The interval from the Flood to the birth of Peleg is as follows, according to the various sources :— Sept. with second Cainan . 531 years. Id. without, and Sam. • 401 Heb. . . . . ror „ The interval from the birth of Peleg to the de. parture of Abraham from Haran is as follows :— Sept. and Sam. . . . 616 years.
Heb. . . . . 266 „ If, however, Ussher's supposition that Terab was 13o years old at the birth of Abraham be accepted, we must raise these numbers respectively to 676 and 326.
Let us now examine the data for the two inter vals. If, with the majority of critics, we omit the second Cainan, we have to decide between the intervals 401 and rem, from the Flood to the birth of Peleg. Taking the shortest possible genera tions, and the largest possible increase of popula tion, the latter interval is far too short. Even if we admit the possibility of a distinct non-Adamite population, we cannot suppose that the offspring of three pairs could in a century have formed the nuclei of nations or even tribes. But here a reasonable objection may be made, that the Sep tuagint (Cainan being rejected) gives no more generations than the Hebrew, so that in taking its longer interval, there is little or no gain, as we could not suppose that in the general population there were more than two generations in addition, while according to the Hebrew there could have been one. The reply to this is that we derive our only measure for the early patriarchal period from the stated lengths of generations, and that it is not unreasonable to suppose that the genealogy is broken, though a succession, and that a known period of years is divided between the remaining links. We prefer the Septuagint numbers on various grounds, and here, as elsewhere, we find them to agree with the seeming requirements of history.
With reference to the second interval, it must be remarked, that when Abraham entered Pales tine and visited Egypt, we read of a settled popu lation governed by kings, and subject to the attacks of distant enemies, the same condition as that of later centuries. There were already in Palestine dwellers in cities and nomads, and the cities appear to have been abundant. Here again we prefer the longer interval, which, indeed, being accepted in one case must also be accepted in the other, although an independent reason is satisfac tory as a confirmation.
The date of Abraham's departure from Haran is thus variously fixed by different chronologers The difference between the two extreme dates is therefore far less considerable than the difference between the lengths assigned to the two intervals preceding Abraham's departure from Haran. The theory which places the Exodus about B.c. 1320 would necessitate a lowering of these dates by 330 years or less, but some, if not most, of those who hold this theory suppose the sojourn of the Israel ites in Egypt to have lasted 430 years instead of 215, though they shorten the interval before the sojourn, and therefore there is a general agreement that Abraham left Haran between 2100 and t900. It would occupy too much space were we here to state our reasons for preferring Hales's date, which we should correct by four years, to B.C. 2082.
From this we should reckon the birth of Peleg B. C. 2698, or, accepting Ussher's supposition in the case of Terah's age at the birth of Abraham, B. C.
2758.
This result is in harmony with the evidence of the chronology of heathen nations. That of the Egyptians has been supposed by some to reach to a far higher date, hut a study of the monuments in the country has convinced us, that the theories which place the beginning of the Egyptian mon archy at a date a thousand years before that we have supposed to be the most probable for the Dis persion, are not tenable. The evidence of the monuments does not allow the lapse of vast chasms of time between the great flourishing dynasties, those of the early Memphite monuments, the 12th, and the i8th. The most probable date of the ac cession of Menes, the first king, is in the 28th century B.C. The monuments of Babylonia and Assyria have not afforded any date anterior to the 23d century B.C. The monuments of no other nations give evidence of an antiquity approaching to this.
2. Circzonstances of the Dispersion.—The narra tive of the Dispersion begins with the remarkable statement Now the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from [or in] the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar ; and they dwelt there' (Gen. xi. 1, 2). The expressions language' (lip) and speech' (words) are too precise to be understood as indicating an agreement in purpose. The journeying together shows that the time spoken of was before the Noachians had ceased to be a single nation, and perhaps when they formed but a great tribe, and were journeying after the manner of the Arabs across the plains watered by the Tigris and Euphrates. Shinar cannot be doubted to be Babylonia. The name is indeed, perhaps, traceable in Mesopotamia in the modern Sinjar, and it is noticeable that the ancient Egyptian tran scription of Shinar is SANKAR.T, this k correspond ing to the Hebrew as though the 31 had been pronounced like the Arabic But there is no evidence that the Hebrews called any country except Babylonia the land of Shinar.' The direc tion of the journey, if it be indicated as from the east,' probably would only mark the previous halt ing-place of the Noachians, not the place at which they first began to repeople the earth. The narra tive then relates the attempt to build a city and a tower in order to prevent the scattering of man kind, and the punishment of the builders by the confusion of their language and their being scattered abroad from the unfinished city Babel, or Confu sion. Leaving the subject of the Confusion of Tongues for later discussion [TONGUES, CONFUSION OF], we must observe the general agreement of profane historians as to the antiquity of Babylon, and the reminiscence of the Tower in the towers of the Babylonian temples. The Pyramids of Egypt and those of Mexico should be compared to these towers ; and, in the case of the former, on account of their extreme antiquity, the comparison is very important.