(b.) The fact that there is no known reason for intentional corruption; while over against this it has been supposed (with how much probability it is difficult to say) that the Jews during their controversies with the Christians on the great question of the Messiah (A. D. 150–400) found it for their interest to shorten the period from the creation to the Christian era in order to prove that the Messiah had not yet come. This presupposes it admitted on both sides that he was to come within some given number of years after the creation――perhaps 4500 or 5000. We have already seen reason to suppose that the Hebrew text of 1 Kings 6: 1 is in error――perhaps corrupted. It is manifestly less than the truth by the difference between 480 and 591. (c.) The accuracy of the Septuagint chronology on these contested points does not appear to have been called in question until at least 400 years after the translation was made――never before A. D. 150, about the date when the controversy arose respecting the Christian Messiah. (d.) It was in use and fully accredited before the Christian era. (e.) It was used and its authority fully admitted by the fathers of the Christian church.――――This fact and the next preceding render it at least probable that the Hebrew text _at that time_ was in harmony with the Septuagint. (f.) The Chaldean and Egyptian annals seem to demand more time back to the flood or to the creation than the present Hebrew text admits, and therefore lend their influence (to be taken for what it is worth) in favor of the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew because of its longer periods.