406 
sign's) ; especially as I find that, in the earliest numbers mentioned in the 
Bible — those relating to the ages of the antediluvian and post-diluvian patriarchs 
— there is a difference of 1,300 years (that is of 100 years for no less than thir- 
teen several generations) between the Hebrew and" the Septuagint translation 
as to the ages of as many patriarchs at the birth of their several sons. Now I 
cannot but think that the Septuagint version must have had some other manu- 
script of the original Hebrew than that which we now have, from whichfthese 
additional numbers were taken ; and that the additional notation was derived 
from letters or other signs. This would fully account for the discrepancies, 
when there are any. I thank Mr. Gosse and Mr. Moule for their remarks 
on the subject of Bethshemesh. I think Mr. Graham’s explanation is perfectly 
satisfactory. He has ouc of Glassius’s dictionary got the fact that the 72 is 
sometimes omitted, and that makes the passage perfectly clear. 
Mr. O. Godfrey. — There has been a great deal of talk about ciphers, which 
would lead us to believe that the Hebrews used the Arabic and Hindoo 
ciphers. It is certain that if you added an 0 to 60,000 it would become 
600,000 in the Arabic and Hindoo notation ; but the ancient Hebrews, so 
far as we know, had a system resembling the Boman system, in which each 
individual figure had its own particular value wherever it might be placed, a 
certain figure representing 1, and another representing 10, without any con- 
nection with the surrounding figures, or any regard to relative position. It 
is, therefore, a great fallacy to suppose that any greater difference could be 
brought about by a mere change in the position of the Hebrew letters than 
could be brought about by any change in the position of the Roman letters. 
Such a change could only be brought about by the use of the Arabic nume- 
rals, which it is perfectly certain were not used by ihe ancient Hebrews. 
Dr. A. J. Eraser. — I should like to say a few words on this subject. 
Mr. Moule is here himself, and we have able exponents of Mr. Gosse’s 
views who have favoured us with much that is encouraging. There 
are, however, some here who being neither learned scholars nor scientific 
men, come to listen rather than to speak. This is the role which I gene- 
rally assign to myself ; but w r e are now dealing, not with matters of mere 
literary or scientific interest, but with subjects of far greater importance 
and involving much deeper issues. It is on that account I rise to thanK 
Mr. Gosse and Mr. Moule for replies to criticism which seems to me cal- 
culated, indirectly at least, to disturb our trust in our Bible. Agreeing in 
the main with Mr. Gosse, I regret that he should have classed Dr. 
Thornton with Dr. Colenso, and I trust he will withdraw this expression ; 
but with regard to the efforts made to strengthen and not to weaken our 
trust in the accepted biblical renderings, I think I express a prevalent 
feeling in saying that we are under great obligations to Mr. Moule and 
Mr. Gosse ; they, as well as Mr. Graham and others, have greatly helped 
many of us, and I am sure the Institute will join with me in giving our 
warmest thanks to them for bringing their learning, their research, and 
labour to strengthen our confidence in the correctness of those numbers which 
seemed at first impugned by Dr. Thornton. I am sure Dr. Thornton did not 
