hand, and to reject a small part of that evidence, because it is not fairly brought forward by the _same_ hand; although it be pressed on our notice by many other witnesses! Surely in regard to these 6 years, the testimony of the Septuagint and the whole Christian Church, is before that of Josephus. In reference to the tabulated statements of Theophilus, we find only the very singular and unaccountable error of 20 years in the _Antepaidogonian age_ of Methuselah, which the Vatican codex, if we may trust the editions of the Septuagint said to have been taken from it, appears to have retained. That this chronographer has evidently read 167 years instead of 187 years, can scarcely be doubted from his subsequent statements, and particularly from his statement respecting the extent of this age, that “all the years till the flood were 2242.”[72]