HEBREW TEXT. SEPTUAGINT. SAMARITAN. ――――――――――――――――― ―――――――――――――――― ――――――――――――――――― Age Age Age at Rest at Rest at Rest Son’s of Son’s of Son’s of NAMES birth. life.Total. birth.life.Total. birth.life. Total. ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― 1. Shem 100 500 600 100 500 600 100 500 600 2. Arphaxad 35 403 438 135 400 535 135 303 438 3. Salah 30 403 433 130 330 460 130 303 433 4. Eber 34 430 464 134 270 404 134 270 404 5. Peleg 30 209 239 130 209 339 130 109 239 6. Reu 32 207 239 132 207 339 132 107 237 7. Serug 30 200 230 130 200 330 130 100 230 8. Nahor 29 119 148 179 125 304 79 69 145 [or 79] 9. Terah 130 135 205 130 135 205 70 75 145 [or 70] [or 70] 10. Abram, his call 75 75 75 ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― ―――― Total 365 1015 1015 Here it will be noticed that the important differences are of the same sort as in the corresponding table before the flood. In a series of six names (Arphaxad to Serug inclusive) the Hebrew has 100 years less in each life than the Septuagint _before_ the dividing point. In the first (the important) column, the Samaritan agrees with the Septuagint. The years in the second and in the third columns are quite irregular. In the case of Nahor the Septuagint exceeds the Hebrew either 50, as in the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint, or 150 as in the Vatican text. On the question――Which of these texts, the Hebrew or the Greek, has been corrupted? it may be said in favor of the integrity of the Hebrew: (a.) That it is the original.――――(b.) That in general it has been preserved by the Jews with extreme care and guarded against corruption with the greatest vigilance. * * * * * In favor of the integrity of the Septuagint on the points now in question may be urged―― (a.) As to the period from Adam to Noah, the general concurrence of Josephus――an independent and reliable witness as to the state of all the Jewish authorities of his time. In regard to the period after the flood, the corresponding concurrence of the Samaritan text in all vital points.