BS  511  .H16 
 
 Haley,  John  W. 
 
 An  examination  of  the 
 
 alleged  discrepancies 
 
AN 
 
 EXAMINATION 
 
 OF   THE   ALLEGED 
 
 DISCEEPANCIES  OF  TIE  BIBLE. 
 
 JOHN  W.  HALEY,  M.A. 
 
 WITH 
 
 AN  INTRODUCTION 
 
 BY 
 
 ALVAH  HOYEY,  D.D., 
 
 PROFESSOR  IN  THE  NEWTON  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTION. 
 
 ANDOYER: 
 
 WARREN    F.   DRAPER, 
 
 BOSTON:    ESTES    AND    LAURIAT. 
 
 1874. 
 
Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1874,  by 
 
 WARREN  F.  DRAPER, 
 In  the  Office  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 
 
 asdovhr:  pbiwted  by  "WAEKEIT  f.  dkapeb. 
 
 PBE8S,  BAND,  AVBEY  &  CO. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Having  read  attentively  the  entire  manuscript  of  the  fol- 
 lowing work,  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  express  my  estimate 
 of  its  character  and  value.  The  topic  which  it  discusses 
 certainly  merits  examination.  First,  because  of  the  bearing 
 which  it  naturally  has  upon  our  confidence  in  the  Bible  as  a 
 revelation  from  God ;  and  secondly,  because  of  the  prominence 
 which  has  been  given  to  it  by  those  who  deny  the  truthfulness 
 of  the  Bible.  These  reasons  will  be  appreciated  at  once,  and 
 therefore  need  simply  to  be  stated.  Any  attempt  to  expand 
 or  enforce  them  would  be  superfluous. 
 
 But  hitherto  there  has  been  no  single  treatise  in  our  lan- 
 guage which  could  be  said  to  discuss  the  subject  as  thoroughly 
 and  minutely  as  its  importance  required.  Hence  the  need  of 
 a  work  on  the  alleged  "  discrepancies  of  the  Bible,"  adapted  to 
 the  wants  of  men  at  the  present  time  and  taking  due  account 
 of  modern  investigation  and  discovery.  Such  a  work,  it  seems 
 to  me,  has  been  produced  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Haley  —  a  work 
 almost  equally  adapted  to  meet  the  wants  of  scholars  and  of  the 
 people ;  for  on  the  one  hand  it  is  learned  and  exact,  while  on 
 the  other  it  is  perspicuous  and  interesting. 
 
 The  author  has  made  himself  familiar  with  the  literature  of 
 the  subject  in  various  languages,  and,  with  a  wise  preference 
 of  truth  to  originality,  has  given  the  suggestions  of  others 
 whenever  those  suggestions  appeared  to  him  worthy  of  special 
 consideration.  Thus  a  great  amount  of  sound  learning  is 
 comprehended  within  the  limits  of  a  single  volume. 
 
 Moreover,  the  statements  of  the  author  appear  to  be  unusu- 
 
 iii 
 
IV  INTRODUCTION. 
 
 ally  exact.  This  is  a  result  of  painstaking  care  and  resolute 
 candor,  of  a  fixed  purpose  to  spare  no  labor  that  might  tend  to 
 the  perfection  of  the  work,  and  of  an  equally  fixed  purpose 
 to  avoid  everything  sectarian,  as  likely  to  interfere  with  its 
 usefulness. 
 
 The  style  of  the  author  is  uniformly  clear  and  forcible.  He 
 comes  to  the  point  at  once,  and  either  removes  the  difficulty,  or 
 at  least  shows  the  reader  what  it  is,  and  how  the  writer  would 
 dispose  of  it.  Tliis  is  an  admirable  quality  in  such  a  treatise. 
 If  the  least  circumlocution  were  allowed  the  discussion  might 
 become  tiresome ;  but,  carried  forward  in  the  direct  and  vigorous 
 language  of  Mr.  Haley,  it  is  constantly  attractive.  The  inves- 
 tigation is  made  interesting  by  the  sense  of  progress  which  it 
 awakens.  The  reader  feels  that  he  is  moving  on,  and  the 
 danger  to  which  he  is  exposed  is  that  of  advancing  too  rapidly 
 and  eagerly,  rather  than  too  slowly  and  reluctantly.  This, 
 however,  is  a  danger  which  every  reader  is  happy  to  incur. 
 
 The  question  of  discrepancies  is  a  question  of  interpretation, 
 and  it  could  hardly  be  expected  that  any  two  persons  would 
 always  agree  in  their  method  of  reconciling  statements  which 
 seem  to  be  discordant.  I  do  not  in  every  instance  prefer  the 
 explanation  which  Mr.  Haley  seems  to  prefer ;  but  the  clearness 
 and  soberness  of  his  interpretations  entitle  them  *to  respect  in 
 all  cases,  and  to  adoption  in  most.  It  is,  therefore,  a  pleasure 
 to  commend  his  work  to  the  notice  of  the  public,  and  especially 
 to  the  attention  of  those  who  for  any  reason  wish  to  examine 
 the  claims  of  the  Bible,  as  a  Divine  revelation,  to  our  confidence. 
 
 ALVAH    HOVEY. 
 Newton  Centre,  June,  1874. 
 
PKEFACE 
 
 In  making  the  following  contribution  to  the  literature  of 
 Christian  Apologetics,  a  brief  explanation  may  be  in  place. 
 
 The  author  was  moved  to  prepare  and  publish  the  present 
 volume  by  the  circulation  of  a  pamphlet,  in  a  certain  parish, 
 setting  forth  in  a  striking  and  plausible  manner  the  so-called 
 "  self-contradictions  of  the  Bible."  This  production,  cunningly 
 adapted  to  deceive  the  ignorant  and  unwary,  was  reviewed  by 
 me  in  a  course  of  Sabbath-evening  lectures,  which  form  the 
 nucleus  of  the  present  work.  The  pamphlet  just  mentioned, 
 with  many  others  of  a  similar  character,  I  afterwards  found  to 
 be  the  fruits  of  an  organized  and  systematic  plan  to  poison  the 
 pubhc  mind  by  scattering  broadcast,  in  the  cars  and  upon  steam- 
 boats, and  in  other  places  of  public  resort,  as  well  as  through 
 the  mails,  a  cheap  and  virulent  infidel  literature.  That  these 
 nefarious  attempts  result,  in  far  too  many  cases,  in  subverting 
 the  religious  faith  and  the  morals  of  the  young,  there  can  be 
 no  question.  And  the  means  employed  by  the  friends  of  virtue 
 for  exposing  and  defeating  these  "  devices  of  Satan "  seem,  T 
 regret  to  say,  less  efficient  than  is  desirable. 
 
 During  my  investigation  of  the  subject  I  have  been  impressed 
 with  the  fact  that  the  so-called  "  discrepancies "  of  the  Bible 
 have  failed  to  receive  due  consideration  by  evangelical  authors. 
 The  literature  of  the  subject  is  comparatively  meagre  and 
 antiquated.  True,  the  discrepancies  are  discussed  to  some 
 extent  in  the  various  Harmonies,  Introductions,  and  Com- 
 mentaries, but,  for  the  most  part,  quite  incidentally.  TVorks 
 exclusively  devoted  to  the  topic  in  question  are  few  in  number 
 
Vi  PREFACE. 
 
 and  of  comparatively  remote  date ;  hence,  being  scarce  and  of 
 high  price,  they  are  practically  inaccessible  to  most  students  of 
 the  Bible.  And  were  they  within  reach,  they  would  be  found 
 altogether  behind  the  scholarship  of  the  age.  /  know  of  no 
 work,  ancient  or  modern^  which  covers  the  whole  ground, 
 treating  the  subject  comprehensively  yet  concisely,  and  which  is, 
 at  the  same  time,  adapted  to  general  circulation.  Whoever 
 will  examine  the  appended  Bibliography  will  very  probably  be 
 convinced  that  there  is  a  demand  for  a  work  of  the  kind  just 
 mentioned.  To  supply  in  some  degree  this  want  is  the  aim  of 
 the  present  volume.  The  measure  of  the  author's  success  must 
 be  determined  by  the  reader. 
 
 Some  persons  may,  perchance,  question  the  wisdom  of  pub- 
 lishing a  work  in  which  the  difficulties  of  scripture  are  brought 
 together  and  set  forth  so  plainly.  They  may  think  it  better  to 
 suppress,  as  far  as  may  be,  the  knowledge  of  these  things. 
 The  author  does  not  sympathize  with  any  such  timid  policy. 
 He  counts  it  the  duty  of  the  Christian  scholar  to  look  difficulties 
 and  objections  squarely  in  the  face.  Nothing  is  to  be  gained 
 by  overlooking,  evading,  or  shrinking  from  them.  Truth  has 
 no  cause  to  fear  scrutiny,  however  rigid  and  searching.  Besides, 
 the  enemies  of  the  Bible  will  not  be  silent,  even  if  its  friends 
 should  hold  their  peace.  It  should  be  remembered  that  the 
 following  "  discrepancies  "  are  not  now  published  for  the  first 
 time.  They  are  gathered  from  books  and  pamphlets  which 
 are  already  extensively  circulated.  The  poison  demands  an 
 antidote.  The  remedy  should  be  carried  wherever  the  disease 
 has  made  its  blighting  way. 
 
 With  such  views  as  these  I  issue  this  humble  volume.  Such 
 as  it  is,  making  small  claim  to  originality  and  literary  merit, 
 it  is  committed  to  the  public.  If  it  shall  help  to  vindicate  the 
 Bible  from  the  reproaches  and  misrepresentations  of  its  enemies, 
 and  to  solve  doubts  in  the  minds  of  honest  inquirers,  the 
 author's  o])jcct  will  have  been  attained. 
 
 Not  proposing  a  discussion  of  all  the  difficult  questions  which 
 
PREFACE.  Vll 
 
 arise  in  studying  the  Bible,  I  have  restricted  my  attention  to 
 
 the  so-called  "  discrepancies,"  that  is,  to  those  cases  in  which 
 the  statements  or  narratives  of  the  Bible  are  said  to  conflict 
 with  one  another.  I  have  kept  within  the  Bible.  Cases  in 
 which  the  scriptures  seem  at  variance  with  secular  history  or 
 with  science  have  been  left  to  other  and  abler  hands.  I  have 
 dealt  only  with  those  in  which  the  book  appears  inconsistent 
 with  itself.  All  cases  of  the  latter  kind  which  were  of  any 
 importance,  or  which  could  perplex  an  honest  inquirer  of 
 ordinary  intelligence, I  have  aimed  to  include;^  and  if  any  such 
 have  been  omitted,  I  regret  the  oversight. 
 
 In  the  preparation  of  this  volume,  I  first  read  carefully  the 
 works  of  a  large  number  of  English,  German,  and  French 
 rationalists  and  infidels,  with  a  view  to  gather  up  all  the  "  dis- 
 crepancies "  which  they  adduce  from  the  scriptures.  Also,  the 
 numerous  publications  of  kindred  character — books,  pamphlets, 
 and  printed  sheets  —  which  have  been  put  forth  by  American 
 sceptics  were  sedulously  collected  and  collated.  This  being 
 done,  my  next  care  was  to  classify  and  solve  these  discrepancies. 
 In  this  process  I  have,  as  will  be  seen,  laid  under  contribution 
 a  large  number  of  critics  and  commentators,  ancient  and 
 modern ;  in  a  word,  I  have  gathered  from  every  source  what- 
 ever seemed  pertinent  and  satisfactory .^ 
 
 One  feature  of  the  book,  to  which  the  reader's  attention  is 
 particularly  invited,  is  the  copious  quotations  made  with  the 
 view  to  exhibit  the  unanimity  of  scholars  upon  certain  im- 
 portant points.  For  this  purpose,  and  generally,  an  author's 
 exact  words  could  not  fail  to  be  more  satisfactory  to  the  reader 
 than  a  mere  reference  would  be.  That  this  copiousness  of 
 citation  gives  to  certain  portions  of  the  book  the  aspect  of  a 
 
 ^  The  whole  number  of  cases  treated  is  nearly  nine  hundred. 
 
 -  In  order  to  avoid  increasing  the  size  and  price  of  the  book,  it  has  been 
 found  expedient  to  omit  an  extended  "List  of  Authorities"  which  had 
 been  prepared.  This  omission  is  the  less  to  be  regretted  since  abundant 
 references  are  o;iven  throu<:hout  the  work. 
 
Till  PREFACE. 
 
 compilation  is  a  circumstance  which  I  have  neither  sought  to 
 avoid,  nor  need  to  excuse.  Indeed,  my  aim  throughout  has 
 been  not  originality,  but  truth  ;  not  so  much  to  produce  new 
 ideas,. as  to  present  the  best  ideas  pertaining  to  the  subject 
 under  consideration. 
 
 The  texts  quoted  within  have  been  arranged  in  such  a 
 manner  that  the  reader  can  see  at  a  glance  the  antithesis  or 
 contradiction  in  each  case.  As  Mr.  Andrews  ^  has  remarked, 
 a  great  point  is  gained  when  we  are  able  to  see  just  what  the 
 amount  of  the  discrepancy  or  contradiction,  if  it  really  exists, 
 is.  But  then,  in  contrasting  isolated  texts  or  phrases,  the 
 divergence  often  seems  greater  than  it  actually  is,  because  the 
 modifying  power  of  the  context  and  the  general  scope  of  the 
 writer's  argument  fail  to  be  appreciated  by  the  reader.  Hence, 
 in  order  that  a  text  may  be  seen  in  its  true  bearings  and 
 relations,  —  in  its  proper  framework,  —  it  has  sometimes  been 
 deemed  necessary  to  extend  the  citation  somewhat  beyond  the 
 antithetic  words.  On  the  other  hand,  to  save  space,  we  have, 
 in  cases  where  the  connection  of  thought  would  not  thereby 
 be  destroyed,  omitted  subordinate  clauses,  at  the  same  time 
 indicating  the  omission  in  the  usual  manner. 
 
 That  the  adoption  of  the  alphabetical  order  of  arrangement 
 has  resulted  in  giving  to  some  chapters  a  disconnected  and 
 fragmentary  appearance  is  obvious.  But  it  was  thought  that 
 any  other  method  of  classification  would  probably  be  open  to 
 equally  great  objections  of  some  kind;  and  that,  since  the 
 book  might  be  used  rather  for  reference  than  for  consecutive 
 reading,  the  lack  of  chronological  sequence  would  not  materially 
 detract  from  its  utility. 
 
 The  work  is  intended  not  so  much  for  scholars  and  critics  as 
 for  the  common  peo])le ;  yet  it  is  hoped  that  the  learned  reader 
 will  feel  that  the  author  has  substantiated  his  positions  by  the 
 quotations  from  and  references  to  the  highest  critical  au- 
 thorities, which  occur  upon  nearly  every  page. 
 
 ^  Life  of  Our  Lord,  p.  xvi. 
 
PREFACE.  E£ 
 
 Not  infrequently  several  solutions  of  a  difficulty  are  given, 
 leaving  the  reader  to  choose  for  himself.  Of  course,  not  all 
 possible  solutions  are  adduced,  but  merely  those  which  seem 
 most  reasonable. 
 
 Ou  the  principle  that  the  concessions  of  its  adversaries  are 
 weighty  arguments  in  favor  of  the  Bible,  these  have  been  made 
 use  of,  from  time  to  time,  as  the  occasion  presented  itself. 
 
 As  to  works  originally  published  in  foreign  languages,  when- 
 ever approved  English  translations  exist,  I  have  generally 
 followed  the  latter,  instead  of  giving  my  own  version. 
 
 Care  has  been  taken  to  secure  accuracy  in  the  numerous 
 quotations  and  references ;  yet  it  would  be  vain  to  claim  ex- 
 emption from  what  Porson  terms  "  the  common  lot  of  author- 
 ship." If  a  reasonable  degree  of  accuracy  has  been  attained, 
 this  is  the  utmost  I  can  expect. 
 
 I  cannot  omit  to  express  here  my  gratitude  to  Prof.  Edwards 
 A.  Park,  D.D.,  for  the  cordial  and  unvarying  interest  which 
 he  has  manifested  in  the  present  work,  for  timely  encourage- 
 ment, and  for  practical  and  valuable  advice  received  by  me 
 during  its  preparation.  But  for  him  the  work  would  have 
 been  published,  if  at  all,  in  a  less  complete  and  satisfactory 
 form. 
 
 My  indebtedness  to  Prof.  A.  Hovey,  D.D.,  will  be  sufficiently 
 evinced  by  the  very  appreciative  Introduction  which  he  has 
 kindly  furnished  for  the  volume. 
 
 I  am  also  under  obligation  to  Prof.  Ezra  Abbot,  LL.D., 
 of  Cambridge,  for  consenting  to  revise  and  complete  the  bib- 
 liography which  I  had  prepared;  to  Rev.  C.  F.  P.  Bancroft, 
 Principal  of  Phillips  Academy,  for,  procuring  in  Europe  for 
 my  use  rare  and  important  works  pertauiing  to  my  theme, 
 and  for  criticisms  upon  portions  of  the  manuscript;  to  Rev. 
 Archibald  Duff,  Jr.,  of  Halle,  for  explorations  on  my  behalf 
 among  the  bookstores  and  libraries  of  Germany ;  to  Rev.  D. 
 P.  Lindsley,  of  Andover,  for  preparing  the  full  and  accurate 
 Index  of   Texts  which  is  contained  m  this  voliune;   to  Rev. 
 
X  PREFACE. 
 
 Selab  Merrill,  of  Andover  for  the  free  use  of  his  valuable 
 private  library;  to  Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer,  D.D.,  for  various 
 courtesies  during  my  investigations ;  and  to  several  other  literary 
 gentlemen  for  manifesting  a  gratifying  interest  in  the  jorogress 
 of  the  work. 
 
 It  should,  however,  be  added  that  no  person  besides  the 
 author  is  to  be  held  responsible  for  any  opinion  or  statement 
 expressed  in  the  book,  except  in  those  cases  where  other 
 writers  are  quoted,  or  reference  is  made  to  them.  The  plan 
 and  the  execution  of  the  work  are  my  own.  That  it  has  cost 
 me  an  immense  amount  of  labor  and  research  will  be  most 
 readily  conceded  by  those  most  competent  to  judge. 
 
 Moreover,  I  may  be  allowed  to  say  that  the  more  thoroughly 
 I  have  investigated  the  subject  the  more  clearly  have  I  seen 
 the  flimsy  and  disingenuous  character  of  the  objections  alleged 
 by  infidels.  And,  whether  or  not  my  labors  shall  result  in 
 inducing,  a  similar  belief  in  the  minds  of  my  readers,  I  cannot 
 but  avow,  as  the  issue  of  my  investigations,  the  profound  con- 
 viction that  every  difficulty  and  discrepancy  in  the  scriptures 
 is,  and  will  yet  be  seen  to  be,  capable  of  a  fair  and  reasonable 
 solutio7i. 
 
 Finally,  let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Bible  is  neither 
 dependent  upon  nor  affected  by  the  success  or  failure  of  my 
 book.  Whatever  may  become  of  the  latter,  whatever  may  be 
 the  verdict  passed  upon  it  by  an  intelligent  public,  the  Bible 
 will  stand.  In  the  ages  yet  to  be,  when  its  present  assailants 
 and  defenders  are  mouldering  in  the  dust,  and  when  their  very 
 names  are  forgotten,  the  sacred  volume  will  be,  as  it  has  been 
 during  the  centuries  past,  the  guide  and  solace  of  umiumbered 
 millions  of  our  race. 
 
 J.  W.  H. 
 
 Andover,  Mass.,  June,  1874. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction,  by  Prof.  Hovey, iii 
 
 Preface, v 
 
 PART    I. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 Origin  of  the  Discrepancies,         .        .        .        .        .  1-29 
 
 1.  Difference  of  dates  of  passages, 3 
 
 2.  Differences  of  authorship, 6 
 
 3.  Differences  of  stand-point  or  of  object,  ...         7 
 
 4.  Different  methods  of  arrangement,       ....         9 
 
 5.  Different  methods  of  computation,        .         .        .         .11 
 
 6.  Peculiarities  of  Oriental  idiom, 14 
 
 7.  Plurality  of  names  or  synonymes,         .         .        .        .17 
 
 8.  Diverse  meanings  of  same  word,  .        .        .        .18 
 
 9.  Errors  in  the  manuscripts, 19 
 
 10.  Imagination  of  critic, 25 
 
 CHAPTER  n. 
 Design  of  the  Discrepancies,        ....         30-40 
 
 1.  To  stimulate  the  Intellect, 30 
 
 2.  Illustrate  analogy  of  Bible  and  nature,        ...      33 
 
 3.  Disprove  collusion  of  sacred  writers,    .        .        .        .36 
 
 4.  Lead  to  value  the  spirit  above  the  letter  of  the  Bible, .       37 
 
 5.  Serve  as  a  test  of  moral  character,       ....       38 
 
 CHAPTER  in. 
 Results  of  the  Discrepancies,      ....         41-54 
 
 1.  Text  of  Bible  not  unsettled, 41 
 
 2.  Moral  influence  of  the  Bible  not  impaired,  ...      60 
 
xii  CONTENTS. 
 
 PART    I  I. 
 
 CHAPTER  I. 
 Doctrinal  Discrepancies,        .        .        .        .        .       55-218 
 
 I.     Concerning  God, 55 
 
 II.     Concerning  Christ, 106 
 
 III.  Concerning  the  Holy  Spirit, 139 
 
 IV.  Concerning  the  Scriptures, 143 
 
 V.     Concerning  Man  in  relation  to  the  Present,    .        .158 
 
 VI.     Concerning  Man  in  relation  to  the  Future,     .        .183 
 
 CHAPTER  n. 
 Ethical  Discrepancies,    .        .        .        .        .        .     219-311 
 
 I.    Duty  of  Man  to  God, 219 
 
 n.     Duty  of  Man  to  himself, 245 
 
 in.     Duty  of  Man  to  his  fellow-men,       ....     255 
 
 CHAPTER  m. 
 
 Historical  Discrepancies, 312-436 
 
 I.     Pertaining  to  Persons, 312 
 
 n.     Pertaining  to  Places, 363 
 
 in.     Pertaining  to  Numbers, 380 
 
 IV.     Pertaining  to  Time, 392 
 
 V.     Miscellaneous, 427 
 
 Bibliographical  Appendix, 437 
 
 Index  of  Scripture  Citations, 443 
 
 General  Index, 462 
 
DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 I>  ^R  T     I. 
 
 CHAPTER    I. 
 
 ORIGIN  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 "  God  reveals  himself  in  his  word,  as  he  does  in  his  works. 
 In  both  we  see  a  self-revealing,  self-concealing  God,  who 
 makes  himself  known  only  to  those  who  earnestly  seek  him ; 
 in  both  we  find  stimulants  to  faith  and  occasions  for  unbelief ; 
 in  both  we  find  contradictions,  whose  higher  harmony  is  hidden, 
 except  from  him  who  gives  up  his  whole  mind  in  reverence ;  in 
 both,  in  a  word,  it  is  a  law  of  revelation  that  the  heart  of  man 
 should  be  tested  in  receiving  it ;  and  that  in  the  spiritual  life, 
 as  well  as  in  the  bodily,  man  must  eat  his  bread  in  the  sweat 
 of  his  brow." 
 
 In  these  significant  words  of  the  sainted  Neander^  are 
 brought  to  view  the  existence  and  the  remedy  of  certain  diffi- 
 culties encountered  by  the  student  of  scripture. 
 
 It  is  the  object  of  the  present  volume  to  follow  out  the  line 
 of  thought  indicated  by  the  learned  German  divine — to  survey 
 somewhat  in  detail  the  discrepancies  of  scripture,  and  to  suggest, 
 in  the  several  cases,  fair  and  reasonable  solutions. 
 
 That  no  candid  and  intelligent  student  of  the  Bible  will 
 deny  that  it  contains  numerous  "  discrepancies,"  that  its  state- 
 ments, taken  prima  facie,  not  infrequently  conflict  with  or 
 contradict  one   another,  may  safely  be  presumed.     This  fact 
 
 ^  Life  of  Christ,  Preface  to  first  edition. 
 
2  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 has  been  more  or  less  recognized  by  Christian  scholars  in  all 
 
 Of  the  early  writers,  Origen^  declares  that  if  any  one  shouM 
 carefully  examine  the  Gospels  in  respect  to  their  historic 
 disagreement,  he  would  grow  dizzy-headed,  and,  attaching  liim- 
 self  to  one  of  them,  he  would  desist  from  the  attempt  to  estab- 
 lish all  as  true,  or  else  he  would  regard  the  four  as  true,  yet 
 not  in  their  external  forms. 
 
 Ciirysostom  ^  regards  the  discrepancies  as  really  valuable  as 
 proofs  of  independence  on  the  part  of  the  sacred  writers. 
 
 Augustine^  often  recurs,  in  his  writings,  to  the  discrepancies, 
 and  handles  many  cases  with  great  skill  and  felicity. 
 
 Some  twenty-five  years  since,  that  eminent  biblical  critic, 
 Moses  Stuart,^  whose  candor  was  commensurate  with  his  erudi- 
 tion, acknowledged  that  "  in  our  present  copies  of  the  scriptures 
 there  are  some  discrepancies  between  different  portions  of  them, 
 which  no  learning  nor  ingenuity  can  reconcile."  ^ 
 
 To  much  the  same  effect,  Archbishop  Whately^  observes: 
 "That  the  ajDparent  contradictions  of  scripture  are  numerous — 
 that  the  instruction  conveyed  by  them,  if  they  be  indeed  de- 
 signed for  such  a  purpose,  is  furnished  in  abundance  —  is  too 
 notorious  to  need  being  much  insisted  on." 
 
 Similarly  says  Dr.  Charles  Hodge :  '^  "It  would  require  not  a 
 volume,  but  volumes,  to  discuss  all  the  cases  of  alleged  discrep- 
 ancies." 
 
 Such  being  the  concessions  made  by  Christian  scholars,  it 
 can  occasion  no  surprise  to  fijid  sceptical  authors  expatiating 
 upon  the   "glaring  inconsistencies,"  "self-contradictions,"  and 
 
 ^  Comm.  in  Evangelium  Joaimis,  A^ol.  i.  p.  279,  Lommatzsch's  edition. 
 
 ■'^  Warinjitou  on  Inspiration,  p.  36. 
 
 ^  Sec  liabus  in  appended  Bibiio^^raphy. 
 
 *  Crit.  Hist,  and  Defence  of  (J.  T.  Canon,  p.  193.    Revised  ed.  p.  179. 
 
 °  When  we  consider  tlie  marked  projiress  of  sacred  philolo<?y  anil  allied 
 sciences  during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  we  cannot  doubt  that  the 
 Professor  would,  were  he  now  livini^,  essentially  modify  this  opinion. 
 
 •^  On  Ditlicultics  in  VVritinj^s  of  St.  Paul;  Kssay  7,  Sect.  4. 
 
 ^  Thcoloi;y,  Vol.  i.,  p.  169. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  3 
 
 "  manifest  disci'epancies "  of  the  Bible,  and  incessantly  urging 
 these  as  so  many  proofs  of  its  untrustworthiness  and  of  its 
 merely  human  origin.  The  pages  of  the  German  rationalists, 
 and  of  their  English  and  American  disciples  and  cojDyists,  abound 
 with  arguments  of  this  character. 
 
 Of  the  importance  of  our  theme,  little  need  be  said.  Clearly 
 it  bears  a  close  and  vital  relatfon  to  the  doctrine  of  inspiration. 
 God,  who  is  wisdom  and  truth,  can  neither  lie  nor  contradict 
 himself.  Hence,  should  it  be  discovered  that  falsehoods  or 
 actual  contradictions  exist  in  the  Bible,  our  conclusion  must  be, 
 that,  at  any  rate,  these  things  do  not  come  from  God ;  that  so 
 far  the  Bible  is  not  divinely  inspked.  We  see,  therefore,  the 
 need  of  a  patient  and  imj)artial  examination  of  alleged  false- 
 hoods and  contradictions,  in  order  that  our  theory  of  inspiration 
 may  be  made  to  conform  to  the  facts  of  the  case. 
 
 Yet  we  must  guard  against  the  conclusion  that,  since  we 
 cannot  solve  certain  ditficulties,  they  are  therefore  insoluble. 
 This  inference  —  to  which  minds  of  a  certam  temper  are  pe- 
 culiarly liable —  savors  so  strongly  of  egotism  and  dogmatism 
 as  to  be  utterly  rej)ugnant  to  the  si^irit  of  true  scholarship. 
 
 As  in  all  other  departments  of  sacred  criticism,  so  in  the 
 treatment  of  the  discrepancies,  there  is  a  demand  for  reverent, 
 yet  unflinching  thorouglmess  and  fidelity. 
 
 An  important  preliminary  question  relates  to  the  Origin  of 
 the  Discrepancies.  To  what  causes  are  they  to  be  referred  ? 
 From  what  sources  do  they  arise  ? 
 
 1.  Many  of  the  so-called  discrepancies  are  obviously  attribut- 
 able to  a  difference  in  the  dates  of  the  discordant  passages. 
 Nothing  is  more  common  than  that  a  description  or  statement, 
 true  and  pertinent  at  one  time,  should  at  a  later  period,  and  in 
 a  different  state  of  affairs,  be  found  irrelevant  or  inaccurate. 
 Change  of  circumstances  necessitates  a  change  of  plu-aseology. 
 Numerous  illustrations  of  this  principle  will  be  fomid  in  the 
 following  pages. 
 
4  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 A  certain  infidel,  bent  upon  making  the  Bible  contradict 
 itself,  contrasts  the  two  passages :  "  God  saw  everything  that 
 he  had  made,  and,  behold,  it  was  very  good  " ;  and  "  It  repented 
 the  Lord  that  he  had  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it  grieved 
 him  at  his  heart."  ^  Takmg  these  texts  out  of  their  connection, 
 and,  with  characteristic  fairness,  making  no  mention  of  the  in- 
 terval of  time  which  divided  them,  he  thus  seeks  to  make  it 
 appear  that  the  Bible  represents  God  as,  at  the  same  time, 
 satisfied  and  dissatisfied  with  his  works.  Had  the  unscrupulous 
 pamphleteer  told  his  readers  that  the  fall  of  man  and  a  period 
 of  some  fifteen  hundred  years  intervened  between  the  two 
 epochs  respectively  referred  to  in  these  texts, liis  "discrepancy" 
 would  have  become  too  transparent  to  serve  his  purpose. 
 
 Obviously,  after  man  had  fallen,  God  could  no  longer  be 
 "  satisfied  "  with  him,  unless  a  corresponding  change  had  taken 
 place  in  himself.  We  thus  see  that  differences  of  date  and  cir- 
 cumstances may  perfectly  explain  apparent  discrejDancies,  and 
 remove  every  vestige  of  contradiction. 
 
 May  not  these  differences  also  furnish  a  hint  toward  the 
 solution  of  certain  moral  difficulties  in  the  scriptures?  We 
 find  some  of  the  patriarchs  represented  as  good  men,  yet  occa- 
 sionally practising  deceit,  polygamy,  and  other  sins  which  are 
 discountenanced  in  the  later  books  of  the  Bible.  Is  not  the 
 rule  of  human  conduct,  to  some  extent,  a  relative  one,  graduated 
 according  to  man's  knowledge,  circumstances,  and  ability?  Did 
 not  He  who  revealed  himself  "  in  many  portions  and  in  divers 
 manners "  ^  make  the  revelation  of  human  duty  in  much  the 
 same  way  —  not  as  with  the  hghtning's  blinding  flash,  but  like 
 the  morning  upon  the  mountains,  with  a  slow  and  gradual 
 illumination  ?  ^ 
 
 In  the  comparatively  unenlightened  times  in  which  many  of 
 the  Old  Testament  saints  lived,  many  faults  and  errors  of  theirs 
 may  have  been  mercifully  and  wisely  jiassed  by.     Those  "  times 
 
 1  Gen.  i.  31  and  vi.  6.  ^  Ileb.  i.  1,  so  Alford. 
 
 "  See  Bernard,  Progress  of  Doct.  in  New  Test.,  passim. 
 
ORIGIN   OF  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  5 
 
 of  ignorance  "  God  "  winked  at"^  —  "  over-looked."  Acts  com- 
 mitted in  that  twilight  of  the  world,  in  the  childhood  of  the 
 race,  must  be  looked  at  in  the  light  of  that  period.  Nothing 
 could  be  more  unjust  or  unreasonable  than  to  try  the  patriarchs 
 by  the  ethical  standard  of  a  later  age. 
 
 Dr.  Thomas  Arnold^  deems  that  the  truest  and  most  faithful 
 representation  of  the  lives  of  the  patriarchs  which  leads  us  to 
 think  of  "  a  state  of  society  very  little  advanced  in  its  knowledge 
 of  the  duties  of  man  to  man,  and  even,  in  some  respects,  of  the 
 duties  of  man  to  God  —  a  state  of  society  in  which  slavery. 
 polygamy,  and  private  revenge  were  held  to  be  perfectly  lawful, 
 and  which  was  accustomed  to  make  a  very  wide  distinction 
 between  false  speaking  and  false  swearing."  He  deprecates 
 the  fear  that  we  are  "  lowering  the  early  scripture  history,  if 
 we  speak  of  the  actors  in  it  as  men  possessing  far  less  than  a 
 Christian's  knowledge  of  right  and  wrong."  Professor  Stuart,^ 
 likewise,  repudiates  the  notion  of  the  absolute 'perfection  of  the 
 earlier  dispensation,  and  adds :  "  It  is  only  a  relative  perfection 
 that  the  Old  Testament  can  claim ;  and  this  is  comprised  in  the 
 fact  that  it  answered  the  end  for  which  it  was  given.  It  was 
 given  to  the  world,  or  to  the  Jewish  nation,  in  its  minority." 
 The  Professor's  conclusion  is,  that  in  the  early  ages,  "  with  the 
 exception  of  such  sins  as  were  highly  dishonorable  to  God  and 
 injurious  to  the  welfare  of  men,  the  rules  of  duty  were  not  in 
 all  cases  strictly  drawn."  * 
 
 Now,  since  our  virtue  must  be  judged  of  in  relation  to  the 
 amount  of  knowledge  we  possess,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  men  are 
 styled  "  good  "  who  live  according  to  the  light  they  have,  even 
 though  that  light  may  be  comparatively  feeble.  Therefore, 
 previous  to  pronouncing  upon  the  moral  character  of  a  man  or 
 an  act,  we  must  take  into  consideration  the  date  of  the  act,  or 
 
 ^  "  In  this  word  lie  treasures  of  mercy  for  those  who  lived  in  the  times 
 of  igniorance."  —  Alford  on  Acts  xvii,  30. 
 
 2  Miscellaneous  "Works,  pp.  149,  150  (N.  Y.  edition). 
 
 3  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  415.    Revised  ed.  pp.  387,  388. 
 *  See  further,  under  Ethical  Discrepancies,  "  Enemies  cursed." 
 
b  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  time  when  the  man  lived,  that  we  may  judge  the  man  or 
 the  act  by  the  proper  standard.  This  simple  principle  will 
 remove  many  otherwise  formidable  difficulties.^ 
 
 2.  Were  it  not  for  the  perversity  and  disingenuousness 
 exhibited  by  certain  writers  in  dealing  with  this  topic,  it 
 would  be  superfluous  to  assign  differences  of  authorship  as  a 
 fruitful  source  of  discrepancies.  We  find  recorded  in  the  Bible 
 the  words  of  God  and  of  good  men,  as  well  as  some  of  the 
 sayings  of  Satan  and  of  wicked  men.  Now,  a  collision  between 
 these  two  classes  of  utterances  will  not  seem  strange  to  him 
 who  is  cognizant  of  the  antagonism  of  good  and  evil.  For 
 example,  we  read,  "  Thou  shalt  surely  die ; "  and  "  Ye  shall  not 
 surely  die."  ^  Wlien  we  call  to  mind  that  the  former  are  the 
 words  of  God,  the  latter  those  of  Satan,  we  are  at  no  loss  to 
 account  for  the  incongruity. 
 
 The  question  of  the  respective  authorship  of  conflicting  texts 
 is  an  important  one :  "  Whose  are  these  sayings  ?  "  "  Are  they 
 recorded  as  inspired  language,  or  is  one  or  more  of  them 
 inserted  as  a  mere  matter  of  history  ? "  "  Does  the'  sacred 
 writer  endorse,  or  merely  narrate,  these  statements?'*  The 
 answer  to  these  simple  questions  will  often  be  the  only  solution 
 which  the  supposed  discrejDancy  needs. 
 
 With  regard  to  utterances  clearly  referable  to  inspired 
 sources,  yet  which  apparently  disagree,  several  tilings  are  to  be 
 noticed : 
 
 (1)  The  same  idea,  in  substance,  may  be  couched  in  several 
 different  forms  of  phraseology.  Thus  we  may  vary  the  Mosaic 
 prohibition  of  murder :  "  Thou  shalt  not  kill " ;  "  Do  not  kill  "  ; 
 "  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder."  Any  one  of  these  statements  is 
 sufiiciently  exact.  No  one  of  them  would  be  regarded  by  any 
 sensible  person  as  a  misstatement  of  the  precept.  They  all 
 convey  substantially  the  same  idea. 
 
 (2)  Inspiration   doe^  not  destroy  the  individuality  of   the 
 
 ^  "  Distinguite  temy)ora,"  says  Augustine,  "  ct  concordabunt  scripturae  "; 
 *'  Distinguish  as  to  times,  and  the  scriptures  will  harmonize." 
 ^  Gen.  ii.  17  and  iii.  4. 
 
ORIGIN    OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  7 
 
 writers.  It  deals  primarily  with  ideas,  rather  than  with  words. 
 It  suggests  ideas  to  the  mind  of  the  writer,  allowmg  him, 
 generally,  to  clothe  them  in  his  own  language.  In  this  way  his 
 individuality  is  preserved,  and  liis  mental  peculiarities  and 
 habits  of  thought  make  themselves  felt  in  his  writings.  On 
 this  principle  we  account  for  the  marked  difference  of  style 
 among  the  sacred  writers,  as  well  as  for  their  occasional  diver- 
 gences in  setting  forth  the  same  idea  or  in  relating  the  same 
 circumstance.'^ 
 
 (3)  Inspiration  need  not  always  tread  in  its  own  track,  or 
 follow  the  same  routine  of  words.  A  writer  may,  under  the 
 guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  take  the  language  of  a  former 
 inspired  author,  and  modify  it  to  suit  his  own  purpose.  Thus 
 the  New  Testament  writers  often  quote  those  of  the  Old.  They 
 grasp  the  sense,  the  ground-thought,  of  their  predecessors,  and 
 then  mould  that  thought  into  such  forms  as  shall  best  meet  the 
 needs  of  the  later  age  for  which  they  write.  This  simple  prin- 
 cijile  relieves  the  apparent  discrepancies  between  the  phrase- 
 ology of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  citations  in  the  New. 
 
 3.  Other  seeming  disagreements  are  occasioned  by  differences 
 of  stand-'point  or  of  object  on  the  part  of  the  respective  authors. 
 Truth  is  many-sided,  flinging  back  from  each  of  its  countless 
 facets  a  ray  of  different  hue.  As  Whately  says,  "  Single  texts 
 of  scripture  may  be  so  interpreted,  if  not  compared  together, 
 and  explained  by  each  other,  as  to  contradict  one  another,  and 
 to  be  each  one  of  them  at  variance  with  the  truth.  The 
 scriptures,  if  so  studied,  will  no  less  mislead  you  than  if  tliey 
 were  actually  false ;  for  half  the  truth  wUl  very  often  amount 
 to  absolute  falsehood."  ^ 
 
 Often,  in  looking  from  different  positions,  or  at  different 
 oljjects,  we  follow  lines  of  thought,  or  employ  language,  which 
 seems  inconsistent  with  somethmg  elsewhere  propounded  by 
 us ;  yet  there  may  be  no  real  inconsistency  in  the  case.     Tlius 
 
 ^  See  several  stiikinjr  cases  under  "  Scriptures,  —  Quotations." 
 2  Future  State,  Lect.  VI.,  p.  120  (Phila.  edition). 
 
8  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 we  say,  in  the  same  breath,  "Man  is  mortal,"  and  "Man  is 
 immortal."  Both  statements  are  true,  each  from  its  own  point 
 of  view ;  they  do  not  collide  in  the  least.  In  respect  to  his 
 material,  visible,  tangible  organism,  he  is  mortal ;  but  with 
 reference  to  the  deathless,  intelligent  spirit  within,  he  is  im- 
 mortal. So  one  may  say:  "The  people  of  this  country  are 
 rulers,"  and,  "  The  American  people  are  ruled."  In  the  sense 
 mtended,  both  assertions  may  be  perfectly  correct. 
 
 In  the  "  Clu'istian  Paradoxes,"  published  in  Basil  Montagu's 
 edition  of  Lord  Bacon's  Works,  we  find  striking  contrarieties. 
 Thus,  concerning  the  pious  man : 
 
 "  He  is  one  that  fears  always,  yet  is  as  bold  as  a  lion. 
 
 "  He  loseth  his  life,  and  gains  by  it ;  and  whilst  he  loseth  it, 
 he  saveth  it. 
 
 "  He  is  a  peacemaker,  jei  is  a  continual  fighter,  and  is  an 
 irreconcilable  enemy. 
 
 "  He  is  often  in  prison,  yet  always  at  liberty ;  a  freeman, 
 though  a  servant. 
 
 "  He  loves  not  honor  amongst  men,  yet  highly  prizeth  a 
 good  name." 
 
 In  these  cases  no  uncommon  acuteness  is  requisite  to  see  that 
 there  is  no  contradiction ;  since  the  conflicting  sayings  lie  in 
 different  planes  of  thought,  or  contemplate  different  ends. 
 
 The  principle  that  every  truth  presents  different  aspects,  and 
 bears  different  relations,  is  one  of  great  importance.  Some- 
 times these  aspects  or  relations  may  seem  inconsistent  or 
 mcompatible  with  each  other ;  yet,  if  we  trace  back  the  divergent 
 rays  to  their  source,  we  shall  find  that  they  meet  in  a  common 
 centre. 
 
 The  principle  just  enunciated  serves  to  reconcile  the  apparent 
 disagreement  between  Paul  and  James  respecting  "  faith  "  and 
 "  works,"  and  to  evince,  as  will  be  seen  elsewhere,  the  profound, 
 underlying  harmony  between  them.  Looking  from  different 
 points  of  view,  they  present  different,  yet  not  inconsistent, 
 aspects  of  the  same  great  truth. 
 
ORIGIN   OF  JCHE   DISCREPANCIES.  9 
 
 It  is  scarcely  needful  to  add,  that  in  studying  the  sacred 
 wi'itmgs,  we  should  carefully  look  for  and  keep  in  mind  the 
 particular  point  of  view  and  the  object  of  each  of  the  authors. 
 Unless  we  do  this,  we  risk  a  total  misapprehension  of  them. 
 We  are  ajDt,  forgetting  the  long  ages  which  have  intervened,  to 
 judge  these  writers  by  the  standards  of  our  own  time.  Says 
 Miiller  :  "  The  great  majority  of  readers  transfer  without  hesi- 
 tation the  ideas  which  they  connect  with  words  as  used  in  the 
 nineteenth  century  to  the  mind  of  Moses  or  his  contemporaries, 
 forgetting  altogether  the  distance  which  divides  their  language 
 and  their  thoughts  from  the  thoughts  and  language  of  the  wan- 
 dering tribes  of  Israel."  ^ 
 
 This  is  a  timely  caution  against  unconsciously  confounding 
 an  ancient  author's  stand-point  with  our  own.  We  may  remark, 
 further,  that  the  historian's  stand-point  is  theoretically  a  neutral 
 one.  So  long  as  he  keeps  to  the  mere  recital  of  facts,  he  does 
 not  make  liimself  responsible  in  any  degree  for  the  conduct 
 described  by  him.  When  he  di'ops  the  role  of  the  historian, 
 and  assumes  that  of  the  philosopher  and  moralist^  when  he 
 begins  to  deal  out  praise  or  censure,  he  may  be  held  amenable 
 to  the  tribunal  of  etliics  for  the  rectitude  and  impartiality  of 
 his  opinions  and  decisions. 
 
 In  a  word,  the  Bible  writers  do  not,  by  simply  narrating  the 
 misconduct  of  other  persons,  make  themselves  in  the  shghtest 
 degree  responsible  for  that  misconduct.  Yet  many  persons, 
 who  would  not  thmk  of  holding  Macaulay  accountable  for  the 
 crimes  recorded  in  his  history,  cannot,  when  they  come  to  read 
 the  sacred  record,  see  the  difference  between  a  mere  historian 
 and  a  partisan.  There  is  an  appreciable  distinction  between 
 narratinoj  and  indorsinsf  an  act. 
 
 4.  Many  other  apparent  discrepancies,  of  a  historical  char- 
 acter, are  occasioned  by  the  adoption,  by  the  several  authors, 
 of  different  principles  and  methods  of  arrangement.  One 
 writer  follows  the  strict  chronological  order ;  another  disposes 
 
 ^  Chips  from  a  German  Workshop,  i.  133  (Am.  edition). 
 
10  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 liis  materials  according  to  the  principle  of  association  of 
 ideas.  One  writes  history  minutely  and  consecutively;  another 
 omits,  condenses,  or  expands  to  suit  his  purpose.  From  the 
 pen  of  one  writer  we  receive  an  orderly,  well-constructed  biog- 
 raphy ;  another  gives  us  merely  a  series  of  anecdotes,  grouped 
 so  as  to  illustrate  some  trait,  sentiment,  or  habit  of  the  person 
 described.  Thus,  in  Xenophon's  Memorabilia,  we  do  not  fiud 
 a  proper  biography  of  Socrates,  but  we  see  various  points  in 
 his  life  and  character  set  forth  by  anecdotes  respecting  him 
 and  by  reports  of  his  discussions.  These  are  "  thi'own  together 
 in  the  manner  best  suited  to  illustrate  the  different  topics,  without 
 regard  to  the  order  of  time  in  which  the  transactions  or  con- 
 versations actually  took  place,  and  without  any  endeavor  to 
 preserve  the  appearance  of  continuity  of  narrative."  So  our 
 first  Gospel,  in  the  words  of  Professor  Stowe,^  "  does  not  follow 
 any  chronological  series  of  events  or  instructions,  but  groups 
 together  things  of  the  same  kind,  and  shows  by  a  series  of 
 living  pictures  what  Christ  was  in  all  the  various  circumstances 
 through  wliich  he  passed."  A  similar  and  intentional  disregard 
 of  chronological  order  and  sequence  is  seen,  to  a  greater  or  less 
 degi'ee,  in  the  three  remaining  Gosj^els,  and  in  other  historical 
 j^ortions  of  the  Bible. 
 
 The  methods  of  the  several  authors  being  thus  different,  it 
 cannot  but  be  that  their  narratives,  when  compared,  will  i^resent 
 appearances  of  dislocation,  deficiency,  redundancy,  anachronism, 
 or  even  antagonism  —  one  or  all  of  these.  Now,  if  we  put 
 these  authors  upon  a  Procrustean  bed,  and  clip  or  stretch  them 
 to  suit  our  notions ;  if  we  require  them  to  narrate  precisely  the 
 same  events,  in  precisely  the  same  order,  and  with  jDrecisely  the 
 same  fulness  or  brevity,  we  do  them  great  violence  and  in- 
 justice. We  should  let  each  follow  his  own  method  of  arrange- 
 ment, and  tell  his  story  in  his  own  way.  A  different  grouping 
 of  events  does  not  necessarily  bring  one  author  into  collision 
 with  another,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  both  writers  intended 
 
 1  Origin  and  History  o^ooks  of  Bible,  pp.  153, 154. 
 
ORIGIN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  11 
 
 to  follow  the  order  of  time.  Nor  is  an  author's  omission  to 
 mention  an  event  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  that  event.  It 
 should  also  be  remembered  that  a  writer  may  employ  customary 
 phi'aseology,  involving  a  historical  inaccuracy,  yet  not  be 
 chargeable  with  falsehood,  inasmuch  as  he  does  not  intend  to 
 teach  anythhig  in  reference  to  the  matter.  For  example,  a 
 historian  might  incidentally  speak  of  the  "battle  of  Bunker 
 Hill,"  while  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  the  battle  was  fouglit 
 on  Breed's  liill.  It  is  an  author's  privilege  to  accommodate 
 himself  in  this  manner,  to  j)revalent  opinions  and  customary 
 forms  of  speech,  provided  he  does  not  thereby  introduce  any 
 material  error,  which  shall  vitiate  his  leading  design. 
 
 5.  Other  incongruities  arise  from  the  use  of  different  modes 
 of  comjjutation,  particularly  of  reckoning  time.  Phenomena 
 of  this  description  are  not  confined  to  the  scriptures,  or  to  the 
 domain  of  theology.  They  are  found  in  scientific  and  other 
 secular  literature.  Thus,  one  would  think  the  number  of  the 
 bones  which  compose  the  human  skeleton  a  very  simjDle  and  easily- 
 settled  question ;  yet  the  most  eminent  anatomists  disagree  on 
 this  point.  Gray  mentions  204  bones;  Wilson,  246;  Dunglison, 
 240 ;  others,  208.  There  is,  however,  no  real  discrepancy  in 
 the  case,  since  these  authors  reckon  differently. 
 
 A  historical  illustration  is  also  in  point.  The  family  record, 
 in  an  old  Bible  which  belonged  to  Washington's  mother,  asserts 
 that  he  was  born  "y^  11th  day  of  February,  173^."  On  the 
 other  hand,  a  recent  biography  ^  of  Washington  gives  the  date 
 as  "  the  2 2d  of  February,  1732,  New  Style."  To  those  who  un- 
 derstand the  difference  between  "  Old  Style  "  and  "  New  Style," 
 this  discrepancy  of  eleven  days  will  furnish  no  difficulty.  When 
 one  historian  reckons  from  one  epoch,  and  another  from  a  dif- 
 ferent one,  there  will  of  necessity  be  an  apparent,  if  not  a  real, 
 disagreement. 
 
 Many  ancient  and  several  modern  nations  have  two  kinds  of 
 year  in  use,  the  civil  and  the  sacred.     The  Jews  employed  both 
 
 1  Everett's  Life  of  Washington,  pp.  19,  20. 
 
12  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 reckonings.  "  The  sacred  reckoning  was  that  instituted  at  the 
 exodus,  according  to  which  the  first  month  was  Abib ;  by  the 
 civil  reckoning  the  first  month  was  the  seventh.  The  interval 
 between  the  two  commencements  was  thus  exactly  half  a  year."  ^ 
 
 "  The  ancient  Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  Persians,  Syrians,  Phoe- 
 nicians, and  Carthaginians  each  began  the  year  at  the  autumnal 
 equinox,  about  September  22.  The  Jews  also  began  their  civil 
 year  at  that  time ;  but  in  their  ecclesiastical  reckoning  the  year 
 dated  from  the  vernal  equinox,  about  March  22." 
 
 "•  Among  the  Latin  Christian  nations  there  were  seven  dif- 
 ferent dates  for  the  commencement  of  the  year."  "  In  the  era 
 of  Constantinople,  which  was  in  use  in  the  Byzantine  empire, 
 and  in  Russia  till  the  time  of  Peter  the  Great,  the  civil  year 
 began  with  September  1,  and  the  ecclesiastical  sometimes  with 
 March  21,  and  sometimes  with  April  1."^  Even  among  us, 
 the  academic  and  the  fiscal  do  not  begin  and  end  with  the  civil 
 year. 
 
 It  follows,  therefore,  that  when  two  ancient  writers  fail  to 
 agree  as  to  the  month  and  day  of  a  given  event,  we  must 
 inquire  whether  or  not  they  employ  the  same  chronological 
 reckoning.  If  not,  their  disagreement  furnishes  no  proof  that 
 either  is  wrong.  Each,  according  to  his  own  method  of  com- 
 putation, may  be  perfectly  correct.  When,  in  the  Fahrenheit 
 thermometer,  the  mercury  stands  at  212  degrees,  in  the  Reaumur 
 at  80,  and  in  the  Centigrade  at  100  degrees,  the  inference  is 
 not  valid  that  any  one  of  the  three  instruments  is  inaccurate. 
 The  different  methods  of  graduating  the  scale  account  for  the 
 different  indications. 
 
 It  was  one  peculiarity  of  the  Jewish  reckoning  that  frac- 
 tional years  were  counted  for  whole  ones.  Lightfoot^  says 
 that,  according  to  the  rabbins,  "  the  very  first  day  of  a  year 
 may  stand  in  computation  for  that  year."     Aben  Ezra,  on  Lev. 
 
 1  R.  S.  Poole,  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "  Year." 
 ^  Appleton's  Cyclopaedia;  Article  "Calendar." 
 *  Harmony  of  New  Test.,  Section  9. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  13 
 
 xii.  3,  says  that,  "  if  an  infant  were  born  in  the  last  hour  of  the 
 day,  such  hour  was  counted  for  one  whole  day."  A  similar 
 mode  of  reckoning  prevails  in  the  East  at  the  present  time. 
 "  Thus,  the  year  ending  on  a  certain  day,  any  part  of  the  fore- 
 going year  is  reckoned  a  whole  year.  A  child  bom  in  the  last 
 week  of  our  December  would  be  reckoned  a  year  old  on  the 
 first  day  of  January,  because  born  in  the  old  year."  Menasseh 
 ben  Israel  ^  says  that,  "  in  respect  of  the  festivals,  solemnities, 
 and  computations  of  the  reigns  of  kings,  Nisan  [March]  is  the 
 beginning  of  the  year ;  but  in  regard  to  the  creation  and  secular 
 matters,  it  is  Tisri"  (September). 
 
 That  eminent  scholar  and  Egyptologist,  Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson,^ 
 well  observes  that  the  study  of  chronology  is  "particularly 
 obscure  and  difficult  when  we  have  to  do  with  Oriental  modes 
 of  computation,  which  are  essentially  different  from  ours. 
 Before  the  time  of  Abraham,  the  narrative  given  in  the  book 
 of  Genesis  may  be  a  condensed  epitome  of  foregoing  history — 
 not  a  consecutive  line  of  historical  events,  year  by  year  and  gen- 
 eration by  generation,  but  a  condensed  epitome  of  what  had 
 occurred  in  the  world  from  the  creation  to  that  time ;  for  if  you 
 will  scrutinize  it  carefully,  you  will  see  that  in  some  instances  the 
 names  of  individuals  are  put  for  tribes,  dynasties,  and  nations, 
 and  that  it  is  no  part  of  the  object  of  the  historian  to  give  the 
 consecutive  course  of  affairs  in  the  world  at  large."  He  pro- 
 ceeds to  express  the  conviction  that  there  is  yet  to  come  to  us, 
 from  Arabian  and  other  Oriental  sources,  a  mode  of  interpreting 
 chronology  according  to  these  lists  of  names,  which  he  does  not 
 believe  we  have  yet  got  hold  of ;  hence  he  is  not  troubled  by 
 any  seeming  discrepancies.  If,  then,  in  dealing  with  biblical 
 numbers,  we  encounter  methods  of  computation  which  differ 
 essentially  from  om*  own,^  this  is  a  fact  wliich  no  student  nor 
 interpreter  of  scripture  can  afford  to  overlook. 
 
 ^  Conciliator,  i.,  126-129.      ^  jyjj^^  [^  Genesis  and  in  Geology,  pp.  104-105. 
 ^  The  Hebrew  and  Arabic  allow  a  peculiar  latitude  in  the  expression  of 
 numbers.  According  to  Nordheimer( Hebrew  Grammar,  i.  265),  and  Wright 
 2 
 
14  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  the  Hebrews  often  employed  "  round  num- 
 bers," or,  omitting  fractions,  made  use  of  the  nearest  whole 
 number.  Thus,  the  ages  of  the  patriarchs,  in  Gen.  v.,  are  given 
 in  this  manner,  unless  we  adopt  the  improbable  supposition 
 that  each  of  them  died  upon  some  anniversary  of  his  birth. 
 
 The  foregoing  considerations  evince  the  folly  of  hasty  decisions 
 in  regard  to  biblical  chronology.  When  the  sacred  writers 
 disagree  as  to  numbers  and  dates,  unless  there  is  evidence  that 
 they  intended  to  reckon  from  the  same  point  and  by  the  same 
 method,  the  verdict  must  be :  "  Discrepancy  not  proven." 
 
 6.  lih.^ peculiarities  of  the  Oriental  idiom  are  another  prolific 
 source  of  discrepancies.  The  people  of  the  East  are  fervid 
 and  imj^assioned  in  their  modes  of  thought  and  expression. 
 They  think  and  speak  in  poetry.^  Bold  metaphors  and  starthng 
 hyperboles  abound  in  their  writings  and  conversation.     "  The 
 
 (Arabic  Grammar,  p.  211),  both  these  languages  permit  one  to  write  first 
 the  miits,  then  the  tens,  hundreds  and  thousands,  in  their  order;  or  he  may 
 reverse  the  method,  writing  the  highest  denomination  first,  and  ending 
 with  tlie  lowest. 
 
 Rev.  Dr.  C.  S.  Robinson,  in  the  Christian  Weeldy,  thus  overstates  and 
 misapplies  the  first  usage:  "This  is  just  the  reverse  of  our  habit.  We 
 put  thousands  before  hundreds,  and  hundreds  before  units.  So  if  a  literal 
 rendering  of  one  of  those  vast  numbers  be  made  into  English,  it  will 
 appear  positively  prepostei-ous. 
 
 "  In  the  first  book  of  Samuel,  we  are  told  (in  our  version),  that  for  the 
 impiety  of  looking  into  the  ark,  the  Lord  smote,  in  the  little  town  of  Betli- 
 shemcsh,  *  of  the  people  fifty  thousand  and  threescore  and  ten  men '  (1  Sam. 
 vi.  19).  Now,  one  cannot  help  thinking  that  there  was  no  town  in  all  those 
 borders  so  large  as  this  assumes.  Fifty  thousand  men  besides  women  and 
 children,  would  populate  one  of  our  larger  modci'n  cities. 
 
 "The  difficulty  disappears  when  you  recall  the  idiom  I  have  mentioned. 
 The  verse  reads,  'seventy,  fifties,  and  a  thousand,' —  that  is,  not  seventy 
 and  fifty  thousand,  as  it  is  translated,  but  seventy,  two  fifties,  and  one 
 thousand,  or  one  thousand  one  hundred  and  seventy  men  in  all." 
 
 Ur.  R.'s  explanation  is  inapposite.  There  is  quite  as  much  reason  for 
 reading  "  seventies  "  as  "  fifties,"  since  both  the  original  words  are,  as  they 
 ought  to  be,  in  the  plural  number.  (See  Gesenius,  Ileb.  Gram.,  Sect.  97, 
 Par.  8).    Besides,  "  fifties  "  may  as  well  denote  ten  fifties  as  two  fifties. 
 
 ^  A  learned  writer  observes  of  Arabian  literature:  "A  poetic  spirit  per- 
 vades all  their  works.    Even  treatises  in  the  abstract  sciences,  geographi- 
 
ORIGIN   OF  THE   DISCREPANCIES.  15 
 
 shepherd,"  says  Eichhorn,^  "  only  speaks  in  the  soul  of  the 
 shepherd,  and  the  primitive  Oriental  only  speaks  in  the  soul  of 
 another  Oriental.  Without  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  the 
 customs  of  pastoral  life,  without  an  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
 East  and  its  manners,  without  a  close  intimacy  with  the  manner 
 
 of  thinking  and  speaking  in  the  uncivilized  world, you 
 
 easily  become  a  traitor  to  the  book,  when  you  would  be  its 
 deliverer  and  interpreter." 
 
 Professor  Stuart :  ^  "  I  do  not,  and  would  not,  summon  them 
 [the  books  of  scripture]  before  the  tribunal  of  Occidental  criti- 
 cism. Asia  is  one  world ;  Europe  and  America,  another.  Let 
 an  Asiatic  be  tried  before  his  own  tribimal.  To  pass  just 
 sentence  upon  liim,  we  must  enter  into  his  feelings,  views, 
 methods  of  reasoning  and  thinking,  and  place  ourselves  in  the 
 midst  of  the  circumstances  which  surrounded  him." 
 
 Lowth,^  on  Metaphors  :  "  The  Orientals  are  attached  to  tliis 
 style  of  composition ;  and  many  flights  which  our  ears  —  too 
 fastidious,  perhaps,  in  these  respects  —  will  scarcely  bear,  must 
 be  allowed  to  the  general  freedom  and  boldness  of  these  writers." 
 
 Again,  he  speaks  of  the  difficulties  which  arise  in  reading 
 authors  "  where  everything  is  depicted  and  illustrated  with  the 
 greatest  variety  and  abundance  of  imagery ;  they  must  be  still 
 more  numerous  in  such  of  the  poets  as  are  foreign  and  ancient 
 —  in  the  Orientals  above  all  foreigners ;  they  being  the  farthest 
 removed  from  our  customs  and  manners,  and,  of  all  the  Ori- 
 entals, more  especially  in  the  Hebrews." 
 
 cal  and  medical  works,  have  a  poetic  cast.  All  their  literary  productions, 
 fi-om  the  most  impassioned  ode  to  the  firman  of  the  Grand  Seigneur,  belong 
 to  the  province  of  poetry." 
 
 Michaelis  quotes  an  Arabic  poet  who  expresses  the  fact,  that  swords 
 were  drawn  with  which  to  cut  the  throats  of  enemies,  thus :  "  The  daughters 
 of  the  sheath  leaped  forth  from  their  chambers,  thirsting  to  drink  in  the 
 jugular  vein  of  their  enemies."  —  Sec  Bib.  Repository,  Oct.  1836,  pp.  439, 
 442. 
 
 1  See  De  Wette,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  31-.32. 
 
 2  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  187.    Revised  ed.  p.  174. 
 ^  Lecturee  on  Hebrew  Poetry,  pp.  51,  47  (Stowe's  edition). 
 
16  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Dr.  Samuel  Davidson : ^  "He  who  does  not  remember  the 
 wide  difference  between  the  Oriental  and  Occidental  mind, 
 must  necessarily  fall  into  error.  The  luxuriant  imagination 
 and  glowing  ardor  of  the  former  express  themselves  in  hyper- 
 bolical and  extravagant  diction ;  whereas  the  subdued  character 
 and  coolness  of  the  latter  are  averse  to  sensuous  luxuriance." 
 
 Again :  "  The  figures  are  bold  and  daring.  Passion  and 
 feeling  predominate.  In  the  Psalms  pre-eminently,  we  see  the 
 theology  of  the  feelings,  rather  than  of  the  intellect.  Logic  is 
 out  of  place  there.  Dogmas  cannot  be  established  on  such  a 
 basis,  nor  was  it  ever  meant  to  be  so." 
 
 Professor  Park :  ^  "  More  or  less  clandestinely,  we  are  wont 
 to  interpret  an  ancient  and  an  Oriental  poet,  as  we  would 
 interpret  a  modern  and  Occidental  essayist.  The  eastern 
 minstrel  employs  intense  words  for  saying  what  the  western 
 logician  would  say  in  tame  language.  The  fervid  Oriental 
 would  turn  from  our  modifying  phrases  in  sickness  of  heart. 
 We  shudder  at  the  lofty  flights  which  captivate  him.  But 
 he  and  we  mean  to  express  the  same  idea.  The  Occidental 
 philosopher  has  a  definite  thought  when  he  affirms  that  God 
 exercises  benevolence  toward  good  men.  Isaiah  has  essentially 
 the  same  thought  when  he  cries  out:  'As  the  bridegi'oom 
 rejoiceth  over  the  bride,  so  shall  thy  God  rejoice  over  thee.' " 
 
 Such  being  the  genius  and  idiom  of  the  Orientals,  it  cannot 
 be  deemed  strange  that  their  metaphors  and  hyperboles  over- 
 lap and  collide  with  one  another;  that  we  find  David,^  for 
 example,  at  one  time  calling  God  a  rock,  and  elsewhere 
 speaking  of  his  wings  and  feathers.  Such  bold  and  free 
 imagery,  when  properly  interpreted,  develops  a  feHcitous  mean- 
 ing; but  when  expounded  according  to  literalistic,  matter-of- 
 fact  methods,  it  yields  discrepancies  in  abundance.  To  the 
 interpreter  of  scripture,  no  two  qualifications  are  more  indis- 
 pensable than  common  sense  and  honesty. 
 
 ^  Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  ii,  409,  310.  -  Bib.  Sacra,  xix.  170, 171. 
 
 '•^  Ps.  xlii.  9,  and  xci.  4. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE    DISCREPANCIES.  17 
 
 7.  Other  dissonances  in  scripture  are  obviously  attributable 
 to  the  Eastern  custom  of  applying  a  plurality  of  names  to  the 
 same  person  or  object.  In  matters  of  every-day  life,  this 
 custom  is  widely  prevalent.  Thus,  in  the  Arabic,^  there  are 
 1000  different  words  or  names  for  "sword,"  oOO  for  "Hon," 
 200  for  "  serpent,"  400  for  "  misfortune,"  80  for  "  honey." 
 
 The  Hebrew  language  has  as  many  as  fifty  words  denoting 
 a  body  of  water  of  some  kind.^  There  are  at  least  eighteen 
 Hebrew  words  used  to  express  different  kinds  of  prickly  slirubs 
 or  weeds  which  occur  in  the  Hebrew  scriptures.^  Gesenius 
 gives  some  eight  different  Hebrew  terms  for  "  counsel,"  twelve 
 for  "  darkness,"  thirty-two  for  "  destruction,"  ten  for  "  law,"  and 
 twenty-three  for  "  wealth."  * 
 
 The  usage  in  respect  to  proper  names  is  quite  similar.  Thus 
 we  find  Jacob  and  Israel,  Edom  and  Esau,  Gideon  and  Jerubbaal, 
 Hoshea  or  Oshea  and  Jehoshua  or  Joshua.  One  of  the  apostles 
 bore  the  following  appellations :  Simon,  Simeon,  Peter,  Cephas, 
 Simon  Peter,  Simon  Bar-jona,  and  Simon  son  of  Jonas.  So  we 
 find  Joseph,  Barsabas,  and  Justus  designating  the  same  individual. 
 
 Not  infrequently  the  names  of  persons  and  places  were 
 changed  on  account  of  some  important  event.  The  custom 
 prevails  to  some  extent  in  modern  times.  The  Persian  king, 
 Shah  Solyman,  began  to  reign  in  1667,  under  the  name  Suffee. 
 During  the  first  years  of  his  reign,  misfortune  attended  him. 
 He  came  to  the  conclusion  that  his  name  was  an  unlucky  one, 
 and  must  be  laid  aside,  in  order  to  avert  fiu-ther  calamities. 
 "  He  accordingly  assumed,  with  great  solemnity,  the  name  of 
 Solyman.  He  was  crowned  anew  under  that  name,  and  all 
 the  seals  and  coins  which  bore  the  name  of  Suffee  were  broken, 
 as  if  one  king  had  died,  and  another  succeeded."  ^     Chardin,  an 
 
 ^  Bleek,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  43.    Also,  Biblical  Repository  for  October, 
 1836,  pp.  433,  434. 
 -  Taylor's  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  p.  91  (Gowans'  edition). 
 2  Tristram's  Natural  History  of  the  Bible,  p.  423  (London  edition). 
 *  Potter's  English-Hebrew  Lexicon,  sub  vocihus. 
 »  Bush,  Notes  on  Genesis  xvii.  5. 
 
18  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 eye-witness,  gives  an  account  of  the  coronation.  The  custom 
 of  changing  the  name  of  the  pope  at  the  time  of  his  election 
 is  not  unhke,  —  Aeneas  Sylvius  becoming  Pius  II. 
 
 Often,  m  the  Bible,  the  name  of  the  head  of  a  tribe  or  nation 
 is  put  for  his  posterity.  Thus,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  "  Israel " 
 means  the  Israelitish  nation  ;  "  Ephraim  "  and  "  Moab  "  signify 
 the  descendants  of  those  men  respectively.  Keej^ing  in  mind 
 the  great  latitude  allowed  by  the  Orientals  m  the  use  of  names, 
 we  see  the  ready  solution  of  many  difficulties  in  the  bibhcal 
 record. 
 
 8.  Not  a  few  verbal  contradictions  arise  from  the  use  of  the 
 same  word  with  different,  sometimes  opposite,  significations.  As 
 Fuerst  says, "  Analogy  in  the  Semitic  dialects  admits  of  directly 
 opposite  meanings  in  a  word  as  possible."  According  to  this 
 lexicographer  and  Gesenius,  the  Hebrew  word  "  barak "  is  used 
 in  the  opposite  senses  of  to  bless  and  to  curse.  So  "  yarash  " 
 means  both  to  possess  and  to  dispossess  ;  '•  nakar,"  to  know  and 
 not  to  know ;  "  siiqal,"  to  pelt  with  stones  and  to  free  from 
 stones  ;  "  shabar,"  to  buy  grain  and  to  sell  grain.  So  the  Latin 
 word  "  sacer  "  means  both  holy  and  accursed. 
 
 This  infelicity  of  human  speech  is  not,  indeed,  peculiar  to  the 
 East.  In  our  version  of  the  scriptures,^  and  in  the  early  Eng- 
 lish literature,^  the  word  "  let "  is  employed  with  the  contra- 
 dictory meanings,  to  permit  and  to  hinder.  In  common  par- 
 lance, a  boy  "stones"  a  fruit-tree,  and  the  cook  "stones"  certain 
 kinds  of  fruit.  "  Cleave  "  affords  another  example  of  opposite 
 significations  combined  in  the  same  word.^ 
 
 When,  therefore,  we  read  in  the  Bible  that  certain  persons 
 "  feared  the  Lord,"  yet  "  feared  not  the  Lord " ;  that  God 
 "  repents,"  yet  does  not  repent ;  that  he  "  tempted  "  Abraham, 
 yet  tempts  no  man,  we  find  a  ready  solution  of  these  apparent 
 contradictions. 
 
 1  Isa.  xliii.  13;  Rom.  i.  13;  2Thcss.  ii.  7. 
 
 2  Two  Gent,  of  Verona,  iii.  1;  Hamlet,  i.  4;  Romeo  and  Juliet,  ii.  2. 
 "  See  Rogct's  Thcsaunis  of  English  Words,  Introd.  p.  23. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  19 
 
 Frequently  discrepancies  appear  in  our  version,  when  none 
 exist  in  the  original.  Tliis  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  same 
 English  word  has  been  employed  by  the  translators  to  represent 
 several  original  terms.  Thus,  in  Luke  xiii.  24  and  2  Tim.  ii. 
 24,  two  distinct  Greek  words  are  in  our  version  rendered 
 "  strive."  The  resulting  incongruity  disappears  when  we  con- 
 sider that  the  term  in  Luke  should  have  been  rendered  "  ago- 
 nize." Of  course,  all  such  discrepancies  are  to  be  attributed  to 
 the  translators,  and  not  to  the  book  itself. 
 
 It  is  well  to  remember,  also,  that  in  King  James's  version 
 words  are  frequently  employed  in  an  unusual  or  obsolete  sense. 
 Thus  we  find  "  prevent  "^  signifying  to  anticipate  or  precede  ; 
 "  thought "  ^  implying  anxiety.  Often  a  knowledge  of  the 
 ambiguity  of  their  pivotal  words  enables  us  to  reconcile  two 
 conflicting  texts  with  the  greatest  ease. 
 
 9.  A  very  large  number  of  discrepancies  take  their  rise  from 
 errors  in  the  manuscripts  ;  these  errors  being  occasioned  by 
 the  similarity  of  the  alphabetical  characters  to  one  another,  and 
 by  the  consequent  blunders  of  transcril^rs.  The  reader  need 
 not  be  reminded  that  previous  to  the  invention  of  printing,  in 
 the  fifteenth  century,  books  were  produced  and  multiplied  by 
 the  slow,  laborious  method  of  copying  with  the  pen.  In  a 
 process  so  mechanical,  mistakes  would  ine^^tably  occur.  The 
 most  carefully  printed  book  is  not  entirely  free  from  typo- 
 grapliical  errors;  the  most  carefully  written  manuscript  will 
 exliibit  defects  of  some  kind.  "  God  might"  says  an  eminent 
 critic,^  "  have  so  guided  the  hand  or  fixed  the  devout  attention 
 of  copyists,  diu-ing  the  long  space  of  fom-teen  hundi^ed  years 
 before  the  invention  of  printing,  and  of  compositors  and  printers 
 of  the  Bible  for  the  last  four  centuries,  that  no  jot  or  tittle 
 should  have  been  changed  of  all  that  was  written  therein.  Such 
 a  course  of  providential  arrangement  we  must  confess  to  be 
 quite  possible  ;  but  it  could  have  been  brought  about  and  main- 
 
 1  Ps.  cxix.  147,  148;  1  Tbess.  iv.  15.  ^  j^^^^tt.  vi.  25. 
 
 3  Scrivener,  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  3. 
 
20  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 tained  by  nothing  short  of  a  continuous,  unceasing  miracle  — 
 by  making  fallible  men  (nay,  many  such  in  every  generation) 
 for  one  purpose  absolutely  infallible."  To  the  unavoidable 
 errors  of  copyists  is,  beyond  question,  to  be  attributed  a  large 
 portion  of  those  minute  discrepancies,  in  both  the  Old  and  New 
 Testaments,  which  we  commonly  term  "  various  readings."  The 
 liability  to  mistakes  in  chirography  was,  moreover,  indefinitely 
 augmented  by  the  very  close  resemblance  of  certain  Hebrew 
 letters  to  one  another.     Kalisch^  gives  twelve  examj^les  in  point. 
 
 "  Several  letters,"  says  Professor  Stuart,^  "  bear  a  great 
 resemblance  to  each  other."  As  illustrations,  he  mentions: 
 Beth  a  and  Kaph  D ;  Daleth  i  and  Resh  "i ;  Daleth  i  and  final 
 Kaph  "7  ;  Vav  "j  and  Yod  "^ ;  Vav  T  and  Nun  final  ] ;  Heth  n 
 and  He  n ;  Heth  n  and  Tav  n.  He  might  have  added,  Pe  S 
 and  Kaph  D.  The  reader  will  observe  that,  if  the  left  hand 
 perpendicular  line  of  He  be  accidentally  omitted  or  blurred,  we 
 have  Daleth  left,  thus,  n,  T  ;  so  Tav  and  Resh,  thus,  n,^ ;  also 
 Pe  and  Kaph,  D,  S.  "  At  one  time,"  says  Herbert  Marsh,* 
 "  the  whole  difference  consists  in  the  acuteness  or  obtuseness 
 of  an  angle ;  at  other  times,  either  on  the  length  or  the  straight- 
 ness  of  a  line ;  distinctions  so  minute  that  even  when  the  letters 
 are  perfect,  mistakes  will  sometimes  happen,  and  still  more 
 frequently  when  they  are  inaccurately  formed,  or  are  partially 
 effaced.  In  fact,  this  is  one  of  the  most  fruitful  sources  of 
 error  in  the  Hebrew  manuscripts." 
 
 Certain  Greek  letters,  also,  look  very  much  alike ;  for 
 example,  Nu  v  and  Upsilon  v,  with  others. 
 
 Every  one  is  aware  how  easily  the  English  letters  b  and  d 
 are  confounded,  also  p  and  q ;  how^f ten  we  see  N  placed  thus, 
 N.  In  print  we  see  the  figures  3  and  8,  6  and  9,  mistaken  for 
 each  other.  How  frequently  we  find  "  recieve  "  for  "  receive," 
 "  cheif  "  for  "  cliief ,"  "  thier  "  for  "  their,"  and  the  like.  Now,  if 
 such  errors  occur,  in  the  most  carefully  corrected  print,  what  are 
 
 1  Hebrew  Grammar,  i.  3.        ^  Hebrew  Grammar,  Sec.  17  (ed.  of  1821). 
 2  Lectures  on  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  p.  186. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  21 
 
 we  to  look  for  in  manuscript,  and  particularly  when  the  letters 
 of  which  it  is  composed  are  so  nearly  alike  ?  Moreover,  as  Theo- 
 dore Parker^  says,  "  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  formerly  the  He- 
 brew letters  resembled  one  another  more  closely  than  at  present." 
 
 Under  such  circumstances  as  the  foregoing,  that  occasional 
 mistakes  should  have  been  made  in  copying  by  hand  the  Heb- 
 rew of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  so  many 
 times  in  the  course  of  fourteen  centuries,  is  a  thing  which  to  no 
 reasonable  man  can  occasion  surprise. 
 
 In  fact,  nothing  but  the  most  astounding  miracle  ^  could  have 
 prevented  such  mistakes. 
 
 We  are  now  ready  to  add  that,  in  the  ancient  Hehreiu,  letters 
 were,  in  all  probability,  used  for  numerals.  That  is,  letters 
 were  employed  by  the  original  writers  to  represent  numbers, 
 which  were  expanded  and  written  out  in  full  by  later  copiers. 
 So,  with  us,  one  author  might  write  "  CXI." ;  another,  "  one 
 hmidi'ed  and  eleven." 
 
 "  The  Rabbinical  writers,"  says  Nordheimer :  ^  "  employ  the 
 letters  of  the  alphabet,  after  the  manner  of  the  ancient  Greeks, 
 for  the  purpose  of  numerical  notation."  The  same  is  true  of 
 more  ancient  writers,  including  those  of  the  Masora.  That  the 
 original  writers  did  this,  though  not  absolutely  demonstrated,  is 
 generally  conceded  by  scholars. 
 
 Rawlinson  *  observes  :  "  Nothing  in  ancient  MSS.  is  so  liable 
 to  corruption  from  the  mistakes  of  copyists  as  the  numbers  ; 
 
 '  De  Wette's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  311. 
 
 2  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Bentley,  "  That  in  millions  of  copies  transcribed  in 
 so  many  a;i:es  and  nations,  all  the  notaries  and  writers,  who  made  it  their 
 trade  and  livelihood  should  he  infallible  and  impeccable;  that  their  pens 
 should  spontaneously  write  true,  or  be  supematurally  guided,  though  the 
 scribes  were  nodding  or  dreaming;  would  not  this  exceed  all  the  miracles 
 of  both  Old  and  New  Testament?"  Yet  the  same  scholarly  critic  else- 
 where assures  us  that  "the  New  Testament  has  suffered  less  injury  by  the 
 hand  of  time  than  any  profane  author."  —  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse, 
 Part  i.  Sec.  32. 
 
 ■^  Hebrew  Grammar,  Vol.  i.  pp.  265,  266,  note. 
 
 *  On  Historical  Difficulties  of  Old  and  New  Test.,  p.  9. 
 
22  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  original  mode  of  writing  them  appears  in  all  countries  of 
 which  we  have  any  knowledge  to  have  been  by  signs,  not  very 
 different  from  one  another  ;  the  absence  of  any  context  deter- 
 mining in  favor  of  one  number  rather  than  another,  where  the 
 copy  is  blotted  or  faded,  increases  the  chance  of  error,  and  thus 
 it  hapi^ens  that  in  almost  all  ancient  works  the  numbers  are 
 found  to  be  deserving  of  very  little  reHance." 
 
 Mr.  Warington :  ^  "  There  is  little  doubt  but  that  numbers 
 were  originally  represented  in  Hebrew,  not  as  now  by  the 
 names  of  the  numbers  in  full,  but  simply  by  the  letters  of  the 
 alphabet  taken  in  order,  at  the  following  numei-ical  value: 
 1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  G,  7,  8,  9,  10,  20,  30,  40,  50,  60,  70,  80,  90,  100, 
 200,  300,  400  ;  the  five  terminal  letters  supplying  the  numbers 
 from  500  to  900,  and  the  thousands  being  obtained  by  append- 
 ing certain  marks  or  points  to  the  units." 
 
 Mr.  Phillott :  ^  "  Like  most  Oriental  nations,  it  is  probable  that 
 the  Hebrews  in  then  written  calculations  made  use  of  the  letters 
 of  the  ali^habet.  That  they  did  so  in  jDOst-Babylonian  times 
 we  have  conclusive  evidence  in  the  Maccabaean  coins  ;  and  it 
 is  highly  probable  that  this  was  the  case  also  in  earlier  times." 
 
 Keil :  ^  "  An  interchange  of  similar  letters,  on  the  assumjjtion 
 that  letters  were  used  as  numerals,  also  explains  many  differ- 
 ences in  numbers,  and  many  statements  of  excessive  and  in- 
 credible numbers."  Elsewhere,  he  calls  attention  to  certain 
 "  corruptions  which  have  arisen  from  the  blunders  of  copyists  in 
 transcription,  and  by  the  resolution  of  the  numerical  statements, 
 the  numbers  having  been  denoted  by  letters  of  the  aliohabet." 
 
 De  Wette,*  sj^eaking  of  the  mistakes  of  copyists :  "  They 
 confounded  similar  letters.  Hence,  on  the  supposition  that 
 numeral  characters  were  used,  we  are  to  explain  the  difference 
 in  numbers."  He  adduces  several  pertinent  instances.  "  In 
 this  manner,"  continues  his  translator,  Theodore  Parker,  "  many 
 other  mistakes  in  numbers  seem  to  have  arisen." 
 
 1  On  Inspiration,  pp.  204,  205.  '■^  Smith's  Bil).  Diet.,  "  Number." 
 
 3  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  297  and  85.    *  Iiitrod.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  310. 
 
ORIGIN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  23 
 
 Dr.  Kennicott :  ^  "  That  the  Jewish  transcribers  did  frequently 
 express  the  Bible  numbers  in  the  original  by  single  letters  is 
 well  known  to  the  learned." 
 
 Tliis  author  also  cites  the  learned  Scaliger,  and  an  ancient 
 Hebrew  Grammar,  printed  with  the  Complutensian  Bible  ui 
 1515,  to  the  same  effect. 
 
 Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  :  ^  "  Wherever  numerous  proper  names 
 occur,  there  is  gi'eater  liability  to  err.  So  with  regard  to  num- 
 bers ;  for  letters  alike  in  shape  bemg  used  as  numerals,  were 
 easily  interchanged." 
 
 Again,  "  Letters  havmg  been  used  as  numerals  in  ancient 
 times,  one  letter  was  often  mistaken  for  another  by  transcribers, 
 and  hence  many  corruptions  got  int£)  the  text." 
 
 Winer  :  ^  "In  expressing  numbers,  the  Jews,  in  the  post-exile 
 period,  as  is  evident  from  the  incriptions  of  the  so-called  Samari- 
 tan coins,  employed  the  letters  of  the  alphabet ;  and  it  is  not 
 improbable  that  the  old  Hebrews  did  the  same,  just  as  the 
 Greeks,  who  derived  their  alphabet  from  the  Phoenicians,  ex- 
 pressed, from  the  earliest  ages,  numbers  by  letters." 
 
 "  From  the  confounding  of  simUarly-shaped  letters  when  used 
 for  numerals,  and  from  the  subsequent  writing  out  of  the  same 
 in  words  can  be  explained  satisfactorily  in  part  the  enormous 
 sums  in  the  Old  Testament  books,  and  the  contradictions  in 
 their  statements  of  numbers  ;  yet  caution  is  herein  necessary." 
 
 Gesenius  ^  expresses  himself  in  very  similar  language,  adduces 
 examples  illustrative  of  the  above  hypothesis,  and  pronounces 
 it  "  certainly  jDrobable  "  (allerdings  wahrscheinlich). 
 
 Glassius^  also  decides  in  favor  of  the  hypothesis,  and  discusses 
 the  subject  with  no  little  skill  and  ability. 
 
 1  On  Printed  Hebrew  Text,  i.  96. 
 
 2  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  108, 112. 
 
 ^  Eeal-Worterbuch,  Art.  "  Ziihlen." 
 
 *  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Spraclie  und  Schrift,  pp.  173,  174. 
 
 "  Philoloiria  Sacra,  Tom.  ii.  pp.  188-195  (Datlie  and  Baner's  edition). 
 See,  also,  J.  M.  Faber's  "  Literas  olim  pro  vocibus  in  numerando  a  scrip- 
 toribus  V.T.  esse  adhibitas."  —  Onoldi,  1775. 
 
24  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Isaac  Taylor :  ^  "  The  frequent  use  of  contractions  in  writ- 
 ing was  a  very  common  source  of  errors ;  for  many  of  these  ab- 
 breviations were  extremely  complicated,  obscure,  and  ambiguous, 
 so  that  an  unskilful  copyist  was  very  likely  to  mistake  one  word 
 for  another.  No  parts  of  ancient  books  have  suffered  so  much 
 from  errors  of  inadvertency  as  those  which  relate  to  numbers  ; 
 for  as  one  numeral  letter  was  easily  mistaken  for  another,  and 
 as  neither  the  sense  of  the  passage,  nor  the  rules  of  orthography 
 nor  of  syntax,  suggested  the  genuine  reading,  when  once  an 
 error  had  arisen,  it  would  most  often  be  perpetuated,  without 
 remedy.  It  is,  therefore,  almost  always  unsafe  to  rest  the  stress 
 of  an  argument  ujjon  any  statement  of  numbers  in  ancient 
 writers,  unless  some  correlative  computation  confirms  the  read- 
 ing of  the  text.  Hence  nothing  can  be  more  frivolous  or  unfair 
 than  to  raise  an  objection  against  the  veracity  or  accuracy  of  an 
 historian,  upon  some  apparent  incompatability  in  his  statement 
 of  numbers.  Difficulties  of  this  sort  it  is  much  better  to  attribute, 
 at  once,  to  a  corruption  of  the  text,  than  to  discuss  them  with 
 ill-spent  assiduity." 
 
 On  the  authority  of  these  scholars  and  critics,  of  creeds  widely 
 diverse,  yet  agreeing  in  this  particular,  we  may,  therefore,  easily 
 explain  many  of  the  contradictory  and  extravagant  numbers  ^ 
 which  we  find  in  the  historical  books  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 Also  certain  discrepancies  in  the  New  Testament  are  explicable 
 by  the  fact  that,  as  is  the  case  in  the  Codex  Bezae,  Greek 
 letters  bearing  a  close  resemblance  were  used  as  numerals^  and 
 hence  were  mistaken  for  one  another.  In  our  common  Greek 
 text,  the  number  "  six  hundred  three  score  and  six  "  is  indicated 
 simply  by  three  or  sometimes  four  characters.* 
 
 ^  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  pp.  24,  25. 
 
 ^  Glassius  observes, "  Modo  enim  numeros  invenimus,qui  omnem  modum 
 excedunt,  modo  si  eadem  res  in  duobus  libris  naiTatur,  in  altero  numerus 
 adfertur,  cui  alter  contradicit."  —  Phil.  Sacra,  DeCaussis  Corrnpt.  §  23. 
 
 '■^  In  the  Sinaitic  MS.,  "  numerals  arc  represented  by  letters,  with  a  straight 
 line  placed  over  them."  —  Scrivener's  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  78. 
 
 *  Either,  as  Tischendorf  also  writes,  xl^"',  or  else  xl^'"'"'.  Alford  writes, 
 in  full,  k^aKSaioi  k^T]KovTa.  €|.  —  See  Rev.  xiii.  18. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  25 
 
 We  thus  see  how  mistakes  in  respect  to  numbers  have  origi- 
 nated. 
 
 It  hardly  need  be  added  that  errors  as  to  names  have  arisen 
 in  the  same  way,  —  from  the  similarity  of  certain  letters.  Thus 
 we  find  Hadadezer  and  Hadarezer,^  a  Daleth  T  being  mistaken 
 for  a  Resh  i —  and  many  like  cases. 
 
 The  key  thus  furnished,  will  unlock  many  difficulties  dm-ing 
 the  progress  of  our  work. 
 
 10.  Multitudes  of  alleged  discrepancies  are  the  product  of 
 the  imagination  of  the  critic,  influenced  to  a  greater  or  less 
 degree  by  dogmatic  'prejudice. 
 
 Two  classes  of  writers  illustrate  tliis  remark.  Of  one  class 
 no  names  will  be  mentioned.  The  character,  spirit,  and  motives 
 of  these  writers  render  further  notice  of  them  inconsistent  with 
 the  purpose  of  our  work. 
 
 The  second  class  —  not  to  be  spoken  of  in  the  same  connec- 
 tion with  the  former  —  comprises  men  possessing,  in  not  a  few 
 cases,  valid  claims  to  scholarship,  to  critical  acumen  and  to 
 great  respectability  of  character.  Foremost  in  this  class  may 
 be  placed  De  Wette,  as  he  appears  in  his  earlier  writings,  and 
 Dr.  Samuel  Davidson,  as  he  is  seen  in  some  of  his  later  works. 
 It  is  painful  to  add  that  it  seems  impossible  to  acquit  even 
 these  authors  of  great  occasional  unfau-ness  in  then  handling 
 of  the  scriptures.^ 
 
 Next  —  but  by  a  long  interval  —  may  stand  the  names  of 
 Strauss,  Colenso,  and  Theodore  Parker.  One  can  scarcely  read 
 the  productions  of  these  three,  and  some  others  of  then*  school, 
 
 1  2  Sam.  viii.  3;  1  Chron.  xviii.  3. 
 
 ^  See,  under  "Ethical  Discrepancies,  —  Enemies  treated,"  an  instance 
 from  Baur,  relative  to  Rom.  xii.  20;  also,  one  from  De  Wette,  under  "  His- 
 torical Discrepancies,  —  Anak's  Sons'  Fate." 
 
 It  may  be  added  that  De  Wette,  as  is  p:enerally  admitted,  during  his 
 latter  years  approximated  to  orthodoxy.  On  the  contrary,  Dr.  Davidson's 
 tendencies  may  be  gathered  from  a  comparison  of  the  discussion  of  the 
 Discrepancies,  in  his  "  Sacred  Hermcneutics,''  pp.  516 — 611,  with  his  treat- 
 ment of  the  same,  in  Home's  Introduction  (tenth  edition),  Vol.  ii.  pp.  503- 
 553.     See,  also,  Dr.  Davidson's  Introduction  to  the  Old  Test.,  throughout. 
 
26  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 without  the  conviction  that  the  animus  of  these  writers  is  often 
 felicitously  expressed  by  the  old  Latin  motto,  slightly  modified : 
 "  I  will  either  find  a  (hscrepancy,  or  I  will  make  one  "  —  Aut 
 inveniam  discrepantiam,  aut  faciam. 
 
 Certain  rationalistic  authors  have  a  convenient  method  for 
 disposing  of  answers  to  the  objections  adduced  by  them.  They 
 begin  at  once  to  talk  loftily  of  the  "  higher  criticism,"  and  to 
 deride  the  answers  and  sohitions  as  "gratuitous  assum|)tions." 
 
 "  Pertness  and  ignorance,"  says  Bishop  liorne,^  "  may  ask  a 
 question  in  three  lines  which  it  will  cost  learning  and  ingenuity 
 thirty  pages  to  answer;  and  when  this  is  done,  the  same  question 
 shall  be  triumphantly  asked  again  the  next  year,  as  if  nothing 
 had  ever  been  written  on  the  subject."  Often,  when  fairly 
 answered  and  refuted,  these  authors  remind  us  of  the  homely 
 old  maxim : 
 
 "A  man  convinced  aj^ainst  his  will, 
 Is  of  the  same  opinion  still." 
 
 A  favorite  exegetical  principle  adopted  by  some  of  these 
 critics  appears  to  be,  that  similar  events  are  necessarily  identical. 
 Hence,  when  they  read  that  Abraham  twice  equivocated  con- 
 cerning his  wife  ;  ^  that  Isaac  imitated  his  example ;  *  that  David 
 was  twice  in  peril  in  a  certain  wilderness,*  and  twice  spared 
 Saul's  life  in  a  cave,"  they  instantly  assume  that  in  each  case 
 these  double  narratives  are  irreconcilable  accounts  of  one  and 
 the  same  event.  The  absurdity  of  such  a  canon  of  criticism  is 
 obvious,  from  the  fact  that  history  is  full  of  events  which  more 
 or  less  closely  resemble  one  another.  Take,  as  a  well-known 
 (;xami)le,  the  case  of  the  two  Presidents  Edwards,  father  and 
 son.  Both  were  named  Jonathan  Edwards,  and  were  the  grand- 
 sons of  clergymen.  "  Both  were  pious  in  their  youth,  were 
 distinguished  scholars,  and  were  tutors  for  equal  periods  in  the 
 colleges  where  they  were  respectively  educated.     Both  were 
 
 •  Works,  i.  ''92  (London  edition,  4  vols.  1S.')1) 
 
 '^  Gen.  xii.  19:  xx.  2.  '■^  (ien.  xxvi.  7.        *  1  Sam.  xxiii.  19;  xxvi.  1. 
 
 ^  1  Sam.  xxiv.  G:  xxvi.  y. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  27 
 
 settled  in  the  ministry  as  successors  to  their  maternal  grand- 
 fathers, were  dismissed  on  account  of  their  religious  opinions, 
 and  were  again  settled  in  retired  country  towns,  over  congre- 
 gations singularly  attached  to  them,  where  they  had  leisure  to 
 pursue  their  favorite  studies,  and  to  prepare  and  publish  their 
 valual)le  works.  Both  were  removed  from  these  stations  to 
 become  presidents  of  colleges,  and  both  died  shortly  after  their 
 respective  inaugurations;  the  one  in  the  fifty-sixth,  and  the 
 other  in  the  fifty-seventh  year  of  his  age  ;  each  having  preached, 
 on  the  first  Sabbath  of  the  year  of  his  death,  on  the  text :  '  This 
 year  thou  shalt  die.'  "  ^ 
 
 Now,  let  these  circumstances  be  submitted  for  the  consider- 
 ation of  rationalistic  critics,  and,  the  probable  decision  will  be 
 that  there  was  but  one  Jonathan  Edwards. 
 
 We  thus  see  that,  if  critics  dared  to  tamper  with  the  facts  of 
 secular,  as  they  do  with  those  of  sacred,  liistory,  they  would 
 justly  incur  the  ridicule  of  all  well-informed  persons.  Men 
 clamor  for  the  treatment  of  the  Bible  like  any  other  book,  yet 
 treat  it  as  they  c/are  not  treat  another  book.  Herein  lies  the 
 inconsistency  of  much  of  the  current  criticism ;  particularly  of 
 that  "  higher  criticism  "  of  which  we  hear  so  much. 
 
 The  following  case  illustrates  a  spirit  and  practice  not  seldom 
 exhibited  l)y  certain  authors :  "  A  Swedish  traveller,  in  looking 
 through  Voltaire's  library,  found  Calmet's  Commentary,  with 
 slips  of  paper  inserted,  on  which  the  difficulties  noticed  by 
 Calmet  were  set  down,  without  a  word  about  the  solutions  which 
 were  given  by  him.  '  This,'  adds  the  Swede,  who  was  otherwise 
 a  gi-eat  admirer  of  Voltaire,  '  was  not  honorable.' "  "  Our  mod- 
 ern critics,"  continues  Hengstenberg,^  "  have  adopted  exactly 
 the  same  line  of  conduct." 
 
 ^  See  Memoir  prefixed  to  "Works  of  Edwards  the  younger,  p.  xxxiv. 
 Observe  that  no  one  of  the  aV)ove  cases  bears,  in  respect  to  points  of  coin- 
 cidence,  worthy  comparison  with  this  unquestioned  instance  in  modem 
 times. 
 
 -  Genuineness  of  Pent.  i.  47. 
 
28  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 We  cannot  but  concur  in  the  judgment  couched  in  this  and 
 the  following  quotations. 
 
 Prof.  Henry  Rogers,^  criticising  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  says 
 it  ought  to  be  entitled,  "  A  collection  of  all  the  difficulties  and 
 discrepancies  which  honest  criticism  has  discovered,  and  per- 
 verted ingenuity  has  imagined,  in  the  four  evangelists." 
 
 Again,  alluding  to  Strauss's  objections,  "•  The  paraded  dis- 
 crepancies are  frequently  assumed ;  sometimes  even  manufac- 
 tured." This  criticism  is  supported  by  several  illustrations  from 
 the  German  author,  and  is  as  apj)licable  to  his  "  New  Life  of 
 Jesus,"  as  to  his  earlier  work. 
 
 The  learned  translator  of  Bleek  ^  severely,  yet  fitly,  desig- 
 nates the  course  pursued  by  certain  authors  as  that  "  exaggeration 
 of  difficulties,  that  ostentatious  parading  of  grounds  of  suspicion, 
 which  so  painfully  characterize  much  of  the  later  biblical 
 criticism,  and  not  unwarrantably  give  rise  to  the  question 
 whether  there  be  not  some  secret  ground  of  malevolence,  some 
 unacknowledged,  but  most  influential  desire  to  find  reasons  for 
 an  already  existing  unbelief,  to  account  for  the  bitter  and  de- 
 termined hostility  with  which  the  books  are  treated." 
 
 It  is  a  lamentable  fact  that  there  is  abroad  in  the  world,  and 
 bearing  the  name  of  Christianity,  a  spirit  wliich,  as  Canon 
 Wordsworth  ^  well  says,  "  speaks  fair  words  of  Christ,  and  yet 
 it  loves  to  invent  discrepancies,  and  to  imagine  contradictions 
 in  the  narratives  which  his  apostles  and  evangelists  delivered 
 of  his  birth,  his  temptation,  his  miracles,  his  agony,  his  sufferings, 
 his  resurrection,  and  ascension."  We  refrain  from  character- 
 izing that  Christianity  which  seeks  to  disjiarage  its  own  sacred 
 books,  and  to  undermine  its  own  foundation. 
 
 Such  arc  the  spirit  and  methods  of  much  of  the  sceptical 
 criticism  —  even  of  the  so-called  "higher  criticism" — of  our 
 day. 
 
 ^  Reason  and  Faith,  pp.  424,  427  (Boston  edition). 
 ^  Preface  to  Introduction  to  Old  Test. 
 ^  Preface  to  Greek  Four  Gospels,  p.  viii. 
 
ORIGIN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  29 
 
 A  careful  and  protracted  examination  of  the  works  of  nu- 
 merous authors,  who  from  various  jDOsitions  and  under  various 
 pretences  assail  the  Bible,  warrants,  as  neither  unjust  noi- 
 uncharitable,  the  remark  that  a  large  portion  of  their  alleged 
 "  discrepancies  "  are  purely  subjective  —  originating,  primarily, 
 not  in  the  sacred  books,  but  in  the  misguided  prejudices  and 
 disordered  imagination  of  the  critic. 
 
 We  might  also  have  adduced  the  very  great  compression  of 
 the  narrative  as  a  fruitful  source  of  apparent  incongruities. 
 Such  was  the  condensation  which  the  writers  were  constrained 
 to  employ,  that,  in  any  given  case,  only  a  few  of  the  more 
 salient  circumstances  could  be  introduced.  Had  the  sacred 
 historians  undertaken  to  relate  every  circumstance,  the  Bible, 
 instead  of  being  comprised  in  a  single  volume,  would  have 
 filled  many  volumes,  and  would  consequently  have  proved 
 unwieldy,  and  well  nigh  useless  to  mankind. 
 
 If  "the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books"  which 
 should  minutely  detail  all  our  Saviour's  acts,^  how  much  less 
 could  it  "  contain  "  those  which  should  narrate  circumstantially 
 the  history  of  all  the  important  personages  mentioned  in  the 
 scriptures. 
 
 We  thus  see  that,  with  reference  to  any  given  event,  a  host 
 of  minute  particulars  have  dropped  from  the  knowledge  of 
 mankind,  and  are  lost  beyond  recovery.  Hence,  in  many 
 instances,  the  thread  of  the  narrative  is  not  simply  not  obvious, 
 but  can  only  be  recovered,  if  at  all,  by  prolonged  and  searching 
 scrutiny.  That  circumstances,  combined  in  so  fragmentary 
 and  disconnected  a  manner,  should  sometimes  appear  incom- 
 patible, is  a  fact  too  familiar  to  need  illustration. 
 1  John  xxi.  25. 
 3* 
 
CHAPTER    II. 
 
 DESIGN  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 Why  were  the  discrepancies  permitted  to  exist  ?  What  good 
 end  do  they  contemplate  ? 
 
 1.  Tliey  were  doubtless  intended  as  a  stimulus  to  the  human 
 intellect,  as  provocative  of  mental  effort.  They  serve  to  awaken 
 curiosity  and  to  appeal  to  the  love  of  novelty. 
 
 The  Bible  is  a  wonderful  book.  No  other  has  been  studied 
 so  much,  or  called  forth  a  tithe  of  the  criticism  which  tliis  has 
 elicited.  "  No  book,  not  nature  itself,  has  ever  waked  up  intel- 
 lectual activity  like  the  Bible.  On  the  battle-field  of  truth,  it 
 has  ever  been  round  this  that  the  conflict  has  raged.  Wliat 
 book  besides  ever  caused  the  writing  of  so  many  other  books  ? 
 Take  from  the  libraries  of  Christendom  all  those  which  have 
 sprung,  I  will  not  say  indirectly,  but  directly  from  it,  —  those 
 written  to  oppose,  or  defend,  or  elucidate  it,  —  and  how  would 
 they  be  diminished !  The  very  multitude  of-  infidel  books  is  a 
 witness  to  the  power  with  which  the  Bible  stimulates  the  intel- 
 lect. Why  do  we  not  see  the  same  amount  of  active  intellect 
 coming  up,  and  dashing  and  roaring  around  the  Koran  ?  "  ^ 
 
 The  discrepancies  of  the  sacred  volume  have  played  no  insig- 
 nificant part  in  this  incitement  of  mental  action.  Though  but  a 
 subordinate  characteristic,  they  have  prompted  men  to  ''search 
 the  scriptures,"  and  to  ask :  IIow  are  these  difficulties  to  be  re- 
 solved ?  Things  which  are  "  hard  to  be  understood,"  present 
 special  attractions  to  the  inquhing  mind.  Professor  Park  ^  "ob- 
 serves, in  an  admirable  essay  on  the  choice  of  Texts,  "  Some- 
 times a  deeper  interest  is  awakened  by  examining  two  or  more 
 
 ^  President  Hopkins,  Evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  144. 
 2  Bib.  Sacra,  Oct.  1873.  pp.  717,  718. 
 
DESIGN   OF    THE   DISCREPANCIES.  31 
 
 passages  which  apjxjar  to  contradict  each  other  than  by  exam- 
 ining two  or  more  which  resemble  each  other.  Men  are  eager 
 to  learn  the  meaning  and  force  of  a  text,  one  part  of  which  is 
 John  XV.  15:  'All  things  that  I  have  heard  of  my  Father  I 
 have  made  known  unto  you,'  and  the  other  part  is  John  xvi. 
 12-:  'I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you  ;  but  ye  cannot 
 bear  them  now.'  Why  did  our  Lord  utter  the  second  part  of 
 this  tex^i after  the  first  part,  yet  in  the  same  hour  w^ith  it?  The 
 Bible  rouses  the  mind  from  its  torpid  state  by  declaring  that 
 man  dieth  and  is  not,  and  yet  lives  forever ;  that  man  is  a  worm 
 of  the  dust,  and  yet  is  made  little  lower  than  the  angels  ;  that 
 he  must  love,  and  yet  hate  his  father,  mother,  brother,  sister ; 
 that  every  man  must  bear  his  own  burden,  and  yet  each  one 
 bear  the  burdens  of  his  brethren  ;  that  man's  body  will  be  raised 
 from  the  grave,  and  yet  not  the  same  body ;  that  Christ  was 
 ignorant  of  some  things,  and  yet  knew  all  things  ;  that  he  could 
 not  bear  his  own  cross,  and  yet  upholdeth  all  things  by  the  word 
 of  his  power.  When  two  classes  of  passages  stand  in  apparently 
 hostile  array  against  each  other  at  the  opening  of  a  sermon,  the 
 somnolent  hearer  is  kept  awake  in  order  to  see  how  the  conflict 
 will  end.  He  may  be  raised  by  the  discourse  from  his  natural 
 love  of  learning  the  truth  to  a  gracious  love"  of  the  truth 
 which  is  learned." 
 
 Whately  ^  says :  "  The  seeming  contradictions  m  scripture 
 are  too  numerous  not  to  be  the  result  of  design ;  and  doubtless 
 were  designed,  not  as  mere  difficulties  to  try  our  faith  and 
 patience,  but  as  furnisliing  the  most  suitable  mode  of  instruction 
 that  could  have  been  devised,  by  mutually  explaining  and 
 modifying  or  limiting  or  extending  one  another's  meaning." 
 
 Elsewhere,  urging  the  same  thought,  he  observes  :  ''  Instruc- 
 tions thus  conveyed  are  evidently  more  striking  and  more  likely 
 to  arouse  the  attention ;  and  also,  from  the  very  circumstance 
 that  they  call  for  careful  reflection,  more  likely  to  make  a 
 lasting  impression." 
 
 1  On  Difficulties  in  Writings  of  St.  Paul,  Essay  vii.  Sec.  4. 
 
32  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Again,  illustrating,  as  beautifully  as  suggestively,  by  the 
 case  of  the  marmer  who  steers  uiidway  between  certain  land- 
 marks, he  adds:  "Even  thus,  it  will  often  happen  that  two 
 apparently  opposite  passages  of  scripture  may  together  enable 
 us  to  direct  our  faith  or  our  practice  aright ;  one  shall  be  cal- 
 culated to  guard  us  against  certain  errors  on  one  side,  and  the 
 other,  on  the  other  side ;  neither,  taken  alone,  shall  convey  the 
 exact  and  entire  truth;  but  both  taken  in  conjunction  may 
 enable  us  sufficiently  to  ascertain  it."  He  also  mgeniously 
 compares  the  colliding  texts  to  several  mechanical  forces  or 
 impulses,  acting  upon  a  body  to  be  set  in  motion ;  their  resultant 
 impelling  it  in  the  direction  required,  though  no  one  of  the 
 impulses,  taken  singly,  is  acting  precisely  in  that  direction. 
 
 The  rabbles  have  a  saying  that  "  the  book  of  Chronicles  was 
 given  for  argument,"  that  is,  to  incite  men  to  investigation  and 
 discussion.^  The  history  of  sacred  criticism  demonstrates  that 
 the  book  has  answered  this  purpose  remarkably  well ;  its  dis- 
 crepancies being  salient   points  which  attract  attention. 
 
 Not  only  do  these  "  hard  "  things  induce  men  to  investigate  the 
 sacred  volume ;  but  meanwhile  resolving  themselves  before  the 
 steady  and  patient  eye  of  the  student,  they  unfold  deep  and 
 rich  meanings  which  amply  reward  his  toil.  This  process  is 
 exemplified  in  the  case  of  the  scholar  quoted  above.  He  ob- 
 serves :  "  I  well  remember  when  it  seemed  to  me  that  there  was 
 a  direct  contradiction  between  Paul  and  James  on  the  subject 
 of  faith  and  works.  I  can  now  see  that  they  not  only  do  not 
 contradict  each  other,  but  harmonize  perfectly."  ^ 
 
 Says  Professor  Stuart : ^  "In  the  early  part  of  my  biblical 
 studies,  some  thirty  to  thirty-five  years  ago,  when  I  first  began 
 the  critical  investigation  of  the  scriptures,  doubts  and  difficulties 
 started  up  on  every  side,  like  the  armed  men  whom  Cadmus  is 
 
 *  Rashi,  referring  to  1  Chron.  viii.  38,  "And  Azel  had  six  sons,"  quaintly 
 and  pithily  observes :  "What  the  wise  men  have  said  about  these  'six 
 sons/  would  load  thirteen  thousand  camels." 
 
 '■*  Evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  354. 
 
 3  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  18.    Revised  ed.  p.  16. 
 
DESIGN   OP   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  33 
 
 fabled  to  have  raised  up.  Time,  patience,  continued  study,  a 
 better  acquaintance  with  the  original  scriptural  languages  and 
 the  countries  where  the  sacred  books  were  written,  have  scat- 
 tered to  the  winds  nearly  all  these  doubts." 
 
 In  this  manner,  the  difficulties  of  scripture  often  keenly  stim- 
 ulate and  richly  reward  intellectual  effort. 
 
 2.  They  were  meant  to  be  illustrative  of  the  analogy  between 
 the  Bible  and  nature,  and  so  to  evince  then'  common  origin. 
 The  "  self-contradictions  "  of  the  Bible  are  produced  on  a  grander 
 scale  in  nature.  Wherever  we  turn  our  eyes,  the  material 
 universe  affords  unmistakable  traces  of  infinite  wisdom,  power, 
 and  benevolence.  The  starry  heavens,  the  earth  robed  in 
 vernal  green,  the  bright,  glad  sunshhie,  the  balmy  breezes,  the 
 refreshing  dews  and  showers,  the  sweet  song  birds,  the  flowers 
 of  brilliant  hues  and  delicious  odors,  the  wonderful  and  countless 
 forms  of  vegetation,  the  infinite  varieties  of  insect  and  animal 
 life,  the  nice  adaptations  and  benevolent  contrivances  for  their 
 welfare  everywhere  visible  in  nature  —  all  these  proclaim  the 
 attributes  and  speak  forth  the  praise  of  the  Creator. 
 
 But,  looking  into  the  same  arena  from  another  point  of  view, 
 we  see  a  very  different  spectacle.  Want  and  wo,  sorrow  and 
 suffering,  appear  dominant  in  the  world.  Frost  and  fire,  famine 
 and  pestilence,  earthquake,  volcano,  and  hurricane,  war  and 
 intemperance,  a  thousand  diseases  and  ten  thousand  accidents, 
 are  doing  their  deadly  work  upon  our  fellow-creatures.  All 
 this  fearfid  devastation  is  going  on  in  a  world  created  and 
 governed  by  infinite  wisdom,  power,  and  love.  ISIilton's  terrible 
 picture  ^  too  often  finds  its  counterpart.     Nowhere  in  the  Bible 
 
 ^  "  Immediately  a  place 
 
 Before  his  eyes  appeared,  sad,  noisome,  dark, 
 A  lazar-house  it  seemed,  wherein  were  laid 
 Nmnbers  of  all  diseased,  all  maladies 
 Of  ghastly  spasm  or  racking  torture,  qualms 
 Of  heart-sick  agony,  all  feverous  kinds, 
 Convulsions,  epilepsies,  fierce  catarrhs. 
 Intestine  stone  and  ulcer,  colic  pangs, 
 Demoniac  frenzy,  moping  melancholy, 
 
34  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 do  we  behold  such  a  gigantic  inconsistency,  such  an  irrepressible 
 conflict,  as  in  the  scene  before  us.  Let  a  man  solve  the  grand 
 problem  of  the  ages ;  let  him  tell  us  why  an  infinitely  wise, 
 powerful,  and  benevolent  Creator  allowed  evil  to  enter  at  all 
 his  universe  —  let  him  exj^lain  this  contradiction,  and  we  may 
 safely  engage  to  explain  those  which  occur  in  the  Bible.  For 
 none  of  them  —  not  all  together  —  are  so  dark,  unfathomable, 
 and  appalling  as  this  one  grand,  ultimate  Discrepancy.  Says 
 Origen :  "  He  who  believes  the  scripture  to  have  proceeded 
 from  him  who  is  the  Author  of  nature,  may  well  expect  to  find 
 the  same  sort  of  difficulties  in  it  as  are  found  in  the  constitution 
 of  nature."  Bishop  Butler^  pertinently  adds,  that  "he  who 
 denies  the  scripture  to  have  been  from  God,  on  account  of 
 these  difficulties,  may,  for  the  very  same  reason,  deny  the  world 
 to  have  been  formed  by  him." 
 
 In  nature,  then,  we  perceive  mighty  discords,  tremendous 
 antagonisms,  which  m  appearance  seriously  involve  and  mili- 
 tate against  the  character  and  attributes  of  God.  Nevertheless, 
 nature  is  confessedly  his  work.  Now,  we  find  the  Bible  claim- 
 ing the  same  supernatural  origin,  and  exhibiting,  among  other 
 features  of  resemblance,  similar,  though  far  less  important, 
 discrepancies ;  hence  these  latter  afford  a  vahd  presumption  in 
 favor  of  its  claim. 
 
 Nearly  in  the  same  line  of  thought,  says  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  :^ 
 "  The  universe  teems  with  evidences  of  design,  so  manifold,  so 
 
 And  moon-struck  madness,  pining  atrophy, 
 Marasmus,  and  widc-wastin<i:  pestilence. 
 Dropsies  and  asthmas,  and  joint-rackinjj:  rheums. 
 
 Dire  was  the  tossing,  deep  the  groans;  Despair 
 Tended  the  sick,  busiest,  from  couch  to  couch; 
 And  over  them  triumphant  Death  his  dart 
 Shook,  hut  delayed  to  strike,  though  oft  invoked 
 With  vows,  as  their  chief  good  and  final  hope. 
 
 Sight  so  deform,  what  heart  of  rock  could  long 
 Dry -eyed  behold?"  — Par.  Lost,  B.  xi,  line  477-495. 
 *  Introduction  to  Analogy,  p.  70  (Malcom's  edition). 
 2  Theology,  i.  170. 
 
DESIGN  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES.  35 
 
 diverse,  so  wonderful  as  to  overwhelm  the  mhid  with  the  con- 
 viction that  it  has  had  an  intelligent  author.  Yet  here  and 
 there  isolated  cases  of  monstrosity  appear.  It  is  irrational, 
 because  we  cannot  account  for  such  cases,  to  deny  that  the 
 universe  is  the  product  of  intelligence.  So  the  Christian  need 
 not  renounce  his  faith  in  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the  Bible, 
 although  there  may  be  some  things  about  it,  in  its  present  state, 
 which  he  cannot  account  for." 
 
 If  we  may  credit  the  philosophers,  even  the  liigher  walks  of 
 science  are  not  free  from  "  stumbling-blocks."  Kant,  Hamilton, 
 and  Mansel  teach  that  our  reason,  that  the  necessary  laws  of 
 thought  wliich  govern  our  mental  operations,  lead  to  absolute 
 contradictions.^  Mansel  ^  observes,  "  The  conception  of  the 
 Absolute  and  Infinite,  from  whatever  side  we  view  it,  appears 
 encompassed  with  contradictions.  There  is  a  contradiction  in 
 supposing  such  an  object  to  exist,  whether  alone  or  in  conjunc- 
 tion with  others ;  and  there  is  a  contradiction  in  supposing  it 
 not  to  exist.  There  is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  one ; 
 and  there  is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  many.  There 
 is  a  contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  personal ;  and  there  is  a 
 contradiction  in  conceiving  it  as  impersonal.  It  cannot  without 
 contradiction  be  represented  as  active ;  nor  without  equal  con- 
 tradiction be  represented  as  inactive.  It  cannot  be  conceived 
 as  the  sum  of  all  existence ;  nor  yet  can  it  be  conceived  as  a 
 part  only  of  that  sum." 
 
 Again  he  says,  "  It  is  our  duty,  then,  to  think  of  God  as  per- 
 sonal ;  and  it  is  our  duty  to  believe  that  he  is  infinite.  It  is 
 true  that  we  cannot  reconcile  these  two  representations  with 
 each  other ;  as  om*  conception  of  personality  involves  attributes 
 apparently  contradictory  to  the  notion  of  infinity." 
 
 It  would  seem  that  our  prospect  of  escaping  contradictions 
 by  casting  the  Bible  aside  and  betaking  ourselves  to  philosophy, 
 is  quite  unpromising.      Notwithstanding   the   "discrepancies," 
 
 1  Dr.  Hodge,  Theology,  i.  362. 
 
 2  Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  pp.  84,  85,  and  106  (American  edition). 
 
36  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  wisest  course  may  be  to  retain  the  Bible  for  the  present,  and 
 await  further  developments. 
 
 3.  The  disagreements  of  scripture  were  beyond  question 
 designed  as  a  strong  incidental  proof  that  there  was  no  collusion 
 among  the  sacred  writers.  Their  differences,  go  far  to  establish 
 in  this  way,  the  credibility  of  these  authors. 
 
 The  inspired  narratives  exhibit  "  substantial  agreement  with 
 circumstantial  variation."  This  is  precisely  what  a  court  of 
 justice  requires  in  respect  of  the  testimony  of  witnesses.  Should 
 their  evidence  agree  precisely  in  every  word  and  syllable,  this 
 fact  would  be  held  by  the  court  proof  of  conspiracy.  The 
 well-known  "  Howland  will  case,"  ^  in  New  Bedford,  some  years 
 since,  affords  an  illustration  of  the  principle.  In  this  famous 
 case  some  one  or  two  millions  of  dollars  was  at  stake,  and  over 
 one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars  were  expended  for  costs 
 and  counsel  fees  in  two  years.  Upon  the  case  were  brought 
 to  bear  the  resources  of  many  of  the  ablest  counsel  in  New 
 England,  and  the  skill  of  the  most  ingenious  scientific  experts 
 of  the  United  States.  The  main  issue  of  fact  raised  was 
 whether  the  signature  to  the  second  page  was  written  by  Miss 
 Howland,  or  whether  it  was  a  forgery.  The  minute  and  exact 
 resemblance  of  the  first  and  second  signatures,  in  all  points,  was 
 the  gi'and  stumbling-block  in  the  case.  In  a  word,  the  signa- 
 tures agreed  too  well. 
 
 Now,  had  the  biblical  writers  agreed  in  all  particulars,  even 
 the  minutest,  had  there  been  no  discrepancies  in  then'  testimony, 
 the  cry  of  "  Collusion,  Collusion ! "  would  have  passed  along 
 the  whole  infidel  line,  from  Celsus  and  Porphyry  down  to 
 Colenso  and  Renan.  We  maintain,  therefore,  that  the  very 
 discrepancies,  lying  as  they  do  upon  the  surface,  without  reach- 
 ing the  subject-matter,  the  kernel  of  scripture,  —  and  being, 
 moreover,  capable  of  adjustment, —  are  so  many  proofs  of  its 
 authenticity  and  credibility. 
 
 As  to  the  "  various  readings,"^  in  the  manuscripts  of  the  New 
 
 *  See  American  Law  Review,  July,  1870,  pp.  G25-663. 
 "  This  term  denotes  differences  in  the  spelling,  choice,  and  ananfj^ement 
 of  words  in  the  Greek  text. 
 
DESIGN   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  37 
 
 Testament,  Wordsworth^  says,  "  These  discrepancies  being 
 such  as  they  are  found  to  be,  are  of  inestimable  value.  They 
 show  that  there  has  been  no  collusion  among  our  witnesses,  and 
 that  our  manuscript  copies  of  the  Gospels,  about  five  hundred 
 in  number,  and  brought  to  us  from  all  parts  of  the  world,  have 
 not  been  mutilated  or  interpolated  with  any  sinister  design; 
 that  they  have  not  been  tampered  with  by  any  rehgious  sect, 
 for  the  sake  of  propagating  any  private  opinion  as  the  word  of 
 God.  These  discrepancies  are,  in  fact,  evidences  of  the  purity 
 and  integrity  of  the  sacred  text.  They  show  that  the  scriptures 
 which  we  now  hold  in  our  hands  in  the  nineteenth  century,  are 
 identical  with  those  which  were  received  by  the  church  in  the 
 first  century  as  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  That  the  "  various 
 readings  "  are  thus  proofs  of  the  substantial  identity  of  our  New 
 Testament  with  the  inspired  original  is  clear.  The  Greek  Tes- 
 tament has  come  down  to  us,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  un- 
 impaired. Each  of  the  five  hundred  manuscripts,  with  its  sHght 
 variations  in  the  orthogi-aphy,  selection,  and  collocation  of  words, 
 is  an  independent  witness  to  this  fact. 
 
 The  disagreements  of  the  sacred  writers  effectually  bar  the 
 charge  of  ''  conspiracy  "  on  their  part. 
 
 4.  Another  object  of  the  discrepancies  was,  it  may  be  presumed, 
 to  lead  us  to  value  the  spirit  beyond  the  letter  of  the  scriptures,  to 
 prize  the  essentials  of  Christianity  rather  than  its  form  and  acci- 
 dents. Many  things  point  in  the  same  direction.  For  example, 
 we  have  no  portrait  of  Jesus,  no  authentic  description  of  liis  per- 
 son. No  wood  of  the  "  true  cross  "  remains  to  our  day.  It  is  not 
 difficult  to  divine  the  reason  why  no  relics  of  this  kind  are  left  to 
 us.  Suppose  the  original  text  of  the  holy  volume  had  been 
 miraculously  transmitted,  in  the  very  hand-writing  of  the  authors, 
 and  perfect  in  every  letter  and  figure.  The  world  would  have 
 gone  mad  over  it.  Idolatry  the  most  stupendous  would  have 
 accumulated  around  it.  Crusades  more  bloody  and  disastrous 
 than  those  for  the  recovery  of  the  holy  sepulchre,  would  have 
 
 ^  Preface  to  Greek  Four  Gospels,  p.  xxii. 
 4 
 
38  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 been  conducted  for  its  possession.  It  would  have  ensanguined 
 and  darkened  the  whole  history  of  the  Christian  religion.  Men 
 would  have  worshipped  the  letter  in  flagrant  opposition  to  the 
 spirit  of  the  sacred  book.  Doubtless,  with  a  view  to  counteract 
 this  tendency  to  idolatry  and  formalism,  the  scriptures  are  given 
 to  us  in  their  present  condition.  Our  attention  is  thereby 
 diverted  from  the  external  and  formal  features  to  the  internal 
 and  essential  elements  of  scripture. 
 
 The  numerous  manuscripts  with  their  trivial  differences,  the 
 so-called  "  imperfections  "  of  our  present  text,  together  with  the 
 "  self-contradictions  "  of  the  sacred  books  —  all  afford  a  fresh 
 application  and  illustration  of  the  inspired  saying,  "  The  letter 
 killeth,  but  the  spirit  giveth  life." 
 
 5.  The  biblical  discrepancies  were  plainly  appointed  as  a  test 
 of  moral  character ;  and,  probably,  to  serve  an  important 
 judicial  purpose.  They  may  be  regarded  as  constituting  no 
 insignificant  element  of  the  means  and  conditions  of  man's 
 probation. 
 
 There  is  a  peculiar  and  striking  analogy  and  harmony  between 
 the  external  form  and  the  interior  doctrines  of  the  Bible.  Both 
 alike  present  difficulties  —  sometimes  formidable  —  to  the  in- 
 quirer. Both  alike  put  his  sincerity  and  firmness  to  full  proof. 
 Hence,  as  Grotius  ^  has  fitly  said,  the  Gospel  becomes  a  touch- 
 stone to  test  the  honesty  of  men's  dispositions. 
 
 Our  Saviour's  teachings  were  often  clothed  in  forms  which 
 to  the  indifferent  or  prejudiced  hearer  must  have  seemed 
 obscure,  if  not  offensive.  To  the  caviling  and  sceptical  Jews 
 he  spoke  many  things  in  parables,  that  seeing  they  might  see 
 and  not  perceive,  and  hearing  they  might  hear  and  not  under- 
 stand.^ When  he  said,  "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
 Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you,"  ^  he  inten- 
 tionally used  such  phraseology  as  would  be  repugnant  to 
 insincere  and  squeamish  hearers.     He  thus  tested  and  disclosed 
 
 ^  De  Yeritatc  Ileligionis  Christianac,  lib.  ii,  h  19.  ^  Mark  iv.  12. 
 
 ^  Jolm  vi.  53 
 
DESIGN  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES.  39 
 
 men's  characters  and  motives,  and  sifted  out  the  chaff  among 
 his  hearers.  "  From  that  time,  many  of  his  disciples  went  back, 
 and  walked  no  more  with  liim."  ^  The  seeming  harshness  and 
 obscm'ity  of  liis  sayings  served  to  rid  him  of  those  followers 
 who  were  not  of  teachable  spirit,  and  thoroughly  in  earnest, 
 and  who  would  not  look  beneath  the  surface.  The  indolent 
 and  superficial,  the  proud  and  fastidious,  were  discouraged  and 
 repelled  by  the  rough  husk  in  which  the  doctrinal  kernel  was 
 encased. 
 
 In  an  analogous  manner,  the  apparent  contradictions  of  the 
 Bible  afford  "  opportunity  to  an  unfair  mind  for  explaining 
 away  and  deceitfully  hiding  from  itself  that  evidence  which  it 
 might  see."  ^  Our  treatment  of  the  external  no  less  than  that 
 of  the  internal  difficulties  of  scripture  beai's  an  intimate  relation 
 to  our  moral  character. 
 
 Those  who  are  disposed  to  cavil  do,  in  the  wise  arrangement 
 of  God,  find  opportunities  for  cavilmg.  The  disposition  does  not 
 miss  the  occasion. 
 
 In  the  words  of  Isaac  Taylor :  ^  "  The  very  conditions  of  a 
 Revelation  that  has  been  consigned"  to  various  records  in  the 
 course  of  thirty  centuries  involve  a  liability  to  the  renewal  of 
 exceptive  argumentation,  which  easily  finds  points  of  lodgment 
 
 upon  so  large  a  surface The  very  same  extent  of  surface 
 
 from  which  a  better  reason,  and  a  more  healthful  moral  feeling 
 gather  an  irresistible  conviction  of  the  nearness  of  God  through- 
 out it,  furnishes  to  an  astute  and  frigid  critical  faculty,  a  thousand 
 and  one  instances  over  which  to  proclaim  a  petty  triumph." 
 Or,  as  Pascal  ^  has  beautifully  expressed  it,  God  "  willing  to  be  > 
 revealed  to  those  who  seek  him  with  their  whole  heart,  and  liidden 
 from  those  who  as  cordially  fly  from  him,  has  so  regulated  the 
 means  of  knowing  him,  as  to  give  indications  of  himself,  which 
 are  plain  to  those  who  seek  Mm,  and  obscure  to  those  who  seek 
 
 ^  John  vi.  66.  2  Butler's  Analogy,  Part  il.  chap.  vi. 
 
 ^  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  preface. 
 
 *  Thoughts,  chap.  xiii.  Sec.  1  and  2  (Andover  edition). 
 
40  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 him  not.  There  is  light  enough  for  those  whose  main  wish  is  to 
 see ;  and  darkness  enough  for  those  of  an  opposite  disposition." 
 
 That  the  difficulties  of  the  Bible  were  mtended,  moreover, 
 to  serve  a  penal  end  seems  by  no  means  improbable.  Those 
 persons  who  cherish  a  cavilling  spirit,  who  are  bent  upon  mis- 
 apprehending the  truth,  and  urging  captious  and  frivolous  objec- 
 tions, find  in  the  insjDired  volume,  difficulties  and  disagreements 
 which  would  seem  to  have  been  designed  as  stumbling-stones 
 for  those  which  "stumble  at  the  word,  being  disobedient: 
 whereunto  also  they  were  api^ointed."  ^  Ui^on  the  wilful  votaries 
 of  error  God  sends  '"  strong  delusion,  that  they  should  believe  a 
 lie,"  ^  that  they  might  work  out  their  own  condemnation  and 
 ruin. 
 
 "  If  we  disparage  scripture,  and  treat  it '  as  any  other  book,' 
 then  Almighty  God,  who  is  the  author  of  scripture,  will  punish  us 
 by  our  own  devices.  He  will '  choose  our  delusions ' ;  he  will 
 *  chastise  us  by  our  wickedness,'  and  '  reprove  us  by  our  back- 
 slidings,'  and  'give  us  the  reward  of  our  own  hands.'  Our 
 presumption  and  our  irreverence  will  be  the  instruments  of 
 our  punishment."  ^  In  the  divine  government  of  this  world,  sin 
 not  infrequently  carries  its  reward  in  its  own  bosom. 
 
 When  the  difficulties  of  scrij^ture  are  apjDroached  with  a 
 docile  and  reverent  mind,  they  may  tend  to  our  establishment 
 in  the  faith  ;  but,  when  they  are  dealt  with  in  a  querulous  and 
 disingenuous  manner,  they  may  become  judicial  agencies  in 
 linking  to  caviling  scepticism  its  appropriate  penalty  —  even 
 to  the  loss  of  the  soul. 
 
 MPet.  ii.  8.  2  2Thcss.  ii.  11. 
 
 3  Replies  to  Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  485  (English  edition). 
 
CHAPTER    III. 
 
 RESULTS  OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 "What  is  the  effect  of  the  discrepancies,  in  relation  to  the 
 integrity  of  the  text,  and  to  the  moral  influence  of  the  Bible  ? 
 
 1.  They  neither  unsettle  the  text,  nor  essentially  impair  its 
 integrity.  They  fail  to  vitiate  it,  in  any  appreciable  degree. 
 The  conclusion  reached  by  eminent  scholars  and  critics,  after 
 protracted  and  thorough  investigation,  is,  that  the  sacred  text 
 has  been  transmitted  to  us  virtually  unaltered. 
 
 Says  Isaac  Taylor,^  "  The  evidence  of  the  genuineness  and 
 authenticity  of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  scriptures  has,  for  no 
 other  reason  than  a  thought  of  the  consequences  that  are  in- 
 volved in  an  admission  of  their  truth,  been  treated  with  an 
 unwarrantable  disregard  of  logical  equity,  and  even  of  the 
 dictates  of  common  sense.  The  poems  of  Anacreon,  the  trage- 
 dies of  Sophocles,  the  plays  of  Terence,  the  epistles  of  Pliny,  are 
 adjudged  to  be  safe  from  the  imputation  of  spuriousness,  or  of 
 material  corruption  ;  and  yet  evidence  ten  times  greater  as  to 
 its  quantity,  variety,  and  force,  supports  the  genuineness  of  the 
 poems  of  Isaiah,  and  the  epistles  of  Paul." 
 
 Bishop  Butler :  ^  "  There  may  be  mistakes  of  transcribers  ; 
 there  may  be  other  real  or  seeming  mistakes,  not  easy  to  be 
 particularly  accounted  for ;  but  there  are  certainly  no  more 
 things  of  this  kind  in  the  scripture,  than  what  were  to  have  been 
 expected  in  books  of  such  antiquity ;  and  notliing  in  any  wise 
 sufficient  to  discredit  the  general  narrative." 
 
 That  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  transmitted  to 
 
 ^  History  of  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  pp.  169-170. 
 ^  Analogy,  p.  288  (Malcom's  edition). 
 
 4*  41 
 
42  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 us  substantially  intact,  is  a  conceded  point.  In  all  but  a  few 
 unimportant  cases,  the  genuine  reading  is  settled  beyond  dispute. 
 The  candid  and  scholarly  Bleek  ^  asserts  that  "  the  Hebrew 
 manuscripts  have  been  preserved  unaltered  generally  ;  and  tliis 
 in  a  measure  of  wliich  we  find  no  second  example  in  other 
 works  which  have  been  multiplied  and  circulated  by  numerous 
 manuscripts." 
 
 Keil:^  "The  Old  Testament,  like  all  the  other  books  of 
 antiquity,  has  been  propagated  by  transcription.  And  thus  it 
 has  happened,  even  in  spite  of  the  great  care  with  which  the 
 Jews,  who  were  filled  with  unbounded  reverence  for  the  holy 
 scriptures,  watched  over  their  preservation  and  transmission 
 without  injury,  that  they  could  not  escape  the  common  lot  of 
 all  ancient  books.  In  the  course  of  rei:)eated  copying  many 
 small  errors  crept  into  the  text,  and  various  readings  came  into 
 existence,  which  lie  before  us  in  the  text  as  it  is  attested  in  the 
 records  belonging  to  the  various  centuries.  . . .  The  copyists 
 have  committed  these  errors  by  seeing  or  hearing  wrongly,  by 
 faitlilessness  of  memory,  and  by  other  misunderstandings ;  yet 
 not  arbitrarily  or  intentionally.  And  by  none  of  them  have 
 the  essential  contents  of  scripture  been  endangered." 
 
 Even  De  Wette,^  comparing  the  Egyptians,  Chaldeans,  and 
 Phoenicians  with  the  Hebrews,  observes,  "  From  the  former, 
 either  all  the  monuments  of  their  literature  have  perished  to 
 the  last  fragment,  or  only  single  melancholy  ruins  survive, 
 which  in  nothing  diminish  the  loss  of  the  rest ;  while,  on  the 
 contrary,  from  the  latter  there  is  still  extant  a  whole  library  of 
 authors,  so  valuable  and  ancient  that  the  writings  of  the  Greeks 
 are  in  comparison  extremely  young."  This  is  a  very  signif- 
 icant concession  from  one  of  the  leaders  of  modern  rationalism. 
 
 Gesenius'*  says,  "  To  state  here  in  few  words  my  creed,  as  to 
 the  condition  of  the  Hebrew  text  in  a  critical  respect.     It  can- 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  365.  ^  introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  294,  295. 
 
 3  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  23  (Parker's  edition). 
 *  Biblical  Repository,  ill.  41. 
 
RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  43 
 
 not  be  denied,  that  through  the  anxious  care  of  the  Jewish 
 critics,  the  text  has  been  in  general  very  well  preserved. 
 
 "  In  the  Hebrew  manuscripts,"  says  Prof.  Stuart,^  "  that  have 
 been  examined,  some  eight  hundred  thousand  various  readings 
 actually  occur,  as  to  the  Hebrew  consonants.  How  many  as 
 to  the  vowel-jDoints  and  accents,  no  man  knows.  And  the  like 
 to  this  is  true  of  the  New  Testament.  But,  at  the  same  time, 
 it  is  equally  true,  that  all  these  taken  together  do  not  change 
 or  materially  affect  any  important  point  of  doctrine,  precept,  or 
 even  histoiy.  A  great  proportion,  indeed  the  mass,  of  varia- 
 tions in  Hebrew  manuscrij^ts,  when  minutely  scanned,  amount 
 to  nothing  more  than  the  difference  in  spelling  a  multitude  of 
 Enorlish  words.  What  matters  it  as  to  the  meaninor,  whether 
 one  writes  honour  or  honor,  whether  he  writes  centre  or  center  ?  " 
 Such  scholars  as  Buxtorf,  Bleek,  Havernick,  Keil,  and  others, 
 affirm  that  the  Jews  took  such  extraordinary  care  in  copying 
 their  sacred  books,  "  that  it  was  a  practice  to  count  not  only  the 
 number  of  verses,  but  also  that  of  the  words,  and  even  of  the 
 letters  of  the  various  books,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  middle 
 verse,  the  middle  word,  and  the  middle  letter  of  each  book."  ^ 
 
 Keil^  remarks  that  the  Masora,  a  rabbinic  critical  work 
 ujDon  the  Old  Testament,  contains  an  "  enumeration  of  the 
 verses,  words,  and  letters  of  each  book ;  information  as  to  the 
 middle  word  and  middle  letter  of  each  book ;  enumeration  of 
 verses  which  contain  the  whole  consonants  of  the  alphabet,  or 
 only  so  many  of  them ;  and  also  of  words  which  occur  so  many 
 times  in  the  Bible  with  this  or  that  meaning,  and  of  words 
 written  '  plene,'  or  '  defective.' " 
 
 Parker,*  in  De  Wette,  gives,  from  Bishop  "Walton,  a  list  of 
 the  number  of  times  which  each  Hebrew  letter  occurs  in  the 
 Old  Testament.  The  same  list  may  be  found  in  Menasseh  ben 
 Israel's  Conciliator.^ 
 
 1  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  192.    Revised  ed.  p.  178. 
 
 •  Bleek's  Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  451,  452. 
 3  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  316. 
 
 *  Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  i.  357.  ^  Vol.  i.  p.  250. 
 
44  DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE    BIBLE. 
 
 Bishop  Herbert  Marsh  ^  has  the  following  very  just  infer- 
 ence :  "  When  we  consider  the  rules  which  were  observed  by 
 the  Jews  in  transcribing  the  sacred  writings,  rules  which  were 
 carried  to  an  accuracy  that  bordered  on  superstition,  there  is 
 reason  to  believe,  that  no  work  of  antiquity  has  descended  to 
 the  present  age  so  free  from  alteration,  as  the  Hebrew  Bible." 
 
 The  erudite  translator  ^  of  Outram  says,  "  There  are  not 
 wanting  proofs  of  the  most  scrupulous  care  of  the  Hebrew  text 
 on  the  part  of  the  Jews."  "  No  evidence  has  been  adduced  of 
 their  wilful  alteration  of  any  part  of  the  Hebrew  text."  It 
 was  by  such  scrupulous  and  minute  care  as  this,  that  the  Jews 
 preserved  their  sacred  books  from  any  important  variation  or 
 corruption. 
 
 Moreover,  notwithstanding  its  minute  discrepancies  and  "vari- 
 ous readings,"  the  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  better  estab- 
 lished than  that  of  any  other  ancient  book.  No  one  of  the 
 so-called  "  classics,"  not  Homer  nor  Herodotus,  compares  favor- 
 ably, in  this  respect,  with  the  New  Testament.  Says  Prof. 
 Stowe,^  "  Of  the  manuscript  copies  of  the  Greek  Testament, 
 from  seven  hundred  to  one  thousand  of  all  kinds  have  been 
 examined  already  by  critics,  and  of  these  at  least  fifty  are  more 
 than  one  thousand  years  old,  and  some  are  known  to  be  at 
 least  fifteen  hundred  years  old ;  while  the  oldest  of  the  Greek 
 classics  scarcely  reach  the  antiquity  of  nine  hundred  years,  and 
 of  these  the  number  is  very  small  indeed,  compared  with  those 
 of  the  Greek  Testament." 
 
 Among  the  Greek  classical  writers,  Herodotus  and  Plato  are 
 of  the  first  importance.  The  earliest  manuscripts  of  Herodotus 
 extant  are,  one  in  the  Imperial  library  at  Paris,  "executed  in 
 the  twelfth  century " ;  one  in  the  Florentine  library,  which 
 JNIontfaucon  assigns  to  the  tenth  century,  and  one  m  the  library 
 of  Emmanuel  College,  Cambridge,  England,  which  may  possibly 
 
 ^  Lectures  on  Criticism  and  Interpretation,  p.  57. 
 
 2  John  Allen,  in  Modern  Judaism,  pp.  G,  7  (Second  edition). 
 
 **  Origin  and  History  of  Books  of  Bible,  p.  CO. 
 
RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  45 
 
 have  been  written  in  the  ninth  century.^  One  of  the  earliest 
 manuscripts  of  Plato  is  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford,  and 
 was  executed  not  earlier  than  the  ninth  century. 
 
 Among  the  manuscripts  of  the  New  Testament,  we  have  the 
 Alexandrian,  written  about  a.d.  350  ;  the  Vatican,  written  about 
 A.D.  325 ;  the  Sinaitic,  of  date  equally  early ;  the  Ephraim 
 manuscript,  "  probably  somewhat  later  than  the  Alexandrian, 
 but  of  great  critical  value " ;  and  the  Beza  manuscript,  dating 
 about  A.D.  490.^  Other  scholars  substantially  concm-  in  these 
 dates,  though  Alf  ord  ^  and  Scrivener  *  assign  the  Alexandrian 
 manuscript  to  the  fifth  century ;  that  is,  A.D.  400-500. 
 
 Here,  then,  we  find  Jive  mamiscripts  of  the  Greek  New 
 Testament^  the  youngest  of  which  is  about  fourteen  hundred 
 years  old  ;  and  all  of  which  may  have  been  'prepared  by  persons 
 who  had  studied  the  original  manuscripts  written  by  the  apos- 
 tles themselves. 
 
 So  far,  therefore,  as  an  authenticated  and  settled  text  is 
 concerned,  the  classics  are  very  far  behind  the  New  Testament.^ 
 "  There  is  not,"  says  Tregelles,^ '"  such  a  mass  of  transmissional 
 evidence  in  favor  of  any  classical  work.  The  existing  manu- 
 scripts of  Herodotus  and  Thucydides  are  modern  enough  when 
 compared  with  some  of  those  of  the  New  Testament." 
 
 ^  Taylor's  History  of  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  pp.  276-278;  com- 
 pare Stowe,  p.  59. 
 
 -  Stowe,  pp.  65-77.  Sec,  also,  Alford,  Prolesromena  to  Greek  Four  Gos- 
 pels, pp.  107-116;  and  Scrivener,  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  pp.  76-103. 
 
 '^  Proleiromcna  to  Four  Gospels,  p.  107. 
 
 ^  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  p.  82. 
 
 ^  Dr.  Bentley,  in  his  annihilating  reply  to  Collins,  speaking  of  the  man- 
 uscript copies  of  Terence,  the  oldest  and  best  of  which,  now  in  the  Vatican 
 library,  has  "  hundreds  of  errors,"  observes,  "  I  myself  have  collated  sev- 
 eral, and  do  affirm  that  I  have  seen  twenty  thousand  various  lections  in  that 
 little  author,  not  near  so  big  as  the  New  Testament ;  and  am  morally  sure, 
 that  if  half  the  number  of  manuscripts  were  collated  for  Terence  with  that 
 niceness  and  minuteness  which  has  been  used  in  twice  as  many  for  the 
 New  Testament,  the  number  of  the  variations  would  amount  to  above 
 fifty  thousand."  And  yet  Terence  is  one  of  the  best  preserved  of  the 
 classic  writers.  —  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse,  etc.   Part  i.  Sec.  32. 
 
 ^  New  Testament  Historic  Evidence,  p.  7-1. 
 
46  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 In  the  fitting  words  of  Scrivener/  "  As  the  New  Testament 
 far  surpasses  all  other  remams  of  antiquity  in  value  and  inter- 
 est, so  are  the  copies  of  it  yet  existing  in  manuscript,  and 
 dating  from  the  fourth  century  of  our  era  downwards,  far 
 more  numerous  than  those  of  the  most  celebrated  writers  of 
 Greece  or  Rome.  Such  as  have  been  already  discovered  and 
 set  down  in  catalogues  are  hardly  fewer  than  two  thousand ; 
 and  many  more  must  still  linger  unknown  in  the  monastic 
 libraries  of  the  East.  On  the  other  hand,  manuscripts  of  the 
 most  illustrious  classic  poets  and  philosophers  are  far  rarer  and 
 comparatively  modern.  We  have  no  complete  copy  of  Homer 
 himself  prior  to  the  thirteenth  century,  though  some  considera- 
 ble fragments  have  been  recently  brought  to  light  which  may 
 plausibly  be  assigned  to  the  fifth  century ;  while  more  than  one 
 work  of  high  and  deserved  repute  has  been  preserved  to  our 
 times  only  in  a  single  copy.  Now  the  experience  we  gain,  from 
 a  critical  examination  of  the  few  classical  manuscripts  that 
 survive,  should  make  us  thankful  for  the  quality  and  abundance 
 of  those  of  the  New  Testament.  These  last  present  us  with  a 
 vast  and  almost  inexhaustible  supply  of  materials  for  tracing  the 
 liistory,  and  upholding  (at  least  within  certain  limits)  the  purity 
 of  the  sacred  text ;  every  copy,  if  used  diligently  and  with  judg- 
 ment, will  contribute  somewhat  to  these  ends.  So  far  is  the 
 cojiiousness  of  our  stores  from  causing  doubt  or  j^erplexity  to 
 the  genuine  student  of  holy  scripture,  that  it  leads  him  to  rec- 
 ognize the  more  fidly  its  general  integrity  in  the  midst  of 
 partial  variation." 
 
 With  equal  felicity  and  truthfulness,  Isaac  Taylor,^  on  the 
 proof  of  the  genuineness  of  the  scriptures,  observes :  "  And  as 
 the  facts  on  which  this  proof  depends  are  precisely  of  the  same 
 kind  in  profane,  as  in  sacred  literature,  and  as  the  same  princi- 
 ples of  evidence  are  applicable  to  all  questions  relating  to  the 
 genuineness  of  ancient  books,  it  is  highly  desirable  that  the  proof 
 
 ^  Criticism  of  New  Test.,  pp.  3,  4. 
 
 *  History  of  Transmission  of  Ancient  Books,  p.  5. 
 
RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  47 
 
 of  the  genuineness  of  the  sacred  writings  should  be  viewed,  in 
 its  place^  as  forming  a  part  only  of  a  general  argiunent,  w^hich 
 bears  equally  upon  the  entire  literary  remains  of  antiquity. 
 For  it  is  only  when  so  viewed,  that  the  comparative  strength 
 and  completeness  of  the  proof  which  belongs  to  this  particular 
 case,  can  be  duly  estimated.  When  exhibited  in  tliis  light,  it 
 will  be  seen  that  the  integrity  of  the  records  of  the  Christian 
 faith  is  substantiated  by  evidence  in  a  tenfold  proportion  more 
 various,  copious,  and  conclusive  ^  than  that  wliich  can  be  adduced 
 in  support  of  any  other  ancient  writings.  K,  therefore,  the 
 question  had  no  other  importance  belonging  to  it  than  what 
 may  attach  to  a  pm-ely  literary  inquiry,  or  if  only  the  strict 
 justice  of  the  case  were  regarded,  the  authenticity  of  the  Jewish 
 and  Christian  scrij^tures  could  never  come  to  be  controverted, 
 till  the  entire  body  of  classical  literature  had  been  proved  to  be 
 spurious." 
 
 Nor  does  the  Bible  suffer  by  comparison  with  books  of  later 
 date.  For  the  text  of  Shakespeare,  which  has  been  in  existence 
 less  than  two  hmidred  and  fifty  years,  is  "  far  more  uncertain 
 and  corrupt  than  that  of  the  New  Testament,  now  over  eighteen 
 centuries  old,  during  nearly  fifteen  of  wliich  it  existed  only  in 
 manuscript.  The  industry  of  collators  and  commentators  in- 
 deed has  collected  a  formidable  array  of  '  various  readings '  in 
 the  Greek  text  of  the  scriptures,  but  the  number  of  those 
 which  have  any  good  claim  to  be  received,  and  wliich  also  seri- 
 ously affect  the  sense,  is  so  small  that  they  may  almost  be 
 counted  upon  the  fingers.  With  perhaps  a  dozen  or  twenty 
 exceptions,  the  text  of  every  verse  in  the  New  Testament  may 
 be  said  to  be  so  far  settled  by  the  general  consent  of  scholars, 
 that  any  dispute  as  to  its  Dieaning  must  relate  rather  to  the  in- 
 terpretation of  the  words,  than  to  any  doubts  respecting  the 
 words  themselves.  But  in  every  one  of  Shakespeare's  tliirty- 
 seven  plays,  there  are   probably  a  hundred   reathngs  still  in 
 
 ^  The  italics  are  our  own. 
 
48  DISCREPANCIES  OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 dispute,  a  large  proportion  of  which  materially  affect  the  mean- 
 ing of  the  passages  in  which  they  occur."  ^ 
 
 The  probability  that  trivial  variations  would  be  found  in 
 considerable  numbers  will  be  seen  when  we  reflect  that,  ac- 
 cording to  Prof.  Norton's^  estimate,  there  were,  at  the  end  of 
 the  second  century,  as  many  as  sixty  thousand  manuscript  copies 
 of  the  Gospels  in  existence.  That  these  variations  are  of  slight 
 importance  we  have  already  seen ;  so  that  in  spite  of  the  "  fifty 
 thousand  various  readings"^  of  which  we  are  often  told,  he 
 must  be  very  ignorant  or  very  mendacious  who  represents  the 
 text  of  the  New  Testament  as  in  a  dubious  and  unsettled  state. 
 Its  antiquity  and  all  other  circumstances  being  taken  into  the 
 account,  there  is  no  other  book  which  compares  with  it  in 
 possessing  a  settled  and  authenticated  text. 
 
 The  famous  Bentley,^  one  of  the  ablest  critics  England  has 
 ever  seen,  observes  :  "  The  real  text  of  the  sacred  writers  does 
 not  now  (since  the  originals  have  been  so  long  lost)  lie  in  any 
 single  manuscrij^t  or  edition,  but  is  dispersed  in  them  all.  'Tis 
 competently  exact  indeed,  even  in  the  worst  manuscript  now 
 extant ;  nor  is  one  article  of  faith  or  moral  precept  either  per- 
 verted or  lost  in  them,  choose  as  awkardly  as  you  can,  choose 
 the  worst  by  design,  out  of  the  whole  lump  of  readings."  Again 
 he  adds,  "  Make  your  thirty  thousand  (Variations)  as  many 
 more,  if  numbers  of  copies  can  ever  reach  that  sum ;  all  the 
 better  to  a  knowing  and  serious  reader,  who  is  thereby  more 
 richly  furnished  to  select  what  he  sees  genuhie.  But  even  put 
 them  into  the  hands  of  a  knave  or  a  fool,  and  yet  with  the 
 most  sinistrous  and  absurd  choice,  he  shall  not  extinguish  the 
 light  of  any  one  chapter,  nor  disguise  Christianity  but  that 
 every  feature  of  it  will  be  the  same." 
 
 ^  North  American  Review,  quoted  in  Stowe's  Origin  and  History  of  Books 
 of  Bible,  p.  82. 
 ^  Genuineness  of  the  Gospels,  1.  50-53. 
 
 3  See  as  to  the  probable  number,  Scrivener's  Criticism  of  New  Test,  p.  8 
 *  Remarks  upon  a  late  Discourse  of  Free  Thinking,  Part  i.  Sec.  82. 
 
RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  49 
 
 When  men  seek  to  impugn  the  credibility  of  the  Bible,  by 
 alleging  "  discrepancies  "  and  "  various  readings,"  we  may  safely 
 answer,  with  Prof.  Stuart,^  that  they  are  so  easily  accounted 
 for,  and  of  so  little  importance,  that  "  they  make  notliing  of 
 serious  import  against  the  claims  which  the  matter,  the  manner, 
 and  the  character  of  the  scriptures  prefer  as  the  stable  ground 
 of  our  belief  and  confidence  and  obedience." 
 
 Very  pertinently  says  Dr.  Hodge,^  "  These  apparent  discrep- 
 ancies, although  numerous,  are  for  the  most  part  trivial ;  relat- 
 ing in  most  cases  to  numbers  or  dates.  The  great  majority  of 
 them  are  only  apparent,  and  yield  to  careful  examination. 
 Many  of  them  may  be  fairly  ascribed  to  errors  of  transcribers. 
 The  marvel  and  the  miracle  is,  that  there  are  so  few  of  any 
 real  importance.  Considering  that  the  different  books  of  the 
 Bible  were  written  not  only  by  different  authors,  but  by  men 
 of  all  degrees  of  culture,  living  in  the  course  of  fifteen  hundred 
 or  two  thousand  years,  it  is  altogether  unaccoimtable  that  they 
 should  agree  perfectly,  on  any  other  hypothesis  than  that  the 
 writers  were  under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  of  God.     In  this 
 
 respect,  as  in  all  others,  the  Bible  stands  alone The  errors 
 
 in  matters  of  fact  which  sceptics  search  out  bear  no  proportion 
 to  the  whole.  No  sane  man  would  deny  that  the  Parthenon 
 was  built  of  marble,  even  if  here  and  there  a  speck  of  sandstone 
 should  be  detected  in  its  structure." 
 
 "  The  subject  of  various  readings,"  observes  President  Hop- 
 kins,^ "  was  at  one  time  so  presented  as  to  alarm  and  disquiet 
 those  not  acquainted  with  the  facts.  When  a  person  hears  it 
 stated  that,  in  the  collation  of  the  manuscripts  for  Grlesbach's 
 edition  of  the  New  Testament,  as  many  as  one  hundred  and 
 fifty  thousand  various  readings  were  discovered,  he  is  ready  to 
 suppose  that  everything  must  be  in  a  state  of  uncertainty.  A 
 statement  of  the  facts  relieves  every  difficulty.     The  truth  is, 
 
 1  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  104.    Revised  edition,  p.  180. 
 
 2  Theology,  i.  169,  170. 
 
 '  Evidences  of  Christianity,  p.  289. 
 5 
 
50  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 that  not  one  in  a  thousand  makes  any  perceptible,  or  at  least 
 important,  variation  in  the  meaning ;  that  they  consist  almost 
 entirely  of  the  small  and  obvious  mistakes  of  transcribers,  such 
 as  the  omission  or  transposition  of  letters,  errors  in  grammar, 
 in  the  use  of  one  word  for  another  of  a  similar  meaning,  and 
 in  changing  the  position  of  words  in  a  sentence.  But  by  all 
 the  omissions,  and  all  the  additions,  contained  in  all  the  manu- 
 scripts, no  fact,  no  doctrine,  no  duty  prescribed,  in  our  author- 
 ized version,  is  rendered  either  obscure  or  doubtful." 
 
 2.  Moreover,  as  the  text  of  scripture  is  not  vitiated,  so  its 
 moral  influence  and  efficacy  is  not  essentially  impaired  by  all 
 the  "  contradictions  "  which  lynx-eyed  infidelity  has  discovered, 
 or  affected  to  discover,  in  it.  In  respect  to  them,  Prof.  Bush  ^ 
 strikingly  and  felicitously  remarks,  "  Their  apparent  contrariety 
 shows  at  least  with  what  confidence  the  book  of  God  appeals 
 to  our  reason  on  the  ground  of  the  general  evidence  of  its  ori- 
 gin, exhibiting,  as  it  does,  such  examples  of  literal  self-conflict 
 in  particular  passages.  A  work  of  imposture  could  not  afford 
 to  be  thus  seemingly  indifferent  to  appearances." 
 
 We  thus  see  how  the  mighty  moral  prestige  of  the  Bible 
 resolves  these  apparent  objections  into  strong  presumptions  in 
 its  favor.  The  truth  of  our  proposition  becomes  obvious  when 
 we  carefully  consider  the  influence  of  the  Bible,  both  upon  in- 
 dividuals and  upon  society  in  general, — its  effect  upon  mankind. 
 
 We  cannot  specify  here,  what  every  community  furnishes, 
 instances  of  men  once  dishonest,  turbulent,  profane,  sensual,  or 
 drunken,  who,  under  the  influence  of  the  Bible,  have  thoroughly 
 reformed  their  conduct  and  life,  and  become  as  remarkable  for 
 meekness,  benevolence,  purity,  and  seK-control  as  they  had 
 previously  been  notorious  for  the  opposite  traits. 
 
 Among  those  who  have  recognized  the  influence  of  the  Bible, 
 and  bowed  reverently  to  its  authority,  we  find  many  of  the 
 "  foremost  men  "  of  the  race  —  the  acutest  and  most  powerful 
 intellects,  the  most  distinguished  poets,  statesmen,  and  scholars 
 
 '  Notes  on  Exodus,  Vol.  i.  p.  295. 
 
RESULTS   OF   THE   DISCREPANCIES.  51 
 
 whom  the  world  has  e\er  seen.  It  would  be  superfluous  to 
 name  Milton  and  Dante ;  Bacon,  Newton,  and  Leibnitz  ;  Boyle, 
 Locke,  and  Butler ;  Hale  and  Grotius ;  Pascal  and  Faraday  ; 
 Washington  and  AYilberforce. 
 
 Had  the  Bible  been,  as  some  assert,  full  of  irreconcilable 
 discrepancies  and  insoluble  difficulties,  it  could  scarcely  have 
 commanded  the  homage  of  such  minds  and  hearts  as  these. 
 For,  it  is  not  extravagant  to  say  that  these  men  were  as  acute 
 in  detecting  imposture,  and  as  competent  to  discriminate  between 
 truth  and  falsehood  as  are,  in  our  own  time,  the  Bishop  of 
 Natal  and  the  Duke  of  Somerset. 
 
 In  prooi  of  the  jDOwer  of  the  Bible  to  leaven  and  renovate 
 society,  we  need  only  point  to  the  Sandwich  Islands,  and  to  the 
 mission  fields  and  schools  of  India  and  Turkey ;  we  need  but 
 allude  to  the  marked  difference  between  nations  which  have 
 received  the  Bible  and  those  which  have  rejected  it,  —  between 
 Prussia  and  France,  between  England  and  Si:)ain.  On  a  candid 
 survey  of  the  field,  we  see  the  correctness  of  Chancellor  Kent's 
 saying :  "  The  general  diffusion  of  the  Bible  is  the  most  effectual 
 way  to  civilize  and  humanize  mankind ;  to  purify  and  exalt  the 
 general  system  of  public  morals ;  to  give  efficacy  to  the  just 
 l^recepts  of  international  and  municipal  law  ;  to  enforce  the 
 observance  of  prudence,  temperance,  justice,  and  fortitude  ;  and 
 to  improve  aU  the  rehxtions  of  social  and  domestic  life." 
 
 It  was  well  affirmed  by  Jolin  Locke,  "  That  the  holy  scrip- 
 tures are  one  of  the  greatest  blessings  which  God  bestows  upon 
 the  sons  of  men,  is  generally  acknowledged  by  all  who  know 
 anythhig  of  the  value  and  worth  of  them." 
 
 We,  therefore,  deem  the  position  an  impregnable  one,  that 
 all  the  discrepancies  and  objections  which  the  teeming  brain 
 and  malignant  heart  of  infidelity  have  been  able  to  conjure  up 
 and  rake  together,  do  not  in  any  essential  degree  detract  from 
 the  value  of  the  inspired  volume,  nor  chminish  its  wonderful 
 and  beneficent  moral  power. 
 
 Nor  does  infidelity  fm-nish  any  substitute  for  the  Bible.     It 
 
52  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 points  us  all  in  vain  to  Confucius,  Zoroaster,  and  the  Vedas,  to 
 the  cold  and  arrogant  teachings  of  positivism,  to  the  barren 
 negations  and  ever-discordant  utterances  of  rationalism.  Never 
 book  spake  like  the  Bible.  No  other  comes  home  to  the  heart 
 and  conscience,  with  light  and  power  and  healing  as  does  this. 
 It  teaches  man  how  to  live  and  how  to  die. 
 
 A  celebrated  infidel  is  said  to  have  exclaimed  in  his  last 
 moments,  "/am  about  to  take  a  leap  in  the  dark."  Cast  the 
 Bible  aside,  and  every  man  at  death  takes  a  "  leap  in  the  dark." 
 
 In  the  language  of  an  eminent  writer,^  "  Weary  human  nature 
 lays  its  head  on  this  bosom,  or  it  has  nowhere  to  lay  its  head. 
 Tremblers  on  the  verge  of  the  dark  and  terrible  valley  which 
 parts  the  land  of  the  living  from  the  untried  hereafter,  take 
 this  hand  of  human  tenderness,  yet  godlike  strength,  or  they 
 totter  into  the  gloom  without  prop  or  stay.  They  who  look 
 their  last  on  the  beloved  dead  listen  to  this  voice  of  soothing 
 and  peace,  else  death  is  no  uplifting  of  everlasting  doors,  and  no 
 enfolding  in  everlasting  arms,  but  an  enemy  as  appalling  to 
 the  reason  as  to  the  senses,- the  usher  to  a  charnel-house  where 
 highest  faculties  and  noblest  feelings  lie  crushed  with  the  ani- 
 mal wreck;  an  infinite  tragedy,  maddening,  soul-sickening — a 
 '  blackness  of  darkness  forever.'  " 
 
 "  Thy  word  is  a  lamp  unto  my  feet,  and  a  light  unto  my 
 path."  2 
 
 We  cannot  but  agree  with  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale,  that 
 "  there  is  no  book  like  the  Bible  for  excellent  learning,  wisdom, 
 and  use  " ;  we  must,  with  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  "  account  the  scrip- 
 tures of  God  to  be  the  most  sublime  philosophy,"  and  to  exhibit 
 "  more  sure  marks  of  authenticity  than  any  profane  liistory 
 whatsoever." 
 
 In  considering  the  solutions  hereafter  proposed,  the  legiti- 
 mate force  of  a  hypothesis   should   be  kept  in   mind.     If   a 
 
 ^  Dr.  Rorison,  in  Replies  to  Essays  and  Reviews,  pp.  340,  341  (2d  edition.). 
 2  Ps.  cxix.  105. 
 
RESULTS   OF  THE  DISCREPANCIES.  53 
 
 certain  hypothesis  meets  the  exigencies  of  a  given  case,  then, 
 unless  it  can  be  proven  false  or  absurd,  its  logical  value  is  to  set 
 aside  any  and  all  objections,  and  to  secure  a  strong  presumption 
 in  its  own  f avor.^  For  instance,  it  is  said :  "  Here  is  a  case  in 
 which  the  Bible  contradicts . itself ."  We  reply:  "Here  is  a 
 hypothesis  which  serves  to  explain  and  reconcile  the  disagree- 
 ment." Now,  imless  our  hypothesis  can  be  proven  untrue  or 
 irrational,  it  stands,  and  the  objection  is  effectually  met.  In 
 such  cases,  the  burden  of  proof  devolves  upon  the  objector. 
 
 The  solutions  proposed  in  the  following  pages  are  hyi^othetical; 
 though,  in  the  majority  of  cases,  the  probability  amounts  to 
 almost  absolute  certainty.  In  offering  these  solutions,  we 
 neither  assert  nor  undertake  to  prove  that  they  are  the  only, 
 or  even  the  actual  solutions ;  we  merely  affirm  that  they  are 
 reasonable  explanati(5ns  of  each  case  respectively,  and,  for 
 aught  that  can  be  shown  to  the  contrary,  they  may  be  the  real 
 ones.  Therefore,  according  to  the  principles  of  logic  and 
 common  sense,  they  countervail  and  neutralize  the  discrepancies 
 which  are  adduced,  and  leave  the  unity  and  integrity  and  divine 
 authority  of  the  sacred  volume  unimpaned. 
 
 The  Discrepancies  of  Scripture  may,  perhaps,  be  most  suit- 
 ably arranged  under  tln-ee   heads  :^   the  Doctrinal,  including 
 
 ^  Prof.  Henry  Rogers  well  says,  "  The  objector  is  always  apt  to  take  it 
 for  granted  that  the  discrepancy  is  real;  though  it  may  be  easy  to  suppose 
 a  case  (and  Si  possible  case  is  quite  sufficient  for  the  purpose)  which  would 
 neutralize  the  objection.     Of  this  perverseness  (we  can  call  it  by  no  other 
 
 name)  the  examples  are  perpetual It  may  be  objected,  perhaps, 
 
 that  the  gratuitous  supposition  of  some  unmentioned  fact  —  which,  if 
 mentioned,  would  harmonize  the  apparently  counter-statements  of  two 
 historians  —  cannot  be  admitted,  and  is,  in  fact,  a  surrender  of  the  argu- 
 ment. But  to  say  so,  is  only  to  betray  an  utter  ignorance  of  what  the 
 argument  is.  If  an  objection  be  founded  on  the  alleged  absolute  contra- 
 diction of  two  statements,  it  is  quite  sufficient  to  show  any  (not  the  real, 
 but  only  a  hypothetical  and  possible)  medium  of  reconciling  them;  and 
 the  objection  is  in  all  fairness  dissolved;  and  this  would  be  felt  by  the 
 honest  logician,  even  if  we  did  not  know  of  any  such  instances  in  point 
 of  fact.  We  do  know,  however,  of  many."  —  Reason  and  Faith,  pp.  401- 
 403  (Boston  edition). 
 
 2  For  other  methods  of  classification,  see  Davidsoii's  Sacred  Hermeneu- 
 tics,  p.  520. 
 
54  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 questions  of  theology ;  tlie  Ethical,  j^ertaining  to  human  duties 
 and  morals ;  the  Historical,  relating  to  persons,  places,  numbers, 
 and  time ;  with  some  miscellaneous  cases. 
 
 Of  such  a  vast  and  incongruous  mass  of  materials  as  has 
 accumulated  during  the  investigation,  it  has  seemed  well  nigh 
 impossible  to  make  a  rigorously  exact  and  clearly-defined 
 classification.  Obviously,  many  of  the  following  cases  might, 
 from  their  complex  or  feebly  marked  character,  fall  equally 
 well  in  some  other,  or  in  more  than  one,  of  the  divisions.  In 
 such  cases,  that  arrangement  has  been  adopted  wliich  seemed 
 most  natural  and  obvious.  The  most  prominent  or  important 
 element  in  a  difficult  passage  has  determined  the  class  to  which 
 that  passage  should  be  referred. 
 
 K  anything  has  been  lost  in  scientific  precision  and  nicety, 
 it  is  believed  that  much  has  been  gained  in  simplicity,  con- 
 venience, and  practical  utility,  by  abandoning  the  attempt  at  a 
 complex,  logical  classification,  and  grouping  the  discrepancies 
 under  a  few  characteristic  heads. 
 
I>  A.R  T     II. 
 
 CHAPTER    I. 
 
 DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 I.    GOD, —  Omnipotence. 
 
 God  can  do  all  things.  Can  not  do  some  things. 
 
 Behold,  I  am  the  Lord,  the  God  of  And  the  Loud  was  with  Judah ;  and 
 
 all  flesh :  is  there  anything  too  hard  for  he  drave  out    the   inhabitants  of  the 
 
 me?    Jer.  xxxii.  27.  mountain;  but  could  not  drive  out  the 
 
 But  Jesus  beheld  them,  and  said  unto  inhabitants  of  the  valley,  because  they 
 
 them,  With  men  this  is  impossible,  but  had  chariots  of  iron.    Judg.  i.  19. 
 
 with  God  all  things  are  possible.    Matt.  It  was  imposssible  for  God  to  lie. 
 
 xix.  26.  Heb.  vi.  18. 
 
 Omnipotence  does  not  imply  the  power  to  do  every  conceiv- 
 able thing,  but  the  ability  to  do  everything  which  is  the  proper 
 object  of  power.  For  example,  an  omnipotent  being  could  not 
 cause  a  thing  to  be  existent  and  non-existent  at  the  same  instant. 
 The  very  idea  is  self-contradictory  and  absurd.  When  it  is 
 said  that  God  can  do  "  all  things,"  the  phrase  applies  to  those 
 things  only  which  involve  no  inconsistency  or  absurdity. 
 
 According  to  Voltaire,  the  quotation  from  Judges  asserts 
 that  the  Lord  "  could  not  drive  out  the  inhabitants  of  the  valley." 
 The  fact,  however,  is  that  the  pronoun  "he"  refers  to  the 
 nearest  antecedent  "  Judah."  Doubtless,  the  reason  why  Judah 
 was  not  helped,  at  that  time,  to  drive  out  the  dwellers  in  the 
 valley,  was  that  too  great  success  might  have  proved,  as  it  often 
 does,  detrimental.  God  gave  to  Judah  that  degree  of  prosperity 
 which,  on  the  whole,  was  best  for  him. 
 
 The  fourth  text  refers  not  to  physical  but  to  moral  impossi- 
 bility, —  such  as  is  intended  when  we  say,  "  it  was  impossible 
 for  Washington  to  betray  his  country."     Our  meaning  of  course 
 
 55 
 
56  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 is  that  it  was  incompatible  with  Washington's  character  and 
 
 principles,  to  be  a  traitor.     In  an  analogous  yet  higher  sense, 
 
 it  is  "  impossible  "  for  God  to  utter  falsehood. 
 
 God  is  tired  and  rests.  Is  never  loeary. 
 In  six  days  the  Lord  made  heaven       The  everlasting:  God,  the  Lord,  the 
 and  earth,  and  on  the  seventh  day  he  Creator  of  tlie  ends  of  the  earth,  faint- 
 rested,  and  was  refreshed.  Ex.  xxxi.17.  eth  not,  neither  is  weary.    Isa.  xl.  28. 
 
 "  Rested  and  was  refreshed  "  is  merely  a  vivid  Oriental  way 
 of  saying  that  he  ceased  from  the  work  of  creation,  and  took 
 delight  in  surveying  that  work. 
 
 Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson : ^  "To  ' rest '  here  does  not  mean  to 
 seek  repose  from  fatigue,  but  to  suspend  activity  in  a  particular 
 mode  of  operation,  to  cease  from  doing  thus  and  so."  Maimon- 
 ides  says  that  the  word  used  in  the  parallel  text,  Ex.  xx.  11, 
 properly  means  "  ceased."  With  this  explanation  the  Septua- 
 gint  agrees. 
 
 Murphy:^  "'Refreshed'  includes,  at   all    events,  the   pure 
 
 delight  arising  from  the  consciousness  of  a  design  accomplished, 
 
 and  from  the  contemplation  of  the  intrinsic  excellence  of  the 
 
 work." 
 
 Omniscience, 
 
 God  knoios  all  things.  Tries  to  find  out  some  things. 
 
 Thou  knowest  ray  downsitting  and  Now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God, 
 
 mine  uprising,  thou  undorstandest  my  seeing  thou  hast  not  withheld  thy  son, 
 
 thought  afar  oft'.    Thou  compassest  my  thine  only  so7i  from  me.     Gen.  xxii.l2. 
 
 path'  and  my  lying  down,  and  art  ac-  The  Loud  thy  God  led  thee  these 
 
 quainted  with  all  my  ways.    For  thtre  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  to  lium- 
 
 is  not  a  word  in  my  tongue,  but,  lo,  U  ble  thee,  and  to  prove  thee,  to  know 
 
 Lord,  thou  knowest  it  altogether.    Ts.  what  teas  in  thy  heart,  whether  thou 
 
 cxxxix.  2-4.  wouldest  keep  his  commandments,  or 
 
 1  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  /  try  the  no.    Deut.  viii.  2. 
 
 reins.    Jer.  xvii.  10.  Thou   shalt   not   hearken   unto    the 
 
 Thou  Lord,  which  knowest  the  hearts  words  of  that  prophet,  or  that  dreamer 
 
 of  all  men.    Acts  i.  24.  of  dreams;    for  the  Loud  your  God 
 
 All  things  are  naked  and  opened  unto  proveth  you,  to  know  wliether  ye  love 
 
 the  eyes  of  him  with  whom  we  have  to  the  Lord  your  God  with  all  your  heart, 
 
 do.    Heb.  iv.  13.  and  with  all  your  soul,    Deut.  xiii.  3. 
 
 In  the  texts  at  the  right,  the  language  is  accommodated  to 
 the  human  understanding,  uttered,  as  it  were,  from  man's  point 
 of  view.     By  the  testing  process  applied  to  Abraham  and  the 
 
 '  Man  in  Genesis  and  in  Geolof^y,  p.  114. 
 
 2  In  the  subsequent  pay;es,  when  an  important  quotation  from  an  author 
 is  given  without  specific  references,  the  citation  is  generally  from  that 
 author's  commentary  upon  the  text  under  consideration. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  57 
 
 Israelites,  the  knowledge  which  had  lain  hidden  in  the  divine 
 mind  was  revealed  and  verified. 
 
 The  words  addressed  to  Abraham,  "  Now  I  know  that,"  etc., 
 are  equivalent  to  saying.  Now  I  have  established  by  actual 
 experiment  that  which  I  previously  knew.  I  have  demon- 
 strated, made  manifest  by  evident  proof,  my  knowledge  of  thy 
 character. 
 
 Murphy  :  "  The  original  /  have  Iznown  denotes  an  eventual 
 knowing,  a  discovering  by  actual  experiment ;  and  this  observ- 
 able probation  of  Abraham  was  necessary  for  the  judicial  eye 
 of  God,  who  is  to  govern  the  world,  and  for  the  conscience  of 
 man,  who  is  to  be  instructed  by  practice  as  well  as  principle." 
 
 The  language  in  Genesis  may  be  illustrated  as  follows  :  A 
 chemical  professor,  lecturing  to  his  class,  says :  "  Now  I  will 
 apply  an  acid  to  this  substance,  and  see  what  the  result  will 
 be."  He  speaks  in  this  way,  although  he  knows  perfectly  well 
 beforehand.  Having  performed  the  experiment,  he  says,  "I 
 now  know  that  such  and  such  results  will  follow."  In  saying 
 this,  he  puts  himself  in  the  place  of  the  class,  and  speaks  from 
 their  stand-point. 
 
 The  texts  from  Deut.  mean  simply.  The  Lord  hath  dealt 
 with  thee  as  if  he  were  ignorant,  and  wished  to  ascertain  thy 
 sentiments  toward  liim ;  he  hath  put  thee  to  as  severe  a  test  as 
 would  be  requisite  for  discovering  the  secrets  of  tliine  heart. 
 Such  is  the  interpretation  which  men  would  give  to  his  treat- 
 ment of  thee. 
 
 Forgets  not  his  saints.  Temporarily  forgot  Noah. 
 
 Tea,  they  may  forget,  yet  will  I  not  And  God  remembered  Noah.  Gen. 
 forget  thee.    Isa.  xlix.  15.  viii.  1. 
 
 The  latter  text  is  shaped  "  after  the  manner  of  men."  God 
 left  Noah  in  the  ark,  for  many  long  months,  as  if  he  had  for- 
 gotten him.     He  then  "  put  forth  a  token  of  his  remembrance." 
 
 Does  not  sleep.  Sometimes 
 
 Behold  he  that  keepeth  Israel  shall       Awake,  why  sleepest  thou,  OLord? 
 
 neither  slumber  nor  sleep.   Ps.  cxxi.  4.    arise,  cast  us  not  off  for  ever.  Ps.  xliv.23. 
 
 Sometimes  God,  in  wisdom,  defers  the  punishment  of  the 
 
5S  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 wicked,  and  the  deliverance  of  his  people,  so  that  he  seems 
 oblivious  of  both.  He  gives  no  sign  of  activity  with  reference 
 to  either,  so  that  a  superficial  observer  might  say,  "  he  sleeps." 
 The  silence,  the  long-suffering  of  God  is  attributed  to  indiffer- 
 ence or  lack  of  knowledge  on  his  part.^ 
 
 Oinnipresence, 
 
 God  everyiGhere  present.  Not  in  some  places. 
 
 Whither  shall  1  fro  from  thy  Spirit?  Adam  and  his  wife  hid  themselves 
 
 or  whither  s^hall  I  tice  from  thy  pres-  from  tlie  presence  of  the  Lord  God 
 
 ence?    ]f  I  ascend  up  into  heaven,  thou  amongst  the  trees  of  the  garden.     Gen. 
 
 art  there :  if  I  make  my  bed  in  hell,  be-  iii.  8. 
 
 hold,  thou  art  there.    1/1  take  the  wings  And  Cain  went  out  from  the  presence 
 
 of  the  morning,  and  dwell  in  the  utter-  of  the  Lord.    Gen.  iv.  16. 
 
 most  parts  of  the  sea;  oven  there  shall  And  the  Lord  came  down  to  see  the 
 
 thy  hand  lead  me,  and  thy  right  hand  city  and  tlie  tower,  which  the  children 
 
 shall  hold  me.     Ps.  cxxxix.  7-10.  of  men  builded      Gen.  xi.  5. 
 
 Thus  saith  the  Lord,  The  heaven  is  And  the  Lord  said,  Because  the  cry 
 
 my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  foot-  of  Sodom  and  (xomorrah  is  great,  and 
 
 stool.    Isa.  Ixvi.  1.  because  their  sin  is   very  grievous;  I 
 
 Am  I  a  God  at  hand  saith  the  Lord,  will  go  down  now.  and  see  whether 
 
 and  not  a  God  afar  off?    Can  any  hide  they  have  done  altogether  according  to 
 
 himself  in  secret  places  that  I  shall  not  the  cry  of  it.  which  has  come  unto  me ; 
 
 see  him?  saith  the  Lord.    Do  not  I  fill  and  ifnotl  will  know  Gen.  xviii.  20>21. 
 
 heaven  and  earth  ?  saith  the  Lord.  Jer.  The  Lord  passed  by,  and  a  great  and 
 
 xxiii.23,  24.  strong  wind  rent  the  mountains,  and 
 
 Though   thev   dig   into  hell,  thence  brake  in  pieces   the  rocks  before  the 
 
 shall  mv  hand'take  them;  though  they  Lord;   but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the 
 
 climb  up  to  heaven,  thence  will  1  bring  wind:    and   after   the  wind  an  eartli- 
 
 them  down  :    And  though   they  hide  quake;  but  the  Lord  was  not  in  the 
 
 themselves  in  the  top  of  Carniel,  I  will  earthquake:  and  after  the  earthquake 
 
 search  and  take  them  out  thence;  and  afire;  6«i  the  Lord  wa.s  not  in  the  tire: 
 
 though  they  be  hid  from  my  sight  in  and  after  the  fire  a  still  small  voice, 
 
 tlie  bottom  of  the  sea,  thence  will  I  1  Kings  xix.  11,  12. 
 
 command  the  serpent,  and  he  shall  bite  Jonah  rose  up  to  flee  unto  Tarshish 
 
 them.    Amos  ix.  2,  3.  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord.    Jonah 
 
 i.  3. 
 
 The  ''  presence  of  the  Lord,"  from  which  Adam  hid  himself, 
 and  Cain  and  Jonah  fled,  was  the  visible  and  special  manifesta- 
 tion of  God  to  them  at  the  time ;  or  else  it  denotes  the  place 
 where  that  manifestation  was  made. 
 
 According  to  Henderson,^  either  may  be  meant. 
 
 The  builders  of  Babel  and  the  inhabitants  of  Sodom  had 
 pursued  their  wicked  course,  as  far  as  divine  mercy  could 
 permit.  God  had  been  far  away  from  these  corrupt  men  ;  he 
 was  "  not  in  all  their  thoughts."  He  took  the  sword  of  justice 
 and  "  came  down  "  into  the  SDhere  of  their  consciousness,  in  a 
 signal  and  terrible  manner. 
 
 1  SccPs.  1.  21  andlxxiii.  11. 
 
 2  On  Minor  Prophets,  p.  202  (Andovor  edition). 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  69 
 
 Rabbi  Schelomo  strikingly  observes  that  these  texts  represent 
 God  as  "  coming  down  from  his  throne  of  mercies  to  his  throne 
 of  judgment,"  —  as  if  mercy  were  a  more  serene,  exalted,  and 
 glorious  attribute  than  justice.  Such  expressions  as  "  God 
 came  down,"  the  Jewish  writers  term  "  the  tongue,  or  language, 
 of  the  event,"  —  that  is,  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  event, 
 the  lesson  it  was  designed  to  teach.  In  such  cases,  God's  acts 
 are  translated  into  words.  The  "  language  of  the  event "  is, 
 God  comes  down,  interposes,  to  frustrate  certain  mad  schemes 
 of  ambition.^ 
 
 Maimonides  ^  acutely  suggests  that,  since  the  word  "  ascend  " 
 is  properly  applied  to  the  mind  when  it  contemplates  noble 
 and  elevated  objects,  and  "descend"  when  it  turns  toward 
 things  of  a  low  and  unworthy  character,  it  follows  that  when 
 the  Most  High  turns  his  thoughts  toward  man  for  any  purpose, 
 it  may  be  said  that  God  "  descends  "  or  "  comes  down." 
 
 Prof.  Murphy  thinks  that,  as  the  Lord,  after  watching  over 
 Noah  during  the  deluge,  had  withdrawn  his  visible  and  gracious 
 presence  from  the  earth,  when  he  again  directly  interposes  in 
 human  affau's,  there  is  propriety  in  saying,  "  The  Lord  came 
 down." 
 
 God  was  not  in  the  wind,  the  earthquake,  or  the  fire ;  that 
 is,  he  did  not,  upon  that  occasion,  choose  any  one  of  these  as  the 
 symbol  of  his  presence,  as  his  medium  of  communication  and 
 manifestation.  He  did  not  q^eak  in  or  by  these,  but  by  "  the 
 still  small  voice." 
 
 Herder:^  "The  vision  would  seem  designed  to  teach  the 
 prophet,  who,  in  his  fiery  zeal  for  reformation,  would  change 
 everytliing  by  stormy  violence,  the  gentle  movements  of  God's 
 providence,  and  to  exhibit  the  mildness  and  longsuffering,  of 
 which,  the  voice  spoke  to  Moses.*  Hence  the  beautiful  change 
 in  the  phenomena  of  the  vision." 
 
 ^  See  Note  to  Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  364  (American  edition). 
 2  Moreh  Nevochim.    Munk's  French  version.  Vol.  i.  pp.  56,  57. 
 ^  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  ii.  40  (Marsh's  translation). 
 *-See  Ex.  xxxiv.  5-7. 
 
60  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Eternity, 
 
 God  from  everlasting.  His  origin  in  time. 
 
 Before  the  mountains  were  brought       God  came  from  Teman,  and  the  Holy 
 forth,  or  ever  thou  hadst  formed  the    One  from  mount  Taran.    Hab.  iii.  3. 
 eartli  and  the  world,  even  from  ever- 
 lasting to   everlasting  thou  art  God. 
 Ps.  xc.  2. 
 
 The  second  text  has,  singularly  enough,  been  adduced  as 
 teachinfij  that  God  orimnated  in  time. 
 
 The  passage  simply  refers  to  the  wonderful  displays  of  divine 
 power  and  glory  which  the  Israelites  witnessed  in  connection 
 with  the  giving  of  the  law;*  Teman  and  Paran  being  "the 
 regions  to  the  south  of  Palestine  generally,  as  the  theatre  of 
 the  divine  manifestations  to  Israel."  This  is  clear  from  the 
 parallel  text,  "  The  Lord  came  from  Sinai,  and  rose  up  from 
 Seir  unto  them ;  he  shined  forth  from  mount  Paran,  and  he 
 came  with  ten  thousands  of  saints ;  from  his  right  hand  went 
 a  fiery  law  for  them."  ^ 
 
 Unity, 
 
 God  is  One.  Plurality  of  Divine  Beings. 
 
 Hear  O  Israel:  The  Lord  our  God  is       And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in 
 
 one  Loac    Deut.  vi.  4.  our  image  after  our  likeness.     Gen.  i.  26. 
 
 See  now  thati  eyen  1  am  he,  and  there       And  the  Lord  God  said.  Behold,  the 
 
 is  no  god  with  me.  Deut.  xxxii.  39.  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,  to  know 
 
 I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else,    good  and  evil.    Gen.  iii.  22. 
 there  is  no  God  besides  me.    Isa.  xlv.  5.        And  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him  in 
 And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they    the  plains  of  Mamre :  and  he  sat  in  the 
 might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God.    tent  door  in  the  heat  of  the  day :  and  he 
 John  xvii.  3.  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  looked,  and,  lo, 
 
 But  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  three  men  stood  by  him :  and  when  he 
 Father,  of  whom  are  all  things,  and  we  saw  them,  he  ran  to  meet  them  from  the 
 in  him.    1  Cor.  viii.  6.  tent  door,  and  bowed  himself  toward 
 
 the  ground,  and  said.  My  Lord,  if  now 
 1  have  found  favor  in  thy  sight.  Gen. 
 xviii.  1-3. 
 
 Worship  him,  all  ye  gods.  Psalm 
 xcvii.  7. 
 
 The  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit,  hath 
 sent  me.    Isa.  xlviii.  16. 
 
 [For  there  arc  three  that  bear  record 
 in  heaven,  the  Father,  the  Word  and 
 the  Holy  Ghost:  and  these  three  are 
 one.    1  John  v.  7]. 
 
 The  first  two  texts  from  Genesis  have  the  word  for  "  God  " 
 (Elohim)  in  the  plural  form.  Gesenius  considers  this  a  "  plural 
 of  excellence  or  majesty  " ;  Nordheimer,  a  "  plural  of  pre-emi- 
 
 ^  So  Abarbancl,  Abcn  Ezra,  Eichhorn,  Ewald,  Henderson,  Herder,  Lowth, 
 Mi<liaclis,  the  Tar;i;um,  etc. 
 -  Deut.  xxxiii.  2. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  61 
 
 nence  "  ;  Baumgarten,  a  "  numerical  plural,  originally  denoting 
 God  and  angels  together  "  ;  Delitzsch,  a  "  plural  of  intensity  " ; 
 Fuerst,  as  used  "  because  the  ancients  conceived  of  the  Deity  as 
 an  aggregate  of  many  infinite  forces."  Bush  thinks  the  plural 
 implies  "  greater  fulness,  emphasis,  and  intensity  of  meaning  " ; 
 Lange  ^  takes  it  as  denoting  "  intense  fulness,"  and  Hengsten- 
 berg  ^  says,  "  it  calls  attention  to  the  infinite  riches  and  the  in- 
 exhaustible fulness  contained  in  the  one  divine  being." 
 
 Ewald : ^  "It  was  an  antique  usage,  more  especially  in  this 
 Semitic  tribe,  to  designate  God,  as  also  every  other  superior, 
 externally  by  a  plural  form,  by  which  no  more  than  the  sense 
 of  a  kind  of  dignity  and  reverence  was  simply  expressed." 
 
 As  to  the  plural  pronouns,  "  us  "  and  "  our,"  which  God  here 
 employs,  Aben  Ezra  thinks  that  he  addresses  the  Intelligences ; 
 Philo,  Delitzsch,  and  others,  that  he  spoke  to  the  angels ; 
 Davidson,  with  Sedaiah  a  Gaon,  that  he  spoke  like  a  sovereign, 
 "  We  the  king " :  Kalisch,  Tuch,  and  Bush  in  substance  deem 
 it  the  plural  "  employed  in  deliberations  and  self -exhortations  " ; 
 Maimonides  *  asserts  that  God  is  addressing  the  earth  or  the 
 nature  already  created ;  Keil  that  he  is  speaking  of  and  with 
 himself  in  the  plural  number,  "  with  reference  to  the  fulness  of 
 the  divine  powers  and  essences  which  he  possesses."  On  the 
 other  hand,  Lange  thinks  the  phraseology  may  "  point  to  the 
 germinal  view  of  a  distinction  in  the  divine  personality,"  and 
 Murphy  that  it  "  indicates  a  plurality  of  persons  or  hypostases 
 in  the  Divine  Being." 
 
 We  thus  see  that  the  above  expressions  are  susceptible  of 
 several  reasonable  interpretations  consistent  with  monotheistic 
 principles. 
 
 With  reference  to  Abraham  and  the  "  three  men  "  —  super- 
 human beings  in  the  form  of  man,  —  the  patriarch  appeared 
 
 ^  Introduction  to  Genesis,  pp.  Ill,  112  (English  translation). 
 
 ^  Genuineness  of  Pent.  i.  273. 
 
 ^  History  of  Israel,  ii.  38  (Martineau's  edition). 
 
 *  See  Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  173,  note. 
 
62  DISCREPANCIES    OP  THE    BIBLE. 
 
 to  single  out  one  as  pre-eniinent  among  the  three,  whom  he 
 addressed  as  "  My  Lord."  Keil  says,  "  Jehovah  and  two 
 angels  :  all  three  in  human  form."  Murphy  :  "  It  appears  that 
 of  the  three  men,  one,  at  all  events,  was  the  Lord,  who,  when 
 the  other  two  went  towards  Sodom,  remained  with  Abraham 
 while  he  made  his  intercession  for  Sodom,  and  afterward  he  also 
 went  his  way."  Lange :  "  Abraham  instantly  recognizes  among 
 the  three  the  one  whom  he  addresses  as  the  Lord  in  a  religious 
 sense,  who  afterwards  appears  as  Jehovah,  and  was  clearly  dis- 
 tinguished from  the  two  accompanying  angels." 
 
 As  to  the  quotation  from  Psalms,  Maimonides  and  David 
 Kimchi  say  that  the  word  "  Elohim,"  in  this  case,  means  "  angelic 
 powers."  Others  that  it  means  "  magistrates  "  or  "  judges," 
 as  in  Exodus  xxii.  8,  9.  28.^  Alexander  and  Hengstenberg 
 explain  it  as  meaning  "  false  gods  "  ;  Delitzsch,  as  "  the  super- 
 human powers  deified  by  the  heathen."  The  Syriac  Peshito 
 reads,  "  all  ye  his  angels."  ^ 
 
 Isa.  xlviii.  1 6  is  ambiguous  in  the  original.  "  It  may  mean 
 "  Jehovah  and  his  Spirit  have  sent  me,"  or  "  Jehovah  hath  sent 
 both  me  and  his  Spirit."     So  Delitzsch  :  "  The  Spirit  is  not 
 
 spoken  of  here  as  joining  in  the  sending The  meaning  is, 
 
 that  it  is  also  sent,  i.e.  sent  in  and  with  the  servant  of  Jehovah, 
 who  is  speaking  here." 
 
 1  John  V.  7  is  a  spurious  passage.  It  is  found  in  no  Greek 
 manuscript  before  the  fifteenth  or  sixteenth  century,  and  in  no 
 early  version.  It  is  rejected  by  Alford,  Abbot,  Bleck,  Scriv- 
 ener, Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  Wordsworth,  and  most  modern 
 critics.^ 
 
 It  should  be  observed  that  the  texts  of  the  first  series  teach 
 unequivocally  and  designedly  the  unity  of  God,  while  those  of 
 the  second  series,  —  intended  primarily  to  teach  other  truths  — 
 are  fairly  explicable  in  harmony  with  the  former  class. 
 
 *  In  the  Hebrew,  verses  7,  8,  and  27. 
 
 2  Oliver's  Translation  of  Syriac  Psalter. 
 
 "  See  Ornie's  Mem.  of  Controv.  on  1  John  v,  7  (New  York,  1866). 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  63 
 
 Immateriality . 
 
 God,  a  Spirit.  Has  a  material  body  and  organs. 
 
 A  spirit  hath  not  flesh  and  bones.  Tables  ofstone.written  with  the  finger 
 Luke  xxiv.  39.  of  God.     Ex.  xxxi.  18. 
 
 God  is  a  Spirit.    John  iv.  24,  He  shall  cover  thee  with  his  feathers, 
 
 and  under  his  wings  shalt  thou  trust. 
 Ps.  xci.4. 
 
 He  had  horns  coming  out  of  his  hand. 
 Hab.  ill.  4. 
 
 These  texts,  which  represent  God  as  having  hands,  fingers, 
 wings,  feathers,  horns,  and  the  like,  are  simply  the  bold  figures 
 and  startling  hyperboles  in  which  the  Orientals  are  wont  to 
 indulge.  They  would  never,  for  a  moment,  think  of  being 
 understood  literally  in  using  them. 
 
 "  Finger  of  God "  is  his  direct  agency :  his  "  wings "  and 
 "  feathers  "  are  his  protecting  care,  set  forth  by  an  allusion  to 
 the  bird  hovering  over  and  guarding  her  tender  young.^ 
 
 Henderson,  Delitzsch,  Noycs,  and  Cowles  agree  substantially 
 in  rendering  Hab.  iii.  4,  "  Eays  streamed  from  his  hand  " ;  —  a 
 decided  improvement  upon  our  version. 
 
 Iinniutabillty, 
 
 God,  unchangeable.  Repents,  and  changes  his  plans. 
 
 God  is  not  a  man.  that  he  should  lie;        I  will  not  go  up  in  the  midst  of  thee; 
 
 neither  tlie  son  of  man,  tliat  he  should    for  thou  art  a  stitinecked  people :  lest  I 
 
 repent:  hath  he  said,  and  sliali  he  not    consume  thee  in  the  way.    And  he  said 
 
 do  it?  or  hath  he  spoken,  and  shall  he    unto  him,  If  thy  presence  go  not  with 
 
 not  make  it  good  ?    Num.  xxiii.  19.  vie.  carry  us  not  up  hence     And  the 
 
 And  also  the  Strength  of  Israel  will    Lord  said  unto  Moses,  I  will  do  this 
 
 not  lie  nor  repent :  for  he  is  not  a  man,    thing  also  that  thou  liast  spoken  :  My 
 
 that  he  should  repent.  1  Sam.  xv.  29.        presence  shall  go  with  thee,  and  I  will 
 
 1  the  Lord  have  spoken  it :  it  shall    give  thee  rest.    Ex.  xxxiii.  3, 15, 17, 14. 
 
 come  to  pass,  and  I  will  do  it ;  I  will        Doubtless  ye  shall  not  come  into  the 
 
 not  go  back,  neither  will  I  spare,  neither    land,  concernitig  which  I  sware  to  make 
 
 will  I  repent.     Kzek.  xxiv.  14.  you  dwell  therein.     Kum.  xiv.  30. 
 
 Fori  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not.        The  Lohd  God  of  Israel  saith,  I  said 
 
 Mai.  iii  6.  indeed  that  thy  house,  and  the  house  of 
 
 The  Father  of  lights,  with  whom  is    thy  father,  should  walk  before  me  for- 
 
 no  variableness,  neither  shadow  of  turn-    ever :  but  now  the  Lord  saith.  Be  it  far 
 
 ing.    Jas.  i,  17.  from  me ; Behold  the  days  come, 
 
 that  1  will  cut  off  thine  arm,  and  the 
 arm  of  thy  father's  house,  that  there 
 shall  not  be  an  old  man  in  thine  house. 
 1  Sam.  ii.  30,  31. 
 
 Then  came  the  word  of  the  Lord 
 unto  Samuel,  saying :  It  repenteth  me 
 that  I  have  set  up  Saul  to  be  king:  for 
 he  is  turned  back  from  following  me, 
 and  hatli  not  performed  ray  command- 
 ments. 1  Sam.  XV.  10,  11. 
 In  those  days  was  Hezekiah  sick  unto 
 
 ^  See  Deut.  xxxii.  11. 
 
64  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Oodf  unchangeable.  Eepents,  and  changes  his  x>lans. 
 
 death.  And  the  prophet  Isaiah  the  son 
 of  Amoz  came  to  him,  and  said  unto 
 him,  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Set  thine 
 house  in  order;  for  thou  shalt  die,  and 
 not  live.  Then  he  turned  his  face  to 
 the  wall,  and  prayed  unto  the  Lord. 
 
 And  it  came  to  pass,  afore  Isaiah 
 
 was  gone  out  into  the  middle  court,  that 
 the  word  of  the  Lord  came  to  him, 
 saying,  Turn  again,  and  tell  Hezekiah 
 the  captain  of  my  people,  Thus  saith 
 the  Lord,  the  God  of  David  thy  father, 
 1  have  heard  thy  prayer,  I  have  seen 
 thy  tears :  behold,  1  will  heal  thee :  on 
 the  third  day  thou  shalt  go  up  unto  the 
 house  of  the  Lord.  And  1  will  add 
 unto  thy  days  fifteen  years.  2  Kings 
 XX.  1,  4,  5,  6. 
 
 Thou  hast  forsaken  me,  saith  the 
 Lord,  thou  art  gone  backward  :  there- 
 fore will  1  stretch  out  my  hand  against 
 thee,  and  destroy  thee ;  1  am  weary  with 
 repenting.    Jer.  xv.  6. 
 
 And  God  saw  their  works,  that  they 
 turned  from  their  evil  way;  and  God 
 repented  of  the  evil  that  he  had  said 
 that  he  would  do  unto  them;  and  he 
 did  it  not.    Jonah  iii.  10. 
 
 In  respect  to  his  essence,  his  attributes,  his  moral  character, 
 and  his  inflexible  determination  to  punish  sin  and  reward  virtue, 
 God  is  "  without  variableness  or  shadow  of  turning." 
 
 Again,  some  of  his  declarations  are  absolute  and  uncon- 
 ditional; the  greater  part,  however,  including  promises  and 
 threatenings,  turn  upon  conditions  either  expressed  or  implied. 
 The  following  passage  is  a  very  explicit  statement  of  a  great 
 principle  in  the  divine  administration,  —  of  God's  plan  or  rule 
 of  conduct  in  dealing  with  men  :  "  At  what  instant  I  shall  speak 
 concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to  pluck  up, 
 and  to  pull  down,  and  to  destroy  it;  if  that  nation,  against 
 whom  I  have  pronoimced,  turn  from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of 
 the  evil  that  I  thought  to  do  unto  them.  And  at  what  instant  I 
 shall  speak  concerning  a  nation,  and  concerning  a  kingdom,  to 
 build  and  to  plant  it ;  if  it  do  evil  in  my  sight,  that  it  obey  not 
 my  voice,  then  I  will  repent  of  the  good,  wherewith  I  said  I  would 
 benefit  them."  ^  Here  is  brought  clearly  to  view  tlic  underlying 
 condition,  which,  if  not  expressed,  is  imiDlied,  in  God's  promises 
 
 ^  Jeremiah  xviii.  7-10. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  65 
 
 and  threats.  Whenever  God,  in  consequence  of  a  change  of 
 character  in  certain  persons,  does  not  execute  the  threats  or  fulfil 
 the  promises  he  had  made  to  them,  the  explanation  is  obvious. 
 In  every  such  case,  the  change  is  in  man,  rather  than  in  God. 
 For  example,  God  has  promised  blessings  to  the  righteous  and 
 threatened  the  wicked  with  punishment.  Suppose  a  righteous 
 man  should  turn  and  become  wicked.  He  is  no  longer  the 
 man  whom  God  promised  to  bless.  He  occupies  a  different 
 relation  toward  God.  The  promise  was  made  to  an  entirely 
 different  character. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  a  wicked  man  repents  and  becomes  good. 
 He  is  not  now  the  iudividual  whom  God  threatened.  He  sus- 
 tains another  relation  to  his  Maker.  He  has  passed  out  of  the 
 sphere  of  the  divine  displeasure  into  that  of  the  divine  love. 
 Yet  all  this  while,  there  is  no  change  in  God.  His  attitude 
 toward  sin  and  sinners,  on  the  one  hand,  and  toward  goodness 
 and  the  good  on  the  other,  is  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and 
 forever.  It  is  precisely  because  God  is  immutable^  that  his 
 relation  to  men,  and  his  treatment  of  them  vary  with  the  changes 
 in  their  character  and  conduct.  In  a  word,  he  changes  because 
 he  is  unchangeable. 
 
 A  homely  illustration  may  be  permitted.  Suppose  a  rock  to 
 be  located  at  the  centre  of  a  circle  one  mile  in  diameter.  A 
 man  starts  to  walk  around  the  circle.  On  starting  he  is  due 
 north  from  the  rock,  which  consequently  bears  due  south  from 
 him.  After  travelling  a  whUe,  he  comes  to  be  due  east  from 
 the  rock,  and  that  due  west  from  him.  Now  the  rock  does  not 
 move,  yet  its  direction  from  the  man  changes  with  every  step 
 he  takes.  In  a  somewhat  analogous  manner,  God's  aspect  and 
 feelings  toward  men  change  as  they  change.  That  is,  in  the 
 words  of  Whately,^  "A  change  effected  in  one  of  two  objects 
 having  a  certain  relation  to  each  other,  may  have  the  same 
 practical  result  as  if  it  had  taken  place  in  the  other." 
 
 WoUaston :  ^  "  The  respect  or   relation  wliich  lies  between 
 
 *  Rhetoric,  Part  i.  chap.  3.  Sec.  3.       ^  Religion  of  Nature,  pp.  115, 116. 
 6* 
 
6Q  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 God,  considered  as  an  unchangeable  being,  and  one  that  is 
 humble,  and  supplicates,  and  endeavors  to  qualify  himself  for 
 mercy,  cannot  be  the  same  with  that  which  lies  between  the 
 same  unchangeable  God,  and  one  that  is  obstinate,  and  will  not 
 supplicate,  or  endeavor  to  qualify  himself.  ...  By  an  alteration 
 in  ourselves,  we  may  alter  the  relation  or  respect  lying  between 
 liim  and  us."  ^  To  sum  up,  if  man  changes,  the  very  immuta- 
 hility  of  God's  character  requires  that  his  feelings  should  change 
 toward  the  changed  man. 
 
 Murphy : ^  "To  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter,  every  act  of 
 the  divine  will,  of  creative  power,  or  of  interference  with  the 
 order  of  nature,  seems  at  variance  with  inflexibility  of  purpose. 
 But,  in  the  first  place,  man  has  a  finite  mind,  and  a  limited 
 sphere  of  observation,  and  therefore  is  not  able  to  conceive  or 
 express  thoughts  or  acts  exactly  as  they  are  in  God,  but  only 
 as  they  are  in  himself.  Secondly,  God  is  a  spirit,  and  therefore 
 has  the  attributes  of  personality,  freedom,  and  holiness ;  and 
 the  passage  before  us  is  designed  to  set  forth  these  in  all  the 
 reality  of  their  action,  and  thereby  to  distinguish  the  freedom 
 of  the  eternal  mind  from  the  fatalism  of  inert  matter.  Hence, 
 thirdly,  these  statements  represent  real  processes  of  the  divine 
 Spirit,  analogous  at  least  to  those  of  the  human." 
 
 Those  passages  which  speak  of  God  as  "repenting"  are 
 figurative.  They  are  the  "  language  of  the  event,"  the  divine 
 acts  interpreted  in  words.  We  see  an  artist  executing  a  picture. 
 Having  completed,  he  sm-veys  it,  then,  without  a  word,  takes 
 his  brush  and  effaces  it.  We  say  at  once,  "  he  repented  that 
 he  had  made  it."  We  thus  interpret  his  action  ;  we  assume 
 that  such  were  his  feelings.  So  God  performed  such  outward 
 acts  with  reference  to  the  antediluvians  and  others,  that,  if  they 
 had  been  performed  by  a  man,  we  should  say  "  he  repented  of 
 
 ^  This  author  has  also  an  illustrative  formula  which  will  be  appreciated 
 by  the  mathematician;  "  The  ratio  of  G  to  M  +  q  is  ditferent  from  that 
 of  G  to  M  — q ;  and  5'et  G  remains  unaltered." 
 
 ^  Commentary  on  Genesis,  vi.  6. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  6T 
 
 what  he  had  previously  said  or  done."  Such  is  the  construction 
 we  should  naturally  j)ut  upon  his  conduct.  The  language  is 
 evidently  accommodated  to  our  ideas  of  things. 
 
 Dr.  Davidson :  ^  "  When  repentance  is  attributed  to  God,  it 
 implies  a  change  in  his  mode  of  dealing  with  men,  such  as 
 would  indicate  on  their  part  a  change  of  purpose." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  ^  "  God,  in  order  to  address  himself  impres- 
 sively to  us,  frequently  personates  a  creature,  or  speaks  to  us 
 after  the  manner  of  men.  It  may  be  doubted  whether  the 
 displeasure  of  God  against  the  wickedness  of  men  could  have 
 been  fully  expressed  .'n  literal  terms,  or  with  anything  like  the 
 effect  produced  by  metaphorical  language." 
 
 Prof.  Mansel :  ^  "  The  representations  of  God  wliich  scrip- 
 ture presents  to  us  may  be  shown  to  be  analogous  to  those 
 which  the  laws  of  our  mind  require  us  to  form  ;  and,  therefore 
 such  as  may  naturally  be  supposed  to  have  emanated  from  the 
 same  Author." 
 
 God's  threat  not  to  accompany  the  Israelites  was  unquestion- 
 ably conditional.  As  Scott  says,  "  such  declarations  rather 
 exjiress  what  God  might  justly  do,  what  it  would  become  him 
 to  do,  and  what  he  would  do,  were  it  not  for  some  intervening 
 consideration,  than  his  irreversible  purpose  ;  and  always  imply 
 a  reserved  exception  in  case  the  party  offendhig  were  truly 
 penitent." 
 
 As  to  the  quotation  from  1  Sam.  ii.,  by  Eli's  father's  house 
 we  are  evidently  to  understand  the  house  of  Aaron,  from 
 whom  Eli  was  descended  through  Ithamar.  It  was  Aaron,  the 
 tribe-father  of  Eli,  who  received  the  promise  that  his  house 
 should  walk  forever  before  the  Lord  in  priestly  service.  This 
 promise,  obviously  conditional,  was  henceforth  withdrawn  with 
 regard  to  a  certain  branch  of  Aaron's  family,  and  on  account  of 
 the  smfulness  of  that  branch.  So  far  as  Eli  and  his  sons  were 
 concerned,  the  Lord  would  now  cut  off  the  arm  of  Aaron's  house. 
 
 *  Sacred  ITcnneneutics,  p.  527.  -  Works,  i.  669. 
 
 ^  Limits  of  Religious  Thought,  p.  61  (x\merican  edition). 
 
68  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 By  the  expression,  "  be  it  far  from  me,"  God  does  not,  says 
 Keil,  revoke  his  previous  promise,  but  simply  denounces  a  false 
 trust  therein  as  irreconcilable  with  his  holiness.  That  promise 
 would  only  be  fulfilled  so  far  as  the  priests  themselves  honored 
 the  Lord  in  their  office. 
 
 The  covenant  made  with  Phinehas  ^  was  not  abrogated  by 
 the  temporary  transfer  of  the  high-priest's  office  from  the  line 
 of  Eleazar  to  that  of  Ithamar,  since,  as  Keil  reminds  us,  this 
 covenant  contemplated  an  "everlasting  priesthood,''  and  not 
 specmlly  the  high-priesthood ;  and  the  descendants  of  Phinehas 
 meantime  retained  the  ordinary  priesthood. 
 
 When  Abiathar,  the  last  high-priest  —  Eli  being  the  fii"st  — 
 of  the  line  of  Ithamar,  was  deposed  by  Solomon,^  the  office  of 
 high-priest  was  restored  to  the  line  of  Phinehas  and  Eleazar.* 
 
 In  the  case  of  Hezekiah,  the  divine  declaration  was  clearly  a 
 conditional  one.  Yet,  as  Vitringa  happily  suggests,  "  the  con- 
 dition was  not  expressed,  because  God  would  draw  it  from  him 
 as  a  voluntary  act." 
 
 God  satisfied  with  his  works.  Dissatisfied  with  them. 
 
 God  saw  every  thing  that  he  had  And  it  repented  the  Lord  that  he 
 
 made,  and,  behold  it  was  very  good,  had  made  man  on  the  earth,  and  it 
 
 Gen.  i.  31.  grieved  him  at  his  heart.    Gen.  vi.  6. 
 
 Tliis  case  has  already  been  explained.* 
 
 Will  destroy.  Will  not  destroy. 
 
 And  the  Loud  said,  I  will  destroy  Neither  will  I  again  smite  any  more 
 
 man  whom  I  have  created  from  the  face  every  thing   living,  as  I   have   done, 
 
 of  the  earth;  both  man  and  beast,  and  Gen.  viii.  21. 
 the  creeping  thing,  and  the  fowls  of  the 
 air.    Gen.  vi.  7. 
 
 One  of  these  utterances  was  made  before,  the  other  after, 
 
 the  Flood.     Both  declarations  were  strictly  fulfilled. 
 
 Will  abhor.  Will  not  abhor. 
 
 And  my  soul  shall  abhor  you.  Lev.  I  will  not  cast  them  away,  neither 
 xxvi.  30.  will  I  abhor  them.    Lev.  xxvi.  44. 
 
 The  condition  is  stated  plainly  in  the  intervening  verse,  tlie 
 
 1  Xum.  XXV.  11-13. 
 
 2 1  Kiniii;s  ii.  27.    See  Bahr  in  Lange,  and  Rawlinson  in  Bible  Commen- 
 tary, on  this  passage. 
 *  1  Chron.  xxiv.  3-6.  *  See  p.  4  of  present  work. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  69 
 
 fortieth.  If  they  should  confess  theu*  iniquity,  the  Lord's  "  abhor- 
 rence" of  them  would  be  changed  into  mercy  toward  them. 
 The  whole  context  of  these  passages  is  hypothetical. 
 
 Permission  granted.  Peitnission  withheld. 
 
 And  God  came  iinto  Balaam  atnipht,  And  Balaam  rose  up  in  the  mominpr, 
 
 and  f^aid  unto  him  if  the  men  come  to  and  saddled  his  at-s,  and  went  with  the 
 
 call  thee,  ri.^e  up,  avirf  go  with  them ;  but  princes  of  Moab.    And  (xod's  anger  was 
 
 yetthewordwhichlshallsay  unto  thee,  kindled  because  he  went.    Num.  xxii. 
 
 that  Shalt  thou  do.    ISum.  xxii.  20.  21,  22. 
 
 The  permission  given  to  Balaam  was  conditional ;  "  If  the 
 men  come  to  call  thee,"  etc.  Balaam,  in  his  eagerness,  "  loving 
 the  wages  of  unrighteousness,"  does  not  appear  to  have  waited 
 for  the  men  to  call  him  ;  instead  of  this,  he  volunteered  to  go 
 with  them.  Hengstenberg  ^  observes  that  Balaam  "  immediately 
 availed  himself  of  the  permission  of  God  to  go  with  the  Moab- 
 ites,  which  he  could  only  do  with  the  secret  purpose  to  avoid 
 the  condition  which  had  thereby  been  imposed  upon  him, 
 '  The  word  wliich  I  shall  say  unto  thee,  that  shalt  thou  do.' " 
 Again,  "  since  God's  anger  was  directed  against  Balaam's  going 
 with  a  definite  intention,  it  involves  no  contradiction,  when 
 afterwards  liis  going  was  permitted." 
 
 Keil  thinks  that  God's  anger  was  not  kindled  till  near  the 
 close  of  Balaam's  journey,  and  then  by  the  feelings  he  was 
 cherishing.  A  "  longing  for  wagas  and  honor  "  caused  him  to 
 set  out,  and  "  the  nearer  he  came  to  liis  destination,  under  the 
 guidance  of  the  distinguished  Moabitish  ambassadors,  the  more 
 was  his  mind  occupied  with  the  honors  and  riches  in  prospect ; 
 and  so  completely  did  they  take  possession  of  his  heart,  that 
 he  was  in  danger  of  casting  to  the  winds  the  condition  which 
 had  been  imposed  upon  him  by  God."  Hence  the  divine  anger 
 was  awakened. 
 
 Aben  Ezra  and  Bechayai  ^  say  that  the  Lord  had  already 
 manifested  his  will  to  Balaam  that  he  should  not  go  to  Balak, 
 but  as  if  imagining  God  to  be  mutable,  he  again  inquired  if  he 
 might  go,  when  the  Lord,  who  impedes  not  the  ways  of  men, 
 
 ^  History  of  Balaam  and  his  Prophecies,  pp.  345,  372. 
 *  Menasseh  ben  Israel's  Conciliator,  i.  265. 
 
70  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 permitted  it,  —  If,  knowing  my  will,  you  still  choose  to  go,  do 
 
 so.     Hence  his  actual  going  displeased  the  Lord. 
 
 Henry :  "  As  God  sometimes  denies  the  prayers  of  his  people 
 
 in  love,  so  sometimes  he  grants  the  desires  of  the  wicked  in 
 
 wrath." 
 
 InaccessihiUty. 
 
 God  approachable.  Not  accessible. 
 
 God  in  our  refuge  and  strength,  a  very        Why  standest  thou  afar  off,  O  Lord  ? 
 present  help  in  trouble.     I's.  xlvi.  1.         ^thii   hidest  tliou    ihyaelf  iu  times  of 
 
 It  is  good  for  me  to  draw  near  to    trouble?    Ps  x.  1. 
 God.     Ps.  Ixxiii.  28.  Verily  thou  ar/ a  God  that  hidest  thy- 
 
 The  Loud  is  uigh  unto  all  them  that    self,  O  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour.    Isa. 
 call  u))on  him,  to'all  that  call  upon  him    xlv   15. 
 
 in  truth.    I's.  cxiv.  18.  Thou    hast  covered    thyself  with  a 
 
 Draw  nigh  to  God  and  he  will  draw    cloud,  that  our  prayer  should  not  pass 
 iiigh  to  you.    Jas.  iv.  8.  through.    Lam.  iii.  44. 
 
 Are  ye  come  to  inquire  of  me!  An  I 
 live,  sfiitli  the  Lord  God,  I  will  not  be 
 inquired  of  by  you.    Ezek.  xx.  3. 
 
 Who  only  hath  immortality,  dwell- 
 ing in  the  light  which  no  man  can 
 approach  unto.    1  Tim.  vi.  16. 
 
 Obviously,  the  expression  "  draw  near  to  God  "  is  not  to  be 
 taken  in  the  literal  sense.  In  relation  to  an  omnipresent  being 
 there  can  be,  strictly  speaking,  no  nearness,  no  remoteness. 
 God  is  as  near  to  one  as  to  another.  We  "  di'aw  nigh  "  to  him, 
 in  a  figurative  sense,  by  prayer  and  devout  meditation,  by 
 engaging  in  spiritual  communion  with  him. 
 
 Ps.  X.  1  and  Lam.  iii.  44  express  a  degree  of  impatience  that 
 God  does  not  instantly  appear,  that  he  sees  fit  to  leave  his 
 people  temporarily  in  affliction. 
 
 Isa.  xlv.  15,  Delitzsch  renders,  "  Thou  art  a  mysterious  God," 
 and  says  the  meaning  is,  "  a  God  who  guides  with  marvellous 
 strangeness  the  history  of  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and  by 
 secret  ways,  which  human  eyes  can  never  discern,  conducts  all 
 to  a  glorious  issue." 
 
 Ezek.  XX.  3  was  addressed  to  men  who,  while  cherishing 
 hypocrisy  and  wickedness  in  their  hearts,  attempted  to  inquire 
 of  God.     Such  inquirers  he  ever  sternly  repels. 
 
 1  Tim.  vi.  1 6, "  Dwelling  in  hght  unapproachable,"  is  a  state- 
 ment of  the  unquestionable  truth,  that  no  mortal  can  literally 
 approach  God,  endure  the  ineffable  splendo.-  of  his  presence, 
 or  fathom  the  mysteries  of  his  existence. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  71 
 
 No  one  of  these  texts  intimates  that  men  may  not  draw  near 
 to  God,  in  the  only  possible  way  —  by  penitence  and  prayer ; 
 no  one  of  them  denies  that  he  is  accessible  unto  all  that  "  call 
 upon  him  in  truth." 
 
 All  seeJcers  find.  Some  do  not  find. 
 
 If  thou  seek  liim,  he  will  be  found  of  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he  may  be 
 
 thee;  but  if  thou  forsake  him,  he  will  fouud,  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near, 
 
 cast  tlieeotrfor  ever.   1  Chrou.  xxviii  9.  l!^a.  Iv.  6. 
 
 1  said  not  unto  the  seed  of  Jacob.  Seek  Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  straight  gate ; 
 
 ye  me  in  vain.     Isa.  xlv.  19.  for  many.  I  soy  unto  you.  will  seek  to 
 
 1  am  sought  of  ^^eni^/ia^  asked  not/or  '  enter  in',  and  shall  not  be  able.    Luke 
 
 me ;  1  am  found  of  them  that  sought  me  xiii.  24. 
 
 not.    Jsa.  Ixv.  1.  Ye  shall  seek  me,  and  shall  not  find 
 
 He  that  seeketh  findeth,  and  to  him  me:  and  where  I  am,  thither  ye  cannot 
 
 that  kuocketh  it  shall  be  opened.    Matt.  come.    John  vii.  3i. 
 vii.  8. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller  ^  remarks :  "  Seeking,  in  Matthew,  refers  to  the 
 application  for  mercy  through  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  present  life ; 
 but  in  Luke,  it  denotes  that  anxiety  which  the  workers  of 
 iniquity  will  discover  to  be  admitted  into  heaven  at  the  last 
 
 day Every  one  that  seeketh  mercy  in  the  name  of  'Jesus, 
 
 while  the  door  is  open  succeeds ;  but  he  that  seeketh  it  not  till 
 the  door  is  shut  will  not  succeed." 
 
 The  text  from  John  was  addressed  to  the  unbelieving  Jews 
 who  would  not  seek  Christ,  at  the  right  time,  nor  with  the 
 right  spirit.  Hence,  their  future  seeking  would  be  unavailing. 
 Alford :  "  My  bodily  presence  will  be  withdrawn  from  you ;  I 
 shall  be  personally  in  a  place  inaccessible  to  you." 
 
 These  texts  contain   notliiug  whatever  to  debar  those  who 
 
 seek  the  Saviour  at  the  proper  time,  and  in  the  right  way. 
 
 Early  seekers  successful.  Some  fail  to  find. 
 
 Those  that  seek  me  early  shall  find       They  shall  seek  me  early,  but  they 
 me.    Frov.  viii.  17.  shall  not  find  me.    Trov.  i.28. 
 
 These  two  texts,  as  the  connection  evinces,  point  to  entirely 
 different  classes  of  persons.  The  text  from  Prov.  viii.  is  taken 
 by  many  commentators  as  applicable  to  the  young  who  seek 
 God.  Zockler^  says  the  word  here  rendered  "seek  early," 
 coming  from  a  noun  denoting  the  morning  dawn,  "  signifies  to 
 seek  something  while  it  is  yet  early,  in  the  obscurity  of  the 
 morning  twilight,  and  so  illustrates  eager,  diligent  seeking."    In 
 
 ^  Works,  i.  675.  "^  In  Lange  on  Proy.  i.  28. 
 
72  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 this  opinion,  many  critics  substantially  concur.^  On  this  hypoth- 
 esis, the  sense  is,  "  Those  who  seek  me  in  youth  shall  find  me.'* 
 The  other  text,  in  the  first  chapter,  rendered  by  Stuart, 
 "  They  shall  earnestly  seek  me,  but  they  shall  not  find  me," 
 contemplates  obstinate  and  hardened  transgressors.  They  are 
 described  ^  as  "  fools  "  and  "  scorners,"  are  said  to  have  hated 
 knowledge,  to  have  not  chosen  the  fear  of  the  Lord,  and  to  have 
 despised  all  his  reproof.  The  two  texts  may,  therefore,  be 
 paraphrased  thus  :  "  Those  who  early  and  earnestly  seek,  shall 
 find  me ;  but  impenitent  rebels  who,  in  the  hour  and  from  the 
 fear  of  retribution,  earnestly  seek,  shall  not  find  me."  Properly 
 explained,  there  is  not  the  slightest  collision  between  the  two 
 texts. 
 
 Inscrutability . 
 
 God's  attributes  revealed.  TJiey  are  unsearchable. 
 
 The  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God;  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God? 
 and  the  tirmameut  sheweth  his  handy  canst  thou  find  out  the  Almighty  unto 
 work.     Ps.  xix.  1.  perfection?    Job.  xi.  7. 
 
 For  the  invisible  things  of  him  from  ills  greatness  ts  unsearchable.  Ps. 
 the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly    cxlv  3. 
 
 seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  Great  is  our  Lord,  and  of  great 
 that  are  made;  even  his  eternal  power  power:  his  understanding  is  infinite, 
 and  Godhead ;  so  that  they  are  without    Ts.  cxlvii.  5. 
 
 excuse.    Rom.  i.  20.  There  is  no  searching  of  his  under- 
 
 standing.   Isa.  xl.  28. 
 
 O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both  of  the 
 wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God !  how 
 unsearchable  are  his  judgments,  and 
 his  ways  past  finding  out.    Kom.  xi.  33. 
 
 Neither  of  the  affirmative  texts  intimates  that  God  can  be 
 weighed  or  measured,  or  the  depths  of  Deity  explored  by 
 mortals. 
 
 Ps.  xix.  1  asserts  that  the  heavens  above  us,  the  "upper 
 deep,"  adorned  with  sun  and  moon  and  stars, 
 
 "  Forever  singing,  as  they  shine, 
 *  The  hand  that  made  us  is  divine,' " 
 
 are  a  proof  and  illustration  of  the  wisdom,  power,  and  benevo- 
 lence of  the  Creator.    They  thus  declare  his  glory. 
 
 Rom.  i.  20   merely  implies  that  the  invisible   attributes  of 
 
 1  So  B.  Davidson,  Noyes,  Parkhurst,  Umbreit,  Opitius,  Stockius,  Moore, 
 and  Frey. 
 
 2  See  verses  22,  29,  and  80. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 73 
 
 God,  particularly  his  eternal  power  and  divinity,  are  clearly 
 revealed  in  his  works.  Aristotle  has  a  strikingly  similar  obser- 
 vation, "  God,  who  is  invisible  to  every  mortal  being,  is  seen  by 
 his  works." 
 
 Stuart :  '"  God's  invisible  attributes,  at  least  some  of  them, 
 are  made  as  it  were  visible^  i.e.  are  made  the  object  of  clear 
 and  distinct  apprehension,  by  reason  of  the  natural  creation." 
 
 Inniimerahle. 
 
 Which  doeth  great  things  past  find- 
 ing out;  yea,  and  wonders  without 
 number.    Job.  ix.  10. 
 
 Manv.  O  Lord  my  God,  are  thy  won- 
 derful works  which  thou  ha.«t  done,  and 
 thy  thoughts?  which  are  to  us-wnrd: 
 they  cannot  be  reckoned  up  in  order 
 unto  thee :  if\  would  declare  and  speak 
 of  them,  they  are  more  than  can  be 
 numbered.    I's.  xl.  5. 
 
 These  affirmative  passages  are  not  to  be  rigidly  interpreted. 
 It  is  idle  to  explain  the  language  of  emotion  according  to  a 
 strict  literalism.  David  neither  asserts  nor  implies  liis  ability 
 to  enumerate  and  set  forth  all,  in  the  absolute  sense,  of  God's 
 wonderful  works.  His  meaning  is  :  To  the  extent  of  my  ability 
 I  declare  thy  marvellous  deeds.  Xone  of  the  foregoing  texts 
 impinge  upon  the  unsearchableness  of  God,  as  to  his  essence 
 and  mode  of  existence. 
 
 Invisiblliti/, 
 
 His  tconders  recounted. 
 
 That  I  may  publish  with  the  voice  of 
 thanksgiving,  and  tell  of  ail  thy  won- 
 drous works.    Ps.  xxvi.  7 
 
 Hitherto  have  I  declared  thy  won- 
 drous works.    Ps  ixxi.  17. 
 
 I  have  put  my  trust  in  the  Lord  God, 
 that  I  may  declare  all  thy  works.  Ps. 
 Ixxiu.  28. 
 
 God  seen  many  times. 
 
 And  Jacob  called  the  name  of  the 
 place  Peniel :  for  I  have  seen  God  face 
 to  face,  and  my  life  is  preserved.  Gen. 
 xxxii.  30 
 
 Then  went  up  Mo«es  and  Aaron,  Na- 
 dab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the 
 elders  of  Israel:  and  they  saw  the  God 
 of  Israel.    Ex.  xxiv.  9,  10. 
 
 And  the  Lokd  spake  unto  Moses  face 
 to  face,  as  a  man  speaketh  unto  his 
 friend.  .  .  .  And  twill  take  away  mine 
 hand,  and  thou  shalt  see  my  back  parts : 
 but  my  face  shall  not  be  seen.  Ex. 
 xxxiii   11.  23. 
 
 And  Manoah  said  unto  his  wife,  We 
 shall  surely  die.  because  we  have  seen 
 God.    Judg.  xiii.  22. 
 
 In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died,  I 
 saw  also  the  Lord  sitting  upon  a  throne, 
 high  and  lifted  up.  and  his  train  liUed 
 the  temple.     Isa.  vi.  1. 
 
 I  beiield  till  the  thrones  were  cast 
 down,  and  the  Ancient  of  days  did  sit, 
 
 7 
 
 Not  seen  by  man. 
 
 And  he  said  thou  canst  not  see  my 
 face:  for  there  shall  no  man  see  me, 
 and  live.    Ex  xxxiii.  20. 
 
 Take  ye  therefore  good  heed  unto 
 yourselves;  for  ye  saw  no  manner  of 
 similitude  on  the  day  that  the  Lord 
 spake  unto  you  in  lioreb.  out  of  the 
 midst  of  the  fire.     Deut.  iv.  15. 
 
 No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time. 
 John  i.  18. 
 
 Ye  liave  neither  heard  his  voice  at 
 any  time,  nor  seen  his  shape.  John 
 V,  37. 
 
 The  King  eternal,  immortal,  invis- 
 ible.    1  Tim.  i.  17. 
 
 Whom  no  man  hath  seen  nor  can 
 see.     1  Tim.  vi.  16 
 
74  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 God  seen  many  times.  Not  seen  by  man. 
 
 whose  f^arment  was  white  as  snow,  aud 
 the  hair  of  his  head  like  the  pure  wool : 
 his  throne  was  like  tlie  liery  flame,  and 
 his  wheels  as  burning  hre.    Dan.  vii.  9. 
 
 Some  of  the  eases  mentioned  in  the  first  series  of  texts,  — 
 those  of  Isaiah  and  Daniel,  for  example,  —  were  visions,  in 
 which  men  "  saw  "  the  Deity,  not  with  the  physical  eye,  but 
 with  that  of  the  soul.  In  most  of  the  instances,  however,  some- 
 thing more  real  and  objective  seems  to  be  intended.  In  some 
 cases,  it  is  said  merely  that  "  God "  was  seen ;  in  others,  an 
 "  angel "  appears,  who  is  identified,  during  the  process  of  the 
 narrative,  with  Jehovah. 
 
 It  is  beyond  question  that  God  —  as  a  spirit  —  as  he  is  in 
 himself,  —  is  never  visible  to  men.  In  what  sense,  then,  may 
 he  be  said  to  have  been  "  seen  "  ? 
 
 1.  He  might  assume  temporarily,  and  for  wise  purposes, 
 some  visible  form  in  which  to  manifest  himself  to. his  creatures. 
 Cases  of  this  kind  are  termed  "  theophanies,"  in  which,  as 
 Hengstenberg  ^  says,  God  appears  "  under  a  light  vesture  of 
 corporeity,  in  a  transiently-assumed  human  form."  This  seems 
 in  some  instances  the  best  solution. 
 
 2.  He  might  be  seen,  as  we  may  say,  by  proxy,  —  in  his 
 accredited  representative.  This  explanation  is  a  very  ancient 
 one.  In  the  Samaritan  Pentateuch  in  the  narratives  of  divine 
 appearances,  it  is  not  God  himself  —  Jehovah  —  who  is  men- 
 tioned as  the  Person  appearing,  even  where  this  is  the  case  in 
 the  Jewish  text,  but  always  an  Angel.^  So,  in  the  Chaldee 
 Targum,  Jacob's  language  stands,  "  I  have  seen  the  Angel  of 
 God  face  to  face." 
 
 It  is  a  striking  fact  that,  in  many  instances,  this  "  representa- 
 tive Angel "  claims  for  himself  divine  honors  and  purposes,  and 
 accepts  divine  worship.^  Ilespecting  the  nature  and  rank  of 
 this  celestial  messenger,  opinion  is  divided.^ 
 
 '  Genuineness  of  Pent.  ii.  070.     -  Block,  Introduction  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  393. 
 ^  Sec  (Icncsis  xviii.  10,  14;  xxii.  12;  xxxi.  11,  l-'i;  Acts  vii.  00,32. 
 *  Lanj^c  on  Genesis,  pp.  386-391. 
 
DOCTRINAL    DISCREPANCIES.  75 
 
 Augustine,  Jerome,  the  Romish  theologians,  the  Socinians, 
 Hofmann,  Tholuck,  DeHtzsch,  Km-tz,  and  others,  hold  that  he 
 was  a  "  created  angel "  who  personated  Jehovah,  acted  as  his 
 proxy  or  uuncius.  We  know  that  it  is  not  uncommon  for  a 
 monarch  to  depute  some  nobleman  to  act  as  his  j^roxy  or  repre- 
 sentative for  the  tune  being  with  all  needful  powers  and 
 privileges. 
 
 The  early  church,  the  old  Protestant  theologians,  Bush, 
 Hengstenberg,  Keil,  Hiivernick,  Lange,  Wordsworth,  with 
 others,  hold  that  this  Angel  was  the  Logos,  the  second  Person 
 in  the  Trinity,  who  temporarily  assumed  the  human  form,  and 
 thus  "foreshadowed  the  incarnation."  In  this  manner  God 
 was  seen  in  his  Son.'  On  any  one  of  these  hypotheses,  there 
 is  no  difficulty,  for  God  was  seen,  and  yet  not  seen. 
 
 In  his  infinite  and  incomprehensible  essence,  as  we  have  just 
 said,  Jehovah  is  seen  by  no  mortal ;  but  in  a  theophany,  in  his 
 representative  Angel,  in  the  Logos  who  is  "  the  brightness  of 
 his  glory  and  the  express  image  of  liis  person,"  the  "  King 
 eternal,  immortal,  invisible"  has  often  been  seen. 
 
 Little  need  be  said  concerning  the  specific  cases  above  men- 
 tioned. The  Lord  spake  with  his  servant  Moses  "  face  to  face," 
 that  is,  familiarly.  Two  men  may  speak  face  to  face,  in  dark- 
 ness, neither  seeing  the  other. 
 
 As  to  Ex.  xxxiii.  23,  Keil  says :  "  As  the  inward  nature  of 
 man  manifests  itself  in  his  face,  and  the  sight  of  his  back  gives 
 only  an  imperfect  and  outward  view  of  him,  so  Moses  saw  only 
 the  back,  and  not  the  face  of  Jehovah." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  ^  "  The  difference  here  seems  to  arise  from 
 the  phrase  "  face  of  God."  In  the  one  case,  it  is  expressive  of 
 great  familiarity,  compared  with  former  visions  and  manifesta- 
 tions of  the  divine  glory ;  in  the  other,  of  a  fulness  of  hiowledge 
 of  this  glory,  which  is  incompatible  with  oiu-  mortal  state,  if  not 
 with  our  capacity  as  creatures. 
 
 Murphy:  "  My  face  is  my  direct,  immediate,  intrinsic,  self 
 
 ^  Works,  i.  G74  (ediiion  in  3  aoIs.) 
 
76  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 My  hach  is  my  averted,  mediate,  extrinsic  self,  visible  to  man 
 in  my  works,  my  word,  and  my  personal  manifestations  to  my 
 people." 
 
 Bush :  "  Nothing  could  be  more  expressive  than  the  mode 
 adopted  to  convey  the  intimation,  that  while  a  loioer  degree  of 
 disclosure  could  be  made  to  him,  a  higher  could  not."  An  im- 
 portant truth  is  couched  in  highly  symbolical  language. 
 
 As  to  the  apparent  collision  between  John  v.  37  and  those 
 passages  which  represent  the  voice  of  God  as  heard  at  times 
 by  men,^  the  citation  from  John  may  be  taken  as  asserting  that 
 no  mortal  ever  saw  the  form  or  heard  the  voice  which  is  peculiar 
 to  God.  Or,  as  Alford  suggests,  the  language  may  have  been 
 intended  to  apply  to  those  persons  then  present,  "  Ye  have  not 
 heard  his  voice,  as  your  fathers  did  at  Sinai ;  nor  have  ye  seen 
 his  visional  appearance,  as  did  the  prophets." 
 
 On  either  interpretation  there  is  no  difficulty. 
 
 Similitude  of  God  seen.  No  similitude  visible. 
 
 The  similitude  of  tlie  Lord  shall  he  And  the  Lord  spake  unto  you  out  of 
 behold.    Num.  xii.  8.  the  midst  of  the  fire :  ye  heard  the  voice 
 
 of  the  words,  but  saw  no  similitude. 
 Deut.  iv.  12. 
 
 The  first  text  refers  to  Moses,  the  second  to  the  people  in 
 general.  He  saw  certain  manifestations  of  God  which  they 
 were  not  jDcrmitted  to  see. 
 
 Keil  thinks  that  the  similitude  which  Moses  saw  was  simply 
 a  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  God  answering  to  Moses's  own 
 intuition  and  perceptive  faculty,  and  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
 form  of  God  wliich'was  an  adequate  representation  of  the  divine 
 nature. 
 
 Holiness. 
 God  the  Author  of  evil.  Not  the  Author  of  evil. 
 
 I  form  the  lijiht,  and  create  darkness :        A  God  of  truth  and  without  iniquity, 
 J  make  peace,  and  create  evil:    I  the    just  and  right  «.s' he.     Deut.  xxxii.  4. 
 fiORD  do  all  these  tkinr/s.  Isa.  xlv.  7.  For  thou  art  not  a  God  that  hath 
 
 Thussaith  the  Lord- Behold,  I  frame    pleasure  in  wickedness:   neither  shall 
 ^^vil  apainst  you,  and  devise  a  device    evil  dwell  with  thee.    Ps.  v  4. 
 against  you.    Jer.  xviii.  IL  Fori  know  the  thoughts  that  I  think 
 
 Out  of  the  mouth  of  the  Most  High  toward  you.  saith  the  Lord,  thoughts 
 proceedtili  not  evil  and  good?  Lara,  of  peace,  and  not  of  evil.  Jer.  xxix. 
 iii.  38.  IL. 
 
 *  See  Gen.  iii.  8;  Ex.  xix.  19;  Deut.  v.  26;  Job  xxxviii.  1. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  77 
 
 God  the  Author  of  evil.  Not  the  Author  of  evil. 
 
 Wherefore  I  gave  them  also  statutes       For  God  is  not  the  aw//iwof  confusion, 
 that  were   not   good,  and  judgments    but  of  peace.  1  Cor.  xiv.  33. 
 whereby  they  should  not  live.     Ezek. 
 XX.  25. 
 
 fehall  there  be  evil  in  a  city,  and  the 
 Lord  hath  not  done  it  ?    Amos  iii.  6. 
 
 "  Evil,"  mentioned  in  the  first,  second,  third,  and  fifth  texts, 
 means  natural,  and  not  moral  evil,  or  sin.  Henderson  says, 
 "  affliction,  adversity  " ;  Calvin,  "  afflictions,  wars,  and  other 
 adverse  occurrences." 
 
 When  Pompeii  is  buried  by  the  volcano,  Jerusalem  destroyed 
 in  war,  London  depopulated  by  the  plague,  Lisbon  overtlii'own 
 by  an  earthquake,  Chicago  devastated  by  fire ;  it  is  God  who 
 sends  these  "  evils  "  or  calamities. 
 
 In  Psalm  v.  4,  "  evil,"  as  the  parallelism  shows,  is  iniquity  ; 
 in  Jer.  xxix.  11,  it  means  punitive  displeasure. 
 
 As  to  Ezek.  xx.  25,  the  "  statutes  "  which  were  "  not  good  "  ^ 
 are  variously  referred. 
 
 Calvin,  Vitringa,  and  Havernick  say,  the  customs  and  practices, 
 the  idolatrous  and  corrupting  rites,  of  heathenism,  to  which  God 
 gave  over  the  Jews  as  a  punishment  for  their  ungodly  disposition.^ 
 
 Fairbairn :  "  The  polluted  customs  and  observances  of  heath- 
 enism." Wordsworth :  "  These  evil  practices  are  called  '  statutes ' 
 and  'judgments,'  in  verse  18,  like  the  'statutes  of  Omri'  in 
 Micah  vi.  1 6."  ^  Umbreit  and  Kurtz  say,  "  the  liturgical  laws 
 which  Jehovah  prescribed,  but  which  the  people  abused  for 
 heathen  purposes." 
 
 We  know  that  abused  blessings  may  prove  the  heaviest 
 curses.  May  not  the  meaning  be  that  these  "  statutes,"  though 
 good  in  their  original  design  and  adaptation,  proved  "not 
 good"  in  their  result,  through  the  disobedience  of  those  to 
 whom  they  were  addressed  ?  Ai^e  not  Paul's  words,  "  And  the 
 commandment  which  was  ordained  to  life,  I  found  to  be  unto 
 death,"  ^  explanatory  of  the  text  under  consideration  ? 
 
 1  Compare  Ps.  Ixxxi.  12;  Rom.  i.  24,  25;  2  Thess.  ii.  11. 
 
 2  Compare  "  statutes  of  the  heathen,"  2  Kings  xtU.  8. 
 ^  Rom.  vii.  10. 
 
 7* 
 
78  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Wines  ^  takes  the  meaning  to  be,  laws  not  absolutely  the  best, 
 but  relatively  so.  This  view  of  the  meaning  and  force  of  the 
 text  is  confirmed  by  the  words  of  our  Saviour.  He  has  told  us 
 that  Moses  tolerated  divorce  among  the  Jews,  because  of  the 
 hardness  of  their  hearts.  If  the  Jews  of  Moses's  time  had  been 
 less  hardhearted,  several  of  his  statutes  would  have  been  differ- 
 ent. These  statutes  were  intended  to  meet  special  exigencies, 
 but  were  not  designed  for  universal  application. 
 
 Solon,  being  asked  whether  he  had  furnished  the  best  laws 
 for  the  i^eople  of  Athens,  replied,  "  I  have  given  them  the  be?;t 
 that  they  were  able  to  bear." 
 
 "  Wlien  divine  wisdom,"  observes  Montesquieu,^  "  said  to  the 
 Jews,  'I  have  given  you  precepts  which  are  not  good,'  this 
 signifies  that  they  had  only  a  relative  goodness ;  and  this  is  the 
 sponge  which  wipes  out  all  the  difficulties  which  are  to  be  found 
 ill  the  law  of  Moses." 
 
 Whichever  interpretation  may  be  adopted,  none  of  the  above 
 texts,  nor  any  others  when  properly  explained,  sanction  the 
 revoltiug  proposition  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin. 
 
 God  jealous.  Free  from  jealousy. 
 
 1  the  Lord  thy  God  awi  a  jealous  God.  The  Lord  is  gracious,  and  full  of 
 Ex.  XX.  5.  compassion ;  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great 
 
 The  anger  of  the  Lord  and  his  jeal-  mercy     The  Lord  is  good  to  all :  and 
 
 ousy  shall  smoke  against    that    man.  his  tender  mercies    are    over  all   his 
 
 Deut.  xxix.  20.  works.     Ps.  cxlv.  8,  9. 
 
 Forthey  provoked  him  to  anger  with  For  jealousy  is  the  rage  of  a  man: 
 
 their  higii  places,  and  moved  him  to  therefore  he  will  not  spare  in  the  day  of 
 
 jealousy  with  their  graven  images.   Ps.  vengeance.     Prov.  vi.  34. 
 
 Ixxviii.  58.  Wrath  is  cruel,  and  anger  i.s  outra- 
 
 Therefore  thus  saith  the  Lord  Cod;  geous;  but  who  is  able  to  stand  before 
 
 Surely  in  tlie  lire  of  my  jealousy  have  jealousy.'*  I'rov.  xxvii.  4 
 
 I   spuken  against  the   residue  of  the  Jealousy  is  cruel  as  the  grave:  the 
 
 heathen.  Ezek.  xxxvi.  6.  coals  thereof  are.  coals  of  lire,  which 
 
 God  /.s  jealous,  and  the  Lord  reveng-  hath  a  most  vehement  flame.    Cantic. 
 
 eth.  iNahumi.  2.  viii.  6. 
 
 The  words  "  jealous "  and  "  jealousy "  are  each  used  in  a 
 good  and  a  bad  sense.*     Applied  to  God,  they  denote  that  he 
 
 ^  Commentary  on  Laws  of  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.  119. 
 
 2  Spirit  of  Laws,  B.  19,  c.  21. 
 
 ^  Ziickler  says  the  original  word  denotes  here,  not  "  envy,"  but  plainly 
 "jealousy." 
 
 *  In  the  llcbrcvr ,  jealousy ,  envy,  zeal,  and  anger  may  be  expressed  by  a 
 single  term,  nxSJD  ;  Fuerst  and  Gesenius. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  79 
 
 is  intensely  solicitous  for  his  own  character  and  honor,  that  he 
 does  not  tolerate  rivalry  of  any  kind.  An  infinitely  wise  and 
 holy  Monarch  cannot  be  indifferent  as  to  the  loyalty  of  his 
 subjects. 
 
 Keil  regards  the  terms  as  implying  that  God  "  will  not  transfer 
 to  another  the  honor  that  is  due  to  himself,  nor  tolerate  the  worship 
 of  any  other  god  " ;  and  Bush,  as  denoting  "  a  peculiar  sensi- 
 tiveness to  everything  that  threatens  to  trench  upon  the  honor, 
 reverence,  and  esteem  that  he  knows  to  be  due  to  himself.  The 
 term  will  appear  still  more  significant  if  it  be  borne  in  mind 
 that  idolatry  in  the  Scriptures  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  spiritual 
 adultery,  and  as  '  jealousy  is  the  rage  of  man,'  so  nothing  can 
 more  fitly  express  the  divine  indignation  against  this  sin  than  the 
 term  in  question."  According  to  Newman,^  the  phraseology 
 brmgs  to  view  ''  the  great  principle  essential  to  all  acceptance 
 with  Jehovah  their  God ;  namely  to  put  away  the  worship  of 
 all  other  gods.  This  is  constantly  denoted  by  the  phrase  that 
 *  Jehovah  is  a  jealous  God ; '  and  out  of  it  arose  the  perpetual 
 metaphor  of  the  prophet  in  which  the  relation  of  God  to  his 
 people  is  compared  to  a  marriage ;  the  daughter  of  Israel  being 
 his  bride  or  wife,  and  he  a  jealous  husband-  Thus  also,  every 
 false  god  is  a  paramour,  and  the  worship  of  them  is  adultery 
 or  fornication." 
 
 Hence,  even  in  the  estimation  of  this  sceptical  author,  these 
 expressions  are  not  derogatory  to  the  holiness  of  God. 
 
 God  tempts  men.  Does  not  tempt  them,. 
 
 And  it  came  to  pass  after  these.  Let  no  man  say  when  he  is  tempted, 
 things,  that  God  did  tempt  Abraham.  I  am  tempted  of  God:  fir  God  cannot 
 Gen.  xxii.  1.  be  tempted  with  evil,  neither  tempteth 
 
 And  again  the  anger  of  the  Lord    he  any  man.    James  i.  13. 
 was    kindled    against    Israel,  and    he 
 moved  David  against  them  to  say.  Go, 
 number    Jsrael    and    Judah.     2  Sam. 
 xxiv.  1. 
 
 And  lead  us  not  into  temptation,  but 
 deliver  us  from  evil.    Matt.  vi.  13. 
 
 The  Hebrew  word  "  nissah,"  tempt.,  in  the  first  text,  means  as 
 Geseuius  says,  "  to  try,  to  prove  any  one,  to  put  liim  to  the  test" 
 
 *  History  of  Hebrew  Monarchy,  p.  26. 
 
80  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 It  is  used  in  reference  to  David's  trying  Saul's  armor,^  and  the 
 queen  of  Sheba's  testing  the  wisdom  of  Solomon.^  The  mean- 
 ing therefore  is,  as  in  the  old  Genevan  version,  "  God  did 
 prove  Abraham." 
 
 Bush :  "  God  may  consistently,  with  all  his  perfections,  by  his 
 providence,  bring  his  creatures  into  circumstances  of  special 
 probation,  not  for  the  purpose  of  giving  him  information,  but 
 in  order  to  manifest  to  themselves  and  to  others  the  prevailing 
 dispositions  of  their  hearts."  God  put  Abraham  to  the  proof 
 before  angels  and  men,  that  his  faith  and  obedience  might  be 
 made  manifest  for  an  example  to  all  coming  generations. 
 
 As  to  the  second  text,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that  God  ordered 
 or  allowed  such  influences  to  affect  the  mind  of  David  as  should 
 lead  to  a  specific  wrong  act  resulting  in  needful  chastisement. 
 Yet  the  ultimate  end  in  view  was  the  welfare  of  David  and  his 
 people. 
 
 It  should  be  added  that,  according  to  Lord  Arthur  Hervey," 
 the  passage  should  read,  '■'-For  one  moved  David  against  themr 
 This  translation  would  seem  to  change  the  whole  aspect  of  the 
 passage,  and  to  make  the  numbering  of  the  people  the  cause, 
 rather  than  the  result,  of  the  divine  displeasure. 
 
 Keil :  *  "  The  instigation  consists  in  the  fact  that  God  impels 
 sinners  to  manifest  the  wickedness  of  their  hearts  in  deeds,  or 
 furnishes  the  opportunity  and  the  occasion  for  the  unfolding 
 and  practical  manifestation  of  the  evil  desires  of  the  heart,  that 
 the  sinner  may  either  be  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  his  more 
 evil  ways  and  also  to  repentance,  through  the  evil  deed  and  its 
 consequences ;  or,  if  the  heart  should  be  hardened  still  more  by 
 the  evil  deed,  that  it  may  become  ripe  for  the  judgment  of  death. 
 Tlie  instigation  of  a  sinner  to  evil  is  simply  one  peculiar  way  in 
 which  God,  as  a  general  rule,  punishes  sins  through  sinners  ;  for 
 God  only  instigates  to  evil  actions  such  as  have  drawn  down 
 the  wrath  of  God  upon  themselves  in  consequence  of  their  sin." 
 
 *  1  Sam.  xvii.  39.  ^jKiuggx.  i,  ^  In  Bible  Commentary. 
 
 *  Commentary  on  1  Sam.  xxvi.  19 
 
DOCTEINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  81 
 
 "  Lead  us  not  into  temptation,"  either  "  Do  not  suffer  us  to 
 be  tempted  to  sin  ;  or,  if  "  temptation  "  here  means  trial,  afflic- 
 tion, "  Do  not  afflict  or  try  us."  Such,  in  substance  is  Mr. 
 Barnes's  view.  God  "  tempts,"  tests,  or  tries  men,  but  always 
 for  wise  reasons,  and  with  a  good  motive ;  he  never  places 
 inducements  before  men  merely  in  order  to  lead  them  into  sin. 
 His  ultimate  object  is  always  good. 
 
 God,  a  respecter  of  persons.  Does  not  respect  them. 
 
 And  the  Lord  had  respect  unto  Abel  A  ^reat  God,  a  miorhtj',  and  a  terrible, 
 
 and  to  his  ofTering.    But  unto  Cain  and  which  regardeth  not  persons,  nor  taketh 
 
 to  his  oflering  he  had  not  respect.  Gen.  reward.     Deut.  x  17. 
 
 iv.  4,  5.  There  is  no  iniquity  with  the  Loud 
 
 And  God  looked  upon  the  children  of  our  God,  nor  respect  of  persons,  nor 
 
 Israel,  and  God  had  respect  unto  them,  taking  of  gifts.    2  Chron.  xi.x.  7. 
 
 Ex.  ii.  25.  Then   Peter  opened  his  mouth,  and 
 
 For  1  will  have  respect  unto  you,  and  said,  Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is 
 
 make  you  fruitful,  and  multiply  you,  no  respecter  of  persons.    Acts  x.  34. 
 
 and  establish  my  covenant  with  you.  For  there  is  no  respect  of  persons 
 
 Lev.  xxvi.  9.  with  God.  Kom  ii.  11. 
 
 And  the  Lord  was    gracious  unto  God  accepteth  no  man's  person.  Gal. 
 
 them,  and   had  compassion  on   them,  ii.  6. 
 
 and  had  respect  unto  them.    2  Kings  Your  Master  also  is  in  heaven  ;  neither 
 
 xiii.  23.  i.';  there  respect  of  persons  with  him. 
 
 Though  the  Lord  be  high,  yet  hath  Eph.  vi.  9. 
 
 herespect  unto  the  lowly  :  but  the  proud  The  Father,  who  without  respect  of 
 
 he  knoweth  afar  off.   Ts.  cxxxviii.  6.  persons   judgeth    according  to    every 
 
 man's  work.  1  Pet.  i.  17. 
 
 The  first  series  of  texts  implies  a  righteous  and  benevolent 
 "  respect,"  based  upon  a  proper  discrimination  as  to  character ; 
 the  second  series  denotes  a  "  respect "  which  is  partial,  arising 
 out  of  selfish  and  unworthy  considerations. 
 
 The  Hebrew  expression,  "  nasa  panim,"  in  Deut.  x.  17  and 
 2  Chron.  xix.  7,  is  to  be  taken,  according  to  Gesenius,  "  in  a 
 bad  sense,  to  be  partial,  as  a  judge  unjustly  partial  or  corrupted 
 by  bribes."  '  Fuerst  gives,  among  other  definitions,  "  to  take  the 
 side  of  one  ivith  partiality."  In  both  of  the  above  texts,  the 
 connection  makes  it  clear  that  this  is  the  correct  interpretation. 
 The  corresponding  Greek  term  "  prosopolepsia,"  expressing  con- 
 cretely the  same  idea,^  and  occurring  in  some  modification  in  all 
 but  one  of  the  New  Testament  citations,  conveys  an  unfavorable 
 meaning,  uniformly  implying  partiality. 
 
 There  is  therefore  no  collision  between  the  two  series  of 
 
 See  Ilackett  on  Acts  x.  34. 
 
82  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 texts,   inasmuch   as   they  refer   to  widely  different   kinds   of 
 
 "  respect." 
 
 God,  an  angry  being.  Not  anginf. 
 
 God  is  angry  loith  the  toiclced  every  The  Lord  God,  merciful  and  gracious, 
 
 day.    I's.  vii.  11.  longsulfering,  and  abundant  in  good- 
 Come,  my  people,  enter  thou  into  thy  ness  and  truth,  keeping  mercy  for  thou- 
 
 chambor?!,  and  shut  thy  doors  about  sands.     Ex  xxxiv.  6,  7. 
 
 thee :  hide  thyself  as  it  were  for  a  little  A  God  ready  to  pardon,  gracious  and 
 
 moment,  until  the  iudiguatiou  be  over-  merciful,  slow  to  anger,  and  of  great 
 
 past.    Isa.  xxvi.  20.  kindness.    Neh.  ix.  17. 
 
 The  tierce  anger  of  the  Lord  is  not  Great     are  thy    tender    mercies,   O 
 
 turned  back  from  us.     Jer.  iv.  8.  Lokd.    Ps.  cxix.  1G6. 
 
 The  Lord  revengeth,  and  is  furious;  iury  is  not  in  me.    Isa.  xxvii.  4. 
 
 the  Lord  will  take  vengeance  on  his 
 
 adversaries,  and  he  reserveth  wrath  for 
 
 his  enemies.    Kah.  i.  2. 
 
 The  "  anger  "  ascribed  to  God  in  the  scriptures  is,  as  Rashi 
 says,  "  the  displeasure  and  disgust "  which  he  experiences  in 
 view  of  human  conduct.  Let  any  one  seriously  reflect  as  to 
 what  must  be  the  feelings  of  an  infinitely  wise  and  holy  Being 
 in  regard  to  sin,  and  he  can  scarcely  be  at  a  loss  to  appreciate 
 the  meaning  of  the  term,  "  anger  of  God."  Prof.  Tayler 
 Lewis  ^  has  the  following  remarks  :  "  Depart  in  the  least  from 
 the  idea  of  indifferentism,  and  we  have  no  limit  but  infinity. 
 God  either  cares  nothing  about  what  we  call  good  and  evil ; 
 or  as  the  heaven  of  heavens  is  high  above  the  earth,  so  far  do 
 his  love  for  the  good  and  hjs  hatred  of  evil  exceed  in  their 
 intensity  any  corresponding  human  affection."  The  Being 
 who  loves  the  good  with  infinite  intensity  must  hate  evil  with 
 the  same  intensity.  So  far  from  any  incompatibility  between 
 this  love  and  this  hate,  they  are  the  counterparts  of  each  other 
 —  opposite  poles  of  the  same  moral  emotion. 
 
 "  A  religion  over  whose  portal  is  inscribed  in  letters  of  flame, 
 '  I  AM  Holy,'  can  without  risk  represent  God  as  angry,  jealous, 
 mourning,  reiDcnting.  Scrupulosity,  under  such  circumstances, 
 is  the  sign  of  an  evil  conscience."  ^ 
 
 God,  susceptible  of  temptation.  Cannot  be  tempted. 
 
 Ye  shall  not  tempt  the  Loud  your       God  cannot  be  tempted  with  evil. 
 God,  as   ye  tempted  him  in  Massah.    Jas.  i.  13. 
 Deut.  vi.  16. 
 
 They  that  tempt  God  are  even  deliv- 
 ered.   Mai.  iii.  15. 
 
 ^  In  Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  288. 
 
 2  IIen;rstenber^\  Genuineness  of  Pent.  ii.  327. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  83 
 
 God,  susceptible  of  temptation.  Cannot  he  tempted. 
 
 Thou  Shalt  not  tempt  the  Lord  thy 
 God.    Matt.  iv.  7. 
 
 Now  therefore  why  tempt  ye  God,  to 
 put  a  yoke  upon  the  neck  of  the  disci- 
 ples.   Acts  XV.  10. 
 
 Men  are  said,  in  the  Bible,  to  "tempt"  God,  when  they 
 distrust  his  faithfulness ;  when  they  brave  his  displeasure ; 
 when,  challenging  him  to  work  miracles  in  their  behalf,  they 
 presumptuously  expose  themselves  to  peril ;  also,  "  by  putting 
 obstacles  in  the  way  of  his  evidently  determined  course."  ^ 
 
 The  quotation  from  James,  as  it  stands  in  our  version,  simply 
 asserts  that  there  is  nothing  in  God  which  responds  to  the 
 solicitations  and  blandishments  of  evil ;  it  presents  no  attractions 
 to  him.     He  is  not  allured  by  it  in  the  slightest  degree. 
 
 Alford,  DeWette,  and  Huther,  however,  render,  in  substance, 
 "  God  is  unversed  in  things  evil."  With  either  rendering  there 
 is  no  discrepancy.^ 
 
 Justice, 
 
 God  is  just.  Unjust. 
 
 That  be  far  from  thee  to  do  after  this  For  whosoever  hath,  to  him  shall  be 
 
 manner,  to  slay  the  righteous  with  the  given,  and  he  shall  have  more  abun- 
 
 wicked:  and  that  the  righteous  should  donee:   but  whosoever  hath  not,  from 
 
 be  as  the  wicked,  that  be  far  from  thee :  him  shall  be  taken  away  even  that  he 
 
 shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  hath.    Matt.  xiii.  12. 
 
 rightii'    Gen.  xviii.  25.  (For  ^Ae  c^iWre?i  being  not  yet  born. 
 
 All  his  ways  ai-e  judgment,  a  God  of  neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil, 
 
 truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  that  the  purpose  of  God  according  to 
 
 right  is  he      Deut  xxxii.  4.  election  might  stand,  not  of  works,  but 
 
 The  Lord  is  upright:  he  is  my  rock,  of  him  that  calleth  :)    It  was  said  unto 
 
 and  there  is  no  unrighteousness  in  him.  her.  The  elder  shall  serve  tlie  younger. 
 
 Ps.  xcii.  15.  As  it  is  written,  Jacob  have  I  loved, 
 
 Hear  now,  O  house  of  Israel :  Is  not  but  Esau  have  I  hated.    Kom.  ix.  11-13. 
 my  way  equal  ?    are  not  your  ways  un- 
 equal?   Ezek.  xviii.  25. 
 
 As  to  Matt.  xiii.  12,  Barnes  says:  "This  is  a  proverbial 
 mode  of  speaking.  It  means  that  a  man  who  improves  what 
 light,  grace,  and  opportunities  he  has  shall  have  them  increased. 
 From  him  that  improves  them  not,  it  is  proper  that  they  should 
 be  taken  away." 
 
 AKord :  "  He  who  hath  —  he  who  not  only  hears  with  the 
 ear,  but  understands  with  the  heart,  has  more  given  to  him. 
 . . .  He  who  hath  not,  in  whom  there  is  no  spark  of  spiritual 
 
 ^  Alford  on  Acts  xv,  10. 
 
 2  On  supposed  sanction  of  Human  Sacrifices,  see  under  Ethical  Dis- 
 crepancies. 
 
84  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 desire  nor  meetness  to  receive  the  engrafted  word,  has  taken 
 from  him  even  that  which  he  hath  ('  seemeth  to  have^  Luke)  ; 
 even  the  poor  confused  notions  of  heavenly  doctrine  which  a 
 sensual  and  careless  life  allow  him  are  further  bewildered  and 
 darkened  by  this  simple  teaching,  into  the  depths  of  which  he 
 cannot  penetrate  so  far  as  eveii  to  ascertain  that  they  exist." 
 Dryden's  Juvenal  furnishes  a  fine  parallel  to  this  text : 
 
 "  'Tis  true  poor  Codrus  nothing  had  to  boast ; 
 And  yet  poor  Codrus  all  that  nothing  lost." 
 
 Stuart  says  that  Rom.  ix.  11-13  "refers  to  the  bestowment 
 and  the  withholding  of  temporal  blessings'' 
 
 John  Taylor,  of  Norwich :  "  Election  to  the  present  privi- 
 leges and  external  advantages  of  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this 
 world;  and  reprobation  or  rejection,  as  it  signifies  the  not 
 being  favored  with  those  privileges  and  advantages." 
 
 Barnes :  "  He  had  preferred  Jacob,  and  had  withheld  from 
 Esau  those  privileges  and  blessings  which  he  had  conferred  on 
 the  posterity  of  Jacob." 
 
 That  temporal  privileges  and  blessings  are  very  unequally 
 distributed,  no  one  can  deny.  The  fact  is  patent  to  the  most 
 casual  observer.  "  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Is  there  un- 
 righteousness with  God?"  If  this  fact  constitutes  an  objection 
 against  the  justice  of  this  world's  Governor,  it  is  an  objection 
 wliich  the  infidel  is  as  much  bound  to  answer  as  is  the  Christian. 
 The  truth  is,  the  All-wise  Sovereign  has  an  unquestionable 
 right  to  bestow  his  favors  as  he  sees  fit. 
 
 Punishes  for  others'  sins.  Does  not  thus  punish. 
 
 And    Ham,   the  fathor  of   Canaan,  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death 
 
 saw  the  nakedness  of  his  father,  and  for  the  children,  neither  shall  the  chil- 
 
 told  his  two  brethren  without.      And  dren  be  put  to  death  for  the  fathers: 
 
 Noah  awoke  from  his  wine,  and  knew  every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his 
 
 what  his  younper  son  had  done  unto  own  sin.     Deut.  xxiv.  16. 
 
 him.    And  he  sa*id,  Cursed /je  Canaan;  Heboid,  all  souls  are  mine;   as  the 
 
 a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  unto  soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of 
 
 his  brethren,     ben.  ix.  22,  24.  25.  the  son  is  mine:  the  soul  that  sinneth, 
 
 Visiting  the  iniiiuity  of  the  fathers  it  shall  die.    The  son  shall  not  bear  the 
 
 upon  the  children  unto  the  third  and  iniciuity  of  the  father,  neither  shall  the 
 
 fourth   qeni'vation  of  them  that  hate  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son;  the 
 
 me      Ex.  XX.  5.  riphteousness  of  the  righteous  shall  be 
 
 And  Joshua,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  ujton  him,  and  the  wickedness  of  the 
 
 took  Achan  the  son  of  Zerah,  and  the  wicked  shall  be  upon  him.    Ezek.  xvih. 
 
 silver,  and  the  garment,  and  the  wedge  4,  20. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  85 
 
 Punishes  for  others'  sins.  Does  not  thus  punish. 
 
 ofgold,  and  his  sons,  and  his  daughters,        The    rifrhteous    judgment    of   Godr 
 and  his  oxen,  and  his  a3se:>,  and  liis    Who  will  render  to  every  man  accord- 
 sheep,  and  his  tent,  and  all  that  he    ing  to  his  deeds.    Kom.  ii.  o,  6. 
 had:  and  they  brought  them  unto  the 
 valley  of  Achor.     And  all  Israel  stoned 
 him  with  stones,  and  burned  them  with 
 lire,  after  they  had  stoned  them  with 
 stones     And  "they  raised  over  him  a 
 great  heap  of  stones  unto  this  day.     So 
 the  Loud  turned  from  the  tierceness  of 
 his  anger.    Josh.  vii.  24-26. 
 
 What  mean  ye,  that  ye  use  this 
 proverb  concerning  the  laud  of  Israel, 
 saying.  The  fathers  have  eaten  sour 
 grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set 
 on  edge  ?    Ezek.  xviii.  2. 
 
 As  to  the  case  of  Canaan,  it  cannot  be  proved,  though  often 
 assumed,  that  he  was  cursed  for  the  misconduct  of  Ham,  his 
 father.  Bush  thinks  that  Ham's  gross  disrespect  or  con- 
 temptuous deportment  toward  his  aged  parent  became,  "  under 
 the  prompting  of  inspiration,  a  suggesting  occasion  of  the  curse 
 now  i^ronounced.  . . .  Noah  therefore  uttered  the  words  from 
 an  inspired  foresight  of  the  sins  and  abominations  of  the 
 abandoned  stock  of  the  Canaanites." 
 
 Keil:  "Noah,  through  the  spirit  and  power  of  that  God 
 with  whom  he  walked,  discerned  in  the  moral  nature  of  his 
 sons,  and  the  different  tendencies  which  they  already  displayed, 
 the  germinal  commencement  of  the  future  bourse  of  their  pos- 
 terity, and  uttered  words  of  blessing  and  of  curse  which  were 
 prophetic  of  the  history  of  the  tribes  that  descended  from  them." 
 The  reason  why  Canaan  alone  of  Ham's  sons  was  specified 
 "  must  either  lie  in  the  fact  that  Canaan  was  already  walking 
 in  the  steps  of  his  father's  impiety  and  sin,  or  else  be  sought  in 
 the  name  '  Canaan,'  ^  in  which  Noah  discerned,  through  the 
 gift  of  prophecy,  a  significant  omen ;  a  supposition  decidedly 
 favored  by  the  analogy  of  the  blessing  pronounced  upon  Japhet,^ 
 wliich  is  also  founded  upon  the  name." 
 
 Lange  tliinks  that  Noah's  malediction  is  "  only  to  be  ex- 
 plained on  the  ground  that,  in  the  prophetic  spirit,  he  saw  into 
 
 ^  That  is,  "  the  submissive  one";  Keil. 
 *  "  Widely  spreading,"  so  Gesenius. 
 
86  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  future,  and  that  the  vision  had  for  its  point  of  departure 
 the  then  present  natural  state  of  Canaan." 
 
 Aben  Ezra,^  Rashi,  the  Talmudists,  Scaliger,  and  others, 
 with  Tayler  Lewis,  hold  that  Canaan  too  saw  Noah  in  his 
 exposed  condition,  and  that  he  committed  a  cruel  and  wanton 
 outrage,  or  some  unnamed  beastly  crime,  upon  the  person  of 
 the  sleeping  patriarch ;  and  that  this  vile  indignity  drew  down 
 the  severe  denunciation  upon  him  as  the  actual  offender.  Prof. 
 Lewis ^  assigns  the  following  reasons  for  this  opinion:  The 
 Hebrew  rendered  '  his  younger  son,'  cannot  refer  to  Ham,  who 
 was  older  than  Japheth,  but  means  the  least  or  youngest  of  the 
 family,  and  hence  is  descriptive  of  Canaan.  The  words  '  had 
 done  unto  him'  mean  something  more  than  an  omission  or 
 neglect.  The  expression  is  a  very  positive  one.  Something 
 unmistakable,  something  very  shameful  had  been  done  to  the 
 old  man  in  his  unconscious  state,  and  of  such  a  nature  that  it 
 becomes  manifest  to  him  immediately  on  his  recovery.  "  There 
 seems  to  be  a  careful  avoidance  of  particularity.  The  language 
 has  an  euphemistic  look,  as  though  intimating  something  too 
 vile  and  atrocious  to  be  openly  expressed.  Thus  regarded, 
 everything  seems  to  point  to  some  wanton  act  done  by  the  very 
 one  who  is  immediately  named  in  the  severe  malediction  that 
 follows :  '  Cursed  be  Canaan.'  He  was  the  youngest  son  of 
 Ham,  as  he  was  also  the  youngest  son  of  Noah,  according  to 
 the  well-established  Shemitic  peculiarity  by  which  all  the  de- 
 scendants are  alike  called  sons."  This  explanation  is  equally 
 plausible  and  natural. 
 
 On  either  of  the  above  hypotheses,  Canaan  was  punished  not 
 for  others'  misconduct,  but  for  his  own ;  hence  the  charge  of 
 "  injustice  "  in  the  case  is  without  foundation. 
 
 As  to  Ex.  XX.  5,  we  may  say  that  Jehovah  "  visits "  the 
 iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  their  children,  in  that  he  permits 
 the  latter  to  suffer  in  consequence  of  the  sins  of  the  former. 
 
 1  Sec  Conciliator,  i.  33.  2  jj,  Lange  on  Genesis,  p.  338. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  87 
 
 He  has  established  such  laws  of  matter  and  mind  that  the  sins 
 of  parents  result  in  the  physical  and  mental  disease  and 
 suffering  of  their  offsprmg.  The  drunkard  bequeaths  to  his 
 children  poverty,  shame,  wretchedness,  impaired  health,  and  not 
 infrequently  a  bm-ning  thirst  for  strong  drink.  The  licentious 
 man  often  transmits  to  his  helpless  offspring  his  depraved 
 appetites  and  loathsome  diseases.  And  this  transmission  or 
 "  visitation  "  of  evil  takes  place  in  accordance  with  the  inflexible 
 laws  of  the  universe.  Obviously,  "  injustice  "  is  no  less  charge- 
 able upon  the  Author  of  "  the  laws  of  nature  "  than  upon  the 
 Author  of  the  Bible. 
 
 Even  if  the  above  text  conveys  the  idea  not  only  of  suffering, 
 but  also  of  punishment,  yet  the  language,  "  unto  the  third  and 
 fom'th  generation  of  them  that  hate  me"  indicates  children  who 
 are  sinful  like  their  parents.  Hengstenberg :  ^  "  The  threatening 
 is  directed  against  those  children  who  tread  in  their  fathers' 
 footsteps."  Plainly  children  are  intended  who  imitate  and 
 adopt  the  sinful  habits  and  practices  of  their  parents ;  hence, 
 being  morally,  as  well  as  physically,  the  representatives  and 
 heirs  of  their  parents,  they  may  be,  in  a  certain  sense,  punished 
 for  the  sms  of  those  parents.  Bush:  "The  tokens  of  the 
 divine  displeasure  were  to  flow  along  the  line  of  those  who  con- 
 tinued the  haters  of  God." 
 
 As  to  the  case  of  Achan's  sons  and  daughters.  Canon 
 Browne  ^  says  :  "  The  sanguinary  severity  of  Oriental  nations, 
 from  which  the  Jewish  people  were  by  no  means  free,  has  m 
 all  ages  involved  the  children  in  the  punishment  of  the  father." 
 Many,  however,  think  that  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  were 
 simply  taken  into  the  valley  to  be  spectators  of  the  punishment 
 inflicted  upon  the  father,  that  it  might  be  a  warning  to  them. 
 Some  explain  the  execution  upon  the  ground  of  God's  sove- 
 reignty, and  his  consequent  right  to  send  death  at  any  time  and 
 in  any  form  he  pleases. 
 
 Keil  and  others  hold  that  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  were 
 
 1  On  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  448.  -  In  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "Achan." 
 
88  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 accomplices  in  liis  crime.  "  The  things  themselves  had  been 
 abstracted  from  the  booty  by  Achan  alone  ;  but  he  had  hidden 
 them  in  his  tent,  buried  them  in  the  earth,  which  could  hardly 
 liave  been  done  so  secretly  that  his  sons  and  daughters  knew 
 nothing  of  it.  By  so  doing  he  had  made  his  family  participators 
 in  his  theft ;  they  therefore  fell  under  the  ban  along  with  him, 
 together  with  their  tent,  their  cattle,  and  the  rest  of  their 
 property,  which  were  all  involved  in  the  consequences  of-  his 
 crime." 
 
 The  "  proverb,"  Ezek  xviii.  2,  implied  that  the  sufferings  of 
 the  Jews,  at  that  time,  were  not  at  all  in  consequence  of  their 
 own  sins,  but  exclusively  for  the  sins  of  their  ancestors  —  a 
 false  and  dangerous  idea,  fitly  rebuked  by  the  Almighty. 
 
 Slays  the  righteous  with  the  wicked.  Spares  the  righteous. 
 
 This  is  one  thing,  therefore  I  said  it.  Hath  walked  in  my  statutes,  and  hath 
 
 He    destroyeth    the    perfect    and    the  kept  my  judgments,  to  deal  truly;  he 
 
 wicked.    Job  ix.  22.  is  just,  he  shall  surely  live,  saith  the 
 
 And  say  to  the  land  of  Israel,  Thus  Lord  God.     When  the  son  hath  done 
 
 saith  the  Lord  :  Behold  1  am  against  that  which  is  lawful  and  right,  and 
 
 thee,  and  will  draw  forth  my  sword  out  hath  kept  all  my  statutes,  and  hath 
 
 of  his  sheath,  and  will  cut  off  trom  thee  done  them,  he  shall  surely  live.    Ezek. 
 
 the  righteous  and  the  wicked.    Seeing  xviii.  9,  19. 
 
 then  that  1  will  cut  off  from  thee  the  But    if  the  wicked    turn   from    his 
 
 righteous  and  the  wicked, therefore  shall  wickedness,  and  do  that  which  is  law- 
 
 my  sword  go  forth  out  of  his  sheath  ful  and   right,  he  shall  live  thereby, 
 
 against  all  flesh  from  the  south  to  the  Ezek.  xxxiii.  19. 
 
 north.    Ezek.  xxi.  3,  4.  Now  the  just   shall    live   by  faith. 
 
 Heb.  X.  38. 
 
 The  first  texts  do  not  teach  that  God,  regardless  of  character, 
 cuts  down  the  evil  and  the  good  together.  The  two  classes 
 may  be  alike  in  the  external  circumstances  of  their  death ;  but 
 they  are  totally  unlike  in  their  destiny.  The  righteous  are,  at 
 death  and  by  death,  "  taken  away  from  the  evil  to  come."  ^  It 
 may  be  the  greatest  possible  blessing,  the  highest  mark  of  the 
 divine  favor,  to  a  good  man  to  be  summarily  and  forever  re- 
 moved from  the  sorrows  and  impending  evils  of  earth  to  the 
 ineffable  bliss  and  repose  of  heaven.  The  second  series  of 
 texts  refers  to  spiritual,  and  not  earthly  life.  Since  the  two 
 series  of  passages  contemplate  things  entu-ely  different,  there  is 
 no  collision  between  them. 
 
 1  Liaiah  Ivii.  1,  2. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 89 
 
 Benevolence. 
 
 Bestows  them  freely. 
 
 For  every  one  that  asketh  receiveth  j 
 and  he  that  seeketh  findeth;  and  to 
 him  that  knocketh  it  shall  be  opened. 
 Luke  xi.  10. 
 
 If  any  of  you  lack  ■wisdom,  let  him 
 ask  of  God,  that  giveth  to  all  men  liber- 
 ally, and  upbraideth  not:  and  it  shall 
 be  given  him.    James  i.  5. 
 
 Crod  witholds  his  blessings. 
 
 And  when  ye  spread  forth  your 
 hands,  I  will  hide  mine  eyes  from  you : 
 yea,  when  ye  make  many  prayers,  1 
 will  not  hear:  your  hands  are  full  of 
 blood.     Isa.  i.  15. 
 
 Ihen  shall  they  cry  unto  the  Lord, 
 but  he  will  not  hear  them :  he  will  even 
 hide  hid  face  from  them  at  that  time, 
 as  they  have  behaved  themselves  ill  in 
 their  doings.    Micah  iii.  4. 
 
 Ye  ask,  and  receive  not,  because  ye 
 ask  amiss,  that  ye  may  consume  it  upon 
 youi  lusts.    James  iv.  3. 
 
 The  limiting  clauses  of  the  first  three  texts,  "hands  full  of 
 blood,"  "  ill  behavior,"  and  "  asking  amiss,"  show  clearly  why- 
 God  withholds  his  blessings  in  these  cases.  Moreover,  the 
 connection  in  which  the  last  two  texts  stand  evinces  that  these 
 texts  were  not  intended  to  be  of  universal  application.  They 
 contemplate  those  persons  only  who  "  ask  in  faith."  ^  Every 
 one  that  asketh  aright,  receiveth.  The  principle  upon  which 
 God,  in  answer  to  prayer,  bestows  his  blessings,  is  thus  enun- 
 ciated :  "  If  we  ask  anything  according  to  his  will,  he  heareth 
 us."^  It  should  be  added  that  such  limiting  clauses  as  the 
 above  are,  in  order  to  make  out  a  contradiction,  dishonestly 
 suppressed  by  those  writers  who  engage  in  the  manufacture  of 
 "  discrepancies." 
 
 Hardens  men's  hearts. 
 
 And  the  Lord  hardened  the  heart  of 
 Pharaoh,  and  he  hearkened  not  unto 
 them.     b>x.  ix.  12. 
 
 And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses.  Go 
 in  unto  Pharaoh  :  for  I  have  hardened 
 his  heart,  and  the  heart  of  his  servants, 
 that  I  might  shew  these  my  signs  be- 
 fore him.     Ex.  X.  1. 
 
 And  Moses  and  Aaron  did  all  these 
 wonders  before  Pharaoh  :  and  the  Lord 
 hardened  Pharaoh's  heart,  so  that  he 
 would  not  let  the  children  of  Israel  go 
 out  of  Ills  land.     Ex.  xi.  10. 
 
 But  Sihon  king  of  Ueshbon  would 
 nut  let  us  pass  by  him:  for  the  Lord 
 thy  God  hardened  his  spirit,  and  made 
 his  heart  obstinate,  that  he  might  de- 
 liver him  into  thy  hand,  as  appeareth 
 this  day.    Deut.  ii.  30. 
 
 For  it  was  of  the  Lord  to  harden 
 their  hearts,  that  they  should  come 
 
 *  See  James  i.  6. 
 8* 
 
 They  harden  their  own  hearts. 
 
 But  when  Pharaoh  saw  that  there 
 was  respite,  he  hardened  his  heart,  and 
 hearkened  not  unto  them.  . . .  And  Pha- 
 raoh hardened  his  heart  at  this  time 
 also,  neither  would  he  let  the  people 
 go.     Ex.  viii.  15,  32. 
 
 And  when  Pharaoh  saw  that  the  rain 
 and  the  hail  and  the  thunders  were 
 cea.-?ed,  he  sinned  yet  more,  and  har- 
 dened his  heart,  he  and  his  servants. 
 Ex.  ix.  34. 
 
 Wherefore  then  do  ye  harden  your 
 hearts,  as  the  Egyptians  and  Pharaoh 
 hardened  their  hearts?    1  8am.  vi,  6. 
 
 And  he  also  rebelled  against  king 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  who  had  made  him 
 swear  by  G  od :  but  he  stiffened  his  neck, 
 and  hardened  his  heart  from  turning 
 unto  the  Lord  God  of  Israel.  2  Chron. 
 xxxvi.  13. 
 
 Happy  is  the  man  that  feareth  alway : 
 
 a  1  John  V.  14. 
 
90  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Hardens  men's  hearts.  They  harden  their  own  hearts. 
 
 against  Israel  in  battle,  that  he  might  but  he  that  hardeneth  his  heart  shall 
 
 destroy   them    utterly,  and  that    they  fall  into  mischief.     Prov.  xxviii.  14. 
 might    have    no    favor,    but    that    he        Harden  not  your  hearts,  as  in  the 
 
 might  destroy  them,  as  the  Lord  com-  provocation,  in  the  day  of  temptation 
 
 manded  JMoses.    Josh,  xi  20.  in  the  wilderness.    Heb.  iii.  8. 
 
 0  Lord,  why  hast  thou  made  us  to 
 err  from  thy  ways,  and  hardened  our 
 heart  from  tliy  fear  '{    Jsa.  Ixiii.  17. 
 
 He  hath  blinded  their  eyes,  and  har- 
 dened their  heart ;  that  they  should  not 
 see  with  their  eyes,  nor  understand  with 
 their  heart,  and  be  converted,  and  1 
 should  heal  them.    John  xii.  40. 
 
 Therefore  hath  he  mercy  on  whom 
 he  will  hare  viercij,  and  whom  he  will 
 he  hardeneth,    Horn.  Ix.  18. 
 
 We  may  premise  that  the  rejection  of  truth  and  the  abuse  of 
 blessings  tend  ever  to  "  harden  the  heart."  God,  therefore,  by 
 making  known  his  truth  and  by  bestowing  his  blessings,  indi- 
 rectly "  hardens  "  men's  hearts  ;  that  is,  furnishes  occasion  for 
 their  hardening.  Thus,  the  divine  mercy  to  Pharaoh  in  the 
 withdrawal  of  the  plagues  at  his  request  became  the  occasion 
 of  increasing  his  hardness.  When  he  saw  that  there  was  res- 
 pite, that  the  rain  and  hail  and  thunder  ceased,  he  hardened  his 
 heart.^  In  brief,  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart  by  removing 
 calamities,  and  bestowing  blessings  ;  Pharaoh  hardened  his  own 
 heart  by  perverting  these  blessings  and  abusing  the  grace  of 
 God. 
 
 Theodoret :  ^  "  The  sun,  by  the  force  of  its  heat,  moistens 
 the  wax  and  dries  the  clay,  softening  the  one  and  hardening 
 the  other;  and,  as  this  produces  opposite  effects  by  the  same 
 power,  so,  through  the  long-suffering  of  God,  wliich  reaches  to 
 all,  some  receive  good  and  others  evil ;  some  are  softened,  and 
 others  hardened." 
 
 Stuart,'*^  concerning  Pharaoh :  "  The  Lord  hardened  his 
 heart,  because  the  Lord  was  the  author  of  commands  and 
 messages  and  miracles  which  were  the  occasion  of  Pharaoh's 
 hardening  his  own  heart." 
 
 Dr.  Davidson:*  "This  does  not  mean  that  he  infused  positive 
 
 1  See  Ex.  viii.  15  and  ix.  34.  -  Quaest.  12  in  Ex. 
 
 2  Com.  on  Romans,  Excursus  xi.  p.  483.      *  Sacred  Ilermen.,  pp.  545,  546. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  91 
 
 wickedness  or  obstinacy  into  the  mind,  or  that  he  influenced  it 
 in  any  way  inconsistent  with  his  perfections,  but  that  he  with- 
 drew his  gi'ace,  allowed  the  heart  of  Pharaoh  to  take  its  natural 
 course,  and  thus  to  become  harder  and  harder.  He  permitted 
 it  to  he  hardened J^ 
 
 Keil,  on  Ex.  iv.  21,  observes:  "In  this  twofold  manner  God 
 produces  hardness,  not  only  permissive,  but  effective,  i.e.  not 
 only  by  giving  time  and  space  for  the  manifestations  of  human 
 opposition,  even  to  the  utmost  limits  of  creaturely  freedom,  but 
 still  more  by  those  continued  manifestations  of  his  will  which 
 di-ive  the  hard  heart  to  such  utter  obduracy  that  it  is  no  longer 
 capable  of  returning,  and  so  giving  over  the  hardened  sinner  to 
 the  judgment  of  damnation.  Tliis  is  what  we  find  in  the  case 
 of  Pharaoh." 
 
 As  to  Sihon,  Deut.  ii.  30,  God  providentially  arranged  cir- 
 cumstances so  that  the  malignant  wickedness  of  his  heart  should 
 develop  and  culminate  in  "  hardness  "  and  "  obstinacy,"  bringing 
 upon  him  merited  destruction. 
 
 Biish,  on  Josh.  xi.  20  :  "  God  was  now  pleased  to  leave  them 
 to  judicial  hardness  of  heart ,  to  give  them  up  to  vain  confidence, 
 pride,  stubbornness,  and  malignity,  that  they  might  bring  upon 
 themselves  his  righteous  vengeance,  and  be  utterly  destroyed." 
 
 As  to  the  ancient  Jews,  God  hardened  their  hearts,  in  that 
 by  his  providence  he  sustained  them  in  life,  upheld  the  use  of 
 all  their  powers,  caused  the  prophets  to  warn  and  reprove 
 them,  and  placed  them  in  circumstances  where  they  must  receive 
 these  warnings  and  reproofs.  Under  this  arrangement  of  his 
 providence,  they  became  more  hardened  and  wicked. 
 
 Delitzsch,  on  Isa.  Ixiii.  17,  remarks:  "When  men  have 
 scornfully  and  obstinately  rejected  the  gi'ace  of  God,  he  with- 
 draws it  from  them  judicially,  gives  them  up  to  their  wanderings, 
 and  makes  their  heart  incapable  of  faith.  . . .  The  history  of 
 Israel,  from  chap.  vi.  onwards,  has  been  the  history  of  such  a 
 gradual  judgment  of  hardening,  and  such  a  curse,  eating  deeper 
 and  deeper,  and  spreading  its  influence  wider  and  wider  round." 
 
92  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE    BIBLE. 
 
 Barnes,  on  John  xii.  40 :  "  God  suffers  the  truth  to  produce 
 a  regular  effect  on  sinful  minds,  without  putting  forth  any 
 positive  supernatural  influence  to  prevent  it.  The  effect  of 
 truth  on  such  minds  is  to  irritate,  to  enrage,  and  to  harden, 
 unless  counteracted  by  the  grace  of  God.  And,  as  God  knew 
 this,  and  knowing  it  still,  sent  the  message,  and  suffered  it  to 
 produce  the  regular  effect,  the  evangelist  says,  '  He  hath 
 blinded  their  minds.' " 
 
 Alford,  on  Rom.  ix.  18:  "  Whatever  difficulty  there  lies  in 
 
 this  assertion  that  God  hardeneth  whom  he  will,  lies  also  in  the 
 
 daily  course  of  his  providence,  in  which  we  see  this  hardening 
 
 process  going  on  in  the  case  of  the  prosperous  ungodly  man." 
 
 He  is  warlike.  Is  peaceful. 
 
 The  Lord  zs  a  man  of  war :  the  Lokd       Now  the  God  of  peace  be  with  you 
 is  his  name.    Ex.  xv.  3.  all.    Kom.  xv.  33. 
 
 The  Lord  of  hosts  is  his  name.    Isa.        For  God  is  not  the  author  of  confu- 
 li.  15.  sion,  but  of  peace,  as  in  all  churches  of 
 
 the  saints.    1  Cor.  xiv.  33. 
 
 These  two  sets  of  texts  present  God  in  a  J-wof old  asi3ect  — 
 in  his  attitude  toward  sin  and  incorrigible  smners,  on  the  one 
 hand,  and  that  toward  holiness  and  the  good,  on  the  other.  He 
 is  hostile  in  respect  to  the  one,  and  friendly  in  relation  to  the 
 other.  All  his  attributes  are  at  war  with  evil,  but  at  peace 
 with  "  that  which  is  good."  Every  good  magistrate  and  ruler 
 sustains  a  similar  twofold  relation.  His  attitude  toward  law- 
 abiding  citizens  is  a  peaceful  one,  while  in  respect  to  evil-doers 
 he  "  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain."  ^ 
 
 Unmerciful  and  ferocious.  Merciful  and  kind. 
 
 And  thou  shalt  consume  all  the  peo-  O  give  thanks  unto  the  Lord  ;  for  he 
 
 pie  which  the  Loud  thy  God  shall  de-  is  good;   for  his  mercy  endureth  for 
 
 liver  thee:  thine  eye  shall  have  no  pity  ever.  1  Chron.  xvi.  34. 
 
 upon  them.     Deut.  vii.  16.  The  Lord  is  good  to  all;  and  his 
 
 And  he  smote  the  men  of  lieth-she-  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his  works, 
 
 mesh,  because  they  had  looked  into  the  Ys.  cxlv.  9. 
 
 ark  of  the  Lord,  even  he  smote  of  the  It  is  ofthe  Lord's  mercies  that  we 
 
 people  lifty  thousand  and  three  score  are  not  consumed,  because  his  compas- 
 
 and  ten  men.     1  8am.  vi.  19.  sions  fail  not.    Lam.  iii.  22. 
 
 Thus  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts,  I  re-  The  Lord  is  very  pitiful  and  of  ten- 
 member  that  whicli    Amalek    did  to  der  mercy.    Jas.  v.  ll. 
 Israel,  how  lie  laid  trait  for  him  in  the  God  is  love.    1  John  iv.  16. 
 way,  when  he  came  up  from  Egypt. 
 Now  go  and  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly 
 
 *  See  Rom.  xiii.  3,  4. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  93 
 
 Unmerciful  and  ferocious.  Merciful  and  "kind, 
 
 destroy  all  that  they  have,  and  spare 
 them  not:  but  slay  both  man  and 
 woman,  infant  and  suckling,  ox  and 
 sheep,  camel  and  ass.     1  Sam.  xv.  2,  3. 
 
 And  I  will  dash  them  one  against 
 another,  even  the  fathers  and  the  sons 
 together,  saith  the  Lord:  1  will  not 
 pity,  nor  spare,  nor  have  mercy,  but 
 destroy  them.    Jer.  xiii.  14. 
 
 For  our  God  is  a  consuming  fire. 
 Heb.  xii.  2^. 
 
 As  to  the  injunction  to  slay  the  Canaanites,  in  Deut.  vii.,  see 
 the  discussion  elsewhere.^ 
 
 In  respect  to  the  Bethshemites,  there  is,  in  all  probability,  a 
 mistake  in  the  number  specified.  "  Seventy  men  "  is  the  true 
 reading,  with  which  Josephus^  agrees.  Coj^yists  often  made 
 these  mistakes,  by  taking  one  numeral  letter  for  another  which 
 closely  resembled  it.  In  our  present  Hebrew  text  the  words 
 stand  "seventy  men,  fifty  thousand  men."  But  in  several 
 manuscripts  the  Hebrew  answering  to  "  fifty  thousand  men  "  is 
 entirely  wanting.  From  this  circumstance,  and  the  fact  that 
 the  town  of  Bethshemesh  could  by  no  means  furnish  anything 
 like  fifty  thousand  men,  Keil  and  others  hold  that  the  expression 
 "  fifty  thousand  men  "  has  rightfully  no  place  in  the  text,  but 
 has  crept  in,  by  some  oversight,  from  the  margin.^  But  it  may 
 be  asserted  that  the  element  of  number  does  not  necessarily 
 come  into  the  account  —  that  the  death  of  one  person,  under 
 those  circumstances,  presents  as  real  a  difiiculty  as  would  that  of 
 fifty  thousand  persons.  It  is  needful  to  say  only  that  these 
 Bethshemites  evinced  a  profane  and  sacrilegious  curiosity,  and 
 disobeyed  the  most  solemn,  exphcit,  and  repeated  warnings  of 
 Jehovah.  For  example,  we  read,  in  respect  to  some  of  the 
 Levites  even,  "  The  sons  of  Kohath  shall  come  to  bear  it ;  but 
 they  shall  not  touch  any  holy  thing,  lest  they  die " ;  and  "  They 
 shall  not  go  in  to  see  when  the  holy  things  are  covered,  lest 
 
 ^  Ethical  Discrepancies;  "Enemies  treated." 
 
 ^  Antiq.  vi.  1,  4. 
 
 ^  Lord  Arthur  Hervey,  in  Bible  Commentary,  expresses  the  opinion  that 
 the  error  arose  from  the  use  of  numeral-letters ;  Ayin  (3?)  denoting  70 
 being  mistaken  for  dotted  Nun  {})  representing  50000. 
 
94  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE, 
 
 they  die."^  The  rabbies  say  that  the  Bethshemites  actually 
 opened  and  looked  into  the  ark.  It  was  essential  to  teach  the 
 people,  at  this  time,  a  solemn  and  effective  lesson  with  reference 
 to  the  proper  mode  of  dealing  with  sacred  tilings  and  of  ap- 
 proaching Jehovah. 
 
 The  reason  for  the  command  in  1  Sam.  xv.  is  as  follows : 
 When  the  Hebrews  were  toiling  along  on  their  weary  pil- 
 grimage from  Egypt  to  Canaan,  the  Amalekites  hung  upon 
 their  rear,  laid  wait  for  them,  and  butchered  in  cold  blood 
 all  who  were  unable  to  keep  up  with  the  main  body.  The 
 followino;  is  the  artless  lano;ua£fe  of  the  sacred  historian :  "  Re- 
 member  what  Amalek  did  unto  thee  by  the  way,  when  ye  were 
 come  forth  out  of  Egypt ;  how  iie  met  thee  by  the  way,  and 
 smote  the  hindmost  of  thee,  even  all  that  were  feeble  behind 
 thee,  when  thou  wast  faint  and  weary ;  and  he  feared  not 
 God."  2 
 
 They  did  this,  says  Keil,  "not  merely  for  the  purpose  of 
 plundering,  or  of  disputing  the  possession  of  this  district  and 
 its  j^asture  grounds  with  the  Israelites,  but  to  assail  Israel  as 
 the  nation  of  God,  and,  if  possible,  to  destroy  it."  The 
 Amalekites,  as  we  gather  from  the  narrative,  were,  in  earlier 
 and  in  later  times  a  horde  of  ferocious  and  bloodthirsty  guer- 
 rillas. It  seemed  best  to  the  Almighty  to  extirj^ate  a  race  so 
 hardened  and  depraved,  so  utterly  lost  to  the  nobler  feelings 
 of  mankind.  Hence  he  said  to  Saul :  "  Go,  and  utterly  destroy 
 the  sinners,  the  Amalekites."  ^  Li  pursuance  of  this  object,  he 
 was  ordered  to  "'  slay  both  man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling." 
 
 It  is  objected  that  this  command  j^roves  God  to  be  "  cruel." 
 If  so,  the  fact  that  in  numberless  cases  he  slays  tender  babes, 
 iimocent  little  ones,  by  painful  diseases,  famine,  pestilence, 
 earthquakes,  hurricanes,  and  the  like,  militates  equally  against 
 him.  The  charge  of  "  cruelty  "  lies  just  as  heavily  against  the 
 order  of  things  in  this  world,  by  whatever  name  it  may  be 
 designated,  as  it  does  against  Jehovah. 
 ^  Num.  iv.  15  and  20.  "-  Deut.  xxv.  17,  18.  •*  1  Sam.  xv.  18. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  95 
 
 Besides,  had  the  women  and  cliildren  been  spared,  there 
 would  soon  have  been  a  fresh  crop  of  adult  Amalekites,  pre- 
 cisely like  their  predecessors.  Or,  suppose  merely  the  children 
 had  been  saved ;  if  left  to  care  for  themselves,  they  must  have 
 miserably  perished  of  starvation;  if  adopted  and  reared  in 
 Israelite  families,  they  might,  from  their  hereditary  dispositions 
 and  proclivities  to  evil,  have  proved  a  most  undesu-able  and 
 pernicious  element  in  the  nation.  It  was,  doubtless,  on  the 
 whole,  the  best  thing  for  the  woidd  that  the  Amalekite  race 
 should  be  exterminated. 
 
 The  people  so  severely  threatened  in  Jer.  xiii.  14  were 
 abominably  corrupt  and  depraved.  In  Jer.  vii.  9,  they  are 
 charged  with  theft,  murder,  adultery,  perjury,  burning  incense 
 to  Baal,  and  with  idolatry  in  general.  Yet,  as  the  connection  ^ 
 clearly  shows,  the  severe  threatening  above  mentioned  was  a 
 conditional  one.  They  might  have  repented,  and  escaped.  They 
 would  not  reform,  hence  tlie  threatening  was  strictly  carried  out. 
 
 As  to  Heb.  xii.  29,  God  is  a  "  consuming  fire  "  in  respect  to 
 evil  and  evil-doers.  According  to  Alford,  the  fact  that  "  God's 
 anger  continues  to  burn  now,  as  then,  against  those  who  reject 
 his  kingdom,  is  brought  in ;  and  in  the  back-ground  lie  all  those 
 gracious  dealings  by  which  the  fire  of  God's  presence  and 
 purity  becomes  to  his  people,  while  it  consumes  their  vanity 
 and  sin  and  eartlily  state,  the  fire  of  purity  and  light  and  love 
 for  their  enduring  citizenship  of  his  kingdom." 
 
 His  anger  fierce  and  lasting.  Slow  and  brief. 
 
 The  fierce  anger  of  the  Lord  may       For  his  anger  e«fZ«rei/t  6u<  a  moment, 
 be  turned  away  from   Israel.     Kum.    Ps.  xxx.  5. 
 XXV.  4.  The  Loud  is  merciful  and  gracious, 
 
 And  the  Lord's  auger  was  kindled    slow  to  anger,  and  plenteous  in  mercy, 
 against  Israel,  and  he  made  them  wan-    He  will  not  always  chide:  neither  will 
 der  in  the  wilderness  forty  years,  until    he  keep  his  anger  for  ever.     Ps.  ciii. 
 all  the  generation,  that  had  done  evil    8,  9. 
 in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  was  consumed. 
 Kum.  xxxii.  13. 
 
 Wilt  thou  be  angry  with  us  for  ever? 
 wilt  thou  draw  out  thine  anger  to  all 
 generations?    Ps.  Ixxxv.  5. 
 
 The  "  fierce  anger "  of  the  Lord  is  his  intense  and  infinite 
 ^  See  Jer.  xiii.  15-17. 
 
96'  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 displeasure  at  everything  unholy  and  evil.  He  is  "  slow  to 
 anger " ;  for  though  he  feels  an  mfinite  abhorrence  of  sin,  yet 
 he  bears  long  with  the  sinner,  before  giving  punitive  ex- 
 pression to  that  abhorrence.  He  dealt  very  patiently  with  the 
 Israelites,  as  their  history  abundantly  shows. 
 
 As  to  Ps.  XXX.  5,  Delitzsch  observes :  " '  A  moment  passes 
 m  his  anger,  a  (whole)  life  in  his  favor,'  that  is,  the  former 
 endures  only  for  a  moment,  the  latter,  the  whole  life  of  a 
 man." 
 
 The  anger  of  God  ceases  upon  the  repentance  of  the  sinner. 
 
 In  relation  to  a  certain  class  of  persons,  that  anger  is  fierce  and 
 
 lastmg,  but  with  respect  to  a  different  class,  it  is  slow  and  brief. 
 
 Fearful  to  fall  into  his  hands.  Not  fearful. 
 
 It  is  a  fearful  thing  to  fall  into  the  And  David  said  unto  Gad.  I  am  in  a 
 hands  of  the  Jiving  God.    Heb.  x.  31.       great  strait :  let  us  fall  now  into  the 
 
 hand  of  the  Lord  :  for  his  mercies  are 
 great :  and  let  me  not  fall  into  the  hand 
 of  man.    2  Sam.  xxiv.  14. 
 
 The  first  text  refers  to  the  case  of  apostates  and  other  incor- 
 rigible sinners  ;  the  second  to  the  case  of  those  who  are  truly 
 penitent.  Alford ;  "  The  two  sentiments  are  easily  set  at  one. 
 For  the  faithful,  in  their  chastisement,  it  is  a  blessed  thing  to 
 fall  into  God's  hands ;  for  the  unfaithful,  in  their  doom,  a 
 dreadful  one." 
 
 Laughs  at  sinner's  overthroio.  Has  no  pleasure  in  it. 
 
 I  also  will  laugh  at  your  calamity :  I  For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
 will  mock  when  your  fear  cometh.  of  him  that  dieth.saith  the  Lord  God: 
 I'rov.  i.  26.  wherefore  turn  yourselves,  and  live  ye. 
 
 Ezek.  xviii.  32. 
 
 The  persons  addressed  in  the  first  text  are  obdurate  despisers 
 and  scorners  who  have  persistently  rejected  God's  admonitions. 
 So,  when  calamities  overtake  them,  he  contemptuously  rejects 
 their  prayers,  which  have  no  trace  of  penitence  in  them,  but 
 are  the  offspring  of  base  fear.  On  this  passage  Stuart  com- 
 ments as  follows :  "  I  shall  henceforth  treat  you  as  enemies 
 who  deserve  contempt.  . . .  The  intensity  of  the  tropical  lan- 
 guage here  makes  the  expression  exceedingly  strong.  Laughing 
 at  and  mocking  are  expressions  of  the  highest  and  most  con- 
 temptuous indignation." 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  97 
 
 The  second  text  refers  to  persons  who,  though  sinful,  were 
 less  hardened  and  in  a  more  hopeful  condition  than  the  former 
 class. 
 
 A  God  of  Justice.  Of  Mercy. 
 
 He  is  the  Rock,  his  work  is  perfect:  The  Lord  your  God  is  gracious  and 
 for  all  his  wavs  are  judgment:  a  God  merciful,  and  will  not  turn  away  his 
 of  truth  and  without  iniquity,  just  and  face  from  you,  if  ye  return  unto  him. 
 right  is  he.    Deut.  xxxii.  4.  2  C'hron.  xxx.  9. 
 
 God's  justice  is  not  restricted  to  what  is  termed  "distributive 
 justice,"  which  gives  to  every  man  his  exact  deserts,  leaving  no 
 room  for  the  exercise  of  mercy.  The  divine  justice  is  that 
 "  general  justice  "  which  carries  out  completely  all  the  ends  of 
 law,  sometimes  by  remitting,  and  at  other  times  by  inflicting, 
 the  penalty,  according  as  the  offender  is  penitent  or  otherwise. 
 Every  wise  parent  and  ruler  employs  general  justice,  securing 
 the  great  ends  of  government  by  punishing  offenders,  or  by 
 showing  mercy,  as  cii'cumstances  may  warrant.  The  following 
 is  a  striking  passage :  "  Unto  thee,  O  Lord,  belongeth  mercy  ; 
 for  thou  renderest  to  every  man  according  to  his  work."  ^  From 
 this  text  it  would  seem  that,  in  the  Psalmist's  view,  mercy  and 
 justice  are  so  far  from  being  incompatible,  that  the  one  attri- 
 bute is  dependent  upon  the  other.  "  Thou  art  merciful,  for 
 thou  art  just."  Hengstenberg :  "  He  must  have  loving-kind- 
 ness, inasmuch  as  it  is  involved  in  the  very  idea  of  God  as  the 
 righteous  One,  that  he  recompense  every  one  according  to  his 
 work,  and  therefore  manifest  himself  as  comi^assionate  to  the 
 righteous,  while  he  destroys  the  wicked." 
 
 He  hates  some.  Is  kind  to  all. 
 
 Was  not  Esau  Jacob's  brother?  saith        The  Lord  is  good  to  all.  Ps.  cxlv.  9. 
 the  Lord:   yet  I   loved  Jacob,  and  I 
 hated  Esau.    Mai.  i.  2,  3. 
 
 The  word  "  hate  "  is  used  here,  as  often  in  scripture,'*^  in  the 
 sense  of  to  love  less.  If  one  person  was  preferred  to  another, 
 the  former  was  said  to  be  "  loved,"  the  latter  "  hated."  Hen- 
 derson observes :   "  As  the  opposite  of   love  is   hatred,  when 
 
 1  Ps.  Ixii.  12. 
 
 2  See  Gen.  xxix.  30,  .31 ;  Prov.  xiii.  24;  also  Luke  xiv.  26,  compared  with 
 Matt.  x.  37. 
 
98  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 there  is  only  an  inferior  degree  of  the  former  exhibited,  the 
 object  of  it  is  regarded  as  being  hated,  rather  than  loved." 
 
 Veracity. 
 
 God  cannot  lie.  Sends  forth  lying  spirits. 
 
 The  Strength  of  Israel  will  not  lie.        And  he  said,  Hear  thou  therefore  the 
 
 1  i?am.  XV.  29.  word  of  the  Lord;  1  saw  the  Lord 
 
 Jhat  by  two  immutable  things,  in    sitting  on  his  throne,  and  all  the  host 
 
 which  it  was  impossible  for  God  to  lie.    of  heaven  standing  by  him  on  his  right 
 
 lieb.  vi.  18.  hand  and  on  his  left     And  the  Lord 
 
 said,  Who  shall  persuade  Ahab,  that 
 he  may  go  up  and  fall  at  Eamoth-gil- 
 '  ead?    And  one  said  on  this  manner, 
 
 and  another  said  on  that  manner.  And 
 there  came  forth  a  spirit,  and  stood 
 before  the  Lord,  and  said,  I  will  per- 
 suade him.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
 him.  Wherewith?  And  he  said,  1  will 
 go  forth,  and  I  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in 
 the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets.  And  he 
 said,  Thou  shalt  persuade  him,  and  pre- 
 vail also;  go  forth,  and  do  so.  Now 
 therefore,  behold,  the  Lord  hath  put 
 a  lying  spirit  in  tlie  mouth  of  all  these 
 thy  prophets,  and  the  Lord  hath 
 spoken  evil  concerning  thee.  1  Kings 
 xxii.  19-23. 
 
 The  whole  declaration  of  Micaiah,  in  the  passage  at  the 
 right,  is  a  highly  figurative  and  poetical  description  of  a  vision 
 he  had  seen.  Puttuig  aside  its  rhetorical  drapery,  the  gist  of 
 the  whole  passage  is  that  God  for  judicial  purposes  suffered 
 Ahab  to  be  fatally  deceived.  Bahr  :  "  Because  Ahab,  who  had 
 abandoned  God  and  hardened  his  heart,  desired  to  use  prophecy 
 for  liis  own  purposes,  it  is  determined  that  he  shall  be  led  to 
 ruin  by  prophecy.  As  God  often  used  the  heathen  nations  as 
 the  rod  of  his  wrath  for  the  chastisement  of  Israel  (Isa.  x.  5), 
 so  now  he  uses  Ahab's  false  prophets  to  bring  upon  Ahab  the 
 judgment  which  Elijah  had  foretold  against  him." 
 
 A.  Fuller  :  ^  "  That  spirit  to  whom  thou  hast  sold  thyself  to 
 work  wickedness  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  now  desires  thee  as 
 his  prey.  He  that  has  seduced  thee  into  sin  now  asks  per- 
 mission of  God  to  deceive  thy  prophets,  that  he  may  plunge 
 thee  into  destruction ;  and  God  has  granted  him  his  desire. 
 And  that  which  Satan  is  doing  for  his  own  ends,  God  will  do 
 tor  his.     There  is  as  much  of  the  judicial  hand  of  God  in  a 
 
 1  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  620. 
 
DOCTEINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  99 
 
 lying  spirit  having  misled  thy  proj^hets  as  of  readiness  in  the 
 evil  one  to  entangle  and  seize  thee  as  his  prey." 
 
 Keil :  "  Jehovah  sends  this  spirit,  inasmuch  as  the  deception 
 of  Ahab  has  been  inflicted  ujDon  him  as  a  judgment  of  God  for 
 his  unbelief.  But  there  is  no  statement  here  to  the  effect  that 
 this  lying  spirit  proceeded  from  Satan,  because  the  object  of 
 the  prophet  was  simply  to  bring  out  the  working  of  God  in 
 the  deception  practised  upon  Ahab  by  his  prophets.  . . .  Jehovah 
 has  ordained  that  Ahab,  being  led  astray  by  a  23rediction  of  his 
 prophets  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  lies,  shall  enter  upon  the  war, 
 that  he  may  find  therein  the  punishment  of  his  ungodliness." 
 
 Denounces  deception.  Sanctions  it. 
 
 Cursed  6e  the  deceiver,  which  hath  in        And  Samuel  said,  How  can  I  ^o?  if 
 
 his  flock  a  male,  and  voweth  and  sacri-    Saul  hear  it,  he  will  kill  me.     And  the 
 
 ticeth  unto  the  Lord  a  corrupt  thing,     i^ord  said,  Take  an  heifer  with  thee, 
 
 Mai.  i.  14.  and  say,  1  am  come  to  sacrifice  to  the 
 
 I'eter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  Satan    Loud.    1  Sam.  xvi.  2. 
 filled  thine   heart  to  lie  to  the  Uoly        O  Lord,  thou  hast  deceived  me,  and 
 Ghost,  and  to  keep  hack  pai't  of  the    I  was  deceived:  tliou  art  stronger  than 
 price  of  the  land?    Acts  v.  3.  I,  and  hast  prevailed.    Jer.  xx.  7 
 
 And  if  the  prophet  he  deceived  when 
 he  hath  spoken  a  thing,  I  the  Lord 
 have  deceived  that  ])rophet,  and  1  will 
 stretch  out  my  hand  upon  him,  and 
 will  destroy  him  fn.m  the  midst  of  my 
 people  Israel.    Ezek.  xiv.  9. 
 
 Eren  him  who^e  c<>ming  is  after  the 
 working  of  Satan  witli  all  power  and 
 signs  and  lying  Avonders,  and  with  all 
 deceivableness  of  unrighteousness  in 
 them  tliat  perish  ;  because  they  received 
 not  the  love  of  the  truth,  tliat  tliey 
 might  be  saved.  And  for  this  cause 
 God  shall  send  them  strong  delusion, 
 that  they  should  believe  a  lie:  that  they 
 all  might  be  damned  who  believed  not 
 the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in  unright- 
 eousness.   2  Thess.  ii.  9-12. 
 
 On  the  text  from  1  Samuel,  Calvin  says:  "There  was  no 
 dissimulation  or  falsehood  in  this,  suice  God  really  wished  his 
 prophet  to  find  safety  under  the  pretext  of  the  sacrifice.  A 
 sacrifice  was  therefore  really  offered,  and  the  prophet  was  pro- 
 tected thereby,  so  that  he  was  not  exposed  to  any  danger  until 
 the  time  of  full  revelation  arrived." 
 
 Keil :  "  There  was  no  untruth  in  this ;  for  Samuel  was  really 
 about  to  couduct  a  sacrificial  festival,  and  was  to  invite  Jesse's 
 family  to  it,  and  then  anoint  the  one  whom  Jehovah  should 
 
100  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 point  out  to  him  as  the  chosen  one.  It  was  simply  a  conceal- 
 ment of  the  principal  object  of  his  mission  from  any  who  might 
 make  inquiry  about  it  because  they  themselves  had  not  been 
 invited." 
 
 It  is  our  privilege  to  withhold  the  truth  from  persons  who 
 have  no  right  to  know  it,  and  who,  as  we  have  reason  to 
 believe,  would  make  a  bad  use  of  it.  Lord  Arthur  Hervey  ^ 
 well  observes :  "  Secrecy  and  concealment  are  not  the  same  as 
 duplicity  and  falsehood.  Concealment  of  a  good  purpose,  for 
 a  good  purpose,  is  clearly  justifiable ;  for  example,  in  war,  in 
 medical  treatment,  in  state  policy,  and  in  the  ordinary  affairs 
 of  life.  In  the  providential  government  of  the  world,  and  in 
 God's  dealings  with  individuals,  concealment  of  his  purpose,  till 
 the  proper  time  for  its  development,  is  the  rule,  rather  than 
 the  exception,  and  must  be  so." 
 
 Jer.  XX.  7  is  rendered  by  Davidson  -  thus :  "  O  Lord,  thou 
 hast  constrained  me,  and  I  was  constrained." 
 
 Henderson :  " '  Thou  didst  persuade  me,  O  Jehovah,  and  I 
 was  persuaded.'  The  prophet  alludes  to  his  reluctance  to 
 accept  the  prophetical  office,  which  it  required  powerful  induce- 
 ments from  Jehovah  to  overcome."  Naegelsbach,  in  Lange, 
 gives  a  similar  version. 
 
 Ezek.  xiv.  9,  which  refers  to  idolatrous  prophets,  exhibits 
 the  fact  that  when  men,  without  divine  authority,  set  up  as 
 prophets,  God,  in  order  to  expose  the  falsity  of  their  pretensions, 
 "  deceives "  them ;  that  is,  he  so  orders  circumstances  that  these 
 prophets  will  utter  false  and  foolish  predictions,  which  by  their 
 failure  shall  disclose  the  true  character  of  their  authors,  and 
 overwhelm  them  with  shame  and  disgrace. 
 
 As  to  the  last  text  of  the  second  series  above,  observe  the 
 description  of  the  persons  contemplated  by  it.  The  "deceiv- 
 ableness  of  unrighteousness"  is  in  them  ;  they  neither  love 
 nor  believe  the  truth,  but  have  "  pleasure  in  unrighteousness." 
 They   deliberately  choose   error.      As  they  prefer  falsehood 
 
 1  In  Bible  Commentary,  «  innod.  to  Old  Test.,  Vol.  ii.  p.  435. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  101 
 
 and  delusion  to  truth,  God  gives  them  their  choice  in  full 
 measure.  With  a  judicial  purpose,  he  gives  them  what  they 
 love,  together  with  all  its  fearful  consequences.^ 
 
 AKord :  "  He  is  the  judicial  sender  and  doer  ;  it  is  he  who 
 hardens  the  heart  which  has  chosen  the  evil  way." 
 
 Ellicott :  "  The  words  are  definite  and  significant ;  they 
 point  to  that '  judicial  infatuation  '  into  which,  in  the  develop- 
 ment of  his  just  government  of  the  world,  God  causes  evil  and 
 error  to  be  unfolded,  and  which  he  brings  into  punitive  agency 
 in  the  case  of  all  obstinate  and  truth-hating  rejection  of  his 
 offers  and  calls  of  mercy." 
 
 Habitation  of  God, 
 
 ■  Dwells  in  light.  Dwells  in  darkness. 
 
 Who  only  hath  immortality,  dwell-  Then  ?pake  Solomon.  The  Lord  said 
 ing  in  the  light  which  no  man  can  ap-  that  he  would  dwell  in  the  thick  dark- 
 proach  unto.    1  Tim.  vi.  16.  ness.    1  Kings  viii.  12. 
 
 He  made  darkness  his  secret  place; 
 his  pavilion  round  about  him  toere 
 dark  waters  nnd  thick  clouds  of  the 
 skies.     Ps.  xviii  11. 
 
 Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about 
 him.    Ps.  xcvii.  2. 
 
 The  meaning  may  be  that  that  in  which  God  dwells  is  "  light  '* 
 to  him,  but  "  darkness  "  to  us.  The  morning  sun,  which  is  light 
 to  the  eagle,  is  darkness  and  blindness  to  nocturnal  animals. 
 
 A  better  explanation,  perhaps,  is  the  following  :  Imagery  of 
 various  and  widely  diverse  kinds  is  employed  in  the  scriptures 
 to  set  forth  the  attributes  of  God  and  his  immeasurable  remove 
 from  finite  conditions  and  creatures.  Where  two  or  more 
 figures  are  employed  to  illustrate  the  same  idea,  we  should 
 look  for  the  common  features  of  resemblance  or  common  point 
 of  comparison.  In  the  case  before  us,  both  of  the  figurative 
 expressions  —  "  unapproachable  light  "  and  "  thick  darkness  " 
 —  set  forth  vividly  and  equally  well  the  unsearchaUeness  of 
 God  in  relation  to  his  creatures.  This  is  the  point  which,  in 
 the  present  instance,  the  sacred  writers  intended  to  illustrate 
 and  beyond  this  their  language  should  not  be  pressed. 
 
 ^  See  South's  Sermon  on  Falsehood  and  Lying,  Works,  i.  pp.  192-203. 
 Also,  Miiller,  Doctrine  of  Sin,  ii.  pp.  413-415  (second  edition). 
 9* 
 
102  DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Dioells  in  chosen  Temples.  Does  not  dwell  there. 
 And  the  Lord  appeared  to  Solomon  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  The  heaven  is 
 by  nij^ht,  and  said  unto  him,  I  have  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my  foot- 
 heard  thjr  prayer,  and  have  chosen  this  stool :  where  is  the  house  that  ye  build 
 place  tornyself  for  an  house  of  sacri-  unto  me?  and  where  is  the  place  of  my 
 lice.    For  now  have  I  chosen  and  sane-  rest?    Isa.  Ixvi.  1. 
 
 titied  this  house,  that  my  name  may  be  Howbelt,  the  Most  High  dwelleth  not 
 
 there  for  ever;  and  mine  eyes  and  mine  in  temples    made  with  hands.     Acts 
 
 heart  shall  be    there    perpetually.     2  vii.  48. 
 Chron.  vii.  12,  16. 
 
 Observe,  first,  that  God  does  not  promise  to  "  dwell "  in  the 
 temple.  He  says  he  had  chosen  it,  not  as  a  residence,  but  as  a 
 "  house  of  sacrifice."  So  Solomon  understood  it,  for  he  says : 
 "  But  who  is  able  to  build  him  an  house,  seeing  the  heaven  and 
 heaven  of  heavens  cannot  contain  him  ?  who  am  I  then,  that  I 
 should  build  him  an  house,  save  only  to  burn  sacrifice  before 
 him?"  ^  The  promise  that  the  name,  heart,  and  eyes  of  Jehovah 
 should  be  there,  meant  simj^ly  that  he  would  regard  the  house 
 with  peculiar  favor,  and  manifest  his  power  and  grace  in  it. 
 It  is  to  be  noted,  secondly,  that  the  whole  promise  was  condi- 
 tional, as  is  explicitly  stated  in  the  following  verses :  "  But  if 
 ye  turn  away,  and  forsake  my  statutes  and  my  commandments, 
 which  I  have  set  before  you,  and  shall  go  and  serve  other  gods, 
 and  worship  them ;  Then  will  I  pluck  them  up  by  the  roots 
 out  of  my  land  which  I  have  given  them;  and  this  house 
 which  I  have  sanctified  for  my  name  will  I  cast  out  of  my 
 sight,  and  will  make  it  to  be  a  proverb  and  a  byword  among 
 all  nations."  ^  As  the  conditions  were  not  complied  with,  the 
 l^romise  was  of  course  not  binding.  The  quotation  from  Acts 
 merely  affirms  that  the  infinite,  omnipresent  Spirit  is  not 
 restricted  to  any  one  locality,  or  confined  to  any  single  place 
 of  worship. 
 
 Inhabits  eternity.  Dioells  roith  men. 
 
 For  thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty  And  I  will  dwell  among  the  children 
 One  that  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose  of  Israel,  and  will  be  their  God.  Ex. 
 name  is  Holy.    Isa.  Ivii.  15.  xxix.  45. 
 
 I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy/^/ace, 
 with  him  also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and 
 humble  spirit,  to  revive  the  spirit  of 
 the  humble,  and  to  revive  the  heart  of 
 the  contrite  ones.    Isa.  Ivii.  15. 
 
 ^  2  Chron.  ii.  6. 
 
 2  2  Chron.  vii.  19, 20.    Kimchi  and  Rashi  give  this  explanation  of  the 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  103 
 
 Inhabits  eternity.  Dwells  iclth  men. 
 
 Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If 
 a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my  words : 
 and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we 
 will  come  unto  him,  and  make  our 
 abode  with  him.    John  xiv  23. 
 
 God  hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them, 
 and  walk  in  t/iein ;  and  I  will  be  their 
 God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people.  2 
 Cor.  vi.  16. 
 
 And  I  heard  a  great  voice  out  of  hea- 
 ven saying,  Behold,  the  tabernacle  of 
 God  t.s  with  men,  and  he  will  dwell 
 with  them,  and  they  sliall  be  his  peo- 
 ple, and  God  himself  shall  be  with 
 them,  arid  be  their  God.    Kev.  xxi.  3. 
 
 An  omnipresent  Being  may  do  both — dwell  in  eternity,  and 
 with  men  too.  The  ''  omnipresence  "  of  God  is  his  power  to 
 develop  his  activity  everywhere  at  once.  Hence,  in  this  view, 
 the  passages  present  no  difficulty. 
 
 Dwells  in  heaven.  Dwells  in  Zion. 
 
 Unto  thee  lift  I  up  mine  eyes,  O  thou        Sing    praises    to   the    Lord,  which 
 that  dwellest  in  the  heavens.     Psalm    dwelieth  in  Zion.    Ps.  ix.  11. 
 cxxiii.  1.  In  Salem  also  is  his  tabernacle,  and 
 
 his  dwelling-place  in  Zion.  Ps.  Ixxvi  2. 
 
 To  a  mind  capable  of  comprehending  the  meaning  of  the 
 term  "  omnipresence"  these  texts  are  seen  to  be  in  perfect  har- 
 mony. Most  simply,  yet  sublimely,  is  the  idea  expressed  by 
 the  inspired  prophet :  "  Do  not  I  fill  heaven  and  earth  ?  saith 
 the  Lord."  ^ 
 
 Position  God  assumes. 
 
 One  Position.  A  different  one. 
 
 There  will  I  sit  to  judge  all  the  hea-       The  Ixjrd  standeth  up  to  plead,  and 
 then  round  about.    Joel  iii.  12  standeth  to  judge  the  people.    Isa  iii. 
 
 13. 
 
 This  is  a  fair  specimen  of  the  trivial,  verbal  discrepancies 
 which  certain  infidel  writers  palm  off  upon  their  careless  or 
 ignorant  readers  as  cases  of  real  contradiction.  Of  course,  no 
 person  of  candor  and  common  sense  would  think  of  interpreting 
 the  language  literally.  The  figure  "  sit "  brings  graphically  to 
 view  the  deliberateness  and  impartiality  with  which  God  judges 
 men ;  the  term  "  standeth "  represents  him  as  in  the  act  of 
 executing  his  judgments. 
 
 ^  Jer.  xxiii.  24. 
 
104  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Law  of  God, 
 
 A  law  of  liberty.  Tends  to  bondage. 
 
 So  speak  ye,  and  so  do,  as  they  that  These  are  the  two  covenants;  the  one 
 shall  be  judged  by  the  law  of  liberty,  from  the  mount  Sinai,  which  gendereth 
 Jas.  ii.  12.  to  bondage.    Oal.  iv.  24. 
 
 The  "  law  "  of  the  first,  is  not  identical  with  the  "  covenant " 
 of  the  second  passage.  The  former  refers  to  the  norm  or  rule 
 of  life  contained  in  the  gospel.  It  is  Christ's  law  of  love, 
 purity,  and  liberty,  as  embodied  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 
 
 Alford :  "  It  is  the  law  of  our  liberty,  not  as  in  contrast  with 
 a  former  law  of  bondage,  but  as  viewed  on  the  side  of  its  being 
 the  law  of  the  new  life  and  birth,  with  all  its  spontaneous  and 
 free  development  of  obedience." 
 
 On  the  contrary,  the  "  covenant "  is  the  Mosaic  law,  with  its 
 
 complicated  and  burdensome  ritual.     This  gendered  to  bondage. 
 
 Ellicott  comments  thus:    ^'-'Bearing    children  unto    bondage,^ 
 
 i.e.  to  pass  under  and  to  inherit  the  lot  of  bondage."     Peter 
 
 terms  it  a  "  yoke,"  which  "  neither  our  fathers  nor  we  were 
 
 able  to  bear."^     As,  therefore,  the  two  texts  refer  to  entirely 
 
 different  things,  there  is  no  collision. 
 
 Law  is  perfect.  It  perfected  nothing. 
 
 .     But  whoso  looketh  into  the  perfect        For  the  law  made  nothing  perfect, 
 law  of  liberty.    Jas.  i.  25  but  the  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope  did. 
 
 Heb.  vii.  19. 
 
 As  in  the  preceding  instance,  these  texts  refer  to  different 
 
 things  —  the  former  to  the  Christian,  the  latter  to  the  Mosaic, 
 
 law.     Besides,  were  the  same  law  intended  in  both  cases,  it 
 
 would  by  no  means  follow  that  a  perfect  law  necessarily  secures 
 
 perfect  obedience. 
 
 Obsei^ance  tends  to  life.  Tends  to  death. 
 
 Ye  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  Because  they  had  not  executed  my 
 and  my  judgments:  which  if  a  man  do,  judgments,  but  had  despised  my  stat- 
 he  shall  live  in  them:  I  am  the  Lord,  utes,  and  had  polluted  my  sabbaths, 
 Lev.  xviii.  5  and  their  eyes  were  after  their  fathers' 
 
 For  Moses  describeth  the  righteous-  idols.  Wherefore  I  gave  thom  also 
 ness  Avhicli  is  of  the  law.  That  the  man  statutes  fhaf.  were  not  good,  and  judg- 
 which  doeth  these  things  shall  live  by  ments  whereby  they  should  not  live; 
 them.    Kom.  x.  6.  and  I  polluted  them  in  their  own  gifts, 
 
 in  that  they  caused  to  pass  through 
 the  fire  all  that  openeth  the  womb,  that 
 I  might  make  them  desolate,  to  the  end 
 that  they  might  know  that  1  am  the 
 Lord.    Ezek.  xx.  24-26. 
 
 *  Acts  XV.  10. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  105 
 
 Observance  tends  to  life.  Tends  to  death. 
 
 And  the  commandment,  which  was 
 ordained  to  lit'o,  I  found  to  be  unto 
 death.     Rom.  vii.  10. 
 
 If  there  had  been  a  law  given  which 
 could  have-o^iven  life,  verily  righteous- 
 ness should  have  been  by  the  law.  Gal. 
 iii.  21. 
 
 The  first  two  texts  affirm  the  general  principle  that  obedience 
 secures  fehcity,  but  do  not  say  that  any  human  being  renders 
 this  obedience,  in  the  full  and  perfect  sense.  The  words,  "  if 
 a  man  do,"  are  merely  hypothetical. 
 
 Ezekiel's  words,  taken  in  their  connection,  are  explained  by 
 Kimchi^  in  the  following  manner:  As  the  Israelites  did  not 
 choose  to  observe  the  comparatively  mild  statutes  of  God 
 whereby  they  might  have  lived  happily,  he  substituted  other 
 statutes,  so  different  from  the  first  as  to  render  it  impossible  to 
 live  under  them,  by  subjecting  that  disobedient  people  to  those 
 enemies  who  instituted  violent  and  rigorous  laws  against  them. 
 That  is,  the  ''  statutes  not  good  "  were  not  the  Mosaic  statutes, 
 but  those  of  heathen  tyrants  and  oppressors,  to  whom,  from 
 time  to  time,  God  delivered  the  Jews  in  pimishment  of  their 
 sins."  ^ 
 
 The  commandment  which  was  fitted  and  intended  to  secure 
 life,  Saul,  through  transgi-ession,  found  to  result  in  death.  Our 
 criminal  law.  which  makes  hanging  the  penalty  of  the  crime  of 
 murder,  is  designed  for  the  preservation  of  life.  But  the 
 murderer  who  is  tried,  convicted,  and  executed  under  that  law 
 finds  it  a  law  "  unto  death." 
 
 The  quotation  from  Galatians  may  be  paraphrased  thus : 
 "  If  there  had  been  a  law  given  which  could,"  —  under  the  cir- 
 cumstances, "which  could,"  —  amid  the  limitations,  frailties, 
 and  imperfect  obedience  of  humanity,  "  have  given  life."  The 
 law  requires  perfect  obedience,  in  order  to  life.  But  it  is 
 absolutely  certain  that  man  does  not,  and  will  not,  render  this 
 obedience  ;  hence  the  law  cannot  give  life  to  him.     Xo  law,  as 
 
 ^  Menasseh  ben  Israel's  Condliator,  Vol.  i.  p.  229. 
 2  See  fmther,  pp.  77,  78,  of  present  work. 
 
106  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 such,  can  give  life  to  sinners.  In  brief,  we  may  say  that  the 
 first  series  of  texts  imjDlies  that  the  design  and  normal  tendency 
 of  the  law  is  life ;  the  last,  that,  through  man's  imperfection  and 
 disobedience,  the  actual  result  is  death.  Hence,  there  is  clearly 
 no  discrepancy. 
 
 II.     CHRIST.  —  His  Divinity . 
 
 Christ  is  God.  He  is  man. 
 
 In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and        But  now  ye  seek  to  kill  me,  a  man 
 the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word    that  hath  told  you  the  truth,  which  I 
 was  God.    And  the  Word  was  made    have  heard  of  God.    John  viii.  40. 
 flesh,   and  dwelt  among  us.    John  i.        Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day  in 
 1,  14.  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in 
 
 Butunto  the  Son /«esaj/7i.  Thy  throne,    righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he 
 O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.    Heb.  i.  8.    bath  ordained.    Acts  xvii.  31. 
 
 One  mediator  between  God  and  men, 
 the  man  Christ  Jesus.     1  Tim.  ii.  5. 
 
 Christ  is  here  presented  in  two  aspects  —  in  his  divine 
 nature,  by  virtue  of  which  he  was  God,  and  in  his  human 
 nature,  in  respect  of  which  he  was  man.  On  the  one  hand,  he 
 was  "  God,  in  substance  and  essence'' ;^  on  the  other,  he  was 
 man,  as  having  taken  upon  him  human  nature. 
 
 One  with  the  Father.  Distinct  from  him. 
 
 I  and  my  Father  are  one,   John  x.  30.        I  came  forth  from  the  Father,  and 
 
 am  come  into  the  world :  again,  I  leave 
 the  Avorld,  and  go  to  the  Father.  John 
 xvi.  28. 
 
 The  "  oneness  "  of  the  first  text  is  unity  of  essence,  attributes, 
 and  will,  but  not  unity  of  person.  This  is  made  clear  in  our 
 Saviour's  prayer  for  his  disciples :  "  That  they  may  l)e  one, 
 even  as  we  are  one."  ^  Here  the  petition  is,  not  that  the  dis- 
 ciples might  lose  their  individual  existence  and  be  merged  in 
 one  corporeal  organism,  but  that,  in  their  great  work,  they 
 might  be  "  of  one  heart  and  of  one  soul."  Again,  we  read : 
 "  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered ;  . . .  Now,  he  that  j^lanteth 
 and  he  that  watereth  are  one."  ^  Not  identity  of  person,  but 
 of  purpose,  is  here  intended.  The  underlying  principle  which 
 harmonizes  the  two  foregoing  texts  is  therefore  the  following: 
 Unity  of  essence  and  attributes,  with  distinctions  of  person. 
 
 1  So  Alford,  on  John  i.  1.  ^  JqI^  xvii.  22.  ^  1  Cor.  iii.  6,  8. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  107 
 
 Alford :  "  Christ  and  the  Father  are  one  —  one  in  essence^ 
 primarily,  but  therefore  also  one  in  working  and  power  and  in 
 will  ;  . . .  not  personalis/  one,  but  essentially.^" 
 
 Equal  to  the  Father.  Inferior  to  Mm. 
 
 Christ  Jesus :  who,  being  in  the  form  If  ye  loved  me,  ye  would  rejoice,  be- 
 ef God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  cause  I  said,  I  go  unto  the  Father:  for 
 equal  with  God.     Philip,  ii.  5,  6.  my  Father  is    greater  than  1.    John 
 
 After  Christ.     For  in  him  dwelleth     xiv.  28. 
 all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily. 
 Col.  ii.  8,  9. 
 
 The  words  "  greater  than  I "  do  not  assert  Chrisfs  inferiority 
 in  respect  to  essence.  Barnes :  "  The  object  of  Jesus  here  is 
 not  to  compare  his  own  nature  with  that  of  the  Father,  but  his 
 condition.  Ye  would  rejoice  that  I  am  to  leave  this  state  of 
 suffering  and  humiliation,  and  resume  that  glory  which  I  had 
 with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  You  ought  to  rejoice 
 at  my  exaltation  to  bliss  and  glory  with  the  Father." 
 
 Calvin :  "  Christ  does  not  here  compare  the  divinity  of  the 
 Father  with  his  own,  neither  his  own  human  nature  with  the 
 divine  essence  of  the  Father,  but  rather  his  present  state  with 
 that  celestial  glory  to  which  he  must  shortly  be  received." 
 
 In  this  interpretation  concur  Luther,  Cocceius,  DeWette, 
 Tholuck,  Stuart,  and  Alford,  with  other  critics  and  com- 
 mentators." ^  This  exposition  is  in  perfect  keeping  with  the 
 context. 
 
 The  Son  is  God.  The  Father  the  only  God. 
 
 The  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  And  this  is  life  eternal,  that  they 
 purchased  with  his  own  blood.  Acts  might  know  thee  the  only  true  God. 
 XX.  28.  John  xvii.  3. 
 
 Forasmuch  as  ye  know  that  ye  were 
 not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
 as  silver  and  gold,  from  your  vain  con- 
 versation received  by  tradition  from 
 jour  fathers;  but  with  the  precious 
 blood  of  Christ.    1  Pet.  i.  18,  19. 
 
 In  respect  to  the  quotation  from  Acts,  there  are  different 
 readings.     Some  critics  read  "  theos,"    God  ;  others,  "  kurios," 
 
 ^  Says  an  eminent  Unitarian  divine,  Rev.  Dr.  E,  H.  Sears :  "  For  a  mor- 
 tal man,  or  for  an  archangel  as  well,  to  announce  that  God  is  greater  than 
 he  is,  were  profane  egoism.  But  for  Jesus  speaking  as  the  Word  to  say, 
 '  my  Father  is  greater  than  I,'  is  to  say  only  that  God  as  absolute,  is  more 
 than  God  revealed."  —  Heart  of  Christ,  Appendix,  p.  550. 
 
108  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Lord.  Alford,  Wordsworth,  IVIill,  and  others  adopt  the  former ; 
 Griesbach,  Lachmaim,  Meyer,  Davidson,  Tischendorf ,  Tregelles, 
 Green,  and  Hackett  apparently,  adopt  the  latter  reading.  If 
 we  read  "  the  church  of  the  Lord,''  the  passage  will  have  no 
 direct  bearing  upon  the  point  under  discussion.  On  the  words, 
 "  tlie  only  true  God,"  Barnes  observes :  "  The  only  God  in  op- 
 position to  all  false  gods.  "SYhat  is  said  here  is  in  opposition  to 
 idols,  not  to  Jesus  himself,  who,  in  1  John  v.  20,  is  called  '  the 
 true  God  and  eternal  life.' " 
 
 Alford :  "  The  very  juxtaposition  of  Jesus  Christ  here  with 
 the  Father,  and  the  knowledge  of  both  being  defined  to  be 
 eternal  life,  is  a  proof  by  implication  of  the  Godhead  of  the 
 former.  The  knowledge  of  God  and  a  creature  could  not  be 
 eternal  life,  and  the  juxtaposition  of  the  two  would  be  incon- 
 ceivable." 
 
 Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  Son  of  man. 
 
 Say  ye  of  him,  whom  the  Father  hath  When  Jesus  came  into  the  coasts  of 
 
 sanctilied,   and  sent    into    the  world,  Caesarea  Fhilippi,  lie  asked  his  disci- 
 
 Thou  blasphemest;    because  I  said,  I  pies  saying.  Whom  do  men  say  that  I 
 
 am  the  Son  of  God?    John  x.  36.  the  .'-on  of  man  am?    Matt.  xvi.  13. 
 
 And  I'hilip   said,  If  thou  believest  For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek 
 
 with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest.    And  and    to    save    that    which    was    lost, 
 
 he  answered  and  said,  I  believe  that  Luke  xix.  10. 
 Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God.    Acts 
 viii.  37.1 
 
 The  term  "  Son  of  God,"  is  to  be  regarded  as  descriptive  of 
 Jesus,  in  his  divine  nature ;  "  Son  of  man,"  in  his  human 
 nature.  The  latter  term,  says  Alford,  is  "  the  name  by  which 
 the  Lord  ordinarily  in  one  pregnant  word,  designates  himself  as 
 the  Messiah  —  the  Son  of  God  manifested  in  the  flesh  of  man 
 —  the  second  Adam.  And  to  it  belong  all  those  conditions 
 of  humiliation,  suifering,  and  exaltation,  which  it  behooves  the 
 Son  of  man  to  go  through."  From  the  following  passage, "  Here- 
 after shall  the  Son  of  man  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  power 
 of  God.    Then  said  they  all,  Art  thou  then  the  Son  of  God  P"^ 
 
 ^  This  verse  is  retained  by  Bornemann,  Wordsworth,  and  the  Arabic, 
 A  rmenian,  Sj'riac,  and  Vulgate  versions.  It  is  omitted  by  Alford,  Hackett, 
 Meyer,  Tischendorf,  and  most  other  modem  critics. 
 
 -  Luke  xxii.  09,  70. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  109 
 
 it  would  appear  that  the  Jews  took  the  two  expressions,  "  Son 
 of  God"  and  "  Son  of  man,"  as  nearly  or  quite  synonymous, 
 both  denoting  the  long-expected  Messiah. 
 
 The  only  Son  of  God.  Men  also  sons  of  God. 
 
 The  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in       For  as  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spint 
 the  bosom  of  the  Father,  he  hath  de-    of  God.  they  are  the  sons  of  God.    Kora. 
 
 "'li'^ihifwaf  manifested  the  love  of   "^"Beloved,  noware  we  thesons  of  God. 
 God  toward  us,  because  that  God  sent    1  John  lu.  2. 
 his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world, 
 that  we  might  live  through  him.     1 
 John  iv.  9. 
 
 Observe  that  the  first  two  texts  do  not  assert  that  Jesus  is 
 the  ''  only,"  but  the  "  only  begotten,"  Son  of  God  ;  that  is,  he 
 is  the  only  bemg  who  sustams  that  pecuUar  relation  to  the 
 Father,  which  is  implied  in  the  term  "  begotten." 
 
 One  class  of  theologians  hold  that,  while  men  may  become 
 sons  of  God  by  adoption,^  Jesus  is  son  by  generation,  and  con- 
 sequent participation  in  the  divine  essence  and  attributes. 
 Such  was  the  view  of  the  Nicene  trinitarians.^  By  analogical 
 reasoning,  they  maintamed  that,  as  the  human  son  participates 
 in  the  nature  and  attributes  of  the  human  father,  the  same  holds 
 true  of  the  Divine  Son  in  relation  to  the  Divine  Father.  Accord- 
 ing to  this  view,  held  by  many  theologians  at  the  present  day, 
 Christ  is  distinctively  ''the  Son  of  God,"  — or,  in  the  language 
 of  Dr.  Hodge,^  "  the  only  person  in  the  universe  to  whom  the 
 word  can  be  applied  in  its  full  sense,  as  expressing  sameness  of 
 
 essence." 
 
 There  is  another  explanation  of  the  term,  "  Son  of  God," 
 which  is  given  by  Dr.  Watts,^  Prof.  Stuart,^  Prof.  Park,  and 
 others.  They  hold  that  Christ  bears  this  appellation  because, 
 in  respect  to  his  human  nature,  he  is  derived  from  God;  also 
 because  of  the  elevated  dignity  which  was  conferred  on  him 
 
 ^  Rom.  viii.  15,  16. 
 
 2  Shedd,  History  of  Christian  Doctrine,  i.  331. 
 
 3  Theology,  i.  474.  Compare  Dr.  Miller's  Letters  on  Eternal  Sonship, 
 pp.  37-40. 
 
 ♦  See  Works,  v.  232-258  (edition  in  7  vols.). 
 5  Letters  to  Dr.  Miller  on  Eternal  Generation,  Letter  viii. 
 10 
 
110  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 as  the  Messiah,  —  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  being  the 
 commencement  of  his  elevation  to  supreme  dignity,  and  being, 
 moreover,  the  beginning  of  a  new  life  ;  that  is,  something  analo- 
 gous to  birth  or  generation.  The  last-named  theologian^ 
 adduces  the  additional  reason  that  Christ  was  greatly  beloved 
 of  the  Father. 
 
 On  either  of  the  above  hypotheses,  the  fact  that  men  are 
 occasionally  styled  "  sons  of  God,"  while  Jesus  is  denominated 
 "  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,"  occasions  no  difficulty,  since 
 the  two  ajDpellations  are  respectively  used  with  very  different 
 significations. 
 
 Omnipotence. 
 
 Had  all  power.  Was  not  almighty. 
 
 And  Jesus  came  and  spake  unto  them,  To  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on  my 
 saying,  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  left,  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  be 
 heaven  and  in  earth.    Matt,  xxviii  18     given  to  tJwm  for  whom  it  is  prepared 
 
 The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  hath    of  my  Father.    Matt.  xx.  23. 
 given  all  things  into  his  hand.    John        And  he  could  there   do  no  mighty 
 iii.  35.  work,  save  that  he  laid  his  hand  upon 
 
 a  few  sick  folk,  and  healed  them.    Mark 
 vi.  G. 
 
 Matt.  XX.  23  is  rendered  by  Grotius,  Chrysostom,  Clarke, 
 Barnes,  and  others  thus  :  "  is  not  mine  to  give,  except  to  those 
 for  whom,"  etc.  With  this  the  Syriac  Peshito  precisely  agrees. 
 The  italics  in  the  common  version  of  tliis  text  pervert  the 
 meaning.  The  real  sense  is :  "  It  is  not  fitting  that  I  should 
 bestow  it  upon  others."  The  question  is  not  one  of  power  at 
 all,  but  of  fitness. 
 
 Mark  vi.  5  implies  not  physical  but  moral  impossibility.  It 
 was  not  lack  of  power  which  prevented  his  working  miracles 
 at  Nazareth ;  but,  as  the  next  verse  shows,  the  "  unbelief "  of 
 the  people  was  the  reason  why  it  was  inconsistent  for  him,  or 
 why  he  "  could  not "  thus  work.  So  one  often  says  of  a  thing 
 which  he  deemed  improper,  or  incompatible  with  his  purposes, 
 "  I  could  not  do  it." 
 
 Alford :  "  The  want  of  ahillty  is  not  absolute,  but  relative. 
 The  same  voice  wliicli  could  still  the  tempest,  could  anywhere 
 
 ^  MS.  Lectures. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  Ill 
 
 and  under  any  circumstances  have  commanded  diseases  to 
 obey ;  but  in  most  cases  of  human  infirmity,  it  was  our  Lord's 
 practice  to  require  faith  in  the  recipient  of  aid,  and  that  being 
 wanting,  the  help  could  not  be  given." 
 
 Omniscience. 
 
 Knew  all  things.  Ignorant  of  some  things. 
 
 But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  And  seeing  a  fig  tree  afar  olF  having 
 
 unto  them,  because  he  knew  all  men,  leaves,  he  came,  if  haply  he  might  find 
 
 and  needf'd  not  that  any  should  testify  any  thing  thereon :  and  when  he  came 
 
 of  man  :  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man.  to  it,  he  found  nothing  but  leaves;  for 
 
 John  ii.  24,  25.  the  time  of  ligs  was  not  yet.  Mark  xi.l3. 
 
 Now  are  we  sure  that  thou  knowest  But  of  that  day  and  that  hour  know- 
 all  things,  and  needest  not  that  any  eth  no  man,  no,"not  the  angels  which 
 man  should  as^k  thee.    John  xvi.  30.  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son.  but  the 
 
 And  he  said  unto   him,  Lord,  thou  Father.    Mark  xiii.  32. 
 
 knowest  all  things;  thou  knowest  that  And  said,  Where  have  ye  laid  him? 
 
 I  love  thee.    John  xxi.  17.  They  said  unto  him,  Lord,  come  and 
 
 Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treas-  see.    John  xi.  34. 
 
 ures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge.     (Jol.  Wherefore  in  all  things  it  behooved 
 
 ii.  3.  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his  brethren. 
 
 Heb.  ii.  17. 
 
 Ob\aously,  some  passages  represent  Christ  in  the  aspect  of 
 his  Godhead,  while  others  speak  of  him  simply  in  his  human 
 nature,  —  as  a  man.  When  he  is  spoken  of  as  "  increasing  in 
 wisdom  and  stature,"  ^  the  humanity  is  placed  in  the  foreground ; 
 when  he  claims  to  have  existed  "  before  Abraham  was,"  ^  he 
 speaks  in  his  inherent  divinity.  As  another  has  remarked: 
 "His  infancy  and  childhood  were  no  mere  pretence,  but  the 
 divine  personality  was  in  him  carried  through  these  states  of 
 weakness  and  inexperience,  and  gathered  round  itself  the 
 ordinary  accessions  and  experiences  of  the  sons  of  men."  In 
 the  person  of  Christ,  the  Divinity  voluntarily  entered  into,  and 
 took  upon  itself,  the  conditions  and  limitations  of  humanity. 
 
 Ewald  ^  observes  :  "  Even  the  liighest  divine  power,  when  it 
 veils  itself  in  mortal  body,  and  appears  in  definite  time,  finds, 
 in  this  body  and  this  time,  its  limits."  To  nearly  the  same 
 purport,  Colenso  *  says :  "  It  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the 
 most  entire  and  sincere  belief  in  our  Lord's  divinity,  to  hold, 
 as  many  do,  that  when  he  vouchsafed  to  become  a  'Son  of 
 
 1  Luke  ii.  52.  ^  joj^n  yjj}  53  3  Lifg  ^f  Christ,  p.  340. 
 
 *  On  Pentateuch,  Part  i.  p.  xxxi. 
 
112  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 man,'  he  took  our  nature  fully,  and  voluntarily  entered  into  all 
 the  conditions  of  humanity,  and  among  others,  into  that  which 
 makes  our  growth  in  all  ordinary  knowledge  gradual  and 
 limited" 
 
 The  divinity  and  humanity  were,  as  we  believe,  so  united 
 that  they  exerted  a  reciprocal  influence,  each  modifying  the 
 action  of  the  other.  If  it  be  said  that  such  a  union  is  improb- 
 able, we  reply  that  there  is  an  equal,  antecedent  improbability 
 that  a  spirit,  being  immaterial,  would  be  united  with  a  body 
 composed  of  matter,  so  as  to  form  one  personality,  one  ego  ; 
 yet  we  know  that  this  actually  occurs  in  the  case  of  man. 
 
 In  consequence  of  the  union  above  mentioned,  our  Saviour 
 could  say  "  I "  of  either  component  of  his  nature  —  the  divine 
 or  the  human.  Sometimes  he  spoke  in  one  relation,  sometimes 
 in  the  other,  according  as  circumstances  or  the  exigencies  of 
 discourse  required.^  In  a  somewhat  analogous  way,  a  man 
 says,  "  /rejoice  at  it,"  and,  at  another  time,  "  /weigh  so  much." 
 In  the  first  instance,  the  "  I "  refers  exclusively  to  the  soul ;  in 
 the  second,  to  the  body.  The  soul  rejoices,  the  body  weighs. 
 Yet  the  pronoun  "  I "  is  applied  indifferently  to  either.  We 
 cannot  but  think  that  the  principle  underlying  this  mode  of 
 conception  and  speech,  indicates  a  simple  and  correct  interpre- 
 tation of  the  second  series  of  texts  quoted  above.  They  bring 
 Christ  before  our  minds  in  his  lower  and  subordinate  relations, 
 in  the  humiliation,  the  "  emptying "  himself  of  his  Godlike 
 majesty  and  visible  glories,  which  he  voluntarily  undertook  and 
 endured.^ 
 
 As  to  the  case  of  the  fig-tree,  Jesus  wished  to  teach  his  dis- 
 
 *  Dr.  Payson,  on  his  death-bed,  said,  in  substance,  to  his  friends,  "  I  suffer 
 as  much  pain,  as  if  every  bone  were  undergoing  dislocation;  "  and,  in  the 
 same  breath,  "  I  am  perfectly,  perfectly  happy  and  peaceful  —  more  happy 
 than  I  can  possibly  express  to  you."  That  is,  he  was  at  the  same  moment 
 intensely  happy,  and  suffering  intensely.  Yet  this  involved  no  contradic- 
 tion. The  language  had  respect  to  different  relations,  or  to  different 
 departments  of  being.     See  Payson's  Memoir,  by  Cummings,  p.  476. 
 
 ^  See  Phil.  ii.  7,  8;  Greek  kavrhu  iKevwa-f,  emptied  Himself. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  113 
 
 ciples  an  important  lesson.  This  was  enforced  upon  their 
 minds  by  his  suddenly  blighting  the  tree.  The  foliage  of  the 
 tree  was  in  such  a  state  that  it  was  antecedently  probable  that 
 there  was  fruit  also.  Jesus  acted  "  according  to  the  appearance 
 of  things ;  being  a  man  as  well  as  divine  he  acted,  of  course, 
 as  men  do  act  in  such  circumstances." 
 
 As  to  Mark  xiii.  32,  Augustme  says,  "  He  did  not  know  so 
 that  he  might  at  that  time  disclose  to  the  disciples."  He  adds 
 elsewhere,  "  Though  as  God  he  could  not  be  ignorant  of  any 
 thing,  yet  his  human  understanding  did  not  know  it." 
 
 Lightfoot,  on  the  passage :  "  It  is  not  revealed  to  him  from 
 the  Father  to  reveal  to  the  church." 
 
 Wordsworth,  on  the  same  text :  "  It  is  true  that  the  Son,  as 
 Son,  knoweth  not  the  day  of  judgment,  because  the  Father 
 *  hath  put  the  times  and  seasons  in  his  own  power,'  and  the 
 Father  will  reveal  them  when  he  thinks  meet ;  and  therefore 
 it  is  no  part  of  the  office  of  the  Son  to  know,  that  is,  to  deter- 
 mine and  declare  the  day  of  judgment." 
 
 Some  of  the  Lutheran  commentators  say  that  our  Lord  knew 
 "  in  respect  to  possession,  but  not  in  respect  to  use."  That  is, 
 he  might  possess  but  not  use  this  knowledge. 
 
 Waterland :  ^  "  He  denies  the  knowledge  of  the  day  of 
 judgment,  but  in  respect  of  his  human  nature  ;  in  which  respect 
 also  he  is  said  to  have  increased  in  wisdom,  Luke  ii.  52 ;  the 
 divine  Logos  having,  with  the  human  nature,  assmned  the 
 ignorance  and  other  infirmities  proper  to  it." 
 
 Schaff,  in  Lange,  on  Matt.  xxiv.  36 :  "  Christ  could,  of  course, 
 not  lay  aside,  in  the  incarnation,  the  metaphysical  attributes  of 
 his  divine  nature,  such  as  eternity ;  but  he  could,  by  an  act  of 
 his  will,  limit  his  attributes  of  power  and  his  knowledge,  and 
 refrain  from  their  use  as  far  as  it  was  necessary  for  his 
 humiliation." 
 
 Alf ord :  "  In  the  course  of  humiliation  undertaken  by  the 
 Son,  in  which  he  increased  in  wisdom  (Luke  ii.  52),  learned 
 
 1  Works,  ii.  163  (Oxford  edition,  1856). 
 10* 
 
114  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 obedience  (Heb.  v.  8),  uttered   desires   in   prayer   (Luke  vL 
 12,  etc.)  —  this  matter  was  hidden  from  him." 
 
 O  m.nij)resence. 
 
 Everyiohere  present.  Not  omnipresent. 
 
 For  where  two  or  three  are  gathered  For  ye  have  the  poor  always  with 
 together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  you ;  but  me  ye  have  not  always.  Matt, 
 midst  of  them.    Matt,  xviii.  20.  xxvi.  11. 
 
 Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  Jesus  himself  drew  near,  and  went 
 the  end  of  the  world.    Matt,  xxviii.  20.    with  them.    J.uke  xxiv.  15. 
 
 Jesus  had  conveyed  himself  away,  a 
 multitude  being  in  tliat  place.  John 
 V.  13. 
 
 And  I  am  glad  for  your  sakes  that  1 
 was  not  there,  to  the  intent  ye  may  be- 
 lieve ;  nevertheless,  let  us  go  unto  him. 
 John  xi.  15. 
 
 The  first  texts  refer  to  his  spiritual  presence  with  his  people; 
 the  second  series  relates  to  his  visible  presence,  in  the  body. 
 Paul,  in  Col.  ii.  5,  employs  language  of  a  quite  similar  import. 
 
 Holiness, 
 
 He  is  holy.  Is  sin. 
 
 He  had  done  no  violence,  neither  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for 
 was  any  deceit  in  his  mouth.  Isa.  us,  who  knew  no  sin;  that  we  might 
 liii.  9.  be  made  the  righteousness  of  God  in 
 
 In  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,    him.    2  Cor.  v.  21. 
 yet  without  sin.    Heb.  iv.  15. 
 
 Holy,   harmless,   undefiled,  separate 
 from  sinners.    Heb.  vii.  26. 
 
 The  word  "sin,"  in  the  latter  text,  doubtless  means  "sin- 
 offering."  ^  In  this  view  concur  Augustine,  Ambrose,  Erasmus, 
 Lightfoot,  Macknight,  Stuart,  Whitby,  and  many  other  com- 
 mentators. 
 
 Chiysostom  says,  "  Him  who  knew  no  sin,  who  was  righteous- 
 ness itseK,  he  hath  made  sin ;  that  is,  hath  suffered  to  be 
 condemned  as  a  sinner,  to  die  as  a  person  accursed. 
 
 De  Wette  and  Alford  give  the  passage  a  somewhat  different 
 
 1  Schleusner,  Lexicon  to  the  LXX,  defines  the  original  Greek  term, 
 ajxapTia,  as  "peccatum,"  etiam  poena  peccati,  et  sacrificium  piaculare." 
 Biel  ffivcs,  also,  "  sacrificium  pro  peccato."  Examples  of  the  secondaiy 
 sij^nification  are  Ezek  xliii.  22;  xliv.  29;  xlv.  22  Accordinjr  to  Gesenius, 
 the  corresponding  Hebrew  term  nxi:!! ,  with  two  kindred  words,  means 
 both  sin  and  sin-offering.  Fuerstsays  hitisri  denotes  sin  in  1  Sam.  xx  1; 
 Psalm  lix.  4;  Job  xiii.  23;  and  sin-offering  in  Ex.  xxix.  14;  Lev.  iv.  3. 
 The  Greek  word  mentioned  above  has  clearly  its  secondary  or  Hebraistic 
 sense  in  2  Cor.  v.  21. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  115 
 
 turn,  thus  :  Sin,  i.e.  Christ  on  the  cross  was  the  representative 
 of  sin  —  of  the  sin  of  the  world. 
 
 With  a  smgular  obliquity  of  mind  and  heart,  F.  W.  New- 
 man ^  says  of  our  Saviour,  as  represented  in  the  Gospels,  "  I 
 almost  doubt  whether,  if  one  wished  to  draw  the  character  of  a 
 vain  and  vacillating  pretender,  it  would  be  possible  to  draw 
 anything  more  to  the  purpose  than  this,"  and  expresses  his  "  con- 
 viction," that  "  in  consistency  of  goodness  Jesus  fell  far  below 
 vast  numbers  of  his  unhonored  disciples." 
 
 Wliat  must  be  our  estimate  of  a  man  who  can  thus  coolly 
 ignore  the  verdict  of  the  ages,  and  wantonly  revolt  the  moral 
 sense  of  Christendom,  by  suffering  his  pen  to  trace  such  atro- 
 cious sentiments  as  these  ? 
 
 Blessed.  A  curse. 
 
 God  hath  blessed  thee  for  ever.  Ps.  Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
 xlv.  2.  curse  of  the  law,  being  made  a  curse 
 
 All  nations  shall  call  him  blessed,  for  us :  for  it  is  written.  Cursed  is  every 
 Ps.  Ixxii.  17.  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree.    Gial.  iii.  13. 
 
 Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain 
 to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wis- 
 dom, and  strength,  and  honor,  and 
 glory,  and  blessing.    Rev.  v.  12. 
 
 Luther  and  some  other  commentators,  taking  the  language 
 in  Galatians  too  literally,  have  supposed  that  by  some  mysterious 
 transference  of  human  guilt  to  Christ,  he  actually  became  a 
 sinner.  This  interpretation  is,  however,  uncalled  for,  and  re- 
 pugnant to  our  feelings. 
 
 Conybeare  renders  :  "  He  became  accursed  for  our  sakes." 
 
 EUicott  and  Meyer  think  that  the  abstract  word  "  katara," 
 curse,  is  chosen  instead  of  the  concrete,  to  ''■  express  with  more 
 force  the  completeness  of  the  satisfaction  which  Christ  made 
 to  the  law." 
 
 Barnes :  "  Jesus  was  subjected  to  what  was  regarded  as  an 
 accursed  death.  He  was  treated  in  his  death  as  if  he  had  been 
 a  criminal." 
 
 As  Christ  suffered  in  the  stead  of  those  upon  whom  the 
 curse  properly  devolved,  he  might  be  styled  "  accursed,"  or,  in 
 the  sense  just  explamed,  a  "  curse  "  for  us. 
 
 ^  Phases  of  Faith,  chap.  vii.  (third  edition). 
 
116  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 3Iercy, 
 
 He  is  merciful  Unmerciful. 
 
 For  the  Son  of  man  is  not  come  to  Fall  on  us,  and  hide  us  from  the  face 
 destroy  men's  lives  but  to  save  them,  of  him  that  sitteth  on  the  throne,  and 
 Luke  ix.  56.  from  the  wrath  of  the  Lamb.     Rev. 
 
 For  the  Son  of  man  is  come  to  seek    vi.  16. 
 and  to  save  that  which  was  lost.    Luke       Called  Faithful    and   True,  and    in 
 xix.  10.  righteousness  he  doth  judge  and  make 
 
 war.    Eev.  xix.  11. 
 
 And  he  rvas  clothed  with  a  vesture 
 dipped  in  blood,  and  his  name  is  called 
 The  Word  of  God.    Rev.  xix  13. 
 
 And  out  of  his  mouth  goeth  a  sharp 
 sword,  that  with  it  he  should  smite  the 
 nations :  and  he  shall  rule  them  with  a 
 rod  of  iron;  and  he  treadeth  the  wine- 
 press of  the  fierceness  and  wrath  of 
 Almighty  God.    llev.  xix.  15. 
 
 De  Wette  ^  says  that  these  latter  passages  "  glow  with  the 
 spirit  of  Messianic  revenge."  The  apparent  difficulty  is  easily 
 obviated.  Just  in  proportion  as  any  being  loves  holiness,  in 
 that  proportion  will  he  hate  sin.  Christ,  being  perfectly  holy, 
 being  also  a  wise  and  benevolent  sovereign,  cannot  but  be  most 
 powerfully  impelled  to  reward  vu'tue,  and  to  punish  and  exter- 
 minate vice.  The  texts  to  which  exception  is  taken,  are  vivid, 
 figurative  expressions  of  the  infinitely  wise,  just,  and  righteous 
 principles  which  Christ  displays  in  the  administration  of  his 
 kingdom. 
 
 Spares  bruised  reed.  Wields  iron  sceptre. 
 
 A  bruised  reed  shall  he  not  break,  and  Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of 
 
 the  smoking  flax  shall  he  not  quench,  iron :  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces 
 
 Isa.  xlii.  3.  like  a  potter's  vessel.    Ps.  ii.  9. 
 
 These  passages  present  the  Messiah  in  a  twofold  attitude ; 
 toward  the  penitent  and  humble,  and  toward  the  proud  and 
 rebellious.  The  "rod  of  iron"  indicates  the  strength  and 
 crushing  force  with  which  he  would  chastise  the  revolters  ;  the 
 first  text  brings  to  view  the  tender  compassion  which  he  would 
 exercise  toward  the  dejected  and  helpless.  The  same  mouth 
 which  breathed  the  tender  words,  "  Come  unto  me,  all  ye  that 
 labor  and  are  heavy-laden,"  ^  could,  without  any  incongruity, 
 thunder  at  those  scoffing  hypocrites,  the  scribes  and  Pharisees, 
 the  terrible  denunciation,  "  Ye  serpents,  ye  generation  of  vipers, 
 how  can  ye  escape  the  damnation  of  hell."'^ 
 
 1  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  p.  376.  ^  ^att.  xi.  28.  ^  Matt,  xxiii.  33. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  117 
 
 Courage  and  Fortitude, 
 
 Shrunk  at  death.  Met  it  composedly. 
 
 Now  is  my  soul  troubled ;  and  what       He  humbled  himself,  and  became  obe- 
 shall  I  say?  "Father,  save  me  from  this    dient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
 hour:  but  for  this  cause  came  I  unto    cross.    Philip,  ii.  8. 
 this  hour.    John  xii.  27. 
 
 Who  in  the  days  of  his  flesh,  when 
 he  had  offered  up  prayers  and  suppli- 
 cations with  strong  crving  and  tears 
 unto  him  that  was  able  to  save  him 
 fri.m  death,  and  was  heard  in  that  he 
 feared.     Heb.  v.  7. 
 
 Theophylact,  Grotius,  Tholuck,  Barnes,  and  others,  take  the 
 Saviour's  words  interrogatively,  thus  :  "  Shall  I  say,  Father, 
 save  me  from  this  houi-  ?"  This  interpretation  makes  good 
 sense,  and  accords  well  with  the  context. 
 
 Heb.  V.  7  may  be  rendered :  "  He  was  heard  on  account  of 
 his  pious  resignation,"  —  or,  "  because  of  his  reverence."  So, 
 in  substance,  Alford,  Barnes,  Bleek,  Conybeare,  Delitzsch, 
 Luther,  Kobinson,  Tyndale,  and  all  the  Greek  commentators. 
 
 Prof.  Stuart,  following  in  substance  the  common  version, 
 maintains  that  it  was  not  death  which  Christ  "  feared " ;  he 
 dreaded  lest  he  should  sink  under  the  agony  of  being  deserted 
 by  his  Father.  In  this  respect  he  was  "  heard,"  and  received 
 divine  aid.^     Either  interpretation  dispels  the  difficulty. 
 
 Veracity. 
 
 His  witness  true.  Not  true. 
 
 Though  I  bear  record  of  myself,  i/e.t       If  I  bear  witness  of  myself  my  wit- 
 my  lecord  is  true:  for  I  know  whence    ness  is  not  true.    John  v.  31. 
 1  came  and  whither  I  go.    John  viii.  14. 
 
 Grotius  takes  the  first  passage  as  a  mere  hypothesis,  "  even 
 though  I  should  bear  witness  of  myself,"  etc.  Bishop  Pearce, 
 Wakefield,  and  others  render  the  second  text  thus :  "  If  I  bear 
 witness  of  myself,  is  not  my  witness  true  ?  "  Should  the  com- 
 mon version  be  retained,  the  meaning  is.  If  I  alone  bear  witness 
 of  myself."  The  Mosaic  law  required  at  least  two  witnesses.^ 
 Jesus  therefore  admits  that  his  own  testimony  alone  would  not 
 be  "  true  "  ;  that  is,  would  not  be  regarded  as  legal  proof;  hence 
 he  proceeds  to  adduce  the  corroborative  testimony  of  another. 
 
 1  Luke  xxii.  43.  ^  Deut.  xix.  15. 
 
118  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  ^  "  The  first  passage  sets  forth  his  testimony 
 as  it  was  in  itself ;  tlie  second  as  it  was  in  the  account  of 
 men.  . . .  Admitting  their  laws  or  rules  of  evidence,  his  testi- 
 mony would  not  have  been  credible;  and  therefore  in  the 
 verses  following  he  appeals  to  that  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
 the  works  which  he  had  wrought  in  liis  Father's  name,  which 
 amounted  to  a  testimony  from  the  Father." 
 
 Alford :  The  assertion  in  chapter  v.  was,  that  his  own  un- 
 supported  witness  {supposing  that  possible)  would  not  be  trust- 
 worthy, but  that  his  testimony  was  supported  by,  and  in  fact 
 coincident  with,  that  of  the  Father.  The  very  same  argument 
 is  used  in  chapter  viii.,  but  the  other  side  of  it  presented  to  us. 
 He  does  witness  of  himself,  because  his  testimony  is  the  testi- 
 mony of  the  Father  who  witnesseth  in  him. 
 
 Received  human  testimony.  Did  not  receive  it. 
 
 And  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  be-  But  I  receive    not  testimony  from 
 
 cause  ye  have  been  with  me  from  the  man :  but  these  things  1  say  that  ye 
 
 beginning.    John  xv.  27.  might  be  saved.    John  v.  34. 
 
 '- 1  receive  not,"  etc. ;  that  is,  the  "  testimony  "  of  which  I 
 have  spoken  is  not  derived  from  human  sources.  It  is  inlinitely 
 more  authoritative  and  conclusive  than  man's  witness  would  be. 
 I  need  not  human  testimony  for  myself ;  I  merely  adduce  it 
 for  your  sakes,  that  "  ye  might  be  saved." 
 
 Mission. 
 
 Peace.  War. 
 
 The  Prince  of  Peace.    Of  the  increase       Think  not  that  I  am  come  to  send 
 
 of /«is  government  and  peace  ^/iers  s/taW    peace  on  earth;  I  came  nut  to  send 
 
 fte  no  end.     Jsa.  ix.  6.  7.  peace,  but  a  sword.     For  I  am  come  to 
 
 Peace  I  leave  with  you,  my  peace  1    set  a  man  at  variance  against  his  father, 
 
 give  unto  you.    John  xiv.  27.  and  the  daughter  against  her  motlier, 
 
 and  the  daughter-in-law  against  her 
 mother-in-law.  And  a  man's  foes  shall 
 be  they  of  his  own  household.  Matt. 
 X.  34-36 
 
 That  is,  the  object  of  his  mission  was  peace,  but  a  result  of 
 it  would,  in  many  cases,  be  strife  and  war.  Often,  in  securing 
 a  valuable  end,  we  cannot  avoid  certain  incidental  evils.  The 
 object  of  the  surgeon  in  amputating  a  diseased  limb  is  the 
 preservation  of  life,  yet  pain,  as  an  incidental  evil,  follows  the 
 stroke  of  his  scalpel. 
 
 ^  Works,  i.  679. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  119 
 
 A  religion  of  inherent,  radical  purity  could  not  be  promul- 
 gated in  the  world  without  awakening  the  fierce  antagonism  of 
 everything  impure  and  evil.  Hence  would  arise  strife  and 
 division,  bitter  conflicts,  —  as  incidental  evils,  the  grand,  ulti- 
 mate, unvarying  object  being,  nevertheless,  holiness  and  peace. 
 
 Extended  to  all  men.  To  Israelites  alone. 
 
 I  will  also  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the      Go  not  into  the  way  of  tlie  Gentiles, and 
 
 Gentiles,  that  thou  mayest  be  my  sal-  into  any  city  of  the  Samaritans  enter 
 
 vation  unto  the  end  of  the  earth.    Isa.  ve  not.    But  go  rather  to  the  lost  sheep 
 
 xlix.  6.  of  the  house  of  Israel.    Matt.  x.  5,  6. 
 
 Christ  Jesus;   who    gave    himself  a        1  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep 
 
 ransom  for  all.    1  Tim.  ii.  6.  of  the  house  of  Israel.    Matt.  xv.  24. 
 
 He  made  atonement,  "  tasted  death,"  for  every  man,  and  the 
 benefits  of  his  mediation  are,  to  a  certain  extent,  enjoyed  by 
 all,  but  his  'personal  mission  was  cliiefly  to  the  "•  house  of  Israel." 
 And  the  first,  but  not  the  later,  mission  of  the  apostles  was 
 similarly  restricted. 
 
 To  the  Samaritans.  To  Jews  only. 
 
 And  sent  messengers  before  his  face;  He  departed  from  Galilee,  and  came 
 
 and  they  went  and  entered  into  a  vil-  into  the  coasts  of  Judea,  beyond  Jor- 
 
 lage  of  the  Samaritans  to  make  ready  dan.    Matt.  xix.  1. 
 
 for  him.     I.,uke  ix.  52.  (The  woman  was  a  Greek,  a  Syro- 
 
 And  it  came  to  pass  as  he  went  to  phenician  by  nation,)  and  she  besought 
 
 Jerusalem,  that  he  passed  through  the  him  that  he  would  ca.st  forth  the  devil 
 
 midst  of  Samaria  and  Galilee.  "Luke  out  of  her  daughter.    But  Jesus  said 
 
 xvii.  11.  unto  her.  I^et  the  children  first  be  filled : 
 
 He  left  Judea.  and  departed  again  for  it  is  not  meet  to  take  the  children's 
 
 into  Galilee.    And  he  must  needs  go  bread,   and  to  cast  it  uuto  the  dogs, 
 
 through  Samaria    John  iv.  3,  4.  Mark  vii.  26,  27. 
 
 So  when  the  Samaritans  were  come 
 unto  him  they  besought  him  that  he 
 would  tarry  with  them:  and  he  abode 
 there  two  days.  And  many  more  be- 
 lieved because  of  his  own  weird.  John 
 iv.  40,  41. 
 
 "  It  is  impossible,"  says  Zeller,^  to  reconcile  these  different 
 accounts."  Now  the  truth  is,  that  the  infrequent  exceptions 
 alluded  to  in  the  first  series  of  texts,  only  prove  the  general 
 rule,  that  Christ's  personal  mission  was  to  the  Jews.  The 
 mere  fact  that,  in  journeying  from  Judea  to  Galilee,  he  passed 
 through  Samaria,  which  lay  between  the  two,  or  that  he  wrought 
 a  miracle  upon  one  Samaritan,  and  virtually  commended 
 another,^  or  that  he  actually  tarried  two  whole  days  in  Sychar, 
 does  not,  in  the  slightest,  militate  against  the  certainty  that  his 
 personal  ministry  was  amoijg  the  children  of  Israel. 
 
 ^  Strauss  and  Renan,  p.  79.  -  Luke  xvii.  16  and  x.  33-37. 
 
120  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 To  fulfil  the  law.  To  redeem  from  its  curse. 
 
 Think  not  that  1  am  come  to  destroy       Christ  hath  redeemed  us  from  the 
 the  law,  or  the  prophets:    I  am  not    curse  of  the  law.    Gal.  iii.  13. 
 come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil.    Matt. 
 V.  17. 
 
 He  came  to  carry  out  the  great  end  of  the  law,  to  secure  the 
 righteousness  of  man.  He  "fulfilled,"  perfectly  obeyed,  the 
 moral  law,  while  in  him,  as  the  great  Antitype,  the  types  and 
 figures  of  the  ceremonial  law  culminated  and  were  fulfilled. 
 At  the  same  time,  he  came  to  redeem,  by  his  atonement,  peni- 
 tent sinners  from  the  "  curse,"  the  penalty  of  the  law. 
 
 To  judge  the  loorld.  Not  to  judge. 
 
 For  the  Father  judgeth  no  man;  but  For  Cod  sent  not  his  Son  into  the 
 hath  committed  all  judgmeut  unto  the  world  to  condemn  the  world;  but  that 
 Son  :  and  hath  given  him  authority  to  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved, 
 execute  judgment  also.    John  v.  22,  27.    John  ili  17. 
 
 Jesus  said,  For  judgment  I  am  come        Ye  judge  after  the  flesh;  I  judge  no 
 into  this  world,  that  they  which  see    man.    John  viii.  15. 
 not  might  see;  and  that  they  which  see        And  if  any  man  hear  my  words,  and 
 might  be  made  blind.    John  ix.  39.  believe  not,   I  judge  him  not:    for  1 
 
 came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to 
 save  the  world.    John  xii.  47. 
 
 The  Greek  word  "  krino  "  has  the  distinct,  though  associated, 
 meanings,  to  judge  merely,  and  to  condemn.  In  some  of  the 
 above  passages  it  seems  to  be  used  in  one  sense,  in  others  a 
 different  one  is  employed.  Jesus  came,  in  a  sense,  to  "  judge  " 
 the  world,  that  is,  to  determine,  by  means  of  the  gospel,  the 
 moral  status,  and  consequent  final  destiny  of  men ;  yet  his 
 primary  object  was  not  to  condemn  men,  though,  in  the  pro- 
 cess of  judgment,  the  condemnation  of  some  will  be  a  certain, 
 although  mcidental,  result.  "  I  judge  no  man,"  i.e.  after  your 
 manner.,  or  else,  during  my  ^present  mission.  At  his  second 
 coming  '  he  will '  in  the  ultimate  and  highest  sense,  "  judge  the 
 world." 
 
 Miracles, 
 
 Proof  of  divine  m  ission.  Not  a  proof. 
 
 And  Israel  saw  that  great  work  which  Then  Tharaoh  also  called  the  wise 
 
 the  Loud  did  upon  the  Egyptians:  and  men,  and  the  sorcerers:  now  the  ma- 
 
 the  people  feared  the  Lord,  and  be-  gicians  of  Kgypt,  they  also  did  in  like 
 
 lieved  the  Loud,  and  his  servant  Moses,  manner  with  their  enchantments:  for 
 
 Ex.  xiv.  31.  they  cast  down  every  man  his  rod,  and 
 
 Art  thou   he  that   sliould   come,  or  tliey  became  serpents.     Ex.  vii.  11,  12. 
 
 do  we  look  for    another?     Jesus  an-  And  the  magicians  did  so  with  their 
 
 swered   and  said  unto  them,  (io  and  enchantments,  and  brought  up  frogs 
 
 shew  J'.ilin  again  those  tilings  which  upon  the  land  of  Egypt.     Ex.  viii.  7. 
 
 ye  do  hear  and  see:  the  blind  receive  If  tliere  arise  among  you  a  prophet, 
 
 their  sight,   and  the    lame  walk,  the  oi   a  dreamer  of  dreams,  and  giveth 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 121 
 
 Proof  of  divine  mission. 
 lepers  are  cleansed,  and  the  deaf  hear, 
 the  dead  are  raised  up.     Matt.  xi.  3-5. 
 
 liabbi,  we  know  that  thou  art  a 
 teacher  come  from  God:  for  no  man 
 can  do  these  miracles  that  thou  doest, 
 except  God  be  with  him.    John  iii.  2. 
 
 The  works  which  the  Father  hath 
 fjiven  me  to  finish,  the  same  works  that 
 I  do,  bear  witness  of  me,  that  the 
 Father  hath  sent  me.    John  v.  38. 
 
 God  also  bearing  fJiem  witness,  both 
 with  signs  and  wonders,  and  with  di- 
 vers miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  according  to  his  own  will.  Heb. 
 ii.4. 
 
 Not  a  proof. 
 thee  a  sign  or  a  wonder,  and  the  sign 
 or  the  wonder  come  to  pass,  whereof  he 
 spake  unto  thee,  saying,  Let  us  go  after 
 other  gods  which  thou  hast  not  known, 
 and  let  us  serve  them;  thou  shalt  not 
 hearken  unto  the  words  of  that  pro- 
 phet, or  that  dreamer  of  dreams :  for 
 the  LoitD  your  God  proveth  you,  to 
 know  whether  ye  love  the  Lord  your 
 God  with  all  vour  heart  and  with  all 
 your  soul     Deut.  xiii.  1-3. 
 
 For  there  shall  arise  false  Christs, 
 and  false  prophets,  and  shall  shew 
 great  signs  and  wonders;  insomuch 
 that,  if  it  ivere  possible,  they  shall  de- 
 ceive the  very  elect.    Matt.-  xxiv.  24. 
 
 And  if  I  by  Beelzebub  cast  out  devils, 
 by  whom  do  your  sons  cast  them  out? 
 therefore  shall  they  be  your  judges. 
 Luke  xi.  19. 
 
 Even  him,  whose  coming  is  after  the 
 working  of  Satan,  with  all  power  and 
 signs  and  h'ing  wonders.    2  Thess.  ii.  9. 
 '  And  he  cloeth  great  wonders,  so  that 
 
 he  maketh  lire  come  down  from  heaven 
 on  the  earth  in  the  sight  of  men,  and 
 deceiveth  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth 
 by  the  means  of  those  miracles.  Kev. 
 xiii.  13, 14. 
 
 On  this  general  subject,  we  m?iy  say  that  miracles  are  one, 
 but  not  the  only,  proof  of  the  divine  mission  of  a  religious 
 teacher.  His  own  character  and  claims,  as  well  as  the  nature 
 of  his  miracle,  and  of  the  doctrme  he  propounds,  must  be  taken 
 into  the  account.  There  are  two  or  three  j^reliminary  questions 
 which  must  be  considered  before  we  proceed  fiu-ther. 
 
 1.  What  constitutes  a  miracle  ?  We  give  various  answers. 
 Dr.  Charles  Ilodge : '  "  An  event,  occurring  in  the  external 
 world,  which  involves  the  suspension  or  counteracting  of  some 
 natural  law,  and  which  can  be  referred  to  nothing  but  the 
 immediate  power  of  God."  "  After  all,"  he  says  elsewhere, 
 "  the  suspension  or  violation  of  the  laws  of  nature  involved  in 
 miracles  is  nothing  more  than  is  constantly  taking  place  around 
 us.  One  force  counteracts  another;  vital  force  keeps  the 
 chemical  laws  of  matter  in  abeyance ;  and  muscular  force  can 
 control  the  action  of  physical  force.  When  a  man  raises  a 
 weight  from  the  ground,  the  law  of  gravity  is  neither  suspended 
 
 ^  Theology,  Vol.  ii.  p.  75,  and  Vol.  i.  p.  621. 
 11 
 
122  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 
 
 'nor  violated,  but  counteracted  by  a  stronger  force.  The  same 
 is  true  as  to  the  walking  of  Christ  on  the  water,  and  the 
 swimming  of  the  iron  at  the  command  of  the  prophet." 
 
 Prof.  Park :  ^  "  A  miracle  is  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  matter 
 and  of  finite  mind  in  their  established  method  of  operating." 
 Or,  more  sj)ecifically,  "  a  phenomenon  which  occurs  in  violation 
 of  the  laws  of  nature  as  they  commonly  operate,  and  which  is 
 designed  to  attest  the  divine  authority  of  the  messenger  in 
 whose  behalf  it  occurs." 
 
 Archbishop  Trench :  ^  "  An  extraordinary  divine  causality 
 belongs  to  the  very  essence  of  the  miracle.  . . .  Beside  and 
 beyond  the  ordinary  operations  of  nature,  higher  powers, 
 (higher,  not  as  coming  from  a  higher  source,  but  as  bearing 
 upon  higher  ends,)  intrude  and  make  themselves  felt  even  at 
 the  very  springs  and  sources  of  her  power." 
 
 Bleek  ^  and  Schleiermacher :  "  A  miracle  is  an  event  only 
 relatively  supernatural ;  not  absolutely  violating  the  laws  which 
 God  has  established,  but  brought  about  by  a  hidden  co-operation 
 (rarely  exercised  in  this  manner)  of  other  and  higher  laws 
 than  those  which  appear  in  ordinary  phenomena." 
 
 2.  What  is  the  legitimate  force  of  a  miracle  ?  John  Foster 
 has  the  remark  that  a  miracle  is  the  ringing  of  the  great  bell  of 
 the  universe  calling  the  multitudes  to  hear  the  sermon.  Bishop 
 Butler  "  Revelation  itself  is  miraculous,  and  miracles  are  the 
 proof  of  it.  Pascal :  '"  Miracles  test  doctrine,  and  doctrine  tests 
 miracles."  Rothe  :  "  Miracles  and  prophecies  are  not  adjuncts 
 appended  from  without  to  a  revelation  in  itself  independent  of 
 them,  but  constitutive  elements  of  the  revelation  itself."  Ger- 
 hard :  ^  "  The  doctrine  is  the  title-deed,  and  is  essential  to  the 
 siirnificance  of  the  seal  attached  to  it.     The  miracle  is  the  seal, 
 
 ^  MS.  Lectures,     gee,  also,  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "Miracles,"  appen- 
 dix by  Professor  Park. 
 -  Notes  on  Miracles,  p.  18. 
 3  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  i.  221. 
 *  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  1960—1968. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  123 
 
 and  is  important  for  the  authority  of  the  title-deed.  The  seal 
 torn  away  from  the  parchment  cannot  fulfil  its  main  design, 
 and  the  parchment  with  the  seal  cut  out  is  lessened  in  value." 
 
 Dr.  Hodge  :  ^  "  When  a  man  presents  himself  as  a  messenger 
 of  God,  whether  he  is  to  be  received  as  such  or  not  depends,  first, 
 on  the  doctrines  which  he  teaches,  and,  secondly,  upon  the  works 
 wliich  he  performs.  If  he  not  only  teaches  doctrines  conformed 
 to  the  nature  of  God  and  consistent  wdth  the  laws  of  our  own 
 constitution,  but  also  performs  works  which  evince  divine  power, 
 then  we  know  not  only  that  the  doctrines  are  true,  but  also  that 
 the  teacher  is  sent  of  God." 
 
 Dr.  Thomas  Arnold :  ^  "  You  complain  of  those  persons  who 
 judge  of  a  revelation  not  by  its  evidence,  but  by  its  substance. 
 It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  its  substance  is  a  most  essen- 
 tial part  of  its  evidence ;  and  that  miracles  wrought  in  favor  of 
 what  was  foolish  or  wicked  would  only  prove  Manicheism. 
 We  are  so  perfectly  ignorant  of  the  unseen  world,  that  the  char- 
 acter of  any  supernatural  power  can  only  be  judged  of  by  the 
 moral  character  of  the  statements  which  it  sanctions :  thus  only 
 can  we  tell  whether  it  be  a  revelation  from  God  or  from  the 
 devil." 
 
 Trench  :^  "A  miracle  does  not  prove  the  truth  of  a  doctrine, 
 or  the  divine  mission  of  him  that  brings  it  to  pass.  That  which 
 alone  it  claims  for  him,  at  the  outset,  is  a  right  to  be  listened 
 to ;  it  puts  him  in  the  alternative  of  being  from  heaven,  or  from 
 hell.  The  doctrine  must  first  commend  itself  to  the  conscience 
 as  being  good,  and  only  then  can  the  miracle  seal  it  as  divine. 
 But  the  first  appeal  is  from  the  doctrine  to  the  conscience,  to 
 the  moral  nature  in  man." 
 
 John  Locke :  ^  "  Though  the  common  experience  and  the 
 ordinary  course  of  things  have  justly  a  mighty  influence  on  the 
 
 1  Theolojzy,  i.  6.36. 
 ,  2  Life,  ii.  202  (Popular  edition,  Boston,  1871). 
 ^  On  Miracles,  p.  27. 
 *  On  Human  Understanding,  Book  iv  ,  chap.  xvi.  sect.  13.  • 
 
124  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 miuds  of  men,  to  make  them  give  or  refuse  credit  to  anything 
 proposed  to  their  belief:  yet  there  is  one  case  wherein  the 
 strangeness  of  the  fact  lessens  not  the  assent  to  a  fair  testimony 
 given  of  it.  For  where  such  suj)ernatural  events  are  suitable 
 to  ends  aimed  at  by  him  who  has  the  power  to  change  the 
 course  of  nature,  there,  under  such  circumstances,  they  may  be 
 the  fitter  to  procure  belief,  by  how  much  the  more  they  are 
 beyond,  or  contrary  to,  ordinary  observation.  This  is  thef 
 proper  case  of  miracles,  which,  well  attested,  do  not  only  jQnd 
 credit  themselves,  but  give  it  also  to  other  truths,  which  need 
 such  confirmation." 
 
 Dr.  Thomas  Brown  :  ^  "  A  miracle  is  not  a  violation  of  any 
 law  of  nature.  It  involves,  therefore,  primarily,  no  contradic- 
 tion nor  physical  absurdity.  It  has  nothing  in  it  which  is 
 inconsistent  with  our  belief  of  the  most  undeviating  uniformity 
 of  nature  ;  for  it  is  not  the  sequence  of  a  different  event  when 
 the  preceding  circumstances  have  been  the  same ;  it  is  an  effect 
 that  is  new  to  our  observation,  because  it  is  the  result  of  new 
 and  peculiar  circumstances.  The  antecedent  has  been,  by  sup- 
 position, different ;  and  it  is  not  wonderful,  therefore,  that  the 
 consequent  should  be  different."  "  It  is  essential,  indeed,  for 
 our  belief  of  any  miraculous  event,  that  there  should  be  the 
 appearance  of  some  gracious  purpose,  which  the  miracle  may 
 be  supposed  to  fulfil ;  since  all  which  we  know  of  the  operation 
 of  the  divine  power  in  the  universe  indicates  some  previous 
 purpose  of  that  kind." 
 
 We  are  now  prepared  to  see  the  distinction  between  true 
 miracles  and  other  events  which  might  be  confounded  with 
 them.  A  genuine  miracle  tends  to  confirm  the  associated 
 doctrine,  and  is  in  turn  sanctioned  by  it,  while  both  the  doctrine 
 and  the  miracle  commend  themselves  to  our  reason  as  worthy 
 of  the  Author  of  nature.  It  obviously  follows  that  not  every 
 strange  feat  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  "  miracle."  The  almost  in- 
 credible  performances   of  certain   jugglers,  contemplating  no 
 
 1  On  Relation  of  Cause  and  Effect,  pp.  224,  230. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  125 
 
 great  moral  end,  are  not  to  be  classed  with  "  miracles,"  but  are 
 to  be  attributed  to  "sleight-of-hand,"  or  to  a  knowledge  of 
 certain  occult  laws  and  forces  of  nature.  The  wonders  WTought 
 with  Jire^  in  the  Middle  Ages,  which  men  then  regarded  as 
 miracles,  we  now  see  to  have  been  mere  tricks,  utterly  un- 
 worthy of  the  intervention  of  the  Divine  Being. 
 
 Again,  it  must  be  remembered  that,  as  Trench^  has  clearly* 
 shown,  Satan's  kingdom  has  its  own  miracles,  as  well  as  the 
 divine  kingdom,  and  these  really  involve  the  intervention  of 
 spiritual  and  supernatural  agencies  coming  from  the  realm  of 
 darkness.  Not  being  "  miracles,"  in  the  very  liighest  sense  of 
 the  word,  they  only  partake  in  part  of  the  essential  elements 
 of  the  miracle.  They  exhibit  "  not  the  omnipotence  of  God 
 wielding  his  owti  world  to  ends  of  grace  and  wisdom  and  love, 
 but  evil  permitted  to  intrude  into  the  hidden  sj^rings  of  things, 
 just  so  far  as  may  suffice  for  its  own  deeper  confusion  in  the 
 end,  and,  in  the  meanwhile,  for  the  needful  trial  and  perfecting 
 of  God's  saints  and  servants." 
 
 AKord :  "  Miracles,  as  such,  are  no  test  of  truth,  but  have 
 been  permitted  to,  and  prophesied  of,  false  religions  and  teach- 
 ers." For  illustration  of  this  statement,  he  refers  to  several  of 
 the  texts  quoted  at  the  head  of  this  article. 
 
 As  to  the  feats  of  the  magicians  of  Egypt,  Bush,  Dwight, 
 and  others  think  they  were  merely  the  tricks  of  skilful  jug- 
 glers.* Many  commentators,  however,  seem  disposed  to  recog- 
 nize the  supernatural  character  of  the  feats  ascribed  to  the 
 magicians. 
 
 Keil :  '•  TTith  our  very  limited  acquaintance  with  the  dark 
 domain  of  heathen  conjuring,  the  possibility  of  their  working 
 *  lying  wonders  after  the  working  of  Satan,'  i.e.  supernatural 
 things  (2  Thess.  ii.  9),  cannot  be  absolutely  denied."     He  adds, 
 
 '  See  Brewster's  Letters  on  Natural  Magic,  Letter  12. 
 2  Notes  on  Miracles,  pp.  25-27. 
 
 ^  Compare  Davidson's  curt  remarks  on  this  point;  Introd.  to  Old  Test., 
 i.  pp.  221,  222. 
 
 11* 
 
126  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 "  In  the  persons  of  the  conjurers  Pharaoh  summoned  the  might 
 of  the  gods  of  Egypt  to  oppose  the  might  of  Jehovah,  the  God 
 of  the  Hebrews." 
 
 Trench :  "  Rather  was  this  a  conflict  not  merely  between 
 Egypt's  king  and  the  power  of  God ;  but  the  gods  of  Egypt, 
 the  spiritual  powers  of  wickedness,  which  underlay,  and  were 
 •the  soul  of,  that  dark  and  evil  kingdom,  were  in  conflict  with 
 the  God  of  Israel." 
 
 riengstenberg : ^  "The  object  to  which  all  of  these  occur- 
 rences were  directed,  according  to  chap.  viii.  20,  was  to  show 
 that  Jehovah  is  Lord  in  the  midst  of  the  land."  This  critic 
 thinks  that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  does  not  speak  defi- 
 nitely upon  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  results  produced  by 
 the  Egyptian  magicians,  and  that  there  is  nothing  existing 
 which  can  give  us  any  information  concerning  his  opinion. 
 
 As  to  Deut.  xiii.,  we  have  seen  that  the  miracle  -per  se,  apart 
 from  the  message,  is  not  conclusive  proof  of  the  divine  mission 
 of  the  thaumaturgist.  In  this  specific  case,  if  the  miracle- 
 worker  should  inculcate  "  idolatry,"  —  which  had  been  most 
 strictly  and  explicitly  forbidden  by  Jehovah,  —  this  single  cir- 
 cumstance was  to  be  taken  as  absolute  evidence  that  he  was  a 
 false  prophet  and  a  deceiver.  Hence,  the  "miracle"  would, 
 in  such  case,  be  simply  the  work  of  Satan,  which  God  suf- 
 fered to  be  wrought  for  the  purpose  of  testing  man's  loyalty 
 and  fidelity  to  him. 
 
 The  "great  signs  and  wonders,"  in  Matt,  xxiv.,  if  of  a 
 supernatural  character,  are  like  those  we  have  just  mentioned. 
 
 Luke  xi.  19  was  a  home-thrust,  an  argumentum  ad  hominem. 
 He  said,  in  substance,  "I  cast  out  devils,  as  also  your  sons 
 claim  to  do-  Now,  if,  as  you  assume,  the  exorcist  is  in  league 
 with  Satan,  how  is  it  with  your  own  sons  ?  " 
 
 As  to  2  Thess.  ii.  9,  Trench  says,  "  They  are  '  lying  won- 
 ders,' not  because  in  themselves  frauds  and  illusions,  but 
 because  they  are  wrought  to  support  the  kingdom  of  lies."    Or, 
 
 1  Egypt  and  the  Books  of  Moses,  pp.  98, 104, 105. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  127 
 
 as  Alford  says,  they  "  have  falsehood  for  their  base  and  essence 
 and  aim." 
 
 Much  the  same  may  be  said  with  reference  to  the  text  in 
 Revelation,  which  Alford  interprets  as  deUneatiHg  one  charac- 
 teristic of  the  Papal  church,  the  claim  to  work  "  mu^acles  "of 
 various  kinds. 
 
 This  topic  may  be  dismissed  with  the  single  remark  that, 
 inasmuch  as  the  miracles  and  the  doctrine  of  our  Saviour  are. 
 at  the  same  time,  congruous  with  each  other^  and  worthy  of 
 God,  the  miracles  may  fairly  be  urged  in  corroboration  of  the 
 divinity  of  his  mission. 
 
 Modes  of  Representing  Him, 
 
 Despised.  Honorable. 
 
 He  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men-;        Unto  you  therefore  which  believe  he 
 a  man  of  sorrows,  and  acquainted  with    is  precious.^    1  Pet.  ii.  7. 
 grief:  and  we  hid  as  it  were  our  faces 
 from  liim ;  he  was  despised,  and  we  es- 
 teemed him  not.    Isa.  liii.  3. 
 
 These  two  texts  contemplate  quite  different  classes  of  persons ; 
 
 the  one  those  who,  being  spiritually  enlightened,  see  the  real 
 
 character  and  gloiy  of  the  Messiah ;  the  other  those  who  are 
 
 still  in  the  darkness  and  blindness  of  sin. 
 
 Uncomely.  Lovely. 
 
 As  a  root  out  of  a  dry  ground :  he        3Iy  beloved  is  white  and  ruddy,  the 
 
 hath  no  fonn  nor  comeliness ;  and  when    chiefest  among  ten  thousand.  .  .  .  His 
 
 we  shall  see  him  there  is  no  beauty  that    mouth  is  most  sweet:  yea,  he  is  alto- 
 
 we  should  desire  him.    Isa.  liii.  2.  gether  lovely.    This  is  my  beloved,  and 
 
 this  ts  my  friend.    Cantic  v.  10,  16. 
 
 There  is  no  proof  that  these  last  texts  refer  to  the  ISIessiah. 
 
 If  they  do  so,  it  only  need  be  said  that  he  is  despised  by  some 
 
 persons,  and  admired  by  others. 
 
 A  lion.  A  lamb. 
 
 Behold,  the  Lion  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.       And  looking  upon  Jesus  as  he  walked. 
 Kev.  V.  5.  he  saith.  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God! 
 
 John  i.  36. 
 
 In  one  aspect,  he  is  termed  a  "  lion  "  in  another  a  "  lamb." 
 The  term  "  lion  "  brings  out  the  idea  of  his  dominion,  as  well 
 as  that  of  his  descent  from  the  tribe  of  Judah ;  ^  the  lamb 
 was  an  emblem  of  innocence,  and  was  usually  offered  in  sacrifice. 
 
 ^  The  original  word  properly  means  an  Jumor.  ^  See  Gen.  xlix.  9. 
 
128  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 High  Priest.  A  sacrifice. 
 
 "We  have  such  a  high  priest,  who  is  He  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
 set  on  the  ri^ht  hand  of  the  throne  of  sacrifice  of  himself.  .  .  .  Christ  was  once 
 the  Majesty  in  the  heavens.  Heb.  viii.  1.    oll'ered  to  bear  the  sins  of  many.    Heb. 
 
 ix.  26,  28. 
 
 In  making  the  atonement,  he  voluntarily  laid  down  his  own 
 
 life ;  he  "  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all " ;  he  was  the  offerer 
 
 and  the  offered,  both  priest  and  yictim.     On  the  term  "  high 
 
 priest,"  Alford  says,  "  the  propitiatory,  sacerdotal  representative 
 
 of  men  before  God." 
 
 A  vine.  A  stone. 
 
 lam  the  vine,  ye  are  the  branches:  he  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief 
 
 that  abideth  in  me.  and  1  in  him,  the  corner-s^o72e.    Eph.  ii.  20. 
 
 same  bringeth  forth  much   fruit:   for  And  a  stone  of  stumbling,  and  a  rock 
 
 without  me  ye  can  do  nothing.    John  of  offence,  eren  to  them  wliich  stumble 
 
 XV.  5.  at  the  word,  being  disobedient.    1  Tet. 
 
 ii.  8. 
 
 The  figure  of  the  "vine"  and  "branches"  sets  forth  the 
 intimate,  vital  uuion  of  Christ  and  his  people,  together  w^ith 
 their  entire  dependence  upon  him  for  spiritual  nutriment  and 
 growth.     Alford :  "  The  inner  unity  of  himself  and  his." 
 
 The  term  "  stone  '*  metaphorically  presents  Jesus  as  the 
 "foundation"  upon  wliich  his  people  build;  also  as  the  occasion 
 of  the  "  stumbling  "  and  final  overthrow  of  his  enemies. 
 
 A  shepherd.  A  sheep. 
 
 I  am  the  good  shepherd:  the  good  He  was  led  as  a  sheep  to  the  slaughter; 
 shepherd  giveth  his  life  for  the  sheep,  and  like  a  lamb  dumb  before  his  shear- 
 John  X.  11.  er,  so  he  opened  not  his  mouth.    Acts 
 
 (Jur  Lord  Jesus,  that  great  Shepherd  viii.  32. 
 
 of  the  sheep.    Heb.  xiii.  20.  Washed  their  robes,  and  made  them 
 
 The  >hepherd  and  Bishop  of  your  white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.    Kev. 
 
 souls.    1  Pet.  ii.  25.  vii.  14. 
 
 The  first  figure  represents  his  tender,  watchful  care  and  over- 
 sight of  his  "  little  flock " ;  the  second  brings  to  view  the 
 meekness  and  innocence  of  his  personal  character,  together 
 with  the  fact  that  he,  like  a  lamb,  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice. 
 
 A  Door.  Bread. 
 
 1  am  the  door:  by  me  if  any  man        I   am  the  living  bread  which  came 
 
 enter  in,  he  shall  be  .'^aved,  and  shall  go    down  from  heaven :  if  any  man  eat  of 
 
 in    and  out  and  lind  pasture.     John    this  bread,  he  shall  live  forever:  and 
 
 X.  9.  the  bread  that  1  will  give  is  my  flesh, 
 
 which  1  will  give  for  the  life  of  the 
 world.    John  vi.  51. 
 
 The  first  text  points  out  the  fact  that  Christ  is  the  only 
 medium  of  access  to  the  Father ;  that  in  his  name,  by  liis  aid, 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  129 
 
 and  through  his  atonement,  we  come  to  God.     The  second  text 
 
 unplies  that   as   material   bread  must  be  eaten,  digested,  and 
 
 assunilated   by  us,  for   the   mamtenance  of   physical   life,  so 
 
 Christ's  sphit  and  teachmgs  must  be  received  into  our  hearts 
 
 and  mcorporated  m  our  lives,  in  order  to  our  sphitual  vitahty. 
 
 Tlie  Light  of  the  world.  Men  are  lights. 
 
 Tliat  was  the  true  Li^ht,  which  light-  Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world.    Matt, 
 
 eth   every  man  that   cometh  into  the  v.  14.                                ^      i,.   •       v  i  * 
 
 world     John  i.  9.  He  was  a  burning  and  a  shining  light. 
 
 As  long  as  I  atn  in  the  world,  I  am  John  v.  35. 
 
 the  light  of  the  world.    John  ix.  5  Among  whom  ye  shine  as  lights  in 
 
 *=  the  world.    I'hil.  u.  15. 
 
 In  the  primary  and  highest  sense,  Christ  is  the  Light  of  the 
 world ;  in  a  secondary  and  subordinate  sense.  Christians,  viewed 
 as  receiving  and  reflectmg  his  light,  may  be  designated  as  the 
 « light  of  the  world." 
 
 The  Foundation.  'Men  are  foundations. 
 
 For  other  foundation  can  no  man  lay  And  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of 
 than  that  is  laid,  which  is  Jesus  Christ,  the  apostles  and  prophets,  Jesus  C  hrl^t 
 1  Cor.  iii.  11.  himself  being  the  chief  corner-s^ojie. 
 
 Eph.  ii.  20. 
 
 The  church  of  the  living  God,  the 
 pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.  And 
 without  controversy,  great  is  the  mys- 
 tery of  godliness.    1  Tim.  iii.  15, 16. 
 
 It  is  not  clear  that  the  quotation  from  Ephesians  implies  that 
 the  apostles  and  prophets  were  themselves  the  "  foundation  "  ; 
 the  meaning  probably  is,  the  foundation  which  pertained  to 
 them,  —  their  foundation.  Similarly,  "  sword  of  the  Spirit "  ^ 
 means  the  Spirit's  sword.  Meyer,  Ellicott,  Stier,  and  others 
 say,  "  the  foundation  which  the  apostles  and  prophets  have  laid.'.' 
 AKord  and  Bucer :  "  the  apostles'  and  prophet's  foundation  — 
 that  upon  which  they  as  well  as  yourselves  are  built."  , 
 
 On  the  last  quoted  text,  Ellicott  says  that  "pillar"  and 
 "  ground,"  designating  the  church,  are  "  only  simple,  metaphori- 
 cal expressions  of  the  stability  and  permanence  of  the  support," 
 and  adds,  "  were  there  no  chm-ch,  there  would  be  no  witness, 
 no  guardian  of  archives,  no  basis,  nothing  whereon  acknowledged 
 truth  could  rest."  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Tholuck,  Luther, 
 Calvm,  Beza,  Grotius,  De  Wette,  Huther,  Alford,  and  Words- 
 
 1  See  Eph.  vi.  17. 
 
130  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 worth  concur  in  this  view,  deeming  the  church  "  the  element 
 in  which,  and  medium  by  which,  the  truth  is  conserved  and 
 upheld."  But  it  we  admit  that,  in  this  secondary  sense,  the 
 church  is  the  "  ground  "  or  basis  of  the  truth,  it  must  be  remem- 
 bered that  Christ  is,  after  all,  the  deep  substructure,  the  foun- 
 dation, of  the  church  itself. 
 
 It  should  be  added  that  Oosterzee,  with  a  host  of  critics, 
 punctuates  the  passage  differently,  thus :  "  The  pillar  and 
 ground  of  the  truth,  and  confessedly  great,  is  the  mystery  of 
 godliness,"  etc.  With  this  translation  the  Syriac  Peshito  closely 
 corresponds. 
 
 Sacrifice. 
 
 Died  for  friends.    .  For  enemies. 
 
 I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep.  While  we  were  yet  sinners,   Christ 
 
 John  X.  15.  died  for  us.  . . .  Wlien  we  were  enemies, 
 
 Greater  love  hath  no  man  than  this,  we  were  reconciled  to  God  by  the  death 
 
 that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his  of  his  Son.    llom.  v.  8. 10 
 friends.    John  xv.  13. 
 
 He  laid  down  his  life  for  those  who,  though  "  enemies  "  for 
 the  time  being,  were  prospectively  "  friends."  This  exhibition 
 of  his  love  broke  down  their  enmity,  and  transformed  their 
 hostility  into  friendship. 
 
 The  former  passages  refer  to  the  prospective,  the  latter  to 
 
 the  present,  attitude  toward  him.  of  those  for  whom  he  died. 
 
 On  the  first  text  from  John,  Alford  says,  "  The  Lord  lays  down 
 
 his  life  strictly  and  j^roperly,  and  in  the  depths  of  the  divine 
 
 counsel,  for  those  who  are  his  sheepJ'     On  the   second  text, 
 
 '^  Our  Lord  does  not  assert  of  himself  that  he  laid  down  his 
 
 life  only  for  his  friends  (as  defined  in  the  next  verse),  but  puts 
 
 forward  this  side  of  his  love  as  a  great  and  practical  example 
 
 for  his  followers." 
 
 Laid  doion  his  own  life.  Jews  murdered  him. 
 
 I  lay  down  my  life,  that  I  mii^ht  take        Him,  beinj?  delivered  by  the  determi- 
 it  again.     No  man  taketli  it  from  me,     nate  counsel  and  forcknowledsio  of  God, 
 but  1  lay  it  down  of  myself     I  have    ye  have  taken,  and   by  wicked  hands 
 power  to  lay  it  down,  and  I  liave  power    have  crucilicd  and  slain      Acts  ii.  23. 
 to  take  it  again.    John  x.  17,  18.  And  killed  the  Frince  of  life.    Acts 
 
 iii.  15. 
 
 The  Just  One ;  of  whom  ye  have  been 
 now  the  betrayers  and  murderers. 
 Acts  vii.  52. 
 
 Both  Statements  are  true,  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  dis- 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  131 
 
 crepancy.  The  simple  fact  is,  that  Jesus,  knowing  perfectly 
 the  hatred,  power,  and  purpose  of  the  Jews,  voluntarily  surren- 
 dered himself  into  their  hands ;  whereupon  they  "  with  mahce 
 aforethought  and  prepense,"  took  his  life.  He  laid  down  his 
 own  life,  and  they  killed  him. 
 
 Intercession, 
 
 The  only  Mediator.  Holy  Spirit  intercedes. 
 
 One  mediator  between  God  and  men,        Likewise  the  Spirit  also  helpeth  our 
 the  man  Christ  Jesus.    1  Tim.  ii.  5.  infirmities :  for  we  know  not  what  we 
 
 should  praj  fur  as  we  oujrht:  but  the 
 Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us. 
 with  groanings  which  cannot  be  ut- 
 tered.   Eom.  viii.  26. 
 
 The  last  text  when  properly  translated,  does  not  assert  that 
 the  Holy  Spu-it  actually  intercedes  for  Christians,  but  simply 
 intervenes  for  their  aid. 
 
 Barnes :  "  It  simply  means  that  the  Holy  Spirit  greatly  aids 
 or  assists ;  not  by  praying  for  us,  but  in  our  prayers  and  in- 
 firmities." Stuart :  Prayer  or  supjjlication  made  by  the  Spirit 
 is  not  here  intended.  The  Spirit  "  maketh  intercession "  by 
 exciting  in  Christians  such  longings  for  conformity  to  God, 
 deliverance  from  evil,  and  the  enjoyment  of  future  blessedness 
 as  no  language  can  adequately  express. 
 
 Alford :  "  No  intercession  in  heaven  is  here  spoken  of,  but 
 
 a  pleading  in  us  by  the  indwelling  Spirit,  of  a  nature  above  our 
 
 comprehension  and  utterance." 
 
 Intercedes  not  for  the  world.  Does  intercede  for  it. 
 I  pray  for  them:  I  pray  not  for  the  If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate 
 ■world,  but  for  them  which  thou  hast  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  right- 
 given  me ;  for  they  are  thine.    John  ecus.    1  John  ii.  1. 
 xvii.  9. 
 
 As  the  connection  evinces,  the  first  text  is  equivalent  to,  "  I 
 am  not  now,  at  this  time,  praying  for  the  world."  The  prayer 
 in  the  17th  of  John  was  offered  specially  for  the  disciples. 
 This  fact,  however,  furnishes  no  proof  that  Jesus  does  not,  at 
 present,  intercede  for  all  mankind. 
 
 Cotning, 
 
 In  humble  guise.  With  regal  state. 
 
 Behold  thy  King  cometh  unto  thee :        Behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came 
 
 he  t«  just,  and  having  salvation;  lowly,    with  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to 
 
 and  riding  upon  an  ass,  and  upon  a  colt    the  Ancient  of  days,  and  they  brought 
 
 the  foal  of  an  ass.    Zech.  ix.  9.  him  m^ar  before  him.    And  there  was 
 
 eiveu  him  dominiun.  and  glory,  and  a 
 kingdom.    Dan.  vii.  13,  14. 
 
132  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 These  passages  refer  to  entirely  different  events.  The  first 
 was  fulfilled  when  oui-  Saviour  rode  into  Jerusalem  upon  the 
 ass ;  the  second  will  be  fulfilled  when  he  shall  come  again,  "  in 
 the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  and  great  glory."  ^ 
 
 Succeeds  overthrow  of  Jerusalem.  Times  of  Gentiles  intervene. 
 
 For  then  shall  be  great  tribulation.  Jerusalem  shall  be  trodden  down  of 
 
 .  .  .  Immediately  after  the  tribulation  the  Gentiles,  until   the   times  of  the 
 
 of  those  days,  shall  the  sun  be  dark-  Gentiles  befullilled.  . . .  And  then  shall 
 
 ened.  .  . .  And  then  shall  app?ar  the  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  a 
 
 sign  of  the  Son  of  man  in   heaven,  cloud,  with   power   and  great   glory. 
 
 Matt.  xxiv.  21,  29,  30.  Luke  xxi.  24,  27. 
 
 This  is  one  of  Zeller's  objections.  He  claims  that  the  two 
 accounts  are  incompatible  because  one  seems  to  represent  the 
 coming  of  Christ  as  following,  without  any  interval,  the  "  tribu- 
 lation"; the  other,  the  two  events  as  separated  by  the  "times  of 
 the  Gentiles." 
 
 The  difference,  however,  is  easily  accounted  for  upon  the 
 hypothesis  that  Matthew  employs  here  what  we  may  term 
 "  prophetic  perspective,"  while  Luke  is  writing  somewhat  cir- 
 cumstantially and  minutely.  By  this  "  perspective,"  which  has 
 a  beautiful  analogy  in  a  familiar,  philosophical  experiment,  a 
 comparatively  small  event  close  to  the  speaker,  appears  of  equal 
 magnitude  with  a  momentous  but  remote  event,  so  that  the 
 latter  seems  liidden  by  the  former,  or  continuous  with  it.  As 
 the  observer  looks  down  the  vista  of  the  ages,  the  small  covers 
 the  large  event,  and  the  two  seem  but  one. 
 
 On  this  point.  Dr.  Davidson  ^  says,  "  Intervening  periods  were 
 mostly  concealed  from  the  sight  of  the  seer."  Bleek  ^  says  that 
 in  resj^ect  to  time,  "  the  prophecies  are  usually  so  framed  that 
 they  have  a  perspective  character,  great  developments  and 
 catastrophes,  occurring  at  considerable  intervals  of  time,  appear- 
 ing to  be  brought  close  together,  or  to  be  quite  intermixed." 
 
 Lange :  ■*  "  According  to  the  perspective  view  of  the  future, 
 the  successive  critical  events  that  lie  behind  each  other,  are 
 brought  near,  so  that  the  great  epochs  rise  into  light  like  the 
 
 1  Compare  Matt.  xxi.  1-11  and  xxiv.  30.        ■^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  481. 
 ^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  32.  ■•  Com.  on  Matt.,  p.  430. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  133 
 
 tops  of  mountains,  while  their  times  of  unfolding,  the  periods, 
 are  concealed  behind  them,  or  are  manifest  only  in  less  promi- 
 nent signs." 
 
 Wordsworth  :  Our  Lord's  prophecy  has  a  double  reference,  — 
 to  the  judgment  of  Jerusalem,  and  to  that  of  wliich  this  judg- 
 ment was  a  type,  viz.  his  second  coming  to  judge  the  world." 
 
 Alford  maintains  that  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  and  the 
 final  judgment  are  both  enwrapped  in  the  words ;  the  former 
 being  prominent  in  the  first  part  of  the  chapter,  wliile,  from 
 verse  28,  the  lesser  subject  begins  to  be  swallowed  up  in  the 
 greater,  and  our  Lord's  second  coming  to  be  the  predominant 
 theme. 
 
 The  word  "  immediately,"  verse  29,  being  supposed  to  imply 
 the  closest  consecution,  is  the  only  term  involving  any  difficulty. 
 Hammond  and  Schott  render  the  Greek  term  suddenly,  i.e. 
 unexpectedly.  Glass  says  it  is  to  be  taken,  not  according  to 
 our  reckoning,  but  the  divine,  in  which  a  thousand  days  are  as 
 one  day.  Lange  :  "  Describes  the  nature  of  the  final  catastro- 
 phe, that  it  will  be  at  once  swift,  surpassingly  sudden,  and  fol- 
 lowing upon  a  development  seemingly  slow  and  gradual.  Thus, 
 throughout  the  whole  course  of  history,  the  swift  ejDOchs  follow 
 the  slow  process  of  the  periods."  Owen :  "  May  be  taken  in 
 the  general  sense,  very  soon  after,  referring  to  the  comparative 
 brevity  of  these  intervening  centuries  or  ages,  when  viewed  in 
 relation  to  the  ages  of  eternity,  which  are  to  follow  the  day  of 
 judgment,  and  in  reference  to  which  all  time  is  but  as  a 
 moment's  duration."  Alford  very  satisfactorily  says :  "  All  the 
 difficulty  which  this  word  has  been  supposed  to  involve  has 
 arisen  from  confounding  the  partial  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy 
 with  the  ultimate  one.  The  important  insertion  in  Luke  ^  shows 
 us  that  the  ^tribulation'  includes  'wrath  upon  this  people^ 
 which  is  yet  being  inflicted ;  and  the  treading  down  of  Jerusalem 
 by  the  Gentiles  still  going  on ;  and  immediately  after  that 
 trihidation  which  shall  happen  when  the  cup  of  Gentile  iniquity 
 
 1  Chap.  xxi.  23,  24. 
 12 
 
134  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 is  full,  and  when  the  Gospel  shall  have  been  preached  in  all  the 
 world  for  a  witness,  and  rejected  by  the  Gentiles,  shall  the 
 coming  of  the  Lord  himself  happen." 
 
 His  coming  at  hand.  It  was  far  off. 
 
 We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  That  ye  be  not  soon  shaken  in  mind, 
 all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the  or  be  troubled,  neither  by  spirit,  nor  by 
 twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump,  word,  nor  by  letter  as  from  us,  as  that 
 1  Cor.  XV.  51,  52.  the  day  of  Christ  is  at  hand.     Let  no 
 
 The  Lord  is  at  hand.    Phil.  iv.  5.  man  deceive  you  by  any  means.  2Thes8. 
 
 We  wliich  are  alive  and  remain  unto    ii.  2,  3. 
 the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  pre- 
 vent them  which  are  asleep.    1  Thess. 
 iv.  15. 
 
 But  the  end  of  all  things  is  at  hand. 
 1  ret.  iv.  7. 
 
 Even  De  Wette  ^  says,  "  It  is  no  contradiction  of  the  first 
 Epistle  that  Paul  after  exhorting  them  to  steadfastly  await 
 the  second  coming  of  Christ  (1  Thess.  iv.  15),  felt  himself 
 bound  to  moderate  their  too  excited  expectations  ;  and  2  Thess. 
 ii.  1,  etc.,  is  completely  in  the  spirit  of  primitive  Christianity." 
 Similarly,  Dr.  Davidson,^  on  1  Cor.  xv.  52 :  "  The  expression 
 we  means  such  Christians  as  shall  then  be  alive ;  all  believers 
 then  living  are  grouped  together." 
 
 On  1  Thess.  iv.  15,  17,  he  says,  "  Hence '  we  which  are  alive 
 and  remain,'  etc.,  can  only  mean  '  such  Christians  as  live  and 
 remain.'  Paul  employs  himself  and  the  early  Christians  as 
 the  representatives  of  those  succeeding  Christians  who  should 
 be  alive  at  the  Redeemer's  second  advent.  Thus  in  Deut.  xxx. 
 1,  the  generation  addressed  is  the  representative  of  a  succeed- 
 ing one ;  and  in  John  vi.  32,  a  succeeding  generation  is  employed 
 to  represent  a  jDast  one." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  ^  "  Everything  with  respect  to  degrees  is 
 what  it  is  by  comparison.  Taking  into  consideration  the  whcle 
 of  time,  the  coming  of  Christ  was  '  at  hand.'  There  is  reason 
 to  believe  from  this,  and  many  other  passages  of  the  New 
 Testament,  that  the  sacred  wi-iters  considered  themselves  as 
 having  passed  the  meridian  of  time,  and  entered  into  the  after- 
 noon of  the  world,  as  we  may  say.     Such  appears  to  be  the 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  p.  247.        «  jntrod.  to  New  Test.,  ii.  458, 465-66. 
 ^  Works,  i.  682. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  135 
 
 import  of  the  following  among  other  passages,  '  God  hath  in 
 these  last  days  spoken,'  etc.  . . .  But  taking  into  consideration 
 only  a  single  generation,  the  day  of  Christ  was  not  at  hand. 
 The  Thessalonians,  though  a  very  amiable  people,  were  by 
 some  means  mistaken  on  this  subject,  so  as  to  expect  that  the 
 end  of  the  world  would  take  place  in  their  lifetime,  or  within  a 
 very  few  years.  To  correct  this  error,  which  might  have  been 
 productive  of  very  serious  evils,  was  a  principal  design  of  the 
 second  Epistle  to  that  peoiDle." 
 
 It  is  thus  clear  that  this  "  discrepancy  "  of  which  Baur  makes 
 so  much,  really  amounts  to  nothing. 
 
 Before  missionary  journey  completed.       Not  till  the  world  evangelized. 
 
 But  when  they  persecute  you  in  this        And  this  gospel  of  the  kingdom  shall 
 city,  flee  ye  into  another:  for  verily  1    be  preached  in  all  the  world,  for  a  wit- 
 say  unto  you.  Ye  shall  not  have  gone    ness  unto  all  nations;  and  then  shall 
 over  the  cities  of  Israel,  till  the  Son  of    the  end  come.    Matt  xxiv  14. 
 man  be  come.    Matt.  x.  23.  And  the  gospel  must  first  be  published  . 
 
 among  all  nations.    Mark  xiii.  10. 
 
 Strauss^  works  hard  to  make  out  a  contradiction  here.  He 
 remarks  :  "  On  one  occasion  Jesus  says  to  his  disciples  that  the 
 Son  of  man  will  return  before  they  shall  have  completed  their 
 Messianic  preaching  in  all  the  cities  of  Israel ;  another  time  he 
 says  that  the  second  advent  will  not  occur  until  the  Gospel  has 
 been  preached  in  the  whole  world  among  all  peoples."  The 
 difficulty  is  obviated  by  the  following  interpretations,  any  one 
 of  which  may  be  adopted. 
 
 Barnes,  on  Matt.  x.  23 :  "  That  is,  in  fleeing  from  persecu- 
 tors, from  one  city  to  another,  you  shall  not  have  gone  to  every 
 city  in  Judea,  till  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  end  of 
 the  Jewish  economy." 
 
 Wordsworth :  "  In  a  primary  sense,  you  will  not  have  com- 
 pleted your  missionary  work  in  Judea  before  I  come  to  judge 
 Jerusalem.  Li  a  secondary  and  larger  sense,  —  the  missionary 
 work  of  the  church  for  the  spiritual  Israel  will  not  cease  till 
 the  second  coming  of  Christ.  There  is  a  successive  series  of 
 *  comings  of  Christ,'  all  preparatory  to,  and  consummated  in, 
 the  great  coming." 
 
 ^  Sec  New  I>ilc  of  Jesus,  i.  325, 
 
136  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Alford  maintains  that  our  Lord's  prophecies  respecting  his 
 coming  have  an  immediate,  literal  and  a  distant,  foreshadowed 
 fulfilment.  Hence  he  regards  "  the  vengeance  on  Jerusalem, 
 which  historically  put  an  end  to  the  old  dispensation,  and  was, 
 in  its  place  with  reference  to  that  order  of  things,  the  coming 
 of  the  Son  of  man,  as  a  type  of  the  final  coming  of  the  Lord." 
 He  calls  attention  to  the  "  wide  import  of  scripture  prophecy, 
 which  speaks  very  generally,  not  so  much  of  events  themselves, 
 points  of  time,  as  of  processions  of  events,  all  ranging  under 
 one  great  description,"  and  adds,  "  It  is  important  to  keep  in 
 mind  the  great,  prophetic  parallels  which  run  through  our 
 Lord's  discourses,  and  are  sometimes  separately,  sometimes 
 simultaneously,  presented  to  us  by  him." 
 
 On  "Till  the  Son  of  man  be  come,"  Baumgarten-Crusius 
 says,  "  Until  the  victory  of  the  cause  of  Christ " ;  Michaelis, 
 "  To  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  "  ;  Calvin,  "  To  the  outpour- 
 ing of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  "  Norton,  "  That  is,  before  my  religion 
 is  established  and  its  truth  fully  confirmed";  Heubner  and 
 Lange,  "  Till  the  Son  of  man  shall  overtake  you,"  adding,  "  It 
 points  forward  to  the  second  coming  of  Christ ;  including  at  the 
 same  time  the  idea  that  their  apostolic  labors  in  Judea  would 
 be  cut  short."  Lightf oot :  "  Ye  shall  not  have  travelled  over 
 the  cities  of  Israel,  preaching  the  gospel,  before  the  Son  of 
 man  is  revealed  by  his  resurrection." 
 
 These  interpretations,  almost  any  of  which  may  be  adopted 
 without  an  arbitrary  exegesis,  serve  to  show  how  slight  is  the 
 foundation  for  the  objection  urged  by  Strauss. 
 
 Kingdom, 
 
 Not  of  this  loorlcl.  Within  the  Pharisees. 
 
 When  Jesus  therefore  perceived  that  And  when  he  was  demanded  of  the 
 
 they  would  come  and  take  liim  by  force,  Pharisees,  when  the  kinjjdom  of  God 
 
 to  make  him  a  kinfr,  he  departed  again  should  come,  he  answered  them  and 
 
 into  a  mountain  himself  alone.    John  said,  The  kinfjdom  of  God  cometh  not 
 
 vi.  15.  with  observation.    Neither  shall  tliey 
 
 Jesus  answered,  My  kingdom  is  not  say,  Lo  here!  or,  Lo  there!  for  behold, 
 
 of  this  world :  if  my  kingdom  were  of  the  kingdom  of  God  is  within    you. 
 
 this  world,   then  would    my  servants  Luke  xvii.  20,  21. 
 figlit.    John  xviii.  36. 
 
 Ancient   interpreters  take  the  expression  "within  you,"  as 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  137 
 
 pointing  out  the  fact  that  the  kingdom  is  an  inward,  spiritual 
 
 one,  having  its  seat  in  the  heart.     Modern  critics  say  that  the 
 
 kingdom  had  already  been  set  up  among  the  Pharisees  by  John 
 
 the   Baptist   and  the  Messiah,  the  former  introducing  it,  the 
 
 latter  embodying   and  representing  it.     Schoettgen :  "  It  does 
 
 not  imply,  in  your  hearts,  but  in  your  land  and  region."    Alf ord : 
 
 "  The  kingdom  of  God  was  begun  among  them,  and  continues 
 
 thus  making  its  way  in  the  world,  without  observation  of  men." 
 
 It  has  no  end.  Will  terminate. 
 
 And  there  was  priven  him  dominion,  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall 
 
 and  glory,  and  a  kingdom,  that  all  peo-  have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God, 
 
 Ele,  nations,  and  languages  should  serve  even  the  lather;   when  he  shall  have 
 
 im ;    his  dominion  is  an  everlasting  put  down  all  rule,  and  all  authority  and 
 
 dominion,  which  shall  not  pass  away,  power.    For  he  must  reign  till  he  hath 
 
 and  his  kingdom  that  which  shall  not  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  . .  .  And 
 
 be  destroyed.    Dan.  vii.  14.  when  all  things  shall  be  subdued  unto 
 
 And  he  shall  reign  over  the  house  of  him.  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be 
 
 Jacob  for  ever:   and   of  his  kingdom  subject  unto  him  that  put   all  things 
 
 there  shall  be  no  end.     Luke  i.  33.  under  him,  that  God  may  be  all  in  all. 
 
 But  unto  the  Son  he  saith,  Thy  throne,  1  Cor.  xv.  24,  25,  28. 
 O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.    Heb.  i.  8. 
 
 Neander :  "  Inasmuch  as  the  work  of  Christ,  founded  upon 
 his  redemptive  acts,  proceeds  toward  a  definite  goal,  it  must 
 needs  come  to  a  termination  when  this  goal  is  reached."  Dr. 
 Hodge :  "  When  he  has  subdued  all  his  enemies,  then  he  wiU 
 no  longer  reign  over  the  universe  as  Mediator,  but  only  as  God, 
 while  his  headship  over  his  people  is  to  continue  forever." 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  ^  holds  that  Christ's  kingdom  has  two  depart- 
 ments or  branches,  —  one  relating  to  his  saints,  the  other  to  his 
 enemies.  When  the  i?urposes  of  the  latter  department  are  ful- 
 filled, he  will  deliver  it  up  to  the  Father ;  the  former  he  will 
 retain  forever. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller ;  ^  "  The  end  of  which  Paul  speaks  does  not 
 mean  the  end  of  Christ's  kingdom,  but  of  the  world,  and  the 
 things  thereof.  The  '  delivering  up  of  the  kingdom  to  the 
 Father '  will  not  put  an  end  to  it,  but  eternally  establish  it  in 
 a  new  and  more  glorious  form.  Christ  shall  not  cease  to 
 reign,  though  the  mode  of  his  administration  be  different." 
 
 Alford ;   "  The  kingdom  of  Chi'ist   over   this  world,  in   its 
 
 ^  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  571.  .  ^  Works,  i.  678. 
 
 12* 
 
138  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 beginning,  its  furtherance,  and  its  completion,  has  one  great 
 end,  —  the  glorification  of  the  Father  by  the  Son.  Therefore, 
 when  it  shall  be  fully  established,  every  enemy  overcome, 
 everything  subjected  to  him,  he  will,  —  not  reign  over  it  and 
 abide  its  king,  but  deliver  it  up  to  the  Father." 
 
 Even  on  this  interpretation,  the  kingdom  of  the  Son  will 
 contmue.  For  it  is  clear  that  the  subjects,  laws,  and  policy  of 
 that  kingdom  will  remain  unchanged;  only  the  dominion  of 
 Christ  will  "  be  absorbed  in  the  all-pervading  majesty  of  him 
 for  whose  glory  it  was  from  first  to  last  carried  onward." 
 Bengel  tersely  and  admirably  expresses  the  truth, "  omnia  erunt 
 subordinata  Filio,  Filius  Patri  "  ;  All  things  will  be  subordi- 
 nate to  the  Son,  the  Son  to  the  Father. 
 
 Name, 
 
 He  hears  the  Divine  Name.  A  city  hears  it. 
 
 In  his  daj's  Judah  shall  be  saved,  In  those  days  shall  Judah  be  saved, 
 
 and  Israel  shall  dwell  safely:  and  this  and  Jerusalem  shall  dwell  safely:  and 
 
 is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,  this  is  the  name  wherewith  she  shall  be 
 
 The   Lord    our   Kighteousness.     Jer.  called,  The  Lord  our  Kighteousness. 
 
 xxiii.  6.  Jer.  xxxiii.  16. 
 
 Naegelsbach,  in  Lange,  maintains  that  the  word  "  he,"  in  the 
 expression,  "  this  is  liis  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called,"  can 
 refer  only  to  Jerusalem.  "  Jehovah  our  Righteousness  "  is  not, 
 then,  the  name  of  the  scion  of  David,  but  of  the  nation,  — 
 the  idea  being  that  Israel  will  be  a  nation,  that  will  have  no 
 other  righteousness  than  Jehovah's.  If  neither  text  refers  to 
 the  Messiah,  there  is,  of  course,  no  discrepancy.  Even  if  other- 
 wise, we  see  nothing  improbable  in  the  supposition  that  the  re- 
 deemed nation  should  be  called  after  the  name  of  its  Kedeemer 
 and  King. 
 
 Note.  —  The  forefroinff  are  —  not  indeed  all  the  cases  a<lduced  by  infidel 
 writers, — but  all  which  seem  worthj'^  of  notice,  and  to  come  properly 
 under  this  head.  A  considerable  number  of  apparent  contradictions  per- 
 taininp;  to  various  events  in  the  life  of  Christ,  are  referable  to  the  "  histor- 
 ical "  department,  and  will  be  discussed  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this 
 volume. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 139 
 
 III.    HOLY  SB IRIT,  — Personality. 
 
 He  is  an  Intelligence. 
 
 Whosoever  speakech  against  tlie  Holy 
 Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
 neither  in  this  world,  neither  in  the 
 world  to  come.    JIatt.  xii  32. 
 
 But  the  Comforter,  ichich  is  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  iu 
 my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things, 
 and  bring  all  things  to  your  remem- 
 brance, whatsoever  I  have  said  unto 
 you.    John  xiv.  26. 
 
 When  he  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come, 
 he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth:  for  he 
 shall  not  speak  of  himself;  but  what- 
 soever he  shall  hear,  fhaf  shall  he  speak : 
 and  he  will  show  you  things  to  come. 
 He  shall  glorify  me:  for  he  shall  re- 
 ceive of  mine,  and  shall  show  it  unto 
 you.    John  xvi.  13,  14 
 
 Then  the  Spirit  said  unto  Philip,  Go 
 near  and  join  thyself  to  this  chariot. 
 Acts  viii.  29. 
 
 The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away 
 Philip,  that  the  eunuch  saw  him  no 
 more.    Acts  viii.  39. 
 
 The  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me 
 Barnabas  and  Saul  for  the  work  w^here- 
 unto  1  have  called  them.    Acts  xiii.  2. 
 
 For  it  seemed  good  to  the  IJoly  Ghost, 
 and  to  us,  to  lay  upon  you  no  greater 
 burden.     Acts  xV.  28. 
 
 They  assayed  to  go  into  Bithynia,  but 
 the  Spirit  suffered  them  not.  Acta 
 xvi.  7. 
 
 The  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy 
 Ghost  hath  made  you  overseers.  Acts 
 XX.  28. 
 
 Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias 
 the  prophet  unto  our  fathers.  Acts 
 xxviii.  25 
 
 And  he  that  searcheth  the  hearts 
 knoweth  what  is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit, 
 because  he  niaketh  intercession  for  the 
 saints,  according  to  the  will  of  God. 
 Eom.  viii.  27. 
 
 The  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea, 
 the  deep  things  of  God.  For  what  man 
 knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the 
 spirit  of  man  which  is  in  him?  Even  so 
 the  things  of  God  knoweth  no  man, 
 but  the  Spirit  of  God.    1  Cor.  ii.  10,  11. 
 
 For  to  one  is  given  by  the  spirit  the 
 word  of  wisdom ;  to  another  the  word 
 of  knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit.  . . .  But 
 all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self- 
 same Spirit,  dividing,  to  every  man 
 severally  as  he  will.    1  Cor.  xii.  8,  11. 
 
 And  grieve  not  the  holy  Spirit  of 
 God.    tph.  iv.  30. 
 
 It  is  an  Influence. 
 
 The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the 
 face  of  the  waters.    Gen.  i.  2. 
 
 Mine  elect,  in  whom  my  soul  delight- 
 eth;  I  have  put  my  Spirit  upon  him. 
 Isa.  xlii.  1. 
 
 I  send  the  promise  of  my  Father  upon 
 you;  but  tarry  ye  in  the  city  of  Jeru- 
 salem, until  ye  be  endued  with  power 
 from  on  high.     Luke  xxiv.  49. 
 
 God  giveth  not  the  Spirit  by  measure 
 unto  him.    John  iii.  34. 
 
 Ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
 Ghost  not  many  days  hence.    Acts  i.  5. 
 
 Saith  God,  1  will  pour  out  of  my 
 Spirit  upon  all  flesh.  .  . .  And  on  my 
 servants  and  on  my  hand-maidens,  I 
 will  pour  out  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit. 
 Acts  ii.  17,  18. 
 
 Peter,  tilled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  said 
 unto  them.    Acts  iv.  8. 
 
 God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with 
 the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power.  . . . 
 The  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  which 
 heard  the  word.     Acts  x.  38,  44. 
 
 (Quench  not  the  Spirit.    1 1'hess.  v.  19. 
 
 It  is  obvious  that  one  or  the  other  of  these  two  series  of  texts 
 must  be  interpreted  figuratively.     When  we  take  into  consid- 
 
140  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 eration  the  numerical  preponderance,  as  well  as  the  evident 
 literalness  and  verisimilitude,  of  the  former  class  of  texts,  we 
 are  led  to  conclude  that  they  are  to  be  taken  according  to  their 
 natural  and  obvious  import,  while  those  of  the  latter  class  must 
 be  interpreted  tropically. 
 
 There  are  two  theories  respecting  the  Holy  Spirit ;  one,  that 
 he  is  a  distinction  in  the  Trinity,  co-equal,  co-essential,  co-eternal 
 with  the  Father  and  Son ;  the  other,  that  it  is  "  simply  the 
 divine  influence,  sometimes  in  creation,  and  in  outward  events, 
 but  in  the  great  majority  of  instances,  on  the  soul  of  man."  ^ 
 Between  these  two  theories,  we  discover  no  tenable  middle 
 ground.  Unquestionably  the  first  theory  affords  a  better  basis 
 for  the  explanation  of  both  the  foregoing  classes  of  texts,  than 
 the  second  can  be  made  to  furnish  by  any  exegetical  ingenuity. 
 Some  orthodox  critics,  however,  tliink  that  in  certain  cases,  the 
 term  "  spirit  of  God  "  is  a  synonyme  for  the  "  power  of  God ; "  or 
 that  the  name  is  jjut  by  metonymy  for  the  effect  of  the  Spirit. 
 
 Clearly,  several  texts  of  the  second  series  must,  upon  any 
 theory  of  interi3retation,  be  regarded  as  figurative.  The  ex- 
 pressions "  baptized  with,"  "  pouring  out,"  etc.,  merely  indicate 
 that  the  Holy  Spirit  would  be  bestowed  in  great  fulness.  It 
 should  be  carefully  noted  that  this  figurative  "  baptism  "  took 
 place  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  disciples  were  "  filled 
 with  the  Holy  Ghost."  ^  And  the  fact  that  they  were  thus  "  filled  " 
 is  not  in  the  least  repugnant  to  the  idea  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
 an  Intelligence  ;  for  Satan  is  unquestionably  represented  in  the 
 scriptures  as  a  personal  being,  yet  we  are  told  that  he  "  entered 
 into  "  Judas  and  "  filled  the  heart "  of  Ananias.  ^  Unless  we 
 deny  all  supra-mundane  agencies  and  influences,  we  must  admit 
 that  one  intelligence  may  enter  into,  possess,  and  fill  another. 
 
 The  metaphorical  nature  of  the  words  "  anointed  with  the 
 Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,"  is  beyond  question,  even  on  the 
 hypothesis  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  mere  influence.     For  the 
 
 *  Professor  Peabodj'-,  Lectures  on  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  116. 
 
 2  Compare  Acts  1.  5  with  ii.  4.  ^  See  Luke  xxii.  3;  Acts  v.  3. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  141 
 
 idea  of  a  literal  "  anointing  "  with  an  influence  or  with  power  is 
 an  absurdity.  What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  the  metaphor  ? 
 It  appears  that,  among  the  Jews,  a  prophet,  priest,  or  king  was 
 "  anointed "  when  he  was  set  apart  for,  or  inducted  into,  his 
 office.  This  ceremony,  "  according  to  the  Hebrew  symbology, 
 denoted  his  receiving  the  sphitual  gifts  and  endowments  which 
 he  needed  for  the  performance  of  his  duties." 
 
 The  '^  anointing  "  spoken  of,  means,  says  Prof.  Hackett,  that 
 Christ  "  possessed  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit  without  measure,  was 
 furnished  in  a  perfect  manner  for  the  work  which  he  came  into 
 the  world  to  execute." 
 
 In  the  quotation  from  1  Thess.,  the  Holy  Spirit  is,  on  accolmt 
 of  his  purifying  and  illuminating  power,  figuratively  spoken  of 
 as  fire.  The  word  "  quench "  simply  keeps  up  the  figure. 
 This  representation,  however,  no  more  disproves  the  personality 
 of  the  Holy  Spirit,  than  does  the  fact  that  God  is  termed  a 
 "consuming  fire,"  militate  against  his  personality.  Both  ex- 
 pressions are  figures  setting  forth  certain  aspects  of  the  truth. 
 
 The  methods  of  uiterpretatiou  adopted  by  those  who  do  not 
 admit  the  personahty  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  exemplified  as 
 follows.  Prof.  Peabody,^  on  Rom.  viii.  26,  27,  says,  "  I  do  not 
 think  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is  referred  to  in  this  passage. 
 It  is  the  spirit  or  soul  of  man^  of  the  Christian,  that  is  here 
 spoken  of  . . .  for  the  souls  of  the  righteous  intercede  for  them 
 according  to  the  divine  will."  With  what  propriety  a  man's 
 own  soul  or  sjDirit  could  be  said  to  "  intercede  "  for  him,  the 
 reader  must  judge. 
 
 Divinity. 
 
 He  is  God.  He  is  suhordinaM. 
 
 Peter  said,  Ananias,  why  hath  Satan  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall 
 filled  thine  heart  to  lie  to  thie  Holy  give  you  another  Comforter.  John 
 Ghost, .  .  .  thou  hast  not  lied  unto  men,    xiv.  16. 
 
 but  unto  God,    Acts  v.  3,  4.  W'hen  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom 
 
 I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
 even,  the  Spirit  of" truth  which  proceed- 
 eth  from  the  Father.    John  xv.  26. 
 
 The  latter  texts  refer  to  an  official,  but  not  an  essential,  sub- 
 ^  Lectures  on  Christian  Doctrine,  p  114. 
 
142  DISCREPANCIES  OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 ordination.  It  may  be  inferred  from  them  that  there  is  a  fitness 
 in  the  Holy  Spirit's  undertaking  the  function  indicated,  but  not 
 that  he  is  not  truly  and  j^roperly  divine.  Dr.  Hodge  ^  terms  the 
 Spirit  "  the  executive  of  the  Godhead,"  and  says,  "  he  is  subor- 
 dinate to  the  Father  and  Son,  as  to  his  mode  of  subsistence  and 
 operation,  as  he  is  said  to  be  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Son ;  he 
 is  sent  by  them,  and  they  operate  through  him." 
 
 While,  therefore,  his  subordination  as  to  office  is  plainly 
 taught,  there  is  no  proof  of  his  inferiority  in  respect  to  sub- 
 stance or  essence. 
 
 Fruits.^ 
 
 Love  and  Gentleness.  Vengeance  and  Fury. 
 
 But  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love,  joy,        The  Philistines  sliouted  a.jainst  him : 
 
 peace,  long-sufterinj?,  gentleness,  good-    and  the  Spirit  of  the  Louu  came  migh- 
 
 ness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance.  (Jal.    tily  upon  him,  and  the  cords  that  M"e7'e 
 
 V.  22,  23.  upon  his  arms  became  as  flax  that  was. 
 
 burnt  with  tire,  and  his  bands  loosed 
 from  otf  his  hands.  And  he  found  a 
 new  jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  and  put  forth 
 his  hand,  and  took  it,  and  slew  a  thou- 
 sand men  therewith.  Judges  XV.  14, 15. 
 The  evil  spirit  from  God  came  upon 
 Saul.  .  . .  And  there  teas  a  javelin  iu 
 Saul's  hand.  And  Saul  cast  the  javelin; 
 for  he  said,  I  will  smite  David,  even  to 
 the  wall  ivith  it.    1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  11. 
 
 The  sense  of  the  quotation  from  Judges  is,  that  Samson,  in 
 this  hour  of  extreme  peril,  received  divine  aid  so  that  he  broke 
 his  bonds,  and  sucessfully  defended  himself.  The  words,  "  the 
 spirit  of  the  Lord  came  upon  him,"  imply,  says  Bush,  "a 
 supernatural  influence  raising  the  bodily  or  mental  i)0wers  to 
 an  unwonted  pitch  of  energy,"  and  thus  "  enabling  him  to  per- 
 form achievements  to  which  his  unassisted  powers  would  be 
 entirely  unequal."  It  cannot  be  proved  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
 intended  in  this  passage. 
 
 In  1  Sam.  xviii.  10,  the  article  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew, 
 so  that  the  proper  rendering  is  "aw  evil  spirit  from  God."  It  is 
 said  to  be  "  from  God,"  says  Keil,^  "  because  Jehovah  had  sent 
 it  as  a  punishment." 
 
 1  Theology,  i.  529. 
 
 2  On  licstowmcut  of  Holy  Spirit,  see  Historical  Discrepancies,  "  Time." 
 ^  On  1  Sara.  xvi.  14. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  143 
 
 This  passage  brings  to  view  God's  sovereignty  and  absolute 
 control  in  the  spiritual  as  well  as  in  the  material  world.  Not 
 even  "  evil  spirits "  go  forth  without  his  permission,  to  exert 
 their  influence  upon  the  wicked.  And  he  has  a  punitive  pur- 
 pose in  granting  tliis  permission.     He  uses  evil  to  chastise  evil. 
 
 ir,    THE   SCRIPTURES.  — Inspiration, 
 
 All  Scripture  inspired.  Some  not  so. 
 
 All  scripture  is  given  by  inspiration        But  I  speak  this  by  permission,  and 
 of  God,  and  is  profitable.     2  Tim  iii.  16.    not  of  commandment.  .     .  But  to  the 
 
 rest  speak  1,  not  the  Lord.    1  Cor.  vii. 
 6,  12. 
 
 That  which  I  speak,  I  speak  it  not 
 after  the  Lord,  but  as  it  were  foolishly, 
 in  this  confidence  of  boasting.  2  Cor. 
 xi.  17. 
 
 Many  commentators,  Origen,  Theodoret,  Erasmus,  Luther, 
 Grotius,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Hammond,  Adam  Clarke,  Huther, 
 EUicott,  and  Alford,  agree  substantially  with  the  Syriac  Peshito 
 in  rendering  the  first  text  thus :  "  Every  scripture  inspired  by 
 God  is  also  profitable."  The  theory  involved  in  this  version  is 
 sufficiently  elastic  to  allow  Paul,  while  writing  under  the  guid- 
 ance of  inspiration,  to  occasionally  introduce,  upon  unimportant 
 points,  his  own  uninspired  opinion,  —  that  opinion  being  in 
 harmony  with  the  general  scope  and  design  of  the  book. 
 
 If,  however,  with  Chrysostom,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Calvin, 
 Wolf,  Bengel,  Owen,  De  Wette,  Olshausen,  Barnes,  Conybeare, 
 Gosterzee,  Wordsworth,  Dr.  Hodge  apparently,  and  others,  we 
 read :  "  Is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable,"  the 
 texts  at  the  right  still  admit  of  a  facile  interpretation.  The  first 
 of  these  quotations  means,  according  to  Alford  and  Conybeare, 
 "  I  am  not  now  speaking  by  way  of  command,  but  merely  ex- 
 pressing my  permission."  If  we  adopt  this  very  natural  hiter- 
 pretation,  the  passage  does  not  touch  the  question  of  inspiration. 
 
 The  meaning  of  the  12th  verse  may,  perhaps,  be  thus  ex- 
 pressed :  "  But  to  the  rest  speak  I,"  that  is,  I  Paul  in  my 
 apostolic  office,  speaking,  not  now  from  special  revelation,  but 
 under  the  general  supervision  of  the  Holy  Spirit.     "  Not  the 
 
144  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Lord,"  that  is,  not  Christ  by  any  direct  command  spoken  by 
 him,  since  the  question  was  one  with  which  he  did  not  deal  in 
 his  recorded  discourses.  Hence,  in  this  case, — as  in  the  language 
 of  the  25th  verse,  "  I  have  no  commandment  of  the  Lord,  yet 
 I  give  my  judgment,"  —  Paul  was  permitted  to  express  his  own 
 judgment  as  to  the  case  under  consideration,  giving  us,  at  the 
 same  time,  suitable  notice  that  he  is  speaking  in  his  own  proper 
 person.  Yet  there  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  "  judgment " 
 he  thus  expressed,  was  in  complete  harmony  with  "  the  mind 
 of  the  Spirit." 
 
 Dr.  Arnold,^  referring  to  a  text  of  similar  import,  the  40th 
 verse  of  the  same  chapter,  deems  it  a  token  of  God's  "  especial 
 mercy  to  us,  that  our  faith  in  St  Paul's  general  declarations  of 
 divine  truth  might  not  be  shaken,  because  in  one  particular 
 point  he  was  permitted  to  speak  as  a  man,  giving  express  notice 
 at  the  time  that  he  was  doing  so." 
 
 "  I  speak  it  not  after  the  Lord,"  2  Cor.  xi.,  probably  means 
 "  not  after  the  exmnple  of  the  Lord.'  That  is,  I  am  constrained 
 to  an  apparent  departure  from  that  examj^le.  In  vindication 
 of  myself  from  the  unjust  aspersions  of  my  enemies,  I  am 
 compelled  to  speak  with  seeming  boastfulness,  —  as  it  were 
 "foolishly."  This  "glorying  after  the  flesh"  was  not,  how- 
 ever, really  contrary  to  our  Lord's  example,  because  it  origi- 
 nated, not  in  love  of  boasting,  but  in  the  necessities  of  the  case. 
 
 We  thus  see  that  the  above  texts  may  be  reconciled  upon  the 
 basis  of  an  intelligent  and  comprehensive  theory  of  Lispiration. 
 
 Moral  Purity, 
 
 Purity  enjoined.  Impure  ideas  suggested. 
 
 It  must  be  conceded  by  all  candid  persons  that  the  general 
 tenor  of  the  Bible  is  decidedly  in  favor  of  purity.  Yet,  it  is 
 objected  that  certain  passages,  particularly  in  the  earlier  books 
 and  in  Canticles,  are  calculated  to  excite  impure  thoughts  and 
 feelings. 
 
 To  this  we  reply,  L  Many  of  the  expressions  which  are 
 
 ^  Miscellaneous  Works,  p.  287  (Appleton's  edition). 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  145 
 
 deemed  objectionable,  are  found  in  the  Ifosaic  Law.  Every 
 intelligent  person  is  aware  that  law-books  must  be  very  si:)ecific 
 and  explicit  in  their  phraseology.  An  examination  of  any  com- 
 pilation of  statutes,  or  of  any  standard  work  on  medical  jiu*is- 
 prudence,  will  be  conclusive  on  tliis  point.  It  is  not  surprising, 
 then,  that  the  Jewish  code  of  laws  contains  some  expressions 
 that  seem  coafse.  Without  great  minuteness  and  perspicuity, 
 these  statutes  would  have  failed  to  answer  the  designed  end. 
 
 2.  We  must  bear  in  mind  the  gi-eat  freedom  of  Oriental 
 speech  and  manners.  In  the  impassioned  style  of  thought  and 
 expression  prevalent  in  the  East,  there  is  a  license,  a  warmth, 
 a  voluptuousness  even,  which  would  shock  the  fastidious  ears 
 of  Occidentals.  Ideas  and  objects  of  which  they  of  the  Orient 
 would  speak  with  the  utmost  freedom,  we  should  indicate,  if  at 
 all,  by  euphemism  and  circumlocution.  The  Bible  was  "UTitten 
 by  Eastern  authors,  and  bears  traces  of  its  origin  among  a 
 people  whose  customs  and  habits  of  thought  were  widely  dif- 
 ferent from  ours.  Upon  this  radical  divergence  are  founded 
 many  of  the  so-called  "  indelicate  "  expressions  of  scripture  — 
 expressions  which  would  strike  an  Oriental  ear  as  perfectly 
 chaste  and  proper.  Prof.  Stuart,^  siDeaking  of  certain  expres- 
 sions in  Canticles,  observes,  "  It  is  clear  that  no  indecency  is 
 intended,  and  equally  clear,  as  it  seems  to  me,  that  no  improper 
 feelings  were  excited,  by  the  language  in  question,  in  the  minds 
 of  those  who  were  originally  addressed."  He  also  calls  atten- 
 tion to  the  fact  that  women  are  excluded,  in  the  East,  from 
 public  association  with  men,  being  kejDt  in  seclusion.  Hence 
 greater  freedom  of  speech  was  allowable  than  in  our  mixed 
 society.  Besides,  as  Prof.  Cowles  ^  suggests,  the  )node  of  dress 
 in  the  East  being  different  from  ours,  certain  parts  of  the  body 
 are  there  exposed  which  would  not  be  among  us.  Rev.  W.  M. 
 Thomson^  says :  "  Wliile  the  face  is  veiled,  the  bosom  is  exposed 
 in  a  way  not  at  all  in  accordance  with  our  ideas  of  propriety." 
 
 1  Hist,  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  pp.  377,  378  (Revised  edition,  p.  353). 
 -  Introd.  to  Com.  on  Canticles.  ^  Land  and  Book,  i.  174. 
 
 13 
 
146  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 An  Oriental  would,  as  appears,  deem  it  no  more  indelicate  to 
 praise  the  breasts,  than  the  hair  or  eyes  or  hands  of  a  female. 
 
 3.  Many  expressions  which  are  said  to  offend  the  taste  are 
 due  to  the  baldness  and  other  infelicities  of  the  English  version. 
 The  Hebrew  is  far  less  objectionable  on  this  score.  Prof. 
 Stuart'  observes:  "The  perusal  of  the  original  makes  much 
 less  impression  on  me  of  an  exceptionable  kind  than  the  perusal 
 of  our  version.  It  is  far  more  delicate,  at  least  to  my  appre- 
 hension. It  were  easy  to  exhibit  particulars  which  would 
 justify  this  statement." 
 
 Isaac  Taylor :  ^  "  If  a  half-dozen  heedlessly  rendered  passages 
 of  our  English  version  were  amended,  as  easily  they  might  be, 
 then  the  Canticle  would  well  consist,  throughout,  with  the 
 purest  utterances  of  conjugal  fondness." 
 
 Prof.  W.  H.  Green  ^  says :  "  There  is  not  the  slightest  taint 
 of  impurity  or  immodesty  to  be  found  in  any  portion  of  tliis 
 elegant  lyric."  And  we  think  that  no  one  who  carefully  reads 
 the  elegant  translations  of  Zockler,  Withington,  Cowles,  or 
 Giusburg,  will  dissent  from  this  opinion. 
 
 Predictions, 
 
 Privately  interpreted.  Not  privately  interpreted. 
 
 And  as  he  sat  upon  the  mount  of  Knowing  this  first,  that  no  prophecy 
 Olives,  the  disciples  came  unto  him  pri-  of  the  scripture  is  of  any  private  iuter- 
 vately,  saying,  Tell  us,  Avhen  shall  these  protation :  for  the  prophecy  came  not 
 things  be?  and  what  s/ia/l  be  the  sign  in  old  time  by  the  will  of  man:  but 
 of  thy  coming,  and  of  the  end  of  the  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  icere 
 world?    Matt.  xxiv.  3.  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.     2  Pet.  i. 
 
 20,  21. 
 
 The  Greek  corresponding  to  "  of  any  private  interpretation  " 
 is  confessedly  obscure.  The  word  "  epilusis  "  occurs  in  no  other 
 passage  of  the  New  Testament.  Hence  the  difficulty  in  deter- 
 mining its  precise  signification  here.  That,  however,  it  has 
 any  reference  to  attempts  to  explain  the  scriptures  in  private, 
 is  maintained  by  no  scholar. 
 
 We  sul)join  various  renderings  of  this  passage.  The  Syriac 
 Peshito  :  "  No  prophecy  is  an  exposition  of  its  own  text." 
 
 '  Hist,  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  p.  382  (Revise.!  e<lition,  p.  357). 
 
 2  Spirit  oflle.brew  Poetry,  pp.  184,  185  (London  edition). 
 
 3  Translation  of  Zockler,  in  Lan^e,  p.  102,  note. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  147 
 
 Bishop  Horsley  :  "  Not  any  prophecy  of  scripture  is  of  self- 
 iiiteq3retatiou,  or  is  its  own  interpreter  ;  because  the  scripture 
 prophecies  are  not  detached  predictions  of  separate,  independent 
 events,  but  are  united  in  a  regular  and  entire  system,  all  ter- 
 minating in  one  grand  object  —  the  promulgation  of  the  gospel 
 and  the  complete  establishment  of  the  Messiah's  kingdom." 
 
 Dr.  John  Owen :  "  Not  an  issue  of  men's  fancied  enthusiasms, 
 not  a  product  of  their  own  minds  and  conceptions,  not  an  in- 
 terpretation of  the  will  of  God  by  the  understanding  of  man, 
 that  is,  of  the  prophets  themselves." 
 
 Dr.  Adam  Clarke  :  " '  Of  any  private  interpretation '  —  pro- 
 ceeds from  the  prophet's  own  knowledge  or  invention,  or  was 
 the  offspring  of  calculation  or  conjecture.  Far  from  inventing 
 the  subject  of  their  own  predictions,  the  ancient  prophets  did 
 not  even  know  the  meaning  of  what  they  themselves  wrote." 
 
 Archbishop  Whately :  "  Prophecy  is  not  to  he  its  own 
 interpreter,  that  is,  is  not  to  have  its  full  sense  made  out  (like 
 that  of  any  other  kind  of  composition)  by  the  study  of  the  very 
 words  of  each  prophecy  itself,  but  it  is  to  be  interpreted  by  the 
 event  that  fulfils  it." 
 
 Dr.  Edward  Robinson :  "  '  No  prophecy  of  scripture  cometh 
 of  private  interpretation,'  i.e.  is  not  an  interj^retation  of  the 
 will  of  God  by  the  prophets  themselves." 
 
 Dr.  Samuel  Davidson  :  "'  No  prophecy  admits  of  a  solution 
 proper  to  its  uttererT 
 
 Dr.  Charles  Hodge :  ''  What  a  prophet  said  was  not  human, 
 but  divine.  It  was  not  the  prophet's  own  interpretation  of  the 
 mind  and  will  of  God.  He  spoke  as  the  organ  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost." 
 
 Alford,  Tholuck,  De  Wette,  and  Huther :  ''' Prophecy  springs 
 not  out  of  human  interpretation,'  i.e.  is  not  a  prognostication 
 made  by  a  man  knowing  what  he  means  when  he  utters  it." 
 
 Ui3on  any  reasonable  interpretation,  the  passage  no  more 
 precludes  explanations  of  prophecy  given  in  private  tlian  tliose 
 made  in  public. 
 
148 
 
 DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Not  always  fnljilled. 
 And  Jonah  bpgan  to  enter  into  the 
 city  a  day's  journey,  and  he  cried,  and 
 said,  Yet  forty  days,  and  Tsineveh  shall 
 be  overthrown.  So  the  people  of  Nin- 
 eveh believed  God,  and  proclaimed  a 
 fast,  and  put  on  sackcloth,  from  the 
 jrreatest  of  them  even  to  the  least  of 
 them.  .  . .  And  Uod  saw  their  works, 
 that  they  turned  from  their  evil  way; 
 and  God  repented  of  the  evil  tliat  he 
 had  said  that  he  would  do  unto  them; 
 and  he  did  it  not.    Jonah  iii  4,  5, 10. 
 
 Prophecy  sure. 
 
 And  if  thou  say  in  thy  heart,  How 
 shall  we  know  the  woi-d  whicli  the 
 Loud  hath  not  spoken  ?  When  a  proph- 
 et si)eaketli  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,  if 
 the  the  thing  follow  not,  nor  come  to 
 pass,  that  is  the  thing  which  the  Lord 
 hatli  not  spoken,  but  the  prophet  hath 
 spoken  it  presumptuously:  thou  shalt 
 not  be  afraid  of  him.    Deut.  xviii.  2L22. 
 
 We  have  also  a  more  sure  word  of 
 prophecy:  whereunto  ye  do  well  that 
 ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  light  that  shin- 
 eth  in  a  dark  place.    2  Tet.  i.  19. 
 
 A  passage  previously  cited  (Jer.  xviii.  7-10)  ^  has  a  bearing 
 upon  this  point.  That  passage,  however,  refers  to  promises 
 and  threatenings,  which  are,  of  course,  conditional.  The  text 
 from  Deuteronomy  seems,  on  the  contrary,  to  refer  to  absolute 
 predictions,  which  are  in  no  way  contingent  upon  human  conduct. 
 
 Peter  terms  prophecy  "  more  sure  "  than  the  mere  "  voice  " 
 which  the  apostles  heard  in  the  mount,  as  "  being  of  wider  and 
 larger  reference,  and  as  presenting  a  broader  basis  for  the 
 Christian's  trust,  and  not  only  one  fact,  however  important." 
 
 As  to  the  threat  uttered  by  Jonah,  it  turned  upon  a  condition, 
 either  expressed  or  implied.  As  Henderson  observes,  "  How- 
 ever absolute  the  right  of  God  to  deal  with  mankind  agreeably 
 to  his  own  good  pleasure,  his  conduct  is  always  in  strict  ac- 
 cordance with  the  manner  in  which  they  behave  toward  him. 
 Neither  his  promises  nor  his  threatenings  are  unconditional." 
 
 Divine  promise  absolute. 
 
 In  that  same  day  the  Lord  made  a 
 covenant  with  Abram,  saying,  Unto 
 thy  seed  have  I  given  this  land,  from 
 the  river  of  Egypt  unto  the  great  river, 
 the  river  Euphrates.     Gen.  xv.  18. 
 
 And  1  will  establish  my  covenant 
 between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after 
 thee,  in  their  generations,  for  an  ever- 
 lasting covenant;  to  be  a  God  unto  thee, 
 and  to  thy  seed  after  thee.    Gen.  xvii.  7. 
 
 It  vjas  conditional. 
 
 And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Be- 
 hold, thou  shalt  sleep  with  thy  fathers, 
 and  this  people  will  rise  up,  and  go  a 
 wlioring  after  the  gods  of  the  strangers 
 of  the  land,  whither  they  go  to  be  among 
 them  and  will  forsake  me,  and  break  my 
 covenant  which  I  have  made  with  them. 
 Then  my  anger  shall  be  kindled  against 
 them  in  that  day,  and  I  will  forsake 
 them,  and  I  will  hide  my  face  from 
 them,  and  they  shall  be  devoured. 
 Deut.  xxxi.  10,  17. 
 
 When  ye  have  transgressed  tlie  cove- 
 nant of  the  Lord  your  God,  which  he 
 commanded  you,  and  have  gone  and 
 served  other  gods,  and  bowed  your- 
 selves to  them ;  then  shall  the  anger  of 
 the  Lord  be  kindled  against  you,  and 
 ye  shall  perish  quickly  from  off  the 
 good  land  which  he  hath  given  unto 
 you.    Josh,  xxiii.  16. 
 
 See  pp.  64,  65,  of  present  work. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  149 
 
 The  covenant  with  Abraham  has  a  twofold  fulfQment:  a 
 partial  one  to  liis  literal  posterity  —  partial,  on  account  of  their 
 non-fulfilment  of  the  conditions ;  also,  a  grand  and  glorious 
 fulfilment  to  Abraham's  spiritual  seed,  in  bestowing  upon  them 
 the  heavenly  Canaan.^  The  "  covenant,"  though  not  fulfilled 
 in  the  primary,  will  be  so  in  the  secondary  and  higher  sense. 
 
 Judah  to  reign  till  Messiah.  Israel's  first  king  a  Benjamite. 
 
 Tlie    sceptre   shall  not  depart  from  And  afterward  they  desired  a  king: 
 
 Judah,   nor  a  lawgiver  from  between  and  God  gave  unto  them  Saul  the  son 
 
 his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come :  and  unto  of  Cis,  a  nian  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin, 
 
 him  shall  the  gathering  of  the  people  be.  Acts  xiii.  21. 
 Gen.  xlix.  10. 
 
 First.  It  is  very  far  from  being  certain  that  the  term 
 "  Sliiloh "  has  any  reference  to  the  Messiah.  Many  critics 
 interpret  it  of  "  the  Ephraimite  city  where  the  tabernacle  was 
 erected,  after  the  Israelites  had  entered  the  promised  land." 
 Here,  during  the  judges'  rule,  the  sanctuary  remained,  God 
 revealed  himself,  the  yearly  feasts  were  kept,  and  the  pious 
 assembled  as  at  their  rehgious  centre.  On  this  hypothesis,  the 
 sense  is,  "  Till  he,  or  07ie,  come  to  Sliiloh."  That  is,  Judah 
 should  be  the  leader  of  the  tribes  durino-  their  march  throuo;h 
 the  wilderness,  till  they  arrive  at  Shiloh,  the  centre  of  the 
 promised  inheritance.  In  this  view  concur  Bleek,  Bunsen, 
 Davidson,  Delitzsch,  Eichhorn,  Ewald,  Fuerst,  Hitzig,  Kalisch, 
 Lipmann,  Luzzatto,  Palfrey,  Rodiger,  Teller,  and  Tuch,  with 
 others.^ 
 
 Another  ancient  interpretation  is :  "  Judah  shall  possess  the 
 sceptre  till  he  comes  to  whom  it  belongs."  So,  in  substance, 
 the  Septuagint  (according  to  one  reading),  Aquila,  Symmachus, 
 the  Peshito,  Onkelos,  one  Arabic,  and  most  of  the  ancient 
 versions,  the  Jerusalem  Targum,  Jahn,  Von  Bohlen,  De  Wette, 
 Krummacher,  etc. 
 
 Others  render  the  word  variously,  "  Rest-bringer,"  "  Tran- 
 quilizer," "  Rest,"  "  Peace,"  "  Peacemaker,"  "  Prmce  of  Peace." 
 To  this  class  may  be  referred  Bush,  Deutsch,  Gesenius  finally, 
 
 1  Compare  Gal.  iii.  29;  iv.  28;  Heb.  xi.  16,  39,  40. 
 
 2  See  Article  "  Sliiloh,"  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Vol.  iv.  pp.  2997—2999. 
 
 13* 
 
150  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Hengstenberg,  Hofmann,  Keil,  Knobel,  Kurtz,  Lange,  Luther, 
 Rosenmiiller,  Schroder,  Vater,  and  the  Grand  Rabbin  Wogue. 
 These  all,  with  slight  differences,  agree  in  the  above  inter- 
 pretation of  the  term  "'  Shiloh." 
 
 It  is  to  be  added  that  nearly  all  the  ancient  Jewish  com- 
 mentators, with  the  early  Christian  writers,  and  several  modern 
 critics,  agree  in  referring  the  term  to  the  Messiah. 
 
 Secondly.  Admitting  the  Messianic  reference,  the  passage  still 
 furnishes  little  difficulty.  "Judah,"  says  Keil,  "was  to  bear 
 the  sceptre  with  victorious,  lion-like  courage,  until,  in  the  future 
 Shiloh,  the  obedience  of  the  nations  came  to  him,  and  his  rule 
 over  the  tribes  was  widened  into  the  peaceful  government  of 
 the  world."  In  the  camp  and  on  the  march,  Judah  took  the 
 first  place  among  the  tribes.^  After  the  death  of  Joshua,  Judah 
 by  divine  direction  opened  the  war  upon  the  Canaanites;^ 
 and  the  first  judge,  Otliniel,  came  of  that  tribe.^  Then,  in 
 David  and  Solomon,  the  same  tribe  gained  undisputed  pre- 
 eminence. In  further  proof,  it  may  be  added  that,  later,  this 
 tribe  gave  the  name  "  Jews  "  to  the  whole  people  ;  "  Jehudim  " 
 from  "  Jehudah,"  yi«<iaA.^  Moreover,  our  Lord  himself  —  the 
 Shiloh,  upon  this  interpretation  —  came  as  a  man  of  the  tribe 
 of  Judah.^  So  that  unto  Jesus,  and  in  him  as  Sliiloh,  that 
 tribe  maintamed  an  easy  pre-eminence. 
 
 Any  one  of  the  foregoing  interpretations  obviates  the  alleged 
 
 discrepancy. 
 
 Quotations. 
 
 Original  passages.  Quoted  incorrectly. 
 
 The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me, 
 
 me:   because  the  Loud  hath  anointed  because  he  hath  anointed  me  to  preach 
 
 me  to   preach  good  tidings  unto  the  the  gospel  to  the  poor;  he  hath  sent  me 
 
 meek;  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the  to  lieal  the  broken-hearted,  to  preach 
 
 broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  liberty  to  deliverance  to  the  captives,  and  recov- 
 
 the  captives,  and  the  opening  of  the  ering  of  sight  to  the  blind,  to  set  at 
 
 prison  to  them  that  are  bound ;  to  pro-  liberty  them  that  are  bruised,  to  preach 
 
 *  Num.  ii.  2,  3:  vii.  12;  x.  14. 
 ^Judges  i.  1-19. 
 
 ^  Joshua  XV.  13;  Judges  ill.  9. 
 
 *  Compare  Turner's  Companion  to  the  Book  of  Genesis,  pp.  371-388. 
 Also,  Speaker's  (or  Bible)  Commentary,  i.  232,  233  (English  edition). 
 
 6  Heb.  vii.  U. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 151 
 
 Original  passages.  Quoted  incorrectly. 
 
 claim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord.    Luke 
 
 and  the  day  of  vengeance  of  our  God.  iv.  18.  19. 
 
 Isa.  Ixi.  1,  2.  Behold,  I  send  my  messenger  before 
 
 Behold,  1  will  send  my  messenger,  thy  face,  which  shall  prepare  thy  way 
 
 and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  before  thee     Mark  i,  2. 
 me.    Mai.  iii.  1. 
 
 It  will  be  seen  that,  in  both  these  cases,  the  original  sense  is 
 substantially  preserved  in  the  citation.  We  have  elsewhere^ 
 remarked  upon  the  relation  which  the  inspired  authors  sustain 
 to  one  another ;  and  especially,  with  reference  to  their  use  of 
 similar  phraseology.  A  thorough  investigation  of  the  subject 
 will  show  conclusively  that  the  sacred  writers,  in  quoting  from 
 one  another,  quote  according  to  the  sense,  and  not  according  to 
 the  letter.     They  seldom,  almost  never,  quote  verbatim. 
 
 Condensed. 
 That  it  miffht  be  fulfilled  which  was 
 spoken  by  Esaias  the  prophet,  sayinjr, 
 The  land  of  Zabulon,  and  the  land  of 
 Nephthalim,  by  the  way  of  the  sea,  be- 
 yond Jordan,  Galilee  of  the  Gentiles; 
 the  people  which  sat  in  darkness  saw 
 great  light;  and  to  tliem  which  sat  in 
 the  region  and  shadow  of  death  light  is 
 sprung  up.    Matt.  iv.  14-16. 
 
 Original  passage. 
 Nevertheless  the  dimness  shall  not  be 
 such  as  was  in  her  vexation,  when  at 
 the  first  he  lightly  afflicted  the  land  of 
 Zebulun,  and  the  land  of  Kaphtali,  and 
 afterward  did  more  grievously  afflict 
 her  by  the  way  of  the  sea,  beyond  Jor- 
 dan, in  Galilee  of  the  nations.  The 
 people  that  walked  in  darkpess  have 
 seen  a  great  light:  they  that  dwell  in 
 the  land  of  the  shadow  of  death,  upon 
 them  hath  the  light  shined.  Isa.  ix  1,2. 
 
 Here  is  no  contradiction,  but  a  condensation.  The  fifteenth 
 verse  of  Matthew  is  not  so  much  a  quotation,  as  an  allusion, 
 designed  to  arrest  the  attention  of  the  reader,  and  prepare  the 
 way  for  the  quotation  proper. 
 
 Th.e  following  is  an  example  of  substantial  agreement  amid 
 slight  circumstantial  variations. 
 
 Forms  of  statement. 
 
 And  he  said.  Go  into  the  city  to  such 
 a  man,  and  say  unto  him,  The  Master 
 saith,  My  time  is  at  hand;  I  will  keep 
 the  pas^over  at  thy  house  with  my  dis- 
 ciples.    Matt.  xxvi.  18. 
 
 And  he  sendeth  forth  two  of  his  dis- 
 ciples, and  saith  unto  them,  Go  ye  into 
 the  city,  and  there  shall  meet  you  a 
 man  bearing  a  pitcher  of  water:  follow 
 him.  And  wheresoever  he  shall  go  in, 
 say  ye  to  the  goodman  of  the  hou«p. 
 The  Master  saith,  Where  is  the  guest- 
 chamber,  where  1  shall  eat  the  passover 
 with  my  disciples?    Mark  xiv.  13,  14. 
 
 Expanded. 
 And  he  sent  Peter  and  John,  saying, 
 Go  and  prepare  us  the  passover,  that 
 we  may  eat.  . . .  Behold,  when  ye  are 
 entered  into  the  city,  there  shall  a  man 
 meet  you,  bearing  a  pitclier  of  wat^^-; 
 follow  him  into  the  house  whei-e  he 
 entereth  in.  And  ye  shall  say  unto  the 
 goodman  of  the  house.  The  Master  saith 
 unto  thee,  Where  is  the  guest-chamber, 
 where  1  shall  eat  the  passover  with  my 
 disciples?    Luke  xxii.  8, 10, 11. 
 
 ^  See  pp.  6,  7,  of  present  work. 
 
152  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 
 
 A  case  of  this  kind  can,  we  think,  furnish  difficulty  to  the 
 advocates  of  verbal  inspiration  only. 
 
 Original  passage.  Inexact  version. 
 
 Sacrifice  and  ofiering  thou  didst  not       Wherefore,  when  he  cometh  into  the 
 
 desire;    mine  ears  hast  thou  opened:    world,  he  saith,  Sacritice  and  offering 
 
 burnt-offering  and  sin-offering  hast  thou    thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast  thou 
 
 not  required.    Jfs.  xl.  6.  prepared  me:    In  burnt-offerings  and 
 
 sacrifices  for  sin  thou  hast  had  no  pleas- 
 ure.   Heb.  X.  5,  6. 
 
 The  difficulty,  in  this  case,  is,  that  the  apostle  follows  the 
 Septuagint,  "  A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  instead  of  the 
 Hebrew,  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened." 
 
 We  may  first  ask:  Why  did  the  Septuagint  translators 
 commit  such  an  error  in  rendering  the  Hebrew  into  Greek  ? 
 Usher,  Semler,  Ernesti,  Michaelis,  Bleek,  and  Liinemann  offer 
 the  very  plausible  suggestion  that  the  translators  misread  the 
 Hebrew,  and  show  how  this  might  readily  take  place  in  this 
 particular  instance.^  Cappell,  Carpzov,  Wolf,  Ebrard,  Tholuck, 
 and  Delitzsch  think  that  the  translators  deliberately  chose  this 
 phraseology  by  which  to  render  the  Hebrew,  as  being  more 
 intelligible  to  the  reader. 
 
 The  second  question  is:  AVhy  did  the  apostle  employ  this 
 loose  rendering,  instead  of  a  literal  one  ?  In  reply,  it  may  be 
 shown  that  the  fundamental  idea  is  retained,  even  in  the  inexact 
 phraseology.  The  expression,  "  Mine  ears  hast  thou  opened," 
 is,  according  to  Hengstenberg,^  another  way  of  saying,  "  Thou 
 hast  made  me  hearing,  obedient " ;  while  the  corresponding 
 words,  "A  body  hast  thou  prepared  me,"  are  equivalent  to, 
 "  Thou  hast  fitted  me  for  willing  service  in  the  execution  of 
 thy  designs."  We  thus  see  that  in  both  cases  the«f  undamental 
 idea,  the  obedience -of  the  Messiah,  is  preserved.  'Therefore,  in 
 thi!^  deeper  view,  there  is  no  dissonance  between  these  passages. 
 Such  being  the  case,  Paul  was  at  liberty  to  employ  the  j^ara- 
 phrastic  rendering;  especially  since  this  seemed  more  appro- 
 priate to  his  purpose,^  as  setting  forth  more  fitly  than  did  the 
 
 •    1  See  Alford,  on  Ileb.  x.  5.  ^  Com.  on  Ps.  xl.  6. 
 
 ^  Warington  on  Inspiration,  p.  95. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  153 
 
 original  utterance  the  incarnation  of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  his 
 
 obedience  unto  death.^ 
 
 Original.                    .  Wrongly  referred. 
 
 And  I  said  unto  them,  If  ye  think  Then  was  fulfilled  that  which  was 
 
 eood,give  me  my  price:    and  if  not,  spoken  by  Jeremy  the  prophet,  saying, 
 
 Forbear.     So  thev  weighed  for  my  price  And  they  took  the  thirty  pieces  of  .1 1- 
 
 thirtj pieces  oi  silver"   And  the  iTord  ver,  the  price  of  him  that  was  valued 
 
 said  unto  mo,  Cast  it  unto  the  potter:  whom  they  of  the  children  of  Israel 
 
 a  goodly  price  that  I  was  prized  at  of  did  value;  and  gave  them  for  the  pot- 
 
 them     And  I  took  the  thirty  ineces  of  ter's  field,  as  the  Lord  appointed  me. 
 
 silver,  and  cast  them  to  the  potter  in  Matt.  xxvu.  9,  10. 
 the  house  of  the  Lord.    Zech.  xi.  12, 13. 
 
 Here  is  ob\dously  a  mistake,  either  made  by  Matthew  or 
 by  subsequent  transcribers.  The  prophecy  was  uttered  by 
 Zechariah,  not  Jeremiah. 
 
 Alford  thinks  that  Matthew  quoted  from  memory  and  un- 
 precisely.  Barnes  suggests  two  explanations.  According  to 
 the  Jewish  writers,  Jeremiah  was  reckoned  the  first  of  the 
 prophets,  and  was  placed  first  in  the  book  of  the  prophets ; 
 thus,  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  etc.  Matthew,  in  quotmg  this 
 book,  may  have  quoted  it  under  the  name  which  stood /rs^  in 
 it;  that  is,  mstead  of  saying,  "by  the  Prophets,"  he  may  have 
 said,  "  by  Jeremy  the  prophet,"  since  he  headed  the  list. 
 
 Or,  the  difficulty  may  have  arisen  from  abridgment  of  the 
 
 names.     In  the  Greek,  Jeremiah,  instead  of  being  written  m 
 
 full,  might  stand  thus,  "  Iriou  "  ;  Zechariah  thus,  "  Zriou."     By 
 
 the  mere  change  of  Z  into  I,  the  mistake  would  be  made.     The 
 
 Syriac  Peshito  and  several  mss.  have  simply,  "  by  the  prophet." 
 
 In  Henderson's  ^  opinion,  the  Greek  text  of  the  above  passage 
 
 has  been  corrupted. 
 
 Forms  of  report.  Different. 
 
 This  is  my  beloved  Son.  in  whom  I  Thou  art  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  1 
 
 am  well  pleased.    Matt.  iii.  17.  am  well  pleased.    Mark  1.  11. 
 
 am  v>  eii  picaoc  TL\on  art  my  beloved  Son ;  in  thee  I 
 
 am  well  pleased.    Luke  iii.  22. 
 
 Why  are  ye  fearful,  O  ye  of  little  Where  is  your  faith  ?    Lukeviii.25. 
 faith?    Matt.  viii.  26 
 
 Why  are  ye  so  fearful?    How  is  it 
 that  ye  have  no  faith  ?    Mark  iv.  40. 
 
 Son  be  of  good  cheer ;  thy  sins  be  for-  Son,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee.    Mark 
 
 given  thee.    Matt.  ix.  2.  ii-  5, 
 
 *'  M 
 
 Luk 
 
 1  See  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  xxx.  p.  309.         ^  ^^^^y.  prophets,  pp.  418,  419 
 
 Man,    thy   sins    are   forgiven    thee. 
 Luke  V.  20. 
 
154  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 
 
 Forms  of  report.  Different. 
 
 This  is  Jestis  the  King  of  the  Jews.       This  is  the  King  of  the  Jews.    Luke 
 Matt,  xxvii.  37.  xxiii.  38. 
 
 The  King  of  the  Jews.    Mark  xv.  26.        Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  King  of  the 
 
 Jews.    John  xix.  19. 
 
 Taking  these  several  cases  into  consideration,  it  is  beyond 
 question  that  in  each  the  fundamental  idea  is  preserved  under 
 all  the  various  forms.  And  this,  we  think,  is  all,  and  precisely 
 what,  the  sacred  writers  intended.  One  might,  indeed,  say  of 
 the  last  instance  that  John's  report  includes  the  other  three ; 
 so  that,  if  he  is  correct,  the  others  of  course  are  so.  Or,  that, 
 since  the  superscription  was  written  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and 
 Latin,  Matthew  gives  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew ;  Mark,  a 
 condensed  one  of  the  Latin ;  Luke  follows  Mark,  adding,  "  This 
 is  "  ;  while  John  gives  a  summary  of  the  whole.  But  we  see 
 no  necessity  for  such  exj)lanations.  It  is  altogether  improbable 
 that  three  inscriptions,  in  three  different  languages,  should 
 correspond  word  for  word. 
 
 The  following  cases  furnish  a  slightly  augmented  difficulty. 
 
 Provide  neither  gold,  nor  silver,  nor        Take  nothing  for  your  journey,  nei- 
 brass  in  your  purses,  nor  scrip,  for. >/oi«r    ther  staves  nor  scrip,  neither  bread, 
 journey,    neither    two    coat^,    neither    neither  money;  neither  have  two  coats 
 shoes,  nor  yet  staves :  for  tlie  Avorkrhan    apiece.    Luke  ix.  3. 
 is  worthy  of  his  meat.     Matt  x.  9,  10. 
 
 And  commanded  them  that  they 
 should  take  nothing  for  Iheir  journey, 
 save  a  staff  only;  no  scrip,  no  bread, 
 no  money  in  their  purse;  but  be  shod 
 with  sandals;  and  not  put  on  two 
 coats.    Mark  vi.  8,  9. 
 
 In  this  case  the  trivial  differences  do  not  affect  the  substantia] 
 agreement.  When  we  observe  that  Matthew  uses  the  term 
 "  provide,"  ^  it  is  clear  that  his  meaning  is :  "  Do  not  procure 
 any  in  addition  to  what  you  now  have;     Go,  just  as  you  are." 
 
 As  to  the  fact  that  Matthew  forbids  "  shoes  "  to  be  procured, 
 while  Mark  allows  "  sandals  "  to  be  worn,  it  may  be  remarked 
 that  "  shoes,"  as  the  original  implies,  may  have  been  of  a  kind 
 such  as  to  cover  the  whole  foot,  "  while  the  "  sandal "  was 
 merely  a  sole  of  wood  or  hide,  covering  the  bottom  of  the  foot. 
 
 '  Greek  KTiofxat,  to  get  for  oneself,  to  acquire,  to  procure,  by  pur- 
 chase  or  otherioise.     Robinson,  Lexicon  to  New  Test. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 155 
 
 and  bound  on  with  thongs.^     Thus  the  supposed  discrepancy 
 
 utterly  falls  away. 
 
 Go  into  the  village  over  against  you, 
 and  straightway  ye  shall  lind  an  as3 
 tied,  and  a  colt  with  her:  loose  thevi, 
 and  bring  them  unto  me.  And  if  any 
 man  sav  aught  unto  you,  ye  shall  say, 
 The  Lo"rd  hath  need  of  them;  and 
 straightway  he  will  send  them.  Matt, 
 xxi.  2.  3. 
 
 Go  your  way  into  the  village  over 
 against  you :  and  as  soon  as  ye  be  en- 
 tered into  it,  ye  shall  lind  a  colt  tied, 
 whereon  never  man  sat ;  loose  him,  and 
 bring  him.  And  if  any  man  say  unto 
 you,  Why  do  ye  this?  say  ye  that  the 
 "Lord  hath  need  of  him;  and  straight- 
 way he  will  send  him  hither.  Mark 
 xi  2.  3. 
 
 Go  ye  into  the  village  over  against 
 you  ;  in  the  which  at  your  entering 
 ye  shall  find  a  colt  tied,  whereon  yet 
 never  man  sat:  loose  him  and  bring 
 him  hither.  And  if  any  man  ask  you. 
 Why  do  ve  loose  him?  thus  shall  ye  say 
 unto  him'.  Because  the  Lord  hath  need 
 of  him.    Luke  xix.  30,  31. 
 
 This  is  simply  an  example  of  three  mdependent  veracious 
 witnesses,  each  telling  his  story  in  his  own  way.  And  we 
 cannot  feel  the  least  respect  for  that  mfinitessunal  criticism 
 which  ca\ils  and  demurs  at  a  case  of  this  kmd. 
 
 A  wicked  and  adulterous  generation  Why  doth  tbis  generation  seek  after 
 
 Peeketh  after  a  sign :  and  there  shall  no  a  sign?    Verily,  1  say  unto  you.  There 
 
 sien  be  given  unto  it,  but  the  sign  of  shall  no  sign  be  given  to  this  genera- 
 
 the  prophet  Jonas.    Matt.  xvi.  4.  tion.    Mark  viu.  12. 
 
 May  not  Mark  mean,  there  shall  no  future  sign  be  given  ? 
 The  "  sign  of  the  prophet  Jonas  "  was  taken  from  the  records 
 of  the  past.  At  all  events,  that  kmd  of  sign  sought  for  by  the 
 Jews  was  peremptorily  refused. 
 
 Other  interesting  examples  of  variant  quotations  are  the 
 following : 
 
 Till  they  see  the  Son  of  man  coming 
 in  his  kingdom.    Matt.  xvi.  28. 
 
 Till  they  have  seen  the  kingdom  of 
 God  come  with  power.    Mark  ix.  1. 
 
 Let  no  fruit  grow  on  thee  hencefor- 
 ward for  ever.    Matt.  xxi.  19. 
 
 For  in  the  resurrection  they  neither 
 marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage,  but 
 are  as  the  angels  of  God  in  heaven. 
 Matt.  xxii.  30.  ^     .       ^ 
 
 For  when  they  shall  rise  from  the 
 dead,  they  neither  marry,  nor  are  given 
 in  marriage,  but  are  as  the  angels  which 
 are  in  heaven.     Mark  xii.  25 
 
 But  as  touching  the  resurrection  of 
 the  dead,  have  ye  not  read  that  which 
 was  spoken  unto  you  by  God,  saying,  I 
 
 Till  they  see  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 Luke  ix.  27. 
 
 No  man  eat  fruit  of  thee  hereafter  for 
 ever.    Mark  xi.  14. 
 
 But  they  which  shall  be  accounted 
 worthy  to  obtain  that  world,  and  the 
 resurrection  from  the  dead,  neither 
 marry,  nor  are  given  in  marriage:  nei- 
 ther can  they  die  any  more:  for  they 
 are  equal  unto  the  angels ;  and  are  the 
 children  of  God,  being  the  children  of 
 the  resurrection.    Luke  xx.  35,  36. 
 
 Now  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even 
 Moses  showed  at  the  bush,  when  he 
 caUeth  the  Lord  the  God  of  Abraham, 
 
 ^  So  Robinson's  New  Test.  Lexicon. 
 
156 
 
 DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of 
 Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob?  God  is 
 not  tlie  God  of  the  dead,  but  of  the 
 livin<r.    Matt.  xxii.  31,  32. 
 
 And  as  touchinjr  the  dead,  that  they 
 rise :  have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of 
 Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God  spake  unto 
 him ;  saying,  I  am  tlie  God  of  Abraham, 
 and  tlie  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
 Jacob?  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead, 
 but  the  God  of  the  living.  Mark  xii. 
 20,  27. 
 
 But  Jesus  perceived  their  wickedness, 
 and  said.  Why  tempt  ye  me,  ye  hypo- 
 crites? Shew  me  the  tribute  money. 
 Matt.  xxii.  18,  19. 
 
 But  he,  knowing  their  hypocrisy,  said 
 unto  them.  Why  tempt  ye  me?  bring 
 me  a  penny,  that  I  may  see  it.  Mark 
 xii.  15. 
 
 Jesus  saith  unto  him,  Thou  hast  said. 
 Matt.  xxvi.  64. 
 
 When  ye  therefore  shall  see  the 
 abomination  of  desolation,  spoken  of 
 by  Daniel  the  pro])het,  stand  in  the 
 holy  place  (whoso  readeth,  let  him  un- 
 derstand), Then  let  them  which  be  in 
 Judaea  flee  into  the  mountains.  Matt, 
 xxiv.  15,  16. 
 
 and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of 
 Jacob.  For  he  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead, 
 but  of  the  living:  for  all  live  unto  him. 
 Luke  XX.  37,  38. 
 
 But  he  perceived  their  craftiness,  and 
 said  unto  them,  Why  tempt  ye  me? 
 8bew  me  a  penny.  Luke  xx.  23,  24. 
 
 And  Jesus  said,  I  am.    Mark  xiv.  62. 
 
 But  wlien  ye  shall  see  the  abomina- 
 tion of  desolation,  spoken  of  by  Daniel 
 the  prophet,  standing  where  it  ought 
 not  (let  him  that  readeth  understand), 
 then  let  them  that  be  in  Judaea  flee  to 
 the  mountains.    Mark  xiii.  14. 
 
 And  when  ye  shall  see  Jerusalem 
 compassed  with  armies,  then  know  that 
 the  desolation  thereof  is  nigh.  Then 
 let  them  which  are  in  Judaea  flee  to  the 
 mountains.     Luke  xxi.  20,  21. 
 
 Another  striking  case  is  that  relative  to  the  instituting  of  the 
 Lord's  Supper.  The  passages  are  too  long  to  be  quoted  here, 
 but  may  be  found  in  Matt.  xxvi.  21-29,  Mark  xiv.  18-24, 
 Luke  xxii.  14—20, 1  Cor.  xi.  23-26.  A  no  less  famous  instance 
 is  that  of  Peter's  denials  of  Christ,  which  is  discussed  elsewhere.^ 
 
 When  we  take  into  consideration  the  fact  that  inspiration 
 has  reference  primarily  to  ideas  rather  than  to  words  ;  and  that, 
 in  each  of  the  above  cases  respectively,  the  fundamental  idea 
 is,  notiuithstanding  the  variations  of  phraseology,  carefully  and 
 distinctly  preserved,  these  and  similar  instances  furnish  no  real 
 difficulty  whatever.^  Li  view  of  these  and  similar  cases,  certain 
 eminent  critics  have  felt  warranted  in  deducing  two  inferences : 
 
 1.  That  the  sacred  writers,  in  their  citations  from  one 
 another,  provided  the  fundamental  idea  were  retained,  were 
 suffered  to  expand,  abridge,  or  paraphrase  the  original  language, 
 
 '  See  under  Historical  Discrepaiioies,  —  Persons. 
 
 ^  Compare  Journal  of  Sarrerl  Literature  (April,  1854),  pp.  71-110. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  157 
 
 and  adapt  it  to  the  object  which  they  respectively  contemplated. 
 As  is  observed  hy  Prof.  Barrows,^  "  It  is  manifest  that  the 
 writers  of  the  New  Testament  are  not  anxious  about  the  verbal 
 accuracy  of  the  words  cited.  The  spirit  and  scope  of  a  passage, 
 wliich  constitute  its  true  life  and  meaning,  are  what  they  have 
 in  view,  not  the  exact  rendering  of  the  words  from  the  Hebrew 
 into  the  Greek." 
 
 2.  That  these  writers  while  divinely  guarded  against  any 
 error  in  communicating  religious  truth,  and  against  any  material 
 error  in  narrating  matters  of  fact,  were  yet  not  preserved  from 
 trivial  errors,  defects  of  memory,  and  the  like,  which  occasionally 
 appear  in  their  writings.  In  other  words,  they  were  neither 
 rendered  omniscient,  nor  infallible  in  all  respects,  but  were 
 unerringly  guided  in  the  communication  of  religious  truth. 
 
 Archbishop  Whately,^  speaking  of  certain  cases  in  the  New 
 Testament,  says,  "  We  may  plaiuly  perceive  that,  in  point  of 
 fact,  the  sacred  writers  were  not  supernaturally  guarded  against 
 trifling  inaccuracies  in  the  detail. of  unimportant  circumstances." 
 Again,  he  speaks  of  those  "  trifling  inaccuracies  as  to  an  insig- 
 nificant circumstance  which  occur  in  the  gospel  history,  and 
 which  it  was  not  thought  needful  to  guard  against  by  a  special 
 inspiration."  Nearly  the  same  view  is  taken  by  Mr.  Waring- 
 ton  ^  who,  however,  concedes  much  more  than  is  necessary. 
 
 Dean  Alford  *  says,  "  There  are  certain  minor  points  of 
 accuracy  or  inaccuracy  of  which  hiunan  research  suffices  to 
 inform  men,  and  on  which,  from  want  of  that  research,  it  is 
 often  the  practice  to  speak  vaguely  and  inexactly.  Such  are 
 sometimes  the  conventionally  received  distances  from  place  to 
 place  ;  such  are  the  common  accounts  of  phenomena  in  natural 
 history,  etc.  Now,  in  matters  of  this  kind,  the  evangelists  and 
 apostles  were  not  supernaturally  informed,  but  left,  in  common 
 with  others,  to  the  guidance  of  their  natural  faculties.     The 
 
 1  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Vol.  xxx.  p.  306. 
 
 \  Future  State,  appendix  to  Lecture  xi. 
 
 2  On  Inspiration,  pp.  72-75  and  238,  239. 
 
 *  Prolegomena  to  Gospels,  chap,  i.,  sect,  vi.,  par.  14,  15. 
 14 
 
158  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 same  may  be  said  of  citations  and  dates  from  history.  In  the 
 last  apology  of  Stephen,  which  he  spoke  being  full  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  and  with  divine  influence  beaming  from  his  countenance, 
 we  have  at  least  two  demonstrable  historical  inaccuracies.  And 
 the  occurrence  of  similar  ones  in  the  Gospels  does  not  in  any 
 way  affect  the  inspiration  or  the  veracity  of  the  evangelists." 
 
 The  above  theory  of  inspiration  seems  very  well  set  forth  in 
 the  following  citation  from  the  late  Mr.  Parry :  ^  "  Everything 
 wdiich  the  apostles  have  written  or  taught  concerning  Christianity 
 —  everything  which  teaches  a  religious  sentiment  or  duty  —  must 
 be  considered  as  divinely  true,  as  the  mind  and  will  of  God, 
 recorded  under  the  direction  and  guidance  of  his  Spirit.  But 
 there  is  no  need  to  ask  whether  everything  contained  in  their 
 writings  was  immediately  suggested  by  the  Spirit  or  not ;  whether 
 Luke  was  inspired  to  say  that  the  ship  in  which  he  sailed  with 
 Paul  was  wrecked  on  the  island  of  Melita,  or  whether  Paul  was 
 under  the  guidance  of  the  Spirit  in  directhig  Timothy  to  bring 
 him  the  cloak  which  he  had  left  at  Troas ;  for  these  things 
 were  not  of  a  religous  nature,  and  no  inspiration  was  neces- 
 sary concerning  them."  We  will  simply  add  that  the  view  of 
 inspiration  exhibited  in  the  foregoing  extracts,  while  it  very 
 well  meets  certain  exigencies  of '  the  case,  seems,  nevertheless, 
 peculiarly  liable  to  be  misunderstood  and  abused.  There  is 
 ever  far  greater  danger  to  be  apprehended  from  a  lax  than 
 from  a  strict  theory  of  inspiration. 
 
 F.    3IANf  in  relation  to  the  Present,  —  Creation. 
 
 Like  God  by  creation.  This  likeness  acquired. 
 So  God  created  man  in  his  oiCTi  image,  For  God  doth  know  tliat  in  the  day 
 in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him.  ye  eat  thereof,  then  your  eyes  shall  be 
 Gen.  i.  27.  opened,  and  ye  sliail  be  as  gods,  know- 
 In  the  day  that  God  created  man,  in  ing  good  and  evil.  .  . .  And  the  Lord 
 the  likeness  of  God  made  he  him  Gen.  God  said,  Behold,  the  man  is  become  as 
 V.  1.  one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil.  Gen. 
 
 iii.  5,  22. 
 
 A  certain  sceptical  critic,  referring  to  these  two  classes  of 
 texts,  remarks :  "  In  the  first,  man  is  made  in  the  image  of 
 God;  in  the  second,  likeness  to  the  Deity  comes  to  him  by 
 
 ^  Quoted  in  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature  (April,  1854),  pp.  104,  105. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  159 
 
 subsequently  knowing  good  and  evil."     The  first  texts,  however, 
 
 refer  to  man's  spiritual  constitution ;  the  second,  to  his  acquired 
 
 knowledge,  or  liis  power  to  discriminate  between  good  and  evil. 
 
 Man's  spirit  is  made  "  in  the  image  "  of  God,  who  is  a  Spirit ; 
 
 man's  knowledge  of  good  and  evil,  in  virtue  of  which  he  is,  in 
 
 a  sense,  "  like  God,"  was  acquired. 
 
 Made  in  image  of  God.  Created  male  and  female. 
 
 In  the  image  of  God  made  he  man.        Male  and  female  created  he  them. 
 Gen.  ix.  6.  Gen.  v.  2. 
 
 The  first  text  contemjDlates  the  soul,  the  immaterial  part ; 
 
 the  second  refers  to  the  material,  physical  organism  of  human 
 
 beings.     Maimonides  says :   "  Made  in  the  image  of    God  in 
 
 respect  to  the  soul  and  imderstanding ;  created  male  and  female 
 
 in  respect  to  corporeal  composition." 
 
 Made  like  God.  None  like  Him. 
 
 And  God  said,  Let  us  make  man  in        To  whom  then  will  ye  liken  me,  or 
 our  image,  after  our  likeness.  Gen.  i.  26.    shall  I  be  equal?  saith  the  Holy  one. 
 
 Isa.  xl.  25. 
 
 The  first  text  conveys  the  idea  of  resemblance ;  the  second 
 of  equahty.  We  may  resemble  God  in  certain  respects  without 
 being  equal  to  him. 
 
 Sinfulness, 
 
 No  man  withovt  sin.  Some  are  sinless. 
 
 There  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not.  Noah  was  a  just  man  an.d  perfect  in 
 
 1  Kings  viii.  46.  his  generations,  and'isoah  walked  with 
 
 The  LOED  looked  down  from  heaven  God.     Gen.  vi.  9. 
 
 upon  the  children   of  men,  to  see  if  Job  was  perfect  and  upright,  and  one 
 
 there  were  any  that  did  understand,  that  feared  God,  and  eschewed  evil. 
 
 and  seek  God.    Th'  y  are  all  gone  aside,  Job  i.  1. 
 
 they  are  all  together  become   filthy:  Who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of  the 
 
 there  is  none  that  doeth  good,  no,  not  Lord?  or  who  shall  stand  in  his  holy 
 
 one.    -Ps.  xiv.  2,  3  place?    He  that  hath  clean  hands,  and 
 
 Who  can  say,  I  have  made  my  heart  a  pure  heart;  who  hath  not  lifted  up 
 
 clean,  I  am  pure  from  my  sin?    Prov.  his  soul  unto  vanity,  nor  sworn  deceit- 
 
 XX.  9.  fully.     Vs.  xxiv.  3,  4. 
 
 For  there  is  not  a  just  man  upon  Tre^erve  my  soul ;  for  I  am  holy.  Ps. 
 
 earth,  that  doeth  good,   and  sinneth  Ixxxvi  2. 
 
 not.    Eccl.  vii.  20.  A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure 
 
 Why  callest  thou  me  ^ood?  there  is  of  his  heart,  bringeth  forth  that  which 
 
 none  good  but  one,  that  is  God.    Mark  is  good.     Luke  vi.  45. 
 
 X.  18.  These  things  write  I  unto  you,  that 
 
 There  is  none  righteous,  no,  not  one.  ye  sin  not.    1  John  ii.  1. 
 
 .  .  .  For  all  have  sinned,  and  come  short  W^hosoever  abideth  in  him  sinneth 
 
 of  the  glory  of  God.  Kom.  iii.  18,  23.  not;  whosoever  sinneth  hath  not  seen 
 
 If  we  say  that  we  have  no  sin,  we  him,  neither  known  him.  .  .  .  Whoso- 
 
 deceive  ourselves,  and  the  truth  is  not  everisbornof  God  doth  not  commitsin; 
 
 in  us.    1  John  i.  8.  .  for  his  seed  remaineth  in  him;  and  he 
 
 cannot  sin,  because  he  i.-;  burn  of  God. 
 1  John  iii.  6,  9. 
 
 The  first  series  of  passages  contemplates  men  in  their  unre- 
 
160  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 generate  state.  These  texts  teach  the  undeniable  truth  that  no 
 mere  human  being  has  ever  reached  tlie  age  of  accountability 
 without  violating  the  moral  law,  without  sinning.  They  are 
 a  strong,  emphatic  statement  of  the  fact  that,  as  certainly  as 
 human  beings  arrive  at  years  of  discretion,  so  certainly  do  they 
 become  sinners.  Since  "  all  have  sinned,"  therefore,  "  if  we 
 say  that  we  have  no  sin  "  —  that  we  have  kept  ourselves  from 
 sin,  and  hence  do  not  need  pardon,  —  "  we  deceive  ourselves." 
 
 Mark  x.  18  simply  asserts  that  no  being  is  absolutely  good 
 —  good  per  se  —  except  God.  His  is  absolute,  underived 
 goodness ;  men  are  "  good,"  not  in  the  sense  in  which  he  is 
 good,  but  relatively  and  by  derivation. 
 
 The  citations*  of  the  second  series,  except  those  from  1  John 
 iii.,  refer  to  men  possessing  the  relative  goodness  just  men- 
 tioned. The  texts  excepted  are  interpreted  in  the  following 
 manner :  "  Whosoever  sinnethJ'  Doddridge  says,  "  Who  ha- 
 bitually and  avowedly  sinneth."  "  Doth  not  commit  sin.'' 
 According  to  Mr.  Barnes,  the  interpretation  should  be :  "  Is  not 
 wilfully  and  deliberately  a  sinner."  He  may  err,  and  be 
 "  overtaken  in  a  fault,"  but  the  misdeed  is  not  intentional. 
 "  He  cannot  sin,''  that  is,  it  is  incompatible  with  his  views, 
 feelings,  and  purposes.  AYe  have  here  a  fresh  illustration  of 
 that  moral  impossibility  which  has  been  already  mentioned 
 more  than  once. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller : ^  "It  appears  that  the  word  ' sin,'  in  these 
 passages,  is  of  different  significations.  In  the  former,  it  is  to 
 be  taken  properly  for  any  transgression  of  the  law  of  God.  If 
 any  man  say,  in  this  sense,  he  has  no  sin,  he  only  proves  him- 
 self to  be  deceived,  and  that  he  has  yet  to  learn  what  is  true 
 religion.  But  in  the  latter,  it  seems,  from  the  context,  that 
 the  term  is  intended  to  denote  the  sin  of  apostasy.  If  we 
 were  to  substitute  the  term  '  apostasy'  for  '  sin,'  from  the  sixth 
 to  the  tenth  verse,  the  meaning  would  be  clear." 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  ^  calls  attention  to  the  form  of  expression  in 
 
 *  Works,  i.  682.  -  Sacred  Hcrmeneutics,  p.  579. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  161 
 
 the  original,  1  Jolin  iii.  9,  and  observes :  "  There  is  an  emphasis 
 in  the  verb  '  poieo.'     It  denotes  the  habitual  working  of  sin." 
 
 Diisterdieck^  thinks  that  the  last  citations  from  1  John 
 present  the  ideal  standard  which  continually,  so  to  speak,  floats 
 above  the  actual  life  of  believers  as  their  rule  and  aim,  and  that 
 this  norm  finds  in  such  actual  life  only  a  relative  fulfilment, 
 yet  that,  even  in  the  actual  life  of  all  that  are  born  of  God, 
 there  is  something  which  in  full  verity  answers  to  the  ideal 
 words,  "  They  cannot  sin."  That  is,  they  sin  not,  and  cannot 
 sin,  just  in  proportion  as  the  new,  divine  life,  unconditionally 
 opposed  to  all  sin,  and  manifesting  itseK  in  godlike  righteous- 
 ness, is  present  and  abides  in  them. 
 
 In  a  word,  the  texts  just  mentioned  are  descriptions  of  the 
 
 ideal  Christian. 
 
 Made  upright.  Made  sinful. 
 
 God  hath  made  man  upright.    Eccl,        Behold,   I  was  shapen  in  iniquity; 
 vii.  29,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me, 
 
 rs.  li.  5. 
 
 The  latter  text  is  simply  an  Oriental  hyperbolical  way  of 
 saying  that  he  had  begun  to  sin  at  the  earliest  practicable  period. 
 This  language  is  no  more  to  be  pressed  literally  than  is  Job's  ^ 
 declaration  that  he  had  guided  the  widow  "  from  his  mother's 
 womb."  That  is,  as  Delitzsch  says,  *'  from  earliest  youth,  so  far 
 back  as  he  can  remember,  he  was  wont  to  behave  like  a  father 
 to  the  orphan  and  like  a  child  to  the  widow."  To  take  the 
 language,  in  either  case,  in  a  rigidly  literal  sense,  is  a  gross 
 absurdity. 
 
 Bom  sinful.  Infants  are  sinless. 
 
 For  vain  man  would  be  wise,  though  Moreover,  your  little  ones,  which  ye 
 
 man  be  born /jie  a  wild  ass's  colt.   Job  said  should  be  a  prey,  and  your  chil- 
 
 xi.  12.  dren,  which  in  that  day  had  no  knowl- 
 
 Who  can  bring  a  clean  thing  out  of  edge  between  good  and  evil,  they  shall 
 
 an  unclean?  not  one.    Job  xiv.  4.  go  in  thither    ,  Deut.  i.  39. 
 
 What    is    man,  that    he    should    be  Butter  and  honey  shall  he  eat,  that 
 
 clean  V  and /<e?r;^ic/t  is  born  of  a  woman,  he  may  know  to  refuse  the  evil,  and 
 
 that  lie  should  be  righteous  ?  Job  xv.l4.  choose  the  good.     For  before  the  child 
 
 The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  shall    know    to    refuse    the    evil,   and 
 
 womb:  they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  choose  the  good,  the  land  that  thou 
 
 be  born,  speaking  lies.     Ps.  Iviii,  3.  abhorest  shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her 
 
 Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  a  kings.    Isa.  vii.  15,  16. 
 
 child,  but  the  rod  of  correction  shall  Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become 
 
 drive  it  far  from  him.  Prov.  xxii,  15,  as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into 
 
 1  Quoted  by  Alford.  2  chap.  xxxi.  18. 
 
 14* 
 
162  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Bom  sinful.    ■  Infants  are  sinless. 
 
 That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh;  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Whosoever 
 and  that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  therefore  shall  humble  himself  as  this 
 epirit;    John  iii.  6.  little  child,  the  same  is  greatest  in  the 
 
 kingdom  of  lieaven.  Matt,  xviii.  3,  4. 
 tSiifler  little  children  to  come  unto 
 me,  and  forbid  thom  not:  for  of  such  is 
 the  kingdom  of  God.  Verily,  I  say 
 unto  you,  Whosoever  shall  not  receive 
 the  kingdom  of  God  as  a  little  child, 
 shall  in  no  wise  enter  therein.  Luke 
 xviii.  iO.  17. 
 
 For  the  children  being  not  yet  born, 
 neither  having  done  any  good  or  evil. 
 Kom.  ix.  11. 
 
 As  to  the  three  quotations  from  Job,  we  observe,  first,  that 
 they  are  couched  in  poetical  and  figurative  language.  Second, 
 as  we  have  remarked  elsewhere,  there  is  no  proof  that  -Job  and 
 his  friends  were  inspired  as  religious  teachers,  as  were  the 
 prophets  and  apostles.  That  the  author  of  the  book  was 
 "  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit "  to  record  its  contents,  is  beyond 
 doubt ;  but  that  we  are  to  take  the  words  of  Satan,  of  Job's 
 wife,  of  the  patriarch  himself,  and  of  his  friends,  as  "proof- 
 texts  "  upon  which  to  build  stupendous  structures  of  theology, 
 we  cannot  for  a  moment  admit.  Says  Prof.  Stuart,^  -'  Just  as 
 if  these  angry  disputants,  who  contradict  each  other,  and  most 
 of  whom  God  himself  has  declared  to  be  in  the  wrong  (Job 
 xlii.  7-9),  were  inspired  when  they  disputed." 
 
 Ps.  Iviii.  3,  like  li.  5  considered  above,  is  a  poetical  hyperbole. 
 The  absurdity  of  a  literal  interpretation  is  obvious  from  the  fact 
 that  the  wicked  are  represented  as  "  speaking  Ues,"  as  soon  as 
 they  are  born.  Literalistic  exegesis  would  make  them  rather 
 precocious.  The  meaning  plainly  is,  that  they  begin  very  early, 
 as  soon  as  possible,  to  speak  lies,  and  to  go  astray. 
 
 The  "  foolishness  "  of  Prov.  xxii.  can  hardly  be  sin,  for  sin 
 cannot  be  removed  by  corporal  punishment.  A  higher  power 
 than  the  ''  rod  "  is  requisite  to  the  expulsion  of  sin,  and  the 
 cleansing  of  the  soul. 
 
 As  to  John  iii.  6,  there  are  two  interpretations.  1.  That  given 
 by  Meyer :  The  flesh  is  the  material  nature  of  man,  determined 
 ethically  by  the  sinful  impulses  of  which  it  is  the  seat.  What- 
 ^  History  of  Old  Test.,  Canon,  p.  144  (Revised  edition,  p.  133). 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  163 
 
 ever  is  born  from  this  sensuous  and  sinfully  determined  human 
 nature  is  a  being  of  the  same  sensuous,  sinfully  constituted 
 nature  without  the  spiritual  and  ethical  life  which  first  arises 
 through  the  action  of  the  Divine  Sphit.  2.  The  language  may 
 have  had  a  special  application.  Nicodemus  had  just  suggested 
 the  impossibility  of  a  second  natural  birth.  Christ  may  have 
 meant  simply,  "  even  were  it  possible,  you  would  gain  nothing 
 by  it:  you  would  still  be  what  you  now  are."  That  is,  the 
 language  may  have  been  designed  to  teach^  not  that  infants  are 
 actually  born  sinful,  but  that  a  second  physical  birth,  were  it 
 possible,  would  fail  to  introduce  a  man  into  the  "  kingdom  of 
 God." 
 
 At  all  events,  the  theory  that  children  are  born  with  certain 
 perverted  tendencies  or  natural  'proclivities  to  sin,  which,  though 
 not  sinful  per  se,  do  nevertheless  certainly  lead  the  individual 
 into  sm  as  soon  as  he  is  capable  of  moral  action,  will  satisfy 
 the  demands  of  a  reasonable  exegesis. 
 
 Matt,  xviii.  3  asserts  that  we  must  "  become  as  little  chil- 
 dren "  —  docile,  loving,  guileless  —  in  order  to  enter  into  "  the 
 kingdom  of  heaven." 
 
 Luke  xviii.  15  takes  up  the  same  thought  in  respect  to  infants,^ 
 and  declares  that  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  " ;  that 
 is,  it  is  composed  of  little  children,  and  of  those  persons  who 
 possess  the  childlike  character  and  spirit.  It  would  appear, 
 therefore,  that  these  two  passages  are  utterly  incompatible  with 
 the  theory  that  children  are  born  into  the  world  laden  with 
 guilt,  permeated  with  and  steeped  in  the  virus  of  sin. 
 
 Rom.  ix.  11  brings  to  view  certain  children  which,  though 
 ahve,^  had  "  done  neither  good  nor  evil."  Now,  since  sm  is 
 the  "  transgression  of  the  law,"  these  children,  having  violated 
 no  law,  could  not  possibly  be  smners.  Nor  do  we  discover 
 anything  in  the  accident  of  bhth  which  could  fix  the  stain  of 
 
 1  The  original  word  here  is  different,  and,  as  Alford  says,  "  points  out 
 more  distinctly  the  tender  age  of  the  children." 
 
 2  See  Gen.  xxv.  22,  23. 
 
164  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 sin  upon  their  souls.  A  fair  inference,  then,  is  that,  since  they 
 were  not  sinners  before  birth,  they  did  not  become  such  at  birth, 
 nor  until  they  wilfully  violated,  to  some  extent,  the  law  of  God. 
 Nor  does  it  appear  that  the  case  of  these  children  was,  in 
 respect  to  tliis  exemption,  an  exceptional  one.  Hence  the 
 theory  that  infants  come  into  the  world  actually  sinful  or  guilty 
 would  not  seem  to  be  supported  either  by  reason  or  by  the 
 testimony  of  Scripture. 
 
 Children  of  wrath  naturally.  Keep  the  law  by  nature. 
 
 And  were  by  nature  the  children  of       For  when  the  Gentiles,  which  have 
 wrath,  even  as  others.    Eph.  11,  3.  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things 
 
 contained  in  the  law,  these  having  not 
 the  law,  are  a  law  unto  themselves. 
 Which  shew  the  work  of  the  law  writ- 
 ten in  their  hearts.    Horn.  11.  14, 15. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  The  phrase  "  by  nature  "  in  the  latter  refers 
 to  the  rule  of  action  ;    but  in  the  former  to  the  cause  of  it. 
 
 Dr.  Hodge :  "  '  By  nature,'  in  virtue  of  their  internal  constitu- 
 tion, not  by  external  instruction."  RUckert :  "  We  were  born 
 children  of  wrath ;  i.e.  such  as  we  were  from  our  birth,  we  were 
 exposed  to  the  divine  wrath,  is  the  true  sense  of  these  words." 
 .  Suicer^  renders  the  word  "  phusis,"  in  Eph.  ii.  3,  "  ^rw/y, 
 incontestably.^'  The  Syriac  Peshito  reads :  "  And  were  alto- 
 gether the  children  of  wrath."  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  and  Bishop 
 Ellicott  doubt  whether  there  is  in  this  text  any  dii-ect  assertion 
 of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin. 
 
 We  take  the  sense  to  be,  "  And  were,  in  our  unreyenerate 
 condition,  the  children  of  wrath."  In  this  interpretation,  Mr. 
 Barnes  concurs.  Or,  a  different  explanation  may  be  given. 
 The  term  "  nature  "  may  here  denote  our  natural  proclivities 
 and  tendencies  to  sin  ;  the  idea  being  that,  in  consequence  of 
 the  development  of  these,  we  were  the  children  of  wrath. 
 
 Upon  any  reasonable  explanation,  the  words  "  were  by  nature 
 the  children  of  wrath  "  do  not  imply  that  we  were  born  sinning 
 or  sinful.     Man  is  "by  nature"  a  talking  being,  yet  he  was  not 
 
 ^  Thesaurus,  Vol.  ii.,  col.  1475.  Similarly  Grotius  and  several  early 
 writers.    Compare  the  German  "  natiirlich." 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  165 
 
 necessarily  horn  talking.  We  are  "by  nature"  offspring-loving 
 beings,  yet  it  by  no  means  follows  that  we  were  born  in  the 
 actual  exercise  of  this  "natural  affection."  So  the  fact  that  we 
 are  sinners  "  by  nature "  does  not  necessitate  that  we  were 
 sinners  before,  or  even  at  birth,  but  merely  that  we  are  such  as 
 the  result  of  our  natural  proclivities  to  evil. 
 
 All  made  sinners  by  Adam.  Made  righteous  by  Christ 
 
 Wherefore  as  by  one  man  sin  entered  Even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one 
 
 into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin;  and  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  unto 
 
 so  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for  that  justiKcatiou  of  life.  For  as  by  one  man's 
 
 all  have  sinned.  .  .  .  Therefore,  as  by  the  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners, 
 
 otTence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall  many 
 
 men  to  condemnation.  Horn.  v.  12,  18.  be  made  righteous.    Rom.  v.  18,  19. 
 
 There  are  two  interpretations  of  the  last  two  texts.  (1)  That 
 the  "  free  gift "  is  adapted  to  all  men,  and  has  a  tendency  to 
 restore  them  to  the  divine  favor.  Barnes  :  " '  Came  upon  all 
 men,'  —  was  with  reference  to  all  men  ;  had  a  bearing  upon  all 
 men;  was  originally  adapted  to  the  race."  John  Taylor: 
 "  The  drift  of  the  apostle's  conclusion  is  to  show  that  the  Gift, 
 in  its  utmost  extent,  is  free  to  all  mankind."  Calvin  :  The 
 apostle  makes  the  grace  "  common  to  all,  because  it  is  offered 
 to  all,  not  because  it  is  in  fact  applied  to  all." 
 
 (2)  That  the  words  "  all  "  and  "  many,"  in  the  eighteenth 
 and  nineteenth  verses,  are  each  used  in  two  senses,  a  wider  and 
 a  narrower.  Dr.  Hodge  thinks  that,  in  the  first  clause  of  each 
 verse,  "all"  means  all  who  are  connected  with  Adam  ;  in  the 
 second  clause,  all  who  are  connected  with  Christ.  Alford  says 
 that  both  classes  of  men  meet  in  the  word  "  many."  A  com- 
 mon term  of  quantity  is  found  for  both;  the  one  extending 
 to  its  largest  numerical  mterpretation  ;  the  other  restricted  to 
 its  smallest.     In  either  view,  there  is  no  discrepancy. 
 
 Hepentance. 
 
 Man's  own  act.  God's  gift. 
 
 Eepent  ye,  and  believe  the  gospel.  To  give  repentance  to  Israel,  and  for- 
 Mark  i.  15.  giveness  of  sins.    Acts  v.  31. 
 
 Except  ye  repent,  ye  shall  all  likewise  Then  hath  God  also  to  the  Gentiles 
 perish.     Luke  xiii.  5.  granted    repentance    unto    life.     Acta 
 
 Kow    commandeth    all    men    every    xi.  18. 
 where  to  repent.    Acts  xvii.  30.  If  God  peradventure  will  give  them 
 
 repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the 
 truth.    2Tim.  ii.  25. 
 
166  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 The  word  "  repentance  "  is  used  in  two  senses.  In  the  first 
 series,  it  denotes  the  act  of  repenting;  in  the  second,  the 
 opportunity,  motives,  and  helps  of  that  act.  Hackett :  "  To 
 give  repentance,  i.e.  the  grace  or  disposition  to  exercise  it." 
 De  Wette  :  "  The  opportunity  to  repent,  or  the  provision  of 
 mercy  which  renders  repentance  available  to  the  sinner." 
 
 Regeneration, 
 
 Man  active.  Passive. 
 
 Circumcise  therefore  the  foreskin  of  And  the  Lord  thy  God  will  circum- 
 
 vour  heart,  and  be  no  more  stiff-necked,  cise  thy  heart,  and  the  heart  of  thy 
 
 Dent.  X.  It}.  seed,  to  love  the  Lord  thy  Ciod  with 
 
 Wash  you,  make  you  clean  :  put  away  all  thy  heart.     Deut.  xxx.  6. 
 
 the  evil   of  your  doings  from  before  Wash  me  thoroughly  from  mine  ini- 
 
 mine  eyes.    Isa.  i.  16.  quity,   and  cleanse  me  from  my  sin. 
 
 ()  Jerusalem,  wash  thine  heart  frorn  Fs.  li.  2. 
 
 wickedness,  that  thou  mavest  be  saved.  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon 
 
 How  long  shall  thy  vain  thoughts  lodge  you,  and  ye  shall   be  clean:  from  all 
 
 within  thee?    Jer.  iv.  14.  your  filthihess,  and  from  all  your  idols, 
 
 Make  you  a  new  heart  and  anew  will  I  cleanse  you    A  new  heart  also  will 
 
 spirit :  for  why  will  ye  die,  O  house  of  I  give  you,  and  anew  spirit  will  I  put 
 
 Israel?     Ezek.  xviii.  81.  within  you.     Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  2(5. 
 
 Turn  ye  unto  me      Zech.  i.  3.  Turn  thou  us  unto  thee.  O  Lord,  and 
 
 Awake,  thou  that  sleepest,  and  arise  we  shall  be  turned.    Lara,  v  21. 
 
 from  the  dead.     Eph.  v.  14.  But  God  when  we  were  dead  in  sins, 
 
 Ye  have  put  off  the  old  man  with  his  hath  quickened  us  together  withChrist; 
 
 deeds;  and  have  put  on  the  new  man.  .  .  .  And  hath  raised  us  up  together.  . .  . 
 
 CoL  iii.  9  10.  For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created 
 
 '    '      '  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works.    Eph. 
 
 ii.  5,  6,  10. 
 
 The  simple  fact  is,  that  man  is  both  active  and  passive  in 
 regeneration.  The  first  series  of  texts  brings  to  view  his 
 activity ;  the  second,  his  passivity.  Man  is  active  in  thinking 
 upon  the  truth,  in  exercising  his  sensibilities  in  relation  to  it, 
 and  in  giving  up  his  heart  to  God ;  he  is  passive  in  that  he  is 
 acted  upon  by  the  truth,  and  also  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  both 
 acts  and  is  acted  upon.  God  does  not,  so  far  as  we  know, 
 regenerate  beings  in  a  state  of  insensibility  or  indifference. 
 There  is,  in  a  certain  sense,  a  co-operation  of  the  divine  agency 
 and  the  human  in  the  regeneration  of  the  soul.  As  Prof. 
 Phelps  ^  has  said :  "  We  cannot  mistake  in  recognizing  as 
 another  law  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  his  work  shall  be  concurrent 
 with  the  will  of  the  regenerate  soul  itself.  Sanctification  is  a 
 co-operativ.e  process.     It  may  be  suspended  by  resistance,  and 
 
 1  The  New  Birth,  pp.  243,  244. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  167 
 
 accelerated  by  obedience  to  the  divine  impulses.  . . .  Not  by  the 
 breadth  of  a  hair  will  the  sovereignty  of  God  invade  the 
 enclosure  of  that  soul's  freedom.  The  soul  itself,  in  its  own 
 individuality,  is  the  thing  he  would  save.  Its  own  love  is  the 
 thing  he  craves.  Its  own  submission  is  the  right  he  claims. 
 Its  own  chosen  obedience  is  the  service  he  requires." 
 
 Tliis  same  idea  of  co-operation  is  expressed  in  the  words 
 of  Paul ;  ^  "  Work  out  your  own  salvation,  with  fear  and 
 trembling ;  for  it  is  God  which  worketh  in  you  both  to  will 
 and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure." 
 
 fTustificatlon. 
 
 By  Faith.  By  Works. 
 
 Therefore  by  the  deeds  of  the  law,  For  not  the  hearers  of  the  law  are 
 
 there  shall  no  flesh  bo  justified  in  his  just  before  (iod.  but  the  doers  of  the 
 
 sight.  ...  We  conclude,  that  a  man  is  law  shall  be  justitiei.     Kom.  ii.  13. 
 
 justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  What  doth  it    profit,  my  brethren, 
 
 the  law.     Rom.  iii.  20.  28  thoujrh  a  man  say  he  hath  laith,  and 
 
 For  if  Abraham  were  justified  by  have  not  works?  can  faith  save  him?  ..  . 
 
 works,  he  hath  K'/iereo/"  to  glory,  but  not  Faith,  if  it  hath  not  works,  is  dead, 
 
 before  God.     Rom.  iv  2.  being  alone.  ...  Was  not  Abraham  our 
 
 Knowing  that  a  man  is  not  justified  father  justified  by  works,  when  he  had 
 
 by  the  works  of  the  laAv,  but  by  the  oflered  Isaac  Ms  son  upon  the  altar?  ..  . 
 
 faith  of  Jesus  Christ.     Gal.  ii.  16.  Seest  thou  how  faith  wrought  with  his 
 
 But  that  no  man  is  justified  bv  the  works,  and  by  works  was  faith   made 
 
 law  in  the  sight  of  God,  it  is  evident:  perfect?  ...  Ve  see  then  how  that  by 
 
 for,  The  just  shall  live  bv  faith.     And  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
 
 the  law  is  not  of  faith :  "but.  The  man  faith  only.  .  .  .  For  as  the  body  with- 
 
 that  doeth  them  shall  live  in  them.  Gal.  out  the  spirit  is  dead,  so  faith  without 
 
 iii.  11,  12.  works  is  dead  also.    J  as.  ii.  14,  17,  21, 
 
 22,  24,  26. 
 
 There  is  no  collision  between  Paul  and  James.  They  merely 
 present  different  aspects  or  relations  of  the  same  great  truth. 
 Paul  is  arguing  against  self-righteous  religionists,  who  rely  for 
 salvation  upon  external  morality.,  upon  mere  works;  James 
 addresses  those  who  maintain  that,  provided  a  man's  belief  is 
 correct,  it  matters  little  what  his  conduct  is;  that  a  ''bare 
 assentive  faith  is  sufficient  for  salvation,  without  its  living  fruits 
 in  a  holy  life."  In  a  word,  Paul  is  combating  Pharisaism; 
 James,  Antinomianism.  One  asserts:  "Works  are  good  for 
 nothing  except  as  they  spring  from  faith";  the  other  responds: 
 "  Faith  is  of  no  value  except  as  it  produces  works."  Both 
 together  affirm  the  inseparable  connection  and. unalterable  rela- 
 
 1  Phil.  ii.  12, 13 
 
168  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 tion  of  faith  and  works  as  cause  and  effect.  John  Taylor  of 
 Norwich :  "  The  apostle  James  manifestly  speaks  of  works 
 consequent  to  faith,  or  of  such  works  as  are  the  fruit  and 
 product  of  faith.  Whereas,  St.  Paul  speaks  of  and  rejects 
 works  considered  as  antecedent  to  faith.  According  to  St. 
 Paul,  Abraham's  justification  refers  to  his  state  before  he  be- 
 lieved, or  when  he  was  ungodly ;  according  to  St.  James,  to  his 
 state  after  he  believed,  or  when  faith  wrought  with  his  works." 
 
 Whately :  "  Abraham  is  cited  by  Paul  as  an  example  of  a 
 man  '  justified  by  faith'  and  by  James,  of  a  man  '  justified  by 
 works ' ;  the  faith  being  manifested  by  the  works  which  sprung 
 out  of  it." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  ''  Paul  treats  of  the  justification  of  the 
 ungodly,  or  the  way  in  which  sinners  are  accepted  of  God,  and 
 made  heirs  of  eternal  life.  James  speaks  of  the  justification 
 of  the  godly,  or  in  what  way  it  becomes  evident  that  a  man  is 
 approved  of  God.  The  former  is  by  the  righteousness  of 
 Christ ;  the  latter  is  by  works." 
 
 Stuart :  "  Paul  is  contending  with  a  legalist,  i.e.  one  who 
 expected  justification  on  the  ground  of  his  own  merit.  James 
 is  disputing  with  antinomians,  viz.  such  persons  as  held  that 
 mere  speculative  belief  or  faith,  unaccompanied  by  works,  was 
 all  which  the  gospel  demands." 
 
 Alf ord  and  De  Wette  understand  "  faith,"  as  used  by  James, 
 to  denote  the  result  of  the  reception  of  the  word,  especially  in 
 a  moral  point  of  view ;  as  used  by  Paul,  as  consisting  in  trust 
 on  the  grace  of  God  revealed  in  the  atoning  death  of  Chi-ist. 
 
 Sanctification, 
 
 Through  the  truth.  TJirough  the  Spirit. 
 
 Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth.  Elect  according  to  the  fore-knowl- 
 John  xvii.  17.  edge  of  God  the  Father,  through  sanc- 
 
 tilication  of  the  Spirit.    1  Pet.  i.  2. 
 
 They  were  sanctified  hy  the  truth  applied  by  the  Spirit.  The 
 two  were  instruments  in  the  work  of  sanctification.  In  the  first 
 passage,  Alford '  employs  the  preposition  "  in,"  since  the  truth 
 is  the  element  in  which  the  sanctifymg  takes   place.     As  to 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  169 
 
 the  second  text,  the  word  "  spirit "  may  refer  either  to  the  be- 
 liever's own  spirit,  or  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Alford  takes  the 
 latter  signification ;  Beza  says,  "  Vel  Spiritus  Sanctus,  vel  anima 
 quae  sanctificatur."  The  interpretation,  "  sanctification  by  the 
 Spirit,  in  the  truth,"  meets  the  requirements  of  both  texts  alike. 
 The  fuller  expression,^  "  Through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit 
 and  belief  of  the  truth,"  conveys  the  same  idea. 
 
 Perfection. 
 
 Christians  are  perfect.  Paul  was  not  perfect. 
 
 Be  ye  therefore  perfect,  even  as  your  If  by  any  means  I  might  attain  unto 
 
 Father  which  is  in  heaven  is  perfect,  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.     Not  as 
 
 Matt.  V.  48.  though  I  had  already  attained,  either 
 
 Let  us  therefore,  as  many  as  be  per-  were  already  perfect.    Phil.  iii.  11,  12. 
 feet,  be  thus  minded.    Phil.  iii.  15. 
 
 The  term  "  perfect "  is  used  here  in  different  senses.  In 
 Matthew  it  means  complete,  all-embracing,  godlike  in  love  of 
 others.  In  Phil.  iii.  15  it  means  mature  in  Christian  life.  In 
 the  texts  at  the  right  it  probably  refers  to  the  completion  of 
 Paul's  life  by  martyrdom.  Clement  of  Alexandria  applies  the 
 term  "  perfection,"  "  teleiosis,"  to  the  martyrdom  of  believers. 
 He  says  :  "  We  call  martyrdom  '  perfection,'  '  teleiosis,'  not 
 because  man  receives  it  as  the  completion  of  life,  but  because  it 
 is  the  consummation  of  the  work  of  love."  Several  other  early 
 writers  use  the  word,  and  its  derivatives,  in  a  similar  sense.^ 
 Hence  Paul's  meaning  may  be :  "  My  Christian  career  has  not 
 yet  culminated  in  martyrdom." 
 
 Many  critics,  however,  think  that  he  is  alluding  to  the  games 
 or  races  of  the  ancients,  and  says  figuratively  that  he  —  as  a 
 Christian  —  had  not  completed  his  course,  and  arrived  at  the 
 goal,  so  as  to  receive  the  prize. 
 
 Final  Perseverance. 
 
 Impossible  to  fall  from  grace.  Some  do  fall  from  grace. 
 
 And  I  give  unto   them  eternal  life;  But  when  the  righteous  turneth  away 
 
 and  they  shall  never  perish,  neither  from  his  righteousness,  and  committpth 
 
 shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,  iniquity,  and  doeth  according  to  all  the 
 
 John  X.  28.  abominations    that    the    wicked    man 
 
 For  whom  he  did  foreknow,  he  also  doeth,  shall  he  live?    All  his  righteous- 
 
 did  predestinate  to  he  conformed  to  the  ness  that  he  hath  done  shall  not  be 
 
 '  2  Thess.  ii.  13. 
 
 ^  Comp.  Luke  xiii.  32 ;  where  the  Peshito  reads  "  shall  be  consummated." 
 15 
 
170 
 
 DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Impossible  to  fall  from  grace. 
 ima,ce  of  his  Son,  that  he  mi.ffht  be 
 the  first-born  among  many  brethren. 
 Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate, 
 them  he  also  called:  and  whom  he 
 called,  them  he  also  justified:  and 
 whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glori- 
 fied. .  .  .  For  I  am  persuaded,  that 
 neither  death,  nor  life,  nor  angels,  nor 
 principalities,  nor  powers,  nor  things 
 present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  height, 
 nor  depth,  nor  any  other  creature,  shall 
 be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love  of 
 <;od  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord. 
 Horn.  viii.  29,  30,  38,  39. 
 
 Some  do  fall  from  grace. 
 mentioned :  in  his  trespass  that  he  hath 
 trespassed,  and  in  his  sin  that  he  hath 
 sinned,   in  them  shall  he  die.    Ezek. 
 xviii.  24. 
 
 Those  that  thou  gavest  me  I  have 
 kept,  and  none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the 
 son  of  perdition.    John  xvii.  12. 
 
 For  it  is  impossible  for  those  who 
 were  once  enlightened,  and  have  tasted 
 of  the  heavenly  gift,  and  were  made 
 partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  have 
 tasted  the  good  word  of  God,  and  the 
 powers  of  the  world  to  come,  if  they 
 shall  fall  away,  to  renew  them  again 
 unto  repentance;  seeing  they  crucify 
 to  themselves  the  Son  of  God  afresh, 
 and  put  him  to  an  open  shame.  Heb, 
 vi.  4-6. 
 
 For  if  we  sin  wilfully  after  that  we 
 have  received  the  knowledge  of  the 
 truth,  there  remaineth  no  more  sacri- 
 fice for  sins,  but  a  certain  fearful  look- 
 ing for  of  judgment  and  fiery  indig- 
 nation, which  shall  devour  the  adver- 
 saries. He  that  despised  Moses'  law, 
 died  without  mercy  under  two  or  three 
 witnesses :  of  how  much  sorer  punish- 
 ment, suppose  ye.  shall  he  be  thought 
 worthy,  who  hath  trodden  under  foot 
 the  Son  of  God,  and  hath  counted 
 the  blood  of  the  covenant,  wherewith 
 he  was  sanctified,  an  unholy  thing,  and 
 hath  done  despite  unto  the  Spirit  of 
 grace?  ...  But  we  are  not  of  them  who 
 draw  back  unto  perdition.  Heb.  x. 
 26-29,  39. 
 
 For  if  after  they  have  escaped  the 
 pollutions  of  the  world  through  the 
 knowledge  of  the  Lord  and  Saviour 
 Jesus  Christ,  they  are  again  entangled 
 therein,  and  overcome,  the  latter  end 
 is  worse  with  them  than  the  beginning. 
 For  it  had  been  better  for  them  not  to 
 have  known  the  way  of  righteousness, 
 than,  after  they  have  known  if,  to  turn 
 from  the  holy  commandment  delivered 
 unto  them.  "2 1'et.  ii.  21,  22. 
 
 The  first  series  does  not  teach  the  impossibility  of  falluig 
 from  grace,  but  merely  the  certainty  that  this  will  not  occur. 
 The  auxiliary  "shall"  is  too  strong  in  these  passages.  The 
 original  expresses  futurition,  thus  ;  "  ivill  any  jDluck  them  out," 
 "  uiill  be  able  to  separate  us,"  etc. 
 
 Tlie  second  series  may  be  taken  as  mere  hypotheses  —  sup- 
 positions introduced  for  argument's  sake.  Such  figures  of 
 speech  arc  very  common.  Thus,  in  Gal.  i.  8,  Paul  introduces 
 this  liypothesis  :  "  But  tliough  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven, 
 preach  any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  171 
 
 preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed."  He  does  not,  of 
 course,  mean  to  affirm  that  an  ''  angel  from  heaven  "  ever  did, 
 or  would,  preach  a  false  gospel ;  he  merely  says :  "  On  the 
 supposition  that  one  should  do  it."  In  1  Cor.  xiii.  1-3,  we 
 have  three  of  these  hypotheses,  or  "  suppositions  without  regard 
 to  fact,"  as  they  may  be  termed. 
 
 The  hypothetical  nature  of  the  quotation  from  Ezekiel  is 
 clearly  brought  out  in  the  parallel  passage,  Ezek.  xxxiii.  13 : 
 "  When  I  shall  say  to  the  righteous  that  he  shaU  surely  Hve ; 
 if  he  trust  to  his  own  righteousness,"  etc. 
 
 In  John  xvii.  12,  some  construe  thus:  "None  of  them  is 
 lost ;  but  the  son  of  perdition  is  lost."  This  interpretation 
 excludes  Judas  from  the  number  of  those  who  were  "  given  "  to 
 Christ.  Otherwise,  if  Judas  is  included,  it  may  be  said  that 
 those  of  whom  Christ  spoke  were  given  simply  for  the  '•  ministry 
 and  apostleship";^  and  that  nothing  more  is  meant  here. 
 
 The  quotations  from  Hebrews^  and  Peter  are  so  obviously 
 hypothetical  that  no  comment  is  needed.  Alford  has  the 
 peculiar  remark :  "  Elect  and  regenerate  are  not  convertible 
 terms.  All  elect  are  regenerate ;  but  all  regenerate  are  not 
 elect.     The  regenerate  may  fall  away  ;  the  elect  never  can." 
 
 Barnes,  on  Heb.  vi.  6 :  "It  is  not  an  affirmation  that  any 
 had  actually  fallen  away,  or  that,  in  fact,  they  ivould  do  it ;  but 
 the  statement  is,  that  on  the  supposition  that  they  had  fallen 
 away,  it  would  be  impossible  to  renew  them  again. 
 
 It  may  be  added  that  Calvinistic  authors  interpret  the  latter 
 series  of  texts  as  referring  to  persons  who  have  been  con- 
 siderably enlightened,  but  not  truly  converted  ;  who  have  never 
 really  participated  in  the  spiritual  life.  Arminian  authors,  and 
 Alford  with  them,  refer  these  texts  to  persons  who,  after  being 
 regenerated,  have  deliberately  apostatized  from  Christ  and  his 
 religion.  The  alleged  discrejDancy  is  easily  removed  by  either 
 method  of  interpretation. 
 
 ^  Acts  i.  25. 
 
 2  Schoettsren  gives  a  peculiar  turn  to  Heb.  vi.  6.  See  Horae  Hebraicae, 
 pp.  954-956. 
 
172  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE    BIBLE. 
 
 Christians  not  destroyed.  May  he  destroyed. 
 
 And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life;  Destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat,  for 
 and  they  shall  never  perish.  John  x.  28.    whom  Christ  died.     Kom.  xiv.  15. 
 
 And  through  thy  knowledge  shall  the 
 weak  brother  perish,  for  whom  Christ 
 died?    1  Cor.  viii.  11. 
 
 These  cautions  and  admonitions  of  the  apostle  are  one  of 
 the  effective  means  which  God  uses  in  preventing  the  destruc- 
 tion of  weak  believers. 
 
 Tlie  "  called  "  all  saved.  Some  perish. 
 
 Moreover  whom  he  did  predestinate,        For  many  be  called,  but  few  chosen, 
 them   he  also    called :    and  whom  he    Matt.  xx.  16. 
 called,    them    he    also   justified:    and 
 whom  he  justified,  them  he  also  glori- 
 fied.    Kom.  viii.  aO.  , 
 
 The  word  "call,"  in  the  first  case,  signifies  the  "effectual 
 call,"  such  as  secures  its  own  acceptance,  and  the  salvation  of 
 the  "  called."  In  the  second  case,  the  term  denotes  the  general 
 invitation  of  the  gospel,  extended  to  all  men. 
 
 Righteous,— earthly  lot. 
 
 No  evil  befalls  the  Godly.  Evil  befalls  them. 
 
 There  shall  no  evil  happen  to  the       So  went  Satan  forth  from  the  pres- 
 
 just.     Trov.  xii.  21.  ence  of  the  Lord,  and  smote  Job  with 
 
 And  who  in  he  that  will  harm  you,  if    sore  boils  from  the  sole  of  his  foot  unto 
 
 ye  be  followers  of  that  which  is  good?    his  crown.    Job  ii.  7. 
 
 1  ret.  iii.  13.  For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chast- 
 
 eneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom 
 he  receiveth.    Heb.  xii.  6. 
 
 The  meaning  is,  that  no  permanent  or  ultimate  evil  befalls 
 the  good.  All  apparent  evils  which  overtake  them  are  but 
 temporary,  and  result  in  high  and  lasting  good.  "  All  things  " 
 —  the  afflictions  which  came  upon  Job  and  the  chastisements 
 which  God  inflicts  upon  his  people  —  "  work  together  for  good 
 to  them  that  love  God."^  Not  seldom  the  grown-up  man  is 
 profoundly  grateful  for  the  disciplinary  chastisement  received 
 from  parents  and  teachers  in  his  childhood.  So  the  Christian, 
 looking  back  from  heaven,  will  doubtless  tliank  God  for  the  trials 
 and  sufferings  of  this  earthly  life,  as  for  blessings  in  disguise. 
 
 Worldly  good  and  prosperity .  Worldly  misei-y  and  destitution. 
 
 And  the  Lord  was  with  Joseph,  and        There  be  just  me??,  unto  whom  it  hap- 
 
 hewasaprosi)erousman.  Clen.xxxix.2.  peneth  according  to  the  work  of  the 
 
 So  the  Lord  blessed  tlie  latter  end  of  wicked      Eccl.  vii  .  14 
 Job  more  than  his  beginning.  Job  xlii.        And  ye  shall  be  hated  of  all  men  for 
 
 12.  my  name's  sake.    Luke  xxi.  17- 
 
 '  Compare  Rom  viii.  28,  and  Heb.  xii.  11. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  173 
 
 Worldly  good  and  prosperity.  Worldly  misery  and  destitution. 
 
 His  leaf  also  shall  not  wither;  and  They  were  stoned,  they  were  sawn 
 
 whatsoever  he  doeth  shall  prosper.  Ps.  asunder,  were  tempted,  were  slain  with 
 
 1.3  the  sword:    they  wandered   about   in 
 
 They  that  seek  the  Lord  shall  not  sheep-skins,  and  goat-skins ;  bein":  des- 
 
 want  any  good  ihiriff.    Fs.  xxxiv.  10.  titute,  afflicted,  tormented.  Heb.  xi.37. 
 
 Trust  in  the  Lord,  and  do  good;  so  These  are  they  which  came  out  of 
 
 Shalt  thou  dwell  in  the  land,  and  verily  great  tribulation.    Kev.  vii.  14. 
 thou  Shalt  be  fed.    Vs.  xxxvii.  3. 
 
 The  first  texts  lay  down  the  general  principle  that  righteous- 
 ness has  a  tendency  to  ensure  prosperity  in  worldly  matters ; 
 yet  they  do  not  assert  that  this  result  invariably  follows.  We 
 say,  "  Honesty  is  the  best  policy,"  yet  we  know  that  some 
 rascals  grow  rich,  while  some  honest  men  never  succeed  in 
 business.  Righteousness,  because  it  promotes  temperance,  in- 
 dustry, frugality,  and  all  other  worthy  qualities,  tends  normally 
 to  worldly  prosperity. 
 
 As  to  Joseph  and  Job,  neither  of  them  escaped  very  sore 
 trials.  The  first  citation  from  Psalms  is  a  poetical  statement 
 of  the  principle  that  righteousness  is  conducive  to  worldly 
 prosperity;  the  second  asserts  that  no  actual,  ultimate  good 
 will  be  wanting  to  the  righteous. 
 
 The  second  series  sets  forth  certain  apparent  exceptions  to 
 the  general  rule,  and  illustrates  the  truth  that,  owing  to  the 
 wickedness  of  the  world,  the  pious  encounter  hostility  and  per- 
 secution in  some  form. 
 
 The  first  text  of  this  series  asserts  that,  in  some  cases,  an 
 apparently  similar  fate  attends  the  evil  and  the  good.  But,  as 
 Hengstenberg  says,  this  equality  of  result  is  only  an  external 
 and  partial  one ;  while  the  final  issue  separates  the  righteous 
 from  the  wicked. 
 
 The  two  next  passages  refer  to  the  disciples  and  the  ancient 
 martyrs.  The  text  from  Revelation  implies  that  the  righteous 
 enter  heaven  through  "great  trials"  of  various  kinds.  The 
 combined  passages  teach  that,  while  righteousness  tends  nor- 
 mally to  secure  earthly  prosperity ;  yet,  in  certain  cases,  this 
 tendency  is  temporarily  interrupted  by  certain  disturbing  in- 
 fluences. 
 
 15* 
 
174  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Worldly  prosjyeritT/,  a  reward.  A  curse. 
 
 If  thou  return  to  the  Almighty,  thou  Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures 
 
 shalt  be  built  up,  thou  shalt  put  away  upon  earth. ...  For  where  your  treasure 
 
 iniquity    far    from    thy    tabernacles.  i«i,  there  will  your  heart  be  also.    Matt. 
 
 Then  siialt  thou   lay  up  gold  as  dust,  vi.  19,  21. 
 
 and  the //oW  of  Ophir  as  the  stones  of  Blessed  6e  ye  poor;  for  yours  is  the 
 
 the  brooks.    Job  xxii.  23,  24.  kingdom  of  God.  .  . .  But  wo  unto  you 
 
 His  seed  shall  be  mighty  upon  earth ;  that  are  rich !     Luke  vi  20,  24. 
 
 the  generation  of  the  upright  shall  be  So    is    he    that  layeth    up    treasure 
 
 blessed.     Wealth  and  riches  shall  be  in  for  himself,   and  is  not    rich  toward 
 
 his  house.    Ps.  cxii.  2,  3.  God.    Luke  xii.  21. 
 
 In  the  house  of  the  righteous  is  much  Go  to  now,  ye  rich  men,  weep  and 
 
 treasure.     Trov.  xv.  6.  howl  for  your  miseries  that  shall  come 
 
 He  shall  receive  a  hundred-fold  now  upon  you.    Your  riches  are  corrupted, 
 
 in  this  time,  houses,  and  brethren,  and  and    your  garments    are    moth-eaten, 
 
 sisters,  and  mothers,  and  children,  and  Your  gold  and  silver  is  cankered;  and 
 
 lands,  with   persecutions;    and  in  the  the  rust  of  them  shall  be  a  witness 
 
 world  to  come,  eternal  life.  Mark  x  30.  against  you,  and  sliall  eat  your  flesh  as 
 
 it  were  tire.    James  v.  1-3. 
 
 As  to  the  quotation  from  Job,  the  best  critics  agree  substan- 
 tially in  the  rendering,  "  Cast  to  the  dust  thy  precious  treasure, 
 and  to  the  stones  of  the  brooks  the  gold  of  Ophir ;  then  shall 
 the  Almighty  be  thy  precious  treasure,"  etc.  This  is  nearly 
 Conant's  translation.  Delitzsch ;  " '  Put  far  from  thee  the  idol 
 of  precious  metal  with  contempt."  When  Job  thus  casts  from 
 him  temporal  things,  by  the  excessive  cherisliing  of  which  he 
 has  hitherto  sinned,  God  himself  will  be  his  imperishable 
 treasure." 
 
 The  texts  from  Psalms  assert  that  God  will  not  forsake  his 
 people,  but  will  supply  their  needs.  All  exceptions  to  this 
 rule  are  apparent,  not  real. 
 
 On  Prov.  XV.  6,  Zockler :  "  The  treasure  stored  up  in  such 
 a  house  is  the  righteousness  that  prevails  in  it,  a  source  and 
 pledge  of  abiding  prosperity." 
 
 In  Mark  x.  30  the  limiting  clause,  "  with  persecutions,"  sliows 
 clearly  that  unmixed  prosperity  is  not  promised  to  the  Christian. 
 
 The  opposed  texts  forbid  our  idolizing,  setting  our  affections 
 upon,  worldly  things  as  our  "  treasure."  They  also  pronounce 
 blessings  upon  the  "  poor  in  spirit,"  the  humble  ;  ^  and  reprove 
 those  who  "  trust  in  riches."  ^  Neither  the  acquisition  nor  the 
 possession  of  earthly  riches  is  forbidden,  but  the  making  of 
 wealth  our  god  is  prohibited. 
 
 ^  See  Matt.  v.  8.  "  Compare  Mark  x  24;  1  Tim.  vi.  17. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  175 
 
 Poverty  a  blessing.  Riches  a  blessing .  Neither  desirable. 
 
 Childron,  how  hard  is  So  the  Lord  blessed  the  Remove  far  from  rae 
 it  for  them  that  trust  in  latter  end  of  Job  more  vanity  and  lies;  give  me 
 riches  to  enter  into  the  than  his  be,2:inninjT;  for  neither  poverty  nor  rich- 
 kingdom  of  (Jod.  It  is  he  had  fourteen  thousand  es;  f(?ed  me  with  food 
 easier  for  a  camel  to  go  sheep,  and  six  thousand  convenient  for  me :  lest  I 
 througli  the.eye  of  a  nee-  camels,  and  a  thousand  befall  and  deny  <Aec!.  and 
 die,  than  for  a  rich  man  yoke  of  oxen,  and  a  thou-  say,  Who  is  the  lord? 
 to  enter  into  the  kingdom  sand  she  asses.  Job  xlii.  or  lest  I  be  poor,  and 
 of  God.     Mark  X.  24,  25.  12.  steal,  and  take  the  name 
 
 Hath  not  (jod  chosen  The  rich  man's  wealth  of  my  God  t/i  yaw.   Trov. 
 
 the   poor  of  this   world,  is    his    strong    city:    the  xxx.  8,  9. 
 
 rich  in  faith,  and  heirs  of  destruction  of  the  poor  is 
 
 the  kingdom.    Jas.  ii.  5.  their  poverty.  Frov.  x.  15. 
 
 The  "  rich  iaan  "  of  Mark  x.  25  is  described,  in  the  preceding 
 verse,  as  one  who  "  trusts "  in  riches,  making  them  his  god. 
 James  teaches  that  there  is  in  the  humbler  walks  of  life,  —  in 
 their  freedom  from  the  temptations,  cares,  and  anxiety  incident 
 to  wealth,  —  something  which  is  peculiarly  favorable  to  the 
 origin  and  growth  of  true  piety. 
 
 As  to  the  great  wealth  which  the  Lord  bestowed  upon  Job. 
 it  is,  says  Barnes,  substantially  that  of  an  Arab  ruler  or  chief 
 like  those  who,  at  the  present  day,  are  called  Emirs.^  The  turn 
 in  Job's  affairs  has  its  lesson.  ]Mr.  Cook,  in  Smith's  Biblical 
 Dictionary :  "  The  restoration  of  his  external  prosperitj^,  which 
 is  an  inevitable  result  of  God's  personal  manifestation,  symbol- 
 izes the  ultimate  compensation  of  the  righteous  for  all  sufferings 
 undergone  upon  earth." 
 
 As  to  Prov.  X.  15,  Stuart  takes  the  meaning  to  be  that  there 
 are  times  when  the  wealth  of  the  rich  will  avert  danger  and 
 suffering ;  and  at  such  times  the  poor  may  perish  for  want  of 
 money.  Zockler :  "  Naturally  the  author  is  here  thinking  of 
 wealth  well  earned  by  j)ractical  wisdom ;  and  this  at  the  same 
 time  a  means  in  the  further  effcirts  of  wisdom ;  and  again,  of  a 
 deserved  poverty  which  while  the  consequence  of  foolish  con- 
 
 ^  The  size  of  Job's  flocks  and  herds  is  not  wonderful.  Parallel  cases  can 
 be  adduced  in  our  own  time.  In  an  address  before  the  "  Hampden  Ajrri- 
 cultural  Society,"  the  lecturer  mentioned  a  farmer  in  California  who  owns 
 100,000  sheep,  and  another  with  135,000;  also,  a  certain  farm  which  pro- 
 duced 40,000  bushels  of  Avheat,  and  another  upon  which  2,500  cows  are 
 kept.  (See  "  Congregationalist,"  May  4,  1871).  Yet  infidels  adduce  the 
 later  wealth  of  Job  as  a  thinjr  incredible. 
 
176  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 duct  always  causes  one  to  sink  deeper  in  folly  and  moral  need." 
 Lord  Bacon :  "  This  is  excellently  expressed,  that  riches  are  as 
 a  stronghold  in  imagination,  and  not  always  in  fact ;  for  cer- 
 tainly great  riches  have  sold  more  men  than  they  have  bought 
 out." 
 
 The  prayer  of  Agur  (Prov.  xxx.),  embodies  the  sentiment 
 that  a  moderate  competence  is  better  than  extreme  poverty  or 
 enormous  wealth. 
 
 Wisdomy  source  of  happiness.  Cause  of  sorrow. 
 
 Happy  is  the  man  that  lindeth  wis-  For  in  much  wisdom  is  much  grief:  ' 
 dom,  and  the  man  that  getteth  under-  and  he  that  increaseth  knowledge  in- 
 standing  . . .  Her  ways  are  ways  of  pleas-  creaseth  sorrow.     Eccl.  i.  18. 
 antness,  and  all  her  paths  are  peace.  Then  said  I  in  my  heart,  As  it  hap- 
 Frov.  iii.  13,  17.  peneth  to  the  fool,  so  it  happeueth  even 
 
 For  wisdom  is  better  than  rubies;  tome;  and  why  was  1  then  more  wise? 
 
 and  all  the  things  that  may  be  desired  Then  I  said  in  my  heart,  that  this  also 
 
 are  not  to  be  compared  to  it.    Prov.  is  vanity.    Eccl.  ii.  15. 
 viii.  11. 
 
 In  the  first  texts,  "  wisdom  "  denotes  spiritual  wisdom,  which 
 prepares  for  and  lays  hold  upon  the  future  life.  In  the  second 
 case,  the  term  implies  mere  worldly  knowledge,  unsanctified 
 learning,  wisdom  limited  to  the  sphere  of  tliis  life.  The  "  grief  " 
 and  "  sorrow  "  may  refer  to  the  depression  of  mind  and  bodily 
 indisposition  attendant  upon  intense  and  long-continued  study 
 and  efforts  to  acquire  knowledge,  and  to  the  frequent  disap- 
 pointment of  this  pursuit.  The  Germans  have  a  proverb, 
 "  Much  wisdom  causeth  head-ache." 
 
 A  good  name  a  blessing.  A  curse. 
 
 A  good  name  is  rather  to  be  chosen  Wo  unto  you,  when  all  men  shall 
 
 than  great  riches.     Prov.xxii.  1.  speak  well   of  you!    for  so  did  their 
 
 A  good  name  is  better  than  precious  fathers  to  the  false  prophets.    Luke  vi. 
 
 ointment.    Eccl.  vii.  1.  26. 
 
 A  "  good  name  "  does  not  jiecessarily  imply  that  "  all  men 
 speak  well "  of  its  possessor.  Many  a  man  has  a  good  name 
 —  a  solid  and  well-earned  reputation  —  who  has  nevertheless 
 numerous  adversaries  and  calumniators.  The  denunciation  in 
 Luke  is  levelled  at  flatterers  and  time-serving  sycophants,  who, 
 like  modern  politicians  and  office-seekers,  are  ever  ready  to 
 sacrifice  j^rinciple  to  popularity.  Those  ministers  whose  preach- 
 ing offends  no  one,  of  whom ''  all  men  speak  well,"  who  prophesy 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  177 
 
 "  smooth  things,"  ^  and  "  daub  with  untempered  mortar,"  ^  are 
 in  the  direct  line  of  the  wo  denounced  by  our  Lord. 
 
 Eighteous  not  found  begging.  Some  righteous  beg. 
 
 1  have  been  young,  and  note  am  old ;  And  there  was  a  certain  beggar  named 
 yet  have  1  not  seen  the  righteous  for-  Lazarus.  . .  .  And  it  came  to  pass,  that 
 saken,  nor  his  seed  begging  bread.  Fs.  the  beggar  died,  and  was  carried  by  the 
 xxxvii.  25.  angels  into  Abraham's  bosom.     Luke 
 
 xvi.  20,  22. 
 
 The  occasional  and  temporary  exceptions,  which  had  not 
 fallen  under  David's  notice,  only  prove  the  rule. 
 
 Hengstenberg :  "  It  is  not  to  be  doubted,  that  God,  while  he 
 withheld  from  the  righteous  of  the  old  covenant,  any  clear 
 insight  into  a  future  state  of  being,  on  that  account  imfolded 
 his  righteousness  the  more  distinctly  in  his  dealings  towards 
 them  during  this  life,  so  that  they  might  not  err  concerning  it." 
 
 They  possess  the  earth.  Mere  sojourners  here. 
 
 Blessed  are  the  meek :  for  they  shall  For  we  are  strangers  before  thee,  and 
 inherit  the  earth.    Matt.  v.  5.  sojourners,  as  zrere  all  our  fathers:  our 
 
 days  on  the  earth  are  as  a  shadow,  and 
 there  is  none  abiding.  1  Chron.  xxix. 
 15. 
 
 For  here  have  we  no  continuing 
 city,  but  we  seek  one  to  come.  Heb. 
 xiii.  14. 
 
 ]VIr.  Barnes  thinks  that  the  first  text  is  a  proverbial  expres- 
 sion employed  by  the  Jews  to  denote  any  great  blessmg ;  perhaps 
 as  the  sum  of  all  blessings.  Schoettgen :  "  They  [the  meek] 
 with  their  religion  shall  have  dominion,  not  only  in  the  land 
 of  Judea,  but  also  through  the  whole  earth."  Alford  :  "  That 
 kingdom  of  God  which  begins  in  the  hearts  of  the  disciples, 
 and  is  '  not  of  this  world,'  shall  work  onwards,  till  it  shall 
 become  actually  a  kingdom  over  this  earth.,  and  its  subjects  shall 
 inherit  the  earth,  first  in  its  millennial,  and  finally  in  its  renewed 
 and  blessed  state  forever." 
 
 The  church  of  Christ  will  be  a  permanent  institution  of  ever 
 increasing  influence  and  power  ;  although  the  individuals  who 
 at  any  given  time  compose  that  church  are  but  sojourners  and 
 wayfarers  here  below. 
 
 1  Isa.  XXX.  10;  Jer.  xxiii.  31.  "  Ezek.  xiii  10-16;  xxii.  28. 
 
178  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Pilgrims  and  strangers.  Not  pilgrims  and  strangers. 
 
 And  confessed  that  they  were  stran-  Now  therefore  ye  are  no  more  stran- 
 gers and  pilgrims  on  the  earth,  lleb.  gers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow-citizens 
 xi.  13.  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household 
 
 Dearly  beloved,   I   beseech    yori,  as     of  God.    Eph.  ii.  19. 
 strangers  and   pilgrims,   abstain  from 
 fleshly  lusts,  wliich  war   against   the 
 soul.    1  ret.  ii.  11. 
 
 The  first  texts  refer  to  Christians  in  their  relation  to  the 
 fresent  world.  They  have  no  permanent  home  on  earth ;  their 
 citizenship  is  not  here ;  they  expect  to  remain  here  but  a  short 
 time ;  they  are  passing  on  to  their  eternal  home  on  high.  The 
 last  quotation  depicts  them  in  their  relation  to  the  household  of 
 faith.  They  have  been  "  adopted  "  into  the  holy  brotherhood, 
 and  are  entitled  to  all  its  privileges  and  blessings.  Hence  they 
 are  no  longer  to  be  regarded  as  outcasts  and  aliens,  but  as 
 members  of  the  celestial  family. 
 
 Tlieij  surely  live.  Some  of  them  die. 
 
 But  if  a  man  be  just,  and  do  that  For  he  seeth  that  wise  men  die.  P3. 
 which    is    lawful  and    right,  .  .  .  hath    xlix.  10. 
 
 walked  in  my  statutes,  and  hath  kept        There  is  a  just  maw  that  perisheth  in 
 my  judgments,  to  deal  truly;  he  ts just,    his  righteousness.    Eccl.  vii.  15. 
 he  shall  surely  live,  saith  the  Lord  God. 
 Ezek.  xviii.  5,  9. 
 
 Whosoever  liveth  and  believeth  in 
 me  shall  never  die.    John  xi.  26. 
 
 The  first  texts  refer  to  spiritual  or  eternal  life ;  the  last  to 
 mere  j^hysical  or  temj^oral  death,  wliich  all  alike,  good  and  bad, 
 undergo. 
 
 Menasseh  ben  Israel  ^  has  this  suggestion :  "  Divine  justice 
 sometimes  chastises  the  righteous  in  this  world  for  some  sin, 
 that  he  may  receive  the  full  reward  of  his  good  actions  in  the 
 next ;  and  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  is  sometimes  delayed 
 to  pay  him  for  some  good  he  may  have  done  in  this,  and  to 
 punish  him  fully  in  the  other  when  the  balance  is  adjusted." 
 
 Will  be  persecuted.  Not  persecuted. 
 
 All  that  will    live  godly  in  Christ  When  a  man's  ways  please  the  Lord, 
 
 Jesus  shall  sulTer  persecution.    2  Tim.  he  maketh  even  his  enemies  to  be  at 
 
 iii.  12.  peace  with  him.    I'rov.  xvi.  7. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller^:  "The  truth  seems  to  be  that  neither  of  the 
 above  passages  is  to  be  taken  universally.     The  peace  possessed 
 
 1  Conciliator,  ii.  214.  2  Works,  i.  683. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  179 
 
 by  those  who  please  God  does  not  extend  so  far  as  to  exempt 
 
 them  from  having  enemies ;  and,  though  all  godly  men  must 
 
 in  some  form  or  other  be  persecuted,  yet  none  are  persecuted 
 
 at  all  times.     God  has  always  given  his  people  some  seasons 
 
 of  rest.     The  former  of  these  passages  may  therefore  refer  to 
 
 the  native  enmity  which  true  godliness  is  certain  to  excite ;  and 
 
 the  latter  to  the  divine  control  over  it.     Man's  wrath  shall  be 
 
 let  loose  ui  a  degree  ;  but  farther  than  what  is  necessary  for 
 
 the  praise  of  God  it  shall  not  go." 
 
 Handled  roughly.  Not  touched. 
 
 And  the  Lord  said,  Simon,  Simon,  He  that  is  begotten  of  God,  keepeth 
 
 behold,  Satan  hath  desired  to  have  you,  himself,  and  that  wicked  one  toucheth 
 
 that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat.    Luke  him  not.    IJohn  v.  18. 
 xxii.  31. 
 
 The  fii'st  text  does  not  say  that  Satan  actually  gained  posses- 
 sion of  Peter,  but  merely  that  he  "  desired "  to  do  so ;  the 
 second  avers  that  the  "  wicked  one  "  does  not  inflict  any  per- 
 manent injury  upon  the  believer. 
 
 Christian  yoke,  easy.  Burdensome. 
 
 Come  unto  me,  all  i/e  that  labour,  and       In  the  world  ye  shall  have  tribulation, 
 are  heavy  laden,  and  1  will  give  you    John  xvi.  33. 
 
 rest.    For  my  yoke  is  easy,   and  my        For  whom  the  Lord  loveth  he  chast- 
 burden  is  light.    Matt.  xi.  28,  30.  eneth,  and  scourgeth  every  son  whom 
 
 he  receiveth.  But  if  ye  be  without 
 chastisement,  whereof  all  are  partakers, 
 then  are  ye  bastards,  and  not  sous. 
 Heb.  xii.  6,  8. 
 
 In  certain  important  aspects  or  relations,  the  yoke  of  Christ 
 is  "  easy."  Christianity,  being  a  spiritual  religion,  is  far  less 
 burdensome  than  are  false  religions ;  it  imposes  much  fewer 
 ceremonies  and  observances  than  do  they.  It  is  also  congruous 
 with  man's  reason,  conscience,  and  all  his  nobler  instincts,  and 
 satisfies  the  needs  and  aspirations  of  his  higher  spiritual  nature. 
 The  Christian  life  is  the  normal  life  of  man. 
 
 Looking  from  another  point  of  view,  the  Christian's  yoke 
 may  be  deemed  "  burdensome."  For  Christianity,  being  a  pure 
 religion,  comes  in  direct  collision  with  the  deep  sinfulness  of 
 the  human  heart ;  it  is  in  intense  antagonism  with  everything 
 corrupt  and  evil.  Ilence  the  Christian  must  ''crucify  the 
 flesh  "  with  the  passions  and  lusts,  and  in  so  doing  must  pass 
 through  many  a  sore  trial  and  conflict. 
 
180  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Wicked,  —  earthly  lot. 
 
 Longevity  ascribed  to  them.  Denied  to  them. 
 
 Wherefore  do  the  wicked  live,  be-  They  die  in  youth,  and  their  life  is 
 
 come  old,  yea,  are  mighty  in  power?  among  the  unclean.    Job  xxxvi.  14. 
 
 Their  seed  is  established  in  their  sight  Bloody  and  deceitful  men  shall  not 
 
 with  them,  and  their  offspring  before  live  out  half  their  days.     Ps.  Iv.  23. 
 
 their  eyes.    Job  xxi.  7,  8.  The    years  of  the    wicked    shall    be 
 
 Though  a  sinner  do  evil  a  hundred  shortened.     Prov.  x.  27. 
 
 times,  and  his  days  be  prolonged.  Eccl.  But  it  shall    not  be  well  with  the 
 
 viii.  12.  wicked,   neither  shall  he  prolong  his 
 
 The  sinner  being  a  hundred  years  old  days,  ichich  are  as  a  shadow.    Eccl. 
 
 shall  be  accursed.    Isa.  Ixv.  20.  viii.  13. 
 
 The  affirmative  texts  do  not  assert  that  all  the  wicked  live 
 to  old  age.  As  to  the  first  citation,  Zophar  had  just  asserted 
 that  the  "  portion  "  of  a  wicked  man  is,  to  be  cut  off  in  a 
 moment.  Job,  in  reply,  denies  the  universality  of  this  prin- 
 ciple, and  says  that  some  of  the  wicked  do  live,  become  old,  and 
 mighty  in  power.  Yet  he  evidently  regards  these  as  excep- 
 tional cases :  for  he  adds :  "  How  oft  is  the  candle  of  the  wicked 
 put  out !  and  how  oft  cometh  their  destruction  upon  them ! " 
 
 The  two  next  quotations  do  not  assert  the  longevity  of 
 sinners,  but  are  purely  hypothetical. 
 
 The  four  opposed  texts  assert  the  general  principle  that  the 
 tendency  of  vice  is  to  shorten  human  life.  Of  this  the  statistics 
 of  intemperance,  licentiousness,  and  crime  in  general  afford 
 gi'im  and  appalling  proof.  The  sense  of  the  combined^  texts  is, 
 that  many  of  the  wicked  perish  early  through  their  sins,  but 
 that  some,  in  exceptional  cases,  live  on  to  old  age. 
 
 They  prosper.  Will  not  prosper. 
 
 The  tabernacles  of  robbers  prosper,  Evil  shall  slay  the  wicked  and  they 
 and  they  that  provoke  God  are  secure,  that  hate  the  righteous  shall  be  deso- 
 Job  xii.  6.  late.     Ps.  xxxiv.  21. 
 
 Men  of  the  world,  tvkich  have  their       Evil  pursueth  sinners.    Prov.  xiii.  21. 
 portion-  in   this  life,  and  whose  belly 
 thou  finest  with  thy  hid  treasure.    Ps. 
 xvii.  14. 
 
 Their  eyes  stand  out  with  fatness: 
 they  have  more  than  heart  could  wish. 
 I'.ehold,  these  are  the  ungodly,  who 
 prosper  in  the  world;  they  increase  in 
 riches.     Ps.  Ixxiii.  7,  12. 
 
 Wherefore  doth  the  way  of  the  wick- 
 ed pjosper?  toherefore  are  all  they 
 hapjjy  that  deal  very  treacherously? 
 Jer.  xii.  1. 
 
 The  first  five  texts  refer  to  the  temporary  prosperity  which 
 the  wicked  not  infrequently  enjoy.     The  transitory  nature  of 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  181 
 
 this  prosperity  was  not  comprehended  by  the  Psalmist,  until  he 
 went  into  the  sanctuary  of  God ;  then  he  understood  the  end 
 of  the  wicked,  that  they  were  "  set  in  slippery  places."  ^ 
 
 Menasseh  ben  Israel :  "  God  sometimes  delays  the  punish- 
 ment of  the  wicked,  either  that  they  may  repent,  or  to  reward 
 them  in  this  life  for  some  good  action  they  may  have  per- 
 formed, or  for  some  secret  reason  known  only  to  his  consum- 
 mate wisdom." 
 
 The  last  two  texts  do  not  assert  that  evil  pursueth  and  shall 
 
 slay  the  wicked  without  a  moment's  delay,  but  merely  that  this 
 
 will  ultimately  be  the  case. 
 
 See  the  Divine  glory.  Will  not  see  it. 
 
 And  the  glory  of  the  Lord  shall  be  In  the  land  of  uprightness  will   he 
 
 revealed,  t>nd  all  flesh  shall  see  it  to-  deal  unjustly,  and  will  not  behold  the 
 
 gether.    Isa.  xl.  5.  majesty  of  the  Lord.   Isa.  xxvi.lO. 
 
 The  wicked  will  not  voluntarily  recognize  the  "  majesty  "  — 
 the  sovereignty  and  glory  —  of  the  Lord ;  but  he  will  eventu- 
 ally be  compelled  to  see  and  acknowledge  it,  as  displayed  in 
 the  final  reward  of  virtue  and  punishment  of  vice,  at  the  last 
 great  day. 
 
 Sin  with  impunity.  Promptly  punished. 
 
 Their   houses    are    safe   from   fear,       The  worm  shall  feed  sweetly  on  him ; 
 
 neitheris  the  rod  of  God  upon  them he  shall  be  no  more  remembered;  and 
 
 Therefore  they  say  unto  God,  Depart  wickedness  shall  be  broken  as  a  tree. .. . 
 from  us;  for  we  desire  not  the  knowl-  They  are  exalted  for  a  little  while,  but 
 edge  of  thy  ways.    Job  xxi.  9, 14.  are  gone  and  brought  low;   they  are 
 
 taken  out  of  the  way  as  all  other,  and 
 cut  off  as  the  tops  of  the  ears  of  corn. 
 Job  xxiv.  20,  24. 
 
 Theodore  Parker^  deems  it  an  evidence  of  the  "exquisite 
 art "  and  "  naturalness  "  with  which  the  book  was  written,  that 
 Job,  in  his  distraction,  is  represented  as  affirming  and  denying 
 a  thing  almost  in  the  same  breath. 
 
 A  better  explanation  of  passages  like  the  above  is,  that  in 
 relation  to  our  limited  wisdom  and  impatient  feelings,  —  as  we 
 often  look  at  matters  —  the  wicked  are  not  punished  promptly, 
 but  sin  with  impunity ;  while  upon  a  comprehensive  and  im- 
 partial view  of  the  case  —  as  infinite  wisdom  sees  it  —  they  are 
 punished  promptly,  that  is,  at  exactly  the  right  time. 
 
 1  See  Ps.  Ixxiii.  16-18.  ^  Translation  of  De  Wette,  ii.  557. 
 
 16 
 
182  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Their  punishment  denied..  Affirmed. 
 
 Behold,  as  wild  asses  in  the  desert,        This  is  the  portion  of  a  wicked  man 
 
 go  tliey  forth  to  their  work;  rising  be-  with  (Jod,  and  tlie  heritage  of  oppress- 
 times  for  a  prey :  the  wilderness  yield-  ors,  v-liich  they  shall  receive  of  the 
 e//«  food  for  them  a?u/ for //if  ir  children.     Almighty.    If  his  children   be  multi- 
 
 They  reap  eotrii  one  his  corn  in  the  plied,  i/  is  for  the  sword:  and  his  off- 
 field.  . . .  Men  groan  from  out  of  the  city,  spring  shall  not  bo  satisfied  with  bread, 
 and  the  soul  of  tha  wounded  crieth  .  .  .  For  Hod  shall  cast  upon  him,  and 
 out:  yet  Uod  layeth  not  folly  to  them,  not  spare:  he  would  fain  flee  out  of  his 
 Job  xxiv.  5,  6,  12.  hand.    Job  xxvii.  13,  14,  22. 
 
 Hirzel :  ^  "  While  Job's  opponents  wished  to  prove  this 
 proposition  against  him,  that '  the  transgressor  did  not  escape 
 jDunishment  in  his  life,'  and  charged  it  upon  Job  himself  that, 
 since  every  transgressor  was  niiserable,  therefore  every  miserable 
 man  was  a  transgressor;  to  parry  this  argument  Job  had 
 hitherto,  though  against  his  better  judgment,  denied  the  entire 
 proposition ;  and,  since  his  opponents  had  laid  it  down  as  a 
 l^ermanent  and  universal  rule,  he  had  confirmed  this  denial  by 
 adducing  numerous  examples  where  the  contrary  was  true. 
 But  now  he  goes  on  to  explain  the  matter  to  his  friends,  and 
 admits  that  they  have  rightly  apprehended  the  law  by  which 
 the  transgressor's  lot  is  determined."  Yet,  while  making  this 
 concession,  he  points  out  an  error  into  which  they  have  fallen 
 in  applying  the  principle.  This  explanation  relieves  the  diffi- 
 culty by  referring  the  "  apparent  contradiction  "  to  the  different 
 relations  in  which  Job  speaks. 
 
 Nor,  on  the  hypothesis  that  Job  was  not  inspired  as  a  re- 
 ligious teacher,  is  it  of  the  slightest  consequence  whether  or 
 not  we  can  establish  the  concinnity  of  all  his  utterances. 
 
 Retribution  on  Earth. 
 
 Reward  and  punishment  here.  Hereafter. 
 
 Behold,  the  righteous  shall  be  recom-  For  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 
 pensed  in  the  earth:  much  more  the  theg'ory  of  his  Father,  with  his  angels; 
 wicked  and  the  sinner.    Trov.  xi.  31.        and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man 
 
 according  to  his  works.  Matt.  xvi.  27. 
 And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great, 
 stand  before  (iod;  and  the  books  were 
 opened :  and  another  book  was  ojjencd, 
 W'hich  is  the  booh  of  life:  and  the  dead 
 were  judged  out  of  those  things  which 
 were  written  in  the  books,  according  to 
 their  works.    Kev.  xx.  12. 
 
 It  is  not  asserted,  in  the  first  text,  that  either  the  righteous 
 »  Quoted  by  DeWctte,  ii.  561. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  183 
 
 or  wicked  receive  full  recompense  in  this  world.  The  meaning, 
 doubtless,  is  that  the  beginnings  of  retribution  are  seen  here  on 
 the  earth.  Stuart :  "  The  same  retributive  government  which 
 begins  to  assert  its  power  in  this  world,  will  continue  its 
 processes  in  the  world  to  come  ' 
 
 Melancthon,  BishojD  Hal],  Edwards,  Lange,  and  other  critics 
 take  the  word  "  recompensed"  as  referring  exclusively  to  the 
 punishment  of  wrong-doing.  Hence,  the  sentiment  is,  '•  If  the 
 righteous  in  this  world  suffer  chastisement  for  their  misdeeds, 
 much  more  surely  shall  the  impenitent  be  punished  for  their 
 wilful  transoTession."  That  is,  the  arsaiment  is  derived  from 
 the  corrective  discipline  experienced  by  good  men  on  earth  in 
 favor  of  the  just  retribution  which  shall  be  meted  out  hereafter 
 to  the  incorrigible  sinner.  In  no  aspect  is  it  afiirmed  that  full 
 and  final  retribution  is  administered  in  this  world. 
 
 VI.    MAN,  in  relation  to  the  Future,— Death, 
 
 Men  must  die.  Some  will  not  die. 
 
 So  death  passed  upon  all  men,  for        If  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall 
 that  all  have  sinned.    Rom.  v.  12.  never  see  death.    John  viii.  51. 
 
 And  as  it  is  appointed  unto  men  once        And  whosoever  liveth  and  believeth 
 to  die.    Heb.  ix.  27.  In  me  shall  never  die.    John  xi.  26. 
 
 We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall 
 all  be  changed     1  Cor.  xv.  51. 
 
 We  which  are  alive  and  remain  unto 
 the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  pre- 
 vent them  which  are  asleep.  .  .  .  The 
 dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  tirst.  Then 
 we  which  are  alive  a??f/  remain  shall  be 
 caught  up  together  with  them  in  the 
 clouds,  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air. 
 1  Thess.  iv.  15, 16,  17. 
 
 He  that  overcometh  shall  not  be  hurt 
 of  the  second  death.    Eev.  ii.  11. 
 
 The  two  texts  from  John  refer  not  to  physical  but  to  spiritual 
 death.  The  Pauline  quotations  contemplate  the  righteous  who 
 shall  be  living  on  the  earth  at  the  time  of  Clu^ist's  second  coming. 
 These  will  not  indeed  literally  "  die,"  but  will  be  "  changed "  ; 
 that  is,  undergo  a  transformation  equivalent  to  death,  putting 
 off  mortality  and  putting  on  immortality.  All  will  experience 
 either  death,  or  what  is  tantamount  to  it.  As  Alford  says: 
 "  The  sleep  of  death  cannot  be  predicated  of  all  of  us,  but  the 
 resurrection-change  ca/i." 
 
184  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Rev.  ii.  11  also  denotes  not  physical  death,  but  the  final 
 punishment  of  the  incorrigibly  wicked.  It  is  fitly  termed 
 *  death,"  as  being  an  eternal  separation  from  hojDe  and  happiness, 
 and  an  exclusion  from  all  which  is  worthy  of  the  name  "  life." 
 
 Lazarvs  not  to  die.  He  did  die. 
 
 Therefore  his  sisters  sent  unto  him,  Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  plainly, 
 saying.  Lord,  behold,  he  whom  thou  Lazarus  is  dead.  And  I  am  glad  for 
 lovest  is  sick.  When  Jesus  heard  that,  your  sakes  that  I  was  not  there,  to  the 
 he  said,  This  sickness  is  not  unto  death,  intent  ye  may  believe.  John  xi.  14,  15. 
 but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that  the  Son 
 of  God  might  be  glorified  thereby.  John 
 xi.  3,  4. 
 
 "  This  sickness  is  not  unto  death  " ;  that  is,  the  ultimate  result 
 will  not  be  "  death,"  but  *•'  the  glory  of  God."  And  so  it  proved, 
 for  many  of  the  Jews  who  witnessed  the  raising  of  Lazarus 
 from  the  dead,  believed  on  the  Son  of  God.'  Thus  the  Father 
 was  glorified  in  the  Son. 
 
 3fan  dies  like  a  beast.  His  death  different. 
 
 For  that  which  befalleth  the  sons  of       Then  shall  the  dust   return  to  the 
 men  befalleth  beasts;  even  one  thing    earth  as  it  was :  and  the  spirit  shall  re- 
 befalhth  them :    as  the  one  dieth,  so    turn  unto  God  who  gave  it.  Eccl.  xii.  7. 
 dieth  the  other;  yea,  they  have  all  one 
 breath;  so  that  a  man  "hath  no  pre- 
 eminence above  a  beast.    Eccl.  iii.  19. 
 
 In  one  aspect  of  the  case,  there  is  no  distinction  between  the 
 death  of  man  and  that  of  beasts.  Both  are  uncertain  as  to  the 
 time  of  it ;  both  are  j^owerless  to  prevent  it ;  the  physical  phe- 
 nomena, in  each  case,  are  much  the  same.  In  these  respects 
 there  is  a  very  close  resemblance,  and  this  may  be  the  relation 
 of  which  the  author  is  speaking. 
 
 Or,  with  many  commentators,  we  may  say  that  Solomon 
 raises  and  answers  objections,  as  Paul  does  so  often.  Thus 
 the  passage  in  question  (Eccl.  iii.  18-20),  beginning  "I  said 
 in  mine  heart,"  etc.,  may  be  merely  an  objection  which,  being 
 suggested  to  the  mind  of  Solomon,  he  proceeds  to  discuss  and 
 solve.  Dr.  Davidson  ^  thinks  that  the  author  brings  before 
 his  readers  doubts  suggested  by  observation  and  reflection,  or 
 in  some  cases  presented  to  him  by  others.  Prof.  Stuart :  When 
 we  view  the  author  in  the  light  of  proposing  the  doubts  and 
 
 ^  Compare  John  xi.  45.  2  introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  385. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  185 
 
 difficulties  which  perplexed  his  own  mind,  and  sooner  or  later 
 as  solving  them,  then  we  meet  with  no  serious  embarrassment 
 in  interpreting  the  book. 
 
 Prof.  Tayler  Lewis,  in  Lange,  takes  the  words,  "  I  said  in 
 mine  heart  concerning,"  etc.,  as  equivalent  to,  ''  I  deduced  tliis 
 inference  from  men's  lives,  I  put  this  interpretation  upon  their 
 conduct,  that,  in  their  own  view,  they  are  beasts."  It  is  man's 
 judgment  upon  himself,  as  pronounced  by  his  own  conduct.  It 
 is  the  language  of  his  life. 
 
 A  terribly  severe,  but  no  less  just,  estimate  of  man,  from  a 
 point  of  view  apparently  identical  with  his  own. 
 
 Death  ceases.  Still  exists. 
 
 Jesus    Christ,    who   hath    abolished       Tt  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die. 
 death,  and  hath  brought  life  and  im-    Heb.  ix.  27. 
 mortality  to  light  through  the  gospel. 
 2  Tim.  i.  10. 
 
 "  Hath  abolished  death  " ;  hath  taken  away  its  sting  and  terror, 
 so  that  it  is  no  longer  death,  a  grim  and  terrible  monster,  but 
 a  kind  angel  come  to  conduct  the  believer  home  to  heaven. 
 Alf  ord :  "  By  the  death  of  Christ,  death  has  lost  his  sting ;  and 
 is  henceforth  of  no  more  account;  consequently  the  act  of 
 natural  death  is  evermore  treated  by  the  Lord  himself  and  his 
 apostles  as  of  no  account;  and  its  actual  and  total  abolition 
 foretold." 
 
 Men,  immortal.  God  only,  immortal. 
 
 Be  not  afraid  of  them  that  kiU  the  TheKingof  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords, 
 
 body,  and  after  that  have  no  more  that  Who  only  hath  immortality.    1  Tim. 
 
 they  can  do.    Luke  xii.  4.  vi.  15, 16. 
 
 The  first  text  is  a  strong  incidental  proof  that  the  soul  is 
 "  immortal,"  since  it  does  not  die  with  the  body.  It  is  beyond 
 the  power  of  the  persecutor.  When  he  has  killed  the  body  his 
 fury  has  expended  itself ;  he  can  do  no  more  ;  he  cannot  reach 
 or  harm  the  soul.  The  survival  of  the  soul  is  thus  plainly 
 implied  and  assumed  by  our  Lord. 
 
 The  second  text  is  interpreted  by  "  mortal-soulists,"  ^  as  deny- 
 
 ^  "We  use  this  term,  instead  of  "  Thnetopsychites,"  the  name  employed 
 bv  John  Damascenus  (see  Hagenbach's  History  of  Doctrines,  i.  221),  to 
 16* 
 
186  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 ing  immortality  to  all  beings  except  God.  Hence  it  would  follow 
 that  the  angels,  —  Gabriel,  and  Michael  the  archangel  even,  — 
 are  mortal !  And  if,  as  Alford  thinks,  the  above  text  refers  to 
 the  Father  exclusively,  it  would  also  follow  that  the  Lord 
 Jesus  himself  is  mortal ! ! 
 
 By  parity  of  reasoning  the  language  employed  in  Rom.  xvi. 
 27,  "  God  only  wise,"  warrants  the  inference  that  God  is  the 
 only  being  who  possesses  wisdom  ! 
 
 The  meaning  in  both  cases  obviously  is  that  only  God  pos- 
 sesses the  given  attribute,  inherently  and  underivedly.  Justin 
 Martyr :  "  He  has  not  this  through  the  will  of  another,  as  all 
 the  other  immortals,  but  through  his  own  essence."  Theodoret : 
 "  Immortal  by  essence,  not  by  participation." 
 
 Upon  no  reasonable  interpretation  does  the  j^assage  collide 
 with  the  derived  and  dependent  immortality  of  man. 
 
 Men  Icill  the  soul.  Cannot  Mil  it. 
 
 Joshua  took  Makkedah,  and  smote  it  And  fear  not  them  which  kill  the 
 with  the  edjce  of  the  sword,  and  the  body,  but  are  not  able  to  kill  the  soul: 
 kingthereof  he  utterly  destroyed,  them,  but  rather  fear  him  which  is  able  to 
 and  all  the  souls  that  were  therein,  destroy  both  soul  and  body  in  hell. 
 Josh.  X.  28.  Matt.  X.  28. 
 
 And  they  smote  all  the  souls  that 
 tcere  therein  with  the  edge  of  the  sword, 
 utterly  destroying  them:  there  was  not 
 any  left  to  breathe.    Josh.  xi.  11. 
 
 It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  allude  to  the  fact  that  our  word 
 "  soul "  is  used  in  two  entirely  distinct  senses.  Thus  we  say, 
 "The  soul  is  immortal,"  and,  alluding  to  a  marine  disaster, 
 "  Every  soul  perished."  In  the  latter  case,  "  soul "  is  synony- 
 mous with  "person."  This  secondary  meaning  of  the  word 
 may  have  arisen  from  the  fact  that  it  is  the  soul  of  man  which 
 gives  him  jDersonality.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  most  orthodox 
 theologians  employ  the  term  in  these  widely  different  senses. 
 
 designate  those  who  deny  the  natural  immortality  of  the  soul  or  spirit  of 
 man.  The  term  may  be  extended  to  include  also  the  denial  of  conscious- 
 ness to  the  soul  in  the  interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection.  Ap- 
 parently the  first  attempt  to  introduce  Thnetopsycliism  into  the  Christian 
 church  was  made,  a,d.  248,  by  certain  errorists  from  Arabia.  Compare 
 Eusebius's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Book  vi.,  chap,  xxxvii. ;  and  Guericke's 
 Ancient  Church,  p.  228. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  187 
 
 The  corresponding  Hebrew  and  Greek  terms  are  used  with 
 similar  latitude.  Thus,  according  to  Fuerst,  the  Hebrew  word 
 "  nephesh  "  sometimes  means  the  soul  or  spirit ;  in  other  cases, 
 an  individual,  a  person,  man.  Gesenius  says,  spirit,  soul,mind; 
 also  a  man,  person. 
 
 In  view  of  tliis  fact,  when  one  text  asserts  that  Joshua  "  slew 
 all  the  souls  "  in  a  city,  and  another  affirms  that  man  is  "  not 
 able  to  kill  the  soul,"  we  see  that  here  is  no  discrepancy.  The 
 term  "soul,"  in  one  case,  refers  to  man  in  his  earthly  make-up, 
 as  we  see  him ;  in  the  other,  to  the  deathless  intelligence  which 
 survives  the  dissolution  of  its  tabernacle,  the  body. 
 
 If,  as  mortal-soulists  assert,  the  soul  actually  dies  with  the 
 
 body,  then  he  who  "  kills  "  the  latter,  in  that  very  act  kills  the 
 
 former  also.     If  the  Siamese  twins  are  so  connected  that  the 
 
 death  of  one  involves  that  of  the  other,  then  the  murderer  who 
 
 kills  Chang,  by  that  very  stroke  kills  Eng  likewise.     That  is, 
 
 according  to  the  theory  we  are  criticising,  man  is  as  really  "  able 
 
 to  kill  the  soul "  as  God  is. 
 
 Immortality  possessed.  To  be  acquired. 
 
 I  will  forewarn  you  whom  ye  shall  Who  by  patient  continuance  in  well 
 
 fear:  Fear  him,  which  after  he  hath  doing  seek  for  glory  and  honor  and 
 
 killed,  hath   power  to  cast  into  hell;  immortality.    Rom  ii.  7. 
 yea,  I  say  unto  you,  Fear  him.    Luke 
 xii.  5. 
 
 The  first  passage  implies  that  there  is  an  intelligence,  a  spirit, 
 in  man,  which  outlives  and  is  not  affected  by  the  dissolution  of 
 the  body.  Hence  God,  after  he  has  killed  the  body,  may  cast 
 the  soul  into  hell.  It  is  the  immortal  part  which  survives  to 
 be  thus  disposed  of. 
 
 As  to  Rom.  ii.  7,  a  favorite  inference  of  mortal-soulists  is 
 this  :  "  Since  man  is  here  spoken  of  as  seeking  '  immortality,'  it 
 follows  that  he  does  not  possess  it  by  nature."  To  this  charac- 
 teristic sophism,  it  is  sufficient  to  reply  that,  as  every  scholar  is 
 aware,  the  Greek  word  used  here  is  not  "  athanasia,"  immor- 
 tality, but  "  aphtharsia,"  incorruption}  and  points  to  that 
 exemption  from  moral  corruption  which  the  saints  are  "seeking" 
 
 ^  See  Eph.  vi.  24,  where  the  same  word  is  translated  "  sincerity." 
 
188  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 here,  and  which  they  will  fully  attain  in  heaven.     The  passage 
 does  not  touch  the  question  of  man's  immortality  at  all. 
 
 Intermediate  State, 
 
 Dead  unconscious.  Conscious. 
 
 His    sons    come   to   honor,  and   he  But  his  flesh  upon  him  shall  have 
 
 knoweth  i<  not;  and  they  are  brought  pain,  and  his  soul  within  him  shall 
 
 low,  but  he  perceiveth  it  not  of  them,  mourn.    Job  xiv.  22. 
 
 Jobxiv.  21.  The  rich    man    also  died,   and  was 
 
 Whatsoever  thy  hand  findeth  to  do,  buried.     And  in  hell  he  lifted  u^  his 
 
 do  i7  with  thy  might;  for  there  is  no  eyes,  being  in  torments.    Luke  xvi.  22, 
 
 work,  nor  device,  nor  knowledge,  nor  23. 
 wisdom,  in   the  grave,  whither  thou 
 goest.    Eccl.  ix.  10. 
 
 As  preliminary  to  the  discussion,  we  repeat  that  there  is  no 
 proof  that  Job  or  any  of  his  friends  were  inspired — divinely 
 commissioned  as  religious  teachers.^ 
 
 Moreover,  the  ideas  of  the  ancients,  particularly  in  that  early 
 age  in  which  Job  lived,  were  very  vague  and  obscure  respecting 
 the  future  state.  "  Life  and  immortality  "  were  not  "  brought 
 to  light "  till  Christ  came. 
 
 Whately,  following  Warburton,  says  :  "  To  the  Israelites  of 
 old  Moses  had  no  commission  to  hold  out  the  hopes  and  fears 
 of  another  world,  but  only  a  '  land  flowing  with  milk  and 
 honey,'  and  long  life,  and  victory,  and  other  temporal  rewards. 
 But  the  *  bringing  in  of  a  better  hope '  by  the  gospel  taught 
 the  Christian  to  '  set  his  affection  on  things  above,  not  on  things 
 on  the  earth,'  and  to  look  for  a  heavenly  Canaan,  a  land 
 of  promise  beyond  the  grave.  God's  kingdom  of  old  was  a 
 kingdom  of  this  world ;  but  Christ's  kingdom  is  '  not  of  this 
 world.' "  ^ 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  ^  thus  sets  forth  the  Hebrew  view  of  the  con- 
 
 ^  Professor  Stuart,  speaking  of  the  irrelevant  appeals  which  are  made 
 to  the  Old  Testament,  both  in  and  out  of  the  pulpit,  and  the  unsuitable 
 quotations  made  from  it,  observes :  "  Books  of  such  a  peculiar  nature  as 
 Job  and  Ecclesiastes,  for  example,  are  resorted  to  with  as  much  confidence 
 for  proof -texts,  as  if  they  were  all  preceptive,  and  not  an  account  of  dis- 
 putes and  doubts  about  religious  matters."  —  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon, 
 p.  409  (Revised  edition,  p.  382). 
 
 -  Future  State,  p.  150. 
 
 « Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  290. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES.  189 
 
 dition  of  the  dead  in  "  sheol,"  the  place  of  departed  spirits : 
 "  Their  time  is  passed  in  a  kind  of  sleep,  whence  they  are  only- 
 roused  by  some  uncommon  occurrence.  Thus  they  are  repre- 
 sented as  shut  up  in  a  land  of  f orgetfulness  —  dreamy  shades 
 almost  destitute  of  consciousness." 
 
 Dr.  Jahn,  in  his  Biblical  Archaeology/  gives,  as  will  be  seen 
 subsequently,  a  more  attractive  view  than  the  foregoing  ration- 
 alistic one  of  Dr.  Davidson.  However,  in  the  most  favorable 
 aspect  of  the  case,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  notions  of  the 
 ancient  Israelites  respecting  the  future  life  were  not  seldom 
 quite  obscure  and  indefinite.  Nor  is  this  strange ;  for  revela- 
 tion is  progressive.  There  is  an  onward  march  of  doctrine  in 
 the  Bible,  from  its  beginning  to  its  close.  The  great  truths  of 
 the  Divinity  of  the  Messiah,  the  atonement,  justification  by 
 faith,  and  human  immortality,  were  imperfectly  revealed  and 
 crudely  held  in  patriarchal  times.  Hengstenberg :  '*  As  far  as 
 the  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  attained  in  their  knowledge, 
 they  were  quite  right ;  they  were  only  excluded  from  farther 
 light.  But  it  is  error  alone  which  inspiration  excludes,  not  the 
 defect  and  imperfection  of  knowledge." 
 
 Those  early  times  were  the  dim  dawn  of  revelation ;  our  age 
 beholds  the  full  radiance  of  the  gos23el  sun  at  his  meridian 
 height.  This  consideration  explains  the  apparent  disagreement 
 between  the  New  Testament  and  the  Old  in  regard  to  the 
 intermediate  state. 
 
 Just  here  the  reader  will  observe  that  nearly  all  of  the  texts 
 adduced  by  mortal-soulists  to  prove  the  unconsciousness  of 
 the  dead,  are  taken  from  the  Old  Testament,  and  particularly 
 from  its  poetical  books.  Now,  to  go  back  from  noonday  to 
 twilight  in  search  of  our  eschatology,  —  to  ignore  the  plain  and 
 clear  teachings  of  the  New  Testament,  and  adopt  as  a  basis 
 of  doctrine  the  poetic  utterances  of  a  preliminary,  rudimental, 
 far  less  spiritual  dispensation,  —  does  not  indicate  the  highest 
 wisdom  on  the  part  of  those  who  pursue  this  course.     Yet  this 
 
 1  Section  314. 
 
190  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 is  the  policy  adopted  by  the  mortal-soulists  in  advocating  their 
 theory. 
 
 But  let  us  examine  the  foregoing  texts. 
 
 Job  xiv.  21  simj^ly  refers  to  man  in  his  relation  to  the 
 present  life,  and  asserts  that  at  death  he  is  entirely  dissociated 
 from  the  things  of  earth;  he  has  no  more  connection  with 
 them.  But  the  very  next  verse  shows  that  consciousness  is  not 
 denied  to  the  dead. 
 
 As  to  the  next  citation,  Stuart  and  Hengstenberg  take  it  as 
 the  statement  of  an  objection  which  is  afterwards  refuted. 
 The  latter  says :  "  The  manner  of  the  scriptures  is  to  let  doubts 
 and  murmurings  have  free  and  full  expression,  and  then  to 
 vanquish  them  in  open  conflict  with  the  sword  of  faith." 
 
 Job  xiv.  22  is  rendered  by  Delitzsch :  "  Only  on  his  own 
 account  his  flesh  suffereth  pain,  and  on  his  own  account  is  his 
 soul  conscious  of  grief."  Similarly  Eichhorn,  Noyes,  Barnes, 
 and  Conant.  Hofmann :  "  The  pain  of  his  own  flesh,  the  sad- 
 ness of  his  own  soul  alone  engage  him.  lie  has  therefore  no 
 room  for  rejoicing,  nor  does  the  joyous  or  sorrowful  estate  of 
 others,  though  his  nearest  ones,  affect  him." 
 
 As  to  the  text  from  Luke,  if  it  be  a  parable,  we  may  then 
 say,  with  Bishop  Bull,  "  It  plainly  belongs  to  the  very  scope 
 and  design  of  this  parable  to  show  what  becomes  of  the  souls 
 of  good  and  bad  men  after  death."  If  it  is  not  a  parable  its 
 tenor  cannot  be  a  matter  of  doubt. 
 
 Prof.  Bartlett :  ^  ''  The  question  whether  this  is  a  history  or 
 a  parable  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss.  In  either  mode  the 
 scripture  teaches  truth,  important  and  often  vital  truth.  The 
 chief  difference  is  that  one  mode  asserts  what  has  occurred ; 
 the  other,  '  what  does  occur.' " 
 
 In  any  aspect  Christ  could  not  have  lent  his  sanction  to 
 falsehood  or  imposture.  As  Alford  fitly  remarks,  "  In  con- 
 forming himself  to    the  ordinary  language  current   on    these 
 
 '  Life  and  Death  Eternal,  p.  219. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  191 
 
 subjects,  it  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  he  whose  essence  is 
 truth  could  have  assumed  as  existing  anything  which  does  not 
 exist.  It  would  destroy  the  truth  of  our  Lord's  sayings,  if  we 
 could  conceive  him  to  have  used  popular  language  which  did 
 not  point  at  truth.  And,  accordingly,  where  such  language  was 
 current,  we  find  him  not  adopting,  but  protesting  against  it."  ^ 
 
 Therefore,  with  Alford,  Trench,  "Wordsworth,  and  the  best 
 commentators,  we  take  the  passage  relative  to  the  rich  man 
 and  Lazarus  as  teaching,  at  all  events,  two  things  :  first,  that* 
 the  soul  of  man  is  conscious  after  death  ;  and  secondly,  that, 
 according  to  its  moral  character,  it  goes  either  into  a  place  of 
 happiness  and  repose  or  into  one  of  disquiet  and  misery. 
 These  two  thoughts  not  only  lie  upon  the  surface  of  the  nar- 
 rative ;  but  they  also  constitute  its  very  life  and  essence. 
 
 The  dead,  asleep.  Aioake. 
 
 And  Jeroboam  slept  with  his  fathers,  Hell  from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee 
 
 even  with  the  kings  of  Israel.    2  Kings  to  meet  thee  at  thy  coming:  it  stirreth 
 
 xiv.  29.  up  the  dead  for  thee,  even  all  the  chief 
 
 For  now  should  I  have  lain  still  and  ones  of  the  earth.    Isa.  xiv.  9. 
 
 been  quiet,  I  should  have  slept.    Job  Being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh,  but 
 
 iii.  13.  quickened  by  the  Spirit.      By  which 
 
 Our  friend   Lazarus  sleepeth ;   but  I  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the 
 
 go  that  I  may  awake  him  out  of  sleep,  spirits    in    prison.      Which    sometime 
 
 Tlien  said  his  disciples.    Lord,   if   he  were  disobedient.     1  I'et.  iii.  18-20. 
 
 sleep,  he  shall  do  well.    Howbeit  Jesus  I  saw  under  the  altar  the  souls  of 
 
 spake  of  liis  death :   but  they  thought  them  that  were  slain  for  the  word  of 
 
 that  he  had  spoken  of  taking  of  rest  God,  and  for  the  testimony  which  they 
 
 in  sleep.    Then  said  Jesus  unto  them  held.    And  they  cried  with  aloud  voice, 
 
 plainly,  Lazarus    is    dead.      John  xi.  saying,   liow  long,  O  Lord,  holy  and 
 
 11-14.  true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge 
 
 And  when  he  had  said  this,  he  fell  our  blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the 
 
 asleep.    Acts  vii.  60.  earth?    llev.  vi.  9, 10. 
 
 The  language  which  represents  death  as  a  "  sleep  "  is  figiu-a- 
 tive,  and  is  founded  upon  a  certain  resemblance  of  external 
 phenomena.  But  this  application  of  the  term  does  not  neces- 
 sitate the  unconsciousness  of  the  "  sleeper ; "  for,  as  even 
 Whately  ^  concedes,  '■'  The  mind,  certainly  for  the  most  part, 
 and  probably  always,  continues  active  during  sleep,  though  in  a 
 different  manner."  A  high  authority,  Dunglison's  Medical 
 Dictionary,  defines  "  sleep  "  as  "  temporary  interruption  of  our 
 relations  with  external  objects."     It  is  this  interruj)tion,  with 
 
 ^  See  Matt.  xv.  5,  6.  ^  Future  State,  p.  82. 
 
192  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  attendant  inaction,  the  insensibility  to  external  material 
 objects,  and  the  repose,  which  makes  sleep  the  "  image  of 
 death."  In  neither  case  have  we  proof  that  the  mind  ceases  to 
 act,  becomes  unconscious,  or  extinct. 
 
 The  citation  from  Isaiah  represents  the  dead  as  awake  and 
 conscious.  Delitzsch  :  "All  hades  is  overwhelmed  with  excite- 
 ment and  wonder,  now  that  the  king  of  Babel,  that  invincible 
 ruler  of  the  world,  who,  if  not  unexpected  altogether,  was  not 
 expected  so  soon,  is  actually  approaching." 
 
 On  the  next  quotation  Alford  says  :  "  With  the  great  ma- 
 jority of  commentators,  ancient  and  modern,  I  understand  these 
 words  to  say  that  our  Lord,  in  his  disembodied  state,  did  go  to 
 the  place  of  detention  of  departed  spirits,  and  did  there  announce 
 his  work  of  redemption,  preach  salvation  in  fact,  to  the  dis- 
 embodied spirits  of  those  who  refused  to  obey  the  voice  of 
 God  when  the  judgment  of  the  flood  was  hanging  over  them." 
 
 Prof.  Tayler  Lewis  :  ^  "  We  are  taught  that  there  was  a  work 
 of  Christ  in  hades.  He  descended  into  hades ;  he  makes 
 proclamation  '  ekeruxen '  in  hades  to  those  who  are  there  '  in 
 ward.' "  This  interpretation,  which  was  almost  universally 
 adopted  by  the  early  Christian  church,^  and  which  is  far  more 
 tenable  than  any  other,  involves,  of  course,  the  consciousness  of 
 departed  souls. 
 
 The  text  from  Revelation  is  very  explicit,  representing  the 
 souls  of  those  who  had  suffered  martyrdom,  not  as  insensible, 
 but  as  awake  in  the  place  of  rest. 
 
 >  In  Lange  on  Eccl.,  p.  130.  Compare  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  iv.  708;  xvi.  809; 
 xix.  1. 
 
 2  Professor  Huidekoper:  "In  the  second  and  third  centuries,  every 
 branch  and  division  of  Christians,  so  far  as  their  records  enable  us  to 
 judge,  believed  that  Christ  preached  to  the  departed."  —  Christ's  Mission 
 to  the  Underworld,  pp.  51,  52.  Dietclmair,  in  his  elaborate  "Historia 
 Dogmatis  de  Descensu  Christi  ad  Inferos,"  says  emphatically  that  this 
 doctrine  "  in  omni  coetu  Christiano  creditum."  —  See  chapters  iv.  and  vi., 
 of  that  work. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 193 
 
 Devoid  of  knowledge. 
 
 For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance 
 of  thee:  in  the  grave  who  shall  give 
 thee  thanks?    Ts.  vi.  5. 
 
 The  dead  know  not  any  thing,  neither 
 have  they  any  more  a  reward :  for  the 
 memory  of  them  is  forgotten.  Also 
 their  love,  and  their  hatred,  and  their 
 envy,  is  now  perished;  neither  have 
 they  any  more  a  portion  for  ever  in  any 
 thing  that  is  done  under  the  sun.  Eccl. 
 ix.  5,  6. 
 
 For  the  grave  cannot  praise  thee, 
 death  cannot  celebrate  thee :  they  that 
 go  down  into  the  pit  cannot  hope  for 
 thy  truth.    Isa.  xxxviii.  18. 
 
 Possess  knowledge. 
 
 And  he  said.  For  I  will  go  down  into 
 the  grave  unto  my  son  mourning.  Gen. 
 xxxvii.  35. 
 
 And  Samuel  said  to  Saul,  Why  hast 
 thou  disquieted  me,  to  bring  me  up?  . .  . 
 And  the  Loud  hath  done  to  him,  as  he 
 spake  by  me :  for  tfte  Lord  hath  rent 
 the  kingdom  out  of  thy  hand,  and  given 
 it  to  thy  neighbour,  even  to  David.  . .  . 
 Moreover,  tiie  Loud  will  also  deliver 
 Israel  with  thee  into  the  hand  of  the 
 Philistines:  and  to-morrow  shalf  thou 
 and  thy  sons  be  with  me :  the  Lord  also 
 shall  deliver  the  host  of  Israel  into  the 
 hand  of  the  Philistines.  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
 15,  17,  19. 
 
 But  now  he  is  dead,  wherefore  should 
 I  fast?  can  I  bring  him  back  again?  I 
 shall  go  to  him,  but  he  shall  not  return 
 to  me.    2  Sam.  xii.  23. 
 
 1  pray  thee  therefore,  father,  that 
 thou  wouldest  send  him  to  my  father's 
 house:  For  1  have  five  brethren;  that 
 he  may  testify  unto  them,  lest  they  also 
 come  into  this  place  of  torment.  . . .  Nay, 
 father  Abraham :  but  if  one  went  unto 
 them  from  the  dead,  they  will  repent. 
 Luke  xvi.  27,  28,  30. 
 
 For  for  this  cause  was  the  gospel 
 preached  also  to  them  that  are  dead, 
 that  they  might  be  judged  according  to 
 men  in  the  flesh,  but  live  according  to 
 God  in  the  spirit.    1  Tet.  iv.  6.  ^ 
 
 David's  words  are  highly  poetical  and  figurative,  representing 
 the  dead  as  entirely  separated  from  earthly  scenes,  employments, 
 and  society;  and  especially  as  giving,  so  far  as  visible  and 
 material  things  are  concerned,  no  evidence  of  sensation  or 
 emotion.     They  speak  of  death  in  its  earthly  aspect. 
 
 The  quotation  from  Ecclesiastes,  Hengstenberg  and  Stuart 
 take  as  the  statement  of  an  objection,  with  a  view  to  refute  it. 
 The  bald  literalism  which  mortal-soulists  apply  to  this  passage  is 
 simply  suicidal.  For,  it  is  asserted  of  the  dead,  including  the 
 saint  as  well  as  the  sinner,  and  without  any  qualification, 
 "  Neither  have  they  any  more  a  rewardP  Now  a  literal  exegesis 
 of  this  language  absolutely  cuts  off  Abraham,  Moses,  David, 
 and  all  the  righteous  dead  from  any  future  reward !  We  think 
 the  above-named  theorists  would  be  slow  to  admit  this  logical 
 result  of  their  methods  of  exposition.  Yet  there  is  quite  as 
 much  reason  for  insisting  upon  a  literal  interpretation  of  the 
 words  just  cited,  as  of  the  clause,  "  The  dead  know  not  any  thing." 
 17 
 
194  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 The  true  explanation  of  this  and  kindred  texts  is  the  following: 
 Zockler:  "The  author  now  sees  only  the  conditions  of  this 
 world";  he  speaks  of  man  merely  in  his  relation  to  the  present 
 life.  This  interpretation  agrees  admirably  with  the  closing 
 words,  "  Neither  have  they  any  more  a  portion  forever  in  any 
 thing  that  is  done  under  the  sun."  That  is,  so  far  as  this  world 
 is  concerned,  the  dead  have  no  knowledge,  nor  reward,  nor 
 portion.  They  are  as  completely  severed  from  earthly  affairs, 
 as  if  they  had  passed  into  extinction. 
 
 The  quotation  from  Isaiah,  is  the  language  of  king  Hezekiah 
 of  whose  "  inspiration  "  there  is  no  proof. 
 
 Of  the  affirmative  passages,  the  first  should  be  rendered,  "  I 
 will  go  down  into  sheol  unto  my  son  mourning." 
 
 Prof.  Tayler  Lewis :  ^  "  Jacob  was  going  to  his  son ;  he  was 
 still  his  son ;  there  is  yet  a  tie  between  him  and  his  father ;  he 
 is  still  spoken  of  as  a  personality  ;  he  is  still  regarded  as  having 
 a  being  somehow  and  somewhere."  ...  "It  was  not  to  his  son 
 in  his  grave,  for  Joseph  had  no  grave.  His  body  was  supposed 
 to  be  lying  somewhere  in  the  desert,  or  torn  in  pieces,  or  carried 
 off,  by  the  wild  beasts." 
 
 Herder :  ^  "Abraham  was  gathered  to  his  fathers,^  though  he 
 was  not  buried  with  them,  and  Jacob  wished  to  go  down  to  the 
 realm  of  shades  to  his  beloved  son,  although  he  supposed  him 
 to  have  been  torn  in  pieces  by  wild  beasts."  In  a  word,  Jacob 
 expected,  as  a  disembodied  spirit,  to  meet  and  recognize  the 
 spirit  of  his  son  in  the  underworld.  The  same  idea  pervades 
 David's  words  in  2  Sam.  xii.  concerning  his  child.  As  to  1  Sam. 
 xxviii.,  apparently  the  soul  of  the  proj^het  was  permitted  to 
 return  from  sheol,  and  announce  to  the  terrified  Saul  his  im- 
 
 ^  In  Lanire  on  Genesis,  p.  585. 
 
 -  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry,  i.  179. 
 
 ^  Alji:er,  c'ommentinji:  on  this  expression,  after  citins;  the  cases  of  Abra- 
 ham and  Isaac,  o^'whom  lan_c:uaire  similar  is  ^ased,  adds:  "These  instances 
 ini;i;ht  l)c  multiplied.  They  prove  that  to  be  '  gathered  unto  one's  fathers,' 
 means  to  descend  into  sheol,  and  join  there  the  hosts  of  the  departed."  — 
 Hist,  of  Doct.  of  Put.  Life,  p.  152. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  195 
 
 pending  destruction.  The  reproof  and  the  prediction  are  exactly 
 in  keeping  with  tlie  character  of  Samuel,  and  show  that  he  knew 
 whereof  he  affirmed.  He  had  not,  therefore,  in  death  parted 
 with  bis  knowledge. 
 
 Keil :  "•  The  modern  orthodox  commentators  are  unanimous 
 in  the  opinion  that  the  deceased  jirophet  did  really  appear,  and 
 annoimce  the  destruction  of  Saul,  not,  however,  in  consequence 
 of  the  magical  arts  of  the  witch,  but  through  a  miracle  wrought 
 by  the  omnipotence  of  God."  Lord  Arthur  Hervey  in  Bible 
 Commentary,  and  Archbishop  Trench  in  "  Shipwrecks  of  Faith," 
 concur  in  this  view.  This  is  far  the  most  natural  and  reason- 
 able explanation.  Saul's  sin  of  "  necromancy  "  ^  was  thus  made 
 the  occasion  and  commencement  of  his  punishment. 
 
 We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  narrative  of  Dives  in  Luke 
 xvi.  presupposes  the  retention  of  knowledge  by  departed  souls. 
 
 Alford  interprets  1  Pet.  iv.  6,  of  the  souls  of  the  antediluvians, 
 
 shut  up    in    hades,  to    whom  Christ    made    the    proclamation 
 
 referred  to  in  chapter  iii.  17,  18.     This  interpretation  assumes 
 
 the  possession  of  knowledge  by  disembodied  spirits. 
 
 Exercise  no  mental  powers.  Do  exercise  them. 
 
 Thedeadpraisenot  the  Lord,  neither  Dead  things  are  formed  from  under 
 any  that  go  down  into  silence.  Vs.  cxv.  the  waters,  and  the  inhabitants  thereof, 
 17.  Job  xxvi.  5. 
 
 His  breath  goeth  forth,  he  returneth  Hell  from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee 
 to  his  earth;  in  that  very  day  his  to  meet  ^/(ee  at  thy  coming:  it  stirreth 
 thoughts  perish.    Ps.  cxlvi.  4.  up  the  dead  for  thee.  .  . .  All  they  shall 
 
 speak  and  fay  unto  thee,  Art  thou  also 
 become  weak  as  we?  Art  thou  become 
 like  unto  us.     Isa.  xiv   9  10. 
 
 And  behold,  there  talked  with  him 
 two  men,  which  were  Moses  and  Elias. 
 Who  appeared  in  glory,  and  spake  tf 
 his  decease  which  he  should  accomplish 
 at  Jerusalem.    Luke  ix.  30.  31. 
 
 For  he  is  not  a  God  of  the  dead,  but 
 of  the  living :  for  all  live  unto  him. 
 Luke  XX.  38. 
 
 The  first  passage  is  a  voice  from  out  the  twilight  of  the  Old 
 Dispensation.  Life  and  immortality  not  having  been  fully 
 revealed  as  yet,  the  author  spoke  according  to  his  degree  of 
 knowledge  and  illumination. 
 
 Li  the  second  text,  the  "  thoughts  that  perish  "  are  the  wicked 
 
 1  See  Law  in  Deut.  xviii.  10-12. 
 
196  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 man's  plans  and  purposes  which  come  to  naught  at  his  decease. 
 Hengstenberg :  "  The  thoughts  which  go  to  the  grave  with  the 
 dying  man  are  his  vain  projects."  ^ 
 
 In  the  case  of  the  rich  fool,^  his  "  thoughts "  of  building 
 larger  barns,  and  of  many  years  of  ease  and  prosperity,  —  all  his 
 selfish  and  worldly  schemes,  —  "  perished  "  in  that  same  night. 
 
 Delitzsch  renders  Job  xxvi.  5,  thus  :  "  The  shades  are  put  to 
 pain,  deep  under  the  waters  and  their  inhabitants."  With  this 
 rendering  Barnes,  Conant,  and  Noyes  substantially  agree. 
 
 Isa.  xiv.  9  is  rendered  by  Delitzsch,  "  The  kingdom  of  the 
 dead  below  is  all  in  uproar  on  account  of  thee,  to  meet  thy 
 coming ;  it  stirreth  up  the  shades  for  thee."  Similarly  Hender- 
 son, Noyes,  and  other  critics.  Now  the  Hebrew  term  "  rephaim," 
 rendered  "  dead "  in  our  version  of  the  last  two  texts,  means 
 according  to  the  best  Hebraists,  not  simply  the  dead,  but  "  that 
 part  of  man  which  survives  death."  ^ 
 
 As  to  the  first  text  from  Luke,  all  that  need  be  said  is  this ; 
 Moses  had  been  dead  nearly  fifteen  centuries.  But  the  disciples 
 now  see  and  recognize  him,  and  hear  him  speak.  It  does  not, 
 therefore,  seem  probable  that  Moses  became  extinct  at  death, 
 but  that  his  soul  survived  and  continued  to  exercise  its 
 faculties.  Otherwise,  it  would  seem  that  his  identify  must  have 
 been  lost  at  death  ;  and  that  for  him  —  the  original  self-same 
 Moses  —  there  could  be  no  after  life. 
 
 ^  In  Isa.  Iv.  7,  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man 
 his  thoughts,"  the  term  "  thoughts  "  is  used  in  a  similar  bad  sense.  Accord- 
 ing to  literalistic  principles,  this  passage  amounts  to  an  exhortation  to 
 stop  thinking  ! 
 
 2  See  Luke  xii.  16-20. 
 
 ^  Professor  Conant,  in  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Article  "  Dead,"  says  the  term 
 means  "disembodied  spirits  separated  from  the  body  at  death,  and  con- 
 tinuing to  live  in  a  separate  existence."  Fucrst:  "A  shadow,  shadowy 
 being."  He  adds  that,  in  the  two  passages  just  referred  to,  these  shades 
 are  represented  as  stirred  up  out  of  their  rest,  and  as  feeling  the  adminis- 
 trative agency  of  God.  Gcsenius :  "  The  shades,  manes,  dwelling  in  hades, 
 whom  thp  Hebrews  supposed  to  be  destitute  of  blood  and  animal  hfe, 
 but  yet  not  wholly  without  some  faculties  of  mind."  See,  also,  Boettcher, 
 *'  De  Inferis,"  pp.  94-100. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  197 
 
 Luke  XX.  38 ;  He  is  not  a  God  of  extinct  or  non-existent 
 beings,  therefore  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  are  still  living. 
 The  soul  then  survives  the  body,  and  a  resurrection  is  possible.^ 
 As  Lavater  and  Stier  well  say,  the  passage  is  a  "weighty 
 testimony  against  the  '  sleep  of  the  soul '  in  the  intermediate 
 state."  The  preceding  passages  clearly  presuppose  the  con- 
 scious activity  of  departed  souls. 
 
 In  darkness  and  silence.  In  glory  and  blessedness. 
 
 There  the  prisoners    rest    together;  Thou  shalt  guide  me  with  thy  coun- 
 
 they  hear  not  the  voice  of  the  oppressor,  sel,  and  afterward  receive  me  to  glory. 
 
 Job  iii.  18.  Fs.  Ixxiii.  24. 
 
 Before  I  go  whence  I  shall  not  return,  The  path  of  the  just  is  as  the  shining 
 
 even  to  the  land  of  darkness,  and  the  light,  that  shineth  more  and  more  unto 
 
 shadow  of  death.    Job  x.  21.  the  perfect  day.    Trov.  iv.  18. 
 
 Shall  thy  loving-kindness  be  declared  Whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body, 
 
 in  the  grave?    or  thy  faithfulness  in  we  are  absent  from  the  Lord.    2  Cor. 
 
 destruction?     Shall    thy    wonders    be  v.  6. 
 
 known  in  the  dark?  and  thy  righteous-  For  to  me  to  live  is  Christ,  and  to  die 
 
 ness  in  the  land  of  forgetfulness ?    Fs.  is  gain.    Fhil.  i.  21. 
 Ixxxviii.  11,  12. 
 
 Of  Job's  authority  as  a  religious  teacher  we  have  previously 
 spoken.  As  to  the  language  cited  from  the  eighty-eighth 
 Psalm,  it  is  Oriental  poetry,  therefore  hyperbolical  and  intensely 
 figurative.  To  interpret  it  literally,  is  to  do  it  the  utmost  pos- 
 sible violence.  For  example,  in  the  fifth  verse  it  is  said  of 
 the  "  slain "  that  God  remembers  them  no  more ;  in  the  sixth 
 verse,  the  Psalmist  represents  himself  as  "  in  the  lowest  pit,  in 
 darkness,  in  the  deeps."  Upon  these  latter  words  Hengstenberg 
 says,  "  the  grave  of  deep  places,  in  verse  6,  is  sheol  deep  in  the 
 earth,  and  '  the  dark  places '  are  the  dark  places  of  sheol." 
 But  was  the  Psalmist  already  in  sheol,  the  underworld  ?  This 
 would  be  the  absurd  conclusion  to  which  a  rigid  literalism 
 would  lead. 
 
 On  the  theory  that  the  dead  are  unconscious,  in  darkness 
 and  silence,  the  "  path  of  the  just "  instead  of  growing  brighter 
 "  unto  the  perfect  day,"  is  disrupted  at  death  by  a  fearful  chasm 
 of  black  non-existence.  In  place  of  a  continuous  shining  track 
 of  light,  we  see  a  yawning  abyss  of  unfathomable  gloom.  Kor 
 would  Paul  lying  unconscious  in  the  grave  be  "  present  with 
 
 ^  Consult  Alford's  significant,  but  concise,  comment  on  this  text. 
 17* 
 
198  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  Lord "  more  truly  than  when  he  was  living  in  the  love, 
 service,  and  fellowship  of  Christ.  Nor  does  it  appear  that  it 
 would  be  "  gain  "  for  Paul  to  "  die," —  to  relinquish  his  loving, 
 .tireless,  and  blessed  labor  for  the  Master,  and  go  into  unconscious 
 hibernation  or  blank  nonentity,  in  the  cold  sepulchre.  A 
 glowing  heart  like  Paul's  would  hardly  count  a  dormant  state, 
 like  that  of  "  The  Seven  Sleepers,"  to  be  "  gain." 
 
 In  this  connection,  we  give  the  views  of  the  Hebrews,  par- 
 ticularly those  of  later  and  more  enlightened  times. 
 
 Lightfoot : ^  "It  was  universally  believed  amongst  the  Jews, 
 that  pure  and  holy  souls  when  they  left  this  body  went  into 
 happiness,  to  Abraham." 
 
 Dr.  Jalm  :  ^   In  sheol  "  the  departed  spirits  rejoice  in  that 
 
 rest  so  much  desired  by  the  Orientals ;  and  there  the  living 
 
 hope  to  see  once  more  their  beloved  ancestors  and  children." 
 
 Not  with  Christ.  The  righteous  with  him.  . 
 
 Ye  shall  seek  me;  and,  as  I  said  unto        And  Jesus  said  unto  him,  Verily,  I 
 the    Jews,   Whither  I  go,  ye    cannot    say  unto  thee,To-day  shalt  thou  be  with 
 come,  so  now  1  say  to  you.    John  xiii.    me  in  paradise.    Luke  xxiii.  43. 
 33.  Stephen,  calling  upon  God,  and  say- 
 
 For  David  is  not  ascended  into  the    ing,  Lord  Jesus,  receive  my  spirit.  Acts 
 heavens.    Acts  ii.  34.  vii.  59. 
 
 We  are  confident,  /  saij.  and  willing 
 rather  to  be  ab.sent  from  the  body,  and 
 to  be  present  with  the  Lord.  2  Cor. 
 v.  8. 
 
 For  I  am  in  a  strait  betwixt  two, 
 having  a  desire  to  depart,  and  to  be 
 with  Christ;  which  is  far  better.  Phil, 
 i.  23. 
 
 The  fii'st  text  alludes  to  the  time  subsequent  to  Christ's 
 ascension.  Then  he  was  no  longer  visibly  and  personally  with 
 them ;  whither  he  had  gone  they  could  not  the7i  go.  Their 
 earthly  mission  must  first  be  accomplished. 
 
 David  had  not  been  raised  from  the  dead,  and  his  body  and 
 soul  re-united.  He  had  not  yet  ascended  to  heaven,  and 
 entered  upon  his  full  reward,  but  was  in  the  intermediate  state, 
 tranquilly  awaiting  the  resurrection. 
 
 The  opposed  texts  show  that  the  righteous  are  at  death,  in  a 
 certain  sense  with  Christ,  present  with  the  Lord,  in  "  disem- 
 
 ^  Hor.  Hebraicae,  iii.  171  (Gandell's  edition).  • 
 2  Bib.  Archaeol.,  Sec.  814. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  199 
 
 bodied  and  imperfect  bliss "  which  is  a  foretaste  of  complete 
 felicity  to  be  awarded  them  at  the  last  day. 
 
 Tof/ef her  in  one  place.  '      In  different  places. 
 
 Thfi  Lord  will  also  deliver  Israel  with  And  in  hell  he  lifted  up  his  eyes,  being 
 
 thee  into  the  hand  of  the  Philistines:  in  torments,  and  seeth  Abraham  afar 
 
 and  to-mon-ow  .s-yJo/^  th'U  and  thy  sons  off,  and  Lazarus  in  his  bosom.     ..  And 
 
 be  with  me.    1  Sam.  xxviii.  19  beside  all  this,   between  us    and  you 
 
 All  go  unto  one  place;  all  are  of  the  there  is  a  great  gulf  fixed.    Luke  xvi. 
 
 dust,  and  all  turn  to  dust  again.    Eccl.  23,  26. 
 
 iii  20.  Judas  by  transgression  fell,  that  he 
 
 might  go  to  his  own  jilace.    Acts  1.  25. 
 
 The  first  two  passages  teach  that  the  good  and  bad,  at  their 
 departure  from  this  life,  go  alike  into  the  intermediate  state, 
 but  do  not  assert  that  their  condition  there  is  the  same. 
 
 In  Luke  xvi.  we  see  the  rich  man  and  Lazarus  both  in  the 
 intermediate  state,  but  one  in  misery,  the  other  in  happiness. 
 In  a  certain  sense,  both  went  "  to  one  place  " ;  in  another  sense, 
 they  went  to  very  different  places. 
 
 Acts  i.  25,  teaches  that  Judas  went  to  "  his  own  place,"  to 
 the  punishment  appropriate  to  his  conduct.  Such  is  the  view 
 of  Olshausen,  DeWette,  Livermore,  Barnes,  Hackett,  Meyer, 
 Alford,  and  other  commentators. 
 
 In  the  dust  and  the  grave.  Saints,  with  God. 
 
 And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the        We  are  confident,  f  sai/,  and  willing 
 
 dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake.     Dan.  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and 
 
 xii.  2.  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.    2  Cor. 
 
 All  that  are  in  the  graves  shall  hear  v.  8. 
 his  voice.    John  v.  28.  Them  also  which  sleep  in  Jesus  will 
 
 God  bring  with  him.    1  Thess.  iv.  14. 
 
 The  quotation  from  Daniel  refers  to  man  in  his  physical 
 organism  and  relations.  As  to  his  material,  bodily  form,  in 
 which  he  is  cognizable  by  our  senses,  he  "  sleeps  in  the  dust," 
 at  death. 
 
 The  hteralistic  exposition  of  the  text  from  John  leads  to  the 
 conclusion  that  the  unburied  dead  are  not  to  be  raised.  If  the 
 phraseology  "  all  that  are  in  the  graves''  is  to  be  rigidly  pressed, 
 then  it  is  a  legitimate  inference  that  those  who  sleep  beneath 
 the  waves  of  ocean,  those  who  were  devoured  by  wild  beasts, 
 those  who  were  burned  at  the  stake,  as  not  being  "  in  the  graves," 
 will  not  "  hear  his  voice  and  come  forth." 
 
 Doubtless  the  exjpression  is  equivalent  simply  to  "all    the 
 
200  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 dead."  The  last  two  texts  imply  that  the  souls  of  departed 
 saints  are  with  God,  not  necessarily  in  the  highest  rewards 
 of  heaven,  but  "  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham,"  in  paradise,  joyfully 
 awaiting  those  rewards. 
 
 Mesurrection, 
 
 Bead  to  be  raised.  Not  to  be.  raised. 
 
 Thy  dead  men  shall  live,  together  with       He  that  goeth   down  to  the   grave 
 
 my  dead  body  shall   they  arise.    Isa.    shall  come  up  no  more.    Job  vii.  9. 
 
 xxvi.  19.  Man  lieth  down,  and  riseth  not:  till 
 
 Now  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even    the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not 
 
 M<i.'*es  shewed  at  the  bush.  Lukexx  37.    awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep 
 
 For  since  by  man  cavie  deatli,  by  man    Job  xiv.  12. 
 came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.         'J'hcy  are  dead,  they  shall  not  live; 
 .  .  .  The  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the    they  are  deceased,  they  shall  not  rise, 
 dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible.    1    Isa.  xxvi.  14. 
 
 Cor.  XV.  21,  52.  They  that  swear  by  the  sin  of  Sama- 
 
 ria, and  say,  Thy  god,  O  Dan,  liveth; 
 and.  The  manner  of  Beer-sheba  liveth; 
 even  they  shall  fall,  and  never  rise  up 
 again.    Amos  viii.  14. 
 
 The  quotations  from  Job  express  the  opinion,  or  perhaps,  the 
 temporary  doubts,  of  a  good,  but  uninspired,  man.  They  can- 
 not counterbalance  the  express  statements  of  inspiration. 
 
 Isaiah  asserts  that  certain  foreign  powers,  the  Assyrians, 
 Babylonians,  etc.,  who  had  oppressed  the  Israelites,  were  de- 
 ceased and  should  not  "  rise  "  ;  that  is,  to  resume  their  former 
 arbitrary  sway.  Not  the  resurrection  of  individuals,  but  the 
 restoration  of  fallen,  despotisms,  is  denied. 
 
 The  text  from  Amos  has  no  reference  to  the  future  world. 
 It  predicts  simply  the  irretrievable  overthrow  of  certain  idol- 
 aters, in  this  world. 
 
 Universal  resurrection.  A  partial  one. 
 
 The  hour  is  coming,  in  the  which -all  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
 that  are  in  the  graves  shalihearhis  voice,  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake.  Dan. 
 and  shall  come  forth.    John  v.  28,  29.        xii.  2. 
 
 According  to  Fuerst,  the  word  translated  "many,"  means 
 likewise  croivds  or  masses. 
 
 Calvin  :  "  Tlie  word  many  seems  here  clearly  put  for  all." 
 Stuart  regards  it  as  "equivalent  to  our  word  multitudes." 
 Barnes :  "  There  would  be  a  vast  or  general  resurrection  from 
 the  dead  ;  so  much  so  that  the  mind  would  be  interested  mainly 
 ill  the  contemplation  of  the  great  hosts  who  would  thus  come 
 forth." 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 201 
 
 Jesus  raised  first. 
 
 That  Christ  should  suffer,  and  that 
 he  should  be  the  flrst  that  should  rise 
 from  the  dead.    Acts  xxvi.  23 
 
 liow  is  Christ  risen  from  the  dead, 
 and  become  the  first-fruits  of  them  that 
 slept.    1  Cor.  XV.  20. 
 
 Others  raised  previously. 
 
 And  the  Lord  heard  the  voice  of 
 Elijah;  and  the  soul  of  the  child  came 
 into  him  again,  and  he  revived.  1  Kings 
 xvii.  22. 
 
 And  they  cast  the  man  into  the  sep- 
 ulchre of  Elisha:  and  when  the  man 
 was  let  down,  and  touched  the  bones 
 of  Elisha,  he  revived,  and  stood  up  on 
 his  feet.    2  Kings  xiii.  21. 
 
 And  he  that  was  dead  sat  up,  and 
 began  to  speak.  And  he  delivered  him 
 to  his  mother.    Luke  vii.  15. 
 
 Romans  vi.  9  furnishes  the  solution  of  the  difficulty.  Jesus 
 was  the  first  who  rose  from  the  dead  to  die  no  more.  All  others 
 who  were  raised,  passed  a  second  time  through  the  gates  of 
 death.  Over  him,  death  "  hath  no  more  dominion."  Hence, 
 he  is  the  "  first-begotten  of  the  dead,"  the  first  who  was  raised 
 to  immortal  life. 
 
 Final  Judgment. 
 
 Ascribed  to  God. 
 
 Shall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  earth 
 do  right?    Gen.  xviii.  25. 
 
 The  heavens  shall  declare  his  right- 
 eousness :  for  God  is  judge  himself. 
 Ps.  1.  6. 
 
 To  Christ. 
 
 For  th*^  Father  judgeth  no  man,  but 
 hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the 
 Son.    John  v.  22. 
 
 We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judg- 
 ment-seat of  Christ.    Kom.  xiv.  10. 
 
 God  will  judge  the  world  by  Jesus  Christ.^ 
 
 Attributed  to  Christ. 
 When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in 
 
 Disclaimed  by  Him. 
 Ye  judge  after  the  flesh ;  I  judge  no 
 
 his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels  with    man.    John  viii.  15 
 
 him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne        And  if  any  man  hear  my  words,  and 
 
 of  his  glory:  and  before  him  shall  be    believe  not,    1  judge  him    not:    for   i 
 
 gathered  all  nations:  and  he  shall  sep-    came  not  to  judge  the  world,  but  to 
 
 arate  them  one  from  another,  as  a  shep-    save  the  world.     John  xii.  47. 
 
 herd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats. 
 
 Matt.  XXV.  31,  32. 
 
 And  Jesus  said.  For  judgment  I  am 
 come  into  this  world;  that  they  which 
 see  not  might  see,  and  that  they  which 
 see,  might  be  made  blind.    John  ix.  39. 
 
 For  we  must  all  appear  before  the 
 judgment-seat  of  Christ.    2  Cor.  v.  10. 
 
 These  two  classes  of  texts  refer,  the  one  to  the  second,  the 
 other  to  the  first  advent  of  our  Lord.  At  ,his  first  coming,  his 
 object  was  to  present  himself,  not  as  the  Judge,  but  as  the 
 Saviour,  of  men;  not  to  condemn  but  to  save  them.  When 
 he  comes  the  second  time,  it  will  be  "  in  flaming  fire,  taking 
 
 Acts  xvii.  31 :  Rom.  ii.  16. 
 
202  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 vengeance  on  them  that  know  not  God,  and  that  obey  not  the 
 
 gospel."  ^ 
 
 Yet  the  "  judging  of  the  world,"  involving  the  condemnation 
 
 of  the  guilty,  was  not  the  ultimate  object  of  Christ's  mission,  but 
 
 rather  a  subordinate  and  incidental  result  of  that  mission. 
 
 Administered  by  God.  By  men  also. 
 
 God  the  Judge  of  all.    Heb.  xii.  23.  Ye  which  have  followed  me  in  the 
 
 And  I  saw  the  dead,  small  and  great,    regeneration,    when   the  Son   of  man 
 
 stand  before  God:  and  the  books  were    shall  sit  in  the  Ihrone  of  his  glory,  ye 
 
 opened,    liev.  xx.  12.  also    shall    sit    upon    twelve    thrones. 
 
 judging    the  twelve    tribes  of  Israel. 
 Matt.  xix.  28. 
 ,  That  ye  may  eat  and  drink  at  my 
 
 table  in  ray  kingdom,  and  sit  on  thrones 
 judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel. 
 Luke  xxii.  30. 
 
 But  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all 
 things,  yet  he  himself  is  judged  of  no 
 man.    1  Cor.  ii  15. 
 
 Do  ye  not  know  that  the  saints  shall 
 judge  the  world?  and  if  the  world  shall 
 be  judged  by  you,  are  ye  unworthy  to 
 judge  the  smallest  matters?  Know  je 
 not  that  we  shall  judge  angels?  1  Cor. 
 vi.  2,  3. 
 
 Barnes  takes  Matt.  xix.  28,  as  implying  not  so  much  an 
 actual  exercise  of  the  power  of  passing  judgment,  as  the  honor 
 attached  to  the  office.  The  apostles  should,  at  the  last  day,  be 
 relatively  honored  as  judges  are. 
 
 In  1  Cor.  ii.  15,  the  Greek  word  employed  is  the  same  which 
 in  the  preceding  verse  is  translated  "  discerned."  It  has  no 
 reference  to  the  final  judgment,  but  denotes  spiritual  insight  and 
 discrimination  in  the  present  life. 
 
 As  to  the  last  citation,  it  may  be  taken  simply  as  asserting 
 that  the  saints,  by  their  example,  would  "  judge,"  i.e.  condemn, 
 sinful  men  and  angels.  This  interpretation  is  corroborated  by 
 Matt.  xii.  41,  42,  which  asserts  that  the  Ninevites  and  the  queen 
 of  Sheba  should  rise  up  in  the  judgment  with  that  generation 
 and  "  condemn  "  it ;  that  is,  by  their  example. 
 
 Chrysostom:  "The  saints  shall  judge  the  world  by  their 
 exemplary  judgment,  because  by  their  example  the  perfidious- 
 ness  of  the  world  shall  be  condemned." 
 
 Whately :  ^  "  Not  that  he  meant,  or  was  ever  understood  to 
 
 1  2  Thess.  i.  8.  «  Future  State,  pp.  133-138. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  203 
 
 mean,  that  these  persons  would  themselves  take  a  share  m  the 
 final  judgment ;  but  that  their  conduct  would  be  a  condemnation 
 of  the  unbelieving  generation,  who  rejected  one  greater  than 
 Jonas,  and  than  Solomon."  In  another  paragraph,  the  same 
 writer  strongly  supports  this  explanation,  and  continues :  "Any 
 one  who  takes  the  right  course,  by  so  doing,  condemns,  —  in 
 the  New  Testament  language,  '  judges,'  —  those  who,  with 
 equal  opportunities,  choose  the  wrong.  This  was  the  case  vsdth 
 the  Corinthian  Christians  (or  saints)  ;  who,  by  embracing  the 
 gospel,  judged  (in  this  sense)  their  imbelieving  neighbors,  to 
 whom  it  had  been  proposed,  and  who  rejected  it." 
 
 This  interpretation  reheves  the  saints  of  actual  participation 
 in  the  work  of  judging  mankind. 
 
 Even  if,  with  Alford  and  many  critics,  we  feel  constrained 
 by  the  tenor  of  the  passage,  to  admit  this  actual  participation, 
 still,  since  the  power  wliich  the  saints  exercise  is  all  derived 
 from  God,  the  work  of  judgment  may  properly  be  attributed 
 wholly  to  him. 
 
 Future  I*unis7inient,  —  Its  Nature, 
 
 Continued  misery.  End  of  consciousness. 
 
 So  shall  it  be  at  the  end  of  the  world :  For  lo,  thine  enemies  O  Loed,  for  lo, 
 
 the  angels  shall  come  forth,  and  sever  thine  enemies  shall  perish.    Ps.  xcii.  9. 
 
 the  wicked  from  among  the  just,  and  And  he  shall  bring  upon  them  their 
 
 shall  cast  them  into  the  furnace  of  tire,  own  iniquity,  and  shall  cut  them  oft'  in 
 
 Matt.  xiii.  49,  50.  their  own  wickedness.    Fs.  xciv.  23. 
 
 And  shall  cut  him  asunder,  and  ap-  All  the  wicked  will  he  destroy.    Ps. 
 
 point  him  his  portion  with  the  hypo-  cxlv.  20. 
 
 crites.    Matt.  xxiv.  51.  They  that  forsake  the  Lobd  shall  be 
 
 Ancl  cast  ye  the  unprofitable  servant  consumed.    Isa  i.  28. 
 
 into  outer    darkness:    there    shall    be  The  soul  that  sinneth,  it  shall  die. 
 
 weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth.    Matt.  Ezek.  xviii.  20. 
 
 xjlv.  30.  Who  shall  be  punished  with  ever- 
 
 The  same  shall  drink  of  the  wine  of  lasting  destruction.    2  Thess.  i.  9. 
 
 the  wrath  of  God,  which  is  poured  out  The  day  of  judgment  and  perdition 
 
 without  mixture  into  the  cup  of  his  of  ungodly  men.  2Pet.  iii.  7. 
 indignation ;  and  he  shall  be  tormented 
 with  tire  and  brimstone  in  the  presence 
 of  the  holy  angels,  and  in  the  presence 
 of  the  Lamb :  And  the  smoke  of  their 
 torment  ascendeth  up  for  ever  and  ever : 
 and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor  night. 
 Key.  xiv.  10,  11. 
 
 According  to  the  received  view,  the  texts,  at  the  right,  while 
 implying  ruin,  irremediable  overthrow,  do  not  mean  annihilation 
 or  extinction.     Mortal-soulists,  or    "  annihilationists  "  as   they 
 
204  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 are  commonly  designated,  interpret  these  texts,  on  the  contrary, 
 with  a  bald  and  rigid  literalism,  inferring  from  them  the  actual 
 annihilation  of  the  wicked.  Mr.  Hudson,^  the  ablest  author  of 
 this  class,  observes :  "  The  literal  sense  of  the  terms  in  question 
 is  manifestly  the  true  one  in  most  instances."  Blain  asserts 
 that  "  death  "  is  "  extinction  of  being,  soul  and  body." 
 
 Dr.  Ives  ^  says  that  death  is  "  the  cessation  of  existence  "  the 
 first  death  being  a  temporary,  the  second  a  final  cessation. 
 These  definitions  are  founded  upon  a  literalistic,  though  not 
 self-consistent,  exegesis  of  scripture. 
 
 To  show  the  irrelevancy  and  unsoundness  of  the  arguments 
 employed  by  writers  of  this  class,  the  following  examples  of 
 scripture  usage  are  introduced.  The  reader  will  see,  at  a  glance, 
 to  what  absurdities  literalistic  interpretation,  if  consistently 
 carried  out,  would  lead  its  advocates. 
 
 Tlie  wicked  perish.  The  righteous  perish. 
 
 So  let  all  thine  enemies  perish,   O  There  is  a  just  man  that  perisheth  in 
 
 Lord.    Judg.  v.  31.  his  righteousness.    Eccl.  vii.  15. 
 
 But  the  wicked   shall  perish.     Ps.  The  righteous  perisheth,  and  no  man 
 
 xxxvii.  20.                                              '  layeth  it  to  heart.    Isa.  Ivii.  1. 
 
 Ne   that  speaketh  lies  shall  perish.  The  good  man  is  perished  out  of  the 
 
 Trov.  xix.  9.  earth.    Micah  vii.  2. 
 
 In  all  these  cases,  the  same  Hebrew  term,  "  abadh,"  is  used. 
 
 Now,  if  this  term,  in  the  first  series  of  texts,  necessarily  im- 
 plies that  the  wicked  are  to  be  annihilated^  it  is  clear  that,  in 
 the  second,  it  implies,  for  the  same  reasons  and  with  the  same 
 force,  the  annihilation  of  the  righteous.  Such  is  the  logical 
 conclusion  to  which  literalism  conducts  us. 
 
 Si7iners  annihilated.  Annihilated  objects,  existing. 
 
 Likewise  the  fool  and    the  brutish        And  wnth  all  lost  things  of  thy  broth- 
 person  ijerish.     Ps.  xlix.  10(11).^  er's,  which  he  hath  lost,  and  thou  hast 
 For,  lo,  they  that  are  far  from  thee    found,  shalt  thou  do  likewise.    Deut. 
 shall  perish.     Ps.  Ixxiii.  27.  xxii.  3. 
 
 A  lalse  witness  shall  perish.  Prov.  And  the  asses  of  Kish,  Saul's  father 
 xxi.  28.  were  lost.  . .  .  And  as  for  thine  asses 
 
 that  were  lost  three  days  ago,  set  not 
 thy  mind  on  them ;  for  they  are  found. 
 1  Sam.  ix.  3,  20. 
 
 Here  the  same  word  "  abadh  "  rendered  "  perish  "  in  the  first 
 series,  is  translated  "  lost "  in  the  second  series.     If  now  in  the 
 
 1  Debt  and  Grace,  p.  182.  ^  Bible  Doctrine  of  tlie  Soul,  p.  42. 
 
 >*  We  put  in  parenthesis  the  number  of  the  verse  as  it  is  in  the  Hebrew. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  205 
 
 one  case  it  implies  the  extinction  of  sinners,  in  the  other  it 
 
 implies  the  extinction  of  the  "  lost  things  "  and  of  Kish's  asses. 
 
 It  would  seem  that  the  process  of  anniliilation,  in  the  latter 
 
 cases,  could  hardly  have   been  fatal  to    the  existence  of   the 
 
 objects  mentioned,  for  they  are  afterwards  "  found." 
 
 Wicked  cut  off.  TJie  Messiah  cut  off. 
 
 For  evil  doers  shall  be  cut  off.  , .  .  And  after  threescore  and  two  weeks 
 
 When  the  wicked  are  cutoff,  thou  Shalt  shall  Messiah  be  cut  off,  "but  not  for 
 
 see  it.    Ps.  xxxvii.  9,  34.  himself.    Dan.  ix.  26. 
 
 In  these  three  cases,  "  karath,"  is  rendered  "  cut  off."  If  the 
 first  texts  teach  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked,  the  last  implies 
 equally  strongly  that  the  Messiah  was  annihilated/ 
 
 Wicked  destroyed.  Persons  destroyed,  yet  alive. 
 
 Thou  shalt  destroy  them  that  speak       He  hath  destroyed  me  on  every  side, 
 
 leasing.    Ps.  v.  6.  Job  xix.  10. 
 
 All  the  wicked  will  he  destroy.    Ps.        My  people  are  destroyed  for  lack  of 
 
 cxlv.  20.  knowledge.     Hosea  iv.  6. 
 
 And  he  shall    destroy    the    sinners        O  Israel  thon  hast  destroyed  thyself; 
 
 thereof  out  of  it.    Isa.  xiii.  9.  but  in  me  is  thine  help.    Hos.  xiii  9. 
 
 If  the  Hebrew  words,  and  their  English  equivalent "  destroy," 
 used  in  these  cases,  imply  extinction  or  termination  of  conscious 
 existence,  we  have,  in  the  last  citation,  a  people  who,  although 
 they  had  been  annihilated,  were  yet  in  a  hopeful  condition. 
 
 An  odd  kind  of  "annihilation"  that  must  be,  which  is  still 
 susceptible  of  relief !  The  sense  clearly  is,  "  Thou  hast  brought 
 great  calamities  upon  thyself,  but  in  me  is  thine  help." 
 
 Sinners  destroyed.  Inanimate  objects  destroyed. 
 
 But  the  transgressors  shall  be  des-        And  Pharaoh's   servants    said  unto 
 troyed  together.     Ps.  xxxvii.  38.  him,  .  .  .  Knowest  thou  not  yet  that 
 
 If  any  man  defile  the  temple  of  God,    Egypt  is  destroyed?    Ex.  x.  7. 
 him  shall  God  destroy.    1  Cor.  iii.  17.  Ami  now  come  up  without  the  Lord 
 
 Who  shall  be  punished  with  ever-    against  this  place  to  destroy  it?    The 
 lasting  destruction.    2  Thess.  i.  9,  Lord  said  to  me,  Go  up  against  this 
 
 land,  and  destroy  it.    2  Kings  xviii.  25. 
 Babylon  is  suddenly  fallen  and  des- 
 troyed; .  .  .  take  balm  for  her  pain,  if  so 
 be  she  may  be  healed.    Jer.  li.  8. 
 
 And  shouldest  destroy  them  which 
 destroy  the  earth,    liev.  xi.  18. 
 
 It  need  not  be  said  that  in  these  cases,  the  literalistic  inter- 
 pretation of  the  terms  "  destroy  "  and  "  destruction  "  woidd  land 
 us  in  the  grossest  exegetical  absurdities.^ 
 
 ^  An  example  of  similar  kind  is  furnished  by  the  literalistic  exposition 
 of  MaL  iv.  1-3,    The  prophet  declares  that  the  wicked  shall  be  burned, 
 18 
 
206  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Evil  doers  consumed.  Things  withmt  life  consumed. 
 
 Let  the  sinners  be  consumed  out  of  There  shall  bean  overflowing  shower 
 the  earth,     I's.  civ.  35.  tn  mine  anj^cr,  and  great  hailstones  in 
 
 They  that  forsake  the  Lord  shall  be  mij  fury  to  consume  it.  So  will  I  break 
 consumed.    Isa.  i.  28.  down  the  wall.     Ezek.  xiii  13,  14. 
 
 And  the  scorner  is  consumed.  Isa.  I  have  heard  ail  thy  blasphemies 
 xxix.  20.  which   thou   hast  spoken   against  the 
 
 mountains  of  Israel,  saying.  They  are 
 laid  desolate,  they  are  given  us  to  con- 
 sume.   Ezek.  XXXV.  12. 
 
 Of  course,  a  wall "  consumed  "  by  "  hail-stones,"  and  mountains 
 "  consumed "  by  men,  would  hardly  be  understood  as  having 
 ceased  to  exist. 
 
 Wicked  "  was  not."  Enoch  "  was  not." 
 
 Yet  he  passed  away,  and  lo,  he  was       And  Enoch  walked  with  God:  and 
 
 not:  yea  I  sought  him,  but  he  could  he  was  not;  for  God  took  him.    Gen. 
 
 not  be  found.    Ts.  xxxvii.  36.  v.  24. 
 
 The  Hebrew  for  "  was  not,"  is  exactly  the  same  in  these  two 
 
 cases.     Now  if  the  first  passage  teaches  the  extinction  of  the 
 
 wicked,  the  second  teaches  that  Enoch  became  extinct.     Yet  so 
 
 far  from  this,  we  know  that  he  was  "  translated  that  he  should 
 
 not  see  death."  ^ 
 
 Wicked  devoured.  Pious  devoured. 
 
 And  fire  came  down  from  God  out       If  a  man  bring  you  into  bondage,  if 
 of  heaven,  and  devoured  them.    Rev.    a  man  devour //o«.     2  Cor.  xi.  20. 
 XX.  9,  But  if  ye  bite  and  devour  one  another, 
 
 take  heed  that  ye  be  not  consumed  one 
 of  another.    Gal.  v.  15. 
 
 In  these  three  instances,  kindred  words  of  equal  intensity  are 
 employed.     The  inference  is  not  difficult. 
 
 God's  adversaries  devoured.  Widov)s'  houses  devoured. 
 
 Judgment     and    fiery    indignation,  Beware  of  the  scribes.  . . .  which  de- 
 
 which  shall  devour  the  adversaries,  vour  widows' houses.  Mark  xii.  38, 40 
 Heb.  X.  27. 
 
 The  reader  wOl  observe  that  the  Greek  verb  of  the  first  text 
 occurs  in  the  second  in  a  strengthened  form.^  So  that,  if  the 
 first  text  teaches  the  annihilation  of  the  wicked,  the  second 
 teaches  that  "  widows'  houses  "  were  doubly  annihilated  by  the 
 scribes. 
 
 and  adds  that  they  shall  "be  ashes,"  (not  "  as  ashes  ")  under  the  feet  of 
 the  rit^htcous.  The  folly  of  taking  such  language  literally  need  not  be 
 pointed  out. 
 
 *  Seelleb.  xi.  5. 
 
 *  "  iaeiw  "  in  Hcb.  x.  27,  "  KuTeaOiu  "  in  Mark  xii.  40:  2  Cor.  xi.  20. 
 
DOCTRINAL  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 207 
 
 Sinners  devoured.  A  forest  devoured  persons. 
 
 But  if  ye  refuse  and  rebel,  ye  shall  be       For  the  battle  was  there  scattered 
 
 devoured  with  the  sword.    Isa.  i.  20.        over  the  face  of  all  the  country  :  and 
 
 Therefore  all  they  that  devour  thee    the  wood  devoured  more  people  that 
 
 ehal!  be  devoured.    Jer.  xxx.  16.  day  than  the  sword  devoured.    2  Sam. 
 
 xviii.  8.  ^ 
 
 In  all  these  passages,  the  same  Hebrew  verb  "  akal "  is  used. 
 In  the  latter  instance,  literalism,  it  need  not  be  remarked,  would 
 make  nonsense  of  the  narrative.  Yet  there  is  as  much  reason 
 for  a  literal  explication  of  the  latter  text  as  of  the  two  former 
 texts. 
 
 Wicked  torn  and  broken. 
 
 Thy  rijjht  hand,  O  Lord,  hath  dashed 
 in  pieces  the  enemy.     Kx.  xv.  6. 
 
 The  adver.>;aries  of  the  Lord  shall  be 
 broken  to  pieces.    1  Sam.  ii.  10. 
 
 Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of 
 iron;  thou  shalt  dash  them  in  pieces 
 like  a  potter's  vessel.     Ps.  it.  9. 
 
 Consider  this,  ye  that  forget  God,  lest 
 I  tear  you  in  pieces.    Ps.  1.  22, 
 
 Righteous  likewise. 
 
 He  teareth  me  in  his  wrath ;  , .  ,  he 
 hath  broken  me  asunder:  he  hath  also 
 taken  vte  by  my  neck,  and  shaken  me 
 to  pieces ;  ...  he  cleaveth  my  reins 
 asunder,  and  doth  not  spare;  he  pour- 
 eth  out  my  gall  upon  the  ground.  He 
 breaketh  me  with  breach  upon  breach. 
 Job  xvi.  9.  12.  13, 14. 
 
 They  break  in  pieces  thy  people,  O 
 Lord.    Ps.  xciv.  5. 
 
 Here  language  equally  strong  and  intense  is  applied  to  the 
 
 calamities  befalling  the   righteous  and  the  wicked.     If  in  the 
 
 former  case  extinction  of  existence  is  intended,  why  not  in  the 
 
 latter  case  ? 
 
 Wicked  broken  in  pieces.  Objects  broken,  yet  still  existing. 
 
 Associate  yourselves,  O  ye  people,  The  sacrifices  of  God  are  a  broken 
 and  ye  shall  be  broken  iu  pieces.  Isa.  spirit:  a  broken  and  a  contrite  heart, 
 viii.  9.  Ps.  li.  17. 
 
 And  shall  devour  the  whole  earth, 
 and  shall  tread  it  down,  and  break  it 
 in  pieces.    Dan.  vii.  23. 
 
 To  show  the  complete  absurdity  of  insisting  upon  the  literal 
 interpretation  of  these  and  similar  expressions,  it  need  only  be 
 mentioned  that  Ps.  li.  17,  "A  broken  and  a  contrite  heart," 
 is,  when  rendered  literally,  "a  heart  broken  in  pieces  and 
 shivered.^'  ^ 
 
 Wicked  blotted  out. 
 
 And  the  Lord  said,  I  will  destroy 
 man  whom  I  have  created  from  the 
 face  of  the  earth :  both  man  and  beast, 
 and  the  creeping  thing.     Gen  vi.  7. 
 
 Whosoever  hath  sinned  against  me, 
 him  will  I  blot  out  of  my  book.  Ex. 
 xxxii.  33 
 
 Let  them  be  blotted  out  of  the  book 
 of  the  living.    Ps.  Ixix.  28  (29). 
 
 Things  blotted  out,  yet  existing. 
 
 I  will  utterly  put  out  the  remem- 
 brance of  A  malek  from  under  heaven. 
 Ex.  xvii.  14. 
 
 lilot  out  all  mine  iniquities.  Ps.  li. 
 9(11). 
 
 I  have  blotted  out,  as  a  thick  cloud, 
 thv  transjrres.-ions.     Isa.  xliv.  22. 
 
 liiotting  out  the  hand-writing  of  or- 
 dinances that  was  against  us.  Col. 
 ii    14. 
 
 Professor  Bartlett,  "  Life  and  Death  Eternal,"  p.  98. 
 
208  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 In  all  the  cases  cited  here  from  the  Old  Testament  the  ex- 
 pressions "  destroy,"  "  blot  out,"  "  utterly  put  out,"  are  trans- 
 lations of  the  Hebrew  term  "  machah." 
 
 •  But  this  word  does  not  imply  annihilation  ;  for  when  "  sins  " 
 are  "  blotted  out "  they  are  not  annihilated.  A  fact^  a  deed,  is 
 not  susceptible  of  annihilation.  It  may  be  forgiven,  perchance 
 forgotten,  but  not  recalled  or  undone. 
 
 When  the  "  ordinances  "  of  the  Mosaic  law  were  "  blotted 
 out,"  they  did  not  cease  to  exist ;  they  merely  became  inopera- 
 tive. Nor  does  the  declaration  that  God  would  "  utterly  put 
 out  the  remembrance  of  Amalek  "  imply  the  extinction  of  that 
 remembrance  ;  for  the  declaration  itself  perpetuates  that  re- 
 memhrance. 
 
 Wicked  have  an  end.  The  righteous  also. 
 
 Amalek  was  the  first  of  the  nations,  Let  me  die  the  death  of  the  righteous, 
 
 but  his  latter  end  shall  be  that  he  perish  and  let  my  last  end  be  like  his.    Num. 
 
 for  ever.    Num.  xxiv.  20.  xxiii.  10. 
 
 The  end  of  the  wicked  shall  be  cut  So  the  Lord  blessed  the  latter  end 
 
 off.     Ps.  xxxvii.  38.  of  Job  more  than  his  beginning.    Job 
 
 Whose  end  is  destruction.    Phil.  iii.  xlii.  12. 
 
 19-  For  the  end  of  that  man  is  peace. 
 
 Ps.  xxxvii.  37. 
 
 Does  the  woi*d  "  end  "  necessarily  imply  termination  of  being  ? 
 
 If  so,  the  fate  of  the  righteous  would  not  be  an  enviable  one. 
 
 Wicked  die,  are  dead.  Righteous  die,  are  dead. 
 
 And  you  hath  he  quickened,  who  were  Likewise  reckon  ye  also  yourselves  to 
 
 dead  in  trespasses  and  sins.     Eph.  il.  1.  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto 
 
 But  she  that  liveth  in  pleasure  is  dead  God.     Ilom.  vi.  11. 
 
 while  she  liveth.    1  Tim.  v.  6.  I  protest  by  your  rejoicing  which  I 
 
 I  know  thy  works,  that  thou  hast  a  have  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord,  I  die 
 
 name  that  thou  livest,  and  art  dead,  daily.    1  Cor.  xv.  31. 
 
 Itev.  iii.  1.  For  ye  are  dead,  and  your  life  is  hid 
 
 with  Christ  in  God.     Col.  iii.  3. 
 
 From  these  texts  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  persons  may  "  die," 
 and  be  "dead,"  yet  all  the  while  be  physically  alive  and 
 conscious.  It  follows  that  the  phrase  "  living  death,"  though 
 scouted  by  certain  writers,  conveys,  nevertheless,  a  perfectly 
 reasonable  and  scriptural  idea. 
 
 We  have  now  passed  rapidly  in  review  the  strongest,  and 
 apparently  the  most  conclusive,  proof-texts  ^  adduced  by  anni- 
 hilationists,  and  we  reacli  the  following  results  : 
 
 ^  Our  present  limits  allow  only  a  hasty  glance  at  the  subject.    The  author 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  209 
 
 (1)  Those  persons  who  undertake  to  build  a  doctrine  upon 
 the  figures  of  poetry  and  of  Oriental  idiom  are  expending  their 
 labor  just  as  wisely  as  they  would  be  in  endeavoring  to  make  a 
 pyramid  stand  upon  its  apex.  Their  foundation  is  inadequate, 
 and  their  efforts  nugatory. 
 
 (2)  As  to  the  Hebrew  terms  rendered  in  our  version,  "  con- 
 sume," "  cut  off,"  "  die,"  "  destroy,"  "  devour,"  "  perish,"  and  the 
 like,  neither  in  the  original  terms,  nor  in  their  English  equiva- 
 lents, nor  in  the  connection  in  which  they  stand,  is  there 
 inherent  force  or  aught  else  which  necessitates,  or  even  warrants, 
 the  interpretation  of  them'as  implying  annihilation,  extinction 
 of  consciousness,  or  cessation  of  existence. 
 
 (3)  On  the  literalistic  hypothesis  these  words  prove  too 
 much,  and  so  prove  nothing.  For  they  would  prove  that  the 
 Messiah  was  annihilated  at  his  crucifixion ;  that  the  righteous 
 are  annihilated  at  death ;  that  after  the  Israelites  had  annihi- 
 lated themselves  there  was  still  "help"  for  them;  with  all 
 manner  of  similar  absurdities. 
 
 Instruments, 
 
 Shame  and  disgrace.  A  whirlwind. 
 
 Let  them  be  confounded  and  troubled  A  whirlwind  of  the  Lord  is  gone 
 forever;  yea,  let  them  be  put  to  shame,  forth  in  fury,  even  a  grievous  whirl- 
 Ps.  Ixxxiii.  17.  wind:  it  shall  fall  grievously  upon  the 
 
 Some  to  shame  and  everlasting  con-    head  of  the  wicked.    Jer.  xxiii.  19. 
 tempt.     Dan.  xii.  2.  For  they  have  sown  the  wind,  and 
 
 Friend,  how  camest  thou  in  hither,    they  shall  reap  the  whirlwind.    Hos. 
 not  having  a  wedding-garment?    And    viii.  7. 
 he  was  speechless.    Matt.  xxii.  12. 
 
 Of  him  also  shall  the  Son  of  man  be 
 ashamed,  when  he  cometh  in  the  glory 
 of  his  Father  with  the  holy  angels. 
 Mark  viii.  38. 
 
 These  and  the  subsequent  texts  illustrate  different  aspects  or 
 
 relations  of  the  punishment  which  will  overtake  the  wicked. 
 
 A  worm.  A  tempest. 
 
 Where  their  worm  dieth  not,  and  the  Upon  the  wicked  he  shall  rain  snares, 
 fire  is  not  quenched.  Mark  ix.  44  (also  fire  and  brimstone,  and  a  horrible  tem- 
 46,  48).  pest.    Ps.  xi.  6. 
 
 So  persecute  th^m  with  thy  tempest, 
 and  make  them  afraid  with  thy  storm. 
 Ps.  Ixxxiii.  15. 
 
 contemplates  publishing  hereafter  a  work  in  which  the  history  of  Thn^- 
 topsychism,  and  the  arguments  adduced  in  its  favor,  will  be  more  fully 
 investigated. 
 
 1«* 
 
210 
 
 DISCREPANCIES    OF   THE    BIBLE, 
 
 Darkness. 
 
 But  the  children  of  the  kinjrdom  shall 
 be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness :  there 
 shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth 
 Matt.  viii.  12. 
 
 Eind  him  hand  and  foot,  and  take 
 him  away,  and  cast  him  into  outer  dark- 
 ness.   Matt.  xxii.  13. 
 
 And  cast  ye  the  unprofitable  servant 
 into  outer  darkness.    Matt.  xxv.  80. 
 
 Fire. 
 
 The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  hia 
 angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his 
 kingdom  all  things  that  offend,  and 
 them  which  do  iniquity;  And  shall 
 cast  them  into  a  furnace  of  fire.  Matt, 
 xiii.  41,  42. 
 
 Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into  ever- 
 lasting fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and 
 his  angels.     Matt  xxv.  41. 
 
 And  whosoever  was  not  found  writ- 
 ten in  the  book  of  life  was  cast  into  the 
 lake  of  fire.    Kev.  xx.  15. 
 
 "  Darkness  "  is,  in  one  respect,  and  "  fire  "  in  another  respect, 
 a  fit  emblem  of  the  punishment. 
 
 Dr.  J.  P.  Thompson  :  ^  "  The  laws  of  language  require  us  to 
 understand  from  these  very  metaphors,  that  the  future  state  of 
 the  ungodly  will  be  one  of  conscious  and  irremediable  misery  — 
 the  '  darkness '  of  banishment  from  God,  the  '  unquenchable 
 fires '  of  memory,  the  '  undying  worm '  of  remorse  —  a  state  of 
 mental  anguish  prefigured  by  physical  emblems." 
 
 It  seems  impossible  to  weigh  carefully  the  foregoing  words 
 of  scripture,  without  the  resulting  conviction  that  the  ruin  and 
 overthrow  which  are  threatened  to  the  incorrigible,  will  be  swift^ 
 terrible,  and  remediless. 
 
 Degrees, 
 
 Same  for  all. 
 
 And  when  they  came  that  v)ere  hired 
 about  the  eleventh  hour,  they  received 
 every  man  a  penny.  But  when  the  first 
 came,  they  supposed  that  they  should 
 have  received  more;  and  they  likewise 
 received  every  man  a  penny.  And 
 when  they  had  received  it,  they  mur- 
 mured against  the  good  man  of  the 
 house :  saying.  These  last  have  wrought 
 hut  one  hour,  and  thou  hast  made  them 
 equal  unto  us,  which  have  borne  the 
 burden  and  heat  of  the  day.  Matt.  xx. 
 9-12. 
 
 Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on 
 the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye 
 cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared 
 for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  Matt. 
 xxv.  41. 
 
 And  whosoever  was  not  found  writ- 
 ten in  the  book  of  life  was  cast  into  the 
 lake  of  fire.     Kev.  xx.  15. 
 
 Different  gradations. 
 
 It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land 
 of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  in  the  day  of 
 judgment,  than  for  that  city.  Matt.  x.l5. 
 
 It  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  Tyre 
 and  Sidon  at  the  day  of  judgment,  tlian 
 for  you.     Matt.  xi.  22. 
 
 And  that  servant  which  knew  his 
 lord's  will,  and  prepared  not  himself, 
 neither  did  according  to  his  will,  shall 
 be  beaten  with  many  stripes.  But  he 
 that  knew  not,  and  did  commit  things 
 worthy  of  stripes,  shall  be  beaten  with 
 few  stripes.    Luke  xii.  47,  48. 
 
 Who  will  render  to  every  man  accord- 
 ing to  his  deeds.    Kom.  ii  6 
 
 That  every  one  may  receive  the  things 
 done  in  his  bi'dy,  according  to  that  he 
 hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad. 
 2  Cor.  V.  10. 
 
 And  death  and  hell  delivered  up  the 
 dead  which  were  in  them :  and  they 
 were  judged  every  man  according  to 
 their  works.    Kev.  xx.  13. 
 
 The  first  series  of  passages  sets  forth  the  general  fact  of 
 ^  Theology  of  Christ,  p.  234. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  211 
 
 future  awards,  without  going  into  details ;  the  second  specifies 
 the  degrees  or  differences  of  retribution.  Some  have  supposed 
 that  the  parable  in  Matt.  xx.  is  designed  to  teach  "  the  equality 
 of  rewards,"'  and,  by  implication,  that  of  pmiishments.  Trench 
 interprets  it  better,  as  intended  to  "  rebuke  the  spirit  of  self- 
 exalting  comparison  of  ourselves  with  others,  and  to  emphasize 
 the  fact  that  the  saints'  reward  is  to  be  of  grace,  not  of  works." 
 Alford  takes  a  similar  view. 
 
 May  not,  however,  the  teaching  of  the  parable  be  simply 
 this:  In  cases  where  the  opportunity  to  act  is  wanting,  God 
 rewards  the  dispositioji  in  the  same  manner  as  he  would  have 
 done  the  action  itself. 
 
 The  absolute  equality  of  rewards  or  of  punishments  is  not 
 implied  in  this  parable.  As  Whately  ^  observes  :  "  We  may  be 
 sure  there  will  be  no  want  of  mansions,  or  of  suitable  variety 
 of  mansions,  either  in  the  place  of  reward  or  of  punishment." 
 
 Duration. 
 
 Unending.  Will  terminate. 
 
 "Whose  fan  is  in  his  hand,  and  he  I  have  sworn  by  myself,  the  word  is 
 will    throughly   purge    his    floor,   and    gone  out  of  my  mouth  in  righteousness, 
 
 gather  his  wheat  into  the  garner;  but    and  shall  not  return,  That  unto  me 
 e    will    burn  up  the  chatF  with  un-    every  knee    shall    bow,  every  tongue 
 quenchable  fire.    Matt.  iii.  12.  shall  swear.     Isa.  xlv.  2.3. 
 
 Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy  And  thou  be  cast  into  prison.  Verily 
 Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  I  say  unto  thee,  Thou  shalt  by  no  means 
 neitlier  in  this  world,  neither  in  the  come  out  thence,  till  thou  hast  paid  the 
 world  to  come.    Matt.  xii.  32.  uttermost  farthing.    Matt.  v.  25,  26. 
 
 And  these  shall  go  away  into  ever-  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee 
 lasting  punishment:  but  the  righteous  should  bow,  ...  a.nd  that  every  tongue 
 into  life  eternal.    Matt.  xxv.  46.  should    confess    that    Jesus    Christ  is 
 
 But  he  that  shall  blaspheme  against    Lord.    Phil.  11. 10,  11. 
 the  Holy  Ghost  hath  never  forgiveness, 
 but  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation.2 
 Mark  iii.  29. 
 
 He  that  believeth  not  the  Son,  shall 
 not  see  life;  but  the  wrath  of  God 
 abideth  on  him.    John  iii.  36. 
 
 And  lie  shall  be  tormented  with  fire 
 
 1  Future  State,  p.  171. 
 
 ^  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  Alford,  Tregelles,  Tischendorf,  and  Meyer  ap- 
 parently, read  "eternal  sin."  This  readino:,  sustained  as  it  is  by  the  best 
 critical  authorities,  affords  a  very  strong  incidental  proof  of  the  endless 
 duration  of  future  i)unishment.  Eternal  sin  is  eternal  punishment.  In 
 this  view,  Mark  iii.  29  is  one  of  the  most  fearfully  significant  passages  in 
 the  New  Testament.  "Eternal  sin  I"  Who  can  fathom  the  meaning  of 
 these  words  ? 
 
212  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Unending.  Will  terminate. 
 
 and  brimstone  in  the  presence  of  the 
 holy  angels,  and  in  the  presence  of  the 
 Lamb.  And  the  smoke  of  their  tor- 
 ment ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever: 
 and  they  have  no  rest  day  nor  night, 
 llev.  xiv.  10,  11. 
 
 And  the  devil  that  deceived  them 
 was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire  and  brim- 
 stone, where  the  beast  and  the  false 
 prophet  are,  and  shall  be  tormented 
 day  and  night  for  ever  and  ever,  llev. 
 XX.  10. 
 
 That  the  texts  at  the  left  fairly  imply  the  endless  duration 
 of  future  punishment,  we  have  no  doubt.  The  question  is: 
 Do  those  at  the  right  militate  against  the  doctrine  ?  Such  ex- 
 pressions as  "unquenchable^  fire,"  "not  forgiven,  neither  in  this 
 world,  neither  in  the  world  to  come,"  "everlasting  punishment,"^ 
 
 1  The  Greek  term  &a$€(nos  is  defined  by  Liddell  and  Scott  thus:  "Un- 
 quenched,  inextinguishable,  endless,  ceaseless."  Upon  this  point  anni- 
 hilationist  writers  assert  that  the  fire  will  be  "unquenchable"  until  it 
 has  consumed  the  chaff,  and  will  then  go  out,  of  itself  f  We  refrain 
 from  comment.  The  argument  derived  by  annihilationists  from  Matt, 
 iii.  12,  is  peculiarly  suicidal.  From  the  fact  that  the  wicked  are  symbol- 
 ized by  "  chaff,"  it  is  inferred  that  they  will  he  literally  burned  to  ashes,  as 
 chaff  is.  An  equally  valid  inference  from  the  fact  that  the  righteous  are 
 represented  by  "  wheat,"  would  be  that  they  are  stored  up  in  the  garner, 
 to  be  disposed  of  exactly  as  wheat  is  ! 
 
 2  In  Matt.  XXV.  46,  the  same  Greek  adjective,  atcavios,  is  applied  both 
 to  "punishment"  and  to  "life."  Hence  it  seems  a  reasonable  inference 
 that  the  "  punishment,"  and  the  life  a.ve  of  parallel  duration.  As  to  the 
 words  alcvi'  and  aiwvios,  which,  in  their  various  modifications  and  combina- 
 tions, are,  in  our  version,  rendered  "eternal,"  "everlasting,"  "forever," 
 "  forever  and  ever,"  a  very  interesting  discussion  rnay  be  found  in  Pro- 
 fessor Stuart's  Essay  on  Future  Punishment,  pp.  56,  66  (new  edition). 
 He,  following  Knapp's  Greek  text,  finds  ai(t>i/  ninety-four  times  in  the 
 New  Testament.  In  fifty-five  of  these  instances,  he  says  the  word  "  cer- 
 tainly means  an  unlimited  period  of  duration  either  future  or  past,  ever, 
 alvmys."  If  we  include  those  cases  in  which  the  term  refers  to  future 
 punishment,  and  to  the  dominion  of  the  Messiah,  we  have,  says  Stuart, 
 sixty-four  cases  out  of  ninety-four  in  which  the  word  means  "  unlimited 
 period,  boundless  duration."  The  same  author  finds  alwvios  sixty-six 
 times.  Of  these,  fifty-one  are  used  in  relation  to  the  happiness  of  the 
 righteous;  two,  in  relation  to  God  or  his  glory;  six  are  of  a  miscella- 
 neous nature,  but  the  meaning  in  them  all  is  quite  clear;  and  seven  relate 
 to  the  subject  of  future  punishment."    [It  should  be  added  that  Briider's 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  213 
 
 "ill  danger  of  eternal  sin,"  the  "wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him," 
 "  the  smoke  of  their  torment  ascendeth  up  forever  and  ever," 
 strongly  imply  unending  misery.  Such  is  their  fair,  legitimate 
 meaning.  It  may  be  added,  as  the  subjoined  note  evinces,  that, 
 if  these  expressions  do  not  legitimately  convey  this  idea,  then 
 it  would  seem  impossible  to  prove  from  the  scriptures  the  eter- 
 nity of  anything  ;  impossible,  also,  to  express  in  the  Greek 
 language  the  notion  itself  of  endless  duration. 
 
 The  quotations  from  Isaiah  and  Philippians  simply  assert 
 that  all  men  shall,  sooner  or  later,  acknowledge  the  sovereignty 
 of  God.  But  while  some  do  this  in  love,  others  may  do  it  in 
 wrath  and  terror.  The  subjugation  of  rebels  neither  invariably 
 removes  their  inward  hostility,  nor  transforms  them  into  loyal 
 subjects. 
 
 The  text  from  Matt.  v.  is  a  caution  against  litigation,  an 
 exhortation  to  settle  difficulties  previous  to  legal  process,  when- 
 ever practicable.  There  is  probably  in  this  place  no  direct 
 reference  to  future  punishment. 
 
 Salvation,  —  Extent, 
 
 All  Israel  saved.  Only  a  portion  saved. 
 
 And  so  all  Israel  shall  be  saved :  as  it  But  the  children  of  the  kingdom  shall 
 is  written,  There  shall  come  out  of  Sion  be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness :  there 
 the  Deliverer,  and  shall  turn  away  un-  shall  be  weeping  and  gnashing  of  teeth, 
 godliness  from  Jacob.    Rom.  xi.  26.  Matt.  viii.  12. 
 
 Alford,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  Tholuck,  and  others  take  the  first 
 text  as  implying  a  "  future  national  restoration  of  Israel  to 
 God's  favor."  Or  it  may  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  spiritual 
 Israel ;  for  "  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly."  ^     All  of  the 
 
 Concordance,  latest  edition,  p;ives  aidiv  one  hundred  and  six  times,  and 
 axuvios  seventy-one  times.  Probably,  however,  the  proportion  remains 
 the  same].  In  view  of  these  facts,  we  may  conclude  with  Professor 
 Stuart,  that,  if  these  expressions  do  not  fairly  imply  the  eternity  of  future 
 punishment,  "  then  the  scriptures  do  not  decide  that  God  is  eternal,  nor 
 that  the  happiness  of  the  righteous  is  without  end,  nor  that  his  covenant 
 of  grace  will  always  remain,  a  conclusion  which  would  forever  blast  the 
 hopes  of  Christians,  and  shroud  in  more  than  midnight  darkness  all  the 
 glories  of  the  gospel." 
 1  Rom.  ii.  29. 
 
214  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 true  Israel  will  be   saved,  while  many  of   the  nominal  will 
 perish. 
 
 All  men  saved.  Some  not  saved. 
 
 Until  the  times  of  restitution  of  all       The  wicked  shall  be  turned  into  hell, 
 things,  which  (jiod  hath  spoken  by  the    and  all  the  nations  that  forget  God. 
 mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets.     Acts    Ps.  ix.  17. 
 "i-  21-  Salvation  is  far  from  the  wicked.  Ps. 
 
 For  God  hath  concluded  them  all  in    cxix.  155 
 unbelief,   that  he    might   have  mercy       The  wicked  is  driven' away  in  his 
 upon  all.     Kom  xi.  32.  wickedness.    Prov.  xiv.  32. 
 
 For  as  in  Adam  all  die,  even  .so  in        There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to 
 Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.    ICor.     the  wicked     Isa.  Ivii.  21. 
 XV.  22.  All   the  proud,  yea.  and  all  that  do 
 
 God  our  Saviour.  Who  will  have  all  wickedly,  shall  be  stubble :  and  the  day 
 men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  unto  the  that  cometh  sliall  burn  them  up,  saith 
 knowledge  of  the  truth.     1  Tim.  ii  3,  4.    the  Lokd  of  hosts.    Mai.  iv.  1. 
 
 The  living  God,  who  is  the  Saviour  The  Son  of  man  shall  send  forth  his 
 of  all  men,  specially  of  those  that  be-  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of  his 
 lieve.    1  Tim.  iv.  10.  kingdom  all   things  that    offend,   and 
 
 For  the  grace  of  God  that  bringeth  them,  whicli  do  iniquity.  And  shall 
 salvation  hath  appeared  to  all  men.  cast  tliem  into  a  furnace  of  fire.  Matt. 
 Titus  ii.  11.  xiii.  41,  42. 
 
 Not  willing  that  any  should  perish,        And   as  many  as  were  ordained  to 
 but  that  all  should  come  to  repentance,    eternal  life,  believed.     Acts  xiii.  48. 
 2  Pet.  ill.  9.  But  the  fearful,  and  unbelieving,  and 
 
 the  abominable,  and  murderers,  and 
 whoremongers,  and  sorcerers,  and  idol- 
 aters, and  all  liars,  sliall  have  their 
 part  in  the  lake  which  burneth  with 
 fire  and  brimstone :  which  is  the  second 
 death.    Rev.  xxi.  8. 
 
 Let  US  examine  the  texts  at  the  left,  and  ascertain  whether 
 they  teach  the  actual  salvation  of  all  mankind.  Ilackett, 
 with  Meyer  and  De  Wette,  interpret  the  first  quotation  of  the 
 restoration  of  all  things  to  a  "  state  of  primeval  order,  purity, 
 and  happiness,  such  as  will  exist  for  those  who  have  part  in 
 the  kingdom  of  Christ  at  his  second  coming." 
 
 Murdock's  version  of  the  Syriac  gives  the  passage  a  different 
 turn,  thus  s  "  Until  the  completion  of  the  times  of  those  things 
 which  God  hath  spoken."  The  Arabic  has,  "  Until  the  times 
 which  establish  the  perfection  or  completion  of  all  the  predic- 
 tions of  the  prophets." 
 
 Adam  Clarke,  Barnes,  Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards,^  and  others 
 concur  in  this  latter  explanation.  Obviously,  neither  this  nor 
 the  former  one  imi)lies  the  salvation  of  ail  men. 
 
 On  Rom.  xi.  32  Alford  says  that  it  brings  to  view  God's 
 act,  and  not  man's.     The  ultimate  difference  between  the  ''  all 
 
 ^  Works,  i.  284. 
 
DOCTKINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  215 
 
 men "  shut  up  under  disobedience  and  the  "  all  men "  upon 
 whom  mercy  is  shown,  lies  in  the  fact  that  by  some  men  this 
 mercy  is  not  accepted,  and  so  they  become  self-excluded  from 
 the  salvation  of  God. 
 
 The  text  from  1  Cor.  refers  simply  to  physical  death  and 
 resurrection.  "  As  Adam  caused  the  physical  death  of  all 
 men,  so  Christ  will  effect  the  resurrection  of  all."  This  is  the 
 view  of  Alford,  Barnes,  De  Wette,  Meyer,  and  others. 
 
 The  citations  from  1  Tim.  ii.  and  2  Peter  assert  the  "  wish  "  or 
 "  will  '^  of  God  that  all  men  should  be  saved.  But  this  by  no 
 means  proves  that  all  will  he  saved.  For  some  things  which 
 would  be  pleasing  to  God,  agreeable  to  his  will,  do  not  take 
 place.  For  example,  he  ''now  commandeth  all  men  every- 
 where to  repent."  ^  Need  it  be  said  that  universal  obedience 
 to  this  command,  though  it  would  be  agreeable  to  the  divine 
 will,  does  not  exist?  Hence,  the  texts  in  question,  wliile 
 setting  forth  the  benevolent  "  wish  "  or  "  will "  of  God,  do  not 
 intimate  that  all  men  will  comply  with  that  "  will." 
 
 1  Tim.  iv.  10  terms  God  "the  Saviour  of  all  men."  He  is 
 such,  in  that  he  preserves  their  lives,  and  grants  them  the  day 
 and  means  of  grace. 
 
 Titus  ii.  11  asserts,  indeed,  that  the  grace  of  God  bringeth, 
 proffereth,  salvation  to  all  men,  but  does  not  imply  that  this 
 "  salvation  "  i?,  forced  upon  them. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  none  of  the  foregoing  texts,  fairly  interpreted, 
 support  the  doctrine  of  universal  salvation. 
 
 Earth  f  —  Destruction. 
 
 Indestructible.  Will  be  destroyed.' 
 
 The  earth  which  he  hath  established       Of  old  hast  thou  laid  the  foundation 
 
 for  ever.    Ps.  Ixxviii.  69.  of  the  earth  :  and  the  heavens  are  the 
 
 Who  laid  the  foundations  of  the  earth,    work  of  thy  hands.    They  shall  perish, 
 
 that  it  should  not  be  removed  for  ever,    but  thou  shalt  endure :  yea,  all  of  them 
 
 Fs.  civ.  5.  shall  wax  old  like  a  garment     Ts.  cii. 
 
 The  earth  abideth  for  ever.  Eccl.  i.  4.    25,  26. 
 
 Heaven  and  earth  shall  pass  away: 
 but  my  words  shall  not  pass  away. 
 Luke  xxi.  33. 
 
 ^  Acts  xvii.  30. 
 
216  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Indestructible.  Will  be  destroyed. 
 
 The  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are 
 
 therein  shall  be  burned  up.  2  Pet.  iii.  10. 
 
 The  earth  and  the  heaven  fled  away ; 
 
 •  and  there  was  found  no  place  for  them. 
 
 Kev.  XX.  11. 
 
 As  to  the  first  texts,  the  Hebrew  word  "  olam "  rendered 
 "forever,"  does  not  imply  the  metaphysical  idea  of  absolute 
 endlessness,  but  a  period  of  indefinite  length,  as  Rambach  says, 
 "  a  very  long  time,  the  end  of  which  is  hidden  from  us."  These 
 texts  do  not  necessarily  teach  the  absolute  perpetuity  of  the 
 earth. 
 
 Of  the  opposed  texts,  that  from  Ps.  cii.  is  a  kind  of  com- 
 parison between  the  eternity  of  God  and  the  dependent  existence 
 of  material  objects  :  "  Though  they  should  perish,  thou  shalt 
 stand."  Similarly  Luke :  "  Though  heaven  and  earth  should 
 pass  away,  my  words  shall  not  pass  away."  That  is,  my  words 
 are  more  enduring  than  even  heaven  and  earth. 
 
 The  quotations  from  Peter  and  Revelation  imply  that  the 
 present  constitution  of  things  will  be  changed ;  that  "  the 
 cloud-capped  towers,  the  gorgeous  palaces-,  the  solemn  temples, 
 and  the  great  globe  itself"  will  be  subjected  to  the  action  of 
 fire.  This  opinion  prevailed  among  the  ancient  philosophers, 
 especially  the  Greek  stoics.^ 
 
 The  passages  which  speak  of  the  destruction  of  the  earth 
 may  therefore  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  change  or  passing 
 away  of  its  present  form  ;  those  which  speak  of  its  durability, 
 as  implying  the  permanence  of  its  constituent  elements. 
 
 Heaven,  —  Occupants. 
 
 Christ  only.  Elijah  also. 
 
 And  no  man  hath  ascended  up  to       Elijah  went  up  by  a  whirlwind  into 
 heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from    heaven.    2  Kings  ii.  11. 
 heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man  which  is 
 in  heaven.    John  iii.  13. 
 
 In  the  first  text  Jesus,  setting  forth  his  own  superior  authority, 
 says,  substantially,  "  No  human  being  can  speak  from  personal 
 knowledge,  as  I  do,  who  came  down  from  heaven."     "  No  man 
 
 ^  See  Wetstein,  on  2  Pet.  iii.  1. 
 
DOCTRINAL   DISCREPANCIES.  217 
 
 hath  ascended  up  to  heaven  to  bring  bach  tidings'^  So  we, 
 speaking  of  the  secrets  of  the  future  world,  should  very  natu- 
 rally say :  "  No  man  has  been  there  to  tell  us  about  them." 
 In  saying  this,  we  do  not  deny  that  any  one  has  actually 
 entered  the  eternal  world,  but  merely  that  any  one  has  gone 
 thither,  and  returned  to  unfold  its  mysteries. 
 
 Alf ord  applies,  however,  the  words  "  hath  ascended "  to 
 Christ's  "  exaltation  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour." 
 
 The  former  exjjlanation  seems  the  most  natural. 
 
 Flesh  and  blood  excluded.  Enoch  there. 
 
 Flesh  and  blood  cannot  inherit  the        Enoch  was  translated  that  he  should 
 kingdom  of  God ;  neither  doth  corrup-    not  see  death.    Heb.  xi.  5. 
 tion  inherit  incorruption.  1  Cor.  xv.  50. 
 
 A  late  sceptical  writer  adduces  this  and  the  preceding  as 
 cases  of  discrepancy.  It  need  only  be  said  that,  beyond  question, 
 Enoch  and  Elijah,  before  entering  the  heavenly  world,  passed 
 through  a  change  equivalent  to  death.  Their  corruptible  put 
 on  incorruption,  and  their  mortal  put  on  immortality. 
 
 Publicans  and  harlots  enter.  Impure  not  there. 
 
 The  publicans  and  the  harlots  go  into  Neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor 
 the  kingdom  of  God  before  you.  Matt,  adulterers,  nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers 
 xxi.  31.  of    themselves    with     mankind,    nor 
 
 thieve'^,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards, 
 nor  revilers,  nor  extortioners,  shall  in- 
 herit the  kingdom  of  God.  1  Cor.  vi. 
 9,10. 
 
 The  first  text  does  not  say  that  publicans  and  harlots  as  such., 
 but  merely  that  some  who  had  been  such,  and  had  afterwards 
 repented,  should  enter  heaven.  Paul,  in  the  verse  succeeding 
 the  quotation  from  Corinthians,  observes :  "And  such  were 
 some  of  you,  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sanctified,  but  ye 
 are  justified."  They  had  been  corrupt  and  wicked,  but  were  so 
 no  longer.  Observe,  also,  that  our  Saviour's  assertion  amounts 
 simply  to  this,  "  The  publicans  and  harlots  are  more  likely  to 
 be  saved,  stand  a  better  chance  for  salvation,  than  do  you,  chief 
 priests  and  elders." 
 
 Neither  this  passage,  nor   any  other,  sanctions  the  idea  of 
 impurity  tolerated  in  heaven. 
 19 
 
218  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Employments, 
 
 Incessant  praise.  Rest  and  quiet. 
 
 And  they  rest  not  day  and  night,        There  remaineth  therefore  a  rest  to 
 saying,  Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God  Al-    the  people  of  God.    Heb.  iv.  9. 
 mighty,  which  was,  and  is,  and  is  to        Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the 
 come.    Rev.  iv.  8.  Lord  from  henceforth  :  Yea,  saith  the 
 
 Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from  their 
 labors.    Kev.  xiv.  13. 
 
 The  two  cases  are  quite  different ;  the  former  is  that  of  the 
 four  wonderful  "  living  creatures,"  the  latter  that  of  departed 
 believers.  Moreover,  the  "  rest "  attributed  to  departed  saints 
 is  "  rest  from  their  labors,'^  —  from  every  thing  painful  and 
 wearisome,  —  but  not  a ''  rest "  of  dormant  inactivity,  precluding 
 enjoyment,  praise,  and  glorified  service. 
 
CHAPTER    II. 
 
 ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.! 
 DUTY  OF  31  AX,  — Toward  God, 
 
 Blessing  gcmied. 
 
 By  those  who  see.  Those  who  see  not. 
 
 Blessed  are  the  eyes  which  see  the       Thomas,  because  thou  hast  seen  me, 
 
 things  that  ye  see.    Luke  x.  23.  thou  hast  believed :   blessed  are  they 
 
 that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have  be- 
 lieved.   John  XX.  29. 
 
 The  word  "  blessed,"  in  the  first  case  seems  to  mean  "  highly- 
 favored,"  "  enjoying  peculiar  privileges  ;  "  in  the  latter,  "worthy 
 of  commendation." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller :  "  There  is  a  wide  difference  between  re- 
 quiring sight  as  the  ground  of  faith,  which  Thomas  did,  and 
 obtaini7ig  it  as  the  completion  of  faith,  which  those  who  saw 
 the  coming  and  kingdom  of  the  Messiah  did.  The  one  was  a 
 species  of  unbelief,  the  other  was  faith  terminating  in  vision." 
 
 Blood,— disposal. 
 
 Poured  upon  altar.  Sprinkled  upon  it. 
 
 The  blood  of  thy  sacrifices  shall  be  The  priests  shall  sprinkle  the  blood 
 poured  out  upon  the  altar.  Deut.  xii.  upon  the  altar  round  about.  Lev. 
 27.  iii.  2. 
 
 Maimonides,  whose  knowledge  of  Hebrew  customs  and  tra- 
 ditions was  unsurpassed,  says  that  a  part  of  the  blood  was 
 sprinkled  upon  the  altar,  and  the  remainder  poured  out  at  the 
 bottom  of  it. 
 
 The  Septuagint  and  Vulgate  render  the  Hebrew  word  in  Le- 
 
 ^  The  reader  n^.ed  not  be  reminded  that  no  ri^id  and  precise  classification 
 has  been  attempted.  That  arrangement  which  seemed  most  natural  and 
 obvious  has  generally  been  adopted.  The  mere  classification  of  discrep- 
 ancies is  a  trivial  matter  In  comparison  with  their  solution. 
 
 219 
 
220  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 viticus  "pour"  and  "jDOur  out."^  A  part  of  the  blood  was  dis- 
 posed of  in  one  way  and  the  rest  in  another.  Smith's  Bib.  Diet. 
 says  that  the  priest,  after  he  had  sprinkled  the  altar  of  incense 
 with  the  blood,  "  poured  out  what  remained  at  the  foot  of  the 
 altar  of  burnt-offering."  Outram :  ^  "  The  blood  of  the  paschal 
 lamb,  of  the  male  firstlings,  and  of  the  tithes,  was  considered  as 
 rightly  sprinkled,  if  it  were  only  poured  out  at  either  corner  of 
 the  altar." 
 
 Covered  with  dust.  Poured  out  as  water. 
 
 He  shall  even    pour  out  the  blood  Thou  shalt  pour  it  upon  the  earth  as 
 
 thereof,  and  cover  it  with  dust.    Lev.  water.    Deut.  xii.  24. 
 xvii.  13. 
 
 Strange  that  a  recent  author  who  deems  this  a  discrepancy, 
 could  not  see  that  the  blood  might  be  "  poured  upon  the  earth," 
 and  afterward  "  covered  with  dust." 
 
 Christ  ^s  execution. 
 
 Lawful.  Unlawful. 
 
 We  have  a  law,  and  by  our  law  he       It  is  not  lawful  for  us  to  put  any  man 
 ought  to  die.    John  xix.  7.  to  death.    John  xviii.  31. 
 
 The  first  text  refers  to  the  Mosaic  code,  the  second  to  the 
 restrictions  imjDosed  by  the  Roman  government.  The  meaning 
 of  the  combined  passages  is,  "  By  our  code  of  laws  he  ought  to 
 die,  but  it  is  not  lawful  for  us  (not  permitted  us  by  the  Roman 
 government)  to  put  any  man  to  death." 
 
 Alford :  "  From  the  time  when  Archelaus  was  deposed  (a.d. 
 6  or  7)  and  Judea  became  a  Roman  province,  it  would  follow 
 by  the  Roman  law,  that  the  Jews  lost  the  power  of  life  and 
 death."  From  Josephus,^  we  learn  that  it  was  not  permitted 
 the  high-priest  even  to  assemble  a  sanhedrim  without  the  consent 
 of  the  Roman  procurator. 
 
 Covenant  basis, 
 
 Eeligious  laws.  Civil  laios 
 
 And  he  said,  Behold  I  mpke  a  cove-  Moses  came  and  told  the  people  all 
 
 nant.  .  .  .  Write  thou  tliese  words:  for  the  words  of  the  Loud,  and  all  the 
 
 after  the  tenor  of  these  words  I  have  judsrments.  .  .  .  The    covenant,   which 
 
 made  a  covenant  witli  thee,  and  with  the  Loud  hath  made  with  you  concern- 
 
 Jsrael.    Ex.  xxxiv.  10-27.  ing  all  these  words.    Ex.  xxiv.  3-8. 
 
 ^  Fuerst  say.s  the  word  means,  to  moisten,  to  wet. 
 
 ^  On  Sacrifices,  chap.  xvi.  ^  Antiq.  xx.  9, 1. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  221 
 
 The  discrepancy  v/liich  a  late  writer  finds  here,  has  no  ex- 
 istence, except  in  his  imagination.  The  first  passage  clearly 
 makes  the  decalogue  the  foundation  of  the  "  covenant."  ^  The 
 "  words  "  and  "  judgments  "  of  the  second  passage  begin  with 
 the  decalogue  in  the  twentieth  chapter,  so  that  both  passages 
 concur  in  making  that  decalogue  the  '"  basis  "  of  the  "  covenant." 
 
 Covering  of  sin. 
 
 Approved.  Denounced. 
 
 Blessed  is  he  whose  transgression  i*       He  that  covereth  his  sins  shall  not 
 forgiven,   whose  sin  is  covered.     Ps,    prosper.    Prov.  xxviii.  13. 
 xxxii.  1. 
 
 In  the  first  text,  the  parallelism  shows  that  the  "  covering  of 
 sin"  means  its  remission  or  atonement.  The  second,  as  the 
 context  evinces,  refers  to  its  unjustifiable  concealment. 
 
 The  fii'st  text  alludes  to  God's  gracious  act  in  forgiving  sin ; 
 the  second  to  man's  wicked  act  in  conniving  at  it,  and  hiding  it. 
 
 Crimes  specified,  / 
 
 One  list.  A  different  list. 
 Cursed  be  the  man  that  raaketh  any  And  God  spake  all  these  words,  say- 
 graven  or  molten  imago,  an  abomina-  ing,  I  avi  the  Lord  thy  God,  which 
 tion  unto  the  Lord,  the  work  of  the  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
 hands  of  the  craftsman,  and  putteth  it  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage. 
 in  a  secret  j^lO'Ce:  and  all  the  people  Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before 
 shall  answer  and  say,  Amen,  etc.  Deut.  me,  etc.  Ex.  xx.  1-xxiii.  33.2 
 xxvii.  15-26. 
 
 Keil,  on  Deut.  xxvii.  26 :  "  From  this  last  curse,  which  applies 
 to  every  breach  of  the  law,  it  evidently  follows,  that  the  different 
 sins  and  transgressions  already  mentioned  were  only  selected 
 by  way  of  example,  and  for  the  most  part  were  such  as  could 
 be  easily  concealed  from  the  judicial  authorities." 
 
 Similarly  Le  Clerc  and  JMichaelis. 
 
 David's  conduct. 
 
 Strayed  from  God  Did  not  stray. 
 
 I  have  gone  astray  like  a  lost  sheep.       Yet  I  erred  not  from  thy  precepts. 
 Ps.  cxix.  176.  Ps.  cxix.  110. 
 
 David  does  not  charge  himself  with  any  moral  obliquity,  but 
 sets  forth  his  desolate  and  perilous  condition.     The  Hebrew  of 
 
 ^  See  Ex.  xxxiv.  28,  last  clause. 
 2  Passages  abridged  here,  and  in  several  cases. 
 19* 
 
222  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 "  have  gone  astray  "  means,  according  to  Gesenius,  "  to  be  thrust 
 hither  and  thither."     Surely  this  was  David's  experience. 
 
 Menasseh  ben  Israel  takes  the  first  text  as  alluding  to  the 
 "  troubles  and  misfortunes  which  David  experienced  in  this 
 world, —  constantly  persecuted,  and  fleeing  from  one  place  to 
 another  to  escape  from  Saul  and  his  own  son." 
 
 A  man  of  perfect  heart.  Committed  sin. 
 
 His  heart  was  not  perfect  with  the  David's  heart  smote  him  after  that  ho 
 Lord  liis  (Jod,  as  the  heart  of  David  had  numbered  the  people.  And  David 
 his  father.  Because  David  did  that  said  unto  the  Lord,  I  have  sinned 
 w///c/iiras  rijiht  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord,  greatly  in  that  1  have  done.  2  Sam. 
 and  turned  not  aside  from  any  thing    xxiv.  10. 
 
 that  he  commanded  him  all  the  days  of       Thou  hast  been  a  man  of  war,  and 
 his  life,  save  only  in    the   matter  of    hast  shed  blood,    1  Chron.  xxviii.  3. 
 Lriah  the  Hittite.    1  Kings  xv.  3,  5. 
 
 I  have  found  David  the  son  of  Jesse, 
 a  man  after  mine  own  heart,  which 
 shall  fultil  all  my  will.    Acts  xiii.  22. 
 
 The  quotation  from  Acts  refers  to  David  early  in  life} 
 before  he  had  fallen  into  those  great  sins  which  cast  such  a 
 shadow  upon  his  administration. 
 
 Again,  the  praise  bestowed  upon  David  contemplates  him  in 
 relation  to  his  predecessor  and  successors  in  the  kingly  office. 
 In  comparison  with  them,  his  heart  was  "  perfect  with  the  Lord 
 his  God."  Hackett :  ^  "  This  commendation  is  not  absolute,  but 
 describes  the  character  of  David  in  comparison  with  that  of 
 Saul."  Smith's  Bib.  Diet,  says,  the  commendation  has  been 
 made  too  much  of.  "  It  merely  indicates  a  man  ■  whom  God 
 will  approve,  in  distinction  from  Saul,  who  was  rejected." 
 
 Besides,  David's  repentance  was  as  deep  and  thorough  as  his 
 sins  were  flagrant  and  aggravated.  On  this  subject  Mr.  Carlyle  ^ 
 fitly  and  forcibly  remarks :  "  Who  is  called  '  the  man  after 
 God's  own  heart '  ?  David,  the  Hebrew  king,  had  fallen  into 
 sins  enough  —  blackest  crimes  —  there  was  no  want  of  sin. 
 And,  therefore,  unbelievers  sneer,  and  ask,  '  Is  this  your  man 
 according  to  God's  heart '  ?  The  sneer,  I  must  say,  seems  to  me 
 but  a  shallow  one.  What  are  faults,  what  are  the  outwai'd 
 details  of  a  life,  if  the  inner  secret  of  it,  the  remorse,  temptations, 
 
 1  See  1  Sam.  xiii.  14.  2  q^  ^g^g  ^iy^  22. 
 
 '  Heroes  and  Hero-worship,  p.  72. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  223 
 
 the  often-baffled,  never-ended  struggle  of  it,  be  forgotten  ? 
 
 David's  life  and  history,  as  written  for  us  in  those  Psalms  of 
 his,  I  consider  to  be  the  truest  emblem  ever  given  us  of  a  man's 
 moral  progress  and  warfare  here  below.  All  earnest  souls  will 
 ever  discover  in  it  the  faithful  struggle  of  an  earnest  human 
 soul  towards  what  is  good  and  best.  Struggle  often  baffled  — 
 sore  baffled  —  driven  as  into  entire  wreck ;  yet  a  struggle  never 
 ended,  ever  with  tears,  repentance,  true  unconquerable  purpose, 
 begun  anew." 
 
 In  this  his  constant  attitude  as  a  moral  hero  "  striving  against 
 sin,"  who  when  "  cast  down  is  not  destroyed,"  but  springs  up, 
 Antaeus-like,  to  renew  the  conflict,  David  challenges  our 
 admiration. 
 
 Fast,  —  observance. 
 
 Enjoined.  Disregarded. 
 
 On  the  tenth  day  of  this  seventh  And  at  that  time  Solomon  held  a 
 month  there  shall  be  a  day  of  atone-  feast,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  .  .  .  be- 
 ment;  it  shall  be  a  holy  convocation  fore  the  Lord  our  God,  seven  days  and 
 unto  you.  . . .  And  ye  shall  do  no  work  in  seven  days,  even  fourteen  days.  On  the 
 that  same  day;  .  .  .  for  whatsoever  soul  eisrhth  day  he  sent  the  people  away.  1 
 it  he  that  shall  not  be  afflicted  in  that    Kings  viii.  65,  66. 
 
 same  day,   he    shall    be    cut  off  from        And  on  the  three  and  twentieth  day 
 among  his  people.    Lev.  xxiii.  27-29.        of  the  seventh  month  he  sent  the  peo- 
 ple away  into  their  tents.     2  Chron. 
 vii.  10. 
 
 It  cannot  be  proved  that  Solomon  did  not  keep  the  day  of 
 atonement  according  to  the  law  in  Leviticus.  The  feast  of 
 tabernacles  began  on  the  fifteenth  and  ended  on  the  twenty- 
 second  of  the  month ;  closing  with  a  "  holy  convocation  "  the 
 "  eighth  day,"  ^  at  the  end  of  which  Solomon  dismissed  the  people ; 
 the  dismission  taking  effect  the  next  morning,  the  twenty-third. 
 In  this  manner  the  accounts  in  Kings  and  Chronicles  harmonize 
 perfectly. 
 
 We  may  suppose  that  the  first  series  of  seven  days  was  not 
 entirely  consecutive,  but  began  with  the  seventh,  and  included 
 three  days  before  and  four  days  after  the  tenth,  or  "day  of 
 atonement,"  which  was  fitly  observed.  Or  it  may  be  that  this 
 series  began  with  the  eighth  day  of  the  month,  while  the  "  day 
 
 ^  Lev.  xxiii.  33-39. 
 
224  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 of  atonement,"  being  itself  a  religious  solemnity  of  high  im- 
 portance, and  from  the  brevity  of  the  narrative,  is  reckoned  in 
 as  one  of  the  days  of  festivity,  although  it  was  kept  according 
 to  the  law. 
 
 The  latter  seems  to  be  the  opinion  of  eminent  Jewish  critics.' 
 Bahr :  "  Old  commentators  say  that  the  dedication  rendered 
 it  unusually  solemn ;  others,  that,  as  it  was  a  fast-day,  its  ob- 
 servance was  for  the  time  omitted." 
 
 First-horn  sons. 
 
 Dedicated.  Redeemed. 
 
 The  first-born  of  thy  sons  shalt  thou        All  the  first-born  of  man  among  thy 
 give  unto  me.    Ex.  xxii.  29.  children  shalt  thou  redeem.  Ex.  xiii.  13. 
 
 Keil :  "  The  adoption  of  the  first-born  on  the  part  of  Jehovah 
 was  a  perpetual  guarantee  to  the  whole  nation  of  the  right  of 
 covenant  fellowship."  The  first-born  sons,  though  specially 
 consecrated  to  God,  were  allowed  to  be  redeemed,  and  Levites 
 substituted  in  their  stead.^ 
 
 Firstling  animals. 
 
 Redeemable.  Not  redeemable. 
 
 Then  shalt  thou  turn  it  into  money,        The  firstling  of  a  cow,  or  the  firstling 
 etc.    Deut.  xiv.  22-26.  of  a  sheep,  or  the  firstling  of  a  goat, 
 
 thou  shalt  not  redeem.  Num.  xviii.  17. 
 
 The  first  passage  does  not,  as  some  pretend,  sanction  the 
 redemption  of  firstlings.  It  merely  allows  them,  for  con- 
 venience' sake,  to  be  "  turned  into  money " ;  but  the  money 
 must  be  taken  to  the  prescribed  place,  and  there  expended  for 
 articles  of  food  and  drink  to  be  consumed  in  the  same  manner 
 as  the  original  firstlings  would  have  been.  It  was  simply  an 
 arrangement  for  the  accommodation  of  the  offerer. 
 
 Redeemed  with  money.  With  an  animal,  or  slain. 
 
 Tlie  firstling  of  unclean  beasts  shalt  The  firstling  of  an  ass  thou  slialt  re- 
 
 tliou  redoem.  ...  According  to  thine  deem  with  a  lamb;  and  if  tliou  redeem 
 
 estimation,  for  the  money  of  five  she-  /tim  not,  then  shalt  thou  break  his  neck, 
 
 kels.    Num.  xviii.  15,  16.  Ex.  xxxiv.  20. 
 
 Keil  thinks  that  "  the  earlier  law,  which  commanded  that  an 
 ass  should  be  redeemed  with  a  sheep,  or  else  be  put  to  death, 
 was  modified  in  favor  of  the  revenues  of  the  sanctuary  and  its 
 1  Conciliator,  i.  235.  "  Num.  iii.  12,  13. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  225 
 
 servants."     Money  would  be  more  serviceable  than  numerous 
 
 animals,  by  way  of  commutation. 
 
 Sanctified.  Not  sanctified. 
 
 All  the  firstling  males  that  come  of  The  firstling    of  the   beasts,  which 
 
 thy  herd  and  of  thy  flock  thou  shalt  should  be  the  Lord's  firstling,  no  man 
 
 sanctify  unto  the  Lokd  thy  God.  Deut.  shall  sanctify  it.    Lev.  xxvii.  26. 
 XV.  19. 
 
 Keil :  "  What  belonged  to  the  Lord  by  law  could  not  be 
 dedicated  to  him  by  a  vow."  It  would  be  mockery  to  give 
 him  what  was  already  his. 
 
 Idolatry. 
 
 God  only,  toorsJiipped.  Other  beings  adored. 
 
 Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  God,  before  whom  my  fathers  Abra- 
 me.  . .  .Thou  shalt  not  bow  down  thyself  ham  and  Isaac  did  walk,'  the  God  which 
 to  them,  nor  serve  them.  Ex.  xx.  3,  5.      fed  me  all  my  life  long  unto  this  day. 
 
 The  Angel  which  redeemed  me  from  all 
 evil,  bless  the  lads.  Gen.  xlviii.  15, 16. 
 Behold,  there  stood  a  man  over 
 against  him  with  his  sword  drawn  in 
 his  hand.  .  .  .  And  Joshua  fell  on  his 
 face  to  the  earth,  and  did  worship. 
 Josh.  V.  13,  14. 
 
 "  God  before  whom  my  fathers  walked,"  "  God  who  fed  me 
 all  my  life,"  and  the  "  Angel  who  redeemed  me  "  are  three 
 appellations  of  one  and  the  same  Being.  Lange  :  "  A  three- 
 fold naming  of  God."  Murphy :  "  Jacob's  threefold  periphrasis 
 is  intended  to  describe  the  one  God  who  wills,  works,  and 
 wards." 
 
 On  Josh.  V.  14  Keil  says  the  Hebrew  word  employed  here 
 
 "  does   not  always  mean  divine  worship,  but  very  frequently 
 
 means  nothing  more  than  the  deep  Oriental  reverence  paid  by 
 
 a  dependant  to  his  superior  or  king."  ^     Gesenius :  "  This  honor 
 
 was  paid  not  only  to  superiors,  as  to  kings  and  princes,  but 
 
 also  to  equals."  ^     There  is,  then,  no  idolatry  in  either  case. 
 
 Capitally  punished.  Punishment  undesired. 
 
 If  there  be  found  among  vou,  . . .  man        For  I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death 
 orwoman  that  hath  wrought  wicked-    of  him  that  dieth,  saith  the  Lord  God 
 ness  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord  thy  God,    Ezek.  xviii.  32. 
 in   transgressing    his    covenant.     And 
 hath  gone  and  served  other  gods,  and 
 worshipped  them.  .  .  .  The  hands  of  the 
 witnesses  shall  be  first  upon  him  to  put 
 him  to  death,  and  afterward  the  hands 
 of  all  the  people.    Deut.  x\ii.  2,  3,  7.^ 
 
 ^  2  Sam.  ix.  6;  xiv.33.        ^  Qg^  xxiii.  7;  Ex.  xviii.  7;  1  Kings  ii.  19 
 2  See  Deut.  xiii.  6-11. 
 
226  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 The  capital  punishment  of  idolaters  was  not  a  thing  desirable 
 •per  se,  but  it  was  enjoined  out  of  regard  to  the  welfare  of  the 
 people  and  the  security  of  the  government.  Under  the  the- 
 ocracy, in  which  God  was  the  sole  Lawgiver  and  King,  idolatry 
 was  simply  high  treason^  and  must  be  severely  punished,  or  the 
 very  existence  of  the  government  would  be  endangered. 
 
 Michaelis ' :  "  As  the  only  true  God  was  the  civil  legislator 
 of  the  people  of  Israel,  and  accepted  by  them  as  their  King, 
 idolatry  was  a  crime  against  the  state,  and  therefore  just  as 
 deservedly  punished  with  death  as  high  treason  is  with  us. 
 Whoever  worshipped  strange  gods  shook,  at  the  same  time,  the 
 whole  fabric  of  the  laws,  and  rebelled  against  him  in  whose 
 name  the  government  was  carried  on." 
 
 Dr.  Jahn  ^ :  "  Whoever  in  the  Hebrew  nation,  over  which 
 Jehovah  was  King,  worshipped  another  god,  or  practised  any 
 superstitions,  by  this  very  act  renounced  his  allegiance  to  his  king, 
 and  deserted  to  another.  He  committed  high  treason,  and  was 
 properly  considered  a  public  criminal.  Whoever  incited  others 
 to  idolatry  incited  them  to  rebellion,  and  was  a  mover  of  sedi- 
 tion. Therefore  death  was  justly  awarded  as  the  punislunent 
 of  idolatry  and  its  kindred  arts,  magic,  necromancy,  and  sooth- 
 saying ;  and  also  of  inciting  to  idolatry." 
 
 Image  making. 
 
 Sanctioned.  Forbidden. 
 
 And  thou  shalt  make  two  cherubim  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any 
 
 Qfgold.o/beaten  work  shalt  thou  make  graven  imasjfe,  or  any  likeness  of  any 
 
 them,  in  the  two  ends  of  tlie  mercy-  thing.  . . .  Thou  shalt  not  bow  down 
 
 Beat. . . .  And  the  cherubim  shall  stretch  thyself  to  them,  nor  serve  them.    Ex. 
 
 forth  their  wings  on  high,  covering  the  xx.  4,  5. 
 
 mercy-seat  with  their' wings.  ...  And  Take  heed  unto  yourselves,  lest  ye 
 
 in  the  candlestick  shall  be  four  bowls  forget  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your 
 
 made  like  unto    almonds,    ivith  their  (Jod,  whicl;   he  made  with  you,   and 
 
 knops  and    their    flowers.      Ex.   xxv.  make  you  a  graven  image,  or  the  like- 
 
 18,  20,  34.  ness  ot'  any  thinr/  which  tlie  Loud  thy 
 
 And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Make  God  hath  forbidden  thee.    Deut  iv.  23. 
 
 thee  a  fiery  serpent,  and  set  it  upon  a  Cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  any 
 
 pole.    Num.  xxi.  8.  graven  or  molten  image,  an  abomina- 
 
 The  throne  had  six   steps.  ...And  tion  unto  tlie  Lonu,  the  work  of  the 
 
 twelve  lions  stood  there  on  the  one  hands  of  the  craftsman,  and  putteth  it 
 
 side  and  on   tlie  otlicr  upon  the  six  in  a  secret  p/oce.     Deut.  xxvii.  15. 
 steps:  tliere  was  not  the  like  made  in 
 any  kingdom.     1  Kings  x.  19,  20. 
 
 ^  Commentary  on  Laws  of  Moses,  iv.  11. 
 
 ^  History  of  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  p.  19  (English  edition). 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  227 
 
 Some  interpret  the  prohibitions  as  referring  to  images  in- 
 tended to  represent  the  Divine  Being. 
 
 Michaelis  ^ :  It  is  evident  that  images  of  the  Deity  are  alone 
 spoken  of  in  all  these  passages,  and  that,  if  we  infer  the  pro- 
 hibition of  painting  and  sculpture  from  these  texts,  we  might 
 with  equal  reason  from  the  words  that  follow,  "  Thou  shalt  not 
 lift  up  thine  eyes  to  heaven,  to  behold  the  sun,  moon,  and 
 stars,"  infer  that  we  are  never  to  raise  our  eyes  to  heaven, 
 and  contemplate  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  but  rather  to  walk 
 upon  all  fours  forever. 
 
 Josephus^  and  Menasseh  ben  Israel^  apply  the  prohibition  to 
 images  made  for  purposes  of  idolatry.  The  latter,  with  rabbi 
 Isaac  Arama,  also  restricts  it  to  the  likeness  of  existing,  and 
 not  of  imaginary  things. 
 
 Further,  the  cherubim  were  not  "  graven  images,"  but  were 
 of  "  beaten  work,"  as  Murphy  says,  "  formed  by  the  hammer, 
 of  malleable  gold."  Nor  were  they  made  "  in  the  likeness  "  of 
 any  created  thing  whatever.     Their  form  was  purely  ideal. 
 
 Hengstenberg:*  The  cherubim  is  a  representative  of  creation 
 in  its  highest  grade,  an  ideal  creature.  The  vital  powers  com- 
 municated to  the  most  elevated  existences  in  the  visible  creation 
 are  collected  and  individualized  in  it. 
 
 In  this  view  Josephus,  Bochart,  Stuart,^  and  Fair  bairn  ^ 
 substantially  agree.  Thus  it  is  clear  that  neither  the  making 
 of  the  cherubim  nor  the  other  cases  of  sculpture  or  image- 
 making  was  a  violation  of  the  second  commandment.  The 
 idolatrous  purpose  at  which  the  prohibition  is  aimed  was 
 wanting  in  all  of  the  foregoing  instances. 
 
 Israel 's  transgression. 
 
 Ineradicable.  To  he  removed. 
 
 For  though  thou  wash  thee  with  nitre,        O  Jerusalem,  wash  thine  heart  from 
 
 and  take  thee  much  soap,  yet  thine  in-    wickedness,  that  thou  mayestie  saved. 
 
 iquity  is  marked  before  me.    Jer.  ii.  22.    How    long    shall    thy    vain    thoughts 
 
 lodge  within  thee?    Jer.  iv.  14. 
 
 ^  Com.  on  Laws  of  Moses,  iv.  52.        ^  Antiq.  iii.  v.  .5. 
 
 ^  Conciliator,  i.  154-157.  *  Egypt  and  Books  of  Moses,  168. 
 
 6  On  Rev.  iv.  6-8.  -  •  Typology,  i.  261, 262  (ith  edition). 
 
228  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Abarbanel :  "  Although  you  wash  and  cleanse  yourself  out- 
 wardly, your  iniquity  is  marked."  That  is,  by  no  external 
 rites  and  ceremonies  can  you  be  cleansed ;  your  hearts  must  be 
 purified  by  penitence. 
 
 Jerusalem,  —  ethical  aspect, 
 
 A  delight  to  God.  A  provocation. 
 
 The  Lord  loveth  the  gates  of  Zion  For  this  city  has  been  to  me  as  a 
 
 more  than  all  the  dwellings  of  Jacob,  provocation  of  mine  anger  and  of  my 
 
 (jlorious  things  are  spoken  of  thee,  O  fury  from  the  day  that  they  built  it, 
 
 city  of  God.     Ps.  Ixxxvii.  2,  3.  even  unto  this  day;   that  1  should  re- 
 
 For  the  Lord  hath  chosen  Zion ;  he  move  it  from   before  my  face.     Jer. 
 
 hath  desired  it  for  his  habitation.    Ps,  xxxii.  31. 
 cxxxii.  13. 
 
 In  the  first  passages  there  is,  as  Tholuck  says,  "  no  reference 
 to  Jerusalem  according  to  her  earthly  aspects,  with  her  streets 
 and  walls  and  palaces."  It  is  the  church,  which  is  figuratively 
 styled  "  Zion  "  and  "  city  of  God." 
 
 Calvin ;  "  Christ  has  by  his  advent  extended  Mount  Zion  to 
 the  ends  of  the  earth."   Jeremiah  refers  to  the  literal  Jerusalem. 
 
 Judging  of  David* 
 
 Desired.  Deprecated. 
 
 Judge  me,  O  Lord,  according  to  my  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy 
 righteousness,  and  according  to  mine  servant:  for  in  thy  sight  shall  no  man 
 integrity  that  is  in  me.    Ps.  vii.  8.  living  be  justified.    Ps.  cxliii.  2. 
 
 The  first  text  has  reference  to  one  particular  case,  the  con- 
 troversy between  David  and  "  Cush  ^  the  Benjamite."  David 
 knew  himself  to  be  guiltless  of  the  crimes  alleged  against  him 
 by  this  enemy ;  hence  his  appeal :  "  As  to  this  charge,  God 
 knows  that  I  am  innocent."  But,  on  a  retrospect  of  his  whole 
 life,  he  acknowledges  his  ill-desert  in  general,  and  exclaims: 
 *'  Enter  not  into  judgment  with  thy  servant."  A  man  may  be 
 absolutely  innocent,  even  in  God's  sight,  with  reference  to  a 
 certain  accusation,  yet  not  sinless  in  respect  to  his  whole  life. 
 
 Just  man's  life. 
 
 By  faith.  By  deeds. 
 
 The  just  shall  live  by  his  faith.  Hab.  If  a  man  be  just,  and  do  that  which  is 
 ii.  4.  la%\'ful  and  right,  ...  ho  shall  surely  live, 
 
 saith  the  Lord  God.     Ezek  xviii.  5,  9. 
 
 *  The  Jewish  expositors  understood  Saul  to  be  meant;  others  say  Shimci. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  229 
 
 The  faith  is  such  as  produces  good  works ;  the  deeds  are 
 such  as  spring  from  living  faith.  One  text  speaks  of  the 
 subject  in  one  relation ;  the  other,  in  a  different,  yet  not  incom- 
 patible one. 
 
 Monarchy, 
 Sanctioned  by  God.  Offensive  to  Him. 
 
 When  thou  art  come  unto  the  land  Make  us  a  king  to  judge  us  like  all 
 which  the  Lord  thy  God  giveth  thee,  the  nations.  . . .  And  the  Lord  said  un- 
 and  shalt  possess  it,  and  shalt  dwell  to  Samuel,  Hearken  unto  the  voice  of 
 therein,  and  shalt  say,  I  will  set  a  king  the  people  in  all  that  they  say  unto 
 over  me,  like  as  all  the  nations  that  are  thee :  for  they  have  not  rejected  thee, 
 about  me;  thou  shalt  in  any  wise  set  but  they  have  rejected  me,  that  1  should 
 him  king  over  thee,  whom  the  Lord  not  reign  over  them.  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  7. 
 thy  God  shall  choose.  Deut.  xvii.  14, 15.        Is  it  not  wheat-harvest  to  day?    I 
 
 will  call  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  shall 
 send  thunder  and  rain;  that  ye  may 
 perceive  and  see  that  your  wickedness 
 IS  great,  which  ye  have  done  in  the 
 sight  of  the  Lord,  in  asking  you  a  king. 
 1  Sam.  xii.  17. 
 
 The  rationalistic  objection  is,  that  the  monarchy  was  con- 
 templated and  provided  for  in  the  law,  yet  was  afterwards 
 declared  to  be  offensive  in  the  sight  of  God.  To  this  objection 
 Jewish  interpreters  ^  reply  as  follows.  It  is  said,  in  Tosaphoth, 
 that  the  sin  lay  "  not  in  demanding  a  king,  but  in  the  mode  of 
 so  doing,  '  like  all  the  nations,' "  virtually  equivalent  to  a  wish 
 to  become  like  surrounding  idolaters.  Maimonides  and  Nach- 
 manides :  In  making  their  demand  in  the  shape  of  a  com- 
 plaint, as  if  they  were  tired  of  Samuel's  administration,  and 
 wished  to  be  rid  of  him.  The  Cabalists:  In  acting  prema- 
 turely, or  asking  impatiently  and  at  an  improper  time. 
 
 Abarbanel  :  "  The  divine  will  was  not  that  they  should  elect 
 a  king,  for  God  was  the  true  King  of  Israel."  That  is,  Deut. 
 xvii.  was  not  a  command,  nor  even  a  permission,  to  choose  a 
 king,  but  a  mere  prophetic  statement  of  what  God  foresaw 
 they  would  do.  It  is  not  said,  "  When  you  enter  the  land, 
 place  a  king  over  you,"  but,  "  When  thou  art  come  unto  the 
 land,  and  shalt  say,  /will  set,"  etc. 
 
 Professor  Keil  finds  the  wrong  in  their  overlooking  their 
 own  misconduct,  and  in  distrusting  God  and  his  guidance.     "In 
 
 ^  See  Menasseh  ben  Israel's  Conciliator,  i.  285-289. 
 20 
 
230  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 such  a  state  of  mind  as  this,  their  desire  for  a  king  was  a 
 contempt  and  rejection  of  the  kingly  government  of  Jehovah, 
 and  was  nothing  more  than  forsaking  him  to  serve  other  gods." 
 
 Motherhood, 
 
 Blessed.  To  he  expiated. 
 
 Thy  wife  shall  be  as  a  fruitful  vine  by        She  shall  bring  a  lamb  of  the  first 
 the  sides  of  thy  house.    Ps.  cxxviii.  3.      year  for  a  burnt-offering,  and  a  young 
 
 pigeon,  or  a  turtle-dove,  for  a  sin-offer- 
 ing, unto  the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of 
 the  congregation,  unto  the  priest:  who 
 shall  offer  it  before  the  Lord,  and  make 
 an  atonement  for  her.    Lev.  xii.  6,  7. 
 
 Michaelis  thinks  that  Moses,  by  such  laws,  intended  to 
 "  represent  theological  truths  in  a  figurative  manner." 
 
 Abarbanel  ^ :  "As  no  one  bears  pains  and  troubles  in  this 
 world  without  guilt ;  and  as  there  is  no  chastisement  without 
 sin ;  and  lastly,  as  every  woman  bears  children  with  pain  and 
 danger,  hence  every  one  is  commanded,  after  childbirth,  to  offer 
 an  expiatory  sacrifice." 
 
 Leyrer^  says  that  this  and  all  the  other  rites  of  purification 
 were  intended  "  to  foster  the  constant  humiliation  of  fallen  man ; 
 to  remind  him  in  all  the  leading  processes  of  natural  life  — 
 generation,  birth,  eating,  disease,  death — how  everything,  even 
 his  own  bodily  nature,  lies  under  the  curse  of  sin,  that  so  the 
 law  might  become  a  schoolbaaster  to  bring  unto  Christ,  and 
 awaken  and  sustain  the  longing  for  a  Redeemer  from  the  curse 
 which  had  fallen  upon  his  body." 
 
 Mr.  Clark,  in  Bible  Commentary :  "  The  conclusion,  then, 
 appears  to  be  reasonable  that  all  the  rites  of  purification  were 
 intended  to  remind  the  Israelite  that  he  belonged  to  a  fallen 
 race,  and  that  he  needed  a  purification  and  atonement  which 
 he  could  not  effect  for  himself." 
 
 Paul's  moral  state. 
 
 Nothing  good  in  him.  Christ  dwelt  in  him. 
 
 For  I  know  that  in  me  (that  is,  in        I  live;  yet  not  1,   but  Christ  liveth 
 my  fle.<h,)    dwelleth    no    good    thing,    in  me.     (Jal.  ii.  20. 
 Kom.  vii.  18. 
 
 ^  On  Lev.  xii.;  quoted  in  Outram  on  Sacrifices,  p.  145.  ^  In  Keil. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES,  231 
 
 In  these  passages  Paul  speaks  in  two  distinct  relations.  "  In 
 me,  that  is,  in  my  flesh,"  —  in  my  lower,  carnal  self.  "  Christ 
 liveth  in  me,"  —  in  my  liigher,  spiritual  self,  in  my  renewed 
 heart  in  which  Christ  is  enthroned.  This  is  Alford's  view. 
 Hodge  takes  substantially  the  same  view.  Some  interpret  the 
 first  text  as  describing  Paul  previous  to  his  conversion;  the 
 latter,  as  applying  to  him  after  that  event. 
 
 Biety  evinced. 
 
 By  profession.  Profession  useless. 
 
 No  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  the  Not  every  one  that  saith  unto  me, 
 Lord,  but  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  1  Cor.  Lord,  Lord,  shall  enter  into  the  king- 
 xii.  3.  dom  of  heaven.     Matt.  vii.  21. 
 
 And  why  call  ye  me  Lord,  Lord,  and 
 do  not  the  things  which  1  say?  Luke 
 vi.  46. 
 
 The  word  "  say,"  in  the  first  text,  does  not  imply  the  mere 
 utterance  of  the  words,  but  the  hearty  and  spontaneous  con- 
 fession of  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus.  In  the  last  texts 
 the  calling  of  him  "  Lord,"  "  Lord,"  is  mere  lip-service. 
 
 Prayer, 
 
 May  he  in  public.  Should  he  in  private. 
 
 And  Solomon  stood  before  the  altar  He  went  in  therefore,  and  shut  the 
 of  the  Lord  in  the  presence  of  all  the  door  upon  them  twain,  and  prayed 
 congregation  of  Israel,  and  spread  forth  unto  the  Lord  2  Kings  iv.  3^3. 
 his  hands  toward  heaven.  And  he  said,  When  thou  prayest,  thou  shalt  not  be 
 Lord  God  of  Israel,  there  is  no  God  as  the  hypocrites  are :  for  they  love  to 
 like  thee.    1  Kings  viii.  22,  23.  pray  standing  in  the  synagogues  and  in 
 
 His  windows  being  open  in  his  Cham-  the  corners  of  the  streets,  that  they 
 ber  toward  Jerusalem,  lie  kneeled  upon  may  be  seen  of  men.  Verily  I  say  unto 
 his  knees  three  times  a  day,  and  prayed,  you,  they  have  their  reward.  But  thou, 
 and  gave  thanks  before  liis  God,  as  he  when  thou  prayest,  enter  into  thy 
 dirt  aforetime.  Then  these  men  assem-  closet,  and  when  thou  hast  shut  thy 
 bled,  and  found  Daniel  praying.  Dan.  door,  pray  to  thy  Father  which  is  in 
 vi.  10,  11.  secret.    Matt,  vi  5,  6. 
 
 I  will  therefore  that  men  pray  every  He  went  out  into  a  mountain  to 
 where.    1  Tim.  ii.  8.  pray,  and  continued  all  night  in  prayer 
 
 to  God     Luke  vi.  12. 
 
 Peter  went  up  upon  the  house-top  to 
 pray,  about  the  sixth  hour.  Acts  x.  9. 
 
 It  is  not  publicity,  but  ostentation  in  prayer,  which  is  pro- 
 hibited; not  praying  in  public,  but  praying  in  conspicuous 
 places  to  "  be  seen  of  men."  The  motive,  not  the  place,  is  the 
 thing  in  question.  Chrysostom  and  Augustine  both  caution  us 
 against  a  merely  literal  mterpretation  of  JMatt.  vi.  6. 
 
232  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Incessant.  Brief. 
 
 Because  of  his  importunity  he  will  When  ye  pray,  use  not  vain  repeti- 
 
 rise  and  give  him  as  many  as  he  need-  tions  as  the  heatlien  do ;  for  they  think 
 
 eth.    Luke  xi.  8  that  they  shall  be  heard  for  tiieir  much 
 
 Men  ought  always  to  pray,  and  not  to  speaking.     Be  not   ye    therefore  like 
 
 faint;  ...  Shall  not  God  avenge  his  own  unto  them:   for  your  Father  knoweth 
 
 elect,  which  cry  day  and  night  unto  what  things  ye  have  need  of,  before  ye 
 
 him.    Luke  xviii.  1,  7.  ask  him.    Matt.  vi.  7.  8. 
 
 There  are  abundant  examples  of  the  "  vain  repetitions " 
 which  Jesus  prohibits.  Lightfoot  adduces  a  Jewish  maxim, 
 "  He  who  multiplies  j^rayer  is  heard." 
 
 The  priests  of  Baal,  in  their  frantic  orgies  before  their  idol's 
 sacrifices,  cried  from  morning  even  until  noon  saying,  "  O  Baal, 
 hear  us  ;  O  Baal,  hear  us."  ^  Another  instance  is  that  of  the 
 mob  at  Ephesus,  who  for  about  two  hours  cried  out,  "  Great 
 is  Diana  of  the  Ephesians."  ^ 
 
 The  Mohammedan  monks  in  India  often  practise  these 
 "  vain  repetitions  "  for  days  together.  They  have  been  known 
 to  repeat  a  single  syllable  of  supposed  religious  efficacy  until 
 their  strength  was  exhausted,  and  they  could  no  longer  speak.^ 
 A  missionary  writes  that  in  Orissa  some  heathen  worshippers 
 sit  for  many  hours  of  the  day  and  night  pronouncing  the  name 
 of  Krisnu  on  a  string  of  beads. 
 
 Alford,  with  great  fitness,  adduces  the  "  Paternosters  "  and 
 "  Ave  Marias  "  of  the  Romish  church  as  examples  in  point. 
 
 It  is  such  idle,  emj^ty  "  repetitions  "  as  the  above  which  the 
 Greek  term  "  battalogeo  "  designates,  and  which  Christ  con- 
 demns, and  not  fervent,  importunate  supplication. 
 
 Mepentance, 
 
 Esau  unable  to  repent.  Ought  to  have  rejiented. 
 
 He  found  no   place  of  repentance,        God  . . .  commandeth  all  men  every 
 though  he  sought  it  carefully  with  tears,    where  to  repent.    Acts  xvii.  30. 
 Heb.  xii.  17. 
 
 Most  modern  commentators,  as  Stuart,  Tholuck,  Ebrard, 
 Barnes,  interpret  the  first  text,  "  found  no  place  for  a  change 
 of  mind  in  his  father."    But  AJf ord,  Bleek,  Delitzsch,  De  Wette, 
 
 1  1  Kings  xviii.  26-29. 
 
 '  Acts  xix.  34. 
 
 *  Haclcett  on  Acts,  p.  322.    See,  also,  Morier's  Second  Journey,  p.  176. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  233 
 
 Hofmann,  and  others  take  it  as  meaning  that  he  found  no  way 
 open  to  reverse  what  had  been  done.  "  He  might  change ; 
 but  the  penalty  could  not,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  circum- 
 stances, be  taken  off."  He  might  secure  the  salvation  of  his 
 soul ;  but  he  could  not  regain  the  forfeited  birthright,  nor 
 seciu-e  the  revocation  of  the  blessing  pronounced  prophetically 
 upon  Jacob. 
 
 Righteousness, 
 Perilous.  Want  of  it,  perilous. 
 
 Be  not  righteous  over  much ;  neither  Be  not  over  much  wicked,  neither  be 
 make  thyself  over  wise:  why  shouldest  thou  foolish:  why  shouldest  thou  die 
 thou  destroy  thyself?    Eccl.  vii.  16.  before  thy  time  ?    Eccl.  vii.  17. 
 
 The  first  text  is  a  caution  against  pharisaic  self-righteousness, 
 laying  claim  to  superior  wisdom  and  sanctity,  and  incurring 
 the  penalty  which  God  sends  upon  arrogance  and  hypocrisy. 
 
 The  second  admonishes  us  to  be  on  our  guard  against  crossing 
 the  border-line  which  separates  the  righteous,  who  is  still 
 subject  to  weakness  and  error,  from  the  wilful  transgressor. 
 Zockler,  referring  to  these  texts,  says  :  "  A  recommendation 
 to  avoid  the  two  extremes  of  false  righteousness  and  bold 
 wickedness." 
 
 The  gist  of  the  whole  is :  Avoid  extremes  in  all  things. 
 
 Sahhath, 
 
 Sanctioned.  Repudiated. 
 
 Kemember  the  sabbath-day  to  keep  it  The  new-moons  and  sabbaths,  the 
 holy.     Ex.  XX.  8.  calling  of  assemblies,  I  cannot   away 
 
 Blessed  is  the  man  that  doeth  this,    with;  it  is  iniquity,  even  the  solemn 
 and  the  son  of  man  that  layeth  hold  on    meeting.    Isa.  i.  13. 
 it;  that  keepeth  the  sabbath  from  pol-       One  man  esteemeth  one  day  above 
 luting  it.    Isa.  Ivi.  2.  another :  another  esteemeth  every  day 
 
 alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  per- 
 suaded in  his  own  mind.  Rom.  xiv.  5. 
 Let  no  man  therefore  judge  you  in 
 meat,  or  in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a 
 holy-day,  or  of  the  new-moon,  or  of 
 the  sabbath-(7a?/s.    Col.  ii.  16. 
 
 The  reason  why  the  Sabbath  keeping  and  other  observances 
 of  the  Israelites  were  not  acceptable  to  God,  is  set  forth  by 
 Isaiah,  in  a  subsequent  verse,  thus :  "  Your  hands  are  full  of 
 blood." 
 
 As  to  the  text  from  Romans,  Stuart,  Barnes,  Hodge,  and 
 others  think  that  Paul  is  not  here  speaking  of  the  "  Lord's 
 
234  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 day  "  at  all,  but  of  certain  Jewish  festivals,  the  passover,  feast 
 of  tabernacles,  and  the  like,  which  a  man  might  observe  or  not, 
 as  he  saw  fit. 
 
 Col.  ii.  16,  is  interpreted  by  Gilfillan^  as  referring  to  the 
 Jewish  sabbath,  or  "  seventh  day,"  which  had  been  superseded  by 
 "  the  Lord's  day  " ;  the  latter  being,  at  the  time  of  Paul's  writing, 
 acknowledged  and  observed  by  the  whole  Christian  church. 
 
 Others,  from  the  fact  that  the  term  ''  sabbath  "  is  applied,  in 
 
 the  Old  Testament,  not    only  to  the  seventh  day,  but  to  all 
 
 the  days  of  holy  rest  observed  by  the  Hebrews,  and  particularly 
 
 to  the  beginning  and  close  of  their  great  festivals,  understand 
 
 the  last  text  as  not  intended  to  include  the  weekly  day  of  rest. 
 
 Instituted  for  one  reason.  For  a  different  reason. 
 
 For  in  six  days  the  Lord  made  heav-  And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  ser- 
 en  and  earth,  the  sea  and  all  that  in  vant  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  that  the 
 them  is,  and  rested  the  seventh  day:  Lord  thy  God  brought  thee  out  thence 
 wherefore  the  Lord  blessed  the  sab-  through  a  mighty  hand,  and  by  a 
 bath-day,  and  hallowed  it.    Ex.  xx.  11.    stretched-out  arm :  therefore  the  Lord 
 
 thy  God  commanded  thee  to  keep  the 
 sabbath-day.     Deut.  v.  15. 
 
 This  is  an  example  of  two  concurrent  reasons  for  the  same 
 observance.  The  primary  reason  why  all  mankind  should 
 keep  the  Sabbath  is  that  the  Creator  rested  on  that  day.  An 
 additional  and  special  reason  why  the  Israelites  should  keep 
 it  was  the  fact  that  they  had  been  delivered  from  Egyptian 
 bondage  by  the  Author  of  the  Sabbath. 
 
 If  it  were  said  to  the  f reedmen  of  this  country,  "  You  should 
 observe  the  first  day  of  January,  because  it  is  the  beginning  of 
 a  new  year  "  ;  and  a  little  after :  "  You  should  observe  the  first 
 day  of  January,  because  it  is  the  anniversary  of  your  emanci- 
 pation by  President  Lincoln,"  there  would  be  no  discrepancy. 
 
 ScCbhath  desecration. 
 
 Prohibited.  Countenanced. 
 
 Whosoever  doeth  any  work  in  the        At  that  time  Jesus  went  on  the  sab- 
 
 Babbath-day  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  bath-day  through   the  corn,   and   his 
 
 death.     Ex.  xxxi.  15.  disciples  were  a  hungered,  and  began 
 
 They  found  a    man    that    gathered  to  pluck  the  ears  of  corn,  and  to  eat, 
 
 sticks  upon  the  sabbath-day.  . . .  And  etc.    Matt.  xii.  1-5. 
 
 ^  "The  Sabbath,"  pp.  303-313.  See,  also,  Justin  Edwards's  "Sabbath 
 Manual,"  pp.  117-127. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 235 
 
 Prohibited. 
 all  the  conorre^ation  broujjht  him  with- 
 
 Countenanced. 
 
 And  therefore  did  the  Jews  persecute 
 out  the  camp,  and  stoned  him  with  Jesus,  and  sought  to  slay  him,  because 
 stones,  and  he  died:  as  the  Lord  com-  he  liad  done  the^e  things  ou  the  sab- 
 mauded  Moses.    Kum.  xv.  32,  36.  bath-day.    John  v.  16. 
 
 Deeds  of  necessity  and  mercy  were  not  forbidden  by  Moses. 
 Eating,  drinking,  caring  for  the  sick,  and  like  needful  acts 
 were  not  interdicted.  Our  Saviour  did  not  "  break  "  the  Sab- 
 bath. He  did,  indeed,  disregard  the  foolish  traditions  of  the 
 scribes  and  pharisees  relative  to  that  day,  but  neither  by  precept 
 nor  example  did  he  sanction  its  real  desecration. 
 
 Sacrifices, 
 
 Appointed.  Disavoioed. 
 
 Thou  Shalt  burn  the  whole  ram  upon        Will  I  eat  the  flesh  of  bulls,  or  drink 
 the  altar:   it  is  a  burnt-ofTering  unto    the  blood  of  goats?    Ofler  unto  God 
 the  LOED.  ...  And  thou  shalt  offer  every    thanksgiving;  and  pay  thy  vows  unto 
 day  a   bullock  for  a   sin-offering  for    the  Most  High.    Ps.  1.  13.  14. 
 atonement.    Ex.  xxix.  18,  36.  For  thou  desirest  not  sacrifice,  else 
 
 would  I  give  it:  thou  delightest  not  in 
 burnt  offering.    Ps.  li.  16. 
 
 To  what  purpose  is  the  multitude  of 
 your  sacritices  unto  me?  saith  the 
 Lord  :  I  am  full  of  the  burnt-offerings 
 of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fed  beasts;  and 
 I  delight  not  in  the  blood  of  bullocks, 
 or  of  lambs,  or  of  he-goats.  When  ye 
 come  to  appear  before  me,  who  hath 
 required  this  at  your  hand,  to  tread  my 
 courts?  Bring  no  more  vain  oblations: 
 incense  is  an  abomination  unto  me. 
 Isa.  i.  11-13. 
 
 Your  burnt-offerings  are  not  accept- 
 able, nor  your  sacrihces  sweet  unto  me. 
 Jer.  vi.  20. 
 
 For  1  spake  not  unto  your  fathers, 
 nor  commanded  them  in  the  day  that 
 I  brought  Them  out  of  the  land  of 
 Egypt  concerning  burnt-offerings  or 
 sacritices :  but  this  thing  commanded  I 
 them,  saying,  C>bey  my  voice,  and  I 
 will  be  your  (jod,  and  ye  shall  be  my 
 people.    Jer.  vii.  22,  23. 
 
 For  I  desired  mercy,  and  not  sacri- 
 fice; and  the  knowledge  of  God  more 
 than  burnt-offerings.    Hos.  vi.  6. 
 
 The  first  quotation  from  Psalms  sets  forth  God's  spirituality, 
 as  a  result  of  which  "  the  outward  sacrifices,  as  such,  can  yield 
 him  no  satisfaction." 
 
 The  second  contrasts  mere  external  sacrifices  with  that 
 obedience  in  default  of  which  all  sacrifices  are  wortliless.  The 
 offerings  spoken   of  by  Isaiah  and   Jeremiah  (sixth  chapter) 
 
236  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 were  rejected  because  of  the  wickedness  of  the  offerers.  Their 
 hands  were  "  full  of  blood,"  and  they  had  "  rejected "  God's 
 law.  Reason  enough  for  the  non-acceptance  of  their  oblations. 
 Jer.  vii.  22,  23  is  susceptible  of  two  interpretations.^ 
 
 First.  It  may  be  taken  as  a  Hebraistic  way  of  saying,  "  At 
 that  time,  I  laid  no  stress  ujDon  mere  sacrifices  in  comparison 
 with  true  obedience.  This  explanation  is  given  by  Calvin  and 
 Stuart,  also  by  Dr.  Priestley  and  Prof.  Norton.^  This  inter- 
 pretation is  in  harmony  with  Hos.  vi.  6,  also  with  Samuel's 
 language  to  Saul :  "  Hath  the  Lord  as  great  delight  in  burnt- 
 offerings  and  sacrifices  as  in  obeying  the  voice  of  the  Lord  ? 
 Behold,  to  obey  is  better  than  sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than 
 the  fat  of  rams."* 
 
 Secondly.  The  quotation  may  mean,  "  I  gave  the  command 
 relative  to  obedience  previous  to  that  concerning  sacrifices." 
 This  interjDretation,  propounded  by  the  Jewish  critics,  agrees 
 with  the  facts  in  the  case.  The  command  respecting  obedience 
 was  given  at  Marah,^  just  after  the  Hebrews  left  the  Red  Sea ; 
 those  pertaining  to  sacrifices  were  mainly  given  at  Mount  Sinai.* 
 at  a  later  period  of  the  history. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  none  of  the  foregoing  texts  disparage  sac- 
 rifices offered  aright.     Heartless  offerings  are  ever  rejected. 
 
 Expiatory.  Not  exj^iatori/. 
 
 And  the  priest  shall  make  an  atone-  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood 
 ment  for  him,  as  concerning  his  sin,  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away 
 and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him.  Lev.  sins.  . . .  Tlie  same  sacrifices  which  cau 
 iv.  26.  never  take  away  sins.    Heb,  x.  4,  11. 
 
 The  life  of  the  flesh  is  in  the  blood: 
 and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the 
 altar,  to  make  an  atonement  for  your 
 souls.     Lev.  xvii.  11. 
 
 One  kid  of  the  goats /or  a  sin-offer- 
 ing, to  make  an  atonement  for  you. 
 Kum.  xxix.  5. 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  ®  says  that  sin  and  trespass  offerings  "  were 
 
 ^  Magee  on  Atonement,  pp  146,  147  (Bohn's  edition). 
 
 '^  Evidences  of  Genuineness  of  Gospels,  ii.  Note  D.  p.  cxl. 
 
 8  1  Sam.  XV.  22. 
 
 *  Ex.  XV.  25,  26. 
 
 ^  Ex.  xxix;  Lev.  i.  to  viii. 
 
 » Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  287. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  237 
 
 regarded  as  possessing  an  atoning,  expiatory  power — that  they 
 were  substituted  in  place  of  the  sinner  who  brought  them, 
 bearing  the  punishment  of  his  transgression,  and  so  procuring 
 its  pardon  from  God.  By  their  means  sins  were  taken  away 
 and  covered.  The  Deity  was  appeased."  Of  the  sprinkling 
 of  the  blood,  he  adds,  "  The  act  of  sprinkling  was  symbolical, 
 implying  that  the  person  who  offered  the  sacrifice  had  forfeited 
 his  life,  and  the  life  of  the  animal  was  forfeited  instead."  So 
 Kalisch  ^ :  "  It  is  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of 
 vicarious  sacrifice  was  entertained  by  the  Hebrews.  . . .  The 
 animal  dies  to  symbolize  the  death  deserved  by  the  offerer  on 
 account  of  his  sins." 
 
 It  does  not,  however,  appear  that  these  sacrifices  were 
 deemed  to  have,  per  se,  the  power  to  remove  sin.  They  were 
 a  condition,  but  not  the  cause,  of  pardon.  As  Alford  and 
 Ebrard  say,  they  were  "not  the  instrument  of  complete  vicarious 
 propitiation,  but  an  exhibition  of  the  postulate  of  such  pro- 
 pitiation." 
 
 Outram  also  regards  them  merely  as  a  "  condition  of  pardon." 
 
 These  sacrifices,  beiug  a  "  yearly  remembrance  "  of  sin,  since 
 
 they  could  not  make  the  offerer  '•  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the 
 
 conscience,"  pointed  him  to  the  great  Sacrifice,  which  "  taketh 
 
 away  the  sin  of  the  world." 
 
 Human  sacrifices  sanctioned.  Striv gently  prohibited. 
 
 Take  now  thy  son,  thine  only  son        And  thou  shalt  not  let  any  of  thy 
 Isaac,  Avhora  thou  hn^est,  and  get  thee    seed  pass  through  the  fire  to  Molech. 
 into  the  land  of  Moriah;  and  offer  him     Lev.  xviii.  21.* 
 therefor  a  buriit-oflering.   Gen.xxii.2.        Whosoever  he  be  of  the  children  of 
 
 Joshua,  and  all  Israel  with  him,  took    Israel,  or  of  the  strangers  that  sojourn 
 Achan  the  son  of  Zerah,ahd  the  silver,    in  Israel,  that  giveth  ani/  of  his  seed 
 and  the  garment,    and  the  wedge  of    unto  Molech,  he  shall  surely  be  put  to 
 gold,  and  his  sons,  and  his  daughters,    death.    Lev.  xx.  2. 
 and  his  oxen,   and  his  asses,  and  his 
 sheep,  and  his  tent,  and  all  that  he 
 had;  and  they  brought  them  unto  the 
 valley   of   Achor.  . . .  And    all    Israel 
 stoned  him   with  stones,  and  bui-ned 
 them  with  fire,  after  they  had  stoned 
 them  with  stones.     Josh.  vii.  24,  25. 
 
 And  Jephthah  vowed  a  vow  unto  the 
 Lord.  . . .  Whatsoever  cometh  forth  of 
 the  doors  of  my  house  to  meet  me, 
 when  I  return  in  peace  from  the  chil- 
 
 1  On  Leviticus.  Part  i.  pp.  192, 193. 
 
238  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Human  sacrifices  sanctioned.  Stringently  prohibited. 
 
 dren  of  Ammon,  shall  surely  be  the 
 Lord's,  and  1  will  ofTer  it  up  for  a 
 burnt-offering.  . . .  Behold  his  daufi^hter 
 came  out  to  meet  him  with  timbrels 
 and  with  d;  i  ces:  and  she  loas  his  only 
 child.  .. .  Her  ftither,  who  did  with  her 
 according  to  his  vow  which  he  had 
 vowed ;  and  she  knew  no  man.  J  udg. 
 xi.  30-40. 
 
 The  king  took  the  two  sons  of  Riz- 
 pah,  . . .  and  the  five  sons  of  Michal  the 
 daughter  of  JSaul.  . . .  And  he  delivered 
 thorn  into  the  hands  of  the  Uibeonites, 
 and  they  hanged  them  in  the  hill  before 
 the  Lord.  . . .  And  after  that  God  was 
 entreated  for  the  land.  2  Sam.  xxi. 
 8,  9,  14. 
 
 As  to  the  case  of  Abraham,  God's  design  was  not  to  secure 
 a  certain  outward  act,  but  a  certain  state  of  mind,  a  willingness 
 to  give  up  the  beloved  object  to  Jehovah.  "  The  principle  of 
 this  great  trial,"  says  Dr.  Thomas  Arnold,^  "  was  the  same 
 which  has  been  applied  to  God's  servants  in  every  age,  — 
 whether  they  were  willing  to  part  with  what  they  loved  best 
 on  earth  when  God's  service  called  for  it."  Hengstenberg  ^ : 
 "Verse  12  shows  that  satisfaction  was  rendered  to  the  Lord's 
 command  when  the  spiritual  sacrifice  was  completed."  In  this 
 view  concur  Warburton,  Keil,  Murphy,  Lange,^  Bush,  Words- 
 worth, and  other  authorities. 
 
 Kurtz  *  says  :  "  It  is  true  that  God  did  not  seek  the  slaying 
 of  Isaac  in  facto,  but  only  the  implicit  surrender  of  the  lad  in 
 mind  and  heart''  The  command,  in  the  original,  is  somewhat 
 ambiguous :  "  Make  him  ascend  for  a  burnt-offering."  This 
 Abraham  interpreted  literally,  as  implying  the  actual  slaying 
 of  his  son.  This  his  mistake  was  the  means  of  developing  and 
 testing  his  faith. 
 
 The  assumed  slaughter  of  Achan's  children  a  recent  author 
 terms  "  a  cruel  and  unjust  thing,  forbidden  in  Deut.  xxiv.  1 6, 
 yet  afterwards  perpetrated  with  the  Divine  sanction." 
 
 This  case  has  been  already  discussed  under  "Justice  of  God." 
 It  is  sufficient  to  say  here  that  the  case  furnishes  no  sanction  of 
 
 ^  Miscel.  Works,  p.  150  (N.Y.  edition).        ^  Genuineness  of  Pent.  ii.  114, 
 8  Com.  on  Genesis,  pp.  79,  80.  *  Hist,  of  Old.  Gov.  i.  263. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  239 
 
 the  abominable  custom  of  slaughtering  human  beings  in  sacrifice. 
 As  has  been  elsewhere  suggested,  for  anything  that  we  know 
 to  the  contrary,  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  may  all  have  been 
 full-grown,  and  may  have  encouraged  and  participated  in  the 
 sacrilege  in  which  he  took  the  lead.  This  is  Keil's  view  of  the 
 case. 
 
 In  reference  to  Jephthah's  supposed  sacrifice  of  his  daughter, 
 it  may  be  said,  First.  It  cannot  he  proved  that  he  did  offer  her 
 as  a  hurnt-offering.  The  Bible  does  not  say  that  he  did  this. 
 If,  through  ignorance  and  a  misguided  fanaticism,  he  actually 
 committed  the  cruel  deed,  it  does  not  appear  that  God  in  any 
 manner  sanctioned  it.  The  sacred  historian  expresses  no 
 opinion  in  regard  to  it.  The  apparent  commendation  of 
 Jephthah,  in  Heb.  xi.  32,  applies  to  the  general  tenor  of  his 
 life,  and  not,  necessarily,  to  every  act  performed  by  him  in 
 that  remote  age. 
 
 Secondly.  There  are  good  reasons  for  holding,  with  Auberlen, 
 Bush,  Cassel,  Delitzsch,  Grotius,  Hengstenberg,  Houbigant, 
 Keil,  the  Kimchis,  Lange,  LeClerc,  Lilienthal,  Saalschiitz, 
 Schudt,  Waterland,  and  other  critics,  that,  instead  of  being 
 offered  as  a  burnt-sacrifice,  she  was  simply  devoted  to  perpetual 
 celibacy  in  the  service  of  the  tabernacle.^ 
 
 (a)  The  literal  sacrifice  of  human  beings  was  strictly  for- 
 bidden in  the  Mosaic  law ;  and  Jephchah  was  doubtless  fully 
 aware  of  this  fact. 
 
 (h)  The  Hebrew  of  Jephthah's  vow  may  be  correctly  trans- 
 lated, ''  Shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,^  or  I  will  offer  it  up  for  a 
 burnt-offering."  Dr.  Davidson ^ :  "It  cannot  be  denied  that  the 
 conjunction  '  vav '  may  be  rendered  or.  The  Hebrew  language 
 had  very  few  conjunctions,  and  therefore  one  had  to  fulfil  the 
 office  of  several  in  other  languages."     Dr.  Randolph,  J.  Kimclii, 
 
 ^  See  allusion  to  something  similar;  Ex.  xxxviii.  8  and  1  Sam.  ii.  22. 
 2  Compare  1  Sam.  i.  11.     "  I  will  give  him  unto  the  Lord  all  the  days  of 
 his  life." 
 8  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  476. 
 
240  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 and  Auberlen  render,  "  Shall  surely  be  the  Lord's,  and  I  will 
 offer  to  him  a  burnt-offering."  Dr.  Davidson  says :  "  We 
 admit  that  the  construction  is  grammatically  possible ;  for 
 examples  justify  it,  as  Gesenius  shows."  Either  of  these 
 translations  removes  the  difficulty. 
 
 (c)  During  the  "  two  months "  which  intervened  between 
 Jephthah's  return  and  the  supposed  sacrifice,  it  is  scarcely 
 credible  that  the  priests  would  not  have  interfered  to  pre- 
 vent the  barbarous  deed,  or  that  Jephthah  himself  would  not 
 have  "inquired  of  the  Lord"  respecting  a  release  from  his 
 vow. 
 
 (d)  As  she  was  Jephthah's  only  child,  to  devote  her  to  per- 
 petual virginity  would  preclude  him  from  all  hope  of  posterity, 
 —  in  the  estimation  of  a  Jeio^  a  most  humiliating  and  calamitous 
 deprivation. 
 
 (e)  The  phraseology  of  verses  37-40  points  clearly  to  a  life 
 of  perpetual  and  enforced  celibacy.  On  any  other  hypothesis 
 the  language  seems  irrelevant  and  unmeaning.  As  Keil  ex- 
 presses it,  to  bewail  one's  virginity  does  not  mean  to  mourn 
 because  one  has  to  die  a  virgin,  but  because  one  has  to  live 
 and  remain  a  virgin.  Inasmuch  as  the  history  lays  special 
 emphasis  upon  her  bewailing  her  virginity,  this  must  have  stood 
 in  some  peculiar  relation  to  the  nature  of  the  vow.  Observe, 
 too,  that  this  lamentation  takes  place  "  upon  the  mountains." 
 Cassel  observes  that  if  life  had  been  in  question  her  tears  might 
 have  been  shed  at  home.  But  lamentations  of  this  character 
 could  not  be  uttered  in  the  town  and  in  the  presence  of  men. 
 For  such  plaints,  modesty  required  the  solitude  of  the  mountains. 
 The  words  of  the  thirty-ninth  verse  are  very  explicit.  They 
 assert  that  her  father  fulfilled  his  vow  through  the  fact  that 
 "she  knew  no  man."  That  is,  the  vow  was  fulfilled  in  the 
 dedication  of  her  life  to  the  Lord,  as  a  spiritual  burnt-offering, 
 in  a  life-long  chastity. 
 
 "  Completeness  of  consecration  as  a  spiritual  sacrifice  "  seems 
 the  pervading  idea  in  the  case  of  Jephthah's  sacrifice. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  241 
 
 In  2  Sam.  xxi.  1  the  designation,  Saul's  "  bloody  house,"  inti- 
 mates strongly  that  the  men  whom  a  recent  writer  pathetically 
 deplores  as  "  innocent  grandchildi*en  "  were  really  participants 
 in  the  crime  of  their  departed  progenitor.  He  had  gone 
 beyond  the  reach  of  earthly  justice ;  hence  the  penalty  fell 
 upon  his  surviving  partners  in  treachery  and  blood.  David 
 Kimchi^  tentatively,  and  Dr.  Jahn^  confidently  propose  this 
 very  reasonable  explanation  of  the  case. 
 
 On  the  whole,  none  of  the  foregoing  cases  represents  human 
 sacrifices  as  sanctioned  by  the  Almighty. 
 
 Service  of  God. 
 
 With  fear.  With  gladness. 
 
 Serve  the  Lord  with  tear,  and  rejoice  Serve  the  Lord  with  gladness.  Ps. 
 with  trembling.    Ps.  ii.  11.  c.  2. 
 
 Reverential  fear  and  devout  gladness  are  quite  compatible. 
 
 Sin  forgiven. 
 
 All  sin  pardonable.  Some  unpardonable. 
 
 And  by  him  all  that  believe  are  jus-  Whosoever  speaketh  against  the  Holy 
 tified  from  all  things  from  which  ye  Ghost,  it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him, 
 could  not  be  justified  by  the  law  of  neither  in  tliis  world,  neither  in  the 
 Moses.    Acts  xiii.  39.  world  to  come.    Matt.  xii.  32. 
 
 Where  sin  abounded,  grace  did  much  He  that  shall  blaspheme  against  the 
 more  abound.     Eom.  v.  20  Holy  Ohost  hath  never  forgiveness,  but 
 
 If  any  man  sin,  we  have  an  advocate  is  in  danger  of  eternal  damnation, 
 with    the    Father,    Jesus    Christ    the    Mark  iii.  29. 
 
 righteous.    1  John  ii.  1.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death :  I  do  not 
 
 say  that  he  shall  pray  for  it.    1  John 
 V.  16. 
 
 The  texts  at  the  left  by  do  means  assert  that  every  sin, 
 wherever  and  by  whomsoever  committed,  will  be  forgiven. 
 The  general  rule  is  that  sins  repented  of  will  be  forgiven. 
 Matthew  and  Mark  speak  of  sins  which  will  never  be  repented  of, 
 consequently  never  forgiven ;  hence  they  are  sins  "  unto  death." 
 
 Sin-offering, 
 
 One  kind.  A  different  kind. 
 When  the  sin  which  they  have  sinned  If  aught  be  committed  by  ignorance 
 against  it  is  known,  tht-n  the  congre-  without  the  know'edge  of  the  congre- 
 gation shall  offer  a  young  bullock  for  gation,  that  all  the  congregation  fliall 
 the  sin.    ..When  a  ruler  hath  sinned,  offer  one  young  bullock  for  a  burnt- 
 ...  if  his  sin  wherein  he  hath  sinned,  offering, . .  .and  one  kid  of  the  goats  for 
 come  to  his  knowledge;  he  shall  bring  a  sin-offering.    Kum.  xv.  24. 
 his  offering,  a  kid  of  the  goats.    Lev. 
 iv.  14,  22,  23. 
 
 ^  Menasseh  ben  Israel's  Conciliator,  i.  167. 
 2  History  of  Hebrew  Commonwealth,  p.  43  (Ward's  edition). 
 21 
 
242  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 We  think  the  difference  here  is  due  to  condensation  on  the 
 part  of  the  later  writer.  In  the  first  case,  the  offering  for  the 
 congregation  and  that  for  the  niler  are  specified  separately  ;  in 
 the  second  case,  for  brevity's  sake,  the  congregation  and  the 
 rulers  are  considered  as  one,  and  their  respective  offerings  are 
 spoken  of  as  constituting  but  one  offering. 
 
 Mr.  Espin,  in  Bible  Commentary,  says  that,  in  the  citation 
 from  Leviticus,  the  reference  is  to  sins  of  commission ;  in  that 
 from  Numbers,  to  sins  of  omission.  Hence  there  is  a  slight 
 difference  in  the  ritual. 
 
 Sinners'  feeling. 
 
 Feared  greatly.  No  fear  in  the  case. 
 
 There  were  they  in  great  fear.    Ps.        Where  no  fear  was.    Ps.  liii.  5. 
 liii.  5. 
 
 "  The  wicked  flee  when  no  man  pursueth."     Prov.  xxviii.  1. 
 
 Feared  the  Lord.  Feared  not  the  Lord. 
 
 So  these  nations  feared  the  Lord,  and  Unto  this  day  they  do  after  the  for- 
 
 served  their  graven  images.    2  Kings  mer  manners :  they  fear  not  the  Lord. 
 
 xvii.  41.  2  Kings  xvii.  3i. 
 
 An  instructive  example  of  the  use  of  the  same  word  in  dif- 
 ferent senses. 
 
 Staves  of  ark. 
 
 To  remain.  Might  he  removed. 
 
 The  staves  shall  be  in  the  rings  of  the  Aaron  shall  come,  and  his  sons,  and 
 ark:  they  shall  not  be  taken  from  it.  they  shall  take  down  the  covering  vail, 
 Ex.  XXV.  15.  and  cover  the  ark  of  testimony  with  it; 
 
 .   .  and  shall  put  in  the  staves  thereof. 
 Num.  iv.  5,  6. 
 
 Keil  renders  Num.  iv.  6,  "  Adjust  its  bearing-poles."  Simi- 
 larly Bush,  Nachmanides,  Abarbanel,  and  Rashi.  Bible  Com- 
 mentary, "  Put  the  staves  thereof  in  order." 
 
 Swearing  and  oaths. 
 
 Countenanced.  Prohibited. 
 
 And   Abraham    said,   I  will    swear.  By  swearing,  and  lying,  and  killing, 
 
 (Jen   xxi.  24.  and  stealing.     IIos.  iv.  2. 
 
 And  Jacob  sware  by  the  Fear  of  his  It  hath  been   said  by  them  of  old 
 
 father  Isaac     (Jon.  xxxi  53.  time.  Thou  shalt  not  forswear  thyself, 
 
 Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God,  but  shalt  perform  unto  the  Lord  thine 
 
 and  serve  him,  and  shalt  swear  by  his  oaths;  but  I  say  unto  you,  Swear  not 
 
 name.     Dout.  vi.  13.  at  all;    neither  by  heaven;    for  it  is 
 
 1  adjure  tlice  bv  the  living  (Jod,  that  God's  throne:  nor  by  the  earth  ;  for  it 
 
 thou  tell  us  whether  thou  be  the  C  hrist.  is  his  footstool :  neither  by  Jerusalem ; 
 
 Matt.  xxvi.  (J3.  for  it  is  the  city  of  the  great  Kme. 
 
 1  say  the  truth  in  Christ,  I  lie  not,  Neither  thalt  thou  swear  by  thy  head; 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  243 
 
 Countenanced.  Prohibited.            ^ 
 
 my  conscience  also  bearing  me  witness  because  thou  canst  not  make  one  hair 
 
 in  the  Holy  Ghost.     Kum.  ix.  1.  white  or  black.    But  let  your  commu- 
 
 When  God  made  promise  to  Abra-  nication  be  Yea,  yea:   ]S'ay,  nay:  for 
 
 ham,  because  he  could  swear  by  no  whatsoever  is  more  than  tliese  cometh 
 
 greater,   he  sware  by  himself      Heb.  of  evil.    Matt.  v.  33-37. 
 
 vi.  13.  But  above  all  things,  my  brethren, 
 
 The  angel  which  I  saw  . .  .  lifted  up  swear  not,  neither  by  heaven,  neither 
 
 his  hand  to  heaven,  and  sware  by  him  by    the  earth,  neither    by  any  other 
 
 that  liveth  for  ever  and  ever.    Kev.  x.  oath :  but  let  your  yea  bo  yea,  and  your 
 
 5,  6.  nay,  nay;  lest  ye  full  into  condemna- 
 tion.   James  v.  12. 
 
 The  context  puts  it  beyond  doubt  that  Ilosea  speaks  oi  false 
 "  swearing."  It  is  equally  clear  that  our  Lord,  in  Matthew, 
 does  not  refer  to  judicial  oaths.,  but  to  profane  swearing,  or 
 oaths  in  common  conversation.     In  proof,  observe : 
 
 First.  The  Jews  in  that  age  were  in  the  habit  of  using  vain 
 and  frivolous  oaths  in  their  ordinary  talk.  They  swore  by  the 
 temple,  by  the  earth,  by  heaven,  by  the  head,  etc.  So  long  as 
 they  did  not  use  the  name  of  God  in  these  oaths,  they  did  not 
 deem  them  particularly  binding.  This  practice  is  alluded  to  in 
 Matt,  xxiii.  16-22. 
 
 Maimonides ^ :  "If  any  one  swears  by  heaven,  by  the  earth, 
 by  the  sun,  and  so  forth,  although  it  is  the  intention  of  him 
 who  swears  in  these  words  to  swear  by  him  who  created  these 
 things,  yet  this  is  not  an  oath.  Or,  if  one  swears  by  one  of 
 the  prophets  or  by  one  of  the  bookj  of  scripture,  although  it  be 
 the  purpose  of  the  swearer  to  swear  by  him  who  sent  that 
 prophet  or  who  gave  that  book,  nevertheless  this  is  not  an 
 oath."  Michaelis  ^  says  that  such  oaths  were  "  at  that  time  so 
 common  and  so  frequently  and  basely  abused  as  to  have  become 
 perfectly  disgraceful  to  the  Jews,  even  in  the  eyes  of  the  less 
 treacherous  heathen  around  them,  and  justly  distinguished  by 
 the  name  of  Jewish  oaths."  Against  this  abuse  of  language 
 the  Lord  cautioned  his  disciples  :  "  Let  your  speech,  or  con- 
 versation '  logos,'  be  yea,  yea ;  nay,  nay."  "  Do  not  attempt 
 to  bolster  Up  your  veracity  by  frivolous  oaths." 
 
 Secondly.    So    far    from    condemning   judicial    oaths,  Jesus 
 
 ^  Quoted  by  Lightfoot,  Hor.  Heb.,  p.  280  (Carpzov's  edition). 
 2  Commentaries  on  Laws  of  Moses,  iv.  357. 
 
244  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 recognized  their  validity,  and  allowed  himself  to  be  put  under 
 oath.  When  the  high-priest  said  to  him,  "  I  adjure  thee  [put 
 thee  under  oath,  cause  thee  to  swear]  by  the  living  God  that 
 thou  tell  us,"  Jesus  submitted  to  be  thus  sworn,  and  responded 
 to  the  solemn  obligation.  We  find,  also,  that  good  men,  an 
 angel,  even  God  himself,  employed  the  "  oath  "  for  confirmation.^ 
 
 James  v.  12  evidently  refers  to  the  frivolous  oaths  we  have 
 mentioned.  Huther :  '"  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  swearing  by  the 
 name  of  God  ^  is  not  mentioned ;  for  we  must  not  imagine  that 
 this  is  included  in  the  last  member  of  the  clause ;  the  apostle 
 intending,  evidently,  by  '  neither  any  other  oath,'  to  point  only  at 
 similar  formulae,  of  which  several  are  mentioned  in  Matthew." 
 
 The  inference  from  these  facts  we  leave  to  the  reader. 
 
 Times  observed. 
 
 May  he  observed.  Must  not  be  observed. 
 
 He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  There  shall  not  be  found  among  you 
 it  unto  the  Lord.    Kom.  xiv.  6.  ...  an  observer  of  times.    Deut.  xviii. 
 
 10. 
 
 Ye  observe  days,  and  months,  and 
 times,  and  years.    Gal.  iv.  10. 
 
 Michaelis  and  Aben  Ezra  take  the  expression,  "  observer  of 
 times,"  in  Deuteronomy,  as  implying  "divination  from  the 
 course  of  the  clouds'^  Gesenius  regards  it  as  denoting  "  some 
 kind  of  divination  connected  with  idolatry";  Fuerst:  "It  is 
 better  to  set  out  with  the  fundamental  signification,  to  cover, 
 to  wrap  upJ'  Hence  the  meaning  would  be,  "  to  practise 
 enchantment  covertly  or  secretly.''  Keil,^  with  certain  rabbles, 
 derives  the  Hebrew  term  from  "  ayin,"  an  eye ;  hence,  literally, 
 "  to  ogle,  to  bewitch  with  the  evil  eye."  The  passage  has  no 
 reference  to  the  keeping  of  the  Mosaic  feasts. 
 
 The  texts  from  Romans  and  Galatians  refer  to  entirely  dif- 
 ferent classes  of  persons.  Andrew  Fuller  ^  says  that  the  former 
 text  refers  to  Jewish  converts,  who,  having  from  their  youth 
 
 1  Compare  Gen.  xxi.  23,  24;  1  Sam.  xx.  42;  Heb.  vi.  17, 18;  Rev.  x.  5, 6. 
 
 2  Of  course,  for  judicial  purposes  only. 
 ■^  On  Lev.  xix.  26. 
 
 4  Work.s,  i.  680,  681. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  245 
 
 observed  the  Mosaic  festivals  as  instituted  by  Divine  authority, 
 were  permitted  to  continue  this  observance,  and  treated  as 
 "regarding  these  days  unto  the  Lord."  The  latter  text  has 
 respect  to  Gentile  converts,  who,  having  previously  done  service 
 to  idols,^  showed  some  inclination  to  cling  to  their  former 
 unauthorized  and  superstitious  observances ;  and  hence  were 
 reproved. 
 
 Trespass  recompensed. 
 To  the  Lord.  To  the  priest. 
 
 He  shall  bring  for  his  trespass  unto  He  shall  bring  a  ram  , . .  for  a  tres- 
 the  Lord  a  ram.    Lev.  v.  15.  pass-offering  unto  the  priest.    Lev.  v.  18. 
 
 Rashi :  "  To  the  Lord  for  the  priest."  The  latter  was  the 
 Lord's  deputy. 
 
 A  tax  paid  to  the  officer  appointed  by  the  government  may 
 be  said  to  be  paid  either  to  the  officer  or  to  the  government. 
 
 II.    D  UTY  OF  31  AN.  —  To  himself. 
 
 Anger. 
 
 Approved.  Condemned. 
 
 Be  ye  angry,  and  sin  not:  let  not  the  Make  no  friendship  with  an  angry 
 sun  go  down  upon  your  wrath.  Eph.  man :  and  with  a  furious  man  thou 
 iv.  26.  Shalt  not  go.     Pmv.  xxii.  24. 
 
 Be  not  hasty  in  thy  spirit  to  be  angry : 
 for  anger  resteth  iuthe  bosom  of  fools. 
 Eccl.  vii.  9. 
 
 Slow  to  wrath :  for  the  wrath  of  man 
 worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  Olod. 
 Jas.  i.  19,  20. 
 
 Paul,  says  Alford,  "  speaks  of  anger  which  is  an  infirmity, 
 but  by  being  cherished  may  become  a  sin." 
 
 Bishop  Butler-:  "The  first  text  is  by  no  means  to  be  under- 
 stood as  an  encouragement  to  indulge  ourselves  in  anger ;  the 
 sense  being  certainly  this, '  Though  ye  be  angry,  sin  not ' ;  yet 
 here  is  evidently  a  distinction  made  between  anger  and  sin  — 
 between  the  natural  passion  and  sinful  anger." 
 
 The  last  clause  hits  the  point  precisely.     There  is  a  normal 
 
 indignation,   which   is    evoked    by   exhibitions   of    meanness, 
 
 treachery,  and*  injustice,  and  which  may,  within  certain  limits, 
 
 be  indulcred  without  sin.     This  emotion  is  to  be  distinguished 
 
 from  those  furious  and  unreasonable  ebullitions  of  wrath  which 
 
 characterize  a  passionate  man. 
 
 ^SeeGal.  iv.  8-11.  2  ggrmon  viii. 
 
 21* 
 
246  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Animal  Food, 
 
 Use  unrestricted.  Restricted. 
 
 Every  moving  thing  that  liveth  shall  Nevertheless  tliese  ye  shall  not  eat,  of 
 be  meat  for  you.     Gen.  ix.  3.  them  that  ciiew  the  cud,  or  of  them 
 
 There  is  nothing  unclean  of  itself,  that  divide  the  cloven  hoof.  .  .  .  They 
 Rom.  xiv.  14.  are  unclean  unto  you.    Deut.  xiv.  7. 
 
 Whatsoever  is  sold  in  the  shambles, 
 that  eat,  asking  no  question  for  con- 
 science' sake.    1  Cor,  x.  25. 
 
 The  first  three  passages  refer  to  men  not  under  the  Mosaic 
 law.  Deut.  xiv.  was  addressed  to  the  Israelites  whom  God, 
 for  wise  reasons,  wished  to  keep  a  distinct  race. 
 
 Dr.  Davidson^:  "It  is  apparent  that  the  effect  of  these 
 enactments  respecting  different  beasts  as  proper  for  food  or 
 otherwise,  must  have  been  to  keep  the  Hebrews  apart  from 
 other  nations ;  that,  as  a  distinct  people,  they  might  be  pre- 
 served from  idolatry.  If  certain  articles  of  food  common 
 among  other  races  were  interdicted,  the  effect  would  be  to 
 break  up  social  intercourse  between  them;  by  which  means 
 the  Jews  would  not  be  in  so  much  danger  of  learning  their 
 barbarous  customs,  and  falling  into  their  superstitions.  Thus 
 the  separation  of  meats  into  clean  and  unclean  was  most 
 salutary  to  a  monotheistic  people,  set  apart  as  the  chosen  de- 
 positaries of  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  exposed  on  every  side 
 to  polytheistic  tribes."  ^ 
 
 Certain  animals  forbidden.  Same  allowed. 
 
 And  every  creeping  thing  that  flieth  These  may  ye  eat.  of  every  flying 
 is  unclean  unto  you :  they  shall  not  be  creeping  thing  that  goeth  upon  atl  four, 
 eaten.    Deut.  xiv.  19.  vphich  have   legs  above  their  feet,  to 
 
 leap  withal  upon  the  earth.  But  all 
 o^/ier  flying  creeping  things,  which  have 
 four  feet,  shall  he  an  abomination  unto 
 you.    Lev.  xi.  21,  23. 
 
 Keil :  "  The  edible  kinds  of  locusts  are  passed  over,  in  Deut. 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  258. 
 
 2  Difference  of  national  customs  furnishes  the  solution  of  several  alleged 
 "  discrepancies."  For  example,  the  wcarinfr  of  lonj;  hair  by  men  is  allowed 
 in  Num.  vi.  5,  and  repudiated  in  1  Cor.  xi.  14.  But,  then,  the  first  passaj^e 
 refers  to  Jews,  the  second  is  addressed  to  Greeks  at  Corinth.  Among  the 
 former,  the  wearing  of  longhair  was  counted  honorable,  even  ornamental, 
 rather  than  otherwise;  among  the  latter,  it  indicated  cflfeminacy  and  the 
 indulgence  of  unnatural  vices.  See  Stuart,  Hist,  of  Canon  of  Old  Test., 
 p.  375  (Revised  edition,  p.  851). 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  247 
 
 xiv.,  because  it  was  not  the  intention  of  Moses  to  repeat  every 
 particular  of  the  earlier  laws  in  these  addresses."  In  the  rapid 
 outline  given  in  Deuteronomy  it  was  not  practicable  to  notice 
 unimportant  exceptions. 
 
 Boasting, 
 
 Tolerated.  Repudiated. 
 
 I  labored  more  abundantly  than  they       Let  another  man  praise  thee,  and  not 
 all :    yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God    thine  own  mouth.     Trov.  xxvii.  2. 
 which  was  with  me.    1  Cor.  xv.  10.  That  no  flesh    should   glory  in   his 
 
 That  which  I  speak,  1  speak  it  not    presence.    1  Cor.  i.  29. 
 after  the  Lord,  but  as  it  were  foolishly, 
 in  this  confidence  of  boasting.     Seeing 
 that  many  glory  after  the  flesh,  I  will 
 glory  also     2  Cor.  xi.  17,  18. 
 
 In  nothing  am  I  behind  the  very 
 chiefest  apostles,  though  I  be  nothing. 
 2  Cor.  xii.  11. 
 
 The  limiting  clauses,  "  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God,"  "though 
 I  be  nothing,"  and  the  like,  show  that  it  was  not  self-conceit 
 wliich  impelled  Paul  to  "  boast "  or  "  glory." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller,^  comparing  the  texts  from  Proverbs  and 
 Corinthians,  says :  "  The  motive  in  the  one  case  is  the  desire 
 of  applause ;  in  the  other,  justice  to  an  injured  character  and 
 to  the  gospel  which  suffered  in  his  reproaches."  ffis  apparent 
 boasting  was  in  self-vindication. 
 
 "No  flesh  should  glory,"  —  none  should  find  in  the  gospel 
 
 occasion  for  pride  and  self -exaltation.     Paul  did  not  "  glory  " 
 
 thus  carnally. 
 
 Paul  unsurpassed.  Humblest  of  apostles. 
 
 For  I  suppose  I  was  not  a  whit  be-       For  1  am  the  least  of  the  apostles, 
 
 hind  the  very  chiefest  apostles.    2  Cor.    that  am  not  meet  to  be  called  an  apos- 
 
 xi.  5.  tie,  because  I  persecuted  the  church  of 
 
 For  he  that  wrouglit  effectually  in    God.    ICor.  xv.  9. 
 Peter  to  the  apostleship  of  the  circum-        Unto  me,  who  am  less  than  the  least 
 cision,  the  same  was  mighty  in  me  to-    of  all  saints,  is  this  grace  given,  that  I 
 ward  the  Gentiles.    Gal.  ii.  8.  should  preach  among  the  Gentiles  tlie 
 
 unseafchable  riches  of  Christ.    Eph 
 iii.  8. 
 
 These  passages  present  the  apostle  in  two  distinct  aspects. 
 
 In  respect  to  his  talents,  his  education,  and  his  missionary 
 zeal  and  labors  he  was  unmistakably  primus  inter  pares,  first 
 among  his  equals  of  the  apostolic  rank.  But  he,  unlike  the 
 other  apostles,  had  been,  before  his  conversion,  a  fierce  and 
 
 »  Works,  i.  676. 
 
248  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 bloody  enemy  of  Christianity,  who  "beyond  measure  per- 
 secuted the  church  of  God  and  wasted  it."  ^  In  his  deep 
 sorrow,  shame,  and  humiliation  at  the  remembrance  of  his 
 former  deeds  of  cruelty,  he  expresses  himself  in  the  language 
 of  the  second  series  of  texts.  The  two  series  contemplate  the 
 apostle  in  entirely  different  relations. 
 
 Moses'  self-praise.  Self-praise  unworthy. 
 
 Moreover,  the  man  Moses  7Pas  very       It  is  not  good  to  eat  much  honey :  so 
 great  in  the  land  of  Egypt,  in  the  sight  for  men  to  search  their  own  glory  is  not 
 of  I'haraoh's  servants,  and  in  the  sight    glory.    Frov.  xxv.  27. 
 of  the  people.    Ex.  xi  3. 
 
 Now  the  man  Moses  was  very  meek, 
 above  all  the  men  which  v^ei^e  upon  the 
 face  of  the  earth.    Num.  xii.  3. 
 
 The  quotation  from  Exodus  is  the  statement  of  a  simple 
 historical  fact.  It  says  nothing  of  Moses'  greatness  in  respect 
 to  personal  qualifications,  but  simply  asserts  —  what  is  beyond 
 the  shadow  of  doubt  —  that  his  miracles  had  produced  a  great 
 effect,  and  had  made  a  deep  impression  upon  the  Egyptians. 
 And  this  statement  is  introduced  not  to  glorify  Moses,  but  to 
 account  in  part  for  the  ready  compliance  of  the  Egyptians  in 
 bestowing  upon  the  Israelites  the  "  jewels  "  and  "  raiment " 
 which  the  latter  demanded. 
 
 The  text  from  Numbers  has  by  some  critics  been  deemed  an 
 interpolation.  Others  give  a  different  translation  of  the  Hebrew 
 term  rendered  "  meek."  Luther  says,  "  harassed  or  annoyed  " ; 
 Dr.  A.  Clarke,  "depressed";  Palfrey,  "miserable";  Dean 
 Stanley,  "enduring,  afflicted,  heedless  of  seK";  Smith's  Bible 
 Dictionary,  "  disinterested." 
 
 There  is,  however,  no  need  of  recourse  to  these  definitions. 
 Moses,  under  the  impulse  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  was  writing 
 history  "  objectively."  Hence  he  speaks  of  himself  as  freely 
 as  he  would  of  any  other  person.  It  is  also  to  be  observed 
 that  he  records  his  own  faidts  and  siJis^  with  the  same  fidelity 
 and  impartiality.  It  is  remarked  by  Calmet :  "  As  he  praises 
 himself  here  without  pride,  so  he  will  blame  himself  elsewhere 
 
 ^  Compare  Gal.  i.  13;  Acts  ix.  1. 
 
 2  See  Ex.  iv.  24;  Num.  xx.  12;  Deut.  i.  37. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  249 
 
 with  humility."  The  objectionable  words  were  inserted  to 
 explain  why  it  was  that  Moses  took  no  steps  in  the  case  to 
 vindicate  himself,  and  why,  consequently,  the  Lord  so  promptly 
 intervened. 
 
 Coveting, 
 
 Enjoined.  Forbidden. 
 
 Covet  earnestly  the  best  gifts.  1  Cor.  Thou  shalt  not  covet  .  .  .  anything 
 xii.  31.  that  is  thy  neighbor's.    Ex,  xx.  17. 
 
 Wherefore,  brethren,  covet  to  proph- 
 esy.   1  Cor.  xiv.  39. 
 
 "  Covet,"  in  the  first  two  texts,  implies  an  earnest  desire  for 
 that  which  is  legitimately  within  our  reach;  in  the  last,  it 
 denotes  an  unlawful  craving  for  that  which  properly  belongs  to 
 another. 
 
 Human  effort. 
 
 Encouraged.  Depreciated. 
 
 So  run,  that  ye  may  obtain.  1  Cor.  So  then,  it  is  not  of  him  that  wiHeth, 
 ix.  24.  nor  of  him  that  runneth,  but  of  God 
 
 that  sheweth  mercy.    Rom.  ix.  16. 
 
 The  latter  text  teaches  that  the  providing  of  salvation  was 
 God's  act,  and  not  attributable  to  man's  "  willing "  nor  "  run- 
 ning "  —  the  act  of  sovereign  grace,  and  not  of  the  creature. 
 The  former  teaches  that  the  securing  of  this  salvation  to  the 
 individual  depends  upon  his  own  exertion.  God's  mercy  in 
 furnishing  redemption  and  man's  effort  in  availing  himself  of 
 that  redemption  are  the  cardinal  ideas  presented  in  the  two 
 texts. 
 
 Iclol-7neats, 
 
 Non-essential.  To  be  avoided. 
 
 But  meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God :  The  things  which  the  Gentiles  sacri- 
 for  neither  if  we  eat  are  we  the  better;  fice,  they  sacrilice  to  devils,  and  not  to 
 neither  if  we  eat  not,  are  we  the  worse,  God:  and  1  would  not  that  ye  should 
 1  Cor.  viii.  8.  have  fellowship  with  devils.  Ye  cannot 
 
 What  say  I  then  ?  that  the  idol  is  any  drink  the  cup  of  the  Lord,  and  the  cup 
 thing,  or  that  which  is  offered  in  sacri-  of  devils :  ye  cannot  be  partakers  of 
 fice  to  idols  is  any  thing?    1  Cor.  x.  19.    the  Lord'stable,  and  of  the  table  of 
 
 devils.    1  Cor.  X.  20,  21. 
 
 In  the  first  series,  Paul  conceiles  that  meat  is  not  affected 
 by  being  offered  in  sacrifice  to  idols,  and  that  the  eating  of  it  is 
 171  itself,  a  matter  of  indifference.  But  he  argues,  in  the  eighth 
 chapter,^  that  Christians  should  refrain  from  this  food,  because 
 
 ^  See  verses  9-13. 
 
250  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 their  participation  would  be  misconstrued  by  other  persons; 
 and  in  the  tenth  chapter,^  because  the  participant  shares,  to 
 some  extent,  in  the  sin  of  idolatry. 
 
 Andrew  Fuller^:  Your  course  is  inexpedient,  because  it 
 leads  others  into  actual  idolatry;  it  is  also  positively  sinful, 
 because  it  involves  a  participation  in  idol-worship,  on  the 
 general  principle  that  he  who  voluntarily  associates  with  others 
 in  any  act  is  a  jDartaker  of  that  act. 
 
 Laughter, 
 
 Commended.  Condemned. 
 
 A  merry  heart  doeth  good  like  a  med-  I  said  of  laujrhter.  It  is  mad :  and  of 
 
 icine.    Prov.  xvii.  22.  mirth,  What  doeth  it?    Eccl.  ii.  2. 
 
 A   time  to  every  purpose  under  the  Sorrow  is  better  than  laughter:  for 
 
 heaven.    ...    A  time  to  laugh.    Eccl.  by  the  sadness  of  the  countenance  the 
 
 iii.  1,  4.  heart  is  made  better.    The  heart  of  the 
 
 I  commended  mirth,  because  a  man  wise  is  in  the  house  of  mourning;  but 
 
 hath   no  better  thing  under  the  sun,  the  heart  of  fools  is  in  the  house  of 
 
 than  to  eat,  and  to  drink,  and  to  be  mirth.     Eccl.  vii.  3,  4. 
 
 merry.     Eccl.  viii.  15.  Wo  unto  you  that  laugh  now!  for  ye 
 
 I  will  see  you  again,  and  your  heart  shall  mourn  and  weep.    Luke  vi.  25. 
 shall  rejoice,  and  your  joy  no  man  tak- 
 eth  from  you.    John  xvi.  22. 
 
 The  first  texts  speak  approvingly  of  a  cheerful  spirit  or  a 
 seasonable  and  rational  merriment ;  the  second  condemn  sense- 
 less and  riotous  hilarity.  Hengstenberg :  "  Mirth  considered 
 as  the  highest  good,  as  the  end  of  life,  and  the  too  great  eager- 
 ness displayed  in  its  pursuit."  Not  laughter  in  the  abstract, 
 but  laughter  under  certain  circumstances,  is  condemned. 
 
 Man's  oivn  way. 
 
 Must  not  he  folloioed.  May  he  followed. 
 
 Remember  all  the  commandments  of       Rejoice,  O  young  man,  in  thy  youth; 
 
 the  Lord,  and  do  them ;   and  that  ye    and  let  thy  heart  cheer  thee  in  the  days 
 
 seek  not  after  your  own  heart  and  your    of  thy  youth,  and  walk  in  the  ways  of 
 
 own  eyes.    Num.  xv.  39.  thy  heart,  and  in  the  sight  of  thine  eyes. 
 
 Eccl.  xi.  9. 
 
 Menasseh  ben  Israel,  Aben  Ezra,  and  Rashi  take  the  second 
 text  as  ironical :  "'  Well,  go  your  own  way,  but  remember,"  etc. 
 Ginsburg,  Hengstenberg,  and  Zockler  deem  it  an  injunction  to 
 enjoy  cheerfully  the  blessings  of  life,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to 
 bear  in  mind  man's  accountability  to  the  Giver  of  every  good 
 and  perfect  gift. 
 
 ^  Verses  20,  21.  2  Works,  i.  683,  684. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANaES.  251 
 
 Mourning, 
 
 Commended.  Discountenanced. 
 
 Blessed  are  they  that  mourn :  for  they  Rejoice  in  the  Lord  always :  and  again 
 shall  be  comforted.    Matt.  v.  4.  1  say,  Rejoice.    Thil.  iv.  4. 
 
 The  "  mourning  "  is  that  attendant  upon  true  penitence  ;  the 
 "rejoicing"  results  from  the  assurance  of  salvation.  The 
 sorrow  precedes,  the  joy  follows,  pardon. 
 
 Purity, 
 
 In  a  preceding  part  of  this  work  ^  we  have  discussed  at  some 
 length,  and  at  one  view,  the  alleged  discrepancies  which  would 
 properly  come  under  this  head. 
 
 Salvation, 
 
 God's  work.  Man's  work. 
 
 For  God  is  my  King  of  old,  working  Work  out  your  own  salvation  with 
 salvation  in  the  midst  of  the  earth.  Ps.  fear  and  trembling.  For  it  is  God  which 
 Ixxiv.  12.  worketh  in  you  both  to  will  and  to  do 
 
 of  his  good  pleasure.    Phil.  ii.  12,  13. 
 
 The  last  verse  at  the  right  represents  God  as  the  prime 
 mover  in  the  work  of  salvation.  Alford  :  "  We  owe  both  the 
 will  to  do  good  and  the  power  to  his  indwelling  Spirit."  As 
 has  been  previously  said,  the  divine  and  human  agencies  co- 
 operate to  a  certain  extent.^ 
 
 Strong  drink. 
 
 Use  recommended.  Discountenanced. 
 
 And  thou  shalt  bestow  that  money  Wine  is  a  mocker,  strong  drink  is 
 
 for  whatsoever  thy  soul  lusteth  after,  raging:    and    whosoever   is    deceived 
 
 for  oxen,  or  for  sheep,  or  for  wine,  or  thereby  is  not  wise.    Prov.  xx.  1. 
 
 for  strong  drink.    Deut.  xiv.  26.  Who  hath  wo?   who  hath  sorrow? 
 
 And  the  vine  said  unto  them,  Should  who  hath  contentions?  who  hath  bab- 
 
 I  leave  my  wine,  which  cheereth  God  bling?     who    hath    wounds    without 
 
 and  man.    Judg.  ix.  13.  cause?  who  hath  redness  of  eyes?  They 
 
 Wine  tJiat  maketh  glad  the  heart  of  that  tarry  long  at  the  wine;  they  that 
 
 man.    Ps.  civ.  15.  go  to  seek  mixed  wine.    Look  not  thou 
 
 Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  upon  the  wine  when  it  is  red,  when  it 
 
 ready  to  perish,  and  wine  to  those  that  giveth  his  color  in  the  dup,  when  it 
 
 be  of  heavy  hearts.    Let  him  drink,  moveth  itself  aright.      At  the  last  it 
 
 and  forget  his  poverty,  and  remember  biteth  like  a  serpent,  and  stingeth  like 
 
 his  misery  no  more.    Prov.  xxxi.  6,  7.  an  adder.     Prov.  xxiii.  29-32. 
 
 Drink  no  longer  water,  but  use  a  little  Whoredom  and  wine  and  new  wine 
 
 wine  for  thy  stomach's  sake,  and  thine  take  away  the  heart.    Hos.  iv.  11. 
 
 often  infirmities.  1  Tim.  v.  23.  Nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor  ex- 
 tortioners, shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of 
 God     IC  or.  vi  10. 
 
 For  an  extended  discussion  of  this  point  the  reader  is  referred 
 to  the  literature  of  the  subject.     It  should,  however,  be  said 
 
 ^  See  pp.  144-146.  ^  Compaxe  pp.  166, 167  of  present  work. 
 
252  DISCREPANCIES  OP   THE  BIBLE. 
 
 that  the  general  tenor  of  the  Bible  is  clearly  and  decidedly 
 against  intemperance. 
 
 Noah's  intoxication^  —  a  sad  blot  upon  a  character  otherwise 
 without  reproach — is  related  merely  as  a  matter  of  history,  and 
 without  comment. 
 
 As  to  the  miracle  at  Cana,^  there  is  nothing  in  the  act  of 
 our  Saviour,  nor  in  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  which  goes 
 *o  sanction  drunkenness. 
 
 Certain  authors  maintain,  with  some  plausibility,  that  in  all 
 cases  where  strong  drinks  are  coupled  with  terms  of  com- 
 mendation, the  original  word  properly  means  either  unfer- 
 mented  wine  or  else  fruit ;  and  that  the  notices  of  fermented 
 wine  are  restricted  to  passages  of  a  condemnatory  character. 
 This  position,  if  tenable,  is  one  of  great  importance.  For  the 
 discussion  of  this  point,  we  have  already  referred  to  the  lit- 
 eratm*e  of  the  subject.^ 
 
 In  the  quotation  from  Deuteronomy  the  words  rendered 
 "  wine  "  and  "  strong  diink  "  may  not  imply  here  fermented  or 
 intoxicating  liquors.  Even  if  such  be  their  meaning,  the 
 passage  does  not  sanction  the  use  of  these  drinks  to  the  extent 
 of  ebriety. 
 
 Judges  ix.  13  appears  in  the  sacred  record,  as  a  mere  fable, 
 with  wliich  the  uninspired  speaker  embellished  his  harangue. 
 
 The  text  in  Psalms  speaks  of  "  wine  "  which  ''  maketh  glad  " 
 the  heart  of  man,  and  of  "  bread  "  which  "  strengtheneth  "  it. 
 These  two  terms  apparently  stand,  by  metonymy,  for  food  and 
 
 ^  Gen  ix.  21. 
 
 2Johnii  1-11. 
 
 ^  Compare  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  "Wine";  also,  Lees  and  Burns'  "Tem- 
 perance Bible  Commentary"  (American  edition,  New  York,  1870).  A 
 writer  in  Fairbairn's  Imperial  Bible  Diet,  says,  that  tJi*|ipi  properly  means 
 vintafje  fruit,  a  solid,  instead  of  a  liqm'd;  that  *izd  means  syrup  from 
 various  fruits  not  intoxicating  when  new.  Fuerst  takes  y^*^  with  V'^p, 
 Jer.  xl.  10,  as  denoting  bunches  of  grapes.  Cassell's  Bible  Diet,  says  ttiat 
 with  the  exception  of  ■p'l  ^  ^^D ,  and  perhaps  of  5<2b,  the  other  original 
 terms  are  not  used  in  connection  with  drunkenness.  But  see  Tijin'^ri  in 
 IIos.  iv.  11,  above. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  253 
 
 drink.  Hengstenberg :  "  What  appeases  hunger  and  thirst." 
 It  is  not  an  intoxicating  drink  which  is  contemplated  here. 
 
 The  passage  in  Proverbs  xxxi.  points  to  a  medicinal  use  of 
 the  articles  in  question.  In  verses  4  and  5  of  the  same  chapter 
 the  use  of  "  wine "  and  "  strong  drink "  is  forbidden,  for  a 
 specified  reason,  to  "  kings  "  and  "  princes."  It  is  then  added : 
 "  Give  strong  drink  unto  him  that  is  ready  to  perish  [Zockler : 
 '  who  is  on  the  point  of  perishing,  who  is  just  expiring '],  and 
 wine  unto  those  that  be  of  heavy  hearts."  The  language  indi- 
 cates persons  in  a  state  of  great  depression  and  exhaustion. 
 
 That  Paul's  direction  to  Timothy  also  contemplates  a  strictly 
 medical  use  of  wine  is  beyond  a  shadow  of  doubt.  The  con- 
 clusion is  that  the  sacred  writers  are  not  apologists  for  drunken- 
 ness, and  neither  directly  nor  indirectly  countenance  it. 
 
 Temptation, 
 
 Desirable.  Undesirable. 
 
 'My  brethren,  count  it  all  joy  when  ye  Lead  us  not  into  temptation.  Matt, 
 fall  into  divers  temptations.    Jas.  i.  2.      vi.  13. 
 
 The  word  rendered  "  temptations,"  says  Alf ord,  means  "  not 
 only  what  we  properly  call  temptations,  but  any  kind  of 
 distresses  which  happen  to  us,  from  without  or  from  within, 
 which  in  God's  purpose  serve  as  trials  of  us."  Matthew  incul- 
 cates "  a  humble  self -distrust  and  shrinking  from  such  trials  in 
 the  prospect " ;  James  teaches  that  when  they  do  providentially 
 overtake  us,  we  are  to  rejoice  that  even  these  things  shall  work 
 together  for  our  good. 
 
 Wealth. 
 
 Not  to  be  retained.  May  be  retained. 
 
 If  thou  wilt  be  perfect,  go  and  sell  Charge  them  that  are  rich  in  this 
 that  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the  poor,  world,  that  they  be  not  high-minded, 
 and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven,  nor  trust  in  uncertain  riches.  . , .  That 
 Matt.  xix.  21.  they  do  good,  that  they  be  rich  in  good 
 
 As  many  as  were  possessors  of  lands  works,  ready  to  distribute,  willing  to 
 or  houses  sold  them,  and  brought  the    communicate.    1  Tim.  vi.  17, 18. 
 
 f)rices  of  the  things  that  were  sold,  and 
 aid  them  down  at  the  apostles'  feet. 
 Acts  iv.  34,  35. 
 
 They  that  will  be  rich  fall  into  tempta- 
 tion, and  a  snare,  and  into  many  foolish 
 and  hurtful  lusts,  which  drown  men  in 
 destruction  and  perdition.  For  the 
 love  of  money  is  the  root  of  all  evil. 
 1  Tim.  vi.  9,  10. 
 
 22 
 
254  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 The  young  ruler's  was  an  exceptional  case.  His  "  great 
 possessions  "  were  his  idol ;  love  of  money  was  his  great  sin. 
 Jesus  shaped  the  injunction  to  meet  this  special  case ;  aiming, 
 as  always,  at  the  besetting  sin  of  the  individual.  The  only 
 legitimate  inference  is  that  every  sin,  even  the  most  cherished, 
 must  be  given  up,  if  we  would  be  disciples  of  Christ. 
 
 Of  the  example  in  Acts,  Alford  says  that  it  was  a  voluntary 
 one,  was  enforced  nowhere  by  any  rule,  and  that  it  prevailed 
 only  at  Jerusalem.  Hackett :  "  The  community  of  goods,  as  it 
 existed  in  the  church  at  Jerusalem,  was  purely  a  voluntary 
 thing,  and  not  required  by  the  apostles." 
 
 Not  those  who  "are  rich,"  but  those  who  "m//^  be  rich," 
 those  who  make  riches  the  great  object  of  life,  are  admonished 
 by  the  apostle  in  1  Tim.  vi.  The  excessive  love,  rather  than 
 the  mere  possession,  of  wealth,  is  the  object  of  reprimand.  The 
 Bible  forbids  neither  the  acquisition  nor  the  possession  of 
 wealth,  provided  we  hold  it  as  God's  stewards,  and  use  it  for 
 his  glory. 
 
 Wisdotn, 
 Unprofitable.  Of  great  value. 
 
 For  in  much  wisdom  is  much  p^rief :        Wisdom  excelleth   folly,    as    far  as 
 and  he  that  increaseth  knowledge  in-    light  excelleth  darkness.     Eccl.  ii.  13. 
 creaseth  sorrow.     Eccl.  1.  18.  Happy  is  the   man  that  tindeth  wis- 
 
 As  it  happeneth  to  the  fool  so  it  hap-  dom,  and  the  man  that  getteth  under- 
 peneth  even  to  me:  and  why  was  1  then  standing.  . .  .  She  is  more  precious  than 
 more  wise/    Eccl.  ii.  15.  rubies:  and  all  the  things  thou  canst 
 
 For  what  hath  the  wise  more  than  desire  are  not  to  be  compared  unto  her, 
 the  fool?     Eccl.  vi.  8.  Trov.  iii.  13,  15. 
 
 This  wisdom  descendeth  not  from  The  wisdom  that  is  from  above  is  first 
 above,  but  is  earthly,  sensual,  devilish,  pure,  then  peaceable,  . . .  full  of  mercy 
 Jas.  iii.  15.  and  good  fruits.    Jas.  iii.  17. 
 
 The  term  "  wisdom  "  is  applied,  in  the  scriptures,  to  at  least 
 three  things:  1.  Worldly  craft,  cunning,  or  policy;  2.  Mere 
 human  knowledge  or  learning;  3.  Enlightened  piety.  The 
 first  is  always  disapproved;  the  second,  having  in  itself  no 
 moral  quality,  is  not  condemned  save  when  it  usurps  the  place 
 of  the  third  kind,  or  enlightened  piety.  The  latter  is  invariably 
 commended.  In  the  case  before  us  ethical  wisdom  is  contrasted 
 with  carnal  wisdom. 
 
 ^  Alford  brings  out  the  force  of  the  original  word,  thus:  "They  who 
 wish  to  be  rich." 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  255 
 
 III,    DUTY  OF  31  AN,—  To  his  fellow-men. 
 
 Adultery, 
 
 Tolerated.  Prohibited. 
 
 All  the  women    children    .  .  .   keep       Thou  shalt  not  commit  adultery,  ilx. 
 alive  for  yourselves.    Num.  xxxi.  18.        xx.  14. 
 
 The  Lord  said  to  Hosea,   Go,  take       Whoremongers  and  adulterers  God 
 unto  thee  a  wife  of  whoredoms,  and    wUl  judge.    Heb.  xiii.  4. 
 children  of  whoredoms,  for  the  land 
 hath  committed  great  whoredom,  de- 
 parting from  the  Lord.    Hosea  i.  2. 
 
 Of  the  case  in  Numbers  Keil  says  all  the  females  were  put 
 to  death  who  might  possibly  have  been  engaged  in  the  licentious 
 worship  of  Peor,^  so  that  the  Israelites  might  be  preserved 
 from  contamination  by  that  abominable  idolatry.  The  young 
 maidens  were  reserved  to  be  employed  as  servants,  or,  in  case 
 they  became  proselytes,  to  be  married. 
 
 With  reference  to  Hosea,  Delitzsch  takes  the  prophet's 
 marriages  simply  as  "  internal  events,  i.e.  as  merely  carried  out 
 in  that  inward  and  spiritual  intuition  in  which  the  word  of  God 
 was  addi-essed  to  him."  In  this  view  concur  Bleek,^  Davidson,^ 
 Hengstenberg,  Kimchi,  and  Knobel ;  the  first  of  whom  dwells 
 upon  the  unsuitableness  of  the  outward  acts  to  make  the 
 desu'ed  moral  impression,  while  the  last  pronounces  these  acts 
 peculiarly  inconsistent  with  a  character  so  severely  moral  as 
 that  of  Hosea.  Moreover,  the  word  "  whoredom,"  in  the  first 
 part  of  the  verse  may  mean,  as  it  certainly  does  in  the  last 
 part,  simply  spiritual  whoredom,  or  idolatry.* 
 
 Assassination, 
 
 Sanctioned.  Forbidden. 
 
 Ehud  said,  I  have  a  message  from       Thou  shalt  not  kill.    Ex.  xx.  13 
 God  unto  thee.    And  he  arose  out  of       If  a  man  come  presumptuously  upon 
 his  seat.     And  Ehud  put  forth  his  left    his  neighbor  to  slay  him  with  guile; 
 hand,   and  took  the  dagger,  .  .  .   and    thou  shalt  take  him  from  mine  altar, 
 thrust  it  into  his  belly.  .  .  .  And  Ehud    that  he  may  die.    Ex.  xxi.  14. 
 escaped.    Judg.  iii.  20,  21.  26. 
 
 Then  Jael,  Heber's  wife,  took  a  nail 
 of  the  tent,  and  took  a  hammer  in  her 
 hand,  and  went  softly  unto  him,  and 
 smote  the  nail  info  his  temple.-',  and 
 fastened  it  into  the  gi-ound :  fur  he  was 
 fast  asleep,  and  weary.  So  he  died. 
 Judg.  iv  21. 
 
 1  See  Num.  xxv.  1-3.  « Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  124. 
 
 2  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  iii.  237.  *  Compare  p.  79,  present  work. 
 
256  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 The  cases  of  Ehud  and  Jael  are  recorded  without  comment, 
 simply  as  matters  of  history.  It  does  not  appear  that  God 
 sanctioned  their  acts,  although  he  overruled  them  for  the 
 welfare  of  his  people.  Keil  admonishes  us  against  supposing 
 that  Ehud  acted  under  the  impulse  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  also 
 that,  though  he  actually  delivered  Israel,  there  is  no  warrant  for 
 assuming  that  the  means  he  selected  were  either  commanded 
 or  approved  by  Jehovah. 
 
 The  cases  of  Joab  and  Shimei^  are  sometimes  adduced  as 
 examples  of  the  sanction  of  assassination.  The  former  was  a 
 "  man  of  blood,"  a  deliberate  murderer.  When  the  reasons  of 
 state,  on  account  of  which  his  punishment  had  been  deferred, 
 ceased  to  exist,  that  punishment  was  justly  inflicted.  Shimei 
 was  guilty  of  aggi^avated  treason  and  rebellion.  Being  re- 
 prieved upon  a  certain  condition,  he  v/ilfully  violated  that 
 condition,  and  met  the  consequences  of  his  temerity. 
 
 Assassination  is  nowhere  sanctioned  in  the  Bible. 
 
 Avenging  of  blood. 
 
 Provided  for.  Virtually  prohibited. 
 
 The  revenger  of  blood  himself  shall       Thou  shalt  not  kill.    Deut.  v.  17. 
 slay  the  murderer:  when  he  meeteth 
 him,  he  shall  slay  him.  JSum.  xxxv.  19. 
 
 The  practice  of  blood-revenge,  being  one  of  long  standing, 
 and  founded  upon  "  an  imaginary  sense  of  honor,"  ^  was  tolerated 
 by  Moses  ;  but  he  took  measures  to  prevent  its  abuse. 
 
 According  to  the  original  custom,  as  Burckhardt  *  says,  "  the 
 right  of  blood-revenge  is  never  lost ;  it  descends,  on  both  sides, 
 to  the  latest  generation."  Moses  restricted  the  avenging  of  blood 
 to  the  nearest  male  relative  of  the  deceased,  and  to  the  actual 
 offender.    These  two,  and  no  more,  were  concerned  in  the  affair. 
 
 Then,  strange  as  it  may  seem,  such  competent  witnesses  as 
 Burckhardt,  jMr.  Layard,*  and  Prof.  Palmer  ^  bear  unequivocal 
 
 *  1  Kings  ii.  5-9. 
 
 ^  Michaclis,  Com.  on  Mosaic  Laws,  i.  15,  16. 
 
 *  Quoted  by  Macdonaki,  Introd.  to  Pent.  ii.  323,  324. 
 
 *  Nineveh  and  Babylon,  p.  260  (New  York  edition). 
 
 *  Desert  of  the  Exodus,  p.  75  (Harpers'  edition). 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  257 
 
 testimoBy  to  the  salutary  influence  of  the  custom  upon  the  tribes 
 among  whom  it  obtains.  The  latter  traveller  says :  "  Thanks 
 to  the  terrible  rigor  of  the  '  vendetta,'  or  blood-feud,  homicide 
 is  far  rarer  in  the  desert  than  in  civilized  lands."  The  "killing" 
 forbidden  in  Deuteronomy  is  the  crime  of  murder;  the  "blood- 
 revenge"  of  Nmnbers  is  the  recognized  'punishment  of  that  crime. 
 
 JSaptism, 
 
 Enjoined.  Neglected. 
 
 Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  I  thank  God  that  1  baptized  none  of 
 baptizin":  them  in  the  name  of  the  you,  but  Crispus  and  Gaius.  . . .  For 
 Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  but  to 
 Ghost.    Matt,  xxviii,  19.  preach  the  gospel,    1  Cor.  i.  14.  17. 
 
 Obviously,  "  Christ  sent  me  not  so  much  to  baptize,  as  to 
 preach  the  gospel."  Paul  did  not  neglect  or  undervalue  bap- 
 tism, but  gave  himself  to  the  work  of  teaching,  leaving  his 
 associates  to  administer  baptism. 
 
 Burdens. 
 
 Must  hear  others'  burdens.  Bear  our  own  burdens. 
 
 Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and  For  every  man  shall  bear  his  own 
 80  fulfil  the  law  of  Christ.    Gal.  vi.  2.       burden.    Gal.  vi.  5. 
 
 The  original  word  for  "  burden  "  is  not  the  same  in  the  two 
 cases.     The  different  sense  is  indicated  in  accurate  versions. 
 
 The  first  text  means,  "  Be  sympathetic  and  helpful  to  each 
 other  in  the  midst  of  infirmities  and  sorrows";  the  second, 
 "  Every  man  must  bear  his  own  responsibility,  under  the 
 Divine  government." 
 
 Calling  men  '' Father.' ' 
 
 Forbidden.  Exemplified. 
 
 And  call  no  man  your  father  upon  the  And  Elisha  saw  if,  and  he  cried,  My 
 
 earth :  for  one  is  your  Father,  which  is  father,  my  father.    2  Kings  ii.  12. 
 
 in  heaven.    Neither  be  ye  called  mas-  Yet  have  ye  not  many  fathers:  for 
 
 ters ;  for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ,  in  Christ  Jesus  I  have   begotten  you 
 
 Matt,  xxiii.  9, 10.  through  the  gospel.    1  Cor.  iv.  15. 
 
 The  texts  at  the  left  simply  forbid  us  to  take  any  man  as  an 
 infallible  guide.  We  are  to  pay  to  no  human  being  the 
 homage  and  obedience  which  rightfully  belong  to  Christ. 
 
 Alf ord :  "  The  prohibition  is  against  loving,  and,  in  any  re 
 ligious  matter,  using  such  titles,  signifying  dominion  over  the 
 faith  of  others." 
 
 22* 
 
258  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Capital  punishment. 
 
 Murderer  executed.  Spared. 
 
 Whoso  sheddeth  man's  blood,  by  man  A  fugitive  and  a  vagabond  shalt  thou 
 shall  his  blood  be  shed.    Gen.  ix.  6.  be  in  the  earth.    And  Cain  said  unto 
 
 the  Lord,  My  punishment  is  greater 
 than  1  can  bear.    Gen.  iv.  12, 13. 
 
 By  some  unaccountable  freak  of  exegesis,  a  well-known 
 critic  makes  the  first  text  the  proJdhition  of  capital  punishment. 
 Instead,  it  is  a  most  explicit  command,  sanctioning  it. 
 
 The  case  of  Cain  occurred  some  fifteen  hundred  years  before 
 this  command  was  given  to  Noah. 
 
 Captives, 
 
 To  he  spared.  Put  to  death. 
 
 All  the  people  that  is  found  therein,  But  of  the  cities  of  these  people, 
 shall  be  tributaries  unto  thee,  and  they  which  the  Lord  thy  God  doth  give 
 shall  serve  thee.  . . .  Thus  shalt  thou  do  thee /or  an  inheritance,  thou  shalt  save 
 unto  all  the  cities  tvhich  are  very  far  off  alive  nothing  that  breatheth :  . . .  That 
 from  thee,  which  are  not  of  the  cities  they  teach  you  not  to  do  after  all  their 
 of  these  nations.    Deut.  xx.  11,  15.  abominations,  which  they  have  done 
 
 unto  their  gods ;  so  should  ye  sin  against 
 the  Loud  your  God.    Deut.  xx.  16, 18. 
 
 The  general  rule  was  to  make  captives ;  the  exception  was 
 in  the  case  of  the  "  seven  nations "  of  Canaan,  to  whom,  on 
 account  of  their  "  abominations,"  no  quarter  was  to  be  given.^ 
 
 Chastity  tested. 
 
 By  one  method.  A  different  method. 
 
 And  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  If  any  man  take  a  wife,  and  go  in 
 saying.  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Is-  unto  her,  and  hate  her,  and  give  occa* 
 rael,...lf  any  man's  wife  go  aside,  sions  of  speech  against  her, ...  and  say, 
 and  commit  a  trespass  against  him,  etc.  I  took  this  woman,  and  when  I  came 
 Num.  V.  11-31.  to  her,  I  found  her  not  a  maid,  etc. 
 
 Deut.  xxii.  13-21. 
 
 A  late  writer  says  that,  in  one  case,  "  great  latitude  is  afforded 
 to  the  suspicious  husband,  while  the  woman's  protection  against 
 him  is  only  a  superstitious  appeal  to  Jehovah ;  in  the  other, 
 a  judicial  investigation  is  instituted,  giving  the  wife  a  more 
 reasonable  chance  of  justice." 
 
 But  the  two  cases  are  quite  different.  The  first  text  refers 
 to  unchastity  of  which  the  woman  was  supposed  to  have  been 
 guilty  after  marriage ;  the  other,  to  similar  misconduct  of  hers 
 
 ^  See  further  under  "  Enemies,  —  treatment." 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  259 
 
 before  that  event.  Hence  different  modes  of  investigation  were 
 adopted.  In  the  first  case  the  way  prescribed  —  the  only  way 
 to  arrive  at  the  truth  in  the  matter  —  was,  as  Keil  says,  "  to 
 let  the  thing  be  decided  by  the  verdict  of  God  himself."  In 
 the  other  case,  this  would  not  be  true. 
 
 Christians  hearing  weapons. 
 
 Permitted.  Forbidden. 
 
 But  now,  he  that  hath  a  purse,  let  Put  up  again  thy  sword  into  his 
 him  take  it,  and  likewise  his  scrip :  and  place :  for  all  they  that  take  the  sword, 
 he  that  hath  no  sword,  let  him  sell  his  shall  perish  with  the  sword.  Matt, 
 garment,  and  buy  one.    Luke  xxii.  36.    xxvi.  52. 
 
 Some  critics  take  the  Greek  word  '  machaira '  as  denoting,  in 
 the  first  text,  not  a  "  sword,"  but  a  "  knife."  Unquestionably, 
 the  word  occasionally  has  this  meaning  in  classical  Greek  and 
 in  the  Septuagint.^  This  is  a  possible,  but  not  probable, 
 interpretation. 
 
 The  first  text  may  be  only  another  way  of  saying,  "  You 
 must  henceforth  use  such  precautions,  and  make  such  provision 
 for  your  needs,  as  men  generally  do."  Wordsworth :  "  A  pro- 
 verbial expression,  intimating  that  they  would  now  be  reduced 
 to  a  condition  in  which  the  men  of  this  world  resort  to  such 
 means  of  defence.  Alf ord :  "  The  saying  is  both  a  description 
 to  them  of  their  altered  situation  with  reference  to  the  world 
 without,  and  a  declaration  that  seK-defence  and  self-provision 
 would  henceforward  be  necessary."  Similarly  Oosterzee,  and 
 many  others. 
 
 The  second  quotation  may  have  been  a  warning  to  Peter 
 against  a  seditious  or  rebellious  use  of  the  sword  against  rulers. 
 Or  it  may  have  been  a  dissuasive  against  his  attempting  to 
 avenge  the  wrongs  inflicted  upon  Jesus,  coupled  with  the 
 assurance  that  the  latter's  persecutors  should  speedily  perish  — 
 as  they  did,  in  the  destruction  of  their  city.     That  is,  rebellion 
 
 ^  Liddell  and  Scott  pve,  as  one  definition,  a  knife  for  surg'ical,  sacrificial, 
 and  other  purposes.  In  Gen.  xxii.  6,  10;  Judges  xix.  29,  such  a  knife  is 
 clearly  intended.  In  the  last  instance,  however,  Tischendorf  adopts  a 
 different  reading. 
 
260  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 against  regularly  constituted  authorities,  together  with  private, 
 extra-judicial  revenge,  may  be  all  that  is  contemplated  and 
 prohibited  here. 
 
 Circumcision, 
 
 Instituted.  Discarded. 
 
 This  IS  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  Is  any  called  in  uncircumcision?  let 
 keep,  between  me  and  you,  and  thy  him  not  be  circumcised.  1  Cor.  vii.  18. 
 peed  after  thee :  Every  man-child  among  Behold,  I  Paul,  say  unto  you,  that  if 
 you  shall  be  circumcised.  Gen.  xvii.  10.    ye  be  circumcised,  Christ  shall  profit 
 
 And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses  and    you  nothing.    Gal.  v.  2 
 Aaron,  This  is  the  ordinance  of  the 
 passover :  . . .  No  uncircumcised  person 
 shall  eat  thereof.    Ex.  xii.  43,  48. 
 
 The  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic  law,  among  which 
 was  circumcision,  were  intended  to  serve  a  temporary  purpose. 
 When  Christ  came  the  Mosaic  ritual  ceased  to  have  any  binding 
 force.     It  had  fulfilled  the  designed  end. 
 
 The  first  passages  were  addressed  to  Abraham  and  his  seed. 
 
 The  second  series  was  written  after  the  rite  of  circumcision  had 
 
 been  set  aside  by  Divine  authority. 
 
 Not  to  be  omitted.  Neglected  for  forty  years. 
 
 And  the  uncircumcised  man-child, . . .  All  the  peopJe  that  loere  born  in  the 
 that  soul  shall  be  cut  off  from  his  peo-  wilderness  by  the  way  as  they  came 
 pie;  he  hath  broken  my  covenant,  forth  out  of  Ep:ypt,  .  .  .  them  Joshua 
 Gen.  xvii.  14.  circumcised:   for  they  were  uncircum- 
 
 cised) because  they  had  not  circum- 
 cised them  by  the  way.    Josh.  v.  5,  7. 
 
 IVIr.  Perowne,  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  maintains  that 
 "  the  nation,  while  bearing  the  punishment  of  disobedience  in 
 its  forty  years'  wandering,  was  regarded  as  under  a  temporary 
 rejection  by  God,  and  was  therefore  prohibited  from  using  the 
 sign  of  the  covenant." 
 
 This  explanation  is  adopted  by  Calvin,  Keil,  and  Hengsten- 
 
 berg,^  and  is  probably  the  true  one.     On  the  same  principle 
 
 the  parallel  omission  of  the  passover  is  to  be  explained. 
 
 Profitable.  Useless. 
 
 A  certain  disciple  was  there,  named  Neither  Titus,  who  was  with  me, 
 Timotheus.  .  .  .  llim  would  I'aul  have  being  a  Greek,  was  compelled  to  be 
 to  go  forth  with  him;  and  took  and  circumcised.  And  that  because  of  false 
 circumcised  him,  because  of  the  Jews  brethren  unawares  brought  in.  who 
 which  were  in  those  quarters.  Acts  came  in  privily  to  spy  out  our  liberty 
 xvi.  1,  8.  whicli  we  have  in  Christ  Jesus,  that 
 
 they  might   bring    us   into    bondage. 
 Gal.  ii.  3,  4. 
 
 *  On  Genuineness  of  Pentateuch,  ii.  13-15. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  261 
 
 Conybeare :  The  two  cases  were  entirely  different.  In  the 
 latter,  there  was  an  attempt  to  enforce  circumcision  as  neces- 
 sary to  salvation ;  in  the  former,  it  was  performed  as  a  volun- 
 tary act,  and  simply  on  prudential  grounds. 
 
 Similarly  Hackett  and  Alford.  The  principle  involved  is 
 that  we  may  sometimes  make  concessions  to  expediency  which 
 it  would  be  wrong  to  make  to  arbitrary  authority  seeking  to 
 tyrannize  over  the  conscience. 
 
 Commutation  for  murder. 
 
 Not  allowed.  Permitted. 
 
 Ye  shall  take  no  satisfaction  for  the       If  the  ox  were  wont  to  push  with  his 
 
 life  of  a  murderer,  which  is  guilty  of    horn  in  time  past,  and  it  hath  been  tes- 
 
 death :  but  he  shall  be  surely  put  to    titled  to  his  owner,  and  he  hath  not 
 
 death.    Kum.  xxxv.  31.  kept  him  in,  but  that  he  hath  killed  a 
 
 man  or  a  woman;  the  ox  shall  be 
 stoned,  and  his  owner  also  shall  be  put 
 to  death.  If  there  be  laid  on  him  a  sum 
 of  money,  then  he  shall  give  for  the 
 ransom  of  his  life  whatsoever  is  laid 
 upon  him.    Ex.  xxi.  29,  30. 
 
 In  the  case  of  wilful  murder,  as  Abarbanel  and  Aben  Ezra 
 say,  absolutely  no  commutation  of  the  death-penalty  was 
 allowed.  But  the  second  quotation  does  not  refer  to  a  case  of 
 "murder,"  properly  so  called.  The  element  of  malice  was 
 wanting.  Gross  and  criminal  carelessness,  although  resulting 
 in  the  death  of  a  human  being,  was  yet  less  heinous  than 
 deliberate  murder.  Hence  the  judges  might,  if  they  saw  fit, 
 punish  the  offender  by  a  heavy  fine,  instead  of  death. 
 
 This  is,  substantially,  Keil's  opinion. 
 
 Contention  and  strife. 
 
 Enjoined.  Forbidden. 
 
 Strive  to  enter  in  at  the  strait  gate.  A  fool's  lips  enter  into  contention. 
 
 Luke  xiii  24.  Prov.  xviii.  6. 
 
 Yea,  so  have  I  strived  to  preach  the  Charging  them  before  the  Lord  that 
 
 gospel.  .  .  .  Now  I  beseech  you,  breth-  they  strive  not  about  words  to  no  profit, 
 
 ren,  that  ye  strive  together  with  me  in  ...  The  servant  of  the  Lord  must  not 
 
 your  prayers  to  God  for  me.    Kom.  xv.  strive.    2  Tim.  ii.  14, 24. 
 
 20,  30.                                                   •  For  where  envying  and  strife  is,  there 
 
 It  was  needful  for  me  to  write  unto  is  confusion  and  every  evil  work.    Jas. 
 
 you,  and  exhort  yoiL  that  ye  should  iii.  16. 
 earnestly  contend  for  the  faith.  Jude3. 
 
 These  are  interesting  examples  of  the  use  of  the  same  word 
 in  widely  different  senses.     In  the  first   series   the  words  in 
 
262  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 question  imply  merely  earnest  effort ;  in  the  second,  quarrel- 
 some collision.  We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  citation  from 
 Luke  would  be  properly  rendered,  "  Agonize  to  enter  in  at  the 
 strait  gate." 
 
 Converting  men. 
 
 Man  converts  his  fellow.  Converts  himself  . 
 
 In  doinf?  this  thou  shalt  both  save  Lest  they  see  with  their  eyes,  and 
 thyself,  and  them  that  hear  thee.  1  Tim.  hear  with  their  ears,  and  understand 
 iv.  1(5.  with  their  lieart,  and  convert,  and  be 
 
 if  any  of  you  do  err  from  the  truth,    healed.    Isa.  vi.  10. 
 and  one  convert  him;  Let  him  know, 
 that  he  which  converteth  the  sinner 
 from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a 
 soul  from  death,    Jas.  v.  19,  20. 
 
 The  first  text  brings  to  view  the  influence  of  another  in 
 causing  a  man  to  turn ;  the  second,  the  man's  own  act  in 
 turning  from  the  error  of  his  way.     Here  is  no  contradiction. 
 
 JDistrust, 
 
 Enjoined.  Precluded. 
 
 Take  ye  heed  every  one  of  his  neif^h-  Beareth  all  thin.^s,  believeth  all 
 bor,  and  trust  ye  not  in  any  brother:  things,  hopeth  all  things,  endureth  all 
 for  every  brother  will  utterly  supplant,  things.  Charity  never  faileth.  1  Cor. 
 Jer.  ix.  4.  xiii.  7,  8. 
 
 Cursed  he  the  man  that  trusteth  in 
 man,  and  maketh  flesh  his  arm,  and 
 whose  heart  departeth  from  the  Loud. 
 Jer.  xvii.  5. 
 
 Trust  ye  not  in  a  friend,  put  ye  not 
 confidence  in  a  guide.    Micah  vij.  5. 
 
 The  first  and  last  texts  at  the  left  imply  a  state  of  the  "  most 
 wretched  perfidiousness,  anarchy,  and  confusion,  in  which  the 
 most  intimate  could  have  no  confidence  in  each  other,  and  the 
 closest  ties  of  relationship  were  violated  and  contemned."  These 
 two  texts  are  not  commands,  h\xi  advice — equivalent  to  saying, 
 "  Such  is  the  state  of  public  morals  that  if  you  trust  any  man 
 you  will  be  deceived  and  betrayed." 
 
 Jer.  xvii.  5  simply  denounces  that  undue  ''  trust  in  man " 
 which  causes  one  to  '*  depart  fropQ  the  Lord."  None  of  these 
 passages  countenance  uncharitable  suspicion  and  distrust. 
 
 The  first  three  texts  graphically  depict  the  workings  and 
 results  of  human  depravity ;  the  last  citation  sets  forth  the  work- 
 ings of  Christian  love.  The  demoralizing  effects  of  sin  are 
 contrasted  with  the  loving,  trusting  purity  arising  from  the  gospel 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  263 
 
 Divorce, 
 
 Largely  allowed.  Restricted. 
 
 And  seest  among  the  captives  a  beau-  Let  none  deal  treacherously  against 
 
 tiful  woman,  and  hast  a  desire  unto  her,  the  wife  of  his  youth.    For  the  Loud, 
 
 that  thou  wouldest  have  her  to  thy  the  God  of  Israel,  saith.  that  he  hateth 
 
 wife.    Then  thou  shalt  bring  her  home  putting  away.     Mai.  ii.  15,  16. 
 
 to  thy  house,  .  .  .  And  after  that,  thou  Whosoever  shall  put  away  his  wife, 
 
 Bhalt  go  in  unto  her,  and  be  her  hus-  saving  for  the    cause    of   fornication, 
 
 band,  and  she  shall  be  thy  wife.    And  causeth  her  to  commit  adultery ;   and 
 
 it  shall  be,  if  thou  have  no  delight  in  whosoever    shall    marry    her    that   is 
 
 her,  then  thou  shalt  let  her  go  whither  divorced  committeth  adultery.     Matt, 
 
 she  will.    L>eut.  xxi.  11-14.  v.  32. 
 
 When,  a  man  hath  taken  a  wife,  and  Why  did  Moses  then  command  to 
 
 married  her,  and  it  come  to  pass  that  give  a  writing  of  divorcement,  and  to 
 
 she  lind  no  favor  in  his  eyes,  because  put  her  away?     He  sailh  unto  them, 
 
 he  hath  found  some  uncleanness  in  her ;  Moses,  because  of  the  hardness  of  your 
 
 then  let  him  write  her  a  bill  of  divorce-  hearts,  suffered  you  to  put  away  your 
 
 ment,  and  give  it  in  her  hand,  and  send  wives :  but  from  the  beginning  it  was 
 
 her  out  of  his  house.    And  when  she  not  so.    Matt.  xix.  7,  8. 
 
 is  departed  out  of  his  house,  she  may  Whosoever  putteth   away  his  wife, 
 
 go  and  be  another  man's  wife.    Deut.  and     marrieth    another,    committeth 
 
 xxiv.  1,  2.  adultery;  and  whosoever  marrieth  her 
 
 that  id  put  away  from  her  husband, 
 committeth  adultery.    Luke  xvi.  18. 
 
 Between  these  two  series  of  announcements  a  period  of  some 
 f  fteen  hundred  years  intervened. 
 
 God,  in  the  early  ages  of  the  Jewish  nation,  and  with  a  view 
 tc  prevent  greater  evils,  allowed  a  limited  freedom  of  divorce. 
 Yet  this  "  putting  away,''  being  opposed  to  the  original,  divine 
 idea  of  marriage,  was  suffered  solely  on  account  of  the  hardness 
 of  men's  hearts,  and  in  comparatively  rude  and  unenlightened 
 times.  We  see  here  the  wisdom  of  God  in  adapting  his  statutes 
 and  requirements  to  man's  knowledge  and  position  in  the  scale 
 of  civilization. 
 
 Besides,  as  Dr.  Ginsburg^  has  observed,  "the  Mosaic  law 
 does  not  institute  divorce,  but,  as  in  other  matters,  recognizes 
 and  most  humanely  regulates  the  prevailing  patriarchal  practice." 
 The  law,  moreover,  is  shaped  with  a  view  to  mitigate  the  evils 
 of  the  practice,  and  ultimately  to  restrict  it  within  the  proper 
 limits.  At  our  Saviour's  coming,  he,  addressing  himself  to  a 
 more  enlightened  age,  set  the  matter  in  the  normal  light, 
 allowing  divorce  but  for  one  cause.^ 
 
 ^  Kitto's  Cyclopaedia,  iii.  82. 
 
 2  See,  further,  Professor  Hovey,  "  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Divorce " 
 (Boston,  1866).  President  Woolsey,  "New  Englander"  (January,  April, 
 and  July,  1867). 
 
264  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Enemies,  —  treatment. 
 
 Ammonites  tortured.  Cruelty  prohibited. 
 
 And  he  brought  forth  the  people  that  But  love  ye  vour  enemies,  and  do 
 
 were  therein,  and  put  them  under  saws  good,  and    lend,   hoping    for  nothing 
 
 and  under  harrows  of  iron,  and  under  again ;  and  your  reward  shall  be  great, 
 
 axes    of   iron,   and    made    them    pass  and  ye  shall  be  the  children  of  the 
 
 through  the  brick-kiln:  and  thus  did  Highest:  for  he  is  kind  unto  the  un- 
 
 he  unto  all  the  cities  of  the  children  of  thankful  and  to  the  evil.    Be  ye  there- 
 
 Ammon.    2Sam.  xii.  31.  fore  merciful,  as  your  Father  also  is 
 
 And  he  brought  out  the  people  that  merciful.    Jfcake  vi.  35,  86. 
 were  in  it,  and  cut  them  with  saws,  and 
 with  harrows  of  iron,  and  with  axes. 
 1  Chron.  xx.  3. 
 
 If  our  version  of  the  text  from  Chronicles  is  correct,  David 
 merely  punished  the  Ammonites  for  the  terrible  cruelties  which 
 at  a  previous  period  his  fellow-countrymen  had  suffered  at  their 
 hands.^  Henderson,  referring  to  these  cruelties,  says :  "  The 
 object  of  the  Ammonites  was  to  effect  an  utter  extermination 
 of  the  Israelites  inhabiting  the  mountainous  regions  of  Gilead, 
 in  order  that  they  might  extend  their  own  territory  in  that 
 direction." 
 
 According  to  a  Jewish  tradition,  David  slew  the  Moabites,^ 
 because  they  had  treacherously  murdered  his  parents  who  had 
 been  confided  to  their  care.^  Wahner,  however,  gives  three 
 explanations  "according  to  which  none  of  the  vanquished 
 Moabitcs  were  put  to  death."  * 
 
 The  probability  is  that  our  version  of  both  texts  of  the  first 
 series,  as  well  as  the  original  of  the  second  of  those  texts,  is 
 incorrect.  Dr.  Davidson  says:  "According  to  the  present 
 reading  of  Samuel,  the  meaning  could  not  be  he  put  them  to. 
 Nor  could  it  be  he  put  them  under,  but  only  he  put  them  among 
 or  between." 
 
 Chandler,^  Dantz,  and  others,  take  the  meaning  to  be  that 
 David  enslaved  the  Ammonites,  putting  them  to  servile  labor, 
 in  the  midst  of  suitable  implements,  —  saws,  harrows,  axes,  and 
 the  like.  The  word  "vayyasar,"  "he  sawed,"  in  Chronicles, 
 may  be  a  mere  copyist's  blunder  for  "  vayyasem,"  "  he  put,"  as 
 
 ^  Comp.  1  Sam.  xi.  2 ;  Amos  i.  13.    ^  2  Sara.  viii.  2 
 
 ^  1  Sam.  xxji.  3,  4,  *  See  Michaelis,  Mos.  Laws,  i.  884, 835. 
 
 '"  Life  of  David,  ii.  227-238  (Oxford,  1853). 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  265 
 
 in  Samuel.  The  latter  word  is  found  in  seven  of  the  mss.  col- 
 lated by  Dr.  Kennicott.  The  close  resemblance  of  the  two 
 words,  especially  if  the  final  letter,  Mem,  were  imperfectly 
 formed,  accounts  for  the  error  of  the  transcriber. 
 
 We,  therefore,  submit  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  David 
 put  the  Ammonites  to  the  torture.  The  meaning  may  be  that, 
 he  put  them  to  menial  service,  of  the  lowest  and  most  laborious 
 kind.  If  he  killed  any,  it  may  have  been,  as  KeH  suggests, 
 simply  the  "  fighting  men  that  were  taken  prisoners." 
 
 Finally,  these  passages  are  mere  history,  and  the  sacred  writer 
 
 makes  himself  responsible  for  nothing  more  in  the  case  than 
 
 the  simple  accuracy  of  the  narrative. 
 
 BaaVs  prophets  slain.  Conciliatory  measures  enjoined. 
 
 And  Elijah  said  unto  them,  Take  the        In  meekness  instructing  those  that 
 prophets  of  Baal;  let  not  one  of  them    oppose  themselves.    2 Tim.  ii.  25. 
 escape.     And    they    took    them;    and 
 Elijah  brought  them  down  to  the  brook 
 Kishon,  and  slew  them  there.    1  Kings 
 xviii.  40. 
 
 These  "  prophets  "  were  engaged  in  promoting  treason  and 
 rebellion  against  the  theocracy.  Leniency  shown  to  them, 
 under  these  circumstances,  would  be  nothing  less  than  cruelty 
 and  treachery  toward  the  highest  welfare  of  the  nation. 
 
 Keil :  "  To  infer  from  this  act  of  Elijah  the  right  to  institute 
 a  bloody  persecution  of  heretics,  would  not  only  indicate  a  com- 
 plete oversight  of  the  difference  between  heathen  idolaters  and 
 Christian  heretics,  but  the  same  reprehensible  confounding  of 
 the  evangelical  standpoint  of  the  New  Testament  with  the 
 legal  standpoint  of  the  Old,  which  Chi-ist  condemned  in  his  own 
 disciples,  in  Luke  ix.  55,  5Q" 
 
 Rawlinson :  "  Elijah's  act  is  to  be  justified  by  the  express 
 
 command  of  the  law,  that  idolatrous  Israelites  were  to  be  put 
 
 to  death ;  and  by  the  right  of  a  prophet  under  the  theocracy  to 
 
 step  in  and  execute  the  law  when  the  king  failed  in  his  duty." 
 
 Canaanites  extirpated.  Killing  forbidden. 
 
 But  of  the  cities  of  these    people,        Thou  shalt  not  kill.    Deut.  v.  17. 
 which  the  Lord  thy   God  doth  give 
 thee /or  an  inheritance,  thou  shalt  save 
 alive  nothing  that  breatheth ;  but  thou 
 shalt  utterly  destroy  them ;  namely y  the 
 
 23 
 
266  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Canaanites  extirpated.  Killing  forbidden. 
 
 Hittites,  and  the  Amorites,  the  Canaan- 
 ites, and  the  I'erizzites,  the  Hivites,  and 
 the  Jebusites;  as  the  Lord  thy  God 
 hath  commanded  thee :  that  they  teach 
 you  not  to  do  after  all  tlieir  abomina- 
 tions, which  they  have  done  unto  their 
 pods ;  so  should  ye  sin  against  the  Lord 
 your  God.    Deut.  xx.  lB-18. 
 
 The  precept  in  Deut.  v.  does  not  prohibit  the  punishment 
 of  crime.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  extraordinary  severity  was 
 enjoined  only  in  the  cases  above  specified.  To  other  nations 
 the  Israelites  might  propose  conditions  of  peace,  and  enter  into 
 leagues  with  them. 
 
 The  reasons  for  this  unexampled  severity  are  the  following : 
 
 1.  The  excessive  wickedness  of  these  seven  tribes,  the  hor- 
 rible "  abominations  "  of  which  they  were  guilty.  They  burned 
 their  children  in  honor  of  their  gods  ;  ^  they  practised  sodomy, 
 bestiality,  and  all  loathsome  vices.^  Such  was  their  unmitigated 
 depravity,  that  the  land  is  represented  as  "  vomiting  out  her 
 inhabitants,"  and  "  spewing  them  forth,"  as  the  stomach  dis- 
 gorges a  deadly  poison.^  On  account  of  their  loathsome  vile- 
 ness  God  cut  them  off  by  the  sword  of  the  Israelites. 
 
 2.  Their  contaminating  example.  This  is  the  reason  assigned 
 in  the  text  above  quoted.  For  the  same  reason,  "  covenants  " 
 and  •'  marriages  "  between  the  Israelites  and  these  seven  tribes 
 were  strictly  prohibited.^  The  disastrous  consequences  of  the 
 intercourse  of  the  Israelites  with  Moab  evince  the  wisdom  of 
 this  prohibition.^  It  was  utterly  impossible  to  live  near  these 
 degraded  idolaters  without  being  defiled  by  the  association. 
 
 This  fact  indicates  to  us  the  reason  why  the  Israelites  were 
 instructed  to  "  save  alive  nothing  that  breatheth."  Absolute 
 extermination  of  the  idolaters  was  the  only  safeguard  of  tlie 
 Hebrews.  Any  of  the  former  who  should  be  spared,  would, 
 owing  to  their  perverse  proclivities.,  prove  a  most  undesirable 
 and  intractable  clement  in  the  Hebrew  theocracy."  It  was 
 better  for  all  concerned,  that  these  idolatrous  tribes  should  be 
 
 *  Lev.  xviii.  21.        -  Lev.  xviii.  22-24;  xx.  20.     •'  Lev.  xviii.  25,  28. 
 
 *  Deut.  vii.  1-4.        ^  Num.  xxv.  1-3.  *  Judges  ii.  1-3;  iii.  1-7. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  267 
 
 laid  under  the  ban ;  that  is,  altogether  exterminated,  that  they 
 might  not  teach  the  Israelites  their  abominations  and  sins. 
 
 As  to  the  reflex  influence,  upon  the  Hebrews  themselves,  of 
 their  extermination  of  the  Cauaanites,  Prof.  Norton^  bluntly 
 observes :  '"  There  is  no  good  moral  discipline  in  the  butchery 
 of  women  and  infants.  It  is  not  thus  that  men  are  to  be 
 formed  to  the  service  of  God."     To  this,  we  may  reply : 
 
 1.  The  positive  and  explicit  command  of  Jehovah  entirely 
 changed  the  aspect  of  the  case,  and  invested  the  Israelites,  while 
 executing  this  command  with  a  solemn  official  responsibility  as 
 the  instruments  of  divine  justice. 
 
 2.  The  execution  of  this  command  may  have  been,  in  that 
 comparatively  rude  and  unenlightened  age,  the  most  effectual 
 means  of  impressing  upon  the  Hebrews  the  "  exceeding  sinful- 
 ness "  of  sin,  together  with  God's  abhorrence  ^  of  the  same, 
 especially,  in  the  form  of  "  idolatry."  As  the  Hebrews  looked 
 forth  upon  the  devastated  habitations,  the  slain  animals,  the 
 dead  bodies  of  the  Cauaanites,  they  could  not  but  hear  the 
 solemn  warning,  "  These  are  the  consequences  of  sin.  Behold 
 how  Jehovah  hates  iniquity J^ 
 
 This  view  of  the  case  is  vigorously  presented  by  Dr.  Fair- 
 bairn,^  in  words  like  the  following :  "  What  could  be  conceived 
 so  thoroughly  fitted  to  implant  in  their  hearts  an  abiding  con- 
 viction of  the  evil  of  idolatry  and  its  foul  abominations  —  to 
 convert  their  abhorrence  of  these  into  a  national,  permanent 
 characteristic,  as  their  being  obliged  to  enter  on  their  settled 
 inheritance  by  a  terrible  infliction  of  judgment  upon  its  former 
 occupants  for  polluting  it  with  such  enormities?  Thus  the 
 very  foundations  of  their  national  existence  raised  a  solemn 
 warning  against  defection  from  the  pure  worship  of  God ;  and 
 the  visitation  of  divine  wrath  against  the  ungodliness  of  men 
 accomplished  by  their  own  hands,  and  interwoven  with  the 
 records  of  their  history  at  its  most  eventful  period,  stood  as  a 
 
 *  Genuineness  of  Gospels,  ii.  p.  cxxx.  ^  Lev.  xx.  23. 
 
 ^  Typology,  ii.  465-47 L 
 
268  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 perpetual  witness  against  them,  if  they  should  ever  turn  aside 
 to  folly.  Happy  had  it  been  for  them,  if  they  had  been  as 
 careful  to  remember  the  lesson,  as  God  was  to  have  it  suitably 
 impressed  upon  their  minds." 
 
 The  language  in  which  Mr.  Carlyle  ^  characterizes  the  severe 
 and  bloody  measures  employed  by  Cromwell  against  the  Irish 
 insurgents,  may  be  applied  to  the  Israelites  in  their  executing 
 the  divine  commission  against  the  Canaanites,  —  "An  armed 
 soldier,  solemnly  conscious  to  himself  that  he  is  the  soldier  of 
 God,  the  Just,  —  a  consciousness  which  it  well  beseems  all 
 soldiers  and  all  men  to  have  always,  —  armed  soldier,  terrible 
 as  death,  relentless  as  doom;  doing  God's  judgments  on  the 
 enemies  of  God !  It  is  a  phenomenon  not  of  joyful  nature ; 
 no,  but  of  awful ;  to  be  looked  at  with  pious  terror  and  awe." 
 
 Viewing  the  Israelites  in  this  aspect,  as  the  consciously  com- 
 missioned ministers  of  heaven's  vengeance  upon  an  utterly 
 corrupt  and  imbruted  race,  their  case  is  lifted  completely  out 
 of  the  common  range  of  warfare,  and  becomes  entirely  unique, 
 —  no  longer  to  be  judged  of  by  the  ordinary  ethical  standards. 
 
 A  late  author,  who  could  not  be  charged  with  fanaticism,  — 
 Dr.  Thomas  Arnold,^  —  has  the  following  emphatic  defence 
 of  the  Israelites,  and  of  their  warfare  of  extermination : 
 "  And  if  we  are  mclined  to  think  that  God  dealt  hardly  with 
 the  people  of  Canaan  in  commanding  them  to  be  so  utterly 
 destroyed,  let  us  but  think  what  might  have  been  our  fate,  and 
 the  fate  of  every  other  nation  under  heaven,  at  this  hour,  had 
 the  sword  of  the  Israelites  done  its  work  more  sparingly. 
 Even  as  it  was,  the  small  portions  of  the  Canaanites  who  were 
 left  and  the  nations  around  them  so  tempted  the  Israelites  by 
 their  idolatrous  practices  that  we  read  continually  of  the  whole 
 people  of  God  turning  away  from  his  service.  But  had  the 
 heathen  lived  in  the  land  in  equal  numbers,  and  still  more,  had 
 
 ^  Cromwcirs  Letters  and  Speeches,  ii.  53  (Second  edition). 
 2  Sermon  iv.    "  Wars  of  the  Israelites."    See,  also,  Stanley's  Jewish 
 Church.  Part  i.  Lect.  xi. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  269 
 
 they  intermarried  largely  with  the  Israelites,  how  was  it  pos- 
 sible, humanly  speaking,  that  any  sparks  of  the  light  of  God's 
 truth  should  have  survived  to  the  coming  of  Christ.  . . .  The 
 whole  earth  would  have  been  sunk  in  darkness ;  and  if  Mes- 
 siah had  come  he  would  not  have  found  one  single  ear  prepared 
 to  listen  to  his  doctrine  nor  one  single  heart  that  longed  in 
 secret  for  the  kingdom  of  God. 
 
 "But  this  was  not  to  be,  and  therefore  the  nations  of  Canaan 
 were  to  be  cut  off  utterly.  The  Israelites'  sword,  in  its 
 bloodiest  executions,  wrought  a  work  of  mercy  for  all  the 
 countries  of  the  earth  to  the  very  end  of  the  world.  ...  In  these 
 contests  on  the  fate  of  one  of  these  nations  of  Palestine  the 
 happiness  of  the  human  race  depended.  The  Israelites  fought 
 not  for  themselves  only,  but  for  us.  Whatever  were  the  faults 
 of  Jephthah  or  of  Samson,  never  yet  were  any  men  engaged 
 in  a  cause  more  important  to  the  whole  world's  weKare.  . . . 
 Still  they  did  God's  work;  still  they  preserved  unhurt  the 
 seed  of  eternal  life,  and  were  the  ministers  of  blessing  to  aU 
 other  nations,  even  though  they  themselves  failed  to  enjoy  it." 
 
 That  these  words  of  an  eminent  scholar  and  profound  thinker 
 are  based  upon  sound  philosophical  principles  no  penetrating 
 mind  can  fail  to  perceive.  Nor  is  Dr.  Ai'nold  alone  in  his 
 opinion.  Others,  of  a  different  creed,  and  looking  from  a 
 different  point  of  view,  have  reached  substantially  the  same 
 conclusions. 
 
 That  great  German  critic,  Ewald,'  treating  upon  this  topic, 
 has  impressively  said :  "  It  is  an  eternal  necessity  that  a  nation 
 such  as  the  gi'eat  majority  of  the  Canaanites  then  were,  sinking 
 deeper  and  deeper  into  a  slough  of  discord  and  moral  perversity, 
 must  fall  before  a  people  roused  to  a  higher  life  by  the  newly- 
 wakened  energy  of  unanimous  trust  in  Divine  power."  And  Dr. 
 Davidson  ^ :  "  In  a  certain  sense,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  a  spirit  of 
 revenge,  casting  down  and  destroying  everythuig  opposed  to 
 
 1  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  23T.  a  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  444. 
 
 23* 
 
270  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  progress  of  man's  education  in  the  knowledge  and  fear  of 
 
 the  Lord." 
 
 Children  slain.  Same  loved. 
 
 And  he  wont  np  from  thence  unto  And  they  broufi^ht  youn^  children  to 
 
 Beth-el;  and  as  he  was  goins  up  by  the  him,  that  he  should  touch  them;  and 
 
 way,  there  came  forth  little  children  /ns  disciples  rebuked  those  that  brought 
 
 out  of  the  city,  and  mocked  him,  and  them.    But  when  Jesus  saw  it,  he  wag 
 
 said  unto  him.  Go  up,  thou  bald-head;  much  displeased,  and  said  unto  them, 
 
 §0  up,  thou  bald-head.     And  he  turned  Suffer  the  little  children  to  come  unto 
 
 ack.and  looked  ou  them,  and  cursed  me,  and  forbid  them  not;  for  of  such 
 
 them  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.     And  is  the  kingdom  of  God.     And  he  took 
 
 there  camo  forth  two  she-bears  out  of  them   up  in   his  arms,  put  his  hands 
 
 the  wood,  and  tare  forty,  and  two  chil-  upon  them,  and  blessed  them.    Mark 
 
 dren  of  them.    2  Kings  ii.  23,  24.  x.  13,  14,  16. 
 
 1.  In  the  person  of  Elisha,  God  himself,  whose  servant  the 
 prophet  was,  was  most  wantonly  and  wickedly  insulted. 
 
 2.  The  word  "  nearim,"  rendered  "  children  "  in  Kings,  may, 
 as  a  late  rationalistic  commentator  admits,  denote  a  ^'- youth 
 nearly  twenty  years  old''  Gesenius  says  precisely  the  same ; 
 adding  that  it  is  also  applied  to  "  common  soldiers,"  just  as  we 
 in  English  style  them,     the  "  boys,"  the  "  boys  in  blue,"  etc. 
 
 Fuerst  gives,  among  'other  definitions,  a  person  who  is  twenty 
 years  of  age,  a  youth,  a  young  prophet ;  generally  a  servant  of 
 any  kind,  a  shepherd,  a  young  warrior.  The  same  combination 
 of  words  as  above,  "  naar  qaton,"  is  applied  to  Solomon  ^  after 
 he  began  to  reign  at  some  twenty  years  of  age.  Krummacher 
 and  Cassel  translate  the  expression  in  the  text,  "  young  people." 
 Hence  the  theory  that  these  young  scoffers  were  really  "  little 
 children  "  at  their  play  is  untenable.  They  were  old  enough, 
 and  depraved  enough,  to  merit  the  terrible  fate  which  overtook 
 them. 
 
 3.  Elisha  did  not  slay  the  young  reprobates,  nor  did  he 
 cause  the  bears  to  come  forth.  God  sent  them.  The  same 
 Being  who  sometimes  cuts  off  wild,  wicked  youth  by  disease 
 or  accident,  in  the  present  instance  punished  sinful  parents  by 
 the  violent  death  of  their  reprobate  children.  Prof.  Rawlinson 
 suggests  that  a  signal  example  may  have  been  greatly  needed 
 
 1 1  Kings  ill.  7.  See  also  the  word  -1^3  applied  to  Isaac,  Gen.  xxii.  5; 
 to  Joseph,  compare  Gen.  xxix.  4-6  and  xli.  12;  to  Absalom,  2  Sam. 
 xviii.  5,  and  to  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  Jer.  i.  5. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 271 
 
 at  this  time  to  check  the  growth  of  irrehgion ;  and  that,  as 
 above  intimated,  the  wicked  parents  were  pmiished  by  depriva- 
 tion of  offspring. 
 
 Edomite  hated.  Not  to  he  hated. 
 
 Thou  Shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite,  for 
 he  is  thy  brother.    Deut.  xxiii.  7. 
 
 He  slew  of  Edom  in  the  valley  of  Salt 
 ten  thousand.  . . .  And  he  did  that  ichich 
 was  riorht  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,  yet 
 not  like  David  his  father.  2  Kings  xiv. 
 7,3. 
 
 As  to  this  characteristically  "  profound  "  discrepancy,  alleged 
 by  an  infidel  pamphleteer,  it  may  be  observed:  1.  Not  ever)'- 
 act  of  Amaziah's  life  is  commended  above.  He  did,  in  the 
 main,  that  which  was  right,  but  less  uniformly  or  zealously 
 than  David.  2.  It  does  not  follow  that  because  Amaziah 
 chastised  and  reconquered  the  rebellious  Edomites  he  neces- 
 sarily "  abhorred  "  them. 
 
 Enemies  cursed. 
 
 Let  their  way  be  dark  and  slippery : 
 and  Jet  the  angel  of  the  Lord  persecute 
 them.  .  .  .  Let  destruction  come  upon 
 him  at  unawares;  and  let  his  net  that 
 he  hath  hid  catch  himself:  into  that 
 very  destruction  let  him  fall.  Ps.  xxxv. 
 6,8. 
 
 Let  death  seize  upon  them,  and  \et 
 them  go  down  quick  into  hell.  Ps.  Iv'.lo. 
 
 Pour  out  thine  indignation  upon 
 them,  and  Jet  thy  wrathful  anger  take 
 hold  of  them.  .  .  .  Add  iniquity  unto 
 their  iniquity:  and  Jet  them  not  come 
 into  thy  righteousness.   Ps.  Ixix.  24,  27. 
 
 Let  them  be  confounded  and  troubled 
 for  ever :  yea.  let  them  be  put  to  shame, 
 and  perish.     Ps.  Ixxxiii.  17. 
 
 8et  thou  a  wicked  man  over  him: 
 and  let  Satan  stand  at  his  right  hand. 
 When  he  shaJl  be  judged,  let  him  be 
 condemned :  and  let  his  prayer  become 
 sin..  Let  his  days  be  few;  and  let 
 another  take  his  office.  Let  his  chil- 
 dren be  fatherless,  and  his  wife  a  widow. 
 Let  his  children  be  continually  vaga- 
 bonds, and  beg.    Ps  cix.  6-10. 
 
 Let  there  be  none  to  extend  mercy 
 unto  him :  neither  let  there  be  any  to 
 favor  his  fatherless  children.  Let  his 
 posterity  be  cut  off;  and  in  the  genera- 
 tion following  let  their  name  be  blotted 
 out.     Ps.  cix.  12,  13. 
 
 As  he  clothed  himself  with  cursing 
 like  as  with  his  garment,  so  let  it  come 
 into  his  bowels  like  water,  and  like  oil 
 into  his  bones.  Let  it  be  unto  him  as 
 the  garment  which  covereth  him,  and 
 for  a  eirdle  wherewith  he  is  girded  con- 
 tinuaily.    Ps.  cix.  18, 19. 
 
 Should  be  loved. 
 
 Love  your  enemies,  bJess  them  that 
 curse  you,  do  good  to  them  that  hate 
 you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despite- 
 fullv  use  you,  and  persecute  you.  Matt. 
 V.  44. 
 
 Then  said  Jesus,  Father,  forgive 
 them :  for  they  know  not  what  they  do. 
 Luke  xxiii.  34. 
 
 And  he  kneeled  down  and  cried, with 
 a  loud  voice,  Lord,  lay  not  this  sin  to 
 their  charge.    Acts  vii.  60. 
 
272  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Enemies  cursed.  Should  be  loved. 
 
 O  daughter  of  Babylon,  who  art  to 
 be  destroyed;  happy  shall  he  be,  that 
 rewardeth  thee  as  thou  hast  served  us. 
 Happy  shall  he  be  that  taketh  and  dash- 
 eth  thy  little  ones  against  the  stones. 
 Vs.  cxxxvii.  8,  9. 
 
 If  any  man  love  not  the  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ,  let  him  be  Anathema,  Maran- 
 atha.    1  Cor.  xvi.  22. 
 
 Some  critics  take  these  imprecatory  texts  as  mere  predictions: 
 "  Let  his  days  be  few  "  being  equivalent  to  "  His  days  shall  be 
 few."  These  predictions  would  also  imply  the  speaker's  acqui- 
 escence in  the  foreseen  will  of  Jehovah :  "  It  is  the  Divine  will, 
 therefore  let  it  be  so. 
 
 Others  take  these  passages  as  historical,  rather  than  didactic. 
 It  is  said  that,  as  the  Bible  relates  impartially  the  bad  as  well 
 as  the  good  deeds  of  the  patriarchs,  so  it  does  not  suppress 
 their  wrong  thoughts  and  sayings,  but  "  gives  a  Shakespearian 
 picture  of  all  the  moral  workings  of  the  heart."  It  is  precisely 
 this  its  fidelity  to  nature,  keeping  back  nothing,  extenuating 
 nothing,  which  gives  the  sacred  volume  its  hold  upon  the  con- 
 fidence of  mankind.  "  Mr.  Barnes  admits  an  element  of  truth 
 in  this  explanation,  and  Dr.  Tholuck  distinctly  holds  that  a 
 personal  feeling  has  occasionally  mixed  itself  with  David's 
 denunciations  of  the  wicked." 
 
 Still  others  think  that  the  duty  of  forgiveness  was  not  taught 
 nor  understood  clearly  in  David's  time,  as  it  was  in  the  latter 
 dispensation.  This  hypothesis,  as  we  have  seen  elsewhere,  is 
 supported  by  the  analogous  cases  of  some  other  important 
 doctrines  and  duties,  which  were  revealed  progressively,  by 
 degrees,  as  the  world  was  prepared  to  receive  them.  In  a 
 word,  the  Psalmist  may  not  have  understood,  in  all  its  length 
 and  breadth,  the  Christian  duty  of  forgiveness.  This  explana- 
 tion is  adopted  by  several  eminent  authors.  Richard  Baxter  ^ 
 speaks  very  strongly  on  this  point.  So  does  Mr.  Cooper,^  who 
 says  of  the  Israelitish  worthies,  "  these  great  and  good  men 
 
 ^  Quoted  by  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  306. 
 »  "  Four  Hundred  Texts  of  Holy  Scriptures,"  p.  80. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  273 
 
 were  not  yet  acquainted  with  the  perfect  rule  of  charity,  or 
 love  to  enemies,  to  be  taught  by  a  suffering  Saviour." 
 
 Mr.  TTarington,^  with  reference  to  the  scripture,  asserts  that 
 Christ  himself  lays  down  the  principle,  in  the  plainest  manner, 
 that  it  may  contain  precepts  which,  regarded  in  the  abstract, 
 are  opposed  to  God's  will,  but  which  were  rendered  necessary 
 by  the  imperfect  spiritual  state  of  those  to  whom  they  were 
 given.  In  which  case  this  temporary  adaptation  is  to  be  re- 
 garded as  a  sufficient  explanation  for  the  precept  given." 
 
 Dr.  Thomas  Arnold  ^  deems  it  a  most  important  exegetical 
 principle  "  that  the  revelations  made  to  the  patriarchs  were 
 only  partial,  or  limited  to  some  particular  points,  and  that 
 their  conduct  must  be  judged  of  not  according  to  our  knowledge, 
 but  to  theirs."  Hence,  he  says,  we  may  "  recognize  the  divinity 
 of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  holiness  of  its  characters,  without 
 lying  against  our  consciences  and  our  more  perfect  revelation 
 by  justifying  the  actions  of  those  characters  as  right,  essentially 
 and  abstractedly,  although  they  were  excusable,  or  in  some 
 cases  actually  virtuous,  according  to  the  standard  of  right  and 
 wrong  which  prevailed  under  the  law." 
 
 Chrysostom,  ^  long  before,  referring  to  the  Israelites,  had  said, 
 ^^  Now,  a  higher  philosophy  is  required  of    us  than  of  them. 
 
 For  thus  they  are  ordered  to  hate  not  only  impiety,  but 
 
 the  very  persons  of  the  impious,  lest  their  friendship  should  be 
 an  occasion  of  going  astray.  Therefore  he  cut  off  all  inter- 
 course and  freed  them  on  every  side." 
 
 Prof.  Moses  Stuart  * :  "  The  Old  Testament  morality,  in  re- 
 spect to  some  points  of  relative  duty,  is  behind  that  of  the  Gos- 
 pel. Why  then  should  we  regard  the  Old  Testament  as  exhib- 
 iting an  absolute  model  of  perfection,  in  its  precepts  and  its 
 doctrines  ?     In  some  respects,  most  plamly  this  is  not  true." 
 
 ^  On  Inspiration,  p.  2."3. 
 
 2  Miscel.  Works,  pp.  151,  288  (Appleton's  edition). 
 ^  On  1  Cor.  xiii,  and  alludini^  to  Ps.  cxxxix.  22. 
 
 *  On  History  of  Old  Test.  Canon,  pp.  416,  409  (Revised  edition,  389,  S82). 
 Compare  his  remarks,  pp.  404,  405  (Revised  edition,  377, 378). 
 
274  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Elsewhere,  he  says,  "  The  Psalms  that  breathe  forth  impreca- 
 tions are  appealed  to  by  some  as  justifying  the  spirit  of  ven- 
 geance under  the  gospel,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  the 
 expression  of  a  peculiar  state  of  mind  in  the  writer,  and  of  his 
 imperfect  knowledge  with  regard  to  the  full  spirit  of  forgiveness.^* 
 These  last  are  very  pregnant  words. 
 
 It  remains  to  be  observed  that .  the  imprecatory  texts  are  ex- 
 plicable on  the  hypothesis  of  their  full  inspiration.  The  follow- 
 ing points  must  be  taken  into  account. 
 
 1.  Great  allowance  must  be  made  for  the  strong  hyperboles 
 and  intense  vehemence  of  Oriental  poetry.  Where  we  should 
 ask  that  the  Divine  honor  and  justice  might  be  vindicated,  the^ 
 Eastern  poet  would  pray, 
 
 "  That  thy  foot  may  be  dipped  in  the  blood  of  thine  enemies, 
 And  the  tongue  of  thy  dogs  in  the  same." 
 
 The  petitions  quoted  above  would,  if  stated  in  unimpassioned 
 Occidental  style,  be  greatly  modified,  and  seem  far  less  objec- 
 tionable. 
 
 2.  The  Psalmist  merges  his  own  private  griefs  in  the  wrongs 
 inflicted  upon  the  peo^Dle  of  God,  —  counts  the  Lord's  enemies 
 as  enemies  to  himself.  He  cries  out,  "  Do  not  I  hate  them,  O 
 Lord,  wliich  hate  thee  ?  I  count  them  mine  enemies."  He  iden- 
 tified his  own  interests  with  those  of  his  heavenly  King.  ''  He 
 was  situated  like  the  English  statesman,  who  in  an  attack  upon 
 himself  sees  the  crown  and  government  to  be  actually  aimed 
 at."  From  this  representative  character  of  the  Psalmist  arises 
 the  terrible  intensity  of  his  language. 
 
 3.  There  is  a  normal  indignation  against  sin.  There  are 
 times  when  "  forbearance  ceases  to  be  a  virtue,"  when  the  sense 
 of  outraged  justice  must  find  expression.  Not  infrequently  a 
 righteous  indignation  against  evil-doers  unsheathes  the  patriot's 
 sword,  and  kindles  the  poet's  lyre.  In  the  recent  history  of  our 
 own  country  the  imprecatory  Psalms  seemed  none  too  strong 
 nor  stern  to  serve  as  a  vehicle  for  the  loyalty  of  our  citizens, 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  275 
 
 ID  giving  voice  to  their  indignation,  horror,  and  detestation  at 
 the  crimes  perpetrated  by  traitors  and  rebels. 
 
 Prof.  B.  B.  Edwards'  says  in  substance,  that  resentment 
 against  evil-doers  is  so  far  from  being  sinful,  that  we  find  it  ex- 
 emplified in  the  meek  and  spotless  Redeemer  himself  (Mark  iii. 
 5).  If  the  emotion  and  its  utterance  were  essentially  sinful, 
 how  could  Paul  wish  the  enemy  of  Christ  to  be  accursed 
 ("  anathema,"  1  Cor.  xvi.  22)  ;  or  say  of  his  own  enemy,  Alex- 
 ander the  coppersmith,  "The  Lord  reward  him  according  to 
 his  works"  (2  Tim.  iv.  14)  ;  and  especially  how  could  the 
 spirits  of  the  just  in  heaven  call  on  God  for  vengeance  (Rev.  vi. 
 
 4.  It  is  right  to  pray  for  the  overthrow  of  the  wicked,  as  a 
 
 means,  and  not  as  an  end,  when  we  are  satisfied  that  less  evil 
 
 will  result  from  that  overthrow  than  would  be  occasioned  by 
 
 their  triumph.     David  felt  that  the  destruction  of  those  wicked 
 
 persons,  while  not   to   be   desired  per  se,  would  nevertheless 
 
 result  in  the  prevention  of  incalculable  injury  to  the  race.     Of 
 
 two  evils  he  chose*  the  infinitely  less.     Prayer  for  the  overthrow 
 
 of  the  wicked  was  prayer  for  the  triumph  of  righteousness.^ 
 
 Treated  kindly.  Put  to  pain. 
 
 Therefore,  if  thine   enemy  hunger,  For  in  so  doing  thou  shalt  heap  coals 
 
 feed  him ;  if  he  thirst,  give  him  drink,  of  fire  on  his  head.    Horn.  xii.  20. 
 Rom.  xii.  20. 
 
 Baur  asserts  that  in  the  latter  clause  Paul's  former  perse- 
 cuting spirit  crops  out,  that  he  cannot  repress  here  the  desire 
 to  inflict  pain  upon  an  enemy.  We  give  Baur  credit  for  too 
 much  acuteness  to  suppose  that  he  was  not  perfectly  aware  of 
 the  utter  disingenuousness  of  this  objection. 
 
 The  figurative  language  of  the  apostle  means  simply,  "  By 
 showing  kindness  to  thine  enemy  thou  shalt  excite  in  him 
 such  pain  of  conscience  as  shall  lead  him  to  repentance  and 
 reformation."     The  expression  is  a  proverbial  one.     The  Arabs 
 
 1  See  Bib.  Sacra  (February,  1844). 
 
 -  See  Professor  Park  in  Bib.  Sacra,  Vol.  xix.  pp.  165-210.  Also,  Smith's 
 Bible  Diet.,  iii.  2625-2628. 
 
276  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 say,  conveying  similar  ideas,  "  He  roasted  my  heart,"  or,  "  He 
 kindled  a  fire  in  my  heart."  ^  The  pain  was  viewed  by  Paul 
 as  a  means,  not  as  an  end ;  the  ultimate  object  being  the  con- 
 version of  the  "  enemy." 
 
 Addressed  with  ridicule  and  irony.  With  mild  words. 
 
 And  it  came  to  pass  at  noon,  that  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that 
 
 Elijah    mocked    them,  and    said,   Cry  curse  you,  do  ^ood  to  them  that  hate 
 
 aloud :  for  he  is  a  ^od :  either  he  is  talk-  you,  and  pray  for  them  which  despite- 
 
 iiig,  or  he  is  pursuing,  or  he  is  in  a  jour-  fully  use  you,  »ad  persecute  you    Matt, 
 
 ney,  or  peradventure  he  sleepeth,  and  v.  44. 
 
 must  be  awaked.    1  Kings  xviii.  27.  Bless  them  which  persecute  you ;  bless. 
 
 And  the  king  said  unto  him,  Micaiah,  and  curse  not.     llom   xii.  14. 
 shall  we  go  against  Kamoth-gilead  to  Who,  when  he  was  reviled,  reviled 
 battle,  or  shall  we  forbear?    And  he  nut  again;  when  he  suffered,  he  threat- 
 answered  him,  Go,  and  prosper :  for  the  ened  not.    1 1'et.  ii  23. 
 Lord  shall  deliver  it  into  the  hand  of  Not  rendering  evil  for  evil,  or  railing 
 the  king.    1  Kings  xxii.  15.  for  railing:  but  contrariwise,  blessing. 
 
 And  Elisha  said  unto  them,  This  is  1  Pet.  iii.  9.                                                 •' 
 not  the  way,  neither  is  this  the  city : 
 follow  me,  and  I  will  bring  you  to  the 
 man  whom  ye  seek.    But  ne  led  them 
 to  Samaria.    2  Kings  vi.  19. 
 
 In  the  case  of  Elijah  ridicule  was  a  fit  weapon  for  exposing 
 the  folly  and  absurdity  of  idol-worship.  The  prophet -employed 
 it  with  terrible  effect. 
 
 As  to  the  case  of  Micaiah,  Richter,  Keil,  Bertheau,  and  A. 
 Fuller^  suppose  that  the  words  were  uttered  with  ironical 
 gestures  and  a  sarcastic  tone.  He  delivers  the  words,  says 
 Rawlinson,  "  in  so  mocking  and  ironical  a  tone  that  the  king 
 cannot  mistake  his  meaning,  or  regard  his  answer  as  serious." 
 The  succeeding  verse  shows  that  Ahab  instantly  detected  the 
 irony. 
 
 Bahr,  however,  takes  the  language  as  a  reproof  for  the  king's 
 hypocritical  question,  thus :  "  How  earnest  thou  to  the  idea  of 
 consulting  me,  whom  thou  dost  not  trust  ?  Thy  prophets  have 
 answered  thee  as  thou  desirest.  Do,  then,  what  they  have 
 approved.  Try  it.  March  out.  Their  oracles  have  far  more 
 weight  with  thee  than  mine." 
 
 Elisha's  statement  is  regarded  by  Keil  and  Rawlinson, 
 apparently,  simply  in  the  light  of  a  "  stratagem  of  war,"  by 
 which  the  enemy  are  deceived. 
 
 ^  See  Stuart  on  Rom.  xii.  20.  '^  Works,  i.  619. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  277 
 
 It  is  to  be  remembered,  also,  that  Elisha's  motive  was  a  be- 
 nevolent one,  for  he  saved  the  lives  of  those  whom  he  had  taken 
 captive  in  this  wonderful  manner ;  thus  putting  a  stop  to  the 
 marauding  forays  of  the  Syrians.  Thenius  :  "  There  is  no  un- 
 truth in  the  words  of  Elisha ;  for  his  home  was  not  in  Dothan, 
 where  he  was  only  residing  temporarily,  but  in  Samaria ;  and 
 the  words  '  to  the  man'  may  well  mean,  to  his  house."  As  Bahr 
 has  observed,  Elisha  took  the  blinded  Syrians  under  his  pro- 
 tection, repaid  evil  with  good,  and  by  this  very  means  showed 
 them  the  man  whom  Ihey  were   seeking. 
 
 Some  regard  the  prophet's  language  as  mere  irony. 
 
 Epithets  of  opprobrium. 
 
 Forbidden.  Their  use  sanctioned. 
 
 Whosoever  shall  say  to  his  brother,        Ye  fools  and  blind :  for  whether  is 
 Raca,  shall  be  in  danger  of  the  council :    greater,  the  gold,  or  the  temple  that 
 but  whosoever  shall   say,  Thou  fool,    sanctifieth  the  gold?    Matt,  xxiii.  17. 
 shall  be  in  danger  of  hell  fire.    Matt.       Then  he  said  unto  them,  O  fools,  and 
 V.  22.  slow  of  heart  to  believe  all  that  the 
 
 prophets  have  spoken.    Luke  xxiv.  25. 
 Thou  fool,  that  which  thou  sowest  is 
 ,  not  quickened  except  it  die.    1  Cor.  xv. 
 
 36. 
 
 O  foolish  Galatians,  who  hath  be- 
 witched you,  that  ye  should  not  obey 
 the  truth.    Gal.  iii.  1. 
 
 The  term  "  moros,**  in  the  texts  from  Matthew  is  much  more 
 severe  than  the  corresponding  terms  in  the  other  places.  He 
 who  "  knew  what  was  in  man,"  saw  that  this  word  was  exactly 
 descriptive  of  the  moral  condition  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees. 
 
 As  in  many  other  cases,  the  spirit  rather  than  the  words  is 
 aimed  at  in  the  prohibition.      That  is,  we  are  not  prohibited 
 calling  men  "fools"  considerately  and  appropriately;  we  are 
 forbidden  to  do  so  in  the  spirit  of  malevolent  contempt.     This  . 
 obvious  principle  relieves  the  whole  difficulty. 
 
 Fear  of  persecutors. 
 
 Forbidden.  Exemplified. 
 
 And  I  say  unto  you,  my  friends.  Be  After  these  things  Jesus  walked  in 
 not  afraid  of  them  that  kill  the  body,  Galilee :  for  he  would  not  walk  in 
 and  alter  that  have  no  more  that  they  Jewry,  because  the  Jews  sought  to  kill 
 can  do.    Luke  xii.  4.  him.    John  vii.  1. 
 
 Jesus  did  not  shun  death,  but  avoided  dying  prematurely. 
 When  his  "  hour  had  come,"  when  his  earthly  mission  was  ac- 
 24 
 
278  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 complished,  he  met  death  with  fortitude  and  composure.  To 
 die  before  the  time  would  have  measurably  defeated  his  great 
 pur^^ose. 
 
 Folly,  —  treaUnent, 
 
 Folly  remediable.  Remediless. 
 
 Foolishness  is  bound  in  the  heart  of  Though  thou  shouldest  bray  a  fool  in 
 a  child,  but  the  rod  of  correction  shall  a  mortar  among  wheat  with  a  pestle, 
 drive  it  far  from  him.    rrov.  xxii.  15.      yet  will  not  his  foolishness  depart  from 
 
 him.    Prov.  xxvii.  22. 
 
 These  passages  refer  to  entirely  different  persons.  "  Fool- 
 ishness," in  the  first  text,  is  the  incipient  waywardness  which 
 belongs,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  to  children,  and  may  be 
 corrected  by  suitable  discipline.  The  ''  fool "  in  the  second  text, 
 is  the  growTi-up  fool,  whose  folly  is  past  cure.  # 
 
 Answered  in  one  way.  In  another  way. 
 
 Answer  not  a  fool   according  to  his  Answer  a  fool  according  to  his  folly, 
 
 folly,  lest  thou  also  be  like  unto  him.  lest  he  be  wise  in  his    own  conceit. 
 
 Trov.  xxvi.  4.  Frov.  xxvi.  5. 
 
 May  not  this  be  a  simple  dilemma,  equivalent  to  saying, 
 "  Choose  between  the  two  evils.  If  you  answer  the  fool  in  a 
 foolish  manner,  you  like  him  will  be  chargeable  with  folly.  On 
 the  other  hand,  should  you  undertake  to  argue  with  him,  he, 
 failing  to  appreciate  your  reasoning,  will  think  himself  unan- 
 swerable, and  so  become  more  obtrusive  and  offensive  than  ever." 
 
 Or,  the  two  texts  may  refer  to  different  cases,  thus :  In  cer- 
 tain circumstances,  do  not  answer  the  fool  at  all.  Silence  is 
 often  the  most  fitting  answer  to  a  foolish  question  or  remark. 
 In  other  cases,  answer  the  fool  with  sharp  reproof,  exposing 
 his  folly  as  it  deserves. 
 
 Menasseh  ben  Israel  ^ ;  "  Correct  and  mend  him,  that  he 
 may  know  his  folly  and  madness.  Imitate  not  his  passions, 
 errors,  and  improper  words." 
 
 Andrew  Fuller  ^  makes  the  meaning  depend  upon  the  turn 
 given  to  the  words  "  according  to  his  folly."  In  the  first  text, 
 he  takes  this  phraseology  as  implying,  in  a  foolish  manner  ;  in 
 the  second,  as  signifying,  in  the  manner  which  his  folly  requires. 
 "  A  foolish  speech  is  not  a  rule  for  our  imitation  ;  nevertheless 
 
 1  Conciliator,  ii.  287.  2  Works,  i.  672. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  279 
 
 our  answer  must  be  so  framed  by  it  as  to  meet  and  repel  it." 
 On  this  hypothesis,  the  first  text  is  illustrated  by  the  answer 
 of  Moses  to  the  rebellious  Israelites ;  ^  the  second  text  by  that 
 of  Job  to  his  wife.^ 
 
 Moses  answered  folly  in  a  foolish  manner  ;  Job  answered  it, 
 not  in  kind,  but  in  the  manner  it  deserved. 
 
 Fruit  trees  disposed  of. 
 
 Spared.  Destroyed. 
 
 When  thou  shalt  besiege  a  city  along  And  this  is  6!t^  a  Iio;ht  thing  in  the 
 
 time  in  making  war  against  it  to  take  it,  sight  of  the  Lord  :  he  will  deliver  the 
 
 thou  Shalt  not  destroy  the  trees  thereof  Moabites  also  into  your  hand.    And  ye 
 
 by  forcing  an  axe  against  them;  for  shall  smite  every  fenced  city,  and  every 
 
 thou  mayest  eat  of  them:    and  thou  choice  city,  and  shall  fell  every  good 
 
 Shalt  not  cut  them  down  (for  the  tree  tree,  and  stop  all  wells  of  water,  and 
 
 of  the  tield  is  man's  life)  to  employ  mar  every  good    piece   of  land  with 
 
 them  in  the  siege.    Deut.  xx,  19.  stones.    2  Kings  iii.  18,  19. 
 
 Hengstenberg^  and  Keil  *  say  that  the  injunction  in  Deuteron- 
 omy was  applicable  only  in  the  case  of  Canaanitish  cities,  which 
 the  Israelites  were  afterward  to  inhabit.  Rawlinson  thinks  that 
 the  text  from  Deuteronomy  really  jDrohibits  "  only  the  using 
 of  the  fruit-trees  for  timber  in  siege-works  ;  "  and  applies  only 
 to  those  countries  which  the  Israelites  intended  to  occupy. 
 
 Good  ivories. 
 
 To  he  seen  by  men.  Not  to  he  seen  by  them. 
 
 Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men,  Take  heed  that  ye  do  not  your  alms 
 that  they  may  see  your  good  works,  before  men,  to  be  seen  of  them  :  other- 
 and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in  wise  ye  have  no  reward  of  your  Father 
 heaven.    Matt.  v.  16.  which  is  in  heaven.    Matt.  vi.  1. 
 
 The  glory  of  God,  and  not  the  praise  of  men,  must  be  our 
 ultimate  object  in  exhibiting  our  "  good  works"  before  others. 
 A.  Fuller :  "  This  is  another  of  those  cases  in  which  the  differ- 
 ence lies  in  the  motive.  It  is  right  to  do  that  which  men  may 
 see  and  must  see,  but  not /or  the  sake  of  being  seen  by  them." 
 
 Heretics  dealt  with. 
 
 With  severity.  With  gentleness. 
 
 Simon  SOT?  of  Jonas,  lovest  thou  me?  In  meekness  instructing  those  that 
 
 He  said  unto  him,  Yea,   Lord:   thou  oppose  themselves;  if  God  peradven- 
 
 kuowest  that  J  love  thee.  Hesaithunto  ture  will  give  them  repentance  to  the 
 
 him,  Feed  my  sheep.    John  xxi.  16.  acknowledging  of   the   truth.    2  Tim. 
 
 And  there  came  a  voice  to  him,  Rise,  ii.  26. 
 Peter;  kill,  and  eat.    Acts  x.  13. 
 
 1  Xum,  XX.  10.  2  Jot)  ii.  10. 
 
 '^  Genuineness  of  Pent.  i.  176.  *  On  2  Kings  iii.  19. 
 
280  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 From  the  first  two  passages  combined,  Cardinal  Bellarmine^ 
 infers  the  "  twofold  function  of  the  Roman  pontiff,  as  successor 
 of  Peter,  viz.  to  feed  the  church  and  to  put  heretics  to  death'' 
 One  cannot  but  wonder  that  this  famous  exegete  did  not  ad- 
 vance a  step  further,  and  infer  the  duty  of  cannibalism  from 
 the  same  text.  The  language  is  certainly  very  explicit :  "  Rise, 
 Peter,  kill,  and  eat  I  ** 
 
 Improvidence. 
 
 Sanctioned.  Discouraged. 
 
 Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  A  good  mayi  leaveth  an  inheritance 
 upon  earth.  .  .  .  Therefore  I  say  unto  to  his  children's  children.  Prov.  xiii. 
 you,  Take  no  thought  for  your  life.    22. 
 
 what  ye  shall  eat,   or  what  ye  shall        But  if  any  provide  not  for  his  own, 
 drink;  nor  yet  for  your  body,  what  ye    andspecially  for  those  of  Jiis  own  house, 
 shall  put  on.   ...  Take  therefore  no    he  hath  denied  the  faith,  and  is  worse 
 thought  for  the  morrow :  for  the  mor-    than  an  infidel.    1  Tim.  v.  8. 
 row  shall  take  thought  for  the  things 
 of  itself.    Matt.  vi.  19,  25,  34. 
 
 Give  to  every  man  that  asketh  of 
 thee;  and  of  him  that  taketh  away  thy 
 goods,  ask  them  not  again.  . . .  But  love 
 ve  your  enemies,  and  do  good,  and  lend, 
 hoping  for  nothing  again.  Luke  vi.  30, 
 35. 
 
 Sell  that  ye  have,  and  give  alms. 
 Luke  xii.  33. 
 
 Make  not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to 
 fulfil  the  lusts  thereof.    Kom.  xiii.  14. 
 
 If  the  texts  at  the  left  be  carefully  examined  in  their  con- 
 nection with  the  context,  it  will  be  seen  that  none  of  them 
 discountenance  prudence  and  true  economy,  nor  encourage 
 wastefulness.  The  first  text  simply  forbids  our  making  earthly 
 possessions  our  "  treasure,"  our  chief  good.  We  must  not  set 
 our  hearts  uj^on  them. 
 
 The  word  "  thought,"  in  the  next  two  texts,  as  in  our  early 
 English  literature,  means  solicitude,  anxious  care.  Thus  Ba- 
 con^ mentions  an  alderman  of  London  who  "  dyed  with  thought 
 and  anguish."  Hence  the  precept  is  :  "  Be  not  unduly  anxious 
 concerning  your  life,"  etc. 
 
 The  first  two  texts  from  Luke  inculcate  concretely  the  abstract 
 principle  of  benevolence,  but  do  not  sanction  improvidence. 
 
 *  See  Home's  Introduction,  ii.  682  (Seventh  edition). 
 ^  Eastwood  and  Wright,  "  Bible  Word-Book,"  p.  483. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  281 
 
 The  text  from  Luke  xii.  has,  according  to  Meyer,  a  specific 
 application,  being  "  addressed  only  to  the  apostles  and  then 
 existing  disciples."  The  quotation  from  Romans,  with  its 
 important  limiting  clause,  allows  us  to  make  provision  for  the 
 needs,  but  not  for  the  lusts  of  the  flesh. 
 
 Incest, 
 
 Denounced.  Divinely  sanctioned. 
 
 See  prohibitions  of  this  crime  in  Lev.  And  God  said  unto  Abraham,  As  for 
 xviii.  and  xx.  Also,  denunciations  in  Sarai  thy  wife,  thou  shalt  not  call  her 
 Deut.  xxvii.  name  Sarai,  but  Sarah  shall  her  name 
 
 be.  And  I  will  bless  her,  and  give  thee 
 a  son  also  of  her:  yea,  I  will  bless  her, 
 and  she  shall  be  a  mother  of  nations ; 
 kings  of  people  shall  be  of  her.  Gen. 
 xvii.  15,  16. 
 
 And  yet  indeed  she  is  my  sister;  she 
 is  the  daughter  of  my  father,  but  not 
 the  daughter  of  my  mother;  and  she 
 became  my  wife.     Gen.  xx.  12. 
 
 The  terms  "  brother,"  "  sister,"  and  the  like  are  used  in  the 
 scriptures  with  great  latitude  of  meaning,  much  like  the  Latin 
 term  "  parentes,"  or  the  word  "  cousin,"  in  modern  speech.  For 
 example,  Lot,  Abraham's  nephew,  is  styled  his  "  brother " ;  ^ 
 Rebekah's  mother  and  brother  say  to  her,  "Thou  art  our 
 sister  "  ^ ;  Jacob  speaks  of  himseK  as  his  uncle's  "  brother  "  ^ ; 
 Dinah  is  styled  by  her  brothers,  "  our  daughter."* 
 
 It  is  thus  clear  that  the  term  "  sister  "  makes  Sarah  a  7iear 
 relative,  but  does  not  determine  the  degree  of  relationship. 
 Lange  suggests  that  she  may  have  been  merely  the  "  adopted 
 sister  "  of  Abraham.  Bush  and  Delitzsch  think  she  may  have 
 been  a  niece  of  Abraham  —  daughter  of  his  brother,  or,  as 
 Delitzsch  says,  "half-brother,"  Haran.  In  this  view  concur 
 Jerome,  Josephus,^  the  Talmud,  the  Targum  of  Jonathan,  and 
 Rashi,  with  Jewish  writers  generally.^  These  authors  take 
 Sarah,  who  was  but  ten  years  younger  than  Abraham,^  to  be 
 identical  with  Iscah.^ 
 
 All  we  are  warranted  in  saying  is,  that  Sarah  was  neariy 
 
 1  Gen.  xiv.  12, 16.  ^  Qen.  xxiv.  55,  60. 
 
 3  Gen.  xxix.  12.  *  Gen.  xxxiv.  14, 17. 
 
 *  Antiq.  I.  vi.  5.  ^  Macdonald,  Introd.  to  Pent.  i.  70. 
 
 ^  Gen.  xvii.  17.  Gen.  xi.  29. 
 24* 
 
282  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 related  —  a  cousin  or  niece,  perhaps  —  to  Abraham  upon  his 
 father's  side.  She  may  have  been  related  to  Terah  by  a  former 
 wife,  and  afterwards  adopted  by  him  as  a  daughter. 
 
 As  to  the  case  of  Lot  and  his  unliappy  daughters,  recorded 
 in  Gen.  xix.,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  narrative  is  related  in 
 the  usual  colorless  style,  without  comment,  by  the  sacred  writer. 
 There  is  no  concealment,  no  extenuation,  of  the  crime. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  their  residence  in  Sodom  had  blinded  the 
 minds  of  these  misguided  females,  and  greatly  confused  their 
 ideas  relative  to  purity  and  right  and  wrong.  This  case* 
 forcibly  illustrates  the  demoralizing  influence  exerted  upon  the 
 young  by  corrupt  companions. 
 
 Israelites'  claim  to  Canaan, 
 
 Derived  from  God.  Precluded  in  the  law. 
 
 And  I  will  give  unto  thee,  and  to  thy  Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's 
 seed  after  thee,  the  land  wherein  thou  house,  thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neigb- 
 art  a  stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  bor's  wife,  nor  his  manservant,  nor  his 
 for  an  everlasting  possession.  Gen.  maidservant,  nor  his  ox,  nor  his  ass, 
 xvii.  8.  nor  any  thing  that  is  thy  neighbor's. 
 
 And  I  will  set  thy  bounds  from  the  Ex.  xx.  17. 
 Eed  sea  even  unto  the  sea  of  the  Philis- 
 tines, and  from  the  desert  unto  the 
 river:  for  I  will  deliver  the  inhabitants 
 of  the  land  into  your  hand ;  and  thou 
 shalt  drive  them  out  before  thee.  Ex. 
 xxiii.  31. 
 
 Widely  divergent  opinions  have  been  maintained  upon  the 
 question  of  the  "  right  of  the  Hebrews  to  Palestine."  We 
 subjoin  the  more  reasonable. 
 
 Michaelis^  and  Dr.  Jahn  hold  that  Palestine  had  from  time 
 immemorial  been  a  land  of  Hebrew  herdsmen ;  and  the  Israel- 
 ites, who  had  never  abandoned  their  right  to  it,  claimed  it  again 
 of  the  Canaanites  as  unlawful  possessors. 
 
 Ewald^  expresses  the  opinion  that,  though  the  Canaanites 
 had  gained  possession  of  Palestine  as  its  original  inhabitants, 
 they  had  not  occupied  the  whole  country.  The  pasture-lands 
 lay  open  to  those  who  wished  to  appropriate  them,  which  was 
 
 ^  See  Lan^e,  r;om.  on  Genesis,  p.  81  (American  edition). 
 
 '^  Commentary  on  Mosaic  Laws,  i.  153. 
 
 2  Die  Composition  der  Genesis,  pp.  276-278.  See  Davidson's  Introd.  i.  437. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  283 
 
 done  by  the  ancestors  of  the  Israelites.  But  during  the  sojourn 
 in  Egypt,  the  Canaanites  unjustly  occupied  these  pastures,  and 
 when  the  returning  Hebrews  asserted  their  rights  the  Canaan- 
 ites would  not  acknowledge  them.  Hence  the  Israelites  took 
 possession  of  the  country,  partly  in  virtue  of  their  ancient 
 possession  of  some  of  it,  and  partly  by  conquest. 
 
 A  simpler  view  is  that  which  derives  the  claim  of  the 
 Israelites  directly  from  Jehovah  himseK. 
 
 Hengstenberg  ^ :  "  The  Israelites  had  no  human  right  what- 
 ever to  Canaan.  Their  right  rested  entirely  on  God's  gift. 
 By  this  no  injustice  was  done  to  the  Canaanites.  By  their 
 great  depravity  they  had  rendered  themselves  unworthy  of 
 being  any  longer  possessors  of  the  land,  which  God,  as  in  the 
 case  of"  all  other  nations,  only  gave  them  conditionally.  The 
 Israelites  were  sent  against  them  as  ministers  of  the  Divine 
 justice ;  so  that  their  destruction  differed  only  in  form  from 
 that  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah.  God's  giving  Canaan  to  the 
 Israelites  was  at  once  an  act  of  grace  and  of  justice." 
 
 This  is  the  scriptural  view  of  the  matter.^  It  is  the  pre- 
 rogative of  him  who  hath  "  determined  the  times  before  ap- 
 pointed, and  the  bounds  of  the  habitation  of  the  nations,"  to 
 bestow  a  land  upon  whomsoever  he  chooses.  The  same  Being 
 who  took  America  out  of  the  hands  of  the  red  men,  and 
 bestowed  it  upon  the  Anglo-Saxon  race,  took  Palestine  out  of 
 the  hands  of  desfraded  idolators,  and  s^ave  it  to  the  Hebrews. 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  '  well  says  :  "  When  a  nation  becomes  corrupt 
 and  weak,  it  must  give  place,  in  the  providence  of  God,  to  a 
 stronger.  Those  that  have  grown  old  in  superstition  and 
 idolatry  make  way  for  such  as  have  a  more  spiritual  vitality." 
 
 Jewess^  marriage, 
 
 Bestricted  to  her  tribe.  Not  thus  restricted. 
 
 And  pvery  daughter,  that  possesseth  If  the  priest's  daughter  also  be  mar- 
 an  inheritance  in  any  tribe  of  the  chil-    Wed  unto  a  stranger,  she  may  not  eat 
 
 ^  Genuineness  of  Pent.  ii.  387-417.  ^  Ps.  xliv.  1-3;  Ixxviii.  55. 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  444.    Compare  Fairbaim's  Typology,  loc.  cit. 
 
284 
 
 DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE    BIBLE. 
 
 Restricted  to  her  tribe.  Not  thus  restricted. 
 
 dren  of  Israel,  shall  be  wife  unto  one    of  an  offering  of  the  holy  things.    Lev. 
 of  the  family  of  the  tribe  of  her  father,    xxii.  12. 
 that  the  children  of  Israel  may  enjoy 
 every   man    the  inheritance  of  his  fa- 
 thers.   Kum.  xxxvi.  8. 
 
 It  is  clear,  as  Menasseh  ben  Israel  says,  that  the  first  passage 
 applies  only  to  heiresses.  The  object  of  the  precept  was  to 
 prevent  confusion  by  the  transference  of  landed  property  from 
 one  tribe  to  another.  A  daughter  who  inherited  no  real  estate 
 might  marry  out  of  her  tribe. 
 
 Judging  of  others. 
 
 Forbidden. 
 Judge  not,  that  ye  be  not  judged. 
 For  with  what  judgment  ye  judge,  ye 
 shall  be  judged:  and  with  what  measure    John  vii.  24. 
 
 Allowed. 
 
 Judge  not  according  to  the  appear- 
 ance, but   judge  righteous  judgment. 
 
 For  what  have  I  to  do  to  judge  them 
 also  that  are  without?  do  not  ye  judge 
 them  that  are  within  ?    1  Cor.  v.  12. 
 
 ye  mete,  it  shall  be  measured  to  you 
 again.    Matt  vii.  1,  2. 
 
 Judge  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  judged : 
 condemn  not,  and  ye  shall  not  be  con- 
 demned.   Luke  vi.  37. 
 
 The  text  from  Matthew  forbids  harsh,  censorious  judgment, 
 but  does  not  preclude  the  giving  of  judicial  decisions,  nor  the 
 expression  of  our  opinions  in  a  proper  manner. 
 
 The  parallelism  of  the  text  from  Luke,  "  judge  not,"  "  con- 
 demn n.ot,"  indicates  the  kind  of  judgment  prohibited. 
 
 Justice  admiuistered. 
 
 By  one  judge. 
 Moses  sat  to  judge  the  people;  and 
 the  people  stood  by  Moses  from  the 
 morning  unto  the  evening.    Ex.  xviii. 
 13. 
 
 By  several. 
 
 And  thou  shalt  come  unto  the  priests 
 the  Levites,  and  unto  the  judge  that 
 shall  be  in  tliosedays,  and  inquire;  and 
 they  shall  shew  thoe  the  sentence  of 
 judgment.    Deut.  xvii.  9. 
 
 Both  the  men,  between  whom  the 
 controversy  is,  shall  stand  before  the 
 Lord,  before  the  priests  and  the  judges, 
 which  shall  be  in  those  days.  Deut. 
 xix.  17. 
 
 Then  thy  eld^^rs  and  thy  judges  shall 
 come  forth.    Deut.  xxi.  2. 
 
 A  recent  author  discovers,  as  he  thinks,  some  discrepancy 
 here.  But  in  Ex.  xviii.  13—26,  we  find  an  account  of  the 
 change  from  one  judge  to  a  plurality,  with  the  reasons  therefor. 
 
 Moreover,  the  altered  circumstances  of  the  people  upon  their 
 exchange  of  a  nomadic  life  for  settlement  in  Canaan,  occa- 
 sioned the  other  modifications  of  earher  laws,  which  are  dis- 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  285 
 
 coverable  in  Deuteronomy.  In  the  words  of  Dr.  Davidson,^ 
 "  Should  any  say  that  the  altered  circumstances  of  the  Israelites 
 in  Palestine  called  for  these  changes ;  that  is  true." 
 
 Michaelis  ^  seems  to  hold  that,  because  the  people  "  dwelt  no 
 longer  in  round  numbers  together,"  the  former  custom  was 
 modified,  and  judges  were  appointed  in  every  city. 
 
 Killing  of  Men. 
 
 Forbidden.  Sanctioned. 
 
 Jesus  said,  Thou  shalt  do  no  murder.       Then  Moses  stood  in  the  gate  of  the 
 Matt.  xix.  18.  camp,  and  said,  Who  is  on  the  Lord's 
 
 side?  let  him  come  unto  me.  And  all 
 the  sons  of  Levi  gathered  themselves 
 together  unto  him.  And  he  said  unto 
 them,  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  of  Is- 
 rael, Put  every  man  his  sword  by  his 
 side,  and  go  in  and  out  from  gate  to 
 gate  throughout  the  camp,  and  slay 
 every  man  his  brother,  and  every  man 
 his  companion,  and  every  man  his 
 neighbor.     Ex.  xxxii.  26,  27. 
 
 And  Moses  said  unto  the  judges 
 of  Israel,  Slay  ye  every  one  his  men 
 that  were  joined  unto  Baal-peor.  .  .  . 
 When  rhinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar, 
 the  son  of  Aaron  the  priest,  saw  it,  he 
 rose  up  from  among  the  congregation, 
 and  took  a  javelin  in  his  hand  . . .  And 
 he  went  after  the  man"  of  Israel  into 
 the  tent,  and  thrust  both  of  them 
 through,  the  man  of  Israel,  and  the 
 woman.    Num.  xxv.  5,  7,  8. 
 
 In  both  cases  at  the  right  the  slaughter  was  the  signal 
 punishment  of  an  atrocious  crime. 
 
 In  the  first  case,  the  Israelites  had  lapsed  into  gross  idolatry, 
 breaking  their  covenant  with  God,  and  committing  treason 
 against  their  Sovereign.  Their  offence  was  of  the  most  aggra- 
 vated character,  and  merited  capital  punishment.  Calvin,  Keil, 
 Bush,  and  others  think  that  only  those  were  slain  by  the 
 Levites  who  were  recognized  as  the  originators  and  ringleaders 
 of  the  crime,  or  who  stood  boldly  forth  as  its  promoters  and 
 abettors.  These,  being  found  in  the  open  spaces,  while  the 
 rest  of  the  people  had  fled  to  their  tents,  would  alone  be  slain. 
 
 Much  the  same  may  be  said  of  the  second  case.  The  He- 
 brews had  fallen   into  the  licentious  idolatry  of   Baal   Peor. 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  363.  -  Mosaic  Laws,  1.  245. 
 
286  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Moses  commanded  that  all  the  guilty  should  be  slain.  In  this 
 hour  of  national  humiliation  and  sorrow,  while  the  people  were 
 weeping  at  the  door  of  the  tabernacle,  Zimri,  a  man  of  rank, 
 brought  into  his  tent,  in  the  sight  of  the  multitude,  a  Midianitish 
 paramour.  This  shameless  and  flagrant  outrage  was  swiftly 
 and  fearfully  punished  by  Phinehas,  under  the  impulse  of 
 patriotism  and  loyalty  to  God.  Plis  zeal  in  this  respect  was 
 properly  conmiended. 
 
 Ki7idred,  how  regarded. 
 
 Hated.  Loved. 
 
 If  any  man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  Husbands,  love  your  wives,  even  as 
 his  father,  and  mother,  and  wife,  and  Christ  also  loved  the  church,  and  gave 
 children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea,  himself  for  it.  ...  i.,et  every  one  of  you 
 and  lii.s  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  in  particular  so  love  his  wife  even  as 
 disciple.    Luke  xiv.  26.  himself:  and  the  wife  .see  that  she  rev- 
 
 erence her  husband.     Eph.  v.  25,  33. 
 
 He  that  loveth  not  his  brother, 
 abideth  in  death.  Whosoever  hateth  his 
 brother,  is  a  murderer.  1  John  iii.  14, 15. 
 
 The  word  "  hate  "  is  sometimes  used  in  the  Bible  in  the  sense 
 of  to  love  less.  Thus  of  Jacob  it  is  said  that  he  "  loved  Rachel 
 more  than  Leah,"  and,  a  little  farther  on,  that  Leah  was 
 "  hated."  1 
 
 Prof.  Stuart :  "  When  the  Hebrews  compared  a  stronger 
 affection  with  a  weaker  one,  they  call  the  first  love,  and  the 
 other  hatred.'^ 
 
 Alford :  "It  hardly  need  be  observed  that  this  hate  is  not 
 only  consistent  with,  but  absolutely  necessary  to  the  very  highest 
 kind  of  love.  It  is  that  element  in  love  which  makes  a  man  a 
 wise  and  Christian  friend,  not  for  time  only,  but  for  eternity." 
 
 In  our  day  a  convert  from  heathenism  is  sometimes  re- 
 proached by  his  idolatrous  kindred  with  "  hating  "  them,  because 
 he  does  not  yield  to  their  solicitations,  and  renounce  Christianity. 
 But  the  truth  is,  he  loves  them  better  than  ever  before;  he 
 loves  them  not  less,  but  loves  Christ  more. 
 
 The  very  fact  that,  in  the  first  text,  the  man  is  spoken  of  as 
 hating  "■  his  own  life,"  indicates  the  figurative  or  relative  sense 
 in  which  the  term  is  there  employed. 
 
 ^  Gen.  xxix.  30,  31. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 287 
 
 Parents  honored. 
 
 Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother; 
 that  thy  days  may  be  long  upon  the 
 land  which  the  Loud  thy  God  giveth 
 thee.     Ex.  xx.  12. 
 
 Children,  obey  your  parents  in 
 things:  for  this  is*  well-pleasing  unt 
 the  Lord.    Col.  iii.  20. 
 
 nfo 
 
 Treated  disrespectfully. 
 
 And  call  no  man  your  father  upon 
 the  earth  :  fur  one  is  your  h  atlier  which 
 is  in  heaven.     Matt,  xxiii  9. 
 
 And  he  said  unto  another,  Follow 
 me.  But  he  said.  Lord,  sutfer  me  -tirst 
 to  go  and  bury  my  father.  Jesus  said 
 unto  him,  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead : 
 but  go  thou  and  preach  the  kingdom  of 
 God.    Luke  ix.  59,  60. 
 
 We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  text  from  Matthew  speaks 
 of  spiritual  relations.  "  Take  no  man  as  an  aiUhoritative, 
 infallihle  guide  m  matters  of  religion."  It  does  not  prohibit 
 om*  paying  to  our  parents  due  honor.  It  merely  forbids  our 
 "  trusting  in  man,  and  making  flesh  our  arm."  ^  As  to  the  case 
 cited  from  Luke,  Theophylact  supposes  that  the  disciple  asked 
 permission  to  reside  with  his  father  till  his  death.  If  the  father 
 were  still  living,  Jesus  may  have  foreseen  that  he  would  live 
 for  a  considerable  time,  so  that  delay  was  needless. 
 
 Alford^:  Suffer  the  spiritually  dead  to  bury  the  literally 
 dead ;  the  reason  of  our  Lord's  rebuke  being  the  peremptory 
 and  all-superseding  nature  of  the  command.  Follow  me. 
 
 Doubtless  Jesus  knew  that  there  were  a  sufficient  number  of 
 relatives  at  this  man's  house  to  attend  to  the  duty  of  interment 
 when  necessary ;  also,  that,  if  the  man  once  went  back  home, 
 he  would  be  over-persuaded  to  remain,  and  so  never  engage  in 
 the  great  work  of  preaching  the  gospel. 
 
 The  case  was  an  exceptional  one,  simply  implying  that  all 
 other  things  must  be  made  subordinate  to  the  gospel. 
 
 Children  put  to  death. 
 If  a  man  have  a  stubborn  and  rebel- 
 lious son,  which  will  not  obey  the  voice 
 of  his  father,  or  the  voice  of  liis  mother, 
 and  that,  when  they  have  chastened 
 him,  will  not  hearken  unto  them. 
 Then  shall  his  father  and  his  mother 
 lay  hold  on  him,  and  bring  him  out 
 unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  arid  unto  the 
 gate  of  his  place.  And  they  shall  say 
 unto  the  elders  of  his  city,  This  our 
 son  /.s  stubborn  and  rebellious,  he  will 
 not  obey  our  voice ;  he  is  a  glutton,  and 
 a  drunkard.  And  all  the  men  of  his 
 city  shall  stone  him  with  stones,  that 
 he  die:  so  shalt  thou  put  evil  away 
 from  among  you.  and  all  Israel  shall 
 hear,  and  fear.    Deut.  xxi.  18-21. 
 
 Tenderly  treated. 
 
 And,  ye  fathers,  provoke  not  your 
 children  to  wrath :  but  bring  them  up 
 in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the 
 Lord.     Eph.  vi.  4. 
 
 Fathers,  provoke  not  your  children 
 to  anger,  lest  they  be  discouraged.  Col. 
 iii.  21. 
 
 ^  See  Jer.  xvii.  5. 
 
 2  On  Matt.  viii.  21.  22. 
 
288  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 With  regard  to  the  apparently  severe  law  in  Deuteronomy, 
 observe : 
 
 1.  That  it  is  a  son,  and  not  a  daughter. 
 
 2.  That  he  is  "  stubborn "  and;' rebellious,"  a  " glutton "  and 
 a  "  drunkard." 
 
 3.  The  parents  are  the  only  allowed  plaintiffs,  and  both  must 
 concur  in  the  complaint  to  make  it  a  legal  one. 
 
 4.  He  is  brought  before  the  elders  of  the  city,  and  an  in- 
 vestigation is  had  into  the  merits  of  the  case. 
 
 5.  That  no  case  is  on  record  in  which  a  person  was  put  to 
 death  under  this  law. 
 
 -  6.  That  the  mere  fact  of  the  existence  of  such  a  law  would 
 tend  strongly  to  confirm  the  authority  of  parents,  and  to  deter 
 youth  from  disobedience  and  unfilial  conduct. 
 
 Levites'  Portion. 
 
 A  fixed  residence.  They  were  sojourners. 
 
 Command  the  children  of  Israel,  that  Take  heed  to  tliyself  that  thou  for- 
 
 they  give  unto  the  Levites  of  the  in-  sake  not  the  Levite  as  long  as  thou 
 
 heritance  of  their  possession  cities  to  livest  upon  the  earth.    Deut.  xii.  19. 
 
 dwell  in ;  and  ye  shall  give  also  unto  And  the  Levite  that  is  within  thy 
 
 the  Levites  suburbs  for  the  cities  round  gates;  thou  shalt  not  forsake  him:  for 
 
 about  them.  . . .  So  all  the  cities  which  he  hath  no  part  nor  inheritance  with 
 
 ye  shall  give  to  the  Levites  shall  be  thee.    Deut.  xiv.  27. 
 forty  and  eight  cities.  Num.  xxxv.  2,  7. 
 
 Mr.  Plumptre ^ :  "If  they  were  to  have,  like  other  tribes,  a 
 distinct  territory  assigned  to  them,  their  influence  over  the 
 people  at  large  would  be  diminished,  and  they  themselves  would 
 be  likely  to  forget,  in  labors  common  to  them  with  others,  their 
 own  peculiar  calling.  Jehovah,  therefore,  was  to  be  their 
 inheritance.     They  were  to  have  no  territorial  possessions." 
 
 Ewald  ^ :  "  The  Levites,  not  being  destined  to  agriculture, 
 held  with  each  city  only  the  meadows  thereto  belonging,  for  the 
 pasturage  of  some  cattle,  but  not  its  arable  land  or  homesteads. 
 Thus  the  ancient  city  of  Hebron  became  a  priestly  city ;  but  its 
 land  devolved  upon  Caleb." 
 
 The  same  great  critic,  speaking  of  the  subsequent  neglect  of 
 assigned  cities,  says  the  entire  system  fell  into  confusion,  as  is 
 
 1  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  it.  1640.  ^  jjigt^  ^f  Israel,  ii.  309, 810. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  289 
 
 clear  not  only  from  its  never  being  mentioned  in  later  times  as 
 still  existing,  but  still  more  from  the  fact  that  at  a  later  period 
 quite  different  places  appear  as  Levitical  cities,  in  which  the 
 Levites,  driven  from  their  first  abodes,  had  taken  refuge. 
 
 Keil  thinks,  that  as  the  Canananites  were  not  immediately 
 destroyed  or  driven  out,  the  Levites  did  not  forthwith  come  into 
 possession  of  their  cities,  but  temporarily  sojourned  elsewhere. 
 Besides,  it  does  not  appear  that  they  were  compelled  to  reside 
 in  the  specified  cities.  Some  of  them  may  have  chosen  to  reside 
 elsewhere ;  but  wherever  they  were,  they  were  dependent,  for 
 their  support,  upon  the  tithes  and  offerings  of  the  people. 
 These  considerations  relieve  the  alleged  difficulty. 
 
 Possessed  a  stated  revenue.  Classed  vjith  mendicants. 
 
 I  have  given  the  children  of  Levi  all  At  the  end  of  three  years  thou  shall 
 the  tenth  in  Israel  for  an  inheritance,  bring  forth  all  the  tithe  of  thine  in- 
 fer their  service  which  they  8erve,  even  crea.se  the  same  year,  and  shalt  lay  it 
 the  service  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  con-  up  within  thy  gates.  And  the  Levite, 
 gregation.  .  .  .  The  tithes  of  the  chil-  (because  he  hath  no  part  nor  inherit- 
 dren  of  Israel,  which  they  offer  as  a  ance  with  thee,)  and  the  stranger,  and 
 heave-offering  unto  the  Lord,  1  have  the  fatherless,  and  the  widow,  which 
 given  to  the  Levites  to  inherit.  Kum.  are  within  thy  gates,  shall  come,  and 
 xviii.  21,  24.  shall  eat  and  be  satisfied.    Deut.  xiv. 
 
 28,  29. 
 
 Mr.  Plumptre  ^  says,  "  As  if  to  provide  for  the  contingency 
 of  failing  crops  or  the  like,  and  the  consequent  inadequacy  of 
 the  tithes  thus  assigned  to  them,  the  Levite,  not  less  than  the 
 widow  and  the  orphan,  was  commended  to  the  special  kindness 
 of  the  people." 
 
 The  tithe  spoken  of  in  Deut.  xiv.  was  a  second,  or  "  vegetable" 
 tithe,  and  not  the  one  appointed  for  the  support  of  the  priests 
 and  Levites.  It  was  to  be  employed,  not  in  furnishing  a  main- 
 tenance for  the  priests  and  Levites,  but  to  promote  charity  and 
 brotherly  feeling,  and  to  gather  the  religious  life  and  associa- 
 tions of  the  people  around  the  sanctuary.^  In  a  word,  the  Le- 
 vite was  to  be  invited,  not  because  of  mendicancy  on  his  part, 
 but  to  give  by  his  presence  a  kind  of  religious  character  to  the 
 feast. 
 
 ^  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  loc.  cit.         ^  ^i\)\q  Com.,  Introd.  to  Deut.  Sec.  v 
 25 
 
290  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Lying. 
 
 Countenanced.  Prohibited. 
 
 And  the  king  of  P^gypt  called  for  the  Thou   shalt   not   bear  false  witness 
 
 midwives,  and  said   unto  them,  Why  against  thy  neighbor.    Ex.  xx.  16. 
 
 have  ye  done  this  thing,  and  have  saved  Lying  lips  are  abomination  to  the 
 
 tlie  men-children  alive?    And  the  mid-  Lord.     I'rov.  xii.  22. 
 
 wives  said  unto  Pharaoh,  Because  the  Wherefore  putting  away  lying,  speak 
 
 IJebrew  women  are  not  as  the  Egyptian  every  man  truth  with  his  neighbor :  for 
 
 women;  for  they  are   lively,  aiid  are  we  are  members  one  of  another.    Eph. 
 
 delivered  ere  the    midwives    come  in  iv.  25. 
 
 unto  them.    Therefore  God  dealt  well  Lie  not  one  to  another,  seeing  that  ye 
 
 with  the  midwives.    Ex.  i.  18-20.  have  put  off"  the  old  man  with  his  deeds. 
 
 And  the  womau  took  the  two  men,  Col.  iii.  9.        * 
 and  hid  them,   and  said  thus,  There  All  liars,  shall  have  their  part  in  the 
 came    men    unto   me,  but  I  wist  not  lake  which  burneth  with  tire  and  brim- 
 whence  Ihey  loere.     And  it  came  to  stone:  which  is  the  second  death,  llev. 
 jass  about  the  time  of  shutting  of  the  xxi,  8. 
 gate,  when  it  was  dark,  that  the  men 
 went  out :  whither  the  men  went,  1  wot 
 not.    Josh.  ii.  4,  5. 
 
 Likewise  also  was  not  Eahab  the  har- 
 lot justified  by  works.    Jas.  ii.  25. 
 
 As  to  the  Hebrew  midwives ;  if  they  did  tell  a  lie,  it  was 
 done  to  avoid  committing  murder.  Of  two  evils,  they  chose 
 the  less.  But  there  is  no  proof  that  they  were  guilty  of  false- 
 hood. The  king  seems  to  have  accepted  their  explanation  of  the 
 case,  which  rested  upon  a  well-known  physiological  fact. 
 
 Macdonald :  ^  "  In  proportion  as  the  sentence  of  toil  common 
 to  the  race,  is  in  any  instance  mitigated  in  favor  of  the  female, 
 her  own  peculiar  sentence  is  only  thereby  aggravated."  The 
 testimony  of  the  rationalist,  Von  Bohlen,  ^  is  even  more  em- 
 phatic as  to  the  immunity  from  pain,  enjoyed  in  certain  circum- 
 stances by  females  inured  to  toil.  Murphy  suggests  that  the 
 Hebrew  mothers,  knowing  Pharaoh's  order,  did  not  admit  the 
 midwife,  and  she  did  not  intrude,  if  it  could  be  avoided,  until 
 after  the  birth  had  occurred. 
 
 As  to  Rahab's  case,  several  things  are  to  be  considered. 
 
 1.  Having  been  reared  in  the  darkness  of  heathenism,  she 
 could  not  be  expected  to  understand  fully  the  wrong  of  false- 
 hood. 
 
 2.  She  was  influenced  by  a  desire  to  preserve  her  own  life. 
 She  felt  that  the  only  way  to  secure  this  end,  in  the  impending 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  Pent.  i.  886.  ^  Illustrations  of  Genesis,  ii.  60. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  291 
 
 overthrow  of  the  city,  would  be  to  place  the  victors  under  pre- 
 vious obligation  by  saving  the  lives  of  their  spies. 
 
 3.  James  says  she  was  "  justified,"  not  by  her  words,  but  by 
 her  "  works."  Keil :  The  course  she  adopted  was  a  sin  of 
 weakness  which  was  forgiven  her  in  mercy  because  of  her 
 faith. 
 
 Several  other  cases  of  similar  nature,  are  discussed  elsewhere. 
 
 Marriage, 
 
 Approved.  Disparaged. 
 
 And  the  Lord  God  said,  It  is  not  It  is  good  for  a  man  not  to  touch  a 
 
 good  that  the  man  should  be  alone:  1  woman.  ...  1  say  therefore  to  the  un- 
 
 will  make  him  a  help  meet  for  him.  married  and  widows.   It  is  good  for 
 
 Gen.  ii.  18.  them  if  they  abide  even  as  I.  ...  I  sup- 
 
 Whoso  tindeth  a  wife,  findeth  a  good  pose  therefore  that  this  is  good  for  the 
 
 tMvg,2iwd  obtaineth  favor  of  the  Lord,  present  distress,  /  say,  that  it  is  good 
 
 Prov.  xviii.  22.  for  a  man  so  to  be.  .  .  .  Art  thou  loosed 
 
 For  this    cause    shall   a  man    leave    from  a  wife  ?  seek  not  a  wife He  that 
 
 father  and  mother,  and  shall  cleave  to  is  unmarried,  careth  for  the  things  that 
 his  wife:  and  they  twain  shall  be  one  belong  to  the  Lord,  how  he  may  please 
 flesh?  Matt.  xix.  5.  the  Lord.  But  he  that  is  married.  car- 
 Let  every  man  have  his  own  wife,  eth  for  the  things  that  are  of  the  world, 
 and  let  every  woman  have  her  own  how  he  may  please  his  wife.  ...  He 
 husband.  ICor.  vii. '2.  that  giveth  /jer  not  in  marriage  doeth 
 Marriage  is  honorable  in  all.  Heb.  better.  1  Cor.  vii  1,  8,  26,  27,  32,  33,  38. 
 xiii.  4. 
 
 These  last  passages  which  seem  to  discountenance  wedlock 
 were  intended  for  a  specific  application.  Paul  foresaw  the  im- 
 pending calamity  and  persecution  which  was  threatening  the 
 Corinthian  church,  and  knowing  that  the  formation  of  new  ties 
 of  affection  would  expose  meii  to  increased  suffering,  he  advised 
 against  it.  The  man  who  had  a  wife  and  children  could  be 
 made  to  suffer  intensely  on  their  account ;  the  unmarried  man 
 would  escape  this  augmented  pain.  "  I  think,  then,"  says  Paul, 
 "  that  it  is  best,  by  reason  of  the  trials  which  are  nigh  at  hand, 
 for  all  to  be  unmarried."  ^  Alf ord  ^  says  that  the  language  was 
 addressed  to  the  Corinthians  "  as  advising  them  under  cir- 
 cumstances in  which  persecution  and  family  divisions  for  the 
 Gospel's  sake,  might  at  any  time  break  up  the  relations  of 
 life."  Nothing  in  this  advice  discourages  matrimony  abstractly 
 considered. 
 
 ^  Conybeare's  translation.  ^  Vol.  ii.  p.  519. 
 
292 
 
 DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 With  a  brother's  widow,  enjoined.  The  same  prohibited. 
 
 If  brethren  dwell  tojjother,  and  one  And  if  a  man  shall  take  his  brother's 
 
 of  tliem  die  and  have  no  child,  the  wife  wife,  it  is  an  unclean  thinj?:  he  hath 
 
 of  the  dead  shall   not  marry  without  uncovered    his    brother's    nakedness; 
 
 unto  a  stranger:  her  hu.-^band's  brother  they  shall  be  childless.     Lev.  xx.  21. 
 shall  {^o  in  unto  her,  and  take  her  to 
 him  to  wife.    Deut.  xxv.  5. 
 
 May  not  the  text  at  the  right  refer  to  the  divorced  wife  of  a 
 living  brother  ?  It  is  provided  that,  after  a  woman  has  received 
 "  a  bill  of  divorcement"  from  her  husband,  she  may  "  go  and  be 
 another  man's  wife."  ^  Is  not  the  above  text  intended  to  pre- 
 clude her  marriage  with  a  brother  of  her  recent  husband  ?  This 
 seems  quite  possible. 
 
 Keil,  ^  however,  maintains  that  the  prohibition  in  Leviticus 
 only  refers  to  cases  in  which  the  deceased  brother  had  left  chil- 
 dren ;  for  if  he  had  died  childless,  the  brother  not  only  might, 
 but  was  required  to,  marry  his  sister-in-law.  That  is,  if  the 
 widow  was  childless,  her  brother-in-law  must  marry  her ;  if  she 
 had  children,  he  was  forbidden  to  do  so. 
 
 Augustine,  Aben  Ezra,  INIichaelis,  and  the  Septuagint  take  the 
 words,  "  they  shall  be  childless  "  as  denoting  that  their  children 
 shall  be  reckoned  to  the  departed  brother,  they  shall  be  without 
 posterity,  so  far  as  the  public  records  show.  In  a  civil  sense, 
 they  would  be  childless. 
 
 Obedience. 
 
 Dae  to  rulers.. 
 
 I  counsel  thee  to  keep  the  kinf»'s  com- 
 mandment, and  that  in  regard  of  the 
 oath  of  (Jod.     Eccl.  viii.  2. 
 
 Let  every  soul  be  subject  unto  the 
 higher  powers.  For  there  is  no  power 
 but  of  (jod :  the  powers  that  be,  are  or- 
 dained of  God.  Whosoever  therefore 
 resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordi- 
 nance of  God :  and  they  that  resist  shall 
 receive  to  themselves  damnation.  .  .  . 
 Wherefore  ye  must  needs  be  subject, 
 not  only  for  wrath,  but  also  for  con- 
 science' sake.    Kom.  xiii.  1,  2,  5 
 
 Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance 
 of  man  for  the  Lord's  sake:"  whether  it 
 be  to  the  king,  as  supreme;  or  unto 
 governors,  as  unto  them  that  are  sent 
 by  him  for  the  punishment  of  evil- 
 doers, and  for  the  praise  of  them  that 
 do  well.    1 1'et.  ii.  13, 14. 
 
 '  Dcut,  xxiv.  1,  2. 
 
 Sometimes  to  be  withheld. 
 
 But  the  midwives  feared  God,  and 
 did  not  as  the  king  of  Egypt  com- 
 manded them.  .  .  .  Therefore  God  dealt 
 well  with  the  midwives.     Ex.  i.  17,  20. 
 
 Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abed-nego, 
 answered  and  said  to  the  king.  O  Ne- 
 buchadnezzar, wo  are  not  careful  to 
 answer  thee  in  this  matter.  ...  Be  it 
 known  unto  thee,  O  king,  that  we  will 
 not  serve  thy  gods,  nor  worship  the 
 golden  imase  which  thou  hast  set  up. 
 Dan.  iii.  16.18 
 
 Daniel,  which  is  of  the  children  of 
 the  captivity  of  Judah,  rogardeth  not 
 thee,  U  king,  nor  the  decree  that  thou 
 hast  signed,  but  maketh  his  petition 
 three  times  a  day.     Dan.  vi  13. 
 
 But  I'eter  and  Jolin  answered  and 
 said  unto  them,  Whether  it  be  right  in 
 thesigiitof  (i;id  to  hearken  unto  you 
 more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye.  Acts 
 iv.  19. 
 
 We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than 
 man.    Acts  v.  29. 
 
 «  On  Lev.  xviii.  16. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  293 
 
 Tlie  first  series  of  texts  involves  these  principles  : 
 
 1.  That  civil  government  is  instituted  by  God  for  a  specific 
 object,  the  encouragement  of  virtue  and  the  suppression  of  vice  ; 
 "  for  the  punishment  of  evil-doers,  and  for  the  praise  of  them 
 that  do  well." 
 
 2.  That  so  long  as  civil  government  keeps  in  its  proper  sphere, 
 we  are  under  solemn  obligation  to  yield  obedience. 
 
 From  the  second  series  may  be  legitimately  inferred : 
 
 3.  That  civil  government  has  no  right  to  command  or  compel 
 us  to  do  anything  contrary  to  the  law  of  God. 
 
 4.  That  when  civil  government  transcends  its  proper  sphere, 
 when  it  enjoins  unrighteous  acts,  it  then  becomes  our  imperative 
 duty  to  refuse  obedience.  In  a  word,  the  "  higher  law  "  takes 
 the  precedence  of  all  human  laws.  In  all  the  five  cases  at  the 
 right,  obedience  to  unrighteous,  therefore  non-oUigatory,  com- 
 mands, was  properly  withheld. 
 
 Due  to  masters.  To  God  only. 
 
 Servants,  obey  in  all  things  your  mas-  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thyGod, 
 
 ters  according  to  the  flesh ;  not  with  and  him  only  sh.ilt  thou  serve.    Matt, 
 
 eye-service,  as  men-pleasers;  but  in  sin-  iv.  10. 
 
 cleness  of  heart,  fearing  God.    Col.  iii.  One  is  your  Master,  eren  Christ;  and 
 
 22.  all  ye  arfe  brethren.    Matt,  xxiii.  8. 
 
 Servants,  be  subject  to  your  masters  Ye  are  bought  with  a  price;  be  not 
 
 with  all  fear;  not  only  to  the  good  and  ye  the  servants  of  men.    1  Cor.  vii.  23. 
 gentle,  but  also  to  the  froward.    1  Pet. 
 u.  18. 
 
 The  first  series  refers  to  civil  obedience,  or  obedience  in  secu- 
 lar matters ;  the  last  relates  to  worship  and  religious  service. 
 
 Eendered  to  the  scribes.  They  mvst  be  shunned. 
 
 The  scribes  and  the  Pharisees  sit  in       Beware  of  the  scribes,  which  love  to 
 
 Moses'  seat.    All  therefore  whatsoever  go  in  long  clothing,  and  love  salutations 
 
 they  bid  you  observe,  that  observe  and  in  the  marketplaces.  .  .  .  Which  devour 
 
 do:  but  do  not  ye  after  their  works:  widows'    houses,   and  for  a    pretence 
 
 for  they  say,  and  do  not.    Matt,  xxiii.  make  long  prayers:  these  shall  receive 
 
 2,  3.  greater  damnation.    Mark  xii.  38,  40. 
 
 The  idea  is.  Follow  their  precepts,  but  shun  their  practice. 
 Do  as  they  say,  but  not  as  they  do. 
 
 Offender  rebuked. 
 
 Privately.  Publicly. 
 Moreover  if  thy  brother  shall  tres-  Against  an  elder  receive  not  an  accu- 
 pass  against  thee,  go  and  tell  him  his  sation,  but  before  two  or  three  wit- 
 fault  between  thee  and  him  alone:  if  he  nesses.  Them  that  sin  rebuke  before 
 shall  hear  thee,  thou  hast  gained  thy  all,  that  others  also  may  fear.  1  Tim. 
 brother.  Matt,  xviii.  15.  v.  19,  20. 
 25* 
 
294  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 The  first  text  refers  to  private,  personal  wrongs,  the  second, 
 to  open,  public  offences  against  peace  and  good  order. 
 
 Alf ord,  on  the  first  text :  "  This  direction  is  only  in  case  of 
 personal  offence  against  ourselves,  and  then  the  injured  person  is 
 to  seek  private  explanation,  and  that  by  going  to  his  injurer, 
 not  waiting  till  he  comes  to  apologize." 
 
 This  commentator,  with  Huther  and  most  others,  applies  the 
 second  quotation  to  sinning  presbyters  or  "  elders,"  who  are  to 
 be  openly  rebuked,  that  the  whole  church  may  fear  on  seeing 
 the  jDublic  disgrace  consequent  on  sin.  Ellicott  thinks  that  the 
 present  participle  employed  directs  the  thought  towards  the 
 habitually  sinful  character  of  the  offender,  and  his  need  of  an 
 open  rebuke. 
 
 Pleasing  of  Men, 
 
 Practiced.  Condemned. 
 
 Let  every  one  of  us  please  his  nei^h-  For  do  I  now  persuade  men,  or  God? 
 
 bor  for  his  good  to  edilication.    Rom.  or  do  I  seek  to  please  men?  for  if  I  yet 
 
 XV.  2.  pleased  men,  I  should  not  be  the  ser- 
 
 To  the  weak  became  I  as  weak,  that  1  vant  of  Christ.     Gal   i.  10. 
 
 misfht  gain  the  weak:  I  am  made  all  Not  with  eye-service,  as  men-pleasers; 
 
 things  to  all  men,  that  I  might  by  all  but  as  the  servants  of  Christ.     Eph. 
 
 means  save  some.    1  Cor  ix.  22.  vi.  6. 
 
 Even  as  I  please  all  men  in  all  things,  Even  so  we  speak;   not  as  pleasing 
 
 not  seeking  mine  own  protit,  but  the  men.  but  God,  which  trieth  our  hearts. 
 
 profit  of  many,  that  they  may  be  saved.  1  Thess.  ii.  4. 
 1  Cor.  X.  33. 
 
 In  the  first  texts,  we  see  that  Christian  gentleness  and  self- 
 forgetfulness  which  is  ever  ready  to  waive,  so  far  as  is  proper, 
 its  own  claims  and  preferences,  in  order  to  win  men  to  the 
 truth. 
 
 The  latter  texts  discountenance  that  time-serving,  sycophantic 
 spirit  which  unhesitatingly  sacrifices  principle  to  popularity,  and 
 to  the  furtherance  of  its  own  sinister  ends. 
 
 A.  Fuller :  ^  "  The  one  is  conduct  which  has  the  glory  of  God 
 and  the  good  of  mankind  for  its  object ;  the  other  originates 
 and  terminates  in  self.  The  former  is  that  sweet  inoffensive- 
 ness  of  spirit  which  teaches  us  to  lay  aside  all  self-will  and  self- 
 importance  The  latter  is  that  sordid  compliance  with  the  cor- 
 ruptions of  human  nature,  of  which  flatterers  and  deceivers  have 
 
 ^  Works,  i.  671. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  295 
 
 always  availed  themselves,  not  for  the  glory  of  God,  nor  the 
 good  of  men,  but  for  the  promotion  of  their  own  selfish  designs." 
 
 Polygamy. 
 
 Tolerated,  Virtually  proh  ibited. 
 
 But  unto  the  sons  of  the  concubines  Let  thy  fountain  be  blessed ;  and  re- 
 
 which   Abraham  had,  Abraham  gave  joice  with  the  wife  of  thy  youth.    Let 
 
 gifts.    Gen.  xxv.  6.  her  be  as  the  loving  hind  and  pleasant 
 
 Then  Jacob  rose  up,  and  set  his  sons  roe;  let  her  breasts  satisfy  thee  at  all 
 
 and  his  wives  upon  camels.    Gen.  xxxi.  times;  and  be  thou    ravished    always 
 
 17.  with  her  love.     Prov.  v.  18.  19. 
 
 If  a  man  have  two  wives,  one  beloved,  Yet  is  she  thy  companion,  and  the 
 
 and  another  hated.     Deut.  x.xi.  )5.  wife  of  thy  covenant.     And  did  not  he 
 
 And  unto  David  were  sons  born  in  make  one?     Yet  had  he  the  residue  of 
 
 Hebron:  and  his  first  born  was  Amnon,  the  spirit.     And  wherefore  one?    That 
 
 of  Ahinoam  the  Jezreelitess.  ...  His  he  might  seek  a  godly  seed.    Therefore 
 
 second.   Chileab.   of  Abigail.  .  .  .  The  take  heed  to  your  spirit,  and  let  none 
 
 third,  Absalom  the  son  of  Maacah.  .  .  .  deal   treacherously  against  the  wife  of 
 
 And  the  fourth,  Adonijah,  the  son  of  his  youth.     Mai.  ii.  14, 15. 
 
 Haggith;  and  the  fifth,  Shephatiah  the  For  this  cause  shall  a  man  leave  his 
 
 son  of  Abital.  And  the  sixth,  Ithream,  father  and  mother,  and  cleave  to  his 
 
 by  Eglah,  David's  wife    2  Sam.  iii.  2-5.  wife.    And  they  twain  shall    be  one 
 
 And  David  comforted Bath-sheba  his  flesh:  so  then  they  are  no  more  twain, 
 
 wife.    2  Sam.  xii.  24.  but  one  flesh.     What  therefore,   God 
 
 But  king  Solomon  loved  many  strange  hath  joined  together,  let  not  man  put 
 
 women.  ...  And  he  had  seven  hundred  asunder.    Mark  x.  7-9. 
 
 wives,  princesses,  and  three  hundred  Let  eveiy  man  have  his  own  wife,  and 
 
 concubines.    1  Kings  xi.  1-3.  let  every  woman  have  her  own  hus- 
 band.   1  Cor.  vii.  2. 
 
 Only  this  need  be  said,  —  that  God,  on  account  of  "  the 
 hardness  of  men's  hearts,"  suffered  polygamy  among  his  people 
 for  a  time,  but  "  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so."  ^  And,  as 
 previously  intimated,  the  patriarchs  must  be  judged  by  the 
 degree  of  light  which  they  possessed.  Too,  it  must  be  remem- 
 bered that  their  polygamy  differed  materially  from  the  "  free- 
 love  "  systems  of  other  times.  In  polygamy,  each  wife  of  the 
 "  much-married "  man  was  nevertheless  his  wife,  and,  together 
 with  her  offspring,  entitled  to  he  cared  for  and  maintained  hy 
 him.  Moreover,  a  "  concubine,"  in  those  days,  was  not  simply 
 a  kept  mistress,  as  the  word  might  now  imply,  but  was  a  wife 
 of  lower  rank,  who  was  wedded  with  somewhat  less  than  the 
 ordinary  formalities.  Dr.  Jahn  ^  says :  "  Although  this  con- 
 nection was,  in  fact,  a  marriage,  and  a  legitimate  one,  it  was 
 not,  nevertheless,  celebrated  and  confirmed  by  the  ceremonies 
 above  related."     So  JSIr.  Newman  ^ :  "  A  concubine,  in  ancient 
 
 1  Matt.  xix.  8.  2  Bib.  ArchaeoL  Sec.  155. 
 
 3  Hist,  of  Heb.  Monarchy,  pp.  102, 12T. 
 
296  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 times,  was  only  a  wife  of  inferior  rank,  and  the  union  was  just 
 as  permanent  as  with  a  wife."  The  latter  author  suggests  that 
 the  usages  of  the  modern  court  of  Persia  point  to  the  conclusion 
 that  Solomon  really  took  these  numerous  women  as  virtual 
 hostages  for  the  good  behavior  of  their  fathers,  who  were 
 chieftains  of  the  surroundmg  heathen  nations,  and  tributary  to 
 him.     This  is  a  reasonable  suggestion. 
 
 Poor  favored. 
 
 Might  he  favored.  Must  not  he  favored. 
 
 Blessed  is  he  that  considereth  the  Neither  shalt  thou  countenance  a 
 poor.    Vs.  xli.  1.  poor  man  in  his  cause.    Ex.  xxiii.  3. 
 
 He  that  hath  mercy  on   the  poor, 
 happy  is  he.    I'rov.  xiv.  21. 
 
 The  first  two  texts  commend  the  exercise  of  benevolence  in 
 cases  where  no  question  of  law  or  justice  is  involved ;  the  last 
 teaches  that,  in  suits  between  man  and  man,  justice  must  be 
 done.  The  judges  must  not  be  unduly  swayed  by  the  poor 
 man's  pleading,  but  must  decide  the  matter  impartially. 
 
 Priests'  dues. 
 
 First-born  and  firstlings.  Otherwise  disposed  of. 
 
 All  the  best  of  the  oil,  and  all  the  best  Thou  mayest  not  eat  within  thy  gates 
 of  the  wine  and  of  the  wheat,  the  first-  the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  or  of  thy  wine,  or 
 fruits  of  them  which  they  shall  oiler  of  thy  oil,  or  the  lirstlings  of  thy  herds 
 unto  the  LOHD,  them  have  I^piven  thee,  or  of  thy  flock,  nor  any  of  thy  vows 
 >j7?r/ whatsoever  is  first  ripe  in  the  land,  which  thou  vowest,  nor  thy  free-will- 
 which  they  shall  brinp  unto  the  Lord,  offerings,  or  heave- offering  of  thine 
 shall  be  thine.  .  .  •  Every  thing  that  hand.  But  thou  must  eat  them  before 
 openeth  the  matrix  in  all  flesh,  which  the  Lord  thy  (iod  in  the  ])lace  which 
 they  bring  unto  the  J^oru,  v>hether  it  *e  the  Lord  thy  (iod  shall  choose,  thou, 
 of  men  or  beasts,  shall  be  thine.  .  .  .  and  thy  son,  and  thy  daiighfer,  and  thy 
 All  the  heave-oflerings  of  the  holy  man-servant,  and  thy  maid-servant,  and 
 tilings,  which  the  children  of  Israel  the  Levite  that  is  within  thy  gates, 
 offer  unto  the  Lord,  have  I  given  thee,    Deut.  xii.  17,  18. 
 
 a!)d  thy  sons  and  thy  daughters  with  Thou  shalt  do  no  work  with  the  first- 
 thee,  by  a  statute  forever.  Num.  xviii.  ling  of  thy  bullock,  nor  shear  the  first- 
 12,  13,  15,  19.  ling  of  thy  sheep.    Thou  shalt  eat  it 
 
 before  the  Lord  thv  God  year  by  year 
 in  the  place  whicn  the  Lord  shall 
 choose,  thou  and  thy  household.  Deut. 
 XV.  19,  20. 
 
 Michaelis  ^  says  there  were  two  kinds  of  "  firstlings " ;  the 
 first  belonging  to  the  priest  as  his  salary,  and  the  "  second 
 firstlings,"  as  he  styles  them,  belonging  to  the  altar,  and,  of 
 course,  consumed  by  the  offerer  himself  and  his  guests.     He 
 
 1  Mosaic  Laws,  iii.  146-149. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  297 
 
 defines  the  second  firstling  as  that  which  immediately  succeeded 
 the  proper  firstling. 
 
 Davidson  ^  recognizes  a  "  second  sort  of  firstlings,  which 
 were  to  be  employed  for  feast-offerings,  and  therefore  to  be 
 consumed  by  the  offerer  himself  and  his  guests.  The  name 
 denotes  the  animals  next  in  age  to  those  belonging  to  the  sacer- 
 dotal salary.  Hence  the  firstlings  referred  to  were  additional 
 to  such  as  appear  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers." 
 
 Similarly  Dr.  Jahn.^  Keil  thinks  there  was  nothing  in  the 
 earlier  law  which  would  preclude  the  priest's  allowing  the 
 persons  who  presented  the  firstlings  to  take  part  in  the  sacri- 
 ficial meals,  or  lianding  over  to  them  some  portion  of  the  flesh 
 which  belonged  to  himself  to  hold  a  sacrificial  meal. 
 
 Produce  of  seventh  year. 
 
 For  the  poor.  For  ov)ner  and  his  family. 
 
 And  pix  years  thou  shalt  sow  thy  But  in  the  seventh  year  shall  be  a 
 land,  and  slialt  gather  in  the  fruits  .sabbafli  of  rest  unto  the  land,  a  sab- 
 thereof.  Jiut  the  seventh  year  thou  bath  for  the  Lord:  thou  shalt  neither 
 shalt  let  it  rest  and  lie  still ;  that  the  sow  thy  field,  nor  prune  thy  vineyard, 
 jioor  of  thy  people  may  eat:  and  what  That  which  groweth  of  its  own  accord 
 they  leave  the  beasts  of  the  field  shall  of  thy  harvest,  thou  shalt  not  reap, 
 eat.  In  like  manner  thou  shalt  deal  neither  gather  the  grapes  of  thy  vine 
 with  thy  vineyard,  nnd  with  thy  olive-  undrp-sfd  :  for  it  is  a  year  of  rest  unto 
 yard.     Ex.  xxiii.  10, 11.  the  land.    And  the  sabbath  of  the  land 
 
 shall  be  meat  for  you ;  for  thee,  and  for 
 thy  servant,  and  for  thy  rnaid,  and  for 
 thy  hired  servants,  and  f  )r  thy  stranger 
 that  sojourneth  with  thee.  Lev.  xxv. 
 4-6. 
 
 The  first  quotation,  with  its  context,  teaches  that  the  spon- 
 taneous yield  of  the  seventh  year  is  to  be  left  for  the  poor,  and  for 
 the  wild  beasts.  The  owner  of  the  land  is  neither  to  cultivate 
 it,  nor  to  meddle  with  its  produce,  for  that  year.^  From  the 
 second  quotation  we  learn  that  the  "sabl)ath  of  the  land"  was  to 
 maintain  the  owner  and  his  family,  with  the  flocks  and  herds. 
 In  Leviticus  xxv.  21,  22,  is  promised  a  largely  increased  crop 
 —  "  fruit  for  three  years"  —  in  the  sixth  year.  It  is,  we  think, 
 this  surplus  —  termed,  in  the  seventh  verse,  "  the  increase  there- 
 of," —  and  not  the  mere  spontaneous  pro<luce  of  the  year  of 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  353.  ^  Bib.  Arehaeol.  Sec.  888,  889. 
 
 "  Such  seems  the  plain  import  of  Lev.  xxv.  5  and  20. 
 
298  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 rest,  which  is  designated  as  "  the  sabbath  of  the  land."  In  other 
 words,  it  is  this  surplus  alone  which  is  to  serve  the  owner  and 
 his  household  during  the  year  of  rest,  while  all  that  grows  dur- 
 ing that  year  is  to  be  relinquished  to  the  destitute. 
 
 Keil  takes  the  somewhat  different  view  that  the  produce 
 arising  without  tilling  or  sowing  was  to  be  a  common  good  for 
 man  and  beast.  According  to  Exodus,  it  was  to  belonsj  to  the 
 poor  and  needy,  but  the  owner  was  not  forbidden  to  partake  of 
 it  also,  so  that  here  is  no  discrepancy. 
 
 Property  in  man. 
 
 One  man  oions  another.  All  men  are  brethren. 
 
 And  if  a  man  smite  his  servant,  or  And  hath  made  of  one  blood  all  na- 
 his  maid,  with  a  rod,  and  he  die  under  tions  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 
 his  hand;  he  shall  be  surely  punished,  of  the  earth,  and  hath  determined  the 
 Kotwithstanding,  if  he  continue  a  day  times  before  appointed,  and  the  bounds 
 or  two,  he  shall  not  be  punished:  for  of  their  habitation.  Acts  xvii.  26. 
 he  is  his  money.     Ex.  xxi.  20,  21 
 
 And  ye  shall  take  them  as  an  inher- 
 itance for  your  cliildren  after  you,  to 
 inherit  them  for  a  possession,  they  shall 
 be  your  bondmen  for  ever.  Lev.  xxv.  46. 
 
 On  account  of  the  "  hardness  of  men's  hearts,"  slavery,  like 
 polygamy,  was  suffered  for  a  time ;  but  the  Mosaic  code  was  so 
 shaped  as  to  mitigate  its.  evils,  and  secure  its  final  extinction. 
 It  was  doubtless  better  thus  to  bring  about  its  gradual  abolition 
 than  to  uproot  it  by  a  sudden  convulsion.  Slavery  among  the 
 Hebrews  was  of  a  much  milder  type  than  among  their  contem- 
 poraries. In  this  opinion  Dr.  Jahn  concurs.  Michaelis  ^  says 
 that  Moses  "  permitted  slavery,  but  under  restrictions  by  which 
 its  rigors  were  remarkably  mitigated,  and  particularly  in  the 
 case  of  Israelitish  citizens  becoming  subjected  to  it." 
 
 Hesistance, 
 
 Exemplified.  Interdicted. 
 
 Then  said  lie  unto  them,  But  now,  he  But  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye  resist  not 
 
 that  hath  a  purse,  let  him  take  if,  and  evil :  but  whosoever  shall  smite  tliee  on 
 
 likewise  his  scrip:  and  he  that  hath  no  thy  right  clieek,  turn  to  him  the  other 
 
 sword,  let  him  sell   his  garment,  and  also.    Matt.  v.  39. 
 
 buy  one.     Luke  xxii.  36  Then   said  Jesus  unto  him,    Put  up 
 
 And  wlien  he  had  made  a  scourge  of  again  thy  sword  into  his  place:  for  all 
 
 small   cords,  lie  drove   them  all  out  of  they  tliat  take  the  sword  shall  perish 
 
 tlie   temple,   and   the    sheep,   and  tlie  with  the  sword.    Matt.  xxvi.  52. 
 oxen;  and   poured  out  the  changers' 
 money,  and  overthrew  the  tables.  John 
 ii.  16. 
 
 ^  Mosaic  Laws,  ii.  157. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  299 
 
 We  have  previously  seen  that  the  first  text  is  equivalent  to 
 a  declaration  that,  in  the  changed  circumstances  of  the  disciples, 
 "  self-defense  and  self -provision  would  henceforward  be  neces- 
 sary."    The  passage  sanctions  self-defense  but  not  aggression. 
 
 Alford  says  the  next  passage  should  read,  "  He  drove  all  out 
 of  the  temple,  both  the  sheep  and  the  oxen."  The  "  scourge" 
 was  applied  to  the  brute&,  not  to  their  owners. 
 
 Barnes  takes  the  original  of  Matt.  v.  39,  as  meaning,  Do 
 not  set  yourselves  against  one  who  has  injured  you.  We  are 
 not  to  cherish  feelings  of  obstinate  and  implacable  resentment. 
 
 The  last  text  means,  as  noted  elsewhere,  that  those  who  take 
 the  sword  in  opposition  to  legal  authority,  as  Peter  contemplated 
 doing,  or  against  innocence,  as  the  Jews  were  about  to  do, 
 should  perish  by  a  violent  death. 
 
 Hetaliation. 
 
 Allowed.  Discountenanced. 
 
 And  if  any  mischief  follow,  then  But  I  say  unto  you  which  hear,  Love 
 thou  shalt  give  life  for  life.  Eye  for  your  enemies,  do  good  to  them  which 
 eye,  tooth  for  tooth,  hand  for  hand,  hate  you.  Bless  them  that  curse  you, 
 foot  for  foot.  Burning  for  burning,  and  pray  for  them  which  despitefully 
 wound  for  wound,  stripe  for  stripe,  use  you.  And  unto  him  that  smiteth 
 Ex.  xxi.  23-25.  thee   on  the  07ie  cheek  offer  also  the 
 
 other;  and  him  that  taketh  away  thy 
 cloak  forbid  not  to  take  thy  coat  also. 
 Lukevi  27-29. 
 
 Michaelis  ^  and  Jahn  ^  think  that  the  law  of  Moses  addresses 
 the  perpetrator  of  the  wrong,  admonishing  him  of  the  satisfac- 
 tion he  must  render  for  the  wrongs  inflicted  by  him.  Christ, 
 on  the  other  hand,  addresses  the  injured  party,  forbidding  him, 
 as  an  individual  to  give  vent  to  his  vindictive  feelings  and  take 
 the  retribution  into  his  own  hands,  instead  of  waiting  for  the 
 due  process  of  law.  Alford  observes  that  "  our  Lord  does  not 
 contradict  the  Mosaic  law,  bat  expands  and  fulfils  it,  declaring 
 to  us  that  the  necessity  for  it  would  be  altogether  removed  in 
 the  complete  state  of  that  kingdom  which  He  came  to  establish." 
 Warington  ^  says,  "  On  what  principle  are  cases  of  this  kind 
 to  be  explained?     Surely  by  regarding  such  laws  as  having 
 
 ^  Mosaic  Laws,  iii.  473,  474.  ^  Bib.  Archaeol.  Sec.  256. 
 
 •  ^  On  Inspiration,  p.  252. 
 
300  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 been,  when  given,  especially  adapted  to  the  people  and  the  times, 
 and  for  these  necessary ;  but  as  being  for  later  days  and  other 
 people  not  necessary  and  unadapted,  and  therefore  abrogated." 
 
 Robbery, 
 
 Forbidden.  CounteManced. 
 
 Thou  Shalt  not  steal.    Ex.  xx.  15.  And  I  will  give  this  people  favor  in 
 
 Thou  Shalt  not  defraud  thy  neighbor,    the  sight  of  the  Egyptians :  and  it  shall 
 
 neither  rob  him.    Lev.  xix.  13.  come  to  pass,  that,  when  ye  go,  ye  shall 
 
 The  wicked  borroweth,  and  payeth    not  go  empty.    Hut  every  woman  shall 
 
 not  again.    Ps.  xxxvii.  21.  borrow  of  her  neighbor,  and  of  her  that 
 
 That  no  man  go  beyond  and  defraud    sojourneth  in  her  house,  jewels  of  silver, 
 
 his  brother  in  an?/ matter;  because  that    and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment:   and 
 
 the  Lord  is  the  avenger  of  all  such,    ye  shall  put  them  upon  your  sons,  and 
 
 1  Thess.  iv.  6.  upon  your  daughters :  and  ye  shall  spoil 
 
 the  Egyptians.     Ex.  iii.  21,  22. 
 
 And  the  children  of  Israel  did  accord- 
 ing to  the  word  of  Moses:  and  they 
 borrowed  of  the  Egyptians  jewels  of 
 silver,  and  jewels  of  gold,  and  raiment. 
 And  the  Lord  gave  the  people  favor  in 
 the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,  so  that  they 
 lent  unto  them  such  things  as  they  re- 
 quired :  and  they  spoiled  the  Egyptians. 
 Ex.  xii.  35,  36. 
 
 The  point  of  the  objection  is,  that  the  Israelites  defrauded 
 the  Egyptians,  by  borrowing,  but  neglecting  to  repay.  A  re- 
 cent writer  styles  their  conduct  "  immoral,"  and  adds,  "It  makes 
 no  difference  whether  the  verb  translated  borrow  means  ask  or 
 demand.  The  representation  made  to  the  Egyptians  by  the 
 Israelites  when  they  borrowed  or  asked  the  jewels  was,  that 
 they  were  going  a  three  days'  journey  into  the  wilderness  to 
 sacrifice  "to  the  Lord  God.  They  conveyed  the  impression  that 
 they  were  about  to  return."  Knobel  also  asserts  that  it  was 
 their  intention  to  deceive  the  king.  To  this  objection,  Augus- 
 tine,^ Hengstenberg,^  and  Keil  reply :  God  knew  the  hard  heart 
 of  Pharaoh,  and  therefore  directed  that  no  more  should  be  asked 
 at  first  than  he  must  either  grant  or  display  the  hardness  of 
 his  heart.  Had  he  consented,  God  would  then  have  made  known 
 to  him  his  whole  design,  and  demanded  that  His  people  should 
 be  allowed  to  depart  altogether.  But  when  Pharaoh  scornfully 
 refused  the  first  and  smaller  request,  Moses  was  instructed  to 
 demand  the  eiitire  departure  of    Israel  from  the  land.     The 
 
 »  Quaest.  13  in  Ex.  2  q^q  ^f  pgnt.,  ii.  4i;r432. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  301 
 
 modified  request  was  an  act  of  mercy  to  Pharaoh,  and  had  he 
 granted  it,  Israel  would  not  have  gone  beyond  it. 
 
 We  may  add  that,  on  the  return  of  the  Israelites  from  their 
 three  days'  journey,  negotiations  would  doubtless  have  been  en- 
 tered into  for  their  final  departure.  It  should  be  observed  that 
 Moses'  demand  increased  in  the  same  proportion  as  Pharaoh's 
 hardening.  ^  Towards  the  close,  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
 expectation,  on  either  side,  that  the  Israelites  would  return. 
 After  the  smiting  of  the  first-born,  the  Egyptians  were  desirous 
 to  get  rid  of  the  Israelites  at  any  price.  Hence,  they  are  said 
 to  have  "  thrust  them  out  altogether,"  and  to  have  been  "  urgent " 
 upon  them  to  depart  "  in  haste."  ^  So  far  at  the  last  from  any 
 promise  or  expectation  of  their  return,  the  Egyptians  were  only 
 too  glad  to  be  relieved  of  their  presence. 
 
 ISIichaelis^  has  a  peculiar  explanation  of  the  "borrowing.'* 
 He  thinks  the  Hebrews  borrowed  the  articles  with  the  honest 
 intention  of  restoring  them  ;  but,  in  the  haste  of  their  midnight 
 departure,  driven  out  by  the  pressing  command  of  the  king,  they 
 had  no  opportunity  to  do  this.  Hence,  they  took  the  articles 
 with  them,  with  the  view  to  restore  them  as  soon  as  possible. 
 In  a  day  or  two,  the  Egyptians  made  war  upon  the  Israelites. 
 This  act  of  hostility,  this  "  breach  of  the  peace,"  changed  the 
 relations  between  the  two  parties,  and  justified  the  Israelites  in 
 detaining  the  property  of  their  enemies  as  a  kind  of  "  contra- 
 band of  war." 
 
 Hence,  he  concludes  that  the  act  of  the  Israelites  was  no 
 robbery  of  the  Egyptians,  but  simply  a  detention  of  their  pro- 
 perty after  the  breach  of  peace  with  the  Israelites. 
 
 Ewald*  maintains  that  since  Israel  could  not  return  to  Egypt 
 after  Pharaoh's  treachery  and  the  incidents  on  the  Red  Sea, 
 and  therefore  was  not  bound  to  return  the  borrowed  goods,  the 
 people  kept  them  and  despoiled  the  Egyptians  of  them.  This 
 sagacious  critic  sees  in  this  turn  of  affairs  a  kind  of  "  divine 
 
 ^  See  Ex.  viii.  1,  27;  x.  25,  26.  ^  Compare  Ex.  xi.  1 ;  xii.  31-38. 
 
 ^  Com.  on  Mosaic  Laws,  iii.  45-47.        ^  Hist,  of  Israel,  ii.  66. 
 26 
 
302  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 recompense,"  a  piece  of  "high  retributive  justice,  far  above 
 human  inequalities,  that  those  who  had  long  been  oppressed  in 
 Egypt  should  now  be  forced  to  borrow  the  necessary  vessels 
 from  the  Egyptians,  and  be  obliged  by  Pharaoh's  subsequent 
 treachery  to  retain  them,  and  thus  be  indemnified  for  long 
 OiDpression." 
 
 But  there  is  another  view  of  the  case.  The  Hebrew  word, 
 shaal,  means,  according  to  Fuerst  and  Gesenius,  to  ask  or  demand, 
 as  well  as  to  borrow.  It  is  used  in  the  former  sense  in  Ps.  ii. 
 8,  "  Ask  of  me,"  etc.  There  is  no  good  reason  why  we  should 
 not  adopt  this  rendering  in  Exodus.  We  are  told  that  "  the 
 Lord  gave  the  people  favor  in  the  sight  of  the  Egyptians,"  also 
 that  Moses  was  "  very  great "  in  their  sight.  ^  The  awe  which 
 they  felt  for  Moses,  as  also  for  the  Israelites  so  signally  favored 
 of  God,  induced  the  Egyptians  to  comply  with  the  demands  of 
 the  Hebrews  to  that  extent,  that  the  latter  "  spoiled,"  that  is, 
 impoverished,  the  former.  Hengstenberg :  "  They  had  spoiled 
 Israel ;  now  Israel  carries  away  the  spoil  of  Egypt."  This 
 author,  with  Posenmiiller,  Lilienthal,  Tholuck,  Winer,  Lange, 
 Murphy,  Keil,  Wordsworth,  and  a  host  of  critics,  understands 
 that  the  Hebrews  asked  and  received  these  things  simply  as  gifts. 
 And  Josephus  ^  corroborates  this  view,  saying  of  the  Egyptians, 
 "  They  also  honored  the  Hebrews  with  gifts ;  some  in  order  to 
 secure  their  speedy  departure,  and  others  on  account  of  neigh- 
 borly intimacy  with  them."  This  explanation  relieves  the 
 entire  difficulty. 
 
 Slavery  and  oppression. 
 
 Ordained.  Forbidden. 
 
 And  he  said.  Cursed  he  Canaan;  a  And  he  that  stealeth  a  man,  and  sell- 
 servant  of  servants  sliall  he  be  unto  his  eth  him,  or  if  he  be  found  in  his  hand, 
 brethren.     Uen.  ix.  25.  he  shall  surely  be  put  to  death.    Ex. 
 
 lioth  thy  bond-men,  and  thy  bond-  xxi.  16. 
 
 maids,  which  thou  shalt  have,  shall  be  Thou  shalt  neither  vex  a  stranper, 
 
 of  the   heathen   that  are  round  about  nor  ojjpress  him :  for  ye  were  strangers 
 
 you;  of  them  shall   ye  buy  bond-men  in  the  land  of  K<rypt. "  Kx.  xxii.  21. 
 
 and  bond-maids.     J.ev.  xxv.  44.  To  undo  tlie  heavy  burdens,  and  to 
 
 And  I  will  sell  your  sons  and  your  let  the  oppressed  go  free,  and  that  yc 
 
 daughters  into  the  hand  of  the  children  break  every  yoke?    Jsa  Iviii.  6. 
 of  Judah,  and  they  shall  sell  them  to 
 the  babeans.    Joel  iii.  8. 
 
 Ex.  xi.  3.  ^  Antiq.  ii.  14, 6  (Bekker's  Greek  edition). 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  303 
 
 As  to  Canaan,  we  have  elsewhere  seen  that  he,  being,  as  the 
 Hebrew  requires,  the  "  youngest  of  Noah's  family,"  was  proba- 
 bly the  very  one  indicated  as  guilty  of  some  unnamed  indignity 
 to  the  sleeping  patriarch,  ^  and  hence  was  deservedly  punished 
 for  his  crime. 
 
 Leviticus  refers  to  a  mild  form  of  servitude  among  the  Is- 
 raelites.    Joel  threatens  captivity  as  a  punishment  for  sin. 
 
 Exodus  denounces    the   kidnapping  and  oppressing  of  free 
 
 persons,  foreigners   or  otherwise.^     Isaiah   admonishes  against 
 
 illegal  ojDpression,  rather  than  against  that  form  of  servitude 
 
 recognized  in  and  regulated  by  the  law. 
 
 Hebrew  slavery  permitted..  Prohibited. 
 
 If  thou  buy  a  Hebrew  servant,  six      Andifthybrother  f/iafrfweZ/efftby  thee 
 
 years  he  shall  serve :  and  in  the  seventh    be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto  thee: 
 
 he  shall  go  out  free  for  nothing.    Ex.    thou  shalt  not  compel  him  to  serve  as  a 
 
 xxi.  2.  bond-servant.     But  as  a  hired  servant, 
 
 and  as  a  sojourner  he  shall  be  with  thee. 
 and  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of 
 jubilee.  .  .  .  Over  your  brethren  the 
 children  of  Israel,  ye  shall  not  rule  one 
 over  another  with  rigor.  Lev.  xxv.  39, 
 40,46. 
 
 The  latter  passages  do  not,  as  De  Wette  seems  to  think,  pro- 
 hibit the  purchase  of  a  Hebrew  slave ;  they  merely  provide 
 that  the  service  of  such  should  be  more  lenient  than  that  of  a 
 stranger.  Even  a  foreigner  might  buy  a  Hebrew  slave,  but 
 always  with  liberty  of  redemption.^  A  gentile  slave  could  be 
 held  for  life-long  service. 
 
 Emancipation  in  the  seventh  year.  In  the  fiftieth  year. 
 
 And  if  thy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man,  And  if  thy  brother  that  dwelleth  by 
 
 or    a    Hebrew    woman,  be  sold  unto  thee  be  waxen  poor,  and  be  sold  unto 
 
 thee,  and  serve  thee  six  years;  then  in  thee.  ...  He  shall  be  with  thee,  ayid 
 
 the  seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  him  go  shall  serve  thee  unto  the  year  of  jubilee, 
 
 free  from  thee.    Deut.  xv.  12.  And  then  shall   he  depart  from  thee. 
 
 Lev.  xxv.  39, 40,  41. 
 
 That  is,  his  servitude  would  cease  at  the  end  of  the  six  years, 
 or  nt  the  end  of  the  jubilee-period,  whichever  was  nearest.  For 
 example,  a  man  sold  under  ordinary  circumstances  must  serve 
 six  full  years;  but  a  man  sold  in  the  forty-sixth,  would  go  out 
 in  the  fiftieth,  year  of  the  jubilee-period,  thus  serving  less  than 
 six  years'  time. 
 
 ^  Gen.  ix.  24.  '^  Deut.  xxiv.  7.  ''  Lev.  xxv.  47-54. 
 
304  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Maid-servant  emancipated.  Not  emancipated. 
 
 And  if  tliy  brother,  a  Hebrew  man,  And  if  a  man  sell  his  daughter  to  be 
 
 or  a  Hebrew  woman,  be  sold  unto  thee,  a  maid-servant,  she  shall  not  go  out  as 
 
 and  serve  thee  six  years;  then  in  the  the  men-servants  do.  .  .  .  And  if  he  do 
 
 seventh  year  thou  shalt  let  him  go  free  not  these  three  unto  her,  then  shall  she 
 
 from  thee.    Deut.  xv.  12.  go  out  free  without  money.    Ex.  xxi. 
 
 7, 11. 
 
 ]Michaelis  ^  and  Jahn  think  that  the  first  text  is  a  modification 
 of  the  original  law,  with  a  view  to  a  further  mitigation  of  the 
 evils  of  slavery.  Hengstenberg  ^  thinks  the  case  specified  in 
 Exodus,  was  an  exception  to  the  general  rule.  It  would  seldom 
 occm'  that  a  father  would  sell  his  daughter  into  servitude,  and 
 never  but  with  the  expectation  that  she  should  become  a  wife, 
 though  of  the  second  rank.  The  whole  matter  of  the  sale  was 
 arranged  with  this  object  in  view,  Nachmanides  ^  says  she  did 
 not  go  out  unconditionally  as  the  man-servant  did.  He  went 
 out  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  year,  without  let  or  hinderance.  She, 
 on  the  contrary,  might  be  espoused  by  her  master,  or  betrothed 
 to  his  son,  in  which  case  she  did  not  go  out  at  all,  except  for 
 ill-treatment  or  neglect.     Similarly  Keil  and  others. 
 
 Saalschiitz*  maintains  that  Deut.  xv.  refers  to  an  actual 
 maid-servant  whom  her  owner  sells  to  another,  and  who  gains, 
 by  this  transaction,  the  privilege  of  going  out  free  after  six 
 years'  service  with  the  second  master. 
 
 In  Ex.  xxi,  the  reference  is,  he  thinks,  to  one  who  has  pre- 
 viously been  free,  but  whom  her  father  sells  into  servitude  with 
 certain  stipulations  and  guarantees  as  to  her  future  position  and 
 rights  in  the  family. 
 
 Sons  sharing  estate. 
 
 ,    Equally.  Unequally. 
 
 Wherefore  she  said  unto  Abraham,  But  he  shall  acknowledge  the  son  of 
 Cast  out  this  bondwoman  and  her  son  :  the  hated /or  the  lirstborn,  by  giving 
 for  the  son  of  this  bondwoman  shall  him  a  double  portion  of  all  that  he 
 not  be  heir  with  my  son,  even  with  hath:  for  he  is  the  beginning  of  his 
 Isaac.     Gen.  xxi.  10.  strength;  the  right  of  the  tirst-born  i3 
 
 his.    Deut.  xxi.  17. 
 
 A  late  writer  says :  "  According  to  the  Deuteronomist  the 
 first-born  was  to  receive  a  double  portion ;  formerly  the  sons 
 
 '  Vol.  il.  p.  180.  -  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  361. 
 
 8  Conciliator,  i.  178.  *  See  in  Bib.  Sacra,  xix.  32-75. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  305 
 
 shared  alike."  He,  however,  gives  no  quotation  sustaining  the 
 latter  part  of  his  statement,  and  we  have  not  been  able  to  find 
 any  which  is  conclusive.  Even  Gen.  xxi.  10,  quoted  above, 
 does  not  seem  satisfactory. 
 
 Isaac  received  "  all "  of  his  father's  property,  with  the  excep- 
 tion of  some  "gifts"  to  his  half-brothers.^  Joseph  virtually 
 enjoyed  the  rights  of  primogeniture;  for  his  two  sons  were 
 reckoned  among  his  father's  heirs,  and  on  precisely  the  same 
 footing  with  them.^ 
 
 Stranger  f  — treatment. 
 
 Loved  as  a  brother.  Not  thus  loved. 
 
 But  the  stranger  that  dwelleth  with  Of  a  foreigner  thou  mayest  exact  it 
 you  shall  be  unto  you  as  one  bom  a^yain;  but  f^af  which  is  thine  with  thy 
 among  you,  and  thou  shalt  love  him  as  brother  thy  hand  shall  release.  Deut. 
 thyself;    for  ye  were  strangers  in  the    xv.  3. 
 
 land  of  Egypt.    Lev.  xix.  34.  Unto  a  stranger  thou  mayest  lend 
 
 upon  usury ;  but  unto  thy  brother  thou 
 Shalt  not  lend  upon  usury.  Deut.  xxiii. 
 20. 
 
 The  first  text  need  not  be  pressed  as  prescribing  that  abso- 
 lutely no  distinction  shall  be  made  between  a  foreigner  and  a 
 native-born  Israelite. 
 
 Or,  perhaps,  the  first  text  alludes  to  a  stranger  who  has 
 become  a  proselyte  ;  the  other  two  to  one  who  is  not  such. 
 
 Under  common  regulations.  Some  license  allowed. 
 
 One  law  shall  be  to  him  that  is  home-  Ye  shall  not  eat  of  any  thing  that 
 
 born,  and  unto  the  stranger  that  so-  dieth  of  itself:  thou  shalt  give  it  unto 
 
 joumeth  among  you.     Ex.  xii.  49.  the  stranger  that  is  in  thy  gates,  that 
 
 Ye  shall  therefore  keep  my  statutes  he  may  eat  it;  or  thou  mayest  sell  it 
 
 and  my  judgments,  and  shall  not  com-  unto   an   alien;  for  thou  art  an  holy 
 
 mit  a7iij  of  these  abominations;  neither  people  unto  the  Lord  thy  God.    Deut. 
 
 any  of  your  own  nation,  nor  any  stran-  xiv.  21. 
 ger  that  sojourneth  among  you.    Lev. 
 xviii.  26. 
 
 In  respect  to  matters  of  fundamental  importance,  foreign- 
 born  and  native  citizens  were  under  the  same  law. 
 
 In  matters  of  trivial  consequence  the  foreigner  was  left 
 more  at  liberty.  There  was  no  forcible  proselytism  under  the 
 Mosaic  law. 
 
 ^  Gen.  XXV.  5,  6. 
 
 2  Compare  Gen.  xlviii.  5;  Nnm.  i.  10;  1  Chron.  v.  1,  2;  Ezek.  xlvii.  13; 
 xlviii.  4,  5. 
 
306  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Usury  eocacted. 
 
 Of  no  poor  man.  Of  no  Hebrew. 
 
 Jf  thou  lend  money  to  an?/ o/'my  peo-  Thou  shalt  not  lend  upon  usury  to 
 pie  that  is  poor  by  thee,  thou  shalt  not  thy  brother;  usury  of  money,  usury  of 
 be  to  him  as  an  usurer,  neither  shalt  victuals,  usury  of  anything  that  is  lent 
 thou  lay  upon  him  usury.   Ex.  xxii.  25.    upon  usury.    Deut.  xxiii.  19. 
 
 Michaelis  ^  says  that,  "  in  process  of  time,  a  prohibition 
 became  necessary,  otherwise  no  poor  person  would  ever  have 
 got  any  loan."  Jahn  ^  thinks  that  a  difficulty  arose  in  deter- 
 mining who  was  to  be  considered  a  poor  person;  hence  it 
 became  necessary  to  extend  the  prohibition  to  all  Hebrews,  so 
 that  henceforth  interest  could  be  taken  only  of  foreigners. 
 
 Davidson^  concedes  the  wisdom  of  this  arrangement,  and 
 adds :  "  It  is  easy  to  see  that  this  would  limit  their  commerce 
 with  other  nations,  and  by  so  doing  preserve  their  religious 
 faith  from  contamination." 
 
 Wicked,  —  treatment. 
 
 Hated.  Loved. 
 
 Do  not  I  hate  them,  O  Lord,  that  But  love  ye  your  enemies,  and  do 
 
 hate  thee?  and  am  not  1  fjrieved  with  good.    Luke  vi.  35. 
 
 those  that  rise  up  against  thee?    I  hate  Bless    them    which    persecute   you: 
 
 them  with  perfect  hatred :  1  count  them  bless,  and  curse  not.   Rom.  xii.  14. 
 mine  enemies.    Ps.  cxxxix.  21,  22. 
 
 The  first  texts  are  simply  an  intense  Oriental  way  of  ex- 
 pressing David's  utter  abhorrence  of  the  vile  principles  and 
 conduct  of  the  wicked.  Viewed  simply  as  depraved  and  corrupt, 
 he  "  hated  "  them ;  viewed  as  human  beings,  he  loved  them, 
 and  desired  their  repentance  and  reformation. 
 
 Calvin :  "  Because,  devoted  to  the  cultivation  of  piety,  he 
 thoroughly  abhorred  all  impiety." 
 
 Justified  improperly.  Justified  properly. 
 
 He  that  justifieth  the  wicked,  and  he  But  to  him  that  worketh  not,  but 
 that  condemneth  the  just,  even  they  believeth  on  him  that  justifieth  the  un- 
 both  are  abomination  to  the  Lord,  godly,  iiis  faith  is  counted  for  righteous- 
 I'rov.  xvii.  15.  ness,    liom.  iv.  5. 
 
 He  that  saith  unto  the  wicked,  Thou 
 art  righteous;  him  shall  the  people 
 cur.«e.     I'rov.  xxiv.  24. 
 
 Woe  unto  them  that  call  evil  good, 
 and  good  evil.  Which  justify  the  wick- 
 ed for  reward.    Isa.  v.  20,  23. 
 
 1  Vol.  ii.  p.  338.  2  Bib.  ArchaeoL  Sec.  251. 
 
 » Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  845. 
 
ETHICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  307 
 
 In  the  first  instances,  the  term  "  justify  "  denotes  the  acquittal 
 of  the  wicked  through  bribes ;  helping  the  criminal  to  escape 
 his  just  deserts.  In  the  last  case,  the  term  implies  the  gracious 
 act  of  God  in  pardoning  the  sinner,  and  cleansing  him  from 
 guilt. 
 
 Witchcraft,  —  treatment. 
 
 Punished.  Contemned. 
 
 Thou  shalt  not  suffer  a  witch  to  live         But  refuse    profane  and  old  wives' 
 Ex.  xxii.  18.  fables,  and  exercise  thyself  ra/Aer  unto 
 
 A  man  also  or  a  woman  that  hath  a    godliness.    1  Tim.  iv.  7. 
 familiar  spirit,  or  that  is  a  wizard,  shall        Keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy 
 surely  be  put  to  death.    Lev.  xx.  27.         trust,  avoiding  profane  and  vain  bab- 
 blings.   1  Tim.  vi.  20. 
 
 A  critic  whom  we  have  quoted  often,  objects  to  the  Penta- 
 teuch, that  it  "  sanctioned  the  belief  in  witchcraft  by  enjoining 
 a  wizard  to  be  put  to  death ;  whereas  we  know  that  such  belief 
 was  superstition."     To  this  it  is  a  sufficient  reply, — 
 
 1.  Admitting  that  the  terms  "  witchcraft,"  "  wizard,"  and  the 
 like,  were  used  in  their  modern  signification,  as  implying  the 
 "  possession  of  supernatural  or  magical  power  by  compact  with 
 evil  spirits,"  it  would  follow,  upon  theocratic  principles,  that  he 
 who  so  much  as  pretends  to  exercise  this  power,  —  thereby  de- 
 ceiving the  people,  and  seducing  them  from  their  allegiance  to 
 God, —  would  be  worthy  of  death.  The  law  does  not  decide 
 as  to  the  validity  of  his  claims,  or  the  success  of  his  attempts ;  but 
 simply  says,  "  The  man  or  woman  who  assumes  to  exercise 
 witchci^aft  shall  be  put  to  death." 
 
 2.  But  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  foregoing  terms 
 do  not  bear,  in  the  Scriptures,  their  modern  meaning.  As  Sir 
 Walter  Scott  ^  observes  :  The  sorcery  or  witchcraft  of  the  Old 
 Testament  resolves  itself  into  a  traflficking  with  idols,  and  asking 
 counsel  of  false  deities  ;  or,  in  other  words,  into  idolatry.  This 
 opinion  is  entertained  by  many  other  writers ;  as,  for  example. 
 Dr.  Graves,^  Mr.  Denham,^  and  Mr.  R.  S.  Poole.*     The  latter 
 
 ^  "  Letters  on  Demonoloi^y  and  Witchcraft; "  Letter  2. 
 2  Lect.  on  Pent.  i.  190  (Second  edition). 
 2  Kitto,  ill.  1120  (Alexander's  edition). 
 *  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  Art.  "  MaKic." 
 
308  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 author  regards  it  as  a  distinctive  characteristic  of  the  Bible  that 
 from  first  to  last  it  warrants  no  trust  or  dread  of  charms  and 
 incantations  as  capable  of  producing  evil  consequences  when 
 used  against  a  man.  In  the  Psalms,  the  most  personal  of  all 
 the  books  of  Scripture,  there  is  no  prayer  to  be  protected  against 
 magical  influences.  The  believer  prays  to  be  delivered  from 
 every  kind  of  evil  that  could  hurt  the  body  or  soul,  but  he  says 
 nothing  of  the  machinations  of  sorcerers. 
 
 These  facts  go  to  prove  that  the  modern  notion  of  witchcraft, 
 which  the  above-named  critic  justly  characterizes  as  "  supersti- 
 tion," was  entirely  unknown  to  the  early  Hebrews.  Witchcraft 
 with  them  and  throughout  the  Scriptures,  was  a  species  of  idol- 
 atry.^ So  that  the  critic's  objection  above  quoted,  falls  pointless 
 to  the  ground. 
 
 Woman f  —  condition  and  rights. 
 
 Should  be  in  subjection.  •           May  bear  rule. 
 
 Thy  desire  shall  be  to  thy  husband,  And  Deborah,  a  prophetess,  the  wife 
 
 and  he  shall  rule  over  thee.   Gen.  iii.  16.  of  Lapidoth,  s]ie  judged  Israel  at  that 
 
 The  head  of  the  woman  is  the  man.  time.  .  .  .  And  the  children  of  Israel 
 
 1  Cor.  xi.  3.  came  up  to  her  for  judgment.     And 
 
 They  are  commanded  to  he  under  ohe-  JDtborah  said  unto  Barak,  Up,  for  this 
 
 dience,  as  also  saith  the  law.    1  Cor  is  the  day  in  which  the  Lord  hath  de- 
 
 xiv.  34.  livered  Sisera  into  thy  hand :  is  not  the 
 
 Wives,  submit  yourselves  unto  your  Lord  gone  out  before  thee  ?...  So  Barak 
 
 own  husbands,  as  unto  the  Lord.  .  .  .  went  down  from  mount  Tabor,  and  ten 
 
 Therefore  as  the  church  is  subject  unto  thousand  men  after  him.    Judges  iv. 
 
 Christ,  so  let  the  wives  be  to  their  own  4,  5,  14. 
 
 husbands  in  everything.  Eph.  v.  22.  24.  And  when  the  queen  of  Sheba  heard 
 
 For  after  this  manner  in  the  old  time  of  the  fame  of  Solomon   she  came  to 
 
 the  holy  women  also,  who  trusted  in  prove  Solomon  with  hard  questions  at 
 
 God,  adorned  themselves,  being  in  sub-  Jerusalem.    2  Chron.  ix.  1. 
 
 jection  unto  their  own  husbands.    Even  Candace  queen  of  the    Ethiopians, 
 
 as  Sarah  obeyed  Abraham,  calling  him  Acts.  viii.  27. 
 lord.    1  Bet.  iii.  5,  6. 
 
 The  cases  mentioned  in  Chronicles  and  Acts  are  related  as 
 mere  matters  of  history.  Besides,  the  queens  of  Sheba  and 
 Ethiopia  were  Gentile  rulers,  and  did  not  arise  under  the  The- 
 ocracy. 
 
 The  case  of  Deborah  is  clearly  an  exceptional  one ;  tending 
 therefore  to  confirm  the  general  rule.  Cassel  remarks :  "  That 
 she,  a  woman,  became  the  centre  of  the  people,  proves  the  re- 
 laxation of  spiritual  and  manly  energy."     Professor  Bush  has 
 
 1  See  Deut.  xviii.  10, 11;  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  5,  6;  Gal.  v.  20;  Rev.  xxi.  8. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 309 
 
 the  ingenious  suggestion  that  had  her  office,  at  the  time,  been 
 discharged  by  a  man,  the  circumstance  might  have  excited  king 
 Jabin's  suspicion,  and  led  to  increased  violence  and  oppression 
 on  his  part. 
 
 Must  Iceep  silence. 
 
 Let  your  women  keep  silence  iu  the 
 churches:  for  it  is  not  permitted  unto 
 t  Jiem  to  speak ;  but  they  are  commanded 
 to  be  under  obedience,  as  also  saith  the 
 law  And  if  they  will  learn  anything, 
 let  them  ask  their  husbapds  at  home: 
 for  it  is  a  shame  for  women  to  speak  in 
 the  church.    1  Cor.  xiv.  34,  35. 
 
 Let  the  woman  learn  in  silence  with 
 all  subjection.  Butl  suffer  not  a  woman 
 to  teach,  nor  to  usurp  authority  over 
 the  man,  but  to  be  in  silence.  1  Tim. 
 ii.  11, 12. 
 
 May  prophesy  and  teach. 
 
 Miriam  the  prophetess,  the  sister  of 
 Aaron.    Ex.  xv.  20. 
 
 And  Deborah,  a  prophetess,  the  wife 
 of  Lapidoth,  she  judged  Israel  at  that 
 time.    Judges  iv.  4. 
 
 Hilkiah  the  priest,  and  Ahikam  and 
 Achbor  and  Shaphan  and  Asahiah, 
 went  unto  Huldah  the  prophetess.  .  .  . 
 And  she  said  unto  them,  ihus  saith  the 
 Lord  God  of  Israel.  2  Kings  xxii. 
 14,  15. 
 
 And  there  was  one  Anna  a  prophet- 
 ess, .  .  .  which  departed  not  from  the 
 temple  •  .  .  And  she  coming  in  that 
 instant,  gave  thanks  likewise  unto  the 
 Lord,  and  spake  of  him  to  all  them  that 
 looked  for  redemption  in  Jerusalem. 
 Luke  ii.  36,  37,  38. 
 
 And  on  my  servants  and  on  my  hand- 
 maidens I  will  pour  out  in  those  days 
 of  my  .Spirit:  and  they  shall  prophesy. 
 Acts  ii.  18. 
 
 Whom,  when  Aquila  and  Priscilla 
 had  heard,  they  took  him  unto  them, 
 and  expounded  unto  him  the  way  of 
 God  more  perfectly.     Acts  xviii.  26. 
 
 And  the  same  man  had  four  daugh- 
 ters, virgins,  which  did  prophesy.  Acts 
 xxi.  9. 
 
 Salute  Tryphena  and  Tryphosa,  who 
 labor  in  the  Lord.  Salute  the  beloved 
 I'ersis,  which  labored  much  in  the 
 Lord.    Eom.  xvi.  12. 
 
 But  every  woman  that  prayeth  or 
 •  prophesieth  nith  her  head  uncovered 
 
 dishonoreth  her  head :  for  that  is  even 
 all  one  us  if  she  were  shaven.  1  Cor. 
 xi.  5. 
 
 Help  those  women  which  labored 
 with  me  in  the  gospel.    Thil.  iv.  3. 
 
 It  is  difficult  to  scan  carefully  the  texts  at  the  right  which 
 mention,  and  by  implication  commend,  female  prophets  and 
 teachers  ;  and  at  the  same  time  believe  that  the  texts  at  the  left 
 were  meant  to  overbalance  these,  and  to  prohibit,  everywhere 
 and  for  all  time,  woman's  speaking  upon  religious  topics,  in 
 promiscuous  assemblies,  or  in  public.  Yet  several  of  the  best 
 commentators,  Alford,  EUicott,  Wordsworth,  Neander,  Cony- 
 beare,  Schaff,  Meyer,  ^  and  Huther,  aiDparently  take  this  view 
 
 ^  This  author  in  his  last  edition,  concedes  that  the  prohibition  does  not 
 
310  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 of  the  case.  Still,  with  fitting  deference,  we  may  ask  whether 
 after  all  the  texts  from  Corinthians  and  Timothy  may  not  have 
 been  intended  for  a  local  and  specific,  rather  than  a  general, 
 application.  Was  there  not  something  in  the  situation  and  sur- 
 roundings of  those  to  whom  Paul  was  writing  which  warrants 
 this  supposition  ?  Many  circumstances  seems  to  favor  this  view. 
 We  find  that  sensuality  prevailed  in  the  city  of  Corinth  to  an 
 almost  unprecedented  extent.  Mr.  Conybeare  ^  speaks  of  the 
 "  peculiar  licentiousness  of  manners"  prevalent  there,  and  adds, 
 "  So  notorious  was  this,  that  it  had  actually  passed  into  the 
 vocabulary  of  the  Greek  tongue,  and  the  very  word  '  to  Corin- 
 thianize'  meant '  to  play  the  wanton' ;  nay  the  bad  reputation 
 of  the  city  had  become  proverbial,  even  in  foreign  languages, 
 and  is  immortalized  by  the  Latin  poets." 
 
 The  same  author,  enumerating  the  evils  which  prevailed  at 
 that  time  in  the  Corinthian  church,  says  that  "  women  had  for- 
 gotten the  modesty  of  their  sex,  and  came  forward  unveiled 
 (contrary  to  the  habit  of  their  country)  to  address  the  public 
 assembly."  It  would  seem,  then,  that  any  Corinthian  woman, 
 making  herself  conspicuous,  or  attempting  to  speak  in  public, 
 would  be  deemed  unchaste.  Does  not  this  fact  furnish  the  key 
 to  the  interpretation  of  the  texts  above  mentioned  ?  Does  Paul 
 in  these  texts,  counsel  anything  more  than  a  prudent  regard 
 to  the  customs  and  prejudices  of  the  people,  for  the  sake  of 
 avoiding  scandal^  And  might  not  similar  circumstances  in 
 Ephesus  where  Timothy  was,  have  prompted  the  like  counsel 
 to  him  ? 
 
 Neander  ^  thinks  that,  in  1  Cor.  xi.  Paul  merely  refers  for 
 example  to  what  was  going  on  in  the  Corinthian  church,  reserv- 
 ing his  denunciation  of  it,  to  the  proj^er  place  in  chapter  xiv. 
 
 apply  to  the  smaller  relii^ious  assemblies  of  the  church,  which,  he  thinks, 
 miirht  fall  under  the  head  of  "  churches  in  the  house/'  Ilaiisgemeinclen. 
 Compare  Rom.  xvi.  5;  1  Cor.  xvi.  19.     See  his  Com.  on  1  Cor.  xi.  4. 
 
 ^  Life  and  Epistles  of  St.  Paul,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  27,  31  (American  edition). 
 
 2  Plantiniz;  and  Training,  p.  1.50.  See  also  SchafF,  Hist,  of  Apostol. 
 Church,  508,  509. 
 
ETHICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  311 
 
 The  ancient  Montanists  held  that  the  former  passage  was 
 meant  to  be  an  exception  to  the  rule,  covering  those  cases  in 
 which  the  immediate  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit  raised  up 
 prophets  from  the  female  sex ;  also,  that  Paul  meant  to  restrain 
 females  from  didactic  addresses,  but  not  from  the  public  ex- 
 pression of  their  feelings.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke  thinks  that  the 
 apostle  merely  prohibits  a  woman's  questioning^  disputing,  etc., 
 as  men  were  allowed  to  do,  in  the  synagogues  and  public  assem- 
 blies. They  were  to  speak,  if  at  all,  in  a  modest  manner,  by  way 
 of  suggestion  rather  than  dictation.  Other  modern  writers  take 
 a  similar  view. 
 
 It  is  beyond  reasonable  question  that  the  history  of  mission- 
 ary enterprises,  as  well  as  of  revivals,  decidedly  negatives  any 
 such  rigid  and  absolute  interpretation  and  application  of  the 
 texts  in  the  first  series  as  shall  tend  to  cripple  the  energies  of 
 the  church  of  Christ. 
 
CHAPTER   III. 
 
 HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES. 
 I,    CONCEHNING  PERSONS. —Names,  etc. 
 
 We  have  elsewhere  ^  called  attention  to  the  close  resemblance 
 of  a  considerable  number  of  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet, 
 and  to  the  consequent  liability  of  confounding  them  with  each 
 other.  These  simple  facts  furnish  a  reasonable  explanation  of 
 many  "  discrepancies  "  with  reference  to  names.  The  following 
 examples  will  illustrate  the  point.  In  2  Sam.  xxiii.  27,  we 
 find  the  name  "  Mebunnai " ;  in  1  Chron.  xi.  29,  the  name 
 "  Sibbecai "  ;  both  referring  to  the  same  person.  Now  compare 
 these  names  in  the  Hebrew,  ^:^73  and  ''DSO,  and  there  is  not 
 the  least  doubt  that  the  variation  or  "  discrepancy  "  arose  through 
 a  copyist's  blunder.  So  "  Hemdan,"  Gen.  xxxvi.  26 ;  and 
 "  Amram,"  1  Chr.  i.  41,  stand  in  the  Hebrew  thus;  "jITSn  and 
 ■jn^n.  Also  "  Zabdi,"  Josh.  vii.  1,  and  "  Zimri,"  1  Chron.  ii. 
 G,  are  written  thus :  ^13T  and  ^n73T.  No  reasonable  man  can 
 look  at  cases  like  these  —  which  maybe  multiplied  to  an  indefi- 
 nite extent,  —  and  wonder  that  we  find  variations  among  the 
 proper  names  occurring  in  the  Bible. 
 
 Comparing  the  first  eight  chapters  of  1  Chronicles  with  cor- 
 responding passages  in  Genesis,  numerous  discrepancies,  like 
 the  following,  appear :  Hadad  for  Hadar,  n  confounded  with 
 n ;  Aliah  for  Alvah,  Ebal  for  Obal,  Hemam  for  Homam,  Pai 
 for  Pau,  Shephi  for  Shepho,  Zephi.  for  Zepho,  in  all  which 
 cases,  either  by  design  or  otherwise,  "^  is  substituted  for  1.  Else- 
 where we  find  "  Caleb"  and  "  Chelubai,"  the  consonants  bemg 
 
 1  See  pp.  19-25  of  present  work. 
 312 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  313 
 
 the  same  in  both  words ;  "  Bath-sheba"  aud  "  Bath-shua,"  a  being 
 exchanged  for  1 ;  '-Achar  "  and,  '' Achan,"  "n  being  interchanged 
 with  3  ;  "  Akan "  and  "  Jakan,"  ^  prefixed  in  the  latter  case ; 
 "  Bani "  and  "  Binnui,"  ")  inserted  in  the  second  form  of  the 
 name.  In  like  manner,  "  Huram  "  and  "  Hiram,"  "Araunah  " 
 and  "  Oman,"  "  Michaiah  "  and  "  Maachah,"  "Absalom  "  and 
 "Abishalom,"  "  Shealtiel "  and  "  Salathiel,"  ''Abijah  "  and  "  Abi- 
 jam"  are  mere  variations  of  names.  So  Gesenius  deems 
 '•  Uzziah "  a  popular  phonetic  corruption  of  " Azariah,"  zz  being 
 pronounced  for  zr. 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  ^  gives  a  list,  taken  chiefly  from  the  first  eleven 
 chapters  of  Chronicles,  comprising  some  one  hundred  and  four- 
 teen names  which  differ  from  the  corresponding  names  in  other 
 parts  of  Scripture.  These  "  variations  "  he  attributes  for  the 
 most  part  to  the  errors  of  transcribers. 
 
 Here  let  it  be  observed,  that  it  is  not  simply  easy  to  commit 
 these  errors,  but,  under  the  circumstances  above  described,  it  is 
 impossible^  except  upon  the  hypothesis  of  an  unintermitted  mir- 
 acle, to  avoid  committing  them.  No  human  skill  and  patience 
 can  preclude  occasional  slips  of  the  copyist's  pen  and  mistakes  of 
 his  eye.  Yet  we  regard  all  errors  like  those  illustrated  in  the 
 above  examples  as  of  very  trivial  consequence.  No  doctrine, 
 precept,  or  promise  of  the  Bible  is  affected  by  them  in  the 
 slightest  degree. 
 
 Another  point  to  be  noticed,  as  exemplifying  the  free  treat- 
 ment to  which  proper  names  were  subjected  among  the  Hebrews, 
 is  that  of  the  not  uncommon  transposition  of  letters.  Thus  we 
 have  "Amiel"  and  "  Eliam,"  "Jehoiachin"  and  "  Jeconiah  " 
 *'Ahaziah"  and  "Jehoahaz,"^  "  Harhas"  and  "  Hasrah."  In 
 each  of  these  cases  the  difference  arises  from  exchanging  the 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  108-112. 
 
 *  Kennicott  illustrates  this  case  thus,  ahaz-ihu 
 
 ihu-ahaz,  the  upper  word  represent- 
 ino;  the  name  "Ahaziah"  in  the  Hebrew,  the  lower  word  representini?  the 
 name  "  Jehoahaz,"  as  it  stands  in  the  original.  —  See  Kennieott's  Disser- 
 tations, ii.  489 ;  also,  passim. 
 27 
 
314  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 places  of  the  letters  or  elements  which  compose  the  name. 
 Analogous  cases  are  "  keseb  "  and  "  kebes,"  a  lamb ;  "  almug  " 
 and  "  algum,"  the  name  of  a  tree ;  "  Shamlai"  and  Shalmai,"  a 
 man's  name,  "  Timnath-serah  "  and  "  Timnath-heres,"  the  name 
 of  the  city  in  which  Joshua  was  buried. 
 
 We  have  in  another  place,  ^  alluded  to  the  Oriental  custom 
 of  applying  several  names  to  the  same  person  or  object.  This 
 custom  is  exemplified  by  several  of  the  cases  already  cited,  and 
 by  the  following  instances.  "  Esh-baal "  and  "  Ish-bosheth,"  are 
 two  names  of  the  same  person ;  the  former  name,  "  Baal's-man," 
 being  given  to  him  either  at  a  time  when  Baal- worship  was 
 fashionable  in  Israel,  or  else  when  the^  term  "  Baal "  conveyed 
 as  yet  no  obnoxious  meaning ;  the  latter  name,  "  man  of  shame," 
 being  applied  when  idolatry  was  at  a  discount.  Nearly  the 
 same  may  be  said  as  to  the  names  "  Merib-baal"  and  "  Mephi- 
 bosheth."  In  numerous  instances,  apparent "  discrepancies"  are 
 produced  by  the  change  of  a  person's  name  on  account  of  some 
 trait  of  character  which  he  has  developed,  or  of  some  change  in 
 his  condition  and  prospects. 
 
 The  fact,  also,  that  certain  names  bear  forms  different  in  the 
 Old  Testament  from  those  in  the  New  must  be  taken  into  the 
 account.  Thus  we  find  Boaz  and  Booz,  Uriah  and  Urias,  Eze- 
 kiel  and  Ezekias,  Isaiah  and  Esaias,  Rosea  and  Osee,  Asher 
 and  Aser,  Sharon  and  Saron,  Elisha  and  Eliseus,  Elijah  and 
 Elias,  Korah  and  Core,  Beor  and  Bosor,  Noah  and  Noe,  Hagar 
 and  Agar,  Hezekiah  and  Ezekias,  Jehoshaphat  and  Josaphat, 
 Rehoboam  and  Roboam,  Joshua  and  Jesus,  with  other  similar 
 cases.  ^  The  fact  that  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  forms  of  the 
 same  name  diverge  in  this  manner,  serves  to  explain  many 
 apparent  inconsistencies  in  sacred  history. 
 
 A  word  may  be  added  concerning  the  discrepancies  adduced 
 by  certain  critics  in  reference  to  the  derivation  of  names.  For 
 example,  they  assert  that,  in  Gen.  xxx.  16,  Issachar  receives 
 his  name  on  account  of  Leah's  bestowal  of  the  mandrakes ;  in 
 
 *  Comp.  pp.  17, 18  infra.        ^  See  Bissell's  Historic  Origin  ofBible,  p.  384. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  .    315 
 
 verse  18,  on  account  of  her  surrender  of  her  maid  to  Jacob. 
 
 But  it  should  he  noted  that  the  sacred  writer  merely  records 
 
 Leah's  sayings,  yet  makes  himself  in  no  degree  responsible  for 
 
 the  correctness  of  her  philology. 
 
 It  is,  however,  obvious  that  we  have  in  the  case  a  kind  of 
 
 "  play  upon  words."       Murphy  says,  "  She  calls  him  Issakar, 
 
 with  a  double  allusion.     She  had  hired  her  husband  with  the 
 
 mandrakes,  and  had  received  this  son  as  her  hire  for  giving  her 
 
 maid  to  her  husband." 
 
 Jacob's  name,  —  one  meaning.  Another  signification. 
 
 His  hand  took  hold  on  Esau's  heel;  Is  not  he  rightly  named  Jacob?  for 
 
 and  his  name  was  called  Jacob.    Gpn.  he  hatli  supplanted  me  those  two  times. 
 
 XXV.  26.  Gen.  xxvii.  36. 
 
 According  to  the  fii'st  passage,  the  name  *'  Jacob"  comes  from 
 "  aqab"  to  seize  the  heel,  and  denotes,  as  Ewald  says,  "  heel- 
 grasper."  According  to  Esau's  insinuation  in  the  second  text, 
 the  name  means  "  supplanter."  Now  the  truth  is,  that  the  word 
 "  aqab"  has  the  closely  connected  secondary  signification,  to  out- 
 wit, to  supplant ;  and  it  is  to  this  secondary  sense  that  Esau 
 alludes  above.  It  is  manifestly  unjust  to  hold  the  sacred  writer 
 responsible  for  Esau's  bitter  and  biting  pun.^ 
 
 Joseph's  name,  —  derivation.  A  different  derivation. 
 
 Gen.  XXX.  23.2  Gen.  xxx.  24." 
 
 According  to  the  first  text,  the  name  would  seem  to  be  derived 
 from  "asaph,"  to  take  away;  according  to  the  second,  from 
 "  yasaph,"  to  add.  The  apparent  incongruity  is  dissipated  by 
 Keil's  suggestion  that  Joseph's  birth  was  a  proof  that  God  had 
 removed  from  Rachel  the  reproach  of  barrenness ;  while  it  also 
 excited  the  wish  that  he  would  add  another  son.  The  '^  tak- 
 ing away  "  of  an  evil  induced  the  hope  that  a  good  would  be 
 "  added." 
 
 "  Moses  "  a  Hebrew  name.  An  Egyptian  name. 
 
 Ex.  ii.  10.  Ex.  ii.  10. 
 
 The  name  "Moses"  [Hebrew,  "Mosheh"]   appears  to  be 
 
 ^  Compare  a  similar  sarcastic  pun  upon  XabaTs  name,  1  Sam.  xxv.  25. 
 
 2  In  this  and  many  following  cases,  where  the  language  of  scripture  pre- 
 sents no  peculiarity,  we  have  for  brevity's  sake  given  simple  references 
 instead  of  quotations. 
 
316  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 derived  from  the  Hebrew  verb,  mashah,  to  draw  out.  It  is, 
 however,  objected  that  an  Egyptian  princess  would  not  have 
 bestowed  upon  her  foster-child  a  Hebrew  name ;  hence  "  Moses" 
 must,  notwithstanding  the  intimation  of  the  sacred  writer,  be  an 
 Egyptian  name. 
 
 Havernick,  Kurtz,  and  Dean  Stanley  regard  the  name  as  a 
 foreign  word  Hebraized.  The  Alexandrian  Jews,  with  Jose- 
 phus  and  Philo,  attributed  to  the  name  an  Egyptian  origin, 
 with  a  Greek  inflection. 
 
 But  Canon  Cook,  in  his  valuable  "  Essay  on  Egyptian  Words 
 in  the  Pentateuch,"  ^  points  out  the  existence  of  an  Egyptian 
 word  which  coincides  in  sound  and  in  sense,  with  the  Hebrew 
 verb  above  mentioned.  This  Egyptian  term  "  corresponds  in 
 form  to  the  Hebrew,  letter  for  letter,"  and  primarily  denotes 
 "  drawing  out."  One  of  the  most  famous  Egyptologists,  M. 
 Brugsch,  is  cited  to  the  effect  that  the  derivation  of  the  name 
 "  Moses"  from  the  Hebrew  "  mashah"  "  would  preserve  the  true 
 sense  of  the  Egyptian."  Hence,  Mr.  Cook  concludes  that  the 
 present  is  a  case  of  the  "  simple  transcription  of  words,"  —  that 
 the  sacred  writer  chose  the  Hebrew  term  because  "  it  came  ex- 
 ceedingly near  to,  or  exactly  represented,  the  Egyptian."  Thus 
 the  difficulty  vanishes. 
 
 Zehulun  denotes  a  "  dioelUng."  A  "  doiory." 
 
 Gen.  XXX.  20.  Gen.  xxx.  20. 
 
 The  name  "  Zebulun"  is  derived  from  zabal,"  to  dwell  ;^  with 
 
 a  play  upon,  or  allusion  to,  the  word  "  zabad,"  to  give,  to  endow. 
 
 The  historian,  in  recording  the  philological  conceits  of  others, 
 
 does  not  thereby  vouch  for  them. 
 
 Abigail's  father,  NahasJi.  Jesse. 
 
 2  Sam.  xvii.  25.  1  Chron.  ii.  13,  16. 
 
 The  rabbles  say  that  both  names  belonged  to  the  same  per- 
 son ;  Ewald  and  Keil,  that  Abigail's  mother  had  a  former  hus- 
 band, Nahash,  previous  to  her  marriage  with  Jesse. 
 
 '  See  Bible  Commentary,  i.  482-484  (American  edition). 
 ^  This  is  one  of  the  numerous  cases  in  which  the  old  maxim  applies; 
 nomen  habef  omen. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  317 
 
 AMjah's  mother,  daughter  of  Abishalom.  Of  Uriel. 
 
 1  Kings  XV.  2.  2  Chron.  xiii.  2. 
 
 Absalom's  daughter,  Tamar,  probably  married  Uriel,  and 
 became  the  mother  of  Maachah  or  IMichaiah.  This  agrees  with 
 Josephus'  statement.^  Hence,  in  the  first  text,  as  often  else- 
 where, "  daughter  "  denotes  "  granddaughter"  :  and,  in  the  tenth 
 verse,  the  "  mother  "  of  Asa  was,  strictly  speaking,  his  "  grand- 
 mother." 
 
 As  to  the  supposed  discrepancy  between  Abijah's  wicked 
 course  of  life,  1  Kings  xv.  3,  and  his  "  pious  "  remarks,  2  Chron. 
 xiii.  4-12,  it  may  be  said  simplythat  he  is  not  the  only  wicked 
 person  on  record  who  has  used  pious  language  when  it  would 
 serve  his  purpose. 
 
 Abraham's  difficulty  with  Pharaoh.  With  Abimelech. 
 
 Gen.  xii.  11-20.  Gen.  xx.  2-18. 
 
 We  have  elsewhere  ^  seen  that  distinct  events  may  bear  a 
 very  close  resemblance.  A  late  rationalist  concedes  that  "  in 
 those  rude  times,  such  a  circumstance  might  have  been  repeated," 
 and  that  the  "  dissimilarities "  of  the  two  cases  render  their 
 identity  doubtful.  In  king  Abimelech,  says  Keil,  we  meet  with 
 a  totally  different  character  from  that  of  Pharaoh.  We  see  in 
 the  former  a  heathen  imbued  with  a  moral  consciousness  of  right, 
 and  open  to  receive  divine  revelation,  of  which  there  is  not  the 
 slightest  trace  in  the  kmg  of  Egypt.  The  two  cases  were  evi- 
 dently quite  distinct. 
 
 In  the  first  instance,  Sarah  was  some  sixty-five  years  of  age ;  ^ 
 hence  it  has  been  thought  strange  that  she  was  spoken  of  as 
 "  very  fair."  But,  since  she  lived  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven 
 years,  she  was  now  in  only  middle  life.  She  had  escaped  the  hard- 
 ships of  maternity,  and  being  ''  a  noble  nomadic  princess,"  had 
 led  a  free  and  healthful  life.  In  contrast  to  the  swarthy,  ugly, 
 early-faded  Egyptian  women,  she  possessed  no  doubt  great 
 personal   attractions.     In  the  second  instance,  when  she  was 
 
 ^  Antiq.  viii.  10,  1.  ^  See  pp.  26,  27  of  present  work. 
 
 ^  Compare  Gen.  xii.  4;  xvii.  17. 
 27 
 
318  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 some  ninety  years  of   age,  nothing  is  said  as  to  her  beauty. 
 
 Abimelecli  was  influenced,  not  by  Sarah's  personal  charms,  but 
 
 simply  by  a  desire  to  "ally  himself  with  Abraham,  the  rich 
 
 nomad  prince."^ 
 
 The  quite  similar  case  of  Isaac,  Gen.  xxvi.  6-11,  has  been 
 
 supposed  to  be  a  varying  account  of  the  one  original  transaction. 
 
 But  the  name  "  Abimelecli,"  common  to  the  two  cases,  proves 
 
 nothing ;  for,  as  Keil  remarks,  it  was  "  the  standing  official  name 
 
 of  the  kings  of  Gerar."  ^ 
 
 Abraham's  inheritance  secured.  Not  possessed  by  him. 
 
 Gen.  xiii.  15:  xv.  18.  Acts  vii.  5. 
 
 The  explanatory  phrase,  "  Unto  thy  seed  have  I  given  this 
 
 land,"  shows  that  the  gift  was  not  to  Abraham  personally,  but 
 
 to  him  as  the  founder  and  representative  of  the  nation.     The 
 
 land  was  given  to  him,  as  we  may  say,  "  in  trust." 
 
 Abraham's  need  of  divine  intervention.        No  occasion  for  a  miracle. 
 
 Then  Abraham  fell  upon  his    face,        Then   apain  Abraham  took  a  wife, 
 
 and  lausrhed,   and  said  in  his    heart,  and  her  name  ?cas  l\eturah.    And  she 
 
 Shall  a  c/?i/rf  be  born  unto  him  that  is  a  bare  him   Zimran,  and  Jokshan,  and 
 
 hundred  years  old?     Gen.  xvii.  17.  Medan,  and  Midian,  and  Isbbak,  and 
 
 Therefore  sprang  there  even   of  one,  Shuah.    Gen.  xxv.  1,  2. 
 and  him  as  pood  as  dead,  .so  many  as 
 the  stars  of  the  sky  in  multitude.  Heb. 
 xi.  12. 
 
 It  is  perfectly  in  keeping  with  Oriental  methods  of  writing 
 history  to  suppose  that  the  words  "then  again,"  in  the  second 
 passage,  resume  the  narrative  after  a  digression,  and  carry  us 
 back  into  the  life-time  of  Sarah.  It  would  then  follow  that 
 Keturah's  children  were  born  to  Abraham  before  the  disability 
 of  old  age  overtook  him.  Or,  we  may  say  that  the  miraculous 
 quickening  of  his  virile  powers,  by  which  he  was  enabled  to  be- 
 come the  father  of  Isaac,  was  continued  for  some  years  after. 
 
 Abraham  weak,  and  in  fear.  Possessed  a  larr/e  force. 
 
 ^         Gen.  XX.  11.  Gen.  xiv.  14. 
 
 Colenso  asserts  that  Abraham,  with  his  "  immense  band  of 
 trained  servants,  having  routed  the  combined  forces  of  Eastern 
 kings,  could  not  have  feared  the  petty  prince  of  Gerar."     But 
 
 *  So  Delitzsch.  ^  See  Ps.  xxxiv,  title. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  319 
 
 (1)  three-hundred  and  eighteen  servants  are  hardly  an  '"  un- 
 
 mense  baud."     Abimelech's  army  may  have  been  twenty  times 
 
 larger.     (2)  Abraham  had  not  alone  routed  the  combined  forces 
 
 of  the  kings.     His  "  confederates,"  Aner,  Eshcol,  and  Mamre,^ 
 
 may  have  contributed  much  the  larger  portion  of  the  victorious 
 
 army.      So  that,  humanly  speaking,  he  may  have  had  great 
 
 reason  to  fear  Abimelech. 
 
 Ahaz  favored  divine  worship.  Closed  the  temple. 
 
 2  Kings  xvi.  15.  2  Chron.  xxviii.  24. 
 
 The  text  from  Chronicles  refers  to  the  latter  part  of  his  reign, 
 
 when  he  had  reached  the  lowest  depths  of  ungodliness.     At  an 
 
 earlier  period,  he  had  indeed  encouraged  a  corrupt   form  of 
 
 worship.^ 
 
 Ahaz  invincible.  Compelled  to  seek  aid. 
 
 2  Kings  xvi.  5.  2  Kings  xvi.  7;  2  Chron.  xxviii.  5, 16, 20. 
 
 The  first  passage  refers  to  an  early  unsuccessful  expedition  of 
 the  allied  kings  against  Ahaz.  Later  they  overcame  him.  In 
 this  strait,  the  king  of  Assyria  helped  Ahaz,  yet  helped  him 
 not.^  That  is,  this  warlike  monarch,  at  the  request  of  Ahaz, 
 attacked  and  conquered  Rezin,  one  of  the  allies,  thus  affording 
 temporary  relief ;  but  by  his  subsequent  exactions  and  restric- 
 tions he  really  distressed  and  weakened  Ahaz.  For  the  latter 
 was  compelled  to  become  tributary  to  him,  to  send  him  all  the 
 treasures  of  the  temple  and  palace,  and  finally  to  appear  before 
 him  in  Damascus  as  a  vassal. 
 
 Ahaziah's  brethren  slain.  Their  sons  slain. 
 
 2  Kings  X.  13,  14.  2  Chron.  xxii.  8. 
 
 Bahr,  Movers,  and  Ewald  say  that  the  word  rendered  "  breth- 
 ren "  may  sometimes  imply  near  relatives  simply.  We  thus  see 
 how  Ahaziah,  the  "  youngest  son,"  and  born  when  his  father 
 was  but    eighteen    years  of   age,*  could   have   had   forty-two 
 
 ^  See  Gen.  xiv.  13,  24. 
 
 2  Compare  2  Kings  xvi,  10-16. 
 
 3  2  Kings  xvi.  9 ;  2  Chron»  xxviii.  20,  21. 
 
 *  Compare  2  Kings  viii.  17,  26;  x.  14;  2  Chron.  xxii.  1. 
 
320  DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 "  brethren."     His   nephews  and  cousins  were  all  reckoned  in 
 
 the  number.     In  the  second  text,  the  term  may  be  used  in  the 
 
 strict  sense,  of  his  own  brothers. 
 
 Ahaziah's  grandfather,  Omri.  Ahah. 
 
 2  Kings  viii.  26.  2  Kings  viii.  18. 
 
 "  Daughter,"  in  the  first  text,  means  simply  "  female  descend- 
 ant." In  the  twenty-seventh  verse,  Ahaziah  is  styled  "  the  son- 
 in-law  of  the  house  of  Ahab." 
 
 Ahimelech,  high-priest.  Ahiah.  Abiathar. 
 
 ISam.  xxi.  1.  1  Sam.  xiv.  3.  Mark  ii.  26. 
 
 Probably,  Ahimelech,  Abimelech,^  and  Ahiah  were  names  of 
 the  same  person.  As  to  2  Sam.  viii.  17,  which  makes  Ahime- 
 lech the  son  of  Abiathar,  instead  of  the  reverse,  as  elsewhere, 
 Bertheau,  Oehler,  and  Keil  think  the  line  ran  thus ;  Ahimelech, 
 Abiathar,  Ahimelech,  so  that  Abiathar  was  the  son  of  Ahime- 
 lech, while  Ahimelech  (the  second)  was  the  son  of  Abiathar. 
 The  expression  in  Mark,  "  in  the  days  of  Abiathar  the  priest," 
 may  denote  merely  that  Abiathar  was  acting  as  his  father's 
 sagan  or  substitute.^  Or,  smce  Abiathar  was,  from  his  long 
 association  with  king  David,  much  more  famous  than  his  father, 
 his  name,  although  he  was  not  as  yet  high-priest,  may  be  used 
 here  by  a  kind  of  historical  anticipation. 
 
 Amasa's  father,  Ithra  an  Israelite.  J  ether  an  Ishmaelite. 
 
 2  Sam.  xvii.  25.  1  Chron.  ii.  17. 
 
 The  rabbies  say  that  Jether  or  Jithra  was  an  Ishmaelite  by 
 birth,  who  became  an  Israelite.  So  Ewald,  who  adds  that  "Je- 
 ther "  is  a  shorter  form  for  "  Ithra."  An  examination  of  the 
 two  passages  in  the  original  makes  it  evident  that  the  variation 
 is  due  to  a  copyist's  mistake. 
 
 Ammonites'  allies.  Another  statement. 
 
 The  Syrian  j  of  Beth-rehob,  and  the  Chariots  and  horsemen  out  of  Meso- 
 
 Syrians  cf  Zoba,  twenty  thousand  foot-  potamia,  and  out  of  Syria-maachah,  and 
 
 men,  and  of  kin^  Maacah  a  thousand  outofZobah.    So  they  hired  thirty  and 
 
 men,  and   of  ls)i-tob  twelve  thousand  two  thousand  cliariots,  and  the  kinp  of 
 
 men.    2  Sam.  x.  6.  Maachah  and  his  people.  1  Chrou.  xix. 
 
 6,7. 
 
 *  1  Chron.  xviii.  16.    Ewald,  "  simply  a  transcriber's  error." 
 
 *  See  Lightfoot,  Horae  Hebraicae,  on  Luke  iii.  2  (Carpzov's  edition). 
 
HISTOEICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  321 
 
 Beth-reliob  was  one  of  the  little  kingdoms  of  Mesopotamia, 
 as  also  were  Maacah,  Zobah,  and  Tob  petty  monarchies  of  Syria. 
 ("  Ish-tob,"  translated  is  "  men  of  Tob.") 
 
 Thus,  the  names  and  numbers  agree  as  follows : 
 
 Syrians  of  Beth-rehob  and  Zoba,    20,000     Syrians  of  Zobah,  etc.  82,000 
 Syrians  of  Ish-tob,  12,000    Syrians  of  Maachah, 
 
 Syrians  of  Maacah,  1,000    (number  not  given),      [1,000] 
 
 33,000  33,000 
 
 But  one  passage  names  "footmen,"  the  other  "chariots." 
 Keil  speaks  of  copyist's  errors,  and  Rawlinson  thmks  that  in 
 the  seventh  verse,  at  the  right,  the  words  "  and  horsemen  "  have 
 dropped  out  after  "  chariots."  Dr.  Davidson  ^  cites  approvingly 
 Brown  of  Haddington's  explanation,  that  the  Hebrew  term  ren- 
 dered "  chariots,"  denotes  not  only  a  chariot,  but  a  rider,  and 
 should  probably  be  translated,  in  a  collective  sense,  cavalry.  It 
 is  suggested  that  these  troops  were  a  kind  of  auxiliaries,  com- 
 monly employed  in  fighting  on  horse-back  or  in  chariots,  but 
 sometimes  as  foot-soldiers. 
 
 Anah,  a  Hittite.  Horite.  Eivite. 
 
 Gen.  xxvi.  34.^  Gen.  xxxvi.  20.  Gen.  xxxvi.  2. 
 
 Lange  thinks  that  the  term  "  Hittite  "  defines  the  race,  "  Hi- 
 vite  "  the  tribe,  and  "  Horite  "  ("  cave-dweller  ")  the  habitation 
 of  Anah.  There  were  at  least  two  Anahs,  the  brother  and 
 the  son,  of  Zibeon.^ 
 
 Or,  since  the  three  names  differ  in  the  Hebrew  by  one  let- 
 ter only,  we  may  with  Michaelis  and  Bertheau  ascribe  the  dis- 
 agreement to  an  error  of  transcription. 
 
 Anak's  sons  were  slain.  They  were  expelled. 
 
 And  Judah  wont  ajrainst  the  Canaan-       And  Caleb  drove  thence  the  three 
 ites  that  dwelt  in  Hebron:  (now  the    sons  of  Anak,  iSheshai,  and  Ahiman, 
 name  of  Hebron  before  was    Kirjath-    and  Talmai.    Josh.  xv.  14. 
 arba:)  and  they  slew  Sheshai,  and  Ahi-        And  they  grave  Hebron  unto  Caleb, 
 man,  and  Talmai.    Judg.  i.  10.  as  Moses  said:  and  he  expelled  thence 
 
 the  three  sons  of  Anak.    Judg.  i.  20. 
 
 De  Wette  *  strangely  asserts  that  the  children  of  Judah  "  slew 
 
 ^  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  552.  ^  Beeri  =  Anah. 
 
 »  Compare  Gen.  xxxvi.  20  and  24.  ••  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  11.  174. 
 
322  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  same  three  Anahim  —  Sbeshai,  Aliiman,  and  Talmai  —  whom 
 Caleb  had  killed  before."     To  this  we  reply : 
 
 1.  If  the  three  passages  refer  to  the  same  event,  that  which 
 in  the  first  is  attributed  to  the  men  of  Judah,  is,  by  a  common 
 figure,  ascribed  in  the  other  two  to  Caleb,  as  leader  of  the  ex- 
 pedition. JMoreover,  the  verb  '*  yarash  "  employed,  in  the  texts 
 at  the  right,  means,  not  only  to  drive  out^  to  expel,  but  also  ac- 
 cording to  Fuerst  and  Gesenius,  to  destroy}  Thus  the  discrep- 
 ancy vanishes.  Caleb  expelled  the  three  Anakim  from  Hebron, 
 and  from  among  the  living. 
 
 2.  Or,  with  Konig  and  otliers,  we  may  refer  the  contrasted 
 texts  to  two  different  events.  On  this  hypothesis,  the  first 
 chapter  of  Judges  does  not  follow  the  strict  chronological  order 
 (verses  11-15,  20,  being  cited  almost  verbatim  from  Joshua 
 XV.  13-19,  and  referring,  of  course,  to  the  same  point  of  time). 
 So  that  the  sequence  of  events  is  as  follows :  Joshua  conquers 
 Hebron,  and  slaughters  or  puts  to  flight  the  Anakim  who  dwell 
 there.^  But  while  he  is  occupied  elsewhere,  the  remnant  of 
 them  return  from  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  regain  possession 
 of  Hebron,  and  inhabit  it.  Hence,  several  years  later,  when  this 
 city  was  assigned  to  Caleb,  he  had  first  to  dislodge  the  Anakim, 
 the  three  leaders  of  whom  were  slain  in  their  flight,  or  in  some 
 subsequent  conflict,  by  Caleb's  adherents. 
 
 Apostles  named.  Second  list.  Third  list.  Fourth  list. 
 
 Matt.  X.  2-4.        Mark  iii.  16-19.        Luke  vi.  13-16.        Acts  i.  13. 
 
 The  names,  though  arranged  differently,  agree  except  in  two 
 instances.  It  is  maintained  by  the  best  critics,  Alford,^  Meyer, 
 Robinson,  Ebrard,  Gardiner,  and  others,  that  Lebbeus,  Thad- 
 deus,  and  Judas  the  brother  of  James,  were  one  and  the  same 
 person.  Simon  Zelotes  and  Simon  the  Canaanite  were  identi- 
 cal ;  '^  Zelotes  "  being  the  Greek  form  of  the  Hebrew  term  ren- 
 dered "  Canaanite."      As    the  name  "  Bartholomew  "  (son  of 
 
 ^  Num.  xiv.  12  is  cited  as  an  example.  ^  Josh.  xi.  21,  22. 
 
 ^  See  his  Commentary  on  Matt.  x.  2-4. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  323 
 
 Talmai)  is  merely  a  patronymic,  its  bearer  is  generally  believed 
 
 to  have  been  the  same  with  "  Nathanael,"  John  i.  45. 
 
 Asa's  mother,  Maachah.  His  grandmother. 
 
 2  Chron.  xv.  16.  1  Kings  xv.  2,  8, 10. 
 
 In  ancient  Persia,  the  king  sometimes  for  political  reasons 
 
 adopted  a  mother.     When  Cyrus  conquered  Astyages,  he,  in 
 
 order  to   conciliate  a  certain  portion  of    the  people,    adojjted 
 
 Amytis,  or  Mandane  as  his  mother.     Mr.  Newman  ^  ingeniously 
 
 suggests  that  Asa  adopted,  in  like  manner,  the  mother  of  the 
 
 deceased  king ;  hence  she  became  queen-mother  of  the  realm, 
 
 though  afterwards  deposed  on  account  of  her  idolatry.^ 
 
 Asa  removed  the  high-places.  Left  them  undisturbed. 
 
 2  Chron.  xiv.  3,  5.  1  Kings  xv.  14. 
 
 Bahr,  Tbenius,  Bertheau,  and  others  say  that  the  high  places 
 dedicated  to  idols  were  destroyed ;  while  those  dedicated  to  Je- 
 hovah were  allowed  to  remain,  since  his  true  servants,  having 
 been  long  accustomed  to  thjem,^  might  have  been  grieved  by 
 their  removal.  Keil  thinks  that  the  second  text  merely  implies 
 that  the  king  did  not  succeed  in  carrying  out  thoroughly  his 
 reforms.  Rawlinson  suggests  that  the  above  texts  refer  to 
 different  times ;  Asa,  in  the  early  part  of  his  reign,  putting 
 down  idolatry  with  a  strong  hand,  but  in  his  later  years,  when 
 his  character  had  deteriorated,^  allowing  idol-worship  to  creep 
 in  again. 
 
 Bedan,  a  judge  of  Israel.  His  name  not  mentioned. 
 
 1  Sam.  xii.  11.  Judges  vii.-xii. 
 
 Cassel  and  Davidson,  with  the  Chaldee  and  the  rabbies,  refer 
 "Bedan"  to  Samson, —  Bedan  being  equivalent  to  Ben-Dan, 
 a  Danite.     Ewald  deems  the  name  a  corruption  of  Abdon. 
 
 But  Keil  and  Kennicott,  with  the  Septuagint,  Syriac,  and 
 Arabic,  take  it  as  a  copyist's  blunder,  for  Barak,  "jnn  for  pli. 
 
 Caleb's  father,  Jephunneh.  Hur.  Hezron. 
 
 Josh.  xiv.  6.  1  Chron.  ii.  50.        1  Chron.  ii.  18. 
 
 ^  Hist,  of  Hcb.  Monarchy,  p.  150,  151.  ^  i  Kings  xv.  13. 
 
 3 1  Kings  iii.  2,  3.  "  See  2  Chron.  xvi.  7-12. 
 
324  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 There  were,  as  Ewald,  Keil,  and  others  think,  two  or  three 
 men  who  bore  the  name  of  Caleb.  Besides,  the  term  "  son," 
 in  some  of  the  above  texts,  may  mean  simply  "  descendant." 
 
 As  to  the  disagreement  of  1  Chron.  ii.  19  and  50,  respecting 
 Caleb's  relation  to  Ephrath  and  to  Hur,  Rawlinson  and  Ber- 
 theau  place  a  period  after  ''  Caleb  "  in  the  fiftieth  verse,  and 
 read  thus  :  "  These  (referring  to  the  preceding)  were  the  sons 
 of  Caleb.  The  sons  of  Hur,  the  first-born  of  Ephratah,  were 
 Shobal,"  etc.     This  relieves  the  entire  difficulty. 
 
 Canaanites  were  destroyed.  Were  merely  subsidized. 
 
 Josh.  X.  40;  xi.  14, 15.  Judg.  i.  28,  30,  33,  35. 
 
 It  is  to  be  npted  that  the  texts  at  the  left  are  couched  in 
 general  terms,  and  refer  particularly  to  the  southern  part  of 
 Palestine. 
 
 Masius  ^  maintains  that  Joshua  swept  over  this  region  in  too 
 rapid  a  manner  to  depopulate  it  entirely.  All  that  he  needed 
 was  to  strike  such  terror  into  the  hearts  of  his  enemies  that  they 
 would  no  longer  make  a  stand  against  him.  All  whom  he 
 pursued,  he  destroyed ;  but  he  did  not  stop  to  search  into  every 
 possible  hiding  place.  This  was  left  to  be  done  by  each  tribe, 
 in  its  own  inheritance. 
 
 Canaanites  spared,  to  prove  Israel.  To  teach  Israel  war. 
 
 Judg.  ii.  22;  iii.  4.  Judg.  iii.  2. 
 
 They  were  spared  for  a  two-fold  reason;  one  part  being 
 brought  out  in  the  two  former  texts,  the  other  in  the  latter  text. 
 Israel  was  put  to  the  proof  by  the  opportunity  of  learning  to 
 wage  war  rightly  against  the  enemies  of  God  and  his  kingdom. 
 
 Christ  bore  his  own  cross.  It  was  borne  by  Simon. 
 
 John  xix.  17.  Luke  xxiii.  26. 
 
 Jesus  may  have  borne  the  cross   himself,  until   his  failing 
 
 strength  caused  a  transference  of  the  burden  to  Simon,  whom 
 
 Meyer  takes  to  have  been  a  slave,  selected  on  account  of  the 
 
 indignity  of  the  required  service.     P^'rom  Luke,  Ebrard  infers 
 
 ^  See  in  Keil  on  Josh.  x.  40. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  325 
 
 that  Simon  did  not  bear  the  cross  alone,  but  merely  went  behind 
 
 Jesus,  and  aided  him  in  carrying  it. 
 
 Christ's  last  drink  of  one  kind.  Of  a  different  kind. 
 
 They  gave    him    vinegar    to    drink,  And  they  gave  him  to  drink,  wino 
 
 mingled  with  gall:  and  when  he  had  mingled  with  myrrh:  but  he  received 
 
 tasted   thereof,   he   would    not    drink,  it  not.    Mark  xv.  23. 
 Matt,  xxvii.  34. 
 
 From  a  comparison  of  Matt,  xxvii.  34  and  48,  it  is  clear 
 that  drink  was  twice  offered  to  Jesus  while  on  the  cross.  The 
 fii^st  time,  the  wine  drugged  with  bitter  narcotics.,  the  effect  of 
 which  would  be  to  stupefy  him,  he  did  not  receive.  Afterward, 
 some  drink  free  from  drugs  was  given  him,  which  he  accepted.^ 
 
 The  word  rendered  "  vinegar  "  means,  according  to  Grotius, 
 Robinson,  Davidson,^  and  others,  simply  poor  or  cheap  wine, 
 such  as  was  used  by  the  poorer  class.  The  word  translated 
 "  gall  "  denotes,  secondarily,  anything  bitter,  —  wormwood, 
 poppy,  myrrh,  and  the  like.^ 
 
 Christ's  genealogy,  —  one  form.  A  diverse  form. 
 
 And  Jacob  begat  Joseph  the  husband  And  Jesus  himself  began  to  be  about 
 of  Mary,  of  whom  was  born  Jesus,  who  thirty  years  of  age,  being  (as  was  sup- 
 is  called  Christ.    Matt.  i.  16.  posed)  the  son  of  Joseph,  which  was 
 
 the  son  of  Hell-    Luke  iii.  23. 
 
 There  are  two  principal  theories  respecting  these  genealogies. 
 
 1.  That  held  by  Alford,  Ellicott,  Hervey,  Meyer,  Mill, 
 Patritius,  Wordsworth,  and  others  —  that  both  genealogies  are 
 Joseph's  ;  Matthew  exhibiting  him  as  the  legal  heir  to  the  throne 
 of  David,  that  is,  naming  the  successive  heirs  of  the  kingdom 
 from  David  to  Jesus  the  reputed  son  of  Joseph;  while  Luke  gives 
 Joseph's  private  genealogy  or  actual  descent.  This  theory  is  very 
 ingeniously  and  elaborately  set  forth  in  Lord  Arthur  Herveys 
 work  *  upon  the  subject,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred. 
 
 2.  That  held  by  Auberlen,  Ebrard,  Greswell,  Kurtz,  Lange, 
 
 1  See  John  xix.  29,  30. 
 
 2  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  561. 
 
 ^  In  the  Septuagint  it  stands  for  wormwood,  Prov.  v.  4 ;  for  poppy,  Deut. 
 xxix.  18. 
 
 *  "  The  Genealogies  of  our  Lord,"  London,  1853.  See  on  the  other  side, 
 Mr.  Holmes  in  Kitto,  ii.  92-102  (last  edition).  Also,  Ebrard,  "  The  Gospel 
 History,"  pp.  149-163. 
 
 28 
 
326  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Lightfoot,  INIichaelis,  Neander,  Robinson,  Surenhusius,  Wieseler, 
 and  others  —  that  Matthew  gives  Joseph's,  and  Luke,  Mary's, 
 genealogy.  Although  the  alleged  discrepancies  may  be  re- 
 moved upon  either  hypothesis,  yet  we  must  give  the  preference 
 to  the  second,  for  the  following  reasons. 
 
 (1)  The  latter  theory  seems  supported  by  several  early 
 Christian  writers,  —  Origen,  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Athanasius, 
 and  Justin  Martyr.' 
 
 (2)  It  is  indirectly  confirmed  by  Jewish  tradition.  Light- 
 foot  ^  cites  from  the  Talmudic  writers  concerning  the  pains  of 
 hell,  the  statement  that  Mary  the  daughter  of  Heli  was  seen  in 
 the  infernal  regions,  suffering  horrid  tortures.^  This  statement 
 illustrates,  not  only  the  bitter  animosity  of  the  Jews  toward 
 the  Christian  religion,  but  also  the  fact  that,  according  to 
 received  Jewish  tradition,  Mary  was  the  daughter  of  Heli ; 
 hence,  that  it  is  her  genealogy  which  we  find  in  Luke. 
 
 (3)  This  theory  shows  us  in  what  way  Christ  was  the  "  Son 
 of  David."  If  Mary  was  the  daughter  of  Heli,  then  Jesus  was 
 strictly  a  descendant  of  David,  not  only  legally,  through  his 
 reputed  father,  but  actually,  by  direct  personal  descent,  through 
 his  mother.  The  latter  consideration  is  one  of  the  very  first 
 interest  and  importance. 
 
 (4)  This  theory  affords  a  very  simple  explanation  of  the 
 whole  matter.  Mary,  since  she  had  no  brothers,  was  an 
 heiress  ;  therefore  her  husband,  according  to  Jewish  law,  was 
 reckoned  among  her  father's  family,  as  his  son.  So  that  Joseph 
 was  the  actual  son  of  Jacob,  and  the  legal  son  of  Heli.  In  a 
 word,  Matthew  sets  forth  Jesus'  right  to  the  theocratic  crown  ; 
 Luke,  his  natural  pedigree.  The  latter  employs  Joseph's 
 name,  instead  of  Mary's,  in  accordance  with  the  Israelite  law 
 that  "  genealogies  must  be  reckoned  by  fathers,  not  mothers." 
 For  the  remaining  difficulties  of  the  case,  see  discussion  else- 
 where. 
 
 1  See  Kitto,  ii.  92-94,  547.  ^  Horae  Hebraicae  on  Luke  iii.  23. 
 
 ^  "  Suspensam  per  glandulas  mammai-um,"  etc. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  327 
 
 Christ's  last  tour,  —  one  account.  A  different  statement. 
 
 Matt.  xix.  1 ;  xx.  17,  29;  xxi.  1.  John  x.  40;  xi.  17,  54;  xii.  1. 
 
 •  These  two  series  of  texts  seem  to  represent  Jesus'  journey ings 
 somewhat  differently.  But,  as  Ebrard/  Robinson,^  Gardiner,^ 
 and  others  have  shown,  they  refer  to  different  points  of  time. 
 "When  Jesus  took  his  final  departure  from  Galilee,  he  went  up 
 to  Jerusalem,  where  he  attended  the  feasts  of  tabernacles  and 
 of  dedication ;  then  withdrew  to  Perea  beyond  Jordan.  Thence 
 he  went  to  Bethany,  where  he  raised  Lazarus,  and  to  Jeru- 
 salem, whence- he  retired  to  "  Ephraim,"  where  he  tarried  a 
 little,*  and  taught.  Thence  he  returned  toward  Jerusalem,  by 
 the  way  of  Jericho,  where  he  healed  the  blind  men  and  visited 
 Zaccheus,  and  arrived  at  Bethany  six  days  previous  to  his  final 
 passover.  Some  of  the  above  texts  refer  to  one  portion, 
 others,  to  another  portion,  of  these  journeys. 
 
 Christ's  miracles  were  concealed.  Were  promulgated. 
 
 Matt.  ix.  30;  Mark  v.  43.  Mark  v.  19;  Luke  vii.  22. 
 
 These  two  series  of  texts  refer  to  quite  different  circum- 
 stances. Wherever  a  report  of  the  signs  and  wonders  wrought 
 by  Chi'ist  was  likely  to  be  conveyed  without  a  right  conception 
 of  his  person  and  doctrine,  there  he  suffered  not  the  report  to 
 be  carried.^  It  was  fitting  that  the  fears  of  the  Gadarenes 
 should  be  allayed  by  knowledge  of  the  "  great  things  "  which 
 the  Lord  had  done  for  the  poor  demoniac.  In  Galilee  and 
 Judea  there  was,  on  the  other  hand,  very  great  danger,  says 
 Ebrard,  of  confirming  the  people  in  their  carnal  expectations 
 of  the  Messiah,  and  even  of  producing  disorder. 
 
 Christ's  resurrection,  —  certain  narratives.  Different  account  of  it. 
 
 Matt,  xxviii.  1-10;  Mark  xvi.  1-14.        Luke  xxiv.1-12;  John  xx.  1-18. 
 
 Owing  to  the  condensed  and  somewhat  fragmentary  nature 
 
 of  these  several  narratives,  and  their  neglect  of  strict  chrono-, 
 
 logical  sequence,  they  present  some  difficulties  and   apparent 
 
 ^  Gospel  History,  sections  79-85.        -  English  Harmony,  sections  81-111. 
 3  Greek  Harmony,  sections  76-112.    *  John  xi.  54. 
 6  See  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1353. 
 
328  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 discrepancies.  There  is,  however,  not  the  least  doubt  that,  if 
 we  knew  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  those  whieh  we  now 
 know  would  be  seen  to  fit  perfectly  into  their  appropriate  places 
 in  the  narrative.^  Moreover,  it  is  to  be  remarked  that  no  one 
 of  the  sacred  writers  gives,  or  intended  to  give,  all  the  circum- 
 stances. Each  selects  those  particulars  which  seemed  to  him 
 most  important,  passing  by  intermediate  incidents. 
 
 The  following  summary  of  the  case  is  given  by  Robinson,^ 
 "At  early  dawn  on  the  first  day  of  the  week,  the  women  who 
 had  attended  on  Jesus,  viz.  Mary  Magdalene,  Mary  the  mother 
 of  James,  Joanna,  Salome,  and  others  ^  went  out  with  spices  to 
 the  sepulchre,  in  order  further  to  embalm  the  Lord's  body.  They 
 inquire  among  themselves,  who  should  remove  for  them  the 
 stone  which  closed  the  sepulchre.  On  their  arrival  they  find 
 the  stone  already  taken  away ;  for  there  had  been  an  earthquake, 
 and  an  angel  had  descended  and  rolled  away  the  stone,  and  sat 
 upon  it,  so  that  the  keepers  became  as  dead  men  for  terror. 
 The  Lord  had  risen.  The  women  knowing  nothing  of  all  this, 
 are  amazed ;  they  enter  the  tomb,  and  find  not  the  body  of  the 
 
 *  Ebrard  (Gospel  History,  pp.  59-60)  gives,  from  personal  observation, 
 a  case  showing  how  the  knowledge  of  a  hitherto  unknown  circumstance 
 •will  often  reduce  several  discordant  incidents  to  harmonious  consecution. 
 A  messenger  N.  by  name,  was  sent  from  ZUrich  to  Pfaffikon  on  the  occa- 
 sion of  an  outbreak  in  the  latter  place.  Accordingly  Ebrard  was  informed 
 by  one  trustworthy  person  that  N.  was  sent,  late  in  the  evening,  with  a 
 letter  to  P.;  another  told  him  that  N.  was  sent  in  the  evening  to  P.,  but, 
 after  going  a  short  distance,  returned  with  the  report  that  the  alarm-bell 
 had  already  been  rung  in  P. ;  a  third  related  that  two  messengers  had  been 
 sent  on  horseback  to  P. ;  and  a  fourth  that  N.  had  sent  two  men  on  horse- 
 back to  P.  These  seeming  discrepancies  vanished,  when  Ebrard  afterward 
 learned  from  N.  himself  that  he  had  indeed  been  sent,  but  met  on  the  way 
 two  messengers  from  P.,  who  reported  the  outbreak  of  the  riot;  that  he 
 turned  back  with  them  to  Ziirich,  where  he  immediately  procured  horses 
 for  them,  and  sent  them  back  to  quiet  the  people  in  P.  We  thus  see,  that 
 once  in  possession  of  the  thread  of  the  narrative,  it  is  an  easy  matter  to 
 arrange  upon  it  seemingly  refractory  and  incompatible  circumstances. 
 
 2  See  Bibliothcca  Sacra  for  Feb.  1845,  pp.  187, 188. 
 
 ^  There  were  two  distinct  parties  of  women.  This  fact  relieves  several 
 difficulties.    See  under  "  Numbers  "  and  "  Time." 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  329 
 
 Lord,  and  are  greatly  perplexed.  At  this  time,  Mary  Magdalene 
 impressed  with  the  idea  that  the  body  had  been  stolen  away, 
 leaves  the  sepulchre  and  the  other  women,  and  runs  to  the  city 
 to  tell  Peter  and  John.^  The  rest  remain  in  the  tomb,  and  im- 
 mediately two  angels  appear,. who  announce  unto  them  that  Je- 
 sus was  risen  from  the  dead,  and  give  them  a  charge  in  his  name 
 for  the  apostles.  They  go  out  quickly  from  the  sepulchre,  and 
 proceed  in  haste  to  the  city  to  make  this  known  to  the  disciples. 
 On  the  way,  Jesus  meets  them,  permits  them  to  embrace  his 
 feet,  and  renews  the  same  charge  to  the  apostles.  The  women 
 relate  these  things  to  the  disciples ;  but  their  words  seem  to 
 them  as  idle  tales ;  and  they  believed  them  not. 
 
 Meantime,  Peter  and  John  had  run  to  the  sepulchre ;  and  enter- 
 ing in  had  found  it  empty ;  but  the  orderly  arrangement  of  the 
 grave-clothes  and  of  the  napkin  convinced  John  that  the  body 
 had  not  been  removed  by  violence  or  by  friends ;  and  the  germ  of 
 a  belief  arises  in  his  mind  that  the  Lord  had  risen.  The  two 
 returned  to  the  city.  Mary  Magdalene,  who  had  again  followed 
 them  to  the  sepulchre,  remained  standing  and  weeping  before  it ; 
 and  looking  in  she  saw  two  angels  sitting.  Turning  around,  she 
 sees  Jesus,  who  gives  to  her  also  a  solenm  charge  for  his  disciples." 
 
 It  will  be  seen  that  this  summary  comprises  nearly  every  in- 
 cident mentioned  by  the  four  evangelists.  Ebrard^  concurs 
 substantially  in  the  view  here  given. 
 
 As  to  the  fact  that  according  to  Mark  the  women  said  noth- 
 ing to  any  man,  while  according  to  Matthew  they  ran  to  carry 
 the  tidings  to  the  disciples,  Ebrard  thinks  that  the  women  act- 
 ually hastened  back  to  the  city  with  the  intention  of  telling  the 
 message,  but,  on  their  arrival,  found  the  apostles  in  such  a  state 
 of  depression  and  gloom  that  from  fear  of  ridicule  they  did  not 
 at  first  venture  to  do  their  errand.     '*  Disobedient,  indeed,  they 
 
 ^  Peter  and  John  appear  to  hare  lodged  that  night  in  a  place  separate 
 from  the  other  apostles.  Griesbach  thinks  that  the  apostles  at  this  time 
 were  scattered  throughout  the  city  among  those  who  were  friendly  to  their 
 cause.  —  See  Bib.  Sacra,  p.  172,  note. 
 
 '  Gospel  History,  pp.  447,  448. 
 28* 
 
330  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 had  no  wish  to  be ;  but  they  put  off  from  one  moment  to  an- 
 other what  they  found  it  so  hard  to  tell,  and  what  harmonized 
 so  little  with  the  lamentations  that  were  heard  all  around." 
 
 Or,  it  may  be  that  Mark  refers  as  above  to  one  party  of  the 
 women,  while  Matthew  alludes  to,  the  other  party. 
 
 With  reference  to  the  fact  that  Jesus  suffered  not  Mary  Mag- 
 dalene to  touch  him,  but  permitted  the  other  women  to  embrace 
 his  feet,^  it  is  to  be  noted  that  different  Greek  words  are  em- 
 ployed in  the  two  cases.  Ebrard,  in  the  latter  instance,  renders, 
 "  Hold  me  not ;  I  have  not  yet  ascended."  Euthymius  and 
 Theophylact,  followed  by  Archbishop  Thomson,^  interpret  thus  : 
 "  Death  has  now  set  a  gulf  between  us.  Touch  not,  as  you 
 once  might  have  done,  this  body  which  is  now  glorified  by  its 
 conquest  over  death,  for  with  this  body  I  ascend  to  the  Father." 
 Meyer  thinks  she  wished  to  ascertain  whether  the  Saviour,  whom 
 she  recognized,  was  present  in  his  material  form,  or  with  a 
 spiritual  body.  She  sought  to  obtain  by  the  sense  of  touch, 
 the  knowledge  which  the  eye  could  not  give  her. 
 
 For  other  points  of   difficulty,  see  under  "  Numbers "  and 
 
 «  Time." 
 
 Christ's  revelation  of  truth,  complete.  Much  kept  hack  by  him. 
 
 All  things  that  I  have  heard  of  my  I  have  yet  many  thin^rs  to  say  unto 
 Father,  I  have  made  known  unto  you.  you,  but  ye  cauuot  bear  them  now. 
 John  XV.  15.  John  xvi.  1*2. 
 
 May  not  the  first  text  mean,  "  All  things  that  I  have  heard 
 from  my  Father,  ivhich  were  designed  for  you  at  present,  I 
 have  made  known  to  you.  The  message  which  I  received  for 
 you  I  have  faithfully  communicated."  Everything  which  the 
 Father  had,  up  to  that  time,  wished  him  to  make  known,  he 
 had  made  known  to  them. 
 
 Alford  thinks  that  the  first  passage  is  proleptically  spoken 
 of  the  state  in  which  he  would  place  them  under  the  Spirit. 
 A  future  event,  viewed  as  determined  and  certain,  is  spoken  of 
 as  having  already  taken  place.     The  "many  things,"  of   the 
 
 ^  Compare  John  xx.  17  and  Matt,  xxviii.  9. 
 ^  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  u.  1380. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES,  331 
 
 second   text,  are  what  was  taugh't   by  the    Saviour  after   his 
 
 resurrection,^  and  by  the  Holy  Spirit  at  a  subsequent  time. 
 
 Christ's  use  of  parables  unvarying.         Parables  sometimes  omitted. 
 Matt.  xiii.  34.  Matt,  v.-vii. 
 
 Ebrard  ^  has  correctly  pointed  out  that  the  first  passage  has 
 
 reference  to  a  particular  occasion.     "  Christ's  words,  that  day, 
 
 were  parabolical." 
 
 Daniel  highly  exalted.  Entirely  urinoticed. 
 
 Dan.  ii.  48.  Dan.  iii.  12. 
 
 Bertholdt  thinks  it  very  strange  that  Daniel,  who  was  so 
 
 high  in  office,  is  not  mentioned  in  connection  with  his  three 
 
 friends.     But,  as  Bertholdt  himself  admits,  Daniel  may  have 
 
 been  absent,  at  this  time,  from  the  capital  upon  some  business 
 
 of  state.     Herzfeld  supposes  that  not  all  the  dignitaries  of  the 
 
 empire  were  invited  to  the  dedication  of  the  image,  and  that 
 
 Daniel  was  not  included  among  those  who  received  invitations. 
 
 David  detained  at  Saul's  court.  Not  thus  detained. 
 
 And  David  came  to  Saul,  and  stood  But  David  went  and  returned  from 
 
 before  him  :  and  he  loved  him  greatly;  Saul  to  feed  his  father's  sheep  at  Beth- 
 
 and  he  became   his   armor-bearer.     1  lehem.    18am.  xvii.  15. 
 Sam.  xvi.  21. 
 
 The  mere  fact  that  David  "  stood  before  "  Saul,  and  became 
 
 his  "armor-bearer"  (adjutant)  by  no   means  necessitates  the 
 
 supposition  that  David  remained  constantly  afterward  in  Saul's 
 
 service.     If,  as  we  know,  Joab  had  teii  armor-bearers,^  Saul 
 
 probably  had  at  teast  as  many,  and,  among  them,  some  skilled 
 
 in  war.     So  that,  when  Saul's  melancholy  left  him,  he  doubtless 
 
 allowed  David  to  return  to  his  father's  service.     The  second 
 
 text,  according  to    Keil,  asserts  that  David  "went  back  and 
 
 forth  from  Saul  to  feed  his  father's  sheep  in  Bethlehem."     In 
 
 xviii.  2,  we  see  David  taken  into  perjnanent  employ  by  Saul. 
 
 David  forbidden  to  build  temple,  — one  reason.  A  different  reason. 
 
 1  Chron.  xvii.  4-6,  12.  1  Chron.  xxviii.  3. 
 
 Here  is  not,  as  De  TVette  *  imagines,  a  contradiction,  but  two 
 
 concurrent  reasons  for  the  same  thing,  neither  of  which  ex- 
 
 1  See  Luke  xxiv.  27 ;  Acts  i.  3.  ^  Gospel  History,  pp.  245,  246. 
 
 3  See  2  Sam.  xviii.  15.  X  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  297. 
 
332  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 eludes  the  other.     Jehovah  had  not  as  yet  required  the  building 
 
 of  a  temple,  neither  would  David  be  the  proper  man  to  build 
 
 such  an  edifice.     Neither  the  appropriate  time  nor  the  fit  man 
 
 had  come. 
 
 David's  officers,  —  one  list.  A  different  list. 
 
 2  Sam.  viii.  16-18.  2  Sam.  xx.  23-26. 
 
 In  this  case  there  was  an  interval  of  more  than  twenty  years. 
 
 During  that  time,  as  might  have  been  anticipated,  some  changes 
 
 occurred,  either  by  death  or  displacement.     As  to  the  fact  that, 
 
 in  the  first  passage,  Ahimelech  the  son,  and  in  the  second  Abi- 
 
 athar  the  father,  is  spoken  of  as  priest,^  see  under  "Ahimelech's 
 
 priesthood."     "  Seraiah,"  "  Shavsha,"  "  Shisha,"  and  "  Sheva  " 
 
 were  different  forms  of  the  same  name. 
 
 David's  relation  to  Achish  unfriendly.  Pleasant. 
 
 1  Sam.  xxi.  12-15.        1  Sam.  xxvii.  3-6;  xxix.  6-9. 
 
 Several   years   intervened   between   the  two   visits   to   the 
 
 Philistine   king.     During  that  period  David  had  been  fiercely 
 
 persecuted  by  Saul;   and  Achish,  aware  of   this  fact,  kindly 
 
 received   the    Hebrew  fugitive,  with  the  hope  that  he  would 
 
 prove   a   valuable   ally   against    Saul,    their   common    enemy. 
 
 Fuerst,  Gesenius,  and  Hengstenberg  think  that  "  Achish  "  was 
 
 the  personal  name,  and  "  Abimelech "  ^  the  hereditary  title  of 
 
 the  Philistine  monarch. 
 
 David's  sons,  —  one  list.  A  second  list.  A  third  list. 
 
 2  Sam.  V.  14-16.  1  Chron.  iii.  5-8.  1  Chron.  xiv.  3-7. 
 
 Shammuah.  Shimeah.  Shammua. 
 
 Elishua.  Elishama.  Elishua. 
 
 Eliada.  EUada.  Bceliada. 
 
 Eliphalet.  Eliphelet.  Eliphalet. 
 
 Eliphelet.  Elpalet. 
 
 Nogah.  Nogah. 
 
 We  give  merely  the  differences  of  the  three  lists.  There  is 
 not  the  least  doubt  that  these  variations  arose  almost  entirely 
 from  the  blunders  of  copyists.  Of  the  first  two  names,  and 
 the  fourth,  in  each  series,  no  more  need  be  said.     "  Beeliada  " 
 
 ^  Comp.  Bible  Commentary  oq  2  Sam.  riii.  IV.       ^  See  Ps.  xxxiv.  title. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  883 
 
 is  a  different  form  of  "  Eliada "  —  compounded  with  Baal^ 
 instead  of  El.  One  "  Eliphelet,"  or  "  Elpalet,"  together  with 
 "  Nogah,"  as  Rawliuson  and  Keil  think,  died  in  infancy,  hence 
 is  omitted  in  Samuel.  Rashi  and  others  say  that  "  Chileab," 
 2  Sam.  iii.  3,  is  another  name  for  "  Daniel,"  1  Chron.  iii.  1 ; 
 Houbigant  and  Rawlinson  maintain  that  we  have  here  a  tran- 
 scriber's mistake. 
 
 David's  sons  priests.  No  priests  except  house  of  Aaron. 
 
 2  Sam.  viii.  18.  Num.  iii.  10;  xvi.  40. 
 
 The  Hebrew  word  "  cohen,"  used  in  the  first  text,  means  not 
 only  a  priest,  but  also  a  "  servant,  a  minister,  a  counsellor  per- 
 forming service."  So  Fuerst,  Keil,  Movers,  and  Saalschiitz. 
 Gesenius  and  De  Wette  take  the  meaning  to  be,  domestic 
 priests,  or  spiritual  advisers.  Ewald  ^  thinks  that  the  priestly 
 dignity  was  by  divine  direction  extended  to  David ;  Mr. 
 Plumptre,^  that  David  and  his  sons  may  have  been  admitted  to 
 "  an  honorary,  titular  priesthood." 
 
 David  tewpted  by  the  Lord.^  Tempted  by  Satan. 
 
 The  an?er  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  And  Satan  stood  up  ajrainst  Israel, 
 
 against  Israel,   and  he  moved  David  and  provoked  David  to  number  Israel. 
 
 against  them  to  say,  Go,  number  Israel  1  Chron.  xxi.  1. 
 and  Judah.    2  Sam.  xxiv.  1. 
 
 It  is  consistent  with  Hebrew  modes  of  thought  that  whatever 
 occurs  in  the  world,  under  the'  overruling  providence  of  God, 
 —  whatever  he  suffers  to  take  place,  —  should  be  attributed 
 to  his  agency.  In  not  preventing,  as  he  might  have  done,  its 
 occurrence,  he  is  viewed  as  in  some  sense  bringing  about  the 
 event.  Hence  the  act  of  Satan  might  be,  in  this  indirect  way, 
 referred  back  to  God,  as  the  Governor  of  the  universe. 
 
 Another  explanation  is,  that  the  Hebrew  word  "satan"* 
 when  used,  as  in  the  second  text,  without  the  article,  denotes 
 
 1  History  of  Israel,  iii.  133,  200. 
 
 2  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iii.  2576. 
 
 ^  See  pp.  79-81  infra.    Also  Stanley,  History  of  Jewish  Church,  p.  52 
 *  See  this  word  applied  to  the  angel  which  withstood  Balaam,  Num.  xxii. 
 22;  to  David,  1  Sam.  xxix.  4;  to  Hadad,  1  Kings  xi.  14. 
 
334  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 simply   an    adversary.       Hence    Boothroyd,    Davidson,^   and 
 
 Hervey  ^   render,  "An    adversary    stood   up   against   Israel." 
 
 The  latter  critic  also  interprets  the  first  text  thus :  "  For  one 
 
 moved    David   against   them " ;    adding   that   some   unnamed 
 
 person,  who  proved  himself  an  enemy  to  the  best  interests  of 
 
 David  and  Israel,  urged  the  king  to  number  the  people. 
 
 David's  loarriors,  —  07ie  list.  A  different  list. 
 
 2  Sam.  xxiii.  8-39.  1  Chron.  xi.  11-47. 
 
 With  reference  to  such  copyist's  variations  as  Hararite  and 
 Harorite,  Shammah  and  Shammoth,  Anethothite  and  Antothite, 
 Barhumite  and  Baharumite,  further  remark  is  superfluous. 
 The  first  list  contains  thirty-one  names;  the  second,  forty-seven. 
 Of  the  first  thirty-one  names  of  the  passage  in  Chronicles  there 
 are  four  not  found  in  the  list  in  Samuel,  and,  conversely,  five 
 names  in  the  catalogue  of  Samuel  do  not  appear  in  the  other 
 list.  This  difference  is  explicable  upon  the  hypothesis  that 
 the  two  lists  refer  to  somewhat  different  times.  The  list  in 
 Chronicles  refers  to  the  time  when  David  became  king  over  all 
 Israel  (see  vs.  10)  ;  the  other  probably  points  to  a  later  epoch. 
 During  the  interval,  some  persons  died  or  left  the  army,  and 
 others  took  their  places.'^ 
 
 It  is  conceded  by  critics  generally  that  the  original  text  of 
 the  eighth  verse  in  Samuel  has  suffered  from  copyists,  but 
 should  be  translated  substantially  thus,  "  Jashobeam  the  Hach- 
 monite,  the  chief  of  the  captains,  he  swung  his  spear  over 
 eight  hundred  slain  at  once."  So  Hervey,  Keil,  Kennicott,* 
 Gesenius,"  and  others,  who  decide  that  the  correct  reading  is 
 found  in  Chronicles.  According  to  the  best  authorities,  the 
 words  rendered  "Adino  the  Eznite"  should  be  interpreted, 
 "  Ae  lifted  up,  swung,  or  brandished  his  spear";  so  that  the 
 italic  words  in  the  English  version  are  unnecessary. 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  88. 
 
 ^  Bible  Commentary  on  2  Sam.  xxiv.  1. 
 
 ^  See  Rawlinson  in  Bible  Commentary  on  1  Chron.  xi.  26. 
 
 *  Dissertations,  i.  71-128. 
 
 ^  Thesaurus,  pp.  994,  995. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  335 
 
 Edomites  obstructed  Israel's  passage.  Permitted  it. 
 
 Num.  XX.  18-21;  Judg.  xi.  17, 18.  Deut.  ii.  4,  8. 
 
 At   first,  when   the   Israelites  approached    the   precipitous, 
 
 well-nigh  impregnable  western  frontier,  the  Edomites  refused 
 
 them  transit ;  but  when  the  Israelites  had  "  compassed  the  land 
 
 of  Edom,"  and  came  to  the  open,  unprotected  eastern  border, 
 
 the   Edomites   no  longer   dared  to  assume  a   hostile  attitude 
 
 toward  them.^ 
 
 Edomites  refused  supplies.  Furnished  them. 
 
 Num.  XX.  19,  20.  Deut.  ii.  28,  29. 
 
 As  we  have  seen,  the  Edomites  at  first  refused  hospitalities 
 to  the  Israelites  ;  but  at  the  later  period  they  made  a  virtue  of 
 necessity,  and  sought  to  turn  the  matter  to  their  own  advantage 
 by  selling  the  necessaries  of  life  to  the  Israelites. 
 
 As  to  the  similar  fact  that  the  Moabites  did  not  "  meet  the 
 Israelites  with  bread  and  water "  (Deut.  xxiii.  3,  4)  ;  though 
 they  "sold"  them  these  articles  (Deut.  ii.  28,  29),  Kurtz ^  sees, 
 in  the  first  circumstance,  "  a  proof  of  their  indifference,  if  not 
 of  their  hostile  feelings  toward  the  Israelites,"  and  in  the  last, 
 "  simply  a  manifestation  of  their  selfish  and  grasping  disposition." 
 
 Eli  collected  his  sons.  Did  not  correct  them. 
 
 1  Sam.  ii.  23.  24.  1  Sam.  iii.  13. 
 
 That  is,  he  reproved  them  either  too  leniently,  or  not  till 
 
 they  had  become  hardened  and  ungovernable.     His  attempts 
 
 at  discipline  amoimted  to  nothing. 
 
 Eliakim  succeeded  Josiah.  Succeeded  Jehoahaz. 
 
 2  Kings  xxiii.  34.  2  Cliron.  xxxvi.  4. 
 
 Bahr  and  Rawlinson  take  the  words,  "in  the  room  of  Josiah," 
 
 as  Indicating  that  Nechoh  regarded  Jehoahaz  simply  as  a  usurper 
 
 —  the  latter  having  been  raised  to  the  throne  without  Nechoh's 
 
 consent. 
 
 Elimelech,  indigent.  Had  a  competence. 
 
 Ruth  i.  1.  Ruth  i.  21. 
 
 To    Bertholdt's  "  discrepancy,"   Davidson   replies   that   the 
 
 *  So  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  Leake,  Robinson,  and  others. 
 2  History  of  O.  C.  iii.  385. 
 28 
 
336  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 fulness  and  emptiness  relate  to  Naomi's  husband  and  sons  who 
 
 had  died,  not  to  property  as  Bertholdt  imagines. 
 
 Elizabeth,  of  tribe  of  Aaron.  Of  tribe  of  Judah. 
 
 Luke  i.  5.  Luke  i.  27,  86. 
 
 The  mere  fact  that  Elizabeth  was  "  cousin "  to  one  of  the 
 
 tribe  of  Judah  proves  nothing  as  to  her  own  tribal  descent. 
 
 Intermarriages  between  the  tribes  were  allowed,  except  in  the 
 
 case  of  heiresses.     Aaron  himseK   married  into  the  tribe  of 
 
 Judah.^ 
 
 Elhanan  slew  Goliath.  Slew  Lahmi. 
 
 2  Sam.  xxi.  19.  1  Chron.  xx.  5. 
 
 The  Goliath  here  mentioned  may,  for  aught  we  know,  have 
 
 been  Goliath  junior  I    Most  critics,  Michaelis,  Thenius,  Dathe, 
 
 Movers,  Winer,  Keil,  Deutsch,^  Grove,^  Hervey,  and  others, 
 
 maintain,  however,  that  the  Hebrew  expression  in  Samuel  is 
 
 defective,  and   that  Chronicles   gives    the  true   reading.     Dr. 
 
 Kennicott  *  shows  clearly  how  the  copyist's  mistake  occurred. 
 
 Elkanah,  an  Ephrathite.  A  Levite. 
 
 1  Sam.  i.  1.  1  Chron.  vi.  16-27. 
 
 He  is  called  an  Ephrathite  (Ephraimite),  because  he  lived 
 
 within  the  borders  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim.     So  far  as  his  civil 
 
 standing  was  concerned,  he,  although  a  Levite,  belonged  to  the 
 
 tribe  of  Ephraim.'' 
 
 Esau's  vnves,  —  one  list.  A  different  statement. 
 
 Judith    the    daughter  of  Beeri  the  Adah  the  daugrhter  of  Elon  the  Hit- 
 
 Hittite,  and  Basliemath  the  daughter  tite,  and  Aholibamah  the  daughter  of 
 
 of  Elon  the  Hittite.     Gen.  xxvi.  34.  Anah  the  daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hiv- 
 
 Mahalath   the  daughter  of  Ishmael,  ite.    And  Bashemath,  Jshmael's  daugh- 
 
 Abraham's  son,  the  sister  of  Kebajoth.  ter,   sister  of  Kebajoth.     Gen.  xxxvi. 
 
 Gen.  xxviii.  9.  2,  3. 
 
 Some  critics  think  Esau  had  six  wives  ;  others,  five ;  others, 
 three.  It  will  be  observed  that  all  the  wives  in  the  second  list 
 bear   names   different   from  those  corresponding   in  the  first. 
 
 ^  Compare  Ex.  vi.  23;  1  Chron,  ii.  10. 
 
 2  See  Kitto,  i.  763. 
 
 3  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  1.  697.    See,  on  the  other  side,  Ewald's  History  of 
 Israel,  iii.  70,  and  note. 
 
 <  Dissertations,  i.  78-82. 
 
 ^  See  similar  case  of  the  "  Levite  of  Bethlehem-Judah,"  Judges  xvii.  9. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  337 
 
 Ilengstenberg,^  Keil,  and  Lange  account  for  this  by  the  fact 
 
 that  women  at  their  marriage  received  new  names.     On  this 
 
 hypothesis,  Bashemath,  daughter  of  Ishmael,  is  the  same  with 
 
 Mahalath :  Adah,  daughter  of  Elon  the  Hittite,  is  the  same  with 
 
 Bashemath  ;  and  Aholibamah,  daughter  of  Anah  and  [grand-] 
 
 daughter  of  Zibeon  the  Hivite,  is  identical  with  Judith,^  daughter 
 
 of  Beeri  the  Hittite.     Anah  is  also  called  "  Beeri "  ("  man  of 
 
 the  springs  "),  from  the  fact  that  he  had  found  certain  "•  warm 
 
 springs"  in  the  wilderness.^     As  to  his  nationality,  we  have 
 
 spoken  previously. 
 
 Eutychus  was  dead.  His  life  was  in  him. 
 
 Acts  XX.  9.  Acts  XX,  10. 
 
 The   latter   words   were   uttered   after   Paul   wrought   the 
 
 miracle.     As  to  the  somewhat  analogous  case  of  the  maiden,* 
 
 of  whom,  though  "  dead,"  Christ  said,  "  She  is  not  dead,  but 
 
 sleepeth,"  the  very  obvious  explanation  is,  that,  relatively/  to  his 
 
 poiver,  she  was  not  dead.     In  other  words,  he  could  awaken 
 
 her  from  death  as  easily  as  could  others  from  ordinary  sleep. 
 
 Genealogical  lists,  —  one  form.  Another  form. 
 
 1  Chron.  ix.  1-34.  Neh.  xi.  3-36. 
 
 The  first  passage  refers  to  the  early  inhabitants,  previous  to 
 the  exile.  This  is  clear,  from  the  twentieth  verse,  which 
 represents  Phinehas  the  son  of  Eleazar  as  ruler  over  them  in 
 time  past.  The  second  passage  refers  to  the  post-exile  in- 
 habitants, who  lived  in  the  time  of  Nehemiah.  As  to  the 
 similarity  of  names  in  the  two  lists,  it  may  be  said  that,  after 
 the  exile,  naturally  those  very  families  which,  or  whose  ancestors, 
 had  dwelt  in  Jerusalem  in  earlier  times,  went  back  to  that  city. 
 Then,  too,  the  recurrence  of  the  same  names  in  families  is  a 
 familiar  incident.     People  liked  to  name  children  after  their 
 
 *  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  225,  226. 
 
 2  Murphy  and  others  think  that  Judith  died  without  male  issue,  hence 
 her  name  is  omitted  in  chap,  xxxvi. 
 
 3  So  Gen.  xxxvi.  24  should  be  interpreted,  according  to  Fuerst,  Gesenius, 
 Hengstenberg,  Murphy,  Keil,  and  Knobel. 
 
 *  Luke  viii.  52,  53. 
 
 29 
 
338  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 grandfathers,  or  other  near  relatives.^  This  is  Keil's  view. 
 On  the  other  hand,  Bertheau,  Movers,  and  Rawlinson  main- 
 tain that  the  two  lists  refer  to  the  same  period,  and  were  drawn 
 from  much  fuller  documents ;  the  differences  between  the  lists 
 being  due  to  condensation  and  omission  on  the  part  of  the 
 authors,  as  well  as  to  the  blunders  of  copyists. 
 
 Davidson  ^  says  that  the  variations  between  the  lists  should 
 not  be  pronounced  "  corruj)tions,"  unless  it  could  be  shown  that 
 they  refer  to  exactly  the  same  time.  The  catalogue  in  Nehe- 
 miah  relates  to  an  earlier  period.  Yet  the  interval  between 
 them  was  not  great,  since  several  persons  named  in  Nehemiah 
 were  still  alive  according  to  the  account  in  Chronicles. 
 
 Gershom's  relatives,  —  names.  ■    Different  names. 
 
 His  father,  Moses,  Ex.  ii.  22.  Manasseh,  Judg.  xviii.  30. 
 
 His  son,  Libni,  1  Chron.  vi.  20.  Laadan,  1  Chron.  xxiii.  7. 
 
 It  is  generally  admitted  that,  in  Judges,  for  "  Manasseh  "  we 
 should  read  "  Moses,"  —  the  name  having  been  disguised  by 
 Jewish  copyists,  to  prevent  supposed  disgrace  to  Moses  re- 
 sulting from  the  idolatry  of  his  grandson.^  Libni  and  Laadan 
 are,  probably,  mere  variations  of  the  same  name. 
 
 Gibeonites  were  Hivites.  Eemnant  of  Amorites. 
 
 Josh.  xi.  19.  2  Sam.  xxi.  2. 
 
 The  term  "  Amorite  "  is  often  used  in  a  comprehensive  sense, 
 as  equivalent  to  "  Canaanite  " ;  and  especially  as  denoting  that 
 part  of  the  Canaanite  nation  inhabiting  the  hill-country,  that 
 is,  the  Hivites.^  As  the  Canaanites,  with  the  exception  of  the 
 Gibeonites  and  a  few  others,  were  supposed  to  be  exterminated, 
 the  latter  may  well  have  been  styled  the  "remnant"  of  the 
 Amorites  or  Canaanites. 
 
 Several  analogous  cases  may  as  well  be  considered  here. 
 
 ^  See  intimation  in  Luke  i.  61.    Also  see  numerous  strilcing  examples 
 cited  in  Hervey's  "  Genealogies  of  our  Lord,"  pp.  141-159. 
 '  Introd,  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  137. 
 ^  So  Rashi,  Kimchi,  and  the  critics. 
 *  Compare  Gen.  xv.  IG,  and  Num.  xiii.  29;  Deut.  i.  20,  21. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES. 
 
 Hiram's  mother  a  Naphtalite.  A  Danite. 
 
 1  Kings  vii.  14.  2  Chron,  ii.  14. 
 
 Bahr,  Blunt,^  and  Thenius  say  that  she  was  of  the  neigh- 
 boring city  "  Dan,"  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  bordering  upon 
 Tyre,  hence  she  married  a  man  of  the  latter  country. 
 
 Joseph' s  purchasers  Mldianites.  IshmaeUtes. 
 
 Gen.  xxxvii.  28,  36.  Gen.  xxxvii.  25,  28. 
 
 Keil  thinks  the  two  tribes  were  often  confounded  on  account 
 
 of  their  common  descent  from  Abraham  and  the  similarity  of 
 
 their  customs  and  mode  of   life.     Lange   suggests  that  Ish- 
 
 maelites  may  have  been  the  proprietors  of  the  caravan,  which 
 
 was  made  up  mostly  of  Midianites. 
 
 Moses'  wife  a  Midianite  woman.  An  Ethiopian. 
 
 Ex.  ii.  16,  21.  Num.  xii.  1. 
 
 Possibly  "  Cushite "  and  ''  Midianite  "  may  be  used  inter- 
 changeably (see  Hab.  iii.  7).  A  better  solution  is  that  Zipporah 
 had  died,  and  Moses  was  married  to  a  woman  of  Ethiopian 
 origin.  Ewald^  adopts  the  latter  opinion,  also  maintaining  that 
 Keturah  was  a  wife  taken  by  Abraham  during  the  thirty-eight 
 years  which  he  lived  after  Sarah's  death. 
 
 Ohed-edom  a  Gittite.  A  Levite. 
 
 2  Sam.  vi.  10.  1  Chron.  xv.  17, 18,  21. 
 
 He  was  called  "  Gathite,"  or  "  Gittite,"  because  born  in  the 
 
 Levitical  city  of  Gath-rimmon  (Keil),  or  living  at  Moresheth- 
 
 gath  (Ewald).^ 
 
 Woman  a  Canaanite.  A  Syro-xthenician. 
 
 Matt.  XV.  22.  Mark  vii.  26. 
 
 She  lived  in  that  part  of  Canaan  called  "  Syro-Phoenicia," 
 and  was  herself  a  "  Greek,"  that  is,  a  Gentile,  as  opposed  to  a 
 Jew'*  (see  Rom.  ii.  9,  10). 
 
 We  now  return  from  our  digression. 
 
 Hazael  and  Jehu  anointed  by  Elijah.  By  Elisha. 
 
 1  Kinj^s  xix.  15,  16.  2  Kings  viii.  7-15;  ix.  1-10. 
 
 The  word  "  anoint,"  in  the  first  passage,  is  used  figuratively, 
 
 '  Coincidences,  pp.  117, 118  (Am.  ed.).        ^Y{\si.  of  Israel,  ii.  178,  note. 
 ^  History  of  Israel,  iii.  127.         *  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  967,  and  iv.  3149. 
 
340  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 as  in  Judges  ix.  8,  to  denote  "  divine  consecration  to  the  regal 
 
 and  prophetic  offices."     Elijah  did  not,  says  Bahr,  understand 
 
 the  anointing  literally.     He  was  simply  required  to  announce, 
 
 either  in  person  or  by  proxy,  to  the  three  men  named,  their 
 
 divine  call  to  the  performance  of  regal  or  prophetic  functions. 
 
 And  the  injunction  (correctly  rendered,  "  And  thou  shalt  go 
 
 and  anoint")  left    Elijah   free  to  choose   his   own    time   for 
 
 executing  these  commissions.     Doubtless  he  gave  it  in  charge 
 
 to  Elisha,  his  successor,  to  carry  out  to  the  full  what  remained 
 
 unaccomplished. 
 
 Hezekiah  reduced  to  poverty.  Possessed  great  treasures. 
 
 2  Kings  xviii.  14-16.  Isa.  xxxix.  2,  6. 
 
 The  second  passage  refers  to  the  latter  part  of  Hezekiah's 
 
 reign,  when  he  enjoyed  great  prosperity,  and  many  brought 
 
 "  gifts  "  and  "  presents  "  to  him,  and  he  was  "  magnilfied  in  the 
 
 sight  of  all  nations."  ^     Thus  his  fortunes  were  fully  retrieved. 
 
 Hezekiah's  passover  unequalled.  Surpassed  by  Josiah's. 
 
 2  Chron.  xxx.  26.  2  Chron.  xxxv.  18. 
 
 Hezekiah's  feast  surpassed  all  that  preceded  it  since  the  days 
 
 of  Solomon,  but  was  itself  eclipsed  by  the  later  one  of  king 
 
 Josiah.     The  superiority  of  Josiah's  passover  consisted  in  these 
 
 points,  —  "  All  Judah  and  Israel  "  participated ;  it  was  held  on 
 
 the   legal  day;  and  all  the   people  were  ceremonially  clean.^ 
 
 This  was  not  true  of  Hezekiah's  passover. 
 
 Israelites'  condition  in  desert  comfortable.      They  endured  privations. 
 
 Deut.  ii.7 ;  xxxii.  13, 14.  Ex.  xvi.  2,  3 ;  Num.  xi.  4-6. 
 
 It  is  clear,  from  the  narrative,  that  the  people  were,  at  some 
 
 particular  times,  in  a  state  of  destitution,^  but  that  generally 
 
 they  were  well  supplied  with  food,  and  abundantly  so  upon 
 
 certain  occasions.     As  to  the  alleged  impossibility  of  so  vast  a 
 
 multitude,*  together  with  their  flocks  and   herds,  finding   the 
 
 needful  sustenance  during  their  wanderings  in  the  desert,  it  is 
 
 ^2  Chron.  xxxii.  23,27-29. 
 
 2  Compare  2  Chron.  xxx.  2,  3, 17-20,  and  xxxv.  18. 
 
 ^  Deut.  viii.  3,  15. 
 
 *  Ewald  says.  "  about  two  millions,"  History  of  Israel,  ii.  196. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  341 
 
 to  be  carefully  noted  that,  from  the  present  sterile  and  desolate 
 condition  of  the  Sinaitic  peninsula,  we  cannot  infer  that  in 
 former  times  it  was  equally  barren  and  dreary  as  now.  Eminent 
 traveller  and  scholars  assign,  for  believing  that  that  territory 
 was  far  more  productive  than  at  present,  the  following  reasons. 
 
 Ewald  ^ :  "  Destruction  of  good  land  by  sand  thrown  upon  it 
 by  the  winds  of  the  desert " ;  "  change  in  the  temperature  of 
 the  soil " ;  and  "  increasing  idleness  or  barbarism  in  the  in- 
 habitants, which  is  indisputable  in  this  case." 
 
 Stanley,^  following  Ritter  :  The  considerable  decrease  of  the 
 vegetation  of  the  wadys  (valleys)  ;  the  denudation  of  the  soil  by 
 the  ruthless  destruction  of  acacia-trees  in  manufacturing  charcoal, 
 the  chief  article  of  traffic  ;  and  the  diminution  of  the  population, 
 consequently  of  the  size  and  number  of  cultivated  spots. 
 
 "  When  Niebuhr  ^  visited  that  country,  at  the  beginning  of 
 the  last  century,  large  supplies  of  vegetable  produce  were 
 exported  regularly  to  Egypt,  showing  that  the  original  fertility 
 was  not  even  then  exhausted." 
 
 Ritter  *  speaks  of  the  "  colonies,  chapels,  churches,  hospices, 
 convents,  bishoprics,  and  Cliristian  communities,"  existing  there 
 so  late  as  between  the  third  and  seventh  centuries  of  our  era ; 
 and  of  the  fact  that  there  was  "  more  building,  more  artificial 
 irrigation,  more  culture  of  the  palm-tree,  and  more  agricultural 
 prosperity  in  general "  than  is  seen  there  in  later  times. 
 
 Stanley  *  mentions  the  "  numerous  remains  of  cells,  gardens, 
 houses,  chapels,  and  churches,  now  deserted  and  ruined,"  which 
 go  to  show  that  the  desert  was  not  always  the  dreary  waste  that 
 it  is  now.  And  Ewald  ^  says  that  "  the  most  recent  travellers 
 have  repeatedly  remarked  that  the  country  shows  clear  indications 
 
 '  Vol.  ii.  p.  197. 
 
 2  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  25-29  (American  edition). 
 
 ^  Bible  Commentary,  i.  246. 
 
 *  Geography  of  Palestine  and  Sinaitic  Peninsula,  i.  10, 11  (Gage's  trans- 
 lation. 
 
 5  Page  29. 
 
 •  Page  197. 
 
 29* 
 
842  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 of  having  been  formerly  much  more  extensively  cultivated.'* 
 The  legitimate  inference  is,  that  the  "  wilderness  of  Sinai "  was 
 formerly  vastly  more  productive  and  populous  than  at  present. 
 The  following  may  be  enumerated  as  means  of  support  en- 
 joyed by  the  Israelites  during  the  forty  years'  sojourn  in  the 
 desert : 
 
 1.  The  miracle  of  the  manna,  continued  throughout.  Ex. 
 xvi.  35. 
 
 2.  Tlie  milk  and  Jlesh  of  their  jiochs  and  herds.  They  came 
 out  of  Egypt  with  "  very  much  cattle  "  (Ex.  xii.  38).  Prof. 
 Palmer,^  the  latest  and  most  scientific  explorer  of  the  Sinaitic 
 country,  says  that  the  flocks  and  herds  of  the  Israelites  "would 
 afford  them  ample  means  of  subsistence,  as  do  those  of  the 
 Arabs  of  the  present  day,  whom  they  undoubtedly  resembled 
 in  their  mode  of  life." 
 
 3.  Agriculture  to  a  certain  extent.  We  are  not  to  imagine 
 that  they  spent  their  time  in  marching  and  countermarching, 
 in  military  order,  through  the  desert,  "  striking  camp  in  the 
 morning  and  pitching  it  again  at  night,  daily,  for  forty  years — 
 and  that  within  the  compass  of  a  few  hundred  miles."  It  is 
 altogether  probable  that,  during  the  thirty-eight  years  ^  the 
 incidents  of  which  were  not  recorded  by  the  sacred  writer,  the 
 people  led,  for  the  most  part,  a  tranquil  and  comparatively 
 settled  life ;  being  scattered  over  a  very  wide  extent  of  terri- 
 tory, and  engaging  somewhat  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil. 
 
 Dr.  Davidson  ^  observes :  "  As  the  tracts  in  which  they 
 roamed  were  very  fertile  in  some  places,  producing  a  great 
 variety  of  vegetables  and  fruit  ;  as  there  were  numerous 
 villages  and  posts  throughout  it;  the  Israelites  were  not  without 
 the  natural  and  spontaneous  productions  of  the  earth.  They 
 tilled  the  oases,  and  reaped  the  produce." 
 
 4.  Some  intercourse  and  traffic  with  other  nations.     The 
 
 *  Desert  of  the.Exodus,  p.  426  (American  edition). 
 
 2  See  Deut.  ii.  14. 
 
 3  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  826,  827.    As  to  stations  of  Israelites,  see  under 
 '*  Places." 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  343 
 
 Israelites  had,  besides  their  flocks  and  herds,  gold  and  silver  in 
 considerable  quantities,  and  could  procure  certain  necessaries 
 of  life  from  the  Ishmaelites,  Midianites,  and  Edomites,  among 
 whom  they  were. 
 
 As  to  their  Jloclcs  and  herds,  these  found  sufficient  pasturage 
 m  the  numerous  fertile  wadys  through  which  they  roamed. 
 
 On   the   whole,  we   may  conclude,   with    Ewald,^  that  the 
 
 Israelites  subsisted,  at  times  "  in  a  condition  of  great  privation 
 
 and  trial,  certainly,  —  of  which,  indeed,  in  all   the  traditions, 
 
 there  is  frequent  complaint,  —  but  still    so  that  a  frugal  and 
 
 laborious  people  would  not  absolutely  perish." 
 
 Israelites  dwelt  in  tents.  They  dwelt  in  booths. 
 
 Ex.  xvi.  16.  Lev.  xxiii.  42,  43. 
 
 The  word  "ohel,"  tent,  means  also  a  dwelling-house,  or 
 habitation,  hence  might,  perhaps,  include  booths.  Neither  pas- 
 sage asserts  that  all  the  people  dwelt  in  "tents,"  or  all  in 
 *'  booths."  It  is  quite  probable  that,  when  they  first  emerged 
 from  Egypt,  they  were  poorly  provided  with  actual  "tents," 
 and  hence  sheltered  themselves  with  "  booths  "  and  other  rude 
 structures.^     A  little  later  all  may  have  possessed  tents. 
 
 Israelites  imitated  the  heathen.  Did  not  imitate  them. 
 
 Ye  have  not  walked  in  my  statutes.        Neither  have  done  according  to  the 
 neither  executed    my  judgments,  but    judgments  of  the  nations  that  are  round 
 have  done  after  the  manners  of  the    about  you.     Ezek.  v.  7 
 heathen    that   are   round  about   you.        Yet  hast  thou  not  walked  after  their 
 Ezek.  xi.  12.  ways,   nor  done    after  their  abomina- 
 
 tions: but  as  if  that  were  a  very  little 
 thing,  thou  wast  corrupted  more  than 
 they,  in  all  thy  ways.    Ezek.  xvi.  47. 
 
 They  had  imitated  the  heathen  in  some  respects,  but  not  in 
 others.  The  first  passage  at  the  right  may  denote  that  the 
 Israelites  had  not  commended  themselves  to  the  judgment  of 
 the  heathen,  but  had  pursued  a  course  which  even  the  latter 
 would  pronounce  inconsistent  and  discreditable.^  Or  both  texts 
 of  the  series  may  simply  assert  that,  so  far  from  imitating  the 
 heathen,  the  Israelites  had  gone  far  beyond  them  in  cori-uption. 
 
 ^  pp.  196, 197.  *  Green's  Pentateuch  Vindicated,  pp  69,  70. 
 
 »  See  Jer.  u.  10. 11 
 
344  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Israelites  listened  to  Moses.  Did  not  listen  to  him. 
 
 Ex.  iv.  31.  Ex.  vi.  9. 
 
 They  gave  heed  to  Moses  at  first ;  but  smce  instant  deliv- 
 erance did  not  come,  in  their  disappointment  and  impatience 
 they  would  no  longer  hearken  to  him. 
 
 Israelites  practised  idolatry.  They  served  the  Lord. 
 
 Josh.  xxiv.  14,  23.         Josh.  xxii.  2, 11-34;  Judg.  ii.  7. 
 
 The  exhortation,  "  Put  away  the  strange  gods  which  are 
 among  you  "  (or  "  within  you "),  may  refer  to  a  lurking  ad- 
 herence of  heart  to  idols.  Or,  possibly,  idolatry  may  have 
 been  practised  secretly  by  a  few  persons,  unsuspected  by  the 
 people  generally.  Whichever  were  the  case,  the  sin  was  at 
 once  broken  off. 
 
 Israelites'  repulse  of  Philistines  final.  It  was  not  final. 
 
 1  Sam.  vii.  13.        1  Sam.  ix.  16;  x.  5;  xiii.  5,17. 
 
 The  statement  that  the  Philistines  "  came  no  more  "  into  the 
 land  of  Israel,  is  not  to  be  pressed  so  as  to  denote  an  expulsion 
 for  all  time  to  come.  It  is  simply  a  popular,  idiomatic  way  of 
 saying  that  they  came  no  more  at  that  time,  or  no  more  came 
 successfully,  so  as  to  obtain  a  permanent  foothold. 
 
 In  a  similar  manner  are  to  be  explained  the  statements  con- 
 cerning Pharaoh-nechoh,  2  Kings  xxiv.  7 ;  Jer.  xxxvii.  5  ;  and 
 concerning  the  Syrians,  2  Kings  vi.  23,  24. 
 
 Israelites  resistless.  Not  irresistible. 
 
 Dent.  xi.  25.  Josh.  vii.  4;  Jndg.  i.  34. 
 
 The  first  passage  was,  as  is  expressly  set  forth  in  the  context, 
 
 a  conditional  promise.    The  conditions  not  being  complied  with, 
 
 the  promise  was  no  longer  binding. 
 
 Israelites  very  numerous.  They  were  very  weak. 
 
 Num.  i.  46.  Deut.  vii.  1,  7. 
 
 The  texts  at  the  right  refer  to  the  time  when  Jacob  and  his 
 
 family  went  down  into  Egypt.     From  so  small  a  beginning 
 
 there   had   sprung   a  nation   like  "  the   stars   of   heaven   for 
 
 multitude."^ 
 
 *  Compare  Dent.  x.  22. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  345 
 
 Jacob  brought  out  of  Egypt.  He  died  in  Egypt. 
 
 Gen.  xlvi.  4.  Gen.  xlix.  83. 
 
 The  words,  "  I  will  there  make  of  thee  a  great  nation,"  ^  show 
 
 that  the  promise  was  to  be  fulfilled  to  Jacob's  posterity,  and 
 
 not   to  him  in  person.     Jacob's  body  was  carried  up  out  of 
 
 Egj^pt,  and  buried  in  Canaan ;  his  descendants  were  brought 
 
 out  of  Egypt,  according  to  the  promise. 
 
 Jacob's  errand,  to  procure  a  wife.  To  escape  Esau's  anger. 
 
 Gen.  xxviii.  2.  Gen.  xxvii.  42-45. 
 
 Two  reasons  for  the  same  thing, — neither  excluding  the 
 other.  Upon  the  same  principle  are  to  be  explained  the 
 several  reasons  assigned  for  Moses'  exclusion  from  Canaan,  — 
 "unbelief,"  Num.  xx.  12;  "rebellion,"  Num.  xxvii.  14;  "tres- 
 pass," Deut.  xxxii.  51 ;  "  rash  words,"  Ps.  cvi.  33.  Also,  those 
 adduced  for  numbering  the  people, —  "taxation,"  Ex.  xxxviii. 
 26 ;  a  "  military  enrolment,"  Num.  i.  2,  3 ;  ii.  32.^  In  like 
 manner,  the  reasons  named  for  Saul's  rejection,  — "  imlawful 
 sacrifice,"  1  Sam.  xiii.  12,  13;  "disobedience,"  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
 18 ;  "  consulting  the  necromancer,"  1  Chron.  x.  13. 
 
 Jacob  purchased  the  birthright.  Obtained  it  by  deception. 
 
 Gen.  XXV.  31-33.  Gen.  xxvii.  1-29 
 
 This  "discrepancy"  confounds  two  things  which  are  en- 
 tirely distinct  —  the  "  birthright "  and  the  "  blessing."  ^  Jacob 
 purchased  the  former,  but  obtained  the  latter  by  fraud  and 
 falsehood. 
 
 Jacob  supported  by  the  bed's  head.  Supported  by  his  staff. 
 
 Gen.  xlvii.  31.  Heb.  xi.  21. 
 
 From  the  fact  that  the  latter  passage  speaks  of  Jacob  as 
 
 "  dying,"  while  the  former  (compare  xlviii.  1)  represents  him 
 
 as  not  yet  "sick,"  it  is  probable  that  they  refer  to  different 
 
 occasions.     If,  however,  one  so  extremely  old  and  feeble  as 
 
 '  Gen.  xlvi.  3. 
 
 -  In  both  cases,  only  males  above  twenty  years  of  age  were  reckoned. 
 See  Ex.  xxx.  12-14.  The  second  reckoning,  Xum.  i.,  was  probably  based 
 on  the  former  one.    This  would  account  for  the  agreement  in  the  sum-total. 
 
 =*  See  Gen.  xxvi.  36. 
 
346  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Jacob  was,  might,  although  not  actually  death-struck,  be  spoken 
 
 of  as  "  dying,"  it  may  be  observed  that  the  same  Hebrew  word 
 
 pronounced  "  mittah,"  denotes  a  hed^  but  pronounced  "  matteh," 
 
 a  staff.    Our  present  Hebrew  Bible  exhibits  one  pronunciation  ; 
 
 the    Septuagint  and   the   Epistle  to  the   Hebrews  follow  the 
 
 other. 
 
 Jehoiachin,  father  of  Sdlathiel.  He  was  "childless." 
 
 Matt.  i.  12.  Jer.  xxii.  30. 
 
 The   term  "childless"  is   explained   by  the  statement  that 
 
 "  no  man  of  his  seed  shall  prosper,  sitting  upon  the  throne  of 
 
 David,  and  ruling  any  more  in  Judah."     With  reference  to  a 
 
 lineal    successor,  he  was   "  childless."     Salathiel,  or  Shealtiel, 
 
 probably  married  the  daughter  and  heiress  of  Neri,  hence  is 
 
 reckoned  as  his  son  (Luke  iii.  27). 
 
 Jehoiakim  had  no  successor.  Succeeded  by  his  son  Jehoiachin. 
 
 Jer.  xxxvi.  30.  2  Kings  xxiv.  6. 
 
 Jehoiachin's  reign  lasted  but  a  few  months,  and  was,  perhaps, 
 subject  to  his  mother's  tutelage.  He  was  then  carried  captive 
 to  Babylon,  and  his  uncle  made  king  in  his  stead.  The  Hebrew 
 term  rendered  "  sit,"  in  Jeremiah,"  implies  some  degree  of 
 permanence  ;  hence  there  is  no  collision  between  the  passages. 
 
 Jehoram's  sons  taken  captive.  They  were  put  to  death. 
 
 2  Chron.  xxi.  16, 17.  2  Chron.  xxii.  1. 
 
 As  Keil  and  Rawlinson  say,  first  taken  captive,  afterwards 
 
 slain. 
 
 Jehoshaphat  declines  Ahaziah's  aid.  Made  league  with  him. 
 
 1  Kings  xxii.  49.  2  Chron.  xx.  35, 36. 
 
 The  two  kings  at  first  engaged  in  ship-building  together. 
 
 Their  ships  were  wrecked  at  Ezion-geber.     Jehoshaphat,  being 
 
 informed  by  a  prophet  as  to  the  cause  of  this  calamity,  declined 
 
 a  second  proposal  from  Ahaziah. 
 
 Jesus  approached  by  the  centurion.  By  the  elders  of  the  Jews. 
 
 Mutt.  viii.  5.  Luke  vii.  3. 
 
 Alford  and  Ebrard  think  that  Matthew,  writing  in  a  con- 
 densed style,  speaks  of  the  centurion  as  himself  doing  that 
 
HISTORTCAL   DISCREPANCIES.  347 
 
 which  he  really  accomplished  hy  proxy.  So  Robinson,  who 
 quotes  the  old  law-maxim,  "  Qui  facit  per  alium,  facit  per  se," 
 He  who  does  a  thing  by  another,  does  it  himself.  Still,  it  is 
 possible  that  the  centurion  first  sent  the  elders,  and  then,  in  .the 
 intensity  of  his  anxiety  and  distress,  went  in  person  to  the 
 Saviour. 
 
 Upon  the  above  principle  is  to  be  explained  the  case  of 
 Zebedee's  wife.  She  makes  a  certain  request  for  her  sons, 
 Matt.  XX.  20  ;  they  make  it  for  themselves,  Mark  x.  35.  So 
 with  regard  to  David  :  He  killed  Uriah,  2  Sam.  xii.  9  ;  the 
 Ammonites  killed  him,  2  Sam.  xi.  17.  In  like  manner,  the 
 Levites  promulgated  the  "  blessings  "  and  "  curses,"  Deut  xxvii. 
 14,  15 ;  and  Joshua  did  it.  Josh.  viii.  34,  35.  So  the  priests 
 bought  the  potter's  field.  Matt,  xxvii.  6,  7 ;  and  Judas  purchased 
 it,  that  is,  furnished  the  occasion  for  its  purchase.  Acts  i.  18. 
 Nothing  is  more  common  than  that  figure  of  speech  by  which 
 we  attribute  to  the  man  himself  any  act  which  he  has  either 
 directly  or  indirectly  procured  to  be  done. 
 
 Job's  children,  all  dead.  Some  surviving. 
 
 Job  i.  19;  viii.  4.  Job  xix.  17. 
 
 Davidson  takes  the   term  "children,"   in   the   second   text, 
 
 as   denoting   "grandchildren."     Conant,    Delitzsch,    Gesenius, 
 
 Schlottmann,  Stuhlmann,  Umbreit,  and  Winer  take  the  Hebrew 
 
 "b'ne  bitni"  as  equivalent  to  "my  brethren."*     Wetzstein,^ 
 
 comparing  the  Arabic  idiom,  says  that  the  expression  denotes, 
 
 "  all  my  relations  by  blood."     Nothing  in  the  passage  warrants 
 
 the  inference  that  any  of  Job's  own  children  were  alive. 
 
 John  identical  with  Ellas.  He  was  not  Elias. 
 
 Matt.  xvii.  12, 13;  Mark  ix.  13.  John  i.  21. 
 
 In  a  figurative,  but  not  in  the  literal,  sense  John  was  Elias. 
 
 He  came  in  the  spirit  and  power  of  the  Tishbite  prophet,  and 
 
 laas  the  Elias  of  his  day.     Our  Saviour's  words,  "  If  ye  will 
 
 receive  it"  (if  ye  can  comprehend  the  meaning  of  the  prophecy), 
 
 1  Compare  the  obvious  meaning  of  "iSpSl  in  Job  iii.  10. 
 
 2  Delitzsch  on  Job,  Vol.  ii.  p  416. 
 
348  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 "  this  is  Elias  wliich  was  to  come,"  ^  show  that  a  literal  fulfilment 
 
 was  not  intended. 
 
 Joseph  bound  in  the  prison.  He  was  not  bound. 
 
 Gen.  xxxix.  20;  xl.  3.  Gen.  xxxix.  21,  22. 
 
 Probably  he  was  bound  at  first ;  but  after  a  time,  as  his  true 
 character  became  apparent,  his  chains  were  taken  off. 
 
 As  to  the  "  keeper  of  the  prison,"^  in  whose  care  Joseph  was 
 placed,  many  critics,  Delitzsch,  Keil,  Kurtz,  Lange,  and  others 
 tliink  that  he  was  a  subordinate  official,  to  whom  Potiphar  in- 
 trusted the  immediate  oversight  of  the  prison  and  its  inmates. 
 The  "captain  of  the  guard"  mentioned  Gen.  xl.  4,  was  probably 
 the  successor  of  Potiphar.^ 
 
 The   statement  that   Joseph  was  "stolen"  (that  is,  carried 
 
 away  secretly  and  by  force)  from  his  native  land  (Gen.  xl.  15) 
 
 does  not  conflict  with  the  fact  that  he  was  "  sold  "  to  the  Ish- 
 
 maelites  (xxxvii.  28). 
 
 Joshua  conquered  certain  kings.  Their  cities  not  captured. 
 
 Josh.  xii.  10, 12, 16,  21,23.  Josh.  xv.  63;  xvi.  10;  xvii.  11, 12; 
 
 Judg.  i.  22-25. 
 
 There  is  an  appreciable  difference  between  defeating  a  king 
 
 in  battle,  and  gaining  possession  of  his  capital  city.     Hannibal 
 
 several  times  vanquished  the  Roman  consuls,  but  never  captured 
 
 the  city  of  Rome. 
 
 Josiah  extirpated  idolatry.  It  had  been  destroyed  by  Manasseh. 
 
 2  Kings  xxiii.  5-12;  2  Chron.  xxxlv.  3.  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  15. 
 
 Manasseh  did  not  root  out  the  love  of  idolatry,  and  his  son 
 
 Amon  countenanced  and   powerfully  encouraged  the  worship 
 
 of  false  gods.     Hence,  when  Josiah,  in  his  tweKth  year,  began 
 
 to  overthrow  idolatry,  he  needed  to  do  the  whole  work  over 
 
 again.     The  statement  that  Josiah  destroyed  the  altars  which 
 
 "  Manasseh   had  made "  *  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  these 
 
 altars  had  been  not  "  destroyed,"  but  "  cast  out  of  the  city,"  by 
 
 Manasseh,^  and  were  restored  by  his  successor  Amon ;  hence 
 
 »  Matt.  xi.  14.  2  Qen^  xxxix.  21.  =*  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1465. 
 
 *  2  Kings  xxiii.  12.  *  2  Chron.  xxxiii.  15. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  349 
 
 the  religious  zeal  of  Josiah  was  very  properly  directed  against 
 
 them. 
 
 Josiah' s  sons,  — one  list.  A  different  list. 
 
 The  first-born  Johanan,  the  second  Jehoahaz,  Eliakim  (Jehoiakim),  Mat- 
 
 Jehoiakim,   the    third    Zedekiah,    the  taniah  (Zedekiah).  2  Kings  xxiii.  30,34; 
 
 fourth  Shailum.    1  Chron.  iii.  15.  xxiv.  17. 
 
 Jehoahaz  is  called  Shailum  in  Jer.  xxii.  11.     Bleek^  thinks 
 
 that  Shailum  assumed  the  name  "'  Jehoahaz  "  at  his  coronation. 
 
 In    Eawlinson's   opinion,  Johanan  died   before  his  father,  or 
 
 with  him  at  Megiddo. 
 
 Judas'  death,  —  one  manner.  A  diverse  statement. 
 
 And  he  cast  down  the  pieces  of  silver  And  falling  headlong,  he  burst  asun- 
 
 in  the  temple,  and  departed,  and  went  der  in  the  midst,  and  all  his  bowels 
 
 and  hanged  himself.    Matt,  xxvii.  5.  gushed  out.    Acts  1. 18. 
 
 Neither  of  these  statements  excludes  the  other.  Matthew 
 does  not  deny  that  Judas,  after  hanging  himself,  fell  and  burst 
 asunder ;  Peter  does  not  assert  that  Judas  did  not  hang  himself 
 .previous  to  his  fall.  Probably  the  circumstances  were  much 
 as  follows :  Judas  suspended  himseK  from  a  tree  on  the  brink 
 of  the  precipice  overhanging  the  valley  of  Hinnom,  and  the 
 limb  or  the  rope  giving  way,  he  feU,  and  was  mangled  as 
 described  in  Acts. 
 
 Prof.  Hackett,^  who  recently  visited  the  supposed  scene  of 
 this  tragic  event,  deems  the  above  explanation  "  entirely  natural." 
 As  he  stood  in  the  valley,  and  looked  up  to  the  rocky  terraces 
 which  hang  over  it,  and  which  he  found  by  measurement  to 
 vary  from  twenty-five  to  forty  feet  almost  perpendicular  height, 
 he  felt  "  more  than  ever  satisfied  "  with  the  solution  just  given. 
 He  speaks  of  trees  as  still  growing  upon  the  margin  of  these 
 precipices,  and  of  a  rocky  pavement  at  the  bottom  of  the  ledges, 
 upon  which  the  traitor  would  be  crushed  and  mangled,  as  well 
 as  killed,  in  his  fall.  The  Professor  suggests  that  Judas  may 
 have  struck  upon  some  pointed  rock,  which  entered  his  body, 
 and  caused  his  bowels  to  gush  out. 
 
 Besides,  we  do  not  know  how  long  Judas  remained  suspended, 
 Dor  how  far  decomposition  was  advanced  when  he  fell. 
 
 » Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  67.      ^  niustrations  of  Scripture,  pp.  275, 276. 
 30 
 
350  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Prof.  Gaussen/  exemplifying  different  versions  of  the  same 
 
 affair,  mentions   a   man  who,  having   determined   to   commit 
 
 suicide,  placed  himself  upon  the  sill  of   a  lofty  window,  and 
 
 aimed  a  pistol  at  his  head,  then  discharged  the  pistol,  and  leaped 
 
 at   the   same  instant.     Now,  it  might  be  said,  with  sufficient 
 
 accuracy,  that  the  man  took  his  life  by  shooting,  or  by  throwing 
 
 himself  from  a  height.     So,  in  the  case  in  question,  Matthew 
 
 gives  one  aspect  of  the  affair,  and  Peter  another,  yet  there  is 
 
 no  contradiction  between  them. 
 
 Judges  appointed  by  Moses.  Appointed  by  the  people. 
 
 Ex.  xviii.  25;  Deut.  i.  15.  Deut.  i.  9-13. 
 
 Jethro  suggested  the  appointment  to  Moses ;  and  the  latter, 
 after  obtaining  the  consent  of  Jehovah,^  referred  the  matter  to 
 the  people ;  and  the  men  whom  the  people  nominated  he  ad- 
 mitted to  share  his  authority,  as  subordinate  judges.^  Thus, 
 since  both  Moses  and  the  people  participated  in  the  choice,  it 
 might  be  ascribed  indifferently  to  either.  The  omission  of 
 mention  of  Jethro's  part  in  the  matter,  which  De  Wette  and 
 Koster  style  a  "  contradiction,"  Stahelin  says  is  no  contradiction, 
 since  it  was  the  intention  of  the  Deuteronomist  simply  to  state 
 the  fact,  and  not  the  manner  of  the  appointment.  A  quite 
 similar  case  is  that  of  the  spies  sent  by  the  Lord,  Num.  xiii. 
 1,2;  by  Moses,  Num.  xxxii.  8 ;  by  the  people,  Deut.  i.  22 ; 
 the  true  solution  being  that  the  people  suggested  the  matter  to 
 Moses,  who  laid  it  before  the  Lord,  and  received  from  him  an 
 injunction  to  comply  with  the  people's  request.  Yet  in  the 
 condensed  statements  of  the  two  latter  passages  there  is  no 
 mention  of  the  Divine  co-operation  in  the  sending. 
 
 Upon  the  shallow  and  delusive  hypothesis  that  the  historian's 
 omission  of  an  event  is  equivalent  to  a  denial  of  that  event,  are 
 founded  many  of  the  alleged  "  contradictions "  of  the  Bible. 
 The  following  are  examples:  Levites'  participation  in  the  in- 
 auguration of  Joash,  2  Chron.  xxiii.  1-20 ;  omitted,  2  Kings 
 
 ^  Theopneusty,  p.  117  (Kirk's  translation).  «  gee  Ex.  xviii.  23,  24. 
 
 ^  Graves  on  the  Pentateuch,  i.  87. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  351 
 
 xi.  4-19.     Manasseh's   repentance,    2  Chron.    xxxiii.   11-17; 
 
 omitted,  2  Kings  xxi.  17.     Moses'  family  sent  back  to  Midian, 
 
 Ex.  xviii    2-6 ;  the  sending  back  omitted,  Ex.  iv.  20 ;  Moses' 
 
 fast  at  his  ^rst  ascent  of  Mount  Sinai,  Deut.  ix.  9, 18;  omitted, 
 
 Ex.  xxiv.  18  ;  with  many  analogous  cases  elsewhere.     In  such 
 
 instances,  the  omission  is  due  to  condensation  on  the  part  of 
 
 the  writer,  or  to  his  selection  of  those  circumstances  only  which 
 
 he  deemed  important. 
 
 Kish  the  son  of  Ahiel.  The  son  of  Ner. 
 
 1  Sam.  ix.  1;  xiv.  50,  51.  1  Chron.  viii.  33;  ix.  39. 
 
 There  were  probably  two  men  named  Ner  —  one  the  grand- 
 father, the  other  the  brother  of  Kish.  Hence  the  genealogy 
 would  stand  thus : 
 
 Ner. 
 Abiel. 
 
 I 
 
 Kish.  Ner. 
 
 Saul.  Abner. 
 
 Hervey  renders  1  Sam.  xiv.  50,  51  thus:  "And  Blish  the 
 
 father  of  Saul,  and  Ner  the  father  of  Abner,  were  the  sons  of 
 
 Abiel."  1 
 
 Kohath's  son,  Izhar.  Amminadab. 
 
 Ex.  vi.  18.  1  Chron.  vi.  22. 
 
 Two  names  of  the  same  person.  So  Rawlinson  and  other 
 critics. 
 
 It  may  be  added  here  that,  upon  the  hypothesis  (1)  that  the 
 same  person  bears  several  names ;  or  (2)  that  several  persons 
 bear  the  same  name ;  or  (3)  that  copyists  have  blundered  in 
 respect  to  names  ;  or  (4)  that  the  terms  "  father  "  and  "  son," 
 etc.,  are  used  in  a  loose  sense  for  "  progenitor,"  "  descendant," 
 and  the  like,  we  are  able  to  explain  a  large  number  of  "  ap- 
 parent contradictions "  like  the  following :  Laadan's  posterity, 
 1  Chron.  vi.  20;  xxiii.  8  and  xxvi.  21,  22;  Laban's  father, 
 Gen.  xxviii.  5  and  xxix.  5  ;  Machir's  wife,  1  Chron.  vii.  15 
 and  IG;    Mahol's  sons,  1   Kings    iv.  81    and  1   Chron.  ii.  6; 
 
 '  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iv.  2853,  makes  Abiel  the  father  of  Ner. 
 
352  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Salah's   father,  Gen.  xi.  12  and  Luke  iii.  35,  36;    Samuel's 
 
 fii'st-born,  1  Sam.  viii.  2  and  1   Chron.  vi.   28;    Saul's  sons, 
 
 1  Sam.  xiv.  49  and  1  Sam.  xxxi.  2  ;  1  Chron.  viii.  33  ;  Timnah's 
 
 relationship,  Gen.  xxxvi.  12  and  1  Chron.  i.  36,  51 ;  Zedekiah's 
 
 relationship,  2  Kings  xxiv.  17 ;  1  Chron.  iii.  15  and  1  Chron. 
 
 iii.  16;   2  Chron.  xxxvi.  10;    Zechariah's  father,  Ezra  v.  1; 
 
 vi.  14  and  Zech.  i.  1 ;  Zeruhbabel's  father,  1  Chron.  iii.  19  and 
 
 Ezra  iii.  2;  Neh.  xii.  1. 
 
 As  to  the  differences,^  some  twenty-seven  in  number,  between 
 
 the  two  lists  of  names,  Ezra  iio  2-60  and  Neh.  vii.  7-62,  they 
 
 are   due   either  to  copyists'  mistakes,  or  to  variations  in  our 
 
 English  method  of  spelling  proper  names. 
 
 Korah  swallowed  up  hy  the  earth.  He  was  burned. 
 
 Num.  xvi.  31-33;  xxvi.  10.  Num.  xvi.  35;  Ps.  cvi.  18. 
 
 There  are  two  theories  respecting  Korah's  fate:  (1)  That 
 he  was  burned,  with  the  "two  hundred  and  fifty  men"  who 
 offered  incense.  Dr.  Graves  ^  has  a  very  ingenious  argument 
 in  defence  of  this  hypothesis,  which  is  also  supported  by 
 Boothroyd,  Bush,  Geddes,  Hervey,^  Josephus,^  and  the  Samar- 
 itan version.  But  Num.  xxvi.  10  seems  fatal  to  this  theory. 
 (2)  That,  as  the  passage  just  named  implies,  Korah  was  en- 
 gulfed, together  with  Dathan  and  Abiram.  Ewald,*  Keil, 
 Kurtz,^  and  I^jiobel  adopt  the  latter  view. 
 
 The  following  would  seem  to  have  been  the  circumstances 
 of  the  case.  Dathan  and  Abiram,  being  brothers  and  Reu- 
 benites,  probably  had  tents  near  together,  and  with  their  tribe, 
 on  the  south  side  of  the  encampment.^  Korah,  as  a  Kohathite, 
 would  pitch  his  tent  "on  the  side  of  the  tabernacle  southward."® 
 This  would  bring  the  three  ringleaders  into  such  contiguity 
 that  they  could  conveniently  take  counsel  together.^ 
 
 ^  See  more  than  a  hundred  similar  cases  collected  by  Davidson,  Introd. 
 to  Old  Test.,  ii.  108-112. 
 2  On  rentateuch,  1.  119, 120.  ^  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1576. 
 
 *  Antiq.  iv.  3,  4.  *  History  of  Israel,  ii.  180. 
 
 8  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  296.    ^  Num.  ii.  10. 
 ^  Num.  iii.  29.  "  Blunt,  Coincidences.    See  Korah. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  353 
 
 On  the  appointed  day  Korah  and  his  faction  assembled  at 
 the  door  of  the  tabernacle  of  the  congregation.  Dathan  and 
 Abiram  scornfully  refused  to  come  (vs.  12-14),  and  remained 
 in  their  tents.  After  the  events  recorded  in  vs.  18-24,  Moses, 
 leaving  the  tabernacle,  went  with  the  elders  of  Israel  to  the 
 tents  of  Dathan  and  Abiram.  Doubtless  Korah,  who  was  the 
 prime  mover  of  the  rebellion,  left  the  "  two  hundred  and  fifty 
 men "  burning  incense  at  the  tabernacle,  and  followed  Moses, 
 with  the  purpose  of  strengthening  Dathan  and  Abiram  in  their 
 contumacy.  Arrived  at  their  tents,  he  stood  with  them  and 
 their  families  in  the  door  to  see  what  Moses  would  do.  At  the 
 command  of  the  latter,  the  people  withdrew  from  about  the 
 "  tabernacle  [tents  or  dwelling-place]  of  Korah,  Dathan,  and 
 Abiram,"  who  were  instantly  swallowed  up  by  the  opening 
 earth.  At  the  same  moment,  a  fire  sent  of  God  destroyed 
 the  two  hundred  and  fiLfty  men  offering  incense  at  the  tabernacle. 
 Probably  Korah  is  mentioned,  in  vs.  24-27,  with  the  other 
 two,  because  he  was  so  closely  linked  with  them  in  conduct 
 and  fate.  It  is  clear  that  Korah  was  not  in  his  own  tent, 
 which  must  have  been  at  some  little  distance,  and  which  seems 
 not  to  have  been  destroyed.  Some  think  that  "  the  tabernacle 
 of  Korah,  Dathan,  and  Abiram"  (vs.  24-27)  was  one  which 
 these  men  had  set  up  in  opposition  to  the  tabernacle  proper. 
 
 That  a  portion,  at  least,  of  Korah's  family  did  not  perish 
 with  him  is  explicitly  asserted  in  Num.  xxvi.  11.  The  prophet 
 Samuel  was  a  descendant  of  Korah,^  and  some  of  David's 
 musicians  belonged  to  the  same  family.^  So  that  the  expres- 
 sion, "  all  the  men  that  appertained  unto  Korah "  ^  (literally, 
 "  all  unto  Korah  ")  denotes  simply  his  adherents  —  his  servants 
 and  retainers,  with,  possibly,  the  adult  males  of  his  family. 
 
 LazariLS  came  forth  from  the  tomb.        He  was  bound  hand  and  foot. 
 John  xi.  44.  John  xi.  44. 
 
 The  Jewish  sepulchres  were  caves  or  rooms  excavated  in 
 
 » 1  Chion.  vi.  22-28.  2 1  Chron.  vi.  31, 33 ;  Ps.  xliv.-xlix,  titles. 
 
 3  Num.  xvi.  32. 
 80* 
 
354  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 the  rock.     The  dead  were  not  put  in  coffins,  but  into  niches 
 
 cut  into  the  sides  of  these  rooms,  and  radiating  outward.     The 
 
 corpse,  as  Meyer  thinks,  was  not  so  swathed  with  bandages  as 
 
 to  preclude  all  motion ;  and  the  wrappings  would  be  loosened 
 
 by  the  movements  of  the  living  man.     At  Jesus'  word,  Lazarus 
 
 raised  himself  from  his  recumbent  position  in  the  niche,  put 
 
 forth  his  feet  over  the  edge,  then,  sliding  down,  stood  upright 
 
 on  the  floor.^     When  he  thus  "  came  forth,"  Jesus  bade  them 
 
 "  loose  him,  and  let  him  go." 
 
 Man's  fear  and  dread  upon  all  beasts.  Not  upon  the  lion. 
 
 Gen.  ix.  2.  Prov.  xxx.  30. 
 
 The  second  passage, "  A  lion  which  is  strongest  among  beasts, 
 
 and  turneth  not  away  for  any,"  may  mean,  " for  any  beast"  — 
 
 another  way  of  designating  the  lion  as  the  "  king  of  beasts." 
 
 If,  however,  it  implies,  "  for  any  7nan"  the  exceptional  cases 
 
 which  this  statement  covers  only  prove  the  general  rule  that 
 
 the  presence  of  man  intimidates  all  the  lower  animals, 
 
 Moses  somewhat  infirm.  His  physical  poioers  well  preserved. 
 
 And  he  said  unto  them,  lama  hun-  And   Moses   was   an   hundred    and 
 
 dred  and  twenty  years  old  this  day;  I  twenty  years   old  when  he  died:  his 
 
 can  no  more  ^o  out  and  come  in :  also  eye  was  not  dim,  nor  his  natural  force 
 
 the  Loud  hath  said  unto  me,  Thou  shalt  abated.    Deut.  xxxiv.  7. 
 not  go  over  tliis  Jordan.  Deut.  xxxi.  2. 
 
 The  fact  that  Moses'  eyesight  and  physical  vigor  were  unim- 
 paired does  not  preclude  his  knowing  that  he  had  already 
 passed  far  beyond  the  ordinary  limit  of  human  life,  and  that 
 his  mission  —  inasmuch  as  the  time  for  crossing  the  Jordan 
 had  come,  and  he  himself  was  not  to  go  over — was  accomplished. 
 In  view  of  these  facts,  he  admonished  the  Israelites  that  he 
 could  no  longer  "  go  out  and  come  in  "  as  their  leader. 
 Moses' father-in-law,  Jethro.  Reuelor  Raguel.  Hdbah. 
 
 Ex.  iii.  1 ;  iv,  18;  xviii.  5.        Ex.  ii.  18;  Num.  x.  29.        Judg.  iv.  11. 
 
 Observe,  (1)  That  "  Reuel "  and  "  Raguel "  are  exactly  the 
 same  in  the  Hebrew.  (2)  That  "  Jether,"  or  "  Jethro,"  is  not 
 a  proper  name,  but  simply  a  title  of  honor,  denoting  "  excel- 
 lency,"   and   about   equivalent   to   the   Arabic   "Imam."     So 
 
 1  So  Macknight,  Paxton,  and  others. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  355 
 
 Aben  Ezra,  Ewald,  Gesenius,  Keil,  Kimchi,  I^obel,  Kurtz, 
 Winer,  and  others. 
 
 The  following  seems  the  best  explanation  of  the  other 
 difficulties  in  the  case.  Hobab  was  the  son  of  Raguel,  and 
 hence  the  brother-in-law  of  Moses.  He  appears  to  have  re- 
 mained with  the  Israelites  when  his  father  Jethro  returned  to 
 his  own  land,  and  to  have  settled  among  them.^  So  Josephus, 
 Bertheau,  and  Keil.  As  to  Num.  x.  29,  the  original  is  am- 
 biguous, and  may  denote  either  that  Raguel  or  that  Hobab  was 
 Moses'  father-in-law.  The  English  version  of  Judg.  iv.  11 
 favors  the  latter  theory ;  but  the  Hebrew  word  "  chothen " 
 means  properly  "  a  relative  by  marriage,"  ^  or,  as  Fuerst  says, 
 "  one  who  makes  an  alliance."  So  that,  as  Ranke  maintains, 
 the  term,  being  ambiguous,  proves  nothing. 
 
 Some  think  that  Hobab  was  the  brother  of  Jethro  —  both 
 being  sons  of  Raguel ;  others,  that  Hobab  and  Jethro  were 
 different  names  of  the  same  man,  who  was  actually  the  father- 
 in-law  of  Moses,  and  the  son  of  Raguel.  On  this  hypothesis, 
 the  terms  "  father  "  and  "  daughter,"  Ex.  ii.  16-21,  are  equivalent 
 to  "■  grandfather  "  and  "  granddaughter." 
 
 Moses  peerless  among  prophets.         Others  wrought  equal  miracles, 
 
 Deut.  xxxiv.  10-12.  1  K.  xvii.  22;  2  K.  i.  10;  ii.  14;  iv.  34. 
 
 The  first  passage  does  not  say  that  no  such  prophet  ever 
 would  arise,  but  merely  that,  up  to  the  time  of  writing,  no 
 prophet  equal  to  Moses  had  arisen.  Moreover,  in  certain 
 aspects,  not  simply  as  a  miracle-worker,  but  as  a  lawgiver, 
 Moses  has  never  been  equalled.  In  this  respect  he  has  no 
 human  peer. 
 
 Ptoses'  veil  worn  in  addressing  the  people.        Not  worn  at  such  times. 
 Ex.  xxxiv.  33-35.  2  Cor.  iii.  7, 13. 
 
 The  best  commentators  agree  that  the  citation  from  Exodus 
 
 ^  Compare  Ex.  xviii.  27;  Num.  x.  29-32;  Judg.  i.  16;  iv.  11;  1  Sam. 
 XV.  6. 
 
 2  See  Gen.  xix.  14;  2  Kings  viii.  27,  where  a  word  differing  only  in  vowel- 
 points  is  employed. 
 
366  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 should  be  rendered,  "  And  when  Moses  had  done  speaking  with 
 
 them,  he  put  a  veil,"  etc. 
 
 Ndboth's  sons  slain  with  him.  Their  slaughter  not  mentioned. 
 
 2  Kings  ix.  26.  1  ELings  xxi.  13. 
 
 The  omission  in  the  condensed  narrative  of  1  Kings  cannot 
 
 be  construed  into  a  denial.     The  murder  of   the  sons  is  not 
 
 mentioned  in  this  place,  because,  as  Ewald  ^  says,  it  is  "  here 
 
 understood  as  a  matter  of  course."     Jezebel,  who  was  not  wont 
 
 to  do  things  by  halves,  would  see  to  it  that  Naboth's  sons  were 
 
 not  left  alive  to  inherit  his  possessions  (which  would  not  then 
 
 have  escheated  to  the  crown),  nor  to  revenge  their  father's 
 
 cruel  death. 
 
 Poor  not  found  in  Israel.  Poor  always  found. 
 
 Deut.  XV.  4.  Deut.  xv.  11. 
 
 Michaelis,  Eosenmiiller,  Dathe,  and  others  give  the  sense  of 
 
 the   first  passage  thus,  "  Thou  must  release  the  debt,  except 
 
 when  no  poor  person  is  concerned  in  the  matter,  —  which  may 
 
 happen,  for  the  Lord  shall  greatly  bless  thee,"  etc. 
 
 Priests  styled  sons  of  Aaron.  Classed  as  Levites. 
 
 Lev.  i.  5,  8, 11;  Num.  vi.  23.  Deut.  x.  8,  9;  xviii.  1,  7. 
 
 Certain  critics  have  affected  to  see  a  discrepancy,  in  that  the 
 
 "  sharp  distinction"  between  the  priests  and  Levites  in  the  first 
 
 passages  is  not  kept  up  in  the  second  series.     To  which  it  ia 
 
 sufficient  to  reply : 
 
 1.  The  priests  were  not  only  "  sons  of  Aaron,"  but  were 
 also  "  Levites." 
 
 2.  The  term  "  sons  of  Aaron,"  applied  to  the  priests,  is  not 
 found  in  the  last  part  of  Numbers  at  all,  but  only  in  the  first 
 fourteen  chapters.  These  relate  to  the  second,  while  Deuter- 
 onomy relates  to  the  fortieth,  year  after  the  exodus.  Now, 
 during  the  intervening  thirty-eight  years,  a  change  of  phraseology 
 may  have  obtained  currency. 
 
 3.  In  Deuteronomy  Moses  is  speaking  in  general  terms. 
 To  enter  into  minute  and  unimportant  details  would  be  quite 
 
 ^  Hist,  of  Israel,  iv.  75,  note  2.    So  also  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  others. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  357 
 
 'foreign  to  his  purpose,  and  tend  to  defeat  it.     The  man  who 
 
 addresses  a  large  and  mixed  audience  will,  if   he  knows  his 
 
 business,  take  care  to  shun  irrelevant  details  and  distinctions.^ 
 
 Purchaser  of  sepulchre,  Jacob.  It  was  Abraham. 
 
 And  the  bones  of  Joseph,  which  the  So  Jacob  went  down  into  Egypt,  and 
 
 children  of  Israel  brought  up  out   of  died,  he,  and  our  fathers.    And  were 
 
 Egypt,  buried  they  in  Shechem,  in  a  carried  over  into  Sychem,  and  laid  in 
 
 parcel  of  ground  which  Jacob  bought  the  sepulchre  that  Abraham  bought  for 
 
 of  the  sons  of  Hamor  the  father  of  a  sum  of  money  of  the  sons  of  Emmor, 
 
 Shechem  for  a  hundred  pieces  of  silver,  tlie  father  of  Sychem.    Acts  vii.  15, 16. 
 Josh.  xxiv.  32. 
 
 Alford  thinks  that  the  use  of  the  name  "  Abraham,"  in  the 
 latter  passage,  is  due  to  "  haste  or  inadvertence  "  on  the  part 
 of  Stephen.  Hackett,  following  Beza,  Kuinoel,  Schoettgen, 
 and  others,  is  in  favor  of  omitting  the  word  "  Abraham,"  and 
 rendering,  "  which  was  purchased." 
 
 The  simplest  explanation  is  that  suggested  by  ISIr.  Garden.'' 
 It  is  known  that  Sychem  (Shechem)  was  the  place  where  God 
 first  appeared  to  Abraham  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  where 
 the  patriarch  built  an  altar.^  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  a 
 man  so  scrupulous  as  was  Abraham  in  respect  to  property 
 would  purchase  the  field  where  he  built  his  altar.  In  the  one 
 hundred  and  eighty -five  years  which  intervened,  the  Shechemites 
 may  have  reoccupied  the  location,  and  Jacob  may  have  re- 
 newed the  purchase  made  by  his  grandfather.  Of  this  con- 
 secrated field  a  portion  may  have  been  set  apart  by  Jacob  as  a 
 burial-place. 
 
 According  to  the  usage  of  New  Testament  Greek,  we  should 
 
 read,  "  of  the  sons  of  Emmor  the  son  of  Sychem."     We  are 
 
 thus   carried   back  to  a    Shechem  and    Hamor  antecedent  to 
 
 Abraham,  and  quite  different  from  those  of  whose  sons  Jacob 
 
 made   the   purchase,  Gen.    xxxiii.  18-20.     The  way  is  thus 
 
 cleared.      Abraham   made   the  original   purchase,  and   Jacob 
 
 renewed  and  confirmed  the  transaction. 
 
 Rebellious  Israelites  all  dead.  Spoken  of  as  living. 
 
 Num.  xxvi.  64,  65.  Dent.  i.  6,  9, 14;  v.  2,  5;  xi.  2,  7. 
 
 That  the  congregation  which  remained  after  the  death  of  the 
 
 1  See  Bible  Com.,  i.  797,  798.  =  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  iv.  3114,  S115. 
 
 3  Gen.  xii.  6,  7. 
 
358  DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE    BIBLE. 
 
 rebels  mi^ht  still  be  considered  identical  with  that  which  came* 
 out  from  Egypt  is  clear,  from  the  following  considerations. 
 Only  the  males  above  twenty  years  of  age  were  "  numbered," 
 and  placed  under  the  ban.^  It  would  follow,  beyond  question, 
 that  a  very  large  number  of  women  were  present,  who  remem- 
 bered the  servitude  in  Egypt  and  the  events  in  the  wilderness. 
 Besides,  the  Levites  were  exempted  from  the  ban,  as  well  as 
 all  the  males  under  twenty  years  of  age?  Here,  then,  were 
 t}iree  classes  of  persons  who  survived,  and  who  formed  the 
 large  majority  of  the  congregation  to  whom  Moses  discoursed, 
 as  recorded  in  Deuteronomy.  He  was,  therefore  (Colenso  to 
 the  contrary,  notwithstanding),  perfectly  right  in  saying  to 
 the  assembled  multitudes,  "  Your  eyes  have  seen  all  the  great 
 acts  of  the  Lord  which  he  did." 
 
 Rulers  Tcneio  Christ.  They  kneio  him  not. 
 
 Matt.  xxi.  38.  John  xvi.  3;  Acts  iii.  17;  1  Cor.  ii.  8. 
 
 A.  Fuller  deems  it  very  probable  that  there  were  some  of 
 each  description  ;  and  that  the  former  passages  refer  to  one ; 
 the  latter,  to  the  other. 
 
 Alford  suggests  that  the  "  ignorance  "  mentioned  admitted  of 
 all  degrees,  from  that  of  the  unlearned,  who  followed  their 
 leaders  implicitly  in  rejecting  Jesus,  to  that  of  the  most  learned 
 scribes,  who  rightly  understood  the  Messianic  predictions,  yet, 
 from  moral  bliiuhiess  or  perverted  expectations,  failed  to  recog- 
 nize the  fulfilment  in  our  Lord. 
 
 Samaritans  received  not  Jesus.  Treated  him  hospitably. 
 
 Luke  ix.  52,  53.  John  iv.  39,  40. 
 
 Baur  finds  a  "discrepancy"  here;  but  Bleek"  replies  that 
 
 Luke  is  speaking  of  a  certain  Samaritan  village.,  while  John 
 
 refers  to  a  city  in  the  land  of  Samaria. 
 
 Sam-uel  visited  Saul  no  more.  Saul  prophesied  before  him. 
 
 1  Sam.  XV.  35.  1  Sam.  xix.  24. 
 
 De Wette * :  "It  is  said  that  Samuel  did  not  see  Saul  again 
 
 ^  Compare  Num.  i.  2,  3,  45,  46.  ^  -^^^^  j.  3^  45^  jg. 
 
 "  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  ii  220.  .     *  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  '111. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  859 
 
 till  the  day  of  his  death."     This  statement  conveys  a  wrong 
 
 impression.     "  To  see  "  is  used  in  Hebrew  for  to  visit,  that  is, 
 
 to  go  to  see^  as  in  2  Sam.  xiii.  5 ;  2  Kings  viii.  29  ;  2  Chron. 
 
 xxii.  6.     Samuel  went  no  more  to  see  Saul ;   but  the  latter 
 
 came  to  see  him.     Our  version  gives  the  true  sense. 
 
 SauVs  attendants  heard  the  voice.  They  heard  it  not. 
 
 Acts  ix.  7.  Acts  xxii.  9;  xxvi.  14. 
 
 The  Greek  "  akouo,"  like  our  word  "  hear,"  has  two  distinct 
 meanings,  to  perceive  sound,  and  to  understand.^  The  men 
 who  were  with  Saul  of  Tarsus,  heard  the  sound,  but  did  not 
 understand  what  was  said  to  him.  As  to  the  fact  that  one 
 passage  represents  them  as  "  standing  "  ;  the  other,  as  having 
 "  fallen  to  the  earth,"  the  word  rendered  "  stood "  also  means 
 to  he  fixed,  to  he  rooted  to  the  spot.  Hence  the  sense  may  be, 
 not  that  they  stood  erect,  but  that  they  were  rendered  motion- 
 less, or  fixed  to  the  spot,  by  overpowering  fear.  Or,  perhaps, 
 when  the  light  with  such  exceeding  brilliancy  burst  upon  them, 
 they  all  "fell  to  the  earth,"  but  afterward  rose  and  "stood" 
 upon  their  feet.^ 
 
 Saul  chosen  king  by  lot.        Chosen  by  the  Lord.         Demanded  by  people. 
 1  Sara.  X.  20,  21.        1  Sam.  ix.  17 ;  x.  24.  1  Sam.  viii.  19. 
 
 Here  is  no  collision.     The  people  persisted  in  demanding  a 
 
 king.     God  granted  their  request,  and  guided  the  lot  in  the 
 
 choice  of  Saul  to  be  king  over  Israel.* 
 
 Saul's  death,  —  one  manner.  A  different  manner. 
 
 1  Sam.  xxxi.  3-5.  2  Sam.  i.  6-10. 
 
 The  latter  statement  is  given  as  that  of  an  "  Amalekite," 
 and  is  not  vouched  for  by  the  sacred  historian.  It  was  doubt- 
 less colored  by  its  author  to  suit  the  supposed  occasion. 
 
 Saul  inquired  of  the  Lord.  Bid  not  thus  inquire. 
 
 1  Sam.  xxviii.  6.  1  Chron.  x.  14. 
 
 ^  See  Gesenius,  Hebrew  Lexicon,  p.  951,  Rem.  g, 
 
 -  On  use  of  clkovo,  with  different  cases,  see  Winer's  Grammar  of  N.  T. 
 Idiom,  pp.  199,  200  (Thayer's  edition);  also,  Buttmann's  Grammar,  pp 
 165,  16G. 
 
 ^  Compare  Ilackett,  Commentary'  on  Acts  ix.  7. 
 
 *  Ewald's  Historj'  of  Israel,  iii.  25, 
 
360  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 It  is  sufficient  to  notice  that  two  different  Hebrew  words  of 
 diverse  meaning  are  employed  here.  Or,  it  may  be  correctly 
 remarked  that  Saul's  attempts  at  inquiry  were  of  so  unworthy 
 a  nature  that  it  would  be  an  abuse  of  language  to  speak  of  him 
 as  really  '*  inquiring  of  Jehovah."  As  to  the  apparent  conflict 
 between  1  Sam.  xiv.  18,  37  and  1  Chron.  xiii.  3,  relative  to 
 asking  counsel  at  the  ark  of  God,  the  latter  passage,  which 
 denies  this  custom  in  the  days  of  Saul,  doubtless  refers  to  the 
 later  years  of  that  monarch,  after  he  had  slain  the  priests  of 
 the  Lord,  and  silnk  in  the  depths  of  sin  and  shame. 
 
 Saul's  family  died  with  Mm.  Some  of  the  family  survived. 
 
 1  Chron.  x.  6.  2  Sam.  ii.  8. 
 
 The  expression  "  all  his  house,"  in  the  first  text,  is  explained 
 by  "  all  his  men,"  1  Sam.  xxxi.  6.  Keil :  "  All  those  who  were 
 about  the  king,  i.e.  the  whole  of  the  king's  attendants  who  had 
 followed  him  to  the  war."  Similarly  Rawlinson.  Fuerst  gives 
 people,  servants  among  the  significations  of  the  Hebrew  word 
 "  bayith,"  house,  used  in  the  first  text. 
 
 Saul  unacquainted  with  David.  Knew  him  very  well. 
 
 1  Sam.  xvii.  55-58.  1  Sam.  xvi.  21-23. 
 
 The  point  of  the  difficulty  is.  How  could  Saul  and  Abner 
 too  be  so  ignorant  in  respect  to  one  who  had  been  armor-bearer 
 and  musician  to  Saul  ?  Various  solutions  of  this  difficulty  are 
 given. 
 
 Some  critics,  Horsley,  Townsend,  Gray,  and  others,  think 
 that  these  passages  are  not  chronologically  arranged,  and  that 
 verses  14-23  of  chapter  xvi.  belong  between  verses  9  and  10  of 
 chapter  xviii.  In  the  Vatican  ms.  of  the  Septuagint,  chapters 
 xvii.  12-31  and  55-xviii.  5  —  twenty-nine  verses  in  all  —  are 
 omitted}  Houbigant,  Kennicott,^  IMichaelis,  Eichhorn,  Dathe, 
 and  Bertheau,  on  this  account,  deem  these  verses  "inter- 
 polations."    But  such   critics  as    DeWette,  Thenius,  Ewald,^ 
 
 ^  Davidson  on  Hebrew  Text,  pp.  57,  58.  -  Dissertations,  ii.  418-430. 
 
 2  History  of  Israel,  iii.,  71,  note. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  361 
 
 Bleek,  Stahelin,  Keil,  and  Davidson^  reject  this  theory,  and 
 explain  the  passages  in  another  manner. 
 
 As  to  Abner's  ignorance  of  David,  it  is  entirely  conceivable 
 that  the  former,  as  commander  of  Saul's  army,  and  constantly 
 busied  with  military  affairs,  may  have  known  very  little  of 
 David  (who  was  probably  with  Saul  only  upon  infrequent 
 occasions),^  and  nothing  whatever  as  to  his  family  connections. 
 
 Saul's  ignorance  of  the  young  hero  may  be  accounted  for 
 upon  some  one  or  more  of  the  following  considerations : 
 
 1.  Possible  anticipation  of  events,  or  transposition  of  pas- 
 sages. Oriental  historians  sometimes  pursue  the  leading  idea  of 
 the  narrative  to  its  result,  and  then  return  to  fill  up  the  omitted 
 detaifs.^     Hence,  contemporaneous  events  appear  consecutive. 
 
 2.  Lapse  of  time,  and  consequent  change  in  David's  personal 
 aspect.  We  do  not  know  how  much  time  intervened ;  and  the 
 change  in  .Eastern  youths  with  respect  to  physical  development 
 is  very  marked  and  sudden.* 
 
 3.  Bustle  of  war  and  court  life,  with  the  multiplicity  of 
 Saul's  servants  and  attendants.     So  Kalkar,  Saurin,  and  others. 
 
 4.  Diseased  mental  state  of  Saul.  Persons  suffering  from 
 mania  or  insanity  often  forget  their  nearest  friends.  So  Abar- 
 banel  and  Bertholdt. 
 
 5.  Ignorance  of  Saul,  not  as  to  David  himself,  but  as  to  his 
 family,*  of   which,  as   we   have   seen,  Abner   might  well   be 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  530, 
 
 2  See  p.  331  infra,  "  David's  detention." 
 
 ^  See  Bible  Commentary  on  1  Sam.  xvi.  21. 
 
 *  Thomson  (Land  and  Book,  ii.  866,  American  edition),  speaking  of  the 
 sudden  change  of  boys  in  such  cases,  says :  "  They  not  only  sprint:  into 
 full-p-own  manhood  as  if  by  magic,  but  all  their  former  beauty  disappears  ; 
 their  complexion  becomes  dark ;  their  features  hard  and  angular,  and  the 
 whole  expression  of  countenance  stern  and  even  disagreeable.  I  have 
 often  been  accosted  by  such  persons,  formerly  intimate  acquaintances, 
 but  who  had  suddenly  grown  entirely  out  of  my  knowledge,  nor  could  ] 
 without  difficulty  recognize  them."  Mr.  Thomson  thinks  that  David,  hav- 
 ing returned  to  shepherd  life,  had  probably  undergone  a  change  like  th  t 
 a'bove  described,  hence  was  not  recognized  by  Saul. 
 
 ^  So  Kurtz  in  Herzog's  Real-Encyklopadie,  iii.  300. 
 31 
 
362  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 ignorant.      Kimchi  thinks  that   Saul  wished  to  know  simply 
 
 whether  David's  valor  was  hereditary,  that,  if  so,  his  family 
 
 might  be  "  made  free  in  Israel."  ^ 
 
 As  to  the  fact  that  David  is  represented  as  "  a  mighty,  valiant 
 
 man,  and  a  man  of   war"  (xvi.  18),  but  as  a  "stripling,"  a 
 
 youth  unaccustomed  to  arms  (xvii.  39,  42,  56),  it  may  be  said 
 
 that   the  first  epithets  may  have  been  applied  to    David  not 
 
 because  he  had  already  fought  bravely  in  war,  but  on  account 
 
 of  the  courage  and  strength  displayed  by  him  in  killing  the 
 
 lion  and  the  bear  (xvii.  34-36),  and  which  pointed  him  out  as 
 
 a  future  hero.     On  the  other  hand,  the  Hebrew  term  rendered 
 
 "  stnpling "  denotes,  says  Gesenius,  "  a  youth,  young  man  of 
 
 marriageable  age."     Fuerst,  "  properly,  a  strong  one." 
 
 Satan  under  restraint.  Suffered  to  roam  at  liberty. 
 
 2  Pet.  ii.  4;  Jude  vi.  Job  i.  6,  7;  1  Pet.  v.  8;  Rev.  xii.  12. 
 
 Wliile  the  leader  and  some  others  of  the  fallen  spirits  are 
 
 permitted  to  roam  the  earth,  and  to  tempt  mankind,  the  majority 
 
 of  these  beings  may  be  confined  within  the  limits  of  their  dark 
 
 abode.     Even  those  which  are  let  loose  have  only  a  restricted 
 
 liberty.     Beyond  certain  environing  lines  they  are  not  sujiered 
 
 to  go ;  they  are  under  strict  surveillance  —  as  we  might  express 
 
 it  by  a  borrowed  figure,  "  bound  over,"  or  so  secured  that  they 
 
 cannot  escape  the  judgment  of  the  last  day.     Davidson  ^  thinks 
 
 that  "  chains  of  darkness  "  signify  metaphorically  misery.,  ohdu- 
 
 rateness   in  wickedness.,  and    despair.     A  being  may  possess 
 
 physical  liberty,  yet  wear,  at  the  same  time,  the  heaviest  mental 
 
 and  spiritual  chains. 
 
 Solomon  reduced  Hebrews  to  bondage.  Did  not  enslave  them. 
 
 1  Kinf,^s  V.  13,  15;  xii.  4.  1  Kings  ix.  22. 
 
 None  of  the  Israelites  were  reduced  to  actual  slavery. 
 Nevertheless,  Solomon's  taxes  and  levies  became  very  oppres- 
 sive to  the  people  in  general.  Enforced  service,  even  though 
 it  be  paid  service,  is  commonly  deemed  distasteful  and  burden- 
 some. 
 
 '  See  chap.  xvii.  25.  « Introd.  to  New  Test.,  iii.  488. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  863 
 
 Zedekiah  carried  to  Babylon.  Bid  not  see  Babylon. 
 
 Jer.  xxxiv.  3.  2  Kings  xxv.  7;  Ezek.  xii.  13. 
 
 The  first  passage  does  not  assert  that  Zedekiah  should  actu- 
 ally see  Babylon,  but  that  he  should  see  its  king,  and  go 
 thither.  The  facts  were  these :  The  king  of  Babylon  ordered 
 the  captive  Zedekiah  to  be  brought  before  him  at  his  head- 
 quarters at  Riblah.  There,  at  the  king's  command,  Zedekiah's 
 eyes  were  put  out,  and  he  was  bound  with  brazen  fetters  and 
 carried  to  Babylon.  Thus  the  above  predictions  were  strictly 
 fulfilled.  Zedekiah  saw  the  king  of  Babylon,  but  not  the  city 
 itself.,  although  he  was  carried  thither  and  died  there. 
 
 There  are  many  other  discrepancies  of  a  transparent  or 
 trivial  character,  like  the  following  cases :  Israel's  sight,  Gen. 
 xlviii.  8  and  10;  Egyptians  visible,  Ex.  xiv.  13  and  30;  re- 
 ceivers of  Moses'  book,  Deut.  xxxi.  9  and  25,  26 ;  reception 
 of  promises,  Heb.  xi.  13,  39,  and  33  ;  remover  of  stone.  Gen. 
 xxix.  2  and  4;  speaker  in  a  given  case.  Matt.  xxi.  41  and 
 Mark  xii.  9;  Luke  xx.  16;  survivors  of  Sennacherib's  army, 
 2  Kings  xix.  35.  Now  we  cannot,  suppose  that  cases  like  these 
 —  founded  as  they  are  upon  free  and  joopular  modes  of  thought 
 and  speech,  common  to  all  ages  and  countries  —  will  furnish 
 difiiculty  to  persons  possessed  of  candor  and  common  sense  — 
 two  qualities  which  the  Bible  invariably  demands  and  pre- 
 supposes in  its  readers. 
 
 II,    CONCEBNING  PLACES. 
 
 Aaron  died  upon  Mount  Hor.  Bied  at  Mosera. 
 
 Num.  XX.  27,  28;.  xxxiii.  38.  Deut.  x.  6. 
 
 Mosera  or  Moseroth  was  a  station  near  to  Mount  Hor,  and 
 within  sight  of  it.  During  the  encampment  of  the  Israelites  at 
 Mosera  Aaron  ascended  the  mountain  and  died.  Prof.  J.  L. 
 Porter  ^  thinks  Mosera  was  the  general  name  of  the  district  in 
 which  Mount  Hor  is  situated. 
 
 ^  Kitto,  iii.  221. 
 
364  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Abraham's  destination  Canaan.  Unknoion  to  Mm. 
 
 Gen.  xii.  5.  Heb.  xi.  8. 
 
 At  first,  the  name  of  the  country  was  not  revealed  to  him.^ 
 
 It  is  designated  simply  as  a  "land  that  I  will  show  thee"  (Gen. 
 
 xii,  1).     Even  if  the  name  "  Canaan  "  had  been  mentioned  to 
 
 Abraham  at  the  outset,  it  might  still  be  true  that  he  went  forth, 
 
 "  not  knowing  whither  he  went."     For,  in  those  days  of  slow 
 
 transit,  imperfect  intercommunication,  and  meagre  geographical 
 
 knowledge,  the  mere  name  of  a  country  several  hundred  miles 
 
 distant  would  convey  almost  no  idea  of  the  country  itself.  In  our 
 
 own  time,  even,  of  how  many  an  emigrant  on  his  way  to  America 
 
 it  might  well  be  said,  "  He  knows  not  whither  he  is  going." 
 
 Ahab  slain  at  Jezreel.  Slain  at  Ramoth-gilead. 
 
 1  Kings  xxi.  1,  19.  1  Kings  xxii.  37,  38. 
 
 Gerlach,  Keil,  Rawlinson,  and  others  think  that  the  pre- 
 diction was  fulfilled,  in  part  upon  Ahab,  whose  blood  was 
 actually  licked  by  the  dogs,  and  in  part  upon  his  wicked 
 son  Jehoram,  whose  dead  body  was  cast  into  the  very  plat 
 of  ground  which  had  been  Naboth's.^  Bahr  maintains  that  the 
 word  "  i^lace,"  in  the  passage  at  the  right,  is  a  general  term, 
 equivalent  to  "  outside  the  city " ;  both  Naboth  and  Ahab 
 meeting  their  death  in  a  certain  "  place,"  that  is,  outside  the 
 walls  of  a  city. 
 
 Ahaz  slept  with  his  fathers.  Not  in  the  royal  sepulchres. 
 
 2  Kings  xvi.  20.  2  Chron.  xx^iii.  27. 
 
 If  Ahaz  was  buried  in  close  proximity  to,  though  not  in,  the 
 
 royal  sepulchres,  the  conditions  of  the  case  would  be  fully  met. 
 
 Ahaziah  died  at  Megiddo.  Apparently  elsewhere. 
 
 But  when  Ahaziah  the  king  of  Judah  And  he  sought  Ahaziah:   and  they 
 
 saw   this,  he  fled  by  the  way  of  the  caught  him  (for  he  was  hid  in  Samaria), 
 
 garden-house.  And  Jehu  followed  after  and  brought  liim  to  Jehu:    and  when 
 
 him,  and  said,  Smite  him  also  in  the  they  had  slain  him,  they  buried  him. 
 
 chariot.    And  they  did  no  at  the  going  2  Chron.  xxii.  9. 
 up  to  Gur,  which  is  by  Ibleam.    And 
 he  fled  to  Megiddo,  and  died  there. 
 2  Kings  ix  27. 
 
 ^  Gen.  xi.  31  merely  shows  that  Abraham's  destination  was  known  to 
 Moses  writing  at  a  later  date.  "  Went  forth  to  go,"  points  to  the  result  in 
 the  case. 
 
 '■^  2  Kings  ix.  25,  26. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  365 
 
 It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  second  passage  is  very  much  con- 
 densed, and  is  supplementary  to  the  other.  The  closing  words, 
 "and  when  they  had  slain  him,  they  buried  him,"  indu-ectly 
 attribute  the  burial  to  Jehu's  emissaries,  inasmuch  as  they 
 ordered,  or  at  all  events  allowed,  the  burial,  when  they  might 
 have  prevented  it.^ 
 
 Probably  Ahaziah  really  escaped  to  Samaria,  and  concealed 
 himself  for  a  time,  but  was  then  ferreted  out  and  captured  by 
 Jehu's  soldiers,  who  brought  him  to  their  master.  Attempting 
 again  to  escape,  he  received  a  fatal  wound  at  the  pass  of  Gur 
 near  Ibleam,  whence  he  fled  to  Megiddo,  where  he  breathed  his 
 last.     So  Keil  and  Hackett.^ 
 
 The  passage  at  the  left  is  elliptical,  if  not  defective.     Leaving 
 
 out  the  words  supplied  by  our  translators,  Jehu's  injunction 
 
 was,  "  Smite  him  also  in  the  chariot  at  the  going  up  to  Gur, 
 
 which  is  by  Ibleam."  ^     The  passage  then  contains  no  mention 
 
 of  the  fulfilment  of  the  command,  which  must   therefore   be 
 
 supplied  from  the  parallel  passage. 
 
 Amalekites  were  in  the  valley.  They  were  on  the  hill. 
 
 Num.  xiv.  25.  Num.  xiv.  45 
 
 The  Hebrew  word  here  rendered  "  valley  "  denotes  "  a  broad 
 sweep  between  hills."*  In  the  present  instance  the  valley 
 itself  is  in  one  sense  styled  a  "  hill,"  because  it  lay  on  the  top 
 of  the  mountain-plateau  or  table-land  where  the  conflict  oc- 
 curred. The  Amalekites  and  Canaanites  "  came  down  "  from 
 the  heights  above  to  tliis  plateau. 
 
 Ammonites'  land  not  forfeited.  Some  of  it  given  to  Israelites. 
 
 Deut.  ii.  19.  Josh.  xiii.  25. 
 
 The  land  which  the   Ammonites  occupied   in  the   days  of 
 
 Moses  the  Israelites  were  not  permitted  to  appropriate.     But 
 
 the  Amorites  had,  at  some  time  in  the  past,  overpowered  the 
 
 Ammonites,  and  wrested  from  them  a  large  portion  of  their 
 
 1  See  2  Kings  ix.  26. 
 
 2  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  48. 
 
 *  Compare  Bible  Commentary  on  2  Kings  ix.  27. 
 
 *  Stanley,  Sinai  and  Palestine,  under  "emek,"  paS  ,  p.  476. 
 
 31* 
 
366  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 territory.  This  tract  —  Silion  being  its  king  and  Heshbon  its 
 capital  —  was  reconquered,  and  (apparently  with  the  tacit  con- 
 sent of  the  Ammonites)  taken  possession  of  by  the  Israelites.^ 
 It  is  this  territory  which  is  referred  to  in  the  passage  from 
 Joshua. 
 
 Ark  placed  in  the  midst  of  camp.  In  the  van  of  the  army. 
 
 Num.  ii.  17;  x.  21.  Num.  x.  33. 
 
 Rashi,  Kimchi,  and  the  Talmudists  maintain  that  there  were 
 
 two  arks  —  one  made   by  Moses,  carried   in  the  van  of   the 
 
 army,  and  afterwards  captured  by  the  Philistines ;  the  other 
 
 made  by  Bezaleel,  which  contained  the  tables  of  the  law,  and 
 
 remained  in  the  midst  of  the  encampment.^     Abarbanel,  Nach- 
 
 manides,  and  others  hold  that  the  one  ark  was  generally  placed 
 
 in  the  midst  of  the  encampment,  but  in  exceptional  cases,  as 
 
 during   the  three   days'  journey,  and  in   the  crossing   of   the 
 
 Jordan,^  was  borne  in  advance  of  the  host.     Keil  and  Kurtz 
 
 say  that  the  ark,  as  distinguished  from  the  sanctuary,  always 
 
 went  foremost.     Bishop  Patrick  thinks  that  the  words  "  went 
 
 before  them  "  do  not  imply  local  precedence,  but  leadership  ; 
 
 the  expression  being  often  applied  to  a  general,  who,  of  course, 
 
 in  leading  his  forces  to  battle,  does  not  necessarily  go  before 
 
 them,  in  the  local  sense. 
 
 Balaam  returned  to  his  place.  He  went  instead  to  Midian. 
 
 Num.  xxiv.  25.  Num.  xxxi.  8. 
 
 He  set  out  upon  his  journey  home,  visiting  Midian  on  the 
 
 way.     According   to    Hengstenberg,^  Kurtz,^  and  Winer,  the 
 
 Hebrew  word  rendered  "returned"  means  to  turn  away.,  or 
 
 to  turn  hack  ;  and  the  attainment  of  the  object  is  not  included 
 
 in  the  word   itself.     Hence  we   may  read,  with  Keil,  "went 
 
 and  turnod  towards  his  place." 
 
 1  Ewald,  History  of  Israel,  ii.  204,  205,  295. 
 
 2  Conciliator,  i.  246, 247;  Prideaux,  Connections,  i.  810,  311  (Charlestown, 
 Mass.  1815). 
 
 '^  Josh.  iii.  3-6. 
 
 *  History  of  Balaam  and  his  prophecies,  pp.  508,  509. 
 
 6  History  of  0.  C,  iii.  458. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  367 
 
 Beasts  slain  at  door  of  tabernacle.  Slain  elseiohere. 
 
 Lev.  xvii.  3,  4.  Deut.  xii.  15,  16. 
 
 The   stringent   law  of    Leviticus,  designed   to   prevent  the 
 
 private  and  idolatrous  rites  to  which  the  people  were  inclined 
 
 is,  now  that  they  are  about  to  enter  Canaan,  relaxed,  so  far  as 
 
 animals  intended  simply  for  food  are  concerned. 
 
 Bethsaida  in  one  locality  In  a  different  situation. 
 
 Mark  vi.  32,  45,  53.  Luke  ix.  10-17. 
 
 Reland  and  others  have  shown  that  there  were  two  cities  of 
 
 this  name,  one  on  the  eastern,  the  other  on  the  western,  shore 
 
 of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.^ 
 
 Benjamin  horn  in  Canaan.  Born  in  Padan-aram. 
 
 Gen.  XXXV.  16-19.  Gen.  xxxv.  24-26. 
 
 Aben  Ezra  says  that  the  latter  passage  speaks  summarily. 
 
 The  author,  writing  in  a  condensed  manner,  took  it  for  granted 
 
 that  his  readers,  acquainted  with  what  he  had  written  a  few 
 
 verses  previously,  would  make  the  necessary  exception  here. 
 
 Canaan  in  a  state  of  famine.  Fruits  not  cut  off. 
 
 Gen.  xli.  56,  57;  xlii.  1-5.  Gen.  xliii.  11,  15. 
 
 To  this  discrepancy  adduced  by  Von  Bohlen,  Kurtz  ^  replies, 
 
 "  Only  the  cereal  products  of  the  land  had  suffered Fertility 
 
 in  fruit-trees  does  not  depend  on  the  same  circumstances  as 
 
 that  of  grain  crops." 
 
 Christ  ascended  at  Bethany.  At  the  mount  called  Olivet: 
 
 Luke  xxiv.  50,  51.  Acts  i.  9, 12. 
 
 Bethany  lay  on  the  eastern  slope  of  Mount  Olivet.     Persons 
 
 returning  from  Bethany  to  Jerusalem  would  pass  over  the  top 
 
 of  Olivet,   and  hence   might   be   said  to   "  return   from   this 
 
 mount." 
 
 Christ's  first  re-appearance  in  Galilee.  At  Jerusalem. 
 
 Matt,  xxviii.  16,  17.  Luke  xxiv.  33,  36;  John  xx.  19. 
 
 Matthew  does  not  deny,  but  simply  passes  over,  earlier  ap- 
 pearances of  our  Lord,  and  dwells  upon  that   in  Galilee  as 
 
 ^  See  articles  in  Smith  and  Kitto;  also,  Thomson's  Land  and  Book,  ii. 
 9,  29-32 ;  and  Ebrard,  Gospel  Histor>',  p.  335,  336. 
 *  History  of  Old  Covenant,  i.  376,  377. 
 
368  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 being  one  of  great  importance.  Then,  probably,  it  was  that 
 the  risen  Saviour  was  "  seen  of  above  five  hundred  brethren 
 at  once."  ^  This  manifestation  seems  to  have  been  our  Lord's 
 last  great  act  in  Galilee,  his  final  interview  with  his  disciples  in 
 that  region. 
 
 Christ's  first  sermon  on  a  mountain.  In  the  plain. 
 
 Matt.  V.  1,  2.  Luke  vi.  17, 20. 
 
 ]Mr.  Greswell  thinks  that  these  passages  refer  to  entirely  dif- 
 ferent occasions.  Stanley  ^  says  that  the  words  in  Luke  should 
 be  rendered  "  a  level  place,"  ^  and  not  "  the  plain."  He  de- 
 scribes a  hill  with  flattened  top,  "  suitable  for  the  collection  of 
 a  multitude,"  and  having  also  two  peaks  (now  called  "  the 
 Horns  of  Hattin  "),  from  one  of  which  Christ  "  came  down," 
 and  stood  "  upon  the  level  place  "  to  address  the  people. 
 
 Cities  in  the  territory  of  Dan.  Within  that  of  Ephraim,. 
 
 Josb.  xxi.  23,  24.  1  Chron.  vi.  69. 
 
 In  the  opinion  of  Keil  and  Rawlinson,  the  Hebrew  text  of 
 
 1  Chron.  vi.  is  defective,  some  words  having  dropped  out  between 
 
 verses  68  and  69,  through  an  oversight  of  copyists. 
 
 Cities  pertained  to  Jiidah.  Pertained  to  Dan. 
 
 Josh.  XV.  33;  1  Chron.  ii.  53.        Josh,  xix,  40,  41;  Judg.  xviii.  2,  8. 
 
 The  explanation  is,  that  the  inheritance  of  Dan  proving  inad- 
 equate,* Judah  gave  up  some  of  its  northern  towns,  and  Ephraim 
 some  of  its  southern  towns,  to  the  Danites,  thus  furnishing  them 
 with  a  territory  proportionate  to  their  number.  Zorah  and 
 Eshtaol  were  among  the  towns  relinquished  by  Judah,  hence  are 
 spoken  of  sometimes  as  belonging  to  the  latter  tribe,  and  some- 
 times to  Dan.*  The  statement  in  Judges  xviii.  1,  that  "  the  in- 
 heritance of  the  Danites  had  not  fallen  unto  them  among  the 
 tribes  of  Israel,"  Cassel  regards  simply  as  a  causeless  complaint 
 by  the  Danites,  who  had  not  sufficient  enterprise  to  conquer  the 
 territory  which  had  been  assigned  to  them  by  lot.     Bertheau, 
 
 *  1  Cor.  XV.  6.  '  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  360. 
 
 '  Greek  iirl  r&irov  ve^ivov.  *  Josh.  xix.  47. 
 
 6  Compare  Keil  on  Josh.  xix.  40-48. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  369 
 
 Keil,  Kimchi,  and  Rashi  take  the  words  as  meaning,  "  no  ade- 
 quate inheritance." 
 
 The  assignment  of  the  same  cities  to  Judah  (Josh.  xv.  26-32, 
 42),  and  to  Simeon  (Josh.  xix.  2-7),  is  due  to  the  simple  fact 
 that  the  inheritance  of  Simeon  fell  within  that  of  Judah.^  Dif- 
 ferences in  the  names  are  due  to  copyists. 
 
 Country  of  the  Gergesenes.  Country  of  the  Gadarenes. 
 
 Matt.  viii.  28.  Mark  v.  1. 
 
 A  general  geogi'aphical  designation  applying  to  the  territory 
 in  which  Gadara  and  Gergesa  were  situated.^ 
 
 David  took  Metheg-ammah.  Captured  Gath. 
 
 2  Sam.  viii.  1.  1  Chron.  xviii.  1. 
 
 Fuerst  and  Gesenius  interpret  the  first  passage  thus :  "  David 
 took  the  bridle  of  the  metropolis,"  that  is,  he  subdued  Gath 
 the  metropolis  of  the  Philistines.  Havernick :  ^  "  David  took  the 
 rein  of  dominion  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Philistines."  Ewald  :  * 
 "  Tore  from  the  hand  of  the  Philistines  the  bridle  of  the  arm ; 
 that  is,  he  tore  from  them  the  supremacy  by  which  they  curbed 
 Israel,  as  a  rider  curbs  his  horse  by  the  bridle,  which  the  strength 
 of  his  arm  controls." 
 Disciples  went  into  Galilee.  Tarried  in  Jerusalem. 
 
 Matt,  xxviii.  10, 16.  Luke  xxiv.  49. 
 
 The  command  "  tarry  ye  in  Jerusakm,"  etc.,  means  simply, 
 
 "  Make  Jerusalem  your  head-quarters.     Do  not  leave  it  to  begin 
 
 your  work,  until  ye  be  endued,"  etc.     This  injunction  would  not 
 
 preclude  a  brief  excursion  to  Galilee.     Besides,  the  command 
 
 may  not  have  been  given  until  after  the  visit  to  Galilee.    Alford 
 
 adopts  the  latter  hypothesis. 
 
 Ephraim's  land  east  of  Jordan.  West  of  Jordan. 
 
 2  Sam.  xviii.  6.  Josh.  xvii.  15-18. 
 
 Blunt,  Ewald,^  Hervey,  and  Stanley^  think  that  "  the  wood 
 
 1  Josh.  xix.  1,  9. 
 
 2  See  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Art.  "Gadara."  Some  of  the  best  critics, 
 Tischendorf,  Tregelles,  etc.,  give  a  difiPerent  reading  in  the  first  passage, 
 agreeing  with  that  of  the  second. 
 
 3  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  p.  208.  *  Vol.  iii.  148. 
 
 *  Vol.  ii.  321,  322;  iii.  186,  note.  «  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  322, 823. 
 
370  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 of  Ephraim"  (2  Sam.  xviii.  6),  was  not  within  the  territory  of 
 
 that  tribe,  but  was  on  the  eastern  side  of  Jordan.     This  forest 
 
 probably  derived  its  name  from  the  slaughter  of  the  Ephraim- 
 
 ites  long  before  in  that  vicinity.^ 
 
 Forces  stationed  in  certain  places.  In  different  places. 
 
 2  Kin<2;s  xi.  5-7.  2  Chron.  xxiii.  4,  5. 
 
 From  the  fact  that  the  young  king  spent  six  years  in  the 
 house  of  the  Lord,  it  is  designated  as  "the  king's  house." ^  Keil 
 mamtains  that  the  forces  under  the  command  of  the  centurions 
 who  occupied  the  various  posts  in  the  temple  consisted  partly 
 of  Levitic  temple-guards,  and  partly  of  royal  body-guards.  In 
 Kings  the  latter  class,  in  Chronicles  the  former  class,  come  prom- 
 inently into  view.  The  posts  or  stations  of  the  forces  agree 
 well.  One  division  was  to  be  "  at  the  gate  of  Sur  "  (Kings), "  at 
 the  gate  of  the  foundation  "  (Chronicles)  ;  a  second  was  to  be 
 "  keepers  of  the  watch  of  the  king's  house  "  (Kings),  "  at  the 
 king's  house "  (Chronicles)  ;  a  third  was  to  be  "  at  the  gate 
 behind  the  guard"  (Kings),  "porters  of  the  doors,"  better 
 "  watchers  of  the  tln-esholds "  (Chronicles).  Here  is  no  dis- 
 crepancy. 
 
 Goliath's  armor  put  in  David's  tent.  ^Carried  to  Nob. 
 
 1  Sam,  xvii.  54.  1  Sam.  xxi.  9. 
 
 The  first  passage  does  not  assert  that  David  kept  it  in  his 
 tent.  During  the  interval,  he  or  some  one  carried  the  sword 
 to  Nob. 
 
 Goliath's  head  carried  to  Jerusalem.  That  city  held  by  Jebusites. 
 
 1  Sam.  xvii.  54.  2  Sam.  v.  6,  9. 
 
 To  the  "  discrepancy  "  which  De  Wette  ^  sees  here,  Ewald  * 
 answers,  that  clearly  David  did  not  carry  the  head  to  Jerusalem 
 till  afterwards,  when  he  was  king.  Then,  as  we  learn  from  the 
 passage  at  the  right,  he  captured  that  city. 
 
 Gospel  to  be  preached  everywhere.  Not  to  be  preached  in  Asia. 
 
 Matt,  xxviii.  19.  Acts  xvi.  6. 
 
 For  v/ise  reasons,  and  for  a  brief  time  only,  Paul  was  not 
 
 1  See  Jiulg.  xii.  1-G.  2  See  2  Kings  xi.  3-5. 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  216.  *  History  of  Israel,  iii.  72. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  371 
 
 allowed  to  preach  in  Asia.     When  the  fitting  time  arrived,  the 
 prohibition  was  removed. 
 
 Halting-places  of  Israelites,  —  names.  Stated  differently. 
 
 Num.  xxxiii.  44-49.  Num.  xxi.  10-20. 
 
 We  have  previously  seen  ^  that  the  Israelites,  during  a  large 
 portion  of  the  thirty-eight  years  were  comparatively  stationary, 
 or  as  nearly  so  as  tribes  of  nomadic  habits  could  well  be  ;  and 
 that  they  doubtless  were  spread  over  a  large  extent  of  territory, 
 in  quest  of  water  and  pasturage  for  their  flocks  and  herds. 
 Prof.  Porter^  has  more  than  once  passed  through  a  moving 
 tribe  of  Arabs,  spreading  over  a  tract  twenty  miles  in  diameter. 
 We  doubt  not  that  the  Israelites  covered  a  vastly  larger  terri- 
 tory ;  and  that  when  they  moved,  it  was,  as  Prof.  Palmer  ^  says, 
 "  in  Bedawin  order,  subdivided  into  numerous  encampments, 
 and  spread  over  an  immense  surface  of  country." 
 
 Many  critics  agree  with  Kurtz  *  that  the  stations  mentioned 
 in  Num.  xxxiii.  19-36  are  simply  the  places  successively  occu- 
 pied as  the  head-quarters  of  Moses  and  the  tabernacle.  "  It  was 
 absolutely  necessary  that  the  scattered  parties  of  Israelites 
 should  be  visited  by  Moses  and  the  sanctuary,  to  prevent  their 
 connection  with  one  another,  and  more  especially  their  connection 
 with  Moses  and  the  sanctuary,  being  entirely  dissolved  during  so 
 long  a  period  as  thirty-seven  years.  Hence  the  stations  named 
 in  Num.  xxxiii.  1 9-3  6  must  be  regarded  in  the  light  of  a  circuit, 
 which  was  made  through  the  desert  by  Moses  and  the  taber- 
 nacle." Prof.  J.  L.  Porter,^  Dieterici,^  Davidson,'  and  Messrs. 
 Espin®  and  Cook  take  a  similar  view.  Dr.  Robinson^  also 
 maintains  that  "  the  stations  as  enumerated  refer  to  the  head- 
 quarters of  Moses  and  the  elders,  with  a  portion  of  the  people 
 who  kept  near  them  ;  while  other  portions  preceded  or  followed 
 
 ^  See  p.  342  infra.  ^  Kitto's  Cyclopedia,  iii.  1075. 
 
 3  Desert  of  Exodus,  p.  433.  *  Histoiy  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  301. 
 
 ^  Kitto,  iii.  1079.  e  See  in  Kurtz,  iii.  90. 
 
 ^  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  326, 327.    ^  Bible  Commentary,  i.  654,  720. 
 *  Bib.  Researches,  i.  106  (1st  edition). 
 
372  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 them  at  various  distances  as  the  convenience  of  water  and  pas- 
 turage might  dictate."  Prof.  Porter  thinks  that  the  number  of 
 ^'  marshalled  men  "  who  constantly  attended  Moses  was  not  more 
 than  one  tenth  of  the  whole. 
 
 The  differences  between  the  lists  of  stations  above  arose 
 from  the  fact  that  the  same  station  had  several  names,  or  that 
 two  contiguous  stations  were  occupied  at  the  same  time ;  ^  or, 
 as  Kurtz  ^  thinks,  that  the  object  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  is 
 a  statistical  one,  that  is,  to  set  forth  not  all  the  halting-places, 
 but  merely  the  places  where  a  regular  camp  was  formed  and 
 the  sanctuary  erected,  while  in  earlier  passages  the  object  is  a 
 historical  one,  hence  more  places  are  enumerated.  Hence, 
 Num.  xxi.  11 — xxii.  1,  seven  places  are  mentioned  between 
 Ije-abarim  and  the  plains  of  Moab ;  in  Num.  xxxiii.  44-48, 
 only  three  places. 
 
 In  Num.  xxxiii.  30-33,  we  find  the  names  Moseroth,  Bene- 
 jaakan,  Hor-hagidgad,  and  Jotbathah ;  in  Deut.  x.  6,  7  they 
 stand  thus:  Beeroth^  Bene-jaakan,  Mosera,  Gudgodah,  and 
 Jotbath.  As  to  the  trivial  variations  of  the  names,  nothing 
 need  be  said.  The  latter  passage,  which  puts  Bene-jaakan 
 before  Mosera,  probably  refers  to  a  second  visit  of  the  Israelites 
 to  these  places,  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  wandering.  The 
 first  time,  they  pursued  a  circuitous  course ;  the  second  time, 
 the  shortest  and  most  direct  route,  thus  reversing  the  order  of 
 the  two  places  named/ 
 
 The  "  wilderness  of  Paran,"  Num.  x.  12  and  xii.  16,  is  probably 
 mentioned  in  the  first  of  these  texts  by  anticipation.'  Ranke  says : 
 "  Before  entering  more  minutely  into  the  details  of  the  march, 
 which  he  does  from  x.  33  onwards,  the  author  mentions  at  the 
 very  outset  (x.  12)  the  ultimate  destination,  viz.  Paran,  on  the 
 borders  of  the  promised  land."     So  Tuch  and  Hengstenberg. 
 
 *  So  Davidson,  i.  326,  and  Keil  on  Num.  xxi.  16-20. 
 2  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  384. 
 
 ^  That  is,  "  wells  of  Bene-jaakan  "  =  Bene-jaakan  in  the  other  passafijc. 
 ^  See  Hengstenberg,  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  355-357;  Kurtz,  Hist,  of  Old  Gov., 
 iii.  254,  255. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  373 
 
 Kurtz  ^  thinks  that  x.  12  names  the  most  southerly,  and  xii.  16 
 the  most  northerly,  station  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran. 
 
 The  fact  that  different  names  were  applied  to  the  same 
 localities  explains  such  cases  as  the  following :  Israelites' station 
 in  wilderness  of  Kedemoth,  Deut.  ii.  26;  on  Pisgah,  Num. 
 xxi.  20,  21.  Moses'  outlook,  from  Abarim,  Num.  xxvii.  12 ; 
 from  Pisgah,  Deut.  iii.  27  ;  from  Nebo,  Deut.  xxxiv.  1. 
 Simeon's  cities  and  towns,  one  list.  Josh.  xix.  2-6 ;  a  varying 
 list,  1  Ghron.  iv.  28-31.  Also,  Abel-beth-maachah,  1  Kings 
 XV.  20 ;  Abel-maim,  2  Chron.  xvi.  4.  Gezer,  1  Chron.  xx.  4 ; 
 Gob,  2  Sam.  xxi.  18,  with  a  multitude  of  similar  cases. 
 
 Kadesh  is  said  to  have  been  located  in  the  wilderness  of 
 Paran,  Num.  xiii.  26 ;  in  the  desert  or  wilderness  of  Zin,  Num. 
 XX.  1 ;  Deut.  xxxii.  51.  With  respect  to  this  point  there  are 
 several  hypotheses. 
 
 1.  That  there  were  two  places  named  Kadesh,  situated,  re- 
 spectively, as  above.  So  Reland,  Rabbi  Schwarz,  and  Stanley^ 
 qualifiedly.  The  term  "  Kadesh,"  which  denotes  "  holy  place," 
 may  well  have  been  applied  to  several  localities. 
 
 2.  That  the  name  was  applied  both  to  a  certain  city  and  to 
 an  extensive  region  in  which  this  city  lay.  So  Prof.  Palmer,^ 
 Mr.  Hayman,*  and  others. 
 
 3.  That  the  one  city  Kadesh  was  situated  in  such  relation  to 
 the  deserts  of  Paran  and  Zin  that  it  might  be  popularly  assigned 
 to  either.  It  may  have  been  located  upon  the  dividing  line  of 
 the  two  deserts,  or,  if  they  overlapped,  in  the  territory  common 
 to  them  both.^  It  is  the  opinion  of  Fries,  Hengstenberg,  Keil, 
 Kurtz,  Raumer,  Robinson,  and  others  that  the  Israelites  were 
 twice  at  Kadesh  —  once  in  the  second  year,  and  again  in  the 
 fortieth  year  of  their  wanderings.^    Ewald  thinks  that  "  Kadesh 
 
 ^  See  authorities  cited,  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  220. 
 2  Sinai  and  Palestine,  pp.  93,  94,  notes. 
 ^  Desert  of  Exodus,  p.  420. 
 «  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  ii.  1519. 
 ^  See  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  Art.  "  Paran." 
 "»  Kurtz,  iii.  246,  247,  305-309. 
 32 
 
374  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 was  only  the  resting-place  of  Moses  and  the  tabernacle,  and  the 
 
 meetTng-place  of  the  community  on  appointed  days." 
 
 As  to    the  location  of   Meribah,  near  Rephidim,  Ex.  xvii. 
 
 1-7  ;  near  Kadesh,  Num.  xx.  13,  we  know  that  on  two  distinct 
 
 occasions   the   Israelites  rebelled  for  want  of   water.     Hence 
 
 both  localities  were  appropriately  named  "  Meribah  "  (strife).^ 
 
 On  the  second  occasion  Moses  and   Aaron  transgressed,  and 
 
 offended  Jehovah. 
 
 Israel's  boundary  the  Euphrates.  A  different  limit. 
 
 Gen.  XV.  18;  Deut.  xi.  24;  2  Sam.viii.  3.  Num.  xxxiv.  10-12 ;  Josh,  xiii.9-12. 
 
 Keil  suggests  that  these  different  passages  give  the  limits  — 
 the  maxima  and  minima  —  of  the  promise ;  the  actual  extent 
 to  be  determined  by,  and  proportionate  to,  Israel's  loyalty  and 
 fidelity  to  God.  It  is .  thought  by  Ewald,^  Hervey,  and  New- 
 man ^  that  "  his  border,"  in  2  Sam.  viii.  3,  refers  not  to  David's 
 border,  but  to  that  of  his  opponent. 
 
 Israelites  returned  to  Gilgal.  Returned  to  Makkedah. 
 
 Josh.  X.  15,  43.  Josh.  x.  21. 
 
 Davidson,  Espin,  Hengstenberg,  Keil,  and  others  take  the 
 
 fifteenth  verse  as  a  part  of  the  quotation  from  the  "  book  of 
 
 Jasher,"  —  the  citation  beginning  with  the  twelfth,  and  ending 
 
 with  the  fifteenth  verse.     The  return  to  the  temporary  camp 
 
 at  Makkedah  preceded  that  to  Gilgal. 
 
 ^Jehoiakim  carried  to  Babylon.  Died  at  Jei-usalem. 
 
 Against   him    came    up    Nebuchad-        So  Jehoiakim  slept  with  his  fathers, 
 nezzar  kin^  of  Babylon,  and  bound  him    2  Kings  xxiv.  6. 
 
 in  fetters,  to  carry  him  to  Babylon.    2     ,  He  shall  be  buried  with  the  burial  of 
 Chron.  xxxvi.  6.  an  ass,  drawn  and  cast  forth  beyond 
 
 the  gates  of  .Jerusalem.    Jer.  xxii.  19. 
 His  dead  body  shall  be  cast  out  in 
 the  day  to  the  heat,  and  in  the  night  tc 
 the  frost.    Jer.  xxxvi.  30. 
 
 Bertheau,  Hasse,  and  Movers  think  that  the  Hebrew  of  the 
 first  passage  implies  that  Jelioiakim  was  not  actually  carried 
 to  Babylon.  Bleek*  pertinently  suggests  that  he  may  have 
 gone  out  against  the  enemy,  and  been  slain  outside  the  city. 
 Rawlinson  supposes  that  he  was  bound  with  the  intention  of 
 
 ^  See  Kitto,  iii.  138.  -  History  of  Israel,  iii.  150,  note. 
 
 »  History  of  Hebrew  Monarchy,  p.  80.  ■»  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  11.  72,  78. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  375 
 
 carrying  liim  to  Babylon,  but  instead  was  slain,  and  his  corpse 
 ignominiously  treated.  After  the  withdrawal  of  the  Babylonians 
 the  remains  were  collected  and  interred  in  the  royal  burial- 
 place,  so  that,  ultimately,  the  imhappy  prince  "  slept  with  his 
 fathers."  Winer  ^  thinks  that,  at  the  capture  of  Jerusalem  in 
 the  next  reign,  the  enemy,  or  even  his  former  subjects,  may 
 have  vented  their  rage  upon  the  remains  of  the  deceased 
 Jehoiakim  in  the  manner  above  described.  Wordsworth  -  calls 
 attention  to  the  fact  that,  of  all  the  kings  of  Judah  whose  deaths 
 are  spoken  of  in  scripture,  Jehoiakim  is  the  only  one  whose 
 burial  is  not  menticmed. 
 
 Jeroboam's  residence  Shechem.  He  resided  at  Tirzah. 
 
 1  Kings. xii.  25.  1  Kings  xiv.  12-17. 
 
 He  lived  at  one  place  in  the  early,  at  the  other  in  the  later, 
 part  of  his  reign.  Bahr  suggests  that  Tirzah  may  have  been 
 merely  a  summer  residence  of  this  monarch. 
 
 Jerusalem  in  Judah.  In  land  of  Benjamin. 
 
 Josh.  XV.  8.  Josh,  xviii.  28. 
 
 The  city  was  actually  within  the  limits  of  the  territory  of 
 Benjamin,  yet  on  the  very  border  line  of  Judah,^  so  that  it 
 might  be  popularly  assigned  to  either  tribe.  Stanley,^  indeed, 
 maintains  that  the  Jebusite  fortress  stood  upon  "neutral  ground 
 in  the  very  meeting-point  of  the  two  tribes";  and  Lightfoot* 
 mentions  a  Jewish  tradition  that  the  altars  and  sanctuary  were 
 in  Benjamin,  the  courts  of  the  temple  in  Judah. 
 
 Jordan,  —  "  this  side  "  east  of  river.  Phrase  denotes  west  of  river. 
 
 Num.xxxv.l4;  Deut.i.l;  Josh.  i. 14.    Josh,  xii.7;  xxii.7;  IChron.  xxvi.  30. 
 
 The  expression  "  this  side  Jordan,"  like  its  Hebrew  equiva- 
 lent,^ is  ambiguous,  and  may  denote  either  side  of  that  river, 
 according  to  the  mental  stand-point  which  the  sacred  historian 
 occupies  at  the  time  of  writing.  So  Fuerst,  Gesenius.  and 
 others. 
 
 ^  Real-Worterbuch,  i.  595.  ^  Replies  to  Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  434. 
 
 3  Smith's  Bible  Diet  ,  ii.  1273.      *  Sinai  and  Palestine,  p.  175. 
 
 ^  Prospect  of  Temple,  chap.  1.    ®  See  different  senses,  Num.  xxxii.19, 32. 
 
376  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Joshua  conquered  all  Canaan.  Conquered  only  a  part. 
 
 Josh.  xi.  16, 17,  23;  xii.  7,  8;  xxi.  43.  Josh.  xiii.  1-6;  Judg.  ii.  23. 
 
 The  solution  appears  to  be  that  Joshua  had  virtually  con- 
 quered the  whole  land.  He  had  so  thoroughly  broken  the 
 power  of  the  Canaanites  that  they  could  no  longer  make  head 
 against  him.  The  land  was  now  within  the  grasp  of  the 
 Israelites.  AH  they  needed  to  do  was  to  go  forward  valiantly, 
 and  occupy  it.  But,  through  indolence  and  unbelief,  they 
 did  not  avail  themselves  fully  of  that  dominion  which  was  within 
 their  reach. 
 
 Josiah  died  at  Megiddo.  Died  at  Jerusalem. 
 
 And  his  servants  carried  him  in  a  And  they  brought  him  to  Jerusalem, 
 
 chariot  dead  from  Megiddo.and  brought  and  he  died,  and  was  buried  in  one  qf 
 
 him  to  Jerusalem,  and  buried  him  in  the  sepulchres  of  his  fathers.    2  Chron. 
 
 his  own  sepulchre.    2  Kings  xxiii.  30.  xxxv.  24. 
 
 Davidson,^  Fuerst,  Gesenius,  and  Rawlinson  agree  that  the 
 word  "  meth,"  in  the  first  text,  may  mean  dying,  or  in  a  dying 
 state?  Josiah  was  carried  off  the  field  in  a  dying  condition ; 
 he  expired  on  the  way  to  Jerusalem.^ 
 
 Law  given  at  Sinai.  Given  in  Horeb. 
 
 Ex.  xix.  11,  18.  Deut.  iv.  10-15. 
 
 1.  Sinai  may  be  the  older,  and  Horeb  the  later  name.  So 
 Davidson,  Stanley  ^  apparently,  and  Ewald.* 
 
 2.  Horeb  may  be  a  general  name  of  the  district  or  range  of 
 mountains,  and  Sinai  the  specific  name  of  some  peak.  So 
 Hengstenberg,^  Robinson,  Palmer,''  Rodiger,  Ritter,  Kurtz,  Dr. 
 J.  P.  Thompson,^  and  others. 
 
 3.  Sinai  may  be  taken  as  the  original  name  of  the  entire 
 group,  whilst  Horeb  is  restricted  to  one  particular  mountain. 
 Gesenius  takes  this  view;  and  Lepsius  thinks  that  the  two 
 names  are  applied  alike  to  the  mountain  of  the  law.  Any  one 
 of  these  hypotheses  relieves  the  difficulty  completely. 
 
 ^  Sacred  Hermeneut.,  p.  551.  2  ge^  ^gg  jn  Gen.  xx.  3. 
 
 3  Compare  Zech.  xii.  11.  •*  Sinai  and  Palestine,  31,  note. 
 
 *  History  of  Israel,  ii.  43,  note.  «  Gen.  of  Pent.,  ii.  327. 
 
 '  Desert  of  Exodus,  p.  103.  ^  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iv.  3054. 
 
fflSTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  377 
 
 Moses  commissioned  in  Midian.  Received  commission  in  Egypt. 
 
 Ex.  iii.  10;  iv.  19.  Ex.  vi.  10-13. 
 
 His  failure  to  persuade  Pharaoh  to  a  dismission  of  the 
 Israelites,  as  well  as  the  sudden  revulsion,  on  their  part,  from 
 buoyant  hope  to  unseemly  dejection,  rendered  it  absolutely 
 necessary  that  Moses'  wavering  faith  should  be  strengthened 
 by  a  solemn  renewal  of  his  commission. 
 Nebuchadnezzar  encamped  at  Riblah.         Came  against  Jerusalem. 
 
 2  Bangs  xxv.  6.  2  Kings  xxv.  1. 
 
 The  expression  "  came  against "  does  not  imply  that  he  came 
 to  the  city  in  person.  He  sent  his  army  to  besiege  the  city ; 
 but  he  himself  made  his  head-quarters  at  Riblah,  from  which 
 place  he  could  conveniently  direct  hostile  operations  against 
 Jerusalem  and  Tyre,  both  of  which  cities  he  was  besieging  at 
 the  time. 
 Passover  slain  at  home.  Slain  at  sanctuary. 
 
 Ex.  xii.  7.  Deut.  xvi.  1-7. 
 
 The  first  precept  was  addressed  to  the  Israelites  in  Egypt, 
 
 when  they  had  "  no  common  altar "  nor  sanctuary ;  hence  the 
 
 houses  in  which  they  dwelt  were,  so  to  speak,  consecrated  as 
 
 altars  and  sanctuaries.     The  second  passage  contemplates  them 
 
 as  settled  in  Palestine,  where  they  had  a  common  sanctuary, 
 
 around  which  it  was  desirable  that  their  religious  sentiments, 
 
 services,  and  associations  should  be  clustered.     Kurtz  ^  thinks 
 
 that  the  words  "  in  the  place  which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall 
 
 choose"^  include  the  whole  city  in  which  the  tabernacle  was 
 
 located ;  so  that  the  passover  might  be  slain  upon  any  spot 
 
 within  that  city. 
 
 Peter's  residence  Capernaum.  Apparently  Bethsaida. 
 
 Mark  i.  21,  29.  John  i.  44. 
 
 Peter  and  his  brother  were  "  of  Bethsaida,"  in  that  they  were 
 
 natives  of  that  city ;  yet  they  afterward  dwelt  in  Capernaum. 
 
 Sanctuary  at  Shiloh.  Located  at  Shechem. 
 
 Josh,  xviii.  1 ;  1  Sam.  iii.  21 ;  iv.  3.  Josh.  xxiv.  1,  26. 
 
 Masius,  Michaelis,  and    other   critics   say   that   "  miqdash,"* 
 
 1  History  of  Old  Covenant,  iii.  213.  2  Jq  D^ut.  xvi.  7. 
 
 32* 
 
378  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE    BIBLE. 
 
 sanctuary,  in  the  last  text,  denotes  simply  the  holy  place  which 
 
 Abraham  consecrated/  and  in  which  Jacob  dwelt  a  long  time, 
 
 and  where  he  purified  his  family  from  idolatry.^     This  place, 
 
 however,  was  different  from  the  "  sanctuary "  proper,  where 
 
 the  ark  had  its  seat.     Hengstenberg  ^  has  clearly  shown  that 
 
 the  phrase  "  before  God  "  does  not  invariably  imply  the  presence 
 
 of  the  sacred  ark  or  tabernacle. 
 
 Solomon's  ships  loent  to  Ophir.  They  went  to  Tarshish. 
 
 1  Kings  ix.  26-28.  1  Kings  x.  22 ;  2  Chron.  ix.  21. 
 
 RawlinsoTi  thinks  that  different  fleets  are  intended;  also 
 that  the  name  "  Tarshish  "  was  applied  to  two  different  places, 
 one  of  which  was  situated  on  the  shores  of  the  Indian  Ocean 
 or  the  Persian  Gulf,  since  the  Phoenicians  had  trading  estab- 
 lishments in  this  quarter,  and  were  in  the  habit  of  repeating 
 their  local  names.  Hence  this  name,  like  our  term  "  Indies," 
 may  have  been  applied  to  places  widely  separated.  It  was  to 
 this  eastern  Tarshish,  and  not  to  that  in  Spain,  that  Solomon's 
 fleet  made  the  triennial  voyage.^ 
 
 Bahr,  Bleek,^  Davidson,^  DeWette,  Ewald,  Gesenius,  Haver- 
 nick,  Movers,  Winer,  and  Mr.  Twistleton,^  however,  take  the 
 expression  "  ships  of  Tarshish,"  not  as  denoting  that  these  vessels 
 actually  went  to  Tarshish,  but  that  they  were  of  the  kind  ordi- 
 narily employed  in  commerce  with  that  place.  That  is, "  Tarshish- 
 ships,"  like  our  term  "  East-Indiamen,"  would  loosely  indicate 
 the  larger  class  of  merchant  vessels.  On  this  hypothesis,  the 
 chronicler^  misunderstood  the  appellation,  as  if  it  denoted  that 
 these  ships  actually  went  to  Tarshish. 
 
 Tabernacle  located  without  the  camp.  Within  the  camp. 
 
 Num.  xi.  16,  24-26;  xii.  4.  Num.  ii.  2,  3. 
 
 The  encampment  of  the  Israelites  was  arranged  in  the  form 
 
 of  a  hollow  square,  with  a  large  unoccupied  space  in  the  middle. 
 
 ^  See  Gen.  xii.  6,  7.  ^  Gen.  xxxiii.  19;  xxxv.  2,  4 
 
 8  Gen.  of  Pent.  ii.  32-46.  *  1  Kings  x.  22. 
 
 6  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  441.  « Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii  90. 
 
 ^  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iv.  3178-3181.  See  references,  p.  3180. 
 
 8  2  Chron.  ix.  21 ;  xx.  36.  37. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  379 
 
 At  the  centre  of  this  space  the  tabernacle  was  located ;  being 
 thus,  as  is  thought,  some  two  thousand  cubits  removed,  on  all 
 sides,  from  the  tents  of  the  people.  In  consequence  of  this 
 isolation  of  the  tabernacle,  those  who  visited  it  were  necessitated, 
 as  it  were,  to  leave  the  encampment,  and  "  go  out "  to  the 
 tabernacle.  The  latter  was  within,  yet  virtually  outside  of  the 
 camp. 
 
 A  recent  writer  ^  finds,  in  1  Kings  xix.  3,  8,  a  "  geographical 
 anomaly,"  in  that,  as  he  thinks,  "  Elijah  is  represented  as 
 travelling  uninterruptedly  forty  days  and  forty  nights  from 
 Beersheba  to  Horeb ;  whereas  the  distance  is  little  more  than 
 forty  geographical  miles."  To  which  we  reply:  (1)  That, 
 according  to  the  best  maps,  such  as  those  of  Kiepert,  and  Smith 
 and  Grove,  the  distance  is  some  two  hundred  statute  miles; 
 and  (2)  that  there  is  no  intimation  that  Elijah  was  walking  the 
 whole  time,  neither  that  he  pursued  a  straight  course  in  his 
 wanderings. 
 
 The  same  author  ^  finds  a  similar  difficulty  in  1  Sam.  x.  1-9, 
 where,  as  he  maintains,  Saul  went  first  to  Rachel's  sepulchre, 
 near  Bethlehem,  and  thence  to  (Mount)  Tabor  in  Zebulon,  across 
 the  territory  of  four  tribes,  making  the  whole  circuit  in  a  single 
 day.  But  the  Hebrew  "  elon  tabor,"  rendered  plain  of  Tabor 
 in  vs.  3,  means,  according  to  Fuerst,  Gesenius,  and  the  Septua- 
 gint,  oak  of  Tabor.  Keil  and  Ewald "'  say,  the  "  terebinth  of 
 Tabor  "  ;  the  latter  adding  that  "  Tabor  "  is  certainly  only  "  a 
 dialectic  variation "  for  "  Deborah,"  and,  with  Thenius,  main- 
 taining that  the  tree  in  question  was  that  under  which  Deborah 
 was  buried.^  There  is  not  the  least  proof  that  Mount  Tabor  is 
 here  intended. 
 
 1  See  in  Davidson's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  11.  36,  37. 
 
 2  In  Davidson,  Vol.  i.  515. 
 
 3  History  of  Israel,  ill.  21,  and  note. 
 
 *  Gen.  XXXV.  8.  - 
 
380  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 III.   concehning  numbers. 
 
 We  have  previously,  more  than  once,  called  attention  to  the 
 
 marked  resemblance  of  Hebrew  letters  to  one  another ;  ^  also, 
 
 to  the  fact,  generally  conceded  by  scholars,  that  these  letters 
 
 were  in  ancient  time  employed  to  represent  numbers.^     These 
 
 two  facts  indicate  at  once  the  cause  and  the  solution  of  the 
 
 numerical  discrepancies  of  scripture.     For,  when  ^  denotes  2  ; 
 
 S,  20 ;  3,  50 ;  and  s,  80 ;  when  T  stands  for  4,  i  for  4000,  n 
 
 for  200,  and  n  for  400,  mistakes  in  numbers,  especially  when 
 
 the  numeral  letters  were  blurred  or  unskilfully  written,  would 
 
 be  inevitable.     But,  as    elsewhere   intimated,  these  mistakes, 
 
 which  we  find  in  considerable  numbers,  touch  no  vital  point  of 
 
 scripture.     No   precept,  promise,  or   doctrine  is  in    the   least 
 
 degree  impaired  by  them ;  nor  do  they  militate  against  any 
 
 well-balanced  theory  of  inspiration.     That  the  larger  part  of 
 
 the  following  cases  arose  through  the  mistakes  of  copyists  we 
 
 have  not  a  shadow  of  doubt ;  yet,  since  other  solutions  have 
 
 been  given  in  most  cases,  they  will  be  adduced  when  it  seems 
 
 worth  while. 
 
 Abraham's  only  son  Isaac.  Had  several  sons. 
 
 Gen.  xxii.  2;  Heb.  xi.  17.  Gen.  xxv.  6. 
 
 Isaac  was  Abraham's  "  only  son  "  by  Sarah,  as  well  as  the 
 
 only  one  in  the  line  of  promise  —  the  theocratic  line.     Or  the 
 
 term  may  be  equivalent  to  "  beloved  son."     Josephus  ^  employs 
 
 the  term  "  monogenes,"  only-begotten,  in  this  latter  sense. 
 
 Absalom  had  three  sons.  He  had  no  sons. 
 
 2  Sara.  xiv.  27.  2  Sam.  xviii.  18. 
 
 Previous  to  the  time  referred  to  in  the  latter  text,  his  three 
 
 sons  had  died. 
 
 Arah's  sons  seven  hundred  seventy-Jive.  Six  hundred  and  fifty-two. 
 
 Ezra  ii.  5.  Neh.  vii.  10. 
 
 ■  Most  probably  the  difference  is  due  to  copyists'  blunders. 
 
 »  See  pp.  20,  312,  313,  infra.  ^  gg^  pp.  21-24,  infra. 
 
 3  See  Antiq.  1. 13, 1,  and  xx.  2, 1. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  381 
 
 The  other  cases,  some  twenty  in  number,  which  appear  from 
 a  comparison  of  Ezra  ii.  6-Qo,  with  Neh.  vii.  11-67,  are  to  be 
 explained  in  the  same  manner.^  The  "  gifts "  of  the  people, 
 as  set  down  by  the  two  writers,  vary  as  foUows  : 
 
 Ezra,  ii.  69.  Nehemiah,  vii.  70-72. 
 
 Gold,  61000  drams  (a  copyist's  mis-     Gold,  from  Tirshatha,     1,000  drams, 
 take).  .  from  chief  fatliers,  20,000      " 
 
 "    people,  20.000      " 
 
 41,000 
 Silver,  5000  lbs.  (a  round  number).        Silver,  from  Tirshatha,  500  lbs. 
 
 "      chief  fathers,  2,200  " 
 "     people,  2,000  " 
 
 4,700  " 
 Garments,  100  (a  round  number).          Garments,  given  by  Tirshatha,     30 
 
 "         people,         _67 
 
 97 
 
 Keil  and  Bertheau  think  that,  in  the  seventieth  verse  from 
 
 Nehemiah,  the  Hebrew  for  pounds  of  silver  has  dropped  out,  so 
 
 that,  as  assumed  in  the  above  reckoning,  the  passage  would  stand, 
 
 "  five  hundred  pounds  of  silver  and  thirty  priests'  garments." 
 
 Alting  points  out  the  fact  that  Ezra's  sum  total  is  29818 ; 
 Nehemiah's,  31089;  and  that  the  latter  mentions  1765  persons, 
 and  the  former  494  persons,  omitted  in  the  parallel  record. 
 It  is  a  curious  coincidence  that  Ezra's  sum  total  added  to 
 Nehemiah's  surplus  is  just  equal  to  the  latter's  sum  total  added 
 to  the  former's  surplus.  That  is,  29818  -|-  1765  =  31089  -f- 
 494  =z  31583.  If  from  the  whole  amount,  42360,  given  by 
 both  authors,  we  deduct  31583,  the  remainder  will  be  10777; 
 "  omitted,"  says  Davidson,^  following  Alting,  "  because  they  did 
 not  belong  to  Judah  and  Benjamin,  or  to  the  priests,  but  to  the 
 other  tribes." 
 
 Ambuscade,  thirty  thousand  men.  Five  thousand  m^n.- 
 
 Josh.  viii.  3-9.  Josh.  viii.  12. 
 
 The  Jewish  interpreters  ^  maintain  that  there  were  two  am- 
 buscades.   The  twelfth  and  thirteenth  verses  are  not  found  in  the 
 
 ^  See  lists  in  Keil's  Commentary;  also,  in  De  Wette,  Introd.  to  Old  Test., 
 ii.  331,  332.     Compare  Bib.  Comment,  in  loc. 
 2  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  554. 
 ^  Conciliator,  ii.  11. 
 
382  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Septuagint;^  hence,  some  critics  regard  them  as  a  marginal 
 note  which  has  crept  into  the  text.  The  best  explanation  is, 
 that  the  copyist  wrote,  by  mistake,  in  the  third  verse,  ^,30000, 
 for  ri,  5000. 
 
 Upon  the  same  hypothesis,  that  of  the  confounding  of  similar 
 numeral  letters,  may  be  explained  all  such  cases  as  the  fol- 
 lowing :  Chapiter's  length,  5  cubits,  1  Kings  vii.  1 6 ;  3  cubits, 
 2  Kings  XXV.  17.  Deaths  by  plague,  24000,  Num.  xxv.  9 ; 
 23000,  1  Cor.  x.  8  (Paul  ^  mai/  have  intended  to  include  only 
 those  who  fell  "in  one  day").  Edomites  slain,  18000,  2  Sam. 
 viii.  13  and  1  Chron.  xviii.  12 ;  12000,^  Ps.  Ix.  title  (the  slaughter 
 is  attributed  to  king  David,  to  his  general-in-chief,  and  to  a 
 subordinate,  according  to  a  common  figure  of  speech).  Fore- 
 skins, 200,  1  Sam.  xviii.  25,  27;  100,  2  Sam.  iii.  14.  Horse- 
 men, 700,  2  Sam.  viii.  4  ;  7000,  1  Chron.  xviii.  4  (Nun  final, 
 •),  mistaken  for  dotted  Zayin,  if)."*  Horsemen  40000,  and  chariots 
 700,  2  Sam.  x.  18  ;  footmen  40000,  and  chariots  7000, 1  Chron. 
 xix.  18  (Keil :  It  is  very  evident  that  there  are  copyist's 
 errors  in  both  texts).  House  and  porch, —  height,  30  cubits, 
 1  Kings  vi.  2;  120  cubits,  2  Chron.  iii.  4.  Levites, —  number, 
 22000,  Num.  iii.  39  ;  23000,  Num.  xxvi.  62  (the  1000  excess 
 may  have  been  the  increase  during  the  interval).  Molten  sea 
 held  2000  baths,  1  Kings  vii.  26 ;  3000  baths,  2  Chron.  iv.  5 
 (the  Hebrew  verb  rendered  "contained"  and  "held"  is  dif- 
 ferent from  that  translated  "  received  "  ;  and  the  meaning  may 
 be  that  the  sea  ordinarily  contained  2000,  but  when  filled  to  its 
 utmost  capacity  received  and  held  3000  baths.''  Or,  with  Bahr 
 and  Keil,  we  may  say  that  5,  2000,  has  been  confounded  with 
 S,  3000).  Officers,  —  chief,  550, 1  IGngs  ix.  23 ;  250,  2  Chron. 
 viii.  10.     Overseers,  3300,  1  Kings  v.  16;  3600,  2  Chron.  ii. 
 
 ^  Davidson,  on  Hebrew  Text,  p.  44. 
 
 2  Ewald  (ii.  181,  note),  deems  it  "a  sli<i;ht  slip"  of  Paul's  pen. 
 
 ^  Ewald  says  (iii.  157,  note),  "a  clerical  en-or." 
 
 *  Davidson,  Sacred  Ilenneneutics,  p.  544, 
 
 ^  So  Rawlinson;  also,  Tajdor's  Calmet. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  888 
 
 18  (the  sum  of  the  officers  and  overseers  is  the  same,  3850, 
 in  each  case.  In  Kings  authority/,  in  Chronicles  nationality, 
 seems  the  principle  of   division).^     Pillars'  length,  18  cubits, 
 
 1  Kings  vii.  15 ;  35  cubits,  2  Chron.  iii.  15  (possibly  the  two 
 were  cast  in  one  piece  35  cubits  long,  which,  cut  in  two,  made 
 two  pillars,  in  round  numbers  18  cubits  long).^  Pomegranates, 
 200,  1  Kings  vii.  20  ;  400,  1  Kings  vii.  42  and  2  Chron.  iv. 
 13;  100,  Jer.  Iii.  23;  96  on  a  side,  Jer.  Iii.  23  (if  the  two 
 pillars  had  each  two  rows,  with  100  pomegranates  in  a  row, 
 the  first  three  numbers  are  accounted  for.  Bahr  and  Rawlinson 
 think  that  96  faced  the  cardinal  points,  while  the  other  four 
 were  placed  at  the  angles).  Persons  slain,  800,  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
 8;  300,  1  Chron.  xi.  11  (d,  the  initial  letter  of  the  Hebrew 
 words  for  three  and  eight,  being  used  as  an  abbreviation,  a 
 mistake  arose)  .^  Persons  slain,  5,  2  Kings,  xxv.  19  ;  7,  Jer. 
 Iii.  25  (n,  5,  confounded  with  t,  7).  Stalls,  40000,  1  Kings  iv. 
 26  ;  4000,  2  Chron.  ix.  25  (Ewald  ^ :  Hebrew  terms  for  four 
 and  forty  confounded).     Talents,  420,  1   Kings  ix.  28  ;  450, 
 
 2  Chron.  viii.  18  (3,  20,  confounded  with  3,  50).  Temple's 
 length,  40  cubits,  1  Kings  vi.  17 ;  60  cubits,  1  Kings  vi.  2 
 (the  whole  temple,  exclusive  of  the  porch,  was  60  cubits  long, 
 vs.  2;  the  sanctuary  20  cubits,  vs.  16;  hence  the  temple  par 
 excellence  was  40  cubits  in  length).  Temple  vessels,  2499, 
 Ezra  i.  9,  10  ;  5400,  Ezra  i.  11  (ancient  interpreters  maintain 
 that,  in  the  first  two  verses,  only  the  larger  and  more  valuable 
 articles  are  specified;  while  the  sum  total,  in  vs.  11,  includes 
 the  greater  and  the  less  together).^  In  all  these  cases  the 
 hypothesis  of  copyist's  errors  affords  a  very  facile  and  reasonable 
 explanation. 
 
 '  See  Bib,  Com.  on  1  Kings  v.  16. 
 ^  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  pp  548,  549. 
 ^  Kennicott,  Dissertations,  i.  95,  96. 
 
 *  History  of  Israel,  iii.  170,  note.     See  another  solution,  Davidson's 
 Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  548. 
 ^  Keii,  Commentary  in  loc. 
 
384  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Animals  employed,  —  one.  More  than  one. 
 
 Mark  xi.  7.  Matt.  xxi.  5,  7. 
 
 To  this  objection  of  Strauss,  Davidson^  replies  that  "kai,"  in 
 the  last  clause  of  the  fifth  verse,  is  exegetical,  and  should  be 
 rendered  even.  Hence  the  passage  would  read,  "  upon  an  ass, 
 even  a  colt,"  etc. 
 
 As  to  the  fact  that  the  seventh  verse  seems  to  represent 
 Christ  as  riding  upon  both  animals,  Winer  ^  notes  that  by  a 
 vague  idiom  the  "'  plural  of  class  "  is  often  put  for  the  singular ; 
 as  when  we  say.  He  sprang  from  the  horses,  though  only  one 
 of  the  team,  the  saddled  horse,  is  meant.  Upon  this  idiomatic 
 use  of  the  plural  instead  of  the  singular  may  be  explained  the 
 following  cases:  Jacob's  daughters.  Gen.  xlvi.  7  and.l5.  Re- 
 viling malefactors,  Matt,  xxvii.  44  and  Luke  xxiii.  39-41 
 (Chrysostom,  Jerome,  Theophylact,  and  others  say  that  at  first 
 both  malefactors  reviled  our  Lord,  but  that  later  one  repented).^ 
 Tables  of  shew-bread,  1  Kings  vii.  48  and  2  Chron.  iv.  19. 
 
 Animals  sacrificed,  thirteen.  Eleven  only. 
 
 Lev.  xxiii.  18, 19.  .      Num.  xxviii.  27, 30. 
 
 Jewish  interpreters  in  the  Mishna  and  Gemara,*  as  well  as 
 Josephus,  Keil,  Kurtz,  and  others,^  maintain  that  the  offerings 
 mentioned  in  Numbers  are  additional  to  those  prescribed  in 
 Leviticus.  The  former  were  to  be  offered  before  the  latter, 
 and  subsequent  to  the  daily  morning  sacrifice.  As  the  passages 
 refer  respectively  to  different  points  of  time,  there  is  no  col- 
 lision. Upon  the  same  theory  of  reference  to  different  occasions 
 or  times,  we  may  readily  solve  cases  like  the  following :  Ben- 
 jamin's sons.  Gen.  xlvi.  21,  and  Num.  xxvi.  38,  40;  1  Chron. 
 vii.  6  (the  same  individual  may  have  borne  different  names  ; 
 and,  during  the  interval  between  the  epochs  referred  to,  some 
 of  the  sons  may  have  died).^     Captives,  2  Kings  xxi  v.  14,  16 
 
 1  Introd.  to  New  Test.,  i.  86.         ^  Grammar  of  New  Test.  Idiom,  p.  175. 
 3  Davidson's  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  562.  "'  Conciliator,  i.  233. 
 
 ^  See  Bible  Commentary  on  Lev.  xxiii. 
 
 «  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  50,  says  these  accounts  must  "  relate 
 to  different  periods  of  time,  and  different  branches  of  the  same  line." 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  385 
 
 and  Jer.  lii.  28—30  (here  may  be  a  numerical  error,  or  the 
 10000  in  Kings  may  have  included  not  only  the  4600  of 
 Jeremiah,  but  also  those  captured  on  certain  other  occasions). 
 Cities  of  refuge.  Num.  xxxv.  13 ;  Josh.  xx.  7,  8  and  Deut.  iv. 
 41  (Moses  himself  appointed  three  cities,  and  Joshua  subse- 
 quently confirmed  this  appointment,  and  added  thi-ee  more 
 cities).  Heads  of  people,  Ezra  ii.  3-35  and  Neh.  x.  14-27 
 (Davidson^ :  "  The  number  had  increased  in  the  interval  between 
 Zerubbabel  and  Nehemiah").  Jair's  cities,  Judg.  x.  4  and 
 Josh.  xiii.  30;  1  Chron.  ii.  22,  23  (these  passages  refer  to 
 different  times.  Rawlinson  suggests  that,  as  the  "  Havoth " 
 were  properly  "  villages "  or  "  small  hamlets,"  it  might  be 
 difficult  to  fix  their  number  exactly.  According  to  Keil  and 
 Bertheau,^  Kenath  and  her  daughter-towns,  thirty-seven  in 
 number,  are  included  by  the  chronicler  among  Jair's  cities, 
 thus  making  the  number  "sixty").  Jeduthun's  sons,  1  Chron. 
 XXV.  3.  Jesse's  sons,  1  Sam.  xvi.  6-11 ;  and  1  Chron.  ii.  13-15 
 (the  later  writer  omits  the  sous  who  died  early).  Michal's 
 sons,  2  Sam.  xxi.  8  and  vi.  23  ("  Had  no  child  unto  the  day 
 of  her  death  "  may  mean  simply  "  had  no  child  henceforward." 
 Ewald  ^  and  De  Wette  ^  say,  with  the  greatest  probability,  that 
 Michal,  in  the  first  passage,  is  a  copyist's  mistake  for  Merab). 
 Ransom,  Ex.  xxx.  13  and  Neh.  x.  32  (the  first  was  a  census 
 tax ;  the  latter,  an  annual  tax).  Shemaiah's  sons,  1  Chron.  iii. 
 22  (Jewish  critics  say  that  one  son  died  in  infancy).  Sim- 
 eonites,  Num.  i.  23  and  Num.  xxvi.  14  (here  may  be  a  numer- 
 ical error ;  or,  since  Zimri,  one  of  the  ringleaders,  was  a 
 Simeonite,  the  24000  who  died  in  the  matter  of  Baal-Peor* 
 may  have  belonged  chiefly  to  the  tribe  of  Simeon ;  hence  its 
 remarkable  diminution).  Solomon's  gifts  to  Hiram,  1  Kings 
 V.  11  and  2  Chron.  ii.  10  (Davidson^:  The  first  passage  specifies 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  139.  "  Die  Bucher  der  Chronik,  pp.  16,  IT. 
 
 3  Vol.  iii.  74,  note;  also  p.  136.  *  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  219. 
 
 *  Num.  XXV.  6-14.  ^  Sacred  Herraeneutics,  p.  548. 
 33 
 
386  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  articles  intended  for  Hiram's  household ;  the  second,  those 
 
 for  his  workmen). 
 
 Angels  seen,  one  seated.  Two  standing.  Two  seated. 
 
 Matt,  xxviii.  2,  5;  Mark  xvi.  5.        Luke  xxiv.  4.  John  xx.  12. 
 
 Ebrard,^  with  other  critics,  has  made  it  clear  that  these  pas- 
 sages relate  to  dijfferent  persons  and  times.  This  point  will  be 
 considered  hereafter.  One  angel  appeared  at  a  given  time; 
 two  appeared  at  another  time.  The  position  assumed,  also, 
 may  have  varied  at  different  times.  Yet  the  Greek  word  in 
 Luke,  rendered  "  stood  by,"  also  means  to  come  near,  to  appear 
 to.  In  Luke  ii.  9  ;  Acts  xii.  7,  it  is  translated,  "  came  upon  " ; 
 hence,  in  the  text  in  question,  the  sense  may  be,  "  suddenly 
 appeared  to  them." 
 
 Appearances  of  Christ,  —  one  number.  Different  numbers. 
 
 John  XX.  and  xxi.  Luke  xxiv. ;  1  Cor.  xv.  5-8. 
 
 No  one  of  the  sacred  writers  claims  to  have  mentioned  all 
 the  appearances  of  our  Lord.  Certain  cases  are  mentioned  by 
 one  writer,  other  cases  by  another  writer,  —  each  laying  stress 
 upon  those  instances  which  seemed  to  him  most  important,  yet 
 not  denying  the  existence  of  other  instances. 
 
 In  a  similar  manner  may  be  resolved  the  subjoined  cases: 
 Blind  men.  Matt.  xx.  30  and  Mark  x.  46 ;  Luke  xviii.  35,  38 
 (some  think  there  were  three  ^  blind  men  healed,  —  one  when 
 Jesus  entered  the  city,  the  other  two  when  he  left  it ;  others 
 suppose  that  two  were  healed, — one  in  the  approach  to  Jericho, 
 the  other  in  the  departure  from  it,  —  and  that  Matthew,  greatly 
 condensing  the  narrative,  speaks  of  both  events  as  if  occurring 
 during  the  departure  from  the  city.'  Others  give  to  the  Greek 
 verb  in  Luke  the  sense  to  he  nigh  or  near,^  and  take  the 
 passage  as  meaning  simply  that  Jesus  was  still  near  the  city ; 
 Mark  and  Luke  mentioning  only  the  better  known  of  the  two 
 
 1  Gospel  History,  pp.  447,  448,  452. 
 
 ^  So  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  pp.  558,  559. 
 
 ^  See  I':brard,  pp.  ^02-306. 
 
 *  See  iyyi^w  in  Liddell  and  Scott;  also  in  Robinson's  New  Test.  Lexicon. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  387 
 
 blind  men).  Convocations  and  feasts,  Lev.  xxiii. ;  Num. 
 xxviii.,  xxix.  and  Ex.  xxiii.  14-16  ;  xxxiv.  18-23 ;  Deut. 
 xvi.  1-16  (in  the  latter  passages  only  the  three  feasts  are 
 mentioned  in  which  all  the  males  were  required  to  present 
 themselves  at  the  sanctuary).  Demoniacs,  Luke  viii.  27  and 
 Matt.  viii.  28  (only  the  more  prominent  one  mentioned  by 
 Luke).  Levites,  —  classes,  Neh.  x.  9-13  and  Neh.  xii.  8,  9 
 (in  the  latter  case  only  the  more  noticeable  are  specified). 
 Tribes  loyal,  1  Ejngs  xi.  32,  36  and  xii.  21  (of  the  two  con- 
 tiguous tribes,  Judah  and  Benjamin,  the  former  was  vastly 
 more  powerful,  and  virtually  absorbed  the  latter,  hence  the 
 two  were  spoken  of  as  one  tribe). 
 
 Beasts  in  ark,  two  of  each  kind.  Seven  of  a  kind. 
 
 Gen.  vi.  19,  20.  Gen.  vii.  2,  3. 
 
 The  second  injunction  may  be  simply  an  amplification  of 
 
 the  former  given  some  hundred  and  twenty  years  previously. 
 
 At  first,  it  was  said  that  a  pair  of  every  kind  of  beasts  should 
 
 be  preserved ;  afterwards,  that,  in  the  case  of  the  few  clean 
 
 beasts,  there  should  be  preserved  not  one  pair  only,  but  seven 
 
 pairs.^     Abarbanel  -  takes  the  first  passage  as  simply  asserting 
 
 that  the   beasts    should   come  paired,  male  and  female;   the 
 
 second  as  specifying  the  number  of  the  pairs  —  seven  of  the 
 
 clean,  two-  of  the  unclean,  animals. 
 
 Benjamites  slain,  26,100.  The  number,  25,000. 
 
 Judg.  XX.  15,  47.  Judg.  xx.  46,  47. 
 
 The  Jewish  interpreters  say  that  25000  were  slain  on  the 
 
 last  day  —  "  that  day  "  (vs.  35,  46)  ;  while  the  other  1100  were 
 
 slain  on  the  preceding  days.     Or,  if  vs.  46  gives  in  "  round 
 
 numbers"  the  exact  statement  of  vs.  35   (25000  for  25100), 
 
 we  have  still  1000  slain  previous  to  the  last  day  of  the  contest. 
 
 Cities  and  villages,  ticenty-nine.  Thirty-eight  in  number. 
 
 Josh.  XV.  32.  Josh.  xv.  21-32. 
 
 •  Rashi,  Kimchi,  and  Menasseh  ben  Israel  ^  call  attention  to 
 
 ^  Bible  Commentary,  in  loc.  ^  Conciliator,  i.  37. 
 
 3  Conciliator,  ii.  22,  23. 
 
388  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 the  fact  that  in  Josh.  xix.  1-6  we  find  nine  of  these  cities  (if 
 
 Chesil   and   Bethul    are   identical,  as  is   probable)  set  off    to 
 
 Simeon.     As   nine  from   thirty-eight  leaves    twenty-nine,  the 
 
 first  passage  gives  the  remainder  after  the  cession,  the  second 
 
 sets  forth  the  original  number.     Or,  with  Keil,  we  may  suppose 
 
 a  slight  numerical  error  in  the  case. 
 
 City's  dimensions,  1000  cubits.  Two  thousand  cubits. 
 
 Num.  XXXV.  4.  Num.  xxxv.  5. 
 
 There  are  various  explanations  of  this  case.^  The  Jewish 
 interpreters  say  that  the  city  and  lands  thereto  belonging  were 
 arranged  in  three  concentric  circles.  Of  these  the  city  occu- 
 pied the  inner  one  ;  the  next  larger,  with  a  radius  1000  cubits 
 greater,  formed  the  suburb  proper ;  while  the  outmost,  with  a 
 radius  still  increased  by  1000  cubits,  was  devoted  to  fields  and 
 vineyards. 
 
 Davidson,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Keil  suppose  the  city  to  be 
 1000  cubits  square.  Around  this  square  another  is  formed, 
 with  its  corresponding  sides  parallel  to,  and  1000  cubits  distant 
 from,  those  of  the  first.  The  outer  square  or  suburb  will  there- 
 fore be  3000  cubits  on  a  side.  Measuring  from  any  corner  of 
 the  city  along  its  wall  and  across  the  suburb  to  the  side  of  the 
 external  square,  we  have  a  line  of  2000  cubits,  in  conformity 
 with  the  dimensions  given  above. 
 
 Mr.  Espin  ^  thinks  that,  whatever  the  shape  of  the  city,  the 
 
 suburbs  were  to  extend  a  thousand  cubits  outward  from  any 
 
 point  in  the  city  wall ;  while  on  the  four  sides,  north,  south, 
 
 east,  and  west,  the  frontage  was  to  be  not  less  than  2000  cubits 
 
 in  length. 
 
 Generations,  forty-two.  A  different  number. 
 
 Matt.  i.  17.  Matt.  i.  2-16. 
 
 The  first  "  fourteen  "  extends  from  Abraham  to  David ;  the 
 
 second,  from  David  to  the  deportation  ;  the  third,  from  Jecho- 
 
 nias  to  Christ,  inclusive  in  each  case.     So  Alford,  Robinson, 
 
 iSee  some  ei^ht  solutions  in  Kitto,  ii.  823-826. 
 2BibJe  Commentary,  in  loc. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  389 
 
 Gardiner,  and  others.  E.brard^  makes  the  first  series  begin 
 with  Abraham  and  end  with  David,  the  second  begin  with 
 Solomon  and  end  with  Jechonias,  the  third  begin  with  Salathiel 
 and  end  with  Christ,  inclusive.  He  maintains,  with  Spanheim 
 and  Lightfootj  that  certain  kings  are  omitted  by  Matthew 
 because  of  their  great  wickedness,  and  their  intermarriage 
 with,  or  descent  from,  heathen  women.^  Dr.  Mill  ^  shows  that 
 it  was  a  common  practice  among  the  Jews  to  distribute  their 
 genealogies  into  divisions  according  to  some  favorite  or  mystical 
 number;  and  that,  in  order  to  do  this,  generations  were 
 repeated  or  left  out. 
 
 Many  critics  think  that,  since  Jehoiakim  and  Jehoiachin 
 differ  in  Greek  only  by  a  single  letter,  "  Jechonias  "  in  Matt, 
 i.  11  denotes  the  former,  in  vs.  12  the  latter,  individual.  On 
 this  hypothesis,  the  second  "  fourteen  "  ends  with  "  Jechonias  '* 
 (Jehoiakim),  and  the  third  begins  with  "Jechonias"  (Jehoi- 
 achin) ;  and  there  is  no  deficiency. 
 
 Jacob's  family,  seventy  persons.  Seventy-Jive  persons. 
 
 Gen.  xlvi.  27.  Acts  vii.  14. 
 
 Jacob's    children,    grandchildren,    and    great-grandchildren 
 
 amounted  to  sixty-six.*    Adding  Jacob  himself,  and  Joseph  with 
 
 his  two  sons,  we  have  seventy.     If  to  the  sixty-six  we  add  the 
 
 nine  wives  of  Jacob's  sons  (Judah's  and  Simeon's  wives  were 
 
 dead ;  Joseph  could  not  be  said  to  call  himself,  his  own  wife,  or 
 
 his  two  sons  into  Egypt ;  and  Jacob  is  specified  separately  by 
 
 Stephen),  we  have  seventy-five  persons,  as  in  Acts.* 
 
 People,  —  number.  A  different  statement. 
 
 2  Sam.  xxiv.  9.  1  Chi  on.  xxi.  5. 
 
 800,000  men  of  Israel.  1100,000  men  of  Israel. 
 
 500,000  men  of  Judah.  470,000  men  of  Judah. 
 
 The  difference  may  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  statements 
 are  founded  upon  oral  tradition,  and  not  upon  pubhc  records. 
 
 ^  Gospel  History,  pp.  149, 150.    As  the  pedigree  is  "juridical,  and  not 
 strictly  genealogical,"  he  reckons  3Iary  herself  as  one  of  the  third  series. 
 2  See  Deut.  vii.  2-4;  Ezra  ix.  1,  2. 
 ^  On  Mythical  Interpretation  of  Gospels,  pp.  150-161. 
 *  Gen.  xlvi.  8-26.  ^  Davidson's  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  pp.  582,  583. 
 
 33* 
 
390  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Or  there  may  be  co23yist's  errors  in  one  or  both  cases.  An 
 elaborate  explanation  based  upon  the  supposition  that  the  dif- 
 ference is  due  to  the  inclusion  or  exclusion  of  the  standing 
 army  may  be  seen  in  Davidson's  Sacred  liermeneutics.^ 
 
 Priests,  —  classes,  four.  Twenty-two  classes. 
 
 Ezra  ii.  86-39.  Neh.  xii.  1-7. 
 
 The  number  in  Ezra  is  that  which  was  fixed  upon  at  the 
 
 outset.     It  was  immediately  enlarged,  in  the  attempt  to  conform 
 
 to  the  pre-exile  arrangement. 
 
 Shekels  paid  by  David.  A  different  statement. 
 
 So  David  bought  the  threshing-floor  So  David  gave  to  Oman  for  the  place 
 
 and  the  oxen  for  fifty  shekels  of  silver,  six  hundred  shekels  of  gold  by  weight. 
 
 2  Sam.  xxiv.  24.  1  Chron.  xxi  25. 
 
 Of  a  variety  of  explanations,  three  may  be  adduced:  (1) 
 That  we  have  here  a  copyist's  mistake,  which  could  very  easily 
 happen.  (2)  That  the  first  passage  gives  the  price  of  the 
 oxen  simply,  thus :  "  So  David  bought  the  threshing-floor,  and 
 the  oxen  for  fifty  shekels  of  silver."'  The  phraseology  of  the 
 second  passage,  "  So  David  gave  to  Oman  for  the  place,"  etc., 
 seems  to  favor  this  view.  ( 3)  That  David  purchased,  first,  the 
 threshing-floor  —  a  plat  of  ground  "  probably  not  100  feet  in 
 diameter,"  with  the  oxen ;  then,  afterwards,  bethought  himself 
 to  buy  the  place,  "  maqom,"  —  the  whole  hill  of  Moriah,  — for 
 which  latter  he  paid  "  600  shekels  of  gold." 
 Solomon's  wives,  one  thousand.  One  hundred  and  forty. 
 
 1  Kings  xi.  3.  Cant.  vi.  8. 
 
 Perhaps  the  "  virgins  without  number  "  —  who  may  have 
 been,  as  Newman  ^  thinks,  held  merely  as  hostages,  —  made 
 up  the  one  thousand.  Ginsburg,  Ifleuker,  Magnus,  and  Rosen- 
 miiller  take  the  expression  in  Canticles  as  a  poetical  one, 
 denoting  simply  a  large  number.  Zockler  thinks  it  refers  to 
 an  earlier  period  in  the  reign  of  Solomon,  before  he  fell  into 
 idolatry  and  other  sins. 
 
 Things  in  ark,  three.  The  tables  of  stone  only. 
 
 Heb.  ix.  4.  Ex.  xl.  20;  Dcut.  x.  5;  1  Kings  viii.  9. 
 
 We  have  previously  seen  that  the  "  book  of  the  law "  was 
 1  Pp.  546,  547.  Also,  Bib.  Com.  on  1  Chron.  xxi.  5.       « See  p.  296  infra. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  391 
 
 not  put  into,  but  by  the  side  of,  the  ark.*  The  text  from 
 Hebrews,  which  asserts  that  the  "  pot  of  manna  "  and  "Aaron's 
 rod  "  were  in  the  ark,  probably  refers  to  the  original  arrange- 
 ment.    Later  the  two  were  removed. 
 
 Unclean  birds,  twenty.  Twenty-one  mentioned. 
 
 Lev.  xi.  13-19.  Deut.  xiv.  12-18. 
 
 The  Hebrew  terms  ''  daah "  and  "  raah,"  translated,  in  the 
 
 first  and  second  passages,  respectively,  vulture  and  glede.,  differ 
 
 only  in  their  initial  letters  T  and  1.     Critics  generally  assume 
 
 a  slight  error  of  transcription  in  the  case.     On  this  hypothesis, 
 
 if  we  drop  the  superfluous  word   "  dayyah "  (omitted  in  the 
 
 Samaritan  version,  the  Septuagint,  and  several  mss.^)  rendered 
 
 vulture  in  the  second  passage,  the  discrepancy  vanishes.     Or, 
 
 with  Aben  Ezra  and  Keil,  we  may  take  the  term  "  raah,"  in 
 
 the  second  passage,  as  the  name  of  the  genus  which  includes 
 
 the  several  species,  some  of  which  are  subsequently  named.^ 
 
 Visitors  at  the  sepulchre.  Different  statements. 
 
 One  woman.    John  xx,  1.  Three  women.    Mark  x\i.  1. 
 
 Two  women.    Matt,  xxviii.  1.  Five  or  more  women.     Luke  xxiv.  10. 
 
 Observe  (1)  that  no  one  of  the  evangelists  denies  that  more 
 women  were  present  than  those  he  mentions  by  name.  John 
 does  not  assert  that  Mary  Magdalene  only  was  present;  in 
 fact,  he  intimates  the  contrary,  for  he  represents  her  as  saying, 
 in  vs.  2,  "  We  know  not  where  they  have  laid  him."  Each 
 writer  seems,  while  not  denying  the  presence  of  other  persons, 
 to  single  out  one  or  more  whom,  for  some  reason,  he  mentions 
 with  particularity.  This  explanation  of  the  case  is  perfectly 
 reasonable,  as  the  following  illustration  will  evince.  In  the 
 year  1824  Lafayette  visited  the  United  States,  and  was  every- 
 where welcomed  with  honors  and  pageants.  Historians  will 
 describe  these  as  a  noble  incident  in  his  life.  Other  writers 
 will  relate  the  same  visit  as  made,  and  the  same  honors  as 
 
 1  Deut.  xxxi.  26.  -  Davidson,  on  Hebrew  Text,  p.  37. 
 
 ^  Ben  Gershon  thinks  that  }-iX*i  keen-sighted,  and  SiX'n  (n'''^  another 
 form  of  the  same  word)  swift-flying,  both  denote  the  same  bird.  See 
 Conciliator,  i.  225.    Also,  compare  Wood's  Bible  Animals,  p.  360. 
 
392  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 enjoyed,  by  two  persons,  Lafayette  and  his  son.^  Yet  there 
 will  be  no  contradiction  between  these  two  classes  of  writers. 
 No  more  is  there  between  the  evangelists  relative  to  the 
 number  of  women  who  visited  the  sepulchre. 
 
 Or  (2)  we  may  take  the  sacred  writers  as  referring  to 
 different  points  of  time,  each  specifying  the  number  present  at 
 the  time  to  which  he  refers.  There  were  two  distinct  parties^ 
 of  women  —  the  Marys  and  their  friends,  and  the  Galilean 
 women  —  who  followed  our  Lord.  Probably  the  women, 
 having  lodged  among  their  friends  in  different  parts  of  the  city, 
 and  to  avoid  suspicion  on  the  part  of  the  Jews,  would  come  by 
 different  paths  to  the  sepulchre,  and  would  not  arrive  at  the 
 same  moment.  We  may,  therefore,  suppose  that  Mary  Mag- 
 dalene arrived  first  (so  John)  ;  soon  the  other  Mary  arrives 
 (so  Matthew)  ;  then  Salome  comes  (so  Mark)  ;  finally,  the 
 "other  women"  make  their  appearance  (so  Luke).  As  we 
 shall  see  hereafter,  a  hypothesis  of  this  kind  removes  the  diffi- 
 culty as  to  the  time  of  the  visit  to  the  tomb.^ 
 
 ir,     CONCERNING  TIME, 
 
 It  would  be  superfluous  to  repeat  what  has  been  said  relative 
 to  discrepancies  resulting  from  the  confounding  of  similar 
 numeral  letters.  Obviously,  in  those  cases  where  questions  of 
 time  are  involved,  the  liability  to  errors  of  the  above  kind 
 becomes  an  element  of  prime  importance.  Taking  this  factor 
 into  account,  together  with  others  we  have  pointed  out,*  —  the 
 use  of  different  methods  of  reckoning  time,  and  the  grouping 
 of  events  not  chronologically,  but  upon  the  principle  of  asso- 
 ciation, —  and  we  are  enabled  to  solve  with  facility  such  cases 
 of  discrepancy  as  the  following  relative  to  time. 
 Abraham's  age  at  migration  75  years.  Apparently  135  years. 
 
 Gen.  xii.  4.  Gen.  xi.  26,  32;  Acts  vii.  4. 
 
 In  the  twenty-sixth  verse,  Abraham  may  be  mentioned  first, 
 
 1  See  Robinson's  Eni^lish  Harmony,  p.  181.        ^  See  Kitto,  ii.  582,  585. 
 »  Comp.  pp.  327-330  infra.  *  See  pp.  9-14  infra. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  393 
 
 simply  on  account  of  his  theocratic  importance :  as  Moses  is 
 
 usually  named   before  Aaron,  who  was  the  elder.     So  that 
 
 Abraham  may  have  been  the  youngest  son,  born  when  Terah 
 
 was  130  years  old.^     It  would  then  follow  that  Abraham  left 
 
 Haran  at  the  age  of  75,  his  father  having  previously  died,  at 
 
 the  age  of  205  years.     This  removes  the  difficulty. 
 
 Some   Jewish   interpreters,  however,  think   that   Abraham 
 
 actually  left  Haran  sixty  years  before  his  father's  death.     On 
 
 this  theory,  Stephen,  in  asserting  that  Abraham  left  after  his 
 
 father's  death,  simply  followed   the  then  commonly  received, 
 
 though   inaccurate,    chronology.       So    Ewald,^    Keil,    Kurtz,^ 
 
 Lange,  Murphy,  and  others. 
 
 Absalom's  tarry  forty  years.  Could  not  have  been  so  long. 
 
 2  Sam.  XV.  7.  1  Kings  ii.  11. 
 
 De  Wette  *  observes,  "  We  are  not  told  from  what  point  of 
 
 time  the  forty  years  are  reckoned."     But  Josephus,^  followed 
 
 by  Ewald,^  Hervey,  and  mOst  critics,  assumes  that  there  is  a 
 
 copyist's  error  in  the  case.     In  the  same  manner  such  cases  as 
 
 the  following  are  to  be  explained.     Famine — duration,  2  Sam. 
 
 xxiv.  13  and  1  Chron.  xxi.  11,  12  (De  Wette:  5,  3,  mistaken 
 
 for  T,  7).     Jerusalem  burned,  2  Kings  xxv.  8  and  Jer.  lii.  12 
 
 (Bahr :  t,  7,  confounded  with  "^,10).     Jerusalem  captured,  Jer. 
 
 xxxvi.  9  and  Dan.  i.  1   (Pusey ''  thinks  that  the  bare  mention 
 
 that  Jehoiakim  was  captured  implies  that  the  city  was  not  then 
 
 captiu-ed.     Keil  renders  Dan.  i.  1 :  Nebuchadnezzar  went,  set 
 
 out,  to  Jerusalem). 
 
 Adam  died  on  the  day  of  his  fall.  Lived  930  years. 
 
 Gen.  ii.  17.  Gen.  v.  5. 
 
 In   that  very  day  he  became  spiritu^illy  dead  — "  dead  in 
 
 trespasses  and   sins";^   "alienated   from  the   life   of    God."^ 
 
 Also,  in  a  physical  point  of  view,  death  began  then  to  prey 
 
 ^  Davidson,  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  p.  528;  also,  Hacliett  on  Acts. 
 
 2  Vol.  i.  325,  note.  ^  Vol.  i.  201,  205. 
 
 *  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  212.    ^  Ant.  vii.  9, 1. 
 
 ®  Vol.  iii.  170,  note.  ^  Lectures  on  Daniel  the  Prophet,  p.  399. 
 
 8  Eph.  ii.  1.  »  Eph.  iv.  18. 
 
394  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 upon    him ;  the   seeds   of   mortality  were   sown  in   his  body. 
 
 That  which  might  have  been  but  a   painless  and  longed-for 
 
 translation  became  a  painful  and  dreaded  dissolution. 
 
 Agag  mentioned  at  a  certain  time.  Did  not  live  till  later. 
 
 Num.  xxiv.  7.  1  Sam.  xv.  2-8. 
 
 Balaam  was,  for  the  time,  uttering  predictions  under  the 
 influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,^  hence  he  may  have  mentioned 
 a  man  not  yet  born.  Besides,  the  name  "  Agag  "  was  probably 
 hereditary  to  the  chieftains  of  Amalek,  as  "  Pharaoh "  was  to 
 the  Egyptian  monarchs.  Hence  the  Agag  of  the  second  passage 
 would  be  a  later  one  bearing  the  same  name. 
 
 Other  examples  of  alleged  premature  mention  are  the  fol- 
 lowing :  Amalek ;  compare  Gen.  xiv.  7 ;  Num.  xxiv.  20  and 
 Gen.  xxxvi.  12  (Esau's  son  may  have  been  named  after  the 
 original  Amalek ;  or  the  "  country  of  the  Amalekites,"  Gen. 
 xiv.  7,  may  have  been  styled  thus  by  historical  anticipation, 
 having  acquired  the  name  previous  to  the  time  when  Moses 
 wrote.  Amalek  may  be  termed  the  "  first  of  the  nations,"  ^  as 
 being  the  first  that  assailed  Israel,  or  as  pre-eminent^  among 
 the  neighboring  nations  at  the  time  when  Balaam  uttered  the 
 words).  Gilgal,  Deut.  xi.  30  and  Josh.  iv.  19,  20;  v.  9  (two 
 different  places  are  intended ;  one  of  which  may  have  been 
 tliat  now  known  as  Jiljilia  or  Jiljulieh ;  *  the  site  of  the  other 
 is  not  determined).  Hebrews,  —  land,  Gen.  xl.  15  and  Josh, 
 i.  1 1  (since  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  had  "  effected  something 
 like  permanent  settlements "  at  various  points  in  the  land  of 
 Canaan,  it  may  have  been  popularly  termed  the  "  land  of  the 
 Hebrews,"  ^  although  the  latter  had  not  as  yet  taken  possession 
 of  it.     Besides,  Joseph  doubtless  knew  very  well  that,  according 
 
 ^  Num.  xxiv.  2, 16. 
 
 ^  Sec  Num.  xxiv.  20. 
 
 ^  See  same  Hebrew  expression  in  Amos  vi.  1. 
 
 ^  Robinson,  Later  Bib.  Res.,  pp.  138,  189 
 
 ^  Tliis  name  seems  to  mean  "  trans- Euphratics,"  that  is,  those  who  had 
 come  across  tlic  Euphrates.  See  Josh.  xxiv.  14;  also  Kurtz,  i.  167-169, 
 and  Gesenius,  Tliesaurus,  p.  987. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  395 
 
 to  the  divine  promise,  the  land  of  Canaan  belonged  to  the 
 Hebrews).  Hebron,  Gen.  xiii.  18  and  Josh.  xiv.  15  ;  xv.  13 
 (the  best  critics  agree  that  th<j  original  name  was  Hebron  ; 
 afterwards  Kirjath-arba  was  substituted;  then  the  old  name 
 Hebron  was  revived.  Quite  similar  has  been  the  fate  of  Jeru- 
 salem. After  Hadrian's  conquest  the  early  name  "  Jerusalem  " 
 was  displaced,  and,  dropping  out  of  contemporaneous  history, 
 was  forgotten.  The  new  city  bore  the  name  of  "  ^lia  Cap- 
 itolina."  Not  till  the  reign  of  Constantino  did  the  old  name 
 come  again  into  use).^  Joshua,  Ex.  xvii.  9  ;  xxiv.  13  and 
 Num.  xiii.  16  (the  author,  as  Kurtz  thinks,  writing  after  the 
 name  Joshua  had  become  common,  employs  it  by  anticipation. 
 Or  Joshua  may  have  received  the  name  at  the  defeat  of 
 Amalek,^  in  which  case  Num.  xiii.  1 6  should  be  rendered,  "  And 
 Moses  had  called  Oshea,"^  etc.).  Kings  in  Israel,  Gen.  xxxvi. 
 31  and  1  Sam.  x.  24,  25  (the  idea  of  monarchy  was  familiar 
 to  the  Israelites  from  the  example  of  the  surrounding  nations, 
 all  of  which  had  kings.  Besides,  there  were  express  promises  * 
 to  Abraham  and  Jacob  that  kings  should  spring  from  them). 
 Levites'  land,  Lev.  xxv.  32-34 ;  Num.  xxxv.  2-8  and  Josh, 
 xxi.  2,  3,  41  (in  the  first  two  passages  the  land  is  mentioned 
 by  anticipation).  Luz,  Josh.  xvi.  2  and  Judg.  i.  26  (Eichhorn 
 and  Bertholdt  say  that  different  places  are  meant.  The  name 
 "  Luz  "  was,  according  to  the  second  text,  transferred  to  another 
 town).^  Ophu-,  Gen.  x.  29  and  1  Kmgs  ix.  28  (the  Ophir  of 
 the  first  text  seems  to  have  been  a  man,  or  else  a  tribe.  Either 
 might  give  name  to  the  place).  Sabbath,  Gen.  ii.  2,  3 ;  Ex. 
 xvi.  23  and  Ex.  xx.  8  (the  Sabbath  may  have  been  observed 
 from  early  times,  although  no  explicit  injunction  to  that  effect 
 
 ^  See  "  Jerusalem,  the  City  of  Herod  and  Saladin,"  by  Besant  and  Pal- 
 mer, pp.  54,  55;  also,  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  ii.l309. 
 
 =^  Ex,  xvii.  9. 
 
 ^  So  Rosenmiillcr,  Eichhorn,  and  Kanne;  and  substantially  Hengstenberg 
 and  Ranke. 
 
 *  Gen.  xvii.  6,  16;  xxxv.  11. 
 
 ^  See  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1699, 1700. 
 
396  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 is  recorded  previous  to  the  giving  of  the  law  at  Sinai).  Tab- 
 ernacle, Ex.  xxxiii.  7  and  Ex.  xl.  17  (it  is  possible  that  the 
 narrative  does  not  follow  the  chronological  order,  and  that  the 
 tabernacle  proper  was  completed  before  the  time  referred  to 
 in  the  first  text.  Or,  since  the  usual  word  for  tabernacle, 
 "  mishkan,"  is  not  used  in  the  thirty-third  chapter  at  all,  the 
 reference  may  be  to  an  old  sanctuary  or  sacred  tent  which  had 
 come  down  from  the  days  of  the  patriarchs.  So  Michaelis, 
 Le  Clerc,  and  Rosenmiiller.  Otherwise,  it  may  have  been 
 Moses'  own  tent,  set  apart  for  this  temporary  purpose.  So 
 the  Septuaguat,  Syriac,  Aben  Ezra,  Rashi,  Keil,  Kurtz,  and 
 Wogue).  Temple,  1  Sam.  i.  9 ;  iii.  3,  and  1  Kings  vi.  14  (the 
 Hebrew  word  "  hekal,"  in  the  first  two  texts,  means  a  large 
 building  or  dwelling,  an  edifice,  and  is  not  restricted  to  the 
 Temple  proper.  Gesenius  says  it  is  applied  to  "the  sacred 
 tabernacle  in  use  before  the  building  of  the  Temple").  Temple- 
 mount,  Ex.  XV.  13-17  and  2  Chron.  iii.  1  (there  is  no  proof  that 
 the  real  temple-mount  is  here  specified.  That  Jehovah  would, 
 however,  select  a  "  high  and  stately  mountain  "  ^  in  Canaan  as 
 the  place  of  his  sanctuary  was  the  natural  inference  of  Miriam, 
 who  was  doubtless  familiar  with  the  promises  and  with  the 
 history  of  the  patriarchs).^  Testimony,  Ex.  xvi.  34  and  Ex. 
 xl.  20  (the  first  passage  was  written,  probably,  near  the  close 
 of  Moses'  life,  by  historic  anticipation,  in  order  to  finish  the 
 story  about  the  manna). 
 Ahah  died  in  19th  year  of  JehosTmpkat,  In  his  11  th  year. 
 
 1  Kings  XV.  10;  xvi.  29;  xxii.  41.  1  Kings  xxii.  51. 
 
 Most  probably  the  difference  arose  from  a  slight  mistake  in 
 numeral  letters.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the 
 Hebrews  had  peculiar  methods  of  reckoning  the  length  of 
 reigns.  Regnal  years  seem  to  have  been  counted  from  the 
 beginning  of  the  year,  not  from  the  day  of  the  king's  accession. 
 Thus,  if  a  king  began  to  reign  in  the  last  month  of  one  year, 
 reigned  the  whole  of  the  next  year,  and  one  month  of  the  third, 
 
 1  Kurtz,  ii.  356.  ^  See  Gen.  xxii.  2;  Ex.  iii.  1,  2. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  397 
 
 we  should,  although  his  reign  lasted  not  over  fourteen  months, 
 have  dates  in  his  first,  second,  and  third  years.  Any  dates  in  the 
 year  of  his  accession,  but  previous  to  that  event,  or  in  the  year 
 of  his  death,  but  subsequent  to  it,  would  be  assigned  to  the  last 
 year  of  his  predecessor  or  to  the  first  of  his  successor.^  Thus, 
 as  Rashi  ^  says,  since  parts  of  years  are  reckoned  as  whole  ones, 
 we  shall  have  the  same  year  sometimes  twice  reckoned,  once  to 
 the  father,  and  then  again  to  the  son.  The  Talmudists  say 
 that  the  years  of  the  kings  are  reckoned  from  the  month  Nisan 
 to  Nisan  again,  and  that  with  such  precision  that  even  a  single 
 day  before  or  after  Nisan  is  counted  for  a  year.  Hence,  if  a  king 
 reigned  from  the  first  day  of  Nisan,  a  year  and  a  day,  to  the 
 second  day  of  the  next  Nisan,  he  was  reckoned  as  reigning  two 
 years.  So  Keil  and  Bahr.  Taking  these  facts  into  account, 
 together  with  the  use  of  round  numbers,  and  of  different  and 
 sometimes  obscure  eras  of  computation,*  and  it  is  obvious 
 that  Hebrew  chronology  becomes  somewhat  complicated  and 
 intricate. 
 
 Should  it  be  objected  that  the  above  methods  of  computation 
 adopted  by  the  Hebrew  historians  are  incorrect,  we  reply  that 
 those  were  their  methods,  and  the  writers  are  to  he  judged  hy 
 their  own  standards,  not  hy  ours.  Unless,  then,  it  can  be 
 shown  that  according  to  their  own  Oriental  ideas  and  methods 
 of  constructing  history  and  of  reckoning  time  these  writers 
 disagree  with  themselves,  the  charge  of  "discrepancy"  does 
 not  fairly  lie  against  them. 
 
 Upon  some  one  of  the  foregoing  principles  are  to  be  explained 
 the  following  cases,  pertaining  to  various  monarchs. 
 
 ^  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  1.  439;  also,  compare  pp.  11-14  infra,  where  the  sub- 
 ject is  discussed  more  fully. 
 
 -  Conciliator,  ii.  86. 
 
 ■'  Browne,  "  Ordo  Saeclorum,"  p.  221-248,  maintains  that  some  of  the 
 reii;ns  are  enumerated  in  years  current,  others  in  years  complete;  and  that 
 the  kings  of  Judah  reckoned  their  reigns  from  an  epoch  different  from  that 
 employed  by  the  kings  of  Israel. 
 34 
 
398  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Ahaziah  of  Judah,  —  age,  twenty-two.  It  was  forty-two. 
 
 2  Kings  viii.  26.  2  Chron.  xxii.  2. 
 
 According  to  the  latter  text,  Ahaziah  must  have  been  two 
 years  older  than  his  own  father !  The  perfectly  simple  ex- 
 planation adopted  by  Gesenius^  and  most  critics  is,  that  the 
 copyist  mistook  one  numeral  letter  for  another  —  3,  20,  for  a,  40. 
 
 Ahaziah's  reign  begun  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Joram,  2  Kings 
 ix.  29 ;  in  the  twelfth  year,  2  Kings  viii.  25  (Rashi  says  that, 
 on  account  of  Joram's  sickness,^  his  son  Ahaziah  was  associated 
 with  him  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Joram's  reign,  but  began  to 
 reign  alone  in  the  twelfth  year).  Ahaziah  of  Israel  began  to 
 reign  in  the  seventeenth  year  of  Jehoshaphat,  1  Kings  xxii. 
 51 ;  apparently  later,  compare  2  Kings  iii.  1 ;  (the  difference 
 probably  arises  from  the  fact  that,  instead  of  fractional,  the 
 nearest  whole  numbers,  above  or  below,  are  employed).  Ama- 
 ziah's  reign  began  in  the  fourth  year  of  Joash,  2  Kings  xii.  1 ; 
 xiii.  10  ;  in  the  second  year,  2  Kings  xiv.  1  (Rawlinson  mentions 
 a  double  accession  of  this  Joash;  one  as  co-partner  with  his 
 father;  the  other  two  years  later,  as  sole  king.  Amaziah's 
 reign  dated  in  the  fourth  year  from  one  accession ;  in  the 
 second  from  the  other).  Asa  had  ten  years  of  peace,  2  Chron. 
 xiv.  1;  XV. -19;  at  war  with  Baasha  all  their  days,  1  Kings 
 XV.  16,  32  (Asa  reigned  forty-one  years.^  Baasha,  beginning 
 in  Asa's  third  year,  reigned  twenty-four  years.*  Asa's  ten 
 years  of  peace  may  have  occurred  after  Baasha's  death.  Or, 
 possibly,  there  may  have  been  ten  years  of  their  contem- 
 poraneity, during  which,  though  there  was  "war"  i.e.  unre- 
 
 1  He  says,  "  Geschichte  der  Heb.  Sprache  und  Schrift,"  p.  174,  "  Nach 
 2  Kon.  viii.  26  ist  offenbar  zu  lesen  22  (SD  fur  Sa)."  Lightfoot  and  Ben 
 Gershon  think  that,  in  Chronicles,  the  whole  reign  of  the  house  of  Omri 
 is  reckoned  in,  to  make  the  forty-two;  thus,  Omri  6-{-Ahab  22  + Ahaziah 
 2  + Joram  12  =  42.  It  is  a  singular  fact  that  this  peculiarly  rabbinic 
 method  of  computation  will,  in  a  consideral)le  number  of  cases,  remove 
 apparent  discrepancies.  —  See  Conciliator,  passim. 
 
 2  2  Chron.  xxi.  18,19. 
 ^  1  Kings  XV.  10. 
 
 *  1  Kings  XV.  83. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  399 
 
 mitting  hostility,  between  them,  there  was  no  actual  resort  to 
 arms.^  Critics  agree  that,  in  2  Chron.  xv.  19  and  xvi.  1, 
 thirty-fifth  and  thirty-sixth  years  are  a  copyist's  mistake  for 
 fifteenth  and  sixteenth,  or  twenty-fifth  and  twenty-sixth). 
 Azariah's  reign  begun  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jeroboam. 
 2  Kings  XV.  1 ;  in  the  fifteenth  year,  2  Kings  xiv.  2,  17,  23 
 (some  say,  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jeroboam's  co-partner- 
 ship with  his  father,  but  the  sixteenth  since  he  began  to  reign 
 alone.  The  best  critics  maintain  that  13,  27,  has  been  con- 
 founded with  y^,  15).^  Azariah's  reign  ended  in  the  first  year 
 of  Pekah,  2  Kings  xv.  2,  27  ;  in  the  second  year  of  Pekah, 
 2  Kings  XV,  32  (parts  of  years  are  reckoned  as  whole  years). 
 
 Baasha  died  in  Asa's  twenty-seventh  year,  1  Kings  xv.  33 ; 
 in  his  twenty-sixth,  1  Kings  xvi.  8  (here,  again,  the  same  prin- 
 ciple applies). 
 
 Ela's  reign  two  years,  1  Kings  xvi.  8 ;  one  year,  1  Kings 
 xvi.  10  (he  actually  reigned  a  part  of  two  years.  These  parts 
 are  called  years). 
 
 Hezekiah's  age,  twenty-five,  2  Kings  xviii.  2 ;  probably  less, 
 2  Kings  xvi.  2  (Ahaz,  dying  at  the  age  of  thirty-six,  would 
 hardly  leave  a  son  aged  twenty-five.  Hence,  with  many 
 critics,  we  may  assume  a  slight  mistake  in  numeral  letters).^ 
 Hoshea's  reign  begun  in  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham,  that  is, 
 the  third  or  fourth  of  Ahaz,  2  Kings  xv.  27,  30,  32 ;  in  the 
 twelfth  year  of  Ahaz,  2  Kings  xvii.  1  (the  rabbles'*  say  that 
 because  Hoshea  was  tributary  to  the  Assyrians  in  the  early  part 
 of  his  reign,  the  first  nine  years  are  not  reckoned ;  his  reign 
 properly  beginning  with  his  independence.  Mr.  Browne''  admits 
 an  interregnum,  or  a  period  of  anarchy,  lasting  eight  years). 
 
 ^  See  Browne's  Ordo  Saeolorum,  pp.  231--234. 
 
 -  Compare  the  translator's  note  in  Bahr,  p.  151. 
 
 ^  Davidson,  Vol.  ii.  p.  22,  and  Ewald,  Vol.  iv.  167,  with  the  Septuasrint, 
 Syriac,  and  Arabic  of  2  Chron.  xxviii.  1,  make  Ahaz  ticenty-five  years  old 
 at  his  accession. 
 
 ^  Conciliator,  ii.  98,  99. 
 
 ^  Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  242.  He  thinks  that  Isa.  ix.  17-21  refers  to  this 
 period  of  anarchy. 
 
400  DISCREPANCIES  OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Ishbosheth's  reign  two  years,  2  Sam.  ii.  10  ;  apparently  some 
 seven  years,  2  Sam.  ii.  11;  v.  5  (Ewald^  and  Keil  maintain 
 that,  after  Saul's  death,  five  years  were  spent  in  warfare 
 against  the  Philistines,  before  Ishbosheth  was  anointed  king 
 over  Israel). 
 
 Jehoahaz's  reign  begmi  in  the  twenty-third  year  of  Joash, 
 2  Kings  xiii.  1 ;  about  the  nineteenth  year,  2  Kings  x.  36 ;  xii. 
 
 1  (Bahr  thinks  that  is,  23,  has  been  substituted,  in  the  first 
 text,  for  xs,  21).^  His  reign  lasted  seventeen  years,  2  Kings 
 xiii.  1 ;  fourteen,  2  Kings  xiii.  10  (we  may  adopt  the  above 
 emendation ;  or,  with  the  old  expositors,  suppose  that  his  son 
 shared  the  throne  the  last  two  or  three  years  of  the  reign). 
 Jehoash  began  to  reign  in  the  thirty-seventh  year  of  Joash, 
 
 2  Kings  xiii.  10;  apparently  in  the  fortieth,  2  Kings  xiii.  1. 
 Jehoiachin's  age,  eighteen  years,  2  Kings  xxiv.  8  ;  eight  years, 
 2  Chron.  xxxvi.  9  (Bahr  thinks  that  *!,  10,  has  dropped  out  of 
 the  latter  text).  His  capture  in  Nebuchadnezzar's  eighth  year, 
 2  Kings  xxiv.  12  ;  in  the  seventh  year,  Jer.  lii.  28  (either  a 
 slight  mistake  in  numeral  letters,  or  else  a  different  method 
 of  counting  regnal  years).  His  deliverance  on  the  twenty- 
 seventh  day  of  the  month,  2  Kings  xxv.  27  ;  on  the  twenty- 
 fifth  day,  Jer.  lii.  31  (a  mistake  as  to  a  single  numeral  letter). 
 Jehoiakim's  fourth  year  corresponded  to  Nebuchadnezzar's 
 first,  Jer.  xxv.  1 ;  xlvi.  2  ;  to  his  second,  Dan.  i.  1  (the  fourth 
 year  of  Jehoiakim,  being  reckoned  by  a  different  method,  might 
 correspond  to  the  latter  part  of  Nebuchadnezzar's  j^rs?,  and  the 
 earlier  part  of  his  second  year.  Nebuchadnezzar  set  out  upon 
 his  expedition  against  Jerusalem  in  Jehoiakim's  third  year,  Dan. 
 i.  1 ;  and  continued  it,  after  the  battle  of  Carchemish,  in  his  fourth 
 year).  Joram  of  Israel,  —  reign  begun  in  the  second  year  of 
 Jehoram  of  Judah,  2  Kings  i.  17  ;  apparently  five  years  before, 
 
 1  Vol.  iii.  113. 
 
 "^  Josephus  agrees  with  this  emendation.  Obviously,  upon  the  principles 
 of  computation  already  explained,  a  discrepancy  of  one  or  two  years 
 arises  and  is  accounted  for  so  easily,  as  to  be  of  no  consequence  whatever. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  401 
 
 2  Kings  viii.  16  (Joram  of  Israel  seems  to  have  begun  to  reign 
 in  the  second  year  of  the  joint  rule  of  Jehoram  and  his  father ; 
 Jehoram  of  Judah  began  to  reign  alone  in  the  fifth  year  of 
 Joram  of  Israel.^  Or,  with  Mr.  Bullock,^  we  may  hold  that 
 Jehoram  of  Judah  had  two  or  three  "accessions"  :  (1)  When 
 Jehoshaphat,  on  going  to  the  battle  of  Ramoth-gilead,  about 
 the  seventeenth  year  of  his  reign,  intrusted  the  regency  to 
 Jehoram;  (2)  when  Jehoshaphat,  in  the  twenty-third  year, 
 made  him  joint  king;  (3)  when,  in  the  twenty-fifth  year, 
 Jehoshaphat  died.  So  that  the  accession  of  Joram  of  Israel  in 
 Jehoshaphat's  eighteenth  year  would  coincide  with  the  second 
 year  after  the  first  accession,  and  the  fifth  year  before  the 
 second  accession,  of  Jehoram  of  Judah).  Jeroboam  II.  con- 
 temporary with  Uzziah  (Azariah)  fourteen  years,  2  Kings  xiv. 
 23  ;  XV.  1  ;  thirty-eight  years,  2  Kings  xv.  8  (Bahr,  Thenius, 
 and  WoLff  say  that  in  xiv.  23  we  should  read  fifty-one^  K3,  for 
 forty-one,  ^"Q  ;  'Ewald^  sajs  Jifty-three.  Browne ^  suggests  that 
 "  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Jeroboam,"  xv.  1,  means  the 
 twenty-seventh  year  before  the  end  of  Jeroboam's  reign.  Most 
 critics  think  that  ID,  27,  is  put  here  by  mistake  for  la  15. 
 Some^  suppose  an  interregnum  of  eleven  or  twelve  years 
 between  the  death  of  Jeroboam  and  the  accession  of  his  son). 
 Josiah's  reformation  in  his  tweKth  year,  2  Chron.  xxxiv. 
 3—7  ;  in  the  eighteenth  year,  2  Kings  xxii.  3  ;  xxiii.  4  (what  he 
 did  at  the  earlier  period  was  but  the  commencement  and 
 preparation  for  what  he,  under  the  influence  of  the  newly- 
 discovered  book  of  the  law,  carried  out  rigidly  and  thoroughly 
 in  his  eighteenth  year).  Jotham's  reign,  twenty  years,  2  Kings 
 XV.  30 ;  sixteen  years,  2  Kings  xv.  33  (it  has  been  suggested 
 that,  since  Uzziah  was  a  leper,  his  son  Jotham  reigned  in  con- 
 nection with  him  four  years.^  Some  Jewish  critics  maintain 
 that  "  the  twentieth  year  of  Jotham  "  means  the  twentieth  from 
 
 ^  See  Davidson,  Sac.  Herm.,  p.  550.  ^  Smith's  Bible  Diet,,  ii.  1178. 
 
 3  Vol.  iv.  p.  118.  *  Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  239,  note. 
 
 ^  Ordo  Saeclorum,  loc.  cit.  °  See  Sac.  Herm.,  p.  550. 
 84* 
 
402  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 the  beginning  of  his  reign,  that  is,  the  fourth  year  of  his  suc- 
 cessor Ahaz.  Bahr  thmks  the  thirtieth  verse  an  interpolation). 
 Nebuchadnezzar's  nineteenth  year,  Jer.  lii.  1 2  ;  eighteenth  year, 
 Jer..lii.  29  (either  a  numerical  error,  or  else  different  events 
 are  intended).  His  dream  explained  in  the  second  year  of  his 
 reign,  Dan.  ii.  1 ;  not  till  he  had  reigned  three  years,  Dan.  i. 
 1,  5,  18  (in  i.  1  he  is  styled  "  king  of  Babylon"  by  historical 
 anticipation.  He  was  at  the  time  crown  prince  and  commander- 
 in-chief  in  behalf  of  his  father  ;  or,  as  Berosus  ^  intimates,  he 
 may  have  been  actually  co-regent.  The  "  second  year,"  in  ii.  1, 
 dates  from  the  beginning  of  his  real  reign.  Besides,  as  Raw- 
 linson  ^  observes,  the  "  three  years  "  of  Daniel's  training  means, 
 according  to  the  Hebrew  usage,  "  no  more  than  one  whole  year, 
 and  parts,  however  small,  of  two  other  years)."  Omri's  reign 
 began  in  the  twenty-seventh  year  of  Asa,  1  Kings  xvi.  15  ;  in 
 the  thirty-first  year,  1  Kings  xvi.  23  (he  began,  at  the  first 
 date  to  reign  over  one  half  of  Israel,  at  the  second  date  to 
 leign  over  the  whole)?  Pekah's  reign  twenty  years,  2  Kings 
 XV.  27 ;  about  thirty,  2  Kings  xv.  32,  33 ;  xvii.  1  (Bahr  thinks 
 that  3,  20,  has  been  substituted  improperly  for  ^,  30.  Oppert 
 and  Lenormant  ^  assert,  upon  the  authority  of  the  Assyrian  in- 
 scriptions, that  Pekah's  reign  was  interrupted  above  seven  years, 
 he  being  dethroned  about  B.C.  742  by  a  second  Menahem,  and 
 re-instated  by  another  revolution  about  B.C.  733.  The  thirty 
 years  date  from  his  first  inauguration,  while  his  actual  reign 
 was  twenty  years).     As  to  Saul's  reign,  1  Sam.  xiii.  1,  2,  the 
 
 ^  He  says  that  the  father  "  conferred  upon  his  son  Nebuchadnezzar,  now 
 a  man,  some  share  of  the  government."  See  Hengstenberg's  Genuine- 
 ness of  Daniel,  p.  50. 
 
 2  Historical  Illustrations,  pp.  168, 169  (American  edition). 
 
 M  Kings  xvi.  21,  22. 
 
 4  Manual  of  Ancient  History  of  the  East,  i.  172  (Amer.  edition).  See  a 
 summary  of  regnal  discrepancies  in  Movers'  Kritische  Untersuchungcn 
 iiber  die  biblischc  Chronik,  pp.  54,  55,  note  (a).  For  tabular  and  syn- 
 chronistic lists  of  the  kincrs  of  Judali  and  Israel,  the  reader  is  referred  to 
 the  various  Commentaries  and  Bible  Dictionaries. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  403 
 
 best  critics  agree  that  some  numeral  letter  has  dropped  out  in 
 
 both  verses. 
 
 Ai  destroyed  at  a  certain  time.  Still  inhabited. 
 
 Josh,  viii.  28.  Neh.  vii.  32. 
 
 Parker ^ :  "It  may  have  been  rebuilt  in  the  interval." 
 
 AmaleTcites  utterly  destroyed.  Overthrown  at  a  later  period. 
 
 1  Sam.  XV.  7,  8.  1  Sam.  xxx.  1, 17. 
 
 The    Ilebrew  expression  in   the  first   passage   is,  literally, 
 
 "  devoted  to   destruction"  and  means    no  more  than  that   be 
 
 destroyed  all  wham  he  caught.     The  words  "  all  the  people  " 
 
 are  to  be  interpreted,  as  Thenius  ^  says,  "  with  a  restriction," 
 
 and  not  to  be   pressed  so  as  to  preclude  the  idea  that  some 
 
 escaped,  who,  twenty  years  later,  gathering  a  band  of  their 
 
 Bedouin  neighbors,  made  a  predatory  excursion  against  Ziglag. 
 
 Bethel  and  Gezer  conquered.  Apparently  not  till  later. 
 
 Josh.  xii.  12,  16.  Judg.  i.  22-25,  29. 
 
 Some  critics^  think  that  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  Judg.  i.-ii.  6 
 
 refers  to  events  previous  to  the  death  of  Joshua.     Hence  the 
 
 above  passages  would  relate  to  substantially  the  same  period, 
 
 and  there  would  be  no  collision.     Otherwise,  we  may  adopt 
 
 the  solution  of  the  diflaculty  indicated  a  little  further  on. 
 
 Canaan  conquered  speedily.  Conquest  delayed. 
 
 Josh.  x.  42.  Josh.  xi.  18. 
 
 The  first  text  refers  especially  to  the  southern  part  of  Pal- 
 estine, which  was  conquered  .in  a  single  campaign  ;  the  second 
 relates  to  the  northern  part,  the  conquest  of  which  occupied  a 
 longer  period. 
 
 As  to  the  fact  that  the  Canaanites  were  to  be  destroyed 
 quicJdy  ("mahar"),  Deut.  ix.  3;  yet  not  at  once  ("mahar"), 
 Deut.  vii.  22,  the  Hebrew  term  is  employed  in  these  two  cases 
 
 ^  De  Wette's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  177,  note. 
 
 2  Die  Biioher  Samuels,  p.  68. 
 
 ^  Compare  Bib.  Com.  Introd.,  to  Judges,  pp.  123-125.  On  this  hypothe- 
 sis, we  must  read  in  Judi?.  i.  1,  "after  the  death  of  iloses,"  etc.  This 
 seems  plausible,  since  the  death  of  Joshua  is  related  in  ii.  8,  9. 
 
404  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 in  a  relative  sense.  The  overthrow  by  the  Israelites  of  "  seven 
 nations  greater  and  mightier  "  than  they,  was,  in  respect  to  the 
 magnitude  of  the  work,  done  "quickly";  but,  with  reference 
 to  the  fact  that  the  rapidity  of  their  conquest  was  graduated  to 
 the  rate  of  their  actual  occupation,  so  that  the  depopulated  land 
 was  not  left  to  become  the  haunt  of  wild  beasts,  it  was  not  done 
 "  at  once,"  that  is,  not  too  suddenly. 
 
 As  to  those  passages  which  seem  to  represent  the  subjugation 
 of  Canaan  and  the  extirpation  of  its  inhabitants  as  already 
 effected  and  complete,  in  contrast  with  others  which  speak  of 
 *'  very  much  land  "  as  still  in  possession  of  the  native  inhabitants 
 (compare  Josh.  xi.  16,  17,  23  ;  xii.  7,  8  and  xiii.  1 ;  xvii.  14; 
 xxiii.  5)  it  has  been  suggested^  (1)  that  in  the  former  passages 
 the  writer  speaks  from  the  theocratic  point  of  view,  intimating 
 that  everything  has  been  done  on  the  part  of  God,  it  only  re- 
 maining for  the  Israelites  to  faithfully  execute  their  part  of 
 the  work ;  (2)  that  "  territory  was  undoubtedly  overrun  by 
 Joshua  at  the  first  onset  which  was  afterwards  recovered  by 
 the  Canaanites,  and  only  again  and  finally  wrested  from  them 
 at  a  subsequent,  sometimes  a  long  subsequent,  date." 
 
 Cities  smitten  at  one  time.  Not  till  a  later  period. 
 
 Josh.  xii.  10-23.  Josh.  xv.  63;  xvii.  12;  Judg.  i.  22, 29. 
 
 Some  make  a  distinction  between  smiting  the  kings  and  cap- 
 turing their  cities  in  the  present  instance.  But  all  such  cases 
 as  these  may  be  explained  by  .the  supposition  that,  in  the 
 irregular  warfare  which  the  Israelites  waged,  the  Canaanites 
 which  escaped  at  the  conquest  of  the  cities  would,  as  soon  as 
 the  attention  of  the  victors  was  turned  in  another  direction, 
 return  and  re-occupy  their  former  haunts.  Soon  they  would 
 rebuild  and  fortify  these  cities,  and  in  process  of  time  must  be 
 again  dislodged  by  armed  force.  Hence  it  would  happen  that 
 some  of  the  Canaanite  cities  would  be  conquered  several  times 
 over  by  the  Israelites,  under  Joshua,  Caleb,  and  other  leaders. 
 
 '  See  Bible  Com.,  Introd.  to  Josh.  p.  12;  also,  p.  376  infra. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  405 
 
 Ewald,'  in  his  sketch  of  the  "  never-ending  hostilities  and 
 counter-hostilities  of  those  early  times,"  hits  the  mark  precisely. 
 Having  pointed  out  the  inferiority  of  the  Hebrews  in  all  the 
 practical  arts,  including  even  arms  and  military  tactics,  and 
 their  superiority  to  the  Canaanites  in  respect  to  martial  courage, 
 he  adds :  "  With  these  striking  differences,  the  warlike  daring 
 of  the  Hebrews  might  easily  achieve  most  extraordinary  mo- 
 mentary successes,  and  yet  their  first  campaigns  could  not  be 
 much  more  than  what  the  Arabs  in  all  three  continents  called 
 '  alghars,'  or  rather  (since  the  Hebrews  had  no  cavalry)  '  razzias,' 
 that  is,  sudden  raids,  overpowering  the  land  for  the  moment, 
 rather  than  permanently  subduing  it ;  and  when  the  camp  of 
 the  invaders  was  remote,  the  thick  ranks  of  the  former  in- 
 habitants, regardless  of  their  promised  submission,  soon  closed 
 again  behind  their  invaders."  In  these  characteristically  graphic 
 words  of  the  great  critic,  we  have  the  key  to  such  cases  of 
 repeated  conquest  as  are  subjoined.  Debu*  conquered.  Josh.  x. 
 38,  39  and  Josh.  xv.  15-17;  Judg.  i.  11-13.  Dor  and 
 Taanach,  Josh.  xii.  21,  23  and  Judg.  i.  27.  Hazor,  Josh.  xi. 
 1,  10  and  Judg.  iv.  24.  Hebron,  —  king,  Josh.  x.  23,  26  and 
 36,37  (Bleek^  suggests  that  the  latter  passage  may  refer  to  a 
 successor  of  the  king  mentioned  in  the  former.  Konig^  thinks 
 that  there  were  two  conquests  of  Hebron).  Hormah,  Num. 
 xxi.  3  and  Josh.  xii.  14;  Judg.  i.  17  (the  name  "Hormah," 
 denoting  accursed,  or  devoted  to  destruction,  may  have  been 
 applied  to  more  than  one  place.^  Or,  the  vow  or  ban  made  by 
 Moses  may  not  have  been  fully  carried  out  till  the  time  of 
 Joshua.  Kurtz  ^  suggests  that  the  city  may  not  have  been  con- 
 quered at  the  same  time  with  its  king,  or  that  Hormah  may  have 
 
 1  History  of  Israel,  ii.  263. 
 
 2  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  349.     Several  other  passages  referring  to  Hebron, 
 Josh.  xi.  21;  xiv.  12,  13;  Judg.  i.  9-11,  indicate  its  varying  fortunes. 
 
 ^  Alttestamentliche  Studien,  i.  22. 
 
 ^  Some  have  reckoned  three  places  with  this  name.     Num.  xiv.  45  may 
 mean,  unto  the  place  now  known  as  Hormah. 
 5  Vol.  iii.  335. 
 
406  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 been  recaptured  by  the  Canaanites,  and  only  definitively  con- 
 quered and  placed  under  the  ban  at  the  time  indicated  in  Judg. 
 i.  17).  Jebus  or  Jerusalem,  Josh.  xii.  10;  Judg.  i.  8  and  Josh. 
 XV.  63 ;  Judg.  i.  21  (Jebus  was  the  stronghold  or  fortress  "  of 
 extraordinary  strength,"  while  Jerusalem  was  the  name  of  the 
 adjacent  city.  The  latter,  with  its  king,  was  captured  early;  the 
 former  held  out  till  the  time  of  David.  So  Josephus,^  and  other 
 authorities).  Jericho,  Josh.  vi.  24,  26  and  Judg.  i.  16;  iii.  13  ; 
 2  Sam.  X.  5  (Bertheau,  Knobel,  and  LeClerc  maintain  that 
 two  different  places  are  meant.  Winer  thinks  that  Joshua's 
 imprecation  was  not  meant  to  preclude  inhabiting  the  city 
 again,  but  referred  to  the  rebuilding  of  its  fortifications.  So 
 that,  as  an  unwalled  village,  it  may  have  been  re-inhabited 
 shortly  after  its  conquest  by  Joshua).  Laish,  Josh.  xix.  47 
 and  Judg.  xviii.  27,  28.  Midianites  overthrown.  Num.  xxxi. 
 10  and  Judg.  vi.  33;  viii.  10-12  (it  is  not  said  in  Numbers 
 that  all  the  Midianites  were  slain  ;  some  doubtless  escaped.  In 
 some  two  hundred  years  this  remnant  would  become  sufficiently 
 formidable,  aided  by  their  allies,  "  the  Amalekites  and  the 
 children  of  the  east,"  to  harass  northern  and  eastern  Israel). 
 We  thus  see  that  the  theory  of  repeated  conquests  of  the  same 
 place  or  people  meets  the  exigencies  of  the  case  satisfactorily. 
 
 Announcement  made  to  Mary.  At  a  different  time  to  Joseph. 
 
 Luke  i.  26-37.  Matt.  i.  20. 
 
 Strauss  and   Bruno  Bauer  maintain  that  the  two  accounts 
 
 are  contradictory.     But  Mary  did  not  at  once  tell  Joseph  of 
 
 the  message  she  had  received,  because,  ^^r*^,  she  had  nothing  to 
 
 confess^  and  it  was  not  suitable  to  speak  of  the  matter  in  a  tone 
 
 of  triumph ;  and,  secondly.,  she  knew  that  her  own  word  alone 
 
 would  not  satisfy  Joseph,  hence  she  wisely  left  it  to  God  to 
 
 put  the  mind  of  her  husband  at  rest  in  regard  to  the  matter.^ 
 
 This  "  pairing  of  visions,"  in  order  to  dispose  two  persons  for 
 
 ^  Ant.  V.  2,  2.    Compare  Ewald,  Havernick,  and  Stanley. 
 2  See,  on  this  point,  Ebrard,  pp.  167-171;  also,  Wordsworth,  Replies  to 
 Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  469. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  407 
 
 co-operation  in  important  and  worthy  matters,  finds  a  parallel 
 
 in  the  cases  of  Cornelius  and  Peter,  and  Saul  and  Ananias.^ 
 
 Apostles  called  at  one  time.  At  a  different  time. 
 
 John  i.  35-43.  Matt.  iv.  18-22;  Mark  i.  16-20;  Luke  v.  1-11. 
 
 John   describes  the   first  interview  of   our    Lord   with  the 
 
 disciples  mentioned.     They   "abode  with   him  that  day,"  but 
 
 afterward  returned  for  a  while  to  their  ordinary  employment. 
 
 Later,  at  the  time  indicated  in  the  other  passages,  they  were 
 
 called  to  the  apostolic  office,  and  gave  up  their  former  mode  of 
 
 life.     Ebrard  ^  has  shown  that  tliis  is  the  correct  explanation  ; 
 
 also,  that  the  commission  of  the  "  twelve  "  in  Matt,  x.,  was  quite 
 
 distinct  from  that  of  the  "  seventy,"  as  recorded  in  Luke  x. ;  the 
 
 former  being  of  a  permanent,  the  latter  of  a  temporary,  nature. 
 
 Ark  made  at  one  time.  Not  till  a  later  time. 
 
 Deut.  X.  3-5.  Ex.  xxv.  10;  xxxv.  12;  xxxvii.  1. 
 
 Possibly  the  ark  mentioned  in  the  first  passage  was  a  tem- 
 porary one  ;  or  Moses  may  have  ordered  its  construction  before 
 he  went  upon  Sinai,  and  so  made  it  per  Bezaleel.  But  a 
 better  explanation  is,  that  Moses  here,  as  in  many  other  cases, 
 "  connects  transactions  closely  related  to  each  other  and  to  his 
 purpose,  without  regard  to  the  order  of  occurrence."  The  style 
 of  the  Hebrew  historians,  as  Le  Clerc  observes,  is  not  to  be 
 "  tried  by  the  rules  of  rhetoricians."  It  is  to  their  disregard 
 of  chronological  order,  to  the  arranging  of  their  materials 
 topically,  rather  than  consecutively,  —  a  method  of  composition 
 entirely  in  keeping  with  their  simplicity  of  thought  and  diction, 
 —  that  we  must  attribute  numerous  minor  discrepancies  like 
 the  following :  Christ  conveyed  into  the  mountain  at  the  third 
 temptation.  Matt.  iv.  8 ;  at  the  second,  Luke  iv.  5  (Luke  does 
 not  follow  the  order  of  time  here ;  nor  does  he  claim  to  do 
 so).  His  preaching  began  before  John's  imprisonment,  John 
 iii.  2,  22,  24;  from  that  epoch,  Matt.  iv.  12,  17;  Mark  i.  14 
 (the    meaning    may  be,   from  that  time  began  to  preach  in 
 
 ^  See  Acts  x.  3,  13,  15,  and  ix.  6,  10-16. 
 -  Gospel  History,  sections  14,  51,  and  70. 
 
408  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Galilee,  or  to  preach  the  nearness  of  the  "  kiugdom  of  heaven  "). 
 Creation,  —  one  order,  Gen.  i.  11-27;  another  order.  Gen.  ii. 
 4-7,  9,  19-22  (it  is  conceded  by  the  best  authorities^  that 
 there  is  a  "  general  correspondence "  between  the  biblical 
 account  of  creation  and  the  deductions  of  geological  science. 
 When  we  compare  the  statements  of  Gen.  i.  with  those  of  the 
 succeeding  chapter,  we  discover  several  disagreements  with 
 respect  to  the  order  of  events.  Thus,  —  to  give  one  of  the 
 half-dozen  similar  instances  adduced  by  rationalistic  critics, — 
 in  the  first  chapter,  the  man  and  woman  seem  to  be  represented 
 as  created  together,  after  the  lower  animals ;  in  the  second 
 chapter  the  man  appears  to  be  created  first,  then  the  beasts, 
 lastly  the  woman. 
 
 Now,  these  differences  arise  simply  from  the  condensation 
 of  the  narrative  in  the  first  chapter,  and  from  the  disregard  of 
 chronological  order  in  the  second.  In  the  first,  the  sacred 
 historian  gives  a  general,  yet  concise,  account  of  the  six  days' 
 work ;  in  the  second  chapter  he  recapitulates,  and,  without  fol- 
 lowing the  order  of  time,  gives  some  additional  details.  As 
 Kalisch  has  well  said, "  The  writer's  end  is  the  history  of  man's 
 fall.  The  serpent  occasions,  the  wife  shares  it ;  it  is  therefore 
 necessary  to  introduce  the  creation  of  the  animals  and  of 
 woman."  ^ 
 
 The  narrative  in  the  second  chapter  is  "  wholly  unchrono- 
 logical,"  the  near  and  the  remote  being  brought  together  without 
 regard  to  the  order  of  time.  In  other  words,  everything  in 
 this  supplementary  account,  is  viewed  in  its  relation  to  man  ; 
 hence  he  is  here  placed  foremost  according  to  the  spirit  of  the 
 Aristotelian  maxim :  The  posterior  in  appearance,  the  prior  in 
 idea).^  Feast  of  unleavened  bread  instituted  before  the  exode, 
 Ex.  xii.  15  ;  afterwards  at  Succoth,  Ex.  xiii.  3  (the  second  text 
 
 ^  Such  as  Agassiz,  Dana,  and  Guyot.     See  Dr.  J,  P.  Thompson's  Man  in 
 Genesis  and  in  Geology,  p.  19.    Also,  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  161. 
 2  Commentary  on  Genesis,  p.  113;  see,  also,  p.  82. 
 ^  See  Lange  on  Genesis,  pp.  200-202. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  409 
 
 is  a  mere  incidental  repetition  of  the  command).  Israelites 
 already  at  Sinai,  Ex.  xviii.  5 ;  not  till  later,  Ex.  xix.  2  (the 
 meeting  with  Jethro  seems  related  by  anticipation,  in  order  to 
 clear  the  way  for  an  uninterrupted  account  of  the  meeting  with 
 Jehovah  at  Sinai).  John  acquainted  with  Jesus  previous  to 
 the  baptism,  Matt.  iii.  14;  not  till  that  epoch,  John  i.  33  (the 
 recognition  by  John,  at  the  first  glance,  may  have  been  due  not 
 to  any  previous  acquaintance  with  Jesus,  but  to  the  fact  that 
 he  had  been  forewarned  that  the  Messiah  was  about  to  appear, 
 and  felt  an  intuitive,  irresistible  conviction  '  that  this  was  He). 
 Levites  set  apart  during  the  sojourn  at  Sinai,  Num.  iii.  6 ;  viii. 
 14;  apparently  not  tiU  later,  Deut.  x.  6-8  (Rashi,^  Hengsten- 
 berg,^  and  others  say  that  vs.  6  and  7  of  Deut.  x.  are  paren- 
 thetical;  the  words  "at  that  time,"  in  vs.  8,  referring  back  to 
 the  events  described  in  the  first  five  verses).  Persons  sealed 
 at  a  given  time,  Neh.  x.  1-27  ;  their  children  supposed  to  have 
 lived  a  century  earlier,  Ezra  ii.  1-39  ;  Neh.  vii.  7-42  (the 
 eighteen  or  more  "coincident  names"*  in  these  lists  do  not 
 absolutely  prove  the  identity  of  the  persons.  Eawlinson* 
 maintains  that  the  names  in  the  first  passage  are  "not  personal, 
 but  designate  families").  Priests  consecrated  at  Mount  Sinai, 
 Ex.  xix.  22  ;  not  till  later,  Ex.  xxviii.  1  (the  Israelites  were 
 familiar,  from  the  beginning,  with  the  ideas  of  priesthood  and 
 sacrifice.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  they  had  priests  and 
 forms  of  worship  and  sacrifice  previous  to  the  giving  of  the 
 law  and  the  consecration  of  the  Levites.  Jewish  writers  say 
 that  in  that  early  time  the  first-born  or  the  heads  of  families 
 performed  priestly  service.  This  agrees  well  with  the  state- 
 ment that  Moses  sent  "  young  men  of  the  children  of  Israel " 
 to  offer  sacrifice  upon  a  certain  occasion).^ 
 
 1  See  Ebrard,  pp,  196,  19T. 
 
 2  Conciliator,  i.  246. 
 3Gen.  of  Pent.,ii.  352. 
 
 *  Davidson,  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  ii.  138. 
 ^  Bible  Com.  on  Neh.  x.  1-28. 
 
 «  See  Ex.  xxiv.  5.    Compare,  however,  Kurtz,  ii.  334-337;  iii.  142,  143. 
 35         * 
 
410  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Beersheba  named  by  Abraham.  Named  later  by  Isaac. 
 
 Gen.  xxi.  31.  Gen.  xxvi.  33. 
 
 To  the  rationalistic  objection  that  "  identical  names  of  places 
 are  not  imposed  twice,"  we  may  reply,  in  general,  that  it  is 
 "  in  full  accordance  with  the  genius  of  the  Oriental  languages 
 and  the  literary  tastes  of  the  people  "  to  suppose  that  a  name 
 may  be  renewed ;  in  other  words,  that  a  new  meaning  and 
 significancy  may  he  attached  to  an  old  name}  This  fact 
 sweeps  away  a  host  of  objections  urged  against  this  and  similar 
 cases. 
 
 The  whole  series  of  events  served  to  recall  to  Isaac's  mind 
 the  former  name  and  the  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it, 
 hence  he  renewed  it.  From  xxvi.  15,  18  we  learn  that  all  the 
 wells  dug  by  Abraham  had  been  filled  with  earth  by  the 
 Philistines ,  but  that  Isaac  re-opened  them,  and  called  them  by 
 the  old  familiar  names.  This  would  seem  a  sufficient  explana- 
 tion of  the  case  before  us. 
 
 In  much  the  same  way  the  following  examples  of  a  twofold 
 naming  are  to  be  solved.  Bethel  named  at  one  time.  Gen. 
 xxviii.  19;  at  a  later  time,  Gen.  xxxv.  15  (at  the  first  time 
 Jacob  made  a  vow  that,  if  God  would  bless  and  keep  him  till 
 his  return,  the  pillar  which  he  had  set  up  should  be  "  God's 
 house."  ^  Upon  his  return,  in  view  of  the  abundant  blessings 
 which  he  had  received,  he  performed  his  vow,^  changing  the 
 ideal  to  an  actual  Bethel,  and  thus  emphasizing  and  confirming 
 the  original  name).  Dan  named,  Gen.  xiv.  14;  Deut.  xxxiv. 
 1  and  Josh.  xix.  47 ;  Judg.  xviii.  29  (many  commentators  — 
 Deyling,  Eichhorn,  Havernick,  Hengstenberg,  Jahn,  Kalisch, 
 Keil,  Lange,  Quarry,  Zeller,  and  others  —  think  that  in  Genesis 
 another  town  is  intended,  that  commonly  termed  "  Dan-jaan." 
 Possibly  the  city  may  have  had  two  names  in  ancient  times  — 
 
 1  This  is  the  testimony  of  a  scholar  thoroui^hly  acquainted  with  Oriental 
 manners  and  customs,  Prof.  J.  L.  Porter,  in  Kitto's  Biblical  Cyclopaedia, 
 li.  132  (latest  edition). 
 
 -  Gen.  xxviii.  20-22. 
 
 '  Gen.  xxxv.  14,  15. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  411 
 
 Laish  (or  Leshem)  and  Dan  ;  one  of  these  being  more  used  at 
 one  time,  the  other  at  another.^  Le  Clerc  suggests  that  the 
 town  was  originally  called  Laish,  and  the  fountain  Dan,  i.e. 
 judge ;  but  that  the  Danites  gave  the  name  of  the  fountain, 
 which  corresponded  with  that  of  their  own  tribe,  to  the  city,  as 
 a  substitute  for  its  former  name).  Havoth-jair  named.  Num. 
 xxxii.  41 ;  Deut.  iii.  4,  14  and  Judg.  x.  3,  4  (the  old  name 
 may  have  acquired  new  significance  through  the  second  Jair ; 
 or,  as  Kurtz  ^  suggests,  the  entire  district  may  have  been  lost 
 by  the  family  during  the  confusion  of  the  time  of  the  Judges, 
 and  a  portion,  thirty  of  the  sixty  cities,^  regained  and  re-named 
 by  the  second  Jair).  Israel  named  at  one  time,  Gen.  xxxii. 
 28 ;  at  a  different  and  later  time.  Gen.  xxxv.  10  (many  critics 
 regard  the  latter  instance  simply  as  a  ratification  and  confirma- 
 tion of  the  former  meaning.  Murphy  suggests  that  in  the 
 interval  Jacob's  spiritual  life  had  been  declining,  and  that  its 
 renewal  is  aptly  intimated  and  expressed  by  the  renewal  of  his 
 name). 
 
 Census  made  at  one  time.  At  another  time. 
 
 Ex.  xxxviii.  26.  Num.  i.  46. 
 
 We  have  elsewhere  seen  that  the  census  of  the  second  text 
 was  a  military  enrolment,  but  was  probably  based  upon  the 
 registration  accompanying  the  collection  of  offerings  mentioned 
 in  Exodus. 
 
 The  hypothesis  that  similar  events  occur  at  different  times 
 affords  a  ready  solution  of  the  following  cases ;  Christ  anointed 
 at  one  time,  Matt.  xxvi.  7 ;  John  xii.  3 ;  at  another  time,  Luke 
 vii.  37,  38  (the  best  critics  hold  that  the  anointing  in  the  first 
 two  passages  was  quite  distinct  from  that  mentioned  by  Luke). 
 David  anointed  at  one  time,  1  Sam.  xvi.  13  ;  at  another,  2  Sam. 
 ii.  4 ;  upon  a  third  occasion,  2  Sam.  v.  3  (the  first  was  a  private, 
 prophetic  anointing ;  by  the  second  he  was  publicly  recognized 
 as  king  over  Judah ;  by  the  third,  as  king  over  both  Judah  and 
 
 1  Kitto,  i.  614.  2  Yoi^  jji^  459^  ^^q^ 
 
 *  Comp.  Judg.  X.  4;  1  Chron.  ii.  22,  23. 
 
412  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Israel).     Land   assigned,  Josh.  xiv.  5  and   xviii.  6    (chapters 
 
 xiv.-xix.  contain  an  account  of  the  division  of  the  land ;  vs. 
 
 1-5  of  the  fourteenth  chaj^ter  form  a  preface  to  the  narrative, 
 
 and  state  the  result  by  anticipation).     Officers  appointed,  Ex. 
 
 xviii.  25  and  Num.  xi.  16  (two  entirely  distinct  transactions). 
 
 Proverb,  —  origin,   1    Sam.    x.    12  and  1   Sam.  xix.  24    (the 
 
 recurrence  of  the  same  circumstance  ajBforded  fresh  ground  for 
 
 the  "proverb").     Saul's  anointing,  1  Sam.  x.  1  and  xi.  14,  15; 
 
 xii.  3.     Solomon's  anointing,  1  Kings  i.  39  and  1  Chron.  xxix. 
 
 22   (in  both  the   last  cases  there  was  need  of   a  formal  and 
 
 supplementary  investiture   with   authority  before   all   Israel). 
 
 Spices  prepared  after  the  Sabbath,  Mark  xvi.  1;  on  the  day 
 
 preceding  it,  Luke  xxiii.  56  (Ebrard^  gives  a  rendering  of  the 
 
 latter  text  which  obviates  the  difficulty.     Otherwise,  one  of  the 
 
 two  parties  of  women  may  have  made  a  purchase  before,  the 
 
 other   after,  the  Sabbath.     Or,  the   same   persons  may  have 
 
 bought  a  part  of  the  spices  at  one  time,  the  remainder  at  the 
 
 other  time).     Temple  furniture   removed,  2  Kings  xxiv.  13 ; 
 
 XXV.  13-17    and    Dan.  i.  2  (the  temple  was   pillaged   several 
 
 times).     Wives  repudiated,  Ezra  x.  3-17  and  Neh.  xiii.  23-30 
 
 (the  evil  of  intermarriage  with  heathen  women  was  repressed 
 
 by  Ezra,  but  some  twenty-five  years  later  again  required  severe 
 
 measures).     Year,  —  beginning,  in  spring-time,  Ex.  xii.  2;  in 
 
 harvest,  Ex.  xxiii.  16  (the  first  passage  refers  to  the  sacred, 
 
 the  second  to  the  secular  year).^ 
 
 Christ  crucified  at  the  third  hour.  About  the  sixth  hour. 
 
 Mark  xv.  25.  John  xix.  14-18. 
 
 There   are   three   leading   explanations   of   this  case.     1st. 
 
 That  the  two  evangelists  give  the  extreme  limits  of  time, — 
 
 Mark  referring  to  the  beginning  of  the  preparations,. and  John 
 
 pointing  to  the  completion  of  the  dreadful  tragedy.     The  words 
 
 of  the  former,  "  It  was  the  third  hour,"  may  denote  indefinitely 
 
 that  the  third  hour  was  past ;  while  the  phraseology  in  John, 
 
 "  about    the   sixth   hour,"  may   mean  simply  that  it  was  ap- 
 
 1  Gospel  History,  pp.  445,  446.  ^  Conciliator,  i.  )  26-129. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  413 
 
 proacMng  the  sixth  hour,  So  Ewald,^  apparently.  2d.  John, 
 writmg  m  Asia  Minor,  may  have  used  the  Roman  official  mode 
 of  computation,  reckoning  from  midnight,  so  that  the  "sixth 
 hour "  would  be  6  a.m.  From  this  time  to  9  a.m.  (the  "  third 
 hour,"  according  to  the  Jewish  reckoning)  was  occupied  by  the 
 preliminaries,  and  by  the  passage  of  the  procession  forth  to 
 Golgotha.  This  is  the  view  of  Ebrard,  Mr.  Garden,^  Gardiner, 
 Hug,  Olshausen,  Tholuck,  Townson,  Wieseler,  Wordsworth, 
 and  others.  3d.  A  copyist's  mistake,  in  John,  of  f,  3,  for  f ,  6. 
 So  Alford  hesitatingly,  Bengel,  Beza,  Eusebius,  Petavius, 
 Robinson,  and  Theophylact.  Meyer  follows  John's  reckoning, 
 leaving  the  difficulty  unsolved. 
 
 Christ's  entombment  three  days  and  nights.  A  less  time. 
 
 Matt.  xii.  40.  Buried  Friday ;  rose  on  Sunday. 
 
 We   have   elsewhere   called   attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
 
 Orientals  reckon  any  part  of  a  day  as  a  whole  day.     In  the 
 
 case  before  us,  one  whole  and  two  parts  of  a  day,  together  with 
 
 two  nights,  are  popularly  styled  "  three  days  and  three  nights.'* 
 
 This  Oriental  manner  of  designating  intervals  of  time  is  found 
 
 in  other  portions  of  scripture,^  and  obtains  in  modern  times. 
 
 Dr.  Robinson*   found,  in  his  own  case,  that  "five   days"  of 
 
 quarantine   really  meant  "only  three  whole  days   and   small 
 
 portions  of  two  others." 
 
 Christ's  infancy,  —  order  of  events.  A  different  order. 
 
 Matt.  ii.  1-23.  Luke  ii.  4-39. 
 
 It   is   objected   by  Strauss^  and   his   school   that   the   two 
 
 accounts  are  incompatible,  since  Matthew  omits  the  residence 
 
 at   Nazareth    before    the   nativity,   the    circumstances   which 
 
 brought  Joseph  and  Mary  to  Bethlehem,  and  the  presentation 
 
 in  the  temple ;  while  Luke  does  not  mention  the  visit  of  the 
 
 Magi,  the  murder  of  the  innocents,  nor  the  flight  to  Egypt. 
 
 ^  Life  of  Christ,  p.  325.  2  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1102 
 
 2  Compare  1  Sam.  xxx.  12,  13.  *  Later  Bib.  Res.  pp.  625,  626. 
 
 ^  New  Life  of  Jesus,  ii.  91.    See,  also,  Schleiermacher,  Life  of  Jesus,  pp. 
 46,  48  (Thirlwall's  translation). 
 35* 
 
414  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 To  this  we  reply  that  the  argument  from  the  silence  of  an 
 author  amounts  to  very  little.  That  particular  aspect  of  the 
 case  which  he  wished  to  present,  or  the  knowledge  already 
 possessed  by  those  to  whom  he  was  writing,  might  render  it 
 inexpedient  or  superfluous  for  him  to  mention  all  the  circum- 
 stances, as  otherwise  he  would  have  done. 
 
 In  the  case  before  us,  the  following  is  the  probable  order  of 
 events :  Journey  of  Joseph  and  Mary  from  Nazareth  to  Beth- 
 lehem ;  birth  of  the  child ;  presentation  in  the  Temple ;  visit 
 of  the  Magi ;  flight  of  the  family  to  Egypt ;  return  and  settle- 
 ment at  Nazareth.' 
 
 Eusebius,  Epiphanius,  and  Patritius  ^  maintain  that,  after 
 the  presentation  in  the  Temple,  Joseph  and  Mary  returned  to 
 Nazareth  (Luke  ii.  39),  and,  having  arranged  their  affairs 
 there,  came  back  to  Bethlehem  (which  must  have  possessed 
 very  strong  attractions  for  them),  with  a  view  to  make  the 
 latter  place  their  home.  Wordsworth  thinks  they  came  to 
 Bethlehem  the  second  time  on  the  occasion  of  one  of  the  great 
 annual  feasts.  At  this  time  they  received  the  Magi  not  in  a 
 stable,  but  in  a  "  house  "  (Matt.  ii.  11),  and  from  this  city  they 
 fled  into  Egypt.  Ebrard  ^  satisfactorily  explains  the  omission 
 of  some  circumstances  by  one  evangelist,  and  of  others  by  the 
 other. 
 
 Daniel  continued  till  first  year  of  Cyrus.  Till  his  third  year. 
 
 Dan.  i.  21.  Dan.  x.  1. 
 
 In  the  first  text,  "  continued  "  means  either  that  he  retained 
 his  position,  or  better  that  he  continued  in  Babylon,  till  that 
 epoch,  at  which  time  the  exiles  received  permission  to  return. 
 So  Bleek,  Davidson,  and  Michaelis.  Hengstenberg  *  takes  the 
 passage  as  implying  that  Daniel  lived  to  see  that  glorious  epoch, 
 but  not  at  all  that  he  died  at  that  time. 
 
 1  So  Robinson,  Gardiner,  Wieseler,  and  others. 
 
 *  Kitto,  ii.  548,  note;  Andrews'  Life  of  our  Lord,  pp.  84-89. 
 
 *  Gospel  History,  pp.  18C-189. 
 
 *  Gen.  of  Daniel,  pp.  54-56. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  415 
 
 Deluge,  —  duration  150  days.  Lasted  hut  40  days. 
 
 Gen.  vii.  24;  viii.  3.  Gen.  vii.  4, 12, 17. 
 
 As  Ivnobel  ^  says,  the  rain  continued  during  the  entire  one 
 hundred  and  fifty  days,  of  which  the  forty  form  a  part ;  yet  we 
 must  distinguish  its  more  moderated  continuance  from  the  first 
 forty  days'  storm.  Moreover,  the  subsidence  or  sinking  of  a 
 portion  of  the  earth's  surface,  denoted  by  the  "  breaking  up  of 
 the  fountains  of  the  great  deep,"  ^  doubtless  continued  also.  The 
 one  hundred  and  fifty  days  bring  us  down  from  the  seventeenth 
 day  of  the  second  month,  the  beginning  of  the  rain,  to  the  seven- 
 teenth day  of  the  seventh  month,  when  the  ark  rested  upon  the 
 mountain.  On  the  first  day  of  the  tenth  month  the  summits 
 of  the  mountains  were  visible.  Then  forty  days  (viii.  6)  bring 
 us  to  the  tenth  day  of  the  eleventh  month,  when  Noah  opened 
 the  window  of  the  ark,  and  sent  forth  the  raven.  Between 
 this  event  and  the  first  sending  of  the  dove  probably  seven 
 days  intervened  (compare  vs.  7  .and  8 ;  also,  "  other  seven 
 days,"  in  vs.  10).  These,  with  the  two  "  sevens  "  mentioned  in 
 vs.  10  and  12,  make  twenty-one  days,  which  bring  us  to  the  six 
 hundred  and  first  year,  first  month,  first  day,  when  the  "  face  of 
 the  ground  was  dry,"^  that  is,  when  the  water  had  disappeared. 
 On  the  twenty-seventh  day  of  the  second  month  the  mud  had 
 dried,  so  that  it  was  suitable  for  Noah  and  his  famUy  to  go 
 forth."*  This  suggestion  removes  the  supposed  contradiction 
 that  the  earth  became  dry  at  two  different  times. 
 
 Drought,  —  duration  three  years.  Apparently  three  and  a  half. 
 
 1  Kings  xvii.  1 ;  xviii.  1.  Luke  iv.  25;  James  v.  17. 
 
 The  "  third   year "  may  be  reckoned  from  the  time  when 
 
 Elijah  began  his  sojourn  with  the  widow  of  Zarephath ;  or,  the 
 
 drought  begun  six  months  before  \hQ  famine  did — the  last  two 
 
 texts  referring  to  the  drought. 
 
 Esau  settled  in  Seir,  at  one  time.  Not  till  a  later  period. 
 
 Gen.  xxxii.  3.  Gen.  xxxvi,  6,  8. 
 
 The  writer,  in  the  first  passage,  speaks  of  the  "  country  of 
 1  Die  Genesis,  p.  85.  ^  c^ap.  vii.  11.  ^  ^^^  13,         4  yi^,  14, 
 
416  DISCREPANCIES    OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Edom  "  by  anticipation.  Probably  Esau,  at  the  time  alluded 
 to,  was  sojourning  temporarily  in  Seir ;  or  he  may  have  been 
 there  on  a  warlike  expedition.  At  a  later  period  he  took  up 
 his  abode  there. 
 
 Exodus  occurred  in  fourth  generation.         In  the  sixth  generation. 
 
 Gen.  XV.  13, 16.  1  Chron.  i.  34;  ii.  1,  3-9. 
 
 The  best  critics  hold  that  the  term  "  generation,"  in  the  first 
 passage  denotes  a  century}  The  "  four  hundred  years  "  may  be 
 taken  here  as  a  round  number;  otherwise,  they  may  begin 
 with  the  birth  of  Isaac,  while  the  "  four  hundred  and  thirty " 
 of  Gal.  iii.  17  may  date  from  the  call  of  Abraham.^ 
 
 Fast  observed  on  the  ninth  day.  On  the  tenth  day. 
 
 Lev.  xxiii.  32.  Lev.  xvi.  29. 
 
 The  fast  extended  from  the  evening  of  the  ninth  to  that  of 
 the  tenth  day.  Hence  it  was  spoken  of  as  occurring  on  either 
 day. 
 
 Several  cases  of  a  kindred  nature  may  be  considered  here : 
 Feast,  —  duration,  seven  days,  Ex.  xii.  15;  six  days,  Deut. 
 xvi.  8  (in  the  latter  passage  the  seventh  day  is  specified  sepa- 
 rately). God's  work  ended  on  the  seventh  day.  Gen.  ii.  2 ;  on 
 the  sixth  day,  Ex.  xx.  1 1  (Murphy :  "  To  finish  a  work,  in 
 Hebrew  conception,  is  to  cease  from  it,  to  have  done  with  it"). 
 Interval  before  passover.  Matt.  xxvi.  2  and  John  xii.  1  (the 
 latter  passage  refers  to  a  somewhat  earlier  time,  to  which,  also, 
 the  sixth  verse  of  Matt.  xxvi.  reverts).  Interval  before  trans- 
 figuration, Mark  ix.  2  and  Luke  ix.  28  (Luke's  expression, 
 "about  an  eight  days,"  includes  the  two  extreme  days).  Jordan 
 crossed  within  three  days.  Josh.  i.  1 1 ;  iii.  2 ;  on  about  the 
 eighth  day,  Josh.  ii.  22 ;  iii.  1,  2  (possibly,  as  Kimchi  thinks, 
 Joshua  sent  the  spies  two  or  three  days  before  the  announce- 
 
 ^  According  to  Fuerst  and  Gesenius,  the  Hebrew  term  ^i"n  means  not 
 only  a  generation,  but  also  a  century.  So  the  Latin  "  seculum  "  origin- 
 ally meant  an  age  or  generation,  but  in  later  times  came  to  denote  a 
 century. 
 
 *  So  Jacobus,  Murphy,  Wordsworth,  and  the  earlier  commentators. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  417 
 
 ment,  so  that,  in  ii.  1,  we  should  read,  "  Joshua  had  sent,''  etc. 
 
 Or,  the  "  three  days  "  might  be  "  the  latest  time  that  could  be 
 
 allowed  the  people  to  prepare  for  crossing."  ^    More  probably  the 
 
 unexpected  detention  of  the  spies  slightly  disarranged  Joshua's 
 
 plans,  so  that  the  crossing  was  deferred  three  or  four  days). 
 
 Feast  observed  under  Zeruhhabel.  Not  subsequent  to  Joshua. 
 
 Ezra  iii.  4.  Neh.  viii.  17. 
 
 The  second  passage  means  simply  that  there  had  been  no 
 
 such  celebration.     The  children  of  Israel  "  had  not  done  so  "  ; 
 
 the  whole  congregation  had  not  since  Joshua's  time  dwelt  in 
 
 booths,  as  in  the  present  instance. 
 
 Heaven  prepared  from  eternity.         Not  till  after  Christ's  ascension. 
 Matt.  XXV.  34;  Heb.  iv.  3;  xi.  16.  John  xiv.  2,  3. 
 
 The  word  "  prepare,"  in  the  first  texts,  denotes  to  create  ;  in 
 
 the  last  case,  to  adapt  to  one's  character  and  needs.     Heaven, 
 
 as  a  place,  was  created  from  eternity ;  but  the  process  of  its 
 
 adaptation  to  any  given  soul,  in  order  to  preserve  the  fitting 
 
 relation  to  that  soul's  character  and  progress  here  below,  may 
 
 not  be  completed  till  the  soul's  earthly  probation  terminates. 
 
 That  is,  a  mutual  preparation  —  of  the  soid  for  heaven  and  of 
 
 heaven  for  the  soul  —  may  be  now  in  progress. 
 
 Holy  Spirit  existing  before  man.  Not  till  later. 
 
 Gen.  i.  2;  Ps.  civ.  30.  John  vii.  39. 
 
 The  text  at  the  right  does  not  refer  at  all  to  the  beginning 
 
 of  the  Spirit.     The  ellipsis  is  to  be  supplied  in,  some  such  way 
 
 as  follows :  "  The  Spirit  which  they  that  believe  on  him  should 
 
 receive,  for  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  yet  [received  by  them] ; 
 
 because  that  Jesus  was  not  yet  glorified."     The  verb  which  is 
 
 expressed  suggests  that  which  is  to  be  supplied.^ 
 
 Holy  Spirit  bestowed  before  Pentecost.  Not  till  that  time. 
 
 John  XX.  22.  Acts  i.  5,  8;  ii.  1-4. 
 
 In  the  first  text,  the  words  "  Receive  ye,"  etc.,  some  hold 
 
 '  This  is  Keil's  view. 
 
 2  Codex  B.  followed  by  Lachmann   and  Meyer,  supplies  SeSo/ieVoj/  ; 
 Chrysostom,  Zo64v ;  Alford,  iufj)yovu. 
 
418  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 that  the   imperative  is  here  used  for   the  future,  "Ye  shall 
 
 receive."     So  Kuinoel.^     Alford  :  "  The  presence  of  the  Lord 
 
 now  was  a  partial  and  temporary  fulfilment  of  his  promise  to 
 
 return  to  them ;  the  imparting  of  the  Spirit  now  was  a  symbol 
 
 and  foretaste  of  what  they  should  receive  as  Pentecost." 
 
 Ishmael  about  sixteen  years  of  age.  Apparently  vei-y  young. 
 
 Gen.  xvii.  24,  25;  xxi.  5-8.  Gen.  xxi.  14-18. 
 
 The  English  version  of  verses  14-18  is  peculiarly  infelicitous, 
 and  makes  a  wrong  impression.  The  "  child  "  was  not  placed 
 upon  Hagar's  shoulder,  nor  cast  under  the  shrub,  nor  held  in 
 the  hand,  as  an  infant  might  have  been.  The  Hebrew  word 
 here  rendered  "  child,"  denotes,  not  only  an  infant,  but  also  a 
 hoy  or  young  man?  Ishmael  was  at  the  time  some  sixteen  years 
 of  age.  The  growing  boy  would  be  much  more  easily  over- 
 come by  the  heat,  thirst,  and  fatigue  of  wandering  than  his 
 mother,  the  hardy  Egyptian  hand-maid.  When  he  yielded  to 
 exhaustion  she  hastily  laid  him,  fainting  and  half -dead,  under  the 
 shelter  of  a  shrub.  Even  after  he  was  refreshed  with  water, 
 he  needed  to  be  "  held,"  that  is,  supported  and  led,  for  a  time.^ 
 
 Israelites  bondage  AOO  years.  Apparently  a  less  time. 
 
 Gen.  XV.  13.  Gen.  xii.  4;  xxi.  5;  xxv.  26;  xlvii.  9. 
 
 Two  diverse  theories  are  advocated  by  critics  with  regard  to 
 
 the  duration  of  the  servitude  in  Egypt.     1st.  Many*  hold  that 
 
 its  actual  length  was  less  than  two  hundred  and  fifteen  years. 
 
 They  maintain  generally  that  the  "  four  hundred  years  "  begin 
 
 with  the  birth  of  Isaac,  and  the  "  four  liundred  and  thirty,"  ^ 
 
 with  the  call  of  Abraham.     Isaac  was  born  in  the  twenty-fifth 
 
 year  of  Abraham's  sojourn  in  Canaan;    Jacob  was  born  in 
 
 ^  Compare,  on  the  other  hand,  Winer's  Grararriar  of  N.  T.  Idiom,  p.  312. 
 
 -  So  Fuerst  and  Gcsenius.  The  same  word  is  applied  to  Joseph  when 
 seventeen  years  of  iv^c,  Gen.  xxxvii.  2,  30. 
 
 '^  So  Keil,  Kurtz,  Lanjre,  and  others  in  substance. 
 
 *  Ben;2:cl,  BaumL^artcn,  Mr.  Browne  (Kitto,  i.  509,  and  Ordo  Saeclorum, 
 pp.  295-31G),  and  Mr.  R.  S.  Poole  (Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  442^44),  and 
 others. 
 
 ^  Ex.  xii.  40. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  419 
 
 Isaac's  sixtieth  year,  and  was  one  hundred  and  thirty  when  he 
 descended  to  Egypt.  This  would  leave  but  two  hundred  and 
 fifteen  years  for  the  whole  sojourn  in  Egypt ;  only  a  portion 
 even  of  this  latter  period  being  spent  in  actual  servitude.  This 
 hypothesis  is  open  to  weighty  objections,  some,  of  which  are : 
 that  the  free,  independent,  nomad  life  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
 Jacob,  previous  to  the  descent  into  Egypt,  does  not  properly 
 come  under  the  head  of  servitude  and  ajffliction  predicted  in 
 Gen.  XV.  13  ;  that  a  large  portion  of  the  period  was  spent  in 
 Canaan,^  while  but  one  land,  that  of  Egypt,  is  mentioned  in.  the 
 prediction ;  that  the  former  country  could  not,  in  view  of  the 
 Divine  promise  to  Abraham,  be  characterized  as  a  "  land  not 
 theirs  " ;  and  that,  on  this  hypothesis,  the  grandfather  of  Moses 
 must  have  had  in  the  lifetime  of  the  latter  8600  male  descend- 
 ants, of  whom  2750  were  between  thirty  and  fifty  years  of 
 age!^ 
 
 2d.  It  is  maintained  by  the  majority  of  modern  critics' 
 that  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  occupied  the  whole  four  hundred  or 
 four  hundred  and  thirty  years.  This  theory,  which  allows 
 ample  time  for  the  increase  of  the  Israelites,  and  which  meets 
 the  demands  of  the  case  in  other  respects,  encounters  the  fol- 
 lowing objections :  that  Paul  *  reckons  "  four  hundred  and 
 thirty  years  "  between  the  promise  to  Abraham  and  the  giving 
 of  the  law  (here,  however,  since  the  precise  length  of  time  did 
 not  affect  his  argument,  we  may  suppose  that  he  follows  the 
 commonly  received  view  of  his  day,  or,  as  Lange  says,  he  may 
 have  regarded  the  death  of  Jacob  as  "  the  closing  date  of  the 
 time  of  the  promise");  that  the  time  was  but  four  generations* 
 
 ^  See  Gen.  xxvi.  2,  3, 
 
 2  Num.  iii.  27,  28;  iv.  36.  Compare  Green's  ''Pentateuch  Vindicated," 
 p.  129;  Kurtz,  Vol.  ii.  144, 145;  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  450,  451. 
 
 •^  Delitzsch,  Ewald,  Gesenius,  Havernick,  Hengstenberg,  Hofraann,  Jahn, 
 Kalisch,  Keil,  Knobel,  Kurtz,  Lange,  Michaelis,  Ranke,  Reinke,  Rosen- 
 miiller,  Tiele,  Tuch,  Winer,  etc. 
 
 *  Gal.  iii.  17. 
 
 5  Gen.  XV.  16. 
 
420  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 (we  have  seen  that  this  is  equivalent  to  four  hundred  years)  ; 
 and  that  not  enough  names  are  given  in  the  genealogy  to  cover 
 so  long  a  period  (it  has  been  conclusively  shown  by  Kurtz  and 
 others,  that  the  omission  of  several  names  in  a  genealogy  was 
 common  ;  and  that  the  words  "  bear "  and  "  beget "  are  used 
 with  reference  to  somewhat  remote  ancestors.^  Hence  it  is  in- 
 ferred that  in  Ex.  vi.  18-20  several  generations  have  been 
 omitted). 
 
 Israelites  dwelt  in  Heshbon  300  years.  A  longer  period. 
 
 Judg.  xi.  26.  Various  texts. 
 
 If,  following  Josephus,^  we  allow  twenty-five  years  for 
 Joshua's  period  of  rule,  and  ten  years  for  Eleazar  and  the 
 elders  ^  who  outlived  Joshua,  adding  also  the  several  periods  of 
 judgeship,  and  of  servitude  previous  to  Jephthah,  as  recorded 
 in  the  Book  of  Judges,  we  obtain  three  hundred  and  twenty- 
 nine  years ;  sufficiently  near  to  the  round  number  above. 
 
 Jacob's  age  at  his  flight,  forty  years.  Seventy-seven  years. 
 
 Gen.  xxvi.  84;  xxviii.  5.  Gen.  xli.  46,  53;  xlv.  6. 
 
 Joseph  was  some  thirty-nine  years  old  at  the  time  his  father, 
 aged  one  hundred  and  thirty,  went  down  to  Egypt ;  hence  he 
 was  born  when  his  father  was  ninety-one  years  old.  But 
 Joseph's  birth  occurring  in  the  fom'teenth  year  of  the  sojourn 
 with  Laban,  it  follows  that  Jacob,  instead  of  being  only  forty 
 years  old,*  was  actually  seventy-seven,*  at  the  time  of  his  flight 
 into  Mesopotamia.  Besides,  since  Isaac  was  one  hundred  years 
 old  at  the  time  of  Esau's  marriage,  and  lived  to  the  age  of  one 
 hundred  and  eighty,  we  have  a  period  of  eighty  years  for 
 Jacob's  tarry  with  his  parents,  his  sojourn  in  Mesopotamia,  and 
 his  return  to  his  father  at  Hebron." 
 
 ^  See  striking  examples  in  Gen.  xlvi.  15, 18,  22. 
 
 2  Antiq.  v.  1   29. 
 
 8  Josh.  xxiv.  31,  33. 
 
 *  So  Von  Bohlen  and  Liitzelberger. 
 
 ^  So  Lange,  Murphy,  Keil,  Kurtz,  Hengstenberg,  etc. 
 
 "  Gen.  XXXV.  27. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  421 
 
 Jacob's  sons,  —  eleven  born  in  thirteen  years.  Within  seven  years. 
 
 Gen.  xxix.  20,  21 ;  xxxi.  41.  Gen.  xxix.  30,  31 ;  xxx.  25. 
 
 Jacob  served  the  "  seven  years "  for  Rachel,  after  his  mar- 
 riage with  her.^  In  the  first  four  years  after  the  complex 
 marriage,  Leah  bore  four  sons  and  Bilhah  two ;  in  the  fifth  and 
 sixth  years  Zilpah  had  also  two.  In  the  sixth  and  seventh 
 Leah  bore  two  more  children,  and  in  the  latter  year  Rachel 
 bore  Joseph.^  Thus  Jacob  might  have  eleven  sons  born  to  him 
 in  seven  years. 
 
 Kennicott,  Horsley,  and  Beer  maintain  that,  according  to  the 
 Hebrew  text  of  Gen.  xxxi.  41,  Jacob  actually  spent /or^y  years 
 in  the  employ  of  Laban,  and  that  all  his  children,  except  Joseph, 
 were  born  during  the  first  thirty-four  years.' 
 
 Jehovah,  —  name  unknown.  Well-known. 
 
 And  I  appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto       Name  appears  in  the  ori^nal  of  the 
 Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob,  by  the  name  of   following  passages,  Gen.  iv.  1,  26;  v. 
 God  Almighty,  but  by  my  name  JEHO-    29;  ix.  26. 
 VAH  was  I  not  known  to  them.    Ex. 
 vi.  3. 
 
 Some*  think  that  the  name  was  introduced  in  Genesis  by 
 
 anticipation,  that  Moses  "  antedated "  a  name  which  had  just 
 
 come  into  use  for  the  first  time ;  others  ^  take  the  meaning  to 
 
 be,  not  that  the  name  was  not  known  before,  but  that  its  full 
 
 meaning  was  previously  unknown  ;  others  that  those  special 
 
 attributes  of  God,  or  that  aspect  of  his  character,  which  the 
 
 name  "  Jehovah  "  indicates,  had  not  been  disclosed  before. 
 
 Judges,  — period,  about  300  years.        Four  hundred  and  fifty  years. 
 Some  twenty  texts  in  Judg.  and  1  Sam.  Acts  xiii.  20. 
 
 Adding  together  the  several  periods  of  rest,  judgeship,  and 
 
 oppression  specified  in  the  above  twenty  texts,  and  allowing 
 
 twenty  years  for  Joshua's  rule,  we  obtain  four  hundred  and  fifty 
 
 years.     But  the  best  critics  discard  this  method  of  reckoning, 
 
 and  hold  that  some  of  the  judges  were  contemporaries,  ruling  in 
 
 different  portions  of  the  land  at  the  same  time.    The  text  from 
 
 ^  Gen.  xxix.  27-30.  ^  gQ  Jq  substance  Lange  and  others, 
 
 3  See  Bib.  Com.,  i.  177,  178.  *  Ebrard  and  Ewald. 
 
 ^  Aben  Ezra,  Calvin,  Havernick,  Munk,  etc. 
 
422  DISCREPANCIES   OP  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 Acts  has  really  no  bearing  upon  the  subject,  since,  according  to 
 the  order  of  the  Greek  in  the  four  oldest  and  best  manuscripts, 
 the  correct  rendering  is,  "  He  gave  them  their  land  as  a  pos- 
 session about  four  hundred  and  fifty  years ;  and,  after  that,  he 
 gave  [to  them]  judges  until  Samuel  the  prophet."  ^  It  may  be 
 added  that  the  chronology  of  the  book  of  Judges  is  very  uncer- 
 tain, there  being  more  than  jifty  different  methods  of  reckoning 
 the  same.^ 
 
 Levites'  service  began  at  thirty.  At  twenty  years  of  age. 
 
 Num.  iv.  3;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  3.       1  Chron.  xxiii.  24;  2  Chron.  xxxi.  17. 
 
 In  Moses'  time  the  Levites  from  the  age  of  twenty-five  were 
 employed  in  the  lighter  kinds  of  service ;  ^  while,  for  the  trans- 
 portation of  the  heavier  materials  of  the  tabernacle  when  the 
 Israelites  were  on  the  march,*  men  older  and  stronger  were 
 required.^  After  the  temple  was  built,  its  much  less  onerous 
 service  permitted  the  standard  of  age  to  be  lowered  to  twenty 
 years.  After  the  age  of  fifty,  the  Levites  were  simply  to 
 "keep  the  charge,"  or  guard  in  the  tabernacle,  but  were 
 exempted  from  all  laborious  duties.^ 
 
 Light  created  in  the  beginning.        Sun  and  moon  on  the  fourth  day. 
 Gen.  i.  3.  Gen.  i.  14-19. 
 
 The  question  is  often  sneeringly  asked,  "  How  'is  it  that  the 
 Bible  represents  light  as  existing  before  the  sun  and  moon  were 
 created  "  ? 
 
 Humboldt,^  followed  by  Wagner  and  Schubert,^  calls  atten- 
 tion to  the  fact  that  light  exists  independent  of  the  sun,  that  the 
 earth  becomes  "  self-luminous  "  in  the  northern  light  ;  that  the 
 earth,  as  well  as  other  planets,  particularly  Venus,  is  capable  in 
 itself  of  developing  a  light  of  its  own. 
 
 Such  interpreters  of  science  as  Agassiz   and  Guyot  have 
 
 1  Smith's  Bib.  Diet.,  ii.  1514,  note.        ^  ^^51^  Commentary,  p.  276,  note. 
 3  Num.  viii.  24.  ■»  Num.  iv.  4-15,  24-26,  31-33. 
 
 ^  So  Abarbancl,  Aben  Ezra,  Lightfoot,  Outram,  and  Reland. 
 «  Num.  viii.  25,  26,  ^  Cosmos,  i.  97, 188, 189  (Sabine's  trans.). 
 
 ^  See  in  Kurtz'  Bible  and  Astronomy,  pp.  427-432. 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  423 
 
 shown  that  light  results  from  molecular  action  or  comUnaiion} 
 Hence,  the  command,  "  Light  be,"  was  simply  another  way  of 
 saying,  "  Let  molecular  action  begin,"  —  whereupon  light  was 
 at  once  evolved.  Professor  Dana^  says,  "At  last,  through 
 modern  scientific  research,  we  learn  that  the  appearance  of 
 light  on  the  first  day,  and  of  the  sun  on  the  fourth  —  an  idea 
 foreign  to  man's  unaided  conceptions  —  is  as  much  in  the 
 volume  of  nature  as  that  of  sacred  writ." 
 
 "  *  Let  there  be  light/  said  God,  and  forthwith  light 
 Ethereal,  first  of  things,  quintessence  pure, 
 Sprung  from  the  deep,  and  from  her  native  east 
 To  journey  through  the  aery  gloom  began. 
 Sphered  in  a  radiant  cloud,  for  yet  the  sun 
 Was  not;  she  in  a  cloudy  tabernacle 
 Sojourned  the  while"  ^ 
 
 Lord's  supper  instituted  at  Passover.  Upon  the  preceding  day. 
 
 Matt.  xxvi.  17-30 ;  Mark  xiv.  12-26 ;  John  xiii.  1,  2;  xviii.  28. 
 
 Luke  xxii.  1,  13-20. 
 
 Of  the  two  leading  theories  the  first  is,  that  the  Lord's  sup- 
 per was  instituted  on  the  evening  following  the  fourteenth  day 
 of  Nisan,  at  the  legal  time  of  the  passover.  Robinson  *  main* 
 tains  that  the  term  "  passover  "  sometimes  comprises  the  whole 
 paschal  festival,  or  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread  which  began 
 with  the  passover  proper  ;  that  the  expression  "  to  eat  the  pas- 
 sover "  may  mean  "  to  keep  the  paschal  festival " ;  and  that  the 
 "  preparation  of  the  passover,"  John  xix.  14,  denotes  simply 
 the  customary  "  preparation  "  for  the  Sabbath,  which  occurred 
 in  that  paschal  week.  In  this  view,  which  relieves  the  difficulty, 
 a  host  of  critics  ^  substantially  concur. 
 
 ^  Thompson's  Man  in  Genesis  and  in  Geology,  pp.  15-32. 
 
 2  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1856,  pp.  114,  118. 
 
 3  Paradise  Lost,  Book  vii.,  line  243-249. 
 *  English  Harmony,  pp.  200-205. 
 
 s  So  Andrews,  Bochart,  Davidson,  Fairbaim,  Gardiner,  Hengstenberg, 
 Lange,  Lewin,  Lightfoot,  Milligan,  Norton,  Olshausen,  Robinson,  Schoett- 
 gen,  Stier,  Tholuck,  and  Wieseler. 
 
424  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Others^  hold  that  the  Saviour  and  his  disciples  anticipated 
 the  passover  by  one  day,  partaking  of  a  substitute  upon  the 
 thirteenth  day  of  Nisan.  They  suggest  that  there  were  two 
 distinct  days,  both  legal  (one  real,  the  other  apparent  time)  for 
 keeping  the  passover  ;  or  that  the  Jews  had  fallen  behind  a  day 
 in  the  computation,  and  our  Saviour  corrected  their  error ;  or 
 that  they  at  this  time  purposely  delayed  a  day.  Both  of  the 
 above  theories  find  very  able  and  ingenious  defenders. 
 
 Man's  days  one  hundred  and  twenty  years.  A  different  period. 
 
 Gen.  vi.  3.  Gen.  xi.  11  13,  32. 
 
 Either,  there  shall  be  a  respite  of  one  hundred  and  twenty 
 
 years  before  the  deluge,  or  human  life  shall  gi-adually  diminish 
 
 to  that  length.^ 
 
 Moses  feared  the  king  of  Egypt.  Did  not  fear  him. 
 
 Ex.  ii.  14, 15;  iv.  19;  Acts  vii.  29.  Heb.  xi.  27. 
 
 He  feared  the  king  at  first,  but  braved  his  anger  at  a  later 
 
 period. 
 
 Peter's  denials  at  one  time.  At  another  time. 
 
 Matt.  xxvi.  34;  Luke  xxii.  34;  John  xiii.  38.  Mark  xiv.  30. 
 
 The  four  evangelists  agree  as  to  the  number  of  the  denials  ; 
 but  Matthew,  Luke,  and  John  represent  them  as  occurring 
 before  the  crowing  of  the  cock  ;  Mark  as  occurring  before  the 
 cock  should  crow  "  twice."  Mr.  Warington,^  disregarding  this 
 trivial  difference,  takes  the  essential  substance  of.  Chi-ist's  words 
 to  be  that,  "  in  a  few  hours'  time,  ere  early  dawn,  Peter  should 
 thrice  deny  his  Master  whom  he  now  professed  himself  so  ready 
 to  die  for." 
 
 Alford,  Whitby,  and  many  commentators  note  that  cocks  are 
 accustomed  to  crow  twice,  —  at  or  near  midnight,  and  not  far 
 from  day -break.     Inasmuch  2i&  few  persons  hear  the  first  crow- 
 
 ^  Alford,  Bleek,  Caspari,  DeWette,  Ebrard,  Ellicott,  Erasmus,  Ewald, 
 Grotius,  Ideler,  Liicke,  Mej'er,  Neandcr,  Sieffert,  Suicer,  Tischendorf, 
 Tittmann,  Westcott,  Winer,  Wratislaw,  in  substance. 
 
 2  See  authorities  in  Bib.  Com.,  on  Gen.  vi.  3. 
 
 ^  On  Inspiration,  pp.  140,  141. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  425 
 
 ing,  the  term  generally  denotes  the  second.  All  the  evangelists 
 refer  to  this  latter ;  but  Mark  with  greater  precision  designates 
 it  as  the  "  second  crowing." 
 
 It  seems  probable  that  no  one  of  the  evangelists  has  men- 
 tioned all  the  denials  by  Peter  dm-ing  that  sorrowful  night. 
 As  the  accusation  was  caught  up,  reiterated,  and  flung  in  his 
 face  by  one  and  another  of  the  servants  and  the  guard,  the 
 terror-stricken  man,  in  his  agitation  and  in  his  anxiety  to  clear 
 himself,  would  he  likely  to  repeat  the  denial  a  considerable  num- 
 ber of  times,  and  in  every  variety  of  phrase.  And,  meanwhile, 
 he  would  naturally  be  shifting  about  from  place  to  place.  This 
 hypothesis  accounts  for  the  difficulty  as  to  the  persons  who 
 accosted  him,  and  the  places  where  he  was  when  the  denials 
 were  uttered.^ 
 
 Samuel  judged  Israel  all  his  days.         Resigned  at  Saul's  accession. 
 1  Sam.  vii.  15.  1  Sam.  viii.  5;  xii.  1. 
 
 Samuel  laid  down  the  civil,  but  retained  the   ecclesiastical 
 
 authority;  so  that,  as  Ewald^  says,  "he  is  stiU,  as  before  the 
 
 change,  the  revered  prophet."     This  appears  clear  from  ii.  7, 
 
 where  an  edict  is  issued  in  the  name  of  Saul  and  of  Samuel. 
 
 Samuel's  meeting  with  Saul,  in  seven  days.        Some  two  years  after. 
 
 1  Sam.  X.  8.  1  Sam.  xiii.  8-11. 
 
 Some  think  that  the  first  appointment  was  kept,  xi.  14,  15, 
 
 and  a  second  made,  to  which  latter  the  thirteenth  chapter  refers. 
 
 But  Ewald^  and  Keil  take  the  passage  at  the  left  as  a  mere 
 
 general  direction,  that,  if  at  any  time  Saul  went  down  to  Gilgal 
 
 to  offer  sacrifice,  he  was  to  wait  there  till  Samuel  arrived. 
 
 Seed  time  and  harvest  unfailing.  Interrupted  at  times. 
 
 Gen.  viii.  22.  Gen.  xli.  54,  56;  xlv.  6. 
 
 The  Hebrew  word  rendered  "  cease,"  in  the  first  text,  means 
 
 ^  See,  on  these  points,  Whately's  Essay  on  Dangers  to  Christian  Faith, 
 p.  353  (2d  edition);  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature,  April,  1854,  p.  84-92; 
 Ebrard's  Gospel  History,  pp.  425-427;  Andrews'  Life  of  our  Lord,  pp. 
 473-475,  488-496. 
 
 ^  History  of  Israel,  iii.  42. 
 
 *  History  of  Israel,  iii.  29. 
 86* 
 
426  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 to  come  to  an  end,  to  cease  to  he.     A  temporary  interruption  is 
 
 not  precluded.     Besides,  an  unbroken  succession  of  seasons  is 
 
 promised,  but  not  necessarily  of  crops. 
 
 Sepulchre  visited  at  sunrise.  At  the  early  dawn. 
 
 Mark  xvi.  2.  John  xx.  1. 
 
 Ebrard  ^  thinks  that  Mary  Magdalene  —  the  only  woman 
 specified  by  John  —  cam.ejirst  and  alone  to  the  sepulchre.  If 
 so,  she  may  have  come  "  early,  when  it  was  yet  dark  "  ;  while 
 the  other  women  did  not  arrive  till  "  the  rising  of  the  sun." 
 Or,  of  the  two  parties  of  women,^  Mary  Magdalene  with  her 
 friends  may  have  come  at  the  earlier,  the  others  at  the  later 
 time. 
 
 Otherwise  in  the  loose  popular  sense,  the  expression  "  rising 
 of  the  sun"  may  denote  the  early  dawn,  when  the  rays  of  the 
 coming  sun  just  begin  to  redden  the  east.  Thus,  in  Ps.  civ.  22, 
 it  is  said,  respecting  young  lions,  "  The  sun  ariseth,  they  gather 
 themselves  together,  and  lay  them  down  in  their  dens  " ;  yet  it 
 is  well  known  that  wild  beasts  do  not  wait  for  the  actual  ap- 
 pearance of  the  sun ;  at  the  break  of  day  they  retreat  to  their 
 lairs.^  Upon  any  of  the  above  hypotheses,  there  is  no  discrep- 
 ancy in  the  case. 
 
 Temple  built  480  years  after  exodus.  At  a  different  time. 
 
 1  Kings  vi.  1.  Numerous  texts  in  earlier  books. 
 
 As  to  the  oft  cited  text.  Acts  xiii.  20,  we  have  elsewhere  seen 
 
 that  it  has  no  bearing  upon  the  present  question.     The  period 
 
 of  time  intervening  between  the  exodus  and  the  building  of  the 
 
 temple  is  variously  reckoned  by  scholars  at  from  480  to  741 
 
 years.*     The    Septuagint   gives    440   years ;   Josephus,*   592 ; 
 
 Browne,^  573  ;  Clinton,^  612  ;  Rawlinson,  580  to  600.     On  the 
 
 ^  Gospel  History,  pp.  447,  448. 
 
 2  See  infra,  p.  328,  note. 
 
 8  See  Robinson's  Harmony,  p.  212;  also,  compare  Judg.  ix.  32,  83. 
 
 *  See  some  fourteen  different  estimates,  Ordo  Saeclorum,  pp.  6,  7. 
 
 ^  Antiq.  viii.  3,  1. 
 
 6  Ordo  Saeclorum,  p.  703. 
 
 ''  Fasti  Hellenici,  Essay  on  Scripture  Chronology. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  427 
 
 other  hand,  Bahr,  Cassel,  Ewald,^  Keil,  Rosch,^  Thenius,  Winer ,^ 
 
 and  others  accept  the  number  480  as  authentic.     If  we  adopt 
 
 the  latter  hypothesis,  we  may  follow  Bachmann,  Cassel,  Keil,* 
 
 and  others,  in  making  several  of  the  periods  of  rest,  oppression, 
 
 etc.,  in  the  Book  of  Judges,  synchronous,  thereby  adjusting  the 
 
 whole  amount  so  as  to  harmonize  with  1  Kings  vi.  1. 
 
 Or,  we  may  regard  the  480  as  a  numerical  error ;  or,  with 
 
 Rawlinson,  as  "  an  interpolation  "  of  a  comparatively  recent  date. 
 
 Wandering  of  Israelites  forty  years.  Somewhat  less  time. 
 
 JSTum.  xiv.  33.  Num.  xxxiii.  3;  Josh.  iv.  19. 
 
 The  deficiency  was  merely  Jive  days.     In  the  first  text,  a 
 
 round  number  is  employed.     Other   examples  of  the  use  of 
 
 round  numbers  are,  Ex.  xvi.  1, 13,  14,  35  and  Josh.  v.  10-12 ; 
 
 also  1  Kmgs  vi.  1  and  37,  38. 
 
 Worship  of  God,  —  beginning.  Not  till  a  later  time. 
 
 Gen.  iv.  3,  4.  Gen.  iv.  26. 
 
 The  latter  passage  is  of  doubtful  interpretation.  It  may 
 refer  to  the  first  institution  of  the  regular,  solemn,  public  wor- 
 ship of  Jehovah,  in  place  of  the  former  private,  arbitrary, 
 irregular  service  as  seen  in  the  sacrifices  of  Cain  and  Abel.^ 
 
 Murphy  thmks  that  at  this  time  men  first  began  to  address 
 God  in  prayer  and  thanksgiving.  Previously  their  worship  had 
 been  mute  adoration. 
 
 F.    31ISCELLANEOUS, 
 
 Altar,  — material,  earth.  It  was  wood. 
 
 Ex.  XX.  24.  Ex.  xxvii.  1,  8. 
 
 The  altar  in  question  was  a  kind  of  coffer,  made  of  stout 
 
 acacia  planks  covered  with  plates  of  bronze.     When  about  to 
 
 be  used,  its  interior  was  filled  wi+h  earth  or  stones,  the  whole 
 
 1  Vol.  ii.  pp.  368,  369. 
 
 2  In  Studien  unci  Kritilcen,  1863,  pp.  712-742. 
 
 3  Real-Worterbuch,  ii.  327-329. 
 
 4  See  their  respective  Commentaries  upon  the  Book  of  Judges. 
 ^  So  Kurtz,  Vol.  i.  p.  xvi.  ;  also,  Lange. 
 
428  DISCREPANCIES  OF  THE  BIBLE. 
 
 being  levelled,  so  as  to  form  a  kind  of  hearth.     It  was,  there- 
 fore, strictly  speaking,  an  altar  case^  "  hollow  with  boards." 
 
 Barley,  —field.  Lentiles,  —field. 
 
 1  Chron.  xi.  13.  2  Sam.  xxiii.  11. 
 
 It  is  doubtful  whether  the  two  passages  refer  to  the  same 
 incident.  If  they  do  thus  refer,  D^d^5,  lentiles,  has  been  con- 
 founded with  Di*n3>ia,  barley. 
 
 Cattle  of  Egypt,  —  all  died.  Some  animals  survived. 
 
 Ex.  ix.  3,  6.  Ex.  ix.  19-21;  xiv.  7,  9. 
 
 The  first  passage  seems  to  imply  that  aU  the  horses,  asses, 
 camels,  oxen,  and  sheep  of  the  Egyptians,  died  ;  yet,  the  latter 
 passages  show  that  their  cattle  and  horses  did  not  all  die. 
 
 1st.  The  term  "  all"  is  often  used  in  a  loose  sense  to  denote 
 the  mass,  the  great  majority,  —  such  a  quantity  that  what  re- 
 mains is  nothing  in  comparison.^  This  use  of  the  word  is  due 
 in  part  to  "  the  want  of  universal  terms  in  Hebrew."^ 
 
 2d.  The  plague  was  limited  to  animals  "ztz  the  field,''  ix.  3. 
 Sir  Gardner  Wilkinson  *  tells  us  that  some  animals  were  stall- 
 .fed  in  Egypt.  This  explains  the  restrictive  clause,  "in  the 
 field";  as  also,  the  existence  of  cattle  among  the  Egyptians 
 after  the  plague. 
 
 3d.  The  Hebrew  word  rendered  "  cattle,"  in  the  text  referred 
 to  in  the  ninth  chapter,  denotes  neat  cattle,  and  the  smaller 
 animals,  but  seldom,  if  ever,  includes  horses.^  These  consid- 
 erations obviate  the  difficulty. 
 
 Crooked  straightened.  Cannot  he  straightened. 
 
 Isa,  xl.  4.  Eccl.  i.  15;  vii.  13. 
 
 The   first   text   refers  to   moral  defects.     The  design  and 
 
 tendency  of  the  Gospel  is  to  remedy  these ;  to  change  dis- 
 
 ^  See  Jahn,  Bib.  Archaeol.,  h  329;  Kurtz,  iii.  142;  also,  Ex.  xxvii.  8. 
 
 2  So  Aben  Ezra,  Ben  Gershon,  and  Keil.  See  examples  of  this  use, 
 1  Sam.  i.  21  and  22;  Matt.  iii.  5  and  Luke  vii.  30. 
 
 3  R.  S.  Poole  in  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iii.  2541. 
 
 *  Ancient  Ejtjyptians,  i.  96  (2d  series);  similarly  Abarbanel  and  Rashi. 
 
 ^  Gcsenius  says  the  word  is  "strictly  used  only  of  sheep,  goats,  and  neat 
 cattle,  excluding  beasts  of  burden.  . . .  More  rarely  asses  and  camels  are 
 also  comprehended." 
 
HISTORICAL  DISCREPANCIES.  429 
 
 honesty  and  perversity  into  equity  and  simplicity,  and  haughti- 
 ness into  humility. 
 
 The  other  passages  refer  to  natural  or  constitutional 
 defects.  As  a  rule,  these  are  remediless.  One  born  an  idiot 
 can  never,  by  any  process  of  education,  become  a  man  of 
 talent ;  a  person  born  without  eyes  can  never  have  the  defect 
 remedied  by  human  skill.  Zockler,  with  Hengstenberg  and 
 Hit zig,  observes,  "Human  action  and  effort,  in  spite  of  all 
 exertion,  cannot  alter  that  which  has  once  been  arranged  and 
 fixed  by  God."  In  the  Vulgate  Eccl.  i.  15,  is  rendered  singu- 
 larly, thus:  "7%e  number  of  fools  is  infinite  J^ 
 
 Earth  founded  upon  the  seas.  Founded  upon  nothing. 
 
 Ps.  xxiv.  2.  Job  xxvi.  7. 
 
 The  first  passage  asserts  that  the  earth  is  established  above 
 
 the  waters,  so  that  they  will  not  overflow  and  destroy  it ;  the 
 
 second  text  —  the  words  of  an  uninspired  man  —  may  refer  to 
 
 the  scientific  truth  that  the  earth  hangs  free  without  support  in 
 
 space. 
 
 Earth  saturated.  Needed  moisture. 
 
 Gen.  i.  9, 10.  Gen.  ii.  6. 
 
 Some  ^  assert  that  the  fact  of  the  earth's  being  moistened  by 
 an  ascending  mist  or  exhalation,  does  not  harmonize  with  its 
 previous  submergence  in  water.  As  if  the  earth  upon  emerg- 
 ing from  the  briny  moisture  which  could  not  support  vegetation, 
 would  not  afterward  become  dry,  and  need  dews  and  rains  ! 
 
 Golden  calf,  burnt  and  ground.         Burnt,  stamped,  and  ground. 
 
 Ex.  xxxii.  20.  Deut.  ix.  21. 
 
 Goguet^  and  StahP  say  that  natron,  which  abounds  in  the 
 
 East,  has,  like  tartaric  acid,  the  power  of  reducing  gold  to 
 
 powder,  —  and  this  the  sooner,  if  the  gold  be  previously  heated. 
 
 Moses,  having  pulverized  the  gold  in  this  way,  mixed  it  with 
 
 water,  and  caused  the  Israelites  to  partake  of  the  nauseating 
 
 liquid. 
 
 ^  See  in  Davidson's  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  1.  36. 
 
 2  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  i.  84.5. 
 
 ^  Hawks,  Monuments  of  Egypt,  p.  228. 
 
430  DISCREPANCIES   OF   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 Davidson  ^  explains  the  case,  as  follows  :  In  preparing  ores 
 of  gold  and  silver  for  the  smelter,  stamps,  or  massive  beams 
 shod  with  iron,  and  weighing  as  much  as  eight  hundred  pounds, 
 are  used.  These  are  lifted  by  machinery,  and  let  fall  upon  the 
 ore  contained  in  iron  troughs.  If  overstamped,  or  ''  stamped 
 dead,"  as  it  is  termed,  the  fine  particles  float  away  and  are  lost. 
 Gold,  from  its  great  malleabilit}^,  is  peculiarly  liable  to  suJffer 
 thus.  The  gold  of  which  the  calf  was  made  was  designedly 
 and  indignantly  overstamped ;  and,  when  cast  into  the  stream, 
 would  float  away.  As  this  author  thinks  it  would  impart  no 
 special  taste  to  the  water. 
 
 Wilkinson^  mentions  that,  in  the  towns  of  Egypt,  certain 
 persons  were  employed  to  pound  various  substances  in  large 
 stone  mortars  with  heavy  metal  pestles.  When  well  pounded, 
 the  substance  was  taken  out,  sifted,  and  the  larger  j^articles 
 returned  to  the  mortar.  This  process  was  continued,  till  a 
 sufficient  degree  of  fineness  was  secured. 
 
 Moses  may  have  cast  the  image  into  the  fire  to  change  its 
 form  ;  or  —  if  it  were  made  of  wood  and  covered  with  plates 
 of  gold  —  to  destroy  its  combustible  part,  afterwards  employing 
 some  one  of  the  processes  above  described. 
 
 Images  taken  away.  TJiey  were  burned, 
 
 2  Sam.  V.  21.  1  Chron.  xiv.  12. 
 
 The   Hebrew  expression  rendered  to  take  away  may  also 
 
 mean  to  destroy. 
 
 Leadership  of  the  cloud  satisfactory.  Not  reliable. 
 
 Ex.  xiii.  21,  22.  Num.  x.  29-31. 
 
 Geddes  and  others  ^  object  that  if  the  cloud  had  been  a  re- 
 liable guide,  the  Israelites  would  not  have  needed  Hobab  to  be 
 to  them  "instead  of  eyes,"  as  knowing  "how  they  were  to 
 encamp  in  the  wilderness."     But,  God  is  not  wont  to  do  that  for 
 
 1  Introd.  to  Old  Test.,  i.  254,  255. 
 
 2  Ancient  Egyptians,  iii.  180,  181;  Hengstenberg,  Egypt  and  Books  of 
 Moses,  p.  217. 
 
 •*  See  in  Graves  on  Pentateuch,  p.  481  (sixth  edition). 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  431 
 
 man  which  the  latter  might  do  for  himself .  The  pillar  of  cloud 
 determined  the  general  route  to  be  taken,,  the  place  of  encamp- 
 ment, and  the  length  of  tarry  in  each  location ;  yet  human 
 prudence  was  by  no  means  precluded  with  respect  to  arrang- 
 ing the  encampment  so  as  to  combine  most  advantageously  the 
 circumstances  of  water,  pasture,  shelter,  supply  of  fuel,  medi- 
 cinal or  nutritive  plants  or  substances,  and  the  like,  in  or  near 
 the  station.  In  all  these  particulars,  Hobab's  experience,  and 
 knowledge  of  the  desert,  would  be  exceedingly  useful,  as  sup- 
 plementary to  the  guidance  of  the  cloud.^ 
 
 Manna,  —  taste,  like  wafers  made  vrith  honey.         Like  fresh  oil. 
 
 Ex.  xvi.  31.  Num.  xi.  8. 
 
 • 
 
 The  Jewish  interpreters  and  Kurtz  say  that,  in  its  natural 
 
 state,  it  tasted  like  "  cakes  with  honey,"  but  cooked  or  ground, 
 
 like  "  fresh  oil."     The  Septuagint  employs  in  the  first  passage 
 
 a  word  which  is  interpreted   by  Athenaeus    and   the   Greek 
 
 scholiasts  as  denoting  "  a  sweet  kind  of   confectionery  made 
 
 with  oil." 
 
 Molten  sea,  —  appendages,  knops.  Otherwise  called  oxen. 
 
 1  Kings  vii.  24.  2  Chron.  iv.  3. 
 
 The  "  knops  "  may  have  beeti  in  the  form  of  miniature  oxen. 
 
 Or,  as  De  Wette  and  Rawlinson  think,  here  may  be  a  copyist's 
 
 error,  O'l^'pSD,  knops  or  gourds,  for  n"^'"p3,  oxen. 
 
 Mosaic  laio,  —  character,  cruel.  Conducive  to  happiness. 
 
 Deut.  xxxiii.  2.  Deut.  xxx.  16. 
 
 The  words  "  fiery  law,"  in  the  first  text  do  not  imply  cruelty 
 in  the  law,  but  may  refer  to  the  illuminating  power  of  that  law, 
 or  to  the  marked  exhibitions  of  divine  glory  when  the  decalogue 
 was  given.^ 
 
 It  may  be  added  that  those  who  stigmatize  the  Mosaic  law 
 as  "  cruel,"  are  probably  not  aware  that  in  point  of  clemency  it 
 compares  favorably  with  the  laws  of  other  nations  in  ancient,  as 
 well  as  modern  times.     In  the  Mosaic  law  only  some  seventeen 
 
 1  Kurtz,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  214,  215,  258,  281.  -  Ex.  xix.  18. 
 
432  DISCREPANCIES   OP   THE   BIBLE. 
 
 capital  crimes  are  mentioned.^  The  laws  of  the  Roman  kings, 
 and  the  twelve  tables  of  the  decemviri  were  full  of  cruel  pun- 
 ishments.^ In  the  English  code,  about  two  hundred  years  ago, 
 there  were  one  hundred  and  forty-eight  capital  crimes,  "  many 
 of  them  of  a  trivial  nature,  as  petty  thefts  and  trespasses  upon 
 property."  In  England,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  it  was  a 
 capital  crime  to  break  down  the  mound  of  a  fish-pond,  to  cut 
 down  a  cherry-tree  in  an  orchard,  to  steal  a  handkerchief  or 
 other  trifle,  of  above  the  value  of  twelve  pence,  privately  from 
 another's  person.  In  Sir  Wm.  Blackstone's  time  (a.d.  1723- 
 1780),  no  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty  ^  offences  (almost 
 ten  times  as  many  as  in  the  Mosaic  code),  were  declared  by  act 
 of  parliament  to  be  capital  crimes,  worthy  of  instant  death.* 
 
 These  facts  should  silence  those  who  are  perpetually  inveigh- 
 ing against  the  "  barbarity  of  the  Mosaic  code." 
 
 Mount  inaccessible.  Might  he  approached. 
 
 Ex.  xix.  12,  21-24.  Ex.  xix.  13, 17. 
 
 The  Israelites  were  commanded  to  "  set  bounds  "  about  the 
 mount ;  perhaps,  to  build  a  fence  or  hedge  of  some  kind.  At 
 the  blast  of  the  trumpet  they  were  to  leave  their  encampment, 
 and  go  up  to  the  foot  of  the  mountain.  But  they  were  for- 
 bidden to  '•  break  through  "  the  bounds  or  barrier,  that  is,  to 
 pass  a  certain  limit,  under  penalty  of  death.^ 
 
 Nothing  new  on  earth.  Some  things  are  new. 
 
 Eccl.  i.  9, 10.  Isa.  xliii.  19;  Ixv.  17;  Jer.  xxxi.  22. 
 
 Obviously,  in  relation  to  the  Creator,  nothing  is  new,  for 
 nothing  is  unforeseen  or  unexpected  to  him.  And  something 
 similar  may  be  said  of  man,  viewed  as  a  race,  since  the  phe- 
 nomena of  nature  recur  in  regular  order,  and  history  ever  tends 
 
 1  Wines,  Laws  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  p.  263. 
 
 2  Montesquieu,  Spirit  of  the  Laws,  Book  vi.  chapter  15. 
 
 ^  One  writer  says,  "nearly  three  hundred";  see  "Romilly,"  in  Apple- 
 ton's  New  American  Cyclopaedia  (first  edition). 
 
 *  Blackstone's  Commentaries,  iv.  4, 15-18  (Christian's  edition,  New  York, 
 1822). 
 
 6  Kurtz,  iii.  115,  116 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  433 
 
 to  repeat  itself.     But,  with  reference  to  any  specific  man  or 
 generation  of  men,  many  things  are  "  new." 
 
 Pwichal  offering,  a  lamb  or  kid.  Mifjht  bfi/rorn  thfc  furd. 
 
 Kx,  xii.  5.  Dcut  xvi.  2. 
 
 TJie  Hebrew  word  "  seh  "  means  Vxjth  a  laynb,  and  a  kid} 
 
 This  fact  relieves  some  apparent  inconj^rniities  in  our  version. 
 
 In  the  second  tf^xt,  the  term  "passover"  includes  not  oidy  the 
 
 proper  paschal  sacrifice,  but  also  the  offerings^  (some  of  which 
 
 were  taken  from  the  "  herd  **)  of  the  succee^ling  six  days  ;  as  is 
 
 clear  from  the  next  verse:  "seven  days  shalt  thou  eat  unleavene^l 
 
 bread  therewith."     As  to  Ex.  xii.  9  wjmpared  with  Deut.  xvi. 
 
 7  ;    the  Hebrew  term  "  baslial  "  means  sometimes  to  cook  in 
 
 water  ;  at  other  times,  to  roast  or  f/roil.^ 
 
 Parable  of  the  talents.  0/  the  pf/undjt. 
 
 Matt.  XXV.  14-80.  Luke  xix.  11-27. 
 
 Strauss  asserts  that  these  are  discordant  versions  of  the  same 
 parable;  but  Chrysostom,  Gerhard,  Al  ford,  and  Trench,*  have 
 shown  that  they  are  separate  parables,  jufldresse^l  to  quite  dis- 
 tinct groups  of  hearers,  in  different  states  of  mind,  and  needing 
 different  admonitions. 
 
 Strange  fjoda,  real  er/lstenr/is.  Tlt/^j  are  nMhiwj. 
 
 Pb.  xcvi.  4,  .0;  iHa.  xliv.  9,  10,  17.  1  (>>r.  viii.  4,  .0;  x.  19. 
 
 Paul,  in  asserting  that  "  an  idol  is  nothing  in  the  world," 
 
 does  not  deny  the  existence  of  the  idol,  but  simply  tliat  it  lui» 
 
 any  po^joer  to  help  or  harm  the  worshipper.     As  CruHius  ha« 
 
 remarke^l,  not  the  existence,  but    the  divinity,  of  the  idol  \6 
 
 caller]  in  question. 
 
 Sun  an/),  rn/j^m  put  Uj  *,}ifj.rrue.  Tfieir  fjhnj  Irvrxf/jjuetl. 
 
 Lsa.  xxlv.  23.  Lja.  xxx.  26, 
 
 The  two  passages  combined  are  a  poetic  prediction  that  in  a 
 
 coming  flay,  the  light  of  the  sun  and  the  mrxjn,  though  increase*! 
 
 '  See  Ex.  xii,  .^. 
 
 *  Num.  xxviii.  16-19. 
 
 "  <^"^n)pare  2  Sam.  xiii.  8;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  1,3;  particuJarly,  the  latter  text. 
 
 *  On  Parables,  p.  220  (American  edition). 
 
 37 
 
434  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 sevenfold,  will  be  outdone  and  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the 
 revelation  of  the  transcendent  glory  of  Jehovah. 
 
 Version  of  affair,  —  one  form.  A  different  form. 
 
 Gen.  xlii.  7-20,  30-34;  xliii.  3-13.  Gen.  xliv.  16-34. 
 
 Tuch  refers  the  variation  to  the  inaccuracy  of  the  narrator, 
 
 Judah.     It  may  be  that  the  agitation  and  alarm  of  the  speaker 
 
 modified   his   narrative  to  some   extent.     At   all   events,  his 
 
 accuracy  is  not  vouched  for  by  the  sacred  historian. 
 
 Vessels  made  for  the  temple.  Not  m^ade  at  the  time. 
 
 2  Chron,  xxiv.  14.  2  Kings  xii.  13,  14. 
 
 The  statement  in  Kings  simply  amounts  to  this  ;  that  none 
 of  the  money  contributed  was  employed  in  making  vessels,  so 
 long  as  the  repairing  of  the  temple  was  in  progress.  What  be- 
 came of  the  surplus  that  remained  this  author  does  not  tell  us. 
 But  the  chronicler  supplements  the  narrative  with  the  informa- 
 tion that  this  surplus  was  afterwards  expended  in  making 
 vessels  for  the  temple.^ 
 
 Waters  of  Egypt  turned  to  Mood.  Some  not  changed. 
 
 Ex.  vii.  20,  21.  Ex.  vii.  22,  24. 
 
 We  may  take  the  word  "  all,"  in  the  nineteenth  and  twentieth 
 verses,  in  the  loose  popular  sense,^  as  implying  y«r  the  greater 
 part ;  the  exceptions  being  so  few  and  insignificant  that  the 
 author  overlooks  them  entirely.  Some  water  remained  un- 
 changed, upon  which  the  magicians  ojierated,  and  which  the 
 Egyptians  drank  during  the  interval.  Kurtz  ^  thinks  that  only 
 Nile-water.,  whether  in  the  river  or  in  vessels,  was  changed, 
 the  water  in  the  wells  being  unaffected.  Mr.  R.  S.  Poole  ^  sug- 
 gests that  "  only  the  water  that  was  seen  "  was  smitten,  that  the 
 nation   miglit  not  perish.     INIr.  Alexander^  thinks  that  "the 
 
 '  So  Bilhr,  Keil,  and  Rawlinson. 
 
 2  So  Keil,  and  Ilengstenberg  {E<;ypt  and  Boolvs  of  Moses,  pp.  109, 110). 
 The  latter  points  out  the  use  o?  universal  terms  throuirhout  the  narrative, 
 "  all  the  trees  "  broken  by  the  hail,  etc.  The  idiom  is  a  very  common  one 
 in  all  lanjruay,cs. 
 
 "  Vol.  ii.  p.  271. 
 
 ^  Smith's  Bible  Diet.,  iii.  2540. 
 
 •'  Kltto.  i.  749. 
 
HISTORICAL   DISCREPANCIES.  435 
 
 water  when  filtered  through  the  earth  on  the  bank  of  the  river, 
 
 was  restored  to  its  salubrity."     This  agrees  with  the  statement 
 
 that  "  all  the  Egyptians  digged  round  about  the  river  for  water 
 
 to  drink"  (vs.  24).     Any  one  of  these  hypotheses  obviates  the 
 
 difficulty. 
 
 Water  upon  Mt.  Carmel  abundant.  The  drought  very  severe. 
 
 1  Kings  xviii.  32-35.  1  Kings  xvii.  7;  xviii,  5. 
 
 A  rationalistic  author  sarcastically  observes  that  the  writer 
 of  Kings,  in  representing  Elijah  as  using  so  much  water  ^  at  his 
 sacrifice,  apparently  forgot  the  long-continued  drought,  which, 
 having  lasted  more  than  two  years,  must  have  dried  up  the 
 mountain  streams  and  the  river  Kishon  supj^lied  by  them. 
 
 Whence  did  Elijah  obtain  water  ?  Blunt  ^  thinks  that,  since 
 Carmel  is  upon  the  coast,  sea-water  was  employed.  Bahr  sug- 
 gests that  the  brook  Kishon  was  not  dry,  and  that  the  water 
 may  have  been  obtained  thence.  Robinson^  expresses  the 
 opinion  that  the  transaction  took  place  at  the  foot  of  the  moun- 
 tain ;  perhaps,  at  some  Tell  (hill)  near  the  permanent  fountains 
 of  the  Kishon. 
 
 But  Dean  Stanley j"*  with  Van  de  Velde,  J.  L.  Porter,  Eaw- 
 linson,  Tristram,  and  Prof.  C.  M.  Mead,'^  speak  of  a  perennial 
 fountain,  a  little  below  the  summit  of  Carmel,  from  which  the 
 water  was  almost  certainly  obtained.  Stanley,  quoting  Van  de 
 Velde,  describes  it  as  '"  a  vaulted  and  very  abundant  fountain, 
 built  in  the  form  of  a  tank  with  a  few  steps  leading  down  to  it, 
 just  as  one  finds  elsewhere  in  the  old  wells  or  springs  of  the 
 Jewish  times."  Prof.  Mead,  at  a  recent  visit,  found  the  water 
 in  this  fountain  more  than  nine  feet  in  depth,  and  suggests  that 
 it  may  have  been  considerably  deeper  in  Elijah's  time.  He 
 says  that  the  "  trench  "  dug  by  the  prophet  would  contain  some 
 
 ^  Fuerst  and  Gesenins  say  that  the  word  rendered  "barrels"  in  our 
 version,  means  buckets  or  pails.    Translated  "  pitcher,"  Gen.  xxiv.  14-20. 
 2  Coincidences,  p.  199. 
 2  Physical  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land,  p.  31,  and  note. 
 
 *  Sinai  and  Palesiine,  p.  347,  and  note.  Comp.  Josephus,  Ant.  viii.  13,  5. 
 
 *  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  Oct.  1873,  pp.  672-696. 
 
436  DISCREPANCIES   OF  THE   BIBLE. 
 
 twelve  to  twenty -four  quarts  only.  He  found  upon  the  summit 
 of  Carmel,  and  not  very  far  distant  from  the  aforesaid  fountain, 
 "  a  rocky  surface,  artificially  smoothed,  about  eight  feet  square, 
 around  the  edge  of  which  had  been  dug  a  groove  an  inch  or  two 
 in  depths 
 
 This  may  have  been  the  very  spot  where  Elijah  vindicated 
 the  patriarchal  faith,  and  where  Jehovah  "  answered  by  fire " 
 the  prayer  of  his  servant  the  prophet. 
 
 We  have  now  reviewed  carefully,  yet  of  necessity  rapidly, 
 the  "  discrepancies  "  of  the  Bible.  We  have  aimed  to  include 
 all  that  are  worthy  of  even  a  cursory  glance ;  and  we  trust  that 
 the  candid  reader  will  feel  that,  in  the  great  majority  of  cases, 
 we  have  stated,  or  at  all  events,  suggested,  fair  and  adequate 
 solutions.  When  we  consider  the  long  interval  of  time  —  from 
 eighteen  to  thirty-three  centuries  —  which  has  elapsed  since  the 
 several  books  of  scripture  were  written;  and  that  during  all 
 but  four  centuries  of  this  time  they  have  been  circulated  and 
 transmitted  in  manuscript;  and  the  additional  fact  that  our 
 knowledge  of  antiquity  is  exceedingly  limited  and  imperfect,  — 
 many  minute,  and  sometimes  important,  circumstances  pertain- 
 ing to  every  event  having  passed  irrecoverably  from  the  mem- 
 ory of  mankind,  —  when  these  disadvantages  which  attend  the 
 investigation  of  the  subject  are  taken  into  account,  it  surely  can 
 not  be  too  much  to  believe  that,  if  in  any  instance  the  explana- 
 tion adduced  should  seem  inadequate,  a  knowledge  of  all  the 
 circumstances  of  the  case  would  supply  the  missing  link,  and 
 solve  the  supposed  discrepancy  to  the  complete  satisfaction  of 
 every  reasonable  mind. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 
 
 Not  to  enumerate  the  various  Harmonies  of  Scripture,  which 
 may  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  distinct  department,  the  follow- 
 ing would  seem  to  be  the  principal  works  occupied  wholly  or  mainly 
 with  the  consideration  of  the  discrepancies  of  the  Bible. 
 
 Among  the  patristic  writers,  Eusebius,  Chrysostom,  Augustine, 
 and  Theodoret  devote  certain  treatises,  or  portions  thereof,  to  the 
 subject.  But  from  the  latter  part  of  the  fifth  to  the  beginning  of 
 the  sixteenth  century  little  attention  was  bestowed  upon  this  branch 
 of  sacred  literature,  and  almost  nothing  is  extant  pertaining  thereto. 
 
 With  the  era  of  the  Reformation  a  new  impulse  was  given  to 
 biblical  study,  and  the  discrepancies  received  a  considerable  share 
 of  attention,  as  the  subjoined  list  will  evince. 
 
 The  supposed  date  oi  first  publication  is  indicated  by  full-faced 
 figures.  With  reference  to  the  size  of  books  there  is  much  difier- 
 ence  between  ancient  and  modern  designations. 
 
 The  first  two  works  are  of  an  introductory  character. 
 Staalkopf ,  Jac.  Introductio  in  historiam  Conciliatorum  Biblicorum. 
 
 4to.     Lipsiae,  1724. 
 AlardnSy  Nicolaus.    Bibliotheca  Harmonico-Biblica,  quae  praeter 
 
 historiam  harmonicam,  tradit  notitiam  scriptorxmi  harmonicorum. 
 
 8vo.  Hamburgi,  1725.  • 
 
 Julianus  Pomerius,  Ahp.  of  Toledo,  fl.  a.d.  680.    'Avtikciixcuuu,  sive 
 
 contrariorum  in  speciem  locorum  utriusque  Testamenti,  libri  duo. 
 
 folio,  Basileae,  1530;  Svo.     Coloniae,  1533,  1540;  Parisiis,  1556. 
 
 The  first  edition  was  published  anonymously ;  some  later  editions 
 
 under  the  name  of  Julian. 
 
 This  work  has  been  attributed  to  several  different  authors ;  but 
 with  most  probability  to  Bertharius,  Abbot  of  Monte  Cassino,  who, 
 according  to  Walch,  was  killed  by  the  Saracens,  a.d.  884.  It 
 includes  two  hundred  and  twenty-one  cases. 
 
 37*  437 
 
438  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 
 
 Althamer  Brenzius,  Andreas.  Diallage  ;  hoc  est,  Conciliatio  loco- 
 rum  Scriptnrae,  qui  prima  facie  inter  se  pugnare  videntur.  8vo. 
 Norimbergae,  1527,  1528,  1588. 
 
 Some  sixteen  editions  were  published.  The  work  is  in  two 
 parts,  and  comprises  one  hundred  and  sixty  discrepancies,  which 
 are  solved  in  a  neat  and  perspicuous  manner. 
 
 Babe,  Ludwig.  Conciliationes  locorum  S.  Scripturae  in  specie  pug- 
 nantium.     8vo.     Argentorati,  1527,  1550  ;  Noribergae,  1561. 
 
 In  two  parts,  and  including  one  hundred  and  twenty  discre- 
 pancies. The  materials  of  the  work  are  extracted  from  the 
 writings  of  Augustine. 
 
 Cumirano,  Serafino.  Conciliatio  locorum  communium  Sacrae 
 JScripturae,  quae  inter  se  pugnare  videntur.  2  vol.  8vo.  Parisiis, 
 1556,  1559,  1576;  3  vol.  Antuerpiae,  1557—1561. 
 
 Revised  by  Leander  de  Sancto  Martino  (originally  John  Jones), 
 Duaci,  1623. 
 
 Baltanas  (or  Valtanas)  Mexia.  Domingo  de,  Concordanclas  de 
 muchos  pasos  dificiles  de  la  divina  historia.    8vo.    Sevilla,  1556. 
 
 Obenhein,  Christoph.  Novi  Testamenti  locorum  pugnantium  eccle- 
 siastica  expositio  ;  adjectae  sunt  etiam  quarundam  euangelicarum 
 quaestionum  solutiones.     8vo.     Basileae,  1563. 
 
 In  Acta  apostolorum  ecclesiastica  expositio  locorum.  Svo. 
 Basileae,  1563. 
 
 Camara,  Marco  de  la.  Quaestionarium  conciliationis  simul  et 
 expositionis  locorum  difBcilium  Sacrae  Scripturae,  in  quo  DC. 
 Scripturae  loca  exponuntur.  4to  Compluti.  1587. —  Also,* 
 Venetiis,  16(^3. 
 
 Montoya,  Pedro  Lopez  de.  De  Concordia  Sacrarum  Scripturarum, 
 4to.     Matriti,  1600. 
 
 Mettinger,  Joannes.  Harmonia  in  utroque  .Testamento  ;  sive  con- 
 ciliationes eorum,  quae  in  sacris  biblicis  sibi  invicem  adversa 
 videntur.     8vo.     Lavingae,  1601. 
 
 Sbarp  {Lett.  Scharpius),  John.  Symphonia  Prophctarum  ot  Apos- 
 tolorum, in  qua  ordine  chronologico  loci  Sacrae  Scripturae,  specie 
 tenus  contradicentes,  conciliantur.  4to.  Genevae,  1625,  1639, 
 1653,1670. 
 
 This  author  solves  some  seven  hundred  cases  with  considerable 
 acuteness. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX.  439 
 
 Walther,  Michael.     Harmonia  Biblica ;  sive  brevis  et  plana  concil- 
 
 iatio  locorum  Veteris  et  Novi  Testamenti   adparenter  sibi  con- 
 
 tradicentium.    8vo.    Argentorati,  1626,  1630  ;  Noribergae,  1649, 
 
 1654  (enlarged  edition,  1696). 
 
 According   to    Home,  this    work   is  marked  by  considerable 
 
 learning  and  industry. 
 Menasseh  Ben  Israel.     Conciliador  o  de  la  conveniencia  de  los 
 
 Lugares  de  la  S.  Escriptura,  que  repugnantes  entre  si  parecen. 
 
 4to.   Vol.  i.    Francofurti,  1632;  Vol.  ii.    Amsterdam,  1650. 
 Conciliator,  sive  de  convenientia  locorum  S.  Scripturae,  quae 
 
 pugnare  inter  se  videntur.     4to.     Amstelodami,  1633. 
 
 -The  Conciliator,  a  Reconcilement  of  the  Apparent  Contra- 
 
 dictions in  Holy  Scripture.  Translated,  with  Notes,  by  E.  H. 
 Lindo.     2  vols.     8vo.     London,  1842. 
 
 This  work,  restricted  to  the  Old  Testament,  solves  four  hundr^ 
 and  seventy-three  cases  of  discrepancies,  by  the  usually  ingenious, 
 though  sometimes  fanciful,  methods  peculiar  to  the  Jewish  rabbles. 
 
 Thaddaeus,  Joannes.  S.  S.  Scriptura,  a  se  nee  diversa,  sibi  nee 
 adversa,  hoc  est,  Conciliatorium  Biblicum,  in  quo  paria  mille  et 
 supra  S.  Codicis  Locorum  specie  tenus  contradicentium,  concilian- 
 tur.  12mo.  Amstelodami,  1633,  1648,  1696  ;  Francofurti,  1648, 
 1687,  1696,  1702  ;  Londini,  1662  ;  Haffniae,  1717. 
 
 The  Reconciler  of  the  Bible,  wherein  above  two  thousand 
 
 seeming  contradictions  are  fully  and  plainly  reconciled.  By  J.  T., 
 IMinister  of  the  Gospel.     London,  1656. 
 
 Thaddaeus,  Joannes,  and  Man,  Thomas.  The  Reconciler  of  the 
 Bible  inlarged,  wherein  above  three  thousand  seeming  contra- 
 dictions throughout  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  fully  and 
 plainly  reconciled.     By  J.  T.  and  T.  M.     folio,  London,  1662. 
 
 Singularly  enough,  in  the  last  two  cases  the  numbers  are  made 
 up  by  counting  each  discrepancy  twice  ;  so  that  the  first  of  these 
 editions  really  contains  but  one  thousand  and  fifty  cases,  and  the 
 second  only  some  one  thousand  five  hundred.  This  work  com- 
 prises a  multitude  of  trivial  discrepancies,  and  omits  many  of  the 
 more  important.  , 
 
 Magri,  Domenico.  AvTiXoyiai,  seu  contradlctiones  adparentes  et 
 conciliationes  Sacrae  Scripturae  ab  ipso  collectae.  12mo.  Venetiis, 
 1645,  1653  ;  Parisiis,  1665,  1675,  1685. 
 
440  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX. 
 
 Streat,  William  H.  The  Dividing  of  the  Hooff,  or  seeming  contra- 
 dictions throughout  Sacred  Scriptures,  distinguished,  resolv'd  and 
 apply'd.     4to.     London,  1654. 
 
 This  is  characterized  as  a  work  of  little  value. 
 
 Mayer,  Heinrich.  Manuale  biblicum  in  quo  Sacrae  Scripturae  certa 
 quaedam  testimonia  quae  sibimet  contradicere  videntur,  omnino 
 concordare  docentur.     12mo.     Friburgi  Brisgoiae,  1654. 
 
 Arnoldus,  Nicolaus.  Lux  in  Tenebris  ;  seu  brevis  et  succincta  Vin- 
 dicatio  simul  et  Conciliatio  locorum  Vet.  et  Novi  Testamenti.  4to. 
 Franeckerae,  1662,  1665,  1680;  Francofurti  et  Lipsiae,  1698. 
 
 A  voluminous  work,  of  some  twelve  hundred  pages,  directed 
 chiefly  against  Papists  and  Socinians.  yet  discussing  incidentally 
 certain  discrepancies.     It  hardly  belongs  to  our  department. 
 
 Matthiae,  Christian.  Antilogiae  Biblicae,  sive  Conciliationes  dic- 
 torum  Scripturae  Sacrae,  in  speciem  inter  se  pugnantium,  secun- 
 dum seriem  Locorum  Theologicorum  in  ordinem  redactae  ;  editae 
 a  Joh.  Schelhammero,  Jun.     4to.     Hamburgi,  1662,  1700, 1726. 
 
 Santa  Cmz,  Emanuel  Fernandez  de.  Antilogiae  totius  Scripturae. 
 2tom.  fol.  Tom.  i.,  Segoviae,  1671;  Tom.  ii.,  Lugduni,  1677. 
 A  2d  ed.  of  Tom.  i.,  Lugduni,  1681. 
 
 BleiSTfyck,  Jan  C.  yan.  Bybel-balance  ende  Harmonieboeck.  4to. 
 Delfft,1675. 
 
 Bidder,  Franciscus.  Schriftuerlyk  licht  ouer  schynstrydende,  duy- 
 stere  en  misduyde  texten  der  heiligen  schrifture.  4to.  5  delen. 
 Rotterdam,  1675. 
 
 Walch  speaks  of  this  work  as  copious  and  elaborate. 
 
 Cuper,  Franciscus.  Conciliatio  locorum  utriusque  foederis,  quae 
 contraria  esse  videntur.  In  his  "Arcana  Atheismi  revelata."  4to. 
 Roterdam.,  1676. 
 
 Le  Feyre  {Lat.  Faber),  Jacques  (died^  a.d.  1716).    Conciliatio  loco- 
 rum Sacrae  Scripturae  (JUae  contradicere  invicem  videntur.  1 2mo. 
 Parisiis,  1683  (2)  [Fabricius  styles  this  the  second  edition],  1685. 
 This  work  is  said  to  be  an  enlargement  of  that  of  Magri,  men- 
 tioned above. 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL  APPENDIX.  441 
 
 Toomftorg',  K.  Concordantlae  locorum  dissonantium  Sacrae  Scrip- 
 turae  [Belgice].  8vo.  Alcmariae,  1695. 
 
 The  original  title  of  this  work  I  have  not  been  able  to  find. 
 
 Pontas,  Jean.  Scriptura  Sacra  ubique  sibi  constans ;  sen  Difficiliores 
 Sacrae  Scripturae  in  speclem  secum  pugnantes,  juxta  sanctorum 
 ecclesiasticorum  Patrum  theologorumque  sententiam  conciliati. 
 4to.     Parisils,  1698. 
 
 One  volume  only,  relating  to  the  Pentateuch,  was  published. 
 Darling  says  of  it ;  "A  learned  and  able  work,  containing  three 
 hundred  and  thirty  questions  with  answers." 
 
 Heermann,  David  (also  known  as  Bibliander).  Richtige  Harmo- 
 nia  oder  Uebereinstimmung  hundert  solcher  Spriiche  und  Oerter 
 welche  in  H.  Schrifft  vorkommen  und  einander  scheinen  zuwider 
 zu  lauffen.  3  Theile.  8vo.  Gorlitz,  1705  —  1710;  4  Theile, 
 Gbrlitz,  1707— 1717. 
 
 Surenhuys,  Willem  (Lat.  Snrenhnsias,  Gulielmus).  BIBA02 
 KATAAAAFHS,  in  quo  secundum  Theologorum  Hebraeorum  for- 
 mulas allegandi,  et  modos  interpretandi  conciliantur  loca  ex  V.  in 
 N.  T.  allegata.    4to.     Amstelaedami,  1713. 
 
 Discusses  some  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  cases  of  disagree- 
 ment between  citations  in  the  New  Testament  and  the  original 
 passages  in  the  Old.  This  work  properly  belongs  to  a  distinct 
 department. 
 
 Bamhy  Raphael.  Critica  Sacra  examined  ;  or  an  attempt  to  show 
 that  a  new  method  may  be  found  to  reconcile  the  seemingly 
 glaring  variations  in  parallel  passages  of  Scripture.  8vo.  London, 
 1775. 
 
 Cooper,  Oliver  St.  John.     Four  Hundred  Texts  of  Holy  Scripture 
 with  their  corresponding  passages  explained.     12mo.     London, 
 1791. 
 Includes  fifty-seven  instances  of  disagreement. 
 
 Eyauson,  Edward.  The  Dissonance  of  the  four  generally  received 
 Evangelists.     8vo.     Gloucester  (England),  1792,  1805. 
 
442  BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   APPENDIX. 
 
 Falconer,  Thomas.  Certain  principles  in  Evanson's  "  Dissonance  of 
 the  four  generally  received  Evangelists "  examined.  Bampton 
 Lectures  for  1810.     8vo.     Oxford,  1811. 
 
 Strauss'  "  Life  of  Jesus,"  with  the  numerous  replies  to  it,  might, 
 equally  with  the  last  two  works,  claim  a  place  in  our  catalogue. 
 
 Fuller,  Andrew.  The  Harmony  of  Scripture ;  or  an  attempt  to 
 reconcile  various  passages  apparently  contradictory.  Svo.  London, 
 1817. 
 
 A  posthumous  tract,  comprising  thirty  cases  of  discrepancy.  See, 
 also,  Fuller's  Works,Vol.  i.  pp.  667-684  (Philadelphia  ed.,  3  vols.). 
 
 Cox,  John  Hayter.  Lectures  on  the  Harmony  of  the  Scriptures  ; 
 designed  to  reconcile  apparently  contradictory  passages.  Svo. 
 London,  1823. 
 
 Treats  of  nineteen  discrepancies. 
 
 '^' 
 
 LoB^horst,  S.     A  Common-place  Book,  or  Companion  to  the  New 
 Testament ;   consisting  of  Illustrations  of  difficult  passages  ;   ap- 
 ■**■  parent  Contradictions  and  Inconsistencies  reconciled.     Richmond 
 and  London,  1833. 
 
 Nork,  F.  Biblische  Mythologie  des  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments. 
 Versuch  einer  neuen  Theorie  zu  Aufhellung  der  Dunkelheiten 
 und  scheinbaren  Widerspriiche  in  den  canonischen  Biichern  der 
 Juden  und  Christen.     In  two  parts.     Svo.     Stuttgart,  1842. 
 
 Bayidson,  Dr.  Samuel.  Sacred  Hermeneutics,  Developed  and  Ap- 
 plied.    Svo.     Edinburgh,  1843. 
 
 A  portion  of  this  work,  pp.  516 — 611,  is  devoted  to  our  subject, 
 and  resolves  some  one  hundred  and  fifteen  apparent  contradic- 
 tions (Compare  reference,  p.  25,  infra,  note). 
 
 There  are,  of  course,  many  other  works  which  bear  indirectly  upon 
 the  subject."  Brief  disquisitions  are  extant,  by  Lightfoot,  Knatchbull, 
 Ludlam  and  ^^'hately.  Several  pamphlets,  on  both  sides  of  the 
 question,  have  been  published   in  this  country,  and   in   England. 
 
 The  above  is  believed  to  be,  for  substance,  the  literature  of  the 
 Discrepancies. 
 
INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 
 
 GENESIS. 
 
 GEN.  \ 
 
 FAOE 
 
 GEN. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vi.  19,  20, 
 
 387 
 
 xiv.  24, 
 
 319 
 
 i.  2, 
 
 139 
 
 417 
 
 vii.  2,  3, 
 
 387 
 
 XV.  13,   416, 
 
 418,  419 
 
 3, 
 
 422 
 
 4,  11,  12, 
 
 415 
 
 16,    338, 
 
 416,419 
 
 9,  10, 
 
 429 
 
 17,  24, 
 
 415 
 
 18,    148, 
 
 318,374 
 
 11-27, 
 
 408 
 
 viii.  1, 
 
 57 
 
 xvii.  1-3, 
 
 60 
 
 14-19, 
 
 422 
 
 3,  6,  7,  8, 
 
 415 
 
 5, 
 
 17 
 
 26, 
 
 60 
 
 159 
 
 10,  12,  13, 
 
 14,   415 
 
 6, 
 
 395 
 
 27, 
 
 158 
 
 21, 
 
 68 
 
 7, 
 
 148 
 
 31, 
 
 i,  68 
 
 22, 
 
 425 
 
 8, 
 
 282 
 
 ii.  2, 
 
 395 
 
 416 
 
 ix.  2, 
 
 354 
 
 10,  14, 
 
 §60 
 
 3, 
 
 395 
 
 3, 
 
 246 
 
 15, 
 
 2ai 
 
 4-7, 
 
 408 
 
 6, 
 
 159,  258 
 
 16, 
 
 281,395* 
 
 6, 
 
 429 
 
 21, 
 
 252 
 
 17,    281, 
 
 317,318 
 
 9, 
 
 408 
 
 22, 
 
 84 
 
 24,  25, 
 
 418 
 
 17, 
 
 6 
 
 393 
 
 24, 
 
 84,  303 
 
 xviii.  10,  14, 
 
 74 
 
 18, 
 
 291 
 
 25, 
 
 84,  302 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 58 
 
 19-22, 
 
 408 
 
 26, 
 
 421 
 
 25, 
 
 83,  201 
 
 m.4. 
 
 6 
 
 X.  29, 
 
 395 
 
 xix.  14, 
 
 355 
 
 5, 
 
 158 
 
 xi.  5, 
 
 58 
 
 XX.  2, 
 
 26 
 
 8,- 
 
 58,76 
 
 11, 
 
 424 
 
 2-18, 
 
 317 
 
 16, 
 
 308 
 
 12, 
 
 352 
 
 3, 
 
 376 
 
 22, 
 
 60 
 
 158 
 
 13, 
 
 424 
 
 11, 
 
 318 
 
 iv.  i; 
 
 421 
 
 26, 
 
 392 
 
 12, 
 
 281 
 
 3, 
 
 427 
 
 29, 
 
 281 
 
 xxi.  5,  5-8, 
 
 418 
 
 4, 
 
 81 
 
 427 
 
 31, 
 
 364 
 
 10, 
 
 304 
 
 5, 
 
 81 
 
 32, 
 
 392,  424 
 
 14-18. 
 
 418 
 
 12,  13, 
 
 258 
 
 xii.  1, 
 
 364 
 
 23, 
 
 244 
 
 16, 
 
 58 
 
 4,     317 
 
 ,  392,  418  • 
 
 24, 
 
 242,  244 
 
 26, 
 
 421 
 
 427 
 
 5, 
 
 364 
 
 31, 
 
 410 
 
 V.  1, 
 
 158 
 
 6,  7, 
 
 357,  378 
 
 xxii.  1, 
 
 79 
 
 1-32, 
 
 14 
 
 11-20, 
 
 317 
 
 2,     237 
 
 380,  396 
 
 2, 
 
 159 
 
 19, 
 
 26 
 
 5, 
 
 270 
 
 5, 
 
 393 
 
 xiii.  15, 
 
 318 
 
 6,  10, 
 
 259 
 
 24, 
 
 206 
 
 18, 
 
 395 
 
 12, 
 
 56,  74 
 
 29, 
 
 421 
 
 xiv.  7, 
 
 394 
 
 xxiih  7, 
 
 225 
 
 vi.  3, 
 
 424 
 
 12, 
 
 281 
 
 xxiv.  14-20, 
 
 435 
 
 6, 
 
 4,  66,  68 
 
 13, 
 
 319 
 
 55,  60, 
 
 281 
 
 7, 
 
 68 
 
 207 
 
 14, 
 
 318,410 
 
 XXV.  1,  2, 
 
 318 
 
 9, 
 
 159 
 
 16, 
 
 281 
 
 5, 
 
 305 
 
 443 
 
444 
 
 INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 GEN. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 GEN. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 EXOD. 
 
 PAOK 
 
 XXV.  6,      295, 
 
 305 
 
 ,380 
 
 xxx:vi.  26, 
 
 312 
 
 ii25. 
 
 81 
 
 22,  23, 
 
 163 
 
 31, 
 
 395 
 
 iii.  1, 
 
 396,  354 
 
 26, 
 
 315 
 
 ,418 
 
 xxxvii.  2, 
 
 418 
 
 2, 
 
 396 
 
 31-33, 
 
 345 
 
 25, 
 
 339 
 
 10, 
 
 377 
 
 xxvi.  2,  3, 
 
 419 
 
 28, 
 
 339 
 
 ,348 
 
 21,  22, 
 
 300 
 
 6-11, 
 
 318 
 
 30, 
 
 418 
 
 iv.  18, 
 
 354 
 
 7, 
 
 26 
 
 35, 
 
 193 
 
 19, 
 
 377,  424 
 
 15,18,33, 
 
 410 
 
 36, 
 
 339 
 
 20, 
 
 351 
 
 34,         321, 
 
 336 
 
 420 
 
 xxxix.  2, 
 
 172 
 
 21, 
 
 91 
 
 36, 
 
 345 
 
 4-6, 
 
 270 
 
 24, 
 
 248 
 
 xxvii.  1-29, 
 
 345 
 
 20,  21,  22, 
 
 348 
 
 31, 
 
 344 
 
 36, 
 
 315 
 
 xl.  3,  4, 
 
 348 
 
 vi.3. 
 
 421 
 
 42-45, 
 
 345 
 
 15, 
 
 348 
 
 ,394 
 
 9, 
 
 344 
 
 xxviii.  2, 
 
 345 
 
 xli.  12, 
 
 270 
 
 10-13, 
 
 377 
 
 5, 
 
 351 
 
 ,420 
 
 46,  53, 
 
 420 
 
 18, 
 
 351 
 
 9, 
 
 336 
 
 54, 
 
 425 
 
 18-20, 
 
 420 
 
 19,  20-22, 
 
 410 
 
 56, 
 
 367 
 
 ,425 
 
 23, 
 
 336 
 
 xxix.  2,  4, 
 
 363 
 
 57, 
 
 367 
 
 vii.  11,12, 
 
 120 
 
 5, 
 
 351 
 
 xlii.  1-5, 
 
 367 
 
 20,  21,  22, 
 
 24,       434 
 
 12, 
 
 281 
 
 7-20, 
 
 434 
 
 viii.  1, 
 
 301 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 421 
 
 30-34, 
 
 434 
 
 7, 
 
 120 
 
 27-30, 
 
 421 
 
 xliii.  3-13, 
 
 434 
 
 15, 
 
 89,90 
 
 30,  31,     97,  286 
 
 421 
 
 11,  15, 
 
 367 
 
 20, 
 
 126 
 
 XXX.  16, 
 
 314 
 
 xliv.  16-34, 
 
 434 
 
 27, 
 
 301 
 
 18, 
 
 315 
 
 xlv.  6, 
 
 420 
 
 ,425 
 
 32, 
 
 89 
 
 20, 
 
 316 
 
 xlvi.  3,  4, 
 
 345 
 
 ix.  3,  6, 
 
 428 
 
 23,  24, 
 
 315 
 
 7, 
 
 384 
 
 12, 
 
 89 
 
 25, 
 
 421 
 
 8-26, 
 
 389 
 
 19-21, 
 
 428 
 
 xxxi.  11,  13, 
 
 74 
 
 15, 
 
 384 
 
 ,420 
 
 34, 
 
 89,90 
 
 17, 
 
 295 
 
 18,  20, 
 
 420 
 
 X.  1, 
 
 89 
 
 41, 
 
 421 
 
 21, 
 
 384 
 
 7, 
 
 205 
 
 53. 
 
 242 
 
 27, 
 
 389 
 
 25,  26, 
 
 301 
 
 xxxii.  3, 
 
 415 
 
 xlvii.  9, 
 
 418 
 
 xi.  1, 
 
 301 
 
 28, 
 
 411 
 
 31, 
 
 345 
 
 3, 
 
 248,  302 
 
 30, 
 
 73 
 
 xlviii.  1, 
 
 345 
 
 10, 
 
 89 
 
 xxxiii.  18-20, 
 
 357 
 
 5, 
 
 305 
 
 xii.  2, 
 
 412 
 
 19, 
 
 378 
 
 8,  10, 
 
 363 
 
 5, 
 
 433 
 
 xxxiv.  14,  17, 
 
 281 
 
 15,  16, 
 
 225 
 
 7, 
 
 377,  378 
 
 XXXV.  2,  4, 
 
 378 
 
 xlix.  9, 
 
 127 
 
 9, 
 
 433 
 
 8, 
 
 379 
 
 10, 
 
 149 
 
 15, 
 
 408,416 
 
 10, 
 
 411 
 
 33, 
 
 345 
 
 31-33, 
 
 301 
 
 11, 
 
 395 
 
 35,  36, 
 
 300 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 400 
 
 EXODUS. 
 
 38, 
 
 342 
 
 16-19, 
 
 367 
 
 i.  17, 
 
 292 
 
 40, 
 
 418 
 
 24-26, 
 
 367 
 
 18-20, 
 
 290 
 
 43,  48, 
 
 260 
 
 27, 
 
 420 
 
 20, 
 
 292 
 
 49, 
 
 305 
 
 xxxvi.  2, 
 
 321 
 
 336 
 
 ii.  10, 
 
 315 
 
 xiii.  3, 
 
 •        408 
 
 3, 
 
 336 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 424 
 
 13, 
 
 224 
 
 0,  8, 
 
 415 
 
 16,  21, 
 
 339 
 
 21,  22, 
 
 430 
 
 12, 
 
 352 
 
 394 
 
 16-21, 
 
 355 
 
 xiv.  7,  9, 
 
 428 
 
 20, 
 
 321 
 
 18, 
 
 354 
 
 13,  30, 
 
 363 
 
 24. 
 
 321 
 
 337 
 
 22, 
 
 338 
 
 31, 
 
 120 
 
INDEX   OP   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 445 
 
 EXOD. 
 XV.  3, 
 
 6, 
 
 13-17, 
 
 20, 
 
 25,  26, 
 xvi.  1, 
 
 2,3, 
 
 13,14, 
 
 16, 
 
 23, 
 
 31, 
 
 34, 
 
 35, 
 xvii.  1-7, 
 
 9, 
 
 U, 
 xviii.  2-6, 
 
 5, 
 
 7, 
 
 13-26, 
 
 23,  24, 
 
 25, 
 
 27, 
 xix.  2, 
 
 n, 
 
 12,  13,  17, 
 
 18, 
 19, 
 
 21-24, 
 22, 
 XX.  1-26, 
 3,5, 
 4,5, 
 5, 
 8, 
 11, 
 12, 
 
 13,  14, 
 15, 
 16, 
 17, 
 24, 
 
 xxi.  1-36, 
 
 2, 
 
 7,11, 
 
 14, 
 
 16, 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 23-25, 
 
 29,  30, 
 xxii.  1-31, 
 
 8,9, 
 
 TAOS 
 
 92 
 207 
 396 
 309 
 236 
 427 
 340 
 427 
 343 
 395 
 431 
 396 
 
 342,  427 
 374 
 395 
 207 
 351 
 
 354,  409 
 225 
 284 
 350 
 
 350,  412 
 355 
 409 
 376 
 432 
 
 376,  431 
 76 
 432 
 409 
 221 
 225 
 226 
 78,  84,  86 
 
 233,  395 
 56,  234,  416 
 287 
 255 
 300 
 290 
 
 249,  282 
 427 
 221 
 303 
 304 
 255 
 302 
 298 
 299 
 261 
 221 
 62 
 
 EXOD. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 EXOD. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 xxii.  18, 
 
 307 
 
 xl.  17, 
 
 396 
 
 21, 
 
 302 
 
 20, 
 
 390,  396 
 
 25, 
 
 306 
 
 28, 
 
 62 
 
 LEVITICUS. 
 
 29, 
 
 224 
 
 i.  1-17, 
 
 236 
 
 xxiii.  1-33, 
 
 221 
 
 5,  8,  11, 
 
 356 
 
 3, 
 
 296 
 
 ii.  1-16, 
 
 236 
 
 10,  11, 
 
 297 
 
 iii.  1-17, 
 
 236 
 
 14-16, 
 
 387 
 
 2, 
 
 219 
 
 16, 
 
 412 
 
 iv.  1-35, 
 
 236 
 
 31, 
 
 282 
 
 3, 
 
 114 
 
 33, 
 
 221 
 
 14,  22,  23, 
 
 241 
 
 xxiv.  3-8, 
 
 220 
 
 26, 
 
 236 
 
 5, 
 
 409 
 
 V.  1-19, 
 
 236 
 
 9,  10, 
 
 73 
 
 15,  18, 
 
 245 
 
 13, 
 
 395 
 
 vi.  1-30, 
 
 236 
 
 18, 
 
 351 
 
 vii.  1-38, 
 
 236 
 
 XXV.  10, 
 
 407 
 
 xi.  13-19, 
 
 391 
 
 15, 
 
 242 
 
 21,  23, 
 
 246 
 
 18,20,34, 
 
 226 
 
 xii.  3, 
 
 12,13 
 
 xxvii.  1, 
 
 427 
 
 6,7, 
 
 230 
 
 8, 
 
 427,  428 
 
 xvi.  29, 
 
 416 
 
 xxviii.  1, 
 
 409 
 
 xvii.  3,  4, 
 
 367 
 
 xxix.  1^6, 
 
 236 
 
 11, 
 
 236 
 
 14, 
 
 114 
 
 13, 
 
 220 
 
 18,  36, 
 
 235 
 
 xviii.  1-30, 
 
 281 
 
 45, 
 
 102 
 
 5, 
 
 104 
 
 XXX.  12-14, 
 
 345 
 
 16, 
 
 292 
 
 13, 
 
 385 
 
 21, 
 
 237,  266 
 
 xxxi.  15, 
 
 234 
 
 22-24, 
 
 266 
 
 17, 
 
 56 
 
 25,  28, 
 
 266 
 
 18, 
 
 63 
 
 26, 
 
 305 
 
 xxxii.  20, 
 
 429 
 
 xix.  13, 
 
 300 
 
 26,  27, 
 
 285 
 
 26, 
 
 244 
 
 33, 
 
 207 
 
 34, 
 
 305 
 
 xxxiii.  3, 
 
 63 
 
 XX.  1-27, 
 
 281 
 
 7, 
 
 396 
 
 2, 
 
 237 
 
 11, 
 
 73 
 
 21. 
 
 292 
 
 14,  15,  17, 
 
 63 
 
 23, 
 
 266,  267 
 
 20, 
 
 73 
 
 27, 
 
 307 
 
 23, 
 
 73,75 
 
 xxii.  12, 
 
 283,  284 
 
 xxxiv.  5-7, 
 
 59 
 
 xxiii.  1-44, 
 
 387 
 
 6,7, 
 
 82 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 384 
 
 10-27, 
 
 220 
 
 27-29, 
 
 223 
 
 18-23, 
 
 387 
 
 32, 
 
 416 
 
 20, 
 
 224 
 
 33-39, 
 
 223 
 
 28. 
 
 221 
 
 42,  43, 
 
 343 
 
 33-35, 
 
 355 
 
 XXV.  4,  6,  20, 21, 22, 297 
 
 XXXV.  12, 
 
 407 
 
 32-34, 
 
 395 
 
 xxxvii.  1, 
 
 407 
 
 39-41, 
 
 303 
 
 xxxviii.  8, 
 
 239 
 
 44, 
 
 309 
 
 26, 
 
 345,411 
 
 46, 
 
 298,  303 
 
M6 
 
 INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 LEV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 NUM. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 NUM. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 XXV.  47-54, 
 
 303 
 
 xiii.  26, 
 
 373 
 
 xxvi.  38,  40, 
 
 384 
 
 xxvi.  9, 
 
 81 
 
 29, 
 
 338 
 
 62, 
 
 382 
 
 30,  44, 
 
 68 
 
 xiv.  12, 
 
 322 
 
 64,  65, 
 
 357 
 
 xxvii.  26, 
 
 225 
 
 25, 
 
 365 
 
 xxvii.  12, 
 
 373 
 
 30, 
 
 63 
 
 14, 
 
 345 
 
 NUMBERS. 
 
 33, 
 
 427 
 
 XX  viii.  1-31, 
 
 387 
 
 i.  2,  3, 
 
 345 
 
 358 
 
 45, 
 
 365,  405 
 
 16-19, 
 
 433 
 
 10, 
 
 305 
 
 XV.  24, 
 
 241 
 
 27,  30, 
 
 384 
 
 23, 
 
 385 
 
 32,  36, 
 
 234,  235 
 
 xxix.  1-40, 
 
 387 
 
 45, 
 
 358 
 
 39, 
 
 250 
 
 5, 
 
 236 
 
 46,         344 
 
 358 
 
 411 
 
 xvi.  12-14, 
 
 353 
 
 xxxi.  8, 
 
 366 
 
 49, 
 
 358 
 
 18-24, 
 
 353 
 
 10, 
 
 406 
 
 ii.  2,  3, 
 
 150 
 
 ,378 
 
 24-27, 
 
 353 
 
 1^ 
 
 255 
 
 10, 
 
 352 
 
 31-33, 
 
 352 
 
 xxxii.  8, 
 
 350 
 
 17, 
 
 366 
 
 32, 
 
 353 
 
 13, 
 
 95 
 
 32, 
 
 345 
 
 35, 
 
 352 
 
 19,  32, 
 
 37^) 
 
 iii.  6, 
 
 409 
 
 40, 
 
 333 
 
 41, 
 
 411 
 
 10, 
 
 333 
 
 xviii.  12,  13, 
 
 296 
 
 xxxiii.  3, 
 
 427 
 
 12,  13, 
 
 224 
 
 15, 
 
 224,  296 
 
 19-36, 
 
 371 
 
 27,  28, 
 
 419 
 
 16,  17, 
 
 224 
 
 30-33, 
 
 372 
 
 29, 
 
 352 
 
 19, 
 
 296 
 
 38, 
 
 363 
 
 39, 
 
 382 
 
 21,  24, 
 
 289 
 
 44-48, 
 
 372 
 
 iv.  3,  4-15, 
 
 422 
 
 XX.  1, 
 
 373 
 
 44-49, 
 
 371 
 
 5,6, 
 
 242 
 
 10, 
 
 279 
 
 xxxiv.  10-12, 
 
 374 
 
 15,  20, 
 
 94 
 
 12, 
 
 248,  345 
 
 XXXV.  2,  7, 
 
 288 
 
 24-26, 
 
 422 
 
 13, 
 
 374 
 
 2-8, 
 
 395 
 
 31-33, 
 
 422 
 
 18-21, 
 
 335 
 
 4,5, 
 
 388 
 
 36, 
 
 419 
 
 19,  20, 
 
 335 
 
 13, 
 
 385 
 
 V.  11-31, 
 
 258 
 
 27,  28, 
 
 363 
 
 14, 
 
 375 
 
 vi.  5, 
 
 246 
 
 xxi.  3, 
 
 405 
 
 19, 
 
 256 
 
 23, 
 
 356 
 
 8, 
 
 226 
 
 31, 
 
 261 
 
 vii.  12, 
 
 150 
 
 10-20, 
 
 371 
 
 xxxvi.  8, 
 
 283,  284 
 
 viii.  14, 
 
 409 
 
 11-35, 
 
 372 
 
 24,  25,  26, 
 
 422 
 
 16-20, 
 
 372 
 
 DEUTERONOMY. 
 
 X.  12, 
 
 372 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 373 
 
 i.  1, 
 
 375 
 
 14, 
 
 150 
 
 xxii.  1 
 
 372 
 
 6.  9,  14, 
 
 3.57 
 
 21, 
 
 366 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 69 
 
 9-13,  15, 
 
 350 
 
 29, 
 
 854 
 
 22, 
 
 69,  333 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 338 
 
 29-31, 
 
 430 
 
 xxiii.  10, 
 
 208 
 
 22, 
 
 3.50 
 
 29-32, 
 
 355 
 
 19, 
 
 63 
 
 37, 
 
 248 
 
 33, 
 
 366 
 
 ,  372 
 
 xxiv.  2,  7,  16 
 
 394 
 
 39, 
 
 161 
 
 xi.  4-6, 
 
 340 
 
 20, 
 
 208,  394 
 
 ii.  4,  8, 
 
 335 
 
 8, 
 
 431 
 
 25, 
 
 366 
 
 7, 
 
 340 
 
 16, 
 
 378 
 
 ,  412 
 
 XXV.  1-3, 
 
 255,  266 
 
 14, 
 
 342 
 
 24-26, 
 
 378 
 
 4, 
 
 95 
 
 19, 
 
 365 
 
 xii.  1, 
 
 339 
 
 5,  7,  8, 
 
 285 
 
 26, 
 
 373 
 
 3, 
 
 248 
 
 6-14, 
 
 385 
 
 28,  29, 
 
 335 
 
 4, 
 
 378 
 
 9, 
 
 382 
 
 30, 
 
 89,  91 
 
 8, 
 
 76 
 
 11-13, 
 
 68 
 
 iii.  4,  14, 
 
 411 
 
 16, 
 
 372 
 
 xxvi.  10, 
 
 352 
 
 27, 
 
 373 
 
 xiii.  1,  2, 
 
 350 
 
 11, 
 
 353 
 
 iv.  10-15, 
 
 376 
 
 16, 
 
 395 
 
 14, 
 
 385 
 
 12, 
 
 76 
 
INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 447 
 
 DEUT. 
 
 PAOE 
 
 DEUT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 DEUT. 
 
 PAGR 
 
 iv.  15, 
 
 73 
 
 XV.  19, 
 
 225 
 
 296 
 
 xxxii.  51, 
 
 345, 
 
 373 
 
 23, 
 
 226 
 
 20, 
 
 296 
 
 xxxiii.  2, 
 
 60, 
 
 431 
 
 41, 
 
 385 
 
 xvi.  1-7, 
 
 377 
 
 xxxiv.  1, 
 
 373, 
 
 410 
 
 V.  2,  5, 
 
 357 
 
 1-16, 
 
 387 
 
 7, 
 
 354 
 
 15, 
 
 234 
 
 2,  7, 
 
 433 
 
 10-12, 
 
 355 
 
 17, 
 
 256,265 
 
 8, 
 
 416 
 
 26, 
 
 76 
 
 xvii.  2,  3,  7, 
 
 225 
 
 JOSHUA. 
 
 vi.  4, 
 
 60 
 
 9, 
 
 284 
 
 i.  11, 
 
 394, 
 
 416 
 
 13, 
 
 242 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 229 
 
 14, 
 
 375 
 
 16, 
 
 82 
 
 xviii.  1,  7, 
 
 356 
 
 ii.  4,  5, 
 
 290 
 
 vii.  1,  7, 
 
 344 
 
 10, 
 
 244 
 
 ,308 
 
 22, 
 
 416 
 
 1-4, 
 
 266 
 
 10-12, 
 
 195 
 
 iii.  1,  2, 
 
 416 
 
 2-4, 
 
 389 
 
 11, 
 
 308 
 
 3-6, 
 
 366 
 
 16, 
 
 92 
 
 21,  22, 
 
 148 
 
 iv.  19, 
 
 394, 
 
 427 
 
 22, 
 
 403 
 
 xix.  15, 
 
 117 
 
 20, 
 
 394 
 
 viii.  2, 
 
 56 
 
 17, 
 
 284 
 
 V.  5,  7, 
 
 260 
 
 3,  15, 
 
 340 
 
 XX.  11,  15, 
 
 258 
 
 9, 
 
 394 
 
 ix.  3, 
 
 403 
 
 16-18, 
 
 258 
 
 266 
 
 10-12, 
 
 427 
 
 9,  18, 
 
 351 
 
 19, 
 
 279 
 
 13,  14, 
 
 225 
 
 21, 
 
 429 
 
 xxi.  2, 
 
 284 
 
 vi.  24,  26, 
 
 406 
 
 X.  3-5, 
 
 407 
 
 11-14, 
 
 263 
 
 vii.  1, 
 
 312 
 
 5, 
 
 390 
 
 15, 
 
 295 
 
 4, 
 
 344 
 
 6, 
 
 363,  372 
 
 17, 
 
 304 
 
 24,  25, 
 
 237 
 
 6-8, 
 
 409 
 
 18-21, 
 
 287 
 
 24-26, 
 
 84,  85 
 
 7, 
 
 372 
 
 xxii.  3, 
 
 204 
 
 viii.  3-9, 
 
 381 
 
 8,9, 
 
 356 
 
 13-21, 
 
 258 
 
 12,  13, 
 
 381 
 
 16, 
 
 166 
 
 xxiii.  3,  4, 
 
 235 
 
 28, 
 
 403 
 
 17, 
 
 81 
 
 7, 
 
 271 
 
 34,  35, 
 
 347 
 
 22, 
 
 344 
 
 19, 
 
 306 
 
 X.  15,21, 
 
 374 
 
 xi.  2,  7, 
 
 357 
 
 20, 
 
 305 
 
 23,  26, 
 
 405 
 
 24, 
 
 374 
 
 xxiv.  1,  2, 
 
 263 
 
 ,292 
 
 28, 
 
 186 
 
 25, 
 
 344 
 
 xxiv.  7, 
 
 303 
 
 36,  37, 
 
 405 
 
 30, 
 
 394 
 
 16, 
 
 84 
 
 238 
 
 38,  39, 
 
 405 
 
 xii.  15,16, 
 
 367 
 
 XXV.  5, 
 
 292 
 
 40, 
 
 324 
 
 17,  18, 
 
 296 
 
 17,  18, 
 
 94 
 
 42, 
 
 403 
 
 19, 
 
 288 
 
 xxvii.  1-26, 
 
 281 
 
 43, 
 
 374 
 
 24, 
 
 220 
 
 14, 15, 
 
 347 
 
 xi.  1,  10, 
 
 405 
 
 27, 
 
 219 
 
 15, 
 
 226 
 
 11, 
 
 186 
 
 xiii.  1-3,  120 
 
 121,126 
 
 xxix.  18, 
 
 325 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 324 
 
 3, 
 
 56 
 
 20, 
 
 78 
 
 16,  17, 
 
 376 
 
 404 
 
 6-11, 
 
 225 
 
 xxx.  1, 
 
 134 
 
 18, 
 
 403 
 
 xiv.  7, 
 
 246 
 
 6, 
 
 166 
 
 19, 
 
 338 
 
 12-18, 
 
 391 
 
 16, 
 
 431 
 
 20, 
 
 89,  90 
 
 19,   - 
 
 246 
 
 xxxi.  2, 
 
 354 
 
 21, 
 
 322, 
 
 405 
 
 21, 
 
 305 
 
 9, 
 
 363 
 
 22, 
 
 322 
 
 22-26, 
 
 224 
 
 16,  17, 
 
 148 
 
 23, 
 
 376 
 
 404 
 
 26, 
 
 251 
 
 25, 
 
 363 
 
 xii.  7, 
 
 375 
 
 ,  404 
 
 27, 
 
 288 
 
 26, 
 
 363 
 
 391 
 
 8, 
 
 376 
 
 ,  404 
 
 28,  29, 
 
 289 
 
 xxxii.  4, 
 
 76,  83,  97 
 
 lf\ 
 
 348 
 
 ,  406 
 
 XV.  3, 
 
 305 
 
 11, 
 
 63 
 
 10-23, 
 
 404 
 
 4,  11, 
 
 356 
 
 13,14, 
 
 340 
 
 12, 
 
 348 
 
 ,  403 
 
 12, 
 
 303,  304 
 
 39, 
 
 60 
 
 ^■i, 
 
 405 
 
448 
 
 INDEX  OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 JOSH.  PAGE 
 
 xii.  16,  348,  403 
 21,23,     348,405 
 
 xiii.  1,  404 
 
 1-6,  376 
 
 9-12,  374 
 
 25,  365 
 
 30,  385 
 
 xiv.  1-15,  5,  412 
 
 6,  323 
 
 12,  13,  405 
 
 15,  395 
 XV.  1-63,  412 
 
 8,  375 
 
 13,  150,  395 
 13-19,  322 
 
 14,  321 
 15-17,  405 
 21-32,  387 
 26-32,  369 
 33,  368 
 
 42,  369 
 63,    348,  404,  406 
 
 xvi.  1-10,  412 
 
 2,  395 
 
 10,  348 
 xvii.  1-18,  412 
 
 11,  348 
 
 12,  348, 404 
 14,  404 
 15-18,  369 
 
 xviii.  1,  377 
 
 1-28,  412 
 
 6,  412 
 28,  375 
 
 xix.  1,  369 
 
 1-6,  388 
 
 1-51,  412 
 
 2-6,  373 
 
 2-7,  369 
 
 9,  369 
 
 40,  41,  40-48,  368 
 47,         368,  406,  410 
 
 XX.  7,  8,  385 
 
 xxi.  2,  3,  395 
 
 23,  24,  368 
 
 41,  395 
 
 43,  376 
 xxii.  2,  344 
 
 7,  375 
 11-34,  344 
 
 xxiii,  5,  404 
 
 16,  148 
 
 JOSH. 
 
 xxiv. 
 14, 
 23, 
 26, 
 31, 
 32, 
 33, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 377 
 344,  394 
 344 
 377 
 420 
 357 
 420 
 
 JUDGES, 
 i.  1,  1-36, 
 1-19, 
 8, 
 
 9-11, 
 10, 
 11-13, 
 
 403 
 150 
 406 
 405 
 321 
 405 
 
 11-15,  322 
 
 16,  355,  406 
 
 17,  405 
 
 19,  55 
 
 20,  321 
 
 21,  406 
 
 22,  404 
 22-25,     348,  403 
 
 26,  395 
 
 27,  405 
 
 28,  324 
 
 29,  403,  404 
 
 30,  33,  324 
 
 34,  344 
 
 35,  324 
 ii.  1-3,  266 
 
 1-6,  403 
 
 7,  344 
 
 8,  9,  403 
 
 22,  324 
 
 23,  376 
 iii.  1-7,  266 
 
 2,  4,  324 
 
 9,  150 
 
 13,  406 
 
 20,  21,  26,  255 
 iv.  4,        308,  .309 
 
 5,  308 
 11,       354,  355 
 
 14,  308 
 
 21,  255 
 
 24,  405 
 V.  31,  204 
 vi.  33,  406 
 vii.  1-25,  323 
 viii.  1-35,  323 
 
 10-12.  406 
 
 I  JUDG. 
 
 1  ix.  1-57, 
 I      8, 
 
 13, 
 
 32,  33, 
 X.  1-18, 
 
 3. 
 
 4, 
 xi.  1-40, 
 
 17,  18, 
 
 26, 
 
 30-40, 
 
 37-40, 
 xii.  1-6, 
 xiii.  22, 
 XV.  14,  15, 
 xvii.  9, 
 xviii.  1,  2,  8, 
 
 27,  28, 
 
 29, 
 
 30, 
 xix.  29, 
 XX.  15,  46,47. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 323 
 340 
 251 
 426 
 323 
 411 
 
 38.5,411 
 323 
 335 
 420 
 
 237,  238 
 240 
 370 
 73 
 142 
 336 
 368 
 406 
 410 
 338 
 257 
 387 
 
 i.  1,  21, 
 
 RUTH. 
 
 335 
 
 1  SAMUEL. 
 
 i.  1, 
 
 335 
 
 9, 
 
 396 
 
 11, 
 
 239 
 
 21,22, 
 
 428 
 
 ii.  10, 
 
 207 
 
 22, 
 
 239 
 
 23,  24, 
 
 335 
 
 30,  31, 
 
 63,  67 
 
 iii.  3, 
 
 396 
 
 13, 
 
 335 
 
 21, 
 
 377 
 
 iv.3. 
 
 377 
 
 vi.6, 
 
 89 
 
 19, 
 
 14,  92 
 
 vii.  13, 
 
 344 
 
 15, 
 
 425 
 
 viii.  2, 
 
 352 
 
 5, 
 
 229,  425 
 
 7, 
 
 229 
 
 19, 
 
 359 
 
 ix.  1, 
 
 351 
 
 3, 
 
 204 
 
 16, 
 
 344 
 
 17, 
 
 359 
 
 20, 
 
 204 
 
INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 449 
 
 ISAM, 
 
 PAOB 
 
 1  SAM. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2  SAM. 
 
 PAO« 
 
 X.  1, 
 
 412 
 
 xviii.  25,  27, 
 
 382 
 
 X.  18, 
 
 382 
 
 1-9, 
 
 379 
 
 xix.  24, 
 
 358,  412 
 
 xi.  5-7, 
 
 370 
 
 5, 
 
 344 
 
 XX.  1, 
 
 114 
 
 17, 
 
 347 
 
 8, 
 
 425 
 
 42, 
 
 244 
 
 xii.  9, 
 
 347 
 
 12, 
 
 412 
 
 xxi.  1, 
 
 320 
 
 23, 
 
 193 
 
 20,  21,  24, 
 
 359 
 
 9, 
 
 370 
 
 24, 
 
 295 
 
 24,  25, 
 
 395 
 
 12-15, 
 
 332 
 
 31, 
 
 264 
 
 xi.2. 
 
 264 
 
 xxii.  3,  4, 
 
 364 
 
 xiii.  5, 
 
 359 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 412,  425 
 
 xxiii.  19, 
 
 26 
 
 8, 
 
 433 
 
 xii.l. 
 
 425 
 
 xxiv.  6, 
 
 26 
 
 xiv.  27, 
 
 380 
 
 3, 
 
 412 
 
 XXV.  25, 
 
 315 
 
 33, 
 
 225 
 
 11, 
 
 323 
 
 xxvi.  1,  9, 
 
 26 
 
 XV.  7, 
 
 393 
 
 17, 
 
 229 
 
 19, 
 
 80 
 
 xvii.  25, 
 
 316 
 
 ,320 
 
 xiii.  1,  2, 
 
 402 
 
 xxvii.  3-6, 
 
 332 
 
 xviii.  5, 
 
 270 
 
 5, 
 
 344 
 
 xxviii.  6, 
 
 359 
 
 6, 
 
 369 
 
 8-11, 
 
 425 
 
 15,  17,  19, 
 
 193 
 
 8, 
 
 207 
 
 12,  13, 
 
 345 
 
 18, 
 
 345 
 
 15, 
 
 331 
 
 14, 
 
 222 
 
 19, 
 
 -199 
 
 18, 
 
 380 
 
 17, 
 
 344 
 
 xxix.  4, 
 
 333 
 
 XX.  23-26, 
 
 332 
 
 xiv.  3, 
 
 320 
 
 6-9, 
 
 332 
 
 xxi.  1, 
 
 241 
 
 18,  37, 
 
 360 
 
 XXX.  1, 
 
 403 
 
 2, 
 
 338 
 
 49, 
 
 352 
 
 12,  13, 
 
 413 
 
 8, 
 
 238 
 
 ,385 
 
 50,  51, 
 
 351 
 
 17, 
 
 403 
 
 9,14, 
 
 238 
 
 XT.  2,  3, 
 
 92,  93 
 
 xxxi.  2, 
 
 352 
 
 18, 
 
 373 
 
 2-8, 
 
 394 
 
 3-5, 
 
 359 
 
 19, 
 
 336 
 
 6, 
 
 355 
 
 6, 
 
 360 
 
 xxiii.  8, 
 
 383 
 
 7,8, 
 
 403 
 
 8-39, 
 
 334 
 
 10,  11, 
 
 63 
 
 2  SAMUEL. 
 
 11, 
 
 428 
 
 18, 
 
 94 
 
 i.  6-10, 
 
 359 
 
 27, 
 
 312 
 
 22, 
 
 236 
 
 ii.4. 
 
 411 
 
 xxiv.  1, 
 
 79,333 
 
 ,334 
 
 29, 
 
 63,  98 
 
 8, 
 
 360 
 
 9, 
 
 389 
 
 35, 
 
 358 
 
 10,11, 
 
 400 
 
 10, 
 
 222 
 
 xvi.  2, 
 
 99 
 
 iii.  2-5, 
 
 295 
 
 13, 
 
 393 
 
 6-11, 
 
 385 
 
 3, 
 
 333 
 
 14, 
 
 96 
 
 13, 
 
 411 
 
 14, 
 
 382 
 
 24, 
 
 390 
 
 14, 
 
 142 
 
 V.  3, 
 
 411 
 
 14-23, 
 
 360 
 
 5, 
 
 400 
 
 1  KINGS. 
 
 18, 
 
 362 
 
 6,  9, 
 
 370 
 
 i.39. 
 
 412 
 
 21, 
 
 331,  361 
 
 14-16, 
 
 332 
 
 ii.  5-9, 
 
 256 
 
 21-23, 
 
 360 
 
 21, 
 
 430 
 
 11, 
 
 393 
 
 XTii.  12-31, 
 
 360 
 
 vi.  10, 
 
 339 
 
 19, 
 
 225 
 
 15, 
 
 331 
 
 23, 
 
 385 
 
 27, 
 
 68 
 
 25,  34-36, 
 
 362 
 
 viii.  1, 
 
 369 
 
 iii.  2,  3, 
 
 323 
 
 39, 
 
 80,  362 
 
 2, 
 
 264 
 
 7, 
 
 270 
 
 42, 
 
 362 
 
 3, 
 
 25,  374 
 
 iv.  26, 
 
 383 
 
 54, 
 
 370 
 
 4,  13, 
 
 382 
 
 31, 
 
 351 
 
 55-58, 
 
 360 
 
 16-18, 
 
 332 
 
 V.  11, 
 
 385 
 
 56, 
 
 362 
 
 17, 
 
 320,  332 
 
 13,  15, 
 
 362 
 
 xviii.  1-5, 
 
 360 
 
 18, 
 
 333 
 
 16, 
 
 382 
 
 383 
 
 2, 
 
 331 
 
 ix.  6, 
 
 225 
 
 vi.  1, 
 
 426, 
 
 427 
 
 9,10, 
 
 360 
 
 X.  5, 
 
 406 
 
 2, 
 
 382 
 
 383 
 
 10,  11, 
 
 142 
 
 6, 
 
 320 
 
 14, 
 
 396 
 
 38* 
 
450 
 
 INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 1  KINGS. 
 
 PAOK 
 
 1  KINGS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2  KINGS. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 vi.  17, 
 
 383 
 
 xix.  11,  12, 
 
 58 
 
 xiv.  3,  7, 
 
 271 
 
 37,  38, 
 
 427 
 
 15,  16, 
 
 339 
 
 17, 
 
 399 
 
 vii.  14, 
 
 339 
 
 xxi.  1, 
 
 364 
 
 23, 
 
 399,401 
 
 15,  20, 
 
 383 
 
 13, 
 
 356 
 
 29, 
 
 191 
 
 16,  26, 
 
 382 
 
 19, 
 
 364 
 
 XV.  1, 
 
 399,  401 
 
 24, 
 
 431 
 
 xxii.  15, 
 
 276 
 
 2, 
 
 399 
 
 42, 
 
 383 
 
 19-23, 
 
 98 
 
 8, 
 
 401 
 
 48, 
 
 384 
 
 37,  38, 
 
 354 
 
 27, 
 
 399, 402 
 
 viii.  9, 
 
 390 
 
 41, 
 
 396 
 
 30, 
 
 399,401 
 
 12, 
 
 101 
 
 49, 
 
 346 
 
 32, 
 
 399,  402 
 
 22,  23, 
 
 231 
 
 51, 
 
 396 
 
 ,398 
 
 33, 
 
 401,  402 
 
 46, 
 
 159 
 
 xvi.  2, 
 
 399 
 
 65,  66, 
 
 223 
 
 2  KINGS. 
 
 5,  7,  9, 
 
 319 
 
 ix.  22, 
 
 362 
 
 i.  10, 
 
 355 
 
 10-16,  15, 
 
 319 
 
 23, 
 
 382 
 
 17, 
 
 400 
 
 20, 
 
 364 
 
 26-28, 
 
 378 
 
 ii.  11, 
 
 216 
 
 xvii.  1, 
 
 399,  402 
 
 28, 
 
 383,  395 
 
 12, 
 
 257 
 
 8, 
 
 77 
 
 X.  1, 
 
 80 
 
 14, 
 
 355 
 
 34,  41, 
 
 242 
 
 19,  20, 
 
 226 
 
 23,  24, 
 
 270 
 
 xviii.  2, 
 
 399 
 
 22, 
 
 378 
 
 iii.  1, 
 
 398 
 
 14-16, 
 
 340 
 
 xi.  1-3, 
 
 295 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 279 
 
 25, 
 
 205 
 
 3, 
 
 390 
 
 iv.  33, 
 
 231 
 
 xix.  35, 
 
 363 
 
 14, 
 
 333 
 
 34, 
 
 355 
 
 XX.  1,  4,  5,  6, 
 
 63,  64 
 
 32,  36, 
 
 387 
 
 vi.  19, 
 
 276 
 
 xxi.  17, 
 
 351 
 
 xii.  4, 
 
 362 
 
 23,  24, 
 
 344 
 
 xxii.  3, 
 
 401 
 
 21, 
 
 387 
 
 viii.  7-15, 
 
 339 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 309 
 
 25, 
 
 375 
 
 16, 
 
 401 
 
 xxiii.  4, 
 
 401 
 
 xiv.  12-17, 
 
 375 
 
 17, 
 
 319 
 
 5-12, 
 
 348 
 
 XV.  2, 
 
 317,  323 
 
 18, 
 
 320 
 
 30, 
 
 349,  376 
 
 3, 
 
 222,  317 
 
 25, 
 
 398 
 
 34, 
 
 335,  349 
 
 5, 
 
 222 
 
 26,    319 
 
 ,320 
 
 ,398 
 
 xxiv.  6, 
 
 346, 374 
 
 8, 
 
 323 
 
 27, 
 
 355 
 
 7, 
 
 344 
 
 10, 
 
 396,  398 
 
 29, 
 
 359 
 
 8,  12, 
 
 400 
 
 10,  13,  14, 
 
 323 
 
 ix.  1-10, 
 
 339 
 
 13, 
 
 412 
 
 16, 
 
 398 
 
 25, 
 
 * 
 
 364 
 
 14,  16, 
 
 384 
 
 20, 
 
 373 
 
 26, 
 
 356 
 
 ,364 
 
 17, 
 
 349,  352 
 
 32,  33, 
 
 398 
 
 27, 
 
 364 
 
 ,365 
 
 XXV.  1,  6, 
 
 377 
 
 xvi.  8,  10, 
 
 399 
 
 28, 
 
 365 
 
 7, 
 
 363 
 
 15, 
 
 402 
 
 29, 
 
 398 
 
 8, 
 
 393 
 
 20, 
 
 364 
 
 X.  13,  14, 
 
 319 
 
 13-17, 
 
 412 
 
 21,  22,  23, 
 
 402 
 
 36, 
 
 400 
 
 17, 
 
 382 
 
 29, 
 
 396 
 
 xi.  3-5, 
 
 370 
 
 19, 
 
 383 
 
 xvii.  1, 
 
 415 
 
 4-19, 
 
 350 
 
 ,  351 
 
 27, 
 
 400 
 
 7, 
 
 435 
 
 5-7, 
 
 370 
 
 22, 
 
 201,  355 
 
 xii.  I, 
 
 398 
 
 ,400 
 
 1  CHRONICLES. 
 
 xviii.  1, 
 
 415 
 
 13-14, 
 
 434 
 
 i.  34, 
 
 416 
 
 5, 
 
 435 
 
 xiii.  1, 
 
 400 
 
 36, 
 
 352 
 
 26-29, 
 
 232 
 
 10, 
 
 398,  400 
 
 41, 
 
 312 
 
 27, 
 
 276 
 
 21, 
 
 201 
 
 51, 
 
 352 
 
 32-35, 
 
 435 
 
 23, 
 
 81 
 
 ii.  1,  3-9, 
 
 416 
 
 40, 
 
 265 
 
 xiv.  1, 
 
 398 
 
 6, 
 
 312,351 
 
 xix.  3,  8, 
 
 379 
 
 2, 
 
 399 
 
 10, 
 
 336 
 
INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 451 
 
 1  CHRON. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1  CHRON. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 2  CHRON. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 ii.  13, 
 
 316 
 
 XX.  4, 
 
 373 
 
 xxii.  1,              319 
 
 ,  346 
 
 13-15, 
 
 385 
 
 5, 
 
 336 
 
 2, 
 
 398 
 
 16, 
 
 316 
 
 xxi.  1, 
 
 333 
 
 6, 
 
 359 
 
 17, 
 
 320 
 
 5, 
 
 389,  390 
 
 8, 
 
 319 
 
 18, 
 
 323 
 
 11,  12 
 
 393 
 
 9, 
 
 364 
 
 19, 
 
 324 
 
 25, 
 
 390 
 
 xxiii.  1-20, 
 
 350 
 
 22,  23, 
 
 385,  411 
 
 xxiii.  3, 
 
 422 
 
 4,  5, 
 
 370 
 
 50, 
 
 323 
 
 7, 
 
 338 
 
 xxiv.  14, 
 
 434 
 
 53, 
 
 368 
 
 8, 
 
 351 
 
 xxvi.  10, 
 
 352 
 
 iii.  1, 
 
 333 
 
 24, 
 
 422 
 
 xxviii,  1, 
 
 399 
 
 5-8, 
 
 332 
 
 xxiv.  3-6, 
 
 68 
 
 5,  16,  20, 
 
 319 
 
 15, 
 
 349,  352 
 
 XXV.  3, 
 
 385 
 
 21,  24, 
 
 319 
 
 16,  19, 
 
 352 
 
 xxvi.  21,  22, 
 
 351 
 
 27, 
 
 304 
 
 22, 
 
 385 
 
 30, 
 
 375 
 
 XXX.  2,  3, 
 
 340 
 
 iv.  28-31, 
 
 373 
 
 xxviii.  3, 
 
 222,  331 
 
 9, 
 
 97 
 
 V.  I,  2, 
 
 305 
 
 9, 
 
 71 
 
 17-20,  26, 
 
 340 
 
 vi.  16-27, 
 
 336 
 
 xxix.  15, 
 
 177 
 
 xxxi.  17, 
 
 422 
 
 20, 
 
 338,  351 
 
 22, 
 
 412 
 
 xxxii.  23,  27-29, 
 
 340 
 
 22, 
 
 351 
 
 xxxiii.  5,  6, 
 
 308 
 
 22-28, 
 
 353 
 
 2  CHRONICLES. 
 
 11-17, 
 
 351 
 
 28, 
 
 352 
 
 ii.  6, 
 
 102 
 
 15, 
 
 348 
 
 31, 
 
 353 
 
 10, 
 
 385 
 
 xxxiv.  3, 
 
 348 
 
 33, 
 
 353 
 
 14, 
 
 339 
 
 3-7, 
 
 401 
 
 69, 
 
 368 
 
 18, 
 
 382 
 
 XXXV.  13, 
 
 433 
 
 vii.  6, 
 
 384 
 
 iii.  1, 
 
 396 
 
 18, 
 
 340 
 
 15,  16, 
 
 351 
 
 4, 
 
 382 
 
 24, 
 
 376 
 
 viii.  33, 
 
 351,352 
 
 15, 
 
 383 
 
 xxxvi.  4, 
 
 335 
 
 38, 
 
 32 
 
 iv.  3, 
 
 431 
 
 6, 
 
 374 
 
 ix.  1-34, 
 
 337 
 
 5, 
 
 382 
 
 9, 
 
 400 
 
 39, 
 
 351 
 
 13, 
 
 383 
 
 10, 
 
 352 
 
 X.  6, 
 
 360 
 
 19, 
 
 384 
 
 13, 
 
 89 
 
 13, 
 
 345 
 
 vii.  10, 
 
 223 
 
 14, 
 
 359 
 
 12,  16, 
 
 102 
 
 EZRA. 
 
 xi.  10, 
 
 334 
 
 19,  20, 
 
 102 
 
 i.  9,  10,  11, 
 
 383 
 
 11, 
 
 383 
 
 viii.  10, 
 
 382 
 
 ii.  1-39, 
 
 409 
 
 11-47, 
 
 334 
 
 18, 
 
 383 
 
 2-60, 
 
 352 
 
 13, 
 
 428 
 
 ix.  1, 
 
 308 
 
 3-35, 
 
 385 
 
 26, 
 
 334 
 
 21, 
 
 378 
 
 5, 
 
 380 
 
 29, 
 
 312 
 
 25, 
 
 383 
 
 6-65, 
 
 381 
 
 xiii.  3, 
 
 360 
 
 xiii.  2,  4-12, 
 
 317 
 
 36-39, 
 
 390 
 
 xiv.  3-7, 
 
 332 
 
 xiv.  1, 
 
 398 
 
 69, 
 
 381 
 
 12, 
 
 430 
 
 3,5, 
 
 323 
 
 iii.  2, 
 
 352 
 
 XV.  17,  18,21 
 
 339 
 
 XV.  16, 
 
 323 
 
 4, 
 
 417 
 
 XV i.  34, 
 
 92 
 
 19, 
 
 398,  399 
 
 V.  1,  • 
 
 352 
 
 xvii.  4-6,  12, 
 
 331 
 
 xvi.  1, 
 
 399 
 
 vi.  14, 
 
 352 
 
 xviii.  1, 
 
 369 
 
 4, 
 
 373 
 
 ix.  1,2, 
 
 389 
 
 3^ 
 
 25 
 
 7-12, 
 
 323 
 
 x.3-17. 
 
 412 
 
 4,  12, 
 
 382 
 
 xix.  7, 
 
 81 
 
 16, 
 
 320 
 
 XX.  35,  36, 
 
 346 
 
 NEHEMIAH 
 
 xix.  6,  7, 
 
 320 
 
 36,  37, 
 
 378 
 
 vii.7-42, 
 
 409 
 
 18, 
 
 382 
 
 xxi.  16,  17, 
 
 346 
 
 7-62, 
 
 352 
 
 XX.  3, 
 
 264 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 398 
 
 10, 
 
 880 
 
452 
 
 INDEX  OP  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 
 
 NEH. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 1 
 
 vii.  11-67, 
 
 381 
 
 PAGE    I 
 
 32, 
 
 403 
 
 i.  3, 
 
 173 
 
 70-72, 
 
 381 
 
 ii.  8, 
 
 302 
 
 viii.  17, 
 
 417 
 
 9, 
 
 116 
 
 207 
 
 ix.  17, 
 
 82 
 
 11, 
 
 241 
 
 X.  1-28, 
 
 409 
 
 V.4, 
 
 76 
 
 9-13, 
 
 387 
 
 6, 
 
 205 
 
 14-27,  32, 
 
 385 
 
 vi.  5, 
 
 193 
 
 xi.  3-36, 
 
 337 
 
 vii.  8, 
 
 228 
 
 xii.  1, 
 
 352 
 
 11, 
 
 82 
 
 1-7, 
 
 390 
 
 ix.  11, 
 
 103 
 
 8,  9, 
 
 387 
 
 17, 
 
 214 
 
 xiii.  23-30, 
 
 412 
 
 X.1, 
 
 xi.  6, 
 
 70 
 209 
 
 JOB. 
 
 xiv.  2,  3, 
 
 159 
 
 i.  1, 
 
 159 
 
 xvii.  14, 
 
 180 
 
 6,7, 
 
 362 
 
 xviii.  11, 
 
 101 
 
 19, 
 
 347 
 
 xix.  1, 
 
 72 
 
 ii.  7, 
 
 172 
 
 xxiv.  2, 
 
 429 
 
 10, 
 
 279 
 
 3,4, 
 
 159  i 
 
 iii.  10, 
 
 347 
 
 xxvi.  7, 
 
 73 
 
 13, 
 
 191 
 
 XXX.  5, 
 
 95  1 
 
 18, 
 
 197 
 
 xxxii.  1, 
 
 221  ] 
 
 vii.  9, 
 
 200 
 
 xxxiv.  Title, 
 
 318 
 
 332 
 
 viii.  4, 
 
 347 
 
 10, 
 
 173 
 
 ix.  10 
 
 73 
 
 21, 
 
 180 
 
 22, 
 
 88 
 
 XXXV.  6,  8, 
 
 271 
 
 X.21, 
 
 197 
 
 xxxvii.  3, 
 
 173 
 
 xi.7. 
 
 72 
 
 9, 
 
 205 
 
 12, 
 
 161 
 
 20, 
 
 204 
 
 xii.  6, 
 
 180 
 
 21, 
 
 300 
 
 xiii.  23, 
 
 114 
 
 25, 
 
 177 
 
 xiv.  4, 
 
 161 
 
 34, 
 
 205 
 
 12, 
 
 200 
 
 36, 
 
 206 
 
 21,  22, 
 
 188,  190 
 
 37, 
 
 208 
 
 XV.  14, 
 
 161 
 
 38, 
 
 205 
 
 ,208 
 
 xvi.  9,  12-14, 
 
 207 
 
 xl.  5, 
 
 73 
 
 xix.  10, 
 
 205 
 
 6, 
 
 1.52 
 
 17, 
 
 347 
 
 xii.  1, 
 
 296 
 
 xxi.  7,  8, 
 
 180 
 
 xiii.  9, 
 
 16 
 
 9,  14, 
 
 181 
 
 xliv.  Title, 
 
 3.53 
 
 xxii.  23,  24, 
 
 174 
 
 1-3, 
 
 283 
 
 xxiv.  .5,  6,  12, 
 
 182 
 
 23, 
 
 57 
 
 20,  24, 
 
 181 
 
 xiv.  Title, 
 
 353 
 
 xxvi.  5, 
 
 195 
 
 2, 
 
 115 
 
 7, 
 
 429 
 
 xlvi.  Title, 
 
 353 
 
 xxvii.  13,  14,  22,       182 
 
 1, 
 
 70 
 
 xxxi.  18, 
 
 161 
 
 xlvii.-xlix.  Titles, 
 
 3.53 
 
 xxxvi.  14, 
 
 180 
 
 xlix.  10, 
 
 178 
 
 ,  204 
 
 xxxviii.  1, 
 
 76 
 
 1.6 
 
 201 
 
 xiii.  7-9, 
 
 162 
 
 J3,  14, 
 
 235 
 
 12,          172 
 
 175,208 
 
 21, 
 
 58 
 
 PSALMS. 
 1.  22, 
 Ii.  2, 
 
 5, 
 
 9, 
 
 16, 
 
 17, 
 liii.  5, 
 Iv.  15, 
 
 23, 
 Iviii.  3, 
 lix.  4, 
 Ix.  Title, 
 Ixii.  12, 
 Ixix.  24,  27, 
 
 28, 
 Ixxi.  17, 
 Ixxii.  17, 
 Ixxiii.  7,12, 
 
 11, 
 
 16-18, 
 
 24, 
 
 27, 
 
 28, 
 Ixxiv.  12, 
 Ixxvi.  2, 
 Ixxviii.  55, 
 
 58, 
 
 69, 
 Ixxxi.  12, 
 Ixxxiii.  15, 
 
 17, 
 Ixxxv.  5, 
 Ixxxvi.  2, 
 Ixxxvii.  2,  3, 
 Ixxxviii.  5,6,1 
 xc.  2, 
 xci.  4, 
 xcii.  9, 
 
 15, 
 xciv.  5, 
 
 23, 
 xcvi.  4,  5, 
 xcvii.  2, 
 
 7, 
 C.2, 
 
 cii.  25,  26, 
 ciii.  8,  9, 
 civ.  5, 
 
 15, 
 
 22, 
 
 30, 
 
 35. 
 
 PAoa 
 207 
 166 
 161 
 207 
 235 
 207 
 242 
 271 
 180 
 161 
 114 
 382 
 
 97 
 271 
 207 
 
 73 
 115 
 180 
 
 58 
 181 
 197 
 204 
 70,73 
 251 
 103 
 283 
 
 78 
 215 
 
 77 
 
 209 
 
 209,  271 
 
 95 
 
 159 
 
 228 
 
 1,12,  197 
 
 60 
 
 16,  63 
 
 203 
 
 83 
 207 
 203 
 433 
 101 
 
 60 
 241 
 215 
 
 95 
 215 
 251 
 426 
 417 
 206 
 
INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 453 
 
 PSALMS. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 PROV. 
 
 FAOK 
 
 ECCL. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 cvi.  18, 
 
 352 
 
 xiv.  21, 
 
 296 
 
 viii.  14, 
 
 172 
 
 33, 
 
 345 
 
 32, 
 
 214 
 
 15, 
 
 250 
 
 cix.  6-10, 
 
 271 
 
 XV.  6, 
 
 174 
 
 ix.  5,  6, 
 
 193 
 
 12,  13,  18, 
 
 19,       271 
 
 xvi.  7, 
 
 178 
 
 10, 
 
 188 
 
 cxii.  2,  3, 
 
 174 
 
 xvii.  15, 
 
 306 
 
 xi.  9,   . 
 
 250 
 
 cxv.  17, 
 
 195 
 
 22, 
 
 250 
 
 xii.  7, 
 
 184 
 
 cxix.  110, 
 
 221 
 
 xviii.  6, 
 
 261 
 
 147, 148, 
 
 19 
 
 22, 
 
 291 
 
 CANTICLES 
 
 . 
 
 155, 
 
 214 
 
 xix.  9, 
 
 204 
 
 V.  10,  16, 
 
 127 
 
 156, 
 
 82 
 
 XX.  1, 
 
 251 
 
 vi.  8, 
 
 390 
 
 176, 
 
 221 
 
 9, 
 
 159 
 
 viii.  6,     , 
 
 78 
 
 cxxi.  4, 
 
 57 
 
 xxi.  28, 
 
 204 
 
 cxxiii.  1, 
 
 103 
 
 xxii.  1, 
 
 176 
 
 ISAIAH. 
 
 cxxviii.  3, 
 
 230 
 
 15, 
 
 161 
 
 ,278 
 
 i.  11-13, 
 
 235 
 
 cxxxii.  13, 
 
 228 
 
 24, 
 
 245 
 
 13, 
 
 233 
 
 cxxxvii.  8,  9 
 
 272 
 
 xxiii.  29-32, 
 
 251 
 
 15, 
 
 89 
 
 cxxxviii,  6, 
 
 81 
 
 xxiv.  24, 
 
 306 
 
 16, 
 
 166 
 
 cxxxix.  2-4, 
 
 56 
 
 XXV.  27, 
 
 248 
 
 20, 
 
 207 
 
 7-10, 
 
 58 
 
 xxvi,  4,  5, 
 
 278 
 
 28,                  203 
 
 ,  206 
 
 21, 
 
 306 
 
 xxvii.  2, 
 
 247 
 
 iii.  13, 
 
 103 
 
 22, 
 
 273, 306 
 
 4, 
 
 78 
 
 V.  20,  23, 
 
 306 
 
 cxliii.  2, 
 
 228 
 
 22, 
 
 278 
 
 vi.  1, 
 
 73 
 
 cxlv.  3, 
 
 72 
 
 xxviii.  1, 
 
 242 
 
 10, 
 
 264 
 
 8, 
 
 78 
 
 13, 
 
 221 
 
 vii.  15,  16, 
 
 161 
 
 9, 
 
 78,  92,  97 
 
 14, 
 
 89,90 
 
 viii.  9, 
 
 207 
 
 18, 
 
 70 
 
 XXX.  8,  9, 
 
 175 
 
 ix.  1,2, 
 
 151 
 
 20, 
 
 203,  205 
 
 30, 
 
 354 
 
 6,7, 
 
 118 
 
 cxlvi.  4, 
 
 195 
 
 xxxi.  4,  5, 
 
 253 
 
 17-21, 
 
 399 
 
 cxlvii.  5 
 
 72 
 
 6,  7, 
 
 251 
 
 X.  5, 
 
 xiii.  9, 
 
 98 
 205 
 
 PROVERBS. 
 
 ECCLESIASTES. 
 
 xiv.  9,                 191 
 
 ,195 
 
 i.  22, 
 
 72 
 
 i.4. 
 
 215 
 
 10, 
 
 195 
 
 26, 
 
 96 
 
 9,  LO, 
 
 432 
 
 xxiv.  23, 
 
 433 
 
 28, 
 
 71 
 
 15, 
 
 428 
 
 xxvi.  10, 
 
 181 
 
 29,  30, 
 
 72 
 
 18, 
 
 176 
 
 254 
 
 14,  19, 
 
 200 
 
 iii.  13, 
 
 176,  254 
 
 ii.  2, 
 
 250 
 
 20, 
 
 82 
 
 15, 
 
 254 
 
 13, 
 
 254 
 
 xxvii.  4, 
 
 82 
 
 17, 
 
 176 
 
 15, 
 
 176 
 
 ,254 
 
 xxix.  20, 
 
 206 
 
 iv.  18, 
 
 197 
 
 iii.  1,  4, 
 
 250 
 
 XXX.  10, 
 
 177 
 
 V.  4, 
 
 325 
 
 18-20, 
 
 184 
 
 26, 
 
 433 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 295 
 
 20, 
 
 199 
 
 xxxviii,  18, 
 
 193 
 
 vi.  34, 
 
 78 
 
 vi.  8, 
 
 254 
 
 xxxix.  2,  6, 
 
 340 
 
 viii.  11, 
 
 176 
 
 vii.  1, 
 
 176 
 
 xl.4. 
 
 428 
 
 17, 
 
 71 
 
 3,4, 
 
 250 
 
 5, 
 
 181 
 
 X.15, 
 
 175 
 
 9, 
 
 245 
 
 25, 
 
 159 
 
 27, 
 
 180 
 
 13, 
 
 428 
 
 28,                       56, 72 
 
 xi.31. 
 
 182 
 
 15, 
 
 178 
 
 ,204 
 
 xiii.  1, 
 
 139 
 
 xii.  21, 
 
 172 
 
 16,  17, 
 
 233 
 
 3, 
 
 116 
 
 22, 
 
 290 
 
 20, 
 
 159 
 
 xliii.  13, 
 
 18 
 
 xiii.  21, 
 
 180 
 
 29, 
 
 161 
 
 19, 
 
 432 
 
 22, 
 
 280 
 
 viii.  2, 
 
 292 
 
 xliv.  9,  10,17, 
 
 433 
 
 24, 
 
 97 
 
 12,  13, 
 
 180 
 
 22, 
 
 207 
 
454 
 
 INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 ISA. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 JER. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 EZEK. 
 
 PAOK 
 
 xlv.  5, 
 
 60 
 
 xxiii.  31, 
 
 177 
 
 xxxiii.  13, 
 
 171 
 
 7, 
 
 76 
 
 XXV.  1, 
 
 400 
 
 19, 
 
 88 
 
 15, 
 
 70 
 
 xxix.  11, 
 
 76,77 
 
 XXXV.  12, 
 
 206 
 
 17, 
 
 432 
 
 XXX.  16, 
 
 207 
 
 xxxvi.  5, 
 
 78 
 
 19, 
 
 71 
 
 xxxi.  22, 
 
 432 
 
 25,  26, 
 
 166 
 
 23, 
 
 211 
 
 xxxii.  27, 
 
 55 
 
 xliii.  22, 
 
 114 
 
 xlviii.  16, 
 
 60,  62 
 
 31, 
 
 228 
 
 xliv.  29, 
 
 114 
 
 xlix.  6, 
 
 119 
 
 xxxiii.  16, 
 
 138 
 
 xlv.  22, 
 
 114 
 
 15, 
 
 57 
 
 xxxiv.  3, 
 
 363 
 
 xlvii.  13, 
 
 305 
 
 liii.  2,  3, 
 
 127 
 
 xxxvi.  9, 
 
 393 
 
 xlviii.  4,  5, 
 
 305 
 
 9, 
 
 114 
 
 30, 
 
 346 
 
 ,374 
 
 lv.6, 
 
 71 
 
 XXX vii.  5, 
 
 344 
 
 DANIEL. 
 
 7, 
 
 196 
 
 xl.  10, 
 
 252 
 
 i.  1,            393,  400 
 
 ,  402 
 
 Ivi.  2, 
 
 233 
 
 xlvi.  2, 
 
 400 
 
 2 
 
 412 
 
 Ivii.  1, 
 
 88,  204 
 
 li.  8, 
 
 205 
 
 b,  18, 
 
 402 
 
 2, 
 
 88 
 
 lii.  12, 
 
 393 
 
 ,402 
 
 21, 
 
 414 
 
 15, 
 
 102 
 
 23,  25, 
 
 383 
 
 ii.  1, 
 
 402 
 
 21, 
 
 214 
 
 28, 
 
 400 
 
 48, 
 
 331 
 
 Iviii.  6, 
 
 302 
 
 28-30, 
 
 385 
 
 iii.  12, 
 
 331 
 
 Ixi.  1,  2, 
 
 150,151 
 
 29, 
 
 402 
 
 16,  18, 
 
 292 
 
 Ixiii.  17, 
 
 90 
 
 31, 
 
 400 
 
 vi.  10,  n. 
 
 231 
 
 Ixv.  1, 
 
 71 
 
 13, 
 
 392 
 
 17, 
 
 432 
 
 LAMENTATIONS. 
 
 vii.  9,                    73,  74 
 
 20, 
 
 180 
 
 iii.  22, 
 
 92 
 
 13, 
 
 131 
 
 Ixvi.  1, 
 
 58,  102 
 
 38, 
 
 76 
 
 14,                  131 
 
 ,137 
 
 44, 
 
 70 
 
 23, 
 
 207 
 
 JEREMIAH. 
 
 V.21, 
 
 166 
 
 ix.  26, 
 
 205 
 
 i.  5, 
 
 270 
 
 X.  1, 
 
 414 
 
 ii.  10,  11, 
 
 343 
 
 EZEKIEL. 
 
 xii.  2,         199,200 
 
 ,209 
 
 22, 
 
 227 
 
 V.  7, 
 
 343 
 
 iv.8, 
 
 82 
 
 xi.  12, 
 
 343 
 
 HOSEA. 
 
 14, 
 
 166,  227 
 
 xii.  13, 
 
 363 
 
 i.  2, 
 
 255 
 
 vi.  20, 
 
 235 
 
 xiii.  10-16, 
 
 177 
 
 iv.  2, 
 
 242 
 
 vii.  9, 
 
 95 
 
 13,  14,      • 
 
 206 
 
 6, 
 
 205 
 
 22,  23, 
 
 235 
 
 xiv.  9, 
 
 99 
 
 11, 
 
 251 
 
 ix.  4, 
 
 262 
 
 xvi.  47, 
 
 343 
 
 vi.  6, 
 
 235 
 
 xii.  1, 
 
 180 
 
 xviii.  2, 
 
 85,  88 
 
 viii.  7, 
 
 209 
 
 xiii.  I4, 
 
 93,  95 
 
 4, 
 
 84 
 
 xiii.  9, 
 
 205 
 
 15-17, 
 
 95 
 
 5, 
 
 178 
 
 228 
 
 XV.  6, 
 
 ■     64 
 
 9,             88, 
 
 178, 
 
 228 
 
 JOEL. 
 
 xvii.  5, 
 
 262,  287 
 
 19, 
 
 88 
 
 iii.  8, 
 
 302 
 
 10, 
 
 56 
 
 20, 
 
 84, 
 
 203 
 
 12, 
 
 103 
 
 xviii.  7-10, 
 
 64,148 
 
 24, 
 
 169 
 
 170 
 
 11, 
 
 76 
 
 25, 
 
 83 
 
 AMOS. 
 
 XX.  7, 
 
 99 
 
 31, 
 
 1G6 
 
 i.  13, 
 
 264 
 
 xxii.  11, 
 
 349 
 
 32, 
 
 96, 
 
 225 
 
 iii.  6, 
 
 77 
 
 19, 
 
 374 
 
 XX.  3, 
 
 70 
 
 vi.  1, 
 
 394 
 
 30, 
 
 346 
 
 24-26, 
 
 104 
 
 viii.  14, 
 
 200 
 
 xxiii.  6, 
 
 138 
 
 25, 
 
 77 
 
 ix.  2,  3, 
 
 58 
 
 19, 
 
 209 
 
 xxi.  3,4, 
 
 88 
 
 23, 
 
 58 
 
 xxii.  28, 
 
 177 
 
 JONAH. 
 
 24, 
 
 58,  103 
 
 xxiv.  14, 
 
 63 
 
 i.  3, 
 
 58 
 
INDEX   OP   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 455 
 
 JONAH, 
 
 PA  OB 
 
 HABAKKUK. 
 
 MALACHI. 
 
 iii.  4,  5, 
 
 148 
 
 PACK 
 
 PAGE 
 
 10,                    64,  148 
 
 ii.  4, 
 
 228 
 
 i.  2,  3, 
 
 97 
 
 iii.  3, 
 
 60 
 
 14, 
 
 99 
 
 MICAH. 
 
 4, 
 
 63 
 
 ii.  14,  15, 
 
 295 
 
 iii.  4, 
 
 89 
 
 7, 
 
 339 
 
 15, 
 
 263 
 
 vi.  16, 
 
 77 
 
 16, 
 
 263 
 
 vii.  2, 
 
 204 
 
 ZFCHARIAH. 
 
 iii.  1, 
 
 151 
 
 5, 
 
 262 
 
 i.  3, 
 
 166 
 
 6, 
 
 63 
 
 ix.  9, 
 
 131 
 
 15, 
 
 82 
 
 NAHUM. 
 
 xi.  12,  13, 
 
 153 
 
 iv.  1, 
 
 214 
 
 i.  2,                         78,  82 
 
 xii.  11, 
 
 376 
 
 1-3, 
 
 205 
 
 MATTHEW 
 
 MATT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 MATT. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 PAGE 
 
 vi.  7,  8, 
 
 232 
 
 xii.  41,42, 
 
 210,214 
 
 i.  2-16, 
 
 388 
 
 13, 
 
 79,  253 
 
 49,  50, 
 
 203 
 
 11, 
 
 389 
 
 19, 
 
 174,  280 
 
 XV.  5,  6, 
 
 191 
 
 12,                   346 
 
 ,389 
 
 21, 
 
 174 
 
 22, 
 
 239 
 
 16, 
 
 325 
 
 25, 
 
 19,  280 
 
 24, 
 
 119 
 
 17, 
 
 388 
 
 34, 
 
 280 
 
 xvi.  4, 
 
 155 
 
 20, 
 
 406 
 
 vii.  1,2, 
 
 284 
 
 13, 
 
 108 
 
 ii.  1-23, 
 
 413 
 
 1-29, 
 
 331 
 
 27, 
 
 182 
 
 11, 
 
 414 
 
 8, 
 
 71 
 
 28, 
 
 155 
 
 iii.  5, 
 
 428 
 
 21, 
 
 231 
 
 xvii.  12,  13, 
 
 347 
 
 12, 
 
 211 
 
 viii.  5, 
 
 346 
 
 xviii.  3,  4, 
 
 161,  162 
 
 14, 
 
 409 
 
 12, 
 
 210,213 
 
 15, 
 
 293 
 
 •    ^l' 
 
 153 
 
 21,  22, 
 
 287 
 
 20, 
 
 114 
 
 IV.  7, 
 
 83 
 
 26, 
 
 1.53 
 
 xix.  1, 
 
 119,327 
 
 8, 
 
 407 
 
 28, 
 
 369,  387 
 
 5, 
 
 291 
 
 10, 
 
 293 
 
 ix.  2, 
 
 153 
 
 7, 
 
 263 
 
 12, 
 
 407 
 
 30, 
 
 327 
 
 8, 
 
 263,  295 
 
 14-16, 
 
 151 
 
 X.  1-42, 
 
 407 
 
 18, 
 
 285 
 
 17,18-22, 
 
 407 
 
 2-4, 
 
 322 
 
 21, 
 
 253 
 
 V.  1,  2, 
 
 368 
 
 5,  6, 
 
 119 
 
 26, 
 
 55 
 
 1-48, 
 
 331 
 
 9,10, 
 
 154 
 
 28, 
 
 202 
 
 3, 
 
 174 
 
 15,- 
 
 210 
 
 XX.  9-12, 
 
 210 
 
 4, 
 
 251 
 
 23, 
 
 135 
 
 16, 
 
 172 
 
 5, 
 
 177 
 
 28, 
 
 186 
 
 17, 
 
 327 
 
 14, 
 
 129 
 
 34-36, 
 
 118 
 
 20y. 
 
 347 
 
 16, 
 
 279 
 
 37, 
 
 97 
 
 23, 
 
 110 
 
 17, 
 
 120 
 
 xi.  3-5, 
 
 120,  121 
 
 29, 
 
 327 
 
 22, 
 
 277 
 
 14, 
 
 348 
 
 30, 
 
 386 
 
 25,  26, 
 
 211 
 
 22, 
 
 210 
 
 xxi.  1, 
 
 327 
 
 32, 
 
 263 
 
 28, 
 
 116,  179 
 
 1-11, 
 
 132 
 
 33-37, 
 
 243 
 
 30, 
 
 179 
 
 2,  3, 
 
 155 
 
 39, 
 
 298 
 
 xii.  1-5, 
 
 234 
 
 :■>.  7, 
 
 384 
 
 44,                  271 
 
 276 
 
 32,           139 
 
 211,241 
 
 19, 
 
 155 
 
 48, 
 
 169 
 
 40, 
 
 413 
 
 31, 
 
 217 
 
 vi.  1, 
 
 279 
 
 41,  42, 
 
 202 
 
 38, 
 
 358 
 
 1-34, 
 
 331 
 
 xiii.  12, 
 
 83 
 
 41, 
 
 363 
 
 5,6, 
 
 231 
 
 34, 
 
 331 
 
 xxii.  12, 
 
 209 
 
456 
 
 INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 
 
 MATT. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 MARK.       1 
 
 MARK. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 xxii.  13, 
 
 210 
 
 PAGE 
 
 XV.  23, 
 
 325 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 156 
 
 i.  2, 
 
 151 
 
 25, 
 
 412 
 
 30, 
 
 155 
 
 11, 
 
 153 
 
 26, 
 
 154 
 
 31, 
 
 156 
 
 14, 
 
 407 
 
 xvi.  1, 
 
 391,412 
 
 32, 
 
 156 
 
 15, 
 
 165 
 
 1-14, 
 
 327 
 
 xxiii.  2,  3,  8, 
 
 293 
 
 16-20, 
 
 407 
 
 2, 
 
 426 
 
 9, 
 
 257,  287 
 
 21,  29, 
 
 377 
 
 5, 
 
 386 
 
 10, 
 
 257 
 
 ii.  5, 
 
 153 
 
 16-22, 
 
 243 
 
 26, 
 
 320 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 17, 
 
 277 
 
 iii.  5, 
 
 275 
 
 i.  5, 
 
 336 
 
 33, 
 
 116 
 
 16-19, 
 
 322 
 
 26-37, 
 
 406 
 
 xxiv.  3, 
 
 146 
 
 29, 
 
 211,241 
 
 27, 
 
 336 
 
 14, 
 
 135 
 
 iv.  12, 
 
 38 
 
 33, 
 
 137 
 
 15,  16, 
 
 156 
 
 40, 
 
 153 
 
 '36, 
 
 336 
 
 21, 
 
 132 
 
 V.  1, 
 
 369 
 
 61, 
 
 338 
 
 24, 
 
 121 
 
 19,  43, 
 
 327 
 
 ii.  4-39, 
 
 413 
 
 29,  30, 
 
 132 
 
 vi.  5, 
 
 110 
 
 9, 
 
 386 
 
 36, 
 
 113 
 
 8,  9, 
 
 154 
 
 36-38, 
 
 309 
 
 51, 
 
 203 
 
 32,  45,  53, 
 
 367 
 
 39, 
 
 414 
 
 XXV.  14-30, 
 
 433 
 
 vii.  26, 
 
 119,339 
 
 52, 
 
 111,113 
 
 30, 
 
 203,  210 
 
 27, 
 
 119 
 
 iii.  2, 
 
 320 
 
 31,  32, 
 
 201 
 
 vjii.  12, 
 
 155 
 
 22, 
 
 153 
 
 34, 
 
 417 
 
 38, 
 
 209 
 
 23, 
 
 325,  326 
 
 41, 
 
 210 
 
 ix.  1, 
 
 155 
 
 27, 
 
 346 
 
 46, 
 
 211 
 
 2, 
 
 416 
 
 35,  36, 
 
 352 
 
 xxvi.  2,  6. 
 
 416 
 
 13, 
 
 347 
 
 iv.  5, 
 
 407 
 
 7, 
 
 411 
 
 44,  46,  48, 
 
 209 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 150,  151 
 
 11, 
 
 114 
 
 X.  7-9, 
 
 295 
 
 25, 
 
 415 
 
 17-30, 
 
 423 
 
 13,  14,  16, 
 
 270 
 
 V.  1-11, 
 
 407 
 
 18, 
 
 151 
 
 18, 
 
 159 
 
 20, 
 
 153 
 
 21-29, 
 
 156 
 
 24, 
 
 174,  175 
 
 vi.  12, 
 
 114,231 
 
 34, 
 
 424 
 
 25, 
 
 175 
 
 13-16, 
 
 322 
 
 52, 
 
 259,  298 
 
 30, 
 
 174 
 
 17, 
 
 368 
 
 63, 
 
 242 
 
 35, 
 
 347 
 
 20, 
 
 174,368 
 
 64, 
 
 156 
 
 46, 
 
 386 
 
 24, 
 
 174 
 
 xxvii.  5, 
 
 349 
 
 xi.  2,3, 
 
 155 
 
 25, 
 
 250 
 
 6,7, 
 
 347 
 
 7, 
 
 •  384 
 
 26, 
 
 176 
 
 9,  10, 
 
 153 
 
 13, 
 
 111 
 
 27-29, 
 
 299 
 
 34, 
 
 325 
 
 14, 
 
 155 
 
 30, 
 
 280 
 
 37, 
 
 •  154 
 
 xii.  9, 
 
 363 
 
 35, 
 
 280,306 
 
 44, 
 
 384 
 
 15, 
 
 156 
 
 35,  36, 
 
 264 
 
 48, 
 
 325 
 
 25, 
 
 155 
 
 37, 
 
 284 
 
 xxviii.  1, 
 
 391 
 
 26,  27, 
 
 156 
 
 45, 
 
 159 
 
 1-10, 
 
 327 
 
 38,  40, 
 
 206,  293 
 
 46, 
 
 231 
 
 2,5, 
 
 386 
 
 xiii.  10, 
 
 135 
 
 vii.  3, 
 
 346 
 
 9, 
 
 330 
 
 14, 
 
 156 
 
 15, 
 
 201 
 
 10, 
 
 369 
 
 32, 
 
 111,  113 
 
 22, 
 
 327 
 
 16, 
 
 367, 369 
 
 xiv.  12-26, 
 
 423 
 
 30, 
 
 428 
 
 17, 
 
 367 
 
 13,  14, 
 
 151 
 
 37,  38, 
 
 411 
 
 18, 
 
 110 
 
 18-24, 
 
 156 
 
 viii.  25, 
 
 153 
 
 19, 
 
 257,  370 
 
 30, 
 
 424 
 
 27, 
 
 387 
 
 20, 
 
 114 
 
 62, 
 
 156 
 
 52,  53, 
 
 337 
 
INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 
 
 457 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 LUKE. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 JOHN, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ix.  3, 
 
 154 
 
 xxii.  8,  10,  11 
 
 151 
 
 V.  13, 
 
 114 
 
 10-17, 
 
 367 
 
 13-20, 
 
 423 
 
 16, 
 
 235 
 
 27, 
 
 155 
 
 14-20, 
 
 156 
 
 22, 
 
 120, 201 
 
 28, 
 
 416 
 
 30, 
 
 202 
 
 27, 
 
 120 
 
 30,31, 
 
 195 
 
 31, 
 
 179 
 
 28, 
 
 199,  200 
 
 52, 
 
 119,358 
 
 34, 
 
 424 
 
 29, 
 
 200 
 
 53, 
 
 358 
 
 36, 
 
 259,  298 
 
 31, 
 
 117 
 
 56, 
 
 116 
 
 43, 
 
 117 
 
 34, 
 
 118 
 
 59,  60, 
 
 287 
 
 69,  70, 
 
 108 
 
 35, 
 
 129 
 
 X.  1-20, 
 
 407 
 
 xxiii.  26, 
 
 324 
 
 36, 
 
 121 
 
 23, 
 
 219 
 
 34, 
 
 271 
 
 37, 
 
 73,76 
 
 33-37, 
 
 119 
 
 38, 
 
 154 
 
 vi.  15, 
 
 136 
 
 xi.  8, 
 
 232 
 
 39-41, 
 
 384 
 
 32, 
 
 134 
 
 10, 
 
 89 
 
 43, 
 
 198 
 
 51, 
 
 128 
 
 19, 
 
 121,  126 
 
 56, 
 
 412 
 
 53, 
 
 38 
 
 xii.  4, 
 
 185,277 
 
 xxiv.  1-12, 
 
 327 
 
 66, 
 
 39 
 
 5, 
 
 187 
 
 1-53, 
 
 386 
 
 vii.  1, 
 
 277 
 
 16-20, 
 
 196 
 
 4, 
 
 386 
 
 24, 
 
 284 
 
 21, 
 
 174 
 
 10, 
 
 391 
 
 34, 
 
 71 
 
 33, 
 
 280 
 
 15, 
 
 114 
 
 39, 
 
 417 
 
 47,  48, 
 
 210 
 
 25, 
 
 277 
 
 viii.  14, 
 
 117 
 
 xiii.  5, 
 
 165 
 
 27, 
 
 331 
 
 15, 
 
 120,  201 
 
 24,              19,  71,  261 
 
 33,  36, 
 
 367 
 
 40, 
 
 106 
 
 32, 
 
 169 
 
 39, 
 
 63 
 
 51, 
 
 183 
 
 xiv.  26, 
 
 97,  286 
 
 49, 
 
 139,  369 
 
 58, 
 
 111 
 
 xvi.  18, 
 
 263 
 
 50,  51, 
 
 367 
 
 ix.  5, 
 
 129 
 
 20, 
 
 177 
 
 39, 
 
 120,  201 
 
 22, 
 
 177,  188 
 
 JOHN 
 
 . 
 
 X.  9,  11, 
 
 128 
 
 23, 
 
 188,199 
 
 i.  1, 
 
 106 
 
 15,  17,  18, 
 
 130 
 
 26, 
 
 199 
 
 9, 
 
 129 
 
 28, 
 
 169,  172 
 
 27,  28,  30, 
 
 193 
 
 14, 
 
 106 
 
 30, 
 
 106 
 
 xvii.  11,16, 
 
 119 
 
 18, 
 
 73,  109 
 
 36, 
 
 108 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 136 
 
 21, 
 
 347 
 
 40, 
 
 327 
 
 xviii.  1,  7, 
 
 232 
 
 33,- 
 
 409 
 
 xi.  3,  4, 
 
 184 
 
 16,  17, 
 
 162 
 
 35-43, 
 
 407 
 
 11-14, 
 
 191 
 
 35,  38, 
 
 386 
 
 36, 
 
 127 
 
 14, 
 
 184 
 
 xix.  10, 
 
 108,116 
 
 44, 
 
 377 
 
 15, 
 
 114,  184 
 
 11-27, 
 
 433 
 
 ii.  1-11, 
 
 252 
 
 17, 
 
 327 
 
 30,  31, 
 
 155 
 
 15, 
 
 298 
 
 26, 
 
 178,  183 
 
 XX.  16, 
 
 363 
 
 24,  25, 
 
 111 
 
 34, 
 
 111 
 
 23,  24, 
 
 156 
 
 iii.  2, 
 
 121,407 
 
 44, 
 
 353 
 
 35.  36, 
 
 155 
 
 6, 
 
 162 
 
 45, 
 
 184 
 
 37, 
 
 156,  200 
 
 13, 
 
 216 
 
 54, 
 
 327 
 
 38,          156, 
 
 195,  197 
 
 17, 
 
 120 
 
 xii.'l. 
 
 327,  416 
 
 xxi.  17, 
 
 172 
 
 22,  24, 
 
 407 
 
 3, 
 
 411 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 156 
 
 34, 
 
 139 
 
 27, 
 
 117 
 
 23, 
 
 133 
 
 35, 
 
 110 
 
 40, 
 
 90,  92 
 
 24, 
 
 132,  133 
 
 36, 
 
 211 
 
 47, 
 
 120,  201 
 
 27, 
 
 132 
 
 iv.  3,  4, 
 
 119 
 
 xiii.  1,  2, 
 
 423 
 
 33, 
 
 215 
 
 24, 
 
 63 
 
 33, 
 
 198 
 
 xxii.  1, 
 
 423 
 
 39,  40, 
 
 358 
 
 38, 
 
 424 
 
 3, 
 
 140 
 
 40,41, 
 
 119 
 
 xiv.  2,  3, 
 
 417 
 
458 
 
 INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 
 
 JOHN. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 xiv.  16, 
 
 141 
 
 ii.  1-4, 
 
 417 
 
 xvi.  6, 
 
 370 
 
 23, 
 
 103 
 
 4, 
 
 140 
 
 7, 
 
 139 
 
 26, 
 
 139 
 
 17, 
 
 139 
 
 xvii.  26, 
 
 298 
 
 27, 
 
 118 
 
 18, 
 
 139,  309 
 
 30,  5,  165,  215,  232 
 
 28, 
 
 107 
 
 23, 
 
 130 
 
 31, 
 
 106,  201 
 
 XV.  5, 
 
 128 
 
 34, 
 
 198 
 
 xviii.  26, 
 
 309 
 
 13, 
 
 130 
 
 iii.  15, 
 
 130 
 
 xix.  34, 
 
 232 
 
 15, 
 
 31,  330 
 
 17, 
 
 358 
 
 XX.  9,  10, 
 
 337 
 
 26, 
 
 141 
 
 21, 
 
 214 
 
 28, 
 
 107,  139 
 
 27, 
 
 118 
 
 iv.  8, 
 
 139 
 
 xxi.  9, 
 
 309 
 
 xvi.  3, 
 
 358 
 
 19, 
 
 292 
 
 xxii.  9, 
 
 359 
 
 12, 
 
 31,  330 
 
 34,  35, 
 
 253 
 
 XX  vi.  14, 
 
 359 
 
 13,  14, 
 
 139 
 
 V.3, 
 
 99,  140, 141 
 
 23, 
 
 201 
 
 22, 
 
 250 
 
 4, 
 
 141 
 
 xxviii.  25, 
 
 139 
 
 28, 
 
 106 
 
 29, 
 
 292 
 
 30, 
 
 111 
 
 31, 
 
 165 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 33, 
 
 179 
 
 vii.  4, 
 
 392 
 
 i.  13, 
 
 18 
 
 xvii.  3, 
 
 60,  107 
 
 5, 
 
 318 
 
 20, 
 
 72 
 
 9, 
 
 131 
 
 14, 
 
 389 
 
 24,  25, 
 
 77 
 
 12, 
 
 170 
 
 15,  16, 
 
 357 
 
 ii.5. 
 
 85 
 
 17, 
 
 168 
 
 29, 
 
 424 
 
 6, 
 
 85,  210 
 
 22, 
 
 106 
 
 30,  32, 
 
 74 
 
 7, 
 
 187 
 
 xviii.  28, 
 
 423 
 
 48, 
 
 102 
 
 9,  10, 
 
 339 
 
 31, 
 
 220 
 
 52, 
 
 130 
 
 11, 
 
 81 
 
 36, 
 
 136 
 
 59, 
 
 198 
 
 13, 
 
 167 
 
 xix.  7, 
 
 220 
 
 60, 
 
 191,  271 
 
 14,  15, 
 
 164 
 
 14, 
 
 423 
 
 viii.  27, 
 
 308 
 
 16, 
 
 201 
 
 14-18, 
 
 412 
 
 29, 
 
 139 
 
 29, 
 
 213 
 
 17, 
 
 324 
 
 32, 
 
 128 
 
 iii.  18, 
 
 159 
 
 19, 
 
 154 
 
 37, 
 
 108 
 
 20, 
 
 167 
 
 29,  30, 
 
 325 
 
 39, 
 
 139 
 
 23, 
 
 159 
 
 XX.  1, 
 
 391,426 
 
 ix.  1, 
 
 248 
 
 28, 
 
 167 
 
 1-18, 
 
 327 
 
 6, 
 
 407 
 
 iv.2. 
 
 167 
 
 1-31, 
 
 386 
 
 7, 
 
 359 
 
 5, 
 
 306 
 
 12, 
 
 386 
 
 10-16, 
 
 407 
 
 v.  8,10, 
 
 130 
 
 17, 
 
 330 
 
 X.  3, 
 
 407 
 
 12, 
 
 165,  183 
 
 19, 
 
 367 
 
 9, 
 
 231 
 
 18,  19, 
 
 165 
 
 22, 
 
 417 
 
 13, 
 
 279, 407 
 
 20, 
 
 241 
 
 29, 
 
 219 
 
 15, 
 
 407 
 
 vi.9. 
 
 201 
 
 xxi.  1-25, 
 
 386 
 
 34, 
 
 81 
 
 11, 
 
 208 
 
 16, 
 
 279 
 
 38,  44, 
 
 139 
 
 vii.  10, 
 
 77,  105 
 
 17, 
 
 111 
 
 xi.  18, 
 
 165 
 
 18, 
 
 230 
 
 xii.  7, 
 
 386 
 
 viii.  14,  15,  16,    109 
 
 ACTS. 
 
 xiii.  2, 
 
 139 
 
 26, 
 
 131,141 
 
 i.  3, 
 
 331 
 
 20, 
 
 421,426 
 
 27, 
 
 139,141 
 
 S, 
 
 139,  417 
 
 21, 
 
 149 
 
 28, 
 
 172 
 
 8, 
 
 417 
 
 22, 
 
 222 
 
 29, 
 
 170 
 
 9,12, 
 
 367 
 
 39, 
 
 241 
 
 30, 
 
 170,  172 
 
 13, 
 
 322 
 
 48, 
 
 214 
 
 38,  39, 
 
 170 
 
 18, 
 
 347,  349 
 
 XV.  10, 
 
 83,  104 
 
 ix.  1, 
 
 243 
 
 24, 
 
 56 
 
 28, 
 
 139 
 
 11, 
 
 162 
 
 25, 
 
 171,199 
 
 xvi.  1,  3, 
 
 260 
 
 11-13, 
 
 83 
 
INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 459 
 
 ROM. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ICOR. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 GALATIANS. 
 
 ix.  16, 
 
 249 
 
 viii.  11, 
 
 172 
 
 PAGE 
 
 18, 
 
 90,92 
 
 ix.  22, 
 
 294 
 
 i.  8, 
 
 170 
 
 X.  5, 
 
 104 
 
 24, 
 
 249 
 
 10, 
 
 294 
 
 xi.  26, 
 
 213 
 
 X.  8, 
 
 382 
 
 13, 
 
 248 
 
 32, 
 
 214 
 
 19, 
 
 249,  433 
 
 ii.  3,  4, 
 
 260 
 
 33, 
 
 72 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 249 
 
 6, 
 
 81 
 
 xii.  14, 
 
 276 
 
 ,306 
 
 25, 
 
 246 
 
 8, 
 
 247 
 
 20, 
 
 25 
 
 ,275 
 
 33, 
 
 294 
 
 16, 
 
 167 
 
 xiii.  1,  2, 
 
 292 
 
 xi.  1-34, 
 
 310 
 
 20, 
 
 230 
 
 3,4, 
 
 92 
 
 3, 
 
 308 
 
 iii.  1. 
 
 277 
 
 5, 
 
 292 
 
 4, 
 
 310 
 
 11,  12, 
 
 167 
 
 14, 
 
 280 
 
 5, 
 
 309 
 
 13, 
 
 115,  120 
 
 xiv.  5, 
 
 233 
 
 14, 
 
 246 
 
 17, 
 
 416,419 
 
 6, 
 
 244 
 
 23-26, 
 
 156 
 
 21, 
 
 105 
 
 10, 
 
 201 
 
 xii.  3, 
 
 231 
 
 29, 
 
 149 
 
 14, 
 
 246 
 
 8,11, 
 
 139 
 
 iv.  8-11, 
 
 245 
 
 15, 
 
 172 
 
 31, 
 
 249 
 
 10, 
 
 244 
 
 XV.  2, 
 
 294 
 
 xiii.  1-3, 
 
 171 
 
 24, 
 
 104 
 
 20,  30, 
 
 261 
 
 1-13, 
 
 273 
 
 28, 
 
 149 
 
 33, 
 
 92 
 
 7,  8, 
 
 262 
 
 V.2, 
 
 260 
 
 xvi.  5, 
 
 310 
 
 xiv.  1-40, 
 
 310 
 
 15, 
 
 206 
 
 12, 
 
 309 
 
 33, 
 
 77,  92 
 
 20, 
 
 308 
 
 27, 
 
 186 
 
 34, 
 
 308,  309 
 
 22,  23, 
 
 142 
 
 35, 
 
 309 
 
 vi.  2,  5, 
 
 257 
 
 1  CORINTHIANS. 
 
 39, 
 
 249 
 
 i.  14,  17, 
 
 257 
 
 XV.  5-8, 
 
 386 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 29, 
 
 247 
 
 6, 
 
 368 
 
 ii.  1, 
 
 208,  393 
 
 ii.  8, 
 
 358 
 
 9,10, 
 
 247 
 
 3, 
 
 164 
 
 10,  11, 
 
 139 
 
 15, 
 
 217 
 
 5,6,10, 
 
 166 
 
 15, 
 
 202 
 
 20, 
 
 201 
 
 19, 
 
 178 
 
 iii.  6,  8, 
 
 106 
 
 21, 
 
 200 
 
 20, 
 
 128,  129 
 
 11, 
 
 129 
 
 22, 
 
 214 
 
 iii.  8, 
 
 247 
 
 17, 
 
 205 
 
 24,  25,  28, 
 
 137 
 
 iv.  18, 
 
 393 
 
 iv.  15, 
 
 257 
 
 31, 
 
 208 
 
 25, 
 
 290 
 
 V.  12, 
 
 284 
 
 36, 
 
 277 
 
 26, 
 
 245 
 
 vi.  2,  3, 
 
 202 
 
 51, 
 
 134,  183 
 
 30, 
 
 139 
 
 9. 
 
 217 
 
 52, 
 
 134,  200 
 
 V.14, 
 
 166 
 
 10, 
 
 217 
 
 251 
 
 xvi.  19, 
 
 310 
 
 22,  24, 
 
 308 
 
 vii.  1, 
 
 291 
 
 22, 
 
 272,  275 
 
 25,  33, 
 
 286 
 
 2, 
 
 291 
 
 ,295 
 
 vi.  4, 
 
 287 
 
 6, 
 
 143 
 
 2  CORINTHIANS. 
 
 6, 
 
 294 
 
 8, 
 
 291 
 
 iii.  7,  13, 
 
 355 
 
 9, 
 
 81 
 
 12, 
 
 143 
 
 V.  6, 
 
 197 
 
 17, 
 
 129 
 
 18, 
 
 260 
 
 8, 
 
 198 
 
 24, 
 
 187 
 
 23, 
 
 293 
 
 10, 
 
 201,  210 
 
 25, 
 
 144 
 
 21, 
 
 114 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 26,  27, 
 
 291 
 
 vi.  16, 
 
 103 
 
 i.  21, 
 
 197 
 
 32,  33,  38, 
 
 291 
 
 xi.  5, 
 
 247 
 
 23, 
 
 198 
 
 40, 
 
 144 
 
 17, 
 
 143,  247 
 
 ii.  5,  6, 
 
 107 
 
 viii.  4,  5, 
 
 433 
 
 18, 
 
 247 
 
 7, 
 
 112 
 
 6, 
 
 60 
 
 20, 
 
 206 
 
 8, 
 
 112,  117 
 
 8,  9-13, 
 
 249 
 
 xii.  11, 
 
 247 
 
 10,  11, 
 
 211 
 
460 
 
 INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  CITATIONS. 
 
 PHIIi.  PACK 
 
 ii.  12,  13,  167,  251 
 
 15,  129 
 iii.  11,  12,  15,  169 
 
 19,  208 
 
 iv.  3,  309 
 
 4,  251 
 
 5,  134 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 ii.  3,  111 
 
 5,  114 
 
 8,  9,  107 
 14,  207 
 
 16,  233 
 iii.  3,  208 
 
 9,  166,  290 
 
 10,  166 
 20,21,  287 
 22,  293 
 
 ITHESSALONIANS. 
 
 ii.  4,  294 
 
 iv.  6,  300 
 
 14,  199 
 
 15,  19,  134 
 15-17,  183 
 
 17,  134 
 V.  19,  139 
 
 2THESSALONIANS. 
 
 i.  8,  202 
 
 9,  203,  205 
 
 ii.  1,  2,  3,  134 
 
 7,  18 
 9,  121,  126 
 9-12,  99 
 
 11,  40,77 
 13,  169 
 
 1  TIMOTHY. 
 
 i.  17,  73 
 
 ii.  3,  4,  214 
 
 .5,  106,  131 
 
 6,  119 
 
 8,  231 
 11,12,  309 
 
 iii.  15,  16,  129 
 
 iv.  7, 
 
 307 
 
 10, 
 
 214 
 
 16, 
 
 262 
 
 V.  6, 
 
 208 
 
 8, 
 
 280 
 
 ITIM. 
 V.  19,  20, 
 
 23, 
 vi.  9,  10, 
 
 15,  16, 
 
 16, 
 
 17, 
 
 18, 
 
 20. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 293 
 251 
 253 
 185 
 70,  73,  101 
 174,  253 
 253 
 307 
 
 2  TIMOTHY. 
 
 i.  10,  185 
 
 ii.  14,  261 
 
 24,  19,  261 
 
 25,  165,  265,  279 
 iii.  12,  178 
 
 16,  143 
 
 iv.  14,  275 
 
 TITUS. 
 
 ii.  11, 
 
 214 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 
 i.  1,  4 
 
 8,  106,  137 
 ii.  4,  121 
 
 17,  111 
 
 iii.  8,  90 
 
 iv.  3,  417 
 
 9,  218 
 13,  56 
 15,  114 
 
 V.  7,  117 
 
 8,  114 
 
 vi.  4-6,  170 
 
 13,  243 
 
 17,  244 
 
 18,  55,98,244 
 vii.  14,  150 
 
 19,  104 
 26,  114 
 
 viii.  1,  128 
 
 ix.  4,  390 
 
 26,  128 
 
 27,  183.  185 
 
 28,  128 
 X.  4,  236 
 
 5,  6,  152 
 
 11,  236 
 
 26-29,  170 
 
 27,  206 
 
 31,  96 
 
 38.  88 
 
 HEB. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 X.  39, 
 
 170 
 
 xi.5. 
 
 206,  217 
 
 8, 
 
 364 
 
 12, 
 
 318 
 
 13, 
 
 178,  363 
 
 16, 
 
 149,  407 
 
 17, 
 
 380 
 
 21, 
 
 345 
 
 27, 
 
 424 
 
 32, 
 
 239 
 
 33, 
 
 363 
 
 37, 
 
 173 
 
 39, 
 
 149,  363 
 
 40, 
 
 149 
 
 xii.  6, 
 
 172,179 
 
 8, 
 
 179 
 
 11, 
 
 172 
 
 17, 
 
 232 
 
 23, 
 
 202 
 
 29, 
 
 93,  95 
 
 xiii.  4, 
 
 255,  291 
 
 14, 
 
 177 
 
 20, 
 
 128 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 i.2. 
 
 253 
 
 5,6, 
 
 89 
 
 13, 
 
 79,  82 
 
 17, 
 
 63 
 
 19,  20, 
 
 245 
 
 25, 
 
 104 
 
 ii.  5, 
 
 175 
 
 12, 
 
 104 
 
 14,  17,  21, 
 
 167 
 
 22,  24, 
 
 167 
 
 25, 
 
 290 
 
 26, 
 
 167 
 
 iii.  15, 
 
 254 
 
 16, 
 
 261 
 
 17, 
 
 254 
 
 iv.  3, 
 
 89 
 
 8, 
 
 70 
 
 V.  1-3, 
 
 174 
 
 11, 
 
 92 
 
 12, 
 
 243 
 
 17, 
 
 415 
 
 19,  20, 
 
 262 
 
 1  PETER. 
 
 2,  168 
 
 17,  81 
 
 18,  19,  107 
 
INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   CITATIONS. 
 
 461 
 
 IPET. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 1  JOHN. 
 
 BEV. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 ii.  7, 
 
 127 
 
 PAOB 
 
 iv.  8, 
 
 218 
 
 8, 
 
 40,  1 28 
 
 i.  8, 
 
 159 
 
 V.  5, 
 
 127 
 
 11, 
 
 178 
 
 ii.  1, 
 
 131,  159, 
 
 241 
 
 12, 
 
 115 
 
 13,  14, 
 
 292 
 
 iii.  2, 
 
 109 
 
 vi.  9, 
 
 191 
 
 "18, 
 
 293 
 
 6,9, 
 
 159 
 
 10, 
 
 191,275 
 
 23, 
 
 276 
 
 14, 
 
 15, 
 
 286 
 
 16, 
 
 116 
 
 25, 
 
 128 
 
 iv.  9, 
 
 109 
 
 vii.  14, 
 
 128,  173 
 
 iii.  5,  6, 
 
 308 
 
 16, 
 
 92 
 
 X.  5, 
 
 243 
 
 9, 
 
 276 
 
 V.  7, 
 
 60,  62 
 
 6, 
 
 243 
 
 13, 
 
 172 
 
 14, 
 
 89 
 
 xi.  18, 
 
 205 
 
 17,  18, 
 
 195 
 
 16, 
 
 * 
 
 241 
 
 xii.  12, 
 
 362 
 
 18-20, 
 
 191 
 
 18, 
 
 179 
 
 xiii.  13, 
 
 14, 
 
 121 
 
 iv.  6, 
 
 193,  195 
 
 20, 
 
 108 
 
 18, 
 
 24 
 
 7, 
 
 134 
 
 xiv.  10, 
 
 11, 
 
 203,  212 
 
 V.  8, 
 
 362 
 
 JUDE. 
 
 13, 
 
 218 
 
 2  PETER. 
 
 3     • 
 
 261 
 
 xix.  11, 
 
 13,  15,         116 
 
 i.  19, 
 
 148 
 
 6, 
 
 362 
 
 XX.  9, 
 
 206 
 
 20,  21, 
 
 146 
 
 10, 
 
 212 
 
 ii.  4, 
 
 362 
 
 11» 
 
 216 
 
 21,  22, 
 
 170 
 
 REVELATION 
 
 . 
 
 12, 
 
 182,202 
 
 iii.  7, 
 
 203,216 
 
 ii.  11, 
 
 183 
 
 184 
 
 13,13 
 
 i 
 
 210 
 
 9, 
 
 214 
 
 iii.  1, 
 
 208 
 
 xxi.  3, 
 
 103 
 
 10, 
 
 216 
 
 iv.  6-8, 
 
 227 
 
 8, 
 
 214, 
 
 290,  308 
 
 89* 
 
GENERAL     INDEX 
 
 Aaron,  death  where,  363. 
 
 Abel-beth-maachah,  names,  373. 
 
 Abijjail,  father  of,  316. 
 
 Abijah,  mother,  3 1 7 ;  hypocrisy,  317. 
 
 Abraham,  equivocation,  26 ;  temp- 
 tation, 79 ;  sacrifice  of  Isaac,  238 ; 
 difiiculty  with  Pharaoh,  317; 
 with  Abimelech,  317  ;  inheritance 
 gained,  318;  prolonged  virility, 
 318  ;  weakness  and  timidity,  318 ; 
 marriage  with  Keturah,  318,  339  ; 
 destination,  364 ;  sons,  380 ;  age 
 at  migration,  392. 
 
 Absalom,  sons,  380 ;  tarry  at  home, 
 393. 
 
 Achan,  children  slain,  87,  237. 
 
 Adam,  death  when,  393. 
 
 Adultery  tolerated  and  forbidden 
 255. 
 
 Agag  mentioned  prematurely,  394. 
 
 Ahab,  deceived  by  Micaiah,  98;  death 
 where,  364  ;  death  when,  396. 
 
 Ahaz,  favoring  religion,  319  ;  invin- 
 cible, 319;  burial  where,  364. 
 
 Ahaziah  of  Israel,  reign  begun 
 when,  398. 
 
 Ahaziah  of  Judah,  brethren's  fate, 
 319;  grandfather,  320;  death 
 wliere,364;  age,  398;  reign  begun, 
 398. 
 
 Abimelech,  high-priesthood,  320. 
 
 Ai,  destruction,  403. 
 
 Altar,  material,  427. 
 
 Amalck    mentioned    prematurely, 
 
 394. 
 Amalekites,   destruction,   94,   403 ; 
 
 location,  365. 
 Amasa,  father  of,  320. 
 Amaziah,  reign  begun,  398. 
 Ambuscade,  number  of  men,  381. 
 462 
 
 Ammonites,   torture,    264 ;    allies, 
 
 320 ;  land  taken,  365. 
 Anah,  nationality,  321. 
 Anak,  sons'  fate,  321. 
 Analogy  of  Bible  and  nature,  33. 
 Anatomists,  disagreement,  11. 
 Angels  seen,  number,  386. 
 Anger  approved  and  condemned, 
 
 245. 
 Animal-food,  use  restricted  and  un- 
 restricted, 246  ;  kinds  prohibited 
 
 and  allowed,  246. 
 Animals,    number    employed    by 
 
 Christ,   384 ;  number  sacrificed, 
 
 384. 
 Announcement  made  to  Mary  and 
 
 to  Joseph,  406. 
 Apostles,  lists  of  names,  322 ;  called 
 
 when,    407  ;    distinct    from    the 
 
 "  seventy  disciples,"  407. 
 Arab,  sons,  number,  380. 
 Ark,  location,  366;  contents,  390 ; 
 
 construction  when,  407. 
 Arrangement,  different  methods  and 
 
 principles,  9. 
 Asa,  mother,  323  ;  removal  of  high 
 
 places,  323;  ten  years'  tranquility, 
 
 398. 
 Assassination   sanctioned   and   for- 
 bidden, 255. 
 Authorship,  differences,  6. 
 Avenging  of  blood  provided  for  and 
 
 discountenanced,  256. 
 Azariah,  reign  begun,  399  ;  ended, 
 
 399. 
 
 Baal,  prophets  slain,  265. 
 Baasha,  death  when,  399. 
 Bacon,    Francis,    Christian    Para- 
 doxes, 8. 
 
GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 463 
 
 Balaam,  return  whither,  366 ;  per- 
 mission and  prohibition  of  jour- 
 ney, 69. 
 
 Baptism  enjoined  and  neglected,  257. 
 
 Barley  and  lentiles,  field,  428. 
 
 Beasts,  slain  where,  367 ;  number 
 entering  Noah's  ark,  387. 
 
 Bedan,  judge  of  Israel,  323. 
 
 Beersheba  named  twice,  410. 
 
 Benevolence  of  God,  he  withholds 
 and  bestows  blessings,  89;  hardens 
 men's  hearts,  and  they  do  it,  89 ; 
 is  warlike  and  peaceful,  92. 
 
 Benjamin,  birth-place;,  367  ;  number 
 of  sons,  384. 
 
 Benjamites,  number  slain,  387. 
 
 Bethel,  conquered  when,  403  ; 
 named  t^vice,  410. 
 
 Bethsaida,  twofold  location,  367. 
 
 Bethshemites,  50070  slain,  92. 
 
 Bible,  analogy  to  nature,  33 ;  com- 
 pared with  other  books,  47  ;  moral 
 influence  undiminished,  50. 
 
 Bleek,  definition  of  miracle,  122. 
 
 Blessing  gained  by  those  who  see 
 and  those  who  see  not,  219. 
 
 Blind  men,  number  healed,  386. 
 
 Blood,  poured  and  sprinkled,  219  ; 
 (^vered  with  dust  and  poured  out, 
 220. 
 
 Boasting  tolerated  and  repudiated, 
 247 ;  Paul's  case,  247 ;  Moses' 
 case,  248. 
 
 Brown,  Dr.  Thos.,  definition  of  mir- 
 acle, 124. 
 
 Burdens,  our  own  and  others,  to  be 
 borne  by  us,  257. 
 
 Caleb,  father  of,  323.  i 
 
 Calling  men    "  father,"    forbidden 
 
 and  exemplified,  257.  I 
 
 Canaan  cursed,  84,  302. 
 Canaan,  land,  in   state  of  famine, 
 
 367  ;    conquered    speedily,  403  ; 
 
 extent  of  subjugation,  404. 
 Canaanites,    extirpated,    265,   324 ; 
 
 spared   for   test   of  Israel,   324  ; 
 
 destroyed  suddenly,  403.  j 
 
 Capital    punishment  inflicted   and 
 
 omitted,  258.  \ 
 
 Captives,  spared  and  put  to  death, 
 
 258 ;  number  taken  by  Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, 384. 
 
 Cattle  of  Egypt,  extent  of  destruc- 
 tion, 428. 
 
 Census  of  Israelites,  made  when, 
 411. 
 
 Chapiter,  length,  382. 
 
 Chastity  tested  in  diverse  ways,  258. 
 
 Children,  of  Bethel,  slain  by  bears, 
 270  ;  treatment,  287. 
 
 Christ,  divinity,  106  ;  omnipotence, 
 110;  omniscience.  111;  omni- 
 presence, 114;  holiness,  114; 
 mercy,  116;  courage  and  forti- 
 tude, 117  ;  veracity,  117  ;  mission, 
 118;  miracles,  1 20 ;  modes  of  rep- 
 resenting him,  127;  sacrifice,  130; 
 intercession,  131 ;  coming,  131  ; 
 kingdom,  136;  name,  138;  exe- 
 cution, 220 ;  bearing  of  the  cross, 
 324;  last  drink,  325  ;  genealogy, 
 325  ;  last  tour,  327  ;  concealment 
 of  miracles,  327 ;  resurrection, 
 327  ;  revelation  of  truth,  330  ;  use 
 of  parables,  331  ;  approach  by 
 centurion,  367  ;  ascension,  367  ; 
 first  re-appearance,  367  ;  first  ser- 
 mon, 368 ;  number  of  appear- 
 ances, 386  ;  conveyance  upon 
 mountain,  407  ;  beginning  of 
 preaching,  407;  anointing,  411; 
 crucifixion,  412 ;  entombment, 
 413 ;  infancy,  order  of  events,  413. 
 
 Christ,  execution.  See  Execution  of 
 Christ. 
 
 Christians,  bearing  of  weapons  by, 
 permitted  and  forbidden,  259. 
 
 Chronology,  Oriental  methods,  13. 
 
 Circumcision,  instituted  and  dis- 
 carded, 260 ;  not  to  be  omitted, 
 yet  neglected  forty  years,  260 ; 
 profitable,  yet  useless,  260. 
 
 Cities,  location,  368  ;  pertained  to 
 what  tribe,  368 ;  Canaanitish, 
 smitten  when,  404. 
 
 Cities  of  refuge,  number,  385. 
 
 Cities  and  villages,  number,  387. 
 
 City,  Levitical,  dimensions,  388. 
 
 Collusion  of  sacred  writers  dis- 
 proved, 36. 
 
 Coming  of  Christ,  in  humility  and 
 in  grandeur,  131  ;  before  and  after 
 "times  of  Gentiles,"  132;  near 
 and  far  off,  134  ;  before  and  after 
 world  evangelized,  135. 
 
464 
 
 GENEEAL  INDEX. 
 
 Commutation  for  murder,  not  al- 
 lowed, yet  permitted,  261. 
 
 Computation,  different  methods,  11; 
 Oriental  methods  in  general,  13  ; 
 Hebrew  methods,  396. 
 
 Concubine,wife  of  inferior  rank,  295. 
 
 Conduct  of  David,  strayed  and  did 
 not  stray,  221 ;  heart  perfect,  yet 
 he  sinned,  222. 
 
 Contention  and  strife  enjoined  and 
 forbidden,  261. 
 
 Conversion  of  men,  effected  by  one- 
 self and  by  another,  262. 
 
 Convocations  and  feasts,  number, 
 387. 
 
 Country  of  two  demoniacs,  369. 
 
 Courage  and  fortitude  of  Christ, 
 shrank,  yet  shrank  not,  at  death, 
 117. 
 
 Covenant,  basis,  religious  laws  and 
 civil  laws,  220. 
 
 Covering  of  sin  approved  and  de- 
 nounced, 221. 
 
 Coveting  enjoined  and  prohibited, 
 249. 
 
 Creation,  order  of  events,  408. 
 
 Creation  of  man,  made  like  God ; 
 this  likeness  acquired,  158;  made 
 in  divine  image ;  with  sexual  dis- 
 tinctions, 159;  made  like  God; 
 none  like  him,  159. 
 
 Crimes  specified,  different  lists,  221. 
 
 Critic's  imagination,  source  of  dis- 
 crepancies, 25,  28. 
 
 Crooked  made  straight,  428. 
 
 Dan  named  twice,  410. 
 
 Daniel,  exaltation,  331 ;  tarry  at 
 Babylon,  414. 
 
 Dates,  difference,  source  of  discrep- 
 ancies, 3. 
 
 David,  perils  in  wilderness  of  Ziph, 
 26  ;  sparing  Saul  in  cave,  26  ; 
 temptation  to  number  the  people, 
 79  ;  general  conduct,  221  ;  per- 
 fcctncss  of  heart,  222 ;  detention  at 
 Saul's  court,  33 1 ;  building  of  tem- 
 ple forbidden,  331 ;  officers'  names, 
 332 ;  relation  to  Achish,  332 ;  sons' 
 names,  332;  sons' priesthood,  333; 
 tempter,  333;  warriors'  names, 
 334  ;    capture  of  Philistine  city, 
 
 Death  of  man,  all  must  die,  but 
 some  die  not,  183;  Lazarus  not 
 to  die,  yet  did  die,  184;  man's 
 death  lilce  a  beast's,  and  different, 
 
 184  ;  death  ceases,  and  still  exists, 
 
 185  ;  men  immortal,  yet  God  only 
 so,  185  ;  men  kill  souls,  and  can- 
 not kill  them,  186  ;  immortality 
 possessed,  and  to  be  acquired,187. 
 
 Deaths  by  plague,  number,  382. 
 Debir    conquered     several     times, 
 
 405. 
 Degrees  of  future  punishment,  alike 
 
 and  different,  210. 
 Deluge,  duration,  415. 
 Demoniacs,  number  healed,  387. 
 Descent  of  Christ   into   hades,  pa- 
 tristic view  of,  192. 
 Design  of  the  Discrepancies,  30. 
 To  stimulate  the  intellect,  30. 
 Illustrate  analogy  of  Bible  and 
 
 nature,  33. 
 Disprove  collusion   of   sacred 
 
 writers,  36. 
 Lead  us  to  value  spirit  above 
 
 letter,  37. 
 Serve  as  a  test  of  moral  char- 
 acter, 38. 
 Destruction  of  the  earth,  indesfiruc- 
 
 tible,  yet  to  be  destroyed,  215. 
 Disciples,  outfit,  154;  tarry,  where, 
 
 369. 
 Discrepancies,  number,  1. 
 Origin,  3. 
 Design,  30. 
 Results,  41. 
 Ethical,  219. 
 Historical,  312. 
 Miscellaneous,  427. 
 Distrust    enjoined  and  precluded, 
 
 262. 
 Divinity  of  Christ,  is  God  and  man, 
 106  ;  one  with,  yet  distinct  from, 
 the  Father,  106  ;  equal  with,  yet 
 inferior  to  Him,  107  ;  Son  is  God, 
 and  Father  only  God,  107  ;  is  Son 
 of  God,  and  Son  of  man,  108  ; 
 only  Son  of  God,  yet  men  are 
 sons,  109. 
 Divinity  of  Holy  Spirit,  is  God,  yet 
 
 subordinate,  141. 
 Divorce    allowed    and    restricted, 
 263. 
 
GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 465 
 
 Doctrinal  Discrepancies,  55. 
 Pertaining  to  God,  55. 
 To  Christ,  106. 
 To  Holy  Spirit,  139. 
 To  Scriptures,  143. 
 To  Man  in  relation  to  the  Pres- 
 ent, 158. 
 To  Man  in  relation  to  the  Fu- 
 ture, 183. 
 Dor  conquered  twice,  405. 
 Drought  and  famine,  duration,  415. 
 Duration  of  future  punishment,  un- 
 ending, yet  will  terminate,  211. 
 Duty,  revelation  of,  gradual,  4. 
 
 Earth,  destruction,  215;  dried  twice, 
 415;  founded,  429;  saturated, 
 429. 
 
 Ebrard,  illustration  of  messenger, 
 328. 
 
 Edomites  hated  and  not  hated,  271 ; 
 hindered  Israel's  passage,  335 ;  in- 
 hospitable, 335 ;  slain,  liow  many, 
 382. 
 
 Edwardses,  the  two,  case,  26. 
 
 Effort,  human,  encouraged  and  de- 
 preciated, 249. 
 
 Egyptians  visible  and  not  seen, 
 363. 
 
 Ehud,  slaughter  of  Eglon,  255. 
 
 Ela,  reign,  duration,  399. 
 
 Elhanan,  victim,  336. 
 
 Eli,  family  discipline,  335. 
 
 Eliakim,  predecessor,  335. 
 
 Elijah,  mockery  of  Baal's  prophets, 
 276  ;  journey  to  Horeb,  379. 
 
 Elimelech,  indigence,  335. 
 
 Elisabeth,  tribal  descent,  336. 
 
 Elisha,  deception  of  Syrians,  276. 
 
 Elkanah,  nationality,  336. 
 
 Employments  of  heaven,  incessant 
 praise,  yet  rest  and  quiet  218. 
 
 Enemies,  treatment,  cruelty  em- 
 ployed and  prohibited,  264  ;  case 
 of  Ammonites,  264  ;  of  Moabites, 
 264  ;  of  Baal's  prophets,  265  ;  of 
 young  Bethelites,  270 ;  of  Edom- 
 ites, 271  ;  enemies  cursed  and 
 loved,  271 ;  treated  kindly,  and 
 put  to  pain,  275  ;  ridiculed,  and 
 addressed  mildly,  276. 
 
 English  letters,  similarity,  20. 
 
 Ephraim,  land  located,  369. 
 
 Epithets,  opprobrious,  forbidden 
 and  employed,  277.  * 
 
 Esau,  wives'  names,  336 ;  settlement 
 in  Seir  when,  415. 
 
 Eternity  of  God,  his  origin  from 
 eternity,  yet  in  time,  60. 
 
 Ethical  Discrepancies,  219. 
 Duty  of  man  to  God,  219. 
 Duty  of  man  to  himself,  245. 
 Duty  of  man  to  fellow-men,  255. 
 
 Eutychus,  death,  337. 
 
 Execution  of  Christ,  lawful  and  un- 
 lawful, 220. 
 
 Exode  of  Israelites,  time,  416. 
 
 Extent  of  salvation,  all  Israel  saved, 
 yet  only  a  portion,  213  ;  all  men 
 saved,  yet  some  not  saved,  214. 
 
 Extirpation  of  Canaanites,  grounds, 
 266. 
 
 Faith  and  works,  contrast,  8,  167. 
 
 Famine,  duration,  393. 
 
 Fast,  observance  enjoined  and  neg- 
 lected, 223;  of  seventh  month, 
 on  what  day,  416. 
 
 Fear  of  persecutors  forbidden  and 
 exemplified,  277. 
 
 Feast,  of  unleavened  bread,  insti- 
 tuted when,  408;  duration,  416;  of 
 tabernacles  underZerubbabel,  41 7. 
 
 Final  judgment.  See  Judgment, 
 final. 
 
 First-bom  sons  dedicated  and  re- 
 deemed, 224. 
 
 Firstling  animals  redeemed  and  not 
 redeemed,  224;  redeemed  with 
 money  and  not  thus,  224 ;  sancti- 
 fied and  not  sanctified,  225. 
 
 Folly,  remediable  and  irremediable, 
 278  ;  answered  in  one  way,  and 
 in  a  different,  278. 
 
 Forces,  Josiah's,  stationed,  370. 
 
 Foreskins,  number,  382. 
 
 Fruit-trees  spared  and  destroyed, 
 279. 
 
 Fruits  of  Holy  Spirit,  love  and  ven- 
 geance, 142  ;  gentleness  and  fury, 
 142. 
 
 Future  punishment,  nature,  203 ; 
 instruments,  209;  degrees,  210; 
 duration,  211. 
 
 Genealogical  lists,  diverse,  325, 337. 
 
466 
 
 GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 Generations,  number,  388. 
 
 Gershom,  relatives'  names,  338. 
 
 Gezer,  names,  373  ;  conquest  when, 
 403. 
 
 Gibeonites,  nationality,  338. 
 
 Gifts  of  returned  captives,  amount, 
 381. 
 
 Gilgal  mentioned  prematurely,  394. 
 
 God,  omnipotence,  55 ;  omniscience, 
 56  ;  omnipresence,  58  ;  eternity, 
 60  ;  unity,  60  ;  immateriality,  63  ; 
 immutability,  63  ;  inaccessibility, 
 70;  inscrutability,72 ;  invisibility, 
 73  ;  holiness,  76  ;  justice,  83 ;  be- 
 nevolence, 89  ;  mercy,  92  ;  verac- 
 ity, 98;  habitation,  101;  position, 
 103  ;  law,  104 ;  work  ended,  416 ; 
 worship  begun,  427. 
 
 Golden  calf,  destruction,  429. 
 
 Goliath,  armor,  placed  where,  370  ; 
 head  carried  whither,  370. 
 
 Good  works  exhibited  and  concealed, 
 279. 
 
 Gospel,  preached  where,  370. 
 
 Greek  letters,  similarity,  20. 
 
 Greek  terms  descriptive  of  future 
 punishment,  212. 
 
 Habitation  of  God,  in  light,  and  in 
 darkness,  101 ;  in  chosen  temples, 
 and  not  in  them,  102  ;  in  eternity, 
 and  with  men,  102;  in  heaven, 
 and  in  Zion,  103. 
 
 Hair,  long,  worn  by  men,  246. 
 
 Halting-places  of  Israelites,  371. 
 
 Havoth-jair,  number  of  cities,  385  ; 
 named  when,  411. 
 
 Hazael,  anointed  by  whom,  339. 
 
 Hazor  conquered  twice,  405. 
 
 Heads  of  people,  number,  385. 
 
 Heaven,  occupants,  216;  employ- 
 ments, 218;  preparation  when, 
 417. 
 
 Hebrew  letters,  similarity,  20. 
 
 Hebrew  midwives,  case,  290. 
 
 Hebrew  numbers,  method  of  ex- 
 pressing, 13. 
 
 Hebrew  terms,  descriptive  of  future 
 punishment,  204. 
 
 Hebrews'  land,  premature  mention, 
 394. 
 
 Hebron  mentioned  prematurely, 
 395  ;  king  conquered  when,  405. 
 
 Heretics  treated  harshly  and  gently, 
 279. 
 
 Hezekiah,  indigence,  340 ;  passover, 
 340 ;  age  at  accession,  399. 
 
 Hiram,  mother,  nationality,  339. 
 
 Historical  Discrepancies,  312. 
 Concerning  persons,  312. 
 Concerning  places,  363. 
 Concerning  numbers,  380. 
 Concerning  time,  392. 
 Miscellaneous,  427. 
 
 Hodge,  Prof.  C,  definition  of  mir- 
 acle, 121. 
 
 Holiness  of  Christ,  is  holy  and  is 
 sin, 114  ;  blessed  and  a  curse,  115. 
 
 Holiness  of  God,  author  of  evil,  yet 
 not  its  author,  76  ;  jealous  and 
 free  from  jealousy,  78 ;  tempts 
 men  and  tempts  them  not,  79 ; 
 respects  and  respects  not  persons, 
 81  ;  angry  and  not  angry,  82  ; 
 may  be  and  cannot  be  tempted,  82. 
 
 Holy  Spirit,  personality,  139  ;  divin- 
 ity, 141 ;  fruits,  142;  beginning, 
 417;  bestowment,  417. 
 
 Horeb,  relation  to  Sinai,  376. 
 
 Hormah,  conquered  when,  405. 
 
 Horsemen,  number,  382. 
 
 Horsemen  or  footmen,  382. 
 
 Hosea's  wife,  unchastity,  255. 
 
 Hoshea,  reign  begun,  399. 
 
 House  and  porch,  height,  382. 
 
 "  Howland  will  case,"  36. 
 
 Human  effort.     See  Effort,  human. 
 
 Hypothesis,  logical  value,  52. 
 
 Idolatry  forbidden  and  practised, 
 225  ;  punished  and  passed  by,  225. 
 
 Idol-meats  non-essential,  yet  to  be 
 shunned,  249. 
 
 Image-making  sanctioned  and  for- 
 bidden, 226. 
 
 Images  disposed  of,  how,  430. 
 
 Imagination  of  critic,  source  of  dis- 
 crepancies, 25. 
 
 Immateriality  of  God,  a  spirit,  yet 
 material,  63. 
 
 Immutability  of  God,  unchangeable 
 and  repenting,  63  ;  satisfied  and 
 dissatisfied,  68;  destroys  and  de- 
 stroys not,  68  ;  abhors  and  does 
 not  abhor,  68 ;  permits  and  for- 
 bids. 69. 
 
GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 467 
 
 Improvidence  enjoined  and  forbid- 
 den, 280. 
 
 Inaccessibility  of  God,  approachable 
 and  not  accessible,  70  ;  all  and 
 not  all  seekers  find,  71  ;  early 
 seekers  succeed  and  fail,  71. 
 
 Incest,  alleged  case  of  Abraham, 
 281. 
 
 Inscrutability  of  God,  attributes 
 revealed  and  hidden,  72 ;  won- 
 ders recounted  and  numberless, 
 73. 
 
 Inspiration,  relation  to  authorship, 
 6  ;  not  limited  to  the  same  phra- 
 seology, 7. 
 
 Inspiration  of  Scriptures,  all  in- 
 spired, yet  portions  uninspired, 
 143. 
 
 Instruments  of  future  punishment, 
 shame  and  a  whirlwind,  209  ;  a 
 worm  and  a  tempest,  209  ;  dark- 
 ness and  fire,  210. 
 
 Intellect  stimulated  by  discrep- 
 ancies, 30. 
 
 Intercession  of  Christ,  only  Media- 
 tor, yet  Spirit  intercedes,  131  ; 
 intercedes  for  world  and  not  for 
 world,  131. 
 
 Intermediate  state  of  man,  dead 
 unconscious  and  conscious,  188; 
 dead  asleep  and  awake,  191  ;  de- 
 void of,  yet  possess  knowledge, 
 193  ;  exercise  mental  powers,  and 
 not  so,  195  ;  in  darkness  and  in 
 glory,  197  ;  not  with  Christ,  yet 
 righteous  with  him,  198  ;  in  same 
 place,  yet  in  dififerent  places,  199  ; 
 in  the  dust,  yet  saints  with  God, 
 199. 
 
 Interval  before  passover,  416  ;  be- 
 fore transfiguration,  416. 
 
 Invisibility  of  GdG,  seen  and  unseen, 
 73  ;  similitude  visible  and  not  vis- 
 ible, 76. 
 
 Isaac,  equivocation,  26,  318;  sacri- 
 fice by  father,  237. 
 
 Ishbosheth,  reign  begun,  400. 
 
 Ishmael,  age  at  expulsion,  418. 
 
 Israel,  support,  34.5  ;  siglit,  363  ; 
 reception  of  new  name,  41 1.  See 
 also  "  Jacob." 
 
 Israel,  sin  ineffaceable  and  may  be 
 removed,  227  ;  boundary,  374. 
 
 Israelites,  claim  to  Canaan,  282 ; 
 condition  in  desert,  340 ;  dwell- 
 ings, 343  ;  imitation  of  heathen, 
 
 343  ;  hearkening  to  Moses,  344  ; 
 practice  of  idolatry,  344  ;  repulse 
 of  Philistines,  344  ;  resistless 
 might,  344 ;  comparative  strength, 
 
 344  ;  death  in  wilderness,  357 ; 
 halting-places,  371;  station  where, 
 373  ;  return  whither,  374  ;  arrival 
 at  Sinai,  409  ;  duration  of  bon- 
 dage, 418 ;  tarry  in  Heshbon, 
 420  ;  length  of  wanderings,  427. 
 
 Jacob,  name  derived,  315;  brought 
 out  of  Egypt,  345  ;  errand,  345  ; 
 mode  of  securing  birthright,  345  ; 
 support,    345  ;     daughters,    384  ; 
 
 .  family,  389;  age  at  flight,  420; 
 time  of  sons'  birth,  421. 
 
 Jael,  slaughter  of  Sisera,  255. 
 
 Jair,  cities,  number,  385. 
 
 Jcbus,  conquest  when,  406. 
 
 Jeduthun,  sons,  number,  385. 
 
 Jehoahaz,  reign  begun,  400 ;  dura- 
 tion, 400. 
 
 Jehoash,  reign  begun,  400. 
 
 Jehoiachin,  son,  346;  age  at  acces- 
 sion, 400 ;  capture,  400 ;  deliver- 
 ance, 400. 
 
 Jehoiakim,  successor,  346 ;  death 
 where,  374  ;  fourth  year,  400. 
 
 Jehoram,  sons'  fate,  346. 
 
 Jehoshaphat,  league  with  Ahaziah, 
 346. 
 
 Jehovah,  name  unknown,  421. 
 
 Jehu,  anointed  by  whom,  339. 
 
 Jephthah,  sacrifice  of  daughter, 
 239. 
 
 Jericho  captured  twice,  406. 
 
 Jeroboam,  residence,  375. 
 
 Jeroboam  II.  contemporary  with 
 Uzziah,  401. 
 
 Jerusalem,  a  delight  and  a  provoca- 
 tion, 228  ;  belonged  to  what  tribe, 
 375  ;  burned  when,  393  ;  captured 
 when,  393  ;  change  of  name,  395. 
 
 Jesse,  number  of  sons,  385. 
 
 Jesus  approached  by  centurion 
 and  elders,  346.  See  also  under 
 "  Christ." 
 
 Jethro,  identity,  354. 
 
 Jewess,  marriage  restricted  to  tribe, 
 283. 
 
468 
 
 GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 Joab,  crimes  punished,  256. 
 
 Job,  flocks  and  herds,  size,  175; 
 survival  of  his  children,  347. 
 
 John,  identity  with  Elias,  347 ;  ac- 
 quaintance with  Jesus,  409. 
 
 Jonah  (Jonas),  sign  adduced,  155. 
 
 Joram,  of  Israel,  reign  begun,  400. 
 
 Jordan,  meaning  of  phrase  "  tfiis 
 side,"  375  ;  time  of  crossing,  416. 
 
 Joseph,  derivation  of  name,  315; 
 purchasers'  nationality,  339  ;  im- 
 prisonment, 348 ;  keeper,  348  ; 
 deportation,  348. 
 
 Joshua,  conquest  of  kings,  348 ;  of 
 Canaan,  376  ;  reception  of  name, 
 395. 
 
 Josiah,  extirpation  of  idolatry,  348 ; 
 sons,  349  ;  death  where,  376 ;  re- 
 formation begun,  401. 
 
 Jotham,  duration  of  reign,  401. 
 
 Judah,  duration  of  reign,  149. 
 
 Judas,  manner  of  death,  349. 
 
 Judges,  appointed  by  whom,  350; 
 period  of  rule,  421. 
 
 Judging  of  David,  desired  and  de- 
 precated, 228. 
 
 Judging  of  others  forbidden  and 
 allowed,  284. 
 
 Judgment  final,  of  man,  ascribed  to 
 God  and  to  man,  201 ;  attributed 
 to  and  disclaimed  by  Christ,  201 ; 
 administered  by  God,  and  by  men 
 also,  202. 
 
 Judicial  purpose  of  discrepancies,  38. 
 
 Just  man's  life  by  faith  and  by 
 works,  228. 
 
 Justice  administered  by  different 
 judges,  284. 
 
 Justice  of  God,  is  just  and  unjust, 
 83  ;  punishes  for  others'  sins,  and 
 not  so,  84 ;  slays  the  good  and 
 spares  them,  88. 
 
 Justification  of  man,  by  faith  and  by 
 works,  167. 
 
 Kadesh,  situated  where,  373. 
 
 Keturah,  connection  with  Abraham, 
 318,  339. 
 
 Killing  of  men  forbidden  and  sanc- 
 tioned, 285. 
 
 Kindred  hated,  yet  loved,  286  ;  par- 
 ents honored  and  slighted,  287  ; 
 children  slain,  yet  cherished,  287. 
 
 Kjngdom  of  Christ,  not  of  world, 
 yet  within  Pharisees,  136  ;  end- 
 less and  will  terminate,  137. 
 
 Kings  in  Israel,  premature  mention, 
 395. 
 
 Kish,  father  of,  351. 
 
 Kohath,  son  of,  351. 
 
 Korah,  manner  of  death,  352 ; 
 family's  fate,  353. 
 
 Laadan,  posterity,  351. 
 
 Laban,  father  of,  351. 
 
 Laish  captured  twice,  406. 
 
 Land  assigned  twice,  412. 
 
 Laughter  praised  and  condemned, 
 250. 
 
 Law,  given  where,  376. 
 
 Law  of  God,  tends  to  liberty  and  to 
 bondage,  1 04  ;  perfect,  yet  per- 
 fects nothing,  104 ;  tends  to  life 
 and  to  death,  104. 
 
 Lazarus,  death,  184 ;  mode  of  egress 
 from  tomb,  353. 
 
 Leadership  of  cloud,  nature,  430. 
 
 Letters,  similarity  of  Hebrew,  20 ; 
 of  Greek,  20 ;  Hebrew  used  as 
 numerals,  21  ;  Greek  used  as  nu- 
 merals, 24 ;  letters  transposed, 
 313  ;  letters  confounded,  392. 
 
 Levites  portion,  were  settled,  yet 
 sojourners,  288 ;  had  stated  rev- 
 enue, yet  deemed  mendicants, 
 289 ;  part  at  inauguration  of 
 Joash,  350  ;  number,  382  ;  classes, 
 387  ;  dimensions  of  cities,  388  ; 
 land  mentioned,  395  ;  set  apart 
 when,  409  ;  beginning  of  service, 
 422. 
 
 Light,  beginning  of  existence, 
 422. 
 
 Lord's  supper,  described,  156  ;  time 
 of  instituting,  453. 
 
 Lot,  daughters  of,  282. 
 
 Luz  mentioned  prematurely,  395. 
 
 Lying  countenanced  and  prohib- 
 "ited,  290. 
 
 Machir,  wife  of,  351. 
 Mahol,  sons  of,  351. 
 Maiden,  decease,  337. 
 Malefactors,  reviling,  number,  384. 
 Man,  creation,  158  ;  sinfulness,  159; 
 repentance,    165 ;     regeneration. 
 
GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 469 
 
 166;  justification,  167;  sanctifi- 
 cation,  168  ;  perfection,  169  ;  final 
 perseverance,  169  ;  righteous, 
 eartlily  lot,  1 72  ;  wicked,  earthly 
 lot,  180;  death,  183;  intermediate 
 state,188;  resurrection,  200  ;  final 
 judgment,  201  ;  duty  to  God,  219  ; 
 dnty  to  himself,  245  ;  duty  to  fel- 
 low-men, 255  ;  fear  upon  beasts, 
 354;  life,  duration,  424. 
 
 Manassch,  repentance,  351. 
 
 Manna,  taste,  431. 
 
 Man,  own  way  followed  and  not 
 followed,  250. 
 
 Manuscripts,  errors,  19  ;  date,  45. 
 
 Marriage,  approved  and  disparaged, 
 291  ;  with  a  brother's  widow  en- 
 joined and  prohibited,  292. 
 
 Mercy  of  Christ,  is  merciful  and  un- 
 merciful, 116;  spares  reed  and 
 wields  rod,  116. 
 
 Mercy  of  God,  is  unmerciful  and 
 merciful,  92  ;  his  anger  tierce  and 
 slow,  95  ;  lasting  and  brief,  95 ; 
 to  fall  into  hands,  fearful  and  not 
 «o,  96 ;  laughs  at,  yet  not  pleased 
 with  sinner's  overthrow,  96;  just 
 and  merciful,  97  ;  hates  some,  yet 
 kind  to  all,  97. 
 
 Meribah,  location,  374. 
 
 Micaiah,  ironical  words  to  Ahab,276. 
 
 Michal,  sons  of,  385. 
 
 Midianites  overthrown,  406. 
 
 Milton,  description  of  hospital,  33. 
 
 Miracles  of  Christ,  proof  and  not  a 
 proof  of  divine  mission,  120. 
 
 Miscellaneous  Discrepancies,  427. 
 
 Mission  of  Christ,  peace  and  war, 
 118  ;  universal  and  limited,  119  ; 
 to  Samaritans  and  to  Jews  only, 
 119;  to  fulfil  and  to  redeem  from 
 law,  120;  to  judge  and  not  to 
 judge  world,  120. 
 
 Modes  of  representing  Christ, 
 despised  and  honorable,  127  ;  un- 
 comely and  lovely,  127  ;  a  lion 
 and  a  lamb,  127  ;  high-priest  and 
 a  sacrifice,  128;  vine  and  stone, 
 128;  shepherd  and  sheep,  128  ; 
 door  and  bread,  128;  light  of 
 world,  and  men  are  lights,  129; 
 foundation  and  men  are  founda- 
 tions, 129. 
 
 40 
 
 I  Moabites,  punishment,  264. 
 j  Molten  sea,  contents,  382  ;  appen- 
 dages, 431. 
 Monarchy  sanctioned,  yet  offensive 
 I      to  Jehovah,  229. 
 Moral  character  tested  by  discrep- 
 ancies, 38. 
 i  Moral   purity  of  Scripture,  purity 
 I      enjoined,  yet  impure  ideas   sug- 
 '      gcsted,  144. 
 Mosaic  law,  character,  431. 
 Moses,   self-praise,  248 ;   name  de- 
 rived,  315  ;     wife's    nationality, 
 339  ;  family  sent  back,  551  ;    ast, 
 351;     decrepitude,  354;    father- 
 in-law,  354 ;  rank  among  proph- 
 ets, 355  ;  veil,  355  ;  book  received, 
 363  ;    outlook,  373  ;    commission 
 given  where,  377;  fear  of  Pharaoh, 
 424. 
 Motherhood,  blessed  and  to  be  ex- 
 piated, 230. 
 Mount  of  law,  accessibility,  432. 
 Mourning  commended  and  disconn- 
 
 tenanced,  251. 
 Murder,     punishment     commuted, 
 261  ;   forbidden   and   sanctioned, 
 285. 
 
 Naboth,  sons'  fate,  356. 
 
 Name  of  Christ,  has  divine  name, 
 and- a  city  also  bears  it,  138. 
 
 Names,  plurality,  17,  314,  373; 
 changes,  17;  errors  in,  25,  312; 
 difi^erent  forms,  314  ;  derivation, 
 314. 
 
 Nature,  contradictions  in,  33. 
 
 Nature  of  future  punishment,  con- 
 tinued misery  and  end  of  con- 
 sciousness, 203 ;  wicked  perish 
 and  righteous  perish,  204  ;  sinners 
 annihilated,  and  annihilated  ob- 
 jects still  exist.  204;  wicked  cut 
 off,  and  Messiah  cut  off,  205 ; 
 wicked  destroyed  ;  destroyed  per- 
 sons yet  living,  205;  sinners  de- 
 stroyed ;  destroyed  things  exist, 
 205;  sinners  consumed;  consumed 
 things  exist.  206  ;  wicked  was  not, 
 and  Enoch  was  not,  206  ;  wicked 
 devoured,  and  pious  devoured, 
 206  ;  God's  adversaries  and  wid- 
 ows' houses  devoured,  206 ;   sin- 
 
470 
 
 GENERAL   INDEX. 
 
 ners  devoured  ;  persons  devoured 
 by  forest,  207  ;  wicked  and  right- 
 eous torn  and  broken,  207  ; 
 wicked  broken  ;  things  broken 
 remain,  207  ;  wicked  blotted  out ; 
 things  blotted  out  exist,  207  ; 
 wicked  and  righteous  have  an  end, 
 208  ;  wicked  and  righteous  die, 
 208. 
 
 Nebuchadnezzar,  his  encampment 
 where,  377;  nineteenth  year,  402 ; 
 dream  explained  when,  402. 
 
 New,  nothing  on  earth,  432. 
 
 Obed-edom,  nationality,  339. 
 
 Obedience  due  to  rulers,  yet  with- 
 held, 292  ;  due  to  masters,  yet  to 
 God  only,  293  ;  to  scribes,  yet 
 they  must  be  shunned,  293. 
 
 Objects,  difference  of  writers,  7. 
 
 Occupants  of  heaven,  Christ  only 
 and  Elijah  also,  216;  flesh  and 
 blood  excluded,  yet  Enoch  there, 
 217  ;  publicans  and  harlots  there, 
 but  no  impure,  217. 
 
 Offender  rebuked  privately  and 
 publicly,  293. 
 
 Officers,  appointed  when,  412. 
 
 Officers,  chief,  number,  382. 
 
 Omnipotence  of  Christ,  all  power- 
 ful and  not  almighty,  110. 
 
 Omnipotence  of  God,  power  abso- 
 lute and  limited,  55 ;  unwearied 
 and  weary,  56. 
 
 Omnipresence  of  Christ,  everywhere 
 and  not  in  all  places,  114. 
 
 Omnipresence  of  God,  ubiquitous 
 and  not  everywhere,  58. 
 
 Omniscience  of  Christ,  all-knowing 
 and  ignorant,lll. 
 
 Omniscience  of  God,  all-knowing 
 and  ignorant,  56  ;  attentive  and 
 forgetful,  57  ;  sleepless  and  slum- 
 bering, 57. 
 
 Omri,  reign  begun,  402. 
 
 Ophir  mentioned  prematurely,  395. 
 
 Oriental  idiom,  peculiarities,  14, 
 145. 
 
 Oriental  methods  of  notation,  13. 
 
 Oriental  modes  of  dress,  145. 
 
 Origin  of  Discrepancies,  3. 
 
 Difference    of   dates    of    pas- 
 sages, 3. 
 
 Differences  of  authorship,  6. 
 Differences  of  stand-point  or  of 
 
 object,  7. 
 Different  methods  of  arrange- 
 ment, 9. 
 Different  methods  of  computa- 
 tion, 11. 
 Peculiarities  of  Oriental  idiom, 
 
 14. 
 Plurality  of   names   or   syno- 
 
 nymes,  17. 
 Different    meanings    of    same 
 
 word,  18. 
 Errors  in  manuscripts,  19. 
 Imagination  of  critic,  25. 
 Other  sources  of  discrepancies,  con- 
 densation  of  narrative,    10,  29 ; 
 deficient   knowledge    of  circum- 
 stances, 29,  436. 
 Overseers,  number,  382. 
 
 Parable  of  talents,  433. 
 
 Paran,  wilderness,  location,  372. 
 
 Park,  Prof.  E.  A.,  definition  of  mir- 
 acle, 122. 
 
 Paschal  offering,  kind,  433.  • 
 
 Passover,  slain  where,  377. 
 
 Patristic  view  of  intermediate  state, 
 192. 
 
 Paul,  moral  state  ;  nothing  good  in 
 
 .  him,  yet  Christ  in  him,  230 ;  his 
 boasting  elucidated,  247. 
 
 Pekali,  duration  of  reign,  402. 
 
 Penal  object  of  discrepancies,  40. 
 
 People,  number,  381,  389. 
 
 Perfection  of  man,  saints  perfect, 
 and  Paul  not  perfect,  169. 
 
 Perseverance,  final,  of  man,  apos- 
 tacy  impossible,  yet  some  fall, 
 1G9  ;  Christians  indestructible  and 
 destroyed,  1 72  ;  called  all  saved, 
 yet  some  perish,  172. 
 
 Personality  of  Holy  Spirit,  an  intel 
 ligence  and  an  influence,  139. 
 
 Persons,  discrepancies  concerning, 
 312  ;  slain,  number,  383  ;  anothei 
 case,  383  ;  sealed  when,  409. 
 
 Peter,  residence,  377  ;  denials,  424. 
 
 Pharaoh,  hardening  of  heart,  90. 
 
 Piety  evinced ;  profession  a  proof 
 and  not  a  proof  231. 
 
 Pillar  of  cloud,  use,  430. 
 
 Pillar  of  temple,  length,  383. 
 
GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 471 
 
 Pleasing  of  men  practised  and  con- 
 demned, 294. 
 
 Polygamy  tolerated  and  discour- 
 aged, 295. 
 
 Pomegranates,  number,  383. 
 
 Poor,  favored  and  not  favored,  296 ; 
 present  and  absent,  356. 
 
 Position  of  God,  sitting  and  stand- 
 ing, 103. 
 
 Potter's  field,  purchasers,  347. 
 
 Prayer,  public  and  in  private,  231  ; 
 incessant  and  brief,  232. 
 
 Predictions  of  Scripture,  privately 
 and  not  privately  explained,  146  ; 
 sure,  yet  not  always  fulfilled,  148  ; 
 divine  promise  absolute  yet  con- 
 ditional, 148  ;  promise  to  Judah 
 fulfilled  and  not  so,  149. 
 
 Priests,  dues,  first-born  and  first- 
 lings, and  not  these,  296  ;  desig- 
 nation, 356  ;  number  of  classes, 
 390  ;  time  of  consecration,  409. 
 
 Produce  of  seventh  year,  for  the 
 poor,  and  for  owner,  297. 
 
 Promises,  reception,  363. 
 
 Property  in  man  recognized  and 
 precluded,  298. 
 
 Prophecy.     See  Predictions. 
 
 Proverb,  origin,  412. 
 
 Psalms,  imprecatory,  explanation, 
 272. 
 
 Punishment.  See  Future  Punish- 
 ment. 
 
 Purchaser  of  sepulchre,  357. 
 
 Purity,  251 .  See  also  Moral  Purity 
 of  Scriptures. 
 
 Quotations  of  Scripture,  passages 
 and  incorrect  quotations^  150; 
 passage  and  condensation,  151 ; 
 passages  and  expansion,  151;  pas- 
 sage and  inexact  version,  152  ; 
 passage  and  wrong  reference,  1 53 ; 
 forms  of  report,  and  variations, 
 153. 
 
 Kahab,  case,  290. 
 Ransom,  amount,  385. 
 Regeneration  of  man,  he  is  active 
 
 and  passive,  166. 
 Repentance  of  Esau,  unable  yet  his 
 
 duty  to  repent,  232. 
 
 Repentance  of  man,  his  own  act  and 
 God's  gift,  1 65. 
 
 Resistance  exemplified  and  inter- 
 dicted, 298. 
 
 Results  of  Discrepancies,  41. 
 
 Text  not  unsettled  by  them,  41. 
 Moral   influence  of  Bible   not 
 impaired,  50. 
 
 Resurrection  of  man  ;  dead  raised 
 and  not  raised,  200 ;  resurrection 
 universal  and  partial,  200 ;  Jesus 
 raised  first ;  others  raised  pre- 
 viously, 201. 
 
 Retaliation,  allowed  and  discour- 
 aged, 299. 
 
 Retribution,  earthly  ;  recompense 
 here  and  hereafter,  1 82. 
 
 Righteous,  earthly  lot,  no  evil,  yet 
 some  evil,  172;  prosperity  and 
 misery,  172;  prosperity  a  reward 
 and  a  curse,  1 74 ;  poverty  a  bless- 
 ing and  undesirable,  1 75  ;  riches 
 a  blessing,  yet  not  to  be  desired, 
 175;  wisdom  cause  of  happiness 
 and  sorrow,  176  ;  a  good  name  a 
 blessing  and  a  curse,  176  ;  right- 
 eous beg  not,  yet  some  beg,  177  ; 
 possess  the  earth,  yet  are  sojourn- 
 ers, 177;  pilgrims  and  strangers, 
 yet  not  so,  178  ;  they  surely  live, 
 yet  some  die,  178 ;  are  persecuted, 
 yet  not  persecuted,  178  ;  handled 
 roughly,  yet  not  touched,  179; 
 their  yoke  easy,  yet  burdensome, 
 179. 
 
 Righteousness,  excess  and  deficiency 
 perilous,  233. 
 
 Robbery  of  Egyptians  forbidden 
 and  countenanced,  300. 
 
 Rulers'  knowledge  of  Jesus,  358. 
 
 Sabbath,  sanctioned  and  repudiated, 
 233  ;  instituted  for  diverse  rea- 
 sons, 234  ;  mentioned  prema- 
 turely, 395. 
 
 Sabbath  desecration  prohibited  and 
 countenanced,  234. 
 
 Sacrifice  of  Christ,  died  for  friends, 
 yet  for  enemies,  130;  laid  down 
 life  and  was  murdered,  130, 
 
 Sacrifices,  appointed  and  disavowed, 
 235 ;  expiatory,and  not  expiatory, 
 236. 
 
472 
 
 GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 Sacrifices,  human,  sanctioned  and 
 stringently  prohibited,  237. 
 
 Salah,  father  of,  352. 
 
 Sakithiel,  father  of,  346. 
 
 Salvation,  extent,  all  Israel,  yet 
 only  a  portion  saved,  213;  uni- 
 versal and  partial,  214 ;  work  of 
 God  and  of  man,  251. 
 
 Samaritans,  inhospitality,  358. 
 
 Samuel,  artifice,  99 ;  first-born,  352 ; 
 visit  to  Saul,  358 ;  judgeship,  425 ; 
 meeting  with  Saul,  425. 
 
 Sanctification  of  man  through  truth 
 and  through  spirit,  168. 
 
 Sanctuary,  location,  377. 
 
 Sarah,  beauty  and  charms,  317. 
 
 Satan,  imprisonment,  362. 
 
 Saul,  king,  sons,  352  ;  election,  359  ; 
 death,  359  ;  family's  fate,  360 ; 
 ignorance  of  David,  360 ;  journey, 
 379  ;  reign,  402  ;  anointings,  412. 
 
 Saul  of  Tarsus,  attendants  hearing 
 the  voice,  359  ;  position,  359. 
 
 Schleiermacher,  definition  of  mira- 
 cle, 122. 
 
 Science,  discrepancies*  in,  35. 
 
 Scriptures,  comparison  with  clas- 
 sics, 46  ;  inspiration,  143  ;  moral 
 purity,  144  ;  predictions,  146  ; 
 quotations,  150. 
 
 Seedtime  and  harvest,  425. 
 
 Sennacherib,  army,  survivors,  363. 
 
 Sepulchre,  time  of  visit  to,  426. 
 
 Service  of  God,  with  fear  and  with 
 gladness,  241. 
 
 Shakespeare,  text,  compared  with 
 that  of  Bible,  47. 
 
 Shekels  paid  by  David,  number, 
 390. 
 
 Shemaiah,  sons,  number,  385. 
 
 Shimei,  punishment,  256. 
 
 Significations  of  word,  opposite,  18. 
 
 Sihon,  heart  hardened,  91. 
 
 Simeon,  cities  and  towns,  369,  373. 
 
 Simeonites,  number,  385. 
 
 Similar  events,  identity,  26. 
 
 Sin,  forgiveness,  all  sin  pardonable, 
 yet  some  not  so,  241. 
 
 Sinai,  relation  to  Horeb,  376, 
 
 Sinfulness  of  man,  none  without 
 sin,  yet  some  sinless,  159  ;  made 
 upright  and  made  sinful,  161; 
 born   sinful,  yet  infants   sinless, 
 
 161  ;  children  of  wrath  and  keep- 
 ers of  law,  164  ;  sinners  through 
 Adam,  and  righteous  through 
 Christ,  165. 
 
 Sinners'  feeling,  fear  yet  no  fear, 
 242. 
 
 Sin-oflfering,  of  one  kind  and 
 another,- 241. 
 
 Slavery  and  oppression,  298,  302  ; 
 ordained  and  forbidden,  302 ; 
 Hebrew  slavery  allowed  and  pre- 
 cluded, 303. 
 
 Slaves,  emancipation,  in  seventh  and 
 in  fiftieth  year,  303  ;  female,"man- 
 umitted,  and  not  so,  304. 
 
 Solomon,  tyranny,  362  ;  destination 
 of  fleet,  378  ;  gifts  to  Hiram,  385 ; 
 number  of  wives,  295,  390 ;  an- 
 ointings, 412. 
 
 Sons  sharing  estate  equally  and  un- 
 equally, 304. 
 
 Speaker,  upon -a  certain  occasion, 
 363. 
 
 Spices,  time  of  preparation,  412. 
 
 Spies,  sent  by  whom,  350. 
 
 Spirit  of  Bible  above  its  letter,  37. 
 
 Stalls,  number,  383. 
 
 Stand-point  of  writers,  different,  7. 
 
 Staves  of  ark,  fixed  and  removable, 
 242. 
 
 Stone  removed  from  well,  363. 
 
 Strange  gods,  character,  433. 
 
 Stranger,  treatment,  loved  and  not 
 loved,  305 ;  impartially  treated, 
 yet  not  so,  3Q5. 
 
 Strong  drink  allowed  and  forbidden, 
 251. 
 
 Stuart,  Prof.  M.,  on  future  punish- 
 ment, 212. 
 
 Substitute  for  Bible  not  to  be  found, 
 51. 
 
 Sun  and  moon  ashamed,  433. 
 
 Swearing  and  oaths  countenanced 
 and  prohibited,  242. 
 
 Taanach,  conquered  when,  405. 
 
 Tabernacle,  location,  378  ;  prema- 
 ture mention,  396. 
 
 Tabernacles,  feast  observed,  417. 
 
 Tables  of  shew -bread,  number, 
 384. 
 
 Talents,  number,  383 ;  parable, 
 433. 
 
GENERAL  INDEX. 
 
 473 
 
 Temple,   length,   383;    number  of  | 
 vessels,  383  ;  premature  mention, 
 396  ;   mount,  396  ;   furniture  re- 
 moved, 412  ;  erection,  426  ;  mak- 
 ing of  vessels,  434. 
 
 Temptation  desirable  and  not  so, 
 253. 
 
 Testimony,  premature  mention, 396. 
 
 Text  of  Scripture,  not  unsettled,  41; 
 of  Old  Testament,  42  ;  of  New 
 Testament,  44. 
 
 Thermometer,  illustration,  12. 
 
 Things  in  ark,  number,  390. 
 
 Thnetopsychism,  origin,  185. 
 
 Thompson,  Dr.  J.  F.,  on  Oriental 
 chronology,  13. 
 
 Time,  errors  in,  causes,  392  ;  meth- 
 ods of  computation,  11,  396. 
 
 Times,  observance,  may  be,  and  may 
 not  be  observed,  244. 
 
 Timnah,  relationship,  352. 
 
 Trench,  Abp.,  definition  of  miracle. 
 122. 
 
 Trespass,  recompense  made  to  the 
 Lord  and  to  the  priest,  245. 
 
 Tribes,  loyal,  number,  387. 
 
 Unclean  birds,  number,  391. 
 Unity  of  God,  one  and  a  plurality, 
 
 60. 
 Usury  exacted  of  no  poor  man  and 
 
 no  Hebrew,  306. 
 
 Various  readings,  value,  36. 
 J^i'^eracity  of  Christ,  witness  true  and 
 
 untrue,l  1 7  ;  received  and  received 
 
 not  testimony,  118. 
 Veracity  of  God,   cannot    lie,  and 
 
 sends  lying  spirits,  98  ;  denounces 
 
 and  sanctions  deception,  99. 
 Version  of  affair,  434. 
 Vessels  made  for  temple,  434. 
 Visitors  at  sepulchre,  number,  391 ; 
 
 time  of  their  visit,  426. 
 40* 
 
 Voltaire,  treatment  of  the  Bible,  27. 
 
 Wandering  of  Israelites,  duration, 
 427. 
 
 Washington,  birth-day,  11. 
 
 Water  of  Egypt,  changed,  434. 
 
 Water  on  Mount  Carmel,  abundant, 
 435. 
 
 Wealth  not  to  be,  yet  may  be  re- 
 tained, 253. 
 
 Wicked,  earthly  lot,  long-lived  and 
 die  early,  180;  prosper  and  do 
 not  prosper,  180;  see  and  see  not 
 divine  glory,  181  ;  sin  with  im- 
 punity, yet  punished,  181 ;  pun- 
 ishment affirmed  and  denied,  182. 
 
 Wicked,  treatment,  hated  and  loved, 
 306 ;  justified  properly  and  im- 
 properly, 306. 
 
 Wisdom,  profitless  and  valuable, 
 254. 
 
 Witchcraft,  treatment,  punished  and 
 contemned,  307. 
 
 Wives,  foreign,  repudiated,  412. 
 
 Woman,  a  certain,  nationality,  339. 
 
 Woman,     condition     and     rights, 
 
 should  be  subject  and  bear  rule, 
 
 308;  should  be  silent,  and  may 
 
 prophesy,  309. 
 
 Worship  of  God,  beginning,  427. 
 
 Xenophon,  Memorabilia,  compared 
 with  the  gospels,  10. 
 
 Year,  kinds,ll ;  beginning,  12, 412  ; 
 I      fractions  counted  for  whole,  12. 
 
 Zebedee,  wife,  request,  347. 
 !  Zebulon,  name  derived,  316. 
 I  Zechariah,  father  of,  352. 
 Zedekiah,  relationship,  352  ;  view  of 
 
 Babylon,  363. 
 Zerubbabel,  father  of,  352;  feast  of 
 tabernacles,  417. 
 
WARREN   F.  DRAPER, 
 PUBLISHER    AND    BOOKSELLER, 
 
 ANDOVER,     MASS., 
 
 Publishes  and  offers  for  Sale  the  following  Works,  which  will  be  sent, 
 post-paid,  on  receipt  of  the  sums  affixed. 
 
 GARDINER'S  GREEK  HARMONY.  A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels 
 in  Greek,  according  to  the  Text  of  Tischendorf,  with  a  Collation  of  the  Textus 
 Keceptus,  and  of  the  Texts  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles.  By 
 Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School.  8vo.  $2.50. 
 
 "  A  very  important  matter  in  the  preparation  of  the  Harmony  is,  of  course,  the  choice  of  a  text 
 The  one  chosen  by  Professor  Gardiner  is  that  of  Tischendorf 's  eighth  edition  of  the  New  Testa- 
 ment. This  text  was  chosen  because  '  it  embodied  the  latest  results  of  criticism,  having  had  the 
 advantage  throughout  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticus  and  of  a  more  close  collation  of  the  Codex  Vatican  us.' 
 Professor  Gardiner  would,  indeed,  have  published  his  Harmony  more  than  a  year  ago,  but  waited 
 till  opportunity  could  be  given  lor  consulting  this  last  edition  of  Tischendorf.  It  is  an  obvious 
 merit  in  this  Harmony,  that  the  student  can  see  at  a  glance  whether  or  not  the  text  of  Tischendorf 
 agrees  or  conflicts  with  that  of  Griesbach,  Lachmann,  and  Tregelles  in  places  where  there  is  a  dif- 
 ference of  opinion.  It  is  another  excellence  of  the  work  that  the  Greek  text  is  so  accurate,  evincing 
 the  most  scrupulous  care  and  thorough  scholarship  on  the  part  of  the  editor."  —  BMtotheca  Sacra. 
 
 "The  notes  of  the  author  are  marked  by  scholarship  and  good  sense.  The  student  will  find  it  a 
 convenient  manual  for  the  study  of  the  Gospels,  because  he  sees  upon  one  and  the  same  page  the 
 readings  of  the  principal  editions  and  manuscripts,  together  with  the  quotations  made  by  the  evan- 
 gelists from  the  Old  Testament."  —  Frinceton  Review. 
 
 "Dr.  Gardiner's  work  has  been  well  done,  and  he  has  given  us  a  Harmony  of  great  value."  — 
 Quarterly  Review  Evang.  Luth.  Cliurch. 
 
 "  By  this  scholarly  work  Dr.  Gardiner  has  rendered  all  diligent  students  of  the  Gospel  narrative 
 an  invaluable  service.  In  a  single  volume,  and  by  the  most  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  several 
 and  inspired  accounts  of  the  life  and  doings  of  our  Lord,  the  book  furnishes  the  best  results  of  the 
 ablest  and  most  laborious  investigation  of  all  known  sources  of  knowledge  regarding  the  original 
 Bacred  text."  —  Reformed  Church  Monthly. 
 
 "  It  is  a  superior  work  of  its  \iinA."  —  National  Baptist. 
 
 "  This  book,  the  result  of  great  research  and  utmost  painstaking,  is  well  worthy  the  consideration 
 of  all  Bible  scholars."  —  Watchman  and  Reflectw. 
 
 GARDINER'S  ENGLISH  HARMONT.    A  Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels 
 in  English,  according  to  the  Authorized  Version;  corrected  by  the  best  Critical 
 Editions  of  the  Original.    By  Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berke- 
 ley Divinity  School.    8vo.    Cloth,  $2.00. 
 "  The  Harmony  in  English,  the  title  of  which  is  given  above,  is  a  reproduction  of  the  Harmony 
 in  Greek;  no  other  changes  being  made  than  such  as  were  required  to  fit  the  work  for  the  use  of  the 
 English  reader  who  desires  to  learn  some  of  the  improvements  which  modem  criticism  has  made  in 
 the  authorized  English  text."  —  BUJioiheca  Sacra. 
 
 "  We  gladly  commend  this  Harmony  to  every  intelligent  reader  of  the  Scriptures.  The  need  of 
 Buch  a  guide  is  felt  by  every  thoughtful  Churchman  at  least  once  a  year  —  in  Holy  Week  —  when 
 he  desires  to  read  the  events  of  each  day  in  the  order  in  which  they  happened  so  many  years  ago. 
 We  do  not  think  that  our  laymen  know  how  much  they  will  he  helped  to  the  understanding  of  the 
 Gospels  by  a  simple  Harmony,  perhaps  reads  as  we  suggested  above,  in  connection  with  some 
 standard  Life  of  our  Lord."—  The  Churchnian. 
 
 LIEE  OP  CHRIST.    The  Life  of  our  Lord  in  the  Words  of  the  Gospels.    By 
 
 Frederic  Gardiner,  D.D.,  Professor  in  the  Berkeley  Divinity  School.    16mo. 
 
 pp.  256.    $1.00 
 
 "  It  is  well"  adapted  to  the  convenience  of  pastors,  to  the  needs  of  teachers  in  the  Bible-class  and 
 
 Sabbath-school,  to  the  religious  instruction  of  families.    It  bids  fair  to  introduce  improveinents  into 
 
 the  style  of  teaching  the  Bible  to  the  young."  —  Bibliolhecn  Sacra. 
 
 "  This  little  volume  will  not  onlj'  answer  as  a  Harmony  of  the  Gospels  for  the  use  of  those  who 
 only  care  to  have  results,  but  it  will  be  an  excellent  book  to  read  at  family  prayers,  or  to  study  willi 
 a  Bible-class."-  Christian  Union. 
 
 (1) 
 
Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper, 
 
 A  GUIDE   TO    BEADING   THE   HEBRE"W   TEXT;  for  the  Use  of 
 
 Beginners.  By  Kev.  W.  H.  Vibbert,  M.  A.,  Trofessor  of  Hebrew  in  the 
 Berkeley  Divinity  School.    12mo.    pp.  67.    $1.25. 
 
 "  The  aim  of  this  work  is  to  give  the  student  all  that  is  needful  to  enable  him  to  read  the  text  of 
 the  Old  Testament,  keeping  rigorously  to  the  plan  of  stating  clearly  and  precisely  everything  that 
 is  essential  to  the  purpose.  This  work  is  not  a  Hebrew  Grammar,  but  it  is  a  guide  and  a  help  to  the 
 reading  of  the  text  of  the  Ilebrew  Bible.  One  thing  is  given  at  a  time,  with  exercises  for  practice, 
 80  that  each  point  may  be  perfectly  comprehended.  It  is  hoped  that  the  book  is  so  constructed  as 
 to  enable  the  learner  to  read  the  Hebrew  text  without  the  services  of  the  living  teacher.  Nothing 
 has  been  taken  for  granted  on  the  part  of  the  student.  By  a  systematic  and  progressive  plan  of 
 arrangement,  which  he  must  follow  closely  and  steadily,  he  is  lead  on  from  section  to  section,  until 
 pertect  familiarity  with  the  forms  and  sounds  of  characters  and  signs  is  acquired."  — ^utAor's  Pref. 
 
 "  Mr.  Vibbert's  manual  is  what  it  claims  to  be.  It  really  gives,  in  a  perspicuous  and  exact  man- 
 ner, an  initiation  into  the  mj'steries  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  the  rudiments  of  Hebrew  study  are 
 all  contained  in  these  simple  rules  and  illustrated  in  these  practical  exercises.  The  method  is  the 
 excellent  method  of  Kalisch,  which  insists  upon  orthography  as  the  needful  prelimiuary  to  gram- 
 mar and  syntax.  One  who  faithfully  follows  Mr.  Vibbert's  directions  will  be  able  to  use  with  profit 
 the  lexicon  and  the  chrestomathy,  and  in  a  little  time  to  read  the  Word  of  the  Lord  in  the  charac- 
 ter which  it  had  wlien  the  Scribes  expounded  it."  —  Christian  JiegiMer, 
 
 RIGGS'S  O.  T.  EMENDATIONS.  Suggested  Emendations  of  the  Author- 
 ized English  Version  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  Elias  Kiggs,  Missionary  of 
 the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  Constantinople.    12mo.    pp.  130.     $1.00. 
 
 "  The  amendments  here  suggested  are  the  result,  not  of  a  systematic  revision  of  the  English  Ver- 
 sion, which  I  have  never  attempted,  but  of  comparisons  made  in  the  course  of  translating  the  Scrip- 
 tures into  the  Armenian  and  Bulgarian  languages.  They  are  offered  to  the  candid  consideration  of 
 all  who  feel  especial  interest  in  the  correction  of  the  English  Version,  and  specially  of  those  provh- 
 dentially  called  to  the  work  of  translating  the  word  of  God  into  other  tongues."  —  Author's  Preface. 
 
 "  W.  F.  Draper,  publisher  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  has  issued  an  interesting  and  suggestive  little 
 treatise  written  by  Rev.  Elias  Riggs,  Missionary  of  the  A.  B.  C.  F.  M.,  at  Constantinople,  which  is 
 introduced  by  an  Introductory  Note  of  Prof.  Thayer  of  Andover.  It  is  intended  to  suggest  some  of 
 the  philological  changes  in  the  version  of  the  Old  Testament,  rendered  advisable  by  the  advanced 
 scholarship  in  Oriental  tongues,  attained  especially  by  our  missionaries  of  the  East.  The  criticism 
 upon  the  New  Testament  has  been  very  full.  The  present  is  a  work  of  the  same  description  upon 
 the  Old,  but  is  one  upon  which  fewer  eminent  scholars  have  entered.  Obscure  passages  are  found 
 to  yield  their  long-hidden  meaning  through  an  acquaintance  with  the  idioms  of  Oriental  languages, 
 and  a  personal  familiarity  with  the  unchanging  customs  of  that  stereotyped  land.  The  volume  is  a 
 valuable  reflex  contribution  to  the  churches  at  the  West,  from  the  mission  fields  supported  by  their 
 gifts  in  the  East.  It  comes  at  an  hour  when  its  modest  and  well-defendeu  suggestions  will  secure  a 
 careful  examination  on  the  part  of  the  Biblical  scholars  now  engaged  in  Great  Britain  and  in  this 
 country  upon  a  new  version  of  the  English  Bible."  —  Zion's  Herald. 
 
 HEBRE'W  ENGLISH  PSALTER.  The  Book  of  Psalms,  in  Hebrew  and 
 English,  arranged  in  Parallelism.    16mo.    pp.  194.    $1.25. 
 
 "  The  preacher  in  expounding  to  his  congregation  one  of  the  Psalms  of  David,  will  find  it  very 
 convenient  to  have  the  original  by  the  side  of  the  P^nglish  version.  For  private  reading  and  medi- 
 tation, also  such  an  arrangement  will  be  found  very  pleasant  and  profitable.  We  feel  confident  that 
 this  little  volume  will  be  a  favorite  with  Hebrew  schohirs;  and  that,  when  they  have  once  become 
 habituated  to  it,  it  will  be,  to  many  of  them,  a  vade  niecuin." —  Bifdiot/ieca  Sacj-a. 
 
 "A  handsome  edition  of  the  Book  of  Psalms,  which  will  be  quite  a  favorite  with  clergymen  and 
 thi'ological  students." —  A'eix;  Knrjlaiuler. 
 
 "  A  very  convenient  and  admirable  manual,  and  we  beg  leave  to  thank  our  Andover  friend  for 
 it." —  /'rf-.nljyfe.riuu  Qvarterh/. 
 
 "  The  volume  is  beautifully  printed,  of  convenient  size  foruse,  and  of  admirable  adaptation  to  the 
 service  of  those  whose  Hebrew  has  become  a  dim  reminiscence."  —  iVor<A  American. 
 
 HEBRE'W  GRAMMAR.    The  Elements  of  tlie  Hebrew  Language.     By  Rev. 
 A.  D.  JoNE.s,  A.M.    8vo.     pp.  168.     $1.75. 
 "  By  a  simple  and  progressive  seriesof  exercise,  and  by  a  perfectly  plain  exposition  of  the  syntax, 
 the  student  is  enabled  to  take  up  Hebrew  just  as  he  would  the  Initia  Latina,  and  just  as  easily."  — 
 J  n/Mxher's  Circular,  Apr.  15,  1870. 
 "  The  plan  of  the  work  is  iidmirable,  and  happily  executvd."  —  R^/brmed  Church  Mesaenger. 
 
 (2) 
 
Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 
 
 'WINER'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.  A  Grammar  of  the  Idiom  of  the  New  Tes- 
 tament ;  prepared  as  a  Solid  Dasis  for  the  luterpretatiou  of  the  New  Testament. 
 liy  Dr.  Oeorge  Benedict  Winer.  Seventh  Edition,  enlarged  and  improved. 
 By  Dr.  Gottlieb  Lunemann,  Professor  of  Theology  at  the  University  of 
 Gdttingen.  Kevised  and  authorized  Translation.  8vo.  pp.744.  Cloth,  S5.00; 
 sheep,  $6.00;  half  goat,  86.75. 
 
 "Prof.  Thayer  exhibits  the  most  scholarly  and  pains-taking  accuracy  in  all  his  work,  especial 
 attention  being  given  to  references  and  Indexes,  on  which  the  value  of  such  a  work  so  much 
 depends.  The  Indexes  alone  till  eighty-six  pages.  The  publisher's  work  is  handsomely  done,  and 
 we  cannot  conceive  that  a  better  Winer  should  be  for  many  years  to  come  accessible  to  American 
 scholars."  —  I'rinceion  Review. 
 
 "We  trust  that  this  admirable  edition  of  a  justly  famous  and  surpassingly  valuable  work,  will 
 gain  extensive  circulation,  and  that  the  study  of  it  will  begin  afresh."—  Baj/tist  Quarterly. 
 
 "The  seventh  edition  of  Winer,  superintended  by  J>unemann  (Leipz.  ISiiT),  we  have  at  Ui.-;t, 
 .thanks  to  Prof.  Thayer,  in  a  really  accurate  translation."  —  Dr.  Ezra  Abbot,  in  HinUh's  DictU/uanj 
 of  the  Bible,  American  Edition. 
 
 "  We  have  before  us,  in  our  own  language,  'a  reproduction  of  the  original  work,'  in  ita  most  per- 
 fect form,  and  with  its  author's  latest  additions  and  improvements."  —  Neto  Emjlander. 
 
 "Professor  Thayer  has  introduced  numerous  and  important  corrections  of  Masson's  translation, 
 and  has  made  the  present  edition  of  the  Grammar  decidedly  superior  to  any  of  the  preceding 
 translations.  He  has  made  it  especially  convenient  for  the  uses  of  an  English  student  by  noting  on 
 the  outer  margin  of  the  pages  the  paging  of  the  sixth  and  seventh  German  editions,  and  also  of 
 Prof.  Masson's  translation.  Thus  the  reader  of  a  commentary  which  refers  to  the  pages  of  either  of 
 those  volumes,  may  easily  find  the  reference  by  consulting  the  margin  of  this  volume."— i>i6.  Sacra. 
 
 "  The  whole  appearance  of  the  work  as  it  now  stands  indicates  a  careful  and  thorough  scholar- 
 ship. A  critical  comparison  of  several  pages  with  the  original  conlirms  the  impression  made  by  a 
 general  examination  of  the  book.  In  its  present  form,  this  translation  may  now  be  recommended  as 
 worthy  of  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  minister  who  desires  to  study  the  New  Testament  with  the 
 aid  of  the  best  critical  helps."  —  Theological  Eclectic. 
 
 "  Great  pains  also  have  been  taken  to  secure  typographical  accuracy,  an  extremely  difficult  thing 
 in  a  work  of  this  kind.  We  rejoice  that  so  invaluable  a  work  has  thus  been  made  as  nearly  perfect 
 as  we  can  hope  ever  to  have  it.  It  is  a  work  that  can  hardly  fail  to  facilitate  and  increase  the  rever- 
 ent and  accurate  study  of  the  Word  of  GoA."  —  American  Presbyterian  Review. 
 
 BUTTM ANN'S  N.  T.  GRAMMAR.  A  Grammar  of  the  New  Testament 
 Greek.  By  Alexander  Buttmann.  Authorized  Translation,  by  J.  Henry 
 Thayer.  With  numerous  additions  and  corrections  by  the  Author.  8vo.  pp.494. 
 Trice,  cloth,  $3.50. 
 
 "  This  Grammar  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  most  important  work  which  has  appeared  on  N.  T. 
 Grammar  since  Winer's.  Its  use  has  been  hindered  by  the  fact  that  in  the  original  it  has  the  form 
 of  an  Appendix  to  the  Claxsic  Greek  Grammar  by  the  Author's  father.  The  inconvenience  arising 
 from  this  peculiarity  has  been  obviated  in  this  translation  by  introducing  in  every  case  enough  from 
 that  Grammar  to  render  the  statements  easily  intelligible  to  readers  unacquainted  with  that  work  ; 
 at  the  same  time,  the  Author's  general  scheme  of  constantly  comparing  New  Testament  and  Classic 
 usage  has  been  facilitated  for  everj'  Student,  by  giving  running  references  throughout  the  book  to 
 five  or  six  of  the  most  current  grammatical  works,  among  them  the  Grammars  of  Iladlcy,  Crosby, 
 Donaldson,  and  Jelf.  Additions  and  corrections  in  more  than  two  hundred  and  fifty  places  have 
 been  furnished  for  this  edition  by  the  Author. 
 
 "  The  N.  T.  Index  has  been  enlarged  so  as  to  include  all  the  passages  from  the  N.  T.  referred  to 
 in  the  Grammar  ;  and  a  separate  Index  has  been  added,  comprising  all  the  passages  cited  from  the 
 Septuasint.  The  other  Indexes  have  been  materially  augmented  ;  the  cross-references  have  been 
 multiplied;  chapter  and  verse  added  to  many  of  the  fragmentary  quotations  from  the  N.  T.  ;  the 
 pagination  of  the  German  original  has  been  given  in  the  margin  ;  and  at  the  end  of  the  book  a 
 glossary  of  technical  terms  encountered  more  or  less  frequently  in  commentaries  and  granintacicui 
 works  has  been  added  for  the  convenience  of  students." —  'rran.';lafor''f  Preface. 
 
 "  Professor  Thayer  has  performed  his  task  —  which  has  been  a  great  deal  more  than  that  of  a  mere 
 translator— with  remarkable  fidelity.  It  is  doubtless  the  best  work  extant  on  this  subject,  and  a 
 book  which  every  scholarly  pastor  will  desire  to  possess.  Its  usableness  is  greatly  enhanced  by  its 
 complete  set  of  Indexes."-  The  Advance. 
 
 "It  is  a  thoroughly  scientific  treatise,  and  one  which  will  he  helpful  to  students,  both  in  connec- 
 tion with  Winer's  and  as  discussing  many  points  from  a  different  or  opposite  point  of  view.  Prof. 
 Thayer  has  added  much  to  tlie  value  of  the  book  —  as  one  to  be  readily  and  conveniently  used  —  by 
 enlarging  and  perfecting  the  Indexes,"  etc.  —  New  Englander. 
 
 (3) 
 
Puhlicaiions  of  W\  F.  Dra'p* 
 
 ELLICOTT'S  COMMENTARY,  CRITICAL  AND  GRAMMAT- 
 ICAL, on  St.  Taul's  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  With  an  Introductory  Is'otice 
 by  C.  E.  Stowe,  rrofessor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  8vo.  pp.  183 
 S1.50. 
 
 The  Commentaries  of  Prof.  Ellicott  supply  an  urgent  -want  in  tlieir  sphere  of  criticism.  Prof. 
 Stowe  says  of  them,  in  his  Notice:  "It  is  the  crowning  excellence  of  these  Commentaries  that 
 they  are  exactly  what  they  profess  to  be,  critical  and  graiiinuiticul,  and  tlicrcfore,  in  the  best 
 sense  of  the  term,  exegeiical Ills  results  are  worthy  of  all  confidence.  He  is  more  care- 
 ful than  Tischendorf,  slower  and  more  steadily  deliberate  than  Alford,  and  more  patiently 
 laborious  than  any  other  living  New  Testament  critic,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  Tregel- 
 
 I'JS." 
 
 "  They  [Ellicott's  Commentaries]  have  set  the  first  example,  in  this  coiv.i'.jy,  t-  uglcnd]  of  a 
 t  lorough  and  fearless  examination  of  the  grammatical  and  philological  requirements  of  every 
 vord  of  the  sacred  text.  I  do  not  know  of  anything  superior  to  them,  in  their  ov  n  particular 
 line,  in  Germany;  and  they  add,  what,  alas!  is  so  seldom  found  in  that  coui  >',  profound 
 r.;verence  for  the  matter  and  subjects  on  which  the  author  is  laboring;  nor  i=  their  value 
 lessened  by  Mr.  Ellicott's  having  confined  himself  for  the  most  part  to  one  department  of  a 
 oommentator's  work  —  the  grammatical  and  philological."  —  Dean  Alford. 
 
 "  The  criticai  part  is  devoted  to  the  settling  of  tlie  text,  and  this  is  admirably  done,  with  a 
 Vabor,  skill,  and  conscientiousness  unsurpassed."—  ZJ26.  iSacra. 
 
 "We  have  never  met  with  a  learned  commentary  on  any  book  of  the  New  Testament  so 
 yearly  perfect  in  every  respect  as  the  *  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatinns.'  by  Protl 
 jiillicott,  of  King's  College,  London,  — learned,  devout,  and  orthodox."  -  fnde/ientff-nt. 
 
 "  We  would  rcconiincnd  all  scholars  of  the  original  Scriptures  who  seek  directnuss,  liimiiions 
 •Orevity,  the  absence  of  everything  irrelevant  to  strict  grammatical  inquiry,  with  a  concise  and 
 iret  very  complete  view  of  the  opinions  of  others,  to  possess  themselves  of  Ellicott's  Conimen- 
 Itiurles."  —  American  J'resbi/terian. 
 
 COSIMENTART  ON  EPHESIANS.    Svo.    pp.  ?.9C.  .  $L50. 
 COMMENTARY  ON  THESSALONIANS.    Svo.    pp.  171.    $L50. 
 COMMENTARY  ON  THE  PASTORAL  EPISTLES.   Pvo.   3«2.00. 
 COMMENTARY   ON    PHILIPPIANS,    COLOSSIANS,    ANP 
 
 PHILEMON.    S2.00. 
 
 THE  SET  in  live  vols.,  on  fine  paper,  extra  cloth,  bevelled,  gilt  tops.    SIO.OO. 
 
 THE  SET  ill  two  vols.,  black  cloth  $  8.00. 
 
 HENDERSOIT  0:7  THE  MINOR  PROPHETS.  THE  BOOK 
 OF  THE  TWELVE  3IJNUU  1  KOl'HETS.  Translated  from  the  Original 
 Hebrew.  AVitli  a  Commentary,  Critical,  IMiilolo^'ical,  and  Exegetical.  By 
 E.  Hendeuson.  D.D.  With  a  Biographical  Sketch  of  the  Author,  by  E.  P. 
 Barrows,  Hitchcock  Trofessor  in  Andover  Theological  Seminary.  .  8vo. 
 pp.490.    $3,50. 
 
 "  This  Commentary  on  the  l^Iinor  Prophets,  like  that  on  the  Prophecy  of  Isaiah,  has  been 
 highly  and  deservedly  cstnincd  by  professional  scholars,  and  has  been  of  great  service  to  the 
 working  ministry.  We  are  happy  to  welcome  it  in  an  American  edition,  very  neatly  printed." 
 -  Bib.  Sacra. 
 
 "Clergymen  and  other  students  of  the  Bible  will  be  glad  to  see  this  handsome  American 
 edition  of  a  work  which  has  a  standard  reputation  in  its  department,  and  which  fills  a  place 
 that  IS  filled,  so  fir  as  we  know,  liy  no  other  single  volmnc  in  the  English  language.  Dr.  Hen- 
 derson was  a  good  Hebrew  and  Biblical  scholar,  and  in  his  Commentaries  he  is  intelligent, 
 brief,  and  to  the  point."  — /Jo.»/on  liccoriler. 
 
 "The  American  publisher  issues  this  valuable  work  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  the 
 author,  obtained  from  himself  before  his  death.  It  is  published  in  substantial  and  elegant  style, 
 clear  white  paper  and  beautiful  type.  The  work  is  invalnuble  for  its  philological  research  and 
 critical  acumen.  The  notes  are  learned,  reliable,  and  practical,  and  the  volume  deserves  a 
 place  in  every  theological  student's  library."^  American  PrcKtn/tmaii,  etc. 
 
 "  Of  all  his  Commentaries  none  are  more  popular  than  his  Book  of  the  Minor  Prophets."—- 
 C7iru<tian  Obxcrrer. 
 
 "  This  is  probably  the  best  Commentary  extant  on  the  Minor  Prophets.  The  work  is  worthy 
 Df  a  place  in  the  library  of  every  scholar  and  every  diligent  and  earnest  reader  of  the  Bible."-- 
 Christian  Chronicle. 
 
 2 
 
Publications  of  W.  F.  Draper. 
 
 HliiNDERSON'S    JEBEMIAH    AND    LAMENTATIONS.     The 
 Book  ol  the  Prophet  Jeremiah  and  that  of  the  Lamentations,  translated 
 from  the  original  Hebrew;  with  a  Commentary  Critical,  I'hilological,  and 
 Exegetical.    By  E.  Henderson,  D.D.    8vo.  pp.  315.     $2.50. 
 "  This  Commentary,  vhich  has  been  before  the  public  for  some  years,  like  that  of  Isaiah  and 
 the  Minor  Prophets,  combines  learning  and   clearness,  philological  rescarcli,  critical  taste 
 sound  judgment,  and  pure  devotion.    An  introductory  diss  rtatinn,  brief,  but  luminous  and 
 instructive,  prepares  the  reader  for  an  appreciative  study  of  the  work.    The  translation,  per- 
 haps, sometimes  unnecessarily  deviates  from  the  English  version.    It  is  printeil  in  the  clear 
 and  elegant  style  for  which  the  Andover  press  is  distinguished."  —  Evangelical  (Jtiarterl;/. 
 
 "  Dr.  Henderson  is  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  moilern  biblical  critics,  and  is  known  in  thit 
 country  chiefly  by  his  translations  and  commentaries  on  Isaiah  and  on  the  twelve  Minor 
 Prophets.  One  of  the  leading  features  of  his  mode  of  treating  Scripture  is  hiji  happy  blending 
 of  textual  with  exegetical  comment.  His  treatise  on  Jeremiah  i>»  well  worthy  by  its  elevated 
 scholarship  to  take  a  place  side  by  side  with  the  commentaries  of  Bishop  Eiiicott  ^nd  of  Pro- 
 fessor Murphy,  also  issued  by  Mr.  Draper."  —  Publisher's  Circular,  Oct.  1.  18(JS. 
 
 HENDERSON'S  EZEKIEL.  The  Book  of  the  Prophet  Ezekiel,  trans- 
 lated from  the  original  Hebrew ;  with  a  Commentary  Critical,  Philological, 
 and  Exegetical.     By  E.  Henderson,  D.D.    8vo.    pp.  228.    Price,  82.00. 
 
 "This  Commentary  treats  the  greatest,  save  one.  of  the  Evangelical  Prophets  after  his  own 
 spirit.  It  is  full  of  the  fulness  of  the  Gospel.  His  notes  deal  freely  with  the  original  text,  and 
 will  be  found  very  helpful  to  the  real  student  of  these  sacred  symbols."  —  Zion's  Herald. 
 
 "  This  Commentary,  like  that  on  the  Minor  Prophets  and  other  books  of  tlie  Old  Testament, 
 by  the  same  author,  is  very  satisfactory.  On  every  page  it  gives  eviaence  of  careful  research 
 and  critical  scholarship.  It  avoids  all  fanciful  interpretation;  its  expositions  are  marked  by 
 practical  good  sense  "  —  Evangelical  Quarterly  Review,  Pa. 
 
 MURPHY'S  GENESIS.  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  the 
 Book  of  Genesis ;  with  a  new  Translation.  By  James  G.  Murphy,  LL.D., 
 T.C.D.  With  a  Preface  by  J.  P.  Thompson,  D.D.,  of  Kew  York.  Bvo. 
 pp.  535.    Price,  $3.50. 
 
 "  The  most  valuable  contribution  that  has  for  a  long  time  been  made  to  the  many  aids  for  the 
 critical  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  Mr.  Draper's  republication  of  Dr.  Murphy  on  Genesis, 
 in  one  octavo  volume.  Dr.  Murphy  is  one  of  the  Professors  of  the  Assembly's  Colleg«  at  Belfast. 
 and  adds  to  a  thorough  knowledge  of  the  Hebrew,  and  of  the  science  of  interpretation,  great 
 common  sense,  genuine  wit,  and  ailmirable  power  of  expressioi?.  H' nee  his  commentary  is 
 racy  and  readable,  as  well  as  reliable.  No  volume  will  be  more  useful  to  those  who  have  been 
 troubled  by  the  Colenso  criticisms;  and  no  man  has  pricked  the  bubble  of  that  inflated  bishop 
 with  a  more  effisctual  and  relieving  wound  than  Dr.  Murphy.  It  is  a  good  deal  to  say  of  a  com- 
 mentary, but  we  say  it  in  all  sincerity,  that  this  volume  furnishes  about  as  fascinating  work  for 
 one's  hours  tor  reading,  as  %ny  volume  of  the  day,  in  any  department  of  literature;  while  its 
 general  influence  will  be  salutary,  and  effective  for  the  truth."—  Cotigregatiotialist. 
 
 MURPHY'S    EXODUS.    8vo.  pp.385.    Price,  $3.00. 
 
 "  Thus  far  nothing  has  appeared  in  this  country  for  half  a  century  on  the  first  two  books  of 
 the  Pentateuch  so  valuable  as  the  present  two  volumes."  (On  Genesis  and  Exodus  J  His 
 style  is  lucid,  animated,  and  often  eloquent.  His  pages  afford  golden  suggestions  and  key- 
 thoughts Sonie  of  the  laws  of  interpretation  are  stated  with  so  fresh  and  natural  a  clear- 
 ness and  force  that  they  will  permanently  sta.r\d.."  —  Methodist  Qiiai-terl;/. 
 
 "I  feel  that  I  am  richer  for  having  it  on  my  shelf  of  Christian  armory.  I  wish  every  one  of 
 my  brethren  in  the  ministry  had  the  same  joy;  and  few  need  be  deprived  of  it,  for  the  hooka 
 tre  very  cheap."  —  Bei'.  H.  C.  Fiih,  D.D. 
 
 "  Prof.  Murphy's  Commentary  on  Genesis  has  been  published  long  enough  to  have  secured 
 the  highest  reputation  for  scholarship,  research,  and  sound  judgment.  This  volume  on 
 Exodus  takes  it  place  in  the  same  rank,  and  will  increase  rather  than  diminish  its  author's 
 reputation  among  scholars."  —  National  Baptiit. 
 
 "  This  is  the  second  volume  of  the  ablest  Commentary  on  the  Pentateuch  that  has  yet  fallen 
 into  our  hands." — Tlie  Weekly  Prexs. 
 
 "  By  its  originality  and  critical  accuracy  is  must  command  the  high  regard  of  the  scholar  and 
 theologian,  whilst  the  ease  and  grace  of  its  style,  the  judiciousness  with  which  it  selects  and 
 unfolds  its  many  subjects  of  discussion,  will  be  sure  to  fix  and  reward  the  attention  of  the 
 general  student."—  The  Lutheran, 
 
Puhlications  of  W.  F.  Draper, 
 
 COMMENTARY  OTsT  THE  EPISTLE  TO  THE  ROMANS.    By 
 
 3IOSES    Stuaut,   Jate    Professor  of  Sacred   Literature   in   tlie  Theological 
 
 Seminary  at  Aiidover.    Third  Edition.     Edited  and  revised  by  I'liOF.  It.  D. 
 
 C.  lioBBiNS.    12mo.    pp.  544.     S2.25. 
 
 "  Hi#  Commentary  on  t]ie  Romans  is  tlie  most  elaborate  of  all  his  works.  It  has  elicited  more 
 discussion  than  any  of  his  other  exegetical  volumes.  It  is  the  result  of  long  continued,  patient 
 thought.  It  expresses,  in  clear  style,  his  maturest  conclusions.  It  has  the  animating  influence 
 of  an  original  treatise,  written  on  a  novel  plan,  and  under  a  sense  of  personal  res])onsitiility. 
 Regarding  it  in  all  its  relations,  its  antecedents  and  consequents,  we  pronounce  it  the  most 
 important  Conmnntary  whichTias  appeared  in  this  country  on  this  Epistle."—  liib.  Sacra. 
 
 '■  We  heartily  commend  this  work  to  all  students  of  tlie  Bible.  The  production  of  one  of  the 
 first  Biblicid  scholars  of  our  age,  on  the  most  important  of  all  the  doctrinal  boi>ks  of  the  New 
 Testament,  it  deserves  the  careful  study,  not  only  of  those  who  agree  with  Prof  Stuart  in  his 
 theological  and  ejcegetical  principles,  but  of  those  who  earnestly  dissent  from  some  of  Ids 
 views  in  both  respects."  —  Watchman  and  Reflector. 
 
 "This  contribution  by  Prof.  Stuart  has  justly  taken  a  high  place  among  the  Commentaries 
 on  the  Epistle  to  the  Homans,  and,  with  his  other  works,  will  always  be  held  in  high  estimation 
 oy  the  student  of  the  Sacred  Scriptui  es."  —  iVcw  york  Observer, 
 
 COMMENTARY    ON    THE    EPISTLE    TO    THE    HEBREWS. 
 
 By  I'liOF.  M   8TUAUT.    Third  Edition.   Edited  and  revised  by  Prof.  11.  D.  C. 
 
 KoBBI^■s.     12mo.    pp.  575.     $2.25. 
 
 "  It  is  a  rich  tieasure  for  the  student  of  the  original.  As  a  commentator.  Prof,  Stuart  was 
 especially  arduous  and  faithful  in  following  up  the  thought  and  displ::ying  the  connection  of  a 
 passage,  and  his  work  as  a  scholar  will  bear  comparison  with  any  that  have  since  appeared  on 
 either  side  of  the  Atlantic."  —  American  I'resln/terian. 
 
 "  This  Commentary  is  classical,  both  as  to  its  literary  and  its  theological  merits.  The  editio.i 
 befoie  us  is  very  skilfully  edited,  by  Professor  Robbins,  and  gives  in  full  Dr.  Stuart's  text,  with 
 additions  bringing  it  down  to  the  present  day."—  Episcopal  Recorder. 
 
 "  We  have  always  regarded  this  excellent  Commentary  as  the  happiest  effort  of  the  late 
 Aiidover  Professor.  It  seems  to  us  well-nigh  to  exhaust  the  subjects  which  the  author  compre- 
 hended in  his  plan."  —  Boston  Recorder. 
 
 "  It  is  from  the  mind  and  heart  of  an  eminent  Biblical  scholar,  whose  labors  in  the  cause  of 
 sacred  learning  will  not  soon  be  forgotten." —  Christian  Observer. 
 
 COMMENTARY   ON    THE  BOOK  OP  PROVERBS.     By  Pkof. 
 
 M.Stuart.    12mo.    pp.432.     $1.75. 
 
 "  This  is  the  last  work  from  the  pen  of  Prof.  Stuart.  Both  this  Commentary  and  the  one 
 preceding  it,  on  Ecclesiastes,  exhibit  a  mellowness  of  spirit  which  savors  of  the  good  man  ripen- 
 ing for  heaven;  and  the  style  is  more  condensed,  and,  in  that  respect,  more  agreeable,  than  in 
 some  of  the  works  which  were  written  in  the  unabated  freshness  and  exuberant  vigor  of  his 
 mind.  In  learning  and  critical  acumen  they  are  equal  to  his  former  works.  No  English 
 reader,  we  venture  to  say,  can  elsewhere  find  so  complete  a  philological  exposition  of  thcee  two 
 important  books  of  the  Old  Testament."  —  i>'t6.  Sacra. 
 
 COMMENTARY  ON  ECCLESIASTES.  By  Moses  Stuart,  late 
 I'rofessor  of  Sacred  Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary  at  Andover. 
 Second  Edition.  Edited  and  revised  by  R.  I).  C.  Kobbiks,  Professor  in  Mid- 
 dlebury  College.    12mo.    $1.50 
 
 The  Introduction  discusses  the  general  nature  of  the  book;  its  special  design  and  method, 
 diction,  authority,  credit,  and  general  history;  ancient  and  modern  versions,  and  commentaries. 
 The  Commcntury  is  strictly  and  minutely  exegetical. 
 
 STUART'S   MISCELLANIES,    pp.  3G9.    12mo.  $1.00. 
 
 CoNTE.NT.s.  — I.  Letters  to  Dr.  Chiinniiig  on  tlie  Trinity.— II.  Two  Sermons  on  the  Atone- 
 ment.—  111.  Siicramental  Sernicm  on  the  Lamb  of  God.  —  IV.  Dedication  Sermon.  —  Real 
 Chiisliiiiiity.— V.  Letter  to  Dr.  Chani.ing  on  Religious  Liberty.  — VI.  Supplementary  Notes 
 and  P()stscrii)fs. 
 
 COMMENTArcY  ON  THE  APOCALYPSE.    2  v;.1b.     Tv.    pp.  b'A, 
 
 5f'L     ;ij:r).Oii. 
 CRITICAL  HISTORY  AND  DEEEITCE  Ojj'  THE  OLD  TES^A 
 
 MEMCAI^'ON.    12mo.     pp.  450.     $1.75. 
 
 3 
 
BS511.H16         ,  ,      „       , 
 An  examination  of  the  alleged 
 
 Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 
 
 1    1012  00046  4265  j