New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-05
RELIGION AND SCIENCE.
BIBLICAL CHRONOLOGY.
SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE oRrHoDo"
,>.rr,pprr ArroS on THE nATa

SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN THE ORTHODOX
INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA.
To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir The Tribune OF March II contained letter
from Dr. Dufaeld Of Princeton. upon 'Pre-Abrc'
bamic Chronology" being reply to one which has
appeared In your issue of the 18th ut. Thousi
consisting in great part Of extracts from an artice
by Professor w n. Green. written at the time G.
the Colenso 'heresy" and republisned about quar-
ter OF century later In an amended form In The
Biblioheca Sacra," this letter Is just Of espe-
cal interest On the very day OF It's appearance fl
your columns two OF the most prominent minister
in Greater New-York were courageous enough I?
declare in the pulpit that the story Of Adam ane
Eve and the Fall OF Man was pagan myth whicI
the Hebrews had derived from the Assyrlans j
was also stated In Tribune editorial that scienc-
and dogmatic theology are essentially antagonisici
that many Christians OF the opinion that re
ligon will ultimately be compelled TO hgh, science
and that therefore, all attempts 10 temporze w.t.:
It are not merely useless, but harmful.
In his recently published work entitled "GuesseE
at the Riddle OF Existence" (Macmillans). Goldws
Smith tells us that when a student al college h.
attended the lectures OF DR.. Buckland. a pioneer r
geology; and he remembers the desperate shifts T.
which the lecturer driven In his efforts 10
oncile the facts OF his science with the Mosai'
cosmogony. the literal truth Of which he did no.
venture TO impugn. In attempting to reconcil.
modern scientific conclusions with early Bblica
genealoges DR.. Dufeld says that IN Scriptura
phraseology the expressions 10 beget,' TO bear
and SON are not restricted TO immediate offspring
but used with reference 10 any direct II may b"
remote, descendant ana that 'posi-AorahamiS
genealoges are frequently incomplete. without anj
indication OF omissions" In proof Of these asser
tlons ne refers several passages In Genesis (chap
ter xlvD. Exodus. Numbers. Chronicles. Ezra
and dn the New TestamenD the first chapter o.
Matthew; the inference being that popular ehro-
nciogy is based 4 wrong Interpretation and tina,
a select and partial register OF ante-Abrahami;
names has been mistaken for complete one IL
other words because. either through accident o.
design, n few generations have been skipped In tins
genealoges which he mentions therefore we are
justified In assuming that an indefinite NUMBER o.
generations have been omitted from Genesis anc
xi though in this case geology shows that tho
length of the period involved must be many thou-
sends II not tens of thousands, OF years. 4.
Let us examine breny SOM es U CSr the son
or David. the son OF Abraham IN the ilrst chaptei
text AND the omssons observabie in verses and II
OF the same chapter-whether they are que 10 i q,
advertence. when the same writer xxvit
attributes to jeremiah prophecy OF Hscharlah, q:
the mistake OF copyst. as marginal note N ne
result OF the artificial groupings OF fourteen al
luded to by DR.; Dufeld-are conparatiyey trivial wa,
In some of the Old Testament genealogies clteo
by your correspondent it the evident intention
Of the authors nd to 5 F ber re en s the task
OF filling IL the ones car ron ,n faei
10 observe radical difference between these later
geneelogies and the geneslogies Of Genesis and
names, years being rarely mentIoned the s sHG
earliest form CONTINUOUS chain OF names ana
dates without any break whatever in the Inks.
Nor is this all. The writer states in detail the
Of each patriarch at the time OF no tne 9
10 have been his eldesD, and also the number or
natrarch's decease. The fact that there were
other and daGghers is kr rEoS T TfSordea
quotes compacently assure us that the Scriptures
furnish no data TO- chronological computation prior
though DR. Duftied does not, that the numbers 10
the geneaogies are not FOR the purpose Q, con- con.
spectus of individual lives!
nor is 1t that OF orthodox Judaism and Christianity
0 G Or sShaT he safs RsHo and dowyn to
the time Of Jacob all chronology is bound up with
Though it is clear from Genesis v g.. that seth
was the son of Adam and not a remote descendant.
and comparison Of Genesis tsc, 81 W. s5e ana w ~
the direct offspring of Noah, Notwithstanding
difference Of 800 years in the ages OF father and
other IS really Of no c3nsegusnee dn IN en- en-
tba Enos was nney Years old the time
of the birth of Cainan, and Lamech was ls2 wher
cainan ana Noah were the sens. grandsons OF
great-grs ndsons Of Enos and Lamech, respectively.
It is numbers, not names with wneh we nave ~ 10
deal and Professor Green's arSument w bsrn,d D
In The Tribune OF March 6 reference was mad
of the Hellenic Samaritan and Hebrew versions OF
the Pentateuch. Professor Green, believer In the
authenticity of the Hebrew text, states that IN
SeDtuagint proceeds the assumption that
patrarchs of such enormous longevity should BE-
nearly two centuries old at the birth OF their sons
Accordingly. when. in the Hebrew. they fall much
below this standard. 100 years are added 20 ths
number preceding the birth OF the son. and the
same. amount deducted from tho number following
his birth" 49,, -
But a very different explanation was given year.
ago by Kennicott one OF the old school Of theo-
iogians, in the days when the higher criticism
was vet undrcamed of. Finding that the chronol-
ogy OF the Scptuagnt (Which version was used b.
the Evangelist Luke in his geneaiogyl nad peen
altered wilfuly and upon one UNIFORM pan. ~
sur posed that the Jews had taken away 100 year.
from the lives OF the antediuvian patrlarchs De.
fore they had sons. and added them 10 the emo o.
their lives in order bring back the birth o.
fourth and thus to prove that the time for III"
Messiah was not then come. They did not ater
the ages of Jared Methuselah and Lamech. because
II would have prolonged their lives beyond ne
flood. - o.- ~ t. W.
New York. March 49, 1891.