95 



the extreme of Nicephorus, above an hundred years. Con- 

 vinced that the design of the sacred historian is, to ailbrcl 

 us tlie exact interval, which elapsed between the foundation 

 of the temple and the exod; and equall>' convinced, from the 

 failure of so many, that any attempt to derive a consistent 

 period from the Book of Judges, without having recourse to 

 the passage in which the epoch is assigned, would be fruitless 

 and unsuccessful, I can devise but two methods of proceed- 

 ing: first, either to defend the fidelity of the passage abso- 

 lutely, as we find it in the \'^ulgate and the Hebrew; or else, 

 to adopt some correction that will not completely deviate from 

 the original, and read 580 with the elder Vossius, or 680 with 

 Serrarius, and some others. I have determined in favour of 

 the former, on grounds which I shall proceed to develope, and 

 which I hold to be equally clear and irrefragable. Indeed, 

 the principles of interpretation I have premised, would, of 

 themselves, lead me to this determination, since the correction 

 of Vossius is only adopted in order to include the periods of 

 repose and servitude consecutively, considering repose and 

 jurisdiction as synonymous — a position which I have endea- 

 voured to prove is equally unsupported' by Scripture; and, 

 as I shall now proceed to demonstrate, is disavowed by the 

 rules of sound criticism and legitimate interpretation. The 

 grand difficulty under which those labour, who would support 

 the contrary hypothesis, " that the years of repose are to be 

 supposed synonimous with the jurisdiction of the Judges," is, 

 Yoi,. XI. o, that: 



